Abstract: Abstract. The paper examines clitic placement and the nature of clitic clustering in Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, and Macedonian. It is argued that Serbo-Croatian clitics do not cluster syntactically; they are located in different projections in the syntax. The order of clitics within the clitic cluster is argued to follow from the hierarchical arrangement of projections in which they are located. The paper also provides a principled account of the idiosyncratic behavior of the auxiliary clitic je, which in contrast to other auxiliary clitics follows pronominal clitics. In contrast to Serbo-Croatian clitics, Bulgarian and Macedonian clitics are argued to cluster in the same head position in the final syntactic representation. The cluster is formed through successive cyclic leftward adjunctions of clitics to the verb, in accordance with the Linear Correspondence Axiom. Following Chomsky's (1994) suggestion that clitics are ambiguous head/phrasal elements, it is argued that clitics do not branch, hence cannot take complements. This claim leads to a new proposal concerning the structural representation of several clitic forms. ********** 1. Serbo-Croatian Clitics This paper examines clitic placement and the nature of clitic clustering in the South Slavic languages. On the more theoretical side, the paper addresses the question of whether PF can affect word order. It also makes a proposal concerning the structural representation of clitics which is meant to hold cross-linguistically. In section 1 I examine the clitic system of Serbo-Croatian (SC), a second-position-clitic language. In section 2 I turn to Bulgarian and Macedonian, whose clitics are traditionally considered to be verbal. The phenomenon of second-position cliticization in SC is illustrated by (1a-d). Locating clitics in any other position or splitting the clitic cluster in (1) would lead to ungrammaticality. (Clitics are given in bold.) (1) a. Mi smo mu je predstavili we are [him.sub.DAT] [her.sub.ACC] introduced juce. yesterday 'We introduced her to him yesterday.' b. Zasto smo mu je predstavili why are [him.sub.DAT] [her.sub.ACC] introduced juce? yesterday 'Why did we introduce her to him yesterday?' c. Ona tvrdi da smo mu je mi she claims that are [him.sub.DAT] [her.sub.ACC] we predstavili juce. introduced yesterday. 'She claims that we introduced her to him yesterday.' d. Predstavili smo mu je juce. introduced are [him.sub.DAT] [her.sub.ACC] yesterday 'We introduced her to him yesterday.' Second position cliticization in SC has recently attracted a great deal of attention (see Anderson 1996; Bennett 1986, 1987; Boeckx and Stjepanovic 2000; Boskovic 1995, 1997a, 2000a, 2001a; Boskovic and Franks 2002; Browne 1974, 1975, 1993; Caink 1998, 1999; Cavar and Wilder 1994; Dimitrova-Vulchanova 1995; Embick and Izvorski 1997; Franks 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000a; Franks and King 2000; Franks and Progovac 1994; Halpern 1995; Hock 1992; King 1996; Law 2001; Percus 1993; Phillips 1996; Progovac 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000; Radanovic-Kocic 1988, 1996; Rivero 1997; Roberts 1994; Schutze 1994; Stjepanovic 1998a, b, 1999; Tomic 1996, 2000; Wilder and Cavar 1994a, b, 1997; Zec and Inkelas 1990). Most recent work on the topic focuses on clitic placement and the nature of the second-position effect. These issues are often considered to be related, especially in the syntactic approaches to the second-position effect. However, in Boskovic 2000a and 2001a, I argue that the two issues are largely independent, clitic placement being accomplished entirely in the syntax and the second-position effect being a phonological effect. …
Publication Year: 2004
Publication Date: 2004-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 29
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot