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

210 MARIA LUIS A RIVEROfeature must be independent from li. That is, li occupies C and is thus symptomaticof clause structure but as localization or topicalization applies in a parallelway in declaratives and interrogatives, this process must be triggered by aformal feature in Spec-CP or in C, not by a formal feature of /(' itself. I have alreadygiven a reason why verb movement (either finite or nonfinite) does notaffect the informational status of the clause, while focalization does: the processapplies in PF and so fails to input LF, while the second is a formal featurecheckingoperation before spell-out and may thus input LF.Blg li can also satisfy its PF requirement by computational means otherthan Move, as in (12). Here I propose that da is a lexical entry and is mergedeither in Spec-CP (similar to English whether) or as a head adjoined to li in C(reminiscent of but not identical to English if). This lexical insertion via Mergesatisfies the PF checking domain requirement of li.(12) a.b.Da-li Olga ste ri dade knigata?da-Q Olga FUT you give-3SG book-the?'Will it be Olga that gives you the book?'Pit am se [da-li Olga ste ti dade(I) wonder da-Q Olga FIT you give-3SGT wonder if Olga will give you the book.'knigata}.book-theBlgWhen da is merged into the checking domain of li, stylistic finite verbmovement and LHM cannot apply. This blocking effect of da is as expectedunder the hypothesis that verb movement applies in PF and therefore depends onthe output of operations that precede spell-out in the computational system(Merge, in this case).Li is an entry in the lexicon and so must contain a complex of features butit seems that they enter into interpretation at LF or are [+interpretable] inChomsky's sense (1995) and therefore need not be eliminated or formallychecked for convergence at LF. I have already rejected the option that li bears theformal feature for focus. The fact that the main use of li is in direct and indirectquestions could suggest that this lexical item holds the feature Q, and that thisfeature can be considered [-interpretablej as a parametric choice. Rudin, King,and Izvorski (1996) point out, however, that li is also used in conditionalclauses, as in (13) from their paper, which leads them to suggest that the featureis along the lines of nonassertion, not strictly (formal) Q.(13) Zavalistart- fall'If it startsli duzd, steQ rain PUTraining, we'll stay atsireflexhome.'ostanemremain- 1 PLvkushti.at homeThe semantic nature of this feature, then, reinforces my view that li holdsInterpretable features, obviating a parametric choice as to Q. In its conditionaluse, li may trigger verb movement, as in (13), and can be preceded by a phrase,which is not illustrated.Thus, regardless of its Interpretable features, li must holdBlg