Possessor Raising and Slavic Possessive Clitics Anton Zimmerling

Possessor Raising and Slavic Possessive Clitics Anton Zimmerling (MGGU/RGGU) meinmat@yahoo. com http: //antonzimmerling. wordpress. com//

SUMMARY The paper discusses syntactic features of Slavic possessive clitics and Slavic constructions with the so called ‘Possessor Raising’. I am proving that only a minority of Slavic languages have true phrase -level (NP-level or DP-level) possessive clitics and arguing against a generalized syntactic account of all Slavic constructions with Possessor Raising. In descriptive terms the term ‘Possessor Raising’ refers to a quasisynonymic semantic transformation when a phrase-level possessive operator located in an NP/DP and expressed by a clitic/free pronoun/NP is arranged as an argument of the clausal predicate. I am arguing that a different location of a possessive operator may both change syntactic structure or preserve it depending on the value morphosyntactic parameters assume in a given language. 2

Possessor Raising and Possessive Shift Possessor Raising is a operation preserving syntactic structure: it shown different stages of syntactic derivation of one and the same sentence. Possessive Shift = alternation of different syntactic structures. 3

Type A languages: Phrase-level possessive operators and clause-level possessive operators are marked with different morphological cases. E. g. Russian phrase-level possessives are genitives while Russian clause-level possessives are datives, cf. 1) Rus. Ona ne [NP doch’ Petrova Gen/ego Gen doch’] ‘She is not Petrov’s daughter/his daughter’ ~ 2) Ona emu-Dat ne docj/ Petrovu-Dat ne doch’’ For this group of languages the analysis in terms of PR does not make much sense. 4

Type B languages Possessor Shift is bound to the use of pronominal clitics which are marked by the same overt case (dative) both on the phrase-level and on the clause-level. For this group of languages, a Raising analysis of clausal possessive forms remains possible. In Modern Serbo-Croatian, dative possessives in clausal 2 P are marginally acceptable, cf. Pennington (2010), but phrase-level dative possessives in SC are ungrammatical. 5

Type C languages Modern Bulgarian and Macedonian both have DP -level dative clitics – cf. Mišeska Tomić (2004), Franks, Junghanns & Law (2005) and mechanisms allowing for extracting dative clitics out of DP and placing them in clausal-second position (2 P) – a position typically hosting Slavic argument and reflexive pronominal clitics, cf. Dimitrova. Vulchanova (1999), Franks & King (2008), Zimmerling (2008), Kosta & Zimmerling (2011) 6

Problems and solutions The two oldest Slavic idioms – Old Church Slavonic (OCS) and Old Northern Russian (ONR) – exemplify two extremes: ONR completely lacked dative possessives, while in OCS they were common both in clausal 2 P and on the phrase-level. Following Kosta & Zimmerling (2011) I am claiming that the majority of Slavic languages only have clauselevel possessives and pattern them with argument dative clitics. 7

Quasipossesivity: the form Two metalinguistic uses. 2 a. A possessive construction is used for expressing different meanings. [Селиверстова 1990], [Циммерлинг 2000]. Cf. У меня есть карта и У меня есть подозрение, что P. O. Icel. mér er ván cf. Rus. “у меня (букв. мне) есть надежда”; *mér er húsit intended: “I have a house”. O. Icel. ég hefi ván lit. «I have (a) hope» ; ég hefi húsit lit. «I have a house» . 9

Quasipossessivity: the semantics 2 b. Possessive and non-possessive relations between some predicate arguments are expressed simultaneously. 2 b 1. On the semantic level, cf. [Грамматика 1980]. Rus. У нее деньги в банке. (Locative Relation + Possessive Relation). Rus. У Ивана в сарае радиостанция смонтирована (Locative Relation + Possessive Relation + Agentive Relation, cf. е – ср. Rus. Иван смонтировал радиостанцию в сарае). У меня в квартире пол не метен (Locative Relation + Agentive Relation). 10

Applicative morphemes Hungarian: an applicative auxiliary element is added [Szabolcsi 1983, Szabolcsi 1994] Mari-nak a kalap-ja-i “Mary’s hats”, Cf. Rus. “Машины шляпы» , «шляпы Маши» М. – Dat. the hat-Poss. 3 Mari-nak van-nak kalap-ja-i “Mary has some hats”, Cf. Rus. «У Маши есть шляпы» . М. – Dat. Be-3 Pl. hat-Poss. 3 12

Case Marking on the Possessor Corean: [Doo-Won Lee 2004: 239] а. [DPKim kyoswu kacok] -i «Professor Kim’s family» K. professor family –Nom b. [DP Kim kyoswu ton]- i «Professor Kim’s money» K. money - Nom c. Kim kyoswu-ka/eykye kacok-i iss-ta «Professor Kim has a family» K. professor-Nom/Dat family-Nom exist-Dec d. *[DPKim kyoswu kacok] –i iss-ta f. Kim kyoswu-ka/eykye ton-I iss-ta. money» g. *[DPKim kyoswu toni] –i iss-ta «Professor Kim has 13

Slavic Languages Pronominal clitics [Franks & King 2000], [Зализняк 2008]. Pronominal Dative clitics have non-trivial properties – they can be used both on the NP/DP-level and on the clause-clevel and express the Possessive Relation. NP/DP-level Posssesive Clitics are attested in Bulgarian and Macedonian [Franks, Junghanns, Law 2005]. Raising of phraselevel Possessive clitics and lowering of clause-level Possessive clitics are blocked or hampered [Pennington 2010] затруднен [Kosta, Zimmerling 2011]. Two possible analyses of Bulgarian Possessive clitics – Possessive Raising is possible [Schürсks, Wunderlich 2004]. – Possessive Raising is only possible in some constructions expressing alienable possession [Cinque & Krapova 2011]. 14

Russian: No Possessor Raising NP-level Russian non-agreeing possessive determiners are marked with Genitive, clause-level Russian non-agreeing possessive determiner are marked with Dative. In this situation, Possessive Raising cannot be analyzed as on operation preserving syntactic structure. Rus. Oна не [NP дочь Петрова-Gen/его-Gen дочь] ~ Она не дочь Петрову Dat. /ему-Dat не дочь. “She is not Petrova’s daughter” Russian lacks NP/DP-level possessive determiners in the Dative Case. а. Я себе I не враг. b. *Я встретил врага себе. I met REFL. DAT. not enemy REFL. DAT 15

Old Russian had both clause-level possessive clitics (merged in 2 P according to Wackernagel’s law, normally - after the first phonetic word), and NP-level possessive clitics attached to nominal heads. а. O. Rus. что воздамъ=ти. PP противоу [NP благодѣянию=ти]? (Ипат. [1199], л. 244). What render. PRS. 1 SG you. DAT. 2 SG. for benefaction you. DAT. 2 SG. b. брата=ти Романа Богъ поялъ (Ипат. [1180], л. 217). Brother. ACC. SG. you. DAT. 2 SG. Roman. ACC. SG. God took. PRF. 3 SG. M. “God took your brother Roman from you”, cf. Rus. ‘Бог взял у тебя (твоего) брата Романа’ OR ‘Бог взят твоего брата Романа (у тебя)’. 16

Bulgarian Alienable possession а. Тя намери=ли [DP ужасни-те=си грешки]? She found. PST 3. SG. Q horrible-the REFL. DAT. mistakes «Did she find her terrible mistakes? » b. Тя намери=ли=си [DP ужасни-те ___грешкиi]? She found. PST 3. SG. Q REFL. DAT. horrible-the mistakes 17

Bulgarian Inalienable possession (c) Той =ми =се изкряска [PP в [DP ухото ]] he me. DAT. SG. REFL. ACC shouted. PST. 3 SG. in ear. the ‘He shouted in my ear’. (d) Той=се изкряска [PP в [DP ухото=ми ]] ‘the same’ In (c) the clitic =ми is an argument of the main clausal predicate. It has the meaning of the Benefactor/Malefactor, in (d) the clitic =ми is a DPlevel element, the DP being part of a PP. 18

Bulgarian No extraction out of PPs seems to be possible. е. *Аз=и мисля [PP -за [DP oчите __]] I her. DAT. 3 SG. F. think. PRS. 1 SG. for eyes. the intended: ‘I am thinking of her eyes’. Consequently, in examples like (c), we do not have any extraction either: the possessive clitic is basegenerated in the main clause. c. Той =ми =се изкряска [PP в [DP ухото ]] 19

Conclusions Is there Possessor Raising in Russian? No, unless one postulates a special syntactic conception it order to find it. Is there Possessor Raising in UG? Yes, in some Cases Possessor Raising is possible as a purely syntactic operation, in other cases it pertains to semantics and one must postulate a synonymy of different possessive (or quasi -possessive constructions). For this case we reserve the notion Possessor Shift. Universal semantic relations correspond to similar but not identical syntactic patterns. . 20

Acknowledgments The paper is prepared with financial support of the Russian Foundation for the Humanities (RGNF), project 11 -04 -00282 a “Typology of morphosyntactic parameters”. 21

REFERENCES (3) Cinque, Guglielmo and Ilyana Krapova. (2011) “The Case for Genitive Case in Bulgarian”. Lilia Schürcks, Urtzi Etxeberria, Anastasia Giannakidou and Peter Kosta (eds. ) The Structure of NP and Beyond (Studies in Generative Grammar). Berlin, London: de Gruyter (to appear). Don-Won Lee. Possessor-Raising in Existential Constructions. In: Studies in Generative Grammar, Vol. 14, No. 2, (2004), 235 -242. Szabolcsi, Anna. The Possessor that Ran away from Home. The Linguistic Review 3: 89 -102 (1983). Baker, Mark. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1988. Den Dikken, Marcel. Predicate Inversion in DP. In: Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, ed. Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder 177 -214. Amsterdam-Philhadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998. 24

REFERENCES (4) Lilia Schűrcks & Dieter Wunderlich. (2003). “Determiner. Possessor Relation in the Bulgarian DP”. Martine Coene & Yves D'hulst (eds. ) From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases. Amsterdam: Benjamins 2003, 121 -139. Franks, Steven, Uwe Junghanns and Paul Law. (2005) “Pronominal Clitics in Slavic”. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 12 (2004) 1 -2, 3 -36. Franks, Steven & Tracy King. (2000) A handbook of Slavic clitics. New York: Oxford University Press. Mišeska Tomić, Olga. (2004) “The South Slavic Pronominal Clitics”. Journal of Slavic linguistics, 12 (1 -2): 213 -48, 2004. 25

REFERENCES (5) Kosta, Peter & Anton Zimmerling. (2011). Slavic Clitic Systems in a Typological Perspective. Lilia Schürcks, Urtzi Etxeberria, Anastasia Giannakidou and Peter Kosta (eds. ) The Structure of NP and Beyond (Studies in Generative Grammar). Berlin, London: de Gruyter (to appear ). Pennington, James J. (2010). Kombinovanje objekta adnominalnog posesivnog dativa s dopunama glagola u jednoj klauzi u bosansko hrvatsko srpsko crnogorskom. University of Ohio. Ms. 26