Against li lowering in Bulgarian

Izvorski, Roumyana; King, Tracy Holloway; Rudin, Catherine

doi:10.1016/s0024-3841(96)00035-6

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4. The literature on the syntax and semantics of li (in Bg and other Slavic languages) is too vast to do it complete justice in this article; see, among others, Englund (1977), Rivero (1993), King (1994), Izvorski et al (1996), Rudin et al (1998), Rudnitskaya (2000), Franks and King (2000: 349-357), Bošković (2001: 197-253), or Franks (2006a for critical discussion. 5.…”

Section: The Clitic Placement Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rivero further proposes that negation blocks head movement, forcing a last resort syntactic lowering of li from C, to leftadjoin to the finite verb in the Agr/T+V complex. As demonstrated by Izvorski et al (1996), the syntactic lowering analysis faces myriad problems. For example, it clearly cannot work for examples like (35a, b) in which the clitic group itself is split.…”

Section: Getting LI In the Right Placementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Another look at li placement in Bulgarian

Franks¹

2006

The Linguistic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the properties of interrogative/focus particle li in Bulgarian, in the larger context of the clitic system of that language as well as from the perspective of how li and other clitics behave in related Slavic languages. A highly derivational model of grammar is assumed, with Minimalist syntax and Distributed Morphology. As an alternative to scattered deletion, prosodically sensitive principles of linearization apply on the post-syntactic side of the grammar. Bulgarian special clitics cannot be Utterance initial; hence, very late in the derivation, they undergo (Reordering) Merger to be linearized at the right of the prosodic word to their right. It is argued that interrogative li, as an enclitic, linearizes upon vocabulary insertion on the right of the prosodic word to its right. Focus li, however, occurs with a focused phrase in its specifier, hence is pronounced to the right of this phrase, with non-focus material elided.

show abstract

Section: The Clitic Placement Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Getting LI In the Right Placementioning

confidence: 99%

Another look at li placement in Bulgarian

Franks¹

2006

The Linguistic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The X/XP status of the phonological host brings to mind the behavior of other clitic series in Bulgarian that have been defined as head elements in the literature. For example, the complementizer (C) -li in interrogative clauses has been shown to attract either V-movement to C or XP movement to Spec,CP as a means of ensuring a phonological host (see Izvorski et al, 1997;Rivero, 1993). The distribution and behavior of -le, be, bre is, thus, compatible with a more general property of Bulgarian (i.e., clitics merged in head positions), although the head status of these Role markers will have to be further supported on syntactic grounds (in section 5.2).…”

Section: A Phrasal Structure For Role Markersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vocatives and the pragmatics–syntax interface

Hill

2007

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It has been argued that the wh-phrases move to [Spec, CP] to be in Spec-head configuration with the question operator in C 0 . Moreover, the Bulgarian particle li which occurs in yes-no questions is argued to be a complementizer in C 0 (Rivero 1993;Rudin 1993;Izvorski et al 1997). If these accounts are correct, then the syntax of interrogatives is another case of C 0 hosting an operator that has something to do with illocutionary force.…”

Section: No Last Resort Verb Movement To Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Force, negation and imperatives

Han¹

2001

The Linguistic Review

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents an account of the cross-linguistic variation in the availability of negative imperatives. By imperatives, I refer to sentences with a distinctive imperative morphology on the main verb and/or a distinctive syntax. In many languages (e.g., Italian, Modern Greek, and Spanish), imperatives cannot be negated. Instead, negative commands are expressed with negative subjunctives and/or infinitivals. However, in German, French, English, Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian, imperatives can be negated. I argue that some languages rule out negative imperatives because the syntax of the language derives a structure which maps onto an incoherent interpretive representation. The analysis I propose builds on the intuition that the directive force contributed by the imperative mood cannot be negated. The negative imperative Don't call! means I require that you not call; it does not mean I do not require that you call. This judgment was already noted by Frege, consequently positing that illocutionary force operators cannot be negated. Pursuing this idea further, I propose that negative imperatives are unavailable in some languages because the syntax derives a structure in which the operator encoding directive force arrives within the c-command domain of negation, where it is interpreted as being negated. As this is incoherent, the structure is ruled impossible. The proposed analysis has implications for the mapping between syntax and semantics of imperatives in particular. In general, it provides evidence that the set of available syntactic structures in a language is restricted by uniform mechanisms for semantic interpretation across languages.

show abstract

Against li lowering in Bulgarian

Cited by 13 publications

References 3 publications

Another look at li placement in Bulgarian

Another look at li placement in Bulgarian

Vocatives and the pragmatics–syntax interface

Force, negation and imperatives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About