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

202 MARIA LUISA RIVEROthey need not obey the matching clause of Last Resort. However, a subset of PFprocesses closely resembles syntactic rules in that it obeys the checking domainclause and only disobey the other clause of Last Resort, but this type too fails toestablish the successful checking relation required by (1).That principles of economy can be violated but only at a cost can be motivatedin view of diachronic evolution. Move in the computational system complieswith Last Resort, which determines a core. The PF rules I examine hereviolate this principle and so should be more costly than computational rules.One case supporting this view is the history of verb movement of imperativesin Grk, discussed in section 2. In the early stages of this language, the processapplies in PF and bears similarities with movements seen in Blg. However, inMGrk and in some nonstandard varieties, the operation is syntactic, whichmeans that it came to lose the PF status that once made it parallel to processesin Big. More technically, the Grk process that once applied to satisfy a PF interfacecondition and violated Last Resort now applies to successfully check formalfeatures, or complies with Last Resort (Rivero and Terzi 1995). According toRivero 1995, this diachronic change occurs even in those variants that preservethe PF interface condition triggering the process in its stylistic phase. This suggeststhat the Last Resort Principle regulates not only computational but alsoPF processes. Under the logic of markedness, peripheral rules such as PF processesmay then acquire a less costly status by conforming to the economy conditionsthat regulate them.The paper is organized in two parts. The first sets up the inventory of thestylistic rules of Blg, concluding with a brief comparison with standard MGrk.The second deals with Grk and is a diachronic discussion that considers nonstandardvarieties.The global claim is that Blg, earlier Grk, and some nonstandard varietiesdisplay V-to-C processes that apply in PF, and that MGrk contrasts withthem in lacking such PF operations.2. BulgarianThis section attributes differences between Blg and standard MGrk overt V-to-Cmovement(s) to a contrast in triggering factors: external or PF conditions in Blgversus internal conditions or formal feature checking in MGrk. Big V-to-C respondsto PF requirements, which allows movement to affect Vs that do notcheck their formal features in C, leading to variety in V-to-C constructions. Bycontrast, MGrk V-to-C obeys Last Resort, which restricts the process to Vs thatcheck their formal features in C. Closer similarities between Blg and Grk arefound when the diachrony of Grk is examined, as in section 2.Blg shows three interesting kinds of V-to-C movement distinguished bytype of fronted V and syntactic environment. I claim that each of these movementsapplies to satisfy a PF condition of the trigger and does not check itsformal features, so it escapes the Last Resort Principle in (1). As to V type, afirst kind of V-to-C is long head movement (LHM), which fronts an untensed Vacross a tensed Aux (2a). As to environment, LHM occurs in root clauses but is