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

220 MARIA LUISA RIVERObecause it shows a connection between the two types of imperative raising. Allstages and variants of Grk have this process but with a different status. Up to theRenaissance, there is no reason to distinguish between imperative verb movementand finite verb movement, a situation reminiscent of Big. The two processesapply under similar conditions to satisfy interface requirements and notthe internal requirements of the computational system, so they are what I dubstylistic. By contrast, after the Renaissance the difference between imperativeverb movement and finite verb movement emerges, and the present varieties Ihave examined here have all reached a stage where imperative verb movement isobligatory and in my terms applies to check a formal feature of V against a featureof C. Finite verb movement has a different evolution: it is lost in thestandard and retained in some present variants in ways that suggest that it doesnot respond to Last Resort considerations. That is, while imperative raising survivesas a rule with core properties, finite V raising has a less clear fate.My suggestion is that imperative verbs are morphologically equipped withinterpretable features naturally connected to similar interpretable features in thehighest functional projection of the clause, or C, that is, Logical Mood in theFregean sense. If stylistic movement exists, as in the earlier stages of Grk, thesefeatures that need no checking can be reinterpreted as formal or [-interpretable]features that trigger movement of the verb to C under Last Resort. Irrespectiveof the PF requirements clitic pronouns may impose (notice that thoserequirements can also be satisfied if the rule is syntactic), this makes the processobligatory. Finite verbs, by contrast, do not have this type of interpretablefeature, and their movement either retains a stylistic nature or is lost dependingon whether PF requirements of the clitic pronouns are preserved or not. In otherwords, I view the change in imperative syntax in languages like Grk andSpanish, as being based on the "grammaticalization" of a [+interpretablej orsemanticlike V feature into a [-interpretable] or syntactic-like feature, guided bythe principle of Last Resort of Universal Grammar. This solution combinesrequirements of both PF and LF as mediated by the syntax. The phenomena Ihave discussed have attracted the most attention from a strictly prosodicperspective. However, such an approach proves unrevealing when applied tothese diachronic changes, which to my knowledge have not been discussed inphonologically oriented treatments of clitics.To summarize, the diachrony of Greek imperatives suggests that Last Resortas an independent principle of economy regulates not only the movementrules that apply in the computational system but also those that apply in PF anddisplay structural properties, or the stylistic rules. Thus, this principle defines acore grammar that can be violated but only at a cost. For close to twentycenturies in the history of Greek, imperative movement has applied to satisfy interfaceconditions of functional categories with a phonological matrix thatinclude discourse particles and clitic pronouns, and it has violated Last Resort. Inthis way, the rule resembles the verb movement rules of the stylistic type foundin present Blg and seen in section 2. The change in imperative syntax thatresults in the present varieties I have examined occurs after MedGrk and turnsimperative movement into a core process that checks a formal V feature or obeys