Subj1 vs. Subj2 in the context of BlkS

The first problematic case of BlkS distribution that we will look at here involves complements such as those in the examples below:⁷⁸

(218) Pistevo na elise to provlima. (Greek) believe1.sg. SUBJ solved3.sg. the problem

‘I believe that he solved the problem.’

(Roussou, 2010: 4)

(219) Ne vjarvjam da dojde. (Bulgarian)

not believe1.sg. SUBJ came3.sg.

‘I don’t believe he came.’

Unlike intensional subjunctives we observed earlier on in (214-217), complements in (218-219) do not conform to my broader approach to the subjunctive clause type, which viewed the latter as introduced under the imperative-type CP (see 2.4). The main reason for this is the fact that subjunctive clauses such as those above pattern more closely with indicatives than they do with intensional subjunctives or imperatives when it comes to their basic semantic properties. First of all, they denote epistemic-type modality, which is often associated with the indicative mood,

78 The fact that a language such as Bulgarian uses subjunctive morphology in this type of complements, which will be defined as Subj2, constitutes a bit of an exception in the context of Slavic subjunctive, because the latter generally does not exhibit Subj2-type complementation, as we observed earlier on in 1.2.1 (see (19-20) in particular). The Bulgarian exception in this context will be accounted for later on in Chapter 6 (Section 6.2 more specifically), where I will explain some of the underlying reasons for the differences in Subj2 distribution across languages, including in Slavic.

158

and not deontic modality that one observes with imperatives and intensional subjunctives. This means that they also pattern with epistemic-type indicatives when it comes to the semantic properties that we discussed earlier on in 1.4: they denote persistent propositions, which can be judged as true or false, and are extensionally anchored to the matrix modal base. As a result, just like their Romance counterparts that we observed earlier on in Chapter 1, subjunctives such as those in (218-219) will be subsumed under the Subj2 label, i.e. they will be analyzed as clauses where subjunctive morphological marking appears in the context of indicative-type syntactic complementation (see 6.1 for more detail on this analysis).

There are several additional reasons that argue in favor of the Subj2-approach to BlkS complements such as those in (218-219). The main syntactic argument that can be proposed in this context has to do with the degree of stability in the use of embedded subjunctive marking.

Recall that the first formal criterion that was used earlier on in the introductory chapter (Section 1.2.1 in particular) to distinguish between Subj1- and Subj2-type complements was related to the obligatory vs. variable use of subjunctive marking in the embedded clause: Subj1 complements, which were analyzed as lexically selected under a separate subjunctive CP, were shown to exhibit obligatory subjunctive marking in this context; Subj2 clauses, on the other hand, which are not selected under this subjunctive CP, were shown to exhibit variability between the use of the subjunctive and the indicative mood marking in the embedded clause.

This is another area where BlkS complements such as those in (218-219) pattern with their Romance Subj2 counterparts that we looked at earlier on in Chapter 1 (see (15-17), for instance): the Greek subjunctive marker na in (218) can be replaced by the indicative Comp oti (220), and the Bulgarian subjunctive da in (219) can be replaced by the indicative che (221), without producing ungrammaticality in this context:

(220) Pistevo oti elise to provlima.

believe1.sg. IND solved3.sg. the problem

‘I believe that he solved the problem.’

(Roussou, 2010: 4)

(221) Ne vjarvjam, che shte dojde.

not believe1.sg. IND FUT come3.sg.

‘I don’t believe she will come.’

159

This is also where BlkS Subj2 complements of the type exemplified in (218-219) differ from their BlkS Subj1 counterparts that we looked at in the previous parts of this chapter, given that the introduction of indicative-mood marking in the latter type of complements produces an ungrammatical result, as we can observe in the examples below:

(222) Thelo na / * oti liso to provlima. (Greek) want1.sg. SUBJ/ IND solve1.sg. the problem

‘I want to solve the problem.’

(Roussou, 2010: 3)

(223) Iskam da / *che dojde. (Bulgarian)

want1.sg. SUBJ/ IND come3.sg.

‘I want him to come.’

The contrasts in (220-223) are expected given the broader analysis that distinguished Subj1 from Subj2 complements in terms of lexical selection by the matrix predicate.

Another reason why complements such as those in (218-219) should be subsumed under the Subj2 label is the fact that they pattern with indicatives, while differing from Subj1, in relation to a number of other clausal areas as well, such as tense for instance. Recall that we observed earlier on in Chapter 2 that one of the main differences between the indicative and the subjunctive clause type across languages had to do with the temporal properties associated with the embedded clause: indicative complements were shown to be associated with independent tense, which meant that they could denote all types of temporal relationships with respect to the matrix tense, whereas subjunctive complements were shown to be more temporally dependent, and restricted to a future-referring tense interval with respect to the reference time of the matrix predicate. This is another area where we can observe a distinction between Subj1- and Subj2-type BlkS complements. As we can see on the basis of the grammaticality contrasts below, the latter are associated with indicative-like independent tense, as shown by the possibility of anterior temporal readings (224), whereas the former exhibit the temporal restrictions characteristic of the subjunctive clausal mood (225):

160

(224) a. Pistevo na elise to provlima echthes. (Greek) believe1.sg. SUBJ solved3.sg. the problem yesterday

‘I believe that he solved the problem yesterday.’

b. Ne vjarvjam da e otkradal knigata vchera. (Bulgarian) not believe1.sg. SUBJ has stolen book-the yesterday

‘I don’t believe he stole the book yesterday.’

(225) a. * Iskam toi da e doshul vchera. (Bulgarian) want1.sg. he SUBJ has come yesterday

‘I want him to have came yesterday.’

b. * Naredjujem da si otishao jucher. (Croatian) order1.sg. SUBJ have2.sg. left yesterday

‘I order you to have left yesterday.’

These are, therefore, some of the reasons why complements of the type exemplified in (224) will be subsumed under the Subj2 label, and left to the side for the moment, given that they do not belong to the subjunctive clause type that is the main focus of my present analysis.

This, however, does not mean that we will not be dealing with problematic cases of subjunctive distribution in the context of my current study of BlkS. On the contrary, in the remainder of Section 3.2, we will observe a series of examples of BlkS distribution involving complements which will be defined as Subj1, because they will be shown to formally pattern with the more typical intensional Subj1 complements with regards to the phenomena we just looked at above, even though they will have very little to do with the typical subjunctive or imperative-related semantic interpretations. The complements that correspond to this description are those selected by obligatory-control predicates, which I will refer to as control subjunctives (term taken from Landau, 2004).

161