{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03716328566677752, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012179913535084802, 'mean_word_length': 5.088838268792711, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 1, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Pragmatic Aspects of Latvian Predicative Infinitive Constructions

The purpose of this article is to examine Latvian predicative infinitive constructions in a pragmatic aspect, showing that they constitute a special type of pragmatic marking. Unlike such pragmatic markers as particles, conjunctions, adverbs or prosody, predicative infinitive constructions in Latvian are pragmatically functioning as a single unit, i.e., their constructional functionality follows from this unity rather than from separate lexical or grammatical elements. Insofar as they represent a marginal modally marked construction type in Latvian, their use is related to non-neutral, marked registers of the language. Therefore, the article focuses on modal and temporal meanings, as well as polarity of predicative infinitive constructions. As their modal and temporal meanings are closely related to communicative types of utterances, the use of these constructions is restricted to specific text types – warnings, categorical requests and prohibitions, advertisements, headlines in mass media, etc.

There is no doubt that pragmatic markers could be conceived more broadly or more narrowly and, as Aijmer & Simon-Vandenbergen (2009) claim, at times be rather unclear, because this term in fact denotes both separate discrete language units (particles, conjunctions, etc.) and contextual or prosodical phenomena. Aijmer (2013, pp. 3, 6) notes: "However, there is little agreement on basic issues such as the definition of pragmatic markers, terminology, and how many meanings they can have." And, "(...) it is difficult to establish a clear link between form and what pragmatic markers are doing in communication." In contrast, Furko (2017, p. 1) defines pragmatic markers as follows: "Pragmatic markers comprise a functional class of linguistic items that do not typically change the propositional meaning of an utterance but are essential for the organization and structuring of discourse, for marking the speaker's attitudes to the proposition being expressed as well as for facilitating processes of pragmatic inferences." The topic of the Latvian grammar discussed below -predicative infinitive constructions -needs to be examined in the context of a broader understanding of pragmatic markers that corresponds to the approach taken in this study. The objective of this study is to provide an empirical overview of modal and temporal meanings of predicative infinitive constructions, examine their relation to communicative types of utterances and their use in different genres and registers.
In Latvian syntax, infinitive predicative constructions are of particular interest in more than one respect. First, it has to do with the problem of syntactic model delimitation and with the functions of copular verbs and modal auxiliaries in some of them (Kalnača, 2016;Lokmane, 2016). The main question is whether predicative infinitive constructions represent one sentence type or several different ones, and, if so -how many. The auxiliary questions would enable us to find the answer to the main question, i.e., whether the present tense forms show an omission of the verb būt 'to be' or of some modal verb; whether the naming of agent in the dative can be considered as a syntactic subject and in which cases it can be omitted, which sentences can only have an animate, and which ones can also have an inanimate subject. These issues will be briefly discussed in Section "The structure and semantics of Latvian infinitive predicative constructions".
Second, the emergence and the types of modal (mainly deontic) meanings are worth examining, because irrealis modal meanings compositionally do not follow from any of the grammatical forms or lexical items involved but result from the construction itself. This leads one to believe that predicative infinitive constructions in this case constitute a special pragmatic marker. Such an approach to predicative infinitive constructions is the novelty of this study.
Third, predicative infinitive constructions show a close interplay of several semantic, pragmatic and lexical factors: the existence and the tense form of the copula, the polarity of the predicate, the speech act type or the communicative type of the utterance, specific lexical units occurring in the initial position of the utterance -mostly pronouns, often in combination with particles. The combination of these features has an impact on the modal meanings, as well as on the functions of the utterances.
An issue that traditionally has received a lot of attention in Latvian syntax is the syntactic functions of the dative in sentences where it designates agent or experiencer (among others, Freimane, 2013;Lokmane, 2013;Kalnača, 2014). The peculiarities of the dative are beyond the scope of the article and would require a separate study. We will limit ourselves to mentioning that we believe that the dative in the predicative infinitive constructions denotes the grammatical subject. Richardson (2007, p. 39), who focuses on similar examples of dative use in the Slavonic languages, labels these dative 'subject' experiencer constructions, which can be fully referred to Latvian as well (see e.g., Seržant, 2013a, b;Holvoet, 2013;Holvoet et al., 2015). Blake (1997, pp. 144-151) points out that the dative can have the function of the indirect subject next to the functions of the direct object and the indicator of possession (see also Árnadóttir &Sigurdsson, 2013, on Icelandic, andKroeger, 2004, pp. 269-276, on dative subjects). Therefore, for the purposes of this study, the term dative subject is used.
The modal meanings of the predicative infinitive constructions examined in this article mainly express various aspects of deontic modality. In our study, we refer to Palmer's (2001, p. 9) definition: "Deontic modality relates to obligation or permission, emanating from an external source." There are certainly a lot of discussions in linguistic circles about how to classify such modal meanings as need, necessity, possibility, probability, and how they relate to the imperative (for a more detailed discussion on the interaction of various modal meanings with the imperative, see, for instance, Palmer, 2001;Portner, 2007Portner, , 2009Nuyts, 2016). Because of the limited scope of this study, we will not discuss this issue any further, but limit ourselves to stating that, in our view, predicative infinitive constructions express modal meanings in all cases, also when they are used to express various instructions, prohibitions, etc. (see further in Section "Interaction of tense, modality, communicative type and polarity"). These constructions contain the name of the agent (if any) in the dative, while the predicate is expressed either by a grammatically independent infinitive (example 2a) or by an infinitive together with the copula būt 'to be' in the past (example 2b) or future tense (example 2c) (among others, Mathiassen, 1997 The verb būt 'to be' is not used in the copular function in the present tense in this construction; thus, the following sentence with an overt copula is impossible in Modern Latvian (the instances of use that are ungrammatical in Latvian will be marked with an asterix *): (3) *Ko man ir darīt?
'What am I to do?' However, Endzelīns (1951, p. 994) points to the construction ir + infinitive, noting that it is not usual in Latvian, and only gives one example for it: "The present tense of ir 'is' (or nav 'isn't') with the infinitive is not normally to be used; only in set expressions like ka tik mums ir ê̡ st 'so that we just have enough to eat' instead of which sometimes is said the following: man bija kuo ê̡ st 'I had enough to eat'." This example by Endzelīns shows that this construction ir + infinitive has a different meaning -that of establishing a fact or expressing possession without any modality. This function need not be taken to be related to the various modal (or deontic) meanings of Latvian infinitive predicative constructions. Moreover, in present day  Table 1 Grammatical and ungrammatical Latvian infinitive predicative constructions in different tense forms rarely encountered in some dialects, speakers of present day of Latvian no longer use it. In addition, parallel use in all three tenses (present, past, future) without significant semantic differences is only possible in isolated cases (example 2). Most of the time, only one or two tense forms are possible, i.e., are found in speech. We illustrate this with examples 4-6 in Table 1.
In example 4, the future form (example 4c) is grammatical, whereas the past form (example 4b) is partly acceptable and the present form (example 4a) is ungrammatical. In example 5, the present form (example 5a), and in example 6, the future form (example 6c) are the only grammatical ones. The reason for this mainly has to do with the communicative types and polarity of sentences, which we will consider below.
Of those, indirect command is the only meaning expressed by Latvian infinitive constructions.
Besides semantics, other crucial differences are the dative subject and the impossibility to use copular būt 'to be' in the present tense in Latvian. Thus, infinitive predicative constructions without the verb būt 'to be' are puzzling, namely, it is not entirely clear how to interpret the independent infinitive which functions as a predicate: 1 as an instance of ellipsis (see Kroeger, 2004;Trask, 2008, Aelbrecht, 2015; 2 as an instance of syntactic zero (see Mel'chuk, 1995); 3 as a special predicate, i.e., a simple verbal predicate (see Freimane, 1985;Beloshapkova, 1999; Nītiņa & Grigorjevs, 2013).
It is important to clarify the meaning of the terms 'ellipsis' and 'zero' that are used here. Ellipsis is "the omission of elements that are inferable from the context, and therefore crucially constitutes a mismatch between form and meaning: there is no form, but the meaning is understood nevertheless" (Aelbrecht, 2015, p. 563, see also Kroeger, 2004, p. 35). Zero, on the other hand, is defined as "an abstract unit postulated by an analysis, but which has no physical realization in the stream of speech" (Crystal, 2008, p. 528). In our opinion, the essential difference is that a zero element only acquires its meaning in opposition to other, physically realised members of the opposition (as stressed in, e.g., Mel'chuk, 1995).
Thus, ellipsis is a contextual (syntagmatic) phenomenon, while zero forms are mainly paradigmatic. We will not, however, go into further detail regarding ellipsis and zero form differentiation in this article. Our focus is on whether it is at all possible to claim that there is an empty syntactic position in the construction under consideration. Likewise, it will be of no consequence to us whether the empty element būt 'to be' (if there is one) is best viewed as a copula or an auxiliary; we will treat it as a copula.
If seen as elliptical or involving a syntactic zero, infinitive predicative constructions without the verb būt 'to be' can represent two different constructions: 1 a verbal copular predicate with the ellipsis or zero form of the verb būt 'to be'; 2 a complex verbal predicate with the ellipsis of a modal verb, e.g., vajadzēt 'should'.
In the first case, the infinitive predicative construction can be considered to involve a paradigmatic gap of the copula būt 'to be', that is, taking into account its past and future forms (see Baerman et al., 2010, on defective paradigms). Actually, this issue has been in discussion since as early as the 19 th century not only in Latvian linguistics (e.g., Mīlenbahs, 1898;Endzelīns, 1951;Ozols, 1961), but also in synchronic and especially diachronic linguistics in general; namely, which type of sentence is older: copulaless (i.e., a special type of predicate) or copular (i.e., a zero copula) (e.g., Mīlenbahs, 1898;Ambrazas, 2006;Ivulāne, 2015). First, one wonders if copula omissions can be diagnosed with the help of the semantic criterion, namely, looking at whether a sentence contains a meaning that can only be imparted to it by these verbs. However, the meaning of the copula is so general that it is completely neutral and, therefore, does not bring any semantic variation to the sentence. Furthermore, because of their deontic, i.e., unreal modality, copulaless sentences have no real present; they do not express actions or states known to happen as the speaker is talking. Therefore, the (implicit) presence or absence of the copula cannot be demonstrated in this way. In our view, in copulaless sentences, one cannot speak of the zero form of the copula, and sentences with and without the copula būt 'to be' represent different syntactic patterns in Latvian (Kalnača & Lokmane, 2017).
In the second case, i.e., presuming the ellipsis of a modal verb, there would be a lexical gap altogether unrelated to copular constructions. This idea is represented in Lithuanian linguistics (for details see Paulauskienė, 1994;Ambrazas, 1996). We will not, however, expand on this idea in our article, firstly, because Latvian language data do not show evidence of modal verb ellipsis (Kalnača, 2016). Secondly, we take the view that the modal meanings found in infinitive predicative constructions follow from the constructions themselves rather than from the modal meaning of the verb būt 'to be' or from the meaning of an elided modal verb (Lokmane, 2016). This view is supported by the fact that the realisation of modal meanings is affected by the communicative type (interrogative, imperative, declarative, exclamative) and by the polarity of an utterance. These, in turn, are sensitive to tenses. That is why not all sentences will have all the tense forms. These features will be examined in the next section.

Interaction of Tense, Modality, Communicative Type and Polarity
As mentioned in the introductory part, in Latvian, none of the predicative infinitive construction types appear in semantically neutral declarative sentences. These appear either in interrogative or exclamative sentences that either carry various modal meanings or belong to a specific area of use (among other things, they express prohibitions, instructions, admonitions, etc.). Predicative infinitive constructions in sentences usually have an animate subject, except for the future imperative phrases that could also have an inanimate referent. An animate subject can also be generalised and formally covert but it is semantically implied, understood as present.
We will now look at how the basic modal meanings, such as necessity and possibility, interact with the meanings expressed by different communicative types of sentences (or types of speech acts, e.g., Yule, 2000, pp. 53-54), i.e., declarative, interrogative, imperative and exclamative sentences. All types of predicative infinitive are found in both declarations and negations but, as we shall see further in this section, polarity and modality semantics is not symmetric. In Latvian, though, it is conspicuous that the link between negation and modality is based on necessity and possibility, i.e., on the fact that negation can involve possibility and necessity (see e.g., Palmer, 2001, p. 106). The next section deals with present copulaless sentences.

Present Copulaless Sentences
These sentences are represented by positive and negative interrogatives and imperatives with an animate dative agent in the subject position, negative declarative and positive exclamative sentences. Some sentence types involve a generalised agent, in which case there is no dative subject. We have not found any examples of copulaless sentences with an inanimate agent. Positive declarative sentences with an infinitive predicate are not possible either.

Positive Interrogative Sentences
Depending on their lexical contents and the question word used, positive copulaless interrogative sentences can express either necessity (example 13) or possibility (examples 14a-b): Sentences beginning with question words and lexicalised constructions kas tur ko (example 15a), kam (example 15b) and ko tur (example 16) due to their meaning -lack of necessitymay be qualified as exclamative sentences, i.e., indirect speech acts, as well (see also Section "Positive exclamative sentences"): (16)

Negative Imperative Sentences
Negative copulaless imperative sentences with a generalised agent usually express strict prohibition, e.g., The English version of the example clearly conveys impossibility of carrying out the presidential functions without due intelligence and without his expressing his own position on various issues. As to example 23, another interpretation would also be conceivable: 'It's impossible for a president to manage ..' clearly points to the fact that a president is totally unthinkable without intelligence and his views on various issues. (24) Jāņu naktī bez lietus neiztikt. Midsummer.gen.pl night.loc.sg without rain.gen.sg not_manage.inf 'Midsummer night is not complete without rain.' (www.delfi.lv)

Positive Exclamative Sentences
These sentences usually begin with a lexicalised construction kur nu and express impossibility, e.g. (25) Kur nu tev to saprast! where ptcl you.dat.sg that.acc.sg understand.inf 'As if you could understand!' (LVK2018) (26) Kur nu domāt par uguni, where ptcl think.inf about fire.acc.sg tev nav nekā, ko būtu iespējams izmantot par pirmo darbarīku. 'Fire is out of question, you have nothing you could use as the first tool. (LVK2018) Rhetorical questions beginning with kas tur ko and ko tur depend on the context and the speaker's intention and may also be considered as exclamative sentences (see examples in section "Present copulaless sentences"). They are used to express lack of necessity.

Future-Tense Sentences with the Copula
Future-tense sentences with the copula express necessity and are usually preceded by an animate dative subject, e.g.,

Positive Interrogative Sentences
Positive interrogative sentences in the future tense express necessity that may be combined with the meaning of uncertainty or doubt (see 28b):

Positive Imperative Sentences
An order, recommendation or encouragement can be directed not only at someone who is being addressed by the speaker (as in copulaless imperative sentences discussed in section "Positive imperative sentences"), but also at the speaker himself or even a third party, e.g., (29) Te tad nu arī mums būs palikt. here ptcl ptcl ptcl we.dat be.cop.fut.3 remain.inf 'That's where we shall remain then.' (P. Bankovskis) Imperative sentences with the copula in the future tense form can be used in subordinate clauses, e.g., Sentences with the copula in the future tense form can contain an inanimate dative subject, in which case they express a strong necessity rather than order or encouragement addressed to another person, e.g.,

Negative Imperative Sentences
Prohibition is the basic meaning of negative sentences with the copula in the future tense form; in this type of sentences, too, an inanimate subject is possible, e.g., Less common is the meaning of a lack of necessity, i.e., negation of necessity, e.g.,

Past Sentences with the Copula
This type is represented only by positive interrogatives. When the copula is in the past, the meanings of necessity and possibility often co-occur, and it is only from the context that one can determine if, for example, these questions concern the possibility or necessity of a hypothetical action in the past.    Table 2 The interaction of tense forms, polarity, and modal meanings in Latvian infinitive predicative constructions (Kalnača & Lokmane, 2018) As can be gleaned from the table, some combinations of tense, communicative type and polarity are not possible at all. For example, positive declarative sentences are not attested in Latvian. The reason for this would be the fact that there would be an absence of any irrealis indicator, as the infinitive itself does not carry the meaning of modality. With the copula in the past tense, only positive interrogative sentences expressing either necessity or possibility are attested. Sentences with the copula in the future tense express only necessity, or -when negated -prohibition. Exclamative sentences are interesting in that they are only copulaless and most often introduced by lexicalised constructions consisting of desemanticised pronouns and particles (about the trend toward lexicalisation of infinitival clauses, see Holvoet, 2000).
It may also be observed that some sentence types can occur with a generalised agent, i.e., they can be subjectless, while others cannot. Agent generalisation is quite common in copulaless sentences regardless of the communicative type, e.g., Imperative sentences with a copula in the past tense form are not attested, because an order, encouragement or prohibition cannot really apply to a past situation. Table 2 shows the interaction of tense forms, polarity and modal meanings that bear direct relation to the pragmatics of Latvian infinitive predicative constructions: In sentences containing the copula, agent generalisation occurs much more seldom, but is still possible:

Use of Predicative Infinitive Constructions in Different Text Types
In Latvian, infinitive predicative constructions, depending of the tense form of the copula and the communicative type, are restricted to expressive colloquial speech and mass media and literary texts, as well as legal texts, the reason being that they are, to a degree, perceived as conservative units carrying an obsolete form of expression.
The majority of sentences, especially the ones that contain the copula, can be used for pragmatic purposes. Sentences with the copula verb būt 'be' in the future tense are often perceived as elevated, e.g., The construction būs / nebūs 'to be / not to be (future)' + infinitive is also quite common in expressive texts modelled on Ten Commandments, in which case it is used to express deontic modality, stating certain laws, rules, etc., intended as obligatory: (38)  The following factors influence the modal semantics and pragmatic functions of predicative infinitive constructions: a) absence or presence of a copula and its tense; b) absence or presence and animacy of the (dative) subject; c) polarity of the predicate; and d) communicative type of the utterance (interrogative, imperative, declarative or exclamative).
Only in isolated cases does a sentence permit more than one tense form (i.e., two or three). Most of the time, tense variation is impossible due to differences in modal meanings and in the communicative type. Due to the interplay of formal, pragmatic, and semantic features, seemingly similar syntactic structures represent different construction types. However, the systematic ordering of the infinitival constructions depends on the criteria set to determine the construction and its subtypes and the debate about just how many predicative construction types there are in Latvian is ongoing.
The meaning of the sentence results from the construction (or even the utterance) as a whole and does not compositionally arise from any of the grammatical forms or lexical items involved. The fact that, for example, positive-polarity declarative sentences are completely impossible with the predicative infinitive construction also points in the same direction, i.e., for the modal meanings of necessity and possibility (or their negative counterparts) to emerge, they must be enhanced by the sentence communicative type meanings and/or negative polarity.
The use of the predicative infinitive construction is related to non-neutral, i.e., marked linguistic registers: expressive colloquial speech, elevated mass media and literary texts, as well as legal texts. The pragmatic use of each construction type depends on the interplay of the above-mentioned factors. For example, copular sentences in the future and the past tense forms are perceived as outdated and elevated, whereas copulaless declarative sentences are widely used in legal texts to state decisions, tasks, warnings, requests, and prohibitions.