Abstract
This paper develops a theory of Bulgarian sentence and verb complex structure based on lexicalist minimalist assumptions, Bierwisch’s theory of Verb Cluster Formation (VCF), and the Two-level Theory of Meaning which distinguishes grammatically determined meaning from extralinguistically determined meaning. It is argued that both ще and да are modal particles marking specific types of verbal mood. They are connected with the verb in a zone between morphology (lexicon) and syntax, namely through the process of VCF. This also holds for the clitic auxiliaries within perfect tense formation. Furthermore, the Complementizer Phrase (CP) is assumed to be the place where existential quantification of the predicate’s event variable is marked in syntax (going hand in hand with existential presupposition). Да-expressions are analyzed as Modal Phrases (ModPs) lacking a CP layer, from which it can be concluded that there is no existential presupposition. It is assumed that the latter takes place only on the level of Conceptual Structure due to extragrammatical factors such as the speaker’s world knowledge. This approach can explain the interpretational differences between че-sentences and да-expressions. Also, a lexicalist way of accounting for the different selectional properties of matrix predicates is presented.
Аннотация
В данной статье предлагается теория о структуре предложения и глагольного кластера в болгарском языке. Используются минималистские предположения, лексикализм, теория формирования глагольного комплекса, разработанная лингвистом Bierwisch, а также ‘теория двух уровней значения’, отличающая грамматически определенное значение от значения, определенного внеязыковыми факторами. Предпологается, что ще и да являются специфическими реализациями глагольного наклонения, т.е. модальными частицами. Они сочетаются с глаголом между морфологией и синтаксисом, а именно в результате формирования глагольного комплекса. Таким же образом сочетаются и клитические вспомогательные глаголы с глаголом, из чего возникает минало неопределено време (‘перфект’). Предполагается, что проекция комплементайзера (CP) является местом, где реализуется экзистенциальная квантификация переменной события данного предиката (предположение о существовании выражаемой пропозиции). С синтактической точки зрения видно, что дa-конструкции—модальные фразы (ModPs), у которых нет проекции CP. Из этого следует, что невозможно предположение о существовании (existential presupposition). Последнее может происходить только на уровне семантической репрезентации, называемой ‘концептуальной структурой’, т.е. в зависимости от внеязыковых факторов. Данный подход способен объяснить интерпретативные различия между че-предложениями и да-конструкциями. Предлагается также формальное описание трех видов предикатов с вариантами использования че-предложения и (или) да-конструкции.
Article PDF
References
Andrejčin, L. (1944). Osnovna bălgarska gramatika. Sofija.
Bernštejn, S. B. (1961). Očerk sravnitel’noj grammatiki slavjanskix jazykov. Moskva.
Bierwisch, M. (1983). Semantische und konzeptuelle Repräsentationen lexikalischer Einheiten. In R. Růžička & W. Motsch (Eds.), Untersuchungen zur Semantik (Studia grammatica, 22) (pp. 61–99). Berlin.
Bierwisch, M. (1987). Semantik der Graduierung. In M. Bierwisch & E. Lang (Eds.), Grammatische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven (Studia grammatica, 26, 27) (pp. 91–286). Berlin.
Bierwisch, M. (1990). Verb cluster formation as a morphological process. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology. Volume 3 (pp. 173–199). Dordrecht.
Bierwisch, M. (1996). Lexikon und Universalgrammatik. In N. Weber (Ed.), Semantik, Lexikographie und Computeranwendungen (Sprache und Information, 33) (pp. 129–165). Tübingen.
Bierwisch, M. (1997). Lexical information from a minimalist point of view. In C. Wilder, H.-M. Gärtner & M. Bierwisch (Eds.), The role of economy principles in linguistic theory (Studia grammatica, 40) (pp. 227–266). Berlin.
Bierwisch, M. (2006). Thematic roles—universal, particular, and idiosyncratic aspects. In I. Bornkessel et al. (Eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking. Theoretical, typological, and psycholinguistic perspectives (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 165) (pp. 89–126). Berlin, New York.
Bierwisch, M. (2007). Semantic form as interface. In A. Späth (Ed.), Interfaces and interface conditions (Language, Context, and Cognition, 6) (pp. 1–32). Berlin, New York.
Bierwisch, M., & Lang, E. (Eds.) (1987). Grammatische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven (Studia grammatica, 26, 27). Berlin.
Bošković, Ž. (2000). Second position cliticisation: syntax and/or phonology? In F. Beukema & M. den Dikken (Eds.), Clitic phenomena in European languages (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 30), (pp. 71–119). Amsterdam.
Bošković, Ž. (2001). On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface. Cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam.
Busch, U. (1960). Die Seinssätze in der russischen Sprache. Meisenheim.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program (Current Studies in Linguistics, 28). Cambridge.
Chvany, C. V. (1975). On the syntax of BE-sentences in Russian. Cambridge.
Davidson, D. (1980[1969]). The individuation of events. In Essays on actions and events (pp. 163–180). Oxford.
Dippong, H. (1996). Да-Konstruktionen im Bulgarischen. Ein Überblick. In F. Schindler (Ed.), Linguistische Beiträge zur Slavistik aus Deutschland und Österreich. IV. JungslavistInnen-Treffen. Frankfurt am Main 1995 (Specimina philologiae slavicae. Supplementband, 51) (pp. 47–62). München.
Dölling, J. (1997). Semantic form and abductive fixation of parameters. In R. van der Sandt, R. Blutner & M. Bierwisch (Eds.), From underspecification to interpretation. Working papers of the Institute of Logic and Linguistics (pp. 113–138). Heidelberg.
Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2001). Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(4), 555–595.
Genadieva-Mutafčieva, Z. (1962). Za edna ot dopălnitelnite funkcii na săjuzite da i če v săvremennija bălgarski ezik. Izvestija na Instituta za bălgarski ezik, 8, 483–492.
Genadieva-Mutafčieva, Z. (1972). Edin vid văprositelni izrečenija v săvremennija bălgarski ezik, sădăržašti modalnata častica da. Bălgarski ezik, 22(5), 415–422.
Genadieva-Mutafčieva, Z. (1976). Modalnata častica da v săvremennija bălgarski ezik. Bălgarski ezik, 26(4), 311–322.
Gołąb, Z. (1954). Funkcja syntaktyczna partykuły da w językach pd.-słowiańskich. Biuletyn Polskiego towarzystwa językoznawczego, 13, 67–92.
Gołąb, Z. (1964). Conditionalis typu bałkańskiego w językach południowosłowiańskich (ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem macedońskiego). Wrocław.
Halpern, A. (1995). On the placement and morphology of clitics. Stanford.
Hauge, K. R. (1999). A short grammar of contemporary Bulgarian. Bloomington.
Ivić, M. (1970). O upotrebi glagolskih vremena u zavisnoj rečenici: prezent u rečenici s veznikom da. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku, 13(1), 43–53.
Janakiev, M. (1962). Za gramemite, naričani v bălgarskata gramatika «segašno vreme» i «bădešte vreme». Izvestija na Instituta za bălgarski ezik, 8, 419–432.
Junghanns, U. (1996). Prädikate, Tempus und semantische Amalgamierung. In F. Schindler (Ed.), Linguistische Beiträge zur Slavistik aus Deutschland und Österreich. IV. JungslavistInnen-Treffen. Frankfurt am Main 1995 (Specimina philologiae slavicae. Supplementband, 51) (pp. 125–140). München.
Junghanns, U. (2002). Untersuchungen zur Syntax und Informationsstruktur slavischer Deklarativsätze. Leipzig.
Junghanns, U. (2008). Argument structure and syntax. In S. Kempgen et al. (Eds.), Deutsche Beiträge zum 14. Internationalen Slavistenkongress Ohrid 2008 (Die Welt der Slaven. Sammelbände, 32) (pp. 171–182). München.
Junghanns, U., & Lenertová, D. (2008). Ditransitive Verben – ein Problemfall im Bulgarischen? Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 53(2), 143–159.
Junghanns, U., & Lenertová, D. (2010). A case of linguistic change: infinitives as predicatives. In P. Karlík (Ed.), Development of language through the lens of formal linguistics (Lincom Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, 43) (pp. 87–103). München.
Junghanns, U., & Zybatow, G. (1997). Syntax and information structure of Russian clauses. In W. Browne et al. (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-4). The Cornell meeting 1995 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 39) (pp. 289–319). Ann Arbor.
Kagan, O. (2007a). A modal analysis of genitive case in Russian. In P. Kosta & L. Schürcks (Eds.), Linguistic investigations into Formal Description of Slavic Languages. Contributions of the sixth European conference held at Potsdam University, November 30–December 02, 2005 (pp. 217–226). Frankfurt.
Kagan, O. (2007b). Genitive case: a modal account. http://linguistics.huji.ac.il/IATL/21/Kagan.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2010.
Kagan, O. (2010). Genitive objects, existence and individuation. Russian Linguistics, 34(1), 17–39.
Katz, G. (2001). (A)temporal complements. In C. Féry & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Audiatur vox sapientiae. A festschrift for Arnim von Stechow (Studia grammatica, 52) (pp. 240–258). Berlin.
Kaiser, G. (1992). Die klitischen Personalpronomina im Französischen und Portugiesischen. Eine synchronische und diachronische Analyse (Editionen der Iberoamericana. Reihe III: Monographien und Aufsätze, 44). Frankfurt.
Kiparsky, P., & Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. In M. Bierwisch & K. E. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in linguistics. A collection of papers (pp. 143–173). The Hague, Paris.
Kramer, C. E. (1985). DA in syntactically dependent constructions in the Macedonian literary language. In H. I. Aronson (Ed.), Da, na, să, të, te: constructions with subordinating complementizers in the Balkans (Folia slavica, 7(3)) (pp. 412–418). Columbus.
Kramer, C. E. (1986). Analytic modality in Macedonian (Slavistische Beiträge, 198). München.
Kramer, C. E. (1992). Analytic modality in Balkan Slavic. Indiana Slavic Studies, 6, 113–122 (Balkanistica, 8).
Krapova, I. (1997). On control in Bulgarian. In U. Junghanns & G. Zybatow (Eds.), Formale Slavistik (Leipziger Schriften zur Kultur-, Literatur-, Sprach- und Übersetzungswissenschaft, 7) (pp. 93–106). Frankfurt/Main.
Krapova, I. (1998). Subjunctive complements, null subjects and case checking in Bulgarian. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 8(2), 73–93.
Krapova, I. (2001). Subjunctives in Bulgarian and Modern Greek. In M. L. Rivero & A. Ralli (Eds.), Comparative syntax of Balkan languages (pp. 105–126). Oxford.
Krăstev, V. (2005). Gramatika za vsički. Populjarno opisanie na bălgarskija ezik. Sofija.
Kuryłowicz, J. (1956). L’apophonie en indo-européen (Prace jezykoznawcze, 9). Wrocław.
Lang, E. (1987). Semantik der Dimensionsauszeichnung räumlicher Objekte. In M. Bierwisch & E. Lang (Eds.), Grammatische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven (Studia grammatica, 26, 27) (pp. 287–458). Berlin.
Lempp, A. (1980). Model za opisvane na strukturata na săstavnoto glagolno skazuemo s DA v săvremennija bălgarski ezik. Bălgarski ezik, 30, 512–519.
Lempp, A. (1981a). Neubulg. „Da“ in verbalen Kontexten. Versuch einer Systematisierung. In W. Gesemann et al. (Ed.), 1300 Jahre Bulgarien. Studien zum 1. Internationalen Bulgaristik-Kongreß, Sofia 1981 (Bulgarische Sammlung, 2) (pp. 271–279). Neuried.
Lempp, A. (1981b). Das zusammengesetzte Verbalprädikat mit ,da‘ im Neubulgarischen (Slavistische Beiträge, 141). München.
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge.
Maienborn, C. (1997). On the meaning of sentence modifiers: semantic indeterminacy and its grammatically induced specification. In R. van der Sandt, R. Blutner & M. Bierwisch (Eds.), From underspecification to interpretation. Working papers of the Institute of Logic and Linguistics (pp. 183–201). Heidelberg.
Maienborn, C. (2003). Die logische Form von Kopula-Sätzen (Studia grammatica, 56). Berlin.
Maslov, Ju. S. (1955). K voprosu o sisteme form pereskazyvatel’nogo naklonenija. In M. Dimitrov (Ed.), Sbornik v čest na akademik Aleksandăr Teodorov-Balan po slučaj devetdeset i petata mu godišnina (pp. 311–318). Sofija.
Minčeva, A. (1968). Kăm proučvaneto na da-izrečenijata v južnoslavjanskite ezici. Bălgarski ezik, 18, 195–202.
Mladenov, S. (1929). Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache (Grundriß der slavischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte, 6). Berlin, Leipzig.
Nicolova, R. (1986). Bălgarskite mestoimenija. Sofija.
Pašov, P. (1994). Praktičeska bălgarska gramatika. Sofija.
Petkov, P. (1962). Da + glagolna forma. Izrazjavane na trudno osăštestvimi ili neosăštestvimi želanija. Bălgarski ezik, 12, 181–186.
Popov, K. (1963a). Po văprosa za «bălgarskija konjunktiv». Ezik i literatura, 18(5), 100–106.
Popov, K. (1963b). Istoričeski proizxod i upotreba na edin tip podčineni izrečenija v bălgarski ezik. In I. Lekov et al. (Eds.), Slavistični studii. Sbornik po slučaj 5 meždunaroden slavističen kongres v Sofija (pp. 105–119). Sofija.
Rivero, M. L. (1991). Long head movement and negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak and Czech. The Linguistic Review, 8(2–4), 319–351.
Rivero, M. L. (1994). Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12(1), 63–120.
Rudin, C. (1986). Aspects of Bulgarian syntax: complementizers and WH constructions. Columbus.
Scatton, E. A. (1984). A reference grammar of modern Bulgarian. Columbus.
Schick, I. P. (1970). Zur Frage der ‘da-Konstruktionen’ in der modernen bulgarischen Literatursprache. Leipzig.
Schick, I. P. (1972). Studien zum Wesen der ‘da’-Konstruktionen in der bulgarischen Literatursprache. Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 17, 694–714.
Seliščev, A. M. (1952). Staroslavjanskij jazyk. Čast’ 2: Teksty. Slovar’. Očerki morfologii. Moskva.
Siegel, L. (2009). Mood selection in Balkan and Romance. Lingua, 119, 1859–1882.
Smirnova, A. (2010). Cross-linguistic variation in the temporal domain: the meaning of the present tense in Albanian and Bulgarian. Balkanistika, 23. http://osu.academia.edu/AnastasiaSmirnova/Papers/124402/Cross-linguistic-variation-in-the-temporal-domain–The-meaning-of-the-present-tense-in-Albanian-and-Bulgarian. Accessed 12 July 2010.
Späth, A. (2006). Determinierung und Defektivität des Determinierersystems. Informationsstrukturelle und aspektuelle Voraussetzungen der Nominalreferenz slawischer Sprachen im Vergleich zum Deutschen (Language, Context, and Cognition, 4). Berlin. New York.
Sportiche, D. (1996). Clitic constructions. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33) (pp. 213–277). Dordrecht.
Stankov, V. (1967). Modalnata upotreba na glagolnite vremena v săvremennija bălgarski knižoven ezik. Izvestija na Instituta za bălgarski ezik, 15, 3–46.
Steube, A. (1995). Formale Verfahren der linguistischen Temporalitätsbeschreibung. In H. Jachnow & M. Wingender (Eds.), Temporalität und Tempus (Slavistische Studienbücher. Neue Folge, 6) (pp. 70–111). Wiesbaden.
Stjepanović, S. (1998a). On the placement of Serbo-Croatian clitics: evidence from VP ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 29(3), 527–537.
Stjepanović, S. (1998b). On the placement of Serbo-Croatian clitics: evidence from clitic climbing and VP ellipsis. In Ž. Bošković, S. Franks & W. Snyder (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-6). The Connecticut meeting 1997 (Michigan Slavic Materials, 43) (pp. 267–286). Ann Arbor.
Stjepanović, S. (1999). What do second position cliticization, scrambling, and multiple wh-fronting have in common (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Connecticut.
Stojanov, S. (1977). Gramatika na bălgarskija knižoven ezik. Sofija.
Toman, J. (1999). On clitic displacement. In M. Dimitrova-Vulchanova & L. Hellan (Eds.), Topics in South Slavic syntax and semantics (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Series IV: Current Issue in Linguistic Theory, 172) (pp. 205–228). Amsterdam.
Tomić, O. M. (1996). The Balkan Slavic clausal clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 811–872.
Tomić, O. M. (2004a). The South Slavic pronomial clitics. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 12(1–2), 213–248.
Tomić, O. M. (2004b). The syntax of the Balkan Slavic future tenses. Lingua, 114, 517–542.
Vogel, R. (2009). Skandal im Verbkomplex. Betrachtungen zur scheinbar inkorrekten Morphologie in infiniten Verbkomplexen des Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 28, 307–346.
Weigand, G. (1907). Bulgarische Grammatik. Leipzig.
Werkmann, V. (2003). Objektklitika im Bulgarischen (Studia grammatica, 57). Berlin.
Wunderlich, D. (1997). Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(1), 27–68.
Zec, D., & Inkelas, S. (1990). Prosodically constrained syntax. In S. Inkelas & D. Zec (Eds.), The phonology-syntax connection (pp. 365–378). Chicago.
Zimmermann, I. (2009). Satzmodus. In S. Kempgen et al. (Eds.), Die slavischen Sprachen. Ein internationales Handbuch zu ihrer Struktur, ihrer Geschichte und ihrer Erforschung. Volume 1 (Handbook of Linguistics and Communication Science, 32.1) (pp. 484–509). Berlin, New York.
Zybatow, G., & Junghanns, U. (1998). Topiks im Russischen. Lund.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Pitsch, H. Complex verbs between syntax and morphology in Bulgarian. Russ Linguist 34, 307–329 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-010-9059-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-010-9059-2