Balkan Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Balkan Syntax and Semantics Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides...

Author: Olga Miseska Tomic | Aida Martinovic-Zic | Olga Miseska Tomic

83 downloads 1441 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Balkan Syntax and Semantics

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.

Series Editors Werner Abraham

Elly van Gelderen

University of Vienna

Arizona State University

Advisory Editorial Board Guglielmo Cinque

Ian Roberts

University of Venice

Cambridge University

Günther Grewendorf

Ken Safir

J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt

Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ

Liliane Haegeman

Lisa deMena Travis

University of Lille, France

McGill University

Hubert Haider

Sten Vikner

University of Salzburg

University of Aarhus

Christer Platzack

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart

University of Lund

University of Groningen

Volume 67 Balkan Syntax and Semantics Edited by Olga Mišeska Tomic´

Balkan Syntax and Semantics Edited by

Olga Mišeska Tomic´ Leiden University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Balkan syntax and semantics / edited by Olga Mišeska Tomic´. p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166–0829 ; v. 67) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Balkan Peninsula--Languages--Syntax. 2. Balkan Peninsula-Languages--Semantics. I. Mišeka Tomic´, Olga. II. Linguistik aktuell ; 67. P381. B3B27 2004 409’.496-dc22 isbn 90 272 2790 X (Eur.) / 1 58811 502 X (US) (Hb; alk. paper)

2004045059

© 2004 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

JB[v.20020404] Prn:20/05/2004; 16:08

F: la67co.tex / p.1 (26-64)

Table of contents

Preface

vii

Map of the Balkans

ix

List of abbreviations

xi

The Balkan Sprachbund properties: An introduction Olga Mišeska Tomić

1

Spread of the Balkan sprachbund morpho-syntactic properties On the areal distribution of syntactic properties in the languages of the Balkans Andrej N. Sobolev The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics Victor A. Friedman

59 101

The nominal phrase Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

137

Balkan possessive clitics: The problem of case and category Roumyana Pancheva

175

Optional movement of Bulgarian possessive clitics to I: Some implications for Binding Theory Christo Moskovsky

221

The root clause Datives and the non-active voice: Reflexive clitics in Balkan Languages Maria Luisa Rivero

237

JB[v.20020404] Prn:20/05/2004; 16:08



F: la67co.tex / p.2 (64-90)

Table of contents

On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives Željko Bošković Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods in the languages of South-Eastern Europe: A Balkanism? Andreas Ammann and Johan van der Auwera

269

293

Mood and force features in the languages of the Balkans Daniela Isac and Edit Jakab

315

On left periphery and focus Virginia Hill

339

Syncretic and analytic tenses in Romanian: The Balkan setting of Romance Yves D’Hulst, Martine Coene and Larisa Avram

355

The complex sentence Subjunctive relatives in Balkan languages Eleni Bužarovska

377

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions Alexander Grosu

405

Interpreting empty subjects in nontensed complement clauses: Child and adult strategies Danijela Stojanović and Marijana Marelj

439

On Judeo-Spanish conditionals César Montoliu and Johan van der Auwera

461

Author index

475

Index of languages, dialects and toponyms

481

Subject index

487

JB[v.20020404] Prn:16/03/2004; 12:54

F: LA67PR.tex / p.1 (40-109)

Preface

The contributions to this volume originated as papers presented at the Conference on the Balkan Sprachbund Properties, held at the University of Leiden, 7–9 June 2001, within the framework of the Spinoza Project “Lexicon and Syntax.”1 They analyze individual syntactic or semantic properties of nine Balkan language – the Slavic languages Macedonian, Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian; the Romance languages Romanian, Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian; Albanian; Modern Greek; and the Arli Balkan Romani dialect. Serbo-Croatian is spoken as a majority language in Bosnia and Hercegovina, Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro, and as a minority language in areas in Hungary and Romania adjacent to Croatia and Serbia.2 Macedonian is spoken as a majority language in Macedonia, and as a minority language in a large area in Northern Greece, as well as in areas in Albania adjacent to Macedonia. Albanian is spoken as a majority language in Albania and the (Southern Serbian) province of Kosovo, and as a minority language in Western Macedonia and Northwestern Greece. Romanian is spoken as a majority language in Romania, and as a minority language in areas in Serbia and Bulgaria adjacent to Romania. Modern Greek is spoken as a majority language in Greece and as a minority language in Southern Albania. Bulgarian is spoken as a majority language in Bulgaria and as a minority language in a restricted area in Serbia adjacent to Bulgaria. Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and Balkan Romani are not spoken as majority languages in any country on the Balkans or anywhere else. Balkan Romani is spoken by scattered communities throughout the Balkans; Arli is one of the Balkan Romani dialects spoken in and around the capital of Macedonia, Skopje. Megleno-Romanian is spoken by a few thousand people originally living in a few villages in what is now Southeastern Macedonia and the adjacent part of Greece. Aromanian is spoken in central and western Macedonia, Southern Albania and Central and Northwestern Greece. (see Map) For comments on individual contributions, thanks are due to the following reviewers: Artemis Alexiadou, Wayles Browne, Željko Bošković, Héctor Campos, Violeta Demonte, Mila Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Donka Farkas, Victor Friedman, Helen Goodluck, Alexander Grosu, Amin Hetzer, Virginia Hill, Daniela Isac, Edit Jakab, Uwe Junghanns, Dalina Kallulli, Dimitra Kolliakou, Christina Kramer, Iliyana Krapova, Brian Joseph, Pieter Muysken, Roumyana Pancheva, Cecilia Poletto, Maria Louisa Rivero, Joseph Schallert, Penka Stateva, Melita Stavrou, Anna

JB[v.20020404] Prn:16/03/2004; 12:54

F: LA67PR.tex / p.2 (109-128)

 Preface

Szabolczi, Arhonto Terzi, Sarah Thomasson. During the preparation of the final version of the book, I profited very much from the comments of the series editors, Werner Abraham and Elly van Gelderen, to whom I owe my gratitude. For continuous support in my work, I am specifically indebted to Pieter Muysken.

Olga Mišeska Tomić

Notes . For information about the areas, the team and the task of the Project cf. http://www.let. leidenuniv.nl/spls . Upon the disintegration of Yugoslavia, Serbo-Croatian dissolved into Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian. The grammatical structures of the three “successors” do not, however, substantially differ from one another.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 11:32

F: LA67MA.tex / p.1 (40-69)

Map of the Balkans

AUSTRIA MOLDOVA HUNGARY SLOVENIA

IA CROAT

Ljubjana

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Sarajevo

tic ria Ad See

ITALY

ROMANIA

Zagreb Belgrade

Bucharest

SERBIA & MONTENEGRO Sofia BULGARIA Skopje Tirana MACEDONIA

Istanbul

ALBANIA

GREECE

TURKEY Athens

Sea Mediterranean

200

400

600

800 km

Heraklion CRETE

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 11:44

F: LA67AB.tex / p.1 (40-265)

List of abbreviations (language names and grammatical notions)

Language names ABR Al(b) Ar, AR Bu(l) Biz.Greek Cr ClA ClG Cze Fr Ger Gr(e) Hi Hu It JSp Lat litt.ModPort Ma(c) MG MH Mod Rom MR NWM Old Rom OSp Po(l) Ro(m) Ru

= Arli Balkan Romani = Albanian = Aromanian = Bulgarian = Byzantine Greek = Croatian = Classical Arabic = Classical Greek = Czech = French = German = (Modern) Greek = Hindi = Hungarian = Italian = Judeo-Spanish = Latin = litterary Modern Portuguese = Macedonian = Modern Greek = Modern Hebrew = Modern Romanian = Megleno-Romanian = Northwest Macedonian = Old Romanian = Old Spanish = Polish = Romanian = Russian

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 11:44

F: LA67AB.tex / p.2 (265-265)

 List of abbreviations

SC Serb SES SIt Slo Sp(a) Tu

= Serbo-Croatian = Serbian = Southeastern Serbian = Southern Italian = Slovenian = Spanish = Turkish

Grammatical notions 1 2 3 acc, ACC adj adjdet adm AGR AgrDO AgrIO AgrP AgrS AgrSP anaph AO, Aor AP Applicative ZP art aux, AUX AuxP BD BE BQ BT C CardP CH cl co, cond CP D0

= first person = second person = third person = accusative = adjective = adjectival determiner = admirative = agreement = direct object agreement = indirect object agreement = agreement phrase = subject agreement = subject agreement phrase = anaphoric = aorist (tense) = adjective phrase = logical form correspondent to a Topic Phrase = article = auxiliary = auxiliary phrase = binding domain = invariant form of the “be” auxiliary = bare quantifier = Binding Theory = complement = cardinality phrase = chain = clitic = conditional (marker) = complement phrase = determiner node

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 11:44

F: LA67AB.tex / p.3 (265-265)

List of abbreviations 

dat D- Disclosure decl def DefP det D/G DIS D-modifier DO DP E ECC epen EPP E- Strategy eth EV, Evid excl f F FCI Fd0 FdP Fg0 FgP FN FocP FP FREE fu(t) Gen, GEN GQ I IM(F), imperf imp impers IN ind(ic) INT inf

= dative = dative disclosure = declarative = definite = definite phrase = determiner = dative/genitive = dislocation = determiner-modifier = direct object = determiner phrase = event time = extended clitic cluster = epenthetic = extended projection principle = ethical strategy = ethical = evidential (marker) = exclamative = feminine = functional node = free choice item = dative-case valuating functional head = phrasal projection of Fd0 = genitive-case valuating functional head = phrasal projection of Fg0 = factive nominalization = focus phrase = functional phrase = free relative = future = genitive = generalized quantifier = inflexion = imperfect (tense), imperfective (aspect) = imperative = impersonal = intransitive marker = indicative = intentional = infinitive

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 11:44

F: LA67AB.tex / p.4 (265-265)

 List of abbreviations

inf.mark ins(tr) INT inter interj inv IP irr irrm L LF loc M Max Md MEC mod ModP MoodP m-p MP MP/Md MR n neg NegP neu(t) NFN N-modifier nom non-act NP obl opt OSR P part, pt pass past pc pd

= infinitive marker = instrumental = interpretable = interrogative (marker) = interjection = inverted = inflexion phrase = irrealis = irrealis modal = lexical marking = logical form = locative = masculine = maximality operator = modification (function) = modal existential wh construction = modal = Modal Phrase = Mood phrase = medio-passive (voice) = modification-purpose (function) = modification-purpose (function) with modification prevailing = modification performed by a prototypical relative clause = noun = negation/negative marker = negation phrase = neuter (gender) = non-factive nominalization = noun modifier = nominative (case) = non-active (voice) = noun phrase = oblique (case) = optative = object subjunctive relatives = purpose (function) = participle = passive = past = particle of concord = past definite (tense)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 11:44

F: LA67AB.tex / p.5 (265-265)

List of abbreviations

pe, perf pej PF pi pl PM poss PredP pres, prs pro PRO prog QR R refl S sg Spec su subj Subj.Mark SV SVO SVOR SVOP/R T T1, T2 TP UG V voc VS X, Y, Z XP, YP, ZP

= perfect (tense), perfective (aspect) = pejorative = phonetic form = past indefinite (tense) = plural (number) = purpose-modification (function) with a purpose slant = possessive = predicate phrase = present (tense) = dropped subject = unexpressed subject (of infinitives) = progressive = quantifier raising = reference time = reflexive = speech time = singular (number) = specifier = modal subordinator = subjunctive = subjunctive marker = subject – verb = subject – verb – object = subject – verb – object – relative subjunctive clause = subject – verb – object – purpose or relative subjunctive clause = tense = time1, time 2 = tense phrase = universal grammar = verb = vocative (case) = verb – subject = any constituent = any phrase

Symbols * ?, ?? % =

= ungrammatical = possibly acceptable = acceptable in some dialects = interpretatively anomalous



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 11:44

F: LA67AB.tex / p.6 (265-269)

 List of abbreviations

⊃ = involves existence of = existential quantifier λ = universal quantifier ←, → marks directionality of cliticization – links items pronounced as a single phonological word capital letters mark stressed words or syllables

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.1 (40-113)

The Balkan Sprachbund properties Introduction Olga Mišeska Tomić University of Leiden Centre for Linguistics

The author examines some of the shared Balkan Sprachbund properties, paying specific attention to those properties which are analyzed in the volume: nominal cases and articles, pronominal clitics, subjunctives and evidentials. The phenomena are predominately illustrated with examples from Macedonian, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Romanian, MeglenoRomanian, Aromanian, Albanian, Modern Greek and Balkan Romani.1

.

Overview

Whether in close genetic relationship or not, the languages of the Balkans share sets of typological properties. The oblique forms of their nominal systems have extensively been replaced by prepositional phrases and their verbal systems are analytical to a considerable degree. There is a general tendency towards explicit marking of grammatical functions with specific uninflected function words. The phenomenon was first signalled by Jernej Kopitar (1829), who pointed out that the languages spoken south of the Danube have analogous forms expressed through “different language material”. Miklosich (1861) examined the facts more closely and singled out a number of shared properties of the languages in the area. Nikolai Trubetzkoy (1928: 18) referred to relationships such as the ones exhibited among the languages in the Balkans as “Sprachbund”, arguing that the languages of a Sprachbund (a) are remarkably similar in sentence-structure and word-formation but show no systematic sound correspondences and (b) have a great number of common “cultural” words.

. Origin The awareness of the existence of the Balkan Sprachbund properties inevitably led to the construction of theories about their origin. Kopitar, Miklosich and Weigand

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.2 (113-175)


(1928) maintained that the Balkan Sprachbund properties developed under the influence of an ancient substrate – that of the indigenous Balkan languages Thracian, Dacian or Illyrian. The linguistic material “left” by those languages is, however, extremely limited and does not allow the verification of the presence or absence of any of the Balkan Sprachbund properties in any of them. Moreover, the Balkan Sprachbund properties developed in the post-Byzantine period and it is unrealistic to assume that any property of any substratal language had been dormant for centuries, to become active long after the language itself had disappeared. On another theory, whose most distinguished proponent is Sandfeld (1926/ 1930), the source of the Balkan Sprachbund properties was Greek – the language which, “in spite of all decadences, has never ceased to transmit a civilisation superior to that of its neighbours” (cf. Sandfeld 1930: 17). In Greek, however, the Balkanisms are postclassical innovations. On a third theory, defended most recently by Solta (1980), the source of the Balkan Sprachbund properties was a more recent substrate language – Latin, the language of the Roman empire, which ruled over the Balkans for several centuries at the beginning of the new era. But, unfortunately, the Balkan Sprachbund properties are hardly present in Latin. Goła˛b (1984: 9) argues that the Balkan Sprachbund results from the relationship between language substrata and language superstrata, claiming that the Balkan properties in Macedonian are actually structural borrowings or “linguistic calques” from Aromanian. But why should a language spoken by a limited number of inhabitants of the peninsula be the source of these calques? Moreover, since the Balkan Sprachbund properties are not typical for all Romance languages, their provenance in Aromanian would still be in need of explanation. It is definitely difficult to find a single donor of the Balkan Sprachbund properties, though knowledge of the history of the Balkan languages is not lacking – at least Greek and Balkan Slavic are well documented for the relevant period. There simply isn’t a single donor. The Balkan Sprachbund properties result from convergence of languages in a multilingual environment.2 As pointed out by Lindstedt (2000), we are here dealing with a shared drift – parallel changes that are not simple transfers from a single substrate, nor from one of the languages themselves. The convergence model is corroborated by the fact that the Balkan Sprachbund properties are most numerous in those parts of the Balkans where the greatest number of languages are co-territorial.3 The epicentre of Balkanisms seems to be in the area around the southern parts of the lakes of Ohrid and Prespa, where Greek, Albanian, Macedonian and Aromanian intersect. The structures of the local dialects of the languages spoken in this area are actually very perspicuously similar to each other.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.3 (175-216)

The Balkan Sprachbund properties

. Membership Not all Balkan languages have an equal share in the Balkan Sprachbund. Weigand (1928) sees Albanian, Romanian and Bulgarian as typically Balkan languages, taking Greek, Serbian and Turkish to be only “geographically Balkan”. Sandfeld (1926/1930) finds that the Balkan properties are typically exhibited in Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian and possibly Serbian, while Turkish has many lexical concordances with each and everyone of them. For Schaller (1975), Albanian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Macedonian are Balkan languages of first degree, Greek and Serbian – Balkan languages of second degree, while Turkish is a Balkan language of third degree. For Birnbaum (1968), Romanian and Aromanian are “most Balkan”; then come Bulgarian, Macedonian, Modern Greek and Albanian, in this order. Solta (1980: 7) maintains that, when individual dialects are taken into consideration, the northern Greek and southeastern Serbian dialects could also be treated as true Balkan language codes.4 According to Sobolev (this volume), not the (standard) Balkan languages but rather individual dialects of those languages are responsible for the rise of the Balkan Sprachbund, because it is at the level of dialects that century-long language contacts have been achieved. Consequently, one should aim at maximally deep descriptions of an optimal number of Balkan dialects which make up a representative corpus of relevant data. This would make it possible to perceive the diasystem of a single language as a product of the systems of all its territorial units. Sobolev (this volume) analyses the areal distribution of 65 grammatical properties, partly mapped on 17 maps drawn by the team of the project “Small Atlas of the Balkan Dialects”, which in the period 1996–2000 collected data in eleven villages in Montenegro, eastern Serbia, western Macedonia, eastern and southern Bulgaria, central and southern Albania and northwestern Greece (cf. Sobolev 2003). The analysis suggests that the traditional idea of the existence of common Balkan linguistic type should be rejected, while the set of “typical Balkan properties” should be relativized.

. Shared properties A typological language property has been assumed to be areal if (a) shared by at least three languages of the area, at least two of which belong to different genetic families, but (b) not present in all the languages of the genetic family to which the language of the area belongs (if it belongs to a language family, at all).5 Since the amount, the extent and the limit of areal typological properties, necessary for granting membership into the Balkan union has not and cannot be assessed independently, linguistic discussion on Sprachbund membership has centred on specific properties.6 Different analyses single out different arrays of properties, though



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.4 (216-267)


most of them agree on one phonological property – the presence of the schwa phoneme, and six grammatical properties: (1) substitution of synthetic declension markers by analytic ones; (2) grammaticalization of the category of definiteness through postpositive definite articles; (3) pronominal doubling of objects; (4) analytic expression of futurity; (5) analytic perfect with a “have” auxiliary; (6) loss of the infinitive and its substitution by subjunctive clauses.7 In a book considered a classic, Sandfeld (1926/30) registered over one hundred Balkan Sprachbund concordances (i.e. properties), making a distinction between “general concordances” and “concordances between different (i.e. individual) Balkan languages”. Sandfeld’s morphosyntactic general concordances include: (a) postpositive articles; (b) extinction of the infinitive; (c) formation of the future with a “will” modal auxiliary; (d) shared genitive-dative forms; (e) simultaneous use of a “self-standing” and a not “self-standing pronoun” as well as “the use of a pronoun in association with a noun” (i.e. pronominal clitic-doubling); (f) constructions with a pronominal and a propositional complement, in which the former has the same reference as the subject of the latter; (g) verbs which take two direct objects; (h) loss of distinction between question words which in Latin are represented by ubi and quo, on the one hand, and ibi and eo, on the other; (i) use of conjunctions with the meaning ‘and’ at the beginning of affirmative clauses which follow negative ones; (j) use of a paratactic conjunction with the meaning ‘and’ instead of a hypotactic one.8 Sandfeld offers numerous examples from Albanian; Balkan Romance – mostly from (Daco-)Romanian, but also from Aromanian and sometimes from Megleno-Romanian; Balkan Slavic – Bulgarian and Macedonian though he refers to the latter language as “Bulgarian speech in Macedonia”; and Modern Greek. Schaller (1975) makes a distinction between primary and secondary Balkanisms. Among the primary Balkanisms, he lists seven morphosyntactic phenomena: (a) merger of the Dative and the Genitive; (b) postpositive articles; (c) analytic comparison; (d) loss of the infinitive and its replacement by subordinate clauses; (e) use of the “will” modal auxiliary in the construction of periphrastic future tenses; (f) doubling of objects (by “short” pronominal forms); (g) use of the “short pronominal form” for the expression of possessiveness. The secondary Balkanisms are, according to him, phenomena that are restricted in coverage or play minor role in the structure of the language. Solta (1980) concentrates on six grammatical Balkanisms, which he classifies in three groups. The first group, labelled “morphological Balkanisms,” comprises the existence of the postpositive article and the merge of the Genitive and the Dative. The second group, called “syntactic Balkanisms,” includes loss of the infinitive and synthetic expression of futurity. The third group, referred to as “other,” “different” or “special” (sonstiges), contains the Vocative “as a living category” and the periphrastic comparison of adjectives. According to Solta (1980: 223), the pheno-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.5 (267-370)


mena of the third group are not Balkanisms in the strict sense of the word, though they are characteristic (!!) for the Balkan languages. Goła˛b (1984) is impressed by the “striking” similarity (or even identity) of the grammatical forms of the Balkan languages as opposed to the dissimilarity of their lexical substance. He singles out one negative similar or identical structural pattern – lack of the infinitive and its replacement by subjunctive clauses – and ten positive similar or identical structural patterns: (a) future tense formation with a particle which etymologically represents the third person singular form of the verb “want” + subjunctive mood of a given verb; (b) the so-called “future-in-thepast” – “a pattern derived from the future tense through the replacement of present tense markers by past tense ones” (Goła˛b 1984: 6); (c) present optative-subjunctive mood, formed by a modal particle + present tense of the verb; (d) imperfect optative-subjunctive mood, formed in the same manner as the present optativesubjunctive mood, but with the imperfect tense of the verb; (e) compound perfect, formed by the present tense of the auxiliary verb have + an indeclinable form of the perfect participle; (f) compound pluperfect – a derivative of the compound perfect, through the replacement of the present tense of the auxiliary by its imperfect tense; (g) futurum exactum or future perfect – a derivative of the compound perfect, through the replacement of the present tense of the auxiliary by its future tense; (h) postpositive definite articles; (i) dative-possessive as a single morphosyntactic category. Goła˛b illustrates these patterns with examples from two languages belonging to different language families: Macedonian – a Slavic language, and Aromanian – a Romance language. Lindstedt (2000) singles out twelve grammatical Balkanisms and examines their distribution in five language groups of the Sprachbund: Greek, Albanian, Balkan Romance – including Romanian, Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian, Balkan Slavic – including Bulgarian, Macedonian and the Torlak Serbian dialects, and Balkan Romani. The twelve Balkanisms fall into three groups. The first group contains six argument-marking Balkanisms: (a) enclitic articles, (b) object reduplication, (c) prepositions instead of case endings, (d) dative/possessive merger, (e) goal/location merger, and (f) relativum generale. The second group includes five Balkanisms pertaining to the verbal system: (g) Aux (+ Comp) + finite verb, (h) volo future, (i) future in the past as conditional, (j) habeo perfect, (k) evidentials. The third group consists of only one Balkanism – (l) analytic comparison (of adjectives and adverbs). Lindstedt assigns the Balkan languages one point if they have a given feature and half a point if the feature is present only in some of its dialects. Summing up the points, he “calculates” the “Balkanization indices” of the language groups discussed. The scores are as follows: Balkan Slavic 11.5; Albanian 10.5; Balkan Romance and Greek 9.5 each; Romani 7.5. According to Lindstedt’s computation, the Balkan Slavic languages are the most Balkanized ones.9



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.6 (370-411)


The morphosyntactic Balkan Sprachbund properties discussed by individual authors are summed up in Table 1. Table 1. Morphosyntactic Balkan Sprachbund properties discussed by individual authors Sandfeld Schaller Solta Goła˛b Lindstedt postpositive articles prepositional cases Dat/Gen merger location/direction merger clitic doubling of objects two direct objects Dat clitics in NP Voc case markers loss of infinitives (and use of subjunctives) “will” future “will” future in the past + subjunctive “have” perfect “have” pluperfect future perfect (used as conditional) general relativizer periphrastic comparison “and” instead of “but”

+

+

+

+ + + +

+

+

+ +

+ +

+

+ +

+ + + + +

+ + + +

+ + + + + +

+ + + + +

+ +

Many of the typical Balkan Sprachbund properties can also be found in what we might call “peripheral” Balkan languages. Montoliu and Auwera (this volume) show that Judeo-Spanish uses the indicative imperfect in both the protasis and the apodosis of conditional sentences with a vague potentialis/present irrealis as well as a past irrealis reading, as does Modern Greek. Compare (1a) (Montoliu and Auwera’s example (9)) to (1b) (Montoliu and Auwera’s example (20)): JSp Si me yamavan, ya iva. if I.obl call.3pl.ind.imperf Particle go.1sg.ind.imperf 1. ‘If they called me, I would go.’ 2. ‘If they had called me, I would have gone’. b. An mu to leje, tha ton if I.dat it.acc say.3sg.ind.imperf will.mod.cl he.acc MG pijena EGO. go.1sg.ind.imperf I.nom 1. ‘If he asked me, I personally would take him there.’ 2. ‘If he had asked me, I personally would have taken him there.’

(1) a.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.7 (411-465)


Some of the properties with respect to which Judeo-Spanish is similar to Modern Greek – vagueness reading between present and past irrealis, and mood harmony when the apodosis is in the imperfect – also appear in Old Spanish and the difference between Judeo-Spanish and (Old or Modern) Spanish may be due to a development internal to Judeo-Spanish. Yet, as argued by Montoliu and Auwera (this volume), the possibility that Modern Greek has had an influence upon Judeo-Spanish conditionals should be seriously considered. The more so, since constructions that allow both present and past irrealis readings are encountered in another peripheral Balkan language, Turkish. The properties typical for the Balkan Sprachbund can be encountered in languages outside of the Balkans. Ammann and Auwera (this volume) demonstrate that the modal construction consisting of a complementizer and an independent main clause, i.e. the subjunctive construction which appears independently and not as a complement of a verb, is used to express volition not only in the languages of the Balkans, but also elsewhere in southern Europe. Thus, alongside Modern Greek (Ammann and Auwera’s example (1)), Romanian (Ammann and Auwera’s example (2)), Albanian (Ammann and Auwera’s example (6)),10 and Macedonian (Ammann and Auwera’s example (7)), we have Puglian southern Italian (Ammann and Auwera’s example (19)): (2) a.

Na zísete! that.mod live.2pl.perf.pres ‘May you live (a long life)!’ b. S˘a ne vedem s˘an˘ato¸si! that.mod us see.1pl.pres healthy.m.pl ‘May we see each other healthy!’ c. Ti bëftë mirë! you.sg do.3sg.opt.pres well ‘May it be agreeable to you!’ d. Da pukneš! that.mod burst.2sg.perf.pres ‘May you burst!’ e. Ku fáttsa ćće bbóle! that.mod do.3sg.subj.pres what want.3sg.pres ‘Let him do what he wants!’

MG

Ro

Al

Ma

SIt

Ammann and Auwera suggest that at least some of the Balkan properties are properties common to a wider Mediterranean area. The non-uniqueness of individual properties does not, however, contradict the possible uniqueness of their combination. What is actually remarkable about the Balkans is the combination of linguistic properties whose dynamic equilibrium contributes to the uniqueness of the union (cf. Civjan 1979).



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.8 (465-509)


In the following sections, some of the most prominent morphosyntactic Balkan properties in nine Balkan languages11 – Macedonian, Bulgarian, SerboCroatian,12 Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, Albanian, Modern Greek and the Arli dialect of Balkan Romani – will be examined. Particular attention will be paid to those properties which relate to the properties analyzed in the contributions to this volume.

. Nominal cases and articles The nominal inflections in the Balkan languages have been replaced to a considerable extent by prepositions. Paradigms with distinct forms for all nominal types have been preserved only in Serbo-Croatian, though the locative case is represented by prepositional phrases with nouns in the dative case, when expressing location, and by prepositional phrases with nouns in the accusative case, when expressing direction.13 Arli Balkan Romani has nominal and pronominal paradigms with distinct nominative, genitive, ablative, dative, accusative, vocative, instrumental and locative case forms, but the ablative and locative case forms alternate freely with prepositional phrases with nouns in the nominative case. In Albanian, there are four distinct nominal oblique case forms – dative, accusative, ablative and vocative, but the accusative and ablative forms show up only with some nouns or in some specific cases. In Romanian and Aromanian, there are distinct dative forms for all nouns and vocative forms for some nouns. In Modern Greek, masculine nouns with o-stems have distinct genitive, accusative and vocative case forms; all other nouns have only one oblique case form – a genitive one, though accusative case is overtly marked on the article. In Macedonian and Bulgarian only the vocative case is systematically marked by distinct case markers, while accusative forms exist in some dialects and/or for some nouns. In Megleno-Romanian vocative case forms are the only oblique nominal case forms. The tendency towards analyticity of the nominal case system, by itself, is not specific to the Balkan languages – it is encountered in many other Indo-European languages. Characteristic for the Balkan Sprachbund, however, are a number of phenomena that accompany this tendency, such as unification of declension types, analogous vocative case forms, syncretism of the genitive and dative cases, analogous selection of prepositions for the expression of case relations, postpositive articles.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.9 (509-581)


. Vocative case forms Typically, the Balkan Sprachbund languages have distinct case markers for the vocative case. In Arli Balkan Romani there are specific vocative forms for all singular nouns referring to human beings, as well as for singular nouns denoting personified animals or inanimate objects: (3) a. Romnie, so kerea? woman.f.sg.voc what do/make.2sg ‘You woman, what are you doing?!’ b. Manušea! man.m.sg.voc ‘You man!’ c. ‘Na mangljum te avel not want.1sg.past subj.mark go.1sg odori, maˇchea’, vakhergja ov. thither fish.m.sg.voc say.3sg.past he “I didn’t want to go there, fish’, said he.’

(Nom romni)

ABR

(Nom manuš) ABR

(Nom maˇcho) ABR

In Balkan Slavic (Macedonian, Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian), personal and geographic names, human common nouns in the singular, and some (personified) non-human common nouns also have distinct vocative case forms:14 (4) a. Stojane! Stojan.m.voc ‘Stojan!’ b. Sestro! sister.m.voc ‘Sister!’ c. Profesorke! Profesorice! professor.f.voc ‘(Madam) Professor!’ d. Dunave! Danube.m.sg.voc ‘You, the Danube (river)!’ e. Bože god.m.sg.voc ‘My god!’ f. Grade15 town.m.sg.voc ‘My town!’

(Nom Stojan)

Ma/Bu/SC

(Nom sestra)

Ma/Bu/SC

(Nom profesorka) (Nom profesorica)

(Nom Dunav)

moj! (Nom bog) my.m.sg naš! (Nom grad) our.m.sg

Ma/Bu SC

Ma/Bu/SC

Ma/Bu/SC

Ma/SC



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.10 (581-644)


In Romanian, distinct vocative case forms appear with singular human common nouns and personal names; with masculine nouns, the vocative case marker often showing up on the definite article: (5) a. Soro! sister.f.sg.voc ‘Sister! b. Popescule! Popescu+the.m.sg.voc ‘Popescu!’

(Nom sor˘a)

Ro

(Nom Popescu)

Ro

Distinct vocative case forms for singular human nouns also exist in MeglenoRomanian and Aromanian, but the vocative forms of the feminine nouns are pejorative: (6) a. Profesore! professor.m.sg.voc ‘Professor!’ b. Soro! sister.f.sg.voc.pej ‘Sister!’

(Nom profesor) MR/Ar

(Nom sor˘a/ã)

MR/Ar

In Modern Greek the vocative case is distinctly marked by a suffix only with masculine singular human nouns with o-stems.16 (7) ánthrope man/human being.m.sg.voc ‘Man!’

(Nom ánthropos)

MG

. Accusative case forms and case markers Accusative case forms are encountered on a regular basis only in Serbo-Croatian17 and Arli Balkan Romani, but even here nominative forms are used to express accusative case relations – for all neuter and masculine inanimate nouns (in SerboCroatian) or for all inanimate nouns (in Arli Balkan Romani). Compare the case of the nouns in (8a) and (9a) to (8b) and (9b), respectively: (8) a.

Video sam tvoga brata. seen.m.sg.part am your.acc brother.m.acc ‘I saw your brother.’ b. Izgubio sam tvoj nož. lost.m.sg.part am your.m.sg.nom knife.m.nom ‘I lost your knife.’

(Nom brat) SC

SC

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.11 (644-706)


(9) a.

Dikhljum e bašne. see.1sg.past the.obl cock.m.acc ‘I saw the cock.’ b. Ov ˇchingja o mas. he cut.3sg.past the.m.sg.nom meat.m.nom ‘He cut the meat.’

(Nom bašno) ABR

ABR

In Albanian, specific accusative nominal forms are used only when the nouns are definite. Thus, the definite noun in direct object position in (10a), librin, is in the accusative case, while the indefinite noun in the same position in (10b), lule, is in the nominative case: (10) a.

E ka lexuar këtë librin. 3sg.acc.cl has read.part this book+the.m.sg.acc ‘(S)he has read this book.’ b. Agimi i dërgoi Dritës Agim+the.m.sg 3sg.dat.cl send.3sg.past Drita+the.f.sg.dat lule. flower.f.sg.nom ‘Agim sent Drita flowers.’ (lit. ‘Agim sent Drita flower.’)

Al

Al

In Modern Greek, distinct accusative nominal forms exist only for masculine nouns with o-stems; with all other nouns, accusative case is marked only on the article:18 (11) a.

Ton vlepo to(n) Jorgo. 3sg.m.acc.cl see.1sg the.m.sg.acc Jorgos.m.sg.acc ‘I see Jorgos.’ b. Ti(n) vlepo ti(n) gata. 3sg.f.acc.cl see.1sg the.f.sg.acc cat.f.sg ‘I see the cat.’

MG

MG

In Macedonian and Bulgarian, accusative forms appear very selectively – with masculine proper names and masculine human common nouns denoting family relationships:19 (12) a.

Go vidov Stojana/ 3sg.m.acc.cl see.1sg.past Stojan.m.sg.acc Petreta/%brata ti. Petre+the.m.sg.acc/brother.m.sg.acc 2sg.dat.cl ‘I saw Stojan/Petre/your brother.’ b. %. . . za da ostavi edno pismo na djadja . . . for subj.Mark leave.3sg a letter to uncle.acc

Ma



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.12 (706-758)


Moska. Mosko.acc ‘. . . in order to leave a letter to uncle Mosko.’

Bu

Bulgarian grammars (eg. Andrejˇcin 1978; Tilkov et al. 1982–1983; Bojadžiev, Kucarov, & Penˇcev 1999) make a distinction between a Nom masculine singular and an Acc masculine singular form of the definite article – -˘at and -˘a, respectively. But there is no consistency in usage and, as pointed out by Zuzanna Topoliñska (p.c.), it may well be the case that the “short form” originated in some dialects by dropping of the final consonant (analogous to the dropping in the southern Macedonian dialects), and was subsequently codified as an accusative form. The Balkan Romance languages have no accusative nominal forms. In Romanian, however, the prepositions pe is used as an accusative case marker with all proper names, as well as with [+human, +specific] bare common nouns and nouns preceded by the indefinite article. Thus, it is used in (13a) but not in (13b):20 (13) a.

L-am v˘azut pe Ion/ pe 3sg.acc.cl.-have.1sg seen acc.mark Ion acc.mark profesor/ pe un profesor. professor acc.mark a professor ‘I saw/have seen Ion/the professor/a (specific) professor.’ b. Caut (un) profesor. look-for.1sg a.m.sg professor ‘I am looking for a/any professor.’

Ro

Ro

. Dative/genitive case forms and case markers An outstanding feature of the Balkan Sprachbund is the dative/genitive “merger”. Dative relationships in the clause and genitive relationships in the DP are expressed by the same nominal/pronominal case form or by prepositional phrases with same prepositions.21 Dative case forms for nouns of any type exist not only in Serbo-Croatian and Arli Balkan Romani – languages which have nominal paradigms with many distinct forms – but also in Albanian, Romanian and Aromanian. Whereas in Albanian the dative case marker appears at the right periphery of the noun, whether definite or indefinite, in Romanian and Aromanian the dative case marker always appears to the right of the article, so that, in the case of indefinite nouns, it is “carried” by the prenominal indefinite article.22 In Aromanian, dative DPs are obligatorily preceded by the preposition a ‘to’. Examples:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.13 (758-849)


(14) a.

Agimi i dërgoi Dritës/ Agim+the.m.sg 3sg.dat.cl send.3sg.past Drita+the.f.sg.dat një vajze(je) lule. a girl.dat flower ‘Agim sent Drita/a girl flowers.’ b. Petru i-a dat fetei/ unei Petru 3sg.dat.cl-have.3sg given girl+the.f.sg.dat a.f.dat fete o floare. girl.obl a.f.sg flower ‘Petru gave the girl/a girl a flower.’ c. Petre lji are dat˘a a featiljei/ Peter 3sg.dat.cl have.3sg given.part to girl+the.f.sg.dat a unei feat˘a lilice. to a.f.dat girl flower ‘Peter has given flowers to the girl/a girl.’

Al

Ro

Ar

In Aromanian, Romanian and Albanian, dative case forms are also used to express genitive case relationships. In all the three languages, nominal dative modifiers appear to the right of their referents. In Aromanian, all dative modifiers are preceded by the preposition a ‘to’. In Romanian, the first modifier immediately follows its referent, while every other modifier is conjoined to the preceding modifier by the conjunction ¸si ‘and’ and related to its antecedent by an agreement clitic.23 In Albanian, any modifier has to be related to its referent by an agreement clitic.24 (15) a.

sor-sa a profesorlui sister+his.m.sg.cl to professor+the.m.sg.dat ‘the professor’s sister’ b. limba animalelor ¸si a language+the.f.sg animal+the.f.pl.dat and f.sg.Agr.cl p˘as˘arilor bird+the.f.pl.dat ‘the language of the animals and the birds’ c. koka e profesorit head+the.f.sg dat/acc.Agr.cl professor+the.m.dat ‘the professor’s head’

Ar

Ro

Al

In Modern Greek, there are no dative case forms – genitive case forms are used to express both genitive and dative case relationships.25 (16) a.

MG Edhosa to vivlio tis Marias. gave.1sg.aor the.neut.sg.acc book the.f.sg.gen Maria.gen ‘I gave the book to Maria.’



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.14 (849-907)


b. Tis epese [tis Marias] 3sg.f.gen.cl fall.1sg.aor the.f.sg.gen Maria.f.gen [to potiri [tu patera]]. the.neut.sg.ac glass the.m.sg.gen father.gen ‘Maria dropped her father’s glass.’ (lit. ‘To Maria fell her father’s glass.’) c. Tis epese [to potiri [tu 3sg.f.gen.cl fall.1sg.aor the.m.sg.acc glass the.m.sg.gen patera [tis Marias]]] father.gen the.f.sg.gen Maria.gen ‘She dropped Maria’s father’s glass.’ (lit. ‘To her fell Maria’s father’s glass.’)

MG

MG

In the Slavic Balkan languages and Megleno-Romanian, both dative and genitive case relations are expressed through case marking prepositions. In Bulgarian, the preposition na ‘on/to’ marks dative as well as genitive case relations: (17) a.

Dadox knigata na Jana/Stojan/ give.1sg.aor book+the.f.sg to Jana/Stojan/ dedoto. grandpa+the.neut.sg ‘I gave the book to Jana/Stojan/the grandpa.’ b. Zagubixme knigata na Ana/ Stojan/ loose.1pl.aor book+the.f.sg to Ana/ Stojan/ dedoto. grandpa+the.neut.sg ‘We lost Jana’s/Stojan’s/grandpa’s book.’

Bu

Bu

In Macedonian, to express dative relationships one uses the preposition na ‘on/to’, while for the expression of genitive relationships na is an alternative to the preposition od ‘of/from’.26 (18) a.

Mu ja dadov knigata na 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.f.acc.cl give.1sg.past book+the.f.sg to Stojana/studentot/edno dete. Stojan.acc/student+the.m.sg/a boy ‘I gave the book to Stojan/the student/a boy.’ b. Ja zaginavme knigata od/?na 3sg.f.acc.cl loose.1pl.past book+the.f.sg of to Ana/Stojana. Ana/Stojan.acc ‘We lost Jana’s/Stojan’s book.’

Ma

Ma

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.15 (907-997)


c.

Ma Ja popraviv nogata od/??na masata. 3sg.f.acc.cl repare.1sg.past leg+the.f.sg of to table+the.f.sg ‘I repaired the leg of the table.’

Megleno-Romanian indirect objects are introduced by the preposition la ‘to/at’, while DPs expressing possessive relationships are introduced by the preposition al ‘of ’ if animate, and by the preposition di ‘from’ otherwise: (19) a.

Petre a˘ i deadi la feata flor. Peter 3sg.dat.cl give.3sg.aor to girl+the.f.sg flour ‘Peter gave a flower to the girl.’ b. capu al profesoru/ ma¸ta head+the.m.sg of professor+the.m.sg/ cat+the.f.sg ‘the head of the professor/the cat’ c. picioru di masa/ una mas˘a leg+the.m.sg from table+the.f.sg/ a.f.sg table ‘the leg of the/a table’

MR

MR

MR

. Position and use of the definite articles All the Balkan languages other than standard Serbian and standard Croatian have articles.27 In Modern Greek and Arli Balkan Romani, the articles occur prenominally,28 whereas in the other Balkan languages they encliticize to the noun, if the noun is the only constituent of the DP, and to its first lexical modifier, otherwise.29 (20) a1 nedelata week+the.f.sg ‘the week’ a2 mojata prva rabotna nedela my.f.sg+the.f.sg first.f.sg working.f.sg week.f.sg ‘my first working week’ b1 rokljata dress+the.f.sg ‘the dress’ b2 tvojata xubava ljatna roklja your.f.sg+the.f.sg beautiful.f.sg summer.adj.f.sg dress.f.sg ‘your beautiful summer dress’ c1 castelul castle+the.m.sg ‘the castle’

Ma

Ma

Bu

Bu

Ro



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.16 (997-1030)


c2 frumosul ¸si marele30 castel beautiful+the.m.sg and big+the.m.sg castle ‘the beautiful (and) big castle’ d1 porcu pig+the.m.sg ‘the pig’ d2 micu alb porc small+the.m.sg white pig ‘the small white pig’ d1 feata girl+the.f.sg ‘the girl’ d2 mushata mintimenã featã beautiful+the.f.sg clever.f.sg girl ‘the beautiful clever girl’ e1 vajzat girl+the.f.pl ‘the girls’ e2 të mjerat vajza31 agr.cl miserable+the.f.pl girls ‘the miserable girls’

Ro

MR

MR

Ar

Ar

Al

Al

Except in Albanian and Romanian, postnominal adjectives are, as a rule, emphatic. In Modern Greek, in this case, both the noun and the adjective are always preceded by definite articles, though DPs with prenominal adjectives can also have more than one article. As a matter of fact, we have the following alternatives: (21) a.

to megalo omorfo spiti the.neut.sg big.neut.sg beautiful.neut.sg house b. to megalo to omorfo the.neut.sg big.neut.sg the.neut.sg beautiful.neut.sg to spiti the.neut.sg house c. to spiti to megalo to the.neut.sg house the.neut.sg big.neut.sg the.neut.sg omorfo beautiful.neut.sg ‘the big beautiful house’

MG

MG

MG

Traditional Greek grammars, as well as certain current analyses (cf. Androutsopoulou 1995; Manolessou 2000), take the DPs with more than one definite article to be stylistic variants of the DPs with only one definite article. Campos and Stavrou (this volume), however, show that DPs with more definite articles,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.17 (1030-1085)


to which, following Kolliakou (1995), they refer as “polydefinite”, differ from DPs with only one definite article, i.e. from “monadic” DPs – syntactically, semantically and phonologically. Campos and Stavrou relate the Modern Greek polydefinite constructions to Aromanian constructions in which a noun with a definite postpositive article is followed by a demonstrative and an adjective with a definite postpositive article, as in (22): (22) Lu chirui stilulu atsel 3sg.m.acc.cl loose.1sg.aor fountain pen+the.m.sg that.m lailu. black+the.m.sg ‘I lost the BLACK fountain pen.’

Ar

Campos and Stavrou argue that polydefinite DPs include a functional predicative category PredP, which is headed by the “adjectival” definite article. PredP takes an adjective phrase as its complement, and pro as its specifier, the latter being identified by the articled noun in the specifier of the DP. While in Aromanian, polydefinite constructions with prenominal adjectives are excluded, in Modern Greek, polydefinites with prenominal adjectives, such as (22b) are derived from (basic) polydefinite DPs with postnominal adjectives, by movement of the article plus adjective complex. The analysis for Aromanian, presented by Campos and Stavrou, is compatible with analyses that assume that the Balkan postpositive definite article is not a clitic, but rather a suffix attached pre-syntactically to the noun (cf. DimitrovaVulchanova & Giusti 1998; Ortmann & Popescu 2000; Dobrovie-Sorin 2000).

. Pronominal clitics The Balkan Sprachbund languages have full and clitic dative/genitive and accusative pronominal forms.32 The accusative forms function as direct objects, whereas the dative/genitive forms function as indirect objects or possessive modifiers. When in direct or indirect object position, the pronominal clitics occur in clusters with auxiliary clitics, the negation marker, the subjunctive marker, and occasionally, with monosyllabic adverbs. The Serbo-Croatian clausal clitic clusters are phonologically enclitic second position clitics; their Macedonian, Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, Aromanian, Albanian and Modern Greek counterparts are syntactically preverbal and phonologically typically proclitic, while the Bulgarian clausal clitic clusters are syntactically preverbal, but phonologically enclitic. In Arli Balkan Romani there are only first person singular, second person singular,



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.18 (1085-1169)


third person singular and third person plural accusative pronominal clitic, which function in both accusative and dative position.

. Pronominal clitics functioning in the clause In Serbo-Croatian, the pronominal clitics behave uniformly in all environments; the pronominal clitics of the other Balkan languages, however, show distinct behaviour in some environments. Being phonologically enclitic, the Bulgarian pronominal clitics have to have a lexical host to their left, except when they follow modal clitics or the negation marker. Thus, (23a) is not a well-formed sentence, while (23b) and (23c) are: (23) a. *Mu go e dal. 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.m.acc.cl is.cl given.m.sg.l-part purported meaning: ‘He has given it to him.’ b. Ne mu go e dal. not 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.m.acc.cl is.cl given.m.sg.l-part ‘He hasn’t given it to him.’ c. Šte mu go dade utre. will 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.m.acc.cl give.3sg tomorrow ‘(S)he will give it to him tomorrow.’

Bu

Bu

Bu

The well-formedness of sentences such as (23b) and (23c) can be explained through the distinct phonological directionality of ne and šte: while the auxiliary and pronominal clitics are phonologically enclitic, the negation operator ne and the modal clitics šte are phonologically proclitic. Echoing the position of Inkelas (1989) that clitics may lean on one another to satisfy each other’s prosodic requirements, Halpern (1992: 283–287) suggests that, when a proclitic clitic is followed by an enclitic one, we must allow for the prosodic subcategorizations to “cancel”, so that the combination as a whole is not prosodically dependent. It is this “cancellation”, and the stress that the complex acquires as a result of it, which make it possible for the negation operator ne to appear clause-initially and form a phonological unit with the clitic following it, to the exclusion of the verb. As for the modal clitics šte and bi(x), they influence the behaviour of the other clitics: when the modal clitics are cluster-initial, the cluster forms a local domain with the following verb, and, consequently, can appear clause-initially (cf. Tomić 1996, 1997). The Macedonian pronominal clitics (all clausal clitics, as a matter of fact) are, as a rule, syntactically preverbal and phonologically proclitic. In clauses with [+V, +N] heads, however, they can be and preferably are syntactically second-position and phonologically enclitic:33

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.19 (1169-1224)


(24) a1 Im → gi → DAdov KNIgite. 3pl.dat.cl 3pl.acc.cl give.1sg.past books+the.pl a2 *DAdov ← im ← gi KNIgite. give.1sg.past 3pl.dat.cl 3pl.acc.cl books+the.pl ‘I have given them the books.’ ? e → SKInato PALtoto. b1 Mu → 3sg.m.dat.cl is.cl torn.neut.sg coat+the.neut.sg b2 SKInato ← mu ← e PALtoto. torn.neut.sg 3sg.m.dat.cl is.cl coat+the.neut.sg ‘His coat is torn.’

Ma Ma

Ma Ma

In positive imperative clauses, in all the languages considered, the pronominal clitics occur to the immediate right of the verb and encliticize to it. (25) a.

Daj mu go! give.2sg.Imp 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl ‘Give it to him.’ b. Dute! go.2sg.imper 2sg.acc.cl ‘Go!’ c. Hape derën! open.2sg+3sg.acc.cl door+the.f.acc ‘Open the door!’ d. Dhos mu to! give.2sg.Imp 1sg.gen.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl ‘Give it to me!’

Ma/Bu

Rom

Al

MG

Bošković (2001), who adopts the copy theory of movement and assumes that a lower copy of a non-trivial chain can be pronounced instead of the head of the chain iff this is necessary to satisfy a PF (phonetic form) requirement (see also Franks 1998; Bošković 2002), accounts for the occurrence of the clitics to the right of the imperative verb through the existence of an underlying PF affix to the left of the verb, with which the verb has to merge. In underlying structure, both indicatives and imperatives have clitic-verb order, with a lower copy of the pronominal clitic following the verb. In indicatives, the higher copy of the clitic can be, hence must be pronounced. In imperatives, on the other hand, pronunciation of the higher copy of the clitic leads to a Stranded Affix Filter violation; so the lower copy of the clitic, to the right of the verb, is pronounced. In most Balkan languages, in positive imperative clauses, the accusative clitics follow the dative clitics, as they do in indicative clauses. In Modern Greek positive imperative clauses, however, both genitive accusative and accusative genitive ordering of clitics is possible. Thus, alongside (25d) we have (26):



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.20 (1224-1297)


(26) Dhos to mu! give.2sg.imp 3sg.neut.acc.cl 1sg.gen.cl ‘Give it to me!’

MG

Bošković (this volume) argues that the accusative genitive clitic order in imperative clauses is made possible by the pronunciation of the lower copy of the clitics, forced by the presence of the PF affix. The accusative clitic can actually precede the genitive clitic only when the clitics are pronounced in a lower position, which is the case in imperatives. The optionality of the accusative-genitive ordering is related to an element X, possibly AgrDO (direct object agreement), to which the genitive clitic has to move. Without the presence of X, the Gen-Acc-V complex will be immediately formed, which leads to genitive accusative order of clitics in the postverbal position. When X is present in the structure, however, one gets accusative genitive order in postverbal position. In negative imperative clauses, in Serbo-Croatian, (standard) Macedonian and Arli Balkan Romani the pronominal clitics occur to the right of the verb, while the negation operator occurs to its left:34 Ne – Uzimaj ← mu ← ga! not.cl take.2sg.imperf.imp 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl ‘Don’t take it from him!’ b. Ne – daVAJ – mu – go! not.cl give.2sg.imperf.imp 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl ‘Don’t give it to him!’ ˇ c. Ma – biCHAV ← le MANgje! not.mod send.2sg.imp 3sg.m.acc.cl 1sg.dat.pron ‘Don’t send it to me!’

(27) a.

SC

Ma

ABR

In Bulgarian and Balkan Romance negated imperative clauses, as well as in negated imperative clauses in the Northwestern Macedonian dialects (cf. Tomić 2001), the clitics occur between the negation operator and the verb.35 (28) a.

Ne – MU – go DAvaj! not.cl 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl give.2sg.imperf.imp ‘Don’t give it to him!’ b. NU ← te du! neg 2sg.acc.cl go.2sg.imper ‘Don’t go!’ c. NU ← la MANc˘a! not 3sg.m.acc.cl eat.2sg.imp ‘Don’t eat it!’

Bu

Ro

MR

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.21 (1297-1351)


d. NU ← u not 3sg.f.acc.cl ‘Don’t eat it!’ e. NE ← ja not 3sg.f.acc.cl ‘Don’t eat it!’

MÃcã! eat.2sg.imp

Ar

JAdi! eat.2sg.imp

NWM

In Albanian negated imperative clauses, the clitics also appear between the negation operator and the verb, but in this language we have a specific modal operator mos, distinct from the indicative negation operator nuc:36 (29) a.

Mos shko! not.mod go.2sg.imper ‘Don’t go!’ b. Mos i trego azjë! not.mod 3sg.dat.cl say/tell.2sg.imper nothing ‘Don’t tell him/her anything!’

Al

Al

In Modern Greek, verbs with imperative morphology cannot be negated and prohibition is expressed by negated subjunctive clauses and other negated structures.37 Bošković (this volume) points out that Miyoshi (2002) accounts for the ban on negative imperatives in Modern Greek by assuming the existence of a PF affix, which in negative contexts is separated from the verb by the negation marker. Just as the English finite verb, when separated from its past tense affix by a negation operator, resorts to a different verb form, namely infinitive (in addition to “dosupport”), the Modern Greek imperative verb, when separated from its PF affix by a negation marker, resorts to another verb form – that of the subjunctive. Under Bošković’s analysis, the presence of the imperative PF affix is thus ultimately responsible for the accusative-genitive clitic switch, the postverbal position of clitics in imperatives, as well as the ban on negative imperatives.

. Clitic doubling The Balkan dative and accusative clitics can double lexical indirect and direct objects, respectively. In Macedonian, Megleno-Romanian and Aromanian, directobject clitic-doubling is contingent on definiteness, while indirect object cliticdoubling is contingent on specificity. Thus, we have the following acceptability judgements: (30) a.

Ana mu go dade Ana 3sg.m/neut.dat.cl 3sg.m/neut.acc.cl give.3sg.past



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.22 (1351-1431)


pismoto na deteto/ edno dete. letter+the to child+the a.sg.neut child ‘Ana gave the letter to the child/a (specific) child.’ b. Ana *mu *go dade Ana 3sg.m/neut.dat.cl 3sg.m/neut.acc.cl give.3sg.past (edno) pismo na (edno) dete. a.sg.neut letter to a.sg.neut child ‘Ana gave a letter to a child.’ (31) a1 Petre i-u ari dat Petre 3sg.dat.cl-3sg.f.acc.cl have.3sg given.part la feata/ una feat˘a floarea. to girl+the a girl flower+the ‘Petre has given the flower to the girl/a (specific) girl.’ a2 Petre *i-u ari dat Petre 3sg.dat.cl-3sg.f.acc.cl have.3sg given.part la (una) feat˘a (un˘a) floari. to (a) girl (a) flower) ‘Petre has given a flower to a girl.’ b1 Petre lj-u deade cartea Petre 3sg.dat.cl-3sg.f.acc.cl give.3sg.past book+the/ a featiljei/ unei featã. to girl+the.dat a.dat girl ‘Petre has given the book to the girl/a (specific) girl.’ b2 Petre *lj-u deade a (unei) Petre 3sg.dat.cl-3sg.f.acc.cl give.3sg.past a a.dat featã una carte. girl a book ‘Petre has given a book to a girl.’

Ma

Ma

MR

MR

Ar

Ar

In standard Serbian and standard Croatian, there is no clitic-doubling, but in some southeastern Serbian dialects, direct objects can optionally be clitic-doubled when definite and indirect objects when specific. Examples: (32) a.

Nes˘am (ga) videl not+ am.aux.cl 3sg.m.acc.cl seen.m.sg.l-part ovˇcara(toga). shepherd+the.m.sg.acc ‘I haven’t seen the shepherd.’ b. Dala sam (mu) cveće na given.f.sg.l-part am.aux.cl 3sg.m.dat.cl flowers to

SES

SES

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.23 (1431-1522)


šefa na edno dete. chief.acc to a.neut.sg child ‘I gave (the) flowers to the chief/a child. ‘ In Bulgarian, both direct and indirect objects are clitic-doubled if specific and topicalized (or rather not focused).38 Thus, we have the following contrasts: (33) a1 Ana *go ˇcete PISMOTO/ Ana 3sg.neut.acc.cl read.3sg letter+the.neut.sg EDNO PISMO. a.neut.sg letter ‘Ana is reading the letter/a letter.’ a2 ANA go ˇcete pismoto/ Ana 3sg.neut.acc.cl read.3sg letter+the.neut.sg (%edno pismo). a.neut.sg letter ‘It is Ana that is reading the letter/a letter.’ pomaga na DETETO/ b1 Ana *mu Ana 3sg.neut.acc.cl help.3sg to child+the.neut.sg na EDNO DETE. to a child ‘Ana is helping the child/a child.’ b2 ANA mu pomaga na deteto/ Ana 3sg.neut.acc.cl help.3sg to child+the.neut.sg na edno dete. to a child ‘It is Ana that is helping the child/a child.’

Bu

Bu

Bu

Bu

In Albanian, all specific indirect objects are clitic-doubled, whereas direct objects are clitic-doubled if specific and topicalized (i.e. not focused). Thus, though both the direct object in (34a) and the one in (34b) are specific, only the direct object in (33a), which is not focused, can be clitic-doubled: (34) a.

Do ta pi me kënaqësi will.mod.cl subj.mark+3sg.acc.cl drink.1sg with pleasure një birë. a beer ‘I will gladly drink a beer.’ b. Agimi *e piu MADJE Agim+the.m.sg 3sg.acc.cl drink.3sg.aor even NJË BIRRË para se të shkonte. a beer before that subj.mark go.3sg ‘Agim drank even a beer before he left.’

Al

Al



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.24 (1522-1591)


In Modern Greek, specific direct objects – whether definite or indefinite – are cliticdoubled if topicalized. MG Ton Jani ton kseri i the.m.sg.acc Janis.acc 3sg.m.acc.cl know.3sg the.f.sg Maria. Maria ‘Janis, Maria knows.’ MG b. Ena vivlio tha su to a.neut.sg.acc book will.mod.cl 2sg.gen.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl paro. take.1sg.perf.pres ‘As for a book, I will take it for you (but don’t ask for more).’

(35) a.

In situ direct objects are also clitic-doubled if discourse linked or familiar, especially if they are definite. MG Tus PIRA tus markadhorus. 3pl.m.acc.cl took.1sg.aor the.m.pl pencils.m.acc ‘I did take the pencils.’ b. (%Tis) ELISA merikes askisis me diskolia. MG 3pl.f.acc.cl solve.1sg.aor some.pl exercises with difficulty ‘Some exercises I did solve with difficulty.’

(36) a.

Modern Greek indirect objects are, however, clitic-doubled only when definite. Thus, we have the following contrast: MG Tu EDHOSA tu Jorghu 3sg.m.gen.cl give.1sg.aor the.m.sg.gen Jorgos.m.gen to vivlio. the.neut.sg.acc book ‘I did give the book to Jorgos.’ MG b. (*Tu) EDHOSA enos filu mu 3sg.m.gen.cl give.1sg.aor a.m.sg.gen friend.gen 1sg.gen.cl to vivlio. the.neut.sg.acc book ‘I did give the book to a friend of mine.’

(37) a.

In Romanian, direct object clitic doubling is contingent on specificity, topicality and humanness. Human direct objects are clitic-doubled even when not topicalized or specific:39 (38) a.

L-am v˘azut pe un profesor. 3sg.acc.cl.-have.1sg seen acc.Mark a professor ‘I saw/have seen a professor.’

Ro

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.25 (1591-1659)


Non-human direct objects are clitic-doubled only when topicalized. Thus, we have the following contrast: (39) a.

Filmul a˘ sta l-am v˘azut. film+the.m.sg this.m.sg 3sg.m.acc.cl-have.1sg seen ‘This film, I have seen.’ b. Am mâncat pe¸stele. 3sg.m.acc.cl-have.1sg eaten fish+the.m.sg ‘I ate/have eaten the fish.’

Ro

Ro

Clitic-doubling of Romanian indirect objects is typically subject to specificity. Examples: (40) a.

Petru i-a dat o floare fetei/ Petru 3sg.dat.cl-has given a.f.sg flower girl+the.f.sg.dat unei fete. a.f.dat girl.obl ‘Petru gave a flower to the girl/a (specific) girl.’ b. I-am pus borcanului a˘ cest 3sg.dat.cl-have.1sg put.part pot+the.m.sg.dat this.m.sg capac. lid ‘I covered the pot with this lid.’

Ro

Ro

In Arli Balkan Romani clitic-doubling, as a rule, occurs only with emphasized pronouns and with quirky accusative subjects in sentences in which V is instantiated by the impersonal verb isi ‘be’ or its negative counterpart na(n)e ‘not be’:40 (41) a.

Diklja men AMEN. saw.3sg 1pl.acc.cl 3pl.acc.Pron ‘He saw US.’ b. Man isi ma(n) jekh kher. 1sg.acc.Pron be.impers 1sg.acc.cl a house ‘I have a house.’ (lit. ‘To me is a house.’)

ABR

ABR

. Impersonal pronominal clitics The dative and accusative personal clitics have corresponding impersonal/reflexive forms which are used for anaphoric reference, in impersonal clauses and as passive and middle markers. In Balkan Slavic, these pronominal clitics are used for anaphoric reference whenever co-referential with the subject. Thus, we have the following contrasts:



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.26 (1659-1711)


(42) a1 Ti se mieš. a2 Ti se umivaš. you.sg refl.acc.cl wash.2sg ‘You are washing yourself.’ b1 Petko se mie. umiva. b2 Petko se Petko refl.acc.cl wash.3sg ‘Petko is washing himself.’ c1 Petko go mie. c2 Petko ga umiva. Petko 1sg.acc.cl wash.3sg ‘Petko is washing him.’

Ma/Bu SC

Ma/Bu SC

Ma/Bu SC

In Balkan Romance, the reflexive/impersonal pronominal clitics are used only for anaphoric reference to third persons: (43) a1 Ion s-a ras. Ion refl.acc.cl-has.cl shaved.m.sg.part ‘Ion shaved himself.’ a2 Iani si bricia¸sti. Iani refl.acc.cl shave.3sg a3 Iane s-sursi. Iane impers.acc.cl-shave.3sg ‘Iani/Iane is shaving himself.’ b1 Ion î¸si cânt˘a. Ion refl.dat.cl sing.3sg b2 Iani a˘¸s cont˘a. Iani refl.dat.cl sing.3sg b3 Iane sh-cãntã. Iane impers.dat.cl-sing.3sg ‘Ion/Iani/Iane is singing to himself.’

Ro

MR Ar

Ro MR Ar

In Arli Balkan Romani, there is only one impersonal/reflexive pronominal clitic, which is used for anaphoric reference to third person pronouns: (44) Thovelape. wash.3sg+refl.acc.cl ‘(S)he washes himself/herself.’

ABR

In Albanian, there is also only one accusative impersonal/reflexive clitic. Moreover, this clitic is used for anaphoric reference only to nouns denoted by the subject of the clause, and only when the verb is in a past tense.41

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.27 (1711-1779)


(45) a.

Unë u rrova. I refl.cl shave.1sg.aor ‘I shaved myself.’ b. Pjetri u rrua. Pjetri refl.cl shave.3sg.aor ‘Pjetri shaved himself.’

Al

Al

In Modern Greek, there are no impersonal clitics.42 The impersonal, passive and middle clauses with impersonal clitics (as well as the Albanian and Modern Greek verbs with medio-passive morphology) often include dative personal pronominal clitics and/or lexical dative phrases. According to Rivero (this volume) there are two types of impersonal/passive constructions with datives. The first construction is the so-called involuntary state or “feel like” construction, which occurs in Albanian and the South Slavic languages, but not in Romanian and Modern Greek. (46) a.

Ne mu se raboteše vo not 3sg.f.dat.cl impers.acc.cl work.3sg.imperf.past in nivata. field+the.f.sg ‘He didn’t feel like working in the field.’ b. I u punua këtu. 3sg.dat impers.cl work.3sg.imperf here ‘(S)he felt like working here.’ c. I se lucra în fabric˘a. 3sg.dat.cl impers.acc.cl work.3sg.imperf in factory 1. ‘One/people worked in the factory on his/her behalf.’ 2. ‘One/people worked in his/her factory.’ Not: ‘(S)he felt like working in the factory.’

Ma

Al

Ro

The second construction, which consists of an anticausative core, coupled with a dative, is found in all Balkan languages along parallel lines: (47) a. Mu se skrši prozorecot. b. Iu thye dritarja. c. I se sparse ferestrea. 3sg.dat.cl impers.cl break.3sg.aor window+the 1. ‘His window got broken.’ 2. ‘He involuntarily caused the big vase to break.’

Ma Al Ro

Rivero (this volume) argues that involuntary state constructions contain a passive or impersonal core. This core contains an argument, which is implicit or existentially closed due to Argument Saturation. The dative discloses and binds



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.28 (1779-1848)


this implicit argument via a formal semantic procedure called Dative Disclosure. Anticausative datives, on the other hand, are interpreted by an inferential procedure called Ethical Strategy, which differs from Dative Disclosure, because it cannot operate on formally present arguments. Dative Disclosure cannot apply in anticausatives, since they lack the appropriate suppressed argument.

. Possessive pronominal clitics In all the Balkan languages, possessive relationships can be expressed in the DP, as well as in the CP – in both cases through the same morphological device, genitive pronominal clitics in Modern Greek, and dative pronominal clitics elsewhere. In Bulgarian, both possessive clitics in the DP and possessively interpreted dative clausal clitics are widely used and can refer to either animate or inanimate nouns. Examples: se deteto (48) a1 Razbole get sick.3sg.perf.past impers.acc.cl child+the.neut.sg mi. 1sg.dat.cl a2 Rasbole mi se get sick.3sg.perf.past 1sg.dat.cl acc.impers.cl deteto. child+the.neut.sg ‘My child got sick.’ b1 Interesni sa v˘aprosite im. interesting.pl are.3pl questions+the.pl 3pl.dat.cl sa im v˘aprosite. b2 Interesni interesting.pl are.3pl 3pl.dat.cl questions+the.pl ‘Their questions are interesting.’

Bu

Bu

Bu Bu

In Macedonian, the DP possessive clitics can refer only to nouns denoting family relationships. Thus, we have the following acceptability judgements: (49) a1 *Se razbole deteto impers.acc.cl get sick.3sg.perf.past child+the.neut.sg mi. 1sg.dat.cl a2 Mi se rasbole 1sg.dat.cl impers.acc.cl get sick.3sg.perf.past deteto. child+the.neut.sg ‘My child got sick.’

Ma

Ma

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.29 (1848-1907)


Ma b1 Se razbole sin mi. impers.acc.cl get sick.3sg.perf.past son+the.m.sg 1sg.dat.cl Ma b2 Mi se rasbole sin mi.43 1sg.dat.cl impers.acc.cl get sick.3sg.perf.past son 1sg.dat.cl ‘My son got sick.’ In Serbo-Croatian, the use of DP possessive clitics is not only referentially restricted to nouns denoting family relationships; it is also marked as archaic and dialectal. In Romanian, dative pronominal clitics are regularly used to denote possessive relationship in the clause, while their use in the nominal phrase, though not restricted to the type of noun, is marked as archaic or belonging to the literary style. Ro Chipu-i luminos domina mul¸timea. face-3sg.dat.cl bright.m.sg dominate.3sg.aor crowd+ the.f.sg ‘His/her bright face dominated the crowd.’ Ro b. I-am z˘arit chipul în 3sg.dat.cl-have.1sg.cl spotted.m.sg.part face+the.m.sg in mul¸time. crowd ‘I spotted his/her face in the crowd.’

(50) a.

%

In the other two Romance Balkan languages, Megleno-Romanian and Aromanian, dative pronominal clitics are not used in the DP. Nevertheless, in all three Romance Balkan languages, there are clitics relating to lexical possessive pronouns/determiners which express possessive relationship by referring to singular nouns denoting close family relationships. (51) a.

Este frumoas˘a nevast˘a-sa. is beautiful.f.sg wife-his.sg.f.cl ‘His wife is beautiful.’ b. T ¸i este frumoas˘a nevast˘a-ta.44 2sg.dat.cl is beautiful.f.sg wife-your.2sg.f.cl ‘Your wife is beautiful.’ c. Ul vidzu frati-nju. 3sg.m.acc.cl see.3sg.aor brother-my.m.sg.cl ‘(S)he saw my brother.’

Ro

MR

Ar

Dative pronominal clitics are not encountered in Albanian DPs either, though the agreement clitics, which usually occur between a noun and an adjective and mark agreement of the adjective to the noun, can express possessive relationship to singular nouns denoting close family relationship:45



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.30 (1907-1978)


(52) Erdhi nga e ëma. come.3sg.aor from f.sg.agr.cl mother+the.f.sg ‘(S)he came from his/her mother’s.’

Al

In Arli Balkan Romani, dative pronominal clitics are very selectively used and never express possessive relationships. There are, however, possessive pronominal clitics related to full (lexical) possessive pronouns/determiners, which refer to singular nouns denoting close family relationships: ABR So šuži stadik pletingja ti daj! what beautiful.f.sg hat knit.3sg.past your.2sg.cl mother ‘What a beautiful hat has your mother knitted for you!’ ABR b. Kergja lafi te dadea. make.3sg.past talk your.2sg.obl.cl father.instr ‘(S)he talked to your father.’

(53) a.

In Modern Greek, genitive clitics can express possessive relationships within the nominal phrase, as well as possessive relationships within the clause:46 MG O Jorghos idhe tin kori su. the.m.sg Jorghos see.1sg.aor the.f.sg.acc daughter 2sg.gen.cl ‘Jorgo saw your daughter.’ MG b. Tu pandrevete i kori. 3sg.m.gen.cl marry.3sg.m-p the.f.sg daughter ‘His daughter is getting married.’

(54) a.

Pancheva (this volume) argues that Modern Greek possessive clitics receive abstract genitive case and are thus formally distinct from clausal indirect object clitics, which are valued as dative. The identity between the two types of clitics in this language results from dative/genitive syncretism in the morpho-phonological expression of distinct abstract syntactic features. In Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian, and Serbo-Croatian, on the other hand, possessive clitics have dative case features in syntax, and are the same entities as clausal indirect object clitics; the identity of the morpho-phonological form of the two types of clitics is due to identity of formal features and not to case syncretism. There are further distinctions within this latter group of languages: Bulgarian and Macedonian DPs have syntactic mechanisms to value dative case on possessive arguments, Serbo-Croatian DPs have completely lost the dative-case valuation mechanisms, while Romanian DPs have almost lost them. This parametric difference is responsible for the availability of DP-internal possessive clitics in Bulgarian and Macedonian, their lack in Serbo-Croatian, and their non-productivity in Romanian.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.31 (1978-2021)


Pancheva bases her conclusions on comparative data from the contemporary languages, as well as on historical data. She gives evidence that in the history of South Slavic genitive clitics were never available. There have been arguments in the generative literature that the Balkan clausal clitics with possessive interpretation originate in and are raised from DPs (cf. Avram & Coene 2000; Stateva 2002; Moskovsky this volume). While Avram and Coene (2000) maintain that the movement is triggered by a topic feature, and Stateva (2002) believes that it is case-driven, Moskovsky (this volume), who works within Binding theory (Chomsky 1981, 1986; Chomsky & Lasnik 1992) argues that the DP to CP clitic movement in Bulgarian strictly respects normal constraints on movement – it is an optional movement allowed only out of complements of the verb, i.e. out of maximal projections which are L-marked. Moskovsky presents evidence that locality constraints on binding in Bulgarian apply within narrower boundaries than generally assumed (e.g., under a “governing category” formulation).

. Subjunctives The most perspicuous and most widely spread and discussed property of the Balkan Sprachbund languages is the loss of the infinitive and its replacement by structurally comparable subjunctive constructions. In Macedonian and Tosk Albanian the loss of the infinitive is complete and in Aromanian, Modern Greek, Bulgarian and the southeastern Serbian dialects it is almost complete; in MeglenoRomanian the infinitive shows up in a limited number of expression; whereas in Geg47 Albanian, Romanian, Standard Serbian and Standard Croatian it shares many of its functions with subjunctive constructions with finite verbs.

. Subjunctives as complements of modal and intentional verbs Typically, subjunctive constructions are used in complement positions of modal and intentional verbs. The verb of the subjunctive construction can, but need not agree in person and number with the verb of the main clause. Whenever such an agreement occurs, there is “equi” deletion and only one subject surfaces – in unmarked sentences, to the left of the main verb. Pronominal subjects are dropped, unless emphatic. Modal verbs are very often impersonal. When personal, however, they have to agree in person and number with the verb in the subjunctive construction.48



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.32 (2021-2123)


Ma Ne možam da go vidam/*vidiš. not can.1sg subj.mark 3sg.m/neut.acc.cl see.1/2sg.perf.pres ‘I cannot see him/it.’ MR b. Po¸t s-ti/*il du¸t/*duca. can/may.2sg subj.mark-2/3sg.acc.cl go.2/3sg ‘You can/may go.’ Al c. Dy prej tyre mundën (që) të shpëtonin. two from they.dat can.3pl.aor that subj.mark save.3pl.m-p ‘Two of them could be saved.’ MG d. Boro na figo/*figis. can/may.1sg subj.mark leave.1/2sg ‘I can/may leave.’

(55) a.

Intentional verbs fall into three classes with respect to agreement with the person/number features of their subjunctive complements. Verbs of the “intend” type have same reference as the subjects of their subjunctive complements; the reference of verbs of the “order” type differs from the reference of the subjects of their subjunctive complements (disjoint reference verbs); while verbs of the “want” type may agree or disagree with the person/number features of their subjunctive complements. (56) a.

Namerava da patuva/*patuvaš. intend.3sg subj.mark travel.3/2sg ‘(S)he intends to travel.’ b. Inten¸tioneaz˘a s˘a mearg˘a/*meargi la Paris. intend.3sg subj.mark go.3/2sg.subj to Paris ‘(S)he intends to go to Paris.’ c. Tentoi (që) të vijë/*vij. intend.3sg.aor that subj.mark come.3/1sg.subj ‘(S)he intended to come.’ d. Skopevo na ertho/*erthis. intend.1sg subj.mark come.1/2sg.perf.pres ‘I intend to come.’ e. Nietinela te dromarel/*dromarela. intend.3sg subj.mark travel.3/1sg ‘(S)he intends to travel.’

(57) a.

Ma

R

Al

MG

ABR

Ma Zapoveda Marija da dojde ordered.3sg.perf.past Marija subj.mark come.3sg.perf.pres vednaš. immediately ‘(S)he gave an order for Marija to come immediately.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.33 (2123-2190)


Ro b. A ordonat ca Maria s˘a vin˘a has ordered.part subj.mark Maria subj.mark come3sg.subj numaidecât. immediately. ‘(S)he gave an order for Maria to come immediately’. c. Urdhëroi Drita (që) të vish menjëherë. Al order.3sg.aor Drita that subj.mark come.2sg.subj immediately ‘(S)he gave an order for Drita to come immediately.’ MG d. Dietakse ti Maria na order.3sg.aor the.f.sg.acc Maria subj.mark erthi amesos. come.3sg.perf.pres immediately ‘(S)he gave an order for Maria to come immediately.’ e. Naredingja i Nafija te avel ordered.3sg.past the.f.sg Nafija subj.mark come.3sg ABR akana. now ‘(S)he gave an order for Nafija to come immediately.’ Ma (58) a1 Sakam da mu go want.1sg subj.mark 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl dadam. give.1sg.perf.pres ‘I want to give it to him.’ Ma a2 Sakam da mu go want.1sg subj.mark 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl dadat. give.3pl.perf.pres ‘I want them to give it to him.’ Ro b1 Vrea s˘a pleci la Bucure¸sti. want.3sg subj.mark leave.2sg to Bucharest ‘(S)he wants you to leave for Bucharest.’ Ro b2 Vrea s˘a plece la Bucure¸sti. want.3sg subj.mark leave.3sg to Bucharest ‘(S)he wants him/her to leave for Bucharest.’ Al c1 Duan (që) t’ia japin. want.3pl that subj.mark-3sg.dat.cl+3sg.acc.cl give.3pl.subj ‘They want to give it to him/her.’ Al c2 Duan (që) t’ia jape. want.3pl that subj.mark-3sg.dat.cl+3sg.acc.cl give.3sg.subj ‘They want him/her to give it to him/her.’



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.34 (2190-2227)


d1 Thelo na pao eki. want.1sg subj.mark go.1sg there ‘I want to go there.’ d2 Thelo na pai eki. want.1sg subj.mark go.3sg there ‘I want him/her to go there.’ ovel tlo/klo izmekjari. e1 Na mangela te not want.3sg subj.mark be.3sg your servant ‘(S)he doesn’t want to be your servant.’ e2 Na mangela te ovav tlo/klo izmekjari. not want.3sg subj.mark be.1sg your servant ‘(S)he doesn’t want me to be your servant.’

MG

MG

ABR

ABR

In Serbo-Croatian, intentional verbs can take either subjunctive or infinitive complements. The usage of infinitive and subjunctive complements with individual types of intentional verbs in (standard) Serbian is, however, different from their usage in (standard) Croatian. When the intentional verb and its complement have disjoint reference, in both (standard) Serbian and (standard) Croatian we have subjunctive complements. In the case of joint reference, however, intentional verbs in (standard) Croatian take only infinitives, while in (standard) Serbian both infinitive and subjunctive complements are accepted, though the latter are preferred. Stojanović and Marelj (this volume) examine child and adult strategies in interpreting empty subjects in Serbian and Croatian subjunctive and infinitival complements of intentional verbs. Fifteen four-and-five year old speakers of Serbian, and 25 three-to-five year old speakers of Croatian, as well as 16 Serbian and Croatian speaking adults were tested in an act-out experiment. The results demonstrate that the rules for interpreting null subjects in infinitive complements in both Serbian and Croatian are in place by the age of five. Although neither child nor adult subjects showed any problems with interpreting null subjects in subjunctive-like complements, only the Croatian-speaking children adopted the external reference for empty subjects in “want” type subjunctive complements.

. Subjunctive constructions as modifiers In all the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund, subjunctive constructions can function as adjectival or adverbial modifiers. The border between subjunctive constructions functioning as adjectival or adverbial modifiers is actually very weak. Thus, clauses in which the subjunctive construction is introduced by a “wh” relativizer clearly function as adjectival modifiers:49

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.35 (2227-2316)


(59) a.

T˘arsja žena kojato da look for.1sg woman who.f.sg+the.neut.sg subj.mark mi gleda decata. 1sg.dat.cl look after.3sg children+the.pl ‘I am looking for a woman to look after my children.’ b. Caut o fat˘a care s˘a ¸stie look for.1sg a.f girl which subj.mark know.3sg.subj engleze¸ste. English ‘I am looking for a girl that knows English.’ c. Ubides capel˘a cari s-mi look for.1sg hat which subj.mark-1sg.acc.cl veaglj˘a di soare. protect.3sg.subj from sun. ‘I am looking for a hat that would protect me from the sun.’ d. Aflai tu sone una fustane cai/tsi find.1sg.aor at end a dress which/what s-mi ariseascã. subj.mark-1sg.acc.cl please.3sg.subj ‘I finally found a dress which should please me.’

Bu

Ro

MR

Ar

On the other hand, subjunctive constructions preceded by equivalents of the preposition for clearly function as adverbial modifiers of purpose: Ma Napravivme pauza za da gi make.1pl.perf.past pause for subj.mark 3pl.acc.cl ˇcueme vestite. hear.1pl.perf.pres news+the.pl ‘We paused in order to hear the news.’ Bu b. Dojdoh za da vi s˘aobšta come.1sg.aor for subj.mark 2pl.acc.cl inform.1sg.perf.pres ˇce si otivam. that impers.dat.cl leave.1sg ‘I came to inform you that I am leaving.’ Ro c. Ion e prea periculos pentru ca Ion is too dangerous for that.mod s˘a-l angaj˘am. subj.mark+3sg.m.acc.cl hire.1pl ‘Ion is too dangerous for us to hire him.’ MG d. Irtha ja na se voithiso. come.1sg.aor for subj.mark 2sg.acc.cl help.1sg.perf.pres ‘I came to help you.’

(60) a.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.36 (2316-2381)


Nevertheless, the relativizer and the preposition can be left out, and in some languages do not occur at all, and then the clause is open to ambiguities. Bužarovska (this volume) examines the syntactic environments that favor the realization of an isofunctional syntactic pattern, which occurs in the mixed domain of purpose and modification in Macedonian, Aromanian, Albanian and Modern Greek. She shows that these languages share a limited set of ditransitive verbs that allow “purposelike” modification of their direct object due to dual case assignment and argues that the weakening of control at the expense of benefactive meaning is responsible for gradual shift from purpose to modification. Related to subjunctive constructions functioning as adjectival modifiers are subjunctive constructions with “wh”-words as subjects, objects or adjuncts, which can be reinterpreted as structures in which subjunctive constructions modify “wh”words. The main verbs of the sentences in which these subjunctive constructions appear express (a) assertion or denial of existence or (b) coming into being, view or availability or causation of one of these. In (61) we have examples of subjunctive constructions with “wh” arguments or adjuncts in complement positions of equivalents of the existential verb “have” – a verb that typically expresses assertion or denial of existence: (61) a.

Ima koj da mi pomogne. have.impers who subj.mark 1sg.dat.cl help.3sg.perf.pr ‘There is someone who can help me.’ b. Njama kakvo da kupiš. not+have.impers what subj.mark buy.2sg.perf ‘There is nothing to buy.’ c. Nemaš kako da pošalješ paket. not+have.2sg how subj.mark send.2pl.perf.pr parcel ‘You have no way to send a/the parcel.’ d. Nu am cu cine s˘a vin. not have.1sg with who subj.mark come.1sg ‘I have nobody with whom I can come.’ e. Nu ari di ¸ti si ca¸ta˘ . not have.impers from what subj.mark catch.3sg/pl.subj ‘There is nothing (s)he/they can hold onto.’ f. Am cu cai (tã) s-yin. have.1sg with whom that.mod subj.mark-come.1sg ‘I have somebody with whom I can come.’ g. S’ka (që) ç-të bëhet. not-have.impers that what-subj.mark do.impers.m-p ‘There is nothing one can do.’

Ma

Bu

SC

Ro

MR

Ar

Al

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.37 (2381-2444)


MG h. (Dhen) exume se pjion na stilume not have.1pl to who.acc subj.mark send.1pl.perf.pres ta emborevmata. the.neut.pl merchandize ‘We have someone/(noone) to whom to send the merchandise.’ ABR i. Na(n)e kasaja te avav. not+be.impers who.instr subj.mark come.1sg ‘There is nobody with whom I can come.’ Grosu (this volume) refers to the subjunctive complements with “wh” arguments or adjuncts as “modal existential “wh”-constructions” (MECs), and argues that they have the superficial appearance of a “wh”-clause, but the semantics of a narrow-scope existential generalized quantifier, such that the property expressed by the IP has modal possibility/ability force. Building on Grosu (1994), Grosu and Landman (1998) and Izvorski (1998), and modifying some of the views in these works, Grosu (this volume) proposes that MECs are non-core relative constructions consisting of a bare CP which carries the feature [GQ∃ ], as well as a specification of its particular modality. Cross-linguistic distribution is captured by extensions of subcategorization options from nominal to CP arguments, such extensions being potentially “licensed” by semantic-pragmatic properties of the matrix predicates in conjunction with the larger context, in the sense that they constitute necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for extension.

. Bare subjunctive constructions Subjunctive constructions can be bare, i.e. they can occur not as complements, but as the only constituent of a sentence. Typically, bare subjunctive constructions with verbs in the present tense express a wish, mild command, intention or suggestion: (62) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

Da Da Da Të Na Te S˘a SSsubj.mark ‘You should go!’

odiš! otideš! ideš! shkosh! pas! dža! te duci! ti du¸t! ti duts! 2sg.acc.cl go.2sg

Ma Bu SC Al MG ABR Ro MR Ar



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.38 (2444-2490)


Bare subjunctive constructions are dealt with by two papers in this volume. While Ammann and Auwera demonstrate that bare subjunctive constructions are used to express volition not only in the languages of the Balkans, but also elsewhere in southern Europe, Isac and Jakab are concerned with the derivation of the imperative force of the structure and propose that the imperative Force features be hosted in MoodP – a projection placed in the left periphery of the sentence, which is lower than the highest CP projection. Isac and Jakab (this volume) argue that, by hosting the Force features in an MoodP lower than CP, it is possible to unify the syntax of subjunctive constructions and other “surrogate” imperatives, whose morphology is “borrowed” from another paradigm, with the syntax of “true” imperatives, i.e. with the syntax of imperatives with imperative morphology. Cross linguistic variation, according to them, follows from the particular properties that clitics and negation operators have across languages, as well as from the particular mechanism by which the imperative Force feature is checked (by merging a Mood particle in the head of the MoodP; by moving the imperative verb to Mood; or by moving the Negative head to Mood).

. Future tenses The Balkan Sprachbund languages have future tenses with “will” modal clitics, which have evolved from configurations in which subjunctive constructions appear in complement positions of lexical “will” modals. These future tenses can be of three types: (a) inflected “will” modal clitics plus subjunctive constructions; (b) non-inflecting “will” modal clitics plus subjunctive constructions; (c) noninflecting “will” modal clitics plus tensed verbs whose forms are analogous to the forms of the verbs in the subjunctive constructions of the languages in question (cf. Tomić 2004). In Serbo-Croatian, we have a future tense with inflected “will” modal clitics plus subjunctive complements, functioning alongside a future tense with inflected “will” modal clitics plus infinitive complements:50 (63) a.

On će to da uradi he will.3sg.mod.cl it/that subj.mark do.3sg.perf.pres sutra. tomorrow b. On će to uraditi sutra. he will.3sg.mod.cl it/that do.inf tomorrow c. Uradiće to sutra. do.inf+will.3sg.mod.cl it/that tomorrow ‘He will do that tomorrow.’

SC

SC SC

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.39 (2490-2563)


In Romanian the standard future tense is, as a rule, constructed with finite modal clitics plus short (suffixless) infinitives. In colloquial Romanian, however, there is a future tense construction which employs the invariant clitic o, arguably representing a reduced version of the “will” modal, plus finite lexical verbs.51 Examples of a future tense with an infinitive and a future tense with a subjunctive construction are given in (63a) and (63b), respectively: Ro Ion va pleca mâine. Ion will.3sg.mod.cl leave.inf tomorrow ‘Ion will leave tomorrow.’ b. Ion o s˘a-i cear˘a ma¸sina. Ro Ion will.mod.cl subj.mark-3sg.dat.cl ask.3sg.subj car+the.f.sg ‘Ion will ask him for the car.’

(64) a.

In Aromanian and Albanian the subjunctive construction is preceded by an invariant form of the “will” modal clitic: Ar Va s-yin s-ti will subj.mark-come.1sg.pres subj.comp-2sg.acc.cl ved mãne. see.1sg.pres tomorrow. ‘I will come to see you tomorrow.’ Al b. Do ta jap librin will subj.mark+3sg.dat.cl+3sg.acc.cl give.1sg book+the.m.sg nesër. tomorrow ‘I will give you the book tomorrow.’

(65) a.

In Macedonian, Bulgarian, Modern Greek and Arli Balkan Romani we have an invariant form of the “will” modal clitic, followed by a tensed verb: ´ Ma Ke go stori toa utre. will.mod.cl 3sg.m.acc.cl do.3sg.perf.pres that tomorrow ‘(S)he will do that tomorrow.’ Bu b. Šte napravi tova utre. will.mod.cl do.3sg.perf.pres that tomorrow ‘(S)he will do that tomorrow.’ MG c. Tha su dhiavaso avrio. will.mod.cl 2sg.gen.cl read.1sg.perf.pres tomorrow ‘I will read/be reading to you tomorrow.’ ABR d. Ka ˇcitinav tukje tajsa. will.mod.cl read.1sg 2sg.dat.pron tomorrow ‘I will read/be reading to you tomorrow.’

(66) a.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.40 (2563-2626)


Nevertheless, historical evidence and the forms of the verbs – analogous to the forms of the verbs in subjunctive constructions and often distinct from the present tense forms – testify to the fact that the Macedonian, Bulgarian and Modern Greek future tenses originated as structures such as those in the future tenses of Albanian and Aromanian, and ultimately as structures such as those in the Serbo-Croatian future tenses with subjunctive structures. The Megleno-Romanian future tense is a bare subjunctive construction, which can also be used to give mild commands: (67) a.

Si vin˘a.(!) subj.mark come.3sg/pl.subj 1. ‘(S)he/they will come.’ 2. ‘(S)he/they should come!’ b. S-la lea.(!) subj.mark-3sg.m.acc.cl take.2sg ‘You will take it.’ ‘You should take it!’

MR

MR

The structures of the future-in-the-past tenses of the Balkan languages also include subjunctive constructions or verb forms that are diachronically related to subjunctive constructions. Bulgarian and the southeastern Serbian dialects have future-in-the-past tenses with past tense forms of “will”-auxiliaries plus subjunctive constructions with verbs in the present tense. (68) a.

Da ne valeše, ošte štjahme da subj.mark not rain.3sg.imperf still would.1pl subj.mark se razxoždame. impers.acc.cl walk.1pl.imperf.pres ‘If it didn’t rain, we would have still be walking.’ ´ b. Ca da ga nosi. would.mod.aux subj.mark 3sg.neut.acc.cl carries ‘(S)he would have carried him.’

Bu

SES

Aromanian and Albanian have future-in-the-past constructions with non-inflected modal clitics followed by subjunctive constructions with verbs in a past tense form: (69) a.

Nu va (s-)lipsea not will.mod.cl subj.Mark-should.imperf s-yinã. subj.mark-come.3sg/pl.subj ‘(S)he/they shouldn’t have come!’

Ar

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.41 (2626-2699)


b. Po të më ftonin do if subj.Mark 1sg.acc.cl invite.3pl.imperf will.mod.cl të merrja pjesë. subj.mark take.1sg.imperf part ‘If they invited me I would take part.’

Al

In Megleno-Romanian, the function which in the other Balkan languages is performed by the future-in-the-past, is performed by bare subjunctive constructions with verbs in the Imperfect: (70) Si vineau ier. subj.mark come.3pl.imperf yesterday ‘(As far as I know) they were to come yesterday.’

MR

Macedonian and Modern Greek have future-in-the-past constructions with noninflecting modal clitics followed by verbs in a past tense form: ´ Ke dojdeše do pet. will.mod.cl come.3sg.subj.past till five ‘(S)he was (supposed) to come by five.’ b. Dhen tha eprepe na not will.mod.cl should.3sg.imperf subj.Mark erthun. come.3pl.perf.pres ‘They shouldn’t have come!’

(71) a.

Ma

MG

Like their future tenses, the future-in-the-past tenses of Macedonian and Modern Greek are diachronically derived from “will” modal plus subjunctive construction sequences, analogous to those in the Albanian and Aromanian future-in the-past tenses. Arli Balkan Romani forms a future-in-the-past tense by adding the frozen third person singular past tense form of the auxiliary isi ‘be’, sine, which actually is a pastness marker, to future tense constructions: (72) Dži akana/tajsa ka sikljovel till now/tomorrow will.mod.cl show/teach/learn.3sg.m-p sine te nangjovel. Past.mark subj.mark swim.3sg ‘Till now/tomorrow he will have taught himself/learnt to swim.’

ABR

The future-in-the-past tense of Romanian is unique among the Balkan languages in not being related to subjunctive constructions – it is formed by the non-inflecting modal clitic o plus the perfect form of the “be” auxiliary, fi, or by forms of the inflecting “will” modal auxiliary plus fi, and a participle:



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.42 (2699-2775)


(73) a.

S-o fi plimbat Ion. impers.acc.cl-will.mod.cl be.perf walk.part Ion b. Se va fi plimbat Ion. impers.acc.cl will.3sg.mod.cl be.perf walk.part Ion ‘Ion will have walked.’

Ro Ro

In a revised Reichenbachian framework, D’hulst, Coene and Avram (this volume) show that, as opposed to most Western Romance languages, Romanian has an extremely reduced deictic tense system in which a single past morpheme can express both the relation between Event Time and Reference Time and between Reference Time and Speech Time. The invariant third person form of the “will/want” modal auxiliary, which combines with the infinitive or the subjunctive to form the Romanian future tenses, is shown not to be part of the deictic tense system, but to consist of a future operator taking scope over the event expressed in the clause. The proposed operator status for the Romanian future tenses also explains its availability as a future in the past on a par with the conditional in other Romance languages. Whereas in the Western Romance languages, the future in the past readings follow from the inherent settings of Reference Time, Speech Time and Event Time, in Romanian we have this reading because the future tense operator falls in the scope of the past tense of the matrix clause and takes scope over the event expressed in the complement clause.

. Evidentials Many, though not all, Balkan languages encode evidentiality – by calquing new meanings into existing forms or by borrowing new meaning via new material.

. Balkan Slavic Within Macedonian, two verb subsystems intersect. Subsystem A has a (simple) past tense (with distinct paradigms for perfective and imperfective verbs, reflecting the paradigms of the aorist and the imperfect tenses, respectively), a “be”-perfect used to express resultativeness and experience, as well as evidentiality, and a “be”pluperfect. Subsystem B has a simple past tense (with distinct paradigms for perfective and imperfective verbs), a “be”-perfect used exclusively to express evidentiality, a “have” present perfect, and a “have” past perfect (cf. Tomić 1988). Typically, the Macedonian evidential forms impart the speaker’s non-awareness of the event to which the verb refers. Consider the following sentences:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.43 (2775-2831)


Ma Veli deka si me videl. say.3sg that be.2sg 1sg.acc.cl see.m.sg.l-part ‘(S)he says that you have seen me.’ Ma b. Se gleda deka si zboruvala impers.acc.cl see.3sg/impers that be.2sg speak.f.sg.l-part so Ana. with Ana ‘One can see that you have spoken to Ana.’ c. Ovaa forma se upotrebuva za dejstva što Ma this.f form impers.acc.cl use.3sg/impers for actions what se izvršile pred nekoe drugo dejstvo impers.acc.cl accomplish.pl.l-part before some other action vo minatoto. in past+the.neut.sg ‘This form is used to express actions that have taken place before some other actions in the past.’

(74) a.

In (74a) we have a reported event; in (74b) a circumstantial deduction; in (74c) the evidential form expressed by the l-participle izvršile is used in a definition. Further, the Macedonian evidential forms can express surprise, admiration, amazement or irony. Very often, with appropriate intonation, the same sentence can have all of these meanings: (75) Ama ti si bil junak! but you are.2sg be.m.sg.l-part hero 1. ‘You are such a hero!’ (admiration) 2. ‘(I am surprised to see that) you are a hero.’ (surprise) 3. ‘You a hero!’ (irony)

Ma

The Macedonian evidential forms can also commonly be used in connected narratives: Ma Sum (ti) stanala rano i sum am 2sg.eth.dat.cl get up.f.sg.l-part early and am (ti) se dala na rabota. 2sg.eth.dat.cl impers.acc.cl give.f.sg.l-part on work ‘Lo behold, I got up early and got to task.’ (lit. ‘I got up early and gave myself to work.’) Ma b. Si bil eden car i si impers.dat.cl be.m.sg.l-part a king and impers.dat.cl imal dva sina. have.m.sg.l-part two sons ‘There was a king and he had two sons.’

(76) a.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.44 (2831-2880)


The Bulgarian “be” perfect, in addition to its typical uses as a perfect, has most of the evidential functions expressed by the Macedonian “be” perfect. It imparts the speaker’s non-awareness of the event to which the verb refers, and can express surprise, admiration, amazement or irony. The Bulgarian “be” perfect can also be used in story-telling, though not for narrating events that the speaker has experienced. Thus, the Macedonian sentence (76a) has no adequate equivalent in Bulgarian, while in the Bulgarian equivalent of (76b), given in (77), instead of the l-participle of the “be” auxiliary, preceded by an impersonal clitic, we have the l-participle of the “have” auxiliary: (77) Imalo edin car i toj imal have.neut.sg.l-part a.neut.sg king and he have.m.sg.l-part dvama sina. two.m sons ‘There was a king and he had two sons.’

Bu

. Albanian In Albanian there are two sets of synthetic and four sets of analytic evidential forms. Typically, the Albanian evidential forms express admiration,52 surprise or irony: (78) TI (me të vërtetë) flitke kinezçe. you in pl.agr.cl truth speak.3sg.evid Chinese ‘You really speak Chinese!’

Al

The Albanian evidential forms are also used to assert the occurrence of an action or the existence of a state:53 (79) a.

Ai (vërtetë) flitka kinezçe. he truth speak.3sg.Admir.pres Chinese ‘He does speak Chinese!’ b. Ai (vërtetë) e paska përdorur he truth 3sg.acc.cl have.3sg.pres.evid used.part thikën. knife+the.m.sg.acc ‘He indeed used the knife!’

Al

Al

By inference, the Tosk Albanian evidential forms are also used to express disagreement, or uncertainty:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.45 (2880-2940)


Al Thonë se lakam tesha çdo say.3sg that wash.1sg.pres.evid clothes.sg+the.f.sg every ditë. day ‘They say that I wash/am washing clothes every day (but I don’t).’ Al b. (Më duket) sikur po 1sg.dat.cl seem.impers as if Affirm.Particle afroheshkan retë. approach.3pl.pres.evid clouds ‘(It seems to me) that the clouds are approaching.’

(80) a.

. Balkan Romance Although in direct contact with both Macedonian and Albanian, Aromanian, as a rule, does not express evidentiality.54 In Romanian, “will” or “would” modal auxiliaries, in construction with the perfect participle fi and present or past participles, have been treated as some kind of evidential forms.55 The existence of evidential forms in Megleno-Romanian cannot, however, be disputed. Megleno-Romanian has two sets of forms with evidential function: the forms of the inverted perfect and the forms of the inverted past perfect. Whereas in the inverted perfect invariable past participles of lexical verbs are followed by present tense forms of the “have” auxiliary, in the inverted past perfect inverted perfect forms of the “have” auxiliary appear to the left of invariable past participles of lexical verbs. Typically, the Megleno-Romanian inverted perfect renders reported or circumstantially deduced actions, while the inverted past perfect expresses nonwitnessed events or actions that have begun at a point in the past and last until the moment of speaking: (81) a.

Zisi ca ¸t-li vutau say.3sg that 2sg.dat.cl+3pl.f.acc.cl have.3sg.inv.perf dat. given.part ‘(S)he says that (s)he gave/has given them to you.’ b. Vutau vizut vrin˘a feat˘a a˘ n drumu. have.3sg.inv.perf seen.part some girl in road ‘They had reportedly seen some girl on the way.’

MR

MR

The Megleno-Romanian inverted perfect can also express surprise, admiration, amazement or irony and can be used in story-telling:



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.46 (2940-3011)


(82) a.

Tu fostai a˘ ncrilat˘a! you be.3sg.inv.perf clever 1. ‘You are clever!’ (admiration) 2. ‘(I am surprised to see that) you are so clever.’ 3. ‘You clever!’ (irony) ˘ b. Ash vutau un˘a mum˘a trei feati. . . impers.dat.cl have.3sg.inv.perf a.f mother three girls ‘(Once upon a time) a mother had three daughters . . . ’

MR

MR

While the structure of the Megleno-Romanian evidential forms is analogous to that of the Albanian evidential forms, their usage is analogous to the usage of the Macedonian evidentials.

. Confirmative and nonconfirmative evidentials Friedman (this volume) makes a distinction between confirmative and nonconfirmative evidentials. While confirmatives are used for both witnessed events and unwitnessed events that the speaker is willing to vouch for, nonconfirmatives are used for reports or deductions, and to express surprise (admirativity) or disbelief (irony, doubt, dubitativity). Friedman argues that Albanian and Balkan Romance grammaticalize only non-confirmative evidentiality, while in Balkan Slavic the forms of the “be” perfect are exponents of non-confirmative evidentiality, and the forms of the simple past tense are exponents of confirmative evidentiality. He illustrates “the two types of evidentiality” with examples such as (83) (Friedman’s example (3)): Ma (83) Mu se javiv na vujko mi. 3sg.dat.cl impers.acc.cl call.1sg.perf.past to uncle 1sg.dat.cl Ne beše doma, na plaža bil. not be.3sg.past at home on beach be.l-part ‘I called my uncle. He was not at home, [apparently] he was at the beach.’ Both statements about the uncle are based on the same telephone call. The first statement is in the (simple, syncretic) past tense, which, according to Friedman (this volume), is an example of confirmative evidentiality, because the speaker is personally convinced that his uncle would have come to the telephone had he been at home. The second statement is expressed by the “be” perfect, which is an exponent of non-confirmative evidentiality, since neither the speaker nor his interlocutor could actually know for sure where the uncle was. The opposition confirmative: non-confirmative evidentiality, existing in Balkan Slavic, also exists in Turkish, but not in Albanian and Megleno-Romanian.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.47 (3011-3089)


Friedman (this volume) also argues that morphological, semantic, and discoursepragmatic isoglosses have different distribution of evidentiality, the distinction between meanings calqued onto existing forms and the creation of new forms to convey new content not mapping isomorphically onto the distribution of semanticpragmatic isoglosses. Moreover, the geographic distribution of evidentiality – its occurrence in urban centers with heavy concentrations of Turkish-speakers – speaks in favour of a sociolinguistically based explanation for the spread of the phenomenon.

. Concluding remarks Having discussed some of the most prominent Balkan Sprachbund properties, we have seen that not all of them are present, or present to the same degree, in all Balkan languages. Table 2 shows the representation of these properties in individual languages.56 Table 2. Representation of prominent morphosyntactic Balkan Sprachbund properties in individual languages

postpos. articles Dat/Gen merger Voc case marker locat/dir merger preposit. cases clitic doubling Dat/Gen clitic in DP subjunctives “will” future “will” future in the past “have” perfect “have” pluperf evidentials

Ma

Bu

SC

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + +

(+) + (+) (+) (+) (+) + + (+)

Ro

Ar

MR

Al

+ + + + (+) + (+) + +

+ + + + (+) +

+ + + + + +

+ + (+) + (+) +

+ + + + +

+

+ + + + + +

+ +

+ + +

MG

BR

+ (+) + (+) + + + + + + +

(+) + (+) (+) (+) + + (+)

It should be pointed out that the morphosyntactic devices representing these properties are not analogous and a given morphosyntactic device may have different functions in different languages. At the end of my survey, I would like to point out that the “list” of (prominent) Balkan Sprachbund properties is not and cannot be finalized. Thus, Hill (this volume) discusses a property that, so far, has not been “listed” as “Balkan”– the



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.48 (3089-3139)


position of the focused constituents. Empirical evidence for Hill’s analysis are Romanian and Bulgarian data that show the ordering of contrastive focus between the subject and the verb, such as (83) (Hill’s example (1)): Pavel MA¸SINA˘ a cump˘arat (nu cas˘a). Pavel car has bought.part not house b. Pavel KOLA kupi (ne k˘ašta). Pavel car bought.3sg not house ‘Pavel bought a car (not a house).’

(84) a.

Ro Bu

Hill argues that the checking conditions for Focus and Nominative Case features coincide and that they both require the presence of finite T(ense). She proposes that a syncretic [focus/tense] feature is formed at a pre-syntactic level and associates with T in syntax. Consequently, fronting to Focus in Romanian, Bulgarian, and possibly other Balkan languages, targets TP internal positions, and does not necessarily end up in the CP field.

Notes . The data are drawn from Tomić (in preparation). . Discussing language convergence on the Balkans, Civjan (1965: 9) allows for “the ideal model” to be “located not in the past but in the future.” Jeffers and Lehiste (1979: 146) see it possible “to set up a sentence model toward which the languages are converging”, and, as pointed out by Joseph (1992), Kazazis (1965) has in effect produced such a sentence model in his fragment of a transformational grammar of the Balkan languages, with “Pan-Balkan” rules that allow for language-specific lexical insertion. . Throughout the period when the Balkan Sprachbund properties were developing, Greek was most prestigious and most frequently used by speakers of the other languages in the area; yet, it is not in Greek that the number of Balkan Sprachbund properties is greatest. . Balkan Romani has not been discussed by any of these authors. Recent research, however, shows that Balkan Romani exhibits many of the properties that characterize the Balkan Sprachbund (cf. Boretzky 1996; Matras & Bakker 1997). . As pointed out by Birnbaum (1965), two or more languages can belong to the same language family as well as to the same language union. . The nation states and the ease of communication in contemporary Europe might end linguistic convergence. . The subjunctive clauses do not of necessity have verbs with morphologically distinct subjunctive forms. In many cases, they are tensed clauses with verbs with indicative morphology, introduced by morphologically distinct subjunctive complementizers. In SerboCroatian, however, the complementizer da introduces both indicative and subjunctive clauses. As pointed out by Ivić (1972), da is homophonous between an indicative complementizer and a modal one.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.49 (3139-3202)

The Balkan Sprachbund properties . Many of Sandfeld’s “concordances between different Balkan languages” are actually very general, while some of his “general concordances” are irrelevant (cf. Sobolev this volume). . Lindstedt points out that Macedonian would score full 12.0 points. . The verb in the Albanian example has a distinct desiderative form (here marked as “optative”), Albanian being the only Balkan language with morphologically distinct desiderative verb paradigms. In analogous constructions expressing mild commands, however, subjunctive forms are used. . With some exceptions, these are the most widely spoken Balkan languages. In the period when the Balkan Sprachbund features were developing, Turkish was the most widely spoken language on the Balkans. Nevertheless, the Balkan Sprachbund features are only peripherally present in it. Partly because of its non-Indo-European structure, which makes it difficult to find correspondent exponents for the phenomena exhibited in the other languages (all of them Indo-European), and partly because of its dominant social status, Turkish was an instigator for the development of the Sprachbund, more than a participant in it. . Upon the disintegration of Yugoslavia, Serbo-Croatian dissolved into Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian. The grammatical structures of the three “successors” do not, however, substantially differ from one another. I am using the term “Serbo-Croatian” when speaking of the grammatical structure of the language/languages, and “Serbian” or “Croatian”, when referring to the socio-linguistic categories “standard language” or “dialect”. Although neither standard Croatian nor standard Serbian qualify as “properly” Balkan Sprachbund languages, Serbo-Croatian is included, on account of the southeastern Serbian dialects, which indisputably belong to the Balkan Sprachbund. . In the southeastern Serbian dialects, only accusative and vocative case forms are expressed by distinct case forms. . In Bulgarian, nominalized adjectives, when used for direct reference, carry definite articles: (i)

Xajde, malkata! come on little+the.f.sg ‘Come on, my little girl!’ (lit. ‘Come on, you little one!’)

(ii) Ej k˘asokrakija! Interj short-legged+the.m.sg ‘You, the short-legged one!’

B

B

In both Bulgarian and Macedonian, adjectival modifiers occur to the right of nouns in the vocative case. . In Macedonian, also gradu. . With Modern Greek masculine personal names with other stems, as well as with all feminine personal names, the vocative case is marked negatively, through the lack of the definite article, which otherwise accompanies personal names. Lack of article also marks the vocative case with personal names in Albanian. . In the southeastern Serbian dialects, accusative case forms are actually general oblique case forms. They combine with prepositions to express any thematic relationships other than those of subject, nominal predicate or direct object.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.50 (3202-3270)

Olga Mišeska Tomić . With neuter nouns, the accusative forms of the article are equivalent to the nominative forms. . In Bulgarian, the accusative forms of the nouns are dialectal (cf. Tilkov et al. 1982– 1983: 113). In Macedonian, the nouns denoting family relationships in the accusative case have to be modified by possessive clitics (cf. 3.4 below). In the northern Macedonian dialects, which border with the southern Serbian dialects, the occurrence of accusative forms with animate nouns is regular. . In view of the fact that all Romanian prepositions void the use of the definite article, bare nouns to the right of pe may be looked upon as definite DPs with voided articles. . This does not (or at least does not always) imply that pre-existant dative or genitive forms had become extinct. The possessive clitics in Balkan Slavic and Balkan Romance never occurred in a genitive form (cf. Pancheva this volume). . Romanian feminine nouns and adjectives to the left of the dat case marker have an oblique form. . In Romanian, adjectival and nominal modifiers usually appear to the right of the noun, though in definite DPs the adjectives can alternatively precede the noun. . In Albanian, post-nominal occurrence of modifiers is the rule. . Indirect objects precede direct objects, while possessive modifiers follow their referent. . In the southern Macedonian dialects and the Northern Modern Greek dialects there is dative/accusative syncretism. In the southern Macedonian dialects, the preposition na is used not only in expressions featuring dative (indirect object) relationships, but also in expressions featuring accusative (direct object) relationships: (i)

Ja vidov na Jana. 3sg.f.acc.cl see.1sg.past to Jana ‘I saw Jana.’

Ma

In the Northern Modern Greek dialects, on the other hand, dative relationships are regularly marked by PPs with NPs in the accusative form. (ii) Edhosa sto Jorgho ta vivlia. give.1sg.aor to+the.m.sg.acc Jorghos.acc the.neut.pl books.neut ‘I gave Jorghos the books.’

MG

. There are definite postpositive articles in some southeastern Serbian dialects. For example: (i)

Najbolje se slažem s’ pomladutu mi best impers.acc.cl agree.1sg with younger+the.f.sg.acc 1sg.dat.cl ćerku. daughter.acc ‘I agree best with my younger daughter.’

SES

. In Modern Greek the definite articles inflect for gender, number and case (nominative, genitive and accusative), while in Arli Balkan Romani there are distinct nominative forms for

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.51 (3270-3346)


masculine singular, feminine singular and masculine and femininec plural, and a common oblique case form for both genders and numbers. . The articles do not attach to the modifiers of the modifiers. Thus we have (i), but not (ii) mult mushata aroshe shimie much beautiful+the.f.sg red.f.sg scarf ‘the very beautiful red scarf ’

Ar

(ii) *multa mushatã aroshe shimie much+the.f.sg beautiful.f.sg red.f.sg scarf

Ar

(i)

Demonstrative determiners, which always occur in initial or leftmost DP-position, do not host the article and, as a rule, void its occurrence with any other member of the DP. In Macedonian, Bulgarian and Megleno-Romanian, however, in emphatic environments, demonstrative determiners can precede the modifier to which the article is attached: (iii) Ovoj mojov mnogu me jadosa. this my+the.m.sg.prox much 3sg.m.acc.cl distress.3sg.past ‘This husband/son of mine distressed me a lot.’

Ma

(iv) Do-nj-u ¸tela micu porc! give.2sg.imper+1sg.dat.cl-3sg.f.acc.cl that.m.sg small+the.m.sg pig ‘Give me that SMALL pig!’

MR

. In Romanian, in DPs with two or more pre-nominal adjectives, which have to be conjoined, the article appears on every adjective. . Prenominal modifiers occur only in emphatic environments, such as the one in (20e2 ). . In Balkan Slavic, Balkan Romance and Albanian, there are dative pronominal clitic forms that also function as genitive forms, while in Modern Greek there are genitive pronominal clitic forms that also function as dative forms. . The arrows denote directionality of cliticization. The capital letters mark the stressed syllables. . In Serbo-Croatian and Arli Balkan Romani the negation operator forms a single phonological word with the verb, to which and the pronominal clitics encliticize, whereas in Macedonian the pronominal clitics form a single antepenultimately stressed phonological word with the negation operator and the verb. . Whereas in Bulgarian the clitics form a single phonological word with the negation operator in Megleno-Romanian, Aromanian and the Northwestern Macedonian dialects they encliticize to it. Note that, in Romanian, the negation operator appears to the left of a verb with imperative morphology only when separated from it by pronominal clitics. To express prohibition in clauses without clitics, negated subjunctive constructions or infinitives are used. . In Albanian only a limited number of verbs (verbs of the first conjugation, such as shoh ‘see’, shkoj ‘go’, tregoj ‘say’) have imperative morphology. The existence of the modal negation operator makes it possible to express prohibition by simply placing the modal negation marker to the left of verbs with indicative morpholgy:



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.52 (3346-3410)


(i)

Mos e hapni derën! not.mod 3sg.acc.cl open.2pl door+the.acc ‘Don’t (you) open the door!’

Al

. Like Albanian, Modern Greek has a modal negation operator (min), distinct from the indicative negation operator (dhen). . The doubling of indefinite direct objects is not accepted by all speakers. . Human DPs with definite articles are, as a rule, not clitic-doubled, even though they are most often specific: (i)

*L-am v˘azut profesorul. 3sg.acc.cl-have.1sg seen professor+the.m.sg ‘I saw/have seen the professor.’

Ro

. In some cases, highly emphasized Arli lexical objects can also be clitic-doubled. Example: (i)

I Merita DENGJA le o lil jekhe ˇchaveske! ABR the.f.sg.nom Merita gave.3sg 3sg.m.acc.cl the.m.sg book a.obl man.dat ‘Merita did give the book to a man!’

. With Albanian verbs in the present tense, the medio-passive forms of the verb are used. . The relationships which in Balkan Slavic and Balkan Romance are expressed by reflexive/impersonal clitics are in Modern Greek always rendered by medio-passive forms of the verb. . Note that in this sentence a DP possessive clitic cooccurs with a possesively interpreted clausal clitic. . In this sentence the possessive pronominal clitic cooccurs with a clausal dative pronominal clitic. . In this case, the agreement clitic occurs to the immediate left of the noun. . The occurrence of clausal genitive clitics with possessive interpretation is not possible in all environments. . “Geg” has an alternative spalling – “Gheg”. “Geg” is the spelling used by native speakers of the dialect and linguists who work with Albanian. . As a personal verb, the Albanian verb mund ‘can/may’ appears only in the aorist or a perfect tense. The Arli Balkan Romani verb šaj ‘can/may’, on the other hand, can never be personal. . The main verbs are, as a rule, equivalents of verbs such as look for or find, which can go under the general name of verbs of quest. . In constructions with infinitives, when the subject is dropped, the “will”-clitic encliticises to the infinitive. . In addition to these future tenses, there are in Romanian (a) a formal future tense (used only in the third person singular), in which the subjunctive construction is preceded by

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.53 (3410-3489)


voi ‘will.3sg’ and (b) an intentional future tense, in which the subjunctive construction is preceded by forms of avea ‘have’. . Albanian grammars actually label the evidential forms “admirative”. . It is noteworthy that, while in Balkan Slavic the evidential constructions always have some sort of past reference, even when the apparent meaning is present, the Albanian evidential system has a true present. Mark the difference between the reading of (79a) and (79b). Note also that, while the Slavic evidential forms are used only in declarative sentences, the Albanian admirative is used in questions as well (cf. Friedman this volume): (i)

Ku qenka mjeshtri? where be.3sg.evid boss+the.m.sg ‘Where is the boss?’

Al

The Albanian admirative is, however, never used in narratives. . In the Farsheriot Aromanian dialect spoken in the village Gorna Belica in southwestern Macedonia, there are evidential forms constructed in analogy to the formation of the Albanian evidential forms – by adding a suffix to a masculine plural participial base. The suffix is borrowed from Albanian – it actually is the third person singular present tense form of the Albanian auxiliary kam ‘have’, ca. . Dimitriu (1979: 269–271) treats the “will/would” plus fi plus present participle constructions as present presumptive and the “will”/”would” plus fi plus past participle constructions as past presumptive constructions. Yet, evidential-like uses of similar modal constructions in Western Romance (cf. Squartini 2001) can be adduced as an argument against the independent status of these constructions. . The bracketed pluses denote partial representation, i.e. representation in some dialects or with some case relationships.

References Andrejˇcin, Lj. (1978). Osnovna b˘algarska gramatika. Sofia: Nauka i iskustvo. Bojadžiev, T., I. Kucarov, & J. Penˇcev (1999). S˘avremenen b˘algarski ezik. Sofija: Pet˘ar Beron. Avram, L. & M. Coene (2001). “Genitive/dative clitics as last resort”. University of Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers from 3rd Conference on Formal Approaches to South Slavic and Balkan Languages. 157–169. Birnbaum, H. (1968). “Slavjanskie jazyki na Balkanax i ponjatije tak nazyvajemyh jazykovyh sojuzov” [The Slavic languages on the Balkans and the notion of the so-called language unions]. Glossa, 2(1), 70–92. Boretzky, N. (1996). “Arli. Materialien zu einen südbalkanischen Romani-Dialect.” Grazer Linguistische Studien 46 (Herbst 1996). 1–30. Bošković, Ž. (2001). On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface: Cliticization and Related Phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Bošković, Ž. (2002). “Clitics as non-branching elements and the Linear Correspondence Axiom.” Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 329–340.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59



F: LA6701.tex / p.54 (3489-3589)


Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. & H. Lasnik (1992). “The principles and parameters theory”. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, & T. Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax: ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 506–569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Civjan, T. V. (1979). Sintaktiˇceskaja struktura balkanskogo jazykovogo sojuza [The Syntactic Structure of the Balkan Language Union]. Moskva. Dimitriu, C. (1979). Gramatica limbii române explicat˘a. [Explanatory Grammar of the Romanian Language]. Ia¸si: Junimea. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (2000). “(In)Definiteness spread: From Romanian genitives to Hebrew construct state nominals”. In V. Motopanyane (Ed.), Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, 177–226. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Franks, S. (1998). “Clitics in Slavic.” Position paper presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, Spencer, Indiana, June 1998. Goła˛b, Z. (1984). The Arumanian dialect of Kruševo in SR Macedonia, SFR Yugoslavia. Skopje: Macedonian academy of Sciences and Arts. Grosu A. (1994). Three Studies in Locality and Case. London and New York: Routledge. Grosu, A. & F. Landman (1998). “Strange relatives of the third kind”. Natural Language Semantics, 6(2), 125–170. Halpern, A. L. (1992). “Topics in the placement and morphology of clitics.” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. Inkelas, S. (1989). “Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon”. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. Ivić, M. (1970). “O upotrebi glagolskih vremena u zavisnoj reˇcenici: prezent u reˇcenici s veznikom da” [On the use of the tenses in dependent clauses: Present tense with da complements]. Zbornik Matice Srpske, XIII(1), 43–54. Izvorski, R. (1998). “Non-indicative wh-complements of existential/possessive predicates”. In P. N. Tamanji & K. Kusumoto (Eds.), NELS, 28, 159–173. Jeffers, R. & I. Lehiste (1979). Principles and Methods for Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Joseph, B. (1992). “Balkan languages.” In W. Bright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. 1, 153–155. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kazazis, K. (1966). “On a generative grammar of the Balkan languages.” Actes du premier congrès international des études balkaniques et sud-est européennes. Vol. 4: Linguistique. Sofija: BAN. 823–828. Kolliakou, D. (1995). “Definites and Possessives in Modern Greek: An HPSG Syntax for Noun Phrases.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh. Kopitar, J. (1829). “Albanische, walachische und bulgarische Sprache.” Jahrbücher der Literatur, Band 46. Wien. 59–106. Lindstedt, J. (2000). “Linguistic Balkanization: Contact-induced change by mutual reinforcement.” In D. Gilbers, J. Nerbonne, & J. Schaeken (Eds.), Languages in Contact, 231–246. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Manolessou, I. (2000). “Greek Noun Phrase Structure: A Study in syntactic Evoution.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59

F: LA6701.tex / p.55 (3589-3684)


Matras, Y. & P. Bakker (1997). The Typology and Dialectology of Romani. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Miklosich, F. (1861). “Die slavischen Elemente im Rumänischen.” Denkschriften der Wiener Akad. Phil.-hist. Cl. Vol. 12. Miyoshi, N. (2002). “Negative imperatives and PF merger.” Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs. Ortmann, A. & A. Popescu (2000). “Romanian definite articles are not clitics.” In B. Gerlach & J. Grijzenhout (Eds.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Sandfeld, K. (1926/1930). Balkanfilologien. University of Copenhagen, 1926. [Translated into French under the title Linguistique balkanique: problèmes et résultats. Paris: Champion, 1930]. Schaller, H. W. (1975). Die Balkansprachen. Eine Einführung in die Balkanphilologie. Heidelberg. Sobolev, A. N. (Ed.). (2003). Malyj dialektologiˇceskij atlas balkanskih jazykov. [Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages. Initial volume]. Marburg: Biblion. Solta, G. R. (1980). Einführung in die Balkanliguistik mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Substrats und des Balkanlateinischen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Squartini, M. (2001). “The internal structure of evidentiality in Romance.” Studies in Language, 25, 297–334. Stateva, P. (2002). “Possessive clitics and the structure of nominal expressions.” Lingua, 112(8), 648–690. Tilkov, D. et al. (Eds.). (1982–1983). Gramatika na s˘avremennija b˘algarski knižoven ezik v tri toma [Grammar of the Contemporary Bulgarian Literary Language in Three Volumes]. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na b˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Tomić, O. Mišeska (1988). “Language contact, language system and language code.” In M. Radovanović (Ed.), Yugoslav General Linguistics, 361–381. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tomic, O. Mišeska (1996). “The Balkan Slavic clausal clitics.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 811–872. Tomic, O. Mišeska (1997). ‘Non-first as a default clitic position.’ Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 5(2), 1–23. Tomic, O. Mišeska (2001). “The Macedonian negation operator and cliticization.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19, 647–682. Tomic, O. Mišeska (2004). “The syntax of the Balkan Slavic future tenses.” Lingua, Vol. 114, 517–542, Issue 4 (April 2004). Tomić, O. Mišeska (in preparation). The Balkan Sprachbund Morphosyntactic Features. University of Leiden. Trubetzkoy, N. (1928). “Proposition 6”. Actes du premier congrès international des linguistes. Leiden. Weigand, G. (1928). “Texte zur vergleichenden Syntax der Balkansprachen.” Balkan Archiv, IV, 53–70.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:5/03/2004; 15:09

F: LA67P1.tex / p.1 (26-50)

Spread of the Balkan Sprachbund morpho-syntactic properties

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.1 (41-109)

On the areal distribution of syntactic properties in the languages of the Balkans Andrej N. Sobolev Russian Academy of Science (St. Petersburg) / University of Marburg

Having stated the need for studying the Balkan Sprachbund properties in individual dialects, the author analyses the areal distribution of 65 properties, partly mapped on 17 maps drawn by the team of the project “Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages”. These properties belong to the following sub-domains of syntax: (1) article omission in prepositional phrases; (2) use of the reflexive possessive pronoun; (3) case of the subject in impersonal clauses of state; (4) predicative use of passive participles of intransitive verbs; (5) future in the past: form and function; (6) use of verbal nouns or infinitives as objects of modal verbs; (7) government of some “special” verbs and adjectives; (8) substantive forms in the numeral phrase; (9) word order in the noun phrase; (10) clitic order; (11) possessive clauses with spatial prepositions; (12) negative interrogatives; (13) government of predicative demonstrative particles. The analysis suggests that the idea of the existence of common Balkan linguistic type should be rejected, while the set of “typical Balkan features” should be relativized.

.

The goal of Balkan linguistics

Balkan linguistics has existed as an independent linguistic discipline for over 70 years, but has no generally recognized target of investigation. The numerous definitions of the field, which vary from author to author, could be reduced to two main types: a broad and a narrow type. The broad definitions see “the investigation of the common features and similarities in the development of the Balkan languages” (Neroznak 1990: 62), or “the investigation of the mutual influences” between these languages (Andriotis & Kourmoulis 1966: 21) as the goal of Balkan linguistics. Such definitions reflect traditional views – those of Petar Skok and Milan Budimir in the early 1930’s – and do not portray the Balkan language situation. The approach they advocate leads to lists of similarities and parallels between the Balkan languages,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.2 (109-171)

Andrej N. Sobolev

the perfect model of which is the list of Kristian Sandfeld (1930), which crowns the first stage in the development of Balkan linguistics (Schaller 1975: 45). A number of scholars have criticized this approach. Thus, Klaus Steinke (1976a: 87) points out: Die noch stark positivistischen Züge der gegenwärtigen Forschung, wie sie sich besonders im zusammenhanglosen Zusammentragen von isolierten Fakten äußern.1

Even Sandfeld himself was aware of the disadvantages of his methodology, when he wrote that, as concerns the non-lexical Balkan parallels, one must content oneself “with simple attestation of the facts” (Sandfeld 1930: 101). Most writers seek to limit the set of Balkan linguistic features with which they work, feeling that this is the only way to avoid the mechanical listing of all possible correspondences. As a result of this, very narrow definitions of what Balkan linguistics is have been proposed, such as: Es muß unterstrichen werden, daß sich die Balkanlinguistik im eigentlichen Sinn mit den Balkansprachen nur insofern befaßt, als sie alle oder mehrere von ihnen gemeinsame Züge aufweisen.2 (Gallis 1969: 38–39)

Beside the widespread occurrence of a particular feature in all or several Balkan languages, its “typological, and not inherited character” is recognized as extremely important. The coincidence of the two criteria leads to the recognition of such features as “Balkanisms”: Diese Balkanismen in ihrer heutigen Form und Verwendung, ferner Zeitpunkt und Ursache ihrer Entstehung zu erforschen, sind die Hauptaufgaben einer wissenschaftlich ausgerichteten Balkanphilologie.3 (Schaller 1975: 36)

Furthermore, Balkanisms can be viewed as features of the so-called Balkan Sprachbund. This leads to narrow definitions of the goals of the whole discipline: “Balkan linguistics aims above all to describe the substantial features of the Balkan Sprachbund” (Duridanov 1977: 21). Searching for the most adequate way of describing the Balkan language situation, one should, however, pay attention to irregularities, idiosyncrasies and modes of development. In 1861 Franz Miklosich published “an overview of the most remarkable common features of Rumanian, Bulgarian, Albanian and Greek” (Sandfeld 1930: 12), which included formation of the future verb forms with the “will/want” auxiliary, absence of the infinitive, merger of dative and genitive case forms, the schwa phoneme and some other elements (cf. Popov 1984: 24). The main problem, which Miklosich left for future generations of Balkan linguists, was the definition of principles according to which one can separate “the most remarkable, most important” features from the “less important” ones, i.e. the Balkanisms from the

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.3 (171-244)

On the areal distribution of syntactic properties

non-Balkanisms (Steinke 1976b: 28–29). There is also the question whether there are other features, in addition to those mentioned by Miklosich, which can be regarded as “Balkanisms”. In Part 3 of his monograph, Sandfeld examined an extremely wide range of linguistic parallels in vocabulary, phraseology and syntax, which are restricted to two Balkan languages. These parallels are, however, often common to more than two Balkan languages. 1. Verbal nouns modified by the numeral one or by prepositional phrases with verbal nouns, rather than by temporal subordinate clauses, as in the Macedonian phrase (1), but also encountered in Aromanian, Albanian and Greek (Sandfeld 1930: 122–124). (1) Nije edno vlegvenje. . . we one entering ‘On entering. . . ’

Dialectal Macedonian

2. Absence of partitive forms in quantitative constructions, as in the Bulgarian phrase (2), but also encountered in Albanian, Greek and Aromanian (Sandfeld 1930: 109–110).4 (2) stado ofci flock sheep ‘a flock of sheep’

Bulgarian

3. A particular use of the reflexives in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Albanian and Romanian (Sandfeld 1930: 151, 158). (3) Jade mi se. eat.3sg 1sg.dat.cl refl.acc.cl ‘I feel like eating.’

Bulgarian

4. Slavic phrases of the type exemplified by the Russian phrase (4), but also attested in Romanian and Albanian (Sandfeld 1930: 158). (4) Nastasja zolotaja kosa Nastasja golden.f.sg hair ‘Nastasja with golden hair’

Russian

The following statement is found in Sandfeld’s monograph: Dans plusieurs cas les traits communs au roumain et à l’albanais se trouvent aussi en bulgare.5 (Sandfeld 1930: 137)



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.4 (244-307)

Andrej N. Sobolev

Nevertheless, Sandfeld starts Part 4 of his book, which is devoted to Miklosich’s list of the Balkan features that are recognized as most important, with a very telling remark: Bien que quelques-unes des particularités mentionnées au chapitre précédent aient obtenu une extension relativement grande sur l’aire des langues balkaniques, il faudra les séparer de la série de traits communs importants qu’on est habitué à regarder comme spécifiquement “balkaniques” et qui plus qu’aucune autre chose donnent à ces langues un air d’unité.6 (Sandfeld 1930: 163)

It must be emphasized that the only arguments for this approach are “the importance” of these features (Sandfeld 1930: 12), on the one hand, and Sandfeld’s desire to remain inside the context of Miklosich’s tradition, on the other. The second consideration alone is sufficient for him to declare a feature such as the absence of the ubi - quo-distinction to be an important Balkanism.

. Critics of the concepts Balkanism and Balkan Sprachbund Agnija Desnickaja (1979) notes a principal defect of the contemporary Balkan Sprachbund theory, viz. that it was constructed by using the tautological definitions “of the Balkan languages as languages which possess Balkanisms”, and “the Balkanisms as features possessed by Balkan languages” (Desnickaja 1979: 121). Uwe Hinrichs suggested “to abolish or at least to qualify the terms ‘Balkanism’ and ‘Balkansprachbund”’, because their use inevitably results in aporia (Hinrichs 1990: 59, 57). Both concepts were rejected by many Slavists and Balkanists (G˘al˘abov 1977; Reiter 1983: 162; Reiter 1994: 1–51). The main objections against the theory of the Balkan Sprachbund and the notion of Balkanism are the following: 1) Balkanisms are not unique; 2) their distribution in the Balkan languages is not uniform; 3) their linguistic status varies; 4) the Balkan languages do not represent a unified language type. Already Sandfeld showed clearly that some Balkan language parallels extend beyond the geographical boundaries of the peninsula. Most Balkanisms that are commonly discussed (postpositive article, object reduplication, analytic future forms with the “will/want” auxiliary, analytic comparative form, some lexical items) are present also in some non-Balkan languages, particularly in the Baltic, Slavic, Romance, Germanic (Scandinavian and German), and Finno-Ugric (Hungarian) languages (Schaller 1977). This allows for the possibility of their independent development within the grammatical system of every individual Balkan language. On the other hand, the non-unique character of individual Balkanisms does not contradict the possible uniqueness of their combination, which is the case in the Balkan languages.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.5 (307-364)


Miklosich and Sandfeld drew attention to a large number of features not found in all the Balkan languages. As a result of this, different degrees of Balkanization were established, and the question of membership in the Balkan Sprachbund arose. Popov (1984) and Steinke (1976b: 24) asked whether Serbo-Croatian and Greek, respectively, really belonged to the group. Already in 1966, Kazazis pointed out that “the number of common features [“Balkanisms”] shared by all the Balkan languages is relatively small.” According to Kazazis (1966: 823), “all-embracing Balkanisms are exception rather than the rule.” In a proposal to make an inner subdivision of the Balkan Sprachbund, Schaller distinguishes between a) Balkan languages of “first degree” “core languages” of the Balkan Sprachbund, or the historical starting point of the Balkanisms (Albanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Romanian), and b) Balkan languages of “second degree” or “marginal languages” (Greek and Serbo-Croat (Schaller 1975: 103; 1977: 46–48, 51). The next problem was the question of the unequal status of certain Balkanisms in different Balkan languages. In 1936, Aleksandar Belić pointed out the differences in the linguistic nature of these features, which were combined in each language with different local features and thus played different systemic roles. As a matter of fact, every Balkan language preserves its specific nature (Georgiev 1966: 8–91) and one must recognize the non-similarity of the Balkan languages (Civjan 1979). Norbert Reiter criticized the theory of the Balkan Sprachbund, since its application leads to an arbitrary delimitation of the language material: Alles ist wichtig, nicht nur die Handvoll disparater Erscheinungen, die traditionsgemäß immer wieder aufgetischt werden und mit dem Etikett “Balkanismen” versehen worden sind; nicht minder wichtig ist auch das Nichtvorhandensein, also die Differenzen.7 (Reiter 1994: 29)

Agnija Desnickaja described the Balkanisms as “non-unique and not connected to each other” (Desnickaja 1990: 41), and Tatiana Civjan doubted if they represented any kind of system (Civjan 1979: 21–31). The Balkan languages do not represent any uniform linguistic type. Skaliˇcka reached this conclusion already in 1968, after investigating the Balkan linguistic features in the system of every single Balkan language. Moreover, as pointed out by Saramandu (1986: 39–41), no single Balkan language represents any pure linguistic type. “In spite of a large body of research, no internal connection between the typological features examined could be discovered.” (Saramandu 1986: 41). This statement contradicts the well-known and often repeated thesis of Bartholomeus Kopitar (1829) that in the Balkan languages “only one linguistic form exists” (cf. Schaller 1975: 38), mirrored in Sandfeld’s (1930: 7) statement that “[the Balkan] languages are animated by a common spirit” or in Birnbaum’s (1983: 41) statement that “the Balkan languages have contributed to the creation



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.6 (364-416)

Andrej N. Sobolev

of a specific language type.” It should be noted, however, that most Balkan linguists have never attempted to describe the postulated Balkan language type from a purely typological point of view. The following assertion by Klaus Steinke (1983: 221) is quite clear: “The Balkan linguists do not care as much for the universality of given features as they care for their exclusiveness.” In this way, the so-called “typological descriptions” of the Balkan languages ends by listing already well-known Balkanisms. A further disadvantage of the modern Balkan Sprachbund theory lies in the fact that it concentrates predominantly on morphology. For example, Petja Asenova’s and Birnbaum’s hierarchies of the Balkan features are based on the assumption that “the morphological Balkanisms are ranked first since they are “diagnostic” for recognition or non-recognition of a [language community] as a Sprachbund” (Asenova 1989: 233). The relevance of the syntactic features varies in these conceptions, depending upon their proximity to the morphological level (Asenova 1989: 234; Birnbaum 1983: 46). The classical definition of the term “Sprachbund” by Nikolaj Trubeckoj (1928) does not contain such a distinction between the morphological (“first-ranked”, “diagnostic”) features on the one hand, and the syntactic features, on the other. The lack of interest in syntax was present already many years before the theoretical “reasons” for it were introduced. The number of “syntactic Balkanisms” described in Schaller’s (1975: 161) monograph, is reduced to four, while the number of inter-Balkan syntactic parallels found by Sandfeld amounts to over one hundred.

. Between the normal Slavic type and the standard average European type Balkan linguistics was born in the framework of Slavic linguistics; the first Balkan linguists, Kopitar and Miklosich, were slavists (Asenova 1983: 27–28). This can be explained by the fact that the specific traits of the Balkan languages are evident even against the background of the non-Balkan Slavic type (Asenova 1989: 5). As representatives of the so-called “Normal Slavic” language type, one might chose Russian or the Serbo-Croatian standard Štokavština, both of which are clearly different from the so-called “Balkan language type” (Bulgarian, Macedonian, Albanian, Rumanian and also Greek). The comparison of the grammatical structures of the two types shows that the Balkan type has the same inventory of parts of speech, but a different set of grammatical markers and a very special inventory of paradigms and subparadigms used to express corresponding meanings. The following features can be regarded as the main characteristics of the Balkan type: 1) presence of the grammatical category of definiteness and of the definite article; 2) simplification of the case system; 3) adjectival comparative forms

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.7 (416-475)


with prefixes and the possibility of comparative degree for nouns and verbs; 4) absence of the infinitive form; 5) only one participial verbal form for both simultaneity and anteriority; 6) presence of specialized verbal forms to express unattested information; 7) analytic verb forms and subparadigms with the auxiliary “(to) have”; 8) the so-called “conditional mood” of the Balkan type; 9) object reduplication with pronominal forms; 10) initial position of pronominal and verbal clitics (Piper 1992: 47). On the other hand, the comparative study of the syntax of the Slavic languages by Roman Mrazek (1990) shows clearly that the syntactic profile of the “normal” Slavic sentence, in comparison to the standard average European sentence, is characterized by the following features: 1) asymmetry of predication; 2) absence of formal subject in impersonal constructions; 3) free word order; 4) compound negation. If we choose Russian as representative of the “normal” Slavic type, German as representative of the “standard average” European type, and Albanian as a representative of the “Balkan type”, we get the following distribution of the above mentioned characteristics: 1. The asymmetry of predication represented in Russian through the use of an oblique case (not a nominative) in the sentential subject, is attested only in the “normal” Slavic type and not in the other two types. Compare the Russian sentence in (5) to its Albanian and German counterparts: (5) a.

Jego tam ne bylo. him.acc there not been.neut.sg b. Ai nuk ishte atje. he not was there c. Er war nicht da. he was not there ‘He was not there.’

Russian Albanian German

2. The asymmetry of predication represented in Russian through absence of grammatical concordance between the subject and the predicate, is also characteristic only for the normal Slavic type. (6) a.

On byl uˇciteljem. he been.m.sg teacher.instr b. Ai ishte mësues. he was teacher.nom c. Er war Lehrer. he was teacher.nom ‘He was a teacher.’




JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.8 (475-564)

Andrej N. Sobolev

3. Absence of a formal subject in true impersonal constructions is characteristic of the normal Slavic and the Balkan language type. (7) a.

Uže temnjejet. already darken.3sg b. Po erret tashmë. Part darken.3sg.m-p already c. Es dunkelt schon. it darken.3sg already ‘It is already getting dark.’


4. Relatively free word order also separates the “normal” Slavic and the Balkan type from the “standard average” European type. (8) a.

Ženšˇcina vošla v komnatu. woman entered.f.sg in room.acc ‘A woman entered into the room.’ b. Vošla ženšˇcina i zakryla dver’. entered.f.sg woman and closed.f.sg door ‘A woman entered and closed the door.’

Russian

Russian

Albanian Një grua hyri në dhomë. a woman enter.3sg.aor in room ‘A woman entered into the room.’ Albanian b. Hyri një grua dhe e mbylli enter.3sg.aor a woman and 3sg.acc.cl close.3sg.aor derën. door+the.f.sg ‘A woman entered and closed the door.’ (10) a. Eine Frau kam ins Zimmer herein. German a woman came.3sg in+the.neut.sg Room inside ‘A woman entered into the room.’ German b. *Kam eine Frau und schloß die Tür. came.3sg a woman and closed.3sg the.f.sg door (9) a.

5. Compound negation again combines the normal Slavic and the Balkan type. (11) a.

Nikto ne prišol. nobody not come.m.sg b. Askush s’ erdhi. nobody not come.3sg.aor c. Niemand kam. nobody come.3sg.past ‘Nobody came.’


JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.9 (564-610)


One must therefore take into consideration the view of Tatiana Civjan, according to whom the Balkan type should not be represented only as a list of exclusive Balkanisms, but also as a “combination of elements, a great portion of which is trivial, but which through their dynamic equilibrium represent something qualitatively different, characteristic only for the Balkan language union.” (Civjan 1979: 8). One might refer to the Balkan language type as a mediator between the standard European language type and the normal Slavic type. Hence, Balkanists should not compare selected Balkanisms, but rather entire language systems or parts of them within the framework of entire systems.

. Standard Language versus dialect Language as an object of linguistic investigation appears a) in its normative standard form or b) as a diasystem of regional and social dialects. The question whether a) or b) should be selected as an object of balkanological investigation has been intensively discussed. In these discussions, Civjan’s statement that “the normative grammar is an extract of the language”, containing “possibilities for a transition towards the realities of the living language”, and accordingly, standard languages are “the most suitable objects of investigation” (Civjan 1979: 8) remained isolated. All other Balkan linguists have been in favour of non-standard forms. Preference for non-standard forms was implied already in Sandfeld’s monograph, where texts from the Balkan dialects were used as the source. Since the 1950’s, the advantages of Balkan dialectology have been emphasized by many scholars. (cf. Ivić 1958, 2001; Sedlaˇcek 1966: 338–339; Andriotis & Kourmoulis 1966: 29; Koneski et al. 1966; Schaller 1975: 46; Birnbaum 1983: 45; Steinke 1984, 1991, 2001; Neroznak 1990: 62; Hinrichs 1990: 45; Reiter 1994: 35). One can interpret the dialect data from an areal standpoint (Kazazis 1966: 827). The idea of Birnbaum and Gallis that the problem of the geographical boundaries of Balkanisms can only be solved if dialect data are taken into consideration (Birnbaum 1968; Gallis 1969: 48) was tested in the areal studies of Gennadij Cyhun (1981) and his followers (Sobolev 1988). The use of dialect data was discussed in detail from a theoretical standpoint by Maksim Mladenov and Klaus Steinke (1978), who argued that, if dialect data are not considered, any attempt of any balkanological investigation would be doomed from the start. According to Mladenov and Steinke (1978: 69, 73, 74, 82) the use of dialect data makes it possible: 1) to deepen the crucial questions of our science and to improve the proposals for their solution, giving more reliable and precise responses; 2) to improve the homogeneous picture, suggested by the standard languages by finding new Balkanisms. In particular, the study of structural variants and their frequency in the dialects allows



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.10 (610-672)

Andrej N. Sobolev

us to reconstruct the different developmental stages of a Balkanism, which can lead to tracing its diffusion and sometimes even its origin. Recent studies in Balkan linguistics have led to the awareness that many features of the Balkan standard languages are unfit for balkanological research, because they are not homogeneous, representative, or “de-balkanized”. According to Victor Friedman (1991: 37), each Balkan standard language is realised in reality as a variety of different subsystems, based on the mother dialect of each speaker. This is especially clear in the case of standard Albanian, where, to quote Friedman (1983: 97): The problem of the relationship of literary and dialectal Geg and Tosk substrata to the modern standard is crucial in a description of Standard Albanian, and yet the fluctuating state of usage and normative prescription at the present stage of development makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define this relationship, except in terms of general or even temporary tendencies.

According to Civjan (1979: 8), the standard Balkan languages are not stable in principle, since they represent a conglomerate of variants, so that either the prescriptive standard norm remains extremely schematic, or a large number of variants are possible. Mladenov and Steinke (1978: 69) point out another failure of the Balkan standards: Es sich hier doch gewöhnlich um eine normative Regelung handelt, welche nur mit einem Teil der Dialekte kongruent geht, aber im Prozeß der Standartisierung der Sprache verallgemeinert wird und so leicht eine Überregionalität vortäuscht, die in Wirklichkeit nur auf den schriftlichen Bereich beschränkt ist.8

None of the Balkan standard languages has all the Balkanisms that can be found in ´ the local dialects (Topolinska 1991: 102; Asenova 1989: 14). Moreover, the selection of the standard form as an object of investigation excludes those languages of the Balkans whose standard is based on linguistically non-balkanized dialects, such as, for instance, Serbian. As noticed by Simeonov (1977: 53–54), the creation of the standard Balkan languages put an end to active Balkan multilingualism and marked the start of divergent developments, which also explains nationalist hostilities. As a result of “linguistic patriotism”, some common features, developed in mutual contact were abolished, and strong de-balkanizing normative tendencies showed up (Asenova 1977: 29–30; 1989: 14). In my opinion, it is necessary to select the Balkan dialects as the object of Balkan linguistics, because the Balkan language community itself developed precisely on the dialect level, as a result of centuries-long language and ethnic contact. It is impossible to refer to any collective bilingualism at the level of the standard languages. The problem of the Balkan Sprachbund is therefore “a problem of mutual influences of colloquial languages” (Širokov 1966: 92; Asenova 1977: 29).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.11 (672-728)


The theoretical demand to examine the Balkan Sprachbund at dialectal level is, however, not considered in most Balkanological publications. The reality is just the opposite – it is the features of the standard languages that are analysed, and inter-Balkan language parallels are synthesized on the basis of them. The questions of dialectal syntax have been especially insufficiently considered in modern Balkan studies, above all because only a few full syntactic monographs of particular dialects are available. Recently, the pioneering study of Zuzanna ´ Topolinska of the syntax of the South-Macedonian dialects in Northern Greece ´ (Topolinska 1995) was followed by my “Bulgarian dialect of Široka L˘aka” (Sobolev 2001) and by the monographs “The Albanian Tosk Dialect of Leshnja (Kraina Skrapar)” (Ylli & Sobolev 2002) and “The Albanian Geg Dialect of Muhurr (Kraina Dibër)” (Ylli & Sobolev 2003), by Xhelal Ylli and myself. It seems very important to enrich Balkan studies with the areal component, comparing data from a number of different dialects. What modern Balkanology needs is an optimal number of maximally deep descriptions of Balkan dialects, which will constitute a representative corpus of balkanologically relevant data. This goal can only be attained by the integration of Balkan studies with dialectology, and by the creation of a Balkan language atlas.

. The Balkan Language Atlas . History of the project The need for a Balkan Language Atlas (BLA) was first expressed in 1935 by Petar Skok and Milan Budimir in the Belgrade-based “Revue international des études balkaniques” (Andriotis & Kourmoulis 1966: 30; Asenova 1983: 30). Work on the Atlas started in the post World War Two period (Deanović 1961, 1962; Holiolˇcev et al. 1977: 65; Petkanov 1977). One gets the impression that the idea of the BLA did not meet any opponents: There is a general consensus that two of the most important goals for Balkan linguistics, whether seen as remedies for a perceived “crisis” or “stagnation” in the field or as the next natural step in the maturation of the discipline, are the Balkan linguistic atlas . . . and a Balkan comparative grammar. (Friedman 1983: 81)

The following statement by Holiolˇcev, Kostov and Mladenov (1977: 65) met no opposition, either: Auf Grund sprachgeographischer Angaben lassen sich viele unbekannte sprachliche Eigentümlichkeiten feststellen, ungenaue Aussagen korrigieren und hypothetische Vorstellungen in der noch unvollständigen Charakteristik des Balkan



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.12 (728-797)

Andrej N. Sobolev

Sprachbundes überprüfen bzw. bestätigen. Die Sprachgeographie ist zu einer grundlegenden Forschungsmethode geworden, die sowohl für die Lexikologie und Etymologie der Balkansprachen als auch für ihre grammatischen Besonderheiten, Ähnlichkeiten und Übereinstimmungen neue Erkenntnisse liefern kann.9

Norbert Reiter (1994: 41) maintains that even a quite modest Balkan linguistic atlas is an indisputable desideratum. Although the need for a BLA has been recognized and theoretically and methodologically developed, and in spite of the awareness of the danger that the Balkan dialects would disappear under the influence of the standards and as a result of the migration of the peasants into the cities, none of the suggested projects has overcome the practical problems (Mladenov & Steinke 1978: 72). According to Holiolˇcev, Kostov and Mladenov (1977: 66), the Linguistic Atlas of the Balkan area aims to search for the common features of the Balkan languages and unify the neighbouring languages which are not [genetically] related. Mirko Deanović (1962: 1) comes up with similar aims: Mittels geographischer Karten könnten die wesentlichen gemeinsamen Kennzeichen der verschiedenartigen Sprachen, die auf dieser Halbinsel seit langer Zeit in Symbiose zusammenleben, synoptisch dargestellt werden, mit dem Ziele, die Vorgänge der gegenseitigen Annäherung dieser Sprachen darzustellen.10

All the early BLA projects were linked to the theory of the Balkan Sprachbund (Schaller 1975: 200), and attempted to examine only a handful of the Sprachbundforming inter-Balkan parallels through areal methods. Deanović (1962: 1) doubted whether “new positive results could be produced through this method.” But the sharpest critique came recently from Norbert Reiter (1994: 42): Karten nach den klassischen und eigentlich ihrer Auffälligkeit wegen ausgewählten “Balkanismen” zu zeichnen, bringt in zweierlei Hinsicht nichts ein, einmal, weil sie vieles unberücksichtigt lassen, was sich als ungemein wichtig herausstellen kann, dann aber auch, weil sie, der Natur der Sache folgend, großräumig ausfallen.11

In my opinion, the principal theoretical defect of the early BLA projects was that the authors intended to chart the similarities, although the theoretical basis of a language geography is built on the concept of language (primarily dialectal) differentiation (Sobolev 2001a). The similarities as such do not need to be represented cartographically, as they are only relevant for dialectal classification in combinations with the differences (Sobolev 2001c). The early projects incorporated a search for differences “outside of the Balkans”, thus leading to the non-solvable question of geographical boundaries of the Balkanisms.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.13 (797-848)


. The Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages The project “Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages” (SDABL) aims to present the spatial distribution of the fundamental grammatical and lexical features of representative Balkan dialects south of the Danube (Domosileckaja et al. 1998; Sobolev 2001d). Each feature that was investigated is understood as a link in the framework of a corresponding dialectal system that allows for comparison and mapping. The use of the geolinguistic method and the mapping of grammatical and lexical features makes it possible to single out the main linguistic sub-areas of the Balkan Peninsula, and leads to dialectological studies of convergent language communities (in this case in the Balkan area) – a completely new academic undertaking. Although we see all the advantages of a dense network of points, for practical reasons we are forced to pick out an optimal number of “representative dialects” for each Balkan language (cf. König 1982). This permits us not only to conceive of the diasystem of a single language theoretically as a totality and a product of a system with all its territorial units, but also to describe it practically as a totality and a product of an optimal number of representative dialects. I regard a dialect of a particular language as representative if it has been purposefully selected by implementing a linguistic procedure, i.e. if it is a unit which belongs to the core of a large dialectal area of a single language, and consequently embodies all the characteristic developmental tendencies of this area. The selection procedure observes traditional criteria for phonetic and morphological arrangement, which are regarded as valid in particular national dialectologies. The data for the Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan languages was collected in the period 1996–2000, by an international team, whose members followed carefully worked out specifications (Domosileckaja & Žugra 1997; Sobolev et al. 1997; Plotnikova 1996; Sobolev 1998–2000, 2003). The points investigated (represented in Map 1: Points of inquiry) are as follows: Otok in Croatia, Dalmatia, the district of Sinj; Croatian neo-štokavian younger i-dialect (by Ž. Jozić, A. N. Sobolev); Zavala in Montenegro, the district of Podgorica, tribe Piperi; Serbian Zeta-Lovćen dialect (by M. Jovanović, A. N. Sobolev); Kamenica in Eastern Serbia, the district of Knjaževac, Serbian Timok dialect (by N. Bogdanović, A. A. Plotnikova); Peštani in the Republic Macedonia, West Macedonia, the district of Ohrid; WestMacedonian Ohrid dialect (by D. Gegovski, G.P. Klepikova, M. Marković, A.A. ´ Plotnikova, A.N. Sobolev, Z. Topolinska); Gega in Bulgaria, Pirin Macedonia, the district of Petriˇc; South-West Bulgarian Pirin dialect (by E. S. Uzeneva, V. Žobov);



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.14 (848-913)

Andrej N. Sobolev

Gela in Bulgaria, Middle Rhodopi, the district of Široka L˘aka; Bulgarian Rhodopi dialect (by A. N. Sobolev); Ravna in Bulgaria, Misia, the district of Provadia; Bulgarian Misian dialect (by I. A. Sedakova); Muhurr in Albania, the community of Dibra, the district of Peshkopia; Albanian Middle-Geg Dibra dialect (by A.Ju. Rusakov, X. Ylli, A. N. Sobolev); Leshnja in Albania, the community of Skrapar, the district of Çorovoda; Albanian North-Tosk dialect (by X. Ylli, A. N. Sobolev); Eratyra in Greece, Greek West Macedonia, the district of Kozani; north Greek WestMacedonian dialect (by A. B. Borisova, Ju. A. Lopašov, A. N. Sobolev, V. B. Zajkovskij, T. V. Zajkovskaja); Krania (Turia) in Greece, Pind, the district of Grevena; South-Arumanian Pindos Non-Farsherot dialect (by M. Bara, T. Kahl, A. B. Borisova, A. N. Sobolev).

. The areal distribution of some syntactic properties in the languages of the Balkans The last part of the present paper offers a brief discussion of the syntactic maps of 65 grammatical features (cf. Sobolev 2003), which include 6 so-called “common Balkan” properties, alongside 59 traits that are often ignored in post-Sandfeldian Balkan studies (There are analogous discussions of lexical properties in Sobolev 2000a; Sobolev 2001a). One of my intentions is to introduce the paradigm of areal typology into Balkan language studies. Some of the grammatical sub-areas discovered cut across groups of Balkan languages in different directions (e.g. north-south, east-west) and are, consequently, of special interest (cf. Sobolev 1999). These sub-areas reflect the spatial distribution of a selected number of features. In Maps 2–18 in the Appendix the presence of these features in the listed points of investigation are represented. The features are as follows: 1. Preservation of synthetic declension forms (cf. Maps 2 and 3). Competition occurs between analytic and synthetic declensions in the Balkan dialects. Following Hinrichs (1999, 2000: 92–93), I assume that the analytic syntactic features are not features that are represented by single words, which can be split into two or more parts. There are three types of constructions available in the Balkan dialects to represent the indirect object: a) analytic – preposition + Acc case; b) combined analyticsynthetic – preposition + Dat case; c) synthetic – prepositionless Dat or even Acc. As shown in Map 2, in the western part of the Balkans (where Croatian/Serbian,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.15 (913-979)


Albanian or Aromanian are spoken), we have an archaic synthetic zone, where morphologically marked and syntactically fully developed dative forms are attested, while in the eastern part (where Macedonian, Bulgarian and Modern Greek are spoken) the dative or genitive case is only an optionally preserved archaism (as in the case of the Bulgarian Rhodopi-dialect). It is noteworthy that combined analytic-synthetic constructions typical for Balkan Slavic, such as the construction (12), have structural correspondents in Aromanian. (12) (Mu) dava na Stojanu. 3sg.m.dat.cl give.3sg to Stojan.dat ‘(S)he is giving to Stojan.’

Dialectal Slavic Balkan

The use of the direct object case to express the indirect object is restricted to the northern Greek area. Map 3 represents the diffusion of an archaism such as the morphologically marked locative. Here we have to distinguish between a) unlimited use, as in the Croatian/Serbian dialect of Zavala; b) a restricted use in competition with other case forms, as in the South Albanian dialect of Leshnja and c) syntactically, semantically and morphologically restricted use, as in the South Bulgarian Rodopi dialect of Gela: Dialectal Croatian/Serbian Mlatimo snoplje, bijemo o thresh.1pl sheaves beat.1pl upon nekoj daski. some.sg.loc board.loc ‘We are threshing the sheaves, we are striking upon some board.’ Dialectal Croatian/Serbian b. o Vidovu dne on St.Vit.loc day.loc ‘on St. Vit’s day’ Dialectal Croatian/Serbian c. Nosi se tamo pri carry.3sg refl.acc.cl there towards kraju. end.loc ‘ It is carried there towards the end.’

(13) a.

Dialectal Albanian Kur duallëm në rrugë, when come.1pl.aor to road+the.f.sg dëbora ishte deri në brest. snow+the.f.sg was up to waist.loc ‘When we came to the road, the snow was up to the waist.’ Dialectal Albanian b. Shkonin dhënt në Myzeqet. go.3pl.aor sheep+the.pl to Mizeka.loc ‘The sheep were going to Mizeka.’

(14) a.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.16 (979-1047)

Andrej N. Sobolev

c.

Ne do vemë në pyll edhe nëpër we will.mod.cl go.1pl to forest even under shit. rain.loc ‘We shall go to the forest, even if it rains.’ d. përmbi varrt over grave.loc ‘over the grave’

Dialectal Albanian

Dialectal Albanian

Dialectal Bulgarian (15) U Uzuncex ima m˘ažo, il˘a u at Uzunce’s.loc have.impers party or at Petrufcex ima m˘ažo. Petrufce’s.loc have.impers party ‘At the Uzunce’s there is a party or at the Petrufce’s there is a party.’ In any case, the presence of a synthetic archaisms is an important structural feature of both Slavic and non-Slavic dialects of the area, which is often overlooked by the general characterisation of these languages as analytic ones. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Article omission in prepositional phrases (cf. Map 4) Use of reflexive possessive pronoun (cf. Map 5) Case of the subject in impersonal clauses of state (cf. Map 6) Predicative use of passive participles of intransitive verbs (cf. Map 7). This is one of the most fascinating innovations of some peripheral Balkan Slavic dialects (the West Macedonian and the Bulgarian Rhodopi-dialect), and direct and indirect parallels have been discovered in the non-Slavic languages of the Balkans. We have to make a distinction between coordinated and noncoordinated forms, and also between their stative and resultative use, but in this paper I can discuss no details. In any case, the Macedonian perfect forms (such as sum dojden ‘am come.m.sg.part’, sum dojdena ‘am come.f.sg.part’) are very close to the Aromanian and north Greek perfect forms of the type (and also to the Albanian ones), but have preserved a common Slavic structural feature – congruence. This feature can, however, be lost, as Macedonian dialectal data from Prilep, given in (16) show: (16) Ne ti je Stojan umreno. not 2sg.eth.dat is Stojan.m.sg died.neut.sg ‘Your Stojan has not died.’

Dialectal Macedonian

As observed, umreno ‘died’ does not agree with the subject Stojan. 6. Future in the past: Form and Function (Maps 8 and 9). 7. Use of the verbal nouns or infinitives as objects of modal verbs. As shown on Map 10, throughout the Balkans, we have a) analytical subjunctive constructions,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.17 (1047-1128)


on the one hand, and b) “synthetic archaisms” (as in the Bulgarian Rhodopi dialect) or “isolated innovations/archaisms” (use of a verbal noun instead of an infinitive, as in Albanian, Aromanian and West Macedonian), on the other. A “synthetic innovation” located in the central Balkan zone and consisting of the omission of the subjunctive particle, of the type illustrated in (17) is fascinating. (17) Može kaže. . . can.3sg say.3sg ‘(S)he can say. . . ’

(common) Slavic Balkan

This innovation is found in eastern Serbia, south-western Bulgaria and south Bulgaria, but also, as my and Xhelal Ylli’s research has shown, in North Albania. Može rekneš. . . can.Impers say.2sg’ ‘You can say. . . ’ b. Ne mogu se setim. not can.1sg refl.acc.cl remember.1sg ‘I cannot remember.’ c. Oni ga neˇce slušaju. ‘they 3sg.m.acc.cl not+will.3pl listen.3pl ‘They do not want to listen to him’

East Serbian

(19) Ne možeš se razbereš sos not can.2sg refl.acc.cl understand.2sg with nea. her ‘One cannot talk to/understand her.’

Southwest Bulgarian

(18) a.

(20) a.

Ne moga go kaža. not can.1sg 3sg.m.acc.cl say.1sg ‘I cannot say that.’ b. I gu n˘a mužaxm˘a fan˘am. and 3sg.m.acc.cl not could.1pl catch.1pl ‘And we couldn’t catch him.’

(21) a.

A mun e maj men, se Part can.1sg 3sg.acc.cl remember.1sg that çar prralle ka qõn nat koh?! what stories has been at that time ‘Can I remember the stories of the time?!’

East Serbian

East Serbian

South Bulgarian

South Bulgarian

North Albanian



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.18 (1128-1175)

Andrej N. Sobolev

North Albanian b. Jo, sun merrshe gjõ. no not+can.impers take.3sg nothing ‘No, he couldn’t take anything.’ North Albanian c. Po na ka zatek, sun Part us.1pl.acc has cought.part not+can.impers dalim jasht mõ. get-out.1pl outside more ‘We were cought up (by bad weather) and could not get out any more.’ North Albanian d. . . . se ti smun të . . . because you not+can.impers subj.Mark flassh, ta gacmojsh atõ. speak.2sg subj.Mark+3sg.acc.cl attack-with-words.2sg him/her. ‘. . . because you can not speak, (can not) attack him/her with words.’ 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Government of some verbs and adjectives (Map 11) Forms of nouns in numeral phrases (Maps 12 and 13) Clitic order (Map 14; Map 15) Possessive clauses with spatial prepositions (Map 16) Negative interrogative clauses (Map 17) Government by demonstrative particles (Map 18).

. Conclusion The results of the investigation allow us to reject the idea of a common “linguistic type” to which the languages of the Balkans have been claimed to belong, and re-examine the thesis of the “common Balkan character” even of the features which have been traditionally considered to have such a character. For example, (1) substitution of the synthetic declension markers by analytic ones, (2) analytic expression of the future, (3) analytic formation of the perfect with a “have” auxiliary, (4) loss of the infinitive and its substitution by subjunctive clauses, are not, or not in the same degree, attested in all the Balkan dialects. The study of archaic linguistic zones, as well as the zones of innovation, makes our knowledge of full or partial membership of a given language in the Balkan Sprachbund more precise. The highly specific phonetic innovations in the Bulgarian Rodopi dialect, combined with the preservation of grammatical archaisms (absence of the schwa phoneme in the stressed vocalic system, inflective noun morphology, use of morphological infinitive) makes us view this dialect as peripheral within the Balkan Sprachbund (Sobolev 2000b). Alternatively, the East Serbian Timok dialect gains full membership as far as the same features are concerned. Many highly idiosyncratic Albanian linguistic properties (e.g., the grammatical-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.19 (1175-1233)


ization of the future form with “have” auxiliaries, the way modal or phrasal verbs are related to their objects, the position of pronominal clitics relative to imperative verbs) indicate the special status of Albanian among the Balkan languages. Hence, an extraordinarily important task for future Balkan Linguistic studies will be to establish the implicative relations between the given grammatical properties of the languages of the Balkans. This could be achieved through geolinguistic methods of investigation.

Notes . ‘The strongly positivistic traits of contemporary research result in collections of isolated facts.’ . ‘It has to be emphasized that Balkan linguistics deals with the Balkan languages only if it deals with all or most of their common features.’ . ‘These Balkanisms, in their contemporary form and usage, urge the need to study their origin and are the main product of a scientifically oriented Balkan philology.’ . Cf. the Albanian idiomatic expression (i): (i)

di sahat udhë two hour journey ‘(a) two-hour journey’

Albanian

. ‘In most cases, the common traits of Romanian and Albanian are also found in Bulgarian.’ . ‘Although the mentioned particular features have been spread over a wide area on the Balkans, they should be distinguished from the series of important features which are considered specifically “Balkan”, and which more than anything else contribute to the unity of these languages.’ . ‘Everything is important, not only a handful of disparate phenomena which have traditionally been provided with the label “Balkanisms”; the absense of features, i.e. the differences are not of lesser importance.’ . ‘Here we are dealing with normative rules which are congruent only with the rules in some dialects, but in the process of standardization become common and imitate interregionality, which in reality exists only in the written language.’ . ‘Linguistic geography makes it possible to discover many previously unknown features and verify and correct hypothetical representation in the still not complete characterization of the Balkan Sprachbund. Linguistic geography has become a basic research method, to be used not only in the study of the lexicology and etymology of the Balkan languages, but also for the description of grammatical idiosincracies, similarities and correspondences.’ . ‘With the help of geographical maps, one could represent synoptically the important common features of different languages which have lived in a symbiosis on the peninsula, with the aim of discovering the origin of contemporary similarities.’



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.20 (1233-1315)

Andrej N. Sobolev . ‘The drawing of maps and the cartographic representation of “Balkanisms” is questionable not only because they leave many potentially important things unregistered, but also because they naturally take a lot of space.’

References Andriotis, N. & G. Kormoulis. (1966). “Questions de la linguistique balkanique et l’apport de la langue greque”. Actes du premier congrès international des études balkaniques et sudest européennes. Vol. 6: Linguistique, 21–30. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Asenova, P. (1977). “La notion de l’interférence et l’union linguistique balkanique”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 20, 23–31. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Asenova, P. (1983). “Les principales periodes du développement de la linguistique balkanique”. In N. Reiter (Ed.), Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik. Beiträge zur Tagung vom 2–6 März 1981 in Berlin, 27–39. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Asenova, P. (1989). Balkansko ezikoznanie. Osnovni problemi na balkanskija ezikov s˘ajuz [Balkan Linguistics; Basic Problems of the Balkan Linguistic Union]. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Belić, A. (1936). “La languistigue balkanique aux congrès internationaux des linguistes”. Review internationale des étides balkaniques. 2-ème année. Tom I–II (3–4), 167–171. Beograd: Imprimerie Minerva. Birnbaum, H. (1968). “Slavjanskie jazyki na Balkanax i ponjatije tak nazyvajemyh jazykovyh sojuzov” [The Slavic languages on the Balkans and the notion of the so-called language unions]. Glossa, 2(1), 70–92. Birnbaum, H. (1983). “Tiefen- und Oberflächstrukturen balkanlinguistischer Erscheinungen”. In N. Reiter (Ed.), Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik. Beiträge zur Tagung vom 2–6 März 1981 in Berlin, 40–58. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Capidan, T. (1932). Aromânii. Dialectul aromân [The Aromanians. The Aromanian Dialect]. Bucure¸sti: Imprimeria Na¸tional˘a. Civjan, T. V. (1979). Sintaksiˇceskaja struktura balkanskogo jazykovogo sojuza [The Syntactic Structure of the Balkan Language Union]. Moskva: Nauka. Cyhun, G. A. (1981). Tipologiˇceskije problemy balkanoslavjanskogo jazykovogo areala [Typological Problems of the Balkan Slavic Linguistic Area]. Minsk: Nauka i tehnika. Deanović, M. (1961). “L’atlas linguistique des Balkans et l’atlas linguistique méditerranéen”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 3(3), 5–9. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Deanović, M. (1962). “Über den Entwurf eines Sprachatlasses des Balkanraumes”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 1, 1–5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.21 (1315-1396)


Desnickaja, A. V. (1979). “O sovremennoj teorii balkanistiˇceskih issledovanija. K izuˇceniju grammatiˇceskih sootvetstvij jazykov balkanskogo areala” [On the contemporary theory of Balkan studies. Towards a study on the grammatical correspondences in the languages of the Balkans]. In A. V. Desnickaja (Ed.), Problemy sintaksisa jazykov balkanskogo areala [Syntactic Problems of the Languages of the Balkans], 3–15. Leningrad: Nauka. Desnickaja, A. V. (1990). “Predislovije” [Introduction]. In A. V. Desnickaja (Ed.), Osnovy balkanskogo jazykoznanija. Jazyki balkanskogo regiona [Balkan Linguistics. The Languages of the Balkans], 3–8. Leningrad: Nauka. Domosileckaja M. V., A. A. Plotnikova, & A. N. Sobolev (1998). “Malyj dialektologiˇceskij atlas balkanskih jazykov” [A Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages]. Slavjanskoje jazykoznanije. XII Meždunarodnyj sjezd slavistov. Doklady rossijskoj delegacii, 196–211. Moskva: Nauka. Domosileckaja, M. V. & A. V. Žugra (1997). Malyj dialektologiˇceskij atlas balkanskih jazykov. Leksiˇceskaja programma. [A Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages. Draft of the Lexis]. St. Petersburg: Institut lingvistiˇceskix issledovanij Rossijskoj akademii nauk. Duridanov, I. (1977). “Zum Begriff des Sprachbundes”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 20, 17–22. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Duridanov, I. (1983). “Zur Bestimmung des Begriffes “Balkanismus” auf den verschiedenen Sprachebenen”. In N. Reiter (Ed.), Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik. Beiträge zur Tagung vom 2–6 März 1981 in Berlin, 59–65. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Duridanov, I. & M. Mladenov (1989). “Distribucija na balkanizmite v b˘algarskite dialekti” [The distribution of the Balkanisms in the Bulgarian dialects]. Studia z filologii polskiej i słowiańskiej, 25, 93–125. Warszawa: Wydawnicstwo Polskiej akademii nauk. Friedman, V. (1983). “Grammatical Categories and a Comparative Balkan Grammar”. In N. Reiter (Ed.), Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik. Beiträge zur Tagung vom 2–6 März 1981 in Berlin, 81–98. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Friedman, V. (1991). “Glagolskite kategorii, morfološkite paradigmi i opredeluvanjeto na izoglosite na makedonskata jaziˇcna teritorija” [The verbal categories, the morphological paradigms and the determination of the isoglosses of the Macedonian linguistic territory]. Studia linguistica polono-jugoslavica. Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Posebna izdanja, XCIII(26), 33–40. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Gallis, A. (1969). “Die Balkanlinguistik – Probleme und Forschung”. Norsk Tidskrift for Sprogvidenskap, 23, 37–58. Oslo. G˘al˘abov, I. (1977). “Besprechung [Schaller H. W. Die Balkansprachen. Eine Einführung in die Balkanphilologie. Heidleberg, 1975]”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 13, 205–222. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Georgiev, V. (1966). “Le problème de l’union linguistique balkanique”. Actes du premier congrès international des études balkaniques et sud-est européennes. Vol 6: Linguistique, 7–19. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Georgiev, V. (1977). “L’union linguistique balkanique. L’état actuel des recherches”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 20, 5–15. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.22 (1396-1483)

Andrej N. Sobolev

Hinrichs, U. (1990). “Das Slavische und die sogenannten Balkanismen”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 26(1), 43–62. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hinrichs, U. (1999). “Umgangssprache (razgovornaja reˇc)”. In H. Jachnow (Ed.), Handbuch der sprachwissenschaftlichen Russistik, 601–627. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hinrichs, U. (2000). “Prolegomena zu einer Theorie des Analytismus”. In U. Hinrichs & U. Büttner (Eds.), Die Südosteuropa-Wissenschaften im neuen Jahrhundert, 83–128. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Holiolˇcev, H., K. Kostov, & M. S. Mladenov (1977). “Fragen der Zusammenstellung eines Atlas linguarum paeninsulae Balcanicae”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 20, 65–71. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Ivić, P. (1958). “Les Balkanismes naissants dans les parlers serbes du Banat”. Cercet˘ari de lingvistic˘a. Suplement 3, 227–235. Cluj: Academia Republicii Populare Romîne, Filiala Cluj Institutul de Lingvistic˘a. Ivić, P. (2001). “Balkan Sprachbund und Sprachgeographie”. In H. Schaller (Ed.), Grundfragen eines Südosteuropa-Sprachatlas. Geschichte. Problematik. Method. Pilotprojekt, 45–52. Marburg: Biblion. Kazazis, K. (1966). “On a generative Grammar of the Balkan languages”. Actes du premier congrès international des études balkaniques et sud-est européennes. Vol. 6: Linguistique, 823–828. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Koneski, B., B. Vidoeski, & O. Jašar-Nasteva (1966). “Distribution des balkanismes en macédonien”. Actes du premier congrès international des études balkaniques et sud-est européennes. Vol. 6: Linguistique, 517–546. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. König, W. (1982). “Probleme der Repräsentativität in der Dialektologie”. Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung. Vol. 1, 463–485. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Mladenov, M. & K. Steinke (1978). “Die Ergebnisse der neueren bulgarischen Dialektforschung im Lichte der Balkanologie”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 14, 68–82. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Mrazek, R. (1990). Sravnitelnyj sintaksis slavjanskih literaturnyh jazykov. Ishodnyje struktury prostogo predloženija. [Comparative Syntax of the Slavic Literary Languages. Basic Structures of the Simple Sentence]. Brno: Universita J. E. Purkine. Neroznak, V. P. (1990). “Balkanistika”. Lingvistiˇceskij enciklopediˇceskij slovar, 62–63. Moskva: Sovetskaja Enciklopedija. Petkanov, I. (1977). “L’atlas linguistique balkanique”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 20, 73–78. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Piper, P. (1992). “Gramatiˇcke strukture makedonskog i srpskohrvatskog jezika: Osnovna diferenciranja” [The grammatical structures of Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian. Basic distinctions]. XVIII Nauˇcna diskusija (Ohrid, 12–14 avgust 1991) 45–51. Skopje: Univerzitet Kiril i Metodij. Plotnikova, A. A. (1996). Materialy dla etnolingvistiˇceskogo izuˇcenija balkanoslavjanskogo areala. [Ethnolinguistic Study of the Balkan Slavic Area]. Moskva: Institut slavjanovedenija Rossijskoj akademii nauk.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.23 (1483-1571)


Popov, B. (1984). “Položaj srpskohrvatskog jezika u balkanskom jeziˇckom savezu” [The positions of Serbo-Croatian in the Balkan language union]. Južnoslovenski filolog, 15, 21–43. Beograd: Srpka akademija nauka i umetnosti. Reiter, N. (1983). “Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik der Balkansprachen”. In N. Reiter (Ed.), Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik. Beiträge zur Tagung vom 2–6 März 1981 in Berlin, 157–176. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Reiter, N. (1994). Grundzüge der Balkanologie. Ein Schritt in die Eurolinguistik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sandfeld, K. (1930). Linguistique balkanique. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion. Saramandu, N. (1986). “L’étude typologique des langues balkaniques”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 29(4), 35–50. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Schaller, H. W. (1975). Die Balkansprachen. Eine Einführung in die Balkanphilologie. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Schaller, H. W. (1977). “Möglichkeiten einer inneren Gliederung des Balkansprachbundes.” Balkansko ezikoznanie, 20, 45–51. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Sedlaˇcek, J. (1966). “Nekotoryje problemy i osnovnyje zadaˇci izuˇcenija jazykov jugovostoˇcnoj Jevropy” [Problems and tasks in the study of the languges of SouthEastern Europe]. Actes du premier congrès international des études balkaniques et sud-est européennes. Vol. 6: Linguistique, 333–341. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Simeonov, B. (1977). “Obšˇcije cˇ erty fonologiˇceskih sistem balkanskih jazykov” [Common traits of the phonological systems of the Balkan languages]. Balkansko ezikoznanie, XX, 53–59. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Sobolev, A. N. (1988). “O nekotoryh innovacionnyh processah v sfere vyraženija prostranstvennyh znaˇcenij v territorialnyh dialektah serbohorvatskogo jazyka” [Some innovative processes in the sphere of the expression of spatial meanings in the SerboCroatian dialects]. Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistku, XXXI(1), 47–77. Novi Sad: Matica srpska. Sobolev, A. N., I. I. Voronina, J. A. Lopašov, & A. J. Rusakov (1997). Malyj dialektologˇceskij atlas balkanskih jazykov. Sintaksiˇceskaja programma. [Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages. Draft of the Syntax]. St. Petersburg: Institut lingvistiˇceskix issledovanij Rossijskoj akademii nauk. Sobolev, A. N. (1999). “Probleme der Balkansyntax aus der dialektologischen Sicht”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 35(2), 195–213. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sobolev, A. N. (2000a). “Leksika v Malom dialektologiˇceskom atlase balkanskih jazykov” [The lexis in the Small Dialektological Atlas of the Balkan Languages]. In U. Hinrichs & U. Büttner (Eds.), Die Südosteuropa-Wissenschaften im neuem Jahrhundert. Akten der Tagung vom 16–19 10.1999 an der Universität Leipzig, 219–229. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sobolev, A. N. (2000b). “Der bulgarische Rhodopendialekt im Lichte der Balkanologie”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 36(1), 92–105. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sobolev, A. N. (2001a). “Balkanskaja leksika v arealnom i arealno-tipologiˇceskom osvešˇcenii” [Balkan lexis from areal and typological point of view]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 2, 59–93. Moskva: Nauka.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.24 (1571-1660)

Andrej N. Sobolev

Sobolev, A. N. (2001b). Bolgarskij širokolykskij govor. Sintaksis. Leksika duhovnoj kultury. Teksty [The Bulgarian Široka L˘aka Dialect. Syntax. Lexis of Cultural Terms. Texts]. Marburg: Biblion Verlag. Sobolev, A. N. (2001c). “Zur Auswertung der bisherigen Forschung”. In H. Schaller (Ed.), Grundfragen eines Südosteuropa-Sprachatlas. Geschichte. Problematik. Method. Pilotprojekt, 23–30. Marburg: Biblion. Sobolev, A. N. (2001d). “Das Sankt Petersburger Projekt eines dialektologischen Atlasses der Balkansprachen”. In H. Schaller (Ed.), Grundfragen eines Südosteuropa-Sprachatlas. Geschichte. Problematik. Method. Pilotprojekt, 55–68. Marburg: Biblion. Sobolev, A. N. (Ed.). (2003). Malyj dialektologiˇceskij atlas balkanskih jazykov. Probnyj vypusk [Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages. Initial Volume]. München: Biblion. Sobolev, A. N. (Ed.). (1998–2000). Malyj dialektologiˇceskij atlas balkanskih jazykov. Materialy raboˇcih sovešˇcanij [Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages. Reports]. St. Petersburg: Nauka. Steinke, K. (1976a). “Überlegungen zur theoretischen Grundlegung der Balkanlinguistik”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 12(1), 85–90. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Steinke, K. (1976b). “Gibt es überhaupt Balkanismen?” Balkansko ezikoznanie, 20, 21–35. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Steinke, K. (1983). “Diachronie und Synchronie in der Balkanlinguistik”. In N. Reiter (Ed.), Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik. Beiträge zur Tagung vom 2–6 März 1981 in Berlin, 221–236. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Steinke, K. (1984). “Besprechung (G. A. Cyhun. Tipologiˇceskije problemy balkanoslavjanskogo areala [Typological Problems of the Balkan Slavic Area]. Minsk. 1981)”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 20(2), 235–239. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Steinke, K. (1991). “Zur Typologie der Sprachkontakte auf der Balkanhalbinsel”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 27(2), 69–74. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Steinke, K. (2001). “Ist der Balkansprachatlas noch aktuell?” In H. Schaller (Ed.), Grundfragen eines Südosteuropa-Sprachatlas. Geschichte. Problematik. Method. Pilotprojekt, 31–38. Marburg: Biblion. Širokov, O. S. (1966). “Interventions”. Actes du premier congrès international des études balkaniques et sud-est européennes. Vol. 6: Linguistique, 91–92. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. ´ Topolinska, Z. (1991). “Quelle est l’interprétation la plus plausible du terme ‘syntaxe balkanique’?”. VI Megjunaroden kongres za prouˇcuvanje na jugoistoˇcna Evropa (Sofija, 1989). Prilozi na uˇcesnicite od Makedonija, 101–108. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite. ´ Topolinska, Z. (1995). Makedonskite dijalekti vo Egejska Makedonija. [The Macedonian dialects in Aegean Macedonia]. Book 1: Sintaksa [Syntax]. Tom 1: Mehanizmi na predikacija [Mechanisms of Predication] 1.1: Konstrukcii so glagolskite predikati [Constructions with Verbal Predicates]. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite. Ylli, Xh. & A. N. Sobolev (2002). Albanskij toskskij govor sela Leshnja (Kraina Skrapar). Sintaksis. Leksika. Etnolingvistika. Teksty. [The Tosk Albanian Dialect of the Village of Leshnja (Kraina Skrapar). Syntax. Lexis. Ethnolinguistics. Texts]. Marburg: Biblion.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.25 (1660-1782)


Ylli, Xh. & A. N. Sobolev (2003). Albanskij gegskij govor sela Muhurr (Kraina Dibër). Sintaksis. Leksika. Etnolingvistika. Teksty. [The Geg Albanian Dialect of the Village of Muhurr (Kraina Dibër). Syntax. Lexis. Ethnolinguistics. Texts]. München: Biblion.

Appendix: Maps

South Slavic points Albanian points Greek point Aromanian point

Map 1. Points of inquiry



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.26 (1782-1782)

Andrej N. Sobolev

dative form attested dative form not attested

Map 2. Dative forms of masculine nouns as indirect objects

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.27 (1782-1782)


locative form attested locative form not attested

Map 3. Locative forms



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



Andrej N. Sobolev

article not omitted article can be omitted abscence of the category definiteness

Map 4. Article omission in prepositional clauses

F: LA6702.tex / p.28 (1782-1782)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.29 (1782-1782)


reflexive possessive pronoun used pronominally reflexive possessive pronoun substantivized reflexive possessive pronoun not attested

Map 5. Use of reflexive possessive pronoun



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.30 (1782-1782)

Andrej N. Sobolev

dative and accusative only dative only accusative

Map 6. Case of the subject in impersonal clauses of state

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.31 (1782-1782)


participles used predicatively participial adjectives used predicatively participles not used predicatively

Map 7. Predicative use of passive participles of intransitive verbs



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.32 (1782-1782)

Andrej N. Sobolev

negation + future particle + preterite subjunctive (with or without particle) negated preterite of the ‘have’-auxiliary + subjunctive (with or without part.) negated preterite of the ‘will’-modal auxiliary + infinitive type

Map 8. Negated future in the past

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.33 (1782-1782)


attested not attested

Map 9. Use of future in the past for the expression of habitual action



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.34 (1782-1782)

Andrej N. Sobolev

finite form – subjunctive (with or without particle) infinitive other non-finite forms

Map 10. Infinitives or verbal nouns as objects of modal verbs

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.35 (1782-1782)


prepositionsless government genitive direct case (nominative / accusative / common case) prepositional government the preposition ‘with’ the preposition ‘of’

Map 11. Government of adjectives with the meaning of ‘full’ or ‘rich’



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.36 (1782-1782)

Andrej N. Sobolev

plural form specialized numeral form

Map 12. Form of masculine nouns in numeral phrases

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.37 (1782-1782)


noun phrase with plural form noun phrase with singular form prepositional phrase with the preposition ‘of ’ and plural noun phrase

Map 13. Form of nouns to the right of numerals ending in 1



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.38 (1782-1782)

Andrej N. Sobolev

negation + pronominal clitics + verb pronominal clitic + negation + verb

Map 14. Relative ordering of pronominal clitics and negation markers

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.39 (1782-1782)


between the two imperative forms after the second imperative form

Map 15. Position of pronominal clitics in clauses with “double imperatives”



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58



F: LA6702.tex / p.40 (1782-1782)

Andrej N. Sobolev

both possessive clauses with ‘have’ and prepositional clauses with ‘by’ + ‘be’ only possessive clauses with ‘have’

Map 16. Possessive clauses with spatial prepositions

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

F: LA6702.tex / p.41 (1782-1782)


interrogative sentences with negation only interrogative sentences without negation possible

Map 17. Negative interrogative clauses



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58

 Andrej N. Sobolev

nominative accusative (common indirect case) genitive

Map 18. Government by demonstrative particles

F: LA6702.tex / p.42 (1782-1782)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.1 (41-130)

The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics Victor A. Friedman University of Chicago

An explanation of evidentiality in the Balkan languages must take both areal and typological factors into account. There are two types of complexes of grammaticalized meanings in Balkan evidentials: confirmative and nonconfirmative. Presence of a marked confirmative implies presence of a marked nonconfirmative, but marked nonconfirmatives can occur in a system without marked confirmatives. The complex of meanings associated with marked nonconfirmativity has a functional basis and occurs in widely separated, unrelated languages, but the grammaticalization of those meanings into verbal paradigms in the Balkans is due to areal factors. The distinction between meanings calqued onto existing forms and the creation of new forms to convey new content does not map isomorphically onto the distribution of semantic-pragmatic isoglosses. Moreover, the geographic distribution of evidentiality in Balkan Slavic argues for a sociolinguistically based explanation for the spread of the phenomenon from Southwestern Macedonia and Eastern Bulgaria. Analyzing the rise and spread of grammaticalized evidentiality in the Balkans, therefore, requires an account that considers sociolinguistic factors and dialectal distribution at various levels of the grammar. The picture that emerges is one in which form, content, narrative structure, and social factors all have roles to play, and a typologically informed areal explanation appears to be the most adequate.

.

Introduction

In comparing linguistic phenomena, when two or more languages display an observable degree of similarity there are three major sources of explanation: 1) descent from a reconstructable common ancestor, 2) contact between two speech communities that had developed previously in isolation from one another, and 3) the workings of natural tendencies in human languages that result in similar phenomena. The first and second of these – the former frequently called “genetic”

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.2 (130-192)

 Victor A. Friedman

or “genealogical”, the latter “areal” – both involve historical accounts (cf. Hamp 1977: 279).1 The third explanation, which can use the tools of typology to deduce the rules of universal grammar (cf. Comrie 1981: 30–31), is, in Hamp’s terms, achronic rather than diachronic, although Croft (1990: 203–259) illustrates more recent applications of typology to diachronic questions. With regard to formalgenerative explanations, Joseph (2000: 24–25) argues that surface realizations, not generative rules, are the points of contact between speakers that result in the spread of features the accumulation of which are said to characterize a Sprachbund.2 Thus, areal versus typological explanations emerge as a key issue in Balkan linguistics. Grammaticalized evidentiality is often cited as an example of the influence of Turkish on the structure of Balkan Slavic and/or of Albanian (Conev 1910/1911; Goła˛b 1960; Koneski 1965: 148) although accounts imputing native origin also exist (Demiraj 1971; cf. also Friedman 1978; as well as Van Wijk 1933; Huntley 1979). However, various general works on Balkan linguistics either fail to mention this category or, at best, treat it as a bilateral correspondence between Turkish and Balkan Slavic or Albanian, as in Sandfeld 1930: 119–20; Schaller 1975: 79, 94; Feuillet 1986: 67; Asenova 1989: 203–204; and Demiraj 1994: 169–171.3 In fact, the category also occurs in other Balkan languages and shows different manifestations in various dialects. In this paper I shall address the expression of evidentiality in the Balkan languages as a case study of a contact phenomenon, specifically a Balkanism, that must take both areal and typological factors into account. Given the recent increase of interest in evidentiality (e.g. Guentchéva 1996; Johanson & Utas 2000; Mushin 2001; Squartini 2001; Alexander 2002; Aikhenvald & Dixon 2003, to name just a few), as well as the varied phenomena to which the term has been applied and the lacunae in the history of its study, I shall address the term “evidential” itself before continuing to the exposition and analysis of areal versus typological explanations of the Balkan evidentiality.

. General considerations The year 2002 marks the fifty-fifth anniversary of the first appearance of the term “evidential” (for Kwakiutl, Boas 1947), the fiftieth anniversary of Lunt’s (1952) description of Macedonian as having a ‘vouched for’/‘distanced’ opposition, and the forty-fifth anniversary of the application of the term “evidential” to a Balkan language. In his ground-breaking article, Jakobson (1957) applied “evidential” to a Bulgarian example in which he glossed the old perfect (PI) (without auxiliary) zaminala as ‘it is claimed to have sailed’ and the simple preterite (PD) zamina as ‘I bear witness it sailed.” Jakobson referred to Lunt (1952). The year 2002 is also the thirty-fifth anniversary of Aronson’s (1967: 87) observation that ‘witnessed’ does

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.3 (192-216)

The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics 

not capture the actual meaning of the Bulgarian simple preterite, and the twentyfifth anniversary of Aronson’s (1977) arguments for a redefinition of “mood” and “status” such that the relevant Balkan verbal category is a type of status rather than evidential, taking Jakobson’s definition of the term (see also Friedman 1977: 55– 81). In addition, 2002 marks the twentieth anniversary of Friedman 1982a, in which I demonstrated that “reported” could not be taken as the literal meaning of the Bulgarian old perfect (past indefinite) without the third person auxiliary.4 Guentchéva (1996: 13), among others, has pointed out that Jakobson’s original definition of evidential is too closely tied to “reportedness”, which is only one of the possible meanings generally associated with the evidential complex, and she suggests using Lazard’s “médiatif ”. Johanson (2000: 61) suggests “indirectivity”. Mushin (2001: 21) argues for a distinction between a “narrow” and a “broad” interpretation of evidentiality. The narrow interpretation is limited to literal source of evidence, whereas the broad interpretation includes the attitude of the speaker – which is most frequently but not necessarily the result of source of evidence. The fact that grammaticalized evidentials in the Balkans (and some but not all other regions where evidentials are grammaticalized) encode speaker attitude relates them to epistemic modals. This in turn sometimes leads to a confusion between evidentiality and epistemic modality as exemplified by Palmer (1983: 56), whose secondhand accounts of Tajik, Turkish, and Abkhaz completely miss the fact that these languages (and others) have both epistemic modals and a distinct verbal category that involves the subjective relation of the speaker to the narrated event, i.e. the opposition “confirmative/nonconfirmative” in Aronson’s (1967) terms, “epistemological stance” in Mushin’s (2001: xii). Jacobsen (1986: 5), without, unfortunately, giving a citation, reproduces exactly Aronson’s (1977: 14) insight (using Jakobson’s terminology) that the category in question involves the subjective relationship of the participant in the speech event to the narrated event.5 Jacobsen (1986: 3) traces the history of the study of evidentiality only as far back as Boas (1911: 42–43, 124– 125, 246–247, 348–49, 443, 496), although in fact the earliest attested reference to the relevant grammatical phenomenon dates to the eleventh century. Moreover, this reference is in a description of Turkic grammar and therefore deserves citation here: The difference between these two forms [in -di and -mi¸s] is that DY [-di] on preterite verbs indicate that the action occurred in the presence of the speaker. The action was verified by its occurrence in his presence. For example, if someone says bardi the meaning is, ‘He went and I saw him go with my own eyes.’ M Š [-mi¸s] on the other hand, indicate that the action occurred in the absence of the speaker. Thus ol barmi¸s ‘He went but I did not see him go’; ol kälmi¸s ‘He came but I did not see him.’ This is a general rule holding good for all preterite verbs . . . (Al-K¯aš˘garí, cited in Dankoff 1982: 412)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.4 (216-275)

 Victor A. Friedman

Al-K¯aš˘garí’s formulation remains fairly typical for oversimplified accounts of evidentiality even today.6 Although I continue to agree with Aronson (1991: 129–130), who writes: “The notional meaning of “evidential” is easily derivable from the grammatical category of status. . . ”, I shall use the term “evidential” in this article since I will be dealing with precisely those notional meanings of “status” that are elsewhere understood under this term. Thorough accounts recognize various uses (contextual variant meanings) for evidentials, which in the case of the Balkans can be grouped as in Table 1: Table 1. Types of meaning subsumed under “evidential” for the Balkan languages A.

B.

CONFIRMATIVE 1. witnessed

NONCONFIRMATIVE 3. felicitous a. neutral, resultative b. reported, hearsay c. deduction, inference

2. unwitnessed a. confirmable by speaker b. confirmable by speaker and addressee (general, historical, gnomic, personal facts) 4. infelicitous a. dubitative (irony, sarcasm) b. admirative (surprise)

The exposition which follows explicates the meaning and organization of Table 1.

. Balkan Slavic Not all the Balkan languages show all the possible meanings given in Table 1. I shall refer to a system that encodes all the meanings listed in Table 1 as a Type A system. Any system that encodes the meaning listed under A also encodes the meaning listed under B, but not vice versa, i.e. there exists an implicational hierarchy. Systems that only encode the meanings listed under B will be called Type B systems. I shall begin with Macedonian, which has a Type A system. In many respects, Macedonian is the most Balkanized of the Balkan languages insofar as it displays the most consistent realization of morphosyntactic convergence features (Joseph 1983). Standard Macedonian, which in this respect represents its westcentral dialectal base (Veles-Prilep-Kiˇcevo-Brod), has a basic opposition between two inherited past tense forms (each having a subordinate aspectual opposition aorist/imperfect). These two past tenses are traditionally labeled “past definite” (PD) and “past indefinite” (PI), although, as I have shown (Friedman 1977: 21– 81), the PD is marked for confirmativity, while the PI is an unmarked past. Thus,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.5 (275-338)

The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics 

for example, although the PD ti igraše ‘you were playing’ usually refers to a definite time in the past, whereas the PI ti si igral ‘you were/have been playing’ will normally lack a definite time reference, either form can actually refer to either a definite or indefinite time in the past. That which differentiates the two forms is the degree of commitment of the speaker to the truth of the statement (see examples (1)–(7) below). The PI is descended from the Common Slavic perfect, which used the auxiliary ‘be’ (Modern Macedonian 2sg present si) plus a resultative participle in -l. Both Standard Macedonian and the western and southern dialects now have a new perfect using the auxiliary ima ‘have’ plus the invariant neuter verbal adjective of the main verb (e.g. 2sg. ti imaš igrano ‘you have played/been playing’). This perfect is marked for resultativity (see Friedman 1977: 82–113). In opposition to the markedly confirmative PD on the one hand, and the markedly resultative perfect in ‘have’ on the other, the chief contextual variant meaning of the PI consists of the nonconfirmative complex, although, like the unmarked past, it is also the choice in contexts where complete neutrality is required. While the confirmativity of the PD normally implies that the speaker has first-hand knowledge of the narrated event, this form can also be used for unwitnessed, reported, and other non-first-hand knowledge as long as the speaker has reason to be convinced of the truth of the statement. The following examples illustrate the various facts and possibilities:7 (1) No podocna se sluˇcija raboti za koi ne [Macedonian] but later in happened.pd works about which neg znaev. I.knew.pd ‘But later things happened which I didn’t know about.’ (Nova Makedonija 19.VI.74: 5) (2) Zuza:

Blaže bil vo Moskva. Blaže was.pi in Moscow ‘Blaže was in Moscow.’ Kosta: Da, beše. yes he.was.pd ‘Yes, [I know] he was.’ (10/86)

[Macedonian]

[Macedonian] (3) Mu se javiv na vujko mi. Ne beše him in I.called.pd to uncle me neg was.pd doma, na plaža bil. at.home on beach was.pi ‘I called my uncle. He was not at home, [apparently] he was at the beach.’ (8/92)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.6 (338-404)

 Victor A. Friedman

(4) Ne veruvam deka toj go napravil/ [*]napravi neg I.believe.pres that he it did.pi did.pd toa. that ‘I don’t believe that he did it.’ (Friedman 1978: 110)

[Macedonian]

(5) Za-toa što forma-ta BEŠE REŠENO odgovara na [Macedonian] for-that what form-the was.pd decided answers to SE REŠI, t.e. na minato-to opredeleno vreme, koe go in decided.pd i.e. to past-the definite tense which it upotrebuvame za oznaˇcuvanje dejstva što se vršele ili se we.use for indication actions what in performed.pi or in izvršile vo opredelen moment vo minato-to. accomplished.pi in definite moment in past-the ‘It is because the form had been decided corresponds to was decided, i.e., to the past definite tense, which we use to indicate actions that were performed [PI] or accomplished [PI] at a definite time in the past.’ (Nova Makedonija 19.XII.84.11) (6) Ti si bil vo Amerika. you aux.2sg was.pi in America ‘You are/were/have been in America.’

[Macedonian]

(7) Kade bil majstor-ot? where was.pi master-the ‘Where *is/was the boss?’

[Macedonian]

Because the use of the PD for witnessed past acts is uncontroversial, I have not given any examples. Example (1) illustrates the use of the PD for something that the speaker clearly did not witness but is now certain happened. In example (2), Zuza chooses the PI because she was not in Moscow herself, but Kosta, who was also not in Moscow, responds in the PD because he accepts the fact as generally known (pace Lunt 1952: 93). In example (3), both statements about the uncle are based on the same telephone call. The first statement is in the PD because the speaker is personally convinced that his uncle would have come to the telephone had he been at home. He chooses the PI for where his uncle was said to be, however, since neither he nor his interlocutor could actually know for sure. Example (4) illustrates the fact that a PD cannot be used in a context that contradicts the notion of confirmation. The one exception to this – which is the reason the asterisk is in parentheses – is if the statement is infelicitous (Austin 1962: 14), i.e. if the speaker really is convinced that he did it, but is expressing dismay, amazement, etc. (cf. the English I can’t believe I ate the whole thing). Example (5) illustrates the fact that the PI is the form of choice in such completely neutral contexts as definitions. Neutral usage

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.7 (404-469)

The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics 

is more common in the first and second persons for pragmatic reasons. Example (6) can illustrate any of the nonconfirmative uses of the PI depending on the context in which it occurs. The illustrative contexts pertain to each of the types given in Table 2: Table 2. Possible interpretations of example (6) (a)

The speaker has seen the addressee in America and is making a general or resultative statement of fact. (b) Someone told the speaker, who then tells the addressee that his trip has been reported. (c) The speaker sees the addressee wearing a Chicago Bulls T-shirt and makes a deduction. (d) The addressee tells the speaker that he was in America and the speaker does not believe him. Another possible context would be if the addressee calls the speaker on the telephone and says he is in America at the moment of speaking and the speaker retorts with example (6). In this context, the correct English translation would be a present tense form. (e) The speaker is in America and unexpectedly meets the addressee. Here, again, the correct English translation would be present tense. It is important to note that in this last type of usage, the nonconfirmativity is based on the fact that surprise is something which requires a state of mind in which the speaker would not have been willing to confirm something until the moment of its (unexpected) discovery (Friedman 1981).8

Example (7) illustrates the fact that uses of the PI with apparent present meaning, i.e. in contexts where the correct English translation will be present tense, must always refer to an ontologically past speech event or state of affairs. If a customer walks into a store and does not see the boss and is surprised by that discovery, he cannot use (7) as his question, because he is expressing surprise about the present moment of discovery itself and not about the pre-existing state of affairs that occasioned it. If he were expressing astonishment at what someone else had told him, then he could use the PI, since there would be a previous event to which the form could refer. In reported or dubitative usage, there is always a real or putative statement that is being referenced or refuted, while in admirative usage there must always be a pre-existing state that the speaker has just discovered. Thus, the question in example (7) is limited to some sort of past tense meaning. In terms of evidentiality, mutatis mutandis and ceteris paribus, the Bulgarian situation is basically the same as the Macedonian situation with regard to markedness relations and semantics. Although Bulgarian differs from Macedonian in certain morphological and paradigmatic manifestations of evidentiality, these differences do not affect the basic arguments. Thus, for example, both languages have markedly nonconfirmative pasts (i.e. paradigms showing only reported, inferred, dubitative, and admirative meanings) using the old resultative participle as an auxiliary, but in standard Macedonian the new marked nonconfirmative uses imal ‘have’ plus the neuter verbal adjective of the main verb, whereas standard Bulgarian uses bil ‘be’ plus the l-form of the main verb, e.g. Macedonian imal

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.8 (469-560)

 Victor A. Friedman

napraveno Bulgarian bil napravil ‘he has/had done’. The only other difference that need be noted here is that the claim in traditional Bulgarian grammar according to which the old perfect with the third person auxiliary is a perfect, while the absence or the auxiliary signals ‘reportedness’, is belied by both written and spoken usage, of which example (8) is typical: (8) Imalo e edin pop, i go oženil. had.pi aux.3sg one priest and him married.pi ‘There was a priest, and he married him (to her).’

[Bulgarian] (10/99)

The speaker was recounting a legend from the 17th century about a wealthy Aromanian boy who had run off to Korçë (Albania) with a poor Macedonian girl and had gotten married and built a church there. From the context, it is clear that the source of all the information is a single report, and yet the auxiliary is present for the backgrounded information and absent for the foregrounded information. This is entirely in keeping with Fielder’s (2002b and references therein) arguments concerning the fact that auxiliary omission in Bulgarian encodes the opposition foregrounded/backgrounded rather than some form of evidentiality. For Serbian, including the Balkan Serbian (Torlak) dialects of southeastern Serbia, it is clear that, as in the rest of Slavic, the descendant of the Common Slavic perfect (corresponding to the Macedonian and Bulgarian PI) has become the unmarked past (typologically, this agrees with developments in e.g. Romance and Germanic). It is sometimes claimed that the synthetic pasts (corresponding to the Macedonian and Bulgarian PD) encode a meaning such as “witnessed” (Samilov 1957).

. Albanian Just as Macedonian exemplifies a Type A system with a confirmative/nonconfirmative opposition in which there is a marked confirmative member, so, too, Albanian exemplifies a Type B system in which only nonconfirmativity is marked. In such a system, the marked forms are never neutral but either reported, deduced, dubitative or admirative. In traditional Albanian grammar, the name of the series of paradigmatic sets is habitore from habi ‘surprise’; this corresponds to the French admiratif introduced by Dozon (1879: 226–227) as a translation for Kristoforidhi’s Greek aposdóketoi ‘unexpected’, all of which refer to the most common use of these forms. Hence, the most common meaning gives its name to the entire set of paradigms. Table 3 gives an illustration of the relevant forms, which are derived historically from an inverted perfect and pluperfect.9

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.9 (560-590)

The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics 

Table 3. Albanian 3sg ‘have’

Present Perfect Imperfect Pluperfect (imperfect) Double Perfect Double Pluperfect

Nonadmirative

Admirative

ka ka pasur kish(te) kish(te) pasur ka pasë pasur kish(te) pasë pasur

paska paska pasur paskësh paskësh pasur paska pasë pasur paskësh pasë pasur

As was just indicated, the Albanian meaning of the admirative can correspond to any of the marked nonconfirmative meanings found in Macedonian. Thus, for example, the Albanian equivalent of example (6) would be (9a) or (9b): (9) a.

Ti qenke n’Amerikë. you are.adm.2sg in America ‘You are in America.’ b. Ti paske qenë n’Amerikë. you have.adm.2sg been.pt in America ‘You have been/were in America.’

[Albanian]

A crucial difference between the Albanian evidential system and the Balkan Slavic is that while a Balkan Slavic evidential always has some sort of past reference, even when the apparent meaning is present, the Albanian system has a true present. This is illustrated in the difference between (9a) and (9b). Moreover, in Albanian it is possible to have a sentence like (10): (10) Ku qenka mjeshtr-i? where is.adm.3sg boss-the ‘Where is the boss?’

[Albanian] (Rilindja 8.VI.82.8)

Additional evidence for the analysis of Macedonian admirative meaning as always having a past reference is to be found in the fact that Albanian permits past admiratives to describe newly discovered pre-existing states, as in example (11), which was uttered by a Kosovar colleague upon taking a sip of a local unaged grape brandy (raki) whose quality was reputed to have declined in recent years: (11) Paska qenë e mirë! have.adm.3sg be.pt agr good ‘Why, it turns out that it is good!’

[Albanian] (6/01)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.10 (590-656)

 Victor A. Friedman

. Balkan Romance The situation in Balkan Romance represents a divided picture. For the most part, Aromanian does not have marked evidential forms, but the Frasheriote dialect of Gorna Belica (Bela di Suprã), on the Albanian border northwest of Struga in southwestern Macedonia, has borrowed the Albanian third person admirative marker -ka, which is attached to a calqued masculine plural participial base, as illustrated in Table 4 (after Markovi´к 1995: 80, cf. also Friedman 1994a):10 Table 4. Aromanian and Albanian present and perfect indicatives (3sg ‘have’)

Present Perfect

Nonadmirative Aromanian

Albanian

Admirative Aromanian

Albanian

ari ari avutã

ka ka pasur

avuska avuska avutã

punuaka paska punuar

The Aromanian construction involves the use of a native masculine plural participial base (usually imperfect, but aorist with precisely those verbs that have a distinctive, suppletive aorist participial base in Albanian). Such a base occurs nowhere else in the language and is a clear calque on the way Albanian forms its admirative.11 Moreover, the Frasheriotes of Bela di Suprã migrated to that village from Myzeqe in central Albania at the beginning of the twentieth century and were, at that time, all bilingual in Albanian. After the Balkan Wars (1912–1913), Bela di Suprã was part of what became Yugoslavia and the Republic of Macedonia (except during 1941–1944, when it was part of Albania), and knowledge of Albanian was not maintained by subsequent generations, who were, instead, bilingual in Macedonian. This shift in bilingualism is reflected in the behavior of the Aromanian admirative. Like the Albanian admirative, and unlike the Balkan Slavic evidentials, the Aromanian admirative does not occur in connected narratives, i.e., while it is perfectly normal for a Balkan Slavic narrative to be related entirely in the PI (although for stylistic reasons other tense forms are likely to occur in lengthier narratives), neither Albanian nor Aromanian narratives would use more than the occasional admirative. On the other hand, according to my consultants, the Aromanian admirative would not be used in questions. Thus, for example, in (12), which is the Aromanian equivalent of (7) and (10), a plain present is required: (12) Iu iesti/*fuska majstor-lu? where is/is.adm boss-the ‘Where is the boss?’

[Aromanian]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.11 (656-742)

The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics

It would thus appear that while this Aromanian dialect borrowed the Albanian admirative marker with its semantics, it has added on the restrictions found in the marked nonconfirmative uses of the Macedonian PI. Megleno-Romanian, spoken by a few thousand people originally living in a few villages in what is now southeastern Macedonia and the adjacent part of Greece, has an inverted perfect, as illustrated in Table 5: Table 5. Megleno-Romanian plain and inverted pasts 3pl ‘see’ Perfect

Pluperfect

auÛ vizút(˘a) vizút-˘auÛ

veÛauÛ vizú(˘a) vut-˘auÛ vizút(˘a)

According to Atanasov (1990: 220–221) the Megleno-Romanian inverted perfect is used in the same manner as the marked nonconfirmative uses of the Macedonian PI, and Capidan (1928: 101) has examples of its use in connected narratives, as in the beginning of a folk tale given here as example (13) with a Macedonian translation:12 [Megleno-Romanian] (13) Ash vut-˘auÛ un˘a-uÛ ar˘a un˘a m¯um˘a treiÛ self had-have one-time one mother three feati shi li trimes-auÛ la spilarea la v¯ali. Cum spilat-˘auÛ girls and them sent-have to washing to river. as wash-have cuÛ ola vinit-˘auÛ un˘a mear˘a di pri vali there came-have one apple from along river [Macedonian] Si imala ednaš edna majka tri ´кerki i self had.pi once one mother three daughters and gi ispratila na perenje na reka-ta. Kako što perele them sent.pi to washing to river-the as what they.washed.pi tamu, došla edna jabolka po rekata there came.pi one apple along river-the ‘Once upon a time a mother had three daughters and she sent them to do laundry at the river. As they were washing there an apple came [floating] down the river’ In the case of Megleno-Romanian, the morphology is that of the Albanian admirative (participle+auxiliary from an inverted perfect or pluperfect), but the semantics are more like those of the Macedonian PI. Daco-Romanian has a so-called presumptive mood, which is formed by means of a modal particle (future, subjunctive, or conditional marker – with no apparent difference among the three) plus non-finite fi ‘be’ plus the present gerund or past



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01



F: LA6703.tex / p.12 (742-812)

Victor A. Friedman

participle of the main verb. Examples (14) and (15), which both use conditional markers and are translations from Bulgarian (given here with the original), are illustrative of the markedly nonconfirmative evidential meanings of the present and past presumptive, respectively: (14) îmi spuse cum c˘a b˘aiat-ul ar fi avînd în [Romanian] me said how that boy-the co.aux.3sg be having in Bulgaria un frat ofi¸ter Bulgaria a brother officer kaza mi, ˇce tuj momˇce imalo u vas, v B˘algarija, [Bulgarian] told me that this boy had.pi by you in Bulgaria brat ˇcinovnik brother official (in Bulgaria) ‘he told me that this boy had a brother, an official’ (Konstantinov 1964: 82; Konstantinov 1895/1973: 97) [Romanian] (15) Bai Ganiu îmi ceru s˘a-i fac cinste, deoarece B. G. me sought su-him make treat since pe drum a¸s fi fumat din tutun-ul lui. on road co.aux.1sg be smoked from tobacco-the him [Bulgarian] Baj Ganjo poiska az da poˇcerpja, poneže iz B. G. wanted I su treat because along p˘atj-a s˘am pušil ot negovi-ja tjutjun. road-the aux.1sg smoked.pi from his-the tobacco ‘Baj Ganjo wanted me to treat him, since on the road I had smoked some of his tobacco.’ (Konstantinov 1964: 99; Konstantinov 1895/1973: 83) In these examples, the Romanian presumptive corresponds to a Bulgarian and Macedonian PI and a Turkish mi¸s-past but a plain indicative in the Albanian translation. I have demonstrated elsewhere (Friedman 1982b) that Albanian present admiratives correspond to the Balkan Slavic PI and the Turkish mi¸s-past in only about 10% of the cases in comparable translations, and do not correspond at all to Romanian presumptive usage, despite the fact that the presumptive and the admirative encode the same complex of marked nonconfirmative meanings (Friedman 1998). The Romanian presumptive can be used in questions, but is not used for connected narratives. There is also some debate concerning whether the presumptive constitutes a separate paradigm or a syntactic construction, especially in the case of the past presumptive which is identical to the subjunctive, future, or conditional perfect. Although Dimitriu (1979: 269–271) argues that evidential uses of the past presumptive are clearly different from other modal uses, evidential-like uses of similar modals in Western Romance (cf. Squartini 2001) can be adduced as an argument against the independent status of the Romanian past presumptive. On

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.13 (812-902)


the other hand, however, none of the Western Romance languages possess a construction equivalent to the Romanian present presumptive, nor do they use ‘be’ as an auxiliary in active constructions (Manoliu-Manea 1994: 270). Before moving to our last Balkan Romance example, it is worth citing a Slavic modal paradigmatic set that appears to calque the Romanian presumptive, namely the probabilitive mood of the Bulgarian village of Novo Selo, in northwestern Bulgaria across the Danube from Romania and a few kilometers from the Serbian border (Mladenov 1967: 108–116). In this dialect, the ordinary future is formed, as in Balkan Slavic in general, by means of a preposed invariant particle derived from a verb meaning ‘want’ (ˇca˘ ) plus a conjugating main verb. The non-Balkan Serbian future type – which is formed by means of a postposed conjugating clitic auxiliary of the same origin (‘want’) attached to a stem based on the infinitive – has been retained in this dialect but reinterpreted as an nonconfirmative evidential with present, future, and past tenses, as illustrated in Table 6: Table 6. Novo Selo probabilitive present and future sg conjugation of ‘see’ and 3sg PI 1sg present future PI 3sg

gléd˘am ˇca˘ gléd˘am

Indicative 2sg glédaš ˇca˘ glédaš

3sg

1sg

gléda ˇca˘ gléd˘a e gl˘adál

gledáˇca˘m ˇca˘ gledáˇca˘m

Probabilitive 2sg

3sg

gledáˇca˘š gledáˇca˘ ˇca˘ gledáˇca˘š, ˇca˘ gl˘adáˇca˘ budáˇca˘ ∼ búd˘a ∼ bíˇca˘ gl˘adál

The Novo Selo presumptive has the same complex of meanings as other marked nonconfirmatives, and according to Mladenov (1967: 111) is especially common in questions as in example (16): ˇ a idá-ˇca˘ -š (16) C˘ jútra ú-grad? fu go-fu-2sg tomorrow in-town ‘Will you go to town tomorrow?!’

[Dialectal Bulgarian] (Mladenov 1967: 111)

Located in the border region of Bulgarian and Torlak (Balkan) Serbian, the population of the village is mixed Romanian and Slavic, and much of the Slavic-speaking population is said to have migrated from Macedonia (Mladenov 1967: 8–9). In the past there was debate over whether to assign the dialect (and, by implication, therefore, the territory) to Serbian or Bulgarian. I shall return to this case below. Our final Balkan Romance example is the Istanbul dialect of Judezmo, which calques the Turkish mi¸s-past by means of the pluperfect, as in example (17): (17) Dos ermanos eran, uno salyó two brothers were one became salyó dahilkiye, después s’ became internist afterwards in

doktor di¸sçi, doctor dentist aviya etcho had become

el otro [Judesmo] the other doktor de bebés doctor of babies



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01



F: LA6703.tex / p.14 (902-973)

Victor A. Friedman

‘There were two brothers, one became a dentist and the other became an internist, afterwards he became (lit. had become) a pediatrician.’ (Varol 2001: 91) According to Varol, the narrator knew the two brothers and had watched them become doctors, but he had only heard about the second brother’s change of specialization. Were the narrative in Turkish, the ordinary choice for the last clause would be the mi¸s-past. The narrator attempts to render the difference by using a pluperfect, thus iconically indicating narrative distance by means of an anterior tense form.13

. Romani Like Aromanian, Romani does not generally distinguish evidential categories, but according to Kostov (1973), the dialect of Sliven in Bulgaria has borrowed the -l of the l-participle as a marker of evidentiality (much like the Aromanian phenomenon described above) as in example (18), given in both Romani and Bulgarian: (18) Oda vakergjas mangi, ˇci tu phirsas-li. he told.pd me that you go.im-ev Toj mi kaza ˇce ti si xodel. he me told.pd that you aux.2sg go.pi ‘He told me that you were going.’

[Romani] [Bulgarian] (Kostov 1963: 108)

On the basis of Kalderash Romani data, Matras (1995: 100) argues that the distinction between third person singular intransitive preterites that agree in either gender or person with their subjects (e.g. masc. gelo, fem. geli personal gelas ‘come’) encode an evidential strategy, namely the forms agreeing with the subject in person mark personal knowledge while those agreeing in gender, which are therefore morphologically indistinguishable from past participles, mark a resultative deduction in which the addressee is invited to share in the conclusion, as in example (19): (19) a.

[Romani] But zumavenas te integrujin pe, arakhenas many tried.pi su they.integrate in found.pi buˇcja and-e fabriki. Ale ˇci parúdžilas khanˇci pa jobs in-the factories but neg changed.ao nothing on ginduri sar train e Rom thoughts how they.live the Roms ‘Many tried to integrate, they found jobs in factories. But nothing changed with regard to prejudices about how the Roms live.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.15 (973-1034)


b. Sa khetane šaj phenav tumenge kado: Ke sar sas [Romani] all together can I.tell you.dat this that how was de katar avilam ame ande Europa ži adžves, ˇci from whence we.came.pd we in Europe till today neg parúdžili pa amari situacija khanˇci. changed.pt on our situation nothing ‘All together I can tell you this: That as it has been since we arrived in Europe and until this day, nothing has changed with regard to our situation.’ (Matras 1995: 100) According to Matras, (1995: 101), the person-agreeing form parúdžilas in (19a) expresses the speaker’s personal knowledge as an expert on Romani history that nothing has changed, whereas in (19b), by using the gender-agreeing form parúdžili, the speaker is emphasizing the resultant state and inviting the audience to join him in reaching this conclusion on the basis of the shared evidence of the situation (in this case, the events he has related).

. Greek Finally, it is necessary to mention Greek, which does not have any evidential uses of paradigmatic tense forms, but does have two features that deserve notice here. First, as illustrated by example (20), the perfect is not acceptable in non-volitional expressions, which is the exact opposite of Balkan Slavic (illustrated here by Macedonian) where the PI would be the normal choice and the PD would sound strange: [Greek] (20) Khorís ná tó katalávo, éspasa / *ékho spási tí without su it I.understand I.broke.pd /I.have broken the bukála. bottle [Macedonian] Ništo da ne setam, go skršiv / sum go nothing su neg I.notice it I.broke.pd aux.1sg it skršil šiše-to. broke.pi bottle-the ‘Without noticing it, I broke/have broken the bottle.’ (Friedman 1977: 127) The association of nonvolitionality with nonconfirmativity occurs in other languages. In Georgian, for example, as in Balkan Slavic and Turkish, the aorist or the simple preterite is associated with confirmative meanings while the perfect is associated with nonconfirmativity.14 Example (21), however, illustrates the connection of the aorist with volitionality and the perfect with non-volitionality in Georgian:



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01



F: LA6703.tex / p.16 (1034-1110)

Victor A. Friedman

[Georgian] (21) Is perangi ar miq’ide / miq’idia. this shirt not I.bought.it.ao I.bought.it.pe ‘I didn’t buy that shirt.’ [aorist: it was ugly or too expensive/perfect: I lacked time or money] (cf. Aronson 1982: 276) While Greek differs from the other Balkan languages (and Georgian) in its placement of volitionality, however, it does have the use of lé[e]i ‘one says’ as a kind of particle expressing a complex of evidential-like meanings including the expected ‘reportedly, allegedly’ as in (22) but also an admirative-like emphatic as in (23):15 [Greek] (22) Tha páme stin Prága; A! íne, léi, polí oréa. Piós léi; fu we.go to p. ok is ev very pretty who says Ohi, íne, ine polí oréa. no is is very pretty ‘Shall we go to Prague? – Yeah, it’s supposed to be very beautiful. Who says? – No, it really is very beautiful.’ (César Montoliu, p.c.) (23) Ítan kaló to fagitó? Kaló, léi! was.im good the meal good ev ‘Was the meal good? Very good!’

[Greek] (Kriareas 1995)

Example (20) raises an interesting question about the connection of volitionality to evidentiality, particularly since it is the aorist in Greek rather than the perfect which is used nonvolitionally, but this is beyond the scope of this article. The development of lé[e]i into a quotative particle in Greek expressing the nonconfirmative complex of meanings illustrated in (22) and (23) is typologically interesting, since it appears to offer the beginnings of a pathway to the grammaticalization of evidentiality, but does not enter into the kind of paradigmatic manifestations of evidentiality that are the focus here.

. Explanations It was Conev (1910/1911: 15–16) who first proposed the classic areal explanation for grammaticalized evidentiality in the Balkan languages when he noted the correspondence between Bulgarian and Turkish admirative expressions; however, he did not offer any semantic or terminological elucidations: “The use of the past indefinite is due to Turkish influence in instances such as: toj bil dob˘ar ˇcovek! ‘[It turns out that] he is a good man!’ To bilo daleko! ‘It [turns out that it] is far!’ Cf. Turkish ey [modern standard iyi] adam imi¸s, ozak [modern standard uzak] imi¸s.” Goła˛b (1960) made a similar but more extensive set of observations for Macedonian. Weigand (1923/1924) was the first to connect Bulgarian admirative usage of the PI with the Albanian admirative paradigm, even going so far as to suggest an

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.17 (1110-1169)


areal explanation, but he missed the fact that the Albanian admirative contains a true present which is only historically an inverted perfect, whereas the Bulgarian PI is a genuine past tense being used with only apparent present meaning (cf. Friedman 1981). Many handbooks treat these issues only in passing (Sandfeld 1930: 119–20; Schaller 1975: 79, 94; Feuillet 1986: 67; Asenova 1989: 203–204; and Demiraj 1994: 169–171). The Balkan Slavic : Albanian correspondence is treated as typological, while the Balkan Slavic : Turkish, when mentioned at all, is treated as areal. Among the similarities adduced is the parallel between Bulgarian and Turkish shown in Table 7 (using the Bulgarian l-form napisal ‘wrote’ and the Turkish equivalent yazmı¸s), which illustrates the assumption frequently found in Bulgarian linguistic literature that there are separate reported and non-reported paradigms which are homonymous in the first two persons and marked by auxiliary omission for the reported paradigm in the third person (but see example (8)): Table 7. Parallel paradigms in Bulgarian and Turkish 1–3sg ‘write’ Bulgarian Past Indefinite 1sg 2sg 3sg

napisal e

Reported

napisal s˘am napisal si napisal

Turkish Perfect

Reported

yazmı¸sım yazmı¸ssın yazmı¸stır yazmı¸s

The parallelism illustrated in Table 7, however, is misleading. The copulative particle -dir in Turkish is a relatively newly arisen emphatic particle (from the 3sg form durur meaning ‘stands’) which also serves in copula-like and auxiliary-like functions.16 It can actually be added to any person of any finite verbal form and it adds an assertive nuance, which itself can have the effect of English ‘surely’ or ‘certainly’. Its combination with the third person mi¸s-past has the effect of eliminating the nonconfirmative chief contextual variant meaning of the mi¸s-past and thereby the opposition between the di-past and mi¸s-past (see Friedman 1978). By contrast, the omission of the third person auxiliary from the Bulgarian and East Macedonian PI, from both a diachronic and a synchronic-contrastive viewpoint is part of a process of auxiliary loss that is used to encode discourse functions of foregrounding/backgrounding (see Fielder 1999 for an excellent comparative analysis). The two phenomena pattern quite differently, and the superficial similarity is probably not connected with the rise of evidentiality in Balkan Slavic, given that Turkish shows a process of particle addition while Balkan Slavic has auxiliary elimination, which is carried to completion in western Macedonia. On the other hand, keeping in mind Joseph’s observation concerning surface forms as the site of language contact cited at the beginning of this paper, there is also the possibility of the



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01



F: LA6703.tex / p.18 (1169-1222)

Victor A. Friedman

influence of a reinterpretation of the superficial similarity in Eastern Bulgaria (cf. the fate of Albanian -ka in the Frasheriote dialect of Gorna Belica Aromanian). In terms of typological/universal explanations, a number of arguments can be adduced for the rise of grammaticalized evidentiality. It was Lohmann (1937) – using data from a variety of languages, including Turkish, Georgian, Armenian, Bulgarian, and Lithuanian – who first suggested the connection between the focus of the perfect on the result of a past action leading to a tendency for perfects to express the nonconfirmative evidential complex of meanings. Likewise, Whitney (1889: 295–296) notes: “According to the Hindu grammarians, the Sanskrit perfect is used in the narration of facts not witnessed by the narrator; but there is no evidence of its being either exclusively or distinctively so employed at any period.” In Takelma, a Native American language of southwestern Oregon, the inferential is not used in connected narratives despite its meaning of indirect experience. In part, this is because “the constant use of relatively uncommon inferential forms would have been felt as intrusive and laborious” (Sapir 1922: 158). However, the Takelma inferential is used frequently in “rhetorical questions of anger, surprise, wonder and discovery of fact after ignorance of it for some time” (Sapir 1922: 200). Thus the Takelma inferential displays the typical combination of admirative and indirective meaning.17 Worth noting here is the admirative use of the preterite in Nordic languages, e.g. Swedish Det var då en rackere!, Finnish Oli-pas se vonkale! ‘It is [lit. was] a big one!’ (e.g a fish).18 Educated native speakers of Nordic languages who are fluent in English calque this usage into their English. Thus, for example, upon seeing a handmade chair at a UN observation post, the chief of logistics, a Swede, commented to me in English: “That was a nice chair!” (8/1994), and a Swedish professor once remarked upon the first sip of a white wine: “That was a nice wine!” (1/2001; cf. example (11)). It is clear from the point of view of semantics, that the meanings associated with the nonconfirmative evidential complex (report, inference, sarcasm, surprise) can be expressed by the same verb forms in languages that have not been in contact with one another. This grouping by itself, however, is not an argument against an areal explanation for the development and grammaticalization of such complexes of meaning in specific cases. Since an areal explanation is by definition diachronic, a counterargument must also make use of diachronic facts. In the case of the evidential complex, the oldest (eighth century) Turkish monuments already display an opposition between the -di and -mi¸s pasts much like that of modern Turkish (Tekin 1968: 192–193). At the same time, evidentiality was not encoded in Greek, Latin, or Old Church Slavonic, nor, as noted above, is there convincing evidence from Sanskrit. The one scrap of evidence concerning the syntax of the ancestor of Albanian relates to the postposed definite article (Hamp 1982) and so is not useful. Huntley (1979) has observed that the phenomenon of third person auxiliary omission is already attested in Old Church Slavonic, and van Wijk (1933) has cited evidence from a medieval

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.19 (1222-1343)


Church Slavonic paterikon that suggests that alternations between the perfect and simple preterite in Church Slavonic was being used in a proto-evidential fashion, since in the original Greek the aorist is used throughout. A relevant portion is cited here as (24): (24) Oˇce navyk’ vet’xy i novyi zavˇet’ iz’ [Old Slavonic] O.father I.learned.pd old and new testament from ust’. i otvˇeštav’ starec’ reˇce emu. ispl’nil’ jesi mouth and having.answered old.man said him filled.pt aux.2sg aer’ slovom’ i tretii reˇce i mnˇe na ogni v’z’raslo est’ air word.ins and third said and me on fire grew.pt aux.3sg bylie. i otvˇeštav’ starec’ reˇce emu. i ty herbs and having.answered old.man said him and you strannoljubie otgna ot sebe. hospitality you.chased.pd from self ‘Father, I learned [PD] the Old and New Testaments by heart [lit. ‘from mouth’]. And the old man answering [lit. having answered] said: ‘You have filled [PI] the air with word[s]’ [. . . ] and the third said to him: ‘Grass has grown [PI] in my hearth [lit. fire].’ And the old man answering [lit. having answered] said: ‘And you have expelled [PD] hospitality’ (van Wijk 1933: 243) According to van Wijk, the first two brothers (the second, not cited here, had a dialogue using the same tense forms as the first) use the simple preterite to describe actions that they performed themselves and the old man uses the perfect because he was not present; in the case of the third brother, the action is in the perfect because the brother himself witnessed only the result, whereas the old man answers in the simple preterite thereby demonstrating that the choice of the perfect in the first two encounters was not motivated by a desire to avoid the second person aorist, which is identical to the third person. Van Wijk suggests that the old man’s use of the simple preterite in the third encounter emphasizes the gravity of the sin, i.e. it is a kind of confirmative. For Albanian, Demiraj (1971) cites evidence of admirative usage from the earliest extensive Albanian texts, but since these were not written until the sixteenth century, their evidence is not decisive for the period prior to contact with Turkish. The situation for Romanian is similar since the earliest texts date from the sixteenth century. The morphological historical developments in Balkan Slavic relevant to the rise of evidentiality were correlated with a series of semantic and discoursepragmatic developments. These are summarized in Table 8 (based on Friedman 1976, 1988a):



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.20 (1343-1391)

 Victor A. Friedman

Table 8. Stages in development of Balkan Slavic evidentiality Stage 1 Old perfect expands to any past tense context and becomes unmarked past in all of Slavic (PI in Balkan Slavic); old perfect of ‘be’ (masc. sg. bil) used as auxiliary in Serbia (13th century), later in Bulgaria and eastern Macedonia (15th century); simple preterite [PD] develops meaning of marked confirmativity in Balkan Slavic; PI develops the chief contextual variant meaning of nonconfirmative evidentiality. Stage 2 Imperfect l-form develops in Western Macedonia and Eastern Bulgaria (16th century); Rise of ‘have’ perfect in Western Macedonia (17th century); complete loss of third person auxiliary in PI in Western Macedonia, partial loss in Eastern Macedonia and Bulgaria,19 sporadic loss in Serbia; PI as auxiliary used for marked nonconfirmativity. Stage 3 Competition of PI and ‘have’ perfect (West Central Macedonia; Prilep vs Bitola). Stage 4 Perfect in ‘have’ expands to auxiliaries (Ohrid-Struga, Kostur-Korˇca [KastoriaKorçë]), PI limited to marked nonconfirmativity. Stage 5 PI disappears (Kostur-Korˇca [Kastoria-Korçë]).

These developments result in the dialectological distribution of morphological isoglosses given in Table 9 (based on Friedman 1988a): Table 9. Isoglosses relevant for Balkan Slavic evidentiality illustrated in Map 2 1. Complete absence of the third person auxiliary in the PI (west of Skopje-Veles-Ostrovo [Arnissa] -Kajlar [Ptolemaïs]) 2. Presence of an imperfect l-form (west of an isogloss running southeast from Kumanovo into Aegean [Greek] Macedonia, where it meanders eastward north of Valovište [Sidhirokastron], east of Serez [Serrai], southwest of Ziljahovo [Nea Zihni], north of Drama and northward through west-central Bulgaria, where the imperfect l-participle develops east of the isogloss) 3. Use of bil as an auxiliary (east of Delˇcevo, Kukuš [Kilkis], Solun [Thessaloniki]) 4. Use of perfect constructions in ima ‘have’ a. Present perfect ima dojdeno (west of Gostivar-Vardar-Gevgelija-Kukuš [Kilkis]Struma [Strymon] /sporadic to Tetovo-Kriva Palanka-Serez [Serrai]) b. Pluperfect imaše dojdeno (same as above without sporadic spread) c. L-form imal dojdeno (Gostivar-Lerin [Florina]-Vardar [Aixios]). d. Extension to auxiliaries ‘have’ and ‘be’ (south and west of Ohrid-Struga) e. Absence of pi except in a few expressive contexts (south and west of Kostur-Korcha [Kastoria-Korçë]

The result of these developments is that the expression of evidentiality in Balkan Slavic varies significantly according to region. Western Macedonia and Eastern Bulgaria appear to be two centers of innovation. In both regions, an imperfect l-participle developed, thus making the PI exactly parallel to the PD in terms of the subordinate aspectual distinction aorist/imperfect. In Western Macedonia, however, a new perfect using the auxiliary ‘have’ also developed, the center of innovation arguably being the Ohrid-Struga region. In this region, the PI is now

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.21 (1391-1415)


limited to marked nonconfirmative contexts. To the south and west, the new perfect in ‘have’ replaced the PI altogether, resulting in a system that recapitulates that of Common Slavic, the only difference being the survival of a few PI forms in expressive contexts. To the north and east, the PI, which had become the unmarked past in opposition to the PD, retained its neutral and resultative nuances, although it also developed the chief contextual variant meaning of nonconfirmative evidentiality in opposition to the confirmative PD. The PI is thus in competition with the ‘have’ perfect. This is the basic situation in most of western Macedonia. In the Bitola-Resen area, however, the PD tends to replace the PI, a phenomenon which, like the rise of the ‘have’ perfect itself, has been attributed to the influence of Aromanian (Goła˛b 1984: 135; Koneski 1965: 148). Thus, it can happen that a speaker from Bitola will use the PD in contexts such that a speaker from elsewhere in Macedonia will mistakenly assume that the narration is based on first-hand experience. The weakening of the confirmative/nonconfirmative sense of the opposition between the PD and the PI extends beyond Bitola to the surrounding villages and the town of Resen. Thus in Dihovo, 8 km. west of Bitola, l-forms are not consistently used in nonconfirmative contexts so much as in contexts of taxis (Friedman 1988b). Similarly, the new ‘have’ perfect using the PI auxiliary (e.g. toj imal dojdeno ‘he has/had come’) does not appear to be a marked nonconfirmative. Speakers from Resen and Bitola will accept this form in contexts involving witnessed events whereas speakers from other areas will not. Thus, the Bitola-Resen system, while containing an inventory identical to that of the rest of west-central Macedonia, does not assign the same semantic or discourse-pragmatic values to the forms and seems to be moving toward a Korˇca-Kostur type of system in which evidentiality has been eliminated. In Eastern Bulgaria, on the other hand, the third person auxiliary is partially retained in the PI, its presence or absence being used to signal backgrounding or foregrounding. In Eastern Macedonia and Western Bulgaria, where the imperfect l-participle did not develop, there is an interplay between the presence versus absence of the auxiliary in the PI and the use of the verbal adjective such that the PI behaves mostly like an unmarked past (see Fielder 2002a). In Albanian, too, the function of the admirative is dialectally differentiated. The development of the inverted perfect into a classic admirative set of paradigms is especially characteristic of central Albania (southern Geg and northern Tosk), where, as in Macedonia, urban centers such as Elbasan, which is in the southernmost Geg region, were dominated by Turkish. Here, as elsewhere in the Ottoman Balkans, Turkish functioned as a marker of urban identity (see Akan 2003). In Northern Albanian (especially rural Geg), the admirative still retains nuances of its meaning as an inverted perfect (Çabej 1979: 16–18), and even shows a tendency toward being eliminated via restrictions on its occurrence. Thus, for example, in Dushmani, 30 km east of Shkodër near the Montenegrin border, the admirative only occurs in the perfect, e.g. p˙aska p˙a[s], Standard Albanian paska pasur (Cimo-



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.22 (1415-1459)

 Victor A. Friedman

chowski 1951: 116). The admirative is absent from the Lab and Çam dialects of the extreme south of Albania and adjacent parts of northern Greece (Altimari 1994). Also suggestive is the fact that the admirative is absent from the Arbëresh dialects of Italy and the Arvanitika dialects of Greece, which separated from the main body of Albanian before contact with Turkish. On the other hand, in the Albanian dialects of Ukraine, which separated from the main body of Albanian in the seventeenth century, after approximately two centuries of Turkish contact, there is an inverted perfect, but it lacks evidential nuances (Kotova 1956). As was indicated earlier, Macedonian and Albanian are exemplary of Type A and Type B systems, respectivly, and are areally central to an account of Balkan evidentiality. From a typological point of view, Macedonian represents a two-term system in which there is a marked confirmative as well as marked nonconfirmatives, whereas Albanian represents a one-term system with only marked nonconfirmativity (cf. Aikhenvald 2003). In this respect, Bulgarian and Turkish have two-term systems like Macedonian, whereas the Balkan Romance languages, the transitional Bulgarian dialect of Novo Selo, and Romani have one term systems like Albanian. Greek, in this respect, does not participate in the phenomenon of evidentiality as a meaning encoded in conjugated verbal forms, although the encoding of volitionality and the use of léi as an evidential particle are interesting phenomena in need of further investigation. A cross-cutting distinction is that between systems which use evidentials in connected narratives and systems in which evidentials are restricted to shorter units of discourse. Two-term systems are all of the former type, but so is Megleno-Romanian, which is a one term system. Albanian, Frasheriote Gorna Belica Aromanian, Daco-Romanian, and Novo Selo Bulgarian are all of the latter type, and though the data for Istanbul Judezmo and Sliven Romani are meager, it is likely that they fall in this type as well. A third distinction is the use of nonconfirmative evidentials in present tense questions. This only occurs in one-term systems with true presents such as Albanian, Daco-Romanian, and Novo Selo Bulgarian. Its absence from Frasheriote Gorna Belica Aromanian requires further investigation. A fourth distinction is between systems in which speakers use native material to create new grammatical (evidential) meanings and those in which they use new material for the new grammatical (evidential) meanings. (Following Otheguy (1991), Fielder (1999) calls the former “conceptual convergence” and the latter “linguistic convergence”; cf. also Matras’ (2000) “fusion” and Ross’ (2001) “metatypy”). This distinction, unlike the foregoing three, requires a diachronic orientation and displays considerably more complexity. Aromanian and Sliven Romani have clearly borrowed material from other languages. Albanian and Novo Selo Bulgarian have used native material to create new paradigms, as has Daco-Romanian, apparently. Balkan Slavic both reinterpreted existing material and created new paradigms, while Istanbul Judezmo appears only to have added a new meaning to an existing form. The Kalderash Romani phenomenon

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.23 (1459-1525)

The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics 

identified by Matras is based entirely on native material. In this respect, Turkish is part of a larger Turkic complex in which evidential meaning is always grammatically encoded, but utilizing different material in different languages (see the articles in Johanson & Utas 2000). Returning now to the question of areal versus typological explanation, it is clear that the meanings associated with the evidential complex, especially marked nonconfirmativity, are found across a broad spectrum of diverse and widely separated languages. At the same time, it is worth noting that the development of perfects into evidentials seems to take place predominantly in regions with some sort of Turkic contact, and dialects that are especially influenced by a Turkic language (e.g., Istanbul Judezmo, Ingilo Georgian, Tajik, cf. Friedman 1988c) are especially likely to have a calqued development. While the development in Turkish itself does not seem to have a contact-based explanation, it is undeniable that in some cases language contact is directly responsible for the rise of the grammatical encoding of evidentiality in a given Balkan language or dialect. Frasheriote Gorna Belica Aromanian, Sliven Romani, and Istanbul Judezmo are all of this type. Moreover, it is highly likely, given the general Slavicization of Megleno-Romanian (Capidan 1943: 21), that the use of an inverted perfect as a marked non-confirmative is a conceptual convergence with Slavic.20 In the case of Daco-Romanian, ManoliuManea (1994: 270) mentions conflicting hypotheses concerning Slavic influence versus native development. The argument in favor of Slavic is the spread of ‘be’ as an auxiliary to active constructions (cf. Goła˛b 1984: 135), which is not found in Western Romance. Similarly, the semantics of the Novo Selo probabilitive, combined with the fact that it involves a reinterpretation and subsequent extension of a native Slavic future construction – particularly salient here being the fact that the dialect is located in a region transitional between Serbian and Bulgarian with a significant Romanian-speaking population – suggest that it is a contact based phenomenon. This leaves Albanian and Balkan Slavic. Taken as a supralinguistic set of diasystems, East South Slavic, i.e. Southern (Torlak) Serbian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian, display a series of isoglosses that are morphological, semantic, and pragmatic, in which the development of evidentiality arguably reflects the differentiation of Macedonian and Bulgarian. The medieval division between two centers of East South Slavic literacy and innovation – one in southwestern Macedonia (Ohrid), the other in northeastern Bulgaria (Preslav, later T˘arnovo) – continued through the Ottoman period and into the modern period. During the medieval period, these were the two areas of the most complex and intense language contact (cf. Friedman 1995). Ohrid is in the heart of the region where Albanian, Romance, Slavic, and Greek were all in contact and competition and then overlain by Turkish.21 The region around Preslav did not have the same complexity, but the contact with Turkish was especially strong (Goła˛b 1960; Conev 1910/1911: 13). Moreover, in addition

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.24 (1525-1563)

 Victor A. Friedman

to the obvious importance of Turkish as the language of administration, Turkish had a specifically urban prestige associated with Ottoman restrictions on urban residency (cf. Akan 2003). A similar situation is reflected in Albanian, where the center of admirative innovation appears to be the central, urbanized area contiguous with southwestern Macedonia. Moreover, the textual evidence for Slavic and the dialectal distribution for Albanian both suggest that the encoding of evidentiality, while built on native material, did not really enter the grammatical system until after contact with Turkish. Thus, for both Albanian and Balkan Slavic it can be hypothesized that the grammatical encoding of evidentiality began in urban centers where Turkish was widely spoken and had high prestige and spread from there to the countryside. Istanbul Judezmo pluperfect usage seems to reflect the beginnings of the same type of phenomenon. The absence of grammaticalized evidentiality from most Aromanian dialects, on the one hand, and from Greek, on the other, may be connected with patterns of rural transhumancy for much of Aromanian, and competing urban prestige both for Greek as a language of religion and commerce, and, in some urban centers such as Bitola, resistance of Aromanian visà-vis Macedonian, which during the Ottoman period was more associated with the countryside. Balkan evidentiality, like infinitive replacement (Joseph 1983), is not a uniform phenomenon: The complex of meanings associated with marked nonconfirmativity clearly have a functional basis, but the grammaticalization of those meanings into verbal paradigms in the Balkans clearly requires at least a partial areal account. A mere comparison of forms, however, is inadequate. On the one hand, morphological, semantic, and discourse-pragmatic isoglosses show differential distribution, e.g. in Balkan Slavic and Albanian (cf. also Friedman 1983). Fielder (1999), in a detailed study of narrative strategy in a Bulgarian text and its Turkish translation, suggests that the evidential use of the Bulgarian PI is a conceptual convergence with Turkish (the calquing of new meaning onto existing material, after Otheguy 1991), as opposed to linguistic convergence, i.e. the borrowing of new meaning via new material. This proposal is consistent with Friedman 1994b, where I argue that discourse functions (i.e., the pragmatic component of the grammar) are not merely subject to borrowing but actually serve as entry points for the development of structural change. In the case of Balkan evidentiality, however, there is a distinction between the Turkish/Balkan Slavic type and the Albanian/Balkan Romance type (to which can be appended Romani and Novo Selo Bulgarian). In the former, both confirmative and nonconfirmative appear as grammaticalized meanings, whereas in the latter, only nonconfirmative meanings are grammaticalized. The distinction between meanings calqued onto existing forms and the creation of new forms to convey new content does not map isomorphically onto the distribution of semantic-pragmatic isoglosses. Moreover, the geographic distribution of eviden-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.25 (1563-1608)


tiality in Balkan Slavic argues for a sociolinguistically based explanation for the spread of the phenomenon from Southwestern Macedonia (together with the imperfect l-form and the ‘have’ perfect) and Eastern Bulgaria (together with the imperfect l-participle and the reinterpretation of auxiliary omission). That is, regions with heavy concentrations of Turkish-speakers in urban centers served as sources of innovation. The spread of the Albanian admirative northward and southward from a heavily Turkish-influenced urbanized center looks quite similar. Lindstedt (2000), referring to Friedman’s (1997) characterization of power and prestige relations among the Balkan languages suggests that it is the languages in the middle of the hierarchy, i.e. Balkan Slavic, Balkan Romance, and Albanian, that show the most mutual convergence owing to the most mutual multilingualism, whereas Greek and Romani, at the relative top and bottom, respectively, show less. As Eloeva and Rusakov (1990: 8) point out, there is a difference between Romani and the other languages of the Balkans. The characteristics of the Balkan linguistic league developed in environments of mutual multilingualism, i.e. speakers of a given language were influenced not only by the structures of the other languages they learned but also by hearing their languages spoken as second languages. In the case of Romani, however, (like Judezmo), the nature of sociolinguistic relations was such that multilingualism went only in one direction. Although Romani-speakers learned other languages, their own language was not normally learned by others. Lindstedt argues that Greek is also subject to unidirectional multilingualism, but in the other direction: While speakers of other languages learned Greek, Greekspeakers were less motivated to learn other languages. Nonetheless, it is clear that many Greeks generally knew Turkish (Dizikirik¯es 1975), which dominated the Ottoman urban environment. At the same time, multilingualism was a characteristic of the Ottoman town. Thus, while Lindstedt’s hypothesis that the middle of the prestige hierarchy is the most active site of linguistic convergence has attractive features, and indeed involves precisely the languages first observed as “Balkan” by Kopitar in 1829 (see Friedman 1997), when examining evidentiality, the situation seems more complex. It would seem that urban Turkish brought about the spread of evidentials in Balkan Slavic and Albanian, but while the former is Type A like Turkish itself, the latter is Type B. At the same time, it appears that urban Aromanian blocked the development of the Balkan Slavic evidential system in Bitola, while the widespread knowledge of Turkish among Greeks was not enough to bring about the development of a Greek evidential system. On the other hand, specific dialectal phenomena such as those in Istanbul Judezmo, Sliven Romani, Bela di Suprã Frasheriote Aromanian, and Novo Selo Bulgarian show the rise of evidentials that are not attested beyond the confines of small areas. The first two dialects are urban, the second two rural. At the same time, the urban dialects are of languages at the bottom or outside the prestige hierarchy, while the rural dialects are more centrally



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.26 (1608-1657)

 Victor A. Friedman

located in that hierarchy. Thus, intersecting factors of ethnicity and the opposition urban/rural seem to produce different effects in different environments. Analyzing the rise and spread of grammaticalized evidentiality in the Balkans, therefore, requires an account that considers sociolinguistic factors and dialectal distribution at various levels of the grammar. The picture that emerges is a nuanced one in which form, content, narrative structure, and social factors all have roles to play, and a typologically informed areal explanation appears to be the most adequate.

ROMANIA

NOVO SELO

SERBIA

TARNOVO

BULGARIA

KOSOVO

MONTENEGRO

SKOPJE

MACEDONIA

SHKODËR

ALBANIA ELBASAN

^

BOSNIAHERCEGOVINA

STRUGA MEGLEN OHRID BITOLA

KORÇË KASTORIA

GREECE

Map 1. The Balkans: Places mentioned in the text

SLIVEN

TURKEY ISTANBUL

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.27 (1657-1677)

The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics 

Serbia Kosovo

Kriva Palanka

Kumanovo

f

Skopje

^

A l b GEG a n TOSK i a

Gostivar

Belica

Delcevo

Va

Veles

Macedonia d

Kicevo

^

Tetovo

Bulgaria

S

e r

da

r

Kruševo Prilep

Struga Ohrid

Bitola

Dojran Gevgelija Meglen

Ostrovo

c

b ^

Kajlar

a

f

Drama Seres

Ziljahovo

Kukuš

Lerin

Korca Kostur

r u m a Valovište

Resen Upper Bitola Prespa Lower Prespa

t

d

Greece

semantic isoglosses a= l-form as relic b= l-form as marked nonconfirmative Solun ima imano/bideno c= imaše dojdeno is not +confirmative morphological isoglosses d= no aux in 3rd PI e= bil used as aux f= presence of impf l-form

e

Map 2. The Republic of Macedonia and neighboring countries showing places and isoglosses mentioned in Table 9 (Names of towns and rivers are all given in Macedonian)

Notes . “Typology consists in the achronic equation of features or relations within grammars; such an activity is clearly a first step in the exploration of human linguistic universals. By definition, then, typology can play only a limiting, but not an initiating or central, role in the idiosyncratic specifics of language history. [. . . ] There is then the type of study which has been called areal. Such phenomena were certainly noticed by 19th century scholars at least intuitively, but it was one of the several systematizing merits of the Pragueans to expound in an orderly and principled way the features, the affinités, characterizing a Sprachbund. [. . . ] Yet, while the comparative method is unquestionably an historical study, the field of areal linguistics is no less so; for it too is occupied with analyzing the result of specific, if multiple, linguistic events of the past. Both the comparative method and areal linguistics are historical disciplines – twin faces of diachronic linguistics, if you will.” (Hamp 1977: 279) . “Given the fact that these parallels [analytic future formation, postposed definiteness marking, infinitive replacement, and resumptive pronominal object marking – VAF] are not the result of a common inheritance from Proto-Indo-European, and that they represent a divergence from earlier stages of each of these languages, the convergence they show is striking and provides an important starting point for an investigation into the language contact

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.28 (1677-1725)

 Victor A. Friedman

situation that gave rise to them. Such, however, is not the case with parallels that can be attributed to the workings of Universal Grammar. [. . . ] Languages in [contact] situations may show “deeper” similarities [. . . ], but the surface forms themselves, the output of generative rules of syntax, would seem to be the critical level at which to judge similarities that would reveal the existence of a Sprachbund. [. . . ] Such an importance of surface structures is really to be expected if the basis for the spread of such features – that is, the basis for the development of contact-induced areal convergences – is at least limited bilingualism, transfer, and reverse interference, for surface forms are the point of contact between speakers.” (Joseph 2000: 24–25). Cf. Croft (1990: 246–259) on the debate concerning functional-typological descriptions or explanations versus formal-generative ones. . Hinrichs (1999) is an exception in this regard. . In subsequent work, Fielder has argued convincingly that auxiliary omission in the Bulgarian third person past indefinite signals the discourse phenomenon of foregrounding vs. backgrounding (see Fielder 2002b and earlier articles cited there). . Johanson (2000: 67–71) includes the participant in the narrated event as a possible alternative to the participant in the speech event. . For a more nuanced account, see the articles in Johanson and Utas (2000). . Examples from written sources are given with bibliographic citation. Examples that occurred in ordinary conversation are given with the month and year. All other examples were checked with native speakers. Translations are mine. . The notion was subsequently applied to Turkish, using the term “unprepared mind” by Slobin and Aksu-Koç (1982), and to Japanese with the term “new information” by Akatsuka (1985). . The Albanian perfect uses the present tense of ‘have’ (3 sg ka) plus the participle, which is usually based on the aorist stem. . There are two Aromanian dialects spoken in Gorna Belica, that of the Mbaliotes (Mãbalots) and that of the Frasheriotes (Fãrshãlots). The Farsheriotes of Gorna Belica emigrated there from Myzeqe in central Albania before the Balkan Wars. At present, the village is uninhabited during the winter, but villagers return to their homes there for the summer. I wish to thank Marjan Markoviк´ for the opportunity to work with his uncle, Tomislav Manovski/Toma Mani, as well as Vasilie Balukoski/Silja Baljuk, Andon Labrovski/Ndona Ljabru, and Kosta Panovski/Koci Pani. I am grateful to all of them for sharing their knowledge of their native language. . In Albanian, the past admirative occurs in the imperfect but not the aorist, and this appears to have influenced the Aromanian choice of participial base. The fact that the Aromanian base is masculine plural appears to reflect a dialectal Tosk (south Albanian) participle, which ends in schwa and thus looks like a masculine plural adjective. . I wish to thank Petar Atanasov and Marjan Markoviк´ for the translation into Macedonian. . The prototypical category of distance was originally identified by Lunt (1952) for the Macedonian PI, subsequently adduced in Chvany (1988) for Bulgarian, and most recently ´ connected with deixis in general by Fielder (2002b; cf. Also Topolinska 1995). Interestingly

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.29 (1725-1791)

The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics 

enough, this analysis comes full circle, in a sense, back to Conev’s (1910/11) original characterization of what is general referred to today as evidentiality as part of the opposition definite/indefinite, i.e. as a form of deixis. . Balkan Slavic and Turkish have a subordinate aspectual distinction aorist/imperfect that can occur with both confirmatives and non-confirmatives. Georgian, too, has an aorist/imperfect subordinate aspectual distinction, but only the aorist enters into evidential oppositions (with the perfect). . I am indebted to César Montoliu for bringing this to my attention and supplying the examples. . Turkish has rules of progressive devoicing and vowel harmony that affect the surface shapes of morphemes. Thus, for example, depending on the vowel and consonant in the segment that precedes it, -dir, -dur, -dür, -dır, -dir, -dur, -tür, -tır are all possible realizations of the copulative particle for which -dir is the traditional citation form. . See Adelaar (1977) on the calquing of a Quechua “sudden discovery tense” as a Spanish perfect (in Ecuador) or pluperfect (in Peru and Bolivia). . I wish to thank Hannu Tommola for supplying the examples. . Fielder (2002a) has shown that in conjunction with its foregrounding and backgrounding function, absence and presence of the third person auxiliary in eastern Macedonian and in Bulgarian encodes the difference between an actional and a statal perfect, i.e. between a focus on the past action and a focus on the resultant state. . It is worth noting that while the form resembles Albanian, the content is Macedonian. The form is more likely the result of a Romance tendency or, perhaps, of southeast Macedonian clitic ordering rules. . There were also successive waves of Romani-speakers. Some of these assimilated linguistically to Albanian, Macedonian or Greek (and later, Turkish), while others retained Romani.

References Adelaar, W. F. H. (1977). Tarma Quechua. Lisse: Peter de Ridder. Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2003). “Evidentiality in typological perspective”. In A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Studies in Evidentiality [Typological Studies in Language 54], 1–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Aikhenvald, A. Y. & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.). (2003). Studies in Evidentiality [Typological Studies in Language 54]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Akan Ellis, B. (2003). Shadow Genealogies: Memory and Identity Among Urban Muslims in Macedonia. Boulder, CO: East European Monographs. Akatsuka, N. (1985). “Conditionals and the epistemic scale”. Language, 61, 625–639.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.30 (1791-1884)

 Victor A. Friedman

Alexander, R. (2002). “Bridging the descriptive chasm; The Bulgarian generalized past”. In V. A. Friedman & D. L. Dyer (Eds.), Of All the Slavs My Favorites: Studies in Balkan and South Slavic Linguistics Presented to Howard I. Aronson in Honor of His 66th Birthday, 33–42. Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Altimari, F. (1994). “La distribuzione dell passato ‘prezuntivo’ nell’ albanese d’Italia” [The distribution of the “presumptive” past in the Albanian of Italy]. In F. Altimari & L. M. Savoia (Eds.), I Dialetti italo-albanesi, 211–221. Rome: Bulzoni. Aronson, H. I. (1967). “The grammatical categories of the indicative in the contemporary Bulgarian literary language”. In To Honor Roman Jakobson, Vol. 1, 82–98. The Hague: Mouton. Aronson, H. I. (1977). “Interrelationships between aspect and mood in Bulgarian”. Folia Slavica, 1(1), 19–32. Aronson, H. I. (1982). Georgian: A Reading Grammar. Columbus: Slavica. Aronson, H. I. (1991). “Towards a typology of verbal categories”. In L. R. Waugh & S. Rudy (Eds.), New Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation, 111–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Asenova, P. (1989). Balkansko ezikoznanie: Osnovni problemi na balkanskija ezikov s˘ajuz. [Balkan Linguistics: Basic Problems of the Balkan Linguistic League]. Sofia: izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Atanasov, P. (1990). Le mégléno-roumain de nos jours. Hamburg: Buske. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Harvard University. Boas, F. (Ed.). (1911). Handbook of American Indian Languages, Part 1 [Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40]. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Boas, F. (1947). “Kwakiutl grammar, with a glossary of the suffixes”. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 37(3), 201–377. Çabej, E. (1979). “Zu einigen Erscheinungen der albanischen Sprachgeschichte und deren balkanischen Zusammenhängen”. Studia Albanica, 16(2), 86–104. Capidan, T. (1928). Meglenoromânii II [The Megleno-Romanians]. Bucharest: Academia Român˘a. Capidan, T. (1943). Les Macédo-Roumains. Bucharest: Funda¸tia Regal˘a pentru Literatura s¸ i Art˘a. Chvany, Catherine (1988). “Distance, directness and discreetness in Bulgarian and English verbal morphology”. In A. M. Schenker (Ed.), American Contributions to the Tenth International Congress of Slavists: Linguistics, 69–90. Columbus: Slavica. ´ Poznanskie ´ Cimochowski, W. (1951). Le dialecte de Dushmani. Poznan: Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk. Comrie, B. (1981). Language Typology and Linguistic Universals. Chicago: University of Chicago. Conev, B. (1910/1911). “Opredeleni i neopredeleni formi v b˘agarski ezik” [Definite and indefinite forms in Bulgarian]. Godišnik na Sofijkskija universitet: Istorikofilologiˇceski fakultet, 7, 1–18. Croft, W. (1990). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.31 (1884-1989)


Dankoff, R. (Ed.) (and transl. with J. Kelly). (1982). Mahmud al-K¯aš˘garí: Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (D¯ıw¯an Lu˘ga¯ t at-Turk.) [Turkish Sources 7] Part I. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Demiraj, Sh. (1971). “Habitorja dhe mosha e saj” [The admirative and its chronology]. Studime Filologjike, 8, 31–49. Demiraj, Sh. (1994). Gjuhësi ballkanike [Balkan Linguistics]. Skopje: Logos-A. Dimitriu, C. (1979). Gramatica limbii române explicat˘a. [An Explanatory Grammar of Romanian]. Ia¸si: Junimea. Dizikirik¯es, G. S. (1975). Na Ksetourkepsoume t¯e gl¯ossa mas [Let us De-Turkify our Language]. Athens: Angyra. Dozon, A. (1879). Manuel de la langue chkipe ou albanaise. Paris: Société asiatique de Paris. Eloeva, F. A. & A. Ju. Rusakov (1990). Problemy jazykovoj interferencii [Problems of Linguistic Interference] Leningrad: University of Leningrad. Feuillet, J. (1986). La linguistique balkanique. [Cahiers balkaniques 10]. Paris: INALCO. Fielder, G. E. (1999). “The origin of evidentiality in the Balkans: Linguistic convergence or conceptual convergence?” Mediterranean Language Review, 11, 59–89. Fielder, G. E. (2002a). “The perfect in Eastern Macedonian dialects.” In V. StojˇcevskaAntiк´ et al. (Eds.), IV Makedonsko-severnoamerikanska slavistiˇcka konferencija za makedonistika: Studii za makedonskiot jazik, literatura i Kultura [IVth North-AmericanMacedonian Conference: Studies on Macedonian Language, Literature, and Culture], 137–146. Skopje: Univerzitet “Sv. Kiril i Metodij”. Fielder, G. E. (2002b). “Questioning the dominant paradigm: An alternative view of the grammaticalization of the Bulgarian evidential”. In V. A. Friedman & D. L. Dyer (Eds.), Of All the Slavs My Favorites: Studies in Balkan and South Slavic Linguistics Presented to Howard I. Aronson in Honor of His 66th Birthday, 171–201. Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Friedman, V. A. (1976). “Dialectal synchrony and diachronic syntax: The Macedonian perfect”. In S. Steever, C. Walker, & S. Mufwene (Eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Diachoric Syntax, 96–104. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic society. Friedman, V. A. (1977). The Grammatical Categories of the Macedonian Indicative. Columbus: Slavica. Friedman, V. A. (1978). “On the semantic and morphological influence of Turkish on Balkan Slavic”. In D. Farkas et al. (Eds.), Chicago Linguistic Society: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting, 108–118. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Friedman, V. A. (1981). “Admirativity and confirmativity”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 17(1), 12–28. Friedman, V. A. (1982a). “Reportedness in Bulgarian: Category or stylistic variant?” International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 25(26), 149–163. Friedman, V. A. (1982b). “Admirativity in Bulgarian compared with Albanian and Turkish”. In D. Kosev (Ed.), Bulgaria Past and Present, Vol. 2, 63–67. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Friedman, V. A. (1983). “Grammatical categories and a comparative Balkan Grammar”. In N. Reiter (Ed.), Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik [Balkanologische Veröffentlichungen 8], 81–98. Berlin: Osteuropa-Institut an der Freien Universität Berlin. Friedman, V. A. (1988a). “Morphological innovation and semantic shift in Macedonian”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 24(1), 34–41.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.32 (1989-2073)

 Victor A. Friedman

Friedman, V. A. (1988b). “Za složenite minati vreminja vo dihovskiot govor vo sporedba so makedonskiot literaturen jazik” [On the compound past tenses in the Dihovo dialect in comparison with the (tenses in the) Macedonian literary language]. In B. Vidoeski (Ed.), Jaziˇcnite pojavi vo Bitola i bitolsko deneska i vo minatoto, 193–200. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite. Friedman, V. A. (1988c). “The category of evidentiality in the Balkans and the Caucasus”. In A. Schenker (Ed.), American Contributions to the Tenth International Congress of Slavists, Linguistics, 121–139. Columbus: Slavica. Friedman, V. A. (1994a). “Surprise! Surprise! Arumanian has had an admirative!” Indiana Slavic Studies, 7, 79–89. Friedman, V. A. (1994b). “Variation and grammaticalization in the development of balkanisms”. In K. Beals et al. (Eds.), Papers from the Thirtieth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, V. 2, 101–115. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Friedman, V. A. (1995). “The differentiation of Macedonian and Bulgarian in a Balkan context”. Balkan Forum, 3(3), 291–305. Friedman, V. A. (1997). “One grammar, three lexicons: Ideological overtones and underpinnings in the Balkan Sprachbund”. In K. Singer, R. Eggert, & G. Anderson (Eds.), Papers from the Panels on Linguistic Ideologies in Contact, Universal Grammar, Parameters and Typology, The Perception of Speech and other Acoustic Signals, 23–44. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Friedman, V. A. (1998). “The grammatical expression of presumption and related concepts in Balkan Slavic and Balkan Romance”. In M. Flier & A. Timberlake (Eds.), American Contributions to the 12th International Congress of Slavists, 390–405. Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Goła˛b, Z. (1960). “The influence of Turkish upon the Macedonian Slavonic dialects”. Folia Orientalia, 1, 26–45. Goła˛b, Z. (1984). The Arumanian dialect of Kruševo in the SR Macedonia SFR Yugoslavia. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite. Guentchéva, Z. (1996). “Introduction”. In Z. Guentchéva (Ed.), L’Énonciation médiatisée, 11–18. Louvain: Peeters. Hamp, E. P. (1977). “On some questions of areal linguistics”. In K. Whistlers et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 279–282. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society. Hamp, E. P. (1982). “The oldest Albanian syntagma”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 25, 77–79. Hinrichs, U. (Ed.). (1999). Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Huntley, D. (1979). “The L-participle without auxiliary on Old Church Slavonic”. International Review of Linguistics, 4(3), 321–366. Jacobsen, W. H. (1986). “The heterogeneity of evidentials in Makah”. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, 3–28. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Jakobson, R. (1957/1971). Shifters, Verbal Categories, and the Russian Verb. Cambridge: Harvard University Slavic Department; Selected Writings, 2: Word and Language, 130– 137. The Hague: Mouton.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.33 (2073-2166)


Johanson, L. (2000). “Turkish indirectives”. In L. Johanson & B. Utas (Eds.), Evidentials in Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, 61–87. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Johanson, L. & Utas, B. (Eds.). (2000). Evidentials in Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Joseph, B. (1983). The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Joseph, B. (2000). “Is Balkan comparative syntax possible?” In M. L. Rivero & A. Ralli (Eds.), Comparative syntax of the Balkan languages, 17–43. Oxford: Oxford University. Koneski, B. (1965). Istorija na makedonsiot jazik [History of the Macedonian language]. Skopje: Kultura. Konstantinov, A. (1895). Baj Ganjo. Sofija: Penˇco V. Spasov (reprinted in 1973, Sofia: B˘algarski pisatel). Konstantinov, A. (1964). Bai Ganiu transl. T. C˘aliu & I. Boscu. Bucharest: Biblioteca pentru to¸ti. Kopitar, B. J. (1829). “Albanische, walachische und bulgarische Sprache”. Jahbücher der Literatur, 46, 59–106. Kostov, K. (1973). “Zur Bedeutung des Zigeunerischen für die Erforschung Grammatischer Interferenzerscheinungen”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 16(2), 99–113. Kotova, N. V. (1956). “Materialy po albanskoj dialektologii (albanskie govory Ukrainy)” [Material on Albanian dialectology: The Albanian dialects of Ukraine]. Uˇcenye zapiski Instituta slavjanovednija Akademii nauk SSSR, 13, 254–287. Kriarás, E. (1995). Neo Elliniko Leksiko [Modern Greek Dictionary]. Athens: Ekdhoti Athinon. Lindstedt, J. (2000). “Linguistic Balkanization: Contact-induced change by mutual reinforcement”. In D. Gilbers, J. Nerbonne, & J. Schaeken (Eds.), Languages in contact, 231–246 Amsterdam: Rodopi. Lohmann, J. (1937). “Ist das idg. Perfektum nominalen Ursprungs?” Kuhns Zeitschrift, 64, 42–61. Lunt, H. (1952). A Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language. Skopje: Državvno knigoizdatelstvo. Manoliu-Manea, M. (1994). Discourse and Pragmatic Constraints on Grammatical Choices: A Grammar of Surprises. [North Holland Linguistic Series 57]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Markoviк´ , M. (1995). “Glagolskiot sistem vo makedonskiot i vo aromanskiot ohridski govor.” [The verbal system in Macedonian and the Aromanian dialect of Ohrid]. M.A. Thesis. University of Skopje. Matras, Y. (1995). “Verb evidentials and their discourse functions in Vlach Romani narratvies”. In Y. Matras (Ed.), Romani in Contact: The History, Structure, and Sociology of a Language, 95–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Matras, Y. (2000). “How predictable is contact-induced change in grammar?” In C. Renfrew, A. McMahon, & L. Trask (Eds.), Time Depth in Historical Linguistics, 563–583. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archeological Research. Mazon, A. (1936). Documents, contes et chansons slaves de l’Albanie du Sud. Paris: Droz. Mladenov, M. (1969). Govor˘at na Novo Selo Vidinsko [The Dialect of Novo Selo Vidin region] Sofia: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01

F: LA6703.tex / p.34 (2166-2249)

 Victor A. Friedman

Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative Retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nova Makedonija. Daily newspaper published in Skopje, Macedonia. Citation given in the order day.month.year:page. Otheguy, R. (1991). “When contact speakers talk, linguistic theory listens”. Paper read at Second International Conference of the Columbia School of Linguistics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, October 7–9. Palmer, F. R. (1983). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Rilindja. Daily newspaper published in Prishtina, Kosovo [at the time when these examples were published]. Citation given in the order day.month.year:page. Ross, M. (2001). “Contact-induced change in Oceanic languages in North-West Melanesia”. In A. Y. Aikhenwald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance. Problems in Comparative Liguistics, 134–166. Oxford: Oxford University. Samilov, M. (1957). “The witnessed past in Serbo-Croatian”. Canadian Slavonic Papers, 2, 98–105. Sandfeld, K. (1930). La linguistique balkanique. Paris: Klincksieck. Sapir, E. (1922). “The Takelma language of Southwestern Oregon”. In F. Boas (Ed.), Handbook of American Indian Languages 2 [Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40], 1–296. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Schaller, H. (1975). Die Balkansprachen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Slobin, D. I. & Aksu-Koç, A. A. (1982). “Tense, aspect, and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential”. In Paul J. Hopper (Ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, 185–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Squartini, M. (2001). “The internal structure of evidentiality in Romance”. Studies in Language, 25, 297–334. Tekin, T. (1968). A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic. Bloomington: Indiana University. ´ Topolinska, Z. (1995). “Convergent Evolution, Creolization and Referentiality”. In E. Hajiˇcová and P. Sgall (Eds.), Prague Linguistic Circle Papers, 1, 239–247. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Varol, M.-C. (2001). Calques morphosyntaxiques du turc en judéo-espagnol: mécanismes etlimites. In A. Donabedian (Ed.), Faits de langues: Langues de diaspora, 85–99. Paris: Ophrys. Weigand, G. (1923/1924). “The admirative in Bulgarian”. The Slavonic Review, 2, 567–68. Whitney, W. D. (1889). Sanskrit Grammar. Cambridge: Harvard. Wijk, N. van (1933). “De l’emploi du parfait et de l’aoriste en vieux-slave”. Revue des études slaves, 13, 242–244.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:16/01/2004; 9:36

The nominal phrase

F: LA67P2.tex / p.1 (26-48)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.1 (40-118)

Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou Georgetown University / Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

In Modern Greek an adjective following a noun must obligatorily bear a second definite article and in Aromanian it can do so. These polydefinite constructions are argued to have different syntactic, semantic and phonological properties from monadic constructions, where the adjective precedes the noun and only one definite article appears. All of these properties will be shown to follow from a structure which involves a functional predicative category (PredP), headed by the adjectival definite article, whose specifier may be manifested as a demonstrative in both languages.

.

Introduction

Modern Greek exhibits DPs in which a definite article appears not only in front of the noun, but also in front of the adjective. Following Kolliakou (1995, 1999), we will label these structures “polydefinite constructions”: (1) a.

i pena i asimenja the pen the silver b. i asimenja i pena the silver the pen ‘the silver pen’

MG MG

The two definite articles in (1) must agree overtly in gender, number and case. In Modern Greek the definite adjective may either follow the noun, as in (1a), or precede the noun, as in (1b). A similar construction is attested in Aromanian, a Balkan Romance language spoken in Northern Greece, Albania and Macedonia.1 Notice that the equivalent of Modern Greek in (1b) is not possible in Aromanian, as shown in (2b). Aromanian,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.2 (118-168)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

however, has the possibility of using a demonstrative between the definite noun and the definite adjective, as shown in (2c): (2) a.

stilo-lu lai-lu pen-the black-the b. *lai-lu stilo-lu black-the pen-the c. stilo-lu atsel lai-lu pen-the that black-the ‘the black pen’

AR AR AR

Modern Greek and Aromanian also exhibit “monadic constructions.” In these constructions, only one determiner appears within the DP: (3) a.

i asimenja pena the silver pen b. lai-lu stilo black-the pen ‘the black pen’

MG AR

In contrast with the polydefinite, the adjective in monadic constructions can never follow the noun: (4) a. *i pena asimenja the pen silver b. *stilo-lu lai pen-the black

MG (cf. 1a) AR (cf. 2a)

Summarizing the major differences between MG and AR we see that: (a) In AR the definite article is an enclitic form, cliticizing onto either the noun or the adjective. (b) AR does not allow for polydefinite constructions with the order A-N. (c) In AR a demonstrative pronoun is usually used when the order is N-A, as shown in (2c). The purpose of this paper is to propose a syntactic analysis which captures the observed distribution of such polydefinite DPs, and accounts for the similarities and differences between MG and AR. Based on evidence from MG, we will see that polydefinite constructions are syntactically, semantically and phonologically very different from monadic constructions, thus showing that polydefinites cannot be derived from monadic constructions. In Section 5.2 we will propose a new analysis to account for these constructions. Anticipating the discussion to follow, we will argue that polydefinites include a functional predicative category (PredP), which is headed by the ‘adjectival’ definite article. We will argue that PredP takes an adjective phrase as its complement, and pro as its specifier, the latter identified by the noun in D. The ‘basic’ position of the adjective in a polydefinite construction is postnominal, a position in which the adjective carries nuclear stress by default. The

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.3 (168-226)

Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian 

prenominal polydefinite construction will be argued to be derived by movement of the article + adjective complex. Monadics will be shown to lack PredP and it will be argued that no movement is involved.

. Some background information The phenomenon exemplified in (1) and (2) has been subsumed under different labels, such as “definiteness or determiner spreading”, “multiple determiner alternation”, “double definiteness”, “definiteness agreement”, “definiteness concord”, “adjectival determiners”, “polydefinite DPs”. Following Kolliakou (1995, 1999), we will adopt the term “polydefinite” and its opposite “monadic” to refer to the constructions discussed in Section 1. Traditional Greek grammars as well as certain current analyses (Tredinnick 1992; Androutsopoulou 1995; Manolessou 2000) take the polydefinite construction in (5a) to be essentially a free/stylistic variant of the monadic construction in (5b): (5) a.

i the b. i the

pena i pen the asimenja silver

asimenja silver pena pen

MG MG

Tredinnick (1992) observes that “there is no semantic distinction made [between (5a) and (5b)]. They are essentially stylistic variants and have identical distribution.” For Stavrou (1995), polydefinites are an instantiation of restrictive apposition (see also Manolessou 2000). She claims that adjectival polydefinite constructions are to be analyzed on a par with constructions like those in (6), which are polydefinite constructions consisting of two adjacent definite nominals: (6) a.

to kuti ta spirta the box the matches ‘the match box’ b. o vlakas o Janis the fool the Janis ‘John, that fool’

MG

MG

Kolliakou (1995, 1999) was the first linguist to note that MG polydefinite constructions are different from monadics both in interpretation and in their distribution. She spells out the differences in terms of different information packaging of the two types of DPs. According to Kolliakou (1999: 123), “polydefinites are felicitous in only a subset of the contexts where the latter can be found (. . . ). Polydefi-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.4 (226-286)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

nites are associated with contextual constraints that go beyond the uniqueness presuppositions of standard [monadic] definites.” This paper is organized as follows. Following and building on Kolliakou (1999), in Section 3 we present additional evidence for the claim that polydefinites cannot be mere free variants of monadic DPs which result in, or stem from, different styles or registers (poetry, prose, dialectal speech). We show that they constitute distinct constructions with their own syntactic, semantic and phonological/prosodic properties. In Section 4, we discuss previous analyses of polydefinite constructions. In Section 5 we present and argue for our analysis of polydefinites, comparing it to previous analyses. We also list the aspects of the phenomenon that the proposed analysis can account for and examine the predictions that the analysis makes. Finally, Section 6 summarizes the main points and the merits of the analysis.

. Differences between polydefinite and monadic constructions . Syntactic differences A first difference between polydefinite and monadic constructions appears when we consider adjective modification. As shown in (7a), the adjective in a polydefinite construction cannot be modified by a degree adverb or by an adverb of quantification. As shown in (7b), such modification is possible in monadic constructions: (7) a. *to toso/ poli/ pjo oreo the so/ very/ more nice b. to toso/ poli/ pjo oreo the so/ very/ more nice ‘the very nice/nicer book’

to vivlio the book vivlio book

MG (polydefinite)2 MG (monadic)

A second difference can be observed when the adjective is followed by a complement. An adjective in a polydefinite construction cannot take a complement; this is shown in (8a). In a monadic construction, however, a complement to the adjective is possible, as shown in (8b): (8) a. *i perifani gia ta pedia tis the proud of the children her b. i perifani gia ta pedia tis the proud of the children her ‘the mother proud of her children’

i mana MG (polydefinite)3 the mother MG (monadic) mana mother

A third difference is seen when we consider prenominal numerals or quantifiers. An adjective in a polydefinite DP cannot cooccur with a prenominal numeral or

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.5 (286-353)

Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian

quantifier that also modifies the noun, regardless of whether the former precedes or follows the noun, as shown in (9a, b). In a monadic construction, however, this is possible (9c): (9) a.

??ta

pola/ tria vivlia ta orea the many/ three books the nice b. *ta orea ta pola/ tria vivlia the nice the many/ three books c. ta pola/ tria orea vivlia the many/ three nice books ‘the many/three nice books’

MG (polydefinite)4 MG (polydefinite) MG (monadic)

Finally, possessive clitics may not follow the adjective in polydefinite constructions, while this is possible in monadic constructions: (10) a. *to the b. to the

spiti house spiti house

to the tu his

oreo tu nice his to oreo the nice

MG (polydefinite) MG (polydefinite)5

(11) a.

to oreo tu spiti the nice his house b. to oreo spiti tu the nice house his ‘his nice house’

MG (monadic) MG (monadic)

We can see in examples (7) through (11) that monadic and polydefinite DPs have very different syntactic properties and distribution. From this it follows that polydefinites and monadics cannot have a common origin.

. Semantic differences In this subsection we will basically follow Kolliakou (1999) to point out the main differences between polydefinite and monadic constructions. Crucially, polydefinites imply a contrast and are organized around the presupposition/focus distinction. Consider the interaction in (12): (12) Ti tha paris tu Petru, to fako i tin pena? what will you-buy the Petro the lense or the pen ‘What will you buy to Petro, the lense or the pen?’ Tin pena. the pen ‘The pen.’

MG



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.6 (353-419)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

Pja pen, ti xrisi i tin asimenja? which pen the golden or the silver ‘Which one, the golden or the slilver one?’ Nomizo tin asimenja tin pena. I-think the silver the pen ‘I think, the silver one.’ In a polydefinite construction, the article-noun sequence constitutes the context or presupposition and the articled adjective constitutes the focus (or the ‘assertion,’ in Zubizarreta’s 1998 terms). In other words, the definite article of the adjective in a polydefinite construction undertakes the same function as contrastive focus on the adjective in a monadic DP, the overall effect being one of contrast or selection among the referents of the denotation of the noun which, by not being stressed, constitutes the context or a contextually retrievable set. According to Zubizarreta (1998), contrastive focus has two effects: (a) it negates the value of the variable in the Assertion Structure of its context statement, and (b) it introduces an alternative value for such a variable. Thus, the last response in (12) gives rise to the following two assertions: (a) there is a (x, y, z) such that x is offering y (such that y is a pen) to z and (b) it is not the case that y = a golden pen; y = a silver pen (where x is offering y to z). Assertion (a) is the presuppositional part or the background assertion, while (b) is the main assertion. As Zubizarreta (1998: 7) observes: “Like emphasis, contrastive focus makes a statement about the truth or correctness of the assertion introduced by its context statement (. . . ) Contrastive focus negates certain aspects of the assertion introduced by its context statement.” Given the pattern given/new, instantiated by the polydefinite DPs discussed above, polydefinites have been considered to run in parallel with clitic left dislocation constructions (13a) or to clitic doubling constructions (13b) (Anagnostopoulou 1994, p.c., Campos 2000): (13) a.

to vivlio to oreo (cf.: To vivlio to djavasa.) the book the nice the book it read.1sg.past [pattern: presupposed/focus (new)] b. to oreo to vivlio (cf.: To djavasa to vivlio.) the nice the book it read.1sg.past the book [pattern: assertion/focus – presupposed]

MG

MG

In both (a) and (b) we observe the same effect: a constituent that would be otherwise stressed (object/noun) is destressed so that another constituent (verb/adjective) may receive prominent stress. Like doubled DPs and pronominals, definite nouns within a polydefinite cannot be understood as novel (Anagnostopoulou 1995), something that can be taken to suggest that the latter, much like the former, obey the Prominence Condition (cf. Heim 1982; cf. (12)).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.7 (419-481)

Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian 

The second semantic difference between monadic and polydefinite constructions, which follows automatically from the first, is that polydefinites necessarily narrow down the set that constitutes the denotation of the noun – a fact that seems to stem directly from the primary function of the articled adjective as an exclusively restrictive modifier, as will also be shown below.6 The articled adjective in a polydefinite DP is always interpreted restrictively with regards to the noun it modifies, whereas adjectives in monadic DPs can be either restrictive or nonrestrictive. Consider (14):7 MG (monadic) O diefthindis dilose oti i ikani the director declared.3sg that the efficient erevnites tha apolithun. researchers will fired.3pl.pass MG (polydefinite) b. O diefthindis dilose oti i ikani i the director declared that the efficient the erevnites (i ikani) tha apolithun. researchers (the efficient) will fired.3pl.pass ‘The director declared that the efficient researches will be fired.’

(14) a.

The monadic construction in (14a) is ambiguous between what Kolliakou calls an ‘insane reading’ and a ‘life is tough’ reading. In the ‘insane’ reading, out of the set of researchers, only the efficient researchers will be fired. In the ‘life is tough’ reading, a set of researchers will be fired and the efficient researchers happen to be part of that larger group that will be fired. (14b), however, is not ambiguous. It only has the ‘insane’ reading, that is, the reading that out of the set of researchers, only those researchers that are efficient will be fired. This shows that in polydefinite constructions the articled adjective necessarily restricts or constrains the set denoted by the noun. Consider now (15), where the “=” symbol denotes an interpretational anomaly: =

MG To mageftiko to topio mas afise afonus. the magnificent the landscape us left speechless ‘The magnificent landscape left us speechless.’ = b. O epikindinos o kakopios telika skotose tus astinomikus. MG the dangerous the thug finally killed the policemen ‘The dangerous thug finally killed the policemen.’

(15) a.

The restrictive function of the articled adjective can explain why the use of the particular adjectives in the noun phrases in (15) is infelicitous unless they get contrastive stress: subjective/speaker oriented (or descriptive, for that matter) adjectives cannot restrict the denotation of the noun – they constitute typical nonrestrictive modifiers (Zamparelli 1993; Demonte 1999). The only way that the examples in (15) can be interpreted is to force a restrictive interpretation upon

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.8 (481-550)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

them. This can be done with an appropriate context, such as a context in which the adjectives mageftikos and epikindinos in (15) can be used to identify the referent by selecting it (from among other referents) on the basis of the property denoted by the relevant adjectives (Stavrou 1995; Manolessou 2000). Consider now the examples in (16): (16) a. *O monos tu o erotas ine i dulja tu. the only his the love is the work his ‘His only love is his work.’ b. *o ipotithemenos/dithen o antagonismos the alleged the competition ‘the alleged competition’

MG

MG

The adjectives in (16) belong to the class of intensional adjectives, whose semantics is quite different from that of attributive adjectives (Vendler 1967; Higginbotham 1985; Larson 1998, 2000). These adjectives are nonintersective and, as Kolliakou points out, the semantics of nonintersective adjectives is incompatible with polydefinite constructions. The adjective must be able to pick out a subset from the set denoted by the noun. Since the adjectives in (16) do not discharge a theta role to the noun, this is not possible and ungrammaticality ensues. Notice that, for the type of adjectives involved in (16), the contextual contrast available for the adjectives in (15) is not available. Moreover, even though in a monadic construction the adjective may have both an intersective and a nonintersective reading, in a polydefinite construction it can only be interpreted as intersective. Consider (17): (17) a.

Gnorises tin orea tragudistria? meet.2sg the beautiful singer b. Gnorises tin orea tin tragudistria? meet.2sg the beautiful the singer ‘Did you meet the beautiful singer?’

MG (monadic) MG (polydefinite)

(17a) is ambiguous. It can be asking whether one met the singer who is beautiful (intersective reading) or the singer who sings beautifully (nonintersective reading). (17b), on the other hand, can only mean whether one met the singer who is beautiful (intersective reading).8 We thus see that in polydefinite constructions, the adjective is always interpreted intersectively. Definite adjectives are sometimes used in generic contexts, as in proverbs, poems and similar expressions or genres, thus entailing an individual-level reading of the adjective (18). To account for this case we assume that the whole DP is in the scope of a generic operator, along the lines of Larson (1998, 2000). Notice however that this use of polydefinites does not invalidate their primary restrictive/contrastive import; rather, it places this import at a different level, namely

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.9 (550-627)

Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian 

that of the adjective picking out a permanent, enduring property rather than a temporary one. (18) To kalo to palikari kseri ki alo monopati the good the guy knows and other path ‘The good guy can find his way.’ (The contrast here involves good guys as opposed to bad guys.)

MG

Genericity of the DP in (18) is the outcome of a combination of factors, such as (primarily) the type of verb in the sentence, its tense/aspect, and adverbial modifiers (if any). What we are saying in effect is that the generic interpretation of (18) is orthogonal to the ‘constraint’ on restrictiveness of the articled adjective. A contrast we shall discuss presently has a particular impact on the analysis proposed in Section 5. Consider the examples in (19), from Larson (2000): (19) a. The stars visible include Capella b. The visible stars include Capella c. The visible stars visible include Capella Larson observes that there is a truth-conditional difference in English depending on the position of adjective, to the effect that (19b) can be true while (19a) can at the same time be false. In (19a) the adjective that follows the noun assigns a transient (non- permanent) property to it; the prenominal adjective in (19b), on the other hand, denotes a permanent, enduring property. However, as Larson shows, this difference does not follow from the adjective being pre- or postnominal (Bolinger 1967), but of it being a modifier of D or of N (outer and inner domain, in Larson’s terms respectively), viz. being part of the DP domain or the NP domain (semantically and structurally). N-modifiers, unlike D-modifiers, are in the domain of a generic operator. This can be seen in (19c), which can be paraphrased as ‘the generally visible stars which can also be seen now (because of a clear sky) include Capella’. The truth-conditional difference exemplified in (19) gets a correlate in Greek in (20). It is encoded in the polydefinite-monadic distinction for the following reasons: First of all, as we have shown, the definite adjective is always used restrictively in that it contributes a means to identify the referent, quite independently of the adjective class that it belongs to. Furthermore, definite adjectives are unambiguously intersective – like D-modifiers in English, which are exclusively intersective (Larson 2000) and restrictive. There is, however, a difference between outer or D-modifiers in English and definite adjectives in Greek: the latter, as opposed to the former, can assign to the referent either a temporary property as in (20a) or a permanent property as in (18).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.10 (627-665)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

(20) a.

I asterismi i orati perilamvanun ti Megali the constellations the visible include.3pl the Big MG (polydefinite = outer modifier) Arkto Ursus. ‘The visible constellations include the Big Ursus.’ b. I orati asterismi perilamvanun ti Megali the visible constellations include.3pl the Big MG (monadic = inner-N-modifier) Arkto. Ursus ‘The visible constellations include the Big Ursus.’ = c. I asterismi i orati perilamvanun ti megali Arkto the constellations the visible include.3pl the Big Ursus MG (polydefinite = outer modifier) ala afti tora de fenete but this now not seem.3sg ‘The visible constellations include the Big Ursus, but this is not seen now.’ d. I orati asterismi perilamvanun ti Megali Arkto pu the visible constellations include.3pl the Big Ursus that MG (monadic = inner-N-modifier) tora de fenete now not seem.3sg ‘The visible constellations include the Big Ursus, but this is not seen now.’

In (20a), the definite adjective assigns a temporary property to the referent of the noun: some stars are visible at the moment of utterance. In (20b), on the other hand, the prenominal adjective attributes a steady, unchangeable property to the stars, so that the adjective and the noun almost form a unitary concept, much like a compound (Sadler & Arnold 1994; Stavrou 1996). If it is cloudy, for instance the polydefinite contruction (20a), can be false, while the monadic construction (20b), can at the same time be true. Compare (20c) to (20d). (20c) is contradictory while (20d) is not, thus showing the polydefinite and the monadic construction have different meanings and, consequently, the polydefinite construction cannot be derived from the monadic construction. In way of concluding this subsection, it is worth pointing out once more that definite adjectives in polydefinites are always interpreted as restrictive modifiers, in contrast to adjectives in monadic constructions, which are ambiguous, the temporary-permanent (or stage-individual level) distinction cutting across the restrictive-non restrictive opposition. One more conclusion that must be drawn from the discussion so far is that definite adjectives are always interpreted intersectively. In 3.3 we will see that the restrictive character of definite adjectives is matched with their stress patterns.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.11 (665-721)

Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian 

. Phonological/Prosodic differences As mentioned in the two previous sections, if the adjective in a polydefinite construction follows the noun, being the last or most deeply embedded constituent, it gets nuclear stress (cf. (21a)). Optionally, the adjective may be contrastively stressed, in which case nuclear stress is overriden by emphatic stress. If the adjective precedes the noun, it is contrastively stressed and the adjective is interpreted under narrow focus, with emphatic stress being assigned to it by the Emphatic/Contrastive Stress Rule (cf. (21b)).9 As shown in (21c, d) below, the noun can never be contrastively stressed in a polydefinite construction: (21) a.

i the b. i the c. *i the d. *i the

pena i asimenja/ASIMENJA pen the silver/silver asimenja i pena silver the pen PENA i asimenja pen the silver asimenja i PENA silver the pen

MG (polydefinite) MG (polydefinite) MG (polydefinite) MG (polydefinite)

On the other hand, in a monadic construction, when no contrast is involved (i.e., when there is a unique referent) the nuclear stress is on the noun, as in (22a), and only when there is a contrast between at least two members of the extension of the noun, as in (22b), the adjective is contrastively stressed, i.e. represents a narrow focus: (22) a.

i the b. i the

asimenja pena/PENA silver pen/pen ASIMENJA pena silver pen

MG (monadic) MG (monadic)

Thus, we see that in a monadic construction, depending on context, either the adjective or the noun may carry contrastive stress, whereas in a polydefinite the adjective is always the one to be stressed, the noun providing only contextualized/old information. Note that the restrictions in (21) parallel those observed with DPs containing demonstratives and possessive genitives: (23) a.

to vivlio afto the book this b. AFTO to vivlio this the book ‘this book’

MG MG

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.12 (721-779)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

c.

to vivlio tu the book the d. tu JANI the.gen Janis ‘John’s book’

Jani/ tu JANI Janis the.gen JANI to vivlio the book

MG MG

Both the demonstrative and the genitive DP receive nuclear stress in final position and contrastive stress in initial position (see Horrocks & Stavrou 1987; see also Manolessou & Panagiotidis 1998 as to why the postnominal demonstrative is anaphoric rather than deictic). This has the effect of the demonstrative acquiring strong deictic force in prenominal position. We thus see that monadic and polydefinite constructions have different stress patterns, supporting our claim that polydefinite and monadic constructions cannot have a common source.

. Polydefinites and the direct/indirect-modification distinction Androutsopoulou (1995) was the first to observe that in definiteness spreading structures there is no strict ordering among the definite adjectives. But what has passed unnoticed so far is the fact that in polydefinite constructions no more than one definite adjective can appear (in a single DP). Thus, a DP with an apparent sequence of several definite adjectives belonging to the same intonational group and interpreted under a hierarchical arrangement (Sproat & Shih 1987, 1991) is interpretatively anomalous, irrespective of whether the definite adjective(s) precede(s) or follow(s) the noun (24b–c): (24) a.

=

to megalo to agonistiko the big the sport.adj b. = to aftokinito to megalo the car the big c. = to megalo to aftokinito the big the car ‘The big sports car’

to the to the to the

aftokinito car aftokinito sport agonistiko sport.adj

MG MG MG

Sproat and Shih demonstrate that crosslinguistically adjectival modification, rather than being a unitary phenomenon, breaks down into two types – direct modification, where the adjective assigns directly its theta role to its sister noun, and indirect modification, in which the adjective assigns its role to the modified noun indirectly, from inside a modifying relative clause of which it forms part. In particular, the adjective is coindexed with an empty variable within its clause, which is bound by the operator in CP, which in turn is coindexed with the head noun. But direct modification can also be of two types: hierarchical and parallel. In the former type, each preceding adjective assigns its theta role directly to its sister (which can be another

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.13 (779-842)

Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian 

adjective followed by another adjective, or just a noun). In parallel modification (in a series of adjectives) each adjective assigns its role directly to the nominal head independently of one another. It is further argued by Sproat and Shih that ordering restrictions, as well as the restriction of not more than two direct modifiers being allowed, hold of direct hierarchical modification only. The sequence in (24) can only be acceptable with a pause separating each article + adjective combination, indicated here by commas as in (25) below. The oddity of (24) is due to the putative reading of the strings as involving direct modification. The restriction on the ban of more than one definite adjective per DP also holds true of sequences where one adjective precedes and one follows the noun, though a pause is also needed after the noun here ((24c) vs. (25c)). In (25a–b) we further notice the free order pointed out by Androutsopoulou. (25) a.

to megalo, to politeles, to panakrivo the big the illustrated the most expensive ‘the big, illustrated, most expensive book’ b. to panakrivo, to megalo, to politeles the most expensive the big the illustrated ‘the most expensive big illustrated book’ c. to megalo, to aftokinito, to agonistiko the big the car the sport.adj ‘the big sports car’

to vivlio the book

MG

to vivlio the book

MG

MG

We take the well-formedness of the sequences in (25) to suggest that what is involved here is in fact “parallel” modification (in the sense of Sproat & Shih 1987, 1991; echoing Goodall 1987). It seems to be the case that, given a well formed (infinite) number of definite adjectives, each of them constitutes a separate intonational phrase phonologically, and at the same time also a separate syntactic phrase. In assuming this, we depart from Sproat and Shih in attributing parallel modification also to the case of indirect modification. Definite adjectives in polydefinites are indirect modifiers, much like de-modifiers in Mandarin. However, the analysis we will propose in Section 5 below differs from the one assumed by Sproat and Shih, who argue for (restrictive or non restrictive) relative clauses as the source of these modifiers in Mandarin (cf. also Alexiadou and Wilder 1998). Notice that the relaxing of the ordering restrictions can also be seen as a reflex of parallel modification (see Sproat and Shih for details). Thus, in (25) the adjectives can in fact appear in any order. Instances of polydefinites with multiple definite adjectives are reminiscent of modification by de-adjectives in Mandarin. Sproat and Shih (on the basis of the analysis of a number of languages) show that in indirect modification (a) the modifier appears outside the basic DP, (b) it indirectly modifies the noun by constituting a relative clause; (c) when there is more than one indirect modifier, no strict order is followed. In light of these observations,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.14 (842-889)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

Greek displays both indirect (polydefinites) and direct (monadics) modification. Our proposal in Section 5 will be compatible with the assumption that definite adjectives in polydefinites are instances of indirect modification, as well as with the fact that there is only one definite adjective per DP, and, furthermore, that if there is more than one adjective, the adjectives can appear in any order, as they belong to separate phonological (and syntactic) phrases.10 To conclude the discussion so far, we see that polydefinite constructions cannot be free stylistic variants of monadic constructions. They have different, though sometimes overlapping, distribution due to the fact that in polydefinites the adjective is always a restrictive modifier, whereas in monadic constructions it can be restrictive or non-restrictive. The difference between polydefinite and monadic constructions can be observed in syntax, semantics and phonology/prosody, thus strongly suggesting that one construction cannot be derived from the other.

. Other syntactic analyses . Tredinnick (1992) Tredinnick argues that in the structure shown in (26), DP2 is an adjunct (of N’) within the uppermost DP1 . The second article does not have independent semantic content/reference. The article heading DP2 does not need to be realized if DP2 stays in situ, thus generating to kokino vivlio ‘the red book’. On the other hand, the article must be obligatorily realized if DP2 moves either rightward to create a rightadjunction to DP1 , thus generating to kokino to vivlio ‘the red the book’, or leftward, creating a left-adjunction to DP1 and yielding the order to vivlio to kokino ‘the book the red’. Notice that in these two instances the article on DP2 is obligatorily realized. Also notice, that the analysis encounters several problems. First, it derives polydefinite constructions from monadic ones. This assumption fails to explain the differences between polydefinite and monadic constructions discussed in the previous section. Second, no explanation is given for what triggers the movement of DP2 nor is there an explanation for the role and/or nature of the second article in DP2, which appears obligatorily when the DP2 is moved. A third problem is that this analysis does not make any distinction between predicative and attributive (or restrictive/non-restrictive) adjectives. Finally, the different word orders found in the polydefinite construction are obtained via free adjunctions either leftwards or rightwards without a motivation for the respective movements.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.15 (889-931)


DP1

(26) Spec

D’ D

NP1

to Spec

N’

AP kokino

N’ N’

DP2

N Spec Ø

D’ D

NP2

(to)

vivlio

. Androutsopoulou (1995) In (27b) we represent the structure proposed by Androutsopoulou (1995) to account for (27a). In this structure, D selects for DefP, Def for AP, A for DefP and Def for N: (27) a.

to kokkino to milo the red the apple b. [DP D [DefP1 to [AP kokino [DefP2 to [N milo ]]]]]

MG MG

In (27b), each definite article heads a definite phrase (DefP) and the determiner head D is the locus of φ-features, Case and definiteness. Definite articles are thus expletive in nature. The topmost D, which contains no overt material, is the only determiner that gets interpreted at LF. Androutsopoulou (1995) also proposes that DefP2 may move to the specifier of the superordinate DefP1 . Thus, (28a) would be derived by moving the lower DefP2 in (28b) to the higher specifier, as shown in (28c): (28) a.

to milo to kokkino the apple the red b. [DP [DefP1 to [AP kokkino [DefP2 to [N milo ]]]]] c. [DP [DefP1 [DefP2 to [N milo ]]i to [AP kokkino ti ]]]

MG MG MG



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33



F: LA6704.tex / p.16 (931-988)

Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

Androutsopoulou (1995) further discusses Determiner Spreading over two adjectives, where several combinations between the noun and the adjective are possible. She derives all the potential combinations by allowing only DefP to move. Alexiadou and Wilder (1998) have pointed out several problems with Androutsopoulou’s (1995) analysis. First, the Determiner Spreading construction in (27b) does not allow for complex adjectives, since adjectival heads necessarily take DefP as a complement. Thus, grammatical examples like (29) cannot be generated under this analysis: (29) i [perifani ja to jo tis] mitera the [proud of the son hers] mother ‘the mother proud of her son’

MG

A second problem is that Androutsopoulou (1995) needs a new functional category, DefP, to derive these facts. As Alexiadou and Wilder (1998: 319) observe: “it is unclear what gives rise to the appearance of DefP on Greek DPs. There seems to be no motivation to assume such a category in other languages, or in Greek, for that matter (apart from the facts it is intended to account for). It is also not evident what regulates the distribution of this category; why for example, should APs as well as NPs be governed by such a category?” A third problem is that Androutsopoulou’s analysis cannot capture the fact that Determiner Spreading is possible only with predicative adjectives. Finally, this analysis cannot capture the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive adjectives, nor can it account for the interpretational differences between monadics and polydefinites, which in the case of (20), are truth-conditional.

. Kolliakou (1999) Kolliakou, working within a HPSG framework, accounts for the occurrence of the definite article in front of the adjective in polydefinites in terms of the hypothesis that the noun and the adjective are instantiations of an unvaried super category labelled “nominal” (Kolliakou 1995). She further accounts for the semantics of polydefinites in terms of the value of the feature [CONTEXT] ‘include in’, which appears on the AdjP in a polydefinite, but is absent from monadics. Crucially, this feature cooccurs with the feature [+UNIQUE], which percolates to the topmost NomP from both its head NomP and the adjective (structurally an adjunct/modifier). Kolliakou accounts for the semantic import of polydefinites in terms of non-monotone anaphora.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.17 (988-1041)


. Alexiadou and Wilder (1998) Alexiadou and Wilder (1998) do not explore the semantic import of polydefinites and do not discuss any semantic difference between polydefinites and monadics; however, they assume that polydefinites have a different structure (and origin) from monadic DPs. Extending Kayne’s analysis (1994) for equivalent phrases in English (30a), Alexiadou and Wilder (1998) assume that polydefinites include a relative clause complement of D. They crucially allow for the embedded noun to contain a determiner, which explains the presence of two determiners in polydefinite constructions. Thus the derivation for (30c) would be (30e): (30) a. the red apple b. [DP the [CP redi [IP [NP apple] ti ]]] c. to kokkino to milo the red the apple d. [DP to [CP [IP [DP to milo] kokkino]]] [DP the [CP [IP [DP the apple] red]]] e. [DP to [CP kokkinoi [IP [DP to milo] ti ]]] [DP the [CP redi [IP [DP the apple] ti ]]]

MG MG MG

To derive the order article + noun + article + adjective, Alexiadou and Wilder (1998), following Horrocks and Stavrou (1987), assume that any DP may move to the Spec of another DP: (31) a.

to milo to kokkino the apple the red b. [DP to [CP kokkinoi [IP [DP to milo] ti ]]] [DP the [CP redi [IP [DP the apple] ti ]]] c. [DP [DP to milo]j to [CP kokkinoi [IP tj ti ]]] [DP [DP the apple]j the [CP redi [IP tj ti ]]]

MG MG MG

Alexiadou and Wilder’s (1998) analysis provides a straightforward analysis of the facts. This analysis does not need to postulate of a new functional category DefP, as was necessary in Androutsopoulou’s analysis. But there are a few problems. First, the analysis diverts in a significant way from Kayne (1994) in allowing for a DP within the CP complement of D, whereas English and French in Kayne’s analysis allow only for an NP (and therefrom, the lack of polydefinite constructions in these languages). To claim that Greek allows for DP rather than NP since it has polydefinite constructions is stipulative.11 A second problem is that Alexiadou and Wilder do not propose a motivation for the movement of the DP and the AP in (31c), apart from the need to derive the desired word order. A third problem is encountered when we consider the fact that in Aromanian as well as in older stages of Greek (New Testament and Ancient Greek; see Manolessou 2000) only the pattern



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.18 (1041-1081)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

in (31a) can be found. How then is (30c) to be blocked in Aromanian and in older stages of Greek?

. Campos (2000) Trying to account for polydefinite constructions in Megleno-Romanian, Campos proposes the structure shown in (32): (32) [DP call-u [AgrP -ui [FP criv- [N proi ] ]]] horse-the -the lame‘the lame horse’

MR

Campos argues that call-u ‘horse-the’ in (32) is merged as a word in DP. The second article, generated under AgrP and parallel to a clitic in left-dislocated constructions (see discussion for example (13) above), serves a dual purpose: (a) to identify the N-pro under FP, and (b) to allow the predication of the adjective on the noun. The second definite article, being an enclitic element, needs a lexical element to support it. For this purpose, the adjective in (32) will move to [Spec AgrP]. In this analysis, the second determiner is responsible for the predication of the adjective. However, it is not clear why it should be generated under AgrP.

. Manolessou (2000) For Manolessou (2000), the article + adjective sequence is located at the specifier position of the NP; the order definite article + noun + definite article + adjective is obtained via the obligatory movement of the noun to the head of a functional agreement projection FP lying between DP and NP. The reverse order definite article + adjective + definite article + noun is the result of an ‘extra’ movement of the definite article + noun to the Spec of DP (Horrocks & Stavrou 1987).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.19 (1081-1116)


(33)

DP D’ D

FP F’

SPEC to

NP

F SPEC

N’

DP

N

to kalo

pedi

This analysis does not specify what is special about [Spec, NP], which is responsible for the placement of (definite) adjectives there. Its major problem is that it relies on the existence of (obligatory) N-movement, which has no independent motivation apart from accounting for word order facts (see Alexiadou & Stavrou 1998a, b; Bouchard 1998; Dimitrova-Vulchanova 2003 for arguments based on cross-linguistic evidence against N-movement). Even so, in order to account for all the adjective-noun word order facts, Manolessou has to stipulate [Spec, FP] as the only position for adjectives (see Larson 1998, 2000; Demonte 1999 for discussion about different adjective types and derivations for these). Moreover, Manolessou uses the vague term “identification” as a defining function of polydefinites, thus failing to capture their primary purpose as restrictive modifiers.

. A proposal for polydefinite structures . Articled adjectives and predicativity Given the dicussion in Section 3, we want to propose that the origin of polydefinites is clausal. Such an assumption is compatible with those analyses that treat “definite” adjectives in Greek (and in other languages) as relative clauses of some sort (cf. Alexiadou & Wilder 1998). Moreover, it reflects the similarity of polidefinites, in behavior and properties, with indirect de-modifiers in Mandarin, in accordance with what we observed in 3.4 above, although the particular implementation we are assuming differs from the relative clause analysis of Sproat and Shih (op.cit.).



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.20 (1116-1185)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

Our analysis also benefits from Larson’s (2000) ideas, in his analysis of temporal modification in nominals, whereby adjectives denoting a temporary property (stage-level) originate in a sentence (CP) which comes out as the complement of D in a D-shelled DP projection. Our proposal in particular relates the polydefinite adjective with a predicative (small) clause. Motivation for this is to be found in the simple observation that for every polydefinite there is a copulative clause in which the adjective appears across the copula. This relation is expressed by the symbol “⊃” in (34): (34) to vivlio to oreo ⊃ To vivlio ine oreo. the book the nice the book is nice ‘the nice book’ ‘The book is nice.’

MG

The same cannot be said of adjectives in monadics, as there are many cases where an adjective-noun combination is not paraphrasable with a predicative clause. This holds true not only of intensional adjectives instantiating what Higginbotham (1985) calls “autonymous theta marking”, but also of certain “simple” evaluative adjectives like kalos ‘good’ in their nonintersective use (Vendler 1967): (35) a.

Ekane tin apli skepsi oti. . . made-3sg the plain thought that ‘expressed the mere thought that. . . ’ but *I skepsi ine apli the thought is simple purported meaning: ‘The thought is simple’. b. I Maria ine kali tragudistria the Maria is good singer ‘Maria is a good singer. but: *‘I Maria ine kali. the Maria is good

MG

MG

These facts lead us to the following descriptive generalization: (36) All instances of (articled) adjectives in polydefinites can be used as predicates in a predicative clause (cf. also Alexiadou & Wilder’s 1998 generalization (30))

. A structure for the polydefinite construction The crucial question at this point is how to represent the predicative source of articled adjectives structurally. Our answer to this question is based on existing analyses that establish a Small Clause type of category within the DP (Kayne 1994; den Dikken 1998; Demonte 1999). In implementing this general idea, however,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.21 (1185-1242)


we draw from Eide and Afarli’s (1999) analysis of predication, which, in turn, echoes Bowers (1993). A crucial assumption of our analysis is the conception of the definite article before the adjective in a polydefinite as the head of a predicative category. The structure we propose will be motivated in the next subsection. DP

(37) D

FP F

PredP Spec

Pred’ Pred

AP

a.

pena i the pen

pro

i the

asimenja silver

b.

stilo-lu pen-the

(atsel) that

laii-lu black-the

ti

MG AR

.. The basics of the analysis PredP is a mnemonic label for a functional category, similar to the Small Clause proposed by den Dikken (1998) and Corver (1998) for the pseudopartitive construction in a number of languages. This category is the complement of F – an agreement type of projection in the DP (independently needed and argued for in Alexiadou and Stavrou (1998a, b), Alexiadou (2001) and Manolessou (2000) for Greek; Ritter (1991) for Hebrew, among many others). The head of PredP hosts, we assume, the adjectival definite article. It is anaphorically linked to (and hence, coindexed with) the lexical subject of the predication, which we assume is generated under the D head, as we will argue next. At this point we would like to produce supportive evidence from Albanian in favor of the inclusion of a predicative category in the polydefinite DP.12 The interesting fact about Albanian is that in this language some adjectives bear an adjectival determiner (AdjDet) which may vary depending on the definiteness of the noun they modify. Consider the plural nominative examples in (38):13 (38) a.

ca djem të mirë some boys AdjDet good ‘some good boys’

Al



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.22 (1242-1294)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

b. djemtë e mirë boys-the AdjDet good ‘the good boys’ c. ca vajza të mira some girls AdjDet good.f.pl ‘some good girls’ d. vajzat e mira girls-the AdjDet good.f.pl ‘the good girls’

Al

Al

Al

In these examples the adjective mirë/mira ‘good’ appears preceded by the adjectival determiner të when the noun is indefinite (38a, c) and by e when the noun is definite (38b, d).14 In the spirit of Eide and Afarli (1999), we take the second determiner in (37) to be the realization of the predication operator, namely the nominal counterpart of the sentential copula, which denotes a function from the property denoted by the adjective to a new function from the pronoun (referring back to i pena) to a proposition (i.e. ‘the pen is black’).15 The determiner in the head of PredP is a clitic element in Aromanian; thus, the adjective will move (via head-to-head movement) to Pred to support the determiner, forming lai-lu ‘black-the’ in (37b). In the Greek equivalent in (37a), the determiner is a free-standing element and, as such, does not need a supporting element. Hence the adjective will remain where it is generated. Coming next to the subject of DP-internal predication, we take it to be pro, a silent pronoun that is identified and licensed by the head Pred, namely, the definite article, under spec-head agreement. It further retrieves its descriptive content from the noun in D. We take the lexical subject (i pena/stilo-lu ‘the pen’) to merge outside the PredP rather than at its specifier, where we assume pro is merged, because it is a pronoun which may, in fact, be spelled out as a demonstrative in both languages; in other words, [Spec, PredP] is needed to host the “demonstrative”, when it is spelled out:16 (39) a.

i pena afti i asimenia the pen this the silver b. stilo-lu atselu lai-lu pen-the that black-the

MG AR

At this point we must show that the “demonstrative” that appears in (39) is different from the demonstrative deictic pronoun in both languages. The first piece of evidence comes from the fact that in Aromanian the demonstrative and the predicative elements have different (though related) forms. Only (40a) is interpreted as containing a demonstrative element; (40b) is interpreted only as a definite

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.23 (1294-1366)

Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian 

phrase, as shown in the glosses. Notice that in the first construction, the form of the demonstrative is atselu, while in the second construction, the predicative bears the form atsel: (40) a.

om-lu atselu bun-lu man-the that good-the ‘that good man’ b. om-lu atsel bun-lu man-the that (the) good-the ‘the good man’

AR

AR

The second piece of evidence comes from Greek, where demonstratives can appear either before the (definite) article or after the noun: (41) a.

afto to vivlio this the book b. to vivlio afto the book this ‘this book’

MG MG

In (41b), according to Manelessou and Panagiotidis (1998), Manolessou (2000), Panagiotidis (2000), the demonstrative is (discourse) anaphoric, i.e. it refers back to some referent already established in the discourse, whereas in (41a) it is deictic and contributes to the establishment of a referent. Furthermore, its use in prearticle position can be further accompanied by a pointing gesture. Supporting evidence is provided by the presence of a deictic reinforcer (e)ki ‘there’ and (e)do ‘here’ which can be regularly suffixed onto the real (deictic) demonstrative (ekino’ki ‘that one over here’, touto’do ‘this one over here’), but less commonly so to the anaphoric one: (42) a.

afto (edo) to vivlio this (here) the book to vivlio afto (??edo) the book this (??here) ‘this book here’ b. to vivlio afto (?edo) to kalo the book this (here) the nice ‘this nice book here’

MG MG

MG

Moreover, in the presence of a prenominal adjective in a monadic DP, the demonstrative usually appears immediately after the adjective:17 (43) to oreo afto vivlio the nice this book ‘the nice book’

MG

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.24 (1366-1412)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

In this position the demonstrative is also prone to an anaphoric interpretation. Afto in (43) is used only to refer back to a nice book already mentioned and established in the discourse. Various analyses have been proposed for (43). Thus Stavrou and Horrocks (1989), within the broader spirit of lexical phonology and parallel morphology, proposed that (Greek) demonstratives are categories of Xo level and intermediate in status between clitics and fully independent words. They have the potential for syntactic independence when stressed, but distributionally tend to behave like clitics. It is worth stressing here that demonstratives can be (emphatically) stressed in prearticle position, but crucially not in the intermediate position (i.e., between the adjective and the noun): (44) a.

AFTO to vivlio THIS the book b. *to oreo AFTO vivlio the nice THIS book

MG MG

Demonstratives, unlike clitic genitives, do not have a clear affixal status but may combine with a preceding head to form a phonological phrase based on a morphologically determined dependency. Accordingly, the sequence adjective + demonstrative constitutes a morphological word and is formed away from the lexicon, either to syntactically predefined D-Structure or S-Structure. According to Manolessou and Panagiotidis (1998), and Manolessou (2000), on the other hand, sequences like those in (43) emerge after the noun has moved to the head of a hierarchically superior functional projection leaving behind the demonstrative base-generated at [Spec,NP]. For Panagiotidis (2000), the pronominal adjective is able to check the relevant φ-features of NumberP (generated between DP and NP), thus making the raising of the noun in front of the demonstrative not necessary. Whatever the correct analysis of cases like (43), the relevance of the above facts to the data that our structure (37) is claimed to capture lies in the fact that the demonstrative that follows the noun in the polydefinite construction (42b) has the same properties as the demonstrative that is attached to the prenominal adjective in a monadic DP: it is anaphoric and unstressed, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (44b).18 If we take the demonstrative in (37) to be a weak pronoun, just as it is in (43), in the spirit of Cardinaletti and Starke (1999) and Cardinaletti (1999), we are led to accept that it doesn’t have the potential to move by itself. Two interrelated assumptions/solutions follow: (a) the demonstrative that appears regularly in [Spec, DP] is different from the ‘anaphoric,’ lower ‘demonstrative,’ probably merged directly in that position. (b) The anaphoric demonstrative that appears in a lower position (in Giusti’s (1997, 2002) or Brugè’s (1996, 2002) system,19 in [Spec, PredP] in ours) is moved along with the adjective it has been attached (in Stavrou and Horrocks’ sense) or cliticized to (as the result of the cyclic raising of the arti-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.25 (1412-1480)


cle + adjective sequence to [Spec, DP]). The fact that the anaphoric demonstrative cannot be stressed as a typical demonstrative (i.e. deictic) is thus taken care of. Constructions like the Aromanian one discussed in (40) can also be found in Romanian, as observed in Giusti (1993: §2.3): (45) a.

om-ul cel frumos man-the “cel” beautiful ‘the handsome man’ b. baietsi-i cei saraci boys-the “cei” poor ‘the poor boys’

R

R

Although the forms cel/cei in (45) are morphologically close to the demonstrative forms in (46), they are not demonstrative; notice that the glosses in (45) are not deictic at all, while those in (46) are. Furthermore, a demonstrative would require the form acela ‘that’ when it follows the noun (46a) and acel ‘that’ when it precedes the noun, as observed by Lombard (1974: 176) and Giusti (1993). The form cel in (45) is not possible with the meaning of (46): (46) a.

om-ul acela bun man-the that good b. acel om bun that man good ‘that good man’

R R

We thus see that the demonstratives in (46) and the determiners that appear on the adjective in the Romanian examples in (45), are different elements. It is interesting to observe that Lombard (op. cit., Chapter 6) classifies the determiners in (45) as one of the three types of definite articles and not as a demonstrative adjective.20 Going back to (37), we see that Pred takes AP as its complement. This explains why in a polydefinite construction the adjective may appear with a complement or with a modifier when it follows the noun.21 In 5.2.2 we will further see how this option is blocked when the adjective precedes the noun in a polydefinite construction. To summarize this section, we have presented evidence that the specifier position of the predicative projection PredP in (37) may host not only a ‘silent’ pronominal subject, but also an overt pronominal, which may be spelled out both in Aromanian and in Greek (as well as in Romanian). In Balkan Romance and in the Balkan languages in general (Bulgarian, Macedonian, Albanian) we typically find the sequence N+D, which seems to form a word. Phonological processes affecting the word internally suggest a lexical rather than just pure phonological (PF) formation. This claim has been made for Romanian by Dobrovie-Sorin (2000), for Albanian by Androutsopoulou (2001) and it is



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.26 (1480-1546)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

directly applicable to the Aromanian data discussed in this paper. Although Greek shows D+N order, it is at best strange that no material can break the sequence article + noun + article + adjective, a fact that suggests that D+N in polydefinite constructions may also be a word in Greek. In particular, we take the art+noun complex in a polydefinite to form a complex head in the sense of Ortmann and Popescu (2000): (a) it projects to its hierarchically highest element (D) and selects the complement of its lowest element (here N) (ibid.); (b) it forms a D, projected as DP; (c) it doesn’t block movement of the predicative AP (or of the demonstrative in [Spec, PredP] to [Spec, DP] or, possibly, to a category Focus above it. Suggestive evidence comes from the fact that in a polydefinite construction the noun cannot be modified by an adjective and instances of a noun in a polydefinite preceded by a numeral/quantifier are very marginal or unattested. Example (9a) is repeated here as (47a) for convenience; compare it with (47b): (47) a. *ta the b. ??to the

pola/ tria many/ three oreo/kineziko nice/chinese

vivlia ta orea books the nice vazo to kokino22 vase the red

MG MG

The noun in a polydefinite construction may not take a complement either (cf. Androutsopoulou 2001). However, if the complement forms a two-word compound with the preceding noun (Kolliakou 1995; Ralli & Stavrou 1997), then the polydefinite structure is marginal: (48) a. *o thavmasmos gia ton Aristoteli o megalos the admiration for the Aristotle the great ‘the great admiration for Aristotle’ b. ?*o kathigitis glossologias o kalos the professor linguistics-gen the good ‘the good professor of linguistics’

MG

MG

The facts in (47) and (48) support our analysis since the head noun seems to be showing head as opposed to phrasal behavior.

.. Predictions Every postnominal AP (even XP) in a polydefinite construction is predicative. Adjectives that cannot appear in a predicative clause cannot appear in a polydefinite construction either. This explains the descriptive generalizations in (36) above. Consider now (49): (49) a. *o tromokratis o ipotithemenos23 the terrorist the alledged

MG

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.27 (1546-1606)

Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian 

b. *o the c. ?to the d. *o the e. *o the

proedros o proin president the former astiko to leoforio city the bus Lefkos o Pirgos White the Tower Indikos o Okeanos Indian the Ocean

MG MG MG MG

Intensional adjectives (as in (49a)), circumstantial adjectives (as in (49b)) (cf. Demonte 1999), as well as adjectives that form part of an A+N compound (as in (49c)) (cf. Ralli & Stavrou 1997), or of compounds employed as locational names (as in 49d–e) are predicted to be excluded form the predicative position in structure (37). This is borne out, as shown in (49). Concerning the focal status of the adjective in a polydefinite, we assume that the feature FOCUS on the predicative adjective (see 3.3 above) may be checked either via intonation (50a) or via intonation and movement (50b), in line with general properties of Greek (Tsimpli 1998). The derivation for the polydefinite construction with the prenominal adjective is shown in (50c): MG tin pena tin ASIMENJA the pen the silver MG b. tin ASIMENJA tin pena the silver the pen ‘the silver pen’ c. [FocP [Foc tin asimenja]i [DP [D ti tin pena] [FP ti [PredP pro ti [AP ti ]]]]] MG [FocP [Foc the silver]i [DP [D ti the pen] [FP ti [PredP pro ti [AP ti ]]]]] MG

(50) a.

In (50c), the presence of pro in [Spec, PredP] seems to block movement of the AP to [Spec, FocP]. Thus head-movement is the only option to reach FocP. The adjective moves as a head from A to Pred (picking up the determiner), to F, to D (incorporating to the head i pena ‘the pen’), and then it excorporates to Foc. The derivation in (50c) predicts that the adjective is a head. This derivation is confirmed by the facts noted in (7) and (8) and their respective footnotes, repeated all here as (51): (51) a. *to toso/ poli/ pjo oreo to vivlio the so/ very/ more nice the book b. to vivlio to toso/ poli/ pjo oreo the book the so/ very more nice ‘the very nice/nicer book’

MG MG

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.28 (1606-1662)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

c. *i perifani gia ta pedia tis i mana the proud of the children her the mother d. i mana i perifani gia ta pedia tis the mother the proud of the children her ‘the mother proud of her children’

MG MG

In (51a, c) where the adjective precedes the noun, the adjective is a head, and as such, it cannot be modified or complemented. In postnominal position (51b, d), it forms a full AP, and as such, it may appear with a premodifier and/or a complement, contrary to what is observed in prenominal position. The possibility of modification or complementation of the adjective and the difference of behavior in post- and pre-nominal behavior follows directly from our analysis. This ‘double’ behavior of AP is reminiscent of the status of clitics as displaying both phrasal (DP) and head behavior (Chomsky 1995). Our analysis also predicts, contrary to the adjective behavior discussed above, that the noun should behave as a head both when it precedes and when it follows the adjective. We saw in (48) that nouns that precede an adjective in a polydefinite construction cannot be complemented. From the structure in (50c) we also predict that the noun should exhibit head behavior, and as such, it should not allow complements. This is also borne out, as shown in (52): (52) a. ?*o megalos o thavmasmos gia ton Aristoteli the great the admiration for the Aristotle ‘the great admiration for Aristotle’ b. *o kalos o kathigitis glossologias the good the professor linguistics ‘the good professor of linguistics’

MG (cf. 48)

MG

We have thus shown that in polydefinite constructions, the adjective acts as an AP if it appears postnominally while it acts as a head if it appears prenominally. The noun, on the other hand, having formed a word with the postnominal determiner, always behaves as a head. These facts follow from our structure in (37) and the derivation proposed in (50c). It should further be pointed out that derivation (50c) is unavailable in Aromanian and in classical (Manolessou 2000) and Biblical Greek: (53) *lai-lu stilo-lu black-the pen-the ‘the black pen’

AR

In these languages, the only possible order is definite article + noun + definite article + adjective. We don’t have an answer as to why this was so, but a safe hypothesis would be to claim that a Focus position was not available for these languages. In-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.29 (1662-1713)

Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian 

terestingly, this claim has also been made for Romanian by Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Giusti (1998).

. Summary The structure in (37) captures in a transparent way: (a) the predicative nature of articled adjectives, (b) the word order patterns of polydefinites (definite article + N + definite article + adjective, as well as definite article + Adjective + definite article + N) without assuming unnecessary or unmotivated movements, (c) the parallelism between polydefinites and left dislocated structures, (d) the prosodical features of the definite adjective in postnominal position. In addition, the proposed analysis materializes in a specific and empirically correct way the intuition behind the analyses by Androutsopoulou (1995) and Tredinnick (1992), namely, that the adjectival definite article is ‘expletive’ in nature. We are claiming that it is a kind of nominal copula. This analysis is also compatible with previous analyses arguing in favor of the predicative nature of postnominal adjectives in Italian (Cinque 1994), thus aligning postnominal adjectives in this language with polydefinite DPs in Greek and Aromanian. And whereas it is inspired from analyses positing a PredP in the DP (den Dikken 1995; Corver 1998, among others), it dispenses with the rule of Predicate raising/inversion. It is important that the adjective-as-predicate can remain in its ‘original’ (postnominal) position. Likewise, the proposed structure is in accord with those analyses (Alexiadou & Stavrou 1998a, b; Alexiadou, Stavrou, & Haegeman 2000; Bouchard 1998; Dimitrova-Vulchanova 2003) that argue against N-movement as a means for accounting for adjective placement facts, as no NMovement is motivated or needed in our proposed structure. The analysis for Aromanian presented here is also compatible with those analyses which assume that in Romanian the definite article is a suffix and not a clitic, and that it is suffixed presyntactically to the noun (Dimitrova-Vulchanova & Giusti 1998; Ortmann & Popescu 2000; Dobrovie-Sorin 2000; Campos 2000). Furthermore, we have a formal explanation for the intuition expressed in the work of several researchers but explicitly borne out in the present analysis; namely, that there is only one (direct) restrictive modification per DP, all others being additional DPs or definite adjectives under loose coordination (or asyndeton). This follows from the claim that there is only one primary predication per DP/clause. The proposed analysis can be extended to indefinite constructions, where there is no overt realization of Pred, a shown in (54):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.30 (1713-1774)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

(54) mia pena asimenja a pen silver ‘a silver pen’

MG

These constructions share properties with polydefinite constructions both in terms of word order and interpretation (Stavrou 1996). However, it is rather commonly assumed that the indefinite article is not in D, but in a lower Q-like projection (Lyons 1999), being a cardinality marker and not a determiner, hence not a functional element like the definite article. This categorial and semantic differentiation can explain why the so-called “indefinite” article does not show up (as a ‘doubling’) element in the head of PredP. For considerations of space, we leave this topic for future research.24 Finally, this analysis opens up the way for analyzing in a similar fashion ‘polydefinites’ consisting of two definite nouns, like: (55) o vlakas o aderfos tu the idiot the brother his ‘the idiot his brother’

MG

In (55) the predication relationship is transparent: ‘his brother is an idiot.’ (cf. den Dikken 1995, 1998; Español-Echevarria 1997, 1998; Corver 1998). There are two differences between (55) and a construction like the one in (37): (a) in (55) both definite constituents are nouns, (b) in (55) the predicate is normally before the noun. A potential hypothesis to explore would be that animacy triggers movement of the predicate. We leave this issue open for future research. Finally, polydefinite constructions can also be found in Scandinavian languages (Delsing 1988; Taraldsen 1990)25 and in Semitic languages (Eide & Afarli 1999), among others. However, as Alexiadou (2002) argues, the Greek facts involving polydefinite DPs point to essential differences between Greek and other languages in which manifestation of the same phenomenon is only apparent. Crucially, polydefiniteness is not obligatory in Greek, and it has a clear semantic effect, as we saw above, thus making the double definiteness found in other languages different from Greek. We leave this topic open for future research.

Notes . Olga Mišeska Tomiˇc (p.c.) commenting on this tells us that the Aromanians in the Macedonian towns of Bitola and Kruševo, where there are substantial Aromanian speaking commuties, have polydefinite constructions only if the adjective is preceded by “this”. However, in the texts by Papazizi-Papatheodorou, some examples are found without the demonstrative. To the extent that polydefinites in Aromanian are accepted without the demonstrative,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.31 (1774-1847)

Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian 

it is possible that the polydefinite constructions discussed in this paper (and documented in Papazizi-Papatheodorou 1996) have been influenced by Greek. . When the adjective follows the noun, however, the adjective may be modified: (i)

to vivlio to toso/poli/pjo oreo the book the so/ very/ more nice ‘the very nice/nicer book’

MG

See Section 5.2 for an explanation of the contrast between (7a) and (i). . When the adjective appears in postnominal position, it may support a complement: (i)

i mana i perifani gia ta pedia tis the mother the proud of the children her ‘the mother proud of her children’

The contrast between (8a) and (i) will be shown to follow from our analysis in Section 5.2. . (9b) is acceptable if there is a pause after the adjective, thus suggesting that we are dealing with some extraposed structure. Alternatively, the two DPs may be considered as being externally connected. We leave these structures open for further research. See also Fn.1. . (i) is also possible: (i)

to oreo tu to spiti the nice his the house ‘his nice house’

MG

The source for this construction may be (10b). After the determiner and the adjective front, the possessive may cliticize onto it. See Section 5.2 for further details on the anteposition of the adjective. . See also Kolliakou (1995, 1999) and Manolessou (2000). . Example from Kolliakou (1999). . See Kolliakou (1999) for further semantic differences. . See Zubizarreta (1998). . See Stavrou (1996) for a similar remark concerning postnominal adjectives in indefinite DPs. . However, see Borsley (1997) and Bianchi (2000). It remains to be explained why the determiner is realized in Greek but not in English. . For monodefinite constructions we follow the mainstream view in assuming that prenominal adjectives are located at the specifier of functional projections intervening between D and NP. Perhaps, some adjectives are at the specifier of NP itself (Cinque 1994; Giusti 1993, 1997; Brugè 2002, among many others) having the structure in (i): (i)

[ZP asimenia [NP pena]]] [DP i [DP the [ZP silver [NP pen]]]

where ZP stands for a functional category. . Examples taken from Zimberi (1991: 101–102)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.32 (1847-1921)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou . The form of the adjectival determiner varies according to the case, gender, number and definiteness of the noun it modifies, as shown below: Masculine Indef Nom. i Acc. të Gen. të Dat. të Abl. të

Singular Def i e të të të

Feminine Indef e të të të të

Singular Def e e së së së

Masc/Fem Indef të të të të të

Plural Def e e të të të

Albanian grammars distinguish between those adjectives that allow a determiner and those that do not (see Androutsopoulou 2001 for further details). Androutsopoulou claims the choice of the form of the adjectival determiner to be purely morphological. Some, though not all, of the adjectives that she lists meet the criteria discussed above to qualify as predicative adjectives. We leave this issue open for further research. . It has been suggested to us (Winnie Lechner, Roberto Zamparelli, Richard Larson, p.c.) that the alternative of the adjective applying, as property denoting, directly to pro, or even combining with the head noun by set intersection, would simplify the syntax and semantics of the construction. We didn’t opt for this alternative for the reason that has to do with the fact that in Aromanian the article is suffixed on the adjective, which is taken care of by our analysis, as we are going to explain. . When two adjectives are conjoined, only one determiner appears: (i)

to vivlio afto to kalo ke palio the book this the good and old ‘the good and old book’

MG

If the determiner is repeated, either with or without the demonstrative, the construction is interpreted as referring to two different books, just as the equivalent English example: (ii) to vivlio afto to kalo ke (afto) to palio the book this the good and (that) the old ‘the good and the bad book’

MG

This behavior follows if there is only one predication per DP, as we will argue later. . See Marmaridou (1984), Stavrou and Horrocks (1989), Manolessou and Panagiotidis (1998), Manolessou (2000) and Panagiotidis (2000) for discussion and explanation of this fact. . Notice that if the noun had its ‘own’ determiner here the whole sequence would be grammatical: to oreo afto to vivlio ‘the beautiful this the book.’ But then this would be exactly what our structure for polydefinites in (37) would predict. See derivation of (50c) for further details. . It is worth while noticing that the position of the demonstrative in (37) is compatible with proposals like Giusti’s and Brugè’s who claim that demonstratives (crosslinguistically) originate in a lower specifier position from where they can further move to [Spec, DP].

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.33 (1921-1989)

Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian  . The three types of definite articles proposed by Lombard (1974: 191–192) are (i) -ul ‘the,’ the regular definite article (also called “final article” or “affixal article”), (ii) the possessive or genitival article form al, and (iii) the demonstrative or adjectival article cel: (i)

lup-ul wolf-the

R

(ii) cal-ul frumos al vecinului horse-the beautiful of neighbour-the.dat ‘the neighbor’s beautiful horse’

R

(iii) om-ul cel bun man-the the good ‘the good man’

R

Both the definite article in (i) and the demonstrative in (iii) can be used in nominalizations. Take the adjective bolnav ‘sick,’ for instance. Bolnav-ul ‘sick-the’ means ‘the sick person’ or ‘the sick one’ while cel bolnav cel ‘sick’ means ‘the sick one, among others.’ Lombard (op. cit.) notes that in German this difference would be expressed as der Kranke as the equivalent for bolnavul and as der kranke for cel bolnav. Cel is also used when we don’t wish to repeat the noun: (iv) vin-ul ro¸su ¸si cel alb wine-the red and “cel” white

R

All these uses of cel are compatible with the analysis proposed here and they would require a lot of extra machinery if they are to be derived from the demonstrative form. We leave open for future research the possibility of incorporating the possessive article al into our system. . See Fn. 1 and 2. . Notice though that (b) is fine with a pause/comma after the noun, which then is more like a dislocational or appositional structure. . See also examples in (16) above. . Another way to account for (54) is to assume that the whole of CardP, assuming mia ‘a/one’ is a cardinal marker, moves to a high Topic position, stranding AP behind. Notice that the indefinite noun phrase with a postnominal adjective is always interpreted as specific, therefore it can be a legitimate Topic. . See Giusti (2002) for an analysis for Norwegian within a minimalist framework.

References Alexiadou, A. (2001). Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A. (2002). “Adjective syntax and the absence of noun raising in the DP.” Ms. University of Potsdam.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.34 (1989-2084)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

Alexiadou, A. & M. Stavrou (1998a). “On derived nominals in Greek”. In B. Joseph, G. Horrocks, & I. Philippaki-Warburton (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics II, 101–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A. & M. Stavrou (1998b). “On the relation between ‘strength’ and morphological richness: Crosslinguistic asymmetries in noun movement”. Ms. University of Thessaloniki. Alexiadou, A., M. Stavrou, & L. Haegeman (2000). “Functional projections in the DP: (Noun) morphology, movement and ellipsis”. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 21, 21–32. Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki. Alexiadou, A. & C. Wilder (1998). “Adjectival modification and multiple determiners”. In Alexiadou, A. & C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, 303–332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anagnostopoulou, E. (1994). “Clitic Dependencies in Modern Greek.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Salzburg. Androutsopoulou, A. (1995). “The licensing of adjectival modification”. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 13, 17–31. Androutsopoulou, A. (2001). “Adjectival determiners in Albanian and Greek”. In M. L. Rivero & A. Ralli (Eds.), Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages, 161–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bianchi, V. (2000). “The raising analysis of relative clauses: A Reply to Borsley”. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 123–140. Bolinger, D. (1967). “Adjectives in English: attribution and predication”. Lingua, 18, 1–34. Borsley, R. (1997). “Relative Clauses and the theory of phrase structure”. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 629–647. Bouchard, D. (1998). “The distribution and interpretation of adjectives in French: a consequence of bare phrase structure”. Probus, 10, 139–183. Bowers, J. (1993). “The syntax of predication”. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 591–656. Brugè, L. (1996). “Demonstrative movement in Spanish: A comparative approach”. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 6(1), 1–53. Brugè, L. (2002). “The positions of demonstratives in the extended nominal projection”. In G. Cinque (Ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP, 15–53. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Campos, H. (2000). “Adjectives, determiners and determiner spreading in MeglenoRomance, Aromanian and Romanian”. Ms. Georgetown University. Cardinaletti, A. (1999). “Pronouns in Germanic and Romance languages: An overview”. In H. van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 33–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cardinaletti, A. & M. Starke (1999). “The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns”. In Henk van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Cinque, G. (1994). “On the evidence for partial N-Movement in the Romance DP”. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 3(2), 21–40. Cornilescu, A. (1993). “Notes on the structure of the Romanian DP and the assignment of the genitive case”. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 3(2), 107–134.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.35 (2084-2184)


Corver, N. (1998). “Predicate movement in pseudopartitive constructions”. In A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, 215– 258. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Delsing, L. (1988). “The Scandinavian Noun Phrase”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 42, 57–79. Demonte, V. (1999). “A minimal account of Spanish adjective position and interpretation”. In J. Franco, A. Landa, & J. Martín (Eds.), Grammatical Analyses in Basque and Romance Linguistics Papers in Honor of Mario Saltarelli, 45–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dikken, M. den (1995). “Copulas”. Paper presented at GLOW 18. Tromsoe. Ms. Vrije Universtiteit Amsterdam/HIL. Den Dikken, M. (1998). “Predicate inversion in DP”. In A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, 177–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. (2003). “Modification in the Balkan nominal expression: an account of the (A)NA : AN(*A) order contrast”. In Coene, M. & Y. D’Hulst (Eds.), From NP to DP. Volume 1: The Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases, 91–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. & G. Giusti (1998). “Fragments of Balkan nominal structure”. In A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, 333–360. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (2000). “(In)Definiteness spread: From Romanian genitives to Hebrew construct state nominals”. In V. Motopanyane (Ed.), Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, 177–226. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Español-Echevarria, M. (1997). “Definiteness patterns in N/A of a N contexts and DPinternal XP-movement”. In B. Bruening (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Student Conference in Linguistics. MIT Working Papers inLinguistics, 145–169. Eide, K. & T. Afarli (1999). “The syntactic disguises of the predication operator”. Studia Linguistica, 53, 155–181. Giusti, G. (1993). La sintassi dei determinanti. [The Syntax of Determiners]. Padova: UniPress. Giusti, G. (1997). “The categorial status of determiners”. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), The New Comparative Syntax, 95–124. London: Longman. Giusti, G. (2002). “The functional structure of noun phrases: a bare phrase structure approach”. In G. Cinque (Ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP, 54–90. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Goodall, G. (1987). Parallel Structures in Syntax: Coordination, Causatives and Restructuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Higginbotham, J. (1985). “On semantics”. Linguistic Inquiry, 16(4), 547–594. Horrocks G. & M. Stavrou (1987). “Bounding theory and Greek syntax: Evidence from whmovement in NP”. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 79–108. Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kolliakou, D. (1995). “Definites and Possessives in Modern Greek: an HPSG Syntax for Noun Phrases.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Edinburgh.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.36 (2184-2276)

 Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou

Kolliakou, D. (1999). “Non-monotone anaphora and the syntax of definiteness”. In F. Corblin, C. Dobrovie-Sorin, & J.-M. Marandin (Eds.), Empirical issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, 121–145. The Hague: Thesus. Larson, R. (1998). “Events and modification in nominals”. In D. Strolovitch & A. Lawson (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII (SALT8), 145–168. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistic Circle. Larson, R. (2000). “Temporal modification in nominals”. Paper presented at the international roundtable The Syntax of Tense and Aspect. Paris, France. Lombard, A. (1974). La langue roumaine: une présentation. Paris: Éditions Klincksiek. Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manolessou, I. (2000). “Greek Noun Phrase Structure: A Study in Syntactic Evolution.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cambridge. Manolessou, I. & Ph. Panagiotidis. (1998). “Ta dhiktika tis ellinikis ke i shetikes epiplokes”. [Demonstratives in Greek and Related Complexities]. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 19, 199–212. Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki. Marmaridou, S. (1984). “The study of Reference, Attribution and Genericness in the Context of English and their Grammaticalization in Modern Greek Noun Phrases.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cambridge. Motopanyane, V. (2000). Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax. Amsterdam: North Holland. Ortmann, A. & A. Popescu. (2000). “Romanian definite articles are not clitics”. In Gerlach, B. & J. Grijzenhout (Eds.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Panagiotidis, Ph. (2000). “Demonstrative determiners and operators: The case of Greek”. Lingua, 110, 717–742. Papazizi-Papatheodorou, Z. (1996). Paramythia ton Blaxon. 96 paramythia perioxis Trikalon Thessalias. [Stories of the Vlaxs. 96 stories of the area of Trikala, Thessalia]. Athens: Gutenberg. Ralli, A. (1991). “Lexical phrase: A morphological analysis”. In Studies in Greek Linguistics, 139–159. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis. Ralli, A. & M. Stavrou (1997). “Morphology-syntax interface: A-N compounds vs. A-N constructs in Modern Greek”. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology, 243–265. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Ritter, E. (1991). “Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew”. In Rothstein, S. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 26, 37–62. San Diego: Academic Press. Sadler, L. & D. Arnold (1994). “Prenominal Adjectives and the Phrasal/Lexical distinction”. Journal of Linguistics, 30, 187–236. Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and Syntax. The relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Sproat, R. & C. Shih (1987). “Prenominal adjectival ordering in English and Mandarin”. Proceedings of NELS, 18, 465–489. Sproat, R. & C. Shih (1991). “The cross-linguistic distribution of adjective ordering restrictions”. In C. Georgopoulos & R. Ishihara (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language. Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, 565–593. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33

F: LA6704.tex / p.37 (2276-2331)

Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian 

Stavrou, M. (1995). “Epexegesis vs. apposition in Modern Greek”. Epistiminiki Epetiris Tmimatos Filologias Panepistimiu Thessalonikis, 5, 217–250. Stavrou, M. (1996). “Adjectives in Modern Greek. An instance of predication, or an old issue revisited”. Journal of Linguistics, 32, 79–112. Stavrou, M. (1998). “The position and serialization of APs in the DP: Evidence from Greek”. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax, 201–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Stavrou, M. & G. Horrocks (1989). “Engklitikes ke diktikes antonimies mesa stin OF”. [Enclitic and demonstrative pronouns within NP]. In Studies in Greek Linguistics, 225– 246. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis. Taraldsen, K. T. (1990). “D-projections and N-projections in Norwegian.” In J. Mascaró & M. Nespor (Eds.), Grammar in Progress: Essays in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, 419– 432. Dordrecht: Foris. Tredinnick, V. (1992). “Movement in the Modern Greek noun phrase”. Penn Review of Linguistics, 17. Tsimpli, I.-M. (1998). “Individual and functional reading for focus, wh- and negative operators: Evidence from Greek”. In B. Joseph, G. Horrocks, & I. Philippaki-Warburton (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics II, 197–227. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Vendler, Z. (1957). “Verbs and times”. Philosophical Review, 56, 143–160. (Also in Z. Vendler 1967. Linguistics in philosophy, 97–121.) Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Zamparelli, R. (1993). “Prenominal adjectives, degree phrases and the structure of DP”. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 138–161. Zubizarreta, L. (1998). Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Zymberi, I. (1991). Colloquial Albanian. London: Routledge.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.1 (40-113)

Balkan possessive clitics The problem of case and category* Roumyana Pancheva University of Southern California

A comparative study of five Balkan languages, informed by both synchronic and historical considerations, reveals that a prominent areal feature – the morpho-phonological identity of possessive and indirect object clitics – masks a range of syntactic differences. Greek possessive clitics are shown to be DPs valued for genitive case, formally distinct from indirect object clitics. Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian, and Serbo-Croatian possessive clitics, on the other hand, are argued to have dative case features in syntax, and thus to be the same formal entities as clausal indirect object clitics. Further distinctions exist within the latter group of languages, both with respect to the availability of dative-case valuation mechanisms inside the DP, and with respect to the mode of initial merge of clitics, as heads agreeing in case- and phi-features with dative arguments, or as DPs being valued for dative case themselves.

.

Overview

One of the features of the Balkan Sprachbund is the morpho-phonological identity of possessive clitics and clausal indirect object clitics. This paper addresses the question of the possessive and indirect object clitics’ identity of form, focusing on the issue of case features and category at initial merge. It will become clear that the Balkan languages are, despite appearances, not uniform with respect to this phenomenon. (i) For Greek, it is proposed that possessive clitics receive abstract genitive case and are, thus, formally distinct from clausal indirect object clitics, the latter being valued as dative. The identity between the two types of clitics is the result of a dative/genitive syncretism in the morpho-phonological expression of the distinct abstract syntactic features.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.2 (113-172)

 Roumyana Pancheva

(ii) In contrast, in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian, and Serbo-Croatian, possessive clitics are argued to have dative case features in syntax, and thus, be the same entities as clausal indirect object clitics. The identity of morphophonological form of the two types of clitics is due to their identity of formal features and not to case syncretism. There are further distinctions within this latter group of languages, both with respect to the availability of dative-case valuation mechanisms inside the DP, and with respect to the mode of initial merge of clitics, as heads agreeing in case and phi-features with dative arguments, or as XPs being valued for dative case themselves: (i) Bulgarian and Macedonian DPs have the syntactic means to value dative case on possessive arguments, Serbo-Croatian DPs do not, and Romanian DPs have almost completely lost the dative-case valuation mechanism. This parametric difference is responsible for the availability of DP-internal possessive clitics in Bulgarian and Macedonian, their lack in Serbo-Croatian, and their non-productivity in Romanian. (ii) Possessive/indirect object clitics in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian are initially merged as heads, adjoined to the heads of functional projections in the extended domain of nominal/verbal predicates and agreeing in case and phi-features with (possibly non-overt) dative arguments. Possessive/indirect object clitics in Serbo-Croatian are themselves arguments receiving abstract dative case during the syntactic computation. The above conclusions are based on comparative data from the contemporary languages. They are further reinforced by considerations of earlier stages in the histories of these languages. A syntactic position in which Modern Greek clitics can appear is shown to have been historically a pre-nominal genitive position available to all DPs up until the 15th century, supporting the proposal that Modern Greek possessive clitics are abstractly genitive and not dative. Data from Old Church Slavonic, the earliest recorded South Slavic language, reveal that unambiguously dative clitics appeared in the DP along with non-clitic genitive and dative arguments. Genitive clitics were never available in the history of the South Slavic languages. Thus, it is unjustifiable to posit that genitive clitics emerged in Macedonian and Bulgarian, in conjunction with a proposal that independently, but simultaneously, the morpho-phonological expression of the genitive case gave way to that of the dative. Rather, the conclusion drawn here, is that genitive clitics were never licensed in the Bulgarian and Macedonian DP, and that furthermore, the morpho-phonological realization of the abstract genitive case on non-clitic pronouns and full DPs did not “merge” with that of the abstract dative; instead, genitive-case valuation mechanisms were simply lost in these languages (except for

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.3 (172-233)

Balkan possessive clitics 

“adjectival” possessives). Similarly, historical considerations reveal that, whereas Modern Serbo-Croatian does not allow possessive clitics inside the DP (these can appear only DP-externally), DP-internal dative clitics were present in the language at least until the 14th century. A single historical change in Serbo-Croatian can thus be posited – a loss of dative-case valuation mechanisms within the DP. The same factors underlie the (almost completed) loss of DP-internal possessive clitics in Romanian. If the DP-internal possessive clitics, freely available in earlier stages of these languages, had abstract genitive case, it would be unexplained why they start to disappear, given that genitive-licensing mechanisms remain available in Serbo-Croatian and Romanian.

. Background “Possessive” is a cover term for nominal expressions whose thematic interpretation is determined with respect to the head noun of another nominal. Some possessives are thematic arguments of the head noun, e.g., the 1Sg pronoun in my arrival; others are not, e.g., my dog. In either case, possessives can receive a range of theta roles, and occupy a number of syntactic positions, e.g., my portrait, a portrait of mine, a portrait of me.1 In the Balkan languages, the possessive nominal may be a “special clitic”, in the sense of Zwicky (1977) – a weak pronoun which (i) lacks lexical stress and needs a phonological host to form a prosodic word; and (ii) has a syntactic distribution different from that of other pronouns. These possessive clitics have the same form, throughout the person-number-gender paradigm, as indirect object clitics in the domain of the clause. The identity of form may reflect an underlying identity of abstract case- and phi-features. Yet, it may also be a purely surface phenomenon, as most of the Balkan languages have undergone a historical change resulting in a syncretism between dative and genitive case, affecting full DPs as well as clitics. The latter position has been generally adopted by researchers on Balkan possessives (e.g., Tomić 1996a; Schoorlemmer 1998; Schick 2000; Grosu 1988, 1994; Avram & Coene 2000). The possibility that possessive and indirect object clitics may be formally distinct syntactic objects, despite their surface identity, is reinforced by the fact that their syntactic and morpho-phonological properties in the domains of the DP and of the clause differ. For instance, in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian, these clitics exhibit second-position behavior within the DP, but not within the clause. In Greek, possessive clitics are “enclitics”, i.e., they always follow their phonological host, whereas clausal clitics are “proclitics” as they precede it, at least in indicative clauses.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.4 (233-278)

 Roumyana Pancheva

In this paper, however, I show that the commonly held view about Balkan possessives is not correct, and that possessive and indirect object clitics are, in fact, the same syntactic objects, at least in the Balkan Slavic languages and Romanian. This finding has important ramifications for the theory of cliticization. Immediately, the issue arises of how best to account for the divergent properties of the formally identical clitics in the two syntactic domains, the DP and the clause. Normally, pronominal clitics are assumed to be lexically specified as having (i) syntactic features, e.g., case; (ii) morphological features, such as prefix or suffix (in the sense of directionality of attachment during merger), and (iii) phonological features of relevance during the building of prosodic domains (e.g., Klavans 1995; Bošković 2001, a.o.). If indeed possessive and indirect object clitics are the same objects – the same bundles of syntactic, morphological and phonological features, placement patterns such as second-position cliticization, or proclisis vs. enclisis, are dependent on the syntactic domain of cliticization and cannot be derived on the basis of the lexical feature specification of clitics. Such a finding necessitates the re-examination of the syntactic, morphological, and phonological features of various types of clitics, and underscores the importance of the syntactic domain – a DP or a clause, and the mapping of syntactic structure to prosodic structure, in determining the placement of clitics. This paper has a modest goal. It focuses on the issues of case specification for possessive and indirect object clitics, and of the mode of their initial merge in the syntactic structure. This is the necessary first step in addressing the important questions outlined above. By establishing that at least in some of the Balkan languages, clitics in the nominal and clausal domain are formally the same elements, it will be necessary to ask why then the cliticization patterns of the same elements are different in the two syntactic domains. The present proposals (a) open up the possibility of exploring a grammar of clitics that could not be naturally formulated before and (b) achieve a novel understanding of the parametric differences in the syntax of possessives in the Balkan languages. The proposals developed here are framed within a particular conception of the syntax-morphology interface and assume an interpretive role for the morphological component, as in Halle and Marantz (1993) and related work in Distributed Morphology, in particular the claim that syntax manipulates abstract categories without phonological content.2 Clitics are thus abstract bundles of features that are merged in certain syntactic positions and may undergo various movements, based on their syntactic feature specification and the general principles of syntactic computation. Specifically, clitics can be merged and/or moved as heads or as maximal categories because of their inherent category ambiguity. The hierarchical structures created by the syntactic component constitute the input to the morphological component at the point of Spell-Out. Morphology may rearrange, in a highly constrained fashion, these syntactic structures. For instance, it may perform

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.5 (278-316)

Balkan possessive clitics 

merge of two syntactic heads while also changing their order to satisfy directionality requirements on cliticization. The morphological component is also responsible for lexicalization of the hierarchical structures, i.e., it inserts phonological pieces – the “exponents”, in syntactic terminal nodes. Vocabulary items (clitics, as well as other expressions) are thus relations between exponents and the contexts for their insertion. Vocabulary items need not be fully specified for the syntactic terminals in which they are inserted. For instance, if a vocabulary item is underspecified for case, the same phonological exponent may lexicalize syntactic positions with different case specifications. The output of the morphological component is fed to a phonological component, which is responsible for the phonological realization of the lexicalized structures at the level of Phonological Form (PF). Both syntax and the post-syntactic branch to PF play a role in the surface placement of clitics. Regarding the mechanisms for case licensing, I assume the general ideas of the Principles and Parameters framework in some of their specific instantiations in Chomsky (2001). In particular, I assume that uninterpretable features, such as case features, are not specified for a particular value (e.g., nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, or other) at the beginning of a derivation. Rather, the value of uninterpretable features is determined in the course of the syntactic computation, after the establishment of an Agree relation with specific other inflectional features. Dedicated functional heads in the extended projection of an argument’s predicate are responsible for the valuation of the argument’s unvalued case feature. Valuation may happen in a Spec/head configuration, in case Agree triggers the movement of the DP whose case-feature is being valued, or it may happen “at a distance”, with Agree not followed by Move. Importantly, the abstractly valued case feature (“abstract case”) need not have an overt expression (“morphological case”) that is unique. Two different values for abstract case, e.g., dative and genitive, may receive the same overt morphological case, which is the phenomenon of case syncretism. Furthermore, the overt realization of the case feature may be done through inflection or by means of a PP (e.g., of -insertion in English possessives).

. Possessive clitics – dative or genitive? Possessive clitics in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian, and Romanian are morphologically dative, whereas the ones in Greek are morphologically genitive. The major concern of this section is to determine the abstract case value of these clitics. Once it is established that possessive clitics in the Balkan Slavic languages and Romanian are abstractly dative, rather than genitive, the question of the distinct phonological, morphological, and syntactic constraints of the placement of

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.6 (316-375)

 Roumyana Pancheva

dative clitics in the domain of the DP and of the clause can be meaningfully addressed.

. The morpho-phonological identity of possessive and indirect object clitics Possessives may appear within the DP where they are thematically interpreted (“internal possessives”), or outside of this DP (“external possessive”), following the terminology of Vergnaud and Zubizaretta (1992). Internal possessive clitics are found in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Greek, not in Serbo-Croatian, and not productively in Romanian. Serbo-Croatian does have possessive clitics, but these obligatorily appear externally to the DP.3 In Romanian, DP-external possessive clitics are strongly preferred to the DP-internal ones, or are even obligatory in some cases. In these Balkan languages, the DP-internal and DP-external possessive clitics have the same morpho-phonological form as clausal-domain indirect object clitics, as a comparison of the (a) and (b) examples in (1)–(5) illustrates. (1) a.

kniga-ta mu book-the he.cl.dat ‘his book’ b. Az mu pomognax. I he.cl.dat helped ‘I helped him.’

(2) a.

žena mi wife I.cl.dat ‘my wife’ b. Mi se stori. . . I.cl.dat refl.cl seemed ‘It seemed to me. . . ’

(3) a.

carte-a i book-the 3sg.cl.dat ‘his/her book’ b. I-am scris. 3sg.cl.dat-have.1sg written ‘I wrote to him/her’

(4) a.

to vivlio tu the book he.gen.cl ‘his book’

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

[Macedonian]

[Macedonian]

[Romanian]

[Romanian]

[Greek]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.7 (375-443)

Balkan possessive clitics

b. Tu eftiaksa ena keik he.gen.cl made.1sg a cake ‘I made him a cake.’

[Greek]

U novinama mi se opet pojavila slika. [Serbo-Croatian] in paper I.cl refl.cl again appeared picture ‘My picture came out again in the paper’. [Serbo-Croatian] b. Vesna mi ga je kupila. Vesna I.cl it is bought ‘Vesna bought it for me.’

(5) a.

The identity of form in the possessive and indirect object clitics obtains for all person-number-(gender) combinations (i.e., 2Sg possessive and indirect object clitics are identical, as are 3Sg masculine, 3Sg feminine clitics, etc.). The four languages with DP-internal clitics – Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian, and Greek – have undergone a loss of either genitive or dative morphological case, with the remaining case “taking over” as the morpho-phonological expression of both genitive and dative abstract cases. In Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian, the morphological genitive was lost and was replaced by the morphological dative, whereas in Greek the morphological dative gave way to the morphological genitive form. The case syncretism is not a characteristic of the clitics alone, but extends to full DP arguments, and in Greek, to strong pronouns as well. In Serbo-Croatian, a morphological distinction between dative and genitive case is still preserved. Given the case syncretism in all of the Balkan languages but Serbo-Croatian, the morphological case of the possessive clitics cannot be taken at face value. As in any case of morpho-phonological identity of expressions from distinct syntactic domains, there are two ways to account for the syncretism: (i) complete or partial identity of formal features, such that the shared features are realized by a single exponent; or (ii) lack of relevant common features, with the surface identity resulting from accidental homophony or from radical underspecification (an “elsewhere” condition). With respect to case syncretism in particular, assuming case features to be privative, two nominals can have: (i) the same case feature, realized by a single exponent specified for this case feature; or (ii) distinct case features, realized by a single form because of homophony of the two exponents or because of complete underspecification for case of the single exponent.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.8 (443-505)

 Roumyana Pancheva

With these considerations in mind, two hypotheses may be formulated for each of the Balkan languages, concerning the morpho-phonological identity of its possessive and indirect object clitics. It may be the case, that possessive clitics have the same abstract dative case feature as indirect object clitics in the domain of the clause.4 Or, it may be the case that possessive clitics are valued with an abstract genitive case, and are therefore formally distinct from indirect object clitics. In precise terms, under the first hypothesis, both sets of clitics consist of a bundle of phi-features (person, number, and, for the 3rd person, gender features), and of dative case features. The identical featural content of the syntactic terminal, dative case included, is naturally realized by the same morpho-phonological exponent. Consider as an illustration (6) and (7), where an exponent, A, is the spell-out for a 1Sg dative clitic , whether possessive or indirect object clitic. (A would be mi in Romanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Serbo-Croatian, and mu in Greek). A could be fully specified as [1Sg.Dative], as in (6) or it can be underspecified as [1Sg], as in (7). In the latter case, possessive and indirect object clitics would still be realized by A, given the availability of a B exponent which is more highly specified and, hence, needs to be inserted in accusative syntactic environments.5 Under the hypothesis that possessive clitics are valued dative in the syntax, if the Balkan languages did not have a dative/genitive syncretism, their possessive clitics would be realized as unambiguously morphologically dative. (6) a.

Vocabulary Item for a possessive/indirect object clitic A – 1sg.dative b. Spell-out of possessive/indirect object clitics / __ {V or N} → A

(7) a.

Vocabulary Items for clitics B – 1sg.accusative A – 1sg b. Spell-out of clitics → B → A

Under the second hypothesis, possessive clitics have abstract case features distinct from indirect object clitics, but the two receive identical morpho-phonological expression because of the independently attested syncretism (as in (8)–(9)). This option is adopted for Bulgarian in Tomić (1996a), Schoorlemmer (1998), and Schick (2000), for Macedonian in Tomić (1996a), and for Romanian, in Grosu (1988, 1994), Avram and Coene (2000).6 Under this hypothesis, if the languages did not have dative/genitive case syncretism, possessive clitics in the DP would be realized as morphologically genitive, as they are posited to be abstractly genitive. There are two ways to implement the second hypothesis. The identical surface

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.9 (505-549)

Balkan possessive clitics 

form of possessive and indirect object clitics could be the result of accidental homophony (as in (8)). That is, there could be two exponents A1 and A2 that happen to be identical. However, homophony is unlikely, given the complete identity of possessive and indirect object clitics throughout the paradigm. Rather, the syncretism effect is better achieved through underspecification for case features of the relevant morpho-phonological exponents (as in (9)). It can be posited that A is underspecified for case, whereas other clitic vocabulary items are specified as accusative. In accusative syntactic contexts, the more highly specified exponents will win over A. A will be suitable for insertion only in syntactic terminals not specified as accusative. These would be precisely those terminals specified as dative or genitive, since none of the Balkan languages makes a further case distinction in clitics (again, we are putting nominative aside). (8) a.

Vocabulary Item for a possessive clitic A1 – 1sg.genitive Vocabulary Item for an indirect object clitic A2 – 1sg.dative A1 = A2 b. Spell-out of possessive and indirect object clitics → A1 → A2

(9) a.

Vocabulary Items for clitics 1sg.accusative – B 1sg. – A b. Spell-out of clitics → B → A → A

Finally, while based on the data we have seen so far, the Balkan languages appear to be uniform as far as possessive clitics are concerned, it is possible that different analyses are in fact appropriate for the individual languages. Indeed, here I will defend the position that while the first hypothesis (abstract dative case) is correct for Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian, and Serbo-Croatian, the second one (abstract genitive case) is correct for Greek. The facts of Serbo-Croatian shed some light on the issue of whether possessive clitics are valued dative or genitive in the syntax, as this language does not exhibit a dative/genitive syncretism. Yet Serbo-Croatian also complicates the picture, as it does not have possessive clitics within the DP, in contrast to the other Balkan languages. Neither a genitive nor a dative clitic can be an argument in the DP, as example (10) shows.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.10 (549-604)

 Roumyana Pancheva

(10) *kuća {mu / ga} house he.cl.dat / he.gen.cl ‘his house’

[Serbo-Croatian]

The fact that genitive clitics are prohibited as possessors in the DP in the only Balkan language where we can independently verify their distinct status from dative clitics, casts serious doubt on the validity of the second hypothesis outlined above. Furthermore, the possessive clitics available DP-externally in Serbo-Croatian, are unambiguously dative. A genitive clitic is ungrammatical in this position (see (11) vs. (5a)). [Serbo-Croatian] (11) *U novinama me se opet pojavila in papers.loc I.gen.cl acc.ref.cl again appeared slika. picture ‘My picture came out again in the paper’.

. Historical considerations The unacceptability of the dative clitic in (10) needs to be explained. We could entertain a variant of the first hypothesis that posits partial identity between possessive and indirect object clitics. It could be that the genitive/dative syncretism is in fact a licensing factor for the availability of DP-internal possessive clitics in the Balkan languages. Under this view, the possessive clitics have abstract dative features, but as possessive arguments they also have to be genitive marked. The double case is then resolved only in instances of dative/genitive syncretism.7 Such a hypothesis is refuted, however, once we look at the history of some of these languages. Possessive clitics within the DP were available in Old Serbo-Croatian, and they were unambiguously, dative, as made clear by the lack of genitive/dative syncretism. [Old Serbo-Croatian] dragomu mi priˇetelu dear.dat I.cl.dat friend.dat (13th C; Dezs˝o 1982: 236) ‘to my dear friend’ b. vь slavni dvorь kraljevstva in the-great.acc court.acc kingdom.gen mi [Old Serbo-Croatian] my.cl.dat (14th C; Dezs˝o 1982: 237) ‘in the great court of my kingdom’

(12) a.

Similarly, Old Church Slavonic – the earliest recorded South Slavic language, which, for practical purposes, may be considered the ancestor of Bulgarian, Mace-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.11 (604-675)


donian, and Serbo-Croatian – had unambiguously dative clitics within the DP, as in (13a). Non-clitic dative pronouns and dative full DPs could also appear in the DP, as in (13b, c).8 Old Church Slavonic also had genitive-valued possessives, which showed certain restrictions as to animacy and branching structure. Genitive pronouns, which did not exhibit a clitic/non-clitic distinction, could be possessive arguments in Old Church Slavonic (see (14a)). Technically, only 3rd person pronouns could appear in the “ordinary” genitive case, as in (14a); 1st and 2nd person pronouns had to appear in a special “adjectival” genitive. Genitive full DPs were also available (see (14b)) though these were restricted to inanimate DPs and branching DPs, i.e., DPs with more than one constituent. Single-word animate DPs had to appear in the ‘adjectival’ genitive case (see section 3.5 for further discussion). (13) a.

snъ ti son you.cl.dat ‘your son’ b. rabъ jemu slave he.non-cl.dat ‘his slave’ c. krai rizˇe end shirt.dat ‘the end of the shirt’

(14) a.

sъmotri že mi zъlodˇeistvo consider part I.cl.dat crime ixъ they.non-cl.gen ‘consider (for me) their crime’ b. na prˇestolˇe slavy on throne.loc fame.gen svoeje refl.poss.gen ‘on the throne of his fame’

[Old Church Slavonic] (Duridanov et al. 1993: 241) [Old Church Slavonic] (Duridanov et al. 1993: 536) [Old Church Slavonic] (Duridanov et al. 1993: 461) [Old Church Slavonic] (Lunt 2001: 149)

[Old Church Slavonic] (Duridanov et al. 1993: 428)

The historical data suggest that two distinct possessive structures were available in Old South Slavic. In one structure, the possessive nominal, whether a clitic, a non-clitic pronoun, or a full DP, was valued dative case. In the other structure, the possessive argument – a non-clitic pronoun or a full DP – was valued genitive case (there were no genitive clitics). It may be objected that the occurrence of both dative and genitive arguments in the DP is not a reflection of two distinct syntactic structures, but merely the result of overlapping patterns during the historical change that is behind the da-



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.12 (675-731)

 Roumyana Pancheva

tive/genitive syncretism. In other words, all structures could be posited to be unambiguously genitive, but some are morpho-phonologically realized by the dative exponents – a variability that exists in the texts because of a change in progress. This, however, is unlikely for a number of reasons. The dative possessors are extremely common even in the earliest texts, even before the likely beginning of the historical change that is behind the syncretism. Furthermore, there are grammatical relations within the DP that are always realized by a genitive, and never by a dative (Duridanov 1993: 463). We also may point out, that the existence of dative possessors along with genitive possessors is a feature of Indo-European. Thus, evidence from the history of the Balkan Slavic languages suggests that a dative/genitive syncretism is not necessary for the presence of possessive clitics within the DP. The historical facts also make it unlikely that in the modern Balkan languages (at least the Slavic ones), possessive clitics have abstract genitive case and are identical in form to clausal dative clitics simply because of the dative/genitive syncretism. The possessive clitics in the Slavic languages were historically dative, as the earliest records attest. Positing that the abstract case of possessive clitics became genitive, as a result of a syntactic change, just as the morpho-phonological expressions of the dative and the genitive cases collapsed, is unmotivated and would be very difficult to justify.

. Possessor raising of clitics Another facet of the distribution of possessive clitics is their ability to appear external to the DP, as already seen in the case of Serbo-Croatian. External possessive clitics are available in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian as well, but not in Greek.9 The availability/non-availability of DP-external clitics is illustrated in the examples below (the Serbo-Croatian example (5a) repeated for convenience). (The Macedonian example is from Baerman & Billings 1998, and the Romanian example is from Avram & Coene 2000). (15) Az im vidjax [DP nova-ta kola]. I they.cl.dat saw.1sg new-the car ‘I saw their new car.’

[Bulgarian]

(16) Si mu gi zel [DP pari-te]. be.2sg he.cl.dat they.cl.acc taken money-the ‘You have taken his money’

[Macedonian]

(17) I-am z˘arit [DP chipul] in mul¸time. 3sg.cl.dat-have.1sg seen face-the in crowd ‘I saw her face in the crowd.’

[Romanian]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.13 (731-793)

Balkan possessive clitics 

(18) U novinama mi se opet pojavila in papers.loc I.cl.dat refl.cl.acc again appeared [DP slika]. picture ‘My picture came out again in the paper’. (19) *Tus idha [DP to kenuryio aftokinito]. the new car they.cl saw.1sg ‘I saw their new car.’

[Serbo-Croatian]

[Greek]

Whether the clitic appears internally or externally to the DP seems to be “optional” in Bulgarian and Macedonian, that is, there are no obvious interpretive, syntactic or other factors that determine one or the other position.10 In Romanian, the DPexternal placement of the clitic is the preferred option; the DP-internal placement is essentially restricted to the singular paradigm, in particular 3rd person, and even there is “felt as outdated, formal, and poetic” (Avram & Coene 2000: 158). I will not offer here a detailed account of possessive clitic “raising”. There have been numerous proposals in the literature regarding the more general phenomenon of possessor raising, addressing in particular one central puzzle – that the DP-external possessor has the syntactic behavior of a clausal argument but the interpretation of an argument within the possessee DP. The attempts at solving the puzzle have been of two types. One advocates that the possessor is an argument of the verb (e.g., an applicative). The possessive interpretation arises through binding of an anaphoric element in the possessee (e.g., Borer & Grodzinsky 1986, for Hebrew; Vergnaud & Zubizaretta 1992, for French; Kempchinsky 1992, for Spanish). The second line argues that the possessor is an argument of the possessee DP; it originates DP-internally and moves to a position typically occupied by verbal arguments (e.g., Landau 1999, for Hebrew). Similarly, previous analyses of Balkan possessive clitics that address the phenomenon of “raising” have followed one or the other approach. Advocates of base-generation of external possessive clitics are Schürks and Wunderlich (2000) for Bulgarian, and Schick (2000a) for Bulgarian and Macedonian. A movement analysis for external possessive clitics is proposed in Avram and Coene (2000) for Romanian, and Stateva (2002) for Bulgarian. Which of the two approaches to possessor ‘raising’ is correct is not of central concern for this paper (although some suggestions will be made later, as part of a general comparative account of the clitic systems of the Balkan languages). Of particular relevance at this point is the fact that possessor “raising” provides additional evidence in support of the position that at least in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian, and Serbo-Croatian possessive clitics are valued in syntax for dative case, rather than genitive. It appears to be generally the case that in languages with both dative and non-dative possessors,11 only the dative ones “raise” out of the DP.12 Familiar examples include French, Spanish, German, and Hebrew,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.14 (793-852)

 Roumyana Pancheva

where genitive possessors can only appear DP-internally, whereas dative possessors may be DP-external (e.g., Vergnaud & Zubizarreta 1992; Kempchinsky 1992; Krause 2001; Borer & Grodzinsky 1986; Landau 1999). Similarly, in Hungarian nominative possessors are restricted to a DP-internal position, but dative ones are not (e.g., Szabolcsi 1983, 1994). As an illustration of the dative/non-dative distinction in possessor raising, consider the Hungarian examples from Szabolcsi (1994); more examples of the case-restriction can be found in the cited literature. (20) a.

a Mari kalap-ja-i the Mari.nom hat.poss-pl(-3sg) ‘Mari’s hats’ b. Mari-nak a kalap-ja-i13 Mar-dat the hat-poss-pl(-3sg) ‘Mari’s hats’ c. *Mari fekete volt [DP a kalap-ja ] the hat-poss(-3sg-nom) Mari.nom black was ‘Mari’s hat was black.’ d. Mari-nak fekete volt [DP a kalap-ja ] Mari-dat black was the hat-poss(-3sg-nom) ‘Mari’s hat was black.’

[Hungarian]

[Hungarian]

[Hungarian]

[Hungarian]

In the same vein, as pointed out earlier, external possessive clitics in Serbo-Croatian are unambiguously dative, genitive clitics being ungrammatical (cf. (5a) vs. (11)). The phenomenon of possessor “raising” offers further evidence in support of the proposal that external possessive clitics in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian, and Serbo-Croatian have abstract dative case features. DP-external possessive clitics have an identical distribution to that of clausal indirect object clitics. In Bulgarian, Macedonian and Romanian clausal object clitics are hosted by the verb, that is, they merge with the verb to form a complex head (in the syntax, or in the post-syntactic component), and form one prosodic word with it. In SerboCroatian clausal object clitics are second-position clitics – they appear after the first prosodic word or the first constituent in the intonational phrase (the clause, in the typical case). Examples of the placement of clausal clitics in these languages are very well known and thus are not provided here (see e.g., Tomić 1996b; Franks & King 2000; Bošković 2001, among many others, for discussion of clausal clitics in Balkan Slavic). Correspondingly, in Bulgarian, Macedonian and Romanian, external possessive clitics are syntactic associates of the verb, while in Serbo-Croatian they behave as second-position clitics. Placing the clitic in any other position than the one illustrated in (15)–(18) results in ungrammaticality. External possessive clitics observe even further distinctions found among the verbal clitics. In Romanian, but not in Bulgarian, clausal object clitics may appear initial in the intonational phrase. Thus, whereas in the Romanian example in (17)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.15 (852-908)

Balkan possessive clitics 

the possessive clitic is acceptable at the beginning of its clause, pro-drop in the Bulgarian example in (15) would strand the clitic without phonological support to its left and would lead to ungrammaticality. In Macedonian, as Tomić (2000) observes, verbal clitics can appear clause-initially with verbal predicates, but not with nominal predicates. Possessive clitics observe this distinction as well (O. Tomić, p.c.), as (21) illustrates: (21) a.

Mu gi zede [DP pari-te]. he.cl.dat they.cl.acc took money-the ‘You/(s)he took his money.’ b. *Mu e [DP tatko]. him.cl.dat is father ‘He is his father.’

[Macedonian]

[Macedonian]

Facts like these suggest that external possessive clitics in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian have the properties – phonological, morphological, and syntactic – of indirect object clitics. Thus, we have seen evidence that DP-external clitics have abstract dative case features. In Section 3.3, we saw that, at least in the Balkan Slavic languages, DPinternal clitics were historically dative and not genitive. The more parsimonious hypothesis then is the first one outlined in Section 3.2, namely, that possessive clitics are valued as dative.

. Possessive clitics, non-clitic pronouns, and non-pronominal DPs We also need to consider the behavior of possessive clitics in comparison to that of non-clitic pronouns and full DPs. This paper does not attempt to provide a comprehensive analysis of the syntax of non-clitic possessors in the Balkan DP. These are examined only as far as they shed light on the status of possessive clitics, and in particular, the possessive clitics’ case features. As we will find out, in all of the languages considered, non-clitic pronouns are valued genitive. In Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Romanian the arguments in support of this conclusion may be less straightforward, than they are in Greek. Yet the proposal that non-clitic pronouns have genitive abstract case in the Balkan Slavic languages and Romanian still offers the best account of the empirical facts, both synchronic and diachronic. In these languages, genitive case on non-clitic pronouns is always associated with a particular inflection and with animacy restrictions. This genitive inflection, and the syntactic position associated with its licensing, is also available to full DPs, but not to clitics. Only in Greek, genitive case is available to pronominal and non-pronominal DPs alike, with clitics sharing the distribution of other possessives.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.16 (908-986)

 Roumyana Pancheva

While the facts of the case-licensing of non-clitic pronouns and full DPs in the Balkan Slavic languages and Romanian by themselves may not be conclusive as to the case features of the clitic pronouns in these languages, they serve to highlight the relevance of Greek possessive pronoun placement for the analysis of Greek clitics. The discussion of the distribution of non-clitic possessives in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Romanian also sets the stage for consideration of the facts of clitic doubling in these languages in Section 3.6.

.. Bulgarian and Macedonian Whereas in Old Church Slavonic non-clitic dative and genitive pronouns could appear within the DP, as we saw in examples (13b) and (14a), this is not an option in contemporary Bulgarian and Macedonian. In these languages, non-clitic possessive pronouns have a special, “adjectival”14 inflection: like adjectives, they agree in gender and number with the head noun, and may appear attributively as well as predicatively. Non-clitic pronouns that have the same form as indirect object pronouns may not appear as possessives in the DP. The facts are illustrated below. (Examples (23a, b) are from Tomić 1996a.) (22) a.

nego-(o)va-ta kniga he.non-cl-poss.f.sg-the book.f.sg ‘his book’ b. kniga-ta {(* na nego) / mu } book-the to he.non-cl he.cl.dat ‘his book’ c. Pomognax {NA NEGO15 / mu} helped.1sg to him.non-cl he.cl.dat ‘I helped him.’

(23) a.

nejz-ini-ot sin she.non-cl-poss.m.sg-the son.m.sg ‘her son’ b. sin {(* nejze) / í} son she.non-cl.dat she.cl.dat ‘her son’ c. i (nejze) í reˇce.16 and she.non-cl.dat she.cl.dat told.3sg ‘He/she also told her.’

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

[Macedonian]

[Macedonian]

[Macedonian]

The special “adjectival” inflection on non-clitic possessive pronouns in Bulgarian and Macedonian is not available to all DPs. Only pronouns (see (22a)–(23a)), and, to a limited extent, non-branching animate proper names17 and certain animate relational nouns18 (see (24)) can appear with this inflection.19

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.17 (986-1040)


(24) a.

b.

cf.

c.

cf.

{Ivan-ovi-te / ˇciˇco-(o)vi-te} k˘ašti Ivan-poss.pl-the uncle-poss.pl-the house.pl ‘Ivan’s/my uncle’s houses’ *Pariž-ovi-te k˘ašti Paris-poss.pl-the house.pl ‘the houses of Paris’ k˘ašti-te na Pariž house.pl-the to Paris ‘the houses of Paris’ *prezident-ovi-te k˘ašti president-poss.pl-the house.pl ‘the president’s houses’ k˘ašti-te na prezidenta house.pl-the to president-the ‘the president’s houses’

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

Looking at the history of Bulgarian and Macedonian proves instructive. Non-clitic possessive pronouns were derived by the affixation of a possessive suffix to the genitive form of the pronoun (Duridanov et al. 1993: 240). As the facts concerning the origins of the adjectival possessive form appear not to be generally known or readily available, I will briefly present them here. Old Church Slavonic possessive pronouns for 1st and 2nd person were formed by the affixation of a possessive suffix -jь (M.Sg) to a genitive stem. In the case of the plural pronouns, the result is transparent (see (25a)). In the case of the singular pronouns and the reflexive, the possessive suffix was added not to the then-contemporary genitive form (mene ‘1Sg.Gen’, tebe ‘2Sg.Gen’, sebe ‘Refl’) but to an older genitive stem (see (25b)). nasъ-jь → našь vasъ-jь → vašь 1pl.gen-poss.m 2pl.gen-poss.m ‘our’ ‘your’ b. moi-jь → moi tvoi-jь → tvoi 1sg.gen-poss.m 2sg.gen-poss.m ‘my’ ‘your’ svoi-jь → svoi refl.gen-poss.m ‘self ’s’

(25) a.

[Old Church Slavonic] (Duridanov et al. 1993: 240) [Old Church Slavonic] (Duridanov et al. 1993: 240)

It appears to be the case that the ‘ordinary’ genitive forms of non-clitic pronouns (e.g., mene ‘1Sg.Gen’, nasъ ‘1Pl.gen’) were not used as possessives in the DP; instead, the ‘adjectival’ genitive forms (e.g., moi ‘1Sg.Gen.Poss’, našь ‘1Pl.Gen.Poss’) were used.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.18 (1040-1121)

 Roumyana Pancheva

The 3rd person pronouns20 had no ‘adjectival’ possessive form, only an ‘ordinary’ genitive one (see (14a)). Subsequently in the history of South Slavic, an ‘adjectival’ possessive came into use, replacing the ‘ordinary’ genitive for 3rd person non-clitic pronouns. This ‘adjectival’ possessive was formed by the affixation of the possessive suffixes -ovъ and -inъ (masc.sg) to the genitive non-clitic pronouns (see (26)).21 ego [Old Church Slavonic] -ovъ → negov [Bulgarian], [Macedonian] 3sg.m.gen poss.m ‘his’ [Bulgarian], b. ee [Old Church Slavonic] -inъ → nein 3sg.f.gen poss.m nejzin [Macedonian] ‘her’ [Bulgarian] c. tˇexъ [Old Church Slavonic] -inъ → texen 3pl.gen poss.m ‘their’ [Macedonian]22 d. ixú [Old Church Slavonic] -ovú → nixov 3pl.anaph.gen poss.m ‘their’

(26) a.

In other words, as (25) and (26) show, the modern Bulgarian and Macedonian possessive non-clitic pronouns are historically derived from genitive-valued forms, further inflected with a possessive suffix. The possessive suffixes -jь, -ovъ and -inъ could also be added to animate nonbranching full DPs, to form possessive adjectives (Duridanov et al. 1993: 214–215, 219–221; Lunt 2001: 179–180). Just like the case of the pronouns, these forms had to be used, where available, instead of the ordinary ‘genitive’ (Lunt 2001: 146). solomonъ: solomonjь /solomonovъ [Old Church Slavonic] Solomon.nom Solomon.poss Solomon.poss (Lunt 2001: 180) ‘Solomon’s’ [Old Church Slavonic] b. julijana: julijaninъ Juliana.nom Juliana.poss (Lunt 2001: 180) ‘Juliana’s’

(27) a.

The conclusions of our historical exposition are that “adjectival” possessive inflection was associated with genitive non-clitic pronouns. An argument can be made that in the modern languages this is the last remnant of genitive case-valuation mechanisms. In modern Bulgarian and Macedonian, the syntactic position licensing the “adjectival” possessive is strictly pre-nominal.23 Post-nominally, full DPs (includ-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.19 (1121-1169)

Balkan possessive clitics 

ing animate proper names and relational nouns) have to be introduced by a preposition. No animacy restrictions apply to the post-nominal possessives.24 (28) a.

{Ivan-ova-ta /ˇciˇco-(o)va-ta} kniga Ivan-poss.f.sg-the uncle-poss.f.sg-the book.f.sg ‘Ivan’s/my uncle’s book’ b. *kniga-ta {Ivan-ova / ˇciˇco-(o)va} book.f.sg-the Ivan-poss.f.sg uncle-poss.f.sg ‘Ivan’s/my uncle’s book’ c. kniga-ta {na Ivan /na ˇciˇco} book.f.sg-the to Ivan to uncle ‘Ivan’s/my uncle’s book’

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

The ‘adjectival’ possessive inflection is also found in the non-Balkan Slavic languages, as the Russian examples below illustrate. There, it is similarly restricted to animate proper names, relational nouns, and pronouns. A distinct genitive case is available to post-nominal DPs, and no restrictions as to animacy apply (see also Schoorlemmer 1998). Pronouns can occur only with the “adjectival” inflection. The generally free order of Russian allows adjectival possessives to appear postnominally (e.g., kniga Petina ‘Petja’s book’). I will thus take it to be the case that the post-nominal “adjectival” possessive is in a syntactic position distinct from the one licensing “non-adjectival” genitive case. (29) a.

[Russian]

(30) a.

[Russian]

Petina kniga Petja.poss.f.sg book.f.sg ‘Petja’s book’ b. kniga Peti book.f.sg Petja.gen ‘Petja’s book’ tvoja kniga your.poss.f.sg book.f.sg ‘your book’ b. *kniga tebja book.f.sg you.gen ‘your book’

The different behavior of possessive clitics compared to non-clitic pronouns and full DPs in Bulgarian and Macedonian can be naturally accounted for under the following proposal. Pre-nominal possessives inside the DP are valued genitive in the course of the syntactic derivation. The morphological realization of this genitive case is limited to a certain class of animate DPs, namely proper names, relational nouns, and non-clitic pronouns. I further assume that the genitive case of pre-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.20 (1169-1222)

 Roumyana Pancheva

nominal possessive DPs is valued in a structural subject position lower than D0 (see Szabolcsi 1994; Schoorlemmer 1998, among others), named here FgP. Subsequent obligatory raising to a higher functional projection, AgrP, is responsible for agreement with the head noun. In addition to its full set of interpretable phi-features, the possessive DP also has uninterpretable gender and number features, which get valuated by Agr, after the obligatory movement.25 So far, things are straightforward and uncontroversial. (31) [DP D [AgrP PossDPi [FGP ti [. . . [NP N ]]]] I further propose that Spec, FgP is the only genitive-licensing position in the Bulgarian and Macedonian DP. This allows for a uniform treatment of non-clitic pronouns in the history of these languages and in contemporary Russian and Serbo-Croatian. Recall that centuries ago, only 3rd person pronouns could receive genitive case in position other than Spec, FgP (see (14a)) and subsequently these too had to follow the pattern of 1st and 2nd person pronouns (see (26) compared to (25)). Similarly, in contemporary Russian, genitive case is available to pronouns only in Spec, FgP, to be followed by obligatory movement to Spec, AgrP (see (30)). In Serbo-Croatian the facts are the same (as illustrated further below). So, whereas in Russian and Serbo-Croatian genitive case continued to be available to full DPs in position other than Spec, FgP (see (29) and (44)), Bulgarian and Macedonian lost this grammatical possibility altogether. This further allows us to dispense with the claim that Bulgarian and Macedonian saw the emergence of case syncretism between the morpho-phonological expression of dative and genitive case. Rather, these languages simply lost the syntactic mechanisms for genitive-case licensing (other than in Spec, FgP). Given this proposal, if pronouns can occur post-nominally, they must not be genitive. Now, note that when “non-adjectival” non-clitic possessive pronouns are doubled by a clitic, they become acceptable (as in (32); compare with (22b) and (23b)). This fact suggests that the possessive clitic is involved in mediating the casevaluation of the post-nominal non-clitic pronoun. In other words, if the clitic is to enter a chain with the non-clitic pronoun in (32), then since the pronoun is not valued genitive, the clitic must not be genitive as well. (32) a.

kniga-ta mu book-the he.cl.dat ‘his book’ b. sin í (na son she.cl.dat to ‘her son’

na nego to him.non-cl nea)26 her.non-cl

[Bulgarian]

[Macedonian]

It is predicted that clitics will not be able to co-occur with “adjectival” possessives, because of a case mismatch. This prediction is upheld, as illustrated in (33).27

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.21 (1222-1288)

Balkan possessive clitics 

(33) a.

negovi-te (*mu) his.non-cl.poss.pl-the he.cl.dat ‘his new books’ b. nejzini-ot (*í) her.non-cl.poss.m.sg-the she-cl ‘her son’

knigi books sin son.m.sg

[Bulgarian]

[Macedonian]

In sum, the facts of the distribution of non-clitic pronouns suggest that postnominal possessives in Bulgarian and Macedonian are instance of dative arguments. The abstract dative case valued in the post-nominal position is realized the same way the abstract dative valued in the domain of the clause is realized – as a PP (or DP in the case of Macedonian pronouns). Patterns of clitic-doubling or lack thereof, as in (32)–(33) suggests that clitics are dative-marked. While possessive clitics share none of the constraints imposed on possessives in Spec, AgrP, they have some constraints of their own. The facts of Bulgarian and Macedonian possessive clitic placement are fairly well known.28 The clitics always appear in a fixed position – right adjacent to the definite article or a demonstrative. Here we need not expand on this issue, as it does not bear immediate relevance to the problem at hand. Briefly, the requirement that D0 be [+def] is very strict: indefinite articles, strong or weak determiners, may not be hosts for the possessive clitic (see (34)–(35), (37)–(38)). This restriction does not hold for non-clitic possessive pronouns, which are licensed in both definite and indefinite DPs (see (36)). Because the definite article itself has a second-position behavior within the DP in Bulgarian and Macedonian, possessive clitics, when hosted by the article, end up in second-position, after the first constituent. The examples below illustrate the basic facts. The clitic must appear in the position shown.29 (34) a.

{vsiˇcki-*(te) / pet-*(te)} mu novi knigi all-the five-the he.cl.dat new books ‘all his new books’ / ‘his five new books’ b. novi-*(te) mu knigi new-the he.cl.dat books ‘his new books’ c. knigi-*(te) mu books-the he.cl.dat ‘his books’

(35) a.

{tazi / onazi} mu nova kniga this / that he.cl.dat new book ‘this/that new book of his’

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.22 (1288-1361)

 Roumyana Pancheva

b. {*edna / *njakoja} mi bratovˇcedka one some I.cl.dat cousin ‘one of my cousins’ (36) a.

vsiˇcki(-te) / pet(-te) negovi novi knigi all-(the) five-(the) his.non-cl.poss new books ‘all his new books’ / ‘(the) five new books of his’ b. negovi(-te) novi knigi his.non-cl.poss-(the) new books ‘(the) new books of his’

(37) a.

prva-*(ta) mi žena first-the I.cl.dat wife ‘my first wife’ b. sakana-*(ta) mi prva žena beloved-the I.cl.dat first wife ‘my beloved first wife’ c. žena mi wife I.cl.dat ‘my wife’

(38) *edna mi bratuˇcetka one I.cl.dat cousin ‘one of my cousins’

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

[Macedonian]

[Macedonian]

[Macedonian]

[Macedonian]

The specifics of the fixed distribution of possessive clitics are not of immediate concern here, as they could reflect a derived position for the clitic. It is logically possible that the clitic is merged initially the same way a non-clitic pronoun is, licenses case in the same position as the possessive ‘adjectival’ pronoun, and then moves further, as a head, and adjoins to a [+def] D0 . This, in fact, is the analysis proposed in Tomić (1996a), Schoorlemmer (1998) for Bulgarian possessive clitics. Thus, the particularities of the placement of the clitic do not constitute evidence for (or against) the proposal developed here, that, unlike pre-nominal ‘adjectival’ possessives, possessive clitics are not genitive-marked. Yet the placement of the clitics in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and as we will see, in Romanian, is in sharp contrast with that of Greek, as will become clear shortly. It thus underscores the need for giving the clitics in the two groups of languages a distinct analysis. It also will motivate the proposal that possessive clitics in Bulgarian and Macedonian are merged as adjuncts to a functional head and not as arguments in a theta-position.

.. Romanian Non-clitic pronouns in Romanian have special properties as well. Like the corresponding possessives in the Slavic languages, they have a special possessive stem

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.23 (1361-1411)

Balkan possessive clitics 

and adjectival inflection, agreeing with the head noun in number, gender, and case (see (39a)). Non-pronominal DPs also appear post-nominally, but they do not agree with the head noun. Full DPs are inflected for case, as in (39b), if they are adjacent to the definite article. In case of non-adjacency, they have to be preceded by a “particle” that consist of an invariable part a-, followed by the nominative forms of the definite article inflected for number and gender (al-M.Sg., a-F.Sg, aiM.Pl, ale-F.Pl) and agreeing with the head noun (see (39c) vs. (39d)). The status of the ‘particle’ is debatable. For instance, Grosu (1998) analyzes it as a preposition incorporating the definite article. Dobrovie-Sorin (2001) proposes that it is a DP consisting of a definite article, a nominal proform, and the usual post-nominal genitive DP; under her analysis (39d) has the structure of a DP to which another DP is adjoined, e.g., ‘the new book, the one of Mary’s. . . ’. [Romanian] carte-a mea book.f.sg-the I-poss.f.sg ‘my book’ b. carte-a {Mariei / lui Mihai /profesorului} book.f.sg-the Mary he.dat Mihai teacher-the.dat ‘Mary’s/Mihai’s/the teacher’s book’ c. *carte-a nouà {Mariei / lui Mihai /profesorului} book.f.sg-the new Mary he.dat Mihai teacher-the.dat ‘Mary’s/Mihai’s/the teacher’s new book’ d. carte-a {nouà a Mariei / lui Mihai /profesorului} book.f.sg-the new of Mary he.dat Mihai teacher-the.dat ‘Mary’s/Mihai’s/the teacher’s new book’

(39) a.

It is normally assumed in the literature on Romanian possessives that case on nonclitic pronouns and full DPs is licensed in different positions (see Grosu 1988; Avram & Coene 2000; Dobrovie-Sorin 2001). Romanian is thus analogous, in the relevant aspects, to Bulgarian and Macedonian. Genitive case on non-clitic pronouns receives a particular morphological expression, the “adjectival” possessive inflection. The structural analysis of Bulgarian and Macedonian possessive pronouns can be extended to Romanian, with the further assumption of obligatory N-to-D raising. (40) [DP [D Nj D ] [AgrP PossDPi [FGP ti [. . . [NP [N tj ] ]]]]] It is unclear whether full DPs in Romanian are valued dative or they receive genitive in a different position than FgP (similarly to the Russian (29)). I will assume the latter, as this will simplify the explanation for the loss of DP-internal clitics in this language. This means that, since full DPs are identical in surface form to indirect object pronouns30 a surface case-syncretism must be involved.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.24 (1411-1467)

 Roumyana Pancheva

As previously noted, DP-internal clitics are not productive.31 To the extent that they are acceptable DP-internally in the contemporary language, possessive clitics behave similarly to Bulgarian and Macedonian clitics. They only appear in definite DPs and display second-position-like effects. (41) *o carte i a book 3sg.at ‘a book of his/hers’

[Romanian]

(42) chipu i luminos face 3sg.dat.cl bright ‘her bright face’

[Romanian]

Avram and Coene (2000) attribute the disappearance of DP-internal possessive clitics to the loss of second position clitics in the clause (the effects of which were notable by the 16th century). This conjecture cannot be correct, when considered in a cross-linguistic perspective. Bulgarian similarly lost its second-position clausal clitics (with the effects of the change evidenced by the 17th century, see Izvorski 1995), yet its second-position like clitics within the DP are fully productive. SerboCroatian, on the other hand, has retained its second-position clausal clitics but lost completely the DP-internal possessive ones. The explanation for the loss of DP-internal clitics in Romanian rather needs to be sought elsewhere. I propose that this is due to a loss of dative case valuation mechanisms inside the DP. The historical change must be relatively recent, in comparison to SerboCroatian, and as usual with change in progress, the output of both grammars – one with dative case licensing in DP and internal possessive clitics, and one without – are still evidenced in the contemporary language. The loss of dative case valuation inside DP does not affect non-clitic possessives as they are valued genitive. If Romanian possessive clitics were posited to be genitive (as in e.g., Avram & Coene 2000), we would have to be looking for an alternative explanation of the historical change.

.. Serbo-Croatian The behavior of possessives in Serbo-Croatian supports the proposal that clitics in that language are also dative-marked. As we saw earlier (example (10)), genitive clitics are not possible in the DP in this language. Serbo-Croatian has prenominal genitives, showing restrictions similar to those found with prenominal possessives in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Russian. The unmarked position for the old agreeing genitive (the special “adjectival” possessive inflection) is pre-nominal (see (43)), and is limited to pronouns and animate, single-word full DPs. Postnominally, a morphologically distinct genitive case is available, as in Russian (see (44)). As in Russian, pronouns cannot appear in the “non-adjectival” genitive (see

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.25 (1467-1530)

Balkan possessive clitics 

(45b) vs. (43b)). However, unlike the situation in Russian, and like that in Old Church Slavonic, any DP that can appear in the “adjectival” genitive, is barred from occurring as an “ordinary” genitive (see (45a) vs. (43a)). (43) a.

Petr-ova kuća Peter-poss.f.sg house.f.sg ‘Peter’s house’ b. njegova kuća his-poss.f.sg house.f.sg ‘Peter’s house’

[Serbo-Croatian]

[Serbo-Croatian]

(44) kuća moga brata house.f.sg my.gen brother.gen ‘my brother’s house’

[Serbo-Croatian]

(45) a. *kuća Petr-a house.f.sg Peter-gen ‘Peter’s house’ b. *kuća njega house.f.sg his.gen ‘his house’

[Serbo-Croatian]

[Serbo-Croatian]

Again, as in Russian, and as argued for Bulgarian and Macedonian, the generalization appears to be that pronouns can be valued genitive only in Spec, FgP. This explains why genitive clitics are prohibited in the Serbo-Croatian DP. The unavailability of dative clitics can be accounted for by positing that, unlike Bulgarian and Macedonian, but like the innovative Romanian grammar, Serbo-Croatian does not license dative case inside the DP (anymore).

.. Greek In contrast to the languages discussed above, Greek allows non-clitic pronouns as possessors in the DP without an “adjectival” inflection. They have exactly the same surface form as indirect object non-clitic pronouns, i.e., no special inflection is required. The non-clitic pronouns occur only post-nominally, as do full DPs.32 (46) a.

to vivlia aftunu the book his.non-cl ‘his book’ b. Eftiaksa aftunu ena keik made.1sg his.non-cl a cake ‘I made him a cake.’

[Greek]

[Greek]

The Greek facts are consistent with a view that genitive case is valued in the DP, post-nominally, and that its morphological expression is not limited to a particu-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.26 (1530-1594)

 Roumyana Pancheva

lar class of DPs. In other words, the Spec, FgP-Spec, AgrP mechanism of possessive licensing is not part of the syntax of Greek DPs, unlike the rest of the Balkan languages. The non-clitic pronouns, although genitive-valued, have the same surface form as clausal dative pronouns because of a dative/genitive syncretism. The placement of possessive clitics, unlike the case of Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian, is freer, though still subject to some restrictions. The post-nominal position, in which non-clitic possessive DPs have to appear, is always available to possessive clitics. But clitics can also follow pre-nominal adjectives, and nonclitic determiners, (cf. (47), from Kolliakou 1998). Possessive clitics cannot follow post-nominal adjectives, complements of prenominal adjectives, and adverbial modifiers. (47) a.

ola tus ta prosfata epistimonika arthra all they.cl.gen the recent scientific papers b. ola ta prosfata tus epistimonika arthra all the recent they.cl.gen scientific papers c. ola ta prosfata epistimonika tus arthra all the recent scientific they.cl.gen papers d. ola ta-prosfata epistimonika arthra tus all the-recent scientific papers they.cl.gen ‘all their recent scientific papers’

[Greek] [Greek] [Greek] [Greek]

Greek possessive clitics are not restricted to definite DPs, as the example below (from Alexiadou & Stavrou 2000) illustrates. (48) {ena/kapjo} tis vivlio a/some she.cl book ‘a/some book of hers’

[Greek]

In sum, clitics in Greek can appear in the position in which non-clitic possessives can (in addition to some others, higher in the DP), and they are not restricted as to the definiteness of the DP. Given that genitive case in Greek appears to be available for any DP in the post-nominal position, without a restriction as to category (e.g., pronoun vs. nonpronoun), and given that possessive clitics may appear in this post-nominal position, they may have abstract genitive case as well. There are further reasons to think that Greek possessive clitics are genitive-valued, based on historical considerations. As Alexiadou (2001) demonstrates, in earlier stages of Greek a prenominal genitive position existed, which ceased to be available for DPs around the 15th C.33 Yet Modern Greek can still have clitics in this position, provided they are preceded by an adjective. The possessive clitics show a number of restrictions similar to the ones found with prenominal genitives in earlier stages of Greek. Following Manolessou (2000), Alexiadou (2001) notes that historically, prenominal genitives

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.27 (1594-1654)

Balkan possessive clitics 

had to be human and definite; and frequently, proper names occupied this position.34 By the Byzantine period (5th–15th C), prenominal genitives in vernacular texts are limited to proper names and pronouns, and they only appear together with an adjective modifying the head noun, as in (49) from Manolessou (2000). (49) ta eugenika tu Halepe korasia the kind.pl the Halepe.gen girls ‘Halepe’s kind girls’

[Byzantine Greek]

In Modern Greek, only post-nominal genitives are found, except for clitics in the presence of an adjective, as illustrated in the following example from Alexiadou (2001): (50) i ksafniki tus apohorisi the sudden they.cl.gen departure ‘their sudden departure’

[Greek]

Importantly, Alexiadou and Stavrou (2000) point out that there is an animacy restriction on prenominal clitics that is not there with postnominal ones.35 (51) a.

o trelos odhigos tu the crazy driver 3sg.m/n.cl.gen 1. ‘its crazy driver’ (e.g., the crazy driver of the truck)’ 2. ‘his crazy driver’ (e.g. someone’s crazy chauffeur) b. o trelos tu odhigos the crazy 3m/n.sg.cl.gen driver 1. *‘its crazy driver’ 2. ‘his crazy driver’

[Greek]

[Greek]

The animacy restriction and the requirement for the presence of an adjective are common to pre-nominal clitics and pre-nominal genitive DPs of the Byzantine period. This suggests that pre-nominal possessive clitics, and by extension postnominal ones, have indeed the syntax of genitives. There is a further semantic restriction associated with pre-nominal possessive clitics noted by Alexiadou and Stavrou (2000). These authors observe that adjectives which are ambiguous with post-nominal clitics, become unambiguous with pre-nominal ones. In particular, as shown in the following example, whereas an adjective such as paljo ‘old’ may mean ‘former’ or ‘aged’ in (52a), it may only mean ‘former’ in (52b), the loss of reading being associated with the position of the possessive clitic. (52) a.

to paljo aftokinito mu the old car I.cl.gen

[Greek]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.28 (1654-1713)

 Roumyana Pancheva

1. ‘my former car (the car I used to own)’ 2. ‘my aged car’ b. to paljo mu aftokinito the old I.cl car only: ‘my former car (the car I used to own)’ A likely explanation for these facts is that there are (at least) two pronominal positions available for temporal adjectives (as indeed advocated by Larson and Cho 2000 regarding ambiguities of temporal adjectives with respect to possessives), one preceding a pre-nominal genitive and one following it, each position being associated with a particular meaning. The surface word order in the case of (52a) corresponds to two structures and is thus ambiguous. The pre-nominal placement of the clitic disambiguates between the two structures.36 Interestingly, the same interpretive effects of the position of adjectives with respect to prenominal possessives obtain in Bulgarian. When the adjective star ‘old’ appears after a pre-nominal (“adjectival”) possessive, it is ambiguous; when it precedes the possessive, it loses the ‘aged’ reading, as (53) illustrates.37 No such interpretive effects are observed with clitics (see (54)): (53) a.

poveˇceto moi stari koli most-the my.poss.pl old.pl cars 1. ‘most of my previous cars’ 2. ‘most of my aged cars’ b. poveˇceto stari moi koli most-the old.pl my.poss.pl cars only ‘most of my previous cars’ not ‘most of my aged cars’

(54) a.

poveˇceto mi stari koli most-the I.cl.dat old.pl cars 1. ‘most of my previous cars’ 2. ‘most of my aged cars’ b. starite mi koli old.pl-the I.cl cars 1. ‘my previous cars’ 2. ‘my aged cars’

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

As discussed earlier, the prenominal possessive in Bulgarian is genitive-valued. Apparently, in both Greek and Bulgarian, the position of adjectives with respect to pre-nominal genitives has interpretive effects. The lack of such effects in the interpretation of adjectives in the presence of clitics suggests that the clitic in Bulgarian is always syntactically higher than the adjective. In the literature, authors have typically assumed that it is adjoined to D0 (e.g., Schoorlemmer 1998; Embick & Noyer

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.29 (1713-1772)

Balkan possessive clitics 

2001) or is a functional head higher than DP (Dimitrova-Vulchanova 2000) and that the surface position of the adjective in (54b) is a derived position that has to do with second-position placement. Facts like these further strengthen the conclusion that the Greek prenominal clitic is genitive-valued.

. Clitic doubling In Bulgarian and Macedonian possessive clitics can appear together with a possessive PP (see (55) and (56) below, which illustrate doubling with full DPs in the PP, and also (32) above, where pronouns were doubled). (55) a.

novite mu knigi na Ivan new-the he.cl.dat books to Ivan ‘Ivan’s new books’ b. na Ivan novite mu knigi to Ivan new-the he.cl.dat books ‘Ivan’s new books’

(56) a.

majka mu na carot mother he.cl to king-the ‘the king’s mother’ b. na carot majka mu to king-the mother he.cl ‘the king’s mother’

[Bulgarian]

[Bulgarian]

[Macedonian]

[Macedonian]

It was argued earlier that, given the proposal above that possessive PPs in Bulgarian and Macedonian are the overt realization of dative case valued inside the DP, the fact that they co-occur with clitics suggests that the clitics themselves have dative rather than genitive case features. It was further argued that, if this is on the right track, then we would expect that clitics would not be able to double “adjectival” possessive pronouns, as these were argued to be genitive valued. This was indeed the case, as illustrated in (33) above. Note that the unacceptability of the examples in (33) cannot be due to the fact that both the clitic and the non-clitic pronoun need to value their case feature and they are in competition with one another to enter into a structural relationship with the case licenser. (See Jaegli 1986; Borer 1983, 1986; Aoun 1999, a.o. for casetheoretic approaches to clitic doubling.) The same logic should rule out (55) and (56), as well as (32) above. Note further that the preposition na in (55) and (56) is obligatory not because the clitic has ‘absorbed’ the available case and the DP argument is in need of casevaluation. The essence of Kayne’s generalization regarding clitic doubling is that the clitic-doubled DP needs to be introduced by a preposition because the clitic

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.30 (1772-1836)

 Roumyana Pancheva

“absorbs” the case provided by the case-assigner. Yet Kayne’s generalization does not obtain for clitic doubling in the domain of the clause in these languages.38 Moreover, the preposition na remains obligatory in (55) and (56) in the absence of the clitic. Romanian possessive clitics were argued to have dative features, and given that clitic doubling in the domain of the clause is possible in this language, one could expect that clitic doubling should also be possible in the domain of the DP. As argued above, however, a cross-linguistically plausible account of the loss of DPinternal possessive clitics implicates loss of dative case valuation mechanisms inside the DP. Thus, not only possessive pronouns, but also full DP arguments, are valued genitive in Romanian. Because of this, it is predicted that doubling should not be possible, and this is indeed the case. [Romanian] (57) a. *carte-a mi mea book.f.sg-the I.cl.dat my.poss.f.sg ‘my book’ b. *carte-a mi {(a) Mariei /lui Mihai /profesorului} book.f.sg-the I.cl.dat of Mary the Mihai teacher-the.dat ‘Mary’s/Mihai’s/the teacher’s new book’ In contrast, external possessive clitics can be doubled by a raised argument. In this respect, possessive clitics behave like clausal pronominal clitics. (58) I-am vazut Mariei carte-a. 3sg.cl-have.1sg seen Mary.dat book-the ‘I have seen Mary’s book’

[Romanian]

In Serbo-Croatian clitic doubling is never possible, and correspondingly, the external possessive clitics cannot be doubled. Thus, in the following sentence, the two pronouns cannot be construed either as possessives or as indirect objects. (59) *Njemu sam mu proˇcitala knjigu. him.dat be.1sg he.cl read book purported reading 1: ‘I have read his book.’ purported reading 2: ‘I read the book to him.’

[Serbo-Croatian]

In Greek clitic doubling is prohibited with possessive clitics,39 whether the clitic is in the post- or pre-nominal position, as the following examples illustrate ((60a) is from Alexiadou and Stavrou 2000). (60) a. *to vivlio tu tu fititi the book he.cl.gen the student ‘the student’s book’

[Greek]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.31 (1836-1899)

Balkan possessive clitics 

b. *ena/kapjo tu vivlio tu fititi a/some he.cl.gen book the student ‘some book of the student’

[Greek]

Greek allows clitic doubling in the clause. But given that possessive clitics were argued here to be genitive, and hence distinct formal objects from clausal clitics, there is no prediction with respect to the behavior of possessive clitics. The facts of (60) are compatible with the view that possessive clitics and genitive arguments are competing for case-valuation.

. Summary of case issues This section presented arguments that, despite appearances, possessive clitics in the Balkan languages are not all alike. Possessive clitics in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian were previously considered to have abstract genitive case, and the clitics’ morpho-phonological identity to clausal indirect object clitics was thought to be the result of surface syncretism. Arguments were provided here that possessive clitics in these languages are in fact valued dative in the syntax. The same was argued to be true for Serbo-Croatian. This language lacks the dative/genitive syncretism of its neighbors in the first place and its possessive clitics are unambiguously dative. The lack of DP-internal possessive clitics was attributed to a loss of dative case-valuation mechanisms inside the DP. The same historical change was posited to underlie the non-productive use of DP-internal clitics in Romanian. Greek was argued to be distinct from the rest of the Balkan languages studied, as its possessive clitics are valued with abstract genitive case; they have a common morpho-phonological expression with indirect object clitics because of surface syncretism. Evidence for these proposals came from considerations of historical facts, facts from possessor ‘raising’ of the clitics, comparison with the behavior of non-clitic possessives, and the facts of clitic doubling, all viewed in a comparative perspective. Specifically, Greek possessive clitics were shown to be able to appear in a structural position that historically was a genitive-licensing position. They also can surface in a genitive position in which other non-clitic possessives appear, showing that they have no special properties apart from their status of special clitics. They do not undergo possessor ‘raising’, as is typical of genitive arguments. Since they are syntactically distinct from clausal indirect object clitics, there is no reason to expect that they should share syntactic properties such as clitic doubling with these clitics. In contrast, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian were shown to have had dative possessive clitics in a historical period when a morphological distinction between dative and genitive exponents was still maintained. Possessor “raising” was shown to be an option – in fact, obligatory in Serbo-Croatian and practically

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.32 (1899-1949)

 Roumyana Pancheva

so in Romanian; and possessor ‘raising’ is known to be a property of datives. All four languages were shown to have a special genitive position in which non-clitic pronominal possessives have to appear, and which is associated with properties not shared by the clitics. Finally, clitic doubling with possessive clitics was shown to have the same cross-linguistic distribution as clitic doubling with indirect object clitics: to be possible in Bulgarian and Macedonian, but not in Serbo-Croatian, which is to be expected if the possessive and indirect-object clitics are the same syntactic objects. In Romanian, the absence of clitic doubling in DPs was attributed to the fact that non-clitic possessive in this language are valued genitive, the language essentially having almost entirely lost its dative-case valuation mechanism in the DP. Moreover, only doubling of non-genitive possessive arguments was shown to be possible in Bulgarian and Macedonian, and not that of “adjectival” possessives, which were argued to be genitive.

. Heads or arguments? Another question remains to be addressed concerning case. Pronominal clitics are intrinsically ambiguous as to their category, namely they can be merged and/or moved as heads or as phrases. Correspondingly, two types of analyses have been given in the general literature regarding the initial merge of clitics – as heads associated with a possibly non-overt argument (e.g., Borer 1983; Jaeggli 1986; Sportiche 1996) or as arguments in theta-position that have needs for case-valuation, possibly moving further as heads (e.g., Kayne 1991). Do Balkan possessive clitics, whether abstractly genitive, as in Greek, or dative, as in the other Balkan languages, have the syntactic behavior of heads or of maximal projections, at initial merge? The proposal is as follows. In Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian, clausal indirect object clitics are initially merged as X0 s. They do not originate in an argument position in the VP. Rather, they are bundles of case- and phi-features that are merged as adjuncts to the head of a functional projection in the extended projection of the verb that valuates dative case. Clitics are associated with a null pronominal or overt DP/PP, initially merged in a theta-position. This is essentially a Sportiche (1996) style analysis, the spirit of which goes back to Borer (1983). While not universally accepted for the languages under discussion, it is not particularly controversial that clausal clitics be treated as functional heads (see e.g., Tomić 1996b; Rudin 1997; Franks & King 2000; and for a different view, Bošković 2001). Being formally identical to dative clausal clitics, the Bulgarian, Macedonian and Romanian possessive clitics are initially merged as X0 s.40 They do not originate in an argument position. Rather, they are bundles of case- and phi-features that are merged as adjuncts to a dative-case valuating functional head, Fd0 , in the DP or the

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.33 (1949-1996)

Balkan possessive clitics 

clause (remaining agnostic here about the nature of possessor ‘raising’). The clitics are associated with a null pronominal or an overt PP/DP in a theta-position (of the head noun or of a null possessive predicate), with matching phi-features and an unvalued case feature. After merge with Fd0 , the clitic enters into an Agree relation with Fd0 , as a result of which its case feature is valued dative. Fd0 on the other hand gets its [– interpretable] phi-features valued. The possessive argument in theta position receives the same value for its case feature by virtue of being in a chain with the clitic. This mechanism of case licensing is an alternative to movement of the argument to Spec, FdP. Fd0 requires Agree to be followed by Merge, and initial merge of the clitic or movement and re-merge of the argument itself, in the absence of the clitic, are the two ways to satisfy this requirement. Clitic doubling is the result of pronunciation of the argument PP/DP. Note that conclusions on the basis of clitic-doubling, regarding the categorial status of clitics at merge, need not rest on the assumption that the doubled DP is an argument of the verbal or nominal predicate, and not an adjunct. Indeed, if it can be shown that the clitic-doubled DP is in an argument position, then its doubling clitic has to be analyzed as a head. But if the clitic-doubled DP is an adjunct, whether the clitic itself is an argument or a head at initial merge remains open. For instance, Aoun (1999) and Schneider-Zioga (1993) propose that doubled DPs are adjuncts in Lebanese Arabic and Greek, respectively, while the clausal clitics are heads associated with a null pronominal. (See e.g., Borer (1986), Anagnostopoulou (to appear) for detailed discussion of the argument/adjunct status of the cliticdoubled DP as a classic question in the grammar of clitics). Correspondingly, I will not present here arguments that the overt clitic-doubled DP/PP in Bulgarian and Macedonian is itself the argument. In contrast to clausal clitics in Bulgarian, Macedonian and Romanian, clausal pronominal clitics in Serbo-Croatian are merged as XPs in theta position. They are arguments in their own right, a bundle of [+interpretable] phi-features and an unvalued case-feature. Clitics overtly raise to Spec, FdP (eventually second position effects are derived41 ) to get their case-feature valued dative and check their phi-features against Fd0 . This analysis allows for a natural account of the absence of clitic doubling with second-position clitics. As possessive clitics are formally identical to dative clausal clitics, possessive clitics in Serbo-Croatian are similarly merged as XPs in theta position. They cannot be doubled by an argument, because they are the argument. In Greek, it was proposed here that possessive clitics have distinct features from indirect object clitics, at least as far as case is concerned. Since there is no formal identity between the two, possessive clitics need not have the same analysis as indirect object clitics. Greek clausal pronominal clitics have been argued to be initially merged as X0 s (e.g., Terzi 1999; Anagnostopoulou to appear42 ),43 a view that is consistent with the correlation advocated here between categorial status of pronominal

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.34 (1996-2052)

 Roumyana Pancheva

clitics at merge and the availability of clitic doubling. Possessive clitics, on the other hand, are initially merged as XPs, arguments within the DP in their own right, getting their case feature valued genitive, and prohibiting clitic doubling (consistent with the view in Alexiadou & Stavrou 2000; Alexiadou 2001). The head/phrase distinction at initial merge allows for a natural account of selectional restrictions between possessive clitic and the nominal head in the DP such as the ones found in Macedonian. Recall that in Macedonian possessive clitics occur only with nouns denoting kinship predicates such as wife, daughter, mother, sister, etc. This restriction is not present with non-clitic possessors (see (61)). (61) a.

mojata kniga I.poss.f.sg-the book.f.sg ‘my book’ b. *knigata mi book.f.sg-the I.cl ‘my book’

[Macedonian]

[Macedonian]

The restricted distribution of possessive clitics in Macedonian is accounted for naturally by the assumption that possessive clitics are heads adjoined to the head of a functional projection FdP. We can posit that the Fd0 s in Macedonian DPs that can value a dative case feature can appear only in DPs with a relational N0 . Technically, the selection can be done through a diacritic feature on Fd0 (and the head it selects). The relevant clitic exponent can still be inserted as the most specified vocabulary item for that position. We thus have found a principled way to capture the particular restriction in Macedonian, importantly, without having to posit special diacritics on the possessive clitics themselves, thus preserving the formal uniformity with clausal dative clitics.

. Conclusions Much less attention has been paid in the literature to Balkan possessive clitics than to their clausal counterparts. Moreover, previous work has largely concentrated on investigations of individual languages; the only comparative studies of Balkan possessive clitics that I am aware of are discussions of Bulgarian and Macedonian in Tomić (1996a), Franks and King (2000), Caink (2000) and Schick (2000). But as we saw in this paper, some of the really interesting questions arise only when we look at the languages in comparison. In particular, all of the Balkan languages have possessive clitics, which are identical morpho-phonologically to indirect object clitics in the domain of the clause. The null assumption (also explicitly endorsed by the majority of schol-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.35 (2052-2111)

Balkan possessive clitics 

ars writing on the topic) is that this phenomenon does not reflect an identity of abstract case, but merely an identity of its morphological expression. Such reasoning is strengthened by the fact that four of the five languages have experienced a collapse of the exponents of genitive and dative case. Yet, a comparative consideration of possessive clitics in the Balkan languages reveals unexpected cross-linguistic differences. The following points summarize the proposals made in this paper: (62) Balkan possessive clitics are: a. D0 adjuncts to a functional projection valuating dative [Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian] b. DPs valued dative [Serbo-Croatian] c. DPs valued genitive [Greek] (63) Historical change involving the loss of dative-case valuation mechanism inside the DP is responsible for the lack of DP-internal possessive clitics in Serbo-Croatian and their non-productivity in Romanian. (64) Non-clitic “adjectival” possessives are valued genitive. In Bulgarian and Macedonian, this is the only genitive-licensing mechanism available. (65) Romanian and Greek are the only languages for which a genitive/dative syncretism needs to be evoked independently of clitics. What follows is a fragment of the grammar for clitics, illustrating the proposals put forward here. (66) Syntactic category and features of possessive clitics and indirect object clitics at merge D0 (67) Syntactic structures at Spell-Out a. possessive clitics: [Bulgarian/Macedonian/Romanian] [FD 0 D0 FD 0 ] [FDP DP [FD’ FD 0 ]] [Serbo-Croatian, Greek] b. indirect object clitics: [FD 0 D0 FD 0 ] [Bulgarian/Macedonian/Romanian/Greek] [FDP DP [FD’ FD 0 ]] [Serbo-Croatian] (68) Syntactic features of clitics at Spell-Out a. possessive clitics: [Bulgarian/Macedonian/Romanian/ Serbo-Croatian] [Greek]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.36 (2111-2175)

 Roumyana Pancheva

b. indirect object clitics:

[Bulgarian/Macedonian/Romanian/ Serbo-Croatian/Greek]

(69) Vocabulary Items for 3Sg possessive clitics and indirect object clitics a. mu ↔ [+interpretable] 3sg [Bulgarian/Macedonian] í ↔ [+interpretable] 3sg.fem i ↔ [+interpretable] 3sg [Romanian] b. mu ↔ [+interpretable] 3sg [Serbo-Croatian] joj ↔ [+interpretable] 3sg.fem c. tu ↔ [+interpretable] 3sg [Greek] tis ↔ [+interpretable] 3sg.fem The exponents instantiating possessive and indirect object clitics in the Balkan languages are themselves underspecified for case. This allows for the same exponent to be inserted both in syntactic terminals with a dative case feature and in those with a genitive case feature. I am further assuming, of course, that vocabulary items for accusative clitics in all of the languages are specified accordingly, so that the exponents in (69) could not be inserted in syntactic terminals with an accusative case feature. Thus, as far as vocabulary items for possessive and indirect object clitics are concerned, the Balkan languages are uniform (except for the exact phonology of the exponent, of course). Where they differ is in the syntax of clitics, in particular the case value that the clitics receive and the position (and accompanying mode) of their initial merge. Based on the conclusions of the comparative study of possessive clitics, the following issue arises. Given that clitics in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian and Serbo-Croatian are identical to indirect object clitics as far as case, phi-features and category is concerned, and given further that in all these languages plus Greek the particular exponents that lexicalize the clitics are identical, why are the clitic placement patterns distinct in the domain of the DP and of the clause? How can we formulate the syntactic, morphological and phonological properties of clitics so that the distinctions in cliticization patterns fall out while preserving the formal identity of the clitics themselves? Addressing this issue in detail will be the subject of another study.

Notes * This paper is based on a talk given at the Conference on the Balkan Sprachbund Properties, University of Leiden, 7–9 June 2001. Aspects of it were also presented at Formal Approaches

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.37 (2175-2241)


to Slavic Linguistics 10 at the University of Michigan, 6–7 May 2001. Thanks to the organizers and audiences of both events, and to the anonymous reviewers for this publication, for their comments. Special thanks to Wayles Browne for his close reading of this paper and the extensive written comments and discussion. Thanks also to Klaus Abels, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Željko Bošković, David Embick, Alex Grosu, Sabine Iatridou, Cristian Iscrulescu, Ora Matushansky, Milena Petrova, Ljiljana Progovac, Roumyana Slabakova, Olga Mišeska Tomić, and Draga Zec, for their suggestions and/or native-speaker intuitions (and in one case, invaluable timely tech support). . The thematic interpretation available to possessive expressions is varied, even within a single language, and is dependent on a multiplicity of factors, such as the type of head noun – whether an object nominal, a relational noun, or a nominalization (e.g., his team vs. his mother vs. his creation); the presence of certain modifiers (e.g., his favorite movie vs. his new movie); the presence of (other) arguments (e.g., his picture of Mary, his examination of the students), the morpho-syntax (a picture of him vs. a picture of his). Furthermore, the morpho-syntax of possessive expressions is subject to considerable cross-linguistic variation. All of these clearly complex issues are beyond the scope of this paper; for discussion see, e.g., Alexiadou (2001a), Borer (1999/2001), Borschev and Partee (2001), Partee and Borschev (2000), Barker (1995), among many others. . This is done for concreteness. The results can also be formalized in frameworks that do not assume late insertion of vocabulary items, with similar effect. The mechanism of case-licensing assumed here, makes the proposal incompatible only with strong lexicalist theories. . Rare instances of DP-internal possessive clitics can be found in Serbo-Croatian, as in (i), an example from a newspaper review, and (ii) an archaic, but not impossible expression (Wayles Browne, p.c.). (i)

[Serbo-Croatian] Sada sam, ali opet pod firmom matiˇcnog mu now alone but again under trade-name original he.cl.dat sastava,. . . . group ‘Now alone, but again under the trade-name of his original group,. . . ’

(ii) Ivan i žena mu Ivan and wife he.cl.dat ‘Ivan and his wife’

[Serbo-Croatian]

. To simplify the discussion, I am assuming that clausal indirect object clitics have abstract dative case features. . Nominative case is ignored here, as the languages under consideration have no nominative clitics. Obviously, the formalization may be extended to nominative pronouns. . The latter option is also implicitly assumed by Stateva’s (2002) analysis for Bulgarian. . On a related problem of double case in some Slavic possessive DPs, see Corbett 1995. . A terminological clarification is in order. Duridanov et al. 1993, refers to the language in the examples (13), (14b) as Old Bulgarian, rather than Old Church Slavonic. This classification, although shared by some other authors, is not necessarily the standard view in



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.38 (2241-2303)

 Roumyana Pancheva

the literature (see Schenker 1995; Lunt 2001). Usually, a distinction is made between Old Church Slavonic – the earliest recorded supranational South Slavic language – and its regional dialects, e.g., Old Bulgarian, despite the fact that linguistic differences are minimal (especially with respect to Old Bulgarian, as Old Church Slavonic already had some Eastern South Slavic features). Historical documents from the 10–11th century are thus classified as either Old Church Slavonic or of regional provenience. The texts, from which the Duridanov et al. examples are taken, belong to the small body of manuscripts and inscriptions, included in the cannon of Old Church Slavonic (cf. Schenker 1995). . Ethical datives are acceptable in Greek, as pointed out by a reviewer, reminding us that external possessives and ethical datives are distinct phenomena: (i)

Ke mu lerothike to kalo panteloni. and I.cl.dat got-stained the good trousers ‘and my good trousers got filthy on me.’

[Greek]

. This is not meant to deny that there are such factors. It is also likely that the two languages are currently undergoing a change, like the one already completed in Serbo-Croatian where internal possessive clitics are ungrammatical, and like the one almost completed in Romanian. . This statement is meant to include not only abstract case realized by case affixes but also by various PPs, e.g., the Spanish dative a Carmen vs. genitive de Carmen. . Payne and Barshi (1999: 3) observe that cross-linguistically, external possessors may be subjects, direct objects or indirect objects, and thus be marked nominative, accusative, dative, ergative, or absolutive, depending on language type. They note (p. 9) that dative arguments are particularly widespread. . Szabolcsi provides several arguments that the dative possessor in (20b) is a constituent of the DP, based on facts of wh-movement, focus movement, coordination. . Traditionally, these prenominal possessives are considered adjectives. I use ‘adjectival’ in quotes as I do not advocate the presence of an adjectival layer in the structure of these phrases. . The emphasis on the indirect object pronoun indicates that it is necessarily contrastively focused, in the absence of clitic-doubling. Similar emphasis on the non-clitic pronoun na nego ‘to him’ in the DP in (22b), and a corresponding contrastive focus interpretation, improves the acceptability of the example for some native speakers. (The judgments regarding the acceptability of knigata na nego ‘HIS book’ ranged from * to ?? to ? to OK). . Clitic-doubling is obligatory here, unlike in the Bulgarian example (22c). . Examples like (i) (based on a question a reviewer asked) are acceptable. The proper name is a non-branching constituent. (i)

Elin Pelin-ovi-te razkazi Elin Pelin- poss.pl-the story.pl ‘Elin Pelin’s stories’

[Bulgarian]

. E.g., in Bulgarian in addition to ˇciˇcova ‘uncle’s’ we have majˇcina ‘mother’s’, baština ‘father’s’, mamina ‘mom’s’, tatkova ‘dad’s’, babina ‘grandmother’s’, djadova ‘grandfather’s’, lelina

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.39 (2303-2371)

Balkan possessive clitics 

‘aunt’s’, bratovˇcedova ‘male cousin’s’, but *bratovˇcedkina ‘female cousin’s’, *sâprugina ‘wife’s’, *sâprugova ‘husband’s’, *ljubovnikova ‘lover’s’, *prijatelkova ‘male friend’s’, *prijatelkina ‘female friend’s’. . I find it to be the case that ‘adjectival’ possessive pronouns also require animate antecedents. However, judgments are admittedly subtle. See Schoorlemmer (1998) for the claim that non-clitic pronominal possessives in Bulgarian can have inanimate antecedents. . Anaphoric jь and demonstrative tъ were used as 3rd person pronouns. . In the case of the 3Sg.Masc and 3Pl pronouns, the possessive suffix was clearly added to the genitive form, the dative forms being emu and tˇemъ, respectively. For the 3Sg.F pronoun, affixation could have applied either to the genitive ee, or the dative ei (W. Browne, p.c.). However, given the situation with the other pronouns, I assume that the historical change in (26b) is the one that actually occurred. . The 3Pl possessive form nixov is used in the Ohrid dialect of Macedonian. A more widespread form is nivni/niven. (O. Tomić, p.c.). . This is the case in the modern languages but not in Old South Slavic, as W. Browne (p.c.) reminds me. The “adjectival” possessives could appear both pre- and post-nominally, as in (i). The pre- and post-nominal variation in the distribution of possessives is likely due to the more readily available scrambling in Old South Slavic than to the existence of two distinct case positions licensing the “adjectival” possessive inflection, in addition to the post-nominal position licensing “non-adjectival” genitives (see (14)). (i)

a.

b.

tekton-ovъ synъ carpenter-poss.m.sg son.m.sg ‘carpenter’s son’ uˇcenici ioan-ovi disciples.m.sg Ioan-poss.m.pl ‘Ioan’s disciples’

[Old Church Slavonic] (Lunt 2001: 146)

. For further discussion of animacy restrictions on possessive expressions and how they relate to the pre- and post-nominal position, see Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Giusti (1999) for Bulgarian, and Cardinaletti (1998) more generally. . For some native speakers, two nominals may be licensed by the Spec, FgP – Spec, AgrP mechanism – presumably in another pair of functional projections (see (i), based on a reviewers suggestion, which I find degraded). Šekspirova piesa (i) ?moja-ta I.poss.f.sg-the Shakespeare.poss.f.sg play ‘my play by Shakespeare’

[Bulgarian]

. This structure occurs only in the Eastern dialects of Macedonian. In standard Macedonian and its central and western dialects there are no prepositional datives with pronouns. (O. Tomić, p.c.) . Ethical dative clitics are allowed, however. Thus, in contrast to (33), we have the examples in (i): (O. Tomić p.c.)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.40 (2371-2438)

 Roumyana Pancheva

(i)

moeto mi dete my.non-cl.poss.neut.sg-the I.cl child.neut.sg ‘my child’

[Bulgarian], [Macedonian]

. For more discussion and numerous examples of the ordering facts concerning possessive clitics, see Ewen (1979), Tomić (1996a), Schoorlemmer (1998), Baerman and Billings (1998), Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Giusti (1999), Dimitrova-Vulchanova (2000), Franks and King (2000), Franks (2000a), Schick (2000a), Schürks and Wunderlich (2000), Stateva (2002), Avram and Coene (2000), Caink (2000), Embick and Noyer (2001). . There appears to be a lot of dialectal variation in Macedonian. According to Friedman (1993), Tomić (1996), Baerman and Billings (1998), clitics can follow the head noun or a prenominal adjective. Cašule (p.c. to Franks & King 2000) however notes that the AdjPclitic-N order is restricted, especially with 3rd person clitics (i.e., he accepts only (37c) as grammatical). Furthermore, according to Baerman and Billings (1998), clitics have to be adjacent to the N (i.e., for them (37b) is ungrammatical). Finally, Tomić (p.c.) notes that (37a, b) are marginal. Note also, that certain nouns like, žena ‘wife’, do not appear with the definite article, in the presence of a possessive clitic, in both Bulgarian and Macedonian. . For example: (i)

a.

b.

cartea lui Mihai book-the the Mihai ‘Mihai’s book’ I-am scris lui Mihai cl.dat-have.3sg written the Mihai ‘I/we wrote to Mihai’

[Romanian]

. Acceptability also appears to vary according to person-number, with 3Sg being more acceptable DP-internally than 1Sg and 2Sg, and with the Pl clitics being practically out of use internally (Avram and Coene 2000). . A reviewer points out that the facts in (46) are more complicated: the form aftunu is deictic and the non-deictic aftu would be unacceptable without clitic-doubling. . Although this position was already relatively rare in New Testament (koine) Greek (4th C BC–4th C AD), as observed by Taylor (1990). . Similarly to the ‘adjectival’ genitive in Old and modern Slavic. . Apparently, there is some dialectal variation with respect to animacy restrictions with pronominal clitics. A reviewer points out the example in (i) is acceptable (and Kolliakou (1998) has a similar example, her (7a)). (i)

i palies tis tixografies the old her.cl.gen murals ‘it’s old murals’ (e.g., the old murals of the church)

[Greek]

My Greek consultants find (i) unacceptable, and agree with the judgments in (51). . Again, the facts may be more complicated. The reviewer providing example (i) in Fn. 33 also points out that the adjective old receives the ‘aged’ interpretation.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.41 (2438-2509)

Balkan possessive clitics . A determiner is added to keep constant issues of the placement of the definite article. In the absence of a determiner, the definite article would appear as a suffix on either the possessive or on the adjective old, whichever is linearly first. . For instance, see (i). (ib) is from Tomić 2000. (i)

a.

b.

[Bulgarian] Vidjax go nego. saw-1sg he.cl.acc he.non-cl.acc ‘I saw him.’ Ne кe ´ sum mu go dadela proektot nemu. [Macedonian] not will be-1sg he.cl.dat it.cl.acc given project-the he.non-cl.dat ‘As reported, I would be unwilling to give the project to him.’

. A reviewer contributes (i) as an acceptable case of clitic doubling: (i)

to vivlio mu emena the book I.cl.gen I.non-cl ‘my book’

[Greek]

This example was accepted by some but not others of my native-speaker consultants. If the non-clitic pronoun is a true argument rather than a dislocated element, then presumably, again we are faced with a dialectal difference, though the issue must be more complicated because even those who accepted (i) found (60) at least degraded. . See Dimitrova-Vulchanova (2000) for an analysis of possessive clitics in Bulgarian as heads taking DP as a complement. . Somehow. There are only PF-operations from that point on, and what exact mechanism is involved, is beyond our concern here. See Legendre (1999), Franks (2000b), Franks and King (2000), Bošković (2001), among many others. . Technically, for Anagnostopoulou (2001) indirect object clitics are not merged in the extended projection of the verb, but are D-features of DP arguments, undergoing movement to the functional domain. . See Kolliakou (1998), Alexopoulou and Kolliakou (2002) for a different view of the categorical status of clitics.

References Alexiadou, A. (2001). Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A. (2002). “Word order patterns in Greek nominals: Aspects of diachronic change”. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 27, 91–108. Alexiadou, A. & M. Stavrou (2000). “Adjective-clitic combinations in the Greek DP”. In B. Gerlach & J. Grijzenhout (Eds.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, 63–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexopoulou, T. & D. Kolliakou (2002). “On linkhood, topicalization and clitic left dislocation”. Journal of Linguistics, 38, 193–245.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.42 (2509-2608)

 Roumyana Pancheva

Anagnostopoulou, E. (to appear). “Clitic doubling”. In R.Goedemans (Ed.), The Syntax Companion. CD-Rom/Website. Aoun, J. (1999). “Clitic doubled arguments”. In K. Johnson & I. Roberts (Eds.), Beyond Principles and Parameters, 13–42. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Avram, L. & M. Coene (2000). “Dative/genitive clitics as last resort”. University of Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers from 3rd Conference on Formal Approaches to South Slavic and Balkan Languages. 157–169. Baerman, M. & L. Billings (1998). “Macedonian clitics and the trisyllabic stress window”. University of Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers from 2nd Conference on Formal Approaches to South Slavic and Balkan Languages. 13–32. Barker, C. (1995). Possessive descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Borer, H. (1999/2001). “The forming, the formation, and the form of nominals”. Ms. University of South California. Borer, H. (1986). “Introduction”. In H. Borer (Ed.), The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics. Syntax and Semantics, 19, 1–11. New York: Academic Press. Borer, H. (1983). Parametric Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Borer, H. & Y. Grodzinsky (1986). “Syntactic cliticization and lexical cliticization: The case of hebrew dative clitics”. In H. Borer (Ed.), The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics. Syntax and Semantics, 19, 175–217. New York: Academic Press. Borschev, V. & B. Partee (2001). “Genitive modifiers, sorts and metonymy”. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 24(2), 140–160. Bošković, Ž. (2000). “Second position cliticization: Syntax and/or phonology”. In F. Beukema & M. den Dikken (Eds.), Clitic Phenomena in European Languages, 71–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bošković, Ž. (2001). On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface. Cliticization and Related Phenomena. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Caink, A. (2000). “In ‘favor of a clitic cluster’ in the Bulgarian and Macedonian DP”. University of Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers from 3rd Conference on Formal Approaches to South Slavic and Balkan Languages. 170–182. Cardinaletti, A. (1998). “On the deficient/strong opposition in possessive systems”. In A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates, and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, 17–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Corbett, G. (1995). “Slavonic’s closest approach to suffix copying: the possessive adjective”. In F. Plank (Ed.), Double Case. Agreement by Suffixaufnahme, 265–282. Oxford Oxford: University Press. Chomsky, N. (2001). “Derivation by phase”. In M. Kenstowitz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–50. Cambridge: MIT Press. Dezs˝o, L. (1982). Typological Studies in Old Serbo-Croatian Syntax. Köln: Böhlau Verlag. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. (2000). “Possessive constructions and possessive clitics in the English and Bulgarian DP”. In F. Beukema & M. den Dikken (Eds.), Clitic Phenomena in European Languages, 121–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. & G. Giusti (1998). “Fragments of Balkan nominal structure”. In A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates, and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, 333–360. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.43 (2608-2703)

Balkan possessive clitics 

Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. & G. Giusti (1999). “Possessors in the Bulgarian DP”. In M. Dimitrova-Vulchanova & L. Hellan (Eds.), Topics in South Slavic Syntax and Semantics, 163–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (2001). “Indefiniteness Spread: from Romanian genitives to Hebrew construct state nominals” In V. Motapanyane (Ed.), Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Duridanov I. et al. (1993). “Gramatika na starobulgarskija ezik”. [Grammar of Old Bulgarian]. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Embick, D. & R. Noyer (2001). “Movement operations after syntax”. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(4), 555–595. Franks, S. (1998). “Clitics in Slavic”. Position paper in the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop. Spencer IN, June 1998. Franks, S. (2000a). “An interarboreal analysis of Bulgarian DPs”. Paper presented at American Association of the Teachers of Slavic and Eeast European Languages meeting. Washington, DC, December 2000. Franks, S. (2000b). “Clitics at the interface: An introduction to clitic phenomena in European Languages”. In F. Beukema & M. den Dikken (Eds.), Clitic Phenomena in European Languages, 1–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Franks, S. & T. H. King (2000). A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Friedman, V. (1993). “Macedonian”. In B. Comrie & G. Corbett (Eds.), Guide to the Slavonic Languages, 249–305. London: Routledge. Grosu, A. (1988). “On the distribution of genitive phrases in Rumanian”. Linguistics, 26, 931–949. Halle, M. & A. Marantz. (1993). “Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection”. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press. Izvorski, R. (1995). “The syntax of clitics in the history of Bulgarian”. Paper presented at the 4th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference. University of Montreal, Montreal, November 1995. Jaeggli, O. (1986). “Three issues in the theory of clitics.” In H. Borer (Ed.), The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics. Syntax and Semantics, 19, 15–42. Academic Press. Kayne, R. (1991). “Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO.” Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 647– 686. Kempchinsky, P. (1992). “The Spanish possessive dative construction: θ-role assignment and proper government”. In P. Hirschbuhler (Ed.), Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, 20, 135–149. Klavans, J. (1995). On Clitics and Cliticization. New York: Garland. Kolliakou, D. (1998). “A composition approach to Modern Greek ‘weak form’ possessives”. In G. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig & A. Kathol (Eds.), Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation, 31–46. Standford: CSLI Publications. Krause, C. (2001). “On possession and inherent case”. In E. Guerzoni & O. Matushansky (Eds.), A View from Building E39, 187–208. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Working Papers in Linguistics [MIT]. Landau, I. (1999). “Possessor raising and the structure of VP”. Lingua, 107, 1–37.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.44 (2703-2800)

 Roumyana Pancheva

Larson, R. & S. Cho (2000). “Temporal modification and the structure of possessive DPs”. Paper presented at West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 18. Legendre, G. (2000). “Positioning Romanian verbal clitics at PF: An optimality-theoretic analysis”. In B. Gerlach & J. Grijzenhout (Eds.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax, 219–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Legendre, G. (1999). “Morphological and prosodic alignment at work: The case of SouthSlavic clitics”. In S. J. Blake, E.-S. Kim, & K. N. Shahin (Eds.), Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics XVII, 436–450. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Leskien, A. (1922). Handbuch der altbulgarischen Sprache. Heidelberg. Lunt, H. (2001). Old Church Slavonic Grammar. (7th ed.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Manolessou, I. (2000). “Greek Noun Phrase Structure: a Study in Syntactic Evolution.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cambridge. Partee, B. & V. Borschev (2000). “Some puzzles of predicate possessives”. In R. M. Harnish & I. Kenesei (Eds.), Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer, 91–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Payne, D. & I. Barshi (1999). External Possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rudin, C. (1997). “AgrO and Bulgarian pronominal clitics”. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, 5, 224–252. Schenker, A. (1995). The Dawn of Slavic. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Schick, I. (2000a). “The phenomenon of possessive clitics in the Balkan Slavic languages”. University of Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers from 3rd Conference on Formal Approaches to South Slavic and Balkan Languages. 183–195. Schick, I. (2000b). “Clitic doubling constructions in Balkan-Slavic languages”. In F. Beukema & M. den Dikken (Eds.), Clitic Phenomena in European Languages, 259–292. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schürks, L. & D. Wunderlich (2000). “Determiner-possessor relation in the Bulgarian DP”. In M. Coene & Y. D’Hulst (Eds.), From NP to DP, Vol. 2, 121–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schneider-Zioga, P. (1993). “The syntax of clitic doubling in Modern Greek”. Ph.D. dissertation. University of South California. Schoorlemmer, M. (1998). “Possessors, articles, and definiteness”. In A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates, and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sportiche, D. (1996). “Clitic constructions”. In Johan Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 213–277. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Stateva, P. (2002). “Possessive clitics and the structure of nominal expressions”. Lingua, 112(8), 647–690. Szabolczi, A. (1983). “The Possessor that ran away from home”. The Linguistic Review, 3, 89–102. Szabolczi, A. (1987). “Functional categories in the noun phrase”. In I. Kenesei (Ed.), Approaches to Hungarian, V. 2, 167–189. Szeged: Jate. Szabolcsi, A. (1994). “The noun phrase”. In F. Kiefer & K. É. Kiss (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 27: The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian, 179–275. New York: Academic Press.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46

F: LA6705.tex / p.45 (2800-2834)

Balkan possessive clitics 

Taylor, A. (1990). “Clitics and configurationality in Ancient Greek”. Ph.D. thesis. University of Pennsylvania. Terzi, A. (1999). “Clitic combinations, their hosts, and their ordering”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 85–121. Tomić, O. Mišeska (1996a). “The Balkan Slavic nominal clitics”. In A. Halpern & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena, 511–536. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Tomić, O. Mišeska (1996b). “The Balkan Slavic Clausal Clitics”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 811–872. Tomić, O. Mišeska (2000). “On Clitic Sites”. In F. Beukema & M. den Dikken (Eds.), Clitic Phenomena in European Languages, 293–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vergnaud, J.-R. & M. L. Zubizarreta (1992). “The Definite Determiner and the Inalienable Constructions in French and in English”. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 595–652. Zwicky, A. (1977). On Clitics. Indiana University Linguistics Club. Bloomington, In.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:56

F: LA6706.tex / p.1 (41-105)

Optional movement of Bulgarian possessive clitics to I Some implications for Binding Theory Christo Moskovsky University of Newcastle, Australia

The paper presents and discusses cases of optional movement of Bulgarian possessive clitics from the containing NP to the head of IP. It is demonstrated that such movement is subject to standard constraints on syntactic movement. The paper also presents sentences in which movement of possessive clitics to I is disallowed, because it leads to binding violations. This is regarded as empirical evidence that locality constraints on binding in Bulgarian apply within narrower boundaries than generally assumed (e.g., under a “governing category” formulation). The author takes a different approach to locality, assuming that the relevant factor determining the range of the binding domain is the (physical) distance between binder and bindee. It is shown that such an approach is better equipped to deal with certain cases of breakdown in complementarity between reflexives and pronominals encoded in Conditions A and B of the Binding Theory.

.

Introduction

Possessive reflexive and pronominal clitics in Bulgarian have traditionally been analysed as adnominal modifiers, in pretty much the same way as nonclitic possessives. Still, possessive clitics have a number of specific characteristics which are not shared by nonclitic possessives. One of these is that a possessive clitic can appear only within an NP with a Determiner.1 (1) a.

Te obs˘adixa novija mu proekt. they discussed new-the his.cl project ‘They discussed his new project.’ b. *Te obs˘adixa nov mu proekt. they discussed new his.cl project

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:56

F: LA6706.tex / p.2 (105-169)

 Christo Moskovsky

c.

Te obs˘adixa negov nov proekt. they discussed his new project

The requirement to occur only within an NP with a Determiner appears to be a constraint on possessive clitics, but not on non-clitic possessives, as (1c) shows. Possessive clitics may originate inside the complement NP at D-Structure, but following Kayne2 (1991) we assume that at S-Structure they move and adjoin to the head of the DP. This assumption seems to be supported by empirical evidence. Consider the DPs in (2): (2) a.

b. c. d. e. f.

kolata mu car-the his.cl ‘his new car’ novata mu kola new-the his.cl car *novata kola mu new-the car his.cl goljamata mu nova kola big-the his.cl new car *goljamata nova mu kola big-the new his.cl car *goljamata nova kola mu big-the new car his.cl

The data presented in (2) illustrate some interesting aspects of the close relationship between the Bulgarian article and the possessive clitic. The article is a morphological suffix which is attached to the linearly first element of the NP (Arnaudova 1996). The possessive clitic follows the article invariably immediately, and this leads to the conclusion that it is indeed adjoined to the head of the functional category dominating the article (in other words, the DP). I discuss some cases in which Bulgarian possessive clitics occur alternatively: (a) within the DP, or (b) in a position which is assumed to be adjoined to the head of a functional category – IP in this case:3 (3) a.

Tja poluˇci [DP kolednata ni kartiˇcka]. she received Christmas-the our.cl card ‘She received our Christmas card.’ b. [IP Tja [I ni] poluˇci [DP kolednata t-cl kartiˇcka]]. she our.cl received Christmas-the card

I argue that (3b) is derived from (3a) through optional syntactic movement of the possessive clitic, and explore the implications which such movement has for the Binding Theory.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:56

F: LA6706.tex / p.3 (169-237)

Optional movement of Bulgarian possessive clitics to I 

. Movement of possessive clitics to the head of IP In an approach broadly based on the Theory of Principles and Parameters outlined in Chomsky (1981, 1986a, b) and Chomsky and Lasnik (1992), cases such as (3b) are analysed in terms of SS movement of the possessive clitic4 from its original position (assumed to be adjoined to the head of the containing DP (see Fn. 2)) to a position adjoined to the head of IP: (4) The clitic moves out of the containing DP and first adjoins to the head of the VP, then moves further and adjoins to the head of IP.5 The movement analysis is supported by data indicating that once the clitic is in a position adjoined to I, it is impossible to place another clitic inside the DP originally containing the clitic: (5) Tja ni poluˇci [DP kolednata *ni/ *mi/ *mu/ *si she our.cl received Christmas-the our.cl /my.cl /his.cl /self ’s.cl kartiˇcka]].6 card The empirical data suggest that such overt clitic movement strictly respects normal constraints on movement in that it is practically allowed only out of complements of the verb, that is, out of maximal projections which are L-marked7 and in effect constitute no barriers8 for movement. The VP in Bulgarian may not be a barrier either, if we assume (following Kayne 1989) that in languages with rich morphological agreement the head of IP is strong enough to L-mark the VP and, accordingly, void its barrierhood. We can expect that such movement will be disallowed out of DPs which are adjuncts or which are embedded deep within an argument, because it will leave a trace which is not properly governed. Consider (6): (6) Nie obs˘adixme [DP doklada mu]. we discussed report-the his.cl ‘We discussed his report.’ in which the bracketed DP is a complement of the verb and, accordingly, L-marked. Movement of the clitic mu out of the containing DP is acceptable: (7) [IP Nie mu [VP obsadixme [DP doklada t-cl ]]] we his.cl discussed report-the ‘We discussed his report.’ However, if the containing DP is embedded inside the complement, as in (8), movement of the clitic is disallowed:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:56

F: LA6706.tex / p.4 (237-285)

 Christo Moskovsky

(8) a.

Nie obs˘adixme [DP posledstvijata [PP na [DP doklada mu]]] we discussed implications-the of report-the his.cl ‘We discussed the implications of his report.’ b. *[IP Nie mu [VP obs˘adixme [DP1 posledstvijata [PP na we his.cl discussed implications-the of [DP2 doklada t- cl]]]]] report-the ‘We discussed the implications of his report.’

Likewise, in cases such as (9) the PP is an adjunct and is not L-marked, therefore movement of the clitic is disallowed: (9) a.

Tja opisa festivala [PP v [DP pismoto si]] she described festival-the in letter-the self ’s.cl ‘She described the festival in her letter.’ b. *Tja si opisa festivala [PP v [DP pismoto t-cl]] she self ’s.cl described festival-the in letter-the

The type of clitic movement described above is particularly interesting as it has serious implications for locality constraints on pronominal binding in Bulgarian. It appears that standard formulations of locality constraints (in terms of governing category9 ) fail to capture the full range of binding options of pronominal elements in this language.

. Binding, complementarity, and locality The Binding Theory deals with the conditions in which an expression (a reflexive/reciprocal, a pronominal, or a lexical noun) can or cannot take another expression as its antecedent (i.e. can or cannot be bound by another expression). Binding involves c-command (Reinhart 1983) and co-indexation: a bound expression is co-indexed with its antecedent and also c-commanded by it. Significantly, conditions on binding apply within a strictly specified domain. An expression which is not bound is “free” (Chomsky & Lasnik 1992: 548): for such an expression there cannot be another co-indexed and c-commanding expression within the specified domain. The formulation of the Binding Theory has remained almost unchanged over a large number of years (see e.g. Chomsky 1981: 188, Chomsky 1986b: 166; Chomsky & Lasnik 1992: 549): there are three conditions A, B and C regulating binding for reflexives/reciprocals, pronominals and lexical nouns respectively. Conditions A and B predict complete complementarity in the distribution of reflexives and pronominals. Such a complementarity is observed within Bulgarian non-possessive clitics.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:56

F: LA6706.tex / p.5 (285-348)

Optional movement of Bulgarian possessive clitics to I 

(10) Ivani sei / *goi pogledna v ogledaloto. Ivan self.cl him.cl looked in mirror-the ‘Ivan looked at himself/him in the mirror.’ With possessive clitics and with non-clitic pronouns there is, however, an almost complete breakdown in the complementarity relation between reflexives and pronominals: mi kvartira.10 Az ogledax novata si / I viewed new-the self ’s.cl my.cl lodgings ‘I took a look around my new lodgings.’ b. Az ne mislja za mene/sebe si. I not think about me self self.cl ‘I am not thinking of myself.’

(11) a.

It should be noted that the breakdown in complementarity has widely been observed crosslinguistically, and there have been attempts to deal with it within the Binding Theory. Most of these attempts seem to involve, under one form or another, a stipulation that reflexive and pronominal binding are subject to different locality constraints. Following Huang (1983), it has been assumed that, while anaphors must have a (potential) binder inside the same binding domain, there should be no such requirement for pronominals. Thus, the bracketed NP is the relevant binding domain for the pronominal them in (12): (12) the children heard [stories about them/each other] (Chomsky 1986b: 166) Nevertheless, the binding domain for each other is the whole clause, presumably because there is no potential binder11 for the anaphor inside the containing NP. Conceptual considerations aside,12 the proposed mechanism seems to be overpermissive in allowing for ungrammatical sentences like (13): (13) *She knew [that it would be impossible for herself to be happy again]. In (13) the complement clause is the minimal governing category for the reflexive. As the complement clause contains no potential binder, the actual binding domain is, however, extended to cover the matrix clause as well – clearly an undesirable result.

. Movement of possessive clitics – implications for locality constraints on binding I take the position that for the treatment of cases like (11), for convenience repeated as (14), a completely different approach is called for:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:56

F: LA6706.tex / p.6 (348-414)

 Christo Moskovsky

(14) a.

Az ogledax novata si / mi kvartira. I viewed new-the self ’s.cl my.cl lodgings ‘I took a look around my new lodgings.’ b. Az ne mislja za mene/sebe si. I not think about me self self.cl ‘I am not thinking of myself.’

It seems that the optional movement of possessive clitics discussed in this paper holds a clue to the problem with non-complementarity, at least as far as reflexive and pronominal binding in Bulgarian is concerned. Consider the binding options in (10), for convenience repeated as (15): (15) Ivani sei / *goi pogledna v ogledaloto. Ivan self.cl him.cl looked in mirror-the ‘Ivan looked at himself/him in the mirror.’ In (15), the pronominal clitic is barred because, as a clear case of Condition B violation, a non-coreferent clitic is completely all right in the same position: (16) Ivani goj pogledna. Ivan him.cl looked ‘Ivan looked at him.’ In contrast, in (11a), repeated here as (17), the possessive clitic is allowed: (17) Az ogledax novata si / mi kvartira. I viewed new-the self ’s.cl my.cl lodgings ‘I took a look around my new lodgings.’ Significantly, movement of the possessive clitic to I is impossible in this case: (18) *Az mi ogledax [DP novata t-cl kvartira]. I my.cl viewed new-the lodgings.sg Again, it appears that the restriction on this movement is the effect of the operation of Condition B, because a corresponding reflexive clitic can move into this position: (19) Az si ogledax [DP novata t-cl kvartira]. I self ’s.cl viewed new-the lodgings.sg Also note that a clitic which is not coreferent with the subject is allowed to move into this position: (20) Az mu ogledax [DP novata t-cl kvartira]. I his.cl viewed new-the lodgings.sg ‘I took a look around his new lodgings.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:56

F: LA6706.tex / p.7 (414-471)

Optional movement of Bulgarian possessive clitics to I 

The data presented here indicate that when the non-reflexive clitic is positioned in I, it is sensitive to the operation of Condition B, but when the non-reflexive clitic is positioned inside a DP, the clitic seems to be “out of range” and therefore can be bound by a clause-internal subject. Such data provide evidence that, at least as far as Bulgarian is concerned, locality constraints on binding apply within narrower boundaries than generally assumed.

. Locality constraints on binding in Bulgarian An altogether different approach to the calculation of binding domain (BD) is proposed: an approach which involves the physical distance (measurable in terms of X-bar structure) between the bindee and its (potential) binder. For Bulgarian, the relevant BD is assumed to be γ in (21): (21) (i) γ is the minimal maximal projection containing both α (α reflexive or pronominal) and a (potential) binder β for α; (ii) there is no δ (δ any maximal projection) intervening between β and α. One crucial aspect of (21) is that the computation of a specific binding domain involves a specific unit of measurement (in this case: any maximal projection) which is applied to the (potential) binder as the relevant reference point (not the bindee, as is standard practice). This unit of measurement marks the boundaries of the relevant binding domain. In addition, an LF movement analysis of reflexives (Cole & Sung 1994) is adopted. Under this analysis, reflexives are universally divided into two general categories: XP-reflexives (such as the English himself ) which are inherently phrasal and cannot be broken down into the standard X-bar structure, and XO -reflexives which generally consist of a single morpheme and are void of φ-features (person, number, gender) and project the canonical X-bar structure, with a head Xo and a maximal projection (see Pica 1987). The difference in X-barhood then entails the different syntactic behaviour of XO - and XP-reflexives. In contrast to maximal projections, zero-level categories can undergo apparently unbounded movement as long as they do not violate the Empty Category Principle (ECP).13 The formulation of BD in (21) seems to account for most instances of reflexive and pronominal binding in Bulgarian.14 As shown in (22), reflexive and pronominal clitics located inside the relevant BD respect the binding conditions completely and complementarity is complete. (22) Az si / *mi ogledax [DP novata t-cl kvartira]. I self ’s.cl my.cl viewed new-the lodgings.sg

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:56

F: LA6706.tex / p.8 (471-519)

 Christo Moskovsky

As shown in (23), pronominals outside of the relevant BD are not subject to the operation of condition B and can be bound clause-internally. (23) Az ogledax [DP novata mi kvartira]. I viewed new-the my.cl lodgings.sg Reflexives located outside of the relevant BD undergo LF movement to I and are effectively inside the BD at the level of LF where the BT is assumed to hold, which also explains why binding by the object NP Ivan is impossible: in its LF position, the reflexive is no longer c-commanded by the object NP. This is shown in (24a–b): (24) a.

Azi razpitax Ivanj za rabotata sii/*j . I questioned Ivan about work-the self ’s.cl ‘I asked Ivan about my work.’ IP

b. NP

I’ VP

Azi I sii

I

V

t''

PP

NP V Ivanj

razpitax t'

P

DP P

rabotata tCL

za

The proposed BD also captures binding by the object:15 (25) Az [VP razpitax [Ivani ] [PP za [DP rabotata mui ]]]. I questioned Ivan about work-the his.cl ‘I asked Ivan about his work.’ It should be noted here that, for at least some speakers, sentences such as (26a) with a possessive non-reflexive clitic are not as acceptable as analogous sentences with a non-clitic possessive, such as (26b), or sentences in which the clitic is further embedded in the complement of the verb, such as (26c): (26) a.

?Az

ogledax [DP I viewed b. Az ogledax [DP I viewed

novata mi kvartira]. new-the my.cl lodgings.sg mojata nova kvartira]. my-the new lodgings.sg

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:56

F: LA6706.tex / p.9 (519-581)

Optional movement of Bulgarian possessive clitics to I 

c.

Az ogledax [kuxnjata na [DP novata mi kvartira]]. I viewed kitchen-the of new-the my.cl lodgings.sg ‘I took a look around the kitchen of my new lodgings.’

The difference between (26a), on the one hand and (26b–c), on the other, is that in (26a) movement of the possessive clitic to I is in principle possible, but disallowed because it would bring about a Condition B violation. This is supported by the fact that a reflexive possessive clitic in this position can move to I (see (19)). In other words, this partial unacceptability only occurs in sentences in which clitic movement into INFL has not taken place, but is still potentially possible. One way to formalise this idea is in terms of chains.16 In sentences like (26a), in which S-structure movement of the clitic is possible, the clitic and its landing site(s) constitute a (potential) chain CHcl = {cl, . . . , t}, movement is optional, but the chain CHcl is still there: (27)

The head of the chain is located in the head of IP or in a position adjoined to it, i.e. inside the relevant binding domain, and thus is subject to the operation of the Binding Conditions. It may be the case that the rest of the elements constituting the chain CHcl are also (partially) affected by the Binding Conditions (specifically, by Condition B) by virtue of their association with the head of the chain CHcl . Still, the other members of CHcl are located outside the relevant binding domain and, consequently, the effect of the Binding Conditions is reduced, which explains why sentences like (26a) are not ruled out as entirely unacceptable. That this may be correct is supported by sentences like (28a), which are completely acceptable simply because, as shown in (28b), in such sentences (for reasons which are unclear) clitic movement to I is not available even where the clitic and the subject are not coreferential: (28) a.

Az vidjax [DP majka mi]. I saw mother my.cl ‘I saw my mother.’ b. *Az mu vidjah [DP majka t-Cl]. I his.cl saw mother ‘I saw his mother.’

The proposal presented here has been developed to cover reflexive and pronominal binding in Bulgarian. However, it is quite clear that a binding domain as the one in (21) will not be adequate to the English data as it will wrongly allow sentences like (29):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:56

F: LA6706.tex / p.10 (581-629)

 Christo Moskovsky

(29) *I saw me. The view taken here is that the formulation of a binding domain based on distance is nevertheless fundamentally sound. It is beyond the goals of this paper to propose a relevant binding domain for English, but the contrast between (29) in which the pronoun is barred, and (30) in which the pronoun is allowed suggests that distance between binder and bindee may be the relevant factor for English as well, and that only a change of the value for δ in (21ii) may be sufficient to account for the English data: (30) I am not thinking of me. This amounts to suggesting that the binding domain is subject to parametric variation: a standard assumption nowadays. One of the appealing aspects of such an approach is that it dispenses with locality constraints based on the notion of “governing category”, which is a Binding Theory specific construct and plays no role elsewhere.

. Conclusion The IP position of the possessive clitic can be seen as derived through (optional) movement of the clitic out of the original DP position. The proposed movement is subject to standard syntactic constraints on movement. There are cases when the movement of the possessive clitic is barred because it brings about a binding violation. When (possessive) clitics are located in the head of IP, they strictly observe Conditions A and B of the Binding Theory, with complete complementarity in their distribution. However, this complementarity practically disappears when reflexives and pronominals (clitics and non-clitics alike) are located in a complement DP: there are Bulgarian examples in which the subject can bind clause-mate pronominals, in apparent violation of Condition B of the Binding Theory. Accordingly, as far as Bulgarian is concerned, locality constraints on binding apply within narrower boundaries than generally assumed. An altogether different method for computing binding domain boundaries is proposed, based on the actual distance between binder and bindee.

Notes . The only exceptions seem to be NPs like tatko ‘daddy’, majka ‘mother’, kaka ‘elder-sister’ which are intrinsically definite as they invariably refer to particular persons.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:56

F: LA6706.tex / p.11 (629-701)

Optional movement of Bulgarian possessive clitics to I  . Kayne claims clitics in general possess the inherent property of having to adjoin to a functional head. . The head of IP is the ultimate landing site for the clitic, which follows from Kane’s (1991) assumption that clitics must adjoin to a functional head. When the clitic is between the subject and the verb, the only functional category which can “host” the clitic is IP. . For an extensive analysis of Bulgarian possessive clitics within a Minimalist approach, see Stateva (2002); the paper also deals with the seemingly optional nature of the proposed movement. . Cyclic head-to-head movement of zero-level categories is commonly assumed (cf. Cole & Sung 1994). In this approach, the clitic must adjoin “in passing” to the head of VP before moving on to the head of IP. . Schick (2001 and elsewhere) reports that some regional varieties of Bulgarian allow such duplication which, according to her argument, makes a case against the movement analysis assumed here; a detailed consideration of her proposal goes beyond the scope of this paper. . In Baltin’s (1991: 227) definition of L-marking, α L-marks β iff α is a lexical category and α theta-marks β, with α and β as sisters. . The notion of “barrier” is formulated in Chomsky (1986a: 14): γ is a barrier for β iff (a) or (b): (a) γ immediately dominates δ, δ a blocking category for β; (b) γ is a blocking category for β, γ= IP where “blocking category” is defined as follows: γ is a blocking category for β iff γ is not L-marked and γ dominates β . In Chomsky’s (1981: 211) formulation, β is the governing category for α if and only if β is the minimal category containing α, a governor for α and a subject accessible to α (in which accessible subjects can be [NP IP], [NP NP] and Agr(INFL)). . One question deserving attention is why complementarity breaks down in 1st and 2nd person, but not in 3rd person sentences: (i)

Toj ogleda novata si / mu kvartira. he viewed new-the self.cl his.cl lodgings.sg ‘He took a look around his new lodgings.’

This issue is dealt with at some length in Moskovsky (2001, 2002), where it is assumed that in 3rd person sentences there is an additional discourse “avoid ambiguity” factor affecting the binding options. . In terms of Chomsky (1986b), there is no “BT-compatible indexing” for the anaphor within the containing NP. . There is a problem: concepts such as “free” or “disjoint in reference” are not absolute, but relative notions. It does not make sense to assume that an element is “free” or “disjoint in reference” without making reference to what it is “free” or “disjoint in reference” from.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:56

F: LA6706.tex / p.12 (701-789)

 Christo Moskovsky

Such notions intrinsically indicate a relation between (at least) two elements: the pronoun itself and another element (a potential antecedent) with which the pronoun is in a disjoint reference relation. In this sense, it appears that Chomsky’s earlier assumption (1981: 211) that “an anaphor or a pronominal searches for the closest subject to which it can be linked, where linking involves coreference for an anaphor and disjoint reference for a pronoun”, is fundamentally correct. . This stipulates that all traces must be properly governed (see Chomsky 1981; Lasnik & Saito 1984). . Binding within nominals of the type John’s picture of himself is not considered in this paper. . VP is γ of (21). Note that binding of the clitic mu by the object Ivan is allowed, because (21ii) is not respected and the clitic is in effect outside of the relevant BD. For a detailed proposal along these lines, see Moskovsky (2001, 2002). . See Chomsky (1986a, 1992).

References Abney, S. (1987). “The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect.” Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Arnaudova, O. (1996). “The Bulgarian noun adjective movement to D.” In M. DimitrovaVulchanova & L. Hellan (Eds.), Papers from the First Conference on Formal Approaches to South Slavic Languages, 1–29. [Working Papers of the University of Trondheim 28]. Baltin, M. (1991). “Head movement in logical form”. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 225–249. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. (1986a). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1986b). Knowledge of Language: Its nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger. Chomsky, N. & H. Lasnik (1992). “The principles and parameters theory”. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, & T. Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax: ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 506–569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Cole, P. & L. M. Sung (1994). “Head movement and long-distance reflexives”. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 355–406. Huang, C.-T. J. (1983). “A note on the binding theory”. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 554–561. Kayne, R. (1989). “Null subjects and clitic climbing”. In O. Jaeggli & K. Safir (Eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, 239–161. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kayne, R. (1991). “Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO”. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 647– 689. Moskovsky, Ch. (2001). “On reflexive and pronominal binding in Bulgarian”. Contrastive Linguistics, 262, 33–63. Moskovsky, Ch. (2002). Aspects of Binding in Bulgarian [European University Studies. Series XXI: Linguistics, Vol. 242]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Pica, P. (1987). “On the Nature of the Reflexivization Cycle”. In Proceedings of NELS, 17(2), 483–499. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:56

F: LA6706.tex / p.13 (789-808)

Optional movement of Bulgarian possessive clitics to I 

Pica, P. (1991). “On the interaction between antecedent-government and binding: The case of long-distance reflexivization”. In J. Koster & E. Reuland (Eds.), Long-Distance Anaphora, 119–136. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm. Schick, I. (2001). “The Canon of pronominal clitics and information structure in the Balkan Slavic languages”. Paper presented at the Conference on the Balkan Sprachbund Properties, University of Leiden, June 2001. Stateva, P. (2002). “Possessive clitics and the structure of nominal expressions”. Lingua, 112(8), 647–690.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:16/01/2004; 9:36

The root clause

F: LA67P3.tex / p.1 (26-48)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.1 (40-109)

Datives and the non-active voice Reflexive clitics in Balkan Languages* María Luisa Rivero University of Ottawa

This paper examines in Balkan languages two constructions combining Non-Active morphology/reflexive clitics with datives that are not part of the argument structure of the verb. The first construction is the so-called involuntary state or “feel like” construction, which divides Balkan languages into two groups. Albanian and the South Slavic languages share this construction with similar characteristics, but in Greek and Romanian it is absent. Involuntary state constructions contain a passive or impersonal core. This core contains an existentially closed or implicit argument due to Argument Saturation. The dative discloses and binds this implicit argument via a formal semantic procedure called Dative Disclosure. The second construction is found in all Balkan languages along parallel lines, and consists of an anticausative core coupled to a dative open to a variety of interpretations. It is proposed that datives in anticausatives are interpreted by an inferential procedure called the Ethical strategy, which differs from Dative Disclosure because it cannot operate on formally present arguments. Dative Disclosure cannot apply in anticausatives because those lack the appropriate formal argument due to Argument Suppression. In simple terms, involuntary state constructions are based on passive, not on anticausative structures.

.

Introduction

This section introduces the main constructions discussed in the paper, which all combine datives with the Non-Active Voice or a reflexive clitic, and sketches essential claims. A first type of construction of interest to this paper, which lacks a traditional label, is illustrated in (1a–d). All the languages of the Balkans share sentences where a dative (or in Modern Greek a genitive) combines with a so-called anticausative construction, as in Albanian U thye dritarja. ‘The window broke.’, or in Greek Kaike

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.2 (109-172)

 María Luisa Rivero

i supa. ‘The soup burned.’ Such an anticausative core usually displays Non-Active morphology (Albanian and Greek) or a reflexive clitic, and when combined with a dative/genitive receives several parallel interpretations. Under appropriate pragmatic conditions, the dative can be a possessor, a somehow affected participant such as a benefactive/malefactive, or very roughly speaking, a causer/involuntary agent, as the glosses indicate. (1) a. b. c. d. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Alb Anës i-u thye dritarja. Ann.dat 3sg.dat-non-act.aor break.3sg window.the Bul Na Ivan mu se šˇcupixa oˇcilata. to Ivan he.dat refl broke.3pl glasses.the Gre Tu Ben tu kaike i supa. the.gen Ben he.gen burnt.non-act.3sg the soup Rom Lui Jon i se sparse ferestrea. the.dat John he.dat refl broke.3sg window.the ‘{Ann’s/Ben’s/John’s} {glasses/soup/window} {broke/burned}.’ ‘{Ann/John/Ben} was somehow affected by the {glasses/soup/window} {breaking/ burning}.’ ‘{Ann/Ben/John} was the cause of/responsible for the {glasses/soup/ window} {breaking/burning}.’ ‘{Ann/ Ben/ John} {broke/burned} {the glasses/soup/window} involuntarily.’

A second type of construction of interest to this paper is illustrated in (2) through (5). In Balkan languages, a dative may combine with a passive core such as Albanian Lexohet një libër. ‘A book is read.’ and Greek Xtizete to spiti. ‘The house is built.’, or with an impersonal core such as Albanian U punua këtu. ‘One/people worked here.’ and Romanian Se lucra în fabric˘a. ‘One/people worked in the factory.’, which must display Non-Active morphology or a reflexive clitic. However, in this second instance, an important semantic contrast separates Balkan languages into two groups, which are depicted in (2a–b) vs. (3) and (4) vs. (5). On the one hand, Albanian and Bulgarian in (2) and (4) may receive a reading reminiscent of Obligatory Control, as in Ann/John wished to read a book/work., with the dative as controller. On the other hand, in Greek (3) and Romanian (5) this particular reading is not found, and the dative is interpreted as a possessor or a benefactive. It is of interest to this paper that Albanian and Bulgarian pattern together and differ from Greek and Romanian in the last case. (2) a.

Anës i lexo-het një libër. Ann.dat 3sg.dat read.non-act.pres.3sg a book Preferred interpretation : ‘Ann feels like reading a book.’

Alb

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.3 (172-237)

Datives and the non-active voice 

b. Na Ivan mu se ˇcetjaxa knigi. to John he.dat refl read.imperf.3pl books Preferred interpretation: ‘John felt like reading books.’

Bul

(3) Tu Ben tu xtize-te to spiti. Gre the.gen Ben 3sg.m.gen build-non-act.pres.3sg the.nom house 1. ‘The house is built on John’s behalf.’ 2. ‘John’s house is being built.’ (4) Anës i- u punua (këtu). Ann.dat 3sg.dat-non-act.aor work.3sg (here) Preferred interpretation: ‘Ann felt like working (here).’ (5) Lui Jon i se lucra (în fabric˘a). the.dat John he.dat refl worked.past.3sg (in factory) 1. ‘One/ people worked (in the factory) on John’s behalf.’ 2. ‘One/people worked in John’s factory.’

Alb

Rom

This paper provides an answer for why passives and impersonals with datives as in (2)–(5) differ semantically in important ways that divide Balkan languages into two groups, while Balkan anticausatives with datives as in (1a–d) are similar. It proposes that the datives of (1) through (5) are nonselected, hence not intrinsic to the argument structure of the verb, and distinguishes between two interpretive procedures for such datives, one that is present in Albanian and South Slavic and absent in Greek and Romanian, and another one that is shared by all the mentioned Balkan languages, and exists elsewhere. The procedure that applies in (2a–b) and (4), dubbed “Dative Existential Disclosure” (D-Disclosure), is assigned to formal grammar.1 As stated, in the Balkans, D-Disclosure distinguishes Albanian and the South Slavic languages from Greek and Romanian. The claim is that in Albanian and South Slavic, D-Disclosure applies in passives and impersonals but not in anticausatives, and connects in semantics a formally represented argument to the nonselected dative. The different procedure which applies in (1a–d), (3), and (5) and is dubbed “Ethical Strategy” (E-Strategy),2 is considered inferential, so not part of formal grammar. The E-Strategy applies to nonselected datives in all Balkan languages, so also in Albanian and South Slavic. It is not as restricted as DDisclosure, is particularly prominent in anticausatives, and may be found in certain unaccusative constructions, as well as in passives and impersonals. In contrast with D-Disclosure in Albanian and South Slavic, the more widespread E-Strategy found not only in the Balkans but elsewhere, cannot manipulate formally represented arguments. A third type of construction relevant to this paper, but mentioned only in passing here – experiential sentences that combine psychological verbs and datives reminiscent of “quirky subjects” – is illustrated in (6a–b). The claim is that such psychological constructions formally differ from the constructions with the

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.4 (237-320)

 María Luisa Rivero

anticausative core in (1a–d) and those with the passive or impersonal core in (2– 5), because their dative is a so-called experiencer argument selected by a mental predicate. (6) a.

Kenga i kujto-het Anës. song.the 3s.dat.cl remember-non-act.pres.3sg Ann.dat ‘Ann remembers the song.’ b. Na Ivan mu se priviždat mnogo nešta. to Ivan he.dat refl imagine.3pl many things ‘Ivan imagines many things.’

Alb

Bul

The Balkan constructions in (1) through (6) all combine the Non-Active Voice or the reflexive clitic with a dative, so their morphosyntax appears in the surface rather similar. From the point of view of this paper, their main differences derive from argument structure and logical form. Psychological patterns as in (6a–b) contain mental predicates that select (dative) experiencers. By contrast, anticausatives as in (1a–d) and D-Disclosure /involuntary state patterns as in (2a–b) and (4) contain activity verbs, and have nonselected datives interpreted by inference in the first case, and semantically connected in the second case to a formally present argument of the verb, which can be its external argument or its only argument. We shall see that Balkan languages offer particularly clear evidence for such hypothesized three-way distinction. A first proposal in the paper, then, is that E-Strategy constructions as in (1a– d), D-Disclosure constructions as in (2a–b) and (4), and Experiencer constructions as in (6a–b) have a different status in the overall grammar. A second proposal is that in the Balkans D-Disclosure is not found in all languages, which results in the two groups of Table 1. Albanian and South Slavic exhibit D-Disclosure restricted to passives and impersonals, and Greek and Romanian do not exhibit D-Disclosure at all. A traditional way of expressing the hypothesized distinction is that the so-called Involuntary State Constructions of the Slavic tradition are also found in Albanian, but not in Greek or in Romanian, so the Balkan languages divide into two groups. Table 1. Balkan Dative Existential Disclosure in passives and impersonals YES

NO

Albanian, South Slavic

Greek, Romanian

A third proposal is that D-Disclosure belongs to two semantic types. D-Disclosure constructions are found in all the Slavic languages, but according to Rivero (2000) they lack semantic homogeneity, and fall into a type later dubbed “Control” or another one later called “Left Dislocation” (Rivero & Sheppard 2003), as in Table 2. Here we see that the Control kind of South Slavic also covers Albanian. We also

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.5 (320-390)

Datives and the non-active voice 

see that such a Control type differs in truth conditions from the Left Dislocation kind found in Polish and Czech, among other languages. Table 2. Two Types of Dative Existential Disclosure CONTROL

LEFT DISLOCATION

Albanian, South Slavic

Elsewhere in Slavic

The difference between the two types of D-Disclosure is discussed by Rivero and Sheppard (2003). The Control type reports an attitude, not an activity. Thus, the Bulgarian example (2b) tells us about John’s past urge to read books, but does not imply that he read any; so (2b) can be uttered truthfully without a reading event, and completed without contradiction as in (7). Bul (7) Na Ivan mu se ˇcetjaxa knigi,..no njamaše to Ivan he.dat refl read.past.3pl books but not.have.3sg nikade. nowhere ‘John felt like reading books, but they could not be found anywhere.’ The second type of D-Disclosure, found outside of South Slavic, is illustrated by the Czech example (8): (8) Ta kniha se Janovi ˇcetla dobˇre. this book.nom.fem refl John.dat read.part.fem well 1. ‘John read this book with ease.’ 2. ‘Somehow, it was easy for John to read this book.’ 3. ‘Reading this book came easily to John.’

Cze

The Czech sentence in (8) has the same morphology and syntax as the Bulgarian sentence in (7), but differs in meaning. It also denotes John’s attitude, as in South Slavic, but implies a past activity that implicates John as reader, so that the sentence can be uttered truthfully if and only if John did some reading. Summing up, there are two types of D-Disclosure with different truth conditions. The Control type is shared by Bulgarian, Albanian, Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian, and only speaks of a mental state regarding the dative. The Left Dislocation type, as in Czech, speaks of an activity coupled to some mental state assigned to the dative. One novelty in this paper, then, is to unify involuntary state constructions in South Slavic and Albanian under “Balkan” D-Disclosure, separating them from the experiencer constructions in (6a–b). Another novelty recapitulating earlier work is to distinguish via D-Disclosure two semantic types of involuntary state constructions with different truth conditions, which separates South Slavic from the rest of the family.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.6 (390-453)

 María Luisa Rivero

The E-Strategy in (1a–d) is found in all the languages of the Balkans and elsewhere (cf. Table 3), the claim being that it cannot operate on formally represented arguments, and is inferential. Table 3. Ethical Dative/Genitive Albanian, South and Non-south Slavic, Greek, Romanian, (Spanish, etc.)

The E-Strategy has a wider syntactic distribution than D-Disclosure, is not intrinsically connected to Non-Active/reflexive morphology, nor limited to passives/impersonals. In languages with D-Disclosure such as Albanian and Bulgarian, the E-Strategy is also possible in passives/impersonals, but is (sometimes strongly) dispreferred in such contexts. For instance, the D-Disclosure reading depicted in (2a–b) is the involuntary state interpretation discussed above, and is preferred. However, these Albanian and Bulgarian sentences also have an E-Strategy reading shared by Greek and Romanian sentences, where there is an implicit agent and a preferably benefactive dative: ‘A book is read for Ann(’s benefit) (by someone).’ for (2a), and ‘Books were read for John(‘s benefit) (by someone).’ for (2b). Likewise, Bulgarian (9) may display two alternative readings. In the involuntary state or D-Disclosure reading, the (implicit) agent of the verb is identified with a dative which functions as the equivalent of an obligatory controller, as the English gloss suggests. The reading based on the E-Strategy describes the activity of an implicit agent, and the dative is preferably a beneficiary that must differ from the agent. Bul (9) Na Ivan mu se stroi k˘asta. to John he.dat refl build.pres.3sg house 1. D-Disclosure: ‘John feels like building a house.’ 2. E-Strategy: ‘A house is being built for John(’s benefit) (by someone).’ Passive constructions in Albanian and Bulgarian, then, may display readings consonant with either D-Disclosure or the E-Strategy, and may serve to illustrate their differences. One, the E-Strategy resulting in reading 2 does not link dative and formal agent, while D-Disclosure resulting in reading 1 does. Two, the E-Strategy in reading 2 does not affect the activity reading (i.e. house-building) while Balkan D-Disclosure in reading 1 eliminates this reading (no house-building is implied). Three, the E-Strategy does not manipulate the (covert) agent since it does not link it to the dative, while D-Disclosure manipulates such agent by linking it to the dative. Four, the E-Strategy need not involve the mental state of the participant(s) in the event, so no attitude is assigned in reading 2 to beneficiary or agent. By contrast, Balkan D-Disclosure attributes a mental attitude to the dative as participant, as in reading 1. In this paper the E-Strategy is considered inferential and not part of formal grammar – a characteristic that is salient in the anticausatives in (1a–d). Such

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.7 (453-512)

Datives and the non-active voice 

constructions are found in many languages with a dative that under appropriate pragmatic conditions receives readings that I consider vague.3 In my view, such vagueness is due to the limited formal argument structure present in anticausatives. The idea is that the E-Strategy cannot manipulate the arguments that are formally present in the sentence whether covert or overt. In such anticausatives, possessors, benefactives, and causers/agents are all formally absent, so the dative can, by inference, take such roles. By contrast, D-Disclosure must operate on a formally present argument. In the case of (2a–b) and (4), this argument is the external argument or the only argument of the activity verb. Furthermore, D-Disclosure does not result in vague readings but in a fixed reading, which in South Slavic and Albanian adds a modal dimension making the dative reminiscent of an obligatory controller. D-Disclosure and the E-Strategy provide new evidence for a formal difference between passives/impersonals vs. anticausatives; so, they are interesting for UG. Namely, if the proposals in this paper are correct, passives and impersonals must have a formally represented external argument while anticausatives lack such an argument. In this paper, the morphological, syntactic, and semantic characteristics of D-Disclosure and E-Strategy constructions in the languages of the Balkans are captured via hypotheses (10)–(12). One idea is that D-Disclosure and the E-Strategy differ as to how they manipulate argument structure in a fundamental way in (10). A second idea is that passives/impersonals and anticausatives differ in formal argument structure due to (11). The third idea is that the structure of passives/impersonals and anticausatives affects the two proposed dative procedures differently, as in (12). (10) a. D-Disclosure must manipulate a formal argument. b. The E-Strategy cannot manipulate a formal argument. (11) a. Passives and impersonals involve (lexical) Argument Saturation. b. Anticausatives involve (lexical) Argument Suppression. (12) a.

Argument Saturation feeds D-Disclosure, and bleeds (restricts) the E-strategy. b. Argument Suppression bleeds (blocks) D-Disclosure, and feeds the E-Strategy.

The effects of (10)–(12) discussed in §2 and §3 are sketched next. Following (11), passives/impersonals have an implicit argument absent in anticausatives, which has different effects on nonselected datives. Beginning with passives/impersonals, nonselected datives can be interpreted in two ways in the Yes-languages of Table 1, that is in Albanian and Bulgarian. On the one hand, a dative in a passive can be connected by D-Disclosure to the implicit agent, which results in the reading John felt like reading books. in Bulgarian (9). Argument Saturation makes it possible for the

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.8 (512-568)

 María Luisa Rivero

implicit argument to be connected to the dative, so it feeds D-Disclosure in this instance. On the other hand, Bulgarian (9) has a reading where the dative differs from the implicit agent, as in Books were read for John’s benefit, which results from the E-Strategy. This strategy cannot manipulate formally represented arguments, so it must “avoid” affecting the implicit agent, and Argument Saturation in this instance “bleeds” the E-Strategy. D-Disclosure and the E-Strategy, then, are sensitive to the implicit agent in passives in different ways. D-Disclosure pairs agent and dative, and the E-Strategy keeps them distinct, which is reminiscent of a disjoint reference mechanism. The No-languages of Table 1, that is Greek and Romanian, always use the E-Strategy as they lack D-Disclosure; so, in passives of the type of Greek (3), dative and agent can never be linked, and must identify different participants in the event. The implicit agent is here equivalent to an indefinite, and the dative is the possessor or benefactive. Anticausatives differ from passives, and altogether lack a formally represented agent. As a consequence, in the Yes-languages of Table 1 D-Disclosure does not find in anticausatives a formal argument to manipulate, and the dative of these languages must be interpreted by the E-Strategy. This is then why (12b) states that Argument Suppression bleeds, in fact totally blocks, D-Disclosure and feeds the EStrategy. Thus, datives in anticausatives are always interpreted with the E-Strategy in all the languages of the Balkans, regardless of type, with Albanian and South Slavic behaving in the same way as Greek and Romanian. The situation for the Yes-languages, Albanian and those of the South Slavic regions, where both D-Disclosure and the E-Strategy are in principle available, is summarized in Table 4. This Table tells us that Saturation in passives and impersonals feeds D-Disclosure, and partially limits the E-Strategy. By contrast, Suppression in anticausatives totally blocks D-Disclosure, and feeds the E-Strategy, which remains the only interpretive option. Table 4. Languages with D-Disclosure and the E-Strategy (Albanian and Slavic) LEXICAL OPERATIONS DATIVE PROCEDURE

Argument Saturation

Argument Suppression

D-DISCLOSURE E-STRATEGY

Feeding Bleeding (=limiting)

Bleeding (= blocking) Feeding

The hypotheses in (10)–(12) account for the similarities in Balkan anticausatives with datives, as in (1a–d) (and in other languages). To repeat, all languages are similar because only the E-Strategy can be at work in anticausatives. These proposals also account for differences in passives/impersonals in Albanian and South Slavic vs. Greek and Romanian. To repeat, in Yes languages such as Albanian and South Slavic, Argument Saturation may combine with D-Disclosure or the E-Strategy.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.9 (568-633)

Datives and the non-active voice 

In No-languages such as Greek and Romanian, Argument Saturation can only combine with the E-Strategy, since D-Disclosure is not available. To conclude, the D-Disclosure topic of §2 is a rule of formal grammar that distinguishes Albanian and South Slavic from other Balkan languages. It can manipulate the implicit argument of passives/impersonals, but not the suppressed argument of anticausatives. The E-Strategy topic of §3 is found in all the languages of the Balkans and elsewhere, cannot manipulate formal arguments, and seems inferential.

. Dative Existential Disclosure The first part of this section introduces Balkan D-Disclosure constructions, and distinguishes them in passing from experiencer constructions, as in (6a–b). The second part recapitulates the two analyses of Slavic D-Disclosure in Rivero (2002) and Rivero and Sheppard (2003), and unifies Albanian with South Slavic under the Control label.

. Balkan D-Disclosure constructions Two syntactic patterns involve D-Disclosure in the Balkans, and are also found in Slovenian. One is with transitive Vs and the other with intransitive Vs. The transitive type displays as formal core the “ordinary” morphology and syntax of a passive construction, with a Nominative NP, a V that agrees with this NP, as in (13a)–(16a), and a dative as in (13b)–(16b). The argument structure of such transitive Vs does not include an experiencer-like participant, so the dative is nonselected, hence a syntactic adjunct.4 (13) a.

Lexo-het një libër. read-non-act.pres.3sg a book.nom ‘A book is read (by someone).’ b. Anës i lexo-het një libër. Ann.dat 3sg.dat read-non-act.pres.3sg a book.nom ‘Ann feels like reading a book.’ ˇ (14) a. Cetjaxa se knigi. read.imperf.3pl refl books ‘Books were read.’ b. Na Ivan mu se ˇcetjaxa knigi. to Ivan he.dat refl read.imperf.3pl books ‘Ivan felt like reading books.’

Alb

Alb

Bul

Bul

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.10 (633-689)

 María Luisa Rivero

ˇ Citale su se knjige. read.masc.pl are.3pl refl books ‘Books were read.’ b. Jovanu su se ˇcitale knjige. John.dat are.3sg refl read.masc.pl books ‘John felt like reading books.’

(15) a.

(16) a.

Pila se je voda. drunk.fem refl be.3sg water.nom.fem ‘Water was drunk.’ b. Janezu se je pila voda. John.dat refl be.3sg drunk.part.fem water.nom.fem ‘John felt like drinking water.’

SC

SC

Slo

Slo

The formal core of the intransitive pattern is an “impersonal” construction (also called “impersonal passivization”) with a V in a fixed or default form without agreement, no Nom NP as in (17a)–(19a), and a nonselected dative as in (17b)– (19b). (17) a.

U punua (këtu). non-act.aor work.3sg (here) 1. ‘People worked (here).’ 2. ‘Working went on here.’ b. Anës i- u punua (këtu). Ann.dat 3sg.dat-non-act.aor work.3sg (here). ‘Ann felt like working (here).’

(18) a.

Tuk se raboti. here refl work.3sg 1. ‘Here people work.’ 2. Here work goes on.’ b. Na Ivan mu se raboti (tuk). Ivan.dat he.dat refl work.3sg (here) ‘Ivan feels like working (here).’

(19) a.

Danas se spava. today refl sleep.3sg 1. ‘Today people are sleeping.’ 2. ‘Today there is sleeping.’ b. Danas mi se spava. today I. dat refl sleep.3sg ‘Today I feel like sleeping.’

Alb

Alb

Bul

Bul

SC

SC

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.11 (689-783)

Datives and the non-active voice 

(20) a.

Danes dopoldne se je spalo. today morning refl be.3sg slept.neut ‘This morning people were sleeping.’ b. Janezu se je spalo (danes dopoldne). John.dat refl be.3sg slept.part.neut (today morning) ‘John felt like sleeping (this morning).’

Slo

Slo

Both patterns illustrate that D-Disclosure operates on dative phrases and clitics, or a combination of both, if there is clitic doubling. With D-Disclosure, the dative is not restricted in person, and can be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person, which differentiates it from traditional datives of Interest or Ethical datives. A first crosslinguistic difference without consequences for D-Disclosure is morphology. D-Disclosure is found with a reflexive clitic in Slavic, and with the Non-Active Voice in Alb, which takes different shapes, (a) auxiliary in Perfects, (b) clitic u in non-perfect Admiratives/Optatives and Aorist as in (17b), or (c) affix in the remaining environments as in (1a) (cf. Rivero 1990 for analysis and discussion).5 A second difference without import for D-Disclosure is clitic doubling. As stated, clitic doubling languages display a clitic with the dative phrase as in Albanian (17b) and Bulgarian (18b). In languages without doubling, the dative phrase appears alone, as in Slovenian (20b). Clitic location is also unimportant. When the dative is a nontonic pronoun (which takes part in clitic clusters), D-Disclosure is the same in languages with and without second position restrictions. It is also irrelevant if the reflexive is first in the clitic cluster, as in Czech, or follows other clitics, as in Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian. All of this suggests that D-Disclosure applies at an abstract level of representation identified here as (semantic) logical form. Thus, it ignores considerable syntactic and morphological differences impinging on case and agreement such as those arising from the implicit /explicit contrast mentioned in Fn. 5. The psychological/dative experiencer constructions in (6a–b) partially repeated in (21a–b) are often grouped together with the involuntary state patterns in (13b)–(20b). In relational grammar, for instance, they both count as similar “inversions” (Hubbard 1985). (21) a.

Kenga i kujto-het Anës. ‘Ann remembers the song.’ b. Na Ivan mu se priviždat mnogo nešta. ‘Ivan sees many things in his mind.’

Alb Bul

In my view, D-Disclosure is restricted to passives and impersonals with Vs that may count as activities (Kallulli 1999), and does not operate in the dative experiencer constructions in (21a–b), which are thus different. I now mention three contrasts justifying a distinction, before I return to D-Disclosure. The experiencer patterns in (21a–b), about which there is a rich literature on many languages left

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.12 (783-812)

 María Luisa Rivero

unmentioned here, differ from (13b)–(20b). One difference stated above concerns selection. Psychological Vs include in their argument structure an experiencer, which in many languages can be dative, as in (21a–b). The crucial issue in their case is the projection in syntax of such lexical argument structure. By contrast, the Vs in (13)–(20) do not subcategorize for datives or select experiencers. A second difference resides in truth conditions. On the one hand, (21a–b) contain a mental state V connected to the dative as (involuntary) participant. Without dative as in Kenga kujtohet. ‘The song is remembered.’, the same mental state is assigned to an indeterminate animate participant. Experiencer constructions, then, denote the mental state indicated by their predicate, not an attitude about that state. By contrast, Balkan D-Disclosure constructions as in (13b)–(20b) contain a predicate that does not contribute a mental state per se, and the dative brings in the attitude glossed “feel like”, which affects truth conditions. If the dative is removed from the construction, the state is not conveyed, and a “bare” passive or impersonal activity reading results, as in (13a)–(20a). In simple terms, (21a) tells us that Ann remembers, not that she feels like remembering, while (13b) tells us that she feels like reading. Balkan D-Disclosure datives are intrinsically attitudinal, while datives in (21a–b) fulfill selection requirements of mental predicates, and do not change the nature of the proposition. Thus, dative experiencers and Balkan Disclosure datives differ in important ways. The last reason for the distinction is contrastive. On the one hand, different language types can be established with the activity Vs in (13)– (20). One language type is with D-Disclosure as in Albanian and South Slavic, and another language type is without D-Disclosure, as in Greek and Romanian. The same Vs serve to divide the D-Disclosure group into two subgroups: the Control type, as in Albanian and Bulgarian, and the Left Dislocation type, as in Czech. On the other hand, dative experiencer Vs cannot be used to establish similar differences. Patterns with the morphology, syntax, and interpretation of (21a–b) can be found in typologically diverse languages, including Polish (Pol) as in (22a), and Spanish (Spa) as in (22b). (22) a.

Te samochody mi si˛e podobaja. ˛ these.nom cars.nom I.dat refl please.pres.3pl ‘These cars please me.’ b. A Juan se le ocurren muchas ideas. to John refl he.dat occur.pres.3pl many ideas ‘Many ideas come to John’s mind.’

Pol

Spa

In my view, Polish is like Czech in having Left Dislocation D-Disclosure (Rivero 2002), and Spanish altogether lacks D-Disclosure, so resembles Greek and Romanian. However, if one looks at dative experiencer Vs in these languages, differences dissolve: Polish and Spanish resemble one another, and they also resemble Albanian and Bulgarian, two of the languages with Control D-Disclosure. If as I

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.13 (812-881)

Datives and the non-active voice 

propose, (21)–(22) contain a dative phrase or clitic, doubled or not, that correspond to an experiencer selected by a mental V, and these sentences do not involve D-Disclosure, similarities and differences can be captured. On the one hand, similarities in psychological constructions such as (21)–(22) are due to the selectional properties of experiencer Vs, open to lexical variation. On the other hand, differences in passives and impersonals are due to D-Disclosure in Albanian and South Slavic, but not in Spanish. Now let us continue with D-Disclosure with transitive and intransitive Vs. In this paper, I assume similar analyses for both transitives and intransitives, with (a) Argument Saturation in the lexicon, followed by (b) D-Disclosure in logical form. Intransitives are interesting because they support the idea that unaccusatives and unergatives should be formally identified in Balkan languages, as I argue next. As stated, the formal cores of the intransitive patterns in (17b)–(20b) are the impersonals in (17a)–(20a). In the Balkans, such impersonals are well formed with unergative Vs with a unique argument that is agent-like, as in (17a)–(20a), and with unaccusative Vs with a unique argument that is theme-like, as in (23). This suggests that in Balkan languages, all intransitives belong to the same formal class (cf. also Kallulli 1999). (23) a.

Në Austri jeto-het gjatë. In Austria live-non-act.pres.3sg long ‘In Austria one/people live(s) long.’ (Kallulli 1999: 8c) b. Njërë vdis-et. Once die-non-act.pres.3s ‘One/ everyone/people die(s) once.’ c. Tuk lesno se umira. Here easily refl die.3sg ‘One/ everyone/ people die(s) easily here.’

Alb

Alb

Bul

For impersonals as in (23a–c), I assume Argument Saturation as in Reinhart (1996). That is, the unique argument of V is existentially closed in the lexicon, is not projected in the syntax, and remains available in the semantics (with an indefinite reading). On this analysis, Argument Saturation in the Balkans treats unergatives and unaccusatives as one class. Now let us turn to dative or involuntary state constructions based on such impersonals. For some, these constructions are restricted to unergatives as in (16b)–(20b), and are always excluded with unaccusatives ((Hubbard 1985) for Albanian, (Dimitrova-Vulchanova 1996) for Bulgarian). Others, on the other hand, find Albanian and Bulgarian constructions with some unaccusatives and datives well formed, as in (24a–b) (D. Kallulli, p.c.) and (24c–d).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.14 (881-926)

 María Luisa Rivero

Alb Anës i jeto-het në Austri. Ann.dat 3sg.dat live-non-act.pres.3sg in Austria ‘Ann feels like living in Austria.’ Alb b. Ben-it i vdis-et. Ben.dat 3sg.dat die-non-act.pres.3sg ‘Ben feels like dying.’ Bul c. Na men mi se živee. I.dat I.dat refl live.3sg ‘I feel like living.’ (O. Arnaudova, p.c.) Bul d. Na Ivan mu se umira. Ivan.dat he.dat refl die.3sg ‘Ivan feels like dying.’ (O. Arnaudova, p.c.; R. Pancheva and O. Tomić, Leiden Balkansprachbund Conference)

(24) a.

The source of the above disagreement seems in part pragmatic. Kallulli and Arnaudova independently suggest that examples like (24b) and (24d) sound odd since people do not usually have the urge to die. Arnaudova volunteers that a negation improves the pattern: Ne mi se umira. ‘I do not feel like dying.’ An anonymous reviewer mentions that some but not all Bulgarian unaccusatives sound grammatical in such constructions, which suggests an explanation not purely in pragmatics. Pending future research, I consider Balkan D-Disclosure constructions grammatical with unergatives and unaccusatives, but more appropriate with unergatives. In (17b)–(20b) and (24), Argument Saturation makes implicit a unique argument, like in “bare” impersonals. D-Disclosure connects this argument to the dative. Argument Saturation is not sensitive to the difference between unergatives and unaccusatives, and D-Disclosure is not sensitive to the difference either. To sum up, D-Disclosure operates on formal arguments, which can be agents or themes, implicit as in Albanian or Bulgarian, or explicit as mentioned in Ft. 5 for Slovenian. In South Slavic and Albanian, Argument Saturation provides in passives/impersonals an implicit argument that is connected to the dative by DDisclosure.

. The analysis of D-Disclosure This section looks at how D-Disclosure operates in logical form, first offering a minimal sketch of the syntax needed for this purpose, leaving aside important syntactic details. The syntactic skeleton for D-Disclosure Passives/Impersonals such as (2a–b), (4), and (24) is (25). (25) [ZP JohnDAT Z [YP se/Non-Act [VP (x) read a book/work/die]]]]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.15 (926-977)

Datives and the non-active voice 

This skeleton contains three basic layers of structure. ZP stands for an Applicative Phrase, YP stands for the (oversimplified) inflectional or propositional layer, and VP is the predicate-argument shell. The two essential ingredients in this skeleton are the upper layer with the Dative in the Spec of the Applicative, which corresponds to a syntactic adjunct not selected by V, and the lower layer, which is an “ordinary” passive or impersonal YP without special morphosyntactic characteristics. Let us examine each in turn. The Dative ZP is reminiscent of, but not identical to, what Pylkkännen (2000) and McGinnis (2001) respectively call High and Event Applicatives. In general, High/Event Applicatives establish a relation between an individual and an event. This is also the case in D-Disclosure constructions, where the individual is the dative, and the event is the passive or impersonal YP. However, D-Disclosure constructions differ from the more familiar Applicatives discussed in the literature in the way individual and event are related, which in the Balkans is particularly interesting because it is reminiscent of Obligatory Control: John felt like [PRO working]. In my view, the compositional basis of D-Disclosure is the syntactic structure in (25). Z as a null head of the Applicative takes as a complement the inflectional YP, and contains two syntactic features – one Interpretable and one Uninterpretable, as in (Chomsky 1995). The Uninterpretable feature is equivalent to EPP, and is checked in syntax by the dative merged in the Spec of ZP. The Interpretable feature need not be checked, and is similar to what Chomsky (2001) dubs INT; that is, its role is to encode an effect whose details belong in semantics. I propose that in D-Disclosure Applicatives, the INT feature of Z has two different translations in logical form, depending on language type. One translation, formalized below, is found in Balkan languages, and the other is found elsewhere in Slavic. On this view, in syntax, the Applicative Head contains the compositional core of D-Disclosure, which in semantics is given two translations. The other ingredient in D-Disclosure is the YP – VP structure, an “ordinary” passive or impersonal in Balkan languages. YP is a passive when it contains an overt Nom NP as theme or logical object, and a transitive V with Non-Active or reflexive morphology that agrees with this NP. YP is an impersonal when it contains no Nom NP, and an intransitive V with the default form with Non-Active or reflexive morphology (Third Person Singular (3Sg) in Albanian, and 3Sg/Neuter in Slavic). I propose that such passives and impersonals involve Lexical Saturation in the sense of (Chierchia 1989a; Reinhart 1996). The external argument of a transitive V is existentially closed in the lexicon as depicted in (26a). It is not projected in syntax, but is available in semantics. The same operation affects the only argument of an intransitive, as in (26b).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.16 (977-1039)

 María Luisa Rivero

Passive: эx (read x θ2 ) Alb. Lexo-het një libër. Bul . . . se ˇcetjaxa knigi. Эx (x read (a) book(s)). b. Impersonal: эx (work/die (x)) Alb U punua. Bul Umira se. эx (x work/die)

(26) a.

Detailed minimalist analyses of passives and impersonals await development and are beyond the scope of this paper. However, in passing I mention a consequence of Argument Saturation for Case (EPP is ignored). On the one hand, transitive Vs have two arguments. If one is saturated in the lexicon as I assume, the other is projected in syntax – perhaps in an empoverished one-shell VP. This argument checks – via Agree (Chomsky 2001) or via Move – a Nom feature in the inflectional layer YP, as signaled by agreement on the verb. In ordinary passives, then, V agrees with the overt NP, which must be Nom. Passives with a dative are identical, since the nonselected dative linked to the implicit argument in logical form does not participate in checking operations in YP-VP. On the other hand, intransitive Vs have only one argument, which if saturated, as I assume, is not projected in syntax. Thus, with Argument Saturation, no NP is projected in syntax, but one is available in semantics. This implies that YP has no Case feature in need of checking, which is indicated via a V in default form without agreement. D-Disclosure Impersonals with a dative are identical, since the dative does not participate in checking operations in YP-VP. Now let us turn to D-Disclosure in logical form. As first stated in (12), Argument Saturation in passives/impersonals provides the D-Disclosure with the argument to manipulate. In (26), YP is a passive or impersonal with an existentially closed argument эx available in logical form, which is connected to the dative by D-Disclosure through the following steps. When the quantifier э is eliminated, x is “existentially disclosed”, which makes it equivalent to a free variable, and can be bound to the Dative.6 In Albanian and South Slavic, such binding involves indirect predication, dubbed “Control” in Table 2. The formula, equipped with a modal operator, forms a derived predicate. The disclosed variable in this complex predicate is applied to the Dative, as shown in (27b–c). (27) Control D-Disclosure: a. se/Non-Act (read a book/work/die) = эx [read a book/work/die(x)]. b. John.dat se/Non-Act read a book/work/die → Mod (John.dat Dis x эx [read a book/work/die (x)]) c. Mod (John, λx [read a book/work/die (x)]) (27a) is the semantics of an ordinary passive or impersonal structure, and (27b) is a D-Disclosure in the context of the dative. The formula in (27c) is similar to

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.17 (1039-1092)

Datives and the non-active voice 

Obligatory Control in Chierchia (1989b), as in John1 wished PRO1 to work. Thus, the (null) M-operator forming the complex predicate is like wish. The Non-Active Voice/reflexive clitic signals a variable similar to PRO as a “controlled” item. The Dative is the “controller” as subject of the indirect predication which binds the variable. The result is a modalized statement, with the Dative reminiscent of an Experiencer, not an Agent. Recall that the semantic formula in (27b–c) derives its compositional basis from the syntactic structure in (25). Z as Applicative head has an INT feature, which translates in logical form as (27b). That is, in Balkan languages the Applicative holding a Dative corresponds in logical form or semantics to a Mod(al) P(hrase). The Z head is equivalent in this case to a logical form Modal. Slavic D-Disclosure constructions may belong to another semantic class mentioned in Section 1. The Czech example (8), partially repeated as (28a), denotes an activity of John as reader. The Czech intransitive pattern in (28b) displays similar semantics. (28) a.

Ta kniha se Janovi ˇcetla dobˇre. 1. ‘John read this book with ease.’ 2. ‘Somehow, it was easy for John to read this book.’ 3. ‘Reading this book came easily to John.’ (NOT just: ‘John felt like reading this book well.’) b. Janovi se pracovalo hezky. John.dat refl worked.part.neut nicely ‘John somehow worked well.’ (NOT just: ‘John felt like working well.’)

Cze

I propose that the syntactic structure of (28a–b) is also (25) – Lexical Argument Saturation applies with the consequences discussed above. Thus, abstracting from the Dative Applicative, (28b) is as in (29a) – this formula provides the saturated argument that is existentially disclosed in logical form, resulting in a free variable. The difference between Czech, on the one hand, and South Slavic and Albanian, on the other, arises when the disclosed variable is bound to the Dative via direct predication as in (29b), borrowed from (Rivero 2002) (for more details cf. Rivero & Sheppard 2003). (29) Left Dislocation D-Disclosure: a. se (work) = эx [work (x)]. b. John.DAT se worked → DIS x эx [work(x)] (John). c. λx [work(x)] (John). d. work (John). On this view, (28b) resembles in its semantics John1 , he1 worked well. Se corresponds to the disclosed variable functioning as a resumptive. Dative John is the

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.18 (1092-1138)

 María Luisa Rivero

subject of the (direct) predication, with YP as predicate. Thus, the sentence denotes a past eventuality, and the dative is agentive. The INT feature on the Applicative Z head in (25) provides the syntactic basis for this reading, and translates in logical form as (29b). Accordingly, in Slavic languages other than those of the South, the Applicative ZP corresponds in logical form to a Topic Phrase, and Z is comparable to a Topic head, not a Modal. In sum, the syntactic structure in (25) corresponds to two different logical forms, one for South Slavic and Albanian, which can be referred to as “Balkan”, and another for other Slavic languages. The interpretable feature of applicative Z provides the basis for two readings; so in these languages the variation is “semantic” and not “syntactic”. To conclude, in Albanian and South Slavic D-Disclosure is general and productive. It operates in logical form on an existentially closed argument, by eliminating э, freeing x, and binding this variable to a nonselected Dative. In the Balkans, Argument Saturation provides the item affected by D-Disclosure. There are two types of D-Disclosure with different truth conditions in Slavic, which hinges on how the dative and the disclosed variable are connected in logical form. A dative and a variable can be bound via indirect predication, with the variable reminiscent of a controlled pronoun – which is the Balkan option, here dubbed “Control”. Alternatively, a dative and a variable can be bound via direct predication, with the variable similar to a resumptive pronoun – which is the Slavic option, here dubbed “Left Dislocation’. Section 4 compares D-Disclosure to the E-Strategy, and shows why DDisclosure cannot apply in anticausatives, and why it is restricted to passives/impersonals.

. The E-Strategy This section examines the E-Strategy. The main aim is to point out how this strategy differs from D-Disclosure, leaving its precise analysis to future research. The crucial contrast is that D-Disclosure must manipulate a formally present argument and the E-Strategy cannot manipulate this type of argument, which has a variety of consequences. A first consequence is with passives/impersonals. We showed in Section 2 that Argument Saturation in passives/impersonals in Albanian and South Slavic “feeds” D-Disclosure with an appropriate formal item, which is the implicit external or only argument that is disclosed and linked to the dative. By contrast, below in 4.1 I argue that Argument Saturation restricts the E-Strategy, which must avoid linking the dative to an implicit or explicit argument. A second consequence is observed in the anticausatives, which cannot involve D-Disclosure because they lack the appropriate formal argument for this procedure, and must as a conse-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.19 (1138-1212)

Datives and the non-active voice 

quence necessarily involve the E-Strategy in all languages, including those that have D-Disclosure such as Albanian and South Slavic, as discussed in 4.2. A third consequence, to be discussed in 4.3, is the more general syntactic distribution of the E-Strategy, attributed to the hypothesis that this strategy is not based on a formal argument. A last difference, discussed in 4.4, is that D-Disclosure is compositional, finding a semantic basis in an interpretable feature of the syntax, which results in fixed readings, while the E-Strategy does not seem compositional or based on an interpretable feature of the syntax, which results in several (vague) readings.

. The E-Strategy and Argument Saturation (passives/impersonals) Recall that some Balkan languages such as Greek and Romanian do not have DDisclosure, so they must use the E-Strategy in all constructions with unselected datives, providing excellent grounds to detect the properties of this strategy in contrast with D-Disclosure. Greek and Romanian passives and impersonals can be used to motivate the claim that the E-Strategy cannot manipulate formally present arguments. To this effect, compare the “bare” Greek passive in (30a) and its counterpart with a dative in (3) partially repeated as (30b), or the Romanian “bare” impersonal in (31a) and its counterpart with a dative in (5) partially repeated as (31b).7 (30) a.

Xtize-te to spiti. build.non-act.pres.3sg the.nom house ‘The house is (being) built.’ b. Tu Ben tu Xtize-te to spiti. 1. ‘The house is built on John’s behalf.’ 2. ‘John’s house is being built.’ NOT: ‘John feels like building the house.’ NOT: ‘John builds the house involuntarily.’

(31) a.

Se lucra (în fabric˘a). refl worked (in factory) ‘People/one worked (in the factory).’ b. Lui Jon i se lucra (în fabric˘a). the.dat John he.dat refl worked (in factory) 1. ‘People/one worked (in the factory) on John’s behalf.’ 2. ‘People/one worked in John’s factory.’ NOT: ‘John felt like working in the factory.’ NOT: ‘John worked in the factory involuntarily.’

Gre

Gre

Rom

Rom

With the E-Strategy, datives in passives and impersonals may be open to a variety of readings I consider vague – most notably as possessors, benefactives/malefactives,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.20 (1212-1251)

 María Luisa Rivero

or somehow affected participants. However, when the E-Strategy is used in languages that have D-Disclosure, such constructions retain their core interpretation as activities of an unspecified agent, which cannot be linked to the dative. Why is this linking not possible? The proposal in this paper is that the E-Strategy cannot manipulate formal arguments, and (Balkan) passives and impersonals involve Argument Saturation. Thus, (30)–(31) contain an agent existentially closed in the lexicon, as in (26), which the E-Strategy cannot affect. A different (inferential) role not based on the formally encoded argument structure is assigned to the dative, and appropriate options influenced by pragmatic considerations include a past/present/future possessor, and a somehow affected participant, most likely beneficiary. Crucially, readings with the dative somehow linked to the external argument of the verb are excluded, which also applies to the interpretation where the dative is an involuntary causer. If Control D-Disclosure as in South Slavic and Albanian were possible in Greek and Romanian, the readings with a dative and with implicit argument linked would be ‘Ben feels like building a house.’ and ‘John felt like working in a factory.’ On this view, passives and impersonals in the Nolanguages of Table 1, such as Greek, show that the E-Strategy does not manipulate formal arguments and is “bled” by Argument Saturation, which removes the accidental causer/involuntary agent option from the inference list. There are other languages without D-Disclosure with nonselected datives restricted to the E-Strategy that are similar. To illustrate, the Spanish se-passive and se-impersonal in (32a–b) both contain similar “bleeding” agents, which gives the dative the interpretation of a benefactive or a possessor, not of a causer/involuntary agent. (32) a.

A Juan se le (re)construyen dos casas. John.dat refl he.dat (re)build-pres.3pl two houses. 1. ‘Two houses are (re)built on John’s behalf.’ 2. ‘ Two houses of John are being (re)built.’ NOT: ‘John {feels like/is} (re)building two houses.’ b. A Juan se le trabaja en la fábrica. John. dat refl he.dat work.3sg in the factory 1. ‘People/one work(s) in the factory on John’s behalf.’ 2. ‘People/one work(s) in John’s factory.’ NOT: ‘John feels like/ is working in the factory.’

Spa

Spa

In sum, the E-Strategy and D-Disclosure differ in two ways, and the contrast is clearest in passives and impersonals. One, D-Disclosure in Albanian and South Slavic must manipulate a formal argument, which the E-Strategy in the Balkans and elsewhere cannot do. Two, D-Disclosure is fed a formal external or only argument by Argument Saturation, and the E-Strategy is bled or restricted by the same process, since it cannot manipulate formal arguments.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.21 (1251-1305)

Datives and the non-active voice 

. The E-Strategy and Argument Suppression (anticausatives) I propose that Anticausatives involve Argument Suppression, which can also serve to differentiate between the two dative procedures discussed in this paper. Argument Suppression feeds or adds an inference to the E-Strategy, and bleeds or totally blocks D-Disclosure in the Yes-languages of Table 1, that is, Albanian and South Slavic. To develop these ideas, let us begin by comparing the ‘bare’ or dativeless constructions in (33a–f) and their counterparts with nonselected datives in (34a–f), which partially repeat (1a–d). (33) a.

U thye dritarja. non-act.aor break.3sg window.the.nom ‘The window broke.’ b. Oˇcilata se šˇcupixa. glasses.the refl broke.3pl ‘The glasses broke.’ c. Kaike i supa. burnt.non-act the soup.nom ‘The soup burned’ d. Se sparse ferestrea. refl broke.3sg window.the ‘The window broke.’ e. Naoˇcare su se slomile. glasses.fem.pl be.3pl refl broken.fem.pl ‘The glasses broke.’ f. Oˇcala so se zlomila. glasses. fem.pl be.3pl refl broken.fem.pl ‘The glasses broke.’

Alb

Bul

Gre

Rom

SC

Slo

(34) a. Anës i-u thye dritarja. Alb b. Na Ivan mu se šˇcupixa oˇcilata. Bul c. Tu Ben tu kaike i supa. Gre d. Lui Jon i se sparse ferestrea. Rom e. Jovanu su se slomile naoˇcare. SC f. Janezu so se zlomila oˇcala. Slo 1. ‘{Ann’s /Ben’s /John’s} {glasses/soup/window} {broke/burned}.’ 2. ‘Ann/John was affected {positively/negatively} by the glasses/win dow/ soup {breaking /burning}.’ 3. ‘{Ann/Ben/John} involuntarily caused {the glasses/soup/window} to {break/burn}.’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.22 (1305-1368)

 María Luisa Rivero

The semantic differences due to D-Disclosure in passives/impersonals with datives discussed in 2 and 3.1 can be used to distinguish in absolute terms between Albanian and South Slavic on the one hand, and Greek and Romanian on the other. However, such differences find no clear counterpart in anticausatives with datives, where all the languages seem rather similar. In anticausatives, datives may be interpreted in several ways, such as possessor, benefactive/malefactive, and perhaps with less ease as indirect cause/involuntary agent – the reading clearly excluded in the Greek passive in (30b) or the Romanian impersonal in (31c). The readings depicted in (34) are not equivalent to Balkan Control D-Disclosure, which would result in modal interpretations of the type ‘Ann/Ben/John felt like {breaking /burning} {the glasses/soup/ window}.’ Anticausatives outside of the Balkans, e.g. in Spanish, also display the readings listed in (34); actually the reading in Spanish is surprisingly similar to the reading in Albanian in this area. (35) A Juan se le rompieron las gafas. John.dat refl he.dat broke.3pl the glasses 1. ‘John’s glasses broke. 2. ‘John was affected by the glasses breaking.’ 3. ‘John broke the glasses.’

Spa

Why is the causer/involuntary agent reading possible for datives in anticausatives in languages as different as Albanian and Spanish? I propose that anticausatives undergo Argument Suppression, and the E-Strategy does not manipulate formal arguments, which can account for the causer/agent-like reading in (34)–(35). The core of the anticausative construction is a two-argument predicate such as break in John breaks the glasses, which following Reinhart (1996) has its external argument totally eliminated in the lexicon, the syntax, and the semantics. In other words, the basic verb entry is (break θ1 θ2 ) θ1 , resulting in an unaccusative intransitive (break (θ2 )) corresponding to Albanian U thye dritarja., Romanian Se sparse ferestrea. ‘The window broke.’, and so on. The dative/genitive in (34a–f) is not selected by the verb, and is interpreted by the E-Strategy, which cannot manipulate formal arguments. In (34a–f), there is no external argument due to Argument Suppression, so the inferential option with the dative causer/agent-like is licit. In sum, Argument Suppression ‘feeds’ the E-Strategy because it removes an external argument from the formal structure of the sentence, which allows for a licit inference for the dative other than possessor, benefactive/malefactive, or somehow affected participant. By contrast, in passives/impersonals as in 4.1, there is an external or agent argument that is formally represented in the sentence, so the dative under the E-Strategy can be a possessor or a benefactive (under the assumption that those roles are not formally present or implicit) but not a causer/involuntary agent. Datives in passives/impersonals in languages without D-Disclosure such as Spanish or Greek must be interpreted with the E-Strategy and, when compared to

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.23 (1368-1415)

Datives and the non-active voice 

datives in anticausatives, show that the E-Strategy does not manipulate formal arguments and is consequently bled by Argument Saturation, which itself preserves a formal agent, and is fed by Argument Suppression, which deletes the agent. Dalina Kallulli suggests an alternative to the proposal sketched above, which is more in tune with her earlier approach to the relevant Albanian constructions (Kallulli 1999). Oversimplifying, on Kallulli’s view, the causer reading of anticausatives should not derive from the E-Strategy, but could constitute an instance (in formal grammar) of D-Disclosure of a causer. I add that D-Disclosure in this case would resemble the Left Dislocation type found in Polish and Czech, not the modal or control type found in South Slavic and Albanian. This alternative involves an analysis of anticausatives with a formally represented causer that differs from an agent, so the E-Strategy will not be able to identify such a formal causer with the dative. If the causer reading of anticausatives in Albanian or Spanish is not the result of the E-Strategy, then in these languages a form of D-Disclosure could apply in formal grammar just in anticausatives, directly linking dative and implicit causer. This interesting suggestion, whose development and formal implementation I leave for future research, could account for a type of variation I have minimized in this paper, namely that in some of our languages the causer reading is difficult to get, or perhaps is absent, in anticausatives with datives. If anticausatives contain a formal causer, and languages like Bulgarian differ from Albanian in lacking D-Disclosure in anticausatives, then the cause reading cannot be derived in those languages. On this view, Balkan languages could divide into two groups depending on whether they display a causer reading in anticausatives with datives or not. Albanian would be in a group that includes Spanish, with anticausatives with Left Dislocation D-Disclosure, and Bulgarian would be in a group that perhaps includes Romanian, with anticausatives that altogether lack the mentioned formal procedure. Viewed this way, the difference is “semantic” and not “syntactic”. If the causer reading is obtained in formal grammar in the way just sketched, possessive and benefactive/malefactive readings would rely on implicit categories “disclosed” by nonselected datives (see Dekker (1993) on disclosure and relational nouns such as sister). The “E-Strategy” would not be inferential, as differences between the languages would reside on different types of formal “disclosure” for datives. Clearly, datives with anticausatives and unaccusatives, seldom discussed in the past, raise many interesting questions. Leaving this point aside, I continue with the inferential view of datives in anticausatives adopted in this paper. Anticausatives also serve to show that any type of formally encoded participant, not just a causer/agent, “bleeds” the E-Strategy of inferential options. To this effect, consider (36a–b).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.24 (1415-1485)

 María Luisa Rivero

Lui Jon i s-au spart ochelarii Mariei. Rom the.dat John he.dat refl-has broken glasses.the Mary.dat ‘John broke Mary’s glasses involuntarily.’, etc. NOT: ‘John’s glasses broke.’ Gre b. Tu Ben tu kaike i supa mu. the.gen Ben he.gen burnt.non-act the soup.nom I.gen ‘Ben burned my soup involuntarily.’ etc. NOT: ‘Ben’s soup burned.’

(36) a.

Romanian is a language where the possessor reading seems most natural for nonselected datives in the E-Strategy.8 However, such preferred reading is blocked if a possessor is present, as in (36a). This supports the view that the E-Strategy cannot count as inference – a role held by a formally encoded participant, irrespective of whether possessors are arguments of N or not. Likewise, the formal possessor in Greek (36b) blocks the possessive option for the genitive. Thus, the E-Strategy does not manipulate formal participants whether they are explicit as above, or implicit as in passives. We saw above that Argument Suppression may add one option to the EStrategy by eliminating an agent/causer, which allows the dative to be interpreted as an indirect causer. However, Argument Suppression blocks (Balkan) D-Disclosure. Consider the Bulgarian sentence Na Ivan mu se šˇcupixa oˇcilata. in (34b), as representative of South Slavic. This example cannot be interpreted as ‘John felt like breaking the/his glasses.’, which indicates that (Balkan) D-Disclosure does not, in fact cannot, operate in Anticausatives. If Argument Suppression eliminates the agent/causer of break, D-Disclosure will not find in logical form a formal argument to manipulate. In other words, Argument Suppression bleeds D-Disclosure, so only the E-Strategy is found in anticausatives. On this view, in all Balkan languages the interpretation of anticausatives with datives proceeds along parallel lines and is open to vagueness, regardless of type. To conclude this section, I have taken the position that the E-Strategy cannot manipulate formally encoded participants, while D-Disclosure must find a formally encoded existentially closed argument to connect it to the dative, which leads to an important contrast between the two procedures in the case of anticausatives: If anticausatives undergo Argument Suppression, which eliminates an agent/causer, D-Disclosure cannot apply, because there is no existentially closed argument of any type, and only the E-Strategy is applicable. The E-Strategy thus assigns several vague readings to the dative, including the causer reading.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.25 (1485-1543)

Datives and the non-active voice 

. The Syntactic distribution of D-Disclosure and the E-Strategy The E-Strategy has a more general syntactic distribution than D-Disclosure, which is also due to the essential contrast between the two procedures. D-Disclosure operates on an existentially closed argument. In the Balkans, this argument comes from Argument Saturation necessarily encoded in Non-Active or reflexive morphology. Accordingly, D-Disclosure or involuntary state constructions are inherently tied to a particular morphology, and are limited to a passive or impersonal core. By contrast, the E-Strategy relies on the absence of formally encoded arguments as it cannot manipulate them, and, as shown next, it is not tied to particular lexical operations or a fixed morphology. We already illustrated the E-Strategy with Non-Active/reflexive morphology in passives, impersonals, and anticausatives. Unaccusative constructions reminiscent of anticausatives also exist with Active Voice or without a reflexive clitic. As seen next, there is considerable lexical variation in the languages of the Balkans regarding such unaccusative/anticausative constructions. However, irrespective of such variation in morphology, nonselected datives/genitives in unaccusative constructions receive several readings consonant with the E-Strategy. In (1a) and (1b) I illustrated anticausative “break” with Non-Active/reflexive morphology in Albanian and Bulgarian. In Greek, however, as shown in (37), this verb displays Active Voice in the anticausative use. Crucially, interpretations for the genitive remain as in (34), where we have Non-Active morphology. The Genitive can be a possessor, affected participant, or causer. (37) Tu Ben tu espase to parathiro. the.gen Ben he.gen broke.past.act the window.nom

Gre

Greek “burn” is Non-Active if anticausative as in (1c), but Bulgarian “burn” and “boil” are “active” or lack a reflexive, as (38a–b) illustrate. Irrespective of this variation, the dative receives several readings consonant with the E-Strategy in all these sentences. If it is assumed that the sentences in (38) do not involve Argument Suppression, but contain unaccusative verbs with only one argument, then, under my assumptions, E-Strategy interpretations rely on the absence of formally encoded argument structure, as in anticausatives. (38) a.

Na to b. Na to

Ivan John Ivan John

mu he.dat mu he.dat

izgorja k˘aštata. burned.3sg house.the izkipja mljakoto. boiled.3sg milk.the

Bul

The E-Strategy with unaccusative Vs that do not participate in the causative alternation and are not likely to involve Argument Suppression, can also be illustrated

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.26 (1543-1607)

 María Luisa Rivero

with the Romanian “bloom”, as in (39), where the dative is also open to several interpretations. Rom (39) Lui Jon ii infloresc pomii. the.dat John him.dat bloom.3pl trees.the 1. ‘John’s trees bloom.’ 2. ‘John benefits from the trees blooming.’ 3. ‘John causes the trees to somehow bloom (i.e. he is a good gardener).’ There are parallels outside of the Balkans. The unaccusative use of “boil”, whether anticausative or not, is not reflexive in Spanish, and Spanish “bloom” is an unaccusative that does not participate in the so-called causative alternation; so Bulgarian (38b) finds a counterpart in Spanish (40a) and Romanian (39) in Spanish (40b), with the dative receiving various readings. (40) a.

A Juan le hirvió la leche. to John he.dat boiled.3sg the milk b. A Juan le florecen los árboles. to John.dat he.dat bloom.3pl the trees

Spa Spa

In sum, the E-Strategy implements inferential options independent of morphology and in the absence of a reflexive clitic is not tied to particular lexical operations such as Argument Suppression. Since unaccusative verbs formally encode limited argument structure, when they combine with datives they are suitable for the EStrategy. To conclude this section, D-Disclosure must manipulate a formal argument that is existentially closed, and the E-Strategy does not manipulate formally present arguments of any type. Thus, in Balkan languages, D-Disclosure has a limited syntactic distribution essentially defined by Non-Active/reflexive morphology, which is a restriction that does not apply to the E-Strategy.

. The E-Strategy and compositionality Recall that D-Disclosure results in fixed readings and the E-Strategy in vague readings. In 2, it was proposed that D-Disclosure is compositional due to an interpretable feature in the null Applicative head, which in semantics can roughly correspond to a modal (the Balkan option), or to a topic (elsewhere in Slavic). By contrast, the E-Strategy avoids roles played by formal participants, and results in relatively vague readings, which suggests that it is not based on an interpretable feature in syntax, and is thus not compositional. This core idea can be implemented in a variety of ways left to future research, but I conclude sketching one option inspired by proposals of Fernández Soriano (1999).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.27 (1607-1650)

Datives and the non-active voice 

Fernández Soriano argues that in unaccusative constructions that include anticausatives, datives are merged as external arguments below TP and raise to the Specifier of Tense to check an EPP feature. If this idea is adopted, then E-Strategy datives are not part of a high Applicative like D-Disclosure Datives, but are internal to the clause. Accordingly, it can be assumed that the Tense head does not contain a (relevant) INT feature for the semantics of the dative, which checks EPP, and is thus licensed in formal syntax. If there is no INT in Tense, no precise semantics are assigned in logical form to the E-Strategy dative in Spec-TP, in contrast to what I propose for D-Disclosure datives. Instead of being derived from precise features, I suggest that E-Strategy readings come about via inferential processes at the interface with discourse grammar, and are thus subject to vagueness. On this view, D-Disclosure respects compositionality, and the E-Strategy does not – a difference that needs to be explored.

. Summary and conclusions This paper has examined two procedures for nonselected datives called DDisclosure and E-Strategy, which are found in Balkan languages and elsewhere. D-Disclosure exists in Albanian and South Slavic, but does not exist in Greek or Romanian. It applies in passives/impersonals, but not in anticausatives. It is a rule of formal grammar, that is of semantics. It binds the implicit or existentially closed argument of a passive or an impersonal construction to a dative interpreted as controller. D-Disclosure cannot apply in anticausatives because those constructions do not have an appropriate implicit argument as the result of argument suppression. The E-Strategy is found in all the languages of the Balkans, and applies in anticausatives, among other constructions. The E-Strategy results in vague readings because it cannot manipulate the formal arguments that are present in the sentence. It is an inferential procedure at the interface with discourse grammar.

Notes * Research for this paper was partially supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Research Grant 410-2000-0120. Preliminary versions were read at the Acme Balkanica Conference, April 27–29, 2001, at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada, and at the Conference on the Balkan Sprachbund Properties, June 7–9, 2001, Leiden, Holland. I am grateful to the audiences of these two conferences for many useful comments, and to Olga Mišeska Tomić for inviting me to the Leiden conference. This version has benefited from the comments of Dalina Kallulli as reviewer, and from the comments of an anonymous referee.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.28 (1650-1711)

 María Luisa Rivero

Special thanks go to Milena M. Sheppard for joint work on topics related to the proposals in this paper, and for Slovenian. For Albanian, I am indebted to Dalina Kallulli, who besides being one of the readers of the previous version of this paper is the source of earlier theoretical inspiration (Kallulli 1999). For Bulgarian, I am very thankful to Olga Arnaudova for help beyond the call of duty through the years, and to Roumyana Pancheva, and Olga Mišeska Tomić at the Leiden Conference. For Czech, I thank Denisa Lenertová. For Greek I am indebted to Cleo Condoravdi, Angela Ralli and Athina Sioupi. For Polish I thank Anna Boron, Robert B. Borsley, Magdalena Gołe˛dzinowska, Ewa Jaworska, Adam Przepiórkowski, and Ewa Willim. For Romanian I am most grateful to Rodica Diaconescu, and for Serbo-Croatian to Danijela Stojanović. . Slavic patterns such as (2b) with the indicated reading are known as ‘dispositional’, ‘feellike’, ‘involuntary-state’, or ‘stative’ constructions in the literature, and have attracted interest since Roman Jakobson. In current linguistics, they have received particular attention in Relational Grammar, where they are called ‘productive inversions’ (cf. Moore & Perlmutter 2000 for references), and less attention in other frameworks. Descriptively, they resemble quirky subject constructions with a logical subject that is oblique, not nominative. . The “ethical” label is inspired by traditional grammar. Traditional datives of interest /ethical datives bear some resemblance to our datives because they are not part of argument structure, and are discourse oriented. However, traditional ethical datives are clitics often restricted to 1st/2nd person as in the Czech sentence sentence (i); so they differ from our datives, which can be phrasal and display no person restrictions. (i)

Tohle stare kolo se ti jednou rozpadne. this old bicycle refl you.dat once fall-apart.3sg ‘This old bicycle will fall apart on you some day.’ (Toman 1986)

Cze

. The readings include (a) possesor, (b) somehow affected or interested participant (benefactive/malefactive), and (c) indirect cause/involuntary agent. The “causer /involuntary agent” label corresponds to Kallulli’s (1999) “accidental causation”. The causer reading is found in languages as different as Albanian, Polish, Slovenian, and Spanish. It, however, seems difficult to obtain in Romanian and for an anonymous reviewer it is absent in Bulgarian. In §4.2, I speculate on the potential theoretical significance of cross-linguistic variation in this particular reading. . Note that Slovenian shares with Polish a transitive pattern with a different morphology and syntax, which is illustrated in (i.b). (i)

a.

b.

Danes dopoldne se je jedlo jagode. today morning refl be.3sg eat.neut.part strawberries.acc ‘This morning one/people ate strawberries.’ Danes dopoldne se mi je jedlo jagode. today morning refl I.dat be.3sg eat.neut.part strawberries.acc ‘This morning I felt like eating strawberries.’

Slo

Slo

The above sentences display (a) an Acc NP, and (b) an invariable Aux/V without agreement. Rivero and Sheppard (2003) argue that (i.b) contains a syntactic indefinite human pronoun with existential force. On this view, D-Disclosure always affects existential arguments, but

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.29 (1711-1772)

Datives and the non-active voice 

they can be implicit as in the text, or explicit. D-Disclosure operates in logical form, and can thus ignore substantial morphological and syntactic differences (see later). . Concerning Non-Active/reflexive marking, verbs such as Alb. kollem ‘cough’ and Slavic inherent reflexives such as Bulgarian smeja se ‘laugh’ raise two interesting questions. The (traditionally deponent) Albanian V appears to be unergative, necessarily displays NonActive Voice as in (i.a), and participates in D-Disclosure, that is ‘inversion’ in the sense of Hubbard (1985: 104), as in (i.b). (i)

a.

b.

Petriti kollitet këtu. Peter.nom cough.non-act.pres.3sg here ‘Peter coughs here.’ Nuk më kollitet. neg I.dat cough.non-act.pres.3sg ‘I do not feel like coughing.’

Alb

Likewise, the Bulgarian inherently reflexive verb smeja se ‘laugh’, mentioned by an anonymous reviewer, also seems unergative, and appears in the D-Disclosure construction with only one reflexive, as in (ii). I should add that the phenomenon in (ii) seems panslavic. (ii) Smee mi se. laugh.3s I.dat refl ‘I feel like laughing.’

Bul

On the one hand, if the verbs in (i.b) and (ii) are unergative, which seems reasonable, Non-Active Voice/Slavic reflexive clitics need not signal unaccusativity (see Kallulli 1999 for Alb, and our later discussion). On the other hand, these examples show that haplology applies along similar lines to Non-Active Voice and reflexive clitics. That is, the verb requires Non-Active/reflexive morphology, the involuntary state construction also requires such a morphology, and the sentences are grammatical with just one morphological marker of the appropriate type, which serves for two (compatible) functions necessarily encoded in Non-Active in Albanian, or reflexive morphology in Bulgarian: (a) traditional deponence/inherent lexical reflexivity, and (b) “impersonal passivization” = Argument Saturation. I propose to capture this situation in postsyntactic morphology. For the Bulgarian case in (ii), I argue elsewhere (Rivero in prep.) that two se-clitics compete for the same Acc slot in the clitic template, but only one surfaces without ill effects because such clitics are nonperson forms that can be deleted in postsyntactic morphology, since their person content is recoverable. On this view, (i.b) and (ii) are like all other involuntary state constructions in syntax and semantics, and involve Argument Saturation. . D-Disclosure is inspired by dynamic semantics (Dekker 1993; Chierchia 1995). It was proposed by Rivero (2002), and further developed by Rivero and Sheppard (2003). In dynamic semantics, indefinites have an intrinsic existential quantifier that can be eliminated by an adverb of quantification that lends them force. D-Disclosure reflects the idea that Slavic reflexive clitics stand for two types of arguments with an intrinsic existential quantifier that can be eliminated by a dative: (a) implicit arguments in reflexive passives, as in the text, or (b) explicit indefinite pronouns in impersonal constructions in Polish and Slo, as in Fn. 5.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.30 (1772-1863)

 María Luisa Rivero . Greek differs from other Balkan languages in lacking “impersonal passivization”. In my terms, in this language Argument Saturation cannot apply to one argument predicates, while in the other languages it can. . In both Bulgarian and Romanian, ‘Possessor Raising’ phenomena as in (i. a–b) are very general (cf. Pancheva (2001 from whom the examples are also taken). Az im vidjax [DP novata kola]. new-the car I they.dat saw.1sg ‘I saw their new car.’

Bul

(ii) I-am zârit [DP chipul] in mul¸time. he.dat-have.1sg seen face-the in crowd ‘I saw her face in the crowd.’

Rom

(i)

In (i–ii), the dative indicates a possessor in the DP, often the only reading, and most approaches in the literature assign such a relation to formal grammar, calling it syntactic binding or movement. The general nature of possessor raising phenomena in Romanian could account for why the possessor reading is so prominent with the E-strategy. However, the E-strategy has a disjoint reference effect that does not appear based on either syntactic binding or movement, so differs from Possessor Raising. Spanish also has Possessor Raising, usually restricted to inalienable possession as in (iii), so its scope is much more limited than in Bulgarian and Romanian. Possessive readings with the E-strategy exist in Spanish, but are less favored than in Romanian. a Juan. (iii) Le vi [la cara] 3s.dat saw.1s [DP the face] dat.John ‘I saw John’s face.’

Spa

References Chierchia, G. (1989a). A Semantics for Unaccusatives and its Syntactic Consequences. Ms. Cornell University. Chierchia, G. (1989b). “Anaphora and attitudes de se”. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, & P. van Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, 1–31. Dordrecht: Foris. Chierchia, G. (1995). “The Variability of impersonal subjects”. In E. Bach et al. (Eds.), Quantification in Natural Language, 107–143. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [MIT working Papers in Linguistics]. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dekker, P. (1993). “Existential disclosure”. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 561–588. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. (1996). “Verb Semantics, Diathesis, and Aspect.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Trondheim. Fernández Soriano, O. (1999). “Datives in constructions with unaccusative SE”. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 89–105. Hubbard, P. L. (1985). The Syntax of the Albanian Verb Complex. New York: Garland.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:05

F: LA6707.tex / p.31 (1863-1920)

Datives and the non-active voice 

Kallulli, D. (1999). “Non-active morphology in Albanian and event (de)composition”. In I. Kenesei (Ed.), Crossing Boundaries, 263–292. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McGinnis, M. (2001). “Phases and the syntax of applicatives”. NELS 31. Moore, J. & D. M. Perlmutter (2000). “What does it take to be a dative subject?” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18, 373–416. Pancheva, R. (2001). “Possessive clitics in the languages of the Balkans”. Paper read at the Conference on the Balkan Sprachbund Properties, Leiden, June 2001. Pylkkänen, L. (2000). “What applicative heads apply to”. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Penn Linguistics Conference. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 7.1. Reinhart, T. (1996). Syntactic Effects of Lexical Operations: Reflexives and Unaccusatives. [LOT Working Paper]. Utrecht University. Rivero, M. L. (1990). “The location of non-active voice in Albanian and Modern Greek”. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 135–146. Rivero, M. L. (2002). “On Impersonal reflexives in Romance and Slavic and semantic variation”. In J. Camps & C. Wiltshire (Eds.), Romance Syntax, Semantics and L2 Acquisition, 169–195. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rivero, M. L. (2000). “On impersonal ´si in Polish: A simplex expression anaphor”. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 8.1, 199–237. Rivero, M. L. (in prep). Manuscript for a Lingua issue dedicated to Bulgarian; A. Spencer ed. Rivero, M. L. & M. Sheppard (2003). “Indefinite reflexive clitics in Slavic: Polish and Slovenian”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 89–155. Toman, J. (1986). “Cliticization from NPs in Czech and comparable phenomena in French and Italian”. In H. Borer (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 19: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, 123–145. New York: Academic Press.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.1 (40-117)

On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives* Željko Bošković University of Connecticut

The paper investigates the ban on negative imperatives and clitic placement in Greek imperative constructions, focusing on a difference in the order of dative and accusative clitics in the preverbal position in indicatives and the postverbal position in imperatives. While dative-accusative is the only order allowed in the preverbal position, both dative-accusative and accusativedative order are allowed in the postverbal position. It is argued that the clitic switch in the postverbal position in imperatives is a PF phenomenon, which is however accomplished without PF movement. More precisely, it arises as a result of pronunciation of lower copies of clitics motivated by PF considerations. This is in line with Bošković’s (2001a) approach to PF word reordering, on which PF considerations are allowed to affect word order but without actual PF movement. The analysis presented in the paper does not require positing any differences between indicatives and imperatives in the syntax of clitic placement and verb movement.

.

Introduction

In this paper I examine a difference in the order of dative and accusative clitics in the preverbal and postverbal clitic positions in Greek. While dative-accusative is the only order allowed in the preverbal position both the dative-accusative and the accusative-dative order are allowed in the postverbal position. I argue that the accusative-dative clitic switch in the postverbal position is a PF phenomenon, which is however accomplished without PF movement. This is in line with the approach to PF word reordering argued for in Bošković (2001a), on which PF considerations are allowed to affect word order but without actual PF movement. The ban on negative imperatives is also accounted for in line with this approach to PF word reordering. In Section 2 of the paper I discuss Greek imperatives, an environment where the clitic switch takes place, focusing on clitic placement and the impossibility of negative imperatives in Greek. In Section 3 I turn to the clitic switch in imperatives. Section 4 is the conclusion.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.2 (117-175)

 Željko Bošković

. Imperatives It is well known that a number of languages disallow negative imperatives. Thus, the ban on negative imperatives holds for Greek, Romanian, Spanish, Italian, Catalan, Sardinian, and Latin. The ban is illustrated by the Greek data in (1).1 (1) a.

Diavase! read.imp b. *Den/mi diavase! neg read.imp ‘Don’t read!’

Gr

Instead of an imperative verb form, Greek uses a subjunctive in a negative imperative context, i.e. it uses a surrogate imperative.2 (2) Na mi diavazis! subj.Mark neg read.subj ‘Don’t read!’

Gr

There are a number of accounts of the ban on negative imperatives crosslinguistically. The reader is referred to Han (1999), Isac and Jakab (2001), Laka (1994), Miyoshi (2002), Rivero (1994b), Rivero and Terzi (1995), Tomić (2001), and Zanuttini (1994, 1997) for accounts of the ban on negative imperatives. Interestingly, a similar phenomenon exists in English. Just like the languages in question, English has a verbal form that is not allowed to co-occur with negation. Whereas the languages in question disallow negative imperative verbs (I will use Greek as a representative of these languages), English disallows negative finite verbs; more precisely, finite main verbs (I will refer to them as indicatives). Like Greek, English switches to another verbal form in the environment in question; namely, infinitive. (3) a. *John not laughed. b. John did not laugh. Abstractly, we have the same pattern in both Greek and English. Both languages disallow a particular verbal form to co-occur with negation. In the relevant negative context, they switch to another verbal form. The parallelism between Greek and English is generally not noted in the existing accounts of the ban on negative imperatives, which appear to have nothing to say about it. (That is, the existing analyses of the ban on negative imperatives are not readily extendable to the ban on negative indicatives in English.) One exception is Miyoshi (2002), who provides a uniform account of the ban on negative imperatives in Greek and the ban on negative indicatives in English. More precisely, Miyoshi extends a particular account of the ban on negative indicatives in English to the ban on negative imperatives in

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.3 (175-224)

On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives 

Greek. The account in question is probably the oldest surviving analysis of transformational grammar, namely Chomsky’s (1957) affix hopping analysis of verbal morphology in English, revived recently in Hale and Marantz (1993), Bobaljik (1994, 1995), and Lasnik (1995), and extended to several other phenomena in Bošković (2001a, b). In recent instantiations, the mechanism of affix hopping, often referred to as PF merger (I will use the two terms interchangeably), is treated as a morphophonological rule that involves merger between an affix and its host in PF under adjacency. Merger/affix hopping is blocked by intervening phonologically realized elements, but not by phonologically null elements such as traces and pro. To illustrate how the mechanism works, consider (4a–c), whose structures before PF merger and Do-Support are given in (5). (4) a. John laughed. b. *John not laughed. c. John did not laugh. (5) a. [IP Johni I (ed) [vP ti laugh]] b. [IP Johni I (ed) [NegP not [VP ti laugh]]] Assume that English I is a verbal PF affix, hence must merge with a verbal element in PF under adjacency. The adjacency requirement is not met in (5b) due to the intervening negative head, which blocks PF merger. Do-Support, a last resort operation, then takes place to save the stranded affix, deriving (4c). In (5a) the merger is not blocked, since no phonologically realized element intervenes between I and the verb. I then merges with the verb, deriving (4a). The crux of the analysis is that indicatives cannot cooccur with negation in English because the cooccurrence results in a violation of the Stranded Affix Filter, which filters out constructions with stranded affixes. Miyoshi (2002) puts forward the same explanation for the ban on negative imperatives. He proposes that imperatives in languages like Greek contain a functional head, which is a PF affix that must merge with a verb under adjacency. (The precise identity of this head is not important for our current purposes; for Miyoshi, it is an imperative C.) Affix hopping can proceed without any problems in (1a), where the verb and the functional head in question, which I will refer to as F, are adjacent. However, in (1b), the negation disrupts the necessary adjacency relation between F and the verb. Affix hopping is then blocked and the construction is ruled out due to the presence of a stranded affix, just like (5b).3 (6) F den/mi diavase. [+affix]

Gr

Greek does not have the language specific rule of Do-Support, which English employs in (4c) to save the stranded affix. Instead, Greek uses a different verbal form,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.4 (224-284)

 Željko Bošković

namely subjunctive. We can assume either that the affix head F is not present in subjunctive imperatives or that it is supported by the subjunctive marker na.4 Miyoshi extends this analysis of (1) to the often observed difference in clitic placement in imperative and non-imperative contexts. It is well-known that whereas Greek clitics generally precede the verb in indicatives, they follow it in imperatives. (7) a.

Gr

(8) a.

Gr

To diavasa. it read.ind ‘I read it.’ b. *Diavasa to. Diavase to! read.imp it ‘Read it!’ b. *To diavase!

Miyoshi proposes a uniform account of (1) and (8) based on Franks’s (1998, 2000) proposal that a lower copy of a non-trivial chain can be pronounced instead of the head of the chain iff this is necessary to avoid a PF violation (see also Bobaljik 1995; Bošković 1999, 2001a, 2002b; Bošković & Franks 2002; Hiramatsu 2000a, b; Lambova 2001; Pesetsky 1998a, b). I will show how the proposal works with respect to the analysis of the basic cliticization pattern in Bulgarian and Macedonian (from Bošković 2001a). Consider (9).5 (9) a.

Petko mi go dade. Petko me.dat it.acc gave ‘Petko gave it to me.’ b. Mi go dade. c. Dade mi go.

Bu: OK

Ma: OK

Bu:* Bu: OK

Ma: OK Ma: *

The contrast between Bulgarian and Macedonian (9b) indicates that Bulgarian clitics must encliticize, whereas Macedonian clitics procliticize. Macedonian clitics always precede the verb in the context in question. Bulgarian clitics precede the verb unless preceding it would result in a violation of their enclitic requirement. In that case they follow the verb. As discussed in Bošković (2001a), this state of affairs can be straightforwardly accounted for under Franks’s (1998) proposal that a lower copy of a non-trivial chain can be pronounced instead of the head of the chain iff this is necessary to avoid a PF violation, given that a copy of pronominal clitics is present both above and below the verb (see Bošković 2001a for discussion of the precise position of these copies). This approach straightforwardly captures the generalization that the verb can precede a clitic in Bulgarian only when no other lexical material is located in front of the clitic. Only in this situation will we

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.5 (284-349)

On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives 

be able to pronounce the lower copy of the clitic, which is located below the verb. (Pronunciation of the head of the clitic chain in (10b) would lead to a PF violation since the clitic, which must encliticize to its host, cannot be properly prosodically supported.) If there is lexical material preceding the clitic in its raised position, the head of the chain of clitic movement can be, hence has to be pronounced. (10) a. X clitic V clitic b. clitic V clitic Since in Macedonian nothing goes wrong in PF if we pronounce the head of the clitic chain, we always have to pronounce the head of the clitic chain, located above the verb. As a result, the V-clitic order is underivable in Macedonian. (11) (X) clitic V clitic The contrast in the acceptability of (9b–c) in Bulgarian and Macedonian, as well as the role of phonology in the possibility of the V-cl order in Bulgarian, is thus straightforwardly captured. Returning to (7)–(8), Miyoshi (2002) observes that the affix hopping analysis of imperatives, coupled with the proposal that a lower member of a non-trivial chain be pronounced if this is necessary to avoid a PF violation, provides a straightforward account of the V-clitic switch in (8). He suggests that imperatives and indicatives in Greek do not differ with respect to clitic placement in the syntax. They both have the clitic-V order, with a lower copy of the pronominal clitic following the verb. In indicatives, the higher copy of the clitic can be, hence must be pronounced. On the other hand, in imperatives pronunciation of the higher copy of the clitic leads to a Stranded Affix Filter violation: the clitic disrupts the adjacency between F and V, necessary for F to hop onto the verb. The violation can be avoided if we pronounce a lower copy of the clitic, which follows the verb. (12) F to diavase to.

Gr

Since the verb and F are adjacent in (12), affix hopping can take place. Lower pronunciation of the clitic is licensed in (12), just as in Bulgarian (9c), because it is necessary to avoid a PF violation.6 The affix hopping + copy and delete analysis thus provides us with a principled account of the clitic-V switch in languages that have a ban on negative imperatives. In fact, the clitic-V switch and the ban on negative imperatives are accounted for in essentially the same way.7 In the next section I will examine a peculiar clitic switch in Greek imperatives and show that the clitic switch receives a principled account under the affix hopping+copy and delete analysis of Greek imperatives.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.6 (349-402)

 Željko Bošković

. Accusative-dative clitic switch It is well-known that the dative clitic must precede the accusative clitic when the clitics precede the verb, as in the following constructions involving an indicative verb.8 (13) a.

Mou to diavase. me.dat it.acc read.3sg ‘S/he is reading it to me.’ b. *To mou diavase.

Gr

Interestingly, Warburton (1977: 261), Joseph and Philippaki-Warburton (1987: 213), and Terzi (1999) observe that in imperatives, where, as discussed above, clitics follow the verb, both the dative-accusative and the accusative-dative order are possible.9 (14) a.

Diavase mou to! read me.dat it.acc b. Diavase to mou!

Gr

Notice that the imperative clitic switch is not a general property of languages that have a ban on negative imperatives. Thus, the clitic switch is not possible in Spanish. (15) a.

Dámelo! give-me.dat-it.acc ‘Give it to me!’ b. *Dálome!

Sp

Two questions then arise. First, why is the clitic switch possible in Greek? Second, why does the clitic switch not occur in languages like Spanish, whose clitics and imperatives are in other respects quite similar to Greek. Recall that both languages display the ban on negative imperatives, which is related to the postverbal position of clitics in imperatives. In this section I will show that the peculiar clitic switch in Greek imperatives receives a principled explanation under the affix hopping+copy and delete analysis of Greek imperatives. The proposed analysis will answer both of the questions raised above. (For alternative analyses of the clitic switch in Greek, see Terzi 1999; Hegarty 1999.) I will first make a short digression to summarize the analysis of Bulgarian double object clitic constructions from Bošković (2001a), since we will be using several mechanisms from this analysis in the discussion of Greek below. (16) is an example of a double object clitic construction from Bulgarian, which contains negative, auxiliary, and pronominal clitics.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.7 (402-488)

On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives 

(16) Ti ne si mu gi dal. you neg.cl are.2sg.cl him.dat.cl them.acc.cl given ‘You haven’t given them to him.’

Bu

My (2001a) analysis of (16) is crucially based on two assumptions: (a) Headadjunction proceeds to the left, in accordance with Kayne (1994);10 (b) Clitics are ambiguous XP/X0 elements, as suggested in Chomsky (1995) (see also Bošković 1997), which in the Bare Phrase Structure framework means that they do not branch, hence cannot take complements.11 A consequence of the latter assumption is that the clitic auxiliary can no longer be analyzed as a head taking a phrasal complement. (It would then be branching, hence by definition no longer a clitic.) Rather, the auxiliary clitic is located in the specifier of a null head which itself takes a phrasal complement. As a result, the auxiliary clitic remains non-branching, hence ambiguous between a head and a phrase in the Bare Phrase Structure framework. The negative clitic marker is treated in the same way. Consider how (16) is then derived, given the standard assumption that Bulgarian clitics and the verb are all generated in separate positions and then form a complex head during the derivation in the syntax, which I will refer to as the extended clitic cluster (ECC).12 (17) Ti [NegP ne [Neg’ [AuxP si [Aux’ [VP mu [V’ dal gi]]]]]]

Bu

Under the analysis presented in Bošković (2001a, 2002a), the verb moves up through the empty heads. The clitics left-adjoin to the verb instead of the verb right adjoining to the clitics, as in the analyses discussed in note 10.13 It is crucial that a clitic left-adjoins to the verb (or the clitic+V complex) as soon as the adjunction becomes possible, i.e. as soon as the verb moves to a position c-commanding the clitic.14 This gives us the following order of adjunctions: accusative-dativeauxiliary-negative clitic, which in turn gives us the correct word order within the ECC: negation-auxiliary-dative-accusative-V. The derivation is given in (18). (I ignore traces of clitics.) Bu Ti [XP [NegP ne [Neg’ [AuxP si [Aux’ [VP mu [V’ dal gi]]]]]]] Ti [XP [NegP ne [Neg’ [AuxP si [Aux’ [VP mu [V’ gi+dal]]]]]]] Ti [XP [NegP ne [Neg’ [AuxP si [Aux’ [gi+dal]i [VP mu [V’ ti ]]]]]]] Ti [XP [NegP ne [Neg’ [AuxP si [Aux’ mu+[gi+dal]i [VP [V’ ti ]]]]]]] Ti [XP [NegP ne [Neg’ [mu+[gi+dal]i ]j [AuxP si [Aux’ tj [VP [V’ ti ]]]]]]] Ti [XP [NegP ne [Neg’ si+[mu+[gi+dal]i ]j [AuxP [Aux’ tj [VP [V’ ti ]]]]]]] Ti [XP [X’ [si+[mu+[gi+dal]i ]j ]k [NegP ne [Neg’ tk [AuxP [Aux’ tj [VP [V’ ti ]]]]]]]] h. Ti [XP [X’ ne+[si+[mu+[gi+dal]i ]j ]k [NegP [Neg’ tk [AuxP [Aux’ tj [VP [V’ ti ]]]]]]]]

(18) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.8 (488-539)

 Željko Bošković

Obviously, if the accusative clitic could wait for the verb to move to its final landing site, call it X, and then adjoin to it, we would get a wrong word order. There are several ways to block this derivation or, more generally, to force head adjunctions to take place as early as possible. Notice first that the accusative clitic undergoes longer movement if it adjoins to the verb after the verb moves to X, than it does if it adjoins to the verb while the verb is still in its base-generated position. It is natural, then, that Economy of Derivation, which requires that all conditions be met through the shortest movement possible, blocks the former derivation. In fact, Economy of Derivation would force each clitic to undergo head adjunction as soon as their target moves to a position c-commanding it, a desirable result. Another way of achieving the desired result is to appeal directly to Pesetsky’s (1989) Earliness Principle, which requires that all movement take place as early as possible. The adoption of Bošković’s (1998) version of Chomsky’s (1995) definition of strong features (i.e. features that drive overt movement), according to which strong features must be checked as soon as possible, would also lead to the desired result. Returning now to (16), the final structure of which is given in (18h), notice that nothing goes wrong in PF, if all relevant elements are pronounced in their highest position. More precisely, all clitics are properly supported, and since they can be pronounced in their highest position, they must be pronounced in their highest position. What happens in a pro-drop sentence, where pronunciation of clitics in the highest position would lead to a violation of their enclitic requirement, which I assume is a PF requirement? Since Bulgarian clitics must encliticize, under the copy and delete approach they will be pronounced in a lower position, where the enclitic requirement can be satisfied. (Recall that lower pronunciation is possible only if it is necessary to satisfy a PF requirement.) Franks (1998) proposes that if an element cannot be pronounced in the highest position for PF reasons, it is pronounced in the next highest position.15 Example (19), the pro-drop version of (16),16 provides evidence for the proposal. The structure of (19) is given in (20), with copies in place of traces. (19) Dal si mu gi. given are him.dat them.acc ‘You have given them to him.’

Bu

(20) pro sim +[mul+[gii +dal]j ]k ][AuxP sim [Aux’ [mul +[gii +dal]j ]k [VP mul [V’ [gii +dal]j gii ]]]]

Bu

The main verb can be, hence must be pronounced in the highest position in (20). This is not the case with the auxiliary and the pronominal clitics. (Pronunciation in the highest position would violate the enclitic requirement on the clitics in question.) If the clitics are pronounced in the next highest position we get the right word order, as shown in (21).17

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.9 (539-600)

On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives 

(21) pro sim +[mul +[gii +dal]j ]k ][AuxP sim [Aux’ [mul +[gii +dal]j ]k [VP mul [V’ [gii +dal]j gii ]]]]

Bu

However, if we can pronounce clitics in any lower position, we derive ungrammatical constructions like (22), as shown in (23). (22) *Dal si gi mu.

Bu

(23) pro sim +[mul +[gii +dal]j ]k ] [AuxP sim [Aux’ [mul +[gii +dal]j ]k [VP mul +[V’ [gii +dal]j gii ]]]]

Bu

On the basis of the above derivation, I follow Franks (1998) in assuming that, when an element cannot be pronounced in the highest position for PF reasons, it is pronounced in the next highest position where all relevant PF requirements can be met. We are now ready to return to the clitic switch in Greek imperatives. Let us assume that, with respect to clitic placement in the syntax, Greek imperatives are derived just like indicatives, which means that they have the dative-accusative-V order. This is the simplest analysis, since nothing special needs to be said about the syntax of clitics in imperatives. Recall now that in imperatives, clitics cannot be pronounced in the highest position. If they are pronounced in the highest position they block PF merger of the affix head F and the verb. The highest pronunciation, which takes place in indicatives (where it is possible, hence forced) and which gives the dative-accusative order as the only possibility, is thus blocked in imperatives. Clitics then must be pronounced in a lower position in imperatives. I would like to capitalize on the lower pronunciation and propose that that is what licenses clitic switch. This makes clitic switch ultimately a PF phenomenon: it arises as a result of lower pronunciation forced by PF considerations. There is nothing special about it in the syntax. This is then the outline of the analysis. With respect to clitic placement, imperatives are derived just like indicatives in that in the highest syntactic position, the order of clitics in a double object clitic construction is dative-accusative. In the current system, all we need in order to accomplish clitic switch is that in a lower position the order can be accusative-dative. Since in indicatives the highest copy of the pronominal clitics must be pronounced, we still get only the dative-accusative order in indicatives. On the other hand, since in imperatives lower copies of the pronominal clitics are pronounced for reasons discussed above, we can get the accusative-dative order in imperatives. Let us now see how the above analysis can be instantiated. For ease of exposition, I will flesh out the analysis with respect to the approach to ECC formation summarized above for Bulgarian. The analysis is, however, compatible with a number of analyses of Greek cliticization, i.e. it can be easily modified to fit alternative analyses of Greek cliticization.18 I emphasize that my primary concern is not to provide a general account of cliticization of Greek. For this reason, I leave out de-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.10 (600-664)

 Željko Bošković

tails concerning where clitics are base-generated and exactly where ECC formation takes place.19 Recall that in the analysis of double object clitic constructions summarized above, we first form the accusative-V complex head, and then add the dative clitic to it, forming a dative-accusative-V head. The simplest way of instantiating the above proposal regarding clitic switch is as follows: the accusative-V complex undergoes an additional movement right before the dative is added to it.20 Furthermore, once the dative-accusative-V complex is formed, no further movement of the complex head in question takes place. This gives us the following abstract pattern: (24) [dat+[acc+V]] [acc+V] dat. . . Since in indicatives, the highest copy of the clitics can be, hence must be pronounced we still get the dative-accusative order in indicatives. (25) [dat+[acc+V]] [acc+V] dat. . . Recall, however, that in imperatives, the highest copies cannot be pronounced since this pronunciation would leave the imperative affix head stranded, which would result in a PF violation. As discussed above, when the highest copy of a particular element cannot be pronounced for PF reasons, the next highest copy is pronounced, provided that this pronunciation does not lead to a PF violation. Given this, the following deletions take place in the abstract pattern (24).21 (26) F [dat+[acc+V]] [acc+V] dat. . . We thus derive the V-accusative-dative order, i.e. the clitic switch. Several properties of the current analysis are worth emphasizing. Since the clitic switch arises as a result of a lower pronunciation of clitics, which takes place only when clitics are pronounced postverbally, the switch is limited to the postverbal position, a desirable result.22 In spite of the difference with respect to accusative-dative clitic order between constructions with preverbal clitics, such as indicatives, and constructions with postverbal clitics, such as imperatives, there is no need to posit a syntactic difference in the behavior of the clitics or the verb between indicative and imperative constructions. The clitic switch arises as a result of a lower pronunciation of clitics forced by PF considerations (more precisely, by the presence of a PF affix in the structure). In other words, the switch is a PF phenomenon. Notice also that the F affix is ultimately responsible for the ban on negative imperatives, the postverbal position of clitics in imperatives, as well as the clitic switch. In this sense, the three phenomena receive a uniform account. There are two issues that still need to be addressed. Recall that some languages that have affix F, for example Spanish, disallow clitic switch. Furthermore, the switch is optional even in Greek. The two issues are related. Apparently, we need an alternative derivation that does not lead to the clitic switch. In Spanish, this

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.11 (664-721)

On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives 

derivation is the only possibility. In Greek, it is an option, alongside the derivation discussed above. Before discussing the issue at hand, I will flesh out the above analysis of the clitic switch in more detail, which will help us resolve the issue raised above concerning the existence of the postverbal dative accusative order in both Greek and Spanish. Recall that the ECC formation must take place as soon as possible, i.e. as soon as a c-command relation is established between the target and the moving element. In (24), the adjunction of the dative clitic to the accusative+V complex is delayed. The question is why. To make the question more precise, let us assume that the accusative+V complex in (24) has moved to adjoin to a head X, the precise identity of which I leave open here. (27) [XP acc+V+X. . . dat. . . ] Apparently, the dative is not allowed to join the complex accusative clitic+V head while the head is still within the XP. Rather, it has to wait until the accusative+V head moves out of the XP to a higher head position and then adjoins to it. Above, I gave several reasons why the complex head formation in question has to take place as soon as possible, one based on Economy of Derivation (forming the cluster as soon as possible also means forming it through the shortest movement possible) and one based on Pesetsky’s (1989) Earliness Principle, relatable to Chomsky’s (1995) virus approach to strength, which requires movement to take place as soon as possible as a matter of principle. Whatever is the reason for forcing ECC cluster formation to take place as soon as possible in the general case, it has to be overridden in (27). This can be easily achieved. The Earliness Principle is a preference principle, i.e. it requires movement to be as early as possible. If the option that would result in earlier movement is for some reason itself blocked, it would not necessarily block an option that delays the movement via the Earliness Principle. The same holds for the Economy of Derivation approach: if blocking the shorter movement option results in taking it out of the comparison set, i.e. more formally, if the shorter movement option leads to nonconvergence, the option becomes irrelevant when it comes to the Economy of Derivation comparison. Returning to (27), the question is then how can we block the shorter movement option, on which the dative would join the ECC while the cluster is still within the XP? Some heads appear not to tolerate checking by datives within their maximal projection. Consider, for example, the availability of quirky subjects, which are typically dative, cross-linguistically. Languages differ with respect to whether they allow such subjects for reasons that are still quite mysterious. It appears that in some languages I simply does not tolerate feature checking within IP by datives. I will refer to intolerance to datives as Dative Sickness (not to be confused with Dative Sickness from traditional Icelandic grammar, which refers to a different phenomenon.) The suggestion is then that X in (27) is also characterized by Dative

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.12 (721-787)

 Željko Bošković

Sickness, so that the adjunction of the dative to the complex accusative+V+X head within the XP is not an option. I will leave open here the exact nature of Dative Sickness – a phenomenon more general than what we are dealing with in (27) – as well as the exact nature of X. A tempting possibility that I will not explore further here is that X is AgrDO (i.e. agreement for direct object), which would make its Dative Sickness more intuitive. (In fact, AgrDO might be inherently characterized with Dative Sickness.)23 Let us now return to the question of why the dative-accusative order is also possible in the postverbal position in Greek and the related question of why this is the only possible order in Spanish. There are two ways of capturing this state of affairs. First, we could assume that X is only optionally present in the structure. Without the presence of X, the dative-accusative-V complex will be immediately formed. In other words, the lack of X implies the absence of the additional movement of the accusative+V complex which makes the clitic switch possible. Without it, even when the clitics have to be pronounced following the verb, which is the case in imperatives, they still have to be pronounced in the dative-accusative order, given that the next highest copy of any lexical item is pronounced when the highest copy itself cannot be pronounced for PF reasons, as discussed above.24 Depending on whether or not X is present in the structure we then get either the accusative-dative or the dative-accusative order in the postverbal position. What about Spanish? One possibility is that Spanish does not have X.25 The second way of accounting for the optionality of the accusative-dative order in the postverbal position in Greek provides us with a more principled account of the impossibility of such order in Spanish, i.e. the different behavior of the two languages in the relevant respect. Suppose that the cluster in (24) can undergo an additional head movement, which would give us (28). (28) [FP F [dat+[acc+V]] [dat+acc+V] [XP [acc+V] dat. . . ]] As usual, the clitics have to be pronounced in a lower position in order not to block affix hopping. Given that they must be pronounced in the next highest position, as discussed above (cf. Bulgarian (21)), the derivation in question gives us the dativeaccusative order as the only possibility. (29) [FP F [dat+[acc+V]] [dat+[acc+V]] [XP [acc+V] dat. . . ]] The fact that both the dative-accusative and the accusative-dative order are available in Greek imperatives can then be easily accounted for if the ECC (i.e. the dative-accusative-V complex) optionally undergoes the additional head movement upon its formation. Depending on whether or not the additional head movement takes place, we get either the dative-accusative or the accusative-dative word order. What about Spanish? If the ECC in Spanish must undergo the additional head

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.13 (787-846)

On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives 

movement, or move even higher than the ECC in Greek, the dative-accusative will be the only derivable clitic order, even in the postverbal position. In other words, if in Spanish the ECC, or, more precisely, the verb, which carries the clitics along, must move either higher than or at least as high as the verb in Greek can move, the dative-accusative order will be the only possible clitic order in this language under the current analysis.26 It is well-known that Spanish verbs indeed must move very high in the structure. Thus, indicative verbs must move as high as the highest head in the split I.27 There is also independent evidence that Greek verbs do not move as high as Spanish verbs. As shown by (30), Spanish verbs cross both sentential adverbs, which are located high in the structure, and manner adverbs, which are located lower in the structure. (30) Juan resolvió correctamente el problema. Juan solved correctly the problem 1. ‘Juan gave a correct solution for the problem.’ 2. ‘Juan did the right thing in solving the problem.’

Sp

Significantly, as illustrated by the unacceptability of (31a) on the sentential adverb reading, Greek verbs can cross manner adverbs but not sentential adverbs. This means that they can undergo only short verb movement, which is consistent with the analysis presented above. (What is important for our purposes is that Spanish verbs move higher than Greek verbs.)28 (31) a.

O Petros elise sosta tin askisi. Peter solved correctly the problem 1. ‘Peter gave a correct solution for the problem.’ 2. ‘*Peter did the right thing in solving the problem.’ b. cf. O Petros sosta elise tin askisi. 1. ‘Peter gave a correct solution for the problem.’ 2.‘Peter did the right thing in solving the problem.’

Gr

The current analysis thus ties the different behavior of Greek and Spanish with respect to the availability of the clitic switch to an independently motivated difference with respect to verb movement between the languages in question.

. Conclusion To summarize, the affix hopping+copy and delete analysis provides us with a principled account of the clitic switch in Greek imperatives,29 i.e. the fact that the accusative-dative clitic order is available in the postverbal clitic position in imperatives, in contrast to the preverbal clitic position in indicatives, where only the

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.14 (846-883)

 Željko Bošković

dative-accusative clitic order is possible. The analysis also accounts for the optionality of the clitic switch in Greek (the dative-accusative order is also possible in imperatives) and its complete unavailability in languages like Spanish, whose clitics and imperatives are in other respects quite similar to the Greek ones; in particular, both languages have a ban on negative imperatives, which is under the affix hopping+copy and delete analysis related to the fact that in imperatives, clitics are located postverbally in both languages. The central claim of the paper concerning the clitic switch is that it is a PF phenomenon. More precisely, it arises as a result of a lower pronunciation of clitics forced by PF considerations. There is nothing special about it in the syntax. As a result, nothing special has to be said about the syntax of clitic placement in imperatives under the current analysis. Furthermore, although the clitic switch is argued to be a PF phenomenon it is achieved without actual PF movement, in line with Bošković’s (2001a) approach to PF word reordering, on which PF considerations are allowed to affect word order, but without actual PF movement.

Notes * For helpful comments and suggestions, I thank Arhonto Terzi, anonymous reviewers, and the participants of my seminar on the syntax-phonology interface at University of the Basque Country in Vitoria-Gasteiz. I also thank Arhonto Terzi and Cleo Condoravdi for help with Greek data and Emma Ticio for help with Spanish data. . The ban is not universal. For example, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Albanian, German, and Basque allow negative imperatives. . Languages differ with respect to which verbal forms they use as surrogate imperatives. The options are subjunctive, infinitive, indicative, and gerund. For relevant discussion, see especially Zanuttini (1997). . The underlying assumption here is that languages that do have negative imperatives either do not have F or that F is not an affix in such languages. Note that in Bošković (2001a) I propose an affix hopping analysis for Macedonian imperatives, which can cooccur with negation while Miyoshi proposes a different analysis that does not involve affix hopping. See Bošković (2001a) for an explanation why Macedonian allows negative imperatives in spite of the presence of the affix head F. . Notice, however, that the subjunctive marker is optional in constructions like (2). . I ignore here certain non-finite clauses in Macedonian, which raise additional questions. For relevant discussion, see Bošković (2001a), Caink (1998), Franks (1998, 2000), Franks and King (2000), Legendre (1998, 1999), and Tomić (1996, 1997, 2001), among others. For more general discussion of clausal cliticization in Bulgarian and Macedonian, see Avgustiˇ nova (1994), Bošković (2001a), Caink (1998), Cašule (1997), Dimitrova-Vulchanova (1995), Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Hellan (1999), Ewen (1979), Franks (1998), Franks and King

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.15 (883-953)

On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives 

(2000), Friedman (1993), Legendre (1999, 2000), Penˇcev (1993), Rå Hauge (1976), Rivero (1997), Rudin (1997), Tomić (1996, 1997, 2000), among others. . Bobaljik (1995) and Bošković (2001a) also propose analyses in which a lower copy of X is pronounced in order to prevent X from blocking affix hopping. . Notice that the analysis does not necessarily posit a two-way correlation between the clitic-V switch and the ban on negative imperatives. Thus, Miyoshi argues that in some Italian surrogate imperatives, which do not contain the F affix, the V-clitic order arises as a result of V-movement. (The same appears to hold for Cypriot Greek indicatives that have Vclitic order, as discussed in Terzi 1999. Note that the accusative-dative clitic switch, discussed in the next section, is not expected to occur in constructions in which the V-clitic order arises as a result of V-movement under the analysis developed below, since in such constructions the clitics are pronounced in the highest position (see the discussion below). As shown in Terzi 1999, it indeed does not occur in Cypriot Greek indicatives.) It is also worth noting that in Bošković (2001a) I show that the affix hopping+copy and delete analysis also leaves room for an F-affix language that has the clitic-V switch but no ban on negative imperatives. (The language in question is Macedonian. See Bošković 2001a for explanation why the presence of the F affix does not make negative imperatives impossible in Macedonian.) . Mou would actually be more appropriately glossed as genitive. (Genitive and dative case have collapsed in Modern Greek.) . Gerunds behave like imperatives in this respect. (i)

a.

b.

Diavazondas mou to. . . reading me.dat it.acc ‘Reading it to me. . . ’ Diavazondas to mou. . .

Gr

The analysis of the clitic switch in imperatives proposed below appears extendable to gerunds. It is worth noting here that, in contrast to imperatives, gerunds can be negated. (ii) Mi diavazondas. . . not reading

Gr

There are two ways of accounting for (i–ii). One possibility is that gerunds also contain an affix head, which is in gerunds located below the negation but above the clitics. As a result, clitics, but not negation, block affix hopping. Clitics then must be pronounced in a lower position. (iii) Mi F clitics V clitics Another possibility is that the V-clitic order with gerunds arises as a result of V-movement rather than a lower pronunciation of clitics (see in this respect Rivero 1994a; Terzi 1999; see also the discussion in Note 7), in which case the F affix would not have to be present in gerunds. The availability of the clitic switch favors the pronunciation of a lower copy analysis. We will see below that the pronunciation of lower copies of clitics is what licenses the clitic switch in imperatives. Adopting the pronunciation of a lower copy analysis of (i–ii) then makes possible a uniform account of the clitic switch in gerunds and imperatives.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.16 (953-1002)

 Željko Bošković

It is worth emphasizing here that the clitic switch is fully productive in Greek. Terzi (1999) observes that it is not restricted to the 1Sg clitic mou, which is the case with French, where the switch occurs only with moi. (In Greek, all dative-accusative clitic combinations found in the preverbal position can occur in either order in the postverbal position in imperatives as well as gerunds.) (iv) a.

Tis to diavasa. her.dat it.acc read ‘I read it to her.’ b. *To tis diavasa. c. Diavase tis to! read her.dat it.acc d. Diavase to tis!

(v) a.

b.

Donnez-moile! give me.dat it.acc ‘Give it to me!’ Donnez-le-moi!

Gr

Fr

Terzi (1999) and Laenzlinger (1994) observe several additional peculiarities about the French clitic switch and more generally, moi. For one thing, moi is not used in the preverbal clitic position. (vi) Vous me/*moi le donnez. you me.dat it.acc give ‘You give it to me.’

Fr

Furthermore, moi exhibits non-clitic behavior in that it can stand alone and be conjoined with NPs, which is not the case with Greek clitics. Given the exceptional behavior of moi (from the point of view of Greek clitics) and the fact that in French the switch is limited to moi, I follow Terzi (1999) in assuming that the analysis of the clitic switch in Greek imperatives should not be extended to the case of French, which should be tied to some special property of moi. . Previous analyses (see, for example, Franks & King 2000; Rudin 1997; Rudin et al. 1999; Tomić 1996), which located the negative clitic and the auxiliary clitic in the head positions of NegP and AuxP, as shown in the intermediate structure in (i), assumed massive rightward head adjunctions.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.17 (1002-1038)

On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives  IP

(i) Ti

I’ I

NegP Neg’ Neg

AuxP

ne

Aux’ Aux

XP

si

X’ X mu+gi+dal

Thus, under these analyses, the complex head consisting of the pronominal clitics and the verb right adjoins to the auxiliary clitic, which is followed by the complex auxiliary+pronominal clitics+V head right adjoining to the negative clitic. Rightward adjunction was deemed to be necessary to get the right order within the complex clitics+V head. (Notice that, in contrast to leftward head adjunction, rightward head adjunction does not change word order.) . This can be interpreted as a way of capturing the intuition that clitics have less structure than their non-clitic counterparts (assuming that the latter do branch), a position argued for convincingly in Cardinaletti and Starke (1999). . In (17) I base-generate pronominal clitics within VP. (For ease of exposition I disregard the VP Internal subject hypothesis and object agreement phrases. Following Marantz’s (1993) analysis of double object constructions, I generate the dative in the specifier, and the accusative in the complement position of the VP where dal is generated. Note, however, that the analysis can be restated in small-clause approaches to double object constructions.) Bulgarian pronominal clitics are often assumed to be base-generated outside of the VP on account of the fact that the language allows clitic doubling. (The same holds for Greek.) However, there are several analyses of clitic doubling that do not require base-generation of pronominal clitics outside of the VP. Thus, Aoun (1999) argues convincingly that doubled NPs are not located in θ-positions within VP, which leaves these positions available for clitics. (Aoun analyzes doubles as subjects of predication.) Hurtado (1984) also argues that doubles are not located in VP-internal θ-positions. (He treats them as right-dislocations.) In Bošković (2001a) it is shown that the gist of the analysis of the complex ECC head forma-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.18 (1038-1095)

 Željko Bošković

tion given above, can be preserved even if Bulgarian pronominal clitics are base-generated outside of the VP. Since this alternative involves a somewhat more complex derivation, for ease of exposition, I here keep to the simpler alternative. . If multiple adjunction to the same head is not allowed, as argued by Kayne (1994), each clitic would adjoin to the left-most element in the ECC. . I assume here a c-command requirement on overt movement, which means that clitic adjunction to a verb is an option only after the verb moves to a position c-commanding the clitic. . In Bošković (2001a) I reach the same conclusion with respect to head movement, which is what we are dealing with in this paper, but leave open the issue with respect to XPmovement. . The negation is omitted to simplify the structure. . Based on this type of construction, I argued in Bošković (2001a) that scattered deletion, where parts of a constituent are pronounced in different positions, is possible. (For relevant ´ discussion, see also Cavar & Fanselow 1997; Nunes 1999.) . For analyses of clitic placement in Greek, see Warburton (1977), Terzi (1992, 1999), Anagnostopoulou (1994), Rivero (1994a), Philippaki-Warburton (1994), PhilippakiWarburton and Spyropoulos (1999), Rivero and Terzi (1995), Hegarty (1999), Tsimpli (1999), Joseph (2001), and Condoravdi and Kiparsky (2001), among others. . In fact, as noted in Note 12, in Bošković (2001a) I present an alternative analysis of the double object clitic construction in Bulgarian, in which the pronominal clitics are basegenerated, and the ECC formation takes place, in different positions. The gist of the analysis of the ECC formation summarized in the text is, however, preserved in the alternative, which shows that it is compatible with more than one set of assumptions concerning the exact location of pronominal clitics and ECC formation. . See below for discussion of the nature of this movement. . The imperative affix head F is added to the structure. . As noted in Note 9, the switch can also take place in gerunds, where clitics are again pronounced postverbally. The above analysis of the clitic switch in imperatives is readily extendable to gerunds. Recall that the switch is never possible in the preverbal clitic position, a state of affairs which is straightforwardly captured under the current analysis. (Note that the clitic switch is also crucially tied to the postverbal clitic position in Terzi 1999, though for very different reasons.) . If the VP internal subject hypothesis is adopted, equating X with AgrDO may require adopting a Koizumi (1995)-style split VP structure, with AgrDO sandwiched between VP shells. . It is worth noting here that Lasnik (1999) argues that AgrDO is only optionally present in the structure in English, an interesting claim in light of the above suggestion that X may actually be AgrDO. . This possibility may become less plausible if X is AgrDO. (Notice, however, that it actually suffices that X simply does not enter the structure overtly or cyclically in Spanish. In

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.19 (1095-1170)

On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives 

this respect, see Bošković 2000; Bošković & Lasnik 1999 for the possibility of LF and acyclic lexical insertion respectively.) . Under this analysis, the same would have to hold for Bulgarian, given the impossibility of the clitic switch in (9c) (cf. *Dade go mi.) . Even infinitival verbs move quite high in Spanish. Pollock (1989) and Belletti (1990) show that in both Italian and French, the infinitive can undergo overt movement. However, Italian infinitives move higher than French infinitives (according to Belletti, they obligatorily move to the highest head in split I, just like finite verbs), evidence for which is provided by the fact that only Italian infinitives move higher than negative adverbs, illustrated by Belletti with examples from Italian and by Pollock with examples from French. a.

It

(ii) a.

Fr

(i)

Gianni ha deciso di non tornare più/mai/ancora. Gianni has decided to neg come-back anymore/ever/again b. *Gianni ha deciso di non più/mai/ancora tornare. Pierre dit ne pas manger. Pierre says neg neg eat ‘Pierre says he is not eating.’ b. *Pierre dit ne manger pas.

Spanish patterns with Italian in the relevant respect, which means that even its infinitival verbs move to the highest head in split I. (iii) a.

Juan ha decidido no volver más/nunca/de nuevo. John has decided neg come-back anymore/ever/again b. *Juan ha decidido no más/nunca/de nuevo volver.

Sp

. Assuming that sentential adverbs are TP-adjoined, as argued in Watanabe (1993) and Bošković (1997) (they can also be located in a pre-subject position, as in Greek Sosta o Petros elise tin askisi ‘Correctly, Peter solved the problem’, which could be the AgrSP-adjoined or even a higher position), the data in (30)–(31) as well as the data concerning clitic switch discussed above can be accounted for if Spanish verbs move to AgrS, whereas Greek verbs cannot move higher than T (AgrSP being higher than TP). More precisely, the highest landing site of Greek verbs would be either T or even a head position right below T, for example AgrIO. It is worth noting here that one of my informants finds the sentential adverb reading difficult to get even in (31b). However, even for this informant, this reading is worse in (31a). For relevant discussion of sentential adverbs, see also Alexiadou (1997: 157). Notice that I avoid using periphrastic tenses since the auxiliary in periphrastic tenses is known to be able to undergo movement even in languages which otherwise do not have V-movement, such as English. (Auxiliaries also move higher than main verbs in Serbo-Croatian, see Bošković 2001a; Stjepanović 1998.) . As noted above, the analysis is readily extendable to the clitic switch in gerunds.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.20 (1170-1270)

 Željko Bošković

References Alexiadou, A. (1997). Adverb Placement: A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anagnostopoulou, E. (1994). “Clitic Dependencies in Greek.” Doctoral dissertation. University of Saltzburg. Aoun, J. (1999). “Clitic-doubled arguments.” In K. Johnson & I. Roberts (Eds.), Beyond Principles and Parameters, 13–42. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Avgustinova, T. (1994). “On Bulgarian verbal clitics.” Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 2, 29–47. Belletti, A. (1990). Generalized Verb Movement. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier. Bobaljik, J. (1994). “What does adjacency do?” In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 22, 1–32. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Bobaljik, J. (1995). “Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection.” Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA. Bošković, Ž. (1997). The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Bošković, Ž. (1998). “Multiple wh-fronting and economy of derivation.” In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 16, 49–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Bošković, Ž. (1999). “On multiple feature-checking: Multiple wh-fronting and multiple head-movement.” In S. Epstein & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Working Minimalism, 159–187. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bošković, Ž. (2000). “Sometimes in SpecCP, sometimes in-situ.” In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 53–87. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bošković, Ž. (2001a). On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface: Cliticization and Related Phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Bošković, Ž. (2001b). “PF merger in Scandinavian: Stylistic fronting and object shift.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 68, 75–115. Bošković, Ž. (2002a). “Clitics as non-branching elements and the Linear Correspondence Axiom.” Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 329–340. Bošković, Ž. (2002b). “On multiple wh-fronting.” Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 351–383. Bošković, Ž. & S. Franks (2002). “Phonology-syntax interactions in South Slavic.” Balkanistica, 15, 49–74. Bošković, Ž. & H. Lasnik (1999). “How strict is the cycle?” Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 691–703. Caink, A. (1998). “The Lexical Interface: Closed Class Items in South Slavic and English.” Doctoral dissertation. University of Durham. Cardinaletti, A. & M. Starke (1999). “The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns.” In H. van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 185–234. Berlin: Mouton. ˇ Cašule, I. (1997). “The functional load of the short pronominal forms and the doubling of the object in Macedonian.” Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 5, 3–19. ´ Cavar, D. & G. Fanselow (1997). “Split constituents in Germanic and Slavic.” Handout, University of Potsdam. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.21 (1270-1366)

On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives 

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Condoravdi, C. & P. Kiparsky (2001). “Clitics and clause structure.” Journal of Greek Linguistics, 2, 1–39. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. (1995). “Clitics in Slavic.” Studia Linguistica, 49, 54–92. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M, & L. Hellan (1999). “Clitics and Bulgarian clause structure.” In H. van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 469–514. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ewen, R. (1979). “A Grammar of Bulgarian Clitics.” Doctoral dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle. Franks, S. (1998). “Clitics in Slavic.” Paper presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, Spencer, Indiana, June 1998. Franks, S. (2000). “Clitics at the interface: An introduction to Clitic Phenomena in European Languages.” In F. Beukema & M. den Dikken (Eds.), Clitic Phenomena in European Languages, 1–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Franks, S. & T. King (2000). A handbook of Slavic Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Friedman, V. (1993). “Macedonian.” In B. Comrie & G. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic Languages, 249–305. London: Routledge. Halle, M. & A. Marantz (1993). “Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection.” In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Han, C.-H. (1999). “Cross-linguistic variation in the compatibility of negation and imperatives.” Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 17, 1–17. Stanford University, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Hegarty, M. (1999). “Clitic placement and the projection of functional categories.” In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek syntax, 135–152. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Hiramatsu, K. (2000a). “What does Move doesn’t erase?” University of Connecticut Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 75–110. Department of Linguistics, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Hiramatsu, K. (2000b). “Accessing Linguistic Competence: Evidence from Children’s and Adults’ Acceptability Judgments.” Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut, Storrs. Hurtado, A. (1984). “Clitic chains”. Ms., Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. [Spanish version published as A. Hurtado. 1989. “Las cadenas clíticas.” Revista Argentina de Lingüística, 5, 77–133.] Isac, D. & E. Jakab (2001). “A unified syntactic analysis of Balkan imperatives with distinctive morphology.” Paper presented at the Acme Balkanica Conference, Concordia University, Montreal, May 2001. Joseph, B. (2001). “On defining ‘word’ in Greek and other Balkan languages”. Paper presented at the Acme Balkanica Conference, Concordia University, Montreal, May 2001. Joseph, B., & I. Philippaki-Warburton (1987). Modern Greek. London: Croom Helm. Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Koizumi, M. (1995). “Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax.” Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.22 (1366-1460)

 Željko Bošković

Laenzlinger, C. (1994). “Enclitic clustering: The case of French positive imperatives.” Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 19, 71–104. Laka, I. (1994). On the Syntax of Negation. New York: Garland. Lambova, M. (2001). “On A’-movements in Bulgarian and their interaction.” The Linguistic Review, 18, 327–374. Lasnik, H. (1995). “Verbal morphology: Syntactic Structures meets the Minimalist Program.” In H. Campos & P. Kempchinsky (Eds.), Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Carlos Otero, 251–275. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Lasnik, H. (1999). “Chains of arguments.” In S. Epstein & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Working Minimalism, 189–215. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Legendre, G. (1998). “Second position clitics in a verb-second language: Conflict resolution in Macedonian.” In Proceedings of Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 14, 139–149. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications. Legendre, G. (1999). “Morphological and prosodic alignment at work: The case of SouthSlavic clitics.” Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 17, 436– 450. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Legendre, G. (2000). “Morphological and prosodic alignment of Bulgarian clitics.” In J. Dekkers, F. van der Leeuw, & J. van der Weijer (Eds.), Optimality Theory: Syntax, Phonology, and Acquisition, 423–462. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marantz, A. (1993). “Implications and asymmetries in double object constructions.” In S. Mchombo (Ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, 113–150. Stanford, CA: CLSI. Miyoshi, N. (2002). “Negative imperatives and PF merger.” Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs. Nunes, J. (1999). “Linearization of chains and phonetic realization of chain links.” In S. Epstein & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Working Minimalism, 217–249. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Penˇcev, J. (1993). B˘ulgarski sintaksis. Upravlenie i sv˘arzvane [Bulgarian Syntax: Government and Binding]. Plovdiv: Plovdivsko Universitetsko Izdatelstvo. Pesetsky, D. (1989). The earliness principle. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, MA. Pesetsky, D. (1998a). “Optimality theory and syntax: Movement and pronunciation.” In D. Archangeli & T. Langendoen (Eds.), Optimality Theory: An Overview, 134–170. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Pesetsky, D. (1998b). “Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation.” In P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis, & D. Pesetsky (Eds.), Is the Best Good Enough?, 337– 383. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press and MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1994). “V-movement and clitics in Modern Greek.” In I. Philippaki-Warburton, K. Nikolaidis, & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics, 53–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Philippaki-Warburton, I., & V. Spyropoulos (1999). “On the boundaries of inflection and syntax: Greek pronominal clitics and particles.” Yearbook of Morphology 1998, 45–72. Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). “Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP.” Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:14

F: LA6708.tex / p.23 (1460-1557)

On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives 

Rå Hauge, K. (1976). “The word order of predicate clitics in Bulgarian.” Meddelelser 10, Slavisk-Baltisk Institutt, Universitetet i Oslo. [Republished as K. Rå Hauge. 1999. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 7, 89–137.] Rivero, M. L. (1994a). “Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 63–120. Rivero, M. L. (1994b). “Negation, imperatives, and Wackernagel effects.” Rivista di Linguistica, 6, 39–66. Rivero, M. L. (1997). “On two locations for complement clitic pronouns: Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, and Old Spanish.” In A. van Kemende & N. Vincent (Eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, 170–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rivero, M. L. & A. Terzi (1995). “Imperatives, verb movement, and logical mood.” Journal of Linguistics, 31, 301–332. Rudin, C. (1997). “AgrO and Bulgarian pronominal clitics.” In M. Lindseth & S. Franks (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, 224–252. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. Rudin, C., C. Kramer, L. Billings, & M. Baerman (1999). “Macedonian and Bulgarian li questions: Beyond syntax.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 541–586. Stjepanović, S. (1998). “VP ellipsis in a V raising language: Implications for verbal morphology.” In Proceedings of Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 14, 192–203. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications. Terzi, A. (1992). “PRO in Finite Clauses: A Study of the Inflectional Heads of the Balkan Languages.” Doctoral dissertation. City University of New York. Terzi, A. (1999). “Clitic combinations, their hosts, and their ordering.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 85–121. Tomić, O. Mišeska (1996). “The Balkan Slavic clausal clitics.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 811–872. Tomić, O. Mišeska (1997). “Non-first as a default clitic position.” Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 5, 1–23. Tomić, O. Mišeska (2000). “On clitic sites.” In F. Beukema & M. den Dikken (Eds.), Clitic Phenomena in European Languages, 293–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tomić, O. Mišeska (2001). “Negation and imperatives.” In G. Zybatow, U. Junghanns, G. Mehlhorn, & L. Szucsich (Eds.), Current Issues in Formal Slavic Linguistics, 159–168. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Tsimpli, I.-M. (1999). “Null operators, clitics, and identification: A comparison between Greek and English.” In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax, 241–262. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Warburton, I. (1977). “Modern Greek clitic pronouns and the “Surface Structure Constraint” hypothesis.” Journal of Linguistics, 13, 259–281. Watanabe, A. (1993). “AGR-Based Case Theory and its Interaction with the A’-System.” Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA. Zanuttini, R. (1994). “Speculations on negative imperatives.” Rivista di Linguistica, 6, 119– 142. Zanuttini, R. (1997). Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.1 (41-110)

Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods in the languages of South-Eastern Europe A Balkanism?* Andreas Ammann and Johan van der Auwera University of Antwerp

This paper checks the Balkan and neighboring languages for a lesser-studied field of grammar, the volitional moods. One aim is to advance the description of categories in this field. The uses of a particular syntactic construction in the languages of South-Eastern Europe, involving a complementizer heading a main clause are scrutinized. The authors argue that such constructions serve similar meanings in South-Eastern Europe, which becomes evident as they compare the meanings with the meaning of parallel construction in the Western Romance languages. To do this, they employ a paradigm-based approach to volitional mood, which centers around the categories “optative”, “imperative”, “hortative”, “exhortative”, “cohortative”, and combinations of these. Finally, they connect the complementizer-headed main clauses to the well-known phenomenon of infinitive regression in the Balkan languages.

.

The phenomenon

The construction we discuss is a main clause headed by a complementizer. The meanings of this construction belong to what we call “volitional mood”, viz. optative, imperative, hortative and related categories. (1) is an example from Modern Greek, expressing a wish. MG (1) Na zísete! that.mod live.subj.aor.2pl ‘May you live (a long life)!’ (Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton 1987: 180) Compare (1) to the parallel example from Romanian in (2), which also expresses a wish.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.2 (110-173)

 Andreas Ammann and Johan van der Auwera

(2) S˘a ne vedem s˘an˘ato¸si! that.mod us see.pres.1pl healthy.m.pl ‘May we see each other healthy!’ (Vasiliu 1972: 219)

Ro

Next, consider the second clause in the Romanian example in (3), which is structurally parallel to the Greek and Romanian sentences in (1) and (2). (3) D˘a-mi un pahar ¸si s˘a iei ¸si tu Ro give.imp.2sg-me a glass and that.mod take.pres.2sg and you unul! one ‘Give me a glass and take one yourself!’ (Mallinson 1986: 25) Here, the function of the s˘a-clause is somewhat different than in (2): the speaker not only expresses the wish that the hearer may take a glass, but, what is more, an appeal that he should take it. This becomes clear from the fact that the s˘a-clause continues a sentence starting with an imperative, which has the same function, or at least a very similar one. The volitional use of these kinds of constructions in the Balkan languages has been noted by Sandfeld (1930: 179f.), who traces the volitional uses of hínaconstructions in Greek back to “le commencement de notre ère” (Sandfeld 1930: 180). Such constructions are found in the following languages spoken in the Eastern half of Southern Europe: Slovenian, Serbian/Croatian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Albanian, Greek, Balkan Romani, Judeo-Spanish, and dialects of Southern Italy. These languages form a contiguous area, which includes what is traditionally thought of as “the Balkan languages” or the languages of the “Balkan Sprachbund”. Genetically, they are all Indo-European, but belong to five different families, Albanian and Greek being independent branches and the other languages belonging to the Slavic, Romance, or Indic families.

. Terminology for the volitional moods Mood/modality is an area of grammar where a considerable amount of confusion is caused by terms which are not always defined and are often used in different senses. In practice, only “optative” and “imperative” are established terms, but even with “imperative” it is often unclear which non-second person forms should or should not be called “imperative”. Since verbal categories in general are difficult to identify, it is important to establish a terminological set and use it consistently.1 For the purposes of this paper we need to define the following five notions: (i) optative, (ii) imperative, (iii) exhortative, (iv) cohortative, and (v) hortative. We also allow for combinations of some of these, namely optative, imperative and one

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.3 (173-230)

Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods 

from the set of the (co/ex-)hortatives. Firstly, we will use the universal semantic notions “wish” and “appeal”. This concerns the distinction between optative and the other four categories. In addition, we resort to paradigmatic aspects, which are language-specific. This will help us describe the “imperative-hortative” system of each language. In our approach, we depart from modal functions and check the individual languages for the morphosyntactic strategies that are employed to express these functions. The definition of the optative is given in (4). (4) The optative is a constructional paradigm, available for all grammatical persons, a core meaning of which is the expression of the speaker’s wish. A construction with optative meaning from Modern Greek was exemplified in (1), where we have a main clause headed by a complementizer. This construction has come to replace the synthetic optative found in Classical Greek. The form génoito in (5) is a specifically optative (medio-passive present 3Sg) form of the Classical Greek verb gígnomai ‘be born’. (5) Génoito ta˜uta! happen.opt.pres.3sg that.nom.pl ‘May that happen!’

ClG

The only modern South-Eastern European language with a morphological optative is Albanian. An example is given in (6): (6) Ti bëftë mirë! you do.opt.3sg well ‘May it be agreeable to you!’ (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987: 150)

Al

In the other languages of South-Eastern Europe, the optative is expressed by constructions corresponding to the Modern Greek construction in (1) and the Romanian one in (2).2 The following typical example, from Macedonian, contains a main clause headed by the complementizer da: (7) Da pukneš! that.mod burst.pres.2sg ‘May you burst!’ (Kramer 1986: 41)

Ma

We link the optative to one particular speech act, viz. that of an expression of a wish, setting it apart from the categories of imperative and hortative. The latter categories contain an extra element of appeal, which is absent in the optative. For the purposes of this paper, the imperative can be defined as follows:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.4 (230-292)

 Andreas Ammann and Johan van der Auwera

(8) The imperative is a construction used with the second person, singular and plural, which has as a core meaning the expression of the speaker’s wish and an appeal to the targeted person(s) to carry out the wish.3 The imperative is typically conceived of as being reserved for the second person(s), and we will conform to this practice.4 There are, however, categories which differ in meaning only with respect to the person(s) targeted by the appeal. These are referred to with many different labels in the literature, depending on the person(s) associated with them and the author’s preference: “imperative”, “hortative”, “jussive”, “adhortative”, to name just the most important ones. We will designate these categories by the common denominator of “hortative”. On the basis of languagespecific paradigmatic distribution of the individual strategies, we will distinguish the hortative from the more restricted categories of exhortative and cohortative. We will associate the hortative with the 3rd persons and the 1st person plural. (9) The hortative is a construction used both with third persons and with first person plural, which has as a core meaning the expression of the speaker’s wish and an appeal to the targeted person(s) to carry out the wish. A language with a hortative is English, where it is formed with let. A hortative like Let him/them clean up the mess they made! contrasts with an optative (with may substituted for let)5 and a statement with a modal like must or should. We call the English let-strategy “hortative” because it also serves the first person plural: Let us try to understand! The situation is different in French. Here, the construction corresponding to let used for the third persons employs the complementizer que, followed by the subject and a subjunctive which differs from the indicative only with few verbs, including the copula (Qu’il soit content avec ça! ‘Let him be pleased with that!’, Qu’ils soient contents avec ça! ‘Let them be pleased with that!’).6 An appeal to a group which includes the speaker looks different. In Soyons contents avec ça! ‘Let’s be pleased with that’, the complementizer is absent. For this reason, we do not call the French third person construction “hortative”, but “exhortative”: (10) The exhortative is a construction used with third persons, but not with first person plural, which has as a core meaning the expression of the speaker’s wish and an appeal to the targeted person(s) to carry out the wish. What is the strategy used for an appeal to the first person plural in French, if it cannot be called “hortative”, nor “exhortative”? We will refer to it with the label “cohortative”.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.5 (292-364)

Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods 

(11) The cohortative is a construction used exclusively with the first person plural, which has as a core meaning the expression of the speaker’s wish and an appeal to the targeted person(s) to carry out the wish. Note the crucial point that a strategy can perform more than one function within the volitional mood – optative and (co/ex-)hortative – and thus receive a combined label.7 We will illustrate this in the next section, by looking at the construction we want to investigate – the complementizer-headed main clauses with volitional mood functions, taking main clauses with të ‘that’ in Standard Albanian as an example.

. Labeling the functions of complementizer-headed main clauses in a Balkan language: Albanian We have already given examples of Balkan complementizer-headed main-clause optatives in (1) and (2). Although Albanian has special forms for expressing wishes – the inflectional optative forms illustrated in (6) above – të + main clause is here also available for this function. Example (12) shows an optative të + main clause, which expresses a wish: (12) Për hair qoftë! Të na trashëgohen! for good be.opt.3sg that.mod us+it enjoy.m-p.3pl ‘So be it! May they enjoy a long life!’ (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987: 134)

Al

This strategy is available for all persons, which seems to be a characteristic of the specific speech act “wish”, at least in the languages of Europe. Furthermore, mainclause të is used within the imperative-hortative domain, and is characterized by the common element of appeal. We find this construction for the third persons as in (13) as well as for the first person plural as in (14),8 and refer to it as “hortative”. Al (13) Ti, Agim, shko te nëna dhe Rexhepi të you Agim go.imp.2sg to mother.nom.def and Rexhep that.mod rrijë këtu! stay.subj.3sg here ‘You, Agim, go to your mother, and Rexhep is to stay here!’ (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987: 134) (14) [. . . ] hajde të ikim! come.on that.mod go.1pl ‘[. . . ] come on, let’s go!’ (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987: 134)

Al

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.6 (364-410)

 Andreas Ammann and Johan van der Auwera

Finally, just like the corresponding Romanian example in (3), the Albanian construction can be used for an appeal to a second person – a usage which competes with a dedicated imperative. Al (15) Sapo të vijë ky shoku, ta once that.mod come.subj.3sg that comrade that.mod+him marrësh [. . . ] take.subj.2sg ‘Once that guy comes, take him [. . . ]’ (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987: 134) Taking (12)–(15) together, we can say that të-headed main clauses in Albanian serve optative, hortative, and imperative. Accordingly, they encode a far more polyfunctional volitional mood than the corresponding constructions in Standard Average European, and this feature is characteristic of the Balkan languages.

. Optative-hortatives in Europe and beyond The function of the Albanian construction with të at the head of a main clause corresponds to the function of main clauses headed by analogous complementizers in Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian, Balkan Romani, Serbian/Croatian, and Slovenian. But is it an areal feature? At first sight this is doubtful, given that, as mentioned above, French also has main clauses headed by que, which have optative functions as well as some functions which can be said to belong to the imperativehortative domain. The point has been made before: Asenova (1989: 141) compared the Balkan constructions discussed here to sentences like Qu’il sorte! ‘Let him go out!’ in French. But there is a paradigmatic difference. In French, as well as in other Western Romance languages, the first person plural is split: we have an optative with que or its cognates heading a main clause, but bare verb forms for an appeal to a group that includes the speaker, i.e. the first person plural in Romance. In all Western Romance languages, a complementizer-headed main clause with a subject in the second person or first person plural is always optative.The following example from Romanian shows, however, that in this language, the complementizer s˘a can head a main clause which conveys an appeal to the first person plural: (16) S˘a plec˘am! that.mod leave.pres.1pl ‘Let’s leave!’ (Mallinson 1986: 25)

Ro

We have already illustrated the imperative use of this construction, i.e. the use with a second person subject (cf. example (3)). This means that in Romanian, this construction is an optative-imperative-hortative, whereas in the other Romance

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.7 (410-464)

Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods 

languages, we are dealing with an optative-exhortative, as the function of appeal is only present when the subject is a third person.9 The distribution is striking: Romanian is genetically Romance, it has a predominantly Romance lexicon, but it is known to share several grammatical Balkanisms, and with respect to volitional mood it turns out to be typologically Balkan too. It is worthwhile to note that the languages spoken to the West of Romanian – Serbian/Croatian and Slovenian, do not show the same pattern. Slovenian does not have first person plural uses of main clauses with da, and in Serbian/Croatian, they exist, but only as an alternative to a dedicated form used without da (Olga Mišeska Tomić, personal communication). In having first person plural forms with the same syntax as those used for the second person in the system, these languages behave like Western Romance. But it is unlikely that this correspondence is due to Romance influence on Western South Slavic, as the form that is used for an appeal in the first person plural is a dedicated form in Serbian/Croatian and Slovenian, but not in Western Romance, where a subjunctive or indicative form is used with a special syntactic pattern. Historically, the first person imperative of Western South Slavic originates in a pre-Slavic optative form which in Common Slavic substituted the imperative, arguably as a full paradigm (Vaillant 1966: 29f.). Why is this form, but not the third persons of this paradigm, retained in Western South Slavic? The answer may very well have to do with contact with the Balkan languages, but whether this is so or not, the paradigmatic correspondence with Western Romance is probably accidental. After all, in those languages the first person plural forms correspond to the second person ones only in their syntactic behavior; they are not part of the same morphological paradigm.10 The use of a construction headed by a ‘that’-complementizer for volitional mood is not restricted to Southern Europe. However, in a sample of 400 languages, we found clear cases of parallels to the Southern European situation only in four languages, all of them spoken in Africa. Thus, in Igbo (Niger-Congo: Nigeria), optative and imperative-hortative meanings are expressed by an “injonctif ” headed by kà ‘that’ (Onumajuru 1985: 152–160). A similar distribution is found in Idoma – another Niger-Congo language spoken in Nigeria (Abraham 1967: 48f.), in Susu (Niger-Congo: Guinea, Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau, Friedländer 1974: 54, 98) and Marghi,11 – which is also spoken in Nigeria, but belongs to the Chadic branch of Afro-Asiatic (Hoffman 1963: 202).12 We have seen that the complementizer-headed main clauses used for volitional moods in the Balkan languages have some parallels in Romance and in a few Western African languages. They are clearly not exclusively “Balkan”. But in the case of Romanian, where the correspondence to the other languages of the Balkan Sprachbund is remarkable, it may indicate that we have one more Balkanism, on a par with the classical ones such as merger of genitive and dative or clitic-doubling.13

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.8 (464-544)

 Andreas Ammann and Johan van der Auwera

In this respect, it is helpful to take a closer look at the elements that make up the complementizer-headed main clauses in individual languages.

. The makeup of the independent modal complementizer clauses in the languages of the Eastern half of Southern Europe An essential component of the complementizer pattern is the complementizer itself. In Greek, Albanian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Balkan Romani – as well as in some dialects of Southern Italy – there are realis complementizers,14 which are used, for example, after embedding verbs like ‘say’ or ‘know’, and irrealis or modal complementizers, for example after a verb like ‘want’ (Sandfeld 1980: 175f.; Hinrichs 1999a: 506). It is this type of modal complementizer that is used in main clauses with volitional mood meanings. In Serbian/Croatian and Slovenian there is no distinction between a realis and an irrealis complementizers; in this respect these languages behave like the Western Romance languages. In Table 1, the typical realis and irrealis complementizers of Modern Greek, Albanian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Balkan Romani, the Southern Italian dialects, Serbian/Croatian, Slovenian and French are given. How old is this picture? Consider Romanian. Its separate modal complementizer s˘a derives from Latin s¯ı ‘if, when’, distinct from c˘a < quid/quod ‘that’. No other standard Romance language developed such a split. On the basis of the knowledge available to us, it is not possible to pin down this split in Romanian to, say, a Thracian (or, for those who prefer to see it as a distinct language, “Dacian”) substrate. The complementizer split and the expansions of the constructions involved in modal complementation could be one of those Balkanisms that arose roughly between late antiquity and the time the languages of South-Eastern Europe became Table 1. Realis and irrealis/modal complementizers Language

Realis complementizer

Irrealis/modal complementizer

Modern Greek Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Balkan Romani Romanian Southern Italian dialects

óti që deka/oti ˇce/deto kaj c˘a ka

na të da da te s˘a ke/ku/mu

Serbian/Croatian Slovenian French

da da que

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.9 (544-600)

Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods 

standardized. This process affected South-Eastern Europe including Romanian and Macedonian, but excluding Serbian/Croatian and, of course, Slovenian. The phenomenon is not usually listed among the more established Balkanisms, such as genitive-dative syncretism or object doubling, but the fact that it is found in Balkan dialects of Romani has been interpreted as an areal typological feature by Friedman (1985: 382, 386), Boretzky (1994: 169) and Matras (1994: 220).15 For Macedonian, ´ Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian, Topolinska (1994: 107, 114f., 1995: 242) has made a similar claim regarding a “factive” / “non-factive” split, with the markers we have referred to as irrealis/modal being either non-factive or suspending the ´ opposition (Topolinska 1994: 117f.).16 However, it should be noted that a contrast between a realis and an irrealis/modal ‘that’ is also made in Turkish. In this language, the two markers expressing the opposition are not free complementizers, but bound nominalizing suffixes. Kornfilt (2001: 187) contrasts a “‘factive’ (indicative)” nominalizer -dik, illustrated in (18), with a “‘non-factive’ (subjunctive)” nominalizer -ma. The example she provides for the latter, (18), contains a modal verb: (17) Ali-nin geçen ak¸sam nehr-in kenar-ın-da ko¸s-tu˘g-un-u Ali-gen past evening river-gen shore-3sg-loc run-fn-3sg-acc Tu gör-dü-m. see-past-1sg ‘I saw that Ali was running along the river the other evening.’ (Kornfilt 2001: 187) Tu (18) Ali-nin nehr-in kenar-ın-da ko¸s-ma-sın-i isti-yor-um. Ali-gen river-gen shore-3sg-loc run-fn-3sg-acc want-prog-1sg ‘I want for Ali to run along the river.’ (Kornfilt 2001: 187) So Turkish makes a similar contrast in complements of modal and non-modal verbs, but with a different morphosyntactic strategy (morphological nominalization). At least one other potential Balkanism – evidentiality (or “status”) – is not unlikely to have developed in some of the Balkan languages (Balkan Slavic, Balkan Romance and Albanian) through language contact with Turkish during Ottoman times (Friedman 2000: 357). In the same vein, it cannot be ruled out that Turkish triggered or reinforced a tendency to distinguish realis from irrealis/modal complementation. The difference in morphosyntax is not a counter-argument: Turkish generally has a much richer morphology, and it is not inconceivable that the semantic distinction was calqued and expressed with syntactic means in the more analytic Balkan languages. We are not claiming that Turkish must have been the origin of the complementizer split, but that the fact that an adjacent language makes a similar distinction calls for caution when it comes to the classification of this feature as a Balkanism.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.10 (600-658)

 Andreas Ammann and Johan van der Auwera

To sum up matters until here: 1. With respect to the functions of their complementizer-constructions, the Balkan languages correspond to one another closely, and Western South Slavic corresponds to this model to a lesser extent, as does Western Romance. 2. The split into two ‘that’s and the use of the modal one as a periphrastic subjunctive with optative/hortative functions in independent clauses look characteristically “Balkan”.

. Change in complementation in the languages of South-Eastern Europe One of the generally accepted Balkanisms is the regression of the infinitive.17 As was observed by Greenberg (1996: 196), the use of complementizer-headed main clauses in the domain of volitional mood is linked to this feature. Of course, absence (or low frequency) of infinitives is not encountered only in the Balkans. Cross-linguistically it may be more common for a language not to have an infinitive than to have one. But among the surrounding languages, the Balkan languages stand out in having a remarkably low prominence of infinitives. Stolz (2002) points out that the South-Eastern European area of “infinitive avoidance” differs from a Middle Eastern one, where asyndetic constructions are involved in complementation. What makes the Balkan variant special, is the fact that the Balkan languages have two complementizers, and that the complementizer that is used as an alternative to the infinitive is a specifically modal one. Infinitives were attested in Classical Greek, Latin and Old Slavic, but they are marginalized (if at all existent) in grammatical constructions in Modern Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Romanian. In certain constructions, complement clauses headed by a complementizer were at some time in the past available in the systems of some South-Eastern European languages (e.g. in Old Church Slavonic), even when the infinitive existed as an alternative. The plausibility of this assumption is supported by the situation in Serbian/Croatian: in both varieties, speakers can use an infinitive or a da-clause, but as a rule, Croatian speakers prefer infinitives, whereas speakers of the Serbian variety tend to use da-clause complements.18 Dialectally, the Balkan feature of infinitive regression has spread not only to the South-Eastern Serbian (Torlak) dialects (which as a whole look typologically “Balkan”), but extends nearly to Belgrade (Alexander 1983: 18). On the other hand, Slovenian is outside the area of infinitive regression. Romanian and Bulgarian correspond closely concerning modal complementation. Infinitival complements occur after ‘can’ in Romanian and (literary) Bulgarian. In both languages, the infinitive is still involved in constructions for the future and the prohibitive, but in the vast majority of modal complements, a clause headed by the modal complementizer is used. In Aromanian, there is no infinitive

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.11 (658-710)

Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods 

left, not even after ‘can’, where it is still used in Daco-Romanian (Rohlfs 1958: 737; Solta 1980: 211, Note 152; Mayerthaler et al. 1993: 102).19 The areal and diachronic North-South cline in Romanian and its varieties has often been noted: no infinitives in Aromanian, comparatively many in North Romanian dialects (Hinrichs 1999a: 453), and an ongoing spread of s˘a-headed subjunctives at the expense of infinitives in Standard Romanian (Dyer 1985; Solta 1980: 211, Note 149). In Bulgarian, the infinitive is even more restricted than in Romanian (Solta 1980: 212), which is also a noteworthy areal observation, and in Macedonian it is practically non-existent. Gheg Albanian has a periphrastic infinitive and so does Tosk Albanian, but the “infinitive” form in the latter is regarded as a recent formation, has no main clause functions and is commonly used with the purpose meaning of ‘in order to’. Tosk Albanian, and the standard language of which it forms the basis, show only limited uses of an infinitive with the compound particle për të + participle, whereas Gheg uses a periphrastic infinitive with me quite regularly in complementation of certain verbs, as well as in the future tense (Solta 1980: 212). So again, the use of infinitive constructions is more restricted in the Southern variety. A parallel between Gheg Albanian and Romanian is the existence of an infinitive particle – me and a, respectively. Balkan Romani does not continue any Old or Middle Indic infinitives, probably due to influence from its contact languages (Boretzky & Igla 1999: 723). In Greek, the infinitive is confined to residual functions as a verbal noun, in some future constructions, and in infinitives of the aorist in compound tenses (Solta 1980: 212f.). The inception of this process was already evident in the Koin¯e and completed by the 16th century (Joseph 1983: 181). Solta (1980: 213) reports that Balkanists such as Sandfeld and Jokl have interpreted this picture as pointing to a spread from Greek. There is also evidence that the trend to replace infinitives with complementizer-headed subjunctives goes back to New Testament Greek, but it must be noted that we have no comparable information on the simultaneous state of affairs in other Balkan languages.20 An argument for the crucial role of Greek in the areal phenomenon of infinitive regression and the development of finite constructions headed by a modal complementizer comes from Italy (Rohlfs 1958: 733, 742f.; Mayerthaler et al. 1993: 102). The dialects of Southern Italy21 share the feature of low infinitive prominence with the Balkan languages, with some correspondences to the situation in Romanian. What is more, here, as in the Balkans, new modal complementizers arose that only functionally continue the Latin ut (Rohlfs 1954: 74–80). Whereas standard Italian has a polyfunctional complementizer che ‘that’, in the Southern Italian dialects we encounter a “Balkan”-like split between factual ka and modal ke (e.g. in Lazio and Campania), ku (Terra d’Otranto) or mu (Southern Calabria). The modal complementizers combine with an indicative or subjunctive verb form in what

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.12 (710-773)

 Andreas Ammann and Johan van der Auwera

looks like the replacement of an infinitive after modal and other verbs (Cristofaro 1998: 503). Just like their counterparts in the Balkan languages, they can even head independent clauses. An example from Puglian (Lecce), where this construction is an exhortative, is given in (19). The optative use of mu in Calabrian is exemplified in (20). (19) Ku fáttsa ćće bbóle! that.mod do.subj.3sg what want.pres.3sg ‘Let him do what he wants!’ (Stehl 1988: 707)

SIt

(20) Mu ti via ammazatu! that.mod you.sg see.subj.1sg killed.m ‘May I see you killed!’ (Rohlfs 1954: 79)

SIt

One could think that ku is only a morphological replacement of the Latin modal complementizer ut. In this case, the dialects of Southern Italy would be retaining a distinction that was lost in Tuscany and the North. However, Vulgar Latin replaced ut with quod and later quid (Rohlfs 1954: 80). It is certainly possible that factual and modal ‘that’ were conflated in all Italian dialects before the distinction was reintroduced as an innovation in the South. In this case, influence from Greek is likely, as modal complementation with a modal complementizer ti is attested in Calabrian Greek.22 The decreasing use of infinitives in the Southern Italian dialects suggests that this interpretation is more plausible than that of a mere continuation of Latin structures. To conclude, it is clear that the regression of the infinitive and its replacement by constructions involving a specialized complementizer used in modal contexts is found in the Balkan languages and in dialects of Southern Italy. As for the Balkans, there is a general consensus that this is a contact phenomenon (Joseph 1983: 253; Greenberg 1996: 196), and Greek has been named as the source for many a Balkanism. Dialects in the South of Italy, which have been in contact with Greek for many centuries, display the feature as well.

. Retracing the development of modal complementation Synchronically, we find that the Balkan languages and the Southern Italian dialects have similar structures in two respects. First, they show a low degree of infinitive prominence, preferring dependent clauses headed by a complementizer. Second, they use a special modal complementizer in independent clauses for the expression of volitional mood. We will now investigate the possibility of a diachronic link between the two features.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.13 (773-837)

Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods 

In Macedonian, a language with two different complementizers (see Table 1 above), the modal complementizer23 da has some non-modal uses, such as in (21): (21) Poˇcna da pee. begin.aor.3sg that.mod sing.pres.3sg ‘He began to sing.’ (Kramer 1986: 37)24

Ma

But it is more commonly found in modal contexts, such as negated future (22), condition, finality, intention (23), or necessity (24): (22) Nema da odi. has.not that.mod go.pres.3sg ‘He won’t go.’ (Kramer 1986: 30)

Ma

(23) Sakaše da zamine. want.ipf.3sg that.mod depart.pres.3sg ‘He wanted to depart.’ (Kramer 1986: 24)

Ma

(24) Mora da odi. must.pres.3sg that.mod go.pres.3sg ‘He must go.’ (Kramer 1986: 54)

Ma

It is just one step from those modals to our volitional mood uses in main clauses if the modal gets left out (for a similar line of reasoning regarding Bulgarian, see Lempp 1985: 430). In Macedonian, the construction is marked as modal solely by the presence of irrealis/modal da. Depending on which modal meaning is interpreted as present in the elliptic constructions (in (25)–(27) it could be “wish”, “order” or “suggest”, respectively), these can be optative (25 [= 7]) or imperativehortative – imperative in (26), hortative in (27): (25) Da pukneš! that.mod burst.pres.2sg ‘May you burst!’ (Kramer 1986: 41)

Ma

(26) Da dojdeš! = Dojdi! that.mod come.pres.2sg come.imp.2sg ‘Come!’ (Kramer 1986: 32)

Ma

(27) Da gledame! that.mod look.pres.1pl ‘Let’s look!’ (Kramer 1986: 32)

Ma

Sedláˇcek (1968: 55f.) holds the opposite view. According to him, the Balkan subjunctive syntagms headed by a particle/complementizer originated as independent expressions of a wish and spread to dependent uses later. Sedláˇcek relates this development to a general “folk” character in the syntax of the Balkan languages. We do not deny the evidence for elements in the syntax of the Balkan languages which

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.14 (837-892)

 Andreas Ammann and Johan van der Auwera

are reminiscent of oral language, e.g. in the case of object doubling. But in this case, we are not convinced by Sedláˇcek’s scenario. We agree with Meyer-Lübke’s (1900: 146) assessment of the development of s˘a + subjunctive in Romanian: Le point de départ de ce s˘a doit naturellement être cherché dans des propositions subordonnées telles p. ex. que vo˘ıu˘ s˘a vînz˘ı (je veux que tu vendes). Mais alors il put arriver que, sous l’empire de l’émotion, le terme exprimant la volonté fût réprimé et suppléé par un simple geste : on acquérait ainsi la possibilité d’employer aussi s˘a pour introduire des propositions simples lorsque ces propositions devaient contenir l’expression d’une volonté; et c’est en effet ce qui est arrivé d’abord là où la langue manquait d’une forme flexionelle pour distinguer une simple énonciation de l’expression d’une volonté ou d’un désir.25

The main clause constructions headed by a modal complementizer underwent grammaticalization to the point where da and the corresponding markers in the Balkan languages became a particle or modal marker. A similar process of syntactic grammaticalization can be observed in Judeo-Spanish, where ke (∼ Spanish que) can stand in verb-adjacent rather than clause-initial position, like in Greek and the other Balkan languages (César Montoliu p.c.): (28) En ganedén ke esté! in paradise that be.subj.3sg ‘May s/he be in paradise!’ (César Montoliu p.c.)

JSp

. Conclusion We have identified a modal construction consisting of a complementizer and an independent main clause. It occurs as a distinct type with a specialized, modal complementizer in the Balkan languages (Romanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Albanian, Balkan Romani and Greek) and in Southern Italian dialects. This contrasts with similar constructions in Western South Slavic and the rest of the Romance languages, where there is no complementizer split. The constructions are polyfunctional within volitional mood: they can express optative, imperative, and (co/ex-) hortative meanings. The origin of these constructions possibly lies in the complementation of modals, where they became more frequent when infinitives were avoided. In other words, these constructions are connected to a better-studied contact phenomenon. The modal functions of complementizer-headed main clauses were already noted by Sandfeld (1930: 179f.). Friedman (1985: 382, 386) considered the “modal subordinators” a Balkan feature and described the uses for ‘let’ and ‘may’ as well. The modal construction consisting of a complementizer and an independent main clause have more recently been considered a potential Balkanism

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.15 (892-958)

Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods 

by Pappas (1996), with a positive evaluation by Greenberg (1996: 182f., 196).26 Yet they are not usually included in the standard inventories of syntactic Balkanisms, such as the one provided in an introductory article by Hinrichs (1999a). There are three difficulties with calling the expansion of modal ‘that’-clauses a Balkanism. First, volitional mood is served by independent clauses headed by a complementizer in Slovenian and Serbian/Croatian as well. In this case the correspondence is not very close, as the West South Slavic languages use a general complementizer and not a specifically modal one. Second, Turkish does share the semantic distinction of realis versus irrealis/modal complementation with the Balkan languages. Again there is a difference in the morphosyntactic strategy. Thirdly and most significantly, the dialects of Southern Italy show exactly the same pattern as the Balkan languages: low infinitive prominence and the expansion of the modal complementizer clauses that have ousted earlier infinitive complements of Latin to independent uses for volitional moods (optative and hortative). To put it bluntly: can something be a Balkanism if it occurs in Italy? We can give three preliminary answers to this question. First, the fact that a phenomenon which is arguably a contact phenomenon in the Balkans may have spread beyond the Balkans, i.e. to Southern Italy, should not in itself be taken to mean that this feature is different in nature from the more established Balkanisms. Second, perhaps the dialects of Southern Italy are indeed somewhat Balkan on independent grounds. To mention just one example, object doubling, which is recognized as a typical Balkan feature, is found more or less regularly in these dialects – though at least in some contexts it also occurs in dialects of Northern Italy (Poletto 1997: 141). Third, it is possible also that the convergence between the Balkans and the South of Italy does not really involve one zone of (Greek) influence, but rather two separate ones. Greek may well be shown to have exported the phenomena we have described to Southern Italy, independent of its involvement in the Balkan language situation. Even on the Balkans, it is conceivable that Greek acted as a contact language outside of its role in the Balkanisms, viz. in its influence on Judeo-Spanish (Joseph 1983: 252, see also Montoliu and van der Auwera [this volume]). In that case, the Mediterranean is big enough for both a Balkan Sprachbund and a Greek sphere of influence in Italy. It has long been understood that defining a language area does not presuppose exact boundaries which confine all or even most of the isoglosses. Instead, Sprachbünde typically have a core and a periphery, and so does the Balkan area (van der Auwera 1998: 263). Regarding the construction we have investigated here, the “classical” Balkan languages could be said to form a core, with Western South Slavic and Turkish showing only some peripheral correspondences. By contrast, the dialects of Southern Italy show a high degree of “Balkanness” in the expression of volitional moods.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.16 (958-1004)

 Andreas Ammann and Johan van der Auwera

The Balkan Sprachbund cannot be defined through a litmus-like feature, nor a certain percentage of a set of features that a language must have to be regarded a Balkan language. The more peripheral a member is in the areal sense, the harder it is to distinguish it from an outsider which displays some of the constituent features either by accident or through language contact with an individual member of the neighboring language area. In addition, the history of the relevant contacts, in particular those involving Greek in Italy, must be taken into account as well. We suspect that the parallelism of the Southern Italian dialects with the Balkan languages in the expression of volitional moods is not accidental. Maybe the Balkan Sprachbund needs to be redefined as being part of a larger language area of the Eastern Mediterranean. More research is required for a confident decision, but we believe that this approach could prove to be fruitful. Speaking of “Balkanisms” is much more problematic today than it was in Sandfeld’s time. However, since there are not that many areally significant syntactic features shared by all the Balkan languages, it is worth keeping an eye on this one.

Notes * Andreas Ammann is grateful to the Fund for Scientific Research – Flanders (Belgium) for the support granted through a Predoctoral Fellowship. Johan van der Auwera is grateful to the Royal Academy in Brussels, where he was a Fellow during the Fall of 2001. Both authors are grateful for helpful corrections and comments made by two anonymous referees and by César Montoliu. . Similar problems exist in the analysis of tense and aspect (see Binnick 1991). . There is an optative of the type shown in (1) and (2) even in Albanian (see Section 4 below). . We tacitly imply that the imp.2sg is formed with the same strategy as the imp.2pl. This is not universally so, but holds by and large for all the languages that are relevant for our paper, though with some minor structural differences. For example, in Standard Albanian the imp.2sg takes enclitic object pronouns (Merr-e! ‘take it!’ versus E merr ‘you are taking it’), but with the imp.2pl, pronouns may be enclitic or proclitic: Merr-e-ni / E merr-ni edhe këtë! ‘Take (pl) this too!’ (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987: 65). We can count all of these constructions as imperatives, as E merr-ni edhe këtë! ‘Take this too!’ is prosodically distinct from E merr-ni edhe këtë. ‘You (pl.) are taking this too.’ . In this respect, this paper differs from the terminology used in van der Auwera et al. (2002). . In addition, English has residual optatives without let, using the subjunctive instead, e.g. (i)

Long live the queen!

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.17 (1004-1069)

Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods  . In French, this construction can also convey an optative, translatable with may. In English, the only other reading that let can give is etymological – an imperative of a verb meaning ‘allow’. We will see later on that in the languages of South-Eastern Europe there is a parallel to the French situation. . The categories we established so far are not paradigmatically exhaustive yet. We have not included the first person singular forms. Where these concern volitional mood, they are served by hortative constructions in South-Eastern European languages as well. A more frequent use is that in questions, corresponding to something like Shall I...? . Albanian still has a cohortative ‘let’s go’ that does not use any complementizer, viz. shkojmë (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987: 119, Note 63), and interestingly, this very phrase exists in Greek too (páme, Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton 1987: 15). But here we are dealing with set expressions, not a productive formation (compare Demiraj 1926: 1127). Pu¸scariu (1926: 176) provides similar examples for Istro-Romanian. . There are also some parallels in German, but they are comparatively marginal. Sentences like Dass ihr mir aber brav seid! ‘(That you) Be good!’ are almost confined to something like Motherese, leaving only negated wishes as unmarked uses: Nicht dass noch mehr Stellen wegfallen! ‘(Let’s hope) that no more jobs will be cut!’. See section 7 below for the more relevant occurrence in Southern Italian dialects. . The imperative-hortative paradigms in the Mediterranean languages are discussed in more detail in van der Auwera et al. (2002). . The use of the “long subjunctive” with k6 in independent clauses for volitional mood and in modal complementation in this language seems to be especially close to the Balkan situation: factual ‘that’ seems to be expressed not by k6, but rather by d6 (Hoffman 1963: 264). . Possibly Maori (Austronesian, New Zealand) should be added to the list. In this language, the pre-verbal particle kia is used for imperatives of adjectives and experience verbs (Harlow 1996: 13), as well as in modal complementation (Harlow 1996: 13, 41). . Greenberg (1996: 182f., 196) refers to an unpublished paper by Pappas (1996) investigating this question and concludes that such a Balkanism exists. . Since it is the irrealis/modal complementizers that are relevant for this paper, we do not discuss the variation within the realis field, and in this sense, table (1) is not exhaustive. . A similar modal/realis distinction is found with negators in Greek, Albanian, and Balkan Romani, but in this case we are dealing with a retention of an Indo-European distinction rather than a common innovation. ´ . Given the high importance Topolinska (1994: 107) attaches to the explicit marking of the factivity contrast in a multilingual environment, it is somewhat unusual that da should ´ be able to “suspend” this very opposition. As Topolinska (1994: 108) points out, da originally carried a notion of purpose (‘in order to’) in Slavic, much like to in earlier stages of English. With this in mind, one could take the “non-factive” uses as one specific instance of “bleaching” of the original meaning (from purpose to irrealis/modal), and the uses which are neither “factive” nor “non-factive” (cf. example (21) below) as an even more advanced stage of semantic bleaching. At any rate, main clause uses are all modal (Kramer 1985: 417; ´ Topolinska (1994: 117f.)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.18 (1069-1127)

 Andreas Ammann and Johan van der Auwera . The loss of the infinitive was already included in Miklosich’s list of Balkanisms in 1861 (Steinke 1999: 79). Stolz (2002) prefers the label “infinitive avoidance”, a term which emphasizes the speaker’s choice to use an alternative construction. However, in the case of Albanian, it is unclear whether there has ever been any infinitive that speakers could have come to “avoid” (Hinrichs 1999a: 454), and Romani may have lost the infinitives of Old Indic before speakers of the language entered the Balkans. . Given the current trend to construct these languages as separate entities, this process is likely to continue and even gain momentum. After all, this feature is one of the few salient ones in grammar which set apart “Croatian” and “Serbian”. . It is not surprising that the infinitive should be retained longer after ‘can’ than after ‘want’, as with ‘can’ the subject of the dependent clause is necessarily coreferential with the subject of the modal verb. There is no ‘can’-counterpart to ‘I want you to leave’. . If Greek really was the source where the phenomenon originated, this would go against the idea expressed by Schaller (1975: 103) that Albanian, Macedonian, Bulgarian and Romanian are the “primary Balkan languages” or Balkan “Kernsprachen”, assuming, as he does, that only a primary Balkan language can be a donor of Balkanisms. In this model, Greek is a “secondary Balkan language” just like Serbian/Croatian – a view which has not gained general acceptance. Interestingly, Schaller (1975: 119) does accept Sandfeld’s view that the regression of the infinitive in the Balkans should be attributed to Greek. . It is common to classify Italian dialects into three groups: Northern, Central, and Southern. In the case we are analyzing, at least some of the Central dialects, e.g. Abbruzzese, join the (proper) Southern ones, but, on the other hand, “Southern Italian” in general (as opposed to “Northern Italian” above the La Spezia-Rimini line) does not seem to behave in a uniform way in having such constructions. One problem is that the system with a single, polyfunctional complementizer is gaining ground all over Southern Italy, probably due to influence from the standard (Ledgeway 2000: 71). The complementizer split extends to Sicily, but not to Sardinia. . Arbëresh – the Tosk Albanian dialect spoken in Southern Italy and Sicily – might have also given external support for the expansion of finite modal complementation on a local level. But it is unlikely that Arbëresh could have triggered this development in the way that Greek might have. . Originally, da was a paratactic conjunction in Common Slavic (Asenova 1999: 226f.). . Fiedler (1999: 506, Note 25) points out that with verba sentiendi, the contrast between the two complementizers is regularly neutralized in the Southern Balkans. . ‘The beginning of the development of s˘a should undoubtedly be sought in subordinate sentences such as vo˘ıu˘ s˘a vînz˘ı ‘I want that you sell’. But it could happen that, in emotional contexts, ‘I want’ is replaced by gesticulation; thus, it came to be possible to use s˘a to introduce simple sentences because they express a wish or desire; and that is actually what happens in a language that does not have morphological means for the expression of will or desire.’ . Unfortunately, we were not able to use Pappas’ unpublished paper discussed by Greenberg (1996: 182f.). Greenberg points out that the avoidance of imperative forms for pragmatic reasons such as politeness – a tendency he finds manifested in Serbian and Macedo-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.19 (1127-1209)

Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods

nian, but not in Bulgarian or North Slavic (Greenberg 1996: 50, 182) – is common outside the Balkans as well. However, on the basis of the syntactic similarities the Balkan languages display with respect to the constructions that are used instead of straightforward imperative forms, he does not hesitate to consider these periphrases “an areal Balkan feature” (Greenberg 1996: 183). Regarding the more complex picture with Balkan prohibitive constructions, see Greenberg (1996: 187–191).

References Abraham, R. C. (1951). [reprint 1967]. The Idoma Language: Idoma Word Lists, Idoma Chrestomathy, Idoma Proverbs. London: University of London Press. Alexander, R. (1983). “On the definition of Sprachbund boundaries: The place of Balkan Slavic”. In Reiter (Ed.), 1983, 13–26. Asenova, P. (1989). Balkansko ezikoznanie: Osnovni problemi na balkanskija ezikov s˘ajuza [Balkan linguistics: Basic problems of the Balkan Language Union]. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. Asenova, P. (1999). “Bulgarian”. In Hinrichs (Ed.) 1999b, 211–237. Binnick, R. I. (1993). Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boretzky, N. (1994). Romani: Grammatik des Kalderaš-Dialektes mit Texten und Glossar [= Osteuropa-Institut der Freien Universität Berlin: Balkanologische Veröffentlichungen 24]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Boretzky, N. & B. Igla (1999). “Balkanische (südosteuropäische) Einflüsse im Romani”. In Hinrichs (Ed.) 1999b, 709–731. Buchholz, O. & W. Fiedler (1987). Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie. Cristofaro, S. (1998). “Aspetti diacronici e sincronici della subordinazione infinitiva in alcuni dialetti calabresi e pugliesi e nelle lingue balcaniche: una prospettiva tipologicafunzionalista”. In P. Ramat & E. Roma (Eds.), Sintassi storica: Atti del XXX congresso internazionale della Società Linguistica Italiana, Pavia, 26–28 settembre 1996, 495–518. Rome: Bulzoni. Demiraj, Sh. (1986). Gramatikë historike e gjuhës shqipe [Historical Grammar of the Albanian Language]. Tirana: Universiteti i Tiranës Enver Hoxha. Dyer, D. L. (1985). “The interplay of subjunctive and infinitive complements in Romanian”. Folia Slavica, 7, 362–380. Fiedler, W. (1999). “Tempus, Modus und Aspekt in den Sprachen Südosteuropas”. In Hinrichs (Ed.) 1999b, 487–517. Friedländer, M. (1974). Lehrbuch des Susu. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie. Friedman, V. A. (1985). “Balkan Romani modality and other Balkan languages”. Folia Slavica, 7, 381–389.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.20 (1209-1304)

 Andreas Ammann and Johan van der Auwera

Friedman, V. A. (2000). “Confirmative/nonconfirmative in Balkan Slavic, Balkan Romance, and Albanian with additional observations on Turkish, Romani, Georgian, and Lak.” In L. Johanson & B. Utas (Eds.), Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighboring Languages [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 24], 329–366. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Greenberg, R. D. (1996). The Balkan Slavic Appellative [LINCOM Studies in Slavic Linguistics 6]. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa. Harlow, R. (1996). M¯aori [Languages of the World/ Materials 20]. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa. Hinrichs, U. (1999a). “Die sogenannten ‘Balkanismen’ als Problem der SüdosteuropaLinguistik und der allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft”. In Hinrichs (Ed.) 1999b, 429–462. Hinrichs, U. (Ed.) (unter Mitarbeit von U. Büttner) (1999b). Handbuch der SüdosteuropaLinguistik [Slavistische Studienbücher, Neue Folge 10]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hoffman, C. (1963). A Grammar of the Margi Language. London: Oxford University Press. Joseph, B. D. (1983). The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive: A Study in Areal, General and Historical Linguistics [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Complementary Volume]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Joseph B. D. & I. Philippaki-Warburton (1987). Modern Greek [Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars]. London: Croom Helm. Kornfilt, J. (2001). “Functional projections and their subjects in Turkish clauses”. In E. E. Taylan (Ed.), The Verb in Turkish, 183–212. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 44]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kramer, Ch. (1985). “DA in syntactically dependent constructions in the Macedonian literary language”. Folia Slavica, 7, 412–418. Kramer, Ch. (1986). Analytic Modality in Macedonian [Slavistische Beiträge 198]. Munich: Sagner. Kramer, J. (1983). “Der kaiserzeitliche griechisch-lateinische Sprachbund”. In Reiter (Ed.) 1983, 115–131. Ledgeway, A. (2000). A Comparative Syntax of the Dialects of Southern Italy: A Minimalist Approach [Publications of the Philological Society 33]. Oxford and Boston: Blackwell. Lempp, A. (1985). “On the category of definiteness in Bulgarian DA-clauses”. Folia Slavica, 7, 419–434. Maiden, M. & M. Perry (Eds.) (1997). The Dialects of Italy. London and New York: Routledge. Mallinson, G. (1986). Rumanian [Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars]. London: Croom Helm. Matras, Y. (1994). Untersuchungen zu Grammatik und Diskurs des Romanes: Dialekt des Kelderaš/Lovara [Balkanologische Veröffentlichungen 26]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Mayerthaler, W., G. Fiedl, & Ch. Winkler (1993). Infinitivprominenz in europäischen Sprachen, Teil I: Die Romania (samt Baskisch) [Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 390]. Tübingen: Narr. Meyer-Lübke, W. (1900). [reprinted 1974]. Grammaire des langues romanes: Traduite par Auguste et Georges Doutrepont, III: Syntaxe. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints. Montoliu, C. & J. van der Auwera. “On Judeo-Spanish conditionals”. In this volume.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.21 (1304-1397)

Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods

Onumajuru, E. M. (1985). “Système verbal de la langue igbo (Le parler d’Orlu).” Ph.D. dissertation. Université des Langues et Lettres Grenoble III, Grenoble. Pappas, P. (1996). “Periphrastic fulfillable directives: a Balkanism?” Paper delivered at the Tenth Biennial Conference on Balkan and South Slavic Linguistics, Literature and Folklore, 2–5 May 1996, University of Chicago. Poletto, C. (1997). “Pronominal syntax”. In Maiden & Parry (Eds.), 137–144. Priestley, T. M. S. (1993). “Slovene”. In B. Comrie & G. C. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic Languages [Routledge Language Family Descriptions], 388–451. London: Routledge. Pu¸scariu, S. (în colaborare cu M. Bartoli, A. Belulovici s¸ i A. Byhan) (1926). Studii istroromâne II: Introducere-Gramatic˘a-Caracterizarea dialectului istroromân [IstroRomanian Studies II: Introduction – Grammar – Characterization of the IstroRomanian Dialect]. Bucharest: Cultura Na¸tional˘a. Reiter, N. (Ed.) (1983). Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik: Beiträge zur Tagung vom 2–6 März 1981 in Berlin [Osteuropa-Institut der Freien Universität Berlin: Balkanologische Veröffentlichungen 8]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rohlfs, G. (1954). Historische Grammatik der italienischen Sprache und ihrer Mundarten III: Syntax und Wortbildung. Bern: Francke. Rohlfs, G. (1958). “La perdita dell’infinitivo nelle lingue balcaniche e nell’Italia meridionale”. In B. Cazacu et al. (Eds.), Omagiu lui Jorgu Iordan cu prilejul implinirii a 70 de ani, 733–744. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne. Sandfeld, K. (1930). Linguistique balkanique: Problèmes et résultats [Collection linguistique Publiée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris 31]. Paris: Champion. Schaller, H. (1975). Die Balkansprachen. Heidelberg: Winter. Sedláˇcek, J. (1968). “Problems of the sentence syntax and of compound clauses in Balkan languages”. In J. Smrˇcková & P. Trost (Eds.), Les Etudes balkaniques tchéchoslovaques III, 55–59. Prague: Universita Karlova. Solta, R. G. (1980). Einführung in die Balkanlinguistik: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Substrats und des Balkanlateinischen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Stehl, Th. (1988). “Areallinguistik XI. Apulien und Salento”. In G. Holtus, M. Metzeltin, & Ch. Schmitt (Eds.), Lexikon der RomanistIschen Linguistik IV: Italienisch, Korsisch, Sardisch, 695–715. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Steinke, K. (1999). “Zur theoretischen Grundlegung der Südosteuropa-Linguistik”. In Hinrichs (Ed.) 1999b, 67–90. Stolz, Th. (2002). “No Sprachbund beyond this line! On an age-long discussion of how to define a linguistic area”. In P. Ramat & Th. Stolz (Eds.), Mediterranean languages: Papers from the Mediterranean Typology Workshop, Tirrenia, June 2000 [Diversitas Linguarum 1], 259–281. Bochum: Brockmeyer. ´ Topolinska, Z. (1994). “Factivity as a grammatical category in Balkan Slavic and Balkan Romance”. Slavia Meridionalis, 1, 105–121. ´ Topolinska, Z. (1995). “Convergent evolution, creolization, and referentiality”. In E. Hajˇcová et al. (Eds.), Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague n.s. / Prague Linguistic Circle Papers: Vol. 1, 239–247. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Vaillant, A. (1966). Grammaire comparée des langues slaves: Tome III Le verbe. Paris: Klincksieck.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 9:30

F: LA6709.tex / p.22 (1397-1414)

 Andreas Ammann and Johan van der Auwera

van der Auwera, J. (1998). “Revisiting the Balkan and Meso-American linguistic areas”. Language Studies, 20, 259–270. van der Auwera, J., A. Ammann with L. Lejeune & P. Umarani (2002). “Volitional convergence around the Mediterranean?” In P. Ramat & Th. Stolz (Eds.), Mediterranean languages: Papers from the Mediterranean Typology Workshop, Tirrenia, June 2000 [Diversitas Linguarum 1], 1–11. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Vasiliu, L. (1966) [reprint 1972]. “Verbul” [The Verb]. In A. Graur et al. (Eds.), Gramatica limbii române: Vol. 1, 202–245. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republici Socialiste România.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.1 (40-117)

Mood and force features in the languages of the Balkans* Daniela Isac and Edit Jakab Université du Québec à Montréal

The authors propose that imperative force features are hosted in MoodP – a projection placed in the left periphery of the sentence, which is lower than the highest CP projection (ForceP in Rizzi’s 1997 system). This proposal is able to unify the syntax of all imperatives: those with overt imperative morphology (“true” imperatives), as well as imperatives whose morphology is “borrowed” from another paradigm, such as the subjunctive, the infinitive, or the indicative (“surrogate” imperatives). Cross linguistic variation is shown to follow from the particular properties that clitics and negative markers have across languages, as well as from the particular mechanism by which the imperative Force feature is checked (by merging a Mood particle in the head of the MoodP, by moving the imperative verb to Mood; or by moving the Negative head to Mood).

.

Introduction

It has been argued (Rivero 1994a) that the languages of the Balkans provide evidence for a Mood projection which is lower than CP. In this paper we make two points related to the nature and hierarchical position of this Mood projection (MoodP). First, we argue that the Mood head hosts imperative force features and that overt imperative morphology is consistently correlated with a particular syntactic behavior, i.e., V raising to Mood. The differences between the properties of true imperatives in various Balkan languages do not reflect a difference in the syntactic behavior of true imperatives, but rather differences in (i) the properties of the negative marker, (ii) the checking mechanism involved (Merge vs. Move); and (iii) the exact head that checks the imperative force feature in Mood. The second point relates to the hierarchical position of the Mood projection. We argue that the position of MoodP relative to the CP projection and the NegP one is as in (1). (1) [CP [MoodP [NegP [IP. . .

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.2 (117-172)

 Daniela Isac and Edit Jakab

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we discuss Rivero’s (1994a) proposal regarding the type of elements that may fill the Mood head. We show that only a subset of these elements are actually in Mood0 and that these elements share one feature: when they appear in main clauses, they all express an imperative force feature. In Section 3 we discuss previous proposals on the syntax of true imperatives. Section 4 investigates the syntactic position of true imperatives in the languages of the Balkans with respect to pronominal clitics. Section 5 analyzes true Balkan imperatives under negation. Section 6 presents the conclusions.

. The Mood head in the languages of the Balkans In an influential article on the structure of Balkan clauses, Rivero (1994a) proposes that the elements that may head the MoodP in these languages are all invariant particles that may either function as future tense markers, as in (2), or as subjunctive markers, as in (3). (2) a.

Anarotjeme [an tha to wonder.1sg if will 3sg.neut.acc.cl aghorasi]. buy.3sg ‘I wonder if/whether she will buy it’. b. Znam [ˇce az šte ˇceta]. know.1sg that I will read.1sg ‘I know that I will read.’

(Greek; Roussou 2000)

(Bulgarian; Rivero 1994a)

Theli [na to aghorasi]. (Greek; Roussou 2000) want.3sg subj 3sg.neut.acc.cl buy.3sg ‘She wants to buy it.’ (Bulgarian; Krapova & Petkov 1998) b. Ivan iska [da dojde]. Ivan want.3sg subj come.3sg ‘Ivan wants to come’.

(3) a.

However, there are reasons to believe that future tense markers and subjunctive markers are not members of the same category. First, the two have different positions with respect to the negative morpheme. The Greek subjunctive particle na precedes the negative marker, while the future particle tha follows it, as shown in (4). (4) a.

(Greek; Roussou 2000) Nomizo [oti dhen tha to think.1sg that neg will 3sg.neut.acc.cl

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.3 (172-234)

Mood and force features in the languages of the Balkans 

aghorasi]. buy.3sg ‘I think that she will not buy it.’ b. Theli [na min to want.3sg subj neg 3sg.neut.acc.cl aghorasi]. buy.3sg ‘She wants (him/her) not to buy it.’


On the assumption that dhe(n) and min are manifestations of the same Negative head,1 the examples in (4) show that tha and na cannot occupy the same syntactic position. Similarly, Bulgarian subjunctive and future tense particles occupy different positions with respect to the negative marker: the negative marker follows da but precedes šte. (5) a.

Da ne ja ˇcete! subj neg 3sg.f.acc.cl read.2sg ‘You should not read it!’ b. Ne šte ˇceteš. neg will read.2sg ‘You will not read’.

(Bulgarian; Rivero 1994b)

(Bulgarian; Rivero 1994b)

Second, in Greek, the negator used with the future particle tha is different from the negator used with the subjunctive particle na, as apparent from the examples in (4). From this point of view, tha patterns with indicatives, which also use dhen as a negator. (6) Dhen tu to estile.’ neg 2sg.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl send.3sg.past ‘He did not send it to him’.

(Greek; PhilippakiWarburton 1998)

There is some debate in the literature as to whether particles like tha are indeed future tense particles or modal particles (for discussion, see Roussou 2000). For the purposes of this paper, however, we will not take any stand with respect to the nature and the exact syntactic position of these particles. What is important for us is that there are clear distributional differences between na particles and tha particles and hence that the two occupy different syntactic positions.2 The next point we need to clarify is related to the nature of the features of the Mood projection that hosts subjunctive particles. Before we attempt an answer, let us first notice that Mood can host not only subjunctive particles, but also infinitive particles (in languages that have such particles). (7) shows that infinitive parti-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.4 (234-296)

 Daniela Isac and Edit Jakab

cles pattern together with subjunctive particles with respect to their distribution relative to the negative marker. (7) a.

sã nu plece subj neg leave.3sg.subj b. a nu pleca inf neg leave.inf

(Romanian) (Romanian)

Given that Mood hosts subjunctive and infinitive particles, it seems reasonable to assume that Mood hosts non-veridical modality features (for further discussion on the nature of such features, see Giannakidou 1998). However, main clauses that contain subjunctive and infinitive markers consistently have the force of an imperative clause.3 This suggests that apart from non-veridical modality features, Mood also hosts imperative force features. (8) a.

Sã mãnânci tot! subj eat.2sg everything ‘You should eat up!’ b. Na grafi! subj write.3sg ‘(S)he should write!’ c. Da ja ˇceteš! subj 3sg.f.acc.cl read.2sg ‘You should read it!’

(Romanian)

(Greek)

(Bulgarian)

To sum up, we have shown that there are reasons to believe that in the languages of the Balkans, the so-called future particles occupy a syntactic position distinct from the position occupied by subjunctive and infinitive particles. We take subjunctive and infinitive particles to be heading Rivero’s (1994a) MoodP, and the so-called future particles to occupy a different position. Since subjunctives and infinitives in main clauses always have an imperative force in these languages, we propose that the Mood head syncretically hosts both non-veridical features and imperative force features.

. Two classes of imperatives Rivero and Terzi (1995) claim that imperatives with distinctive morphology fall into two classes as far as their syntactic behavior is concerned. Class 1 imperatives cannot be negated and precede clitics. (9) a. *Den/ mi diavase! neg read.2sg.imp ‘Don’t read!’

(Greek)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.5 (296-371)

Mood and force features in the languages of the Balkans 

b. *Nu vino! neg come.2sg.imp ‘Don’t come!’ c. Diavase to! read.2sg.imp 3sg.neut.acc.cl ‘Read it!’ d. Cheamãl! call.2sg.imp 3sg.m.acc.cl ‘Call him!’

(Romanian)

(Greek)

(Romanian)

In contrast, Class 2 imperatives can be negated and may be preceded by clitics. (Serbo-Croatian) Ne ˇcitajte ! neg read.2pl.imp ‘Do not read!’ (Bulgarian; Rivero 1994b) b. Ne ˇceti! neg read.2sg.imp ‘Don’t read!’ (Serbo-Croatian) c. Knjige im ˇcitajte! books 3pl.dat.cl read.2pl.imp ‘Read books to them!’ (Bulgarian) d. Ja mi go donesi! hey 1sg.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl bring.2sg.imp ‘Hey, bring it to me!’

(10) a.

In Rivero and Terzi’s view, this contrast results from the location of “logical mood” features. In Class 1 imperatives, the “logical mood” feature is in C0 . If V raises to C, it will come to precede clitics, which are located in the functional projection that takes IP as a complement, as in (11a). For constructions containing negation, the assumed representation is (11b), where the raising of the fully inflected verb to the complementizer, past negation, is obstructed. (11)

In languages with Class 2 imperatives, the imperative force features are hosted by a head which is lower than C0 and Neg0 , i.e., it is hosted by Infl0 . In what follows, we will show that this division is not supported by the facts. Neither the relative position of Balkan imperatives with respect to clitics, nor their behavior with respect to negation provides conclusive evidence in support of a split between true imperatives that raise to C0 and true imperatives that raise to

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.6 (371-410)

 Daniela Isac and Edit Jakab

I0 . We propose, instead, that the imperative force feature is uniformly checked in a projection lower than the highest CP, which we take to be MoodP. This has the desirable consequence of unifying morphology and syntax, in the sense that all imperatives with a distinctive morphological form are assigned the same syntactic behavior, i.e., verb movement to Mood. Two points of clarification are in order before we proceed. First, we make no claim as to whether Mood is in the IP field or in the CP field. Our only claim regarding the hierarchical position of MoodP is that MoodP is lower than the highest CP and higher than NegP. Second, Rivero and Terzi do not specify whether by C they mean Force (the higher C) or Fin (the lower C) (cf. Rizzi 1997). One could argue that Rivero and Terzi’s C is actually Fin, and that Fin can be taken to be equivalent to Mood (on the assumption that Mood is in the CP field). If this is so, then we agree with them as far as Class 1 imperatives are concerned, but still differ with respect to the existence of any contrast between true imperatives that check imperative force in Fin (Mood in our system) and true imperatives that check the same feature in a lower projection. Crucially, we hold that all imperatives with true morphology should be analysed uniformly.

. True Balkan imperatives and clitics Let us first focus on the relative position of true imperatives with respect to clitics.

. [Imperative V + Cl] orders [Imperative V + Cl] orders can be found in Romanian, Greek, Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian. We will discuss Romanian and Greek together, since the two are similar with respect to the properties of the clitics. The other languages will then be discussed one by one.

.. Romanian and Greek The fact that true imperatives in Greek and Romanian precede clitics could be taken as evidence that the imperative force feature is in the highest C. However, under the hypothesis that these languages also have a MoodP projection, it does not necessarily follow that imperative force features are in the highest C. They could very well be in Mood. Given that MoodP is higher than IP, and under the assumption that the clitics in these languages adjoin to some IP projection (cf. Kayne 1994), the distribution of imperatives in front of the clitics could also follow from the assumption that imperatives are in Mood, and not in the highest C: (12) [CP [MoodP [IP Cl . . .

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.7 (410-471)

Mood and force features in the languages of the Balkans 

The examples in (13) and (14) show that Romanian and Greek imperatives are not alone in preceding clitics. Subjunctive particles, infinitive particles, and verbs with subjunctive morphology have the same distribution. In addition to this distributional similarity, all the constructions in (13) share interpretive properties: they all point to “non-veridical” events (cf. Giannakidou 1998) and can be used with imperative force. (13) a.

Du -te! go.2sg.imp 2sg.dat.cl ‘Go!’ b. Sã te duci! subj 2sg.dat.cl go.2sg.ind ‘Go!’ c. A se manevra cu grijã! inf acc.refl.cl handle with care ‘Handle with care!’ d. Ducã -se! go.3sg.subj acc.refl.cl ‘Let him/her go!’

(Romanian, imperative)

(Romanian, subjunctive)

(Romanian, infinitive)

(Romanian, subjunctive)

(Greek, subjunctive) Na tu to stilis! subj 2sg.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl send.2sg ‘You should send it to him!’ (Greek, imperative; b. Stile tu to! send.2sg 3sg.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl Philippaki-Warburton 1998) ‘Send it to him!’

(14) a.

In what follows, we present evidence that all the verbal forms illustrated in (13), (14) check the imperative force feature in a head which is lower than the highest C, i.e., in Mood. The constructions in (13), (14) seem to form a consistent paradigm characterized by the same distribution. Accordingly, whatever syntax can be assigned to one of the forms in (13), (14), can also be extended to the other forms. Below, we show that subjunctive and infinitive particles, which share the same distribution as imperatives, are Mood particles placed in Mood. This indicates that (true) imperatives must also be in Mood0 . The analysis of subjunctive and infinitive particles in Greek and Romanian is not uncontroversial. Some linguists analyze these particles as complementizers patterning with the other complementizers in Greek and Romanian (cf. Dobrovie Sorin 1994, for Romanian; and Agouraki 1991, for Greek). In other words, these particles are analysed as occupying the highest C projection, i.e., Rizzi’s ForceP. Other researchers, such as Rivero (1994a), take subjunctive and infinitive particles to occupy the head of a Mood projection that all Balkan lan-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.8 (471-545)

 Daniela Isac and Edit Jakab

guages share. Still others assume that the subjunctive particles are in MoodP, but that they raise to C in the absence of a lexical complementizer (cf. Roussou (1994) for Greek; Motapanyane (1994) for Romanian). We endorse the view that subjunctive and infinitive particles are (and stay) in Mood, on the basis of the following arguments pointed out in Rivero (1994a), Philippaki-Warburton (1994a, 1994b) for Greek, and in Isac (2000) for Romanian. (i) Oti and pu in Greek and cã in Romanian are typical complementizers in that they are only used to introduce complement clauses; na in Greek and sã in Romanian, on the other hand, introduce main clauses, as well (see (13b) and (14a) above). (ii) Na in Greek and sã in Romanian can be preceded by complementizers: (15) a.

Thelo ena spiti [pu na exi want.1sg a house that subj has meghalo kipo] big garden ‘I want a house that has a big garden.’ b. Vreau [ca Ion sã plece] want.1sg that Ion subj leave.3sg.subj ‘I want Ion to leave.’


(Romanian)

(iii) While typical complementizers like oti and pu / cã cannot combine with a wh-phrase, the mood particles show no such restrictions. (16) a.

Pjo vivlio na dhjavaso? (Greek; Roussou 2000) Ce carte sã citesc? (Romanian) which book subj read.1sg ‘Which book should I read?’ b. Dhen ksero [pjo vivlio na dhjavaso]. (Greek; Roussou 2000) Nu stiu [ce carte sã citesc]. (Romanian) not know.1sg which book subj read.1sg ‘I don’t know which book to read.’

We therefore reject the hypothesis that subjunctive and infinitive particles occupy the (highest) C position and assume that they are merged in the head of a MoodP, just like other invariant mood markers in Balkan languages, as proposed by Rivero (1994). If this is true, then all the constituents in (13) and (14), that share the same distribution with subjunctive and infinitive particles, can be assumed to occupy the same position, i.e., the Mood head. Let us stress again that we take no stand as to whether the MoodP projection is in the left periphery (the CP layer) or in the IP layer. We leave this for further research.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.9 (545-606)

Mood and force features in the languages of the Balkans 

.. Serbo-Croatian Together with Slovenian, Czech, and Slovak clitics (which we will not discuss), Serbo-Croatian clitics exhibit Wackernagel (cf. Wackernagel 1892), or second position effects – they require the syntactic or phonological support of a first constituent. The support may be provided either by a phrase that precedes the clitic, as in (17a), or by the verb that raises to a position preceding the clitic, as in (17b). Knijge im ne ˇcitajte! books 3pl.dat.cl not read.2pl.imp ‘Do not read books to them!’ ˇ b. Citala je Marija Krležu. read 3sg.aux Maria Krleža ‘Maria read Krleža.’

(Serbo-Croatian; Rivero 1994b)

(17) a.

(Serbo-Croatian; Wilder & ´ Cavar 1994)

Even though imperatives may precede clitics in Serbo-Croatian, and even though in this case the imperative verb might very well be in C,4 it does not necessarily follow that the imperative force feature is checked in C. In other words, the reason why the imperative verb raises to a position preceding the clitic (potentially C), is not that of checking the imperative force feature, but represents a last resort mechanism that occurs only when no other constituent is available to host the clitics. This view is therefore compatible with the hypothesis that imperative force features are checked in a lower position, which could be taken to be Mood.

.. Macedonian Unlike their Serbo-Croatian counterparts, Macedonian clitics are not restricted to the second position in the clause – they must simply be verb adjacent and can be either proclitic or enclitic. More specifically, if the verb is finite, the clitics precede it directly, even if this places them in the initial position. With imperatives, however, the clitics follow the verb. (18) a.

Nosi mi go! carry.2sg.imp 1sg.dat.cl 3sg.acc.cl ‘Carry it for me!’ b. *Mi go nosi! 1sg.dat.dat 3sg.neut.acc.cl carry.2sg.imp

(Macedonian)

(Macedonian)

One proposal that accounts for verb adjacent clitics in Macedonian is that clitics are dominated by functional heads of the clause and that the adjacency requirement is the result of the proximity of these heads to the verb or auxiliary (cf. Tomić 1996, 1997). This view might in principle pose a problem to our assumption that the imperative force feature is checked in Mood, since the imperative verb in (18a) could be in any projection which is higher than the inflectional projections hosting

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.10 (606-659)

 Daniela Isac and Edit Jakab

clitics, including (the highest) C. On the other hand, nothing enforces the conclusion that the imperative verb in (18a) is in the highest C; it could very well be in a lower head. Just as in the case of Serbo-Croatian, the distribution of Macedonian imperatives with respect to clitics thus provides no clear evidence either in favor or against our hypothesis. There is however, a piece of data that seems to favor our view that imperative force features are checked in Mood, and not in C. In Macedonian, imperatives can be negated, and when they are, the imperative verb may either follow or precede the clitics. (19) a.

Ne mi go nosi! neg 1sg.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl carry.2sg.imp b. Ne nosi mi go! neg carry.2sg.imp 1sg.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl ‘Don’t carry it for me!’5

(Macedonian) (Macedonian)

The interesting case for us is (19b), which shows that the imperative verb, even when it precedes the clitics, is in a position which is lower than Neg. Under the assumption that the negative marker in Macedonian is not a clitic, and that it is lower than the highest CP (i.e., Rizzi’s (1997) ForceP), then, by transitivity, the imperative verb must be lower than the highest C, as well.

.. Bulgarian In Bulgarian, clitics must be adjacent to the verb but phonologically enclitic.6 They are different from the Serbo-Croatioan clitics, which show Wackernagel effects, and are therefore subject not only to first, but also to third or later position restrictions; they are also different from Macedonian clitics in that they can either follow or precede an imperative verb. (20) a.

Donesi mi go! bring.2sg.imp 1sg.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl ‘Bring it to me!’ b. Konjaka mi donesi! cognac-the 1sg.dat.cl bring.3sg.imp ‘Bring me the cognac!’

(Bulgarian)

(Bulgarian)

Imperatives that precede clitics may in principle be in the highest C0 , but this in fact creates no problem for our analysis since the positioning in C of the imperative verb does not follow from any specific property of imperative verbs; all verbs (imperatives or indicatives alike) can precede clitics, as shown in (21) below.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.11 (659-741)

Mood and force features in the languages of the Balkans 

(21) a.

Dade mi go Vera. gave.3sg 1sg.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl Vera ‘Vera gave it to me.’ b. Daj mi go! give.2sg.imp 1sg.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl ‘Give it to me!’

(Bulgarian)

(Bulgarian)

The relative position of Bulgarian imperatives with respect to clitics thus offers inconclusive evidence for the identification of the projection hosting imperative force features. Even if imperative verbs may precede clitics, the trigger for the movement of the verb round the clitic is clearly not the need to check the imperative force feature, since verbs inflected for, say, indicative, can also occupy this position. We believe that independent evidence for the hypothesis that it is Mood that hosts imperative force features in Bulgarian is offered by da clauses.

. The subjunctive particle Following Rudin (1985, 1988), and Rivero (1994a), we will adopt the view that the Bulgarian subjunctive particle da is a Mood projection, lower than the highest C. There are several observations that lead to this conclusion. First, the example in (22) shows that da is not a clitic, since it can be clause initial. (22a), where da is clause initial, contrasts with (22b), which has a clitic in the first position, and which is ungrammatical. (Bulgarian; Scatton 1984) Da ˇcetes! subj.prt read.2sg ‘You should read!’ (Bulgarian) b. *Mi go dade Vera vˇcera. 1sg.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl gave.3sg Vera yesterday ‘Vera gave it to me yesterday.’

(22) a.

Second, Bulgarian da can be preceded by the questions marker (da)li: ˇ (23) Cudja se dali da ja ˇceta. (Bulgarian) wonder.1sg acc.refl.cl whether subj 3sg.f.acc.cl read.1sg ‘I wonder whether to read it’. Third, a comparison between (24a) and (24b) below shows that the indicative complementizer ˇce and da occur on two different sides of the overt preverbal subject: ˇce appears before the subject, while da follows it. Assuming that ˇce is in C0 , (24) shows that da is clearly in a lower position than the highest C0 . (24) a.

(Bulgarian; Krapova Ivan se nadjava ˇce Pet˘ar e Ivan acc.refl.cl hope.3sg that Peter 3sg.aux & Petkov 1998)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.12 (741-810)

 Daniela Isac and Edit Jakab

zaminal veˇce. left.part already. ‘Ivan hopes that Peter has already left.’ b. Ivan se nadjava Pet˘ar da e Ivan refl hopes Peter subj 3sg.aux zaminal veˇce. left.part already ‘Ivan hopes that Peter has already left.’

(Bulgarian; Krapova & Petkov 1998)

The arguments presented above show that da in Bulgarian heads a projection which is lower than the highest C. Given the fact that such constructions can have imperative force, we conclude that the imperative force feature is located in the very projection that hosts da. One question that comes to mind is whether the projection that hosts Bulgarian da is the same as the one hosting Romanian sã and Greek na, i.e., whether we can equate the relevant position with MoodP. We have reasons to believe that this is so. First, as illustrated in (8) above, Bulgarian da clauses, just like Romanian sã clauses and Greek na clauses, can be used as main clauses, and when they are main clauses, they have an imperative force. Second, in all three languages the subjunctive particle can be preceded by a (high) complementizer: (Romanian) Vreau [ca Ion sã plece] want.1sg that Ion subj leave.3sg.subj ‘I want Ion to leave.’ b. Thelo ena spiti [pu na exi meghalo want.1sg a house that subj has big (Greek; Roussou 2000) kipo]. garden ‘I want a house that has a big garden’. ˇ c. Cudja se [dali da ja wonder.1sg acc.refl.cl whether subj 3sg.f.acc.cl (Bulgarian) ˇceta]. read.1.sg ‘I wonder whether to read it’.

(25) a.

Third, the subjunctive particles in all these languages can be preceded by Topic and Focus constituents. (26) a.

MARIA sã vinã, nu Petre! Maria subj come.3sg.subj not Petre ‘It’s Mary who should come, not Peter’.

(Romanian)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.13 (810-882)

Mood and force features in the languages of the Balkans 

b. Elpizo ta mila/MILA na min hope.1sg the apples subj not ta fai o Petros. 3pl.acc.cl eat.3sg the Peter ‘I hope that Peter won’t eat the apples.’ c. Iskam knigata IVAN da want.1sg book-the Ivan subj mi ja dade. 1sg.dat.cl 3sg.f.acc.cl give.3sg ‘I want Ivan to give me the book.’


(Bulgarian; Krapova & Petkov 1998)

Fourth, subjunctive particles in these languages precede negation. (27) a.

Vreau sã nu plece. want.1sg subj neg leave.3sg.subj ‘I wish he didn’t leave.’ b. Theli [na min to want-3sg subj neg 3sg.neut.acc.cl aghorasi]. buy.3sg ‘She wants (him/her) not to buy it.’ c Da ne ja ˇcetes!7 subj neg 3sg.f.acc.cl read.pres.2.sg. ‘You should not read it!’

(Romanian)

(Greek, Roussou 2000)

(Bulgarian)

We conclude that Bulgarian da is like Romanian sã and Greek na.8 The languages discussed above contrast with Serbo-Croatian from two respects. First, the properties of Serbo-Croatian modal da vary depending on the person feature on the verb (and the subject). Thus, third person da clauses cannot be used as (matrix) imperatives, whereas first and second person da clauses can.9 This is illustrated in (28). (28) a. *Da Vesna proˇcita ovu knjigu! subj Vesna read.3sg this book ‘Vesna should read this book!’ b. Da idemo! subj go.1pl ‘Let us go!’ c. Da ste blagosloveni! subj are.2pl blessed.pl.part ‘Be blessed!’

(Serbo-Croatian)

(Serbo-Croatian)

(Serbo-Croatian)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.14 (882-930)

 Daniela Isac and Edit Jakab

The third person da must be licensed by a wh-element, as proposed by Vrzić (1996). The wh-licensor can be realized by the intonation, as in (29a), by the complementizer dali, as in (29b), or by a wh-phrase, as in (29c). (29) a.

Dali da Vesna proˇcita ovu knjigu? whether subj Vesna read.3sg this book ‘Should Vesna read this book?’ b. Koju knjigu da Vesna proˇcita? which book subj Vesna read.3sg ‘Which book should Vesna read?’ c. *Da Vesna proˇcita ovu knjigu! subj Vesna reads this book ‘Vesna should read this book!’

(Serbo-Croatian; Vrzić 1996) (Serbo-Croatian; Vrzić 1996) (Serbo-Croatian; Vrzić 1996)

This suggests that Serbo-Croatian da is somehow linked together with interrogative force features (on the two distinct functions of da see Jakab 2001), rather than with imperative force features. Second, Serbo-Croatian da can either be preceded or followed by focused constituents, in contrast to Bulgarian, Romanian, and Greek subjunctive particles. (30) a.

Dali (ovu knjigu) da (ovu knjigu) Vesna whether this book subj this book Vesna ˇcita? read.3sg Is it this book that Vesna should read?’ b. Elpizo ta mila na (*ta mila) min hope.1sg the apples subj the apples not ta fai o Petros. 3pl.acc.cl eat.3sg the Peter ‘I hope that Peter won’t eat the apples.’

(Serbo-Croatian; Vrzić 1996)


This seems to show that Serbo-Croatian da is higher than the Mood particles in Romanian, Bulgarian, Greek and Albanian and thus seems to cast doubt on our proposal that imperative force features are checked in a similar position in all these languages. However, (30) above does not necessarily illustrate that Serbo-Croatian da is hosted in a different syntactic position than in Bulgarian, Romanian, and Greek. The same facts could follow from the presence or absence of an affixal feature on the Mood particle. More specifically, Bulgarian, Romanian and Greek Mood particles could be assumed to have an affixal feature that imposes adjacency with the cl-V string on the right, whereas Serbo-Croatian da does not have such a feature, does not impose adjacency, and behaves rather like a free morpheme.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.15 (930-987)

Mood and force features in the languages of the Balkans 

These differences, however, can very well be accommodated with the idea that the Mood particles are merged in the same syntactic position in all these languages. To sum up, for Romanian and Greek, we have shown that imperatives are in Mood, on the basis of the distribution of subjunctive and infinitive particles, which can be shown on independent grounds to be in Mood. For Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian, the distribution of imperatives with respect to clitics provides inconclusive evidence. Independent facts, i.e., subjunctive clauses, show, however, that the imperative force feature is in Mood in these languages, too. To sum up, we have shown that in the languages in which the imperative verb precedes clitics, the relevant position where the imperative force feature is checked is Mood, and not C.

. [Cl + Imperative V] orders Let us now take a look at languages in which the imperative verb follows clitics. As noted above, the imperative verb may follow the clitics in Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian. In principle, [Cl + Imperative Verb] word orders pose problems for our view that the imperative force feature is in Mood only to the extent to which both the verb and the clitic are assumed to be in the highest C, i.e. in a position which is higher than Mood (Progovac 1996; Franks & Progovac ´ 1994; Rivero 1991; Cavar & Wilder 1994). This C position can be either the base position for the clitic and a derived position for the imperative verb, or else a derived position for both the clitic and the verb, i.e., the clitic is generated in a lower position, at some point in the derivation it adjoins to the verb, and eventually they both raise to C. Let us examine the situations in which the imperative verb may follow the clitic in these languages. In Serbo-Croatian – a Wackernagel language, this word order arises if there is a phrase that precedes the clitic and thus provides support to the clitic, as in (17a) above. Suppose that in (17a) the fronted nominal constituent knjige is in SpecCP and that the imperative verb and the clitics are in C. Would this assumption necessarily lead to the conclusion that imperative force features are checked in C in Serbo-Croatian? Clearly not. It is conceivable that the imperative verb raises to C for independent reasons, that have nothing to do with imperative force features. This conclusion is actually supported by the fact that indicative verbs in Serbo-Croatian share the same distribution with imperatives in a context like (17a), as shown below, in (31). (31) Lica im ne razaznaje. faces 3pl.dat.cl neg distinguish.3sg ‘(S)he does not distinguish their faces.’

(Serbo-Croatian; RadanovićKocić 1988: 107)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.16 (987-1042)

 Daniela Isac and Edit Jakab

A similar argument can be made for Bulgarian. Bulgarian clitics can precede an imperative verb as long as two restrictions are satisfied: clitics must be adjacent to the verb, and must be phonologically enclitic. This is illustrated in (20b), repeated below for convenience. (32) Konjaka mi donesi! cognac-the 1sg.dat.cl bring.2sg.imp ‘Bring me the cognac!’

(Bulgarian)

As in Serbo-Croatian, the position of the verb in (32) above is not specific to imperatives, since indicatives also share this distribution. In other words, even if one assumes that V to C applies in (33), it definitely applies for reasons independent of force. (33) Vera mi go dade vˇcera. Vera 1sg.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl gave.3sg yesterday ‘Vera gave it to me yesterday.’

(Bulgarian)

Finally, let us turn to Macedonian [Cl + Imperative V] word orders. Such orderings occur in Macedonian under negation: when imperatives are negated, the imperative verb may follow the clitics, as in (19a) above. Crucially, the imperative verb may follow the clitics in Macedonian only under negation. Even under the assumption that the verb and the clitics occupy the same functional head position, this position cannot be the highest C, since it is lower than Neg, as shown in (19a) above. Such orderings are therefore perfectly compatible with the assumption that the imperative force feature is in Mood, and not in (the highest) C. To conclude this section, even if imperative verbs may be in (the highest) C when they follow the clitics in these languages, this position is clearly not particular to imperatives, since verbs inflected for, say, indicative, can also occupy this position. Given that (i) the imperative verb does not consistently follow the clitic; (ii) when imperatives precede clitics, they are in Mood, as shown above, in Section 4.1.; (iii) there is no conclusive evidence to show that when imperatives follow the clitic, they are in C, we will assume that imperatives are in Mood uniformly, i.e., both when they precede and when they follow clitics.

. Balkan imperatives and negation Let us now focus on the distributional properties of imperatives with respect to negation. If our conclusion that all imperatives check an imperative force feature in Mood is true, and if subjunctive forms can be used as imperatives, then the word order in (27) above indicates that the relative order of the MoodP projec-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.17 (1042-1111)

Mood and force features in the languages of the Balkans

tion and the NegP projection is as in (34). Evidence for this particular ordering of MoodP and NegP has been identified by Giannakidou (1998), PhilippakiWarburton (1998), for Greek, and Isac (1999) for Romanian. (34) [MoodP [NegP [IP (34) straightforwardly accounts for the scopal properties of the negative operator and the imperative feature: a negative imperative is always interpreted as an order not to do something and never as a lack of order to do something. The scope of the imperative force is therefore always wider than the scope of negation, and (34) can accurately account for this restriction. We claim that (34), in conjunction with the conclusion we reached in the preceding section, namely that the imperative force feature is uniformly checked in Mood, can account for variation across negative Balkan imperative forms. We propose that there are several dimensions of variation: (i) the nature of the negative marker; (ii) the type of checking mechanism involved; and (iii) the exact head that checks the imperative force in Mood.

. The nature of the negative marker The negative marker heading the NegP in (34) above can either be an independent syntactic head, or a clitic. When the negative marker is a syntactic head, it has blocking properties, and this explains the ungrammaticality of (35a). On the other hand, when the negative marker is a clitic, it can cliticize onto the verb and allow for further movement of the verb past Neg, to a higher position. The nature of the negative marker can thus account for the contrast in (35). (35) a. *Nu vino! neg come.2sg.imp ‘Don’t come!’ b. Ne ˇcitajte je! neg read.2pl.imp 3sg.f.acc.cl ‘Do not read it!’

(Romanian)

(Serbo-Croatian)

. The type of checking mechanism involved In contrast to true imperatives, which are sensitive to the head or the clitic nature of the negative marker, surrogate imperatives do not seem to be sensitive to this distinction, in that they can always be negated, whether the negative marker is a syntactic head or a clitic (see also Zanuttini 1997). However, the possibility of



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.18 (1111-1149)

 Daniela Isac and Edit Jakab

negating an imperative form does not perfectly correlate with the true or surrogate nature of that form. More precisely, not all surrogate imperatives can be negated. (36) a.

ducã -se! go.3sg.subj acc.refl.cl ‘Let him/her go!’ b. *se ducã ! acc.refl.cl go.3sg.subj c. *ducã -se nu! go.3sg.subj acc.refl.cl neg d. Sã nu se ducã ! subj neg acc.refl.cl go.3sg.subj ‘(S)he shouldn’t go!’

(Romanian)

(Romanian) (Romanian) (Romanian)

(36a–b) show that Romanian verbs inflected for subjunctive can be used as surrogate imperatives without the subjunctive particle sã, provided the verb precedes the clitic. Under negation, a contrast emerges between subjunctive verbs accompanied by the subjunctive particle, which can be negated (see (36d)), and subjunctive verbs that occur without the subjunctive particle, which cannot be negated (see (36c)). We propose that, depending on the particular mechanism by which the imperative force feature is checked, surrogate imperatives can be split into two groups. The “inverted” construction in (36a) checks the imperative force feature by Move, and this is why it patterns together with true imperatives as far as the availability of negation is concerned, whereas in the construction in (36d) the imperative force feature is checked by Merging a morphologically independent particle into the Mood head, and this is why “full subjunctives” can be negated. Move past Neg is sensitive to the head status of the negative marker, and is blocked by it, whereas Merge ‘inserts’ a Mood particle directly into the Mood head, without being subject to any restriction on the properties of lower heads. To generalize, the differences regarding the possibility of negating verbal forms with imperative morphology do not follow from their true vs. surrogate nature, but rather from (i) the head or clitic nature of the negative marker; and (ii) the different ways in which checking can proceed: Move vs. Merge.

. The exact head that checks the imperative force in Mood We have seen that (some of) the differences between Balkan imperative forms, as far as the possibility of negating these forms is concerned, can be accounted for by (i) the different nature of the negative marker in various languages (syntactic head vs clitic); and (ii) the checking mechanism involved (Merge vs. Move). However, the following example seems to pose a problem for this conclusion.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.19 (1149-1220)

Mood and force features in the languages of the Balkans 

(37) Ne ja ˇceti! neg 3sg.f.acc.cl read.2sg.imp ‘Don’t read it!’

(Bulgarian)

Bulgarian negation does not have clitic-like properties and therefore does not allow verb incorporation. In (37) above the negation particle can offer support to the clitic on its own, without the need for verb incorporation. The problem we are faced with is that the ordering in (34) cannot account for (37). If negation in Bulgarian is not a clitic, then the imperative verb in (37) is lower than negation, contrary to the assumption that MoodP (where the imperative force feature is checked) is higher than NegP. We propose that in this instance the Mood feature is checked by Neg that raises to Mood.10 Let us look at more examples. In Romanian, the clitic+verb order is also possible, but only under negation. This suggests again that in the presence of negation the imperative verb raises to a position which is lower than Mood, and it is the negative marker that raises to Mood. (38) a.

Dute! go.2sg.imp acc.refl.cl b. *Te du! acc.refl.cl go.2sg.imp c. *Nu dute! neg go2sg.imp acc.refl.cl d. Nu te du! neg acc.refl.cl go2sg.imp

(Romanian) (Romanian) (Romanian) (Romanian)

The same kind of interaction between negation and Mood can be observed in Macedonian, where the clitics precede the verb, if the verb is finite (even if this places them in S-initial position), and follow the verb, if the latter is non-finite, as is the case in imperatives. (39) a.

Nosi mi go ! carry.2sg.imp 1sg.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl ‘Carry it for me!’ b. *Mi go nosi! 1sg.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl carry.2sg.imp

(Macedonian)

(Macedonian)

This pattern is quite consistent, with one exception: the clitics can optionally precede the verb, if the latter is in the imperative.11 Crucially, this can only happen under negation (compare (39b) to (40)). (40) Ne mi go nosi! neg 1sg.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl carry.2sg.imp ‘Don’t carry it for me!’

(Macedonian)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.20 (1220-1274)

 Daniela Isac and Edit Jakab

This suggests that in (40) the imperative verb is in a position which is lower than Mood and that it is the negative head that checks the imperative force feature in such cases. In Albanian, the negative marker mos, which is used with subjunctives, can be placed on either side of the subjunctive marker të. This flexibility is apparent in root subjunctives only, which always function as imperatives. This suggests that the imperative mood feature can be checked either by the subjunctive particle or by the negative marker. (41) a.

Mos të shkosh! neg subj go.2sg ‘Don’t go!’ b. Të mos shkosh! subj neg go.2sg ‘Don’t go!’

(Albanian; Terzi 1992)

(Albanian; Terzi 1992)

Yet another illustration of the same pattern is provided by Greek. Greek indicatives can be interpreted not only as veridical, but also as non-veridical events. This ambiguity arises only if the indicative verb is negated. Moreover, it is well known that Greek negation correlates with veridicality distinctions: when Greek indicatives are used as veridical, they are negated with den, but when used with imperative force, i.e., as non-veridical, the negation marker must be different, i.e., min. Since the form of the (indicative) V is the same when the interpretation is veridical or nonveridical, it must be that the veridical vs. non-veridical distinction is carried by the negative marker. Under our analysis, the negative marker raises to Mood in order to check the imperative Force feature, and this explains why den, which does not have “logical” mood features, results in ungrammaticality. (42) a.

den grafis. neg write.2sg.ind ‘You are not writing’. b. mi(n) grafis! neg write.2sg.ind ‘Don’t write!’

(Greek)

(Greek)

The data reviewed above show that negation in imperatives is different from negation in non-imperatives and that support is offered not only by languages that use independent negative markers for imperatives vs. non-imperatives, but even by languages that seem to have only one negative marker.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.21 (1274-1339)

Mood and force features in the languages of the Balkans 

. Conclusion We have proposed a unified analysis of all imperative forms, i.e., of all ‘true’ imperatives and “surrogate” imperatives. i. All imperatives check an imperative force feature which is located in Mood. ii. MoodP is lower than Rizzi’s ForceP and higher than NegP. iii. Variation across languages with respect to imperatives is not a consequence of differences in the syntax of imperatives, but follows from the different properties of clitics and of negative markers in various languages. iv. The imperative force feature can be checked in one of the following three ways: (a) by merging a Mood particle in the head of the MoodP (b) by moving the imperative verb to Mood (c) by moving the Neg head to Mood.

Notes * This research has been supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (grant # 412-97-0016), for the “Asymmetry and Natural Language Processing Project”, awarded to professor Anna-Maria Di Sciullo, in the Département de Linguistique at Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). Many thanks to Olga Mišeska Tomić, Arhonto Terzi, and two anonymous reviewers, for very useful comments and suggestions. . De(n) is the negative particle used in [+indicative] clauses, whereas mi(n) is used in [–indicative] clauses. Alternatively, the relevant feature could be taken to be veridicality. On this latter view, see Giannakidou (1998). . For a similar conclusion, see Terzi (1992) and Roussou (2000). . Matrix na clauses in Greek and sã clauses in Romanian can express not only commands, but also exhortations and wishes. We are implicitly claiming that na/sã exhortations and wishes can be seen as bearing an imperative force feature. ´ . The syntactic position of clitics in SC is controversial: clitics are assumed to be in C (Cavar & Wilder 1994; Rivero 1991; Progovac 1996; Franks & Progovac 1994), in a functional projection immediately below C (Schutze 1994; Rivero 1994b; Halpern 1995), or in a variety of functional heads (i.e. not in a fixed position). We will not take a stand with respect to this debate here. Instead, we will focus on the consequence that a pre-clitic position for the imperative verb could involve the C position under any of these views. . As pointed out to us by Olga Mišeska Tomić, p.c., (19) can also get the interpretation in (i.a) below, apart from the one indicated in (19), an repeated in (i.b). (i)

a. b.

Do not bring it to me. Do not carry it for me.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.22 (1339-1419)

 Daniela Isac and Edit Jakab

The availability of this additional interpretation suggests an interaction between negation and the aspectual features of the verb. This kind of interaction is beyond the scope of this paper. What is important for us is that there is an interpretation of (19) which differs from (18) strictly with respect to the presence of negation. . Bulgarian clitics show Tobler-Mussafia effects, which means that they are subject to a syntactic constraint against first position, without restrictions on second or later positions. . As it will become clear below, in Section 5.3, Bulgarian negation does not have clitic like properties and heads its own projection. . The same analysis can be extended to the Albanian modal particle të, which we cannot discuss for lack of space. . This variation according to person features was brought to our attention by Olga Tomić, p.c. . Similar views on the relation between negation and imperatives can be found in Laka (1994), Zanuttini (1994), Zanuttini (1997), Manzini and Savoia (1999) and Kayne (1992). . As reported by Tomić (2001) this kind of “optionality” is interdialecal: clitics are placed between the negative marker and the verb in the Northern Macedonian dialects.

References Agouraki, G. (1991). “A Modern Greek complementizer and its significance for universal grammar”. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 1–24. Dobrovie Sorin, C. (1994). The Syntax of Romanian, Comparative Studies in Romanian. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyer. Franks, S. & L. Progovac (1994). “On the Placement of Serbo-Croatian clitics”. In G. Fowler, H. Cooper, & J. Ludwig (Eds.), Proceedings of theNinth Biennial Conference on Balkan and South Slavic Linguistics, Literature, and Folklore. Indiana Slavic Studies, 7, 69–78. Giannakidou, A. (1998). Polarity Sensititivity as (Non)veridical Dependency [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Halpern, A. (1995). On the Morphology and Placement of Clitics. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Isac, D. (2000). “Two Romanian Moods”. In M. Coene, W. de Mulder, P. Dendale, & Y. D’huls (Eds.), Traiani Augusti Vestigia Pressa Sequamur. Studia Lingvistica in Honorem Lilianae Tasmowski, 443–460. Padova: Unipress. Jakab, E. (2001). “The Modality of Non-Finite Clauses in Slavic and Finno-Ugric.” Doctoral dissertation. Princeton University. Kayne, R. (1992). “Italian negative infinitival imperatives and clitic climbing.” In L.Tasmowski & A. Zribi-Hertz (Eds.), Hommages a Nicolas Ruwet, 300–312. Ghent: Communication and Cognition. Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Krapova, I. & V. Petkov (1998). “Subjunctive complements, null subjects and case checking in Bulgarian”. In K. Dziwirek, H. Coats, & C. M. Vakareliyska (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics; The Seattle Meeting, 265–289. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.23 (1419-1519)

Mood and force features in the languages of the Balkans 

Laka, I. (1994). On the Syntax of Negation. New York: Garland. Manzini, M. R. & L. Savoia (1999). “The Syntax of middle-reflexive and object clitics: A case of parametrization in Arberërsh dialects”. In M. Mandalà (Ed.), Studi in Onore di Luigi Marlekaj, 328–383. Bari: Adriatica. Motapanyane, V. (1994). “On Subjunctive morphology and its interaction with syntax.” Ms. University of New Brunswick. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1994a). “Verb movement and clitics in Modern Greek”. In I. Philippaki-Warburton, K. Nikolaidis, & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 117], 53–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1994b). “The subjunctive mood and the syntactic status of the particle na in Modern Greek”. Folia Linguistica, 28, 297–328. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1998). “Functional categories and Modern Greek syntax.” The Linguistic Review, 15, 159–186. Progovac, Lj. (1996). “Clitics in Serbian/Croatian: Comp as the second position”. In A. Halpern & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Approaching Second: Second Pposition Clitics and Related Phenomena, 411–428. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Radanović-Kocić, V. (1988). “The Grammar of Serbo-Croatian Clitics: A Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Rivero, M. L. (1991). “Long head movement and negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak and Czech”. The Linguistic Review, 8, 319–351. Rivero, M. L. (1994a). “Clause-structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 63–120. Rivero, M. L. (1994b). “Negation, imperatives, and Wackernagel effects.” Rivista di Linguistica, 6(1), 39–66. Rivero, M. L. & A. Terzi (1995). “Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood”. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 310–332. Rizzi, L. (1997). “The fine structure of the left periphery.” Ms. University of Venice. Roussou, A. (1994). “The Syntax of Complementizers.” Ph.D. dissertation. University College London. Roussou, A. (2000). “On the left periphery: Modal particles and complementizers.” Journal of Greek Linguistics, 1, 65–94. Rudin, C. (1985). Aspects of Bulgarian Syntax: Complementizers and WH Constructions. Columbus: Slavica. Rudin, C. (1988). “On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting”. Natural Languange and Linguistic Theory, 6, 445–501. Scatton, E. A. (1984). A Reference Grammar of Modern Bulgarian. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. Schutze, C. (1994). “Serbo-Croatian second position clitic placement and the phonology syntax interface”. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 373–473. Terzi, A. (1992). “PRO in Finite Clauses: A Study of the Inflectional Heads of the Balkan Languages.” Ph.D. dissertation. City University of New York. Tomić, O. Mišeska (1996). “The Balkan Slavic clausal clitics”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 811–872. Tomić, O. Mišeska (1997). “Non-initial as a default clitic position”. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 5, 301–323.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:01

F: LA6710.tex / p.24 (1519-1550)

 Daniela Isac and Edit Jakab

Tomić, O. Mišeska (2001). “The Macedonian Negative Operator and Cliticization”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19(3), 647–682. Vrzić, Z. (1996). “Categorial status of the Serbo-Croatian ‘modal’ da”. In J. Toman (Ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The College Park Meeting, 291–312. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Wackernagel, J. (1892). “Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung”. Indogermanische Forschungen, I, 333–436. ´ Wilder, C. & D. Cavar (1994). “Long head-movement? Verb movement and cliticization in Croatian”. Lingua, 93, 1–58. Zanuttini, R. (1994). “Speculations on negative imperatives.” Rivista di Linguistica, 6(1), 67–89. Zanuttini, R. (1997). Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:42

F: LA6711.tex / p.1 (40-118)

On left periphery and focus* Virginia Hill University of New Brunswick, Saint John

This paper demonstrates that the checking conditions for Focus and Nominative Case features coincide and that they both require the presence of finite T(ense). It is proposed that a syncretic [focus/tense] feature is formed at a pre-syntactic level and it associates in syntax with T. Consequently, fronting to Focus targets TP internal positions, and does not necessarily end up in the CP field. Empirical support for this analysis comes from Romanian, and consists of tests of word order which may be extended to Bulgarian (and possibly other Balkan languages) but not to Romance languages outside the Balkans.

.

Introduction

Root declarative clauses in Romanian may display the word order Topic – subject – Focus – Verb, with a possible second Topic. This arrangement of the left periphery differs from other Romance languages, where both Topic and Focus precede the subject. In fact, the Romanian word order appears in other Balkan languages, which suggests that this property is a language contact effect rather than an inherited development. Indeed, it has been argued (e.g. Kiss 1995) that the proliferation of the left periphery as in the Romanian model characterizes “discourse configurational languages” with a default postverbal subject; and that Balkan languages (including Romanian) display VSO in neutral contexts (e.g. Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998, a.o.). This paper aims to demonstrate that the order Topic-subject-Focus is derived within the left periphery of the inflectional/Tense phrase (TP), and not in the Complementizer field (CP).1 That is possible because the focus feature undergoes feature syncretism with the tense feature (instead of with the feature cluster in C) and observes feature checking within TP. Romanian data support such an analysis with constructions in which the strength of T conditions Focus placement. More precisely, when T may check Nominative Case in preverbal position, Focus may appear post- or pre-verbally; when T is unable to check Nominative Case in preverbal

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:42

F: LA6711.tex / p.2 (118-166)

 Virginia Hill

position, Focus must appear post-verbally. Relevant tests proposed for Romanian hold for Bulgarian as well, as shown in the comparative paradigms. In language contact situations, the shared/borrowed property operates within genetically unrelated grammars, so some variation of word order is expected. The crucial point is that Bulgarian may exhibit the word order discussed for Romanian, whereas Western Romance languages do not. From this point of view, the organisation of the left periphery in Romanian signals a Balkan Sprachbund property, since it applies cross-linguistically and independent of the genetic make-up of the language (Joseph 2001). Several analyses have approached the left periphery of Romanian and Bulgarian and their conclusions form the theoretical background for this investigation. In particular, the data proposed in this paper support the hypothesis of [focus] feature syncretism in constructions with contrastive Focus (e.g., Alboiu 2000 for Romanian; Arnaudova 2001 for Bulgarian, for other types of foci). The novelty of this analysis consists in: (i) bringing the contrastive Focus constructions in the two languages under the same structural umbrella; (ii) showing that the feature syncretism hypothesis has empirical support; (iii) unifying the syntactic checking account for Focus in situ and fronting to Focus in the constructions discussed. We adopt the convention of the Minimalist Program and consider that TP is compatible with analyses of inflectional phrases split in various functional projections (e.g., Mood Phrase-Agreement Phrase-Aspectual Phrase, etc.). Accordingly, point (i) relies on arguments toward a TP versus CP level of constructions with contrastive Focus in Romanian and Bulgarian. The paradigms in Section 2 show a similar cross-linguistic behaviour with respect to: (a) Topic-Focus sequences in embedded clauses; (b) adjacency between Focus and Verb; (c) use of the argumental preverbal position for subjects. Section 3 takes the argument further: it is not only the case that fronting to focus stays within TP (versus CP) but also that the [focus] feature adheres to the [tense] feature, so that T carries a complex [tense/focus] feature. This argument underlies point (ii) above, and leads to a discussion of Romanian non-finite constructions, which show a correlation between availability of Nominative Case and availability of fronting to Focus. It appears that a property of T (namely, its degree of finiteness) constrains the fronting to Focus in the same way in which it constrains subject movement to preverbal field, and this argues for a common site for the [tense] and [focus] features. Given the syntactic similarities discussed in Section 2, the conclusions of Section 3 are extended to Bulgarian. The empirical manifestation of the [tense/focus] syncretism is that fronting to Focus is allowed whenever Nominative preverbal subjects are possible. Section 4 illustrates this relationship with restrictions on fronting to Focus. Preverbal Focus always targets positions related to finite tense, even when this target involves cross-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:42

F: LA6711.tex / p.3 (166-233)

On left periphery and focus 

ing of the clausal border. Along these lines, contrastive Focus in general depends on its attachment to a finite [tense] feature.

. Word order in Romanian and Bulgarian . Topic-Focus in root clauses The constructions under investigation are declarative clauses with fronting to Focus as in (1). As it may be noticed, Romanian (Rom) and Bulgarian (Bul) observe the same order: subject – contrastive Focus – verb. Pavel MA¸SINA˘ a cump˘arat (nu cas˘a). Pavel car has bought.part not house b. Pavel KOLA kupi (ne k˘ašta). Pavel car bought.3sg not house ‘Pavel bought a car (not a house).’

(1) a.

Rom Bul

Subjects in (1) may have a neutral or Topic reading. Other constituents with Topic reading would maintain the same order: Topic-Focus-Verb, as further shown in (2). La mare cu ION voiam s˘a m˘a duc. Rom to sea with Ion wanted.1sg subj.mark me.refl.cl go.1sg ‘It was Ion that I wanted to go to the seaside with.’ Bul b. Na more s IVAN iskax da otida. to sea with Ivan wanted.1sg subj.mark go.perf.1sg ‘It was Ivan that I wanted to go to the seaside with.’

(2) a.

All current analyses of the clause structure in Romanian and Bulgarian agree, implicitly or explicitly, that root declaratives as in (1) and (2) project to TP, not to CP, since these are non-V2 languages (e.g., Cornilescu 2000; Lambova 2001 among others). So the sequence Topic-Focus must be accommodated in the left periphery of the TP structure. This conclusion invites further discussion, as the preverbal Topic and Focus sites are generally associated with the CP field, especially since the split CP hypothesis proposed in Rizzi (1997).

. Topic and Focus in embedded clauses The word order in (1) and (2) is maintained in embedded clauses with a lexical complementizer, as in (3). (3) a.

Spunea c˘a Pavel MA¸SINA˘ a cump˘arat (nu cas˘a). said.3sg that Pavel car has bought.part not house

Rom

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:42

F: LA6711.tex / p.4 (233-300)

 Virginia Hill

b. Kaza ˇce Pavel KOLA e kupil (ne k˘ašta). said.3sg that Pavel car is bought.part not house ‘(S)he said that Pavel (has) bought a car (not a house).’

Bul

One may argue that in the presence of lexical C the clause structure is different; with Topic and Focus in the CP field. More precisely, Rizzi (1997) shows that the CP field consists of functional C-heads, organized hierarchically as Force-Fin. Between Force and Fin the structure may project positions for Topic and Focus, yielding the string: Force-(Top)-(Focus)-Fin-TP. In this framework, “that”-type complementizers occupy the Force head, followed by Topic and Focus constituents and a non-lexical Fin, which selects the embedded TP. Such structures appear in English and most Romance languages. There are reasons to believe that Romanian complementizers in declarative sentences are in Fin, not in Force, and only interrogatives have elements above Fin (Hill 2002). Let us apply Rizzi’s (1997) analysis to an interrogative construction with the interrogative marker oare: Rom (4) M˘a întrebam dac˘a, oare, lui Ion CASA me.refl.cl asked.1sg if inter him.dat Ion house i-ar fi revenit (nu banii). him.dat.cl-would.3sg been belonged.part not money ‘I was wondering whether the house should have gone to Ion, not the money.’ In (4) two lexical elements occur in CP, so they must be distributed as follows: dac˘a ‘whether’ in Force and oare in Fin.2 Then, Topic and Focus following oare must target positions at the left periphery of the TP selected by Fin.3 Therefore, the pattern of TP containing Topic and Focus observed in matrix clauses, as in (1) and (2), is also available in embedded clauses.

. Preverbal subjects Romanian and Bulgarian present free SV/VS order. Preverbal subjects are generally considered Topics, but argumental parsing for these subjects also occurs. When this is the case, the permissible word order is Topic-Subject-Focus-Verb, maintained in both matrix clauses, as in (5), and embedded clauses, as in (6). (5) a.

Mariei cineva numai FLORI îi trimitea, Mary.dat somebody only flowers her.dat.cl sent.3sg nu bomboane. not sweets

Rom

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:42

F: LA6711.tex / p.5 (300-369)

On left periphery and focus 

Bul b. ?Na Meri, nekoj tolkoz cvetja i praštaše, to Meri somebody only flowers her.dat.cl send.imperf.3sg ne bonboni. not sweets ‘As for Mary, somebody was sending her only flowers, not sweets.’ Rom (6) Spunea c˘a, Mariei, cineva numai FLORI îi said.3sg that Mary.dat somebody only flowers her.dat.cl trimitea, nu bomboane. sent.3sg not sweets ‘As for Mary, (s)he said that somebody was sending her only flowers, not sweets.’ The bare quantifier (BQ) in subject position in (5) and (6) has to occupy an argumental position for the following reasons: (i) Since Cinque (1990) it is known that BQs cannot be Topics. (ii) The BQ cooccurs with preverbal Focus, so it cannot have a Focus reading. (iii) The Focus movement creates an operator-variable chain which would compete with the BQ chain if the latter was in an A’ position. Topic and Focus are distributed around the argumental subject position. As such, the sequence Topic-Subject-Focus is not compatible with the CP field, which is reserved to non-argumental positions. One may argue that the grammaticality of (5) might follow from VP movement to an adjunct position to TP, so that BQ-Focus sequences represent the in situ word order. Let us consider this possibility by analysing the VP of (6): (7) a.

[TP [VP cineva trimitea numai FLORI Mariei]]. somebody sent.3sg only flowers Mary.dat b. [TP îi trimitea [VP cineva numai FLORI her.dat.cl sent.3sg somebody only flowers Mariei]]. Mary.dat numai FLORI Mariei] [TP îi c. ?*[VP cineva somebody always flowers Mary-dat her.dat.cl trimitea]. sent.3sg

Rom Rom

Rom

As we see, all the verbs move out of the VP, so that (7a) takes the form of (7b). Subsequent VP-movement yields (7c). Judgements show a clear contrast between (5) and (7c), indicating that in (5) each constituent moved out of VP independently, for checking purposes, while the VP stayed behind. The behavior of BQs as preverbal subjects points to an argumental position in the Topic-Focus field, and supports the placement of Topic-Focus within TP versus CP.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:42

F: LA6711.tex / p.6 (369-438)

 Virginia Hill

. Adjacency between Focus and Verb Tests with oare interrogatives and BQs as preverbal subjects argue for locating the Topic-Focus sequences within the left periphery of TP. In this section we look at the checking conditions for Focus within TP, independently of the existence of a CP level. An interesting fact revealed in (5) and (6) concerns the adjacency between the Focus and the Verb. Since the checking conditions (especially the checking of the EPP feature of T) are generally associated with inflectional heads, one would expect the argumental subject to be adjacent to the inflected verb, with no interference in the Spec-head structural agreement. However, as shown in (8), the Focus constituent intervenes between the subject and the verb, and appears to be more sensitive to adjacency with the verb than to adjacency with the subject: Rom (8) a. *Cineva numai FLORI la ¸scoal˘a trimitea, nu somebody only flowers to school sent.3sg not bomboane. sweets Bul b. *Njakoj S IVAN na more iskaše da somebody with Ivan to sea wanted.3sg subj.mark otida. go.perf.1sg Rom c. *Cineva FLORI, dup˘a cum spuneam, îi somebody flowers as how said.1sg her.dat.cl trimitea, nu bomboane. sent.3sg not sweets Bul d. *Njakoj cvetja, kakto kazax, i isprati, somebody flowers how-that said.1sg her.dat.cl sent.perf.3sg ne bonboni. not sweets Left dislocated constituents, such as ‘to school’ and ‘to the sea’ in (8a, b), and parentheticals, as in (8c, d), rule out the sentences when they intervene between preverbal Focus and verb. Preverbal subjects yield more felicitous results, although not fully acceptable ones: (9) a.

?Numai

FLORI Ion îi trimitea, nu bomboane. only flowers Ion her.dat.cl sent.3sg not sweets b. ?Samo cvetja Ivan i isprati, ne bonboni.4 only flowers Ivan her.dat.cl sent.3sg not sweets ‘It was only flowers that Ion sent to her, not sweets.’

Rom Bul

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:42

F: LA6711.tex / p.7 (438-483)

On left periphery and focus 

The facts of word order in (8) and (9) indicate the following: both the preverbal subject and the Focus constituent form a Spec dependency on the inflectional head T, containing the verb. Equidistance of subject and Focus in relation to T makes it acceptable to have Subject-Focus-V alternating with Focus-Subject-V word order, whereas Subject-Focus-Topic-V would rule out the sentence.5 Therefore, the conclusion is that T projects multiple Spec positions in (9) but not in (8). A multiple Spec,TP in (9) ensures the checking conditions for both the preverbal subject and the Focus constituent against the same T head. The specific checking mechanism involved is investigated in Section 3.

. Syncretism of [focus/tense] This section concentrates on Romanian data, because the tests involve constructions that do not exist in Bulgarian. In particular, Romanian has non-finite clauses in which the possibility of having lexical subjects is correlated with the possibility of having fronting to Focus. These constructions show that, when the finiteness of T weakens, the possibility of fronting to focus weakens as well. Since this correlation is systematic, coincidence must be ruled out. The phenomenon is visible in three types of sentential complements, where T may be anaphoric.

. Indicative complements There are two series of complementizers with indicatives in Romanian, c˘a and de. C˘a-structures have a full fledged T, on a par with matrix indicatives, with both lexical subjects (pre or post verbal) and fronting to Focus, as in (10). (10) Spunea c˘a (Ion) ud˘a (Ion) gr˘adina. said.3sg that Ion waters Ion garden-the ‘She said that Ion was watering the garden.’

Rom

De-indicatives, illustrated in (11a), occur with causative verbs and behave differently. Although verb has the indicative inflection, it behaves as a non-finite verb. (11) a.

cur˘a¸tat Nei a f˘acut [de PROi am us.dat.cl has made of pro have.1pl cleaned.part gr˘adina.] garden-the ‘(S)he made us clean the garden.’

Rom

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:42

F: LA6711.tex / p.8 (483-549)

 Virginia Hill

First, the embedded indicative verb has anaphoric properties and is compatible only with certain tenses in the matrix, as in (11b), whereas full-fledged indicative verbs are not constrained by tense interpretation, as in (11c). (11) b. *Nei a f˘acut [de PROi vom cur˘a¸ta gr˘adina. Rom us.dat.cl has made of pro will.1pl clean.inf garden-the ‘(S)he made us clean the garden.’ Rom c. Spunea c˘a Ion va cur˘a¸ta gr˘adina. said.3sg that Ion will.3sg clean.inf garden-the ‘She said that Ion will clean the garden.’ Second, the de-indicative cannot license lexical subjects, as in (11d). (11) d. *A f˘acut [de (Ion) a cur˘a¸tat (Ion) gr˘adina.] has made of Ion has cleaned.part Ion garden-the

Rom

The non-lexical subject is interpreted under control from an argument in the matrix, and the de-indicative behaves as an infinitive control structure. In this environment, fronting to Focus rules out the sentence, although contrastive Focus in situ is acceptable, as in (11e). ˘ Rom (11) e. *Nei -a f˘acut [de PROi GRADINA am us.dat.cl-has made of garden-the have.1pl cur˘a¸tat-o.] cleaned-her.acc.cl ˘ Rom e.’ Nei -a f˘acut [de PROi am cur˘a¸tat GRADINA.] us.dat.cl-has made of have.1pl cleaned garden-the ‘It was the garden he made us clean.’ To sum up the observations in this section, c˘a-indicatives have a full fledged T, lexical subjects and fronting to Focus, whereas de-indicatives have anaphoric T, no lexical subjects and no fronting to Focus.

. Subjunctives Unlike many other Balkan languages, Romanian has two series of subjunctive complements, that is, ca-subjunctive and ca-less subjunctives (henceforth s˘asubjunctives), as in (12). With both subjunctive complements, Focus in situ is grammatical, while fronting to focus is different. Ca-subjunctives as in (12a), license pre- and post-verbal subjects, and allow for fronting to Focus.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:42

F: LA6711.tex / p.9 (549-622)

On left periphery and focus 

(12) a.

Rom Aranjasem ca (cineva) NUMAIDECÂT arranged-1sg that someone immediately s˘a-i ia (cineva) locul. subj.mark-her.dat.cl take.3sg somebody place-the ‘I had made arrangements for someone to take her place IMMEDIATELY.’

S˘a-subjunctives, as in (12b), may license only postverbal subjects or allow for subject identification through control from the matrix, as in (12c). (12) b. Aranjasem (*cineva) s˘a-i ia (cineva) Rom arranged.1sg someone subj.mark-her.dat.cl takes somebody locul. place-the ‘I had made arrangements for someone to take her place.’ c. proi Aranjasem proi s˘a-i iau locul. Rom arranged.1sg subj.mark-her.dat.cl take.1sg place-the ‘I had made arrangements to take her place.’ In these constructions, fronting to Focus is tedious. It is possible, as noticed in Farkas (1985) and illustrated in (12d), but not as a derivation by default. Rom (12) d. % Aranjasem NUMAIDECÂT s˘a-i ia arranged.1sg immediately subj.Mark-her.dat.cl Takes cineva locul. somone place-the ‘I had made arrangements for someone to take her place IMMEDIATELY.’ The facts in (12) may be approached in two ways. One may argue, along with Farkas (1985) that fronting to Focus targets Spec,CP. In the absence of ca, the string s˘a-V would in this case move to C and Focus will be post-verbal, after s˘a-V in C, which would make the construction irrelevant for our test. Spec,CP is, however, not a usual site for focus movement in complements of declarative sentences, which explains the markedness of (12d). More recent analyses, (Motapanyane 1995; Alboiu 2000) consider that the s˘a-subjunctive is a Mood Phrase, devoid of a C projection. If this is the case, it follows that T in ca-subjunctives is stronger than T in s˘a-subjunctives, and only the latter may enter a control structure.6 According to this line of analysis, s˘a-subjunctives are relevant to our test, in that they confirm the relationship between a weakened or anaphoric T and the lack or awkwardness of fronting to focus.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:42

F: LA6711.tex / p.10 (622-693)

 Virginia Hill

. Infinitives Infinitive constructions (absent from Bulgarian) bring further proof for this correlation. Old Romanian infinitives behave as s˘a-subjunctives: they allow for both lexical subjects and control structures, and when lexical subjects occur they can be only post-verbal. The ban on preverbal subject is illustrated in (13a). (13) a.

Old Rom (Ureche 45) Era vreme [(*vod˘a) a- îi was time king inf.mark-him.refl.cl r˘ascump˘ararea vod˘a strâmb˘atatea sa.] make-up.inf king injustice his ‘It was time for the king to make up for his injustice.’

Again, as in s˘a-subjunctives, Old Romanian infinitives do not favor fronting to Focus. It is very difficult to find examples of fronting to Focus in the texts, although fronting to Topic is frequent. So (13b) is a rare case, and it might be an innovation specific to written literary style: Old Rom (Ureche 74) (13) b. Noi suntem datori s˘a fim we are.1pl indebted subj.mark be.1pl.subj gata [de BANI a le darea pururea (nu ready of money inf.Mark them.acc.cl give.inf always not copii).] children ‘It is money, not children, that we are under obligation to give them for ever.’ However, the word order in (13b) shows that fronting to Focus targets a clause internal position, if we consider that de serves as infinitive complementizer (located in FinP in Rizzi (1997) for all the Romance languages). Modern Romanian, on the other hand, has a weakened T in infinitive complements. That is, infinitive complements do not license post-verbal subjects in spoken Romanian, although adjunct infinitives may still do so. Infinitive complements are actually control structures: (14) a. *Speram [a-l întâlni Maria pe Ion]. hoped.1sg inf.mark-him.cl meet.inf Maria acc Ion purported reading: ‘I was hoping for Mary to meet Ion.’ a.’ Sperami [PROI a-l întâlni pe Ion]. hoped.1sg inf.mark-him.cl meet.inf acc Ion ‘I was hoping to meet Ion.’

Rom

Fronting to focus as in (15a) rules out the clause, although focus in situ is acceptable.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:42

F: LA6711.tex / p.11 (693-759)

On left periphery and focus 

(15) a. *Sperami [PE ION PROI a-l întâlni]. hoped.1sg acc Ion inf.mark-him.cl meet.inf b. Sperami [PROi a-l întâlni PE ION]. hoped.1sg inf.mark-him.cl meet acc Ion ‘It was Ion I was hoping to meet.’

Rom

So infinitive complements in Modern Romanian behave as de-indicatives, insofar as they both qualify as control structures which rule out fronting to Focus. Table 1 sums up the observations so far: Table 1. Correlation between subject positions and pre-verbal Focus COMPLEMENT

SV

VS

Pre-verbal FOCUS

c˘a-indicatives ca-subjunctives s˘a-subjunctives Old Rom. infinitives Mod. Rom. infinitives de-indicatives

+ + – – – –

+ + + + – –

+ + scarce scarce – –

As observed, a full fledged T, as in c˘a-indicatives and ca-subjunctives, supports both preverbal subjects and fronting to Focus. Weakened T, as in s˘a-subjunctives and Old Romanian infinitives, may license only postverbal subjects and does not favor fronting to Focus. A T with clear anaphoric status, as in the Modern Romanian infinitives and de-indicatives, fails to license lexical subjects and disallows fronting to Focus.

. Targets for Focus So far the data show that fronting to Focus targets a position in the left periphery of TP (Sections 2.2, 2.3) or a Specifier of T (Section 2.4). The presence of [focus] features on T is transparent in the correlation between fronting to Focus and Nominative Case checking, as illustrated in Section 2. A natural conclusion is that [focus] features attach to the formal feature [tense], which has similar operator-like properties, and a syncretic [focus/tense] feature emerges under T. Checking of this complex feature follows the conditions of checking of the Nominative Case feature of T. That is, when Nominative can be checked either pre- or post-verbally, Focus may appear either in the left or in the right field of the clause; while when Nominative can be checked only post-verbally, Focus may appear only in the right field. This makes us predict that when Nominative Case is not available at all, contrastive

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:42

F: LA6711.tex / p.12 (759-815)

 Virginia Hill

Focus should not be available either. Apparently, this prediction contradicts empirical facts such as those in (15b), where that Focus in situ is acceptable despite the absence of Nominative Case features on T. Further considerations reveal, however, that in such configurations [focus] does not attach to embedded T but rather to matrix finite T. This is exemplified in (16): ˘ GRADINA nei -a f˘acut [de PROi am cur˘a¸tat]. Rom garen-the us.dat.cl-has made of pro have.1pl cleaned ‘It was the garden he/she made us clean.’ Rom b. IONEI aranjasem (%ca) s˘a-i ia Ioana.dat arranged.1sg that subj.mark-her.dat.cl take.3sg cineva locul. someone place-the ‘I had arranged for someone to take IOANA’s place.’ c. Noi BANI suntem datori s˘a fim gata Rom we money are.1pl indebted subj.mark be.1pl.subj ready [a le darea. . . (nu copii)]. inf.Mark them.dat.cl give.inf not children ‘It is money, not children, that we are under obligation to give them. . . ’ Rom d. PE ION speramI [PROI a-l întâlni]. acc Ion hoped.1sg inf.mark-him.dat.cl meet.inf ‘It was Ion I was hoping to meet.’

(16) a.

In all the non-finite clauses in (16) fronting to Focus within the non-finite clause causes ungrammaticality, while Focus in situ is acceptable. The conditions on fronting to Focus in (16) show that this operations targets the matrix Spec,TP, not the embedded Spec,TP. Since the matrix T checks the fronted Focus, the same T must check the corresponding Focus in situ. Therefore, when the embedded T is non-finite and the clause border is transparent, Focus combines with matrix T, not with the anaphoric T. For example, (15b) is equivalent to (16d) insofar as [focus/tense] associates with matrix T in both sentences. Thus, as long as T has some degree of finiteness, it can retain the [focus] feature (as in subjunctives and Old Romanian infinitives), whereas a completely non-finite T may not retain the [focus] feature at all. Finally, the dependency of Focus on T is also proved by the contrastive results of fronting to Topic, versus fronting to Focus in non-finite clauses, as shown in (17).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:42

F: LA6711.tex / p.13 (815-885)

On left periphery and focus

Rom A¸s fi vrut, [MAREI s˘a-i dau would be liked Mary.dat subj.mark-her.dat.cl give.1sg un cadou]. a present ‘As for Mary, I would have liked to give her a present.’ b. Decii S¸ tefan vod˘a neputând suferi (Rom; Ureche, 45) so Stefan king not-able.pres.Partic stand.inf [PE NEPRIETENI a-i l˘asarea] s˘a acc cenemies inf.Mark-them.dat.cl let.inf subj.mark strice ¸sara. . . damage.3pl country-the ‘So, since King Stefan could not stand letting his enemies damage the country. . . ’ Rom c. Speram, [ÎN TABLOUL ACESTA, a hoped.1sg in painting-the this inf.mark reg˘asi influen¸ta impresionismului]. find.inf influence-the impressionism-the.gen ‘I hoped to find the influence of impressionism in this painting.’ Rom d. Ne- a f˘acut [de, vrând-nevrând, ne-am us.cl has made of willy-nilly us.refl.cl-have.1pl apucat de sp˘alat]. started of washed.Sup ‘She made us start washing, whether we liked it or not.’

(17) a.

The existence of clause-internal Topic constituents when fronting to Focus is out, as in (17), clearly indicates that fronting to Focus does not involve a general restriction on movement or scrambling in the left periphery of these clauses, but rather a particular restriction ensuing from the properties of T and the absence of preverbal subjects. To sum up this section, the syntactic conditions for checking the [focus] feature are identical with the conditions for checking the Nominative Case features, which indicates a pre-syntactic merge between [focus] and [tense]. Thus, checking of Focus is conditioned by checking of T. Fronting to Topic involves independent checking and is not restricted by the finite nature of T.

. Summary and conclusion This paper considered clauses with fronting to Focus in Romanian and Bulgarian, where Focus constituents target a position within TP.7 Positional tests involving complementizers and preverbal subjects confirmed the standard assumption that



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:42

F: LA6711.tex / p.14 (885-943)

 Virginia Hill

Topic-Focus sequences reside in the left periphery of TP. Data from Romanian non-finite clauses further showed that fronting to Focus is intrinsically related to the possibility of having pre- and post-verbal subject. More precisely, non-finite clauses which exclude preverbal lexical subjects exclude preverbal Focus as well. The investigation of this systematic relation, which is specific to Focus but not to Topic movement, led to the conclusion that a pre-syntactic merge is in order between [focus] and [tense] features. Thus, the checking conditions apply identically to these two features. Since Romanian and Bulgarian share a number of constraints on the organization of the TP left periphery (see also Rudin 1988), the analysis proposed for Romanian must extend to Bulgarian.8 This conclusion invites further investigation of the organization of the TP in other Balkan languages.

Notes * I am grateful to Olga Mladenova, Roumyana Pancheva and Olga Mišeska Tomić for grammatical judgements, and to two anonymous reviewers who provided helpful suggestions for the improvement of the presentation. . Topic and Focus occur in the CP field of Romanian and the Balkan languages in general; however, the subject may not intervene between the two positions in that case. So this analysis implies that there are two fields for deriving Topic-Focus in the Balkan languages – one in the CP and another in the TP, only the latter being able to accommodate an intervening preverbal subject. . Following tests which distinguish it from adverbs and show it to behave as a head selecting the TP, Hill (2003) defines oare as a complementizer. . The constructions in (4) may also display Topic and Focus in the CP field, between dac˘a ‘whether’ and oare, as shown in (i), in free variation with lower Topic-Focus, in TP, under oare, as in (ii). However, in (i), a subject bare quantifier cannot intervene between Topic and Focus, as further shown in (iii). Moreover, felicitous Topic and Focus in the CP field require subject-verb inversion, as shown by the contrast between (i) and (ii). (i)

M˘a întreb dac˘a la mare cu trenul oare s-ar refl.cl.1sg asks whether to sea with train Inter refl.cl-would.3sg Rom duce cineva (sau cu ma¸sina). go.inf somebody or with car ‘I wonder whether somebody should go to the sea by train or by car.’

(ii) M˘a întreb dac˘a oare la mare cineva cu trenul s-ar duce (sau cu ma¸sina). (iii) M˘a întreb dac˘a la mare (?*cineva) cu trenul oare s-ar duce (sau cu ma¸sina). . Judgements vary for (9b). One reviewer thinks that the sentence is perfectly OK, while another reviewer would rather star it. I take it as an indication that idiosyncratic variation is

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:42

F: LA6711.tex / p.15 (943-1027)

On left periphery and focus 

wide with respect to the order Subject-Focus, and that may happen only when Subject and Focus are equidistant from the checking head. . The order subject-Focus-Topic-Verb is clearly excluded in Romanian. However, judgements vary for Bulgarian. In the light of the results for (9b), this is not a problem for the analysis, which confirms a dependency between Focus and Verb. . For an alternative analysis of s˘a-subjunctives see Pîrvulescu (2002), who adopts a morphological approach. In her analysis, T is completely absent in syntax when the morphological marks for subject agreement belong to a parasite paradigm, as is the case of the subjunctive, built on the indicative paradigm. This analysis is compatible with the observations put forth here, since s˘a-subjunctives are unable to accommodate a pre-verbal (T-checked) Focus. . Note that, in Romanian as well as in Bulgarian, Focus may stay in situ in the context of (1). Focus in situ in Bulgarian yields a contrastive Focus reading only when the contrastive phrase is present. Otherwise, the intonation alone cannot distinguish between informational and contrastive Focus. As expected, contrastive Focus in Bulgarian is preferred in the fronted position. Romanian has intonation marking for contrastive Focus in both instances. . Bulgarian subjunctive complements exhibit Topic-Focus in front of the subjunctive marker da, unlike Rom. s˘a clauses. Under the present analysis, it means that the Bulgarian subjunctive marker da stays in M/T and does not move to C, as does the Romanian subjunctive marker s˘a. Accordingly, the configuration for clause internal left dislocation is not destroyed. The possibility of BQ subjects to precede da is a clear indication of the M/TP vs. CP status of these clauses.

References Alboiu, G. (2000). “The Features of Movement in Romanian.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. Alexiadou, A. & E. Agnastopoulou (1998). “Parametrizing AGR: Word order, verbmovement and EPP-checking”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16(3), 491–539. Arnaudova, O. (2001). “Prosodic movement and information focus in Bulgarian”. In S. Franks, T. King, & M. Yadroff (Eds.), Proceedings of FASL-9, 249–260. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A’-Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cornilescu, A. (2000). “The double subject construction in Romanian”. In V. Motapanyane (Ed.), Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, 83–134. Oxford: Elsevier. Farkas, D. (1985). Intensional Descriptions and the Romance Subjunctive Mood. New York: Garland. Hill, V. (2002). “Complementizer phrases in Romanian”. Rivista di Linguistica, 14, 233–248. Hill, V. (2003). “Discourse markers in interrogative clauses”. Balkanistica, 16, 71–96. Joseph, B. (2001). “Is Balkan Comparative Syntax Possible?” In M. L. Rivero & A. Ralli (Eds.), Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages, 17–43. New York: Oxford University Press.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 10:42

F: LA6711.tex / p.16 (1027-1053)

 Virginia Hill

Kiss, K. E. (1995). “Introduction”. In K. E. Kiss (Ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages, 3–27. New York: Oxford University Press. Lambova, M. (2001). “On A-Bar Movements in Bulgarian and their Interaction”. General Examination Paper, University of Connecticut. Motapanyane, V. (1995). Theoretical Implications of Complementation in Romanian. Padova: UniPress. Pîrvulescu, M. (2002). “Le concept de paradigme et la morphologie verbale.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Toronto. Rizzi, L. (1997). “The fine structure of the left periphery”. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook of generative grammar, 281–337. Kluwer: Dordrecht. Rudin, C. (1988). “On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 445–501.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.1 (42-116)

Syncretic and analytic tenses in Romanian The Balkan setting of Romance Yves D’hulst, Martine Coene and Larisa Avram Leiden University / Antwerp University-FWO / Bucharest University

Unlike most modern Romance languages, Romanian did not develop a synthetic future – a feature it shares with other Balkan languages such as Albanian, Bulgarian, Greek and Serbo-Croatian. Another peculiarity which sets Romanian futures apart from its Western Romance counterparts, is the fact that they can be used to express future in the past, instead of the so-called conditional, reflecting a more generalized absence of consecutio temporum. The core idea of the paper is that the free violation of the anchoring of the tense of the embedded verb to the tense of the matrix verb is the consequence of the morpho-syntactic encoding of temporal information in Romanian. In a revised Reichenbachian framework, it is shown that, as opposed to most Western Romance languages, Romanian has an extremely reduced deictic tense system in which a single past morpheme can express both the relation between Event Time and Reference Time and between Reference Time and Speech Time. As for the future tense, Romanian adopts, among others, an invariant third person singular form of the auxiliary ‘want’ that combines with the infinitive or subjunctive and is shown not to be part of the deictic tense system, but to consist of a future operator taking scope over the event expressed in the clause, as is the case in most other Balkan languages. The proposed operator status for the Romanian future tenses also explains its availability as future in the past on a par with the conditional in other Romance languages: in the latter, the future in the past readings follow from the inherent settings of Reference Time, Speech Time and Event Time in the conditional, whereas in Romanian they are the result of the future operator falling in the scope of the past tense of the matrix clause and taking scope over the event expressed in the complement clause.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.2 (116-174)

 Yves D’hulst, Martine Coene and Larisa Avram

.

Introduction

Unlike Western Romance languages such as Italian or French, Romanian did not develop a synthetic future, but rather an analytic future with (a) a set of forms based on the auxiliary “have” plus subjunctive constructions; (b) a form of the auxiliary “want” followed by the present tense of the indicative or subjunctive; or (c) sets of forms of the auxiliary “want” followed by the infinitive – features it shares with other Balkan languages (cf. Valesio 1968a, 1968b). In (1a) we give examples of the use of futures with “have” in Albanian, Macedonian, Byzantine Greek and Serbo-Croatian; in (1b–b’) the use of futures with “want” in Albanian, Bulgarian, Modern Greek, Aromanian and Romanian (cf. Sandfeld 1930: 180–182):1 (1) a. analytic futures with the auxiliary ‘have’ + subjunctive kam të shkruë Albanian imam da pišam Macedonian echo na grapso Byz.Greek am s˘a scriu Romanian have.1sg. subj.mark write.1sg ‘I will write’ b. analytic futures with the auxiliary ‘want’ + present do (të) shkruaj Albanian šte piš˘a Bulgarian кe ´ pišam Macedonian tha grapso Mod.Greek va (sã) scriu Aromanian o s˘a scriu Daco-Romanian will subj.mark write.1sg ‘I will write’ b’. analytic futures with the auxiliary ‘want’ + infinitive: ću dati Serbo-Croatian voi da Daco-Romanian will1sg give.inf ‘I will give’ Romanian future forms also differ from their synthetic Western Romance counterparts with respect to their use: as illustrated in (2a) vs (2b–c), only Romanian, but not Italian or French futures can be used to express future in the past.2 (2) a.

Paul Paul dou˘a two

era sigur c˘a se va întoarce peste was sure that refl will come back.inf after zile. days

Romanian

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.3 (174-219)

Syncretic and analytic tenses in Romanian 

b. Paul était sûr qu’elle revien-drait après deux Paul was sure that she come-back.cond after two jours. days c. Paolo era sicuro che sarebbe tornata Paul was sure that be.cond come-back.past.part dopo due giorni. after two days ‘Paul was sure that she would come back after two days.’

French Italian

The contrast between (2a) and (2b–c) suggests that Romanian lacks rules of consecutio temporum, by which the form of embedded tenses is affected by the matrix tenses, as is the case for French and Italian. In this article we will argue that the free violation of the consecutio temporum follows from the way temporal information is morpho-syntactically encoded in Romanian. As we will show, the morpho-syntactic encoding of temporal information sets apart Romanian form the other Romance languages, not only in the domain of future tenses, but also in the domain of past tenses. This paper is organised as follows. In Section 1 we will sketch Giorgi & Pianesi’s (1997) theory of tenses which constitutes the theoretical background of this paper. In Section 2 we will address the development of future tenses in Romanian and show that at first Romanian was on its way to develop like French and Italian. The fact that this development was stopped in the course of history will be placed in the context of a series of contrasts in verbal morphology and syntax between Modern Romanian and Western Romance in Section 3. The peculiarities of past tenses will be analysed in Section 4. Section 5 and 6 deal with the status of agreement and subjunctive mood. Finally, in Section 7 we will argue that the encoding of future obtains outside the extended functional projections of the verb.

. Giorgi and Pianesi’s (1997) framework: From Latin to Romance In a revised Reichenbachian theory, Giorgi and Pianesi (1997) argue for an analysis of verbal tenses as double binary relations between speech time (S) and reference time (R), on the one hand, and between reference time (R) and event time (E), on the other hand. These two relations yield a double representation of tense inside a clausal structure: T1 for the relationship between S and R and T2 for the relationship between R and E; the relationship between E and S is never directly realised; it is realised only through R. Both T1 and T2 project in syntax only if they take one of the two marked values, anteriority (with R anterior with respect to S, or E with respect to R) or posteriority (with R posterior with respect to S, or E with respect

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.4 (219-293)

 Yves D’hulst, Martine Coene and Larisa Avram

to R). Coincidence, i.e. identity of S and R and/or identity of R and E is considered a default value which does not project syntactically.4 As Giorgi and Pianesi point out, Latin takes full advantage of all possible combinations of the relationships between S and R and between R and E, as shown in Table 1. Note that shaded cells indicate the default coincidence values which are not projected syntactically. Table 1. The Latin indicative tense system

Taking into account that Latin, like Modern Romance languages, exhibits subjectverb agreement, the structures underlying forms like those in Table 1 will also contain an AgrSP projection. An implementation of the functional structures of present, perfect and pluperfect is given below. (3)

Present AgrSP AgrS’ cant-o

VP V’ tcant(a)’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.5 (293-323)

Syncretic and analytic tenses in Romanian 

(4)

Perfect AgrSP AgrS canta-v-i

T2P T’ tv

VP V’ tcanta

(5)

Pluperfect AgrSP AgrS’ canta-v-era-m T1P T1’ tera

T2P T2’ tv

VP V’ tcanta

In the course of its evolution towards the Romance languages, the Latin tense system was affected by a number of dramatic changes. The changes in (6a–b), and probably (6c), hold throughout the Romance area: Modern Romance languages do not have a morphemic equivalent of the Latin future participle expressing the prospective and hence realizing the setting R-E; they did not maintain the origi-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.6 (323-415)

 Yves D’hulst, Martine Coene and Larisa Avram

nal Latin syncretic form expressing S-R, E (i.e. future in T1) either. With respect to (6c), it must be mentioned that, syntactically, the Latin imperfect is similar to the Modern Romance simple past, rather than to the imperfect tense, which has become anaphoric in the sense that it requires to be appropriately anchored to a temporal antecedent (see Tasmowski 1985; Giorgi & Pianesi 1997). The changes in (6d–e) are quite widespread, although languages such as Portuguese and Romanian have not been as consistent in these respects as e.g. Italian, French or Spanish. The “perfect shift” refers to the fact that most Modern Romance simple past tenses, though morphologically deriving from the Latin perfective indicative (with past in T2), realise the anteriority of R with respect to S (past in T1) and therefore can no longer express a past situation with current relevance. In Romance, the original setting of the Latin perfect (E-R, S) is realized by the so-called present perfect, which combines an auxiliary in the present – realising agreement – with a past participle with the features [+N,+V] – instantiating an anteriority relation of E with respect to R. (6) a.

loss of the morphological marking of future in T2 (i.e. loss of the future participle) b. loss of the morphological marking of future in T1 (i.e. loss of the synthetic future) c. anaphorisation of the imperfect d. shift of the past value of the perfect from T2 to T1 (“perfect shift”) e. introduction of nominal features on past in T2 (i.e. use of the past participle to render past tenses)

The early loss of both the future participle and the synthetic future projecting a T2 and T1 projection (6a–b) has forced Vulgar Latin and thus Romance languages to resort to periphrastic constructions in order to express posteriority. One of the most popular constructions used in Vulgar Latin was the biclausal structure with habere + infinitival complement. This biclausal construction eventually developed into a synthetic form in most Romance languages. As a result, the loss of the Latin future marking in T1 (6b) has been compensated for by another future morpheme in T1. With respect to past tenses, notice that in French and Italian, the simple past occupies the place of the Latin imperfect, whereas the imperfect, due to its anaphoric character, no longer fits into this tense scheme.5 Compare the Latin tense system given in Table 1 to its Modern French and Italian counterparts in Table 2:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.7 (415-435)

Syncretic and analytic tenses in Romanian 

Table 2. The French and Italian indicative tense systems

. Early Romanian futures Apart form the habere + infinitive construction which has led to the French, Italian and Spanish synthetic, Portuguese semi-synthetic and Romanian analytic futures, Vulgar Latin also adopted volere (< velle) to express future events in a periphrastic construction that survived in a small number of Romance languages, amongst which Old (and Modern) Romanian.6 Consider for instance (7), where the future reading of velle pugnare ‘will fight’ is confirmed by the future tense morphemes of the main verb and the verb in the if -clause: (Historia Augusta, apud (7) si non vicero, scitote if not win.1sg.fut.perf know.2pl.fut.imp Fisher 1985: 108) me post Gallienum velle pugnare 1sg.acc.cl after Gallienus want.inf fight.inf ‘If I will not win, know that I will fight after Gallienus.’ The development of this ‘want’ + infinitive construction produced in Old Romanian (16th–17th Cent) effects which are reminiscent of those leading to the synthetic forms in Western Romance.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.8 (435-504)

 Yves D’hulst, Martine Coene and Larisa Avram

Old Rom (apud Densu¸sianu 1997: 567) Schimba-ne-v˘am. change-us-will ‘We will change ourselves.’ litt.Mod Port (apud Crysman 1997, ex. 9c) b. Comprá-lo-á buy-it-has ‘He will buy it.’ Old Sp (apud Lema & Rivero 1991) c. Dezir lo hedes al rey? tell it has to-the king ‘Will you tell it to the king?’

(8) a.

In the light of the developments that took place in Western Romance, and especially in Spanish, one might expect that the fronting of the infinitive in Old Romanian would have pre-announced the emergence of fully synthetic forms and the restructuring of the overall tense system in ways that are similar to Western Romance. Surprisingly, however, the fronting of the infinitive was abandoned in later stages of the language. In other words, it seems that Romanian, unlike Western Romance, interrupted the process of fusion of the infinitive and the auxiliary, i.e. the process leading to the creation of synthetic forms.

. Contrasts between Modern Romanian and Western Romance Besides the lack of synthetic futures, the Modern Romanian tense system shows other substantial differences with respect to the above sketched evolutions from Latin to Western Romance languages like French and Italian: i.

With respect to the expression of past in the past: a. Romanian lacks the periphrastic past perfect based on the simple past of the verb a avea ‘to have’ and the past participle – a form like *avusei cântat, on a par with the French eus chanté or Italian ebbi cantato, does not exist and is incomprehensible for most speakers. b. Modern Romanian also lacks a periphrastic construction of the type a aveaIMPERF + past participle (similar to French avais chanté, Italian avevo cantato) c. On the other hand, it has a synthetic pluperfect based on the Latin past perfect subjunctive (e.g. cântasem ‘I had sung’ < cantavissem).

ii. With respect to the expression of past: a. In Romanian we have late “perfect shift”, i.e. late shift of the past value of the perfect from T2 to T1. In continuation of the Latin perfective indicative, at least until the beginning of the 19th century, the Romanian simple past

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.9 (504-602)

Syncretic and analytic tenses in Romanian 

could still be used to express a situation of the type E-R,S. In particular regions (Oltenia, Banat, Cri¸sana and part of Muntenia) the simple past has conserved its old settings until today – it is used whenever one wants to show that something has happened recently, as in: (Heliade R˘adulescu S˘avîr¸sii˘u ceea ce mi a˘ı dat; ended.perf.1sg that what me have given; 1828: 92) se-a¸saz˘a ¸si ¸scoal˘a Rumîneasc˘a. refl-found.perf.3sg and school Romanian ‘I ended what you have given me; the Romanian School also got founded.’ (Oltenia, apud b. Ieri am primit telegrama ¸si yesterday have.1sg received telegram-the and Avram 1997) azi venii aici. today came.1sg.perf here. ‘Yesterday, I received the telegram and today I came here.’

(9) a.

b. There is only partial anaphorization of the imperfect – only rarely, the imperfect can be seen in contexts that generally require the present perfect, i.e. with anteriority settings expressed in T1: (10) El pe cal înc˘aleca. he on horse ride.3sg.imperf ‘He came riding on a horse’.

(apud Avram 1997)

c. With strong verbs the morpheme used to express the simple past is reduplicated in the pluperfect: (11) spu-se-i spu-se-se-m ‘I told’ ‘I had told’ iii. With respect to the expression of the subjunctive: a. The subjunctive has very poor morphology; in fact, with the exception of the use of the subjunctive marker s˘a and the different endings for the 3Sg and 3Pl, the present tense of the subjunctive is identical to the present tense of the indicative: (12)

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl Indicative cânt cân¸ti cânt˘a cântam cânta¸ti cânt˘a Subjunctive cânt cân¸ti cânte cânt˘am cânta¸ti cânte

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.10 (602-681)

 Yves D’hulst, Martine Coene and Larisa Avram

b. The past subjunctive differs from the indicative present perfect not only in the use of the subjunctive particle, s˘a, but also in the use of the invariant auxiliary fi ‘be’ instead of the inflected auxiliary avea ‘have’: (13) Present Perfect

Perfect Subjunctive

am/ai/a/am/a¸ti/au cântat have1sg/2sg/3sg/1pl/2pl/3pl sung ‘I, you, he . . . has/have sung’ *s˘a am/ai/a/am/a¸ti/au subj.mark have1sg/2sg/3sg/1pl/2pl/3pl cântat sung s˘a fi cântat subj.mark be.inf sung ‘had I, you, he . . . sung’

c. No paradigm for the imperfect subjunctive (based on the Latin pluperfect subjunctive as in other Romance languages, *s˘a cântasem, on a par with e.g. French que je chantasse, Italian cantassi) is available. iv. With respect to the use of auxiliaries: a. Used as an auxiliary, a avea has phonologically reduced forms compared to its use as full verb; compare for instance are doi copii ‘(he) has two children’ to a venit ‘(he) has come’. b. Contrary to their lexical counterparts, the auxiliaries a avea/a fi ‘to have/to be’ do not inflect for tense. E.g. am in am venit ‘I have come’ has no past *aveam venit or future counterpart *voi avea venit, while in the future perfect and the past conditional, anteriority is expressed on the main verb, not on the auxiliary (compare e.g. voi cânta ‘I will sing’ to voi fi cântat ‘I will have sung’ and a¸s cânta ‘I would sing’ to a¸s fi cântat ‘I would have sung’). c. Modern Romanian has a double auxiliary system a avea/a fi. The former only bears agreement features, but no tense features, whereas the latter only bears tense, but no agreement features. As stated in Avram (1999), fi can hence be considered as a perfect auxiliary, merging with the perfect infinitive in subjunctive, conditional and future configurations (14a–b–c): (14) a.

S˘a fi ¸stiut atunci. . . subj.mark be known then ‘Had I known then’ b. A¸s fi citit cartea. have.1sg be read book-the ‘I would have read the book.’

Romanian

Romanian

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.11 (681-731)

Syncretic and analytic tenses in Romanian 

c.

Va fi ajuns. will.3sg be arrived ‘He will have arrived.’

Romanian

. T1 and T2 in modern Romanian Classical and Vulgar Latin had two distinct morphemes to express past in T1 and T2: /ba/ for past of R with respect to S and /v/ for past of E with respect to R. Already in early Vulgar Latin, intervocalic [b] and [v] frequently got mixed up and both have been erased in their evolution towards Romanian (cf. Rosetti 1987; Dimitrescu 1978). (15) a.

caballum > *cavallu > cal ‘horse’ b. grevum > greu ‘heavy’

As a consequence of this evolution, past in T1 and past in T2 could not longer be distinguished from each other. What prevented the Latin past morphemes to be lost completely (like the intervocalic [v] in (15)), was the fact that they happened to occur in the neighborhood of the word accent. Therefore, we assume that the accent eventually became the only distinctive phonological feature of past for both T1 and T2. This property has by and large been maintained until modern times. (16) a.

cantavi > Old Rom cântai > m.r. cântai ‘I sang’ b. cantabam > cânta > Old Rom m.r. cântam ‘I was singing’

We also assume that the equation of past in T1 and past in T2 is complete: i.e. contrary to Latin or the other Romance languages, Romanian ceased to have morphemes directly expressing “past of R with respect to S” or “past of E with respect to R” but ended up with having one single morpheme expressing mere “past”. This assumption does not entail that Romanian has given up the formal distinction between T1 and T2 (see the existence of pluperfects). It just means that one and the same morpheme can either appear as the head of T1P, where it expresses ‘past of R with respect to S’ (consider, for instance, the non-anaphoric use of the imperfect, such as înc˘aleca ‘rideimperf.3sg ’ in (10)), or as the head of T2P, where it expresses ‘past of E with respect to R’ (consider, for instance, the regional use of the simple past such as (9b) venii ‘comepast.2sg ’). The position where the past morpheme

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.12 (731-790)

 Yves D’hulst, Martine Coene and Larisa Avram

gets inserted can only be identified indirectly, i.e. through the specific agreement morphemes. The conflation and reduction of the past morphemes (morpho-phonologically: /accent/, interpretively: mere “past”) had one problematic consequence for the expression of “past within past” (“past” in both T1 and T2): reduplication of the morpheme (/accent/) could hardly be identified. Old Romanian used for the expression of “past within past” a form which derives from the pluperfect of the Latin subjunctive paradigm. Note that pluperfects have the accent on the thematic vowel. Within the Romanian setting, the order verb + /accent/ + /se/ can be interpreted as the result of the raising of V to the head of T2 (with checking of the morpheme /accent/) and subsequently to T1 (with checking of the morpheme /se/), so that /se/ will always follow the vowel with main stress, as illustrated in (17): (17) canta(vi)ssem > Old Rom cântase > Mod Rom cântasem ‘I had sung’ In spite of the fact that in (17), the morpheme [se] unambiguously pops up as T1, it cannot be taken to inherently express “past of R with respect to S”. In fact, with strong verbs, this morpheme can be used to express past in T1 (like in regular Modern Romanian simple past forms such as (18a)), but also to express past in T2 (like past participles as in (18b)), and it can even be reduplicated to express past in both T1 and T2 (e.g. the pluperfect in (18c)). (18) a.

dixit > zise say.3sg.past. ‘he said’ b. dictum > zis say.past.part ‘said’ c. dixisset > zisese say3sg.pluperf ‘he had said’

The conclusion drawn from the examples in (16) thus gets reinforced: Romanian has no distinct past morphemes for T1 and T2 as in Latin or the other Romance languages, but it has instead two “synonymous” past morphemes which can both be used indifferently in T1 and T2. In other words, in its evolution, Romanian simplified the original Latin tense system in extreme ways: taking into account the loss of future in T1 and T2, and the equation of past in T1 and T2 it ended up with only one morpheme (but two allomorphs) which expresses just this single relationship, namely “past”.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.13 (790-847)

Syncretic and analytic tenses in Romanian 

This analysis of the Romanian “past” can account for the whole bundle of distinctive properties listed under (i) and (ii) above: (i) the lack of periphrastic pluperfects (ia)–(ib) and the existence of synthetic pluperfects follow from the fact that “past” is recursive in T1 and T2 and (ii) the late ‘perfect shift’ and the ambiguous status of the imperfect follow from the fact that the same past morpheme can be used both for T1 and T2.

. AgrS in modern Romanian As already said in (iva), Romanian uses reduced forms of the auxiliary in the present perfect. Under the common analysis where a form like avem can be split into av(e)- and -m, i.e. verbal stem and agreement, am in am cântat ‘we have sung’ can only be taken as expressing agreement (with syllabification of the agreement marker). This implies that no additional verb projection is needed in Romanian to account for the auxiliary as is instead the case in French (or Italian . . . ). Lack of an additional verb projection accounts for the contrast in (ivb) between Romanian and French (or Italian . . . ): since no additional verb projection is present, it cannot appear between T1 and T2 as in French (. . . ). (19) a. [AgrSP avt ons [vP t [T2P chantt é [VP t]]] b. [AgrSP am [T2P cântt at [VP t]]]] ‘We have sung.’ (20) [AgrSP avt’ it ons [T1P t [vP t’ [T2P chantt é [VP t]]]]] ‘We had sung.’

French Romanian French

In Romanian, the same agreement markers are used as bound morphemes in the imperfect (Avram 1999). This suggests that at some point in its evolution the morphology of the imperfect got reanalyzed as past + agreement, thus accounting for the reconstruction of [m] in first person singular and the introduction of /-au/ as an agreement marker for the third person plural. (21) a.

[AgrSP cântt’ ´t am [T1 t [VP t’]]]] < Old Rom cânta < Lat. cantabam ‘I was singing’ b. [AgrSP cântt’ ´t au [T1 t [VP t’]]]] < Old Rom cânta < Lat. cantabant ‘They were singing’

The two types of agreement markers, i.e. the syncretic ones such as /m/ or /au/ on the imperfect (cântam, cântau) and the periphrastice ones such as am, ai, are. . . in the present perfect (am cântat, au cântat), seem to occupy different positions in the verbal structure. Assuming that in both (22a) and (22b), the monosyllabic adverbial mai ‘(any)more’ occcupies the same position – presumably somewhere

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.14 (847-903)

 Yves D’hulst, Martine Coene and Larisa Avram

between NegP and AgrSP – only periphrastic agreement can be said to obtain in a functional projection higher than AgrS (probably the head of FiniteP as in Rizzi 1995), hence preceding the adverb. The different surface orders (adverb-syncretic AGR vs periphrastic AGR- adverb) can be observed in (22a) vs (22b): (22) a.

nu mai cântam not more sing.1sg.past ‘I was not singing anymore’ b. n-am mai cântat not-have.1sg more sung ‘I have not sung anymore’

Romanian

Romanian

. Subjunctive and s˘a in modern Romanian As we have pointed out before, the distinctive morphology of Latin subjunctive pluperfects was used to restore “past in the past”, i.e. pluperfect in the indicative paradigm. On the other hand, old Romanian had a subjunctive/conditional based on the Latin subjunctive imperfect which was lost at a later stage. These two facts, and the previous observation that the present subjunctive has extremely impoverished morphology suggest that the Romanian subjunctive has been isolated completely from the functional domain of AgrS-T1-T2 and that it reduces to the subjunctive marker s˘a. As for periphrastic agreement, word order phenomena indicate that this particle fills in a position higher than AgrSP: (23) Nu puteam s˘a mai cânt not could.1sg subj.mark more sing.1sg ‘I couldn’t sing anymore.’

Romanian

. Back to the future Let us turn to the central question: why did Romanian, unlike the overwhelming majority of other Romance languages, not produce any synthetic futures? The crucial factors are the following: i.

Romanian disallows auxiliary verb projections below AgrS; instead, auxiliaries are periphrastic agreement markers filling a position above AgrS ii. Full verbs (with syncretic agreement markers) do not fill in a position higher than AgrS.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.15 (903-963)

Syncretic and analytic tenses in Romanian 

Consider first the infinitival constructions in (24): the auxiliary is realized above AgrS, as shown by the word order phenomena in (25). This position inhibits the lexical verb from fusing with it, since under (ii) lexical verbs do not fill in a position higher than AgrS. (24) a. voi cânta b. oi cânta will.1sg. sing ‘I will sing’

literary Romanian popular Romanian

(25) a. nu voi mai cânta b. nu oi mai cânta not will.1sg. more sing ‘I will not sing anymore’

literary Romanian popular Romanian

The data in (24)–(25) are compatible with two kinds of analyses: either the ‘auxiliary’ is inserted directly in the higher functional projection above AgrS or it moves from AgrS to that position. The first option is unproblematic for the explanation given above. The alternative seems more plausible since both voi and oi display subject agreement. If the auxiliary starts out from AgrS (but not below, pace (i)) and moves from there, one has to insure that this kind of movement is obligatory. If movement weren’t obligatory, the same kind of derivation as the one given for the imperfect might still allow the infinitive to raise to AgrS and subsequently fuse with the material in this projection. However, since there is no reason for the bare infinitive in (24)–(25) to move higher in the structure, it probably stays in its base VP position. We rather take the obligatory movement of the future auxiliary vrea ‘will’ as in (24)–(25) to a position above AgrSP to be related to the difference in the nature of the agreement in the imperfect and the future: in the former the auxiliary is mere agreement, while in the latter it is agreement combined with future. However, AgrS is not a site where future can be interpreted; therefore movement to an appropriate position is enforced. Consider now the ways in which the subjunctive can express futurity in (26). The fact that s˘a shows no agreement and precedes the adverbial mai, as shown in (27), allows us to follow essentially the same line of argument: the verb is allowed to move until AgrS, where it checks its agreement features, but is blocked there by (ii). (26) a.

o s˘a o subj.mark b. am have.1sg.pres ‘I will sing’

(27) a.

cânt sing.1sg s˘a cânt subj.mark sing.1sg

n-o s˘a mai cânt not-o subj.mark more sing.1sg

Romanian Romanian

Romanian

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.16 (963-1027)

 Yves D’hulst, Martine Coene and Larisa Avram

b. n-am s˘a mai cânt not-have.1sg.pres subj.mark more sing.1sg ‘I will not sing anymore’

Romanian

Invariant o may be base generated in the specifier of the higher functional projection above AgrS and headed by s˘a. The construction based on avea ‘have’ calls for a more complex analysis because both the auxiliary and the lexical verb display agreement. Furthermore it seems implausible that in this construction, the auxiliary may appear in the specifier position as is the case with invariant o. A more plausible analysis, proposed in Dobrovie (1993) and Avram (1999), is that the structure in (26b) is still biclausal. The arguments which they provide in favour of this hypothesis are: (i) the fact that the auxiliary in (26b) is the fully fledged verb avea ‘have’ and not its auxiliary use (with the phonologically reduced forms) and (ii) the fact that in this construction avea ‘have’ can pick up past tense on its way to AgrS. Presumably the auxiliary remains in that position, since as a full verb it is disallowed to move to the higher functional projection (pace (ii)). Although the preceding analysis provides an explanation for the lack of fusion in Modern Romanian, it might be problematic for the Old Romanian data which display movement of the infinitive to the left of the auxiliary (see (8a)). However this objection fails to take into account the fact that in the case of the present perfect, in Old Romanian the past participle could occur in front of the auxiliary, as an effect of the Tobler-Mussafia law which disallows clitic elements in sentence initial position: (M.Costin 17th Cent, (28) Indemnatu-m-au mai multu lipsa de urged-cl-have.1sg more much lack of apud Avram 1999) ¸stiin¸ta˘ knowledge ‘I have rather been urged by my lack of knowledge.’ The data in (8a) and (28) might suggest that Old Romanian did not have movement of the auxiliary out of AgrSP altogether or, alternatively that lexical verbs were allowed to move out of AgrSP along with the auxiliary. Whatever the correct analysis may prove to be for (28), we assume it to be identical for (8a) and the marginalization of constructions like (28) mirrors the impossibiltiy of (8a) in Modern Romanian. The reason why (28) is still marginally allowed in Modern Romanian, while the future construction in (8a) is impossible relates to what was pointed out before: in the case of the present perfect, the auxiliary is mere agreement, while in the future construction it is a future operator with agreement. As for the a vrea + subjunctive type of future, we notice that in the course of evolution, the auxiliary has gradually lost its agreement features to end up expressing only future: whereas in the 16th century, the auxiliary voi in voi s˘a cânt ‘I will

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.17 (1027-1094)

Syncretic and analytic tenses in Romanian 

sing’ still had complete agreement features, from the 18th century on, it only bears 3Pl morphology as is the case for or in or s˘a cânte ‘they will sing’ to end up with no agreement features at all as in Aromanian va s-cântu ‘I will sing’, where the 3Sg form of the verb a vrea ‘will’ is used for the complete paradigm (cf. Capidan 1932); Modern Daco-Romanian has a similar paradigm but has additional phonological reduction of va to o: (29) Old Romanian Mod.Aromanian voi s˘a cânt va s-cântu vei s˘a cân¸ti va s-cântsî va s˘a cânte va s-cânt˘a vom s˘a cânt˘am va s-cânt˘am ve¸ti s˘a cânta¸ti va s-cântatsî vor s˘a cânte va s-cânt˘a ‘I/you/he . . . will sing’

Mod.Daco-Romanian o s˘a cânt o s˘a cân¸ti o s˘a cânte o s˘a cânt˘am o s˘a cânta¸ti o s˘a cânte

In this respect, Romanian is completely in line with other Balkan languages, such as Bulgarian, Albanian or Greek,7 which make use of an invariant form stemming from the 3Sg. of the verb ‘to want’ and the present tense of the verb (indicative or subjunctive):8 (30) šte do të va (si) tha will.3sg subj.mark ‘I will write’

ˇceta skruaj scriu grapso9 write.1sg

Bulgarian Albanian Aromanian Modern Greek

Therefore, the conclusion to be drawn from Romanian and the other Balkan languages is that movement of the auxiliary to the left periphery of the sentence in a position higher than AgrS, turns it into a future operator which has scope over the event expressed in the clause. Hence, unlike the Western Romance languages, the Romanian future tense does not project into a tense projection (and as a consequence, it is not dependent on S(peech time)), but has been taken out of the deictic tense system.

. Conclusions: Future in the Past Concluding, let us briefly return to what we pointed out at the beginning with respect to the exceptional status of Romanian futures expressing future in the past. In the light of the proposed operator status for future tense, the fact that the future

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.18 (1094-1153)

 Yves D’hulst, Martine Coene and Larisa Avram

tense can be used to express future in the past on a par with the conditional in other Romance languages does no longer come as a surprise: whereas in Romance the future in the past readings follow from the inherent settings of R, S and E in the conditional, in Romanian they are the result of the future operator taking scope over the event expressed in the complement clause of a verb in the past.10 In (31), the main verb a ¸sti ‘to know’ is in the past tense and takes a complement which has the future operator va or o. These future operators take scope over the event expressed by the embedded verb a veni yielding a future in the past reading. literaly Romanian Ion ¸stia c˘a va veni Ion knew.3sg that will.3sg.cl come.inf popular Romanian b. Ion ¸stia c˘a o s˘a vin˘a Ion knew.3sg that will.cl subj.mark come.3sg.subj c. VPAST [OPFUT . . . [ V ]] ‘Ion knew that (s)he would come.’

(31) a.

Notes . As stated in Sandfeld (1930), Rohlfs (1968) and Iliescu (2000), a.o., the use of the auxiliary ‘want’ to form the future tense is not an exclusive Balkan phenomenon; it is also found in Scandinavian languages and in some “minor” Romance languages, such as Dalmatian, some Franco-Provencal and Northern Italian dialects, and Old Sursilvanian. . Like French and Italian, Romanian has a specific paradigm for the conditional in which the auxiliary merges with a bare infinitive. However, unlike the synthetic form in French and Italian, this analytic form in Romanian is not used to express future in the past. Romanian (i) *Paul era sigur c˘a s-ar intoarce peste dou˘a zile. Paul was sure that refl-would come back.cond after two days intended meaning: ‘Paul was sure that she would come back after two days.’ The Romanian conditional only resembles the French and Italian ones to the extent that it appears in the main clause of hypotheticals: (ii) a. b. c.

Dac˘a a¸s fi bogat, a¸s cump˘ara o cas˘a la ¸tar˘a. Si j’étais riche, j’achèterais une maison à la campagne. Se fossi ricco, comprerei una casa in campagna. ‘If I were rich, I would buy (Cond) a house in the country.’

Romanian French Italian

. Unlike the Modern Romance languages, Latin has prospective tenses which are the result of the combination of the adjectival future participle in -urus and the auxiliary be. . It should be mentioned that, contrary to other analyses which attribute only aspectual values to the relation between R and E (cf. Avram 1999; Johnson 1981), Giorgi and Pianesi

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.19 (1153-1229)

Syncretic and analytic tenses in Romanian 

(1997) crucially take the relation between R and E to be encoded in a Tense Projection (T2P), with the aspectual information syncretically realized together with the temporal one. This T2P can either have [+V,–N ] features as in the Latin E-R setting in the Perfect, or [+V,+N] features, as in modern Romance past participle constructions (see infra). . A similar remark must be made for the French or Italian analytic Pluperfect, which combines the auxiliary (in the imperfect) with the past participle. . Notice that at the same time Old Romanian also shares the existence of a “want” type of future with older stages of other Balkan languages, such as Ancient Greek or Bulgarian, where we find respectively thelo + infinitive and hošta + infinitive, cf. Sandfeld (1930). . Serbo-Croatian (especially the Eastern part of the language community) likewise allows the formation of the future tense based on the present of the auxiliary ht(j)eti ‘want’ followed by da and the present of the main verb, but, unlike the other Balkan languages, with full agreement features on the auxiliary: (i)

On će da gleda film. He will.3sg. that watch.3sg film ‘He will watch a film.’

Serbo-Croatian (from Kordić 1997)

. Many of the Balkan languages show an additional evolution of loss or omission of the subjunctive marker (in specific environments). . With respect to Greek, the future marker θα is said either to stem from the verb θελω ‘want’, used as an auxiliary (Meillet 1921), or to result from the strengthening of the future use of nα + tensed by prefixation of θε, a reduced form of θελι ‘want 3Sg’ (Horrocks 1997). . Further research must show whether a similar analysis is valid for the future in other Balkan languages, as well. At least Bulgarian “want” + subjunctive futures seem to be different from their Romanian counterparts by having a past (conditional) form based on the imperfect of the auxiliary šta ‘want’ followed by da and the present of the verb. The agreement on the auxiliary and the lexical verb as well as the past tense on the auxiliary rather point in the direction of a biclausal analysis, comparable to the one proposed in (26b) for Romanian ‘have’ + subjunctive futures: (i)

štjax da ˇceta want.1sg.imperf subj.mark read.1sg.pres ‘I would read’

Bulgarian

References Avram, L. (1999). Auxiliaries and the Structure of Language. Bucure¸sti: Editura Universit˘at¸ii din Bucure¸sti. Avram, M. (1997). Gramatica pentru to¸tii [Grammar for Everybody]. Bucure¸sti: Humanitas. Capidan, T. (1932). Aromânii. Dialectul aromân. Studiu lingvistic [Aromania. The Aromanian Dialect. A Linguistic Study]. Bucure¸sti: Academia Român˘a.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:03

F: LA6712.tex / p.20 (1229-1311)

 Yves D’hulst, Martine Coene and Larisa Avram

Crysman, B. (1997). “Parallel morpho-syntactic constraints in European Portuguese cliticization”. In M. Butt & T. Holloway King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference. Stanford: CSLI publications. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG2/lfg97toc.html. Densu¸sianu, O. (1997). Histoire de la langue roumaine. Bucure¸sti: Editura Grai s¸ i Suflet – Cultura Na¸tional˘a. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1993). The Syntax of Romanian. Comparative Studies in Romance. Berlin/New York: Mouton-de Gruyter. Dimitrescu, F. (Ed.). (1978). Istoria limbii române. Fonetic˘a, Morfosintax˘a, Lexic [History of the Romanian Language. Phonetics, Morphology, Lexicon]. Bucure¸sti: Editura Didactic˘a s¸ i Pedagogic˘a. Fischer, I. (1985). Latina dun˘arean˘a [Danubian Latin]. Bucure¸sti: Editura Stiin¸ ¸ tific˘a s¸ i Enciclopedic˘a. Giorgi, A. & F. Pianesi (1997). Tense and Aspect. From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. Heliade R˘adulescu, I. (1828). Grammatic˘a Româneasc˘a [Romanian Grammar]. Edi¸tie s¸ i studiu de V. Gu¸tu Romalo, Bucure¸sti: Editura Eminescu. Horrocks, G. (1997). Greek. A History of the Language and its Speakers. London: Longman. Iliescu, M. (2000). Grammaticalisation et modalités en roumain: le futur déictique et épistémique. In M. Coene et al. (Eds.), Traiani Augusta Vestigi Pressa Sequamur [Studia lingvisticae in honorem Lilianae Tasmowski], 429–442. Padova: Unipress. Kordić, S. (1997). Serbo-Croatian [Languages of the World 148]. München: Lincom. Lema, J. & M. L. Rivero (1991). “Types of Verbal Movement in Old Spanish: Modals, Futures, and Perfects.” Probus, 3(3), 237–278. Meillet, A. (1921). Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion. Rohlfs, Gerhard (1968). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. 2 Morfologia [Historical Grammar of Italian and its Dialects]. Turin: Einaudi. Rosetti, A. (1987). Istoria limbii române [The History of the Romanian Language]. Bucure¸sti: Editura Stiin¸ ¸ tific˘a s¸ i Enciclopedic˘a. Sandfeld, K. (1930). Linguistique balkanique. Problèmes et résultats. Paris: Champion. Tasmowski, L. (1985). “L’imparfait avec et sans rupture.” Langue française, 67, 59–77. Valesio, P. (1968a). “The Romance synthetic future pattern and its first attestations.I.” Lingua, 20, 113–161. Valesio, P. (1968b). “The Romance synthetic future pattern and its first attestations.II.” Lingua, 20, 279–307.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:16/01/2004; 9:36

The complex sentence

F: LA67P4.tex / p.1 (25-44)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.1 (40-118)

Subjunctive relatives in Balkan languages Eleni Bužarovska University of Skopje

The author explores the degree of convergence of subjunctive relative clauses in the Balkan Sprachbund. She examines the syntactic environments that favor the realization of an isofunctional syntactic pattern, which occurs in the mixed domain of purpose and modification in Macedonian, Aromanian, Albanian and Modern Greek. It is shown that these languages share a limited set of ditransitive verbs that allow “purpose-like” modification of their direct object, due to dual case assignment. The author argues that the weakening of control at the expense of benefactive meaning is responsible for gradual shift from purpose to modification. Modern Greek and Aromanian formally mark the two opposite poles of the continuum that encodes the scalarity of meaning. The analysis shows that Macedonian, Aromanian, Albanian and Modern Greek display almost uniform behavior in the use of subjunctive clauses in the grammar of modification. The subjunctive relatives of another Balkan language, Romanian, have a wider distributional scope, being used with existential predicates, in irrealis modalities, and as modifiers of definite subject NPs.

.

Introduction

Subjunctive relative clauses in the Balkan languages are a specific type of hybrid clauses with fused purpose and relative function. These clauses are formalized as analytic constructions that consist of a subjunctive marker and a finite but untensed verb.1 Subjunctive clauses in all Balkan languages are typically used as complements2 and adverbial clauses of purpose. However, in specific syntactic environments, they can broaden their functional domain. Under favorable pragmatic and semantic conditions, they perform a fused purpose and modification function as illustrated in (1) with examples from Macedonian, Aromanian, Albanian and Modern Greek.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.2 (118-168)

 Eleni Bužarovska

(1) (Ma) Najdov eden student (za) da predava angliski. found.1sg a student for subj teaches English (Ar) Aflai un student (tã) sã traducã angleshti. found.1sg a student that subj teaches English (Al) Gjeta një student (që) të ligjërojë anglish. found.1sg a student that subj teaches English (MG) Vrika kapjon fititi pu na δiδaski anglika. found.1sg some student that subj teaches English ‘I found a student who will teach English.’ The present analysis is based on a comparison of identical sentences with subjunctive relatives in Macedonian, Albanian, Modern Greek and Aromanian.3 Data from Romanian (cf. Farkas 1982, 1992) are used to show how the scope of the use of the subjunctive relatives can be extended. The examples in the text are marked with two parenthesized sets of symbols. The symbols to the left of the examples refer to the languages, whereas the symbols to their right refer to the function of the embedded subjunctive clause. (MP) stands for a fused modification-purpose function, (PM) for a similar function but with a purpose slant, (P) for purpose, and (Md) for modification function. (MP/Md) denotes that the modification meaning prevails over the purpose meaning. The (MR) symbol is used to mark modification performed by a prototypical relative clause. The (MP) reading is available when the relative subjunctive clause is asyndetically linked to the main clause. The optional use of a goal marker shifts the clause into the purpose domain (PM), whereas its obligatory use makes it a purpose clause (P). The modification reading (Md) is conveyed when a relativizer heads the subjunctive clause. Its optional use is marked by (MP/Md). The function symbols are used to make the comparison among the analyzed sentences more illustrative, by emphasizing the different behavior of the subjunctive relative in a particular Balkan language. Registering gradually the transition from purpose to modification meaning, these symbols can be conceptualized as occupying positions between the modification and purpose “poles” in the following order: (P), (PM), (MP), (Md/MP) and (Md). The objective of this paper is to examine the properties of purpose relatives by determining the scope of their distribution in Balkan languages. The distributional pattern provides a basis that helps establish the degree of convergence. While keeping in mind the striking structural parallelism of relative subjunctives in the languages in question, it is important to determine the similarities and differences in their use in a new domain. The areally based comparative syntactic methodology employed here will show that Balkan languages display a high degree of similarity in the integration of this syntactic pattern in the grammar of “non-factive” modification. Moreover, the comparative analysis helps answer the question as to whether

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.3 (168-236)

Subjunctive relatives in Balkan languages 

the function and distribution of the purpose relatives is governed by common principles of UG or by specific rules shared by Balkan languages.4 The analyzed subjunctive relatives represent an atypical blend of purpose and relative clauses: in form they are parallel with purpose clauses (without overt goal marking), but in meaning they are close to relative clauses. The assumption underlying the analysis offered in this paper is that the syntax of subjunctive relatives results from the interplay of pragmatic and semantic factors. More specifically, the discussion here is based on Fox and Thompson’s hypothesis (1990) that discourse factors determine the distribution of relative clauses in English conversation.5 The distribution pattern of such clauses in Balkan languages supports the claim that subjunctive relatives are generated by discourse needs. They are used mainly in colloquial speech6 to identify a new referent in discourse by providing old information about this participant (cf. Prince 1981). The term “old information” is used here to denote information shared by the speaker and the hearer as part of “generic knowledge that is held in common due to living in the same universe/culture” (Givón 1984: 254). Hence, the old information expressed by the second proposition, being communicatively secondary, modifies the new participant. The modifying event of the second proposition anchors the new referent of the first proposition in the mental world of the hearer, thereby making it more accessible for identification. As a result of this communication strategy, a restrictive relative – formally a purpose clause – cataphorically anchors an unspecified referent. An object NP codes the referent in the discourse space. From a semantic point of view, a purpose relative clause narrows a set of referents to an unspecified member (‘a student’ in the set of students in (1) via some unrealized property that this referent should possess (e.g., ‘teach English’). Typically, a definite referent is grounded in the discourse space anaphorically by a prototypical relative clause (Givón 1993: 133). Examples (2) are marked by the modification (MR) symbol: (2) (Ma) Go najdov him.cl found.1sg angliski. English (Al) E gjeta him.cl found.1sg ligjërojë anglisht. teaches English (Ar) U aflai him.cl found.1sg angleshti. English

studentot što кe ´ predava student+the that will teaches

(MR)

studentin që do të student+the.acc that will subj

(MR)

pi studentu tsi sã traducã acc student+the that subj teaches

(MR)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.4 (236-289)

 Eleni Bužarovska

(MG) (Ton) vrika ton fititi pu tha δiδaski him.cl found.1sg the.acc student that will teaches anglika. English

(MR)

‘I found the student that will teach English.’ I first examine the syntactic properties of the subjunctive relatives to support the claim that their syntax is a blend of complementation and modification strategies. Following that, I will discuss the semantic motivations for the observed type of syntactic formalization.

. Syntactic properties of object subjunctive relatives Subjunctive relatives are asyndetically embedded into the main clause. This syntactic configuration enables a shift of the purpose clause to the modification domain.7 The object NP is relativized8 under favorable semantic and pragmatic conditions (addressed below) and functions as an antecedent of the adjacent subordinate subjunctive clause. The structural relation between the matrix and subordinate clause depends on the function of the subjunctive clause. The same sentence has two readings, but a single syntactic pattern: (3) SVOP/R where S = subject, V = verb, O= direct object, P/R = purpose or relative subjunctive clause. The functional shift of the subordinate clause from purpose to relative status reflects the presence of two different deep structures: P functions as a sentence adjunct, while R functions as a predication adjunct more tightly incorporated into the sentence structure. The focus of our interest is the SVOR pattern, where the subjunctive clause is embedded in a transitive verb frame as its constituent9 – as a modifying adjunct of an indefinite object NP. In turn, the subordinate clause R/P is represented by the SVO structure in which S is not realized in equi-constructions in Balkan languages.10 According to the configurational principle (Nishigaushi 1984; May 1990), the nearest non-peripheral constituent of the matrix clause functions as zero subject of the subordinate infinitival (subjunctive) clause. This makes the subordinate subject gap fall under the control of the matrix direct object. Consequently, such subjunctive clauses are classified as object relatives. However, only a limited number of matrix verbs allow modification reading of the embedded subjunctive clause. Clearly, the semantics of the matrix predicate plays a crucial role in the rise of subjunctive relatives. Before establishing the se-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.5 (289-346)

Subjunctive relatives in Balkan languages 

mantic field of these verbs, an analysis of sentences with subjunctive relatives will be conducted.

. Semantic structure of object subjunctive relatives The majority of verbs that allow subjunctive relatives to modify their objects express the meaning of an intentional, goal-oriented quest for acquisition of some unspecified item. Based on an analysis of the collected examples, I propose two semantic formulas for sentences with subjunctive relatives. Actually, depending on the humanness of the object, two cases should be distinguished. [A] If the relativized object has a human referent, the semantic formula of sentences with subjunctive relatives may be represented as follows: (4) X “acquires” Y so that Y does something for X In this formula both arguments X and Y are human referents of the relation represented by a prototypical predicate ACQUIRE. The peculiarity of such predicates is that they assign a double role on their human argument.11 The notion of “acquisition” in (4) implies two activities on the part of a human agent: his/her deliberate action to “get” some person, so that this person does something for the benefit of the agent. Such interpretation of (4) allows speculation about the possible semantic roles of the participants. It is presumed here that the roles of the arguments in the first proposition are: X is a personal agent/beneficiary, Y is an unspecified goal/theme. In the second proposition, the predicate assigns the participants different roles: Y becomes an agent, X a beneficiary. The role assignment pattern of (4) is given in (5): (5) X(agent/beneficiary) Y(theme/goal) : Y(agent/goal) X(beneficiary) The role-switch results in the rise of modification meaning of the second event. It is important to note that the matrix predicate can code either a fact or a nonfact event, while the embedded predicate codes a future-oriented, non-fact event ´ (Topolinska 1994). In the surface structure, formula (5) takes the form of a syntactic pattern SVOR realized by NP V NP R-clause. A more detailed representation of a sentence with a subjunctive relative (see (6)) shows that the subordinate subject gap (∅) is controlled by the matrix object NP (i.e., NP2 ), the goal argument: (6) NP1 V1 NP2 [∅ V2 (NP3 )], where NP3 occurs if V2 is transitive.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.6 (346-422)

 Eleni Bužarovska

A switch in the semantic role assignment occurs when the semantic formula (4) is expanded with another participant (Z). This is the case with matrix verbs denoting “giving,” such as ‘give’ and ‘lend’. (7) Z “gives” Y for X so that X does something (for X)12 The following examples illustrate the possible realizations of (7): (8) (Ma) Mu dadov moliv da crta. him.cl gave.1sg pencil subj draws (Ar) Ljã ded muliv sã scire. him.cl have.1sg given pencil subj draws.subj (Al) I dhashë (në) laps të vizatojë. him.cl gave.1sg a pencil subj draws.subj (MG) Tu eδosa (ena) molivi na zografizi. him.cl gave.1sg a pencil subj draws ‘I gave him a pencil to draw.’

(MP) (MP) (MP) (MP)

[B] When the second argument (Y) refers to an inanimate object, the control assignment changes. The semantic representation of such sentences is given in (9): (9) X “acquires” Y so that X does something with Y for X where X = a human agent/beneficiary; Y = an inanimate goal in the first proposition. The role-assignment schema is represented in (10): (10) X(agent/benef.) Y(theme/goal): X(agent/goal) Y(instrument) X(benef.) In (10), X is assigned a complex role of agent/goal, whereas Y is an instrument. Consequently, another NP should be included in (6), an NP4 , coding the Y instrument participant. It is argued here that the fading of the beneficiary role is accountable for the purpose reading of a sentence with a semantic structure such as (10). This is illustrated by the examples in (11). At the same time, the prevalence of the beneficiary role over the agent explains the slant toward modification meaning of a sentence as in (1). (11) (Al1 ) Bleva bought.1sg (Al2 ) Bleva bought.1sg (Ma) Kupiv bought.1sg (MG) Aγorasa bought.1sg

sharrë (që) të pres dru. saw that subj cut.1sg wood.pl sharrë për të prerë dru. saw for subj cut.Partic wood.pl pila (za) da seˇcam drva. saw for subj cut.1sg wood.pl prioni ja na kovo ksila. saw for subj cut.1sg wood.pl

(MP/Md) (P) (PM) (P)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.7 (422-483)

Subjunctive relatives in Balkan languages 

(Ar)

Ancuprai pila tã sã talj leamni. bought.1sg saw that subj cut.1sg wood.pl ‘I bought a saw to cut wood.’

(P)

Bracketed goal markers or relativizers may optionally be deleted. As was explained earlier, if the presence of a goal marker has a purpose interpretation (P), its absence before a subjunctive relative clause conveys a fused (MP) reading. The same holds true for relativizers: its optional use renders a fused (MP/Md) reading, whereas its absence yields modification (Md). Albanian employs two strategies to render the meaning of (11): (që) të + tensed verb or për të + participle. Because of structural parallelism between the former construction and the constructions in the other analyzed languages the discussion henceforth will exploit only the Albanian subjunctive relative clause optionally preceded by the relativizer që. It is marked by the (MP/Md) symbol.

. Functions and properties of OSR The function and the properties of the purpose relatives are explained by examining three aspects related to the semantics of its constituents: the semantics and modality of the matrix verb, the referentiality status of the antecedent NP, and the non-factivity of the subjunctive relative clause.

. Lexical and modal semantics of the matrix verb [A] The first semantic factor refers to the type of matrix verb. Only a limited number of verbal predicates have a semantic structure that imposes double assignment on their internal arguments. The matrix verb that governs the head NP modified by a purpose relative is recruited from two groups of verbs:13 (a) a few verbs denoting transaction that results in material acquisition: ‘buy’, ‘hire’, ‘bring’, ‘borrow’, ‘take’, ‘give’, ‘lend’ and a “bleached” possessive ‘have’; and (b) the nonfactive transitive verb ‘look for’ and its factive, conceptually related counterpart ‘find’ (denoting the end of a goal-oriented quest), which also codes actions that result in material acquisition. It seems that the underlying structure of these verbs is composed of two fused semantic components: implicit intention and unrealized possession. The first semantic component – implicit intention on the part of the agent – presupposes involvement of will. The meaning of volition stems from goal-oriented (hence intentional) activities that these verbs express. The agent’s intentionality to perform the action weakens and disappears in the existential ‘have’.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.8 (483-553)

 Eleni Bužarovska

The meaning of possession or unrealized possession is the second semantic component of these verbs. All the above verbs express activities that are directed toward obtaining something – usually an unspecified item in some set of identical items. Consequently, it can be hypothesized that the process of “quest” conceptually consists of two stages: the process of “searching”, and the resultant state of obtaining the item. Moreover, the non-metaphorical quest is a motion of an agent toward a goal, while the resultant stage can be seen as the end of motion – location or static condition of the agent once the item is obtained. It is exactly this conceptual schema that determines the case role assignment of these verbs. The complex semantics of “acquisition” verbs accounts for the dual case assignment on their arguments. This assumption is supported by Ladusaw and Dowty’s claim (1988: 62) that thematic roles are “clusters of entailments and presuppositions”, and as such depend on the semantics of their verbs. The lexical meaning of the verb enforces sets of entailments on its arguments.14 The two meaning components of the “acquisition” verbs cause dual thematic assignment on the agent and the theme. As a result, the controller (agent) imposes a double case role of Goal and Location on the null subject (the gap) regardless of its structural position (subject or direct object). However, a question arises as to why the same subjunctive clause serves a different function in sentences with identical thematic pattern. In (13) the embedded subjunctive clause serves as a purpose clause, whereas in (12) the same clause functions as a relative: (MP/Md) Gjeta një student (që) të ligjërojë found.1sg a student (that) subj teaches anglisht.15 English (MP/Md) (MG) Vrika kapjon fititi (pu) na δiδaski found.1sg some student (that) subj teaches anglika. English (PM) (Ma) Najmiv eden student (za) da predava angliski. hired.1sg a student (for) subj teaches English (PM) (Ar) Aflai un student (tã) sã traducã angleshti. found.1sg a student that subj teaches English ‘I hired a student to teach English.’

(12) (Al)

(13) (Al)

E gjeta studentin që të ligjërojë him.cl found.1sg student+the that subj teaches anglisht. English

(Md)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.9 (553-602)

Subjunctive relatives in Balkan languages 

(P) (MG) Vrika ton fititi ja na δiδaski anglika. found.1sg the.acc student for subj teaches English (P) (Ar) U aflai pi studentu tã sã traducã him.cl found.1sg acc student+the that subj teaches angleshti. English (Ma) Go najdov studentot za da predava angliski. (P) him.cl found.1sg student+the for subj teaches English ‘I hired the student to teach English.’ Clearly, another factor accounts for the different reading of (12) and (13)16 : the referential status of the antecedent NP. Ladusaw and Dowty’s (1985) hypothesis of dual thematic assignment should be expanded by relating the definiteness of the antecedent (theme) to the imposed thematic role. Taking into consideration the fact that agents can manipulate only definite objects, the goal control between the co-referent agent and theme is possible only with a definite theme. It means that in a goal semantic configuration the agent exercises strong control over its referring controllee (Jones 1985; Jones 1986; May 1990). Consequently, the controller matrix subject imposes strong control over its controllee null subject (the gap), which yields a purposive reading of the subjunctive clause. At the same time, an indefinite theme referent weakens the control relation between the agent and its co-referential unrealized argument in the purpose clause (the gap), while weak or no control results in a modification meaning. Different degrees of control are reflected in the gradual shift of the subjunctive clause from purpose to modification meaning. The scalar character of this shift can be represented as a purpose-modification continuum that connects the purpose functional domain with the modification domain. The scalarity of the continuum can be explained through the employment of the notion of entailments. The weakening of control between agent and goal triggers the goal entailment in the gap to give way to possession entailment. The semantic link between possession and location in goal configuration is pointed by Ladusaw et al. (1985: 65): “The Goal is the person in whose possession the Theme resides when the action entailed by the main clause is over.” As a result, the possession entailment assigns a Location role (of possession) to the controller. Apparently, the ratio between the beneficiary and the goal meanings accounts for the existence of the purpose-modification continuum. In addition, the locationpossession entailment should be viewed as implying benefit on the part of the agent. The movement of the agent (encoded by the purpose event) toward the goal referent becomes a possession property of that referent (as a modification event) for the referent’s own benefit. It should be noted, however, that only a limited set of verbs have a dual thematic role assignment.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.10 (602-659)

 Eleni Bužarovska

The Balkan languages display a remarkable similarity in the inventory of “acquisition quest” verbs, though Romanian17 allows a few other matrix verbs, such as ‘meet’ and ‘build’ to have subjunctive relatives. Namely, in Romanian, the “acquisition quest” notion can be reinforced by a modal volitional verb ‘want’ or ‘hope’ governing the verb ‘meet’. This verb sequence codes a search for something, or more precisely ‘somebody’. (14) (Ro) Petru sper˘a s˘a întîltneasc˘a o fat˘a care s˘a-l Peter hopes subj meets.subj a girl that subj-him.cl înteleag˘a. understands.subj ‘Peter hopes to meet a girl who understands him.’ The examples show that the use of subjunctive relative occurs in the irrealis18 context; it reflects the degree of speaker’s commitment to the assertion expressed in the sentence. The intensional context facilitates the use of a subjunctive relative with the verb ‘build’. As the following examples illustrate, the speaker makes a future commitment to a possible event with unrealized property in (15) and makes just a prediction in (16). In (15) the embedded clause has the form of a subjunctive relative, whereas in (16) it is formalized as a relative clause in the future tense. (15) (Ro) Voi construi o fabric˘a care s˘a produc˘a will.1sg build.3sg a factory which subj produces.subj tractoare. tractors ‘I will build a factory which will produce tractors.’ (16) (Ro) Voi construi o fabric˘a care va produce will.1sg build.inf a factory that will.3sg produce.inf tractoare. tractors ‘I will build a factory which will produce tractors.’ [B] The second semantic factor refers to the modality of the matrix predicate. The matrix predicate may belong to realis or irrealis modality. Non-implicative verbs impose non-fact modality on the proposition, since they do not imply that the event they encode has taken place in the real world. The modality of the second event is always irrealis because it refers to an event that is yet to be performed and become true in some future world of the speaker. The non-fact semantics of the subordinate clause is reflected in its form: the second event is realized as a subjunctive clause. It is important to emphasize that the second irrealis event can modify both realis and irrealis events to produce two combinations of sentences with subjunctive relatives: one with an implicative and

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.11 (659-736)

Subjunctive relatives in Balkan languages 

another with a non-implicative matrix verb. This phenomenon can be accounted for in terms of temporal sequencing of the two events encoded by the main and relative clause. Sentences with subordinate subjunctive clauses are characterized by a consecutive temporal frame, because the actions or states referred to in the subjunctive complement clauses follow the matrix verb in time. It is worth noting that in cases where the irrealis modality of the second event is “supported” by the non-factivity of the first, the second event is more readily formalized as a subjunctive relative clause: (17) (Al)

Kërkoj grua (që) të ruajë famijë. seek.1sg woman (that) subj keeps children (MG) Psahno jineka (ja) na frondizi ta peδja. seek.1sg woman (for) subj keeps the.acc children (Ma) Baram žena (za) da ˇcuva deca. seek.1sg woman (for) subj keeps children (Ar) Caftu un˘a muljari sã veaglã ficior. seek.1sg one woman subj keeps children ‘I am looking for a woman who will take care of children.’

(MP) (PM) (PM) (MP)

With factive matrix verbs, the polarization of meaning is reflected in the form of the subordinate clause, which can be either purpose or relative (18). Aromanian displays a tendency toward purpose formalization (denoted by PM), whereas Modern Greek, Albanian and Macedonian eliminate the semantic indeterminacy by shifting to the purpose or modification poles. This is exemplified in (18): (18) (Al)

Gjeta grua që të ruajë famijë. found.1sg woman that subj keeps children (Ma) Najdov žena za da ˇcuva deca. found.1sg woman for subj keeps children (MG) Vrika jineka ja na frondizi ta peδja. found.1sg woman for subj keeps the.acc children (Ar) Aflai unã muljari (tã) sã veaglã ficior. found.1sg one woman that subj keeps children ‘I found a woman who will take care of children.’

(Md) (P) (P) (PM)

. Reference relations: Humanness and reference constraints A. The interplay between the humanness of the antecedent and control assignment constitutes the first semantic factor related to reference relations. In the discussion above, two types of semantically different structures of SVOP/R pattern have already been established. The difference between them results from the nature of the referent the antecedent (object NP) refers to.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.12 (736-799)

 Eleni Bužarovska

I argue that the referential content of the matrix object NP affects, or more precisely changes, the co-reference relations. The humanness of the second participant causes a shift in control assignment: from subject control to object control of the zero-subject in subjunctive relatives. This fact can be explained by the agentivity of the object NP. In accordance with the animacy hierarchy (Comrie 1989: 185f.; Lyons 1977: 511), human agents tend to be encoded as subject NPs. The subject of the main clause occupies a prominent position in the sentence, commonly denoting the topic; moreover, there is a tendency for the subject/topic to be an animate agent. In object-controlled subjunctive relatives such as the one in (19), the object noun performs a double role: (a) referent of the zero-anaphor and (b) relativized head noun (antecedent): (19) (Ma) Baram ˇcovek da go popravi krovot. seek.1sg man subj him.cl fixes roof+the ‘I am looking for a man to fix the roof.’

(MP)

But when the object NP refers to a thing, as in (20), the two functions split: (20) (Ma) Baram skala (za) da go popravam krovot. seek.1sg ladder for subj him.cl fixes roof+the ‘I am looking for a ladder to fix the roof.’

(PM)

The previous co-reference link is blocked by the animacy constraint. Now the control of the subject gap in (20) is taken over by the matrix subject, a known agent. The co-reference between the antecedent object NP and another NP (NP4 ) within the subjunctive clause (see (10)) causes this shift. The relativized NP co-refers with the deleted instrumental NP in the subordinate clause. According to the hypothesis of the probability of surface expression of case roles (Givón 1984: 133), instruments can become subjects only in the absence of agents and patients. This means that the instrumental object NP can not control the subject gap. The next available participant is the agent expressed by the matrix subject NP in the nominative. Consequently, the gap assigns control to the main subject, as illustrated in (11), (20) and (21): (21) (Al)

Bleva bought.1sg (Ar) Ancuprai bought.1sg (MG) Aγorasa bought.1sg

ngjyrë hair-dye boia hair-dye vafi hair-dye

që t-i ngjyros flokët. (Md) that subj-them.cl dye.1sg hair+the.pl (P) tã s-u boescã peru. that subj-it.cl dye.1sg hair+the ja na vapso ta malia mu. (P) for subj dye.1sg the.acc hair my.cl

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.13 (799-885)

Subjunctive relatives in Balkan languages 

(PM)

(Ma) Kupiv boja (za) da farbam kosa. bought.1sg hair-dye for subj dye.1sg hair ‘I bought hair-dye to dye my hair.’

In Romanian, as well as in Bulgarian, this model is extended to include dative experiencer subject of the subjunctive relative. Examples (22) and (23) are taken from Farkas (1982) and Lempp (1985) respectively: (22) (Ro) Am g˘asit în sfrî¸sit o rochie care have.1sg found.part at end a dress that plac˘a. likes.subj (Ma) *Konecno najdov fustan da mi se finally found.1sg dress subj me.cl refl ‘I finally found a dress I like.’

s˘a-mi subj-me.cl

dopa´ga. likes

(23) (Bu) Toj t˘arsi tak˘ava kniga, kojato da mu haresva. he seek.3sg such book which subj him.cl likes ‘He is looking for a book that he will like.’ B. The second semantic factor pertains to reference constraints. There is a systematic correlation between the propositional modality and referential information of the proposition. Looking into the inter-relations between the matrix verb and its second argument (Y) in propositions of the type (4), two cases can be distinguished: (a) Y refers to a non-referring, unspecified argument of a non-implicative matrix verb (‘look for someone/anyone’); (b) Y refers to a referring, unspecified referent of an implicative verb (‘found a/someone/*anyone’). An indefinite NP or indefinite pronoun in the direct object position encodes an unspecified referent. The use of a referring, specified argument in non-factive propositions is blocked for logical reason.19 Non-implicative verbs create a non-fact environment from which referring NPs are excluded; only non-referring arguments are compatible with the semantics of the irrelis event. In (24) the man is unknown both to the speaker and hearer: (24) (Ma) Baram ˇcovek da go kopa lozjeto. seek.1sg man subj him.cl digs vineyard+the ‘I am looking for a man to work in the vineyard.’ (25) (Ma) *Go baram ˇcovekot da go kopa lozjeto. him.cl seek.1sg man+the subj him.cl digs vineyard+the ‘I am looking for the man to work in the vineyard.’ As illustrated in (26), the subjunctive clause has a relative function in the sentence with an indefinite referent. However, Modern Greek prefers purpose-slant realiza-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.14 (885-937)

 Eleni Bužarovska

tion with factive matrix verbs, while Albanian reinforces the modification meaning by (optionally) using a relativizer që before the subjunctive marker. (MP/Md) Gjeta një njeri (që) ta punojë vreshtin. found.1sg one man that subj digs vineyard+the (PM) (MG) Vrika enan anthropo (ja) na orγoni to found.1sg one man for subj digs the.acc ambeli. vineyard (MP) (Ma) Najdov eden ˇcovek da go kopa lozjeto.20 found.1sg one man subj him.cl digs vineyard+the (MP) (Ar) Aflai un om s-u sapã inja. found.1sg one man sub-it.cl digs vineyard+the ‘I found a man who will work in the vineyard.’

(26) (Al)

In a factive environment, the use of a definite referent results in a straightforward purpose interpretation in Macedonian and Aromanian. The Albanian subjunctive relative resolves the indeterminacy by shifting to the modification end, whereas Moder Greek uses both strategies: (27) (Ma) Go najdov ˇcovekot za da go kopa him.cl found.1sg man+the for subj him.cl digs lozjeto. vineyard+the (Ar) U aflai pi omu tã s-u sapã him.cl found.1sg acc man+the that subj-it.cl digs inja. vineyard+the (MG1 ) Vrika ton anthropo ja na orγosi to found.1sg the.acc man for subj digs the.acc ambeli. vineyard (Al) E gjeta njeriun që ta punojë him.cl found.1sg man+the that subj-it.cl digs vreshtin. vineyard+the (MG2 ) Vrika ton anthropo pu tha orγosi to found.1sg the.acc man that will digs the.acc ambeli. vineyard ‘I found the man who will work in the vineyard.’

(P)

(P)

(P)

(Md)

(MR)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.15 (937-1015)

Subjunctive relatives in Balkan languages 

In (27), ‘the man’ is identifiable to both participants in discourse as opposed to ‘a man’ in (26), which refers to a specific person known to the speaker but not to the hearer. Its existence in the real world makes it a referring, but unspecified, entity.

. Aspectual semantics of the verb in the subjunctive relative The analyzed Balkan languages seem to be sensitive to the aspect of the verb in the subjunctive relative. Verbs denoting states tend to be realized as modification subjunctive relative clauses linked by a relativizer (cf. (29)), instead of acquiring an indeterminate interpretation as in (28). Only Macedonian differs in that respect because it does not license the use of a relativizer before the subjunctive marker da. (28) (Ma) Baram nekoj da mi pomogne. seek.1sg someone subj me.cl helps (Al) Kërkoj dikë (që) të më ndihmojë. seek.1sg someone that subj me.cl helps (MG) Psahno kapjon na me voithisi. seek.1sg someone subj me.cl helps (Ar) Caftu vãrnu sã-nj ajutã. seek.1sg someone subj me.cl helps ‘I am looking for someone to help me.’ (29) (Ma) Baram devojka da znae angliski. seek.1sg girl subj knows English (Al) Kërkoj (një) vajzë që të dijë anglisht. seek.1sg one girl that subj knows English (MG) Psahno kopela pu na kseri elinika. seek.1sg girl that subj knows English (Ar) Caftu unã fetã tsi sã shtiba angleshti. seek.1sg one girl what subj knows English ‘I am looking for a girl who knows English.’

(MP) (MP/Md) (MP) (MP)

(MP) (Md) (Md) (Md)

Macedonian and Modern Greek are sensitive to the aspectual semantics of the subordinate clause. In these languages the verb in the subjunctive relative tends to be marked for imperfective aspect, and the verb in the purpose clause for perfective aspect. The loss of temporal reference and boundaries of the event (encoded by the subjunctive clause) causes loss of its processual character. Thereby, the event acquires state-like properties and becomes modifying. In other words, the modification event gets subjunctive clause formalization if it is unbounded and atelic, i.e. if it acquires atemporal properties. In the surface structure, the imperfective aspect21 of the verb in the da/naclause encodes atelicity:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.16 (1015-1081)

 Eleni Bužarovska

(30) (MG) Psahno jineka (ja) na katharizi tis skales.(MP) seek.1sg woman (for) subj cleans.imperf the.acc stairs (MP) (Ma) Baram žena da gi ˇcisti skalite. seek.1sg woman subj them.cl cleans.imperf stairs+the ‘I am looking for a woman who will be cleaning the stairs.’ (31) (Ma) ?Baram žena da gi isˇcisti skalite. seek.1sg woman subj them.cl cleans.perf stairs+the ‘I am looking for a woman who will clean the stairs.’ Example (31) becomes more acceptable when za (‘for’) is introduced before the daclause as shown in (32), i.e., when the sentence shifts into the purposive domain. (P) tis skales. (32) (MG) Psahno jineka ja na katharisi seek.1sg woman for subj cleans.perf the.acc stairs (P) (Ma) Baram žena za da gi isˇcisti skalite. seek.1sg woman for subj them.cl cleans.perf stairs+the ‘I am looking for a woman who will clean up the stairs.’ The above examples illustrate that the modification meaning of the subjunctive relative is most available when the referential modality correlates with the irrealis modality. By contrast, in (33) non-referentiality combines with the realis modality (‘found’) of the matrix clause; consequently, the subjunctive clause takes on some purpose meaning fused with modification. However, the modification reading prevails in the Albanian and Aromanian subjunctive relatives. (33) (Al)

Gjeta dikë (që) të më found.1sg someone that subj me.cl (Ar) Aflai vãr (tã) sã-nj found.1sg someone that subj-me.cl (Ma) Najdov nekoj (za) da mi found.1sg someone for subj me.cl (MG) Vrika kapjon (ja) na me found.1sg someone for subj me.cl ‘I found someone to help me.’

ndihmojë. helps ajutã. helps pomogne. helps voithisi. helps

(MP/Md) (PM) (PM) (PM)

. Irrealis propositional modalities Other irrealis modalities, such as imperative and conditional sentences, permit the use of subjunctive relatives in Romanian.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.17 (1081-1138)

Subjunctive relatives in Balkan languages 

(34) (Ro) Cump˘ar˘a-mi o carte care s˘a aib˘a multe ilustra¸tii. buy.imp-me.cl a book that subj have.3sg.subj many pictures ‘Buy me a book that has many pictures.’ This occurs in sentences with the matrix verb in imperative mood – a morphologically marked irrealis modality. The indicative variant (35) expresses a subtle difference in meaning: the speaker’s commitment to the type of book is slightly stronger. (35) (Ro) Cump˘ar˘a-mi o carte care are multe ilustra¸tii. buy.imp-me.cl a book that have.3sg many pictures ‘Buy me a book with many pictures.’ In both sentences, verbs in the present indicative and the present subjunctive mood, respectively, can replace the subjunctive without any perceptible meaning difference (Farkas 1982: 114): (36) (Ro) Dac˘a Ion ar întîlni o fata care s˘a-l if Ion would meet.inf a girl that subj-him.cl înteleag˘a ar fi ferecit. understands.subj would be.inf happy ‘If Ion met a girl who would understand him he would be happy.’ Farkas claims that such subjunctive relatives do not have a wide distribution. They occur mainly in factual conditionals and in the protasis of counterfactual conditional clauses. Macedonian and Modern Greek conditionals use regular relative clauses in the future tense instead of subjunctive relatives.

. Purpose – modification continuum . The graphic representation of scalarity in meaning The discussion has shown that the vacillation between modification and purpose meaning in sentences with subordinate subjunctive clauses is a complex phenomenon. A combination of semantic, syntactic and pragmatic factors work together to determine the slant towards purpose or modification interpretation of the sentence. The gradual shift from a modifying meaning to purposive can be best understood as a semantic continuum in which gradience of meaning is encoded in Balkan languages by isofunctional structures. The irrealis functional domain of purpose connects with the domain of modification through a scalar shift of meanings of such subjunctive constructions, e.g., na-constructions in Modern Greek. It should be pointed that formally na-constructions are finite untensed structures

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.18 (1138-1235)

 Eleni Bužarovska

(Joseph 1985). The lack of time reference distances them from prototypical finite structures which, in turn, makes them suitable for use in irrealis contexts. The claim about scalarity in meaning from purpose to modification will be illustrated by an the example of Modern Greek. On an imagined line, a prototypical relative finite clause (pu-clause) occupies one pole, followed by a modifying pu naclause. The fused modification-purpose na-clause occupies the middle position. The other pole is reserved for a purpose ja na-clause preceded by a na-purposive.

______•__________•____________•__________•_____________•_________

The purposive variant grounds the referent in the text/situation, even more if the second referent (the DO2 of the subordinate clause) is definite or/and the subordinate predicate (V2 ) denotes a telic, completed action. A survey of the Balkan subjunctive object relatives supports the purpose – modification continuum hypothesis. As the examples below illustrate, some Balkan languages use formal means to encode shift and gradience in meaning.

. Balkan illustrations of scalarity between modification and purpose The scalarity between modification and purpose can be illustrated by the following sets of Macedonian, Albanian, Modern Greek and Aromanian sentences with object relatives referring to animate, inanimate and “instrumental” objects: [A] Modification (object control; animate referent) (37) (Ma) Baram devojka da predava angliski. seek.1sg girl subj teaches English (Al) Kërkoj një vajzë (që) të ligjërojë anglisht. seek.1sg one girl that subj teaches English (MG) Psahno kopela (pu) na δiδaski anglika. seek.1sg girl that subj teaches English (Ar) Caftu unã featã (cari) sã traducã angleshti. seek.1sg one girl who subj teaches English ‘I am looking for a girl who teaches English.’

(MP) (MP/Md) (MP/Md) (MP/Md)

[B] Modification-Purpose (subject control; inanimate referent) (38) (Ma) Baram seek.1sg (Ar) Caftu seek.1sg

kapa (za) da me štiti od sonce. hat for subj me.cl protects from sun cãciulã (tã) sã mã veagljã di soari. hat that subj me.cl protects from sun

(PM) (PM)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.19 (1235-1298)

Subjunctive relatives in Balkan languages 

(PM) (MG) Psahno kapelo (ja) na me prostatevi apo ton seek.1sg hat for subj me.cl protects from the.acc ilio. sun (MP/Md) (Al) Kërkoj (një) kapele (që) të më mbrojë seek.1sg one hat that subj me.cl protects nga dielli. from sun ‘I am looking for a hat that will protect me from the sun.’ [C] Purpose-Modification (subject control; instrumental referent) (PM) (39) (Ma) Kupiv pila (za) da seˇcam drva. bought.1sg saw for subj cut.1sg wood.pl (PM) (Ar) Acuprai pil˘a (tã) sã talj leamni. bought.1sg saw that subj cut.1sg wood.pl (P) (MG) Aγorasa prioni ja na kovo ksila. bought.1sg saw for subj cut.1sg wood.pl (MP/Md) (Al) Bleva (një) sharrë (që) të pres dru. bought.1sg one saw that subj cut.1sg wood.pl ‘I bought a saw in order to cut wood.’ The examples show that Modern Greek, Albanian and Aromanian express the modification slant by formal means: subjunctive relatives are embedded into the main clause via their respective relativizers MG pu, Al që, and Ar cari ‘which’ and ¸ti ‘that’. Purpose “slant” in Modern Greek and Macedonian is expressed by the goal marker ‘for’ (MG ja, Ma za). The Albanian subjunctive relatives do not lend themselves to purpose interpretation. An iconic pattern of symmetrical relations emerges in Balkan languages because both purpose and modification markers reinforce the respective meanings at the opposite ends of the purpose – modification continuum. Of all analyzed Balkan languages, only Macedonian and Albanian do not mark both poles of the continuum – Macedonian marks only the purpose pole (za), whereas Albanian marks only the modification pole (që).

. Possessive vs. existential subjunctive relatives . Bleaching of possessive meaning The most favorable syntactic environments for the rise of subjunctive relatives are irrealis propositional frames: they are embedded with non-factive matrix verbs. Least favorable are structures built with the verb ‘have’. When ‘have’ retains its pos-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.20 (1298-1385)

 Eleni Bužarovska

sessive meaning, the subjunctive relative is possible (cf. (40)), but when it functions as an existential predicate, the relative is possible but not a preferred variant (cf. (41)). However, it is arguable whether the existential meaning is more available in (41) than in (40). Therefore, the resistance to subjunctive formalization in (41) can be explained by the degree of referentiality of a plural NP (‘brothers’) vs. an indefinite pronoun (‘something’). (40) (Ma) Imam nešto da ti have.1sg something subj you.cl (Al) Kam diçka të të have.1sg something subj you.cl (MG) Eho kati na su have.1sg something subj you.cl (Ar) Am tsiva sã-ts have.1sg something subj-you.cl ‘I have something to tell you.’

kažam. tell.1sg them. tell.1sg po. tell.1sg spun. tell.1sg

(41) (Al)

Kam vëllezër (që) të më ndihmojnë. have.1sg brothers that subj me.cl help.3pl (MG) Eho aδelfja pu tha me voithisun. have.1sg brothers that will me.cl help.3pl (Ma) ?Imam bra´кa da mi pomognat. have.1sg brothers subj me.cl help.3pl (Ar) Am frats sã njã ajutã. have.1sg brothers that subj-me.cl help.3pl ‘I have my brothers to help me.’

(MP) (MP) (MP) (MP)

(MP/Md) (MR) (MP) (MP)

Subjunctive relatives with negated predicates of possession have a wide distribution. This can be ascribed to two factors: the possession relation is a part of the semantic formula of sentences with such relatives, and the irrealis context in which such clauses typically occur. Negation, as a prototypical irrealis modality, is a favorable syntactic environment for the realization of subjunctive relatives. (42) (Ma) Nemam ništo da ti dadam. not have.1sg nothing subj you.cl give.1sg (Al) S’kam asgjë (që) të të jap. not have.1sg nothing that subj you.cl give.1sg (MG) ∆en eho tipota na su δoso. not have.1sg nothing subj you.cl give.1sg (Ar) Nu am tsãva sã-ts dau. not have.1sg nothing subj you.cl give.1sg ‘I have nothing to give you.’

(MP) (MP/Md) (MP) (MP)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.21 (1385-1463)

Subjunctive relatives in Balkan languages 

. Negated possessive ‘have’ When the meaning of possession “bleaches” in the possessive ‘have’, the verb takes on the function of an existential predicate. However, in the following example, the verb has not acquired full existential status because it retains its original meaning. When used with an animate object, ‘have’ pragmatically implicates the existence of that object by acquiring the sense ‘have available’. This can be exemplified by comparing the Modern Greek examples in which the possessive predicate is complemented by a subjunctive clause (cf. (43)), while the existential more readily occurs with a relative (cf. (44)). (43) (MG) ∆en eho kanenan na me voithisi. not have.1sg nobody subj me.cl helps ‘I have nobody to help me.’

(MP)

(44) (MG) ∆en iparhi kanis pu tha me voithisi. not exist.3sg nobody that will me.cl helps ‘There is nobody who will help me.’

(MR)

Subjunctive relatives in negative sentences are more possible if they are headed by an indefinite pronoun. This explains the slight inclination towards the modification meaning in (46), clearly marked in the Modern Greek example by the alternative use of the relativization strategy by means of the relativizer pu. The referential scope of the indefinite pronoun (cf. (46)) is wider than that of the noun, which denotes an entire class of items (45). It seems that plural referents are “more generic” than their singular definite counterparts, and thus more “indefinite.” (MP) (45) (MG) ∆en eho aδelfja na me voithisun. not have.1sg brothers subj me.cl help.3pl (PM) (Ma) Nemam bra´кa (za) da mi pomognat. not have.1sg brothers for subj me.cl help.3pl (PM) (Ar) Nu ari frats (tã) s-nã ajutã. not have.1sg brothers for subj me.cl help.3pl (Al) Nuk kam vëllezër (që) të më ndihmojnë. (MP/Md) not have.1sg brothers that subj me.cl help.3pl ‘I do not have any brothers to help me.’ (46) (Ma) Nemam nikoj da mi pomogne. not have.1sg nobody subj me.cl helps (Ar) Nu ari niun s-njã ajutã. not have.1sg nobody subj me.cl helps (MG1 ) ∆en iparhi kanis na me voithisi. not exist.3sg nobody subj me.cl helps

(MP) (MP) (MP)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.22 (1463-1523)

 Eleni Bužarovska

(MG2 ) ∆en iparhi kanis pu tha me voithisi. not exist.3sg nobody that will me.cl helps (Al) Nuk kam askë (që) të më ndihmojë. not have.1sg nobody that subj me.cl helps ‘There is nobody to help me.’

(MR) (MP/Md)

. Existential subjunctive relatives Balkan languages generally do not allow the use of relative subjunctives as complements of existential predicates. In Romanian, the use of subjunctive relatives with existential predicates is possible, but the indicative variant is preferred: (47) (Ro) Exist˘a barb˘a¸ti care s˘a înteleag˘a femeile. exist.3pl men which subj understand.3pl.subj women ‘There are men who understand women.’ The head noun has an unspecified referent; however, this irrealis feature is insufficient to create a non-fact environment that would cause the formalization of the modification event in the form of subjunctive clause in other languages. In Romanian, subjunctive relatives are more acceptable in negative existentials than in positive ones: (48) (Ro) Nu exist˘a barb˘a¸ti care s˘a înteleag˘a femeile. exist.3pl men which subj understand.3pl.subj women ‘There are no men who understand women.’ The referents in (48) apply to possible objects that cannot attain a certain property; hence, they are denied existence in the real world. The intensional head is combined with the negation irrealis modality, thereby creating favorable conditions for use of the relative subjunctive. However, the other analyzed Balkan languages prefer the indicative variant. How can the presence of the existential subjunctive relatives be interpreted? The deviation from the semantic schema (4) can be explained only if we look at the existentional predicate as coding the end of the search for a particular object. The referent should satisfy an unrealized property in some possible world of the speaker in order to exist in the real world. The future-oriented event serves to identify a non-referring participant, but the beneficiary semantic component is missing.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.23 (1523-1568)

Subjunctive relatives in Balkan languages 

. Subject control . Predicative subjunctive relatives In Romanian, subjunctive relatives can be used as adjuncts that modify predicate nominals, but only with copular ‘be’. A non-referring representative of its class, via a modification event, identifies the anaphoric participant. The event expresses a certain property that the referent is supposed to possess. The referent is encoded by an indefinite nominal that complements the copula ‘be’. Due to an identity relation holding between participants, the control assignment in such a configuration is different than in the previously discussed schema. The semantic pattern is X equals Y R, where X and Y are NPs and R is a subjunctive relative clause. The fact that both nominals share the same referent means that the subject NP controls the subject gap in the subjunctive clause, as in the following example: (49) (Ro) Nu este o chestuine u¸soar˘a s˘a rasp˘undem. not is a question easy subj answer.1pl ‘This is not an easy question to answer.’

. Subject subjunctive relatives In Romanian, as in English, a subjunctive relative can modify a definite subject NP, but only when it encodes a unique referent. The same semantic relation of identification as in the previous case holds between the participants. However, a future-oriented event modifies a unique non-referring representative of the class. This referent has to acquire some unrealized property in order to be identical with a specified member that exists in the real world. That unique participant, encoded as a subject NP, is equated with another specified participant, formalized as a predicate nominal: (50) (Ro) Persoana pe care s-o a˘ ntrebi este Jon.22 person acc that subj-him.cl ask.3sg.subj is John ‘The person to ask is John.’

. Conclusion The above analysis shows that Balkan languages share one type of subjunctive relatives: object relatives. In this they comply with the simplest strategy of grounding a new referent in the discourse: by introducing it as an object nominal anchored with

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.24 (1568-1624)

 Eleni Bužarovska

the help of a relative clause. A known participant (encoded by the matrix subject) grounds the prototypically new referent in the discourse in the object position, while the subjunctive clause further identifies the referent. Romanian subjunctive relatives display a wider application range than their counterparts in the other Balkan languages examined. Thus, subject subjunctive relatives and existential relatives are possible in Romanian, but not in Modern Greek, Macedonian, Aromanian and Albanian. The wider semantic scope of Romanian subjunctive relatives could be attributed to the fact that they cover both stages of the “quest” process, while other Balkan equivalents formalize only the “quest” part. The resultant state in Macedonian and Modern Greek is expressed by an alternative strategy: the nominal goal phrase. Another reason for the larger distribution of the Romanian subjunctive relatives may be related to the fact that Romanian subjunctive relatives are used not only to modify a new participant in discourse, but also to predicate a new unrealized property of an already introduced participant.23 The unrealized property meaning in the semantic structure of the subjunctive construction constitutes a common ground for realization of both functions in Romanian. In the other Balkan languages a modifying subjunctive clause can be used only for identification of the new referent, whereas a prototypical relative clause predicates a property of a known participant. An in-depth comparative analysis of subjunctive relatives in all Balkan languages is however required to make systematic generalizations. This will give a necessary insight as to the reasons for broader use of Romanian subjunctive relatives.24

Notes . They are historically and functionally related to the old synthetic infinitive (Joseph 1983). . See Farkas (1992) on the semantics of complementation in Romanian; see also PhilippakiWarburton (1994) for discussion on non-complementizer status of the Modern Greek subjunctive complementizer na in complement clauses. Infinitival complement clauses in English, which are the functional equivalents of Balkan subjunctive complement clauses, are analyzed in Mair (1990). . The Aromanian examples belong to the dialect spoken in the Ochrid-Prespa Aromanian dialect. There are no morphologically marked cases in this dialect. Direct objects are introduced by the Accusative marker (Acc) pi, while indirect objects are introduced by al, alji or ale. . Joseph (2001: 27) argues that in the research of Balkan languages linguists should clarify their goals by choosing between two perspectives of analysis: comparative Balkan linguistics or comparative linguistics of the Balkans. The former focuses on contact-induced surface phenomena in the Balkan Sprachbund, while the latter examines parallels at deeper lev-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.25 (1624-1696)

Subjunctive relatives in Balkan languages 

els of structure. The results of areally based comparative investigation serve to shed light on aspects of Universal Grammar. Although, formally, subjunctive relatives represent a Sprachbund syntactic feature, their modifying function is determined by deeper UG rules (Bužarovska 2002). Therefore, the present analysis of Balkan subjunctive relatives seems to belong to the comparative syntax of the Balkans. . Geisler (1998) corroborated this claim providing a statistical analysis of the distribution of English infinitival relatives. For the correlation between discourse and grammar see Hopper and Thompson (1982). . I haven’t been able to find examples in literary prose. . This term is used by Givón (1984: 33) to refer to smaller subparts of two functional realms, encoded by syntax: propositional semantics and discourse pragmatics. . See Keenan and Comrie (1977) for a discussion of the principles of relativization and Joseph (1982) for relativization in Modern Greek. ´ . According to Topolinska (1981: 112) a relative clause is a functional device introduced to enrich the predicative content of an NP. From the semantic point of view, the relative clause is a sentence-exponent of the relation which characterizes the (potential) referent of an argument common to this relation and to the relation expressed in the matrix clause. From the formal point of view, a relative clause is a sentence introduced as a constituent of ´ an NP which itself is a part of a matrix sentence (cf. Topolinska 1997). . All Balkan languages are Pro-drop; in unmarked sentences, the categorial information about the subject is signaled by the verb morphology. The subordinate subject NP is not realized in equi and unmarked non-equi constructions, as shown in (i) and (ii) respectively. It is only realized in marked non-equi structures, as shown in (iii): (i)

(Ma)

Sakam da odam tamu. want.1sg subj go.1sg there ‘I want to go there.’

(ii) (Ma)

Sakam da odiš tamu. want.1sg subj go.2sg there ‘I want you to go there’.

(iii) (Ma)

Sakam TI da odiš tamu. want.1sg you subj go.2sg there ‘I want YOU to go there.’

. The agent of the purpose clause is always human, due to the goal semantics of the action undertaken by the agent. The agent intentionally does something so that s/he reaches the set goal (Grochowski 1980: 74). . It is possible to include the instrument argument as in formula (9): (i)

Z “gives” Y for X so that X does something (for X) with Y.

However, sentences with such semantic representation are pragmatically marked for contrast. Thus, in the Macedonian and Modern Greek examples in (ii), which illustrate this

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.26 (1696-1765)

 Eleni Bužarovska

representation, the focal stress falls on V2 , while in the unmarked case without the instrument PP, illustrated in (8), the stress falls on the matrix object. (ii) (Ma)

Mu dadov moliv da crta so nego (a ne da . . . ). him.cl gave.1sg pencil subj draws with it.acc (and not subj. . . ) (MG) Tu eδosa (ena) molivi na zografizi m’ afto (ohi na. . . ). him.cl gave.1sg a pencil subj draws with it.acc (not subj. . . ) ‘I gave him a pencil to draw with it (and not to. . . ).’

. Bach (1982: 38) distinguishes three types of matrix verbs: (a) ‘have’ and ‘be’ which express the meanings of availability and disposal; (b) transitive verbs involving change in the states of affairs; and (c) verbs of choice and use. . According to Dowty (1986: 343) thematic roles are completely and solely determined by verb meanings. The roles should be regarded as clusters of entailments and presuppositions shared by certain arguments of certain verbs. . The verbal type per të ligjëruar in Albanian is not a subjunctive relative but a non-finite participial form traditionally called “infinitive”. . The Romanian examples are taken from Farkas (1982). . The distribution of subjunctive mood across the irrealis modality in the subordinate clauses is discussed in Givon (1994). . The systematic correlation between factivity and defmiteness of the event is underlined ´ ´ by Topolinska’s views on criteria for defmiteness (hence factivity) of an event. Topolinska claims that an event can be identified in two ways: through the identification of its protagonists and through defmition of its temporal parameters. Moreover, “. . . tense is given the status of the most basic referential (meaning identifying) category in the Indo-European ´ system” (Topolinska 1994: 107). That means that if an event is stripped of its temporal definiteness, it is characterized as non-factive; in the Balkan Slavic languages this is encoded by a da-clause. . In the Modern Greek, Macedonian and Aromanian examples, the direct abject in the subjunctive clause is defmite and therefore, reduplicated by the accusative clitic. . Comrie (1976: 3) claims that aspect refers to the inherent character of an event – the way the event unfolds in time. This echoes Jakobson’s (1971) view that tense is a deictic category (shifter), while aspect is non-deictic (non-shifter). Balkan subjunctive relatives lack temporal reference (hence, according to Langacker (1991: 420) lack their “verbal” character). This feature pushes them towards non-fmite status in the course of “deprocessualization”. Only a deprocessualized event can function as a modifier. Deprocessualization is achieved when an event becomes atemporal and unbounded. In subjunctive relatives, this is encoded by the imperfective aspect of the verb in the subjunctive clause. . The topicalized version is ‘John is the person to ask’, where the infmitival relative is a part of the subject complement. . See Dyer (1985) for discussion of subjunctive analytic constructions (Balkan type) and verbal forms in subjunctive mood (inherited from Romance).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.27 (1765-1844)

Subjunctive relatives in Balkan languages  . The narrower application range of Modern Greek, Macedonian, Aromanian and Albanian subjunctives may suggest that they anchor the participant in discourse to a higher degree than the Romanian relatives. If we accept the functionalist view of fmiteness as a scalar and not binary value (Langacker 1991), then the Macedonian da-constructions and their Modern Greek, Aromainan and Albanian equivalents seem to be sharing a greater degree of finiteness vis-à-vis the Romanian subjunctive relatives. The Macedonian, Modern Greek, Albanian and Aromanian subjunctive constructions used as modifiers seem to be more verbal in character, whereas their Romanian equivalents are more adjective-like and hence syntactically more susceptible for application in other syntactic environments. Their modification function is extended into identification of the known participant; i.e. into the identification domain. This is done by way of equating the participant with an unspecified member of its class. The identification is performed via an unspecified, but modified by a subjunctive relative, object.

References Bach, E. (1982). “Purpose clauses and control.” In P. Jacobson & G. Pullum (Eds.), The Nature of Syntactic Representation, 35–57. Dodrecht: Reidel. Bužarovska, E. (2002). “The purpose-modification continuum: purposive da-relative clauses in Macedonian”. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 21(1), 67–97. Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Dowty, D. R. (1986). “Thematic roles and semantics”. Papers from Parasession on Semantic Typology [Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Berkeley Linguistic Society], 340–354. Dyer, D. L. (1982). “The interplay of subjunctive and infinitive complements in Romanian”. Folia Slavica, 7(3), 362–380. Farkas, D. F. (1982). Intensional Descriptions and the Romance Subjunctive Mood. New York/London: Garland Publishing. Farkas, D. F. (1992). “The semantics of subjunctive complements.” In P. Hirschbüler & K. Koerner (Eds.), Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory, 69–105. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fox, B. A. & S. A. Thompson (1990). “A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation”. Language, 66(2), 297–316. Geisler, C. (1998). “Infinitival relatives in spoken discourse”. Language Variation and Change, 10, 23–41. Givón, T. (1984). Syntax Vol. 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Givón, T. (1993). English Grammar Vol. 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Givón, T. (1994). “Irrealis and the Subjunctive”. Studies in Language, 18(2), 265–337. Grochowski, M. (1980). Po˛ecie Celu. Studia Semantyczne [Understanding Purpose: Semantic Studies]. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk. Hopper P. J. & S. A. Thompson (1982). “The discourse basis for the lexical categories in universal Grammar”. Language, 60(4), 703–752.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 12:47

F: la6713.tex / p.28 (1844-1931)

 Eleni Bužarovska

Jakobson, R. (1971). “Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb”. Selected Writings II. The Hague: Mouton. Jones, C. (1985). “Thematic relations”. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 21, 76–89. New York: Academic Press. Jones, C. (1986). “Agent, patient, and control into purpose clauses”. Papers from Parasession on Semantic Typology, 105–119. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society. Joseph, B. D. (1982). “Relativization in Modern Greek. Another look at the accessibility hierarchy constraints”. Lingua, 60, 1–24. Joseph, B. D. (1983). The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive: A study in areal, general and historic linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Joseph, B. D. (1985). “Complementizers, particles, and finiteness in Greek and the Balkans”. Folia Slavica, 7(3), 390–411. Joseph, B. D. (2001). “Is Balkan comparative syntax possible?” In M. L. Rivero & A. Ralli (Eds.), Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages, 17–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Keenan, E. L. & B. Comrie (1977). “Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar”. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99. Ladusaw, A. & D. R. Dowty (1988). “Toward a nongrammatical account of thematic roles”. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 21, 61–73. New York: Academic Press. Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lempp, A. (1985). “On the category of definiteness in Bulgarian da-clauses”. Folia Slavica, 7(3), 419–434. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics Vols. 1 and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mair, C. (1990). Infinitival Complement Clauses in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. May, T. (1990). “Purposive constructions in English”. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 10, 1–40. Nishigaushi, T. (1984). “Control and the thematic domain”. Language, 60(2), 215–250. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1994). “The Subjunctive mood and the syntactic status of the particle ‘na’ in Modern Greek”. Folia Linguistica, 28(3–4), 297–329. Prince, E. F. (1981). “Towards a taxonomy of given-new information”. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics, 223–255. New York: Academic Press. ´ Topolinska, Z. (1981). Remarks on the Slavic Noun Phrase. Wrocław/Warsawa: Polska Akademia Nauk, Ossolineum. ´ Topolinska, Z. (1994). “Factivity as a grammatical category in Balkan Slavic and Balkan Romance”. Slavia Meridionalis, 1, 104–122. ´ Topolinska, Z. (1997). “Relativization – a strategy for noun phrase complementation?” Balkanistica, 10, 381–393.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.1 (40-121)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions* Alexander Grosu Tel Aviv University

This paper attempts to analyze the properties of a construction that is typical of Balkan languages, but is also encountered in non-Balkan Romance and Slavic, and a few additional languages. The construction, neutrally referred to as Modal Existential wh Construction (MEC), has the superficial appearance of a wh-clause, but the semantics of a narrow-scope existential generalized quantifier (GQ) such that the property expressed by IP has modal possibility/ability force. It is proposed, building on Grosu (1994), Grosu and Landman (1998) and Izvorski (1998), and modifying some of the views in these works, that MECs are non-core relative constructions consisting of a bare CP which carries the feature [GQ∃ ], as well as a specification of its particular modality. Cross-linguistic distribution is captured by extensions of subcategorization options from nominal to CP arguments, such extensions being potentially ‘licensed’ by semantic-pragmatic properties of the matrix predicates in conjunction with the larger context, in the sense that they constitute necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for extension. The proposed analysis accounts for the upper bound on MEC distribution, for the kind of attested cross-linguistic variation, and for certain hitherto unaccounted for properties of MECs, in particular, an inability to serve as predicates, and a complete incompatibility with wh+ever-like phrases.

.

Introduction

This paper re-examines a type of construction that has received a certain amount of attention in the earlier generative literature, and for which at least three kinds of analytical approaches have been put forward. I will argue that each of these three approaches is deficient in some respect, and will propose a fourth, which partly builds on one of its predecessors, and which overcomes some of the difficulties that confront all of them.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.2 (121-185)

 Alexander Grosu

The construction in question is typical of the Balkan languages, being found in Modern Greek, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, Romanian and Albanian, but also encountered in non-Balkan Romance and Slavic languages, as well as in Hungarian, Modern Hebrew, and Classical and Moroccan Arabic. Interestingly, it is absent from the major Germanic languages, except for Yiddish, where its presence may well be due to contact with Slavic. At least prima facie, the construction (i) has the appearance of a clause with a fronted wh-phrase, but (ii) its semantic force is that of a narrow-scope existential generalized quantifier, with (iii) the special property that the IP within it necessarily includes a semantic modal operator with possibility/ability force. In view of the controversial theoretical status of this construction, and in order not to prejudge its ultimate analysis, I will refer to it with the term “Modal Existential wh-construction” (MEC), which is descriptively correct, and, as we shall see, compatible both with the analyses so far proposed and with the one I will develop here. A full list of the distinguishing properties of MECs will be provided at the beginning of Section 4, but one of them bears mention here: The distribution of MECs is subject to significant systematic cross-linguistic variation (see below), and is in general properly included in the distribution of straightforward nominals with comparable semantic force. By and large, MECs occur as arguments of verbs/predicates whose semantics includes an existential component, and which fall into two major classes; (i) assertion of existence (usually expressed by verbs of the ‘be’ or ‘have’ type), and (ii) coming into being, view, or availability, or causation of one of these (for example, ‘arrive’, ‘be born’, ‘choose’, ‘look for’, ‘find’, ‘send’, ‘obtain’, and ‘wangle’.1 Some languages disallow MECs entirely, while others permit them only with predicates of type (i). There are also more “permissive” languages, which allow MECs with predicates of type (i) and with some predicates of type (ii), but none, to my knowledge, that freely allow MECs with all of Szabolcsi’s (1986) predicates. In relation to the more permissive languages just referred to, Szabolcsi’s predicates are partly ordered by a scale of accessibility (that marks type (i) predicates as most accessible), with individual languages selecting different cut-off points on this scale. Prior to outlining the gist of the three approaches alluded to above, I provide illustrations of MECs from a variety of languages, offering, whenever possible, examples with matrix predicates both of type (i) (in the (a) sub-cases) and of type (ii) (in the (b) subcases). For some languages, where this distinction has consequences, separate subcases (a) and (a’) are provided, depending on whether the wh-element binds a non-subject or a subject position within the MEC. In (1)–(13), examples of MECs from Romanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Modern Greek, Hungarian, Russian, Polish, Spanish, French, Modern Hebrew, Albanian, Serbo-Croatian and Classical Arabic are provided:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.3 (185-233)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions 

Ro (Nu) avem [cui {trimite, s˘a trimitem} marf˘a]. not have.1pl who.dat send.inf subj send.1pl goods ‘We have {someone, no one} to whom we can send merchandise.’ a’. (Nu) avem [cine {*ne trimite/ s˘a ne trimeat˘a} not have.1pl who.nom us send.inf subj us send.subj.3sg marf˘a]. goods ‘We have {someone/ no one} who can send us merchandise.’ Ro b. Î¸ti voi trimite [cu ce {??sp˘ala/ s˘a speli} you.dat will.1sg send.inf with what wash.inf subj wash.2sg rufele]. clothes.the ‘I will send you something with which to wash the clothes.’

(1) a.

(2) a.

{Ima/ njama} [na kogo da ispratime has not-has to whom subj send.perf.pres.1pl parite]. money-the.pl ‘There is someone/noone to whom we can send the money.’ b. Tja izbra [koj da ja zamesti]. she chose.3sg who.nom subj her replace.perf.pres.3sg ‘She chose someone who can replace her.’

Bu

Bu

Ma {Imame/ nemame} [komu da mu gi have.1pl not-have.1pl who.dat subj him.dat them.acc ispratime parite]. send.1pl money-the.pl ‘We have someone/noone to whom to send the money.’ Ma b. Bara kogo da [{prati vo Moskva/ so kogo da look-for whom subj sends in Moscow with whom subj gi ostavi decata}]. them leave.perf.pres.3sg children+the ‘He is looking for {who to send to Moscow/ with whom to leave the children}.’ MG (4) a. Den eho [pion na stilo sto Parisi]. not have.1sg whom subj send.1sg to-the Paris ‘I have no one I can send to Paris.’ b. {Epsaka/ vrika} [ti na su stilo stis diakopes]. MG looked-for found what subj you send.perf. in holiday ‘I {looked for/found} something to send you during the holiday.’ (3) a.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.4 (233-315)

 Alexander Grosu

Hu Nincs [ ki-nek {írnunk/ írjunk}]. is-not who-to write.inf.1pl write.subj.1pl ‘We have no one we can write to.’ a.’ Van[{ki-nek segíteni, ki segítsen} nekem]. is who-dat help.inf.3sg who-nom help.subj.3sg me.dat ‘There is someone who can help me.’ Hu b. Talátál [ mit enni]? find.past.2sg what.acc eat.inf. ‘Did you find something to eat?’ Ru (6) a. Emu est’ [s kem ostavit’ detej]. him.dat is with whom leave.inf children ‘He has someone with whom he can leave the children.’ Ru b. On isˇcet [s kem ostavit’ detej]. he looks-for with whom leave.inf children ‘He is looking for someone with whom to leave the children.’ Po (7) (Nie) mam [co robić]. not have.1sg what do.inf ‘There {is something, isn’t anything} I can do.’ Sp (8) a. Juan no tiene [a quien escribir]. Juan not has to whom write.inf ‘Juan has no one he can write to.’ a.’ Juan no tiene [quien le escriba]. Juan not has who him write.subj.3sg ‘Juan has no one who can write to him.’ Sp b. Briana no encuentra [con quien salir]. Briana not finds with whom go-out.inf ‘Briana can’t find anyone with whom to go out.’ Fr (9) a. Il n’ y a plus [à qui s’ adresser]. it not there has more to whom refl turn.inf ‘There is no longer anyone we can turn to.’ Fr b. Je t’enverrai [de quoi te débarbouiller I you send.fut.1sg of what refl.2sg clean.inf le visage]. the face ‘I will send you something with which to clean your face.’ (5) a.

(10) a.

Eyn (li) [im mi le-daber]. is-not to-me with who to-talk ‘There is nobody {I, one} can talk to.’

MH

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.5 (315-379)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions 

b. Eshlax lexa [be ma lirxoc et ha-panim]. will.send.1sg you in what wash.inf acc the-face ‘I will send you something with which to wash your face.’ (11) a.

Nuk ka [ kush të na dërgojë mall]. not have.impers who subj us send.1pl merchandise ‘There is noone who can send us the merchandise.’ b. Zgdjodhi [kush ta zëvendësojë]. chose.3sg who subj-her replace.3pl ‘She chose someone to take her place.’

(12) a.

Mi nemamo [šta {proˇcitati/ da proˇcitamo}]. we not-have.1pl what read.inf subj read.perf.pres.1pl ‘We have nothing to read.’ b. Poslaću ti [s ˇcime {*oprati/ da send.will.1sg you.dat with what.Instr wash.inf that opereš} pod]. wash.perf.pres.2sg floor ‘I will send you something with which to wash the floor.’

(13) Laysa li [m¯a af ’alu]. is-not to-me what do.Indic.imperf.1sg ‘There is nothing I can do.’

MH

Al

Al

SC

SC

ClA

In (1)–(11), the modal force of MECs is reflected in the grammatical mood of their verb, which is either infinitive or subjunctive, subject to some cross-linguistic and intra-linguistic variation. Earlier works known to me that mentioned or analyzed MECs, in particular Pesetsky (1982), Suñer (1984), Rappaport (1986), Rivero (1986), Rudin (1986), Grosu (1989, 1994), Grosu and Landman (1998), and Izvorski (1998), have all assumed that a non-indicative mood is an inherent property of MECs. This assumption is, as far as I can tell, basically correct, provided that in languages which do not have a morphological indicative/subjunctive contrast (e.g., Modern Hebrew, Serbo-Croatian), we make the reasonable assumption that MECs with finite verbs are “concealed subjunctives”. As for the choice of Infinitive or Subjunctive, it is sometimes fixed for an entire language, e.g., Modern Greek, Albanian, Bulgarian and Macedonian invariably use the Subjunctive (there being in fact no infinitive in these languages), while French and Russian invariably use the infinitive (although a distinct subjunctive exists). In other cases, the choice of grammatical mood varies from situation to situation within a single language, e.g., Spanish requires the subjunctive when the wh-element is the MEC’s subject, and the infinitive otherwise, while Romanian requires the subjunctive with whsubjects, but allows variation otherwise. Some languages are sensitive to whether the matrix predicate is of type (i) or (ii) – e.g., Serbo-Croatian requires the subjunctive (which, as noted above, has concealed status) with predicates of type (ii),

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.6 (379-436)

 Alexander Grosu

but allows alternation with the infinitive with predicates of type (i), and an analogous, if somewhat weaker effect of this kind is found in Romanian (see (12b) and (1b) respectively). Some of the writers that addressed MECs, and in particular, some of those that adopted one of the three approaches alluded to above, proposed that MECs have certain exceptional characteristics, and that within a model of grammatical description that recognizes a “core” and a “periphery”, certain properties of MECs belong to the periphery; to put this another way, MECs are, in certain respects, “marked” constructions, or “syntactic idioms”. This conception is made prominently explicit in Rappaport (1986), who moreover expresses the uncontroversial view that an optimal analysis should aim at maximizing the core properties and minimizing the peripheral properties of a construction. I will argue, however, that the particular approach adopted by Rappaport is on the wrong track, and that it misidentifies the core and the peripheral properties of MECs. In part, the reason for this state of affairs may lie in the fact that Rappaport’s analysis addressed exclusively data from Russian – a language in which MECs exhibit a special twist that has not, to my knowledge, been reported with respect to other languages: When the matrix clause is semantically negative, negation contracts morphologically with the wh-pronoun, and the resulting complex word may be separated from the remainder of the subordinate clause by elements of the matrix (cf. (17b)) – a state of affairs which suggests that the wh-element is itself part of the matrix, at least in superficial representation. To account for this state of affairs, Rappaport proposes that morphological contraction is a lexical process, and that the contracted forms, although morphologically distinct from every uncontroversial indefinite pronoun of the language, are nonetheless indefinite pronouns that get base-generated (in more recent teminology, merged) as part of the matrix. MECs are thus viewed as complex nominals consisting of an indefinite pronoun and a complement clause, i.e. as core constructions from the configurational perspective. As for the idiosyncratic properties of MECs, Rappaport proposes the following: (A) The matrix predicates that allow MECs as arguments are lexically marked. (B) The wh-pronouns of MECs, whether combined with negation or not, are exceptional in that they also exhibit some of the properties of “syntactic quantifiers” (i.e., relative or interrogative pronouns that have undergone movement to [Spec, CP]), namely, (i) an inability to occur without an accompanying IP (in the case of MECs, the presumed complement clause), and (ii) the fact that their morphological, syntactic and semantic properties are entirely determined by the subordinate clause. I believe that something like (A) is in fact necessary for an adequate analysis of MECs (see Section 4), while (B) strikes me as unnecessarily ad hoc. The proposed “complement” relation between the wh-element and the subordinate clause is unlike any complement relation known to me, and can in general be straight-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.7 (436-491)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions

forwardly accounted for by taking the wh-element to be base-generated within the subordinate IP and subsequently fronted to the Spec of some category within the subordinate “CP area” (in the sense of Rizzi 1997). Such an analysis is fully adequate for all other languages with MECs that I know of. As for the ability of Russian wh-forms to raise to the matrix out of Russian MECs, this can be handled in a reasonably simple alternative way (for a proposal, see Section 2). The other two approaches to MECs were put forward, respectively, in Grosu and Landman (1998) (who built on Grosu 1989, 1994) and in Izvorski (1998). Both approaches converge on the view that the wh-element of a MEC originates within the subordinate IP and remains within the subordinate CP at all levels of representation.2 In fact, both sets of writers argued that MECs are “bare” CPs. But while Grosu and Landman view MECs as “relative clause constructions of a special (i.e., peripheral) kind”, the principal distinction between them and core relative constructions being that they do not exhibit any kind of CP-external “pivot” (that is, a “head” or a correlate), Izvorski proposed to view MECs as “featurally underspecified interrogatives”. In viewing MECs as configurationally and morphosyntactically indistinct from (standard) interrogatives, Izvorski went further than Grosu and Landman in her attempts to “regularize” MECs, and thus to maximize their core-grammar properties. Elegant in itself, this particularly step will be shown to be inadequate in a number of ways. While Grosu and Landman’s and Izvorski’s analyses avoid the objections that were raised with respect to Rappaport’s point (B), I will argue that they both fall short of full adequacy in a number of ways, and that some of the problems they face are traceable to their shared view that MECs are construed as properties at the CP level, “the matrix being entirely responsible for their quantificational properties”. I will also argue that a higher degree of adequacy can be achieved by viewing the matrix and the subordinate clause as jointly responsible for the quantificational force of MECs, in the sense that the source of quantification is MEC-internal, with the matrix playing a licensing role. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, I review the principal arguments offered in Grosu (1989, 1994), Grosu and Landman (1998) and Izvorski (1998) in support of a “bare CP” analysis of MECs, strengthening some of them with novel evidence, and arguing for the superiority of this analysis over the one proposed in Rappaport (1986) with respect to Russian. Section 3 shows that, while a substantial class of data arguably provides prima facie support for the view that MECs are syntactic and morpho-syntactic interrogatives, other data show that such a view cannot be maintained in general. Section 4 develops my own analysis of MECs, which builds on an insight of Izvorski’s, while introducing modifications that enable it to overcome some of the difficulties that confront her analysis. Section 5 is a summary of results.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.8 (491-568)

 Alexander Grosu

. The bare CP status of MECs In this section, I reproduce, refine, and briefly illustrate a number of arguments from earlier literature in support of a bare CP analysis of MECs. The facts to be discussed argue against any complex-XP analysis of MECs, whether the CP-external “head” is taken to be the wh-phrase (as proposed by Rappaport 1986) or a null element (as in the structure assigned to Free Relatives in Groos & van Riemsdijk 1981 and numerous later works; for some references, see Grosu 2002, 2003a, 2003b). A first argument (from Grosu & Landman 1998), is that extraction out of MECs is easier than extraction out of free relatives (FREEs) or overtly headed DPs in certain languages, and moreover has the essential degree of acceptability of extraction out of non-indicative interrogatives (which I take to be uncontroversially bare CPs) in the corresponding languages. Illustrations of this state of affairs are provided in (14)–(14’) with Romanian and Hebrew data, the bracketed structures in the (a)–(d) sub-cases being free relatives (FREE), MECs, interrogatives (INTER), and overtly headed DPs.3 Ro-FREE (14) a. *Despre ce (nu) ai pe [cine t vorbe¸ste about what not have.2sg acc who speaks cu Maria t ] în clasa ta? with Maria in class-the your ‘*What do(n’t) you have [who is talking to Maria about t] in your class?’ b. Despre ce (nu) ai [cu cine s˘a vorbe¸sti t t ]?Ro-MEC about what not have.2sg with who subj talk.2sg ‘What is such that you have no one with whom to discuss it?’ Ro-INTER c. Despre ce nu ¸stii [cu cine s˘a about what not know.2sg with who subj vorbe¸sti t t ]? talk.2sg ‘What is such that you don’t know who to talk to about it?’ Ro-DP d. ?*Despre ce nu ai pe [nimeni [cu care s˘a about what not have.2sg acc nobody with who subj vorbe¸sti t t ]]? talk.2.sg ‘What is such that you have no one with whom to discuss it?’ MH-FREE (14’) a. *al ma {yesh/ eyn} lexa (et) [mi she on what is is-not to-you acc who that medaber im miriam t ] be-kitatxa? talks with Miriam in-class-your

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.9 (568-612)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions 

‘*What do(n’t) you have [who is talking to Miriam about t] in your class?’ b. al ma {yesh/ eyn} lexa [im mi ledaber t t ]? MH-MEC on what is is-not to-you with who to-talk ‘What is such that you have no one with whom to talk about it?’ MH-INTER c. al ma eynxa yode’a [im mi ledaber t t ]? on what not.2sg know with who to-talk ‘What is such that don’t you know who to talk to about it?’ MH-DP d. *al ma eyn lexa [af exad [ito efšar on what is-not to-you anyone with who (it is) possible ledaber t t ]]? to-talk ‘What is such that you have no one with whom it is possible to talk about it?’ Past studies of constraints on extraction out of subordinate clauses have shown that there are two factors which potentially reduce extractability: (a) the indicative status of the clause and (b) the existence of two potentially blocking constituent boundaries that must be crossed in a single step (Subjacency). While (14a) and (14’a, d) violate both constraints, (14d) violates (b) only. The fact that (14b) is decidedly more acceptable than (14d), as well as the fact that the (b) subcases in both sets of examples have the essential acceptability of the corresponding (c) subcases, point to the conclusion that MECs are bare CPs, just like interrogatives. The second, and to my mind strongest argument in favour of a bare CP analysis of MECs, is the total absence of certain constraints that are typically found in complex nominals that consist of a CP-external head and an adjunct clause with a filled [Spec, CP]. One of the constraints at issue (known in the generative literature as “matching effects”) concerns the extent to which the Case and categorial properties of the external head and those of the phrase in [Spec, CP] may differ from each other when exactly one of these two elements is null. Matching effects, which differ in severity cross-linguistically, have been extensively documented with respect to free relatives (see, for example, Grosu 1994, 2003b, and references therein), and also with respect to headed relatives with a null operator in [Spec, CP] (see Bayer 1984) and comparative constructions (see Grosu 2003b). In contrast, matching effects are completely absent in interrogatives, which, as noted already, are bare CPs. The fact that matching effects are also completely absent in MECs, strongly points to the conclusion that MECs, too, are bare CPs. Another kind of constraint that strongly affects free relatives, but is absent from interrogatives and MECs, concerns the Pied Piping of a DP by a wh-pronoun in its Spec (Grosu 1989, 1994, 2003b). This state of affairs reinforces the conclusion reached on the basis of matching effects, namely, that MECs are bare CPs, just like interrogatives.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.10 (612-673)

 Alexander Grosu

The facts just described are illustrated in (15) and (16) with data from Romanian and Hebrew, respectively. The bracketed structures in the (a)–(c) sub-cases are free relatives, MECs, and interrogatives. The non-primed sub-cases illustrate the presence/absence of matching effects, while the primed sub-cases illustrate the presence/absence of the restriction on DP-Pied-Piping by a wh-pronoun in its Spec. (15) a.

a.’

b.

b.’

c.

c.’

(16) a.

a.’

b.

b.’

Ro-FREE cump˘ara [cu ce se joac˘a copilul]. will.1sg buy.inf with what refl plays child-the ‘I will buy what the child is playing with.’ *[Cu fiica cui te-ai certat] m-a with daughter-the whose refl.2sg-have.2sg quarreled me-has atacat azi. attacked today ‘The person whose daughter you quarreled with attacked me today.’ Ro-MEC N-am [cu cine vorbi]. not-have.1sg with who talk.inf ‘There is nobody with whom I can talk.’ N-am [cu fiica cui s˘a vorbesc]. not-have.1sg with daughter-the whose subj talk.1sg ‘There is nobody whose daughter I can talk to.’ Ro-INTER Nu ¸stiu [cu cine s˘a vorbesc]. not know.1sg with who subj talk.1sg ‘I don’t know who to talk to.’ Nu ¸stiu [cu fiica cui s˘a vorbesc]. not know.1sg with daughter-the whose subj talk.1sg ‘I don’t know whose daughter to talk to.’ MH-FREE *[Im mi she Miriam medaberet ] takaf oti. with who that Miriam is-speaking attacked me ‘The person who Miriam is talking to attacked me.’ *[Im bito shel mi itvakaxta] takaf oti. with his-daughter of whom you-argued attacked me. ‘The person whose daughter you argued with attacked me.’ MH-MEC Eyn li [im mi ledaber]. not me with who talk.inf ‘There is nobody with whom I can talk.’ Eyn li [im bito shel mi le-daber]. not me with his-daughter of whom to-speak ‘There is nobody whose daughter I can talk to.’

??Voi

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.11 (673-739)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions 

MH-INTER Eyneni yode’a [im mi ledaber]. not-I know with who talk.inf ‘I don’t know who to talk to.’ c.’ Eyneni yode’a [im bito shel mi le-daber]. not-I know with his-daughter of whom to-speak ‘I don’t know whose daughter to talk to. c.

It seems appropriate at this point to address the special facts of Russian discussed by Rappaport (1986) (see Section 1). While matching effects are clearly absent from Russian MECs, as can be gathered from (6) and (18) (= Rappaport’s (2a–b)), the wh-pronouns (which have the morphology of interrogative pronouns) may, and in prescriptive Russian must, morphologically contract with matrix negation. The contraction process is illustrated by the (b) subcases of (17) (= Rappaport’s (1)) and (18), and has the following consequences: (a) stress shifts from the whelement to negation, (b) negation loses its ability to license negative polarity items (see Rappaport’s Section 3.3.5), and (c) the wh-pronoun becomes a sub-element of an element of the matrix. I wish to note that the effect in (b), and more generally, the fact that an element involved in contraction is unable to interact with its syntactic context in ways in which its non-contracted counterpart can, is not an unexpected or sui-generis state of affairs. A comparable situation is found in the internally-headed relatives of Navajo, where the object of a postposition can in general function as an internal head, but loses this ability if the preposition encliticizes on the noun, forming a contracted form (Platero 1974). Another comparable situation is found with the process that yields forms like thereon from on it/that, and which is quite productive in German and Dutch; as illustrated with German data in (19), a non-contracted pronoun may be modified by a relative, but a contracted form basically resists modification.4 As for the effect in (c), it is illustrated in (18b), where the sequence ne o ˇcem is separated from the remainder of the subordinate clause by the matrix verb budet. (17) a.

Nam est’ [ˇcto delat’]. us.dat is what do.inf ‘There is something we can do.’ b. Nam neˇcego [delat’]. us.dat neg-what do.inf ‘There is nothing for us to do.’

(18) a.

Nam budet [o ˇcem dumat’]. us-dat will-be.3sg about what think.inf ‘There will be something for us to think about.’ b. Nam ne o ˇcem budet [dumat’]. us.dat neg about what will-be.3sg think.inf ‘There will be nothing for us to think about.’

Ru

Ru

Ru

Ru

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.12 (739-791)

 Alexander Grosu

(19) Er hat sich immer nur {mit dem/ ?*damit} beschäftigt, was Ger he has refl always only with that therewith busied what ihm von Nutzen sein konnte. him of use be could ‘He has always been concerned only with that which could be useful to him.’ An important aspect of effect (c) above is that it only occurs in the presence of contraction. For example, the wh-forms in (17a) may not occur to the left of the matrix verb, so that there is no reason for viewing them as elements of the matrix. I take it that there is no justification for assuming Rappaport’s highly ad hoc complement structure (see Section 1), and that the data in (17)–(18) can be analyzed just like the MECs of other languages, that is, as bare CPs with a fronted wh-element, with the only additional Russian-specific proviso that when the matrix contains a Neg element, wh-phrases must (and in colloquial speech, may) raise into the matrix and contract with Neg. As far as I can see, the contraction process has no effect on semantic interpretation, so that some version of “reconstruction” is needed to ensure that contracted and non-contracted forms are interpreted in the same way. Before turning to the next argument for bare CP status, I wish to note that the picture I have drawn on the basis of the data in (15)–(16) is subject to a caveat: While the (c’) sub-cases of (15)–(16) are immediately accepted by informants, the corresponding (b’) sub-cases are sometimes accepted only if a suitable context has been made sufficiently salient. For example, the following context induces full acceptance of the MECs in (15b’) and (16b’): ‘I have already spoken with the daughter of each of those guys, and I no longer have . . . ’ I suggest in the penultimate paragraph of Section 4 that these effects, as well as others that will be noted in connection with (22) below, may be traceable to the fact that MECs are arguably peripheral constructions, in contrast to interrogatives, which belong to the grammatical core. A third argument for the bare CP status of MECs was put forward in Grosu and Landman (1998), where it was pointed out that MECs allow multiple wh-phrases under certain circumstances. Multiple wh-phrases seem to be generally possible in CPs that do not form a constituent with an external “head”. In particular, they are allowed in interrogatives, in CP-adjoined correlatives, and in adverbial concessives (for independent arguments that the latter are bare CPs, see Izvorski 2000). At the same time, they seem to be generally disallowed in headed constructions, and in particular, in free relatives (which I assume to be headed by null material; for arguments, see Grosu 2003b, and references therein). The availability of the multiple wh option in interrogatives, adverbial concessives, and MECs and its unavailability in free relatives are illustrated in (20)–(23) respectively. (20) I wonder what to send to whom.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.13 (791-887)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions 

(21) Whichever of you flies to whatever destination, I, for one, am staying put. Ro (22) a. Nu mai avem pe cine cu cine împerechia. not more have.1sg acc who with who match.inf a.’ ?*Nu mai avem pe cine împerechia cu cine. ‘We no longer have pairs of individuals that we can match.’ Hu b. Nincs kit kivel összepárosítanunk is-not who-acc who-with up-match.inf.1.pl b.’ ?*Nincs kit összepárosítanunk kivel ‘We don’t have pairs of individuals that we can match.’ Ro (23) a. *[(Ori)cine cu (ori)cine danseaz˘a] trebuie s˘a who(ever) with who(ever) dance.subj.3sg must.3sg subj mearg˘a la cinema împreun˘a. go.subj.3sg to cinema together Purported sense: ‘Each dancing couple must go see a movie together.’ b. *[ki kivel táncol] {jöjjön/jöjjenek} ide együtt Hu who.nom who-with dances come.subj.3sg/3pl here together Purported sense: ‘Each dancing couple must come here together.’ The reason for the deviance of data like (23) is not clear to me, but it seems to be a robust fact nonetheless. In earlier literature, this state of affairs has often been attributed to the presumed fact that only one of the wh-forms can (a) occur in head position (under the CP-external wh-headed analysis of Bresnan & Grimshaw 1978) or (b) be related to an external null head (under the analysis of Groos & van Riemsdijk 1981), but this is not necessarily so. Thus, if one adopts the null-head analysis, the null head can in principle function as a plural “anaphor” with “split” antecedents. In fact, such a reading would make sense in (23a–b), as suggested by the purported translations, but these examples are nonetheless deviant. A particularly clear demonstration that the deviance of complex DPs with multiple relative pronouns is not reducible to violations of the X-bar theory or to uninterpretability can be appreciated on the basis of the Hindi data in (24), which were kindly constructed (at my request) by R. Bhatt. In Hindi, correlatives may occur adjoined either to IP or to DP, but may exhibit multiple J-phrases in the former case only. Importantly, IP-adjoined correlatives with multiple J-phrases may have a single plural correlate in the matrix, as illustrated in (24a). Note that X-bar theory is not violated if such a correlative is adjoined directly to a single plural correlate, but as shown in (24b), the result is deviant nonetheless.5 In short, it seems that, for whatever reason, complex DPs are unable to exhibit multiple relative pronouns. The contrast between (23) and the non-primed versions of (22) thus favours a bare CP analysis for MECs over a complex DP analysis.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.14 (887-931)

 Alexander Grosu

Hi [jo laRkii jis laRke-se baat kar rahii thii], Maya kal wh girl wh boy-instr talk do prog past Maya tomorrow kar-vaa-yegii. do-caus-fut paadri-se un-kaa ek-dusre-se parichay priest-instr dem-gen with-each-other introduce ‘Which girl was talking to which boy, Maya will have the priest introduce them to each other tomorrow.’ Hi b. *[jo paadrii ruusi hai], Maya kal us paadri-se wh priest Russian is Maya tomorrow dem priest-instr [jo laRkii jis laRke-se baat kar rahii thii] un-kaa wh girl wh boy-instr talk do prog past dem-gen ek-dusre -se parichay kar-vaa-yegii. with-each- other introduce do-caus-fut ‘*Which priest is Russian, Maya will have that priest introduce [which girl was talking to which boy] those to each other tomorrow.’

(24) a.

All of this notwithstanding, it needs to be pointed out that MECs with multiple wh-elements cannot be freely formed, and seem to reach a reasonable level of acceptability just in case all wh-phrases have been fronted, as can be appreciated by comparing the primed and non-primed sub-cases of (22); correlatively, in languages that do not permit multiple fronting, e.g., French and Hebrew, MECs with multiple wh-forms are felt to be marginal or unacceptable.6 At the same time, languages that do permit (or require) multiple fronting, seem to tolerate MECs with multiple wh-forms reasonably well. Additional illustrations from Serbo-Croatian, Polish, and Russian are provided in (25a)–(25c) respectively. SC Mi više nemamo [kome šta da we no-longer not+have.1pl whom.dat what subj pošaljemo]. send.perf.pres.1pl ‘We no longer have pairs of individuals such that we can send a to b.’ Po b. Mamy [kogo z kim wysfatac’]. we-have whom with whom matchmake.inf ‘We have pairs of individuals we can match.’ Ru c. U nego est’ [kogo s kem poznakomit’]. at him.gen is who with whom.instr introduce.inf ‘He has pairs of individuals such that he can introduce a to b.’

(25) a.

(25c) deserves special comment. Rappaport (1986, Section 3.3.1) asserts that multiple wh-forms are impossible in Russian MECs. However, the data with which he

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.15 (931-994)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions 

supports this claim (his (20a–b)) are arguably unacceptable because only one whelement is fronted, the other being left in situ. (25c) (kindly provided to me by H. Trugman) shows that Russian MECs do basically tolerate multiple wh-forms under conditions of multiple fronting. A fourth property of MECs which points in the same direction as the first property noted above (greater transparency to extraction than is found in free relatives) is that Clitic Climbing out of MECs is possible in some languages, while Clitic Climbing out of free relatives has not been attested, to the best of my knowledge. The contrastive behaviour of Clitic Climbing with respect to MECs and free relatives is illustrated below with data from Serbo-Croatian. This contrast supports the hypothesis that MECs, unlike free relatives, are bare CPs, since under this view, Clitic Climbing needs to cross fewer constituent boundaries in the case of MECs. (26) a.

Nemam ga [kome dati] not-have.1sg it.acc who.dat give.inf ‘I have no one to give it to.’ b. *Ja ga ne odobravam [što kažnjavaš]. I him not agree approve.1sg that punish.2sg ‘I do not agree that you punish him.’ b.’ cf.: Ja ne odobravam što ga kažnjavas.

SC-MEC

SC-FREE

I note in passing that extraction out of embedded interrogatives is disallowed in Serbo-Croatian (Ž. Bošković p.c.), so that the facts in (26), while supporting a bare analysis of MECs, do not support Izvorski’s thesis that MECs are interrogatives. Izvorski in fact adverts to Rizzi (1982) and Kayne (1993) for “highly restricted” Clitic Climbing options out of Romance infinitival interrogatives, but in the absence of comparable data with MECs in the same languages, such facts fail to support her thesis. Summarizing the gist of this section, we have seen that there are at least four types of phenomena that support the hypothesis that MECs are bare CPs.

. Similarities and differences between MECs and interrogatives In addition to the facts discussed in the preceding section, some of which reveal a certain parallelism between interrogatives and MECs, Izvorski (1998) notes three additional language-specific phenomena, which bring out a comparable parallelism. At the same time, there exist phenomena from other languages with respect to which MECs and interrogatives do not behave in the same way. This state of affairs argues against the view that MECs can be reduced to interrogatives in general, and shows that the kinds of parallelism noted by Izvorski constitute at best a tendency, but not a necessary state of affairs.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.16 (994-1067)

 Alexander Grosu

A first phenomenon that reveals a common patterning of MECs and interrogatives concerns the morphology of wh-elements in certain languages, for example, in Modern Greek, Bulgarian and Hungarian. Izvorsky points out that the whpronouns of free relatives in these languages exhibit an affix which constitutes a reduced form of the definite article, and that such affixes are absent in both interrogatives and MECs. This point is illustrated in (27) in relation to the Nom form of the counterparts of who. (27) Greek pjos o-pjos pjos

Bulgarian koj koj-to koj

Hungarian ki a-ki ki

INTER FREE MEC

This fact undoubtedly reveals a common patterning of interrogatives and MECs, but it is unclear that further conclusions can be drawn from it. Izvorski proposes that the affixes which occur in free relatives constitute an overt reflex of the uniqueness operator that is part of the semantics of free relatives (Jacobson 1988, 1995; Grosu & Landman 1998). It is unclear, however, that so tight a connection between morphology and semantics is warranted in this case, because the same affix occurs in these languages on the relative pronoun of restrictive clauses with an indefinite head, which clearly involve a non-vacuous set intersection and can have no uniqueness operator within CP. A second language-specific phenomenon pointed out by Izvorski (1998) is that resumptive pronouns in Modern Hebrew are allowed within free relatives, but not within interrogatives or MECs, as shown in (28). Mi she Miriam katva lo mixtav] hofi’a po MH-FREE who that Miriam wrote him letter showed-up here ha-boker. this morning ‘(The one) Miriam wrote a letter to showed up here this morning’ MH-INTER b. Eyneni yode‘a [le mi lixtov (*lo) mixtav] not.1sg know to who write.inf him letter ‘I don’t know who to write a letter to.’ MH-MEC c. Eyn li [le mi lixtov (*lo) mixtav]. is-not to-me to who write.inf him letter ‘I have no one to whom I can write a letter.’

(28) a.

A third language-specific phenomenon with comparable import, also pointed out by Izvorski, is that in Bulgarian free relatives, subjects may intervene between the wh-element and the verb, but in embedded interrogatives and in MECs, they may not:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.17 (1067-1132)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions 

(29) a.

[Kakvo-to Paulina risuva] mi haresva. what-that Paulina draws me.dat pleases ‘I like what Paulina is drawing.’ ?? ˇ b. Cudja se kakvo Paulina risuva. wonder.1sg refl what Paulina draws ‘I wonder what Paulina is drawing.’ ˇ b.’ Cudja se kakvo risuva Paulina. ? c. Ima kakvo Paulina da jade. has.impers what Paulina subj eats ‘There is something that Paulina can eat.’ c.’ Ima kakvo da jade Paulina.’

Bu-FREE

Bu-INTER

Bu-MEC

We now turn to phenomena that distinguish MECs from interrogatives at the morpho-syntactic level. A first distinction is that, while in Romanian and Hungarian MECs may occur in either the infinitive or the subjunctive mood when the wh-element is not the MEC’s subject, in non-indicative interrogatives the infinitive is disallowed in general, the subjunctive being the only option. Illustrations from Romanian and Hungarian are provided in (30)–(31). Ro-MEC (Nu) avem [cui {trimite/ s˘a trimitem} not have.1pl who.dat send.inf subj send.1pl marf˘a]. goods ‘We have {someone, no one} to whom we can send some goods.’ b. (Nu) ¸stim [cui {*trimite/ s˘a trimitem} not know.1pl who.dat send.inf subj send.1pl Ro-INTER marf˘a]. goods ‘We (don’t) know who to send goods to.’ Hu-MEC (31) a. Nincs ki-nek {írnunk/ írjunk}. is-not who-to write.inf.1sg write.subj.1pl ‘We have no one we can write to.’ Hu-INTER b. Tudom, (hogy) ki t {*látni/ lássak} know.1sg that who-acc see.inf.1sg see.subj.1sg ‘I know who to see.’

(30) a.

In Hungarian, there is also a second difference between the two kinds of construction: While subjunctive interrogatives may optionally be initiated by the complementizer hogy (as illustrated in (31b)), neither subjunctive nor infinitival MECs may be initiated by it (as illustrated in (32a–b)). Hogy is actually ruled out in every kind of relative clause of Hungarian, including free relatives (as illustrated in (32c)), and this state of affairs has generally been analyzed in the generative litera-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.18 (1132-1180)

 Alexander Grosu

ture by assuming (i) that relative pronouns move to [Spec, CP], (ii) that Hungarian obeys the “doubly-filled COMP” constraint, and (iii) that interrogative phrases move to a position lower than [Spec, CP], e.g., the position of adjunction to IP (see Kenesei 1994 and references therein). Thus, with respect to the hierarchical position of the wh-element, Hungarian MECs pattern with relatives of all types, not with interrogatives. At the same time, the wh-elements of MECs exhibit the morphology of interrogatives, not of free relatives or other relatives, which include a pronominal affix, much as in Modern Greek and Bulgarian (see (27) and (32c)). Thus, Hungarian MECs exhibit a mixed pattern, their wh-elements patterning with interrogatives – morphologically, and with relatives – configurationally. I am most grateful to Julia Horvath for bringing this array of facts to my attention and for pointing out their implications. (32) a.

Van (*hogy) ki segítsen nekem. is that who.nom help.subj.3sg me.dat ‘There is someone who can help me.’ b. Nincs ki-nek (*hogy) {írnunk/ írjunk}. is-not who-to that write.inf.1pl write.subj.1pl ‘We have no one we can write to.’ c. Elek látt-a (*hogy) a-mi Anna elött volt. Alec saw-do that it-what.nom Anna before was ‘Alec saw what was before Anna.’

Hu-MEC

Hu-MEC

Hu-FREE

Hungarian in fact provides further evidence against collapsing MECs with interrogatives: when the verb has a pre-verb and is in the subjunctive mood, the pre-verb must follow the verbal stem in interrogatives, but may (and sometimes must) precede it in MECs, as shown in (33). (33) a.

Nincs [kit össze-párosítsak Marival] is-not who.acc up-match.subj.1sg Mary-with ‘There is no one I can match with Mary.’ b. Tudom [kit párosítsak össze Marival. know.1sg who.acc match.subj.1sg up Mary-with ‘I know who to match up with Mary.’ b.’ cf.: *Tudom [kit össze-párosítsak Marival] know.1sg who.acc up-match.subj.1sg Mary-with

Hu-MEC

Hu-INTER

Finally, Hebrew provides an illustration of MECs patterning with free relatives all the way. This occurs when the wh-element is the subject of the wh-clause. Consider (34).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.19 (1180-1248)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions 

Eyn li [mi {*la-azor, *(she) yuxal la’azor} li]. MH-MEC not to-me who to-help that will-can to-help me ‘I have no one who will be able help me.’ b. Tagid li mi {*la-azor, (*she) yuxal la’azor} li. MH-INTER tell me who to-help that will-can to-help me ‘Tell me who will be able to help me.’

(34) a.

Hebrew free relatives contrast with interrogatives of all types (in fact, with every other clausal construction of the language, including MECs) in exhibiting a doubly filled COMP, in particular, a morphologically interrogative pronoun and a non-interrogative complementizer. Just like Hungarian and Romanian, Hebrew disallows infinitival wh-clauses whose subject is a wh-element, as illustrated with respect to interrogatives in (34b). Note that this example also illustrates the impossibility of a doubly-filled COMP in interrogatives, while the impossibility of an infinitival MEC with a wh-subject is illustrated in (34a). At the same time, Hebrew contrasts with Hungarian and Romanian in having no explicit subjunctive distinct from the indicative, the typical senses of this mood being rendered by a future finite form, by a lexical modal verb, or by the combination of the two. As can be seen in (34a), the Hebrew counterpart of constructions like (1a’) and (5a’) has the precise superficial appearance of a free relative (note the finite mood), but cannot be considered a genuine free relative, since such constructions are typically definite, as noted by Jacobson (1988, 1995),7 while the bracketed well-formed expression in (34a) is a narrow-scope indefinite, just like MECs in general. This conclusion is supported by the observation that extraction out of the subordinate clause in (34a) has the essential acceptability of (14b), not of (14a), as illustrated in (35a), which forms a minimal pair with (35b). MH ma eyn l˘axa [mi she yuxal ledaber t ]? on what is-not to-you who that will-be-able to-talk ‘What is such that you have no one who can talk about it?’ MH b. *Al ma pagashta etmol (et) [mi she yuxal on what met.2sg yesterday acc who that will-be-able ledaber t ]? to-talk ‘What is such that you met yesterday someone who can talk about it?’

(35) a.

?Al

The conclusion that emerges from what has been said so far is that MECs share with interrogatives the property of being bare CPs, and often, but not always, exhibit the overt internal syntax of interrogatives. Since the latter property is not exceptionless, it can at most reflect a tendency, not a necessary state of affairs, and cannot form a basis for an analysis of MECs as a sub-instance of interrogatives.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.20 (1248-1303)

 Alexander Grosu

. Properties of MECs and their analysis In this section, I list and discuss the properties of MECs known to me,8 proposing an analysis.

. Properties of MECs [A] MECs share with bare CP constructions a number of syntactic properties that distinguish such structures from complex XPs, and are thus optimally analyzable as bare CPs, as argued in some detail in Section 2. [B] Although MECs are (in some languages) superficially similar to interrogatives, this similarity is not a necessary universal property, and that fact, in conjunction with semantic differences (see below), points to the conclusion that MECs are not interrogatives in any sense whatsoever.9 [C] As noted in Section 1, MECs have the semantics of a narrow-scope existential GQ, a denotatum that is usually expressed by nominal constructions (i.e., NPs or DPs, depending on one’s theory). For example, the MEC in (1a) has the essential semantics of the complex nominal in the English translation. The GQ designated by the MEC has short scope in the sense that existential quantification necessarily falls within the scope of matrix sentential operators, such as modals, temporal operators, and intensional selecting predicates. Moreover, the member-property of the GQ which is expressed by the MEC’s IP necessarily includes a possibility/ability modal operator, which, as far as I can tell, is invariably expressed by (explicit or concealed) non-indicative mood, something which, in conjunction with existential quantification, coerces narrow-scope (I return to this last point below). Narrow-scope coercion by non-indicative clauses is not an exclusive property of MECs, and is also found with overtly headed relative constructions, as demonstrated with English and Romanian data in (36) and (36’) respectively. (36) a. I am looking for someone to whom I will/can give a prize. b. I am looking for someone to whom to give a prize. Ro Caut o secretar˘a care {va, poate} look-for-I a secretary who will.Indic.3sg can.Indic.3sg folosi internetul. use internet-the ‘I am looking for a secretary who {will, can} use the internet.’ b. Caut o secretar˘a care s˘a poat˘a folosi internetul. Ro look-for.1sg a secretary who subj can.3sg use internet-the

(36’) a.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.21 (1303-1364)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions 

‘I am looking for a secretary (any secretary) who would be able to use the internet.’ (36a) is compatible with a situation where I have already decided that a specific individual, e.g., John, is the one to whom I will/can give the prize, but (36b) is not. Similarly, (36’a) is compatible with a situation where I already know that Mary is the secretary who will/can use the internet, but (36’b) is not. This shows that in the (b) subcases, but not in the (a) subcases, the matrix object necessarily has narrow scope with respect to the matrix verb. That MECs also have narrow scope can be appreciated in relation to adapted versions of (1a) and (1b), in particular, (1’) and (1”) below. Ro (1’) Vom avea [cui trimite marf˘a]. will.1pl have who.dat send.inf goods ‘There will be someone to whom we will be able to send merchandise.’ Ro (1”) Trimite-mi [cu ce s˘a sp˘al rufele]. send.imp-me.dat with what subj wash.1sg clothes.the ‘Send me something with which to wash the clothes.’ Thus, (1’) cannot mean ‘there is some specific individual, say, John, and at some future time, we will be able to send merchandise to him’, and (1”) cannot mean “there is a particular piece of soap, and send it to me.’ The informal semantic characterization of MECs just provided, coupled with the inappropriateness of viewing them as a kind of interrogatives (see [B] above), suggests that MECs are most appropriately viewed as a special kind of relative construction, in particular, one where the wh-phrase plays the essential semantic role of the external NP in externally headed restrictive constructions, and where quantification is achieved without benefit of a CP-external Det(erminer). In other words, MECs may be viewed as relatives without an external “pivot”, and thus – importantly for what follows – a non-core (peripheral, “marked”, etc.) variety (for additional discussion of this point, see Grosu 2002). The narrow-scope existential force of MECs and their necessarily nonindicative mood will be analytically addressed below, after we have considered a number of additional properties that they possess.

[D] As noted in Section 1, MECs are distributionally confined to the internal argument position of a number of verbs and predicates that have an “existential component” in their meaning, in the sense that they are (or may be) construed as asserting the existence of some entity, or, alternatively, as implying (the causation of) its emergence into existence, availability, or view, and in any event, as a “novel” entity in the universe of discourse (from an informational perspective). Such predicates have been abundantly discussed in the literature (especially in re-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.22 (1364-1420)

 Alexander Grosu

lation to constructions that assert existence; but see Szabolcsi 1986 for a discussion of the entire class), and it has been widely recognized that the existential assertion/implication has narrow scope with respect to intensional and other sentential operators (see, e.g., Heim 1987). The fact that MECs have existential force and that their possible matrix predicates appear to have an existential component in their meaning points to the possibility that these two facts may be related, and earlier writers have proposed a way of relating them analytically. In particular, Izvorski proposes that MECs are marked for abstraction at the CP level, for example, by the kind of featural characterization proposed in Rizzi (1990) with respect to restrictives,10 and are thus construed as properties at this level. Their quantificational force, according to Izvorski, comes from the existential quantifier implicit in the meaning of the matrix predicate.11 On the assumption that the predicates studied by Szabolcsi include such a quantifier in their meaning and that no other predicates include quantifiers of any kind in their lexical meaning, both the particular semantic force of MECs and the fact that they are not licensed by predicates outside Szabolcsi’s class are predicted. The adequacy of this proposal will be evaluated below.

[E] As also noted in Section 1, the class of predicates discussed in Szabolcsi (1986) defines an upper bound on MEC distribution, and thus constitute a necessary condition for their acceptability. They do not, however, constitute a sufficient condition by any means, and this state of affairs is not addressed by Izvorski. In fact, there is no language known to me where all the members of this class felicitously allow MECs, but languages that do not allow MECs with any predicates at all certainly exist.12 Actually, there is a great deal of cross-linguistic and cross-idiolectal variation, which seems moreover to have a systematic, one-way implicational character. Thus, some languages disallow MECs entirely, as just noted. Next, there are languages that seem to allow MECs only with predicates that assert existence,13 and languages that allow MECs with the foregoing as well as with (the counterparts of) ‘find’, ‘seek’.14 Finally, there are languages that allow MECs with all of the foregoing, and also with additional predicates, such as ‘buy’, ‘wangle’, ‘build’, ‘send’. At the same time, no language known to me seems to easily allow MECs with ‘arrive’. An important observation is that relatively “inaccessible” predicates sometimes require, and benefit from, “help” from the larger pragmatic context. To illustrate this last point, constructions with ‘buy’ may well be marginal even in the most “liberal” languages, as illustrated by the Romanian example in (37), but can achieve full acceptability if, for example, the event described in the matrix is transparently understood to be or to have been aimed at precisely the goal specified in the MEC, as illustrated with Romanian, Modern Hebrew and French data in (38). Conversely, even the most recalcitrant kinds of predicates, in particular, ‘arrive’, can be rendered

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.23 (1420-1477)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions 

more “friendly” under contextual manipulations that imply goal-directed activity. I illustrate this last point with Romanian data in (39).15 (37) ??Am cump˘arat [cu ce s˘a tai pâine]. have.1sg bought with what subj cut.1sg bread ‘I bought something with which to cut bread.’

Ro

Ro Mi-am cump˘arat [cu ce s˘a scot me.dat-have.1sg bought with what subj put-out ochii la toate ¸ta¸tele din cartier]. eyes-the to all fishwives-the from neighbourhood ‘I bought myself something with which to make all the fishwives in the neighbourhood burst with envy.’ MH b. Kaniti li [bele-naker et ha-eynayim bought.1sg me.dat in-what put-out.inf acc the-eyes le-kol ha-xaverot sheli]. to-all the-friends.f my ‘I bought myself something with which to make all my girlfriends burst with envy.’ c. Je viens de m ’acheter [de quoi faire crever d’ envie Fr I come of me buy.inf of what make.inf burst of envy toutes mes copines]. all my girl-friends ‘I have just bought myself something with which to make all my girlfriend burst with envy.’ Ro (39) a. ?*A sosit [cu ce s˘a cur˘a¸ta˘ m podeaua]. has arrived with what subj clean.1pl floor-the Purported sense: ‘Something with which we can clean the floor has arrived.’ b. ?Datorit˘a eforturilor lui Ion, ne-a sosit în fine Ro thanks efforts-the the.dat Ion us.dat-has arrived in end [cu ce s˘a cur˘a¸ta˘ m podeaua]. what with subj clean.1pl floor-the ‘Thanks to Ion’s efforts, something with which to clean the floor has finally reached us.’ (38) a.

Before turning to other properties of MECs, I wish to note, for the sake of completeness, a Hungarian construction kindly pointed out to me by an anonymous referee, which prima facie seems to fall outside the range of licensing options noted with respect to Hungarian in Fn. 14 (assertion of existence, plus ‘find’):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.24 (1477-1568)

 Alexander Grosu

Hu (40) A víz nem tudott [hova folyni]. the water not could where flow.inf ‘There is no place for the water to flow to/the water has nowhere to flow.’ However, as the referee also observes, the verb tud, which means ‘know’ elsewhere and ‘can’ in this context, conveys a denial (i.e., a negative assertion) of existence, and thus in effect falls within the proposed range of licensing predicates.

[F] A property of MECs, which, as far as I can tell, has not been detected so far, is that they seem to be entirely unable to function as predicates, whether of the post-copular, small-clause, or adnominal variety. I illustrate the impossibility of post-copular use with Romanian and Modern Hebrew data in (41a–b) respectively; (41a) also shows that the intended meaning can be expressed with an overtly headed complex nominal. Ro S˘apunul a˘ sta este [{ceva cu care/ *cu ce}] s˘a soap-the this is something with which with what subj te speli pe fa¸ta˘ ]. refl.2sg wash on face ‘This piece of soap is something with which to wash your face.’ b. *Ha-sabon ha-ze (hu) [be ma lirxoc et ha-panim]. MH the-soap the this is with what to-wash acc the-face Purported meaning analogous to (38a)

(41) a.

As far as adnominal modification is concerned, it seems to be unavailable to MECs whenever they are superficially distinguishable from restrictive relatives. For example, Romanian restrictive relatives use the relative pronoun care ‘which’ when the CP-internal relativized element is a subject or object, but cine (for animates) in MECs; the impossibilility of MECs as restrictive modifiers is illustrated with Romanian data in (42). (42) Cineva {care/ *cine} s˘a ne ocroteasc˘a nu poate fi someone which who subj us protect.subj.3sg not can be g˘asit. found ‘Someone who would protect us cannot be found.’

Ro

[G] A final intriguing property of MECs, which seems to be entirely exceptionless, is that they are completely incompatible with free-choice items that modify whelements, such as the wh+ever forms of English (which are found in free relatives and concessive adverbials). This point is illustrated with Romanian data in (43)– (44), but comparable effects are found in every other language I have been able to check (in particular, in Hungarian, Modern Greek and the South Slavic languages).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.25 (1568-1614)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions 

A remarkable fact, indicated in the (b) subcases, is that the kind of data at issue are not merely deviant, but in fact completely uninterpretable. Ro Ion poate avea [{ceva/ orice} cu care s˘a ne Ion may have something anything with which subj us atace în buzunar. attack.3sg in pocket ‘Ion may have something/anything with which to attack us in his pocket.’ b. Ion poate avea [cu (*ori)ce s˘a ne atace] în buzunar. Ro Ion can have with (ever)what subj us attack.3sg in pocket Reduced version: ‘Ion may have something with which to attack us in his pocket.’ Full version: uninterpretable. Ro (44) a. Trimite-mi [{ceva/ orice} cu care s˘a cur˘a¸t send-me something anything with which subj clean.1sg podeaua]. floor-the ‘Send me something/anything with which I can clean the floor.’ Ro b. Trimite-mi [cu (*ori)ce s˘a cur˘a¸t podeaua]. send-me with (ever)what subj clean.1sg floor-the Reduced version: ‘Send me something with which to clean the floor.’ Full version: uninterpretable.

(43) a.

Note that the effect at issue cannot be (entirely) blamed on the semantics of the matrix predicates, since such predicates do allow expressions with free-choice import that are not MECs (under conditions that need not concern us here), as illustrated in the (a) subcases of (43)–(44). This concludes our presentation of the properties of MECs. We now turn to a presentation and evaluation of the analytical proposals made in Izvorski (1998), and then, to my own analysis of MECs. As noted already, Izvorsky proposes that MECs are CPs construed as properties, which get existentially bound by a quantifier implicit in the matrix verb; this part of her proposal purports to account for the existential force and the distribution of MECs. In addition, she proposes to account for property [G] (the impossibility of free-choice wh-phrases) on the grounds that such phrases are also disallowed in questions (with one exception she notes), and that MECs are (underspecified) questions. Since MECs were shown in Section 3 not to be questions in any sense, her account rests on an invalid premise, and is thus untenable. Finally, Izvorsky attempts to explain the non-indicative status of MECs as follows: certain clausal boundaries, in particular, indicative ones, block a variety of processes, such as Subject Raising, Obligatory Control, and Clitic Climbing, and may thus be assumed to also block quantificational binding from

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.26 (1614-1685)

 Alexander Grosu

the matrix into the subordinate clause; such boundaries are thus excluded, in her view, because they prevent existential binding into MECs, and thus an argumental construal of MECs in argument position. I view this proposal as untenable for (at least) two reasons. First, a tight correlation between the grammatical moods of MECs and the transparency of those moods to Raising, Control or Clitic Climbing is not found in every language. For example, the subjunctive is usually transparent to the latter three processes in the Balkan languages, but not, for example, in Spanish, and more generally in Western Romance; Spanish constructions like (8a’) are thus problematic for Izvorski’s proposal. Moreover, the very assumption that variable binding by a quantifier is inhibited by indicative clausal boundaries appears to be incorrect. To see this, contrast the two sub-cases of (45). (45) a. Every actress feels [that flattering her too much would be a bad idea]. b. At least one fan of every actress feels [that flattering her too much would be a bad idea]. (46) Some girl believes [that every man loves her].

→ ∃∀, *∀∃

(46) shows that the universal quantifier within the finite complement clause cannot take scope over the existential quantifier in the matrix, presumably because QR is inhibited by finite clausal boundaries. In (45), however, the universal quantifier, which covertly takes matrix scope out of its containing DP in (45b), is able to bind the pronominal variable within the object complement clause, despite the finite status of the latter’s boundaries. (45b) has been provided, in addition to (45a), to ensure that binding at LF is by the quantified expression, rather than by its trace, as is the case in (45a). The heart of Izvorski’ proposal, i.e., property status for CP and binding by the matrix verb, is also open to a number of objections. A first objection is that it provides no obvious account of [F] above, that is, of the fact that MECs not only CAN, but rather MUST, function as arguments (something that Izvorski was apparently unaware of). Under a property analysis, one would expect them to be able, at least sometimes, to (also) serve as predicates, or as nominal modifiers. This expectation is, however, apparently not fulfilled. A second objection to Izvorski’s account is that it does not address, and does not seem to be well equipped to address property [E] above, i.e. the fact that Szabolcsi’s predicates do not constitute a sufficient condition for MECs, and that languages exhibit extensive, and at the same time systematic, variation with respect to their distribution. Under the view that MECs are properties that get bound by the matrix predicates just as NPs get bound by Ds, it is unclear why MECs should not be licensed as arguments of all of Szabolcsi’s predicates in any language.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.27 (1685-1727)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions 

Having noted a number of inadequacies in Izvorski’s account, I now put forward an alternative analysis. The heart of my proposal is that MECs are internally marked not merely for abstraction, but also for existential GQ status and for nonindicative mood. For concreteness, let us assume that their C node, and by percolation, their CP node, bear the features [GQ ∃ ] and [–INDIC]. The feature [GQ ∃ ] is an instruction for the semantics to necessarily interpret CP as an existential GQ, with the wh-phrase playing essentially the role of the external NP in headed constructions; the feature [–INDIC] ensures that the GQ has narrow scope, as noted in the discussion under [C] above, so that there is thus no need to stipulate narrowscope per se. These two features thus constitute typing features, on a par with [Q] in interrogatives, [EXCL] in exclamatives, and [DECL] in declaratives. On the need to include [–INDIC] in the set of defining features of MECs, see below. The feature [GQ ∃ ] makes possible a fairly straightforward account of properties [F] and [G]. Concerning [F], i.e., the fact that MECs cannot serve as predicates or adjectival modifiers of nouns (as illustrated, for example, by the contrast between the two versions of (41a)), this generalization follows if [GQ ∃ ], is understood to require that MECs be construed as GQs with existential force. In (41a), the MEC cannot be applied to the subject, because a GQ is not applicable to an individual. This state of affairs is different from cases like (47a), which are apparently construed in terms of quantification over properties that apply to the subject, as informally shown in (47b). (47) a.

John is {everything/all things/ most things} that Mary ever dreamt of in a man. b. For all P such that Mary ever dreamt of P in a man, P(John).

Concerning [G], i.e., the uninterpretability of MECs with free-choice wh-phrases, this generalization follows if we view existential quantification as different in kind from the quantificational force of free-choice expressions, since the GQ contains, under this view, two incompatible instructions for quantification (one from the typing feature on C, and one from the wh-phrase in [Spec, CP]). The exact quantificational force of free-choice expressions has been subject to much debate in the literature, some writers seeking to bring it together with universal quantification, and others, with existential quantification, but all admitting that it is not exactly like either of them (for extensive discussion of this vexed issue, see, for example, Dayal 1998; Giannakidou 2001, and references therein). To bring up just one of the differences between ‘straightforward’ existential quantification and free-choice quantification, note that the former possess the property of symmetry, while the latter do not. To illustrate, two books in this shop are expensive implies two expensive items are books in this shop, and viceversa, but any book in this shop is expensive does not imply any expensive item is a book in this shop. In short, we have good

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.28 (1727-1783)

 Alexander Grosu

grounds for attributing the impossibility of MECs with free-choice wh-phrases to conflicting quantificational properties. We still need to account for the distributional properties of MECs, i.e., for their occurrence only with predicates from Szabolcsi’s class, for the existence of cross-linguistic variation, for the systematic character of this variation, i.e., for its sensitivity to a one-way implicational hierarchy of (potentially) licensing predicates, and for the (occasional) sensitivity of MECs to pragmatic properties of the larger context. To this end, I begin by drawing attention to a number of points. First, there are grounds for assuming that Szabolcsi’s predicates do not really PROVIDE an existential quantifier, but are merely CONGENIAL to narrow-scope existentially quantified expressions in pragmatically implying that their denotata are “novel” in the universe of discourse. One reason for adopting this position is that non-existentially quantified expressions are sometimes possible in what are commonly viewed as “existential contexts”, as, for example, in “there is everybody you ever wanted to meet in this room”. Note that if we assume that the matrix predicate actually CONTAINS an existential quantifier, we also need to assume that the quantifier binds no variable in the example just given, a state of affairs, which, while tolerated in artificial languages, has widely been viewed as not occurring in natural languages. Second, MECs are arguably atypical GQs, that is to say, non-core grammatical constructions. Note that clauses typically denote propositions or sets of propositions, and GQs are typically denoted by nominal expressions. Furthermore, in nominal GQs, quantificational binding is typically provided by a D (which is null in existential nominals, according to some views). In MECs, on the other hand, it is not provided by a D (since MECs are bare CPs), and neither does it seem to be provided by an alternative syntactic constituent (see preceding paragraph). Rather, it is triggered solely by a MEC-internal feature. On these grounds, I submit it is reasonable to view MECs as non-core constructions. Marked constructions are typically more sensitive to a variety of factors than unmarked ones, and the distributional patterns of MECs are arguably a reflection of such sensitivity. One such factor is, I propose, categorial selection (subcategorization). On the assumption that Szabolcsi’s predicates typically subcategorize for nominals, but not for CPs, typical subcategorization options need to be extended from nominals to CPs in order for MECs to be licensed, and there seem to be no obvious factors that can COERCE such an extension. If so, it is possible, but by no means necessary, for languages to extend their basic subcategorization options, and the fact that some languages disallow MECs entirely is thus in no way surprising. A second plausible source of sensitivity is the lack of a structurally supported quantificational binder, which require, I suggest, especially “propitious” conditions for felicity. One such requirement appears to be a matrix predicate that pragmatically implies novelty in the universe of discourse, thereby making salient the kind

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.29 (1783-1856)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions 

of quantification required by the features borne by MECs. The upper bound on distribution imposed by Szabolcsi’s predicates is thus an arguable reflection of this requirement. Another “propitiousness” requirement seems to arise in relation to what we called predicates of type (ii) in the Introduction. With predicates of type (i), which are stative, there is no necessary directional relation between the time of the assertion/denial of existence and the time of the eventuality in the scope of modality. In the (a) subcases of (1)–(13), the temporal orientation happens to be non–past, but past orientation is possible, as illustrated in (48). (48) a.

N’are [cine s˘a fi încercat s˘a te omoare]. neg-has who subj be tried subj you.acc kill ‘There is no one who could have tried to kill you.’ b. Maria n’are [cu cine s˘a fi plecat]. Maria neg-has with whom subj be left ‘There is no one that Maria could have left with.’

Ro

Ro

In contrast, predicates of type (ii) denote events that bring about the emergence of the denotatum of the MEC into existence, availability, and/or the universe of discourse, and the eventuality in the scope of modality has a non-past orientation, apparently with purpose import, as illustrated by the contrast in (49). Ro Caut [cu cine s˘a las copiii]. look-for.1sg with who subj leave.1sg children-the ‘I am looking for someone with whom to leave the children.’ Ro b. *Caut [cu cine s˘a fi l˘asat copiii]. look-for.1sg with who subj be left children-the *I am looking for someone with whom to have left the children.’

(49) a.

Felicity thus depends not only on the possibility of a narrow-scope existential construal of the MEC (which must exist both for predicates of type (i) and for predicates of type (ii)), but also on the extent to which the content of the matrix coheres with the purpose import of the MEC. Arguably, not all predicates of type (ii) imply purpose orientation with equal salience, and this seems to be an important factor in determining the hierarchy of preferences that was noted earlier in this paper. Thus, ‘look for’ (in its intensional use) clearly implies purpose orientation with exclusive focusing on the properties made explicit by the MEC, and is correspondingly among the most highly preferred predicate of type (ii). The predicate ‘find’ appears to be at least as highly preferred (see Fn. 14), presumably because it is easily construable as implying a previous intensional search of the kind described in the preceding sentence. The events denoted by predicates like ‘buy’ or ‘send’ are not necessarily focused on a unique goal, although they may be. Correlatively, there is a contrast in felicity between data in which such focusing is not transpar-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.30 (1856-1910)

 Alexander Grosu

ently indicated and data in which it is, as illustrated by (37) and (38) respectively. Next, I note that a goal-directed construal of ‘arrive’ is probably not a salient one out of context, and data like (40a) have low acceptability; at the same time, some improvement may be brought about by contextual indications of goal-directed activity, as illustrated by (40b). I note that (40b) improves further for some speakers if sosit ‘arrived’ is replaced by parvenit, a verb that implies arrival in someone’s possession by overcoming obstacles. Finally, I wish to note that inchoative predicates like ‘be born’ may felicitously embed MECs in circumstances where a hoped-for goal is contextually salient, as illustrated in (50) (the context being, for example, the long expected birth of a king’s son, or of the Messiah). Ro (50) S-a n˘ascut în fine [cine s˘a ne {conduc˘a ¸tara/ refl-has born at last who subj us rule country-the r˘ascumpere p˘acatele}]. redeem sins-the ‘There has finally been born someone who can {rule our country, redeem our sins}.’ As noted earlier in the paper, the hierarchy of preferences just discussed determines not only relative acceptability under contextual manipulations in liberal languages, but absolute acceptability/grammaticality in less liberal languages. The reason for this state of affairs is, I suggest, that the extension of subcategorization options proposed above is not haphazard, but sensitive to the hierarchy of preferences. What is arbitrary, as far as I can determine at the moment, is only the cut-off point chosen by individual languages, but given some cut-off point, all the hierarchically more accessible options are ruled in. The need for highly propitious conditions is also responsible for three additional effects (two of which were noted in Section 2). One that has not been pointed out so far, but which was noted in most earlier studies of MECs, is that many informants (although not all) allow MECs only in internal-argument positions, but not in subject or topic position, even though minimally different headed relatives in such positions are allowed. This is illustrated with Romanian data in (51). Ro Î¸ti voi trimite mâine [cu ce s˘a you.sg.dat will.1sg send tomorrow with what subj speli rufele]. wash.2sg clothes.the ‘I will send you tomorrow something with which to wash the clothes.’ Ro b. [{Ceva cu care/ *cu ce} s˘a speli rufele] something with which, with what subj wash.2sg clothes.the î¸ti va fi trimis mâine. you.sg.dat will.3sg be sent tomorrow

(51) a.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.31 (1910-1978)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions 

‘Something with which to wash the clothes will be sent to you tomorrow.’ I conjecture that the cause of these effects may lie in the fact that the subject/topic positions are in general less “congenial” to narrow-scope existentials than the internal argument position, as illustrated by the contrast between (52a), where “three cats” may have wide scope over “believe”, and (52b), where it may not (this was pointed out, for example, in Heim 1987). (52) a. John believes that three cats are hiding in the bushes. b. John believes that there are three cats hiding in the bushes. A second effect is that, as pointed out in Section 2, some informants (although not all) need a “priming” context to accept data alike the (b’) subcases of (15)–(16), even though this is not necessary for data like the corresponding (c’) subcases. The reason for this may lie in the fact that in MECs, but not in interrogatives, the wh-pronoun needs to be construed as external to the abstract formed over its clause (much like the CP-external NP in minimally different headed relatives), and embedding of the wh-pronoun within another nominal may render this construal less perspicuous. The third effect, illustrated by the contrast between the primed and nonprimed subcases of (22), i.e., the need for multiple wh-phrases to all undergo fronting, may have the same source. That is to say, fronting of ALL the whpronouns of a MEC may increase the persipicuousness of the kind of contribution that such pronouns make to the semantics of their MEC, which is very similar to the contribution of a CP-existential NP (denoting a pair of individuals) in a minimally different headed relative.

. Summary and conclusions This paper has been concerned with the analysis of MECs, a type of construction that is prominently found in Balkan languages, as well as in non-Balkan Romance and Slavic and a few additional languages. I have argued, building on and modifying earlier work, that MECs are bare wh CPs marked with the features [GQ∃ ] and [–INDIC]. These features jointly capture the necessarily narrow-scope existential construal of MECs, and make possible a straightforward account of the fact that MECs may not function as predicates, and that they invariably disallow wh forms combined with free-choice items. The generally restricted distribution of MECs, the cross-linguistic variation in distributional properties, and the systematic character of this variation has been traced to the non-core status of MECs in conjunction with differences in

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.32 (1978-2017)

 Alexander Grosu

the pragmatic requirements associated with subclasses of potentially licensing matrix predicates, these differences determining a one-way implicational hierarchy of “propitious” environments for MECs. In particular, the fact that MECs may be partly or wholly missing in certain languages was traced to the fact that they require an extension of core subcategorization options from nominals to CPs, in conjunction with the fact that this extension is not automatic. With respect to the fact that Szabolcsi’s (1986) predicates define an upper bound on MEC distribution, it was proposed that only these predicates pragmatically imply a narrow-scope existential construal of their internal arguments. Finally, with respect to the systematic character of the cross-linguistic variation, it was proposed that the extension of subcategorization options (in effect, a grammatization of favourable pragmatic conditions) is not haphazard, but rather sensitive to the pragmatic hierarchy alluded to above.

Notes * This paper could not have been written without the extensive help I received from a number of persons who generously provided information about their native languages and/or contributed substantive suggestions. Concerning the latter, I am profoundly indebted to Nirit Kadmon, who read several versions of this paper and offered suggestions that led to genuine improvements; concerning the former, I am grateful to Julia Horvath, Željko Bosković, Melita Stavrou, Evangelia Vlachou, Barbara Citko, Olga Mišeska Tomić, Lisa Cheng, Aniko Liptak, Marcel den Dikken, Anna Szabolsci, Helen Trugman, Galit Sassoon and Aldo Sevi. I am also grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their penetrating remarks, as well as to audiences at King’s College London, the University of Konstanz, the Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin, the City University of New York, the University of Bucharest, The University of Leiden, Tel Aviv University, the June 2002 Annual Meeting of the Israel Society for Theoretical Linguistics, the September 2002 Colloquium on Comparative Romance Linguistics in Antwerp, and the October 2002 Colloque Indéfinis et Prédications, held at the Sorbonne, Paris, where earlier versions of this paper were presented. All the above persons are in no way responsible for the use I have made of their ideas, and all remaining faults are strictly my own.This research was begun with the support of the Israel Science Foundation of the Israel Academy of Sciences, and was completed with the support of the Kurt-Lion Foundation and the Dutch National Research Foundation. . See Szabolcsi (1986) for morphologically explicit evidence from Hungarian that argument positions of such verbs/predicates become subject to “indefiniteness requirements” when the verb fails to exhibit certain prefixes. However, Szabolcsi’s predicates define only an “upper bound” on the distribution of MECs. . The data from Russian discussed by Rappaport (1986) were not addressed. . Note that the subordinate clause in (14d) is subjunctive, just as the one in (14b).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.33 (2017-2101)

The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions  . If the pronominal subpart is emphatically stressed, some speakers report partial improvement. . An additional correlative has been adjoined to the matrix IP to ensure that the other correlative is necessarily adjoined to DP, since it seems to be in general impossible to adjoin two correlatives to the same IP. . For certain speakers, there is an improvement when the wh-phrase in situ is strongly stressed. . More exactly, their semantics involves a maximality operator, MAX (see Grosu & Landman 1998; Grosu 2002, 2003a, 2003b). . Some of these properties were noted and illustrated in the preceding sections. . This was demonstrated in detail in Section 3. . This proposal says in effect that CP carries the feature [PRED], and no operator feature. . This last assumption was also made by Grosu and Landman 1998. . E.g., the major Germanic languages. . According to Barbara Citko and Maria Bittner (p.c.), Polish is a case in point (see (7)). . According to Evangelia Vlachou and Jairo Nunes (p.c.), Modern Greek and Brazilian Portuguese are such languages. Julia Horvath and Aniko Liptak (p.c.) inform me that Hungarian lies between the foregoing and Polish, allowing MECs with ‘find’, but not with ‘seek’. . I return to the circumstances under which pragmatic help is needed below.

References Bayer, J. (1984). “COMP in Bavarian syntax”. The Linguistic Review, 3, 209–274. Bresnan, J. W. & J. Grimshaw (1978). “The syntax of free relatives in English”, Linguistic Inquiry, 9(3), 331–391. Groos, A. & H. van Riemsdijk (1981). “Matching effects in free relatives: A parameter of core grammar”. In A. Belletti, L. Brandi, & L. Rizzi (Eds.), Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar, 171–216. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. Grosu, A. (1989). “Pied piping and the matching parameter”. The Linguistic Review, 6(1), 41–58. Grosu, A. (1994). Three Studies in Locality and Case. London and New York: Routledge. Grosu, A. (2002). “Strange relatives at the interface of two millennia”. GLOT International, 6(6), 145–167. Grosu, A. (2003a). “Transparent free relatives as a special instance of standard free relatives”. In M. Coene & Y. D’Hulst (Eds.), From NP to DP. Volume 1: The Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases, 139–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grosu, A. (2003b). “A unified theory of ‘standard’ and ‘transparent’ free relatives”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(2), 247–331. Grosu, A. & F. Landman (1998). “Strange relatives of the third kind”. Natural Language Semantics, 6(2), 125–170.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:49

F: la6714.tex / p.34 (2101-2165)

 Alexander Grosu

Heim, I. (1987). “Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables”. In E. Reuland & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, 21–42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Izvorski, R. (1998). “Non-indicative wh-complements of existential/possessive predicates”. In P. N. Tamanji & K. Kusumoto (Eds.), NELS, 28, 159–173. Izvorski, R. (2000). “Free adjunct free relatives”. In Billerey & Lillehaugen (Eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 19, 232–245. Jacobson, P. (1988). “The syntax and semantics of free relatives in English”. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Winter Meeting, New Orleans. Jacobson, P. (1995). “On the quantificational force of English free relatives”. In E. Bach et al. (Eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages, 451–486. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kayne, R. (1993). “Towards a modular theory of auxiliary selection”. Studia Linguistica, 47, 3–31. Kenesei, I. (1994). “Subordinate clauses”. In F. Kiefer & K. E. Kiss (Eds.), The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian [Syntax and Semantics 27], 275–354. New York: Academic Press. Rappaport, G. (1986). “On a persistent problem of Russian syntax: Sentences of the type mne negde spat”. Russian Linguistics, 10, 1–31. Rivero, M. L. (1986). “Dialects and diachronic syntax: Free relatives in Old Spanish”. Journal of Linguistics, 22, 443–454. Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rizzi, L. (1997). “The fine structure of the left periphery”. In L. Haegemann (Ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rudin, C. (1986). Aspects of Bulgarian Syntax: Complementizers and Wh-Constructions. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers. Szabolcsi, A. (1986). “From the definiteness effect to lexical integrity.” In W. Abraham & S. de Meij (Eds.), Topic, Focus, Configurationality, 321–348. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:54

F: la6715.tex / p.1 (41-102)

Interpreting empty subjects in nontensed complement clauses Child and adult strategies* Danijela Stojanović and Marijana Marelj University of Ottawa / Utrecht University

This study represents a partial replication of Goodluck et al.’s (2001) study on the acquisition of lexical and structural factors in interpreting null subjects in infinitive and subjunctive complement clauses in Spanish and Modern Greek. Similar grammatical constraints in child and adult Serbian and Croatian1 – the South Slavic languages which use both infinitive complements and subjunctive-like complements, the latter being a typical Balkan property – have been examined. While infinitives licence PRO subjects (the Spanish-type parameter), the type of null subject in subjunctive-like complements (PRO and/or pro) is determined by the lexical properties of the main clause verbs TRY and WANT. Fifteen four-and-five year old speakers of Serbian, and 25 three-to-five year old speakers of Croatian, as well as 16 Serbian and Croatian speaking adults were tested in an act-out experiment. The results demonstrate that the rules for interpreting null subjects in infinitive complements in both languages are in place by the age of five. Although neither child nor adult subjects show any problems with interpreting null subjects in subjunctive-like complements, only the Croatian-speaking children adopt the external reference for empty subjects in WANT-subjunctive complements. It is argued that this finding represents a small-scale obviation effect, induced by the experimental design.

.

Introduction

The goal of this study is to examine children’s knowledge of the rules that govern the distribution and interpretation of empty subjects in infinitive and subjunctive complement clauses in South Slavic. The study has also been designed to provide empirical measures of differences between the adult grammars of Serbian and Croatian, since the infinitive/subjunctive complementation is the only syntactic

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:54

F: la6715.tex / p.2 (102-155)

 Danijela Stojanović and Marijana Marelj

property in which the two languages differ significantly. The study comprised actout experiments in which Serbian- and Croatian-speaking children, as well as adult controls for both languages, were tested.

. Control theory Languages display a variety of empty categories that may occupy a subject position in complement clauses. Standard syntactic theory postulates that the distribution of types of pronominal elements occupying the subject position is determined by the type of complement clause, and hence the type of case assigned to the subject position. Finite complement clauses license lexical noun phrases, or empty subjects labelled pro (in the languages that allow non-overt subjects). Non-overt pronominal elements in the subject position in non-finite complements (infinitives and gerunds) belong to a category labelled PRO (Chomsky 1981). The distribution of PRO subjects is regulated by structural notions, such as government, under which the (empty) subject in the non-finite complement clause must be structurally controlled (i.e. c-commanded) by an element in the main clause with which it is coreferential. Some recent attempts to provide a uniform account of the distribution of empty and lexical subjects in non-finite clauses concentrate on the type of case assigned to the subject position rather than on its structural relation with a potential controller (Martin 2001). As argued by Martin, subjects in non-finite complements, such as control infinitives, must check null Case in an appropriate functional projection. Subjects of finite clauses, as well as subjects of raising infinitives (argued to be finite by Martin 2001), always check structural nominative. However, replacing one structural notion, such as government, with another, such as case, does not significantly alter the way we postulate the rules/interpretative preferences involved in choosing an appropriate referent for the empty subject in the non-finite clause among a number of potential antecedents, such as the main clause subject, object, or an unmentioned discourse entity. It is well known that with subject control verbs, such as TRY, the empty category PRO has to be coreferential with the main clause subject (example (1)). Similarly, object control verbs, such as ORDER, require the empty PRO subject to be coreferential with the main clause object (example (2)). (1) John tries to ride a bike. (2) John orders Mary to wash her hands. Although verbs of obligatory control must obey a number of constraints, such as government and complementary distribution with lexical subjects (Williams 1980), the choice of the correct antecedent for the empty subject is to a certain de-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:54

F: la6715.tex / p.3 (155-204)

Interpreting empty subjects in nontensed complement clauses 

gree determined semantically, rather than structurally. For example, there is some controversy in the theory as to how to treat rules for the interpretation of empty subjects in complements to WANT-type verbs. While there is a strong interpretative preference for coreference with the main clause subject, the theory allows for another interpretation, under which the empty subject is coreferential with an outside referent, as illustrated in example (3c). (3) a. John wants to ride a bike. b. It is John that rides a bike. c. John wants that somebody else ride a bike. Additionally, unlike other control verbs, WANT in English does not obey the overt subject ban. This is illustrated in (4) and (5) below: (4) John wants Mary to sing. (5) *John tries John/Mary to sing. Since WANT has a number of idiosyncratic structural properties, Williams 1980 proposes to treat it as an exceptional case of non-obligatory control verb in English. Moreover, the possibility of having an outside referent for the empty subject is partially related to the thematic role of Experiencer assigned to WANT verbs which may promote an optional control reading, as opposed to the one of Agent assigned to TRY verbs (Jackendoff 1972). Cross-linguistic data, which we examine in more detail in the next section, support the view that the semantic properties of volitional verbs such as WANT, in contrast with verbs such as TRY, make it more likely to require a pro (optional control) rather than a PRO (obligatory control) empty category in the subject position of the complementizer clause. Acquisition studies have shown that by five years of age English-speaking children have acquired the rules for obligatory (subject and object) control (Maratsos 1974; Eisenberg & Cairns 1994, among others). Additionally, English-speaking children also allow the empty subject in the complement to WANT (and surprisingly also TRY) verbs to refer to an outside referent (Eisenberg & Cairns 1994), although there is a very strong bias to interpret it as coreferential with the main clause subject. In order to determine whether children’s choice and interpretation of empty subjects in non-finite complements is governed primarily by structural constraints defined in terms of government and case assignment, or else in terms of semantic properties, such as thematic roles associated with selecting verbs, it is necessary to examine children’s sensitivity to empty subject interpretation in languages in which their distribution is governed solely by one of the two grammatical modules. We now turn to the study of acquisition of Control in Spanish and Modern Greek, languages that provide a minimal contrast regarding the role that structural

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:54

F: la6715.tex / p.4 (204-266)

 Danijela Stojanović and Marijana Marelj

and lexical factors play in the choice of possible controller for the empty subject in embedded non-finite complement clauses (Goodluck et al. 2001).

. Crosslinguistic variation and the acquisition of control Goodluck et al. (2001) have tested children’s knowledge of the rules of control in Spanish and Modern Greek and argue that the main rules governing the distribution of PRO and pro subjects in two languages are acquired by five years of age. Spanish and Modern Greek are interesting as they offer deep insight into the constraints that license the distribution of empty subjects in non-finite complements. Spanish, like other Romance languages, uses both subjunctive and infinitive complements, and the distribution of PRO/pro is determined by the morphological properties of the embedded verb (Padilla 1990; Picallo 1984). Namely, infinitive complements impose a coreference requirement between the empty subject (PRO) and the main clause subject, irrespective of the semantic properties of the main clause verb. Subjunctive complements, on the other hand, require the empty subject of the embedded clause (pro) to refer sentence externally. For example, a verb such as WANT will always take a PRO subject in infinitive complements, which must be coreferential with the main subject. In contrast, a pro subject is postulated in subjunctive complements requiring an obligatory disjoint reference between the main clause and the embedded clause subject. As argued by Farkas 1992, the availability of two types of complements in Romance, used to mark different types of semantic dependencies (infinitives for subject, and subjunctive for world dependencies) gives rise to obligatorily disjoint reference in subjunctive complements – a phenomenon standardly referred to as Obviation. This contrast is illustrated in the Spanish (Sp) examples (6) and (7) below, taken from Goodluck et al. (2001).2 (6) Mariai intenta/quiere [ECi/*j cantar]. Maria tries/wants sing.inf ‘Maria tries/wants to sing.’

Sp

(7) Mariai intenta/quiere [que EC*i/j cante]. Maria tries/wants that sing.3sg.subj ‘Maria tries/wants someone else to sing.’

Sp

Let us now turn to Modern Greek (MG). Examples (8) and (9), taken from Goodluck at al. (2001), illustrate the relevant Modern Greek facts. (8) I Mariai prospathi [ECi/*j na tragoudisi]. the Maria tries subj.comp sing.3sg.subj ‘Maria tries to sing.’

MG

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:54

F: la6715.tex / p.5 (266-327)

Interpreting empty subjects in nontensed complement clauses 

(9) I Mariai theli [ECi/j na tragousidi]. the Maria wants subj.comp sing.3sg.subj 1. ‘Maria wants to sing.’ 2. ‘Maria wants someone else to sing.’

MG

Modern Greek does not have infinitive clauses, and uses subjunctive complements instead. The distribution and interpretation of empty subjects is governed by lexical properties of the main clause verb (Terzi 1992; Varlokosta & Hornstein 1993, among others). That is, semantic roles related to lexical items promote obligatory control for TRY which takes a PRO subject, as opposed to non-obligatory control for WANT which takes a pro subject in the complement (non tensed finite subjunctive) clause.3 To account for the possibility of disjoint reference for the embedded subject, Terzi 1992 argues that WANT in Modern Greek has a double subcategorization frame.4 In sum, the distribution of PRO/pro categories is to a certain degree subject to crosslinguistic variation. Morpho-syntactic properties of the complement clause, mood in particular, govern the choice of antecedent in the Romance languages, and lexical properties of the main clause verb determine the type of empty subject in the embedded subjunctive complements in Modern Greek. The aim of the study by Goodluck et al. (2001) was to examine the relative force that lexical and structural factors play in guiding the child’s initial hypotheses regarding the distribution of empty subjects in (non)-finite complements. 23 fourand-five year old Greek-speaking children, 15 four-to-five and 18 six-to-seven year old Spanish-speaking children, and respective adult control groups, were tested in an act-out and a picture verification experiment. The questionnaires were identical for both languages (though limited by language-specific grammatical options) and the critical contrast on which children’s knowledge was tested was WANT/TRY and infinitive/subjunctive. Goodluck et al.’s (2001) main findings may be summarized as follows: Greekspeaking children have awareness of the rules of the distribution of PRO/pro subjects in subjunctive complements. By five years of age they show a distinction between WANT and TRY verbs, although many are reluctant to seek an outside referent for a pro subject in the cases where it is allowed but not required by the grammar (i.e. 30% of children’s responses to WANT complements involved external reference). Same age Spanish-speaking children, on the other hand, perform well on infinitive complements but have problems with obligatorily disjoint reference in subjunctive complements, demonstrating a general performance difficulty with external reference (Avrutin 1994; Padilla 1990).5 Spanish-speaking children reach a level similar to the adult performance at an older age (six-seven years). In conclusion, language-specific properties of control structures are acquired, if not fully mastered, by the age of five. Performance limitations associated with

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:54

F: la6715.tex / p.6 (327-374)

 Danijela Stojanović and Marijana Marelj

child populations make it difficult to tap down the precise degree to which semantic and syntactic factors guide the child’s initial hypotheses. Additional crosslinguistic evidence may be useful in providing answers to some of the questions raised above – namely, what conclusions regarding the path of the acquisition of control verbs and their complements may we draw from children’s interpretation of empty complement subjects in languages which use WANT/TRY verbs with both subjunctive and infinitive complements, and in which the obviation effects of the Spanish type do not obtain. In an attempt to address these issues we now turn to child data from Serbian and Croatian.

. Control in Serbian and Croatian The languages of the Balkan peninsula (Albanian, Aromanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Megleno-Romanian, Modern Greek, Romanian, the Balkan Romani dialects and partially Serbian and Croatian) have experienced loss of infinitive complements and spread of subjunctive complements to structural configurations previously occupied by infinitives. The distribution of infinitives and subjunctives in Serbian and Croatian is far from clear cut. Both Serbian and Croatian use infinitives and subjunctives with varying degrees of productivity and acceptability. In some cases there is a complementary distribution between the two types of complements, which is determined by rules of grammar, while in other cases the use of one form over another is simply a matter of personal choice. Generally speaking, one might say that Serbian favours subjunctive-like complements, and uses infinitives mainly for stylistic purposes, whereas Croatian favours infinitives and dislikes subjunctive complements, yet resorts to using the latter when the rules of grammar, formulated as Control Theory, require it. We will outline the structural properties of the two types of complements before discussing the rules that govern their distribution in the two languages. As the relevant structural properties under discussion are identical in both languages, we provide examples from Serbian only; the analysis of these examples can be extended to analogous examples in Croatian. Example (10) illustrates standard subject control effects that arise in infinitival complements. (10) Marijai pokušava [ECi/*j spavati]. Marija tries sleep.inf ‘Marija is trying to sleep.’

SC

The empty category in the subject complement position is governed by the main clause subject and shares most of the structural properties with the category PRO. Subjunctive complements resemble those in Modern Greek. They are introduced

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:54

F: la6715.tex / p.7 (374-442)

Interpreting empty subjects in nontensed complement clauses 

by the subjunctive marker da.6 Subjunctives are analyzed as finite clauses which exhibit overt morphological agreement yet obey tense restrictions (Progovac 1993). Example (11) illustrates the interpretation of subject control verbs with subjunctive complements. (11) Marijai pokušava [ECi/*j da spava]. Marija tries subj.comp sleeps ‘Marija is trying to sleep.’

SC

The interpretation of empty subjects in infinitive and subjunctive complements to volitional verbs, such as WANT, is governed by both lexical and structural factors. Let us examine the following set of examples: (12) Marijai hoće [ECi/*j spavati]. Marija wants sleep.inf ‘Marija wants to sleep.’

SC

(13) Marijai hoće [ECi/j da spava]. Marija wants subj.comp sleeps 1. ‘Marija wants to sleep.’ 2. ‘Marija wants someone else to sleep.’

SC

Infinitive complements, as illustrated in (12), require coreference with the main clause subject (PRO interpretation) and obey structural restrictions characteristic of control configurations. Subjunctive complements, as illustrated in (13), allow but do not require external reference (pro interpretation). The availability of two different complement subject interpretations may be linked to the structural ambiguity proposed for Modern Greek volitional verbs (Terzi 1992, for similar proposals for two types of subjunctives in Bulgarian see Krapova 2001). In sum, although Serbian/Croatian infinitives license PRO and subjunctives license pro subjects, the complementary Spanish-type distribution between the two types of complements and the resulting obviation effects do not arise. Although the structural constraints outlined above generally hold for both Serbian and Croatian, the distribution of infinitives and subjunctives in the two languages is subject to significant variability and acceptability. We will illustrate these differences with three types of verbs: subject and object control verbs, and optional control with volitional verbs.7 The examples in (14) repeat the contrast shown in (10) and (11) above, in which the null subject of the complement clause is obligatorily coreferential with the main clause subject. Serbian (Serb) prefers subjunctive complements and Croatian (Cr) uses almost exclusively infinitive complements with subject control verbs, such as TRY.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:54

F: la6715.tex / p.8 (442-501)

 Danijela Stojanović and Marijana Marelj

(14) a.

Jovan-i pokušava da PRO-i vozi bicikl. Jovan tries subj.comp rides bike b. Jovan-i pokušava PRO-i voziti bicikl. Jovan tries ride.inf bike ‘Jovan is trying to ride a bike.’

Serb Cr

Example (15) illustrates obligatory object control with verbs like ORDER in which the missing subject of the embedded clause is coreferential with the main clause object. Mariji da dod¯e. (15) Jovan je naredio Jovan is ordered.part Marija.dat subj.comp comes ‘Jovan has ordered Marija to come.’

Serb/Cr

Both Serbian and Croatian require subjunctive complement clauses with obligatory object control. As shown in example (16), infinitive complements with obligatory object control verbs are ungrammatical in both languages. (16) *Jovan je naredio Mariji doći. John is ordered.part Marija.dat come.inf ‘John has ordered Marija to come.’

Serb/Cr

The complementation and empty subject interpretation of desiderative verbs such as WANT and WISH presents a very important question. We repeat here examples (12) and (13), which illustrate control properties of WANT in Croatian and Serbian, respectively, as (17) and (18): (17) Jovan-i hoće PRO-i/*j doći. Jovan wants come.inf ‘John wants to come.’ (18) Jovan-i hoće da pro-i/j dode. ¯ Jovan wants subj.comp comes ‘John wants that he/somebody else come.’

Cr

Serb

As shown above, Serbian uses subjunctive and Croatian uses infinitive complements with WANT type verbs. Additionally, examples (19) and (20) illustrate other conditions in which the subject of complement clause is disjoint from the main clause subject. (19) Jovan-i hoće da pro-*i/j dod¯u. Jovan wants subj.comp come.3pl ‘Jovan wants them to come.’

Cr/Serb

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:54

F: la6715.tex / p.9 (501-587)

Interpreting empty subjects in nontensed complement clauses 

(20) Jovan hoće da Petar dod¯e. Jovan wants sub.comp Petar comes ‘Jovan wants Peter to come.’

Cr/Serb

As shown in (19), the verbal morphology of the embedded verb signals a disjoint reference. Additionally, example (20) illustrates the use of an overt subject in the embedded clause, which is disjoint in reference from the main clause subject. In summary, when the subject of the embedded clause is disjoint in reference from the main clause subject, both languages use subjunctive complements. Croatian resorts to this construction only with overt subjects, or when the verbal inflections unambiguously indicate disjoint reference. Serbian, on the other hand, uses subjunctive complements with all types of subjects. Table 1 illustrates the distribution of infinitive and subjunctive in Serbian and Croatian. Table 1. Distribution of infinitive and subjunctive complements in Serbian and Croatian Serbian TRY

Subj (Inf is grammatical, but disliked) ORDER Subj (*Inf) WANT Subj (allowed with all types of subjects; Inf is also grammatical)

Croatian Inf (Subj is grammatical, but disliked) Subj (*Inf) Inf (Subj is used only for disjoint reference with either NP subjects, or pro subjects with unambiguous verbal inflections)

. Interpretation of empty subjects in (non)-finite complement clauses in Serbian and Croatian We will now present the data from the study that examined child and adult speakers’ comprehension of empty subjects in infinitive and subjunctive complements in Serbian and Croatian. The experiments reported here present a partial replication of Godluck et al.’s (2001) experiments on Modern Greek and Spanish. Serbian is similar to Modern Greek with respect to use of subjunctive, yet different as Modern Greek lacks infinitives altogether. Croatian, on the other hand, resembles to a certain degree Spanish and/or English. The main focus of our study is the interpretation assigned to empty subjects of WANT+subjunctive and WANT+infinitive complement clauses. Given the assumption that children are aware of the lexical properties of volitional verbs,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:54

F: la6715.tex / p.10 (587-628)

 Danijela Stojanović and Marijana Marelj

such as WANT, and of the structural properties of subjunctive complements, both of which may promote external reference in subjunctive but not in infinitive complements, we expect a difference in responses based on the type of complement to resemble the pattern of responses observed in the Spanish act-out study. The only notable difference between Spanish, on one hand, and Serbo-Croatian, on the other, is that subjunctive complements to WANT verbs allow but do not require external reference, which leads us to test preferences in interpretation, as opposed to sensitivity to the rules of grammar. Additionally, as empty subjects in TRY+subjunctive and TRY+infinitive do not allow external reference in either Serbian or Croatian, the response pattern in these conditions may be used as a baseline measure of the knowledge of grammatical constraints. By studying the acquisition of Control, we have also examined the degree to which precise syntactic rules that govern the distribution of empty subjects and complement clauses differ in the two languages.

. Experimental design .. Materials Five blocks of four sentences were designed, and were presented in the order that promotes an external reading for pro subjects in the complements to WANT type verbs (modelled upon Goodluck et al.’s (2001) design). Examples (21) through (25) illustrate the conditions used. (21) ORDER: overt main clause direct object Maja nare¯duje tati da popije vodu Maja orders dad.acc subj.comp drink-up.3sg water.acc ‘Maja orders dad to drink up the water.’

Serb/Cr

(22) ORDER: no overt main clause object Mama kaže da podigne loptu. Mom says subj.comp pick-up.3sg ball.acc ‘Mom says to pick up the ball.’

Serb/Cr

(23) WANT: subjunctive complement clause Goran hoće da obuˇce džemper. Goran wants subj.comp put-on.3sg sweater ‘Goran wants to put on (the/his) sweater.’

Serb/Cr

(24) WANT: infinitive complement clause Tata hoće šutnuti loptu. dad wants kick.inf ball.acc ‘Dad wants to kick the ball.’

Serb/Cr

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:54

F: la6715.tex / p.11 (628-693)

Interpreting empty subjects in nontensed complement clauses 

(25) TRY: subjunctive/infinitive complement clause a. Mama pokušava da popravi peglu. mom tries subj.comp repairs iron.acc b. Mama pokušava popraviti peglu. mom tries repair.inf iron.acc ‘Mom is trying to fix up the iron.’

Serb/Cr Serb/Cr

Test sentences were presented in the following order. Subjects first received four sentences with ORDER type verbs (two ORDER and two TELL verbs), an overt main clause object, and a subjunctive complement clause. The aim of this block was to establish children’s knowledge of the grammar of object control before testing their interpretation of semi-grammatical object control sentences used as priming structures for external reference. The next block comprised four sentences with ORDER type verbs, subjunctive complement clause, and no overt main clause object. Although these sentences are semi-grammatical in adult language, Maratsos (1974) has demonstrated that, when children are presented with sentences with TELL and no overt direct object, most of them choose an unmentioned entity, rather than the main clause subject as the referent for the empty subject in the embedded clause. These sentences were included in the test battery to promote an external reading for the empty subject in the complement clause, along the lines of Goodluck et al. (2001). The next block was most important for the study of the child’s knowledge of the distribution of empty subjects in the complements to WANT type verbs. It comprised four sentences with subjunctive complements – two WANT and two WISH ones. This is the only condition in which the grammar of the language allows but does not require the pro subject in the complement clause to seek an outside referent. The following block comprised WANT type verbs (two WANT and two WISH ones) and infinitive complements, in which the PRO subject has to be coreferential with the main clause subject. The final block consisted of four TRY sentences (two with subjunctive and two with infinitive complements) in which the PRO subject is obligatorily controlled by the main clause subject.8 The child questionnaires were structurally identical for Serbian and Croatian, except for minor lexical variations.9 There were, however, some differences between the adult Serbian and Croatian questionnaires.10 An act-out task was used, in which subjects were asked to act-out with a doll family the meaning of the sentence.

.. Subjects Fifteen four-and-five year old native speakers of Serbian (mean age 4;11) participated in the experiment. Twenty five three-to-five year old native speakers of

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:54

F: la6715.tex / p.12 (693-775)

 Danijela Stojanović and Marijana Marelj

Croatian (mean age 4;8) were also tested.11 Sixteen adult speakers of Serbian and Croatian were tested as adult controls.

.. Location Testing for Serbian was carried out in Novi Sad, Yugoslavia, by Marijana Marelj and Tatjana Djapic. Testing for Croatian was carried out in Zagreb, Croatia, by Irena Kolbas. . Results The results on the child act-out task are tabulated for 21 Croatian-speaking subjects and 15 Serbian-speaking subjects. The results on the adult act-out are tabulated for eight Serbian and eight Croatian adults, except in the WANT+subjunctive condition. Table 2 illustrates the performance by child and adult subjects in the two obligatory control conditions, as well as in the semi-grammatical object control condition. As shown in Table 2, children do not differ appreciably from adult control subjects who perform at ceiling level on all construction types.13 Both child subject groups performed well on obligatory object control sentences. 10% and 4% incorrect responses in the obligatory control (ORDER+DO) condition are due to only four subjects in each of the language groups. Furthermore, children’s responses to semi-grammatical ORDER sentences replicate the findings of Goodluck et al. (2001) for four-to-five year old Spanish and Modern Greek speaking children. Our results indicate that children know that ORDER is an object control verb, and when no overt object is present, do not necessarily adopt the subject analysis.

Table 2. Percentage scorable responses in the ORDER and TRY conditions by Serbian and Croatian child and adult subjects in the act-out experiment ORDER (+DO)

CHILD

Serbian Croatian

I(=S) 10 4

ADULT

Serbian Croatian

– –

ORDER (–DO)12

I(=O) 90 96

I 63 54

E 37 46

100 100

– 6

100 94

TRY SUB I E 100 – 98 2 100 ...

– ...

INF I E 93 7 97 3 100 100

– –

S = main clause subject, O = main clause object, I = internal (main clause subject if no object is present), E = external (referent distinct from the main clause subject).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 13:54

F: la6715.tex / p.13 (775-840)

Interpreting empty subjects in nontensed complement clauses 

Furthermore, although some errors have been made, children have learnt the rules of obligatory subject control imposed by verbs such as TRY. Some Serbianand Croatian-speaking children allow external reference for TRY+infinitive (2/15 subjects for Serbian and 1/21 subjects for Croatian) but there are no appreciable differences in performance between the two subject groups in the two TRY conditions. In sum, both Serbian- and Croatian-speaking children chose the main clause subject of TRY verbs as the controller of an empty subject in both types of complement clauses, i.e. in both subjunctive and infinitive complements. Adult speakers of Serbian and Croatian do not differ appreciably. The results for the obligatory subject control (TRY) are only partially comparable, as not all Croatian speakers were tested on TRY with subjunctive clauses. Neither subject group had any problems with the subject control into infinitive complements. Serbian adults performed 100% correct in the subject control into subjunctive complement condition. Table 3 illustrates the results for child and adult subjects in the WANT+subjunctive and WANT+infinitive conditions. As observed, both subject groups chose the main clause subject as controller for the missing subject in infinitive complements to WANT over 90% of the time. Surprisingly, 4 out of 21 Croatian, and 1 out of 15 Serbian-speaking children allowed the empty subject of an infinitive complement clause to refer sentence externally. The only notable difference in performance is that Croatian-speaking children adopted the free reference pro analysis for empty subject in subjunctive complements 16% of the time. Subject analysis shows that 8 out of 21 subjects showed sensitivity to this grammatical possibility (38% of subjects). The difference in amount of external reference for WANT+subjunctive and WANT+infinitive for Croatian child subjects is significant (t20 =1.777, p

Balkan Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Balkan Syntax and Semantics (Linguistics Today)

Experimental Pragmatics Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Emergence of Order in Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Multiple Wh-Fronting (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Parentheticals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 106)

Argument Structure (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Phase Theory (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Causatives in Minimalism (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Cyclical Change (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Coreference, Modality, and Focus: Studies on the syntax-semantics interface (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol 1: Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Adjectives: Formal Analyses in Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Adverbials and the Phase Model (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 177)

Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication And Equation (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Scrambling and the Survive Principle (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Syntatic Aspects of Topic and Comment (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Continuity and Change in Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Quantifier Scope in German (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form: Scrambling in the Germanic languages (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Theoretical Approaches to Universals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Grammaticalization As Economy (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 71)

The Copy Theory of Movement (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Structure of Stative Verbs (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Grammar of Focus (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Balkan Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Balkan Syntax and Semantics (Linguistics Today)

Experimental Pragmatics Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Emergence of Order in Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Multiple Wh-Fronting (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Parentheticals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 106)

Argument Structure (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Phase Theory (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Causatives in Minimalism (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Cyclical Change (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Coreference, Modality, and Focus: Studies on the syntax-semantics interface (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol 1: Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Adjectives: Formal Analyses in Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Adverbials and the Phase Model (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 177)

Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication And Equation (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Scrambling and the Survive Principle (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Syntatic Aspects of Topic and Comment (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Continuity and Change in Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Quantifier Scope in German (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form: Scrambling in the Germanic languages (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Theoretical Approaches to Universals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Grammaticalization As Economy (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 71)

The Copy Theory of Movement (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Structure of Stative Verbs (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Grammar of Focus (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Recommend Documents