12.07.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

DIRECT OBJECT CLITIC DOUBLING 131Finally, I reject <strong>the</strong> idea that indefinite DPs may be clitic doubled only when<strong>the</strong>y are right dislocated, as has been claimed by Anagnostopoulou for ModernGreek. The main argument against <strong>the</strong> view that clitic-doubled indefinites areexclusively right-dislocated phrases comes from <strong>the</strong> fact that just like cliticdoubled definite DPs, <strong>the</strong>y may occur in both languages in positions that aretypically associated with 6 marking and Case marking, that is, in A positions,such as ECM complements and subjects <strong>of</strong> small clauses, as in (7) and (8).13(7) a. Jan-i e pret nje gje re tille te ndodhe. AlbJan.<strong>the</strong> it-CL expects a thing such te happen-SUBJb. O Janis to perimeni kati tetjo na simvi. MGrk<strong>the</strong> John it-CL expects something such na happen"John expects something like this to happen.'c. Jan-i e pret Mer-in te ankohet AlbJan.<strong>the</strong> her-CL expects Mary.<strong>the</strong>-ACC te complaind. O Janis tin perimeni tin Maria na paraponedi. MGrk<strong>the</strong> John her-CL expects <strong>the</strong> Mary-ACC na complain'John expects Mary to complain.'(8) a. Jan-i nuk e konsideron nje vajze AlbJan.<strong>the</strong> not her-CL consider a girlte tille/Mer-insuch/Mary.<strong>the</strong>-ACCinteligjente.intelligentb. 0 Janis den tin Oeori ka/uja tetja MGrk<strong>the</strong> John not her-CL consider no suchkopela/tin Maria eksipni.girl//<strong>the</strong> Mary-ACCintelligent'John does not consider any such girl/Mary intelligent.'It is thus my contention that clitic-doubling constructions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> type in (5b) donot differ from <strong>the</strong> doubling constructions involving doubling <strong>of</strong> definite directobject DPs o<strong>the</strong>r than with respect to <strong>the</strong> definiteness feature, which isirrelevant. The factors that determine clitic doubling <strong>of</strong> direct object DPs are <strong>the</strong>same irrespective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> [±definite] status <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se DPs. In this way clitic doubling<strong>of</strong> direct object DPs emerges as a uniform phenomenon and should betreated as such.The fact that both definite and indefinite direct object DPs may be doubleddoes not mean that <strong>the</strong>y always can be. The data in (9) show that even definiteDPs cannot be doubled invariably(9) Do you walk to school or do you take <strong>the</strong> bus?a. Nuk shkoj ne kembe, (*e) marr autobus-in. Albnot walk with feet, it-CL take <strong>the</strong> bus

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!