A Syntax of Serbian : Clausal Architecture 9780893573225, 0893573221

Citation preview

ÍHÍÍ1ÍH

A

Syntax of Serbian

Clausal Architecture

Liiljana Procovac

SLAVICA

A Syntax of Serbian Clausal Architecture

Ljiljana Progovac

Bloomington, Indiana, 2005

First published in 2005. Copyright © 2005 by the author. All rights reserved.

ISBN 0-89357-322-1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Progovac, Ljiljana A syntax of Serbian : clausal architecture / Ljiljana Progovac. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-89357-322-1 (alk.paper) Serbian language—Clauses. 1. Serbian language—Syntax. 2.

I. Title.

PG1313.P766 2005 491.8’25—dc22

2005014267

Slavica Publishers Indiana University 2611 E. 10th St. Bloomington, IN 47408-2603 USA

[Tel.] 1-812-856-4186 [Toll-free] 1-877-SLAVICA [Fax] 1-812-856-4187 [Email] [email protected] [www] http://www.slavica.com/

Contents

Preface....................................................................................................................... ...

1.

Introduction ...........................................................................................................

1.1. 1.2. 2.

Word Order and Movement ......................................................................... 11 2.1. 2.2. 2.3.

2.4.

2.5. 2.6. 2.7.

3.

The Rationale ........ 1 Chapter-by-Chapter Overview ................................................................ 5

Introductory Words .............................................................................. 11 Varied Word Order andCopy-and-Delete ...................................... 12 Wh-Movement ............................................................................................ 18 2.3.1. Single WA-Movement and Non-Movement Strategies .. 18 2.3.2. Subjunctive-Like Verbs and Domain Extension ........... 22 2.3.3. Multiple Wh-Questions ..........................................................25 Verb Raising............................................................................................... 30 2.4.1. Verb Raising to I.........................................................................30 2.4.2. Verb Raising to C ..................................................................... 34 Quantifier Raising.......... j......................................................................... 35 NP Movement: Raising andPassive ..................................................... 38 Concluding Remarks .............................................................................. 42

CPs and/or Polarity Phrases .......................................................................... 43 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6.

Introductory Words ............................................................................ 43 Split CP ........................................................................................................ 45 An Alternative to CP: PolarityPhrase ............................................ 49 Wh-/Polarity Connection ........................................................................ 52 Eventive To ................................................................................................ 54 Concluding Remarks .............................................................................. 56

jj

4.

Contents

Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases, and the Expletive Se................... 57 4.1. 4.2.

4.3.

Introductory Words ....................... 57 Tense Phrases ......................................................................................... 58 4.2.1. TSP and TOP ............................................................................. 58 4.2.2. Tenses in Serbian .......................................................................59 4.2.3. Concluding Remarks ............................................................. 64 AgrsPs and AgroPs: Nominative, Accusative, Dative ..................64

4.3.1. 4,3.2.

4.4.

4.5.

5.

4.3.3. Agr0 Phrase ................................................................................. 70 4.3.4. Dative Subjects andDative Objects ..................................... 72 Expletive Se.................................................................................................80 4.4.1. Introductory Note ................................................................... 80 4.4.2. AgroP and Se.............................................................................. 80 4.4.3. Impersonal Se ............................................................................. 87 Concluding Remarks .............................................................................. 89

Aspect Phrases ..................................................................................................... 91

5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 6.

Introductory Words ................................................................... 64 Agrs Phrase (and Pro-Drop) .......... '............. 65

Introductory Words ............................................................................ 91 Perfective and Imperfective in Serbian ............................................ 94 Perfective Prefixes, Quantification, andAspoP ............................. 98 Imperfective Suffixes, Quantification, and AspsP..................... 106

Completion and Transitivity ............................................................. 113 Concluding Remarks .......................................................................... 122

At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics ....................... 125 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 6.6.

6.7.

Introductory Words .......................................................................... Full vs. Clitic Forms ....... Special Positioning and Clustering ............................................. Stress or Structure: Is There a First-WordOption? ................. Intonation (and Clause) Boundaries ....................................... It Can’t Be the First Word: Evidence from Event Demonstrative To ..................................................................... 141 Subjunctive-Like Complements, Clitic Climbing, and Other Movement Operations ............................................ 146

125 126 131 136 140

Contents

Clitic-Second and Verb-Second: The Connection .................. 6.8.1. Verb-Second ........................................................................... 6.8.2. Clitics Target the Highest Clausal Head ........................ 6.9. Clitics as Affixes on a Silent Copy of the Verb...................... 6.9.1. An Outline of the Analysis ................................................ 6.9.2. Clitic-Second and the Lexical Verb ............................. 6.9.3. Clitic-Second and the Auxiliary Verb ........................... 6.9.4. Clitic-Second andComplementizers ................................ 6.10. Concluding Remarks ........................................................................ 6.8.

7.

147 147 148 149 149 152 156 161 166

Negative Concord, Polarity, and the Two PolPs ................................. 167 7.1. 7.2.

7.3. 7.4. 7.5. 7.6. 7.7. 8.

iii

Foreword .................................................................................................. Introduction: Negativeand Positive Feature Checking and the Distribution of Polarity Items ...................... 7.2.1. Outline of the Analysis ........................................................ 7.2.2. Basic Assumptions about Polarity Phrases .................. 7.2.3. Organization ........................................................................... A-Words and PPIs................................................................................. Serbian z-NPIs and English Any-NPIs ........................................... IWi-Questions and NPIs ...................................................................... W/z-Adjuncts and NPIs .................................................................... Concluding Remarks ...........................................................................

167 167 167 168 170 171 180 185 188 195

Event Pronominal To .............................................................................. 197

8.1. 8.2. 8.3.

8.4. 8.5.

Foreword .................................................................................................. 197 Introduction .......................................................................................... 198 To as an Event Pronominal ............................................................... 199 8.3.1. Introductory Words ............................................................... 199 8.3.2. Deictic To................................................................................ 201 8.3.3. Anaphoric To .......................................................... 204 8.3.4. Bound-Variable To ..................;...................................... 206 TolOvolOno ....................................................................... 209 Concluding Remarks ........................................................................... 211

9. Conclusion ...................................................

References .............................

213

217

Index ..................................................................................................................... 233

Preface

This monograph grew out of my desire to put together various bits and pieces of research on Serbian syntax into a coherent story. In considering the syntactic system as a whole, I was forced to make choices among various theoretical assumptions and analyses, hopefully sharpening the theory itself. In writing the monograph, I was also driven by the desire, or perhaps the need, to give something to, and of, my people. This monograph is dedicated to them. Countless many have contributed to the ideas and conclusions of this monograph. Some acknowledgments are given with individual chapters. Of those who read the manuscript, in part or in whole, I am especially grateful for their comments and encouragement to Zeljko Boskovic, Steve Franks, and Marc Authier. My special thanks go to the anonymous reviewer, as well as to the editor, George Fowler, for sharp comments that literally transformed this monograph from a blurred vision into a focused project. Ana and Stefan—it was your smiles that kept me going :-) Tata Novo, pogledaj primere.

1

Introduction

1.1. The Rationale

A Syntax of Serbian: Clausal Architecture focuses on the functional projec­ tions of the clause in Serbian.1 There is hardly anything in syntax that does not, in some way or another, relate to a functional projection of the clause. In that sense, the clausal functional architecture is the skeleton for syntax. The basic goal is to tie together the description and explanation of syntactic phe­ nomena in Serbian with the theory of Universal Grammar (UG).12 I focus on those phenomena of the grammar of Serbian that have a clear impact on the understanding of Universal Grammar and/or on those phenomena of Serbian grammar whose explanation depends on the understanding of Universal Grammar, It is my belief that many grammatical analyses of Serbian have, contributed, and will continue to contribute, to our understanding of Univer­ sal Grammar and the theory of syntax in general. There are several phenomena in the grammar of Serbian that are typolog­ ically rare, or limited to Serbian, of which I will single out two in this Intro­ duction. The first involves second position cliticization, which bears resem­ blance to Verb-Second, common in many Germanic languages. A great deal of literature is devoted to the issue, and the time is ripe to reap the results. The second phenomenon involves the clausal demonstrative particle that is arguably directly linked to reference to events, and can thus provide insights into the event structure. This phenomenon has gone unnoticed for the most part in the literature, and the chapter devoted to this topic will have as its purpose to plant the seed of analysis, rather than harvest the yield. The chap­ ters will thus be uneven with respect to the certainty of the claims: they will range from reasonably well-established conclusions drawn from abundant lit­ erature, to the phenomena that have hardly been discussed in the literature,

1 The data in this monograph, as well as the data from my papers quoted in the mono­ graph, are drawn from the Serbian variety of what used to be called Serbo-Croatian. I will thus use the term “Serbian” to refer to the language analyzed in my own work, but will use the terms of the original authors when citing their work, including SerboCroatian and Croatian. 2 For an excellent description of Serbian grammar, the reader is referred to Mrazovic and Vukadinovic 1990 (see also Stevanovic 1974).

2

Chapter 1. Introduction

but which nonetheless promise to provide essential insights into Universal Grammar. This monograph adopts the Minimalist Program as its basic framework (Chomsky 1995), Minimalism and its predecessors, such as Government and Binding (Chomsky 1981), have always recognized the importance of looking at one language in depth, and yet most of the recent syntactic research focuses on cross-linguistic comparisons of isolated linguistic phenomena. While the isolated cross-linguistic approach is an essential initial stage, it has to eventu­ ally be accompanied by a comprehensive comparison of the whole system of grammars. It is often the case that various theories can be put forth in order to explain a single phenomenon, but when the phenomenon is embedded in the entire system of grammar, many such theories become unavailable as ex­ planations. Putting things into context, or in this case into a coherent system of grammar, provides insights not only into individual grammars, but also into Universal Grammar, the insights which cannot be gained otherwise. And, as is the case with research in any field, one often has to go back and forth from the isolated phenomenon, to the system, and back. My hope for this book is that it will provide fresh insights into the nature of Serbian syntax and Uni­ versal Grammar, insights which will be relevant enough to be picked apart and then put back together again for a better analysis. By looking at Serbian syntax in depth, I have reached the following main conclusion. The inventory of functional projections can be severely restricted, in fact limited to only morphologically manifested projections, and yet suffi­ cient to accommodate various syntactic phenomena that have otherwise re­ quired a proliferation of such projections. The tension is resolved by allowing each functional projection to have two layers/manifestations: the subject layer and the object layer. It is widely assumed in the Minimalist Program that a clause is headed by several functional projections, which hierarchically dominate the lexical pro­ jection of the Verb, the Verb Phrase. These functional projections are respon­ sible for the representation and interpretation of Tense, Agreement, Aspect, Polarity, etc., and are named accordingly. Although there is no complete con­ sensus regarding which projections exactly dominate VP, it is commonly as­ sumed that the structure of a clause is hierarchical in this way. Moreover, the number and nature of the assumed projections vary little from analysis to analysis. Since functional projections of a clause constitute the skeleton for syntax, it is important to be able to determine their nature, number, and hier­ archical arrangement. This monograph addresses these questions, using Serb­ ian as a point of departure. The basic hypothesis for the structure of the Serbian clause, explored throughout this monograph, is given in the diagram below. The seeds of this analysis are found in Progovac 2001.

1.1. The Rationale

3

(1) PolsP Pols

AspsP Asps

AgrsP TSP

Agrs Ts

PoIqP

Polo

Asp0P

Aspo

AgroP

TOP

Agro To

VP

For each of these functional projections there is overt morphological evi­ dence.3 Thus, PolPs host negation and assertion and check features of polarity sensitive items. AspPs check features of aspectual suffixes and prefixes, both productive in Serbian. TPs host auxiliary verbs and tense specifications. AgrPs host subject/verb agreement and expletive pronouns, as well as check Case features of arguments. Moreover, the object phrases, particularly AgroP, AspoP, or PoloP, have a connection with objective Case marking. A rethinking of the inventory of functional projections in this way may lead to a more restrictive and elegant theory of UG. The tension between the need to accommodate a wealth of data by appealing to new functional projections, and the need to keep UG restrictive, can be alleviated by allowing each pro­ jection to have two basic manifestations, an object phrase, and a subject phrase. At the same time, the inventory of functional projections should be severely restricted to the well-established morpho-syntactic categories only, such as Tense, Agreement, Polarity, and Aspect. This monograph can be taken as a sketch for such a program. In this spirit, the monograph builds an argument to the effect that PolgP subsumes what has traditionally been called a CP, or a Complementizer

3 The proposal in (1) does not necessarily entail that all the projections will be gener­ ated in every single clause. Instead, in the spirit of Minimalism, I assume that func­ tional projections will be projected according to the need. Thus, Agr0P would only be projected in transitive clauses, or clauses in which an accusative feature needs to be checked; AspPs will only be projected if there are aspectual features to be checked, either perfective or imperfective; and so on.

4

Chapter 1. Introduction

Phrase. This move aims at constraining the functional projections only to those which involve clearly established grammatical categories, such as Tense, Agreement, Aspect, and Polarity, while eliminating those which are not asso­ ciated with such grammatical categories, such as CP. It is due to these consid­ erations that I conclude that Serbian does not offer enough evidence, or inde­ pendent evidence, for functional projections such as Topic Phrase or Focus Phrase. It may well be, however, that other languages do. It may also be that the two projections are instances of one, corresponding to the subject vs. object layer of the clause.4 The ordering of the projections in the diagram in (1) is based on the fol­ lowing factors, to be addressed in the subsequent chapters. First, PolPs are proposed to precede other projections given that CP, now reanalyzed as PolsP, is standardly assumed to be the highest projection of the clause. Like­ wise, there is evidence that PoloP precedes the functional projections in the object layer. For example, «-words and other polarity items, which are argued

4 There have been proposals for additional functional projections in Serbian, such as Topic Phrase or Focus Phrase. As for the TopP, consider the following examples discussed in Tomic 1995: - (i) Nalaliju, da li ste videli? NalalijaACC that Q aux seen ‘As for Natalie, have you seen her?’ (ii) Nataliju, muliću lepo, da li ste vidcli? NatalijaACC please nicely that Q aux seen ‘As for Natalie, please, have you seen her?’

(iii)

Noću, ko bi ovde došao? at-night who would here come ‘At night, who would come here?’

The examples illustrate that topicalized phrases can appear at the very beginning of a clause, even higher than w/i-phrases, as in (iii). In a rather obvious sense, a position is available that accommodates these phrases. There are two possibilities here. First, one can assume that there is another functional projection above CP, say TopP, to which topicalized phrases move—the course taken in Tomić 1995. Another possibility is to assume that these topicalized phrases are adjoined to CP, as suggested for examples like (iii) in Progovac 1996. Both approaches have virtues and problems. The problem with assuming a separate functional projection for topicalized constituents is that there is no morphological or other independent evidence for such a projection, al least not in Serbian. To put it another way, there is no well-established morphological category that such a projection would instantiate. On the other hand, assuming an adjunction to CP in these cases is rather ad hoc and unexplanatory. As for the Focus Phrase, non-initial fronted wh -words in Serbian are sometimes taken to target such a position, as in e.g„ Bošković 1997,1998. In Chapter Three 1 ar­ gue that these jvft-data can be captured without a new projection if wh-phrases move to PolP.

1.2. Chapter-by-Chapter Overview

5

in Chapters Two and Seven to raise to the specifier of the PoloP, normally occur higher than regular objects, which are presumably in AgroP. On the other hand, the ordering of clitics suggests that AgrPs, which host pronominal clitics, precede TPs, in which auxiliary clitics are generated (see Chapter Six). AspPs are placed higher than the Agr/T complex for scope reasons. First of all, the aspectual suffixes, arguably checking their features in AspsP, take scope over events and times, and would thus need to scope over Tense (see Chapter Five). Likewise, aspectual prefixes, arguably checking their features in AspoP, must scope over the direct object or the expletive se pronoun, and thus be higher than AgroP. It also seems necessary in Serbian to appeal to a relative notion of “the highest clausal projection.” This relative notion can be defined as the highest projection to which the verb moves, in any language, on the assumption that the verb moves all the way up, in order to check various features in its func­ tional projections. This relative notion is relevant not only for Verb-Second (V-2) in V-2 languages, which exemplify overt verb movement to the highest functional projection, but also for second-position cliticization in Serbian, which is argued in Chapter Six to be parasitic on verb movement to the highest clausal projection. As will be obvious from the description of various chapters, this study relies on the following general theoretical ass umptions/concl usions: theories of feature checking and Copy-and-Delete analysis of movement; assumption that Verb Phrase (VP) is dominated by several functional projections; conclu­ sion that the verb moves through all these clausal functional projections overtly; conclusion that copies other than ultimate can be pronounced; con­ clusion that event structure, as well as aspect, are grammaticalized; assump­ tion that any functional projection can have subject and object layers, such as Agro, an(l Agrs; assumption that any functional projection can have split segments. A brief overview of each chapter follows. 1.2. Chapter-by-Chapter Overview

Chapter Two provides a basic overview of word order possibilities in Serbian, as well as of basic movement rules: IWi-Movement, Verb-Raising, Quantifier Raising, and NP-Movement. All these phenomena receive further attention in the rest of the book, especially Verb-Raising in Chapter Six on clitics and Quantifier Raising in Chapter Seven on negation. The recurring theme of this chapter is that the varied (“free”) word order in Serbian is the result of the possibility to pronounce non-ultimate copies of movement, including copies of Subject and Object Raising to AgrPs for Case checking purposes, and copies of Verb Raising to I or to C. The argument is thus that there is no specific rule of Scrambling, but rather that varied word order is a consequence of other movement rules, combined with the possibility to

6

Chapter 1. Introduction

pronounce non-ultimate copies of movement. This theme will be picked up again in Chapter Six on clitics, where this analysis proves crucial in accounting for second-position cliticization. Chapter Three discusses Polarity Phrases (PolPs) in Serbian and makes a case for the existence of two such phrases: PolsP and Pol0P. The notion of having various functional projections associated with the subject vs. object layer of the clause opens up a rather intriguing possibility, explored gradually in the course of the chapter. Namely, it is argued that CP is a subject-layer Polarity Phrase, or PolsP, while what has traditionally been referred to as NegP is reanalyzed as PoIqP. Further evidence for two PolPs in Serbian is presented in Chapter Seven, which deals specifically with negation and polarity-sensitive items. First, evidence is presented for a split CP projection, namely CP and cp. The outer segment, cp, hosts question formation, including wZz-formation, while the lower segment, CP, hosts truth-conditional adverbials. Negative in­ version in English can also be analyzed as movement to the lower CP. Given the connection between the CP layer of the clause, and the polarity of the clause, it is argued that the lower segment of CP is what is sometimes referred to as a PolP. The connection is reinforced by the argument that Serbian adverbs of assertion appear in this position, as well as English negative inversion. If indeed CP can be reanalyzed as a PolsP, then the PolP above the VP (or NegP, as it is often referred to) would correspond to a PoIqP. Em­ pirically, this move does justice to the long noted observation that CP hosts information relating to the truth-value of the clause. Theoretically, this move substantially reduces the inventory of available functional categories. Chapter Four builds another case for the main thread of this monograph, the claim that all clausal functional.projections come in two layers/manifestations: subject and object. This chapter argues that Tense Phrases and Agree­ ment Phrases in Serbian also come in such two layers. Specifically, it is argued that auxiliaries are generated in TPs, that subject/verb agreement is hosted by Agrs, and that the pronoun se is typically merged in Agro. It is further pro­ posed that both AgrsP and AgroP can have split segments, which are respon­ sible for checking dative Case of subjects and objects, respectively. This chap­ ter also concludes that the reflexive clitic se in Serbian is an expletive pronoun merged in Agr projections, typically Agro, but also in Agrs in impersonal constructions. The analysis subsumes various functions of se, including reflex­ ive, reciprocal, passive, middle, and impersonal. This analysis of se not only firmly establishes the existence of an AgroP projection, but also proves signif­ icant for the analysis of clitic forms of personal pronouns, undertaken in Chapter Six. Chapter Five describes and analyzes the perfective/imperfective patterns of Serbian aspect. Consistent with the basic proposal in this book, I argue that

1.2. Chapter-by-Chapter Overview

7

the aspectual properties of the clause in Serbian are established in two func­ tional projections: AspsP and AspoP, While aspectual prefixation is associ­ ated with AspoP, aspectual suffixation is associated with AspsP. I capture the basic interpretation of aspectual prefixes by invoking quantificational fea­ tures, which are checked in the AspoP. The most productive class of such prefixes, completion prefixes, are analyzed as quantifying universally over the direct object, and thus contributing the interpretation of the whole object being affected. On the other hand, the suffixes of iteration, such as Serbian -iva, are analyzed as contributing the feature of universal quantification, which is checked in AspsP. It follows from this analysis that AspsP suffixes scope over the subject layer of the clause, and thus over times and events, while AspoP prefixes only scope over the object layer of the clause. I adopt this basic analysis of Aspect for the following reasons. First, it captures the fact that there are two general types of aspect in Serbian, but also in other languages: Perfective and Imperfective. This dual representation of aspect comes at no theoretical cost—other projections have also been argued to have such dual manifestations, notably AgrPs. Next, this analysis permits a quantificational analysis of various kinds of aspectual affixes: Iterative, Momentary, Completion, Initiation, etc. The fact that the perfective aspect of completion is tightly linked to transitivity of the clause also finds explanation in the postulation of AspoP. Moreover, the scope properties of perfective prefixes and imperfective suffixes, both with respect to each other, and to objects and events, follow naturally from the hierarchical arrangement of two Aspect Phrases: AspsP and AspoP. If this analysis of aspect is on the right track, it reinforces the general theme of this monograph that clausal functional projections come in two basic layers: subject and object. Chapter Six examines second-position cliticization in Serbian. To study clitics in Serbian is to study how and where all the functional projections of the clause come together. In addition to providing a basic description of the data, this chapter explores a novel analysis of the phenomenon. In particular, it builds on the insight of Chapter Two that non-ultimate copies of movement can be pronounced in Serbian, including the copies of Verb Raising. The basic proposal for the clitics is that they are placed in the various functional projec­ tions, TPs for auxiliary clitics and AgrPs for pronominal clitics, and that they get affixed to the verb as the verb moves through these projections on its way to the highest functional head of the clause. The clitics then travel with the verb overtly to its final destination. The clitics, which can essentially be seen in this analysis as detachable suffixes, are then pronounced in the ultimate landing site of the verb, leaning on any phonological material in the same projection, while the verb itself normally gets pronounced in a non-ultimate copy of movement. This is an important result for a syntactic analysis of se­ cond-position cliticization, given that it is impossible to find motivation for

8

Chapter 1. Introduction

the independent movement of various types of clitics, as diverse as auxiliaries and personal pronouns, into a single high clausal position. This analysis provides the common factor for bringing the various types of clitics together: the verb. In order for this analysis to stand, one important claim needed to be de­ fended: that clitic placement in the second position is indeed syntactic and not phonological. The most convincing, novel argument for the syntactic treat­ ment of Serbian clitics comes from the placement of the event pronominal to with respect to the clitics (see also Chapter Eight for a detailed analysis of to). Chapter Seven, a reprint from Progovac 2005, discusses negation and polarity in Serbian. This chapter also reinforces the conclusions of Chapter Three in that it provides additional support for two PolPs in the Serbian clause: PolsP and PoIqP- Specifically, it extends the work on negative feature checking to include positive feature checking as well. Both positive and nega­ tive items are argued to check their polarity features in a PolP: n-words (morphologically marked negative words) check their [+negative] feature, while positive polarity items check their [-negative] feature. This approach can successfully accommodate the use of various polarity items in questions (including rhetorical questions) and other non-negative polarity contexts. Also, the analysis elegantly captures the long-noted observation that positive polarity items must take scope over local negation, by arguing that they have to raise to the higher PolP, PolsP, in order to check their [-negative] feature. In addition, this analysis paves the way to reanalyzing Quantifier Raising (QR) as polarity feature checking, thus finding motivation for the otherwise stipulative rule of QR. The material in Chapter Eight, which discusses the Serbian event pro­ nominal to, is a partial reprint of Progovac 1998a. The eventive to occurs in a fixed syntactic position, high in the clause, and in Chapter Three I argue that to occupies the lower segment of CP or PolsP. My basic argument is that to is an event pronominal with three basic functions, also exhibited by personal pronouns: deictic, anaphoric, and bound-variable functions. In its deictic use, to introduces a clause, in a way similar to demonstratives. In its anaphoric use, to refers to a previously mentioned event. In its bound-variable use, to is argued to be the spell-out of the bound event pronominal, which constitutes a syntactic reflex of the semantic analysis of adverbials as predicates of events. It is a virtue of this analysis that it can unify the three uses of the event pronominal to. To the extent to which this is the only way to unify the three uses of to, the analysis provides indirect support not only for the underlying quantification over events/states, but also for the syntacticization of certain aspects of this quantification. To my knowledge, there has been no previous attempt at analyzing this pronominal in Serbian, nor have I seen reports of such a pronominal in other

1.2. Chapter-bï-Chapter Overview

9

languages. Not only is this pronoun of considerable theoretical significance, but it also provides vital insights into other phenomena in the syntax of Serb­ ian, especially clitic placement. Since it occurs in a position close to, or next to, the clitics but is not a clitic itself, it provides invaluable evidence that sec­ ond-position cliticization is syntactic in nature (see Chapter Six). Chapter Nine is the Conclusion. It extracts the most important theoretical consequences and themes of the monograph and looks at possible future ex­ tensions, including a possible extension of the basic framework of functional projections into the nominal domain.

2

Word Order and Movement

2.1. Introductory Words

This chapter provides the basic background for word order and movement rules in Serbian, the background which will prove useful for the subsequent chapters. As pointed out in the Introduction (Chapter One), the basic pro­ posal of this monograph is that the clausal skeleton in Serbian involves four functional projections, PolP, AspP, AgrP and TP, each coming in two layers, subject and object (see also Progovac 2001): (1) PolsP

Pols

Aspsp Asps

AgrsP TSP

Agrs

Ts

PoloP

Polo

AspOP

AspO

AgrOP

TOP

AgrO

To

VP

The arguments for this clausal architecture will be offered in subsequent chapters, but it will be against this background that word order and move­ ment will be examined in this chapter. Section 2.2 will explore the so-called free word order in Serbian, from a point of view of a Copy-and-Delete analysis of movement. In fact, the argument will be that there is no specific rule of Scrambling, but rather that varied word order is the by-product of the possibility to pronounce non-ultimate copies of other movement rules, including Verb Raising and Subject and Object Raising. Thus, any reference to scrambling in this monograph will be only in the descriptive sense. Section

Chapter 2. Word Order and Movement

12

2.3 describes and discusses some approaches to wh-movement, including multiple wh-movement, as well as non-movement wh-strategies in Serbian. Section 2.4 concludes that Serbian is a verb-raising language. The fact that the verb in Serbian can surface in various functional heads is again ascribed to the possibility to pronounce non-ultimate copies of movement. Section 2.5 explores a comparable analysis of Quantifier Raising. Finally, section 2.6 points to the limited nature of NP movement in Serbian. 2.2. Varied Word Order and Copy-and-Delete It is generally claimed or assumed that the basic word order in Serbian is free, in the sense that it is common to scramble the basic clausal constituents. The assumption is that SVO is the unmarked order, as illustrated in (2) below, although any permutation of words in (2) yields a grammatical sentence. Among the examples below, (2) would be the only felicitous answer to the neutral question such as Šta se dešava? ‘What’s going on?/What’s happening?’.

(2)

Ana kupuje Ana buys

knjigu. book

‘Ana is buying a book.’

(3) Ana knjigu kupuje. (4) Knjigu Ana kupuje. (5) Knjigu kupuje Ana.

(6)

Kupuje Ana knjigu.

(7)

Kupuje knjigu Ana.

Each of the marked word orders has a particular effect on the inter­ pretation, such as focusing or topicalizing the displaced constituent, and is often accompanied by a marked intonation/stress pattern (see the discussion in Godjevac 2000; also Stojanović 1997). All other things being equal, SVO will thus be considered the unmarked word order in Serbian. One situation in which the order differs from the typical SVO involves quantificational phrases (including negative phrases), which tend to occur in preposed positions, as discussed in some detail in Chapter Seven. Serbian po­ larity-sensitive words, such as niko (‘no one’), iko (‘anyone’), and neko (‘someone’), occur in a higher position in comparison to regular objects. Note that all of these polarity words are also quantifiers?

1 The reviewer points out that regular personal pronouns also prefer to be in preposed positions, and that this might indicate that the phenomenon is not specifically

2.2. Varied Word Order and Copy-and-Delete

13

Non-Quantificational Objects

(8) a.

?On Mariju ne voli. he Mary not loves

‘He does not love Mary? b.

On ne voli He not loves

Mariju. Mary

Quantificational Objects (9) a.

On nikoga he no one

ne voli. NEG loves

‘He loves no one.’ b.

(10) a.

?On ne voli nikoga. On je he AUX

nekoga someone

uvredio. insulted

‘He hurt somebody’s feelings.’

b. (11) a.

?On je uvredio nekoga. Da li that Q

je on ikoga uvredio? AUX he anyone inslulted

‘Did he hurt anybody’s feelings?’ b.

?Da li je on uvredio ikoga?

In Chapter Seven I return to polarity items, and quantifiers in general, and argue that they raise overtly to a Polarity Phrase to check their polarity features. This would capture their distinct ordering.

quantificational. Thus the order in (ii), where the pronoun precedes the verb, is more natural than the order in (i). (i) ?Milena ne voli njega. Milena not likes him (ii) Milena njega ne voli. This particular contrast does not shed much light on the position of pronouns in Serbian because of the marked nature of full pronouns. Due to the existence of clitic pronouns, full pronouns would only be used for emphasis, contrast, topicalization, or other discourse purposes, which would place such pronouns in displaced positions for independent reasons. However, as the reviewer points out, this preference for a higher position for pronouns also holds for other languages, which do not have clitics. The issue of the relative position of personal pronouns versus quantificational DPs would thus be easier to resolve in such a language.

14

Chapter 2. Word Order and Movement

For Universal Grammar, the relevant question is what differentiates rigid from free word order languages, i.e., languages like English from languages like Serbian. In English, only the following two word orders are possible: (12) Ana bought a book. (13) ?A book, Ana bought.

The only uncontroversially grammatical example is the one in (12), exemplifying SVO order. The example in (13) is usually analyzed as topicalization, in which the object moves from its usual postverbal position to the front of the clause. While most English speakers accept as grammatical the topicalized examples, some find them marginal or unacceptable. Common sense explanations would be that free word order is licit in Serbian because Serbian has Case marking on subjects and objects, which makes it possible to determine the argument structure of the clause, regard­ less of word order. Consider the following pair: (14) Ana zove Veru.

‘Ana is calling Vera.’ (15) Vera zove Anu.

‘Vera is calling Ana.’

The typical nominative ending on feminine nouns is -a, and the accusative ending is -u.2 Thus, no matter how scrambled the constituents are in (16) and (17), it will always be clear which noun is the subject and which is the object: (16) Veru zove Ana. ‘Ana is calling Vera.’

(17) Anu zove Vera. ‘Vera is calling Ana.’ This, of course, would not be so in English, which shows no Case marking on nouns, as evident from the translations. However, this correlation between free word order and Case marking on nouns can hardly be seen as directly related by a causal relationship. To take one example, in its pronominal system, English shows Case distinctions, such as he-him, they-them, I-me, etc. Nonetheless, the same rigid rules of word order apply to English pronouns as well. The Case marking on pronouns does not cause free word order in 2 For the description of the Case system in Serbian, as well as for the description of other aspects of Serbian grammar, the reader is referred to Mrazović and Vukadinović 1990 (see also Stevanović 1974).

2.2. Varied Word Order and Copy-and-Delete

15

English. Diachronically, it is possible to see the correlation between free word order and Case marking in the following light. The more rigid the word order, the more of a luxury/redundancy the overt Case marking is. This can in turn steer language change toward dropping the overt Case marking in rigid word order languages, explaining the tendency. In order to capture word-order variation in Serbian, I explore the proposal of Ćavar and Fanselow 1997, 1999, which pertains to word order with discontinuous constituents, more precisely discontinuous noun phrases. This analysis also carries over to other instances of word order freedoms (see also Stjepanović 1999 for a similar Copy-and-Delete analysis of Scrambling; see Bošković and Takahashi 1998 for a different analysis). Ćavar and

Fanselow’s analysis addresses the issue behind the following examples adapted from Croatian:

(18) Crveni je Ivan auto kupio. red has Ivan car bought ‘Ivan bought a red car.’ (19) Na kakav je Ivan krov skočio? on which has Ivan roof jumped

‘On which roof did Ivan jump?’

The issue here is that the modifier can be detached from the noun, whether it is a wh-modifier or not. Such discontinuous constituents are rather common in Slavic, but similar constructions also occur in German and other languages, as pointed out by Ćavar and Fanselow. The authors adopt the

Copy-and-Delete analysis of movement, as advocated in Chomsky 1995, and claim that discontinuous elements arise when deletion applies in more than one copy of movement. A digression is in order to explain the mechanism behind the analysis. According to the Copy-and-Delete theory of movement, the wh-question in (20) is derived by copying the wh-word as in (21), and by subsequently deleting (not pronouncing) the tail of the chain, that is, the last wh-word: (20) Who(m) did Mary invite t? (21) Who(m) did Mary invite who(m)?

This analysis opens up a very interesting way of rethinking LF movement, or covert movement operations. LF movement can now be seen as deleting the head of the chain, rather than the tail of the chain. For suggestions along these lines, see Richards 1997 (which argues that overt movement from a strong (overt) into a weak position is possible); Bobaljik 1995; Brody 1995; Groat and O’Neil 1996; Pesetsky 1998; Ćavar and Fanselow 1997,1999; see

Chapter 2. Word Order and Movement

16

also Franks 1998, 2000 and Progovac 1998c. Thus the Chinese wh-question in (22), which is traditionally analyzed as involving LF (covert/invisible) movement (as per Huang 1982), can be derived essentially in the same way as its English counterpart in (20), but with the proviso that in Chinese the head of the movement chain will delete, that is, remain unpronounced, as in (23). (22) Lisi Lisi

mai-le sheme? bought what

‘What did Lisi buy?’

(23) Sheme Lisi mai-le sheme?

Presumably, there is an Economy consideration that prohibits pro­ nunciation of more than one copy of movement (see also Nunes 1995 for an argument that this follows from Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA)). Notice that this approach differs from the standard Minimalist approach only in the details of execution. Both approaches assume the ultimate move­ ment of the wh-phrase to the specifier of CP. The standard approach assumes that the overt copy of movement marks the end of overt movement, and that the wh-phrase continues to move further in LF, a different level of repre­ sentation. On the other hand, the approach explored here assumes that the movement of the wh-phrase is overt all the way, and that the pronounced copy of movement does not necessarily mark the end of overt movement. It is worth pointing out that (at least) two wh-positions have been assumed for both English and Chinese questions. Thus, in English, it is assumed that the moved wh-element leaves a “trace” in its original position. In Chinese, it is assumed that the wh-word ultimately moves to the front position. Copy-andDelete approach captures this dual positioning of wh-operators without intro­ ducing a new category (such as “trace”), and also without necessarily relying on a different type of movement, invisible/LF movement. Going back to the discontinuous NPs, according to the analysis in Ćavar and Fanselow, (25) would be the (partial) derivation of (24), consistent with the Copy-and-Delete analysis of movement: (24) Na kakav je Ivan krov skočio? (25) [Na kakav krov] je Ivan [a-k-akav krov] skocio? I am ignoring here the possibility that there might be intermediate copies of na kakav krov, but instead focus on the two copies that have overt mani­ festations. What happens to (25) is that there is deletion in both copies of movement—the noun deletes from the head of the chain, and everything but the noun deletes from the tail of the chain. Two independent and comple­ mentary principles presumably ensure that every word is pronounced, and

2.2. Varied Word Order and Copy-and-Delete

17

that every word is pronounced not more than once: Recoverability of Deletion and Economy. This discontinuous deletion mechanism allows one to keep the theory of movement simple, where only whole constituents can move. The irregularity then is stationed in the component of deletion/pronunciation, which can be regarded as a PF/phonological phenomenon. This type of approach is further strengthened by the possibility to have pieces of an NP in more than two places. The following is a German example from Cavar and Fanselow:

(26) Bücher hat man damals books has one then

interessante in den Osten keine interesting into the East no

mitnehmen dürfen. with-take might ‘One was not allowed to take any interesting books to the East then.’

Accounting for such word orders by appealing to movement rules of in­ dividual words would hopelessly complicate the theory of movement. Going back to scrambling with continuous elements, one can argue that Serbian (and other free-word order languages) allows deletion in any copy of movement. Consider the following examples again: (2) Ana kupuje knjigu.

(3) Ana knjigu kupuje. (4) Knjigu Ana kupuje.

(5) Knjigu kupuje Ana. (6) Kupuje Ana knjigu. (7) Kupuje knjigu Ana. Suppose that (27) below is the syntactic derivation for ail these examples: (27)

[AgrsP Ana [AgrS' kupuje [AgroP knjigu [Agro' kupuje [VP Ana [V' kupuje knjigu.]]]]]]

In order to simplify the trees, I generate both the subject and the object in VP, even though I assume that the subject is generated in a VP shell, vp, as per Larson 1988 and Chomsky 1995.1 am also assuming that V moves to the top functional projection, in this case Agrs. The ultimate movement will produce the order in (2), in which the object checks its accusative feature in the AgroP, the subject its nominative feature in the AgrsP, and the verb its various features in all these functional projections. This produces the unmarked word order: SVO. In other words, the unmarked order will be the result of the deletion of all but the highest copies of movement. All other

18

Chapter

2. Word Order and Movement

things being equal, the highest (ultimate) copy of movement should be pronounced, because that makes the ultimate landing site of movement recoverable. This can be made to follow from a principle such as Recovera,bility of Movement (see also Franks 1998 for Faithfulness Principle of Optimality Theory (OT); also Pesetsky 1998). However, it is possible in Serbian to delete also other copies of move­ ment, yielding variation in (3-7). Thus, the order in (6) would be the result of the subject and object being pronounced in the tails of their chains, rather than in the heads. Similarly, the example in (7) will have the subject pronounced in the tail, while the verb and the object are pronounced in the heads of their chains. These non-canonical pronunciations correlate with marked pragmatic and scope interpretations, as will be pointed out below. It will be argued in Chapter Six that this kind of approach to movement also proves essential in accounting for second-position cliticization in Serbian. To the extent that this mechanism is needed for both Clitic-Second and for word order variation, its theoretical cost is diminished. 2.3. IVb-Movement

2.3.1. Single Wh-Movement and Non-Movement Strategies Single wA-movement in Serbian is more or less comparable to that in English: it involves obligatory overt ivA-proposing, and it shows subject-object asym­ metries in long-distance extraction. Local wh-extraction with a single whphrase is consistent with the standard assumptions that the tvA-phrase moves overtly to the specifier of CP:3 Even though I will eventually reanalyze CP as a layer of PolP in Chapter Three, I will continue to refer to it as CP through­ out the rest of the monograph because of the familiarity of the term. (28) Koga je Ana whom AUX Ana

posetila? visited

‘Who(m) did Ana visit?’

3 Boskovic 1995,1997,1998 argues that wft-phrases in Serbo-Croatian move to SpecCP only if the head of CP is realized, that is, if the question particle li is present, as in (i) and (ii) below. If true, the analysis implies that the w/t-words in (28) and (29) in the text are lower than CP layer. I return to this question in section 2.3.3.

Koga li je Ana posetila? ‘Who(m) (on earth) has Ana visited?’ (ii) Ko li je posetio Anu? ‘Who (on earth) visited Ana?’ (i)

2.3. Wh-Movement

(29)

Ko je who AUX

19

posetio Anu? visited AnaACC

‘Who visited Ana?’

Long-distance wA-movement in Serbian shows a subtle Subject/Object asymmetry, which has often escaped notice (see Browne 1986). Although both (30) and (31) sound acceptable, it is only because subjectless mislim da is inserted, almost as a kind of parenthetical (see also section 2.6 for other types of parenthetical insertion): (30)

?Ko mislis who think2sG

[da t voli Nadu]? thatloves Nada

*‘Who do you think that loves Nada?’ (31)

Koga misli-s whom think2SG

[da that

Vera voli /]? Vera loves

‘Who do you think that Vera loves?’ Once the matrix clause is expanded to include a subject, the asymmetry sharpens, as in (32) and (33): (32)

?* Ko Stefan who Stefan

misli [da thinks that

t

voli Nadu]? loves Nada

*‘Who does Stefan think that loves Nada?’ (33)

Koga Stefan whom Stefan

misli [da thinks that

Vera Vera

voli /]? loves

‘Who does Stefan think that Vera loves? *

Given so much, wA-extraction in Serbian is much like wA-extraction in English: it involves overt movement to the front of the sentence, and it ex­ hibits a subject-object asymmetry. In Serbian one also finds a non-movement resumptive wA-strategy, but only with long-distance wA-dependencies. A resumptive strategy involves the use of an overt pronoun where one would otherwise expect a (non-overt) trace of movement. The following examples illustrate that there is no subject/ object asymmetry with the resumptive pronoun strategy, whether with whquestions (34) and (35) or relative clauses (36) and (37) (see Browne 1986):

Questions (34)

Za koga Stefan misli for whom Stefan thinks

[da pro voli that ! loves

‘Who does Stefan think loves Nada?’

Nadu]? Nada

20

(35)

Chapter 2. Word Order and Movement

Za koga for whom

Stefan misli [da ga Stefan thinks that him

Vera Vera

voli]? loves

‘Whom does Stefan think that Vera loves?’

Relative Clauses (36)

Óovek za koga man for whom

Stefan misli Stefan thinks

[da that

pro

voli loves

Nadu] ... Nada

‘The man who Stefan thinks loves Nada...’ (37)

Covck za koga man for whom

Stefan misli Stefan thinks

[da that

ga Vera him Vera

voli]... loves

‘The man whom Stefan thinks Vera loves...’ Notice that the w/z-word is Case marked by the initial preposition za, further supporting the argument that movement is not involved in such con­ structions (see Goodluck 1992). A (resumptive) pronoun is obligatory with object extraction in case the object is animate, as in the examples shown. The empty category in the subject position is argued by Browne 1986 to be pro.4 A non-movement account of the w/z-strategy illustrated above is further strengthened by the fact that islands are not obeyed (see Goodluck 1992 for comparable data with relative clauses). As the contrasts below illustrate, the

4 As is usually the case with resumptive pronouns, it is not possible to have an overt pronoun when questioning the subject, even though pro-drop is generally optional:

*Za koga Stefan misli [da on voli Nadu]? for whom/ Stefan thinks that he/ loves Nada Actually, pro-drop in Serbian becomes obligatory if a pronoun is bound to an A'operator, such as a quantifier or a w/z-word, which is also true in other pro-drop languages (see Xu 1984, Montalbetti 1984, and Aoun 1986 for comparable facts in Chinese and Spanish; see also Lindseth and Franks 1996): (ii) Svako/ misli [da je (*on/) pametan]. everyone thinks that is he smart

(i)

‘Everyone/ thinks that he/ is smart.’ (iii) Neko/ misli [da je Someone thinks that is

(*on/) he

pametan]. smart

‘Someone/ thinks that he/ is smart.’ (iv) Ko/ misli [da je (*on/) pametan]? who thinks that is he smart ‘Who/ thinks that he/ is smart?’ The fact that za koga patterns with these cases suggests that it occupies an A'-position, most probably Spec of CP position.

2.3. IVh-Movement

21

resumptive iv/z-strategy does not respect islands (38/40), while the whmovement strategy does (39/41). Complex-NP Constraint (38)

?Za

for

koga/ je Stefan čuo whom is Stefan

[NP

priču

heard

[CP

da

ga;

that him

story

Vera voli]]? Vera loves

‘About whom did Stefan hear the story that Vera loves him?’ (39)

*Koga( je Stefan čuo [NP priču whom is Stefan heard story

[CP

da Vera that Vera

voli i,]]? loves

‘About whom did Stefan hear the story that Vera loves him?’ Wh-1stand

(40)

Zakoga,- se Stefan pita for whom SE Stefan asks

[CP

zašto ga, why him

Vera Vera

voli]? loves

‘About whom does Stefan wonder why Vera loves him?’

(41)

*Koga/ whom

se Stefan pita SE Stefan asks

[CP zašto Vera voli why Vera loves

/,]?

*?‘Whom does Stefan wonder why Vera loves?’ So far, the following has been established: first, the resumptive strategy is available for w/i-questions and relative clauses; second, the strategy does not involve movement given that island constraints are not obeyed, and given that the wh-phrase receives Case from the “dummy” preposition za, rather than in an argument position. Another fact is relevant here: the strategy is not avail­ able for local extraction (see section 2.3.2 for more restrictions regarding the strategy): (42)

*Za for

koga, pro, whom loves

voli Nada

Nadu?

Vera Vera

voli? loves

‘Who loves Nada?’ (43)

*Za for

koga, ga, whom him

‘Who(m) does Vera love?’

Progovac 1993a proposes that the resumptive pronoun (or pro) is linked/ bound to the w/i-phrase governed by the preposition za. Since this relation­ ship does not involve movement, island constraints are not obeyed. Because the resumptive pronoun/pro receives Case in the base-generated argument

Chapter 2. Word Order and Movement

22

position, that Case is unavailable to the w/t-phrase, which explains why the “dummy” preposition za is obligatory to assign Case to the w/i-phrase. Since the resumptive pronoun/pro is subject to an anti-locality condition (analogous, to Principle B of the Binding Theory), the A'-binder cannot be local, ruling out the local examples in (42) and (43). The anti-locality condition, such as Principle B, would require a DP to be bound to a non-local antecedent, if bound at all. Thus, for example, pronouns in many languages cannot be bound to their local subjects but can be bound to a subject of a higher clause. One is tempted to say here that za koga strategy is only used as a last resort when long-distance extraction results in a violation. But this is clearly not the case given that the strategy is also successful with long-distance object construal, which yields a perfect result with movement strategies as well:

(44)

Koga Stefan misli whom Stefan thinks

[da Vera voli that Vera loves

i|?

‘Who does Stefan think that Vera loves?’ (45)

Za for

koga whom

Stefan Stefan

[da ga that him

misli thinks

Vera volij? Vera loves

It must be then that the movement and non-movement w/i-strategies are both available in Serbian, independently of each other, thus producing over­ lapping possibilities, as in examples (44) and (45) above. 2.3.2. Subjunctive-Like Verbs and Domain Extension

It was pointed out in the previous section that za koga strategy is not avail­ able with local vv/z-dependcncies. This is not the whole story, however. With some verbs, the strategy is also unavailable for dependencies that cross clause boundaries (from Progovac 1993a): (46)

* Za for

kogaf Stefan želi [da whom Stefan wishes that

PRO,-

voli loves

Nadu]? Nada

‘Who does Stefan want to love Nada?’ (47)

?* Za for

koga, Stefan želi whom Stefan wishes

[da ga, that him

Vera Vera

voli]? loves

‘Who does Stefan want Vera to love?’

With this same type of verb, long-distance »'//-extraction over negation is possible (48), even though it is ruled out with other verbs (49). (48)

Šta,

ne

what

not want that me

želiš [da

mi

kažeš tell

‘What don’t you want to tell me?’

i,-]?

2.3. Wh-Movement

(49) ?* Šta/

what

ne

tvrdiš

not say

[da

voliš

23

i/]?

that like

‘What don’t you want to say that you like?’ As argued at length in Progovac 1993a, verbs in Serbian fall into two distinct classes: those which select opaque complements (I-verbs, or Indica­ tive selecting verbs), and those which select transparent complements, allow­ ing for domain extension (S-verbs, or Subjunctive selecting verbs). I-verbs are mostly verbs of saying, believing, and ordering, such as kazati ‘say’, reći ‘say’, tvrditi ‘claim’, pretpostavljati ‘suppose’, verovati ‘believe’, narediti ‘order’. On the other hand, S-verbs are mainly verbs of wishing and requesting, such as želeti ‘wish’, hteti ‘want’, moći ‘be able to’, tražiti ‘ask for’. The transparency of S-complements correlates closely with their inability to host independent (uncontrolled) Tense, which is a common characteristic of subjunctive verbs cross-linguistically. For example, the typical S-verb illustrated below can only have Present Tense in its complement (50), but not Past (51) or Future (52):

Present (50) Ne želim not wishiSG

[da ostane-m], that stay1SG

‘I don’t wish to stay.’

Past/Perfect (51) * Ne želim not wishiSG

[da sam ostao], that am stayed

‘I don’t wish that I have stayed.’ Future

(52)

* Ne želim not wishiSG

[da ću ostati], that will stay

‘I don’t wish to stay.’ While Serbian S-verbs do not take special subjunctive morphology, they nonetheless show other subjunctive properties such as Tense dependence and domain extension. For the correlation between Tense and domain properties in Icelandic and Romance subjunctive clauses, see e.g., Anderson 1982; Evereart 1984; Pica 1984; Picallo 1984; Jakubowicz 1985; and Johnson 1985. In addition to the w/z-contrasts between I-verbs and S-verbs illustrated above, other dependencies in Serbian are also sensitive to the S/I distinction. Thus, the following dependencies must be local with I-verbs, but can cross

Chapter 2. Word Order and Movement

24

clause boundaries with S-verbs: licensing of negative polarity items (53-55), clitic climbing (56-59) (see also Chapter Six), and topic preposing (60-62).

Negative Polarity (53)

Nevidim niko-ga. not seeiSQ no oneAcc

(Local)

‘I don’t see anyone.’ (54)

* Ne not

tvrdi-m [da claimjsG that

vidi-m seelso

(I-Verb)

niko-ga]. nooneACC

‘I do not claim that I can see anyone.’ (55)

Ne not

zeli-m [da wishiSG that

vidi-m seejSG

niko-ga]. no oneACC

(S-Verb)

ij.

(I-Verb)

‘I do not wish to see anyone.’

Clitic Climbing5

(56)

Ana kaže [da ga, Ana says that him

vidi sees

‘Ana says that she can see him.’

(57)

* Ana Ana

ga2 kaže him says

[da vidi that sees

//].

(I-Verb)

/¿].

(S-Verb)

‘Ana says that she can see him.’

(58)

Ana želi [da ga( Ana wants that him

vidi sees

‘Ana wants to see him.’

5 The contrasts are even sharper with negative clauses, as indicated below: vidi Q], Milan ne kaže da (0 him sees Milan not says that

(ii) (hi)

(iv)

Milan does not say that he can see him.’ *Milan gaj ne kaže [da vidi i(J. Milan ne želi da Milan not wants that ‘Milan does not want to sec him.’ ?Milan ga;- ne želi [da vidi rj.

him

(I-Verb)

(I-Vcrb) vidi sees

tf].

(S-Verb)

(S-Verb)

2.3. Wh-Movement

(59)

?Ana ga/ želi [da vidi Ana him wants that sees

25

(S-Verb)

rj.

‘Ana wants to see him,’

Topic Preposing (60)

To this

sam već potpisao haveiSG already signed

i.

(Local)

‘This, I have already signed. *

(61)

?* To ne tvrdi-m [da sam potpisao this not sayiSG that am signed

/].

(I-Verb)

??‘This, I don’t say that I have signed? (62) To ne želi-m this not wishiSG

[da potpise-m that signiSG

i].

(S-Verb)

‘This, I don’t want to sign.’

Thus, it can be concluded that there are two types of verbs in Serbian: Iverbs, selecting indicative-like complements, and S-verbs, selecting subjunctive-like complements. The latter show domain extension with wh- and other dependencies, while the former are strictly local. For more data and an analysis of subjunctive, the reader is referred to Progovac 1993a. 2.3.3. Multiple Wh-Questions

In contrast to single wh-extraction, multiple w/(-questions in Serbian differ substantially from those in English. First, all the ivA-phrases in a multiple whquestion in Serbian must be overtly fronted. Next, even though they are all fronted, the first wh-phrase is structurally higher and proves to be the only one that can support clitics. The consensus on multiple iv/z-movement in Serbian is building along the following lines. W/z-phrases undergo two types of movement: first, movement of all the wh-phrases into a pre-IP position (call it wh-fronting), and then, movement of only the initial wh -phrase into the CP layer, motivated by wh-feature checking (call it vv/i-movcment). However, there is little if any consensus on where exactly the non-initial whphrases move, and what exactly the nature of the two wh positions is. The following examples demonstrate that all w/z-phrases must be overtly preposed (ignoring the clitic jet which has to lean on the first constituent for independent reasons): (63)

Ko je šta kome kupio? who AUX what whom bought ‘Who bought what for whom?’

26

Chapter 2. Word Order and Movement

(64) * Ko je kupio kome sta? (65)

Ko je kome kupio sta? *

(66)

Sta je ko kome kupio? what AUX who whom bought

(67)

Sta je kupio ko kome? *

(68)

§ta je kome kupio ko? *

(69)

Kome je ko sta kupio? whom AUX who what bought

(70)

Kome je kupio ko sta? *

(71)

Kome je ko kupio sta? *

The pattern shows that only those examples with all the wh-phrases fronted are grammatical in Serbian. This is in sharp contrast to English where only the first vv/i-phrase moves, while the rest remain in situ: (72)

Who bought what for whom?

(73) * Who what for whom bought? (74) * Who what bought for whom? The Serbian examples above illustrate another property of multiple whmovement. Namely, there are no ECP style subject-object asymmetries with short multiple wh-movement, given that the orders in (63), (66), and (69) are equally acceptable (for more data and discussion of multiple wh-movement in Serbian, including long-distance multiple movement, see Boskovic 1998, 2001). This is in contrast to the subject-object asymmetry in long-distance single extraction, identified in section 2.3.1. The local extraction data thus contrast with English, where comparable examples show ECP style subject­ object asymmetries: (75)

Who bought what for whom?

(76) * What did who buy for whom? (77)

(For) Whom did who buy what (for)? *

The following examples illustrate the second special property of multiple wh-questions in Serbian, observed in Rudin 1988. Namely, the first w/t-phrase in a multiple wh-question enjoys a special status: it is the only one that can (and must) support clitics:

(78) Ko je sta kome kupio?

2.3. IVh-Movfment

(79)

Ko sta je kome kupio? *

(80)

Ko sta kome je kupio? *

27

In a sense, then, the first wh-phrase enjoys special status in both English and Serbian: in English, it is the only one that moves at all; in Serbian, it is the only one that moves high enough to support clitics. The multiple wh data in Serbian raise the following two basic questions. First, do all the fronted wA-phrases in Serbian move to the same syntactic position, or do they move to distinct syntactic positions? If they move to two distinct syntactic positions, which positions are they? Regarding the first question, there is growing consensus in the literature that the first wA-word occurs in a structurally higher position than the rest, say SpecCP (but see Boskovic 1997,1998, which argue that it is not always CP; I return to this issue below). The rest of the wh-phrases, which are also fronted, target a lower functional projection. What exactly the lower position for wh-phrases is remains controversial. Rudin 1988 argues that this is an IP-adjoined position. Stjepanovic 1995 and Boskovic 1996, 1997,1998 argue that wA-movement is Focus Fronting in the sense that all wA-words move to check a focus feature. For Boskovic 1998, the focus features are checked in AgrPs. There are two positions in Serbian for the fronted non-initial ivA-word(s)—pre-subject, and post-subject. For Boskovic, these would then correspond to AgrsP and AgroP, respectively: (81)

Sta

je

what AUX

Jovan Jovan

kome

kupio?

whom bought

‘What did John buy for whom?’ (82)

Sta je kome Jovan kupio?

Rudin’s analysis raises the question of motivation for movement to an IPadjoined position. It also cannot elegantly handle the post-subject position for wh-fronting illustrated in (81). While motivation for movement in terms of feature checking is provided in Stjepanovic 1995 and Boskovic 1998, it is not clear why AgrPs would be thc oncs to check the focus feature. It is also not entirely clear to me if wA-phrases have such a feature, but see Stjepanovic and Boskovic for arguments. In Progovac 2005, on which Chapter Seven is based, I argue that whphrases in fact move to a PolP to check their polarity features (see also Progovac 2001). Instead of Boskovic’s AgrsP and AgroP, the movement would be to PolsP and PoloP, deriving the examples in (81) and (82) above. PolPs as projections are independently needed in Serbian (see Chapter Three), and it seems independently true that wA-phrases have polarity features, given that they give rise to positive presuppositions, as in (83-84):

Chapter 2, Word Order and Movement

28

(83)

When did Peter ask Mary out? (Presupposition: Peter asked Mary out sometime.)

(84)

Who told Peter about the party? (Presupposition: Someone told Peter about the party.)

Suppose that wh-words come with the polarity feature [-negative]. This conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that wh-words can be used as indefinites in Serbian (cf. also languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean). Indefinites are commonly assumed to have polarity features (see Chapter Seven).6 (85)

Da that

li je Q AUX

on koga he whom

uvredio? insulted

‘Has he insulted someone?’ This analysis would explain the requirement on wh-words to raise, whether or not they ultimately go to SpecCP. Citko 1998 argues that non-initial ivA-phrascs reside in a separate func­ tional projection, Operator Phrase (OpP), located below C. That is the posi­ tion where all operators check their operator features. However, it is not clear what an “operator” feature is, other than that it forces raising, which renders the analysis circular. The wA-data can be captured without a new projection if Citko’s OpP is actually our PolP. Moreover, Citko would need two such OpPs, given the data in (81) and (82). Making use of the already available projections is more economical than introducing new projections. As pointed out above, it is argued by Boskovic 1995,1997,1998 that whphrases in Serbian move to SpecCP only if the head of CP is realized, that is, if li is present, as in (86). His reason for this claim comes from the data above, which establish that Serbian multiple wA-movement does not obey the Superiority Condition, that is, that there are no subject/object asymmetries which otherwise characterize wh-movement to the CP layer (see Chomsky 1981). Boskovic also notes that French a7z-movemcnt is optional just in those situations in which Serbian wA-fronting does not exhibit Superiority effects. If correct, his analysis implies that the wA-word is lower than CP layer in (87).

6 Notice, however, that the parallelism between wA-words and indefinites is not per­ fect. Namely, while indefinites (i), including ivA-phrascs used as indefinites (ii), can re­ main in situ, wh-phrases must be fronted (iü). I have no explanation for this difference.

(i)

Da li je on uvredio nekoga?

(ii) (iii)

Da li je on uvredio koga? ?*Kada je Milan video koga?

2.3. WH-MOVEMENT

(86)

Koga li whom Q

29

je Ana posetila? AUX Ana visited

‘Who(m) (on earth) has Ana visited?’ (87)

Koga je Ana posetila? ‘Who(m) has Ana visited?’

This analysis, however, would pose a problem for clitic support in multi­ ple wh-questions in which there is no lit such as (63), (66), (69), and would lose Rudin’s explanation for the special status of the first vv/z-word with re­ spect to clitic support. From the examples above, it is evident that the clitic necessarily follows the first w/z-word. This would follow if the first w/z-word is in a structurally higher position even when li is not present. If, per Boskovic, all the w/z-phrases are in a single functional projection, there would be no obvious syntactic way to capture the contrast between the first w/z-word, and the rest of the w/z-words. This particular issue may not be a problem for Bos­ kovic given that he favors a phonological account of second-position clitic placement. However, it is not only clitics that separate the first ivA-word from the rest. As discussed at length in Chapter Eight, the eventive pronominal to occupies a fixed structural position immediately below C, which I argue to be a lower segment of PolsP, or former CP (Chapter Three). As established in Progovac 1999a, to can separate the first w/z-word from the rest, but it cannot separate the non-initial wh- words, nor can it occur after the last w/z-word, just like the clitics: (88)

Ko je to sta kome kupio? who AUX that what whom bought

‘Who bought what for whom?’ (89)

Ko je kome to sta kupio? *

(90)

Ko je kome sta to kupio? *

Since to is not a clitic, its placement cannot receive a phonological expla­ nation. It must be then that the first wh-word is in a structurally higher posi­ tion than the rest of the wh-words, even in the absence of li. Pending further discoveries in this area, I will continue to assume that this higher position is the specifier of CP (or higher segment of PolsP of Chapter Three), as is stan­ dardly assumed for w/z-movement. My proposal is thus that in (82) both whphrases move to the lower segment of PolsP (former CP), and that only the first wh-phrase moves further into the specifier of the outer segment of the same projection. On the other hand, in (81), the second wh-phrase stays in PoIqP. Thus all the w/z-words would move to check their strong [-negative]

30

Chapter 2. Word Order and Movement

features in a PolP, but only one would move to the highest segment of CP/PolsP to check the ivZi-feature. I return to this issue in Chapter Three, section 3,4.

2.4. Verb Raising

2.4.1. Verb Raising to I It is commonly assumed for all languages that the (finite) verb undergoes a series of head movements through the clausal functional projections, which are considered to be its (the verb’s) extended projections. It is hlso often assumed that the verb targets the highest functional projection—at least at the level of LF. Overtly, however, the destination of such movement varies from language to language. In the Minimalist framework, the movement of the verb is motivated by the need to check features. If the features are strong, the movement will be overt. If the features are weak, the movement will only take place inaudibly, at LF. Languages differ with respect to whether particu­ lar features are strong or weak. These are standard assumptions. In section 2.2, as well as in Chapter Six, an alternative analysis of verb movement is explored, based on the Copy-and-Delete analysis of movement. In order to provide an account of second-position cliticization (Clitic-Second), as well as of word-order variation, it is proposed that the verb always moves overtly to its final destination, top functional layer, but that it does not always get pronounced in the head of the movement chain. Given the latter analysis, it is possible to interpret invisible (LF) movement as actually pronunciation of a non-ultimate copy of movement. The “ultimate” verb movement is overtly observable in the so-called Verb-Second languages, such as German. In such languages the verb has to surface in the highest head position, actually second position, following one phrasal element. This is basically the same descriptive generalization that holds of second-position cliticization in Serbian. The proposal of Chapter Six is that this second placement of clitics in Serbian is parasitic on the (overt) verb movement to the second position. In other words, I argue that the verb in Serbian actually moves overtly to the highest functional head, even though it is not normally pronounced in that position. The overt reflex of this move­ ment are the clitics, which arguably adjoin to the verb, much like affixes, move with it to the highest projection, and get pronounced in it, too. On the other hand, the verb can be pronounced in a lower position, whether the cltitics are present or not. In this section I focus on the position in which the verb is actually pronounced. The conclusion will be that the finite verb in Serbian is not pronounced in a fixed position (see also Stjepanovic 1997). Sometimes it is clearly pronounced in the I layer, the projection which is standardly assumed to “split” into the projections of AgrsP and TSP, but other times it is clearly in a lower position. The finite verb in Serbian shows

2.4, Verb Raising

31

person/number agreement with the subject, as discussed in Chapter Four, section 4,3.7 Stjepanovic 1997 notes that movement to the I layer (AgrsP /TSP) is op­ tional given that VP adverbs can either follow or precede finite verbs. In fact, (91) is better than (92), and (92) almost requires a comma intonation before and after the adverb, suggesting that such movement is dispreferred, although possible. (91)

On ludo voli Maju. he madly loves Maja ‘He is madly in love with Maja. *

(92)

??On voli ludo Maju.

Notice that only the second option is granted to an auxiliary verb, but this would be independently motivated by the clitic status of the auxiliary verb: (93)

* On he

ludo je voleo madly AUX loved

Maju. Maja

‘He was madly in love with Maja.’

(94)

On je ludo voleo Maju.

(95)

* Ja I

ludo sam voleo Maju. madly AUX loved Maja

‘I was madly in love with Maja.’

(96)

Ja sam ludo voleo Maju.

It is also possible for the verb to surface in VP ellipsis constructions, sup­ porting the conclusion that the verb can be pronounced higher than the VP: (97)

Rekao sam said AUX

da cu Slavici that will Slavica

to kupiti, i kupio sam. that buy and bought AUX

*‘I said that I will buy that for Slavica, and I bought.’

7 In addition, Chapter Four, section 4,3 argues that participles also move by head movement to Agrs. However, participles show a different type of agreement, namely, gender/number agreement, and it is possible that such agreement is checked in the split segment of Agrs, namely, agrs. While Boskovic 1995, 1997 suggests that the participle adjoins to Agrs, or to its finite auxiliary, I interpret this to be movement to a separate segment of Agrs. According to the latter analysis, the finite auxiliary is in Agrs, and the participle is in its split segment, agrs.

32

Chapter 2, Word Order and Movement

Consistent with the conclusion above that V is not pronounced in a fixed position, the following example illustrates that VP ellipsis can also delete the verb: (98)

Rekao said

sam da AUX that

ću will

Slavici Slavica

to that

kupiti, i jesam, buy and did

‘I said that I will buy that for Slavica, and I did.’

English is taken to be an example of a language in which the verb stays in VP, and does not move to the I complex overtly. Question-answer pairs show the following contrast between English and Serbian: While in English only an­ swers with the auxiliary are appropriate, Serbian allows both types of an­ swers, with the repeated verb or with an auxiliary. This is again consistent with the conclusion that Serbian verbs can be pronounced in a position higher than VP:

(99) a.

Da li that O

si nešto kupio Slavici? AUX something bought Slavica

‘Did you buy something for Slavica?’ b.

Kupio bought

sam. AUX

♦T bought.’ c.

Jesam. AUX ‘I did.’

In fact, in simple tenses, which are not formed with auxiliary verbs, the only option in Serbian is to answer with the main verb. There is no strategy akin to English do-support in Serbian, which further strengthens the argu­ ment that Serbian is a verb-raising language. A verb-raising language would have no need for such a last-resort strategy. (100) a.

Da li nešto kupuješ that Q something buy

Slavici? Slavica

‘Are you buying something for Slavica?’

b.

Kupujem. buy2SG

T do. I *1 buy.’

At the same time, the verbs in Serbian contrast with those in Romance, also assumed to show V-raising (see Pollock 1989). Namely, unlike Romance verbs, the verbs in Serbian cannot precede sentential adverbs, such as

2.4. Verb Raising

33

pravilno, which are assumed to adjoin to TP (Zeljko Boskovic, personal communication; see also Boskovic 1997). Consider the following examples from Serbian: (101) Milan, pravilno, Milan, rightly,

kupuje buys

Mariji poklon. Mary present

‘Milan is, rightly, buying Mary a present.’ (102) ?* Milan kupuje, pravilno, Mariji poklon.

(103) Milan Milan

je, AUX

pravilno, rightly

kupio bought

Mariji Mary

poklon. present

‘Milan has, rightly, bought Mary a present.’ One possibility is to conclude with Boskovic 2001 that the verbs in Serb­ ian exhibit only short movement, to a position higher than VP but lower than I. In my analysis, this can be the object layer of TP, TOP (see chapters Four and Six for arguments). However, this would run into a problem with respect to verb raising to C, which occurs in Serbian yes/no questions (see the following section). If the verb in Serbian cannot raise to I, then it should not be able to raise to C either (but see discussion in the following section), be­ cause any raising that skips an intervening head would be in violation of Minimality. The other possibility would be that scope-inducing adverbs, such as the one in (101), require the verb to be pronounced within their scope, and therefore in a lower position. Since the verb in Serbian can be pronounced in a lower position anyway, this becomes the strongly preferred option. As will be pointed out in section 2.5, it is normally possible in Serbian to determine scope relations directly from the surface order (see Progovac 1994; see Franks and Fowler 1994 and Franks and Progovac 1994 for the usefulness of a Scope Preservation Principle; see also Aoun and Li 1993 for the general relevance of the surface word order for scope determination). To put it another way, Serbian strongly prefers to pronounce those copies of movement that reflect scope hierarchies. Recall also from section 2.2 that quantifiers, including negative and positive polarity items, are usually pronounced in their ultimate landing sites. If this can be extended to sentential adverbs as well, then the verb will be pronounced in a lower position than the sentential adverb in order to preserve the scope hierarchy between the two.

34

2.4.2.

Chapter

2. Word Order and Movement

Verb Raising to C

As pointed out above, Serbian verbs can raise to C overtly to form yes/no questions, as unambiguously demonstrated by their ability to support the question particle li: (104)

Kupuješ li nešto Mariji? huy?sG Qsomething Mary

‘Are you buying something for Mary.’ (105)

Dolazi li comes Q

Sava na večeru? Sava on dinner

‘Is Sava coming to dinner?’ It is worth pointing out, however, that this strategy, to my judgment, seems to be giving ground to the da li strategy for question formation, where U is supported by the complementizer da (that), as explained in Chapter Six.

(106)

Da li kupuješ that Q buy2sG

nešto Mariji? something Mary

‘Are you buying something for Mary.’ (107)

Da li Sava dolazi na večeru? that Q Sava comes on dinner

‘Is Sava coming to dinner?’ For English, it is commonly assumed that the verb cannot move to C because it cannot raise to I in the first place. Any head movement that would skip an intervening head would be in violation of Travis’ 1984 head move­ ment constraint, which captures the contrasts such as the one below: (108)

Could you have seen it?

(109)

Have you could seen it? *

That there is a correlation between raising to I and raising to C is sup­ ported by the development of English. In the stages of English in which it was possible to move the verb into I, it was also possible to move it into C. The following examples from Shakespeare’s Early Modern English illustrate the correlation (from Radford 1997:224-25): (110)

My master seeks not me. ‘My master does not seek me.’

(Two Gentlemen of Verona)

2.5. Quantifier Raising (111) Heard you this, Gonzalo?

35

(The Tempest)

‘Did you hear this, Gonzalo?’

As is evident from the translations, Modern English contrasts with Early Modern English in that it requires do-support both in I (110) and in C (111). In spite of the prevalence of the da li strategy in yes/no questions, the fact that Serbian verbs can still move to C can be seen as indirect evidence that they do move to I overtly. I will assume that Serbian is, descriptively speak­ ing, a verb-raising language, even though such raising is not always overtly manifested. Recall from section 2.2 that varied (“free”) word order in Serbian can be captured by the assumption that Serbian allows non-ultimate copies of movement to be pronounced. This assumption can be directly applied to Verb Raising as well. One only needs to say that Verb Raising is obligatory in Serb­ ian, but that it is possible to pronounce non-ultimate (lower) copies of move­ ment as well, giving an impression of optional movement. There are at least three positions in which the verb can be pronounced: IP layer, VP layer, or CP layer (before subject). It is quite possible that the position of verb pronun­ ciation is sensitive to the requirements of other sentential elements. For ex­ ample, the verb is pronounced in C when there is a question clitic in C, but no complementizer to support it—a last-resort strategy. Also, the verb can be pronounced lower than I in the presence of a sentential adverb, in what seems to be an attempt to preserve the adverb’s wide scope. In Chapter Six I return to Verb Raising and its significance for the analysis of clitic placement in Serbian. 2.5. Quantifier Raising Descriptively speaking, Serbian polarity words, such as niko ‘no one’, iko ‘anyone’ and neko ‘someone’, show overt raising in comparison to regular objects (see also Footnote 1). All of these polarity words are also quantifiers. It is established above that the unmarked word order in Serbian is SVO, as illustrated in the example (112b) below. However, due to scrambling, it is also possible for the object to occur in a preposed position, such as in (112a). This word order is marked, however, and requires an interpretation where Mariju is discourse prominent. The opposite holds of the quantificational words, such as niko, iko, and neko. While these quantificational words are unmarked in preposed positions ((a) examples in (113-15)), they are marked in post-verbal positions ((b) examples in (113-15)).

Non-Quantificational Objects (112)

a.

?On Mariju ne voli. he Mary not loves ‘He does not love Mary.’

Chapter 2. Word Order and Movement

36

(112) b.

On ne he not

voli loves

Mariju. Mary

Quantificational Objects (113) a.

On he

nikoga ne voli. no one neg loves

‘He loves no one.’

b.

(114) a.

?On ne voli nikoga.

On je nekoga uvredio. he AUX someone insulted ‘He hurt somebody’s feelings.’

b.

(115) a.

?On je uvredio nekoga.

Da that

li je on ikoga uvredio? Q AUX he anyone insulted

‘Did he hurt anybody’s feelings?’ b.

?Da lije on uvredio ikoga?

In Chapter Seven Quantifier Raising (OR) is subsumed under polarity feature checking. In other words, quantifiers such as someone, anyone, no one are proposed to raise to a PolP in order to check their polarity features, whether positive or negative. Even wA-words have been proposed to have po­ larity features, which forces them to raise to a PolP (see also section 2.3 of this chapter). To the extent that Minimalism requires all movement to be moti­ vated by feature checking, this move is in the right direction since even Quantifier Raising can now receive a feature checking motivation. If this is so, then it may be that the universal quantifier svako (everyone) also has polarity features, which force its raising to a PolP. The quantifier svako is also happier in a preposed position: (116) a.

On je svakoga uvredio. he AUX everyone insulted

‘He hurt everybody’s feelings.’

b.

?Onje uvredio svakoga.

I will thus assume that QR is driven by feature checking, and that the quantifiers raise to check their features, quite possibly to a Polarity Phrase. With the rule of QR in mind, I turn now to multiple quantifiers. It is very hard for me, if possible at all, to get ambiguity in the examples with two quantifiers in Serbian, as illustrated by the following examples:

2.5. Quantifier Raising

(117) Svaki dečak every boy

37

obožava neku devojčicu. admires some girl

‘For every boy it is true that he admires some girl or other.’

(118) Neku devojčicu obožava svaki deČak.

‘For some girl it is true that every boy admires her.’ (119) Neki dečak obožava svaku devojčicu. some boy admires every girl ‘It is true of some boy that he admires every girl.’

(120) Svaku devojčicu obožava neki dečak. ‘It is true of every girl that some boy or other admires her.’

In Progovac 1994 I claimed that it is impossible, but Godjevac (2000, 2003) and Šarić 2002 claim that it is possible. I think that they are right. In spite of

the very strong preference for the wide scope of the preceding quantifier, at least the examples in (117) and (119) seem to be able to show inverse scope, that is, scope in which the lower quantifier can take wider scope. For me, at least, it is even harder to interpret (118) and (120) with inverse scope. These judgments, as well as variability in judgments, may be due to the possibility in Serbian to express scope relations overtly, due to varied word order. In section 2.2 I adopted an analysis of varied word order which assumes overt movement to the ultimate destination, but leaves open the possibility to pronounce non-ultimate copies of movement for discourse relevant purposes, such as focusing or topicalizing (see Stjepanovič 1999). But it seems that Scrambling can also be used in Serbian to indicate scope relations, as also pointed out with respect to sentential adverbs in the previous section. Thus, all other things being equal, word order will reflect the ultimate landing sites of movement. This is attributed to a principle that has to do with the recover­ ability of movement. But, one can depart from this default/unmarked option for either discourse-related purposes, or for scope reasons, or both. When it comes to quantificational NPs, they move to high positions both in English and Serbian, as is standardly assumed. Since in English this move­ ment will not be observable (it takes place covertly), one single surface order will have to reflect two different scope possibilities (or LF orders). On the other hand, in Serbian, word order freedom gives one the option to pro­ nounce copies of QR in their ultimate landing sites, even if this does not re­ sult in the canonical SVO order (see examples (118) and (120) above). If QPs are pronounced in their ultimate landing sites, then the surface order will re­ flect the scope hierarchy in a direct way. This may be the reason why there is a stronger tendency in Serbian than in English to interpret QPs in their sur­

38

Chapter

1. Word Order and Movement

face order: Serbian has the option to spell out scope relations, and the default expectation is that it would. This also may account for my contrast between canonical SVO examples, (117) and (119), on the one hand, and scrambled OVS examples, (118) and (120), on the other. Where the examples are al­ ready scrambled, the expectation is that this would be in order to disam­ biguate scope. But recall that scrambling can also be the result of discourse factors, such as focusing or topicalizing (Godjevac 2000, 2003; also Stojanovic 1997). For the examples in (117-120) this would mean that the other scope possibilities should also in principle be possible, if non-ultimate copies of QR have been pronounced for discourse relevant purposes. The extreme difficulty with which one can get such readings, if at all, can be attributed to a processing complication of computing three factors from a given word order: (i) ultimate movement positions for arguments and the verb, (ii) scope relations among various scope-inducing elements, and (iii) discourse properties. The reader is further referred to the mentioned work by Godjevac, Stjepanovic, and Saric. 2.6. NP Movement: Raising and Passive

NP movement is rather limited in Serbian. This section will establish that subject-to-subject raising does not exist at all in Serbian, and that passive is much more restricted in Serbian than it is in English. Consider subject-to-subject raising first. Even though the following con­ structions resemble English raising with seem/appear type verbs, they do not actually involve raising in Serbian: (121)

Izgleda/cini se seems/appears SE

da oni ne vole svoj posao. that they not like self’s job

‘It seems/appears that they do not like their jobs.’ (122)

Oni izgleda/cini se ne vole svoj posao.

The form izgleda/cini se (‘seems/appears’) is singular, not agreeing with the plural subject. Raising from the subject position of the embedded clause to the subject position of the matrix clause should only be possible if the embedded clause is non-finite. In fact, the non-finite status of the embedded I is considered to be the sole motivation for the subject to raise in English: the subject needs to check its nominative Case feature against a finite I. The English examples also illustrate that the raising verb agrees with the raised subject, and is thus singular in (123) but plural in (124): (123)

It seems/appears that they do not like their jobs.

(124)

They seem/appear t (not) to like their jobs.

39

2.6. NP Movement: Raising and Passive

(125)

They seems/appears that t not like their jobs. *

Notice that the English counterpart of Serbian (122) is the ungrammatical (125). Likewise, the counterpart of the English successful raising construction in (124) is ungrammatical in Serbian (126):

(126)

Oni * they

izgleda/čini seems/appears

se SE

ne not

voleti like1NF

svoj selfs

posao. job

The conclusion must be that Serbian does not exhibit English-style sub­ ject -to-subject raising. As a pro-drop language, Serbian requires verbs like izgleda/čini se, which do not take thematic subjects, to take the null expletive pro. As the reviewer points out, the absence of raising may follow from the fact that Serbian does not allow IP complements, that is, clausal complements without a complementizer (see examples (129) and (130) below). It is stan­ dardly assumed that CP creates a barrier for subject raising. One more point is in need of explanation here. Namely, what derives the order in (122), where the subject appears to have raised from the embedded clause? This kind of displacement of the subject is also attested with other verbs in Serbian, which are clearly not raising verbs: (127)

?Oni, Marta kaže, ne vole svoj they Martha saysnot like their

posao. job

‘Martha says that they do not like their jobs.’ (128)

Oni, mislim, ne they thinkisG not

vole svoj posao. like their job

T think that they do not like their jobs.’

The process seems to involve parenthetical insertion of the matrix clause into the embedded clause (see also section 2.3. for a similar conclusion with respect to wh-extraction). In support of this conclusion, notice that the com­ plementizer da, otherwise obligatory in embedded clauses (see (129), (130); also (121)), does not occur in these parenthetical constructions (see (127), (128); also (122)):

(129)

Marta kaže Martha says

(da) oni ne vole svoj posao. * that they not like their job

‘Martha says that they do not like their jobs.’

Chapter 2. Word Order and Movement

40

(130)

Mislim * (da) oni ne vole svoj posao. think |SG that they not like their job ‘I think that they do not like their jobs.’

Notice, furthermore, that in this parenthetical use, the matrix verbs/clauses can “float” to other positions in the embedded clause as well, which cannot be accounted for by subject raising: (131)

Oni svoj posao, izgleda/čini se, ne vole.

(132)

?Oni svoj posao, Marta kaže, ne vole.

(133)

Oni svoj posao, mislim, ne vole.

It is thus safe to conclude that Serbian does not have subject-to-subject raising of the type attested in English. As for passive, it exists in Serbian, but it is much less productive than pas­ sive in English. If the main function of passive is to promote the object to the subject position, or at least to a structurally higher position, then the limited use of passive in Serbian may be due to the fact that there are strategies other than passive that can accomplish this goal. These include se constructions, discussed in Chapter Four, and object scrambling, discussed in section 2.2. To illustrate, consider the following passive sentences from Serbian: (134)

Ova kuća je juče prodata, this house AUX yesterday sold

‘This house was sold yesterday.’

(135)

Ovaj this

čovek je juče otpušten. man AUX yesterday fired

‘This man was fired yesterday.’

The first of the examples can also be expressed with the se construction (136), although not the second (137). (See Chapter Four for various functions of se) (136)

Ova kuća se juče prodala. this house SE yesterday sold

‘This house was sold yesterday.’ (137)

Ovaj * this

čovek se man SE

juče otpustio. yesterday fired

Even though it is not clear to me what this contrast follows from, it is worth pointing out here that at least some passive examples can also be expressed

2,6, NP Movement: Raising and Passive

41

using the se strategy. Furthermore, notice that passive constructions become noticeably degraded if the agent is expressed:

(138)

??Ova kuća je juče prodata od this house AUX yesterday sold from

strane part

komšije. neighborGEN

‘This house was sold by the neighbor yesterday.’ (139)

??Ovaj čovek je juče otpušten this man AUX yesterday fired

od strane from part

direktora. directorGEN

‘This man was fired by the director yesterday.’ Expressing the agent is ungrammatical with se constructions, at least in my judgment;8 (140)

* Ova this

kuća house

strane komšije. part neighborGEN

se juče prodala od SE yesterday sold from

‘This house was sold by the neighbor yesterday.’ (141)

* Ovaj čovek this man

se juče otpustio od strane direktora, SE yesterday fired from part directorGEN

‘This man was fired by the director yesterday.’ Actually, (134) and (135), with overt agents, would be best expressed by active sentences in which the object has been scrambled to the front:

(142)

Ovu this

kuću je houseACc AUX

juče prodao yesterday sold

komšija. neighborNOM

‘This house was sold by the neighbor yesterday.’ (143)

Ovog this

čoveka je juče manACC AUX yesterday

otpustio fired

direktor, đirectorNOM

‘This man was fired by the director yesterday. *

8 But compare the following example from Croatian, given in Saric 2002; 61, which may indicate that in Croatian the od phrase is more productive, and even used with se strategy: (i) Malo knjiga se cita od puno ljudi. few books SE reads from many people ‘There are few books that many people read,’

42

Chapter 2. Word Order and Movement

Serbian passive therefore competes with two other strategies: se construc­ tions and object scrambling. Suffice it to say here that this division of labor among the three strategies may explain why passive is less common in Serbian than it is in English, a language in which the other two strategies are unavailable. In sum, NP movement is much more restricted in Serbian than it is in English. First of all, subject-to-subject NP-raising is unavailable in Serbian. Second, while passive constructions do exist in Serbian, they are much more limited in use than passive in English. Observationally speaking, this may be due to the fact that passive in Serbian competes with two other strategies that also promote objects to structurally higher positions: scrambling and se constructions. 2.7. Concluding Remarks

This chapter provides a basic overview of word order possibilities in Serbian, as well as of basic movement rules: Wh-Movement, Verb-Raising, Quantifier Raising, and NP-Movement. Some of these phenomena will receive more at­ tention in the rest of the book, especially Verb-Raising in Chapter Six on clitics and Quantifier Raising in Chapter Seven on Negation. The recurring theme of this chapter is that the varied (“free”) word order in Serbian comes from the possibility to pronounce non-ultimate copies of movement, including copies of Subject and Object Raising to AgrPs for Case checking purposes, and copies of Verb Raising to I or to C. The argument is thus that there is no specific rule of Scrambling, but rather that varied word order is a conse­ quence of other movement rules, combined with the possibility to pronounce non-ultimate copies of movement. This theme will be picked up again in Chapter Six on clitics, where this analysis proves crucial in accounting for second-position cliticization.

CPs and/or Polarity Phrases

3.1. Introductory Words

As pointed out in the Introduction (Chapter One), this monograph examines Serbian functional projections and proposes an analysis which restricts the number and nature of functional projections to only the ones with overt morphological manifestations: Polarity Phrases, Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases, and Aspect Phrases. (See Progovac 2001 for the general idea.) Moreover, each of these projections is argued to have both object and subject layers. At first sight, the following functional projections seem to constitute the extended projection of the verb in Serbian: CP, AspgP, AgrsP, TP, PolP/NegP, AspoP, Agr0P, AuxP, as illustrated in the following tree diagram: (1)

C

CP

AspsP Asps

AgrsP

Agrs

TP

T

PolP/NegP Pol/Neg

Aspo

AspoP Agr0P

Agro

AuxP Aux^VP

The two Aspect Phrases reflect the analysis of Serbian aspect according to which aspectual (perfective) prefixes check their features in AspoP, while aspectual suffixes check their features in AspsP (see Chapter Five). Obvious­ ly, the choice of the labels for the two AspPs is analogous to the two AgrPs.

44

Chapter 3. CPs and/or Polarity Phrases

The possibility of having various functional projections associated with the subject vs. object layer of the clause makes it possible to consider CP as a subject-layer Polarity Phrase, i.e., a PolsP. In that case, of course, the PolP above the VP (see the tree) would correspond to a PoIqP. Empirically, this move would do justice to the long noted observation that CP hosts informa­ tion about the truth-value of the clause. Theoretically, this move would sub­ stantially reduce the inventory of possible functional categories. In addition, it would go a long way toward constraining the projections only to those which involve clearly established grammatical categories, such as Tense, Agreement, Aspect, and Polarity, while eliminating those which are not associated with such grammatical categories, such as CP. In the same spirit, the AuxP, where, as a rule, Serbian auxiliaries seem to be generated, can be interpreted as an object layer of TP, TOP, while the higher tense projection, in which the nominative feature is checked, can be seen as TSP. In fact, it is pointed out in Chapter Six on clitics that the excep­ tional behavior of the auxiliary je may be due to its generation in TSP. In any event, it is clear that Serbian has two positions in which auxiliary verbs occur, and these two positions may indeed correspond to TSP and TOP. The tree below is thus the basic hypothesis for the structure of the clause explored throughout this monograph. (2) PolsP

Pols

AspsP Asps

AgrsP

Agrs

TSP

Ts

PoloP Polo

AspoP

Aspo

Agr0P

Agro

T0P To

VP

Each of these functional projections not only has overt morphological manifestations, but it also plays a crucial role in the rest of syntax, as will be shown in the chapters to follow.

3.2. Split CP

45

The ordering of the projections was decided upon based on the following factors, also to be discussed in the subsequent chapters. First of all, PolPs are proposed to precede other projections given that CP, now reanalyzed as PolsP, is standardly taken to be the highest projection of the clause. Likewise, there is evidence that PoIqP precedes the functional projections in the object layer. For example, n-words and other polarity items, which are argued in Chapters Two and Seven to raise to the specifier of the PoloP, normally occur higher than regular objects, which presumably occupy Agr0P. On the other hand, the ordering of clitics suggests that AgrPs, in which pronominal clitics are arguably placed, precede TPs, in which auxiliary clitics are generated (see Chapter Six). AspPs are placed higher than the Agr/T complex for scope reasons. First of all, the aspectual suffixes, arguably checking their features in AspsP, take scope over events and times, and would thus need to scope over Tense (see Chapter Five for details). Likewise, aspectual prefixes, arguably checking their features in AspoP, must scope over the direct object or the ex­ pletive se pronoun, and thus over AgroPIt is also suggested in this chapter that Serbian provides evidence for split CP (or PolsP). The following section addresses that question.

3.2. Split CP This section presents evidence from Serbian for a split CP projection, namely CP and cp. The outer segment, cp, hosts question formation, including whformation, while the lower segment, CP, hosts truth-conditional adverbials. Negative inversion in English can also be analyzed as movement to the lower CP. A connection between polarity of the clause and the CP layer of the clause is evident both with Serbian adverbs and with English negative inver­ sion. Section 3.3 explores an alternative analysis in which CP is reanalyzed as a PolP. In this section, I continue to use the term CP. It is widely assumed that (at least) embedded and interrogative finite clauses are dominated by a CP projection, usually held to be the highest of the clausal projections. In English, the head C of such projection is associated with the category of complementizers, introducing embedded clauses, as well as with question formation. The same is true of Serbian. Serbian has two uncontroversially base-generated instantiations of C: the complementizer da, and the question particle li.

(3)

Ne verujem da not believe that

je Stefan stigao. AUX Stefan arrived

‘I do not believe that Stefan has arrived.’

(4)

Voli li likes Q

Stefan da putuje? Stefan that travels

‘Does Stefan like to travel?’

46

Chapter 3. CPs and/or Polarity Phrases

In fact, as also pointed out in Chapter Two, the most common way to form yes/no questions in Serbian is to combine the complementizer with the question particle: (5)

Da that

li Stefan voli da putuje? Q Stefan likes that travels

‘Does Stefan like to travel?’

In addition to embedding and yes/no-question formation, wh-move me nt is also standardly held to target the CP projection as its landing site. Whmovement in Serbian targets the specifier of CP, as in (6) below (but see Boskovic 1995, 1997, 1998 for the claim that wh-phrases in Serbian move to SpecCP only if the question particle li is present; see also Chapter Two for a discussion of this issue).

(6)

Koga whom

(li) je Ana videla? Q AUX Ana seen

‘Who(m) (on earth) has Ana seen?’ At first glance, this analysis seems also to extend to w/i-questions formed with a K'/z-word followed by a complementizer da, as in (7) and (8). Thus, it appears that da in these cases occupies the head of CP position, while the whphrases are in the specifier position of CP.

(7) Kada da dodjem? when that comei sg ‘When should I come? / When to come?’ (8)

Koga da whom that

dovedem? bringiso

‘Who should I bring with me? / Who to bring with me?’ The opposite order of da and wh-words is not possible, which would be consistent with the analysis. However, the following facts contradict the as­ sumption that n-7z-words and da are in the same projection:

(9)

?Koga li da dovedem?

(10) Koga cu whom williSG

da dovedem? that bringiSG

If the clitics in Serbian occupy the highest functional head of the clause, as recently argued by many (see Chapter Six), then the clitics in (9) and (10) would be in cp, that is in c, supported by the ivA-word in the specifier of cp. The fact that da follows the clitics in (9) and (10) suggests that da is not in the same projection, given that clitics normally surface to the right of complemen­

3.2. Split CP

47

tizer when in the same projection (see also example (15)). The data provide an argument for a split CP. On this analysis, the iv/i-words and the clitics in (9) and (10) are in cp, while the complementizer da is in C. There is another category in Serbian that seems to require CP layers. A group of adverbs are obligatorily or optionally followed by the complemen­ tizer da, as illustrated below: (11) Naravno da ću doći. of course that williSG come

T will certainly come.’ (12) * Naravno ću doći. (13) Svakako certainly

da ću doći, that williSG come

T will certainly come.’ (14) Svakako ću doći.

The data suggest that these adverbs can be in the specifier of CP. It may be that such adverbs are associated with C by virtue of relating to the truth­ value of the clause. C is standardly assumed to be the projection that pertains to the truth-value of the clause, such as factivity, interrogative vs. declarative force, polarity, etc. Cinque 1999 has argued that each class of adverbs is asso­ ciated with a distinct functional projection, and appears in the specifier of such functional projection. Thus, the conclusion that the adverbs in (11) and (13) are associated with C not only provides empirical support for Cinque’s hypothesis, but it also provides a rationale for the fact that this class of ad­ verbs would be accompanied with a complementizer in Serbian. It is also important to point out here that the clitics, highlighted below, must follow the adverbial selected da, and cannot occur between the adverb and da. This is in sharp contrast to the examples of wh-words followed by da, in (9) and (10). (15) Naravno/Svakako da sam ga videla. of course that AUX him seen ‘Of course I have seen him.’

(16) ** Naravno/Svakako

sam ga da videla.

If, indeed, the second-position clitics are located in the head of the high­ est extended projection of V, the data above are not surprising. The clitics in (15) are in the head of the highest clausal projection; the reason why they are not second is the result of the unusual situation in which both the head and the specifier of this projection are overtly realized. Presumably, it is possible

48

Chapter 3. CPs and/or Polarity Phrases

to doubly fill the Comp position if the head and the specifier are in agree­ ment, and both base-generated in the respective positions. This interaction with clitics strengthens the proposal that the adverb and the compelementizer are in the same projection, realized as a spec and a head of that projection, re­ spectively. Presumably, this is the CP layer. A need for CP recursion, or for a double layer of CP, has also been noted for English. Inversion in English is triggered both by iWv-raising and by NegPreposing, as illustrated below.

(17) When will he accept their offer? (18) Under no circumstances would he accept their offer. In both cases, the landing sites for the inverted verbs have been associ­ ated with C. Given this, the example (19) below calls for a CP-recursion analysis since it exhibits both inversion and an Overt complementizer in a single clause (see e.g., Authier 1992). Radford 1997 reanalyzes CP recursion as CP split, arguing that the complementizer in (19) is in the higher segment of CP, while the inverted auxiliary and the negative phrase are in the lower segment, as represented in (20) (see also Rizzi 1997). (19) John swore that under no circumstances would he accept their offer.

(20) John swore [cp that [CP under no circumstances [C’ would [IP he accept their offer.]]]] If the lower segment, CP, is where negation can occur in English, it may well be that CP is a PolP. (See also Culicover’s 1991 argument that PolP is a second complementizer-type position.) As argued in Laka 1990, a PolP is as­ sociated with either negative or positive truth-value indicators, including adverbials, such as indeed in English (see Chomsky 1957 for the insight). As pointed out above, some such adverbs in Serbian are obligatorily followed by a complementizer. If the adverbs in (11-14) are associated with PolP, by virtue of their meaning, then identifying PolP with CP provides a rationale for the fact that this class of adverbs would be accompanied by a complementizer. While one can certainly argue that English negative inversion and Serbian polarity adverbs occur in a distinct projection (distinct from CP), the most restrictive view of the data presented here would be that both phenomena are associated with the lower segment of CP. This would be the most restrictive view for the following reasons. Empirically, this would allow one to say that Serbian da only occurs in C heads, whether C or c, and that English inversion only targets C heads, c in the case of wA-inversion, and C in the case of negative inversion. Theoretically, if split functional projections are allowed in principle, then it is best to make use of this mechanism, rather than introduce an ad hoc projection. Third, it has long been noted or assumed that

3.3 An Alternative to CP: Polarity Phrase

49

the complementizer layer of the clause is somehow associated with the truth­ value of the clause. The following section explores the possibility that CP itself is a PolP,

3.3 An Alternative to CP: Polarity Phrase

Given the connection between the CP layer of the clause, and the polarity of the clause, it was suggested in the previous section that the lower segment of CP may be what is sometimes referred to as a PolP. The connection is estab­ lished by the argument that Serbian adverbs of assertion appear in this posi­ tion, as well as English negative inversion. One may wonder, however, why one layer of CP would be related to polarity, but not the other. In fact, one may wonder if both layers of CP cannot be reanalyzed as layers of a PolP. More precisely, in this scenario, cp would correspond to polp, while the CP layer would correspond to PolP. The outer segment, polp, would then be as­ sociated with wA-movement and question formation in general, in both Serb­ ian and English, while the inner layer, PolP, would host negative inversion in English and truth-conditional adverbials in Serbian, as in (21): (21) polp

pol

PolP PoT^^XP

This raises (at least) three questions. The first question has to do with the position of regular clausal negation, and the need for yet another PolP much lower in the tree. The second question pertains to what evidence there is that the question layer of the clause should be in the same projection as the polar­ ity layer. Finally, the question remains as to what the advantage is of treating CP as PolP, as opposed to leaving it to be a separate CP projection. Regarding the first question, there is a clear need for a PolP much lower in the tree in both English and Serbian in order to accommodate the place­ ment of regular negation: (22) John does not understand the question. (23) Jovan John

ne razume pitanje. not understands question

Zanuttini 1991 proposed a NegP analysis of negation in Italian, while Brown 1996,1999 adopted it for Russian. In Progovac 2005 (see also Chapter Seven), the NegP analysis is also adopted for negation in Serbian. There are two general positions in which negation can occur: before the subject, as in (18), and after the subject, as in (22-23). By analogy with AgrPs, I propose

50

Chapter 3. CPs and/or Polarity Phrases

that these two projections associated with polarity are PolsP and PoloP, i.e., subject and object PolPs, respectively, as represented in (24). PoIqP is what has traditionally been called NegP, and Pol$P is what has traditionally been called PoIP or CP. (24) polsp

pols

PolsP Pols

.

XP

PoloP

Polo

VP

Still, one would wonder what would motivate the object/subject sublabels on the two PolPs. Note that motivation for Agr0P stems from its asso­ ciation with the objective Case marking of the internal argument. In fact, like agreement (and aspect, see Chapter Five), negation also has a connection with Case. The so-called genitive of negation in Slavic may be the case in point. In Russian, genitive of negation is optionally assigned to the object of a transitive verb in a negated clause (25), as discussed in Brown 1999: (25) a.

Ja ne čitaju žurnalov. I NEG read magazincsGI.N T don’t read (any) magazines.’

b.

Ja ne čitaju žurnaly. I NEG read magazinesAcc T don’t read magazines.’

Although genitive of negation would not be grammatical in Serbian in the examples illustrated above, Serbian shows some Case sensitivity to negation in negative existential constructions, such as (26). While genitive is impossible in positive existential constructions (26c), it is fine in negative existential constructions (26a).

(26) a.

Nema NEG-has

Marije. MariaGEN

‘Maria is not there.’

3.3 An Alternative to CP: Polarity Phrase

(26) b.

c.

51

* Nema Mariju NEG-has MariaACc I*ma has

Marije/Mariju. MaryGEN/ACC

Even though accusative cannot be used in existential constructions (26c), it is otherwise the Case of the object of the verb imati: (27)

Imam haveiSG

knjig-u. bookACC

Brown 1999 argues that NegP is directly involved in Case checking of the genitive of negation Case feature. The fact that PoloP can actually participate in checking the Case of the internal argument gives credibility to the object sub-label. The second question to address is the connection between polarity and question layer of the clause: why should they be in the split segments of a single projection, as opposed to in two distinct projections? It seems to me that there are both empirical and theoretical advantages to this analysis. The arguments are of course thé same as those pointed out for split CP. Empiri­ cally, there is a real connection between the two positions in both English and Serbian. In Serbian, the complementizer da can appear in either position. If this is a single projection, then the distribution of da is captured in a uniform way: da occurs in a single projection, although in either split segment of this projection. The same rationale holds of English inversion, which would target one single projection, although either split segment of this projection: outer segment for wh-inversion, and inner segment for negative inversion. Theoretically, as pointed out above, it is more economical to have a single projection and allow it to split into two segments, the mechanism otherwise available in the grammar, than to allow two distinct projections. Concept­ ually, there is no hard-and-fast evidence that CP and PolP are distinct. The third question is why PolP, and not CP. First, while polarity is a clear grammatical concept, with overt morphological manifestations in probably every language, “complementizing” is not. (Intriguingly, the complementizer da in Serbian coincides with the affirmative word da, which means yes.) Moreover, it is clear that (at least) one segment of this projection has to do with polarity, since it hosts negative inversion and affirmative adverbials. But even question formation is connected to the truth-conditions of the clause. In the next section, I argue that w/z-phrases have a polarity feature that they check in a PolP (see also Chapter Six). This feature arguably explains the positive presuppositions of wTz-questions, as well as provides rationale for whfronting of non-initial vv/z-phrases, which do not go to the top layer of CP.

52

Chapter 3. CPs and/or Polarity Phrases

3.4. Wh-/Polarity Connection As pointed out in Chapter Two, Serbian word order gives subtle support for the neg-raising analysis of n-words (negative words), (See Zanuttini 1991 and Brown 1996,1999; also Progovac 2005.) The unmarked order for an n-word is preverbal, that is, before negation, as in (28a), while (28b) is somewhat emphatic. On the other hand, the unmarked word order for an object is otherwise postverbal, as illustrated in (29b), Vuku in (29a) being interpreted as a topic.

(28) a.

On nikoga ne voli, he no one NEG loves

‘He loves no one.’

b. (29) a.

?On ne voli nikoga.

?On Vuku ne voli. he Vuka not loves ‘He does not love Vuka.’

b.

On ne voli he not loves

Vuku. Vuka

This would follow if n-words raise to a projection which is higher than where objects otherwise surface, such as NegP (or PoloP), but are also able to be pronounced in the tail of the chain as the result of Scrambling (see Chapter Two). Notice that the higher position of n-words with respect to regular objects supports the hierarchical arrangement of PoloP above AgroP, as given in the tree diagram (2). However, it is not only n-words that exhibit this kind of word order pat­ tern. Other words associated with polarity show similar behavior, such as positive polarity items (PPIs), as in (30), and negative polarity items (Z-NPIs), as in (31) (see Progovac 1994 and references there for a discussion of PPIs and i-NPIs in Serbian):

(30) a.

On je nekoga he AUX someone

uvredio. insulted

‘He hurt somebody’s feelings.’

b.

(31) a.

?On je uvredio nekoga.

Da that

li Q

je on AUX he

ikoga uvredio? anyone insulted

‘Did he hurt anybody’s feelings?’

b.

-Da lije on uvredio ikoga?

3.4. Wh-ZPolarity Connection

53

In Progovac 2005 (see Chapter Seven), I argue that the raising analysis for «-words extends to PPIs and z-NPIs as well. This can only be possible if polarity features other than negation are also checked in this projection. Very roughly, the argument is that «-words have a [+neg] feature, PPIs a [-neg] feature, and z-NPIs a [-neg, -pos] feature specification. Moreover, the scope restrictions on PPIs and z-NPIs suggest that their features can be checked in a PolP higher than NegP, providing a strong argument for two polarity phrases. It is well known that wh-words contribute positive presuppositions to whquestions. In other words, wA-questions presuppose the existence of the event as well as of the participants in the event: (32)

When did Peter ask Mary out? (Presupposition: Peter asked Mary out sometime.)

(33)

Who told Peter about the party? (Presupposition: Someone told Peter about the party.)

Suppose then that the wA-words come with a corresponding polarity feature, say [-neg], as argued for PPIs or indefinites, the feature which is then checked in a PolP. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that wh-words can be used as indefinites in Serbian (also in languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean). (34)

Da that

li je on koga Q AUX he whom

uvredio? insulted

‘Has he insulted someone?’ If so, then the requirement on wA-words to raise, whether or not they ul­ timately go to SpecCP, would follow from the need to check Polarity fea­ tures. Recall from Chapter Two that Serbian multiple wA-questions require all their wA-phrases to be fronted. However, the first one is in a structurally higher position than the rest of the wA-phrases, which is especially clear in (35), where the subject actually intervenes between the two wA-phrases. (35)

Sta je Kosta kome kupio? what AUX Kosta whom bought ‘What did Kosta buy for whom?’

(36)

Sta je kome Kosta kupio?

As pointed out in Chapter Two, the example in (35) can be analyzed as having its higher wA-phrase sta in the PolsP, and its lower wA-phrase kome in the PoloP. On the other hand, consistent with the discussion in the previous sections, (36) can be analyzed as having the first wh-phrase in the outer polsp segment (standardly cp), while the second wA -phrase would be in the inner

54

Chapter 3. CPs and/or Polarity Phrases

PolsP segment (CP). The clitics would, as predicted, follow the first w/pword if the clitics indeed surface in the highest functional head. The fact that the clitics must interrupt the wA-phrases demonstrates that the wh-phrases do not form a unit, but rather sit in distinct projections (see Chapter Six for arguments to this effect). If on the right track, this analysis provides a rather straightforward ration­ ale for the wh-/polarity connection. This section also provides an argument that there are two PolPs in a clause, PolsP and PoloP. The former is higher in the tree, and subsumes what was CP. The latter is lower in the tree, and is es­ sentially the NegP of the previous accounts. A more detailed defense of this argument is found in Chapter Seven. 3.5. Eventive To

Sentences in Serbian can be introduced by a demonstrative form, which seems to point deictically to an event, or to the evidence that the event has taken place.

(37)

To that

Novak pliva. Novak swims

‘That is (the event of) Novak swimming. / What you see/witness is (evidence) that Novak is swimming.’

I have argued (Progovac 1998a, 1998b; also Chapter Eight) that the clausal demonstrative to is a pronoun referring to events, in the spirit of the research on events as grammatical objects (e.g., Borer 1994; Travis 1997, 2000; Cowper 1997; Rosen and Ritter 1997; and Ritter and Rosen 2000). To shows the same range of functions otherwise exhibited by personal pronouns refer­ ring to individuals: demonstrative (as illustrated above), anaphoric, and bound-variable functions. In this section I focus only on the demonstrative use of to, in an attempt to determine its position in the functional domain. In its demonstrative use, to appears in a fixed structural position, located just below the question words, that is, tv/i-words and question particles: (38)

(tamo) there

a.

Ko to who that

b.

^To ko tamo peva?

a.

Da COMP

peva? sings

‘Who is singing over there?’

(39)

li to Tea pere zube? Q that Tea washes teeth

‘Is that Tea brushing her teeth?’ b.

To da li Tea pere zube? *

3.5. Eventive To

55

In addition, to is necessarily preverbal, suggesting placement in a rela­ tively high (functional) projection: (40)

Tea pere to zube. *

(41)

Tea pere zube to. *

However, to can appear either preceding or following the subject. As is usually the case with scrambled word order (Chapter Two), the different orders correspond to slightly different information structures. While in (42) the subject, Tea, is old/given information, and the demonstrative scopes over the event of “brushing teeth,” in (43), the whole event of “Tea’s brushing teeth” is in the scope of the demonstrative and Tea is not interpreted as old/given information:

(42)

Tea to pere zube.

(43)

To Tea pere zube.

Assuming a fixed position for the subject in these two examples, the data above suggest that there may be two positions for to. Recall from Chapter Two and section 3.4. above, that iv/t-phrases in mul­ tiple Wi-questions can also occur in two distinct positions, separated by the subject: (44)

Sta

je

what

AUX Kosta

Kosta

kome

kupio?

whom bought

‘What did Kosta buy for whom?’ My proposal is that in (44) sta is in PolsP, while kome is in PoloP- Extend­ ing this same analysis to to, I propose that to in (43) is in Pol$P, while to in (42) is in PoIqP- Its placement in PolsP would insure its scope over the entire clause, including the subject (43), while its placement in PoIqP would render a narrower scope, only over the VP (42). Next, I propose that the placement of to in (43) targets the inner segment of PolsP, accounting for the fact that wA-words and question particles imme­ diately precede to. In addition, recall from section 3.2 that it is in this inner layer that negative/assertive features are checked, including Negative Inver­ sion in English and assertion adverbials in Serbian. In fact, to can be likened to a factive complementizer, but a factive complementizer which introduces root clauses. According to Ivie 1983, “adding such a to in a sentence has as its goal to emphasize/highlight the actuality of what the sentence reports on” (my translation and emphasis). To put it another way, to affirms the actuality of an event/state. I return to a much more detailed discussion of to in Chapter Eight.

56

Chapter 3. CPs and/or Polarity Phrases

3.6. Concluding Remarks This chapter proposes that CP be reanalyzed or relabeled as PolsP. At the same time, what is standardly referred to as NegP has been relabeled as Pol0P. This move is in the spirit of the main thread of this monograph, namely the proposal that all functional projections come in two layers, subject and object, and that only those functional projections are available for which there is morphosyntactic evidence. There is evidence both in Serbian and in English to support two PolPs. While regular post-subject negation is accom­ modated by PoI0P, negative inversion in English and adverbs of assertion in Serbian are argued to target (the inner segment of) PolsP. The outer segment of the PoIsP *n both languages is reserved for question formation, including w'A-questions and yes/no questions. Three other chapters in this monograph rely on this proposal. Chapter Seven discusses the relevance of the two PolPs in accounting for negative and positive feature checking, as well as the scope possibilities of polarity items. Chapter Eight looks in depth at the event pronominal to, which has been pro­ posed in this chapter to reside typically in the lower segment of PolsP. Finally, to will prove essential in determining the position of second-position clitics in Serbian, to be discussed in Chapter Six.

Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases, and the Expletive Se

4.1. Introductory Words As pointed out in the Introduction (Chapter One) and in Chapter Three, I explore the following basic structure of the Serbian clause in this monograph:

(1) PolsP

Pols

AspsP

Asps

AgrsP

Agrs

TSP

Ts

PoIqP

Polo

AspoP

Aspo

AgroP

Agro

TOP To

VP

It rests on the assumption that Serbian has only those functional projec­ tions for which there is morphological evidence: PolPs (subsuming CP), AspPs, AgrPs, and TPs, each showing two manifestations or layers: subject and object. Chapter Three discusses PolPs in some detail (see also Chapters Seven and Eight). Chapter Five takes up Aspect Phrases. This chapter covers Tense Phrases (section 4.2) and Agreement Phrases (4.3), and argues not only for their existence in Serbian, but also that they, too, come in two layers: subject and object. Specifically, it is argued that auxiliaries are generated in TPs, that subject/verb agreement is hosted by Agrs, and that the expletive se is typically generated in Agr0, It is further proposed that both AgrsP and AgroP can have split segments, which are responsible for checking dative

58

Chapter

4. Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases,

and the

Expletive 5e

Case of subjects and objects, respectively. The functions and uses of the object expletive pronoun se are further discussed in section 4.4.

4.2. Tense Phrases

4.2.1. TSP and TOP The need for a Tense Phrase (TP) is well established in the Minimalist, as well as in the pre-Minimalist, syntactic literature. It is widely assumed that TP is situated somewhere between the AgrsP and Agr0P, as is the case in (1). I propose here that Serbian exhibits two TPs, corresponding to the subject and object layers of functional structure, TSP and TOP- More specifically, as a rule, auxiliary clitics in Serbian are generated in the TOP position, immediately dominating VP, but they subsequently raise to TSP and AgrsP for feature checking purposes. For the exceptionally positioned auxiliary form je I pro­ pose that it is generated directly in TSP. This proposal will have important consequences for the ordering of clitics and will be further discussed in Chap­ ter Six. It is argued in Chapter Six that auxiliary clitics, on their way to AgrsP/TsP complex, move through the AgroP projection, which hosts the pronominal clitics. The auxiliary incorporates (left-adjoins) into the pronominal clitic in the AgroP, and they continue to travel to AgrsP as a unit. This derives the order in which the auxiliary clitic precedes the pronominal clitic (2); the un­ pronounced copies of movement are crossed out in the diagram in (3). (The diagram in (3) ignores the projections and movement rules not relevant for the discussion here). (2) Ti si ga videla. y°uNOM AUX himACC seen

‘You have seen him. / You saw him.’ (3)

TsP/AgrsP

videla

4.2. Tense Phrases

59

This movement is well motivated: the auxiliary moves to the Ts/Agrs complex in order to check its tense/agreement features, as well as the nominative feature of the subject. However, the third-person singular clitic auxiliary je follows, rather than precedes, pronominal clitics: (4) Radmila ga je videla. Radmila himACC AUX seen

‘Radmila has seen him./Radmila saw him? In fact,/e shows other exceptional properties as well, including the lack of an agreement morpheme. Anticipating the discussion of the positioning of clitics with respect to je in Chapter Six, I propose that, unlike other auxiliary verbs, je is generated in the subject layer Ts, the position usually assumed to generate modal verbs in English, which likewise lack agreement. This would explain why je shows an opposite ordering with respect to the other clitics. (For a more detailed discussion of the issue, see Chapter Six.) The possibility to generate two different classes of auxiliary verbs in two distinct functional projections provides support for the idea that there are two distinct Tense Phrases in Serbian; TSP and TOP. If true, this result provides further evidence for the hypothesis that any functional projection can come in two layers: subject and object.

4.2.2. Tenses in Serbian The following is the inventory of tenses in Serbian, according to Mrazovic and Vukadinovic 1990.

Present (5) Sit full

gladnome hungry

ne veruje. not believes

‘The full do not believe the hungry.’ Past

(6) Milena je pevala. Milena AUX sung ‘Milena sang.’ Future

(7) Milena Milena

ce pevati. will sing

‘Milena will sing.’

(Folk wisdom)

Chapter 4, Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases,

60

and the

Expletive 5f

Aorist (8)

Tvrd je orah voćka Čudnovata, ne slomi ga a hard is walnut fruit amazing not break it but

zube polomi. teeth break ‘Hard walnut is a strange fruit—instead of breaking it, you break your teeth.’ (P. P. Njegos, Gorski Vjenac)

Imperfect (9)

...bledi ...pale

od straha, posmatrahu from fear watched

opasnu dangerous

igru... game

‘...pale with fear, they watched the dangerous game...’ (I. Andrić, Na Drini Ćuprija) Pluperfect (10)

Ja I

se nisam bio SE NEG-am been

ni rodio, kad je babo NEG born when AUX father

zametnuo kavgu, made quarrel ‘I had not even been born when father started the quarrel.’ (Folk verses)

Future 2

(11)

Šta će what will

biti be

od from

nas us

ovako brzo i ovako this quickly and this

ako if

nas us

život bude menjao life would change

duboko? deeply

‘What will become of us if life changes us this quickly and this deeply?’ (I. Andrić, Pripovetke) Aorist and Imperfect have become rather obsolete in colloquial speech, and are both being replaced by the Past Tense.1 Pluperfect is comparable to1

1 Aorist is typically formed of perfective verbs, and Imperfect of imperfcctive verbs (see Chapter Five on aspect). Aorist is a simple tense, formed of the infinitival base and with a distinct set of affixes:

(i)

slomi-h slomi slomi

(l.havc broken) (yousG have broken) (he/she has broken)

slomi-smo (we have broken) slomi-ste (youPL have broken) slomi-se (they have broken)

In fact, aorist is used in the formation of the Conditional, formed of the aorist of the auxiliary biti ‘to he’ and the participle of the main verb (see Mrazovic and

4.2. Tense Phrases

61

the English Past Perfect, and is formed with two auxiliaries and the participle of the main verb. The first auxiliary is the clitic form of the verb jesam ‘be’, also used in the formation of the Past Tense (below) and the second auxiliary is the participle form of the verb biti ‘to be’. Pluperfect is also slowly being re­ placed by the Past Tense. Future 2 is a productive tense, formed of the auxil­ iary verb biti ‘to be’ and the past participle form of the main verb. It is most natural in clauses introduced with temporal kad ‘when’ or conditional ako ‘if. My discussion in this section will focus on the three basic tenses in Serbian: Present, Past, and Future. Present tense is a simple tense, formed with the main verb alone, with no auxiliaries: (12) Japeva-m. Ti peva-s. On/Ona peva-0.

Mi peva-mo. Vi peva-te. Oni/One/Ona peva-ju.

‘I sing. /1 am singing.’ ‘You sing. / You are singing.’ ‘He/She sings. I He/She is singing.’ ‘We sing. / We are singing.’ ‘You sing. / You are singing.’ ‘They sing. / They are singing.’

As is obvious from the glosses, the Present Tense in Serbian can be inter­ preted either as habitual or as momentary. There is no distinct Tense marker for the Present Tense. The boldface suffixes are agreement markers, and some of them appear on auxiliary verbs in Future or Past Tenses, as is obvious from the paradigms below. This can be interpreted as Present Tense being the default Tense, or no Tense. It is possible that TOP is not generated with Present Tense, given that there is no need for it: there are no auxiliaries with Present Tense, and there are no Tense features.

Vukadinovic 1990). Interestingly, all the suffixes are disappearing in colloquial speech, and only the bare form bi is being retained, in spite of the prescriptive pressure to keep the suffixes. (ii)

bi-h (I would) bi (youSG would) bi (he/she would)

bi-smo bi-ste bi

(We would) (youpL would) (They would)

Imperfect is formed of the infinitival or Present Tense base, with a distinct set of suffixes: (iii)

Posmatra-h Posmatra-se Posmatra-se

(I observed) (yousG observed) (he/she observed)

posmatra-smo posmatra-ste posmatra-hu

(we observed) (youPL observed) (they observed)

The Tense feature [+Pasl], which characterizes both Aorist and Imperfect, probably comes from the suffixes. Notice that plural suffixes for the first and second person, in both Tenses, have a characteristic [s] sound, preceding what are otherwise agreement markers, also used in the Present Tense.

62

Chapter 4. Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases,

and the

Expletive 5e

Future Tense is formed with the auxiliary clitic derived from the full verb hteti ‘want’ and the infinitive form of the main verb: (13)

Ja cu pevati. Ti ces pevati. On/ona ce pevati.

T will sing.’ ‘You will sing.’ ‘He/She will sing.

Mi cemo pevati. Vi cete pevati. Oni ce pevati.

‘We will sing.’ ‘You will sing.’ ‘They will sing.’

I assume that the feature [+Future] is supplied by the auxiliary verb, which is only used for Future Tense. Interestingly, when the auxiliary clitic at­ taches to the verb, in case the verb can support the clitics, the infinitive ending -ti drops, as in (14), Retaining the ending results in ungrammaticality, as in (15).21 return to the possible significance of this fact below. (14)

Peva-cu. Peva-ces. Peva-ce.

Peva-cemo. Peva-cete. Peva-ce.

(15)

* Pevati-cu. *Pevati-ces. * Pevati-ce. * Pevati-cemo. *Pevati-cete. *Pevati-ce.

Past Tense is formed with the clitic form of the auxiliary verb jesam ‘be’, and the past participle form of the main verb.

2 There is an exception to this rule, however. While the infinitive marker drops with ti infinitives, the less common and less productive infinitive form, ending in ci, retains this ending even when the clitic attaches (i). I have no good explanation for this differ­ ence between the two infinitive forms, other than that -ci may not be separable from the (bound) root.

(i)

Doci-cu. Doci-ces.

‘I will come.’ ‘You will come.’

etc.

4.2. Tense Phrases

(16) Ja sam pevala/pevao. Ti si pevala/pevao. Ona/On je pevala/pevao.

Mi smo pevale/pevali. Vi ste pevale/pevali. One/Oni su pevale/pevali.

63

T sangF/MjSG.’ ‘You sangp/MSG-’ ‘She/He sangF/MSG-’ ‘We sangF/MPL-’ ‘YoupLsangF/MpL.' ‘TheyF/M sangF/MPL.’

I will assume that the feature [+Past] is supplied by the auxiliary clitic, since the participle itself is also used for Future 2. Even though the auxiliary clitic itself is in the Present Tense form, as pointed out by the reviewer, it may be that its generation in a TP necessarily endows it with a tense feature other than Present, which seems to be a default tense in Serbian. Together with Future 2 and Pluperfect, Past Tense shows gender agree­ ment, in addition to person/number agreement. What Future 2, Pluperfect, and Past Tense have in common is that they are all complex tenses, with the main verb appearing in the past participle form. Past participles are marked for gender/number agreement. Therefore, information on subject agreement is found in two places: person/number agreement on the auxiliary and gender/number agreement on the participle.3 This split agreement phenomenon is captured by proposing that the two sets of agreement features are checked in two split segments of AgrsP. Person/number agreement is checked in the main segment of AgrsP, while gender/number agreement is checked in agrgp (see section 4.3 for details). This analysis can explain why participles, unlike infinitives, can support clitics (see also Footnote 3): (17) Pevala je celu noc. sang AUX all night

‘She sang all night long.’

The above example contrasts with (15), which shows that the infinitive forms cannot support clitics. This fact would follow from the assumption that the infinitive form cannot raise to the Agrs projection, since it has no agreement

3 In fact, pluperfect shows gender/number agreement in two places: on the participle of the main verb, and on the participle of the second auxiliary. Anticipating the dis­ cussion below, it should be noted that either of the two participles can support clitics, suggesting that each can raise to AgrgP to check the agreement features (see Boskovic 1995 for noting that both participles raise): (i)

Bila je pevala celu noc, been aux sung whole night

‘She had been singing the whole night.’ (ii) Pevala je bila celu noc...

64

Chapter 4, Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases,

and the

Expletive Se

or tense features to check. On the other hand, the participle is specified for agreement, and will, thus raise to Agrs to check its agreement features, which will in turn enable the participle to support the clitics. From the discussion above it transpires that at least the productive tenses in Serbian do not show distinct tense markers (see Footnote 1 for Aorist and Imperfect). The Present Tense shows only person/number agreement mark­ ing on the main verb. The Past Tense shows person/number agreement on the auxiliary jesam, as well as gender/number agreement on the participle. The Future Tense shows person/number agreement on the auxiliary. I therefore assume that the auxiliary clitic itself comes with the relevant feature: jesam with [+Past] and hteti with [+Future]. This would make sense if auxiliary verbs are generated in TPs, as proposed above. The Present Tense comes with no particular feature specification, and I will assume that the Present Tense is a default tense. If so, then the Past and Future auxiliaries will be driven to both layers of Tense and Agreement projections, and will check their relevant tense/agreement features in both layers. On the other hand, main verbs in Present Tenses will move to Agrs to check their agreement features, and will pass through TSP on their way to Agrs, in which case TOP need not be gener­ ated at all. Since they have no Past or Future features to check, their Spec/Head relationship with Ts will result in the default Present Tense feature checking.

4.2.3. Concluding Remarks In sum, this section provides a brief sketch of the tense marking system in Serbian and concludes that the data are consistent with the standard assump­ tions that Tense and Agreement head their own projections. In addition, the Serbian auxiliary system provides an argument for two TPs: the lower TOP, in which agreeing auxiliaries are generated, and the higher TSP, in which the ex­ ceptional non-agreeing auxiliary je is generated. This assumption helps ex­ plain the ordering of clitics, discussed in Chapter Six. Moreover, this analysis provides a natural way of capturing the interaction between finiteness and agreement properties, particularly in the case of participles and infinitives.

4.3. AgrsPs and AgroPs: Nominative, Accusative, Dative

4.3.1. Introductory Words Serbian provides concrete evidence for two Agreement Phrases in the clause, the one in which the subject checks its nominative feature, or AgrsP, and the other in which the object checks its accusative feature, or AgroP. Moreover, an argument is made for a split AgrsP based on the split agreement facts. Namely, in some complex tenses, agreement with the subject is marked in two different ways: the auxiliary agrees in person and number, while the participle agrees in number and gender, as discussed in the previous section. It is also

4.3. AgrsPsand AcrqPs: Nominative, Accusative, Dative

65

suggested in this section that dative Case, both for dative objects and dative subjects, might be checked in the split segments of Agr0P and AgrsP, respec­ tively. Allowing “splitting” of existing projections into two is a much more re­ strictive mechanism than allowing proliferation of various functional projec­ tions with stipulated nature. Moreover, the splitting of a single projection au­ tomatically captures the similar functions of such projections.

4.3.2. Agrs Phrase (and Pro-Drop) AgrsP is a projection standardly assumed to have two basic roles: to check agreement features of the verb, and to check nominative Case of the subject. It is commonly accepted that the [Agrs/Ts] amalgam checks nominative Case (see e.g., Chomsky and Lasnik 1995). According to the widely accepted VP internal hypothesis, the subjects are generated within the VP/vp projection, as arguments of the verb, and then moved to AgrsP/TsP complex to check their nominative Case (as proposed by e.g., Kitagawa 1986 and Sportiche 1988). Among others, Bowers 1993 and Chomsky 1995 argue that subjects are gen­ erated in a projection higher than VP, PredP (Predication Phrase) and vp, re­ spectively. For ease of exposition, I continue to use only VP in this chapter, but will assume that subjects are generated above VP. Serbian shows an elaborate system of subject-verb agreement.4 This agreement type can be characterized as “uniform” in the sense that each para­ digm has only derived inflectional forms, and that each person is distinctly marked.5 According to Jaeggli and Safir 1989, agreement is uniform if the paradigm shows either only derived forms, or only underived inflectional stems.6

4 For agreement in the Serbian noun phrases, see Zlatic 1997; Wechsler and Zlatic 2000; Ivie 1960; Progovac 1998d. 5 In contrast, as evident from the English translations in (18) in the text, agreement in Standard English is non-uniform, since the third-person singular present tense is the only derived form, and the only one distinguished from the other persons. 6 Although neuter gender is productive in Serbian in the sense that many nouns show neuter inflections, the use of neuter pronouns is unnatural. Gender on Serbian nouns is semantically arbitrary in that nouns that have no natural gender are still assigned to gender classes. For example, knjiga ‘book’ is feminine, sto ‘table’ is masculine, and drvo ‘tree’ is neuter. Assignment to a gender class depends largely, but not exclusively, on the ending of the noun (see e.g., Ivie 1960 for a discussion of gender in NPs). I will assume that the feature gender is Uninterpretable in Serbian nouns, in the sense of Chomsky 1995, where it is argued that only those features that have semantic content are Interpretable (but see Boskovic 1997; 103 for some problematic aspects of this conclusion). It may well be that the feature Gender is for some reason necessarily Interpretable on overt pronouns, making it unnatural to refer to inanimate objects with overt pronouns, as illustrated in the (a) examples. The natural way is to use pro-drop, as in the (b) examples:

66

Chapter 4. Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases,

(18) Ja peva-m, Ti peva-s. On/Ona/Ono peva-0.

and the

Expletive Sf

‘I sing.’ ‘You sing.’ ‘He/She/It sings.’

Mi peva-mo. Vi peva-te. Oni/One/Ona peva-ju.

‘We sing.’ ‘You sing.’ ‘TheyM/N/F sing.’

Third-person singular is traditionally analyzed as involving a zero suffix, rather than as being underived. This makes sense given that the form is in op­ position with any other person, this uniqueness of form rendering it practi­ cally marked for third-person singular. Person/number agreement is also uniformly marked on auxiliary verbs in complex tenses:

(19) Ja sam pevala/pevao. I am sungF/MSG ‘I sang.’

(i)

a.

?Ona she

je is

puna full

lepih niccGEN

slika. picturesGEN

‘Il (the book) is full of nice pictures.’ (ii)

b.

Puna je lepih slika.

a.

?On he

je aux

prekriven covered

bclim whitejNST

stolnjakom. tableclothiNsT

‘It (the table) is covered with a white tablecloth.’ (iii)

b.

Prekriven je bclim slolnjakom.

a.

?Ono it

jc aux

obraslo grown-in

mahovinom. mossiNsT

‘It (the tree) is covered with moss.’

b.

Obraslo je mahovinom.

It is interesting to note that English only shows gender distinctions with pronouns (only third-person singular), and these distinctions are based on natural gender, and involve Interpretable features. Moreover, since the pronoun it in English would be natural in any of the translations of the a. examples above, one can assume that it is a genderless pronoun, and can thus be used to refer to any singular third-person indi­ vidual that does not show gender. This is independently confirmed by the fact that it can be used as an expletive (meaningless and certainly genderless) pronoun, as in (iv). None of the overt pronouns can be used as expletive pronouns in Serbian—in fact, Serbian does not use overt expletive pronouns at all, as will be pointed out below.

(iv)

It seems difficult to answer this question.

To avoid this problem of gender with pronouns, I will use neuter nouns instead of pronouns in the rest of the examples.

4.3. AgrsPs and AcrqPs: Nominative, Accusative, Dative

67

(20) Ti si pevala/pevao. You are sungF/M5G

‘You sang,’ (21) a.

On je pevao. he is sungMSG ‘He sang. *

b.

Ona je she is

pevala. sungFSG

‘She sang.’ c.

Dete child

je is

pevalo. sungN5G

‘The child sang.’ (22) Mi smo pevale/pevah.

we are

sungF/MJL

‘We sang.’

(23) Vi you

ste pevale/pevali. are sungF/MPI.

‘You sang. * (24) a.

Oni su pevali. theyM are sungM PI ‘They sang.’

b.

One su pevale. theyF are sungFFL

‘They sang.’ c.

Deca su childrenN are

pevala. sungNPL

‘Children sang.’

This property of agreement uniformity has been associated with the pro­ drop parameter, or null subject parameter. The parameter has to do with whether or not a language can leave out a subject, i.e., drop a pronoun in the subject position. Jaeggli and Safir 1989 claim that null subjects are permitted in all and only languages with morphologically uniform agreement paradigms. As pointed out in Footnote 5, English agreement is non-uniform, and English

68

Chapter

4. Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases,

ano the

Expletive Se

does not have pro-drop (25), On the other hand, Serbian has uniform agree­ ment, and exhibits the property of pro-drop (26) 7 (25)

John is very musical. * Sings in the choir. I * Sang in the choir.

(26)

Veljko ima sluha. Peva u horu. I Pevao je u horu. ‘Veljko is musical. (He) sings in the choir. / (He) sang in the choir?

As is the case with other pro-drop languages, Serbian does not have ex­ pletive subject pronouns, whose sole purpose would be to fill in the subject position. The following contrast between English, a non-pro-drop language, and Serbian, a pro-drop language, illustrates the phenomenon:

(27)

(28)

a.

It seems that Mary is tired.

b.

Seems that Mary is tired. *

a.

To izgleda da je Marija umorna.8*is *

b.

Izgleda da je Marija umorna.

7 As pointed out in Franks 1995, the Jaeggli/Safir correlation holds within Slavic as well. Thus, in East Slavic languages, such as Russian, agreement is non-uniform and does not allow pro-drop of arguments. On the other hand, South Slavic (including Serbian) and West Slavic (including Polish) show uniform agreement and license pro­ drop. 8 Notice, however, that Franks 1995 argues that cases comparable to (28a) in Serbian, as well as in some other Slavic languages, actually involve overt expletives, and are grammatical, albeit marginally. If true, this would be surprising because the standard assumption is that a language will have overt expletives only as a last resort, if it re­ quires overt subjects otherwise. Moreover, the example in the text is perfectly gram­ matical without to, and expletive pronouns arc supposed to be obligatory, not op­ tional. To the extent that examples like (28a) are grammatical, I argue that they involve the event pronominal to, and not any subject pronoun. As evident from the discussion in Chapter Three, section 3.5, the event pronominal to freely co-occurs with overt subjects, as in (i), where it demonstratively refers to an event:

(i)

To Novak that Novak

pliva. swims

‘That is (the event of) Novak swimming. / What you see/witness is (evidence) that Novak is swimming.’ Moreover, the pronominal in this position is replaceable by other demonstrative event pronominals, the choice having to do with the distance relative to the speaker (cf. this and that in English) (see Chapter Eight for details). Thus, both in (28a) in the text and in (i) above, to is replaceable by a closer-distance pronominal ovo, suggesting that one is dealing here with a demonstrative pronoun, rather than a subject expletive pronoun. There can be no possible reason why an expletive (i.e., meaningless and non-referring) pronoun, moreover a subject pronoun, should show different forms, having to do with the distance from the speaker.

4.3. AgrsPsand AgrqPs: Nominative, Accusative, Dative

69

While in English an overt expletive (meaningless) pronoun is required with predicates that do not take a meaningful subject, such as seem, an expletive pronoun is disallowed in Serbian, and the pro-drop option is utilized. From the paradigm given in (18-24), it is obvious that subject agreement in Serbian targets three features: person, number, and gender. While any tense, whether simple or complex, exhibits person/number agreement, only complex tenses formed of past participles also show gender agreement. In fact, the participle shows gender and number agreement, and the auxiliary shows person and number agreement, which means that number agreement is marked twice. Since in both cases agreement is with the subject, we are deal­ ing with a “split * ’ case of subject agreement, in a rather literal sense of the word. One may speculate that participle agreement is checked in a split seg­ ment of AgrsP. If so, the main segment of AgrsP would check person/number agreement on the auxiliary, and the split segment agrsp would check gender/number agreement on the participle. That subject agreement can surface on two different verbal categories is a powerful argument for a split AgrsP. If, indeed, the participle is specified for subject agreement, it will have to raise to AgrsP to check its agreement features, which will in turn enable the participle to support the clitics (see section 4.2 and Chapter Six). Notice that Bošković 1997,1998 has argued, based on independent data in (29), that par­ ticiples move and adjoin to the auxiliary verb. (29) Odgovorila answeredESG

sam AUXjsg

Milen-i. Milena DAT

T answered Milena.’

I interpret this movement to be to AgrsP, where auxiliaries check their agreement features. More precisely, I am assuming that the auxiliary moves into the main segment of AgrsP, in which person/number features are checked, while the participle moves into the split segment, agrsp, where gender/number features are checked. This analysis provides motivation for participle movement in terms of feature checking, which is in the spirit of the (ii)

To/Ovo Novak pliva. that/this Novak swims

(iii)

! To/Ovo izgleda da je Marija umorna. that/this seems that aux Mary tired

The slight oddity of the examples in (iii), as well as the comparable examples given in Franks 1995, follows from the fact that the use of such demonstrative event pronominals requires special pragmatic context in which the evidence for the event is demon­ stratively established. Raising predicates do not naturally provide such a context. The grammatical judgment of a (?) reflects the interpretation with the event pronominal use of the pronoun to, while the (*) in the text, for the same example, reflects the judgment for the intended expletive use of the pronoun.

70

Chapter 4. Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases,

and the

Expletive Se

Minimalist Program (for more details on verb movement in Serbian, see Chapters Two and Six). In sum, the Serbian data make a case for a split AgrsP projection. Subject agreement in Serbian can surface on two different verbs: on the first auxiliary (person/number agreement) and on the participle(s) (gender/number agree­ ment). I argue that this secondary agreement on the participle, gender/ number agreement, is checked in the split segment of AgrsP. I further argue in section 4.3.4 that the AgrsP segment is responsible for checking the Case of dative subjects. I also briefly return to Agrs in section 4.3.3, where I conclude that the reflexive pronoun se, typically associated with Agr0, can also occupy the Agrs position in impersonal constructions in Serbian.

4.3.3. Agro Phrase According to Chomsky and Lasnik 1995, verbs that have the feature [+Case] will check this feature in the [Agr0,V] amalgam. The Case associated with Agro is the accusative Case. Objects are taken to move from their base­ generated positions to the specifier positions of AgroP to check their accusative features. This renders accusative and nominative feature checking essentially parallel: they are both achieved by movement, and they are both achieved through Spec/Head agreement in a functional projection, an Agreement Phrase. One piece of evidence for the Agr0 projection in Serbian is offered in Boskovic 1995. He argues that the scope possibilities in the following exam­ ples can only be accounted for if one assumes that the object moves to a pro­ jection higher than VP: (30)

Goran je Goran AUX

namerno on purpose

dvaput oborio Savu. twice failed Sava

‘Goran failed Sava on purpose twice.’

(31)

Goran je Goran AUX

oborio failed

Savu Sava

namemo on purpose

dvaput. twice

‘Goran failed Sava on purpose twice.’ In (30), the adverbs are to the left of VP, and the adverb nainemo neces­ sarily takes wide scope with respect to dvaput. On the other hand, (31) is am­ biguous. Boskovic argues that this ambiguity can only be derived if one as­ sumes that the adverbs in (30) can either be to the left or to the right of the VP. More specifically, on the reading on which the adverbs are still to the left of VP, it must be that the object (as well as the verb) has moved out of the VP position. The most natural assumption would then be that the object has moved into Agr0P, where it checks its accusative Case.

4.3. AgrsPs and AgroPs: Nominative, Accusative, Dative

71

The second argument for Agro comes from the analysis of the reflexive clitic se in Serbian as an Agro pronoun, checking accusative Case (see Franks 1995; Progovac 1998b). The latter reference makes an additional claim that se is an expletive pronoun, whose sole purpose is to check Case, and that it is neither reflexive nor referential (this analysis is taken up in much more detail in section 4.4), If indeed se checks the accusative Case, then any internal ar­ gument will have to check its Case against Agrs, just like the external argu­ ments do, thus giving rise to reflexive, reciprocal, null-object, or passive inter­ pretations, as illustrated below:

Reflexive (32)

Novak se brije. Novak SE shaves

‘Novak is shaving.’ Reciprocal (33)

Deca se tuku. children SE hit

‘The children are hitting each other.’ ZVmZZ Object (34)

Milan Milan

se udara. SE hits

‘Milan is hitting (someone/me).’

Passive (35)

Deca se children NOm SE

grle. hug.

‘One hugs children. *

In fact, given the right pragmatic choice of examples, one single sentence can be multiply ambiguous, exhibiting any of the readings illustrated above:

(36)

Deca se grle. ‘The children are hugging ?themselves/cach other/somebody else. 7 One hugs children.’

This supports the conclusion that se is not referential, or reflexive in nature. It is also not associated with any particular theta-role. All it does is eliminates one argument, whether external or internal, by absorbing the Case that this argument would normally receive. The remaining argument is then understood as either internal (passive interpretation), or external argument (a

72

Chapter 4, Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases, and the Expletive Se

range of other interpretations). When the subject is interpreted as the exter­ nal argument, all the logical possibilities seem to be attested for the interpre­ tation of the understood theme: the subject can perform the (transitive) action on himself (reflexive); or it can be a reciprocal action if the subject is plural; or it can just be an action performed on another person (null object). This last option is most natural in a situation in which the object of the action is salient in discourse, for example the person speaking, or some other person present. An expletive analysis of se, according to which se is only responsible for checking the accusative feature of the verb, captures the data in a unified and straightforward way. Se can also be argued to occupy the only Agr projection in the clause with verbs that take only one argument. In that case, the only argument does not surface at all, and the agreement on the verb is the default third-person singu­ lar neuter, even though the implied agent is plural, and certainly not neuter. These are so-called impersonal constructions.

Impersonal

(37)

Plesalo dancedjsGN

se sve do zore. SE all until dawn

‘One danced until dawn.’

If the analysis of se is on the right track, then se provides direct morpho­ logical evidence for the Agr0P projection (see section 4.4 for more details on impersonal and other uses of se).

4.3.4. Dative Subjects and Dative Objects In addition to accusative and nominative Cases, there is another Case that has been argued to be structural in Slavic—dative. In the minimalist framework of Chomsky 1995 it is assumed that structural Case assignment proceeds through Specifier/Head agreement in a functional projection such as AgrP. In con­ trast, inherent Cases are usually associated directly with a thematic role. Pos­ sible examples of the inherent Cases would be Instrumental (38), Vocative (39), and Locative (40) (but see Franks 1995; Fowler 1987; Greenberg and Franks 1991; Franks and Hornstein 1992 for arguments that Instrumental can also be assigned structurally in Slavic in certain configurations).9

9 Serbian is traditionally described as having a seven Case system: Nominative (First Case), Genitive (Second Case), Dative (Third Case), Accusative (Fourth Case), Vocative (Fifth Case), Instrumental (Sixth Case), Locative (Seventh Case). Nomina­ tive and Accusative are uncontrovcrsially structural, and Dative, Instrumental, and Genitive have also been argued to be structural Cases.

4.3. AgrsPsand AgrqPs: Nominative, Accusative, Dative

(38)

Ljubisa Ljubisa

73

crta olovk-om. draws pencilINST

"Ljubisa is drawing with a pen.’ (39)

Ljubomir-e, da li si LjubomirVoc that Q AUX

me prepoznao? me recognized

‘Ljubomir, have you recognized me?’ (40)

Knjiga je na book is on

stol-u. tableLOC

‘The book is on the table.’

The inherent Case in the examples above directly reflects the theta-role of the noun, that is, the role of an instrument, a summoned person, a location. In Serbian dative Case can surface on what are clearly objects, typically representing goal theta-roles, but also on what appear to be subjects, typically exemplifying the experiencer roles. These two uses are illustrated below: (41)

Zoran Zoran

je AUX

dao given

knjigu book

Svetlan-i. SvetlanaDAT

‘Zoran gave the book to Svetlana.’ (42)

Svetlan-i se SvetlanaDAT SE

spavalo. slept3SGN

‘Svetlana felt like sleeping.’ If there is a virtue in analyzing the same Case in a unified way, then per­ haps the following analysis would be appealing. Given that some projections, including functional, can have split segments (see discussion of split CP/PoIP in Chapter Three, and of split AgrsP in section 4.3.2), let us assume that any projection can have a split counterpart. Specifically, assume that both AgrsP and AgroP can have split segments, namely, agrsp and agrop, respectively. As pointed out in section 4.3.2, the motivation for a split AgrsP also comes from the fact that agreement in Serbian can surface on two different verbs, in which case, the auxiliary shows person/number agreement, and the participle shows gender/number agreement. Assume further that AgrsP is associated with the nominative Case, and that the main segment of AgrsP checks this feature on the verb and on the subject. On the other hand, assume that AgroP is associated with the ac­ cusative Case, and that the main segment of AgroP checks the accusative fea­ ture on the verb and on the object. If there is only one DP checking its Case features in an AgrP, then that AgrP need not split, and the canonical Case of that projection will be checked: nominative for AgrgP, and accusative for AgroP. However, if one additional DP is to check its Case feature in an AgrP,

74

Chapter 4. Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases,

and the

Expletive Se

that DP will not be able to check the canonical Case of that projection. Assume, however, that this second DP will still be able to check a Case—in the split segment of that projection. This would be dative Case in both AgroP and AgrsP.10 This analysis would be in the spirit of Franks 1995, who also advocates a unified analysis of dative. In particular, he argues that dative, whether object or subject, is assigned to a sister of an X', where the X' is either an I' (for subjects) or a V' for (objects). Placing datives in the (split segments of) AgrPs would keep the spirit of this analysis, recasting it in a new framework. Placing datives in AgrPs has an added advantage of making the approach to dative more unified, and more in line with other structural Case checking: not only are dative features of both subjects and objects checked in the familiar Spec/Head configuration, but they are also both checked in AgrPs. As the reviewer observes, the need for splitting AgroP also arises with respect to the verb učiti ‘teach’, which takes two accusative objects, the recipi­ ent and the theme of teaching (see Dziwirek 2002 for cross-linguistic Slavic data; see also Chapter Six, Footnote 5).* 11(iii) (i)

10 However, there are exceptional verbs in Serbian that take only dative objects but not accusative objects, such as pomagati ‘help’: (i)

Djurdjinka je pomogla Grozdan-i. Djurdjinka AUX helped GrozdanaDAT

‘Djurdjinka helped Grozdana.’ Such verbs are going to need a special stipulation in any analysis, including this one. As will be discussed below, there is a comparable problem in AgrsP, although not in Serbian. Namely, Russian infinitive clauses license dative subjects without there being another subject in AgrsP. These would both involve a similar exceptional mechanism.

11 Notice that genitive Case may also be checked in a split segment of Agr0P. Genitive Case is frequent in expressing the theme of verbs whose subject is an experiencer, whether nominative or dative. When the genitive theme is clilicized, the genitive clitic je precedes se, just like the dati ve clitic does in the text example (56): (i)

a. Ja sc bojim/plašim Marine. Inom se afraid/fearigG MarinaGEn ‘I am afraid of Marina.’

b. Bojim/plašim je se. (ii)

a. Ja se stidim Marine. Inom se ashamed] sg MarinaGEN T am ashamed of Marina.’ b. Stidim je se.

(iii)

a. Meni meDAT

je aux

žao Milana. sorry MilanGEN

‘I feel sorry for Milan.’

b. Žao mi ga je.

4,3. AcrsPs and AcrqPs: Nominative, Accusative, Dative

75

Going back to the example in (41), one can say that the direct object knjigu is in the main segment of AgroP, checking the canonical accusative Case, while the additional argument Svetlani is in its split counterpart agrop, checking dative Case. Similar considerations derive (42), if the analysis of se as an expletive pronoun is correct (see sections 4.3.3 and 4.4). The expletive pronoun se, which occurs with default agreement on the verb, will check the nominative feature of the main segment of AgrsP. The additional argument Svetlani will thus be forced to check the dative Case in the split segment of AgrsP-agrsp. Notice that in this case the participle also shows default neuter agreement. This would follow if agreement (default) checked in one segment cannot be altered during the derivation. Similar dative Subject/.se constructions also occur with verbs that take an additional argument, as in (43):12

Presumably, the genitive Case feature would also be checked in the split segment of Agr0P, if the verb is specifically selected with this feature. Even though the genitive clitic co-occurs with se, for me it is not possible to com­ bine a genitive and an accusative pronominal clitic, in either order (this is also noted to be the case in Czech by Jindfich Toman, as reported in Franks and King 2000):

(iv)

?Oslobodio/Lisio sam freed/deprived aux

Milenu MilenaACC

Marije. MaryGEN

‘I freed/deprived Milena from/of Mary.’

(v)

?Oslobodio/Lisio freed/deprived

sam aux

je herGEN

se. SEacc

‘I freed/deprived myself from/of her.’

(vi) a. *Oslobodio/Lisio sam freed/deprived aux

je herGEN

ga. himagg

‘I freed/deprived her from/of him.’

b. *Oslobodio/Lisio sam ga je. This attests to the special status of se with respect to other accusative pronouns. On the other hand, it is not possible to check in Serbian whether this special status comes from its distinct position in the tree, such as perhaps a Reflexive Phrase, as pursued in Toman 1999 for Czech and in Franks and King 2000 for Slavic in general. In the ab­ sence of evidence in Serbian that se occurs in a position distinct from the position of pronominal accusative clitics, I will continue to assume that both occur in one position, AgroP. The differences then might follow from the expletive status of se (for more discussion regarding this matter, see Chapter Six on clitics). 12 Franks 1995 notices that such constructions are unavailable in Russian, and con­ cludes that the difference between Serbian and Russian would follow if Russian -sja involves a lexical process but Serbian se a syntactic process (for Russian -sja, see Babby 1975; Babby and Brecht 1975). This seems supported by the fact that Russian -sja appears to be an affix, which necessarily attaches to the verb, while se in Serbian is a clitic, and is not necessarily attached to the verb overtly. The following contrast illustrates the Russian facts:

76

(43)

Chapter 4. Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases,

Meni se meDAT SE

and the

Expletive Sf

pila kafa. drunk3SGF coffeeNOMF

‘I felt like drinking coffee.’ Notice that the theme kafa is in the nominative Case, and that the verb agrees with it in Gender and Number. This is in contrast to the impersonal example in (42), in which there is no nominative Case, and the verb shows default Neuter agreement. Given the proposal so far, (43) would be analyzed in the following way: there are two arguments, internal and external, and thus two AgrPs are projected. Se is generated in AgroP and checks the'accusative feature. The internal argument, kafa, checks nominative Case in the main segment of AgrsP. On the other hand, the external argument checks a dative Case in the split segment, agrsp.* 13 It is worth asking the following question here: how does one know that the external argument, the so-called dative subject, does not actually receive the object dative Case in agrop. There are three reasons. First, it is possible to have both datives in a single clause—subject and object:14

(i)

nine meDAT

(ii)

*inne ne meDAT not

ne not

rabotaet-sja work-SE

T don’t feel like working.’

citaet-sja read-SE

ni neg

odna kniga. one book

T do not feel like reading any book.’

If the Case absorption by -sja in Russian is a lexical process, it will not be able to license nominative Case assignment to the internal argument, thus explaining why (ii) is ungrammatical. In fact, -sja in (i) would be absorbing nominative Case, while -sja in (ii), which is ungrammatical, would be absorbing accusative Case. 13 This analysis raises the following question: why is it not possible for the internal argument to check dative Case in either of the agreement projections. In other words, why would (i) below be ungrammatical on the derivation where ja checks nominative Case, and kafi checks dative Case in either the split agrsp or the split agrop?

*Ja se pila kafi. INOm se drunkisG coffeeDAT Perhaps there is a prohibition against Theme taking dative Case, but this prohibition should follow from structural considerations, rather than be stipulated, It is also true that dative is usually reserved for human arguments, as pointed out in Dziwirek 2002. 14 Interestingly, however, it is not possible to have two dative clitics in this scenario, suggesting that something more interesting is at stake here: (i)

(i)

*Ta that

knjiga mi mu se book nom meoAT himoAT se

T do not feel like giving him that book.’

ne not

dajc gives

4,3. AgrsPsandAcrqPs: Nominative, Accusative, Dative

(44)

Meni se ta knjiga ne daje meDAT SE that bookNQM not gives

77

Milanu. MilanDAT

‘I do not feel like giving that book to Milan.’ Second, and rather intriguingly, the dative constructions in (43) and (44) do not at all have a “passive feel” to them, the way the following counterparts without a dative subject do: (45)

Kafa se pila coffeeNOM SE drunk

svaki every

dan. day

‘One drank coffee every day.’ (46)

Nove knjige new booksNOM

se SE

ne daju not gives

Milanu. MilanDAT

‘New books are not to be given to Milan.’

One can explain this difference in interpretation straightforwardly under this analysis. Examples in (45) and (46) have a passive feel to them because there is only one argument in the Agr$P, and that argument is internal. On the other hand, in (43) and (44) there are two arguments in AgrsP, an exter­ nal one and an internal one. Third, it has been argued for Russian that dative experiencer subjects are not in the same position as indirect objects (see Chvany 1970; Babby 1975a; Corbett 1975,1983; Franks and Greenberg 1988), based on reflexive binding. As the examples from Serbian below illustrate, dative subjects can in general serve as antecedents for reflexives, while dative objects cannot. The judg­ ments are somewhat murky when both subjects are potential antecedents, as in the ambiguous (48). While the dative subject is a perfect binder in (47), it seems to me that the nominative subject is the preferred binder in (48).

(47)

Jovanu JohnDAT

se pije kafa u svojoj SE drinks coffeeNQM in selfs

sobi. room

‘John feels like having coffee in his room.’ (48)

Jovanu se svidela JohnDAT SE likes

Marija u MaryNOM in

tridestoj thirtieth

svojoj selfs

godini, year

‘Jovan got to like Mary when she/?he was thirty.’ On the other hand, dative objects clearly cannot bind possessive reflexives: (49)

Zoran je dao knjigu Svetlan-i Zoran AUX given book Svetlana^AI

u svojoj in self’s

‘Zoran gave the book to Svetlana in his (* her)

room.’

sobi. room

78

Chapter 4. Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases,

and the

Expletive 5e

At least the contrast between (47) and (49) provides an additional argument for the different structural position of dative subjects and dative objects. It is argued in Franks 1995 that dative subjects of infinitive clauses in Russian do not occupy the same structural position as dative experiencer subjects (for further discussion of dative subjects in Russian see e.g., Babby 1998, 2000 and Lauren^ot 1997), The conclusion is based on the observation that there is a correlation in Slavic between the possibility to have dative subjects in infinitive clauses, and the availability of the second dative con­ struction. Thus, Russian and Polish have both, while Serbian, Slovak, and Slovenian have neither:

Russian (50)

mne meDAT

bol'se tam ne more there not

rabotat' to work

T can’t work there anymore.’

(51)

Prijti odnomu očen' trudno to arrive aloneDAT very hard

‘To arrive alone is very difficult.’ * Serbian 5

(52)

?* Meni

više

meDAT more

tamo

nije

raditi.

there

not

to work

T can’t work there anymore.’

(53)

Teško je difficult AUX

živeti sam/ * samome. to live aloncKOM^doncDAT

‘It is difficult to live alone.’

In contrast to dative infinitive subjects, which are restricted in Slavic, all Slavic languages have experiencer dative subjects. Franks 1995 concludes that the two kinds of dative subjects do not occupy the same structural position. If Franks is right, then the analysis explored here pertains only to experi­ encer dative subjects. This is not a necessary conclusion, however. Franks 1995 notices that only those Russian infinitive clauses that can in principle 15 In fact, the Serbian example in (52) has an.archaic ring to it, and does not seem to be completely ungrammatical, Zeljko Boskovic, personal communication, brings up another type of example, which is more acceptable, even though it also has an archaic ring to it in my dialect:

(i)

putovati. travel ‘We are to travel tomorrow.’ Nama jc sutra usdat AUX tomorrow

4.3. AgrsPsand AcrqPs: Nominative, Accusative, Dative

79

have a copula allow dative subjects. He proposes that such infinitives have the feature [+Tense], the feature which then licenses subjects. If infinitives in Ser­ bian, on the other hand, never have a [+Tense] feature, given that they cannot occur with a copula, they would never license dative subjects. It is generally assumed that both Tense and Agreement participate in nominative Case checking. This may also be the case with dative checking in agrsp. However, if one wants to maintain that all dative subjects check their dative Case in agrsp, including the infinitive dative subjects in Russian, then one would have to allow the infinitive clauses to generate an agrsp even without nominative checking in AgrsP (see also Footnote 10). The proposal is thus that dative subjects and dative objects check their features in the split segments of AgrPs, and that these split segments project lower than the main segments (thanks to the reviewer for the latter suggest­ ion). This ordering is able to derive clitic placement in Serbian, under the pro­ posal explored in Chapter Six. In Serbian, and in Slavic in general, dative ch tics precede accusative clitics (54-55), as well as impersonal se (56-57).16 (54)

ga je. himACC AUX

Predstavila mi introduced meDAT

‘She introduced him to me.’ (55) (56)

Predstavila ga mi je. *

Spavalo 8tept3sG.N

mi

se.

meDAT SE

‘I felt like sleeping.’ (57)

Spavalo se mi. *

The basic proposal for clitic placement, explored in Chapter Six, is that the clitics are placed in the functional projections in which they check their Case features. Thus, dative clitics would occur in split segments of AgrPs, as proposed in this section, while the accusative clitic ga in (54) would occur in the main segment of AgroP, and se in (56) would be generated in the main segment of AgrsP. The verb would then left-adjoin to each of these projec­ tions, incorporate the clitics, and move, together with the clitics to AgrsP. This movement would reverse the underlying ordering of the clitics. In any event, this parallelism between dative subjects and dative objects, including their placement with respect to other clitics, provides further support for a unified analysis.

16 This order effect is not evident with full DPs, which is presumably due to scrambling possibilities.

80

Chapter 4. Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases,

and the

Expletive Se

In sum, the appeal of the proposal advocated in this section is that it can unify the analyses of dative subjects and dative objects. The intuitive notion of “object” thus covers those internal arguments that have been assigned structural Case in AgroP, whether accusative or dative. Thus, the intuitive understanding of what an object is finds a correlate in the theoretical con­ struct of structural Case assignment in AgroP. Similar considerations are relevant for the notion of subject: that DP which receives Case in an AgrsP, whether nominative or dative, is considered to be a subject. In addition, this analysis reduces dative checking to the same mechanism as checking of nomi­ native and accusative: specifier/head relationship in an agreement projection. Furthermore, this analysis obviates the need for a separate functional projec­ tion, such as AgroP (Indirect Object Agreement Projection), as introduced for example in Radford 1997. Empirically, such a projection would not solve the problem of dative subjects—an independent mechanism for sissigning dative to a subject would still be needed. Theoretically, it is more restrictive to allow the same number of splitting of fewer projections than to allow twice as many projections, of which only arbitrary few can split. This section is admittedly rather speculative. 4.4. Expletive Se

4.4.1. Introductory Note This section is based on Progovac 1998b, where it is argued that the so-called reflexive clitic se in Serbian is an expletive pronoun merged in Agr projec­ tions, typically Agro, whose role is to check strong D-features of Agreement (see also section 4.3.3). This analysis subsumes various functions of se, includ­ ing reflexive, reciprocal, passive, middle, and impersonal. In contrast, the full reflexive pronoun sebe is analyzed as an argument, generated in the regular object position. The full pronoun has only one function: reflexive. The two are therefore analyzed not as long and short versions of each other but rather as categorially distinct. This analysis also lends morphological support for the existence of AgroP, as per discussion in section 4.3.3.

4.4.2. Agr0P and Se My proposal in Chapter Six will be that personal pronoun clitics occur in Agr0, while their full pronoun counterparts are generated in the usual object positions. This proposal enables me to capture the second position of clitics in Serbian by arguing that the clitics become syntactic affixes on the verb and move with the verb to the highest functional projection. In this section I argue that the reflexive clitic se is generated in Agro, unlike its full counterpart sebe, which is generated in the usual object position, inside VP. If this analysis of personal pronoun clitics and the reflexive clitic se is correct, it provides mor­ phological support for the projection of Agr0P.

4.4. Expletive Se

81

Morphologically, se looks like a short counterpart of the full reflexive pronoun sebe; (58)

Rada se Rada SE

brije. shaves

‘Rada is shaving,’ (59)

Rada sebe brije. Rada SELF shaves

‘Rada is shaving himself.’ Syntactically, however, the two perform quite different functions. While sebe only has the reflexive use, comparable to English reflexive pronouns of the self-type, se shows a variety of functions, ranging from reflexive and recip­ rocal to passive, middle, non-causative, and impersonal.17 It is only in its strictly reflexive use that se can be substituted for by the full reflexive pro­ noun sebe, as the contrast in interpretation between (60) and (61) indicates. All other readings are lost in (61), including the reciprocal reading. Substitu­ tion by sebe is likewise impossible with non-causative (62) and middle con­ structions (63): (60)

Deca se štipaju. children SE pinch

‘The children are pinching each other/themselves/somebody else. / One pinches children.’ (61)

?Deca sebe štipaju, ‘The children are pinching themselves.’

(62)

Vrata sebe se/ * doorNOM SE/self

zatvaraju. close

‘The door is closing.’ (63)

Kolači * sebe se/ cakeNOM SE/self

jedu eat

viljuškom, forkiNsT

‘One eats cake with a fork.’

This provides a strong argument for the claim that se is not just a short form of sebe, at least not synchronically, but that it has a distinct categorial status. While sebe is best analyzed as an argument, generated in the direct object position within VP, se is best analyzed as an expletive pronoun gener­

17 Notice that Grimshaw 1982 argues that French se is not a pronoun and that it is never an object (see also Rouveret and Vergnaud 1980; Marantz 1984; and Manzini 1986 for Italian si).

82

Chapter 4. Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases,

and the

Expletive Se

ated in an Agr position (for a comparable distinction between full personal pronouns and their clitic counterparts, see Chapter Six). The above uses of se can be explained if se is analyzed as an expletive, merged in the AgroP projection,18 This is supported by the fact that se does not co-occur with accusative Case, at least not in Standard Serbian or Croatian.19 It has been argued by many (e.g„ Rizzi 1993; Haegeman 1996;

18 Bclletti 1982 proposes that Italian reflexive si is inserted al S-structure (under Infl). This S-structure insertion would only be possible with expletives. Sec also Cinque 1988 for si as a non-argument, generated in Inti with Agr. 19 There are variants of Croatian (Kajkavian) that allow the internal arguments of transitive verbs to surface either in nominative or in accusative Case in se construc­ tions, as illustrated below (from Franks 1995):

(i)

Kolaci se jedu. cakeNOM se cat3PL

‘Cake is being eaten.’ (ii) Jede se kolace. eal3sG SE cakcACC

‘Cake is being eaten.’ One can assume with Franks 1995 that se in (ii) absorbs the nominative Case, leaving the accusative Case available for checking by the object. I do not know why this strategy is marked in Slavic. It may be that se originally had an inherent accusative feature, having derived from the accusative reflexive pronoun sebe. Gradually, however, this accusative specification has been lost in some dialects. Thus (ii) can be analyzed on a par with the impersonal (75) down in the text. In both cases se is generated as an expletive in AgrsP; in both cases the verb shows default third-person singular agreement, which does not correspond to the actual plural interpretation of the implied agent. The difference is that (ii) also has an Agr0P which checks the accusative feature of the internal argument. This difference between Serbian or Croatian standards, on the one hand, and the Kajkavian dialect, on the other, is reminiscent of the difference in Case realization be­ tween English and Ukrainan passive constructions (see Lavine 2000 and references cited there for other languages that are like Ukrainian and Kajkavian with respect to the formation of passive constructions). For English, it is assumed that the passive morpheme en absorbs the accusative Case.

(iii)

The apple was eaten.

En has been analyzed as a head of a functional projection, IP, by Baker, Johnson, and Roberts 1989. In the split IP model, it would make sense to generate en in AgroP, since it is closely linked to accusative Case checking. In contrast, Ukrainian passive constructions retain the internal argument in the accusative Case (see Shevelov 1963 and Sobin 1985), resembling the use of se in Kajkavian:

(iv)

Koly when

zbudovano built

cju thisACC

‘When was this church built?’

cerkvu churchAcc

4.4. Expletive Se

83

Sportiche 1996 for Romance; Rudin 1997 for Bulgarian) that pronominal clitics are in Agr0, the head through which Verb also moves on its way up (see also Suner 1990, who identifies clitic with agreement systems).20 Franks 1995 argues that se absorbs the accusative feature. Kayne 1989 argues that argument clitics undergo a two-step movement: first phrasal movement, as part of a DP, and then head movement of the clitic itself, D. These analyses recognize the special status of clitic pronouns and their association with Agr. Since se “absorbs” either agent (external) or theme (internal) roles, as will be illustrated below, it is not possible to maintain that se is associated with a specific theta-role. If se is not an argument, the expletive analysis of se imposes itself. This analysis also captures the differences between se and the reflexive form sebe. As discussed in section 4.3.3, the [Agro,V] amalgam is standardly held to check the accusative Case, assuming that Agro has a strong D-feature, just like Agrs does (Chomsky 1995: 350). As a result, both projections attract DPs. Suppose that the strong feature of Agr0 can be checked in two ways: (i) by moving an accusative DP into the specifier of the projection or (ii) by merging an overt expletive element in AgroP- This parallels the nominative scenario: the strong Agrs feature is also checked either by movement of a nominative DP into the Spec position or by merging an expletive itlthere in the position.21 If there exist overt expletives for AgroP, as there exist overt expletives for AgrsP, then the reflexive clitic seems the most reasonable candidate, given that it is the pronoun least specified for features. The pronoun se is unspecified for person, number or gender, as illustrated below: (64)

Stojan/Mira se SE

brije. shaves

‘Stojan/Mira is shaving,’ (65)

Ti se brijes. ‘You are shaving.’

(66)

Momci/Devojke se briju.

‘Boys/Girls are shaving.’

Perhaps the passive morphology in Ukrainian can also appear in AgrsP (but see Lavine 2000 for a proposal to disassociate the suppression of the external theta role from accusative Case absorption). 20 But see Schoorlemmer 1997 for arguments that Russian reflexive clitic -sja cannot be generated in Agr0 because it sometimes surfaces with an accusative DP. See also Footnote 12 for some differences between se in Serbian and -sja in Russian. 21 See also Longobardi 1994 for the notion of “expletive article” in D.

84

Chapter 4. Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases,

and the

Expletive Se

In fact, if the theory of Case checking is on the right track, then the lack of typically Agro expletives would be a curious gap in the paradigm, in need of explanation, as pointed out in Chomsky 1995: 341. If se can indeed be analyzed as a typical Agro expletive, then there is no such gap. Let us now illustrate how the analysis works with the basic Uses of se. First consider the reflexive use of se in (58), which also has a transitive coun­ terpart in (67), and the respective (partial) tree diagrams of their base genera­ tion in (68) and (69):22 (58)

Mile Mile

se brije. SE shaves

‘Mile is shaving.’ (67)

Siniša brije sina/sebe. Sinisa shaves son/self

‘Siniša is shaving his son/himself.’

(68)

(69)

Mile se brije.

Siniša brije sina/sebe vp

Siniša

AgroP

brije

sina/sebe

Thus, in (68), the strong D-feature of Agro is checked directly by the exple­ tive element se, while in (69) it is checked by the subsequent movement of the object sina/sebe to the Spec of AgroP.

22 I place se in the head position of Agr0P, rather than in the specifier position, due to its clitic-like nature. Also, if my analysis of clitics in Chapter Six is correct, it suggests that any clitic has to be in the head position at least at the point when the verb adjoins to it. In the diagrams throughout the chapter, I ignore any subsequent movements of the verb, the arguments, or the clitic.

4.4. Expletive Se

85

An account similar to the one in (68) can be given for the passive inter­ pretation of (60’), for the non-causative se in (62’), and for the middle se in (63’), with their respective (partial) tree diagrams in (70), (71), and (72), rep­ resenting base generation. Subsequently, the nominative marked object in each case is going to move to AgrsP to check its Case feature.

(60') Deca se Štipaju. children SE pinch

(Passive)

‘One pinches children.’ (62') Vrata se zatvaraju. doorNQM SE close

(Non-Causative)

‘The door is closing.’ (63') Kolači se jedu viljuškom. cakeN0M SE eat forkjf^gj

(Middle)

‘One eats cake with a fork.’ (70)

Passive Reading (see (74) below for active readings) AgroP

se

VP

deca

Štipaju

(71)

Non-Causative

AgroP se

VP

zatvaraju (72)

vrata

Middle

AgroP se

VP

jedu

kolači

On the other hand, all these examples have an additional possible deriva­ tion, in which the subjects are external arguments of the verb. This interpreta­ tion makes pragmatic sense only in the case of the passive example, (60'), where (73) illustrates the additional readings of (60'):

86

Chapter 4. Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases,

and the

Expletive Se

Reciprocal/Reflexive/Null Object (73)

‘The children are pinching each other/?themselves/somebody else.’

These readings obviously arise by interpreting nominative subject as the ex­ ternal argument, originating in the vp position: (74)

Active Readings: Reciprocal/Reflexive/Null Object

vp AgroP

Deca

se^^^VP I štipaju In sum, with a transitive verb like štipati ‘pinch’, the presence of se will result in one of the arguments not being expressed, due to the.unavailability of accusative Case. If the external argument surfaces as nominative, it has an agentive role, performing an action either on oneself (reflexive reading) or on someone else (reciprocal or null-object reading) (74). On the other hand, if the internal argument surfaces, it is interpreted as a theme and the construc­ tion as passive (70) .23 Given that only one DP is realized in examples such as (60), the children, but the verb is transitive, there are four logical possibilities for interpreting the event of pinching. The pinched ones can be the children, by somebody else (passive reading); the pinched ones can be the children, by themselves (reflexive reading); the pinched one(s) can be somebody else, by the children (null-object reading); and, for plural forms, the reciprocal reading is also available. These four logical possibilities for interpreting the missing argument correspond exactly to the four readings available in (60).

23 This ambiguity is often a source of jokes, or syntactic puns, especially between parents and children. Consider the following, rather common, type of exchange: (i)

Child: Tata, Goran daddy Goran

se SE

prska. sprinkles

‘Daddy, Goran is sprinkling me (and possibly others).’ (null object intended)

(ii) Father: Dobro, Fine,

ne not

pusti ga neka se let him let SE

prska. Sarno sprinkle only

kad tebe when youACC

dira. touches

‘Fine, let him sprinkle himself—as long as he is not messing with you.’ (reflexive interpretation intended)

4.4. Expletive Se

87

Both nominative expletive it and accusative expletive se are used when Case positions (or Agreement Phrases) outnumber the arguments. It is used when the verb only has an internal argument, but principles of grammar impose the projection of AgrsP, a nominative Case position. On the other hand, se in these cases is used when the verb is transitive, and thus imposes an AgroP, but only one argument is realized. The Case feature in a transitive construction can either be checked by an argument, or by an expletive.24 The next section discusses the so-called impersonal se, which is used when an intransitive verb surfaces without its only argument.

4.4,3. Impersonal Se The examples so far have illustrated the scenario in which the transitive verb surfaces with only one of its arguments, either internal or external. Se is also used in Serbian with intransitive verbs when they surface without their only argument. These constructions are traditionally referred to as “impersonal”:

Impersonal (75)

Plesalo danced3SON

se SE

sve do all until

zore. dawn

‘People danced until dawn.’ If se is an instantiation of Agr0P, as proposed so far, then (75) poses a problem. It is not clear why AgroP would be generated at all in (75), given that the verb is intransitive. Perhaps, as suggested in Laka 1993, Uriagereka 1995, and Chomsky 1995, when there is only one argument in a clause, its AgrsP is just one general AgrP, unspecified for either Subject or Object agreement. Suppose that se can check the strong D-feature of this unspecified AgrP as well. When se is in AgrP, the verb in Serbian is marked with the default third-person singular neuter agreement (75), the kind of agreement one would expect with an expletive pronoun. This despite the fact that the implied/understood agent is interpreted as plural. It is clear that there is no pro in (75). Pro necessarily agrees in number and gender with the verb, as illustrated below:

24 If this analysis is correct, then it provides an answer to the question posed in Chomsky 1995: 347. The conclusion there is that it is clear that the failure of an ar­ gument to receive a theta-role causes a derivation to crash, but that it is not clear if the failure of a verb to assign a theta-role causes a crash. The examples above show that the verbs taking two arguments can assign only one theta-role structurally, as long as their [+Case] features arc checked in Agr0. Similarly, Roberts 1985, Rizzi 1986, and Fagan 1988 take the position that English middle construction involves structurally unrealized but understood theta-roles.

88

(76)

Chapter 4, Tense Phrases, Agreement Phrases,

?Plesalo danced3SG.N

and the

Expletive Se

jeis3SO

‘It danced.’

(77)

Plesali dancedpL M/M+F

/ /

Piesale dancedpL.F

su. are3PL

‘They danced.’ Example (76) can only describe an event of dancing of a singular neuter individual, such as a child, for example. For the plural interpretation, the verb has to be inflected for plural, and the gender specification indeed reflects the gender of the individuals dancing (77). Intriguingly, the understood argument in the impersonal example like (75) must be interpreted as [+Human], suggesting that [+Human] may be the default interpretation for Agent (when it is not structurally realized). This is more forcefully illustrated by selecting verbs that would otherwise typically only be used with animal subjects, as pointed out to me by Wayles Browne, personal communication: (78)

Lajalo barked3 SG N

se SE

sve do all till

zore. dawn

The barking cannot be interpreted here as having been done by dogs; instead, (78) can only be interpreted metaphorically, as in (79): (79)

People yelled/cursed until dawn.

While it is not clear to me why the impersonal constructions of this kind are interpreted as human, or as plural, I do not think that this follows from a specification of the pronoun se itself as either [+human] or as [+plural]. In languages like German, similar impersonal passive constructions also result in the human, plural interpretation, even though the expletive pronoun used is the singular/non-human es: (80)

Es wurde getanzt. it was danced

Instead, there must be something about the impersonal construction that forces such, perhaps default, plural/human interpretations. In sum, I have argued in section 4.4 that the reflexive clitic se in Serbian is an expletive pronoun merged in Agr projections, typically Agr0, whose role is to check strong D-features of Agreement. This analysis subsumes various functions of se, including reflexive, reciprocal, passive, middle, and imper­ sonal. In contrast, the full reflexive pronoun sebe (‘self’) is an argument, generated in the regular object position. It has only one function: reflexive.

4.5. Concluding Remarks

89

The two are therefore analyzed not as long and short versions of each other, but rather as categorially distinct. Since se “absorbs” either agent (external) or theme (internal) argument, it is not possible to maintain that se absorbs a specific theta-role. If se is not an argument, the expletive analysis of se imposes itself. This analysis, in turn, strongly supports the postulation of AgroP. 4.5. Concluding Remarks

This chapter builds another case for the main hypothesis of this monograph, that all clausal functional projections come in two layers: a subject and an ob­ ject phrase. Specifically, it argues that the Serbian clause has two Tense Phrases, TgP and TOP, and two Agreement Phrases, AgrsP and AgroP. TPs generate auxiliary verbs, which provide features of Future and Past Tenses. Typically, auxiliaries in Serbian precede pronominal clitics, and these are argued to start in the object layer To position. On the other hand, the excep­ tional auxiliary je, which follows pronominal clitics, is argued to start in Ts. While AgrsP hosts the morphological features of subject/verb agreement, the AgroP is the projection in which pronominal clitics are placed, including the reflexive clitic se, which is argued to be an expletive object pronoun gen­ erated directly in AgroP. The standard assumption is that the AgrsP/TsP complex checks nominative Case, while AgroP is responsible for checking ac­ cusative Case. It is further proposed in this chapter that both AgrsP and Agr0P can have split segments, which are responsible for checking dative Case of subjects and objects, respectively. The conclusions of this chapter will prove relevant throughout the mono­ graph, but especially for Chapter Six on clitics, which is based on the assump­ tion that pronominal clitics occupy AgrP positions, while auxiliary clitics are generated in TPs.

1

5

Aspect Phrases

5.1. Introductory Words Serbian verbs show a productive and systematic pattern of aspect alternation, with overt morphological manifestations. My proposal is that Serbian func­ tional projections include two Aspect Phrases: AspsP and Asp0P. The prop­ erties of aspect in Serbian, and especially its alternations brought about by aspectual affixes, have far-reaching consequences for the rest of the syntax. As will be shown in this chapter, Aspect Phrases play a pivotal role in the functional architecture of the Serbian clause. I first describe the basic perfective/imperfective patterns in Serbian and then argue that aspect can be analyzed as involving features which are checked in the clausal projections of Asp$P and AspoP. More specifically, I argue that the features checked in these Aspect Phrases are quantificational in nature, involving quantification over objects and events. This analysis of aspect in Serbian draws on the compositional approaches to aspect and event structure, such as Verkuyl 1972, 1999. Adopting this approach enables me to capture interactions between perfective and imperfective affixes in Serbian, as well as interactions between aspect, on the one hand, and the properties of events and transitivity, on the other (see Progovac 2000c, 2002,2003). Serbian is traditionally described as having two basic aspects, Perfective and Imperfective, the former denoting a completed action, and the latter de­ noting other types of actions (see e.g., Mrazovic and Vukadinovic 1990). The verbs are inherently specified for either perfective or imperfective, but Serb­ ian also has aspectual affixes, which can alter this underlying specification. Thus, the suffix -iva will change the perfective aspect in (1) into imperfective in (2). Conversely, the prefix od- changes the imperfective (3) into a perfect­ ive of completion in (4), and the prefix za- into a perfective of initiation (5).

* Different aspects of this chapter were presented at three occasions: 2000 Michigan Linguistic Society, “Aspect Phrase(s)”; 2001 Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL), “Perfective Prefixes and Congruent Prepositional Phrases in Serbian”; and 2003 Colloquium talk at Michigan State University, “Aspect and (Universal) Quantifi­ cation: The Case of Serbian Aspectual Prefixes.” The 2001 presentation appeared in the Proceedings as Progovac 2002. I thank the audiences and the reviewers for their comments, especially Cristina Schmitt.

92

Chapter 5. Aspect Phrases

(1)

Šaša mi je dao knjigu. Sasa meDAT AUX given book

(Perfective)

‘Šaša gave me a book.’

(2)

Šaša mi je da-va-o knjigu. Sasa me AUX givenIf4p book

(Imperfective)

‘Sasa used to give me a book./ ‘Sasa was giving me the book.’ (3)

Šaša je Šaša AUX

pevao himnu. sung anthem

(Imperfective)

‘Šaša was singing the anthem.’ (4)

Šaša je ot-pevao Šaša AUX PERF-sung

himnu. anthem

(Perfective)

‘Sasa has sung the (whole) anthem.’ (5)

Šaša je za-pevao Sasa AUX PERF-sung

himnu. anthem

(Perfective)

‘Šaša began singing the anthem.’

The derived imperfective in Serbian primarily has iterative interpretation, but durative interpretation can also be imposed in certain contexts (see dis­ cussion below). On the other hand, an inherently imperfective verb (3) has primarily durative interpretation. I will assume that inherent durative is as­ pectually unspecified and that it represents the default/unmarked aspect. No particular aspectual features need to be checked in the case of inherently dur­ ative verbs. On the other hand, I argue that the derived imperfective involves (universal) quantification over events, resulting in iterative interpretation. The perfective aspect shows three basic sub-types: Momentary (1), Initiation (5), and Completion (4) (see later discussion for the Limitation prefix po-). Momentary aspect is the sub-aspect of the underived perfective verbs, such as (1), and such verbs may be argued to be selected from the Lexicon with the perfective feature, such as perhaps Rosen and Ritter’s 1997 [-»-Delimit] feature (see also Ritter and Rosen 2000). This feature is respons­ ible for delimiting or bounding an otherwise unbounded action. I will assume that the momentary aspect on the inherently perfective verbs is not specified any further. On the other hand, in addition to the feature [-(-Delimit], each perfective prefix will be additionally specified for another feature. For example, completion prefixes will be further specified for the feature [-»-Universal Q], for Universal Quantification. The feature of universal quanti­ fication will be checked against the identical feature of direct objects, render­ ing the clause with a completion prefixed verb necessarily transitive, and affecting the interpretation of the whole object. This additional [-»-Universal

93

5.1. Introductory Words

Q] feature of completion prefixes distinguishes the prefixed verbs of completion from inherently perfective verbs, which are only specified for the feature [¿-Delimit], and which are not necessarily transitive. Suppose now that Serbian verbs check their aspectual features in two AspPs: AspsP checks the features of the imperfective suffixes such as -iva, while AspoP checks the features of the perfective prefixes such as od- (for an analysis of aspect involving two AspPs, see e.g., Borer 1994). Thus, AspsP would correspond to what Verkuyl 1999 refers to as “outer aspect” and AspoP to his “inner aspectuality.” The tree hypothesizing the hierarchy of Serbian functional projections, introduced in Chapter One, is repeated below:

(6)

PolsP

AspsP

Pols

Asps

AgrsP Agrs

TSP

Tf^ioP

Polo

AspoP

Aspo

Agr0P TOP

Agro To

VP

The analysis assuming two AspPs would capture the fact that there are two aspects in Serbian, Perfective and Imperfective, as well as the fact that there are two types of affixation processes that can alter aspect. This hierarchy also explains why the aspectual (imperfective) suffixes necessarily scope over (perfective) prefixes (see Progovac 2000c, 2002, 2003). If the verb is marked with both, the verb will be imperfective:

(7)

On je pisao. he AUX written ‘He wrote/was writing.’

(8)

On je he AUX

u-pisao PERF-in-written

(Imperfective)

ocene u dnevnik. grades in book

‘He has recorded the grades in the gradebook.’

(Perfective)

94

Chapter 5. Aspect Phrases

(9) On he

u in

je AUX

(uvek) always

u-pis-iva-o PERF-in-writtenIMp

ocene grades

(Imperfective)

dnevnik. gradebook

‘He would (always) record the grades in the gradebook,’ Thus, the imperfective -iva has scope over the perfective u- because the features of the suffix -iva are checked in AspsP, while the features of the pre­ fix u- are checked in AspoP. This conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that imperfective -iva can only attach to a perfective verb, whether inher­ ent (2) or derived (9), implying that -iva has to scope over a perfective action. The example below shows that -iva cannot attach to an imperfective verb (for more on this issue, including a possible explanation, see sections 5.2 and 5.4): (10)

On je uvek pis-iva-o ocene u dnevnik. *

The analysis of Serbian aspect proposed in this monograph is based on the framework of Verkuyl 1972,1999, who argues that aspect can be reduced to quantification and numbers, and that aspect is computed compositionally in the sense that not only the verb, but also its arguments, participate in de­ termining aspect. For Slavic, this basic approach has been adopted also in Schoorlemmer 1995, Dimitrova-Vulchanova 1996, and Schmitt 1996. This analysis reduces aspect to the syntactic/semantic phenomena inde­ pendently needed: quantification and scope. It captures the fact that there are two general types of aspect in Serbian, Perfective and Imperfective. In addi­ tion, this dual representation of aspect comes at no theoretical cost—other projections have also been argued to have such dual manifestations, notably AgrPs (see Chapter Four for discussion). Last but not least, this approach makes a straightforward connection between transitivity and completed per­ fective aspect, the connection which is cross-Iinguistically manifested. The rest of this chapter explores this basic analysis in more detail. 5.2. Perfective and Imperfective in Serbian

Serbian is traditionally described as having two basic aspects: Perfective and Imperfective. The former denotes a completed action; the latter is a cover term for other types of actions, which can be roughly classified into Durative (lasting for a period of time), as in (11), and Iterative (repeated in certain in­ tervals), as in (12). Note that the verb in (11) is underived (has no aspectual suffix or prefix), while the verb in (12) contains an aspectual suffix, -iva. (11)

Grozdana Grozdana

je pevala. AUX sung

‘Grozdana was singing. *

(Durative)

5.2. Perfective and Imperfective in Serbian (12)

Grozdana Grozdana

je da-va-la časove. AUX given lessons

95

(Iterative)

‘Grozdana used to give lessons.’

On the other hand, perfective aspect shows three basic sub-types, accord­ ing to Mrazović and Vukadinović 1990. It can be used for a momentarily completed action (13), for the initiation of action (14), and for the completion of action (15).

(13) Ana mi je Ana meDAT AUX

dala knjigu. given book (Momentary)

‘Ana gave me a book.’ (14) Za-pevao je sung AUX

iz sveg glasa, from all voice

‘He started singing in full voice.’

(15) Ot-pevao je sung AUX

celu whole

(Initiation)

pesmu. song

‘He has sung the whole song.’

(Completion)

In Serbian, the verb roots are typically inherently marked for one of the aspects: either imperfective (11) or perfective (13). Underived (or inherently) perfective verbs will normally denote momentarily completed action, as is the case with (13) above. I assume that momentary sub-aspect is the value for in­ herently perfective verbs, and that initiation or completion must be marked by appropriate prefixes. If a prefix is added to an imperfective verb, it changes the aspect to perfective, as illustrated in (14) and (15).1 In (14), the

1 Similar prefixes can also be added to inherently perfective verbs (i, iii), in which case the basic aspect remains unchanged, that is, perfective (ii, iv). (i)

dati

‘give’

(ii)

pro-dati za-dati pre-dati iz-dati

‘sell’ ‘inflict’ ‘hand over’ ‘betray; issue’

(iii) (iv)

uzeti

‘take’

pre-uzeti za-uzeti

‘take over’ ‘take ovcr/conquer

Notice that the function of completion prefixes is reminiscent of the completion parti­ cles in English, such as up (see e.g., Rosen and Ritter 1997; Ritter and Rosen 2000). (v)

John ate (his dinner).

(vi)

John ate up his dinner.

96

Chapter 5. Aspect Phrases

prefix is one of initiation, while in (15) the prefix is one of completion. The underived imperfective verb denotes an uninterrupted event in progress. The attachment of a prefix delimits this event by bounding either the initial or the final boundary of the event. A by-product of establishing such a boundary is the perfective aspect of the verb. Rosen and Ritter 1997 argue that perfective prefixes add the feature of [+D elimit] to the verb, and that this feature is responsible for the perfective aspect (see also Ritter and Rosen 2000). The verbs that are inherently perfective would then be inherently specified for this feature. While underived perfective (momentary) verbs can be analyzed as having a [-¡-Delimit] feature, the unlimited nature of durative verbs may rep­ resent a default with no feature specification. Serbian also has a way of changing imperfective aspect into perfective aspect by suffixation, resulting in momentary sub-aspect:

(16) Stefan je kuc-nu-o.

(Perfective—Momentary)

‘Stefan knocked (once).’

The function of the suffix -nu in (16) is to limit the imperfective action to a single occurrence, which again has as its by-product a change to a perfective interpretation. Some other examples of this suffix are given below:

(17)

tresti

‘shake’

tres-nu-ti

‘slam’

(18)

klečati

‘kneel’

klec-nu-ti

‘briefly bend knees’

(19)

lupati

‘bump’

lup-nu-ti

‘bump once’

(20)

bosti

‘poke’

boc-nu-ti

‘poke once’

I will argue that the suffix itself contributes the feature of existential quantification [+Existential Q]. This suffix is not productive. In contrast to the suffix -nu, which attaches to durative verbs, the imper­ fective suffixes such as -iva only attach to perfective verbs. These are inflec­ tional in the sense that they are both productive and that they change the aspect^ a grammatical property, but contribute no idiosyncratic meaning. A list of such imperfective suffixes is given below (for a more detailed list, con­ sult Mrazovic and Vukadinovic 1990): (21)

datipERF

da-va-ti[MP

‘give’

(22)

početi perf

poc-inja-tiiMp

‘begin’

(23)

dobitipERF

dob-ija-tiIMP

‘receive’

(24)

podstacipERF

podst-ica-ti]Mp

‘encourage’

The sole function of these suffixes is to change aspect into imperfective, and that explains why they would not attach to an inherently imperfective

5.2. Perfective and Imperfective in Serbian

97

verb (25). However, iterative suffixes can attach to the verbs which have first been transformed into perfective verbs by prefixation (26). (25) pisatiIMP (26)

is-pisatipERF

pis-iva-ti *

is-pis-iva-ti

(Derived imperfective)

These suffixes offer the interpretation of iteration, and will be argued to involve universal quantification. As for the perfective prefixes, in addition to changing the aspect of the verb, they also add idiosyncratic meaning to it. It is therefore difficult to class­ ify them as either inflectional (assumed to contribute only grammatical mean­ ing) or derivational (assumed to contribute other types of meaning), as noted in Spencer 1991 (see also Comrie 1976). Below are some additional examples: (27) pisati

writejMp

(28)

po-pisati za-pisati is-pisati ot-pisati

‘list; inventory’pERF ‘note down; record’PERF ‘cover with writing; withdraw’PERF ‘write off *p ERp

(29)

pevati

‘sing’jMP

(30)

za-pevati is-pevati ot-pevati

‘start singing’pERF fcompose’pERF ‘finish singing’pERF

These prefixes are not productive in the sense that they consistently attach to a certain class of verbs and contribute the same nuance of meaning. For ex­ ample, the prefix za- in (30) means “start/initiate” but has a very different meaning in (28), as can be seen from the gloss. Similarly, the prefix od- when added to pevati in (30) means “finish/complete singing”, but when added to pisatl in (28), changes the meaning of the root to “write off”, and cannot mean “finish writing” (for more examples, see Footnote 1). This property-is typical of derivational affixes. On the other hand, the prefixes have a consistent effect on the verb’s aspect—they render it perfective. This property would be characteristic of inflectional affixes. Since prefixes contribute additional meaning to the verb, their application to either a perfective or an imperfective verb will not be vacuous. It is thus not surprising that perfective prefixes also attach to perfective verbs, such as pasti (‘fall *) (see also Footnote 1). (31)

pasti

‘fairPERF

(32)

pro-pasti is-pasti u-pasti

‘fail/collapse’ppRp *1311 OUt’pERF ‘fall into p * ERF

98

Chapter 5. Aspect Phrases

In the subsequent sections, I explore an analysis according to which adding a prefix to a durative verb delimits/bounds this action by adding a quantificational feature to the verb. For example, I argue that completion prefixes contribute the feature of universal quantification, and that this feature has to scope over the object. This would explain why the whole object/all objects must be affected by such prefixed verbs, as well as the surprising fact that the verb derived by a completion prefix requires an object. (33) Oi-pevao sung

je * (pesmu). AUX song

‘He has sung the whole song.’

In sum, this section describes the perfective/imperfective patterns in Serb­ ian. The imperfective aspect can be either inherent or derived. Inherently imperfective verbs are durative in nature, and I assume that durative is the ultimate default aspect in the sense that it is not specified for any aspectual features. The derived imperfective aspect, derived by the aspectual suffixes such as -iva, is primarily iterative in nature, and may be analyzed as contribut­ ing a feature of universal quantification over events. Iterative suffixes are purely inflectional: they are productive and contribute only grammatical in­ formation. On the other hand, there are three basic sub-types of perfective verbs: Momentary, Initiation, and Completion. While inherently perfective verbs show momentary aspect, the derived perfective verbs, derived by per­ fective prefixation, show either initiation or completion aspect. Their typical grammatical role is to provide a boundary for an event or cause transitivity, but they also contribute additional idiosyncratic meaning. They are proposed to have a feature of universal quantification, which takes scope over the object. The following sections explore a quantificational analysis of aspect in Serbian by adopting the mechanism of feature checking in Aspect Phrases. 5.3. Perfective Prefixes, Quantification, and AspoP

The specific proposal explored in this chapter is that Serbian verbs check their aspectual features in two AspPs: AspsP checks the features of the imperfec­ tive suffixes, while AspoP checks the features of the perfective prefixes. AspsP would correspond to what Verkuyl 1999 refers to as “outer aspect” and AspoP to his “inner aspectuality.” For an analysis which also posits two AspPs for other languages or purposes, see e.g., Borer 1994,1996. In Borer’s analysis as well, the two AspPs correspond to the subject and object layers. The need for (at least one) AspP has also been established for Slavic, for ex­ ample in Fowler 1994 and Yadroff 1994 for Russian.2 2 Notice also that Van Gelderen 1993 proposes a projection above VP for Dutch, which may correspond to AspP. Similarly, Fujita 1996 claims that there is a prcposi-

5.3. Perfective Prefixes, Quantification,

and

AspqP

99

The analysis of Serbian aspect proposed in this monograph is based on the framework of Verkuyl 1972,1999, who argues that aspect can be reduced to quantification and numbers, and that aspect is compositional in the sense that both the verb and its arguments participate in determining aspect (for Slavic, see also Schoorlemmer 1995; Dimitrova-Vulchanova 1996; and Schmitt 1996). Verkuyl 1999 proposes specifically that Slavic perfective aspect scopes over the VP, and not just over the V (see also Tenny 1994 for cross-linguistic data). This fact is captured in this monograph by assuming aspectual feature checking in AspoP, ensuring that the aspectual feature takes scope over the whole VP, and in fact over the whole functional object layer, which it domi­ nates. Thus, it is both the verb and the object that participate in the aspect calculation. Verkuyl also proposes that habitual (iterative) aspect can be likened to universal quantification over a perfective (terminative) inner aspectuality, and this also follows from the proposal that imperfective suffixes in Serbian check their features in AspsP, which has AspoP, and much of the sub­ ject functional layer, in its scope (see next section). Ritter and Rosen’s 2000 analysis, on the other hand, does not endorse the existence of a separate AspP, but rather argues that the properties/features of aspect are checked in AgrPs, explaining the connection between aspect and Case. It is possible that AspPs may eventually be collapsible with AgrPs. I keep them distinct in this monograph, however, for the following reasons. First, since I am driven by morphosyntactic considerations in postulating functional projections, I assume that a language will have all and only those functional projections for which there is a morphological manifestation. Serbian marks both morphological agreement and aspect, and moreover, these categories are clearly distinct and can, but need not, co-occur. Subject verb agreement would be the morphological manifestation of AgrsP, and the expletive pronoun se a typical morphological manifestation of AgroP (see Chapter Four). On the other hand, aspectual suffixes would be manifestations of AspsP and aspectual prefixes manifestations of Asp0P. Suppose now that the features of perfective prefixes of completion are checked in AspoP and that they involve (universal) quantification whose scope is consequently the object layer of the clause (Progovac 2003), corre­ sponding to Verkuyl s * “inner aspectuality.” In fact, the translation of (4), re­ peated below, indicates that the prefix’s contribution has much more to do with how (much of) the object is affected than the nature of the action itself. (4)

Šaša Šaša

je ot-pevao himnu. AUX PERF-sung anthem

(Perfective)

‘Šaša has sung the (whole) anthem.’ tional AgrP above the VP in English, which also may well correspond to what 1 call here an Asp0P.

100

Chapter 5. Aspect Phrases

The sentence does not mean that Šaša just decided to finish/complete the action of singing the anthem—instead, it really means that the action is com­ pleted by virtue of the whole/all object having been consumed/affected. There is implicit universal quantification over the object, which can be made explicit with the quantifier whole, as below: (4') Šaša je Šaša AUX

ot-pevao ćelu himnu. PERF-sung whole anthem

(Perfective)

‘Šaša has sung the whole anthem.’

I will thus assume that perfective prefixes of completion have the formal feature of universal quantification: [-{-Universal Q], Such feature is checked/ matched in Asp0P against the Q feature of the object, and due to its position in the clause, it can only exert scope over the object layer of the functional categories and VP. This also explains why the presence of a completion prefix necessarily renders the clause transitive, as discussed below in more detail. The analysis in terms of universal quantification extends to the examples involving plural objects as well (35). Here, the interpretation is that all the in­ dividuals of the plural object (apples) have been exhaustively affected by the action (of eating), and that the action is, as a result, completed (and perfec­ tive). On the other hand, the imperfective (34) does not imply that all the ap­ ples have been eaten.

Plural Object: Accusative (34)

Jeo je eatenIMP AUX

jabuke. apples Acc

‘He ate the apples, but may not have finished any of them.’ (35)

Po-jeo je jabuke. eatenPERF AUX applesACC

‘He ate up (all) the apples.’ Thus, universal quantification over the object is brought about by the perfective prefix of completion. While with plural objects the interpretation is that of all, with singular objects the interpretation is that of whole. In each case, the universal feature of the aspectual prefix has the object directly in its scope. A feature conflict will emerge if there is implicit existential quantification, which is brought about by the genitive/partitive case marking (see Ritter and Rosen 2000 for similar Case contrasts in other languages). This supports the claim that the prefix contributes the feature of universal quantification:

5.3. Perfective Prefixes, Quantification,

and

AspqP

101

Plural Object: Genitive/Partitive (36)

Jeo je jabuka. eatenIMP AUX applesGEN/PART ‘He ate (of/some) apples.’

(37)

?* Pojeo je jabuka. eatenPERF AUX applesGEN/PART

Singular objects show a similar pattern. While the prefix is compatible with an accusative object, and denotes that the whole object has been af­ fected, the prefix is not compatible with the implicitly existential quantifica­ tion of the partitive/genitive object:3

3 However, when existential quantification is made explicit, the universal quantifica­ tion is again possible, but this time it is over the quantity expressed by the existential quantifier:

(i)

Po-jeo je malo/nesto eatenPERE aux a little/some ‘He ate up few/some of the apples.’

(ii)

Po-jeo je malo/nesto mcda. eatenPERP aux a little/some honey gf.n/fart ‘He ate up little/some of the honey.’

jabuka. applesGEN/PART

Notice that singular count nouns cannot appear in the genitive/partitive Case as direct objects, unless there is an explicit existential quantifier:

(iii)

Jeo je jabuku. eaten aux appleAcc ‘He ate the apple, but has not necessarily finished it.’

(iv)

Po-jeo je (celu) eatenPERF aux whole ‘He ate up the (whole) apple.’

(v)

*Jeo je jabuke. eaten AUX appleGEN/PART,sG *Po-jeo je jabuke. ! eatenPERF Aux apple Gen/part.SG ‘He ate up the (whole) apple.’

(vi)

jabuku. appleAcc

(vii)

Jeo je malo/nesto eaten aux a little/some ‘He ate a little/some of the apple.’

(viii)

Po-jeo je malo/nesto eatenPERF aux a little/some ‘He ate up a liltle/some of the apple.’

jabuke. aPP'eGEN/PART.SG

jabuke. aPPleGEN/PARTSG

102

Chapter 5. Aspect Phrases

Singular Object—Mass Noun (Accusative vs. Genitive/Partitive)

(38)

Jeo je med. eaten AUX honeyAcc

‘He ate the honey, but has not necessarily finished it.’ (39)

Po-jeo je (sav) med. eatenPERF AUX all honeyAcc ‘He ate up (all) the honey.’

(40)

Jeo je meda. eaten AUX honeyGEN/PART ‘He ate (some) honey.’

(41)

?* Po-jeo je meda. eatenPERF AUX honey GEN/PART ‘He ate up (some) honey?

The compositional nature of aspect is even more evident in the fact that a perfective prefix of completion induces transitivity, as shown in the following:

Imperfective/lntransitive (42)

a.

Dušan je spavao. Dusan AUX slept ‘Dušan slept/was sleeping?

b.

Dušan (je) prespavao/naspavao. *

Perfective/Transitive/Direct Object (43)

Dušan je Dušan AUX

pre-spavao doručak. over-slept breakfast

‘Dušan slept through the (whole) breakfast?

Perfective/Transitive/Reflexlve

(44)

Dušan se na-spavao. Dušan SE PERF-on -slept. ‘Dušan has slept to an abundant and sufficient degree/all he needed to sleep?

The verb sleep is underlyingly intransitive (and imperfective) (42a), but the addition of the perfective prefix pre- in (43) renders it transitive. Similarly, the perfective prefix na- renders the construction transitive as well (44), but this time the accusative feature is checked by the expletive reflexive pronoun se, as per proposal in Chapter Four. Notice that both cases involve implicit

5.3. Perfective Prefixes, Quantification,

and

AspqP

103

universal quantification. While (43) implies that Dusan missed the whole breakfast, not only a part of it, (44) implies that Dusan slept all he needed to sleep, and that this was both sufficient and abundant. Assume now that the imperfective verb spavati has default aspect, durative, and thus no aspect fea­ tures to check. I conclude that the completion prefix has the formal feature of universal quantification [¿-Universal Q], and that such feature is checked/ matched in AspoP against the Q feature of the object, requiring the presence of such an object and rendering the interpretation of universal quantification over the object. The connection between transitivity and delimitation (perfectivity) is also manifested in English. Tenny 1994 supplies several examples from English, including particles, resultatives, cognate objects, and fake reflexives:

(45)

(46)

(47)

a.

Terry thought (for an hour).

b.

Terry thought up an answer (in an hour).

a.

Terry ran (for an hour).

b.

Terry ran us ragged (in an hour).

(Durative)

(Delimited) (Durative)

a.

Terry sang (for an hour).

b.

Terry sang a ballad (in an hour). Terry sang herself to sleep (in an hour).

(Delimited)

(Durative) (Delimited) (Delimited)

Thus, the connection between transitivity and delimitation/perfectivity is a well-established cross-linguistic phenomenon. In addition to prefixes of completion, Serbian also has prefixes of initia­ tion (48), as introduced in the previous section, as well as what I will call pre­ fixes of limitation (49), (48)

Za-pevao je iz sveg sung AUX from all

glasa, voice

(Initiation)

‘He sang in full voice.’

(49)

Mirjana Mirjana

je AUX

po-sedela sat

neko vreme. some time

(Limitation)

‘Mijrana sat for a while/some time.’ The initiation prefix in (48) marks the initial boundary of the event of singing, and is interpreted as perfective, in the sense that it marks the comple­ tion of the sub-event of initiation of singing. Prefixes of initiation are less pro­ ductive in Serbian than those of completion, and they do not interact with objects. It may be that these prefixes, given that they are not productive in Serbian, just add idiosyncratic meaning to the verb in the Lexicon, rather than grammatical/formal meaning. If, on the other hand, they do involve grammat­

104

Chapter 5. Aspect Phrases

ical features, then my proposal would be that these prefixes are negatively specified for the feature of universal quantification, [-Universal Q], the same feature for which completion prefixes are positively specified. That would explain why they are necessarily interpreted as NOT having the whole object/ all object affected, which seems to be the main contribution of these prefixes. Consider again the following three examples: (50)

Grozdana Grozdana

je AUX

(Durative)

pevala (pesmu). song sung

‘Grozdana was singing.’ (51)

(Initiation)

Za-pevala je (pesmu) iz sveg glasa, sung AUX song from all voice ‘She started singing in full voice.’

(52)

(celu) Ot-pevala je sung AUX whole

* (pesmu). song

(Completion)

‘She has sung the whole song.’

While the underived durative in (50) is unmarked/unspecified for whether or not the whole object is affected, the completion example in (52) directly specifies that the whole object has been affected, and the initiation example in (51) directly specifies that the whole object has NOT been affected. The sense of initiation then may be due to the prefix’s specification as [-¡-Delimit, -Universal Q], which is interpreted as action that has manifested itself, but which has not been completed, by virtue of the fact that the object has not been fully affected. As predicted, it is only the completion example in (52) which requires the direct object, and which, moreover, implies universal quantification. As for the limitation prefix po-, it seems to constrain the action to a limited period of time. This prefix attaches to intransitive imperfective verbs, and it does not enforce transitivity, scoping rather only over the duration of the imperfective action. The implied meaning in each of the following examples with po- is “for a (little) while” (see Fowler 1994 and Konopasky 1997 for the observation that an adverb of time is required with comparable prefixes in Russian). (53)

a.

Vesna je Vesna AUX

sedela u sitting in

kancelariji. office

‘Vesna sat/was sitting in her office.’

b.

Po-sedela je (malo) sitting AUX a little

u kancelariji, in office

i onda and then

otisla. left

‘She sat/was sitting for a little while in her office, and then left.’

5,3, Perfective Prefixes, Quantification,

(54)

a.

Pričala je talked AUX

sa with

and AspqP

105

svojim kolegama, selfs colleagues

‘She talked/was talking to her colleagues,’

b.

Po-pričala talked

onda then

je (malo) sa AUX (a little) with

svojim selfs

kolegama, pa colleagues and

otišla. left

‘She talked to her colleagues for a little while, and then left.’

I will assume here that po- is specified for existential quantification over duration, and that it checks this feature directly in AspoP (but see Fowler and Yadroff 1993 for the discussion of accusative measure phrases in Russian and an analysis according to which such accusative Case is checked by a null preposition). It is possible that an adverb of duration (or some other marker of duration) is generated in the object layer of TP, TOP, as per the tree dia­ gram in (6). Without an Agro? layer, the aspectual prefix can directly take the (adverb of) duration in its scope. That might be the reason why a duration adverb is implied in Serbian (and required in Russian), and why po- cannot co-occur with an object: (55)

* Po-pričaIa told

je priče neko vreme. AUX stories some time

‘She told stories for a little while/for some time? The existential nature of quantification would explain why an adverb cor­ responding to a long period of time would be incompatible with it: (56)

?* Po-pričala

je

dugo long

sa svojim kolegama.

In sum, it is possible to reduce the interpretation of aspectual prefixes to that of quantificational features, checked in the AspoP- While the most pro­ ductive class of such prefixes, completion prefixes, can be analyzed as quanti­ fying universally over the direct object, the less productive initiation prefixes can be specified negatively for this feature, and are thus interpreted as not quantifying universally over the direct object. As a result, the completion prefixes contribute the interpretation of the whole object being affected, and require an object, while initiation prefixes do not require an object, and are specifically interpreted as not affecting the whole object, rendering the inter­ pretation of initiated but not completed action. The limitation prefix po-, on the other hand, can be argued to quantify existentially over a duration (adverb), overt or implied, resulting in the interpretation of an action taking place for a limited period of time.

106

Chapter 5. Aspect Phrases

The next section explores a similar quantificational analysis of aspectual suffixes, which are argued to check their features in AspsP. 5.4, Imperfective Suffixes, Quantification, and AspsP Recall that the basic proposal in this chapter is that aspect in Serbian involves quantification over objects and events. Quantification over the object layer of the clause, AgroP/VP (Verkuyl’s inner aspectuality), will be achieved in AspoP, by aspectual prefixes. On the other hand, quantification over the subject layer AgrsP/TsP is brought about by aspectual suffixes, in AspsP. Specifically, based on Progo vac 2001, 2002, 2003,1 propose that imperfective suffixes in Serbian, such as -iva, come with a quantificational feature of (universal) quantification, comparable to every/many/each (see Verkuyl 1999 for the claim that iterative aspect can be likened to universal quantification). This feature is checked in the AspsP. Recall that an imperfective suffix must scope over quantifiable (i.e., perfective) events, just like the quantifiers men­ tioned above can only combine with count nouns. Even without the presence of the overt universal quantifier in (57), the meaning is still that of always, or regularly. Thus -iva contributes the meaning of universal quantification over completed actions and times, which can be attributed to its scoping over the TsP/AgrsP layer, justifying its high placement in the tree diagram (6). Its placement would correspond to Verkuyl’s “outer aspectuality.” (57) SaŠa Šaša

mi je me AUX

da-va-o knjigu giveniMP book

(Imperfective)

a. ‘Šaša used to give me a book (regularly). / On every relevant occasion, Sasa gave me a book.’

b. ‘Šaša was giving me the book.’

Notice, however, that the addition of imperfective suffixes typically re­ sults in ambiguous sentences, as the translations in (57a-b) illustrate. Serbian derived imperfective is traditionally described as either iterative (occurring repeatedly) or durative, lasting for a certain period of time (see e.g., Mrazović and Vukadinović 1990). The iterative interpretation (a) can be likened to a plural and is easily captured by appealing to (universal) quantification over TsP/AgrsP and with it over the inner aspectuality. But what about the dura­ tive interpretation in (b)? Notice, first, that the iterative reading is the primary reading, given that the durative interpretation becomes natural only relative to some other paral­ lel action, as in:

5.4, IMPERFECTIVE SUFFIXES, QUANTIFICATION, AND ASPgP

(58)

Šaša mi Šaša me

je AUX

da-va-o knjigu dok sam ja givenÎMP book while AUX I

107

razgovarala talked

telefonom, phoneINST ‘Šaša was giving me the book while I was talking on the phone?

The same pattern is illustrated in the following example, which contains a perfective prefix and the imperfective suffix -iva. (59)

Ružica je po-krila Ružica AUX PERF-covered

dete. child

‘Ružica has covered the child (once), and the child is now covered.’ (60)

Ružica je Ružica AUX

po-kr-iva-la PERF-coveredIMP

dete. child

a. Iterative: ‘ Ružica was (repeatedly) covering the child, possibly every time she entered the room, and the child was without the blanket.’ b. Durative: ‘ Ružica was in the process of covering the child all the time during which something else (as specified or implied) happened/was happening, e.g., ...kad sam ja ušla u sobu, when AUX I entered in room

‘... when I entered the room.’ Notice that this is comparable to the use of English progressive aspect: in English as well, the progressive is most natural if some parallel action is either specified or implied.

(61)

He was giving me the book while I was talking to Peter.

(62)

?He was giving me the book.

The aspect is imperfective (not completed) either when the action keeps being iterated on a regular basis (iterative (60a)), or when the initiation/noncompletion stage lasts for a whole period of the specified/implied time (durative (60b)). In each case, the contribution of the suffix can be argued to be that of universal quantification. This persistent ambiguity between dura­ tive and iterative interpretation of suffixes like -iva, typical of Slavic imperfec­ tive suffixes in general, may be compared to two basic possibilities: (i) the plural/iterative (all/every) interpretation, and (ii) singular/durative (whole/all) interpretation of the objects under prefixed verbs (see previous section). Thus, the iterative interpretation in (60a) is comparable to universal qantification over (plural) events, while the durative interpretation in (60b) can be in­

108

Chapter 5. Aspect Phrases

terpreted as universal quantification over a period of time, which is singular, specified in another clause. Schmitt 2001 argues that durative and iterative share the feature [¿•Homogeneous], in the sense that a durative action is homogeneous by not changings and that iterative action is homogeneous by changing in regular in­ tervals (see also Mrazovic and Vukadinovic 1990 for a similar idea for Serbian aspect). I prefer the quantificational account of the similarity for the following two reasons. First, quantification is independently needed, while the feature [¿-Homogeneous] is stipulative. Moreover, iterative aspect is clearly more similar to plural than to mass interpretation of NPs, and Plural interpretation, to my mind, is not homogeneous but rather involves multiple occurrences of discrete single units. The reviewer suggests that durative can be seen as itera­ tive on a molecular scale, which would be an attempt comparable to Schmitt’s to unify the two sub-aspects. However, such unification does not seem to be desirable when it comes to the Serbian data. As pointed out above, and as il­ lustrated in the repeated (11) and (12) below, there is a contrast between un­ derived imperfective, which is durative, and the derived imperfective, which is primarily iterative. I ascribe the interpretation in (12) to the quantificational contribution of the suffix. On the other hand, the action in (11) is not quantificationally constrained (there is no aspectual suffix or prefix), and is thus in­ terpreted as durative (uninterrupted) by default. To draw a parallel with nouns again, underived durative is more like a mass noun, non-quantified and unconstrained; on the other hand, iterative is more like plural, involving quantification over delimited discrete segments. (11)

Grozdana Grozdana

je pevala. AUX sung

(Durative)

‘Grozdana was singing.’

(12)

Grozdana Grozdana

je da-va-la časove. AUX given lessons

(Iterative)

‘Grozdana used to give lessons.’

Serbian also has a class of less productive aspectual suffixes, which alter aspect in the opposite direction. The addition of the suffix -nu illustrated in (63) has the effect of changing the durative aspect (unbroken and unbounded) into momentary aspect by virtue of delimiting the action to a single event

5.4. IMPERFECTIVE SUFFIXES, QUANTIFICATION, AND ASP$P

(63)

109

(Perfective —Momentary)

Stefan je kuc-nu-o na prozor.

‘Stefan knocked (at least once) on the window. I There was (at least) one time that Stefan knocked on the window.’

The following are additional examples (see also section 5.2); (64) vikati pipati tresti lupati

‘shout’1Mp ‘touch’rMP ‘shake’IMP ‘bump’iMp

vik-nu-ti PERF pip-nu-ti PEKF tres-nu-ti perf lup-nu-ti perf

The contribution of the suffix can be seen as that of existential quantifica­ tion in the subject layer, insuring a single event, or, more precisely, at least one event.4 As already noted, durative aspect has been likened to mass nouns (see e.g., Larson and Segal 1995; Schmitt 2001). (65)

(Durative-Unquantified)

Stefan je kucao.

‘Stefan was knocking.’ (66)

There was sand on the beach.

(Mass-Unquantified)

If so, then the addition of the suffix -nu in (63) is comparable to adding a classifier/quantifier to a mass noun, such as the one in (67):5 (67)

a grain of sand

4 Cheng 1988 points out that Chinese has an aspectual marker, guo, which indicates that an event took place at least once in the past. 5 Note that a similar analogy is used in Larson and Segal 1995: 521-22. They compare events to count nouns, while the states are compared to mass nouns that cannot be counted. Moreover, they point out that stative predicates introduce quantification over states, which is existential in nature, and corresponds to some. In fact, with some verbs the suffix -nu seems to show limited duration interpretation, similar to that contrib­ uted by the limitation prefix po- (see the previous section), rather than a single occur­ rence interpretation. This interpretation can still be captured in terms of existential quantification, but this time it would be more similar to the quantifier some, as in “some sand”:

(i)

dremati ?spavati

drem-nu-ti spav-nu-ti

Some of these forms are substandard, and may not find themselves in dictionaries. Interestingly, these verbs are ungrammatical with the po- prefix, illustrating the un­ productive nature of po-.

(ii) dremati spavati

‘nap’IMP ‘sleep’iMp

drem-nu-ti PErf ?spav-nu-tipERF

*o-dremati p *po-spavati

110

Chapter 5. Aspect Phrases

Thus, the basic argument is that suffixation affects aspect by way of quantification. While the productive suffixes such as -iva contribute the fea­ ture of universal quantification, comparable to the quantificational force in every, several, or many, -nu denotes existential quantification, comparable to the quantificational force of one, at least one, or some. If so, (68) and (69) can be informal semantic representations of (57/60) and (63), respectively. (68)

For every (relevant) occasion/For several/many occasions X, it is true that on that occasion X: Sasa gave me a book/Ruzica covered the child.

(69)

There was some/at least one occasion X for which it is true that Stefan knocked on the window on that occasion X.

Consistent with this claim, notice that any of the universal quantifiers given in (68) is compatible with -iva (57) but not an existential quantifier, such as once. The opposite holds for -nu (63).6 (57') Sasa mi je uvek/cesto/ jedanput *

‘Sasa always/often/ one * (63')

da-va-o knjigu. time used to give me the book. *

Stefan je * uesto/jedanput c vek/

kuc-nu-o na prozor.

‘Stefan knocked * always/ o ften/once

on the window.’

With -iva, the quantification involves a number of occurrences of an action, which would explain why only perfective verbs can be affected by this suffix. Durative (imperfective) verbs denote uninterrupted/unbounded action in progress, and thus cannot be counted/quantified in this manner, the same way that mass nouns cannot be directly quantified: (70)

several/ *

many/ every sand *

Thus I adopt the following basic analysis. Imperfective suffixes such as -iva come specified with the aspectual feature [-(-Universal Q], while suffixes 6 Notice that mnogo puta (‘many times’) seems acceptable with both, suggesting per­ haps that the quantifier is ambiguous/vague between universal and existential read­ ings. On the other hand, retko (‘rarely’) is acceptable with -iva (i) but not with -nu (ii). Retko would be unacceptable with -nu because retko does not seem to have an existen­ tial presupposition, given the possibility of “rarely, if ever,” However, it is less clear why -iva is compatible with retko. Perhaps retko/rarely can be analyzed as “there were many occasions when not.” Further research is necessary here.

(i)

Ana mi je mnogo puta/retko davala knjigu.

‘Ana many times/rarely used to give me the book.’ (ii) Stefan je • mnogo puta/*retko kuenuo. ‘Stefan knocked many times/rarely.’

5.4. Imperfective Suffixes, Quantification,

and AspsP

111

such as -nu come specified with the aspectual feature [+Existential QJ. Any verb to which such a quantificational suffix attaches must check the relevant feature in the AspsP. Since these are traditionally considered to be aspectual suffixes, it makes sense that they should be associated with an AspP. The analysis that assumes two AspPs has the following basic advantages. First, it predicts that perfective prefixes can co-occur with imperfective suffixes. Next, it correctly predicts that in such a situation, the ultimate aspect will be the one of the suffix, given that the suffix takes scope over the prefixed verb. The verb ispisivati in (71) is a case in point: it has both a prefix and a suffix but is interpreted as ultimately imperfective/iterative. (71)

pisatijMp

is-pisatiPERF

is-pis-iva-tiiMp

Another piece of support for this analysis comes from the fact that suf­ fixes such as -iva and -nu are mutually exclusive (72), suggesting that they check their quantificational features in a single projection. Semantically, there is nothing wrong with the kind of verb illustrated in (72) —it denotes an iter­ ative action consisting of several occurrences of the single action of knocking.7

(72)

kuc-nu-va-ti *

Consider now the derivation of the following examples. First, the inher­ ently imperfective (durative) verb in (73) is transformed into a series of per­ fective verbs, by adding perfective prefixes of completion (74). Next, each of the derived forms is in turn transformed into an imperfective form by adding the imperfective suffix -iva (76). The addition of the suffix -iva to the imper­ fective base in (75) is prohibited, given that -iva can only quantify over perfec­ tive (bounded) actions. (73) pisati

‘write’jMP

7 The quantificational analysis of imperfective suffixes finds further subtle support. The contrast between (i) and (ii) below reinforces the idea that the two suffixes can be analyzed as universal and existential, respectively. While the use of the universal suffix -iva in (i) produces a slightly odd result if the existence of any such event is denied, the use of the existential -nu in (ii) is sharply incompatible with denying the existence of the event. One of the differences between universal and existential quantifiers is that only existential quantifiers commit to the existence of what they quantify over.

(i)

?Nadajeda-va-la knjigu svakom kobi tražio. Istina, niko nikad nije tražio. ‘Nada used to give the book to whoever asked for it. True, nobody ever asked for it.’

(ii) *Nikola je kuc-nu-o na vrata svaki put kad bi došao. Istina, nijednom nije došao. ‘Nikola knocked on the door every time he came. True, he never came.’

Chapter 5. Aspect Phrases

112

(74)

po-pisati za-pisati is-pisati ot-pisati

(75)

*pis-iva-ti

(76)

po-pis-iva-ti za-pis-iva-ti is-pis-iva-ti ot-pis-iva-ti

‘list; inventory’PERF ‘note down; record’PERF ‘cover with writing; withdraw’PERF ‘write off PErf

IMP IMP IMP IMP

Thus, the derivation of the verbs in (76) proceeds as follows: the imperfective base, pisati, comes from the Lexicon unspecified for aspect, the default aspect being durative; the prefix is specified for the feature [+Universal Q], and the prefixed verb moves to AspqP to check this feature against the direct object, which is now required. Next, the suffix -iva is specified for the univer­ sal aspectual feature, [+Universal Q]; the verb thus moves further to AspsP to check this quantificational feature of its suffix -iva, rendering the verb iterative/imperfective. The hierarchical arrangement of the aspectual project­ ions as proposed in this analysis can distinguish successfully between gram­ matical and ungrammatical examples. The contrast between (75) and (76) suggests that the prefix features are checked first: (75) is ungrammatical because -iva has to quantify over a delimited event, and (76) is grammatical because the prefix delimits the event before quantification takes place. If this were not the case, this straightforward explanation of the contrast above would not be available. Suppose now that the starting point is an inherently perfective verb such as dati (give) and that the target verb is its imperfective counterpart davati, as illustrated in the familiar examples below: (77)

Ana mi je dala knjigu. Ana meDAT AUX given book

‘Ana gave me a book.’ (78)

Ana mi je da-va-la knjigu. ‘Ana used to give me the book,! Ana was giving me the book.’

Pending a more precise characterization of this feature, most probably in quantificational terms, I will tentatively assume with Rosen and Ritter 1997 and Ritter and Rosen 2000 that inherently perfective verbs come with the feature [-¡-Delimit], which distinguishes them from unmarked imperfective verbs. This feature will be checked in AspoP. The suffix -iva would add the quantificational feature [-¡-Universal Q] to the verb, and this feature would then be checked in the AspsP, rendering the verb iterative/imperfective.

5.5. Completion and Transitivity

113

Importantly, in each of the scenarios where a suffix attaches, the aspect of the suffix has scope over the aspect of the prefix, or the aspect of the verb, providing support for the analysis in which the features of the suffixes are checked in a higher projection, AspsP, In sum, I have argued that aspectual properties of the clause are estab­ lished in two functional projections in Serbian: AspsP and AspoP. While as­ pectual prefixation is associated with AspoP, aspectual suffixation is associ­ ated with AspsP. This analysis permits a quantificational account of both iter­ ative and perfective aspect. While the iterative aspect is argued to involve universal quantification over perfective actions, perfective prefixes of com­ pletion are argued to involve universal quantification over the object layer, explaining why the object is required with such prefixes. Moreover, the scope properties of perfective prefixes and imperfective suffixes, both with respect to each other and with respect to objects and events, follow naturally from the hierarchical arrangement of the two Aspect Phrases: AspsP and AspoP. The fact that perfective aspect is closely linked to the transitivity of the clause also provides a rationale for the postulation of AspoP. The connection between transitivity and completed aspect is explored in some detail in section 5.5.

5.5. Completion and Transitivity A surprising property of completion prefixes is that they have a consistent effect on the transitivity of the verb. More precisely, perfective prefixes of completion have two grammatical consequences: (i) rendering aspect perfec­ tive and (ii) rendering the predicate transitive. Recall that perfective prefixes of completion were analyzed as contributing the feature [+Universal Q]. Since this feature needs to be checked in AspoP, it will not only require an object, but will also scope over the object, resulting in the interpretation of universal quantification over the object, as discussed in section 5.3 (see Progovac 2003). This section looks at three different strategies that can satisfy this derived transitivity of the predicate. The connection between transitivity and delimitation (perfectivity) is a well-established cross-linguistic fact. Recall from section 5.3 that Tenny 1994 gives several strategies for delimitation in English, including particles, resultatives, fake reflexive pronouns, and cognate objects. In what follows, I discuss three strategies in Serbian for satisfying such derived transitivity: direct object, expletive se construction, and cognate PP construction. In the follow­ ing examples, an intransitive verb like spavati (79) becomes necessarily transi­ tive when prefixed, as evident from the ungrammaticality of (82). Its accusa­ tive feature is then either checked by the expletive Agro pronoun se, as in (80), or by the direct object, as in (81).

Chapter 5. Aspect Phrases

114

(79)

Dušan je spavao. Dušan AUX slept ‘Dusan slept.’

(80)

Dušan se naspavao. Dušan SE on-slept.

‘Dušan has had his fill of sleeping.’

(81)

Dušan je Dušan AUX

prespavao doručak. overslept breakfast

‘Dusan slept through breakfast.’ (82)

Dusan je prespavao/naspavao. *

The following examples illustrate the systematic nature of the phenom­ enon. Pre fixation by a completion prefix renders an intransitive (I) verb tran­ sitive (T) by requiring either a direct object or the reflexive (R) pronoun se.

(83)

trčati pre-trčati put is-trčati se

I T R

‘run’ ‘run across the road’ ‘have one’s fill of running’

(84)

stići po-stići uspeh

I T

‘arrive’ ‘achieve success’

(85)

plivati pre-plivati reku na-plivati se

I T R

‘swim’ ‘swim across a river’ ‘have one’s fill of swimming’

The verbs that can be either transitive or intransitive (I/T) become neces­ sarily transitive or reflexive as a result of pre fixation: (86) jesti (supu) po-jesti supu na-jesti se

I/T T R

‘eat (soup)’ ‘eat up soup’ ‘have one’s fill of eating’

(87)

čitati (knjigu) pro-čitati knjigu na-čitati se

I/T T R

‘read (a book)’ ‘finish reading a book’ ‘to have one’s fill of reading’

(88)

pevati (pesmu) ot-pevati pesmu na-pevati se

I/T T R

‘sing (a song)’ ‘finish singing a song’ ‘have one’s fill of singing’

(89)

prati (veš) o-prati ves na-prati se

I/T T R

‘wash (laundry)’ ‘finish washing laundry’ ‘have one’s fill of washing’

5.5. Completion and Transitivity

115

There is thus a clear connection between adding a completion prefix and inducing the transitivity of the clause in Serbian. This also points to the following theoretical conclusion: the transitivity of the clause is determined not only based on the valency of the verb itself, but also based on the as­ pectual properties of (the prefixes attached to) the verb. This conclusion can be avoided only if each of the prefixed verbs (of completion) is listed in the Lexicon separately, and with the transitive feature. This move would not only burden the Lexicon immensely but also miss important generalizations. In addition to adding a direct object, or the accusative expletive set there is a third way to satisfy such derived transitivity in Serbian: the addition of a cognate PP. The prepositions heading such PPs must be cognate to the prefix in the sense that they are either identical to the prefix or near-identical (see Fowler 1994; Fowler and Yadroff 1993 for similar examples from Russian): (90)

trčati runlNF

(91)

is-trčati out-run

(Intransitive)

iz sobe out roomGEN

‘run out of the room’

(92)

na-trčati na stolic-u on-run on chairACC ‘run/bump into the chair’

(93)

u-trčati u in-run in

sob-u

roomAcc

‘run into the room’

While the direct-object strategy and the expletive se strategy are standardly recognized mechanisms for checking the Accusative feature, the cognate PP strategy is not. The rest of the section looks more closely at each of these strategies. Starting with the direct-object strategy, recall that the translation of the perfective in (4'), repeated below, indicates that the contribution of the prefix includes the interpretation that the whole object has been affected. (4F) Šaša je ot-pevao (ćelu) himnu. Šaša AUX PERF-sung (whole) anthem ‘Šaša has sung the (whole) anthem.’

The sentence means that the action is completed by virtue of the whole/all object having been consumed/affected, and this can be made explicit with the quantifier whole. In order to capture this property of perfective prefixes of

Chapter 5. Aspect Phrases

116

completion, I have proposed in section 5.3 that they come specified with the formal feature of universal quantification: [¿-Universal Q]. This feature is checked/matched in a specifier/head configuration in AspoP against the Q feature of the object, and can thus only establish scope over the object and VP. This also explains why the presence of a completion prefix necessarily renders the clause transitive: some kind of object is required to check the feature of the prefix, that is, to provide the domain for quantification. Recall also that the analysis in terms of universal quantification extends to the examples involving plural objects (35). Here, the interpretation is that all the individuals of the plural object (apples) have been exhaustively af­ fected by the action (of eating), and that the action is, as a result, completed (and perfective). On the other hand, the imperfective (34) does not imply that all the apples have been eaten. The relevant examples are repeated below. (34)

Tanja je Tanja AUX

jela jabuke. eatenIMP applesACC

‘Tanja ate the apples, but may not have finished any of them.’

(35)

Tanja je Tanja AUX

po-jela (sve) jabuke. eatenPERF (all) applesACC

‘Tanja ate up (all) the apples.’

In other words, the direct object, which otherwise moves to the specifier position of AgroP, will move even further to the specifier position of AspoP and check the quantificational/aspectual feature of the prefix, rendering the interpretation of both completion (perfectivity) and whole object. According to the analysis proposed in Chapter Four, the Serbian clitic se is best analyzed as an expletive object pronoun, typically merged in AgroP. Suppose now that this pronoun, just like any other direct object, can check the [¿-Universal Q] feature of the completion prefix. In fact, as the (somewhat awkward) translations of the se examples indicate, even with se there is im­ plied universal quantification interpretation. Thus, the example in (80), re­ peated below, means really that Dušan slept all he needed to sleep and that he slept a lot. Belie 1949-50: 94 describes the meaning of such prefix-se combinations as “radnja izvršena u oblinoj meri” (‘action carried out to an abundant degree’). It is hard to translate such examples, but they involve stronger statements than examples with dovoljno (‘enough’) (94), which merely indicate that the degree of sleep was sufficient. The example in (80), on the other hand, also implies an abundant degree of sleep.8

8 In fact, with a degree adverb such as dovoljno, and even with an adverb such asmalo (‘a little’), one can use the perfective prefix of completion:

5.5. Completion and Transitivity

117

(80) Dušan se na-spavao. Dušan SE on-slept. ‘Dušan slept a lot, and he slept all he needed to sleep.’

(94) Dušan je Dušan AUX

dovoljno spavao. sufficiently slept.

‘Dušan slept enough.’

Thus, just as with the direct object strategy, the quantificational/aspectual feature of the completion prefix is checked in the AspoP, but this time by an expletive pronoun, and the interpretation of universal quantification is im­ plicitly there. So far, this is unproblematic—it involves standard assumptions about feature checking as outlined in Chomsky 1995. On the other hand, the theoretical connection between transitivity and cognate PPs is far from clear, whether in the Minimalist framework or in its predecessors. It is worth noting that this third strategy is only available with prefixed verbs. Also, as pointed out above, the preposition selected is either identical to the prefix, or related to it. To put it another way, the prefix selects the preposition that the prefix itself might have derived from. Mixing and matching the above prefixes and prepositions produces ungrammatical re­ sults, as illustrated in the contrasts below.

(i)

Dušan je dovoljno Dušan aux sufficiently ‘Dusan slept enough.’

od-spavao. PERF-slept

(ii) Dušan je malo od-spavao. Dušan aux little PERF-slept ‘Dušan slept a little.’

Thus an adverb of degree may provide yet another strategy of satisfying the derived transitivity of the verb. This strategy is less productive than the other three, however. In fact, the use of od- with this example is similar to the use of the limitation po-, dis­ cussed in section 5.3. The verbs that take po- to express the sense of “for a while” do not usually take od- for the same purpose, and vice versa. This probably indicates that these prefixes have become lexicalized. However, the verb sedeti (sit) takes either: (iii)

Dušan Dušan

je Aux

malo little

po-sedeo sat

i and

otišao. . Left.

‘Dušan sat for a little while and then left.’

(iv)

Dušan je od-sedeo svojih pola sata. Dušan aux sat his half hour ‘Dušan sat his half an hour.’ (implying that he was required to sit for half an hour, and he did)

Chapter 5. Aspect Phrases

118

(95)

On je he AUX

pre-trčao over-run

preko over

sobe. roomcEN

‘He ran across the room.’

(96)

On je he AUX

na-trČao on-run

na on

stolic-u. chair Acc

‘He ran/bumped into the chair.’

(97)

On je pre-trčao na stolicu. * ‘He ran across onto the chair.’

(98)

On je na-trčao preko stolic-e. * ‘He bumped over the chair.’

Notably, the examples with prefixes do become transitive in some sense, given that they are ungrammatical without the PP in question, unless inter­ preted as involving ellipsis of a specific PP/NP.

(99)

?* On je pre-trčao.

(100)

?* On je na-trčao.

This congruity between the prefix and the preposition is also illustrated in the examples from Brala 2000. These examples are triplets, showing the un­ prefixed verb as intransitive in (a), the prefixed verb as transitive with direct object in (b) and the prefixed verb as transitive with a PP in (c): (101)

a.

Skočio je. jumped AUX

b.

Pre-skočio je ograd-u. over-jumped AUX fenceAcc

c.

Pre-skoČio je preko over-jumped AUX over

‘He jumped.’

‘He jumped over the fence.’

ograd-e. fenceGEN

‘He jumped over the fence.’

(102)

a.

Ptica je bird AUX

letela. flown

‘The bird flew.’

b.

Ptica je bird AUX

ob-letela zgrad-u. around-flown buildingACC

‘The bird flew around the building.’

5.5. Completion and Transitivity (102)

c.

119

Ptica je ob-letela oko zgrad-e. bird AUX around-flown around buildingGEN

‘The bird flew around the building.’ My proposal is that a spec/head relationship is established between the PP and the congruent prefix directly in the AspGP (see Progovac 2002). The PP occupies the specifier position of AspoP, whether by merger or move­ ment, while the (trace of the) prefixed verb is in the head position. Given that the features checked here involve near-identical items, I assume that any Uninterpretable features on the prefix will be checked and eliminated in the pro­ cess, including the Case feature. This is why the construction does not become transitive in the usual sense of the word—it does not require an accusative object. On the other hand, the perfective feature on the prefix remains since it is an Interpretable feature. Incongruent prepositional phrases cannot enter this kind of spec-head feature checking relationship because their other features would presumably be incompatible with those of the prefix. This analysis relies on the assumption that both the PP in the spec pos­ ition and the congruent prefix have a Case feature to check. This assumption seems natural to make given that prepositions are generally taken to assign or transmit Case, while the perfective prefixes of completion render an intran­ sitive clause transitive. In fact, it may be that perfective prefixes of completion have Case features because they derive from the corresponding cognate prep­ ositions. To put it another way, if perfective prefixes need to have a Case feature, then prepositions constitute a good choice to derive them from, given that prepositions have Case features (see Fowler 1994; Fowler and Yadroff 1993 for similar examples from Russian). Konopasky 1997 argues that there is evidence from Old Russian that prefixes are derived from independent prepositions. Her specific proposal is that Old Russian prepositions in some cases underwent head movement to V, and that such incorporated heads were eventually reanalyzed as prefixes. Also, according to Allen 1981, prepositions developed before prefixes in PIE (Proto-Indo-European).9

9 There are other connections between perfectivity and transitivity in Serbian, which are less direct in nature, but whose analysis may be sought along similar lines. One ex­ ample is the perfectivizing suffix -nu, which requires its PP to have an accusative NP complement (ii) (see section 5.4), as opposed to the underived imperfective verb in (i), which seems fine with either accusative or locative. The connection between transitiv­ ity and perfectivity must then be deeper than just the affix/preposition connection, given that the suffix -nu does not seem to derive from any preposition. (i)

Kucao je na prozor/prozor-u. knocked aux on windowAcc^windowEoc ‘He was knocking on the window?

Chapter 5. Aspect Phrases

120

One more fact remains to be addressed. Namely, as noted in Brala 2000, some verb-prefix combinations select only PP complements but disallow ac­ cusative complements:10

a. Ptica je letela.

(103)

b.

Ptica je * bird AUX

u-letela in-flown

c.

Ptica je bird AUX

u-letela in-flown

kola, carAcc u in

kola, carACc

‘The bird flew into the car.’

Brala concludes that there is a semantic difference between the (b) and (c) examples throughout (101-103). Namely, the direct object selection in the (b) examples focuses interpretation on the completion of action, while the choice of PPs in the (c) examples focuses attention on the path. While it

(ii)

Kuc-nu-o je na prozor/*prozor-u. knocked aux on window Acc/w'ndowLOc ‘He knocked on the window.’

Conversely, the impcrfectivc suffix -iva seems to have a dctransilivizing effect at least on some verbs:

(iii)

Ivan je dao. Ivan aux given ‘Ivan gave (something).’

(iv)

Ivan Ivan

je aux

da-va-o given

(i and

da-va-o). given

‘Ivan gave, and he gave. / Ivan was a giver.’

While both forms can be used transitively, the addition of the impcrfectivc -zra makes it also possible to use the verb intransitively, implying a non-specific null object, as in (iv). In contrast, with the underived verb in (iii), the interpretation is necessarily that of ellipsis or omission of a specific object, identifiable in the discourse.

,0 Conversely, there are prefixed verbs that only take accusative complements, but not PP complements, as illustrated in (i), These are typically idiomatic verbs (from Brala 2000). (i)

a.

Jovan je stigao. John AUX arrived

b.

Jovan jc pre-stigao John aux over-arrived

protivnik-a. opponentACC

‘John overtook the opponent.’ c. *Jovan je pre-stigao preko protivnika. John aux over-arrived over opponent

5.5. Completion and Transitivity

121

seems that there is indeed a difference in meaning between accusative and PP examples, a more precise formulation is required in order for it to be tested. Draga Zee, personal communication, observes that the difference is in the nature/length of the path. Namely, the (105) example with the accusative suggests that the path was across the whole field, connecting two opposite sides of the field, whether by length or by width (see the illustration in (105)). On the other hand, the (104) example is vague in this respect, and would also be true if the running occurred across just a small portion of the field, connecting two perpendicular sides (see the illustration in (104) for one possibility). Thus, in (105) there is implicit universal quantification over the (whole) object, in this case field, which is roughly interpreted as described above. On the other hand, the universal quantification in (104) is only scoping over the preposition across, which may or may not involve the whole field in the relevant sense. (104)

On je he AUX

pre-trcao preko polja. over-runover fieldGEN

‘He ran across the field.’

(105)

On je he AUX

pre-trcao over-runPERF

polje, fieldACC

‘He crossed the (whole) field.’

In fact, this observation seems to be on the right track given that only those prepositions/prefixes that can take the accusative complement can also tolerate modification with “whole,” as illustrated below.

(106)

(107)

a.

On je pre-trčao preko celog polja. ‘He ran across the whole/entire field.’

b.

On je pre-trčao (celo) polje.

a.

* Ptica je u-letela u cela kola. *‘The bird flew into the whole/entire car.’

b.

Ptica je uletela (cela) kola. *

122

Chapter 5. Aspect Phrases

Even the English gloss in (107) is ungrammatical, suggesting a deep crosslinguistic difference among prepositions. In sum, this section discusses three different strategies for satisfying de­ rived transitivity of a prefixed verb in Serbian: direct object, expletive se, and cognate PP. Each strategy is argued to involve feature checking in the AspoP. 5.6. Concluding Remarks

This chapter describes and analyzes the per fective/im perfective patterns in Serbian. The imperfective aspect can be either inherent or derived. Inherently imperfective verbs are durative in nature, and I assume that durative is ulti­ mately the default aspect in the sense that it is not specified for any aspectual features. The derived imperfective aspect, derived by the aspectual suffixes such as -iva, is primarily iterative in nature, and is analyzed as contributing a feature of universal quantification over times/events. On the other hand, there are four basic types of perfective verbs: Momentary, Initiation, Comple­ tion, and Limitation. While inherently perfective verbs show momentary aspect, the verbs derived by perfective prefixation show initiation, completion, or limitation sub-aspect. I propose that perfective prefixes are specified for quantificational features which scope over the object layer of the clause. In fact, I argue that it is possible to reduce the contribution of both aspectual prefixes and aspectual suffixes in Serbian to quantification and scope matters, in the spirit of Verkuyl 1972,1999. I capture the basic interpretation of aspectual prefixes in terms of quantificational features, which are checked in the AspoP. While the most productive class of such prefixes, completion prefixes, can be analyzed as quantifying universally over the direct object, the less productive initiation prefixes can be specified negatively for this feature, and are thus interpreted as not quantifying universally over the direct object. As a result, the completion prefixes contribute the interpretation of the whole object being affected, and require an object, while initiation prefixes do not require an object, and are specifically interpreted as not affecting the whole object, rendering the interpretation of an initiated but not completed action. The limitation prefix po-, on the other hand, can be argued to quantify existentially over the duration (adverb), overt or implied, resulting in the interpretation of an action taking place for a limited period of time. It is equally possible to capture the interpretation of aspectual suffixes in terms of quantification. Thus, the suffixes of iteration, such as -iva, are best analyzed as contributing the feature of universal quantification, which is checked in AspsP, explaining why they take scope over the subject layer of the clause, and thus over times and events. This is in contrast to aspectual prefixes which only scope over the object layer of the clause (or Verkuyl’s inner aspectuality), given that their features are checked in AspoP. In

5.6. Concluding Remarks

123

contrast to iteration suffixes, analyzed as involving universal quantification, the suffix -nu was argued to involve existential quantification over times/ events. Its quantification feature is likewise checked in the subject layer AspsP, explaining why its scope is higher than the limitation prefix po-, which only scopes over the duration (adverb), below AspoP. In short, I have argued that aspectual properties of the clause in Serbian are established in two functional projections: AspsP and AspoP. While aspectual prefixation is associated with AspoP, aspectual suffixation is associated with AspsP. I adopt this basic analysis of Aspect for the following reasons. First, it captures the fact that there are two general types of aspect in Serbian, but also in other languages: Perfective and Imperfective. In addition, this dual representation of aspect comes at no theoretical cost—other projections have also been argued to have such dual manifestations, notably AgrPs (see Chapter Four). Next, this analysis permits a quantificational analysis of various kinds of aspectual types: Iterative, Momentary, Completion, Initiation, etc. The fact that perfective aspect of completion is tightly linked to transitivity of the clause also provides a rationale for the postulation of AspoP, Moreover, the scope properties of perfective prefixes and imperfective suffixes, both with respect to each other and with respect to objects and events, follow naturally from the hierarchical arrangement of the two Aspect Phrases: AspsP and AspoP, If this analysis of aspect is on the right track, it further reinforces the basic working hypothesis of the monograph that clausal functional projections come in two basic layers: subject and object.

6

At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics *

6.1. Introductory Words

To study clitics in Serbian is to study how and where all the functional pro­ jections of the clause come together. Throughout the manuscript, arguments have been built for the following basic architecture of the Serbian clause:

(1)

PolsP

Pols

AspsP Asps

AgrsP

Polo

AspoP

Aspo

AgroP

Nowhere in the grammar does it seem more important to have a basic analysis of the clause than it is in the domain of clitic placement. This chapter both builds on, and provides retroactive support for, the basic outline of func­ tional projections developed in the previous chapters. Second-position cliticization (Clitic-Second) in Serbian is a rather intrigu­ ing grammatical phenomenon, which has received a great deal of attention in the literature. Nonetheless, there is little consensus regarding the analysis, the * For comments and discussions about clitics, I would like to thank especially Steven Franks, Zeljko Boskovic, Vesna Radanovic-Kocic, Aaron Halpern, Richard Kayne, Marissa Rivero, Mark Hale, Jindra Toman, Arnold Zwicky, Sandra Stjepanovic, Anna Cardinaletti, and Martha Ratliff.

126

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

main point of contention being whether the phenomenon is essentially phonological/prosodic or syntactic in nature. Descriptively speaking, all the clitics in Serbian, whether auxiliary, pronominal, or other, must find themselves in the second position of the clause, regardless of what sits in the first position. This clause second position is usually referred to as Wackernagel’s position, after the 19th-century philologist who identified and described the position in IndoEuropean.1 In addition to providing a basic description of the second-position cliticization in Serbian, this chapter also explores a novel syntactic analysis of the phenomenon. In particular, it builds on the theme of the previous chapters that even non-ultimate copies of movement can be pronounced in Serbian, in­ cluding the copies of Verb Raising. The basic proposal for the clitics is that they occur in the various functional projections, typically TPs and AgrPs, and that they are affixed to the verb as the verb moves through these projections to check features. The clitics then travel with the verb overtly to its final des­ tination, arguably the highest functional head. The clitics, which can essen­ tially be seen in this analysis as detachable affixes, are then pronounced in the ultimate landing site of the verb, leaning on the preceding phonological mate­ rial in the same projection, while the verb itself will normally be pronounced in a non-ultimate copy of movement. This chapter is organized as follows. Section 6.2 looks at the phonological shape of the clitics and compares them to their full non-clitic counterparts. Section 6.3 describes the second-position effect, as well as the ordering of clitics with respect to each other. Sections 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7 address the basic phonology-syntax controversy in the literature. The conclusion is that the placement of Serbian clitics is syntactic, with the most powerful argument coming from their relative positioning with respect to the event demonstrative to (also discussed in Chapters Three and Eight). Finally, sections 6.8 and 6.9 develop an analysis which sees Clitic-Second as parasitic on Verb-Second. The clitics are argued to be affixes on the silent copy of the verb, which has moved to the highest functional head.

6.2. Full vs. Clitic Forms There are four clitic (weak/leaning) categories in Serbian: weak forms of the personal pronouns, the reflexive se, the auxiliaries, and the question particle li. Table 1 offers a comparison of the clitic versus full pronoun forms, where the clitic form is given after the full/strong form (see e.g., Browne 1974 for a

1 Wackcmagel position clitics have been attested in other (unrelated) languages (e.g., Luiseno, Uto-Aztecan, and Walpiri (Australian)), even though they do not show the same distribution or patterns as Serbian clitics. Klavans1982,1985 is a useful reference for examples of various types of clitics and their placement on edges of phrases or clauses.

6.2. Full vs. Cime Forms

127

detailed description of the clitic system in Serbo-Croatian from the generative perspective): Table 1. Personal Pronouns

Singular

Plural

Accusative 1. 2. 3.

mene/me tebe/te njega/ga nju /ju

‘me’ ‘youSG’ ‘him’ ‘her’

nas/nas vas/vas njih/ih

‘us’ ‘youpL ‘them’

‘me’ ‘youso’ ‘him’ ‘her’

nas/nas vas/vas njih/ih

‘us’ ‘youpL’ ‘them’

‘me’ ‘youSG’ ‘him’ ‘her’

nama/nam ‘us’ vama/vam ‘youpL’ njima/im ‘them’

Genitive

1. 2. 3.

mene/me tebe/te njega/ga nje /je

Dative 1. 2. 3.

meni/mi tebi/ti njemu/mu njoj ¿joj

Genitive clitics would occur with those verbs in Serbian which assign gen­ itive Case to their arguments, such as (2), typically reflexive verbs (see also Chapter Four, Footnote 11):

(2)

Mirj ana j e Mirjana herGEN

se SE

boji. fears

‘Mirjana is afraid of her.’

As one can see from the paradigm, the genitive system is identical to the accusative system, except for the feminine third-person singular pronoun, which shows a genitive/accusative distinction. Interestingly, however, the ac­ cusative form of the feminine elite, ju, would only be used when accompanied with the auxiliary verb ;e. Otherwise, the genitive form je is used even for cases where the verb selects accusative. (3)

Sinisa ju Sinisa herACC

je nekad AUX sometime

‘Sinisa used to love her.’ (4)

Sinisa je/ * ?ju ne voli. Sinisa herGEN/herACC not loves ‘Sinisa does not love her.’

voleo. loved

128

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

The full forms would, on the other hand, always show the expected ac­ cusative marking: (5)

Sinisa je * nje nju/ nekad voleo. Sinisa AUX herAC0/herGEN sometime loved ‘Sinisa used to love her.’

(6)

Sinisa nju/^nje Sinisa herACC/* her GEN

ne not

voli. loves

‘Sinisa does not love her.’

This suggests that the accusative and the genitive clitic systems have col­ lapsed into a single one, and moreover into the genitive one, while the strong pronouns still keep the accusative/genitive distinction alive. This may indicate that the clitics are only historically derived from the full pronouns, but that now they have a life of their own. The inconsistent nature of the correlation between strong pronouns and their clitic counterparts leads me to believe that the two have distinct categorial status, and I will assume in this chapter that pronominal clitics in Serbian are merged in Agr projections, rather than in ar­ gument positions, where full pronouns get generated. Notice, however, that the analysis offered in this chapter is also consistent with the possibility that the clitics are generated in argument positions, but then moved into Agr pro­ jections to check features. I reach the identical conclusion regarding the categorial status of reflexive clitic se in Chapter Four: I argue that se, which only has one form in Serbian, accusative, is an expletive generated directly in Agr. On the other hand, its full reflexive counterpart, which marks the accusative/dative distinction, sebe/sebi, is best analyzed as an argument generated in argument positions. Technically, both the accusative and dative forms of the reflexive pro­ noun have clitic counterparts, derived in a way similar to personal pronouns:

Table 2: The Reflexive Pronoun2

1.

sebe/se (Accusative)

sebi/si (Dative)

2 In fact, there is also the instrumental form of the pronoun, sobotn, for which there is no clitic counterpart at all. (i)

On je nezadovoljan sobotn. he is unsatisfied selfinstr ‘He is unsatisfied with himself.’

The genitive form sebe is identical to the accusative form, but unlike the accusative, it does not have a clitic counterpart.

6.2. Full vs. Clitic Forms

129

In practice, however, the Serbian variety of Serbo-Croatian does not use the dative reflexive clitic form. While the full dative reflexive is used in (7) below, the clitic counterpart does not sound acceptable in Serbian (8):

(7)

Ljubisa je sebi kupio sladoled. Ljubisa AUX selfjDAT bought ice cream

‘Ljubisa bought himself some ice cream.’ (8) ???Ljubisa si je kupio sladoled.

This loss of the dative reflexive clitic in Serbian may be due to the fact that se can no longer be analyzed as a clitic/short version of the reflexive pronoun sebe, as pointed out above. As I argue in Chapter Four, se has now become a pure expletive, used to check the Case features, and can no longer be analyzed as a shorter version of the reflexive pronoun sebe/sebi. That clitic pronouns can be generated in an Agr position is an old idea, pursued by many, for example, Rizzi 1993; Heageman 1996; Sportiche 1996; and Rudin 1997 (see also Sufter 1990, which identifies the clitic with agree­ ment systems; Borer 1984; and Jaeggli 1986). What makes it harder to make this argument in Serbian is the fact that Serbian clitics do not double, that is, they do not co-occur with full DPs, which would in principle be possible if they are in Agr positions. If indeed clitics in Serbian are generated in Agr positions, then some other principle would have to be responsible for the lack of clitic-doubling. One candidate would be a language-specific prohibition against doubly filling the AgroP’s specifier and head, comparable to the Doubly-Filled Comp Filter, which holds in some languages, but not in others (see e.g., Chomsky 1981). Descriptively speaking, this filter in English prohibits co-occurrence of w/i-phrases with complementizers. In any event, base-generation in argument positions is not the only way to rule out cliticdoubling. But, as I pointed out above, this chapter is also consistent with the possibility that the clitics are first generated in argument positions, and then moved to Agr projections for feature-checking purposes. Returning to the personal pronoun paradigm in Table 1, it is obvious that the clitics represent phonologically weakened versions of the full pronouns: they may be weakened only in that they lack stress (yas, nas) or additionally weakened through reduction by a sound or two (e.g., meni/mi). The reduction seems possible at the beginning or in the middle of the full pronoun. The choice of clitic forms is potentially much more significant than this obser­ vation suggests. To take one example, the clitic form is identical to the cor­ responding adjective agreement, as evident below (see also Progovac 1998d): (9) Video saw

sam jedno-g(a) lepo-g(a) AUX one handsome

T saw a handsome man.’

covek-a. man

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

130

(10) Video sam ga.

‘I saw him,’ (11) Bojim fear

se SE

on-ih visok-ih those tall

planina. mountains

‘I am afraid of those tall mountains.’ (12) Bojim ih se.

‘I am afraid of them.’

Notice here that the genitive clitic precedes the accusative se. Th e auxiliary paradigm shows similar strong/clitic contrasts. In Table 3 below, the clitic forms follow the strong forms: Table 3. The Auxiliary System

Plural

Singular

Verb jesam ‘am’: defective verb, with no infinitive form 1. 2. 3.

jesam/sam ‘am’ jesi/si ‘areSG’ jeste/je ‘is’

jesmo/smo jeste/ste jesu/su

‘we are’ ‘you arePL’ ‘they are’

hocemo/cemo hocete/cete hoce/ce

‘we are’ ‘you arePL’ ‘they are’

Verb hteti ‘want’ 1. 2. 3.

hocu/cu hoces/ées hoce/ce

‘am’ ‘areSG’ ‘is’

Verb biti ‘be’, used for conditional; all forms seem to be clitic forms; the de­ scriptive tendency is to lose all agreement marking, given in parenthesis 1. 2. 3.

bi(h) bi bi

bi(smo) bi(ste) bi

The clitic versions of auxiliaries include subject/verb agreement, except for the third-person singular je, where the base form/root seems to be the clitic form, rather than the agreement part. This may be the reason for the ex­ ceptional nature of je, to be discussed below. There is one more clitic used in Serbian, the question particle li. It seems uncontroversial that Serbian li is just a question particle, generated in C, as normally question particles would be. (Recall from Chapter Three that I have reanalyzed CP as a higher segment of PolsP. In this chapter, however, I con­ tinue to use the terms CP and C because of their familiarity, but the labels now really stand for the outer segment of PolsP.) In Serbian, unlike in other

6.3. Special Positioning and Clustering

131

Slavic languages, H can only follow question elements or the raised verb in the CP layer and cannot be used for focusing, as illustrated in the following: (13)

Ko li who Q

to that

kuca? knocks

‘Who is it knocking?’ (14)

Djurdjinka? Djurdjinka

Dolazi li comes O

‘Is Djurdjinka coming?’

(15)

Da that

li Q

dolazi Djurdjinka? comes Djurdjinka

‘Is Djurdjinka coming?’ (16)

* Djurdjinka Djurdjinka

li Q

dolazi? comes

The ordering of the four clitic categories is strictly fixed. The following section looks at the positioning of the clitics in the clause as well as with respect to each other. 6.3.

Special Positioning and Clustering

All the clitics in Serbian are constrained to the second clausal position, as il­ lustrated below for pronouns and auxiliaries. In contrast to full pronouns, which can appear in first, second, third, or other clausal positions, clitic pro­ nouns are consistently placed in the second position:3

3 There are some examples in which it would seem that the clitics are placed in a posi­ tion later than second. Consider the following acceptable examples from RadanovicKocic 1988:

Noću je ovde mirnije, at-night is here more-quiet ‘At night, it is more quiet here.’ (ii) Noću,—ovde je mirnije.

(i)

The problematic case is (ii), in which the clitic seems to occur in the third, rather than second, position. However, as I argue in Progovac 1998c and 2000a, the cases in which such third placement is possible involve a heavy comma intonation after the first ele­ ment, suggesting that the first element is not integral to the kernel CP clause, but at­ tached loosely to it, by e.g., CP adjunction. That the material set off with commas is CP external can easily be tested—this same material can precede vv/z-words:

(iii)

Noću, ko bi ovde dolazio?

(iv) Milanu, ko bi pozajmio knjigu?

132

(17)

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

Ja njega poznajem. I him know ‘I know him.’

(18)

Ja poznajem njega.

(19)

Njega ja poznajem.

(20)

Ja ga poznajem.

(21)

Ja poznajem ga, *

(22)

Ga ja poznajem. *

(23)

Ti You

jesi drzak! areEMPH rude

‘You are rude!’

(24)

?Ti drzak jesi.

(25)

Jesi drzak!

(26)

Ti si drzak.

(27)

?* Ti drzak si.

(28)

Si drzak. *

Moreover, no matter how many clitics are used per clause, they all have to appear in this same second position, next to each other, forming what has traditionally been referred to as a “clitic-cluster.” (29)

Dušan mu ga je prodao. Dušan him it has sold ‘Dušan sold it to him.’

(30)

Ko mi who me

je koga predstavio? has whom introduced

‘Who has introduced whom to me?’

These clitic clusters cannot be interrupted by anything—not by adverbs, not by wA-words in multiple ivA-questions, not even by any parenthetical ma­ terial—suggesting that they appear in a single syntactic position with no pro­ jection in between as a possible adjunction site.4

4 The formation of a clitic cluster has been challenged on theoretical grounds, how­ ever, by Halpern 1992, Boskovic 1995, and Sljepanovic 1997. The reader is referred also to Progovac 1997 for a discussion regarding these proposals.

6.3. Special Positioning and Clustering

(31)

* Dušan mu Dušan him

(32)

* Ko mi koga je predstavio? who me whom has introduced

(33)

* Ko who

možda maybe

133

ga je prodao. it has sold

mi, na primer, je koga predstavio? me for example, AUX whom introduced

My analysis will rest on the assumption that the clitics indeed occur in the second position, and moreover that they cluster in a single syntactic position. Although Serbian is otherwise a “free” word-order language (see Chapter Two), the clitics must appear in a rigidly fixed order (see, for example, Browne 1974):5

5 As pointed out above, Serbian no longer uses dative si clitics, and the accusative se seems to occur in the same position where other accusative pronouns would occur. As pointed out above, genitive clitics also occur with the verbs selecting genitive argu­ ments, and they are placed in a position preceding the reflexive. It is possible that the genitive clitics are in the same position where dative clitics are, since the two do not seem to co-occur (see Chapter Four, Footnote 11). Presumably, the genitive Case fea­ ture would also be checked in the split segment of AgroP, if the verb is specifically se­ lected with this feature. It was illustrated in Chapter Four, Footnote 11, that it is not possible to combine a genitive and an accusative pronominal clitic, in either order. This observation, coupled with the lack of dative reflexive clitics in Serbian (see discussion in the text above), makes it difficult to test whether the reflexive clitic appears in a position distinct from other accusative clitics. Contra Franks and King 2000, then, I will assume that at least in Serbian, if not in other Slavic languages, se occurs in the same position in which the other accusative elites occur, that is, AgroP. As far as I can tell, accusative personal pronouns in Serbian do not co-occur with se (see a more detailed discussion in Chapter Four on se). Even the exceptional verb učiti in Serbian, which otherwise takes two accusative objects, cannot take both se and an accusative. As noted in Dziwirek 2002, the verb učiti is exceptional across Slavic, and the pattern in some Slavic languages, including Serbian, is to use two accusative objects, both for the theme (subject matter of teaching) and for the recipient:

(i)

Cica uči Veru matematiku. Cica teaches VeraACC mathematicsAcc ‘Cica is teaching Vera mathematics.’

(ii)

Cica

(iii) (iv)

Cica se uči *matematiku/??matematici. Cica se teaches mathematics ACC/mathematicsDAT ‘Cica is teaching herself mathematics.’

sebe matematiku. self ‘Cica is teaching herself mathematics.’ uči

134

Chapter

6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

(34)

li - AUX (other than je) - DAT - ACC/se - je.

(35)

Ti you

si mu ga dao. are him it given

‘You have given it to him.’

(36)

Ti si ga mu dao. *

(37)

Ti ga mu si dao. *

(38)

Ti you

si mu se smejao. are him self laughed

‘You laughed at him.’

(39)

Ti si se mu smejao. *

(40)

Ti se mu si smejao. *

(41)

Da li si mu that Q are him

ga dao? it given

‘Have you given it to him?’

(42)

Da li si ga mu dao? *

(43)

Da that

li Q

si mu se smejao? are him self laughed

‘Have you laughed at him?’ (44)

Da li si se mu smejao? *

As evident from the ordering template in (34), je is exceptional in its placement with respect to other clitics. While other auxiliaries precede pro­ nominal and se clitics, je follows them all (see e.g., Tomic 1992,1996). Tomic also notes that je is the only clitic able to support the question particle li: (45)

Je li is Q

ona stigla? she arrived

‘Has she arrived?’ (46)

* Si li ti are Q you

stigla? arrived

The difference in behavior between the strong reflexive and the clitic reflexive further reinforces the conclusion of Chapter Four, as well as of section 6.2 of this chapter, that se is not just a short counterpart of the full pronoun sebe.

6.3. Special Positioning and Clustering

135

In Chapter Four I proposed that this exceptional positioning of je is due to its generation in the higher TSP, on a par with the modal verbs in English, as opposed to other auxiliaries, which I argue are generated in the lower TqP. Je exhibits yet another surprising property. Namely, in the Serbian vari­ ety of Serbo-Croatian, the auxiliary je (and no other auxiliary) is dropped in the presence of se, although it is otherwise obligatory in the past tense.

(47)

Goran je Goran AUX

plakao. cried

‘Goran cried.’

(48)

?* Goran plakao.

(49)

Goran se je smejao. * ‘Goran laughed.’

(50)

Goran se smejao.

(51)

Goran mu se je smejao. *

?

‘Goran laughed at him.’

(52) (53)

Goran mu se smejao.

Ti si se smejao. ‘You laughed.’

(54)

?* Ti se smejao.

(55)

Ti si mu se smejao. ‘You laughed at him.’

(56)

?* Ti mu se smejao.

In fact, the omission of the auxiliary is not completely impossible in ex­ amples (48), (54), (56), but it is highly marked and would be used only in special discourse circumstances. However, when examples like this are negated, all the auxiliaries are obligatory, including ye: (57)

Goran nije plakao. / * Goran ne plakao.

(58)

Goran se nije smejao. / * Goran se ne smejao.

(59)

Ti mu se nisi smejao. / * Ti mu se ne smejao.

Likewise, when inverted to support the question particle //, je will appear (and obligatorily so) even when se is present (60), contrasting minimally with the non-interrogative (49).

136

Chapter 6, At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

(60) Je li se Goran smejao? ‘Did Goran laugh?’ This may suggest that je is underlyingly there but necessarily deletes when adjacent to se. The underlying position of each clitic will be relevant in section 6.9, which explores verb-movement analysis of clitic placement.

6.4. Stress or Structure: Is There a First-Word Option?

Traditionally, clitics in Serbo-Croatian have been described as having two distinct positions, either after the first constituent/phrase, or after the first word, allegedly a non-constituent (Browne 1974, Comrie 1981):

(61) Vukina cerka se Vuka’s daughter SE

udala. married

‘Vuka’s daughter got married.’ (62) Vukina se cerka udala. Vuka’s SE daughter married

‘Vuka’s daughter got married. I It was Vuka’s daughter who got married.’ (63) Mladja se cerka udala. younger SE daughter married ‘The younger daughter got married. / It was the younger daughter who got married.’

The apparent first-word clitic placement has led to a series of phonologi­ cal accounts of Clitic-Second in Serbian (e.g., Inkeles and Zee 1988; Radanovic-Kocic 1988; Hock 1993/1996; Halpern 1992; and Boskovic 2000; see also Zee and Inkelas 1990 for a discussion of delayed clitic placement). The ra­ tionale for a phon ©logical approach is clear: if syntactic positioning of a clitic would violate the constituency requirements of syntax, then the placement of clitics must not be syntactic, but must instead be phonological/prosodic. In Halpern’s 1992 approach, for example, the syntax moves the clitics to the left edge of IP, and then phonological inversion flip-flops the clitic with the first accented word to insure phonological support for the clitic. However, non-constituent placement of clitics in Serbian is only an illu­ sion. As pointed out in Progovac 1996, both possessive and other adjec-tives to which clitics can attach behave as constituents/phrases in Serbian in that they can be displaced from the head noun or w/i-questioned: (64) Vukina odlazi cerka. Vuka’s leaves daughter

‘Vuka’s daughter is leaving. / It is Vuka’s daughter who is leaving.’

6.4. Stress or Structure: Is There a First-Word Option?

137

(65) Mladja (joj) odlazi cerka. younger (to her) leaves daughter ‘Her younger daughter is leaving, / It is her younger daughter who is leaving?

(66) Cija/koja whose/which

odlazi cerka? leaves daughter

‘Whose/which daughter is leaving?’

The difference between (61) and (62) now reduces to the difference be­ tween preposing the full DP versus preposing the possessive specifier or AP in that DP. Crucially, however, each case involves attachment to a constit­ uent, and moreover, to a phrasal constituent in the cases above. As is the case with any scrambled word order, (64-65) are marked and involve focusing or contrasting, as roughly captured by the glosses. In Progovac 1996, I present a syntactic approach to the placement of clitics and their hosts, arguing that clitics cannot attach to the first word, unless that word is a syntactic constituent which can independently find itself in the position where clitics attach. This approach is clearly distinct from the phonological/prosodic accounts, according to which any stressed word should be able to bear clitics. The exceptions to the prosodic account of clitic place­ ment go both ways. First, there are stressed words that can never host clitics. Prepositions, whether stressed for contrast (69) or not (67-68), can simply never support clitics. This follows from the independent syntactic fact that prepositions can neither be displaced from the complement NPs in Serbian, nor can they find themselves in the top functional layer in which they would be able to support clitics. (67) Na sto ga ostavi. on table it leave

‘Leave it on the table? (68) * Na ga sto ostavi. on it table leave (69) * Prema ga je Miodragu Marija bacila, a ne od toward it is MiodragDAT Mary threw and not from

njega. heGEN

‘Mary threw it toward Miodrag, not away from him?

On the other hand, the complementizer da is not stressed, yet it is the most frequent host for clitics, and actually the only one possible in embedded

138

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

da clauses (70). Da can also support clitics in main clauses, basically questions (71-72): (70) Stefan tvrdi Stefan claims

[da mu ga je Petar poklonio]. that him it is Peter given

‘Stefan claims that Peter has given it to him as a present.’

(71) Da li je Marija stigla? that Q has Mary arrived ‘Has Mary arrived?’ (72) Da me that me

slučajno by any chance

ne pozivaš? not invite

‘Are you trying to say that you are inviting me?’

(sarcastic)

Thus, the phonological/prosodic analysis is both too strong and too weak: there are clitic bearers that are not stressed, and also clitic non-bearers that receive stress. The contrast between da and the prepositions is easily explain­ ed syntactically: da is a head in C, in the position in which it can support the clitics. Prepositions, on the other hand, can never independently find them­ selves in C. Prosodically, however, there is no difference between comple­ mentizers and prepositions—they are both normally unstressed. There is another construction in Serbian that can receive a syntactic, but not a prosodic, account. Consider the following pair:

(73) [NP Roditelji parents

uspešn-ih studenat-a] successfulGEN studentsGEN

su se have SE

razišli, dispersed

‘The parents of the successful students dispersed.’ (74) ^Roditelji su se uspešnih studenata razišli.

In this case, the clitics can only follow the full NP, but not the first word. The first word roditelji ‘parents’ is obviously a stress-bearer, and there is no phonological reason for (74) to be ungrammatical. However, the noun roditelji would be able to host clitics only if it were an independent constit­ uent, DP, capable of finding itself in the top functional layer. It is independ­ ently established that the head noun can neither move independently, nor can it be questioned (contrast possible extraction of specifiers in (64-66) with the ungrammatical (75) and (76)): (75) ?* Roditelji su se razišli uspešnih studenata. (76) * Ko su se uspešnih studenata razišli?

One may speculate that the reason why head nouns followed by genitive complements cannot move has to do with Case assignment. This would follow

6.4. Stress or Structure: Is There a First-Word Option?

139

if, for some reason, the Case assigned by non-verbs, in this case nouns, must be assigned under adjacency. This explanation would automatically extend to prepositions as well, which govern the Case of their NP complements.6 The next section addresses yet another point of controversy between prosodic and syntactic accounts, which has to do with intonation and clause boundaries.

6 Aaron Halpern, personal communication, offers examples accepted by some SerboCroatian speakers, in which clitics seem to follow unextractable elements, such as conjuncts, first names, and even nouns followed by a genitive modifier (judgements indi­ cated below are mine; I suppose that for the speakers mentioned these would be completely grammatical): (i)

"Sestra će i njen muž doći u sister will and her husband come in ‘My sister and her husband will come on Tuesday.’

(ii)

??Lav Leo

je is

Tolstoj veliki Tolstoy great

ruski Russian

utorak, Tuesday (from Browne 1975)

pisac. writer

‘Leo Tolstoy is a great Russian writer.’ (iii)

su

"Prijatelji friends

aux

moj-e myGEN

sestre upravo sisterGEN just

stigli, arrived

‘My sister’s friends have just arrived.’

To my ear, in each case the continuation of the noun phrase after the clitic seems to be an afterthought, a parenthetical, rather than what the speaker intended to say in the first place. That these examples are not the part of the core grammar is suggested by the fact that they become noticeably degraded upon the insertion of more than one clitic, as illustrated in (ivvi) (see also (74) in the text). This is in contrast to possessive phrases/adjectives discussed above, where the number of clitics inserted makes no difference (vii):

(iv)

*Sestra sister

(v)

*Lav mi ga Leo me it

(vi)

?*Prijatelji su mi ga moj-e friends aux me it m}'GEN ‘The friends of my sister have given it to me.’

(vii)

Anina mi ga je sestra poklonila. Ana’s me it has sister given ‘Ana’s sister has given it to me.’

će mi ga i willme it and

njen her

muž husband

pokloniti, give

‘My sister and her husband will give it to me.’

je Tolstoj poklonio. has Tolstoy given

‘Leo Tolstoy has given it to me.’

sestr-e sisterGEN

poklonili, given

140

6.5.

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

Intonation (and Clause) Boundaries

There is another piece of data to be addressed with respect to stress vs. struct­ ure controversy. Clitics in Serbian cannot appear after a comma boundary (77), giving rise to the appearance of a third-position placement of clitics (78), as already pointed out above: (77) * Svojim self’s

rodjacima po majci, ce relatives after mother will

Rada prodati Rada sell

knjige. books

‘To his/her maternal relatives, Rada will sell the books.’

(78) Svojim rodjacima selfs relatives

po majci, Rada ce after mother Rada will

prodati sell

knjige. books

‘To his/her maternal relatives, Rada will sell the books.’ The data can be interpreted in two distinct ways: (i) either clitic place­ ment is indeed defined on the basis of intonation boundaries, as pursued in Radanovic-Kocic 1988 and Boskovic 2000 (see also the discussion in Zee and Inkelas 1990), or (ii) both the clitic placement and the position of intonational boundaries are sensitive to a third common factor, such as the one given in (79), as proposed in Progovac 2000a: (79) The kernel clause (the highest extended projection of V) forms an intonation unit. Anything preceding this kernel clause is set off with comma intonation.

One piece of evidence for the latter approach comes from the fact that wh -words can follow only those preposed phrases that are set off with comma intonation (see Progovac 1996 for the argument): (80) Svojim rodjacima po majci, sta ce Rada prodati?

(pause)

‘To his/her maternal relatives, what will Rada sell?’ (81) ?* Svojim rodjacima po majci sta ce Rada prodati?

(no pause)

Thus w/i-words and clitics both prove to be sensitive to intonation bound­ aries. Saying for the clitics that they are phonologically positioned does not solve the problem for w/i-words, for which one would rather not want to claim phonological placement. Instead, both phenomena follow directly from (79). Not only can clitics not occur immediately after an intonation boundary, as illustrated above, but they also cannot occur inside the phrases set off by comma intonation. This again follows directly from the proposal in (79). The

6.6.

It Can't Be the First Word: Evidence from Event Demonstrative To

141

whole phrase set off with comma intonation is outside of the domain of the verb, that is, outside of the kernel clause.7 (82) With no intonation boundary (no pause):

Svojim će selfs will

rodjacima relatives

po majci Rada prodati knjige. after mother Rada sell books

‘To his/her maternal relatives, Rada will sell the books.’

(83) With pause: *Svojim će rodjacima selfs will relatives

po majci, Rada prodati knjige after mother Rada sell books.

In sum, the proposal in (79) that there is a correlation between kernel clause boundaries (the highest extended projections of the verb) and major intonation boundaries is natural, as well as falsifiable. The correlation is natu­ ral because one expects intonation boundaries to have a structural correlate and determination rather than to be independent of such considerations. It is important to note that parenthetical material, or material set off with comma intonation, has a comparable effect on Verb-Second, as will be further discussed in section 6.8. The example below from Ćavar and Wilder 1994 il­

lustrates that the verb in V-second languages does not directly follow such intonationally separated elements but instead occurs “third” in the clause: (84) Auf in

jeden Fall, ich werde da sein. any case I will there be

The following section provides a rather compelling argument against prosodic placement of clitics. 6.6.

It Can't Be the First Word: Evidence from Event Demonstrative To

One of the most influential arguments for a prosodic/phonological placement of clitics in Serbian has rested on the observation that clitics can be inserted within phrases, as in the examples below (see e.g., Halpern 1992): (85) Kakvu which

si mi AUX me

knjigu book

kupio? bought

‘What kind of book have you bought for me?’ (86) Po kojoj on which

je knjizi Stefan škrabao? AUX book Stefan scribbled

Tn which book did Stefan scribble?’ 7 Although a heavy preposed phrase is more likely to be set off with comma inton­ ation, heaviness is not at all a necessary (or even sufficient) condition for introducing an intonation boundary (for some discussion, see Bošković 2000 and Progovac 2000a),

142

Chapter 6, At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

The argument goes as follows: while it is difficult to see how a seeming non-constituent, especially po kojoj in (86), can be a syntactic category, it is possible to make an argument that po kojoj and kakvu are phonological words, and that therefore the placement of clitics is phonological in nature, at least in these cases. On the other hand, as is well established, the placement of clitics is not always after the first word—it very often uncontroversial ly fol­ lows the first syntactic phrase, as illustrated below: (87) Kakvu knjigu si mi kupio? which book AUX me bought ‘What kind of book have you bought for me?’

(88) Po kojoj knjizi je Stefan skrabao? on which book AUX Stefan scribbled

Tn which book did Stefan scribble?’ Thus, if indeed the placement of clitics in (85) and (86) is phonological, following the first phonological word, then any description of cliticization in Serbian would have to be disjunctive in nature, described as either following the first phonological word or following the first syntactic phrase in a clause. Any unified (non-disjunctive) description of the phenomenon would have to concede either that cliticization is always after the first phonological word, which is impossible, given (87-88), or that it is always after the first syntactic phrase, as I argued in Progovac 1996. In Progovac 1999a I provide novel and, to my mind, unambiguous evi­ dence that, even in cases like (85) and (86), the clitic hosts are syntactic cate­ gories, rather than phonological words. Such evidence comes from the place­ ment of clitics relative to the clausal demonstrative to. As argued in Chapter Three (see also Chapter Eight), the demonstrative to, which can introduce clauses (89), occupies a fixed structural position (see also Progovac 1998a, 1998b, 1999a). Its position in (89) is higher than the AgrsP/TsP complex, but lower than C, given that it follows wh-words or complementizers, but pre­ cedes the rest of the clause (90-93). In Chapter Three I argued that this posi­ tion is the lower segment of CP/Pol$P.8

8 The translations of the demonstrative to are only approximate—there is no direct counterpart in English. The reader is referred to Progovac 1998a and to Chapter Eight for an extensive discussion of its functions. Very roughly, it is argued there that the basic function of clausal to is to refer to an event (or to evidence that an event has taken place), in this case to the events of playing soccer and singing. A thorough un­ derstanding of the function and meaning of to is not crucial for the arguments pre­ sented in this chapter.

6.6. It Can't Be the First Word: Evidence

(89)

To Ana igra that Ana plays

from

Event Demonstrative To

143

fudbal. soccer

‘What we see/witness is Ana playing soccer.’ (90)

a.

Ko to (tamo) peva? who that there sings

‘Who is it singing over there?’

(91)

b.

To ko tamo peva? *

a.

Da li COMP Q

to Ana igra fudbal? that Ana plays soccer

‘Is that Ana playing soccer?’ b.

(92)

To da li Ana igra fudbal? *

* Ana igra to fudbal.

(93) * Ana igra fudbal to. It is important to establish here that to is an integral part of the clause, rather than a parenthetical and thus cannot be set off with comma intonation, in contrast with the parenthetical eto, which is set off with comma intonation: (94)

Eto, Ana igra fudbal. ‘So, you see, Ana is playing soccer. I So, you see, Ana plays soccer.’

This distinction correlates closely and consistently with the ability to support clitics. While to can support clitics, and often does, eto cannot; (95)

a.

To je Ana igrala fudbal. that is Ana played soccer

‘What we see/witness is evidence that Ana has played soccer.’

(96)

b.

To Ana je igrala fudbal. *

a.

Eto je Ana igrala fudbal. *

b.

Eto, Ana je igrala fudbal. ‘So, you see, Ana played soccer.’

In fact, when to is initial, clitics must immediately follow (95). On the other hand, when to is proceeded by a ivA-word, the clitics must attach between the w/z-word and to (97). (97)

a.

Sta li what Q

si mu to kupio? are him that bought

‘What is it that you bought him?’ b.

§ta to li si mu kupio? *

(clitics not second)

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

144

Two conclusions emerge from the discussion so far. First, to counts in de­ termining the second position, as also observed in Halpern 1992. Second, to appears in a fixed clausal position, situated between C and the AgrsP/TsP complex, which is possibly the lower segment of CP/PolsP, as argued in Chapter Three. With this in mind, consider the following data (from Progovac 1999a) showing that to can find itself, together with the clitics, inserted into phrases.

(98) a.

Kakvu (li) which Q

si mi (to) AUX me that

knjigu kupio? book bought

‘What kind of book is it that you have bought for me?’

(99)

b.

??Kakvu li si mi knjigu to kupio?

a.

Po kojoj on which

b.

??Po kojoj li je knjizi to Stefan škrabao?

(li) je Q AUX

(to) knjizi that book

Stefan škrabao? Stefan scribbled

Tn which book did Stefan scribble?’

The possibility of inserting to, a non-clitic sentential element, in the middle of the w/i-phrase removes the motivation for Halpern’s Prosodic In­ version, or for phonological placement of clitics in general. Given that the pre-clitic iv/i-string must be syntactically displaced in order to accommodate the placement of to, then it is also syntactically displaced in order to accom­ modate the clitics. It is important to keep in mind that to is not a clitic, and certainly not a second-position clitic, as clearly demonstrated in the examples (89) and (98b/99b), where it appears first and third, respectively. While it is possible to make a phonological argument for clitic placement, given that clitics seem to be phonological leaners, such an argument is not possible to make with respect to to, for which there is no reason to believe that it is pho­ nologically dependent. To accept the argument that clitics in (98a) and (99a) are inserted there by a phonological inversion would necessarily imply that the clausal demonstrative, a non-clitic, would be inserted in this same position by the same phonological mechanism, an argument that, most probably, no one would want to make. How and why the wh~phrase comes to be broken up in this fashion is an intriguing but nonetheless separate question. Whether or not we understand the mechanism for such displacement, the data above clearly demonstrate that indeed the pieces of the wh-phrase are syntactically separated. One possibility for analyzing such displacement is along the lines of Citko 1998, who argues for the placement of non-initial wh-phrases in Operator Phrases, below C (see also Rudin 1988 for an IP adjunction analysis of non­ initial uA-phrascs in Serbo-Croatian). According to this analysis, kakvu in (98a) would be in the CP projection, the clitics adjoined to C, to in its usual

6.6. It Can't Be the First Word: Evidence from Event Demonstrative To

145

position right below C, and knjigu, the remnant of the wA-phrase, would be left behind in the Operator Phrase (or adjoined to IP, in Rudin’s analysis).9 The preposition presumably has to pied-pipe in (99a) because the w/z-word cannot be extracted from a PP. Actually, in Serbian prepositions cannot be stranded at all, not even if the whole uTz-phrase were to front: (100) ** Kojoj knjizi je Stefan skrabao po? which book AUX Stefan scribbled on

‘Which book did Stefan scribble in?’

Alternatively, as I argue in Chapter Three, the two elements of the whphrase sit in different segments/layers of the two PolPs. Assume that to in (98a) and (99a) is in a fixed position, lower segment of PolsP. In that case, the first piece of the wA-phrase will be in the outer segment of the PolsP, while the second piece of the wA-phrase will be in PoloP. Notice that this leaves the subject pronounced below the object layer, but it was argued in Chapter Two that this is possible in Serbian due to its free word-order status. In fact, as predicted by this reasoning, the subject can also find itself in the position im­ mediately preceding to, in the AgrsP projection, providing yet another argu­ ment that the wh-phrase split is syntactic rather than phonological. Not only the clitics, and not only to, but also the subject can break up a w/z-phrase: (99') a.

Po kojoj on which

(li) je Q AUX

Stefan (to) knjizi Stefan that book

skrabao? scribbled

Tn which book did Stefan scribble?’

In sum, this section establishes that even in the case of clitics appearing in the middle of a phrase, there is evidence that such placement is syntactic in nature. The most powerful argument for a phonological placement of clitics is thus directly undermined. The following section presents yet another argu­ ment for syntactic placement.

9 The reader is also referred to Boskovic’s 1998 analysis of w/¡-movement in Serbian as Focus Fronting. According to this analysis wA-words move to the CP layer in syntax only if C is overtly realized, for example, when li is there. His reason for this claim is the observation that Serbian multiple iWz-movemcnt does not obey the Superiority Condition, which is otherwise characteristic of wh-movement to the CP layer (see Chomsky 1981). This analysis is not incompatible with the basic proposal of this chapter, although it would require me to say that pieces of wh -phrases in questions without li may not be in SpecCP, requiring an additional projection between C and focused w/z-phrases in which the initial w/z-word would land. I leave this issue for future research. See also the discussion of wh-movement in Chapter Two.

146

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

6.7. Subjunctive-Like Complements, Clitic Climbing, and Other Movement Operations

Another argument that clitic placement is sensitive to the syntactic/semantic considerations comes from subjunctive-like complements in Serbian (see Progovac 1996, 1993a, 1993c). Recall from Chapter Two, section 2.3.2, that the verbs in Serbian fall into two basic classes: those which select opaque complements (I-verbs, such as kazati ‘say’, where T’ stands for indicative-like complements), and those which select transparent complements, allowing for domain extension/clause restructuring (S-verbs, such as žele.ii ‘wish’, where ‘S’ stands for subjunctive-like complements). Clitic placement in Serbian is sensi­ tive to this distinction. With I-verbs, the clitics are strictly clause-bound and must remain in the local clause, as the contrast between (101) and (102) illus­ trates. With S-verbs, on the other hand, the clitics attach either in the local clause or climb to the matrix clause (see (103) and (104)).10 (101) Milan kaže [da ga(vidi /J. Milan says that him sees

‘Milan says that he can see him.’ (102)

*Milan ga. Milan him

(103)

Milan Milan

želi [da ga( wishes that him

(104)

’Milan Milan

gaz- želi [da vidi him wishes that sees

kaže [da vidi tj. says that sees

vidi i,| sees

There can be no phonological explanation for this difference between Iverbs and S-verbs, since the embedded complement to both types of verbs is an independent intonation-bearing phrase. On the other hand, this difference can be explained under a syntactic approach. It is well known that subjunctive complements across languages extend the domain for syntactic dependencies such as negative polarity (e.g., in Ro­ mance), anaphora (in Romance and Icelandic), etc. (see Chapter Two, section 2.3.2). Moreover, in Serbian as well the difference between I-verbs and Sverbs is observed with the dependencies that uncontroversially involve syn­ tactic movement, such as topic preposing and w/i-extraction across negation (see Progovac 1993a, also Chapter Two). Their sensitivity to the syntactic

10 Some speakers of Serbian, including Vesna Radanovic-Kocic, personal communication, do not have a contrast between (102) and (104) in the text, that is, they do not allow clitic climbing.

6.8. Clitic-Second and Verb-Second: The Connection

147

constraints suggests that clitics in Serbian are placed in syntax. The rest of the chapter is devoted to an analysis of Clitic-Second that rests on this conclusion. 6.8. Clitic-Second and Verb-Second: The Connection

6.8 .1. Verb-Second Apart from Clitic-Second as described above, there is another phenomenon that exhibits consistent second-position effects: the verb in Germanic VerbSecond languages, such as German, Dutch, Norwegian, and Swedish. As the following examples from Haegeman 1991 illustrate, the finite verb must be second in the root clause, regardless of what the first constituent is: the subject in (105), the object in (106), or an adverbial in (107). The examples (108) and (109) are ungrammatical because the verb does not sit in the second clausal position:11

(105)

Die Frau the woman

hat das Buch has the book

gelesen. read

‘The woman has read the book.’ (106)

Das Buch hat die Frau gelesen.

(107)

Gestern hat die Frau das Buch gelesen. yesterday

(108)

Gestern die Frau hat das Buch gelesen. *

(109)

Das Buch die Frau hat gelesen. *

Verb-Second shares another property with Clitic-Second: the verb can occur third in case the fronted material is set off with comma intonation, and is thus extemal/peripheral to the kernel clause (see section 6.5). The following German example is from Cavar and Wilder 1994: (110)

Auf jeden Fall, ich werde da sein. in any case I will there be

In fact, both Verb-Second and Clitic-Second have faced the same contro­ versy with respect to their placement in C versus in the highest clausal head. For placement in C for Serbian/Croatian clitics, see Progovac 1996, Wilder and Cavar 1994, Franks and Progovac 1994, and Tomic 1996; for Germanic Verb-Second, see e.g., Weerman 1989 and Haegeman 1991. For placement in the highest clausal head, for Serbian/Croatian clitics see Boskovic 1995,2000;11

11 The references on verb-second are many, including Koster 1975; den Beslen 1983; Weerman 1989; Travis 1984, 1991; Haegeman and Van Riemsdijk 1986; Haegeman 1991; Zwart 1991a, 1991b, 1993.

148

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

Franks 1997, 1998; Caink 1977; Toman 1997; and Progovac 1999a; and for Germanic V-2, see Travis 1984,1991 and Zwart 1991a, 1991b, 1993. It is again the data involving the event particle to that convinced me that it cannot always be C, and that therefore one is dealing with the relative notion of the highest (filled) functional projection, which includes C, but is not limited to C.12 The arguments are presented in the following section.

6.8 .2. Clitics Target the Highest Clausal Head The event particle to, discussed in Section 6.6. (see also Chapters Three and Eight), provides a valuable test for the question of whether Serbian clitics are invariably in C (as argued in e.g., Progovac 1996; Wilder and Ćavar 1994; Franks and Progovac 1994; Tomic 1996), or not necessarily in C (as argued in e.g., Bošković 1995, 2000; Franks 1997, 1998; Caink 1977; Toman 1997; Progovac 1999a). (For familiarity reasons, I continue to refer to this pro­ jection as CP, even though I have reanalyzed it as PolsP in Chapter Three.) For example, Bošković 1995, 1997 argues that participles, even though they do not move to C, as the ungrammaticality of (112) would suggest, can still support (other) clitics, as in (111): (111)

Dao joj je ružu. given her AUX rose

(clitics below C)

‘He gave her a rose.’

(112)

Dao li joj je ružu? *

(clitics in C)

Moreover, if clitics are invariably in C, then we would expect non-w/iphrases to exhibit basically the same behavior with respect to the placement of clitics and to as their wh-counterparts. That this is not the case is obvious from the following non-ivA-examples (Progovac 1999a):

(113)

Ovu this

je AUX

(?* to) knjigu Ana that book Ana

kupila. bought

‘Ana bought this book.’ (114)

Po ovoj je on this AUX

(7* to) knjizi Stefan škrabao, that book Stefan scribbled

‘Stefan scribbled in this book.’

121 am referring to “filled” functional projections here in order to stay neutral with re­ spect to the question of whether or not every clausc/sentence has a C. If it docs not, then the clitics attach to the highest functional projection that is projected in each par­ ticular clause. If every clause does have a CP, then the clitics attach to the highest filled functional projection, and not to the empty C.

6.9. Clitics as Affixes on a Silent Copy of the Verb

(115)

To je ovu knjigu Ana kupila.

(116)

To je po ovoj knjizi Stefan škrabao.

149

The examples above contrast with the w/i-examples given in section 6.6, repeated below: (98)

Kakvu (li) which Q

si mi (to) knjigu kupio? AUX me that book bought

‘What kind of book is it that you have bought for me?’ (99)

Po kojoj on which

(li) je (to) knjizi O AUX that book

Stefan škrabao? Stefan scribbled

‘In which book did Stefan scribble?’

Thus, while clitics can (and must) occur between wZi-phrases and to, they cannot occur between other fronted phrases and to, providing a clear argu­ ment that the clitic host does not need to sit in the same position. The above data follow from the natural assumption that (pieces of) non-iv/z-phrases cannot be placed in the specifier of CP. The fact that such phrases can still support clitics in the absence of to provides an unambiguous argument that the clitics can be lower than C. Recall that to occurs in a position between CP and IP, possibly the lower segment of CP/PoIsP. Any uniform generalization capturing where the clitics are situated will have to appeal to a relative notion, such as “the highest functional head of the clause,” rather than to a specific projection, such as C. The usual assumption in Principles and Parameters approach, including Minimalism, is that the verb moves through its extended functional projec­ tions—all the way to the head of clause. In Verb-Second languages such movement is overt, while in other languages it is covert. The following section explores an analysis of Clitic-Second which renders clitic movement parasitic on verb movement to the Verb-Second position. In essence, then, the argu­ ment will be that Clitic-Second and Verb-Second are one and the same posi­ tion: the head of the highest functional projection of the clause—the ultimate landing site of the verb. 6.9. Clitics as Affixes on a Silent Copy of the Verb

6.9.1. An Outline of the Analysis

It seems uncontroversial that Serbian clitics are phonologically “leaners,” more specifically, that they have to lean onto some phonological material to their left. This property makes clitics obviously similar to affixes, more pre­ cisely suffixes. Unlike morphological affixes, however, the clitics do not al­ ways lean on the same type of host. Typical affixes, such as English Past

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

150

Tense -ed, or Serbian aspectual -iva, discussed in Chapter Five, are always at­ tached to verbs. At least superficially, Serbian clitics can be hosted by a variety of categories, including heads (complementizers and verbs) and phrases (DPs, PPs, APs, etc). Moreover, as established in this chapter, the hosts for clitics have to be syntactic constituents, whether heads or phrases, which can independently find themselves in the top functional layer of the clause. It is in the head of the highest functional projection of the clause that the clitics cluster. This will be a C position in questions, or in embedded clauses, but a lower projection in non-interrogative root clauses. The clitics will lean either on the head of that (highest) projection, if there is one, or on the specifier of that projection, if there is no head. But, as pointed out above, the clitics cannot lean on adjoined material, that is, material set off with com­ ma intonation.13 This description would then recast the Clitic-Second generalization as follows: (117)

Serbian clitics cluster in the head of the highest functional projection of the clause, leaning leftward either on the head of that projection, if any, or on its specifier.

Given that heads and specifiers normally do not co-occur in Serbian, this would insure a clitic-second effect.14 But the real question now is: why would clitics all want to be in the high­ est functional projection? If clitics are heads, it is not surprising that they would want to be in a head position. Since they are phonologically enclitics, leaners to the left, suffixes, it is also not surprising that they would follow their host. But the real problem in the explanation of Clitic-Second has always been the question of why the high projection. Why not lean on some­ thing in the projection in which they are generated, or in which they check features? This problem is compounded by the fact that Serbian clitics are of completely different categories, as distinct in fact as they can be, including auxiliary verbs and personal pronouns. This kind of problem has prompted

131 will assume here, for concreteness, that adverbials in general sit in the specifiers of functional projections, as argued in Cinque 1999, unless used parenthetically and separated by comma intonation. Recall that an adverbial can in general support clitics (i), but not if it is set off with comma intonation (ii):

(i)

Juce sam ovde bila.

(ii) *Juce, sam ovde bila. 14 But recall the examples from Chapter Three, section 3.2, which seem to have both the specifier and head filled. In these examples, the clitics follow the head, and actually occur third in the clause. This is only possible if both the head and the specifier are base-generated in these positions.

6.9. Clitics as Affixes on aSilent Copy of the Verb

151

phonological explanations of clitic placement, but, as demonstrated in the previous sections, such explanations cannot tell the story of clitics.15 There still remains the question: what and why brings auxiliary verbs and pronominal clitics all to a single head position. There is in fact one, and only one, player that can achieve exactly that: the verb. The verb moves through all these projections—in fact, clausal functional projections are often referred to as the extended projections of the verb, given that the verb raises through all of them to check its agreement/tense/case features. While the ultimate overt landing site for verb movement may vary from language to language, the assumption is that the verb in all languages moves through all the ex­ tended projections, overtly or covertly. Thus, as argued in Pollock 1989, the English lexical verb does not move to AgrsP/TsP, while the verb in French does. In Verb-Second languages the verb moves even higher overtly than in French—possibly the highest functional head of the clause (see section 6.8. for Verb-Second). But the assumption is that all languages have their finite verbs ultimately in the highest clausal projection, including C, if C is pro­ jected. Rather compelling evidence for the verb/Comp connection comes from West Flemish, where complementizers actually take verbal inflection, as pointed out in Haegeman 1991 (see section 6.9.4. below). Drawing on an insight in Franks 1998, I argue in Progovac 1998c that clitic climbing to the top is parasitic on verb movement through its functional projections. The verb moves through the functional projections in which the clitics sit, picks them up, and drags them overtly to its ultimate movement site. The clitics are then pronounced in the head of the verb’s movement chain, while the verb has the option to be pronounced in a different copy of move­ ment. What is unremarkable about clitics, then, is their syntactic status as ver­ bal affixes: just like any other verbal affix would, the clitics attach syntacti­ cally to the verb and move with it.16 What is remarkable and special about clitics in this analysis is their ability to stay attached even to a silent copy of the verb. The following sections explore how this basic idea works with the

15 It is worth pointing out to two recent attempts to salvage the phonological ac­ counts—Boskovic 2001 and Stjepanovic 1999. They argue that clitics are generated in the corresponding functional projections, such as TPs and AgrPs, and that they remain in such projections, which is to say that they do not move from there. This approach specifically denies the clitic cluster formation. However, clitic clustering seems to be a robustly established phenomenon, as pointed out above. If clitics indeed span several functional projections, then one would need a special explanation for why these func­ tional projections, when (and only when) they host clitics in their heads, must not con­ tain any specifiers or adjuncts. 16 This monograph does not discuss other Slavic languages, although, as pointed out in Franks 1998 and 2000 and Franks and King 2000, in other Slavic languages the as­ sociation of the clitics with the verb is obvious and overt, thus supporting the general idea of the connection between Verb-Second and Clitic-Second.

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

152

Present Tense, involving only the lexical verb (6.9.2), with complex tenses, where an auxiliary is involved as well (6.9.3), and with embedded clauses with a complementizer (6.9.4). 6.9.2.

Clitic-Second and the Lexical Verb

Consider now the following example where the clitic attaches to the subject, while the verb stays behind. (118)

Goran ga danas dovodi. Goran himACC today brings ‘Goran is bringing him today.’

Suppose that (119) below is the derivation of (118), where the unpro­ nounced copies of each constituent are crossed out:17

(119)

AgrsP/TsP DP

Agrs7Ts’

Goran Agrs/Ts

Agr0P

dovodi- -ga Agr0

devedt-ga

VP

danas VP V

I dovodi

The movement of the verb to Agrs/Ts is uncontroversial in the Minimalist framework: the verb moves to Agrs/Ts in order to check its tense/agreement features as well as the nominative Case feature with the subject. It moves head-to-head through the Agro projection and is thus capable of incorporat­

17 In this tree I ignore copies of subject movement, irrelevant for this discussion. I also ignore the possibility that the pronominal clitic may be generated in the argument po­ sition, and subsequently moved to the AgroP to check the Case feature (as assumed in Progovac 1996, Franks 1998, 2000, and elsewhere). I have not seen hard and fast evidence for this assumption, or for the contrary assumption, explored in Boskovic 2001 and Stjepanovic 1999, that Serbian clitics are generated directly in the functional projections. While the latter approach cannot explain why Serbian does not have clitic doubling, the former analysis cannot capture the morphosyntactic differences between clitics and their strong counterparts, which are generated in argument positions (see section 6.2. for details). The analysis explored in this chapter is compatible with generation in either position.

6.9. Clitics as Affixes on a Silent Copy of the Verb

153

ing the clitic affix in that position. But how is it that the clitic is not overtly on the verb? One possibility would be to say here that the movement of the verb is partly overt and partly covert (or LF) movement. The verb picks up the clitics in their Agr projections, but when the verb stops moving overtly, the clitics continue to move to the verb’s ultimate (LF) movement site. This analysis is pursued in Franks 1998, 2000. Franks assumes a Copy-and-Delete analysis of movement, as outlined in Chomsky 1995. He argues that Serbian clitics are generated as arguments, then move to AgrPs, adjoin to V, and start moving with V, head-to-head, through the extended projections of the verb. At some point, the verb stops moving, but the clitics continue on its path to its ultimate landing site, the highest functional head of the clause. Franks further argues that the highest clitic copy is pronounced that satisfies the clitic’s phonological requirement for support, and the requirement for Clitic-Second. In essence, then, clitic movement is syntactic, while the decision about which copy is to be pronounced would be driven by phonological considerations. The analysis I will explore here, that of Progovac 1998c, is largely inspired by Franks’ 1998 analysis outlined above. The insight that the verb picks up the clitics on its way through the functional projections holds the key to the solu­ tion of clitic placement. I modify this proposal in the following way. Instead of saying that clitics continue to move overtly without the verb, I push Franks’ analysis to its logical limit, and argue that the verb in fact travels overtly to its ultimate destination, carrying the clitics with it.18 In (119) above the verb is pronounced in its usual (lower) position, while the clitic is pronounced in the head of the movement chain. Thus, syntactic­ ally, the clitic in (119) is attached to the (silent copy of the) verb, while phonologically it leans on the preceding phrase, subject. In the examples in which there is no other fronted material, such as (121) below, the verb is actu­ ally pronounced in that ultimate position, and it supports the clitics. As pointed out in Chapter Two, section 2.2, the recent theories of movement have converged on just the theoretical mechanism needed for this analysis. For example, in Richards’ 1997 framework overt movement from a strong into a weak position is allowed (see also Bobaljik 1995; Brody 1995; Groat and O’Neil 1996; Pesetsky 1998, for principles governing the pronunciation of

18 Franks 1998 mentions and discards a similar analysis, in which V moves overtly to the highest functional head, but then deletes not to interfere with the Clitic-Second re­ quirement (see also Franks 1996,1997). In other words, V will not be pronounced in the highest position in cases where that would render clitics in a third position. The analysis proposed in Progovac 1998e, and further extended here, is more explanatory because it derives, rather than stipulates, the Clitic-Second requirement. It claims that the highest copy of V remains unpronounced not because of the clitics, but rather be­ cause the verb itself needs to be pronounced in its normal, lower position.

154

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

copies of movement). This approach differs from the standard approach to verb movement (e.g., Chomsky 1995) only in the details of execution. Both approaches assume the ultimate movement of the verb through its extended projections. The standard approach assumes that the overt copy of movement marks the end of overt movement, and that the verb continues to move further in LF, a different level of representation. On the other hand, the ap­ proach adopted here assumes that the movement of the verb is overt all the way, and that the pronounced copy of movement does not necessarily mark the end of overt movement (see also Chapter Two, which adopts this theoret­ ical assumption in order to derive freedom of word order). If this account of Clitic-Second in Serbian is correct, it provides striking overt confirmation for the theory of movement described above. The new claim here is that the verb in (119), even though it moves overtly to the Agr/Ts complex, and drags the clitic with it, only gets pronounced in a lower position of the chain. The clitic, on the other hand, has to be pronounc­ ed in the head of the chain. Two questions emerge here right away: why is it obligatory for the clitic to be pronounced in the head of the chain, but not for the verb? Second, how is it possible for the clitic to be pronounced without its syntactic host? These two questions are related. If pronouncing the clitics in the head of the chain is for some reason more economical, and if it is, more­ over, possible, then it would be required by virtue of Economy. Suppose that pronouncing the clitics, or any other category, in the head of the movement chain is the default option, the one that happens if no other re­ quirements are imposed on the moved element. This could be expressed as a principle of recoverability of movement (or the Faithfulness Principle in OT (Optimality Theory); see, for example, Franks 1998, 2000; also Pesetsky’s 1989 Earliness Principle), or it can simply be stated as a default option. In other words, if the second-position clitics can be pronounced on a silent copy of the verb, and if the pronunciation in the head of the chain is the most recoverable/default option, then the clitics will have to be pronounced on the highest copy of the verb, even if that copy is silent. For the verb, on the other hand, recourse to a special position is independently needed—that is the pos­ ition where the verb is normally pronounced. In Serbian, the strong position of the verb is independently lower than the highest functional projection, since Serbian is not a verb-second language, as evident from (120) below: (120)

Goran svakog dana Goran every day

dovodi Milana. brings Milan

In other words, the clitics will be pronounced in the head of the chain of the verb, while the verb itself will normally be pronounced in a lower posi­ tion, in which it may be checking strong features. That would explain the sep­ aration in pronunciation of the verb and its syntactic affixes.

6.9. Clitics as Affixes on a Silent Copy of the Verb

155

Notice that this reasoning is opposite to the standard view, which assumes that the position of clitics is special but that the position of the verb is not. Unlike the verb, the clitics would have no reason to be pronounced in a spe­ cial position—after all, they are not moving of their own accord at all in this case. Once they have attached to the verb (and have checked their features against the features of the verb), the clitics will be dragged along by the verb, and will have no active role to play. Under this analysis, the only stipulation one needs to make about Serbian clitics is that they can be pronounced both on silent and overt copies of the moved verb. Everything else would follow from the standard assumptions. Given that clitics are verbal affixes, they will attach to their host, the verb, and move with it as far as it goes. Given that their syntactic affixal require­ ment allows for attachment to a silent copy of the verb, the verb need not necessarily be pronounced in the same position where the clitics are. But, given their phonological affixal requirement for “leaning,” the clitics can be supported by a silent copy of the verb only when there is other overt material in that same projection: in the specifier or in the head position of the same projection. That gives the impression that the clitics attach to all sorts of different categories, but the impression is only an illusion, since the silent copy of the verb is syntactically present. This also derives, without having to stipulate, the second-position effect: the clitics are second because the verb is second: in the head of the highest functional projection of the clause. In this position, the verb/clitics can only be preceded by either the specifer or the head of that projection, insuring the second-position effect.19 The important point is that the hosting specifiers are in these positions independently of clitic placement: none of these specifiers moves specifically in order to support the clitics. The proposed analysis has avoided the undesirable conclusion, implicit in the previous syntactic approaches to clitic placement, that phrases move in order to host clitics, even though such phrases have no features in common with the clitics, or with the projection into which they are presumably moving. That leaves us one more situation requiring explanation: pronouncing the verb in the highest copy of the chain, when clitics need to be supported. Ac­ cording to the analysis explored here, (121) below involves the pronunciation of the verb in the head of its chain, while (122-123) show that the verb can­ not be pronunced in the head of the chain if there is a phrase preceding:20

19 Notice that Serbian clitics cannot be analyzed as phrasal affixes given that they lean both on phrases (DPs, PPs, APs, etc.) and on heads (complementizers and verbs), at least phonologically speaking. 20 Unless, as pointed out above, the adverbial in (123) in the text is set off with comma intonation, and is thus external to the projection in which the clitics are.

156

(121)

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

Dovodi ga danas (Goran), brings him/itACC today (Goran) ‘Goran is bringing him today.’

(122)

Goran dovodi ga danas. *

(123)

Danas dovodi ga Goran. *

The data suggest that the verb here is indeed pronounced in the head of the chain solely because of the clitics, as the Last Resort. Still, this is a much more limited application of Last Resort. While Last Resort cannot motivate movement, it can affect pronunciation of already created copies of move­ ment.21 Also, it follows from this analysis that the verb is the only element that can be used for Last Resort clitic support, which seems to be correct. The hardest problem for the analysis of clitics in terms of displacement or movement has been to find motivation for such movement. The difficulty arises from the fact that the clitics involved are of various categories, includ­ ing personal pronouns and auxiliary verbs. Given the Minimalist assumption that movement must be motivated by feature checking, it would be hard to imagine what feature(s) various clitic categories would all be checking against a single head. Moreover, it would be even harder to imagine why this feature would be checked in a position that is defined in relative terms, as the highest clausal projection. An analysis that considers clitics as free riders, parasitic on some other kind of movement, which is independently motivated, seems to be the only available analysis of clitics in terms of movement. The following section extends the analysis to complex tenses, which in­ clude auxiliary verbs.

6.9.3.

Clitic-Second and the Auxiliary Verb

In this section I look at the clitic placement in clauses with complex tenses, in particular with tenses which involve an auxiliary and a participle. Assume now, as is standard, that the participle is generated in V, and that the auxiliary clitics (other than je, to which I return below) are generated in the To posi­ tion, as proposed in Chapter Four (see the tree diagram in (1)). Recall also from Chapter Four that in Serbian both the participles and the auxiliary verbs agree with the subject, and that they are both thus analyzed as moving into the Agrs/Ts complex to check these agreement features. I will assume here that the participle and the auxiliary move each on their own, basically because they each seem to enter into a subject/verb agreement relationship on their own. Recall also that the agreement on the auxiliary involves person/number

21 The details of execution, however, will have to await a better understanding of the place of Last Resort in the theory (see Zwart 1997; see also Franks and Progovac 1999 for one attempt regarding second-position cliticization).

6.9. Clitics as Affixes on a Silent Copy of the Verb

157

features, while the agreement on the participle involves number/gender fea­ tures. Thus, if the proposal in Chapter Four is sound, the auxiliary moves into the lower/inner segment of Agrs, while the participle moves into the higher/ outer segment. Here I focus on the auxiliary movement, ignoring the participle move­ ment, assuming that it is the auxiliary verb that takes the clitics to CliticSecond (but see the discussion below involving the exceptional auxiliary je). On its way to Agrs/Ts, the auxiliary in (124) will necessarily pass through the Agr0P projection, in which the pronominal clitic sits. The auxiliary will in­ corporate into the pronominal clitic in the Agr0P, and they will continue to travel to Agrs/Ts as a unit, as illustrated in (125). If Q features of C need to be checked as well, the clitic cluster will move further from Agrs/Ts to C.22 (124)

me videla. meACC seen

Ti si youNOM AUX

‘You have seen me. / You saw me.’

(125)

AgrsP/TsP Agrs7Ts’

DP

ti

Agrs/Ts

AgroP

I si-me

TOP

Agro si-me

To

VP

I

!

si

V videla

22 Notice that clitics do not attach to infinitives but end up in the matrix clause instead. The infinitives are marginal in Serbian and, instead, subjunctive-like finite clauses are used, as mentioned in section 2.3.2. To the extent to which the infinitives are possible at all, the clitics cannot attach to them, but have to be on the main verb; (i)

Marija ga želi pozvati.

(ii) ???Marija želi pozvati ga.

158

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

The derivation of this particular example is rather unremarkable: It in­ volves standard and well-established mechanisms for movement and feature checking. The movement is well motivated: the auxiliary moves to Agrs/Ts in order to check its agreement/tense features, as well as the nominative feature with the subject. It moves head-to-head through the Agro projection, incor­ porating the clitic affix in that position. The relative ordering of the auxiliary and the pronominal clitic is as expected if the auxiliary left-adj oins to the pronominal clitic. If this analysis of head-to-head left-adjunction is on the right track, then the ordering of object clitics, dative preceding accusative, suggests that the accusative clitic sits higher than the dative clitic prior to verb movement.

(126)

Ti you

si mi AUX mepAT

ih predstavila. themACC introduced

‘You (have) introduced them to me.’ In Chapter Four it was proposed that dative objects (as well as subjects) check their dative feature in a split segment of AgrPs. In order to derive the clitic ordering, I will stipulate here that the split segments of AgrPs follow their main segments. The accusative clitic will then be generated in the main segment, while the dative clitic will be generated in the split segment.23 If so, the derivation for (126) will be as in (127), opposite.

23 As proposed in Chapter Four, the reflexive clitic se is best analyzed as an accusative expletive pronoun generated in Agro, the same position in which other accusative pronouns are generated. This will also explain why se seems to appear in the same po­ sition as accusative clitics: it is preceded both by the auxiliary verb and by the dative clitic (see also Footnote 5): (i)

Ti si mu se svidela. you aux himpAT SE likes ‘He got to like you.’

Interestingly, however, se docs not co-occur with je in the Serbian varieties of SerboCroatian (see section 6.3). Given the analysis so far, the expected order with je would be: (ii)

%Marija mu se je svidela.

However, in Serbian, je is dropped from such sequences, resulting in:

(iii)

Marija mu se svidela.

No good explanation for this phenomenon conies to mind.

6.9. Clitics as Affixes on a Silent Copy of the Verb

(127)

159

AgrsP/TsP ĐP^^^gr’s'vrs’

I ti

Agrs/Ts

AgroP

si-mi-ih Agro

agr0P

I si-mi-ih

TOP

agro

I si-mi

\ To

VP

I

I

si

V predstavila

I now return to the exceptional auxiliary clitic je, recalling from section 6.3 that the third-person singular clitic je follows, rather than precedes, pronominal clitics: (128)

Mirj ana Mirjana

ga je himAcc AUX

videla. seen

‘Mirjana has seen him. ! Mirjana saw him.’ (129)

Mirjana Mirjana

mi ih je predstavila. meDAT themACC AUX introduced

‘Mirjana (has) introduced them to me.’ In fact, je shows three special properties: (i) it has no agreement suffix, but instead seems to consist only of the verb root; (ii) it follows, rather than precedes, the pronominal clitics, as illustrated above; and (iii) it is the only auxiliary form which can support the question particle li. Neither the partici­ ples nor other auxiliary clitics can move to C to support U.

(130)

Ti si došla. ‘You came.’

(131)

Si liti došla? * ‘Did you come?’

(132)

Ona je došla.

‘She came.’

(133)

Je li ona došla? ‘Did she come?’

160

Chapter 6, At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

To capture these properties of je Tomic 1996 proposes that je is a verb root, generated in a VP projection, and not in a higher position where other auxiliaries are generated. That is the reason why je can support li— other lexi­ cal verbs can, too:

(134)

Dolazi li ona?

‘Is she coming?’ Tomic’s insight that je is a different kind of category, and therefore gener­ ated in a distinct position, seems on the right track. However, generating je in a lower position with respect to other auxiliaries does not help me derive its placement after the pronominal clitics. If je follows the pronominal clitics, then left-adjunction would place it before the pronominal clitics, as is the case with other auxiliaries. Instead, I would like to explore the opposite track here: suppose that agreement-less je is actually generated higher, perhaps directly in the AgrsP/TsP complex. This is generally claimed of modal verbs in Eng­ lish, which likewise lack agreement. Its special status as an Agrs/Ts element then enables je to move directly to C in questions. But the question now is: how do pronominal clitics come to precede ye? Indeed, how do they attach to je at all? An easy answer to this question would be to say that the pronominal clitics just decide to move on their own, as a cluster, and to left-adjoin to je in Agrs/Ts. But this would undermine the whole idea that clitics do not move to the top layer on their own, given that object clitics have no features to check in the Agrs/Ts layer. The idea is that the clitics are dragged there by the movement of the verb. But this would be impossible if the verb to which they are to attach is already in that position. This creates another problem, fortu­ nately. If the verb is generated in AgTs/Ts, how will all the agreement pro­ jections get checked for agreement and Case features, and how will the verb connect its extended functional projections? The answer may be in the part­ iciple. In fact, as pointed out above, the participle in Serbian shows agreement with the subject, which would require it to move to the Agrs/Ts layer. (135)

Ja sam dosao/dosla. I AUX cameM/F

(136)

Ona She

(137)

Mi smo dosli/dosle. we AUX cameM/F

(138)

Vi ste You AUX

je AUX

dosla./On cameF/He

dosli/dosle. cameM/F

je AUX

dosao. cameM

6,9. Clitics as Affixes on a Silent Copy of the Verb

161

Recall from Chapter Four that this property of participles may be re­ sponsible for the fact that participles, unlike infinitives, can support clitics. Suppose now that the participle will be the one to pick up the pronominal clitics, by incorporating into Agr projections, and drag them into Agrs. Once it reaches Agrs, the participle can now either be pronounced in Agrs or in a lower copy of the chain, accounting for the following dual options. (139)

Mirjana ga je videla. Mirjana him AUX seen

(140)

Videla ga je (Mirjana).

(141)

Mirjana mi ih je predstavila. Mirjana me them AUX introduced

(142)

Predstavila mi ih je (Mirjana).

Informally speaking, the auxiliary je will be generated in the head of the verb chain in a declarative clause, and the participle in the tail of such a chain. In order to form the chain, the participle will have to raise to je in Agrs (see also Boskovic 1995,1997 for the claim that the participle adjoins to the auxil­ iary in Serbian). In so doing, the participle will bring the clitics to Agrs as well, and, as expected, left-adjoin them to Agrs. This is how ye, which is al­ ready in Agrs, will end up following the other clitics. The analysis as given so far would explain the relative ordering of the auxiliary verbs and the pronominal clitics, including the exceptional position­ ing of the auxiliary je. Many questions regarding je still remain unanswered. For example, it is not clear why je can move to C from its original Agrs posi­ tion, but not participles or other auxiliaries, which eventually reach Agrs. Perhaps je is inserted later, as a last resort auxiliary, to either Agrs or to C, depending on the need. I will have to leave the ultimate explanation of je for future research. The following section explores the CP layer of clitic placement.

6.9.4. Clitic-Second and Complementizers As pointed out above, Serbian clitics in embedded clauses regularly attach to complementizers or to fronted vv/z-phrases (143-144).24 In fact, they must at­ tach to either the complementizer or to the fronted vv/z-word, as illustrated by the ungrammaticality of (145-146).25

24 With the exception of subjunctive-like complements, where the clitics have the op­ tion to climb to the second position of the main clause (section 6.7). 25 With the possible exception of constructions with parenthetical or topicalized ele­ ments, set off with comma intonation, also discussed in section 6.5:

162

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause; Second-Position Clitics

(143)

Mirjana tvrdi [CP da joj Mirjana claims that her

se Goran SE, Goran

javio]. called

‘Mirjana claimed that Goran called her? (144)

Mirjana se Mirjana SE

pita wonders

[sta joj je what her AUX

Goran javio]. Goran informed

‘Mirjana wondered what Goran informed her about.’ (145)

Marija tvrdi [CP da Goran joj se javio]. *

(146)

Marija se pita [sta Goran joj je javio]. *

The ordering of clitics in embedded clauses observes the same ordering template, as given in (34) above. If the analysis in the previous sections is cor­ rect, then the verb moves to the pronominal and auxiliary clitics, incorporates into them, and then drags them to the ultimate landing site, in this case C. The clitics are then pronounced on the complementizer, while the verb is pro­ nounced in a lower position. A strong argument that the verb moves to C even in embedded clauses comes from languages whose complementizers actually show verbal agreement inflection. The examples below from Haegeman 1991 show the phenomenon in West Flemish (see Bayer 1984a, 1984b for similar data in Bavarian): Inflection on the Verb

(147)

Goa goes

(148)

Goan-k go-lSG

(149)

Goa-me noa Gent? (1PL)

(150)

Goan Jan en Pol noa Gent?

(151)

Goa-se noa Gent? (3SG.F)

(152)

Goan-ze noa Gent? (3PL)

Jan noa Gent? Jan to Ghent

(ik) noa Gent? (I) to Ghent

Inflection on the Complementizer (153)

(i)

... da that

Jan Jan

noa Gent to Gent

goat goes

??Marija tvrdi [CP da, ako vas interesujc, Goran joj se javio]. ‘Mary claims that, if you’d like to know, Goran called her.’

6.9. Clitics as Affixes on a Silent Copy of the Verb

(154) (155)

... dan-k noa Gent goan ... da-me noa Gent goan

(156)

... dan Jan en Pol noa Gent goan

(157)

... da-se noa Gent goat. (3.SG.F)

(158)

... dan-ze noa Gent goan

163

That verbal inflection can surface on a complementizer provides striking support for the idea that the verb is there, in C, at some level or other. In fact, the West Flemish data above may be subject to the same Copy-and-Delete analysis of verb movement offered here for Serbian clitics. It may be that the relationship between the complementizer and the verb is that of an expletive and its associate, in the sense of Chomsky 1995, where the expletive really marks the head of the verb’s movement chain. In a similar spirit, Zwart 1997 proposes that the formal (F) features of the verb move to C even in embedded clauses in Verb-Second. The verb is not pronounced in C, however, because the movement of the other features, lexical-categorial (LC) in his terminology, only occurs as a last resort, that is, in the absence of a com­ plementizer. In order to be spelled out by Morphology, F-features must be combinded with LC-features, and the latter are provided by the complement­ izer. The verb in that case is pronounced where its LC-features are. Since clitics are really just formal features, under this analysis, they would be expected to move overtly to C in Serbian (for more discussion along these lines, see Franks and Progovac 1999). In fact, the ordering of clitics with respect to da in Serbian supports the view that da is an expletive, inserted later in the derivation to host the formal features of the moved verb. If this is correct, the movement of the verb to C does not involve adjunction to da, but rather substitution into C, with a later (Last Resort) expletive insertion of da. Thus, the clitics are ordered with re­ spect to da just like they would be ordered with respect to the moved verbfollowing it. Now consider the CP layer in root clauses, activated in questions. Serbian question particle If which can only occur in the CP layer, appears in yes/no questions, and, optionally, in wh-questions. Li can attach to the complement­ izer da (159), where it is obligatory, to a raised verb (160), where it is also obligatory, or to a w/z-word (161), where it is optional: (159)

Da that

li joj se Goran javio? Q her SE Goran called

‘Has Goran called her?’

164

(160)

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

Javlja li joj se Goran? calls Q her SE Goran

‘Does Goran call her?’ (161)

Šta

(li) joj

what Q

je

her AUX

Goran javio?

Goran informed

‘What (on earth) did Goran inform her about?’

Regarding (159) and (160), one can maintain that the verb in both moves overtly to the highest functional projection, and is either pronounced there (160) or in its usual lower position (159), in which case the complementizer da is inserted in its stead, and the clitics are pronounced on the complementizer. Similarly, the verb would move the clitics up into the head of CP in (161), in which case the clitics will be pronounced on the iv/r-word. There are two questions that the placement of li poses, however. If // is generated in C, as a question particle, one would expect the other clitics to be attached to its left, not to its right. Such orders are entirely unacceptable, however, and I have no explanation for this fact. Rivero’s 1993 claim that dali is a single word in Serbian, an interrogative complementizer, would solve the problem for (159), but not for (160) or (161). Notice that both da and li can appear in C independently of each other, as shown below, suggesting that they are two separate words: (162)

Dolazi li Kosta? comes Q Kosta

‘Is Kosta coming?’ (163)

Da that

ne dolazi slučajno not comes by any chance

Kosta? Kosta

‘Is there a chance that Kosta is coming?’ On the other hand, even though da li is spelled as two words by prescrip­ tive rule, there is a strong tendency to spell it as a single word in Serbian. This may suggest a change in progress in Serbian, leading to the loss of indepen­ dent U, and to the formation of an interrogative complementizer dali. The questions with li on the raised verb (160) sound somewhat unnatural and ar­ chaic, and seem to be giving way to da H questions (159).26

26 In Serbian, H can not attach to focused elements, as it can in other Slavic languages. It is specialized for questions. Also quite archaic arc examples of U used after non­ in terrogative complementizers; (i) ??Ako (li) on ne dodje,... if O he not comes (ii) ??Marija je viša nego li Petar. Mary is taller than Q Peter

6,9. Clitics as Affixes on a Silent Copy of the Verb

165

Another question posed by li concerns its placement in w/i-questions. While li can follow wh-words, it cannot follow wA-phrases, exhibiting what looks like a word-second effect: (164)

* Kakvu which

knjigu li book Q

(to) Veljko kupuje? that Veljko buys

‘What kind of book is Veljko buying?’

(165)

Kakvu li which O

(to) knjigu that book

Veljko kupuje? Veljko buys

‘What kind of book is Veljko buying?’ However, this need not be a case of phonological word-second place­ ment, as is often assumed. In fact, given the insertion of the eventive to in (165), it cannot be just phonological word-second (see section 6.6 for the ar­ gument). Instead, it may be that li must lean on a word-level category. If the proposed analysis of clitics is correct so far, then pronominal and auxiliary clitics also attach to a word-level category with which they check features: the verb. It is a rather natural, and in fact standard, assumption to make that an interrogative complementizer, such as li, is in a feature-checking relationship with the wA-word. If so, the wA-word provides both a word-level host for the affixal li and the feature-checking partner. For that reason, the most econom­ ical solution in w/z-questions is for li to attach directly to the wA-word, by head-adjunction. On the other hand, in yes/no questions the affixal li presum­ ably finds its word-level host in the verb, just like the other clitics (159-60), A similar situation is observed with English contracted auxiliaries and subjects, where the contracted auxiliary can only attach to a word-level cate­ gory-subject pronoun:

(166)

Mary’s friends have upset her.

(167)

Mary ’s friends’ve upset her. *

(168)

You’ve upset her.

Radford 1997 argues that the nominative Case feature can be checked either through Spec/Head agreement with a finite verb form, as is the case with (166), or by the head-adjunction to the (contracted form of) the finite auxiliary, as in (168), The argument is that the subject pronoun in (168) head­ adj oins to the contracted auxiliary, whose affixal nature requires a head to ad­ join to it. This explains why (167) is ungrammatical: it cannot involve head­ adjunction to the auxiliary, due to the phrasal status of the subject (see Radford 1997:329-32, for a detailed argument). The implications for li are straightforward: just like the contracted auxil­ iary form’ve, li is a clitic head that can only satisfy its affixal requirement by

166

Chapter 6. At the Head of the Clause: Second-Position Clitics

direct head-adjunction, explaining why full wh-phrases cannot support it. In cases like (165) above, kakvu would check its features by head-adjoining to li, much in the same way as Radford proposes the nominative feature is checked in (168). In other words, the contrast between (167) and (168) parallels that of (164) and (165). Needless to say, the placement of clitics into the CP layer, and especially the behavior of li, will require much more attention than it has received here. The most recalcitrant problem remains the relative ordering of li with respect to the other clitics, casting doubt on the otherwise elegant proposal that the verb left-adjoins to each clitic. It may well be that this proposal will have to be revised, and I explore it here mostly because I believe that it has to be pushed to its limits and made vulnerable to falsification in order to adduce enough evidence either to adopt or to reject it.

6.10. Concluding Remarks This chapter provides an overview of the basic generalizations regarding sec­ ond-position cliticization in Serbian, as well as the basic controversies that surround it. The weight of the evidence pushes to the conclusion that Serbian clitics are placed in the second position by syntactic movement rules, where the second position is defined as the highest functional head of the clause. More specifically, it is proposed that Clitic-Second is a corollary of VerbSecond. The clitics, as functional heads, adjoin to the verb, which moves through their sites, incorporates into them, and drags them overtly to its own final destination: the highest head of the clause. The clitics are then pronounc­ ed in the head of this movement chain, on the silent copy of the verb, while the verb is typically pronounced in a lower copy. What is then special about second-position clitics is their ability to be affixes on a silent copy of the verb. The virtue of this analysis lies in its ability to bring together, to the same functional head, the categories as distinct as personal pronouns and auxiliary verbs. This has so far been the greatest challenge for any syntactic approach to Clitic-Second. The only assumption one needs to make is that clitics in Serbian are able to be affixed on a silent copy of the verb—everything else about their placement follows from the standard assumptions. The verb’s movement through the functional heads of the clause, its incorporation into functional heads, the clitic’s head/Agr status, the invisible movement—all these are the standard ingredients of the mainstream syntactic theory. To the extent that this analysis captures the spirit of Clitic-Second, it has far-reaching consequences not only for the nature of the clausal architecture, but also for the theory of movement, which is the central component of the Minimalist Program, as well as its predecessors.

/

Negative Concord, Polarity, and the Two PolPs

7.1. Foreword This chapter is important for the understanding of the system of Serbian functional projections. It solidifies the conclusion in Chapter Three that there are two PolPs in a clause, and with it the basic theme of this monograph, that all functional projections come in two layers: subject and object. Especially strong evidence comes from positive polarity and negative inversion. For ex­ ample, the proposal that there are two PolPs in the clause directly explains why positive polarity items (PPIs) can co-occur with negation, as well as how they are forced (and able) to take scope over negation. Serbian has a rich system of polarity items, which includes «-words, as well as negative polarity items which are in complementary distribution with «-words. The analysis of this system in terms of positive and negative feature checking yields important insights not only into the structure of the clause, but also into the nature of negative concord, polarity licensing, and negation in general. 7.2. Introduction: Negative and Positive Feature Checking and the Distribution of Polarity Items

7.2.1. Outline of the Analysis It has long been noted that «-words and various (other) types of polarity items, including positive polarity items, show distributions that are inter­ related. Polarity items are words or phrases sensitive to the polarity value of the clause, such as whether the clause is affirmative or negative. Very roughly, polarity items can be divided into Negative Polarity Items (NPIs), such as any, and Positive Polarity Items (PPIs), such as some. The former typically occur in negative, while the latter typically occur in positive/affirmative clauses. “7Vwords” is a term used for morphologically negated words in negative concord

* This chapter is based on Progovac 2005, with the exception of the last two sections of the article, not included here, and minor changes for continuity and compatibility within this monograph. For insightful and truly helpful comments, 1 am grateful to the two anonymous reviewers, as well as to the volume editors, Sue Brown and Adam Przepiorkowski. All errors are mine.

168

Chapter 7. Negative Concord, Polarity,

and the Two

PolPs

languages. Whether or not «-words in negative concord languages are ana­ lyzed as belonging to the class of negative polarity items, they clearly show sensitivity to the polarity of the clause in that they typically occur in negative clauses. The feature-checking aspect of the Minimalist framework (Chomsky 1995) provides an excellent means of capturing these interrelations among various polarity sensitive items. This study extends the work on negative feature checking (for example, see Haegeman and Zanuttini’s 1991 Negative Criterion, for Romance, and Brown 1999, for Russian) to include positive feature checking as well. Both positive and negative polarity items are se­ lected from the Lexicon specified for the values of negative and/or positive features. The feature specification will determine which types of polarity contexts these items can and cannot occur in. For example, n-words will come with the [+negative] specification and positive polarity items with the [-nega­ tive] specification. More specifically, I argue that these polarity features are checked in one of the two Polarity Phrases, the functional projections which host the specification for the polarity value of the clause itself. Locating fea­ ture checking in the Polarity Phrases ensures that the polarity of the clause is compatible with the polarity of the polarity sensitive items, given that only identical features can be checked. This approach can also accommodate the use of various polarity items in questions (including rhetorical questions) and other non-negative polarity contexts. In addition, this analysis can account for an otherwise puzzling phenomenon in Slavic languages, namely, the tendency for polarity-sensitive items, both negative and positive, to occur in fronted clausal positions. 7.2.2. Basic Assumptions about Polarity Phrases In this chapter I make the following assumptions about the nature of the Polarity Phrases. First, a clause can have more than one Polarity Phrase, de­ pending on the need. Normally, declarative clauses, whether positive or nega­ tive, will have one Polarity Phrase. This Polarity Phrase will be specified either as [¿-positive, -negative] in positive clauses, or as [-positive, ¿-negative] in negative clauses. I am assuming that the default specification is the positive specification, and that the negative specification will have to be marked by morphological negation, for example, by the negative particle. On the other hand, negative sentences which involve negative inversion in English will be analyzed as involving two PolPs, the higher one, PolsP, hosting the moved negative phrase in the specifier position, and the inverted auxiliary in the head position. This negative scenario can be argued to have a positive counterpart. Negative clauses which host positive polarity items (PPIs) will be argued to involve two PolPs as well: the lower one, which hosts negation, PoloP, and the higher one, positive, PoIsP, which checks the [-negative]

7.2. Introduction: Negative and Positive Feature Checking

169

feature of the PPI. Since the lower PolP has a [¿-negative] feature, the PPI will be forced to move to a higher PolP—otherwise, the derivation would crash due to unchecked features. This accounts for the long-noted fact that PPIs must take wide scope with respect to local negation. This approach provides a way to reinterpret the rule of Quantifier Raising as movement motivated by the need to check polarity features (see also Chapter Three). Both negative inversion and PPI scenarios invoke the need for an additional PolP based on movement of a polarity item to a higher position, whether «-word or PPI. It is in accordance with the Minimalist framework to allow only as many PolPs as needed. For example, it is similarly generally assumed that there are as many AgrPs as needed, namely, that AgroP would only be projected if there is a need to check the accusative feature (see e.g., Laka 1993; Chomsky 1995; Uriagereka 1995). In addition, I am assuming that a PolP can have three feature specifica­ tions. With the higher PolP, the following situations occur: positive [¿-positive, -negative], as with PPI raising scenario; negative [-positive, ¿-negative], as with negative inversion; and neutral [-positive, -negative], which characterizes yes/no questions and conditional clauses, for example. My assumption is also that a [¿-positive, ¿-negative] specification is contradictory and would thus be non-occurring. If so, the logical possibilities for the higher PolP are exhausted. Given what I said so far, if there is only one PolP in a clause, it cannot assume the neutral [-positive, -negative] option. The unavailability of the neutral option with the only PolP would follow from a requirement that a clause must have its polarity value non-neutrally specified at least in one PolP. There are data suggesting that the lower PolP can indeed assume a neutral [-positive, -negative] value but only in case the higher PolP is either posi­ tively or negatively specified. Section 7.3 offers a more detailed discussion of this issue. In sum, then, the following are the basic clause types regarding polarity possibilities:

(1) a.

b.

PolP [¿-pos, -neg] (Default, positive declarative)

PolP [-pos, ¿-neg] (Marked, negative declarative)

Chapter 7. Negative Concord, Polarity,

170

(1) c.

and the Two

PolPs

PolsP [-pos, -neg] PoIoP (e.g., yes/no questions; conditional clauses)

d.

PolsP [+pos, -neg] PoloP (e.g., raised PPIs situation)

e.

PolsP [-pos, +neg] PoloP (e.g., negative inversion)

The interrelationship between the features of the two PolPs will be fur­ ther explored in the chapter. Two PolPs will be projected only if there is a need for extra feature checking, as will be the case with questions, or with PPIs occurring in negative clauses. The basic framework adopted in this chapter is Chomsky’s 1995 Minimalist program. The crucial assumption is that lexical items carry fea­ tures, and that these features are checked by spec-head agreement in appro­ priate functional projections. The need to check features motivates movement to the functional projection in question. I deviate from Chomsky 1995 but follow Brown 1996,1999 in assuming that what drives movement in the case of polarity-sensitive items are features on these items, rather than features on the target of movement. The conclusions in this paper are not necessarily in­ compatible with Chomsky’s 1995 approach—they are only less straightfor­ wardly accommodated within his approach. 7.2.3. Organization

Chapter Seven is organized in the following way. Section 7.3 extends the feature checking analysis of «-words to positive polarity items, and argues that positive polarity items are specified for a [-negative] feature, in contrast to n-words, which are specified for a [-(-negative] feature. Section 7.4 extends the feature checking analysis to Serbian z-NPIs and English any. In Serbian, nwords are restricted to occurring with clausemate negation, while i-NPIs cannot occur with clausemate negation, but are licensed in, and only in, all other polarity environments. Different feature specifications for f-NPIs and for English negative polarity items such as any can capture the difference in their respective distributions: English any covers the territory of Serbian nwords and z-NPIs combined. Section 7.5 introduces the fact that negative po­ larity items used in wA-questions render such wh-questions rhetorical in nature; in other words, such questions cease to be genuine wh-questions. This fact is explained by appealing to the incompatibility of the otherwise positive presuppositions of wh-questions and the non-positive feature specification of negative polarity items. Section 7.6 establishes that reason and manner adverbials are generally exempt from the generalization established in section 7.5; namely, manner or reason negative polarity items do not necessarily render a w/i-question rhetorical. The explanation for this is tied to an independent fact,

7.3. N-Words and PPIs

171

long noted in the literature, that negated manner or reason adverbials do not necessarily negate the clause, or trigger inversion when preposed. This sec­ tion explores the view that such negative adverbials do not check their fea­ tures in either of the two clausal Polarity Phrases, explaining why their fea­ tures do not have to be compatible with those of the clausal Polarity Phrases. 7.3. N-Words and PPIs Drawing upon the Neg-Criterion of Zanuttini 1991, Haegeman and Zanuttini 1991, and Haegeman 1992,1995, Brown 1996,1999 proposes that «-words in Russian raise to the specifier of NegP to check their negative features against the Neg head, whether overtly or covertly. This analysis for Russian extends straightforwardly to Serbian, as illustrated below:

(2)

On nikoga he no one

ne voli. NEG loves

‘He loves no one.’ (3)

On ne voli nikoga.

I will use the term NegP interchangeably with the more general, cover term, PolP, only when dealing with the lower PolP, PoIoP, specified for [-pos, +neg] features. The simplified tree in (4) illustrates the feature checking configuration of (2), where the object nikoga has raised to the specifier of NegP to check its [+neg] uninterpretable feature against the interpretable feature of negation. (Irrelevant details, such as subject and verb raising, are omitted.) According to this analysis, the «-word is situated in the NegP overtly in (2), but is in the usual object position, i,e., postverbal, in (3), and only the negative feature raises covertly to Neg in (3) (but see the Copy-andDelete analysis in Chapter Two, according to which it is possible to say that the «-word always moves to NegP but that is not always pronounced in the head of the chain),1

1 Notice that regular (non-polarity) objects are marked in preposed positions (i), as I indicate by using the symbol (?), the unmarked position for such objects being postverbal, as in (ii). The opposite is true for «-words: the unmarked word order is that in (2) in the text, in which the n-word is preposed, while the order in (3) is marked. This presumably indicates that some kind of overt raising of «-words indeed takes place in Serbian (see Chapter Two for word order): (0 ?On Mariju voli, he Mary loves (ii) On voli Mariju, he loves Mary This raising, however, is not restricted to «-words. (In fact, Citko’s 1998 paper is de­ voted to the argument that indefinites in Slavic languages front, and concludes that

Chapter 7. Negative Concord, Polarity,

172

and the

Two PolPs

On

[+neg]

| voli

I will adopt the spirit of Brown’s 1999 version of the negative-checking theory, which argues that, in negative concord (NC) languages, «-words are selected from the lexicon with an uninterpretable [+neg] feature, which feature is then checked in the NegP against the overt negative head «e, which has an interpretable [+neg] feature. After checking, the uninterpretable fea­ tures are erased, leaving only one instance of interpretable negation, the one on the negative head. This analysis explains why multiple occurrences of negation do not give rise to a multiple negation interpretation (see translation of (2)), and why an «-word does not survive in a sentence like (5) in an NC language like Serbian:

(5)

*n O he

nikoga. no one

voli loves

they are moving to a higher functional projection, which she dubs OpP.) Existential quantifiers/Positive Polarity Items such as neko, as well as the non-negalive type of polarity items in Serbian, t-NPIs, show the same phenomenon: they are unmarked in preposed positions but marked in postverbal positions: (iii) a. On je nckoga uvredio, he AUX someone insulted ‘He hurt somebody’s feelings.’ b. ?On je uvredio nekoga.

(iv) a. Da li that Q

jc aux

on he

ikoga uvredio? anyone insulted

‘Did he hurt anybody’s feelings?’ b. ?Da lije on uvredio ikoga? I return to the issue below, and argue that other polarity items also raise to check their polarity features.

7.3. N-Wordsand PPts

173

In (5), the uninterpretable [+neg] feature will not be checked, since there is no negative head in NegP, thus causing the derivation to crash. The facts are just the opposite in languages that do not show negative concord, such as Standard English (henceforth English). In English, multiple occurrences of negation in the counterparts to (2) do give rise to a multiple negation interpretation (provided that (6) is grammatical at all), where two negatives cancel each other out. Also, an n-word in English survives on its own in counterparts to Serbian (5), as illustrated in (7): (6) He does not love no one.

(He loves someone.)

(7)

He loves no one.

According to Brown 1999, the negative feature on n-words in English is interpretable, and such features, even if checked, would not be erased. Since the negative feature of an «-word is interpretable, there are two negations to interpret in (6), giving rise to an ultimate positive interpretation. It may well be that the two negative features of (6) are checked in the two distinct PoIPs, as per discussion in section 7.2; namely, the negative particle will realize its features in the lower PolP, PoloP, while the features of the /¡-word no one will raise (covertly) to the higher PolP, PolsP, and be checked there. In that case, negative inversion in English would represent an instance of overt movement to the higher PolP (see discussion of (12) below), much like the Serbian example in (2) represents an instance of overt negative movement to the lower PolP. Since the negative feature on English «-words is interpretable, no other negative element in the clause is required to accompany an n-word, thus accounting for the grammaticality of (7). The Minimalist Program advocates that unnecessary elements/features are not only not needed but also not allowed, which explains why (6) cannot be interpreted as negative concord. I propose that the spirit of this analysis naturally extends to Positive Polarity Items (PPIs) as well. Existential quantifiers such as someone in English, or neko in Serbian, have been classified as PPIs since they can only be interpreted outside the scope of clausemate negation (see e.g., Ladusaw 1980 and Linebarger 1981). Thus (8) and (9) can only mean that there is someone, a certain person, whom Peter did not see, and cannot mean that Peter did not see any person. (8) Peter did not see someone. (9) Petar Peter

nekoga someone

nije notAUX

‘Peter did not see someone.’

video. seen

174

Chapter 7, Negative Concord, Polarity,

and the Two

PqlPs

It is generally assumed that quantifiers undergo a rule of quantifier rais­ ing (QR), covertly in English (see May 1977,1985). Providing motivation for such movement has been less straightforward. The traditional argument is that quantifiers raise in order to establish their scope and in order to bind a variable that they leave behind. However, Minimalism suggests that all move­ ment should be reduced to feature checking. There is a real possibility that movement of existential quantifiers is motivated by reasons similar to those motivating movement of negative words («-words), i.e., by polarity feature checking (see Chapter Three). Indeed, existential quantifiers seem to invoke positive expectations in questions, for example. Thus, for some speakers, as a polite offer, (10) is more natural than (11) because a positive answer to the question is expected.

(

10)

Would you like some coffee ?

(11) Would you like any coffee?

Suppose that the existential quantifiers, or PPIs in general, such as some­ one or neko, are marked with the feature [-neg], which is uninterpretable and needs to be checked. However, the [-neg] feature cannot be checked in the same NegP in which the negative particle resides, since the relevant features are incompatible, actually, outright opposite. Culicover 1991 argues that PolP can be selected by either C or I, which would account for two different posi­ tions for negation in English (see also Laka’s 1990 arguments for the exis­ tence of a higher PolP). While in (8) the negative particle is below the subject, in negative inversion constructions, such as (12), the negative phrase precedes the subject I am proposing that the negative phrase in (12) resides in the higher PolP (Pol$P of Chapter Three). (I will return to the discussion of the negative inversion below, with the example (31)). (12) Under no circumstances would John give up his inheritance.

A natural conclusion would be that there are two polarity phrases. If so, the following would be the feature specification of the clause in (8): (8r) PolsP [+pos, -neg] Peter Pol0P [-pos, +neg] did not see someone [-neg].

Since the PPI in (8) cannot check its [-neg] feature in the lower negative PolP (or NegP), it is forced to raise to the higher PolP, which would explain its long-noted wide-scope properties with respect to negation, as illustrated in (8) and (9).2 The proposal that PPIs check [-neg] features in a PolP explains

2 As pointed out by a reviewer, there is more than one way to account for the differ­ ence between PPIs, on the one hand, and «-words, on the other, when it comes to their scope properties. My assumption is that «-words are existential quantifiers which have

7.3. N-WORDS AND PPIs

175

why PPIs like someone exhibit properties of QR (Quantifier Raising). Also, as pointed out in Footnote 1, PPIs in Serbian, just like «-words, show evi­ dence of overt raising to a preverbal position (see also example (9) above). A reviewer points out that examples like (13) below provide additional support for two PolPs. The reviewer suggests that the lower PolP, PoloP, would host the [+neg, -pos] features, realized as the negative particle, and the higher PolP, PolsP, would host [-neg, -pos] feature specification, accounting for the interrogative nature of the clause, as well as for the legitimacy of the PPI someone. The PPI would be able to check its [-neg] feature in the higher PolP.

(13) Didn’t someone bring flowers? However, as also pointed out by a reviewer, this account would fail to explain why the occurrence of the negated auxiliary in the higher PolP does not trigger a clash in features in the presumably [-pos, -neg] higher PolP. There is an alternative analysis. Suppose that, instead, the higher PolP is negative, that is, specified for the [+neg, -pos] features, by virtue of hosting the negated auxiliary. Suppose next that the lower PolP is selected with the neutral [-pos, -neg] value. (See discussion regarding example (32) below, which suggests that the negative is actually generated in the higher PolP, rather than moved there from the lower NegP.) This would explain two phenomena. First, the PPI someone can now check its [-neg] feature in the lower PolP. Second, we can explain why this type of question is incapable of licensing strict NPIs in English, as pointed out by the reviewer, or «-words in Serbian, as discussed at length in Progovac 1993d:

(14) * Didn ’t Peter start the movie until John arrived? (15) * Nije li Jovan prepoznao nikoga? hasn’t Q John recognized no one The strict NPIs and «-words require the most local negation as their li­ censor, and do not seem to be able to raise any higher for feature-checking purposes. They will thus fail to check their [+neg] feature in the local [-pos, -neg] PolP, causing the derivation to crash. Both Strict NPIs in English and «-words can be argued to have an Uninterpretable [+neg] feature. Notice that this is in keeping with the discussion below, which concludes that at least

narrow scope with respect to negation. That «-words appear in the scope of negation (i.e., take narrow scope with respect to negation) would follow from the feature­ checking analysis. Since «-words check their features in the lower NegP/PolP, they re­ main in the m-command relationship with negation, as welt as in the spec-head agree­ ment relationship with negation. In a sense, this relationship makes «-words nondistinct from negation, and prevents them from escaping the scope of negation.

176

Chapter 7. Negative Concord, Polarity, and the Two PolPs

one PoIP in a clause has to be specified positively for a polarity feature. However, this analysis does not have a straightforward explanation for the interrogative interpretation of the clause. It may be that the [-pos, -neg] specification of the lower PoIP contributes to this, but it is not clear how (see discussion of (23-30) below and discussion of rhetorical wh-questions in section 7.5).3 This analysis of PPIs will also extend to PPIs used in non-declarative con­ texts, such as questions (16) and conditionals (17). It is the occurrence of PPIs in such non-declarative contexts that made me choose the [-neg] feature for PPIs, as opposed to the [+pos] feature. (16) Did someone bring the flowers?

(17) If someone brings flowers, let me know. Such contexts can be characterized as [-neg, -pos], and their feature specification can check the [-neg] feature of the PPI. In sum, I have argued so far that the two basic types of polarity-sensitive items, «-words and PPIs, have the following respective feature specifications: [+neg] and [-neg]. By considering additional polarity items in the subsequent sections, the following feature specifications will be proposed: (18) a. [+neg]

«-words

b. [-neg]

PPIs

c. [-neg, -pos]

Serbian i-NPIs

d. [-pos]

English NPI any

e. [+pos]

?

It is possible that iv/i-words are specified for the [+pos] feature in (e), as discussed in section 7.5. Pending further discoveries in this area, I am assum­ ing that a polarity item can be specified freely for either a plus or minus value of each of the two features: Positive and Negative. I am also assuming that a polarity item can remain unspecified for one of the features. The following additional lexical specifications are logically possible: (19) [+neg,+pos]

[+neg, -pos]

[+pos, -neg]

3 Whatever the analysis of intonation questions is, such as (i), brought up by a re­ viewer, I will assume that they do not involve a higher PoIP, and thus neither show in­ version nor license the PPI someone. (i) *Peter didn’t see someone?

7.3. N-Words and PPIs

177

The [+neg,+pos] value would be excluded on the assumption that it has contradictory features. If the assumption is correct, a plus value of each feature would imply a minus value of the opposite feature. That would mean that [+neg] and [+neg, -pos], as well as [+pos] and [+pos -neg], are nondistinct. If so, all logical possibilities are attested. As proposed in section 7.2, one of the following feature specifications is found on the head of each PolP:4

(1) a.

PolP [+pos, -neg] (Default, positive declarative)

b.

PolP [-pos, +neg] (Marked, negative declarative)

c.

PolsP [-pos, -neg] PoloP (e.g.,yes/no questions; conditional clauses)

d.

PolsP [+pos, -neg] PoloP (e.g., raised PPIs situation)

e.

PolsP [-pos, +neg] PoIoP (e.g., negative inversion)

Thus, a clause can contain one or two PolPs, depending on the need. The only PolP has a [+pos, -neg] value as its default value. Another value this phrase can acquire is [-pos, +neg], by morphological negation. The lower of the two PolPs, PoloP, retains these two possibilities, resulting in, e.g., negative/ positive yes/no questions or negative/positive conditionals. In addition, if the discussion regarding the question in (13) above is correct, the lower PolP can also have the neutral, [-pos, -neg] value but only if there is a higher PolP, with a non-neutral value. This would follow from the following stipulation:

(20)

A clause must have at least one PolP positively specified for one of the polarity features, either positive or negative.

Note that both PolPs can be positively specified for one of the polarity features, as is the case with PPIs in negative sentences (8'), where the lower

4 Notice that the insight that yes/no questions, conditionals, etc. are neither positive nor negative was also relevant for the discussion of polarity in Progovac 1993b (also 1994). In Progovac 1993b: 163, it is specifically suggested that such clauses contain an operator in C with a +■/- value, the feature value which is responsible for their inde­ terminate truth-value status, as well as for negative polarity and positive polarity li­ censing. The minimalist framework, which embraces feature checking as one of the core mechanisms for establishing relations, provides a technical means for capturing this insight. The minimalist feature mechanism for describing clauses in terms of polar­ ity and negative features has been exploited in Brown 1999:105-12 to account for the distribution of n-words and genitive of negation in Russian.

178

Chapter?. Negative Concord, Polarity,

andtheTwoPolPs

PolP is negative and the higher one is positive. The assumption in (20) will bar the logical possibilities in (21-22), while permitting those in (23-30):

(21) * PolP [-pos,-neg] (22) * Pol sP [-pos, -neg] (23)

PolsP [+pos, -neg]

PoIoP [-pos, -neg]

PoloP [-pos, -neg]

(rhetorical wA-questions?)

(24) PolsP [-pos, +neg]

PoloP [-pos, -neg]

(negative auxiliary questions) (25)

PolsP [-pos, -neg]

PoIoP [-pos, +neg]

(negated questions or c