Subjunctive marker da: Syntactic analysis

Recall that the arguments put forward earlier on in 3.1.1 showed that BlkS markers should be analyzed as mood particles, as opposed to Comps. The first type of evidence that was introduced in favor of this approach had to do with the syntactic contiguity that we observed between the subjunctive markers such as the Bulgarian da and the embedded verb, which did not obtain with the indicative Comp.

(154) Mislja, che Ivan dojde.

think1.sg. IND John came3.sg.

‘I think that John came.’

(155) * Iskam da Ivan otide.

want1.sg. SUBJ John leave3.sg.

‘I want John to leave.’

As we can see in (154-155), while the embedded subject in indicative complements typically appears between the Comp che and the verb (154), the same type of configuration is impossible in complements introduced under the subjunctive da (155), which suggests that the latter is much more contiguous to the embedded verb than the indicative Comp. Once again, this is not

116

only a property of the Bulgarian subjunctive, but a broader syntactic pattern related to BlkS complementation in general.

Some authors have nonetheless attempted to reconcile data of the type exemplified in (155) with the analysis that views the Bulgarian da as a Comp inserted in C, and not as a lower particle. For instance, Krapova (1998) argued that the contiguity observed between da and the verb could be analyzed as the result of verb movement to C, whereby the particle da and the verb end up situated under the same head position. This analysis is not a priori implausible, because we already observed V-movements to C in matrix imperative clauses earlier on in 2.4, which were argued to be associated with the same type of C-projection as subjunctives. Thus, the idea that we have V-movement to C in Bulgarian subjunctives could in principle be related to similar feature-checking motivations (more specifically, checking of uDeo in C) as those that were argued to be at play when it came to imperative-related left-periphery movements cross-linguistically. If this were to be the case, then the V-movement in Bulgarian subjunctive complements could be used as an additional argument in favor of my overall syntactic approach to the syntactic clause type as such.

However, there are several types of evidence that argue against such an analysis of Bulgarian subjunctives. First of all, even if we assumed that the verb moves up to C and ends up in a local configuration with the subjunctive da, which would allow to reconcile data of the type exemplified in (155) with the C-insertion analysis of da, such a configuration would remain problematic in light of the examples such as the one in (156):

(156) Iskam Ivan da dojde.

want1.sg John SUBJ come3.sg.

‘I want John to come.’

As we can see in (156), the embedded subject (i.e. Ivan) can precede the item da in Bulgarian subjunctives. Thus, if we assumed that da is inserted in C, then the word ordering in (156) would pose locality problems in the context of selection, because the embedded subject would intervene between the selecting predicate and the selected Comp. On the other hand, the analysis that views the subjunctive da as a particle inserted in some lower structural position does not face such problems because it still allows for a local relationship between the matrix verb and a (phonetically null) C-head to be established within the structure related to clauses such as the one in (156).

117

Another type of evidence that argues against the Comp-analysis of the item da has to do with cases where this element appears outside of embedded syntactic environments related to subjunctive complementation. Recall that we observed earlier on in 3.1.1 that the Bulgarian da and its BlkS equivalents are often used in matrix clauses as well, such as those in (157-158) below:

(157) Da chetes!

SUBJ read2.sg.

‘Read!’

(158) Ivan da dojde vednaga pri men!

John SUBJ come3.sg. immediately to me

‘John should immediately come to me.’

(Laskova, 2012: 388)

As I already noted earlier on, typical Comps would not be expected to widely appear in non-subordinated environments, given that their primary syntactic function is to turn an independent clause into a complement. The Bulgarian da, however, is often used in matrix contexts such as those illustrated in (157-158). Moreover, the matrix configuration in (158) in particular provides a further argument against the analysis of the item da as a C-related element because it allows us to observe that the latter can be preceded by the clausal subject in this context as well.

Some additional data that go against the C-insertion analysis of da will be introduced later on, once we look at different types of Bulgarian subjunctives in the context of a broader study of BlkS distribution. This will allow us to observe that BlkS markers such as the Bulgarian da can appear in some complements that contain syntactically anaphoric and transparent structures. Such complements will be shown to exhibit properties characteristic of non-phasal domains, and will thus be analyzed as lacking the embedded CP projection altogether (see 3.3.

for more detail). The fact that the subjunctive da will nonetheless be observed in such complements as well will therefore provide a further argument against the idea that this item can be seen as a C-inserted Comp.

These are therefore some of the reasons why I will consider that the Bulgarian da is not a Comp inserted under C but a particle generated in some lower structural position. As I already mentioned in 3.1.1, the authors that analyze BlkS markers such as da as particles generally view

118

these items as being merged in the head position associated with a functional modal projection situated between CP and TP (which I will label here as ModP).

(159) [CP [ModP…ModDA [TP [vP ]]]]

This is not the analysis I will adopt here, however. Rather, I will argue that subjunctive particle da is situated lower down below ModP in the structure in (159).

The reasons why I will claim that da should not be seen as inserted in Mod are primarily semantic in nature. The syntactic data related to Bulgarian subjunctives we looked at so far can all be more or less easily reconciled with the analysis in (159), even those that may appear more problematic on the surface, such as the ban on the embedded subject intervening between the particle and the verb. For instance, even though the standard EPP-approaches to subject licensing (Chomsky, 1981; Chomsky&Lasnik 1993 a.o.), which view the latter as situated in the SpecIP/TP position (an approach that I will not be adopting here, incidentally- see 3.3), would predict that the subject should be able to appear between the particle situated in Mod and the verb situated within vP, all that needs to be done in order to reconcile this approach with the data of the type exemplified in (155) is to stipulate that the verb moves to Mod in subjunctive contexts, thus ending up in a local configuration with da, and banning the subject from intervening between them. What is more problematic when it comes to the Mod-analysis of da in (159), especially in light of the syntax-semantics mapping approach assumed in this study, is the fact that some of the semantic properties that will be observed with the Bulgarian particle da (as well as its BlkS equivalents) will be difficult to reconcile with the idea that the latter is associated with a modal head.

The most problematic issue in this context, which I already alluded to earlier on, is the fact that the Bulgarian da can appear in some subjunctive complements that are not semantically associated with any type of modality, a couple of which we have already observed in the previous parts of this study (I reproduce one relevant example below).

(160) Ivan zapochva da kara kolata.

John begins SUBJ drive3.sg. car-the

‘John begins to drive the car.’

119

Other than assuming that the Mod-head in (159) has no interpretative repercussions once the structure related to complements such as the one in (160) reaches the interface with semantics, which would be contrary to the overall syntax-semantics mapping approach that I adopt here, there is no way to reconcile data of the type exemplified in (160) with the Mod-insertion analysis of da.

Another reason why I will claim that the particle da is not associated with a modality-type projection is the fact that its primary function in the context of subjunctive complementation will not be seen as related to modality but to tense. This will argue in favor of the syntactic analysis that views the item da as situated under a different, tense-related position- i.e. the T-head-, which appears below Mod:

(161) [CP [ModP [TP…TDA [vP ]]]]

The analysis in (161) will also allow me to reconcile the syntax related to the particle da with the fact that this item can appear in non-modalized semantic environments, as I will explain in more detail later on. Before I do that, though, I will first demonstrate that the temporal analysis that was proposed by Giannakidou (2009) in the context of the Greek particle na applies to the Bulgarian da as well, which will further reinforce the claim that the latter should be seen as inserted under T.