On the cross-linguistic distribution of same-subject and different-subject 'want' complements: Economic vs. iconic motivation

This paper presents the results of a world-wide typological study of same-subject and different-subject complements of the verb ‘want’ (sample size: 80 languages). I am interested in whether the subject is overtly expressed only in different-subject complements (e.g. English, Mandarin Chinese, Coptic) or whether it is expressed also in same-subject complements (e.g. Modern Greek, Mixtec, Arabic, where the literal translation of ‘I want to go home’ is ‘I want that I go home’). Not surprisingly, the more economical English pattern is more widespread in the sample languages. I argue that this pattern should be explained in terms of economic motivation, not in terms of iconic motivation or conceptual closeness (as has also been suggested in the literature). The economic explanation turns out to be more general and to make more accurate predictions. 1. Subject omission and formal simplicity in ‘want’ complements In this paper, I propose a usage-based explanation of a typological trend in two types of complement constructions of the verb ‘want’: There is often an asymmetry in the way that same-subject (SS) and different-subject (DS) ‘want’ complement clauses are encoded across languages. I argue that the asymmetry can be explained by a frequency bias (economic motivation in Haiman’s 1983 sense). ‘Want’ complements overwhelmingly show 1 Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (Stockholm 1999) and at the DGfS Annual Meeting in Marburg (2000). Many people have made helpful suggestions to me at different stages, and they are all gratefully acknowledged here. MARTIN HASPELMATH 42 referential identity between the wanter argument and the subject (the A or S argument) of the complement clause. Sentences like (1a) are much more frequent than sentences like (1b), apparently in all languages. (Here the symbol O is meant to show that the notional subject of the complement clause is not expressed overtly.) (1) a. Kim1 wants [O1 to go home]. b. Kim1 wants [him2 to go home]. I claim that two aspects of same-subject complement clauses are economically motivated: (i) The fact that the notional complement subject is unexpressed in many languages (as illustrated in (1a), where the notional subject of ‘to go home’ cannot be expressed overtly in its clause), and (ii) the fact that different-subject complement clauses often show a formally more complex pattern, as illustrated by German: