Transcript Slavic clitic systems in a typological perspective

Slavic Clitic Systems and Word Order
Typology
Anton Zimmerling (Moscow State
University for the Humanities)
[email protected]
http://antonzimmerling.wordpress.com
1
Wackernagel, Word, Cluster
 C-systems. No obligatory cliticization of different syntactic
categories.
 W-systems. Obligatory cliticization of different syntactic
categories in the main clause. No grammaticalized verb-adjacency.
Barrier Rules. Clitic climbing. Occasional V2 orders.
 W+-systems. Strong 2P clitics, verbal forms in co-clitic positions.
No climbing.
 W*-systems. Disjoint placement of clitics of different categories
prevail. Derived orders generated by Barrier Rules are reanalyzed
as default configuration.
2
Word order systems: Slavic
 C-systems: Codified Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian.
 W-systems: Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian, Slovene, Czech,
Slovak, Burgenland Croatian, Vojvodina Rusinski, Carpatian
Ukrainian, Old Novgorod Russian.
 W+-systems: Bulgarian & Macedonian.
 W*-systems: Old Church Slavonic, Polish, Upper and Lower
Sorbian.
 V-systems with VP-internal clitics: Moliseslav (?).
3
Non-syntactic features and crosslinguistic variation.
 Orientation towards a clitic host: strict proclitics, universal clitics,
strict enclitics.
 Strict 2P enclitics: clitic excluded from clausal left edge.
Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian, Bulgarian, ONR, Carpatian Ukrainian.
 Universal clitics: clitics permitted at the clausal left edge.
Macedonian, Slovene, Czech, Old Czech.
4
Should the notion of 2P be
eliminated from linguistic theory?
 Agbayani & Golston (2008) claim that Indo-European
connective markers which end up in clausal 2nd position (cf.
Lat. =que, O.Greek =te) actually take clausal 1st position, since
‘purely fonetic (sic!) 2ndP conjunctions lie external to their
right-hand conjuncts, and for clausal coordination, this means
that the conjunction sits in an extra-sentential position’.
 This approach cannot be extended to 2P pronouns and 2P
clusters.
 Agbayani & Golston deny the existence of clusters.
5
Ditropic clitics
 Functionally, the clitic belongs together with Y, yet it is
attached morphologically to X. Embick and Noyer (1999:
291) have introduced the term ditropic clitic for this
phenomenon.
 (1) a. [X]=clitic [Y] b. [Y] clitic=[X]

(2) Yagua (Payne & Payne 1990:365, ex. 373)
sa-púúchiy Pauro rooriy-˝vmu-níí
Anita
3sg.subj-lead Paul house-inside-3SG.OBJ
‘Paul leads/carries Anita inside a/the house’
6
Anita
Ditropic clitics in Kugu Nganhcara
 (3) Kugu Nganhcara (Smith & Johnson 2000: 400, ex. 62;
401, ex. 66), (Cysouw 2005).
a. nhila pama-ng ngathu ku’a-thu waa
3sg.nom man-erg 1sg.dat dog-1SG.DAT give
‘The man gave me a dog’
 b. waa-ngu
give-3SG.DAT ‘Give [it] to him’
 Bound pronouns in K-N are co-verbal. Syntactically, they are
enclitic to
whatever comes in preverbal position (3a).
7
Ditropic clitics and the antiWackernagel position
 If the clausal-final position is filled by a category of a given
type (e.g. verb), while the preceding positions may be filled
by different categories, this may eventually give rise to clitics
attached to the 2nd position from the clausal right margin:Y –
CL –V, cf. (Cysouw 2005).
 Djinang, Djnga, Ritharrngu (Yolngu group): X PRON V, but a
notable difference is when the clause consists of only a verb
and a pronoun. In R. the reduced pronoun will follow the
verb V PRON, while in Djinang it will precede it PRON V,
see (Mushin and Simpson 2008).
8
Clitic clusters: definition
 A cluster or a ‘clitic group’ is a string of deficient elements
taking contact position in a rigid order. This parameter is
known as ‘Ranking Rule’ or ‘Clitic Template’.
 Ranking Rule predicts that any two clitics a and b belonging
to cluster CL are linearized in one and just 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.
9
Clitic clusters: illustration
 Warlpiri (Pama-Nyungan).
a. Pura-mi=nya=rna-ngku=lu nganimpa-rlu=ju?
Follow-Pres=Int=1Pl.Ex.S.=2Sg.O 1Pl.Ex-Erg= Def
‘Shall we follow you?’
(Bound pronominal plus coreferential free pronoun).
b. Ngjau=juku=ka=rna=ji darrka-nyi jinta-ngku=juku
1Sg=still=pres=1Sg.S = 1Sg. O. endanger-PRES oneERG=still
‘I’ll just endanger myself only’
(free pronoun and coreferential bound pronominal).
10
Strict 2P enclitics and universal
2P/1P clitics
 Warumungu (Mushin & Simpson 2008).
1a. [arntti-nya manyingkkitayi-nyjji]=ngin(i)=ajju walpunyu.
That.Erg. small.Erg.=NGINI=11Sg.O
hit
‘That other little boy hit me’ (2P).
b. wartarnp(a)=arni apina
always=1Sg.S.
was.walking
‘I walked about all the time’ (2P)
c. arni=ngini ngurr(u)=arnpa janykurrpakinyi.
1Sg=NGINI nose=still
punched
‘And I punched him right in the nose’ (1P)
11
Constituency conditions
 2P clitics after the first spelled-out constituent are widely
attested in oral languages, cf.Yukulta (1).
(1) [ngumpanta ngawu-Ø partangu-Ø]=thu=yingka pa:ja
‘Your big dog bit me’
your+ABS dog-ABS big-ABS=me=PAST bite+IND
Compare with a non 2P clitic =yi in Garrwa:
(2) [bawanganja nanga-ngi] kirrijba=yi kingkarri
older.brother 3SG-DAT climb=PAST up
his older brother climbed up
Examples are from (Mushin 2004).
12
Clitic bases and bound pronouns
Mudburra (McConvell 1996:304): pa as a 2P/1P clitic
(1) jalkaji pa=rna lap warnta ‘I will pick up a woomera’ woomera AUX=1sgS
pick.up get.FUT
(2) #pa=rna lap warnta jalkaji
AUX=1SgS pick.up get.FUT woomera
Warlpiri (Mushin 2004): ka as a 2P/1P clitic.
(3) wangka-mi ka=rna=jana kurdu-kurdu-ku
talk-NONPAST PRES.AUX=1SG.S=3PLO child-child-DAT
‘I’m talking to the children” (in reply to ‘what are you doing?’)
(4) #ka=rna=jana wangka-mi
PRES.AUX=1sg.S=3plO talk-NONPAST
‘I am (going to) talk to them.’ (In reply to ‘You should/must talk to them’)
13
Clusters: discussion
 No language with a Ranking Rule completely excludes
disjoint placement of those clitics that make up clitic clusters
in other configurations.
 Clitic clusters do not exist as syntactic units, cf. (Bošković
2002)?
 An alternative: splitting of clusters is 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.
14
Clusterization of clitics
 Slavic languages: Object pronouns, auxiliaries, particles.
 Other 2P languages: Subject pronouns, TAM markers of different
morphology, adverbs.
 Clausal 2P clitics are normally clusterizing, phrasal 2P clitics are
normally non-clusterizing. This asymmetry is difficult to explain in
non-syntactic terms.
 Contact position of clitics in a cluster excludes insertion of nonclitic elements.
 Clusterization seems to be a syntactic phenomenon specific for
syntactic clitics and ‘weak forms’.
15
Clusterization (2)
 Cross-linguistically, one and the same material element can
be used both as a clausal and phrasal clitic and be clusterizing
in the first case and non-clusterizing in the second case. This
is attested, e.g. in Ossetic and some Arawak languages.
 No non-syntactic factors can explain why a 2P element is
clusterizing in one case and non-clusterizing in the other
case.
 Clausal 2P clusterization is an issue of clausal syntactic
configuration.
16
Clitic Templates
 Ranking Rules generate Clitic Templates, where each clusterizing




17
clitic/class of clitics takes a slot of its own, is assigned its ‘rank’ in
terms of (Zaliznjak 2008).
Clitic Templates are grammaticalized strings of syntactic
categories. They represent the most typical contact clitic orders.
Clitic Templates necessarily represent a functional hierarchy of
clitic categories.
Clitic Templates necessarily represent a prosodic ordering of
clitics.
Clitic Templates usually reflect different layers of cliticization.
Diachronical principle of ordering
 In 2P languages, 2P clusters *always* represent clitics of
different categories.
 The diachronical principle (more ‘old’ clitics before more
recent ones, the latter placed at edge positions in a cluster)
can hold - a) within the whole cluster;
 b) within a block of clitics representing clitic
categories of a given type (e.g., auxiliaries, object
pronouns, particles).
18
Pure weight principle: Cebwano
 a) The monosyllabic Object pronouns: ku, mu, or ta.
 b) The monosyllabic Subject pronoun 2Sg. Ka.
 c) A specific set (of mostly monosyllabic) particles, cf. na




19
‘already’.
d) The monosyllabic Subject pronoun 2Sg. Ka
e) The other particles.
f) The monosyllabic pronouns aside from Ka.
g) The disyllabic pronouns.
After (Billings & Konopasky 2002)
Mixed weight principle: Tagalog
1.a. Nakita [CliticP ko [Particles na] siya ] “I saw him/her already”.
Be.seen 1Sg.DO already 3Sg.Sub.
b. Nakita [CliticP ka [Particle ba]
nila?] “Did they see
you?”.
Be.seen 2Sg.Sub. Question
3Pl.DO
c. Nakita [CliticP mo [Particleyata] ako] “Perhaps you saw me”.
Be.seen 2Sg.DO perhaps 1Sg.S
After (Billings & Konopasky 2002)
20
Split clitic systems
 If elements representing different grammemes of the same
category have been cliticized in different periods, the more
recent clitics may
 A) take a different slot and adjoin to the already existing
string of clitics. This gives rise to split clitic systems.
 B) Take the same slot (a rare but occasionally attested
option).
21
New clitics taking the existing slot
 Carpatian Ukrainian (Sinevir dialect), cf. [Tolstaya 1999]
 V-CL: No ta kazali=boo=booli mami,
ščo ωrodit’= u_t’a=s’a ωže xlopčišče.
 C-CL: Nije, kaže, ŭ sel’I nijakoγo zakona i teper’,
koj=boo=booli=s’a [malo l’udi] perederžala, ta
može=boo=bolo bolo inak.
 Ja na tebe γojkala šos’ tak nefajno, šoz’=bim=na_t’a=s’a
svadžala…
22
Clusterization and the placement of 2P
particles
 A) All fixed clitic particles are grouped in the left edge of




23
the cluster. An option typical for languages, where clitic
particles are older than other 2P clitics.
B) Clitic particles take both the left and the right edge of
the cluster. This option is typical for languages, which
added new layers of clitics.
C) Deictic clitics take a central position in a cluster. This
option is found in languages, where clitic-like pronouns
lack some properties of standard clitics.
D) Pure weight principle: light 2P clitics precede heavy 2P
clitics. Both particles and other clitics may be light or
heavy.
E) Mixed weight principle: heavy and light 2P clitics take
different slots, but all 2P particles get a uniform treatment.
This option might indicate that 2P particles have been
inserted into an already existing string of other 2P clitics.
Barriers: definitional properties
 Barriers are syntactic categories that have effect on the
position of a single clitic/cluster.
 With single clitics, 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 Tobler-Mussafia’s law.
24
Barriers: a parametric approach
 Languages with Ranking Rule can be parametrized depending
on Barrier Rules they use.
 Our account differs from Zaliznjak’s (2008)or Halpern’s
(1996) theories of ‘skipping’, since we don’t claim that
Barriers are necessarily extraclausal and located outside the
actual domain where the clitics move.
 ‘Skipping’ accounts are falsified by Slavic data.
25
Typology of Barriers
 In 2P languages Barriers cannot change the orientation of
clitics, since 2P clitics are generally excluded from clausal
left edge due to 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 clitics: in this case, splitting of a cluster takes place.
26
Typology of Barriers (2)
 Obligatory vs optional Barriers.
 Grammaticalized vs communicative Barriers.
 Cumulative (two or more Barriers count as a single Barrier)
vs undoing Barriers (the second Barrier blocks the effect of
the 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 communicative status.
Both Grammaticalized and Communicative Barriers may be
obligatory or optional, blind or selective.
27
Complex constituents in 1P and
Barrier rules
Warlpiri (Nash 1986): CCR (1) vs Barrier (2)
 (1) [Kurdu=ngku (1) wita=ngku] (2)] || ka (3)
maliki
wajilipi=nyi
[child= Erg. (1) ittle=Erg. (2)] || LINK=PRES. (3) dog
chase=not.pst‘A little boy is chasing a dog’
 2) {BARRIER [Tumaji]} (1) ngaju(2) =ku=ju (3) wiri
ngawarra yali=ji
too much (1) I (2)=DAT.=to me (3) big river
that=TOP
‘This big river is too dangerous for me’.
28
Barriers: feature combinations
 Old Novgorod Russian are obligatory & communicative &
blind: this combination of features implies that they
invariably shift all clitic clusters to the right from 2P and
don’t split them.
 Grammaticalized Barriers may well be selective & optional:
this is characteristic of Macedonian negation ne, which is a
Barrier for reflexive clitics.
 Czech patterns with Old Novgorod Russian, but only in the
subordinate clauses. In the main clauses, long initial groups
are permitted.
29
2P languages
 In 2P languages clusters take a fixed position to clausal left edge
— a fact that can be accounted for both in phonetic or in syntactic
terms.
 The boundaries of the class of clitics depend on which approach to
defining clitics in UG is taken.
 Prosodic clitics are elements, which cannot form a phonological
word without combining with other words, cf. (Jakobson 1971),
(Selkirk 1995).
 Syntactic clitics are elements, which take syntactic positions that
cannot be filled by non-clitic words, cf. (EuroClitics 1999),
(Zimmerling 2002: 64).
30
Phonetic and syntactic clitics
 King & Franks (2000) ascribe uniform phonetic features to all
clitics in a given language, while genuine prosodic 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 nonclitic word forms from the enclinomena class give the accent over
to a subclass of (+ High tone) clitics. In this case, stress fell on the
right edge of the phonological word, i.e. on the last enclitic in the
group. If no enclitics are present, stress fell on the leftmost
proclitic in the group.
31
Vassiliev-Dolobko’s Law
 Old Russian enclinomena gave the accent over to a
subclass of dominant clitics. Stress falls on the right on the
last enclitic in the group. If no enclitics are present,
stress falls on the leftmost proclitic in the group.
(1a) O.Rus. |и не на
воз ж|
“and not on the carriage THEN”
(1b) O.Rus. |и не на
воз|
“AND not on the carriage”
 Non-dominant clitics do not take stress from
enclinomena.
32
Phonetic vs Syntactic clitics
SLOVENE: auxiliaries, pronouns vs modal verbs
 Phonetic’ Slovene enclitics are unstressed but CAN be
fronted.
 Modal verbs morati, smeti, moči are stressed, but DO NOT
leave clausal 2nd position and CANNOT be fronted.
 In spite of the fact that Slov. morati is a strict 2P-enclitic, its
2P properties cannot be derived prosodically, since it is a
stressed word.
33
2P clitics and VP-internal clitics
 In the European/SAE perspective it has become customary
to compare Slavic word order systems with clitic clusters in
clausal 2nd position with Romance-Balcanic word order
systems with VP-internal clitics.
 Bulgarian and Macedonian, two Slavic idioms which
developed an adjacency constraint on the placement of clitics
and verbal forms are viewed as an intermediate stage of
syntactic evolution from 2P clitics to verb-adjacent clitics.
34
2P languages on the world’s map
 There are about 70-100 2P languages which have clitic
clusters in clausal 2nd position.
(2) Cav. A-ta-wa
|=taa =yatse|
affect-Pass-Perf = EMPH =1Dl.Abs.
‘We (me and my brother) got killed (lit. affected)’.
 Most, but not all 2P languages allow for a variation
“clitics after the first phonological word ~ clitics after
the first maximal projection
35
A sample of 2P languages, I
 Hittite, Luwian, Old Greek, Old Indian, Old Persian,
Avestan, Old Novgorod Russian.
 Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian, Slovene, Czech, Slovak,
Burgenland Croatian, Vojvodina Rusinsky, Carpatian
Ukrainian.
 Pashto, Ossetic (East Iranian).
 Old Norse, Middle Scandinavian.
 Bulgarian (South Slavic), Tagalog, Bikol, Cebwano
(Central Philippine).
36
A sample of 2P languages, II
 Kabyle (Taqbaylit, Tamazight) Berber, Tuareg Ahaggar







37
(Afroasiatic).
Lummi (Straight Salish).
Makah, Ditidaht (Wakashan).
Luiseño, Mayo (Uto-Aztec).
Quiavini Zapotec (Otomangean).
Warlpiri, Djaru,Warumungu (Pama-Nyungan).
Garrwa, Wanyi (Mirndi).
Cavineña (Tacanan).
Barriers and splitting of clusters
 (3)A [Barb ou koroleva]=esia muzha // slyshal=lib o
tomъ chestnomъ krestĕ?
And from king’s = CL.2SgAux man // hear=CL.Q about
that worthy cross
‘Haven’t you heard about this worthy cross from the king’s
man?’
 (4) Bulg. Книгата (1) | Barb [ще] | (2)=сиa (3)=яa
(4)|| прочел (5)=лиb (6) до утре?
Book-the (1)| Barb [FUT]| (2)=AUX-2Sg (3)=AccFSg
(4)|| read-Prf (5)=Cl.Q. (6) tomorrow
‘Will you read the book tomorrow?’

38
TRIVIA (?)
 The Principle of Domain Shrinking with clitic
movement.
 In a vast majority of cases a 2P clitic that leaves its cluster
ends up in a contact pre- or postposition to a verbal
form.
 Domain expansion with clitic movement is not attested
in 2P languages.
39
Slavic verb-adjacent clitics revisited
 There is both diachronic and synchronic evidence for that
Bulgarian/Macedonian 2P clitics 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-Cl-[]-V.
40
Verb-adjacency and clitic ‘strengh’
 Languages of the Bulgarian/Central Philippine type preserve
clitics that don’t leave 2P; these languages lack clitic climbing
from embedded clauses.
 Languages of the standard 2P type (cf.
Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian, Czech, Slovak, Old Novgorod
Russian, Pashto, Warlpiri, Hittite) have Barrier Rules that
move 2P clitics/clusters out from clausal 2P:
 in a case of special interest, the vacant 2P is filled by moved
verbal forms hosting 2P enclitic(s).
41
Hypothesis
 There seems to be a correlation of clitic climbing, Barrier
Rules and Verb-Adjacency.
 Standard 2P languages lack constraints on Verb-Adjacency,
have Barrier Rules, 2P clitics can move out of clausal 2P and
leave 2P for verbal forms. Such 2P clitics are ‘weak’.
 Bulgarian/Central Philippine 2P clitics don’t move out from
clausal 2P and don’t climb. They attract verbal forms to
cofinite positions and remain in 2P = ‘strong 2P clitics’.
42
Acknowledgements
 Anton Zimmerling’s research on clitic typology is supported
by Russian Foundation for the Humanities, project RGNF
09-04-00297a ‘Typology of syntactic constraints’, whose
support is most gratefully acknowledged.
43