9. Clitic reduplication constructions in Bulgarian

Abstract

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...

Clitic Doubling in Vernacular Medieval Greek

“…Interestingly, this mismatch between clitic pronoun and NP only occurs in my corpus in structures of topic right‐dislocation and not in examples of backgrounding. This confirms the observation that the lack of agreement between the NP and the clitic pronoun is normally not allowed in backgrounding constructions, while it is possible in topic right‐dislocations (Krapova & Cinque : 260; cf. section 4.2).…”

“…In modern linguistics, clitic doubling is defined as ‘the co‐occurrence of a direct and/or indirect object NP and a co‐referential clitic pronoun attached to the verb’ (Janse : 165). Especially in Balkan languages, clitic doubling is a common phenomenon (Krapova & Cinque : 278), as in the example from Albanian in (1):…”

The Late Medieval Greek πολιτικὸς στίχος Poetry: Language, Metre and Discourse (University of Ghent, 2015)

“…To begin with, "clitic doubling" is usually not understood in this general sense, but commonly refers to what Janse calls "backgrounding". Moreover, Janse᾿s "clitic left-dislocation" and "clitic right-dislocation" are often called "hanging topic left-dislocation" and "clitic right-dislocation" respectively, whereas Janse᾿s "topicalisation" is known as "clitic left-dislocation" (Krapova & Cinque 2008). …”

“…Moreover, we should perhaps also recognise distinct properties according to the grammatical role of the doubled noun phrase: direct objects and indirect objects seem to behave in a distinct way in the four constructions (cf. Cinque 1990;Krapova & Cinque 2008).…”

Clitic doubling and information structure in Albanian

“…Clitic doubling is the construction in which a clitic pronoun doubles a verbal argument inside the same clause, as illustrated through the Albanian example in (1) where i is the third person plural clitic pronoun and lulet is a full DP in the argument position: 2 Clitic doubling has been observed in typologically and genetically diverse languages such as in Romance languages (Strozer 1976;Rivas 1977;Jaeggli 1982;Suñer 1988;Dobrovie-Sorin 1990;Sportiche 1996;Uriagereka 1988;Torrego 1988;Bleam 1999;Hill and Tasmowski 2008;Cornilescu and D obrovie-Sorin 2008;Avram and Coene 2007), Semitic languages (Borer 1984), Slavic languages (Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Vulchanov 2008, Krapova and Cinque 2008), Greek (Philippaki-Warburton 1987;Drachman 1983;Anagnostopoulou 1994;Tsakali and Anagnostopoulou 2008), Albanian (Kallulli 1995(Kallulli , 2000, and Pirahã (Everett 1987). Kallulli and Tasmowski (2008) in their review of most of the above studies conclude that to date there has not been a clear agreement about why clitic doubling appears at all and what accounts for its variation across languages.…”