Tense: Dependence vs. anaphoricity

As I already briefly mentioned in 3.3.1, even though BlkS Subj1 complements in general exhibit more dependent temporal properties than indicatives (or Subj2), one can also observe some additional tense-related contrasts between different types of Subj1 complements themselves.

Various authors (Krapova, 1998; Landau, 2004; Varlokosta, 1993 a.o.) have noted that C BlkS complements exhibit even more anaphoric properties than NC subjunctives in this context.⁹²

92 The contrasts that we will observe here between NC and C subjunctives are identical to those we observed earlier on in 2.3.2 between intensional-type Subj1 complements and control infinitivals (see (93-95)). The latter exhibited the same types of anaphoric tense properties as those that will be observed here with C BlkS complements. This

183

For instance, Krapova (1998) showed that Bulgarian NC subjunctive complements differ from their C counterparts in that they exhibit at least some independent temporal content, whereas the latter are entirely anaphoric in this sense. This was demonstrated by the fact that NC subjunctives in this language can introduce an embedded tense marker which conflicts with the matrix tense (as long as the latter is compatible with the future-referring tense interval associated with the subjunctive), whereas C subjunctives cannot, hence the grammaticality contrasts below:

(260) Iskah da dojdesh vchera / utre. (Bulgarian) wanted1.sg. SUBJ come2.sg. yesterday / tomorrow

‘I wanted you to come yesterday / tomorrow.’

(Krapova, 1998: 82)

(261) Ne mozhah da kupja knigata vchera / * utre.

not could1.sg. SUBJ buy1.sg. book-the yesterday / tomorrow

‘I could not buy the book yesterday / *tomorrow.’

(Krapova, 1998: 83)

As we can see in (260), it is possible to insert a future-tense marker in a Bulgarian NC subjunctive complement even though the matrix tense is past, whereas with C subjunctives in (261) this results in ungrammaticality, and the only type of tense marker that is allowed in the embedded clause is the one that corresponds to the matrix tense- i.e. a past adverbial. In (262-263) below, we can observe that the same type of contrast obtains in Serbian as well:

(262) Naredio sam da dodjesh juche / sutra. (Serbian) ordered have1.sg. SUBJ come2.sg. yesterday / tomorrow

‘I ordered you to come yesterday / tomorrow.’

(263) Pocheo sam da vozim auto juche / * sutra.

begun have1.sg. SUBJ drive1.sg. car yesterday / tomorrow

‘I began to drive the car yesterday / *tomorrow.’

will serve as one of the motivations for the common analysis that will be proposed in relation to these two types of clauses later on in Chapter 4 (see 4.2.3 in particular).

184

Krapova (1998) used this type of data in order to make a broader temporal distinction between the two types of complements exemplified in (260-263). She argued that NC subjunctives, such as those in (260) or (262), should be seen as associated with dependent tense, which is restricted on the basis of the temporal coordinates associated with the matrix predicate but is not entirely identical to the matrix tense, whereas C subjunctives, such as those in (261) or (263), exhibit entirely anaphoric tense, which is identical to the tense of the matrix clause.

In other words, while NC complements are associated with a dependent but a distinct time frame, which is not part of the matrix time frame, C complements are incorporated into the matrix time frame. I will be adopting Krapova’s observations in my analysis as well, but I will propose a different formal explanation in order to account for them.

While Krapova proposed a lexicalist-type account in order to explain the temporal contrasts we observed in (260-263), arguing that the T-heads associated with NC and C subjunctives exhibit different feature content (Tnominative vs. Tnull, respectively), this additional stipulation is not necessary in the context of my analysis, because the observations we just made are perfectly compatible with the structural CP-truncation account I introduced earlier on. The claim that C subjunctives truncate the embedded CP entails that the entire structure in such cases is syntactically incorporated into the matrix CP clausal domain, and can therefore only be associated with a single, matrix time frame. As a result, C-subjunctives behave in exactly the same way as simple clausal domains in this context, given that we also cannot introduce conflicting tense markers within the confines of a single clause:

(264) a. Dojdoh vchera / * utre. (Bulgarian)

came1.sg. yesterday / tomorrow

‘I came yesterday / *tomorrow.’

b. Odoshe juche / * sutra. (Serbian)

left3.pl. yesterday / tomorrow

‘They left yesterday / *tomorrow.’

NC subjunctives, on the other hand, maintain their CP, and are hence interpreted as a separate clause with a distinct time frame, hence the grammaticality contrasts in (260-263). The fact that such complements are nonetheless more temporally dependent on the matrix clause than is the case with indicatives can be accounted for given the broader analysis of the subjunctive CP as a deficient phase, proposed earlier on in 2.3.

185

In the following several subsections, we will observe some additional data, which are more formal in nature, where C and NC subjunctives will be shown to exhibit similar types of contrasts related to syntactic transparency and their phasal status as the ones we just observed in the context of tense and control, which will thus further confirm the present analysis. The first several sets of syntactic tests that I will use in order to demonstrate the relevant contrasts between these two types of BlkS complements in terms of phasehood will be taken from Todorovic (2012). Given that Todorovic primarily focused on subjunctive complements in Serbian, the following analysis will be mostly based on data pertaining to this language.