Auxiliary clitics in coordinated subjects AGREE SPLIT REPEAT
Auxiliary clitics in coordinated subjects: AGREE – SPLIT – REPEAT Martina Gračanin-Yuksek Middle East Technical University (joint work with Boban Arsenijević, University of Graz)
Overview of the talk • This talk examines configurations in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (B/C/S) in which: • (i) The tensed verb is an auxiliary clitic, • (ii) The clitic is placed after or inside the first conjunct. 1. [Direktor će i njegov tajnik] zakasniti. manager will and his secretary come-late ‘The manager and his secretary will be late. ’ 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 2
Overview of the talk • We argue that examinations of configurations like (1) with different values of -features on the clitic (PL) and the first conjunct (SG) support a view of agreement on which: • It is not a monolithic phenomenon, but rather involves multiple steps (Franck et al. , 2006), • It is sensitive to the kind of information that reveals it as a syntactic, rather than post-syntactic phenomenon (contra Bobaljik 2006, Arregi & Nevins 2007, Marušič et al. 2007, 2015, among others). 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 3
The puzzle • In B/C/S, weak forms of auxiliary verb biti ‘to be’ are second position clitics. • Clitics can follow either the first phrase (1 P) or the first word (1 W) of the clause. 2. [Moj prijatelj] je kupio novi auto. 1 P my friend aux bought new car ‘My friend bought a new car. ’ 3. [Moj je prijatelj] kupio novi auto. 1 W my aux friend bought new car 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 4
An assumption: Clitic placement mechanism • We assume that the position for the clitic is determined in syntax, by an algorithm in (4), which takes as a starting point the root of the tree and applies arbitrarily many times (Danny Fox, p. c. ). • 4. Right-adjoin the clitic to the left daughter (provided the operation is not string-vacuous). 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 5
Clitic placement mechanism: illustration 5. &P NP D 0 T’ NP AUX. cl my friend T 0 AUX. cl VP. . . 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 6
The puzzle • Interestingly, the 1 W placement is grammatical even when the first phrase is a coordination (Franks 2007, Mitrović 2016; contra Bošković 2001, Diesing & Zec 2017). 6. [Cure će i dečki ] pospremiti sobu. girls will and boys tidy-up room ‘Girls and boys will tidy up the room. ’ 7. [Studenti bi i profesori] sjedili za istim stolom. students would and professors sat at same table ‘Students and professors would sit at the same table. ’ 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 7
The puzzle • However, 1 W placement of a clitic in a sentence with coordinated subject is not always well-formed. • If the form of the clitic does not match the -features of the first subject, the sentence is degraded. 8. a. [Ja i moj muž] ćemo doći u utorak. I and my husband will. 1 pl come in Tuesday ‘Me and my husband will come on Tuesday. ’ b. ? ? [Ja ćemo i moj muž] doći u utorak. I. 1 sg will. 1 pl and my husband come in Tuesday 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 1 P 1 W 8
The puzzle Why does the auxiliary, which has already undergone agreement with the phrase in [Spec TP], seem to care about agreement with its phonological host? 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 9
The analysis: Background Agreement and the position of the subject • Guasti and Rizzi (2002) note that cross-linguistically, agreement with preverbal subjects is more robust and less prone to variation than agreement with postverbal subjects. • They propose that this is because features that are checked in overt syntax are expressed in the morphology, while those that are checked at LF may, but do not have to be expressed morphologically. 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 10
The analysis: Background Agreement and the position of the subject • Guasti and Rizzi take [Spec TP] to be the position where the subject checks the agreement features on T 0. • If the subject makes it to [Spec TP] in overt syntax, agreement must be expressed morphologically. • If the subject remains in some lower position in overt syntax, then the agreement feature on T 0 is checked at LF and the morphological reflex of the operation is not obligatory. 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 11
The analysis: Background Agreement and the position of the subject 9. a. [Le tu’ sorelle] le son venute the your-FEM-PL sisters they are come-FEM-PL ‘Your sisters came. ’ b. Gl’e venuto [le tu’ sorelle] it is come the your-FEM-PL sisters Fiorentino (Examples adapted from Brandi and Cordin 1989) 10. a. [ʔAl-awlaad-u] naamuu. the children slept-3 MASC-PL ‘The children slept. ’ b. Naama [l-ʔawlaad-u]. slept-3 MASC-SG the children Standard Arabic (Examples from Aoun, Benmamoun, and Sportiche 1994) 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 12
The analysis: Background Agree and agreement verification • Building on this observation, Franck et al. (2006: 180 -181) propose that agreement with postverbal subjects (in their analysis, subjects in [Spec v. P]) is different from agreement with preverbal subjects (subjects in [Spec TP]). • Agreement with postverbal subjects involves only Agree, an operation which copies the features of the goal onto the ccommanding probe. • Agreement with preverbal subjects involves an additional verification step, which takes place after the movement of the subject to [Spec TP]: a comparison of the feature values between T 0 and [Spec TP]. 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 13
The analysis: Background Agree and agreement verification 11. Agree 9/12/2017 12. Verification FDSL 12. 5 14
Proposal Agree and verification • We propose that the operation of agreement verification can explain our puzzling clitic-agreement data. • The clitic is originally inserted in T 0, where it enters Agree with the coordinated subject in [Spec v. P] values of -features of &P are copied onto T 0. • After the subject raises to [Spec TP], agreement verification step happens between it and T 0. • Crucially, we argue that this step also happens after the 1 W placement of the clitic: the clitic enters agreement verification with its host. 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 15
Proposal: Agree and verification • Consider (13): The entire &P is 2 pl (since one of the conjuncts is the 2 pl pronoun vi ‘you. pl’) clitic is also 2 pl (the value it acquired from &P via Agree). • Since the first conjunct is 3 pl (djeca ‘children’), 1 W placement is degraded, as snown in (13 b). 13. a. [Djeca i vi ] ćete nastaviti dalje. 1 P children and you. 2 pl will. 2 pl continue further ‘The children and you will go on. ’ b. ? ? [Djeca ćete i vi] nastaviti dalje. 1 W children. 3 pl will. 2 pl and you. 2 pl continue further 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 16
Proposal: Agree and verification • However, if the order of the conjuncts is reversed, as in (14), where the first conjunct is the 2 pl pronoun vi ‘you. pl’, the 1 W placement of the clitic is allowed, as shown in (14 b). 14. a. [Vi i djeca] ćete nastaviti dalje. 1 P you. 2 pl and children will. 2 pl continue further ‘You and the children will go on. ’ b. [Vi ćete i djeca] nastaviti dalje. 1 W you. 2 pl will. 2 pl and children continue further 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 17
Proposal: Agree and verification • The contrast of (14 b) with (13 b) suggest that upon its 1 W placement, the clitic indeed enters another agreementlike relation – this time with its host, in our case, the first conjunct. • The well-formedness of (14 b) shows that the placement of the clitic after the first conjunct of a &P is good when the -features of the first conjunct are identical to the features of the entire &P (the first conjunct is plural and is the same grammatical person as the entire coordinated subject). 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 18
Refinement I: Morphological verification • There is, however, another situation in which the 1 W placement of the clitic yields a well-formed outcome. • This is when the first conjunct is singular, but the form of the clitic required by the entire &P (plural) is syncretic with the form required by the singular first conjunct. 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 19
Refinement I: Morphological verification • This situation is exemplified in (15). • The form of the 3 rd person plural future auxiliary, required by the coordinated subject in (15) is the same as its singular counterpart, required by the first conjunct, as shown in (16). 15. [Sestra i njezin muž] će doći u utorak. [sister and her husband]3 pl will. 3 sg/pl come in Tuesday ‘The sister and her husband will come on Tuesday. ’ 16. Sestra će doći u utorak. sister. 3 sg will. 3 sg/pl come in Tuesday ‘The sister will come on Tuesday. ’ 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 20
Refinement I: Morphological verification • In this case, the 1 W placement is well-formed. 17. [Sestra će i njezin muž] doći u utorak. [sister. 3 sg will. 3 sg/pl and her husband] come in Tuesday ‘The sister and her husband will come on Tuesday. ’ 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 21
Refinement I: Morphological verification • Given that syncretism of morphological forms ameliorates agreement verification violations, it seems that agreement verification does not check whether the values on T 0 are identical with the -values of the first conjunct. • Instead, it seems to check whether the morphological form of the clitic is compatible with the -features of its host MORPHOLOGICAL verification. 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 22
Refinement II: Locus of verification • If this proposal is on the right track, morphological verification is not limited to the phrase occupying [Spec TP] since 1 W position of the auxiliary clitic is arguably not T 0; we speculated that the clitic is right-adjoined to its phonological host (first conjunct). • We propose that T 0 enters morphological verification with the closest phrase that c-commands it (symmetrically or asymmetrically). 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 23
Refinement II: Locus of verification • Finally, if morphological verification is the only verification mechanism in the grammar (if what Franck et al. (2002) call agreement verification is in fact morphological verification), then it is potentially recursive. • T 0 always undergoes morphological verification with the subject phrase in [Spec TP]. • However, if T 0 moves (as is the case with clitics) morphological verification happens every time a new configuration is established. 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 24
An illustration: A case of morphological match • Recall that one case in which 1 W placement of the clitic yields a well-formed sentence is when the ϕ-features of the first conjunct are identical to the ϕ-features of the entire &P. 14. a. [Vi i djeca] ćete nastaviti dalje. 1 P you. 2 pl and children will. 2 pl continue further ‘You and the children will go on. ’ b. [Vi ćete i djeca] nastaviti dalje. 1 W you. 2 pl will. 2 pl and children continue further 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 25
An illustration: A case of morphological match 18. [You. 2 PL will. 2 PL and the children]2 PL come. &P. 2 pl [You. 2 pl MV TP T’ Cl. v. P will and children] will. 2 pl MV Agree &P. 2 pl v’ [you. 2 pl and children] 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 26
An illustration: A case of morphological mismatch • However, when the ϕ-features of the first conjunct (djeca ‘children’ 3 pl), are different from the ϕ-features of the entire &P (2 pl), morphological mismatch obtains, and the 1 W placement is degraded. 13. a. [Djeca i vi ] ćete nastaviti dalje. 1 P children and you. 2 pl will. 2 pl continue further ‘The children and you will go on. ’ b. ? ? [Djeca ćete i vi] nastaviti dalje. 1 W children. 3 pl will. 2 pl and you. 2 pl continue further 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 27
An illustration: A case of morphological mismatch TP 19. ? ? [Children. 3 PL will. 2 PL and you]2 PL come. &P. 2 pl [Children. 3 pl MV and MV T’ Cl. v. P will you] will. 2 pl Agree &P. 2 pl v’ [Children. 3 pl and you] 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 28
An illustration: A case of syncretic match • Finally, if the ϕ-features of the first conjunct (sestra ‘sister’ 3 sg), are different from the ϕ-features of the entire &P (3 pl), but agreement with either yields the same form of the clitic, 1 W placement of the clitic is well-formed. 15. [Sestra i njezin muž] će doći u utorak. [sister and her husband]3 pl will. 3 sg/pl come in Tuesday ‘The sister and her husband will come on Tuesday. ’ 16. [Sestra će i njezin muž] doći u utorak. [sister. 3 sg will. 3 sg/pl and her husband] come in Tuesday ‘The sister and her husband will come on Tuesday. ’ 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 1 P 1 W 29
An illustration: A case of syncretic match 20. [Sister. 3 SG will. 3 SG/PL and her husband]3 PL come. TP &P. 3 pl T’ Cl. will and her husband] will. 3 sg/pl [Sister. 3 sg MV MV Agree v. P &P. 3 pl v’ [sister. 3 sg and her husband] 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 30
Interim summary • We adopt the non-monolithic view of agreement, where Agree (which takes place under c-command) is supplemented by the operation of agreement verification, which takes place between a head and the most local phrase that (a)symmetrically c-commands it (is not restricted to T 0). • Agreement verification is morphological in nature, i. e. , applies late in the derivation, following lexical insertion: • Well-formedness of examples that involve the form of the clitic which is syncretic between the form agreeing with the whole &P and the one agreeing only with the first conjunct. • If morphological verification is the only kind of verification process in the grammar, it is recursive (happens before and after the 1 W placement of the clitic). 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 31
Morphological verification is late: NOM-ACC syncretic objects • Mismatches in morphological verification are sensitive to case: when the &P, and consequently the 1 st conjunct, is non-nominative (hence does not agree with T 0), mismatches do not give rise to degradation, as shown in (21) a. [Sestru ćemo i njenog muža] posjetiti u utorak. sister. ACC. 3 SG will. 1 PL and her. ACC husband. ACC visit in Tuesday ‘(We) will visit the sister and her husband on Tuesday. ’ b. [Poznatog su glumca i njegovu ženu] vidjeli u Beču. famous. ACC. 3 SG aux. 3 PL actor. ACC and his. ACC wife. ACC seen in Vienna ‘(They) saw the famous actor and his wife in Vienna. ’ 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 32
Morphological verification is late: NOM-ACC syncretic objects • However, when the coordinated object phrase (and therefore, the first conjunct) looks like nominative (due to the NOM-ACC syncretism), the degradation of 1 W placement of the clitic reemerges. (22) a. [? ? Dijete ste i djevojče] razočarali. child. ACC/NOM. 3 SG aux. 2 PL and girl. ACC/NOM disappointed. ‘(You. pl) disappointed the child and the young girl. ’ b. [? ? Tele su i štene prodali. ] calf. ACC/NOM. 3 SG aux. 3 PL and puppy. ACC/NOM sold ‘(They) sold the calf and the puppy. ’ • The contrast between (21) – unequivocal ACC of the &P – and (22) – ACC syncretic with NOM – lends support to the claim that the verification process is late, i. e. , that it applies after lexical insertion. 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 33
Morphological verification is late: DP-internal agreement • Another piece of evidence for the late application of MV comes from 1 W placement of clitics when the first conjunct is syntactically complex and contains pre-nominal elements that agree with the noun. 23. [Mlađa sestra i ti] ćete doći kasnije. [younger. FEM. 3 SG sister. FEM. 3 SG and you will. 2 PL come later ‘My sister and you will come later. ’ 24. ? ? [Mlađa ćete sestra i ti] doći kasnije. [younger. FEM. 3 SG will. 2 PL sister. FEM. 3 SG and you come later 1 P 1 W • The degradation of (24) shows that MV follows DP-internal agreement processes, i. e. , that it happens relatively late in the derivation. 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 34
Morphological verification is late: Wrap up • MV must apply late in the derivation (following lexical insertion) because it is sensitive to the morphological forms: • Syncretic forms of clitics save the sentence, • Fronted objects that are syncretic between accusative and nominative degrade the sentence, • DP-internal agreement operations precede MV. 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 35
Morphological verification is not restricted to T 0: Long-distance moved complex subjects • So far, we have observed effects of MV only in 1 W placement of clitics in coordinated subjects. • We proposed that MV is recursive, i. e. , applies every time the exponent of T 0 (in our case the clitic) finds itself in a configuration where a potential MV target (a)symmetrically ccommands it (regardless of whether the clitic is in T 0 and whether the target of MV is in [Spec TP] or not). • These configurations may arise: • If something moves into [Spec TP] (subject, from [Spec v. P], • If the clitic moves and adjoins to a different node (the first conjunct in &P). 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 36
Morphological verification is not restricted to T 0: Long-distance moved complex subjects • We are next going to show that the target of MV may be a wh-phrase in [Spec CP] (with the clitic right-adjoined to it) – a configuration in which both the target of agreement (the wh-phrase) and the clitic moved. 25. a. ? /? ? Koja studenticak ćete navijati da tk pobijedi? which. FEM. 3 SG student. FEM. 3 SG will. 2 PL cheer that wins ‘Which student(fem) will you cheer to win? ’ b. ? /? ? Koja ćete studenticak navijati da tk pobijedi? which. FEM. 3 SG will. 2 PL student. FEM. 3 SG cheer that wins 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 37
Morphological verification is not restricted to T 0: Long-distance moved complex subjects • The fact that (25) is worse than (26) below, where the clitic and the embedded wh-moved subject share ϕ-features, suggests that the degradation of (25) is due to MV, which happens between [Spec CP] and the clitic (either in C 0 or adjoined to the host). 26. a. Koja studenticak je želio da tk pobijedi? which. FEM. 3 SG student. FEM. 3 SG aux. 3 SG want that win ‘Which student(fem) did he want to win? ’ b. Koja je studenticak želio da tk pobijedi? which. FEM. 3 SG aux. 3 SG student. FEM. 3 SG want that win • This argues that MV is not restricted to T 0 – [Spec TP] configuration. 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 38
Morphological verification is early (precedes linearization/Spellout) • Although MV must follow DP-internal agreement and lexical insertion, MV must precede Spellout: • MV is contingent on the accessibility of the values of ϕ-features on the first conjunct and the clitic either syntax or LF, not PF. • MV is sensitive to structural information, in particular headhood. • Consider (27): here, the first conjunct is itself complex – it contains a post-nominal modifier, whose last word vrazi (‘devils’) bears nominative case. 27. [Učitelj stroži nego svi vrazi i direktor] su 1 P [teacher. 3 SG stricter than all devils. NOM. 3 PL and principal aux. 3 PL izbacili dva studenta. expelled two students ‘The teacher harsher than all devils and the principal expelled two pupils. ’ 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 39
Morphological verification is early (precedes linearization/Spellout) • In a situation like this, the clitic can be placed in three possible places: i. ii. After the whole &P (28 a), After the head noun + its modifier učitelj stroži nego svi vrazi ‘teacher stricter than all devils’ (28 b) iii. After the head noun učitelj ‘teacher’ (28 c). 28. a. [&P [NPteacher] [stricter than all devils]] and [NPdirector]] CLITIC [VP] b. [&P [NPteacher] [stricter than all devils]] CLITIC and [NPdirector]] [VP] c. [&P [NPteacher] CLITIC [stricter than all devils]] and [NPdirector]] [VP] • Recall our recursive clitic-placement mechanism: • 4. Right-adjoin the clitic to the left daughter. 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 40
Clitic placement mechanism applied to (27)/(28) 29. &P &P NP AUX. cl T’ &’ NP teacher 9/12/2017 AUX. cl Adj. P NP stricter than all devils and FDSL 12. 5 principal VP T 0 . . . AUX. cl 41
Morphological verification is early (precedes linearization/Spellout) • Any placement of the clitic inside the &P (after the first conjunct and inside the first conjunct) is bad. 30. ? ? [Učitelj su stroži nego svi vrazi i direktor] [teacher. 3 SG aux. 3 PL stricter than all devils. NOM. 3 PL and principal izbacili dva studenta. expelled two students ‘The teacher harsher than all devils and the principal expelled two pupils. ’ • In (30), the third person plural clitic is immediately adjacent to a nominative-marked NP, which is third person singular, so the sentence is degraded due to the morphological verification failure. 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 42
Morphological verification is early (precedes linearization/Spellout) • However, relevant for our purposes is the placement in (31). 31. ? ? [Učitelj stroži nego svi vrazi su i direktor] [teacher. 3 SG stricter than all devils. NOM. 3 PL aux. 3 PL and principal izbacili dva studenta. expelled two students ‘The teacher harsher than all devils and the principal expelled two pupils. ’ • Here, the third person plural clitic is immediately adjacent to a nominative-marked NP which is third person plural the -feature values of the clitic match the feature values of this NP, but the sentence is still degraded. • This suggests that the clash arises not between the clitic and the NP which it immediately follows, but rather between the clitic and the head of the first conjunct structural information must still be present at the time of MV. 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 43
Implications • Assuming that structural information is lost after Spellout applies, the illformedness of (31) suggests that MV happens before Spellout. • Given that MV happens before Spellout, but after subject-verb agreement, it follows that subject-verb agreement (Agree) also happens before Spellout, i. e. , is a syntactic operation (contra Bobaljik 2006, Arregi & Nevins 2007, Marušič et al. 2007, 2015, among others). • Similarly, if our analysis of the facts is correct, it argues that clitic placement happens after Agree (and lexical insertion? ), but before Spellout clitic placement is also syntactic (contra Radanović-Kocić 1988, 1993; Hock 1992, 1993; Zec and Inkelas 1990, among others). 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 44
Conclusions • Clitics in B/C/S enter an agreement-like relation with their hosts, when the host is in the nominative case. • This relation targets morphological forms, not features, and takes place after prototypical agreement and lexical insertion – Morphological verification. • MV takes place before Spellout Agree and clitic placement are also syntactic, pre-Spellout operations. • MV is recursive and not restricted to T 0 -[Spec TP] relation. 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 45
THANK YOU! 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 46
References • Arregi, Karlos, & Andrew Nevins. (2013). Contextual neutralization and the Elsewhere Principle. In Distributed Morphology today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, ed. O. Matushansky et al. , 199– 222. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. • Bobaljik, Jonathan David. (2006). Where’s phi? Agreement as a Post-syntactic operation. Leiden Papers in Linguistics, 3(2): 1– 23. • Bošković, Ž. (2001). On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. • Diesing, M. & D. Zec. (2017). Getting in the first word: Prosody and predicate initial sentences in Serbian. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2(1): 24. 1– 25. • Franck, J. , Lassi, G. , Frauenfelder, U. , & Rizzi, L. (2006). Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition, 101, 173 -216. • Franks, S. (2007) Deriving discontinuity. In Studies in Formal Slavic Linguistics, Franc Marušič and Rok Žaucer (eds), 103 -120. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. • Guasti, M T. , & Rizzi, L. (2002). Agreement and tense as distinct syntactic positions. Evidence from acquisition. In G. Cinque (ed. ), The structure of DP and IP—the cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press. • Hock, H. H. (1992). What’s a nice word like you doing in a place like this? Syntax vs. phonological form. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 22(1), 39– 87. 47
• Hock, H. H. (1993). Who’s on first? Syntactic vs. prosodic accounts for the P 1 of P 2 clitics. Ms. , University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. • Marušič, Franc, Andrew Nevins & Amanda Saksida. (2007). Last-conjunct agreement in Slovenian. In Richard Compton, Magdalena Goledzinowska & Ulyana Savchenko (eds. ), Proceedings of formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 2006, 210– 227. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. • Marušič, Franc, Andrew Nevins & William Badecker. (2015). The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax 18(1). 39– 77. • Mitrović, M. (2016) Rethinking second-position effects. Ms. Bled Institute. • Radanović-Kocić, V. (1988). The grammar of Serbo-Croatian clitics: A synchronic and diachronic perspective. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. • Radanović-Kocić, V. (1993). On the placement of Serbo-Croatian clitics. Ms. , University of Illinois. Paper presented at the workshop on second-position clitics, Ohio State University. • Zec, Draga & Sharon Inkelas (1990). Prosodically constrained syntax. In Sharon Inkelas & Draga Zec (Eds. ), The phonology-syntax connection, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 365– 378. 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 48
Informal online survey 1. Tvoj bi se brat i Toma Nikolić za dva minuta posvađali oko stranačkih funkcija. your. 3 sg would. 3 sg/pl REFL brother and T. N. in two minutes fight about party positions. 41/41 2. Zelena su se bluza i žuti broš slagali kao da su napravljeni jedno za drugo. 35/41 green. 3 sg/3 pl aux. 3 pl REFL blouse and yellow brooch agreed like that are made one for another. 3. Lovac će se i njegov pas osećati najsvežije uz našu mineralnu vodu sa ukusom jelena. hunter. 3 sg will. 3 sg/pl and his dog feel most-fresh with our mineral water with flavor of deer 20/41 4. Moja sestra su se i njen verenik venčali tajno u scientološkoj crkvi u Bosilegradu. my sister. 3 sg aux. 3 pl REFL and her fiancé married secretly in scientological church in B. 1/41 9/12/2017 FDSL 12. 5 49
- Slides: 49