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

HEAD-TO-HEAD MERGE IN BALKAN SUBJUNCTIVES61sa -I pedepseasca.sa him-CL.ACC punish-3SG.SUBJc. *Ion va indraziri ca pe profesorJohn will dare that pc teachersa -I infrunte."sa him-CL.ACC contradict-3SG.SUBJTo summarize, I have argued that, due to their particular constituent structure,Balkan subjunctives headed by subjunctive particles, as opposed to subjunctivesheaded by Comp elements that do not merge with the verb cluster, are transparentfor the binding of their subject by an argument in the main clause.Let us finally reconsider obviation effects. The examples in (18) were analyzedabove as legitimate control configurations in Balkan, on a par with theobligatory control examples in (1). Hence, the lack of obviation, analyzed hereas a case of the Avoid Pronoun strategy, is only apparent. This account predictsthat ca will be disallowed in (36), just as it is illicit in (35); but this predictionseems to be contradicted:(36) A$ vrea cu mainewould-1SG like that tomorrowsa plec Proi i la la nninte.sa leave-1 SG.SUBJ to mountainT would like to leave tor the mountains tomorrow.'This type of Romanian example is comparable to well-known marginal exceptionsconcerning obviation effects studied by Ruwet (1984):(37) '.'Jj 'aimerais bien que je- t sois enfinI would like very much that I be-1SG.SUBJ finallyautorise a partir en Israel.allowed to leave for Israel'I. would like very much to be finally allowed to leave for Israel.'(A number of French native speakers insisted that a question mark (or two)should precede Ruwet's examples.)Given our account in terms of Avoid Pronoun, the problem in both (36) and(37) is that a pronoun is used instead of an anaphor. This possibility seems tobe related to the fact that the event referred to in the embedded clause is viewed asdistinct from the event referred to in the main clause: the "distance" between thetwo events is marked by the conditional mood, by the passive, by negation, andso on. We may suggest that anaphoric binding is not an obligatory choice forthis type of looser relation; coreference between two pronouns belonging to twodistinct governing categories is sufficient. Beyond this similarity, the Romaniancases of the type in (36) differ from the French examples by being completelygrammatical and productive.