Infinitive Subjects or Subjectless Infinitives?

This paper argues against the view that infinitive, or to be more precise, definitized clauses have subjects. The so-called infinitive subjects occur in three main types of construction: (i) subject of the infinitive introduced by the preposition for; (ii) either nominative or oblique (accusative) subjects of infinitives, and (iii) covert subjects of the infinitives. It is shown that these putative subjects have none of the relevant coding or behavioural properties of typical subjects. The so-called subjects of the infinitive are clearly semantic arguments of the non- finite predicate and their semantic interpretation depends on the meaning of the non-finite predicate, but they have not been grammaticalized as subjects

What is the Dative if Possession?

Possessive dative is a notion which recurs in the description of many languages that have overt case marking distinctions between nominatives (typical subjects), accusatives (typical direct objects) and datives (typical indirect objects). The basic ideas lurking behind the term possessive dative are that it is semantically equivalent to possesive determiners or genitives and that it can be used only with a limited set of nouns, which is usually restricted to nouns denoting inalienable possession (e. g. kinship terms and body parts). This paper argues that possessive datives are not derived from the same source as possessive determiners or genitives and that they are therefore not semantically and pragmatically equivalent with them. The evidence in support of this claim is mainly adduced from Croatian, German and Polish, but a comparison is also made with some equivalent constructions in Dutch. More specifically, it is argued that the so-called dative of possession is a pragmatic device which enables the speaker to empathize with the referent of the dative, that is, to present the state of affairs expressed by the predication from the point of view of the referent of the dative

What is the Dative if Possession?

Possessive dative is a notion which recurs in the description of many languages that have overt case marking distinctions between nominatives (typical subjects), accusatives (typical direct objects) and datives (typical indirect objects). The basic ideas lurking behind the term possessive dative are that it is semantically equivalent to possesive determiners or genitives and that it can be used only with a limited set of nouns, which is usually restricted to nouns denoting inalienable possession (e. g. kinship terms and body parts). This paper argues that possessive datives are not derived from the same source as possessive determiners or genitives and that they are therefore not semantically and pragmatically equivalent with them. The evidence in support of this claim is mainly adduced from Croatian, German and Polish, but a comparison is also made with some equivalent constructions in Dutch. More specifically, it is argued that the so-called dative of possession is a pragmatic device which enables the speaker to empathize with the referent of the dative, that is, to present the state of affairs expressed by the predication from the point of view of the referent of the dative

On the notion logical subject

U članku se govori o sintaktičkim, semantičkim i pragmatičkim aspektima analize logičkih subjekata. Kontrola elipse implicitnog subjekta infinitiva u hrvatskom je jeziku određena pragmatičkim čimbenicima. U najvećem broju rečenica sa subjektom u dativu dativ je i kontrolor implicitnog subjekta infinitiva. Glagoli koji dozvoljavaju kontrolu elipse subjekta mogu se grubo semantički podijeliti u glagole prisile i u glagole dopuštanja.This paper discusses syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects of the analysis of the so-called logical subjects. Logical subjects are characterized by two anomalous coding properties: oblique case marking and the lack of agreement. On the other hand, it is argued in the literature that cross-linguistically logical subjects can control reflexivization and the ellipsis of the implicit subjects of the infinitives. These two properties are typical subject properties and hence logical subjects (most frequently datives) must be subjects at some level of analysis. This paper argues that Croatian does not provide any evidence in support of the claim that datives are subjects. In Croatian, only nominatively marked subjects can antecede reflexives. Putative dative subjects can control ellipsis of the implied subjects of infinitives, but this is not an exclusive subject property in Croatian since direct objects in the accusative and indirect objects in the dative can also control subject ellipsis. The fact that dative possessors are also possible controllers of subject ellipsis suggests that this phenomenon is pragmatically determined. Croatian is shown to provide considerable evidence against and no evidence for the treatment of datives as subjects

Sintaktički, semantički i pragmatički aspekti nekih kvazisubjektnih imenskih skupina u hrvatskom jeziku

This paper analyzes the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic properties of datives in sentences like Iskliznuo mi je tanjur iz ruke (lit. ’Slipped to me is plate from hand’) and Vru}e mi je (lit. ’To me is hot’). The first sentence contains two possible candidates for the subject function: the dative mi, which has some semantic and pragmatic subject properties, and the nominative NP tanjur, which controls agreement. The second sentence contains only the dative pronoun, which has the semantic and pragmatic but no syntactic subject properties. At first blush it seems that the first sentence has two subjects none of which, to paraphrase Keenan (1976), has a clear preponderance of subject–like properties. In this paper we shall argue that such non–canonical subject–like NPs are best described as quasi subjects, i. e., as NPs which have some morphosyntactic or semantic/pragmatic properties of subjects, but not sufficient properties to qualify as the subject of the sentence.Predmet je ovoga rada sintaktička vrijednost dativnih dopuna koje imaju semantička i pragmatič ka svojstva subjekta, ali nemaju formalna, odnosno nema sročnosti s predikatom preko prototipnoga padeža subjekta – nominativa. Naime, hrvatske gramatike vrlo vješto izbjegavaju ući dublje u raspravu kada su u pitanju sintaktičke funkcije dativa u hrvatskom jeziku tipa Hladno mi je, Vruće mi je... s jedne strane; Spava mi se, Kiše mi se... s druge... i recimo Iskliznuo mi je tanjur iz ruke, Ispala mi je žlica na pod s treće strane, a što je na neki način i razumljivo jer je rješenje u nekim slučajevima nemoguće pronaći ako se ne želi odstupiti od analize preko tradicijskih pojmova subjekta i objekta. Naime, tradicijski pojmovi subjekta i objekta u većini su suvremenih lingvističkih teorija, pa tako i u hrvatskim gramatikama (npr. Katičić, 1991, Barić et al., 1995, Silić, Pranjković, 2005) općeprihvaćeni termini koji se upotrebljavaju pri analizi sintaktičkoga pola rečenice, no pri tome uvijek treba imati na umu da su oni usto i puno širi filozofsko–logički pojmovi koji onda po samoj naravi stvari u svoju definiciju odnosno, bolje rečeno, u svoj iskonski koncept uključuju i određene značenjske komponente. Stoga se, primjerice, vrlo često, posebno u znanstvenim raspravama, može vidjeti da se govori o semantičkim i pragmatičkim svojstvima subjekta što se u prototipnim slučajevima odnosi na agens i topic, a u pojedinim se funkcionalnosintaktič kim teorijama oni i promatraju kroz prizmu semantičkih funkcija (Dik, 1978, 1989) ili se čak i definiraju kao gramatikalizirane pragmatičke padežne uloge (Givón, 1984, 1990), pri čemu je subjekt primarni, a objekt sekundarni klauzalni topic). U analiziranim rečenicama sintaktička funkcija imenskog izraza u dativu nije posve jasna; s jedne strane, dativ je kodiran kao indirektni objekt, a s druge strane, dativ ima semantička i pragmatička svojstva prototipnog subjekta. U rečenicama s imenskim izrazom u dativu i imenskim izrazom u nominativu, prvi ima semantička i pragmatička svojstva subjekta, a drugi ima svojstva kodiranja (nominativ i kontrola sročnosti). Budući da većina definicija subjekta sadržava mješavinu morfosintaktičkih, semantičkih i pragmatičkih kriterija, bilo bi potrebno te kriterije i terminološki razlikovati

Do meteorological predicatons have subjects?

U članku se iznose argumenti da je pitanje iz naslova ovoga članka zapravo pogrešno postavljeno. Pravilno pitanje glasi: imaju li meteorološke predikacije u jeziku X subjekt?, jer unatoč činjenici što su meteorološke predikacije općelingvistički gledano avalentne, jezici se međusobno razlikuju po stupnju gramatikalizacije subjekta. Za razliku od hrvatskoga, engleski je jezik s visokim stupnjem gramatikalizacije subjekta i njemu se ne može poreći da meteorološke predikacije sadrže subjekt na morfosintaktičkoj razini analize.This paper argues that the issue of the subject of meteorological predications is language-dependent. The real question is not whether meteorological predications have (universally) subjects or not but whether meteorological predications in language X contain a constituent with subject properties.When subject is viewed as a morphosyntactic category with a number of coding and behavioural properties, which may, but need not coincide with semantic or pragmatic properties, then it is obvious that the subject of meteorological predications is a matter of cline. Cross-linguistically, meteorological predications are basically zerovalent. i.e., they do not contain a predicate argument, but this does not rule out the possibility that the subject slot may be filled by a nonreferential dummy element that has a great number of subject-like coding and behavioural properties

Is dative Subject a Viable Syntactic Notion?

The so-called dative subjects are characterized by two anomalous coding properties: oblique case marking and lack of agreement. On the other hand, dative subjects show two syntactic properties typical of nominative subjects: control of reflexivization and the ellipsis of the implicit subjects of the infinitive. These two properties are taken as crucial evidence for the subjecthood of the dative NP. This paper argues against the claim that datives are subjects at a more abstract level of syntactic analysis. Croatian evidence shows that unlike typical nominative subjects putative dative subjects cannot antecede the possessive-reflexive svoj and that the control of the implicit subject of the infinitive can be accounted for in pragmatic terms. Semantically, the dative encodes Experiencer to whom things involuntarily happen