María Luisa Rivero

Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans

Albanian, Bulgarian, Modern Greek, and Rumanian share the following clause structure: [CP C0 [MP M0 [T/AgrP T/Agr0 [AuxP Aux0 [VP V0]]]]]. In Balkan clauses, the phrase headed by the complementizer takes a phrase headed by an invariant modal particle as complement. The Tense/Agreement complex, the auxiliaries, and the main verb follow MP. In addition, Balkan languages share interesting varieties of X0-movement for non-finite verbs, with theoretical consequences for principles of UG. In Bulgarian and Rumanian, (Long) Head-movement raises V0 to C0 across the finite Aux0, as inPročel sŭm knigata ‘I have read the book’; such structures comply with the Empty Category Principle via Relativized Minimality, and escape the Head Movement Constraint. In Albanian, Greek, and Rumanian, Head-movement places the imperative V0 in C0, as inGhrápse to ‘Write it!’. Albanian imperatives show Long Head Movement and comply with the ECP like other LHM patterns in cases where the V-stem precedes the clitic and the affix in that order:Tregoj-i-ni ‘Tell him!’. Greek and Rumanian Gerunds display Head-movement to M0, as inI Maria kratóndas to ‘Mary holding it’. In similar Albanian constructions M0 is filled, and this prevents V0-raising, as inPashë [Brixhiden [M0duke]kenduar] ‘I saw Brigitte singing’.

Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood

Imperative Vs with distinctive morphology either have a distinctive syntax (Modern Greek, Spanish), or distribute like others Vs (Serbo-Croatian, Ancient Greek). The contrast follows from properties of the root C. The first type has a strong Imperative V-feature in C, and under Chomskys Greed Principle, Imperative Vs raise overtly to check this feature. The second type is the Wackernagel language, whose C hosts no features, but V-features are in I. If no phrase fronts, Vs move to C to support second position items. V-to-C affects all Vs, is last resort, follows Lasniks Enlightened SelfInterest, and escapes Greed. I. INTRODUCTION1 This paper deals with the syntax of Imperative sentences in languages whose Imperative verbs have a distinctive morphology. Such languages include Greek, Spanish, and Serbo-Croatian, and we show that they fall into two different syntactic types, as in (i). (i) (a) Class I: Imperative Verbs have a distinctive syntax. (b) Class II: Imperative Verbs lack a distinctive syntax. In the first class, Imperative Vs do not distribute like other Vs. This type includes Modern Greek (MGk) and Spanish (Sp), whose Imperatives have unique syntactic properties. By contrast, languages of the second type like Ancient Greek (AGk) and Serbo-Croatian (SC) have Imperative Vs that distribute like any other V. In this paper, we explore why languages displaying a morphological Imperative paradigm differ as to Imperative syntax. We attribute the contrast to the function of the root Complementizer or C: in Class I, C hosts a logical mood feature for imperatives, while in Class II, C hosts no features. Our proposal has diachronic consequences outlined here from a typological, rather than a historical perspective. Namely, we argue that MGk belongs to Class I and AGk to Class II; therefore, the evolution of Greek shows a change in the function of the root C: the earlier

Adverb incorporation and the syntax of adverbs in modern Greek

This paper identifies two syntactic classes of Modern Greek Adverbs: (a) those which are internal to the VP, similar to NP-complements in the syntactic representation, (la), and may form a complex word with V by the syntactic process known as Incorporation, as in (lb), with the Adverb occurring strictly before the Verb forming a grammatical morphological unit, vs. (b) those external to the VP, (lc), which fail to incorporate, as in the ill-formed (ld), where the Adverb precedes the Verb too, but the complex unit is not viable.

INDEFINITE REFLEXIVE CLITICS IN SLAVIC: POLISH AND SLOVENIAN

In this paper, we argue that certain Slavic reflexive cliticsshould be analyzed asindefinite defective pronouns in both syntax and semantics,and we go on to identify syntactic and semantic parametric variation among reflexiveclitics in Slavic.Reflexive clitics that correspond to people representnominative indefinite pronounsin Polish and Slovenian, and accusative indefinite pronounsin all the Slavic languages, so there is syntactic variation among suchindefinites. In syntax, indefinite clitics stand for explicit arguments that are defectivebecause they contain a human feature and no gender, number, or person, and move torepair deficiency. In semantics, they contain human variables and quantifiersreminiscent of some, which can be deleted by existential disclosure. When quantifiersare deleted and adverbs bind indefinite clitics, such clitics may resemble everyone,many people, and few people. In constructions with datives, Slavic cliticsdisplay a complex web of semantic and syntactic variation due to dative existentialdisclosure in logical form. Dative existential disclosure combines quantifier deletionwith one of two operations binding datives to disclosed variables. In Polish and Slovenian,constructions with indefinite clitics and datives have the same syntax but differ intruth conditions because quantifiers are deleted, and datives bind disclosedvariables in one way in Polish and another way in Slovenian. In Czech and Bulgarian,dative existential disclosure affects reflexive clitics standing for implicitarguments with different syntactic properties. Thus, there is syntactic variation,with Polish and Slovenian forming one syntactic group and Bulgarian and Czech another.Variation extends to semantics, because the meaning of constructions with reflexiveclitics and datives is the same in Bulgarian and Slovenian, while Czech belongs tothe same semantic group as Polish.

Clitic auxiliaries and incorporation in Polish

This paper discusses the two alternating syntactic patterns of Polish past and conditional sentences from a Slavic perspective. We argue that what are often referred to in Polish as past tense verbs, for examplewidzialeś ‘you saw’, are in fact combinations of a past participle and a perfect auxiliary, e.g.,widział ‘seen’ andś ‘you have’. These combinations are the result of syntactic Incorporation in the sense of Baker (1988). When not combined with the participle, the auxiliary can appear almost anywhere to the left of the participle within the same clause. We argue, however, that it always occupies the same syntactic position, only to undergo PF-cliticization. The auxiliary combines with a variety of elements because phrasal frontings such asWh-movement and Scrambling allow a variety of categories to immediately precede the I-node occupied by the auxiliary. The proposal that the auxiliary appears in the I-node alone or incorporates the participle explains why certain items can host a clitic auxiliary while others cannot. A second auxiliary that incorporates a participle is the conditional auxiliary, as inwidział + byś ‘you would see’. However, the conditional auxiliary is not a clitic and hence, unlike the perfect auxiliary, can appear in initial position. We argue that Polish is unique among West and South Slavic languages in having Incorporation. Bulgarian sentences likečel sŭm ‘I have read’ and counterparts in Czech, Serbo-Croatian, and Slovak appear similar to Polish examples involving Incorporation. However, they are the product of Long Head Movement, i.e., the movement of the participle directly to the C-position across the auxiliary. We argue that Polish sentences involving Incorporation differ in syntactic properties from Long Head Movement constructions in the other languages.

TYPES OF VERBAL MOVEMENT IN OLD SPANISH: MODALS, FUTURES, AND PERFECTS

This paper identifies three different types of movement affecting verbal items in O(ld) Sp(anish), or the period from roughly the 12th to the 15th Century. First, OSp exhibits VP-Preposing, or the fronting of a VP äs X, licensed by modals äs in (1). Although it is known that VP-Preposing exists in many languages, it is less known that only certain auxiliaries licenst this process in some languages.

REFERENTIAL PROPERTIES OF SPANISH NOUN PHRASES

This article discusses two aspects of definite and indefinite NPs in the grammar of Spanish: SPECIFICITY, which is formally marked by the mood of restrictive relative clauses; and EXISTENTIAL IMPORT, which derives from the linguistic environment by principles connected with presuppositions in general. Specificity and existential import belong to the grammar of Spanish, not to the realm of pragmatics. In Spanish, Donnellans referential descriptions constitute a sub-set of specific NPs (definite specific NPs in the singular with an existential presupposition determined by the linguistic environment). Attributive descriptions, on the other hand, are singular, definite, nonspecific NPs having an existential presupposition.* This paper studies the referential properties of Spanish definite and indefinite noun phrases. It discusses two different and almost independent elements connected with reference and delimitation in Spanish1: (1) SPECIFICITY, a property exhibited by both definite and indefinite NPs, and formally marked by the mood of restrictive relative clauses for those NPs with non-reduced relatives (?2). (2) EXISTENTIAL IMPORT, exhibited by definite and non-definite NPs, by specific and non-specific NPs, and defined by the linguistic environment (?3). To provide a basis for the discussion, definiteness will be briefly discussed in ?1. 1. DEFINITENESS. In an indirect way, the notion of definiteness has been of great concern to logicians, who have dedicated long discussions to the properties of definite descriptions, i.e. NPs in the singular preceded by the definite article and followed by restrictive modifiers. Philosophers have associated definite descriptions both with uniqueness and existence. I will examine the notion of uniqueness in this section, together with its linguistic implications, leaving the discussion of existence to ?3.

An applicative analysis of double object constructions in Romanian

Abstract Romanian participates in the so-called dative alternation, offering four syntactic types of ditransitive sentences. On the one hand, it exhibits two types of double object constructions (DOCs) corresponding to English Jane sends Bill a letter. In one of them, the goal corresponding to Bill is a morphological dative, and in the other it follows the preposition la. On the other hand, Romanian also exhibits two types of prepositional ditransitive constructions (PDCs) corresponding to English Jane sends a letter to Bill, with a goal that can be a morphological dative or follow the preposition la. Such Romanian ditransitive sentences correspond to DOCs when they contain a dative clitic, and to PDCs when they contain a goal and show no dative clitic. It is proposed that Romanian DOCs and PDCs have different syntactic structures. DOCs contain a low Applicative Phrase with the dative clitic as head, the goal as specifier, and the theme as complement. Thus, in DOCs the goal c-commands the theme. By contrast, in PDCs the theme is the specifier of a PP that c-commands the goal as the complement of P. Due to these different hierarchical structures, DOCs and PDCs contrast in behavior concerning binding, frozen scope, and weak crossover relations between goal and theme.

Catalan Restrictive Relatives: Core and Periphery

The rules involved in the derivation of headed and free relatives are (a) WH-movement and (b) deletion of the wH-phrase in COMP. One filter blocks an empty COMP, and another blocks a doubly-filled COMP. Deletion in COMP has an obligatory character in standard Catalan; this is a peripheral dimension that is unproblematic for the language learner. Catalan deletes any category in COMP up to recoverability, including PPs; this is the core situation found in French, but it is restricted by addition of a peripheral dimension that allows only NP-deletion. The interpretation of the core/periphery dichotomy developed in this paper may provide a fruitful framework for comparative grammar and historical research.

Specificity and Existence: A Reply

This paper, a reply to Rojas 1977, re-affirms my conclusion (Rivero 1975) that specificity is marked in Spanish NPs by the mood of restrictive modifiers, and that it is independent of the degree of definiteness and the existential claims associated with those NPs. Specific and non-specific NPs alike may be referring expressions depending on their position in sentences. However, contrary to what I previously assumed, the notion of specificity is not connected with the pragmatic distinction between the referential and attributive uses of definite descriptions.