The paper offers an analysis of Bulgarian relative clauses introduced by the invariant complementizer deto 'that', whose distribution also extends to factive contexts. Using reconstruction as primary evidence for movement, I review the basic facts for its presence (amount readings, idiom interpretation, binding and scope) and absence (Principle C) and argue that both a raising and a matching analysis must be available for the derivation of deto-relatives. I also discuss the distribution and structural properties of resumptive clitics which are shown to block reconstruction in all types of contexts and hence to be compatible with a matching derivation only. Given the structural ambiguity in the derivation of Bulgarian complementizer relatives and in search of a unified treatment of their potentially ambivalent behavior, the paper applies Cinque's (2003 analysis of relative clauses, which postulates two identical copies of the relativized Head (internal and external) and exploits different movement options to account for the raising and the matching derivations. It is then argued that such a proposal, which also exploits distinct CP positions, can successfully accommodate all of the observed reconstruction effects (or lack thereof), including the option of resumption. The paper also offers a discussion of factive clauses introduced by the same complementizer and proposes that they are best treated as hidden relatives embedded under a more complex structure involving a PP projection and a silent D head. #

This paper discusses clitic reduplication constructions in Bulgarian. In contrast to traditional analyses, it distinguishes clitic doubling proper, which is restricted to clauses with psych and physical perception predicates, from other constructions that involve reduplication of an argument by a clitic, notably, left and right dislocation, focus movement, and hanging topic construction. Several properties of clitic doubling proper are identified, among which obligatory doubling of quantifiers, wh-phrases and focus phrases. These are argued to be the distinguishing features of this construction in Bulgarian, given the cross-linguistic evidence from Romance and other languages. 'Her, anyway, I cannot make her eat' (colloquial) *We wish to thank Liliane Tasmowski and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. 1. See, for example, Assenova (1980, 00), Guentchéva (1994), Leafgren (1997), Franks & Rudin (005). Some authors (Minčeva 1969; Lopašov 1978) refer to (1) through (3), in which the full NP precedes the clitic, as cases of reprisa (resumption), and to the constructions in (4) and (5), in which it follows, as cases of anticipatio (anticipation).. This, as well as all the other examples referred to as "colloquial" in the text below, are taken from the corpus of colloquial Bulgarian utilized in Džonova (004), subsequently digitalized and available at www.bgspeech.bg.  Iliyana Krapova & Guglielmo Cinque () Na Maria njama da ì piša. to Maria will-not Mod.prt her.cl.dat write.1sg 'To Maria I will not write' (3) Samo na Ivan mu se speše. only to Ivan him.cl.dat refl was-sleeping 'Only Ivan felt like sleeping' (4) Poznavam go tova čuvstvo. know.1sg it.cl.acc this sentiment 'I know this sentiment' (5) Ne mu se speše samo na Ivan. not him.cl.dat refl was-sleeping only to Ivan 'Only Ivan didn't feel like sleeping' Here, we will argue that (1)-(5) do not represent a unitary phenomenon, but in fact five separate cases, with clearly distinct properties: (1) Hanging Topic, () Clitic Left Dislocation, (3) Focus Movement, (4) Clitic Right Dislocation, (5) Clitic Doubling proper. We will eventually focus our attention on the one exemplified in (5), which we refer to simply as Clitic Doubling (henceforth CD). It is possible that Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD), Clitic Doubling (CD), and perhaps Clitic Right Dislocation (CLRD), will eventually turn out to be different manifestations, at a more abstract level, of one and the same structure, possibly with the clitic and the associate merged together as a single constituent (for different variants of this idea cf. Kayne 197, 001; Uriagereka 1995; Torrego 1995; Papangeli 000; Franks & Rudin 005). 3 However, we believe that before trying any higher order unification of the above constructions, it is important to consider the syntactic and pragmatic properties of each separately. We begin with (1) and (), which, following more recent literature on Bulgarian and other languages, we will call Hanging Topic Left Dislocation (HTLD) and Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD), respectivel...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract