Cover not available
Part of
Crossroads Semantics: Computation, experiment and grammar
Edited by Hilke Reckman, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, Maarten Hijzelendoorn and Rint Sybesma
[Not in series 210] 2017
► pp. 263–279

Chapter 16
Between desire and necessity

The complementarity of want and need

 | Leiden University
In this paper, I relate three seemingly unrelated properties of the modal verb want that distinguish it from the semantically minimally different verb need. I show that these properties are determined by a single selectional characteristic that involves the evidential notions of perspective or evaluation. I argue that these notions must be configurationally represented, and that their properties can be couched in Binding theoretic principles. In addition, I show that uses of want expressing necessity and probability rather than desirability can be derived from this syntactic representation.
Keywords: modal, desirability, necessity, Binding, Speaker, perspective, evaluation, English, Dutch
Article outline
  • 1.Three properties distinguishing need from want
    • 1.1Selection
    • 1.2Raising vs. control
    • 1.3Want as need/*need as want
    • 1.4Grammaticalization?
    • 1.5Towards an analysis
  • 2.A raising configuration for want and need
  • 3.The syntactic and semantic representation of want and need
  • 4.From desirability to apparent necessity
  • 5.From desirability to probability
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 12 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.210.16roo
References (14)
References
Borer, Hagit. 1989. Anaphoric AGR. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Kenneth Safir (eds.), The null subject parameter, 69–110. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1992. On the morphology of reflexives and impersonals. In Christine Laeufer and Terrell Morgan (eds.), Theoretical analyses in Romance linguistics, LSRL XIX, 399–414. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A. 2010. About the speaker: towards a syntax of indexicality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47. 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard, Marcel den Dikken & Peter Ludlow. 1996. Intensional ‘transitive’ verbs and concealed complement clauses. Rivista di linguistica 8. 29–46.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan. 2000. Configurations of sentential complementation. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001a. State of the article: Evidentiality, part I. Glot International 5(4). 125–133.Google Scholar
. 2001b. State of the article: Evidentiality, part II. Glot International 5(5). 161–168.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2011. Dissolving Binding theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1976. To have have and to not have have. In M. Jazayery, E. Polomé, & W. Winter (eds), Linguistic and literary studies in honor of Archibald Hill, 263–270. Lisse: De Ridder.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1984. Je veux partir – * Je veux que je parte. A propos de la distribution des complétives à temps fini et des compléments à l’infinitif en français. Cahiers de Grammaire 7. 76–138.Google Scholar
Speas, Peggy & Carol Tenny. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In A. di Sciullo (ed.), Asymmetry in grammar, 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar