Kosta, Peter & Zimmerling, Anton

Slavic c1itic systems in a typological perspective

A prominent feature of Slavic word order systems is clusterizatioI1l of object pronominal clitics with auxiliary clitics and particles. A cluster or a 'clitic group'is a string of deficient elements taking contact position in a rigid order. 'Ihis parameter is known as 'Ranking Rule' or 'Clitic 'Iemplate'. Ranking Rule predicts that any two clitics a and b belonging to cluster CL are linearized in one andjust one order when they take contact position [cL ...a, b... ], but it does not predict that elements a and b should necessarily take contact position when both of them are present in the same clause. Observations on world's languages show that no language with a Ranking Rule completely excludes disjoint placement of those clitics that make up a cluster in other configurations. One possible solution of this puzzle is to conclude that clitic clusters do not exist as syntactic units, cf. (Boskovic 2002). An alternative we opt for in this paper is to analyze splitting of clusters as a syntactic phenomenon: split placement of clitics does not contradict Ranking Rules if split configurations can be' proven to be derived from configurations with contact positioning of clitics. Following (Zaliznjak 2008) and (Zimmerling 2002) we apply an analysis in term of Clitic Barriers and parametrize languages with Ranking Rule depending on Barrier Rules they use. Out account differs from Zaliznjak's or Halpern's theories of 'skipping', since we don't claim that Barriers are necessarily extraclausal and located outside the actual domain where the c1itics move: explanations ofthis kind are falsified by Slavic data. Barriers are syntactic categories that have effect on the position of a single clitic/cluster. With single c1itics, there are two options - either a Barrier shifts the clitic n steps from the host category in a given direction or changes its orientation towards to the clitic host. In 2P languages Barriers cannot change the orientation of clitics, since 2P clitics are generally excluded from clausal left edge due to a parameter called Tobler-Mussafia's law. If one takes into account clusters, there are two options:

Barriers can be 'blind' or 'indiscriminating': in this case they move the whole clitic cluster n steps to the right. Barriers can be 'selective', sensitive to a particular category of c1itics: in this case, splitting of a cluster takes place.

Other typological dimensions ofBarriers pertaining to 2P-languages, languages with VP-internal clitics of the Romance type are the distinctions of:

• Obligatory vs optional Barriers. • Grammaticalized vs communicative Barriers. • Cumulative (two or more Barriers count as a single Barrier) vs undoing Barriers (the secoTlid

Barrier blocks the effect ofthe first one). Grammaticalized Barriers are particular lexical heads taking effect on the position of all or some clitics; Communicative Barriers are phrases with a particular cOrllmunicative status. Both Grammaticalized and Communicative Barriers may be obligatory or optional, blind or selective. E.g., preposed initial topics iin Old Novgorod Russian are obligatory & comrrtunicative & blind: this combination of features implies th.at they invariably shift all c1itic clusters to the right from 2P and don't split them. On the contrary, Grammaticalized Barriers may weil be selective & optional: this is characteristic of Macedonian negation ne, which is a Barrier for reflexive clitics. In a large class of world's languages, 2P langwages (= languages with 2nd position clitics, languages with C-oriel1ted clitics) clusters take a fixed position to clausal left edge - a fact that can be accounted for both in phonetic (Anderson 1995) or in syntactic terms (Zimmerling 2008). The boundaries of the c1ass of clitics crucially depend on which approach to defining c1itics in UG is taken -- a prosodie or a syntactic one. Accordingly, one may speak ofprosodie clities vs syntaetie clities.

• Prosodie clitics are elements, which cannot form a phonological word without combining wilth other words, cf. (Jakobson 1971), (Selkirk 1995).

• Syntactic clitics are elements, whichtake syntactic positions that cannot be filled by non-clitic words, cf. (EuroClitics 1999), (Zimmerling 2002: 64).

This distinction does not coincide with the distinction of 'phonetie' vs 'syntactic' clitics proposed by King & Franks (2000). Franks (2008) ascribes uniform phonetic features to all clitics in a given language, while genuine prosodie theories take into account that clitics have different phonetic properties, e.g. may be stressed/ lack stress, bear a high tone/ a low tone etc. Vassiliev-Dolobko's law

revised by Dybo (1975) predicts that Old Russian non-clitic word fonns from the enclinomena class give the accent over to a subc1ass of dominant (+ High tone) c1itics. In this case, stress fell on the right edge of the phonological word, i.e. on the last enc1itic in the group. If no enclitics are present, stress fell on the leftmost proclitic in the group.

(la) O.Rus.lu He Ha 603.?IC~ "and not on the carriage THEN" and not on carriage then

(lb) O.Rus.IU He Ha 6031 "AND not on the carriage" and not on carriage

Non-dominant clitics (- High tone) could not take the accent over from enclinomena. In this paper, we are primarily concerned with syntactic criteria of cliticity: we will show that the classes of 'syntactic' and 'prosodic' clitics overlap in Slavic languages. In the European/SAE persjective it has become customary to compare Slavic word order systems with clitic clusters in c1ausal 2° position with Romance-Balcanic word order systems with VP-intemal clitics; Bulgarian and Macedonian, two Slavic idioms whieh developed an adjaceney constraint on the placement of elitics and verbal forms are viewed as an intermediate:stage of syntaetie evolution from 2P clitics to verb-adjacent clitics. In a broader typological perspective this conception is not quite felieitous: there iis both diachronic and synchronie evidence for that BulgarianIMacedonian 2P c1itics attracted the verb to the cofinite positions, but not vice versa. An exact parallel is furnished by Central Philippine languages Tagalog, Cebwano and Bikol which developed a constraint on adjacent position of clitic clusters and verbal forms: #XP-CL-V ~#V-CL, *#XP-[]-CL, *#XP~CI-[]-V. Languages of the Bulgarian/Central Philippine type preserve c1itics that don't leave 2P; these languages lack clitic elimbing from embedded struetures. On the eontrary, languages of the standard 2P type (cf. Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian, Czech, Slovak, Old Novgorod Russian, Pashto, Warlpiri, Hittite) have Barrier Rules that may move 2P clitics/clusters out from clausal 2P: in a case pf special interest, the vacant 2P is filled by moved verbal forms hosting 2P enclitic(s). These languages normally have clitiG climbing, so there seems to be a correlation of clitic climbing, Barrier Rules and Verb-Adjacency.

LITERATURE

Agbayani, Brian & Chris Goiston (2008) 'Second-position is frrst-position: Wackemagel's Law and the role of clausal conjunction'. http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~chrisg.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2002) 'Typological parameters for tJ:1e study of clitics, with special reference to Tariana.' In R.M.W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald (eds.) Word: a cross-linguistic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, pp. 42-78.

Anderson, Stephen P. (1995) 'Toward an Optimal Account of Second-Position Phenomena.' In Dekkers J., F. van der Leeuw & J. van de Weijer (eds.). Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition. Oxford, OUP, pp. 302-333.

Billings L., Konopasky A. (2002) "The role ofmorphology in ordering verb-adjacent clitics: from syntax to prosody in Bulgarian and Tagalog." // Papers from the workshop "Language Change from a Generative Perspective," Thessaloniki, Feb. 2002. Artemis Alexiadou et al., eds. (Linguistics in Potsdam, vol. 19.) Potsdam: Institut fiir Linguistik, Universität Potsdam, pp. 1-26. . Bo~kovi6, Zeljko (2002) 'Clitics as nonbranching elements and the linear correspondence axiom.' Linguistic Inquiry

33.2: 329-40. Cardinaletti, AllDa (1999) 'Pronouns in Gerrnanic and Romance languages: An overview.' In Henk van Riemsdfjk

(ed.) Clitics in the languages 0/Europe. Berlin: MoutOn de Gruyter, pp. 63-82. Cardinaletti, AllDa & Michal Starke (1999) 'The typology of structural deficiency'. In Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.)

Clitics in the languages 0/Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 145-290. EuroClitics (1999). Clitics in the languages 0/ Europe. Eurotyp 20-5. Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.). Mouton de

Gruyter: Berlin- New York. Dybo, Wladimir A. (1975) 'Zakon Yassiljeva-Dolobko v drevn~russkom jazyke na materiale Chudovskogo Zaveta'.

International journal 0/linguistics andpoetics, vol. 1S: 1, 7-81. Franks, Steven (2008) 'Clitic placement, Prosody, and the Bulgarian Yerbal Complex.' Journal 0/ Slavic

Linguistics, 16.1: 91-137. Franks, Steven & Tracy Holloway King (2000) A handbook o/Slavic Clitics. Oxford: OUP. languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.191-207.

Halpern, Aaron. L. (1996) Approaching Second. A.Halpern, A. Zwicky (eck). CSLI Publications. Stanford, Califomia.

Kosta, Peter (2003) "Syntaktische und semantische Besonderheiten von Adverb und Negation im Slavischen (unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Tschechischen, Russischen und Südslavischen)." 11 Zeitschrijt für Slawistik 48. 377-404 Kosta, Peter (2009). Sentential Negation, Adverbs and Pronominal Clitics in Slavic (and some Romance languages) - global vs. local tendencies of language contact!ISLE 42nd Annual Meeting. Lisboa, 9 - 12 September 2009. Global Languages Local Languages. Universidade de Lisboa. Faculdade de Letras. Portugal. Kosta, Feter (2009a). "Targets, Theory and Methods of Slavic Generative Syntax: Minimalism, Negation and Clitics". In: Kempgen, Sebastian 1 Kosta, Peter 1 Berger, Tilman 1 Gutschmidt, Karl (eds.). Die slavischen Sprachen 1 The Slavic Languages._Ein internationales Handbuch zu ihrer Struktur, ihrer Geschichte und ihrer Erforschung 1An International Handbook oftheir Structure, their History anel their Investigation. Berlin, New York: Series: Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 1Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science / [HSK] 32/1. Article 33. Klavans, Judith (1985) 'The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization.' Language. 61: 95-120. Migdalski, Krszystof (2007) 'On the emergence ofthe second position cliticization in Slavic.' In D.Lenertova et alii

(eds.). Formal Description ofSlavic Languages FDSL-7. Leipzig, pp. 69-71. Mushin, Ilana & Jane Sirnpson (2008) 'Free to Bound to Free? Interactions between Pragmatics and Syntax in the

Development of Australian Pronominal Systems.' Language. 84.1: 566-596. Roberts, TayJor (1997) The optimal second position in Pashto. Ms. MIT. Selkirk, Elisabeth (1995). 'The prosodie structure offunction words'. In Jill N. Beckman, L. Walsh Dickey, & S.

Urbanczyk (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18. Amherst: University ofMassachusetts, pp. 439-470.

Werle, Adam (2002) ,Sonority-determined cJitic order'. In Proceedings o[ the WECOL 2002 conference. MIT, Amherst.

Zaliznjak, Andrej A. (2008) Drevnerusskie enklitiki: COld Russian Enclitics'). Moscow: Yazyki slavjanskoj kultury. Zimmerling, Anton W. (2002). Tipologicheskij sintaksis skandinavskihjazykov. (Typological Scandinavian Syntax).

Moscow: Yazyki slavjanskoj kultury. Zimmerling, Anton W. (2008a) 'The Emergence pf 2nd Position Clitics and the Order of Cliticization.' In 3,d

Annual Meeting 0/the Slavic Linguistic Society, SLS 3. Columbus, Ohio, lune 10-12,2008. Zimmerling, Anton W. (2008b) 'Poryadok slov v slavyanskih, germanskih i romaskih yazykah.' (Word order in

Slavic, Gerrnanic and Romance Janguages). Slavo-Germanic studies. 3: 165-239. Zimmerling Anton W. 2009. 'Klitiki v prostranstve drevnerusskogo yazyka.' CClitics in Old Russian dimension'):

Review of ZaJizniak 2009. //Russkij jazyk v nauchnom osvesjchenii. Zwicky Amold M. 1977. On Clitics. Bloomington: Indiana University.