The Balkan Slavic clausal clitics

The constituency and the behavior of the clausal clitics in Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian and Bulgarian are analyzed. It is argued that, while in Serbo-Croatian the clausal clitics are moved to CP and the cluster is formed in a node that is right-adjoined to C°, in Macedonian and Bulgarian the clitics are base-derived in IP, and the cluster is formed to the immediate left of V. The movement of the clitics to CP reflects the propensity of the clitics in Common Slavic to occur in clitic-second or Wackernagel position. Nevertheless, this propensity is overruled to the extent to which the verb forms a local domain with the clitics.In Macedonian, where the verb does form a local domain with the clitics, the clitic cluster is formed in IP, to the immediately left of the finite verb, so that, when the verb moves, the cluster trails along (piggy-backing). In contrast, in Serbo-Croatian, the verb does not form a local domain with the clitics and the clitic cluster is formed in reference to a specified syntactic position (the complementizer, in this case), rather than with reference to a specified syntactic category. In Bulgarian, where the verb and the clitics are weakly tied, the clitic cluster is formed in IP, but there is a discrepancy between syntactic and phonological ‘allegiance’.Since the restriction on multiple adjunction in the specifiers to the left of C° follows from the clustering of the clitics in it, while the clitics cluster in C° if they do not form a local domain with the finite verb of their clause, we may conclude that the Wackernagel Effect indirectly depends on whether or not the clitics form a local domain with that verb. The discrepancy between the syntactic and phonological behavior of the Bulgarian clitics can be explained by the fact that the propensity of the Bulgarian finite verb to form a local domain with the clitics is still weak, so that, while their syntactic properties have changed, the phonological properties of the Bulgarian clitics reflect those of their common Slavic ancestor.

[1]  J. Wackernagel,et al.  Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. , 1892 .

[2]  A grammar of Bulgarian clitics , 1979 .

[3]  David Crystal,et al.  A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics , 1997 .

[4]  Judith L. Klavans.  Some Problems In A Theory Of Clitics , 1982 .

[5]  G. Pullum,et al.  CLITICIZATION VS. INFLECTION: ENGLISH N'T , 1983 .

[6]  Judith L. Klavans.  THE INDEPENDENCE OF SYNTAX AND PHONOLOGY IN CLITICIZATION , 1985 .

[7]  Marianne Adams.  MULTIPLE INTERROGATION IN ITALIAN , 1985 .

[8]  C. Rudin.  Aspects of Bulgarian syntax , 1986 .

[9]  G. Booij,et al.  Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in lexical phonology , 1987 .

[10]  Catherine Rudin,et al.  Aspects of Bulgarian Syntax: Complementizers and WH Constructions , 1987 .

[11]  C. Rudin.  On multiple questions and multiple WH fronting , 1988 .

[12]  Margarita Suñer,et al.  The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions , 1988 .

[13]  Richard S. Kayne.  Null Subjects and Clitic Climbing , 1989 .

[14]  Jean-Yves Pollock.  Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP , 1989 .

[15]  J. Ouhalla.  Clitic movement and the ECP: Evidence from berber and romance languages , 1989 .

[16]  Richard S. Kayne.  Romance Clitics, Verb Movement and PRO , 1991 .

[17]  M. Rivero.  LONG HEAD MOVEMENT AND NEGATION: SERBO-CROATIAN VS. SLOVAK AND CZECH , 1991 .

[18]  Noam Chomsky.  Some notes on economy of derivation and representation , 2013 .

[19]  A. Halpern.  Topics in the placement and morphology of clitics , 1992 .

[20]  Stephen R. Anderson,et al.  A-Morphous morphology , 1992 .

[21]  M. Rivero.  Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian yes-no questions: Vº-raising to -'li' versus '-li' hopping , 1993 .

[22]  Sharon Inkelas,et al.  Nimboran position class morphology , 1993 .

[23]  Chris Wilder,et al.  Long Head Movement? Verb movement and cliticization in Croatian , 1994 .

[24]  M. Rivero.  Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans , 1994 .