13.1 Agreement in Slavic
Agreement is a syntactic operation whereby features of a nominal element (controller, goal) are copied onto another sentential element (target, probe) with which it stands in a syntactic relation. In Slavic languages, the full set of agreement features are in use: pronominal (person, number and gender), and structural (case);Footnote 1 however, which features are copied is contingent on the features of the nominal element and the type of syntactic relation. Copied features are morphologically expressed, and hence can be read from the inflectional agreement morpheme.
The nominal element in the subject position has pronominal features and is assigned nominative case. In subject–verb agreement, the finite verb agrees with the subject djevojčica ‘girl’ in person and number, (1); and the past participle which is used to form past tenses, agrees with the subject in gender and number, (2). Internal to the subject nominal phrase, the adjective modifiers agree with the head noun djevojčica in gender, number, and case, (3). A relative pronoun agreeing with the subject djevojčica agrees with it in gender and number, (5), but not necessarily in case, (4). And, finally, a personal pronoun agrees with its antecedent djevojčica in gender and number, (5).
(1)
Cro. Djevojčica ide u šetnju. girl.nom.fem.sg go.3sg to walk ‘Girl is going for a walk.’
(2)
Cro. Djevojčica je otišla u šetnju. girl.nom.fem.sg aux.3sg go.fem.sg to walk ‘Girl went for a walk.’
(3)
Cro. Ta jedna dobra that.nom.fem.sg one.nom.fem.sg good.nom.fem.sg djevojčica girl.nom.fem.sg je otišla u šetnju. aux.3sg go.fem.sg to walk ‘That one good girl went for a walk.’
(4)
Cro. Djevojčica koja je otišla u šetnju. girl.nom.fem.sg who.nom.fem.sg aux.3sg go.fem.sg to walk ‘Girl who went for a walk.’
(5)
Cro. Ona je ubrala cvijeće. she.nom aux.3sg pick.fem.sg flowers ‘She has picked flowers.’
In his seminal work on agreement in Slavic, Reference CorbettCorbett (1979, Reference Corbett1983, Reference Corbett1991, Reference Corbett2006) demonstrates that Slavic languages present a prime example of canonical agreement (syntactic agreement) described as redundant rather than informative, syntactically simple and morphologically faithful. That is, the feature values on the agreeing element can be predicted from the feature values on the nominal element, from (1) to (5). In addition to these regular instances of formal agreement, Corbett highlights the conditions that favor alternative agreement based on meaning (semantic agreement) that are specific to a group of controllers intrinsic to Slavic languages.
This chapter builds on Corbett’s observations on syntactic and semantic agreement with special focus on agreement features and their values, as well as their interaction relative to the structural and semantic properties of the nominal element when it is placed in subject position. The topics in this chapter naturally extend to pronominal elements in subject position, which can be lexically (null subject or subjectless) and phonologically omitted (pro-dropped), with only the former affecting agreement.Footnote 2 Section 13.2 describes regular instances of formal agreement, while Section 13.3 extends the theoretical discussion to agreement alternatives. In conclusion, Section 13.4 highlights directions for further research in Slavic agreement.
13.2 Features in Canonical Agreement
13.2.1 Pronominal Features
Gender, number, and person are main agreement features (pronominal features) as they denote the subject’s referent and as such their value is preserved irrespective of the structural position of the nominal element in the sentence (see also Section 13.3 on semantic agreement). In Slavic languages, pronominal features can agree independently or interact to form a unique set of values, as exemplified by default (third person neuter singular) or resolved (third person masculine plural) agreement.
13.2.1.1 Gender Agreement
In Slavic languages, gender is commonly assigned to a noun in accordance with a declension class, and by extension can be considered a lexical property of that noun (grammatical gender) (cf. Arsenijevi 2021). This arbitrary but predictive nature of gender assignment combined with the morphological requirement to express an inflectional morpheme on the agreeing element allows nouns to undergo syntactic agreement in gender, irrespective of semantic or discourse constraints.Footnote 3
Slavic languages morphologically mark syntactic agreement in three gender feature values – masculine, feminine, and neuter (in singular, and only South Slavic languages also in plural).Footnote 4
Masculine and feminine animate nouns denote male and female referents, while neuter animate nouns denote sentients low on the animacy hierarchy. Inanimate nouns are arbitrarily assigned masculine, feminine, or neuter grammatical gender in line with the corresponding declension class. With no dedicated declension class, animacy and humanness per se are not inherent features of the Slavic gender system. However, their effects can be observed on the agreeing element, showing that these features have important consequences for gender agreement. Cases in point are Polish and Czech with designated inflectional morphology on the finite verb for human animate male subjects (Pol. virile), here exemplified by Polish in (6a) and (6b).Footnote 5, Footnote 6
(6)
a. Pol. Chłopcy złapali piłkę. boy.nom.vir.pl caught.vir.pl ball ‘The boys caught the ball.’ b. Pol. Psy złapały piłkę. dog.nom.nvir.pl caught.nonvir.pl ball ‘The dogs caught the ball.’
Syntactic agreement in masculine, feminine, and neuter gender occurs primarily with the head noun in the respective gender, (1), and coordination of two nouns matching in gender, (7) (see also Section 13.3.3 on conjunct agreement).
(7)
Cro. Učitelj i ravnatelj teacher.nom.masc.sg and headteacher.nom.masc.sg su se sreli. aux.3pl refl meet.masc.pl ‘The teacher and the headteacher have met each other.’
However, only neuter gender (third person singular) can be morphologically expressed on the agreeing element when the lexical subject is missing, as with null subjects – impersonal verbs, (8), and infinitive and sentential subjects, (9); or, when the subject lacks the relevant structural agreement feature (nominative case), as with oblique subjects, (10), and quantified noun phrases (low and high numerals and uninflecting numeral quantifiers), (11).
(8)
Cze. Pršelo. rained.neut.3sg ‘It rained.’ (Reference Kučerová, Lenertová, Meyer, Šimík and SzucsichKučerová 2018)
(9)
Cze. Že Petr nepřišel, nebylo dobré. that Peter neg.came neg.aux.3sg.neut good.neut.sg ‘That Peter didn’t come wasn’t good.’ (Reference Kučerová, Lenertová, Meyer, Šimík and SzucsichKučerová 2018)
(10)
Sln. Petru je ugajalo, da je Metka prišla na zabavo. Peter.dat aux.3sg pleased.neut.sg that aux Metka came to party ‘It pleased Peter that Metka came to the party.’ (Reference Marušič, Nevins and BadeckerMarušič et al. 2015)
(11)
Pol. Pięć czarownic∅ przyjechało. five witch.gen.nvir.pl arrived.neut.sg ‘Five witches arrived.’ (Reference LyskawaLyskawa 2020)
Similarly, only masculine gender on the agreeing element has semantic implications. Masculine gender extensively occurs with a wide range of subjects implicating its contribution to semantic agreement. In the latter case of agreement, the (animate human) masculine (plural) gender on the agreeing element is used to denote a person or a group of humans of unknown or mixed natural gender, (12), a person of (un)known gender in polite address (honorifics), (13); a male (human) individual denoted by a hybrid noun, (14); quantified noun phrases containing masculine noun (15); and, as a resolution strategy in (non)mixed-gender conjunct agreement to highlight the uniformity of a group reading rather than the conjunction of two sets, (16) and (17) (for details see Section 13.3 on agreement alternations).
(12)
Cro. Oni će doći popodne. They.nom.masc will.3pl come in afternoon ‘They will come in the afternoon.’
(13)
Cro. Molim Vas, što biste (Vi) naručili? Please.1sg you.acc what would.2pl you.nom.pl order.masc.pl ‘Please, what would you like to order?’
(14)
Cro. Gospoda su pobjegli glavom bez obzira. gentlemen.nom.fem.sg aux.3pl run.masc.pl frantically ‘Gentlemen frantically ran away.’
(15)
Cro. Pet/mnogo dječaka su se sudarili. Five/many boy.gen>masc.pl aux.3pl refl crash.masc.pl ‘Five/many boys have crashed.’
(16)
Cro. Majke i djeca su otišli mother.nom.fem.pl and child.nom.neut.pl aux.3pl go.masc.pl ‘Mothers and children went.’
(17)
Cro. Olovke i ravnala su spremljeni. pencil.nom.fem.pl and ruler.nom.neut.pl aux.3pl put away.masc.pl ‘Pencils and rulers were put away.’
Finally, it is worth noting that feminine gender on the agreeing element plays no additional role in grammar (in comparison to neuter (3.sg) and masculine (3.pl), neither as a morphological repair strategy, in (8) to (11), nor as a contributor of an additional referent’s denotation, in (12) to (17), respectively.
13.2.1.2 Number Agreement
In Slavic languages, number does not affect the denotation of a noun, and hence nouns can inflect for any number, with the exception of a small number of nouns for which number is an intrinsic feature (collectives, pluralia tantum).Footnote 7
Slavic languages morphologically mark agreement in two number feature values – singular and plural. Remnants of morphological marking of dual are still preserved in Slovenian and Upper and Lower Sorbian with a complete dual paradigm in declension and conjugation supporting agreement with a bare nominal element. Paucal, the reanalyzed form of dual extended to low numerals two, three, and four, is present in Russian, Ukrainian, and BCS.Footnote 8 In Polish, Czech, and Slovak, lower numerals are adjectival in their behavior, and hence agreement is in nominative plural.
Singular agreement on the agreeing element denotes a single entity. Syntactic agreement in singular occurs with a singular head noun, (1), a singular head noun modified by an adjectival numeral (one) or the adjectival quantifier (some, all), (18). Quantified noun phrases headed by a nominal quantifier in (nominative) singular (majority, few, pair) agree in singular number and the corresponding gender feature, (19). However, as noted in Section 13.2.1.1, singular (third person neuter singular) agreement is obligatory when the subject is lacking either a lexical value or a relevant structural feature, (8)–(11).
(18)
Cro. (Jedan/neki) dječak je trčao. one/some.nom.masc.sg boy.nom.masc.sg aux.3sg run.masc.sg ‘One/some boy ran.’
(19)
Cro. Većina dječaka je trčala. majority.nom.fem.sg boy.gen.masc.sg aux.3sg run.masc.sg ‘Majority of the boys ran.’
Dual denotes exactly two animate or inanimate individual entities. Agreement in dual is with (bare) dual noun phrases, (20), dual noun phrases modified by the quantifier oba ‘both’, and coordination of two singular conjuncts, (21) (see Section 13.3.4 on conjunct agreement).
(20)
Sln. (Ta) (dva) otroka sta these.nom.masc.du two.nom.masc.du child.nom.masc.du aux.3.du se igrala. refl play.masc.du ‘These two children were playing.’ (Reference Marušič, Nevins and BadeckerMarušič et al. 2015)
(21)
Sln. Steklenica in vrč sta polomljena. bottle.nom.fem.sg and jug.nom.masc.sg aux.3.du broken.masc.du ‘The bottle and the jug were broken.’ (Reference Marušič, Nevins and BadeckerMarušič et al. 2015)
Paucal is used to refer to a small number of entities by a nominal element modified by a lower numeral – two, three and four, (22), or a quantifier, both, (23). Lower numeral two and quantifier both have retained two distinct forms in their inflectional paradigm morphologically differentiating in gender feature masculine and neuter (dva) from feminine (dvije), compare (22) and (23), respectively.Footnote 9
(22)
Cro. (Ova) dva/tri/četiri automobila/vozila these.masc/neut.pa two/three/four car.nom.masc.pa/vehicle.nom.neut.pa su se sudarila. aux.3pl refl crash.pa ‘These two/three/four cars/vehicles have crashed.’
(23)
Cro. (Ove) dvije/tri/ četiri kočije these.nom.fem.pa two.nom.fem.pa/three/four chariot.nom.fem.pa su se sudarile. aux.3pl refl crash.fem.pl ‘These two/three/four chariots have crashed.’
Plural agreement on the agreeing element is used to denote a plural entity or a collective. Plural agreement occurs with a plural head noun, (24), coordination of two nouns, (16) and (17), and (non)overt honorific, (13). In addition, plural agreement occurs with numeral quantifiers, (18), and low and high adjectival numerals in West Slavic languages, (25) (see Section 13.3.2 on quantified noun phrase agreement).
(24)
Cro. Automobili su se sudarili. car.nom.masc.3pl aux.3pl refl crash.masc.pl ‘Cars have crashed.’
(25)
Pol. Trzy dziewczyny zdały egzamin.Footnote 10 three.nom.fem.pl girls.nom.fem.pl pass.fem.pl exam ‘Three girls passed the exam.’
13.2.1.3 Person Agreement
Slavic languages morphologically mark agreement in three person feature values – first, second, and third.
Person is an inherent feature of pronouns, hence agreement in all persons occurs with personal pronouns, (26).
Across Slavic languages, a second person (masculine) plural pronoun is used to politely address a single (male or female) addressee triggering second person marking and masculine plural form on the agreeing elements, (27).Footnote 11 The agreeing elements which do not morphologically encode the gender feature can alternate in number value revealing the natural (number and) gender (male or female) of the subject’s referent, (28). Of particular interest is the example (28b) from (non-standard) Slovenian, a Slavic language in which the auxiliary is phonologically expressed in the past tense (the past tense is formed of the auxiliary and the past participle). The example highlights the mismatch in number observed between the subject and the agreeing auxiliary – in plural, and the agreeing past participle – in singular. However, once a complete set of agreement features on the agreeing element is considered – second person plural and feminine singular, the contrast becomes one between syntactic and semantic (or discourse) agreement, respectively (see Section 13.3.1). These independent sets of feature values on the agreeing elements – the auxiliary and the past participle, independently contribute to the subject’s denotation – honorific and familiar female, respectively.
(27)
Bul. Vie ste razbrali vsičko. (Reference CorbettCorbett 2006) You.nom.pl aux.2pl understand.masc.pl everything ‘You have understood everything.’
(28)
a. Bul. Vie ste ljuboznatelen/ljuboznatelna. (Reference CorbettCorbett 2006) You.nom.pl aux.2pl inquisitive.masc/fem.sg ‘You are inquisitive.’ b. Sln. Vi ste prišla. You.nom.pl aux.2pl come.fem.sg ‘You have come.’
13.2.2 Case Agreement
Case is a structural feature with the value assigned relative to the position of the nominal element in the sentence, and, hence, is independent from pronominal features (Reference FranksFranks 1995, Reference CorbettCorbett 2006). Lexical subjects with a full set of pronominal agreement features are assigned nominative case in subject position, as are the elements that stand in agreement relation with(in) the nominal element.
Agreement in nominative case occurs between a head noun and its apposition, (29), a head noun and other adjectival (determiner, numeral and attributive adjectives) or nominal elements within the same noun phrase (name and surname, coordinated phrase), (29) and (16), and, between a nominal phrase and a secondary/primary non-verbal predicate, (30).Footnote 12
(29)
Cro. Marija Matić, spisateljica, je objavila Mary.nom Matić.nom writer.nom.fem.sg aux.3sg publish.fem.sg novu knjigu. new book ‘Mary Matić, the writer, has published a new book.’
(30)
Rus. Ivan p’janyj. Ivan drunk.nom.masc.3sg ‘Ivan is drunk.’
Agreement in case between the subject and the primary predicate can occur even in the absence of nominative case assignment. This is observed in Polish and Slovenian when the subjects are quantified noun phrases. In (31) and (32), the primary predicate agrees in genitive case with the genitive QNP subject. As the nominative case has not been assigned to the subject, the agreeing auxiliary and past participle morphologically express default (third person singular neuter agreement in pronominal features. Therefore, the examples (31) and (32) present a prime example of a pure syntactic agreement.
(31)
Pol. Tych pięciu ludzi było rannych.
(32)
Sln. Tistih pet možje bilo ranjenih. those.gen.pl five men.gen.pl aux.3sg be.neut.sg injured.gen.pl ‘Those five men were injured.’ (Wayles Browne, p.c)
13.3 Special Cases of Agreement Alternations
Agreement alternations indicate presence of agreement sensitive to semantic or discourse properties of the subject’s referent (e.g. natural gender/sex).Footnote 13 Semantic (and discourse) agreement can be observed with a group of nominal phrases where there are multiple sources for a single feature that has to be expressed on the agreeing element (e.g. the mismatching values on each of the conjuncts in the coordinated noun phrase) or where multiple sources of a single feature mismatch in their values (e.g. the grammatical and natural gender in hybrid nouns or the grammatical and discourse gender in honorifics) (Reference CorbettCorbett 1983, Reference Corbett1991, Reference Corbett2006, Reference SteriopoloSteriopolo 2018).Footnote 14 In addition to semantic (and discourse) properties of the nominal subject itself, several other factors play a role in promoting semantic (and discourse) agreement over syntactic agreement: locality (adjectives vs. pronouns), preverbal subjects, agentive subjects (animate, active verb), topics (specific, individuated, partitive vs. group reading), and low numerals (Reference CorbettCorbett 1983, Reference Corbett1991, Reference Corbett2006, Reference PesetskyPesetsky 1982, Reference PereltsvaigPereltsvaig 2006, Reference Mirković and MacdonaldMirković & Macdonald 2013).
13.3.1 Hybrid Nouns
Hybrid nouns form a small group of animate nouns where the natural gender and/or number of the subject’s referent (e.g. male or collective) is inconsistent with the grammatical gender consistent with a declension class (e.g. feminine singular) (Reference CorbettCorbett 1983, Reference Alsina and ArsenijevićAlsina & Arsenijević 2012, Reference PuškarPuškar 2018 for BCS; Reference SteriopoloSteriopolo 2018 for Russian). These multiple sources of gender (and number) features are picked up in agreement and can be observed on the agreeing element giving rise to agreement alternations.Footnote 15 Hybrid nouns are found in the majority of Slavic languages.
Lexical hybrid nouns that have (fe)male referents but are assigned to a feminine or masculine declension class commonly show agreement in natural over grammatical gender (Cro. ubojica.fem ‘male killer’, mušterija.fem ‘male customer’, sluga.fem ‘male servant’, tata.fem ‘daddy’ etc.; Rus. djadja.fem ‘uncle’; Cze. děvče.neut ‘young girl), (33a).Footnote 16 Gender alternations in this subset of hybrid nouns occur in (masculine) singular and/or plural dependent on the prominence of the (fe)male referent that can vary for each hybrid noun, compare (33b) and (34). For the purposes of presentation, the gender transcribed on the hybrid noun corresponds to the grammatical gender.
(33)
a. Cro. Optuženi ubojica je pobjegao policiji. accused.nom.masg.sg killer.nom.fem.sg aux.3sg escape.masc.sg police ‘Accused killer escaped from the police.’ b. Cro. Optuženi/Optužene ubojice su pobjegli/pobjegle accused.nom.masg.sg/fem.pl killer.nom.masg.sg aux.3pl escape.masc/fem.pl policiji. police ‘Accused killer escaped from the police.’
(34)
Cro. Oholi/ohola budala je zatražio/zatražila oprost. cruel.nom.masg/fem.sg fool.nom.fem.sg aux.sg ask.masc/fem.sg forgiveness ‘Cruel fool has asked for forgiveness.’
Interaction of gender and number features in subject–verb agreement alternations can be observed with a small group of collective hybrid nouns (Cro. gospoda ‘gentry’, vlastela ‘nobility’), (35).Footnote 17 In addition to grammatical agreement tracking the morphologically marked value of the noun (feminine singular), semantic agreement referring to its collective interpretation (plural) can alternate between agreement in neuter or masculine plural on the past participle denoting group vs. individual reading, respectively.
(35)
Cro. Gladna gospoda hungry.nom.fem.sg gentry.nom.fem.sg je blagovala / su blagovala / su blagovali. aux.3sg eat.fem.sg / aux.3pl eat.neut.pl / aux.3pl eat.masc.pl ‘Hungry gentry was/were dining.’
Correlation between agreement alternations and syntactic domain is highlighted by a group of hybrid nouns which allow for subject-external grammatical agreement, only if subject-internal agreement was with the grammatical gender, (36a) and (37a); and, semantic agreement otherwise (36b) and (37b) (Cro. vojvoda ‘duke’, gazda ‘landlord’, kolega ‘colleague’; braća ‘brothers’, djeca ‘children’; Cze. děvče ‘girl’), (38), compare to locality conditions on number agreement with the hybrid noun couple (Cro. par, Rus. para).
(36)
a. Cro. Stare kolege su me jučer old.nom.fem.pl colleague.nom.fem.pl aux.3pl me yesterday posjetili/e. visit.masc/fem.pl b. Cro. Stari kolege su me jučer old.nom.masc.pl colleague.nom.fem.pl aux.3pl me yesterday posjetili/*posjetile. visit.masc/fem.pl ‘Old colleague(s) visited me yesterday.’
(37)
a. Cro. (Dobra) braća su se igrala/igrali. good.nom.fem.sg brothers.nom.fem aux.3pl refl play.neut.pl/masc.pl ‘Good brothers were playing.’ b. Cro. Oni/*a su bili/*a they.masc./neut.pl aux.3pl be.masc.pl/neut.pl jako tihi/*a. very quiet.masc.pl/neut.pl ‘They were being very quiet.’
(38)
Cro. Ovaj par se je digao. this.nom.masc.sg couple.nom.masc.sg refl aux.3sg get up.masc.sg Oni su otišli. they.masc.pl aux.3pl leave.masc.pl ‘The couple got up. They left.’
Finally, instances of discourse agreement in referential (male or female) gender are observed with common-gender nouns (e.g. Rus. vrač.masc ‘(fe)male doctor’, pedagog.masc ‘(fe)male pedagogue’; plaksa ‘cry-baby’, vorjuga ‘thief’, sirota ‘orphan’), (39), and honorifics such as Majesty and Vi, (40a) and (40b) and (40c), respectively (cf. (28)).
(39)
Rus. Naš./Naša vrač prišël/prišla. our.nom.masc/fem doctor.nom.masc.sg come.masc/fem.sg ‘Our doctor has arrived.’
(40)
a. Bul. Negovo Veličestvo e došǎl. his.nom.neut.sg Majesty.nom.neut.sg aux.sg come.masc.sg ‘His Majesty has come.’ (Reference CorbettCorbett 2006) b. Rus. Vaše veličestvo byl/byla sliškom Your.nom.neut.sg majesty.nom.neut.sg be.masc/fem.sg very zanjat/zanjata busy.masc/fem.sg ‘Your Majesty was very busy.’ c. Cro. Vi ste profesor/profesorica. You.nom.pl aux.2pl professor.nom.masc/fem.pl ‘You are a professor.’
13.3.2 Quantified Noun Phrases
Quantified noun phrases with their complex and varied agreement patterns across Slavic languages provide insight into the principal syntactic relation of subject–verb agreement, and hence, form a major topic of extensive theoretical discussions on agreement in Slavic. Here, the focus is on agreement in pronominal features with low, (41), and high, (42), numeral quantifiers when genitive case is assigned to the head noun, as languages vary whether they show alternative – semantic (masculine plural), agreement on the agreeing element (see Reference FranksFranks 1994 and Reference Bošković and BoeckxBošković 2006 for discussion), compare Croatian and Russian examples in (41) and (42) to Polish in (43).Footnote 18
(41)
Cro. Dva plava broda su se two blue.gen.masc.pl gen.masc.pa aux.3pl refl sudarila/sudarili. colided.masc.pa/masc.pl ‘Two blue ships collided.’
(42)
Rus. Pjat’ studentov/studentok prišli/prišlo segodnja na zanjatie. five student.gen.masc/fem.pl came.pl/neut.sg today to lesson ‘Five students came to class today.’ (Reference Madariaga and IgartuaMadariaga & Igartua 2017)
(43)
Pol. Pięć czarownic przyjechało/*przyjechały. five witch.gen.(fem)nvir.pl arrive.neut.sg/nvir.pl ‘Five witches arrived.’ (Reference LyskawaLyskawa 2020)
Furthermore, the contrast in agreement alternations across Slavic languages is observed with quantified noun phrases modified by a demonstrative (Reference FranksFranks 1994, Reference Bošković and BoeckxBošković 2006 for Russian and BCS, Reference PereltsvaigPereltsvaig 2006 for Russian, Reference LyskawaLyskawa 2020 for Polish). In Russian and Polish, the demonstrative is assigned nominative case when it precedes the numeral quantifier, (44a) and (45a), and genitive case when it intervenes between the numeral quantifier and the noun, (44b) and (45b). However, in Russian, while semantic agreement (pl) is available throughout, syntactic agreement (neut.sg) is blocked with the nominative-assigned demonstrative, compare (44a) and (45b). In Polish, irrespective of the case assignment only syntactic agreement (neut.pl) is available on the past participle, (45).
(44)
a. Rus. Èti pjat’ devušek rabotali/*rabotalo tam. these.nom.pl five girl.gen.fem.pl worked.pl/neut.sg there ‘These five girls worked there.’ (Reference Bošković and BoeckxBošković 2006) b. Rus. Pjat’ ètix devušek rabotali/rabotalo tam. five these.gen girl.gen.fem.pl worked.pl/neut.sg there ‘Five of these girls worked there.’ (Reference Bošković and BoeckxBošković 2006)
(45)
a. Pol. Te pięć czarownic przyjechało. These.nom.nvir five witch.nvir.gen.pl arrive.neut.sg ‘These five witches arrived.’ (Reference LyskawaLyskawa 2020) b. Pol. Pięć tych czarownic przyjechało. five these.gen.nvir witch.nvir.gen.pl arrive.neut.sg ‘Five of those witches arrived.’ (Reference LyskawaLyskawa 2020)
The presence of these alternatives rests on the intuition that the predicate can form an agreement relation either with the (genitive-assigning) quantifier – in which case, case assignment is blocked, syntactic agreement fails, and default neuter singular surfaces on the past participle; or, the (nominative-assigned) noun – in which case, the nominative case is assigned in the structural subject position, and agreement obtains resulting in masculine plural form on the past participle. The precise articulation of these intuitions has led to proposals that distinguish two syntactic categories of the subject – quantifier phrase vs. noun phrase (Reference PesetskyPesetsky 1982, Reference PereltsvaigPereltsvaig 2006 for Small noun vs. DP analysis), posit the structural position in which (nominative) case is assigned (Reference FranksFranks 1994), and strengthen the correlation between agreement and nominative case (Reference Bošković and BoeckxBošković 2006); often invoking semantics in deriving masculine plural agreement (in BCS in particular).Footnote 19
13.3.3 Agreement with Conjoined Structures
In recent years, conjunct agreement has attracted a large amount of attention in theoretical and experimental work. Study of conjunct agreement in Slavic languages provides insight into the inner workings of agreement in pronominal features (gender, number and person) in the subject–verb relation. The multiple values of pronominal features increase the combinatorial potential in conjuncts to exemplify the majority of conjunct agreement strategies found in the world’s languages (see Reference Citko, Arnaudova, Browne, Rivero and StojanovićCitko 2004, Reference Citko2018 for Polish, Reference Willer-Gold, Arsenijević, Batinić, Čordalija, Kresić, Leko, Marušič, Milićev, Milićević, Mitić, Nevins, Peti-Stantić, Stanković, Šuligoj and TušekWiller-Gold et al. 2016, Reference Willer-Gold, Arsenijević, Batinić, Becker, Čordalija, Kresić, Leko, Marušič, Milićev, Milićević, Mitić, Peti-Stantić, Stanković, Šuligoj, Tušek and Nevins2018 for BCS and Slovenian, Reference Kučerová, Lenertová, Meyer, Šimík and SzucsichKučerová 2018 for Czech). These strategies can be categorized in two main groups: agreement with the conjunction phrase (resolution and/or default agreement) and agreement with only one of the conjuncts (first/hierarchical or second/linear agreement).
Single-conjunct agreement has been observed for gender, number, and person features. In subject–verb word order, single-conjunct agreement, here exemplified by gender agreement, is with the first (or hierarchically higher) conjunct, (46a), or the second (or linearly closer) conjunct, (46b). In verb–subject word order, single-conjunct agreement alternations do not occur as agreement is only observed with the first (hierarchically higher and linearly closer) conjunct, (46c). Co-occurrence of both instances of single-conjunct agreement are found in the so-called sandwiched agreement construction which features the two word orders; here exemplified by Polish person agreement where the complementizer and the verb agree in person with their respective closest conjunct (47).Footnote 20
(46)
a. Cro. Ravnala, olovke i gumice ruler.nom.neut.pl pencil.nom.fem.pl and rubber.nom.fem.pl su spremljena. aux.3pl put away.neut.pl ‘Rulers, pencils and rubbers were put away.’ b. Cro. Olovke, gumice i ravnala pencil.nom.fem.pl rubber.nom.fem.pl and ruler.nom.neut.pl su spremljena. aux.3pl put away.neut.pl ‘Pencils, rubbers and rulers were put away.’ c. Cro. Spremljena su put away.neut.pl aux.3pl ravnala, olovke i gumice. ruler.nom.neut.pl pencil.nom.fem.pl and rubber.nom.fem.pl ‘Rulers, pencils and rubbers were put away.’
(47)
Pol. Maria chce, żebym ja i mój sąsiad wyszedł. Maria wants that.cond.1.sg. I and my neighbour.vir.sg left.vir.sg ‘Maria wants me and my neighbour to leave.’ (Reference CitkoCitko 2018)
As noted in Section 13.2.1.1, agreement in matching values on conjuncts triggers (plural) agreement in the corresponding gender on the agreeing element, here exemplified by neuter plural, (48). These instances of agreement in corresponding gender features alternate with semantic agreement morphologically marked by masculine plural on the agreeing element, (48), compare to (49).Footnote 21
(48)
Cro. Nalivpera i ravnala su fountain.pen.nom.neut.pl and ruler.nom.neut.pl aux.3pl spremljena/spremljeni. put away.neut/masc.pl ‘Fountain pens and rulers were put away.’
Noteworthy exceptions to the general gender resolution rule are found with two neuter singular conjuncts. In Croatian and Czech, for example, the past participle agrees in (non-animate) masculine (plural) irrespective of the available neuter plural morphemes, (49); compare to non-virile plural in Polish, (50).
(49)
a. Cro. Drvo i selo su tree.nom.neut.sg and village.nom.neut.sg aux.3pl zagađeni/*zagađena. polluted.masc/neut.pl ‘The tree and the village are polluted.’ (Reference Franks, Willer-Gold, Jaworski and WitkośFranks & Willer-Gold 2014) b. Cze. Kotě a štěně jedly/*jedla kitten.nom.neut.sg and puppy.nom.neut.sg ate.masc.inan.pl/neut.pl ze stejné misky. from same bowl ‘The kitten and the puppy ate from the same bowl.’ (Reference Kučerová, Lenertová, Meyer, Šimík and SzucsichKučerová 2018)
(50)
Pol. Wiadro i pudełko upadły na podłogę. bucket.nom.neut.sg and box.nom.neut.sg fall.nvir.pl on floor ‘A bucket and a box fell on the floor.’ (Reference LyskawaLyskawa 2020)
Default neuter singular agreement on the agreeing element is also observed in coordination of two quantified noun phrases despite clear semantic plurality of the conjunction phrase, (51) (see Reference Marušič, Nevins and BadeckerMarušič et al. 2015 for Slovenian).
(51)
Pol. Pięć czarownic i sześć wróżek przyjechało/*przyjechały five witch.gen.nvir and six fairy.gen.nvir arrive.neut.sg/nvir.pl do miasta. to city ‘Five witches and six fairies arrived in the city.’ (Reference LyskawaLyskawa 2020)
Mismatch in feature values on the conjuncts is resolved by the marked value of the feature – (human animate) masculine for gender, (52), and dual or plural for number feature, (53); and, the highest-ranked value of the two conjuncts for person feature, (54), being morphologically expressed on the agreeing element.
(52)
Cze. Kotě a pes jedli ze stejné misky. kitten.nom.neut.sg and dog.nom.masc.sg ate.masc.anim.pl from same bowl ‘The kitten and the dog ate from the same bowl.’ (Reference Kučerová, Lenertová, Meyer, Šimík and SzucsichKučerová 2018)
(53)
Sln. Pet skled in dve pokrovki sta ležali v koritu. five dish.gen.fem.pl and two cover.du aux.du lay.fem.du in sink ‘Five dishes and two lids were lying in the sink.’ (Reference Marušič, Nevins, Browne, Cooper, Fisher, Kesici, Predolac and ZecMarušič & Nevins 2010)
(54)
Cro. Petar i ja/ti/ona čitamo/čitate/čitaju knjigu. Peter and I/you/she read.1/2/3pl book. ‘Peter and I/you/she are reading a book.’
Conjunct agreement data from Slavic languages prompted the emergence of a variety of competing theoretical models, questioning the locus (syntactic or morphosyntactic, i.e. distributed) and mechanics of conjunct agreement and the presence of a gender value on the conjunction phrase, as well as seeking to provide a uniform account of multiple agreement strategies/grammars (Reference BoškovićBošković 2009, Reference Franks, Willer-Gold, Jaworski and WitkośFranks & Willer-Gold 2014, Reference Marušič, Nevins and BadeckerMarušič et al. 2015 for Sln., Reference PuškarMurphy & Puškar 2018 for BCS, Reference Citko, Arnaudova, Browne, Rivero and StojanovićCitko 2004, Reference Citko2018 for Polish, Reference Kučerová, Lenertová, Meyer, Šimík and SzucsichKučerová 2018 for Czech).
In addition to syntactic analyses of conjunct agreement, the role morpho-phonology (syncretism) and semantics (animacy, agentive and collective interpretation) play in conjunct agreement have been pointed out to argue for its multi-facet nature (Reference Arsenijević, Mitić, Halupka-Rešetar and Martínez-FerreiroArsenijević & Mitić 2016a, Reference Arsenijević and Mitić2016b, Reference Mitić and Arsenijević2019 for BCS).
13.4 Future Directions for Slavic Agreement
Agreement is a linguistic phenomenon pertinent to Slavic languages. Their multi-valued agreement features coupled with rich and omnipresent inflectional morphology on the agreeing element provide a fruitful ground for theoretical and experimental research into these complex agreement systems; whilst the variation within the Slavic language family allows for fine-tuning of specific hypotheses.
As demonstrated in this chapter, the primary advantage of studying agreement in Slavic is for its canonical subject–verb agreement, which offers a direct insight into this core syntactic relation (syntactic agreement). Additional value rests on the well-documented agreement alternations, which suggest involvement of other language components in agreement (semantic and discourse agreement). Further interest is driven by a strictly local agreement, often devoid of alternations, operating inside the nominal phrase. Aiming to capture canonical agreement, alternations, and agreement inside the nominal phrase under a single theoretical framework has given rise to numerous theoretical and experimental puzzles but equally led to advancements and new discoveries.
Three significant advances have contributed to the prominence of studying agreement in Slavic languages in the last 50 years. The first advancement is Reference CorbettCorbett’s (1979) seminal work on agreement in Slavic, summarizing typological observations on agreement alternations in syntactic domains. The second significant contribution comes from the evolving work in the generative framework on quantified noun phrases, and more recently on hybrid nouns and conjunct agreement. The newest advancement is represented by a growing body of experimental data on agreement mismatches and conjunct agreement. Together theoretical innovations and experimentally collected data still challenge and push forward any theoretical and experimental work whose goal is to study agreement in general and agreement in Slavic in particular.
Looking ahead, agreement phenomena well studied in Slavic linguistics, such as multiple source controllers or feature mismatches, indicate that agreement potentially requires activation of multiple modules across grammar to incorporate phenomena such as definiteness agreement and clitic doubling in Bulgarian and Macedonian or participant marking in Bulgarian and Lower Sorbian. Feature interaction in agreement alternations provides a window into conceptualization and grammaticalization of notions such as individuation or definiteness dissimilar to those in other Indo-European languages. Importantly, agreement accounts developed for Slavic languages have a potential to inform studies of agreement in typologically (un)related but morphologically rich language families (class system in Bantu languages or classifiers in Chinese), as well as to inform phenomena in nearby corners of the grammar such as ellipsis, the person case constraint, or auxiliary drop. With little empirical and experimental data from Ukrainian or Sorbian, agreement in Slavic is still wide open for further exploration with the following idea in mind: “it is especially exciting when a Slavic-specific linguistic phenomenon combined with an innovative experimental technique delivers a decisive argument in a long-debated issue” (Reference Sekerina and MakarovaSekerina 2012: 108).
14.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses wh-constructions and wh-dependencies in Slavic languages, where the term wh-dependency refers to any movement (or movement-like) dependency that has the properties of wh-movement: it leaves a gap (or a resumptive pronoun) and is subject to locality constraints (Reference Chomsky, Culicover, Wasow and AkmajianChomsky 1977). The ones I focus on are given in (1a–d).
(1)
Wh-dependencies do not necessarily have to involve wh-phrases. For example, even though Polish comparatives differ from Russian ones in that they do not involve wh-pronouns (but prepositions), both are analyzed as wh-dependencies.
(2)
a. Anna jest wyższa niż Piotr / od Piotra. (Polish) Anna is taller than Piotr / from Piotr. ‘Anna is taller than Piotr.’ b. Anna vyše čem Ivan.Footnote 1 (Russian) Anna taller what.INSTR Ivan ‘Anna is taller than Ivan.’ (Reference Pancheva, Lavine, Franks, Tasseva-Kurktchieva and FilipPancheva 2006)
14.2 Wh-Questions
14.2.1 Types of Wh-Questions
Slavic languages are perhaps best known for two properties of their wh-questions: multiple wh-fronting in multiple wh-questions and the availability of left branch extraction in singular wh-questions, illustrated in (3a–b) for Polish. These are the two properties I focus on here.
(3)
a. Kto co napisał? MULTIPLE WH-QUESTION who what wrote ‘Who wrote what?’ b. Jaką Maria napisała książkę? LEFT BRANCH EXTRACTION what.kind Maria wrote book ‘What kind of book did Maria write?’
Given space considerations, I will not discuss somewhat less commonly studied wh-questions, such as wh-questions with coordinated wh-pronouns, illustrated in (4a) (Reference BrowneBrowne 1972, Reference Gračanin-YuksekCitko & Gračanin-Yuksek 2013, Reference Gračanin-YuksekGračanin-Yuksek 2007, Reference Gračanin-Yuksek, Everaert and van Riemsdijk2017, Reference Tomaszewicz and WashburnTomaszewicz 2011, Reference GribanovaGribanova 2009); across-the-board wh-questions, illustrated in (4b) (Reference DyłaDyła 1984, Reference FranksFranks 1995, Reference CitkoCitko 2005, Reference Citko2011, Reference Citko and Gračanin-YuksekCitko & Gračanin-Yuksek 2021), or scope-marking constructions, illustrated in (4c) (Reference StepanovStepanov 2000).Footnote 2
a. Kto i co napisał? COORDINATED WH-QUESTION who and what wrote Lit.’Who and what wrote?’ b. Co Maria napisała, a Jan przeczytał? ACROSS-THE-BOARD WH-QUESTION what Maria wrote and Jan read ‘What did Maria write and Jan read?’ c. Jak myślisz? Co Maria napisała? SCOPE MARKING how think what Maria wrote ‘Lit. What do you think? What did Maria write?’ ‘What do you think Maria wrote?’
14.2.1.1 Multiple Wh-Questions
Syntactic literature on Slavic multiple wh-questions goes back at least to Reference WachowiczWachowicz’s (1974) work establishing the existence of overt multiple wh-fronting, and Reference RudinRudin’s (1988) seminal work distinguishing two types of multiple wh-fronting languages, differing with respect to constituency, behavior with respect to superiority effects, island effects, and the availability of multiple wh-extraction from embedded clauses.
Reference WachowiczWachowicz (1974) established the existence of multiple wh-fronting, based on data of the following sort from Polish (and Russian), involving both matrix and embedded wh-questions.Footnote 3
(5)
a. Kto kogo budzi? (Polish) who whom wakes.up ‘Who wakes up whom?’ b. Powiedz mi kto gdzie mieszka. Tell me who where lives ‘Tell me who lives where.’ (Reference WachowiczWachowicz 1974: 158)
Rudin’s two types of multiple wh-fronting languages differ with respect to whether the Specifier of CP is filled by one wh-phrase or multiple wh-phrases. Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS), Polish, and Czech belong to the former group, that is, the group of languages in which only one of the fronted wh-phrases occupies the Spec, CP position. These are [−MFS] (−Multiply Filled SpecCP) languages in Rudin’s terms. Bulgarian belongs to the other group, [+MFS] (+ Multiply Filled SpecCP) languages.Footnote 4 While some of Rudin’s diagnostics have since been modified and/or updated, Rudin’s fundamental insight that there are two types of multiple wh-fronting languages remains solid. In what follows, I will use mostly Polish or BCS as a representative example of the [−MFS] group of languages and Bulgarian as a representative example of the [+MFS] group of languages (see Reference VeselovskáVeselovská 2021 for a comprehensive study of wh-questions in Czech). The differences Rudin identified are summarized in Table 14.1 (adapted from Rudin).
Table 14.1 Differences between [+MFS] and [−MFS] languages
| [+MFS] Bulgarian | [−MFS] BCS, Polish, Czech | |
|---|---|---|
| Multiple wh-extraction from an embedded clause | + | − |
| Wh-island violations | + | − |
| Clitics, parentheticals, particles, adverbs follow first wh-word | − | + |
| Superioritya | + | − |
a Technically speaking, Rudin’s generalization is narrower; it concerns the difference with respect to whether the ordering of Nominative and Accusative wh-pronouns is free or fixed.
First, Rudin showed that multiple extraction from embedded clauses is possible in Bulgarian but not in BCS.Footnote 5
(6)
a. Boris na kogo kakvo kaza če šte dade? (Bulgarian) Boris to whom what said that will give ‘What did Boris say that (he) would give to whom?’ (Reference RudinRudin 1988: 451) b. *Ko šta želite da vam kupi? (BCS)Footnote 6 who what want COMP you buy ‘Who do you want to buy you what?’ (Reference RudinRudin 1988: 453)
The next difference concerns the position of clitics, adverbs, and parentheticals, which also bears on the constituency of fronted wh-phrases.Footnote 7 Bulgarian ti and e are clitics, and so is BCS je. In [+MFS] languages like Bulgarian, these elements follow all the wh-phrases, whereas in [−MFS] languages like BCS, they can follow the first wh-phrase, as shown by the contrast between (7a) and (7b).Footnote 8
(7)
a. Koj kakvo ti e kazal? (Bulgarian) who what you aux told ‘Who told you what?’ b. Ko je što kome dao? (BCS) who aux what whom gave ‘Who gave what to whom?’ (Reference RudinRudin 1988: 461)
And the final difference concerns the ordering restrictions on the fronted wh-phrases, or the lack thereof. In most general terms, in [+MFS] languages wh-movement is subject to superiority, whereas in [−MFS] languages, it is not. In simple cases involving two animate non-D-linked wh-pronouns, Bulgarian exhibits ordering restrictions, as shown by the contrast in (8a–b).
(8)
a. Koj kogo vižda? (Bulgarian) who whom sees ‘Who sees whom?’ b. *Kogo koj vižda? whom who sees ‘Who sees whom?’ (Reference RudinRudin 1988: 473–474)
(9)
a. Kto kogo widzi? (Polish) who whom sees b. Kogo kto widzi? whom who sees
The claim above that Bulgarian wh-movement is subject to superiority, and Polish, Czech, Russian, and BCS are not, is not without its exceptions. There are environments in Bulgarian that appear to tolerate superiority violations, and there also appear to be environments in [−MFS] languages where superiority effects emerge (Reference BoškovićBošković 2002, Reference ScottScott 2012, among others). According to Reference BoškovićBošković (2002), superiority effects emerge in BCS in environments in which a CP layer is present or required in overt syntax, such as matrix questions with an overt complementizer, shown in (10a–b).Footnote 9
(10)
a. Ko li koga voli? (BCS) who comp whom loves ‘Who on earth loves whom?’ b. *Koga li ko voli? whom comp who loves (Reference BoškovićBošković 2002: 353–354)
Not all [−MFS] languages behave similarly in this respect. For example, Reference Stepanov, Tamanji and KusumotoStepanov (1998) shows that Russian, unlike BCS, allows superiority violations in all environments. However, Reference ScottScott (2012) shows that superiority emerges in embedded clauses, as well as in matrix clauses when there is some overt element in the HOP projection (the High Operator Phrase dominating CP that Scott proposes). Many other factors have been shown to play a role in determining superiority, such as animacy, D-linking, topicality, or the complexity of the fronted wh-phrases. As brought to my attention by one of the reviewers, given that Modern Russian uses both linear order and stress to mark information structure, both (12a) and (12b) are possible as long as the main phrasal stress is not on the second wh-pronoun.
(11)
a. Kto komu darit podarki? (Russian) who whom gives presents ‘Who gives presents to whom?’ b. Komu kto darit podarki? whom who gives presents ‘Who gives presents to who(m)?’
(12)
a. Podarki kto komu darit? presents who whom gives ‘As for presents, who gives [them] to who?’ b. *Podarki komu kto darit? presents whom who gives ‘As for presents, who gives [them] to who?’ (Reference ScottScott 2012: 1–2)
Furthermore, there are no ordering restrictions between non-initial wh-phrases (see Reference BoškovićBošković 2002, Reference Billings, Rudin and TomanBillings & Rudin 1996, among others).
(13)
a. Koj kogo kakvo e pital? who whom what is asked ‘Who asked whom what?’ b. Koj kakvo kogo e pital? who whom what is asked ‘Who asked whom what?’ (Reference BoškovićBošković 2002: 366)
Reference Billings, Rudin and TomanBillings & Rudin (1996) show that the picture that emerges is more nuanced than the superiority condition might predict, and establish the following ‘rules of thumb’, to use their terminology, that ‘govern’ the ordering of wh-phrases in Bulgarian:
(14)
a. nom koj ‘who’ is always first; b. A wh-word must precede a wh-prepositional phrase containing the same wh-word (including dat na kogo); c. All else being equal, a human wh-word precedes a non-human one; d. nom/acc kakvo ‘what’ tends to be second; e. Wh-adverbials tend to be late in the series of wh-phrases (Reference Billings, Rudin and TomanBillings & Rudin 1996)
Reference Krapova, Cinque and ZybatowKrapova & Cinque (2008) arrive at the ordering in (15), showing that in general wh-pronouns referring to humans precede wh-phrases referring to non-humans:Footnote 10
(15)
koj > kogo > na kogo > koga >kâde > kakvo/kolko N> kakvo/(na) kolko N > kak
[+ human][− human] or underspecified
(adapted from Reference Krapova, Cinque and ZybatowKrapova & Cinque 2008: Table 2)
And Reference Jaeger, Arnaudova, Browne, Rivero and StojanovićJaeger (2003) shows that information structure also plays a role in that “wh-phrase ordering (including so-called Superiority effects) in Bulgarian wh-question [sic] is (partly) determined by topicality.” Reference RichardsRichards (2001) updates Rudin’s typology, reconceptualizing [+MFS] languages as CP-absorption languages, and [−MFS] languages as IP-absorption languages. The differences he discussed are given in Table 14.2.
| IP-absorption languages | CP-absorption languages | |
|---|---|---|
| Obeys wh-islands | Yes | No |
| Has local A-scrambling | Yes | No |
| Obeys superiority (locally) | No | Yes |
| Shows local weak crossover effects | No | Yes |
| Wh = QR (Quantifier Raising) | Yes | No |
| Clausemate wh-words can move to specifiers of different CPs | No | Yes |
Now that we have seen what distinguishes Bulgarian-type languages from BCS-type, we can turn to the accounts of these differences. In general terms, we can divide the accounts of multiple wh-fronting in Slavic languages into two groups, differing in what projections moved wh-phrases target. Both maintain Rudin’s basic insight that Bulgarian-type languages are different from Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian type languages. On one view, close but not identical to Rudin’s original proposal, wh-phrases in Bulgarian target the CP layer, whereas wh-phrases in BCS target the IP/TP layer, as shown in (16a–b) schematically (Reference RichardsRichards 2001, Reference BoškovićBošković 2002).Footnote 11
(16)
Rudin’s structure is slightly different in that in BCS-type languages, one of the wh-phrases is in [Spec, CP] position and the remaining ones are adjoined to TP, as shown in (17b), adapted and updated from Reference RudinRudin (1988). And in Bulgarian, a single wh-phrase moves to [Spec, CP] and the remaining ones right-adjoin to it.
(17)
The structure in (17a) is similar to Grewendorf’s structure, given in (18), in that the wh-phrases ultimately target the CP layer. For him, however, lower wh-phrases undergo adjunction to higher ones before moving to [Spec, CP].
(18)
Another line of inquiry on the differences between BCS-type languages and Bulgarian-type languages relies on different projections being targeted by the fronted wh-phrases. To give a couple of representative examples, Reference Sturgeon, Compton, Goledzinowska and SavchenkoSturgeon (2007) argues that non-initial wh-phrases in Czech target a lower position, the so-called mittelfield, and adjoin to vP. This is the same position that is targeted by A-scrambled constituents. Reference Citko, Bošković, Franks and SnyderCitko (1998) argues that there is an Operator Phrase (OpP) between TP/IP and CP. In BCS-type languages, all wh-phrases first move to the specifier of this OpP, which makes them equidistant from C (hence the lack of superiority effects). In Bulgarian-type languages, on the other hand, Op head raises to C, which Citko takes to mean that the wh-phrases move directly to [Spec, CP], and this movement by definition obeys superiority.
Reference Dukova-ZhelevaDukova-Zheleva (2010) proposes that in Bulgarian wh-phrases target two distinct projections: FocP and CP, with FocP located below CP.Footnote 12 Whereas all wh-phrases first move to [Spec, FocP], only the animate ones can subsequently move to [Spec, CP] and only one (the highest one) can do so. This explains why animate wh-phrases precede inanimate ones.
14.2.1.2 Left Branch Extraction
Another property of wh-questions in Slavic languages that has received a lot of attention in the literature is the fact that wh-questions allow violations of the so-called Left Branch Condition, a constraint that prohibits movement of the leftmost element within DP/NP. This was already noticed by Ross in his dissertation (Reference RossRoss 1967). This constraint also features prominently in the debates concerning the universality of the DP Hypothesis (see, for example, Reference BoškovićBošković 2005, Reference Bošković, Zybatow, Junghanns, Lenertová and BiskupBošković 2009 vs. Reference PereltsvaigPereltsvaig 2007).
(19)
a. Którą Jan przeczytał książkę? (Polish) which Jan read book ‘Which book did Jan read?’ b. Č‘ju ty čitaeš‘ knigu? (Russian) whose you read book ‘Whose book are you reading?’ c. Jakou čte Petr knihu? (Czech) which reads Peter book ‘Which book is Peter reading?’ d. Kiro je Janez prebral knjigo?Footnote 13 (Slovenian) which is Jan read book ‘Which book has John read’? (Reference CitkoCitko 2006: 226)
On some approaches (such as Reference CorverCorver 1990, Reference BoškovićBošković 2005, Reference UriagerekaUriagereka 1988), the availability of left branch extraction has been correlated with lack of overt articles: only languages that lack overt articles can violate the Left Branch Condition. This is what accounts for the contrast between the grammatical examples from Polish, Russian, Czech, and Slovenian in (19a–d) and the ungrammatical ones from Bulgarian and Macedonian, the two Slavic languages that do have overt articles in (20a–b).
(20)
a. *Kakva prodade Petko kola? (Bulgarian) what.kind sold Petko car ‘What kind of a car did Petko sell?’ b. *Čija ja bendisuva Petko kola? (Macedonian) whose it like Petko car ‘Whose car does Petko like?’ (Reference BoškovićBošković 2005: 3)
A simple way to implement this would be to say that a DP constitutes a relevant barrier/island, so if there is a DP layer, as in (21a), movement crosses an island, and if there is no DP, as in (21b), there is no island violation. However, this by itself would not be sufficient, as it would predict that Slavic article-less languages like Polish should allow all movements out of Noun Phrases, which is not the case.
(21)
a. *[CP Whati [C’ did [IP John read [DP ti book]]]]? (English) b. [CP Jakąi [C’ [IP Jan przeczytał [NP ti książkę]]]]? (Polish) what Jan read book ‘What book did Jan read?’
Reference BoškovićBošković (2005) proposes a more nuanced variant of this approach, namely the NP over AP vs. AP over NP parameter. Languages with articles have the structure in (22a), whereas languages without articles have the structure in (22b). In his analysis, the reason extraction of the left branch, such as AP in (22a), is impossible is that AP does not even form a constituent to the exclusion of NP. By contrast, extraction of AP is possible in Slavic article-less languages because AP is a constituent by itself.
(22)
The idea that the lack of overt articles means the lack of a DP projection is by no means uncontroversial (see Reference ProgovacProgovac 1998, Reference PereltsvaigPereltsvaig 2007, among others). For example, Reference ProgovacProgovac (1998) argues, based on the contrast between (23a–b) and (24a–b), that pronouns raise to D.
(23)
a. I samu Mariju to nervira. (BCS) and alone Mary that irritates ‘And that irritates even Mary.’ b. *I Mariju samu to nervira. and Mary alone that irritates
(24)
a. I nju/mene samu to nervira. and her/me alone that irritates ‘And that irritates even her/me.’ b. *I samu nju/mene to nervira. and alone her/me that irritates (Reference ProgovacProgovac 1998)
Furthermore, the assumption that there is no DP layer does not (in itself) account for what looks like movement of non-constituents, illustrated with a Polish example in (25).
(25)
Z którymi rozmawiałaś studentami? with which you.talked students ‘Which students did you talk to?’
This suggests that a remnant movement approach, on which the DP moves out of the PP first and then the entire PP containing the trace of DP moves, might be on a better track (Reference Borsley and JaworskaBorsley & Jaworska 1989, Reference Franks and ProgovacFranks & Progovac 1994). Such a derivation is schematized in (26a–c).
(26)
a. Z którymi rozmawiałaś studentami? (Polish) with which you.talked students b. You talked studentsi [PP to which ti] c. [PP to which ti]j you talked studentsi tj
However, as pointed out by Reference Fanselow, Ćavar and AlexiadouFanselow & Ćavar (2002), this is also problematic given that PPs are islands, which leads them to propose what they dub distributed (copy) deletion, schematized in (27a–b), on which LBE is a consequence of a Copy and Merge approach to movement, coupled with the assumption that copy deletion can take place in a discontinuous manner.
(27)
a. [to which students] you talked [to which students]? COPY b. [to which students] you talked [to which students]? DELETE
14.3 Headed Relative Clauses
14.3.1 Resumption in Headed Relatives
Across Slavic languages, we find three common types of relative clauses, illustrated in (28) for Polish (Reference Fisiak, Lipinska-Grzegorek and ZabrockiFisiak et al. 1978, Reference Pesetsky, Barbosa, Fox, Hagstrom, McGinnis and PesetskyPesetsky 1998, Reference BroihierBroihier 1995, Reference GuzGuz 2017, among many others); in (29) for BCS (Reference BrowneBrowne 1986, Reference Gračanin-YuksekGračanin-Yuksek 2013, Reference Bošković, Zybatow, Junghanns, Lenertová and BiskupBošković 2009); in (30) for Bulgarian (Reference KrapovaKrapova 2010); and in (31) for Slovenian (Reference HladnikHladnik 2015).Footnote 14 The a examples contain relative pronouns, the b examples a complementizer and what appears to be an (optional) resumptive pronoun.
(28)
a. ten samochód, który Janek widział wczoraj this car.m.sg which.m.sg Janek saw yesterday RELATIVE PRONOUN b. ten samochód, co (go) Janek widział wczoraj this car comp (it) Janek saw yesterday COMP(+RESUMPTIVE PRONOUN) (b example from Reference HladnikHladnik 2015: 67)
(29)
a. čovjek kojeg Jan vidi (BCS) man which Jan sees ‘a/the man whom Jan sees/is looking at’(Reference Gračanin-YuksekGračanin-Yuksek 2013: 27) b. Upoznao sam čovjeka što (ga) Iva obožava. met AUX man that (him) Iva adores ‘I met the man that Iva adores.’ (Reference Gračanin-YuksekGračanin-Yuksek 2013: 29)
(30)
a. Tova e čovekăt, kogoto snimax včera (Bulgarian) this is man.the whom photographed yesterday ‘This is the man whom I photographed yesterday.’ b. Tova e čovekăt, deto (go) snimax včera. this is man.the that him photographed yesterday ‘This is the man that I photographed yesterday.’ (Reference KrapovaKrapova 2010: 1240–1241)
(31)
a. To je človek, katerega iščejo. (Slovenian) this is man which search ‘This is the man they are looking for.’ b. To je človek, ki ga iščejo. this is man C him search ‘This is the man they are looking for.’ (Reference HladnikHladnik 2015: 37)
The presence of resumptive pronouns is not totally optional: they can be dropped only under specific circumstances (Reference Bondaruk and GussmannBondaruk 1995, Reference BroihierBroihier 1995, Reference Pesetsky, Barbosa, Fox, Hagstrom, McGinnis and PesetskyPesetsky 1998, Reference GuzGuz 2017 on Polish, Reference HladnikHladnik 2015 on Slovenian and Polish, Reference Gračanin-YuksekGračanin-Yuksek 2013 on Croatian, Reference Bošković, Zybatow, Junghanns, Lenertová and BiskupBošković 2009 on Serbo-Croatian, among others), with +/− animate or human distinction, case (inherent vs. structural) being implicated. Reference Gračanin-YuksekGračanin-Yuksek (2013) provides a more unified approach and proposes that the omission of the resumptive pronoun is governed by the Morphological Case Matching condition given in (32). Reference HladnikHladnik (2015) shows that the same condition is responsible for the distribution of resumptive pronouns in Slovenian and Polish.
(32) Morphological Case Matching (Reference Gračanin-YuksekGračanin-Yuksek 2013: 30)Footnote 15
In a što-RC, an RP may be omitted if the head of the RC bears the same morphological case that it would bear if it were case-marked by the element that case-marks the RP.
This explains why the resumptive pronoun cannot be omitted in (33a) but it can in (33b); in (33a) the resumptive pronoun is accusative but the relative clause head is nominative, whereas in (33b), both are accusative.
(33)
a. Čovjek što sam *(ga) vidio voli Ivu. (BCS) man.nom that aux.1sg (him.acc) seen loves Iva.acc ‘The man that I saw loves Iva.’ b. Upoznao sam čovjeka što (ga) Iva obožava. met.1sg aux.1sg man.acc that (him.acc) Iva.nom adore ‘I met the man that Iva adores.’ (adapted from Reference Gračanin-YuksekGračanin-Yuksek 2013: 29)
Reference HladnikHladnik (2015) argues that the same condition is responsible for the distribution of resumptive pronouns in Slovenian and Polish, which captures the contrast in (34a–b) in Polish: the noun samochód ‘car’ is syncretic between the nominative and accusative, whereas the noun mężczyzna ‘man’ is not.
(34)
a. ten samochód, co (go) Janek widział wczoraj (Polish) this car.nom C him.acc John saw yesterday ‘the car that John saw yesterday’ b. ten mężczyzna, co *(go) Janek widział wczoraj this man.nom C him.acc John saw yesterday ‘the man that John saw yesterday.’ (Reference HladnikHladnik 2015: 67)
However, this cannot be the complete generalization, as shown by Reference GuzGuz (2017), whose examples come from SPOKES, a corpus of conversational spoken Polish (see Reference Pęzik and OdijkPęzik 2015). They do not obey the morphological case generalization but nevertheless allow missing resumptive pronouns; the relative clause head is locative in (35a) and instrumental in (35b) but the gap (corresponding to the missing resumptive pronoun) is accusative.
(35)
a. w tym kiosku co twoi rodzice mają (SPOKES) in this kiosk.loc C your parents have ‘in that kiosk that your parents have’ b. zajmuje się tymi mieszkaniami co gmina wynajmuje deals refl these apartments.instr C council rents out ‘(s)he deals with those apartments that the council rents out’ (Reference GuzGuz 2017: 104)
Since the goal of this contribution is to present an overview of wh-constructions rather than provide an account of the distribution of resumptive pronouns, I will not hypothesize on which of the existing accounts is the right one, or suggest an alternative.
A related question is what factors, if any, determine the choice between relative clauses with a complementizer and relative clauses with a relative pronoun. Reference GuzGuz (2017) discusses the factors that determine the choice between co (complementizer) and który (relative pronoun) relatives in Polish, and argues that they differ in terms of specificity and definiteness. Co-relatives tend to “encode definiteness of their referents.”Footnote 16 Reference BrowneBrowne (1986) discusses how the choice of the head determines the choice of relativization strategy in BCS.Footnote 17
14.3.2 Structure of Headed Relatives
Yet another question that has received a lot of attention in the literature (both on Slavic languages and general linguistics literature) concerns the structures of the three types of relatives. The three most common structures that have been proposed/developed over the years for headed relatives are the Head Promotion analysis, the External Head analysis, and the Matching analysis (Reference VergnaudVergnaud 1974, Reference KayneKayne 1994, Reference BhattBhatt 2002, Reference BianchiBianchi 1999, Reference Bianchi2000, Reference HladnikHladnik 2015, Reference VriesDe Vries 2002, Reference Hulsey and SauerlandHulsey & Sauerland 2006, Reference Citko, Kim and StraussCitko 2001, among many others), illustrated in (36a–c).
(36)
The three structures differ with respect to the predictions they make with respect to the so-called reconstruction effects, that is, the ability to interpret the head of the relative clause in the relative-clause-internal position. The Head Promotion structure differs from both the External Head and the Matching structure in that the head of the relative clause moves/‘gets promoted’ from inside the relative CP. Both the Matching and the External Head analysis contain a CP external head (merged in (not moved to) this position), in addition to the head-internal one (on the Matching analysis) or the relative pronoun/empty operator (on the External Head analysis). The Head Promotion analysis thus predicts the presence of reconstruction. The standard diagnostics for the presence (or absence) of reconstruction effects involve variable binding, anaphor interpretation, idiom interpretation and binding. The views in the literature differ on which structure each of the three types of relative clauses involves in Slavic languages. Even though I will not be able to present a complete overview of the relevant literature, let me present some representative ones and a selection of relevant data.
A fair amount of work concerns the differences between relative clauses with complementizers and relative clauses with relative pronouns (co vs. który-relatives in Polish). Reference SzczegielniakSzczegielniak (2004) argues that in Polish co-relatives allow reconstruction, whereas który-relatives do not. This is similar to Reference KrapovaKrapova’s (2010) findings regarding Bulgarian relatives. However, the results of some of his diagnostics are not as clear-cut as one might desire. For example, he gives the contrast in (37a–b), involving the Polish idiom rzucać słowa na wiatr ‘make empty promises’ (lit. ‘throw words on the wind’) to show that only co-relatives allow reconstruction.
(37)
a. słów co on nie rzucał na wiatr words that he not throw on wind ‘empty promises that he did not make’ b. ??słów, których on nie rzucał na wiatr words which he not throw on wind ‘empty promises that he did not make’ (Reference SzczegielniakSzczegielniak 2004: 24)
However, a Google search reveals examples of idiomatic interpretation with the relative pronoun który ‘which’.
(38)
a. Żałosne są tylko puste słowa, które rzucasz na wiatr!!! pitiful are only empty words which throw on wind ‘Empty promises you make are pitiful.’ b. Znów słowa, które rzucasz na wiatr again words which throw on wind ‘Again empty promises you make.’ c. Słowa i znów słowa, które rzucasz na wiatr words and again words which throw on wind ‘Empty promises and again empty promises you make’ (Google search)
Citko (2020) argued that który-relatives in general allow reconstruction. Since the focus of this contribution is not on reconstruction (or the detailed analysis of relative clauses), I will not reproduce them here. Reference HladnikHladnik (2015), who focuses on Slovenian, Polish, and BCS, concludes that all three types of relatives involve movement but only co-relatives involve head promotion. Reference GiltnerGiltner (2018), focusing on Russian, concludes that the behavior of čto vs. kotoryj relatives in Russian is not consistent with the idea that čto relatives are derived by promotion while kotoryj relatives are derived by matching. Reference Gračanin-YuksekGračanin-Yuksek (2013) shows that in Croatian, some što-relatives are derived by movement and others not. She further shows that even što-relatives with no resumption involve a matching (rather than a head promotion) derivation, and that relative clauses with resumptive pronouns do not involve movement. Since there does not seem to be a general consensus in the literature on the structures of the three types of relative clauses, I leave this issue somewhat open here and turn to free relatives and correlatives.
14.3.3 Free Relatives and Correlatives
This section focuses on two types of relativization strategies that are quite productive in – and by no means unique to – Slavic languages. The two are free relatives and correlatives, exemplified in (39) and (40), respectively.
(39)
a. Pojedel sem, kar je Maja skuhala. (Slovenian) ate AUX what AUX Maja cooked ‘I ate what Maja cooked.’ (Reference Šimík, Sauerland and SoltŠimík 2018: 3) b. Czytam co(kolwiek) Maria napisała. (Polish) read what(ever) Maria wrote ‘I read what(ever) Maria wrote.’ c. Včera (v 8) David sledoval, co(koliv) Yesterday (at 8) David watched what(ever) dávali na HBO. (Czech) gave on HBO ‘Yesterday, David watched whatever they were showing on HBO.’ (Reference Šimík, Zikova and CahaŠimík 2016: 111)
d. Pročetoh kakvoto napisa. (Bulgarian) read what wrote ‘I read what you wrote.’ (Reference DimovaDimova 2014: 1)
(40)
a. Kakuju mašinu xočeš’, takuju on tebe which car want such he you i podarit. (Russian) EMPH will.grant ‘He will give you any car that you ask of him for a present.’ (Lit. Whatever car you ask of him, he will give you that car for a present’) (Reference Mitrenina and ZybatowMitrenina 2010: 1) b. Co chcesz, to dostaniesz. (Polish) what want, DEM get ‘You will get what you want.’ c. Kojto se uči, toj šte spoluči.Footnote 18 (Bulgarian) who refl studies he will succeed ‘He who studies will succeed.’ (Reference RudinRudin 2013: 165)
Free relatives are the kinds of relatives that ‘appear’ to be missing a head, and contain only a wh-pronoun. Whether the head is in fact missing or not depends on the structure assigned to free relatives. The two prominent ones are the so-called Comp Account (Reference Groos, van Riemsdijk, Brandi, Belletti and RizziGroos & van Riemsdijk 1981) and the Head Account (Reference Bresnan and GrimshawBresnan & Grimshaw 1978), illustrated in (41a) and (41b), respectively. The difference between them concerns the position of the wh-pronoun; on the Comp Account it occupies [Spec, CP], whereas on the Head Account, it occupies the head position (i.e. the same position the head occupies in headed relatives.)Footnote 19
(41)
a. [DP Ø [CP WHi [TP … ti …]]] COMP ACCOUNT b. [DP WHi [CP [TP … ti …]]] HEAD ACCOUNT
The choice between the two accounts is not trivial, and both have been argued to be correct for Slavic free relatives. The Comp Account is very well equipped to handle the similarities between free relatives and wh-questions, whereas the Head Account captures well the so-called matching effects (i.e. the requirement that the category and case of the wh-pronoun matches the category and case requirements imposed on it in both the relative and the matrix clause). For example, (42a) does not satisfy the matching requirement. The matrix verb interesować się ‘to be interested in’ requires instrumental case, whereas the embedded verb studiować ‘to study’ requires accusative case; thus neither the accusative nor the instrumental wh-pronoun can simultaneously satisfy the case requirements of both verbs.Footnote 20
(42)
a. *Interesuję się czym/co interested.ininstr refl what.instr/what.acc Maria studiuje. (Polish) Maria studiesacc ‘I am interested in what Maria studies.’ b. Czytam co Maria pisze. readacc what.acc Maria writesacc ‘I read what Maria writes.’
Another question in the literature on free relatives concerns the syntactic distribution and/or semantic contribution of the particle ever (i.e. -kolwiek in Polish and its equivalents in other Slavic languages), in particular the issue of the differences between free relatives containing ever and the ones without it (see Reference Šimík, Zikova and CahaŠimík 2016 for a discussion of this question in Czech, and Reference CitkoCitko 2010 in Polish). Šimík follows Reference Jacobson and BachJacobson (1995), who analyzes free relatives as ‘definite descriptions, denoting the maximal (plural) entity that satisfies the description provided by the free relative’. In simple terms, this means that the the interpretation of the free relative in (42b) is I read all the things Maria writes. Reference CitkoCitko (2010) focuses on contexts in which kolwiek ‘ever’ is obligatory, involving complex free relatives, which she attributes to the requirement of the Q head dominating the DP to be filled.
Another question in the research on free relatives concerns the existence of multiple free relatives. The answers to this question also differ; I turn to it after I discuss correlatives.
A correlative clause is a type of relative in which the relative CP is adjoined to the main clause, and the main clause (optionally) contains a demonstrative (often called a correlative) pronoun, as shown in (43a). We saw examples of correlative clauses in (40). They have been studied quite a bit in the literature on Slavic languages (see Reference Izvorski and KusumoIzvorski 1996, Reference RudinRudin 2013, Reference Citko and LiptákCitko 2009, Reference Mitrenina and ZybatowMitrenina 2010, among others). Slavic languages also allow multiple correlatives, in which the left-peripheral CP contains multiple wh-pronouns and the matrix clause contains multiple demonstrative pronouns, as shown schematically in (43b).
(43)
a. [CP WH …] [CP/TP (DEM) …]] b. [CP WH WH …] [CP/TP (DEM) (DEM) …]]
Demonstrative/correlative pronouns appear to be optional; however, Reference Izvorski and KusumoIzvorski (1996) shows that their presence has a semantic effect and contributes exhaustiveness to the interpretation of the main clause. Her Russian example in (44) provides an illustration; it asserts that I will kiss the people I love and presupposes that I will not kiss the people I do not love (Reference Izvorski and KusumoIzvorski 1996: 138).
(44)
Kogo ljublju, togo poceluju. (Russian) whom love that.one will.kiss ‘I’ll kiss who I love.’ (Reference Izvorski and KusumoIzvorski 1996: 138)
Representative examples of multiple correlatives are given in (45).
(45)
a. Kto co chce, ten to dostanie. (Polish) who what wants DEMNOM DEMACC gets ‘Everyone will get what they want.’ b. Komu kakaja premudrost dalas’, (Russian) who what wisdom given tot toj i priderživajsja. DEMNOM DEMGEN EMPH hold.on ‘Let one hold on to whatever wisdom one has been given.’ (Lit.: ‘To whomever whatever wisdom has been given, let such a one hold on
to it.’) (Reference Mitrenina and ZybatowMitrenina 2010: 2)
c. Kojto kădeto e sviknal, tam si živee. (Bulgarian) who where is used.to there refl lives ‘Everyone lives (well) where he is accustomed to (being).’ (Reference RudinRudin 2013: 178)
Correlatives are similar to wh-questions; both questions and correlatives allow multiple wh-pronouns, both require them to move to a clause-initial position, and both obey (or disobey) superiority depending on the language (see Reference Citko and LiptákCitko 2009 for more discussion). It is thus pretty much uncontroversial that multiple correlatives exist; the question that is a bit more disputed in the literature is whether multiple free relatives exist. Reference Citko and Gračanin-YuksekCitko & Gračanin-Yuksek (2016) argue that they do not, based on semantic considerations (i.e. a type mismatch when the head ‘tries’ to combine with the relative CP containing two wh/relative pronouns) and the observation that the examples in (46a–b) are ungrammatical unless the two wh-pronouns are coordinated.
(46)
a. Jan je co(kolwiek) *(i) kiedy(kolwiek) Piotr gotuje. (Polish) Jan eats what(ever) and when(ever) Piotr cooks b. Jan jede što(god) *(i) kad(god) Ivan kuha. (BCS) Jan eats whatever and whenever Ivan cooks
Reference DimovaDimova (2014) and Reference Rudin, Compton, Goledzinowska and SavchenkoRudin (2007), based on examples of the kind given in (47a–b), reach a different conclusion, namely that multiple free relatives are possible, and they cannot be reanalyzed as correlatives.
(47)
a. Vzemajte koj kakvoto može. take who what can ‘Everyone take whatever you can.’ (Reference Rudin, Compton, Goledzinowska and SavchenkoRudin 2007: 290) b. Celuvajte koj(to) kogoto običa. (Bulgarian) kiss who who loves ‘Let everyone kiss whoever they love.’ (Reference DimovaDimova 2014: 7)
I think the answer depends on what we mean by multiple free relative. If we mean a relative clause that contains multiple wh or relative pronouns (irrespective of how they are interpreted), certainly the examples in (47a–b) look like multiple free relatives. However, if we take multiple free relatives to be relatives in which all wh or relative pronouns are interpreted the same way they are in ‘singular’ free relatives, (47a–b) are less likely to be multiple free relatives, since only one wh-pronoun has the desired interpretation. Reference Citko and Gračanin-YuksekCitko & Gračanin-Yuksek (2016) thus take them to be a kind of correlative.
14.4 Conclusion
To sum up briefly, this chapter presented an overview of the core properties of two core types of wh-dependencies in Slavic languages: wh-questions and relative clauses. It focused on the properties of these dependencies that Slavic languages are famous for, such as multiple wh-fronting or left branch extraction. It started with Reference RudinRudin’s (1988) seminal work establishing two types of multiple wh-fronting languages (+/− Multiply Filled Specifier languages in her terms), which differ with respect to constituency, behavior with respect to superiority effects, island effects and the availability of multiple wh-extraction from embedded clauses. This chapter reviewed the arguments in favor of this distinction as well as the updates and/or modifications that have been made to it over the years. Another property of Slavic wh-questions reviewed in this chapter, which has also received a lot of attention in the literature, is left branch extraction and the correlation between the lack of overt articles and the availability of left branch extraction. The second part of this chapter discussed relative clauses, including what might be dubbed non-canonical relative clauses, such as free relatives and correlatives. It started with an overview of the types of headed relatives, conditions on resumption in relative clauses and the dominant approaches to the structure of headed relatives. It then proceeded to free relatives and correlatives, focusing on the two structures proposed for free relatives and the issue of the availability of multiple free relatives.
15.1 Introduction
Coordination and subordination are traditional terms for two most important ways of combining expressions into larger syntactic units. Although the terms have a long history, they are somewhat fuzzy. They have different meanings in different theoretical approaches (Reference Fabricius-Hansen, Ramm, Fabricius-Hansen and RammFabricius-Hansen & Ramm 2008: 1). Moreover, their meanings are not entirely symmetrical. “While coordination is applied to the combination of both phrases and clauses, subordination is generally restricted to clauses” (Reference Haspelmath and ShopenHaspelmath 2007: 46). The same is true for the alternative terms parataxis and hypotaxis, which are sometimes used instead of them.
It is not easy to distinguish clearly between coordination and subordination, because the border between them is not sharp. The demarcation criterion most often mentioned in literature is symmetry : asymmetry (Reference Carston and BlakemoreCarston & Blakemore 2005, Reference Haspelmath and HaspelmathHaspelmath 2004, Reference Haspelmath and Shopen2007: 5). In a coordinate structure, units are structurally symmetrical in some sense, whereas those in a subordinate structure are not; one is the head and the other is dependent on it. However, symmetry is often interpreted differently. The strictest requirement is that coordinated constituents must, in addition to the same semantic type, also belong to the same syntactic category. Such a requirement, if we do not treat every coordination as a reduced form of sentence coordination, is too strong, because in Slavic, as in most other languages, there are coordinated structures the elements of which belong to different categories. Such an example is the Cro. sentence (1) in which the adjective and the prepositional phrase are coordinated.
(1)
Lovro je [&[A siromašan] i [PP u dugovima]] Lovro is poor and in debts
A slightly weaker requirement is that each coordinand must belong to a category and semantic type that is appropriate for the environment in which the whole structure occurs, that is, that each can be a host (Reference Cormack and SmithCormack & Smith 2005: 401). Reference Haspelmath and ShopenHaspelmath (2007: 47) cites four characteristics of subordinate clauses across languages: (1) only subordinate clauses can be in internal position, (2) only they allow extraction of wh-pronouns, (3) only they can be focused, and (4) only they allow backwards anaphora. However, even these criteria are not without exceptions. The problem for precise demarcation of coordination and subordination is the existence of structures that are semantically subordinated but formally (syntactically) coordinated (Reference Culicover and JackendoffCulicover & Jackendoff 1997, Reference Palašić and PalićPalašić 2018), and structures that are semantically coordinated, but not syntactically (Reference Büring, Hartmann, Toivonen, Csúri and van der ZeeBüring & Hartmann 2015). Therefore, it is an open question whether coordination and subordination should be defined in formal (syntactic) or semantic terms. Since the boundary between coordination and subordination is not sharp, we will focus here on the prototype members of both groups.
15.2 Coordination
As we have seen, the term coordination is used for syntactic constructions in which two or more units are connected into a larger unit, and still have the same semantic relations with neighboring units and, in prototypical cases, equal structural rank. Coordination is a universal phenomenon. All languages have coordinated constructions, but many do not have grammatical markers of coordination, so that coordination is expressed by a simple juxtaposition of units and intonation (Reference Mithun, Haiman and ThompsonMithun 1988: 331–332). Such constructions are traditionally called asyndetic.Footnote 1 In Slavic languages coordination and subordination differ formally, at least at the sentence level (Reference Gladrow, Kosta and JachnowGladrow & Kosta 1999: 404, Reference KordićKordić 2008: 189). They use different sets of connectives: coordinators and subordinators.
Three basic types of coordination are conjunctive (conjunction), disjunctive (disjunction), and adversative. Apart from them, causal, explicative, and conclusive coordination are also mentioned in the literature. However, it should be noted that causal, explicative, and conclusive sentences can be both coordinate and subordinate. In Slavic studies, gradation sentences are often also singled out as a special type, which some researchers consider to be a type of adversative sentences (Reference Silić and PranjkovićSilić & Pranjković 2005: 326), others of conjunctive sentences, while still others include them in both types (Reference Hudeček and VukojevićHudeček & Vukojević 2006). Coordinated units are often called conjuncts, and coordinating particles that connect them conjunctions. Some linguists use these terms only for units in conjunctive coordination, while they call coordinated units generally (in all types of coordination) coordinands, and coordinating particles coordinators (Reference Haspelmath and ShopenHaspelmath 2007) or connectives (Reference StassenStassen 2000: 10).
Overtly marked coordination differs in different languages according to the number of coordinate particles, and according to their position in relation to coordinands. Constructions with two coordinands can have one or two coordinators, that is, they can be monosyndetic or bisyndetic (Reference Haspelmath and ShopenHaspelmath 2007: 6).Footnote 2 In monosyndetic constructions the coordinator can be in initial, medial, or final position. It seems that by far the most usual option in the world’s languages is the use of a medial coordinator (Reference StassenStassen 2000: 10). But even then, there are two possibilities. The coordinator can be structurally more closely connected (can have greater structural cohesion) with the first or with the second coordinand, that is, it can be either postposed or preposed. According to this classification, coordinate constructions in Slavic languages, as in the majority of European languages, are monosyndetic with preposed coordinator in the medial position (i.e. they belong to type [A [co B]] according to Haspelmath’s classification).Footnote 3 This is confirmed by the following facts: (1) when there is an intonation break between the coordinands, the coordinator is always after the break, (2) when the first conjunct is fronted, the coordinator stays with the second conjunct, and (3) when the second conjunct is extraposed, the coordinator obligatorily goes with it.
15.2.1 Conjunctive Coordination
Conjunctive coordinators denote addition. They indicate that the second coordinand contains an additional fact which is related to the first coordinand. They can coordinate words, phrases, clauses, or sentences. The most common conjunctive coordinator in Slavic languages is the conjunction i. Here are a few examples from Slavic languages in which this conjunction connects conjuncts of different categories:
(2)
In Cze., Slk. and Sor., the basic conjunctive coordinator is a,
(3)
Cze. Alena přišla domů a uvařila si kávu. Alena cameF.SG home and cooked self.SG coffee ‘Alena came home and made herself coffee.’
(4)
Ena banana in eno jajce sta padla na tla. one banana and one egg aux3DU fellM.DU on ground ‘A banana and an egg fell on the ground.’
Most Slavic languages have, in addition to i, other conjunctive coordinators, which are often restricted semantically or more characteristic either of written or of spoken language. Thus, for example, the conjunction pa, which appears in all South Slavic languages, has the meaning of temporal succession or result.
(5)
The Rus. and Mac. coordinator da, as well as the Bul. coordinators ta and pa, are characteristic for spoken (colloquial) language (Reference ŠvedovaŠvedova 1980: 625, Reference KoneskiKoneski 1976: 536, Reference Andrejčin, Ivanov and PopovAndrejčin et al. 1957: 344, Reference PašovPašov 2005: 408), while Cro. te and Sln. ter appear more often in written language.
Strategies for subject–predicate agreement in Slavic languages, when the subject consists of conjoined noun phrases, have recently attracted considerable attention from linguists.Footnote 4 Three agreement strategies are possible: (i) agreement with the entire coordination (agreement with the maximal projection), (ii) agreement with the closest conjunct, and (iii) agreement with the first conjunct. The form of the agreement expressed on the verb can also vary depending on genders and numbers of the conjoined noun phrases as well as on their position in relation to the verb, that is, on whether they precede or follow the verb. Agreement with the whole coordination is always an option. Therefore, it is usually termed default agreement (Reference Čordalija, Jovović and LekoČordalija et al. 2020: 26).Footnote 5
15.2.2 Disjunctive Coordination
Disjunctive coordinators separate mutually exclusive contents expressed in the coordinands. In Rus. and in most South Slavic languages, the most common disjunctive coordinator is ili:
(6)
In Pol. the basic disjunctive coordinator is albo, in Ukr. abo, in Bel. al’bo, in Cze. nebo, in Slk. alebo, and in Sln. ali. Here are a few examples:
(7)
a. Pol. Brat przyjdzie po nas albo zaczeka w domu. brother comePRES.3SG for us or waitPRES.3SG in home ‘The brother will come for us or wait for us at home.’ b. Cze. Zaplatíte nebo mám na vás zavolat policii? pay2PL or have1SG on you call police ‘Will you pay or should I call the police?’ c. Sln. Možen odgovor je samo da ali ne. possible answer is only yes or no ‘The only possible answer is yes or no.’
The most important semantic distinction in disjunctions is between the standard and the interrogative disjunction. Many languages have different coordinators for these two categories. In Slavic languages, the same coordinator usually has both functions.Footnote 6 It is interesting, however, that when two (or more) clauses are disjunctively connected in a yes–no question, in most Slavic languages only the first can be formulated as a question:Footnote 7
(8)
a. Cro. Jesu li se vratili u Rijeku ili aux q self returned in Rijeka or ostaju u Zagrebu? stay in Zagreb *Jesu li se vratili u Rijeku ili aux q self returned in Rijeka or ostaju li u Zagrebu? stay q in Zagreb ‘Have they gone back to Rijeka or are they staying in Zagreb?’ b. Rus. Vernulis‘ li vy v Moskvu ili ostalis‘ returned q you in Moscow or stayed v Pitere? in St. Petersburg *Vernulis‘ li vy v Moskvu ili ostalis‘ li returned q you in Moscow or stayed q v Pitere? in St. Petersburg ‘Did you return to Moscow or did you stay in St. Petersburg?’ c. Sln. A so se vrnili v Ljubljano ali bodo q aux self returned in Ljubljana or will ostali v Mariboru? stay in Maribor *A so se vrnili v Ljubljano ali a bodo q aux self returned in Ljubljana or q will ostali v Mariboru? stay in Maribor ‘Did they return to Ljubljana or will they stay in Maribor?’ d. Bul. Vărnali li sa se v Sofija ili returned q aux self in Sofia or sa ostanali v Plovdiv? are stayed in Plovdiv? *Vărnali li sa se v Sofija ili returned q aux self in Sofia or sa ostanali li v Plovdiv? are stayed q in Plovdiv ‘Did they return to Sofia or did they stay in Plovdiv?’
In this respect, Slavic languages differ from English, in which all clauses must be formulated as questions (Reference Browne, Franks, Chidambaram and JosephBrowne 2009: 31). In contrast, when interrogative clauses are conjunctively connected, then all coordinands have an interrogative form, as in English.
The coordinators used in the standard disjunction can in Slavic languages also be used in the so-called metalinguistic disjunction,Footnote 8 as shown by the following Cro. example:
(9)
To su moji Vinkovci, ili grad na Bosutu. these are my Vinkovci or town on Bosut ‘This is my Vinkovci, or the town on the River Bosut.’
Here, too, some languages have a special coordinator. So for example, ili in (9) can be replaced by iliti, which is obsolete today, while Pol. czyli is in regular neutral use.
(10)
Gniezno, czyli pierwsza stolica Polski. Gniezno or first capital PolandGEN.SG. ‘Gniezno, or the first capital of Poland.’
15.2.3 Asyndetic and Polysyndetic Coordination
Although, as in most other European languages, monosyndetism of the type [A [co B]] is the norm in Slavic languages, asyndetism also appears, especially in conjunctive coordination.Footnote 9 Asyndetism is (as in other European languages) most common with modifiers such as adverbs and adjectives (and their phrases) and with sentences. Asyndetic coordination of noun phrases is rare, especially in structures with only two coordinands. It can appear in natural coordination, where two units are semantically closely connected and form a single conceptual unit (Reference Mithun, Haiman and ThompsonMithun 1988: 332, Reference StassenStassen 2000: 8, Reference WälchliWälchli 2009: 1, 5). Natural coordination is in opposition to accidental coordination.Footnote 10 Typical examples of natural coordination are pairs such as ‘mother and father’, ‘husband and wife’, ‘brother and sister’, ‘bow and arrow’, ‘needle and thread’, and the like.Footnote 11 Since the marginalization of asyndetism is a general trend connected with the increase in literacy (Reference StassenStassen 2000: 10), it is not surprising that natural coordination of nouns occurs more often in the archaic language of folk songs than in modern literary language. Thus, the asyndetic coordination of nouns is confirmed in a fragment of a Cro. folk song in the Kajkavian dialect from Međimurje Klinček stoji pod oblokom (A Carnation Stands beneath the Window, where the carnation symbolizes a young boy/lover):
(11)
Ja bi tebi otvorila, samo da se ne I beCOND youDAT.SG open only that self not bi oca matere ja bojala. beCOND fatherGEN motherGEN I fear. ‘I would open it to you, only if I wasn’t afraid of my father and mother.’ Kaj su tebi otec, mati? What are youDAT.SG father mother ‘What are your father and mother to you?’
The distinction between natural and accidental coordination may play a role in the scope of units applicable to both conjuncts. Thus, for example, in Bul. the subjunctive particle da is not repeated in natural coordination of verbs, as the following examples show:
(12)
a. Na trigodišna văzrast Ivan veče možeše da čete on three-yearADJ.F. age Ivan already could to readPRES.3SG i piše. and writePRES.3SG ‘Ivan could already read and write when he was three years old.’ b. … Ivan veče možeše da čete i da pluva. Ivan already could to readPRES.3SG. and to swimPRES.3SG ‘Ivan could already read and swim when he was three years old.’
The reason for this difference is the fact that čete i piše forms natural coordination, while čete i pluva does not. In some languages, even the asyndetic coordination of certain ‘natural pairs’ of verbs survives to this day, for example in Russian:
(13)
a. Na Zemle čitat‘-pisat‘ ne umeet každyj desjatyj vzroslyj čelovek. on Earth read-write not know every tenth grown up man ‘Every tenth adult on Earth cannot read or write.’ b. Muzykanty najarivali tak, čto gosti est‘-pit‘ ne uspevali. musicians played so, that guests eat-drink not managed ‘The musicians played in such a way that the guests did not have time to eat or drink.’
Most of the world’s languages, including Slavic, do not limit the number of coordinands in conjunctive and disjunctive coordination, that is, in addition to binary coordination with two members, they also allow multiple (n-ary) coordination. As in many other languages, in this case all coordinators except the last one can be omitted.
(14)
a. Pol. Małgorzata, Anna, Magda i moja siostra weszły do pubu. ‘Małgorzata, Anna, Magda and my sister entered the pub.’ b. Cro. Radnim danom sam na poslu, kod kuće, na putu ili u gradu. working dayINSTR am on work at home on trip or in city ‘On weekdays I am at work, at home, on the road or in the city.’
If the first, second, or any subsequent coordinator is lexicalized, all coordinators following it must also be realized. Keeping the coordinators in front of all coordinands has an emphatic value and is appropriate only when emphasizing (Reference Haspelmath and ShopenHaspelmath 2007: 12).
15.2.4 Adversative Coordination
Adversative coordination expresses a contrast or a comparison.Footnote 12 It is usually binary (consisting of two coordinands).Footnote 13 Some Slavic languages have a special, substitutive adversative coordinator, such as the German sondern, to express the contrast between a negative and a positive coordinand.Footnote 14 Such are, for example, Cro. coordinators nego and već:
(15)
a. Nisam popio rakiju nego/*ali/*a pivo. aux.not drunk rakijaACC but beerACC ‘I didn’t drink rakija but beer.’ b. Nismo išli u kazalište, već/*ali/*a u kino. aux.not1PL gone in theater but in cinema ‘We didn’t go to the theater, but to the cinema.’
In Slavic languages, there is also an opposition between concessive and oppositive adversative coordinators,Footnote 15 for example in Rus. between no (concessive) and a (oppositive), in Pol. between ale and a, and in Cro. between ali and a, as shown by the examples:
(16)
a. Cro. Ivan pije pivo, a/?ali Sonja vino. b. Rus. Ivan p’et pivo, a/?no Sonja vino. Ivan drinks beer, but Sonja wine ‘Ivan drinks beer and Sonja drinks wine.’
Sentences with ali and no are not completely ungrammatical, but they are unusual and require a very specific context for interpretation.
Adversative coordinators, as well as conjunctive and disjunctive, usually appear in the canonical coordinator position (i.e. in front of the second coordinand). Those that appear within the second coordinand,Footnote 16 such as Pol. zaś or Rus. že, are fewer in number:
(17)
a. Pol. Ojciec był drobny jak dziecko, syn zaś ogromny. father was small as child son while huge ‘The father was as small as a child, while the son was huge.’ b. Rus. Ubeždenija vnušajutsja teoriej, povedenie beliefs are.inspired theoryINSTR. behavior že formiruetsja primerom. but is.shaped exampleINSTR. ‘Beliefs are inspired by theory, behavior is shaped by example.’
When in some Slavic languages two relative sentences are coordinated, conjunctively disjunctively or adversatively, only the first has to be formulated as a relative clause (Reference Browne, Franks, Chidambaram and JosephBrowne 2009: 37), that is, contain a relativizer, while the second doesn’t need to have a relative pronoun, as the following examples show:
(18)
a. Cro. zemlja o kojoj znamo vrlo malo, country about which know1PL very little ali je smatramo važnom but her consider important b. Bul. strana za kojato mnogo malko znaem, no country for which very little know but ja smjatame za važna her consider for important c. Sln.Footnote 17 dežela, o kateri vemo zelo malo, a country about which know very little but jo imamo za pomembno her have for important d. Rus. strana o kotoroj my znaem očen‘ malo, no country about which we know very little but sčitaem očen’ važnoj consider very important ‘a country about which we know very little, but which we consider important’
In this respect, these languages differ from English, in which both coordinands must have the form of a relative sentence.
15.2.5 Correlative (Initial) Coordination
Like many other languages, Slavic languages distinguish ordinary (normal) from correlative or initial coordination. Since such coordination usually has an emphatic or contrastive role (Reference StassenStassen 2000: 15) it is often called emphatic coordination.Footnote 18 As in other European languages, correlative coordination according to Haspelmath’s classification is bisyndetic, as opposed to ordinary coordination which is monosyndetic. This means that it has the structure co-A co-B (i.e. that it also has a coordinator in front of the first coordinand). Dependency between coordinators in correlative coordination is absolute (Reference JohannessenJohannessen 2005: 420). They cannot appear without each other. Unlike English (both … and, either … or) and German (sowohl .. als auch, entweder … oder), in Slavic languages both coordinators usually have the same form, most often the one used in normal monosyndetic coordination, for example Rus.: i … i, ili … ili, libo … libo, to … to; Pol.: i … i, albo … albo, to … to, bądź to … bądź to; Cro.: i … i, ili … ili, bilo … bilo, Bul.: i … i, ili … ili, bilo … bilo, tu … tu, etc. Slavic languages also have special correlative coordinators for negative contexts, which are used only within the scope of negation, for example Rus.: ni … ni, Pol.: ani … ani, ni … ni, Cro.: ni … ni, niti … niti, Bul.: ni … ni, nito … nito, Mac.: ni … ni, niti … niti, nitu … nitu, etc. Such structures can be interpreted either as a conjunction or as a disjunction. This is why some linguists describe them as conjunctive and others as disjunctive coordinators.Footnote 19 Slavic initial i, ili, and ni differ in several respects from English both, either, and neither. English correlatives scope over both coordinands and have the second coordinator in their scope. Slavic i, ili, and ni scope only over the first coordinand and do not have the second coordinator in their scope (Reference MihaljevićMihaljević 2018: 206–207). English both, either, and neither can be displaced from the coordination phrase (Reference JohannessenJohannessen 2005: 420), which is not the case with Slavic i, ili and ni. Moreover, Slavic i can co-occur with the quantifier which is semantically equivalent to English both, as shown by the Cro. example (19).
(19)
Obojica, i Krešimir i Borna imaju dugu kosu. both and Krešimir and Borna have long hair ‘Both Krešimir and Borna have long hair.’
Obojica, like English both, can be displaced from the coordination, as shown by (20).
(20)
I Krešimir i Borna imaju obojica dugu kosu. and Krešimir and Borna have both long hair
Like English and, or, and but, Slavic i, a, ali, and ili can be sentence-, chapter-, or even text-initial. In this function they are traditionally called discourse particles. In such cases they can have the role of discourse connectives and can be used polysyndetically, that is, they can occur at the beginning of two or more consecutive text chunks. They can also have the function of focus (elative) particles or sometimes even the function of affective (interjectional) particles. So, for example, Slavic i, unlike English and, can introduce sentence constituents of any kind, having in this function the meaning ‘even, also’:
(21)
a. Rus. Rakovyj korpus nosil i nomer trinadcat‘. cancer ward bore and number thirteen ‘On top of everything, the cancer wing was Number 13.’ b. Cro. Došli su i svi unuci. came aux and all grandchildren ‘All the grandchildren came too.’
Disjunctive coordinators can in some languages function as interrogative particles. For example, Sln. ali can introduce either direct or indirect questions:
(22)
a. Ali ga poznaš? or him knowPRES.2SG ‘Do you know him?’ b. Vprašam še enkrat, ali res mislite kar oditi. askPRES.1SG yet once or really meanPRES.2PL just leave ‘I ask again/once more if you really mean to just leave.’
Moreover, Slavic languages belong to the small group of languages in which “the emphatic negative coordinators are also used as scalar focus particles of the type ‘not even’ or ‘neither’” (Reference Haspelmath and ShopenHaspelmath 2007: 17). For example:
(23)
a. Pol. Karliczek ani słówka mi nie powiedział. Karliczek not.even word meDAT not said ‘Karliczek didn’t even say a word to me.’ b. Bul. Toj ne kaza ni duma. He not said not.even word ‘He didn’t (even) say a word.’
15.2.6 Non-constituent Coordination
Slavic languages, like many others, have non-constituent coordination, that is, they allow an ellipsis in coordination. In Slavic, as in other European languages, the forward ellipsis (analipsis) of the verb in the second coordinand is possible:
(24)
This type of ellipsis is called gapping. Initial analipsis is also possible:
(25)
a. Cro. Ovu kuću kupio je moj djed, a this houseACC bought aux my grandfather but prodala moja sestra. sold my sister b. Rus. Ètot dom kupil moj ded, a this houseACC bought my grandfather but prodala moja sestra. sold my sister c. Sln. To hišo je kupil moj dedek, this houseACC aux bought my grandfather prodala pa je moja sestra. sold but aux my sister ‘This house was bought by my grandfather, and sold by my sister.’
Backward ellipsis (catalipsis) seems to be, as in other languages (Reference Haspelmath and ShopenHaspelmath 2007: 40), restricted to the ellipsis of a constituent on the right edge of the first coordinand:
(26)
Cro. Duje voli, a Domina mrzi Rolling Stonese. Duje loves but Domina hates Rolling Stones ‘Duje loves, and Domina hates the Rolling Stones.’
15.2.7 Comitative Coordination
Eastern Slavic and Western Slavic languages, as well as Sln., have a special type of comitative–conjunctive constructions in which the conjunctive coordinator has the same form as the accompaniment marker (i.e. the preposition s ‘with’). Such constructions are always binary.Footnote 20 They encode two participants “who fulfill the same semantic role and are involved in the same event” (Reference Uhlik and ŽeleUhlik & Žele 2019: 116). In such constructions the coordinator retains the government features of the preposition, which means that the second coordinand must be in the instrumental case, but the constructions show agreement with both coordinands, that is, the predicate has to be in the plural (in Sln. in dual), and not in the singular, as in the proper comitative construction.Footnote 21 The difference between comitative–conjunctive and proper comitative constructions is shown in the following Rus. examples:
(27)
a. coordination Petja s Mašej tancevali na večerinke. Petja with MašaINSTR dancedPL at party ‘Petja and Maša danced at a party.’ b. proper comitative Petja tanceval s Mašej na večerinke. Petja dancedM.SG with MašaINSTR at party ‘Petja danced with Maša at a party.’
It should be noted that examples (27a) and (27b) also differ in word order, that is, in comitative coordination the coordinands have to be adjacent.
Although they have some clear features of coordination, in the Slavic languages the comitative coordinate constructions also show some traces of their comitative origin. First, they are limited to animate coordinands, and the two coordinands (typically) participate together in the event (Reference Haspelmath and ShopenHaspelmath 2007: 32). Diachronically, the coordinator s is a preposition that has acquired the additional meaning of a coordinator. Second, the position of coordinands is not equal. Coordination is not symmetrical and the order of coordinands cannot be changed, as is often the case in coordination with the coordinator i. Third, in Pol., in contrast to i-coordination, which in the second coordinand requires non-reflexive possessive pronouns, in such constructions there must be a reflexive possessive:
(28)
a. Ania i jej nauczycielka były na wycieczce. Ania and her teacher were on excursion b. Ania ze swoją nauczycielką były na wycieczce Ania with her.REFL teacher were on excursion ‘Ania and her teacher were on an excursion.’
A special type of comitative–conjunctive constructions are the so-called inclusory constructions in which the members of the set denoted by the second coordinand are already included in the set denoted by the first coordinand (Reference Haspelmath and ShopenHaspelmath 2007: 33):
(29)
In that case the central participant (landmark),Footnote 22 which imposes the agreement, always has to be a pronoun. Inclusory coordination is impossible when the accompanier outranks the landmark on the person hierarchy (1 < 2 < 3) (Reference Haspelmath and ShopenHaspelmath 2007: 34). Sln. first person dual pronoun can be inclusory only in relation to the second or the third person accompanier, while the second and the third person dual can be inclusory only in relation to the third person accompanier (Reference Uhlik and ŽeleUhlik & Žele 2019: 118). Therefore, comitative structures such as Vidva z menoj and Onadva s teboj cannot be interpreted as ‘you and me’ and ‘he and you’, but only as ‘two of you and me’ and ‘two of them and you’. It is not a surprise that inclusory constructions are by far the most frequent with the first person pronoun. Comitatively conjoined noun phrases most often play the role of Agent (the nominative subject) or of Experiencer, as shown by the Sln. example:
(30)
Naju z Andrejem je strah. we.ACC.DU with Andrej.INSTR.SG is fear.NOM.SG ‘Andrej and me are afraid’
Unlike Rus. and Pol., Sln. does not have non-inclusory comitative coordinations: in Slovene the landmark must always be a dual pronoun (Reference Uhlik and ŽeleUhlik & Žele 2019: 127–129). Two proper or common names can be conjoined only with a non-comitative coordinator, as shown by (31).
(31)
a. *Janez s Špelo gresta v kino. JanezNOM.SG with ŠpelaINSTR.SG goPRS.3DU in cinema b. Janez in Špela gresta v kino. JanezNOM.SG and ŠpelaNOM.SG goPRS.3DU in cinema ‘Janez and Špela are going to the cinema’
15.3 Subordination
Subordination is the process of linking two clauses in a sentence so that they form a construction in which one sentence is the head and the other is dependent on it. The head clause is usually called the main clause, and the dependent clause is called the subordinate clause. A subordinate clause is typically embedded into the main clause. It either substitutes for or determines/modifies a certain constituent of the main clause, or the main clause as a whole. A subordinate clause that modifies the whole main clause is less firmly bound with it. It is often assumed that subordination is a younger phenomenon than coordination, and that diachronic development proceeds from more coordinate-like to more subordinate-like constructions.Footnote 23 Beside embedding, syntactic features that are often across the world’s languages associated with subordination are (1) an explicit subordinator, (2) a special word order in subordinate clauses, which is different from the order in main clauses, and (3) a constraint on the distribution of tense, aspect, or mood in subordinate clauses. In Slavic, there is no significant difference in word order between the main and the subordinate clauses. Slavic languages do not have complex rules for using tenses and moods in subordinate clauses, like for example Latin or Ancient Greek. There are some rules and restrictions for the use of the conditional,Footnote 24 and of the so-called analytic subjunctive (in South Slavic), but they cannot be regarded as a general strategy for establishing subordinate connections.Footnote 25 The main means of establishing subordinate connections in Slavic languages is subordinating conjunctions. Subordinating conjunctions typically take the position at the beginning of the clause they introduce. In the linear structure of the main clause, subordinate clauses can be moved freely, together with the conjunctions. Different word order has a different semantic or pragmatic function. Subordination can also be expressed by non-finite verbal forms, such as infinitives, verbal adjectives and adverbs, and nominalizations, as in other European languages. In most theoretical approaches subordinate clauses are divided into three types: complement, relative and adverbial clauses (Reference Cristofaro, Herlin, Kalliokoski and VisapääCristofaro 2014: 73). In what follows, we will describe the characteristics of all three types in Slavic languages.
15.3.1 Complement Clauses
Complement clauses “function as a core argument of another predicate (the matrix or main predicate); they are restricted to a limited set of matrix predicates; and they describe semantic concepts such as propositions, facts, activities, states, events or situations (they cannot simply refer to a place or time)” (Reference Lohninger, Wurmbrand, Benz, Frey, Krifka, McFadden and ŻygisLohninger & Wurmbrand 2020). Slavic finite complement clauses are introduced by complementizers or by interrogative pronouns and adverbs. A large number of Slavic languages mark a realis/irrealis distinction by using a different complementizer. In Rus. the complementizer čtoby introduces clauses which describe a situation which is not real. For example, the sentence in (32) does not presuppose the existence of the situation described in the subordinated clause, that is, he either did or did not sing. In real situations the complementizer čto is used.Footnote 26
(32)
Ja nikogda ne slyšal, čtoby on pel. I never not heard that he sung ‘I have never heard him sing.’
The third complementizer budto has a presumptive meaning. It is used when the speaker does not accept the communicated contents as his own and when he doubts its reliability/truthfulness (Reference ŠvedovaŠvedova 1980: 475). In Bul. clauses introduced by the complementizer če describe real situations, while those introduced by da express desired, possible, or suggested situations:
(33)
a. Krăčmarjat otgovori surovo, če njama mjasto. inn-keeper answered sternly that is-no place ‘The inn-keeper answered sternly that there is no room.’ b. Toj iska da te predpazim. he asks that youACC protectPRES.1PL ‘He wants us to protect you.’
The same distinction exists in West Slavic languages between the complementizers že (Pol. że) and aby, as shown by the Slk. example (34).
(34)
a. Oznámili sme že prídeme. announced1PL aux1PL that comePRES.1PL ‘We have announced that we will come.’ b. Oznámili sme aby nás čakali. announced1PL aux 1PL that usACC waited ‘We announced that we want them to wait for us.’
In Cro., Ser., Bos., and Mon., both functions can be performed by the complementizer da.
In these languages complements of verbs expressing an emotional reaction, which are introduced by the complementizer što, describe a real (factual) situation (Reference BrowneBrowne 1986: 62–74). Complement clauses introduced by the complementizer kako with imperfective verbs can denote a dynamic situation which is in progress (Reference KatičićKatičić 1991: 331, Reference PetrovićPetrović 2004). In such cases kako cannot be replaced by the neutral complementizer da:Footnote 27
(35)
Gledam kako/*da pada snijeg. watchPRES.1SG as that fallPRES.3SG snow ‘I watch the snow fall.’
Complements to nominal predicates can use the same subordinator as complements to verbal predicates, as shown by the Rus. example (36).
(36)
Èto takaja radost‘ čto vy u nas nočuete. this such joy that you at us spend.night ‘It is such a joy that you are spending the night with us.’
Moreover, the most typical complementizers, usually reinforced by other words (adverbs, particles, etc.) can also introduce different types of adverbial clauses.
Although there is a tendency for complement clauses to occur at the end of the sentence, they can also be preposed to or inserted into the main clause. The main clause can, at least with some verb types, such as for example verbs of speaking, be parenthetically embedded into the subordinate clause, as shown by the following example from Croatian.
(37)
Da je dovezao, kažu ljudi, tri šlepera pomoći. that aux brought say people three trucks aidGEN.SG ‘People say that he brought three trucks of aid.’
Parenthetical placement is quite liberal. Usually, it does not break a phrase, but it is inserted either in front of or after the maximal projection. In such cases, the complementizer is usually dropped. It is present only if emphasized, which means that example (38) is much more common/usual than example (37).Footnote 28
(38)
Dovezao je, kažu ljudi, tri šlepera pomoći. brought aux say people three trucks aidGEN.SG ‘He brought, people say, three trucks of aid.’
As in other European languages, subordinate clauses can co-occur with correlative pronouns, which take their grammatical function as well as morphological case corresponding to that function and which are co-referent with the subordinate clause as a whole. In this function only neuter forms of demonstrative pronouns can occur. Subordinate clauses can be extraposed and occur at the end of the sentence, as in example (36), but, unlike in German or English for example, they can also occur immediately after the pronoun.Footnote 29
(39) To, čto vy u nas nočuete, takaja radost’ / Takaja radost’ to, čto vy u nas nočuete.
The phenomenon of complementizer doubling (recomplementation) has attracted considerable attention in recent generative theories, especially in the so-called cartographic approach, and has been studied in different languages.Footnote 30 In Slavic languages it has been observed in Sln. (Reference Plesničar, Marušič, Mišmaš and ŽaucerPlesničar 2015, Reference Plesničar, Marušič, Mišmaš and Žaucer2020) and Old Cro. (Reference MihaljevićMihaljević 2019).Footnote 31 In both languages, it is optional and restricted to clauses introduced by the complementizer da:Footnote 32
(40)
a. Sln. Rekel je da svojo mamo da ima vsak rad. said aux that one’s mother that has everyone like ‘He said that everyone likes their own mother.’ b. Cro. M(o)l(im) te da ego udržanie n(a)mь beseechPRES.1PL thee that his intercession us da prospêetь v’ sp(a)senie. that profit in salvation ‘we beseech thee, that by his intercession these gifts may profit us unto salvation.’
The complementizer doubling is possible only if one or more left-dislocated constituents intervene between the two copies. The first instance of the complementizer is always at the beginning of the clause. Therefore, it is generally assumed that it is in the position of the Force head. Since no left-dislocated constituent can follow the lowest copy of da, both Reference Plesničar, Marušič, Mišmaš and ŽaucerPlesničar (2020) and Reference MihaljevićMihaljević (2019) conclude that the lowest da heads the Finiteness projection (FinP). This conclusion is for Old Cro. substantiated by the fact that the complementizer doubling is possible only in irreal contexts, and, therefore, the subordinate verb can only be in present tense, conditional, or imperative (Reference MihaljevićMihaljević 2019: 607–609). In Old Cro. da can sometimes be even tripled. Reference MihaljevićMihaljević (2019) assumes that the intermediate copy of da in the triple-da constructions is the head of the Topic projection (TopP).
Complement clauses in Slavic languages can also be reduced.Footnote 33 The reduced clause can have the form of an infinitive or a nominalization. The licensing of reduced complements depends on the semantic class of the complement-taking predicate. Not all verb types allow reduced complements equally freely. When we are speaking about the licensing of infinitive clauses, an important factor may also be whether the subject of the subordinate clause is identical to an argument of the main clause or not. For example, Cro. verbs expressing desire, purpose, doubt, or effort(s) license infinitive complements only when their subject is identical to the main clause subject.Footnote 34 If the subject is different from the main subject, a da-clause must be used:
(41)
a. Hrvojka je željela završiti školu. Hrvojka aux wanted finish school ‘Hrvojka wanted to finish school.’ b. Hrvojka je željela da njezin sin završi školu. Hrvojka aux wanted that her son finishPRES.3SG finishPRES.3SG ‘Hrvojka wanted her son to finish school.’
Some verb classes also allow infinitives when their subject is identical to the main clause direct or indirect object, as for example učiti ‘teach’ and dopustiti ‘allow, let’, respectively:
(42)
a. Učila je dječake plesati tango. teach aux boysACC dance tango ‘She taught the boys to dance the tango’ b. Otac mu je dopustio poljubiti novu maćehu. Father himDAT aux allowed kiss new stepmother ‘His father let him kiss his new stepmother.’
It is not only the main verb that determines the form of the complement clause, but the complement clause can also influence the meaning of the main verb. In Cro., verbs of speaking can have infinitive complements only if they express will/intention. Therefore, the sentence (43) cannot be interpreted as indirect speech, but only as a promise.
(43)
Rekao je doći. said aux come ‘He promised to come.’
However, Slavic languages differ in the number of verbs which allow infinitive complements. For example, the Cze. sentence in which the infinitive clause is a complement to the finite form of the verb být ‘to be’:
(44)
Byli jsme lyžovat. been aux1PL ski ‘We were skiing.’
is not acceptable in Sln., where the verb biti ‘to be’ has to be replaced by iti ‘to go’:Footnote 35
(45)
a. *Bili smo smučat. b. Šli smo smučat. gone aux 1PL ski ‘We went skiing.’
The Bul. and Mac. languages have lost the infinitive. Instead they use da-clauses with the verb in present tense even when the subject of the complement clause is identical with the main subject. The replacement of the infinitive by the present da-clause is usually also possible in Ser.
15.3.2 Relative Clauses
A relative clause is a subordinate clause which delimits the reference of a noun or a noun phrase or adds information about a noun or a noun phrase whose reference is already established. The noun (phrase) the reference of which is being delimited is usually called the antecedent of the relative clause or the head noun (phrase).Footnote 36 The most common type of relative clauses in Slavic are externally headed, embedded, postnominal relatives;Footnote 37 this means that the head nominal is outside the relative clause, the relative clause constitutes a noun phrase with it, and (immediately) follows the head nominal. When the antecedent is a topic, the relative clause is interposed into the main clause (immediately after the antecedent). When the antecedent is a rheme, it is usually, together with the relative clause, postponed to the end of the sentence (Reference ŠvedovaŠvedova 1980: 515). Slavic languages have special relative pronouns which introduce postnominal relative clauses.Footnote 38 It is confirmed that they are pronouns, and not complementizers, by the fact that they are case-marked for the function which the relativized noun phrase has in the subordinate clause:
(46)
a. Rus. On vošel v komnatu, kotoraja byla soveršenno temna. He entered in roomACC whichNOM was perfectly dark ‘He entered the room, which was completely dark.’ b. Cze. Viděli jsme film, o kterém jsem ti seen auxPRES.1PL filmACC about whichLOC aux youDAT říkal. talked ‘We have seen the film, which I have talked to you about.’
Relative pronouns usually occur at the beginning of the relative clause. Exceptions to this rule are very rare.Footnote 39 The relative pronoun cannot be dropped, as for example in English (Reference Andrews and ShopenAndrews 2007: 222):
(47) The representative [I met ø] was polite.
As we have seen, it can be dropped only in the second clause when two relative clauses are coordinated, but it is then compensated by the resumptive personal pronoun. In Slavic languages, all grammatical functions listed on the Accessibility Hierarchy proposed by Reference Keenan and ComrieKeenan and Comrie (1977) can be relativized.Footnote 40 Externally headed relative clauses are syntactic islands, which means that no constituent can be moved out of them. Some Slavic languages have also an indeclinable (absolutive) relativizer, which can be identical in form with the interrogative pronoun meaning ‘what’ (čto/što/co) or can differ from it (Sln. ki).
(48)
a. Rus. Gde teper‘ èti ljudi, čto pisali ix? where now these people that wrote them ‘Where are now these people that wrote them?’ b. Cro. Pitanja što su ih postavili nisu questions that aux3.PL them posed are-not naročito važna. especially important ‘The questions they have posed are not especially important.’ c. Cze. Na mě čeká holka, co jsem ji měl for me waits girl that aux 1.SG her had nadevše rád. above-all gladly ‘The girl, who I loved more than anything, is waiting for me.’
That it is not a pronoun but a subordinating conjunction (complementizer) is also confirmed by the fact that in Cro., Cze., and Sln., when it is used, a personal pronoun occurs which resumes the grammatical function of the relativized noun phrase which is not the subject (Reference BrowneBrowne 1986, Reference KordićKordić 1995).Footnote 41 The explanation of the presence vs. absence of the resumptive pronoun is relatively complex.Footnote 42
Sometimes externally headed relative clauses appear outside of the matrix noun phrase (i.e. they don’t form a noun phrase together with the antecedent). Such relative clauses are called adjoined or extraposed. As in other languages, such clauses appear at the end or at the beginning of a sentence (Reference Andrews and ShopenAndrews 2007: 214). Extraposition of relative clauses to the end of the sentence, which is frequent in English, is not widespread in contemporary Slavic. In Cro., for example, it appears more freely with the pronominal relativizer što, when its antecedent is a neuter non-noun, such as a demonstrative or an indefinite pronoun or a quantifier (Reference BrowneBrowne 1986: 99):
(49)
Sve je dobro što se dobro svrši. all is well what refl well ends ‘All’s well that ends well.’
Extraposed relative clauses were more usual and more frequent in older stages of Slavic languages. In medieval Slavic, as in various other older Indo-European languages, left-adjoined relative clauses were also well attested (Reference Andrews and ShopenAndrews 2007: 217). As in other languages, extraposed (adjoined) relative clauses “always appear to be full, never reduced” (Reference Andrews and ShopenAndrews 2007: 217).
Slavic languages also allow so-called free relatives which lack a head nominal (antecedent):
(50)
a. Bul. Kojto ima uši, neka čue. who has ears let hears ‘He who has ears, let him hear.’ b. Rus. Čto oni govorili dal’še, ja ne slyšal. what they said next I not heard ‘What they said next, I did not hear.’
Free relatives are most often introduced by the interrogative pronouns corresponding to ‘who’ (kto, kdo, tko, etc.) for animate, and ‘what’ (čto, što, co, čo, etc.) for inanimate referents.Footnote 43 Less often, they are introduced by relative pronouns corresponding to ‘which’ (kotoryj, který, kateri, koji, etc.), which mostly introduce externally headed postnominal relative clauses. The indeclinable relativizer (complementizer) čto/što never introduces free relative clauses (Reference KordićKordić 1995: 214). Referents of these relativizers are typically indefinite. The reference of such relative clauses is somewhat vague and loosely linked to the context (Reference KordićKordić 1995: 308). Because of that, they often occur in proverbs. Free relatives are usually extraposed (adjoined), either preposed or postposed. As with other types of subordinate clauses, altering the order of main and subordinate clauses depends on semantic relations between the events that they describe, that is, it depends on whether a relative clause is topicalized and focused. Unlike English, Slavic languages cannot use prepositions before free relatives (Reference BrowneBrowne 1986: 109). They must always have an antecedent between the preposition and the relative clause:
(51)
a. English We came with what we had bought. b. Cro. Došli smo s *(onim) što smo kupili. came aux1PL with thatINSTR.SG what Aux1PL bought
Free relatives are semantically similar to correlative structures with pronouns and demonstratives in the position of the antecedent. Such antecedents are different from the nouns and noun phrases, since they have no lexical meaning. They get their meaning from relative clauses. Therefore, they are often called formal antecedents. Syntactically, such clauses are externally headed relatives with attributive function, but semantically they are, like free relatives, substantival in nature. Such relative clauses do not have to be adjacent to their antecedents. They can also be extraposed to the end or preposed to the beginning of the sentence. It is interesting that, when the relative clause follows an antecedent which is a demonstrative pronoun, the antecedent has to be a pronoun indicating distant reference:
(52)
a. Cro. Onaj dobro prođe, tko rano urani. that well fares who early rises-early ‘He does well, who gets up early.’ b. Rus. To, čto proizošlo pozže, ostalos‘ neizvestnym. that what happened later remained unknown ‘It remained unknown, what happened later.’
On the other hand, when a relative clause precedes an antecedent expressed as a demonstrative, the latter has to be a pronoun indicating medial reference (in the Cro. three-way system: distal on-, medial t-, proximal ov-) or medial/proximal reference (in the Rus. two-way system: distal t- vs. medial, proximal, and unmarked èt-).
(53)
a. Cro. Tko rano urani, taj dobro prođe. who early rises-early this well fares ‘Who gets up early, does well.’ b. Rus. Čto proizošlo pozže, èto ostalos’ neizvestnym. what happened later this remained unknown ‘What happened later, remained unknown.’
So-called internally headed relative clauses, which have the head noun within the relative clause itself, superficially resemble free relatives, since they have no antecedent in the main clause. Such relative clauses are not frequent in modern languages. Here is one example from Cro.:
(54)
Koji trgovci imaju dobru robu dobro i posluju. which traders have good merchandise well also do-business ‘Traders who have good merchandise earn a good profit.’
Such sentences do not belong to the modern standard language. They are stylistically marked and judged by speakers as archaic. They were more frequent in older stages of Slavic languages.
Probably even less common in modern languages are the so-called double-headed relative clauses, in which the external head is matched by an identical or co-referent phrase preceded by the relative modifier within the relative clause. Reference CinqueCinque (2020: 95, fn. 125) cites one example from Ser.:Footnote 44
(55)
roman o ratu, koje delo prevodim novel about war which work translatePRES.1SG ‘a novel about war, which work I am translating’
Such examples are judged by speakers as stylistically marked and archaic. They were more frequent in older stages of Slavic languages.
Externally headed relative clauses can also be ‘reduced’. Reduced relative clauses are less like full clauses. They have reduced tense-mood marking, and stronger restrictions on the function of a relativized noun phrase (Reference Andrews and ShopenAndrews 2007: 211). As in many other languages, a relativized noun phrase in Slavic must be the subject, and the predicate has features of adjectival/participial morphology. If the verb in a subordinate (relative) clause has a passive form, such a relative clause can in all Slavic languages be replaced by the construction with the passive verbal adjective (passive past participle), as shown by the following Cze. and Cro. examples:
(56)
a. Cze. Na pohlednici je budova divadla postaveného před 100 lety. b. Cro. Na razglednici je zgrada kazališta izgrađenog on postcard is building theaterGEN.SG built prije 100 godina. before 100 years ‘On the picture postcard is a theater (building) built 100 years ago.’
If the subordinate verb is in an active form, the relative clause can in some Slavic languages be replaced by the construction with an active verbal adjective (active participle), for example in the Cze. literary language.Footnote 45
(57)
a. Cze. Jeli jsme autem jedoucím maximálně drove auxPRES.1PL carINSTR drivingINSTR maximally 80 km za hodinu. 80 km per hour b. Cro. *?Putovali smo autom vozećim maksimalno traveled auxPRES.1PL carINSTR drivingINSTR maximally 80 km na sat. 80 km per hour ‘We traveled in a car going maximally 80 km per hour.’
As shown by the example (57b), this is not possible in Cro., where active participles have lost declension, and can appear only in the adverbial form.Footnote 46 However, in earlier periods in all Slavic languages, participles could also be congruent with the head noun.Footnote 47
15.3.3 Adverbial Clauses
Dependent clauses that function as an adverbial (i.e. that provide information on the circumstances of events described in the main clauses) are called adverbial clauses. In other words, they provide background information for the (foreground) information given in the main clause. Adverbial clauses modify verb phrases or entire clauses. They are typically adjuncts, and in some sense ‘less subordinate’ then the complement and relative clauses (Reference Thompson, Longacre, Hwang and ShopenThompson et al. 2007: 238), which are embedded into the main clause as arguments of the matrix predicate or into the noun phrase as a modifier of the head noun. We can say that they “are subordinate clauses in the sense that they depend for their occurrence on another, the main, clause” (Reference Kortmann, Smelser and BaltesKortmann 2001: 1). Just like adverbs, they are traditionally divided into groups according to the semantic roles they play. Adverbial clauses in Slavic languages, as in most other languages, can formally be divided into two larger groups: (1) those that can be substituted by a single word and (2) those that cannot be substituted by a single word (Reference Thompson, Longacre, Hwang and ShopenThompson et al. 2007: 243). In the first group are time, place, and manner clauses. In addition to the fact that they can be substituted by a single word (time, place, or manner adverbs), they usually have the form of relative clauses. Therefore, they are sometimes called relative adverbial clauses. They are most often introduced by relative (pronominal) adverbs meaning ‘when’, ‘where’ and ‘as’:Footnote 48
(58)
They can be paraphrased with a relative clause with a generic, desemanticized noun, meaning ‘time/moment’, ‘place’ or ‘way/manner’, as in the following Slk. example:
(59)
Čakal na moment, kedy sa naňho pozrie. waitedM.SG on moment when self at-him looks ‘He waited for the moment when he would look at him.’
or with a correlative clause with a time, place or way/manner adverb meaning ‘then’, ‘there’, ‘so, in the way’ as an antecedent:Footnote 49
(60)
a. Cro. Idem tamo gdje je sve po mom. goPRES.1SG there where is everything according mineLOC. ‘I am going there, where everything is my way.’ b. Pol. Zachariasz kochal Stefana tak, jak kocha się Człowieka. Zacharias loved Stefan so as loves self man ‘Zacharias loved Stefan so, as one loves a man.’
The second group consists of: purpose, result, reason, conditional, concessive, and participial (absolute) clauses. They cannot be replaced by a single word, because languages, in general, do not have monomorphemic adverbs expressing these concepts (Reference Thompson, Longacre, Hwang and ShopenThompson et al. 2007: 243). In distinction from clauses of the first group, in which events described in the main and the subordinate clause have something in common (time, place, or manner), these clauses express two events that do not have anything in common, but one of which modifies the other. As in other European languages, many subordinators in Slavic languages are polysemous. So, for example, South Slavic subordinator da can introduce complement, purpose, result, and conditional clauses. The situation is similar with West Slavic že (Pol. że) and aby, as well as East Slavic (Rus.) čto and čtoby. Which reading they receive depends on a complex interaction between them and the meaning of the main verb, the form of the subordinate verb, and the intonation structure. Sometimes one can determine the type of the clause only from the context. For example, the Cro. sentence
(61)
Kristijan piše da bi kupio kuću. Kristijan writes that auxCOND.3SG buy houseACC
has two interpretations. It can be interpreted either as a complement clause ‘Kristijan writes that he would (like to) buy a house’, or as a purpose clause ‘Kristijan writes [in order to buy a house/so that he can buy a house]’. The correct interpretation can be inferred only from the context. Connectives in adverbial clauses are often complex. They can be composed of complementizers, prepositions, adverbs, particles, prepositional phrases, etc. The relation between those elements also determines the interpretation of the sentence. So, for example, in Sln. reason sentences can be introduced by the complex connective zaradi tega ker,
(62)
Prodam lego figurice zaradi tega sellPRES.1SG lego figurines because-of thatGEN.SG ker sem jih prerasel. because aux them outgrown ‘I will sell my lego figurines because I have outgrown them.’
in Mac. concessive sentences can be introduced by the combination duri i da,
(63)
Duri i da ne te pozdravi, nemoj da se lutiš. even and that not youACC salute don’t that self angerPRES.2SG ‘Even if he doesn’t salute you, don’t be angry.’
etc. As in many other languages, ‘when’ clauses can have the function of conditionals. They most often occur in unreal conditionals, in combination with the conditional (subjunctive) mood,Footnote 50 but sometimes they can also be found in real conditionals, for example in Slk.:
(64)
Ked’ bude pršat’, skočíme na kávu. When will rain jumpPRES.1PL on coffee ‘If it rains, we will drop in for coffee.’
Slavic languages do not have a special subordinator for a negative condition, like English unless. They express negative conditions by the combination of ‘if’ and negation.Footnote 51
Adverbial clauses can also have a reduced, non-finite form. For example, purpose clauses can sometimes be replaced by infinitive structures. The distribution of infinitives and ‘that’-clauses depends on the meaning of the main verb as well as on the relation between the subordinate and the main subject. Although infinitive constructions are more common when the subject of the main and subordinate clause is the same, they are also possible when the subject of the infinitive is different from the main clause subject, as shown by the Cro. example in which the subject of the infinitive is identical with the main clause object:
(65)
Roditelji su ga poslali kupiti kruh. Parents aux him sent buy bread ‘The parents have sent him to buy bread.’
In OCS., the oldest Slavic literary language, they could also occur with a complementizer:Footnote 52
(66)
sъvětъ sъtvorišę vsi ar’hierei i star’ci ljudьsci counsel made all chief-priests and elders people’s na i(su)sa ěko ubiti i. on Jesus that kill him ‘all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death’ (Mt 27,1)
In some Slavic languages, other types of adverbial clauses can also be replaced by infinitives. For example, Rus. conditional clauses introduced by the subordinator esli can sometimes have the form of an infinitive structure:Footnote 53
(67)
Esli vstat‘ poran‘še, možno uspet‘. if get up early possible succeed ‘If you get up early, it is possible to make it (in time).’
Infinitive adverbial clauses are in modern languages more restricted than in older stages. In older periods, Slavic languages had a special dative with infinitive construction,
(68)
isplъnišę sę dьnьe roditi ei accomplished self days deliver herDAT ‘the days were completed for her to give birth’ (Luke 2,6)
which could have not only purpose and result meaning, but sometimes also a temporal meaning,Footnote 54 as in the Croatian Church Slavonic (CCS) example:
(69)
idêhu i ne obraĉahu se egda hoditi imь went3PL and not turned3PL self when go theyDAT ‘they went; and they turned not when they went’ (Ez 1,12)
In contemporary Slavic languages, the background information can also be expressed by participial constructions with the indeclinable form of the participle (verbal adverb) as a predicate. Here again, imperfective verbs are replaced by the active present participle,Footnote 55 and perfective verbs by the active past participle:Footnote 56
(70)
a. Pol. Podróżując po świecie poznałem wielu traveling around world met1SG many ciekawych ludzi. interesting people ‘While traveling around the world, I met many interesting people.’ b. Rus. Vernuvšis‘ domoj, on obnaružil svoju ženu returning home he found poss.refl wife v posteli s sosedom. in bed with neighbor ‘Having returned home, he found his wife in bed with a neighbor.’
In earlier periods, Slavic languages also had different absolute constructions.Footnote 57 The most typical was the dative absolute, a construction in which both the subject and the participle were in the dative case, as shown in the following OCS example:
(71)
i vъlězъšema ima vъ korabь, prěsta větrъ. and enteringDAT.DU theyDAT.DU in boat stopped wind ‘And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down.’ (Mt 14,32).
The dative absolute most often had a temporal meaning, but it could also have other types of adverbial meaning: causal, concessive, conditional, and consecutive (result) meaning (Reference VečerkaVečerka 1996: 187).
The order of the main and the adverbial clause depends more on the semantic relations between them, rather than on their syntactic structure. However, sentence-initial and sentence-final adverbial clauses have different discourse functions. Preposed adverbial clauses have usually a scene-setting function. They connect the sentence with a preceding discourse, and prepare the background for the event expressed in the main clause. On the other hand, the function of the postposed adverbial clauses is more local. Their scope is restricted to the preceding main clause (Reference Kortmann, Smelser and BaltesKortmann 2001, Reference Cristofaro, Herlin, Kalliokoski and VisapääCristofaro 2014: 82, 85).
16.1 Introduction
The topic of Slavic numerals and quantity expressions – which are lumped together here as Quantifiers (Q), so that phrases containing them are QPs – is an old but perennial one. In this survey the Russian phenomena are first examined, and then compared to other Slavic languages.
The literature on Slavic numerals is overwhelming. Scholars continue to draw on Suprun’s classic 1959 book, whose observations inspired much subsequent seminal work, including Pesetsky’s influential Reference Neidle1982 dissertation and Reference CorbettCorbett’s 1978 discovery of the ‘numeral squish’ in Slavic (and beyond). Reference BabbyBabby (1987) further helped to bring the problem of Russian QPs to the attention of general linguists; Babby’s and Pesetsky’s ideas are revisited from the perspective of other Slavic languages in Reference FranksFranks (1994, Reference Franks1995, Reference Franks2002, Reference Franks, Franks, Chidambaram, Joseph and Krapova2018). The quirks of Slavic numerals also serve as much of the empirical basis for Reference Ionin and MatushanskyIonin & Matushansky (2018).
Historically,Footnote 1 the numbers ‘one’ through ‘four’ were syntactically adjectival (albeit not in terms of their morphology) and agreed with the modified noun, whereas ‘five’ and above were formally nouns and hence took adnominal genitives.Footnote 2 The situation in the modern Slavic languages evolved by virtue of the breakdown of this system. The result is that the morphological form of a numeral can either depend on the noun it quantifies (agreement) or the numeral can itself impose some form on that noun (government). Modifiers of that noun were then assimilated to a variety of patterns. In Slavic QPs we thus encounter a morass of morphological complexity, exacerbated by a puzzling variation across the different languages.
16.2 Russian (East Slavic)
Russian is examined in more depth, as this language is taken as a point of departure for the rest of the chapter.
16.2.1 Two Core Contrasts
The Russian facts are as follows: numerals above odin ‘one’ (except for compound numerals ending in forms of odin) assign some form of genitive to the nominal material following them; pjat‘ ‘five’ and above assign the genitive plural;Footnote 3 and the ‘paucal’ numerals oba/obe ‘bothm-n/f’, dva/dve ‘twom-n/f’, tri ‘three’, and četyre ‘four’ (as well as compound numerals ending in dva/dve, tri, and četyre) assign a form which is generally (but not always) identical to the genitive singular. Some representative examples are given in (1):
(1)
a. Vanja s‘‘el (dvadcat‘) odnu kartošku. Vanja ate twenty oneacc potatoacc.sg ‘Vanja ate (twenty) one potato(es).’ b. Vanja s‘‘el (dvadcat‘) tri kartoški. Vanja ate twenty three potatogen.sg ‘Vanja ate (twenty) three potatoes.’ c. Vanja s‘‘el (dvadcat‘) pjat‘ kartošek. Vanja ate twenty five potatoesgen.pl ‘Vanja ate (twenty) five potatoes.’
The verb s‘‘est’ ‘to eat’ assigns accusative to its direct object, which is realized both on odnu ‘one’ and kartošku ‘potato’ in (1a), but in (1b), (1c) is blocked from reaching the noun by the genitive-assigning numerals tri ‘three’ and pjat‘ ‘five’.Footnote 4 Following Reference BabbyBabby (1987), this pattern can be called ‘heterogeneous’, since two distinct cases are realized within a single nominal domain.
Strikingly, the heterogeneous pattern is not exhibited in oblique positions. Instead, the appropriate case permeates throughout the numeral phrase:
(2)
a. Vanja vladeet odnim inostrannym jazykom. Vanja possesses oneinst foreigninst.sg languageinst.sg ‘Vanja speaks one foreign language.’ b. Vanja vladeet tremja inostrannymi jazykami. Vanja possesses threeinst foreigninst.pl languagesinst.pl ‘Vanja speaks three foreign languages.’ c. Vanja vladeet pjat‘ju inostrannymi jazykami. Vanja possesses fiveinst foreigninst.pl languagesinst.pl ‘Vanja speaks five foreign languages.’
The verb vladet‘ ‘to possess’ governs the instrumental. Crucially, this lexically specified case requirement cannot be overridden by the genitive assigned by the numerals in (2b), (2c). Again adopting Babby’s terminology, this pattern can be called ‘homogeneous’, since the same case is realized throughout the nominal domain. The contrast between (1) and (2) presents a fundamental puzzle for any analysis of case assignment in quantified phrases in Slavic.
A second puzzle concerns agreement with a QP when it is the subject. The two possibilities are that the verb can be plural or neuter:
(3)
Pjat‘ mašin pod‘‘exali/pod‘‘exalo k vokzalu. five carsgen drove-uppl/drove-upn to station
Individuation and referentiality tend to impose plural agreement (five distinct car-arrival events), whereas neuter is usually favored when the subject has a group (one event) or existential interpretation.Footnote 5
Thus only plural is available in certain contexts which call for specific reference:
(4)
Pjat‘ ženščin smotreli/*smotrelo na sebja v zerkalo. five womengen lookedpl/lookedn at self in mirror
Plural is similarly expected in contexts which call for individuation:
(5)
Pjat‘ ženščin rasstalis‘/*rasstalos‘ na mostu. five womengen dispersedpl/dispersedn on bridge
And, as will be important when compared with Polish, the plural is also required if the numeral is preceded by a plural modifier:
(6)
Èti/Vse pjat‘ butylok stojali/*stojalo na stole. thesenom/allnom five bottlesgen stoodpl/stoodn on table
On the other hand, only neuter is available in the ‘approximative inversion’ construction in which the numeral precedes the noun:
(7)
V ètom restorane obedalo/*obedali čelovek desjat‘.Footnote 6 in this restaurant dinedn/dinedpl peoplegen ten ‘There were approximately ten people dining in this restaurant.’
As expected, any attempt to impose conflicting requirements leads to ineffability:
(8)
*Ženščin pjat‘ smotreli/smotrelo na sebja v zerkalo. womengen five lookedpl/lookedn at self in mirror
The impossibility of resolving (8) implies that the inversion which gives rise to an approximative interpretation in (7) is incompatible with the referentiality imposed by the reflexive in (4).
16.2.2 Two Structures
A traditional way of understanding the alternatives in Section 16.2.1 is that these reflect structural differences. Going back to Reference PesetskyPesetsky (1982) is the idea that plural agreement in (3) implies that the N(oun) is the head, whereas the neuter option reflects non-agreement (default) and implies that the Q is:
(9)
[NP Q Ngen] b. [QP Q Ngen]
If, furthermore, QPs are caseless, then the homogeneous pattern in (2) must require the NP option, whereas the impossibility of agreement in (7) means approximative inversion requires the QP one. Additional consequences are that the reflexive in (4) needs a (referential) NP subject, as does the individuating predicate in (5).
This account is updated in Reference FranksFranks (1994, Reference Franks1995) to reflect newer phrase-structure models, in particular, the assumptions of X-bar syntax that every head projects a phrase and the proposal that nominal expressions can be maximally D(eterminer)Ps:
(10)
[DP D [QP Q [NPgen]]] b. [QP Q [NPgen]]
In both structures the numeral in QP assigns genitive case to its complement NP, and QP can (but need not) be itself contained within a DP. This fundamental contrast raises further questions put aside here, such as the category of the numeral and whether or not it is the head of QP.Footnote 7
16.2.3 Paucals and Modifiers
Across Slavic, the greatest complexity is seen in the behavior of the lower numerals, which were syntactically adjectival, because the nouns they modified could be singular (‘one’), dual (‘two’, ‘both’), or plural (‘three’, ‘four’). With the paucals (‘two’ through ‘four’), in particular, the confusion arises from reconciling the form of the noun and its modifiers with the possible reanalysis of the numeral as a governer, complicated by concomitant changes, such as loss of the dual or collapse of the case system, as well as syncretism (i.e. formal identity between different cases/numbers, as in BCMS žene ‘women’ nom.pl = acc.pl) and the pressure to assimilate to the ‘five’-and-above pattern. In Russian in the oblique cases, as seen in (2b), they decline and the entire phrase bears the appropriate (homogeneous) form, just like ‘five’ and above. The complexities arise in nominative and accusative contexts, since modifiers after paucals are canonically genitive plural (as they are after ‘five’ and above) but under certain circumstances nominative-accusative plural is preferred:
(11)
a. ?tri vkusnyx kartoški three tastygen.pl potatoesgen.sg b. tri vkusnye kartoški three tastynom-acc.pl potatoesnom-acc.pl
The ambiguity of the form kartoški facilitates the possibility of vkusnye in (11b), which as a subject would be unequivocally nominative hence induce an agreeing plural predicate (i.e. the NP/DP structure). When (as with masculines) the noun’s genitive singular does not coincide with its nominative plural, the adjective is usually the expected genitive plural,Footnote 8 although when the difference is solely a matter of stress both forms are acceptable:
(12)
a. tri glupyx/*glupye brata three stupidgen.pl/stupidnom-acc.pl brothergen.sg b. tri krasivyx/krasivye sestrý/*sëstry three beautifulgen.pl/beautifulnom-acc.pl sistersgen.sg/sistersnom-acc.pl
Glossing the form of the noun after paucal numbers is already a matter of analysis, as it is unclear whether this is a special type of (genitive) case or (plural) number, hence the uncertainty about how adjectives should agree. The role of syncretism is moreover diminished by the impossibility of using the nominative-accusative plural adjective with a-declension nouns referring to men (e.g. dva dobryx/*dobrye mužčiny ‘two goodgen.pl/nom.pl mengen.sg-nom.pl’),Footnote 9 as well as with neuters, despite the fact that -a serves as both the genitive singular and nominative-accusative ending. It thus seems like the choice of adjectival form primarily depends on gender.
The paucal construction also reveals an interesting fact about the interaction between animacy and approximative inversion, where the latter is argued to be a property of bare (i.e. maximal) QPs. Paucal phrases normally reflect animacy by appearing in the genitive in accusative contexts but, for some speakers, need not. Thus either homogeneous četyrëx soldat ‘fourgen soldiersgen.pl’ or heterogeneous četyre soldata ‘four soldiersgen.sg’ are possible in (13):
(13)
Ja videl [DP četyrëx soldat] / %[QP četyre soldata]. I saw fourgen soldiersgen.pl four soldiersgen.sg
These variants correlate with whether the expression is a DP or QP, as confirmed by the fact that only the referential DP variant četyrëx soldat can antecede a relative clause:
(14)
… [DP četyrëx soldat] / *[QP četyre soldata], fourgen soldiersgen.pl four soldiersgen.sg kotorye šli domoj. whonom.pl were-going home
Now consider (15), where approximative inversion is incompatible with the DP version:
(15)
Ja videl [QP soldata četyre]/*[DP soldat četyrëx]. I saw soldiersgen.sg four soldiersgen.pl fourgen ‘I saw about four soldiers.’
It should finally be noted that some nouns occur after paucals in a form that is distinct from the genitive singular. The correlation of form with gender is corroborated by the fact that female surnames in -ov or -in, which belong to the pronominal declension in that they are adjectival but decline like nouns in the nominative-accusative, occur only in that form after paucals, and modifiers must also agree:
(16)
dve umnye/*umnyx Puškiny/*Puškinoj twof smartnom.pl/smartgen.pl (female) Pushkinsnom.pl/Pushkinsgen.sg
There are also five words, all monosyllabic masculines, which employ special end-stressed forms after paucal numerals (the regular genitive is stem-stressed). These are časá ‘hour’, šagá ‘step’, šará ‘ball’, rjadá ‘row’, and sledá ‘track, trace’, but usage varies (časá is the most robust) and end-stress is suppressed when the noun is not linearly adjacent to the numeral,Footnote 10 as in the following set from Reference Mel‘čukMel‘čuk (1985: 432–434):
(17)
a. dva šagá/*šága two steppauc/stepgen.sg b. dva [širokix *šagá/šága] two broad gen.pl steppauc/stepgen.sg c. [dva s polovinoj] *šagá/šága two with half steppauc/stepgen.sg
It is worth pointing out that these words are all end-stressed in the plural, suggesting that although the desinence is that of the (genitive) singular, the stress in the paucal is coopted from the plural.
Space constraints preclude examination of the numeral systems of the other East Slavic languages, although relevant properties are generally intermediate between those of Russian and West Slavic Polish, in which as noted in Section 16.3.3, paucal numerals never impose a special ‘adpaucal’ form. This is, however, not true of Ukrainian and Belarusian. As Reference Ionin and MatushanskyIonin & Matushansky (2018: 183) citing Reference Mel‘čukMel‘čuk (1985: 436) observe, in Ukrainian many masculine nouns appear in a unique form – the nominative-accusative plural ending combined with the genitive singular stress:
(18)
a. dva (čornyx) týny two blackgen.pl fencespauc b. tri vórohi three enemiespauc
The forms týny and vórohi are distinct, in that they are segmentally like the nominative plural (tyný, vorohí) but have stem-stress (genitive singulars are týnu, vóroha). Also, for some nouns with stem changes the adpaucal form is the regular genitive singular rather than the expected plural:
(19)
a. dva hromadjanyna/*hromadjany twom citizengen.sg/citizensnom.pl b. dvif divčyny/*divčata two girlgen.sg/girlsnom.pl c. dvan imeni/*imena two namegen.sg/namesnom.pl
Reference AkinerAkiner (1983) observes that Belarusian neuter nouns exhibit a similar mix:
(20)
a. dva/try/čatyry siałý two/three/four villagespauc b. dva/try/čatyry piśmý two/three/four letterspauc
The forms siałý and piśmý are distinct, in that they have the nominative plural ending (sióły, píśmy) but the end-stress of the singular (genitive singulars are siałá, piśmá).Footnote 11 Comparing these facts to Russian, one might conclude that adpaucal forms combine properties of both singular (desinence for Russian, prosody for Ukrainian and Belarusian) and plural (prosody for Russian, desinence for Ukrainian and Belarusian). Note lastly that these two languages also share with Russian the approximative inversion construction,Footnote 12 although in Ukrainian (but not Belarusian), inverting the noun with the numeral causes it to appear in the genitive plural even with paucals. The following minimal pair is from Reference FranksFranks (1995: 173), where (21b) means ‘approximately two dollars’:
(21)
a. dva dolary two dollarsnom.pl b. dolariv dva dollarsgen.pl two
16.2.4 Special Adnumerative Forms
As in many languages, some Russian nouns have special forms that occur after quantity expressions, such as let ‘years’.Footnote 13 There is also the suppletive form čelovek ‘people’, which looks idiosyncratic but actually has a zero-ending making it similar to kilogramm (which similarly can only occur in QPs, albeit alongside regular kilogrammov), as well as to the few other masculines which have a genitive plural identical to their nominative singular, for example soldat as in (13)–(15).
(22)
a. (èti) sem‘ čelovek/*ljudej thesenom.pl seven peoplecf/peoplegen.pl b. opisanie (ètix) (semi) *čelovek/ljudej description thesegen.pl sevengen peoplecf/peoplegen.pl
Note that the impossibility of adnumerative čelovek in (22b) even after semi shows that its genitive form here depends not on the numeral but rather is a function of the entire DP’s adnominal status.
Ukrainian and Belarusian lack most special genitive plurals, with expected p‘‘at‘ rokiv, pjac‘ hadoŭ ‘five years’ and p‘‘at‘ kilohramiv, pjac‘ kilahramaŭ ‘five kilos’, respectively, but do have p‘‘at‘ čolovik, pjac‘ čalavek ‘five people’ (alongside less colloquial p‘‘at‘ ljudej, pjac‘ ljudzej); regular p‘‘at‘ čolovikiv, pjac‘ čalavekaŭ exist but mean ‘five men’.
16.2.5 Other Quantity Expressions
Diverse elements could be classified as non-numeric quantity expressions. Put aside here are (agreeing) logical Qs of the každyj ‘each’, ves‘/vsë ‘all, every’ type, as well as such numeric exotica as ‘zero’, fractions, collectives, and compound numerals, which are nicely catalogued for Russian (and, to a far lesser extent, Polish) by Reference Ionin and MatushanskyIonin & Matushansky (2018). The concentration is instead on those expressions which evoke the genitive as numerals do. Most obvious are Qs like mnogo ‘many’ and neskol‘ko ‘several’:
(23)
a. mnogo butylok many bottlesgen.pl b. neskol‘ko butylok several bottlesgen.pl
Mnogo (likewise nemnogo ‘(a) few’) has an adjectival variant (mnogie butylki ‘manynom.pl bottlesnom.pl’), whereas neskol‘ko (likewise skol‘ko ‘how many’) does not (*neskol‘kie). These items also differ with respect to their ability to take regular genitive plural complements:
(24)
a. mnogo čelovek/ljudej many peoplecf/peoplegen.pl b. neskol‘ko čelovek/*ljudej several peoplecf/peoplegen.pl
The more precise cardinality of ‘several’ apparently makes it more like a true number. This curious lexical contrast will also be demonstrated for Bulgarian.
One might also include more noun-like expressions such as para ‘(a) couple’, djužina ‘(a) dozen’, polovina ‘half’, bol‘šinstvo ‘(the) majority’, or rjad ‘(a) row’. Although these should generally be analyzed as nouns taking the adnominal genitive, sometimes pre-modifiers and predicates do not always agree as expected. For some lexical items there is a clear choice between nominal or numeral status, as can be seen in the following for para, cited by Reference Ionin and MatushanskyIonin & Matushansky (2018: 349):
(25)
a. % Prišlo para posylok. arrivedn couple packagesgen.pl b. èti para časov thesenom.pl couple hoursgen.pl
Even though para ‘pair’ is a feminine noun, in the meaning ‘couple’ it can behave like a Q, so that some speakers allow it to occur with a neuter predicate as in (25a),Footnote 14 just like pjat‘ in (3), or a plural demonstrative as in (25b), just like (6). Moreover, as noted in Reference FranksFranks (1995: 176), an accusative-like (but arguably caseless) form is also acceptable:
(26)
Paru čelovek prišlo/*prišli. couple peoplecf arrivedn/arrivedpl
The count form here provides further evidence that paru in this usage is a Q; as noted below, the use of accusative as the default (or ‘frozen’) form is more robust in other Slavic languages.
The prefixal element pol- ‘half’ and its derivative poltora/poltory ‘one-and-a-halfm-n/f’ also exhibit mixed behavior. Thus both nominative and genitive plural are possible:
(27)
èti/ètix polčasá/*polčása thesenom.pl/thesegen.pl half-hourpauc/half-hourgen.sg
Note that here only the special end-stressed paucal form is possible (similarly, poltora časá/*čása ‘one-and-a-half hours’), although according to Reference Mel‘čukMel‘čuk (1985: 323–324) the other nouns in this class accept both.
Finally, and of perhaps more theoretical interest, are NPs with quantificational import which appear in the genitive despite the absence of any overt Q. These are expressions which have a clear partitive or large quantity interpretation:
(28)
a. Ja nalil emu moloka. Inom pouredm himdat milkgen.sg ‘I poured him some milk.’ b. Urokov zadajut. assignmentsgen.pl give3.pl ‘They sure give a lot of assignments.’
The idea, building on footnote 7, is that these genitive NPs are complements to a null Q, with a (silent) quantificational operator in the specifier of QP, that is, [QP OPquant [Q ø]].Footnote 15 As discussed in Reference FranksFranks (1995: §5.3.1), the value of this operator must be contextually determined (under precise structural conditions). This concludes the discussion of Russian.
16.3 Polish (West Slavic)
The focus in this section is on how Polish diverges from Russian.Footnote 16
16.3.1 A Similarity with Russian
West Slavic Polish resembles Russian in that pięć ‘five’ and above assign the genitive plural, but that this is overridden in oblique contexts:
(29)
a. Pięć kobiet poszło/*poszły do domu. five womengen.pl wentn/wentpl to home b. Widziałem pięć kobiet. saw1sg.m five womengen.pl c. Opiekowałam się pięcioma kobietami. took-care-of1sg.f refl fiveinst womeninst.pl
Polish thus displays the same kind of heterogeneous vs. homogeneous pattern as Russian. Despite this similarity, there are a host of intriguing differences which are laid out in the next two subsections.
16.3.2 Some Differences: ‘Five’ and Above
Unlike Russian, plural agreement is impossible in (29a).Footnote 17 In surprising contrast to Russian (6), this is also true even when the demonstrative appears in its nominative-accusative form:
(30)
Tych/te pięć kobiet poszło/*poszły do domu. thesegen.pl/thesenom-acc.pl five womengen.pl wentn/wentpl to home
This fact is problematic for the assumption that te in (30) is nominative but is consistent with the idea that it is actually accusative, since, across Slavic, agreement is only with nominative. Further corroboration for this idea can be seen in the form of virile (i.e. masculine human) subjects, since, in Polish, accusative virile plurals (and masculine animate singulars) are genitive in form:
(31)
Tych/*ci pięciu studentów przyszło. theseacc-gen.pl/thesenom.pl.vir fiveacc-gen studentsacc-gen.pl arrivedn
Consequently, the only consistent treatment of quantified subjects in Polish is for them to be analyzed as accusative, not nominative. This explains: (i) why the verb cannot agree with accusative te in (30), (ii) why the numeral must be accusative pięciu in (31), and (iii) why te is possible in (30) but only tych is in (31) – both are accusative. Following Reference FranksFranks (1994, Reference Franks1995), one can state this matter of variation as follows:
(32)
a. QPs can only occur in accusative DPs in Polish. b. QPs can only occur in accusative or nominative DPs in Russian.
That is, the contexts in which the numeral governs the genitive (Babby’s heterogeneous pattern) vary among the languages, Polish being more restrictive than Russian.
Unlike Russian, in which modifiers of the nominal expression that precede the numeral must be nominative (i.e. èti/*ètix pjat‘ ženščin if (30) were Russian),Footnote 18 in Polish there are two options, although neither is in fact nominative. Instead, accusative te or genitive tych are both viable in (30), as if its case could be determined either externally or internally to the QP. (In masculine animate (31) the two alternatives give the same result, (external) accusative being identical to (internal) genitive.) Reference SwanSwan (2002: 198) similarly provides three ways of expressing ‘my five sisters’, where case glosses reflect (32a):
(33)
a. moje/moich pięć sióstr myacc.pl/mygen.pl five sistersgen.pl b. pięć moich sióstr five mygen.pl sistersgen.pl
A reasonable account, adapting Reference CorbettCorbett (1979) and assuming the structure in (10a), is that the adjective originates inside the NP complement to Q, as in (33b), which gives only genitive. If in (33a) it moves to outside QP, one can then handle the variation by letting case assignment to NP occur before (genitive) or after (accusative) the adjective vacates NP.Footnote 19 Interestingly, predicate adjectives, which in Polish agree with their antecedents, exhibit both options as well, and the choice seems to vary independently of the form of the prequantifier:
(34)
[DP:acc Tych/te pięć [NP:gen kobiet]] było miłych/miłe. thesegen.pl/theseacc.pl five womengen.pl weren nicegen.pl/niceacc.pl
One way to understand this would be to let the predicate adjective either agree with the NP (genitive) or with the DP (accusative). Consequently, adjectives predicated of masculine animate quantified subjects, like prequantifiers, can only be genitive in form:
(35)
Tych pięciu studentów było miłych. theseacc-gen.pl fiveacc-gen studentsgen.pl weren niceacc-gen.pl
Another striking difference between Polish and Russian (1a) is that in the former compound numerals ending in ‘one’ are assimilated to the ‘five’ and above class:
(36)
a. Trzydzieści (jeden/*jedna) dziewczyn czekało/*czekała. thirtynom-acc onem/onef girlsgen.pl waitedn/ waitedf b. Trzydziestu (jeden) chłopców czekało/*czekał. thirtyacc-gen onem boysgen.pl waitedn/ waitedm
These take genitive plural nouns, so that ‘thirty-one’ works just like ‘thirty’ and not like ‘one’ (e.g. jedna dziewczyna czekała ‘onef girl waitedf’). Moreover, the form of jeden ‘one’ is, as (36a) shows, frozen as such (although it looks like the masculine), regardless of the gender of the noun.
16.3.3 Some Differences: ‘Two’ through ‘Four’
Unlike in Russian, where the homogeneous pattern only occurs in oblique contexts, the paucal numerals in Polish also are agreeing modifiers. When they are subjects they occur with nominative plural nouns and everything shows appropriate agreement:
(37)
a. Tu są/były (te) dwie kobiety. here are/werepl thesenom.pl twof womennom.pl b. Tu są/byli (ci) dwaj studenci. here are/werevir thesenom.pl.vir twovir studentsnom.pl.vir
It should be noted that, alongside virile agreeing forms such as dwaj in (37b) – dwa is the non-virile (and neuter) ‘two’ – one can also use what looks like the genitive:
(38)
Tu jest/było (tych) dwóch studentów. here is/wasn thesegen.pl twogen studentsgen.pl
In this case the entire numeral phrase is oblique, and hence the verb must be default (neuter) rather than agreeing (and, as shown in (40b), predicate adjectives are similarly oblique). However, technically these are all really accusative, since that is the form in incontrovertibly accusative contexts independently of numerals:
(39)
Ja widzę tych (dwóch/pięciu) studentów. I see1sg theseacc-gen.pl twoacc-gen/fiveacc-gen studentsacc-gen.pl
There are thus two possibilities available for virile paucal phrases (but not elsewhere), a nominative one and a (genitive-like) accusative one:
(40)
a. Ci dwaj studenci byli mili. thesenom.pl.vir two studentsnom.pl werevir nicenom.pl.vir b. Tych dwóch studentów było miłych. theseacc-gen.pl twoacc studentsacc-gen.pl weren niceacc-gen.pl
Finally, although with non-virile nouns compound numerals ending in paucals behave like simplex ones, with viriles only the variant based on (40b) is acceptable:
(41)
a. (Dwadzieścia) trzy koty przyszły. twentynom threenom catsnom.pl arrivedpl b. (Dwudziestu) trzech studentów przyszło. twentyacc-gen threeacc-gen studentsacc-gen.pl arrivedn
In sum, unlike in Russian, the paucal numerals are all homogeneous in behavior in Polish, although this is obscured by the interaction of (genitive for accusative) case marking on virile plurals, coupled with the (admittedly puzzling) fact that QPs are accusative even as subjects.
16.3.4 Odds and Ends
One could write a dissertation cataloguing other noteworthy facts about quantity expressions in Polish. Here just a few are identified.
In addition to non-inflecting quantifying expressions (e.g. dużo ‘a lot’ or mało ‘a little’), Polish has a set of interrogative and ‘indefinite’ numerals, such as ile ‘how-many’, wiele ‘many’, kilka ‘several’, and parę ‘a couple’, which Reference SwanSwan (2002: 194–195) characterizes as morphologically and syntactically similar to pięć ‘five’. Kilka and (less commonly) parę combine to form more complex indefinite forms such as kilkanaście, paręnaście ‘12–19’, and kilkadziesiąt, parędziesiąt ‘30–99’. Parę itself is a frozen form resembling the accusative (like trochę ‘a little’), although it does change to paru when oblique: parunastu ‘12–19gen-dat-loc’, parunastoma ‘12–19inst’. This fact is in line with the distribution of QPs, which are accusative even as subjects, suggesting that accusative is the default or least marked case.
Like other Slavic languages, Polish makes considerable use of collectives.Footnote 20 Here the opposite effect can be seen, in that although the other oblique forms agree with the noun (e.g. homogeneous pięciorgu kurczętom/kurczętach ‘fivedat-loc chickensdat/chickensloc’), the instrumental pięciorgiem kurcząt ‘fiveinst chickensgen’ patterns like nominative-accusative pięcioro kurcząt ‘fivenom-acc chickensgen’ in that it is heterogeneous. In the instrumental, then, it seems to behave just like a noun, suggesting that this is the most marked case (cf. Reference FranksFranks 1995: 51–53). This cannot be said of the nominative-accusative, since this exhibits all the properties of non-collective numerals; for example, both tych pięcioro kurcząt ‘thesegen five chickensgen’ and te pięcioro kurcząt ‘nom-acc five chickensgen’ are viable, neither inducing plural agreement on the predicate.
16.3.5 Elsewhere in West Slavic
Other West Slavic languages offer variants of the Polish system and thus also respect (32a), albeit with some interesting differences. Although the paucals behave the same, with ‘five’ and above only genitive prequantifiers are allowed, as in Czech (42):
(42)
Těch/*ty pět hezkých dívek upeklo dort. thesegen.pl/thesenom-acc.pl five beautifulgen.pl girlsgen.pl bakedn cake
This means that the genitive form of the demonstrative is necessarily determined by the numeral. The facts, as Reference FranksFranks (1994, Reference Franks1995, Reference Franks2002) argues, are nonetheless consistent with the claim that the QP is itself accusative, as it clearly is in Polish. The problem is that pět remains the accusative form even with masculine human nouns, so that one can treat the case of the quantified subject in (43a) as accusative just as it must be in (43b):
(43)
a. Všech pět/*pěti chlapců demonstrovalo. allgen.pl five/fivegen boysgen.pl demonstratedn b. Vidím všech pět/*pěti chlapců. see1sg allgen.pl five/fivegen boysgen.pl
Slovak is very similar to Czech,Footnote 21 except that alongside (44a) there is the nominative plural version in (44b):
(44)
a. Všetkých päť /*piatich chlapcov demonštrovalo. allgen.pl five/fivegen boysgen.pl demonstratedn b. Všetci piati chlapci demonštrovali. allnom.pl.vir fivenom boysnom.pl demonstratedpl
This agreeing numeral form, which makes ‘five’ and above resemble the paucals, is only available when delimiting virile nouns.Footnote 22 While it is the more frequent variant in (44), with higher numerals the QP variant becomes dominant; for example, dvadsaťpät‘ študentov ‘25 studentsgen.pl’ is more frequent than dvadsiatipiati študenti ‘25nom studentsnom.pl’. This is presumably a previously unnoticed instance of Corbett’s numeral squish, mentioned in footnote 2.
The Lower Sorbian facts further support the idea that QPs are themselves accusative. As in Polish (but not Czech or Slovak), Lower Sorbian prequantifiers look nominative but must be regarded as accusative since they do not induce plural agreement:Footnote 23
(45)
Naše/Wšykne sedym krowow jo podojte. ournom-acc.pl/allnom-acc.pl seven cowsgen.pl aux3sg milkedn
Lower Sorbian employs the same kind of special adjectival numeral form as observed for Slovak in (44b), again limited to virile nouns:
(46)
Wšykne sedmyj bratšy su pśišli. allnom.pl sevennom brothersnom.pl aux3pl arrivedpl
Here wšykne is clearly nominative (along with the rest of the subject NP), since the predicate agrees.
Upper Sorbian exhibits these patterns as well, although with some (perhaps regional) variation. Upper Sorbian (47) is thus comparable to Lower Sorbian (45):
(47)
Te pjeć feńkow je falowało. thesenom-acc.pl five pfennigsgen.pl aux3sg lackingn
And (48a) shows the nominative adjectival numeral available only for viriles, alongside the standard QP variant in (48b):
(48)
a. ći pjećo dźěłaćero thesenom.pl.vir fivenom.vir workersnom.pl b. te pjeć dźěłaćerow theseacc five workersgen.pl
Interestingly, in oblique contexts numerals neither agree (as in Russian, Polish, or Czech),Footnote 24 nor block case (which they do in BCMS, as discussed in the Section 16.4):
(49)
z (tymi) pjeć zrałymi jabłukami with theseinst.pl five ripeinst.pl applesinst.pl
The preposition z ‘with’ assigns instrumental across the (non-inflecting) numeral. This property of transparency to case also extends to classifier nouns: z kusk papjeru ‘with piece paperinst’, although the classifier can also decline and agree: z měchom běrnami ‘with sackinst potatoesinst’. For additional discussion of these languages see Reference FranksFranks (1995: 137–139) and references therein.
Finally, in Polish and the other West Slavic languages there are no special ‘adnumerative’ or ‘adpaucal’ forms of the type found in East Slavic, discussed in Sections 16.2.3–2.4.
16.4 Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian (South Slavic I)
In the absence of evidence of differences in their numeral systems, Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian will be lumped together in the presentation, under the collective rubric BCMS.Footnote 25 Some comparisons with Slovenian are presented in Section 16.4.5.
16.4.1 ‘Five’ and Above: QPs Are Pervasive
One often finds the heterogeneous pattern in places where in other Slavic languages the entire quantified expression would decline and the numeral would agree. In (50) the prepositions od and pod govern genitive and instrumental, respectively, but the numeral pet does not decline and also seems to block outside case assignment from the preposition:
(50)
a. od pet gradova from five citiesgen.pl b. pod pet stolova under five tablesgen.pl
‘Five’ and above in BCMS do not themselves show case and can only be followed by the genitive plural. As elaborated in the next subsection, however, there are some interesting distributional restrictions.
As in Czech and unlike in Russian, prequantifiers must be genitive: ovih/*ovi/*ove pet gradova ‘thesegen/thesenom/theseacc five citiesgen.pl’. Their genitive form is thus determined by the numeral or, pursuing the derivational account, they are necessarily assigned case before moving above the numeral. The predicate generally shows third singular/neuter agreement, but this is neither as inflexible as in Polish nor does the choice of form reflect the sort of semantic contrasts described in Section 16.2.1 for Russian. Thus not only is the plural viable (albeit dispreferred) in (51), the neuter is possible (and still preferred) in (52):
(51)
Dvadeset “migova” prešlo je/??prešli su granicu. twenty MIGsgen.pl crossedn.sg aux3sg/crossedmpl aux3pl border
(52)
Pet žena se raspršilo/??su se raspršile.Footnote 26 five womengen.pl refl dispersedn.sg/ aux3pl refl dispersedf.pl
The choice of syntactic (neuter) or semantic (plural) agreement in (51) does not correlate with whether the MIGs flew as a formation or individually, indicating that the choice here has nothing to do with the structural difference posited for Russian. Even more telling is the fact that the same choice is exhibited by (52), despite the semantics of disperse and in clear contrast to its Russian counterpart in (5).
16.4.2 Some Distributional Limitations
One might conclude based on (50) that QPs are ubiquitous in BCMS. Closer examination of more diverse contexts reveals, however, that the heterogeneous pattern is far from felicitous everywhere. The facts are quite complex and the judgments subtle and variable. Reference FranksFranks (2002: §4.5) points out that speakers differ on its acceptability after prepositions taking dative, such as prema ‘towards’:Footnote 27
(53)
% prema pet ljudi towards five peoplegen.pl
With verbs one finds a clear contrast, in that, for those governing genitive, QPs are generally not particularly problematic, whereas those governing dative can border on the ineffable:Footnote 28
(54)
a. Domogao sam se (ovih) osam knjiga. obtained aux1sg refl thesegen eight booksgen.pl b. ?? Dao je novac (ovih) četrdeset ljudi. gave aux3sg moneyacc thesegen forty peoplegen.pl
The same is true in adnominal contexts calling for genitive or dative, respectively:Footnote 29
(55)
a. vlasnik (ovih) sedam malih kuća owner thesegen seven smallgen.pl housesgen.pl b. * isplata plaća četrdeset zaposlenika payment paygen.pl forty employeesgen.pl
Indeed, QPs are viable in all contexts which call for the genitive and in many instrumental contexts, but marginal to impossible in those that require dative; see Reference Browne, Comrie and CorbettBrowne (1993: §4.10) for additional examples, as well as with paucals (his ‘234 form’). Presumably the genitive on the noun is enough to satisfy the contextual requirement, despite the numeral’s failure to decline, but the complete absence of any dative inflection is problematic.
QPs that fail to express case requirements are better tolerated after prepositions than elsewhere. This is clearly seen in instrumental (50b), and less so in dative (53). Interestingly, after verbs that otherwise require instrumental the failure to inflect can be rescued by the insertion of the preposition s(a) ‘with’:
(56)
a. Petra je rukovodila (%sa) (jednom) fabrikom/tvornicom.Footnote 30 Petra aux3sg managed with oneinst factoryinst b. Petra je rukovodila *(sa) pet fabrika/tvornica.Footnote 31 Petra aux3sg managed with five factoriesgen.pl
As (56) shows, this is a last-resort repair, since it is impossible unless necessary. While sa somehow satisfies the instrumental governance requirement of the verb on its object, this strategy is, as Reference FranksFranks (2002) observes, unavailable to rescue quantified adjuncts that need to be instrumental:
(57)
a. Milan je hodao (samo jednom) ulicom. Milan aux3sg walked just oneinst streetinst ‘Milan walked along (just one) street.’ b. *Milan je hodao (sa) pet ulica. Milan aux 3sg walked with five streetsgen
Reference BoškovićBošković (2006) examines similar facts and argues that this provides evidence that the function of case is different for adjuncts.
16.4.3 Paucal Complexities
Perhaps even more so than elsewhere in Slavic, the behavior of the paucal numerals in BCMS is quite complex. While in principle they can decline and agree (as in the other languages), they rarely do.Footnote 32 Instead, they appear with a special form that resembles the genitive singular:
(58)
a. dv(ij)e nove knjige twof newgen.sg-nom.pl book(gen.sg?)-nom.pl b. tri loša/*lošeg(a)/*loših učenika three badpauc/*badgen.sg/*badgen.pl studentgen.sg
While the forms of both adjective and noun in feminine (58a) are segmentally identical to the genitive singular as well as the nominative plural, one can tell that knjige must really be nominative plural because the final vowel is short. But those in masculine (58b) are unambiguous, and hence there is some debate about how to gloss such forms. The confusion lies in the indicated fact that the adjective cannot be the standard (long) genitive singular, or the genitive plural as in Russian, but rather must be the historical short form. It is not even obvious whether the BCMS paucal is a case or a number, and – for masculines in particular – modifier and predicate agreement only adds to the confusion:Footnote 33
(59)
a. Ove dv(ij)e knjige su ležale na stolu. thesenom.pl twof booknom.pl aux3pl layf.pl on table b. Ova tri učenika su došla na thesepauc three studentgen.sg aux3pl arrivedpauc-n.pl-f.sg at sastanak.Footnote 34 meeting
Agreement in (59a) indicates that the paucal form for feminines is actually the nominative plural, a fact which should be hardly surprising given the behavior of comparable expressions in West Slavic. On the other hand, the form of the verbal participle in (59b) is puzzling in that, if plural (as makes sense), it must be analyzed as neuter (which does not) or, if singular, as feminine (despite the fact that the auxiliary must be plural su).Footnote 35 A reasonable conclusion is that this is a special paucal form, sharing the -a desinence with modifiers. In sum, one might argue for a paucal in BCMS which enjoys a rather idiosyncratic set of exponents. In this regard it is of course not unlike East Slavic, except that in BCMS – with the exception of the short ‘genitive’ required on adjectives as in (58b) – the paucal mapping is always to some form that otherwise exists in the paradigm. The problem is just that the mapping is not straightforward, so that different forms arise for different genders and modifiers behave differently than the quantified nouns themselves.
When one attempts to place paucal expressions in oblique contexts they generally behave similarly to the QPs discussed in Section 16.4.2. Here are some examples from Reference Browne, Comrie and CorbettBrowne (1993: 373):Footnote 36
(60)
a. Stanujem s četiri studenta. reside1sg with four studentgen.sg b. Ne znam naslov te tri knjige. not know1sg title those three booksnom.pl c. ? S(j)ećam se ta četiri studenta. remember1sg refl those four studentgen.sg d. ?? Dajem poklon ta četiri studenta. give1sg gift those four studentgen.sg
Browne states that “the 234 form … can be used as … object of any preposition (whatever case the preposition governs)” but “less successfully” after verbs governing oblique cases. Recent informal surveying of speakers suggests that judgments about genitive (54a) and (60c) are identically felicitous and those about dative (54b) and (60d) are equally infelicitous, and also that placing ‘five’ and above or 234 after prepositions elicits comparable judgments. That is, speakers generally accept (53) and if the quantity were 234 it would make no difference. Here are two examples with locative u ‘in’, supplied by David Mandić (p.c.):
(61)
a. Živi u ona četiri zida. live3sg in those four wallgen.sg b. Držimo kavu u pet posebnih posuda. keep1pl coffee in five separategen.pl containersgen.pl
How is one to understand this complex array of facts? There are multiple issues to grapple with, such as (i) the difference between forcing an undeclined numeral to follow a preposition, noun, or verb (where the latter is the worst); (ii) differences between the particular oblique cases governed (where the dative/locative is the worst); (iii) how (and the extent to which) the fact that the quantified noun is genitive (singular or plural) satisfies syntagmatically genitive contexts; and (iv) whether there are any distributional differences between the paucals (which can technically decline) and ‘five’ and above, which cannot.Footnote 37 While addressing these issues is a matter for future research, one approach can be found in the relative markedness account of Reference FranksFranks (2002). He proposes (p. 180) a ‘licensing parameter’ which states that QPs in BCMS cannot occur in a DP with more than one marked case feature (or possibly two, reflecting the felicity judgments of different speakers). Under this account Polish (32a) is the most restrictive system, because QPs cannot occur in a DP with any marked case features, and Russian (32b) is intermediate, because QPs cannot occur in a DP with more than one marked case feature.Footnote 38
16.4.4 Other Quantity Expressions
As elsewhere, space considerations preclude a thorough treatment of other quantity expressions. Wayles Browne (p.c.) makes some interesting observations, including that nula ‘zero’ takes genitive plural (as does Russian nul‘/nol‘, as in nol‘ rublej ‘zero rublesgen.pl’ or, for that matter, English zero), that a fraction such as pola ‘(one) half’ takes the genitive plural on prequantifiers but the genitive singular on the noun (cf. also Russian (27), with the same plural/singular contrast):
(62)
Tih pola godine … su/je … najboljih pola godine thosegen.pl half yeargen.sg are/is bestgen.pl half yeargen.sg u životu. in life
He also notes that the genitive plural is used with the vague construction dan/sat dva ‘a day/hour or two’, even though the nouns are nominative-accusative singular (although presumably frozen accusative forms like other comparable words, as noted below) and elsewhere with paucals the prequantifier agrees in form (as seen in (60) and (61) above):
(63)
na idealnih sat dva for idealgen.pl hour two
With these, the predicate can be either (non-agreeing) neuter singular or (agreeing) plural. Interestingly, although sat ‘hour’ by itself would not have a genitive plural modifier, it does in the expression sat vremena (lit. ‘an hour of time’). Note also the form of the verb, which fails to agree with masculine singular sat:
(64)
Kako bi izgledalo tvojih idealnih sat vremena? how would looknsg yourgen.pl idealgen.pl hour timegen.sg
Browne concludes that the genitive plural is “the default form that occurs next to quantifiers, and is used unless there is a concrete reason to use some other form.”
Another default already observed for Polish (and, less so, for Russian) is the frozen accusative-like form of various quantifying expressions. These are numerals like tisuću/hiljadu ‘thousand’ or stotinu ‘hundred’, classifiers like nedelju/sedmicu ‘week’ or godinu ‘year’, and quantifying words like masu ‘(a) mass’:Footnote 39
(65)
a. Stotinu studenata je stiglo. hundredacc studentsgen.pl aux3sg arrivedn.sg b. u toku od nedelju dana in course of weekacc daysgen.pl
Example (65a) is a nominative context, and (65b), which again demonstrates the construction in (64), is a genitive context. Other quantifiers like par ‘(a) couple’ behave similarly, for example ovih par ljudi ‘thesegen.pl couple peoplegen.pl’, except that one cannot tell that the form is accusative (since par is not in the a-declension).
Finally, just as in West Slavic, there are no special adnumerative noun forms (i.e. those which can be used only after quantifiers).
16.4.5 Some Slovenian Differences
Closely related Slovenian bears a few notable differences.Footnote 40 Most obvious is the persistence of the dual, a category which runs throughout the system. Whereas trije/tri ‘three’ and štirje/štiri ‘four’ (and compound numerals ending in them) take plural nouns and agreement, just like BCMS, dva/dve ‘two’ and oba/obe ‘both’ take dual.Footnote 41
(66)
a. Dva nova studenta imata lepo stanovanje. two newdual studentdual havedual beautiful apartment b. Tristo dva vojaka sta umrla v vojni. three-hundred two soldiersdual auxdual dieddual in war
Another obvious difference concerns word order, in that Slovenian has adopted the German style of putting the single digit first in complex numerals between 21 and 99: en(a)indvajset ‘one and twenty = 21’, dvaindvajset ‘two and twenty = 22’, triintrideset ‘three and thirty = 33’, etc.
Unlike in BCMS, not only do 234 decline in oblique contexts, but also ‘five’ and above can:
(67)
plačati v dvanajstih obrokih to-pay in twelveloc installmentsloc.pl
Reference HerrityHerrity (2000: 133) observes that “in the modern spoken language the higher numerals … are often not declined.” But even when they do not change form, they are simply transparent to case in oblique contexts; in this regard Slovenian resembles Upper Sorbian (49) and colloquial Slovak:
(68)
v zadnjih sto triinširidest letih in pastloc hundred three-and-forty yearsloc
One can see this transparency even more clearly with tisoč ‘thousand’, which is normally indeclinable (although it may decline as masculine in the plural). Reference HerrityHerrity (2000: 134) provides:
(69)
a. Rdeči križ je pomagal tisoč beguncem. red cross aux3sg helped 1000 refugeesdat.pl b. Knjiga je izšla v pet tisoč izvodih. book aux3sg came-out in five 1000 copiesloc.pl
The form pol ‘half’ is indeclinable, occurs with genitive singular nouns, takes default (neuter singular) verbs, and modifiers agree with the noun:
(70)
a. vsake pol ure everygen.sg half hourgen.sg b. pred dobrega pol leta before a-goodgen.sg half yeargen.sg
Finally, an unusual property of pol pointed out by Don Reindl (p.c.) is that, when combined with an integer, Slovenians always put it after the noun, in this way forcing the noun to be governed by the whole number:
(71)
a. pet kil pa pol five kilosgen.pl and half b. dve leti pa pol two yearsdual and half
David Mandić (p.c.) points out that this is also possible in BCMS, although only optionally so.
16.5 Bulgarian (South Slavic II)
Although Bulgarian (and Macedonian) lack the sort of case complexities displayed by the other languages, they do exhibit a special ‘count form’ that occurs with numerals.Footnote 42 In what follows the primary properties of this form are demonstrated using Bulgarian data, since its use is far less consistently observed in Macedonian.
16.5.1 The Count Form
The count form is used with (in most dialects, only non-human) masculine nouns after numerals and certain numeric quantifiers. The count form ends in -a, making it morphologically distinct from the regular -i or -ove plurals:
(72)
a. dva brjaga two shorescf b. pet konja five horsescf c. sto kilometra hundred kilometerscf
Thus, just as elsewhere in Slavic, Qs in Bulgarian select a particular form on their complement NPs, although this is only manifested on the noun. The count form almost always preserves the stem,Footnote 43 including stem vowels (pet orela ‘five eagles’, not orli ‘eagles’), which also means that the ending is never stressed (compare dva brjága ‘two shores’ with articulated bregá ‘the shore’). This suggests that the -a suffix of the count form is added to the stem early in the derivation, blocking the regular plural and its effects.
The availability of the count form after non-numeric quantifiers is very limited. It is used with njakolko ‘several’ but not with malko ‘few’ or mnogo ‘many’:
(73)
a. njakolko vestnika several newspaperscf b. malko stolove few tablespl c. mnogo prozorci many windowspl
This arguably follows, as Reference BernardBernard (1954: 36) suggests, from the fact that the cardinality of njakolko is absolute rather than relative, hence more precise than that of malko or mnogo.Footnote 44 It is also worth observing that when kolko ‘how many’ and tolkova ‘so many’ are exclamatory (rather than asking for a specific amount or referring to a specific amount) they do not take the count form, as in the following pairs cited by Reference FranksFranks (2020: 290):
(74)
a. Kolko romana e napisal Vazov? how-many novelscf aux3sg wrote Vazov ‘How many novels did Vazov write?’ b. Kolko romani e pročel tozi čovek! how-many novelspl aux3sg read that person ‘How many novels that person has read!’
(75)
a. Imame tolkova stola have1pl so-many tablescf ‘We have this many (a given number of) tables.’ b. Izpočupixa tolkova stolove! broke3pl so-many tablespl ‘They broke so many tables!’
Reference Pancheva, Franks, Chidambaram, Joseph and KrapovaPancheva (2018) develops an account of this contrast, noted as early as Reference BernardBernard (1954), from which (75) is drawn.
16.5.2 Distance and Cardinality Effects
This section describes two sets of observations about the use of the count form that may inspire closer investigation. Both concern the competition between the count form and its plural alternative.
The first is due to Reference Stateva and StepanovStateva & Stepanov (2016). They study the factors which affect failure to use the count form in contexts that should call for it, and observe that distance between the numeral and the noun has a direct impact on the likelihood of the regular plural:
(76)
pet(te) (stari) ((mnogo) prašasali) (dârveni) prozoreca/*prozorci five(def) (oldpl) ((very)) dustypl) (woodenpl) windowscf/windows*pl
What they report is that the more intervening material there is, the more likely a Bulgarian speaker will be to produce and/or accept the plural prozorci ‘windows’ in (76).Footnote 45 While language is replete with evidence to demonstrate that, given a choice of forms, the more distant a target is from its controller, the less likely it is to have the expected effect, the details remain unclear. One might, for example, wonder about the nature of the distance: is it linear or, as Stateva and Stepanov argue, structural/hierarchical? In this regard, is it comparable to other distance effects involving Qs, such as the special end-stressed forms after paucal numerals in Russian (17), which seem to require linear adjacency?
The second relates to the numeral ‘squish’ mentioned in footnote 2, and – along with the competition between genitive and nominative plural in Slovak (44) – reflects another novel instantiation of the phenomenon discovered by Corbett. He demonstrated that, given some choice of associated forms, the higher the number the more it behaves like a noun, and that, crucially, this remains true even when two numerals have no distinct formal properties. Corbett showed this on the basis of East Slavic data, the relevant choices being between (plural) agreement or (neuter singular) default and, for feminine paucals in Russian, between genitive or nominative-accusative plural on modifiers. One should therefore ask about the role of cardinality in distinguishing between count form and regular plural in Bulgarian. In this regard, Reference Ionin and MatushanskyIonin & Matushansky (2018: 202) cite Roumyana Pancheva (p.c.) as saying that “for some speakers” the plural “becomes more acceptable the higher the cardinal.” Their report of Pancheva’s judgments is reproduced in (77):
(77)
a. dva bileta/*bileti two ticketscf/ticketspl b. pet bileta/(?)?bileti five ticketscf/ticketspl c. sto bileta/?bileti hundred ticketscf/ticketspl
While these judgments do seem to corroborate Corbett’s squish even for Bulgarian, the cline in (77) remains impressionistic. Perhaps, with the rich electronic corpora that now exist, one may hope to see serious research into the effect of cardinality on the choice between these two forms.
16.5.3 Macedonian
Numerals in Macedonian are very similar to their Bulgarian counterparts. Both languages, for example, have a special series of numerals that only occur with masculine human (“virile”) nouns and that only exist for ‘two’ through ‘ten’. For Macedonian, Reference KramerKramer (2003: 173) provides dvajca ‘two’, trojca ‘three’, četvorica ‘four’, petmina ‘five’, šestmina ‘six’, sedummina ‘seven’, etc., as the forms which are used to designate “male human beings and mixed gender groups which include at least one male.”Footnote 46
(78)
a. dvajca maži two menpl b. tri studenta three (male) studentspl
Note that these only occur with the plural, although if one uses the regular numeral then the count form is possible, so that dva studenta exists alongside (78b). In general, as observed by Wągiel (2023), these restricted numerals evoke virile forms such as Polish dwaj in (37b), Slovak piati in (44b), or Lower Sorbian sedmyj in (46), as well as virile functions of the genitive case.
The count form described for Bulgarian seems to be much less robust in neighboring Macedonian. According to Reference Friedman, Comrie and CorbettFriedman (1993: 294), the count form “is obligatory only after dva ‘two’ and nekolku ‘a few’” and “the most likely environments […] are unmodified monosyllabic nouns of Slavonic origin quantified by numerals under ‘11.’” With respect to the role of modification, he cites the pair in (79), where it may be that the plural form of the adjective helps to promote the same -i ending on the noun (although this parallelism would not readily carry over to Bulgarian):
(79)
a. pet toma five volumescf b. pet debeli tomovi five thickpl volumespl
In sum, all the effects described by Friedman seem to be in keeping with what was reported about Bulgarian (76) and (77), only more so. Similarly, as when numerals combine with frequently quantified masculine nouns like čas, saat ‘hour’, den ‘day’, or mesec ‘month’, the count forms ending in -a are typical. Other aspects of the count form in Macedonian, such as its general restriction to (generally, non-human) masculine nouns, remain the same as well. Overall, then, the count form persists and respects the same conditions in Macedonian as described for Bulgarian, although its use is much more limited.
17.1 Introduction
A simple definition of clitics would be that they are free morphemes that lack prosodic prominence and thus need a prosodic host in order to be pronounceable. As each prosodic word has an obligatory primary stress, a clitic alone cannot constitute a prosodic word on its own (cf. Reference HymanHyman 2006). Clitics are (typically) functional/grammatical elements of various categories. In Slavic languages, clitics include pronouns, auxiliary verbs, prepositions, coordinators, subordinators, adverbial elements, particles, and determiners, as shown in (1). Auxiliary-verb and pronominal clitics will be called clausal clitics; clitics that operate within a noun phrase are termed nominal clitics; whereas various subordinators, coordinators, particles, and similar elements will be called operator clitics (Reference Mišeska Tomić, Gerlach and GrijzenhoutMišeska Tomić 2001).Footnote 1 Based on the properties and behavior of their pronominal and auxiliary clausal clitics, Reference Timberlake, Gutschmidt, Kempgen, Berger and KostaTimberlake (2014) splits Slavic languages into four groups: (I) BCS, Slovenian, Slovak, and Czech have maintained second-position (Wackernagel-type) clitics from Proto-Slavic, (II) Bulgarian and Macedonian have shifted them to verb-adjacent clitics, (III) East Slavic has lost this type of clitics altogether, and (IV) Polish has lost the strict second-position requirement. In what follows we will concentrate on the first two groups of Slavic languages, and within them pay somewhat closer attention to the first group, where the group of clitics preserving the Common Slavic (and arguably Proto-Indo-European) Wackernagel clitic behavior is largest.
(1)
a. Že drugič ji je podala ta veliko žogo. (Sln.) already twice she.dat aux.3s passed def big ball ‘It’s already the second time that she passed her the big ball.’ b. Petar i Sabina su se zbunili na Novom Beogradu. (BCS) Petar and Sabina aux.3pl refl confused in Novi Beograd ‘Petar and Sabina got confused in Novi Beograd.’
Their reliance on a neighboring word and pronunciation within the same (minimal) prosodic unit – the prosodic word – makes clitics very much like affixes, except that unlike affixes, they do not have a permanent predetermined host but instead position themselves in syntactically defined positions, which is why they are sometimes called phrasal affixes (Reference AndersonAnderson 1992). Where exactly in the clause they are pronounced depends on the syntactic context and on language-specific requirements, which leads to some clitics always attaching to items belonging to the same grammatical category and others attaching to the same linearly defined prosodic constituent; and since there can be multiple clitics with the same prosodic requirements within the same domain of their movement (i.e. roughly a clause), clitics typically group together in so-called clitic clusters. We can thus start out with the following characterization:
(2) Clitics are phonologically dependent, stressless functional elements that appear in a fixed syntactically defined position both inside the clause and inside the clitic cluster but otherwise behave like other independent syntactic elements.
Each part of the brief description in (2) can be relativized. In what follows, we will take a closer look at individual parts of the characterization, one by one, and comment on each individual part of it; we will always start off by presenting the evidence for a particular aspect of this description and then proceed to the counterarguments relativizing it.
17.2 Clitics Are Unstressed
Clitic pronouns and auxiliaries constitute a separate unstressed paradigm of pronouns or auxiliaries, as shown in (3) for Czech singular personal pronouns (the table is simplified) and in (4) for BCS auxiliary clitics. A partly similar pronominal paradigm is also found in BCS, Slovenian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Slovak, and Polish.
(3)
In Slavic languages, accusative, genitive, and dative pronouns are typically the only ones with an unstressed variant. Czech full and clitic singular pronouns are given in pairs: full pronoun–clitic (cf. Reference LenertováLenertová 2004). Plural pronouns show ‘syncretism’ between the clitic and the full pronoun, where the only difference is the presence/lack of stress. Acc Gen Dat 1p mne – mě mne – mě mně – mi 2p tebe – tě tebe – tě tobě – ti 3pF ji – ji jí – jí jí – jí 3pM jeho – ho jeho – ho jemu – mu Refl sebe – se sebe – sobě – si
(4)
BCS auxiliary clitics (cf. Reference Mišeska TomićMišeska Tomić 1996) 1p 2p 3p Singular jesam – sam jesi – si jest(e) – je Plural jesmo – smo jeste – ste jesu – su
Simple prepositions are all unstressed and as such cannot be pronounced in isolation (a prosodic word needs a primary stress, so a stressless element cannot constitute a prosodic word on its own), (5). The same holds of negation, which cliticizes onto the finite verb (Reference Franks and Holloway KingFranks & Holloway King 2000: 11).
(5)
v sóbo b. na hríb c. za vráti (Sln.) in room on hill behind door
However, these same elements that normally function like clitics sometimes can be stressed. The example in (6) below is set up as a case of contrastive focus on the preposition, as a result of which the preposition za gets stress (similarly to the contrastive stress on behind in the English translation).
(6)
A čaka pred vráti? Ne, čaka zá vráti. (Sln.) Q waits in-front door no waits behind door ‘Is (s)he waiting in front of the door? No, (s)he’s waiting behind the door.’
In Slovenian (and Czech), pronominal and auxiliary clitics can also be stressed when they are pronounced in isolation and thus lack a prosodic host, for example if the verb phrase is reduced, as in (7c) (based on Reference Priestly, Comrie and CorbettPriestly 1993, Reference Franks, Marušič and ŽaucerFranks 2016), or as a result of verum focus (i.e. stress on the clitic for emphasizing the truth of the proposition), (8) (from Reference DvořakDvořak 2007). As seen in (7c) and (8), such stressed clitics can actually serve as hosts to other clitics; in (7c), the second pronominal clitic acts as the host of the auxiliary clitic, while in (8), the stressed negation acts as the host of the clitic particle pa. Note that the order of the clitics in (7c) is the same as it is when they are unstressed inside the clitic cluster. Reversing their order would result in ungrammaticality regardless of which clitic in the attempted ga si sequence were stressed.
(7)
a. A si ga videl? (Sln.) Q aux.2.sg he.acc see ‘Did you see him?’ b. Si ga videl? c. Si gá?
(8)
Slišim té, vidim te pa né. (Sln.) hear1.sg you.2.sg.acc see1.sg. you.2.sg.gen part neg ‘I do hear you, but I do not see you.’
In BCS and Slovenian, negation can also end up procliticized on the auxiliary clitic, with the result that the two-clitic composite becomes an (independent) stressed prosodic word (Reference Browne and FilipovićBrowne 1975a, Reference Browne and Filipović1975b, Reference Schütze, Carnie, Harley and BuresSchütze 1994, Reference Mišeska TomićMišeska Tomić 1996, Reference ToporišičToporišič 2000, etc.).
(9)
a. Ja mu ga nisam dala. (BCS) I he.dat it.acc neg-aux given ‘I did not give it to him.’ (Reference Mišeska TomićMišeska Tomić 1996: 40c) b. Nisam mu ga dala. (Reference Mišeska TomićMišeska Tomić 1996: 40c)
In Bulgarian, too, clitics can sometimes be stressed when they immediately follow ne (which, in Bulgarian, forms part of the clitic group), as in (10) (Reference Franks, Marušič and ŽaucerFranks 2016). Depending on the prosodic characteristics of the specific material in the noun phrase (cf. Reference WerleWerle 2009), prepositions can also be stressed in BCS (and similarly in Czech), when stress transfers to the clitic from its host. In (11), Bare (the name of the largest Sarajevo cemetery) ends up stressless, while the preposition carries the single stress of the prosodic word that includes the preposition and the proper name.
(10)
a. Áz mu ja dádox. I he.dat it.acc gave ‘I gave him it.’ (Reference Franks, Marušič and ŽaucerFranks 2016: 6b) b. Áz ne mú ja dàdox. (Bul.) I neg he.dat it.acc gave ‘I did not give him it.’ (Reference Franks, Marušič and ŽaucerFranks 2016: 7)
(11)
Sá Bara se niko ne vraća. (BCS) from Bare refl no-one not return ‘Nobody comes back from Bare.’ (a line from the song “Zenica blues”)
In principle, then, clitics are indeed functional elements that lack their own lexical stress, but they can sometimes receive stress from the word they cliticize onto, when there is no word to cliticize onto or when the clitic receives contrastive focus or verum focus.
17.3 Clitics Have a Fixed (Syntactically Defined) Position
From the perspective of their position in the clause, Slavic clausal clitics can be divided into subgroups: for example, Bulgarian and Macedonian clausal clitics are verb-adjacent, BCS, Slovenian, Czech, and Slovak clitics are second-position clitics (also called Wackernagel clitics), and Polish pronominal clitics, which with the exception of się have also been analyzed as weak pronouns (Reference CetnarowskaCetnarowska 2004), are freer in their placement, (12)–(14). The second-position clitics in particular seem like a prominent linguistic feature of Slavic languages (though second-position clitics are relatively common also outside the Indo-European family; for example, they are found in Tagalog (Austronesian family), Ngiyambaa (Pama-Nyungan family), Comanche (Uto-Aztecan family), etc. – see Reference Bošković, Marušič and ŽaucerBošković 2016 and the references therein).
(12)
a. Peter mu ga je včeraj vrnil. (Sln.) *Peter včeraj mu ga je vrnil. b. Peter mu ho včera vrátil. (Slk.) *Peter včera mu ho vrátil. c. Petr mu ho včera vrátil. (Cze.) *Petr včera mu ho vrátil. d. Petar mu ga je juče vratio. (BCS) *Petar juče mu ga je vratio. e. Piotr mu go wczoraj zwrócił. (Pol.) Piotr wczoraj mu go zwrócił. f. *Petăr mu go e včera vărnal. (Bul.) Petăr včera mu go e vărnal. Peter he.dat it.acc aux yesterday he.dat it.acc aux returned ‘Peter returned it to him yesterday.’
(13)
a. Včeraj mu ga je Peter vrnil. (Sln.) *Včeraj Peter mu ga je vrnil. b. Včera mu ho Peter vrátil. (Slk.) *Včera Peter mu ho vrátil. c. Včera mu ho Petr vrátil. (Cze.) *Včera Petr mu ho vrátil. d. Juče mu ga je Petar vratio. (BCS) *Juče Petar mu ga je vratio. e. ?Wczoraj mu go Piotr zwrócił. (Pol.)Footnote 2 ?*Wczoraj Piotr mu go zwrócił. f. *Včera mu go e Petăr vărnal. (Bul.) Včera Petăr mu go e vărnal. Yesterday he.dat it.acc aux Peter he.dat it.acc aux returned ‘Peter returned it to him yesterday.’
(14)
a. Peter mu ga je vrnil včeraj. (Sln.) *Peter vrnil mu ga je včeraj. b. Peter mu ho vrátil včera. (Slk.) *Peter vrátil mu ho včera. c. Petr mu ho vrátil včera. (Cze.) *Petr vrátil mu ho včera. d. Petar mu ga je vratio juče. (BCS) *Petar vratio mu ga je juče. e. ??Piotr mu go zwrócił wczoraj. (Pol.) Piotr zwrócił mu go wczoraj. f. Petăr mu go e vãrnal včera. (Bul.) *Petăr vãrnal mu go e včera. Peter he.dat it.acc aux returned he.dat it.acc aux yesterday ‘Peter returned it to him yesterday.’
In Bulgarian and Macedonian, nominal clitics behave differently from the clausal clitics, which are verb-adjacent (Reference Mišeska TomićMišeska Tomić 1996). Nominal clitics – like the definite article and the possessive pronominal clitics – are second-position clitics, as they encliticize on the first prosodic word or syntactic constituent in the noun phrase, (15).
(15)
a. knigata za lingvistika (Bul.) book-the for linguistics ‘the book about linguistics’ b. goljamata kniga za lingvistika big-the book for linguistics ‘the big book about linguistics’ c. mnogu visokiot čovek (Mac.) much tall-the man ‘the very tall man’ (Reference Mišeska TomićMišeska Tomić 1996: 813, fn. 6)
A remnant of the second-position placement restriction in Bulgarian may be observed also in what Reference AvgustinovaAvgustinova (1994: 30) calls the quasi-second-position condition, whereby a maximum of one phonologically strong element can precede a Bulgarian clitic within its constituent, that is, the verb complex, (16).
(16)
a. bjax ja vidjal / vidjal ja bjax / ja bjax vidjal aux her seen seen her aux her aux seen ‘I had seen her.’ Bul. b. *bjax vidjal ja / *vidjal bjax ja aux seen her seen aux her (Reference AvgustinovaAvgustinova 1994: 1)
The second position can be generally understood as the position after the entire first syntactic constituent. In Czech and Slovenian, clitics appear in this position regardless of the prosody of the sentence (cf. Reference Franks and Holloway KingFranks & Holloway King 2000, Reference Golden, Sheppard, Beukema and den DikkenGolden & Sheppard 2000), (17a), while in other languages, such as BCS, clitics can appear within a constituent and prefer a second position inside the intonational phrase (if the latter is smaller than the relevant clause), (17b). As a result, when the first position is occupied by an element that is separated from the rest of the clause with an intonational boundary, such as an embedded clause (or if the intonational boundary is simply pronounced following the first syntactic constituent), clitics move to the right of the first element of their intonational phrase, effectively sitting in the third syntactic position, (17b).Footnote 3
(17)
a. Da on zamuja, je očitno. (Sln.) that he be-late aux clear ‘That he will be late is clear.’ b. Da on kasni, očigledno je. (BCS) that he be-late clear aux ‘That he will be late is clear.’ (Reference Browne and FilipovićBrowne 1975a: 143)
The observed difference between (17a) and (17b) has been attributed to the fact that BCS pronominal and auxiliary clitics are obligatorily enclitics, while in Slovenian and Czech they can be either enclitics or proclitics (e.g. when in first position), they can only cliticize to the right (cf. Reference ToporišičToporišič 1976: 58, Reference OrešnikOrešnik 1984, Reference Toman, Halpern and ZwickyToman 1996, Reference BoškovićBošković 2001). One exception to this strict positioning of clitics in BCS is embedded clauses or clauses introduced by subordinating conjunctions, which are sometimes themselves considered to be clitics (e.g. Reference ProgovacProgovac 1993 treats them as unaccented; Reference BarićBarić et al. 2005 claim they are accented; see also Reference Schütze, Carnie, Harley and BuresSchütze 1994). The other exception is examples like (19), where BCS clitics can behave like the clitics of Slovenian and Czech, and can effectively be proclitics.
(18)
Milan tvrdi # [da mu ga je Petar pokazao]. (BCS) Milan claims that he.dat it.acc aux Peter shown ‘Milan claims that Peter has shown it to him.’ (Reference ProgovacProgovac 1993: p. 134, 57)
(19)
Problemi o kojima ćemo razgovarati# su kompleksni (BCS) problems about which aux converse aux complex ‘The problems which we shall discuss are complex.’ (Reference BennettBennett 1987: 6)
Another prominent point of variation in second-position clitics is their ability or inability to split constituents, or as this has traditionally been described, the difference between word-second clitics and phrase-second clitics. BCS allows word-second clitics, while Slovenian, Czech, and Slovak do not.
(20)
a. Taj mi je pesnik napisao knjigu. (BCS) that I.dat aux poet written book ‘That poet wrote me a book.’ (Reference Schütze, Carnie, Harley and BuresSchütze 1994: 6a) b. Lav bi te se Tolstoj sigurno uplašio. (BCS) Leo would you.gen refl Tolstoi certainly frighten ‘Leo Tolstoi would certainly get scared of you.’ (Reference Browne and FilipovićBrowne 1975b, cited in Reference Schütze, Carnie, Harley and BuresSchütze 1994: 7)
Reference Browne and FilipovićBrowne (1975b), cited in Reference Schütze, Carnie, Harley and BuresSchütze (1994), notes that breaking up a name with a clitic, as in (20b), is perceived as an archaic feature and is uncommon in everyday colloquial BCS. From the perspective of prescribed use, the situation differs regionally, with the Serbian norm tending to avoid splits like those in (20), and the Croatian high-register norm favoring them (e.g. Reference KatičićKatičić 2002; cf. Reference Kedveš and WerkmannKedveš & Werkmann 2013, Reference FrletaFrleta 2018). Variation may well be conditioned dialectically, too; according to Reference BrowneBrowne (2010), splits like (20) are unacceptable in Burgenland Croatian.Footnote 4
The first-word vs. first-phrase placement is not only a matter of registers or regional varieties, though. Reference Diesing and ZecDiesing & Zec (2017) show that the syntactic role of the constituent that contains the clitic-hosting element can be critical: if the constituent hosting the clitic functions as the predicate of the sentence, speakers tend to place the clitic after the first word (i.e. inside the constituent), as in (21a), but if the constituent hosting the clitic functions as an argument, speakers tend to place the clitic after the first phrase (i.e. after the whole constituent), as in (21b) (see also Reference PešikanPešikan 1958, Reference BennettBennett 1987, etc.).
(21)
a. Veliki je pisac Lav Tolstoj. (BCS) great aux writer Leo Tolstoi ‘Leo Tolstoj is a great writer.’ (Reference BennettBennett 1987: 8a) b. Veliki pisac je barometar nacije. (BCS) great writer aux barometer of-nation ‘A great writer is a barometer of a nation.’ (Reference BennettBennett 1987: 8b)
According to Reference WackernagelWackernagel ([1892] 2020), second-position phenomena originate in Proto-Indo-European. As argued by Reference Migdalski, Zybatow, Junghanns, Lenertová and BiskupMigdalski (2009), South Slavic pronominal (and auxiliary) clitics gradually became second-position clitics as they moved to the position occupied by the operator clitics (represented in Old Church Slavonic by an interrogative particle, a complementizer and a focus particle) which were most likely inherited from Proto-Indo-European (see also Migdalski’s references, Reference SławskiSławski 1946, and Reference Gribble and SchenkerGribble 1988: 194; and see also Reference AndersonAnderson 1993 for a discussion of the history of the second position more generally). Reference BennettBennett (1987) claims that Common Slavic had word-second clitics so that the phrase-second clitics, which follow the first syntactic constituent, are a later innovation (cf. also Reference HanaHana 2007).
Nevertheless, this general description of clitic placement is not without exceptions. For example, while Slovenian clitics are generally in the second position of the clause, they can sometimes also appear in the first position (Reference Priestly, Comrie and CorbettPriestly 1993: 428). Typically, these cases can be seen as having the material in the first position deleted. (22) shows two cases of this (see also example (7)). In Slovenian yes–no questions, such as (22a), the clitic-first order may have partially become a marker of matrix yes–no questions (Reference MarušičMarušič 2018).
(22)
a. Ali Mu je poslala pismo? (Sln.) Q he.dat aux send letter ‘Did she send him a letter?’ b. Jaz sem mislil, da ga ne bo. (Sln.) I aux think that he.gen neg aux.fut ‘I thought he would not come.’
In examples comparable to (22), clitics can also appear clause-initially in Czech (Reference LenertováLenertová 2004).
It should further be noted that in a second-position language, clitics can sometimes also appear further from the beginning of the clause than the second position, as shown for Czech in Reference LenertováLenertová (2004). For example, a fronted topic or focus element or an emphasized element can occur between a conjunction and a clitic in embedded clauses or root questions.
(23)
Věřil byste, že [i revma] jsem ztratil? (Cze.) Believe.sg.m aux.cd.2 that even rheumatism.acc aux.sg.1 lost.sg.m ‘Would you believe that I have even lost my rheumatism?’ (Reference LenertováLenertová 2004: 2)
(24)
А со Ema by na to řekla? (Cze.) and what.acc Emma aux.cd.3 to it said.sg.f ‘And what would Emma say to that?’ (Reference LenertováLenertová 2004: (5), adapted from ČNK)
Similar observations can also be made for Slovenian, (25) (even though there are differences and the counterparts of (23) and (24) do not seem possible in Slovenian):
(25)
Pravi, da danes se pa ne počuti niti malo slabo. (Sln.) say that today.foc refl.acc ptcl neg feel even little bad ‘She says that she doesn’t feel even a little bit bad.’
Lastly, certain positional freedom has also been observed with clitics occurring inside adjective phrases. When Slovenian pronominal clitics are part of the adjective phrase, they can be placed further away in the adjective phrase than the second position, as demonstrated with the reflexive introduced by the present participle of ‘to giggle’ in (26) (Reference Marušič, Antonenko, Bailyn and BethinMarušič 2008). This is a type of deviation from the second-position restriction that does not seem to be observed when the same element functions as a clausal clitic.
(26)
un v omari polglasno hihitajoč se kreten (Sln.) that in closet semi-loudly giggling refl idiot ‘that idiot giggling softly in the closet’ (Reference Marušič, Antonenko, Bailyn and BethinMarušič 2008: 16c)
Similarly to what has just been shown for Wackernagel clitics, some deviations from their ordinary position can also be found with verb-adjacent clitics. For example, Bulgarian verb-adjacent clitics must normally precede the verb (regardless of whether this puts them in the second, third, fourth, etc. position). However, when being preverbal would result in the clitics ending up in the initial position in the clause, the clitic cluster will follow the verb (the so-called Tobler-Mussafia effect), (27) (Reference FranksFranks 2008, 93–94). Note again that the otherwise uncanonical postverbal position here does not lead to any change of the clitic order inside the clitic cluster, which is the same in (27a) and (27b).
(27)
a. Ti si mu gi pokazvala. (Bul.) you aux.2.sg he.dat they.acc shown.fem (Reference FranksFranks 2008: (4a)) b. Pokazvala si mu gi. (Bul.) shown.fem aux.2.sg he.dat they.acc ‘You have shown him them.’ (Reference FranksFranks 2008: 6a) c. *Si mu gi pokazvala. (Bul.) aux.2.sg he.dat they.acc shown.fem (Reference FranksFranks 2008: 6a)
Moreover, an exception to the verb-adjacent placement of Bulgarian clitics itself has been documented as well. In certain cases, the clitics can be separated from the main-verb participle, by a light adjunct (Reference AvgustinovaAvgustinova 1997: 68, fn. 55), (28).
(28)
Šte sam ti ja veče dal. (Bul.) fut-prt cl-aux.1sg you.dat her.acc already give-pcp.sg.masc ‘I shall have already given it to you.’
Regardless of their exceptional placement, clitics in atypical positions retain all other typical clitic characteristics.
17.4 Clitics Appear in a Cluster
In our definition of (second-position) clitics, one of their defining properties is that they appear in a fixed syntactically defined position inside the clitic cluster. This means, first, that we should not be able to split up a string of clitics (it being a cluster) and, second, that the order of clitics within a cluster should be fixed. As was the case with the defining characteristics discussed in Sections 17.1 and Section 17.2, it turns out that neither of these predictions is completely unproblematic.
Let us start with the relative order of multiple clitics, which can be schematized as in Reference Zimmerling and KostaZimmerling & Kosta (2013), who identify the following three templates for clitic clusters in Slavic (cf. Reference Franks and Holloway KingFranks & Holloway King 2000):
(29)
West Slavic type of clitic template: [Clitic Phrase [Clitic Phrase aux1] [Clitic Phrase Pronouns: refl – dat – acc]] aux1: 1–2 p. present tense indicative BE-auxiliaries and conditional forms of be
(30)
Old Novgorod/East Slavic type of clitic template: [Clitic Phrase … [Clitic Phrase Pronouns: dat – acc] [Clitic Phrase aux2]] aux2: 1–2 p. present tense indicative BE-auxiliaries
(31)
Balkan Slavic type of clitic template: [Clitic Phrase … [Clitic Phrase aux1] [Clitic Phrase Pronouns: refl – dat – acc – gen] [Clitic Phrase aux2]] aux1: all present-tense indicative BE-aux. except 3p. sg. je aux2: 3 p. sg. pres. BE-aux. je (in Slovenian also all forms of future aux)
While the existence of these templates already indicates that there is variation in the ordering of clitics, languages also differ in how pronominal clitics are ordered. In BCS, the (partial) order within the pronominal clitic phrase is … < Dat < Acc/Gen < Acc.refl …, as in (32), while in Slovenian, Czech, Slovak, and Sorbian, the order of pronominal clitics is … < Refl < Dat < Acc < Gen …, as in (33) (Reference Browne, Brecht and ChvanyBrowne 1974, Reference HanaHana 2007).Footnote 5 The complete sequence of Czech second-position clitics as given in Reference HanaHana (2007) is in (34a). (34b) shows the Slovenian sequence, with some extra details compared to the templates from Reference ToporišičToporišič (2000) and Reference GreenbergGreenberg (2006).Footnote 6
(32)
a. Bojim ga se. (BCS) fear he.gen refl ‘I’m afraid of him.’ b. Jedu mi se palačinke. eat I.dat refl pancakes ‘I feel like eating pancakes.’
(33)
a. Bojim se ga. (Sln.) fear refl.acc he.gen ‘I’m afraid of him.’ b. Jejo se mi palačinke. eat refl.acc I.dat pancakes ‘I feel like eating pancakes.’
a. … < aux1 < eth. dat / refl < adj. dat < compl. dat < acc < gen (Reference HanaHana 2007: 12, 22)
b. mood < aux1 < refl. dat < refl. acc < eth. dat < dat < acc < gen < aux2
mood: mood naj – ‘should’
aux1: the conditional bi, and all present-tense indicative BE-aux. except 3p. sg. je
aux2: 3 p. sg. BE-aux. je + all forms of future aux.
eth.dat: ethical dative
compl.dat: complement dative
adj.dat: adjunct dative (e.g. possessor dative)Footnote 7
While the existence of the template does not mean that all slots will or even can be filled simultaneously, evidence can be provided for different parts of the sequence that cumulatively justifies the entire template. For example, (35a) attests the existence of separate slots for the dative and accusative reflexive clitics, as well as for their relative ordering, and (35b) provides an example with two non-reflexive dative clitics, where the first is interpreted as an ethical dative.
(35)
a. Putin si se je spet predlagal za predsednika. (Sln.) Putin refl.dat refl.acc aux again suggest for president ‘Putin again suggested himself to himself for president.’ b. On se ti mi ani nepředstavil. (Cze.) he refl.acc you.dat I.dat even not-introduced ‘You know, he did not even introduce himself to me.’ (Reference HanaHana 2007: 16a)
In addition to identifying the order of clitics, a natural question to ask is also what factors determine the order of clitics. It seems that the order is at least partially determined by syntax, but given the cross-linguistic variation in clitic-cluster internal order discussed above, which is not paralleled in non-clitic syntax, this conclusion again seems (partly) unsupported.
It should also be noted, however, that the order of clitics may not be as strict as the description above suggests. For example, Reference StegovecStegovec (2020) claims that the Slovenian dative and accusative clitics are not ordered within the cluster and can appear in either order, as suggested by (36).Footnote 8 The prevalent order Dat > Acc is said to be a result of various restrictions on the co-occurrence of direct (accusative) and indirect (dative) object clitics in which person plays a crucial role (see Reference StegovecStegovec 2020 for details).
(36)
a. Mama mu ga je opisala. (Sln.) mom he.dat he.acc aux described. (Reference StegovecStegovec 2020: 9a) b. Mama ga mu je opisala. mom he.acc he.dat aux described. ‘Mom described him to him.’ (Reference StegovecStegovec 2020: 9b)
Similarly, accusative and genitive pronominal clitics in BCS are reported not to have a strict ordering (Reference Browne and FilipovićBrowne 1975b, Reference Schütze, Carnie, Harley and BuresSchütze 1994). Given that most of these forms are homophonous, it could also be that the two orders are simply indistinguishable.
In Polish the reflexive clitic się can both precede or follow the other pronominal clitics, so for example when co-occurring with the dative 3p.m.sg clitic mu, both się mu and mu się are acceptable, and when co-occurring with the accusative 3p.m.sg clitic go, we find both się go and go się (Wayles Browne p.c., Reference Gladney.Gladney 1983, Reference Rappaport and SchenkerRappaport 1988). Note that this is not necessarily a deviation from the typical clitic behavior, as most Polish pronominal clitics (such as both go and mu) have also been argued not to be proper clitics but rather weak pronouns (Reference CetnarowskaCetnarowska 2004).
Another instance of cluster internal order variation is observed in Slovenian. The mood clitic naj is given as the first clitic in (34b), but as shown in (37) naj can also follow the first auxiliary position within the clitic cluster without a clear interpretive effect (though perhaps with register differences). Similarly, the clitic particle pa can appear nearly anywhere within the cluster, (38), again perhaps with register and/or dialect differences; Reference Franks and Holloway KingFranks & Holloway King (2000) report this and note that the restrictions are unclear. Reference Marušič, Mišmaš and ŽaucerMarušič et al. (2011) claim that the cluster medial position is linked to specific information-structural properties of individual clitics.
(37)
a. …, ki bi naj jim bile izdane odločbe za C aux.cd mood they.dat aux issued orders for višja delovna mesta (Sln.) higher positions ‘ … who were supposedly issued orders for higher positions’ (Gigafida corpus) b. Gradili bi naj ga deset in nato dvajset let build aux.cond mood he.acc ten and then twenty years z njim raziskovali. with he.instr research ‘They were supposed to build it for ten and then use it for research for 20 years.’ (Gigafida corpus)
(38)
a. Včeraj pa sem ga potem kar pojedel. (Sln.) yesterday part aux.1.sg he.acc then pretty-much eat ‘And then yesterday, I just pretty much ate it.’ b. Včeraj sem ga pa potem kar pojedel. yesterday aux he.acc part then pretty-much eat ‘Yesterday I just pretty much ate it.’ c. Drugače se pa ga da naročiti na internetu. otherwise refl ptcl it.acc give.3.sg to-order on internet ‘But otherwise one can also order it online.’
As for the unsplittability of the clitic cluster, Reference LenertováLenertová (2004) turns to adverbs such as už ‘already’ and prý ‘supposedly’. Whereas some might consider these adverbs to be clitics, they are typically not considered to be part of the clitic cluster, and Reference LenertováLenertová (2004) shows that they can split the clitic cluster, (39), even if their preferred position is either immediately preceding or following the cluster (as indicated by the parenthesized už’s).
(39)
Já (už) jsem už jich (už) potkal hodně. (Cze.) I aux already them.gen met.sg.m a lot ‘I have already met a lot of them.’ (Reference LenertováLenertová 2004: 10c, adapted from ČNK corpus)
Similarly, as noted in Reference BoškovićBošković (2001), tonic elements can sometimes split up the clitic cluster in Slovenian; while the example in (40) indeed seems marginal (as marked by Bošković), one can construct perfectly acceptable examples too, the relevant factor being that the intervening material is focused, (41). Unlike in Slovenian, such material cannot break up clitic clusters in BCS, (42), as this would violate the requirement for clitics to be second in their intonational phrase (Reference BoškovićBošković 2004), but the BCS clitic cluster can be separated by a parenthetical. According to Reference BoškovićBošković (2001), parentheticals separate intonational phrases (marked with #), which means that clitics are then placed in the expected position in the intonation phrase, (42).
(40)
?So včeraj ga pretepli? (Sln.) aux yesterday he.acc beaten ‘They beat him yesterday?’ (note: this expresses doubt about yesterday, Reference BoškovićBošković 2001: 162, 120)
(41)
(Ne, ne, sprašujem te,) če so VČERAJ ga pretepli? (Sln.) no no ask you.acc if aux yesterday he.acc beaten ‘(No no, I am asking you) if they beat him YESTERDAY?’
(42)
?Oni su, #kao što sam vam rekla#, predstavili se Petru. (BCS) they are as aux you.dat said introduced refl.acc Petar.dat ‘They, as I told you, introduced themselves to Petar.’ (Reference BoškovićBošković 2001: 3, 2b)Footnote 9
Clitics can ‘escape’ the cluster also through preposing of the entire verb phrase as in example (43), taken from Reference BoškovićBošković (2001).
(43)
% Dali ga Mariji su Ivan i Stipe. (BCS) given it.acc Marija.dat aux Ivan and Stipe ‘Give it to Marija, Ivan and Stipe did.’ (Reference ĆavarĆavar 1999 cited in Reference BoškovićBošković 2001: 51, 89)
Clitics also move from non-finite clauses to adjoin to the clitic cluster of the finite clause, which is often called clitic climbing (e.g. Reference Browne, Brecht and ChvanyBrowne 1974, Reference ProgovacProgovac 1993, Reference Stjepanović, Bošković, Franks and SnyderStjepanović 1998, Reference GoldenGolden 2003, Reference MilićevićMilićević 2019, among others), (44), but this movement is restricted in a number of ways. One of the restrictions, for example, is that only one clitic of the same ‘kind’ (e.g. just one dative clitic) can appear within the cluster, (45) (Reference OrešnikOrešnik 1985).
(44)
Milan mu ga je ukazal povabiti ga. (Sln.) Milan he.dat he.acc aux order to-invite ‘Milan ordered him to invite him.’
(45)
a. Če ji pomagam natakniti mu ovratnico … Sln. if she.dat help to-put-on he.dat collar ‘If I help her put a collar on him … ’ b. *Če ji mu / mu ji pomagam natakniti ovratnico … (Reference OrešnikOrešnik 1985: 215)
In general, clitics therefore do appear in a fixed syntactically defined position within the clitic cluster, but there are contexts in which the clitic cluster can be split and there are cases in which the positions of the clitics are not fixed. Here again, clitics showing non-typical behavior remain clitic-like according to (all) other properties.
17.5 Clitics Behave Like Other Independent Syntactic Elements
The placement of Slavic clitics varies: Bulgarian and Macedonian pronominal and auxiliary (clausal) clitics are verb-adjacent, BCS, Slovenian, Czech, and Slovak are second-position clitics, and Polish pronominal clitics/weak pronouns are freer in their placement but still need a host; see Section 17.2. Operator clitics, which include clitic complementizers, various particles, etc., are placed in the position where the operator is supposed to be located in that particular sentence.
Within Generative Grammar much of the work on the synchrony of clitics has dealt with questions such as whether clitics are heads or phrases and what type of movement they undergo, or what is the nature of the relation between their position of interpretation and the position of their pronunciation. Without subscribing to any particular subtheory, we will call this relation ‘movement’, but we will not be discussing the properties of such movement.
Some of the phenomena discussed above are indeed easiest to explain if we see this relation as movement of a syntactic element. Clitic climbing, mentioned in Section 17.4 and exemplified again here in (46), might be the clearest case. The two pronominal clitics that are pronounced as part of the clitic cluster of the matrix clause, in which they precede the auxiliary clitic of the matrix clause, are both arguments of (and receive theta roles from) the embedded verb dati ‘give’. That they are in fact moved from the embedded clause is most obvious from the fact that the two clitics can also (under certain conditions) remain inside the embedded non-finite clause, as in (46b).
(46)
a. Marija mi ga je zaboravila dati. (BCS) Marija I.dat it.acc aux forgotten give.inf ‘It was Marija who has forgotten to give it to me.’ (Reference Mišeska TomićMišeska Tomić 1996: 8) b. Marija je zaboravila dati mi ga.
Another case that seems equally clear in arguing for movement between the two positions involves examples with VP-preposing of the type shown in (47b) (or (43) above). Note that this example does not involve clitic climbing:
(47)
a. Janez ji ga je prebral včeraj. (Sln.) Janez she.dat it.acc aux read yesterday ‘Janez read it to her yesterday.’ (Reference GoldenGolden 2003: 27a) b. [Prebral ji ga včeraj] je Janez. (Reference GoldenGolden 2003: 27e)
In (47a) the two pronominal clitics are part of the clitic cluster in the second position, but when the verb phrase is preposed to the front of the clause, as in (47b), the two clitics (can) move as part of the fronted verb phrase and are pronounced in the second position of the preposed verb phrase, while the auxiliary clitic, which does not originate from inside the verb phrase cannot be pronounced within the preposed verb phrase but occupies the second position of the clause immediately following the preposed verb phrase. An even clearer case of the contrast between clitic movement from a clause and preposing syntactic constituents is shown in (48). In (48b) the embedded non-finite clause fronts to the beginning of the sentence, carrying with it the two pronominal clitics of the embedded non-finite clause; in (48a), on the other hand, only the clitics move.
(48)
a. Janez se ji ga je naveličal zmeraj samo hvaliti. (Sln.) Janez refl she.dat he.acc aux tired always just to-praise ‘Janez grew tired of praising him to her.’ (based on Reference GoldenGolden 2003: 24a) b. [Zmeraj ji ga samo hvaliti] se je Janez naveličal. (based on Reference GoldenGolden 2003: 31a)
Clitic movement seems to obey all standard constraints on movement: for example, clitics cannot front from an embedded finite clause, they cannot front from an adjunct, they cannot move out of complex noun phrases, etc. A natural conclusion could thus be that clitic movement is a version of standard syntactic movement (or if the theory of one’s choice does not include movement, some other regular syntactic relation that is assumed by the theory).
Once again, however, this conclusion can also be relativized, as we will briefly show with just one fact. As shown in Reference Marušič and ŽaucerMarušič & Žaucer (2017) and in (49), clitic fronting from embedded non-finite clauses can violate the Coordinate Structure Constraint (Reference RossRoss 1967: 89), a constraint according to which “in a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be moved nor may any element contained in a conjunct be moved out of that conjunct.”
(49)
Janez jo je hotel [[__ spoznati] in [ji predstaviti Petra]]. (Sln.) Janez she.acc aux wanted meet and she.dat present Peter ‘Janez wanted to meet her and present Peter to her.’
Given that clitic fronting from embedded non-finite clauses was said to be only optional, as opposed to clitic fronting to the second position of their source clause, we might be able to conclude that the two instances of clitic fronting should be considered two separate phenomena obeying different constraints.
17.6 Conclusions
We presented an overview of some of the properties of Slavic clitics, with an emphasis on the South Slavic clausal clitics. At first sight, clitics seem easy to identify: they are phonologically dependent, stressless functional elements that appear in a fixed syntactically defined position, but otherwise behave like other independent syntactic elements. Yet a closer examination shows that all of the listed properties can be violated individually without affecting the rest of the characteristics that identify an element as a clitic. That is, even though clitics are lexically unstressed and typically remain without a stress also on the surface, they can receive stress in certain contexts while retaining all other typical clitic properties, that is, they do not lose their position in the clitic cluster and within the clause (cf. Reference Franks, Marušič and ŽaucerFranks 2016). Similarly, clitics prefer to be in one and the same syntactic position, but when they nevertheless occur in an atypical position, they do not lose the other typical clitic properties, such as phonological dependence on the neighboring prosodic word. Instead of with their usual host (in the case of second-position clitics, either the first or the second prosodic word in the clause), they are pronounced with whatever prosodic word happens to be next to them, or instead of before the verb in Bulgarian, after the verb. So in order to provide a more accurate description of Slavic clitics, we rephrase the characterization from (2) as (50).
(50) (Slavic Clausal) Clitics are typically phonologically dependent, stressless functional elements that typically appear in a fixed syntactically defined position both inside the clause and inside the clitic cluster but otherwise typically behave like other independent syntactic elements.
A further complicating factor in providing an accurate uniform characterization comes from the considerable cross-linguistic variation in the behavior of Slavic clausal clitics.
Other Slavic clitics, such as operator clitics that include subordinators, coordinators, and certain adverbial or particle clitics and nominal clitics, are for the most part more uniform both across various Slavic languages and language-internally.
18.1 Secondary Predication in Slavic
Secondary predicates (SPs) are those elements conveying an additional predication on top of the first predication featured by the main verbal form.Footnote 1 Slavic secondary predicates follow the regular pattern, typical of most Indo-European languages, of a non-verbal element related to an argument in the clause.Footnote 2 This is illustrated in (1), an example from Ukrainian. Here, Borys is the subject of both the main predication, the verb ‘arrived’, and the second predication, the adjective ‘healthy’.
(1)
Borys pryjšov dodomu z likarni Borys.nom.m.sg arrived home from hospital zdorovyj / zdorovym. healthy.nom.m.sg / healthy.inst.m.sg ‘Borys arrived home from the hospital healthy.’ (Reference RichardsonRichardson 2006: 245) (Ukrainian SP)
Two basic types of secondary predicates are distinguished in the literature on the topic: depictives (2a) and resultatives (2b). In the case of Slavic, I will distinguish three additional subgroups of depictive-like constructions: ‘semi-predicative items’ (2c), ‘appositions’ (2d), and non-inflected secondary predicates, such as gerunds (2e).
(2)
a. Toj vleze mračen. (Bulgarian, depictive SP) he came in gloomy ‘He came in gloomy’ (Reference IvanovaIvanova 2016: 287) b. Jan pomalował drzwi na czerwono. (Polish, resultative SP) Jan painted door to red ‘Jan painted the door red’ (Reference Szajbel-KeckSzajbel-Keck 2015: 3) c. Ja poprosil Tarasaj prijti odnomuj. (Russian, semi-predicative) I asked Taras.acc come one.dat ‘I asked Taras to come alone.’ (Reference MadariagaMadariaga 2006: 46) d. Dobro opremljen, mogao bi stići daleko. (Bosnian, appositional SP) well equipped.nom could aux reach far ‘He could get far as he was well equipped.’ (Reference Habul-ŠabanovićHabul-Šabanović 2019: 188) e. On spit sidja. (Russian, gerund) he sleeps sitting.ger ‘He sleeps sitting up.’ (Reference NicholsNichols 1981: 320)
Example (2a) illustrates a regular depictive or descriptive adjective, mračen ‘gloomy’, related to the subject of the main predication (toj ‘he’). Example (2b) is an example of a resultative construction in which the final state is denoted by a PP (na czerwono ‘into red’). Example (2c) includes the semi-predicative item odin ‘one, alone’, encoded with special dative case. Example (2d) illustrates a left-dislocated appositional AP, endowed with certain differential properties with respect to regular depictives.
Cross-linguistic studies about SP show a wide range of variation with regard to the specific instantiation of these constructions in each language (Reference Schultze-Berndt, Everaert and van RiemsdijkSchultze-Berndt 2017). In most European languages, including Slavic, some common features characterize SP (Reference Rothstein, Everaert and van RiemsdijkRothstein 2017): (i) a secondary predicate attributes a property to a subject; (ii) a coindexation operation takes place;Footnote 3 (iii) regular depictive secondary predicates are ‘optional’, that is, they can be omitted without affecting the grammaticality of the sentence (Tom came home (drunk)), while this is not always the case in resultative secondary predication (Tom wiped the table (clean), but: Tom drank the pub *(dry)). As we can appreciate in (1), SP is signaled in Slavic languages by additional morphological strategies, which materialize overtly phi-feature agreement (gender, number) and case.
The outline of this chapter is the following: Section 18.2 examines the basic syntactic, morphological, and semantic properties of depictive SP (with a brief mention of appositions, semi-predicatives, and gerunds), whereas Section 18.3 is devoted to resultative constructions. In Section 18.4, I give a quick overview of argumental Small Clauses (SC), which are sometimes included in studies about SP although, technically, they are not SP.Footnote 4 Finally, Section 18.5 offers a brief diachronic survey of non-verbal predication in Slavic.
18.2 Depictive SP in Slavic
18.2.1 Basic Syntactic Structure of Depictive SP
Depictive or descriptive secondary predicates are those APs that express a second predication on top of the one conveyed by the tensed verb in the clause.Footnote 5 Depictives are ‘optional’ (3a), and can be coordinated with adjoined adverbial/PP expressions (3b). These two properties warrant the widespread view that secondary predicates are adjoined to some XP in the structure (Reference ChomskyChomsky 1981, Reference RothsteinRothstein 1983, among many others).Footnote 6
(3)
a. Ana je ležala (smirena). (Croatian, optional depictive SP) Ana aux lie (calm.nom) ‘Ana was lying (calm).’ (Reference Habul-ŠabanovićHabul-Šabanović 2019: 189) b. Tomáš vyšel smutný a s knihou Tomas.nom came out gloomy.nom and with book v ruce. (Czech, depictive in coordination with PP) in hand ‘Tomas came out gloomy and with a book in his hand.’
Previous hypotheses about a complex structure underlying the – apparently simple – adjective featuring SP got additional support thanks to the Slavic languages (Reference Bailyn and RubinBailyn & Rubin 1991, Reference Franks, Hornstein, Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri and HigginbothamFranks & Hornstein 1992). These languages provided morphological evidence for a complex structure of SP, expressed in a range of case marking possibilities, together with the special semantic interpretation and distributional facts of Slavic SP (cf. Sections 18.2.2–18.2.4).
The most widespread hypothesis on the complexity of SP is known as the Small Clause (SC) approach. SCs mirror clausal predication in that they have a subject and a predicate forming a constituent, but they lack verbal inflection (Reference ChomskyChomsky 1981, Reference StowellStowell 1981, etc.). There are different options as for what the subject of a SC can be, but we will assume here a silent element (PRO), coindexed with an overt argument in the matrix clause, giving rise to a relation usually called Control (Johni came [SC PROi drunk]).Footnote 7 This version of the SC approach to SP is depicted in (4), representing example (1).
(4)
The SC approach is nowadays standard in formal treatments of Slavic SP (Reference Bailyn and StriginBailyn 2001, Reference Bailyn2012, Reference Strigin and DemjjanowStrigin & Demjjanow 2001, Reference MadariagaMadariaga 2006, Reference Madariaga2008, Reference Franks, Bondaruk, Dalmi and GrosuFranks 2014, among many others).
18.2.2 Predicate Case Marking and Morphological Category
Differences in case marking are the most evident signal of the richness of SP structures in Slavic, in which several marking variants are available:Footnote 8
(i) instrumental case marking (5a)
(ii) sameness of case (5b)Footnote 9
(iii) SP introduced by kak / jak / jako / ako / kao ‘as, like’ + sameness of case (5c)
(iv) SP introduced by a preposition za, na, v … ‘for’ (5d).
(5)
a. Sabakai vyjšaŭ z vady srebranymi. dog.nom came out from water silver.inst ‘The dog came out of the water silver.’ (Reference RichardsonRichardson 2007: 125) (Belarusian, instrumental case marking) b. Mat’ ju našla vyplakanú. mother her.acc found crying.acc ‘Her mother found her in tears.’ (Reference FranksFranks 1995: 269) (Slovak, sameness of case) c. Odgojio je sinaj kao poštenog čovjekaj. raised aux son.acc like [honest man].acc ‘He raised his son as an honest man.’ (Reference Habul-ŠabanovićHabul-Šabanović 2019: 195) (BCS, kao + sameness of case) d. Tego nie da się słuchać na trzeźwo! that not give refl listen for sober ‘It’s impossible to listen to that sober!’ (Reference Szajbel-KeckSzajbel-Keck 2015: 19) (Polish, prepositional SP)
In general terms, sameness of case is the preferred option across Slavic, with the exception of East Slavic and, to a lesser extent, Polish. In West and South Slavic, instrumental predicate case is restricted to: (i) non-verbal predicates in argumental SCs in BCS and Polish (cf. Section 18.4), and (ii) NP predication in copular sentences in Polish and, very marginally, BCS and Czech (cf. footnote 5).
In East Slavic, instrumental predicate case is widely used in SP. The morphological category of the secondary predicate matters in this respect: in Russian, instrumental marking is the unique option for nominal SP, alternating with kak ‘like’ + sameness of case (6a). In adjectival SP, instrumental and sameness of case are both available (6b):
(6)
a. Vlad ustroil’sja na rabotu perevodčikom / *perevodčik Vlad.nom found to job translator.inst / *nom / kak perevodčik. / like translator.nom ‘Vlad found a translator job.’ (Russian, secondary NP predicate) b. Majja pribežala k nemu pervoj / pervaja. Maia.nom ran to him first.inst / nom ‘Maia was the first to come running towards him.’ (Russian, secondary AP predicate)
In Polish, predicate NPs are regularly marked with instrumental case in copular clauses, argumental SCs, and also SP, as illustrated in (7a). Adjectival SP, however, is rarely encoded with instrumental case, only in lexical combination with a few verbs, as in (7b), but not in other contexts (7c) (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 1999):
(7)
a. Ojcieci umarł żebrakiemi. father.nom died pauper.inst ‘The father died as a pauper.’ (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 1999: 119) (Polish, secondary NP predicate) b. Zastałem goj pijanegoj / pijanymj. found him drunk.acc / inst ‘I found him drunk.’ (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 1999: 203) c. Uderzyłem goj nietrzeźwegoj / ?*nietrzeźwymi/j. hit.1sg.masc him.acc drunk.acc / *inst ‘I hit him (when he was) drunk.’ (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 1999: 203) (Polish, secondary AP predicates)
In infinitive clauses with an arbitrary reading, in absence of an explicit nominative controller, instrumental case becomes compulsory in Polish, even on APs (8a) (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 1999).Footnote 10 In other West Slavic, however, instrumental predicate case is virtually absent from SP; even in infinitive clauses with an arbitrary reading, the secondary predicate displays default nominative, rather than instrumental (8b).
(8)
a. Wrócić pijanym / *pijany to dyshonor. return.inf drunk.inst / *nom is dishonour ‘To come back drunk is a dishonour.’ (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 1999: 217) (Polish, AP predicate – arbitrary infinitive clause) b. Vracet se domů opilý / *opilým je hanba. return.inf refl home drunk.nom / *inst is shame ‘To come back home drunk is a shame.’ (Czech, AP predicate – arbitrary infinitive clause)
18.2.3 Arguments in the Clause Modified by SP
Cross-linguistically, depictive adjectives usually refer to subjects and objects, but not to recipients or obliques, as noted by Reference Rothstein, Everaert and van RiemsdijkRothstein (2017) (*John gave the book to Maryi sicki / *John gave Maryi the book sicki).
In East Slavic SP, the case alternation reviewed in Section 18.2.2 is available precisely when a nominative subject or an accusative object are modified (9a–b).
(9)
a. Genai vernulsja domoj mračnyji / mračnymi. Gena.nom came back home gloomy.nom / inst (Russian, subject – depictive) b. Majjai zastala egoj doma grustnogoj / grustnymj. Maia found him.acc home sad.acc / inst (Russian, object – depictive)
However, a differential characteristic of Slavic languages is that most of them allow depictive SP into other arguments in the sentence: goals/recipients and quirky subjects (Reference NicholsNichols 1981, Reference RichardsonRichardson 2007, Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 1999, Reference GraščenkovGraščenkov 2018).
(10)
a. Virai perečyla čolovikovij p’janomuj / *p’janymj. Vira.nom contradicted husband.dat drunk.dat / *inst ‘Vira contradicted her husband, who was drunk.’ (Reference RichardsonRichardson 2007: 161) (Ukrainian, recipient) b. Menii ne pracjujet’sja p’janomui / p’janymi. I.dat no works.refl drunk.dat / inst ‘I can’t seem to work drunk.’ (Reference RichardsonRichardson 2007: 151) (Ukrainian, quirky subject)
As noted by Reference RichardsonRichardson (2007), dative experiencers, just like dative goals/recipients (10a), disallow instrumental case marking on the depictive (11). Notice that dative experiencers, unlike dative subjects (10b), co-occur with nominative subjects (11):
(11)
*Mnei vsë nadoedaet trezvymi. I.dat everything.nom bores sober.inst Intended: ‘Everything bores me (when I’m) sober.’ (Reference RichardsonRichardson 2007: 40) (Russian, dative experiencer)
In Polish, the other Slavic language in which instrumental predicate case is occasionally available, dative recipients and quirky subjects can be related to secondary predicates, but must display sameness of case:
(12)
Janowi zimno choremu / *chorym. John.dat cold ill.dat / *inst ‘John is cold (because he is) ill.’ (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 1999: 202) (Polish, quirky subject)
As for obliques, in East Slavic, they cannot be modified by depictives, as shown in (13). This example would become acceptable only if the predicate were right-dislocated, clearly separated from its antecedent by a pause/comma (Reference GraščenkovGraščenkov 2018).
(13)
*Majja ostavila vilku na tarelke sovsem pustoj. Maia left fork on plate.prep completely empty.prep ‘Maia left the fork on the plate, which was completely empty.’ (Russian, oblique – *depictive)
In South Slavic (Slovenian and BCS), not only dislocated appositions, but also depictives have the ability to modify all kinds of DPs, including quirkies, obliques, and NPs inserted in PPs (Reference Marušič, Marvin, Žaucer, Browne, Kim, Partee and RothsteinMarušič et al. 2003, Reference Šarić, Schroeder, Hentschel and BoederŠarić 2008). Depictives can modify such DPs only if they are adjacent to them, as shown in (14).
(14)
a. Peteri je dal piškote v košaricoj vso polomljenoj. Peter.nom aux gave biscuits in basket.acc all.acc broken.acc ‘Peter put the biscuits into the basket, which was completely broken.’ (Reference Marušič, Marvin, Žaucer, Browne, Kim, Partee and RothsteinMarušič et al. 2003: 374–375) (Slovenian, PP – depictive) b. Dohvatio se vrataj svih prljavihj. touched refl door.gen.pl all.gen.pl dirty.gen.pl ‘He touched the door, which was all dirty.’ (Reference Šarić, Schroeder, Hentschel and BoederŠarić 2008: 298) (Croatian, quirky object – depictive)
In Table 18.1, I summarize the basic mechanisms of Slavic depictive SP encoding in relation to the arguments in the clause they modify.
Table 18.1 Depictive SP encoding in Slavic
| Depictive AP related to … | East Slavic | Polish | Slovenian, BCS |
|---|---|---|---|
| … nominative subjects & accusative objects | Instrumental & sameness of case | Preferably sameness of case | Sameness of case |
| … dative subjects | Instrumental & sameness of case | Sameness of case | Sameness of case |
| … dative goals/recipients or experiencers | Sameness of case | Sameness of case | Sameness of case |
| … obliques & PPs | no (only appositions) | no (only appositions) | Sameness of case (& adjacency) |
18.2.4 Semantic Interpretation of Depictive SP
The most renowned semantic property ascribed to depictive SP is that the adjectival predicate conveys a ‘transitory’ or stage-level property (Reference RothsteinRothstein 1983). This rules out examples like *John came intelligent, in which the adjective denotes an individual-level property. Reference Rothstein, Everaert and van RiemsdijkRothstein (2017) notices further that, in English, the property attributed by a depictive predicate in SP holds all the time that the event denoted by the matrix verb lasts (John came home drunk), while resultative adjectives attribute a property that holds only at the point when the main event finishes (John painted the wall green).
In contrast, East Slavic depictive SP displays a rich semantic pattern, whereby distinct case marking on the AP predicate can correlate with distinct semantic interpretations, in those contexts in which two different case markings – instrumental and sameness of case – are both available (Reference TimberlakeTimberlake 1986). According to Reference RichardsonRichardson (2007: 123ff.), in these contexts, sameness of case surfaces when the property denoted by the adjective describes a general state of the subject without implying a change of state (15a), whereas instrumental case implies a change of state, as well as the fact that the property denoted by the adjective holds at that particular point of time (15b):
(15)
a. Ivan prišël domoj iz bol’nicy zdorovyj. Ivan.nom arrived home from hospital healthy.nom (Russian, sameness of case) b. Ivan prišel domoj iz bol’nicy zdorovym. Ivan.nom arrived home from hospital healthy.inst (Russian, instrumental case marking) ‘Ivan arrived home from the hospital healthy.’ (Reference RichardsonRichardson 2007: 123)
Sameness of case in (15a) encodes a purely intersective depictive (‘Ivan came home (and he was) healthy (e.g. his general state)’), whereas instrumental case in (15b) implies that the subject has undergone a change of state (‘Ivan came home from the hospital (already) healthy (e.g. after being cured at hospital)’).
Slavic languages other than East Slavic lack a regular case alternation on adjectival depictives, and therefore, do not differentiate semantic values by means of overt morphology.
18.2.5 Appositional SP
On the one hand, appositive secondary predicates share their basic properties with depictive SP: they are optionally adjoined APs/NPs, display different case marking options, and show certain restrictions concerning the arguments in the clause they can modify.
On the other hand, they exhibit some differences with respect to depictives, the most salient difference being that they are ‘dislocated’ adjuncts.Footnote 11 They can be preposed to the whole clause (16a), or postposed to it (16b).
(16)
a. Djevojkom je bila šutljiva.Footnote 12 girl.inst aux be silent ‘As a girl, she was silent.’ (Reference Habul-ŠabanovićHabul-Šabanović 2019: 189) (Croatian, left-dislocated SP) b. Stadoh, začuđen. stood.1sg amazed.nom ‘I stood still, amazed.’ (Reference Habul-ŠabanovićHabul-Šabanović 2019: 190) (Croatian, right-dislocated SP)
With regard to their semantics, appositions can convey a characteristic ‘circumstantial’ value. Reference NicholsNichols (1981) divides appositive secondary predicates into three semantic subtypes: temporal (17a), conditional (17b), and concessive (17c).
(17)
a. (Rebënkom) on žil v Irkutske (rebënkom). child.inst he.nom lived in Irkutsk child.inst ‘As a child (when he was a child), he lived in Irkutsk.’ (Reference NicholsNichols 1981: 17) (Russian, temporal apposition) b. Sladkij ėtot čaj nevkusnyj. sweet.nom this tea.nom not tasty.nom ‘Sweet (if it is sweet), this tea is not tasty.’ (Reference NicholsNichols 1981: 11) (Russian, conditional preposed apposition) c. On i spjaščij ne mog ob ėtom zabyt’. he.nom and sleeping.nom not could about this forget ‘He could not forget about this even sleeping.’ (Reference NicholsNichols 1981: 11) (Russian, concessive preposed apposition)
Sometimes, these semantic values are rather indistinguishable, as in example (17b), in which the exact interpretation of the preposed adjective can vary according to the context (‘this tea is not tasty because it is sweet/when it is sweet/if it is sweet’). On the other hand, the concessive value arises from the combination of the apposition with the concessive particles i ‘also’ or daže ‘even’, which cannot be dropped in this meaning.
18.2.6 Semi-Predicative Items
There is a small group of words in Slavic which can feature in SP, albeit with a range of idiosyncratic properties. These are so-called semi-predicative items (Reference Comrie, Brecht and ChvanyComrie 1974, Reference FranksFranks 1995), namely, odin/odyn ‘one, alone’, sam/sám ‘alone, himself’, and, in some languages, the quantifiers vse ‘all’ and oba ‘both’. The best-known property of these elements is that they accept only sameness of case, and never instrumental marking:
(18)
a. Taras pryjšov odyn / *odnym. Taras.nom came one.nom / *inst ‘Taras came alone.’ (Ukrainian, semi-predicate referring to a subject) b. Zostawmy Jerzego samego / *samym. let’s leave Jerzy.acc himself.acc / *inst ‘Let’s leave Jerzy alone.’ (Reference FranksFranks 1995: 267) (Polish, semi-predicate referring to an object)
The reason is that, as Reference MadariagaMadariaga (2006) shows, semi-predicative elements share most of their semantic and morphosyntactic properties with quantifiers, which, because of their own idiosyncratic nature, are never encoded with instrumental case.Footnote 13
In East Slavic and Polish, these elements have been mostly studied in relation to infinitive clauses (Reference Franks, Hornstein, Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri and HigginbothamFranks & Hornstein 1992, Reference FranksFranks 1995, Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 1999, etc.). Semi-predicative items in East Slavic and Polish infinitive clauses with an arbitrary subject (‘arbitrary PRO’) (19a), and in object control clauses (19b), display neither instrumental predicate case nor sameness of case, but so-called second dative case.Footnote 14
(19)
a. [PRO Žit’ v svoëm dome vsegda odnomu / *odnim / live.inf in one’s house always one.dat / *inst / *odin] – skučno i mne i tebe i emu. *nom boring and me and you and him ‘Living in your house all alone is boring for me, for you, and for him.’ (Russian, arbitrary PRO – second dative) b. Poprosiłem Jana [PRO iść samemu /*samym / *samego]. asked Jan.acc go.inf himself.dat / *inst / *acc ‘I asked Jan to go alone.’ (Reference FranksFranks 1995: 277) (Polish, object control – second dative)
In other Slavic languages, instead of second dative, default nominative or adverbial forms are used both in object control (20a), and arbitrary PRO (20b–c).
(20)
a. Prepričal sem Jana [PRO oditi sam / *samemu / *#samega]. convinced aux Jan.acc go.inf alone.nom / *dat / *#acc ‘I convinced Jan to go alone.’ (Slovenian, object control – default nominative case) b. Važno je [PRO živeti sam]. important is live.inf alone.nom.sg ‘It is important to live alone.’ (Reference FranksFranks 1995: 268) (BCS, arbitrary PRO – default nominative case) c. Nie je dobre [PRO jest’ samo]. no is good eat.inf alone.neut.sg ‘It is not good to eat alone.’ (Reference FranksFranks 1995: 269) (Slovak, arbitrary PRO – adverbial form)
18.2.7 Non-inflected Secondary Predicates (Gerunds and PPs)
A special subgroup within secondary predication is represented by gerunds and other non-inflected verbal forms which, in some languages, including Slavic, can function as secondary predicates. In Russian, gerunds are used as secondary predicates in bound and circumstantial uses (Reference NicholsNichols 1981: 320ff.): (i) bound uses involve verbs of motion, position, and change of state (21a); (ii) circumstantial gerundial predicates are free adverbial expressions (21b).
(21)
a. Idti prixodilos’ nizko sognuvšis’, prjača lico … go was needed low having bent.ger hiding.ger face ‘He had to walk bent over, hiding his face … ’ (Reference NicholsNichols 1981: 320) b. Ja postupil na rabotu eščë ne okončiv institut. I started to work yet not having finished.ger university ‘I started work before graduating.’ (Reference NicholsNichols 1981: 321) (Russian, gerundial secondary predicates)
Gerunds as adverbial expressions are close to cosubordinative structures (cf. also example (2e) in Section 18.1), as they constitute non-inflected verbal forms with a semantic value between adverbial (usually temporal) subordination and coordination.
Similar non-inflected participial or verbal forms used as secondary predicates are found in other Slavic languages as well:
(22)
a. Pięciu facetów szło śpiewając. five guys walked singing ‘Five guys walked singing.’ (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 1999: 169) (Polish, non-inflected secondary verbal predicate) b. Čovjek ide ulicom poskakujući. man goes by street jumping ‘The man is walking through the street jumping.’ (Reference Šarić, Schroeder, Hentschel and BoederŠarić 2008: 296) (Croatian, non-inflected secondary verbal predicate)
Finally, PPs can be used as secondary predicates in specific environments as well (cf. the examples in (23)).Footnote 15
(23)
a. Èti domiki privozili v razobrannom vide. these houses carried in disassembled form ‘These houses were brought disassembled.’ (Reference NicholsNichols 1981: 327) b. Stat’i predstavljajutsja v dvux èkzempljarax. articles are presented in two copies ‘Articles must be presented in two copies.’ (Reference NicholsNichols 1981: 343) (Russian, secondary PP predicates)
18.3 Resultative SP in Slavic
This section is devoted to resultative constructions, which are divided into two basic subtypes: (i) regular (final-state) resultative constructions, and (ii) path resultative constructions.
Regular resultative constructions in Slavic differ from their English equivalents; in fact, adjectival resultative constructions of the English type I painted the door green are not generally allowed in Slavic (Reference Strigin and DemjjanowStrigin & Demjjanow 2001, Reference GraščenkovGraščenkov 2018). Instead, resultative SP is lexicalized in the verbal form, in the form of a telic prefix, such as do-, po-, o-, za-, vy-, na-, etc. (Reference Spencer and ZaretskayaSpencer & Zaretskaya 1998, Reference ŽaucerŽaucer 2002, Reference GulgowskiGulgowski 2013). Resultative prefixed verbs are regularly accompanied by a PP (24a–b) or a final finite clause (24c), which includes the final state of the resultative event:
(24)
a. Prygun do-prygalsja do xromoty / *xromym. vaulter pref-jumped.refl until lameness lame.inst ‘The vaulter jumped himself lame.’ (Russian, prefixed resultative + goal PP) b. Maria po-malowała drzwi na czerwono. Mary pref-painted door on red ‘Mary painted the door red.’ (Reference GulgowskiGulgowski 2013: 4) (Polish, prefixed resultative + goal PP) c. Konobarica je o-brisala stol *čistim / tako da waitress aux pref-wiped table *clean.inst that for postane čist. becomes clean ‘The waitress wiped the table clean (lit. so that it becomes clean).’ (Reference Habul-ŠabanovićHabul-Šabanović 2019: 196) (BCS, prefixed resultative + final clause)
In a few cases, however, a resultative prefixed verb takes an AP secondary predicate (occasionally marked with instrumental case), parallel to the English resultative:
(25)
a. On na-pilsja (p’janyj / p’janym). he.nom pref-got drunk (drunk.nom / inst) ‘He got drunk.’ b. Ona vy-rosla (bol‘šaja / bol‘šoj). she.nom pref-grew up (big.nom / inst) ‘She grew up.’ (Russian, resultative AP – subjects) c. Z-rasla je velika. pref-grew up aux big.nom ‘She grew up (tall).’ (Reference ŽaucerŽaucer 2002: 19) (Slovenian, resultative AP – subject) d. O-bojili su zid crvenim. pref-painted aux wall red.inst ‘They painted the wall red.’ (Reference Habul-ŠabanovićHabul-Šabanović 2019: 199) (BCS, resultative AP – object)
In all these examples, a secondary PP predicate (24) or an AP (25) is combined with a resultative prefixed verb, which ties the change of state denoted by the secondary predicate to the end of the main event (i.e. the object/person becomes the relevant condition, color, or form after the event has finished). This semantic effect is characteristic of resultative constructions across Slavic, as opposed to East Slavic depictives, which exhibit different temporal relations with respect to the main event (cf. Section 18.2.4). Whereas the presence of a non-verbal predicate expressing the final state is not mandatory (25a–b), the absence of a telic prefix on the verb rules out resultative SP, as shown in (26) (Reference Spencer and ZaretskayaSpencer & Zaretskaya 1998, Reference ŽaucerŽaucer 2002: 18ff.):Footnote 16
(26)
*On pilsja (p’janyj / p’janym). he.nom got drunk.impf (drunk.nom / inst)
The second type of constructions are path resultative constructions, equivalent to the English type The boat floated under the bridge. Here, as in final-state constructions, resultativity is conveyed by a verbal prefix, in this case, attached to a directional verb of motion, and combined with a PP expressing the final location of the movement (Reference Spencer and ZaretskayaSpencer & Zaretskaya 1998: 28ff., Reference Arsenijević, de Saussure, Moeschler and PuskásArsenijević 2007).
(27)
a. Rebënok pod-lez pod stol. child pref-crawled under table ‘The child crawled under the table.’ (Reference Spencer and ZaretskayaSpencer & Zaretskaya 1998: 28) (Russian, path resultative) b. Jovan je uz-trčao uz brdo. Jovan aux pref-ran up hill ‘Jovan ran up the hill.’ (Reference Arsenijević, de Saussure, Moeschler and PuskásArsenijević 2007: 199) (BCS, path resultative)
18.4 Non-verbal Predicates in Argument Position
In Slavic, non-verbal predicates in argument position are often studied in connection to SP, because of their morphological commonalities. Non-verbal predicates in argument position form a unit that is selected as a complement by certain verbs; for example, I consider [him my brother], is itself theta-marked, and often displays object morphology (e.g. him instead of he).
I will follow the widespread assumption that the subject in these structures forms a constituent with the non-verbal predicate – an SC. SCs in object position in Slavic are complement to semi-copulas of denominative, causative, and evaluative types (consider, seem, name, make, etc.).
Despite the similarities between these structures and SP, there are semantic and structural reasons to distinguish the two phenomena (Reference Rothstein, Everaert and van RiemsdijkRothstein 2017): (i) The verb selecting an argumental SC is semantically bleached, and the only actual predication is conveyed by the non-verbal predicate (AP or NP). Thus, strictly speaking, there is no secondary predication in these constructions. (ii) Argumental SCs do not allow omission of any of the elements in the SC (I consider *(Mary) *(a good teacher)), as opposed to SP (Tim came home (drunk)).
Non-verbal predicates in these constructions take different forms in Slavic, summarized in Table 18.2.
Table 18.2 Non-verbal predicate encoding in Slavic argumental SCs
| East Slavic | Polish | BCS | Other Slavic | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bare instrumental case | yes |
| yes | no |
| Prepositional constructions | za / v + sameness of case | za / na + accusative | za + accusative | za + accusative |
| Like-constructions + sameness of case | jak / kak + sameness of case | jak + sameness of case | kao + sameness of case | jako / ako / kot + sameness of case |
As shown in Table 18.2, in East Slavic, sameness of case (not introduced by a preposition or kak/jak) is disallowed (28a–b), whereas in Polish, sameness of case is excluded on NPs (29b), and available on APs (29a); the latter, in contrast, disfavor instrumental case (29a) (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 1999):
(28)
a. Vin vvažaje sebej prezydentomj / *prezydentaj / jak he considers himself.acc president.inst / *acc / like prezydentaj / za prezydentaj Ukrajiny. president.acc / for president.acc of Ukraine ‘He considers himself (as) the president of Ukraine.’ (Ukrainian, argumental SC – NP) b. My sčitaem ego svoim / *svoego / za svoego. we consider him.acc self.inst / *acc / for self.acc ‘We consider him (as) ours.’ (Reference BailynBailyn 2012: 192) (Russian, argumental SC – AP)
(29)
a. Janeki okazał się draniemi / ?*drańi. Janek.nom turned out refl cad.inst / ?*nom ‘Janek turned out to be a cad.’ (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 1999: 216) (Polish, argumental SC – NP) b. Mariai okazała się przyjacielskai / ??przyjacielską. Maria.nom turned out refl friendly.nom / ??inst ‘Maria turned out to be friendly.’ (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 1999: 216) (Polish, argumental SC – AP)
BCS argumental SCs generally require instrumental case marking or an overt predicative particle (30a), contrasting with SP, in which instrumental case is disallowed (30b) (cf. Section 18.2.2):
(30)
a. Smatraju gaj budalomj / za budaluj / kao budaluj.Footnote 17 consider him.acc fool.inst / for fool.acc / like fool.acc ‘I consider him a fool.’ (Reference Habul-ŠabanovićHabul-Šabanović 2019: 194) (BCS, argumental SC) b. Našao sam gaj pijanogj / *pijanimj. found aux him.acc drunk.acc / *inst ‘I found him drunk.’ (Reference Habul-ŠabanovićHabul-Šabanović 2019: 197) (BCS, secondary predicate)
Finally, Slovenian (31) and West Slavic other than Polish have to make use of the za + accusative construction for this kind of non-verbal predicates.
(31)
Imam gaj za budaloj / za neumnegaj. have him.acc for fool.acc / for unintelligent.acc ‘I consider him a fool / unintelligent.’ (Slovenian, argumental SC)
18.5 Diachronic Development of SP in Slavic
The history of predicate case marking in Slavic had its origin in a very specific adverbial use of the instrumental case marking on NPs, meaning ‘way, manner’, and implying some kind of comparison. This construction probably goes back to Common Slavic, and is still alive nowadays.Footnote 18
(32)
Krъvь tečaaše rěkami. blood.nom.sg poured rivers.inst.pl ‘Blood flowed in rivers.’ (OCS, Codex Suprasliensis, 53:27)
The instrumental NP in (32) cannot be interpreted as a depictive secondary predicate, as it does not display phi-agreement with respect to the subject of the clause. It must be analyzed as a PP, headed by a null P, which assigns lexical instrumental case to its NP complement in a regular way.
As for non-verbal predicates, NPs/APs, they were usually encoded with sameness of case in early Slavic (called ‘second cases’ in historical linguistics):
(33)
Narekъ Čjudina voevodu. said Chudin.acc commander.acc ‘He designated Chudin as the commander.’ (Old East Slavic, Hypatian Chronicle, 306b)Footnote 19
Meanwhile, the instrumental case of manner/comparison was occasionally used in a different environment, namely, NP predication selected by (semi-)copular verbs denoting designation (name, designate, be as …). It was a Pan-Slavic phenomenon, at least, in its origins (Reference LopatinaLopatina 1966), and is also found in Baltic (Reference Stassen, Dahl and Koptjevskaja-TammStassen 2001). There are a few examples already in Old Church Slavonic (Reference XodovaXodova 1960):
(34)
Rabomъ pozyvaatъ vladyk[ǫ]. slave.inst calls master.acc ‘He calls his master a slave.’ (OCS, Codex Suprasliensis, 509:21)
This pattern originated in the reanalysis of the null PP construction of manner/comparison, reinterpreted as NP predication when selected by a designative verb.Footnote 20 Besides its purely adverbial interpretation, instrumental case gained a predicative grammatical value, and thus became a suitable candidate to spread to other instances of non-verbal NP predication. In East Slavic, from the twelfth century, this new pattern spread to more and more classes of verbs with different meanings (Reference LomtevLomtev 1956, Reference LopatinaLopatina 1966).
The new construction was especially successful in the case of preverbal and left-dislocated predicate NPs, which had so far given rise to ambiguities when they were marked with sameness of case. Consider again example (34): if the preposed predicate NP were marked with accusative case, we could get confused about which NP is the argument and which one the predicate (‘he calls the slave master’ or ‘he calls the master slave’).
In fact, in the first centuries of the life of predicative instrumental in designative contexts, it was typically associated to fronted (left-dislocated) NP predicates (34), (35), while NP predicates in situ, not being ambiguous, surfaced with sameness of case (33) (Reference BorkovskijBorkovskij 1978):
(35)
Svjatitelem li tja starejšinu prozovu? bishop.inst part. you.acc elder.acc will name ‘Should I designate you, the elder (of the place), a bishop?’ (Old East Slavic, Cyril of Turov’s Sermon)
By the fifteenth century, instrumental case becomes mandatory on NP predicates in non-finite clauses. Close to the sixteenth century, instrumental case prevailed over ‘second accusatives’, that is, sameness of case on NP predicates in argumental position, which were eventually lost by the seventeenth century.
Avoiding null Ps was a general tendency in early Slavic.Footnote 21 In the specific case of non-verbal predication, two outcomes are attested: (i) elimination of the null P (by reanalysis of the PP as an NP predicate), or (ii) overt realization of the null P, as in (36), which illustrates an early instance of predicative ‘za + accusative’.
(36)
Nas na Rusi ne počitajut i za psa smerdjaščago. us.acc in Russia not consider even for [dog stinking].acc ‘In Russia, they consider us less than a stinking dog.’ (Middle Russian, Conquest of the Azov, seventeenth century)
And what about adjectival predicates? AP predicates, either preposed or in situ, did not give rise to ambiguities, as they cannot be interpreted as arguments or confused with the clausal subject/object. AP predicates resorted to the old mechanism of sameness of case for a longer time in Russian. Finally, in the seventeenth century, the instrumental form started to extend to AP predication.Footnote 22 This extension gave rise to a new case marking alternation associated to specialized semantic interpretations (see Section 18.2.4).
As for the extension of the instrumental predicate case in other Slavic languages, different outcomes are attested (Reference MadariagaMadariaga 2008: 477ff.). The diffusion of instrumental case to AP predication, together with the availability of long adjectives as predicates, took place much earlier in Belarusian and Ukrainian than in Middle Russian (Reference LopatinaLopatina 1966).
As for Czech and Slovak, instrumental case never extended further than the initial NPs denoting duties and professions, usually involving the verb býti ‘to be’ in non-present and infinitive clauses. Instrumental case on AP predicates never spread as a regular mechanism and was considered ungrammatical by normative linguists (Reference GebauerGebauer 1929).
According to Reference LopatinaLopatina (1966), in the first Polish documents (fourteenth to fifteenth centuries), instrumental case is rarely found. Until the sixteenth century, it is used mostly on NPs with the infinitive być ‘to be’ and semi-copular verbs. Afterwards, it extended to NP predicates in a regular way and, much more restrictedly, to AP predicates, associated to a few verbs by virtue of lexical selection. In fact, the Polish distribution of predicate case marking follows straightforwardly from the diachronic development of Slavic SP, according to the differential properties of NP vs. AP predicates reviewed in this section.
In BCS, instrumental case has been preserved only in the initial reanalyzed form, that is, restricted to NP predicates in argument position (Reference Bailyn and StriginBailyn 2001). Slovenian preserved the oldest pattern of sameness of case, and eliminated completely prepositionless instrumental phrases. In those contexts in which sameness of case cannot apply for some reason, Slovenian chose default forms (with arbitrary PRO), or the overt PP strategy ‘za + accusative’ (on NP predicates in argument position).
19.1 Introduction
The term polarity refers to the distinction between a negative and an affirmative assertion. The former is linguistically expressed by what is called sentential negation. In semantics, negative and positive assertions expressing the same proposition are connected through the truth-value of this proposition (truth vs. falsity), namely, the negation of a sentence expressing a false statement turns it into a true statement and vice versa (cf. Reference LöbnerLöbner 2000, Reference HornHorn 2001, Reference Penka and RiemerPenka 2016, among others).
Besides being semantically relevant, contexts linked to polarity are relevant for the morphosyntactic shape of linguistic expressions which are part of the respective sentence. This especially holds for indefinite expressions across languages, which is illustrated by the contrast between a sentence (i) lacking and (ii) containing a marker for sentential negation such as not in English and the licensing of the shape of the respective indefinite pronoun something vs. anything.
(i) Peter found something/*anything.
(ii) Peter did not find *something/anything.
The expressions sensitive to polarity – indefinites and other elements – are called negative polarity items (NPIs) and positive polarity items (PPIs). Additionally, it is assumed that languages may employ so-called n-words (negative concord items) which, semantically, have been argued to be existential indefinites (Reference Giannakidou, Quer and GabrieleGiannakidou & Quer 1995, Reference Giannakidou, Quer and Forget1997, among others) or universal quantifiers (Reference AbelsAbels 2005 among others). In certain languages, for example Slavic languages, they are obligatorily in the scope of clausemate sentential negation; see Reference ZeijlstraZeijlstra 2004 for an analysis within a transformational (minimalist) framework.
In this chapter, I will first discuss the morphological shape of sentential and constituent negation (Section 19.2). Section 19.3 provides an overview of the phenomenon of negative concord in Slavic languages and gives a classification of polarity-sensitive indefinites and other polarity items for most of the Slavic languages. Finally, Section 19.4 focuses on the genitive of negation and its historical development in different Slavic languages.
19.2 The Morphology of Sentential Negation
With certain morphological and syntactic exceptions, sentential negation in Slavic languages has a largely uniform morphosyntactic shape. It consists of a negative marker inherited from Common Slavic *ne, in preverbal position. The negative marker forms a (mor)phonological word with the verbal element it attaches to. This can be seen by the fact that it always attracts stress in Czech and Slovak as the first syllable of a (mor)phonological unit, (1), as well as in Polish, if it is the penultimate syllable, (2) (we mark stress by underlining the respective syllable; cf. Reference Spencer and LuísSpencer & Luís 2012, Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013 for further discussion).
(1)
Neudělám to. neg.do.pfv.1sg this ʻI will not do it.’ (Czech)
(2)
Nie wiem. neg know.ipfv.1sg ʻI do not know.’ (Polish)
In synthetic verb forms, that is, verb forms which show inflectional morphology on the main verb only and do not involve auxiliaries, the negative marker always precedes the main verb (cf. (2) from Polish and its cognates in other Slavic languages: Belarusian/Russian/Ukrainian Ne znaju, Czech Nevím, Slovak Neviem, Slovenian Ne vem, BCS/Footnote 1Bulgarian/Macedonian Ne znam).Footnote 2 In periphrastic verb forms, the position of the negative marker may vary across languages, but in most cases it precedes the auxiliary. This is true for the future auxiliary across languages (cf. (3) from Polish, and similarly in other Slavic languages).
(3)
a. Ty nie będziesz się śmiał. you neg fut.2sg refl laugh.ipfv.l-ptcp.m.sg ʻYou won´t laugh.’ b. *Ty będziesz się nie śmiał. (Polish) (Reference BłaszczakBłaszczak 2001: 81)
However, in Czech and Slovak, unlike in South Slavic languages, ne does not precede the perfect auxiliary clitic but the main verb (the so-called l-participle) with which it forms a (mor)phonological unit, exemplified by the contrast between (4) from Czech and (5) from BCS.
(4)
a. Včera jsem nenapsala dopis. yesterday aux.1sg neg.write.pfv.l-ptcp.f.sg letter.acc.sg ʻYesterday, I didn’t write the letter.’ b. *Včera nejsem napsala dopis. (Czech)
(5)
a. Jučer nisam napisala pismo. yesterday neg.aux.1sg write.pfv.l-ptcp.f.sg letter.acc.sg ʻYesterday, I didn’t write the letter.’ b. *Jučer sam nenapisala pismo. (BCS)
The same is true for the subjunctive (conditional) auxiliary clitic by which is followed by agreement morphology, as in (6). In Polish, the situation is similar, except that there is no ‘proper’ perfect auxiliary, but rather what has been sometimes labeled as ‘mobile’ agreement inflection (Reference Embick and BeckmanEmbick 1995) which may attach either to the main verb (the l-participle) itself or to elements preceding the verb. In the latter case, nie remains with the main verb. This is also true if the agreement marker attaches to the subjunctive marker by, as in (7).
(6)
a. Proč bys nechtěla žít. why sbjv.2sg neg.want.ipfv.l-ptcp.f.sg live.inf ʻWhy wouldn’t you want to live.’ b. *Proč nebys chtěla žít. (Czech)
(7)
a. Ty by-ś nie zgubił kluczy. you sbjv.2sg neg lose.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg key.gen.pl ʻYou wouldn’t lose the keys.’ b. *Ty nie byś zgubił kluczy. (Polish) (Reference MigdalskiMigdalski 2006: 273)
Common Slavic presumably had morphosyntactic patterns with sentential negation comparable to modern Slavic languages, with the marker *ne appearing preverbally (cf. Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013 for a more detailed discussion). Regarding verb forms with auxiliaries derived from the present tense of the verb byti ʻbe’, it is difficult to determine whether Proto and Common Slavic followed the West Slavic pattern of (4) or the South Slavic pattern of (5). Old Church Slavonic documents which are likely to have been written in medieval Bulgaria (e.g. Codex Marianus, probably eleventh century) pattern with (5), that is, they are of the South Slavic type, whereas Old East Slavic documents (e.g. Novgorodskaja pervaja letopis‘, thirteenth century) pattern with the West Slavic type in (4) (cf. Reference VečerkaVečerka 1989: 33–35, Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013: 346).
Sentential negation in Slavic languages is morphosyntactically uniform across sentence types (indicative, interrogative, imperative) and clause types (main and subordinate clauses). Thus, negated imperatives are perfectly licit, as can be seen in (8) for various Slavic languages, with different stress patterns and other minor phonetic differences depending on the respective language. Other Slavic languages have similar forms: Ukrainian Ne pyšy!, Belarusian Ne pišy!, Macedonian Ne pišuvaj!, Czech Nepiš!, Slovak Nepíš!, and Polish Nie pisz!.
(8)
Ne piši! neg write.ipfv.imp.2sg ʻDon’t write!’ (BCS/Bulgarian/Russian/Slovenian)
In Slavic, verbs in negated imperatives usually appear in the imperfective conveying the meaning of prohibition. Perfective aspect in negated imperatives is less frequent and mostly carries the meaning of a warning rather than prohibition (Reference BogusławskiBogusławski 1985, but cf. Reference Durst-AndersenDurst-Andersen 1995 for more details concerning the interaction between the imperative, verbal aspect, and negation, and for an alternative analysis). Except for Slovenian, South Slavic languages employ additional negated auxiliaries conveying the meaning of an imperative (glossed as negimp). These auxiliaries are equipped with the usual imperative morphology. Thus, BCS nemoj ʻdon’t’ has the forms for the 2sg, 1pl, and 2pl: nemoj-⊘, -mo, -te. Nemoj, which is also present in Macedonian, goes back to the negated imperative of the modal verb moći ʻcan’ (Reference HansenHansen 2004, Reference Szucsich, Thieroff and RothsteinSzucsich 2010) and combines either with infinitives (predominantly in Croatian) or with da ʻthat’ and the verb in the present tense, (9a). With infinitives it is restricted to (mostly covert/null) subjects containing the person-number features 2sg, 1pl, and 2pl. With da + present tense, the subject of the da-clause is not restricted regarding person-number features, (9b). (9b) with a finite da-clause is the only option in Croatian, too (for more details cf. Reference Szucsich, Thieroff and RothsteinSzucsich 2010: 400).
(9)
a. Nemoj otvarati // da otvaraš prozor! negimp.2sg open.ipfv.inf that open.ipfv.2sg window.acc ʻDon’t open the window!’ (BCS) b. Nemoj da umrem od sm(ij)eha! negimp.2sg that die.pfv.1sg of laughter.gen.sg ʻDon’t let (make) me die laughing!’ (BCS) (Reference Szucsich, Thieroff and RothsteinSzucsich 2010: 400)
Similarly, Bulgarian employs the auxiliary nedej/nedejte which combines either with what is usually taken to have developed from a truncated infinitive,Footnote 3 otvarja in (10), or with a da-clause containing a finite verb, otvarjaš in (10) (cf. Reference Lindstedt, Thieroff and RothsteinLindstedt 2010). The former is dispreferred by native speakers and considered distinctly colloquial or archaic. In reference grammars, the latter is also considered informal compared to the ‘neutral’ negated imperative (cf. Reference NicolovaNicolova 2017: 557).
(10)
Nedej otvarja // da otvarjaš prozoreca! negimp.2sg open.ipfv.inf that open.ipfv.2sg window.def.obj ʻDon’t open the window!’ (Bulgarian)
A slightly different case is Slovenian nikar ʻon no account, don’t’. Optionally, it also has dual and plural forms (nikar-ta and nikar-te, respectively). Etymologically, however, it rather belongs to the ni-series of pronouns (cf. Section 19.3.1 for details on the ni-series), that is, it is not formed with the help of the (verbal) negative marker *ne for sentential negation. The component kar goes back to the pronoun *ka ʻwhat, where (to)’ augmented by the particle *že (> r), not to a lexical verb (cf. Reference SnojSnoj 2016). It may be combined with a negated imperative, (11a), which is unique to Slovenian, or with an infinitive, (11b). Note that the plural marking on nikar is optional in (11a).
(11)
a. Nikar(te) ne obupujte! on no account(.2pl) neg despair.ipfv.imp.2pl ʻDon’t despair!’ (Slovenian) b. Nikar obupati! on no account despair.pfv.inf ʻDon’t despair!’ (Slovenian)
At first sight, cases from Czech with nechtěj/nechtějte ʻdon’t want’ look very similar, but they involve regular imperative forms (2sg or 2pl) from the verb chtít ʻwant’, as in (12).
(12)
Nechtěj mě rozzlobit! neg.want.imp.2sg me.acc anger.inf ʻDon’t make me angry! / You don’t want to make me angry.’ (Czech)
There are also some peculiar morphosyntactic developments in specific domains connected to negation in particular Slavic languages. This especially concerns negated forms of the verbs which developed from Proto-Slavic *byti ʻbe’ and *jьmati ʻhave’ in different contexts (as auxiliaries, copula verbs, existentials). Most Slavic languages developed special forms of the negated present tense of *byti. This is already true for Old Church Slavonic, which has a form něsmь ʻI am not’ and equivalents for other person-number forms of the present tense. However, as Reference Willis and WillisWillis (2013: 347–348) points out, this is most likely a result of a purely phonological process, since the sequence of the negative marker and the auxiliary/copula may be disrupted. For instance, the complementizer and second position clitic bo ʻbecause’Footnote 4 may intervene between the two elements, as example (13) from the Codex Suprasliensis from the eleventh century shows.
(13)
Ne bo jesi prizъvanъ. neg because aux.2sg call.ppp.m.sg ʻFor you are not called.’ (OCS) (Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013: 348)
In modern Slavic languages, negated present tense forms developed from *byti are morphologically inseparable, if they form a morphonologically fused unit. Whereas East South Slavic has a transparent negated version of the be-verb (Bulgarian ne săm, Macedonian ne sum ʻI am not’), West South Slavic languages developed a fused version: BCS nisam (< ne + sam), nije (< ne + je) ʻhe/she/it is not’, etc., Slovenian nisem (< ne + sem), ni (< ne + je), etc. Czech and Slovak also developed peculiar negated be-forms, but Czech only for the 3sg, není ʻhe/she/it is not’, which developed from nenie with reduplicated negation (Reference RejzekRejzek 2015: 449). Nie itself is the same form as Slovak nie which is the negative marker in Slovak only for present tense forms of byť ʻbe’ (nie som ʻI am not’, nie si ʻyou are not’, etc.). Otherwise the marker for sentential negation is ne in Slovak. Nie developed from ne + je, which means that the 3sg form nie je ʻhe/she/it is not’ historically also involves reduplication, in this case of je. Nie in Slovak also developed into the anaphoric negator ʻno’ (an answer to a polar question/yes–no question) which in most other languages is directly derived from Common Slavic *ne.
In East Slavic, the auxiliary based on *byti disappeared from the tense system. By and large, the same is true for the present tense forms of the copula. The fused form from ne and est’ ʻis’Footnote 5 survived as the negative existential net which also developed into a marker for a negated VP ellipsis and into an anaphoric negator ʻno’ (Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013: 348).
In many Slavic languages, negative existentials – especially in the present tense – and also locationals of the ʻthere is/are’ type appear in the impersonal form (3sg) of a fused form of the negative marker and the verb which developed from *jьmati ʻhave’, as illustrated by (14) from Belarusian.
(14)
a. Dzikija katy ësc’. wild.nom.pl cat.nom.m.pl is.3sg ʻWild cats exist.’ b. Dzikix katoŭ njama. wild.gen.pl cat.gen.m.pl neg.have.3sg ʻWild cats do not exist.’ (Belarusian) (Reference VeselinovaVeselinova 2008: 9)
Such forms are not only present in Belarusian, but also in Ukrainian (nemaje), Polish (nie ma), BCS (nema), Macedonian (nema), and Bulgarian (njama) (cf. Reference VeselinovaVeselinova 2008). Interestingly, South Slavic languages except Slovenian have also the affirmative version of the existential, ima (the same form in BCS, Bulgarian, and Macedonian), which is restricted to the present tense in BCS,Footnote 6 but not in Macedonian and Bulgarian (cf. Reference Hartmann, Milićević, Antonenko, Bailyn and BethinHartmann & Milićević 2008, Reference NicolovaNicolova 2017: 380).
Bulgarian also uses the indeclinable negated auxiliary njama ʻnot have’ followed by da ʻthat’ to form the negated future tense (counterpart to the indeclinable affirmative šte ʻwill’); see (15).
(15)
a. Meri šte pee. Meri fut sing.ipfv.3sg ʻMeri will sing.’ b. Meri njama da pee. Meri negfut that sing.ipfv.3sg ʻMeri will not sing.’ (Bulgarian) (Reference VeselinovaVeselinova 2008: 4)
In Bulgarian, njama da has almost completely replaced the older ne šte. Macedonian employs the same strategy with nema da, but also uses ne ḱe ʻnot will’ (counterpart to the future auxiliary ḱe ʻwill’). Macedonian may also form the affirmative future with ima da ʻhave that’. Reference KramerKramer (1997: 411) claims that both ima da and nema da retain some of their modal lexical meaning similar to English have to.
19.3 Negative Concord and Polarity Items
19.3.1 Negative Concord
Slavic languages developed a set of so-called n-words which appear in the context of clausemate sentential negation and in limited other contexts (cf. Reference ProgovacProgovac 1993, Reference Progovac, Horn and Kato2000 for further details, especially for indirect negation contexts disallowing n-words and licensing non-n-word NPIs; cf. Section 19.3.3). If an indefinite description appears under the scope of local sentential negation, it has to appear as an n-word. The respective morphological shape is uniform in all Slavic languages and was already present in Old Church Slavonic: the so-called ni-series which consist of interrogative elements or elements derived from interrogatives which are then prefixed with ni- (nikъto(že) ʻno one’, ničьto(že) ʻnothing’, nikyjь(že) ʻno’, nikъde(že) ʻnowhere’, etc. (cf. Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013: 375–377 for more details). Thus, one can safely assume that Common Slavic already possessed the ni-series.
In contrast to Romance languages, modern Slavic languages are considered to be strict negative concord languages, that is, sentential negation requires not only postverbal indefinites but also preverbal indefinites to appear with the marker ni-, at least if negation is not emphatic (Reference ZeijlstraZeijlstra 2004). Additionally, ni-elements require the presence of sentential negation, illustrated by the contrast in (16) for Russian. Similar observations hold for all other Slavic languages with different types of indefinites (cf. Section 19.3.3).
(16)
a. Ivan ne videl nikogo/ *kogo-to. Ivan neg see.ipfv.pst.m.sg n-who.acc who-some.acc ʻIvan didn’t see anyone.’ b. Ivan videl *nikogo/ kogo-to. Ivan see.ipfv.pst.m.sg n-who.acc who-some.acc ʻIvan saw someone.’ (Russian)
Moreover, Slavic languages may have multiple n-words in the scope of negation; that is, if a clause contains more than one indefinite, all have to be marked as n-words. See (17) for Ukrainian (equivalent examples exist for all other Slavic languages).
(17)
Vin nikomu ničoho ne daje. he n-who.dat n-what.acc neg give.ipfv.3sg ʻHe doesn’t give anything to anybody.’ (Ukrainian)
It is widely assumed that negative concord was already present in Common Slavic. However, examples from Old Church Slavonic, Old East Slavic, Old Czech, and Old Polish sources suggest that these older stages of Slavic were not strict negative concord languages, but rather resembled modern Romance languages. N-words after the verb required sentential negation ne on the verb; n-words preceding the verb had ne optionally but predominantly (cf. Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013: 370–373). Examples (18) from the Codex Marianus (eleventh century) and (19) from the Smolenskie gramoty (thirteenth/fourteenth century) show cases of n-words without sentential negation.
(18)
ničьsože otъvěštavaaše n-what.gen answer.impf.3sg ʻhe answered nothing.’ (OCS) (Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013: 370)
(19)
… nikako že ego v´´saditi v dybu. … n-how prt him put.inf in stocks.acc.sg ʻ … he is in no way to be put in stocks.’ (OES) (Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013: 372)
Within formal, mostly transformational frameworks, there are different approaches to account for the behavior of ni-elements in strict negative concord languages. There is a strand of analyses which treats ni-elements as NPIs which are subject to binding constraints, that is, they have to be bound by a local negative operator (cf. Reference ProgovacProgovac 1994, Reference Błaszczak, Kosta and FrasekBłaszczak 2002, among others). Reference ProgovacProgovac (1994) claims that locality may be language-specific. Other approaches assume operator movement (A-bar movement) of n-words which are analyzed as negative quantifiers (cf. Reference ZanuttiniZanuttini 1991, Reference ZanuttiniHaegeman & Zanuttini 1991, among others).
Yet another type of analysis (in the minimalist framework) relies on the idea of feature agreement (cf. Reference ZeijlstraZeijlstra 2004, Reference Haegeman and LohndalHaegeman & Lohndal 2010). For strict NC languages, a negative operator separate from the negated verb is hypothesized, and both the verb and possibly multiple indefinites agree with its [Neg] feature.
N-words may be also licensed over long distance, especially in subject control contexts of infinitival subordinate clauses, as in (20) in Russian (cf. Reference LyutikovaLyutikova 2021 and also Reference Garzonio and KrapovaGarzonio 2019).
(20)
Ja ne xoču pečalit‘ Vas ničem. I neg want.ipfv.1sg sadden.ipfv.inf You.acc.pl n-what.inst ʻI do not want to sadden you in any way.’ (Russian) (Reference LyutikovaLyutikova 2021: 20)
Under certain conditions (e.g. emphatic focus), negative concord with clausemate negation can be suspended. With emphatic focus (often translated by adding at all), in Russian libo-indefinites or by-to-ni-bylo expressions may be used instead of n-words, (21). Similarly, Bulgarian allows for -to-i-da-bilo expressions, (22).
(21)
Ivan ne videl tam kakix by to ni Ivan neg see.ipfv.pst.m.sg there which.gen.pl sbjv prt ni bylo/ kakix-libo studentov. is.pst.n.sg/ which.gen.pl.libo student.gen.pl ʻIvan didn’t see any students there (at all).’ (Reference PadučevaPadučeva 2015: 143)
(22)
Ne săm viždal kogoto i da bilo. neg aux.1sg see.ipfv.l-ptcp.m.sg who.to and that is.pst.n.sg ʻI didn’t see anybody (at all).’ (Bulgarian)
Other series of indefinites, for example those formed with nibud’, -to, or koe- in Russian, are excluded in these contexts. In general, the use of non-n-words with sentential negation is reported to be far more marginal and more restricted than that of n-words (cf. Reference PadučevaPadučeva 2015: 143 for Russian). Subjects in negated clauses almost exclusively appear as n-words.
In most Slavic languages, constituent negation is marked with the same morphological exponent as sentential negation, but crucially never allows for negative concord; see the contrast in (23) from Slovak where the marker for constituent negation, nie, differs from the marker for sentential negation, ne.
(23)
a. Nikto nel‘úbi Jána. n-who.nom neg.love.ipfv.3sg Ján.acc ʻNo one loves Jan.’ b. *Nikto l‘úbi nie Jána ale Milana. n-who.nom love.ipfv.3sg neg Ján.acc but Milan.acc (Slovak)
The fact that the marker for constituent negation does not induce negative concord clearly shows that it does not serve to mark negative polarity.
19.3.2 Expletive (Pleonastic) Negation
In addition to the cases discussed in Section 19.3.1, Slavic languages also exhibit what has often been called expletive or pleonastic negation, which has some peculiar properties. Cross-linguistically, it is characterized by a negative marker identical to sentential negation, but contrary to ordinary sentential negation it does not license n-words, but rather indefinites otherwise ungrammatical in the context of sentential negation; see (24), (25), and (26).
(24)
Ja bojus‘, kak by kto-nibud‘/ *nikto I fear.1sg.refl how sbjv someone.nom no one.nom ne prišel. neg come.pfv.pst.m.sg ʻI’m afraid someone will come.’ (Russian) (Reference Brown and FranksBrown & Franks 1995: 262)
(25)
Bojim se da ne bi *nihče/ nekdo fear.1sg refl that neg sbjv.3sg no one/ someone pojedel torte. eat.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg cake.gen.sg ʻI fear that somebody may eat the cake.’ (Slovenian) (Reference Zovko Dinković and IlcZovko Dinković & Ilc 2017: 166)
(26)
Bojim se da ne bi *nitko/ netko fear.1sg refl that neg sbjv.3sg no one/ someone pojeo tortu. eat.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg cake.acc.sg ʻI fear that somebody may eat the cake.’ (BCS) (Reference Zovko Dinković and IlcZovko Dinković & Ilc 2017: 167)
Semantically, it has often been claimed that expletive (pleonastic) negation – although morphosyntactically identical to sentential negation – lacks any negative force (cf. Reference Brown and FranksBrown & Franks 1995, and somewhat differently Reference BrownBrown 1999). Reference AbelsAbels (2005) and Reference Zovko Dinković and IlcZovko Dinković & Ilc (2017) convincingly show that negation in these cases is not vacuous. One of the arguments is the presence of the genitive of negation in these contexts;Footnote 7 see the genitive form torte instead of the accusative torto in the Slovenian example in (25). Apart from predicates expressing evaluative force, pleonastic negation may appear in different contexts, for example in yes–no questions (for further details cf. Reference Brown and FranksBrown & Franks 1995).
Additionally, expletive negation is rather widespread in indirect speech acts (requests) as in (27), especially in Russian. In general, however, Russian prefers direct requests with the imperative (cf. Reference Betsch, Jaszczolt and TurnerBetsch 2003 for a detailed corpus-linguistic analysis of Czech and Russian).
(27)
Ne mogli by Vy skazat‘ čto-nibud’ pro avtora? neg can.pst.pl sbjv you.2pl say.inf something about author.acc.sg ʻCould you say something about the author?’ (Russian)
The fact that expletive negation triggers the genitive of negation but disallows n-words is analyzed by Reference AbelsAbels (2005) and Reference Zovko Dinković and IlcZovko Dinković & Ilc (2017) by assuming that negation interacts with categories associated with modality and sentence type features. In the generative framework the authors work in, this amounts to movement of the Neg head to the CP layer.
19.3.3 Indefinites and Polarity Items
Beside negative concord, there are other environments which require different types of polarity-sensitive linguistic expressions. This section will give only a coarse overview with examples from various Slavic languages for such contexts, concentrating on different series of indefinites. The examples in (1) and (2) in the introduction give the somewhat simplified contrast between the relevant environments for the NPI anything and the PPI something in English. According to this simplified observation, PPIs, in contrast to NPIs, are not licit in the scope of a negative operator.Footnote 8 However, as will be shown below, the system of polarity-sensitive items is far more complex, for example with certain pronouns more or less complementarily distributed across different contexts. Reference Błaszczak and MaienbornBłaszczak (2003) assumes that Polish indefinite pronouns sensitive to negativity are hierarchically ordered according to their so-called ʻnegative strength’. For instance, the n-words discussed in Section 19.3.1 are licensed in strong contexts (clausemate negation), whereas free choice indefinites (see below) appear in non-strong contexts; see Reference Zwarts, Hamm and HinrichsZwarts (1998) for a detailed semantic analysis of the distinction of strong and weak contexts (see also footnote 10).
I will follow Reference HaspelmathHaspelmath’s (1997) classification of ‘functions’ of indefinites, which is prominently discussed in the literature on polarity items, despite the fact that those functions cannot be defined in a uniform way.Footnote 9 Reference HaspelmathHaspelmath (1997) distinguishes nine functions of indefinite pronouns which he claims to be typologically primitive: (i) specific (known to the speaker), (ii) specific (unknown to the speaker), (iii) non-specific (irrealis), (iv) polar question, (v) conditional protasis, (vi) indirect negations, (vii) direct negation, (viii) standard of comparison, and (ix) free choice. According to Haspelmath, these functions can be ordered in an implicational map (cf. (28), following Reference HaspelmathHaspelmath 1997: 4). This implicational map with its specific ordering is based on scalar semantic properties partly related to the above-mentioned negative strength.
Reference HaspelmathHaspelmath (1997) assumes that a particular series of pronouns has to form a contiguous subset of functions on the map.Footnote 10 In English, the PPI something covers the first three functions, whereas the NPI anything covers the rest.
(28)
This chapter focuses mainly on indefinites based on interrogative elements (wh-items). In various languages (cf. below for Slovenian), bare wh-pronouns may serve as indefinites in certain contexts. Often, however, wh-items are additionally affixed or otherwise morphosyntactically augmented, forming several so-called series (cf. Reference HaspelmathHaspelmath 1997, Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013). One of the series is the ni-series, inherited from Common Slavic and described in Section 19.3.1. Across Slavic languages, it appears in the context of direct negation, and only rarely in other contexts (e.g. after the preposition bez ʻwithout’ which is restricted in Russian, though, cf. Reference Pereltsvaig, Przepiórkowski and BrownPereltsvaig 2006, and excluded in BCS, cf. Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013).
Another inherited series which is used for regular indefinites (PPIs) is the ně-series with different wh-items and in different case forms: Slovenian nekdo ʻsomeone’, BCS ne(t)ko, Bulgarian njakoj (nja- has the allomorph ne- as in nešto ʻsomething’), Czech někdo. In Russian and Polish, this series is very marginal (e.g. restricted to the nominative nekto ʻsomeone’ in Russian; Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013: 383/388). Other series are specific to certain languages or groups of languages. Often those series developed from free-relative markers which spread to free-choice uses and sometimes further to other uses. In several Slavic languages, a series developed which involves the Common Slavic marker koli ʻever’, sometimes augmented with věk also ʻever’, for example Polish ktokolwiek, Czech kdokoli(v), and Slovenian kdokoli (Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013: 387). Russian developed several series, for example the libo-series originating from ljubo (< ljubiti ʻlove’) and the nibud‘-series which is a combination of the negative marker ni and an imperative form of byti ʻbe’ (Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013: 387).Footnote 11
In the following, the distribution of indefinites in different functions derived from Reference HaspelmathHaspelmath’s (1997) work (except the function of direct negation which was already discussed in Section 19.3.1) will be given for a sample of Slavic languages. Due to space limitations, for each function only one standard context will be given. The list of functions is not exhaustive and has been criticized (cf. Reference LevinsonLevinson 2008, Reference 427Denić, Steinert-Threlkeld, Szymanik and RhyneDenić et al. 2020, among many others). The examples are only glossed, since the respective translation is the same for all languages (in all examples Russian under a., Polish under b., Czech under c., Slovenian under d., BCS under e., and Bulgarian under f.). The translations will be given above the examples.
(i) specific known (the indefinite has a specific referent which the speaker and the hearer can uniquely identify): ‘Peter met someone, and we all know who’.Footnote 12
(29)
a. Pëtr vstretil koe-kogo, (i my vse znaem kogo). P.nom meet.pfv.pst.m.sg koe-who.acc (and we all know who) b. Piotr kogoś spotkał, i wszyscy wiemy kogo. P.nom who-ś.acc meet.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg (and …) c. Petr někohoFootnote 13 potkal a všichni víme, koho P.nom ně-who.acc meet.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg (and …) d. Peter je nekoga srečal, in vsi vemo, koga. P.nom aux.3sg ne-who.acc meet.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg (and …) e. Petar je sreo nekoga, P.nom aux.3sg meet.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg ne-who.acc i svi znamo koga. (and …) f. Petăr sreštna njakogo, i vsički znaem kogo. P. meet.pfv.aor.3sg nja-who.acc (and …)
(ii) specific unknown (the indefinite has a specific referent which the speaker and the hearer cannot uniquely identify): ‘Peter bought something, but I don’t know what’.
(30)
a. Pëtr kupil čto-to, no ja ne znaju čto. P.nom buy.pfv.pst.m.sg what-to.acc (but I don’t know what) b. Piotr coś kupił, ale nie wiem co. P.nom what-ś.acc buy.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg (but …) c. Petr koupil něco/ cosi, P.nom buy.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg ně-what.acc what-si.acc ale nevím, co. (but …) d. Peter je nekaj kupil, P.nom aux.3sg ne-what.acc buy.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg ampak ne vem kaj. (but …) e. Petar je kupio nešto, P.nom aux.3sg buy.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg ne-what.acc ali ne znam što (šta). (but …) f. Petăr kupi nešto, no ne znam kakvo. P buy.pfv.aor.3sg nja-what.acc (but …)
(iii) non-specific (the indefinite has no specific referent, but rather a range of possible referents): ‘Please ask someone else’.Footnote 14
(31)
a. Požalujsta, sprosi kogo-nibud‘/ kogo-toFootnote 15 Please ask.pfv.imp.2sg who-nibud´.acc who-to.acc drugogo. other.acc b. Proszę zapytaj kogoś innego. Please ask.pfv.imp.2sg who-ś.acc other.acc c. Zeptej se, prosím, někoho jiného. ask.pfv.imp.2sg refl please ně-who.acc other.acc d. Prosim, vprašaj kogaFootnote 16 drugega Please ask.pfv.imp.2sg who.acc other.acc e. Molim te pitaj nekog drugog. ask.ipfv.1sg you.acc ask.ipfv.imp.2sg ne-who.acc other.acc f. Molja pitaj njakogo drugigo. Please ask.pfv.imp.2sg nja-who.acc other.acc
(iv) polar question (the indefinite is in the scope of a question operator): ‘Did anybody tell you anything about it?’Footnote 17
(32)
a. Tebe kto-nibud‘/ kto-libo/ kto-to you.dat who-nibud‘.nom who-libo.nom who-to.nom govoril čto-nibud‘/ čto-libo/ čto-to say.ipfv.pst.m.sg what-nibud‘.acc what-libo.acc what-to.acc ob ėtom? about this.loc b. Czy ktoś powiedział ci q who-ś.nom tell.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg you.dat coś na ten temat? what-ś.acc on this.acc topic.acc c. Řekl ti o tom někdo say.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg you.dat about this.loc ně-who.nom něco? ně-what.acc d. Ali ti je kdo povedal q you.dat aux.3sg who.nom tell.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg kaj o tem? what.acc about this.loc e. Je li ti i(t)ko/ ne(t)ko aux.3sg q you.dat i-who.nom ne-who.nom rekao išta/ nešto o tome?Footnote 18 say.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg i-who.nom ne-who.nom about this.loc f. Njakoj kazal li ti e nešto nja-who say.pfv. l-ptcp q you.dat aux.3sg nja-what za tova? for this
(v) conditional protasis (the indefinite is contained in the restrictor of a modal quantifier): ‘If you see anything, …’.
(33)
a. Esli ty čto-nibud‘/ čto-libo/ čto-to uvidiš‘, … if you.nom what-nibud´.acc what-libo.acc what-to.acc see.pfv.2sg b. Jak coś/ cokolwiek zobaczysz, … if(how) what-ś.acc what-kolwiek.acc see.pfv.2sg c. Jestli něco/ cokoli(v) uvidíš, … if ně-what.acc what-koli(v).acc see.pfv.2sg d. Če kaj/ karkoli vidiš, … if what.acc what-koli.acc see.ipfv.2sg e. Ako išta/ bilo šta/ nešto vidiš, … if i-what.acc bilo what.acc ne-what.acc see.ipfv.2sg f. Ako vidiš nešto, … if see.pfv.2sg nja-what
(vi) indirect negations (the indefinite appears in the scope of non-local negation, i.e. negation mediated by complementizers, Reference ProgovacProgovac 1993, or in the context of negative predicates, cf. Reference LevinsonLevinson 2008, Reference 427Denić, Steinert-Threlkeld, Szymanik and RhyneDenić et al. 2020 for a criticism of this conflation): ‘I don’t think that anybody knows the answer’.
(34)
a. Ne dumaju, čto kto-nibud‘/ kto-libo/ neg think.ipfv.1sg that who-nibud´.nom who-libo.nom kto-to znaet otvet. who-to.nom know.ipfv.3sg answer.acc.sg b. Nie sądzę, że ktoś/ ktokolwiek neg judge.ipfv.1sg that who-ś.nom who-kolwiek.nom zna odpowiedź. know.ipfv.3sg answer.acc.sg c. Nemyslím si, že někdo zná neg.think.ipfv.1sg refl.dat that ně-who.nom know.ipfv.3sg odpověď. answer.acc.sg d. Ne verjamem, da kdo/ kdorkoli pozna neg believe.ipfv.1sg that who.nom who-koli.nom know.ipfv.3sg odgovor. answer.acc.sg e. Ne mislim da i(t)ko / bilo (t)ko neg believe.ipfv.1sg that i-who.nom bilo who.nom zna odgovor. know.ipfv.3sg answer.acc.sg f. Ne smjatam, če njakoj znae neg think.ipfv.1sg that nja-who.nom know.ipfv.3sg otgovora. answer.obj.def
(viii) standard of comparison (comparatives are assumed to create negative or non-veridical contexts, but cf. Reference Giannakidou, Yoon and BagliniGiannakidou & Yoon 2013): ‘Peter is smarter than anybody else in class’.Footnote 19
(35)
a. Petr umnee, čem kto-libo/ ljuboj v klasse. P.nom smarter than who-libo.nom any.nom in class.loc.sg b. Piotr jest mądrzejszy niż ktokolwiek P.nom cop.3sg smarter.m.nom.sg than who-kolwiek.nom inny w klasie. other.nom.sg in class.loc.sg c. Petr je chytřejší než kdokoli(v) P.nom cop.3sg smarter.m.nom.sg than who-koli(v).nom ve třídě. in class.loc.sg d. Peter je pametnejši kot kdorkoli drug P.nom cop.3sg smarter.m.nom.sg than who-koli.nom other.nom v razredu. in class.loc.sg e. Petar je pametniji od bilo koga P.nom cop.3sg smarter.m.nom.sg from bilo-who.gen u razredu. in class.loc.sg f. Petăr e po-umen ot koj li ne drug v klasa. P. cop.3sg smarter.m from who-q-neg other in class.obj.def
(ix) free choice (the indefinite is a universal quantifier with wide scope over some domain of possible referents): ‘Anybody can solve this problem’.
(36)
a. Kto ugodno/ ljuboj smožet rešit‘ ėtu who-ugodno.nom any.nom can.pfv.3sg solve.inf this.acc.sg problemu. problem.acc.sg b. Ktokolwiek może rozwiązać ten problem. who-kolwiek.nom can.ipfv.3sg solve.inf this.acc.sg problem.acc.sg c. Kdokoli(v)/ kdekdo/ leckdo ten who-koli(v).nom kde-who.nom lec-who.nom this.acc.sg problém může vyřešit. problem.acc.sg can.ipfv.3sg solve.inf d. Kdorkoli lahko reši ta problem. who-koli.nom can.prt solve.pfv.3sg this.acc.sg problem.acc.sg e. Bilo (t)ko može r(ij)ešiti ovaj problem. bilo-who.nom can.ipfv.3sg solve.inf this.acc.sg problem.acc.sg f. Koj li ne može da reši tozi problem. who-q-neg can.ipfv.3sg that solve.pfv.3sg this problem
There are other elements sensitive to polarity which cannot be presented in their totality in this section. Only two additional polarity items were chosen for this chapter. The first one is the scalar particle ni (Russian), (a)ni (Belorusian, Ukrainian), ani (Czech, Slovak, Polish), ni(ti) (BCS), niti (Slovenian), nitu (Macedonian), and nito (Bulgarian) ʻ(not) even’. As a scalar particle it requires sentential negation, as in (37) from Polish.
(37)
Nie słyszy ani słowa. neg hear.ipfv.3sg scal.prt word.gen.sg ‘He/she doesn’t even hear a word.’ (Polish) (Reference van der Auwera, Nomachi, Krasnoukhova and Arkadievvan der Auwera et al. 2021: 50)
This marker most probably developed from a fusion of the negator ne and the connective element i ʻand’, giving ni, which, depending on the language, remained unchanged or subsequently was augmented either by another connective marker a ʻand’ or by a particle containing the stop t (cf. Reference van der Auwera, Nomachi, Krasnoukhova and Arkadievvan der Auwera et al. 2021: 50). This particle developed also into a connective element (‘connective negation’) which, however, does not license n-words by itself, illustrated by (38) from BCS. It often introduces both conjuncts as in (38) (the second conjunct is omitted).
(38)
Niti je *nikoga/ ikoga/ nekoga coneg aux.3sg nobody.acc/ anybody.acc/ somebody.acc video, niti … see.ipfv.l-ptcp.m.sg coneg ‘He neither saw anybody/somebody, nor … .’ (BCS) (Reference van der Auwera, Nomachi, Krasnoukhova and Arkadievvan der Auwera et al. 2021: 59–60)
This connective negation may conjoin either nominal and prepositional phrases (‘connective negation’), verb phrases, or clauses as in (38). In the phrasal use, it combines with sentential negation, as in (39). Some Slavic languages (e.g. Russian) require it to appear in front of both conjuncts (cf. Reference van der Auwera, Nomachi, Krasnoukhova and Arkadievvan der Auwera et al. 2021 for a detailed discussion of all the properties).
(39)
Ona ne ljubit ni knig ni fil‘mov. she neg love.ipfv.3sg coneg book.gen.pl coneg film.gen.pl ‘She likes neither books nor films.’ (Russian) (Reference van der Auwera, Nomachi, Krasnoukhova and Arkadievvan der Auwera et al. 2021: 48)
Another item sensitive to negation is a version of ʻanymore’.Footnote 20 In Russian and Polish, the NPI versions of ʻanymore’ are bol‘še and więcej, respectively. In Russian, bol‘še is licensed either by sentential negation, predicates incorporating negation (e.g. nel‘zja ‘not allowed/cannot’), or, marginally, negative implicative verbs like otkazat‘sja ‘refuse’, (40)–(42).
(40)
On zdes‘ bol‘še *(ne) rabotaet. he here more neg work.ipfv.3sg ʻHe doesn’t work here anymore.’ (Russian) (Reference LevinsonLevinson 2008: 208)
(41)
Tebe nel‘zja zdes‘ bol‘še ostavat‘sja. you.dat cannot.pred here more stay.inf.refl ʻYou can’t stay here anymore.’ (Russian) (Reference LevinsonLevinson 2008: 208)
(42)
Ja otkazalsja bol‘še na nej ezdit‘. I refuse.pfv.pst.m.sg.refl more on her.prp.sg drive.ipfv.inf ʻI refused to drive it anymore.’ (Russian) (Reference LevinsonLevinson 2008: 208)
The data presented in this chapter show the difficulties in formulating cross-linguistic generalizations regarding the licensing of different types of polarity-sensitive items. Especially in the domain of indefinites, different series range over different contexts associated with positive and negative polarity in different languages. So, for example, Russian employs three different indefinites for the first three contexts: koe-pronouns for specific known referents, to-pronouns for specific unknown, and (marginally) unspecific ones, and nibud‘-pronouns for unspecific ones. In contrast, Polish has the ś series in all three contexts. Reference Geist and GrønnGeist (2008, Reference Geist2010) assumes that koe- and nibud‘-pronouns are marked with respect to their referential anchoring: koe-pronouns lexically determine that the referent is identifiable by the speaker, nibud‘-pronouns lexically restrict an implicit argument to be unspecific. To-pronouns are unmarked. Pragmatic constraints exclude them entirely from specific known and largely from unspecific contexts (for further details cf. Reference Geist and GrønnGeist 2008, Reference Geist2010). For Polish, one has to assume that no marked series for indefinite are available.
19.4 Genitive of Negation
One extensively discussed property of many Slavic languages connected to negation is the genitive of negation (GoN). Clausemate sentential negation induces the genitive on nominal phrases otherwise marked with structural/direct accusative or nominative (cf. Reference Matushansky and ZybatowMatushansky 2010, Reference KlockmannKlockmann 2014 for the notion of structural or direct case). Depending on language and syntactic function, the GoN is obligatory or optional. In addition, there are certain long-distance contexts for GoN (see below). All NPs marked with cases other than structural/direct accusative or nominative do not allow the GoN and must retain the respective non-structural (oblique) case, illustrated in (43)–(45) for Polish where GoN is obligatory with direct objects.
(43)
a. Lubię Marię. like.ipfv.3sg Maria.acc ʻI like Maria.’ b. Nie lubię Marii/ *Marię. neg like.ipfv.3sg Maria.gen Maria.acc ʻI don´t like Maria.’ (Polish) (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 2000: 120)
(44)
a. Pomogłem Jankowi. help.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg Janek.dat ʻI helped Janek.’ b. Nie pomogłem *Janka/ Jankowi. neg help.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg Janek.gen Janek.dat ʻI didn’t help Janek.’ (Polish) (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 2000: 120)
(45)
a. Kieruję firmą. manage.ipfv.3sg company.inst ʻI run (a/the) company.’ b. Nie kieruję *firmy/ firmą. neg manage.ipfv.3sg company.gen company.inst ʻI don’t run (a/the) company.’ (Polish) (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 2000: 120)
It is widely assumed that Common Slavic already exhibited the GoN. Furthermore, Old Slavic sources suggest that GoN on direct objects probably was mandatory and a common Balto-Slavic feature which survived also in modern Lithuanian (Reference PirnatPirnat 2015). In Old Church Slavonic and Old East Slavic texts, almost all instances of direct objects in negated clauses appear in the genitive (Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013: 350–351); see the genitive kamene in (46) from the Codex Zographensis (tenth/eleventh centuries).
(46)
… ne ostavȩtъ kamene na kameni … … neg leave.pfv.3pl stone.gen.sg on stone.loc.sg … ʻ… they will not leave stone on stone … ’ (OCS) (Reference Huntley, Comrie and CorbettHuntley 1993: 173)
GoN in modern Slavic languages largely follows two patterns. In those languages which preserved the GoN, the common property is that it requires sentential negation. Some languages completely lost the GoN. For obvious reasons, this is true for Bulgarian and Macedonian, which preserved only remnants of the case system of older stages of the respective languages which was inherited from Common Slavic and still present in Old Church Slavonic. Czech and to a large extent also Slovak lost the GoN as well (Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013: 361–362). The use of the GoN also declined in BCS – as did other uses of the genitive, for example the partitive genitive (Reference VinceVince 2008), although it still may be found (cf. (47)), but rarely without the NP being additionally marked with ni. With negated existential constructions (nema, cf. Section 19.2 above), the genitive is obligatory, but the same is true for the affirmative version with ima, at least in certain contexts,Footnote 21 see (48).
(47)
Nije rekao ni r(ij)eč/ r(ij)eči. neg.aux.3sg say.pfv.l-ptcp.m.sg even word.acc.sg word.gen.sg ʻHe didn´t even say a word.’ (BCS)
(48)
Nema/ ima divljih mačaka. neg.have.3sg/ have.3sg wild.gen.pl cat.gen.pl ʻThere are no/ There are wild cats.’ (BCS) (Reference Veselinova, Hansen and Grković-MajorVeselinova 2010: 197)
In East Slavic languages, the GoN generally is optional, alternating with the accusative. It may appear on objects of transitive verbs, in existential constructions, in passives, and on subjects of so-called unaccusative verbs, that is, (mostly) intransitive verbs selecting an argument which is internal (an ‘underlying object’), but is marked with the nominative in affirmative sentences. This is illustrated in (49)–(52) from Ukrainian.
(49)
Ja ne otrymav vidpovidi. I neg receive.pfv.pst.m.sg answer.gen.sg ʻI haven´t received an answer.’ (Ukrainian) (Reference KryshevichKryshevich 2010: 12)
(50)
V magazyni ne bulo xlibu. in shop.loc.sg neg be.pst.n.sg bread.gen.sg ʻThere was no bread in the shop.’ (Ukrainian) (Reference KryshevichKryshevich 2010: 13)
(51)
Ne bulo pročytano knyžky. neg be.pst.n.sg read.ppp.n.sg book.gen.sg ʻNo book was read.’ (Ukrainian) (Reference KryshevichKryshevich 2010: 13)
(52)
Ne pryjšlo vidpovidi. neg arrive.pfv.pst.n.sg answer.gen.sg ʻNo answer came.’ (Ukrainian) (Reference KryshevichKryshevich 2010: 12)
The choice between the accusative and the genitive has often been attributed to semantic differences. For Russian, different properties have been claimed to determine the choice of the genitive over the accusative. NPs marked with the genitive tend to be non-referential, indefinite, abstract, inanimate, and plural (cf. Reference TimberlakeTimberlake 1975, Reference KaganKagan 2010, among many others). Syntactic approaches often assume similar semantic differences cast into morphosyntactic features (and corresponding heads), for example [Q]-features (Reference PesetskyPesetsky 1982, Reference Bailyn, Arnaudova, Browne, Rivero and StojanovićBailyn 2004).
As already mentioned above, the GoN is obligatory in Polish. In contrast to East Slavic languages, it does not appear on subjects of passives and unaccusative verbs (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 2000). Regarding both properties, Slovenian patterns with Polish (Reference PirnatPirnat 2015). The situation in Russian seems to have been similar to Polish regarding obligatoriness. Reference Krasovitsky, Baerman, Brown and CorbettKrasovitsky et al. (2011) show that the number of accusative direct objects considerably increased only in the last two centuries (cf. also Reference Willis and WillisWillis 2013: 351–353).
In all the languages which preserved the GoN, it is licensed also in infinitival complement clauses if not introduced by conjunctions or the like (i.e. elements of the C-domain in generative terms; cf. Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 2000, Reference AbelsAbels 2005, Reference WitkośWitkoś 2008, Reference PirnatPirnat 2015). (53) gives a relevant contrast for Polish.
(53)
a. Nie chciałem pisać listów. neg want.ipfv. l-ptcp.m.sg.1sg write.inf letter.gen.pl ʻI didn’t want to write letters.’ (Polish) (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 2000: 122) b. Nie chciałem, żeby pisać neg want.ipfv. l-ptcp.m.sg.1sg that.sbjv write.inf listy/ *listów. letter.acc.pl/ letter.gen.pl ʻI didn’t want for us/one to write letters.’ (Polish) (Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 2000: 123)
Again, East Slavic languages only have optional genitives, but the obligatoriness of the long-distance GoN seems also to be less strict in Polish and Slovenian (cf. Reference PrzepiórkowskiPrzepiórkowski 2000 and Reference PirnatPirnat 2015). Especially in Polish, multiple instances of genitives licensed by a negation in the main clause are possible, as in (54).
(54)
Nie mam ochoty uczyć Marii neg have.ipfv.1.sg liking.gen.sg teach.ipfv.inf Maria.gen.sg lepić garnków. mold.ipfv.inf pots.gen.pl ʻI don’t feel like teaching Mary how to make pottery.’ (Polish)
In Russian, multiple instances of GoN are very marginal (cf. Reference AbelsAbels 2005 and Reference Brown and FranksBrown & Franks 1995). The latter report cases involving additional ni-marking on the first NP, as in (55).
(55)
Ja ne zastavljaju ni odnoj studentki I neg force.ipfv.1.sg not one.gen.sg fem.student.gen.sg rešat‘ takix zadač. solve.ipfv.inf such.gen.pl problem.gen.pl ʻI don’t force a single student to solve such problems.’ (Russian) (Reference Brown and FranksBrown & Franks 1995: 256)
These data show that there are at least two types of Slavic GoN languages: (i) languages with a highly grammaticalized licensing of the genitive which may more easily cross sentence boundaries, and (ii) languages with optional GoN which are also more restricted regarding syntactic locality.
19.5 Conclusions
Slavic languages show a remarkable consistency regarding the formation of sentential negation and with the main phenomenon related to clausemate sentential negation: negative concord. In other areas related to negation and polarity, one can find quite extensive variation among them. A common trait of Old Slavic languages, the genitive of negation, was lost in some languages or significantly restricted to marginal contexts. Other languages retained this phenomenon, but it is differently conditioned in different languages. In the area of NPIs other than the n-words (if those are NPIs at all) and of PPIs, Slavic languages show a great diversity of lexical means to express different meanings and to meet different syntactic environments.
For the purposes of this chapter, the subject is understood as the entity in nominative case. The so-called Dative-subject and ‘logical genitive subject’ are not considered to be subjects. Any utterance that does not have a subject has a null subject.
Some formal linguists consider Dative-subject as subject (for example, Reference Perlmutter and MoorePerlmutter & Moore 2002), disregarding the formal distinction of case assignment:
(1)
A mama otvečat‘ and mamaNOM to-answer ‘And Mom started immediately answering.’
(2)
A mame otvečat‘ and mamaDAT to-answer ‘And Mom has to answer.’
If we assume this position, then we can have Accusative subjects:
(3)
A mamu znobilo. and mamaACC shivered ‘And Mom had the shivers.’
and Genitive subjects:
(4)
A mamy ne bylo. and mamaGEN not wasNEU ‘And there was no Mom/Mom wasn’t there.’
One could argue that Instrumental and Prepositional subjects are also possible:
(5)
Mamoj ljubovalis‘. mamaINSTR admiredpl ‘Mom was admired.’
(6)
O mame govorili. about mamaPREP spokepl ‘Mom was spoken about.’
Russian language distinguishes podležaščee ‘grammatical subject’ (in Nominative case) and sub‘‘ekt ‘experiencer’.
It seems preferable not to confuse syntax and semantics and preserve the term ‘subject’ for Nominative grammatical subjects of the utterances.
Note that if any of the types below do not have Russian examples, it means that they do not exist in Russian. On the other hand, an absence of examples from any other language does not carry such an implication.
In Russian, as is the case in other Slavic languages, there are a dozen or so impersonal verbs. An impersonal verb has three forms: 3 p. sg. present, 3 p. sg. neuter past, and the infinitive (svetaet, svetalo, svetat‘ ‘it is daybreak/it was daybreak/to “daybreak”’). Some of the impersonal verbs have a defective paradigm that has only one form (vyzvezdilo ‘the sky is full of stars’, nejmetsja ‘no patience (neg.)’, nesdobrovat‘ ‘bad things are coming’ [to someone expressed in the dative], and others). In addition, many personal verbs can form impersonal constructions (Lico ego temneet → Uže temneet ‘His face is getting dark’ → ‘It’s getting dark’).
The two dozen types and subtypes listed below represent a range of constructions from grammatical to pragmatic, from those where a subject is grammatically impossible to those where one is grammatically possible, but if used represents some semantic or pragmatic variation.
There are a number of different types of null subject utterances.
I. Grammatically Motivated Types
The types that under no circumstances allow a subject.
a. Infinitive-imperative with a possibility of dative of experiencer:
(7)
Vstat‘. Vsem vstat‘. Vsem studentam vstat‘. to-get-up to-all to-get-up to-all to-students to-get-up ‘Rise!’ ‘All rise!’ ‘All students rise!’
Polish apparently represents an exception. However, according to Marek Łaziński (p.c.), this represents a ‘special lexicalized construction’, since there are a handful of verbs that allow nominative wszyscy with the infinitive, and in addition to that, no noun can be added:
(8)
(Pol.) Wszyscy wyjść! → *Wszyscy studenci wyjść! allNOM to-get-out allNOM studentsNOM to-get-out ‘All out!’ ‘All students out!’
b. Passive with impf verbs of communication with O + prepositional of the object and with PRO + accusative of the object, which is much less common:
(9)
Ob ètom mnogo govorilos‘/pisalos‘ v gazetax/ about this much saidpastNEU wrotepastNEU in newspapers pelos‘ v pesnjax. sangpastNEU in songs ‘Much was said/written in newspapers/sung in songs about it.’ … pro nazvanie tam govorilos‘ raz sto, ne men‘še. about title there saidpastNEU times hundred neg less ‘The title was mentioned there about a hundred times, no less.’ (V. Belousova, Vtoroj vystrel, 2000)
(10)
(BCS) O tome se pisalo u novinama. about this refl writtenpastNEU in newspapers ‘That was written about in the newspapers.’ (Reference Milićević and Kor ChahineMilićević 2013)
(11)
(Pol.) W domu o tym się nie mówiło albo in house about this refl neg saidpastNEU or Fausta nie pamięta, … Fausta neg remembers ‘At home one did not speak about this or Fausta does not remember, … ’ (K. Kofta, Fausta)
(12)
(Cze.) O politice se doma nemluví. about politics refl at-home not-speaks ‘One doesn’t speak about politics at home.’ (V. Maňáka, Šaty z igelitu)
c. Passive with pf short participles of verbs of communication:
(13)
B. P. Šeremetevu bylo ukazano s pexotoj raspoložit‘sja to-Sheremetev was pointedpplNEU with infantry to-relocate na zimnix kvartirax v Meklenburge. on winter quarters in Mecklenburg ‘B. P. Sheremetev was told to relocate with the infantry to winter quarters in Mecklenburg.’ (O. Usenko, Kogda monarxi marširujut // “Rodina”, 2008)
(14)
(Cze.) V celém bytě bylo krásně uklizeno. In entire apartment was nicely cleaned up ‘The whole apartment was nicely cleaned up.’
d. ‘Adversity’ impersonals with a possibility of the absence of the Instrumental agent. This type signals some uncontrollable force (nature, war-related forces, electricity, etc.) or ‘higher power’:
(15)
Lodku perevernulo volnoj. Row-boatACC overturnedNEU by-wave ‘The boat was capsized by a wave.’
(16)
Menja v detstve čut‘ ne ubilo tokom … IACC in childhood a-bit neg killedNEU by-current ‘In childhood, I was almost killed by electric current … ’ (N. Koljada, Rogatka)
(17)
Vsex, krome Mani, sdulo iz Ejska, everybodyACC except Manya blew-offNEU from Yeysk razmetalo po svetu; … scatteredNEU around world ‘Everyone except for Manya vanished from Yeysk, they got scattered around the world; … ’ (A. Arxangelʹskij, Poslanie k Timofeju, 2006)
(18)
(Ukr.) Včora hroza bula. Hromom u derevo udarylo. yesterday storm was by-thunder in tree hitpastNEU ‘There was a storm yesterday. A tree was hit by lightning (thunder).’ (S. Tel‘njuk, Hraje sinje more)
e. Impersonal with adverbials of physical or emotional state of the experiencer with a possibility of addition of the experiencer in oblique case (“however very few adverbials possess this property”, Mirjam Fried, p.c.):
(19)
Xolodno. Mne xolodno. Cold to-me cold ‘It’s cold.’ ‘I am cold.’
(20)
(Pol.) Gorąco. Gorąco mi. hot hot to-me ‘It’s hot.’ ‘I am hot.’
(21)
(BCS) Eh, bilo što mu drago, meni je hladno, hladno … partcl was what to-him dear to-me is cold cold ‘Eh, whatever it might be, I am cold, cold … ’ (Kovačić, U registraturi)
(22)
mne bylo dosadno čto on peremenilsja k ètoj bednoj devočke; to-me was vexing that he changed to this to-poor to-girl ‘it was vexing for me that his attitude towards this poor girl changed’ (Lermontov, Geroj našego vremeni)
(23)
(Pol.) Było mi jednak smutno. was to-me however sad ‘However, I was sad.’ (Czego angielskiej księżnej w Niemczech brakowało?)
(24)
(Cze.) Bylo mi horko/smutno. was to-me hot/sad ‘I was hot / sad.’
(25)
(BCS) Bilo mi je dosadno. was to-me is boring ‘I was bored.’
f. Reflexive impersonals of emotion or state of experiencer. The verb retains its lexical meaning and reference to a human experiencer:
(26)
Ja splju → (mne) ne spitsja. I sleep to-me neg sleepREFL ‘I sleep’ ‘I (just) can’t sleep.’
(27)
(Pol.) Czy spało się panu dobrze? q sleptNEU refl to-pan well ‘Did you sleep well?’ (A. Czerniawski, Narracje ormiańskie)
(28)
(BCS) Vesni se spavalo. VesnaDAT refl sleptNEU ‘Vesna felt like sleeping.’ (Reference Milićević and Kor ChahineMilićević 2013)
(29)
(Mac.) Ne mi se raboti. neg to-me refl works ‘I don’t feel like working.’
g. Generalized reflexive impersonals from imperfective verbs,Footnote 1 which refer to typical, common action in certain places or circumstances:
(30)
(Pol.) W wielu domach jadai się zupę … in many homes eats refl soupACC ‘In many homes one (typically) eats soup …’ (E. H., Święta u sąsiadów)
(31)
(Pol.) Książki czytai się po to, aby je zapominać, … books reads refl for that in-order them forget ‘One reads books in order to forget them [in order to be able to reread them.]’ (https://lubimyczytac.pl/cytat/15343)
(32)
(Cze.) Občas se na cimře kouříi. sometimes refl in room smokes ‘Sometimes one smokes in the room.’ (Fried)
(33)
(Cro.) Vozače se upozoravai na sklizak kolnik. driversACC refl warns at slippery road ‘Drivers are warned of slippery roads’. (Reference Milićević and Kor ChahineMilićević 2013)
(34)
(Bul.) Na tozi den ne se pee. on that day neg refl sing ‘One does not sing on that day.’
(35)
(Mac.) Ednaš se živee. once refl lives ‘One only lives once.’
(36)
(Sln.) Pihalo se je od jeze. blownNEU refl be3sg from rage ‘People were fuming/seething with rage.’ (Reference Rivero and SheppardRivero & Sheppard 2003: 110)
h. Reflexive impersonal used in order to obscure speaker-agent:
(37)
(Pol.) O jak dobrze, nareszcie ktoś o tym pomyślał. Koniec nerwowego wyczekiwania,
czy redakcja, do której się posłało własną if editorial-office to which refl sentpastNEU own książkę zechce ją odnotować chociaż w nadesłane book will-want her to-note at-least in rubryce nadesłane. received ‘How good, finally someone thought about it. End of the nervous waiting whether the editorial office to which you have sent your own book will want to note it at least in the submitted column.’ (https://magdalenajankowska.wordpress.com/2014/10/)
i. Impersonal-passive construction (or pseudo-participial construction, according to Reference DziwirekDziwirek 1994) which refers only to the past. The unspecified agent signifies either ‘authorities’ or ‘those who usually perform such an action’. What is important is that the underlying agent is human:
(38)
(Pol.) Kiedy miałam pięć lat, posłanop mnie do szkoły. when hadsg fem five years sentpplNEU meACC to school ‘When I was five years old, they sent me to school.’ (A. Bojarska & M. Bojarska, Siostry B.)
(39)
(Pol.) Od najwcześniejszych lat posyłanoi mnie from earliest years sentpplNEU meACC do szkoły. podstawowej, później średniej, gdzie to school primary later middle where dostawałem bardzo dobre stopnie z rysunku. I-gotmasc very good grades from drawing ‘From the earliest age I was sent to primary school, then high school, where I got very good grades in drawing.’ (S. Eleszkiewicz)
(40)
(Pol.) ale pamiętał doskonale wszystko, o czym but remembered perfectly everything about what mu mówiono. to-him spokenpplNEU ‘but he remembered perfectly everything he was told.’ (P. Wygnańca)
(41)
(Pol.) W piątek okupację zakończonop. in Friday occupationACC finishedpplNEU ‘On Friday the occupation was finished.’ (M. Marklowska, Nie ma już chirurgii)
(42)
(Ukr.) Holovnoho jurysta Minoborony zvynuvačenop headadj ACC lawyerACC of-Ministry-of-Defense accusedpplNEU u xabarnyctvi. in bribery ‘The head lawyer of the Ministry of Defense is accused of bribery.’ (www.unian.ua/politics/10492860-golovnogo-yurista-minoboroni-zvinuvacheno-u-habarnictvi-video.html)
(43)
(Bos.) Prijećenop je smrću i njemu i ostalim threatenedpplNEU is deathINSTR and to-him and to-other kolegama, te njihovim članovima porodice. to-colleagues and to-their to-members families ‘He and other colleagues, as well as their family members, were threatened with death.’ (The Bosnia Times, September 28, 2019)
j. Impersonal with regular verbs. Some impersonals retain the base lexical meaning:
(44)
Zvonok zvenit. → (U menja) v ušax zvenit. bell rings at me in ears rings ‘The bell rings.’ ‘I have a ringing in my ears.’
Others do not:
(45)
On vezet arbuzy na bazar. → Emu vezet v karty. he transports watermelons to market to-him ‘transports’ in cards ‘He is taking watermelons to the market.’ ‘He is lucky in cards.’
(46)
On sleduet semejnoj tradicii → Sleduet dobavit‘, čto … he follows family tradition follows to-add, that … ‘He follows the family tradition.’ ‘One must add that … ’
These verbs form three groups with respect to the case of (potential) expression of the human experiencer:
dative (as is most common):
(47)
Emu polegčalo. To-him got-lighterNEU ‘He feels a lot better.’
(48)
(Cze.) Zvonilo mi v uších. rangNEU to-me in ears ‘I had a ringing sensation in [my] ears.’
(49)
(Bul.) Vtrăsna mi. bad-taste to-me ‘I’ve had it.’ (i.e. am disgusted)
(50)
(BCS) Zuji mi u ušima. buzzes to-me in to-ears ‘I feel buzzing in my ears.’
accusative (if the action involves the whole body):
(51)
Ego tošnit, rvët, znobit, lixoradit. him nauseated tears shivers high-fever-up-and-down ‘He is nauseous, vomiting, has the shivers, high fever.’
The latter verb can also be used metaphorically:
(52)
V poslednie dni leta okružnuju gostinicu lixoradilo. in last days of-summer regional hotelACC feverishverb pastNEU ‘During the last days of summer the regional hotel was in a panic.’ (V. Arro, Dom pribežišča // “Zvezda”, 2002)
(53)
(Bul.) Mărzi me. ‘lazes’ me ‘I don’t feel like working.’
u + genitive (for a part of the body):
(54)
U nego kolet v boku. at him pricks in side ‘He has a sharp pain in his side.’
k. Modal adverbials describing possibility, need, necessity, obligation, etc. (možno, nado, neobxodimo, etc.):
(55)
Možno zakazat‘ edu v magazine. possible to-order foodACC in store ‘One /we can order food in a store.’
(56)
(Pol.) Wystawę można oglądać do końca września … exhibitACC possible to-look till endGEN SeptemberGEN ‘One can see the exhibit until the end of September …’ (P. Nowotny, Świat według Jeremiasza)
(57)
No v ètom nel‘zja ix vinit‘, … but in this impossible them to-accuse ‘But one cannot accuse them of this, …’ (E. Z. Barsukov, Russkaja artillerija …, 1938)
(58)
(Pol.) I nie można ich za to winić. and neg possible them for this to-accuse ‘And one cannot accuse them of this.’ (H. Czarnecka, Księżniczka w złotej karecie)
Unlike Polish, Russian does not allow the negation of možno and instead uses nel‘zja. Also note that Russian restricts the placement of the auxiliary for past and present tenses: postposition is obligatory unless the modals are stressed or contrasted, as in (60), where the new tax code is being discussed:
(59)
esli delo dojdet do suda uže ničego nel‘zja if case will-arrive to courtGEN already nothing impossible budet sdelat‘ will-be to-do ‘if the matter goes to court, I won’t be able to do anything’ (L. Dvoreckij, Šakaly, 2000)
(60)
A s 2004 goda sdelat‘ èto budet nel‘zja. and from 2004 yearGEN to-do this will-be impossible ‘Yet, beginning in 2004, this will not be allowed [in contrast to the previous years].’ (M. Selivanova & E. Bušmin, “Bol‘še vsego poterjajut regiony-donory”, 2003 // “Gazeta”, January 4, 2003)
(61)
(Pol.) A za głupotę trzeba płacić. and for stupidity needs to-pay ‘And one has to pay for stupidity.’ (D. Banek, Samo życie Odcinek: 294)
(62)
(BCS) Zato treba raditi, i to pošteno raditi. because needs to-work and it fairly to-do ‘That’s why you need to work, and do it honestly.’ (J. E. Tomić, Udovica)
(63)
(Ukr.) Krymčany rozpovily skil‘ky jim potribno Crimeans told how-much to-them needs hrošej dlja komfortnoho žyttja moneyGEN.pl for comfortable life ‘Crimeans told us how much money they need for comfortable living.’ (http://chanel24-video.blogspot.com/2016/04/blog-post_160.html)
l. Modals expressing the speaker’s attitude or opinion:
(64)
Prijatno guljat‘ na svežem vozduxe. pleasant to-stroll on fresh air ‘It is pleasant to stroll outside.’
(65)
Lučše žit‘ doma. better to-live at-home ‘It’s better to live at home.’
(66)
Ix legko prigotovit‘ po risunkam … them easy to-prepare along drawings ‘It’s easy to make them following the drawings.’ (Ulickaja, Lestnica Jakova)
(67)
Interesnee vsego nabljudat‘ za obez‘jankami. more-interesting of-all to-observe after monkeys ‘The most interesting thing is to watch the monkeys.’
(68)
(Bul.) Lesno ti e da govoriš taka. easy to-you is conj speak so ‘It is easy for you to speak like this.’
m. A variety of negative constructions:
(69)
Načal‘stva net nikakogo. authoritiesGEN neg–be no-kind ‘There are no authorities at all.’ (Ulickaja, Lestnica Jakova)
(70)
Maši ne vidno. MashaGEN neg seenadv ‘One cannot see Masha (she is not there).’
(71)
Mašu ne vidno. MashaACC neg seenadv ‘One cannot see Masha (she is there but not visible).’
(72)
Emu ezdit‘ bylo nekuda i nezačem, … to-him to-travel was no-place and for-no-reason ‘He had nowhere to go and no reason to.’ (I. Grekova, Fazan, 1984)
(73)
Ty gde propal? Rabotat‘ nekomu! you where disappeared to-work no oneDAT ‘Where have you been? There is no one to work!’ (I. Višnevskij, Katarsis // “Volga”, 2013)
(74)
(Pol.) W tym lesie przecież nie ma wilków. in this forest particle neg has wolvesGEN ‘In this forest, after all, there are no wolves.’ (M. Rakusa, Baśnie dla Antosia)
n. Infinitive constructions
Russian in particular has a large variety of infinitive constructions, especially if one includes the particles ne (negative), li (interrogative), by (conditional), and že (discursive). The thirty-odd types and subtypes of infinitive constructions with and without particles are for the most part non-compositional in nature.
For example, the negative perfective utterance does not correlate with the non-negative counterpart; conditional perfective does not correlate with the non-conditional counterpart; imperfective with the interrogative particle li does not correlate with the non-li counterpart; and imperfective with the discursive particle že does not correlate with the non-že counterpart:
(75)
Ej ne spet‘p ètu ariju. to-her neg to-sing thisACC ariaACC ‘She is physically unable to sing this aria.’
(76)
*Ej spet‘p ètu ariju. ‘For her to sing this aria.’
(77)
Ej spet‘p ètu ariju? ‘Should she sing this aria?’
(78)
Mne by promolčat‘p. to-me cond.particle be-silent ‘I should have been silent.’
(79)
?Mne promolčat‘p. ‘For me to be silent.’
(80)
Mne promolčat‘p? ‘Should I be silent?’
(81)
Mne li ego učit‘i? to-me Qpartcl him to-teach ‘I am not the one who should teach him (he knows more than me).’
(82)
Mne ego učit‘i. ‘I am slated to teach him.’
(83)
Mne ego učit’i? ‘Should I teach him?’
(84)
Ne sidet‘i že golodnymi. neg to-sit partcl hungryINSTR.pl ‘You would not expect us to stay hungry.’ (Rjazanov & Braginskij, Ironija sud’by)
(85)
Ne sidet‘i golodnymi. ‘Do not stay hungry!’
o. The so-called indefinite-personal (3 p. pl.) which always refers to a human agent. Semantically, this typically Russian type corresponds to impersonal reflexives in languages that have them (types g and h):
(86)
On, govorjat, sliškom ljubil xorošuju poèziju. he they-say too-much loved good poetry ‘He, they say, loved good poetry too much.’ (Ju. Bogomolov, Ne vinovaty my // “Izvestija”, August 16, 2022)
referring to a specific group of people or their representatives:
– someone responsible for the group:
(87)
Učitelju v derevne dajut besplatno žil‘ë. to-teacher in village they-give no-pay living-quarters ‘In a village, they give a teacher living quarters (for free).’ (kollektivnyj. Forum. Byli vy v strane prepodaemogo jazyka? 2008–2011)
(88)
(Pol.) U nas na zebraniu mówili – kto chce, niech at us on meeting they-said who wants let bierze ziemię, ale nikt się nie zgłosił. takes land but nobody refl neg announced ‘At our meeting they said let whoever wants take plots of land, but no one stepped forward.’ (ZORZA NA SUKURCZACH, Gazeta Wyborcza)
(89)
(Cze.) V rádiu hlásili, kde všude in radio they-said where everywhere padají teplotní rekordy. they-fall temperatureadj records ‘On the radio they said in what places temperature records fall.’ (https://denikn.cz/512576/v-australii-muzete-vanocni-darky-koupit-ale-take-najit-na-ulici/)
– everyone in the group:
(90)
v ix dome košek ljubili. in their home catsACC pl they-loved ‘in their home they loved cats.’ (J. O. Dombrovskij, Fakul‘tet nenužnyx veščej, čast’ 5, 1978)
referring to one person:
(91)
Segodnja prosnulsja ottogo, čto za stenoj today woke–up from-that that behind wall igrali na fortepiano. they-played on piano ‘Today I woke up from the sound of a piano that someone played next door (the other side of the wall).’ (A. Gelasimov, Nežnyj vozrast, 2001)
(92)
Vam govorjat russkim jazykom, imenie vaše to-you they-say RussianINSTR languageINSTR estate your prodaëtsja, a vy točno ne ponimaete. sellsREFL and you exactly neg understand2pl ‘I am telling you [they are telling you] in plain Russian that your estate is being sold, and you behave as if you don’t understand.’ (A. P. Čexov, Višnevyj sad, 1904)
The types that usually do not allow or require a subject, but in rare circumstances allow the subject to be added for emphasis or in answer to a follow-up question or for some other discourse function:
(93)
Prinesi moju palku. Bringimper my stick ‘Bring my walking stick.’ (I. Grekova, Perelom, 1987)
While imperatives typically have no subject, they may have one in cases of contrast, emphasis, argument, or other discourse functions in a dialogue:
(94)
A čto že my s toboj delat‘ budem?– and what partcl we with you to-do will1pl A ty prinesi nam xleba, – vypalil Fedjuška. you bringimper to-us some-bread shot-out Fedya ‘A and what are we going to do with you? – Why don’t you bring us some bread?’ blurted out Fedya. (F. Abramov, Brat‘ja i sestry, 1958)
q. So-called general-personal (typically 2 p. sg. present/simple future, but also 2 p. pl. and 1 p. pl. It may also be expressed by imperative):
(95)
Tiše edeš‘, dal‘še budeš‘. slower you-go farther you-will-be ‘The slower you go, the farther you will get.’
(96)
Čto imeem – ne xranim, poterjavši – plačem. what we-have neg we-preserve having-lost we-cry ‘We do not cherish what we have, and cry having lost it.’
(97)
Na Boga nadejsja, a sam ne plošaj! on God relyimper and self neg failimper ‘Rely on God, but don’t fail yourself.’
(98)
U nas inogda tak butylku zakuporjat, čto at us sometimes so bottleACC cap3pl that pomrëš‘ ot žaždy ili zuby oblomaeš‘. you-will-die from thirst or teeth you-will-break ‘In our country they would sometimes cap a bottle in such a way that you would either die of thirst or break your teeth.’ (A. Iličevskij, Butylka, 2005)
(99)
A skaži slovo, oni tebe tak otvetjat, čto and say word they to-you so will-answer that svetu belomu rada ne budeš‘. to-light to-white gladFEM neg will-be ‘And if you say something, they will answer you in such a way that you won’t be happy to be alive.’ (I. Sinicyn, Duši i sudby // “Čelovek i zakon”, 1978)
(100)
(Pol). W balonie nigdy nie wiesz gdzie wylądujesz, in balloon never neg you-know where you-land tu każdy lot to inna przygoda. here every flight this different adventure ‘In a balloon you never know where you would land, every flight is a different adventure.’ (D. Szarfuga, Instynkt latania)
(101)
(BCS) Eh, nikad ne znaš, gdje te vrag čeka. eh, never neg you-know where youACC devil waits ‘Eh, one never knows where the devil awaits you.’ (K. Š. Đalski, Diljem doma: zapisci i priče)
In narrative it may refer to the speaker alone:
(102)
Byvalo sprosiš‘p eë: “O čëm ty vzdoxnula, Bèla? partcl you-will-ask her about what you sighed Bela Ty pečal‘na?” you sad ‘You would ask her, “What did you sigh about, Bela? Are you sad?”’ (Lermontov, Geroj našego vremeni)
(103)
Vo-vtoryx, suščestvovanie smyšlenogo syniški, kotoromu tol‘ko secondly existence of-clever son to-whom only skaži– on srazu pojmaet vorob‘ja. tellIMPER he immediately will-catch sparrowACC ‘Second, the existence of a smart little son who if you told him to would immediately catch a sparrow.’ (A. K. Smirnov, Kuznica miloserdija, 2012)
However, this type occasionally allows the presence of a subject:
(104)
No odno delo pet‘ i igrat‘ na opernoj but one matter to-sing and play on operaadj scene, kogda ty idëš‘ za muzykoj, … stage when you go2sg behind music, … ‘It’s one thing to sing and act on the operatic stage when you follow the music, …’ (M. Magomaev, Ljubov moja – melodija, 1999)
r. Weather-related impersonals
Typically, they do not have subjects: svetaet ‘it’s getting light’, temneet ‘it’s getting dark’, morosit ‘it drizzles’, (Cze.) prší ‘it rains’, (Pol.) pada ‘it rains’, (BCS) grmi ‘it thunders’, (Mac) vrne ‘it rains’, and so on, but occasionally an expletive (dummy) may be used. Slavic expletives differ from English, French, and German expletives in that they are not grammatically obligatory.
(105)
Inogda kazalos‘, čto ono raspogaživaetsja, Sometimes seemed that itNEU clears-up i ja daže vyxodila fotografirovat‘. and I even went-out to-photograph ‘Sometimes it seemed that it was clearing up, and I even stepped out to photograph.’ (https://nahman.livejournal.com/274201.html)
Czech and Upper Sorbian use two types of emphatic expletives (also known as emphatic particles): to and various forms of on/von/won based entities. Their use is not grammatically required, and they express speaker’s surprise at the intensity of the rain, for example.
(106)
(Cze.) To prší. that rains ‘It is pouring.’
(107)
(USo.) Wono hrima. it thunders ‘It is thundering.’ (Reference FranksFranks 1995: 313)
s. Adverbials of perception/evaluation
These constitute an exception in that they occasionally allow expletives (dummies) in combination with the particle i: ono i ponjatno ‘it is (predictably) clear’, ono i vidno ‘it is for all to see’, ono i zametno ‘it is quite noticeable’, ono i xorošo ‘it is good’, ono i k lučšemu ‘it is for the better’, and so on.
(108)
Nakonec, v kakom-nibud‘ smysle, možet, ono i xorošo? finally in some sense can itNEU partcl good ‘Finally, in some sense maybe it is even good?’ (Z. N. Gippius, Zadumčivyj strannik (o Rozanove), 1923)
II. Pro-drop Types
A pro-drop language is a language where a personal pronoun can be omitted in neutral discourse if it is grammatically inferable. Polish and BCS are pro-drop languages, while Russian is partially a pro-drop language. A neutral statement in these languages looks as follows:
(109)
(BCS) Volim ga. (Pol.) Kocham go. (Rus.) Ja ego ljublju. ‘I love him.’
Russian language’s ability to pro-drop appears in:
(110)
Onj skazal, čto Øj pridët. he said that will-come ‘He said that he would come.’
(111)
Onaj ljubit putešestvovat‘ i poètomu Øj poexala v Italiju. she loves to-travel and therefore went in Italy ‘She likes to travel and that is why she went to Italy.’
(112)
Ejj nravitsja putešestvovat‘ i poètomu *Øj / onaj to-her likes to-travel and therefore she poexala v Italiju. went in Italy ‘She likes to travel and that is why she went to Italy.’
III. Pragmatically Motivated Types
1. Motivated by its use in a particular type of medium, such as a diary or a letter:
(113)
Dolgo ne pisal. long neg wrotemasc ‘I haven’t written for a long time.’ [from a diary]
(114)
Včera polučila tvoë pis‘mo. yesterday receivedfem your letter ‘I received your letter yesterday.’ [from a letter]
2. Discourse motivated types
In dialogues:
(115)
Večerom pridëš‘? in-evening will-come2sg Pridu, – otozvalsja Kjamal. will-come replied Kiamal ‘“Will you come in the evening?”
“I will,” replied Kiamal.’
(V. Tokareva, Svoja Pravda, 2002)
In inner monologues:
(116)
“Prišla domoj, a sama vsë dumaju – čto-to u Tan‘ki camefem to-home and selffem all thinkpres1sg something at Tanka ne tak. Nado by eë eščë raz osmotret’.” neg thus need partclcond her more one-time examine ‘I came home, yet kept thinking: something is wrong with Tanya. I would need to examine her one more time.’ (T. Šmyga, Sčast‘e mne ulybalos‘ …, 2000)
Performatives in official settings:
(117)
Ob‘‘javljaju zasedanie otkrytym. announcepres1sg meeting open ‘I announce the meeting open.’
To summarize: viewing Slavic languages in their totality, there is a range of null subjects from grammatically obligatory, to optional (the presence of the subject signifies emphasis or juxtaposition), to pragmatically motivated.
If we view the pro-drop feature as a continuum, as suggested by Pešková, from pro-drop in West Slavic and South Slavic to partially pro-drop in East Slavic (more so in Ukrainian, less so in Russian), then we could correlate a construction of the type (i) Ukr. HruACC zakinčenoppl ‘Game over (finished)’ with the pro-drop languages, and a construction of the type (d) Rus.-Ukr. UdarilopastNEU gromomINSTR ‘Hit by lightning (thunder)’ with partially pro-drop languages. In addition, Russian has a propensity to form infinitive constructions that are absent in other languages.
21.1 Informal Characterization of Voice
Grammatical voice is a prominent feature of the Slavic verb, and of the verb in general: it exists in one-third of the world’s languages (Reference HaspelmathHaspelmath 1990: 28, Reference Siewierska, Dryer and HaspelmathSiewierska 2013), including all Indo-European languages. It is a multifaceted phenomenon, involving three major components of language: semantics, syntax, and morphology. This makes the study of voice both interesting and challenging.
Voice is a verbal inflectional category; the values of this category, grammemes, are in principle obligatory for at least some classes of verbs in a language that possesses it.Footnote 1 The following example illustrates the basic voice opposition in Rus: active ~ passive; the verb is in the active voice in (1a), and in the passive (in 1b-c): reflexive passive in (1b), and participial passive in (1c).Footnote 2
(1)
a. Nemeckie rabočie (po+) stroi +l +i German worker-pl.nom perf build act.past pl školu. (Rus.) school-sg.acc ‘German workers built the school.’ b. Škola stroi +l +a +s′ school-sg.nom build act.past sg.fem refl (nemeckimi rabočimi). German worker-pl.ins ‘The school was being built (by German workers).’ c. Škola by+l +a po +stro +en school-sg.nom be-past sg.fem perf build pass-part +a (nemeckimi rabočimi). sg.fem German worker-pl.ins ‘The school was built (by German workers).’
Informally, voice can be characterized as follows.
All voice forms of a verbal lexeme (in corresponding tenses, aspects, etc.) are propositionally synonymous. This does not mean, however, that an active sentence and its passive counterpart are fully synonymous; they differ with respect to their communicative structure (a.k.a. information structure) and are not always interchangeable in texts. Different voice forms are used (in a sentence) to communicatively promote/demote or suppress the expression of different actants [core dependents] of the verb.
Voice involves simultaneously two sets of roles of verb actants: the semantic (Agent, Patient, etc.) and the syntactic ones (Subject, Direct Object, etc.). That is, each specific voice is characterized by a particular correspondence of these two types of roles. This correspondence is known as (verbal) diathesis; alternative terms are alignment and linking.Footnote 3 Active diathesis is characterized by the correspondence Agent/Subject ~ Patient/DirO (1a), and the passive one by the correspondence Agent/Agentive Complement (often left out of but implied by the sentence) ~ Patient/Subject (1b)–(1 c). Thus, we can say that voice grammemes affect the argument structure of the verb by modifying its basic diathesis; this is, by default, the active diathesis.
Not all specific voices are compatible with all verbs in a language. The compatibility depends on the verb’s lexical meaning, its syntactic features such as transitivity, active/stative character, and the inflectional categories of tense and aspect.Footnote 4 Also, a verb’s combinability with specific voices is contingent upon the features of its core dependents in the sentence (Subject, DirO), such as animacy, definiteness, and referential status; we will return to these features in due course.
Voice values are regularly indicated on the verb in the sentence, albeit not necessarily by markers exclusively used by voices (see immediately below). The verb is supplied with a special voice marker (an affix, a clitic, a particle, etc.) or appears in a special construction. Core verbal dependents are marked as well: in Slavic languages with inflected case forms (all except Mac. and Bul.), the Subject of a transitive verb in the active voice is in the nominative, and the DirO in the accusative.
There is syncretism of expressive means used with voices; some means of expression are shared among different specific voices and with some phenomena similar to, but nevertheless distinct from, voice. (There are historical reasons for this, to which we will turn later.) This poses a problem of teasing apart different specific voices, on the one hand, and distinguishing verbal voices from voice-like inflection and derivation, on the other. (In some broad conceptions of voice – Reference CreisselsCreissels 1995: 264–300, Reference Givón and GivónGivón 2001: 90–173, Reference PlungjanPlungjan 2003: 191–224 – some of these phenomena are considered as voice.)
21.2 Definition of Voice and a General Inventory of Specific Voices
There is a huge literature on grammatical voice in Slavic (and elsewhere). Yet, little agreement has been reached as to the definition of the phenomenon, and, consequently, the number and type of specific voices in individual Slavic languages. In various approaches voice is characterized more or less broadly, depending on the aspect of the phenomenon that is considered vital by a particular researcher: structural (how do voices impact the realization of the verb’s argument structure?) or functional (how are voices used in discourse?), the latter type of characterization tending to be more inclusive, subsuming under the label voice several phenomena that structural approaches consider distinct from it. However, few approaches offer a formal definition of voice, relying instead on a consensual understanding and informal characterizations.
A structural characterization of voice is proposed in (Reference Kulikov and SongKulikov 2012: 371): “The category of voice is determined on the basis of the concept of diathesis as follows: voice is a regular encoding of diathesis through verbal morphology.”
Reference PlungjanPlungjan (2003: 196) characterizes grammatical voice in functional terms, as
the verbal category whose grammemes indicate a change in the communicative rank of the participants of the situation [denoted by the verb-JM]. “Active” or “zero” voice corresponds to some initial rank structure […], while “oblique” or “derived” voices (the passive voice far from being a unique possibility) indicate the transfer of the status of the highest rank participant from one verbal argument to another.
Specific voices are sometimes characterized via a prototype and divergencies from it; thus, Reference SiewierskaSiewierska (1984: 28) defines the canonical, personal passive as having “(a) an overt subject with semantic content; (b) a corresponding active construction; (c) the subject of the passive corresponding to the P[atient] of the active”; see also Reference ShibataniShibatani (1985, Reference Shibatani1988), Reference HaspelmathHaspelmath (1990: 25ff.), and Reference Dixon and AikhenvaldDixon & Aikhenvald (2011: 46ff.).
Invoking the absence of consensus on how voice should be defined, Reference BabbyBabby (1998: 56) even proposes to replace the notion of voice, definable as “a subset of a base verb’s derived diatheses,” by that of “alternation based on the full diathetic paradigm”, since “the traditional definitions of voice often boil down to finding names for diatheses with certain arbitrarily determined formal properties” (Reference BabbyBabby 1998: 6).
The problem of divergent characterization of voice is compounded by terminological differences, as noted by many researchers, Slavists and others. Thus, Reference Fried, Lyngfelt and SolstadFried (2006: 86) mentions “a wealth of often confusing and conflicting terminology” in the domain of voice, and similar remarks can be found in Reference Dixon and AikhenvaldDixon & Aikhenvald (2011: 84–85).
Voice typologies generally focus on the opposition active ~ passive (sometimes adding to the inventory reflexive/middle and, perhaps, antipassive), further subdividing the passives along the axes plain ~ reflexive, personal ~ impersonal, and analytic (periphrastic) ~ synthetic (morphological). This holds for the bulk of the literature on Slavic voices (Reference SiewierskaSiewierska 1984, Reference Siewierska and Shibatani1988, Reference Franks and FranksFranks 1995, and many others), and for that on voice in general (Reference Perlmutter and PostalPerlmutter & Postal 1977, Reference Keenan, Dryer and ShopenKeenan & Dryer 2007, Reference Kazenin, Haspelmath, König, Oesterreicher and RaibleKazenin 2008, to mention just a few). Reference Kulikov and SongKulikov (2012) proposes a more developed voice typology, similar to the one to be presented here.
Our definition of voice and the inventory of logically possible specific voices are taken from Reference Mel‘čuk, Comrie and PolinskyMel‘čuk (1993, Reference Mel‘čuk2006a), studies that build on the characterization of voice put forward in Reference Mel‘čuk and XolodovičMel‘čuk & Xolodovič (1970) and writings of the Saint Petersburg typological school (Reference XolodovičXolodovič (ed.) 1974, Reference XrakovskijXrakovskij 1978, Reference Xrakovskij1981, Reference GeniušienėGeniušienė 1987). This is a deductively developed, cross-linguistically valid system of definitions, based on a dependency approach to syntax (Reference TesnièreTesnière 1959, Reference Mel‘čukMel‘čuk 1974 and 1988).
Central to this definition of voice is the familiar concept of diathesis; however, it is specified in terms of semantic actants and ‘generalized’ syntactic actants (known as deep-syntactic actants), rather than in terms of semantic and surface-syntactic roles.
Semantic actants of a lexeme L are the arguments of the corresponding predicate ‘L’ (L’s meaning); they are represented by variables: X stands for the first semantic actant, Y for the second one, and so on. Semantic roles of the actants (Actor/Agent, Patient, Theme, Goal, etc.) have no theoretical status and are used only informally, for ease of exposition. (This is because the role an actant plays within L’s meaning is determined via a decomposition of L’s meaning.)
‘Generalized’ syntactic actants of L normally correspond to L’s semantic actants; they are represented by Roman numerals I–VI. Each generalized syntactic actant stands for a cluster of specific surface-syntactic roles: syntactic actant I subsumes the subject of a verb and subject-like syntactic roles (e.g. that of a nominal complement), syntactic actant II covers the first object (direct, indirect, or oblique, as the case may be), syntactic actant III the second object, and so on.
This way of defining the diathesis allows for a more precise description of voice. In point of fact, a calculus of specific voices is not possible in terms of surface-syntactic roles, as their implementation is too variegated cross-linguistically. Moreover, sole reliance on surface-syntactic roles does not allow for an easy distinction between voices and certain phenomena superficially similar to voices (see Section 21.7).
Definition 1: Diathesis
A diathesis of a lexeme L is a correspondence between its semantic actants and its generalized, or deep, syntactic actants.
The basic [lexicographic] diathesis of a lexeme is part of its Government Pattern (Rus modelʹ upravlenija), specifying types of syntactic constructions in which this lexeme can participate as the syntactic governor. For instance, the basic diathesis of a bivalent transitive verb appears as follows (the diathesis is shaded):
| X ⇔ I | Y ⇔ II | DIATHESIS |
|
| –subjectival→NNOM | –dir.objectival→NACC |
|
An ‘oblique’ diathesis is obtained by a modification of the basic one; one possible oblique diathesis for a bivalent transitive verb is shown below (the implementation of the Agentive Complement is generalized to cover the two options existing in different Slavic languages: a noun in the instrumental case and a prepositional phrase).
| X ⇔ II | Y ⇔ I |
| –passive.agentive→NINSTR <PREP NCASE> | –subjectival→NNOM |
Realizations of these two diatheses are illustrated in (2a) vs. (2b) for the verb BCS podržati ‘[to] support’.
(2)
a. MedijiX⇔I su podržali media-pl.nom
be-pres.3pl support-act-part.pl.masc
idejuY⇔II. (BCS) idea-sg.acc
‘The media supported the idea.’ b. IdejaY⇔I je podržana od idea-sg.nom
be-pres.3sg
support-pass-part.sg.fem
from (strane) medija X⇔II. part-sg.gen
media-pl.gen
‘The idea was supported by the media.’
Definition 2: Voice
Voice is an inflectional category of the verb such that its grammemes mark a modification of the basic diathesis of a verbal lexeme L (without changing the propositional meaning of L).
The basic diathesis of L corresponds to a zero modification thereof; it expresses the grammeme active. The oblique diathesis of a bi-actantial transitive verb given above is obtained by a bilateral permutation of the verb’s syntactic actants relative to its semantic actants; it expresses the grammeme (full promotional) passive.
There are three logically possible types of diathetic modification: (1) permutation of deep-syntactic actants of L with respect to its semantic actants; (2) suppression of deep-syntactic actants of L; (3) referential identification of semantic actants of L.
Any of these three operations (or a combination thereof) applied to the basic diathesis of the verb (which represent a zero diathetic modification) gives us four possible major voice types: active, passive, suppressive, and reflexive; see Table 21.1.
Table 21.1 Twelve voices logically possible for a bivalent verb, eight of which are found in Slavic
| VOICE CLUSTER | GRAMMEME (= SPECIFIC VOICE) | DIATHESIS | |
|---|---|---|---|
| I. ACTIVE | [1] ACTIVE | X ⇔ I | Y ⇔ II |
| II. PASSIVES | [2] FULL PROMOTIONAL | X ⇔ II | Y ⇔ I |
| [3] AGENTLESS PROMOTIONAL | X ⇔ – | Y ⇔ I | |
| [4] PARTIAL DEMOTIONAL | X ⇔ III | Y ⇔ II | |
| [5] FULL DEMOTIONAL | X ⇔ II | Y ⇔ III | |
| [6] PATIENTLESS DEMOTIONAL | X ⇔ II | Y ⇔ – | |
| III. SUPPRESSIVES | [7] SUBJECTLESS | X ⇔ – | Y ⇔ II |
| [8] OBJECTLESS | X ⇔ I | Y ⇔ – | |
| [9] ABSOLUTE | X ⇔ – | Y ⇔ – | |
| IV. REFLEXIVES | [10] SUBJECTLESS | [X = Y] ⇔ II | |
| [11] OBJECTLESS | [X = Y] ⇔ I | ||
| [12] ABSOLUTE | [X = Y] ⇔ — | ||
Voice types II–IV each have several grammemes, based on subtypes of diathetic modifications involved (see the second remark below). Thus, voice can be regarded as a super-category (Reference Haspelmath, Müller-Bardey, Booij, Lehmann and MugdanHaspelmath & Müller-Bardey 2004) and major voice types as voice clusters (Reference Kulikov and SongKulikov 2012).
For a bivalent verb, there is a total of 12 logically possible specific voices. Out of these, Slavic bivalent verbs have eight, generally speaking (voices attested in Slavic are bolded in Table 21.1).
Remarks
1. The modifying adjectives in the names of specific voices are to be interpreted as follows:
| promotional | = Y is promoted from II to I and, at the same time, X is demoted from I to II; |
| demotional | = X is demoted from I to III and Y is not promoted (i.e. it remains II); |
| full | = all actants are involved; partial = not all actants are involved; |
| agentless | = the Agentive Complement cannot be expressed; |
| patientless | = the Patient cannot be expressed; |
| subjectless | = only Y⇔II can be expressed; |
| objectless | = only X⇔I or [X=Y]⇔I can be expressed; |
| absolute | = no actant can be expressed. |
2. A full passive is necessarily promotional, and vice versa. A partial passive is necessarily demotional, but the converse is not true: a demotional passive can be full or partial.
3. Full demotional passive (No. 5) with bivalent verbs has not been found in the world’s languages (Reference Mel‘čukMel‘čuk 2006a: 203); however, it is possible with monovalent (intransitive) verbs; see example (11b) below.
4. In the cases where a diathetic modification results in the absence of DSyntA I, and, therefore, the absence of a full-fledged syntactic subject at the surface-syntactic level (Nos. 4–6, 7, 9, 10, and 12), a dummy subject – a semantically empty lexeme (Reference Mel‘čukMel‘čuk 2006b: 469–516) – is called for in languages/constructions where the verb shows agreement with the subject. The presence of the dummy subject, which can have a phonological realization (Ang. IT, Fr. IL, Ger. ES, etc.) or, as is the case in Slavic, be phonologically null (Mel‘čuk 2006b: 469–516), explains the modifier ‘impersonal’ in some of the names for specific voices usually found in the linguistic literature.
5. Here are the names by which ‘oblique’ voices (i.e., other than the active) identified in Table 21.1 usually go in the literature: [2] basic/ canonical/personal passive; [3] short/truncated passive, potential passive; [4] impersonal passive, impersonal construction; [7] desubjective, impersonal reflexive passive, active impersonal; [9], [12] impersonal/deagentivized construction; [11] reflexive.
Voice, as defined by the type of calculus presented above, can also be applied to monovalent and plurivalent verbs. In what follows, we will cursorily consider these types of verbs as well.
21.3 Voice Types in Slavic
Not all Slavic languages have all the voices indicated in Table 21.1. Within any given Slavic language, there is no one verb that has all the voices in principle possible in that language; there are no voice grammemes that are compatible with all the verbs in the language. The determining factor is, above all, transitivity (Reference Hopper and ThompsonHopper & Thompson 1980): the basic passive and the (objectless) reflexive are formed only from transitive verbs; other voices can be formed also from intransitive verbs. The semantic type of the verb plays a role, as well.
Examples of specific voices possible for a Slavic bivalent transitive verb follow (the numbering 1-2, 1-3, etc. refers to voice names in Table 21.1):
(3)
1-2 Rus. prinesti ‘to bring’; issledovat‘ ‘to study/to investigate’ a. Mal‘čikX⇔I prinës kniguY⇔II. boy-sg.nom bring(perf)-past.sg.masc book-sg.acc ‘The boy brought the book.’ b. KnigaY⇔I byla prinesena book-sg.nom be-past.sg.fem bring(perf)-pass-part.sg.fem mal‘čikomX⇔II. boy-sg.ins ‘The book was brought by the boy.’ c. UčënyeX⇔I issledujut èto javlenieY⇔II. scientist-pl.nom study(imperf)-pres.3pl this phenomenon-sg.acc ‘Scientists study this phenomenon.’ d. Èto javlenieY⇔I issledujetsja učënymiX⇔II. this phenomenon-sg.nom study(imperf)-pres.3sg.refl scientist-pl.ins ‘This phenomenon is studied by scientists.’
(4)
(5)
(6)
1-7 Pol. czytać ‘to read’ a. JanX⇔I przeczytał książkęY⇔II. Jan-sg.nom read-past.sg.masc book-sg.acc ‘Jan read the/a book.’ b. Przeczytano książkęY⇔II (*przez JanaY⇔II). read(invar) book-sg.acc (*by Jan) ‘The book has been read.’
(7)
1-9 BCS igrati ‘to dance’ a. U klubu su sviX⇔I igrali in club be-pres.3pl all-nom dance-act-part.pl.masc salsuY⇔II. salsa-sg.acc ‘Everyone in the club danced salsa.’ b. U klubu se igralo (*salsuY⇔II).Footnote 5 in club refl dance-act-part.sg.neu (*salsa) ‘There was dancing in the club.’
(8)
1-11 Bul. kăpja ‘to bathe’ a. MajkaX⇔I šte kăpe AnaY⇔II. mother will bathe Ana ‘Mother will bathe Ana.’ b. AnaX+Y⇔I šte se kăpe (sama). Ana will refl bathe (herself) ‘Ana will bathe (herself).’
(9)
1-12 Pol. czesać ‘to comb’ a. MatkaX⇔I uczesała mnieY⇔II. mother-sg.nom comb-past.sg.fem I-acc ‘Mother combed my hair.’ b. Uczesano się. combed(invar) refl ‘People/someone has combed their hair.’
Monovalent intransitive verbs can have, in addition to the active, one regular and productive oblique voice: subjectless suppressive (equivalent in this case to absolute suppressive), illustrated in (10). Marginally, some such verbs admit full demotional passive, possibly in dialectal and substandard usage, as is the case with the Rus. example in (11).
(10)
1-7 BCS živeti ‘to live’ a. Ovde ljudiX⇔I lepo žive. here people-pl.nom well live-pres.3pl ‘People live well here.’ b. Ovde se lepo živi. here refl well live-pres.3sg ‘One lives well here.’/ ‘Life is good here.’
(11)
1-5 Rus. xodit‘ ‘to walk’ a. Skol’ko jaX⇔I tut xodil! how.much I-nom here walk-past.sg.masc ‘How much I walked here!’ b. Skol’ko mnojX⇔II tut bylo xoženo! how.much I-ins here be-past.sg.neu walk-pass-part.sg.neu ‘How much walking was done by me here!’
In some Slavic languages, plurivalent intransitive verbs from specific semantic classes can be marginally used in partial demotional passive and subjectless suppressive; see Section 21.4 for examples.
Unlike some other typologies of Slavic voices, the one presented here does not include objectless suppressive (No. 8 in Table 21.1) and reciprocal. Sentences in (12) illustrate what is usually taken to be objectless suppressive (a.k.a. deobjective, absolutive, antipassive); those in (13) illustrate the reciprocal.
(12)
(13)
Oni se vole <poštuju, mrze>. (BCS) they refl love-pres.3pl <respect-pres.3pl hate-pres.3pl> ‘They love <respect, hate> each other/one another.’
The forms in question are not voice forms. Our definition of voice requires that voice grammemes do not affect the propositional meaning of lexeme L to which they are associated, that is, that no semanteme (a chunk of meaning) be added to L’s meaning in the process. Alternatively, we can say that the situation described by L (roughly, ‘who does what to whom’) does not essentially change under diathesis modification. The constraints on the actants of L (their distribution/correlation between them), on the other hand, or the conditions of L’s use, may be affected.
According to this definition, neither (12) nor (13) are instances of voice, since in both cases there is addition of meaning with respect to that of the base lexeme: the meaning of aggression in the former case (Reference IsraeliIsraeli 1997: 109–125),Footnote 6 and that of symmetry/interaction in the latter. Therefore, in line with Reference Mel‘čukMel‘čuk (2006a: 206ff.), we treat such examples as instances of verbal derivation, more specifically, as particular cases of detransitivization.Footnote 7 While one can define voice in a way as to include both of these verbal forms, such a definition would lump together phenomena that in our view are distinct.
On objectless suppressive treated as a voice form in Slavic, see Reference Rivero and Milojević SheppardRivero & Milojević Sheppard (2003) and Reference JanicJanic (2014, Reference Janic2016), for instance; an overview of its use in Slavic and Baltic languages can be found in Bondarenko (2022). The publications on the reciprocal and its relation to the objectless reflexive (which in Slavic languages make use of the same formal marking on the verb – in yet another instance of syncretism of expressive means, mentioned earlier) include Reference NedjalkovNedjalkov (2007), dealing with reciprocals in Polish, Bulgarian, and Russian (and many other, non-Slavic, languages), Reference König, Gast, König and GastKönig & Gast (2008) and Reference Letuchiy, Kosta and SchûrcksLetuchiy (2011).
Before we turn to a description of Slavic oblique voices, we need to comment on the fact that some voice types in our typology (subjectless and absolute suppressive, absolute reflexive, Nos. 7, 9, and 12) are not always explicitly qualified elsewhere as instances of voice and are called simply ‘impersonal’ or ‘deagentivized’ constructions (cf. fourth and fifth remarks after Table 21.1). While it is true that all these voices use the impersonal construction (i.e. a construction featuring a dummy subject or lacking one altogether) as one of their means of expression, impersonalization is independent of diathetic modifications (in our framework, they pertain to two different levels of representation – surface- vs. deep-syntactic, respectively) and therefore not relevant for the calculus of possible voice types. In addition to implementing different voice types, the impersonal construction can implement different verbal derivations; here are some examples.
(14)
a. Mirisa +l +o je na vlagu. (BCS) smell act-part sg.neu be-pres.3sg on dampness ‘There was a smell of dampness.’ b. Juče se iš +l +o na izlet. yesterday refl go act-part sg.neu on outing ‘Yesterday people/we went on an outing.’ c. Jovanu se iš +l +o na izlet. Jovan-sg.dat refl go act-part sg.neu on outing ‘Jovan felt like going on an outing.’
The verb in sentence (14a) is in the active (voice), that in (14b) in the absolute suppressive (voice), and the one in (14c) in the dispositional (derivation). At the same time, each of these sentences is ‘impersonal’, lacking an overt, referential syntactic subject.
21.4 Slavic Oblique Voices
As has been seen, oblique voices come in clusters: passives, suppressives, reflexives; we will take them in turn.
21.4.1 Passives
21.4.1.1 Full Promotional Passive
This passive type, usually going by the labels basic, canonical, or personal passive, is formed from transitive verbs; it comes in two variants: participial (periphrastic) passive and reflexive (pronominal) passive. Both variants are common to all Slavic languages except modern Polish, where the reflexive passive is obsolete (Reference Fehrmann, Junghanns and LenertováFehrmann et al. 2010: 211, Reference Holvoet and Linde-UsiekniewiczHolvoet & Linde-Usiekniewicz 2015: 110).
Participial passive construction features the auxiliary ‘be’ (Pol. additionally has zostać ‘become’; colloquial Sorb uses wordować ‘become’) and the lexical verb in the passive participle form; see examples (1c), (2b), and (3b) above. Reflexive passive uses a reflexive marker – a suffix (-sja/-s‘) or a clitic (se, się, etc.), which is added to the active form of the lexical verb; see examples (1b) and (3d) above. The auxiliary agrees with the syntactic subject in person, number, and (in the past tense) gender; the participle shows agreement with the subject’s number and gender. In Russian, the participle must be short (only predicative).
The Patient/Subject is in the nominative case. The optional Agentive Complement is marked by the instrumental case in E. Slavic and Slk., by a prepositional phrase in Pol. (przez ‘by/through’ NACC), and S. Slavic (BCS od (strane) ‘from (part.of)’ NGEN; Bul./Mac. ot/od strana na N; Sln. s strani NGEN), and in either way in Cze (with a preference for the instrumental phrase, at least according to the speakers I asked).Footnote 8 See examples in (16)–(18).
Constraints on the Verb
Participial and reflexive passives are distributed as a function of verbal aspect and tense.
The clearest distribution is found in Rus., where in an overwhelming majority of cases the participial passive is formed from perfective verbs and the reflexive passive from imperfective verbs. Imperfective participial passive, found sporadically, is subject to strong lexical, syntactic and contextual constraints (Reference Maslov and NedjalkovMaslov 1988, Reference Knjazev and NedjalkovKnjazev 1988, Reference Knjazev2007, Reference Borik, Gehrke, Lenertová, Meyer, Šimík and SzucsichBorik & Gehrke 2016); the same is true for the perfective reflexive passive (Reference PercovPercov 2003, Reference LevineLevine 2010).
Participial passive with imperfective verbs is allowed in varying degrees in Cze., Pol., and Bul.; however, a general preference for this variety of the passive is to be used with perfective verbs. This is linked to the stative/resultative flavor of the periphrastic passive (Reference Guentcheva, Xrakovskij, Mal’čukov and DmitrenkoGuentcheva 2004: 109). At the same time, reflexive passive is preferably made from imperfective verbs, owing to its predominantly actional/dynamic character (Reference Guentcheva, Xrakovskij, Mal’čukov and DmitrenkoGuentcheva 2004: 109). Aspectual oppositions are the least strong in BCS, where both types of promotional passive are in principle allowed from both perfective and imperfective verbs.
In Pol., the choice of the auxiliary is contingent on the aspect of the main verb: the zostać passive is used with perfective verbs, the być passive with both imperfective and perfective verbs. According to Reference Siewierska and ShibataniSiewierska (1988: 250), Pol. passives with zostać are always actional; those with być are actional with imperfective verbs and can be either stative or resultative if formed from perfective verbs.
In Slavic languages, only imperfective verbs can convey the actual present meaning (i.e. refer to the present moment), and this independently of voice. Non-actual present (iterative, injunctive, hypothetical) can be conveyed by both imperfective and perfective verbs.
In BCS, additionally, there is no participial passive in the present with the actual reading (Reference Đurković and HendriksĐurković 2004: 78, Reference TanasićTanasić 2014: 101ff.); BITI ‘to be’PRES + VPASS.PART expresses the past (cf. example (2b)).Footnote 9 (This means that actual present facts can be reported in the passive only with imperfective verbs, i.e. in the reflexive passive.) An analogous situation obtains in Mac. (Reference TopolińskaTopolińska 2003: 22).
Also, the use of BCS perfective verbs is restricted in the reflexive passive of the past and, to a lesser extent, the future. The acceptability of the reflexive passive in these tenses depends on the verbs involved, as well as on the number and definiteness of the noun expressing the Patient. It may also be subject to individual/regional variation. These constraints are illustrated in Table 21.2 for the verb cˇitati ‘to read’ in the passive: čitati (imperfective) and pročitati (perfective).
Table 21.2 Interaction of voice, aspect, and tense in BCS (Milićević 2022: 300)
| V(Imerf) | V(Perf) | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Past |
|
|
| Future |
|
|
Reference SpalatinSpalatin (1973: 121) speaks about “more or less prominent reluctance to use perfective verbs in the se-passive.” We may add that this reluctance seems less prominent in Cro.; thus, in sentences such as (15), taken from a contemporary Croatian text, Serbian speakers would sooner use the periphrastic passive forms (in this case, određeni su and nisu uključeni, respectively).
(15)
a. Pojedini tipovi konstrukcija odredili certain type-pl.nom of.constructions determine(perf)-act-part.pl.masc su se na temelju … (Cro.) are refl on basis.of … ‘Certain construction types were determined based on … ’ b. U raspravu o konstrukcijama nisu se in debate of constructions not.are refl uključili glagoli tog tipa. include(perf)-act-part.pl.masc verb-pl.nom of that type ‘Verbs of that type were not included in discussion about the constructions.’
In Bul., the participial promotional passive is restricted tense-wise: it invariably appears with the past tense morphology (Reference Dimitrova-VulchanovaDimitrova-Vulchanova 1999: 24).
For verbal aspect and tense/mood in Slavic, see Chapters 9 and 10 in this volume.
Constraints on the Actants
In all Slavic languages, the expression of the Agent in passive clauses is optional with the periphrastic passive; with the reflexive passive, it is optional in some languages and blocked in others.Footnote 10 The Agent often remains unexpressed (since one of the discourse functions of the passive is, exactly, Agent backgrounding; see Section 21.5).
With the periphrastic passive, agentive phrases are unrestrictedly used only in E. Slavic; elsewhere, they tend to be limited to journalistic and scientific/technical registers.
(16)
Agentive phrases with the reflexive passive are possible in E. Slavic, USo., Bul., and, to some extent, Mac., but are disallowed in Pol., Cze., Slk., BCS, and Sln. (Reference Fehrmann, Junghanns and LenertováFehrmann et al. 2010: 214). Note, however, that in BCS agentive phrases are increasingly used with the reflexive passive, even though this practice is still ‘officially’ proscribed (Reference Piper, Antonić, Ružić, Tanasić, Popović and TošovićPiper et al. 2005: 371; cf. (17c)).Footnote 11
(17)
a. Šaty so runje (wot wowki) šija. (USo.) clothes-pl.nom refl right.now (by grandmother) sew-pres.3pl ‘Clothes are being sewn right now (by grandmother).’ b. Šaty se práve šijí (*babičkou). (Cze.) dress-sg.nom refl right.now sew-pres.3sg (*by grandmother) ‘The dress is being sewn right now.’ c. Penzioni sistem u Srbiji finansira se pension system-sg.nom in Serbia finance-pres.3sg refl samo od (strane) Države. (Ser.) only from part state-sg.gen ‘The pension system in Serbia is financed only by the State.’ d. Izborot se vrši od selection-sg.def refl preform-pres.3sg from strana na Komisija za verifikacija […] (Mac.) part at commission for verification ‘The selection is made by the Verification Commission.’
Semantic and referential features of the Agent seem to be the least constrained in Rus. Thus, the Agent of the Rus. reflexive passive can be not only ‘human’, as it usually is elsewhere in Slavic, but also ‘non-human’ and even ‘inanimate’ (Reference SiewierskaSiewierska 1984: 181).
(18)
a. Jagody klevalis’ pticami. (Rus.) berry-pl.nom peck-past.pl.refl bird-pl.ins ‘Berries were being pecked by birds.’ b. List’ja vzmëtyvalis’ vetrom. leaf-pl.nom sweep-past.pl.refl wind-pl.ins ‘Leaves were being swept by the wind.’
For properties of Agents in passive clauses cross-linguistically, see Reference Siewierska, Baker, Brown, Chumakina and CorbettSiewierska & Baker (2013).
As for the Patient’s features, they do not seem to be restricted: its referent can be inanimate, animate, or human with both variants of the periphrastic passive.
21.4.1.2 Agentless Promotional Passive
Agentless promotional passive, a.k.a. short/truncated/potential passive, has an anonymous or generalized human Agent whose surface expression is blocked, and a Patient expressed as the syntactic subject with which the verb agrees. This passive type exists across the Slavic domain, but is only marginally present in Polish (which, as we have seen, has lost the basic reflexive passive).Footnote 12
(19)
a. Bel’ëY⇔I stiraetsja v gorjačej vode. (Rus.) laundry-sg.nom wash-pres.3sg.refl in hot water. ‘The laundry is washed in hot water.’ b. SzarlotkaY⇔I się łatwo kroi. (Pol.) apple.pie-sg.nom refl easily cut-pres.3sg ‘The apple pie cuts easily = is easy to cut.’ c. KrompirY⇔I se oljušti, potato-sg.nom refl peel(perf)-pres.3sg iseče (se) na kockice i (Ser.) cut(perf)-pres.3sg refl on dices and ‘Potato is peeled, diced and … ’ d. Go poučija lugjeto: prašanjetoY⇔I him taught people question-pl.def taka ne se postavuva. (Mac.) thus not refl put-pres.3sg ‘People explained to him: you don’t/one shouldn’t ask the question that way.’
The implied presence of the Agent is corroborated by the possibility to add to the sentence an Agent-oriented adverb, for instance, pažljivo ‘carefully’ in (19c).
The short passive is usually used with imperfective verbs, but this usage is not exclusive, at least not in BCS, where perfective verbs are normal in prescriptions (operating instructions, recipes, and the like), as in (19c). It tends to carry a generic (habitual, iterative) or modal (potential, injunctive) meaning and often requires the presence of a manner/locative adverb or the negation.Footnote 13
21.4.1.3 Partial Demotional Passive
Partial demotional passive from transitive verbs, known also as impersonal (transitive) passive and -to/-no impersonal, is characteristic of Ukr. and N. Rus. dialects. (For the Pol. -no/-to construction, which is a subtype of suppressive, see immediately below.)
(20)
a. XlopcjaY⇔II bulo znajdeno u košyku boy(N, masc)-sg.acc be-past.sg.neu found(invar) in basket likarjamyX⇔III.doctor-pl.ins (Ukr.) ‘A baby was found in a basket by doctors.’ b. Cju operacijuY⇔II bude vykonano this operation(N, fem)-sg.acc be-fut.3sg carried.out(invar) vidomym xyrurgomX⇔III. well.known surgeon-sg.ins ‘This operation will be carried out by a well-known surgeon.’ c. TabirX⇔II bulo zajnjato camp(N, masc)-sg.acc be-past.sg.neu occupied(invar) amerykans’kym vijs’komY⇔III. American troop-sg.ins ‘The camp was occupied by American troops.’
The Ukr. demotional passive is almost exclusively formed with perfective verbs and has actional, rather than resultative, semantics, the latter being associated in this language with the canonical passive (Reference Nedashkivska AdamsNedashkivska Adams 1998). The main verb is invariant, in the so-called predicative form, ending in -o (the old neuter agreement marker, different from the current neuter -e). The auxiliary buloPAST.SG.NEU ‘was’/budeFUT.3SG ‘will be’ indicates the tense and the mood. The Patient is retained in the accusative case and the Agent, which carries the feature ‘human’, may but need not be expressed. Since no semantic actant is implemented as the deep-syntactic actant I (which should correspond to the subject), an empty zero 3sg neuter subject must be used at the surface-syntactic level for agreement purposes.
In N. Rus. dialects, the Patient in the partial demotional passive may also be marked by the nominative case (Reference TimberlakeTimberlake 1974, Reference RonkoRonko 2017), as in (21b); intransitive verbs can participate in the construction, as well (21c).
(21)
a. U njejX⇔III tëlkuY⇔II bylo at her heifer-sg.acc be-past.3sg.neu zarezano. (N. Rus.) slaughter-pass-part.sg.neu ‘A heifer was slaughtered by her.’ b. Pereexano bylo dorogaY⇔II tut. cross-pass-part.sg.neu be-past.sg.neu road-sg.nom here ‘There has been crossing over the road there.’ c. U menjaX⇔II uže vstato bylo. at me already get.up-pass-part.sg.neu be-past.sg.neu ‘I had already gotten up.’
In Rus., Ukr., BCS, and Bul., partial demotional passive is possible with specific classes of intransitives (verbs of saying/perception) and may be limited to colloquial style. In (22a) we see a demotional passive form of a tri-valent verb.
(22)
a. MneZ⇔III bylo ukazano I-dat be-past.sg.neu point.out-pass-part.sg.neu na ošibkuY⇔II (direktoromX⇔IV). (Rus.) at error-sg.acc director-sg.inst ‘The error was pointed out to me by the director.’ b. Pro ceY⇔II (namiX⇔III) vže hovorylosja. (Ukr.) about that we-ins already speak-past.sg.neu.refl ‘That has been already talked about by us.’ c. Za tovaY⇔II veče se govori (od nasX⇔III) about this already refl talk-past.3sg by us na minalato săbranie. (Bul.) at last meeting ‘This has been already talked about by us at the last meeting.’
21.4.2 Suppressives
The suppressive cluster comprises two subtypes: subjectless suppressive (a.k.a. desubjective), which retains the Patient and suppresses the expression of the Agent, and the absolute suppressive, with which neither the Patient nor the Agent can be expressed. The implied Agent carries the features ‘indefinite’ and ‘human’.
Suppressives are the best developed in Pol, where they can be implemented both by the -no/-to construction and the reflexive one; in other Slavic languages, only the reflexive variant is regularly present.
In Slavic linguistics, both suppressive subtypes are usually called active impersonal/indefinite constructions, on the account of their semantic similarity with the constructions featuring indefinite human pronouns (Eng. one, Ger. man, Fr. on, etc.) and 3pl indefinite active constructions, as well as the fact that they lack an overt referential syntactic subject.
21.4.2.1 Subjectless Suppressive
Examples of Pol. subjectless suppressive follow: the -no/-to variant in (23a–23c), and the reflexive one in (23d).
(23)
a. (*Zostało) znaleziono chłopca w koszu become-past.3sg.neu found(invar) boy(N.masc)-sg.acc in basket (*przez lekarzy). (Pol.) by doctors ‘A boy was found in a basket (*by doctors).’ b. Rozkaz wykonano. order-sg.acc executed(invar) ‘The order was executed.’ c. Żeby uratować dziecko, wybito szybę. in.order.to save child broken(invar) pane-sg.acc ‘In order to save the child, the window-pane was broken.’ d. Tę książkę czytało się z przyjemnością. that book-sg.acc read-past.sg.neu refl with pleasure ‘That book was read with pleasure.’
Reference KibortKibort (2004: 241–340) provides an extensive discussion of the two types of Polish suppressive (called -no/-to impersonal and reflexive impersonal, respectively.)
The Pol. -no/-to construction differs from the Ukr. one in the following respects: (1) it does not allow for an auxiliary (cf. (23a) vs. (20a)); (2) the verb, in the (resultative) past, doesn’t agree with anything, so there is no need to postulate a syntactic subject; (3) the implied Agent cannot be individualized, that is, it is interpreted as ‘people’ or indefinite ‘they’ and typically excludes the Speaker (Reference Siewierska and ShibataniSiewierska 1988: 271). For a detailed comparison of the two cognate constructions, see Reference BlevinsBlevins (2003) and Reference LavineLavine (2005).
Pol. reflexive subjectless suppressive can be used in all tenses/moods; at the surface-syntactic level, there is a 3sg empty zero subject, with which the verb agrees.
Subjectless suppressive from transitive verbs is attested also in Sln. and Cro., but not in Ser. or the other S. Slavic languages (Reference Franks and FranksFranks 1995: 347ff., Reference Lenardič, Marušič, Mišma and ŽaucerLenardič 2020, Reference KučandaKučanda 1992, Reference Oraić RabušićOraić Rabušić 2017, Reference Uhlik and ŽeleUhlik & Žele 2020). It may be confined to the informal style/stylistically marked.
(24)
a. Dokumente se redno preverja. (Sln.) document-pl.acc refl regularly check-pres.3sg ‘Documents are regularly checked.’ b. U vrijeme kad sam bio ministar, mene se in time when I was Cabinet member, I-acc refl žestoko kritiziralo. (Cro.) strongly criticize-act-part.sg.neu ‘At the time I was a Cabinet member, I was strongly criticized.’
BCS and Sln. allow subjectless suppressive from some intransitive verbs (mostly verbs of saying/perception and mental activity verbs), as do W. Slavic languages and, more limitedly, Russian.Footnote 14
(25)
a. Meni se nikad ne v(j)eruje. (BCS) I-dat refl never not believe-pres.3sg ‘I am never believed.’ b. O njem se je veliko govorilo. (Sln.) about he-loc refl be-pres.3sg a.lot speak-act-part.sg.neu ‘He was spoken of a lot.’ c. Ob ètom slučae mnogo govorilos’ about that case much speak-past.3sg.neu.refl v poslednee vremja. (Rus.) in last time ‘This case has been much talked about lately.’
21.4.2.2 Absolute Suppressive
Absolute suppressive from intransitively used transitive verbs (unergatives) is available everywhere but in Rus. and Bel. In some contexts, a temporal or locative adverbial is required.
(26)
a. Tutaj tańczono <się tanczyło>. (Pol) here danced(invar) <refl dance-past.sg.neu> ‘There was dancing <People/We danced> here.’ b. Minalata godina zdravo se pieše. (Bul.) last year-sg.def much refl drink-past.3sg ‘People/We drank a lot last year.’ c. *Pracavalasja do ranicy. (Bel.) work-past.3sg.neu.refl till morning ‘People/We worked till morning’.
Absolute suppressive from monovalent intransitive verbs (unaccusatives) is unavailable in East Slavic and freely used in the remaining Slavic languages except in Bulgarian, where its acceptability is dubious for some speakers (Reference Fehrmann, Junghanns and LenertováFehrmann et al. 2010: 213).
(27)
a. Płakano bez końca. (Pol.) cried(invar) without end ‘There was endless crying.’ b. Najviac sa dnes umiera na srdcové choroby. (Slk.) mostly refl today die-pres.3sg on heart diseases ‘Today people die mostly from heart diseases.’ c. ?Prez srednevekovieto se e umiralo through middle.ages refl be-pres.3sg die(imperf)-act-part.sg.neu ot čuma. (Bul.) of plague ‘During the Middle Ages people used to die from plague.’
Reflexives
Reflexives also come in two variants: objectless reflexive and absolute reflexive. Both are characterized by referential identification of the Agent and the Patient and subsequent suppression of syntactic actants.
With the objectless reflexive, the only syntactic actant that can be expressed corresponds to the surface subject (which controls the agreement of the verb):
(28)
Absolute reflexive blocks the expression of both syntactic actants (i.e. neither the surface subject nor the direct object is possible), thus placing the focus solely on the event described by the verb. The only examples of this voice in Slavic languages known to me come from Polish:
(29)
Ubrano <wykąpano, umyto> się. (Pol.) dressed(invar) <bathed(invar), washed(invar)> refl ‘Someone/They dressed <bathed, washed>.’
While objectless reflexive is considered in linguistic literature as a type of voice, absolute reflexive is considered the same way as the suppressives, that is, as an (active) impersonal construction. On null/unspecified subjects and impersonal constructions, see Chapter 20 in this volume; on null subjects and passive, see Reference Franks and FranksFranks (1995: 339–355).
Table 21.3 recapitulates the distribution of grammemes of the seven oblique voices possible with transitive verbs in Slavic. (As noted previously, some of these voices are limitedly possible with some intransitive verbs as well.)
Table 21.3 Slavic oblique voices for bivalent transitive verbs per branch/language
| Full prom. pass. | Agentless prom. pass. | Part. dem. pass. | Subjectless suppr. | Absolute suppr. | Objectless refl. | Absolute refl. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E. Slavic | All | All | Ukr., N. Rus. | — | Ukr. | All | — |
| W. Slavic |
|
| — | Pol. | All | All | Pol. |
| S. Slavic | All | All | — | Sln., Cro. | All | All | — |
21.5 Discourse Functions of Voices
Voice alternations do not change the verb’s semantics (or do so only slightly) – they do not express propositional meanings; what they do express is the communicative perspective on the situation described by the verb: it is seen from the angle of a different participant or as purely eventful. Therefore, specific voices can be used to express the communicative, a.k.a. information, structure (Reference Mel‘čukMel‘čuk 2001, Féry & Ishihara, eds 2016) and establish thematic progression (topic ~ comment patterns) in discourse/text. This is indeed the primary discourse function of voices.Footnote 15
Voice alternations, in particular the active ~ passive one, have been much discussed in the literature in terms of the relative discourse prominence of the participants of the situation described by the verb (i.e. actants of the verbal lexeme). Passivization is variously viewed as spontaneous demotion of the Agent (Reference Comrie, Cole and SaddockComrie 1977); Agent backgrounding (i.e. making it referentially obscure; Reference Fried, Lyngfelt and SolstadFried 2006: 86); Agent defocusing (Reference ShibataniShibatani 1985); detopicalization of the Agent and topicalization of the Patient (Reference Givón and GivónGivón 2001). For Reference HaspelmathHaspelmath (1990), the main effect of passivization is the inactivation of the situation, from which foregrounding/backgrounding effects on the participants follow automatically. Reference IsraeliIsraeli (1997: 170–198) describes discourse uses of the Russian reflexive passive with and without the expression of the Agent. For instance, the situations in which the Agent of the reflexive passive is not mentioned include the following ones: (a) it is not necessary to mention the Agent because it is self-evident, unimportant or generalized; (b) the Agent is deliberately omitted in order to obscure it because it is antagonistic (to the Speaker), to avoid naming oneself (as Agent) out of modesty, to represent the action as taking place by itself, etc. Reference Dixon and AikhenvaldDixon & Aikhenvald (2011: 48) maintain that “[T]he situations in which passive is typically used include: to avoid mentioning the A(gent) argument; to direct attention onto the O(bject), rather than on the A; to place a topic (which is underlying O) into surface S(ubject) function; to focus on the result of the activity.”
The calculus of possible voices presented in Section 21.2 above clearly establishes discourse prominence of the verb’s actants, which is indicated in the names of specific voices (second and third remarks after Table 21.1). With respect to the non-marked active, the situation is as follows.
Promotional passive, based on a bilateral permutation of the verb’s actants, allows the Patient to advance to the most important surface-syntactic role, the subject, from which the demotion of the Agent follows automatically.
With demotional passive, the Agent is relegated to a less prominent syntactic role, that of an adjunct, without the concomitant promotion of the Patient, which keeps its rank.
Objectless reflexive focuses on the Agent, seen as acting upon himself or in his own interest, and eliminates the referentially identical Patient from the picture.
Subjectless suppressive anonymizes the Agent and precludes its expression in syntax altogether without promoting the Patient, which nevertheless acquires more prominence as the only remaining actant in the clause.
Absolute suppressive and absolute reflexive anonymize the Agent and do not allow either of the actants to be expressed, thus emphasizing the event itself.
As for the distribution and frequency of specific voice forms in texts, it depends in the first place on the language of the text and text genre/type (individual preferences also play a role). This issue has been researched especially in technical/scientific and academic writing, L2 teaching and learning, as well as in contrastive and translation studies; here again, the focus has been on the use of active vs. passive forms. It is well known, for instance, that the occurrence of passive forms in English general texts is higher than in corresponding Russian texts (Reference Comrie and ComrieComrie 1987), that BCS overwhelmingly prefers the active in all but technical/scientific texts, and so on. Also, passive tends to have undeservedly bad press in the pedagogically oriented literature, where it is subject to a virtual blanket ban, regardless of the type/style of the text; see, for instance, Reference PullumPullum (2014) for a critique of such views of the English passive.
21.6 Historical Development of Voice in Slavic
Both the participial and the reflexive construction used today to implement voices in Slavic have existed throughout the history of these languages, dating back to Proto-Slavic and even Proto-Indo-European (PIE). Most accounts of diachronic development of Slavic voices focus on the canonical passive; this is what we will do as well.
Passive syntactic patterns have been reconstructed for PIE, although the evidence for the existence of dedicated passive morphology is present only in late PIE and only in some dialects (Reference Kulikov, Lavidas, Kulikov and LavidasKulikov & Lavidas 2015: 119). Slavic languages (together with Greek, Germanic, and Romance) belong to the so-called syncretic type, in which the means of expression of the passive have continued to be shared with other phenomena – namely, with stative/resultative and middle constructions. (Languages of anti-syncretic type, which have developed specialized passive morphology, include Indo-Aryan, Iranian, and Armenian.) On voice syncretism, see Reference BahrtBahrt (2020) and references therein.
Participial passive arose through a reanalysis of an earlier Indo-European resultative construction, “a construction that describes a resulting state with undergoer-orientation” (Reference Toyota, Mustafović, Abraham and LeisiöToyota & Mustafović 2006: 201ff.). This explains a predominantly ‘resultative flavor’ of the periphrastic passive, mentioned earlier, and its potential ambiguity with purely resultative ‘copula + adjective’ constructions (see Section 21.7).
Reflexive passive used to be a part of the Indo-European middle cluster, a set of constructions with distinct semantics but having in common the “affectedness of (the referent of) the subject” (Reference KemmerKemmer 1993), opposed to the active. The middle cluster included, in addition to passive forms, decausative/inchoative verbs, inherent reflexives/reciprocals, and subject-oriented auto-benefactives (Reference Kulikov, Lavidas, Kulikov and LavidasKulikov & Lavidas 2015: 105), all marked with the same reflexive marker that can be traced back to the PIE reflexive pronoun *s(w)e- (Lat se, Sanskrit sʋáyam, Old Slavic sebe).Footnote 16 This situation has largely persisted in modern-day Slavic languages, even though the original voice opposition ‘active ~ middle’ had long disappeared and was replaced by the ‘active ~ passive’ one.
In Proto-Slavic, the main exponent of the passive was the periphrastic construction, but reflexive passives have been reconstructed, as well (Reference Siewierska and ShibataniSiewierska 1988: 257ff.). For the passive in Old Church Slavonic, well documented, see Reference LuntLunt (2001), Reference Krause and SlocumKrause & Slocum (2013), and Reference Malicka-KleparskaMalicka-Kleparska (2016), among others.
21.7 Some Voice-Like Phenomena in Slavic
As we just mentioned, the constructions implementing voices are not uniquely used for this purpose: the same construction can express a number of other phenomena. Therefore, in some cases it may not be immediately clear whether we are dealing with voice or something that looks like it.
Formally identical constructions: passive [‘be’(Aux) + pass-part] vs. stative/resultative [‘be’(Copula) + Adj]
(30)
a. Prozor je zatvoren (pažjivo). (BCS) window be(Aux)-pres.3sg close-pass-part.sg.masc ‘The window was closed (carefully).’ b. Prozor je zatvoren (ceo dan). window be(Cop)-pres.3sg closed(Adj)-sg.masc ‘The window is closed (all day).’
The ambiguity of the type illustrated in (30) is due to a dual nature of the passive participle – verbal and adjectival – manifesting itself in different degrees, depending on the verb’s lexical meaning (Reference TanasićTanasić 2014: 178–179). It can be resolved in favor of the passive reading by the addition of an agent-oriented adverbial, such as ‘carefully’ (30a); the stative/resultative reading, on the other hand, is compatible with a durative adverbial like ‘all day’ (30b).
(31)
a. Dveri zakryvajutsja (storožem v 9 časov večera). (Rus.) ‘The doors are closed (by the watchman at 9pm).’ b. Dveri zakryvajutsja (sami soboj). ‘The doors close/get closed by themselves.’
A sja-verb form in the imperfective aspect with an inanimate subject can be either a passive form of ZAKRYT’ (V, trans) or a form of ZAKRYT’SJA (V, refl); see Padučeva (2003: 137–139). In (31a), the ambiguity is resolved thanks to the agentive complement ‘by the watchman’, which allows only for a passive reading, while the phrase ‘by themselves’ in (31b) supports only a decausative interpretation of the reported event, portrayed as occurring spontaneously or being somehow the “responsibility” of the subject.Footnote 17
Various diagnostics have been developed to help tell apart such superficially identical constructions; see, for instance, Reference KallulliKallulli (2007) and Reference Alexiadou and DorianAlexiadou & Dorian (2012).
Different (albeit semantically closely related) lexemes presenting diathetic alternations NOT formally marked on the verb (cf. Levin 1993).
(32)
a. namazati puter na hleb ~ namazati hleb puterom (Ser.) ‘to spread butter on bread’ ~ ‘to spread bread with butter’ b. kritikovati Vladu za njenu lošu politiku ~ kritikovati Vladinu lošu politiku ‘to criticize the Government for its bad policies’ ~ ‘to criticize the Government’s bad policies’
Involuntary state construction, a.k.a. dispositional/desiderative (Reference Franks and FranksFranks 1995: 364–369, Reference Rivero and Milojević SheppardRivero & Milojević Sheppard 2003, Reference Frąckowiak and RiveroFrąckowiak & Rivero 2008, Reference Marušič and ŽaucerMarušič & Žaucer 2014), which adds meaning.
(33)
The added meaning is not the same across Slavic – ‘feel like’ (33a, b) vs. ‘be able to’ (33c, d, e) – nor is the syntactic construction implementing it: (33a, d, e) vs. (33b, c).
Indefinite and zero subject constructions (Reference Mel‘čukMel’čuk 2006b), which have semantically full (non-empty) and phonetically zero subjects: ‘something’/‘natural force’ (34) or ‘some people’ (35):
(34)
a. Ego ubilo molniej. (Rus.) he-acc kill-past.sg.neu lightning-sg.ins ‘He was killed by lightning.’ b. Mist zneslo povodkom. (Ukr.) bridge-sg.acc sweep.away-past.sg.neu flood-sg.ins ‘The bridge was swept away by the flood.’
(35)
a. [32-godišnjak, pijan; vozio kamion i skrivio nesreću.] (colloquial Cro.) A 32 year old, drunk; he drove a truck and caused an accident. Uhitilo ga i odmah arrest-act.part.sg.neu he-acc and immediately strpalo u zatvor na 14 dana. pack-act.part.sg.neu in jail for 14 days ‘He was arrested and immediately put in prison for 14 days.’ b. Murata oslobodilo od vojske. (colloquial Bos.) Murat-sg.acc free-act.part.sg.neu from military ‘Murat was freed from military service.’
21.8 Summary of the Main Issues in the Study of Slavic Voices
As this chapter has shown, there is a wealth of scholarship on grammatical voice; however, it is characterized by widely divergent approaches, resulting in descriptions that are difficult to compare and evaluate.
Some of the issues discussed in the literature on grammatical voice (in Slavic and elsewhere) follow.
Morphological Issues
Is voice an ‘ill-behaved’ inflectional category? Do all verbs have a voice in a language that possesses this category? For instance, can deponent verbs (inherent reflexives, etc.) be said to have voice at all? This is the problem of the application of grammemes of voice to specific lexemes (or, put differently, the regularity/productivity of voices). As we have seen, not all voices are equally applicable to all lexemes of a language and one can speak of ‘major’ and ‘minor’ voices (e.g. full promotional passive vs. partial demotional passive in BCS, respectively). This is a serious problem that in a sense throws a shadow on the whole idea of voice as an inflectional category.
Is formal marking of specific voices a defining feature of the category of voice?
Semantic/Syntactic Issues
To what extent are specific voices allowed to change the propositional meaning of the base verb? What exactly does it mean that they should not do so ‘substantially’?
Is the agentless promotional passive a full-blown voice in Slavic? Is there an antipassive voice in Slavic? Is reciprocal a voice or a special case of the reflexive/a particular derivation?
How do specific voices relate to impersonal constructions? Is impersonalization relevant for establishing the inventory of voice types or is it, rather, an ancillary operation which participates in the surface-syntactic implementation of some specific voices?
Discourse-related Issues
How/why are specific voices used in discourse? What factors – discourse prominence, information structure, text genre, style, etc. – are in play?
What is the frequency of use of oblique voices (with respect to the unmarked active)?
Notional and Terminological Issues
While these issues are not often discussed, they are indeed crucial for a better understanding and fruitful exchanges among linguists.
An integrative/unifying approach to voice in Slavic (and beyond) has yet to be found.
In this chapter, we will consider two types of information-structural (IS) encoding – interpretive prominence and interpretive disambiguation. The relative interpretive prominence of arguments (e.g. subject and object) is determined on the basis of interpretations such as discourse givenness, specificity/referentiality, animacy, and humanness. It is syntactically encoded by placing an interpretively prominent constituent in front of a non-prominent one. Interpretive disambiguation refers to the disambiguation of a moved constituent as either contrastive or emphatic. We will see that both interpretive prominence and interpretive disambiguation are encoded predominantly syntactically in Slavic languagesFootnote 1 (although prosodicFootnote 2 and morphological encoding are also available). However, the syntactic operation used for one type of IS encoding is prosodically and interpretively different from the one used for the other type. We will look at the morphosyntactic encoding of such IS notions as focus, topic, contrast, and emphasis. We will see that topic and focus are basic categories of information structure that are syntactically encoded in Slavic languages via a reordering operation that places topic in front of focus. In the absence of prosodic encoding (i.e. if prosody remains neutral), this reordering operation is obligatory. contrast and emphasis, conversely, are supplementary IS interpretations that can be added to the basic IS categories. The morphosyntactic encoding of these supplementary interpretations seems to be always optional in Slavic languages.
22.1 Interpretive Prominence and Neutral Reordering
Canonical Slavic monotransitive sentences have the subject-verb-object (SVO) order and neutral prosody manifested by the assignment of the main sentential stress to the rightmost constituent (i.e. the object), as in (1a).Footnote 3 However, Slavic languages are notorious for their ability to have Argument-Verb-Argument constructions with the OVS order, as in (1b).Footnote 4 In this section, we will consider prosodic and syntactic properties of the Slavic OVS construction and its interpretive and formal licenses.
22.1.1 Prosodic and Syntactic Properties of Slavic OVS
The Slavic OVS construction that we are interested in here has neutral prosody with the main sentential stress assigned to the rightmost constituent (see (1b)).
(Throughout, small caps represent the main sentential stress. The symbol ‘#’ marks sentences that are grammatical but information-structurally ill-formed; letter indices link a dependent to its antecedent, number indices link a moved constituent to its trace.)
(1)
Czech a. Matka miluje dceru. SVO mother.nom love.3sg daughter.acc ‘The mother loves her daughter.’ b. Dceru miluje matka. OVS daughter.acc love.3sg mother.nom ‘The mother loves her daughter.’ (Reference Jasinskaja, Šimík, Fellerer and BermelJasinskaja & Šimík forthcoming)
The type of argument reordering illustrated in (1b) is typically referred to as neutral reordering (also known as neutral scrambling or A-scrambling).Footnote 5 A characteristic property of neutral reordering is the retention of default prosody. In a neutrally reordered OVS sentence, the object is placed in the syntactic position that is occupied by the subject in the SVO sentence (Reference BailynBailyn 2004, Reference Bailyn2018, Reference TitovTitov 2012, Reference Titov, Bildhauer and Grubic2013a, Reference PereltsvaigPereltsvaig 2019). As a result, such an object has some properties that are typical of subjects of SVO sentences.Footnote 6 For instance, a possessive pronoun inside the subject phrase can refer back to the object in OVS (see (2b) and (3b)).Footnote 7 As can be seen from (2a) and (3a), when the object remains in the postverbal position, this interpretation is unavailable.
(2)
Czech a. *Jejíi pes miluje [každou holčičku]i SVO her dog loves every girl.acc b. [Každou holčičku]i miluje jejíi pes OVS every girl.acc loves her dog ‘Every girl is loved by her dog.’ (Reference KučerováKučerová 2007: 189)
(3)
Russian a. *Eëi sobaka ljubit [každuju devočku]i SVO her dog loves every girl.acc b. [Každuju devočku]i ljubit eëi sobaka OVS every girl.acc loves her dog ‘Every girl is loved by her dog.’
In (2a) and (3a), the object that does not c-command or precede the subject fails to bind a pronoun embedded in the subject.Footnote 8 The fact that the binding relation can be established in (2b) and (3b) suggests that in the OVS construction, the object is in a position that is occupied by the subject in SVO, namely the so-called A-position. When the object is placed in a position that precedes the subject but is not an A-position, as in (4), where this position is occupied by the subject eë sobaka ‘her dog’, the binding relation cannot be established.
(4)
Russian *[Každuju devočku]i eëi sobaka ljubit every girl.acc her sobaka loves
Regarding anaphoric binding facts, these are complicated by the observation that in many Slavic languages, reflexives are subject-oriented and cannot be bound by an object, even when this object is in its base position, as in (5a). A pronoun must be used instead, as in (5b).
(5)
Russian a. Ivani predstavil [každogo studenta]j svoemui/*j sosedu Ivan introduced every.acc student.acc self’s.dat neighbor.dat ‘Ivan introduced every student to his neighbor.’ b. Ivani predstavil [každogo studenta]j ego*i/j sosedu Ivan introduced every.acc student.acc his neighbor.dat ‘Ivan introduced every student to his neighbor.’
However, it is possible to construct examples with reciprocals, as in (6), confirming that an object in the OVS construction can bind an anaphor embedded in the subject.
(6)
Russian Ixi pokinulo vsjakoe ponimanie [drug druga]i them.acc left any understanding.nom each other.gen ‘They lost any understanding of each other.’
Finally, the relative interpretations of quantifiers in OVS sentences, as in (9) and (10), mirrors that found in SVO sentences, as in (7) and (8), suggesting that the position occupied by the subject in the latter, is the one occupied by the object in the former.
(7)
Russian Dve devočki ljubjat každogo mal‘čika SVO two girls love every.acc boy.acc ‘Two girls love every boy.’ ∃ >∀; *∀ >∃ (Reference Ionin, van Koppen, Sio and de VosIonin 2002: 79)
(8)
Každaja devočka ljubit dvux mal‘čikov SVO every girl loves two.acc boys.acc ‘Every girl loves two boys.’ ∀ > ∃; ?∃ >∀
(9)
Dvux devoček ljubit každyj mal‘čik OVS two.acc girls.acc loves every boy ‘Every boy loves two girls.’ ∃ >∀; *∀ >∃
(10)
Každuju devočku ljubjat dva mal‘čika OVS every.acc girl.acc love two boys ‘Two boys love every girl.’ ∀ >∃; ?∃ >∀
Thus, the relative interpretive properties of the existential quantifier dve devočki ‘two girls’ (indicated with the symbol ∃ in the notation) and the universal quantifier každogo mal‘čika ‘every boy.acc’ (indicated with the symbol ∀ in the notation) in (7) is exactly as in (9). The relation known as quantifier scope is often used to determine whether a quantifier is in an A-position c-commanding the other quantifier. In (7), where the existential quantifier is the subject and is therefore by default in an A-position, the interpretation of the sentence is such that there are two girls who love all the boys. Notably, the interpretation of the sentence in (9) is parallel to that in (7): there are two girls who are loved by all the boys. This strongly suggests that in (9) the object is in the same position as the subject in (7), which results in the so-called wide scope of the existential quantifier in both sentences. This is in contrast to the so-called distributive interpretation in (8) and (10). Unlike in (7) and (9), in (8) and (10), the universal quantifier precedes and c-commands the existential quantifier. As a result, (8) has the reading according to which for every girl there are two potentially different boys that she loves, while (10) has the reading according to which for every girl there are two potentially different boys who love her. This corresponds to the wide scope of the universal quantifier. Crucially, the availability of the distributive reading in (10) strongly suggests that the object in this sentence occupies the same position as the subject in (8).Footnote 9
22.1.2 Interpretive License for A-Scrambling
The interpretive license for A-scrambling is provided by the encoding of the relative interpretive prominence of arguments, with the object being interpreted as prominent and the subject non-prominent. Being the most syntactically simple representation for a sentence containing a monotransitive verb and its subject and object, the SVO construction is compatible with three out of four possible argument prominence configurations given in (11).
a. S[+prominent] V O[−prominent]
b. S[+prominent] V O[+prominent]
c. S[−prominent] V O[−prominent]
d. *S[−prominent] V O[+prominent]
In the following subsections, we will look in detail at the interpretations on the basis of which the relative interpretive prominence of arguments is established. For the time being, however, let us work out the mechanism of encoding of the relative interpretive prominence of arguments. In the configuration in (11a), the interpretively prominent subject precedes the interpretively non-prominent object. In (11b) and (11c), no relative interpretive prominence of arguments is encoded, as both are either prominent or non-prominent. Crucially, this configuration is encoded by the canonical SVO order. The only configuration that cannot be captured by the canonical SVO structure is the one where the object is prominent and the subject non-prominent (see (11d)). For this configuration (and this configuration alone) the A-scrambled OVS structure must be used (see (12)).
(12) O[+prominent] V S[−prominent]
In other words, whenever one of the arguments is interpretively prominent and the other non-prominent, the prominent argument must precede the non-prominent one. This observation is captured by the principle of communicative dynamism (Reference FirbasFirbas 1964, Reference Firbas1971, Reference Firbas and Daneš1974, Reference Firbas1984, Reference Sgall, Hajičová and PanevováSgall et al. 1986), according to which material that is contextually prominent (for instance, in virtue of being present in the context) precedes material that conveys information not (yet) prominent in the discourse.Footnote 10 Now that we have outlined the mechanism regulating A-scrambling, we can look more closely at the interpretations on the basis of which the relative interpretive prominence of arguments is established.
22.1.3 Pragmatic Presupposition
One of the most widely discussed interpretations capable of regulating the order of arguments is the one that distinguishes discourse-prominent background/presupposition (Theme) from discourse-new focus (Rheme).Footnote 11 In Slavic languages, there is a tendency for presupposed material to precede focused material,Footnote 12 and, in line with this observation, an object that belongs to the background of a sentence (in virtue of being present in the context) precedes a discourse-new focused subject (see (13) and (14)).Footnote 13
(13)
Czech a. We left for kids in the garden some cookies and lollipops.
Who found a lollipop?
b. Lízátko našla Maruška a Janička OVS lollipop.acc found Marushka and Janichka ‘Little Mary and little Jane found a lollipop.’ (Reference KučerováKučerová 2007: 11)
(14)
Russian a. Who met Boris? b. Borisa vstretil Saša OVS Boris.acc met Sasha ‘Sasha met Boris.’
In (13) and (14), the OVS order is licensed by (15), which is a subcase of (12).Footnote 14
(15) O[+presupposed] V S[−presupposed]
As expected, when the subject is presupposed and the object non-presupposed/focused, as in (16), or when both arguments are either presupposed or non-presupposed, as in (17) and (18), respectively, only the SVO order is possible:
(16)
a. Who did Sasha meet? b. Saša vstretil Borisa SVO Sasha met Boris.acc ‘Sasha met Boris.’ c. #Borisa vstretil Saša OVS Boris.acc met Sasha
(17)
a. What happened to Sasha and Boris? b. Saša vstretil BorisaFootnote 15 SVO Sasha met Boris.acc ‘Sasha met Boris.’ c. #Borisa vstretil Saša OVS Boris.acc met Sasha
(18)
a. What happened? b. Saša vstretil Borisa SVO Sasha met Boris.acc ‘Sasha met Boris.’ c. #Borisa vstretil Saša OVS Boris.acc met Sasha
The data in (16)–(18) suggest that (19) is a subcase of (11).
a. S[+presupposed] V O[−presupposed]
b. S[+presupposed] V O[+presupposed]
c. S[−presupposed] V O[−presupposed]
d. *S[−presupposed] V O[+presupposed]
Unsurprisingly, SVO cannot surface in a context licensing the configuration in (19d):Footnote 16
(20)
Russian a. Who met Boris? b. #Saša vstretil Borisa SVO Sasha met Boris.acc
22.1.3.1 Referentiality
We have seen that OVS is impossible in a reply to a question that licenses a focused construal on both arguments (see (18)).Footnote 17 However, this is not consistently the case:
(21)
Russian a. What happened? b. Moju sobaku ukusila osa OVS my.acc dog.acc stung wasp ‘A wasp stung my dog.’ c. Osa ukusila moju sobaku SVO wasp stung my.acc dog.acc ‘The wasp stung my dog.’
In (21), the object is interpreted as referential, whereas the subject strongly favors a non-referential construal, as it is rather unusual to be talking about a specific wasp. This difference in the construal of arguments licenses the OVS order in (21b). Importantly, if we were to talk about a specific wasp, only the SVO order in (21c) would be compatible with this interpretation in the given all-focus context.
The above observations suggest that referentiality is one of the interpretations on the basis of which the relative interpretive prominence of arguments is calculated (see also Reference KrámskýKrámský 1972, Reference Chvany, Corum, Cedric Smith-Stark and WeiserChvany 1973, Reference SzwedekSzwedek 1974, Reference HlavsaHlavsa 1975, and Reference Jasinskaja, Šimík, Fellerer and BermelJasinskaja & Šimík forthcoming for the observation that referentiality can motivate word order alternations):
a. S[+referential] V O[−referential]
b. S[+referential] V O[+referential]
c. S[−referential] V O[−referential]
d. *S[−referential] V O[+referential]
(23) O[+referential] V S[−referential]
Now that we have two interpretations regulating the order of arguments in Slavic languages, we need to establish how they interact. We have seen that the [±referential] feature regulates the order of arguments whenever the [±presupposed] feature is vacuously satisfied and therefore inoperative (see (21b)). We have also seen that the [±presupposed] feature regulates the order of arguments when the [±referential] feature is inoperative (see (14b)). What we need to determine is what happens in a sentence where both features are encoded and have contradictory requirements, as in (24) where the subject has a positive value of the [±presupposed] feature and a negative of the [±referential] feature, whereas the object has a negative value of the [±presupposed] feature and a positive of the [±referential] feature.
(24)
Russian a. Who did a wasp sting? b. Osa ukusila moju sobaku SVO wasp stung my.acc dog.acc ‘A wasp stung my dog.’ c. #Moju sobaku ukusila osa OVS my.acc dog.acc stung wasp
In (24), the [±presupposed] feature demands a canonical order and the [±referential] feature a scrambled order. Since the [−referential] subject precedes the [+referential] object in the felicitous reply in (24b), we must conclude that when the [±presupposed] feature is operative, it overrides the [±referential] feature (i.e. the latter cannot regulate the order of arguments). Hence, the [±presupposed] feature must be ranked higher on the Argument Prominence Hierarchy (APH) than the [±referential] feature:
(25) Argument Prominence Hierarchy (Titov 2017:433) (to be revised)
22.1.3.2 Animacy and Humanness
A further interpretation that has been noted to license a neutrally scrambled order in Slavic languages is animacy (Reference TitovTitov 2012, Reference Jasinskaja, Šimík, Fellerer and BermelJasinskaja & Šimík forthcoming):
(26)
Czech a. What happened? b. Babičku zasáhl proud OVS granny.acc hit current ‘Electric current hit granny.’ c. Proud zasáhl babičku SVO current hit granny.acc ‘Electric current hit granny.’ (Reference Jasinskaja, Šimík, Fellerer and BermelJasinskaja & Šimík forthcoming)
Reference Jasinskaja, Šimík, Fellerer and BermelJasinskaja & Šimík (forthcoming) note that the OVS reply in (26b) to an all-focus question in (26a) is more natural than the SVO reply in (26c). That is, there is a tendency for the [+animate; +human] object to precede the [−human; −animate] subject.Footnote 18
Similarly, a [+animate; −human] object precedes a [−animate] subject in (27b), suggesting that animacy on its own can license a scrambled order.Footnote 19 The SVO order in (27c) is only possible on a referential interpretation of the subject and a non-referential construal of the object, suggesting that referentiality encoding overrides animacy encoding.
(27)
Russian a. What happened? b. Sobaku udaril tok OVS dog.acc hit.masc current.masc ‘Electric current hit a/the dog.’ c. Tok udaril sobaku SVO current.masc hit.masc dog.acc ‘The electric current hit a dog.’
A [+human] object also precedes a [−human; +animate] subject (see (28b)), whereas the SVO order in (28c) is once again only possible on a referential interpretation of the subject and a non-referential construal of the object.
(28)
Russian a. What happened? b. Babušku ukusila sobaka OVS granny.acc bit dog ‘A dog bit a/the granny.’ c. Sobaka ukusila babušku SVO dog bit granny.acc ‘The dog bit a granny.’
The data in (27) and (28) demonstrate that the [±animate] and [±human] features can regulate the order of arguments only when the [±referential] is vacuously satisfied and therefore inoperative, as in (27b) and (28b). Conversely, when the [±referential] feature is operative, as in (27c) and (28c), it overrides the [±animate] and [±human] features.
Hence, the [±referential] feature must be ranked higher on the Argument Prominence Hierarchy (APH) than the [±animate] and the [±human] features, as in (29), where the [±human] feature is analyzed as dependent on the [±animate] feature as it can only regulate the order of animate arguments.
(29) Argument Prominence Hierarchy Adapted from (Titov 2017:434)
The ranking in (29) entails that when the [±presupposed] feature is operative, it overrides not only the [±referential] feature, as in (24b), but also the [±animate] and the [±human] features. This prediction is borne out (see (30) and (31)).
(30)
Russian a. Who did electric current hit? b. Tok udaril sobaku SVO current.masc hit.masc dog.acc ‘Electric current hit a/the dog.’ c. #Sobaku udaril tok OVS dog.acc hit.masc current.masc
(31)
a. Who did a/the dog bite? b. Sobaka ukusila babušku SVO dog bit granny.acc ‘A/the dog bit a/the granny.’ c. #Babušku ukusila sobaka OVS granny.acc bit dog
Hence, all of the interpretations on the APH are capable of regulating the order of arguments in Slavic languages, but a lower-ranked interpretation can do so if and only if all the higher-ranked interpretations are vacuously satisfied and therefore inoperative. Thus, the ordering of features on the APH entails that the [±animate] and [±human] features regulate the order of arguments only when the [±referential] and the [±presupposed] features are vacuously satisfied and therefore inoperative (see (27b) and (28b)), whereas the [±referential] feature can regulate the order of arguments only when the [±presupposed] feature is vacuously satisfied and therefore inoperative (see (21b)). When the [±referential] feature is operative, it overrides the [±animate] and [±human] features (see (27c) and (28c)). When the [±presupposed] feature is operative, it overrides the [±referential] feature (see (24b)) and the [±animate] and the [±human] features (see (30) and (31)).
Consequently, only the formal encoding of the highest-ranked [±presupposed] feature is obligatory, whereas the encoding of all the lower-ranked interpretations is optional. Whenever all of the interpretations on the APH are vacuously satisfied and therefore inoperative, the order of arguments is regulated by the thematic hierarchy, with the thematically prominent Agent preceding and c-commanding the non-prominent Theme, resulting in the SVO order.
22.1.4 The Formal License for A-Scrambling
Cross-linguistically, the obligatory encoding of the [±presupposed] feature competes with the obligatory encoding of thematic prominence that distinguishes between a thematically prominent Agent and a non-prominent Theme, that is, both prominence relations must be encoded with whatever formal tool is available. Consequently, for an Argument-Verb-Argument order to be interpreted as OVS, the thematic prominence relations of arguments must be encoded by means other than syntactic ordering. For instance, they can be encoded morphologically either with a morphological case (m-case) marker, as in (32a), or an agreement marker, as in (32b), or both, as in (32c).
(32)
Russian a. Ivana navestil Boris OVS Ivan.acc visited Boris ‘Boris visited Ivan.’ b. Stakan perevesili tarelki OVS glass.nom/acc outweighed.pl plates.nom/acc ‘The plates outweighed the glass.’ c. Ivana navestila Marija OVS Ivan.acc visited.fem Maria ‘Maria visited Ivan.’
In (32a), an accusative m-case marker identifies the preverbal argument as the object, that is, the Theme argument of the verb. In (32b), the plural agreement marker on the verb signals that it agrees with the postverbal plural argument. Since Russian only allows agreement with a nominative argument, and the relevant verb takes a nominative subject and an accusative object, the postverbal argument is interpreted as the subject of the sentence. In (32c), an accusative marker on the preverbal argument identifies it as the object, while the feminine agreement marker on the verb signals that the postverbal argument is the subject.
Although morphological encoding of thematic prominence is typical of Slavic languages, which are notorious for their rich inflectional system, it is not always available:
(33)
Russian Mat‘ ljubit doč‘ mother.nom.acc loves.3sg daughter.nom.acc ✓‘The mother loves (her) daughter.’ SVO * ‘The daughter loves (her) mother.’ OVS (Reference Jakobson, Waugh and HalleJakobson 1984)
In the absence of any contextual clues, the sentence in (33) is interpreted as SVO, suggesting that without any other identification of the relative thematic prominence of arguments, it must be encoded via syntactic ordering.Footnote 20
In (34), both arguments are marked with a dative m-case marker because the Russian infinitive assigns dative case to the subject in the ‘able to’ construction, while the verb here assigns inherent dative to its object. Crucially, the lack of morphological encoding or thematic prominence once again results in syntactic encoding:
(34)
Russian Maše ne pomoč’ Ivanu Masha.dat neg help.inf Ivan.dat ✓ ‘Masha cannot help Ivan.’ SVO * ‘Ivan cannot help Masha.’ OVS (Reference TitovTitov 2012: 26)
Although the OVS interpretation is impossible in (33) and (34), where no contextual identification of thematic prominence is offered, it is available in (35), where the subject status of the focused postverbal argument is established via a contextual link to the nominative wh-argument in the preceding question. That is, the nominative m-case marker on the wh-argument in (35a) identifies it as the subject. The focused argument that is linked to this wh-phrase inherits its thematic status, resulting in the OVS construal of (35b).
(35)
Russian a. Kto ljubit mat‘? who.nom loves mother.nom.acc b. Mat‘ ljubit doč‘ OVS mother.nom.acc loves.3sg daughter.nom.acc ‘The daughter loves her mother.’
As expected, when the wh-argument in the preceding question carries an accusative m-case marker, as in (36), the focused postverbal argument that is linked to it is interpreted as the object, resulting in the SVO interpretation.
(36)
Russian a. Kogo ljubit mat‘? who.acc loves mother.nom.acc b. Mat‘ ljubit doč‘ SVO mother.nom.acc loves.3sg daughter.nom.acc ‘The mother loves her daughter.’
The thematic prominence relations in (34) can also be contextually identified. However, as this time we are dealing not with syncretic forms of different cases but with the same case assigned to both arguments, contextual identification cannot be morphological, as the wh-argument in the preceding question will carry a dative m-case marker regardless of its status as an Agent or a Theme. Crucially, when morphological encoding of thematic prominence is unavailable, languages resort to syntactic encoding. In line with that, the object status of the preverbal argument in (37b) is identified via the postverbal position of this argument in the preceding question in (37a). As expected, the preverbal position of this argument in the preceding question in (38a) identifies it as the subject in the reply in (38b).
(37)
Russian a. Komu ne pomoč’ Maše? who.dat neg help Masha.dat b. Maše ne pomoč’ Ivanu OVS Masha.dat neg help.inf Ivan.dat ‘Ivan cannot help Masha.’
(38)
a. Komu Maše ne pomoč‘? who.dat Masha.dat neg help b. Maše ne pomoč’ Ivanu SVO Masha.dat neg help.inf Ivan.dat ‘Masha cannot help Ivan.’
Apart from syntactic, morphological, and contextual identification, the relative thematic prominence of arguments can be lexically-semantically established via an animacy distinction:
(39)
Russian Step‘ uvidela mat‘. OVS steppe.nom/acc saw mother.nom/acc ‘The mother saw the steppe.’
Although no morphological identification of thematic prominence is available in (39), it cannot be construed as SVO, because the verb here takes an animate subject, whereas the preverbal argument is inanimate.
Hence, the relative thematic prominence of arguments can be encoded via a variety of formal tools in Slavic languages, resulting in a substantial argument order freedom. However, when no morphological, contextual or lexical-semantic encoding is available, syntactic encoding becomes obligatory (see (33) and (34)).
22.1.5 A Brief Note on Prosodic Encoding of Interpretive Prominence
We have seen that Slavic A-scrambled OVS orders are interpretively and formally restricted: absence of either interpretive or formal license results in the unavailability of OVS.Footnote 21 Before we conclude this section, let us briefly consider whether A-scrambling is the only tool used in Slavic languages for the encoding of the interpretations on the APH. Although most Slavic languages lack articles, the [±referential] feature can be morphologically encoded in them via different indefinite pronouns used as determiners specifying different interpretations of noun phrases as regards specificity, such as the Russian pronouns formed by the suffixes -to, -nibud‘, and by the prefix koe- (Reference Geist and GrønnGeist 2008).
Similarly, the encoding of the [±presupposed] feature can be either syntactic, as in (40b) or prosodic, as in (40c).
(40)
Russian a. Who met Boris? b. Borisa vstretil Saša OVS Boris.acc met Sasha ‘Sasha met Boris.’ c. Saša vstretil Borisa SVO Sasha met Boris.acc ‘Sasha met Boris.’
In (40c), IS prominence is encoded not by placing the [+presupposed] object before the [−presupposed] subject but by shifting the stress from the rightmost position to the focused subject. However, it has been noted that at least in Russian prosodic encoding of IS prominence is marked: the reply in (40c) is perceived by native speakers as emphatic/emotive (Reference YokoyamaYokoyama 1986) as compared to (40b). This suggests that when syntactic encoding of IS prominence is available, prosodic encoding is linked to an additional interpretation of emphasis. Yet, if syntactic encoding is unavailable for a particular truth-conditional interpretation, prosodic encoding becomes the unmarked strategy:
(41)
a. Kogo ljubjat ego roditeli? who.acc love his parents Who is loved by his parents? b. Ivanai ljubjat egoi roditeli OVS Ivan.acc love his parents ‘Ivan is loved by his parents.’ c. *Egoi roditeli ljubjat Ivanai SVO his parents love Ivan.acc
In (41b), OVS is forced by the co-referential interpretation of the object and the pronoun. For the pronoun to refer back to the object, it must follow it. The SVO order cannot be used for this truth-conditional interpretation, as backward co-reference is unavailable here (see (41c)). Consequently, prosodic encoding of IS prominence via stress shift to the object is the only strategy for the focused construal of this object.
22.2 Interpretive Disambiguation and A’-Scrambling
In the previous section, we have considered the encoding of the relative interpretive prominence of arguments via A-scrambling.Footnote 22 We have seen that prominence can be calculated on the basis of a variety of interpretations (see (29)), but it is only the formal encoding of the highest-ranked [±presupposed] feature that is as obligatory as that of thematic prominence.
This section is dedicated to A’-scrambling, which is optional A’-movement of contrastive categories (i.e. entities/individuals that are contrasted with some contextually salient entity/individual), such as the movement of the contrastively focused object in (42c).
(42)
Polish a. Did Peter lose his phone? b. (Nie) Piotr zgubił klucze (a nie telefon) no Peter lost keys and not phone ‘No, Peter lost his keys (not his phone).’ c. (Nie) klucze1 Piotr zgubił t1 (a nie telefon) no keys Peter lost and not phone ‘No, Peter lost his keys (not his phone).’
In this section, we will see that unlike A-scrambling, A’-scrambling can be long-distance, that is, a constituent can A’-scramble from an embedded tensed clause (CP) to the main clause. We will also see that A’-scrambling has distinct prosodic and syntactic properties and receives a different formal and interpretive license.
22.2.1 Prosodic and Syntactic Properties of A’-Scrambling
As can be seen from (42b) and (42c), A’-scrambling is linked to marked prosody. Here, the A’-moved focused object attracts the main sentential stress, while the following material undergoes a post-focal pitch compression.
Unlike A-scrambling, A’-scrambling cannot create new binding relations, that is, the potential antecedent for the pronoun in (43b) is interpreted in the place it was in before being moved (see (43a)). Similarly, the A’-scrambled object in (44b) reconstructs for binding, that is, it is interpreted in the position of the trace, where it can be bound by the subject (see (44a)).
(43)
Russian a. *Eëi sobaka ljubit [každuju devočku]i SVO her dog loves every girl.acc b. * [Každuju devočku]i/1 eëi sobaka ljubit t1 OSV every girl.acc her dog loves (a ne každuju babušku) and not every granny ‘Every girl her dog loves (not every granny).’
(44)
a. [Každaja devočka]i ljubit svojui sobaku SVO every girl loves self’s.acc dog.acc ‘Every girl loves her dog.’ b. [Svojui sobaku]1 [každaja devočka]i ljubit t1 OSV self’s.acc dog.acc every girl loves (a ne svoju košku) and not self’s cat ‘Every girl loves her dog (not her cat).’
An A’-scrambled object fails to take scope in its derived position (see (45) and (46)).
(45)
Russian [Odnu devočku]1 každyj mal‘čik poceloval t1 OSV one.acc girl.acc every boy kissed (a ne odnu babušku) and not one granny ‘Every boy kissed one girl (not one granny).’ ∀ > ∃; ?∃ >∀
(46)
[Každuju devočku]1 odin mal‘čik poceloval t1 OSV every.acc girl.acc one boy kissed (a ne každuju babušku) and not every granny ‘One boy kissed every girl (and not every granny).’ ∃> ∀; *∀ >∃
Unlike an A-scrambled object, an A’-scrambled object is interpreted in its base position. That is, although the object precedes the subject in (45) and (46), the interpretative properties of the quantifiers here are the same as they would be if the object did not move at all and the structures were SVO.
22.2.2 Formal and Interpretive License for A’-Scrambling
An A’-scrambled contrastive category obligatorily carries a prominent prosodic marker, which constitutes the formal license for A’-scrambling. Contrastive topic (CT) is marked with a rising intonational contour, which for Russian has been referred to as IK3 (Reference BryzgunovaBryzgunova 1971, Reference Bryzgunova1981).Footnote 23 Contrastive focus (CF) carries a falling contour (IK2).Footnote 24
The interpretive license for A’-scrambling is disambiguation of the moved category as contrastive. Although an in-situ object can also be interpreted as contrastive (see (42b)), a non-contrastive reading is available for it as well (see (47b)). Conversely, placing the focused object in an A’-scrambled position removes the non-contrastive reading (compare (42c)) and (47c)) and hence disambiguates the construal of this object as contrastive.
(47)
Polish a. What did Peter lose? b. Piotr zgubił klucze Peter lost keys ‘Peter lost his keys.’ c. #klucze1 Piotr zgubił t1 keys Peter lost
Notably, the reply in (47c) is ill-formed on the neutral reading of the focused object as merely providing discourse-new information. It is, however, possible on an emphatic reading of the moved focus, according to which ‘keys’ is interpreted either as the least likely or the most likely candidate for being lost by Peter.Footnote 25 In the former case, the speaker expresses surprise at the fact that out of all the things that Peter could have lost, it is the least likely candidate, ‘keys’, that he has lost. In the latter case, the speaker expresses annoyance at the fact that they are asked a question that has an obvious answer: out of all the things that Peter could have lost, ‘keys’ is the most obvious choice. Emphatic reading is a subcase of contrastive reading (Reference TitovTitov 2013b, Reference Titov2020). Both involve exclusion of discourse-salient alternatives. In the case of contrast, the relevant alternative is provided by the context (see (42), where the alternative candidate to fulfill the background and turn it into a true proposition is ‘phone’). In the case of emphasis, the alternative candidates are those that are interpreted by the interlocutors either as more or less likely to fulfill the background and turn it into a true proposition than the referent of the focused constituent (i.e. all the items that Peter is either more or less likely to have lost than the keys).
22.2.3 Morphological Identification of Contrast
The data in (42) and (47) demonstrate that A’-scrambling is used in Slavic languages in order to disambiguate a focused category as contrastive (or emphatic). Similarly, a long-distance A’-scrambled topic must be interpreted as contrastive (see (48)).Footnote 26
(48)
Russian a. Who does the dean want to test the lab assistants? b. [Každogo studenta]i/1 dekan xočet čtoby t1 every.acc student.acc dean wants that proèkzaminoval egoi prepodavatel‘ (a nasčët laborantov ne znaju) tested his teacher (but about lab assistants not know) ‘As for the students, the dean wants each of them to be tested by his teacher (but I don’t know about lab assistants).’
However, while a CF A’-scrambles from its base position, the principle of communicative dynamism predicts that a CT A’-scrambles from an A-position above the focus: a CT is discourse-prominent in virtue of being discourse-linked to a member of its set in the preceding question (here ‘the lab assistants’), whereas a non-contrastive focus is not discourse-linked. As can be seen from (48)), this prediction is supported by the availability of the bound reading of the pronoun, which strongly suggests that the object scrambles to an A-position above the subject prior to long-distance A’-scrambling.
It follows that an OVS sentence is information-structurally ambiguous; the object is either [+presupposed; −contrastive], as in (49b), or [+presupposed; +contrastive], as in (49c). Although CTs obligatorily carry a rising intonational contour (e.g. IK3), a merely backgrounded constituent can optionally receive this contour as well. Consequently, the contrastive construal of the IS prominent object must be morphologically identified, as in (49c).
(49)
Russian a. Who saw Mary? b. Mariju videl Ivan OVS Mary.acc saw Ivan ‘Ivan saw Mary.’ c. Mariju -to videl Ivan Mary.acc -to saw Ivan (a vot interesno kogo ty videl) and prt interesting who.acc you saw ‘As for Mary, Ivan saw her (but I’m wondering who you saw).’
Hence, like interpretive prominence, interpretive disambiguation can be encoded not only syntactically but also morphologically: in (49c), it is signaled by the particle -TO.
22.2.4 Morphosyntactic Identification of Contrast and Emphasis in Interrogative Sentences
Finally, contrastive interpretation can be morphosyntactically encoded, as in Slavic questions, where placing an inflected verb before the particle li results in the unmarked yes–no question construal (see (50a)), whereas placing either the subject (see (50b)) or the object (see (50c)) in this position results in a contrastive reading of the relevant argument:
(50)
Russian a. Videl li Ivan Mariju? saw prt Ivan Maria.acc ‘Did Ivan see Maria?’ b. Ivan li videl Mariju? Ivan prt saw Maria.acc ‘Was is (actually) Ivan who saw Maria?’ c. Mariju li Ivan videl? Maria.acc prt Ivan saw ‘Was is (actually) Maria that Ivan saw?’
Interestingly, while in some Slavic languages (e.g. Russian), the interrogative particle li is reserved for yes–no questions, in other Slavic languages (e.g. Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian), it can be used in wh-questions (Reference RudinRudin 1997) to mark the wh-category that precedes it as emphatic:
(51)
Serbo-Croatian Ko li koga voli? who prt whom love ‘Who on earth loves whom?’ Reference BoškovićBošković (2002: 354)
To conclude, both interpretive prominence and interpretive disambiguation can be encoded via a variety of formal tools in Slavic languages. We have seen that interpretive prominence encoding can be syntactic, morphological, or prosodic. We have also seen that the encoding of interpretive disambiguation can be syntactic, morphological, or morphosyntactic. The availability of morphological encoding of thematic prominence allows Slavic languages to use syntactic ordering for IS prominence encoding, resulting in a significant word order flexibility. Moreover, the prosodic and morphological productivity of Slavic languages allows for the consistent formal encoding of interpretive disambiguation, creating a transparent link between form and meaning.
