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

HEAD-TO-HEAD MERGE IN BALKAN SUBJUNCTIVES 55between the embedded subject and an argument of the main clause. We mustnow try to find out why Balkan subjunctives allow anaphoric binding and localmovement within GB and minimalism, respectively.Given the GB definition of anaphoric binding, what sets Balkan languagesapart can now be stated as follows:(21) In Balkan languages the GC of the subject of subjunctives is the mainclause.Compare Romance languages (other than Romanian), in which the GC of thesubject of infinitives is the main clause, whereas the GC of the subject of subjunctivesis the embedded clause. Hence, Romance subjunctives disallow obligatorycontrol and subject raising and show obvialion effects.The main hypothesis to be developed below is that the generalization in(21) is due to the fact that the so-called subjunctive particles of Balkan languages(na, da, te, and sa in Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian, and Romanian, respectively)incorporate to the verbal cluster.6.1. Incorporating and non-incorporating C elementsThe controversy concerning the status of subjunctive particles (see Philippaki-Warburton and Veloudis 1984, Philippaki-Warburton 1987, and Rivero 1994,who argue in favor of the Infl status of these particles, and Agouraki 1991,Dobrovie-Sorin 1994, and Tsoulas 1995, who argue in favor of their Compstatus) need not be settled. More important than the exact status (Comp, Infl, orMood) of these particles is the fact that they indeed show both Comp-like andInfl-like properties: like Comp elements, subjunctive particles are sentenceinitial, preceding negation as well as clitics, and may head embedded clauses inthe absence of any other Comp element; but like Infl elements, subjunctiveparticles are strictly adjacent to the verb cluster (they cannot be separated fromthe verb by any nonminimal terms), must be repeated under conjunction, and canco-occur with wh-elements. This ambiguous status of subjunctive particles isbest captured by assuming that they are generated in Comp (or in some otherfunctional X position, higher than tense and distinct from Agr, as suggested byRivero 1989), and merged with the verb cluster via a process of incorporationthat merges adjacent functional categories (Dobrovie-Sorin 1994.chap. 3). Thus,the Infl-like behaviour of sa (due to incorporation) and its Comp status (due tothe position in which it is generated) can be reconciled.Subjunctive particles clearly differ from other elements. See ca inRomanian subjunctives and ca in Romanian indicatives and conditionals, whichdo not incorporate to the verb cluster and therefore unambiguously qualify as Celements. Let us first consider the distribution of ca:(22) a. Vreau ca incline sa vina Ion. Rom(I) want-1SG ca tomorrow sa corne-3SG.SUBJ John'I want John to come tomorrow.'