Balkan Syntax and Semantics
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides...
89 downloads
2482 Views
3MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
Balkan Syntax and Semantics
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.
Series Editors Werner Abraham
Elly van Gelderen
University of Vienna
Arizona State University
Advisory Editorial Board Guglielmo Cinque
Ian Roberts
University of Venice
Cambridge University
Günther Grewendorf
Ken Safir
J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt
Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ
Liliane Haegeman
Lisa deMena Travis
University of Lille, France
McGill University
Hubert Haider
Sten Vikner
University of Salzburg
University of Aarhus
Christer Platzack
C. Jan-Wouter Zwart
University of Lund
University of Groningen
Volume 67 Balkan Syntax and Semantics Edited by Olga Mišeska Tomic´
Balkan Syntax and Semantics Edited by
Olga Mišeska Tomic´ Leiden University
John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia
8
TM
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Balkan syntax and semantics / edited by Olga Mišeska Tomic´. p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166–0829 ; v. 67) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Balkan Peninsula--Languages--Syntax. 2. Balkan Peninsula-Languages--Semantics. I. Mišeka Tomic´, Olga. II. Linguistik aktuell ; 67. P381. B3B27 2004 409’.496-dc22 isbn 90 272 2790 X (Eur.) / 1 58811 502 X (US) (Hb; alk. paper)
2004045059
© 2004 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
JB[v.20020404] Prn:20/05/2004; 16:08
F: la67co.tex / p.1 (26-64)
Table of contents
Preface
vii
Map of the Balkans
ix
List of abbreviations
xi
The Balkan Sprachbund properties: An introduction Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
1
Spread of the Balkan sprachbund morpho-syntactic properties On the areal distribution of syntactic properties in the languages of the Balkans Andrej N. Sobolev The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics Victor A. Friedman
59 101
The nominal phrase Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
137
Balkan possessive clitics: The problem of case and category Roumyana Pancheva
175
Optional movement of Bulgarian possessive clitics to I: Some implications for Binding Theory Christo Moskovsky
221
The root clause Datives and the non-active voice: Reflexive clitics in Balkan Languages Maria Luisa Rivero
237
JB[v.20020404] Prn:20/05/2004; 16:08
F: la67co.tex / p.2 (64-90)
Table of contents
On the clitic switch in Greek imperatives Željko Boškovi´c Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods in the languages of South-Eastern Europe: A Balkanism? Andreas Ammann and Johan van der Auwera
269
293
Mood and force features in the languages of the Balkans Daniela Isac and Edit Jakab
315
On left periphery and focus Virginia Hill
339
Syncretic and analytic tenses in Romanian: The Balkan setting of Romance Yves D’Hulst, Martine Coene and Larisa Avram
355
The complex sentence Subjunctive relatives in Balkan languages Eleni Bužarovska
377
The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions Alexander Grosu
405
Interpreting empty subjects in nontensed complement clauses: Child and adult strategies Danijela Stojanovi´c and Marijana Marelj
439
On Judeo-Spanish conditionals César Montoliu and Johan van der Auwera
461
Author index
475
Index of languages, dialects and toponyms
481
Subject index
487
JB[v.20020404] Prn:16/03/2004; 12:54
F: LA67PR.tex / p.1 (40-109)
Preface
The contributions to this volume originated as papers presented at the Conference on the Balkan Sprachbund Properties, held at the University of Leiden, 7–9 June 2001, within the framework of the Spinoza Project “Lexicon and Syntax.”1 They analyze individual syntactic or semantic properties of nine Balkan language – the Slavic languages Macedonian, Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian; the Romance languages Romanian, Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian; Albanian; Modern Greek; and the Arli Balkan Romani dialect. Serbo-Croatian is spoken as a majority language in Bosnia and Hercegovina, Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro, and as a minority language in areas in Hungary and Romania adjacent to Croatia and Serbia.2 Macedonian is spoken as a majority language in Macedonia, and as a minority language in a large area in Northern Greece, as well as in areas in Albania adjacent to Macedonia. Albanian is spoken as a majority language in Albania and the (Southern Serbian) province of Kosovo, and as a minority language in Western Macedonia and Northwestern Greece. Romanian is spoken as a majority language in Romania, and as a minority language in areas in Serbia and Bulgaria adjacent to Romania. Modern Greek is spoken as a majority language in Greece and as a minority language in Southern Albania. Bulgarian is spoken as a majority language in Bulgaria and as a minority language in a restricted area in Serbia adjacent to Bulgaria. Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and Balkan Romani are not spoken as majority languages in any country on the Balkans or anywhere else. Balkan Romani is spoken by scattered communities throughout the Balkans; Arli is one of the Balkan Romani dialects spoken in and around the capital of Macedonia, Skopje. Megleno-Romanian is spoken by a few thousand people originally living in a few villages in what is now Southeastern Macedonia and the adjacent part of Greece. Aromanian is spoken in central and western Macedonia, Southern Albania and Central and Northwestern Greece. (see Map) For comments on individual contributions, thanks are due to the following reviewers: Artemis Alexiadou, Wayles Browne, Željko Boškovi´c, Héctor Campos, Violeta Demonte, Mila Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Donka Farkas, Victor Friedman, Helen Goodluck, Alexander Grosu, Amin Hetzer, Virginia Hill, Daniela Isac, Edit Jakab, Uwe Junghanns, Dalina Kallulli, Dimitra Kolliakou, Christina Kramer, Iliyana Krapova, Brian Joseph, Pieter Muysken, Roumyana Pancheva, Cecilia Poletto, Maria Louisa Rivero, Joseph Schallert, Penka Stateva, Melita Stavrou, Anna
JB[v.20020404] Prn:16/03/2004; 12:54
F: LA67PR.tex / p.2 (109-128)
Preface
Szabolczi, Arhonto Terzi, Sarah Thomasson. During the preparation of the final version of the book, I profited very much from the comments of the series editors, Werner Abraham and Elly van Gelderen, to whom I owe my gratitude. For continuous support in my work, I am specifically indebted to Pieter Muysken.
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
Notes . For information about the areas, the team and the task of the Project cf. http://www.let. leidenuniv.nl/spls . Upon the disintegration of Yugoslavia, Serbo-Croatian dissolved into Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian. The grammatical structures of the three “successors” do not, however, substantially differ from one another.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 11:32
F: LA67MA.tex / p.1 (40-69)
Map of the Balkans
AUSTRIA MOLDOVA HUNGARY SLOVENIA
IA CROAT
Ljubjana
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Sarajevo
tic ria Ad See
ITALY
ROMANIA
Zagreb Belgrade
Bucharest
SERBIA & MONTENEGRO Sofia BULGARIA Skopje Tirana MACEDONIA
Istanbul
ALBANIA
GREECE
TURKEY Athens
Sea Mediterranean
200
400
600
800 km
Heraklion CRETE
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 11:44
F: LA67AB.tex / p.1 (40-265)
List of abbreviations (language names and grammatical notions)
Language names ABR Al(b) Ar, AR Bu(l) Biz.Greek Cr ClA ClG Cze Fr Ger Gr(e) Hi Hu It JSp Lat litt.ModPort Ma(c) MG MH Mod Rom MR NWM Old Rom OSp Po(l) Ro(m) Ru
= Arli Balkan Romani = Albanian = Aromanian = Bulgarian = Byzantine Greek = Croatian = Classical Arabic = Classical Greek = Czech = French = German = (Modern) Greek = Hindi = Hungarian = Italian = Judeo-Spanish = Latin = litterary Modern Portuguese = Macedonian = Modern Greek = Modern Hebrew = Modern Romanian = Megleno-Romanian = Northwest Macedonian = Old Romanian = Old Spanish = Polish = Romanian = Russian
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 11:44
F: LA67AB.tex / p.2 (265-265)
List of abbreviations
SC Serb SES SIt Slo Sp(a) Tu
= Serbo-Croatian = Serbian = Southeastern Serbian = Southern Italian = Slovenian = Spanish = Turkish
Grammatical notions 1 2 3 acc, ACC adj adjdet adm AGR AgrDO AgrIO AgrP AgrS AgrSP anaph AO, Aor AP Applicative ZP art aux, AUX AuxP BD BE BQ BT C CardP CH cl co, cond CP D0
= first person = second person = third person = accusative = adjective = adjectival determiner = admirative = agreement = direct object agreement = indirect object agreement = agreement phrase = subject agreement = subject agreement phrase = anaphoric = aorist (tense) = adjective phrase = logical form correspondent to a Topic Phrase = article = auxiliary = auxiliary phrase = binding domain = invariant form of the “be” auxiliary = bare quantifier = Binding Theory = complement = cardinality phrase = chain = clitic = conditional (marker) = complement phrase = determiner node
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 11:44
F: LA67AB.tex / p.3 (265-265)
List of abbreviations
dat D- Disclosure decl def DefP det D/G DIS D-modifier DO DP E ECC epen EPP E- Strategy eth EV, Evid excl f F FCI Fd0 FdP Fg0 FgP FN FocP FP FREE fu(t) Gen, GEN GQ I IM(F), imperf imp impers IN ind(ic) INT inf
= dative = dative disclosure = declarative = definite = definite phrase = determiner = dative/genitive = dislocation = determiner-modifier = direct object = determiner phrase = event time = extended clitic cluster = epenthetic = extended projection principle = ethical strategy = ethical = evidential (marker) = exclamative = feminine = functional node = free choice item = dative-case valuating functional head = phrasal projection of Fd0 = genitive-case valuating functional head = phrasal projection of Fg0 = factive nominalization = focus phrase = functional phrase = free relative = future = genitive = generalized quantifier = inflexion = imperfect (tense), imperfective (aspect) = imperative = impersonal = intransitive marker = indicative = intentional = infinitive
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 11:44
F: LA67AB.tex / p.4 (265-265)
List of abbreviations
inf.mark ins(tr) INT inter interj inv IP irr irrm L LF loc M Max Md MEC mod ModP MoodP m-p MP MP/Md MR n neg NegP neu(t) NFN N-modifier nom non-act NP obl opt OSR P part, pt pass past pc pd
= infinitive marker = instrumental = interpretable = interrogative (marker) = interjection = inverted = inflexion phrase = irrealis = irrealis modal = lexical marking = logical form = locative = masculine = maximality operator = modification (function) = modal existential wh construction = modal = Modal Phrase = Mood phrase = medio-passive (voice) = modification-purpose (function) = modification-purpose (function) with modification prevailing = modification performed by a prototypical relative clause = noun = negation/negative marker = negation phrase = neuter (gender) = non-factive nominalization = noun modifier = nominative (case) = non-active (voice) = noun phrase = oblique (case) = optative = object subjunctive relatives = purpose (function) = participle = passive = past = particle of concord = past definite (tense)
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 11:44
F: LA67AB.tex / p.5 (265-265)
List of abbreviations
pe, perf pej PF pi pl PM poss PredP pres, prs pro PRO prog QR R refl S sg Spec su subj Subj.Mark SV SVO SVOR SVOP/R T T1, T2 TP UG V voc VS X, Y, Z XP, YP, ZP
= perfect (tense), perfective (aspect) = pejorative = phonetic form = past indefinite (tense) = plural (number) = purpose-modification (function) with a purpose slant = possessive = predicate phrase = present (tense) = dropped subject = unexpressed subject (of infinitives) = progressive = quantifier raising = reference time = reflexive = speech time = singular (number) = specifier = modal subordinator = subjunctive = subjunctive marker = subject – verb = subject – verb – object = subject – verb – object – relative subjunctive clause = subject – verb – object – purpose or relative subjunctive clause = tense = time1, time 2 = tense phrase = universal grammar = verb = vocative (case) = verb – subject = any constituent = any phrase
Symbols * ?, ?? % =
= ungrammatical = possibly acceptable = acceptable in some dialects = interpretatively anomalous
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 11:44
F: LA67AB.tex / p.6 (265-269)
List of abbreviations
⊃ = involves existence of = existential quantifier λ = universal quantifier ←, → marks directionality of cliticization – links items pronounced as a single phonological word capital letters mark stressed words or syllables
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.1 (40-113)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties Introduction Olga Mišeska Tomi´c University of Leiden Centre for Linguistics
The author examines some of the shared Balkan Sprachbund properties, paying specific attention to those properties which are analyzed in the volume: nominal cases and articles, pronominal clitics, subjunctives and evidentials. The phenomena are predominately illustrated with examples from Macedonian, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Romanian, MeglenoRomanian, Aromanian, Albanian, Modern Greek and Balkan Romani.1
.
Overview
Whether in close genetic relationship or not, the languages of the Balkans share sets of typological properties. The oblique forms of their nominal systems have extensively been replaced by prepositional phrases and their verbal systems are analytical to a considerable degree. There is a general tendency towards explicit marking of grammatical functions with specific uninflected function words. The phenomenon was first signalled by Jernej Kopitar (1829), who pointed out that the languages spoken south of the Danube have analogous forms expressed through “different language material”. Miklosich (1861) examined the facts more closely and singled out a number of shared properties of the languages in the area. Nikolai Trubetzkoy (1928: 18) referred to relationships such as the ones exhibited among the languages in the Balkans as “Sprachbund”, arguing that the languages of a Sprachbund (a) are remarkably similar in sentence-structure and word-formation but show no systematic sound correspondences and (b) have a great number of common “cultural” words.
. Origin The awareness of the existence of the Balkan Sprachbund properties inevitably led to the construction of theories about their origin. Kopitar, Miklosich and Weigand
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.2 (113-175)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
(1928) maintained that the Balkan Sprachbund properties developed under the influence of an ancient substrate – that of the indigenous Balkan languages Thracian, Dacian or Illyrian. The linguistic material “left” by those languages is, however, extremely limited and does not allow the verification of the presence or absence of any of the Balkan Sprachbund properties in any of them. Moreover, the Balkan Sprachbund properties developed in the post-Byzantine period and it is unrealistic to assume that any property of any substratal language had been dormant for centuries, to become active long after the language itself had disappeared. On another theory, whose most distinguished proponent is Sandfeld (1926/ 1930), the source of the Balkan Sprachbund properties was Greek – the language which, “in spite of all decadences, has never ceased to transmit a civilisation superior to that of its neighbours” (cf. Sandfeld 1930: 17). In Greek, however, the Balkanisms are postclassical innovations. On a third theory, defended most recently by Solta (1980), the source of the Balkan Sprachbund properties was a more recent substrate language – Latin, the language of the Roman empire, which ruled over the Balkans for several centuries at the beginning of the new era. But, unfortunately, the Balkan Sprachbund properties are hardly present in Latin. Goła˛b (1984: 9) argues that the Balkan Sprachbund results from the relationship between language substrata and language superstrata, claiming that the Balkan properties in Macedonian are actually structural borrowings or “linguistic calques” from Aromanian. But why should a language spoken by a limited number of inhabitants of the peninsula be the source of these calques? Moreover, since the Balkan Sprachbund properties are not typical for all Romance languages, their provenance in Aromanian would still be in need of explanation. It is definitely difficult to find a single donor of the Balkan Sprachbund properties, though knowledge of the history of the Balkan languages is not lacking – at least Greek and Balkan Slavic are well documented for the relevant period. There simply isn’t a single donor. The Balkan Sprachbund properties result from convergence of languages in a multilingual environment.2 As pointed out by Lindstedt (2000), we are here dealing with a shared drift – parallel changes that are not simple transfers from a single substrate, nor from one of the languages themselves. The convergence model is corroborated by the fact that the Balkan Sprachbund properties are most numerous in those parts of the Balkans where the greatest number of languages are co-territorial.3 The epicentre of Balkanisms seems to be in the area around the southern parts of the lakes of Ohrid and Prespa, where Greek, Albanian, Macedonian and Aromanian intersect. The structures of the local dialects of the languages spoken in this area are actually very perspicuously similar to each other.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.3 (175-216)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
. Membership Not all Balkan languages have an equal share in the Balkan Sprachbund. Weigand (1928) sees Albanian, Romanian and Bulgarian as typically Balkan languages, taking Greek, Serbian and Turkish to be only “geographically Balkan”. Sandfeld (1926/1930) finds that the Balkan properties are typically exhibited in Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian and possibly Serbian, while Turkish has many lexical concordances with each and everyone of them. For Schaller (1975), Albanian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Macedonian are Balkan languages of first degree, Greek and Serbian – Balkan languages of second degree, while Turkish is a Balkan language of third degree. For Birnbaum (1968), Romanian and Aromanian are “most Balkan”; then come Bulgarian, Macedonian, Modern Greek and Albanian, in this order. Solta (1980: 7) maintains that, when individual dialects are taken into consideration, the northern Greek and southeastern Serbian dialects could also be treated as true Balkan language codes.4 According to Sobolev (this volume), not the (standard) Balkan languages but rather individual dialects of those languages are responsible for the rise of the Balkan Sprachbund, because it is at the level of dialects that century-long language contacts have been achieved. Consequently, one should aim at maximally deep descriptions of an optimal number of Balkan dialects which make up a representative corpus of relevant data. This would make it possible to perceive the diasystem of a single language as a product of the systems of all its territorial units. Sobolev (this volume) analyses the areal distribution of 65 grammatical properties, partly mapped on 17 maps drawn by the team of the project “Small Atlas of the Balkan Dialects”, which in the period 1996–2000 collected data in eleven villages in Montenegro, eastern Serbia, western Macedonia, eastern and southern Bulgaria, central and southern Albania and northwestern Greece (cf. Sobolev 2003). The analysis suggests that the traditional idea of the existence of common Balkan linguistic type should be rejected, while the set of “typical Balkan properties” should be relativized.
. Shared properties A typological language property has been assumed to be areal if (a) shared by at least three languages of the area, at least two of which belong to different genetic families, but (b) not present in all the languages of the genetic family to which the language of the area belongs (if it belongs to a language family, at all).5 Since the amount, the extent and the limit of areal typological properties, necessary for granting membership into the Balkan union has not and cannot be assessed independently, linguistic discussion on Sprachbund membership has centred on specific properties.6 Different analyses single out different arrays of properties, though
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.4 (216-267)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
most of them agree on one phonological property – the presence of the schwa phoneme, and six grammatical properties: (1) substitution of synthetic declension markers by analytic ones; (2) grammaticalization of the category of definiteness through postpositive definite articles; (3) pronominal doubling of objects; (4) analytic expression of futurity; (5) analytic perfect with a “have” auxiliary; (6) loss of the infinitive and its substitution by subjunctive clauses.7 In a book considered a classic, Sandfeld (1926/30) registered over one hundred Balkan Sprachbund concordances (i.e. properties), making a distinction between “general concordances” and “concordances between different (i.e. individual) Balkan languages”. Sandfeld’s morphosyntactic general concordances include: (a) postpositive articles; (b) extinction of the infinitive; (c) formation of the future with a “will” modal auxiliary; (d) shared genitive-dative forms; (e) simultaneous use of a “self-standing” and a not “self-standing pronoun” as well as “the use of a pronoun in association with a noun” (i.e. pronominal clitic-doubling); (f) constructions with a pronominal and a propositional complement, in which the former has the same reference as the subject of the latter; (g) verbs which take two direct objects; (h) loss of distinction between question words which in Latin are represented by ubi and quo, on the one hand, and ibi and eo, on the other; (i) use of conjunctions with the meaning ‘and’ at the beginning of affirmative clauses which follow negative ones; (j) use of a paratactic conjunction with the meaning ‘and’ instead of a hypotactic one.8 Sandfeld offers numerous examples from Albanian; Balkan Romance – mostly from (Daco-)Romanian, but also from Aromanian and sometimes from Megleno-Romanian; Balkan Slavic – Bulgarian and Macedonian though he refers to the latter language as “Bulgarian speech in Macedonia”; and Modern Greek. Schaller (1975) makes a distinction between primary and secondary Balkanisms. Among the primary Balkanisms, he lists seven morphosyntactic phenomena: (a) merger of the Dative and the Genitive; (b) postpositive articles; (c) analytic comparison; (d) loss of the infinitive and its replacement by subordinate clauses; (e) use of the “will” modal auxiliary in the construction of periphrastic future tenses; (f) doubling of objects (by “short” pronominal forms); (g) use of the “short pronominal form” for the expression of possessiveness. The secondary Balkanisms are, according to him, phenomena that are restricted in coverage or play minor role in the structure of the language. Solta (1980) concentrates on six grammatical Balkanisms, which he classifies in three groups. The first group, labelled “morphological Balkanisms,” comprises the existence of the postpositive article and the merge of the Genitive and the Dative. The second group, called “syntactic Balkanisms,” includes loss of the infinitive and synthetic expression of futurity. The third group, referred to as “other,” “different” or “special” (sonstiges), contains the Vocative “as a living category” and the periphrastic comparison of adjectives. According to Solta (1980: 223), the pheno-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.5 (267-370)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
mena of the third group are not Balkanisms in the strict sense of the word, though they are characteristic (!!) for the Balkan languages. Goła˛b (1984) is impressed by the “striking” similarity (or even identity) of the grammatical forms of the Balkan languages as opposed to the dissimilarity of their lexical substance. He singles out one negative similar or identical structural pattern – lack of the infinitive and its replacement by subjunctive clauses – and ten positive similar or identical structural patterns: (a) future tense formation with a particle which etymologically represents the third person singular form of the verb “want” + subjunctive mood of a given verb; (b) the so-called “future-in-thepast” – “a pattern derived from the future tense through the replacement of present tense markers by past tense ones” (Goła˛b 1984: 6); (c) present optative-subjunctive mood, formed by a modal particle + present tense of the verb; (d) imperfect optative-subjunctive mood, formed in the same manner as the present optativesubjunctive mood, but with the imperfect tense of the verb; (e) compound perfect, formed by the present tense of the auxiliary verb have + an indeclinable form of the perfect participle; (f) compound pluperfect – a derivative of the compound perfect, through the replacement of the present tense of the auxiliary by its imperfect tense; (g) futurum exactum or future perfect – a derivative of the compound perfect, through the replacement of the present tense of the auxiliary by its future tense; (h) postpositive definite articles; (i) dative-possessive as a single morphosyntactic category. Goła˛b illustrates these patterns with examples from two languages belonging to different language families: Macedonian – a Slavic language, and Aromanian – a Romance language. Lindstedt (2000) singles out twelve grammatical Balkanisms and examines their distribution in five language groups of the Sprachbund: Greek, Albanian, Balkan Romance – including Romanian, Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian, Balkan Slavic – including Bulgarian, Macedonian and the Torlak Serbian dialects, and Balkan Romani. The twelve Balkanisms fall into three groups. The first group contains six argument-marking Balkanisms: (a) enclitic articles, (b) object reduplication, (c) prepositions instead of case endings, (d) dative/possessive merger, (e) goal/location merger, and (f) relativum generale. The second group includes five Balkanisms pertaining to the verbal system: (g) Aux (+ Comp) + finite verb, (h) volo future, (i) future in the past as conditional, (j) habeo perfect, (k) evidentials. The third group consists of only one Balkanism – (l) analytic comparison (of adjectives and adverbs). Lindstedt assigns the Balkan languages one point if they have a given feature and half a point if the feature is present only in some of its dialects. Summing up the points, he “calculates” the “Balkanization indices” of the language groups discussed. The scores are as follows: Balkan Slavic 11.5; Albanian 10.5; Balkan Romance and Greek 9.5 each; Romani 7.5. According to Lindstedt’s computation, the Balkan Slavic languages are the most Balkanized ones.9
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.6 (370-411)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
The morphosyntactic Balkan Sprachbund properties discussed by individual authors are summed up in Table 1. Table 1. Morphosyntactic Balkan Sprachbund properties discussed by individual authors Sandfeld Schaller Solta Goła˛b Lindstedt postpositive articles prepositional cases Dat/Gen merger location/direction merger clitic doubling of objects two direct objects Dat clitics in NP Voc case markers loss of infinitives (and use of subjunctives) “will” future “will” future in the past + subjunctive “have” perfect “have” pluperfect future perfect (used as conditional) general relativizer periphrastic comparison “and” instead of “but”
+
+
+
+ + + +
+
+
+ +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + +
+ + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ +
Many of the typical Balkan Sprachbund properties can also be found in what we might call “peripheral” Balkan languages. Montoliu and Auwera (this volume) show that Judeo-Spanish uses the indicative imperfect in both the protasis and the apodosis of conditional sentences with a vague potentialis/present irrealis as well as a past irrealis reading, as does Modern Greek. Compare (1a) (Montoliu and Auwera’s example (9)) to (1b) (Montoliu and Auwera’s example (20)): JSp Si me yamavan, ya iva. if I.obl call.3pl.ind.imperf Particle go.1sg.ind.imperf 1. ‘If they called me, I would go.’ 2. ‘If they had called me, I would have gone’. b. An mu to leje, tha ton if I.dat it.acc say.3sg.ind.imperf will.mod.cl he.acc MG pijena EGO. go.1sg.ind.imperf I.nom 1. ‘If he asked me, I personally would take him there.’ 2. ‘If he had asked me, I personally would have taken him there.’
(1) a.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.7 (411-465)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
Some of the properties with respect to which Judeo-Spanish is similar to Modern Greek – vagueness reading between present and past irrealis, and mood harmony when the apodosis is in the imperfect – also appear in Old Spanish and the difference between Judeo-Spanish and (Old or Modern) Spanish may be due to a development internal to Judeo-Spanish. Yet, as argued by Montoliu and Auwera (this volume), the possibility that Modern Greek has had an influence upon Judeo-Spanish conditionals should be seriously considered. The more so, since constructions that allow both present and past irrealis readings are encountered in another peripheral Balkan language, Turkish. The properties typical for the Balkan Sprachbund can be encountered in languages outside of the Balkans. Ammann and Auwera (this volume) demonstrate that the modal construction consisting of a complementizer and an independent main clause, i.e. the subjunctive construction which appears independently and not as a complement of a verb, is used to express volition not only in the languages of the Balkans, but also elsewhere in southern Europe. Thus, alongside Modern Greek (Ammann and Auwera’s example (1)), Romanian (Ammann and Auwera’s example (2)), Albanian (Ammann and Auwera’s example (6)),10 and Macedonian (Ammann and Auwera’s example (7)), we have Puglian southern Italian (Ammann and Auwera’s example (19)): (2) a.
Na zísete! that.mod live.2pl.perf.pres ‘May you live (a long life)!’ b. S˘a ne vedem s˘an˘ato¸si! that.mod us see.1pl.pres healthy.m.pl ‘May we see each other healthy!’ c. Ti bëftë mirë! you.sg do.3sg.opt.pres well ‘May it be agreeable to you!’ d. Da pukneš! that.mod burst.2sg.perf.pres ‘May you burst!’ e. Ku fáttsa ´c´ce bbóle! that.mod do.3sg.subj.pres what want.3sg.pres ‘Let him do what he wants!’
MG
Ro
Al
Ma
SIt
Ammann and Auwera suggest that at least some of the Balkan properties are properties common to a wider Mediterranean area. The non-uniqueness of individual properties does not, however, contradict the possible uniqueness of their combination. What is actually remarkable about the Balkans is the combination of linguistic properties whose dynamic equilibrium contributes to the uniqueness of the union (cf. Civjan 1979).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.8 (465-509)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
In the following sections, some of the most prominent morphosyntactic Balkan properties in nine Balkan languages11 – Macedonian, Bulgarian, SerboCroatian,12 Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, Albanian, Modern Greek and the Arli dialect of Balkan Romani – will be examined. Particular attention will be paid to those properties which relate to the properties analyzed in the contributions to this volume.
. Nominal cases and articles The nominal inflections in the Balkan languages have been replaced to a considerable extent by prepositions. Paradigms with distinct forms for all nominal types have been preserved only in Serbo-Croatian, though the locative case is represented by prepositional phrases with nouns in the dative case, when expressing location, and by prepositional phrases with nouns in the accusative case, when expressing direction.13 Arli Balkan Romani has nominal and pronominal paradigms with distinct nominative, genitive, ablative, dative, accusative, vocative, instrumental and locative case forms, but the ablative and locative case forms alternate freely with prepositional phrases with nouns in the nominative case. In Albanian, there are four distinct nominal oblique case forms – dative, accusative, ablative and vocative, but the accusative and ablative forms show up only with some nouns or in some specific cases. In Romanian and Aromanian, there are distinct dative forms for all nouns and vocative forms for some nouns. In Modern Greek, masculine nouns with o-stems have distinct genitive, accusative and vocative case forms; all other nouns have only one oblique case form – a genitive one, though accusative case is overtly marked on the article. In Macedonian and Bulgarian only the vocative case is systematically marked by distinct case markers, while accusative forms exist in some dialects and/or for some nouns. In Megleno-Romanian vocative case forms are the only oblique nominal case forms. The tendency towards analyticity of the nominal case system, by itself, is not specific to the Balkan languages – it is encountered in many other Indo-European languages. Characteristic for the Balkan Sprachbund, however, are a number of phenomena that accompany this tendency, such as unification of declension types, analogous vocative case forms, syncretism of the genitive and dative cases, analogous selection of prepositions for the expression of case relations, postpositive articles.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.9 (509-581)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
. Vocative case forms Typically, the Balkan Sprachbund languages have distinct case markers for the vocative case. In Arli Balkan Romani there are specific vocative forms for all singular nouns referring to human beings, as well as for singular nouns denoting personified animals or inanimate objects: (3) a. Romnie, so kerea? woman.f.sg.voc what do/make.2sg ‘You woman, what are you doing?!’ b. Manušea! man.m.sg.voc ‘You man!’ c. ‘Na mangljum te avel not want.1sg.past subj.mark go.1sg odori, maˇchea’, vakhergja ov. thither fish.m.sg.voc say.3sg.past he “I didn’t want to go there, fish’, said he.’
(Nom romni)
ABR
(Nom manuš) ABR
(Nom maˇcho) ABR
In Balkan Slavic (Macedonian, Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian), personal and geographic names, human common nouns in the singular, and some (personified) non-human common nouns also have distinct vocative case forms:14 (4) a. Stojane! Stojan.m.voc ‘Stojan!’ b. Sestro! sister.m.voc ‘Sister!’ c. Profesorke! Profesorice! professor.f.voc ‘(Madam) Professor!’ d. Dunave! Danube.m.sg.voc ‘You, the Danube (river)!’ e. Bože god.m.sg.voc ‘My god!’ f. Grade15 town.m.sg.voc ‘My town!’
(Nom Stojan)
Ma/Bu/SC
(Nom sestra)
Ma/Bu/SC
(Nom profesorka) (Nom profesorica)
(Nom Dunav)
moj! (Nom bog) my.m.sg naš! (Nom grad) our.m.sg
Ma/Bu SC
Ma/Bu/SC
Ma/Bu/SC
Ma/SC
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.10 (581-644)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
In Romanian, distinct vocative case forms appear with singular human common nouns and personal names; with masculine nouns, the vocative case marker often showing up on the definite article: (5) a. Soro! sister.f.sg.voc ‘Sister! b. Popescule! Popescu+the.m.sg.voc ‘Popescu!’
(Nom sor˘a)
Ro
(Nom Popescu)
Ro
Distinct vocative case forms for singular human nouns also exist in MeglenoRomanian and Aromanian, but the vocative forms of the feminine nouns are pejorative: (6) a. Profesore! professor.m.sg.voc ‘Professor!’ b. Soro! sister.f.sg.voc.pej ‘Sister!’
(Nom profesor) MR/Ar
(Nom sor˘a/ã)
MR/Ar
In Modern Greek the vocative case is distinctly marked by a suffix only with masculine singular human nouns with o-stems.16 (7) ánthrope man/human being.m.sg.voc ‘Man!’
(Nom ánthropos)
MG
. Accusative case forms and case markers Accusative case forms are encountered on a regular basis only in Serbo-Croatian17 and Arli Balkan Romani, but even here nominative forms are used to express accusative case relations – for all neuter and masculine inanimate nouns (in SerboCroatian) or for all inanimate nouns (in Arli Balkan Romani). Compare the case of the nouns in (8a) and (9a) to (8b) and (9b), respectively: (8) a.
Video sam tvoga brata. seen.m.sg.part am your.acc brother.m.acc ‘I saw your brother.’ b. Izgubio sam tvoj nož. lost.m.sg.part am your.m.sg.nom knife.m.nom ‘I lost your knife.’
(Nom brat) SC
SC
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.11 (644-706)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
(9) a.
Dikhljum e bašne. see.1sg.past the.obl cock.m.acc ‘I saw the cock.’ b. Ov ˇchingja o mas. he cut.3sg.past the.m.sg.nom meat.m.nom ‘He cut the meat.’
(Nom bašno) ABR
ABR
In Albanian, specific accusative nominal forms are used only when the nouns are definite. Thus, the definite noun in direct object position in (10a), librin, is in the accusative case, while the indefinite noun in the same position in (10b), lule, is in the nominative case: (10) a.
E ka lexuar këtë librin. 3sg.acc.cl has read.part this book+the.m.sg.acc ‘(S)he has read this book.’ b. Agimi i dërgoi Dritës Agim+the.m.sg 3sg.dat.cl send.3sg.past Drita+the.f.sg.dat lule. flower.f.sg.nom ‘Agim sent Drita flowers.’ (lit. ‘Agim sent Drita flower.’)
Al
Al
In Modern Greek, distinct accusative nominal forms exist only for masculine nouns with o-stems; with all other nouns, accusative case is marked only on the article:18 (11) a.
Ton vlepo to(n) Jorgo. 3sg.m.acc.cl see.1sg the.m.sg.acc Jorgos.m.sg.acc ‘I see Jorgos.’ b. Ti(n) vlepo ti(n) gata. 3sg.f.acc.cl see.1sg the.f.sg.acc cat.f.sg ‘I see the cat.’
MG
MG
In Macedonian and Bulgarian, accusative forms appear very selectively – with masculine proper names and masculine human common nouns denoting family relationships:19 (12) a.
Go vidov Stojana/ 3sg.m.acc.cl see.1sg.past Stojan.m.sg.acc Petreta/%brata ti. Petre+the.m.sg.acc/brother.m.sg.acc 2sg.dat.cl ‘I saw Stojan/Petre/your brother.’ b. %. . . za da ostavi edno pismo na djadja . . . for subj.Mark leave.3sg a letter to uncle.acc
Ma
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.12 (706-758)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
Moska. Mosko.acc ‘. . . in order to leave a letter to uncle Mosko.’
Bu
Bulgarian grammars (eg. Andrejˇcin 1978; Tilkov et al. 1982–1983; Bojadžiev, Kucarov, & Penˇcev 1999) make a distinction between a Nom masculine singular and an Acc masculine singular form of the definite article – -˘at and -˘a, respectively. But there is no consistency in usage and, as pointed out by Zuzanna Topoliñska (p.c.), it may well be the case that the “short form” originated in some dialects by dropping of the final consonant (analogous to the dropping in the southern Macedonian dialects), and was subsequently codified as an accusative form. The Balkan Romance languages have no accusative nominal forms. In Romanian, however, the prepositions pe is used as an accusative case marker with all proper names, as well as with [+human, +specific] bare common nouns and nouns preceded by the indefinite article. Thus, it is used in (13a) but not in (13b):20 (13) a.
L-am v˘azut pe Ion/ pe 3sg.acc.cl.-have.1sg seen acc.mark Ion acc.mark profesor/ pe un profesor. professor acc.mark a professor ‘I saw/have seen Ion/the professor/a (specific) professor.’ b. Caut (un) profesor. look-for.1sg a.m.sg professor ‘I am looking for a/any professor.’
Ro
Ro
. Dative/genitive case forms and case markers An outstanding feature of the Balkan Sprachbund is the dative/genitive “merger”. Dative relationships in the clause and genitive relationships in the DP are expressed by the same nominal/pronominal case form or by prepositional phrases with same prepositions.21 Dative case forms for nouns of any type exist not only in Serbo-Croatian and Arli Balkan Romani – languages which have nominal paradigms with many distinct forms – but also in Albanian, Romanian and Aromanian. Whereas in Albanian the dative case marker appears at the right periphery of the noun, whether definite or indefinite, in Romanian and Aromanian the dative case marker always appears to the right of the article, so that, in the case of indefinite nouns, it is “carried” by the prenominal indefinite article.22 In Aromanian, dative DPs are obligatorily preceded by the preposition a ‘to’. Examples:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.13 (758-849)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
(14) a.
Agimi i dërgoi Dritës/ Agim+the.m.sg 3sg.dat.cl send.3sg.past Drita+the.f.sg.dat një vajze(je) lule. a girl.dat flower ‘Agim sent Drita/a girl flowers.’ b. Petru i-a dat fetei/ unei Petru 3sg.dat.cl-have.3sg given girl+the.f.sg.dat a.f.dat fete o floare. girl.obl a.f.sg flower ‘Petru gave the girl/a girl a flower.’ c. Petre lji are dat˘a a featiljei/ Peter 3sg.dat.cl have.3sg given.part to girl+the.f.sg.dat a unei feat˘a lilice. to a.f.dat girl flower ‘Peter has given flowers to the girl/a girl.’
Al
Ro
Ar
In Aromanian, Romanian and Albanian, dative case forms are also used to express genitive case relationships. In all the three languages, nominal dative modifiers appear to the right of their referents. In Aromanian, all dative modifiers are preceded by the preposition a ‘to’. In Romanian, the first modifier immediately follows its referent, while every other modifier is conjoined to the preceding modifier by the conjunction ¸si ‘and’ and related to its antecedent by an agreement clitic.23 In Albanian, any modifier has to be related to its referent by an agreement clitic.24 (15) a.
sor-sa a profesorlui sister+his.m.sg.cl to professor+the.m.sg.dat ‘the professor’s sister’ b. limba animalelor ¸si a language+the.f.sg animal+the.f.pl.dat and f.sg.Agr.cl p˘as˘arilor bird+the.f.pl.dat ‘the language of the animals and the birds’ c. koka e profesorit head+the.f.sg dat/acc.Agr.cl professor+the.m.dat ‘the professor’s head’
Ar
Ro
Al
In Modern Greek, there are no dative case forms – genitive case forms are used to express both genitive and dative case relationships.25 (16) a.
MG Edhosa to vivlio tis Marias. gave.1sg.aor the.neut.sg.acc book the.f.sg.gen Maria.gen ‘I gave the book to Maria.’
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.14 (849-907)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
b. Tis epese [tis Marias] 3sg.f.gen.cl fall.1sg.aor the.f.sg.gen Maria.f.gen [to potiri [tu patera]]. the.neut.sg.ac glass the.m.sg.gen father.gen ‘Maria dropped her father’s glass.’ (lit. ‘To Maria fell her father’s glass.’) c. Tis epese [to potiri [tu 3sg.f.gen.cl fall.1sg.aor the.m.sg.acc glass the.m.sg.gen patera [tis Marias]]] father.gen the.f.sg.gen Maria.gen ‘She dropped Maria’s father’s glass.’ (lit. ‘To her fell Maria’s father’s glass.’)
MG
MG
In the Slavic Balkan languages and Megleno-Romanian, both dative and genitive case relations are expressed through case marking prepositions. In Bulgarian, the preposition na ‘on/to’ marks dative as well as genitive case relations: (17) a.
Dadox knigata na Jana/Stojan/ give.1sg.aor book+the.f.sg to Jana/Stojan/ dedoto. grandpa+the.neut.sg ‘I gave the book to Jana/Stojan/the grandpa.’ b. Zagubixme knigata na Ana/ Stojan/ loose.1pl.aor book+the.f.sg to Ana/ Stojan/ dedoto. grandpa+the.neut.sg ‘We lost Jana’s/Stojan’s/grandpa’s book.’
Bu
Bu
In Macedonian, to express dative relationships one uses the preposition na ‘on/to’, while for the expression of genitive relationships na is an alternative to the preposition od ‘of/from’.26 (18) a.
Mu ja dadov knigata na 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.f.acc.cl give.1sg.past book+the.f.sg to Stojana/studentot/edno dete. Stojan.acc/student+the.m.sg/a boy ‘I gave the book to Stojan/the student/a boy.’ b. Ja zaginavme knigata od/?na 3sg.f.acc.cl loose.1pl.past book+the.f.sg of to Ana/Stojana. Ana/Stojan.acc ‘We lost Jana’s/Stojan’s book.’
Ma
Ma
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.15 (907-997)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
c.
Ma Ja popraviv nogata od/??na masata. 3sg.f.acc.cl repare.1sg.past leg+the.f.sg of to table+the.f.sg ‘I repaired the leg of the table.’
Megleno-Romanian indirect objects are introduced by the preposition la ‘to/at’, while DPs expressing possessive relationships are introduced by the preposition al ‘of ’ if animate, and by the preposition di ‘from’ otherwise: (19) a.
Petre a˘ i deadi la feata flor. Peter 3sg.dat.cl give.3sg.aor to girl+the.f.sg flour ‘Peter gave a flower to the girl.’ b. capu al profesoru/ ma¸ta head+the.m.sg of professor+the.m.sg/ cat+the.f.sg ‘the head of the professor/the cat’ c. picioru di masa/ una mas˘a leg+the.m.sg from table+the.f.sg/ a.f.sg table ‘the leg of the/a table’
MR
MR
MR
. Position and use of the definite articles All the Balkan languages other than standard Serbian and standard Croatian have articles.27 In Modern Greek and Arli Balkan Romani, the articles occur prenominally,28 whereas in the other Balkan languages they encliticize to the noun, if the noun is the only constituent of the DP, and to its first lexical modifier, otherwise.29 (20) a1 nedelata week+the.f.sg ‘the week’ a2 mojata prva rabotna nedela my.f.sg+the.f.sg first.f.sg working.f.sg week.f.sg ‘my first working week’ b1 rokljata dress+the.f.sg ‘the dress’ b2 tvojata xubava ljatna roklja your.f.sg+the.f.sg beautiful.f.sg summer.adj.f.sg dress.f.sg ‘your beautiful summer dress’ c1 castelul castle+the.m.sg ‘the castle’
Ma
Ma
Bu
Bu
Ro
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.16 (997-1030)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
c2 frumosul ¸si marele30 castel beautiful+the.m.sg and big+the.m.sg castle ‘the beautiful (and) big castle’ d1 porcu pig+the.m.sg ‘the pig’ d2 micu alb porc small+the.m.sg white pig ‘the small white pig’ d1 feata girl+the.f.sg ‘the girl’ d2 mushata mintimenã featã beautiful+the.f.sg clever.f.sg girl ‘the beautiful clever girl’ e1 vajzat girl+the.f.pl ‘the girls’ e2 të mjerat vajza31 agr.cl miserable+the.f.pl girls ‘the miserable girls’
Ro
MR
MR
Ar
Ar
Al
Al
Except in Albanian and Romanian, postnominal adjectives are, as a rule, emphatic. In Modern Greek, in this case, both the noun and the adjective are always preceded by definite articles, though DPs with prenominal adjectives can also have more than one article. As a matter of fact, we have the following alternatives: (21) a.
to megalo omorfo spiti the.neut.sg big.neut.sg beautiful.neut.sg house b. to megalo to omorfo the.neut.sg big.neut.sg the.neut.sg beautiful.neut.sg to spiti the.neut.sg house c. to spiti to megalo to the.neut.sg house the.neut.sg big.neut.sg the.neut.sg omorfo beautiful.neut.sg ‘the big beautiful house’
MG
MG
MG
Traditional Greek grammars, as well as certain current analyses (cf. Androutsopoulou 1995; Manolessou 2000), take the DPs with more than one definite article to be stylistic variants of the DPs with only one definite article. Campos and Stavrou (this volume), however, show that DPs with more definite articles,
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.17 (1030-1085)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
to which, following Kolliakou (1995), they refer as “polydefinite”, differ from DPs with only one definite article, i.e. from “monadic” DPs – syntactically, semantically and phonologically. Campos and Stavrou relate the Modern Greek polydefinite constructions to Aromanian constructions in which a noun with a definite postpositive article is followed by a demonstrative and an adjective with a definite postpositive article, as in (22): (22) Lu chirui stilulu atsel 3sg.m.acc.cl loose.1sg.aor fountain pen+the.m.sg that.m lailu. black+the.m.sg ‘I lost the BLACK fountain pen.’
Ar
Campos and Stavrou argue that polydefinite DPs include a functional predicative category PredP, which is headed by the “adjectival” definite article. PredP takes an adjective phrase as its complement, and pro as its specifier, the latter being identified by the articled noun in the specifier of the DP. While in Aromanian, polydefinite constructions with prenominal adjectives are excluded, in Modern Greek, polydefinites with prenominal adjectives, such as (22b) are derived from (basic) polydefinite DPs with postnominal adjectives, by movement of the article plus adjective complex. The analysis for Aromanian, presented by Campos and Stavrou, is compatible with analyses that assume that the Balkan postpositive definite article is not a clitic, but rather a suffix attached pre-syntactically to the noun (cf. DimitrovaVulchanova & Giusti 1998; Ortmann & Popescu 2000; Dobrovie-Sorin 2000).
. Pronominal clitics The Balkan Sprachbund languages have full and clitic dative/genitive and accusative pronominal forms.32 The accusative forms function as direct objects, whereas the dative/genitive forms function as indirect objects or possessive modifiers. When in direct or indirect object position, the pronominal clitics occur in clusters with auxiliary clitics, the negation marker, the subjunctive marker, and occasionally, with monosyllabic adverbs. The Serbo-Croatian clausal clitic clusters are phonologically enclitic second position clitics; their Macedonian, Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, Aromanian, Albanian and Modern Greek counterparts are syntactically preverbal and phonologically typically proclitic, while the Bulgarian clausal clitic clusters are syntactically preverbal, but phonologically enclitic. In Arli Balkan Romani there are only first person singular, second person singular,
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.18 (1085-1169)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
third person singular and third person plural accusative pronominal clitic, which function in both accusative and dative position.
. Pronominal clitics functioning in the clause In Serbo-Croatian, the pronominal clitics behave uniformly in all environments; the pronominal clitics of the other Balkan languages, however, show distinct behaviour in some environments. Being phonologically enclitic, the Bulgarian pronominal clitics have to have a lexical host to their left, except when they follow modal clitics or the negation marker. Thus, (23a) is not a well-formed sentence, while (23b) and (23c) are: (23) a. *Mu go e dal. 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.m.acc.cl is.cl given.m.sg.l-part purported meaning: ‘He has given it to him.’ b. Ne mu go e dal. not 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.m.acc.cl is.cl given.m.sg.l-part ‘He hasn’t given it to him.’ c. Šte mu go dade utre. will 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.m.acc.cl give.3sg tomorrow ‘(S)he will give it to him tomorrow.’
Bu
Bu
Bu
The well-formedness of sentences such as (23b) and (23c) can be explained through the distinct phonological directionality of ne and šte: while the auxiliary and pronominal clitics are phonologically enclitic, the negation operator ne and the modal clitics šte are phonologically proclitic. Echoing the position of Inkelas (1989) that clitics may lean on one another to satisfy each other’s prosodic requirements, Halpern (1992: 283–287) suggests that, when a proclitic clitic is followed by an enclitic one, we must allow for the prosodic subcategorizations to “cancel”, so that the combination as a whole is not prosodically dependent. It is this “cancellation”, and the stress that the complex acquires as a result of it, which make it possible for the negation operator ne to appear clause-initially and form a phonological unit with the clitic following it, to the exclusion of the verb. As for the modal clitics šte and bi(x), they influence the behaviour of the other clitics: when the modal clitics are cluster-initial, the cluster forms a local domain with the following verb, and, consequently, can appear clause-initially (cf. Tomi´c 1996, 1997). The Macedonian pronominal clitics (all clausal clitics, as a matter of fact) are, as a rule, syntactically preverbal and phonologically proclitic. In clauses with [+V, +N] heads, however, they can be and preferably are syntactically second-position and phonologically enclitic:33
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.19 (1169-1224)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
(24) a1 Im → gi → DAdov KNIgite. 3pl.dat.cl 3pl.acc.cl give.1sg.past books+the.pl a2 *DAdov ← im ← gi KNIgite. give.1sg.past 3pl.dat.cl 3pl.acc.cl books+the.pl ‘I have given them the books.’ ? e → SKInato PALtoto. b1 Mu → 3sg.m.dat.cl is.cl torn.neut.sg coat+the.neut.sg b2 SKInato ← mu ← e PALtoto. torn.neut.sg 3sg.m.dat.cl is.cl coat+the.neut.sg ‘His coat is torn.’
Ma Ma
Ma Ma
In positive imperative clauses, in all the languages considered, the pronominal clitics occur to the immediate right of the verb and encliticize to it. (25) a.
Daj mu go! give.2sg.Imp 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl ‘Give it to him.’ b. Dute! go.2sg.imper 2sg.acc.cl ‘Go!’ c. Hape derën! open.2sg+3sg.acc.cl door+the.f.acc ‘Open the door!’ d. Dhos mu to! give.2sg.Imp 1sg.gen.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl ‘Give it to me!’
Ma/Bu
Rom
Al
MG
Boškovi´c (2001), who adopts the copy theory of movement and assumes that a lower copy of a non-trivial chain can be pronounced instead of the head of the chain iff this is necessary to satisfy a PF (phonetic form) requirement (see also Franks 1998; Boškovi´c 2002), accounts for the occurrence of the clitics to the right of the imperative verb through the existence of an underlying PF affix to the left of the verb, with which the verb has to merge. In underlying structure, both indicatives and imperatives have clitic-verb order, with a lower copy of the pronominal clitic following the verb. In indicatives, the higher copy of the clitic can be, hence must be pronounced. In imperatives, on the other hand, pronunciation of the higher copy of the clitic leads to a Stranded Affix Filter violation; so the lower copy of the clitic, to the right of the verb, is pronounced. In most Balkan languages, in positive imperative clauses, the accusative clitics follow the dative clitics, as they do in indicative clauses. In Modern Greek positive imperative clauses, however, both genitive accusative and accusative genitive ordering of clitics is possible. Thus, alongside (25d) we have (26):
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.20 (1224-1297)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
(26) Dhos to mu! give.2sg.imp 3sg.neut.acc.cl 1sg.gen.cl ‘Give it to me!’
MG
Boškovi´c (this volume) argues that the accusative genitive clitic order in imperative clauses is made possible by the pronunciation of the lower copy of the clitics, forced by the presence of the PF affix. The accusative clitic can actually precede the genitive clitic only when the clitics are pronounced in a lower position, which is the case in imperatives. The optionality of the accusative-genitive ordering is related to an element X, possibly AgrDO (direct object agreement), to which the genitive clitic has to move. Without the presence of X, the Gen-Acc-V complex will be immediately formed, which leads to genitive accusative order of clitics in the postverbal position. When X is present in the structure, however, one gets accusative genitive order in postverbal position. In negative imperative clauses, in Serbo-Croatian, (standard) Macedonian and Arli Balkan Romani the pronominal clitics occur to the right of the verb, while the negation operator occurs to its left:34 Ne – Uzimaj ← mu ← ga! not.cl take.2sg.imperf.imp 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl ‘Don’t take it from him!’ b. Ne – daVAJ – mu – go! not.cl give.2sg.imperf.imp 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl ‘Don’t give it to him!’ ˇ c. Ma – biCHAV ← le MANgje! not.mod send.2sg.imp 3sg.m.acc.cl 1sg.dat.pron ‘Don’t send it to me!’
(27) a.
SC
Ma
ABR
In Bulgarian and Balkan Romance negated imperative clauses, as well as in negated imperative clauses in the Northwestern Macedonian dialects (cf. Tomi´c 2001), the clitics occur between the negation operator and the verb.35 (28) a.
Ne – MU – go DAvaj! not.cl 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl give.2sg.imperf.imp ‘Don’t give it to him!’ b. NU ← te du! neg 2sg.acc.cl go.2sg.imper ‘Don’t go!’ c. NU ← la MANc˘a! not 3sg.m.acc.cl eat.2sg.imp ‘Don’t eat it!’
Bu
Ro
MR
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.21 (1297-1351)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
d. NU ← u not 3sg.f.acc.cl ‘Don’t eat it!’ e. NE ← ja not 3sg.f.acc.cl ‘Don’t eat it!’
MÃcã! eat.2sg.imp
Ar
JAdi! eat.2sg.imp
NWM
In Albanian negated imperative clauses, the clitics also appear between the negation operator and the verb, but in this language we have a specific modal operator mos, distinct from the indicative negation operator nuc:36 (29) a.
Mos shko! not.mod go.2sg.imper ‘Don’t go!’ b. Mos i trego azjë! not.mod 3sg.dat.cl say/tell.2sg.imper nothing ‘Don’t tell him/her anything!’
Al
Al
In Modern Greek, verbs with imperative morphology cannot be negated and prohibition is expressed by negated subjunctive clauses and other negated structures.37 Boškovi´c (this volume) points out that Miyoshi (2002) accounts for the ban on negative imperatives in Modern Greek by assuming the existence of a PF affix, which in negative contexts is separated from the verb by the negation marker. Just as the English finite verb, when separated from its past tense affix by a negation operator, resorts to a different verb form, namely infinitive (in addition to “dosupport”), the Modern Greek imperative verb, when separated from its PF affix by a negation marker, resorts to another verb form – that of the subjunctive. Under Boškovi´c’s analysis, the presence of the imperative PF affix is thus ultimately responsible for the accusative-genitive clitic switch, the postverbal position of clitics in imperatives, as well as the ban on negative imperatives.
. Clitic doubling The Balkan dative and accusative clitics can double lexical indirect and direct objects, respectively. In Macedonian, Megleno-Romanian and Aromanian, directobject clitic-doubling is contingent on definiteness, while indirect object cliticdoubling is contingent on specificity. Thus, we have the following acceptability judgements: (30) a.
Ana mu go dade Ana 3sg.m/neut.dat.cl 3sg.m/neut.acc.cl give.3sg.past
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.22 (1351-1431)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
pismoto na deteto/ edno dete. letter+the to child+the a.sg.neut child ‘Ana gave the letter to the child/a (specific) child.’ b. Ana *mu *go dade Ana 3sg.m/neut.dat.cl 3sg.m/neut.acc.cl give.3sg.past (edno) pismo na (edno) dete. a.sg.neut letter to a.sg.neut child ‘Ana gave a letter to a child.’ (31) a1 Petre i-u ari dat Petre 3sg.dat.cl-3sg.f.acc.cl have.3sg given.part la feata/ una feat˘a floarea. to girl+the a girl flower+the ‘Petre has given the flower to the girl/a (specific) girl.’ a2 Petre *i-u ari dat Petre 3sg.dat.cl-3sg.f.acc.cl have.3sg given.part la (una) feat˘a (un˘a) floari. to (a) girl (a) flower) ‘Petre has given a flower to a girl.’ b1 Petre lj-u deade cartea Petre 3sg.dat.cl-3sg.f.acc.cl give.3sg.past book+the/ a featiljei/ unei featã. to girl+the.dat a.dat girl ‘Petre has given the book to the girl/a (specific) girl.’ b2 Petre *lj-u deade a (unei) Petre 3sg.dat.cl-3sg.f.acc.cl give.3sg.past a a.dat featã una carte. girl a book ‘Petre has given a book to a girl.’
Ma
Ma
MR
MR
Ar
Ar
In standard Serbian and standard Croatian, there is no clitic-doubling, but in some southeastern Serbian dialects, direct objects can optionally be clitic-doubled when definite and indirect objects when specific. Examples: (32) a.
Nes˘am (ga) videl not+ am.aux.cl 3sg.m.acc.cl seen.m.sg.l-part ovˇcara(toga). shepherd+the.m.sg.acc ‘I haven’t seen the shepherd.’ b. Dala sam (mu) cve´ce na given.f.sg.l-part am.aux.cl 3sg.m.dat.cl flowers to
SES
SES
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.23 (1431-1522)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
šefa na edno dete. chief.acc to a.neut.sg child ‘I gave (the) flowers to the chief/a child. ‘ In Bulgarian, both direct and indirect objects are clitic-doubled if specific and topicalized (or rather not focused).38 Thus, we have the following contrasts: (33) a1 Ana *go ˇcete PISMOTO/ Ana 3sg.neut.acc.cl read.3sg letter+the.neut.sg EDNO PISMO. a.neut.sg letter ‘Ana is reading the letter/a letter.’ a2 ANA go ˇcete pismoto/ Ana 3sg.neut.acc.cl read.3sg letter+the.neut.sg (%edno pismo). a.neut.sg letter ‘It is Ana that is reading the letter/a letter.’ pomaga na DETETO/ b1 Ana *mu Ana 3sg.neut.acc.cl help.3sg to child+the.neut.sg na EDNO DETE. to a child ‘Ana is helping the child/a child.’ b2 ANA mu pomaga na deteto/ Ana 3sg.neut.acc.cl help.3sg to child+the.neut.sg na edno dete. to a child ‘It is Ana that is helping the child/a child.’
Bu
Bu
Bu
Bu
In Albanian, all specific indirect objects are clitic-doubled, whereas direct objects are clitic-doubled if specific and topicalized (i.e. not focused). Thus, though both the direct object in (34a) and the one in (34b) are specific, only the direct object in (33a), which is not focused, can be clitic-doubled: (34) a.
Do ta pi me kënaqësi will.mod.cl subj.mark+3sg.acc.cl drink.1sg with pleasure një birë. a beer ‘I will gladly drink a beer.’ b. Agimi *e piu MADJE Agim+the.m.sg 3sg.acc.cl drink.3sg.aor even NJË BIRRË para se të shkonte. a beer before that subj.mark go.3sg ‘Agim drank even a beer before he left.’
Al
Al
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.24 (1522-1591)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
In Modern Greek, specific direct objects – whether definite or indefinite – are cliticdoubled if topicalized. MG Ton Jani ton kseri i the.m.sg.acc Janis.acc 3sg.m.acc.cl know.3sg the.f.sg Maria. Maria ‘Janis, Maria knows.’ MG b. Ena vivlio tha su to a.neut.sg.acc book will.mod.cl 2sg.gen.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl paro. take.1sg.perf.pres ‘As for a book, I will take it for you (but don’t ask for more).’
(35) a.
In situ direct objects are also clitic-doubled if discourse linked or familiar, especially if they are definite. MG Tus PIRA tus markadhorus. 3pl.m.acc.cl took.1sg.aor the.m.pl pencils.m.acc ‘I did take the pencils.’ b. (%Tis) ELISA merikes askisis me diskolia. MG 3pl.f.acc.cl solve.1sg.aor some.pl exercises with difficulty ‘Some exercises I did solve with difficulty.’
(36) a.
Modern Greek indirect objects are, however, clitic-doubled only when definite. Thus, we have the following contrast: MG Tu EDHOSA tu Jorghu 3sg.m.gen.cl give.1sg.aor the.m.sg.gen Jorgos.m.gen to vivlio. the.neut.sg.acc book ‘I did give the book to Jorgos.’ MG b. (*Tu) EDHOSA enos filu mu 3sg.m.gen.cl give.1sg.aor a.m.sg.gen friend.gen 1sg.gen.cl to vivlio. the.neut.sg.acc book ‘I did give the book to a friend of mine.’
(37) a.
In Romanian, direct object clitic doubling is contingent on specificity, topicality and humanness. Human direct objects are clitic-doubled even when not topicalized or specific:39 (38) a.
L-am v˘azut pe un profesor. 3sg.acc.cl.-have.1sg seen acc.Mark a professor ‘I saw/have seen a professor.’
Ro
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.25 (1591-1659)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
Non-human direct objects are clitic-doubled only when topicalized. Thus, we have the following contrast: (39) a.
Filmul a˘ sta l-am v˘azut. film+the.m.sg this.m.sg 3sg.m.acc.cl-have.1sg seen ‘This film, I have seen.’ b. Am mâncat pe¸stele. 3sg.m.acc.cl-have.1sg eaten fish+the.m.sg ‘I ate/have eaten the fish.’
Ro
Ro
Clitic-doubling of Romanian indirect objects is typically subject to specificity. Examples: (40) a.
Petru i-a dat o floare fetei/ Petru 3sg.dat.cl-has given a.f.sg flower girl+the.f.sg.dat unei fete. a.f.dat girl.obl ‘Petru gave a flower to the girl/a (specific) girl.’ b. I-am pus borcanului a˘ cest 3sg.dat.cl-have.1sg put.part pot+the.m.sg.dat this.m.sg capac. lid ‘I covered the pot with this lid.’
Ro
Ro
In Arli Balkan Romani clitic-doubling, as a rule, occurs only with emphasized pronouns and with quirky accusative subjects in sentences in which V is instantiated by the impersonal verb isi ‘be’ or its negative counterpart na(n)e ‘not be’:40 (41) a.
Diklja men AMEN. saw.3sg 1pl.acc.cl 3pl.acc.Pron ‘He saw US.’ b. Man isi ma(n) jekh kher. 1sg.acc.Pron be.impers 1sg.acc.cl a house ‘I have a house.’ (lit. ‘To me is a house.’)
ABR
ABR
. Impersonal pronominal clitics The dative and accusative personal clitics have corresponding impersonal/reflexive forms which are used for anaphoric reference, in impersonal clauses and as passive and middle markers. In Balkan Slavic, these pronominal clitics are used for anaphoric reference whenever co-referential with the subject. Thus, we have the following contrasts:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.26 (1659-1711)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
(42) a1 Ti se mieš. a2 Ti se umivaš. you.sg refl.acc.cl wash.2sg ‘You are washing yourself.’ b1 Petko se mie. umiva. b2 Petko se Petko refl.acc.cl wash.3sg ‘Petko is washing himself.’ c1 Petko go mie. c2 Petko ga umiva. Petko 1sg.acc.cl wash.3sg ‘Petko is washing him.’
Ma/Bu SC
Ma/Bu SC
Ma/Bu SC
In Balkan Romance, the reflexive/impersonal pronominal clitics are used only for anaphoric reference to third persons: (43) a1 Ion s-a ras. Ion refl.acc.cl-has.cl shaved.m.sg.part ‘Ion shaved himself.’ a2 Iani si bricia¸sti. Iani refl.acc.cl shave.3sg a3 Iane s-sursi. Iane impers.acc.cl-shave.3sg ‘Iani/Iane is shaving himself.’ b1 Ion î¸si cânt˘a. Ion refl.dat.cl sing.3sg b2 Iani a˘¸s cont˘a. Iani refl.dat.cl sing.3sg b3 Iane sh-cãntã. Iane impers.dat.cl-sing.3sg ‘Ion/Iani/Iane is singing to himself.’
Ro
MR Ar
Ro MR Ar
In Arli Balkan Romani, there is only one impersonal/reflexive pronominal clitic, which is used for anaphoric reference to third person pronouns: (44) Thovelape. wash.3sg+refl.acc.cl ‘(S)he washes himself/herself.’
ABR
In Albanian, there is also only one accusative impersonal/reflexive clitic. Moreover, this clitic is used for anaphoric reference only to nouns denoted by the subject of the clause, and only when the verb is in a past tense.41
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.27 (1711-1779)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
(45) a.
Unë u rrova. I refl.cl shave.1sg.aor ‘I shaved myself.’ b. Pjetri u rrua. Pjetri refl.cl shave.3sg.aor ‘Pjetri shaved himself.’
Al
Al
In Modern Greek, there are no impersonal clitics.42 The impersonal, passive and middle clauses with impersonal clitics (as well as the Albanian and Modern Greek verbs with medio-passive morphology) often include dative personal pronominal clitics and/or lexical dative phrases. According to Rivero (this volume) there are two types of impersonal/passive constructions with datives. The first construction is the so-called involuntary state or “feel like” construction, which occurs in Albanian and the South Slavic languages, but not in Romanian and Modern Greek. (46) a.
Ne mu se raboteše vo not 3sg.f.dat.cl impers.acc.cl work.3sg.imperf.past in nivata. field+the.f.sg ‘He didn’t feel like working in the field.’ b. I u punua këtu. 3sg.dat impers.cl work.3sg.imperf here ‘(S)he felt like working here.’ c. I se lucra în fabric˘a. 3sg.dat.cl impers.acc.cl work.3sg.imperf in factory 1. ‘One/people worked in the factory on his/her behalf.’ 2. ‘One/people worked in his/her factory.’ Not: ‘(S)he felt like working in the factory.’
Ma
Al
Ro
The second construction, which consists of an anticausative core, coupled with a dative, is found in all Balkan languages along parallel lines: (47) a. Mu se skrši prozorecot. b. Iu thye dritarja. c. I se sparse ferestrea. 3sg.dat.cl impers.cl break.3sg.aor window+the 1. ‘His window got broken.’ 2. ‘He involuntarily caused the big vase to break.’
Ma Al Ro
Rivero (this volume) argues that involuntary state constructions contain a passive or impersonal core. This core contains an argument, which is implicit or existentially closed due to Argument Saturation. The dative discloses and binds
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.28 (1779-1848)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
this implicit argument via a formal semantic procedure called Dative Disclosure. Anticausative datives, on the other hand, are interpreted by an inferential procedure called Ethical Strategy, which differs from Dative Disclosure, because it cannot operate on formally present arguments. Dative Disclosure cannot apply in anticausatives, since they lack the appropriate suppressed argument.
. Possessive pronominal clitics In all the Balkan languages, possessive relationships can be expressed in the DP, as well as in the CP – in both cases through the same morphological device, genitive pronominal clitics in Modern Greek, and dative pronominal clitics elsewhere. In Bulgarian, both possessive clitics in the DP and possessively interpreted dative clausal clitics are widely used and can refer to either animate or inanimate nouns. Examples: se deteto (48) a1 Razbole get sick.3sg.perf.past impers.acc.cl child+the.neut.sg mi. 1sg.dat.cl a2 Rasbole mi se get sick.3sg.perf.past 1sg.dat.cl acc.impers.cl deteto. child+the.neut.sg ‘My child got sick.’ b1 Interesni sa v˘aprosite im. interesting.pl are.3pl questions+the.pl 3pl.dat.cl sa im v˘aprosite. b2 Interesni interesting.pl are.3pl 3pl.dat.cl questions+the.pl ‘Their questions are interesting.’
Bu
Bu
Bu Bu
In Macedonian, the DP possessive clitics can refer only to nouns denoting family relationships. Thus, we have the following acceptability judgements: (49) a1 *Se razbole deteto impers.acc.cl get sick.3sg.perf.past child+the.neut.sg mi. 1sg.dat.cl a2 Mi se rasbole 1sg.dat.cl impers.acc.cl get sick.3sg.perf.past deteto. child+the.neut.sg ‘My child got sick.’
Ma
Ma
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.29 (1848-1907)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
Ma b1 Se razbole sin mi. impers.acc.cl get sick.3sg.perf.past son+the.m.sg 1sg.dat.cl Ma b2 Mi se rasbole sin mi.43 1sg.dat.cl impers.acc.cl get sick.3sg.perf.past son 1sg.dat.cl ‘My son got sick.’ In Serbo-Croatian, the use of DP possessive clitics is not only referentially restricted to nouns denoting family relationships; it is also marked as archaic and dialectal. In Romanian, dative pronominal clitics are regularly used to denote possessive relationship in the clause, while their use in the nominal phrase, though not restricted to the type of noun, is marked as archaic or belonging to the literary style. Ro Chipu-i luminos domina mul¸timea. face-3sg.dat.cl bright.m.sg dominate.3sg.aor crowd+ the.f.sg ‘His/her bright face dominated the crowd.’ Ro b. I-am z˘arit chipul în 3sg.dat.cl-have.1sg.cl spotted.m.sg.part face+the.m.sg in mul¸time. crowd ‘I spotted his/her face in the crowd.’
(50) a.
%
In the other two Romance Balkan languages, Megleno-Romanian and Aromanian, dative pronominal clitics are not used in the DP. Nevertheless, in all three Romance Balkan languages, there are clitics relating to lexical possessive pronouns/determiners which express possessive relationship by referring to singular nouns denoting close family relationships. (51) a.
Este frumoas˘a nevast˘a-sa. is beautiful.f.sg wife-his.sg.f.cl ‘His wife is beautiful.’ b. T ¸i este frumoas˘a nevast˘a-ta.44 2sg.dat.cl is beautiful.f.sg wife-your.2sg.f.cl ‘Your wife is beautiful.’ c. Ul vidzu frati-nju. 3sg.m.acc.cl see.3sg.aor brother-my.m.sg.cl ‘(S)he saw my brother.’
Ro
MR
Ar
Dative pronominal clitics are not encountered in Albanian DPs either, though the agreement clitics, which usually occur between a noun and an adjective and mark agreement of the adjective to the noun, can express possessive relationship to singular nouns denoting close family relationship:45
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.30 (1907-1978)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
(52) Erdhi nga e ëma. come.3sg.aor from f.sg.agr.cl mother+the.f.sg ‘(S)he came from his/her mother’s.’
Al
In Arli Balkan Romani, dative pronominal clitics are very selectively used and never express possessive relationships. There are, however, possessive pronominal clitics related to full (lexical) possessive pronouns/determiners, which refer to singular nouns denoting close family relationships: ABR So šuži stadik pletingja ti daj! what beautiful.f.sg hat knit.3sg.past your.2sg.cl mother ‘What a beautiful hat has your mother knitted for you!’ ABR b. Kergja lafi te dadea. make.3sg.past talk your.2sg.obl.cl father.instr ‘(S)he talked to your father.’
(53) a.
In Modern Greek, genitive clitics can express possessive relationships within the nominal phrase, as well as possessive relationships within the clause:46 MG O Jorghos idhe tin kori su. the.m.sg Jorghos see.1sg.aor the.f.sg.acc daughter 2sg.gen.cl ‘Jorgo saw your daughter.’ MG b. Tu pandrevete i kori. 3sg.m.gen.cl marry.3sg.m-p the.f.sg daughter ‘His daughter is getting married.’
(54) a.
Pancheva (this volume) argues that Modern Greek possessive clitics receive abstract genitive case and are thus formally distinct from clausal indirect object clitics, which are valued as dative. The identity between the two types of clitics in this language results from dative/genitive syncretism in the morpho-phonological expression of distinct abstract syntactic features. In Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian, and Serbo-Croatian, on the other hand, possessive clitics have dative case features in syntax, and are the same entities as clausal indirect object clitics; the identity of the morpho-phonological form of the two types of clitics is due to identity of formal features and not to case syncretism. There are further distinctions within this latter group of languages: Bulgarian and Macedonian DPs have syntactic mechanisms to value dative case on possessive arguments, Serbo-Croatian DPs have completely lost the dative-case valuation mechanisms, while Romanian DPs have almost lost them. This parametric difference is responsible for the availability of DP-internal possessive clitics in Bulgarian and Macedonian, their lack in Serbo-Croatian, and their non-productivity in Romanian.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.31 (1978-2021)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
Pancheva bases her conclusions on comparative data from the contemporary languages, as well as on historical data. She gives evidence that in the history of South Slavic genitive clitics were never available. There have been arguments in the generative literature that the Balkan clausal clitics with possessive interpretation originate in and are raised from DPs (cf. Avram & Coene 2000; Stateva 2002; Moskovsky this volume). While Avram and Coene (2000) maintain that the movement is triggered by a topic feature, and Stateva (2002) believes that it is case-driven, Moskovsky (this volume), who works within Binding theory (Chomsky 1981, 1986; Chomsky & Lasnik 1992) argues that the DP to CP clitic movement in Bulgarian strictly respects normal constraints on movement – it is an optional movement allowed only out of complements of the verb, i.e. out of maximal projections which are L-marked. Moskovsky presents evidence that locality constraints on binding in Bulgarian apply within narrower boundaries than generally assumed (e.g., under a “governing category” formulation).
. Subjunctives The most perspicuous and most widely spread and discussed property of the Balkan Sprachbund languages is the loss of the infinitive and its replacement by structurally comparable subjunctive constructions. In Macedonian and Tosk Albanian the loss of the infinitive is complete and in Aromanian, Modern Greek, Bulgarian and the southeastern Serbian dialects it is almost complete; in MeglenoRomanian the infinitive shows up in a limited number of expression; whereas in Geg47 Albanian, Romanian, Standard Serbian and Standard Croatian it shares many of its functions with subjunctive constructions with finite verbs.
. Subjunctives as complements of modal and intentional verbs Typically, subjunctive constructions are used in complement positions of modal and intentional verbs. The verb of the subjunctive construction can, but need not agree in person and number with the verb of the main clause. Whenever such an agreement occurs, there is “equi” deletion and only one subject surfaces – in unmarked sentences, to the left of the main verb. Pronominal subjects are dropped, unless emphatic. Modal verbs are very often impersonal. When personal, however, they have to agree in person and number with the verb in the subjunctive construction.48
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.32 (2021-2123)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
Ma Ne možam da go vidam/*vidiš. not can.1sg subj.mark 3sg.m/neut.acc.cl see.1/2sg.perf.pres ‘I cannot see him/it.’ MR b. Po¸t s-ti/*il du¸t/*duca. can/may.2sg subj.mark-2/3sg.acc.cl go.2/3sg ‘You can/may go.’ Al c. Dy prej tyre mundën (që) të shpëtonin. two from they.dat can.3pl.aor that subj.mark save.3pl.m-p ‘Two of them could be saved.’ MG d. Boro na figo/*figis. can/may.1sg subj.mark leave.1/2sg ‘I can/may leave.’
(55) a.
Intentional verbs fall into three classes with respect to agreement with the person/number features of their subjunctive complements. Verbs of the “intend” type have same reference as the subjects of their subjunctive complements; the reference of verbs of the “order” type differs from the reference of the subjects of their subjunctive complements (disjoint reference verbs); while verbs of the “want” type may agree or disagree with the person/number features of their subjunctive complements. (56) a.
Namerava da patuva/*patuvaš. intend.3sg subj.mark travel.3/2sg ‘(S)he intends to travel.’ b. Inten¸tioneaz˘a s˘a mearg˘a/*meargi la Paris. intend.3sg subj.mark go.3/2sg.subj to Paris ‘(S)he intends to go to Paris.’ c. Tentoi (që) të vijë/*vij. intend.3sg.aor that subj.mark come.3/1sg.subj ‘(S)he intended to come.’ d. Skopevo na ertho/*erthis. intend.1sg subj.mark come.1/2sg.perf.pres ‘I intend to come.’ e. Nietinela te dromarel/*dromarela. intend.3sg subj.mark travel.3/1sg ‘(S)he intends to travel.’
(57) a.
Ma
R
Al
MG
ABR
Ma Zapoveda Marija da dojde ordered.3sg.perf.past Marija subj.mark come.3sg.perf.pres vednaš. immediately ‘(S)he gave an order for Marija to come immediately.’
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.33 (2123-2190)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
Ro b. A ordonat ca Maria s˘a vin˘a has ordered.part subj.mark Maria subj.mark come3sg.subj numaidecât. immediately. ‘(S)he gave an order for Maria to come immediately’. c. Urdhëroi Drita (që) të vish menjëherë. Al order.3sg.aor Drita that subj.mark come.2sg.subj immediately ‘(S)he gave an order for Drita to come immediately.’ MG d. Dietakse ti Maria na order.3sg.aor the.f.sg.acc Maria subj.mark erthi amesos. come.3sg.perf.pres immediately ‘(S)he gave an order for Maria to come immediately.’ e. Naredingja i Nafija te avel ordered.3sg.past the.f.sg Nafija subj.mark come.3sg ABR akana. now ‘(S)he gave an order for Nafija to come immediately.’ Ma (58) a1 Sakam da mu go want.1sg subj.mark 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl dadam. give.1sg.perf.pres ‘I want to give it to him.’ Ma a2 Sakam da mu go want.1sg subj.mark 3sg.m.dat.cl 3sg.neut.acc.cl dadat. give.3pl.perf.pres ‘I want them to give it to him.’ Ro b1 Vrea s˘a pleci la Bucure¸sti. want.3sg subj.mark leave.2sg to Bucharest ‘(S)he wants you to leave for Bucharest.’ Ro b2 Vrea s˘a plece la Bucure¸sti. want.3sg subj.mark leave.3sg to Bucharest ‘(S)he wants him/her to leave for Bucharest.’ Al c1 Duan (që) t’ia japin. want.3pl that subj.mark-3sg.dat.cl+3sg.acc.cl give.3pl.subj ‘They want to give it to him/her.’ Al c2 Duan (që) t’ia jape. want.3pl that subj.mark-3sg.dat.cl+3sg.acc.cl give.3sg.subj ‘They want him/her to give it to him/her.’
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.34 (2190-2227)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
d1 Thelo na pao eki. want.1sg subj.mark go.1sg there ‘I want to go there.’ d2 Thelo na pai eki. want.1sg subj.mark go.3sg there ‘I want him/her to go there.’ ovel tlo/klo izmekjari. e1 Na mangela te not want.3sg subj.mark be.3sg your servant ‘(S)he doesn’t want to be your servant.’ e2 Na mangela te ovav tlo/klo izmekjari. not want.3sg subj.mark be.1sg your servant ‘(S)he doesn’t want me to be your servant.’
MG
MG
ABR
ABR
In Serbo-Croatian, intentional verbs can take either subjunctive or infinitive complements. The usage of infinitive and subjunctive complements with individual types of intentional verbs in (standard) Serbian is, however, different from their usage in (standard) Croatian. When the intentional verb and its complement have disjoint reference, in both (standard) Serbian and (standard) Croatian we have subjunctive complements. In the case of joint reference, however, intentional verbs in (standard) Croatian take only infinitives, while in (standard) Serbian both infinitive and subjunctive complements are accepted, though the latter are preferred. Stojanovi´c and Marelj (this volume) examine child and adult strategies in interpreting empty subjects in Serbian and Croatian subjunctive and infinitival complements of intentional verbs. Fifteen four-and-five year old speakers of Serbian, and 25 three-to-five year old speakers of Croatian, as well as 16 Serbian and Croatian speaking adults were tested in an act-out experiment. The results demonstrate that the rules for interpreting null subjects in infinitive complements in both Serbian and Croatian are in place by the age of five. Although neither child nor adult subjects showed any problems with interpreting null subjects in subjunctive-like complements, only the Croatian-speaking children adopted the external reference for empty subjects in “want” type subjunctive complements.
. Subjunctive constructions as modifiers In all the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund, subjunctive constructions can function as adjectival or adverbial modifiers. The border between subjunctive constructions functioning as adjectival or adverbial modifiers is actually very weak. Thus, clauses in which the subjunctive construction is introduced by a “wh” relativizer clearly function as adjectival modifiers:49
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.35 (2227-2316)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
(59) a.
T˘arsja žena kojato da look for.1sg woman who.f.sg+the.neut.sg subj.mark mi gleda decata. 1sg.dat.cl look after.3sg children+the.pl ‘I am looking for a woman to look after my children.’ b. Caut o fat˘a care s˘a ¸stie look for.1sg a.f girl which subj.mark know.3sg.subj engleze¸ste. English ‘I am looking for a girl that knows English.’ c. Ubides capel˘a cari s-mi look for.1sg hat which subj.mark-1sg.acc.cl veaglj˘a di soare. protect.3sg.subj from sun. ‘I am looking for a hat that would protect me from the sun.’ d. Aflai tu sone una fustane cai/tsi find.1sg.aor at end a dress which/what s-mi ariseascã. subj.mark-1sg.acc.cl please.3sg.subj ‘I finally found a dress which should please me.’
Bu
Ro
MR
Ar
On the other hand, subjunctive constructions preceded by equivalents of the preposition for clearly function as adverbial modifiers of purpose: Ma Napravivme pauza za da gi make.1pl.perf.past pause for subj.mark 3pl.acc.cl ˇcueme vestite. hear.1pl.perf.pres news+the.pl ‘We paused in order to hear the news.’ Bu b. Dojdoh za da vi s˘aobšta come.1sg.aor for subj.mark 2pl.acc.cl inform.1sg.perf.pres ˇce si otivam. that impers.dat.cl leave.1sg ‘I came to inform you that I am leaving.’ Ro c. Ion e prea periculos pentru ca Ion is too dangerous for that.mod s˘a-l angaj˘am. subj.mark+3sg.m.acc.cl hire.1pl ‘Ion is too dangerous for us to hire him.’ MG d. Irtha ja na se voithiso. come.1sg.aor for subj.mark 2sg.acc.cl help.1sg.perf.pres ‘I came to help you.’
(60) a.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.36 (2316-2381)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
Nevertheless, the relativizer and the preposition can be left out, and in some languages do not occur at all, and then the clause is open to ambiguities. Bužarovska (this volume) examines the syntactic environments that favor the realization of an isofunctional syntactic pattern, which occurs in the mixed domain of purpose and modification in Macedonian, Aromanian, Albanian and Modern Greek. She shows that these languages share a limited set of ditransitive verbs that allow “purposelike” modification of their direct object due to dual case assignment and argues that the weakening of control at the expense of benefactive meaning is responsible for gradual shift from purpose to modification. Related to subjunctive constructions functioning as adjectival modifiers are subjunctive constructions with “wh”-words as subjects, objects or adjuncts, which can be reinterpreted as structures in which subjunctive constructions modify “wh”words. The main verbs of the sentences in which these subjunctive constructions appear express (a) assertion or denial of existence or (b) coming into being, view or availability or causation of one of these. In (61) we have examples of subjunctive constructions with “wh” arguments or adjuncts in complement positions of equivalents of the existential verb “have” – a verb that typically expresses assertion or denial of existence: (61) a.
Ima koj da mi pomogne. have.impers who subj.mark 1sg.dat.cl help.3sg.perf.pr ‘There is someone who can help me.’ b. Njama kakvo da kupiš. not+have.impers what subj.mark buy.2sg.perf ‘There is nothing to buy.’ c. Nemaš kako da pošalješ paket. not+have.2sg how subj.mark send.2pl.perf.pr parcel ‘You have no way to send a/the parcel.’ d. Nu am cu cine s˘a vin. not have.1sg with who subj.mark come.1sg ‘I have nobody with whom I can come.’ e. Nu ari di ¸ti si ca¸ta˘ . not have.impers from what subj.mark catch.3sg/pl.subj ‘There is nothing (s)he/they can hold onto.’ f. Am cu cai (tã) s-yin. have.1sg with whom that.mod subj.mark-come.1sg ‘I have somebody with whom I can come.’ g. S’ka (që) ç-të bëhet. not-have.impers that what-subj.mark do.impers.m-p ‘There is nothing one can do.’
Ma
Bu
SC
Ro
MR
Ar
Al
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.37 (2381-2444)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
MG h. (Dhen) exume se pjion na stilume not have.1pl to who.acc subj.mark send.1pl.perf.pres ta emborevmata. the.neut.pl merchandize ‘We have someone/(noone) to whom to send the merchandise.’ ABR i. Na(n)e kasaja te avav. not+be.impers who.instr subj.mark come.1sg ‘There is nobody with whom I can come.’ Grosu (this volume) refers to the subjunctive complements with “wh” arguments or adjuncts as “modal existential “wh”-constructions” (MECs), and argues that they have the superficial appearance of a “wh”-clause, but the semantics of a narrow-scope existential generalized quantifier, such that the property expressed by the IP has modal possibility/ability force. Building on Grosu (1994), Grosu and Landman (1998) and Izvorski (1998), and modifying some of the views in these works, Grosu (this volume) proposes that MECs are non-core relative constructions consisting of a bare CP which carries the feature [GQ∃ ], as well as a specification of its particular modality. Cross-linguistic distribution is captured by extensions of subcategorization options from nominal to CP arguments, such extensions being potentially “licensed” by semantic-pragmatic properties of the matrix predicates in conjunction with the larger context, in the sense that they constitute necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for extension.
. Bare subjunctive constructions Subjunctive constructions can be bare, i.e. they can occur not as complements, but as the only constituent of a sentence. Typically, bare subjunctive constructions with verbs in the present tense express a wish, mild command, intention or suggestion: (62) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.
Da Da Da Të Na Te S˘a SSsubj.mark ‘You should go!’
odiš! otideš! ideš! shkosh! pas! dža! te duci! ti du¸t! ti duts! 2sg.acc.cl go.2sg
Ma Bu SC Al MG ABR Ro MR Ar
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.38 (2444-2490)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
Bare subjunctive constructions are dealt with by two papers in this volume. While Ammann and Auwera demonstrate that bare subjunctive constructions are used to express volition not only in the languages of the Balkans, but also elsewhere in southern Europe, Isac and Jakab are concerned with the derivation of the imperative force of the structure and propose that the imperative Force features be hosted in MoodP – a projection placed in the left periphery of the sentence, which is lower than the highest CP projection. Isac and Jakab (this volume) argue that, by hosting the Force features in an MoodP lower than CP, it is possible to unify the syntax of subjunctive constructions and other “surrogate” imperatives, whose morphology is “borrowed” from another paradigm, with the syntax of “true” imperatives, i.e. with the syntax of imperatives with imperative morphology. Cross linguistic variation, according to them, follows from the particular properties that clitics and negation operators have across languages, as well as from the particular mechanism by which the imperative Force feature is checked (by merging a Mood particle in the head of the MoodP; by moving the imperative verb to Mood; or by moving the Negative head to Mood).
. Future tenses The Balkan Sprachbund languages have future tenses with “will” modal clitics, which have evolved from configurations in which subjunctive constructions appear in complement positions of lexical “will” modals. These future tenses can be of three types: (a) inflected “will” modal clitics plus subjunctive constructions; (b) non-inflecting “will” modal clitics plus subjunctive constructions; (c) noninflecting “will” modal clitics plus tensed verbs whose forms are analogous to the forms of the verbs in the subjunctive constructions of the languages in question (cf. Tomi´c 2004). In Serbo-Croatian, we have a future tense with inflected “will” modal clitics plus subjunctive complements, functioning alongside a future tense with inflected “will” modal clitics plus infinitive complements:50 (63) a.
On ´ce to da uradi he will.3sg.mod.cl it/that subj.mark do.3sg.perf.pres sutra. tomorrow b. On ´ce to uraditi sutra. he will.3sg.mod.cl it/that do.inf tomorrow c. Uradi´ce to sutra. do.inf+will.3sg.mod.cl it/that tomorrow ‘He will do that tomorrow.’
SC
SC SC
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.39 (2490-2563)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
In Romanian the standard future tense is, as a rule, constructed with finite modal clitics plus short (suffixless) infinitives. In colloquial Romanian, however, there is a future tense construction which employs the invariant clitic o, arguably representing a reduced version of the “will” modal, plus finite lexical verbs.51 Examples of a future tense with an infinitive and a future tense with a subjunctive construction are given in (63a) and (63b), respectively: Ro Ion va pleca mâine. Ion will.3sg.mod.cl leave.inf tomorrow ‘Ion will leave tomorrow.’ b. Ion o s˘a-i cear˘a ma¸sina. Ro Ion will.mod.cl subj.mark-3sg.dat.cl ask.3sg.subj car+the.f.sg ‘Ion will ask him for the car.’
(64) a.
In Aromanian and Albanian the subjunctive construction is preceded by an invariant form of the “will” modal clitic: Ar Va s-yin s-ti will subj.mark-come.1sg.pres subj.comp-2sg.acc.cl ved mãne. see.1sg.pres tomorrow. ‘I will come to see you tomorrow.’ Al b. Do ta jap librin will subj.mark+3sg.dat.cl+3sg.acc.cl give.1sg book+the.m.sg nesër. tomorrow ‘I will give you the book tomorrow.’
(65) a.
In Macedonian, Bulgarian, Modern Greek and Arli Balkan Romani we have an invariant form of the “will” modal clitic, followed by a tensed verb: ´ Ma Ke go stori toa utre. will.mod.cl 3sg.m.acc.cl do.3sg.perf.pres that tomorrow ‘(S)he will do that tomorrow.’ Bu b. Šte napravi tova utre. will.mod.cl do.3sg.perf.pres that tomorrow ‘(S)he will do that tomorrow.’ MG c. Tha su dhiavaso avrio. will.mod.cl 2sg.gen.cl read.1sg.perf.pres tomorrow ‘I will read/be reading to you tomorrow.’ ABR d. Ka ˇcitinav tukje tajsa. will.mod.cl read.1sg 2sg.dat.pron tomorrow ‘I will read/be reading to you tomorrow.’
(66) a.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.40 (2563-2626)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
Nevertheless, historical evidence and the forms of the verbs – analogous to the forms of the verbs in subjunctive constructions and often distinct from the present tense forms – testify to the fact that the Macedonian, Bulgarian and Modern Greek future tenses originated as structures such as those in the future tenses of Albanian and Aromanian, and ultimately as structures such as those in the Serbo-Croatian future tenses with subjunctive structures. The Megleno-Romanian future tense is a bare subjunctive construction, which can also be used to give mild commands: (67) a.
Si vin˘a.(!) subj.mark come.3sg/pl.subj 1. ‘(S)he/they will come.’ 2. ‘(S)he/they should come!’ b. S-la lea.(!) subj.mark-3sg.m.acc.cl take.2sg ‘You will take it.’ ‘You should take it!’
MR
MR
The structures of the future-in-the-past tenses of the Balkan languages also include subjunctive constructions or verb forms that are diachronically related to subjunctive constructions. Bulgarian and the southeastern Serbian dialects have future-in-the-past tenses with past tense forms of “will”-auxiliaries plus subjunctive constructions with verbs in the present tense. (68) a.
Da ne valeše, ošte štjahme da subj.mark not rain.3sg.imperf still would.1pl subj.mark se razxoždame. impers.acc.cl walk.1pl.imperf.pres ‘If it didn’t rain, we would have still be walking.’ ´ b. Ca da ga nosi. would.mod.aux subj.mark 3sg.neut.acc.cl carries ‘(S)he would have carried him.’
Bu
SES
Aromanian and Albanian have future-in-the-past constructions with non-inflected modal clitics followed by subjunctive constructions with verbs in a past tense form: (69) a.
Nu va (s-)lipsea not will.mod.cl subj.Mark-should.imperf s-yinã. subj.mark-come.3sg/pl.subj ‘(S)he/they shouldn’t have come!’
Ar
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.41 (2626-2699)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
b. Po të më ftonin do if subj.Mark 1sg.acc.cl invite.3pl.imperf will.mod.cl të merrja pjesë. subj.mark take.1sg.imperf part ‘If they invited me I would take part.’
Al
In Megleno-Romanian, the function which in the other Balkan languages is performed by the future-in-the-past, is performed by bare subjunctive constructions with verbs in the Imperfect: (70) Si vineau ier. subj.mark come.3pl.imperf yesterday ‘(As far as I know) they were to come yesterday.’
MR
Macedonian and Modern Greek have future-in-the-past constructions with noninflecting modal clitics followed by verbs in a past tense form: ´ Ke dojdeše do pet. will.mod.cl come.3sg.subj.past till five ‘(S)he was (supposed) to come by five.’ b. Dhen tha eprepe na not will.mod.cl should.3sg.imperf subj.Mark erthun. come.3pl.perf.pres ‘They shouldn’t have come!’
(71) a.
Ma
MG
Like their future tenses, the future-in-the-past tenses of Macedonian and Modern Greek are diachronically derived from “will” modal plus subjunctive construction sequences, analogous to those in the Albanian and Aromanian future-in the-past tenses. Arli Balkan Romani forms a future-in-the-past tense by adding the frozen third person singular past tense form of the auxiliary isi ‘be’, sine, which actually is a pastness marker, to future tense constructions: (72) Dži akana/tajsa ka sikljovel till now/tomorrow will.mod.cl show/teach/learn.3sg.m-p sine te nangjovel. Past.mark subj.mark swim.3sg ‘Till now/tomorrow he will have taught himself/learnt to swim.’
ABR
The future-in-the-past tense of Romanian is unique among the Balkan languages in not being related to subjunctive constructions – it is formed by the non-inflecting modal clitic o plus the perfect form of the “be” auxiliary, fi, or by forms of the inflecting “will” modal auxiliary plus fi, and a participle:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.42 (2699-2775)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
(73) a.
S-o fi plimbat Ion. impers.acc.cl-will.mod.cl be.perf walk.part Ion b. Se va fi plimbat Ion. impers.acc.cl will.3sg.mod.cl be.perf walk.part Ion ‘Ion will have walked.’
Ro Ro
In a revised Reichenbachian framework, D’hulst, Coene and Avram (this volume) show that, as opposed to most Western Romance languages, Romanian has an extremely reduced deictic tense system in which a single past morpheme can express both the relation between Event Time and Reference Time and between Reference Time and Speech Time. The invariant third person form of the “will/want” modal auxiliary, which combines with the infinitive or the subjunctive to form the Romanian future tenses, is shown not to be part of the deictic tense system, but to consist of a future operator taking scope over the event expressed in the clause. The proposed operator status for the Romanian future tenses also explains its availability as a future in the past on a par with the conditional in other Romance languages. Whereas in the Western Romance languages, the future in the past readings follow from the inherent settings of Reference Time, Speech Time and Event Time, in Romanian we have this reading because the future tense operator falls in the scope of the past tense of the matrix clause and takes scope over the event expressed in the complement clause.
. Evidentials Many, though not all, Balkan languages encode evidentiality – by calquing new meanings into existing forms or by borrowing new meaning via new material.
. Balkan Slavic Within Macedonian, two verb subsystems intersect. Subsystem A has a (simple) past tense (with distinct paradigms for perfective and imperfective verbs, reflecting the paradigms of the aorist and the imperfect tenses, respectively), a “be”-perfect used to express resultativeness and experience, as well as evidentiality, and a “be”pluperfect. Subsystem B has a simple past tense (with distinct paradigms for perfective and imperfective verbs), a “be”-perfect used exclusively to express evidentiality, a “have” present perfect, and a “have” past perfect (cf. Tomi´c 1988). Typically, the Macedonian evidential forms impart the speaker’s non-awareness of the event to which the verb refers. Consider the following sentences:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.43 (2775-2831)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
Ma Veli deka si me videl. say.3sg that be.2sg 1sg.acc.cl see.m.sg.l-part ‘(S)he says that you have seen me.’ Ma b. Se gleda deka si zboruvala impers.acc.cl see.3sg/impers that be.2sg speak.f.sg.l-part so Ana. with Ana ‘One can see that you have spoken to Ana.’ c. Ovaa forma se upotrebuva za dejstva što Ma this.f form impers.acc.cl use.3sg/impers for actions what se izvršile pred nekoe drugo dejstvo impers.acc.cl accomplish.pl.l-part before some other action vo minatoto. in past+the.neut.sg ‘This form is used to express actions that have taken place before some other actions in the past.’
(74) a.
In (74a) we have a reported event; in (74b) a circumstantial deduction; in (74c) the evidential form expressed by the l-participle izvršile is used in a definition. Further, the Macedonian evidential forms can express surprise, admiration, amazement or irony. Very often, with appropriate intonation, the same sentence can have all of these meanings: (75) Ama ti si bil junak! but you are.2sg be.m.sg.l-part hero 1. ‘You are such a hero!’ (admiration) 2. ‘(I am surprised to see that) you are a hero.’ (surprise) 3. ‘You a hero!’ (irony)
Ma
The Macedonian evidential forms can also commonly be used in connected narratives: Ma Sum (ti) stanala rano i sum am 2sg.eth.dat.cl get up.f.sg.l-part early and am (ti) se dala na rabota. 2sg.eth.dat.cl impers.acc.cl give.f.sg.l-part on work ‘Lo behold, I got up early and got to task.’ (lit. ‘I got up early and gave myself to work.’) Ma b. Si bil eden car i si impers.dat.cl be.m.sg.l-part a king and impers.dat.cl imal dva sina. have.m.sg.l-part two sons ‘There was a king and he had two sons.’
(76) a.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.44 (2831-2880)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
The Bulgarian “be” perfect, in addition to its typical uses as a perfect, has most of the evidential functions expressed by the Macedonian “be” perfect. It imparts the speaker’s non-awareness of the event to which the verb refers, and can express surprise, admiration, amazement or irony. The Bulgarian “be” perfect can also be used in story-telling, though not for narrating events that the speaker has experienced. Thus, the Macedonian sentence (76a) has no adequate equivalent in Bulgarian, while in the Bulgarian equivalent of (76b), given in (77), instead of the l-participle of the “be” auxiliary, preceded by an impersonal clitic, we have the l-participle of the “have” auxiliary: (77) Imalo edin car i toj imal have.neut.sg.l-part a.neut.sg king and he have.m.sg.l-part dvama sina. two.m sons ‘There was a king and he had two sons.’
Bu
. Albanian In Albanian there are two sets of synthetic and four sets of analytic evidential forms. Typically, the Albanian evidential forms express admiration,52 surprise or irony: (78) TI (me të vërtetë) flitke kinezçe. you in pl.agr.cl truth speak.3sg.evid Chinese ‘You really speak Chinese!’
Al
The Albanian evidential forms are also used to assert the occurrence of an action or the existence of a state:53 (79) a.
Ai (vërtetë) flitka kinezçe. he truth speak.3sg.Admir.pres Chinese ‘He does speak Chinese!’ b. Ai (vërtetë) e paska përdorur he truth 3sg.acc.cl have.3sg.pres.evid used.part thikën. knife+the.m.sg.acc ‘He indeed used the knife!’
Al
Al
By inference, the Tosk Albanian evidential forms are also used to express disagreement, or uncertainty:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.45 (2880-2940)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
Al Thonë se lakam tesha çdo say.3sg that wash.1sg.pres.evid clothes.sg+the.f.sg every ditë. day ‘They say that I wash/am washing clothes every day (but I don’t).’ Al b. (Më duket) sikur po 1sg.dat.cl seem.impers as if Affirm.Particle afroheshkan retë. approach.3pl.pres.evid clouds ‘(It seems to me) that the clouds are approaching.’
(80) a.
. Balkan Romance Although in direct contact with both Macedonian and Albanian, Aromanian, as a rule, does not express evidentiality.54 In Romanian, “will” or “would” modal auxiliaries, in construction with the perfect participle fi and present or past participles, have been treated as some kind of evidential forms.55 The existence of evidential forms in Megleno-Romanian cannot, however, be disputed. Megleno-Romanian has two sets of forms with evidential function: the forms of the inverted perfect and the forms of the inverted past perfect. Whereas in the inverted perfect invariable past participles of lexical verbs are followed by present tense forms of the “have” auxiliary, in the inverted past perfect inverted perfect forms of the “have” auxiliary appear to the left of invariable past participles of lexical verbs. Typically, the Megleno-Romanian inverted perfect renders reported or circumstantially deduced actions, while the inverted past perfect expresses nonwitnessed events or actions that have begun at a point in the past and last until the moment of speaking: (81) a.
Zisi ca ¸t-li vutau say.3sg that 2sg.dat.cl+3pl.f.acc.cl have.3sg.inv.perf dat. given.part ‘(S)he says that (s)he gave/has given them to you.’ b. Vutau vizut vrin˘a feat˘a a˘ n drumu. have.3sg.inv.perf seen.part some girl in road ‘They had reportedly seen some girl on the way.’
MR
MR
The Megleno-Romanian inverted perfect can also express surprise, admiration, amazement or irony and can be used in story-telling:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.46 (2940-3011)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
(82) a.
Tu fostai a˘ ncrilat˘a! you be.3sg.inv.perf clever 1. ‘You are clever!’ (admiration) 2. ‘(I am surprised to see that) you are so clever.’ 3. ‘You clever!’ (irony) ˘ b. Ash vutau un˘a mum˘a trei feati. . . impers.dat.cl have.3sg.inv.perf a.f mother three girls ‘(Once upon a time) a mother had three daughters . . . ’
MR
MR
While the structure of the Megleno-Romanian evidential forms is analogous to that of the Albanian evidential forms, their usage is analogous to the usage of the Macedonian evidentials.
. Confirmative and nonconfirmative evidentials Friedman (this volume) makes a distinction between confirmative and nonconfirmative evidentials. While confirmatives are used for both witnessed events and unwitnessed events that the speaker is willing to vouch for, nonconfirmatives are used for reports or deductions, and to express surprise (admirativity) or disbelief (irony, doubt, dubitativity). Friedman argues that Albanian and Balkan Romance grammaticalize only non-confirmative evidentiality, while in Balkan Slavic the forms of the “be” perfect are exponents of non-confirmative evidentiality, and the forms of the simple past tense are exponents of confirmative evidentiality. He illustrates “the two types of evidentiality” with examples such as (83) (Friedman’s example (3)): Ma (83) Mu se javiv na vujko mi. 3sg.dat.cl impers.acc.cl call.1sg.perf.past to uncle 1sg.dat.cl Ne beše doma, na plaža bil. not be.3sg.past at home on beach be.l-part ‘I called my uncle. He was not at home, [apparently] he was at the beach.’ Both statements about the uncle are based on the same telephone call. The first statement is in the (simple, syncretic) past tense, which, according to Friedman (this volume), is an example of confirmative evidentiality, because the speaker is personally convinced that his uncle would have come to the telephone had he been at home. The second statement is expressed by the “be” perfect, which is an exponent of non-confirmative evidentiality, since neither the speaker nor his interlocutor could actually know for sure where the uncle was. The opposition confirmative: non-confirmative evidentiality, existing in Balkan Slavic, also exists in Turkish, but not in Albanian and Megleno-Romanian.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.47 (3011-3089)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
Friedman (this volume) also argues that morphological, semantic, and discoursepragmatic isoglosses have different distribution of evidentiality, the distinction between meanings calqued onto existing forms and the creation of new forms to convey new content not mapping isomorphically onto the distribution of semanticpragmatic isoglosses. Moreover, the geographic distribution of evidentiality – its occurrence in urban centers with heavy concentrations of Turkish-speakers – speaks in favour of a sociolinguistically based explanation for the spread of the phenomenon.
. Concluding remarks Having discussed some of the most prominent Balkan Sprachbund properties, we have seen that not all of them are present, or present to the same degree, in all Balkan languages. Table 2 shows the representation of these properties in individual languages.56 Table 2. Representation of prominent morphosyntactic Balkan Sprachbund properties in individual languages
postpos. articles Dat/Gen merger Voc case marker locat/dir merger preposit. cases clitic doubling Dat/Gen clitic in DP subjunctives “will” future “will” future in the past “have” perfect “have” pluperf evidentials
Ma
Bu
SC
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + +
(+) + (+) (+) (+) (+) + + (+)
Ro
Ar
MR
Al
+ + + + (+) + (+) + +
+ + + + (+) +
+ + + + + +
+ + (+) + (+) +
+ + + + +
+
+ + + + + +
+ +
+ + +
MG
BR
+ (+) + (+) + + + + + + +
(+) + (+) (+) (+) + + (+)
It should be pointed out that the morphosyntactic devices representing these properties are not analogous and a given morphosyntactic device may have different functions in different languages. At the end of my survey, I would like to point out that the “list” of (prominent) Balkan Sprachbund properties is not and cannot be finalized. Thus, Hill (this volume) discusses a property that, so far, has not been “listed” as “Balkan”– the
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.48 (3089-3139)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
position of the focused constituents. Empirical evidence for Hill’s analysis are Romanian and Bulgarian data that show the ordering of contrastive focus between the subject and the verb, such as (83) (Hill’s example (1)): Pavel MA¸SINA˘ a cump˘arat (nu cas˘a). Pavel car has bought.part not house b. Pavel KOLA kupi (ne k˘ašta). Pavel car bought.3sg not house ‘Pavel bought a car (not a house).’
(84) a.
Ro Bu
Hill argues that the checking conditions for Focus and Nominative Case features coincide and that they both require the presence of finite T(ense). She proposes that a syncretic [focus/tense] feature is formed at a pre-syntactic level and associates with T in syntax. Consequently, fronting to Focus in Romanian, Bulgarian, and possibly other Balkan languages, targets TP internal positions, and does not necessarily end up in the CP field.
Notes . The data are drawn from Tomi´c (in preparation). . Discussing language convergence on the Balkans, Civjan (1965: 9) allows for “the ideal model” to be “located not in the past but in the future.” Jeffers and Lehiste (1979: 146) see it possible “to set up a sentence model toward which the languages are converging”, and, as pointed out by Joseph (1992), Kazazis (1965) has in effect produced such a sentence model in his fragment of a transformational grammar of the Balkan languages, with “Pan-Balkan” rules that allow for language-specific lexical insertion. . Throughout the period when the Balkan Sprachbund properties were developing, Greek was most prestigious and most frequently used by speakers of the other languages in the area; yet, it is not in Greek that the number of Balkan Sprachbund properties is greatest. . Balkan Romani has not been discussed by any of these authors. Recent research, however, shows that Balkan Romani exhibits many of the properties that characterize the Balkan Sprachbund (cf. Boretzky 1996; Matras & Bakker 1997). . As pointed out by Birnbaum (1965), two or more languages can belong to the same language family as well as to the same language union. . The nation states and the ease of communication in contemporary Europe might end linguistic convergence. . The subjunctive clauses do not of necessity have verbs with morphologically distinct subjunctive forms. In many cases, they are tensed clauses with verbs with indicative morphology, introduced by morphologically distinct subjunctive complementizers. In SerboCroatian, however, the complementizer da introduces both indicative and subjunctive clauses. As pointed out by Ivi´c (1972), da is homophonous between an indicative complementizer and a modal one.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.49 (3139-3202)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties . Many of Sandfeld’s “concordances between different Balkan languages” are actually very general, while some of his “general concordances” are irrelevant (cf. Sobolev this volume). . Lindstedt points out that Macedonian would score full 12.0 points. . The verb in the Albanian example has a distinct desiderative form (here marked as “optative”), Albanian being the only Balkan language with morphologically distinct desiderative verb paradigms. In analogous constructions expressing mild commands, however, subjunctive forms are used. . With some exceptions, these are the most widely spoken Balkan languages. In the period when the Balkan Sprachbund features were developing, Turkish was the most widely spoken language on the Balkans. Nevertheless, the Balkan Sprachbund features are only peripherally present in it. Partly because of its non-Indo-European structure, which makes it difficult to find correspondent exponents for the phenomena exhibited in the other languages (all of them Indo-European), and partly because of its dominant social status, Turkish was an instigator for the development of the Sprachbund, more than a participant in it. . Upon the disintegration of Yugoslavia, Serbo-Croatian dissolved into Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian. The grammatical structures of the three “successors” do not, however, substantially differ from one another. I am using the term “Serbo-Croatian” when speaking of the grammatical structure of the language/languages, and “Serbian” or “Croatian”, when referring to the socio-linguistic categories “standard language” or “dialect”. Although neither standard Croatian nor standard Serbian qualify as “properly” Balkan Sprachbund languages, Serbo-Croatian is included, on account of the southeastern Serbian dialects, which indisputably belong to the Balkan Sprachbund. . In the southeastern Serbian dialects, only accusative and vocative case forms are expressed by distinct case forms. . In Bulgarian, nominalized adjectives, when used for direct reference, carry definite articles: (i)
Xajde, malkata! come on little+the.f.sg ‘Come on, my little girl!’ (lit. ‘Come on, you little one!’)
(ii) Ej k˘asokrakija! Interj short-legged+the.m.sg ‘You, the short-legged one!’
B
B
In both Bulgarian and Macedonian, adjectival modifiers occur to the right of nouns in the vocative case. . In Macedonian, also gradu. . With Modern Greek masculine personal names with other stems, as well as with all feminine personal names, the vocative case is marked negatively, through the lack of the definite article, which otherwise accompanies personal names. Lack of article also marks the vocative case with personal names in Albanian. . In the southeastern Serbian dialects, accusative case forms are actually general oblique case forms. They combine with prepositions to express any thematic relationships other than those of subject, nominal predicate or direct object.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.50 (3202-3270)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c . With neuter nouns, the accusative forms of the article are equivalent to the nominative forms. . In Bulgarian, the accusative forms of the nouns are dialectal (cf. Tilkov et al. 1982– 1983: 113). In Macedonian, the nouns denoting family relationships in the accusative case have to be modified by possessive clitics (cf. 3.4 below). In the northern Macedonian dialects, which border with the southern Serbian dialects, the occurrence of accusative forms with animate nouns is regular. . In view of the fact that all Romanian prepositions void the use of the definite article, bare nouns to the right of pe may be looked upon as definite DPs with voided articles. . This does not (or at least does not always) imply that pre-existant dative or genitive forms had become extinct. The possessive clitics in Balkan Slavic and Balkan Romance never occurred in a genitive form (cf. Pancheva this volume). . Romanian feminine nouns and adjectives to the left of the dat case marker have an oblique form. . In Romanian, adjectival and nominal modifiers usually appear to the right of the noun, though in definite DPs the adjectives can alternatively precede the noun. . In Albanian, post-nominal occurrence of modifiers is the rule. . Indirect objects precede direct objects, while possessive modifiers follow their referent. . In the southern Macedonian dialects and the Northern Modern Greek dialects there is dative/accusative syncretism. In the southern Macedonian dialects, the preposition na is used not only in expressions featuring dative (indirect object) relationships, but also in expressions featuring accusative (direct object) relationships: (i)
Ja vidov na Jana. 3sg.f.acc.cl see.1sg.past to Jana ‘I saw Jana.’
Ma
In the Northern Modern Greek dialects, on the other hand, dative relationships are regularly marked by PPs with NPs in the accusative form. (ii) Edhosa sto Jorgho ta vivlia. give.1sg.aor to+the.m.sg.acc Jorghos.acc the.neut.pl books.neut ‘I gave Jorghos the books.’
MG
. There are definite postpositive articles in some southeastern Serbian dialects. For example: (i)
Najbolje se slažem s’ pomladutu mi best impers.acc.cl agree.1sg with younger+the.f.sg.acc 1sg.dat.cl ´cerku. daughter.acc ‘I agree best with my younger daughter.’
SES
. In Modern Greek the definite articles inflect for gender, number and case (nominative, genitive and accusative), while in Arli Balkan Romani there are distinct nominative forms for
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.51 (3270-3346)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
masculine singular, feminine singular and masculine and femininec plural, and a common oblique case form for both genders and numbers. . The articles do not attach to the modifiers of the modifiers. Thus we have (i), but not (ii) mult mushata aroshe shimie much beautiful+the.f.sg red.f.sg scarf ‘the very beautiful red scarf ’
Ar
(ii) *multa mushatã aroshe shimie much+the.f.sg beautiful.f.sg red.f.sg scarf
Ar
(i)
Demonstrative determiners, which always occur in initial or leftmost DP-position, do not host the article and, as a rule, void its occurrence with any other member of the DP. In Macedonian, Bulgarian and Megleno-Romanian, however, in emphatic environments, demonstrative determiners can precede the modifier to which the article is attached: (iii) Ovoj mojov mnogu me jadosa. this my+the.m.sg.prox much 3sg.m.acc.cl distress.3sg.past ‘This husband/son of mine distressed me a lot.’
Ma
(iv) Do-nj-u ¸tela micu porc! give.2sg.imper+1sg.dat.cl-3sg.f.acc.cl that.m.sg small+the.m.sg pig ‘Give me that SMALL pig!’
MR
. In Romanian, in DPs with two or more pre-nominal adjectives, which have to be conjoined, the article appears on every adjective. . Prenominal modifiers occur only in emphatic environments, such as the one in (20e2 ). . In Balkan Slavic, Balkan Romance and Albanian, there are dative pronominal clitic forms that also function as genitive forms, while in Modern Greek there are genitive pronominal clitic forms that also function as dative forms. . The arrows denote directionality of cliticization. The capital letters mark the stressed syllables. . In Serbo-Croatian and Arli Balkan Romani the negation operator forms a single phonological word with the verb, to which and the pronominal clitics encliticize, whereas in Macedonian the pronominal clitics form a single antepenultimately stressed phonological word with the negation operator and the verb. . Whereas in Bulgarian the clitics form a single phonological word with the negation operator in Megleno-Romanian, Aromanian and the Northwestern Macedonian dialects they encliticize to it. Note that, in Romanian, the negation operator appears to the left of a verb with imperative morphology only when separated from it by pronominal clitics. To express prohibition in clauses without clitics, negated subjunctive constructions or infinitives are used. . In Albanian only a limited number of verbs (verbs of the first conjugation, such as shoh ‘see’, shkoj ‘go’, tregoj ‘say’) have imperative morphology. The existence of the modal negation operator makes it possible to express prohibition by simply placing the modal negation marker to the left of verbs with indicative morpholgy:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.52 (3346-3410)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
(i)
Mos e hapni derën! not.mod 3sg.acc.cl open.2pl door+the.acc ‘Don’t (you) open the door!’
Al
. Like Albanian, Modern Greek has a modal negation operator (min), distinct from the indicative negation operator (dhen). . The doubling of indefinite direct objects is not accepted by all speakers. . Human DPs with definite articles are, as a rule, not clitic-doubled, even though they are most often specific: (i)
*L-am v˘azut profesorul. 3sg.acc.cl-have.1sg seen professor+the.m.sg ‘I saw/have seen the professor.’
Ro
. In some cases, highly emphasized Arli lexical objects can also be clitic-doubled. Example: (i)
I Merita DENGJA le o lil jekhe ˇchaveske! ABR the.f.sg.nom Merita gave.3sg 3sg.m.acc.cl the.m.sg book a.obl man.dat ‘Merita did give the book to a man!’
. With Albanian verbs in the present tense, the medio-passive forms of the verb are used. . The relationships which in Balkan Slavic and Balkan Romance are expressed by reflexive/impersonal clitics are in Modern Greek always rendered by medio-passive forms of the verb. . Note that in this sentence a DP possessive clitic cooccurs with a possesively interpreted clausal clitic. . In this sentence the possessive pronominal clitic cooccurs with a clausal dative pronominal clitic. . In this case, the agreement clitic occurs to the immediate left of the noun. . The occurrence of clausal genitive clitics with possessive interpretation is not possible in all environments. . “Geg” has an alternative spalling – “Gheg”. “Geg” is the spelling used by native speakers of the dialect and linguists who work with Albanian. . As a personal verb, the Albanian verb mund ‘can/may’ appears only in the aorist or a perfect tense. The Arli Balkan Romani verb šaj ‘can/may’, on the other hand, can never be personal. . The main verbs are, as a rule, equivalents of verbs such as look for or find, which can go under the general name of verbs of quest. . In constructions with infinitives, when the subject is dropped, the “will”-clitic encliticises to the infinitive. . In addition to these future tenses, there are in Romanian (a) a formal future tense (used only in the third person singular), in which the subjunctive construction is preceded by
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.53 (3410-3489)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
voi ‘will.3sg’ and (b) an intentional future tense, in which the subjunctive construction is preceded by forms of avea ‘have’. . Albanian grammars actually label the evidential forms “admirative”. . It is noteworthy that, while in Balkan Slavic the evidential constructions always have some sort of past reference, even when the apparent meaning is present, the Albanian evidential system has a true present. Mark the difference between the reading of (79a) and (79b). Note also that, while the Slavic evidential forms are used only in declarative sentences, the Albanian admirative is used in questions as well (cf. Friedman this volume): (i)
Ku qenka mjeshtri? where be.3sg.evid boss+the.m.sg ‘Where is the boss?’
Al
The Albanian admirative is, however, never used in narratives. . In the Farsheriot Aromanian dialect spoken in the village Gorna Belica in southwestern Macedonia, there are evidential forms constructed in analogy to the formation of the Albanian evidential forms – by adding a suffix to a masculine plural participial base. The suffix is borrowed from Albanian – it actually is the third person singular present tense form of the Albanian auxiliary kam ‘have’, ca. . Dimitriu (1979: 269–271) treats the “will/would” plus fi plus present participle constructions as present presumptive and the “will”/”would” plus fi plus past participle constructions as past presumptive constructions. Yet, evidential-like uses of similar modal constructions in Western Romance (cf. Squartini 2001) can be adduced as an argument against the independent status of these constructions. . The bracketed pluses denote partial representation, i.e. representation in some dialects or with some case relationships.
References Andrejˇcin, Lj. (1978). Osnovna b˘algarska gramatika. Sofia: Nauka i iskustvo. Bojadžiev, T., I. Kucarov, & J. Penˇcev (1999). S˘avremenen b˘algarski ezik. Sofija: Pet˘ar Beron. Avram, L. & M. Coene (2001). “Genitive/dative clitics as last resort”. University of Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers from 3rd Conference on Formal Approaches to South Slavic and Balkan Languages. 157–169. Birnbaum, H. (1968). “Slavjanskie jazyki na Balkanax i ponjatije tak nazyvajemyh jazykovyh sojuzov” [The Slavic languages on the Balkans and the notion of the so-called language unions]. Glossa, 2(1), 70–92. Boretzky, N. (1996). “Arli. Materialien zu einen südbalkanischen Romani-Dialect.” Grazer Linguistische Studien 46 (Herbst 1996). 1–30. Boškovi´c, Ž. (2001). On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface: Cliticization and Related Phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Boškovi´c, Ž. (2002). “Clitics as non-branching elements and the Linear Correspondence Axiom.” Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 329–340.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.54 (3489-3589)
Olga Mišeska Tomi´c
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. & H. Lasnik (1992). “The principles and parameters theory”. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, & T. Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax: ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 506–569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Civjan, T. V. (1979). Sintaktiˇceskaja struktura balkanskogo jazykovogo sojuza [The Syntactic Structure of the Balkan Language Union]. Moskva. Dimitriu, C. (1979). Gramatica limbii române explicat˘a. [Explanatory Grammar of the Romanian Language]. Ia¸si: Junimea. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (2000). “(In)Definiteness spread: From Romanian genitives to Hebrew construct state nominals”. In V. Motopanyane (Ed.), Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, 177–226. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Franks, S. (1998). “Clitics in Slavic.” Position paper presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, Spencer, Indiana, June 1998. Goła˛b, Z. (1984). The Arumanian dialect of Kruševo in SR Macedonia, SFR Yugoslavia. Skopje: Macedonian academy of Sciences and Arts. Grosu A. (1994). Three Studies in Locality and Case. London and New York: Routledge. Grosu, A. & F. Landman (1998). “Strange relatives of the third kind”. Natural Language Semantics, 6(2), 125–170. Halpern, A. L. (1992). “Topics in the placement and morphology of clitics.” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. Inkelas, S. (1989). “Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon”. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. Ivi´c, M. (1970). “O upotrebi glagolskih vremena u zavisnoj reˇcenici: prezent u reˇcenici s veznikom da” [On the use of the tenses in dependent clauses: Present tense with da complements]. Zbornik Matice Srpske, XIII(1), 43–54. Izvorski, R. (1998). “Non-indicative wh-complements of existential/possessive predicates”. In P. N. Tamanji & K. Kusumoto (Eds.), NELS, 28, 159–173. Jeffers, R. & I. Lehiste (1979). Principles and Methods for Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Joseph, B. (1992). “Balkan languages.” In W. Bright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. 1, 153–155. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kazazis, K. (1966). “On a generative grammar of the Balkan languages.” Actes du premier congrès international des études balkaniques et sud-est européennes. Vol. 4: Linguistique. Sofija: BAN. 823–828. Kolliakou, D. (1995). “Definites and Possessives in Modern Greek: An HPSG Syntax for Noun Phrases.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh. Kopitar, J. (1829). “Albanische, walachische und bulgarische Sprache.” Jahrbücher der Literatur, Band 46. Wien. 59–106. Lindstedt, J. (2000). “Linguistic Balkanization: Contact-induced change by mutual reinforcement.” In D. Gilbers, J. Nerbonne, & J. Schaeken (Eds.), Languages in Contact, 231–246. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Manolessou, I. (2000). “Greek Noun Phrase Structure: A Study in syntactic Evoution.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 13:59
F: LA6701.tex / p.55 (3589-3684)
The Balkan Sprachbund properties
Matras, Y. & P. Bakker (1997). The Typology and Dialectology of Romani. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Miklosich, F. (1861). “Die slavischen Elemente im Rumänischen.” Denkschriften der Wiener Akad. Phil.-hist. Cl. Vol. 12. Miyoshi, N. (2002). “Negative imperatives and PF merger.” Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs. Ortmann, A. & A. Popescu (2000). “Romanian definite articles are not clitics.” In B. Gerlach & J. Grijzenhout (Eds.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Sandfeld, K. (1926/1930). Balkanfilologien. University of Copenhagen, 1926. [Translated into French under the title Linguistique balkanique: problèmes et résultats. Paris: Champion, 1930]. Schaller, H. W. (1975). Die Balkansprachen. Eine Einführung in die Balkanphilologie. Heidelberg. Sobolev, A. N. (Ed.). (2003). Malyj dialektologiˇceskij atlas balkanskih jazykov. [Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages. Initial volume]. Marburg: Biblion. Solta, G. R. (1980). Einführung in die Balkanliguistik mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Substrats und des Balkanlateinischen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Squartini, M. (2001). “The internal structure of evidentiality in Romance.” Studies in Language, 25, 297–334. Stateva, P. (2002). “Possessive clitics and the structure of nominal expressions.” Lingua, 112(8), 648–690. Tilkov, D. et al. (Eds.). (1982–1983). Gramatika na s˘avremennija b˘algarski knižoven ezik v tri toma [Grammar of the Contemporary Bulgarian Literary Language in Three Volumes]. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na b˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Tomi´c, O. Mišeska (1988). “Language contact, language system and language code.” In M. Radovanovi´c (Ed.), Yugoslav General Linguistics, 361–381. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tomic, O. Mišeska (1996). “The Balkan Slavic clausal clitics.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 811–872. Tomic, O. Mišeska (1997). ‘Non-first as a default clitic position.’ Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 5(2), 1–23. Tomic, O. Mišeska (2001). “The Macedonian negation operator and cliticization.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19, 647–682. Tomic, O. Mišeska (2004). “The syntax of the Balkan Slavic future tenses.” Lingua, Vol. 114, 517–542, Issue 4 (April 2004). Tomi´c, O. Mišeska (in preparation). The Balkan Sprachbund Morphosyntactic Features. University of Leiden. Trubetzkoy, N. (1928). “Proposition 6”. Actes du premier congrès international des linguistes. Leiden. Weigand, G. (1928). “Texte zur vergleichenden Syntax der Balkansprachen.” Balkan Archiv, IV, 53–70.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:5/03/2004; 15:09
F: LA67P1.tex / p.1 (26-50)
Spread of the Balkan Sprachbund morpho-syntactic properties
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.1 (41-109)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties in the languages of the Balkans Andrej N. Sobolev Russian Academy of Science (St. Petersburg) / University of Marburg
Having stated the need for studying the Balkan Sprachbund properties in individual dialects, the author analyses the areal distribution of 65 properties, partly mapped on 17 maps drawn by the team of the project “Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages”. These properties belong to the following sub-domains of syntax: (1) article omission in prepositional phrases; (2) use of the reflexive possessive pronoun; (3) case of the subject in impersonal clauses of state; (4) predicative use of passive participles of intransitive verbs; (5) future in the past: form and function; (6) use of verbal nouns or infinitives as objects of modal verbs; (7) government of some “special” verbs and adjectives; (8) substantive forms in the numeral phrase; (9) word order in the noun phrase; (10) clitic order; (11) possessive clauses with spatial prepositions; (12) negative interrogatives; (13) government of predicative demonstrative particles. The analysis suggests that the idea of the existence of common Balkan linguistic type should be rejected, while the set of “typical Balkan features” should be relativized.
.
The goal of Balkan linguistics
Balkan linguistics has existed as an independent linguistic discipline for over 70 years, but has no generally recognized target of investigation. The numerous definitions of the field, which vary from author to author, could be reduced to two main types: a broad and a narrow type. The broad definitions see “the investigation of the common features and similarities in the development of the Balkan languages” (Neroznak 1990: 62), or “the investigation of the mutual influences” between these languages (Andriotis & Kourmoulis 1966: 21) as the goal of Balkan linguistics. Such definitions reflect traditional views – those of Petar Skok and Milan Budimir in the early 1930’s – and do not portray the Balkan language situation. The approach they advocate leads to lists of similarities and parallels between the Balkan languages,
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.2 (109-171)
Andrej N. Sobolev
the perfect model of which is the list of Kristian Sandfeld (1930), which crowns the first stage in the development of Balkan linguistics (Schaller 1975: 45). A number of scholars have criticized this approach. Thus, Klaus Steinke (1976a: 87) points out: Die noch stark positivistischen Züge der gegenwärtigen Forschung, wie sie sich besonders im zusammenhanglosen Zusammentragen von isolierten Fakten äußern.1
Even Sandfeld himself was aware of the disadvantages of his methodology, when he wrote that, as concerns the non-lexical Balkan parallels, one must content oneself “with simple attestation of the facts” (Sandfeld 1930: 101). Most writers seek to limit the set of Balkan linguistic features with which they work, feeling that this is the only way to avoid the mechanical listing of all possible correspondences. As a result of this, very narrow definitions of what Balkan linguistics is have been proposed, such as: Es muß unterstrichen werden, daß sich die Balkanlinguistik im eigentlichen Sinn mit den Balkansprachen nur insofern befaßt, als sie alle oder mehrere von ihnen gemeinsame Züge aufweisen.2 (Gallis 1969: 38–39)
Beside the widespread occurrence of a particular feature in all or several Balkan languages, its “typological, and not inherited character” is recognized as extremely important. The coincidence of the two criteria leads to the recognition of such features as “Balkanisms”: Diese Balkanismen in ihrer heutigen Form und Verwendung, ferner Zeitpunkt und Ursache ihrer Entstehung zu erforschen, sind die Hauptaufgaben einer wissenschaftlich ausgerichteten Balkanphilologie.3 (Schaller 1975: 36)
Furthermore, Balkanisms can be viewed as features of the so-called Balkan Sprachbund. This leads to narrow definitions of the goals of the whole discipline: “Balkan linguistics aims above all to describe the substantial features of the Balkan Sprachbund” (Duridanov 1977: 21). Searching for the most adequate way of describing the Balkan language situation, one should, however, pay attention to irregularities, idiosyncrasies and modes of development. In 1861 Franz Miklosich published “an overview of the most remarkable common features of Rumanian, Bulgarian, Albanian and Greek” (Sandfeld 1930: 12), which included formation of the future verb forms with the “will/want” auxiliary, absence of the infinitive, merger of dative and genitive case forms, the schwa phoneme and some other elements (cf. Popov 1984: 24). The main problem, which Miklosich left for future generations of Balkan linguists, was the definition of principles according to which one can separate “the most remarkable, most important” features from the “less important” ones, i.e. the Balkanisms from the
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.3 (171-244)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
non-Balkanisms (Steinke 1976b: 28–29). There is also the question whether there are other features, in addition to those mentioned by Miklosich, which can be regarded as “Balkanisms”. In Part 3 of his monograph, Sandfeld examined an extremely wide range of linguistic parallels in vocabulary, phraseology and syntax, which are restricted to two Balkan languages. These parallels are, however, often common to more than two Balkan languages. 1. Verbal nouns modified by the numeral one or by prepositional phrases with verbal nouns, rather than by temporal subordinate clauses, as in the Macedonian phrase (1), but also encountered in Aromanian, Albanian and Greek (Sandfeld 1930: 122–124). (1) Nije edno vlegvenje. . . we one entering ‘On entering. . . ’
Dialectal Macedonian
2. Absence of partitive forms in quantitative constructions, as in the Bulgarian phrase (2), but also encountered in Albanian, Greek and Aromanian (Sandfeld 1930: 109–110).4 (2) stado ofci flock sheep ‘a flock of sheep’
Bulgarian
3. A particular use of the reflexives in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Albanian and Romanian (Sandfeld 1930: 151, 158). (3) Jade mi se. eat.3sg 1sg.dat.cl refl.acc.cl ‘I feel like eating.’
Bulgarian
4. Slavic phrases of the type exemplified by the Russian phrase (4), but also attested in Romanian and Albanian (Sandfeld 1930: 158). (4) Nastasja zolotaja kosa Nastasja golden.f.sg hair ‘Nastasja with golden hair’
Russian
The following statement is found in Sandfeld’s monograph: Dans plusieurs cas les traits communs au roumain et à l’albanais se trouvent aussi en bulgare.5 (Sandfeld 1930: 137)
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.4 (244-307)
Andrej N. Sobolev
Nevertheless, Sandfeld starts Part 4 of his book, which is devoted to Miklosich’s list of the Balkan features that are recognized as most important, with a very telling remark: Bien que quelques-unes des particularités mentionnées au chapitre précédent aient obtenu une extension relativement grande sur l’aire des langues balkaniques, il faudra les séparer de la série de traits communs importants qu’on est habitué à regarder comme spécifiquement “balkaniques” et qui plus qu’aucune autre chose donnent à ces langues un air d’unité.6 (Sandfeld 1930: 163)
It must be emphasized that the only arguments for this approach are “the importance” of these features (Sandfeld 1930: 12), on the one hand, and Sandfeld’s desire to remain inside the context of Miklosich’s tradition, on the other. The second consideration alone is sufficient for him to declare a feature such as the absence of the ubi - quo-distinction to be an important Balkanism.
. Critics of the concepts Balkanism and Balkan Sprachbund Agnija Desnickaja (1979) notes a principal defect of the contemporary Balkan Sprachbund theory, viz. that it was constructed by using the tautological definitions “of the Balkan languages as languages which possess Balkanisms”, and “the Balkanisms as features possessed by Balkan languages” (Desnickaja 1979: 121). Uwe Hinrichs suggested “to abolish or at least to qualify the terms ‘Balkanism’ and ‘Balkansprachbund”’, because their use inevitably results in aporia (Hinrichs 1990: 59, 57). Both concepts were rejected by many Slavists and Balkanists (G˘al˘abov 1977; Reiter 1983: 162; Reiter 1994: 1–51). The main objections against the theory of the Balkan Sprachbund and the notion of Balkanism are the following: 1) Balkanisms are not unique; 2) their distribution in the Balkan languages is not uniform; 3) their linguistic status varies; 4) the Balkan languages do not represent a unified language type. Already Sandfeld showed clearly that some Balkan language parallels extend beyond the geographical boundaries of the peninsula. Most Balkanisms that are commonly discussed (postpositive article, object reduplication, analytic future forms with the “will/want” auxiliary, analytic comparative form, some lexical items) are present also in some non-Balkan languages, particularly in the Baltic, Slavic, Romance, Germanic (Scandinavian and German), and Finno-Ugric (Hungarian) languages (Schaller 1977). This allows for the possibility of their independent development within the grammatical system of every individual Balkan language. On the other hand, the non-unique character of individual Balkanisms does not contradict the possible uniqueness of their combination, which is the case in the Balkan languages.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.5 (307-364)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
Miklosich and Sandfeld drew attention to a large number of features not found in all the Balkan languages. As a result of this, different degrees of Balkanization were established, and the question of membership in the Balkan Sprachbund arose. Popov (1984) and Steinke (1976b: 24) asked whether Serbo-Croatian and Greek, respectively, really belonged to the group. Already in 1966, Kazazis pointed out that “the number of common features [“Balkanisms”] shared by all the Balkan languages is relatively small.” According to Kazazis (1966: 823), “all-embracing Balkanisms are exception rather than the rule.” In a proposal to make an inner subdivision of the Balkan Sprachbund, Schaller distinguishes between a) Balkan languages of “first degree” “core languages” of the Balkan Sprachbund, or the historical starting point of the Balkanisms (Albanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Romanian), and b) Balkan languages of “second degree” or “marginal languages” (Greek and Serbo-Croat (Schaller 1975: 103; 1977: 46–48, 51). The next problem was the question of the unequal status of certain Balkanisms in different Balkan languages. In 1936, Aleksandar Beli´c pointed out the differences in the linguistic nature of these features, which were combined in each language with different local features and thus played different systemic roles. As a matter of fact, every Balkan language preserves its specific nature (Georgiev 1966: 8–91) and one must recognize the non-similarity of the Balkan languages (Civjan 1979). Norbert Reiter criticized the theory of the Balkan Sprachbund, since its application leads to an arbitrary delimitation of the language material: Alles ist wichtig, nicht nur die Handvoll disparater Erscheinungen, die traditionsgemäß immer wieder aufgetischt werden und mit dem Etikett “Balkanismen” versehen worden sind; nicht minder wichtig ist auch das Nichtvorhandensein, also die Differenzen.7 (Reiter 1994: 29)
Agnija Desnickaja described the Balkanisms as “non-unique and not connected to each other” (Desnickaja 1990: 41), and Tatiana Civjan doubted if they represented any kind of system (Civjan 1979: 21–31). The Balkan languages do not represent any uniform linguistic type. Skaliˇcka reached this conclusion already in 1968, after investigating the Balkan linguistic features in the system of every single Balkan language. Moreover, as pointed out by Saramandu (1986: 39–41), no single Balkan language represents any pure linguistic type. “In spite of a large body of research, no internal connection between the typological features examined could be discovered.” (Saramandu 1986: 41). This statement contradicts the well-known and often repeated thesis of Bartholomeus Kopitar (1829) that in the Balkan languages “only one linguistic form exists” (cf. Schaller 1975: 38), mirrored in Sandfeld’s (1930: 7) statement that “[the Balkan] languages are animated by a common spirit” or in Birnbaum’s (1983: 41) statement that “the Balkan languages have contributed to the creation
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.6 (364-416)
Andrej N. Sobolev
of a specific language type.” It should be noted, however, that most Balkan linguists have never attempted to describe the postulated Balkan language type from a purely typological point of view. The following assertion by Klaus Steinke (1983: 221) is quite clear: “The Balkan linguists do not care as much for the universality of given features as they care for their exclusiveness.” In this way, the so-called “typological descriptions” of the Balkan languages ends by listing already well-known Balkanisms. A further disadvantage of the modern Balkan Sprachbund theory lies in the fact that it concentrates predominantly on morphology. For example, Petja Asenova’s and Birnbaum’s hierarchies of the Balkan features are based on the assumption that “the morphological Balkanisms are ranked first since they are “diagnostic” for recognition or non-recognition of a [language community] as a Sprachbund” (Asenova 1989: 233). The relevance of the syntactic features varies in these conceptions, depending upon their proximity to the morphological level (Asenova 1989: 234; Birnbaum 1983: 46). The classical definition of the term “Sprachbund” by Nikolaj Trubeckoj (1928) does not contain such a distinction between the morphological (“first-ranked”, “diagnostic”) features on the one hand, and the syntactic features, on the other. The lack of interest in syntax was present already many years before the theoretical “reasons” for it were introduced. The number of “syntactic Balkanisms” described in Schaller’s (1975: 161) monograph, is reduced to four, while the number of inter-Balkan syntactic parallels found by Sandfeld amounts to over one hundred.
. Between the normal Slavic type and the standard average European type Balkan linguistics was born in the framework of Slavic linguistics; the first Balkan linguists, Kopitar and Miklosich, were slavists (Asenova 1983: 27–28). This can be explained by the fact that the specific traits of the Balkan languages are evident even against the background of the non-Balkan Slavic type (Asenova 1989: 5). As representatives of the so-called “Normal Slavic” language type, one might chose Russian or the Serbo-Croatian standard Štokavština, both of which are clearly different from the so-called “Balkan language type” (Bulgarian, Macedonian, Albanian, Rumanian and also Greek). The comparison of the grammatical structures of the two types shows that the Balkan type has the same inventory of parts of speech, but a different set of grammatical markers and a very special inventory of paradigms and subparadigms used to express corresponding meanings. The following features can be regarded as the main characteristics of the Balkan type: 1) presence of the grammatical category of definiteness and of the definite article; 2) simplification of the case system; 3) adjectival comparative forms
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.7 (416-475)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
with prefixes and the possibility of comparative degree for nouns and verbs; 4) absence of the infinitive form; 5) only one participial verbal form for both simultaneity and anteriority; 6) presence of specialized verbal forms to express unattested information; 7) analytic verb forms and subparadigms with the auxiliary “(to) have”; 8) the so-called “conditional mood” of the Balkan type; 9) object reduplication with pronominal forms; 10) initial position of pronominal and verbal clitics (Piper 1992: 47). On the other hand, the comparative study of the syntax of the Slavic languages by Roman Mrazek (1990) shows clearly that the syntactic profile of the “normal” Slavic sentence, in comparison to the standard average European sentence, is characterized by the following features: 1) asymmetry of predication; 2) absence of formal subject in impersonal constructions; 3) free word order; 4) compound negation. If we choose Russian as representative of the “normal” Slavic type, German as representative of the “standard average” European type, and Albanian as a representative of the “Balkan type”, we get the following distribution of the above mentioned characteristics: 1. The asymmetry of predication represented in Russian through the use of an oblique case (not a nominative) in the sentential subject, is attested only in the “normal” Slavic type and not in the other two types. Compare the Russian sentence in (5) to its Albanian and German counterparts: (5) a.
Jego tam ne bylo. him.acc there not been.neut.sg b. Ai nuk ishte atje. he not was there c. Er war nicht da. he was not there ‘He was not there.’
Russian Albanian German
2. The asymmetry of predication represented in Russian through absence of grammatical concordance between the subject and the predicate, is also characteristic only for the normal Slavic type. (6) a.
On byl uˇciteljem. he been.m.sg teacher.instr b. Ai ishte mësues. he was teacher.nom c. Er war Lehrer. he was teacher.nom ‘He was a teacher.’
Russian Albanian German
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.8 (475-564)
Andrej N. Sobolev
3. Absence of a formal subject in true impersonal constructions is characteristic of the normal Slavic and the Balkan language type. (7) a.
Uže temnjejet. already darken.3sg b. Po erret tashmë. Part darken.3sg.m-p already c. Es dunkelt schon. it darken.3sg already ‘It is already getting dark.’
Russian Albanian German
4. Relatively free word order also separates the “normal” Slavic and the Balkan type from the “standard average” European type. (8) a.
Ženšˇcina vošla v komnatu. woman entered.f.sg in room.acc ‘A woman entered into the room.’ b. Vošla ženšˇcina i zakryla dver’. entered.f.sg woman and closed.f.sg door ‘A woman entered and closed the door.’
Russian
Russian
Albanian Një grua hyri në dhomë. a woman enter.3sg.aor in room ‘A woman entered into the room.’ Albanian b. Hyri një grua dhe e mbylli enter.3sg.aor a woman and 3sg.acc.cl close.3sg.aor derën. door+the.f.sg ‘A woman entered and closed the door.’ (10) a. Eine Frau kam ins Zimmer herein. German a woman came.3sg in+the.neut.sg Room inside ‘A woman entered into the room.’ German b. *Kam eine Frau und schloß die Tür. came.3sg a woman and closed.3sg the.f.sg door (9) a.
5. Compound negation again combines the normal Slavic and the Balkan type. (11) a.
Nikto ne prišol. nobody not come.m.sg b. Askush s’ erdhi. nobody not come.3sg.aor c. Niemand kam. nobody come.3sg.past ‘Nobody came.’
Russian Albanian German
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.9 (564-610)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
One must therefore take into consideration the view of Tatiana Civjan, according to whom the Balkan type should not be represented only as a list of exclusive Balkanisms, but also as a “combination of elements, a great portion of which is trivial, but which through their dynamic equilibrium represent something qualitatively different, characteristic only for the Balkan language union.” (Civjan 1979: 8). One might refer to the Balkan language type as a mediator between the standard European language type and the normal Slavic type. Hence, Balkanists should not compare selected Balkanisms, but rather entire language systems or parts of them within the framework of entire systems.
. Standard Language versus dialect Language as an object of linguistic investigation appears a) in its normative standard form or b) as a diasystem of regional and social dialects. The question whether a) or b) should be selected as an object of balkanological investigation has been intensively discussed. In these discussions, Civjan’s statement that “the normative grammar is an extract of the language”, containing “possibilities for a transition towards the realities of the living language”, and accordingly, standard languages are “the most suitable objects of investigation” (Civjan 1979: 8) remained isolated. All other Balkan linguists have been in favour of non-standard forms. Preference for non-standard forms was implied already in Sandfeld’s monograph, where texts from the Balkan dialects were used as the source. Since the 1950’s, the advantages of Balkan dialectology have been emphasized by many scholars. (cf. Ivi´c 1958, 2001; Sedlaˇcek 1966: 338–339; Andriotis & Kourmoulis 1966: 29; Koneski et al. 1966; Schaller 1975: 46; Birnbaum 1983: 45; Steinke 1984, 1991, 2001; Neroznak 1990: 62; Hinrichs 1990: 45; Reiter 1994: 35). One can interpret the dialect data from an areal standpoint (Kazazis 1966: 827). The idea of Birnbaum and Gallis that the problem of the geographical boundaries of Balkanisms can only be solved if dialect data are taken into consideration (Birnbaum 1968; Gallis 1969: 48) was tested in the areal studies of Gennadij Cyhun (1981) and his followers (Sobolev 1988). The use of dialect data was discussed in detail from a theoretical standpoint by Maksim Mladenov and Klaus Steinke (1978), who argued that, if dialect data are not considered, any attempt of any balkanological investigation would be doomed from the start. According to Mladenov and Steinke (1978: 69, 73, 74, 82) the use of dialect data makes it possible: 1) to deepen the crucial questions of our science and to improve the proposals for their solution, giving more reliable and precise responses; 2) to improve the homogeneous picture, suggested by the standard languages by finding new Balkanisms. In particular, the study of structural variants and their frequency in the dialects allows
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.10 (610-672)
Andrej N. Sobolev
us to reconstruct the different developmental stages of a Balkanism, which can lead to tracing its diffusion and sometimes even its origin. Recent studies in Balkan linguistics have led to the awareness that many features of the Balkan standard languages are unfit for balkanological research, because they are not homogeneous, representative, or “de-balkanized”. According to Victor Friedman (1991: 37), each Balkan standard language is realised in reality as a variety of different subsystems, based on the mother dialect of each speaker. This is especially clear in the case of standard Albanian, where, to quote Friedman (1983: 97): The problem of the relationship of literary and dialectal Geg and Tosk substrata to the modern standard is crucial in a description of Standard Albanian, and yet the fluctuating state of usage and normative prescription at the present stage of development makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define this relationship, except in terms of general or even temporary tendencies.
According to Civjan (1979: 8), the standard Balkan languages are not stable in principle, since they represent a conglomerate of variants, so that either the prescriptive standard norm remains extremely schematic, or a large number of variants are possible. Mladenov and Steinke (1978: 69) point out another failure of the Balkan standards: Es sich hier doch gewöhnlich um eine normative Regelung handelt, welche nur mit einem Teil der Dialekte kongruent geht, aber im Prozeß der Standartisierung der Sprache verallgemeinert wird und so leicht eine Überregionalität vortäuscht, die in Wirklichkeit nur auf den schriftlichen Bereich beschränkt ist.8
None of the Balkan standard languages has all the Balkanisms that can be found in ´ the local dialects (Topolinska 1991: 102; Asenova 1989: 14). Moreover, the selection of the standard form as an object of investigation excludes those languages of the Balkans whose standard is based on linguistically non-balkanized dialects, such as, for instance, Serbian. As noticed by Simeonov (1977: 53–54), the creation of the standard Balkan languages put an end to active Balkan multilingualism and marked the start of divergent developments, which also explains nationalist hostilities. As a result of “linguistic patriotism”, some common features, developed in mutual contact were abolished, and strong de-balkanizing normative tendencies showed up (Asenova 1977: 29–30; 1989: 14). In my opinion, it is necessary to select the Balkan dialects as the object of Balkan linguistics, because the Balkan language community itself developed precisely on the dialect level, as a result of centuries-long language and ethnic contact. It is impossible to refer to any collective bilingualism at the level of the standard languages. The problem of the Balkan Sprachbund is therefore “a problem of mutual influences of colloquial languages” (Širokov 1966: 92; Asenova 1977: 29).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.11 (672-728)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
The theoretical demand to examine the Balkan Sprachbund at dialectal level is, however, not considered in most Balkanological publications. The reality is just the opposite – it is the features of the standard languages that are analysed, and inter-Balkan language parallels are synthesized on the basis of them. The questions of dialectal syntax have been especially insufficiently considered in modern Balkan studies, above all because only a few full syntactic monographs of particular dialects are available. Recently, the pioneering study of Zuzanna ´ Topolinska of the syntax of the South-Macedonian dialects in Northern Greece ´ (Topolinska 1995) was followed by my “Bulgarian dialect of Široka L˘aka” (Sobolev 2001) and by the monographs “The Albanian Tosk Dialect of Leshnja (Kraina Skrapar)” (Ylli & Sobolev 2002) and “The Albanian Geg Dialect of Muhurr (Kraina Dibër)” (Ylli & Sobolev 2003), by Xhelal Ylli and myself. It seems very important to enrich Balkan studies with the areal component, comparing data from a number of different dialects. What modern Balkanology needs is an optimal number of maximally deep descriptions of Balkan dialects, which will constitute a representative corpus of balkanologically relevant data. This goal can only be attained by the integration of Balkan studies with dialectology, and by the creation of a Balkan language atlas.
. The Balkan Language Atlas . History of the project The need for a Balkan Language Atlas (BLA) was first expressed in 1935 by Petar Skok and Milan Budimir in the Belgrade-based “Revue international des études balkaniques” (Andriotis & Kourmoulis 1966: 30; Asenova 1983: 30). Work on the Atlas started in the post World War Two period (Deanovi´c 1961, 1962; Holiolˇcev et al. 1977: 65; Petkanov 1977). One gets the impression that the idea of the BLA did not meet any opponents: There is a general consensus that two of the most important goals for Balkan linguistics, whether seen as remedies for a perceived “crisis” or “stagnation” in the field or as the next natural step in the maturation of the discipline, are the Balkan linguistic atlas . . . and a Balkan comparative grammar. (Friedman 1983: 81)
The following statement by Holiolˇcev, Kostov and Mladenov (1977: 65) met no opposition, either: Auf Grund sprachgeographischer Angaben lassen sich viele unbekannte sprachliche Eigentümlichkeiten feststellen, ungenaue Aussagen korrigieren und hypothetische Vorstellungen in der noch unvollständigen Charakteristik des Balkan
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.12 (728-797)
Andrej N. Sobolev
Sprachbundes überprüfen bzw. bestätigen. Die Sprachgeographie ist zu einer grundlegenden Forschungsmethode geworden, die sowohl für die Lexikologie und Etymologie der Balkansprachen als auch für ihre grammatischen Besonderheiten, Ähnlichkeiten und Übereinstimmungen neue Erkenntnisse liefern kann.9
Norbert Reiter (1994: 41) maintains that even a quite modest Balkan linguistic atlas is an indisputable desideratum. Although the need for a BLA has been recognized and theoretically and methodologically developed, and in spite of the awareness of the danger that the Balkan dialects would disappear under the influence of the standards and as a result of the migration of the peasants into the cities, none of the suggested projects has overcome the practical problems (Mladenov & Steinke 1978: 72). According to Holiolˇcev, Kostov and Mladenov (1977: 66), the Linguistic Atlas of the Balkan area aims to search for the common features of the Balkan languages and unify the neighbouring languages which are not [genetically] related. Mirko Deanovi´c (1962: 1) comes up with similar aims: Mittels geographischer Karten könnten die wesentlichen gemeinsamen Kennzeichen der verschiedenartigen Sprachen, die auf dieser Halbinsel seit langer Zeit in Symbiose zusammenleben, synoptisch dargestellt werden, mit dem Ziele, die Vorgänge der gegenseitigen Annäherung dieser Sprachen darzustellen.10
All the early BLA projects were linked to the theory of the Balkan Sprachbund (Schaller 1975: 200), and attempted to examine only a handful of the Sprachbundforming inter-Balkan parallels through areal methods. Deanovi´c (1962: 1) doubted whether “new positive results could be produced through this method.” But the sharpest critique came recently from Norbert Reiter (1994: 42): Karten nach den klassischen und eigentlich ihrer Auffälligkeit wegen ausgewählten “Balkanismen” zu zeichnen, bringt in zweierlei Hinsicht nichts ein, einmal, weil sie vieles unberücksichtigt lassen, was sich als ungemein wichtig herausstellen kann, dann aber auch, weil sie, der Natur der Sache folgend, großräumig ausfallen.11
In my opinion, the principal theoretical defect of the early BLA projects was that the authors intended to chart the similarities, although the theoretical basis of a language geography is built on the concept of language (primarily dialectal) differentiation (Sobolev 2001a). The similarities as such do not need to be represented cartographically, as they are only relevant for dialectal classification in combinations with the differences (Sobolev 2001c). The early projects incorporated a search for differences “outside of the Balkans”, thus leading to the non-solvable question of geographical boundaries of the Balkanisms.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.13 (797-848)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
. The Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages The project “Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages” (SDABL) aims to present the spatial distribution of the fundamental grammatical and lexical features of representative Balkan dialects south of the Danube (Domosileckaja et al. 1998; Sobolev 2001d). Each feature that was investigated is understood as a link in the framework of a corresponding dialectal system that allows for comparison and mapping. The use of the geolinguistic method and the mapping of grammatical and lexical features makes it possible to single out the main linguistic sub-areas of the Balkan Peninsula, and leads to dialectological studies of convergent language communities (in this case in the Balkan area) – a completely new academic undertaking. Although we see all the advantages of a dense network of points, for practical reasons we are forced to pick out an optimal number of “representative dialects” for each Balkan language (cf. König 1982). This permits us not only to conceive of the diasystem of a single language theoretically as a totality and a product of a system with all its territorial units, but also to describe it practically as a totality and a product of an optimal number of representative dialects. I regard a dialect of a particular language as representative if it has been purposefully selected by implementing a linguistic procedure, i.e. if it is a unit which belongs to the core of a large dialectal area of a single language, and consequently embodies all the characteristic developmental tendencies of this area. The selection procedure observes traditional criteria for phonetic and morphological arrangement, which are regarded as valid in particular national dialectologies. The data for the Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan languages was collected in the period 1996–2000, by an international team, whose members followed carefully worked out specifications (Domosileckaja & Žugra 1997; Sobolev et al. 1997; Plotnikova 1996; Sobolev 1998–2000, 2003). The points investigated (represented in Map 1: Points of inquiry) are as follows: Otok in Croatia, Dalmatia, the district of Sinj; Croatian neo-štokavian younger i-dialect (by Ž. Jozi´c, A. N. Sobolev); Zavala in Montenegro, the district of Podgorica, tribe Piperi; Serbian Zeta-Lov´cen dialect (by M. Jovanovi´c, A. N. Sobolev); Kamenica in Eastern Serbia, the district of Knjaževac, Serbian Timok dialect (by N. Bogdanovi´c, A. A. Plotnikova); Peštani in the Republic Macedonia, West Macedonia, the district of Ohrid; WestMacedonian Ohrid dialect (by D. Gegovski, G.P. Klepikova, M. Markovi´c, A.A. ´ Plotnikova, A.N. Sobolev, Z. Topolinska); Gega in Bulgaria, Pirin Macedonia, the district of Petriˇc; South-West Bulgarian Pirin dialect (by E. S. Uzeneva, V. Žobov);
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.14 (848-913)
Andrej N. Sobolev
Gela in Bulgaria, Middle Rhodopi, the district of Široka L˘aka; Bulgarian Rhodopi dialect (by A. N. Sobolev); Ravna in Bulgaria, Misia, the district of Provadia; Bulgarian Misian dialect (by I. A. Sedakova); Muhurr in Albania, the community of Dibra, the district of Peshkopia; Albanian Middle-Geg Dibra dialect (by A.Ju. Rusakov, X. Ylli, A. N. Sobolev); Leshnja in Albania, the community of Skrapar, the district of Çorovoda; Albanian North-Tosk dialect (by X. Ylli, A. N. Sobolev); Eratyra in Greece, Greek West Macedonia, the district of Kozani; north Greek WestMacedonian dialect (by A. B. Borisova, Ju. A. Lopašov, A. N. Sobolev, V. B. Zajkovskij, T. V. Zajkovskaja); Krania (Turia) in Greece, Pind, the district of Grevena; South-Arumanian Pindos Non-Farsherot dialect (by M. Bara, T. Kahl, A. B. Borisova, A. N. Sobolev).
. The areal distribution of some syntactic properties in the languages of the Balkans The last part of the present paper offers a brief discussion of the syntactic maps of 65 grammatical features (cf. Sobolev 2003), which include 6 so-called “common Balkan” properties, alongside 59 traits that are often ignored in post-Sandfeldian Balkan studies (There are analogous discussions of lexical properties in Sobolev 2000a; Sobolev 2001a). One of my intentions is to introduce the paradigm of areal typology into Balkan language studies. Some of the grammatical sub-areas discovered cut across groups of Balkan languages in different directions (e.g. north-south, east-west) and are, consequently, of special interest (cf. Sobolev 1999). These sub-areas reflect the spatial distribution of a selected number of features. In Maps 2–18 in the Appendix the presence of these features in the listed points of investigation are represented. The features are as follows: 1. Preservation of synthetic declension forms (cf. Maps 2 and 3). Competition occurs between analytic and synthetic declensions in the Balkan dialects. Following Hinrichs (1999, 2000: 92–93), I assume that the analytic syntactic features are not features that are represented by single words, which can be split into two or more parts. There are three types of constructions available in the Balkan dialects to represent the indirect object: a) analytic – preposition + Acc case; b) combined analyticsynthetic – preposition + Dat case; c) synthetic – prepositionless Dat or even Acc. As shown in Map 2, in the western part of the Balkans (where Croatian/Serbian,
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.15 (913-979)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
Albanian or Aromanian are spoken), we have an archaic synthetic zone, where morphologically marked and syntactically fully developed dative forms are attested, while in the eastern part (where Macedonian, Bulgarian and Modern Greek are spoken) the dative or genitive case is only an optionally preserved archaism (as in the case of the Bulgarian Rhodopi-dialect). It is noteworthy that combined analytic-synthetic constructions typical for Balkan Slavic, such as the construction (12), have structural correspondents in Aromanian. (12) (Mu) dava na Stojanu. 3sg.m.dat.cl give.3sg to Stojan.dat ‘(S)he is giving to Stojan.’
Dialectal Slavic Balkan
The use of the direct object case to express the indirect object is restricted to the northern Greek area. Map 3 represents the diffusion of an archaism such as the morphologically marked locative. Here we have to distinguish between a) unlimited use, as in the Croatian/Serbian dialect of Zavala; b) a restricted use in competition with other case forms, as in the South Albanian dialect of Leshnja and c) syntactically, semantically and morphologically restricted use, as in the South Bulgarian Rodopi dialect of Gela: Dialectal Croatian/Serbian Mlatimo snoplje, bijemo o thresh.1pl sheaves beat.1pl upon nekoj daski. some.sg.loc board.loc ‘We are threshing the sheaves, we are striking upon some board.’ Dialectal Croatian/Serbian b. o Vidovu dne on St.Vit.loc day.loc ‘on St. Vit’s day’ Dialectal Croatian/Serbian c. Nosi se tamo pri carry.3sg refl.acc.cl there towards kraju. end.loc ‘ It is carried there towards the end.’
(13) a.
Dialectal Albanian Kur duallëm në rrugë, when come.1pl.aor to road+the.f.sg dëbora ishte deri në brest. snow+the.f.sg was up to waist.loc ‘When we came to the road, the snow was up to the waist.’ Dialectal Albanian b. Shkonin dhënt në Myzeqet. go.3pl.aor sheep+the.pl to Mizeka.loc ‘The sheep were going to Mizeka.’
(14) a.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.16 (979-1047)
Andrej N. Sobolev
c.
Ne do vemë në pyll edhe nëpër we will.mod.cl go.1pl to forest even under shit. rain.loc ‘We shall go to the forest, even if it rains.’ d. përmbi varrt over grave.loc ‘over the grave’
Dialectal Albanian
Dialectal Albanian
Dialectal Bulgarian (15) U Uzuncex ima m˘ažo, il˘a u at Uzunce’s.loc have.impers party or at Petrufcex ima m˘ažo. Petrufce’s.loc have.impers party ‘At the Uzunce’s there is a party or at the Petrufce’s there is a party.’ In any case, the presence of a synthetic archaisms is an important structural feature of both Slavic and non-Slavic dialects of the area, which is often overlooked by the general characterisation of these languages as analytic ones. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Article omission in prepositional phrases (cf. Map 4) Use of reflexive possessive pronoun (cf. Map 5) Case of the subject in impersonal clauses of state (cf. Map 6) Predicative use of passive participles of intransitive verbs (cf. Map 7). This is one of the most fascinating innovations of some peripheral Balkan Slavic dialects (the West Macedonian and the Bulgarian Rhodopi-dialect), and direct and indirect parallels have been discovered in the non-Slavic languages of the Balkans. We have to make a distinction between coordinated and noncoordinated forms, and also between their stative and resultative use, but in this paper I can discuss no details. In any case, the Macedonian perfect forms (such as sum dojden ‘am come.m.sg.part’, sum dojdena ‘am come.f.sg.part’) are very close to the Aromanian and north Greek perfect forms of the type (and also to the Albanian ones), but have preserved a common Slavic structural feature – congruence. This feature can, however, be lost, as Macedonian dialectal data from Prilep, given in (16) show: (16) Ne ti je Stojan umreno. not 2sg.eth.dat is Stojan.m.sg died.neut.sg ‘Your Stojan has not died.’
Dialectal Macedonian
As observed, umreno ‘died’ does not agree with the subject Stojan. 6. Future in the past: Form and Function (Maps 8 and 9). 7. Use of the verbal nouns or infinitives as objects of modal verbs. As shown on Map 10, throughout the Balkans, we have a) analytical subjunctive constructions,
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.17 (1047-1128)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
on the one hand, and b) “synthetic archaisms” (as in the Bulgarian Rhodopi dialect) or “isolated innovations/archaisms” (use of a verbal noun instead of an infinitive, as in Albanian, Aromanian and West Macedonian), on the other. A “synthetic innovation” located in the central Balkan zone and consisting of the omission of the subjunctive particle, of the type illustrated in (17) is fascinating. (17) Može kaže. . . can.3sg say.3sg ‘(S)he can say. . . ’
(common) Slavic Balkan
This innovation is found in eastern Serbia, south-western Bulgaria and south Bulgaria, but also, as my and Xhelal Ylli’s research has shown, in North Albania. Može rekneš. . . can.Impers say.2sg’ ‘You can say. . . ’ b. Ne mogu se setim. not can.1sg refl.acc.cl remember.1sg ‘I cannot remember.’ c. Oni ga neˇce slušaju. ‘they 3sg.m.acc.cl not+will.3pl listen.3pl ‘They do not want to listen to him’
East Serbian
(19) Ne možeš se razbereš sos not can.2sg refl.acc.cl understand.2sg with nea. her ‘One cannot talk to/understand her.’
Southwest Bulgarian
(18) a.
(20) a.
Ne moga go kaža. not can.1sg 3sg.m.acc.cl say.1sg ‘I cannot say that.’ b. I gu n˘a mužaxm˘a fan˘am. and 3sg.m.acc.cl not could.1pl catch.1pl ‘And we couldn’t catch him.’
(21) a.
A mun e maj men, se Part can.1sg 3sg.acc.cl remember.1sg that çar prralle ka qõn nat koh?! what stories has been at that time ‘Can I remember the stories of the time?!’
East Serbian
East Serbian
South Bulgarian
South Bulgarian
North Albanian
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.18 (1128-1175)
Andrej N. Sobolev
North Albanian b. Jo, sun merrshe gjõ. no not+can.impers take.3sg nothing ‘No, he couldn’t take anything.’ North Albanian c. Po na ka zatek, sun Part us.1pl.acc has cought.part not+can.impers dalim jasht mõ. get-out.1pl outside more ‘We were cought up (by bad weather) and could not get out any more.’ North Albanian d. . . . se ti smun të . . . because you not+can.impers subj.Mark flassh, ta gacmojsh atõ. speak.2sg subj.Mark+3sg.acc.cl attack-with-words.2sg him/her. ‘. . . because you can not speak, (can not) attack him/her with words.’ 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
Government of some verbs and adjectives (Map 11) Forms of nouns in numeral phrases (Maps 12 and 13) Clitic order (Map 14; Map 15) Possessive clauses with spatial prepositions (Map 16) Negative interrogative clauses (Map 17) Government by demonstrative particles (Map 18).
. Conclusion The results of the investigation allow us to reject the idea of a common “linguistic type” to which the languages of the Balkans have been claimed to belong, and re-examine the thesis of the “common Balkan character” even of the features which have been traditionally considered to have such a character. For example, (1) substitution of the synthetic declension markers by analytic ones, (2) analytic expression of the future, (3) analytic formation of the perfect with a “have” auxiliary, (4) loss of the infinitive and its substitution by subjunctive clauses, are not, or not in the same degree, attested in all the Balkan dialects. The study of archaic linguistic zones, as well as the zones of innovation, makes our knowledge of full or partial membership of a given language in the Balkan Sprachbund more precise. The highly specific phonetic innovations in the Bulgarian Rodopi dialect, combined with the preservation of grammatical archaisms (absence of the schwa phoneme in the stressed vocalic system, inflective noun morphology, use of morphological infinitive) makes us view this dialect as peripheral within the Balkan Sprachbund (Sobolev 2000b). Alternatively, the East Serbian Timok dialect gains full membership as far as the same features are concerned. Many highly idiosyncratic Albanian linguistic properties (e.g., the grammatical-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.19 (1175-1233)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
ization of the future form with “have” auxiliaries, the way modal or phrasal verbs are related to their objects, the position of pronominal clitics relative to imperative verbs) indicate the special status of Albanian among the Balkan languages. Hence, an extraordinarily important task for future Balkan Linguistic studies will be to establish the implicative relations between the given grammatical properties of the languages of the Balkans. This could be achieved through geolinguistic methods of investigation.
Notes . ‘The strongly positivistic traits of contemporary research result in collections of isolated facts.’ . ‘It has to be emphasized that Balkan linguistics deals with the Balkan languages only if it deals with all or most of their common features.’ . ‘These Balkanisms, in their contemporary form and usage, urge the need to study their origin and are the main product of a scientifically oriented Balkan philology.’ . Cf. the Albanian idiomatic expression (i): (i)
di sahat udhë two hour journey ‘(a) two-hour journey’
Albanian
. ‘In most cases, the common traits of Romanian and Albanian are also found in Bulgarian.’ . ‘Although the mentioned particular features have been spread over a wide area on the Balkans, they should be distinguished from the series of important features which are considered specifically “Balkan”, and which more than anything else contribute to the unity of these languages.’ . ‘Everything is important, not only a handful of disparate phenomena which have traditionally been provided with the label “Balkanisms”; the absense of features, i.e. the differences are not of lesser importance.’ . ‘Here we are dealing with normative rules which are congruent only with the rules in some dialects, but in the process of standardization become common and imitate interregionality, which in reality exists only in the written language.’ . ‘Linguistic geography makes it possible to discover many previously unknown features and verify and correct hypothetical representation in the still not complete characterization of the Balkan Sprachbund. Linguistic geography has become a basic research method, to be used not only in the study of the lexicology and etymology of the Balkan languages, but also for the description of grammatical idiosincracies, similarities and correspondences.’ . ‘With the help of geographical maps, one could represent synoptically the important common features of different languages which have lived in a symbiosis on the peninsula, with the aim of discovering the origin of contemporary similarities.’
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.20 (1233-1315)
Andrej N. Sobolev . ‘The drawing of maps and the cartographic representation of “Balkanisms” is questionable not only because they leave many potentially important things unregistered, but also because they naturally take a lot of space.’
References Andriotis, N. & G. Kormoulis. (1966). “Questions de la linguistique balkanique et l’apport de la langue greque”. Actes du premier congrès international des études balkaniques et sudest européennes. Vol. 6: Linguistique, 21–30. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Asenova, P. (1977). “La notion de l’interférence et l’union linguistique balkanique”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 20, 23–31. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Asenova, P. (1983). “Les principales periodes du développement de la linguistique balkanique”. In N. Reiter (Ed.), Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik. Beiträge zur Tagung vom 2–6 März 1981 in Berlin, 27–39. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Asenova, P. (1989). Balkansko ezikoznanie. Osnovni problemi na balkanskija ezikov s˘ajuz [Balkan Linguistics; Basic Problems of the Balkan Linguistic Union]. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Beli´c, A. (1936). “La languistigue balkanique aux congrès internationaux des linguistes”. Review internationale des étides balkaniques. 2-ème année. Tom I–II (3–4), 167–171. Beograd: Imprimerie Minerva. Birnbaum, H. (1968). “Slavjanskie jazyki na Balkanax i ponjatije tak nazyvajemyh jazykovyh sojuzov” [The Slavic languages on the Balkans and the notion of the so-called language unions]. Glossa, 2(1), 70–92. Birnbaum, H. (1983). “Tiefen- und Oberflächstrukturen balkanlinguistischer Erscheinungen”. In N. Reiter (Ed.), Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik. Beiträge zur Tagung vom 2–6 März 1981 in Berlin, 40–58. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Capidan, T. (1932). Aromânii. Dialectul aromân [The Aromanians. The Aromanian Dialect]. Bucure¸sti: Imprimeria Na¸tional˘a. Civjan, T. V. (1979). Sintaksiˇceskaja struktura balkanskogo jazykovogo sojuza [The Syntactic Structure of the Balkan Language Union]. Moskva: Nauka. Cyhun, G. A. (1981). Tipologiˇceskije problemy balkanoslavjanskogo jazykovogo areala [Typological Problems of the Balkan Slavic Linguistic Area]. Minsk: Nauka i tehnika. Deanovi´c, M. (1961). “L’atlas linguistique des Balkans et l’atlas linguistique méditerranéen”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 3(3), 5–9. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Deanovi´c, M. (1962). “Über den Entwurf eines Sprachatlasses des Balkanraumes”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 1, 1–5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.21 (1315-1396)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
Desnickaja, A. V. (1979). “O sovremennoj teorii balkanistiˇceskih issledovanija. K izuˇceniju grammatiˇceskih sootvetstvij jazykov balkanskogo areala” [On the contemporary theory of Balkan studies. Towards a study on the grammatical correspondences in the languages of the Balkans]. In A. V. Desnickaja (Ed.), Problemy sintaksisa jazykov balkanskogo areala [Syntactic Problems of the Languages of the Balkans], 3–15. Leningrad: Nauka. Desnickaja, A. V. (1990). “Predislovije” [Introduction]. In A. V. Desnickaja (Ed.), Osnovy balkanskogo jazykoznanija. Jazyki balkanskogo regiona [Balkan Linguistics. The Languages of the Balkans], 3–8. Leningrad: Nauka. Domosileckaja M. V., A. A. Plotnikova, & A. N. Sobolev (1998). “Malyj dialektologiˇceskij atlas balkanskih jazykov” [A Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages]. Slavjanskoje jazykoznanije. XII Meždunarodnyj sjezd slavistov. Doklady rossijskoj delegacii, 196–211. Moskva: Nauka. Domosileckaja, M. V. & A. V. Žugra (1997). Malyj dialektologiˇceskij atlas balkanskih jazykov. Leksiˇceskaja programma. [A Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages. Draft of the Lexis]. St. Petersburg: Institut lingvistiˇceskix issledovanij Rossijskoj akademii nauk. Duridanov, I. (1977). “Zum Begriff des Sprachbundes”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 20, 17–22. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Duridanov, I. (1983). “Zur Bestimmung des Begriffes “Balkanismus” auf den verschiedenen Sprachebenen”. In N. Reiter (Ed.), Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik. Beiträge zur Tagung vom 2–6 März 1981 in Berlin, 59–65. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Duridanov, I. & M. Mladenov (1989). “Distribucija na balkanizmite v b˘algarskite dialekti” [The distribution of the Balkanisms in the Bulgarian dialects]. Studia z filologii polskiej i słowia´nskiej, 25, 93–125. Warszawa: Wydawnicstwo Polskiej akademii nauk. Friedman, V. (1983). “Grammatical Categories and a Comparative Balkan Grammar”. In N. Reiter (Ed.), Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik. Beiträge zur Tagung vom 2–6 März 1981 in Berlin, 81–98. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Friedman, V. (1991). “Glagolskite kategorii, morfološkite paradigmi i opredeluvanjeto na izoglosite na makedonskata jaziˇcna teritorija” [The verbal categories, the morphological paradigms and the determination of the isoglosses of the Macedonian linguistic territory]. Studia linguistica polono-jugoslavica. Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Posebna izdanja, XCIII(26), 33–40. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Gallis, A. (1969). “Die Balkanlinguistik – Probleme und Forschung”. Norsk Tidskrift for Sprogvidenskap, 23, 37–58. Oslo. G˘al˘abov, I. (1977). “Besprechung [Schaller H. W. Die Balkansprachen. Eine Einführung in die Balkanphilologie. Heidleberg, 1975]”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 13, 205–222. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Georgiev, V. (1966). “Le problème de l’union linguistique balkanique”. Actes du premier congrès international des études balkaniques et sud-est européennes. Vol 6: Linguistique, 7–19. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Georgiev, V. (1977). “L’union linguistique balkanique. L’état actuel des recherches”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 20, 5–15. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.22 (1396-1483)
Andrej N. Sobolev
Hinrichs, U. (1990). “Das Slavische und die sogenannten Balkanismen”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 26(1), 43–62. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hinrichs, U. (1999). “Umgangssprache (razgovornaja reˇc)”. In H. Jachnow (Ed.), Handbuch der sprachwissenschaftlichen Russistik, 601–627. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hinrichs, U. (2000). “Prolegomena zu einer Theorie des Analytismus”. In U. Hinrichs & U. Büttner (Eds.), Die Südosteuropa-Wissenschaften im neuen Jahrhundert, 83–128. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Holiolˇcev, H., K. Kostov, & M. S. Mladenov (1977). “Fragen der Zusammenstellung eines Atlas linguarum paeninsulae Balcanicae”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 20, 65–71. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Ivi´c, P. (1958). “Les Balkanismes naissants dans les parlers serbes du Banat”. Cercet˘ari de lingvistic˘a. Suplement 3, 227–235. Cluj: Academia Republicii Populare Romîne, Filiala Cluj Institutul de Lingvistic˘a. Ivi´c, P. (2001). “Balkan Sprachbund und Sprachgeographie”. In H. Schaller (Ed.), Grundfragen eines Südosteuropa-Sprachatlas. Geschichte. Problematik. Method. Pilotprojekt, 45–52. Marburg: Biblion. Kazazis, K. (1966). “On a generative Grammar of the Balkan languages”. Actes du premier congrès international des études balkaniques et sud-est européennes. Vol. 6: Linguistique, 823–828. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Koneski, B., B. Vidoeski, & O. Jašar-Nasteva (1966). “Distribution des balkanismes en macédonien”. Actes du premier congrès international des études balkaniques et sud-est européennes. Vol. 6: Linguistique, 517–546. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. König, W. (1982). “Probleme der Repräsentativität in der Dialektologie”. Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung. Vol. 1, 463–485. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Mladenov, M. & K. Steinke (1978). “Die Ergebnisse der neueren bulgarischen Dialektforschung im Lichte der Balkanologie”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 14, 68–82. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Mrazek, R. (1990). Sravnitelnyj sintaksis slavjanskih literaturnyh jazykov. Ishodnyje struktury prostogo predloženija. [Comparative Syntax of the Slavic Literary Languages. Basic Structures of the Simple Sentence]. Brno: Universita J. E. Purkine. Neroznak, V. P. (1990). “Balkanistika”. Lingvistiˇceskij enciklopediˇceskij slovar, 62–63. Moskva: Sovetskaja Enciklopedija. Petkanov, I. (1977). “L’atlas linguistique balkanique”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 20, 73–78. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Piper, P. (1992). “Gramatiˇcke strukture makedonskog i srpskohrvatskog jezika: Osnovna diferenciranja” [The grammatical structures of Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian. Basic distinctions]. XVIII Nauˇcna diskusija (Ohrid, 12–14 avgust 1991) 45–51. Skopje: Univerzitet Kiril i Metodij. Plotnikova, A. A. (1996). Materialy dla etnolingvistiˇceskogo izuˇcenija balkanoslavjanskogo areala. [Ethnolinguistic Study of the Balkan Slavic Area]. Moskva: Institut slavjanovedenija Rossijskoj akademii nauk.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.23 (1483-1571)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
Popov, B. (1984). “Položaj srpskohrvatskog jezika u balkanskom jeziˇckom savezu” [The positions of Serbo-Croatian in the Balkan language union]. Južnoslovenski filolog, 15, 21–43. Beograd: Srpka akademija nauka i umetnosti. Reiter, N. (1983). “Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik der Balkansprachen”. In N. Reiter (Ed.), Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik. Beiträge zur Tagung vom 2–6 März 1981 in Berlin, 157–176. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Reiter, N. (1994). Grundzüge der Balkanologie. Ein Schritt in die Eurolinguistik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sandfeld, K. (1930). Linguistique balkanique. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion. Saramandu, N. (1986). “L’étude typologique des langues balkaniques”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 29(4), 35–50. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Schaller, H. W. (1975). Die Balkansprachen. Eine Einführung in die Balkanphilologie. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Schaller, H. W. (1977). “Möglichkeiten einer inneren Gliederung des Balkansprachbundes.” Balkansko ezikoznanie, 20, 45–51. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Sedlaˇcek, J. (1966). “Nekotoryje problemy i osnovnyje zadaˇci izuˇcenija jazykov jugovostoˇcnoj Jevropy” [Problems and tasks in the study of the languges of SouthEastern Europe]. Actes du premier congrès international des études balkaniques et sud-est européennes. Vol. 6: Linguistique, 333–341. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Simeonov, B. (1977). “Obšˇcije cˇ erty fonologiˇceskih sistem balkanskih jazykov” [Common traits of the phonological systems of the Balkan languages]. Balkansko ezikoznanie, XX, 53–59. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Sobolev, A. N. (1988). “O nekotoryh innovacionnyh processah v sfere vyraženija prostranstvennyh znaˇcenij v territorialnyh dialektah serbohorvatskogo jazyka” [Some innovative processes in the sphere of the expression of spatial meanings in the SerboCroatian dialects]. Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistku, XXXI(1), 47–77. Novi Sad: Matica srpska. Sobolev, A. N., I. I. Voronina, J. A. Lopašov, & A. J. Rusakov (1997). Malyj dialektologˇceskij atlas balkanskih jazykov. Sintaksiˇceskaja programma. [Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages. Draft of the Syntax]. St. Petersburg: Institut lingvistiˇceskix issledovanij Rossijskoj akademii nauk. Sobolev, A. N. (1999). “Probleme der Balkansyntax aus der dialektologischen Sicht”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 35(2), 195–213. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sobolev, A. N. (2000a). “Leksika v Malom dialektologiˇceskom atlase balkanskih jazykov” [The lexis in the Small Dialektological Atlas of the Balkan Languages]. In U. Hinrichs & U. Büttner (Eds.), Die Südosteuropa-Wissenschaften im neuem Jahrhundert. Akten der Tagung vom 16–19 10.1999 an der Universität Leipzig, 219–229. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sobolev, A. N. (2000b). “Der bulgarische Rhodopendialekt im Lichte der Balkanologie”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 36(1), 92–105. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sobolev, A. N. (2001a). “Balkanskaja leksika v arealnom i arealno-tipologiˇceskom osvešˇcenii” [Balkan lexis from areal and typological point of view]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 2, 59–93. Moskva: Nauka.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.24 (1571-1660)
Andrej N. Sobolev
Sobolev, A. N. (2001b). Bolgarskij širokolykskij govor. Sintaksis. Leksika duhovnoj kultury. Teksty [The Bulgarian Široka L˘aka Dialect. Syntax. Lexis of Cultural Terms. Texts]. Marburg: Biblion Verlag. Sobolev, A. N. (2001c). “Zur Auswertung der bisherigen Forschung”. In H. Schaller (Ed.), Grundfragen eines Südosteuropa-Sprachatlas. Geschichte. Problematik. Method. Pilotprojekt, 23–30. Marburg: Biblion. Sobolev, A. N. (2001d). “Das Sankt Petersburger Projekt eines dialektologischen Atlasses der Balkansprachen”. In H. Schaller (Ed.), Grundfragen eines Südosteuropa-Sprachatlas. Geschichte. Problematik. Method. Pilotprojekt, 55–68. Marburg: Biblion. Sobolev, A. N. (Ed.). (2003). Malyj dialektologiˇceskij atlas balkanskih jazykov. Probnyj vypusk [Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages. Initial Volume]. München: Biblion. Sobolev, A. N. (Ed.). (1998–2000). Malyj dialektologiˇceskij atlas balkanskih jazykov. Materialy raboˇcih sovešˇcanij [Small Dialectological Atlas of the Balkan Languages. Reports]. St. Petersburg: Nauka. Steinke, K. (1976a). “Überlegungen zur theoretischen Grundlegung der Balkanlinguistik”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 12(1), 85–90. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Steinke, K. (1976b). “Gibt es überhaupt Balkanismen?” Balkansko ezikoznanie, 20, 21–35. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Steinke, K. (1983). “Diachronie und Synchronie in der Balkanlinguistik”. In N. Reiter (Ed.), Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik. Beiträge zur Tagung vom 2–6 März 1981 in Berlin, 221–236. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Steinke, K. (1984). “Besprechung (G. A. Cyhun. Tipologiˇceskije problemy balkanoslavjanskogo areala [Typological Problems of the Balkan Slavic Area]. Minsk. 1981)”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 20(2), 235–239. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Steinke, K. (1991). “Zur Typologie der Sprachkontakte auf der Balkanhalbinsel”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 27(2), 69–74. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Steinke, K. (2001). “Ist der Balkansprachatlas noch aktuell?” In H. Schaller (Ed.), Grundfragen eines Südosteuropa-Sprachatlas. Geschichte. Problematik. Method. Pilotprojekt, 31–38. Marburg: Biblion. Širokov, O. S. (1966). “Interventions”. Actes du premier congrès international des études balkaniques et sud-est européennes. Vol. 6: Linguistique, 91–92. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. ´ Topolinska, Z. (1991). “Quelle est l’interprétation la plus plausible du terme ‘syntaxe balkanique’?”. VI Megjunaroden kongres za prouˇcuvanje na jugoistoˇcna Evropa (Sofija, 1989). Prilozi na uˇcesnicite od Makedonija, 101–108. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite. ´ Topolinska, Z. (1995). Makedonskite dijalekti vo Egejska Makedonija. [The Macedonian dialects in Aegean Macedonia]. Book 1: Sintaksa [Syntax]. Tom 1: Mehanizmi na predikacija [Mechanisms of Predication] 1.1: Konstrukcii so glagolskite predikati [Constructions with Verbal Predicates]. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite. Ylli, Xh. & A. N. Sobolev (2002). Albanskij toskskij govor sela Leshnja (Kraina Skrapar). Sintaksis. Leksika. Etnolingvistika. Teksty. [The Tosk Albanian Dialect of the Village of Leshnja (Kraina Skrapar). Syntax. Lexis. Ethnolinguistics. Texts]. Marburg: Biblion.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.25 (1660-1782)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
Ylli, Xh. & A. N. Sobolev (2003). Albanskij gegskij govor sela Muhurr (Kraina Dibër). Sintaksis. Leksika. Etnolingvistika. Teksty. [The Geg Albanian Dialect of the Village of Muhurr (Kraina Dibër). Syntax. Lexis. Ethnolinguistics. Texts]. München: Biblion.
Appendix: Maps
South Slavic points Albanian points Greek point Aromanian point
Map 1. Points of inquiry
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.26 (1782-1782)
Andrej N. Sobolev
dative form attested dative form not attested
Map 2. Dative forms of masculine nouns as indirect objects
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.27 (1782-1782)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
locative form attested locative form not attested
Map 3. Locative forms
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
Andrej N. Sobolev
article not omitted article can be omitted abscence of the category definiteness
Map 4. Article omission in prepositional clauses
F: LA6702.tex / p.28 (1782-1782)
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.29 (1782-1782)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
reflexive possessive pronoun used pronominally reflexive possessive pronoun substantivized reflexive possessive pronoun not attested
Map 5. Use of reflexive possessive pronoun
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.30 (1782-1782)
Andrej N. Sobolev
dative and accusative only dative only accusative
Map 6. Case of the subject in impersonal clauses of state
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.31 (1782-1782)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
participles used predicatively participial adjectives used predicatively participles not used predicatively
Map 7. Predicative use of passive participles of intransitive verbs
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.32 (1782-1782)
Andrej N. Sobolev
negation + future particle + preterite subjunctive (with or without particle) negated preterite of the ‘have’-auxiliary + subjunctive (with or without part.) negated preterite of the ‘will’-modal auxiliary + infinitive type
Map 8. Negated future in the past
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.33 (1782-1782)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
attested not attested
Map 9. Use of future in the past for the expression of habitual action
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.34 (1782-1782)
Andrej N. Sobolev
finite form – subjunctive (with or without particle) infinitive other non-finite forms
Map 10. Infinitives or verbal nouns as objects of modal verbs
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.35 (1782-1782)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
prepositionsless government genitive direct case (nominative / accusative / common case) prepositional government the preposition ‘with’ the preposition ‘of’
Map 11. Government of adjectives with the meaning of ‘full’ or ‘rich’
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.36 (1782-1782)
Andrej N. Sobolev
plural form specialized numeral form
Map 12. Form of masculine nouns in numeral phrases
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.37 (1782-1782)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
noun phrase with plural form noun phrase with singular form prepositional phrase with the preposition ‘of ’ and plural noun phrase
Map 13. Form of nouns to the right of numerals ending in 1
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.38 (1782-1782)
Andrej N. Sobolev
negation + pronominal clitics + verb pronominal clitic + negation + verb
Map 14. Relative ordering of pronominal clitics and negation markers
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.39 (1782-1782)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
between the two imperative forms after the second imperative form
Map 15. Position of pronominal clitics in clauses with “double imperatives”
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.40 (1782-1782)
Andrej N. Sobolev
both possessive clauses with ‘have’ and prepositional clauses with ‘by’ + ‘be’ only possessive clauses with ‘have’
Map 16. Possessive clauses with spatial prepositions
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
F: LA6702.tex / p.41 (1782-1782)
On the areal distribution of syntactic properties
interrogative sentences with negation only interrogative sentences without negation possible
Map 17. Negative interrogative clauses
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 15:58
Andrej N. Sobolev
nominative accusative (common indirect case) genitive
Map 18. Government by demonstrative particles
F: LA6702.tex / p.42 (1782-1782)
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.1 (41-130)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics Victor A. Friedman University of Chicago
An explanation of evidentiality in the Balkan languages must take both areal and typological factors into account. There are two types of complexes of grammaticalized meanings in Balkan evidentials: confirmative and nonconfirmative. Presence of a marked confirmative implies presence of a marked nonconfirmative, but marked nonconfirmatives can occur in a system without marked confirmatives. The complex of meanings associated with marked nonconfirmativity has a functional basis and occurs in widely separated, unrelated languages, but the grammaticalization of those meanings into verbal paradigms in the Balkans is due to areal factors. The distinction between meanings calqued onto existing forms and the creation of new forms to convey new content does not map isomorphically onto the distribution of semantic-pragmatic isoglosses. Moreover, the geographic distribution of evidentiality in Balkan Slavic argues for a sociolinguistically based explanation for the spread of the phenomenon from Southwestern Macedonia and Eastern Bulgaria. Analyzing the rise and spread of grammaticalized evidentiality in the Balkans, therefore, requires an account that considers sociolinguistic factors and dialectal distribution at various levels of the grammar. The picture that emerges is one in which form, content, narrative structure, and social factors all have roles to play, and a typologically informed areal explanation appears to be the most adequate.
.
Introduction
In comparing linguistic phenomena, when two or more languages display an observable degree of similarity there are three major sources of explanation: 1) descent from a reconstructable common ancestor, 2) contact between two speech communities that had developed previously in isolation from one another, and 3) the workings of natural tendencies in human languages that result in similar phenomena. The first and second of these – the former frequently called “genetic”
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.2 (130-192)
Victor A. Friedman
or “genealogical”, the latter “areal” – both involve historical accounts (cf. Hamp 1977: 279).1 The third explanation, which can use the tools of typology to deduce the rules of universal grammar (cf. Comrie 1981: 30–31), is, in Hamp’s terms, achronic rather than diachronic, although Croft (1990: 203–259) illustrates more recent applications of typology to diachronic questions. With regard to formalgenerative explanations, Joseph (2000: 24–25) argues that surface realizations, not generative rules, are the points of contact between speakers that result in the spread of features the accumulation of which are said to characterize a Sprachbund.2 Thus, areal versus typological explanations emerge as a key issue in Balkan linguistics. Grammaticalized evidentiality is often cited as an example of the influence of Turkish on the structure of Balkan Slavic and/or of Albanian (Conev 1910/1911; Goła˛b 1960; Koneski 1965: 148) although accounts imputing native origin also exist (Demiraj 1971; cf. also Friedman 1978; as well as Van Wijk 1933; Huntley 1979). However, various general works on Balkan linguistics either fail to mention this category or, at best, treat it as a bilateral correspondence between Turkish and Balkan Slavic or Albanian, as in Sandfeld 1930: 119–20; Schaller 1975: 79, 94; Feuillet 1986: 67; Asenova 1989: 203–204; and Demiraj 1994: 169–171.3 In fact, the category also occurs in other Balkan languages and shows different manifestations in various dialects. In this paper I shall address the expression of evidentiality in the Balkan languages as a case study of a contact phenomenon, specifically a Balkanism, that must take both areal and typological factors into account. Given the recent increase of interest in evidentiality (e.g. Guentchéva 1996; Johanson & Utas 2000; Mushin 2001; Squartini 2001; Alexander 2002; Aikhenvald & Dixon 2003, to name just a few), as well as the varied phenomena to which the term has been applied and the lacunae in the history of its study, I shall address the term “evidential” itself before continuing to the exposition and analysis of areal versus typological explanations of the Balkan evidentiality.
. General considerations The year 2002 marks the fifty-fifth anniversary of the first appearance of the term “evidential” (for Kwakiutl, Boas 1947), the fiftieth anniversary of Lunt’s (1952) description of Macedonian as having a ‘vouched for’/‘distanced’ opposition, and the forty-fifth anniversary of the application of the term “evidential” to a Balkan language. In his ground-breaking article, Jakobson (1957) applied “evidential” to a Bulgarian example in which he glossed the old perfect (PI) (without auxiliary) zaminala as ‘it is claimed to have sailed’ and the simple preterite (PD) zamina as ‘I bear witness it sailed.” Jakobson referred to Lunt (1952). The year 2002 is also the thirty-fifth anniversary of Aronson’s (1967: 87) observation that ‘witnessed’ does
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.3 (192-216)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics
not capture the actual meaning of the Bulgarian simple preterite, and the twentyfifth anniversary of Aronson’s (1977) arguments for a redefinition of “mood” and “status” such that the relevant Balkan verbal category is a type of status rather than evidential, taking Jakobson’s definition of the term (see also Friedman 1977: 55– 81). In addition, 2002 marks the twentieth anniversary of Friedman 1982a, in which I demonstrated that “reported” could not be taken as the literal meaning of the Bulgarian old perfect (past indefinite) without the third person auxiliary.4 Guentchéva (1996: 13), among others, has pointed out that Jakobson’s original definition of evidential is too closely tied to “reportedness”, which is only one of the possible meanings generally associated with the evidential complex, and she suggests using Lazard’s “médiatif ”. Johanson (2000: 61) suggests “indirectivity”. Mushin (2001: 21) argues for a distinction between a “narrow” and a “broad” interpretation of evidentiality. The narrow interpretation is limited to literal source of evidence, whereas the broad interpretation includes the attitude of the speaker – which is most frequently but not necessarily the result of source of evidence. The fact that grammaticalized evidentials in the Balkans (and some but not all other regions where evidentials are grammaticalized) encode speaker attitude relates them to epistemic modals. This in turn sometimes leads to a confusion between evidentiality and epistemic modality as exemplified by Palmer (1983: 56), whose secondhand accounts of Tajik, Turkish, and Abkhaz completely miss the fact that these languages (and others) have both epistemic modals and a distinct verbal category that involves the subjective relation of the speaker to the narrated event, i.e. the opposition “confirmative/nonconfirmative” in Aronson’s (1967) terms, “epistemological stance” in Mushin’s (2001: xii). Jacobsen (1986: 5), without, unfortunately, giving a citation, reproduces exactly Aronson’s (1977: 14) insight (using Jakobson’s terminology) that the category in question involves the subjective relationship of the participant in the speech event to the narrated event.5 Jacobsen (1986: 3) traces the history of the study of evidentiality only as far back as Boas (1911: 42–43, 124– 125, 246–247, 348–49, 443, 496), although in fact the earliest attested reference to the relevant grammatical phenomenon dates to the eleventh century. Moreover, this reference is in a description of Turkic grammar and therefore deserves citation here: The difference between these two forms [in -di and -mi¸s] is that DY [-di] on preterite verbs indicate that the action occurred in the presence of the speaker. The action was verified by its occurrence in his presence. For example, if someone says bardi the meaning is, ‘He went and I saw him go with my own eyes.’ M Š [-mi¸s] on the other hand, indicate that the action occurred in the absence of the speaker. Thus ol barmi¸s ‘He went but I did not see him go’; ol kälmi¸s ‘He came but I did not see him.’ This is a general rule holding good for all preterite verbs . . . (Al-K¯aš˘garí, cited in Dankoff 1982: 412)
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.4 (216-275)
Victor A. Friedman
Al-K¯aš˘garí’s formulation remains fairly typical for oversimplified accounts of evidentiality even today.6 Although I continue to agree with Aronson (1991: 129–130), who writes: “The notional meaning of “evidential” is easily derivable from the grammatical category of status. . . ”, I shall use the term “evidential” in this article since I will be dealing with precisely those notional meanings of “status” that are elsewhere understood under this term. Thorough accounts recognize various uses (contextual variant meanings) for evidentials, which in the case of the Balkans can be grouped as in Table 1: Table 1. Types of meaning subsumed under “evidential” for the Balkan languages A.
B.
CONFIRMATIVE 1. witnessed
NONCONFIRMATIVE 3. felicitous a. neutral, resultative b. reported, hearsay c. deduction, inference
2. unwitnessed a. confirmable by speaker b. confirmable by speaker and addressee (general, historical, gnomic, personal facts) 4. infelicitous a. dubitative (irony, sarcasm) b. admirative (surprise)
The exposition which follows explicates the meaning and organization of Table 1.
. Balkan Slavic Not all the Balkan languages show all the possible meanings given in Table 1. I shall refer to a system that encodes all the meanings listed in Table 1 as a Type A system. Any system that encodes the meaning listed under A also encodes the meaning listed under B, but not vice versa, i.e. there exists an implicational hierarchy. Systems that only encode the meanings listed under B will be called Type B systems. I shall begin with Macedonian, which has a Type A system. In many respects, Macedonian is the most Balkanized of the Balkan languages insofar as it displays the most consistent realization of morphosyntactic convergence features (Joseph 1983). Standard Macedonian, which in this respect represents its westcentral dialectal base (Veles-Prilep-Kiˇcevo-Brod), has a basic opposition between two inherited past tense forms (each having a subordinate aspectual opposition aorist/imperfect). These two past tenses are traditionally labeled “past definite” (PD) and “past indefinite” (PI), although, as I have shown (Friedman 1977: 21– 81), the PD is marked for confirmativity, while the PI is an unmarked past. Thus,
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.5 (275-338)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics
for example, although the PD ti igraše ‘you were playing’ usually refers to a definite time in the past, whereas the PI ti si igral ‘you were/have been playing’ will normally lack a definite time reference, either form can actually refer to either a definite or indefinite time in the past. That which differentiates the two forms is the degree of commitment of the speaker to the truth of the statement (see examples (1)–(7) below). The PI is descended from the Common Slavic perfect, which used the auxiliary ‘be’ (Modern Macedonian 2sg present si) plus a resultative participle in -l. Both Standard Macedonian and the western and southern dialects now have a new perfect using the auxiliary ima ‘have’ plus the invariant neuter verbal adjective of the main verb (e.g. 2sg. ti imaš igrano ‘you have played/been playing’). This perfect is marked for resultativity (see Friedman 1977: 82–113). In opposition to the markedly confirmative PD on the one hand, and the markedly resultative perfect in ‘have’ on the other, the chief contextual variant meaning of the PI consists of the nonconfirmative complex, although, like the unmarked past, it is also the choice in contexts where complete neutrality is required. While the confirmativity of the PD normally implies that the speaker has first-hand knowledge of the narrated event, this form can also be used for unwitnessed, reported, and other non-first-hand knowledge as long as the speaker has reason to be convinced of the truth of the statement. The following examples illustrate the various facts and possibilities:7 (1) No podocna se sluˇcija raboti za koi ne [Macedonian] but later in happened.pd works about which neg znaev. I.knew.pd ‘But later things happened which I didn’t know about.’ (Nova Makedonija 19.VI.74: 5) (2) Zuza:
Blaže bil vo Moskva. Blaže was.pi in Moscow ‘Blaže was in Moscow.’ Kosta: Da, beše. yes he.was.pd ‘Yes, [I know] he was.’ (10/86)
[Macedonian]
[Macedonian] (3) Mu se javiv na vujko mi. Ne beše him in I.called.pd to uncle me neg was.pd doma, na plaža bil. at.home on beach was.pi ‘I called my uncle. He was not at home, [apparently] he was at the beach.’ (8/92)
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.6 (338-404)
Victor A. Friedman
(4) Ne veruvam deka toj go napravil/ [*]napravi neg I.believe.pres that he it did.pi did.pd toa. that ‘I don’t believe that he did it.’ (Friedman 1978: 110)
[Macedonian]
(5) Za-toa što forma-ta BEŠE REŠENO odgovara na [Macedonian] for-that what form-the was.pd decided answers to SE REŠI, t.e. na minato-to opredeleno vreme, koe go in decided.pd i.e. to past-the definite tense which it upotrebuvame za oznaˇcuvanje dejstva što se vršele ili se we.use for indication actions what in performed.pi or in izvršile vo opredelen moment vo minato-to. accomplished.pi in definite moment in past-the ‘It is because the form had been decided corresponds to was decided, i.e., to the past definite tense, which we use to indicate actions that were performed [PI] or accomplished [PI] at a definite time in the past.’ (Nova Makedonija 19.XII.84.11) (6) Ti si bil vo Amerika. you aux.2sg was.pi in America ‘You are/were/have been in America.’
[Macedonian]
(7) Kade bil majstor-ot? where was.pi master-the ‘Where *is/was the boss?’
[Macedonian]
Because the use of the PD for witnessed past acts is uncontroversial, I have not given any examples. Example (1) illustrates the use of the PD for something that the speaker clearly did not witness but is now certain happened. In example (2), Zuza chooses the PI because she was not in Moscow herself, but Kosta, who was also not in Moscow, responds in the PD because he accepts the fact as generally known (pace Lunt 1952: 93). In example (3), both statements about the uncle are based on the same telephone call. The first statement is in the PD because the speaker is personally convinced that his uncle would have come to the telephone had he been at home. He chooses the PI for where his uncle was said to be, however, since neither he nor his interlocutor could actually know for sure. Example (4) illustrates the fact that a PD cannot be used in a context that contradicts the notion of confirmation. The one exception to this – which is the reason the asterisk is in parentheses – is if the statement is infelicitous (Austin 1962: 14), i.e. if the speaker really is convinced that he did it, but is expressing dismay, amazement, etc. (cf. the English I can’t believe I ate the whole thing). Example (5) illustrates the fact that the PI is the form of choice in such completely neutral contexts as definitions. Neutral usage
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.7 (404-469)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics
is more common in the first and second persons for pragmatic reasons. Example (6) can illustrate any of the nonconfirmative uses of the PI depending on the context in which it occurs. The illustrative contexts pertain to each of the types given in Table 2: Table 2. Possible interpretations of example (6) (a)
The speaker has seen the addressee in America and is making a general or resultative statement of fact. (b) Someone told the speaker, who then tells the addressee that his trip has been reported. (c) The speaker sees the addressee wearing a Chicago Bulls T-shirt and makes a deduction. (d) The addressee tells the speaker that he was in America and the speaker does not believe him. Another possible context would be if the addressee calls the speaker on the telephone and says he is in America at the moment of speaking and the speaker retorts with example (6). In this context, the correct English translation would be a present tense form. (e) The speaker is in America and unexpectedly meets the addressee. Here, again, the correct English translation would be present tense. It is important to note that in this last type of usage, the nonconfirmativity is based on the fact that surprise is something which requires a state of mind in which the speaker would not have been willing to confirm something until the moment of its (unexpected) discovery (Friedman 1981).8
Example (7) illustrates the fact that uses of the PI with apparent present meaning, i.e. in contexts where the correct English translation will be present tense, must always refer to an ontologically past speech event or state of affairs. If a customer walks into a store and does not see the boss and is surprised by that discovery, he cannot use (7) as his question, because he is expressing surprise about the present moment of discovery itself and not about the pre-existing state of affairs that occasioned it. If he were expressing astonishment at what someone else had told him, then he could use the PI, since there would be a previous event to which the form could refer. In reported or dubitative usage, there is always a real or putative statement that is being referenced or refuted, while in admirative usage there must always be a pre-existing state that the speaker has just discovered. Thus, the question in example (7) is limited to some sort of past tense meaning. In terms of evidentiality, mutatis mutandis and ceteris paribus, the Bulgarian situation is basically the same as the Macedonian situation with regard to markedness relations and semantics. Although Bulgarian differs from Macedonian in certain morphological and paradigmatic manifestations of evidentiality, these differences do not affect the basic arguments. Thus, for example, both languages have markedly nonconfirmative pasts (i.e. paradigms showing only reported, inferred, dubitative, and admirative meanings) using the old resultative participle as an auxiliary, but in standard Macedonian the new marked nonconfirmative uses imal ‘have’ plus the neuter verbal adjective of the main verb, whereas standard Bulgarian uses bil ‘be’ plus the l-form of the main verb, e.g. Macedonian imal
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.8 (469-560)
Victor A. Friedman
napraveno Bulgarian bil napravil ‘he has/had done’. The only other difference that need be noted here is that the claim in traditional Bulgarian grammar according to which the old perfect with the third person auxiliary is a perfect, while the absence or the auxiliary signals ‘reportedness’, is belied by both written and spoken usage, of which example (8) is typical: (8) Imalo e edin pop, i go oženil. had.pi aux.3sg one priest and him married.pi ‘There was a priest, and he married him (to her).’
[Bulgarian] (10/99)
The speaker was recounting a legend from the 17th century about a wealthy Aromanian boy who had run off to Korçë (Albania) with a poor Macedonian girl and had gotten married and built a church there. From the context, it is clear that the source of all the information is a single report, and yet the auxiliary is present for the backgrounded information and absent for the foregrounded information. This is entirely in keeping with Fielder’s (2002b and references therein) arguments concerning the fact that auxiliary omission in Bulgarian encodes the opposition foregrounded/backgrounded rather than some form of evidentiality. For Serbian, including the Balkan Serbian (Torlak) dialects of southeastern Serbia, it is clear that, as in the rest of Slavic, the descendant of the Common Slavic perfect (corresponding to the Macedonian and Bulgarian PI) has become the unmarked past (typologically, this agrees with developments in e.g. Romance and Germanic). It is sometimes claimed that the synthetic pasts (corresponding to the Macedonian and Bulgarian PD) encode a meaning such as “witnessed” (Samilov 1957).
. Albanian Just as Macedonian exemplifies a Type A system with a confirmative/nonconfirmative opposition in which there is a marked confirmative member, so, too, Albanian exemplifies a Type B system in which only nonconfirmativity is marked. In such a system, the marked forms are never neutral but either reported, deduced, dubitative or admirative. In traditional Albanian grammar, the name of the series of paradigmatic sets is habitore from habi ‘surprise’; this corresponds to the French admiratif introduced by Dozon (1879: 226–227) as a translation for Kristoforidhi’s Greek aposdóketoi ‘unexpected’, all of which refer to the most common use of these forms. Hence, the most common meaning gives its name to the entire set of paradigms. Table 3 gives an illustration of the relevant forms, which are derived historically from an inverted perfect and pluperfect.9
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.9 (560-590)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics
Table 3. Albanian 3sg ‘have’
Present Perfect Imperfect Pluperfect (imperfect) Double Perfect Double Pluperfect
Nonadmirative
Admirative
ka ka pasur kish(te) kish(te) pasur ka pasë pasur kish(te) pasë pasur
paska paska pasur paskësh paskësh pasur paska pasë pasur paskësh pasë pasur
As was just indicated, the Albanian meaning of the admirative can correspond to any of the marked nonconfirmative meanings found in Macedonian. Thus, for example, the Albanian equivalent of example (6) would be (9a) or (9b): (9) a.
Ti qenke n’Amerikë. you are.adm.2sg in America ‘You are in America.’ b. Ti paske qenë n’Amerikë. you have.adm.2sg been.pt in America ‘You have been/were in America.’
[Albanian]
A crucial difference between the Albanian evidential system and the Balkan Slavic is that while a Balkan Slavic evidential always has some sort of past reference, even when the apparent meaning is present, the Albanian system has a true present. This is illustrated in the difference between (9a) and (9b). Moreover, in Albanian it is possible to have a sentence like (10): (10) Ku qenka mjeshtr-i? where is.adm.3sg boss-the ‘Where is the boss?’
[Albanian] (Rilindja 8.VI.82.8)
Additional evidence for the analysis of Macedonian admirative meaning as always having a past reference is to be found in the fact that Albanian permits past admiratives to describe newly discovered pre-existing states, as in example (11), which was uttered by a Kosovar colleague upon taking a sip of a local unaged grape brandy (raki) whose quality was reputed to have declined in recent years: (11) Paska qenë e mirë! have.adm.3sg be.pt agr good ‘Why, it turns out that it is good!’
[Albanian] (6/01)
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.10 (590-656)
Victor A. Friedman
. Balkan Romance The situation in Balkan Romance represents a divided picture. For the most part, Aromanian does not have marked evidential forms, but the Frasheriote dialect of Gorna Belica (Bela di Suprã), on the Albanian border northwest of Struga in southwestern Macedonia, has borrowed the Albanian third person admirative marker -ka, which is attached to a calqued masculine plural participial base, as illustrated in Table 4 (after Markovi´к 1995: 80, cf. also Friedman 1994a):10 Table 4. Aromanian and Albanian present and perfect indicatives (3sg ‘have’)
Present Perfect
Nonadmirative Aromanian
Albanian
Admirative Aromanian
Albanian
ari ari avutã
ka ka pasur
avuska avuska avutã
punuaka paska punuar
The Aromanian construction involves the use of a native masculine plural participial base (usually imperfect, but aorist with precisely those verbs that have a distinctive, suppletive aorist participial base in Albanian). Such a base occurs nowhere else in the language and is a clear calque on the way Albanian forms its admirative.11 Moreover, the Frasheriotes of Bela di Suprã migrated to that village from Myzeqe in central Albania at the beginning of the twentieth century and were, at that time, all bilingual in Albanian. After the Balkan Wars (1912–1913), Bela di Suprã was part of what became Yugoslavia and the Republic of Macedonia (except during 1941–1944, when it was part of Albania), and knowledge of Albanian was not maintained by subsequent generations, who were, instead, bilingual in Macedonian. This shift in bilingualism is reflected in the behavior of the Aromanian admirative. Like the Albanian admirative, and unlike the Balkan Slavic evidentials, the Aromanian admirative does not occur in connected narratives, i.e., while it is perfectly normal for a Balkan Slavic narrative to be related entirely in the PI (although for stylistic reasons other tense forms are likely to occur in lengthier narratives), neither Albanian nor Aromanian narratives would use more than the occasional admirative. On the other hand, according to my consultants, the Aromanian admirative would not be used in questions. Thus, for example, in (12), which is the Aromanian equivalent of (7) and (10), a plain present is required: (12) Iu iesti/*fuska majstor-lu? where is/is.adm boss-the ‘Where is the boss?’
[Aromanian]
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.11 (656-742)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics
It would thus appear that while this Aromanian dialect borrowed the Albanian admirative marker with its semantics, it has added on the restrictions found in the marked nonconfirmative uses of the Macedonian PI. Megleno-Romanian, spoken by a few thousand people originally living in a few villages in what is now southeastern Macedonia and the adjacent part of Greece, has an inverted perfect, as illustrated in Table 5: Table 5. Megleno-Romanian plain and inverted pasts 3pl ‘see’ Perfect
Pluperfect
auÛ vizút(˘a) vizút-˘auÛ
veÛauÛ vizú(˘a) vut-˘auÛ vizút(˘a)
According to Atanasov (1990: 220–221) the Megleno-Romanian inverted perfect is used in the same manner as the marked nonconfirmative uses of the Macedonian PI, and Capidan (1928: 101) has examples of its use in connected narratives, as in the beginning of a folk tale given here as example (13) with a Macedonian translation:12 [Megleno-Romanian] (13) Ash vut-˘auÛ un˘a-uÛ ar˘a un˘a m¯um˘a treiÛ self had-have one-time one mother three feati shi li trimes-auÛ la spilarea la v¯ali. Cum spilat-˘auÛ girls and them sent-have to washing to river. as wash-have cuÛ ola vinit-˘auÛ un˘a mear˘a di pri vali there came-have one apple from along river [Macedonian] Si imala ednaš edna majka tri ´кerki i self had.pi once one mother three daughters and gi ispratila na perenje na reka-ta. Kako što perele them sent.pi to washing to river-the as what they.washed.pi tamu, došla edna jabolka po rekata there came.pi one apple along river-the ‘Once upon a time a mother had three daughters and she sent them to do laundry at the river. As they were washing there an apple came [floating] down the river’ In the case of Megleno-Romanian, the morphology is that of the Albanian admirative (participle+auxiliary from an inverted perfect or pluperfect), but the semantics are more like those of the Macedonian PI. Daco-Romanian has a so-called presumptive mood, which is formed by means of a modal particle (future, subjunctive, or conditional marker – with no apparent difference among the three) plus non-finite fi ‘be’ plus the present gerund or past
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.12 (742-812)
Victor A. Friedman
participle of the main verb. Examples (14) and (15), which both use conditional markers and are translations from Bulgarian (given here with the original), are illustrative of the markedly nonconfirmative evidential meanings of the present and past presumptive, respectively: (14) îmi spuse cum c˘a b˘aiat-ul ar fi avînd în [Romanian] me said how that boy-the co.aux.3sg be having in Bulgaria un frat ofi¸ter Bulgaria a brother officer kaza mi, ˇce tuj momˇce imalo u vas, v B˘algarija, [Bulgarian] told me that this boy had.pi by you in Bulgaria brat ˇcinovnik brother official (in Bulgaria) ‘he told me that this boy had a brother, an official’ (Konstantinov 1964: 82; Konstantinov 1895/1973: 97) [Romanian] (15) Bai Ganiu îmi ceru s˘a-i fac cinste, deoarece B. G. me sought su-him make treat since pe drum a¸s fi fumat din tutun-ul lui. on road co.aux.1sg be smoked from tobacco-the him [Bulgarian] Baj Ganjo poiska az da poˇcerpja, poneže iz B. G. wanted I su treat because along p˘atj-a s˘am pušil ot negovi-ja tjutjun. road-the aux.1sg smoked.pi from his-the tobacco ‘Baj Ganjo wanted me to treat him, since on the road I had smoked some of his tobacco.’ (Konstantinov 1964: 99; Konstantinov 1895/1973: 83) In these examples, the Romanian presumptive corresponds to a Bulgarian and Macedonian PI and a Turkish mi¸s-past but a plain indicative in the Albanian translation. I have demonstrated elsewhere (Friedman 1982b) that Albanian present admiratives correspond to the Balkan Slavic PI and the Turkish mi¸s-past in only about 10% of the cases in comparable translations, and do not correspond at all to Romanian presumptive usage, despite the fact that the presumptive and the admirative encode the same complex of marked nonconfirmative meanings (Friedman 1998). The Romanian presumptive can be used in questions, but is not used for connected narratives. There is also some debate concerning whether the presumptive constitutes a separate paradigm or a syntactic construction, especially in the case of the past presumptive which is identical to the subjunctive, future, or conditional perfect. Although Dimitriu (1979: 269–271) argues that evidential uses of the past presumptive are clearly different from other modal uses, evidential-like uses of similar modals in Western Romance (cf. Squartini 2001) can be adduced as an argument against the independent status of the Romanian past presumptive. On
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.13 (812-902)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics
the other hand, however, none of the Western Romance languages possess a construction equivalent to the Romanian present presumptive, nor do they use ‘be’ as an auxiliary in active constructions (Manoliu-Manea 1994: 270). Before moving to our last Balkan Romance example, it is worth citing a Slavic modal paradigmatic set that appears to calque the Romanian presumptive, namely the probabilitive mood of the Bulgarian village of Novo Selo, in northwestern Bulgaria across the Danube from Romania and a few kilometers from the Serbian border (Mladenov 1967: 108–116). In this dialect, the ordinary future is formed, as in Balkan Slavic in general, by means of a preposed invariant particle derived from a verb meaning ‘want’ (ˇca˘ ) plus a conjugating main verb. The non-Balkan Serbian future type – which is formed by means of a postposed conjugating clitic auxiliary of the same origin (‘want’) attached to a stem based on the infinitive – has been retained in this dialect but reinterpreted as an nonconfirmative evidential with present, future, and past tenses, as illustrated in Table 6: Table 6. Novo Selo probabilitive present and future sg conjugation of ‘see’ and 3sg PI 1sg present future PI 3sg
gléd˘am ˇca˘ gléd˘am
Indicative 2sg glédaš ˇca˘ glédaš
3sg
1sg
gléda ˇca˘ gléd˘a e gl˘adál
gledáˇca˘m ˇca˘ gledáˇca˘m
Probabilitive 2sg
3sg
gledáˇca˘š gledáˇca˘ ˇca˘ gledáˇca˘š, ˇca˘ gl˘adáˇca˘ budáˇca˘ ∼ búd˘a ∼ bíˇca˘ gl˘adál
The Novo Selo presumptive has the same complex of meanings as other marked nonconfirmatives, and according to Mladenov (1967: 111) is especially common in questions as in example (16): ˇ a idá-ˇca˘ -š (16) C˘ jútra ú-grad? fu go-fu-2sg tomorrow in-town ‘Will you go to town tomorrow?!’
[Dialectal Bulgarian] (Mladenov 1967: 111)
Located in the border region of Bulgarian and Torlak (Balkan) Serbian, the population of the village is mixed Romanian and Slavic, and much of the Slavic-speaking population is said to have migrated from Macedonia (Mladenov 1967: 8–9). In the past there was debate over whether to assign the dialect (and, by implication, therefore, the territory) to Serbian or Bulgarian. I shall return to this case below. Our final Balkan Romance example is the Istanbul dialect of Judezmo, which calques the Turkish mi¸s-past by means of the pluperfect, as in example (17): (17) Dos ermanos eran, uno salyó two brothers were one became salyó dahilkiye, después s’ became internist afterwards in
doktor di¸sçi, doctor dentist aviya etcho had become
el otro [Judesmo] the other doktor de bebés doctor of babies
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.14 (902-973)
Victor A. Friedman
‘There were two brothers, one became a dentist and the other became an internist, afterwards he became (lit. had become) a pediatrician.’ (Varol 2001: 91) According to Varol, the narrator knew the two brothers and had watched them become doctors, but he had only heard about the second brother’s change of specialization. Were the narrative in Turkish, the ordinary choice for the last clause would be the mi¸s-past. The narrator attempts to render the difference by using a pluperfect, thus iconically indicating narrative distance by means of an anterior tense form.13
. Romani Like Aromanian, Romani does not generally distinguish evidential categories, but according to Kostov (1973), the dialect of Sliven in Bulgaria has borrowed the -l of the l-participle as a marker of evidentiality (much like the Aromanian phenomenon described above) as in example (18), given in both Romani and Bulgarian: (18) Oda vakergjas mangi, ˇci tu phirsas-li. he told.pd me that you go.im-ev Toj mi kaza ˇce ti si xodel. he me told.pd that you aux.2sg go.pi ‘He told me that you were going.’
[Romani] [Bulgarian] (Kostov 1963: 108)
On the basis of Kalderash Romani data, Matras (1995: 100) argues that the distinction between third person singular intransitive preterites that agree in either gender or person with their subjects (e.g. masc. gelo, fem. geli personal gelas ‘come’) encode an evidential strategy, namely the forms agreeing with the subject in person mark personal knowledge while those agreeing in gender, which are therefore morphologically indistinguishable from past participles, mark a resultative deduction in which the addressee is invited to share in the conclusion, as in example (19): (19) a.
[Romani] But zumavenas te integrujin pe, arakhenas many tried.pi su they.integrate in found.pi buˇcja and-e fabriki. Ale ˇci parúdžilas khanˇci pa jobs in-the factories but neg changed.ao nothing on ginduri sar train e Rom thoughts how they.live the Roms ‘Many tried to integrate, they found jobs in factories. But nothing changed with regard to prejudices about how the Roms live.’
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.15 (973-1034)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics
b. Sa khetane šaj phenav tumenge kado: Ke sar sas [Romani] all together can I.tell you.dat this that how was de katar avilam ame ande Europa ži adžves, ˇci from whence we.came.pd we in Europe till today neg parúdžili pa amari situacija khanˇci. changed.pt on our situation nothing ‘All together I can tell you this: That as it has been since we arrived in Europe and until this day, nothing has changed with regard to our situation.’ (Matras 1995: 100) According to Matras, (1995: 101), the person-agreeing form parúdžilas in (19a) expresses the speaker’s personal knowledge as an expert on Romani history that nothing has changed, whereas in (19b), by using the gender-agreeing form parúdžili, the speaker is emphasizing the resultant state and inviting the audience to join him in reaching this conclusion on the basis of the shared evidence of the situation (in this case, the events he has related).
. Greek Finally, it is necessary to mention Greek, which does not have any evidential uses of paradigmatic tense forms, but does have two features that deserve notice here. First, as illustrated by example (20), the perfect is not acceptable in non-volitional expressions, which is the exact opposite of Balkan Slavic (illustrated here by Macedonian) where the PI would be the normal choice and the PD would sound strange: [Greek] (20) Khorís ná tó katalávo, éspasa / *ékho spási tí without su it I.understand I.broke.pd /I.have broken the bukála. bottle [Macedonian] Ništo da ne setam, go skršiv / sum go nothing su neg I.notice it I.broke.pd aux.1sg it skršil šiše-to. broke.pi bottle-the ‘Without noticing it, I broke/have broken the bottle.’ (Friedman 1977: 127) The association of nonvolitionality with nonconfirmativity occurs in other languages. In Georgian, for example, as in Balkan Slavic and Turkish, the aorist or the simple preterite is associated with confirmative meanings while the perfect is associated with nonconfirmativity.14 Example (21), however, illustrates the connection of the aorist with volitionality and the perfect with non-volitionality in Georgian:
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.16 (1034-1110)
Victor A. Friedman
[Georgian] (21) Is perangi ar miq’ide / miq’idia. this shirt not I.bought.it.ao I.bought.it.pe ‘I didn’t buy that shirt.’ [aorist: it was ugly or too expensive/perfect: I lacked time or money] (cf. Aronson 1982: 276) While Greek differs from the other Balkan languages (and Georgian) in its placement of volitionality, however, it does have the use of lé[e]i ‘one says’ as a kind of particle expressing a complex of evidential-like meanings including the expected ‘reportedly, allegedly’ as in (22) but also an admirative-like emphatic as in (23):15 [Greek] (22) Tha páme stin Prága; A! íne, léi, polí oréa. Piós léi; fu we.go to p. ok is ev very pretty who says Ohi, íne, ine polí oréa. no is is very pretty ‘Shall we go to Prague? – Yeah, it’s supposed to be very beautiful. Who says? – No, it really is very beautiful.’ (César Montoliu, p.c.) (23) Ítan kaló to fagitó? Kaló, léi! was.im good the meal good ev ‘Was the meal good? Very good!’
[Greek] (Kriareas 1995)
Example (20) raises an interesting question about the connection of volitionality to evidentiality, particularly since it is the aorist in Greek rather than the perfect which is used nonvolitionally, but this is beyond the scope of this article. The development of lé[e]i into a quotative particle in Greek expressing the nonconfirmative complex of meanings illustrated in (22) and (23) is typologically interesting, since it appears to offer the beginnings of a pathway to the grammaticalization of evidentiality, but does not enter into the kind of paradigmatic manifestations of evidentiality that are the focus here.
. Explanations It was Conev (1910/1911: 15–16) who first proposed the classic areal explanation for grammaticalized evidentiality in the Balkan languages when he noted the correspondence between Bulgarian and Turkish admirative expressions; however, he did not offer any semantic or terminological elucidations: “The use of the past indefinite is due to Turkish influence in instances such as: toj bil dob˘ar ˇcovek! ‘[It turns out that] he is a good man!’ To bilo daleko! ‘It [turns out that it] is far!’ Cf. Turkish ey [modern standard iyi] adam imi¸s, ozak [modern standard uzak] imi¸s.” Goła˛b (1960) made a similar but more extensive set of observations for Macedonian. Weigand (1923/1924) was the first to connect Bulgarian admirative usage of the PI with the Albanian admirative paradigm, even going so far as to suggest an
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.17 (1110-1169)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics
areal explanation, but he missed the fact that the Albanian admirative contains a true present which is only historically an inverted perfect, whereas the Bulgarian PI is a genuine past tense being used with only apparent present meaning (cf. Friedman 1981). Many handbooks treat these issues only in passing (Sandfeld 1930: 119–20; Schaller 1975: 79, 94; Feuillet 1986: 67; Asenova 1989: 203–204; and Demiraj 1994: 169–171). The Balkan Slavic : Albanian correspondence is treated as typological, while the Balkan Slavic : Turkish, when mentioned at all, is treated as areal. Among the similarities adduced is the parallel between Bulgarian and Turkish shown in Table 7 (using the Bulgarian l-form napisal ‘wrote’ and the Turkish equivalent yazmı¸s), which illustrates the assumption frequently found in Bulgarian linguistic literature that there are separate reported and non-reported paradigms which are homonymous in the first two persons and marked by auxiliary omission for the reported paradigm in the third person (but see example (8)): Table 7. Parallel paradigms in Bulgarian and Turkish 1–3sg ‘write’ Bulgarian Past Indefinite 1sg 2sg 3sg
napisal e
Reported
napisal s˘am napisal si napisal
Turkish Perfect
Reported
yazmı¸sım yazmı¸ssın yazmı¸stır yazmı¸s
The parallelism illustrated in Table 7, however, is misleading. The copulative particle -dir in Turkish is a relatively newly arisen emphatic particle (from the 3sg form durur meaning ‘stands’) which also serves in copula-like and auxiliary-like functions.16 It can actually be added to any person of any finite verbal form and it adds an assertive nuance, which itself can have the effect of English ‘surely’ or ‘certainly’. Its combination with the third person mi¸s-past has the effect of eliminating the nonconfirmative chief contextual variant meaning of the mi¸s-past and thereby the opposition between the di-past and mi¸s-past (see Friedman 1978). By contrast, the omission of the third person auxiliary from the Bulgarian and East Macedonian PI, from both a diachronic and a synchronic-contrastive viewpoint is part of a process of auxiliary loss that is used to encode discourse functions of foregrounding/backgrounding (see Fielder 1999 for an excellent comparative analysis). The two phenomena pattern quite differently, and the superficial similarity is probably not connected with the rise of evidentiality in Balkan Slavic, given that Turkish shows a process of particle addition while Balkan Slavic has auxiliary elimination, which is carried to completion in western Macedonia. On the other hand, keeping in mind Joseph’s observation concerning surface forms as the site of language contact cited at the beginning of this paper, there is also the possibility of the
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.18 (1169-1222)
Victor A. Friedman
influence of a reinterpretation of the superficial similarity in Eastern Bulgaria (cf. the fate of Albanian -ka in the Frasheriote dialect of Gorna Belica Aromanian). In terms of typological/universal explanations, a number of arguments can be adduced for the rise of grammaticalized evidentiality. It was Lohmann (1937) – using data from a variety of languages, including Turkish, Georgian, Armenian, Bulgarian, and Lithuanian – who first suggested the connection between the focus of the perfect on the result of a past action leading to a tendency for perfects to express the nonconfirmative evidential complex of meanings. Likewise, Whitney (1889: 295–296) notes: “According to the Hindu grammarians, the Sanskrit perfect is used in the narration of facts not witnessed by the narrator; but there is no evidence of its being either exclusively or distinctively so employed at any period.” In Takelma, a Native American language of southwestern Oregon, the inferential is not used in connected narratives despite its meaning of indirect experience. In part, this is because “the constant use of relatively uncommon inferential forms would have been felt as intrusive and laborious” (Sapir 1922: 158). However, the Takelma inferential is used frequently in “rhetorical questions of anger, surprise, wonder and discovery of fact after ignorance of it for some time” (Sapir 1922: 200). Thus the Takelma inferential displays the typical combination of admirative and indirective meaning.17 Worth noting here is the admirative use of the preterite in Nordic languages, e.g. Swedish Det var då en rackere!, Finnish Oli-pas se vonkale! ‘It is [lit. was] a big one!’ (e.g a fish).18 Educated native speakers of Nordic languages who are fluent in English calque this usage into their English. Thus, for example, upon seeing a handmade chair at a UN observation post, the chief of logistics, a Swede, commented to me in English: “That was a nice chair!” (8/1994), and a Swedish professor once remarked upon the first sip of a white wine: “That was a nice wine!” (1/2001; cf. example (11)). It is clear from the point of view of semantics, that the meanings associated with the nonconfirmative evidential complex (report, inference, sarcasm, surprise) can be expressed by the same verb forms in languages that have not been in contact with one another. This grouping by itself, however, is not an argument against an areal explanation for the development and grammaticalization of such complexes of meaning in specific cases. Since an areal explanation is by definition diachronic, a counterargument must also make use of diachronic facts. In the case of the evidential complex, the oldest (eighth century) Turkish monuments already display an opposition between the -di and -mi¸s pasts much like that of modern Turkish (Tekin 1968: 192–193). At the same time, evidentiality was not encoded in Greek, Latin, or Old Church Slavonic, nor, as noted above, is there convincing evidence from Sanskrit. The one scrap of evidence concerning the syntax of the ancestor of Albanian relates to the postposed definite article (Hamp 1982) and so is not useful. Huntley (1979) has observed that the phenomenon of third person auxiliary omission is already attested in Old Church Slavonic, and van Wijk (1933) has cited evidence from a medieval
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.19 (1222-1343)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics
Church Slavonic paterikon that suggests that alternations between the perfect and simple preterite in Church Slavonic was being used in a proto-evidential fashion, since in the original Greek the aorist is used throughout. A relevant portion is cited here as (24): (24) Oˇce navyk’ vet’xy i novyi zavˇet’ iz’ [Old Slavonic] O.father I.learned.pd old and new testament from ust’. i otvˇeštav’ starec’ reˇce emu. ispl’nil’ jesi mouth and having.answered old.man said him filled.pt aux.2sg aer’ slovom’ i tretii reˇce i mnˇe na ogni v’z’raslo est’ air word.ins and third said and me on fire grew.pt aux.3sg bylie. i otvˇeštav’ starec’ reˇce emu. i ty herbs and having.answered old.man said him and you strannoljubie otgna ot sebe. hospitality you.chased.pd from self ‘Father, I learned [PD] the Old and New Testaments by heart [lit. ‘from mouth’]. And the old man answering [lit. having answered] said: ‘You have filled [PI] the air with word[s]’ [. . . ] and the third said to him: ‘Grass has grown [PI] in my hearth [lit. fire].’ And the old man answering [lit. having answered] said: ‘And you have expelled [PD] hospitality’ (van Wijk 1933: 243) According to van Wijk, the first two brothers (the second, not cited here, had a dialogue using the same tense forms as the first) use the simple preterite to describe actions that they performed themselves and the old man uses the perfect because he was not present; in the case of the third brother, the action is in the perfect because the brother himself witnessed only the result, whereas the old man answers in the simple preterite thereby demonstrating that the choice of the perfect in the first two encounters was not motivated by a desire to avoid the second person aorist, which is identical to the third person. Van Wijk suggests that the old man’s use of the simple preterite in the third encounter emphasizes the gravity of the sin, i.e. it is a kind of confirmative. For Albanian, Demiraj (1971) cites evidence of admirative usage from the earliest extensive Albanian texts, but since these were not written until the sixteenth century, their evidence is not decisive for the period prior to contact with Turkish. The situation for Romanian is similar since the earliest texts date from the sixteenth century. The morphological historical developments in Balkan Slavic relevant to the rise of evidentiality were correlated with a series of semantic and discoursepragmatic developments. These are summarized in Table 8 (based on Friedman 1976, 1988a):
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.20 (1343-1391)
Victor A. Friedman
Table 8. Stages in development of Balkan Slavic evidentiality Stage 1 Old perfect expands to any past tense context and becomes unmarked past in all of Slavic (PI in Balkan Slavic); old perfect of ‘be’ (masc. sg. bil) used as auxiliary in Serbia (13th century), later in Bulgaria and eastern Macedonia (15th century); simple preterite [PD] develops meaning of marked confirmativity in Balkan Slavic; PI develops the chief contextual variant meaning of nonconfirmative evidentiality. Stage 2 Imperfect l-form develops in Western Macedonia and Eastern Bulgaria (16th century); Rise of ‘have’ perfect in Western Macedonia (17th century); complete loss of third person auxiliary in PI in Western Macedonia, partial loss in Eastern Macedonia and Bulgaria,19 sporadic loss in Serbia; PI as auxiliary used for marked nonconfirmativity. Stage 3 Competition of PI and ‘have’ perfect (West Central Macedonia; Prilep vs Bitola). Stage 4 Perfect in ‘have’ expands to auxiliaries (Ohrid-Struga, Kostur-Korˇca [KastoriaKorçë]), PI limited to marked nonconfirmativity. Stage 5 PI disappears (Kostur-Korˇca [Kastoria-Korçë]).
These developments result in the dialectological distribution of morphological isoglosses given in Table 9 (based on Friedman 1988a): Table 9. Isoglosses relevant for Balkan Slavic evidentiality illustrated in Map 2 1. Complete absence of the third person auxiliary in the PI (west of Skopje-Veles-Ostrovo [Arnissa] -Kajlar [Ptolemaïs]) 2. Presence of an imperfect l-form (west of an isogloss running southeast from Kumanovo into Aegean [Greek] Macedonia, where it meanders eastward north of Valovište [Sidhirokastron], east of Serez [Serrai], southwest of Ziljahovo [Nea Zihni], north of Drama and northward through west-central Bulgaria, where the imperfect l-participle develops east of the isogloss) 3. Use of bil as an auxiliary (east of Delˇcevo, Kukuš [Kilkis], Solun [Thessaloniki]) 4. Use of perfect constructions in ima ‘have’ a. Present perfect ima dojdeno (west of Gostivar-Vardar-Gevgelija-Kukuš [Kilkis]Struma [Strymon] /sporadic to Tetovo-Kriva Palanka-Serez [Serrai]) b. Pluperfect imaše dojdeno (same as above without sporadic spread) c. L-form imal dojdeno (Gostivar-Lerin [Florina]-Vardar [Aixios]). d. Extension to auxiliaries ‘have’ and ‘be’ (south and west of Ohrid-Struga) e. Absence of pi except in a few expressive contexts (south and west of Kostur-Korcha [Kastoria-Korçë]
The result of these developments is that the expression of evidentiality in Balkan Slavic varies significantly according to region. Western Macedonia and Eastern Bulgaria appear to be two centers of innovation. In both regions, an imperfect l-participle developed, thus making the PI exactly parallel to the PD in terms of the subordinate aspectual distinction aorist/imperfect. In Western Macedonia, however, a new perfect using the auxiliary ‘have’ also developed, the center of innovation arguably being the Ohrid-Struga region. In this region, the PI is now
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.21 (1391-1415)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics
limited to marked nonconfirmative contexts. To the south and west, the new perfect in ‘have’ replaced the PI altogether, resulting in a system that recapitulates that of Common Slavic, the only difference being the survival of a few PI forms in expressive contexts. To the north and east, the PI, which had become the unmarked past in opposition to the PD, retained its neutral and resultative nuances, although it also developed the chief contextual variant meaning of nonconfirmative evidentiality in opposition to the confirmative PD. The PI is thus in competition with the ‘have’ perfect. This is the basic situation in most of western Macedonia. In the Bitola-Resen area, however, the PD tends to replace the PI, a phenomenon which, like the rise of the ‘have’ perfect itself, has been attributed to the influence of Aromanian (Goła˛b 1984: 135; Koneski 1965: 148). Thus, it can happen that a speaker from Bitola will use the PD in contexts such that a speaker from elsewhere in Macedonia will mistakenly assume that the narration is based on first-hand experience. The weakening of the confirmative/nonconfirmative sense of the opposition between the PD and the PI extends beyond Bitola to the surrounding villages and the town of Resen. Thus in Dihovo, 8 km. west of Bitola, l-forms are not consistently used in nonconfirmative contexts so much as in contexts of taxis (Friedman 1988b). Similarly, the new ‘have’ perfect using the PI auxiliary (e.g. toj imal dojdeno ‘he has/had come’) does not appear to be a marked nonconfirmative. Speakers from Resen and Bitola will accept this form in contexts involving witnessed events whereas speakers from other areas will not. Thus, the Bitola-Resen system, while containing an inventory identical to that of the rest of west-central Macedonia, does not assign the same semantic or discourse-pragmatic values to the forms and seems to be moving toward a Korˇca-Kostur type of system in which evidentiality has been eliminated. In Eastern Bulgaria, on the other hand, the third person auxiliary is partially retained in the PI, its presence or absence being used to signal backgrounding or foregrounding. In Eastern Macedonia and Western Bulgaria, where the imperfect l-participle did not develop, there is an interplay between the presence versus absence of the auxiliary in the PI and the use of the verbal adjective such that the PI behaves mostly like an unmarked past (see Fielder 2002a). In Albanian, too, the function of the admirative is dialectally differentiated. The development of the inverted perfect into a classic admirative set of paradigms is especially characteristic of central Albania (southern Geg and northern Tosk), where, as in Macedonia, urban centers such as Elbasan, which is in the southernmost Geg region, were dominated by Turkish. Here, as elsewhere in the Ottoman Balkans, Turkish functioned as a marker of urban identity (see Akan 2003). In Northern Albanian (especially rural Geg), the admirative still retains nuances of its meaning as an inverted perfect (Çabej 1979: 16–18), and even shows a tendency toward being eliminated via restrictions on its occurrence. Thus, for example, in Dushmani, 30 km east of Shkodër near the Montenegrin border, the admirative only occurs in the perfect, e.g. p˙aska p˙a[s], Standard Albanian paska pasur (Cimo-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.22 (1415-1459)
Victor A. Friedman
chowski 1951: 116). The admirative is absent from the Lab and Çam dialects of the extreme south of Albania and adjacent parts of northern Greece (Altimari 1994). Also suggestive is the fact that the admirative is absent from the Arbëresh dialects of Italy and the Arvanitika dialects of Greece, which separated from the main body of Albanian before contact with Turkish. On the other hand, in the Albanian dialects of Ukraine, which separated from the main body of Albanian in the seventeenth century, after approximately two centuries of Turkish contact, there is an inverted perfect, but it lacks evidential nuances (Kotova 1956). As was indicated earlier, Macedonian and Albanian are exemplary of Type A and Type B systems, respectivly, and are areally central to an account of Balkan evidentiality. From a typological point of view, Macedonian represents a two-term system in which there is a marked confirmative as well as marked nonconfirmatives, whereas Albanian represents a one-term system with only marked nonconfirmativity (cf. Aikhenvald 2003). In this respect, Bulgarian and Turkish have two-term systems like Macedonian, whereas the Balkan Romance languages, the transitional Bulgarian dialect of Novo Selo, and Romani have one term systems like Albanian. Greek, in this respect, does not participate in the phenomenon of evidentiality as a meaning encoded in conjugated verbal forms, although the encoding of volitionality and the use of léi as an evidential particle are interesting phenomena in need of further investigation. A cross-cutting distinction is that between systems which use evidentials in connected narratives and systems in which evidentials are restricted to shorter units of discourse. Two-term systems are all of the former type, but so is Megleno-Romanian, which is a one term system. Albanian, Frasheriote Gorna Belica Aromanian, Daco-Romanian, and Novo Selo Bulgarian are all of the latter type, and though the data for Istanbul Judezmo and Sliven Romani are meager, it is likely that they fall in this type as well. A third distinction is the use of nonconfirmative evidentials in present tense questions. This only occurs in one-term systems with true presents such as Albanian, Daco-Romanian, and Novo Selo Bulgarian. Its absence from Frasheriote Gorna Belica Aromanian requires further investigation. A fourth distinction is between systems in which speakers use native material to create new grammatical (evidential) meanings and those in which they use new material for the new grammatical (evidential) meanings. (Following Otheguy (1991), Fielder (1999) calls the former “conceptual convergence” and the latter “linguistic convergence”; cf. also Matras’ (2000) “fusion” and Ross’ (2001) “metatypy”). This distinction, unlike the foregoing three, requires a diachronic orientation and displays considerably more complexity. Aromanian and Sliven Romani have clearly borrowed material from other languages. Albanian and Novo Selo Bulgarian have used native material to create new paradigms, as has Daco-Romanian, apparently. Balkan Slavic both reinterpreted existing material and created new paradigms, while Istanbul Judezmo appears only to have added a new meaning to an existing form. The Kalderash Romani phenomenon
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.23 (1459-1525)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics
identified by Matras is based entirely on native material. In this respect, Turkish is part of a larger Turkic complex in which evidential meaning is always grammatically encoded, but utilizing different material in different languages (see the articles in Johanson & Utas 2000). Returning now to the question of areal versus typological explanation, it is clear that the meanings associated with the evidential complex, especially marked nonconfirmativity, are found across a broad spectrum of diverse and widely separated languages. At the same time, it is worth noting that the development of perfects into evidentials seems to take place predominantly in regions with some sort of Turkic contact, and dialects that are especially influenced by a Turkic language (e.g., Istanbul Judezmo, Ingilo Georgian, Tajik, cf. Friedman 1988c) are especially likely to have a calqued development. While the development in Turkish itself does not seem to have a contact-based explanation, it is undeniable that in some cases language contact is directly responsible for the rise of the grammatical encoding of evidentiality in a given Balkan language or dialect. Frasheriote Gorna Belica Aromanian, Sliven Romani, and Istanbul Judezmo are all of this type. Moreover, it is highly likely, given the general Slavicization of Megleno-Romanian (Capidan 1943: 21), that the use of an inverted perfect as a marked non-confirmative is a conceptual convergence with Slavic.20 In the case of Daco-Romanian, ManoliuManea (1994: 270) mentions conflicting hypotheses concerning Slavic influence versus native development. The argument in favor of Slavic is the spread of ‘be’ as an auxiliary to active constructions (cf. Goła˛b 1984: 135), which is not found in Western Romance. Similarly, the semantics of the Novo Selo probabilitive, combined with the fact that it involves a reinterpretation and subsequent extension of a native Slavic future construction – particularly salient here being the fact that the dialect is located in a region transitional between Serbian and Bulgarian with a significant Romanian-speaking population – suggest that it is a contact based phenomenon. This leaves Albanian and Balkan Slavic. Taken as a supralinguistic set of diasystems, East South Slavic, i.e. Southern (Torlak) Serbian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian, display a series of isoglosses that are morphological, semantic, and pragmatic, in which the development of evidentiality arguably reflects the differentiation of Macedonian and Bulgarian. The medieval division between two centers of East South Slavic literacy and innovation – one in southwestern Macedonia (Ohrid), the other in northeastern Bulgaria (Preslav, later T˘arnovo) – continued through the Ottoman period and into the modern period. During the medieval period, these were the two areas of the most complex and intense language contact (cf. Friedman 1995). Ohrid is in the heart of the region where Albanian, Romance, Slavic, and Greek were all in contact and competition and then overlain by Turkish.21 The region around Preslav did not have the same complexity, but the contact with Turkish was especially strong (Goła˛b 1960; Conev 1910/1911: 13). Moreover, in addition
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.24 (1525-1563)
Victor A. Friedman
to the obvious importance of Turkish as the language of administration, Turkish had a specifically urban prestige associated with Ottoman restrictions on urban residency (cf. Akan 2003). A similar situation is reflected in Albanian, where the center of admirative innovation appears to be the central, urbanized area contiguous with southwestern Macedonia. Moreover, the textual evidence for Slavic and the dialectal distribution for Albanian both suggest that the encoding of evidentiality, while built on native material, did not really enter the grammatical system until after contact with Turkish. Thus, for both Albanian and Balkan Slavic it can be hypothesized that the grammatical encoding of evidentiality began in urban centers where Turkish was widely spoken and had high prestige and spread from there to the countryside. Istanbul Judezmo pluperfect usage seems to reflect the beginnings of the same type of phenomenon. The absence of grammaticalized evidentiality from most Aromanian dialects, on the one hand, and from Greek, on the other, may be connected with patterns of rural transhumancy for much of Aromanian, and competing urban prestige both for Greek as a language of religion and commerce, and, in some urban centers such as Bitola, resistance of Aromanian visà-vis Macedonian, which during the Ottoman period was more associated with the countryside. Balkan evidentiality, like infinitive replacement (Joseph 1983), is not a uniform phenomenon: The complex of meanings associated with marked nonconfirmativity clearly have a functional basis, but the grammaticalization of those meanings into verbal paradigms in the Balkans clearly requires at least a partial areal account. A mere comparison of forms, however, is inadequate. On the one hand, morphological, semantic, and discourse-pragmatic isoglosses show differential distribution, e.g. in Balkan Slavic and Albanian (cf. also Friedman 1983). Fielder (1999), in a detailed study of narrative strategy in a Bulgarian text and its Turkish translation, suggests that the evidential use of the Bulgarian PI is a conceptual convergence with Turkish (the calquing of new meaning onto existing material, after Otheguy 1991), as opposed to linguistic convergence, i.e. the borrowing of new meaning via new material. This proposal is consistent with Friedman 1994b, where I argue that discourse functions (i.e., the pragmatic component of the grammar) are not merely subject to borrowing but actually serve as entry points for the development of structural change. In the case of Balkan evidentiality, however, there is a distinction between the Turkish/Balkan Slavic type and the Albanian/Balkan Romance type (to which can be appended Romani and Novo Selo Bulgarian). In the former, both confirmative and nonconfirmative appear as grammaticalized meanings, whereas in the latter, only nonconfirmative meanings are grammaticalized. The distinction between meanings calqued onto existing forms and the creation of new forms to convey new content does not map isomorphically onto the distribution of semantic-pragmatic isoglosses. Moreover, the geographic distribution of eviden-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.25 (1563-1608)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics
tiality in Balkan Slavic argues for a sociolinguistically based explanation for the spread of the phenomenon from Southwestern Macedonia (together with the imperfect l-form and the ‘have’ perfect) and Eastern Bulgaria (together with the imperfect l-participle and the reinterpretation of auxiliary omission). That is, regions with heavy concentrations of Turkish-speakers in urban centers served as sources of innovation. The spread of the Albanian admirative northward and southward from a heavily Turkish-influenced urbanized center looks quite similar. Lindstedt (2000), referring to Friedman’s (1997) characterization of power and prestige relations among the Balkan languages suggests that it is the languages in the middle of the hierarchy, i.e. Balkan Slavic, Balkan Romance, and Albanian, that show the most mutual convergence owing to the most mutual multilingualism, whereas Greek and Romani, at the relative top and bottom, respectively, show less. As Eloeva and Rusakov (1990: 8) point out, there is a difference between Romani and the other languages of the Balkans. The characteristics of the Balkan linguistic league developed in environments of mutual multilingualism, i.e. speakers of a given language were influenced not only by the structures of the other languages they learned but also by hearing their languages spoken as second languages. In the case of Romani, however, (like Judezmo), the nature of sociolinguistic relations was such that multilingualism went only in one direction. Although Romani-speakers learned other languages, their own language was not normally learned by others. Lindstedt argues that Greek is also subject to unidirectional multilingualism, but in the other direction: While speakers of other languages learned Greek, Greekspeakers were less motivated to learn other languages. Nonetheless, it is clear that many Greeks generally knew Turkish (Dizikirik¯es 1975), which dominated the Ottoman urban environment. At the same time, multilingualism was a characteristic of the Ottoman town. Thus, while Lindstedt’s hypothesis that the middle of the prestige hierarchy is the most active site of linguistic convergence has attractive features, and indeed involves precisely the languages first observed as “Balkan” by Kopitar in 1829 (see Friedman 1997), when examining evidentiality, the situation seems more complex. It would seem that urban Turkish brought about the spread of evidentials in Balkan Slavic and Albanian, but while the former is Type A like Turkish itself, the latter is Type B. At the same time, it appears that urban Aromanian blocked the development of the Balkan Slavic evidential system in Bitola, while the widespread knowledge of Turkish among Greeks was not enough to bring about the development of a Greek evidential system. On the other hand, specific dialectal phenomena such as those in Istanbul Judezmo, Sliven Romani, Bela di Suprã Frasheriote Aromanian, and Novo Selo Bulgarian show the rise of evidentials that are not attested beyond the confines of small areas. The first two dialects are urban, the second two rural. At the same time, the urban dialects are of languages at the bottom or outside the prestige hierarchy, while the rural dialects are more centrally
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.26 (1608-1657)
Victor A. Friedman
located in that hierarchy. Thus, intersecting factors of ethnicity and the opposition urban/rural seem to produce different effects in different environments. Analyzing the rise and spread of grammaticalized evidentiality in the Balkans, therefore, requires an account that considers sociolinguistic factors and dialectal distribution at various levels of the grammar. The picture that emerges is a nuanced one in which form, content, narrative structure, and social factors all have roles to play, and a typologically informed areal explanation appears to be the most adequate.
ROMANIA
NOVO SELO
SERBIA
TARNOVO
BULGARIA
KOSOVO
MONTENEGRO
SKOPJE
MACEDONIA
SHKODËR
ALBANIA ELBASAN
^
BOSNIAHERCEGOVINA
STRUGA MEGLEN OHRID BITOLA
KORÇË KASTORIA
GREECE
Map 1. The Balkans: Places mentioned in the text
SLIVEN
TURKEY ISTANBUL
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.27 (1657-1677)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics
Serbia Kosovo
Kriva Palanka
Kumanovo
f
Skopje
^
A l b GEG a n TOSK i a
Gostivar
Belica
Delcevo
Va
Veles
Macedonia d
Kicevo
^
Tetovo
Bulgaria
S
e r
da
r
Kruševo Prilep
Struga Ohrid
Bitola
Dojran Gevgelija Meglen
Ostrovo
c
b ^
Kajlar
a
f
Drama Seres
Ziljahovo
Kukuš
Lerin
Korca Kostur
r u m a Valovište
Resen Upper Bitola Prespa Lower Prespa
t
d
Greece
semantic isoglosses a= l-form as relic b= l-form as marked nonconfirmative Solun ima imano/bideno c= imaše dojdeno is not +confirmative morphological isoglosses d= no aux in 3rd PI e= bil used as aux f= presence of impf l-form
e
Map 2. The Republic of Macedonia and neighboring countries showing places and isoglosses mentioned in Table 9 (Names of towns and rivers are all given in Macedonian)
Notes . “Typology consists in the achronic equation of features or relations within grammars; such an activity is clearly a first step in the exploration of human linguistic universals. By definition, then, typology can play only a limiting, but not an initiating or central, role in the idiosyncratic specifics of language history. [. . . ] There is then the type of study which has been called areal. Such phenomena were certainly noticed by 19th century scholars at least intuitively, but it was one of the several systematizing merits of the Pragueans to expound in an orderly and principled way the features, the affinités, characterizing a Sprachbund. [. . . ] Yet, while the comparative method is unquestionably an historical study, the field of areal linguistics is no less so; for it too is occupied with analyzing the result of specific, if multiple, linguistic events of the past. Both the comparative method and areal linguistics are historical disciplines – twin faces of diachronic linguistics, if you will.” (Hamp 1977: 279) . “Given the fact that these parallels [analytic future formation, postposed definiteness marking, infinitive replacement, and resumptive pronominal object marking – VAF] are not the result of a common inheritance from Proto-Indo-European, and that they represent a divergence from earlier stages of each of these languages, the convergence they show is striking and provides an important starting point for an investigation into the language contact
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.28 (1677-1725)
Victor A. Friedman
situation that gave rise to them. Such, however, is not the case with parallels that can be attributed to the workings of Universal Grammar. [. . . ] Languages in [contact] situations may show “deeper” similarities [. . . ], but the surface forms themselves, the output of generative rules of syntax, would seem to be the critical level at which to judge similarities that would reveal the existence of a Sprachbund. [. . . ] Such an importance of surface structures is really to be expected if the basis for the spread of such features – that is, the basis for the development of contact-induced areal convergences – is at least limited bilingualism, transfer, and reverse interference, for surface forms are the point of contact between speakers.” (Joseph 2000: 24–25). Cf. Croft (1990: 246–259) on the debate concerning functional-typological descriptions or explanations versus formal-generative ones. . Hinrichs (1999) is an exception in this regard. . In subsequent work, Fielder has argued convincingly that auxiliary omission in the Bulgarian third person past indefinite signals the discourse phenomenon of foregrounding vs. backgrounding (see Fielder 2002b and earlier articles cited there). . Johanson (2000: 67–71) includes the participant in the narrated event as a possible alternative to the participant in the speech event. . For a more nuanced account, see the articles in Johanson and Utas (2000). . Examples from written sources are given with bibliographic citation. Examples that occurred in ordinary conversation are given with the month and year. All other examples were checked with native speakers. Translations are mine. . The notion was subsequently applied to Turkish, using the term “unprepared mind” by Slobin and Aksu-Koç (1982), and to Japanese with the term “new information” by Akatsuka (1985). . The Albanian perfect uses the present tense of ‘have’ (3 sg ka) plus the participle, which is usually based on the aorist stem. . There are two Aromanian dialects spoken in Gorna Belica, that of the Mbaliotes (Mãbalots) and that of the Frasheriotes (Fãrshãlots). The Farsheriotes of Gorna Belica emigrated there from Myzeqe in central Albania before the Balkan Wars. At present, the village is uninhabited during the winter, but villagers return to their homes there for the summer. I wish to thank Marjan Markoviк´ for the opportunity to work with his uncle, Tomislav Manovski/Toma Mani, as well as Vasilie Balukoski/Silja Baljuk, Andon Labrovski/Ndona Ljabru, and Kosta Panovski/Koci Pani. I am grateful to all of them for sharing their knowledge of their native language. . In Albanian, the past admirative occurs in the imperfect but not the aorist, and this appears to have influenced the Aromanian choice of participial base. The fact that the Aromanian base is masculine plural appears to reflect a dialectal Tosk (south Albanian) participle, which ends in schwa and thus looks like a masculine plural adjective. . I wish to thank Petar Atanasov and Marjan Markoviк´ for the translation into Macedonian. . The prototypical category of distance was originally identified by Lunt (1952) for the Macedonian PI, subsequently adduced in Chvany (1988) for Bulgarian, and most recently ´ connected with deixis in general by Fielder (2002b; cf. Also Topolinska 1995). Interestingly
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.29 (1725-1791)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics
enough, this analysis comes full circle, in a sense, back to Conev’s (1910/11) original characterization of what is general referred to today as evidentiality as part of the opposition definite/indefinite, i.e. as a form of deixis. . Balkan Slavic and Turkish have a subordinate aspectual distinction aorist/imperfect that can occur with both confirmatives and non-confirmatives. Georgian, too, has an aorist/imperfect subordinate aspectual distinction, but only the aorist enters into evidential oppositions (with the perfect). . I am indebted to César Montoliu for bringing this to my attention and supplying the examples. . Turkish has rules of progressive devoicing and vowel harmony that affect the surface shapes of morphemes. Thus, for example, depending on the vowel and consonant in the segment that precedes it, -dir, -dur, -dür, -dır, -dir, -dur, -tür, -tır are all possible realizations of the copulative particle for which -dir is the traditional citation form. . See Adelaar (1977) on the calquing of a Quechua “sudden discovery tense” as a Spanish perfect (in Ecuador) or pluperfect (in Peru and Bolivia). . I wish to thank Hannu Tommola for supplying the examples. . Fielder (2002a) has shown that in conjunction with its foregrounding and backgrounding function, absence and presence of the third person auxiliary in eastern Macedonian and in Bulgarian encodes the difference between an actional and a statal perfect, i.e. between a focus on the past action and a focus on the resultant state. . It is worth noting that while the form resembles Albanian, the content is Macedonian. The form is more likely the result of a Romance tendency or, perhaps, of southeast Macedonian clitic ordering rules. . There were also successive waves of Romani-speakers. Some of these assimilated linguistically to Albanian, Macedonian or Greek (and later, Turkish), while others retained Romani.
References Adelaar, W. F. H. (1977). Tarma Quechua. Lisse: Peter de Ridder. Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2003). “Evidentiality in typological perspective”. In A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Studies in Evidentiality [Typological Studies in Language 54], 1–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Aikhenvald, A. Y. & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.). (2003). Studies in Evidentiality [Typological Studies in Language 54]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Akan Ellis, B. (2003). Shadow Genealogies: Memory and Identity Among Urban Muslims in Macedonia. Boulder, CO: East European Monographs. Akatsuka, N. (1985). “Conditionals and the epistemic scale”. Language, 61, 625–639.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.30 (1791-1884)
Victor A. Friedman
Alexander, R. (2002). “Bridging the descriptive chasm; The Bulgarian generalized past”. In V. A. Friedman & D. L. Dyer (Eds.), Of All the Slavs My Favorites: Studies in Balkan and South Slavic Linguistics Presented to Howard I. Aronson in Honor of His 66th Birthday, 33–42. Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Altimari, F. (1994). “La distribuzione dell passato ‘prezuntivo’ nell’ albanese d’Italia” [The distribution of the “presumptive” past in the Albanian of Italy]. In F. Altimari & L. M. Savoia (Eds.), I Dialetti italo-albanesi, 211–221. Rome: Bulzoni. Aronson, H. I. (1967). “The grammatical categories of the indicative in the contemporary Bulgarian literary language”. In To Honor Roman Jakobson, Vol. 1, 82–98. The Hague: Mouton. Aronson, H. I. (1977). “Interrelationships between aspect and mood in Bulgarian”. Folia Slavica, 1(1), 19–32. Aronson, H. I. (1982). Georgian: A Reading Grammar. Columbus: Slavica. Aronson, H. I. (1991). “Towards a typology of verbal categories”. In L. R. Waugh & S. Rudy (Eds.), New Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation, 111–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Asenova, P. (1989). Balkansko ezikoznanie: Osnovni problemi na balkanskija ezikov s˘ajuz. [Balkan Linguistics: Basic Problems of the Balkan Linguistic League]. Sofia: izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Atanasov, P. (1990). Le mégléno-roumain de nos jours. Hamburg: Buske. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Harvard University. Boas, F. (Ed.). (1911). Handbook of American Indian Languages, Part 1 [Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40]. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Boas, F. (1947). “Kwakiutl grammar, with a glossary of the suffixes”. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 37(3), 201–377. Çabej, E. (1979). “Zu einigen Erscheinungen der albanischen Sprachgeschichte und deren balkanischen Zusammenhängen”. Studia Albanica, 16(2), 86–104. Capidan, T. (1928). Meglenoromânii II [The Megleno-Romanians]. Bucharest: Academia Român˘a. Capidan, T. (1943). Les Macédo-Roumains. Bucharest: Funda¸tia Regal˘a pentru Literatura s¸ i Art˘a. Chvany, Catherine (1988). “Distance, directness and discreetness in Bulgarian and English verbal morphology”. In A. M. Schenker (Ed.), American Contributions to the Tenth International Congress of Slavists: Linguistics, 69–90. Columbus: Slavica. ´ Poznanskie ´ Cimochowski, W. (1951). Le dialecte de Dushmani. Poznan: Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk. Comrie, B. (1981). Language Typology and Linguistic Universals. Chicago: University of Chicago. Conev, B. (1910/1911). “Opredeleni i neopredeleni formi v b˘agarski ezik” [Definite and indefinite forms in Bulgarian]. Godišnik na Sofijkskija universitet: Istorikofilologiˇceski fakultet, 7, 1–18. Croft, W. (1990). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.31 (1884-1989)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics
Dankoff, R. (Ed.) (and transl. with J. Kelly). (1982). Mahmud al-K¯aš˘garí: Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (D¯ıw¯an Lu˘ga¯ t at-Turk.) [Turkish Sources 7] Part I. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Demiraj, Sh. (1971). “Habitorja dhe mosha e saj” [The admirative and its chronology]. Studime Filologjike, 8, 31–49. Demiraj, Sh. (1994). Gjuhësi ballkanike [Balkan Linguistics]. Skopje: Logos-A. Dimitriu, C. (1979). Gramatica limbii române explicat˘a. [An Explanatory Grammar of Romanian]. Ia¸si: Junimea. Dizikirik¯es, G. S. (1975). Na Ksetourkepsoume t¯e gl¯ossa mas [Let us De-Turkify our Language]. Athens: Angyra. Dozon, A. (1879). Manuel de la langue chkipe ou albanaise. Paris: Société asiatique de Paris. Eloeva, F. A. & A. Ju. Rusakov (1990). Problemy jazykovoj interferencii [Problems of Linguistic Interference] Leningrad: University of Leningrad. Feuillet, J. (1986). La linguistique balkanique. [Cahiers balkaniques 10]. Paris: INALCO. Fielder, G. E. (1999). “The origin of evidentiality in the Balkans: Linguistic convergence or conceptual convergence?” Mediterranean Language Review, 11, 59–89. Fielder, G. E. (2002a). “The perfect in Eastern Macedonian dialects.” In V. StojˇcevskaAntiк´ et al. (Eds.), IV Makedonsko-severnoamerikanska slavistiˇcka konferencija za makedonistika: Studii za makedonskiot jazik, literatura i Kultura [IVth North-AmericanMacedonian Conference: Studies on Macedonian Language, Literature, and Culture], 137–146. Skopje: Univerzitet “Sv. Kiril i Metodij”. Fielder, G. E. (2002b). “Questioning the dominant paradigm: An alternative view of the grammaticalization of the Bulgarian evidential”. In V. A. Friedman & D. L. Dyer (Eds.), Of All the Slavs My Favorites: Studies in Balkan and South Slavic Linguistics Presented to Howard I. Aronson in Honor of His 66th Birthday, 171–201. Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Friedman, V. A. (1976). “Dialectal synchrony and diachronic syntax: The Macedonian perfect”. In S. Steever, C. Walker, & S. Mufwene (Eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Diachoric Syntax, 96–104. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic society. Friedman, V. A. (1977). The Grammatical Categories of the Macedonian Indicative. Columbus: Slavica. Friedman, V. A. (1978). “On the semantic and morphological influence of Turkish on Balkan Slavic”. In D. Farkas et al. (Eds.), Chicago Linguistic Society: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting, 108–118. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Friedman, V. A. (1981). “Admirativity and confirmativity”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 17(1), 12–28. Friedman, V. A. (1982a). “Reportedness in Bulgarian: Category or stylistic variant?” International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 25(26), 149–163. Friedman, V. A. (1982b). “Admirativity in Bulgarian compared with Albanian and Turkish”. In D. Kosev (Ed.), Bulgaria Past and Present, Vol. 2, 63–67. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite. Friedman, V. A. (1983). “Grammatical categories and a comparative Balkan Grammar”. In N. Reiter (Ed.), Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik [Balkanologische Veröffentlichungen 8], 81–98. Berlin: Osteuropa-Institut an der Freien Universität Berlin. Friedman, V. A. (1988a). “Morphological innovation and semantic shift in Macedonian”. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 24(1), 34–41.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.32 (1989-2073)
Victor A. Friedman
Friedman, V. A. (1988b). “Za složenite minati vreminja vo dihovskiot govor vo sporedba so makedonskiot literaturen jazik” [On the compound past tenses in the Dihovo dialect in comparison with the (tenses in the) Macedonian literary language]. In B. Vidoeski (Ed.), Jaziˇcnite pojavi vo Bitola i bitolsko deneska i vo minatoto, 193–200. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite. Friedman, V. A. (1988c). “The category of evidentiality in the Balkans and the Caucasus”. In A. Schenker (Ed.), American Contributions to the Tenth International Congress of Slavists, Linguistics, 121–139. Columbus: Slavica. Friedman, V. A. (1994a). “Surprise! Surprise! Arumanian has had an admirative!” Indiana Slavic Studies, 7, 79–89. Friedman, V. A. (1994b). “Variation and grammaticalization in the development of balkanisms”. In K. Beals et al. (Eds.), Papers from the Thirtieth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, V. 2, 101–115. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Friedman, V. A. (1995). “The differentiation of Macedonian and Bulgarian in a Balkan context”. Balkan Forum, 3(3), 291–305. Friedman, V. A. (1997). “One grammar, three lexicons: Ideological overtones and underpinnings in the Balkan Sprachbund”. In K. Singer, R. Eggert, & G. Anderson (Eds.), Papers from the Panels on Linguistic Ideologies in Contact, Universal Grammar, Parameters and Typology, The Perception of Speech and other Acoustic Signals, 23–44. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Friedman, V. A. (1998). “The grammatical expression of presumption and related concepts in Balkan Slavic and Balkan Romance”. In M. Flier & A. Timberlake (Eds.), American Contributions to the 12th International Congress of Slavists, 390–405. Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Goła˛b, Z. (1960). “The influence of Turkish upon the Macedonian Slavonic dialects”. Folia Orientalia, 1, 26–45. Goła˛b, Z. (1984). The Arumanian dialect of Kruševo in the SR Macedonia SFR Yugoslavia. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite. Guentchéva, Z. (1996). “Introduction”. In Z. Guentchéva (Ed.), L’Énonciation médiatisée, 11–18. Louvain: Peeters. Hamp, E. P. (1977). “On some questions of areal linguistics”. In K. Whistlers et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 279–282. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society. Hamp, E. P. (1982). “The oldest Albanian syntagma”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 25, 77–79. Hinrichs, U. (Ed.). (1999). Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Huntley, D. (1979). “The L-participle without auxiliary on Old Church Slavonic”. International Review of Linguistics, 4(3), 321–366. Jacobsen, W. H. (1986). “The heterogeneity of evidentials in Makah”. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, 3–28. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Jakobson, R. (1957/1971). Shifters, Verbal Categories, and the Russian Verb. Cambridge: Harvard University Slavic Department; Selected Writings, 2: Word and Language, 130– 137. The Hague: Mouton.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.33 (2073-2166)
The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics
Johanson, L. (2000). “Turkish indirectives”. In L. Johanson & B. Utas (Eds.), Evidentials in Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, 61–87. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Johanson, L. & Utas, B. (Eds.). (2000). Evidentials in Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Joseph, B. (1983). The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Joseph, B. (2000). “Is Balkan comparative syntax possible?” In M. L. Rivero & A. Ralli (Eds.), Comparative syntax of the Balkan languages, 17–43. Oxford: Oxford University. Koneski, B. (1965). Istorija na makedonsiot jazik [History of the Macedonian language]. Skopje: Kultura. Konstantinov, A. (1895). Baj Ganjo. Sofija: Penˇco V. Spasov (reprinted in 1973, Sofia: B˘algarski pisatel). Konstantinov, A. (1964). Bai Ganiu transl. T. C˘aliu & I. Boscu. Bucharest: Biblioteca pentru to¸ti. Kopitar, B. J. (1829). “Albanische, walachische und bulgarische Sprache”. Jahbücher der Literatur, 46, 59–106. Kostov, K. (1973). “Zur Bedeutung des Zigeunerischen für die Erforschung Grammatischer Interferenzerscheinungen”. Balkansko ezikoznanie, 16(2), 99–113. Kotova, N. V. (1956). “Materialy po albanskoj dialektologii (albanskie govory Ukrainy)” [Material on Albanian dialectology: The Albanian dialects of Ukraine]. Uˇcenye zapiski Instituta slavjanovednija Akademii nauk SSSR, 13, 254–287. Kriarás, E. (1995). Neo Elliniko Leksiko [Modern Greek Dictionary]. Athens: Ekdhoti Athinon. Lindstedt, J. (2000). “Linguistic Balkanization: Contact-induced change by mutual reinforcement”. In D. Gilbers, J. Nerbonne, & J. Schaeken (Eds.), Languages in contact, 231–246 Amsterdam: Rodopi. Lohmann, J. (1937). “Ist das idg. Perfektum nominalen Ursprungs?” Kuhns Zeitschrift, 64, 42–61. Lunt, H. (1952). A Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language. Skopje: Državvno knigoizdatelstvo. Manoliu-Manea, M. (1994). Discourse and Pragmatic Constraints on Grammatical Choices: A Grammar of Surprises. [North Holland Linguistic Series 57]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Markoviк´ , M. (1995). “Glagolskiot sistem vo makedonskiot i vo aromanskiot ohridski govor.” [The verbal system in Macedonian and the Aromanian dialect of Ohrid]. M.A. Thesis. University of Skopje. Matras, Y. (1995). “Verb evidentials and their discourse functions in Vlach Romani narratvies”. In Y. Matras (Ed.), Romani in Contact: The History, Structure, and Sociology of a Language, 95–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Matras, Y. (2000). “How predictable is contact-induced change in grammar?” In C. Renfrew, A. McMahon, & L. Trask (Eds.), Time Depth in Historical Linguistics, 563–583. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archeological Research. Mazon, A. (1936). Documents, contes et chansons slaves de l’Albanie du Sud. Paris: Droz. Mladenov, M. (1969). Govor˘at na Novo Selo Vidinsko [The Dialect of Novo Selo Vidin region] Sofia: Izdatelstvo na B˘algarskata akademija na naukite.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/04/2004; 16:01
F: LA6703.tex / p.34 (2166-2249)
Victor A. Friedman
Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative Retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nova Makedonija. Daily newspaper published in Skopje, Macedonia. Citation given in the order day.month.year:page. Otheguy, R. (1991). “When contact speakers talk, linguistic theory listens”. Paper read at Second International Conference of the Columbia School of Linguistics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, October 7–9. Palmer, F. R. (1983). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Rilindja. Daily newspaper published in Prishtina, Kosovo [at the time when these examples were published]. Citation given in the order day.month.year:page. Ross, M. (2001). “Contact-induced change in Oceanic languages in North-West Melanesia”. In A. Y. Aikhenwald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance. Problems in Comparative Liguistics, 134–166. Oxford: Oxford University. Samilov, M. (1957). “The witnessed past in Serbo-Croatian”. Canadian Slavonic Papers, 2, 98–105. Sandfeld, K. (1930). La linguistique balkanique. Paris: Klincksieck. Sapir, E. (1922). “The Takelma language of Southwestern Oregon”. In F. Boas (Ed.), Handbook of American Indian Languages 2 [Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40], 1–296. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Schaller, H. (1975). Die Balkansprachen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Slobin, D. I. & Aksu-Koç, A. A. (1982). “Tense, aspect, and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential”. In Paul J. Hopper (Ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, 185–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Squartini, M. (2001). “The internal structure of evidentiality in Romance”. Studies in Language, 25, 297–334. Tekin, T. (1968). A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic. Bloomington: Indiana University. ´ Topolinska, Z. (1995). “Convergent Evolution, Creolization and Referentiality”. In E. Hajiˇcová and P. Sgall (Eds.), Prague Linguistic Circle Papers, 1, 239–247. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Varol, M.-C. (2001). Calques morphosyntaxiques du turc en judéo-espagnol: mécanismes etlimites. In A. Donabedian (Ed.), Faits de langues: Langues de diaspora, 85–99. Paris: Ophrys. Weigand, G. (1923/1924). “The admirative in Bulgarian”. The Slavonic Review, 2, 567–68. Whitney, W. D. (1889). Sanskrit Grammar. Cambridge: Harvard. Wijk, N. van (1933). “De l’emploi du parfait et de l’aoriste en vieux-slave”. Revue des études slaves, 13, 242–244.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:16/01/2004; 9:36
The nominal phrase
F: LA67P2.tex / p.1 (26-48)
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.1 (40-118)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou Georgetown University / Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
In Modern Greek an adjective following a noun must obligatorily bear a second definite article and in Aromanian it can do so. These polydefinite constructions are argued to have different syntactic, semantic and phonological properties from monadic constructions, where the adjective precedes the noun and only one definite article appears. All of these properties will be shown to follow from a structure which involves a functional predicative category (PredP), headed by the adjectival definite article, whose specifier may be manifested as a demonstrative in both languages.
.
Introduction
Modern Greek exhibits DPs in which a definite article appears not only in front of the noun, but also in front of the adjective. Following Kolliakou (1995, 1999), we will label these structures “polydefinite constructions”: (1) a.
i pena i asimenja the pen the silver b. i asimenja i pena the silver the pen ‘the silver pen’
MG MG
The two definite articles in (1) must agree overtly in gender, number and case. In Modern Greek the definite adjective may either follow the noun, as in (1a), or precede the noun, as in (1b). A similar construction is attested in Aromanian, a Balkan Romance language spoken in Northern Greece, Albania and Macedonia.1 Notice that the equivalent of Modern Greek in (1b) is not possible in Aromanian, as shown in (2b). Aromanian,
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.2 (118-168)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
however, has the possibility of using a demonstrative between the definite noun and the definite adjective, as shown in (2c): (2) a.
stilo-lu lai-lu pen-the black-the b. *lai-lu stilo-lu black-the pen-the c. stilo-lu atsel lai-lu pen-the that black-the ‘the black pen’
AR AR AR
Modern Greek and Aromanian also exhibit “monadic constructions.” In these constructions, only one determiner appears within the DP: (3) a.
i asimenja pena the silver pen b. lai-lu stilo black-the pen ‘the black pen’
MG AR
In contrast with the polydefinite, the adjective in monadic constructions can never follow the noun: (4) a. *i pena asimenja the pen silver b. *stilo-lu lai pen-the black
MG (cf. 1a) AR (cf. 2a)
Summarizing the major differences between MG and AR we see that: (a) In AR the definite article is an enclitic form, cliticizing onto either the noun or the adjective. (b) AR does not allow for polydefinite constructions with the order A-N. (c) In AR a demonstrative pronoun is usually used when the order is N-A, as shown in (2c). The purpose of this paper is to propose a syntactic analysis which captures the observed distribution of such polydefinite DPs, and accounts for the similarities and differences between MG and AR. Based on evidence from MG, we will see that polydefinite constructions are syntactically, semantically and phonologically very different from monadic constructions, thus showing that polydefinites cannot be derived from monadic constructions. In Section 5.2 we will propose a new analysis to account for these constructions. Anticipating the discussion to follow, we will argue that polydefinites include a functional predicative category (PredP), which is headed by the ‘adjectival’ definite article. We will argue that PredP takes an adjective phrase as its complement, and pro as its specifier, the latter identified by the noun in D. The ‘basic’ position of the adjective in a polydefinite construction is postnominal, a position in which the adjective carries nuclear stress by default. The
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.3 (168-226)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
prenominal polydefinite construction will be argued to be derived by movement of the article + adjective complex. Monadics will be shown to lack PredP and it will be argued that no movement is involved.
. Some background information The phenomenon exemplified in (1) and (2) has been subsumed under different labels, such as “definiteness or determiner spreading”, “multiple determiner alternation”, “double definiteness”, “definiteness agreement”, “definiteness concord”, “adjectival determiners”, “polydefinite DPs”. Following Kolliakou (1995, 1999), we will adopt the term “polydefinite” and its opposite “monadic” to refer to the constructions discussed in Section 1. Traditional Greek grammars as well as certain current analyses (Tredinnick 1992; Androutsopoulou 1995; Manolessou 2000) take the polydefinite construction in (5a) to be essentially a free/stylistic variant of the monadic construction in (5b): (5) a.
i the b. i the
pena i pen the asimenja silver
asimenja silver pena pen
MG MG
Tredinnick (1992) observes that “there is no semantic distinction made [between (5a) and (5b)]. They are essentially stylistic variants and have identical distribution.” For Stavrou (1995), polydefinites are an instantiation of restrictive apposition (see also Manolessou 2000). She claims that adjectival polydefinite constructions are to be analyzed on a par with constructions like those in (6), which are polydefinite constructions consisting of two adjacent definite nominals: (6) a.
to kuti ta spirta the box the matches ‘the match box’ b. o vlakas o Janis the fool the Janis ‘John, that fool’
MG
MG
Kolliakou (1995, 1999) was the first linguist to note that MG polydefinite constructions are different from monadics both in interpretation and in their distribution. She spells out the differences in terms of different information packaging of the two types of DPs. According to Kolliakou (1999: 123), “polydefinites are felicitous in only a subset of the contexts where the latter can be found (. . . ). Polydefi-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.4 (226-286)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
nites are associated with contextual constraints that go beyond the uniqueness presuppositions of standard [monadic] definites.” This paper is organized as follows. Following and building on Kolliakou (1999), in Section 3 we present additional evidence for the claim that polydefinites cannot be mere free variants of monadic DPs which result in, or stem from, different styles or registers (poetry, prose, dialectal speech). We show that they constitute distinct constructions with their own syntactic, semantic and phonological/prosodic properties. In Section 4, we discuss previous analyses of polydefinite constructions. In Section 5 we present and argue for our analysis of polydefinites, comparing it to previous analyses. We also list the aspects of the phenomenon that the proposed analysis can account for and examine the predictions that the analysis makes. Finally, Section 6 summarizes the main points and the merits of the analysis.
. Differences between polydefinite and monadic constructions . Syntactic differences A first difference between polydefinite and monadic constructions appears when we consider adjective modification. As shown in (7a), the adjective in a polydefinite construction cannot be modified by a degree adverb or by an adverb of quantification. As shown in (7b), such modification is possible in monadic constructions: (7) a. *to toso/ poli/ pjo oreo the so/ very/ more nice b. to toso/ poli/ pjo oreo the so/ very/ more nice ‘the very nice/nicer book’
to vivlio the book vivlio book
MG (polydefinite)2 MG (monadic)
A second difference can be observed when the adjective is followed by a complement. An adjective in a polydefinite construction cannot take a complement; this is shown in (8a). In a monadic construction, however, a complement to the adjective is possible, as shown in (8b): (8) a. *i perifani gia ta pedia tis the proud of the children her b. i perifani gia ta pedia tis the proud of the children her ‘the mother proud of her children’
i mana MG (polydefinite)3 the mother MG (monadic) mana mother
A third difference is seen when we consider prenominal numerals or quantifiers. An adjective in a polydefinite DP cannot cooccur with a prenominal numeral or
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.5 (286-353)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
quantifier that also modifies the noun, regardless of whether the former precedes or follows the noun, as shown in (9a, b). In a monadic construction, however, this is possible (9c): (9) a.
??ta
pola/ tria vivlia ta orea the many/ three books the nice b. *ta orea ta pola/ tria vivlia the nice the many/ three books c. ta pola/ tria orea vivlia the many/ three nice books ‘the many/three nice books’
MG (polydefinite)4 MG (polydefinite) MG (monadic)
Finally, possessive clitics may not follow the adjective in polydefinite constructions, while this is possible in monadic constructions: (10) a. *to the b. to the
spiti house spiti house
to the tu his
oreo tu nice his to oreo the nice
MG (polydefinite) MG (polydefinite)5
(11) a.
to oreo tu spiti the nice his house b. to oreo spiti tu the nice house his ‘his nice house’
MG (monadic) MG (monadic)
We can see in examples (7) through (11) that monadic and polydefinite DPs have very different syntactic properties and distribution. From this it follows that polydefinites and monadics cannot have a common origin.
. Semantic differences In this subsection we will basically follow Kolliakou (1999) to point out the main differences between polydefinite and monadic constructions. Crucially, polydefinites imply a contrast and are organized around the presupposition/focus distinction. Consider the interaction in (12): (12) Ti tha paris tu Petru, to fako i tin pena? what will you-buy the Petro the lense or the pen ‘What will you buy to Petro, the lense or the pen?’ Tin pena. the pen ‘The pen.’
MG
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.6 (353-419)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
Pja pen, ti xrisi i tin asimenja? which pen the golden or the silver ‘Which one, the golden or the slilver one?’ Nomizo tin asimenja tin pena. I-think the silver the pen ‘I think, the silver one.’ In a polydefinite construction, the article-noun sequence constitutes the context or presupposition and the articled adjective constitutes the focus (or the ‘assertion,’ in Zubizarreta’s 1998 terms). In other words, the definite article of the adjective in a polydefinite construction undertakes the same function as contrastive focus on the adjective in a monadic DP, the overall effect being one of contrast or selection among the referents of the denotation of the noun which, by not being stressed, constitutes the context or a contextually retrievable set. According to Zubizarreta (1998), contrastive focus has two effects: (a) it negates the value of the variable in the Assertion Structure of its context statement, and (b) it introduces an alternative value for such a variable. Thus, the last response in (12) gives rise to the following two assertions: (a) there is a (x, y, z) such that x is offering y (such that y is a pen) to z and (b) it is not the case that y = a golden pen; y = a silver pen (where x is offering y to z). Assertion (a) is the presuppositional part or the background assertion, while (b) is the main assertion. As Zubizarreta (1998: 7) observes: “Like emphasis, contrastive focus makes a statement about the truth or correctness of the assertion introduced by its context statement (. . . ) Contrastive focus negates certain aspects of the assertion introduced by its context statement.” Given the pattern given/new, instantiated by the polydefinite DPs discussed above, polydefinites have been considered to run in parallel with clitic left dislocation constructions (13a) or to clitic doubling constructions (13b) (Anagnostopoulou 1994, p.c., Campos 2000): (13) a.
to vivlio to oreo (cf.: To vivlio to djavasa.) the book the nice the book it read.1sg.past [pattern: presupposed/focus (new)] b. to oreo to vivlio (cf.: To djavasa to vivlio.) the nice the book it read.1sg.past the book [pattern: assertion/focus – presupposed]
MG
MG
In both (a) and (b) we observe the same effect: a constituent that would be otherwise stressed (object/noun) is destressed so that another constituent (verb/adjective) may receive prominent stress. Like doubled DPs and pronominals, definite nouns within a polydefinite cannot be understood as novel (Anagnostopoulou 1995), something that can be taken to suggest that the latter, much like the former, obey the Prominence Condition (cf. Heim 1982; cf. (12)).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.7 (419-481)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
The second semantic difference between monadic and polydefinite constructions, which follows automatically from the first, is that polydefinites necessarily narrow down the set that constitutes the denotation of the noun – a fact that seems to stem directly from the primary function of the articled adjective as an exclusively restrictive modifier, as will also be shown below.6 The articled adjective in a polydefinite DP is always interpreted restrictively with regards to the noun it modifies, whereas adjectives in monadic DPs can be either restrictive or nonrestrictive. Consider (14):7 MG (monadic) O diefthindis dilose oti i ikani the director declared.3sg that the efficient erevnites tha apolithun. researchers will fired.3pl.pass MG (polydefinite) b. O diefthindis dilose oti i ikani i the director declared that the efficient the erevnites (i ikani) tha apolithun. researchers (the efficient) will fired.3pl.pass ‘The director declared that the efficient researches will be fired.’
(14) a.
The monadic construction in (14a) is ambiguous between what Kolliakou calls an ‘insane reading’ and a ‘life is tough’ reading. In the ‘insane’ reading, out of the set of researchers, only the efficient researchers will be fired. In the ‘life is tough’ reading, a set of researchers will be fired and the efficient researchers happen to be part of that larger group that will be fired. (14b), however, is not ambiguous. It only has the ‘insane’ reading, that is, the reading that out of the set of researchers, only those researchers that are efficient will be fired. This shows that in polydefinite constructions the articled adjective necessarily restricts or constrains the set denoted by the noun. Consider now (15), where the “=” symbol denotes an interpretational anomaly: =
MG To mageftiko to topio mas afise afonus. the magnificent the landscape us left speechless ‘The magnificent landscape left us speechless.’ = b. O epikindinos o kakopios telika skotose tus astinomikus. MG the dangerous the thug finally killed the policemen ‘The dangerous thug finally killed the policemen.’
(15) a.
The restrictive function of the articled adjective can explain why the use of the particular adjectives in the noun phrases in (15) is infelicitous unless they get contrastive stress: subjective/speaker oriented (or descriptive, for that matter) adjectives cannot restrict the denotation of the noun – they constitute typical nonrestrictive modifiers (Zamparelli 1993; Demonte 1999). The only way that the examples in (15) can be interpreted is to force a restrictive interpretation upon
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.8 (481-550)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
them. This can be done with an appropriate context, such as a context in which the adjectives mageftikos and epikindinos in (15) can be used to identify the referent by selecting it (from among other referents) on the basis of the property denoted by the relevant adjectives (Stavrou 1995; Manolessou 2000). Consider now the examples in (16): (16) a. *O monos tu o erotas ine i dulja tu. the only his the love is the work his ‘His only love is his work.’ b. *o ipotithemenos/dithen o antagonismos the alleged the competition ‘the alleged competition’
MG
MG
The adjectives in (16) belong to the class of intensional adjectives, whose semantics is quite different from that of attributive adjectives (Vendler 1967; Higginbotham 1985; Larson 1998, 2000). These adjectives are nonintersective and, as Kolliakou points out, the semantics of nonintersective adjectives is incompatible with polydefinite constructions. The adjective must be able to pick out a subset from the set denoted by the noun. Since the adjectives in (16) do not discharge a theta role to the noun, this is not possible and ungrammaticality ensues. Notice that, for the type of adjectives involved in (16), the contextual contrast available for the adjectives in (15) is not available. Moreover, even though in a monadic construction the adjective may have both an intersective and a nonintersective reading, in a polydefinite construction it can only be interpreted as intersective. Consider (17): (17) a.
Gnorises tin orea tragudistria? meet.2sg the beautiful singer b. Gnorises tin orea tin tragudistria? meet.2sg the beautiful the singer ‘Did you meet the beautiful singer?’
MG (monadic) MG (polydefinite)
(17a) is ambiguous. It can be asking whether one met the singer who is beautiful (intersective reading) or the singer who sings beautifully (nonintersective reading). (17b), on the other hand, can only mean whether one met the singer who is beautiful (intersective reading).8 We thus see that in polydefinite constructions, the adjective is always interpreted intersectively. Definite adjectives are sometimes used in generic contexts, as in proverbs, poems and similar expressions or genres, thus entailing an individual-level reading of the adjective (18). To account for this case we assume that the whole DP is in the scope of a generic operator, along the lines of Larson (1998, 2000). Notice however that this use of polydefinites does not invalidate their primary restrictive/contrastive import; rather, it places this import at a different level, namely
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.9 (550-627)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
that of the adjective picking out a permanent, enduring property rather than a temporary one. (18) To kalo to palikari kseri ki alo monopati the good the guy knows and other path ‘The good guy can find his way.’ (The contrast here involves good guys as opposed to bad guys.)
MG
Genericity of the DP in (18) is the outcome of a combination of factors, such as (primarily) the type of verb in the sentence, its tense/aspect, and adverbial modifiers (if any). What we are saying in effect is that the generic interpretation of (18) is orthogonal to the ‘constraint’ on restrictiveness of the articled adjective. A contrast we shall discuss presently has a particular impact on the analysis proposed in Section 5. Consider the examples in (19), from Larson (2000): (19) a. The stars visible include Capella b. The visible stars include Capella c. The visible stars visible include Capella Larson observes that there is a truth-conditional difference in English depending on the position of adjective, to the effect that (19b) can be true while (19a) can at the same time be false. In (19a) the adjective that follows the noun assigns a transient (non- permanent) property to it; the prenominal adjective in (19b), on the other hand, denotes a permanent, enduring property. However, as Larson shows, this difference does not follow from the adjective being pre- or postnominal (Bolinger 1967), but of it being a modifier of D or of N (outer and inner domain, in Larson’s terms respectively), viz. being part of the DP domain or the NP domain (semantically and structurally). N-modifiers, unlike D-modifiers, are in the domain of a generic operator. This can be seen in (19c), which can be paraphrased as ‘the generally visible stars which can also be seen now (because of a clear sky) include Capella’. The truth-conditional difference exemplified in (19) gets a correlate in Greek in (20). It is encoded in the polydefinite-monadic distinction for the following reasons: First of all, as we have shown, the definite adjective is always used restrictively in that it contributes a means to identify the referent, quite independently of the adjective class that it belongs to. Furthermore, definite adjectives are unambiguously intersective – like D-modifiers in English, which are exclusively intersective (Larson 2000) and restrictive. There is, however, a difference between outer or D-modifiers in English and definite adjectives in Greek: the latter, as opposed to the former, can assign to the referent either a temporary property as in (20a) or a permanent property as in (18).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.10 (627-665)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
(20) a.
I asterismi i orati perilamvanun ti Megali the constellations the visible include.3pl the Big MG (polydefinite = outer modifier) Arkto Ursus. ‘The visible constellations include the Big Ursus.’ b. I orati asterismi perilamvanun ti Megali the visible constellations include.3pl the Big MG (monadic = inner-N-modifier) Arkto. Ursus ‘The visible constellations include the Big Ursus.’ = c. I asterismi i orati perilamvanun ti megali Arkto the constellations the visible include.3pl the Big Ursus MG (polydefinite = outer modifier) ala afti tora de fenete but this now not seem.3sg ‘The visible constellations include the Big Ursus, but this is not seen now.’ d. I orati asterismi perilamvanun ti Megali Arkto pu the visible constellations include.3pl the Big Ursus that MG (monadic = inner-N-modifier) tora de fenete now not seem.3sg ‘The visible constellations include the Big Ursus, but this is not seen now.’
In (20a), the definite adjective assigns a temporary property to the referent of the noun: some stars are visible at the moment of utterance. In (20b), on the other hand, the prenominal adjective attributes a steady, unchangeable property to the stars, so that the adjective and the noun almost form a unitary concept, much like a compound (Sadler & Arnold 1994; Stavrou 1996). If it is cloudy, for instance the polydefinite contruction (20a), can be false, while the monadic construction (20b), can at the same time be true. Compare (20c) to (20d). (20c) is contradictory while (20d) is not, thus showing the polydefinite and the monadic construction have different meanings and, consequently, the polydefinite construction cannot be derived from the monadic construction. In way of concluding this subsection, it is worth pointing out once more that definite adjectives in polydefinites are always interpreted as restrictive modifiers, in contrast to adjectives in monadic constructions, which are ambiguous, the temporary-permanent (or stage-individual level) distinction cutting across the restrictive-non restrictive opposition. One more conclusion that must be drawn from the discussion so far is that definite adjectives are always interpreted intersectively. In 3.3 we will see that the restrictive character of definite adjectives is matched with their stress patterns.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.11 (665-721)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
. Phonological/Prosodic differences As mentioned in the two previous sections, if the adjective in a polydefinite construction follows the noun, being the last or most deeply embedded constituent, it gets nuclear stress (cf. (21a)). Optionally, the adjective may be contrastively stressed, in which case nuclear stress is overriden by emphatic stress. If the adjective precedes the noun, it is contrastively stressed and the adjective is interpreted under narrow focus, with emphatic stress being assigned to it by the Emphatic/Contrastive Stress Rule (cf. (21b)).9 As shown in (21c, d) below, the noun can never be contrastively stressed in a polydefinite construction: (21) a.
i the b. i the c. *i the d. *i the
pena i asimenja/ASIMENJA pen the silver/silver asimenja i pena silver the pen PENA i asimenja pen the silver asimenja i PENA silver the pen
MG (polydefinite) MG (polydefinite) MG (polydefinite) MG (polydefinite)
On the other hand, in a monadic construction, when no contrast is involved (i.e., when there is a unique referent) the nuclear stress is on the noun, as in (22a), and only when there is a contrast between at least two members of the extension of the noun, as in (22b), the adjective is contrastively stressed, i.e. represents a narrow focus: (22) a.
i the b. i the
asimenja pena/PENA silver pen/pen ASIMENJA pena silver pen
MG (monadic) MG (monadic)
Thus, we see that in a monadic construction, depending on context, either the adjective or the noun may carry contrastive stress, whereas in a polydefinite the adjective is always the one to be stressed, the noun providing only contextualized/old information. Note that the restrictions in (21) parallel those observed with DPs containing demonstratives and possessive genitives: (23) a.
to vivlio afto the book this b. AFTO to vivlio this the book ‘this book’
MG MG
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.12 (721-779)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
c.
to vivlio tu the book the d. tu JANI the.gen Janis ‘John’s book’
Jani/ tu JANI Janis the.gen JANI to vivlio the book
MG MG
Both the demonstrative and the genitive DP receive nuclear stress in final position and contrastive stress in initial position (see Horrocks & Stavrou 1987; see also Manolessou & Panagiotidis 1998 as to why the postnominal demonstrative is anaphoric rather than deictic). This has the effect of the demonstrative acquiring strong deictic force in prenominal position. We thus see that monadic and polydefinite constructions have different stress patterns, supporting our claim that polydefinite and monadic constructions cannot have a common source.
. Polydefinites and the direct/indirect-modification distinction Androutsopoulou (1995) was the first to observe that in definiteness spreading structures there is no strict ordering among the definite adjectives. But what has passed unnoticed so far is the fact that in polydefinite constructions no more than one definite adjective can appear (in a single DP). Thus, a DP with an apparent sequence of several definite adjectives belonging to the same intonational group and interpreted under a hierarchical arrangement (Sproat & Shih 1987, 1991) is interpretatively anomalous, irrespective of whether the definite adjective(s) precede(s) or follow(s) the noun (24b–c): (24) a.
=
to megalo to agonistiko the big the sport.adj b. = to aftokinito to megalo the car the big c. = to megalo to aftokinito the big the car ‘The big sports car’
to the to the to the
aftokinito car aftokinito sport agonistiko sport.adj
MG MG MG
Sproat and Shih demonstrate that crosslinguistically adjectival modification, rather than being a unitary phenomenon, breaks down into two types – direct modification, where the adjective assigns directly its theta role to its sister noun, and indirect modification, in which the adjective assigns its role to the modified noun indirectly, from inside a modifying relative clause of which it forms part. In particular, the adjective is coindexed with an empty variable within its clause, which is bound by the operator in CP, which in turn is coindexed with the head noun. But direct modification can also be of two types: hierarchical and parallel. In the former type, each preceding adjective assigns its theta role directly to its sister (which can be another
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.13 (779-842)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
adjective followed by another adjective, or just a noun). In parallel modification (in a series of adjectives) each adjective assigns its role directly to the nominal head independently of one another. It is further argued by Sproat and Shih that ordering restrictions, as well as the restriction of not more than two direct modifiers being allowed, hold of direct hierarchical modification only. The sequence in (24) can only be acceptable with a pause separating each article + adjective combination, indicated here by commas as in (25) below. The oddity of (24) is due to the putative reading of the strings as involving direct modification. The restriction on the ban of more than one definite adjective per DP also holds true of sequences where one adjective precedes and one follows the noun, though a pause is also needed after the noun here ((24c) vs. (25c)). In (25a–b) we further notice the free order pointed out by Androutsopoulou. (25) a.
to megalo, to politeles, to panakrivo the big the illustrated the most expensive ‘the big, illustrated, most expensive book’ b. to panakrivo, to megalo, to politeles the most expensive the big the illustrated ‘the most expensive big illustrated book’ c. to megalo, to aftokinito, to agonistiko the big the car the sport.adj ‘the big sports car’
to vivlio the book
MG
to vivlio the book
MG
MG
We take the well-formedness of the sequences in (25) to suggest that what is involved here is in fact “parallel” modification (in the sense of Sproat & Shih 1987, 1991; echoing Goodall 1987). It seems to be the case that, given a well formed (infinite) number of definite adjectives, each of them constitutes a separate intonational phrase phonologically, and at the same time also a separate syntactic phrase. In assuming this, we depart from Sproat and Shih in attributing parallel modification also to the case of indirect modification. Definite adjectives in polydefinites are indirect modifiers, much like de-modifiers in Mandarin. However, the analysis we will propose in Section 5 below differs from the one assumed by Sproat and Shih, who argue for (restrictive or non restrictive) relative clauses as the source of these modifiers in Mandarin (cf. also Alexiadou and Wilder 1998). Notice that the relaxing of the ordering restrictions can also be seen as a reflex of parallel modification (see Sproat and Shih for details). Thus, in (25) the adjectives can in fact appear in any order. Instances of polydefinites with multiple definite adjectives are reminiscent of modification by de-adjectives in Mandarin. Sproat and Shih (on the basis of the analysis of a number of languages) show that in indirect modification (a) the modifier appears outside the basic DP, (b) it indirectly modifies the noun by constituting a relative clause; (c) when there is more than one indirect modifier, no strict order is followed. In light of these observations,
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.14 (842-889)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
Greek displays both indirect (polydefinites) and direct (monadics) modification. Our proposal in Section 5 will be compatible with the assumption that definite adjectives in polydefinites are instances of indirect modification, as well as with the fact that there is only one definite adjective per DP, and, furthermore, that if there is more than one adjective, the adjectives can appear in any order, as they belong to separate phonological (and syntactic) phrases.10 To conclude the discussion so far, we see that polydefinite constructions cannot be free stylistic variants of monadic constructions. They have different, though sometimes overlapping, distribution due to the fact that in polydefinites the adjective is always a restrictive modifier, whereas in monadic constructions it can be restrictive or non-restrictive. The difference between polydefinite and monadic constructions can be observed in syntax, semantics and phonology/prosody, thus strongly suggesting that one construction cannot be derived from the other.
. Other syntactic analyses . Tredinnick (1992) Tredinnick argues that in the structure shown in (26), DP2 is an adjunct (of N’) within the uppermost DP1 . The second article does not have independent semantic content/reference. The article heading DP2 does not need to be realized if DP2 stays in situ, thus generating to kokino vivlio ‘the red book’. On the other hand, the article must be obligatorily realized if DP2 moves either rightward to create a rightadjunction to DP1 , thus generating to kokino to vivlio ‘the red the book’, or leftward, creating a left-adjunction to DP1 and yielding the order to vivlio to kokino ‘the book the red’. Notice that in these two instances the article on DP2 is obligatorily realized. Also notice, that the analysis encounters several problems. First, it derives polydefinite constructions from monadic ones. This assumption fails to explain the differences between polydefinite and monadic constructions discussed in the previous section. Second, no explanation is given for what triggers the movement of DP2 nor is there an explanation for the role and/or nature of the second article in DP2, which appears obligatorily when the DP2 is moved. A third problem is that this analysis does not make any distinction between predicative and attributive (or restrictive/non-restrictive) adjectives. Finally, the different word orders found in the polydefinite construction are obtained via free adjunctions either leftwards or rightwards without a motivation for the respective movements.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.15 (889-931)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
DP1
(26) Spec
D’ D
NP1
to Spec
N’
AP kokino
N’ N’
DP2
N Spec Ø
D’ D
NP2
(to)
vivlio
. Androutsopoulou (1995) In (27b) we represent the structure proposed by Androutsopoulou (1995) to account for (27a). In this structure, D selects for DefP, Def for AP, A for DefP and Def for N: (27) a.
to kokkino to milo the red the apple b. [DP D [DefP1 to [AP kokino [DefP2 to [N milo ]]]]]
MG MG
In (27b), each definite article heads a definite phrase (DefP) and the determiner head D is the locus of φ-features, Case and definiteness. Definite articles are thus expletive in nature. The topmost D, which contains no overt material, is the only determiner that gets interpreted at LF. Androutsopoulou (1995) also proposes that DefP2 may move to the specifier of the superordinate DefP1 . Thus, (28a) would be derived by moving the lower DefP2 in (28b) to the higher specifier, as shown in (28c): (28) a.
to milo to kokkino the apple the red b. [DP [DefP1 to [AP kokkino [DefP2 to [N milo ]]]]] c. [DP [DefP1 [DefP2 to [N milo ]]i to [AP kokkino ti ]]]
MG MG MG
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.16 (931-988)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
Androutsopoulou (1995) further discusses Determiner Spreading over two adjectives, where several combinations between the noun and the adjective are possible. She derives all the potential combinations by allowing only DefP to move. Alexiadou and Wilder (1998) have pointed out several problems with Androutsopoulou’s (1995) analysis. First, the Determiner Spreading construction in (27b) does not allow for complex adjectives, since adjectival heads necessarily take DefP as a complement. Thus, grammatical examples like (29) cannot be generated under this analysis: (29) i [perifani ja to jo tis] mitera the [proud of the son hers] mother ‘the mother proud of her son’
MG
A second problem is that Androutsopoulou (1995) needs a new functional category, DefP, to derive these facts. As Alexiadou and Wilder (1998: 319) observe: “it is unclear what gives rise to the appearance of DefP on Greek DPs. There seems to be no motivation to assume such a category in other languages, or in Greek, for that matter (apart from the facts it is intended to account for). It is also not evident what regulates the distribution of this category; why for example, should APs as well as NPs be governed by such a category?” A third problem is that Androutsopoulou’s analysis cannot capture the fact that Determiner Spreading is possible only with predicative adjectives. Finally, this analysis cannot capture the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive adjectives, nor can it account for the interpretational differences between monadics and polydefinites, which in the case of (20), are truth-conditional.
. Kolliakou (1999) Kolliakou, working within a HPSG framework, accounts for the occurrence of the definite article in front of the adjective in polydefinites in terms of the hypothesis that the noun and the adjective are instantiations of an unvaried super category labelled “nominal” (Kolliakou 1995). She further accounts for the semantics of polydefinites in terms of the value of the feature [CONTEXT] ‘include in’, which appears on the AdjP in a polydefinite, but is absent from monadics. Crucially, this feature cooccurs with the feature [+UNIQUE], which percolates to the topmost NomP from both its head NomP and the adjective (structurally an adjunct/modifier). Kolliakou accounts for the semantic import of polydefinites in terms of non-monotone anaphora.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.17 (988-1041)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
. Alexiadou and Wilder (1998) Alexiadou and Wilder (1998) do not explore the semantic import of polydefinites and do not discuss any semantic difference between polydefinites and monadics; however, they assume that polydefinites have a different structure (and origin) from monadic DPs. Extending Kayne’s analysis (1994) for equivalent phrases in English (30a), Alexiadou and Wilder (1998) assume that polydefinites include a relative clause complement of D. They crucially allow for the embedded noun to contain a determiner, which explains the presence of two determiners in polydefinite constructions. Thus the derivation for (30c) would be (30e): (30) a. the red apple b. [DP the [CP redi [IP [NP apple] ti ]]] c. to kokkino to milo the red the apple d. [DP to [CP [IP [DP to milo] kokkino]]] [DP the [CP [IP [DP the apple] red]]] e. [DP to [CP kokkinoi [IP [DP to milo] ti ]]] [DP the [CP redi [IP [DP the apple] ti ]]]
MG MG MG
To derive the order article + noun + article + adjective, Alexiadou and Wilder (1998), following Horrocks and Stavrou (1987), assume that any DP may move to the Spec of another DP: (31) a.
to milo to kokkino the apple the red b. [DP to [CP kokkinoi [IP [DP to milo] ti ]]] [DP the [CP redi [IP [DP the apple] ti ]]] c. [DP [DP to milo]j to [CP kokkinoi [IP tj ti ]]] [DP [DP the apple]j the [CP redi [IP tj ti ]]]
MG MG MG
Alexiadou and Wilder’s (1998) analysis provides a straightforward analysis of the facts. This analysis does not need to postulate of a new functional category DefP, as was necessary in Androutsopoulou’s analysis. But there are a few problems. First, the analysis diverts in a significant way from Kayne (1994) in allowing for a DP within the CP complement of D, whereas English and French in Kayne’s analysis allow only for an NP (and therefrom, the lack of polydefinite constructions in these languages). To claim that Greek allows for DP rather than NP since it has polydefinite constructions is stipulative.11 A second problem is that Alexiadou and Wilder do not propose a motivation for the movement of the DP and the AP in (31c), apart from the need to derive the desired word order. A third problem is encountered when we consider the fact that in Aromanian as well as in older stages of Greek (New Testament and Ancient Greek; see Manolessou 2000) only the pattern
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.18 (1041-1081)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
in (31a) can be found. How then is (30c) to be blocked in Aromanian and in older stages of Greek?
. Campos (2000) Trying to account for polydefinite constructions in Megleno-Romanian, Campos proposes the structure shown in (32): (32) [DP call-u [AgrP -ui [FP criv- [N proi ] ]]] horse-the -the lame‘the lame horse’
MR
Campos argues that call-u ‘horse-the’ in (32) is merged as a word in DP. The second article, generated under AgrP and parallel to a clitic in left-dislocated constructions (see discussion for example (13) above), serves a dual purpose: (a) to identify the N-pro under FP, and (b) to allow the predication of the adjective on the noun. The second definite article, being an enclitic element, needs a lexical element to support it. For this purpose, the adjective in (32) will move to [Spec AgrP]. In this analysis, the second determiner is responsible for the predication of the adjective. However, it is not clear why it should be generated under AgrP.
. Manolessou (2000) For Manolessou (2000), the article + adjective sequence is located at the specifier position of the NP; the order definite article + noun + definite article + adjective is obtained via the obligatory movement of the noun to the head of a functional agreement projection FP lying between DP and NP. The reverse order definite article + adjective + definite article + noun is the result of an ‘extra’ movement of the definite article + noun to the Spec of DP (Horrocks & Stavrou 1987).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.19 (1081-1116)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
(33)
DP D’ D
FP F’
SPEC to
NP
F SPEC
N’
DP
N
to kalo
pedi
This analysis does not specify what is special about [Spec, NP], which is responsible for the placement of (definite) adjectives there. Its major problem is that it relies on the existence of (obligatory) N-movement, which has no independent motivation apart from accounting for word order facts (see Alexiadou & Stavrou 1998a, b; Bouchard 1998; Dimitrova-Vulchanova 2003 for arguments based on cross-linguistic evidence against N-movement). Even so, in order to account for all the adjective-noun word order facts, Manolessou has to stipulate [Spec, FP] as the only position for adjectives (see Larson 1998, 2000; Demonte 1999 for discussion about different adjective types and derivations for these). Moreover, Manolessou uses the vague term “identification” as a defining function of polydefinites, thus failing to capture their primary purpose as restrictive modifiers.
. A proposal for polydefinite structures . Articled adjectives and predicativity Given the dicussion in Section 3, we want to propose that the origin of polydefinites is clausal. Such an assumption is compatible with those analyses that treat “definite” adjectives in Greek (and in other languages) as relative clauses of some sort (cf. Alexiadou & Wilder 1998). Moreover, it reflects the similarity of polidefinites, in behavior and properties, with indirect de-modifiers in Mandarin, in accordance with what we observed in 3.4 above, although the particular implementation we are assuming differs from the relative clause analysis of Sproat and Shih (op.cit.).
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.20 (1116-1185)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
Our analysis also benefits from Larson’s (2000) ideas, in his analysis of temporal modification in nominals, whereby adjectives denoting a temporary property (stage-level) originate in a sentence (CP) which comes out as the complement of D in a D-shelled DP projection. Our proposal in particular relates the polydefinite adjective with a predicative (small) clause. Motivation for this is to be found in the simple observation that for every polydefinite there is a copulative clause in which the adjective appears across the copula. This relation is expressed by the symbol “⊃” in (34): (34) to vivlio to oreo ⊃ To vivlio ine oreo. the book the nice the book is nice ‘the nice book’ ‘The book is nice.’
MG
The same cannot be said of adjectives in monadics, as there are many cases where an adjective-noun combination is not paraphrasable with a predicative clause. This holds true not only of intensional adjectives instantiating what Higginbotham (1985) calls “autonymous theta marking”, but also of certain “simple” evaluative adjectives like kalos ‘good’ in their nonintersective use (Vendler 1967): (35) a.
Ekane tin apli skepsi oti. . . made-3sg the plain thought that ‘expressed the mere thought that. . . ’ but *I skepsi ine apli the thought is simple purported meaning: ‘The thought is simple’. b. I Maria ine kali tragudistria the Maria is good singer ‘Maria is a good singer. but: *‘I Maria ine kali. the Maria is good
MG
MG
These facts lead us to the following descriptive generalization: (36) All instances of (articled) adjectives in polydefinites can be used as predicates in a predicative clause (cf. also Alexiadou & Wilder’s 1998 generalization (30))
. A structure for the polydefinite construction The crucial question at this point is how to represent the predicative source of articled adjectives structurally. Our answer to this question is based on existing analyses that establish a Small Clause type of category within the DP (Kayne 1994; den Dikken 1998; Demonte 1999). In implementing this general idea, however,
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.21 (1185-1242)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
we draw from Eide and Afarli’s (1999) analysis of predication, which, in turn, echoes Bowers (1993). A crucial assumption of our analysis is the conception of the definite article before the adjective in a polydefinite as the head of a predicative category. The structure we propose will be motivated in the next subsection. DP
(37) D
FP F
PredP Spec
Pred’ Pred
AP
a.
pena i the pen
pro
i the
asimenja silver
b.
stilo-lu pen-the
(atsel) that
laii-lu black-the
ti
MG AR
.. The basics of the analysis PredP is a mnemonic label for a functional category, similar to the Small Clause proposed by den Dikken (1998) and Corver (1998) for the pseudopartitive construction in a number of languages. This category is the complement of F – an agreement type of projection in the DP (independently needed and argued for in Alexiadou and Stavrou (1998a, b), Alexiadou (2001) and Manolessou (2000) for Greek; Ritter (1991) for Hebrew, among many others). The head of PredP hosts, we assume, the adjectival definite article. It is anaphorically linked to (and hence, coindexed with) the lexical subject of the predication, which we assume is generated under the D head, as we will argue next. At this point we would like to produce supportive evidence from Albanian in favor of the inclusion of a predicative category in the polydefinite DP.12 The interesting fact about Albanian is that in this language some adjectives bear an adjectival determiner (AdjDet) which may vary depending on the definiteness of the noun they modify. Consider the plural nominative examples in (38):13 (38) a.
ca djem të mirë some boys AdjDet good ‘some good boys’
Al
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.22 (1242-1294)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
b. djemtë e mirë boys-the AdjDet good ‘the good boys’ c. ca vajza të mira some girls AdjDet good.f.pl ‘some good girls’ d. vajzat e mira girls-the AdjDet good.f.pl ‘the good girls’
Al
Al
Al
In these examples the adjective mirë/mira ‘good’ appears preceded by the adjectival determiner të when the noun is indefinite (38a, c) and by e when the noun is definite (38b, d).14 In the spirit of Eide and Afarli (1999), we take the second determiner in (37) to be the realization of the predication operator, namely the nominal counterpart of the sentential copula, which denotes a function from the property denoted by the adjective to a new function from the pronoun (referring back to i pena) to a proposition (i.e. ‘the pen is black’).15 The determiner in the head of PredP is a clitic element in Aromanian; thus, the adjective will move (via head-to-head movement) to Pred to support the determiner, forming lai-lu ‘black-the’ in (37b). In the Greek equivalent in (37a), the determiner is a free-standing element and, as such, does not need a supporting element. Hence the adjective will remain where it is generated. Coming next to the subject of DP-internal predication, we take it to be pro, a silent pronoun that is identified and licensed by the head Pred, namely, the definite article, under spec-head agreement. It further retrieves its descriptive content from the noun in D. We take the lexical subject (i pena/stilo-lu ‘the pen’) to merge outside the PredP rather than at its specifier, where we assume pro is merged, because it is a pronoun which may, in fact, be spelled out as a demonstrative in both languages; in other words, [Spec, PredP] is needed to host the “demonstrative”, when it is spelled out:16 (39) a.
i pena afti i asimenia the pen this the silver b. stilo-lu atselu lai-lu pen-the that black-the
MG AR
At this point we must show that the “demonstrative” that appears in (39) is different from the demonstrative deictic pronoun in both languages. The first piece of evidence comes from the fact that in Aromanian the demonstrative and the predicative elements have different (though related) forms. Only (40a) is interpreted as containing a demonstrative element; (40b) is interpreted only as a definite
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.23 (1294-1366)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
phrase, as shown in the glosses. Notice that in the first construction, the form of the demonstrative is atselu, while in the second construction, the predicative bears the form atsel: (40) a.
om-lu atselu bun-lu man-the that good-the ‘that good man’ b. om-lu atsel bun-lu man-the that (the) good-the ‘the good man’
AR
AR
The second piece of evidence comes from Greek, where demonstratives can appear either before the (definite) article or after the noun: (41) a.
afto to vivlio this the book b. to vivlio afto the book this ‘this book’
MG MG
In (41b), according to Manelessou and Panagiotidis (1998), Manolessou (2000), Panagiotidis (2000), the demonstrative is (discourse) anaphoric, i.e. it refers back to some referent already established in the discourse, whereas in (41a) it is deictic and contributes to the establishment of a referent. Furthermore, its use in prearticle position can be further accompanied by a pointing gesture. Supporting evidence is provided by the presence of a deictic reinforcer (e)ki ‘there’ and (e)do ‘here’ which can be regularly suffixed onto the real (deictic) demonstrative (ekino’ki ‘that one over here’, touto’do ‘this one over here’), but less commonly so to the anaphoric one: (42) a.
afto (edo) to vivlio this (here) the book to vivlio afto (??edo) the book this (??here) ‘this book here’ b. to vivlio afto (?edo) to kalo the book this (here) the nice ‘this nice book here’
MG MG
MG
Moreover, in the presence of a prenominal adjective in a monadic DP, the demonstrative usually appears immediately after the adjective:17 (43) to oreo afto vivlio the nice this book ‘the nice book’
MG
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.24 (1366-1412)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
In this position the demonstrative is also prone to an anaphoric interpretation. Afto in (43) is used only to refer back to a nice book already mentioned and established in the discourse. Various analyses have been proposed for (43). Thus Stavrou and Horrocks (1989), within the broader spirit of lexical phonology and parallel morphology, proposed that (Greek) demonstratives are categories of Xo level and intermediate in status between clitics and fully independent words. They have the potential for syntactic independence when stressed, but distributionally tend to behave like clitics. It is worth stressing here that demonstratives can be (emphatically) stressed in prearticle position, but crucially not in the intermediate position (i.e., between the adjective and the noun): (44) a.
AFTO to vivlio THIS the book b. *to oreo AFTO vivlio the nice THIS book
MG MG
Demonstratives, unlike clitic genitives, do not have a clear affixal status but may combine with a preceding head to form a phonological phrase based on a morphologically determined dependency. Accordingly, the sequence adjective + demonstrative constitutes a morphological word and is formed away from the lexicon, either to syntactically predefined D-Structure or S-Structure. According to Manolessou and Panagiotidis (1998), and Manolessou (2000), on the other hand, sequences like those in (43) emerge after the noun has moved to the head of a hierarchically superior functional projection leaving behind the demonstrative base-generated at [Spec,NP]. For Panagiotidis (2000), the pronominal adjective is able to check the relevant φ-features of NumberP (generated between DP and NP), thus making the raising of the noun in front of the demonstrative not necessary. Whatever the correct analysis of cases like (43), the relevance of the above facts to the data that our structure (37) is claimed to capture lies in the fact that the demonstrative that follows the noun in the polydefinite construction (42b) has the same properties as the demonstrative that is attached to the prenominal adjective in a monadic DP: it is anaphoric and unstressed, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (44b).18 If we take the demonstrative in (37) to be a weak pronoun, just as it is in (43), in the spirit of Cardinaletti and Starke (1999) and Cardinaletti (1999), we are led to accept that it doesn’t have the potential to move by itself. Two interrelated assumptions/solutions follow: (a) the demonstrative that appears regularly in [Spec, DP] is different from the ‘anaphoric,’ lower ‘demonstrative,’ probably merged directly in that position. (b) The anaphoric demonstrative that appears in a lower position (in Giusti’s (1997, 2002) or Brugè’s (1996, 2002) system,19 in [Spec, PredP] in ours) is moved along with the adjective it has been attached (in Stavrou and Horrocks’ sense) or cliticized to (as the result of the cyclic raising of the arti-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.25 (1412-1480)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
cle + adjective sequence to [Spec, DP]). The fact that the anaphoric demonstrative cannot be stressed as a typical demonstrative (i.e. deictic) is thus taken care of. Constructions like the Aromanian one discussed in (40) can also be found in Romanian, as observed in Giusti (1993: §2.3): (45) a.
om-ul cel frumos man-the “cel” beautiful ‘the handsome man’ b. baietsi-i cei saraci boys-the “cei” poor ‘the poor boys’
R
R
Although the forms cel/cei in (45) are morphologically close to the demonstrative forms in (46), they are not demonstrative; notice that the glosses in (45) are not deictic at all, while those in (46) are. Furthermore, a demonstrative would require the form acela ‘that’ when it follows the noun (46a) and acel ‘that’ when it precedes the noun, as observed by Lombard (1974: 176) and Giusti (1993). The form cel in (45) is not possible with the meaning of (46): (46) a.
om-ul acela bun man-the that good b. acel om bun that man good ‘that good man’
R R
We thus see that the demonstratives in (46) and the determiners that appear on the adjective in the Romanian examples in (45), are different elements. It is interesting to observe that Lombard (op. cit., Chapter 6) classifies the determiners in (45) as one of the three types of definite articles and not as a demonstrative adjective.20 Going back to (37), we see that Pred takes AP as its complement. This explains why in a polydefinite construction the adjective may appear with a complement or with a modifier when it follows the noun.21 In 5.2.2 we will further see how this option is blocked when the adjective precedes the noun in a polydefinite construction. To summarize this section, we have presented evidence that the specifier position of the predicative projection PredP in (37) may host not only a ‘silent’ pronominal subject, but also an overt pronominal, which may be spelled out both in Aromanian and in Greek (as well as in Romanian). In Balkan Romance and in the Balkan languages in general (Bulgarian, Macedonian, Albanian) we typically find the sequence N+D, which seems to form a word. Phonological processes affecting the word internally suggest a lexical rather than just pure phonological (PF) formation. This claim has been made for Romanian by Dobrovie-Sorin (2000), for Albanian by Androutsopoulou (2001) and it is
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.26 (1480-1546)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
directly applicable to the Aromanian data discussed in this paper. Although Greek shows D+N order, it is at best strange that no material can break the sequence article + noun + article + adjective, a fact that suggests that D+N in polydefinite constructions may also be a word in Greek. In particular, we take the art+noun complex in a polydefinite to form a complex head in the sense of Ortmann and Popescu (2000): (a) it projects to its hierarchically highest element (D) and selects the complement of its lowest element (here N) (ibid.); (b) it forms a D, projected as DP; (c) it doesn’t block movement of the predicative AP (or of the demonstrative in [Spec, PredP] to [Spec, DP] or, possibly, to a category Focus above it. Suggestive evidence comes from the fact that in a polydefinite construction the noun cannot be modified by an adjective and instances of a noun in a polydefinite preceded by a numeral/quantifier are very marginal or unattested. Example (9a) is repeated here as (47a) for convenience; compare it with (47b): (47) a. *ta the b. ??to the
pola/ tria many/ three oreo/kineziko nice/chinese
vivlia ta orea books the nice vazo to kokino22 vase the red
MG MG
The noun in a polydefinite construction may not take a complement either (cf. Androutsopoulou 2001). However, if the complement forms a two-word compound with the preceding noun (Kolliakou 1995; Ralli & Stavrou 1997), then the polydefinite structure is marginal: (48) a. *o thavmasmos gia ton Aristoteli o megalos the admiration for the Aristotle the great ‘the great admiration for Aristotle’ b. ?*o kathigitis glossologias o kalos the professor linguistics-gen the good ‘the good professor of linguistics’
MG
MG
The facts in (47) and (48) support our analysis since the head noun seems to be showing head as opposed to phrasal behavior.
.. Predictions Every postnominal AP (even XP) in a polydefinite construction is predicative. Adjectives that cannot appear in a predicative clause cannot appear in a polydefinite construction either. This explains the descriptive generalizations in (36) above. Consider now (49): (49) a. *o tromokratis o ipotithemenos23 the terrorist the alledged
MG
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.27 (1546-1606)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
b. *o the c. ?to the d. *o the e. *o the
proedros o proin president the former astiko to leoforio city the bus Lefkos o Pirgos White the Tower Indikos o Okeanos Indian the Ocean
MG MG MG MG
Intensional adjectives (as in (49a)), circumstantial adjectives (as in (49b)) (cf. Demonte 1999), as well as adjectives that form part of an A+N compound (as in (49c)) (cf. Ralli & Stavrou 1997), or of compounds employed as locational names (as in 49d–e) are predicted to be excluded form the predicative position in structure (37). This is borne out, as shown in (49). Concerning the focal status of the adjective in a polydefinite, we assume that the feature FOCUS on the predicative adjective (see 3.3 above) may be checked either via intonation (50a) or via intonation and movement (50b), in line with general properties of Greek (Tsimpli 1998). The derivation for the polydefinite construction with the prenominal adjective is shown in (50c): MG tin pena tin ASIMENJA the pen the silver MG b. tin ASIMENJA tin pena the silver the pen ‘the silver pen’ c. [FocP [Foc tin asimenja]i [DP [D ti tin pena] [FP ti [PredP pro ti [AP ti ]]]]] MG [FocP [Foc the silver]i [DP [D ti the pen] [FP ti [PredP pro ti [AP ti ]]]]] MG
(50) a.
In (50c), the presence of pro in [Spec, PredP] seems to block movement of the AP to [Spec, FocP]. Thus head-movement is the only option to reach FocP. The adjective moves as a head from A to Pred (picking up the determiner), to F, to D (incorporating to the head i pena ‘the pen’), and then it excorporates to Foc. The derivation in (50c) predicts that the adjective is a head. This derivation is confirmed by the facts noted in (7) and (8) and their respective footnotes, repeated all here as (51): (51) a. *to toso/ poli/ pjo oreo to vivlio the so/ very/ more nice the book b. to vivlio to toso/ poli/ pjo oreo the book the so/ very more nice ‘the very nice/nicer book’
MG MG
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.28 (1606-1662)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
c. *i perifani gia ta pedia tis i mana the proud of the children her the mother d. i mana i perifani gia ta pedia tis the mother the proud of the children her ‘the mother proud of her children’
MG MG
In (51a, c) where the adjective precedes the noun, the adjective is a head, and as such, it cannot be modified or complemented. In postnominal position (51b, d), it forms a full AP, and as such, it may appear with a premodifier and/or a complement, contrary to what is observed in prenominal position. The possibility of modification or complementation of the adjective and the difference of behavior in post- and pre-nominal behavior follows directly from our analysis. This ‘double’ behavior of AP is reminiscent of the status of clitics as displaying both phrasal (DP) and head behavior (Chomsky 1995). Our analysis also predicts, contrary to the adjective behavior discussed above, that the noun should behave as a head both when it precedes and when it follows the adjective. We saw in (48) that nouns that precede an adjective in a polydefinite construction cannot be complemented. From the structure in (50c) we also predict that the noun should exhibit head behavior, and as such, it should not allow complements. This is also borne out, as shown in (52): (52) a. ?*o megalos o thavmasmos gia ton Aristoteli the great the admiration for the Aristotle ‘the great admiration for Aristotle’ b. *o kalos o kathigitis glossologias the good the professor linguistics ‘the good professor of linguistics’
MG (cf. 48)
MG
We have thus shown that in polydefinite constructions, the adjective acts as an AP if it appears postnominally while it acts as a head if it appears prenominally. The noun, on the other hand, having formed a word with the postnominal determiner, always behaves as a head. These facts follow from our structure in (37) and the derivation proposed in (50c). It should further be pointed out that derivation (50c) is unavailable in Aromanian and in classical (Manolessou 2000) and Biblical Greek: (53) *lai-lu stilo-lu black-the pen-the ‘the black pen’
AR
In these languages, the only possible order is definite article + noun + definite article + adjective. We don’t have an answer as to why this was so, but a safe hypothesis would be to claim that a Focus position was not available for these languages. In-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.29 (1662-1713)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
terestingly, this claim has also been made for Romanian by Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Giusti (1998).
. Summary The structure in (37) captures in a transparent way: (a) the predicative nature of articled adjectives, (b) the word order patterns of polydefinites (definite article + N + definite article + adjective, as well as definite article + Adjective + definite article + N) without assuming unnecessary or unmotivated movements, (c) the parallelism between polydefinites and left dislocated structures, (d) the prosodical features of the definite adjective in postnominal position. In addition, the proposed analysis materializes in a specific and empirically correct way the intuition behind the analyses by Androutsopoulou (1995) and Tredinnick (1992), namely, that the adjectival definite article is ‘expletive’ in nature. We are claiming that it is a kind of nominal copula. This analysis is also compatible with previous analyses arguing in favor of the predicative nature of postnominal adjectives in Italian (Cinque 1994), thus aligning postnominal adjectives in this language with polydefinite DPs in Greek and Aromanian. And whereas it is inspired from analyses positing a PredP in the DP (den Dikken 1995; Corver 1998, among others), it dispenses with the rule of Predicate raising/inversion. It is important that the adjective-as-predicate can remain in its ‘original’ (postnominal) position. Likewise, the proposed structure is in accord with those analyses (Alexiadou & Stavrou 1998a, b; Alexiadou, Stavrou, & Haegeman 2000; Bouchard 1998; Dimitrova-Vulchanova 2003) that argue against N-movement as a means for accounting for adjective placement facts, as no NMovement is motivated or needed in our proposed structure. The analysis for Aromanian presented here is also compatible with those analyses which assume that in Romanian the definite article is a suffix and not a clitic, and that it is suffixed presyntactically to the noun (Dimitrova-Vulchanova & Giusti 1998; Ortmann & Popescu 2000; Dobrovie-Sorin 2000; Campos 2000). Furthermore, we have a formal explanation for the intuition expressed in the work of several researchers but explicitly borne out in the present analysis; namely, that there is only one (direct) restrictive modification per DP, all others being additional DPs or definite adjectives under loose coordination (or asyndeton). This follows from the claim that there is only one primary predication per DP/clause. The proposed analysis can be extended to indefinite constructions, where there is no overt realization of Pred, a shown in (54):
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.30 (1713-1774)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
(54) mia pena asimenja a pen silver ‘a silver pen’
MG
These constructions share properties with polydefinite constructions both in terms of word order and interpretation (Stavrou 1996). However, it is rather commonly assumed that the indefinite article is not in D, but in a lower Q-like projection (Lyons 1999), being a cardinality marker and not a determiner, hence not a functional element like the definite article. This categorial and semantic differentiation can explain why the so-called “indefinite” article does not show up (as a ‘doubling’) element in the head of PredP. For considerations of space, we leave this topic for future research.24 Finally, this analysis opens up the way for analyzing in a similar fashion ‘polydefinites’ consisting of two definite nouns, like: (55) o vlakas o aderfos tu the idiot the brother his ‘the idiot his brother’
MG
In (55) the predication relationship is transparent: ‘his brother is an idiot.’ (cf. den Dikken 1995, 1998; Español-Echevarria 1997, 1998; Corver 1998). There are two differences between (55) and a construction like the one in (37): (a) in (55) both definite constituents are nouns, (b) in (55) the predicate is normally before the noun. A potential hypothesis to explore would be that animacy triggers movement of the predicate. We leave this issue open for future research. Finally, polydefinite constructions can also be found in Scandinavian languages (Delsing 1988; Taraldsen 1990)25 and in Semitic languages (Eide & Afarli 1999), among others. However, as Alexiadou (2002) argues, the Greek facts involving polydefinite DPs point to essential differences between Greek and other languages in which manifestation of the same phenomenon is only apparent. Crucially, polydefiniteness is not obligatory in Greek, and it has a clear semantic effect, as we saw above, thus making the double definiteness found in other languages different from Greek. We leave this topic open for future research.
Notes . Olga Mišeska Tomiˇc (p.c.) commenting on this tells us that the Aromanians in the Macedonian towns of Bitola and Kruševo, where there are substantial Aromanian speaking commuties, have polydefinite constructions only if the adjective is preceded by “this”. However, in the texts by Papazizi-Papatheodorou, some examples are found without the demonstrative. To the extent that polydefinites in Aromanian are accepted without the demonstrative,
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.31 (1774-1847)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
it is possible that the polydefinite constructions discussed in this paper (and documented in Papazizi-Papatheodorou 1996) have been influenced by Greek. . When the adjective follows the noun, however, the adjective may be modified: (i)
to vivlio to toso/poli/pjo oreo the book the so/ very/ more nice ‘the very nice/nicer book’
MG
See Section 5.2 for an explanation of the contrast between (7a) and (i). . When the adjective appears in postnominal position, it may support a complement: (i)
i mana i perifani gia ta pedia tis the mother the proud of the children her ‘the mother proud of her children’
The contrast between (8a) and (i) will be shown to follow from our analysis in Section 5.2. . (9b) is acceptable if there is a pause after the adjective, thus suggesting that we are dealing with some extraposed structure. Alternatively, the two DPs may be considered as being externally connected. We leave these structures open for further research. See also Fn.1. . (i) is also possible: (i)
to oreo tu to spiti the nice his the house ‘his nice house’
MG
The source for this construction may be (10b). After the determiner and the adjective front, the possessive may cliticize onto it. See Section 5.2 for further details on the anteposition of the adjective. . See also Kolliakou (1995, 1999) and Manolessou (2000). . Example from Kolliakou (1999). . See Kolliakou (1999) for further semantic differences. . See Zubizarreta (1998). . See Stavrou (1996) for a similar remark concerning postnominal adjectives in indefinite DPs. . However, see Borsley (1997) and Bianchi (2000). It remains to be explained why the determiner is realized in Greek but not in English. . For monodefinite constructions we follow the mainstream view in assuming that prenominal adjectives are located at the specifier of functional projections intervening between D and NP. Perhaps, some adjectives are at the specifier of NP itself (Cinque 1994; Giusti 1993, 1997; Brugè 2002, among many others) having the structure in (i): (i)
[ZP asimenia [NP pena]]] [DP i [DP the [ZP silver [NP pen]]]
where ZP stands for a functional category. . Examples taken from Zimberi (1991: 101–102)
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.32 (1847-1921)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou . The form of the adjectival determiner varies according to the case, gender, number and definiteness of the noun it modifies, as shown below: Masculine Indef Nom. i Acc. të Gen. të Dat. të Abl. të
Singular Def i e të të të
Feminine Indef e të të të të
Singular Def e e së së së
Masc/Fem Indef të të të të të
Plural Def e e të të të
Albanian grammars distinguish between those adjectives that allow a determiner and those that do not (see Androutsopoulou 2001 for further details). Androutsopoulou claims the choice of the form of the adjectival determiner to be purely morphological. Some, though not all, of the adjectives that she lists meet the criteria discussed above to qualify as predicative adjectives. We leave this issue open for further research. . It has been suggested to us (Winnie Lechner, Roberto Zamparelli, Richard Larson, p.c.) that the alternative of the adjective applying, as property denoting, directly to pro, or even combining with the head noun by set intersection, would simplify the syntax and semantics of the construction. We didn’t opt for this alternative for the reason that has to do with the fact that in Aromanian the article is suffixed on the adjective, which is taken care of by our analysis, as we are going to explain. . When two adjectives are conjoined, only one determiner appears: (i)
to vivlio afto to kalo ke palio the book this the good and old ‘the good and old book’
MG
If the determiner is repeated, either with or without the demonstrative, the construction is interpreted as referring to two different books, just as the equivalent English example: (ii) to vivlio afto to kalo ke (afto) to palio the book this the good and (that) the old ‘the good and the bad book’
MG
This behavior follows if there is only one predication per DP, as we will argue later. . See Marmaridou (1984), Stavrou and Horrocks (1989), Manolessou and Panagiotidis (1998), Manolessou (2000) and Panagiotidis (2000) for discussion and explanation of this fact. . Notice that if the noun had its ‘own’ determiner here the whole sequence would be grammatical: to oreo afto to vivlio ‘the beautiful this the book.’ But then this would be exactly what our structure for polydefinites in (37) would predict. See derivation of (50c) for further details. . It is worth while noticing that the position of the demonstrative in (37) is compatible with proposals like Giusti’s and Brugè’s who claim that demonstratives (crosslinguistically) originate in a lower specifier position from where they can further move to [Spec, DP].
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.33 (1921-1989)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian . The three types of definite articles proposed by Lombard (1974: 191–192) are (i) -ul ‘the,’ the regular definite article (also called “final article” or “affixal article”), (ii) the possessive or genitival article form al, and (iii) the demonstrative or adjectival article cel: (i)
lup-ul wolf-the
R
(ii) cal-ul frumos al vecinului horse-the beautiful of neighbour-the.dat ‘the neighbor’s beautiful horse’
R
(iii) om-ul cel bun man-the the good ‘the good man’
R
Both the definite article in (i) and the demonstrative in (iii) can be used in nominalizations. Take the adjective bolnav ‘sick,’ for instance. Bolnav-ul ‘sick-the’ means ‘the sick person’ or ‘the sick one’ while cel bolnav cel ‘sick’ means ‘the sick one, among others.’ Lombard (op. cit.) notes that in German this difference would be expressed as der Kranke as the equivalent for bolnavul and as der kranke for cel bolnav. Cel is also used when we don’t wish to repeat the noun: (iv) vin-ul ro¸su ¸si cel alb wine-the red and “cel” white
R
All these uses of cel are compatible with the analysis proposed here and they would require a lot of extra machinery if they are to be derived from the demonstrative form. We leave open for future research the possibility of incorporating the possessive article al into our system. . See Fn. 1 and 2. . Notice though that (b) is fine with a pause/comma after the noun, which then is more like a dislocational or appositional structure. . See also examples in (16) above. . Another way to account for (54) is to assume that the whole of CardP, assuming mia ‘a/one’ is a cardinal marker, moves to a high Topic position, stranding AP behind. Notice that the indefinite noun phrase with a postnominal adjective is always interpreted as specific, therefore it can be a legitimate Topic. . See Giusti (2002) for an analysis for Norwegian within a minimalist framework.
References Alexiadou, A. (2001). Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A. (2002). “Adjective syntax and the absence of noun raising in the DP.” Ms. University of Potsdam.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.34 (1989-2084)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
Alexiadou, A. & M. Stavrou (1998a). “On derived nominals in Greek”. In B. Joseph, G. Horrocks, & I. Philippaki-Warburton (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics II, 101–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A. & M. Stavrou (1998b). “On the relation between ‘strength’ and morphological richness: Crosslinguistic asymmetries in noun movement”. Ms. University of Thessaloniki. Alexiadou, A., M. Stavrou, & L. Haegeman (2000). “Functional projections in the DP: (Noun) morphology, movement and ellipsis”. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 21, 21–32. Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki. Alexiadou, A. & C. Wilder (1998). “Adjectival modification and multiple determiners”. In Alexiadou, A. & C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, 303–332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anagnostopoulou, E. (1994). “Clitic Dependencies in Modern Greek.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Salzburg. Androutsopoulou, A. (1995). “The licensing of adjectival modification”. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 13, 17–31. Androutsopoulou, A. (2001). “Adjectival determiners in Albanian and Greek”. In M. L. Rivero & A. Ralli (Eds.), Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages, 161–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bianchi, V. (2000). “The raising analysis of relative clauses: A Reply to Borsley”. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 123–140. Bolinger, D. (1967). “Adjectives in English: attribution and predication”. Lingua, 18, 1–34. Borsley, R. (1997). “Relative Clauses and the theory of phrase structure”. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 629–647. Bouchard, D. (1998). “The distribution and interpretation of adjectives in French: a consequence of bare phrase structure”. Probus, 10, 139–183. Bowers, J. (1993). “The syntax of predication”. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 591–656. Brugè, L. (1996). “Demonstrative movement in Spanish: A comparative approach”. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 6(1), 1–53. Brugè, L. (2002). “The positions of demonstratives in the extended nominal projection”. In G. Cinque (Ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP, 15–53. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Campos, H. (2000). “Adjectives, determiners and determiner spreading in MeglenoRomance, Aromanian and Romanian”. Ms. Georgetown University. Cardinaletti, A. (1999). “Pronouns in Germanic and Romance languages: An overview”. In H. van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 33–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cardinaletti, A. & M. Starke (1999). “The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns”. In Henk van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Cinque, G. (1994). “On the evidence for partial N-Movement in the Romance DP”. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 3(2), 21–40. Cornilescu, A. (1993). “Notes on the structure of the Romanian DP and the assignment of the genitive case”. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 3(2), 107–134.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.35 (2084-2184)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
Corver, N. (1998). “Predicate movement in pseudopartitive constructions”. In A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, 215– 258. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Delsing, L. (1988). “The Scandinavian Noun Phrase”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 42, 57–79. Demonte, V. (1999). “A minimal account of Spanish adjective position and interpretation”. In J. Franco, A. Landa, & J. Martín (Eds.), Grammatical Analyses in Basque and Romance Linguistics Papers in Honor of Mario Saltarelli, 45–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dikken, M. den (1995). “Copulas”. Paper presented at GLOW 18. Tromsoe. Ms. Vrije Universtiteit Amsterdam/HIL. Den Dikken, M. (1998). “Predicate inversion in DP”. In A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, 177–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. (2003). “Modification in the Balkan nominal expression: an account of the (A)NA : AN(*A) order contrast”. In Coene, M. & Y. D’Hulst (Eds.), From NP to DP. Volume 1: The Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases, 91–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. & G. Giusti (1998). “Fragments of Balkan nominal structure”. In A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, 333–360. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (2000). “(In)Definiteness spread: From Romanian genitives to Hebrew construct state nominals”. In V. Motopanyane (Ed.), Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, 177–226. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Español-Echevarria, M. (1997). “Definiteness patterns in N/A of a N contexts and DPinternal XP-movement”. In B. Bruening (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Student Conference in Linguistics. MIT Working Papers inLinguistics, 145–169. Eide, K. & T. Afarli (1999). “The syntactic disguises of the predication operator”. Studia Linguistica, 53, 155–181. Giusti, G. (1993). La sintassi dei determinanti. [The Syntax of Determiners]. Padova: UniPress. Giusti, G. (1997). “The categorial status of determiners”. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), The New Comparative Syntax, 95–124. London: Longman. Giusti, G. (2002). “The functional structure of noun phrases: a bare phrase structure approach”. In G. Cinque (Ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP, 54–90. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Goodall, G. (1987). Parallel Structures in Syntax: Coordination, Causatives and Restructuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Higginbotham, J. (1985). “On semantics”. Linguistic Inquiry, 16(4), 547–594. Horrocks G. & M. Stavrou (1987). “Bounding theory and Greek syntax: Evidence from whmovement in NP”. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 79–108. Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kolliakou, D. (1995). “Definites and Possessives in Modern Greek: an HPSG Syntax for Noun Phrases.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Edinburgh.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.36 (2184-2276)
Héctor Campos and Melita Stavrou
Kolliakou, D. (1999). “Non-monotone anaphora and the syntax of definiteness”. In F. Corblin, C. Dobrovie-Sorin, & J.-M. Marandin (Eds.), Empirical issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, 121–145. The Hague: Thesus. Larson, R. (1998). “Events and modification in nominals”. In D. Strolovitch & A. Lawson (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII (SALT8), 145–168. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistic Circle. Larson, R. (2000). “Temporal modification in nominals”. Paper presented at the international roundtable The Syntax of Tense and Aspect. Paris, France. Lombard, A. (1974). La langue roumaine: une présentation. Paris: Éditions Klincksiek. Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manolessou, I. (2000). “Greek Noun Phrase Structure: A Study in Syntactic Evolution.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cambridge. Manolessou, I. & Ph. Panagiotidis. (1998). “Ta dhiktika tis ellinikis ke i shetikes epiplokes”. [Demonstratives in Greek and Related Complexities]. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 19, 199–212. Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki. Marmaridou, S. (1984). “The study of Reference, Attribution and Genericness in the Context of English and their Grammaticalization in Modern Greek Noun Phrases.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cambridge. Motopanyane, V. (2000). Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax. Amsterdam: North Holland. Ortmann, A. & A. Popescu. (2000). “Romanian definite articles are not clitics”. In Gerlach, B. & J. Grijzenhout (Eds.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Panagiotidis, Ph. (2000). “Demonstrative determiners and operators: The case of Greek”. Lingua, 110, 717–742. Papazizi-Papatheodorou, Z. (1996). Paramythia ton Blaxon. 96 paramythia perioxis Trikalon Thessalias. [Stories of the Vlaxs. 96 stories of the area of Trikala, Thessalia]. Athens: Gutenberg. Ralli, A. (1991). “Lexical phrase: A morphological analysis”. In Studies in Greek Linguistics, 139–159. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis. Ralli, A. & M. Stavrou (1997). “Morphology-syntax interface: A-N compounds vs. A-N constructs in Modern Greek”. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology, 243–265. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Ritter, E. (1991). “Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew”. In Rothstein, S. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 26, 37–62. San Diego: Academic Press. Sadler, L. & D. Arnold (1994). “Prenominal Adjectives and the Phrasal/Lexical distinction”. Journal of Linguistics, 30, 187–236. Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and Syntax. The relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Sproat, R. & C. Shih (1987). “Prenominal adjectival ordering in English and Mandarin”. Proceedings of NELS, 18, 465–489. Sproat, R. & C. Shih (1991). “The cross-linguistic distribution of adjective ordering restrictions”. In C. Georgopoulos & R. Ishihara (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language. Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, 565–593. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:33
F: LA6704.tex / p.37 (2276-2331)
Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian
Stavrou, M. (1995). “Epexegesis vs. apposition in Modern Greek”. Epistiminiki Epetiris Tmimatos Filologias Panepistimiu Thessalonikis, 5, 217–250. Stavrou, M. (1996). “Adjectives in Modern Greek. An instance of predication, or an old issue revisited”. Journal of Linguistics, 32, 79–112. Stavrou, M. (1998). “The position and serialization of APs in the DP: Evidence from Greek”. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax, 201–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Stavrou, M. & G. Horrocks (1989). “Engklitikes ke diktikes antonimies mesa stin OF”. [Enclitic and demonstrative pronouns within NP]. In Studies in Greek Linguistics, 225– 246. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis. Taraldsen, K. T. (1990). “D-projections and N-projections in Norwegian.” In J. Mascaró & M. Nespor (Eds.), Grammar in Progress: Essays in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, 419– 432. Dordrecht: Foris. Tredinnick, V. (1992). “Movement in the Modern Greek noun phrase”. Penn Review of Linguistics, 17. Tsimpli, I.-M. (1998). “Individual and functional reading for focus, wh- and negative operators: Evidence from Greek”. In B. Joseph, G. Horrocks, & I. Philippaki-Warburton (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics II, 197–227. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Vendler, Z. (1957). “Verbs and times”. Philosophical Review, 56, 143–160. (Also in Z. Vendler 1967. Linguistics in philosophy, 97–121.) Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Zamparelli, R. (1993). “Prenominal adjectives, degree phrases and the structure of DP”. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 138–161. Zubizarreta, L. (1998). Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Zymberi, I. (1991). Colloquial Albanian. London: Routledge.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.1 (40-113)
Balkan possessive clitics The problem of case and category* Roumyana Pancheva University of Southern California
A comparative study of five Balkan languages, informed by both synchronic and historical considerations, reveals that a prominent areal feature – the morpho-phonological identity of possessive and indirect object clitics – masks a range of syntactic differences. Greek possessive clitics are shown to be DPs valued for genitive case, formally distinct from indirect object clitics. Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian, and Serbo-Croatian possessive clitics, on the other hand, are argued to have dative case features in syntax, and thus to be the same formal entities as clausal indirect object clitics. Further distinctions exist within the latter group of languages, both with respect to the availability of dative-case valuation mechanisms inside the DP, and with respect to the mode of initial merge of clitics, as heads agreeing in case- and phi-features with dative arguments, or as DPs being valued for dative case themselves.
.
Overview
One of the features of the Balkan Sprachbund is the morpho-phonological identity of possessive clitics and clausal indirect object clitics. This paper addresses the question of the possessive and indirect object clitics’ identity of form, focusing on the issue of case features and category at initial merge. It will become clear that the Balkan languages are, despite appearances, not uniform with respect to this phenomenon. (i) For Greek, it is proposed that possessive clitics receive abstract genitive case and are, thus, formally distinct from clausal indirect object clitics, the latter being valued as dative. The identity between the two types of clitics is the result of a dative/genitive syncretism in the morpho-phonological expression of the distinct abstract syntactic features.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.2 (113-172)
Roumyana Pancheva
(ii) In contrast, in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian, and Serbo-Croatian, possessive clitics are argued to have dative case features in syntax, and thus, be the same entities as clausal indirect object clitics. The identity of morphophonological form of the two types of clitics is due to their identity of formal features and not to case syncretism. There are further distinctions within this latter group of languages, both with respect to the availability of dative-case valuation mechanisms inside the DP, and with respect to the mode of initial merge of clitics, as heads agreeing in case and phi-features with dative arguments, or as XPs being valued for dative case themselves: (i) Bulgarian and Macedonian DPs have the syntactic means to value dative case on possessive arguments, Serbo-Croatian DPs do not, and Romanian DPs have almost completely lost the dative-case valuation mechanism. This parametric difference is responsible for the availability of DP-internal possessive clitics in Bulgarian and Macedonian, their lack in Serbo-Croatian, and their non-productivity in Romanian. (ii) Possessive/indirect object clitics in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian are initially merged as heads, adjoined to the heads of functional projections in the extended domain of nominal/verbal predicates and agreeing in case and phi-features with (possibly non-overt) dative arguments. Possessive/indirect object clitics in Serbo-Croatian are themselves arguments receiving abstract dative case during the syntactic computation. The above conclusions are based on comparative data from the contemporary languages. They are further reinforced by considerations of earlier stages in the histories of these languages. A syntactic position in which Modern Greek clitics can appear is shown to have been historically a pre-nominal genitive position available to all DPs up until the 15th century, supporting the proposal that Modern Greek possessive clitics are abstractly genitive and not dative. Data from Old Church Slavonic, the earliest recorded South Slavic language, reveal that unambiguously dative clitics appeared in the DP along with non-clitic genitive and dative arguments. Genitive clitics were never available in the history of the South Slavic languages. Thus, it is unjustifiable to posit that genitive clitics emerged in Macedonian and Bulgarian, in conjunction with a proposal that independently, but simultaneously, the morpho-phonological expression of the genitive case gave way to that of the dative. Rather, the conclusion drawn here, is that genitive clitics were never licensed in the Bulgarian and Macedonian DP, and that furthermore, the morpho-phonological realization of the abstract genitive case on non-clitic pronouns and full DPs did not “merge” with that of the abstract dative; instead, genitive-case valuation mechanisms were simply lost in these languages (except for
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.3 (172-233)
Balkan possessive clitics
“adjectival” possessives). Similarly, historical considerations reveal that, whereas Modern Serbo-Croatian does not allow possessive clitics inside the DP (these can appear only DP-externally), DP-internal dative clitics were present in the language at least until the 14th century. A single historical change in Serbo-Croatian can thus be posited – a loss of dative-case valuation mechanisms within the DP. The same factors underlie the (almost completed) loss of DP-internal possessive clitics in Romanian. If the DP-internal possessive clitics, freely available in earlier stages of these languages, had abstract genitive case, it would be unexplained why they start to disappear, given that genitive-licensing mechanisms remain available in Serbo-Croatian and Romanian.
. Background “Possessive” is a cover term for nominal expressions whose thematic interpretation is determined with respect to the head noun of another nominal. Some possessives are thematic arguments of the head noun, e.g., the 1Sg pronoun in my arrival; others are not, e.g., my dog. In either case, possessives can receive a range of theta roles, and occupy a number of syntactic positions, e.g., my portrait, a portrait of mine, a portrait of me.1 In the Balkan languages, the possessive nominal may be a “special clitic”, in the sense of Zwicky (1977) – a weak pronoun which (i) lacks lexical stress and needs a phonological host to form a prosodic word; and (ii) has a syntactic distribution different from that of other pronouns. These possessive clitics have the same form, throughout the person-number-gender paradigm, as indirect object clitics in the domain of the clause. The identity of form may reflect an underlying identity of abstract case- and phi-features. Yet, it may also be a purely surface phenomenon, as most of the Balkan languages have undergone a historical change resulting in a syncretism between dative and genitive case, affecting full DPs as well as clitics. The latter position has been generally adopted by researchers on Balkan possessives (e.g., Tomi´c 1996a; Schoorlemmer 1998; Schick 2000; Grosu 1988, 1994; Avram & Coene 2000). The possibility that possessive and indirect object clitics may be formally distinct syntactic objects, despite their surface identity, is reinforced by the fact that their syntactic and morpho-phonological properties in the domains of the DP and of the clause differ. For instance, in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian, these clitics exhibit second-position behavior within the DP, but not within the clause. In Greek, possessive clitics are “enclitics”, i.e., they always follow their phonological host, whereas clausal clitics are “proclitics” as they precede it, at least in indicative clauses.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.4 (233-278)
Roumyana Pancheva
In this paper, however, I show that the commonly held view about Balkan possessives is not correct, and that possessive and indirect object clitics are, in fact, the same syntactic objects, at least in the Balkan Slavic languages and Romanian. This finding has important ramifications for the theory of cliticization. Immediately, the issue arises of how best to account for the divergent properties of the formally identical clitics in the two syntactic domains, the DP and the clause. Normally, pronominal clitics are assumed to be lexically specified as having (i) syntactic features, e.g., case; (ii) morphological features, such as prefix or suffix (in the sense of directionality of attachment during merger), and (iii) phonological features of relevance during the building of prosodic domains (e.g., Klavans 1995; Boškovi´c 2001, a.o.). If indeed possessive and indirect object clitics are the same objects – the same bundles of syntactic, morphological and phonological features, placement patterns such as second-position cliticization, or proclisis vs. enclisis, are dependent on the syntactic domain of cliticization and cannot be derived on the basis of the lexical feature specification of clitics. Such a finding necessitates the re-examination of the syntactic, morphological, and phonological features of various types of clitics, and underscores the importance of the syntactic domain – a DP or a clause, and the mapping of syntactic structure to prosodic structure, in determining the placement of clitics. This paper has a modest goal. It focuses on the issues of case specification for possessive and indirect object clitics, and of the mode of their initial merge in the syntactic structure. This is the necessary first step in addressing the important questions outlined above. By establishing that at least in some of the Balkan languages, clitics in the nominal and clausal domain are formally the same elements, it will be necessary to ask why then the cliticization patterns of the same elements are different in the two syntactic domains. The present proposals (a) open up the possibility of exploring a grammar of clitics that could not be naturally formulated before and (b) achieve a novel understanding of the parametric differences in the syntax of possessives in the Balkan languages. The proposals developed here are framed within a particular conception of the syntax-morphology interface and assume an interpretive role for the morphological component, as in Halle and Marantz (1993) and related work in Distributed Morphology, in particular the claim that syntax manipulates abstract categories without phonological content.2 Clitics are thus abstract bundles of features that are merged in certain syntactic positions and may undergo various movements, based on their syntactic feature specification and the general principles of syntactic computation. Specifically, clitics can be merged and/or moved as heads or as maximal categories because of their inherent category ambiguity. The hierarchical structures created by the syntactic component constitute the input to the morphological component at the point of Spell-Out. Morphology may rearrange, in a highly constrained fashion, these syntactic structures. For instance, it may perform
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.5 (278-316)
Balkan possessive clitics
merge of two syntactic heads while also changing their order to satisfy directionality requirements on cliticization. The morphological component is also responsible for lexicalization of the hierarchical structures, i.e., it inserts phonological pieces – the “exponents”, in syntactic terminal nodes. Vocabulary items (clitics, as well as other expressions) are thus relations between exponents and the contexts for their insertion. Vocabulary items need not be fully specified for the syntactic terminals in which they are inserted. For instance, if a vocabulary item is underspecified for case, the same phonological exponent may lexicalize syntactic positions with different case specifications. The output of the morphological component is fed to a phonological component, which is responsible for the phonological realization of the lexicalized structures at the level of Phonological Form (PF). Both syntax and the post-syntactic branch to PF play a role in the surface placement of clitics. Regarding the mechanisms for case licensing, I assume the general ideas of the Principles and Parameters framework in some of their specific instantiations in Chomsky (2001). In particular, I assume that uninterpretable features, such as case features, are not specified for a particular value (e.g., nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, or other) at the beginning of a derivation. Rather, the value of uninterpretable features is determined in the course of the syntactic computation, after the establishment of an Agree relation with specific other inflectional features. Dedicated functional heads in the extended projection of an argument’s predicate are responsible for the valuation of the argument’s unvalued case feature. Valuation may happen in a Spec/head configuration, in case Agree triggers the movement of the DP whose case-feature is being valued, or it may happen “at a distance”, with Agree not followed by Move. Importantly, the abstractly valued case feature (“abstract case”) need not have an overt expression (“morphological case”) that is unique. Two different values for abstract case, e.g., dative and genitive, may receive the same overt morphological case, which is the phenomenon of case syncretism. Furthermore, the overt realization of the case feature may be done through inflection or by means of a PP (e.g., of -insertion in English possessives).
. Possessive clitics – dative or genitive? Possessive clitics in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian, and Romanian are morphologically dative, whereas the ones in Greek are morphologically genitive. The major concern of this section is to determine the abstract case value of these clitics. Once it is established that possessive clitics in the Balkan Slavic languages and Romanian are abstractly dative, rather than genitive, the question of the distinct phonological, morphological, and syntactic constraints of the placement of
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.6 (316-375)
Roumyana Pancheva
dative clitics in the domain of the DP and of the clause can be meaningfully addressed.
. The morpho-phonological identity of possessive and indirect object clitics Possessives may appear within the DP where they are thematically interpreted (“internal possessives”), or outside of this DP (“external possessive”), following the terminology of Vergnaud and Zubizaretta (1992). Internal possessive clitics are found in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Greek, not in Serbo-Croatian, and not productively in Romanian. Serbo-Croatian does have possessive clitics, but these obligatorily appear externally to the DP.3 In Romanian, DP-external possessive clitics are strongly preferred to the DP-internal ones, or are even obligatory in some cases. In these Balkan languages, the DP-internal and DP-external possessive clitics have the same morpho-phonological form as clausal-domain indirect object clitics, as a comparison of the (a) and (b) examples in (1)–(5) illustrates. (1) a.
kniga-ta mu book-the he.cl.dat ‘his book’ b. Az mu pomognax. I he.cl.dat helped ‘I helped him.’
(2) a.
žena mi wife I.cl.dat ‘my wife’ b. Mi se stori. . . I.cl.dat refl.cl seemed ‘It seemed to me. . . ’
(3) a.
carte-a i book-the 3sg.cl.dat ‘his/her book’ b. I-am scris. 3sg.cl.dat-have.1sg written ‘I wrote to him/her’
(4) a.
to vivlio tu the book he.gen.cl ‘his book’
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
[Macedonian]
[Macedonian]
[Romanian]
[Romanian]
[Greek]
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.7 (375-443)
Balkan possessive clitics
b. Tu eftiaksa ena keik he.gen.cl made.1sg a cake ‘I made him a cake.’
[Greek]
U novinama mi se opet pojavila slika. [Serbo-Croatian] in paper I.cl refl.cl again appeared picture ‘My picture came out again in the paper’. [Serbo-Croatian] b. Vesna mi ga je kupila. Vesna I.cl it is bought ‘Vesna bought it for me.’
(5) a.
The identity of form in the possessive and indirect object clitics obtains for all person-number-(gender) combinations (i.e., 2Sg possessive and indirect object clitics are identical, as are 3Sg masculine, 3Sg feminine clitics, etc.). The four languages with DP-internal clitics – Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian, and Greek – have undergone a loss of either genitive or dative morphological case, with the remaining case “taking over” as the morpho-phonological expression of both genitive and dative abstract cases. In Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian, the morphological genitive was lost and was replaced by the morphological dative, whereas in Greek the morphological dative gave way to the morphological genitive form. The case syncretism is not a characteristic of the clitics alone, but extends to full DP arguments, and in Greek, to strong pronouns as well. In Serbo-Croatian, a morphological distinction between dative and genitive case is still preserved. Given the case syncretism in all of the Balkan languages but Serbo-Croatian, the morphological case of the possessive clitics cannot be taken at face value. As in any case of morpho-phonological identity of expressions from distinct syntactic domains, there are two ways to account for the syncretism: (i) complete or partial identity of formal features, such that the shared features are realized by a single exponent; or (ii) lack of relevant common features, with the surface identity resulting from accidental homophony or from radical underspecification (an “elsewhere” condition). With respect to case syncretism in particular, assuming case features to be privative, two nominals can have: (i) the same case feature, realized by a single exponent specified for this case feature; or (ii) distinct case features, realized by a single form because of homophony of the two exponents or because of complete underspecification for case of the single exponent.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.8 (443-505)
Roumyana Pancheva
With these considerations in mind, two hypotheses may be formulated for each of the Balkan languages, concerning the morpho-phonological identity of its possessive and indirect object clitics. It may be the case, that possessive clitics have the same abstract dative case feature as indirect object clitics in the domain of the clause.4 Or, it may be the case that possessive clitics are valued with an abstract genitive case, and are therefore formally distinct from indirect object clitics. In precise terms, under the first hypothesis, both sets of clitics consist of a bundle of phi-features (person, number, and, for the 3rd person, gender features), and of dative case features. The identical featural content of the syntactic terminal, dative case included, is naturally realized by the same morpho-phonological exponent. Consider as an illustration (6) and (7), where an exponent, A, is the spell-out for a 1Sg dative clitic <1Sg.Dative>, whether possessive or indirect object clitic. (A would be mi in Romanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Serbo-Croatian, and mu in Greek). A could be fully specified as [1Sg.Dative], as in (6) or it can be underspecified as [1Sg], as in (7). In the latter case, possessive and indirect object clitics would still be realized by A, given the availability of a B exponent which is more highly specified and, hence, needs to be inserted in accusative syntactic environments.5 Under the hypothesis that possessive clitics are valued dative in the syntax, if the Balkan languages did not have a dative/genitive syncretism, their possessive clitics would be realized as unambiguously morphologically dative. (6) a.
Vocabulary Item for a possessive/indirect object clitic A – 1sg.dative b. Spell-out of possessive/indirect object clitics <1sg.dative> / __ {V or N} → A
(7) a.
Vocabulary Items for clitics B – 1sg.accusative A – 1sg b. Spell-out of clitics <1sg.accusative> → B <1sg.dative> → A
Under the second hypothesis, possessive clitics have abstract case features distinct from indirect object clitics, but the two receive identical morpho-phonological expression because of the independently attested syncretism (as in (8)–(9)). This option is adopted for Bulgarian in Tomi´c (1996a), Schoorlemmer (1998), and Schick (2000), for Macedonian in Tomi´c (1996a), and for Romanian, in Grosu (1988, 1994), Avram and Coene (2000).6 Under this hypothesis, if the languages did not have dative/genitive case syncretism, possessive clitics in the DP would be realized as morphologically genitive, as they are posited to be abstractly genitive. There are two ways to implement the second hypothesis. The identical surface
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.9 (505-549)
Balkan possessive clitics
form of possessive and indirect object clitics could be the result of accidental homophony (as in (8)). That is, there could be two exponents A1 and A2 that happen to be identical. However, homophony is unlikely, given the complete identity of possessive and indirect object clitics throughout the paradigm. Rather, the syncretism effect is better achieved through underspecification for case features of the relevant morpho-phonological exponents (as in (9)). It can be posited that A is underspecified for case, whereas other clitic vocabulary items are specified as accusative. In accusative syntactic contexts, the more highly specified exponents will win over A. A will be suitable for insertion only in syntactic terminals not specified as accusative. These would be precisely those terminals specified as dative or genitive, since none of the Balkan languages makes a further case distinction in clitics (again, we are putting nominative aside). (8) a.
Vocabulary Item for a possessive clitic A1 – 1sg.genitive Vocabulary Item for an indirect object clitic A2 – 1sg.dative A1 = A2 b. Spell-out of possessive and indirect object clitics <1sg.genitive> → A1 <1sg.dative> → A2
(9) a.
Vocabulary Items for clitics 1sg.accusative – B 1sg. – A b. Spell-out of clitics <1sg.accusative> → B <1sg.dative> → A <1sg.genitive> → A
Finally, while based on the data we have seen so far, the Balkan languages appear to be uniform as far as possessive clitics are concerned, it is possible that different analyses are in fact appropriate for the individual languages. Indeed, here I will defend the position that while the first hypothesis (abstract dative case) is correct for Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian, and Serbo-Croatian, the second one (abstract genitive case) is correct for Greek. The facts of Serbo-Croatian shed some light on the issue of whether possessive clitics are valued dative or genitive in the syntax, as this language does not exhibit a dative/genitive syncretism. Yet Serbo-Croatian also complicates the picture, as it does not have possessive clitics within the DP, in contrast to the other Balkan languages. Neither a genitive nor a dative clitic can be an argument in the DP, as example (10) shows.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.10 (549-604)
Roumyana Pancheva
(10) *ku´ca {mu / ga} house he.cl.dat / he.gen.cl ‘his house’
[Serbo-Croatian]
The fact that genitive clitics are prohibited as possessors in the DP in the only Balkan language where we can independently verify their distinct status from dative clitics, casts serious doubt on the validity of the second hypothesis outlined above. Furthermore, the possessive clitics available DP-externally in Serbo-Croatian, are unambiguously dative. A genitive clitic is ungrammatical in this position (see (11) vs. (5a)). [Serbo-Croatian] (11) *U novinama me se opet pojavila in papers.loc I.gen.cl acc.ref.cl again appeared slika. picture ‘My picture came out again in the paper’.
. Historical considerations The unacceptability of the dative clitic in (10) needs to be explained. We could entertain a variant of the first hypothesis that posits partial identity between possessive and indirect object clitics. It could be that the genitive/dative syncretism is in fact a licensing factor for the availability of DP-internal possessive clitics in the Balkan languages. Under this view, the possessive clitics have abstract dative features, but as possessive arguments they also have to be genitive marked. The double case is then resolved only in instances of dative/genitive syncretism.7 Such a hypothesis is refuted, however, once we look at the history of some of these languages. Possessive clitics within the DP were available in Old Serbo-Croatian, and they were unambiguously, dative, as made clear by the lack of genitive/dative syncretism. [Old Serbo-Croatian] dragomu mi priˇetelu dear.dat I.cl.dat friend.dat (13th C; Dezs˝o 1982: 236) ‘to my dear friend’ b. vь slavni dvorь kraljevstva in the-great.acc court.acc kingdom.gen mi [Old Serbo-Croatian] my.cl.dat (14th C; Dezs˝o 1982: 237) ‘in the great court of my kingdom’
(12) a.
Similarly, Old Church Slavonic – the earliest recorded South Slavic language, which, for practical purposes, may be considered the ancestor of Bulgarian, Mace-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.11 (604-675)
Balkan possessive clitics
donian, and Serbo-Croatian – had unambiguously dative clitics within the DP, as in (13a). Non-clitic dative pronouns and dative full DPs could also appear in the DP, as in (13b, c).8 Old Church Slavonic also had genitive-valued possessives, which showed certain restrictions as to animacy and branching structure. Genitive pronouns, which did not exhibit a clitic/non-clitic distinction, could be possessive arguments in Old Church Slavonic (see (14a)). Technically, only 3rd person pronouns could appear in the “ordinary” genitive case, as in (14a); 1st and 2nd person pronouns had to appear in a special “adjectival” genitive. Genitive full DPs were also available (see (14b)) though these were restricted to inanimate DPs and branching DPs, i.e., DPs with more than one constituent. Single-word animate DPs had to appear in the ‘adjectival’ genitive case (see section 3.5 for further discussion). (13) a.
snъ ti son you.cl.dat ‘your son’ b. rabъ jemu slave he.non-cl.dat ‘his slave’ c. krai rizˇe end shirt.dat ‘the end of the shirt’
(14) a.
sъmotri že mi zъlodˇeistvo consider part I.cl.dat crime ixъ they.non-cl.gen ‘consider (for me) their crime’ b. na prˇestolˇe slavy on throne.loc fame.gen svoeje refl.poss.gen ‘on the throne of his fame’
[Old Church Slavonic] (Duridanov et al. 1993: 241) [Old Church Slavonic] (Duridanov et al. 1993: 536) [Old Church Slavonic] (Duridanov et al. 1993: 461) [Old Church Slavonic] (Lunt 2001: 149)
[Old Church Slavonic] (Duridanov et al. 1993: 428)
The historical data suggest that two distinct possessive structures were available in Old South Slavic. In one structure, the possessive nominal, whether a clitic, a non-clitic pronoun, or a full DP, was valued dative case. In the other structure, the possessive argument – a non-clitic pronoun or a full DP – was valued genitive case (there were no genitive clitics). It may be objected that the occurrence of both dative and genitive arguments in the DP is not a reflection of two distinct syntactic structures, but merely the result of overlapping patterns during the historical change that is behind the da-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.12 (675-731)
Roumyana Pancheva
tive/genitive syncretism. In other words, all structures could be posited to be unambiguously genitive, but some are morpho-phonologically realized by the dative exponents – a variability that exists in the texts because of a change in progress. This, however, is unlikely for a number of reasons. The dative possessors are extremely common even in the earliest texts, even before the likely beginning of the historical change that is behind the syncretism. Furthermore, there are grammatical relations within the DP that are always realized by a genitive, and never by a dative (Duridanov 1993: 463). We also may point out, that the existence of dative possessors along with genitive possessors is a feature of Indo-European. Thus, evidence from the history of the Balkan Slavic languages suggests that a dative/genitive syncretism is not necessary for the presence of possessive clitics within the DP. The historical facts also make it unlikely that in the modern Balkan languages (at least the Slavic ones), possessive clitics have abstract genitive case and are identical in form to clausal dative clitics simply because of the dative/genitive syncretism. The possessive clitics in the Slavic languages were historically dative, as the earliest records attest. Positing that the abstract case of possessive clitics became genitive, as a result of a syntactic change, just as the morpho-phonological expressions of the dative and the genitive cases collapsed, is unmotivated and would be very difficult to justify.
. Possessor raising of clitics Another facet of the distribution of possessive clitics is their ability to appear external to the DP, as already seen in the case of Serbo-Croatian. External possessive clitics are available in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian as well, but not in Greek.9 The availability/non-availability of DP-external clitics is illustrated in the examples below (the Serbo-Croatian example (5a) repeated for convenience). (The Macedonian example is from Baerman & Billings 1998, and the Romanian example is from Avram & Coene 2000). (15) Az im vidjax [DP nova-ta kola]. I they.cl.dat saw.1sg new-the car ‘I saw their new car.’
[Bulgarian]
(16) Si mu gi zel [DP pari-te]. be.2sg he.cl.dat they.cl.acc taken money-the ‘You have taken his money’
[Macedonian]
(17) I-am z˘arit [DP chipul] in mul¸time. 3sg.cl.dat-have.1sg seen face-the in crowd ‘I saw her face in the crowd.’
[Romanian]
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.13 (731-793)
Balkan possessive clitics
(18) U novinama mi se opet pojavila in papers.loc I.cl.dat refl.cl.acc again appeared [DP slika]. picture ‘My picture came out again in the paper’. (19) *Tus idha [DP to kenuryio aftokinito]. the new car they.cl saw.1sg ‘I saw their new car.’
[Serbo-Croatian]
[Greek]
Whether the clitic appears internally or externally to the DP seems to be “optional” in Bulgarian and Macedonian, that is, there are no obvious interpretive, syntactic or other factors that determine one or the other position.10 In Romanian, the DPexternal placement of the clitic is the preferred option; the DP-internal placement is essentially restricted to the singular paradigm, in particular 3rd person, and even there is “felt as outdated, formal, and poetic” (Avram & Coene 2000: 158). I will not offer here a detailed account of possessive clitic “raising”. There have been numerous proposals in the literature regarding the more general phenomenon of possessor raising, addressing in particular one central puzzle – that the DP-external possessor has the syntactic behavior of a clausal argument but the interpretation of an argument within the possessee DP. The attempts at solving the puzzle have been of two types. One advocates that the possessor is an argument of the verb (e.g., an applicative). The possessive interpretation arises through binding of an anaphoric element in the possessee (e.g., Borer & Grodzinsky 1986, for Hebrew; Vergnaud & Zubizaretta 1992, for French; Kempchinsky 1992, for Spanish). The second line argues that the possessor is an argument of the possessee DP; it originates DP-internally and moves to a position typically occupied by verbal arguments (e.g., Landau 1999, for Hebrew). Similarly, previous analyses of Balkan possessive clitics that address the phenomenon of “raising” have followed one or the other approach. Advocates of base-generation of external possessive clitics are Schürks and Wunderlich (2000) for Bulgarian, and Schick (2000a) for Bulgarian and Macedonian. A movement analysis for external possessive clitics is proposed in Avram and Coene (2000) for Romanian, and Stateva (2002) for Bulgarian. Which of the two approaches to possessor ‘raising’ is correct is not of central concern for this paper (although some suggestions will be made later, as part of a general comparative account of the clitic systems of the Balkan languages). Of particular relevance at this point is the fact that possessor “raising” provides additional evidence in support of the position that at least in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian, and Serbo-Croatian possessive clitics are valued in syntax for dative case, rather than genitive. It appears to be generally the case that in languages with both dative and non-dative possessors,11 only the dative ones “raise” out of the DP.12 Familiar examples include French, Spanish, German, and Hebrew,
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.14 (793-852)
Roumyana Pancheva
where genitive possessors can only appear DP-internally, whereas dative possessors may be DP-external (e.g., Vergnaud & Zubizarreta 1992; Kempchinsky 1992; Krause 2001; Borer & Grodzinsky 1986; Landau 1999). Similarly, in Hungarian nominative possessors are restricted to a DP-internal position, but dative ones are not (e.g., Szabolcsi 1983, 1994). As an illustration of the dative/non-dative distinction in possessor raising, consider the Hungarian examples from Szabolcsi (1994); more examples of the case-restriction can be found in the cited literature. (20) a.
a Mari kalap-ja-i the Mari.nom hat.poss-pl(-3sg) ‘Mari’s hats’ b. Mari-nak a kalap-ja-i13 Mar-dat the hat-poss-pl(-3sg) ‘Mari’s hats’ c. *Mari fekete volt [DP a kalap-ja ] the hat-poss(-3sg-nom) Mari.nom black was ‘Mari’s hat was black.’ d. Mari-nak fekete volt [DP a kalap-ja ] Mari-dat black was the hat-poss(-3sg-nom) ‘Mari’s hat was black.’
[Hungarian]
[Hungarian]
[Hungarian]
[Hungarian]
In the same vein, as pointed out earlier, external possessive clitics in Serbo-Croatian are unambiguously dative, genitive clitics being ungrammatical (cf. (5a) vs. (11)). The phenomenon of possessor “raising” offers further evidence in support of the proposal that external possessive clitics in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian, and Serbo-Croatian have abstract dative case features. DP-external possessive clitics have an identical distribution to that of clausal indirect object clitics. In Bulgarian, Macedonian and Romanian clausal object clitics are hosted by the verb, that is, they merge with the verb to form a complex head (in the syntax, or in the post-syntactic component), and form one prosodic word with it. In SerboCroatian clausal object clitics are second-position clitics – they appear after the first prosodic word or the first constituent in the intonational phrase (the clause, in the typical case). Examples of the placement of clausal clitics in these languages are very well known and thus are not provided here (see e.g., Tomi´c 1996b; Franks & King 2000; Boškovi´c 2001, among many others, for discussion of clausal clitics in Balkan Slavic). Correspondingly, in Bulgarian, Macedonian and Romanian, external possessive clitics are syntactic associates of the verb, while in Serbo-Croatian they behave as second-position clitics. Placing the clitic in any other position than the one illustrated in (15)–(18) results in ungrammaticality. External possessive clitics observe even further distinctions found among the verbal clitics. In Romanian, but not in Bulgarian, clausal object clitics may appear initial in the intonational phrase. Thus, whereas in the Romanian example in (17)
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.15 (852-908)
Balkan possessive clitics
the possessive clitic is acceptable at the beginning of its clause, pro-drop in the Bulgarian example in (15) would strand the clitic without phonological support to its left and would lead to ungrammaticality. In Macedonian, as Tomi´c (2000) observes, verbal clitics can appear clause-initially with verbal predicates, but not with nominal predicates. Possessive clitics observe this distinction as well (O. Tomi´c, p.c.), as (21) illustrates: (21) a.
Mu gi zede [DP pari-te]. he.cl.dat they.cl.acc took money-the ‘You/(s)he took his money.’ b. *Mu e [DP tatko]. him.cl.dat is father ‘He is his father.’
[Macedonian]
[Macedonian]
Facts like these suggest that external possessive clitics in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian have the properties – phonological, morphological, and syntactic – of indirect object clitics. Thus, we have seen evidence that DP-external clitics have abstract dative case features. In Section 3.3, we saw that, at least in the Balkan Slavic languages, DPinternal clitics were historically dative and not genitive. The more parsimonious hypothesis then is the first one outlined in Section 3.2, namely, that possessive clitics are valued as dative.
. Possessive clitics, non-clitic pronouns, and non-pronominal DPs We also need to consider the behavior of possessive clitics in comparison to that of non-clitic pronouns and full DPs. This paper does not attempt to provide a comprehensive analysis of the syntax of non-clitic possessors in the Balkan DP. These are examined only as far as they shed light on the status of possessive clitics, and in particular, the possessive clitics’ case features. As we will find out, in all of the languages considered, non-clitic pronouns are valued genitive. In Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Romanian the arguments in support of this conclusion may be less straightforward, than they are in Greek. Yet the proposal that non-clitic pronouns have genitive abstract case in the Balkan Slavic languages and Romanian still offers the best account of the empirical facts, both synchronic and diachronic. In these languages, genitive case on non-clitic pronouns is always associated with a particular inflection and with animacy restrictions. This genitive inflection, and the syntactic position associated with its licensing, is also available to full DPs, but not to clitics. Only in Greek, genitive case is available to pronominal and non-pronominal DPs alike, with clitics sharing the distribution of other possessives.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.16 (908-986)
Roumyana Pancheva
While the facts of the case-licensing of non-clitic pronouns and full DPs in the Balkan Slavic languages and Romanian by themselves may not be conclusive as to the case features of the clitic pronouns in these languages, they serve to highlight the relevance of Greek possessive pronoun placement for the analysis of Greek clitics. The discussion of the distribution of non-clitic possessives in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Romanian also sets the stage for consideration of the facts of clitic doubling in these languages in Section 3.6.
.. Bulgarian and Macedonian Whereas in Old Church Slavonic non-clitic dative and genitive pronouns could appear within the DP, as we saw in examples (13b) and (14a), this is not an option in contemporary Bulgarian and Macedonian. In these languages, non-clitic possessive pronouns have a special, “adjectival”14 inflection: like adjectives, they agree in gender and number with the head noun, and may appear attributively as well as predicatively. Non-clitic pronouns that have the same form as indirect object pronouns may not appear as possessives in the DP. The facts are illustrated below. (Examples (23a, b) are from Tomi´c 1996a.) (22) a.
nego-(o)va-ta kniga he.non-cl-poss.f.sg-the book.f.sg ‘his book’ b. kniga-ta {(* na nego) / mu } book-the to he.non-cl he.cl.dat ‘his book’ c. Pomognax {NA NEGO15 / mu} helped.1sg to him.non-cl he.cl.dat ‘I helped him.’
(23) a.
nejz-ini-ot sin she.non-cl-poss.m.sg-the son.m.sg ‘her son’ b. sin {(* nejze) / í} son she.non-cl.dat she.cl.dat ‘her son’ c. i (nejze) í reˇce.16 and she.non-cl.dat she.cl.dat told.3sg ‘He/she also told her.’
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
[Macedonian]
[Macedonian]
[Macedonian]
The special “adjectival” inflection on non-clitic possessive pronouns in Bulgarian and Macedonian is not available to all DPs. Only pronouns (see (22a)–(23a)), and, to a limited extent, non-branching animate proper names17 and certain animate relational nouns18 (see (24)) can appear with this inflection.19
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.17 (986-1040)
Balkan possessive clitics
(24) a.
b.
cf.
c.
cf.
{Ivan-ovi-te / ˇciˇco-(o)vi-te} k˘ašti Ivan-poss.pl-the uncle-poss.pl-the house.pl ‘Ivan’s/my uncle’s houses’ *Pariž-ovi-te k˘ašti Paris-poss.pl-the house.pl ‘the houses of Paris’ k˘ašti-te na Pariž house.pl-the to Paris ‘the houses of Paris’ *prezident-ovi-te k˘ašti president-poss.pl-the house.pl ‘the president’s houses’ k˘ašti-te na prezidenta house.pl-the to president-the ‘the president’s houses’
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
Looking at the history of Bulgarian and Macedonian proves instructive. Non-clitic possessive pronouns were derived by the affixation of a possessive suffix to the genitive form of the pronoun (Duridanov et al. 1993: 240). As the facts concerning the origins of the adjectival possessive form appear not to be generally known or readily available, I will briefly present them here. Old Church Slavonic possessive pronouns for 1st and 2nd person were formed by the affixation of a possessive suffix -jь (M.Sg) to a genitive stem. In the case of the plural pronouns, the result is transparent (see (25a)). In the case of the singular pronouns and the reflexive, the possessive suffix was added not to the then-contemporary genitive form (mene ‘1Sg.Gen’, tebe ‘2Sg.Gen’, sebe ‘Refl’) but to an older genitive stem (see (25b)). nasъ-jь → našь vasъ-jь → vašь 1pl.gen-poss.m 2pl.gen-poss.m ‘our’ ‘your’ b. moi-jь → moi tvoi-jь → tvoi 1sg.gen-poss.m 2sg.gen-poss.m ‘my’ ‘your’ svoi-jь → svoi refl.gen-poss.m ‘self ’s’
(25) a.
[Old Church Slavonic] (Duridanov et al. 1993: 240) [Old Church Slavonic] (Duridanov et al. 1993: 240)
It appears to be the case that the ‘ordinary’ genitive forms of non-clitic pronouns (e.g., mene ‘1Sg.Gen’, nasъ ‘1Pl.gen’) were not used as possessives in the DP; instead, the ‘adjectival’ genitive forms (e.g., moi ‘1Sg.Gen.Poss’, našь ‘1Pl.Gen.Poss’) were used.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.18 (1040-1121)
Roumyana Pancheva
The 3rd person pronouns20 had no ‘adjectival’ possessive form, only an ‘ordinary’ genitive one (see (14a)). Subsequently in the history of South Slavic, an ‘adjectival’ possessive came into use, replacing the ‘ordinary’ genitive for 3rd person non-clitic pronouns. This ‘adjectival’ possessive was formed by the affixation of the possessive suffixes -ovъ and -inъ (masc.sg) to the genitive non-clitic pronouns (see (26)).21 ego [Old Church Slavonic] -ovъ → negov [Bulgarian], [Macedonian] 3sg.m.gen poss.m ‘his’ [Bulgarian], b. ee [Old Church Slavonic] -inъ → nein 3sg.f.gen poss.m nejzin [Macedonian] ‘her’ [Bulgarian] c. tˇexъ [Old Church Slavonic] -inъ → texen 3pl.gen poss.m ‘their’ [Macedonian]22 d. ixú [Old Church Slavonic] -ovú → nixov 3pl.anaph.gen poss.m ‘their’
(26) a.
In other words, as (25) and (26) show, the modern Bulgarian and Macedonian possessive non-clitic pronouns are historically derived from genitive-valued forms, further inflected with a possessive suffix. The possessive suffixes -jь, -ovъ and -inъ could also be added to animate nonbranching full DPs, to form possessive adjectives (Duridanov et al. 1993: 214–215, 219–221; Lunt 2001: 179–180). Just like the case of the pronouns, these forms had to be used, where available, instead of the ordinary ‘genitive’ (Lunt 2001: 146). solomonъ: solomonjь /solomonovъ [Old Church Slavonic] Solomon.nom Solomon.poss Solomon.poss (Lunt 2001: 180) ‘Solomon’s’ [Old Church Slavonic] b. julijana: julijaninъ Juliana.nom Juliana.poss (Lunt 2001: 180) ‘Juliana’s’
(27) a.
The conclusions of our historical exposition are that “adjectival” possessive inflection was associated with genitive non-clitic pronouns. An argument can be made that in the modern languages this is the last remnant of genitive case-valuation mechanisms. In modern Bulgarian and Macedonian, the syntactic position licensing the “adjectival” possessive is strictly pre-nominal.23 Post-nominally, full DPs (includ-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.19 (1121-1169)
Balkan possessive clitics
ing animate proper names and relational nouns) have to be introduced by a preposition. No animacy restrictions apply to the post-nominal possessives.24 (28) a.
{Ivan-ova-ta /ˇciˇco-(o)va-ta} kniga Ivan-poss.f.sg-the uncle-poss.f.sg-the book.f.sg ‘Ivan’s/my uncle’s book’ b. *kniga-ta {Ivan-ova / ˇciˇco-(o)va} book.f.sg-the Ivan-poss.f.sg uncle-poss.f.sg ‘Ivan’s/my uncle’s book’ c. kniga-ta {na Ivan /na ˇciˇco} book.f.sg-the to Ivan to uncle ‘Ivan’s/my uncle’s book’
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
The ‘adjectival’ possessive inflection is also found in the non-Balkan Slavic languages, as the Russian examples below illustrate. There, it is similarly restricted to animate proper names, relational nouns, and pronouns. A distinct genitive case is available to post-nominal DPs, and no restrictions as to animacy apply (see also Schoorlemmer 1998). Pronouns can occur only with the “adjectival” inflection. The generally free order of Russian allows adjectival possessives to appear postnominally (e.g., kniga Petina ‘Petja’s book’). I will thus take it to be the case that the post-nominal “adjectival” possessive is in a syntactic position distinct from the one licensing “non-adjectival” genitive case. (29) a.
[Russian]
(30) a.
[Russian]
Petina kniga Petja.poss.f.sg book.f.sg ‘Petja’s book’ b. kniga Peti book.f.sg Petja.gen ‘Petja’s book’ tvoja kniga your.poss.f.sg book.f.sg ‘your book’ b. *kniga tebja book.f.sg you.gen ‘your book’
The different behavior of possessive clitics compared to non-clitic pronouns and full DPs in Bulgarian and Macedonian can be naturally accounted for under the following proposal. Pre-nominal possessives inside the DP are valued genitive in the course of the syntactic derivation. The morphological realization of this genitive case is limited to a certain class of animate DPs, namely proper names, relational nouns, and non-clitic pronouns. I further assume that the genitive case of pre-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.20 (1169-1222)
Roumyana Pancheva
nominal possessive DPs is valued in a structural subject position lower than D0 (see Szabolcsi 1994; Schoorlemmer 1998, among others), named here FgP. Subsequent obligatory raising to a higher functional projection, AgrP, is responsible for agreement with the head noun. In addition to its full set of interpretable phi-features, the possessive DP also has uninterpretable gender and number features, which get valuated by Agr, after the obligatory movement.25 So far, things are straightforward and uncontroversial. (31) [DP D [AgrP PossDPi [FGP ti [. . . [NP N ]]]] I further propose that Spec, FgP is the only genitive-licensing position in the Bulgarian and Macedonian DP. This allows for a uniform treatment of non-clitic pronouns in the history of these languages and in contemporary Russian and Serbo-Croatian. Recall that centuries ago, only 3rd person pronouns could receive genitive case in position other than Spec, FgP (see (14a)) and subsequently these too had to follow the pattern of 1st and 2nd person pronouns (see (26) compared to (25)). Similarly, in contemporary Russian, genitive case is available to pronouns only in Spec, FgP, to be followed by obligatory movement to Spec, AgrP (see (30)). In Serbo-Croatian the facts are the same (as illustrated further below). So, whereas in Russian and Serbo-Croatian genitive case continued to be available to full DPs in position other than Spec, FgP (see (29) and (44)), Bulgarian and Macedonian lost this grammatical possibility altogether. This further allows us to dispense with the claim that Bulgarian and Macedonian saw the emergence of case syncretism between the morpho-phonological expression of dative and genitive case. Rather, these languages simply lost the syntactic mechanisms for genitive-case licensing (other than in Spec, FgP). Given this proposal, if pronouns can occur post-nominally, they must not be genitive. Now, note that when “non-adjectival” non-clitic possessive pronouns are doubled by a clitic, they become acceptable (as in (32); compare with (22b) and (23b)). This fact suggests that the possessive clitic is involved in mediating the casevaluation of the post-nominal non-clitic pronoun. In other words, if the clitic is to enter a chain with the non-clitic pronoun in (32), then since the pronoun is not valued genitive, the clitic must not be genitive as well. (32) a.
kniga-ta mu book-the he.cl.dat ‘his book’ b. sin í (na son she.cl.dat to ‘her son’
na nego to him.non-cl nea)26 her.non-cl
[Bulgarian]
[Macedonian]
It is predicted that clitics will not be able to co-occur with “adjectival” possessives, because of a case mismatch. This prediction is upheld, as illustrated in (33).27
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.21 (1222-1288)
Balkan possessive clitics
(33) a.
negovi-te (*mu) his.non-cl.poss.pl-the he.cl.dat ‘his new books’ b. nejzini-ot (*í) her.non-cl.poss.m.sg-the she-cl ‘her son’
knigi books sin son.m.sg
[Bulgarian]
[Macedonian]
In sum, the facts of the distribution of non-clitic pronouns suggest that postnominal possessives in Bulgarian and Macedonian are instance of dative arguments. The abstract dative case valued in the post-nominal position is realized the same way the abstract dative valued in the domain of the clause is realized – as a PP (or DP in the case of Macedonian pronouns). Patterns of clitic-doubling or lack thereof, as in (32)–(33) suggests that clitics are dative-marked. While possessive clitics share none of the constraints imposed on possessives in Spec, AgrP, they have some constraints of their own. The facts of Bulgarian and Macedonian possessive clitic placement are fairly well known.28 The clitics always appear in a fixed position – right adjacent to the definite article or a demonstrative. Here we need not expand on this issue, as it does not bear immediate relevance to the problem at hand. Briefly, the requirement that D0 be [+def] is very strict: indefinite articles, strong or weak determiners, may not be hosts for the possessive clitic (see (34)–(35), (37)–(38)). This restriction does not hold for non-clitic possessive pronouns, which are licensed in both definite and indefinite DPs (see (36)). Because the definite article itself has a second-position behavior within the DP in Bulgarian and Macedonian, possessive clitics, when hosted by the article, end up in second-position, after the first constituent. The examples below illustrate the basic facts. The clitic must appear in the position shown.29 (34) a.
{vsiˇcki-*(te) / pet-*(te)} mu novi knigi all-the five-the he.cl.dat new books ‘all his new books’ / ‘his five new books’ b. novi-*(te) mu knigi new-the he.cl.dat books ‘his new books’ c. knigi-*(te) mu books-the he.cl.dat ‘his books’
(35) a.
{tazi / onazi} mu nova kniga this / that he.cl.dat new book ‘this/that new book of his’
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.22 (1288-1361)
Roumyana Pancheva
b. {*edna / *njakoja} mi bratovˇcedka one some I.cl.dat cousin ‘one of my cousins’ (36) a.
vsiˇcki(-te) / pet(-te) negovi novi knigi all-(the) five-(the) his.non-cl.poss new books ‘all his new books’ / ‘(the) five new books of his’ b. negovi(-te) novi knigi his.non-cl.poss-(the) new books ‘(the) new books of his’
(37) a.
prva-*(ta) mi žena first-the I.cl.dat wife ‘my first wife’ b. sakana-*(ta) mi prva žena beloved-the I.cl.dat first wife ‘my beloved first wife’ c. žena mi wife I.cl.dat ‘my wife’
(38) *edna mi bratuˇcetka one I.cl.dat cousin ‘one of my cousins’
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
[Macedonian]
[Macedonian]
[Macedonian]
[Macedonian]
The specifics of the fixed distribution of possessive clitics are not of immediate concern here, as they could reflect a derived position for the clitic. It is logically possible that the clitic is merged initially the same way a non-clitic pronoun is, licenses case in the same position as the possessive ‘adjectival’ pronoun, and then moves further, as a head, and adjoins to a [+def] D0 . This, in fact, is the analysis proposed in Tomi´c (1996a), Schoorlemmer (1998) for Bulgarian possessive clitics. Thus, the particularities of the placement of the clitic do not constitute evidence for (or against) the proposal developed here, that, unlike pre-nominal ‘adjectival’ possessives, possessive clitics are not genitive-marked. Yet the placement of the clitics in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and as we will see, in Romanian, is in sharp contrast with that of Greek, as will become clear shortly. It thus underscores the need for giving the clitics in the two groups of languages a distinct analysis. It also will motivate the proposal that possessive clitics in Bulgarian and Macedonian are merged as adjuncts to a functional head and not as arguments in a theta-position.
.. Romanian Non-clitic pronouns in Romanian have special properties as well. Like the corresponding possessives in the Slavic languages, they have a special possessive stem
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.23 (1361-1411)
Balkan possessive clitics
and adjectival inflection, agreeing with the head noun in number, gender, and case (see (39a)). Non-pronominal DPs also appear post-nominally, but they do not agree with the head noun. Full DPs are inflected for case, as in (39b), if they are adjacent to the definite article. In case of non-adjacency, they have to be preceded by a “particle” that consist of an invariable part a-, followed by the nominative forms of the definite article inflected for number and gender (al-M.Sg., a-F.Sg, aiM.Pl, ale-F.Pl) and agreeing with the head noun (see (39c) vs. (39d)). The status of the ‘particle’ is debatable. For instance, Grosu (1998) analyzes it as a preposition incorporating the definite article. Dobrovie-Sorin (2001) proposes that it is a DP consisting of a definite article, a nominal proform, and the usual post-nominal genitive DP; under her analysis (39d) has the structure of a DP to which another DP is adjoined, e.g., ‘the new book, the one of Mary’s. . . ’. [Romanian] carte-a mea book.f.sg-the I-poss.f.sg ‘my book’ b. carte-a {Mariei / lui Mihai /profesorului} book.f.sg-the Mary he.dat Mihai teacher-the.dat ‘Mary’s/Mihai’s/the teacher’s book’ c. *carte-a nouà {Mariei / lui Mihai /profesorului} book.f.sg-the new Mary he.dat Mihai teacher-the.dat ‘Mary’s/Mihai’s/the teacher’s new book’ d. carte-a {nouà a Mariei / lui Mihai /profesorului} book.f.sg-the new of Mary he.dat Mihai teacher-the.dat ‘Mary’s/Mihai’s/the teacher’s new book’
(39) a.
It is normally assumed in the literature on Romanian possessives that case on nonclitic pronouns and full DPs is licensed in different positions (see Grosu 1988; Avram & Coene 2000; Dobrovie-Sorin 2001). Romanian is thus analogous, in the relevant aspects, to Bulgarian and Macedonian. Genitive case on non-clitic pronouns receives a particular morphological expression, the “adjectival” possessive inflection. The structural analysis of Bulgarian and Macedonian possessive pronouns can be extended to Romanian, with the further assumption of obligatory N-to-D raising. (40) [DP [D Nj D ] [AgrP PossDPi [FGP ti [. . . [NP [N tj ] ]]]]] It is unclear whether full DPs in Romanian are valued dative or they receive genitive in a different position than FgP (similarly to the Russian (29)). I will assume the latter, as this will simplify the explanation for the loss of DP-internal clitics in this language. This means that, since full DPs are identical in surface form to indirect object pronouns30 a surface case-syncretism must be involved.
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.24 (1411-1467)
Roumyana Pancheva
As previously noted, DP-internal clitics are not productive.31 To the extent that they are acceptable DP-internally in the contemporary language, possessive clitics behave similarly to Bulgarian and Macedonian clitics. They only appear in definite DPs and display second-position-like effects. (41) *o carte i a book 3sg.at ‘a book of his/hers’
[Romanian]
(42) chipu i luminos face 3sg.dat.cl bright ‘her bright face’
[Romanian]
Avram and Coene (2000) attribute the disappearance of DP-internal possessive clitics to the loss of second position clitics in the clause (the effects of which were notable by the 16th century). This conjecture cannot be correct, when considered in a cross-linguistic perspective. Bulgarian similarly lost its second-position clausal clitics (with the effects of the change evidenced by the 17th century, see Izvorski 1995), yet its second-position like clitics within the DP are fully productive. SerboCroatian, on the other hand, has retained its second-position clausal clitics but lost completely the DP-internal possessive ones. The explanation for the loss of DP-internal clitics in Romanian rather needs to be sought elsewhere. I propose that this is due to a loss of dative case valuation mechanisms inside the DP. The historical change must be relatively recent, in comparison to SerboCroatian, and as usual with change in progress, the output of both grammars – one with dative case licensing in DP and internal possessive clitics, and one without – are still evidenced in the contemporary language. The loss of dative case valuation inside DP does not affect non-clitic possessives as they are valued genitive. If Romanian possessive clitics were posited to be genitive (as in e.g., Avram & Coene 2000), we would have to be looking for an alternative explanation of the historical change.
.. Serbo-Croatian The behavior of possessives in Serbo-Croatian supports the proposal that clitics in that language are also dative-marked. As we saw earlier (example (10)), genitive clitics are not possible in the DP in this language. Serbo-Croatian has prenominal genitives, showing restrictions similar to those found with prenominal possessives in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Russian. The unmarked position for the old agreeing genitive (the special “adjectival” possessive inflection) is pre-nominal (see (43)), and is limited to pronouns and animate, single-word full DPs. Postnominally, a morphologically distinct genitive case is available, as in Russian (see (44)). As in Russian, pronouns cannot appear in the “non-adjectival” genitive (see
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.25 (1467-1530)
Balkan possessive clitics
(45b) vs. (43b)). However, unlike the situation in Russian, and like that in Old Church Slavonic, any DP that can appear in the “adjectival” genitive, is barred from occurring as an “ordinary” genitive (see (45a) vs. (43a)). (43) a.
Petr-ova ku´ca Peter-poss.f.sg house.f.sg ‘Peter’s house’ b. njegova ku´ca his-poss.f.sg house.f.sg ‘Peter’s house’
[Serbo-Croatian]
[Serbo-Croatian]
(44) ku´ca moga brata house.f.sg my.gen brother.gen ‘my brother’s house’
[Serbo-Croatian]
(45) a. *ku´ca Petr-a house.f.sg Peter-gen ‘Peter’s house’ b. *ku´ca njega house.f.sg his.gen ‘his house’
[Serbo-Croatian]
[Serbo-Croatian]
Again, as in Russian, and as argued for Bulgarian and Macedonian, the generalization appears to be that pronouns can be valued genitive only in Spec, FgP. This explains why genitive clitics are prohibited in the Serbo-Croatian DP. The unavailability of dative clitics can be accounted for by positing that, unlike Bulgarian and Macedonian, but like the innovative Romanian grammar, Serbo-Croatian does not license dative case inside the DP (anymore).
.. Greek In contrast to the languages discussed above, Greek allows non-clitic pronouns as possessors in the DP without an “adjectival” inflection. They have exactly the same surface form as indirect object non-clitic pronouns, i.e., no special inflection is required. The non-clitic pronouns occur only post-nominally, as do full DPs.32 (46) a.
to vivlia aftunu the book his.non-cl ‘his book’ b. Eftiaksa aftunu ena keik made.1sg his.non-cl a cake ‘I made him a cake.’
[Greek]
[Greek]
The Greek facts are consistent with a view that genitive case is valued in the DP, post-nominally, and that its morphological expression is not limited to a particu-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.26 (1530-1594)
Roumyana Pancheva
lar class of DPs. In other words, the Spec, FgP-Spec, AgrP mechanism of possessive licensing is not part of the syntax of Greek DPs, unlike the rest of the Balkan languages. The non-clitic pronouns, although genitive-valued, have the same surface form as clausal dative pronouns because of a dative/genitive syncretism. The placement of possessive clitics, unlike the case of Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian, is freer, though still subject to some restrictions. The post-nominal position, in which non-clitic possessive DPs have to appear, is always available to possessive clitics. But clitics can also follow pre-nominal adjectives, and nonclitic determiners, (cf. (47), from Kolliakou 1998). Possessive clitics cannot follow post-nominal adjectives, complements of prenominal adjectives, and adverbial modifiers. (47) a.
ola tus ta prosfata epistimonika arthra all they.cl.gen the recent scientific papers b. ola ta prosfata tus epistimonika arthra all the recent they.cl.gen scientific papers c. ola ta prosfata epistimonika tus arthra all the recent scientific they.cl.gen papers d. ola ta-prosfata epistimonika arthra tus all the-recent scientific papers they.cl.gen ‘all their recent scientific papers’
[Greek] [Greek] [Greek] [Greek]
Greek possessive clitics are not restricted to definite DPs, as the example below (from Alexiadou & Stavrou 2000) illustrates. (48) {ena/kapjo} tis vivlio a/some she.cl book ‘a/some book of hers’
[Greek]
In sum, clitics in Greek can appear in the position in which non-clitic possessives can (in addition to some others, higher in the DP), and they are not restricted as to the definiteness of the DP. Given that genitive case in Greek appears to be available for any DP in the post-nominal position, without a restriction as to category (e.g., pronoun vs. nonpronoun), and given that possessive clitics may appear in this post-nominal position, they may have abstract genitive case as well. There are further reasons to think that Greek possessive clitics are genitive-valued, based on historical considerations. As Alexiadou (2001) demonstrates, in earlier stages of Greek a prenominal genitive position existed, which ceased to be available for DPs around the 15th C.33 Yet Modern Greek can still have clitics in this position, provided they are preceded by an adjective. The possessive clitics show a number of restrictions similar to the ones found with prenominal genitives in earlier stages of Greek. Following Manolessou (2000), Alexiadou (2001) notes that historically, prenominal genitives
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.27 (1594-1654)
Balkan possessive clitics
had to be human and definite; and frequently, proper names occupied this position.34 By the Byzantine period (5th–15th C), prenominal genitives in vernacular texts are limited to proper names and pronouns, and they only appear together with an adjective modifying the head noun, as in (49) from Manolessou (2000). (49) ta eugenika tu Halepe korasia the kind.pl the Halepe.gen girls ‘Halepe’s kind girls’
[Byzantine Greek]
In Modern Greek, only post-nominal genitives are found, except for clitics in the presence of an adjective, as illustrated in the following example from Alexiadou (2001): (50) i ksafniki tus apohorisi the sudden they.cl.gen departure ‘their sudden departure’
[Greek]
Importantly, Alexiadou and Stavrou (2000) point out that there is an animacy restriction on prenominal clitics that is not there with postnominal ones.35 (51) a.
o trelos odhigos tu the crazy driver 3sg.m/n.cl.gen 1. ‘its crazy driver’ (e.g., the crazy driver of the truck)’ 2. ‘his crazy driver’ (e.g. someone’s crazy chauffeur) b. o trelos tu odhigos the crazy 3m/n.sg.cl.gen driver 1. *‘its crazy driver’ 2. ‘his crazy driver’
[Greek]
[Greek]
The animacy restriction and the requirement for the presence of an adjective are common to pre-nominal clitics and pre-nominal genitive DPs of the Byzantine period. This suggests that pre-nominal possessive clitics, and by extension postnominal ones, have indeed the syntax of genitives. There is a further semantic restriction associated with pre-nominal possessive clitics noted by Alexiadou and Stavrou (2000). These authors observe that adjectives which are ambiguous with post-nominal clitics, become unambiguous with pre-nominal ones. In particular, as shown in the following example, whereas an adjective such as paljo ‘old’ may mean ‘former’ or ‘aged’ in (52a), it may only mean ‘former’ in (52b), the loss of reading being associated with the position of the possessive clitic. (52) a.
to paljo aftokinito mu the old car I.cl.gen
[Greek]
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.28 (1654-1713)
Roumyana Pancheva
1. ‘my former car (the car I used to own)’ 2. ‘my aged car’ b. to paljo mu aftokinito the old I.cl car only: ‘my former car (the car I used to own)’ A likely explanation for these facts is that there are (at least) two pronominal positions available for temporal adjectives (as indeed advocated by Larson and Cho 2000 regarding ambiguities of temporal adjectives with respect to possessives), one preceding a pre-nominal genitive and one following it, each position being associated with a particular meaning. The surface word order in the case of (52a) corresponds to two structures and is thus ambiguous. The pre-nominal placement of the clitic disambiguates between the two structures.36 Interestingly, the same interpretive effects of the position of adjectives with respect to prenominal possessives obtain in Bulgarian. When the adjective star ‘old’ appears after a pre-nominal (“adjectival”) possessive, it is ambiguous; when it precedes the possessive, it loses the ‘aged’ reading, as (53) illustrates.37 No such interpretive effects are observed with clitics (see (54)): (53) a.
poveˇceto moi stari koli most-the my.poss.pl old.pl cars 1. ‘most of my previous cars’ 2. ‘most of my aged cars’ b. poveˇceto stari moi koli most-the old.pl my.poss.pl cars only ‘most of my previous cars’ not ‘most of my aged cars’
(54) a.
poveˇceto mi stari koli most-the I.cl.dat old.pl cars 1. ‘most of my previous cars’ 2. ‘most of my aged cars’ b. starite mi koli old.pl-the I.cl cars 1. ‘my previous cars’ 2. ‘my aged cars’
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
As discussed earlier, the prenominal possessive in Bulgarian is genitive-valued. Apparently, in both Greek and Bulgarian, the position of adjectives with respect to pre-nominal genitives has interpretive effects. The lack of such effects in the interpretation of adjectives in the presence of clitics suggests that the clitic in Bulgarian is always syntactically higher than the adjective. In the literature, authors have typically assumed that it is adjoined to D0 (e.g., Schoorlemmer 1998; Embick & Noyer
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.29 (1713-1772)
Balkan possessive clitics
2001) or is a functional head higher than DP (Dimitrova-Vulchanova 2000) and that the surface position of the adjective in (54b) is a derived position that has to do with second-position placement. Facts like these further strengthen the conclusion that the Greek prenominal clitic is genitive-valued.
. Clitic doubling In Bulgarian and Macedonian possessive clitics can appear together with a possessive PP (see (55) and (56) below, which illustrate doubling with full DPs in the PP, and also (32) above, where pronouns were doubled). (55) a.
novite mu knigi na Ivan new-the he.cl.dat books to Ivan ‘Ivan’s new books’ b. na Ivan novite mu knigi to Ivan new-the he.cl.dat books ‘Ivan’s new books’
(56) a.
majka mu na carot mother he.cl to king-the ‘the king’s mother’ b. na carot majka mu to king-the mother he.cl ‘the king’s mother’
[Bulgarian]
[Bulgarian]
[Macedonian]
[Macedonian]
It was argued earlier that, given the proposal above that possessive PPs in Bulgarian and Macedonian are the overt realization of dative case valued inside the DP, the fact that they co-occur with clitics suggests that the clitics themselves have dative rather than genitive case features. It was further argued that, if this is on the right track, then we would expect that clitics would not be able to double “adjectival” possessive pronouns, as these were argued to be genitive valued. This was indeed the case, as illustrated in (33) above. Note that the unacceptability of the examples in (33) cannot be due to the fact that both the clitic and the non-clitic pronoun need to value their case feature and they are in competition with one another to enter into a structural relationship with the case licenser. (See Jaegli 1986; Borer 1983, 1986; Aoun 1999, a.o. for casetheoretic approaches to clitic doubling.) The same logic should rule out (55) and (56), as well as (32) above. Note further that the preposition na in (55) and (56) is obligatory not because the clitic has ‘absorbed’ the available case and the DP argument is in need of casevaluation. The essence of Kayne’s generalization regarding clitic doubling is that the clitic-doubled DP needs to be introduced by a preposition because the clitic
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.30 (1772-1836)
Roumyana Pancheva
“absorbs” the case provided by the case-assigner. Yet Kayne’s generalization does not obtain for clitic doubling in the domain of the clause in these languages.38 Moreover, the preposition na remains obligatory in (55) and (56) in the absence of the clitic. Romanian possessive clitics were argued to have dative features, and given that clitic doubling in the domain of the clause is possible in this language, one could expect that clitic doubling should also be possible in the domain of the DP. As argued above, however, a cross-linguistically plausible account of the loss of DPinternal possessive clitics implicates loss of dative case valuation mechanisms inside the DP. Thus, not only possessive pronouns, but also full DP arguments, are valued genitive in Romanian. Because of this, it is predicted that doubling should not be possible, and this is indeed the case. [Romanian] (57) a. *carte-a mi mea book.f.sg-the I.cl.dat my.poss.f.sg ‘my book’ b. *carte-a mi {(a) Mariei /lui Mihai /profesorului} book.f.sg-the I.cl.dat of Mary the Mihai teacher-the.dat ‘Mary’s/Mihai’s/the teacher’s new book’ In contrast, external possessive clitics can be doubled by a raised argument. In this respect, possessive clitics behave like clausal pronominal clitics. (58) I-am vazut Mariei carte-a. 3sg.cl-have.1sg seen Mary.dat book-the ‘I have seen Mary’s book’
[Romanian]
In Serbo-Croatian clitic doubling is never possible, and correspondingly, the external possessive clitics cannot be doubled. Thus, in the following sentence, the two pronouns cannot be construed either as possessives or as indirect objects. (59) *Njemu sam mu proˇcitala knjigu. him.dat be.1sg he.cl read book purported reading 1: ‘I have read his book.’ purported reading 2: ‘I read the book to him.’
[Serbo-Croatian]
In Greek clitic doubling is prohibited with possessive clitics,39 whether the clitic is in the post- or pre-nominal position, as the following examples illustrate ((60a) is from Alexiadou and Stavrou 2000). (60) a. *to vivlio tu tu fititi the book he.cl.gen the student ‘the student’s book’
[Greek]
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.31 (1836-1899)
Balkan possessive clitics
b. *ena/kapjo tu vivlio tu fititi a/some he.cl.gen book the student ‘some book of the student’
[Greek]
Greek allows clitic doubling in the clause. But given that possessive clitics were argued here to be genitive, and hence distinct formal objects from clausal clitics, there is no prediction with respect to the behavior of possessive clitics. The facts of (60) are compatible with the view that possessive clitics and genitive arguments are competing for case-valuation.
. Summary of case issues This section presented arguments that, despite appearances, possessive clitics in the Balkan languages are not all alike. Possessive clitics in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian were previously considered to have abstract genitive case, and the clitics’ morpho-phonological identity to clausal indirect object clitics was thought to be the result of surface syncretism. Arguments were provided here that possessive clitics in these languages are in fact valued dative in the syntax. The same was argued to be true for Serbo-Croatian. This language lacks the dative/genitive syncretism of its neighbors in the first place and its possessive clitics are unambiguously dative. The lack of DP-internal possessive clitics was attributed to a loss of dative case-valuation mechanisms inside the DP. The same historical change was posited to underlie the non-productive use of DP-internal clitics in Romanian. Greek was argued to be distinct from the rest of the Balkan languages studied, as its possessive clitics are valued with abstract genitive case; they have a common morpho-phonological expression with indirect object clitics because of surface syncretism. Evidence for these proposals came from considerations of historical facts, facts from possessor ‘raising’ of the clitics, comparison with the behavior of non-clitic possessives, and the facts of clitic doubling, all viewed in a comparative perspective. Specifically, Greek possessive clitics were shown to be able to appear in a structural position that historically was a genitive-licensing position. They also can surface in a genitive position in which other non-clitic possessives appear, showing that they have no special properties apart from their status of special clitics. They do not undergo possessor ‘raising’, as is typical of genitive arguments. Since they are syntactically distinct from clausal indirect object clitics, there is no reason to expect that they should share syntactic properties such as clitic doubling with these clitics. In contrast, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian were shown to have had dative possessive clitics in a historical period when a morphological distinction between dative and genitive exponents was still maintained. Possessor “raising” was shown to be an option – in fact, obligatory in Serbo-Croatian and practically
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.32 (1899-1949)
Roumyana Pancheva
so in Romanian; and possessor ‘raising’ is known to be a property of datives. All four languages were shown to have a special genitive position in which non-clitic pronominal possessives have to appear, and which is associated with properties not shared by the clitics. Finally, clitic doubling with possessive clitics was shown to have the same cross-linguistic distribution as clitic doubling with indirect object clitics: to be possible in Bulgarian and Macedonian, but not in Serbo-Croatian, which is to be expected if the possessive and indirect-object clitics are the same syntactic objects. In Romanian, the absence of clitic doubling in DPs was attributed to the fact that non-clitic possessive in this language are valued genitive, the language essentially having almost entirely lost its dative-case valuation mechanism in the DP. Moreover, only doubling of non-genitive possessive arguments was shown to be possible in Bulgarian and Macedonian, and not that of “adjectival” possessives, which were argued to be genitive.
. Heads or arguments? Another question remains to be addressed concerning case. Pronominal clitics are intrinsically ambiguous as to their category, namely they can be merged and/or moved as heads or as phrases. Correspondingly, two types of analyses have been given in the general literature regarding the initial merge of clitics – as heads associated with a possibly non-overt argument (e.g., Borer 1983; Jaeggli 1986; Sportiche 1996) or as arguments in theta-position that have needs for case-valuation, possibly moving further as heads (e.g., Kayne 1991). Do Balkan possessive clitics, whether abstractly genitive, as in Greek, or dative, as in the other Balkan languages, have the syntactic behavior of heads or of maximal projections, at initial merge? The proposal is as follows. In Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian, clausal indirect object clitics are initially merged as X0 s. They do not originate in an argument position in the VP. Rather, they are bundles of case- and phi-features that are merged as adjuncts to the head of a functional projection in the extended projection of the verb that valuates dative case. Clitics are associated with a null pronominal or overt DP/PP, initially merged in a theta-position. This is essentially a Sportiche (1996) style analysis, the spirit of which goes back to Borer (1983). While not universally accepted for the languages under discussion, it is not particularly controversial that clausal clitics be treated as functional heads (see e.g., Tomi´c 1996b; Rudin 1997; Franks & King 2000; and for a different view, Boškovi´c 2001). Being formally identical to dative clausal clitics, the Bulgarian, Macedonian and Romanian possessive clitics are initially merged as X0 s.40 They do not originate in an argument position. Rather, they are bundles of case- and phi-features that are merged as adjuncts to a dative-case valuating functional head, Fd0 , in the DP or the
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.33 (1949-1996)
Balkan possessive clitics
clause (remaining agnostic here about the nature of possessor ‘raising’). The clitics are associated with a null pronominal or an overt PP/DP in a theta-position (of the head noun or of a null possessive predicate), with matching phi-features and an unvalued case feature. After merge with Fd0 , the clitic enters into an Agree relation with Fd0 , as a result of which its case feature is valued dative. Fd0 on the other hand gets its [– interpretable] phi-features valued. The possessive argument in theta position receives the same value for its case feature by virtue of being in a chain with the clitic. This mechanism of case licensing is an alternative to movement of the argument to Spec, FdP. Fd0 requires Agree to be followed by Merge, and initial merge of the clitic or movement and re-merge of the argument itself, in the absence of the clitic, are the two ways to satisfy this requirement. Clitic doubling is the result of pronunciation of the argument PP/DP. Note that conclusions on the basis of clitic-doubling, regarding the categorial status of clitics at merge, need not rest on the assumption that the doubled DP is an argument of the verbal or nominal predicate, and not an adjunct. Indeed, if it can be shown that the clitic-doubled DP is in an argument position, then its doubling clitic has to be analyzed as a head. But if the clitic-doubled DP is an adjunct, whether the clitic itself is an argument or a head at initial merge remains open. For instance, Aoun (1999) and Schneider-Zioga (1993) propose that doubled DPs are adjuncts in Lebanese Arabic and Greek, respectively, while the clausal clitics are heads associated with a null pronominal. (See e.g., Borer (1986), Anagnostopoulou (to appear) for detailed discussion of the argument/adjunct status of the cliticdoubled DP as a classic question in the grammar of clitics). Correspondingly, I will not present here arguments that the overt clitic-doubled DP/PP in Bulgarian and Macedonian is itself the argument. In contrast to clausal clitics in Bulgarian, Macedonian and Romanian, clausal pronominal clitics in Serbo-Croatian are merged as XPs in theta position. They are arguments in their own right, a bundle of [+interpretable] phi-features and an unvalued case-feature. Clitics overtly raise to Spec, FdP (eventually second position effects are derived41 ) to get their case-feature valued dative and check their phi-features against Fd0 . This analysis allows for a natural account of the absence of clitic doubling with second-position clitics. As possessive clitics are formally identical to dative clausal clitics, possessive clitics in Serbo-Croatian are similarly merged as XPs in theta position. They cannot be doubled by an argument, because they are the argument. In Greek, it was proposed here that possessive clitics have distinct features from indirect object clitics, at least as far as case is concerned. Since there is no formal identity between the two, possessive clitics need not have the same analysis as indirect object clitics. Greek clausal pronominal clitics have been argued to be initially merged as X0 s (e.g., Terzi 1999; Anagnostopoulou to appear42 ),43 a view that is consistent with the correlation advocated here between categorial status of pronominal
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.34 (1996-2052)
Roumyana Pancheva
clitics at merge and the availability of clitic doubling. Possessive clitics, on the other hand, are initially merged as XPs, arguments within the DP in their own right, getting their case feature valued genitive, and prohibiting clitic doubling (consistent with the view in Alexiadou & Stavrou 2000; Alexiadou 2001). The head/phrase distinction at initial merge allows for a natural account of selectional restrictions between possessive clitic and the nominal head in the DP such as the ones found in Macedonian. Recall that in Macedonian possessive clitics occur only with nouns denoting kinship predicates such as wife, daughter, mother, sister, etc. This restriction is not present with non-clitic possessors (see (61)). (61) a.
mojata kniga I.poss.f.sg-the book.f.sg ‘my book’ b. *knigata mi book.f.sg-the I.cl ‘my book’
[Macedonian]
[Macedonian]
The restricted distribution of possessive clitics in Macedonian is accounted for naturally by the assumption that possessive clitics are heads adjoined to the head of a functional projection FdP. We can posit that the Fd0 s in Macedonian DPs that can value a dative case feature can appear only in DPs with a relational N0 . Technically, the selection can be done through a diacritic feature on Fd0 (and the head it selects). The relevant clitic exponent can still be inserted as the most specified vocabulary item for that position. We thus have found a principled way to capture the particular restriction in Macedonian, importantly, without having to posit special diacritics on the possessive clitics themselves, thus preserving the formal uniformity with clausal dative clitics.
. Conclusions Much less attention has been paid in the literature to Balkan possessive clitics than to their clausal counterparts. Moreover, previous work has largely concentrated on investigations of individual languages; the only comparative studies of Balkan possessive clitics that I am aware of are discussions of Bulgarian and Macedonian in Tomi´c (1996a), Franks and King (2000), Caink (2000) and Schick (2000). But as we saw in this paper, some of the really interesting questions arise only when we look at the languages in comparison. In particular, all of the Balkan languages have possessive clitics, which are identical morpho-phonologically to indirect object clitics in the domain of the clause. The null assumption (also explicitly endorsed by the majority of schol-
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.35 (2052-2111)
Balkan possessive clitics
ars writing on the topic) is that this phenomenon does not reflect an identity of abstract case, but merely an identity of its morphological expression. Such reasoning is strengthened by the fact that four of the five languages have experienced a collapse of the exponents of genitive and dative case. Yet, a comparative consideration of possessive clitics in the Balkan languages reveals unexpected cross-linguistic differences. The following points summarize the proposals made in this paper: (62) Balkan possessive clitics are: a. D0 adjuncts to a functional projection valuating dative [Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian] b. DPs valued dative [Serbo-Croatian] c. DPs valued genitive [Greek] (63) Historical change involving the loss of dative-case valuation mechanism inside the DP is responsible for the lack of DP-internal possessive clitics in Serbo-Croatian and their non-productivity in Romanian. (64) Non-clitic “adjectival” possessives are valued genitive. In Bulgarian and Macedonian, this is the only genitive-licensing mechanism available. (65) Romanian and Greek are the only languages for which a genitive/dative syncretism needs to be evoked independently of clitics. What follows is a fragment of the grammar for clitics, illustrating the proposals put forward here. (66) Syntactic category and features of possessive clitics and indirect object clitics at merge D0 <[+interpretable] phi. [–interpretable] case> (67) Syntactic structures at Spell-Out a. possessive clitics: [Bulgarian/Macedonian/Romanian] [FD 0 D0 FD 0 ] [FDP DP [FD’ FD 0 ]] [Serbo-Croatian, Greek] b. indirect object clitics: [FD 0 D0 FD 0 ] [Bulgarian/Macedonian/Romanian/Greek] [FDP DP [FD’ FD 0 ]] [Serbo-Croatian] (68) Syntactic features of clitics at Spell-Out a. possessive clitics: <[+interpretable] phi.dat> [Bulgarian/Macedonian/Romanian/ Serbo-Croatian] <[+interpretable] phi. gen> [Greek]
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.36 (2111-2175)
Roumyana Pancheva
b. indirect object clitics: <[+interpretable] phi.dat>
[Bulgarian/Macedonian/Romanian/ Serbo-Croatian/Greek]
(69) Vocabulary Items for 3Sg possessive clitics and indirect object clitics a. mu ↔ [+interpretable] 3sg [Bulgarian/Macedonian] í ↔ [+interpretable] 3sg.fem i ↔ [+interpretable] 3sg [Romanian] b. mu ↔ [+interpretable] 3sg [Serbo-Croatian] joj ↔ [+interpretable] 3sg.fem c. tu ↔ [+interpretable] 3sg [Greek] tis ↔ [+interpretable] 3sg.fem The exponents instantiating possessive and indirect object clitics in the Balkan languages are themselves underspecified for case. This allows for the same exponent to be inserted both in syntactic terminals with a dative case feature and in those with a genitive case feature. I am further assuming, of course, that vocabulary items for accusative clitics in all of the languages are specified accordingly, so that the exponents in (69) could not be inserted in syntactic terminals with an accusative case feature. Thus, as far as vocabulary items for possessive and indirect object clitics are concerned, the Balkan languages are uniform (except for the exact phonology of the exponent, of course). Where they differ is in the syntax of clitics, in particular the case value that the clitics receive and the position (and accompanying mode) of their initial merge. Based on the conclusions of the comparative study of possessive clitics, the following issue arises. Given that clitics in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian and Serbo-Croatian are identical to indirect object clitics as far as case, phi-features and category is concerned, and given further that in all these languages plus Greek the particular exponents that lexicalize the clitics are identical, why are the clitic placement patterns distinct in the domain of the DP and of the clause? How can we formulate the syntactic, morphological and phonological properties of clitics so that the distinctions in cliticization patterns fall out while preserving the formal identity of the clitics themselves? Addressing this issue in detail will be the subject of another study.
Notes * This paper is based on a talk given at the Conference on the Balkan Sprachbund Properties, University of Leiden, 7–9 June 2001. Aspects of it were also presented at Formal Approaches
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.37 (2175-2241)
Balkan possessive clitics
to Slavic Linguistics 10 at the University of Michigan, 6–7 May 2001. Thanks to the organizers and audiences of both events, and to the anonymous reviewers for this publication, for their comments. Special thanks to Wayles Browne for his close reading of this paper and the extensive written comments and discussion. Thanks also to Klaus Abels, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Željko Boškovi´c, David Embick, Alex Grosu, Sabine Iatridou, Cristian Iscrulescu, Ora Matushansky, Milena Petrova, Ljiljana Progovac, Roumyana Slabakova, Olga Mišeska Tomi´c, and Draga Zec, for their suggestions and/or native-speaker intuitions (and in one case, invaluable timely tech support). . The thematic interpretation available to possessive expressions is varied, even within a single language, and is dependent on a multiplicity of factors, such as the type of head noun – whether an object nominal, a relational noun, or a nominalization (e.g., his team vs. his mother vs. his creation); the presence of certain modifiers (e.g., his favorite movie vs. his new movie); the presence of (other) arguments (e.g., his picture of Mary, his examination of the students), the morpho-syntax (a picture of him vs. a picture of his). Furthermore, the morpho-syntax of possessive expressions is subject to considerable cross-linguistic variation. All of these clearly complex issues are beyond the scope of this paper; for discussion see, e.g., Alexiadou (2001a), Borer (1999/2001), Borschev and Partee (2001), Partee and Borschev (2000), Barker (1995), among many others. . This is done for concreteness. The results can also be formalized in frameworks that do not assume late insertion of vocabulary items, with similar effect. The mechanism of case-licensing assumed here, makes the proposal incompatible only with strong lexicalist theories. . Rare instances of DP-internal possessive clitics can be found in Serbo-Croatian, as in (i), an example from a newspaper review, and (ii) an archaic, but not impossible expression (Wayles Browne, p.c.). (i)
[Serbo-Croatian] Sada sam, ali opet pod firmom matiˇcnog mu now alone but again under trade-name original he.cl.dat sastava,. . . . group ‘Now alone, but again under the trade-name of his original group,. . . ’
(ii) Ivan i žena mu Ivan and wife he.cl.dat ‘Ivan and his wife’
[Serbo-Croatian]
. To simplify the discussion, I am assuming that clausal indirect object clitics have abstract dative case features. . Nominative case is ignored here, as the languages under consideration have no nominative clitics. Obviously, the formalization may be extended to nominative pronouns. . The latter option is also implicitly assumed by Stateva’s (2002) analysis for Bulgarian. . On a related problem of double case in some Slavic possessive DPs, see Corbett 1995. . A terminological clarification is in order. Duridanov et al. 1993, refers to the language in the examples (13), (14b) as Old Bulgarian, rather than Old Church Slavonic. This classification, although shared by some other authors, is not necessarily the standard view in
JB[v.20020404] Prn:21/04/2004; 15:46
F: LA6705.tex / p.38 (2241-2303)
Roumyana Pancheva
the literature (see Schenker 1995; Lunt 2001). Usually, a distinction is made between Old Church Slavonic – the earliest recorded supranational South Slavic language – and its regional dialects, e.g., Old Bulgarian, despite the fact that linguistic differences are minimal (especially with respect to Old Bulgarian, as Old Church Slavonic already had some Eastern South Slavic features). Historical documents from the 10–11th century are thus classified as either Old Church Slavonic or of regional provenience. The texts, from which the Duridanov et al. examples are taken, belong to the small body of manuscripts and inscriptions, included in the cannon of Old Church Slavonic (cf. Schenker 1995). . Ethical datives are acceptable in Greek, as pointed out by a reviewer, reminding us that external possessives and ethical datives are distinct phenomena: (i)
Ke mu lerothike to kalo panteloni. and I.cl.dat got-stained the good trousers ‘and my good trousers got filthy on me.’
[Greek]
. This is not meant to deny that there are such factors. It is also likely that the two languages are currently undergoing a change, like the one already completed in Serbo-Croatian where internal possessive clitics are ungrammatical, and like the one almost completed in Romanian. . This statement is meant to include not only abstract case realized by case affixes but also by various PPs, e.g., the Spanish dative a Carmen vs. genitive de Carmen. . Payne and Barshi (1999: 3) observe that cross-linguistically, external possessors may be subjects, direct objects or indirect objects, and thus be marked nominative, accusative, dative, ergative, or absolutive, depending on language type. They note (p. 9) that dative arguments are particularly widespread. . Szabolcsi provides several
