The overgeneration problem and the case of semipredicatives in Russian 43
of infinitives can occur in Russian, there is the concomitant possibility of inserting (in
the past or future) a finite, non-agreeing copula to mark tense.
Although it is not the aim of this paper to resolve the status and distribution
of (overt) dative subjects in Russian, it is clear that these do not simply depend on
the presence of an infinitive. Rather, it seems that the infinitive must be embedded
into some kind of larger structure.^ These are typically contexts in which the copula
has the potential to be overt. Schein (1982: 236), building on Brecht (1974), thus
argues that there is a hidden copula whenever dative subjects appear, citing Brecht’s
example in (46):
(46) Vam ne {∅/bylo/budet} idti na pljaž.
you.dat not {is/was/will be} go.inf to beach
‘There is no way you could/could have gone/would be able to go to the
beach.’
In such examples there is always a modal meaning, implying that the infinitival is the
complement of a hidden modal, which usually admits an overt copula. If so, it may be
this modal which licenses a dative subject, probably in combination with other func-
tional heads (such as C and/or T). Babby (2009: 176), who calls these “independent
infinitive clauses,” states the following, which I will assume to be correct (although the
issue is orthogonal to the SD): “these sentences all have a deontic modal interpretation,
explained in terms of a higher modal projection mP, whose head m is normally null.”^26
On the other hand, it is not always the case that a copula is tolerated in infinitival
clauses with overt datives. Examples such as (47a), from Babby (2009: 164), or (47b),
with two independent dative subjects, show that tense is not always essential in the
licensing of overt dative subjects:
(47) a. [Tebe ujti na pensiju] značilo by
you.dat go.inf on pension mean.past cond
kapitulirovat’ pered vragom.
capitulate.inf before enemy.inst
‘For you to retire would mean to capitulate before the enemy.’
- Consider the following fascinating example, from Babby (2009: 283):
(i) Ploščad’ požara byla takoj, čto odnomu ne potušiš’.
area fire.gen was such that one.dat not put_out.pres 2 sg
‘The fire was so big that there was no way to put it out on one’s own.’
Here we find the SD, despite the fact that the verb is finite rather than an infinitive. Although
Babby suggests that it is the finite verb which imparts a modal meaning, speakers report sensing
a pause, as in odnomu — ne potušiš’. Clearly, however, the SD is not agreeing with the subject,
which, if overt, would be nominative.