ИСТИНА

It has been widely assumed since Rosenbaum 1965 that infinitival complement constructions fall into two classes involving raising and control. A number of diagnostics suggest that Russian infinitival complement constructions with causation predicates (e.g. zastavit' ‘cause’, velet' ‘order’ etc) involve object control, whereby the subject position of the infinitival clause is occupied by an empty category (PRO) which stands in the control relation to a nominal object argument of the main clause predicate (Kozinskij 1985; Babby 1998). However, Minor (2011, 2013) observes that some Russian infinitival complement constructions allow for their object to be interpreted within the infinitival clause, thus pointing towards raising-to-object analysis (Vrač posovetoval komu-nibud' sxodit' za lekarstvami ‘The doctor advised for someone to get some medicine.’). Minor’s data include quantificational objects, nibud'-pronouns and ni-pronouns. Minor suggests a “mixed” structure where the object originates and remains in the embedded clause but receives case and thematic role from the matrix verb; however, this analysis fails to restrict “mixed” constructions to specific matrix verbs. Our contribution to the topic is twofold. First, we present new data suggesting that Russian causation verbs fall into two semantic classes, this partition determining availability of embedded scope phenomena. Secondly, we propose analysis accounting for the whole set of data. We argue that among causation verbs, two semantic classes have to be distinguished: implicative verbs (e.g. zastavit' ‘cause’, vynudit' ‘force’) and speech act verbs (velet' ‘order’, poprosit' ‘ask’). They give rise to structurally distinct infinitival constructions: causative construction proper and embedded directive construction. Аrguments with embedded scope (e.g. nibud'-pronouns) are confined to the latter. The analysis relies on the crucial observation that the same scopal relations are found in imperative constructions with indefinite vocatives (Kto-nibud', vyzovite skoruju pomoš'! ‘Anybody call an ambulance!’). We propose that both imperative and embedded directive constructions share a substantial part of syntactic structure, namely, syntactically represented speech act coordinates, which comprise Author and Addressee (Speas, Tenny 2003; Hill 2007, 2014; Haegeman, Hill 2013, Landau 2015). Arguments with embedded scope are licensed under speech act jussive modality and then raise to Addressee position.