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

80 ANNA ROUSSOUignore the properties of the relevant complement clauses as these are determinedby the lexical properties of the predicates that select them.To summarize, the issue of control and raising in languages of the Balkantype which in general lack infinitives, seems to be dependent on the definition offiniteness. The picture becomes even more complicated due to the fact that thelicensing requirements of empty categories are not clearly defined either. In orderto provide an account for the Balkan cases, we will first discuss the notion offiniteness and then turn to an analysis of control and raising in the relevantgroup of languages. The proposed analysis will not focus on the nature of theempty categories involved as it dispenses with PRO, pro and A traces (cf.Manzini and Roussou 1998). The advantage of this approach is that it allows usto treat the Balkan cases on a par with their Romance and English counterparts.2. Subjunctives and finiteness2.1. C and finitenessAs already discussed in the previous section, finiteness can be defined either interms of agreement or T specifications. The data in (l)-(2) from English andGerman, and in (4)-(5) from the Balkan languages, on the other hand, showedthat the correlation between C and I can be morphologically manifested in twodifferent ways: in the former case C is sensitive to the realization of the T head,while in the latter it is sensitive to the mood head. This typological distinctionmight offer a new insight into the notion of finiteness. Note that in more recentanalyses the role of C in the ifinite distinction has received more attention. Forexample, Rizzi (1997) argues for an articulated C structure, splitting C into aFin(ite) and force head with the possible interpolation of other heads in between.Force is the highest C head associated with clause typing features (e.g., Q). Fin,on the other hand, is the lowest C head that interfaces with the I system, that is,with T or mood and agreement:(13) [ Forcep Force l Top p/FocP Topic/Focus [ FinP Fin [, p !....]]]]Thus, in Rizzi's terms Fin is a property of the C system which interacts withthe I system, giving rise to different typological patterns of the type mentionedabove.Roberts and Roussou (1998) further elaborate on the notion of Fin in connectionto Germanic V2. According to their analysis, Fin binds T, which in turnbinds the temporal argument associated with the predicate (the event position inthe sense of Higginbotham 1985), ultimately anchoring it to the speech time(cf. Enc, 1987). In V2 constructions Fin is spelled out by attracting V or theauxiliary; this realization is subject to parametric variation. A similar approachis taken by Holmberg and Platzack (1995), who argue, though, that Fin may berealized in C (V2 languages) or in I (non V2 languages). In any case, they pointout that "finiteness is a prerequisite for tense and mood: unless a predication isrelated to the time of the utterance via the concept of finiteness, we have no