Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages (Oxford ... - Cryptm.org

96 ANNA ROUSSOU(41) O Janis deli (i MARIA) na fiji i (i Maria). MGrkthe John want-3SG (the Mary) PRT leave-3SG (the Mary)'John wants Mary to leave.'Earlier on in our discussion we argued that the presence of AgrS seems to becontigent on the presence of Cpin for reasons that have to do with the interpretationof the predicate. If there is evidence that AgrS is present in (41), then accordingto our discussion, there must be a CFin position present as well. Indeed,the possibility of having an overt C in Romanian and Albanian provides evidencein favor of this analysis. Given the intensional properties of the predicatesin question, I will assume that CFi n is occupied by a modal operator.Kempchinsky (1986) argues that complements to volitionals are embedded imperativesand are characterized by the presence of a subjunctive operator in CP.Roughly speaking, this operator has the properties of a modal "will", hence thefuture interpretation assigned to these predicates. If our line of reasoning is correct,then subjunctive complements to volitionals have both AgrS and the lowerC (Fin) position.Having established the structural properties of complements to volitionals,we are now in a position to consider why a null (lower) C allows for coreference,while an overt one forces disjoint reference, or, to put it diffrerently, whyan overt C blocks coreference. It is worth noting that this phenomenon is reminiscentof the that-t effect in languages like English, where an overt C blockssubject extraction while a null C docs not. This is illustrated in (42) below:(42) Who do you think *(that) left?In standard terms the ungrammatical version of (42) is accounted for as an ECPviolation (government) (cf. Kayne 1984, Chomsky 1986, Rizzi 1990). Intuitively,that blocks the formation of a dependency between the wh-phrase in matrixSpec, CP and the subject position, which provides the variable in the complementclause. Roussou (1998) argues that a null C allows for raising of the I featuresto C, licensing AgrS as a pronominal as in the case of pro-drop' under V2;the pronominal AgrS is bound by the wA-operator and has the properties of a resumptivepronoun. An overt C blocks this raising, and as a result AgrS cannotbe licensed as a pronominal, leaving the matrix wh-operator without a variableto bind. Although (42) and the subjunctive clauses differ, they both share a configurationbetween C and the subject position. Moreover, in both cases the absenceof an overtly realized C is crucial for the formation of a dependency betweenan operator and its variable for wh-subject extraction, and between the twosubject positions in the subjunctive complements.Note that obviation in the overt C configuration is a subject to subject relation:while coreference is excluded with the matrix subject, it is possible withthe matrix object. Farkas (1992b.l05) illustrates this with the following Frenchexample:(43) a. ?Marie a convaincu Pauli aui'il s'en aille.Mary has convinced Paul that he leave-SUBJ