BlkS mood markers

As we already observed in Chapter 2 on the example of some Balkan Slavic languages, BlkS is not marked through verbal morphology, but through separate, uninflected markers situated on the left periphery of the clause. As we can see in the examples below, subjunctive and indicative complements in Balkan languages are distinguished through different types of left-periphery items (similarly as in Slavic more generally, modulo the nuance contrasts explained in 2.6):

(137) a. O Pavlos ipe oti efije i Roxani. (Greek) the Paul said IND left the Roxanne

‘Paul said that Roxanne left.’

b. Thelo na kerdisi o Janis.

want1.sg. SUBJ win3.sg. the John ‘I want John to win.’

(Giannakidou, 2009: 1886-1887)

(138) a. Maria crede ca Ion a plecat. (Romanian) Mary believes IND John has left

‘Mary believes that John left.’

b. Maria vrea sa plece Ion.

Mary wants SUBJ leave3.sg. John

‘Mary wants John to leave.’

106

(139) a. Mislja che tja otide. (Bulgarian)

think1.sg. IND she left3.sg.

‘I think she left.’

b. Iskam tja da dojde.

want1.sg. she SUBJ come3.sg.

‘I want her to come.’

Even though BlkS markers we see in the examples above differ when it comes to their exact morphological manifestation from language to language, the important observation is that all these Balkan languages use the same type of strategy to distinguish subjunctive-type complements from indicatives, i.e. distinctive left-periphery markers.

There is no general consensus in Balkan literature as to the exact syntactic nature of BlkS markers such as those in (137-139b), but the types of theoretical approaches that were proposed in order to account for their properties can be roughly divided in two groups. The first group of authors analyze these items as complementizers (Comps from now on), occupying the same C-position as their indicative counterparts in (137-139a) (Agouraki, 1991; Dobrovie-Sorin, 1994; Krapova, 1998; Tsoulas, 1993 a.o.). The primary motivation for this type of analysis is the fact that the subjunctive and indicative markers appear in complementary distribution in most Balkan languages, i.e. they cannot co-occur in the same structure. Hence the conclusion is that they compete for the same position. The second group of authors, which are greater in number, analyze BlkS markers as mood or modal particles, which are not inserted in C but somewhere lower down in the structure (Giannakidou, 1998; Philippaki-Warburton, 1985; Rivero, 1994; Rudin, 1985; Terzi, 1992 a.o.). The main motivation for this type of analyses is the fact that BlkS markers exhibit a number of properties that are not typically associated with Comps (some of which we will observe later on as well).

The theoretical approaches that view BlkS markers as mood particles have usually implied a slight articulation of the basic minimalist clausal architecture consisting of CP-TP-vP projections. This is because the authors that approached BlkS markers from this perspective generally assumed such items to be inserted in an additional functional modal projection, situated below CP and above TP. The projection in question has usually been labeled as MoodP (Philippaki-Warburton, 1985; Giannakidou 1998 a.o.), or as ModalP (Rivero, 1994;

Rivero&Terzi, 1995 a.o.), depending on the author:

107

(140) CP– Mood/ModalP – TP – vP

On the other hand, those approaches that view BlkS markers as C-inserted Comps do not require the structural articulation of the type illustrated in (140) and can thus be seen as more compatible with the basic minimalist framework. However, there are various reasons to nonetheless prefer the former type of approaches to BlkS markers, which view them as mood particles, as opposed to Comps. Here I will look at some of the more general types of evidence that argue in favor of this type of analysis in relation to such items, whereas more detailed evidence in this context will emerge once I turn to a finer study of BlkS complements in the Slavic languages that I will be primarily interested in here (i.e. Bulgarian and Croatian).

The first reason to reject the Comp-analysis of BlkS markers is the fact that even the main argument in favor of this approach- i.e. the complementary distribution of BlkS markers and indicative Comps- is not valid in all Balkan languages. As we can see on the examples of Romanian and Albanian below, the subjunctive markers- sa and te respectively- can sometimes co-occur with a higher Comp- ca and qe, respectively: ⁵³

(141) Vreau ca Petru sa citeasca o carte. (Romanian) want1.sg. that Peter SUBJ read3.sg. a book

‘I want Peter to read a book.’

(142) Une dua qe Brixhida te kendoje. (Albanian)

I want that Brigitte SUBJ sing3.sg.

‘I want Brigitte to sing.’

(Rivero, 1994)

Therefore, it is clear that, at least when it comes to languages such as Romanian or Albanian, the subjunctive markers cannot be analyzed as C-inserted Comps, given that the C-position can be occupied by a higher Comp. Even though this is not the case in other Balkan languages, the

53 Even though the Comps in (141-142) share a similar overt form with the indicative Comps in these languages, my overall analysis, which views indicatives and subjunctives as introduced through two distinct CP-projections that are locally selected by the matrix predicate, would predict that the Comps related to these two types of clauses in Albanian and Romanian constitute different syntactic items- a similar claim as the one that was put forward by Giorgi&Pianesi (1997) and Giorgi (2009) in the context of the Italian Comp che. This claim is unproblematic when it comes to Romanian, where the indicative and the subjunctive-related ca are phonetically distinguished through slightly different pronunciations (Farkas, 1984). The Albanian data require further study.

108

more general unifying tendencies that characterize BlkS complementation as such would argue against the analysis that views BlkS markers in languages such as Romanian or Albanian as entirely different syntactic items than their counterparts in other Balkan languages.

Another piece of evidence that points towards an analysis of BlkS markers as inserted in some lower structural position below C, which can be observed more widely across Balkan languages than the type of evidence we saw in (141-142), is related to the positioning of BlkS markers with respect to the embedded verb: BlkS mood markers appear in a much more contiguous position with respect to the embedded verb than is the case with indicative Comps (Farkas, 1984; Krapova, 1998; Rouchota, 1994; Roussou, 2009 a.o.). This can be observed, for instance, if we look at the positioning of the embedded subjects in the two types of structures:

in the case of indicatives, the subject occupies the standard EPP position between the Comp and the embedded verb, whereas in subjunctives the subject cannot appear between the BlkS marker and the verb. The only acceptable syntactic configurations in the latter case are those where the subject is either post-verbal or appears before the BlkS marker.

(143) a. Nomizo oti o Kostas efije. (Greek)

think1.sg. IND the Kostas left3.sg.

‘I think that Kostas left.’

b. Thelo (o Kostas) na (*o Kostas) fiji (o Kostas).

want1.sg. the Kostas SUBJ the Kostas leave3.sg. the Kostas ‘I want Kostas to leave.’

(Roussou, 2009: 1822)

(144) a. Maria crede ca Ion a plecat. (Romanian) Mary believes IND John has left

‘Mary believe that John left.’

b. Maria vrea (Ion) sa (*Ion) plece (Ion).

Mary wants John SUBJ John leave3.sg. John

‘Mary wants John to leave.’

(145) a. Mislja che Ivan otide. (Bulgarian)

think1.sg. IND John left3.sg.

‘I think that John left.’

109

b. Iskam (Ivan) da (*Ivan) otide Ivan.

want1.sg. John SUBJ John leave3.sg. John

‘I want John to leave.’

The grammaticality contrasts in (143-145), which clearly show that BlkS markers appear in a more contiguous syntactic configuration with the embedded verb than is the case with indicative Comps, are most straightforwardly explained by claiming that the former are inserted in a lower structural position than the latter.

The final piece of evidence against the Comp-analysis of BlkS markers that I will put forward here is related to some non-subordinated syntactic environments where such items can appear. As we can observe on the examples of Greek and Balkan Slavic below, BlkS markers can be found in some matrix clauses which are associated with similar types of irrealis modal meanings as the ones we observe in subjunctives.

(146) a. Na etrexe. (Greek)

SUBJ run3.sg.

‘I wish he were running.’

(Roussou, 2009: 1811) b. Na min to pis!

SUBJ not it say2.sg.

‘Don’t say this!’

(Giannakidou, 2009: 1893)

(147) a. Da chetes! (Bulgarian)

SUBJ read2.sg.

‘Read!’

b. Nemoj da idesh! (Serbian) neg. SUBJ go2.sg.

‘Don’t go!’

The fact that BlkS markers such as the Greek na or the Slavic da can appear in matrix contexts further argues against the analysis of such items as Comps because, given that the primary function of Comps is to turn an independent clause into a dependent embedded complement,

110

there is no reasons why they should appear in simple matrix clauses (Philippaki Warburton, 1993).

The evidence presented in (141-147) above forms sufficient grounds for me to adopt the starting hypothesis according to which indicative and subjunctive-related left periphery elements are not the same syntactic type of C-items in Balkan languages, but the items such as the Greek na, the Romanian sa or the Bulgarian da should instead be viewed as inserted in some lower structural position below C. In this sense, my syntactic analysis in relation to such elements will be closer to the one put forward by authors which viewed BlkS markers as particles, as opposed to Comps, but I will also depart from their approaches in certain aspects.

As I mentioned a bit earlier, most authors that viewed BlkS markers as mood particles analyzed them as inserted in some type of functional modal projection situated between CP and TP. This is not the analysis that I will adopt in the context of Balkan Slavic, however. Even though I will maintain a structure similar to the one in (140), which contains a functional modal projection that is the locus of clausal modality in the typical subjunctive contexts, I will not analyze this projection as the one that hosts BlkS markers.

The primary reason why I will not view BlkS markers in languages such as Balkan Slavic as inserted under any type of modal head is the fact that such items can appear in some complements that are not associated with any modality, a number of which we have already observed earlier on (see (135) or (21-22), for instance). The relatively strict syntax-semantics mapping perspective that my study is based on argues against the presence of any type of functional modal projection in the underlying structures of clauses that do not denote any modality in the semantic component. As a result, I will claim that BlkS markers should be seen as inserted under a different syntactic position, which is even lower down in the structure than the modal projection in (140). More specifically, I will claim such items to be inserted under the temporal T-head position. This type of analysis will not only allow me to account for the possibility of BlkS markers appearing in non-modalized semantic environments, but it will also explain some additional properties, specifically related to tense, that will be observed with such elements. In order to introduce this analysis, I will first present an approach that was put forward by Giannakidou (2009) in the context of Greek, where the author argued that the Greek subjunctive particle na should be seen as a type of temporal operator, and then I will show that a similar analysis can be applied to Balkan Slavic as well.

111