A Handbook of Slavic Clitics (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax) [1 ed.] 0195117123, 9780195117127

Clitics are grammatical elements that are treated as independent words in syntax but form a phonological unit with the w

186 17 20MB

English Pages 403 [420] Year 2000

Report DMCA / Copyright


Recommend Papers

A Handbook of Slavic Clitics (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax) [1 ed.]
 0195117123, 9780195117127

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview

A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

OXFORD STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE SYNTAX Richard Kayne, General Editor Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation Gert Webelhuth Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in Germanic Languages Sten Vikner Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax Edited by Adriana Belletti and Luigi Rizzi Discourse Configurational Languages Edited by Katalin E. Kiss Clause Structure and Language Change Edited by Adrian Battye and Ian Roberts Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting: A Study of Belfast English and Standard English Alison Henry Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax Steven Franks Particles: On the Syntax of Verb-Particle, Triadic, and Causative Constructions Marcel den Dikken The Polysynthesis Parameter Mark C. Baker The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax Anders Holmberg and Christer Platzack Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic: An Essay in Comparative Semitic Syntax Ur Shlonsky Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages Raffaella Zanuttini Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax Alessandra Giorgi and Fabio Pianesi Coordination Janne Bondi Johannessen Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective Guglielmo Cinque A Handbook of Slavic Clitics Steven Franks and Tracy Holloway King The Higher Functional Field: Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects Cecilia Poletto


Steven Franks Tracy Holloway King

New York Oxford Oxford University Press 2000

Oxford University Press Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico Nairobi Paris S3o Paulo Singapore Taipei Tokyo

Calcutta Hong Kong Istanbul City Mumbai Toronto Warsaw

and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan

Copyright © 2000 by Steven Franks and Tracy Holloway King Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Franks, Steven. A handbook of Slavic clitics / Steven Franks and Tracy Holloway King. p. cm.—(Oxford studies in comparative syntax) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-19-511712-3; ISBN 0-19-513588-1 (pbk.) 1. Slavic languages—Clitics. 2. Slavic languages—Grammar, Comparative. I. King, Tracy Holloway, 1966-. II. Title. III. Series. PG191.C54F73 2000 491.8—dc21 99-32875

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 21 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

Preface This book has been several years in the making. In 1995 we realized that our mutual and in many ways complementary interests in Slavic clitics could serve as the basis for a major publication. The rapidly growing literature on the topic, from theoretical and descriptive perspectives, seemed to call for a comprehensive study of Slavic clitics. As the work evolved, it took on a life of its own. The descriptive portions turned out to be just as challenging as the analytical ones, and we sought help from as many different sources as we could. Numerous individuals affected the end result, and here we would like to acknowledge them. First and foremost, there is no way we could have even begun to tackle such a project without the advice of speakers of the languages described in these pages. Your patient feedback on examples, ranging from the mundane to the painfully arcane, has been essential in making this book a reality. We hope that you will forgive us for any places where we have unintentionally misrepresented your judgments. We hope that any lapses or misinterpretations of the data will inspire future work to correct them. The following individuals provided invaluable help with specific languages:1 Bulgarian: Galia Alexandrova, Zlatko Anguelov, Lilia Schurcks-Grozeva, Roumyana Izvorski, Nikita Nankov, Ernie Scatton, and Roumyana Slabakova; Czech: Mirjam Fried, Hana Filip, Karel Oliva, Jindra Toman, and Lida Veselovska; Macedonian: Ilija Casule, Victor Friedman, Olga Miseska-Tomic, and Elena Petroska; Polish: Kazimierz Adamczyk, Piotr Banski, Bozena Cetnarowska, Katarzyna Dziwirek, Bozena Pruska, and Adam Szczegelniak; Russian: Irina Sekerina and Misha Yadroff; Serbian/Croatian: Zeljko Boskovic, Wayles Browne, Milan Mihaljevic, Ljiljana Progovac, Sandra Stjepanovic, and Sasha Vukic; Slovak: Martin Klein, Marcela Molcanova, Eva Schneiderman, Michal Starke, and Martin Votruba;2 Slovenian: Wayles Browne, Marta Pirnat-Greenberg, and Marija Golden; Sorbian: Gary H. Toops and Eduard Werner; Ukrainian: Svitlana Budzhak-Jones and Ronald Feldstein. 1Due to ongoing standardizations and occasional errors in sources cited, spellings in some examples have been corrected or slightly modified. Such modifications are generally introduced without comment. 2 We are extremely grateful to Martin for asking a number of his acquaintances about certain crucial data: Miroslav Bazlik, Zuzana Bodikova, Jan Gajdos, Patricia Guliskova, Maria Huttova, Lubica Lacinova, Roman Martonak, Iveta Mosznyakova, Greta Musilova, Peter Nebus, Jan Orlovsky, Zuzana Simkova, and Adriana Stryckova.



Several organizations have rendered essential assistance to the present enterprise, in financial and other ways. Steven Franks wishes to thank various units at Indiana University for generous research support. Publication of this volume was made possible in part through the financial assistance of the Indiana University Russian and East European Institute through their Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Endowment. Additional appreciation is extended to IU's Research and the University Graduate School for a Summer Faculty Fellowship in 1997. Finally, IU's Office of International Programs facilitated a Short-term Faculty Exchange to Warsaw University, which enabled the gathering of Polish data. Much of the book was written during 1996-97 while Franks was on sabbatical at the University of Connecticut, where he was a Guest Professor in the Linguistics Department, and Princeton University, where he was a Visiting Faculty Fellow in the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures. Both of these universities committed important resources to the clitics project. Tracy Holloway King wishes to thank Xerox Palo Alto Research Center for generous research support, including travel funds, and Stanford University for use of their libraries. Technical assistance in formatting the volume was provided by Xerox PARC, the Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), and Stanford University. A word about the process of composing the book: While much of the actual writing was shared and all sections were reworked by both authors, Franks was primarily responsible for drafting chapters 2, 3 (except section 3.2), 9, and 11, whereas King was primarily responsible for drafting chapters 4 (except section 4.2), 5, 6 (except section 6.3), 7, 8, and 10. We would like to thank Don Reindl for proofreading the manuscript. In coming to grips with problems of presentation and analysis we received advice and encouragement from many individuals. Both of us have been presenting our ideas about Slavic clitics over the past few years at various conferences, workshops, and invited lectures too numerous to list. We are very grateful for helpful discussion we have had as a consequence of these presentations and other interactions. Some of the people with whom we have argued about Slavic clitics include Piotr Banski, Lauren Billings, Zeljko Boskovic, Wayles Browne, Damir Cavar, Aaron Halpern, Roumyana Izvorski, Geraldine Legendre, Olga Miseska-Tomic, Karel Oliva, Ljiljana Progovac, Matthew Richardson, Catherine Rudin, Sandra Stjepanovic, Jindra Toman, and Chris Wilder. Of these. we especially want to single out three individuals: Wayles, for his detailed comments on the entirety of Part I and much of the rest of the book, and Zeljko and Ljiljana, for their guidance in raising (and continuing to raise) thought-provoking questions about Slavic clitics. The intellectual support we have received from you three is impossible to repay. Finally, we wish to thank our families for their patience and understanding: Karen, Julia, David, and Elisabeth Franks, and Christopher, James, and Jane Kuszmaul. June 1999 S. F. T. H. K.

Contents Abbreviations and Tables 1 Introduction 1.1 Overview of This Volume 1.2 Some Basic Facts and Questions 1.2.1 Prosodic issues 1.2.2 Morphosyntactic status 1.3 Clitic Types in Slavic 1.3.1 Verbal auxiliary clitics 1.3.2 Pronominal clitics 1.3.3 Other clausal domain clitics 1.3.4 Other clitic-like elements 1.4 Contents and Issues Addressed 1.4.1 Description of part I 1.4.2 Description of part II 1.4.3 Description of part III


Major Slavic Clitic Phenomena

2 South Slavic 2.1 Serbian/Croatian 2.1.1 Verbal auxiliary clitics 2.1.2 Pronominal clitics 2.1.3 Other clitics 2.1.4 Placement and ordering 2.1.5 Summary 2.2 Slovenian 2.2.1 Verbal auxiliary clitics 2.2.2 Pronominal clitics 2.2.3 Other clitics 2.2.4 Placement and ordering 2.2.5 Summary 2.3 Bulgarian

xiii 3 3 4 4 6 8 8 8 9 11 12 12 12 13

15 17 17 18 23 25 28 30 31 31 34 37 39 48 48


Contents 2.3.1 Verbal auxiliary clitics 2.3.2 Pronominal clitics 2.3.3 Other clitics 2.3.4 Placement and ordering 2.3.5 Summary 2.4 Macedonian 2.4.1 Verbal auxiliary clitics 2.4.2 Pronominal clitics 2.4.3 Other clitics 2.4.4 Placement and ordering 2.4.5 Summary

49 51 58 60 66 67 68 70 75 81 88

3 West Slavic 3.1 Czech 3.1.1 Verbal auxiliary clitics 3.1.2 Pronominal clitics 3.1.3 Other clitics 3.1.4 Placement and ordering 3.1.5 Summary 3.2 Slovak 3.2.1 Verbal auxiliary clitics 3.2.2 Pronominal clitics 3.2.3 Other clitics 3.2.4 Placement and ordering 3.2.5 Summary 3.3 Polish 3.3.1 Verbal auxiliary clitics 3.3.2 Pronominal clitics 3.3.3 Other clitics 3.3.4 Placement and ordering 3.3.5 Summary 3.4 Sorbian 3.4.1 Verbal auxiliary clitics 3.4.2 Pronominal clitics 3.4.3 Other clitics 3.4.4 Placement and ordering 3.4.5 Summary

90 90 91 97 101 104 120 121 121 123 126 129 139 139 140 149 152 156 162 162 164 169 175 177 185

4 East Slavic 4.1 Russian 4.1.1 Interrogative, conditional, and negative clitics 4.1.2 Other clitics 4.2 Ukrainian and Belarusian 4.2.1 The literary languages 4.2.2 Dialects, with particular reference to Hucul

187 187 188 193 193 194 196

Contents 4.3 Summary


Selected Problems

ix 201


5 Patterns in the Ordering of Clitics 5.1 Internal Organization of the Clitic Cluster 5.2 Ordering of the Pronominal Clitics 5.3 Reflexive Clitics 5.4 Third Person Auxiliary Clitics 5.4.1 The right periphery phenomenon 5.4.2 Other idiosyncrasies 5.5 Summary

205 205 207 208 211 211 213 215

6 The Position of the Clitic Cluster 6.1 Wackernagel Position Clitics 6.1.1 Basic second-position facts 6.1.2 Second position in Serbian/Croatian 6.1.3 Verb-initial clauses 6.1.4 Deviation from strict second position 6.2 Strictly Verb-Adjacent Clitics 6.2.1 Preverbal position 6.2.2 Postverbal position 6.3 Clitic Climbing 6.4 Summary

216 217 217 219 222 225 234 236 238 241 248

7 Clitic Doubling 7.1 The Phenomenon of Clitic Doubling 7.2 Semantic Licensing 7.2.1 Specificity 7.2.2 Topicality 7.3 Syntactic Analyses 7.3.1 Clitics as arguments 7.3.2 Clitics as agreement 7.4 Summary

250 250 252 252 253 254 255 256 258

8 Other Clausal Domain Clitics 8.1 Interrogatives 8.1.1 Constituent questions 8.1.2 Yes-no questions in li 8.2 by/bi Modals and Clitics 8.3 Interactions with Negation 8.4 Summary

259 259 259 261 267 270 272



9 The Nominal Domain

9.1 Pronominal Clitics inside NPs 9.1.1 Macedonian and Bulgarian 9.1.2 Polish 9.2 The Status of Postpositive Demonstratives 9.3 Summary


Theory and Analyses

10 Survey of Recent Analyses

10.1 Purely Prosodic Accounts 10.2 Nonderivational Accounts 10.3 Purely Syntactic Accounts 10.3.1 Verb-adjacent clitics 10.3.2 Polish 10.3.3 Second-position clitics 10.4 Mixed Accounts 10.4.1 Prosodic Inversion 10.4.2 PF filtering 10.5 Summary 11 Slavic Clitics as Heads

11.1 X° vs. Xmax 11.2 Clitic Locations 11.2.1 Verb-adjacent clitics 11.2.2 Second-position clitics 11.3 Clitic Cluster Formation 11.3.1 The templatic solution 11.3.2 A syntactic approach 11.3.3 Some problems for syntactic clustering 11.4 Nonclustering Clitics 11.5 Some Compromises 11.5.1 Linearization 11.5.2 Delayed pronunciation 11.5.3 Morphological manipulations

12 Apparent Last-Resort Effects

12.1 Interrogative li 12.1.1 The special status of li 12.1.2 Bulgarian and Macedonian 12.1.3 Russian 12.2 Split NP and PP Constructions 12.2.1 The significance of split constructions 12.2.2 An integrated analysis


273 274 277 278 284

285 287

287 . 291 293 295 297 298 305 306 filterng307 310 311

312 315 315 318 320 321 322 330 338 340 341 342 346 349

349 350 351 355 357 358 361

Contents 12.3 Long Head Movement 12.3.1 A Prosodic Inversion analysis 12.3.2 Syntactic analyses 12.3.3 PF mapping 12.4 Summary

xi 362 365 367 369 370

13 Summary 13.1 Clitics as Functional Heads 13.2 The Nature of Variation 13.3 The Prosody/Syntax Interaction

371 371 373 374



Subject Index


Name Index


This page intentionally left blank

Abbreviations and Tables LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1 2 2P 3 ACC aux Bg C cond Cz DAT DEF DIST DU emph ECP ESI F fut GB GEN Ger HMC HPSG IMPV INF LEH LF LFG LHM LSor

firstperson second person second position third person accusative case auxiliary (past tense auxiliary; copula) Bulgarian complementizer conditional marker/auxiliary Czech dative case definite distal dual emphatic particle Empty Category Principle East Slavic feminine future auxiliary Government and Binding Theory genitive case German Head Movement Constraint Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar imperative verb infinitival verb Left Equals Highest Logical Form Lexical Functional Grammar Long Head Movement Lower Sorbian


M Mac N neg OT part PF PHC PL Pol PrInv PROX PRT Q refl REN Rus SC SG Slk Sln Sp SSI SUP UG Ukr USor WS1

Abbreviations and Tables

masculine Macedonian neuter negation Optimality Theory particle Phonetic Form Pronounce Highest Copy plural Polish Prosodic Inversion proximate participle interrogative marker reflexive pronoun renarrated mood Russian Serbian/Croatian singular Slovak Slovenian Spanish South Slavic supine Universal Grammar Ukrainian Upper Sorbian West Slavic

LIST OF TABLES 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10

Copula/Past Tense Auxiliary Clitics (SC) Future Tense Auxiliary Clitics (SC) Negated Auxiliary Clitics (SC) Conditional Mood Auxiliary Clitics (SC) Pronominal Clitics (SC) Ordering (SC) Copula/Past and Future Tense Auxiliary Clitics (Sln) Negated Past and Future Tense Auxiliary Clitics (Sln) Pronominal Clitics (Sln) Ordering (Sln)

19 19 21 23 24 29 32 33 36 45

Abbreviations and Tables 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3

Copula/Past Tense Auxiliary Clitics (Bg) Pronominal Clitics (Bg) Ordering (Bg) Copula/Past Tense Auxiliary Clitics (Mac) Pronominal Clitics (Mac) Ordering (Mac) Copula/Past Tense and Conditional Auxiliary Clitics (Cz) Negated Present Copula (Cz) Pronominal Clitics (Cz) Ordering (Cz) Copula/Past Tense Auxiliary Clitics (Slk) Pronominal Clitics (Slk) Ordering (Slk) Verbal Auxiliary Clitics (Pol) Pronominal Clitics (Pol) Ordering (Pol) Copula/Past, Conditional, Future, Pluperfect, and Passive Auxiliaries (USor) Copula/Past, Future, Pluperfect, and Passive Auxiliaries (LSor) Pronominal Clitics (USor) Pronominal Clitics (LSor) Ordering (USor and LSor) Auxiliary Clitics (Hucul Ukr) Pronominal Clitics (Hucul Ukr) Ordering Templates Pronominal Ordering Reflexive Clitics

xv 49 52 61 69 71 81 92 97 98 105 122 125 129 141 150 156 166 167 170 171 177 197 200 205 208 210

This page intentionally left blank

A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1

Introduction 1.1

Overview of This Volume

Over the past several years, interest in clitics has been rapidly growing due to the light they shed on the interaction between phonology and syntax, as well as on the nature of functional categories and X-bar syntax in general. Clitics have special properties that defy easy categorization within traditional generative models of grammar. They correspond to a wide range of grammatical and stylistic markers, are typically both prosodically and syntactically dependent on some host element (although not necessarily the same one), and often exhibit morphosyntactic behaviors of both heads and phrases. It is exceptional characteristics such as these that make clitics of such particular interest to theoretical linguists today. Their quirks and idiosyncracies offer an invaluable window into the workings of grammar, providing unique information about the structure of language and serving as a proving ground for many controversial claims. Until recently, research on clitics within the generative paradigm either has been broadly typological in nature or has concentrated on clitic phenomena in the Romance languages. Work on Slavic languages was generally conducted against this broader backdrop or from the perspective of Romance clitics. However, a renewed and vibrant interest in formal Slavic syntax has emerged during the past few years, and thus the study of clitic systems is a focal point of this research. There is an increasing body of work directed toward the proper analysis of Slavic clitics, but much of this new material is for several reasons not generally accessible because papers are often presented at workshops or small conferences and are circulated privately, with the printed literature often appearing in obscure publications. Even more significant, most of the new clitic research is being conducted by general linguists, who generally do not specialize in Slavic as a whole and who, either by accident or design, often concentrate on a single Slavic language or clitic problem. There thus arises a two-way gap in communication: General linguists may not have 3


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

the necessary breadth of Slavic material at their disposal and Slavic linguists may not be adequately informed of the relevant theoretical issues. A Handbook of Slavic Clitics is designed to help close this communication gap by presenting in a single volume the material necessary to accomplish the following: • To make the Slavic facts accessible to a general audience in a concise, comprehensive, and uniform format; • To identify the major linguistic issues raised by Slavic clitic constructions; and « To assemble and compare the extensive range of approaches to Slavic clitics that have emerged in the recent generative literature and to highlight the special problems Slavic clitics pose for these theories. The three parts of this volume, described in detail at the end of this chapter, roughly reflect these three goals. Before commencing with the detailed study of Slavic clitic phenomena in part I, the remaining sections of this chapter provide some basic background on both general and Slavic clitics as well as a description of the three parts of the volume.


Some Basic Facts and Questions

Before discussing the Slavic clitic data in detail, it is necessary to outline a few basic facts about clitics. This section discusses the prosodic and morphosyntactic status of clitics in general. Additional general discussion of clitics can be found in Zwicky (1977), Klavans (1982), Sadock (1991), Spencer (1991), and Halpern (1995). Section 1.3 then briefly introduces the types of clitics found in Slavic, in preparation for the detailed discussion of each of the Slavic languages in part I.


Prosodic issues

Clitics are lexical items which can never serve as an independent prosodic domain; as a result they must always become part of some other, adjacent domain for stress assignment purposes. That is, clitics are prosodically weak and hence unaccented. As such, they must attach to a nonclitic to form a valid utterance. The form to which they attach is referred to as the clitic's "host," and the clitic becomes part of the prosodic constituency of that host; that is, the clitic belongs to the prosodic word to which its host belongs (Inkelas 1989). Several clitics may attach to a given host to form a single, larger prosodic word, as in the Serbian/Croatian (SC) example in (1) that comprises a single prosodic word even though there are three clitics present in addition to the nonclitic participle. (Throughout this volume clitics are italicized for ease of reference; w indicates a prosodic word boundary.)



(1) [Predstavio sam mu se.]^ [SC] introduced aux.lSG him.DAT refl.ACC 'I have introduced myself to him.' Clitics can be specified as prosodically dependent on material following them (proclitic) or preceding them (enclitic), or they can be neutral in this regard. As such, proclitics cannot occur in final position and enclitics cannot occur in initial position within their prosodic phrase. For example, in Slavic the negative marker is a proclitic, cliticizing to the following verb, as in the Slovak (Slk) example (2), where the prosodic dependence of the negative marker on the auxiliary verb budem is reflected by the fact that they are spelled as one word. (2) ATebudem mysliet'. [Slk] neg-will.lSG think 'I will not think.' In contrast, the pronominal and auxiliary clitics found in many of the Slavic languages, such as Czech (Cz) and Bulgarian (Bg), are enclitic. This is seen in the Cz example in (3a) in which the pronominal clitic ho must be preceded by a full, nonclitic form, in this case the verb pozvali. A similar Bg example is shown in (3b). (3) a. Pozvali ho. [Cz] invited.SPL him.ACC 'They invited him.' (cf. *Ho pozvali.) b. Vidjax go. [Bg] saw.lSG him.ACC 'I saw him.' (cf. *Go vidjax.) Macedonian (Mac) pronominal clitics are underspecified as to the direction of attachment and hence can be either proclitic or enclitic, depending on the construction in which they appear and on where there is an available host. This is seen in (4): In (4a) the clitics mi and ja act as proclitics appearing in initial position before the finite verb, whereas in (4b) the same clitics act as enclitics, appearing in final position after the imperative verb. (4) a. Mi ja donesoa (knigata). [Mac] me.DAT it.ACC brought.SPL book.DEF 'They brought me it (the book).' b. Donesi mi ja (knigata). [Mac] bring.IMPV me.DAT it.ACC book.DEF 'Bring me it (the book).'


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

Although clitics can never be assigned independent stress, a clitic can in principle bear stress if it happens to fall in an appropriate position in the stress domain to which it belongs. For example, pronominal and auxiliary clitics in Bg are inherently unstressed and usually encliticize to the preceding full form, as in (5a). However, if the clitic follows the negative marker, the clitic will receive stress and host the proclitic negative marker and any following clitics, as in (5b), in which the auxiliary clitic sam is stressed. (5) a. Dal sam mu go. [Bg] gave aux.lSG him.DAT it.ACC 'I gave it to him.'

b. Ne SAM mu go dal. [Bg] not aux.lSG him.DAT it.ACC gave 'I didn't give it to him.'

Some languages have parallel full and clitic forms for the same element. These forms may be segmentally distinct; that is, not only do they differ in that the full form has lexical stress while the clitic does not, but they are also composed of different phonemes. For example, in Upper Serbian (USor) the clitic form of the accusative reflexive clitic is so, whereas the full form is sebje. However, in some cases the full form may be identical to the clitic form except that the full form has lexical stress while the clitic form does not; for example, the Slk first person plural dative pronoun is ndm for both the clitic and nonclitic form and differs only in whether it is stressed. In both cases, however, the clitic forms have a different syntactic distribution from their nonclitic counterparts, in addition to the prosodic difference.

1.2.2 Morphosyntactic status All clitics are characterized by the lack of prosodic accent or stress as described above. Some clitics behave syntactically like their nonclitic counterparts and hence show no unusual syntactic behavior. These are known as "simple" clitics (Zwicky 1977). In contrast to simple clitics, many clitics have a significantly different syntactic distribution from their nonclitic counterparts. These are referred to as "special" clitics (Zwicky 1977). Many of the Slavic clitics are special clitics and discussion of their distribution and behavior comprises the bulk of this volume. For example, due to the free word order in Slavic, noun phrases and full pronouns can appear in practically any position in the clause. However, clitic pronouns appear in a fixed position (e.g., adjacent to the verb in Bg and in second position in Slk). This is illustrated by the contrasting examples in (6) and (7) for SC: The nonclitic pronoun in (6) can appear in a number of positions in the clause, whereas the clitic pronoun in (7) can only appear in second position, after the imperative verb.



(6) a. Donesi knjigu sutra meni. [SC] bring.lMPV book tomorrow me 'Bring me the book tomorrow.' b. Meni sutra donesi knjigu. c. Sutra meni knjigu donesi. (7) a. Donesi mi knjigu sutra. [SC] bring.lMPV me.DAT book tomorrow 'Bring me the book tomorrow.' b. *Donesi knjigu mi sutra. c. *Donesi knjigu sutra mi. d. *Mi donesi knjigu sutra. In addition to their syntactically restricted distribution, some of these special clitics bear a combination of both head and phrasal properties (chapter 11). In addition, clitics are distinct from both affixes and full forms. Both clitics and affixes are bound forms, but clitics display far less syntactic and phonological cohesion with their hosts than affixes do. Whereas affixes tend to attach only to items of a particular part of speech, clitics can typically attach to any type of lexical item. Affixes are also more likely to be subject to allomorphy and to lexical phonological processes than clitics are. However, in some cases, such as the Bg definite article (chapter 9), it can be difficult to determine whether a lexical item is a clitic or an affix. Special clitics are distinct from full, nonclitic forms both in their prosodic status, in that clitics are bound forms, and in their syntactic distribution, which tends to be substantially more restricted than that of full forms. Slavic pronominal and auxiliary clitics often correspond to full nonclitic forms, although with different distributions. For example, the clitics generally appear in a restricted position in the clause, whereas full forms can appear in a number of positions. In addition, the clitics are often the default form, whereas the nonclitic form has an additional meaning of emphasis. The pronominal clitics seem to substitute for entire phrases; that is, they are comparable to any other verbal argument, despite their morphological simplicity and apparent syntactic head status, which can be seen by the fact that they pattern with the auxiliary clitics that are syntactic heads. This coupling of phrasal and head properties is common among pronominal clitics and forms the basis of much syntactic debate. To summarize, clitics are lexical items that do not have their own prosodic accent or stress. As such, they must be adjacent to a full form that acts as their host. Enclitics require a host to their left and proclitics to their right; some clitics are neutral as to which direction they cliticize. Special clitics are of particular interest here.


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics


Clitic Types in Slavic

This section introduces the range of types of clitic phenomena that are found in the Slavic languages and that come under the clitic umbrella. Each type is characterized in general terms and briefly instantiated. Note that not all of the Slavic languages have each type of clitic; part I describes the exact clitic inventories of each language in detail.


Verbal auxiliary clitics

In addition to simple tensed verbs, the Slavic languages have compound tenses composed of one or more auxiliary verbs in addition to the main verb. These auxiliaries may be clitics or full forms depending on the language and on the particular auxiliary. Some languages, such as SC, have both clitic and full forms of the same auxiliary. In general, only tensed auxiliaries can be clitics, although copular forms can also be clitics in some languages. Examples of clitic auxiliaries are shown in (8). (8) a. Ja som napfsal list. [Slk] I aux.lsc wrote letter 'I wrote a letter.' (Rivero 1991:339) b. Ja sym z lekarjom porecala. [USor] I aux.lsc with doctor spoken 'I have spoken with the doctor.' (Comrie and Corbett 1993:653) c. Jal e sopska salata. [Bg] eaten aux.SSG Shopska salad 'He has eaten Shopska salad.' (Embick and Izvorski 1994:1) In (8a) there is a clitic auxiliary, som, followed by the main verb, napisal; this order is similar to that found with nonclitic auxiliaries. In (8b) the clitic auxiliary, sym, precedes the main verb, porecala, but is separated from it by the prepositional phrase, z lekarjom, due to the requirement of the clitic to be in second position in its clause (section 6.1). Finally, in (8c) the clitic auxiliary, e, follows the main verb, Jal, instead of preceding it. Note that in all of the previous cases the material to the left of the clitic provides a host for the clitics (i.e., these are enclitics).


Pronominal clitics

In many of the Slavic languages, the pronouns have both clitic and full forms; the clitic is the unmarked form and the full form is used for emphasis, in initial position, after prepositions, and so on. In general, these languages have clitic forms for accusative, genitive, and dative pronouns but not for the other cases. These pronominal clitics correspond to arguments of the verb and are in the same case as their nonclitic counterparts would be. Example (9) shows clitic pronouns in Polish (Pol) and Cz.



(9) a. Ta kobieta mi przyniosla szczescie. [Pol] that woman me.DAT brought.3SG happiness 'That woman has brought me happiness.' (Comrie and Corbett 1993:725) b. Volal ti. [Cz] called.SSG you.DAT 'He called you.' In most Slavic languages the clitic pronouns form a group referred to as a clitic "cluster." The clitics are strictly ordered within this cluster, with dative preceding accusative, as in (10). (10) Ivan mi ja dade. [Bg] Ivan me.DAT it.ACC gave.Ssc 'Ivan gave me it.' (cf. *Ivan ja mi dade.) The clitic auxiliaries discussed in the previous section usually occur in the same clitic cluster as the clitic pronouns in languages that have clitic clusters (chapter 5). In general, the auxiliaries occur before the pronouns, as in (11), although in some languages certain auxiliaries, especially the third person auxiliary, occur after the clitics, as in the Slovenian (Sin) example in (12). (11) Slavko ce je videti. [SC] Slavko fut.Ssc her.ACC see 'Slavko will see her.' (Comrie and Corbett 1993:346) (12) Ucil jo je je. [Sin] taught her.ACC it.GEN aux.SSG 'He taught her it.' (Comrie and Corbett 1993:428)


Other clausal domain clitics

In addition to auxiliary and pronominal clitics, the Slavic languages often have several other types of clausal clitics. These include interrogative clitics, modal or conditional clitics, and sentential negation. These clitics may occur both in languages with auxiliary and pronominal clitics, such as SC, and in ones that do not have auxiliary or pronominal clitics, such as Russian (Rus). In languages with clitic clusters, these clausal clitics may form part of the cluster, as is often the case with the interrogative and modal clitics, or may be separate from it, as is often the case with the negative clitic. There is an interrogative marker li that occurs in a number of Slavic languages and is used primarily to signal yes-no questions, especially in embedded clauses (section 8.1). Li is an enclitic that takes either a verb or another constituent as its host, as in (13).


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

(13) a. Znaes' li ty russkij jazyk? [Rus] know.2sc Q you Russian language 'Do you know Russian?' b. Rakija li iskat? [Bg] brandy Q want.SPL 'Is it brandy that they want?' Modals or conditionals are often signaled by an enclitic form by/bi (section 8.2). In many Slavic languages this clitic is invariable, occurring in the same form regardless of the person and number of the subject. This is seen in the Slk example in (14). In other languages, such as Cz, this clitic has different forms depending on the person and number of the subject, as in (15). (14) Ja by som napi'sal list. [Slk] I cond aux.lSG wrote letter 'I would write a letter.' (Rivero 1991:340) (15) Tehdy bych koupil knihy. [Cz] then cond.lSG bought books 'I would then buy books.' (Rivero 1991:340) In the Slavic languages sentential negation is proclitic onto the finite verb or auxiliary which follows the negative clitic and provides a host for it, as in (16) (section 8.3). (16) a. Tomislav ne dojde vcera. [Mac] Tomislav neg came.SSG yesterday 'Tomislav didn't come yesterday.' (Comrie and Corbett 1993:290) b. Zo by pfescehany ry'ebyl. [USor] so-that cond persecuted neg-was 'So that he should not be persecuted.' (Comrie and Corbett 1993:667) In languages such as Bg, which have verb adjacent clitics, the negative mark can be separated from the verb by the clitics, as in (17), but not by other lexical items. (17) Ne mu izpratix kniga. [Bg] Neg him send.lSG book 'I did not send him a book.' In languages with clitic auxiliaries, there are two possibilities. In languages such as Slk, the clitic auxiliary appears in its usual position while the negative clitic takes the nonclitic verb as its host, as in (18a). In languages such as SC, there is a special nonclitic form of the negated auxiliary, as in




(18) a. Ja som nenapisal. [Slk] I aux.lSG neg-written 'I have not written.' (Rivero 1991:344) b. Ja nisam citao knjigu. [SC] I neg-aux.lSG read book 'I have not read the book.'


Other clitic-like elements

In addition to the auxiliary, pronominal, and clausal clitics presented earlier, a number of other types of clitics are found in the Slavic languages. One type comprises discourse particles, which provide emphasis, perspective, and so on, as in (19). In general these do not have particularly interesting properties as far as their prosodic and syntactic status is concerned, and hence they are not discussed in detail in this volume. (19) a. On vernetsja segodnja ze. [Rus] he return. 3SG today emph 'He is coming back this very day.' b. Protoze vsak prselo, nikam nejel. [Cz] because however rained nowhere neg-went.3SG 'Because it was raining, though, he didn't go anywhere. (Fried 1994:157) Some Slavic languages allow clitics in the nominal domain (chapter 9), as in Mac example (20) or Pol example (21). However, not all languages that have clausal pronominal clitics also allow pronominal clitics within noun phrases. (20) bratuced mu [Mac] cousin him. DAT 'his cousin' (21) zrozumienie go [Pol] understanding him/it.GEN 'understanding him/it' Nominal domain clitics may also include the definite determiner in Bg and Mac, as in (22), although its extensive allomorphy suggests that the postpositive article may in fact be an affix. (22) a. kupenite vcera knigi [Bg] bought.DBF yesterday books 'the books which were bought yesterday' b. mnogu visokiot covek [Mac] much tall.DBF man 'the very tall man' (Miseska-Tomic 1996b:813)


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

In sum, the Slavic languages exhibit a variety of clitic types. The auxiliary and pronominal clitics, which in many of the languages form a cluster with specific requirements on its syntactic position, are of significant theoretical interest due to their special behavior. Other clausal clitics include modals/conditionals, interrogative markers, and negation. These clausal clitics often interact with the auxiliary and pronominal clitics in interesting ways. Finally, clitics can appear in nonclausal domains such as noun phrases; these clitics may be a subset of the clausal domain clitics or unique to the particular domain.


Contents and Issues Addressed

This volume is divided into three parts that are described in this section. Each part builds on the previous ones, but cross-referencing is provided to allow later chapters to be read without assuming familiarity with the entirety of the volume.


Description of part I

Part I surveys the clitic systems of the languages treated in the volume and serves as the primary reference portion. It is divided into three chapters: South Slavic, West Slavic, and East Slavic. First, a brief overview of the South-West-East division is provided. Each chapter then covers the major languages of that group individually, after presenting some of the common properties of the group. Each language's section covers the types of clitics found in that language, providing tables and examples, as well as references to source grammars and cross-referencing to the theoretical discussion of the data in parts II and III. The data for each language are organized as follows. The verbal auxiliary clitics are dicussed first, then the pronominal clitics, followed by discussion of other clitics found in the language, such as negation or modals. Finally, the ordering of the clitics relative to one another is presented, as well as their position in the clause. The East Slavic chapter does not contain all these parts because these languages generally lack auxiliary and pronominal clitics.


Description of part II

Part II presents five phenomena associated with Slavic clitics of special interest to both Slavic and general linguists. These include clitic ordering patterns among the various Slavic languages, as well as divergences from these patterns (chapter 5); variation in how the clitic clusters are positioned in the different Slavic languages (chapter 6); clitic doubling and associated phenomena (chapter 7); the behavior of other clausal domain clitics, namely,



interrogatives, modals, and negation (chapter 8); and the status of clitics in nonclausal domains, specifically, in noun phrases (chapter 9). These chapters provide necessary background and set the stage for the more theoretical discussion of part III. That is, each chapter not only presents the data relevant to the given phenomenon but also shows why they pose a challenge to analysis.


Description of part III

Part III relates the facts described in parts I and II to issues of recent theoretical interest. It first surveys theoretical analyses in the literature concerning Slavic clitics, focusing on the interaction of synactic and prosodic requirements of the clitics (chapter 10). It then addresses questions such as the following: • What is the syntactic status of clitics; for example, are they heads or phrases, are they adjoined elements and if so to what, are they base generated or moved to their surface positions, do particular clitics always occupy the same syntactic positions in a given language (chapter 11)? What is the nature of the clitic cluster; for example, do the clitics really form a single constituent, how is the relative ordering of the different clitics determined, how is the clitic cluster positioned? • What are the mechanisms whereby a host is provided for the clitics; for example, is clitic support a last resort operation, is there long head movement (chapter 12)? To what extent can various clitic phenomena be understood in prosodic versus syntactic terms; for example, how should the apparent splitting of noun phrases and prepositional phrases in SC be handled, how should deviations from strict second position be accommodated? Chapter 13 provides a conclusion, bringing together the analyses discussed in part III. It highlights what Slavic clitics show about the viability of given analyses of clitics and provides a basis for further research on clitics by indicating which problems remain to be solved. In particular, it discusses what types of elements can be clitics, where variation among the languages arises, and how the prosodic and syntactic requirements of the clitics interact.

This page intentionally left blank

Part I

Major Slavic Clitic Phenomena Part I is the core reference section of the handbook. It presents and describes the major clitic phenomena for each language, primarily concentrating on the relative ordering and placement of clitics in the clause. To facilitate ready accessibility of the material, tables of clitic inventories and templates have been included and, insofar as it is possible, all the chapters and sections have parallel internal structures. The Slavic languages fall into three major groups: South Slavic (SSI), West Slavic (WS1), and East Slavic (ESI). We treat them in chapters 2, 3, and 4, respectively, surveying the basic properties of clitics in most of the languages in each of these groups. For other aspects of their syntax, the reader is referred to the syntax sections in Comrie and Corbett (1993), as well as to more traditional comparative grammars such as de Bray (1951), Jakobson (1935/1971), and Entwistle and Morison (1949), although the discussion of syntax in these works is relatively sparse.1 The individual language chapters of Comrie and Corbett also have detailed references for information on the specific languages, and as we present each language we catalog our sources. As our purpose in this volume is to describe and analyze the properties of clitics in Slavic, not all languages receive equal attention. We justify differential attention on the basis of three factors. For one thing, the more striking the range and complexity of clitic phenomena, the more space required to lay out the data as well as to do justice to their analysis. Second, because one of our main goals is to overview and compare recent theoretical approaches, the greater the concentration of analyses, the greater is our need to clarify discriminating data. Third, concepts are introduced as they arise, so that those languages described earlier in the survey of major clitic phenomena require greater detail of explication. This is particularly true of Serbian/Croatian, which serves as an exemplar for the entirety of part I. Finally, because discriminating data are often of considerable subtlety, we confine the discussion 1 Comrie and Corbett (1993) is also an excellent source of information about Slavic languages and dialects not treated in this volume, both extant and extinct. In addition to copious dialect information and careful references in the chapters on the languages we discuss, there is useful information about the syntax of Old Church Slavonic, Belarusian (Belorussian), and Kashubian (Cassubian), and what little is known about Polabian is summarized. See also reviews of Comrie and Corbett in Townsend (1995).


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

to languages for which we have access to reliable textual sources and native linguistic consultants. For these reasons, we devote somewhat more space to the chapter on SSI languages than to the one on WS1 ones, and comparitively little space to chapter 4, which outlines in brief the clitic and clitic-like phenomena of the ESI group. Within each chapter, the discussion of the various languages follows a similar format. In the first section, we overview the verbal auxiliary clitics. In the second section, we describe the forms and extent of pronominal clitics in the language. Next, we briefly introduce any other clitics the language may have. Having presented the inventory of clitics for each language, we are then in a position to discuss the fundamential problems of (1) what relative ordering restrictions hold among the clitics in the clitic cluster and (2) where the clitic cluster is situated in the sentence. In this part of the book we do no more than sketch the most salient characteristics of these problems; the issues that they raise are central to the discussion in parts II and III. Finally, in the last section for each language we offer a summary of the major points observed.

Chapter 2

South Slavic The following SSI literary languages are treated in this book: Serbian/Croatian, Slovenian, Bulgarian, and Macedonian.1 Although these essentially form a dialect continuum, from Slovenian in the northwest to Bulgarian in the southeast, there is a major linguistic division between Slovenian (Sin) and Serbian/Croatian (SC), on the one hand, and Macedonian (Mac) and Bulgarian (Bg), on the other. One striking aspect of this division is that whereas Sin and SC display the kinds of extensive case phenomena typical of Slavic, Mac and Bg have impoverished case systems, comparable in many ways to that of English. Despite this superficial difference, all the SSI languages exhibit extremely robust and often quite diverse clitic phenomena, and for this reason SSI has been the focus of much traditional and recent work on Slavic clitics. Many of the comparative problems treated in part II of this volume thus depend on patterns and variation found in our examination of SSI clitic systems.



This section presents the clitic paradigms and basic ordering and placement restrictions for the SC language. SC was used in slightly varying forms in four out of the six republics of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Different standardized forms of it (Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian) are the official languages of the new post-socialist states, Croatia, Bosnia, and rump Yugoslavia (currently comprising Serbia and Montenegro). The various peoples that speak SC have distinct cultures, histories, religions, and even alphabets. As a consequence, SC is defined by several 1 It is clear from the information available about Old Church Slavonic (OCS) that it had clitics and placed them partly sentence-second and partly verb-adjacent. Because OCS is a dead language, it is impossible to test hypotheses on native speakers and so we do not discuss the language here. Interested readers may consult any of several good grammars, such as Lunt (1952); see also Huntley (1993) and the references therein for more specialized studies of OCS.



A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

competing literary traditions. We go into the diversity of heritages and standards only where it correlates with differences in clitic placement; usually it does not. We therefore treat the language as comprising a homogenous system and hope that purists will understand this idealization as both necessary and appropriate in the present context. In particular, from the perspective of clitic phenomena, there is little variation among variants spoken in Serbia, Croatia, or Bosnia, so that we can freely present the data as representative of SC as a whole. Examples are cited in whatever variant our source employed, and we have similarly striven to construct examples appropriate for our informants, who hail from varied points in the SC-speaking territory. When dialect differences are relevant to the discussion, they are noted. In crude terms, when a variant is designated "Western" that means that it is generally appropriate in Croatian usage, and when a variant is designated as "Eastern" that means that it is generally appropriate in Serbian and/or Bosnian usage. This opposition is helpful in characterizing most syntactic phenomena, but it should be borne in mind that lexical and phonological distinctions typically are not only finer than this, but sometimes also partition the SC-speaking area along other lines. In this survey of the basic properties of clitics in SC we have drawn from a number of reference grammars and descriptions of the language, including Magner (1995) and Rubadeau (1996), and especially Browne (1974, 1993). Other works that deal in some depth with SC clitics and which play a role in subsequent chapters include Boskovic (1998), Cavar and Wilder (1994), Halpern (1992a, 1995), Percus (1993), Phillips (1990), Progovac (1996), Radanovic-Kocic (1988), Schutze (1994), Stjepanovic (1998a, b), and Wilder and Cavar (1994).


Verbal auxiliary clitics

Like all the SSI and WS1 languages, SC employs clitic auxiliaries that agree in person-number features with the nominative subject. Whereas the full form is an ordinary lexical item of SC and thus has a specific pitch-accent, the clitics lack prosodic structure and must remain unstressed. Table 2.12 shows the full and clitic forms of the verb biti 'to be', which serves as the copula and which combines with /-participles to form the perfect tense.3 Note that with the exception of 3SG je, which appears to be the stem rather than an ending, the clitic forms are identical to the full forms without their initial je syllable. Simple examples of copular and auxiliary uses are given in (la) and (Ib), respectively. The forms in Table 2.1 also appear in the pluperfect, as in (2). 2 The SC accentuation diacritics are: x long falling; x long rising; x short falling; x long falling; x long. 3 This periphrastic form is the regular SC past tense. The simple past tenses (the aorist and especially the imperfect) are literary forms and are no longer used in ordinary speech in most dialects. Note that the /-participle does not always apear with phonetic [1] in S because final /!/ becomes [o].

South Slavic: Serbian/Croatian


TABLE 2.1 Copula/past tense auxiliary clitics (Serbian/Croatian) Biti 'to be' Clitic Full sam jesam Isg si jesi 2sg jest(e)*/je* je 3sg smo jesmo Ipl ste jeste 2pl su jesu 3pl *Full 3so je is a special stressed form used instead of the expected *jest(e) li in yes-no "je li..." questions and in affirmative answers to such questions.

(1) a. Ti si dobar student, you be.2sG good student 'You are a good student.' b. Kupio sam zanimljivu knjigu. bought aux.lSG interesting book 'I bought an interesting book.' (2) Bill ste cekali Marijinu prijateljicu. were aux.2PL waited Marija's friend 'You had waited for Marija's friend.' A second verbal auxiliary clitic is based on the present tense of ht(j)eti 'to want', as in Table 2.2. Note that the clitic consists of the full form minus its first ho- syllable. TABLE 2.2 Future tense auxiliary clitics (Serbian/Croatian) Ht(j)eti 'to want' Full Clitic Isg hocu cu 2sg hoces ces 3sg hoce ce Ipl 2pl 3pl

hocemo hocete hoce

cemo cete ce

These auxiliaries are used to form the future of both imperfective and perfective verbs, taking either the infinitive, as in (3a), or, primarily in Serbia, the subordinating conjunction da plus a present tense form, as in (3b) (data from Browne 1993:330). In (3b) the clitic ce is in the matrix clause. Speakers of SC who employ the da plus a present tense verb construction to express


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

the future generally avoid infinitival complementation in other constructions as well, substituting for infinitives da + present tense forms in other contexts, as in (4). (3) a. Slavko ce vid(j)eti Mariju. Slavko fut.SsG see.iNF Marija 'Slavko will see Marija.' b. Slavko ce da vidi Mariju. Slavko fut.Ssc C see.Ssc Marija (4) Slavko zeli da vidi Mariju. Slavko want.Ssc C see.SSG Marija 'Slavko wants to see Marija.' When the infinitive occupies first position and thus serves as host for the clitic, the -ti ending of the infinitive is reduced. The resulting form is spelled either as in (5a), the Croatian standard, or as in (5b) in Eastern variants. (5) a. Vidjet ce Mariju. see.iNF fut.3SG/PL Marija 'He/They will see Marija.' b. Vid(j)ece Mariju. see.iNF-fut.3sG/PL Marija 'He/They will see Marija.' The orthographic loss of the -ti in (5b) reflects the phonological simplification of the geminate /t/ that arises after deletion of the infinitival -i puts the -t up against the initial [t] part of the affricate /c/. Those infinitives that end in -ci rather than -t do not undergo this reduction, as in (6). (6) Ici cu u selo. go.iNF fut.lSG to village 'I will go to the village.' All of these verbal auxiliary clitics, like other clitics in SC, are restricted to appearing in second position, a phenomenon more precisely characterized in sections 2.1.4 and 6.1. Note that in their full, emphatic forms they exhibit no such distributional restriction, as in (7), although the 'want' meaning is dominant for ht(j)eti, as in (7c-d). (7) a. Jesi dobar student. be.2sG good student 'You are a good student.' b. Jesam citao zanimljivu knjigu. am.lSG read interesting book 'I did read an interesting book.'

South Slavic: Serbian/Croatian


c. Hoce vid(j)eti Mariju. will.3SG/PL see.iNF Marija 'He/She/They will see Marija.' 'He/She/They want to see Marija.' d. Hoce da vidi Mariju. will.SSG C see.SSG Marija 'She/He will see Marija.' 'She/He wants to see Marija.' These full forms can themselves host clitics, as in (8), and can stand independently, as in the answers in (9) to the questions in (7). (8) a. Jesi li dobar student? be.2sc Q good student 'Are you a good student?' b. Hoce li Slavko vid(j)eti/ da vidi Mariju? will.SSG Q Slavko see.iNF/ C see.SSG Marija 'Will Slavko see Marija?' 'Does Slavko want to see Marija?' (9) a. Jesam. 'I am.' b. Hoce. 'He will.'/'He does.'4 When negated, both biti 'to be' and ht(j)eti 'to want' require special nonclitic conjugated forms, summarized in Table 2.3. Although these appear to be contractions of a negative element ne or ni plus the appropriate verbal auxiliary clitic, the words in Table 2.3 have the phonological and syntactic status of full forms rather than clitics: They bear stress and, unlike true clitics but like full forms, they are not restricted to appearing in second position. They can be clause initial, which is something SC clitics can never do. Compare the examples in (10) with those in (7). TABLE 2.3 Negated auxiliary clitics (Serbian/Croatian) Biti 'to be' Ht(j)eti 'to want' Isg nisam necu 2sg nisi neces 3sg mje nece Ipl 2pl 3pl

nismo niste nfsu

necemo necete nece

4 Example (9b) means 'He will.' in answer to 'Will Slavko see Marija?' and 'He does.' in answer to 'Does Slavko want to see Marija?'.


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

(10) a. Nisi dobar student. neg-be.2sG good student 'You are not a good student.' b. Nisam citao zanimljivu knjigu. neg-be.lSG read interesting book 'I did not read an interesting book.' c. Niste bili cekali Marijinu prijateljicu. neg-be.2PL were waited Marija's friend 'You had not waited for Marija's friend.' d. Nece vid(j)eti Mariju. neg-will.3sG/PL see.INF Marija 'He/They will not see Marija.' (preferred) 'He doesn't/They don't want to see Marija.' e. Nece da vidi Mariju. neg-will.3SG C see.Ssc Marija 'He will not see Marija.' 'He does not want to see Marija.' (preferred) Similarly, they can host other clitics, as in (lla), and can in principle appear in any clause-internal position, as in (llb-c), except of course second position when there are clitics which need to come second, as in (lid). (11) a. Nece go, Jovan citati. neg-will.3SG it.ACC Jovan read 'Jovan won't read it.' b. Jovan go, nece citati. c. Jovan go, citati nece. d. *Jovan nece go, citati. Note that these special negated forms replace the expected negated full forms: *ne jesam, *nejesi, *ne hocu, *ne hoces, etc. There are, finally, conditional mood auxiliary clitics based on the old aorist forms of biti 'to be' as in Table 2.4. These are used in conjuction with /-participles to create the conditional mood. The clitic forms are identical to the full forms except that they lack pitch-accent. Example (12) provides some representative samples, drawn from Spencer (1991:353) and Browne (1993:333-334). (12) a. Ja bih citao ovu knjigu. I cond.lSG read this book 'I would read this book.' b. Momci bi citali ovu knjigu, kad bi bila boys cond.SPL read this book, if cond.SSG was zanimljiva. interesting 'The boys would read this book if it were interesting.'

South Slavic: Serbian/Croatian


c. Kad biste me pitali, rekao bih. when cond.2PL me.ACC asked said cond.lSG 'If you asked me, I would say.' d. Kad biste me bill pitali, bio bih rekao. when cond.2pL me.ACC were asked was cond.lSG said 'If you had asked me, I would have said.' TABLE 2.4 Conditional mood auxiliary clitics (Serbian/Croatian) Biti 'to be' Full* Clitic* bih bih Isg bi bi 2sg bi bi 3sg bismo bismo Ipl biste biste 2pl bi bi 3pl *In colloquial variants bi substitutes for the entire paradigm. Note that as clitics, these forms always stand in second position; in (12c-d) the conditional auxiliary clitic biste is followed by the accusative pronominal clitic me. The example in (12d) represents the literary past conditional construction. Compare this with the pluperfect in (2); in both the clitic is sandwiched in second position between the auxiliary and main verb Z-participles. The examples in this section reveal another important regularity. Like the other Slavic languages with full-fledged clitic auxiliary systems, unemphatic subject pronouns in SC are canonically dropped (see Browne 1993:365-366 for a summary of relevant conditions). This familiar correlation between clitic auxiliaries and pro-drop seems to run throughout Slavic, with the possible exceptions of USor and especially LSor (see Lindseth 1997 and references therein for discussion of Sorbian). Roughly speaking, atonic pronominal subjects are null in SSI and WS1, which are precisely the same set of languages that exhibit verbal auxiliary clitics.


Pronominal clitics

Another striking aspect of this correlation is that it is the same set of languages, namely, those in the SSI and WS1 groups, that have pronominal clitics. SC is typical in this regard. In SC, distinct clitic forms of the personal pronouns are found in the accusative, genitive, and dative, as seen in Table 2.5. 5 Genitive je generally does not become ju, remaining as je je or causing the 3SG auxiliary je to delete. In this respect it behaves the same as reflexive accusative se + auxiliary je combinations, which usually contract to se (see Browne 1975 for discussion).


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

TABLE 2.5 Pronominal clitics (Serbian/Croatian) Genitive Accusative Full Clitic Full Clitic Isg mene me mene me 2sg te tebe te tebe 3sg m/n njega ga/(nj)* njega ga nju nje 3sgf je/(ju)f je Ipl 2pl 3pl

nas vas njih

nas vas ih

nas vas njih

nas vas ih

Dative Clitic Full mem mi ti tebi njemu mu njqj joj nama vama njima

nam vam im

Refl sebe se sebe sebi (si * Accusative 3sg m nj is a special form appearing after certain prepositions in archaic, dialectal, and/or literary styles, f Accusative 3sg f ju is used instead of the expected form je when it immediately precedes the 3sg auxiliary je. Some Croatian and Bosnian speakers employ ju (as an alternate to je) in other environments too.5 JThe reflexive dative clitic si is generally not considered standard, although it is widespread in Croatia and has recently been permitted by some Croatian grammarians. As always, the differences between clitic and full forms are small. Typically the clitic is one syllable based on the full form (e.g., nam from nama or ga from njega) or, if the full form is only one syllable, then the clitic is that syllable minus prosodic structure (e.g., vas from vas) and also stripped of the prothetic n(j) in nonreflexive 3RD person forms. However, the relation of dative forms such as ti to tebi suggests that the clitics are composed of pronominal roots plus case endings, with the exception of the nonreflexive 3RD person clitics. See Progovac (1996) for some interesting speculation about the structures and derivations that might give rise to some of these morphological patterns. Observe also that the pronominal clitics in general differ from the verbal ones in that they are based on the initial part of the full form rather than the final part, although the relationships are somewhat less transparent. Table 2.5 shows complete paradigms for both accusative and dative clitics. The genitive forms differ minimally from the accusative ones, the only divergences being in the 3SG F full forms nje versus nju, the corresponding lack of a genitive clitic alternant ju, and the absence of a genitive reflexive clitic. Recall that there are no nominative clitics in any Slavic language. We take this to be an aspect of the correlation between the presence or absence of both pronominal and verbal auxiliary clitics in any given language.6 6 The subject-verb agreement instantiated on verbal auxiliary clitics is literally the verbal counterpart of the nominal case morphology found on the pronominal clitics; hence a nominative clitic would constitute simultaneous manifestation of both. Agreement and

South Slavic: Serbian/Croatian


Example (13) provides some sample sentences containing pronominal clitics, based on Spencer (1991:353-354): (13) a. Svaki dan mu ga dajem. every day him.DAT it.ACC give.lSG 'I give it to him every day.' b. Ti si joj ih juce(r) dala. you aux.2SG her.DAT them.ACC yesterday gave 'You gave them to her yesterday. c. Predstavili smo im se. introduced aux.lPL them.DAT refl.ACC 'We introduced ourselves to them.' d. U sali biste nam se predstavili. in hall cond.2PL us.DAT refl.ACC introduced 'You would introduce yourselves to us in the hall.' e. Pokaza(t) ce ti ga sutra. show.INF fut.3SG/PL you.2SG it.ACC tomorrow 'He/She/They will show it to you tomorrow.' These examples demonstrate that pronominal clitics cluster together with the verbal auxiliary ones and, like the latter, can only appear in second position, as in (14a-c).7 (14) a. Vesna mi ga je kupila juce(r). Vesna me.DAT it.ACC aux.3sc bought yesterday 'Vesna bought it for me yesterday.' b. Kupila mi ga je juce(r) Vesna. c. Juce(r) mi ga je Vesna kupila. d. *mi ga je Vesna kupila juce(r). e. * Vesna kupila mi ga je juce(r).


Other clitics

For each language, the "Other clitics" section introduces those clitics that do not obviously belong to either the verbal auxiliary or pronominal clitic paradigms but that nonetheless are critical in understanding the workings of the clitic system of that language as a whole. Several such elements in SC may be accorded clitic status, depending on one's analysis. In (8) we have already encountered the most important of these, namely, the yes-no interrogative clitic It. Example (15) provides a few more representative samples. the clitic pronoun apparently compete for the same slot. 7 Examples such as (14e) are felicitous if the initial phrase is topicalized (or possibly focused), a process that requires comma intonation, that is facilitated by the heaviness of the topic, and that can be extended to multiple topics. See the discussion in section 6.1.4, and the references therein, particularly Zee and Inkelas (1990).


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

(15) a. Dajes li mu ih svaki dan? give.2SG Q him.DAT them.ACC every day 'Do you give them to him every day?' b. Da li mu ih dajes svaki dan? C Q him.DAT them.ACC give.2sc every day c. %Svaki dan li mu ih dajes?8 every day Q him.DAT them.ACC give.2sc 'Is it every day that you give them to him?' d. Je li im go, dao? aux.SsG Q them.DAT it.ACC gave 'Did he give it/one to them?' e. Da li mi go, zelis kupiti? C Q me.DAT it.ACC want.2SG buy.lNF 'Do you want to buy me it/one?' In sentential yes-no questions, as in (15a-b), either the conjugated verb can host the clitic cluster or the complementizer da can; these are stylistically neutral and equivalent, although (15a) can be interpreted as focusing the verb. Other elements can also be focused, such as svaki dan in (15c). Note that only the variant in (15b) is possible if the verb is participial and the clitic auxiliary is used. (16) a. *Davao li si mu ih svaki dan? gave Q aux.2sc him.DAT them.ACC every day b. Da li si mu ih davao svaki dan? C Q aux.2SG him.DAT them.ACC gave every day 'Did you give them to him every day?' We return to the significance of the contrast between (15a) and (16a) in chapter 12. Example (15d) employs the special stressed form je that hosts the clitic cluster instead of the 3SG copula or auxiliary jest(e) whenever that cluster begins in li. Je li might also be considered a full form of li, similar to da li, because it appears in the sentence final "tag question" morpheme je li (da)? and, according to Radanovic-Kocic (1988), colloquially co-occurs with conjugated verbs of all persons, as in (17). Browne (1993:347) also argues that da li can be treated as a full form of li, as in (15b) and (16b). (17) Je li oni pisu? be.SSG Q they write.SPL 'Are they writing?' 8

This example is only acceptable for SC speakers who allow nonverbal elements before li (section 8.1.2).

South SJavic: Serbian/Croatian


Example (15e) involves "clitic climbing," in the sense that the pronominal clitics mu and ga, although arguments of the lower verb kupiti 'to buy', obligatorily appear in the clitic cluster begining with the main clause interrogative clitic li. Section 6.3 considers clitic climbing more generally. Other words that might be regarded as having clitic status include the negation element ne, the complementizers da and sto, and various prosodically "light" or weak prepositions. Although these elements generally seem to lack specific prosodic structure and to be unable to stand on their own, they are if anything proclitic and do not interact with the verbal auxiliary clitics, the pronominal clitics, or interrogative li in ways that will be of interest in this handbook (other than as hosts for the enclitic elements described above). Ne is always proclitic on a finite verb, sometimes combining with that verb orthographically. (18) a. Neces ici na sastanak. [neces = ne 4- (ho)ces] neg-will.2SG go.lNF to meeting 'You will not go to the meeting' b. Nema posla u Sarajevu. [nema = ne + (i)ma] neg-have.3SG work.GEN in Sarajevo 'There is no work in Sarajevo.' c. Nemam sto da radim. [nemam = ne + (i)mam] neg-have.lsG what C do.lSG 'I don't have anything to do.' d. Ne vidim ga ovd(j)e. neg see.lsc him/it.ACC here 'I do not see him/it here.' Following is a representative set of examples with complementizers sto and da. Sto is a complementizer for relative clauses, as in (19a), and for the complements of emotive factive verbs, as in (19b), whereas da is used for other types of clausal complements, as in (19c). In addition, da can occur as part of the complex question particle da li and more generally can form questions with or without li; (19d) contains both the question particle da li and the more general use of da in questions (see Vrzic 1996). (19) a. cov(j)ek sto ga vidim man C him.ACC see.lsc 'the man who I see' b. Radujem se sto si dosao. glad.lSG refl C aux.2SG came 'I am glad that you came.' c. Marko ne zna da ga voli Vesna. Marko neg know.SSG C him.ACC loves Vesna 'Marko doesn't know that Vesna loves him.'


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics d. Da li da ti dam knjigu? C Q C you.DAT give.lSG book 'Should I give you the book?'

Finally, certain prepositions form a single prosodic domain with their complements, as in (20), from Browne (1993:312). (20) a. 6d brata/od brata 'from brother' b. ii grad/u grad 'to (the) city' Browne (1993:323) also notes that in some variants, particularly Western ones, the possibility exists of following prepositions by the accusative forms me, te, se, and nj, a special clitic variant of njega, as in (21). This construction reflects archaic or literary usage and is comparable to the Slovenian "bound" clitics discussed in section 2.2. (21) a. preda se 'in front of oneself b. na nj 'to him' c. za te 'for you' This concludes our enumeration of SC clitic elements.


Placement and ordering

This section surveys the position in the clause in which the clitic cluster is found and the relative ordering of the various types of clitics within the cluster. We have already seen many examples that illustrate the basic principle of SC clitic placement: The clitic cluster occupies a second or "Wackernagel"9 position in the clause. As such, it serves as a kind of pivot around which the other elements of the sentence revolve. Because of the otherwise free order of constituents, second-position clitics can be preceded by the verb or by any phrase in sentence, as in (22). (22) a. Kupio sam Vesni zanimljivu knjigu u utorak. bought aux.lSG Vesna.DAT interesting book.ACC on Tuesday 'I bought Vesna an interesting book on Tuesday.' b. Vesni sam kupio zanimljivu knjigu u utorak. c. Zanimljivu knjigu sam Vesni kupio u utorak. d. U utorak sam zanimljivu knjigu kupio Vesni. The precise definition of "second position" is however an exceedingly complex and contentious matter, one that will be of central concern in subsequent parts of this handbook. Here it suffices to point out the most infamous property of SC clitics, namely, that they can apparently intervene between elements of the initial phrase, as in (23). 9

Wackernagel position is named for J. Wackernagel who posited a link between verbsecond and clitic-second (Wackernagel 1892).

South Slavic: Serbian/Croatian


(23) a. Zanimljivu som knjigu kupio Vesni u utorak. interesting.ACC aux.lSG book.ACC bought Vesna on Tuesday 'I bought Vesna an interesting book on Tuesday.' b. Anina mu drugarica nudi cokoladu. Ana's him.DAT friend offer.Ssc chocolate 'Ana's friend offers him chocolate.' (Progovac 1996) c. Na veoma si se lepom mestu smestio. on very aux.2sg refl.ACC nice place put 'You've put yourself in a very nice place.' (Miseska-Tomic 1996a) d. %U vrlo veliku je Jovan usao sobu.10 in very big aux.SSG Jovan entered room 'Jovan walked into a very large room.' (Pranks and Progovac 1994) Following Halpern (1995), this phenomenon is known as "second word" or 2W clitic positioning. The issue of whether 2W is phonologically or syntactically motivated is the focus of chapter 12, and the status of the kinds of SC examples found in (23) is also addressed in sections 6.1.2 and 12.2. We have already seen many examples that illustrate the relative ordering of the various SC clitics, which respects the template in Table 2.6. Instantiations of this ordering can be seen in (24). TABLE 2.6 Ordering (Serbian/Croatian) LI > AUX* > DAT > ACC > GEN > SE > JE

*except je, which always goes last in the clitic cluster (24) a. Da li si mu ga dao? C Q aux.2SG him.DAT it.ACC gave 'Did you give it to him?' b. Ja sam ga se bojao. I aux.lSG him/it.GEN refl.ACC feared 'I was afraid of him/it.' c. %Zoran me ih je lisio.11 Zoran me.ACC them.GEN aux.3sc deprived 'Zoran deprived me of them.' d. Da li ste si ga juce(r) kupili? C Q aux.2PL refl.DAT it.ACC yesterday bought 'Did you buy it/one for yourself yesterday?' These examples reveal that the tempate in Table 2.6 is obeyed unwaveringly. Of particular interest are the following facts: 10 This sentence is ungrammatical for many speakers who instead require je to occur after vrlo or who do not allow sobu to be split from the PP at all (W. Browne, p.c.). 11 This sentence is unacceptable for some speakers that do not appear to have a separate template slot for accusative and genitive clitics (W. Browne, p.c.)-


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics • The 3SG auxiliary je goes on the end opposite from the other auxiliary clitics; compare (24c) with the other examples in (24). • The accusative reflexive se follows rather than precedes genitive clitics; compare (24b) with (24c). • The dative reflexive si precedes rather than follows accusative clitics; compare (24d) with (24b).

In other words, the accusative reflexive clitic is positioned because it is se, whereas the dative one is positioned because it is dative, evidently following the template to the letter. Finally, we turn to the issue of how certain unwieldy clitic combinations are resolved. Sequences of se + je, as in (25), are often contracted to se, and je sometimes even drops after pronominal clitics me and te. (25) Milan vam se (je) predstavio juce(r). Milan you.DAT refl.ACC aux.Ssc introduced yesterday 'Milan introduced himself to you yesterday.' This process is similar to the dissimilation of je + je sequences to ju + je, because simply dropping one je would lead to confusion, as in (26). (26) a. Mirko ju je citao. Mirko it.ACC aux.Ssc read 'Mirko read it.' b. *Mirko je je citao. c. Mirko je citao. 'Mirko was reading.' NOT 'Mirko read it.'

2.1.5 Summary We have devoted considerable space to laying out the basic clitic facts of SC because this language displays some of the most robust and controversial clitic phenomena encountered in Slavic. SC is often cited as a classic exemplar of Wackernagel's law that clitics appear in second position. We shall see that SC differs in particular from Mac and Bg in several striking respects. We shall also see that SC differs from other Wackernagel's law Slavic languages in how second position is defined. On the other hand, SC exhibits some important regularities shared with most other Slavic clitic systems. Details of the ordering template recur in language after language, such as dative preceding accusative, auxiliaries (except 3SG) preceding pronominals, reflexives receiving some sort of special treatment, and so on. Finally, the very existence of a specific locus for the clitic cluster in the clause and of a template for ordering its elements is noteworthy in a language family that otherwise displays great freedom of word order. Some of the more noteworthy properties of the SC clitics are:

South Slavic: Slovenian


• The clitics are enclitic and hence do not appear initially. • The clitics form a cluster of up to six clitics. • The clitics appear in a fixed order in the cluster. • This cluster is located in second (Wackernagel) position in the clause. • The cluster can "split" certain constituents. • The clitics need not be adjacent to the verb.

2.2 Slovenian This section presents the clitic paradigms and basic ordering and placement restrictions for the Slovenian (or Slovene) language. Sin is the official language of Slovenia and is spoken by some two million people living within its borders, in neighboring countries, and in emigration. As a literary language, Sin is an artificial construct that represents an amalgam of features not only from various modern dialects—a relatively common strategy in language planning—but also from various historical periods. There is moreover greater dialect variation in a smaller geographical area than for any other Slavic language, with up to fifty distinct dialects sometimes differentiated. This means that literary Slovenian differs from its many vernaculars more than does any other Slavic language, although, as Lencek (1982:26) observes, having a standard serves as a powerful unifying force. It also means, however, that in surveying the clitic system we will have to gloss over dialect differences in form and usage. Of particular note is that according to Priestly (1993:389), the extent to which the dual is used is surely a result of "learned intervention." In describing the clitic phenomena of Sin we have relied on standard references such as Derbyshire (1993), Lencek (1982), Priestly (1993), and Toporisic (1976), as well as on Bennett (1986), which provides valuable information about differences between Sin and SC. Thanks are also especially due to M. Pirnat-Greenberg and M. Golden for providing judgments and checking the Sin examples. For a good informal introduction to the language, readers are referred to Albretti (1995). The presentation, as for all the languages, follows the model set by SC in the preceding section. Because Sin is so genetically close to SC, we also to some extent concentrate on pointing out aspects of the Sin clitic system that differentiate it from that of SC. Interestingly, it turns out that there are quite a few properties that Sin shares with its closest WS1 neighbors, Czech and Slovak.

2.2.1 Verbal auxiliary clitics Sin has clitic auxiliaries used in the formation of compound tenses. As finite forms, these auxiliaries agree with the nominative subject in person and


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

number features, where the latter includes a dual in addition to the standard singular and plural. Table 2.712 illustrates the forms for past and future auxiliaries, both based on biti 'to be'. TABLE 2.7 Copula/past and future tense auxiliary clitics (Slovenian) Biti 'to be' Past Future sem* Isg bom si 2sg bos bo 3sg je Idual 2dual Sdual

sva sta sta

bova bosta bosta

smo bomo Ipl ste 2pl boste so bodo/bojof 3pl *In the linguistic literature sem is sometimes represented as "sam," with a schwa, to reflect its pronunciation. Note that sem is pronounced with a schwa even when emphatic, hence tonic. \Bojo is the colloquial variant. There is also a more archaic paradigm built on the bod- stem: bodem, bodes, etc.

Note that no full forms are given, as the full forms are simply the stressless clitics with some accent. As they are segmentally identical, the verbal auxiliary clitics can be understood as being straightforwardly derived from full form auxiliaries through the deletion of prosodic structure. These forms combine with /-participles to form the past, future, and pluperfect tenses, although the latter, as in (27e), is highly literary. Example (27) provides some simple illustrations of past and future auxiliaries in compound tenses. (27) a. Vse to sem ze navsezgodaj spoznal. all that aux.lSG already early in the morning know.PRT13 'I have known all that early in the morning.' (Bennett 1986) b. Sedeli smo za mizo in smo cakali. sit.FRT aux.lPL at table and aux.lPL wait.PRT 'We sat at the table and waited.' c. Ali bo Davor jutri sel pogledat stanovanje?14 Q fut.SSG Davor tomorrow go.FRT look.sup apartment 'Will Davor go to look at the apartment tomorrow?' 12

The accentuation diacritics in Sin used here encode quality and quantity, but not tone: x stressed short vowel; e and 6 stressed long open e and o; x other stressed long vowels. 13 Because in Sin, as in Polish, {-participles such as sel are used with both past and future auxiliaries, we gloss them as verb stems + ".PUT." 14 Pogledat is a supine rather than an infinitive. These are used after verbs of motion.


South Slavic: Slovenian d. Vsi bodo dosegli svoj cilj. all fut.SPL reach.PRT self's goal 'Everyone will reach his goal.' e. Jaz sem go, bil pohvalil. I aux.lSG him.ACC be.PRT praise.FRT 'I had praised him.'

The past auxiliary is identical to the present copula, as in (28a), and the future auxiliary is also the future copula, as in (28b). (28) a. Tukaj sva na plazi. here be.lou on beach 'Here we are on the beach.' b. Nocoj bo zanimivo. tonight fut.SSG interesting 'It will be interesting tonight.' As can be seen from these examples, these clitics appear in second position although, as discussed later, the instantiation of Wackernagel effects is quite different in Sin from that found in SC and there is also the curious possibility of having clitics in phonologically initial position. The negated forms of verbal auxiliaries in Sin are always full forms. For the sake of completeness, we provide them in Table 2.8. The negated forms of the future auxiliary are stressed on the second element and hence are not clitics. The negated copula/past auxiliary forms begin with stressed ni rather than ne; negated forms of imeti 'to have' are similar: imam, imas 'I have', 'you have', but nimam, nimas 'I do not have', 'you do not have'. Note that ni+je has a special realization as ni. Example (29) provides some sample sentences with negated auxiliaries, from Toporisic (1976:538), which clearly demonstrate that the negated auxiliaries are not clitics. TABLE 2.8 Negated past and future tense auxiliaries (Slovenian) Biti 'to be' Future Past ne bom nisem Isg ne bos nisi 2sg ni ne bo 3sg Idual 2dual 3dual

nisva nista nista

ne bova ne bosta ne bosta

Ipl 2pl 3pl

nismo nfste m'so

ne bomo ne boste ne bodo/ne bqjo


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

(29) a. Janez mu go, se ni dal. Janez him.DAT it.ACC still neg-aux.3SG give.PRT 'Janez still did not give it to him.' b. Janezu pa se ne bom dal. Janezu.DAT but still neg fut.lSG give.PRT 'But I won't give any (it) to Janez yet.' In (29a) and (29b) the negated auxiliary appears to the right of second position; hence it cannot be a Wackernagel clitic. Moreover, in (29a) ni, which is stressed, is separated from the pronominal clitic cluster by the adverb se 'still', as ne bom (also stressed) in (29b) is separated from the second-position clitic pa 'but'. As in SC, the negated auxiliaries can appear initially or host other clitics, as in (30). (30) a. Nisem pogledal danasnje poste. neg-aux.lsc look.FRT today's mail 'I haven't looked at today's mail.' b. Ne bo mi treba skrbeti, da se bom neg aux.Ssc me.DAT need worry.iNF C refl fut.lSG zredil! gain-weight. P RT 'I won't need to worry that I am putting on weight.' In both examples the negated auxiliary is initial, and in (30b) it hosts the dative clitic mi. Also as in SC, the auxiliary and pronominal clitics form an indivisible cluster. Note in this regard that in the da-clause in (30b) the future auxiliary bom appears as expected as the final element of the clitic cluster, which is itself in second position, immediately following the complementizer da. Similarly, the affirmative version of (29a) with clitic je requires adjacency to the pronominal string mu ga, as in (31a). (31) a. Janez mu ga je se dal. Janez him.DAT it.ACC aux.SSG still give.PRT 'Janez still gave it to him.' b. *Janez mu ga se je dal. This completes the survey of verbal auxiliary clitics; note that we include the modal in section 2.2.3 because, as in colloquial SC, it does not conjugate for person or number. We now turn to the pronominal clitics of Sin.

2.2.2 Pronominal clitics Slovenian boasts a rich set of pronominal clitics that encompasses accusative, genitive, and dative in all combinations of person, number, and gender carried

South Slavic: Slovenian


by the full pronouns. This richness is enhanced by the existence of dual, as well as singular and plural, number on the pronominal forms. Also, in addition to the clitic and full forms of the pronouns, Sin has bound forms that are illustrated briefly later. Table 2.9 summarizes these forms. Example (32) provides some additional sentences with pronominal clitics, drawn from Derbyshire (1993). (32) a. Prinesla mu jo je. bring.PRT him.DAT it/her.ACC aux.SSG 'She brought it/her to him.' b. Prinesel sem ji jo. bring.PRT aux.lSG her.DAT it/her.ACC 'I brought it/her to her.' c. Ali mi go, bos dal? Q me.DAT it.ACC fut.2SG give.PRT 'Will you give it to me?' d. Ni se nam posrecilo. neg-aux.3sc refl we.DAT succeed.PRT 'We did not succeed.' These simple examples are representative of the clitic ordering in Sin. In (32a) versus (32b) we see that the 3SG auxiliary appears at the opposite end of the pronominal clitics, and in (32d) we see that the (presumably) accusative reflexive se clitic precedes the dative nam; note that ni counts as a full form and hosts the clitic cluster. The "bound" forms are special accusative pronouns that can be attached to most prepositions, as in (33). Comparable use is also found in Croatian variants of SC. (33) a. zanj 'for him' b. nadnje 'over them' c. nadenj 'over him' Note that the nonsyllabic preposition v 'in' has a special allomorph va before bound pronouns, as in (34). (34) a. vame 'into me' b. vanj 'into him/it' That the preposition + clitic unit is tonic and not part of the clitic cluster can be easily seen in examples such as (35), where the prepositional phrase is separated from the clitics. (35) Zal mi je bilo zanj. sorry me.DAT aux.3SG be.PRT for-him.ACC 'I was sorry for him' There are no bound forms for first and second person dual or plural.

TABLE 2.9 Pronominal clitics (Slovenian) Accusative Full Clitic Bound mene Isg -me me -te tebe 2sg te njega ga 3sg m/n -(e)nj* njo -njo 3sgf jo

Genitive Clitic Full me mene te tebe ga njega nje je

Dative Clitic Full mi mem ti tebi mu njemu njej/nji Ji

Idual 2dual Sdual

naju vaju njiju/njih

naju vaju Wjih

— — -nju

naju vaju njiju/njih

naju vaju ju/jih

nama vama njfma

nama vama jima

Ipl 2pl 3pl

nas vas njih

nas vas jih

— — -nje

nas vas njih

nas vas jih

nam vam njim

nam vam jim

si sebi sebe se sebe -se Refl se *A schwa is inserted before nonsyllabic nj after prepositions ending in a consonant, e.g., predenj '(to) before him'.

South Slavic: Slovenian



Other clitics

We now turn to the various other elements that may be regarded as clitics in Sin and that will be important in characterizing the clitic cluster. One such element is the "optative" particle naj, glossed as "opt," as in (36). (36) a. Naj te on poklice. opt you.ACC he.NOM call 'Let him call you.' b. Rekla mi je, (da) naj te poklicem proti said me.DAT aux.Sso C opt you.ACC call.lSG towards veceru.15 evening 'She said that I should call you towards evening.' 'She told me to call you towards evening.' Although invariably cited as appearing first in the clitic cluster, naj also seems to be able to come last, immediately before the verb, and to appear initially (without the discourse support otherwise required for clause initial clitics in Sin, as described in section 2.2.4). (37) a. Ni vedela, ali se naj smeje all joce. neg-aux.3SG know.PRT Q refl opt laugh.Ssc Q cry.SSG 'She did not know whether to laugh or to cry.' b. A(li) ga naj poklicem? Q him.ACC opt call.lSG 'Shall I call him? c. Reel mu, naj pride. tell.lMPV him.DAT opt come.SsG 'Tell him to come.' d. Naj pride, opt come.SSG 'Let him/her come.' According to M. Pirnat-Greenberg (p.c.), the examples in (37a-b) are colloquial, and in the literary language the order would be naj se and naj ga, respectively. Next consider the modal bi, which as in SC occurs with the Z-participle, as in (38). As in colloquial Croatian, bi does not conjugate for person/number. (38) Mislil sem si, da bi jim jih vrnil think.PRT aux.lsG refl.DAT C cond them.DAT them.ACC return.PRT drugic. second-time 'I thought that he would return them to them some other time.' 15

In embedded clauses containing naj, da is optional.


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics A past conditional use of bi, from Toporisic (1976), is shown in (39).

(39) Dal bi jo bil v kaksno solo ... give.PRT cond her.ACC be.PRT in some-kind school 'He would have put her in some kind of school ...' Example (40), from Toporisic (1976) and cited by Priestly (1993), shows both naj and bi, in that order. (40) Prosi, da naj bi se mu ne smejali. ask.SSG C opt cond refl him.DAT neg laugh.PRT 'She/He asks them not to laugh at him.' Combining negation, which always precedes the finite verb in Sin,16 with bi suggests that this element can be treated either as a modal particle or as a verb. In (40) we see the former option, with ne immediately before smejali, but the latter option, as in (41), is also possible. Notice crucially that when negation targets bi, as in (41), the resulting ne + bi complex is no longer part of the clitic string. An additional example to illustrate the variable status of bi is given in (42).17 (41) Naj se mu ne bi smejali. opt refl him.DAT neg cond laugh.PRT 'Let them not laugh at him.' 16

Bennett (1986) gives two examples with negated infinitivals where the negation does not immediately precede the verb. (Examples (i.a) and (i.b) are cited as one complex example in Bennett (1986).) M. Golden (p.c.) claims that ne does not have to precede the infinitive as strictly as it does a finite verb. In SC the ne would have to be proclitic on the infinitive: ne bojati se vise, ne nadati se vise. (i) a. ne se vec bati neg refl any-more fear.lNF 'not to be afraid any more' b. ne vec upati neg any-more hope.INF 'not to hope any more' M. Golden provides the data in (ii) to illustrate the difference between finite and imperative verbs, to which ne is always enclitic, and infinitivals, which allow and even prefer clitics to intervene between ne and the verb. (ii) a. Ne razumete me narobe. neg understand.2PL me.GEN wrong 'You do not understand me wrong.' (cf. *Ne me razumete narobe.) b. Ne razumite me narobe. neg understand.IMPV me.GEN wrong 'Do not understand me wrong.' (cf. *Ne me razumite narobe.) c. Ne me razumeti narobe ... neg me.GEN understand.iNF wrong 'To not understand me wrong ...' (cf. Ne razumeti me narobe ...) 17 W. Browne (p.c.) points out that some Slovene sources suggest that there is a difference in meaning between (42a) and (42b), although the exact nature of this difference is unclear.

South Slavic: Slovenian


(42) a. Jaz ne bi mogel ... I neg cond can.PRT 'I couldn't b. Jaz bi ne mogel ... Although this completes the inventory of elements that are standardly listed as constituting the clitic cluster, some other little words may actually also be in the string of clitics. One fairly frequent such word is pa 'and, but', as in (43). (43) a. Tebi se pa se ne mudi zeniti. you.DAT refl but still neg delay marry.lNF 'And you are still in no hurry to get married.' b. V srcih pa smo bill stari. in hearts but aux.lPL be.PRT old 'But in our hearts we were old.' c. ..., pa se ji ne mudi s kruhom. but refl her.DAT neg delay with bread ' ..., and so she is in no hurry with the bread.' The examples in (43), cited by Toporisic (1976), reveal that pa seems to come either at the beginning or the end of the clitic string, although the restrictions are unclear. Although pa can be initial in (43c), so that it precedes se in (43a) is not acceptable, as in (44a); in (43b), on the other hand, pa comes first, yet the reverse order is also acceptable, as in (44b).18 (44) a. Tebi pa se se ne mudi zeniti. b. V srcih smo pa bill stari. It cannot, however, break up the clitic cluster.


Placement and ordering

We have already noted some striking differences in clitic placement and ordering between Sin and SC. Addressing first the issue of placement, it is clear that Sin like SC is a Wackernagel position language, although second position seems to be defined more rigidly in syntactic terms. That is, the Sin clitics cluster together after the first major constituent of the clause, but they do not split phrases as they can in SC. Bennett (1986) demonstrates this conclusion by citing pairs in a parallel text such as (45) and (46). (45) a. ... in moje srce je bilo veselo. [Sin] and my heart aux.SSG be.PRT happy ' . . . and my heart was happy.' 18

Browne (1994) summarizes some of the complexities associated with pa.


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics b. ... i moje se srce obradovalo. [SC] and my refl heart rejoiced

(46) a. Gresnik in maloprida je bil ze sinner and good-for-nothing aux.SSG be.PRT already ob svojem prvem koraku. [Sin] from his first step 'He was a sinner and a good-for-nothing from his very first step.' b. Gresnik je i nevaljalac bio sinner aux.SSG and good-for-nothing was od svog prvog koraka. [SC] from his first step In (45), splitting the adjective off of the subject noun phrase is possible in SC but not in Sin; similarly in (46) the clitic can (but need not) appear after the first conjunct in SC, but not in Sin. Clearly, then, the 2W position exhibited by SC is not found in the modern language, although it existed in older Sin.19 In chapters 6 and 12 we consider relevant comparative facts and analyses. Following the "remnant topicalization" account of split constituents in SC in Franks and Progovac (1994) and Wilder and Cavar (1994), we propose that modern Sin (and Cz) independently lack the word order permutations requisite for the kinds of superficially split clitic phenomena displayed by SC. On the other hand, Sin countenances a surprising degree of clitic first, a possibility completely unknown in SC. The frequency of clitic first is commented on by most sophisticated grammarians, such as Priestly (1993) and Toporisic (1976), although its true extent in the colloquial language is underplayed. Derbyshire (1993) points out that clitic-initial sentences can be created by deleting the understood first word. In (47a-b) the question particle Ali is deleted, and in (47c) the expletive To is missing. (47) a. Si go. videl? aux.2SG him.ACC see.PRT 'Have you seen him?' b. Se je Rajko res porocil? refl aux.SSG Rajko really marry.PRT 'Did Rajko really get married?' c. Se mi je smejal. refl me.DAT aux.SSG laugh.PRT 'He was laughing at me.' 19 Note that Bennett's excerpts are actually not so modern, some dating from 1910. See Bennett and Leeming (1996) and references therein for discussion of the evolution in progress of these and the Polish clitic systems.

South Slavic: Slovenian


Note that these clitics form a single prosodic unit with the verb. This implies that the clitics in Sin are prosodically neutral, able to function as either proclitic or enclitic. In SC, on the other hand, they are only enclitic, so that SC examples comparable to (47) are not possible. These clitics should be distinguished from emphatic forms that resemble clitics but are tonic, as in (48), also provided by Derbyshire (1993:130). In (48) emphatic si and sem are stressed. (48) a. Ali si moj prijatelj? Q be.2SG my friend 'Are you my friend?' b. Sem in ostanem. be.lSG and remain.ISG 'I am and will remain so.' The fact that Sin clitics must be allowed to be proclitic can be seen in the possibility of starting with a clitic after various types of heavy constituent, as in (49) from Bennett (1986:7). (49) a. Tocival bomV je rekel! rest.PRT fut.lSG aux.SSG say.PRT 'I am going to have a rest!, he said.' b. Ko sem se vzdranila, sem lezala na postelji. when aux.lSG refl awake.PRT aux.lsc lie.PRT on bed 'When I awoke, I was lying in bed.' c. Moj prijatelj Peter Kosenina je velik junak. my friend Peter Koshenina be.Ssc big hero 'My friend Peter Koshenina is a big hero.' In (49c) and the second clause in (49a-b), in SC the clitic would appear one word to the right of where it does in Sin. The flexible nature of the Sin clitic can be seen particularly in (49a), where bom is enclitic and je is proclitic. Presumably, Sin clitics are still in syntactic second position, however that is to be defined, but the fact that they can be proclitic means that they can tolerate a pause to their left. That Sin clitics can be proclitic also means that they can tolerate silence, as noted by Priestly (1993:428), who comments that "the 'first' position may also consist of ... one of a number of optionally deleted elements (ranging from particles to noun phrases)." In addition to the examples in (47), some items with clause-initial clitics are given in (50). (50) a. Se bo nadaljevalo. refl fut.SSG continue.PRT '(This article) will be continued.'


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics b. Sem go, videl. aux.lSG him.ACC see.FRT 'I saw him.' c. Bomo videli. fut.lPL see.FRT 'We'll see.' d. Go, pelje kot otroka, in je ubogal. him.ACC lead.SSG like child and aux.Ssc obey.PRT 'She leads him like a child, and he obeyed.'

In example (50a), mentioned by both Toporisic (1976) and Priestly (1993), the subject noun phrase to, clanek 'this article' is missing but understood.20 For (50b), Bennett (1986:9) remarks that "something has been omitted at the beginning of the sentence," such as her 'because'; otherwise the normal order would be to have the verb first. M. Pirnat-Greenberg (p.c.) suggests that (50b) would be appropriate in the context of "confirming the previous statement," as, for example, after a comment such as "Janez lost a lot of weight," so that Janez would be a deleted topic. Although this is a tempting perspective, it is sometimes difficult to see what could have been omitted, particularly in set expressions with clitic first, such as (50c); conceivably mi 'we' is missing here or perhaps to 'it' (W. Browne, p.c.).21 Toporisic (1976:537) offers (50d), where the clitic-initial clause Ga pelje kot otroka 'She leads him like a child' is appropriate because it is a repetition of material from the preceding discourse. This phenomenon is quite robust in Sin. Note that Toporisic actually introduces this example to illustrate that elements such as in 'and', pa 'but', her 'because', and da 'that' can immediately precede the clitics in Sin. However, we suspect that he is lumping together several disparate phenomena: Although it is indeed true and suprising (from the perspective of, e.g., SC) that the clitics can immediately follow the conjunction in, pa is typically itself part of the clitic string and the other elements are probably complementizers and therefore count as being in first position (again, from the perspective of other Slavic languages). Example (51) provides some further illustrations. (51) a. ... in smo prisli v pokrajino. and aux.lPL come.PUT in country ' ... and we came to the country.' b. ... in se mu zasmejem. and refl him.DAT begin-to-laugh.lSG ' ... and I break into a laugh at him.' 20 M. Pirnat-Greenberg (p.c.) points out that (50a) is a standard phrase and that what is missing may be just to or to pisanje. 21 A similar clitic-first fixed phrase is Me veseli 'Pleased to meet you' (lit. 'It pleases me'), with To 'It' dropped. Browne (1994) also discusses these and related issues.

South Slavic: Slovenian


In colloquial Sin these examples would also be acceptable without in, provided adequate context. We thus take examples with in + clitics to be a variant of clitic initial, rather than as an indication that conjunctions are instrumental in determining second position in Sin. The conclusion that in is irrelevant in (51), with discourse topics mi 'we' and jaz T syntactically hosting the clitics but deleted instead, is supported by (45a), in which in clearly does not count, because the clitic je must follow the subject noun phrase. Interestingly, this implies that (45a) cannot really appear as (52a), as there is nothing that could be missing from first position; in this respect it is exactly like SC (52b): (52) a. * ... in je moje srce bilo veselo. [Sin] and aux.SSG my heart be.PRT happy b. * ... i se moje srce obradovalo. [SC] and refl my heart rejoice.PUT It is important to keep in mind that in none of these examples are the clitics stressed. They are instead simply proclitic. However, it is also possible to strand the clitics, in which case the clitics do assume the stress. This is demonstrated by the examples in (53) provided by Priestly (1993:429), who characterizes them as involving "verb phrase reduction." (53) a. Si ze koncal delo? Predvcerajsnjim se ne, aux.2sc already finish.PUT work day-before-yesterday still neg vceraj pa sem ga. yesterday but aux.lSG it.ACC 'Have you finished the work? The day before yesterday I didn't, but yesterday I did (finish it).' b. (Ali) se dobro pocutis? Ja, se. Q refl good feel.2sc yes refl 'Do you feel well? Yes, I do (feel well).' In (53a) the clitic ga is stressed, as is the otherwise proclitic ne, and in (53b) se is; crucially, these do not become the corresponding full forms njega and sebe, although tonic. Example (54) provides a particularly instructive paradigm. (54) a. Ali si si to izmislil? Q aux.2sc refl.DAT this think-up.PRT 'Did you think this up for yourself?' b. Si si izmislil? c. Si si?


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

Example (54b) is derived through deletion of Ali, so that the clitics become proclitic, but (54c) involves verb phrase reduction; hence the second (dative) si must bear the stress, although once again it is not the full form sebi. One might suspect, because stress is the only thing that distinguishes full from clitic auxiliary forms in Sin, that Si in (54c) is really the tonic form, which would then provide a host for the dative clitic. However, this conjecture is easily shown to be false. Aside from the fact that Si lacks stress in (54c), one can construct comparable examples based solely on pronominal clitics, whose full forms are segmentally distinct, as in (55). (55) a. Ali mu ga dajes? Q him.DAT it.ACC give.2sc 'Are you giving it to him?' b. Mu ga? Similarly, a pronominal clitic can even stand on its own, so that in (53b) the affirmation could simply be the (accusative) reflexive clitic se. These examples demonstrate not only that phonological and syntactic cliticization must be divorced from one another, but also that in Sin at least, a "lexical" clitic (i.e., an element with no inherent prosodic structure) can acquire prosodic structure if forced. Whether this is a stable situation or whether it should be taken to indicate a change in progress from clitic to full status remains to be seen. These facts imply that there are no prosodic requirements for Sin clitics. That is, as special clitics they have no lexical prosodic structure and they need to be syntactically supported. However, unlike clitics in the other Slavic languages, Sin clitics do not need phonological support, which means they can tolerate ellipsis on both sides. What these examples demonstrate is not that Sin clitics are prosodically neutral, as they are in Cz or Mac, where most clitics can be either proclitic or enclitic. In Sin they are neither. Example (56) provides further illustrations of this sort of contextually dependent VP-ellipsis, also from Priestly (1993:437-438). (56) a. ... Zdi se mi da ga. seem.Ssc refl me.DAT C him.ACC [Do you understand your neighbor now?] 'I think that I (understand) him.'

b ... Da, zakaj jo jet yes why her.ACC aux.SSG [And why did he stab Clementina more than once?] 'Yes, why did he (stab) her?' c. ... Saj sem ga. but aux.lsc it.ACC [You're beaming as if you had won the jackpot.] 'But I have (won) it.'

South Slavic: Slovenian


Significantly, if the examples in (56) involve VP-ellipsis, then they can be taken as evidence that the clitics are outside the verb phrase. We return to the theoretical significance of this issue in part III. One might finally raise the question of whether the clitics must be preverbal when they are in initial position. Although many examples we have examined indeed have this character, this is accidental and certainly not a prerequisite. Section 3.1 demonstrates that the same holds of colloquial Czech. Thus, for example, putting hot otroka 'like a child' in front of the verb in (50d) would be marked, but for other adverbials, such as lepo 'beautifully', this is perfectly normal, as in (57). (57) Go, lepo pelje ... him.ACC beautifully lead.SSG 'She leads him beautifully ...' Two additional natural examples from spoken Sin of clitic first not followed by the verb, found in Toporisic (1976), are shown in (58). (58)

a. Sem hitro prisel na vrsto za drugimi aux.lSG quickly come.PRT in line behind others 'I quickly entered the line behind the others.' b. Se bo brat ozenil. refl fut.Ssc brother marry.PRT '(My) brother will get married.'

We now turn to the issue of the relative ordering of these elements. The template in Table 2.10 is fairly standard. A representatively complex example can be seen in (40), repeated as (59). TABLE 2.10 Ordering (Slovenian) NAJ > BI/PAST AUX* > REFL > DAT > ACC > GEN > PUT AUX/JE *Except je, which always goes last in the clitic cluster, in the same slot as the future auxiliary.

(59) Prosi, da naj bi se mu ne smejali. ask.SSG C opt cond refl him.DAT neg laugh.PRT 'She/He asks them not to laugh at him' That accusative precedes genitive is demonstrated by uciti 'to teach' or oropati 'to rob, to deprive', which take accusative and genitive arguments.22 22 Sin uCiti also allows two accusative arguments. This is similar to SC uciti, with which for many speakers both arguments can be accusative, as in (i) (in addition to the frame where the subject matter being taught is dative, as in (ii)). The former is the preferred option.


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

(60) a. Ucil




teach.PRT her.ACC it.GEN aux.Ssc 'He taught her it.' b. Oropali so ga je. deprive.pRT aux.SPL him.ACC it/her.GEN 'They deprived him of it/her.'

The examples in (61) demonstrate that reflexive arguments, regardless of case, precede all other pronominals. (61) a. Predstavil sem se mu. introduce.PRT aux.lSG refl.ACC him.DAT 'I introduced myself to him.' b. Kupil sem si ga. buy.PRT aux.lSG refl.DAT him.ACC 'I bought it/one for myself.' Note that reflexives in Sin behave differently than in SC, but, as we shall see in chapter 3, resemble reflexives in Cz. Finally, we should mention that like SC, the possibility of clitic climbing out of infinitival complement clauses also exists in Sin. Priestly (1993:429) gives the examples in (62a-b), with subject control, but stars (62d), with a perception verb complement, in favor of (62c).23 (62) a. Vceraj ju je hotel poklicati. yesterday them-dual.ACC aux.Ssc want.PRT call.lNF 'Yesterday he wanted to call them both.' b. Vceraj se je pozabil umiti.24 yesterday refl.ACC aux.SSG forget.PRT wash.INF 'Yesterday he forgot to wash himself.' c. Danes sem slisal sestro smejati se. today aux.lSG hear.PRT sister.ACC laugh.iNF refl 'Today I heard (my) sister laugh.' d. *Danes sem se slisal sestro smejati. today aux.lSG refl.ACC hear.FRT sister.ACC laugh.iNF (i)

Marko je ucio Petra matematiku. [SC] Marko aux.SSG taught Petra.ACC math.ACC 'Marko taught Peter math.' (ii) Marko je ucio Petra matematici. [SC] Marko aux.SsG taught Petra.ACC math.DAT 'Marko taught Peter math.' 23 Sln, like Cz and Croatian, is typologically unusual in allowing the Ger pattern of "Exceptional Case Marking" into perception verb complements, although none of them have "believe"-type verbs. See Franks (1998a) for discussion and analysis. 24 Note that je cannot be dropped here; unlike SC, Sin has no contractions of auxiliary + pronominal clitic complexes.

South Slavic: Slovenian


Interestingly, if the embedded accusative subject is a clitic in the perception verb structure, then not only is it part of the matrix clitic cluster but other clitic arguments of the lower verb can (and must in the modern language, according to M. Pirnat-Greenberg, p.c.) also climb, as in (63). (63) a. Videl sem go, jo kupovati. see.PRT aux.lSG him.ACC it.ACC buy.iNF 'I saw him buy it.' b. Slisal sem jih jo peti. hear.FRT aux.lSG them.ACC it.AGO sing.iNF 'I heard them sing it.' The contrast between these and (62d) is curious. M. Pirnat-Greenberg (p.c.) suggests a parsing account, in that processing (62d) could be obfuscated by the availability of the reflexive clitic from the embedded verb as an apparent argument of the matrix verb. This idea is supported by the fact that the best way to say 'I heard Janez sing it' is with Janeza initial, as in (64). (64) Janeza sem jo slisal peti. Janez.ACC aux.lSG it.ACC hear.PUT sing.INF 'I heard Janez sing it.' Although other variants are marginally possible, no acceptable version of this sentence allows jo to be higher than Janeza. Note that the ungrammaticality of (62d) is eliminated if the direct object of the perception verb is itself a reflexive clitic, as in (65). (65) Slisal sem se smejati. heard aux.lSG refl.ACC laugh 'I heard myself laugh.' In (65), the reflexive se of the lower clause has climbed into the matrix clause, at which point the series se se merges phonologically into a single se. As with SC (and, as we shall see, Cz), Sin clitic climbing demonstrates a "no crossing" constraint. As such, a sentence like (66a) has the grammatical counterpart in (66b), because ga and mu can climb out of the supine complement clause and into the matrix clause without crossing the auxiliary clitic sem. However, a sentence such as the one in (67a) does not allow clitic climbing because se and mu would have to cross the matrix direct object clitic jo. (66) a. ... da sem sel prevajat mu ga. C aux.lSG go.FRT translate.SUP him.DAT it.ACC ' . . . that I went to translate it for him.' b. ... da sem mu ga sel prevajat.


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

(67) a. ... da sem jo poslal opravicit se mu. C aux.lsc her.ACC send.FRT apologize.SUP refl.ACC him.DAT ' ... that I sent her to apologize to him.' b. * ... da sem se mu jo poslal opravicit. We return to clitic climbing in section 6.3 and chapter 11.

2.2.5 Summary This completes our sketch of the most salient clitic phenomena of Sin. We have seen that although it bears many gross similarities to SC, other aspects of the Sin clitic system are strikingly different and, when Cz is discussed in section 3.1, the resemblance to certain subtleties of clitic placement and ordering in that language will become apparent. Some of the more noteworthy peculiarities displayed by colloquial Sin that distinguish it from SC are as follows: • Clitics that find themselves in initial position through some process of discourse ellipsis are acceptable. • Clitics that find themselves stranded through some process of VPellipsis are acceptable and can assume the stress. • Clitics cannot "split" phrases. • Reflexive clitics always appear first in the pronominal string. • Future auxiliary clitics pattern with the 3SG auxiliary form je.



There is a major structural split within SSI between the languages examined so far and the two to be treated in this section and the next. Bg and Mac are sometimes lumped together as "East Balkan Slavic" and thus jointly opposed to SC and Sin. The subgroup consisting of Bg and Mac exhibits many structural characteristics that set Bg and Mac off from all the other Slavic languages. They have complex verbal systems, expanding even upon OCS, but as if to compensate for this complication they have radically simplified their case systems. In many ways the resulting balance is reminiscent of English, except, of course, in their clitic systems, which show many Balkan areal features. Bg and Mac share many properties, essentially constituting a dialect continuum from Torlak "Serbian" of Prizren-Timok to the borders of the SSI speaking area with Greek, Romanian, and Turkish. For this reason, in addition to exigencies imposed by certain political and nationalistic agendas, Bg and Mac have often been lumped together in linguistic descriptions. How ever, their clitic systems represent one area in which codification of a standard

South Slavic: Bulgarian


has imposed important differences. This section thus presents the major clitic phenomena of the Bulgarian literary language, which reflects a judicious combination of features from two dominant dialects, an eastern one centered around Tarnovo and a western one centered around the modern capital Sofia. The use of such a hybrid literary language should not, however, cause any problems in describing the clitic system, for there are few if any differences relevant to the clitic system.25 Our survey of the Bg system relies on a variety of written sources, including many recent articles, such as Avgustinova (1994), Miseska-Tomic (1996a, 1997), and Rudin (1997), and reference books, such as Aronson (1968), Hoi man and Kovatcheva (1993), Maslov (1982), Pasov (1994), Scatton (1993), and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences grammar. Many data have also been elicited in consultation with the native speakers acknowledged in the preface.


Verbal auxiliary clitics

Bulgarian only has one set of fully conjugated verbal auxiliary clitics; this is the copula sdm 'be.lsc' shown in Table 2.II.26 Section 2.3.3 presents all other elements that enter into the verbal complex. In addition to their copular use in (68), as in the other Slavic languages these forms also appea with Z-participles, which in Bg enter into a range of compound perfect tenses. Example (69) provides some representative indicative illustrations. TABLE 2.11 Copula/past tense auxiliary clitics (Bulgarian) Sam '(I) am' Clitic* sam Isg si 2sg 3sg e Ipl sme ste 2pl 3pl sa *There are no full forms corresponding to the auxiliary use of sdm in either Bg or Mac.

(68) a. Tova e mojata kniga. this be.3SG my.DEF book 'This is my book.' b. Bolen sdm. sick be.lSG 'I am sick.' 25 Far southwestern Bg dialects share many features with Mac, including the placement of clitics and the use of a three-way distinction in articles. See Alexander (1994) for discussion. 26 The citation form for verbs in Bg is ISG, because this language lacks infinitives.


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

(69) a. Vie ste zabravil/zabravila.27 you aux.2PL forgot.MSG/forgot.FSG 'You forgot.' b. Tazi moda sled tri godini ste e preminala.28 this style after three years will aux.Ssc passed 'In three years this style will have passed.' c. I sled dvajset godini njama da sdm go zabravil.29 and after twenty years neg-will C aux.lsG him.ACC forgot 'And in twenty years I will not have forgotten him.' d. Ako ne bjax se razboljal, tazi prolet stjax if neg was.lSG refl gotten-ill this spring would.lSG da sdm zavarsil universiteta. C aux.lSG finished university.DEF 'If I had not gotten ill, I would have finished the university this spring.' e. Njamase da sdm mu ja pokazvala. neg-would C aux.lSG him.DAT her.ACC showed 'I would not have shown her to him.' 'I almost didn't show her to him.' Example (69a) is present perfect (minalo neopredeleno vreme), examples (69b) and (69c) are future perfect (bddeste predvaritelno vreme), and examples (69d) and (69e) are future preterite perfect (bddeste predvaritelno vreme v minaloto). These are part of a notoriously puzzling and extensive system of potential verb forms that express such features, following Aronson (1967, 1968), as [± confirmed], [± dubitative], and [± reported], in addition to the more familiar ones of tense, aspect, and mood.30 Because the meanings and uses of these various forms are ill-understood and few of them actually involve a verbal auxiliary clitic, we do not reproduce the entire list of possibilities here, let alone attempt to describe them. However, clitics do also occur in perfect forms of the so-called renarrated or reported mood, whose syncretism reduces the standard nine indicative tenses to four; though, according to Aronson (1967:83), these are supplemented by "a series of emphatic forms ... marked 27 Note that the participle in contemporary Bg is singular and agrees with the real gender of the person referred to by the formal address pronoun Vie, rather than being plural as in most other Slavic languages (and as called for by prescriptive sources for Bg (see the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences grammar, Pasov 1994:125, and Scatton 1993:226-227)). 28 On the future auxiliary clitic ste and its negated form njama, see below. 29 We gloss this da, which occurs in compound tenses such as future preterite and future preterite perfect, after the special negative auxiliaries njama and njamase, and in various renarrated forms, as C although it is best analyzed as part of the I(nfl) system because it can occur after complementizers and wh-phrases (see Rivero 1994, Rudin 1985, and Terzi 1992). 30 The /-participle forms are analyzed as "nonconfirmative," whereas simple past aorists and imperfectives are marked as [+ confirmed]; [± dubitative] is a distinction found exclusively within the renarrated mood. See Aronson (1967) for details.

South SJavic: Bulgarian


by the presence of the particle bil." It should be noted that there is only a minor formal difference with nonreported and reported participles: Only in the former are the 3SG and 3PL verbal auxiliary clitics e and so overt. That is, in the present perfect indicative the auxiliary occurs consistently, whereas in the renarrated mood it is null for 3RD person,31 so that 1ST and 2ND person renarrated forms temporally corresponding to the aorist are identical to perfect tense indicative forms. Because renarrated usage tends to be 3RD person, overt auxiliaries are not as common. Some examples adapted from Alexandrova (1997) are seen in (70). (70) a. Ne sme bill razbirali poetite. neg aux.lPL were.REN understood poets.DBF '(It is said that) we have not understood the poets.' b. Nego ne go bill pokanili prijatelite rim. him.ACC neg him.ACC were.REN invited friends.DEF him.DAT '(It is said that) his friends have not invited him.' The auxiliary also appears in the second part of compound renarrated forms, i.e., those with da, such as (71), as only the first /-participle is technically "renarrated." (71) a. Toj stjal da e procel knigata. he will.REN C aux.Ssc read book.DBF '(It is said that) he will have read the book.' b. Njamalo bilo da sam bil platjal. neg-would was.REN C aux.lSG was paid '(It is said that) I had not paid.' As stated previously, we put these complexities aside, as no new verbal clitics are introduced. In addition, no table is given for the negated auxiliary forms of sam, because they are identical to those in Table 2.11 except that the auxiliary is preceded by the negative element ne and the auxiliary clitic is stressed. Notice, however, that Bulgarian ne always causes the word following it to be stressed, even when this word is otherwise a clitic. This fact will be important in determining the placement of the interrogative marker li.


Pronominal clitics

We now introduce the pronominal clitic system of Bg. Table 2.12 gives the full range of forms. 31 In Western dialects this is not obligatory; that is, there can be an overt 3RD-person auxiliary in the renarrated mood. In addition, in these dialects the forms with bil can indicate pluperfect, in addition to renarrated mood. These same dialects have perfect aux + participle forms available as simple past tense forms. (Thanks to R. Izvorski (p.c.) for helpful discussion.)


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

TABLE 2.12 Pronominal clitics (Bulgarian) Accusative/Objective Clitic Pull men(e) me Isg te teb(e) 2sg nego 3sg m/n go neja 3sgf vi Ipl 2pl 3pl

nas vas tjax

ni vi gi

Dative/Oblique Pull* Clitic mi (mene) ti (tebe) mu (nemu) (nej) it (nam) (vam) (tjam)

ni vi im

sebe si se Ren (sebe si) si *The dative full forms are archaic and are now replaced by the the preposition na plus accusative full form. fThe diacritic on the clitic is purely orthographical; it distinguishes the clitic from the conjunction. Nouns no longer decline for case in Bg, except for the vocative.32 As can be seen, even for pronouns the case system of modern Bg is highly limited, so that there is only an opposition between nominative (not shown), accusative (or "objective"), and dative (or "oblique"), with the latter having recently become analytic for full forms. The clitics, on the other hand, are widespread and flourishing, as can be seen in (72). (72) a. Vzex mu gi. took.lSG him.DAT them.ACC 'I took them from him.' b. Ti trjabva da me razberes. you must C me.ACC understand.2SG 'You must understand me.' c. Nakaraj go da dojde. make him.ACC C come.SSG 'Make him come.' d. Blagodaren sdm vi. thankful be.lSG you.DAT 'I am grateful to you.' e. Toj napisa pismo na majka si i i he wrote.3SG letter to mother self.DAT and her.DAT go izprati. it.ACC sent.SSG 'He wrote a letter to his mother and sent it to her.' 32 The masculine definite article reflects case, but this is purely an artificial construct of the literary language.

South Slavic: Bulgarian


f. Az mu ja davam knigata na deteto. I him.DAT it.ACC give.lSG book.DEF to child.DEF 'I give the book to the child.' Of particular interest is the phenomenon of clitic doubling, treated in chapter 7. Clitic doubling in Bg and Mac is noteworthy in that no preposition is required to case-license the associate, as it is in the more familiar Romance type of clitic doubling. The factors that conspire to allow, force, or prohibit clitic doubling are the subject of much recent work, such as Dimitrova-Vulchanova (1993), Vakareliyska (1994), Rudin (1997), Alexandrova (1997), various unpublished papers by John Leafgren, and especially Guentcheva (1994). According to Rudin, clitic doubling occurs in Bg when the associate noun phrase is both topicalized and specific. Some standard examples from the literature are given in (73). (73) a. Decata ja obicat neja. children.DEF her.ACC love.3PL her.ACC 'The children love her.' b. Na vas ste vi otmerja drugo po-xubavo. for you will you.DAT measure-off another nicer 'For you I'll measure off another, better (piece).' c. Na Svetozar mu xrumna edna misal. to Svetozar him.DAT dawned.3SG one thought 'A thought occurred to Svetozar.' d. Ivan go tarsjat. Ivan him.ACC seek.SPL 'They are looking for Ivan.' e. Ste ti kaza az na tebe koj e predatel. will you.DAT tell.lSG I to you who be.Ssc traitor 'I will tell you who's a traitor.' Alexandrova (1997) points out apparent exceptions to the specificity requirement, such as generics, as in (74a), and interrogatives, as in (74b); these issues are also raised by Guentcheva (1994). (74) a. Uvazavat go edin ucitel zaradi vseotdajnostta mu. respect.3PL him.ACC one teacher for devotion.DBF his 'A teacher is respected for his devotion.' b. Kogo kazvas sa go uvolnili? who.ACC say.2SG aux.SPL him.ACC fired 'Who do you say they fired?' Although in general Rudin's characterization of doubling as spelling out agreement for topicalized, specific associates seems appropriate, such colloquial examples are problematic and perhaps indicate change in progress.


A Handbook of Slavic Clitics

Doubling in interrogatives should be particularly troubling, because wh-questions are focused, not topicalized. In all the previous examples clitic doubling is, at least superficially, optional. In other well-known instances doubling of direct and indirect objects is obligatory. Example (75) provides some illustrations. (75) a. Mene me e jad. me me.ACC be.SSG angry 'I am angry.' b. Na nego mu e macno. to him him.DAT be.SSG homesick 'He is homesick.' c. Na nego mu se spi. to him him.DAT refl sleep.3SG 'He is sleepy.' d. Ivan go njama. Ivan him.ACC neg-have.3SG 'Ivan is not (here).' e. Eto go Ivan, there him.ACC Ivan 'There's Ivan.' f. Blagodarna sam, ce gi ima decata, thankful be.lsc that them.ACC has children.DEF ce te ima teb. that you. AC c has you 'I am thankful that there are the children, that there is you.'

These are all impersonal sentences in that there is no nominative subject and the verb shows 3SG agreement. Conceivably, the associates are all necessarily topics, although it also seems reasonable to regard the clitic as an agreement marker indicating the case of the associate. Notice that the loss of case outside the clitic system can be seen in Pasov's (1994:88) admonition against the "relatively common mistake" of using nominative for the topic instead of accusative or dative in various impersonal constructions. Compare substandard (76a), (76b), and (76c) with (75a), (75b), and (75c).

(76) a. Az me e jad. I.NOM me.ACC be.SSG angry 'Me, I am angry.' b. Toj mu e macno. he.MOM him.DAT be.SSG homesick 'Him, he is homesick.'

South Slavic: Bulgarian


c. Toj mu se spi. he.NOM him.DAT refl sleep.SSG 'Him, he is sleepy.'

It is probably no coincidence that obligatory doubling occurs for the oblique "logical subjects" in (75) and that these same arguments are realized nonnormatively in the nominative.33 Consider finally that as expected, doubling is impossible in most nonspecific, nontopicalized contexts, as in (77a). Alexandrova (1997) cites the interesting example of an idiom with a definite direct object in (77b). (77) a. Tarsjat (*go) nov ucitel. seek.SPL him.ACC new teacher 'They are looking for a new teacher.' b. Xvarli (*