Both bare and demonstrative NPs can be referential and can thus correspond to English definite NPs, as they do in (1). As indicated by the contexts in (1), bare NPs are suitable for reference to situationally unique objects, ranging from large situations, such as the whole world (and, correspondingly, NPs like *papež* 'the (unique) Pope (in the world)'), to small situations, such as a family house (and NPs like *garáž* 'the (unique) garage (belonging to the family house)'), while demonstrative NPs are suitable for deictic reference (left aside in this paper) or anaphoric reference. For a useful overview of definiteness-related form–function mapping in Czech, based on the typology of Hawkins (1978), see Běličová & Uhlířová (1996: chapter 3). The idea that bare NPs refer to situationally unique referents and demonstrative NPs are anaphoric has recently been recognized and incorporated also in formal linguistics, a development that is largely due to the influential dissertation by Schwarz (2009). It has been assumed for languages as diverse as Mauritian Creole (Wespel 2008), Akan (Arkoh & Matthewson 2013), or Mandarin Chinese (Jenks 2018). The bare vs. demonstrative divide in these languages is considered by Schwarz (2013) to correspond to the weak vs. strong definite article divide in German; see (2).3

In this paper, I zoom in onto the situational uniqueness function and show that not all situationally unique referents are referred to by bare NPs in Czech. In some cases, a demonstrative NP is needed. I will argue that bare NPs refer to objects

3The case of Akan has been reconsidered in Bombi (2018).

### 14 Inherent vs. accidental uniqueness in bare and demonstrative nominals

that are inherently unique (relative to some situation), while demonstrative NPs refer to objects that are accidentally unique (relative to some situation). I will also argue that the notion of inherent uniqueness is akin to genericity and can in fact subsume generic reference. Finally, I will suggest that anaphoric reference is inherently accidental. The contrast between inherent and accidental uniqueness therefore has the potential to replace the more commonly assumed unique vs. anaphoric contrast. A full exposition of this general claim must be left for future research, however.

The paper is organized as follows. In §2, I present the relevant contrast between bare and demonstrative NPs in Czech and suggest – informally at first – that it could be understood in terms of inherent and accidental uniqueness. These two concepts are formalized in §3, which also provides some background on situation semantics and an explicit syntax and semantics of bare and demonstrative NPs in Czech. In §4, I focus on presenting additional evidence in favor of the correlation between the NP types and the uniqueness types. An outline of how the analysis could be extended to generic, anaphoric, and non-specific NPs is presented in §5. In §6, I summarize the results and give a brief research outlook.

### **2 Initial observation**

Let us start with two simple situations and NPs used in them. Example (3) involves a classroom situation s1 with a single blackboard in it, as is usual. As one would expect, the blackboard, being unique in that particular situation, is referred to by a bare NP. Example (4) involves a simple conversation situation s2 , which happens to have a single book in it. Despite the uniqueness of the book, a demonstrative NP is appropriate.

	- T Smaž erase.imp {tabuli blackboard / #tu dem tabuli}, blackboard prosím. please 'Erase the blackboard, please.'
	- B {Dej give.imp / Ukaž} show.imp mi me {tu dem knihu book / #knihu}. book 'Give/Show me the book.' (adapted from Krámský 1972: 62)

### Radek Šimík

What brings about the asymmetry between (3) and (4)? I will argue that a bare NP is appropriate in the former case because classrooms usually have a single blackboard in them; the blackboard is *inherently* unique in classrooms. On the other hand, it is not usually the case that when A and B talk to each other, there is a single book in that situation; the book in s2 is only *accidentally* unique. I will turn to a formalization of inherent vs. accidental uniqueness shortly. For the moment, let me discuss a number of issues that might blur the contrast under discussion.

An objection that instantly comes to mind when considering (4) is that the reference to the book by *tu knihu* 'dem book' involves deixis. This view is supported by the fact that a slight pointing gesture or even just a peek towards the referent naturally, albeit not necessarily, accompanies the utterance (4B). But an account in terms of deixis also has problems. Deictic demonstratives normally carry prosodic prominence and single out an object out of a set of objects all of which satisfy the same nominal description, as in *I want this book, not that book.* In (4), there is no such motivation for the use of a demonstrative, as the referent is the only book in the situation. Also, prosodic prominence is on *knihu* 'book', not the demonstrative. Finally, it is good to point out that (4B) can be uttered even if the conversation takes place via a videoconference and where B saw, at some previous point of the conversation, that A has a book, but, at the time of uttering (4B), B no longer has visual access to it (and hence cannot point to it). All of these concerns render a treatment in terms of deixis problematic.4 Moreover, in §4, I will provide examples where deixis fares even worse, as the referent is not even present in the utterance situation.

The reader will have noticed that I marked the inappropriate NP uses by # rather than by \*. The implication is that the versions with the inappropriate NPs successfully convey a meaning – in fact, the meaning indicated by the translation – but are not felicitous in the situation. We can learn a bit about the source of their infelicity by inspecting the additional implications they carry. Let us turn to (3) first. The use of a demonstrative NP – *tu tabuli* 'dem blackboard' – implies that the teacher is in an affective state. It would be appropriate in a situation where the teacher asked the student to erase the blackboard repeatedly and got annoyed by the student's inactivity. In other words, the demonstrative in (3) is an instance of the so-called affective demonstrative.5

4An anonymous reviewer is not convinced by these arguments (although s/he does not express her/himself to those presented later). S/he claims, for instance, that demonstration could be achieved without visual access to the referent, suggesting an analogy from sign language where demonstration can be achieved by pointing to an abstract index in a signing space. See Ahn (2019: Ch. 5) for a recent discussion.

5Affective demonstratives (term due to Liberman 2008) are cross-linguistically common. For some discussion, see Mathesius (1926), Šimík (2016) (Czech); Rudin (2021 [this volume]) (Bul-

### 14 Inherent vs. accidental uniqueness in bare and demonstrative nominals

Let us now consider (4). Again, certain adjustments to the situation would be needed in order for the bare NP to be licensed. Two types of scenarios come to mind. First, the demonstrative could be omitted in case there was a selection of other objects, e.g. a magazine, a newspaper, and a DVD, all of which might be of interest to the discourse participant B. By using a bare NP *knihu* 'book', B would indicate that she would like to have/see the book, not, say, the magazine. This exceptional contrast-based licensing of bare NPs (or definite NPs with a weak definite article in a language like German) in situations where a demonstrative (or strong definite article) would be expected (including anaphoric uses of NPs) has occasionally been noticed in the literature.6 The phenomenon is still relatively poorly understood. Another type of situation that would afford the use of a bare NP in (4B), although somewhat implausible, is that A and B are regularly in conversation situations with a single book in them and where that book is an integral (inherent) part of that kind of situation. The fact that such an implausible situation can be accommodated supports the semantic reality of the concept of inherent uniqueness.

The reader should bear in mind that the examples in this paper often lend themselves to accommodation processes of the kind discussed above and that accommodating a certain inference may license the use of an NP that is marked as inappropriate.

### **3 Proposal**

### **3.1 Background on situation semantics**

My proposal is couched in situation semantics, an extension of possible world semantics, whereby situations are parts of possible worlds (the maximal situations) and are organized in a semi-lattice, just like entities in the Link (1983)-style representation of plural and mass nouns. The foundations of modern situation semantics were laid by Kratzer (1989) and important further developments include von Fintel (1994) (application to adverbial quantification) or Elbourne (2005) (application to definite descriptions). Accessible overviews and introductions to situation semantics include Schwarz (2009: chapter 3), Elbourne (2013: chapter 2), and Kratzer (2019). The present treatment of situations will be largely informal, however, and will not rely on the many complex properties of fully fledged situation semantics.

garian and Macedonian); Lakoff (1974), Liberman (2008) (English); Potts & Schwarz (2010) (English, German); Davis & Potts (2010) (English, Japanese).

6A relevant German example is discussed by Schwarz (2009: p. 32, ex. (54)), although Schwarz does not link the observed effect to contrastiveness.

### Radek Šimík

In situation semantics, constituents are interpreted relative to situations. Consider example (5a), tailored after Percus (2000), where *all Slavic linguists* quantifies over actual Slavic linguists and ponders the hypothetical situations in which they are not linguists but literary scholars. These situations would then be such that there would be no Slavic linguistics in them. The truth-conditions are captured informally in (5b). The formula makes clear that, crucially, the NP *Slavic linguists* is interpreted relative to the actual 0 and the predicative NP *literary scholars* relative to the hypothetical ℎ . I will follow Schwarz (2009) and call the situations relative to which NPs (or other constituents) are interpreted resource situations.

	- b. ∀ℎ[∀[Slavic linguists()(0 ) → literary scholars()(ℎ )] → ¬∃ [Slavic linguistics( )(ℎ )]]

Not just quantificational, but also referential NPs, including bare and demonstrative NPs, are interpreted relative to resource situations. This is illustrated in example (6), in which the value of the resource situation affects the truth conditions of the whole sentence. If *(toho) kouzelníka* '(dem) magician' is interpreted relative to the situations compatible with Jitka's beliefs (*de dicto* interpretation), (6F) is true if Jitka wants to see the "magician" she spotted before the show (perhaps because he had a cool outfit). If, on the other hand, the NP is interpreted relative to the actual situation (*de re* interpretation), (6F) is true if she wants to see the actual performer (perhaps because she was looking forward to seeing the magician even before going to the show).7

	- F Jitka Jitka chce wants vidět see (toho) dem kouzelníka. magician 'Jitka wants to see the magician.'

7 For a recent version of a situation-based theory of the *de dicto* vs. *de re* contrast, see Keshet (2008, 2010).

### 14 Inherent vs. accidental uniqueness in bare and demonstrative nominals

The choice of the interpretation and of the NP type affects the inferences in delicate ways. Leaving deictic, affective, and anaphoric readings aside, here are the possible inferences that arise in the four logical combinations: *de re* + demonstrative implies that it is not typically the case that there is a single magician in this (type of) show; *de dicto* + demonstrative implies that it is not typically the case that there is a single magician in Jitka's beliefs about the pre-show situation; *de re* + bare implies that there is typically a single magician in this (type of) show; *de dicto* + bare highlights the contrast between the magician and the clown in Jitka's beliefs.

The last important notion to be introduced is the notion of a topic situation. Topic situations, sometimes called Austinian topic situations (Austin 1950), are situations that propositions are "about". A simple proposition like *It's raining* will be true or false depending on which situation we are talking about (where we are, at what time, etc.). For formal-semantic treatment of topic situations, see Schwarz (2009) and Kratzer (2019). The present treatment of topic situations will be largely informal. What is important to keep in mind is that resource situations (situations relative to which NPs are interpreted) are very often and, for the purposes of this paper, will always be identical to the corresponding topic situations.8

### **3.2 Formalizing inherent vs. accidental uniqueness**

I define the type of uniqueness by using universal quantification over situations that are "like" (≈) some relevant evaluation situation, typically the topic situation. I will come to a more precise characterization of the "likeness" relation shortly. For the moment, let us consider how the definitions in (7) and (8) capture our two simple examples from §2 – the blackboard example and the book example. The blackboard is *inherently* unique in the classroom situation provided in (3) because it holds that all situations that are "like" that classroom situation, which includes situations at different times, with different people in it, etc., but with important parameters such as the "identity" of the classroom kept constant, are such that there is exactly one blackboard in those situations. Therefore, the blackboard is inherently unique in (3). On the other hand, the book is only *accidentally* unique in the conversation situation provided in (4): even though there is exactly one book in the situation, it does *not* hold that all situations that are "like" that conversation situation, which includes various situations of A and B having a

8The identity of the topic and resource situation can be achieved either by coreference (coindexing) or by binding, using a specialized operator; see e.g. Büring (2004).

### Radek Šimík

conversation, at different times and places, are such that there is exactly one book in those situations.9

(7) *Inherent uniqueness*

For any property , entity , and situation 0 , such that (0 )() = 1, is inherently uniquely identifiable in 0 iff ∀[ ≈ 0 → ∃! [ ()( )]]

All situations that are like 0 are such that there is exactly one entity with property in those situations.

(8) *Accidental uniqueness*

For any property , entity , and situation 0 , such that (0 )() = 1, is accidentally uniquely identifiable in 0 iff ∃![ (0 )()] ∧ ¬∀[ ≈ 0 → ∃! [ ()( )]] Exactly one entity is in 0 and it is not the case that all situations that are like 0 are such that there is exactly one entity with property in those situations.

The "likeness" relation (≈) is essentially a modal accessibility relation, which could be formulated by a version of Kratzer's (1981, 1991, 2012) modal semantics. Kratzer's semantics of modal expressions like *must,* provided for explicitness in (9) (using Hacquard's 2011: 1493 formulation, slightly adapted), relies on two kinds of conversational backgrounds – a modal base and an ordering source . These conversational backgrounds are free variables whose values are determined contextually. In a sentence like *John must be at home,* with *must* interpreted epistemically, the value of the modal base at some evaluation situation 0 is the set of propositions compatible with what we know in 0 – so-called epistemic modal base (the propositions might include 'it is 5pm', 'the lights in John's house are on', and 'John finishes work at 3pm'). This set of propositions is turned into a set of possible worlds (single proposition) by ⋂. Then, BEST() imposes an ordering on that set of possible worlds, picking out only those worlds that best correspond to what is normal or usual (excluding possibilities in which John forgot to turn the lights off in the morning and had an accident on the way home, for instance) – so-called stereotypical ordering source.

9The notion of inherent vs. accidental uniqueness might seem reminiscent of Löbner's (1985, 2011) concept types, whereby inherent uniqueness might correspond to the "individual" and "functional" types, and accidental uniqueness to the "sortal" and "relational" types. Yet, Löbner's concept types are types of nouns and are, therefore, lexically determined (e.g., the noun *sun* is always individual and the noun *book* is always sortal). The distinction between inherent and accidental uniqueness is sensitive to the evaluation situation. Moreover, one and the same noun can involve both types of uniqueness.

### 14 Inherent vs. accidental uniqueness in bare and demonstrative nominals

(9) For any evaluation situation 0 and conversational backgrounds , , JmustK = ⟨,⟩∀[ ∈ BEST(0 ) ( ⋂ (0 )) → ( ) = 1]

The reason why we need a *version* of Kratzer's semantics is that the situations we quantify over in (7)/(8) are not situations where all the facts or, for our case, circumstances of the evaluation situation 0 hold. We need to generalize/abstract over selected parameters and quantify, for instance, over situations that have a different temporal parameter than 0 (e.g., not just the classroom now, but also the classrooom today, etc.). We could postulate a subspecies of Kratzer's modal base, call it generic modal base GEN, which takes the evaluation situation 0 and returns a set of propositions with various parameters of 0 modified (e.g. {[ is the classroom situation at ] | is some time}). At the same time, however, there must be a limit to the variation in the modal base, otherwise inherent uniqueness could never be satisfied (there certainly is some time at which there was no blackboard in the classroom, such as the time when the classroom was freshly built, but not yet furnished). Restricting the modal base is, of course, the function of Kratzer's ordering source. The particular type of ordering source needed is the stereotypical ordering source, which will help us limit the situations to be quantified over to the normal or usual ones (thereby excluding situations such as the "unfinished classroom" situation).

Armed with this theory, we could reformulate the universal quantification in (7) by (10).

(10) ∀[ ∈ BEST(0 ) ( ⋂ GEN(0 )) → ∃! [ ()( )]]

While using bare or demonstrative NPs, discourse participants start from the evaluation situation and come up with some relevant restricted generalization over that situation, checking whether uniqueness remains satisfied across the relevant situations (⇝ inherent uniqueness) or not (⇝ accidental uniqueness). In what follows, I will stick to the simple formalization provided in (7)/(8), assuming that something like (10) could be its more precise version.

Let me conclude this subsection by providing the formal truth-conditions of our initial examples (I ignore the contribution of imperative mood for simplicity). In these truth-conditions, inherent vs. accidental uniqueness is encoded as a presupposition (enclosed in a box for clarity), which is relativized to the topic situation T . 10

10For the sake of clarity, I rely on some standard semantic instruments in formulating (11) and (12), in particular the iota type shift (Partee 1987) and the notation of the presupposition. This detail will be reconsidered. SP and HR stand for speaker and hearer, respectively.

### Radek Šimík

### **3.3 The syntax-semantics of bare vs. demonstrative NPs**

There are many ways of incorporating inherent vs. accidental uniqueness into the representation of NPs or the clauses they are contained in. In what follows, I will sketch one possible analysis, where inherent uniqueness is taken to be a property of topic situations (rather than NPs) and accidental uniqueness a property of demonstratives. The advantage of this view is that it gives us enough flexibility in the treatment of bare NPs, which are known to be underspecified with respect to their referential properties – depending on the context and various grammatical properties, they can correspond to definite as well as indefinite NPs.11

### **3.3.1 Bare NPs and inherent uniqueness**

I follow the spirit of Heim's (2011: 1006) suggestion, supported by the experimental results of Šimík & Demian (2020), and assume that bare NPs contribute no definiteness-related presupposition (such as uniqueness or maximality). Contrary to Heim (2011), however, I treat argumental bare NPs not as existential quantifiers, but as referential expressions.12 As demonstrated in Figure 1, I take the basic predicative (property-type) NP to be shifted by a Skolemized choice function **f**1 , whose index is mapped to a situation. The choice function itself is existentially bound in the immediate scope of the situation it is relativized to. I take this to be a default process – in the lack of any explicit indicators of how the choice function should be interpreted (i.e., determiners or indefinite markers), its scope is tied to the scope of its situation binder. This approach makes some non-trivial predictions, which, however, cannot be explored here for space reasons (though see §5.3 for some basic discussion).13 The corresponding compositional meaning is spelled out in (13). The choice function picks out some entity

11The literature on (Slavic) bare NPs is vast. The traditional underspecification view is represented for instance by Chierchia (1998) or Geist (2010). But see also Dayal (2004, 2011), who treats almost all bare NPs in articleless Slavic languages essentially as definites.

12I assign "referentiality" a weak (but commonly assumed) sense, namely "being of type ". Being referential thus implies nothing about being presuppositional or familiar.

13For a choice-functional approach to Slavic indefinites, including the use of Skolemization, see Yanovich (2005) or Geist (2008). My proposal is in principle compatible with theirs, the only

### 14 Inherent vs. accidental uniqueness in bare and demonstrative nominals

that is a blackboard in situation (1). If this situation is the topic situation (T ), then the whole bare NP will refer to some blackboard in the topic situation. If the topic situation is our classroom situation, then the NP will refer to the unique blackboard in that situation.

Figure 1: Representation of an argumental bare NP

$$\begin{aligned} \text{(13)} \quad &\text{a. } [\text{NP}\_{\text{pred}}]^\mathcal{g} = \lambda \text{s} \lambda x [\text{BLACKo} \text{ARD}(\text{s})(\text{x})] \\ &\text{b. } [\text{f}\_1]^\mathcal{g} = \lambda P[\text{some x such that } P(\text{g}(1))(\text{x})] \\ &\text{c. } [\text{NP}\_{\text{arg}}]^\mathcal{g} = \text{some x such that } \mathsf{BACKo} \text{ARD}(\text{g}(1))(\text{x}) \\ &\text{d. } [\text{NP}\_{\text{arg}}]^\mathcal{g} = \text{some x such that } \mathsf{BACKo} \text{ADD}(\text{s}\_\text{r})(\text{x}) \qquad \text{ (for } \mathsf{g}(1) = \mathsf{s}\_\text{r}) \end{aligned}$$

Notice that the bare NP is entirely presupposition-free – neither does it introduce a uniqueness presupposition (cf. Dayal 2004), nor the presupposition of the blackboard's inherent uniqueness. The question is how the implication of inherent uniqueness enters the semantics. I will assume, without much argumentation for the present purposes, that the implication is part of our knowledge about topic situations. It is, therefore, a pragmatic presupposition in the sense of Stalnaker (1974). 14 Speaking more generally, situations with inherently unique parts are good candidates for the use of a bare NP because they make it particularly easy for the discourse participants to agree on the referent for such an NP; the referent is simply the unique entity that satisfies its description and that is normally present and uniquely identifiable in the situation.

)

difference lies in the nature of the Skolem argument. I take the situation-type Skolem argument to be a kind of default that can be overridden by using various determiners, esp. so-called indefinite markers.

14For an accessible discussion of the phenomenon of presupposition and the distinction between semantic and pragmatic presupposition, see Beaver & Geurts (2014).

### Radek Šimík

### **3.3.2 Demonstrative NPs and accidental uniqueness**

My analysis of demonstrative NPs is parallel to what I proposed for bare NPs; see Figure 2. I take the demonstrative to be an indexed definite determiner. As shown in (14b), it introduces a presupposition – a semantic presupposition this time, namely the presupposition of accidental uniqueness. If the presupposition is satisfied, the NP picks out the accidentally unique individual in the resource situation. If the resource situation is the topic situation, which in turn corresponds to our conversation situation, then the demonstrative NP refers to the unique book in that situation.

Figure 2: Representation of an argumental demonstrative NP

$$\begin{array}{ll} \text{(14)} & \text{a. } [\text{NP}\_{\text{pred}}]^{\mathbb{g}} = \lambda s \lambda x[\text{noock}(\text{s})(\text{x})] \\ & \text{b. } [\text{DEM}\_{1}]^{\mathbb{g}} = \lambda P : \exists z[P(\text{g}(1))(z)] \land \neg \forall s[s \approx \text{g}(1) \rightarrow \exists! ! \text{y}[P(\text{s})(\text{y})]] \ . \\ & \text{the } x \text{ such that } P(\text{g}(1))(x) \\ & \text{c. } [\text{NP}\_{\text{arg}}]^{\mathbb{g}} \text{ defined if } \\ & \exists! z[P(\text{g}(1))(z)] \land \neg \forall s[s \approx \text{g}(1) \rightarrow \exists! ! \text{y}[\text{aoock}(\text{s})(\text{y})]] \ . \\ & \text{if defined, then} \\ & [\text{NP}\_{\text{arg}}]^{\mathbb{g}} = \text{the } x \text{ such that } \text{aoock}(\text{g}(1))(x) \\ & \text{d. } [\text{NP}\_{\text{arg}}]^{\mathbb{g}} \text{ defined if } \exists! z[P(s\_{\text{r}})(z)] \land \neg \forall s[s \approx s\_{\text{r}} \rightarrow \exists! y[\text{aoock}(\text{s})(\text{y})]] \\ & \text{if defined, then} \\ & [\text{NP}\_{\text{arg}}]^{\mathbb{g}} = \text{the } x \text{ such that } \text{aoock}(\text{s}\_{\text{r}})(x) \qquad \text{ (for } \text{g}(1) = \text{s}\_{\text{r}}) \end{array}$$

Before we move on, let me clarify one important thing. The present analysis of demonstrative NPs primarily applies to cases of situational uniqueness. Whether the analysis could or should be extended to deictic, anaphoric, or affective demonstratives is yet to be seen (see §5 for a preliminary extension to anaphoric demonstratives). For the moment, I assume that the present analysis is compatible with

### 14 Inherent vs. accidental uniqueness in bare and demonstrative nominals

a syntactically and semantically richer analysis of demonstrative determiners, under which the demonstrative does not only contribute definiteness-related semantics (uniqueness, or accidental uniqueness), but also another entity-type index, whose value – determined anaphorically or extra-linguistically – is equated (or related in some other way) to the referent of the definite core. I refer the reader to Šimík (2016) for relevant discussion.15

### **4 Evidence**

Let us now go through a number of examples illustrating the effect of NP type on uniqueness type, while at the same time doing away with the caveats associated with our initial examples. In order to minimize confounding factors, I will consider one example where the topic/resource situation is held constant and where the referent differs, §4.1, and another one where the referent description is held constant, but the topic/resource situation differs (minimally), §4.2. I conclude with an example where the NP type (bare vs. demonstrative) steers the discourse participants' attention to two different topic/resource situations, §4.3.

### **4.1 Same situation, different referent**

Consider example (15), involving an office desk situation and two student assistants, both familiar with the situation. The example shows that reference to the single computer in the office is made by a bare NP, while reference to the single book in the office is made by a demonstrative NP. This is because the computer is inherently unique in that situation, while the book is only accidentally unique there, as highlighted by the formulas.

	- B1 Nějaká some tužka pencil je is vedle next.to {počítače computer / #toho dem počítače}. computer inherent 'There's a pencil next to the computer.'

∀[ ≈ T → ∃![computer()()]]

All situations like the topic situation – A and B's shared office (desk) – have exactly one computer in it.

15To be somewhat more precise, I believe that the present dem could replace Šimík's (2016: section 3.2.2) D without any collateral damage.

### Radek Šimík

B2 Nějaká some tužka pencil je is vedle next.to {té dem knížky book / #knížky}. book accidental 'There's a pencil next to the book.'

There is exactly one book in the topic situation – A and B's shared office (desk) – and it does not hold that all situation like the topic situation have exactly one book in it.

### **4.2 Same referent, different situation**

Consider examples (16) and (17). The situations are minimally different – one involves a bedroom and the other a hotel room. The rooms could in fact look completely identical, clearly suggesting that what is at stake is the knowledge of the discourse participants – the married couple – about the situation. The case of (16) is simple and behaves as expected – the lamp is uniquely inherent in the bedroom situation and is therefore referred to by a bare NP.16 Example (17) calls for more attention, as it reveals something important about the generic modal base involved in the semantics of NPs. Given that the married couple has just arrived, they have not had any experience of the room that could provide the basis for generalizations. There are two possibilities of what the relevant conversational background could be in this case. One is that the contribution of the modal base is weakened and the quantification is restricted mainly or only by the stereotypical ordering source. This would indeed give rise to a domain of bedroom situations all of which have exactly one lamp in it; after all, it is highly improbable that the number of lamps would differ from one situation to another. If this was the domain of quantification, we would expect a bare NP to surface, contrary to facts. Obviously, the discourse participants choose a different conversational background – one that is based on their experience. Because they have no prior experience with this particular room, they generalize over all hotel room situations (the contribution of the generic modal base). Even if the stereotypical ordering source filters out the abnormal ones, we end up with a set of situations in which the number of lamps is not constant – it is not the case that all normal hotel room situations involve exactly one lamp. It is this conversational background that motivates the use of the demonstrative NP.

16If the demonstrative is used, the affective reading becomes particularly salient, esp. if supported by an adverb like *zase* 'again', which could happen in a scenario where there have been problems with the lamp repeatedly and the husband is annoyed by the lamp not working.

14 Inherent vs. accidental uniqueness in bare and demonstrative nominals

	- H {Lampička lamp / #Ta dem lampička} lamp nesvítí. neg.light 'The lamp doesn't work.'

∀[ ≈ T → ∃![lamp()()]]

All situations that are like the topic situation – the bedroom of the married couple – have exactly one lamp in it.

	- H {Ta dem lampička lamp / #Lampička} lamp nesvítí. neg.light 'The lamp doesn't work.'

accidental

inherent

∃![lamp(T )()] ∧ ¬∀[ ≈ T → ∃![lamp()()]]

There is exactly one lamp in the topic situation – the hotel room of the married couple – and it does not hold that all situations like the topic situation (i.e., all hotel rooms) have exactly one lamp.

### **4.3 Choice of NP type affects choice of situation**

Example (18) demonstrates a number of things important to the proposal. First, it involves reference to entities that are not present in the immediate discourse situation. As such, it does away with the deixis confound (see the discussion below (4)). I should also point out that the intended interpretation is not anaphoric – the relevant referent need not have been mentioned before the utterance under investigation. Second, the example shows that the implications associated with bare vs. demonstrative NPs are salient enough to affect the choice of the relevant topic/resource situation and, consequently, the choice of the referent, which in turn affects the truth conditions (see also example (6) and the associated discussion).

(18) *Situation:* A and B, both from town T1, are having a conversation about an environmental committee meeting that they both attended last week in a neighboring town T2. The ad hoc committee consisted of various public figures, including two mayors, one of whom was the mayor of T1 (the town where both A and B live). A says:

### Radek Šimík

	- i. ✓ 'The mayor of T1 (our mayor) gave convincing arguments.'
	- ii. ✗ 'The mayor of T2 gave convincing arguments.'

∀[ ≈ 1 → ∃![mayor()()]]

(where 1 is a situation based on usual shared experience of A and B; in that situation, there is normally a single mayor, namely the mayor of T1)

	- i. ✓ 'The other mayor (not of T1) gave convincing arguments.'
	- ii. ✗ 'The mayor of T1 (our mayor) gave convincing arguments.'

*✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿* ∃![mayor(′ T )()] ∧ ¬∀[ ≈ ′ T → ∃![mayor()()]]

(where ′ T is a/the committee meeting situation to the exclusion of the mayor of T1)

Consider first the utterance (18A1 ), which only has the reading in (i), but not the one in (ii). The baseline topic situation (a/the committee meeting situation) is not one that could afford a referent for the bare NP, as it is not the case all committee meetings have a single mayor in them. Hence, by using a bare NP, A invites B to accommodate a resource situation that is different from the topic situation, a situation that both A and B are familiar with (a situation whose facts are based on A's and B's common shared experience) and which does have – stereotypically – exactly one mayor in it. This mayor is the mayor of T1, the town where A and B come from. The truth conditions of (18A2 ) are inverse, as the demonstrative NP refers not to the mayor of T1, but to the other mayor present at the meeting. This brings us to the last important point illustrated by this example. The uniqueness presupposition contributed by the demonstrative is apparently not satisfied in this case (which is why I have highlighted this presupposition by wavy underlining): it does not hold that there was a single mayor in the committee meeting. Yet, the non-uniqueness could just be an illusion. The reason is that if we modify the situation a bit, so that there are three mayors in the meeting (mayor of T1 plus two others), (18A2 ) leads to a presupposition failure and would likely be followed by a 'wait a minute' reaction from B (von Fintel 2008). Therefore, I hypothesize that the mayor of T1 is not really considered as a candidate for being referred to by the demonstrative NP, probably because he would have to be referred to by a

### 14 Inherent vs. accidental uniqueness in bare and demonstrative nominals

bare NP, as in (18A1 ). The precise mechanism of this competition-based domain restriction is left for future research.17

To sum up, in this section I have provided evidence that further supports the reality of the inherent vs. accidental uniqueness distinction and its association with bare vs. demonstrative NPs. I attempted to do away with some potential confounds by using minimal pairs – particularly identical NP descriptions (minimally varying the situation) and identical situations (minimally varying the NP description).

### **5 Extensions**

So far, I have only focused on NPs that refer to referents that are uniquely identifiable relative to the topic situation. By doing that, I have demonstrated that Czech demonstrative NPs are not just reserved for deictic or anaphoric reference, but can also be used for situational reference as long as the presupposition of accidental uniqueness is satisfied. While I will not be able to discuss deictic or affective demonstrative NPs (for that, see Šimík 2016 and the references cited therein), I would like to outline briefly how the analysis could be applied to a few other cases, namely generic NPs, anaphoric NPs, and non-specific NPs.

### **5.1 Generic NPs**

Inherent uniqueness is clearly related to genericity. While NPs referring to inherently unique entities refer to particulars, entities with tangible properties located in a particular space and time, generic NPs refer to more abstract objects called kinds. Reference to kinds is often achieved by bare NPs, sometimes even in languages with articles (cf. English bare plurals; Carlson 1977). This also holds for Czech, as illustrated in (19).18

(19) a. Vlk wolf.sg je is savec. mammal.sg 'The wolf is a mammal.'

17Inspiration might be sought in so-called anti-uniqueness inferences triggered by the use of an indefinite NP where a definite NP is expected. *A Czech president* implies that there are multiple Czech presidents and, even if the NP refers to somebody (or if there is a suitable witness, if the NP is quantificatonal), then it is not the individual that one would refer to by *the Czech president*. For relevant discussion, see Hawkins (1978), Heim (1991), Sauerland (2008).

18Some languages with articles use definite NPs to refer to kinds, either obligatorily so (e.g. Spanish; Borik & Espinal 2015), or in variation with bare NPs (e.g. Brazilian Portuguese; Schmitt & Munn 1999). For an in-depth study of nominal genericity in Russian, see Seres (2020).

### Radek Šimík

I would like to argue that generic NPs are a special case of inherently unique NPs in my analysis.19 Statements involving generic NPs, like the ones in (19), are often evaluated with respect to relatively large topic situations or possibly the whole world (maximal situation). Consider (19a) for illustration. This statement intuitively satisfies the presupposition in (20) – all worlds that are like the actual world in relevant respects are such that they have exactly one wolf-kind in them. In other words, the inherent uniqueness of the relevant kind is satisfied in (19a) and so it is in other cases in (19) and more generally, I would argue.

(20) ∀[ ≈ 0 → ∃![wolfK ( )()]]

Many interesting issues remain open, among them the status of so-called weak definites (as in *go to the store*), which are also expressed by bare NPs in Czech and which have been argued to be kind-denoting at some level of representation (Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts 2011). Weak definites are interesting in that they do not satisfy – or at least not in any immediately obvious sense – the uniqueness presupposition (one can *go to the store* even if there are multiple stores around). I believe that the present analysis might offer an insight into this issue, namely by letting the inherent uniqueness presupposition be restricted by an appropriate conversational background. More particularly, the quantification could be over situations restricted by a bouletic conversational background (ordering source), i.e., one related to wishes or intentions, and include only situations in which there is a single store (because one wants or intends to go to just one).

### **5.2 Anaphoric NPs**

There is a clear tendency in some Slavic languages to use demonstrative (rather than bare) NPs for discourse anaphora. This is illustrated for Czech in (21). For parallel facts from Serbo-Croatian, see Arsenijević (2018).

19Therefore, it makes sense that they are bare in a language like Czech. But this can hardly be taken for a significant achievement of the present analysis, as all theories known to me predict the same.

14 Inherent vs. accidental uniqueness in bare and demonstrative nominals

(21) Chytil caught jsem be.aux.1sg brouka. bug {Ten dem brouk bug / #Brouk} bug má has velká large kusadla. fangs 'I caught a bug. The bug has large fangs.'

In Šimík (2016), I followed Elbourne (2008) and Schwarz (2009) and proposed that the anaphoric function of demonstratives is due to their syntactic and semantic structure, which is a proper superset of that of a definite article. Without intending to argue against this view, I would like to suggest that the analysis in terms of accidental uniqueness provides us with an alternative view (a detailed comparison is left for another occasion).

It seems clear that discourse anaphoric demonstrative NPs have to rely on discourse representation in one way or another. Normally, this is achieved by equating the reference of the demonstrative NP with the reference of some other referent mentioned in previous discourse. Suppose, however, that the coreference is achieved indirectly – via situations. The idea is that anaphoric NPs take the discourse situation, name it D , as their resource situation.20 Consider now the accidental uniqueness presupposition in (22), predicted by my analysis for the second sentence of (21). It states that there is exactly one bug in the discourse situation and that it is not the case that all situations that are like the discourse situation are such that they have exactly one bug in them. The former conjunct seems to be satisfied. The latter conjunct is the crucial one: it implies that if one attempts to generalize over discourse situations, one fails to find one particular referent in them. That sounds plausible to me. Individual discourse situations have very different and often unpredictable properties. Unless one considers a very ritualized discourse situation (such as a wedding ceremony, perhaps), it is hard, if not impossible, to find a discourse situation which would always and reliably contain one particular referent. In other words, discourse referents are always accidentally unique and the use of a demonstrative NP is predicted.

(22) ∃![bug(D )()] ∧ ¬∀[ ≈ D → ∃![bug()()]]

### **5.3 Non-specific NPs**

So far I have dealt with bare NPs that refer to entities in the topic situation, i.e., entities that are assumed or even presupposed to exist by the speaker or all discourse participants. But bare NPs also have non-specific uses. In this subsection,

20Notice that what is relevant here is the resource situation of the demonstrative NP, based on which the relevant presupposition is defined. The topic situation might well be disjoint from the discourse situation.

### Radek Šimík

I briefly consider the semantics of bare NPs in the scope of negation and of intensional verbs and will show that my analysis accommodates bare NPs that are either (i) not associated with (inherent) uniqueness at all or (ii) associated with inherent uniqueness in non-actual situations.

Example (23a) involves a bare NP in the scope of negation. In the present approach, outlined in §3.3.1, "indefinite" bare NPs receive the same baseline semantics as the "definite" ones discussed up to now. The only difference is that the NP or, more precisely, the choice function in its semantic representation, is not interpreted relative to the topic situation, but relative to a situation whose existential closure is in the scope of negation.21 By assumption, the choice function is in the scope of the situation binder, resulting in the truth-conditions in (23b)/(23c).22 Note that the "indefinite" use is possible because the inherent uniqueness associated with "definite" bare NPs is not hardwired into the semantics of bare NPs. It is just a pragmatic option.

	- b. . ¬∃′ [ ′ ≤ ∧ ∃ [painted( ′ )( ′(painting))(Mirek)]]
	- c. The set of situations with no subsituation ′ such that there is a choice function selecting a painting (in ′ ) that Mirek painted in ′ .

Consider now example (24), containing the bare NP *tabuli* 'blackboard', which corresponds to a definite description in the English translation. This NP is "nonspecific" in that the blackboard only exists in the belief-situations of the former teacher Jan. This is captured in the present analysis by having the choice function (and hence the blackboard) relativized to the situation variable bound by the intensional verb and by having the choice function existentially bound in its scope – in line with what I have assumed so far. What is more interesting is the issue of uniqueness. In my intuition, the utterance is associated with inherent uniqueness, as one would expect from the fact that a bare NP is used. The intuition is that the inherent uniqueness inference remains a pragmatic presupposition on

21Although different in technical detail, this analysis is very similar in spirit to Geist's (2015) situation-based semantic analysis of Russian genitive of negation. Czech has no productive genitive of negation; accusative objects, as in (23a), exhibit (albeit optionally) a non-specific construal.

22The assumption that the choice function co-scopes immediately below the situation binder derives the traditional observation that "indefinite" bare NPs always take narrow scope (see e.g. Dayal 2004, Geist 2010; cf. Borik 2016).

### 14 Inherent vs. accidental uniqueness in bare and demonstrative nominals

the part of the speaker (or the discourse participants), although it is modally subordinated to the perceived belief of Jan. In other words, the speaker believes that in all the situations that are like the utterance/topic situation as perceived by Jan there is a single blackboard in those situations. Very informally, the speaker assumes that Jan imagines that he is in an ordinary classroom, which in turn entails the stereotypical presence of a single blackboard. This presupposition is formalized in (24d), where 0 is a situation variable bound by the speaker's belief (left implicit), so that DOXJan(0 ) is Jan's doxastic state as perceived by the speaker, and ′ T is a counterpart of the actual topic situation (encoded by the COUNTER relation) in Jan's beliefs. Inherent uniqueness is then relativized to this imagined topic situation.

	- a. Jan Jan si refl myslí, thinks že that píše writes na on tabuli. blackboard 'Jan thinks that he's writing on the blackboard.'
	- b. . ∀′ [ ′ ∈ DOXJan() → ∃ [write( ′ )( ′(blackboard))(Jan)]]
	- c. The set of situations such that all situations ′ compatible with Jan's beliefs in are such that there is a choice function that selects a blackboard in ′ and Jan writes on that blackboard in ′ .
	- d. ∀[ ∈ DOXJan(0 ) → ∃′ T [ ′ T ≤ ′ ∧ COUNTER(′ T , T ) ∧ ∀′ [′ ≈ ′ T → ∃![blackboard(′ )()]]]]

To sum up, what I called here "non-specific" NPs support the view that inherent uniqueness is not a conventional component of bare NPs. First, there are bare NPs that trigger no presupposition whatsoever (so-called "indefinite" NPs); second, embedded bare NPs which correspond to definite NPs give rise to a pragmatic inherent uniqueness presupposition (just as their unembedded counterpart), relativized to what the speaker believes about the attitude holder beliefs.

### **6 Summary and outlook**

Based on the analysis of referential bare and demonstrative NPs in Czech, I proposed that two types of uniqueness need to be distinguished: inherent uniqueness and accidental uniqueness. The type of uniqueness is defined relative to the resource situation of NPs, building on insights from situation semantics, and is

### Radek Šimík

formalized in terms of Kratzer's (1981, 1991) modal semantics. A referent of an NP is inherently unique if all situations that are like the resource situation have exactly one entity that satisfies the NP restriction; it is accidentally unique otherwise. I argued that referential bare NPs convey inherent uniqueness and demonstrative NPs convey accidental uniqueness and proposed a syntax and semantics for these two types of NPs in Czech.

The present paper offers a novel perspective of two traditionally distinguished classes of non-deictic referential NPs. Contrary to the traditional view, recently reinforced by much formal literature, according to which bare NPs are reserved for situational uniqueness and demonstrative NPs for anaphoricity, the present proposal cuts the pie differently – into two types of uniqueness. And, as I suggested in §5, the anaphoric function might just be a special case of accidental uniqueness. Future research might show whether the analysis can be extended to other Slavic languages or even the weak vs. strong definite article contrast in languages like German. Another direction for future research consists in determining whether the concept of accidental uniqueness and the associated situational uniqueness uses of demonstrative NPs might form a bridge for the grammaticalization or diachronic development of the demonstrative into the definite article.

### **Abbreviations**

### **Acknowledgments**

I'm grateful to the audiences of the workshop *Semantics of noun phrases,* which was organized as part of FDSL 13 in Göttingen in December 2018, for their valuable feedback. I also profited greatly from the comments of Olav Mueller-Reichau, the anonymous reviewers of this paper, and the editors/proofeaders Jovana Gajić, Nicole Hockmann, and Freya Schumann. All errors are mine. The research was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) via the grant *Definiteness in articleless Slavic languages* and by the Primus program of the Charles University (PRIMUS/19/HUM/008).

14 Inherent vs. accidental uniqueness in bare and demonstrative nominals

### **References**

### Radek Šimík

14 Inherent vs. accidental uniqueness in bare and demonstrative nominals

*language meaning*, vol. 2, chap. 58, 1484–1515. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/<PHONE_NUMBER>072.1484.

### Radek Šimík

14 Inherent vs. accidental uniqueness in bare and demonstrative nominals

## **Chapter 15**

## **The role of the correlate in clause-embedding**

### Ilse Zimmermann

Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Berlin

This contribution analyzes cataphoric and anaphoric correlates in contemporary German and Russian. It concentrates on their role in the reference to finite clauses. On the basis of a minimalist conception of sound-meaning correlation and discriminating between semantic form and conceptual structure, lexical entries for correlates and lexical heads are presented with special emphasis on the syntactic and semantic functions of dependent clauses. In addition to the nominalizing function of the cataphoric correlates, two templates are proposed to accommodate embedded clauses to their respective role as modifiers or as arguments.

**Keywords:** anaphors, cataphors, demonstratives, embedded clauses, modifiers, adjunct clauses, adverbial clauses, argument clauses, semantic accommodations, cselection, s-selection

### **1 Introduction**

The main concern of this contribution is the role of demonstrative pronouns with regard to embedded clauses. In many languages, the embedding of clauses can be connected with the presence of a cataphoric demonstrative pronoun.1 In German, this is the neuter pronoun *es* 'it' or its suppletive definite determiner forms *dessen*, *dem*, *da(r)*, and in Slavic languages like Russian, the various case forms

1 See Pütz (1986), Sudhoff (2003, 2016), Mollica (2010), Willer-Gold (2013), Schwabe et al. (2016), Bondaruk (2015), Knyazev (2016), Zimmermann (1967, 1983, 1993, 2016a,b, 2018a, 2019b). Correlates and clause integration in the history of German was discussed by Axel (2009), Axel-Tober (2011).

Ilse Zimmermann. 2021. The role of the correlate in clause-embedding. In Andreas Blümel, Jovana Gajić, Ljudmila Geist, Uwe Junghanns & Hagen Pitsch (eds.), *Advances in formal Slavic linguistics 2018*, 393–422. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5483120

### Ilse Zimmermann

of the demonstrative pronoun *to* 'that' are used.2 The corresponding anaphoric correlate is *ėto* 'this'. In German, the neuter personal pronoun *es* 'it', its suppletive forms, or the demonstrative *dies-* 'this' can refer to previously mentioned clauses. It will be shown which morphosyntactic features characterize these pronouns and to which meaning components they correspond. I will concentrate on non-/anaphoric definite demonstrative elements ([+def, +dem, ±anaph]) in D (see 21). Specificity, uniqueness, deixis, and exhaustivity are left aside.3 At first, cataphoric correlates will be inspected.

	- b. My we učtëm take.into.account.pfv to, it.acc čto that professor professor ploxo badly slyšit. hears (Russian)

'We will take it into account that the professor is hard of hearing.'

	- b. Nado necessary soglasit'sja agree s with tem, it.ins čto that Pëtr Peter lenivyj. lazy (Russian)

'One has to agree that Peter is lazy.'

German and Russian behave differently with respect to extraposition of the embedded clause/CP. In Russian – like in other Slavic languages – the CP can remain within its nominal or prepositional shell.4 In German, on the other hand, the pronoun *es* 'it' requires to be exhaustively dominated by DP, without any co-constituent, as is the case in (1a). This is a phonological peculiarity of this item, listed in its lexical entry (see 21a). The suppletive forms of *es* do not exhibit this peculiarity; see (2a). Extraposition of CP takes place for phonological and/or computational reasons and is not visible semantically. It is due to the heaviness of CP and related to processes of performance. I treat it as an operation on the

2German suppletive *da(r)* needs a preposition to its right as phonological host (see the analysis in Breindl 1989).

3 See Schwarz (2009), Šimík (2016), Bombi (2018), and Borik (2019) on these issues.

4 In Croatian, this is always the case. There is no extraposition of the embedded clause (see Willer-Gold 2013).

### 15 The role of the correlate in clause-embedding

level of phonological form (PF). In the syntactic base, the correlate and the embedded clause constitute a complex entity, undergoing compositional semantic interpretation.5

The respective forms of the correlate as well as the syntactic and semantic types of the embedded clause are determined by the embedding lexical head – verbs as in (3)/(4), adjectives as in (5)/(6), and prepositions as in (7)/(8).6,7

	- b. sich refl dafür, def.for dass that / ob if / wer who … interessieren be.interested 'be interested in it that/whether/who …'
	- c. daran, def.at dass that / ob if … zweifeln doubt 'doubt about it that/whether …'
	- d. sich refl danach, def.after ob if / wer who … erkundigen inquire 'inquire about it whether/who …'
	- e. es it.acc verlangen, demand dass that … 'demand that …'
	- f. es it.nom jemandem somebody.dat gefallen, like dass that / wer who … 'like it that/who …

5 In contrast to Haider (2010: 233ff.), who considers extraposed argument clauses to be basegenerated as right sisters of V, I assume that the correlate and its dependent CP are basically co-constituents of a DP (see 10).

6 In German, the lexical heads V and A are XP-final, in Russian they are XP-initial. Nouns deserve a special treatment (see below). See Knyazev (2016) who raises fundamental questions with respect to nominalizations.

7 In (3–8), the pronoun *wer/kto* 'who' represents clauses with initial w/k-phrases. Note that *wie/kak* ('how')-clauses can be embedded by predicates of perception (see Zimmermann 1991), and that all subjunctions in (7)/(8) introduce adverbial clauses.

### 15 The role of the correlate in clause-embedding

b. damit def.with … 'in order to …' c. deswegen, this.gen.because.of weil because … 'for the reason that …' d. indem … in.this.dat 'by …' (8) a. posle after togo, this.gen kak how … (Russian) 'after …' b. dlja for togo this.gen / s with tem, this.ins čtoby that.sbjv … 'in order to …' c. po through tomu, this.dat čto that … 'for the reason that …' d. tem, this.ins čto that … 'by …'

The morphosyntactic dependence between the head and the cataphoric correlate and the embedded clause is government. The governor licenses its dependents by feature sharing. The respective heads of the dependents bear morphosyntactic features in their lexical entries, case features of the correlate, and clause type features in C of the embedded clause.8 The governor with corresponding features associated with the respective argument positions c-selects its dependents by licensing their features (see Zimmermann 1990, 2013, Pitsch 2014a,b).

397

8Case features are [±governed, ±oblique] and [±R(ichtung), ±U(mfang), ±P(eripherie)] for German (see Bierwisch 1967) and for Russian (see Jakobson 1936, 1958), respectively. Subclassifying features of C are [−interr(ogative), −dir(ective)] for *dass/čto* 'that', [+subj(unctive)] for *čtoby* 'that; in order to', [−def(inite), +interr, −wh] for *ob/li* 'if; whether', [−def, +interr, +wh] for *wer/kto* 'who' in interrogative clauses, [+def, +interr, +wh] for *wer/kto* in emotive and [+def, +interr,αwh] in epistemic contexts, and [+percept(ion)] for *wie/kak* 'how'. For German V2 embeddings we would have to add [−interr, −dir, +EPP] (Extended Projection Priniciple), and for languages like Croatian, Bulgarian, and modern Greek, which differentiate between factive and non-factive complementizers, [−interr, −dir, ±fact(ive)].

### Ilse Zimmermann

The embedded clause/CP gets a nominal shell by means of the correlate, a casemarked DP, and thus becomes opaque for extractions. Furthermore, the correlate allows marking the respective complement as part of the discourse and as ingredient of information structure (see the comprehensive treatment of Willer-Gold 2013).

Concerning the interrelation between the cataphoric correlate and the embedded clause, it is not a priori clear whether the two parts c- or s-select each other, how the correlate combines with the various clause types syntactically and semantically, and whether the correlate has anything to do with the function of determiners. It will be shown what it means to supply embedded clauses with nominal character and how the embedded CP gets the status of an adnominal modifier. In this connection, a comparison is made between DPs with a pronominal head and DPs with a determiner and a lexical head regarding their role in the embedding of clauses. The following considerations are a contribution to the ongoing discussion concerning the question whether all embedded clauses have the status of relative clauses, i.e. of predicate expressions.9

### **2 The analysis**

My considerations are built on a conception of minimalism (see Chomsky 1995, 2001) and on the central role of the lexicon as the interface of different levels (see Zimmermann 1987, Jackendoff & Audring 2019).

### **2.1 Syntax**

For the syntax of finite root and embedded clauses, I assume the following structural domains:

(9) (ForceP) CP – MoodP TP … AspP *v*P VP

ForceP introduces the illocutionary operator of root clauses. CP is differentiated by clause-type features (see footnote 8), TP by the tense features ±pret ±fut, and AspP by the aspectual feature ±perf. The corresponding feature combinations are semantically interpreted and mirrored in the morphological word structure

9 I will only address finite embedded clauses. Infinitival and exceptional case marking (ECM) constructions are neglected. What is noteworthy here is the fact that ECM verbs and verbs with V2-complements do not occur with a correlate. With infinitival clauses, the correlate is optional.

### 15 The role of the correlate in clause-embedding

of the inflected verb (Zimmermann 1990, 2013, Pitsch 2014a,b). Depending on semantic scope relations, '–' and '…' in (9) can be specified by further functional categories for information-structural or temporal and aspectual properties, respectively. Whether ForceP is to be analyzed as being composed of several layers in order to integrate various types of sentence adverbials is a matter of ongoing discussion (see, a.o., Krifka 2021).

As to the syntax of DPs, it is assumed that D can be occupied by various types of determiners and pronouns. The cataphoric correlate has an obligatory clausal dependent whilst the corresponding anaphoric pronouns *es*/*das*, *dessen*, *dem*, *da(r)* in German and *ėto* in its various case forms in Russian occur separately or are accompanied by an apposition. (10) represents the corresponding syntactic configurations. (I assume that the German adverbial form *da(r)* is base-generated in D and raised to P.)

$$\begin{aligned} \text{(10)} \quad \text{a. } \begin{bmatrix} \text{XP X}\_{\alpha} \text{ (} \text{\_{PP} P)} \text{\_{\mathbb{P}} [\_{\text{DP}} [\_{\text{D'}} [\_{\text{D}} \{ \text{es/das} \text{s} \text{}, \text{to} \text{} \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\textdegree } \text{\text{\texttop } \text{\text$$

The correlate in (10a) functions as a cataphoric entity and is characterized as a determiner with an additional position for an explicative modifier (CP) (it will be shown in §2.4 that a zero correlate is necessary in many cases). X is the governing lexical head with a PP- or DP-complement and an embedded clause located in SpecDP where it is accessible for government by P or X.10 The governing cselectional properties of X concern the preposition or the case of the DP and the syntactic type of the embedded CP. The analysis proposed in (10a) guarantees that the pertinent governed constituents are accessible for the governor independent from one another.

It deserves mentioning that idiosyncratic PPs and DPs with lexical cases can be omitted such that the embedded CP appears directly associated with the governing head; see (11) (for structural, lexical, and inherent cases see Smirnova & Jackendoff 2017). Predominantly, this is the case whenever the correlate does not signal givenness. The possible omission is considered a PF-operation. Evidently, the omission of idiosyncratically governed PPs or DPs with the correlate requires previous extraposition of the embedded CP.

(11) a. Man one muss must ([DP [D ′ dem]]) this.dat zustimmen, agree dass that Peter Peter faul lazy ist. is (German)

10For other proposals and on the distribution of the accusative correlates *es* and *das* see Axel-Tober et al. (2016). For reasons of space, I will not discuss the peculiarities of this analysis.

### Ilse Zimmermann

b. Nado necessary soglasit'sja agree ([PP s with [DP [D ′ tem this.ins ]]]), čto that Pëtr Peter lenivyj. lazy 'One has to agree that Peter is lazy.' (Russian)

In (12) it is shown that the relative pronoun *dem* and the PP *s čem*, respectively, must be present in order to refer to the coreferential clause.11

The same is true for corresponding interrogative pronouns as in (13) 12 and for anaphoric pronouns relating to clausal antecedents as in (14).13

11In Willer-Gold (2013), I found many continuative appositives like *što umogućuje da* … 'what makes possible that …', *na što ukazuje* … 'to what points …' , *što je u skladu s* … 'what is in harmony with …' , *što znači da* … 'what means that …', *iz čega izlazi* … 'from what follows …', *zbog čega* … 'since …', *nakon čega* … 'whereafter …', etc. 12Strangely, the German interrogative pronoun *was* does not have a dative:

(i) {\*Wem who.dat / welchem Urteil} which judgement.dat muss must man one zustimmen? agree (German)

13So-called echo-questions (see Beck & Reis 2018) require the unreduced form of embeddings:

	- b. \*(S with čem) what.ins nado necessary soglasit'sja? agree Intended: 'On WHAT is it necessary to agree?'

'On which judgement must one agree?'

15 The role of the correlate in clause-embedding

b. Pëtr Peter lenivyj . lazy S with ėtim this.ins nado necessary soglasit'sja. agree (Russian)

'Peter is lazy. One has to agree on this.'

The pronouns in (12–14), which all refer to clauses, cannot be left out of consideration when it comes to the characterization of the c- and s-selectional properties of the pertinent matrix predicates as well as to the treatment of the correlate with regard to its role in nominalizing embedded clauses (see Zimmermann 2019b).

### **2.2 Semantics**

Whereas c-selection has to do with the morphosyntactic compatibility of coconstituents, s-selection concerns their semantic interrelation. First of all, semantic typing of lexical and syntactic components belongs to s-selection. I assume the following elementary semantic types: for individuals, for time spans, for degrees, for propositions, for worlds, and for illocutionary acts (see Krifka 2004). All other semantic types are composed of these differentiations. Many heads are multifunctional as to their s-selectional properties (see 22).14

As for the semantic type of embedded clauses and the pronouns referring to them, there is much discussion in the literature (see below; within inquisitive semantics, see Roelofsen 2019, Theiler et al. 2018). I shall assume the following: relative and adverbial clauses are predicates of type ⟨⟩, ⟨⟩, ⟨⟩, ⟨⟨⟩⟩, or ⟨⟩, while complement clauses are of type or ⟨⟩. As in Brandt et al. (1992) and Zimmermann (1993, 2009), interrogative w/k-clauses and *ob*/*li*-clauses – being introduced by a question operator – are of type ⟨⟩ and have a special semantic structure representing focus and background (see Krifka 2001).

In general, I distinguish between grammatically determined semantic form (SF) and conceptual structure (CS) (see Bierwisch & Lang 1987, Bierwisch

(i) a. Ich I weiß know ({es it / das}), this dass that Marienkäfer ladybugs beißen. bite (German) 'I know that ladybugs bite.' b. Ich I kenne know \*({es it / das}), this dass that Marienkäfer ladybugs beißen. bite

14Whilst *wissen* 'know' – except for cases like *(k)eine Antwort/Lösung wissen* '(not) know an answer/a solution' – takes only propositional objects, *sehen* 'see' is compatible with propositional and individual objects. Both verbs can combine the propositional object with a correlate. In contrast, *kennen* 'know (of)' must be accompanied by the correlate when it takes a propositional object; see (i).

'I am familiar with the fact that ladybugs bite.'

### Ilse Zimmermann

2007, Lang & Maienborn 2011). Unbound variables are parameters which are specified or appropriately bound in CS. Where necessary, semantic type shifts apply in the course of semantic amalgamation of constituents. In this paper, two predicate makers will play a role (see below).

Possible-world semantics discriminates between propositions of type and world-related propositions .( ) of type ⟨⟩. A world is considered as a mental reflection by a human being of the world in which (s)he exists. Therefore, the illocutionary operator of declarative root clauses (DECL) – associated with the meaning postulate (MP) in (16) – will be represented as in (15).

$$\begin{aligned} \text{(15)} \quad & [\oslash\_{\text{Forec}}] = \lambda \not p.\text{vec}.\ p \in (st(a)) \\ \text{(16)} \quad & [\text{MP1}] \\ & \forall p.\text{Dessel}.\ p \quad \rightarrow \quad \left[ [\text{Express}(p)(sp)] \land \left[ [\text{HøL}(\exists d \left[ [d = N] \land \\ \qquad \qquad [\text{ExretAN}(p)(d)] ])(sp) \right] \land \forall \omega [[\text{w} \subseteq \text{w}\_{sp}] \to p(\omega)] ] \right] \right] \end{aligned}$$

The MP in (16) derives the mental fact that in declarative clauses the speaker – by expressing – considers it certain that is true in their world. Furthermore, I propose the MP in (17): For positive attitudinal and emotive predicates, it derives the general fact that the holder of the attitude or emotion is to some degree certain that [−interr−dir] is true in their world (see footnote 8 as to clause-type features).

(17) (MP2) ∀[−interr−dir].∀.∃att/emot[[att/emot()()] → [[hold(∃ [[() ( )] ∧ [certain()()]])()] ∧ ∀[[ ⊆ ] → ( )]]], with ∈ {=, <, >, …}, depending on att/emot.

Both MP's characterize the speaker of declarative clauses and the subject of attitudes and emotions, respectively, as judge for the truth of a proposition such that (s)he is certain or believes that is true in her/his world. The semantic component certain is connected with a degree argument , which in the default case has a norm value. The value for the relational parameter in (17) depends on the respective attitudinal or emotive verb.

15 The role of the correlate in clause-embedding

### **2.3 Lexical entries**

The lexicon plays a crucial role in the sound meaning correlation of constituents (see Zimmermann 1987, 2018b). Every lexical entry (except for zero morphemes) contains the phonological characterization, the morphosyntactic categorization, and the grammatically determined semantic form of the relevant lexical item. As regards morphology, I adhere to an approach according to which the lexicon brings in fully derived and inflected word forms (see, a.o., Zimmermann 1987, 1988, 1990, 2013, 2018b, Wunderlich 1997, Pitsch 2014a,b).

### **2.3.1 The correlate**

With regard to correlates referring to clauses, some general considerations on demonstratives and their relation to definite determiners are in order (see, a.o., Fabricius-Hansen 1981, Schwabe 2013, Schwabe et al. 2016). Languages differ with respect to the explicitness and the linear order of these two elements. Furthermore, it must be clarified by which morphosyntactic features they are characterized and to which meaning components of the respective pronouns these features correspond.

I assume that definiteness corresponds to the operator in (18a), which is equivalent to (18b), where 1 is the – possibly unspecified – restrictor while 2 is the nucleus.

(18) a. (1 ).2 .∃![[1 ()] ∧ [2 ()]] b. (1 ).2 [2 ([1 ()])]

For Russian as an articleless language, I assume a zero determiner D with the SF in (19). It is anonymous as to definiteness and delivers a term without a binder of . It will be specified depending on the respective context.

$$\text{(19)} \quad \lambda P\_1 . \lambda P\_2 [[P\_1(\mathbf{x})] \land [P\_2(\mathbf{x})]]$$

The features [+demonstrative, +anaphoric] correspond to a predicate [()] with a parameter . The latter is specified on the level of CS, hence depends on the linguistic or extralinguistic context.

The cataphoric correlate has the features [+def, +dem, −anaphoric] and the meaning of the definite determiner with a complex restrictor composed of a modificandum (1 ) and a modifier (). The meaning of the cataphoric correlate is given in (20) with an obligatory modifier. is a predicate to be specified by the meaning of an embedded CP, which will, if necessary, be accommodated to the semantics of a relative clause.

### Ilse Zimmermann

### (20) (1 )..2 [2([[1 ()] ∧ [()]])]

In complementary distribution to this specification, we get the semantic representation of the anaphoric pronouns *das* or *dies-* in German and *ėto* in Russian when the predicate remains unspecified in SF. Thus, the anaphoric parameter and an embedded relative clause are treated as being in complementary distribution, semantically.15

Fundamental for my approach is the assumption that operators like ∃! or can combine with variables of all types, not only with .

The lexical entry for the German and Russian nominative and accusative cataphoric correlates is given in (21).

(21) a. /{{α/}//∅}/, ([DP \_\_ ])α

The correlate *es* 'it' cannot be accented and is a complete DP phonologically. This peculiarity is represented in (21a) (as to the zero correlate in (21a), see §2.4.) It implies that the explicative CP cannot be its co-constituent in PF. Therefore, in German, the CP must undergo extraposition. The correlates in (21) are characterized as -bound demonstrative determiners which are used cataphorically (not anaphorically).16

They require an attribute [()] and express a generalized quantifier with a parametric restrictor 1 and the nucleus 2 . The feature [given] must not necessarily be specified as [+given]. Often the correlate simply serves to embed

15[αdef, +interr]-pronouns belong to the same distributional class. They are treated as definite or indefinite Ds with a complex restrictor consisting of [1 () ∧ ()], where will be bound by the existential operator or a question operator, depending on the value of the feature [αdef]. 16When the correlates in (21) are used anaphorically, the predicate variable in (21c) remains unspecified. Typically, this is the case with German *dies-* and Russian *ėt-*; see (i).

(i) a. Dass that der the Professor professor schlecht badly hört, hears {das this / dieses this Problem} problem werden will wir we berücksichtigen. respect (German) b. Čto that professor professor ploxo badly slyšit, hears {ėto this / ėtu this problemu} problem my we učtëm. respect.pfv (Russian)

'That the professor is hard of hearing, {it/this problem} will be respected by us.'

### 15 The role of the correlate in clause-embedding

clauses into DPs. (As an aside note, in German linguistics practice, correlates without anaphoric function are called "placeholders". In Zimmermann (2019b), I combine the feature [+given] with a special qualification in the semantics of the correlate, which is not considered here.) Observe that predicates with idiosyncratically governed PP- or DP-arguments cannot embed clauses without nominal shells, irrespective of whether these arguments are or are not given.

In contrast to DPs like in [DP [D *das*][NP *Haus*]]/[DP [D *ėtot* ][NP *dom*]] 'the/this house', correlates have no NP-complement in syntax. The restrictor 1 remains unspecified.17 Thereby, the cataphoric definite determiner co-occurs with the explicative CP to its right in SpecDP (see 10a). Both constituents can be governed by predicate expressions or prepositions from the outside. This guarantees that the DP as an argument expression gets case and the propositional adjunct can be selected for its clause type. (Clause types are discriminated by features in C, see footnote 8.)

### **2.3.2 Governing predicates**

In order to illustrate the relation between a lexical governor and the governed constituents within a complex DP with a correlate the following lexical entries will be represented (see Zimmermann 2016b: 42–45):

	- b. [+V, +N, (−fem, −neuter, −pl)α]
	- c. ().([{mit/+R+P−U};(−interr−dir/+def+interr+wh)]).[[() = ( )] ∧ [content-with()()()]], where content-with ∈ ⟨⟨β⟨⟩⟩⟩, β ∈ {, }

17Unbound variables like 1 in (21c) enter the conceptual interpretation of linguistic expressions as parameters and can be specified by suitable predicates or are existentially bound. A very general specification would be Kratzer's (2016) predicate .[thing()] (see footnote 20). Bondaruk et al. (2017: 67) show that the correlate *to* 'this' in Polish can be replaced with the noun *fakt* 'fact'. Mollica (2010: 2.4) presents a comprehensive investigation on Italian *il fatto* 'the fact' as a cataphoric correlate. It does not necessarily signal factivity of the embedded CP, as in (i). French *fait* , Spanish *hecho*, and Croatian *činjenica* (all: 'fact') behave alike.

'I insist that you come.'

### Ilse Zimmermann

This entry characterizes the emotive adjective as a comparable predicate with three argument positions. The internal arguments and can remain unspecified. When will be specified it is marked by the preposition *mit* in German and with the instrumental case in Russian. The governed CP in SpecDP can be a clause with the complementizer *dass/čto* 'that' or with a definite w/k-phrase in SpecCP. All features in the index of serve the c-selection of the governed dependents.

Semantically, the internal argument of the adjective *zufrieden/dovolen* 'content' can be a [(P) DP] like *mit der Arbeit/rabotoj* 'with the work' of type or a [(P) [D′ CP]] like *damit, dass er Arbeit hat*/*tem, čto on imeet rabotu* 'with it that he has work' or like *damit, wer Arbeit bekommen hat/tem, kto polučil rabotu* 'with it who got work' of type ⟨⟩. The corresponding semantic types are s-selected by the pertinent lexical governor. Thus, I treat the adjective as multivalent with respect to its combinatory possibilities.

	- b. [+N, −V, αfem, βmasc, −pl, {γgoverned, −oblique/γR, −P, −U}], where α = + → β = −, β = + → α = −
	- c. [−def+interr] [question()] ∈ ⟨⟩

The content nouns *Frage/vopros* 'question' express predicates of type ⟨⟩ and can be used as nominal lexical heads in DPs with predicative or non-predicative function (see below). The c-selectional restrictions associated with the argument position concern the status of as the external argument of the noun and are inherited automatically when the argument is realized as modifier of the noun.

The copula is represented in (24). It is a verb maker as it introduces the eventuality argument , which is a basic component of verbs. Russian has a zero copula in the present tense.

	- b. [+V, −N, −fin, −part]
	- c. [βVγN]..[()INST [ ()]] ∈ ⟨α⟨α⟨⟩⟩⟩ α ∈ {, , , , …}, β = + → γ = +

The c-selectional condition associated with the predicate position of the copula prohibits its combination with verb phrases. With respect to s-selection, the copula has a multivalent external argument . This is shown by the possible values of α.

15 The role of the correlate in clause-embedding

### **2.4 The semantics of DPs with a correlate**

The correlates in (21) are characterized as definite demonstrative determiners with a possibly unspecified restrictor 1 combined with an obligatory modifier . Syntactically, this modifier is embedded as specifier of DP in order to be accessible for its lexical governor (see 10a). Semantically, – like 1 and 2 – is a predicate of , which is bound by the -operator. The semantic representation of the embedded CP being the governed clausal dependent of the lexical head must be accommodated in order to function as predicate . We must get something like (25a) for as a predicate applying to . This results in the attribute in (25b). Two different predicate makers seem necessary, where the relational variable is specified in different ways.

(25) a. [ JCPK] () b. [ JCPK]

### **2.4.1 Two type shifts**

<IP_ADDRESS> A conservative predicate maker

The following type shift, a conservative predicate maker, delivers a predicate ⟨α⟩, which preserves the semantic type of the input, α (Zimmermann 2016a). It is the simplest way to get a predicate – by identifying one entity with another one of the same type. Such semantic representations can equivalently be reduced. And it is for this possibility of reduction that non-given DPs with the correlate seem to be semantically pleonastic.

$$(26)\quad \lambda z.\lambda y \left[y = z\right] \in (a(at)), \alpha \in \{\text{st....}\} \tag{\text{TSpM}}$$

This type shift converts the semantic representation of clauses into predicates with the help of the identity functor. By applying (26) to the semantic interpretation of the embedded CP we get [ = JCPK]. (28) shows the result, with (26) applied to the semantic representation of the embedded clause *dass/wer*…/ *čto/kto*… 'that/who …' of type ⟨⟩ in SpecDP, (21c) for the correlate in D, and (22c) for the lexical head A *zufrieden/dovolen* 'content' of the APs in (27a) or (27b), respectively.

(27) a. [AP [PP *mit* [DP [D ′ *da*] CP]] *zufrieden*] b. [AP *dovolen* [DP [D ′ *tem*] CP]] 'content with'

### Ilse Zimmermann

$$\begin{aligned} \text{(28)} \quad & \left[ \left[ \text{(dormit } z \text{if} z \text{if} z \text{of} z \text{or } \dots \text{'} \text{ do} \text{volen term, } \text{to} \text{'} \text{to} \text{'} \text{to} \text{`} \right.\right] \text{'} \text{ content with} \\ & \left[ \text{that} \text{(who\\_\text{...}} \text{)} \right] \\ &= 22 \text{(21c(26 \left[ \text{[CP]} \right]))} \\ &= \lambda \text{x} \left[ \text{(mit} + \text{R} + \text{P} - \text{U} \text{):} (-\text{interr} - \text{dir} \text{'} + \text{def} + \text{interr} + \text{w} \text{j} \right] \cdot \lambda z \left[ \left[ \left( d \right) = \left( N \right) \right] \land \\ & \left[ \text{(convTERT-wrTrn)} \left( d \right) \left( x \text{(z)} \left( z \right) \right) \right] \left( \lambda Q \lambda P\_2 \left[ P\_2 \left( \text{ax} \left[ \left[ P\_1 \left( x \right) \right] \land \left[ Q \left( x \right) \right] \right] \right] \right) \right] \\ & \left( \lambda z \lambda \left[ y = z \right] \text{([CP])} \right) \right) \\ &= \lambda z \left[ \left[ \left( d \right) = \left( N \right) \right] \land \left[ \text{CONTEN-wrTrn} \left( d \right) \text{(x} \left[ \left[ P\_1 \left( x \right) \right] \land \\ & \left[ \left( \text{x} \right) = \left[ \text{CP} \right] \right] \right] \right] \left( \epsilon \right) \end{aligned}$$

The -operator as a multifunctional binder is not restricted to arguments of type . 18 In the context of the emotive predicate *zufrieden/dovolen* 'content', it binds of the accommodated JCPK and characterizes the internal argument of the adjective as definite. What the semantic amalgamation in (28) shows is that the semantic type ⟨⟩ of its operand JCPK is preserved by template (26). The only semantic contribution of the correlate consists in delivering a nominal argument, in making a referent definite, and in introducing the parameter 1 .

As will be shown in §2.4.2, the type shift (26) applies also to embedded clauses of predicates of saying and believing when they are introduced by the correlate (Zimmermann 2016a,b, 2019a).19 Without the correlate, they are normal propositional complements. Thus, *Frage/vopros* 'question' as content noun of type ⟨⟩ combines with a propositional argument or modifier only if it has the suitable type ⟨⟨⟩⟩ or ⟨⟩, respectively. The corresponding verb *fragen/sprašivat'* 'ask' embeds interrogative complements of type ⟨⟩.

(i) ..∃! [[ = ] ∧ [ ]] ∈ ⟨⟨⟨⟩⟩⟩

18See Zimmermann (2016b), where it is shown that the pronoun *es* 'it' can refer to entities of various semantic types. Multifunctionality is also assumed for w/k-pronouns and for anaphoric pronouns like *das/ėto* 'this' (Zimmermann 2019b).

19In Zimmermann (2016b: 33), I proposed the SF in (i) for the cataphoric correlate:

Here, the identity functor figures in the restrictor of the operator and there is no modifier. Thereby, the representation is not comparable with constructions where the restrictor is realized by an NP and accompanied by a modifier as in the following examples. By the treatment of the correlate in the present analysis, this drawback is overcome. If in (21c) the restrictor 1 in CS will be specified by [ = ], one gets – with the help of type shift (26) – the meaning . [ ([[ = ] ∧ [ = ]])] and by reduction . [ ([ = ])], which amounts to the solution in Zimmermann (2016b: 33).

### 15 The role of the correlate in clause-embedding

### <IP_ADDRESS> A conversative predicate maker

Another accommodation of embedded clauses is proposed by Kratzer (2006, 2015, 2016), Moulton (2014, 2015, 2017), Hanink (2016) and Bogal-Albritten & Moulton (2018). The authors speculate that complement clauses in general – being accommodated to predicates – have the status of relative clauses.20 Instead of their type shift for embedded clauses, I propose the version in (29) (see Zimmermann 2016a, 2018a, 2019a,b):

$$\text{(29)}\quad \lambda z.\lambda y \, [\text{consistr-IN}(z)(\text{y})] \in \langle \text{st}(\text{et})\rangle \tag{\text{TS}\_{\text{PM2}}}$$

In contrast to template (26), this type shift delivers predicates of type ⟨⟩, changing propositions of type ⟨⟩ to predicates. I propose to apply this template in cases where the restrictor 1 of the correlate is expressed by content nouns of type ⟨⟩ like *Idee/ideja* 'idea', *Plan/plan* 'plan', *Frage/vopros* 'question', etc. (see Zimmermann 2019a).21 The result of applying (29) to the semantic representation of an interrogative clause as modifier of content nouns like *Frage/vopros* 'question' together with the cataphoric -operator is shown in (30).

(30) J{*die Frage,* {*ob Peter*/*wer*} *gewonnen hat* / *(tot) vopros,* {*pobedil li Pëtr*/*kto pobedil*}} 'the question {whether Peter/who won}'K

$$\begin{aligned} &=21c\left([\left[Frage/vops\right]]\left(29\left([\left[CP\right]\right)\right)\right) \\ &=\lambda P\_1.\lambda Q.\lambda P\_2\left[P\_2\left(\text{x}\left[\left[P\_1(\text{x})\right]\land\left[Q(\text{x})\right]\right]\right)\right]\left(\lambda\text{y.}[\text{Quesstrom}(\text{y})]\right) \\ &\quad \left(\lambda z\lambda y.\text{[consusr-ns(z)(y)]}\left([\left[ob/\text{wer}\right]/\left[li/kto\right]..\square\right]\right)\right) \\ &\equiv\lambda P\_2\left[P\_2\left(\text{x}\left[\left[\text{Quesstrom}(\text{x})\right]\land\text{} \newline \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\left[\text{consusr-ns([\left[\left[ob/\text{wer}\right]\land\left[I\left[kto\right]\dots\right]\right]\left[x\right])\right]\right]\right)\right]\in\left(et(t)\right) \end{aligned}$$

Another realm for the application of type shift (29) are adverbial clauses (Zimmermann 2018a, 2019b,c). For example, final clauses with *damit, dass*/{*dlja togo/s*

$$\text{(i)} \quad \lambda p \,\lambda x \Big| \{ \text{true} \\ \text{(x)} \land \forall w \left[ \left[ (w) \in \text{convert}(x) \right] \to p(w) \right] \Big| \}$$

Moltmann (2020) presents a new view with regard to the semantic type of embedded clauses as predicates of content-bearing entitites. It is based on truth-maker and satisfier semantics rather than possible-worlds semantics.

20See also Arsenijević (2009, 2021 [this volume]) and Caponigro & Polinsky (2011). Within possible-world semantics, Kratzer (2016) proposes the semantic component in (i).

21A thorough comparison of this analysis with the approach of Fabricius-Hansen & von Stechow (1989) requires a special study. The authors assume that content nouns are of type ⟨⟩.

### Ilse Zimmermann

*tem*}*, čtoby* 'with the aim that' can be interpreted as with-the-aim-consistingin JCPK, where aim is the specification of the restrictor 1 of (21c). This is shown in the semantic representation in (32) of the examples in (31).22

	- with aim.ins that=sbjv Peter learned Italian 'with the aim that Peter learned Italian'

Here, the adverbializing preposition of semantic type ⟨⟨⟩⟩ refers to a relation between an eventuality and the complex nominal complement of type with the correlative determiner, a head noun and its restrictive attribute, the semantically accommodated embedded CP. In Russian, the determiner is represented by a zero correlate (see 21a).

In parallel to the constructions in (31) with an expressed restrictor – German *Ziel* and Russian *cel'* 'aim' –, there are synonymous expressions with the cataphoric correlate and an incorporated component specifying the restrictor (Zimmermann 2019b). This is demonstrated in (33) and (34).

'so that Peter learned Italian'

$$\begin{aligned} \text{(34)} \qquad & \left[ \text{[} \text{[} \text{domit} \text{/s } \text{term}\_{\text{ct}}] \text{]} \text{ (29 ([\text{CP}]))} \right] \\ &= \lambda e. \text{[} \text{(e)} \, R \left( \text{\text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \text{\textquotedbl{}} \end{aligned} \text{(5)}$$

In these examples, the preposition *mit*/*s* delivers an unspecified relation between the referential argument of the matrix-clause and the argument of the adverbial clause which is characterized as purpose clause by the semantic component

22In Russian, the prospectivity of the noun *cel'* 'aim' is connected with the subjunctive in the modifying CP. On the morphosyntax and the meaning of the subjunctive/conditional particle *by* see, a.o., Zimmermann (2015).

### 15 The role of the correlate in clause-embedding

aim, irrespective of whether it is expressed by the noun *Ziel*/*cel'* 'aim' as in (31) or incorporated in the meaning of the connective *damit, dass*/*s tem, čtoby* 'so that' as in (33). In both cases, the template (29) accommodates the meaning of the embedded CP of type ⟨⟩ to a modifying predicate of type ⟨⟩.

Content nouns, typically, also occur as predicative expressions that classify nominalized propositions, as shown in (35)/(36) and (37)/(38).

	- b. Es it ist is eine a komplizierte complicated Frage, question ob if wir we die def globalen global Probleme problems lösen solve können.

can

'Whether we can solve the global problems is a complicated question.'

	- b. To, it čto=by that=sbjv Pëtr Peter učilsja learned italjanskomu, Italian – naša our cel'. goal

'That Peter should learn Italian is our goal.'

These predicates are all of type ⟨⟩. This does not correspond to the type of their propositional subjects. Only when they are accompanied by a correlate and properly accommodated are they of the suitable semantic type, ⟨⟨⟩⟩. This means that the propositional subjects in (35a), (36a), and in (37a), (38a) are coerced by

### Ilse Zimmermann

a silent nominalizer. It is composed of the zero correlate (21) and the predicate maker (29), as shown in (39).

$$\begin{aligned} \text{(39)} \qquad & \lambda Q.\lambda P\_2 \Big[ P\_2 \big( \text{x} \big[ \left[ P\_1(\text{x}) \right] \wedge \left[ Q(\text{x}) \right] \big] \Big) \Big] \Big( \lambda z.\lambda y \big[ \text{consissr-IN}(z)(y) \big[ \left[ \text{CP} \big] \big] \Big) \Big) \\ &= \lambda P\_2 \Big[ P\_2 \big( \text{x} \big[ \left[ P\_1(\text{x}) \right] \wedge \left[ \text{consissr-IN}(\left[ \text{CP} \big] \big] \big) \big( x \big) \Big] \Big) \Big) \Big] \Big) \Big) \Big) \Big) \Big( \text{et}(t) \Big) \end{aligned}$$

Specifying JCPK by the semantics of the proposition of the subject in (35a), (36a), and (37a), (38a), one gets the nominalized SF in (40). Like the subjects with the correlates in (35b, 36b) and (37b, 38b), it is a suitable argument for the predicates in (35)/(36) and (37)/(38).

$$\begin{array}{ll} \text{(40)} & \lambda P\_2 \Big| \, \mu \Big( \text{x} \Big[ \big[ P\_1(\text{x}) \big] \wedge \big[ \text{consissr-in} \big( \big[ \{ob/l\}...\big] \big[ \big[ \text{class/today} \big] \dots \big] \big] \Big) \Big| \Big) \\ & \in \langle et(t) \rangle \end{array}$$

With the semantics of the copula and the functional categories of the matrixclause we get (41) as the SF of the examples in (38). The peculiarities of the syntax and semantics of the functional CP-domains need not interest us here (on the syntax see (9)). Attention should be paid to the semantic amalgamation of the copula with the predicative and the nominalized propositional subject.

$$\begin{aligned} \text{(41)} \qquad &\text{models } \lambda \mathbf{w.} \exists e \left[ \left[ \left( e \right) \leq \langle \mathbf{w} \rangle \right] \land \left[ \left[ \neg \left[ \left( t \right) < \langle t^{0} \rangle \right] \right] \right] \land \left[ \left[ \left[ \mathbf{r} (e) \supseteq \langle t \rangle \right] \right] \land \\ &\quad \lambda z \left[ \left( e \right) \text{models} \mathbf{r} \left[ \left[ \text{AM} \mathbf{x} (z) \right] \land \left[ \text{HAVE} \left( z \right) \langle \mathbf{y} \left[ \left( s \mathbf{y} \right) \in \left( \mathbf{y} \right) \right] \right] \right] \right] \end{aligned} \right]$$

$$\begin{aligned} \label{def:} \lambda \mathbf{z} \left[ \text{ $P\_{2}$  } \{ \text{x} \left[ \left[ \left[ P\_{1} \left( \mathbf{x} \right) \right] \land \left[ \text{cons} \text{ssist-T} \left( \left[ \left[ \mathbf{CP} \left[ \left[ \left( s \right) \right] \right] \right] \right) \right] \right) \} \} \end{]} \newline \begin{aligned} \label{def:} \text{:} \lambda \mathbf{z} \text{=} \lambda \mathbf{w} \text{-} \mathbf{z} \text{-} \mathbf{w} \text{-} \mathbf{z} \text{-} \mathbf{w} \text{-} \mathbf{z} \text{-} \mathbf{z} \text{-} \mathbf{z} \text{-} \mathbf{z} \text{-} \mathbf{z} \text{-} \mathbf{z} \text{-} \mathbf{z} \text{-} \mathbf{z} \text{-} \mathbf{z} \text{-} \mathbf{z} \text{-} \mathbf{z} \text{-} \mathbf{z} \text{-} \mathbf{z} \text{$$

In contrast to (32), where the embedded clause functions as modifier of the content noun *cel'* with the meaning aim, the accommodated propositional subject in (41) functions as the argument of this noun in predicative function (compare the examples (31b) and (38a)). Nevertheless, in both cases, the embedded CP serves as accommodated predicate of a modifier semantically, namely as [consist-in(JCPK)()].

### 15 The role of the correlate in clause-embedding

As to the substance of the accommodation in (26) and (29), it deserves mentioning that the semantic functors = and consist-in are very abstract and thereby very similar to pleonastic entities.

Comparing DPs with an accommodated proposition as modifier like in (30) and corresponding copular clauses with a propositional subject and with a content noun as predicate like in (35a) and (38a), respectively, one observes that template (29) delivers modifiers of type ⟨⟩, while the combination of (29) and the correlate (21) serves as nominalizer of propositions and delivers arguments of type ⟨⟨⟩⟩.

### **2.4.2 Attitudinal verbs with incorporated content nouns**

A look at doxastic verbs like *zweifeln an/bezweifeln/somnevat'sja v* 'doubt (about)' allows us to consider the syntactic and semantic types of their propositional internal argument.

'Peter doubts (about it) that the Earth is round.'

In both languages, the embedded clause is of declarative nature. It has to be accompanied by the correlate with governing prepositions. As direct object of *bezweifeln* 'doubt', it can occur without a visible correlate.

In Zimmermann (2019a), I argue that attitudinal predicates embed propositions as in (43).

	- b. Pëtr Peter dumaet, believe čto that Zemlja earth ploska. flat – Čto what ty you dumaeš'? believe (Russian)

'Peter believes that the Earth is flat. What do you believe?'

### Ilse Zimmermann

The doxastic verb *meinen*/*dumat'* 'believe' and its periphrastic variants in (43a) are synonymous, and the periphrastic forms are semantically incorporated in the meaning of the verb. The propositional argument position is inherited and constitutes the propositional complement of the verb. This is shown in (44).

$$\begin{aligned} \text{(44)} \quad & \left[ \{ \text{meinen} / \text{d} \text{umat} \} \right] = \lambda p. \lambda \ge \lambda e \left[ \text{(e)} \text{nST} \left[ \text{Have} \left( \text{y} \left[ \text{BELIF} \left( \text{y} \right) \right] \right. \right. \\\\ & \left[ \text{consis:ST-in} \left( p \right) (\text{y}) \right] \right] \in \langle \text{st} (e \langle \text{et} \rangle) \rangle. \end{aligned} $$

Internal propositional complements of doxastic verbs are transparent for extractions out of the embedded clause. In cases where the propositional complement of doxastic verbs is accompanied by the correlate as in (45) = (42), we get an opaque DP-construction of semantic type ⟨⟨⟨⟩⟩⟩, as shown in (46).

$$\text{(46)} \quad \text{DEC}\lambda\text{w.}\exists e\left[\left[\left(e\right)\leq\left(\omega\right)\right]\land\left[\left[\neg\left(\left(t\right)\leq\left(t^{0}\right)\right]\right]\land\left[\left[\left(\tau\left(e\right)\supseteq\left(t\right)\right]\right]\land\left(\left(\omega\right)\right)\right]\land\left(\left(\omega\right)\right)\right]$$

$$\left[\left(e\right)\text{nnsr}\left[\text{Have}\left(\text{\(\gamma\)\left[\text{[pouv\!r\(\gamma\)]}\right]\land\left[\text{consissr\text{-}n\left(\text{\(\gamma\)\left[\text{[}P\_{1}\left(z\right)\right]\right]}\land\left(\omega\right)\right]\right)}\land\left(\left(\omega\right)\right)\land\left(\left(\omega\right)\right)\right]$$

$$\left[\left(z\right) = \left(\lambda\omega\text{'}\exists e'\left[\left[\left(e\right)\leq\left(\omega\text{'}\right)\right]\land\left[\left[\neg\left(\left(t\right)\leq\left(t^{0}\right)\right]\right]\right)\land\left[\left[\left(\tau\left(e\right)\right)\supseteq\left(t^{\prime}\right)\right]\right]\land\left(\omega\right)\right)$$

$$\left[\left(e^{\prime}\right)\text{nsr}\left[\text{novnsp}\left(\text{\(\alpha\left[\text{EARTF}\&\left]\right]\left]\left]\left]\left]\left[\left(\text{y}\right)\right]\right]\right)\left[\left(\text{PETER}\right)\right]\right]\right]\right]\right]$$

Here, the semantics of the doxastic verb embodies template (29) with the functor consist-in, whilst the correlate in this case is connected with the simpler type shift (26) with the identity functor =, namely in order to preserve the type of the embedded proposition (i.e. , ∈ ⟨⟩).

### **3 Prospects**

The present treatment of correlates is semantically flexible and reckons with two type shifts, (26) and (29), to embed a CP as a modifier. It was shown that nominalizing clauses is realized by a special determiner, the cataphoric correlate, which

introduces a modifier position. The approach presupposes multifunctional lexical heads and pronouns as well as different morphosyntactic and semantic types of clauses. As to the question whether there are propositional complements, I tried to show that at least verbs of thinking and saying take propositions of type ⟨⟩ as their complements.

Many problems remain open for future research. In view of the fact that every study is dependent on a contemporary paradigm, it is desirable that it leaves enough room for clarifying unexplained phenomena. First of all, the linguistic description should be as explicit as possible. It should be shown

I hope to have shown that the nominal shells of embedded clauses teach us a lot.

### Ilse Zimmermann

### **Abbreviations**

### **Acknowledgements**

I benefited from talks and discussions in the syntax and semantics seminars of the Leibniz-ZAS in Berlin, in the Slavic Colloquium of the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and in the Semantics-syntax Colloquium at the University of Potsdam. I owe special gratitude for encouragement and support to the organizers of FDSL 13 and the editors of this volume. For help with the English translations of Russian examples and for competent critique I am grateful to Joseph P. DeVeaugh-Geiss and to two anonymous reviewers, respectively.

### **References**

### 15 The role of the correlate in clause-embedding

### Ilse Zimmermann

15 The role of the correlate in clause-embedding

### Ilse Zimmermann

### 15 The role of the correlate in clause-embedding

### Ilse Zimmermann

## **Chapter 16**

## **Torlak clitic doubling: A cross-linguistic comparison**

### Jelena Živojinović

### University of Verona

This paper examines the types of clitics and clitic placement in Torlak. This vernacular, spoken in South-Eastern Serbia, also called the Prizren-Timok variety, whose genealogical position is still debatable, requires more attention from the scientific community. In this article, I describe clitic constructions, particularly the ones of clitic doubling and word order in Torlak by presenting data collected in the area of Trgovište and comparing it to the description of Bulgarian provided in Krapova & Cinque (2008). A further crosslinguistic comparison with Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, and Macedonian gives an insight into the relatedness of Torlak to the two typologically different areas: a Balkan Slavic and a non-Balkan Slavic one. This is particularly interesting since Torlak has clitic doubling, which makes it similar to Bulgarian and Macedonian, but it has second-position clitics, which makes it similar to Serbo-Croatian, thereby challenging certain cross-linguistic generalizations of Bošković (2001, 2004a,b, 2007, 2016). The overall results allow us to have a clearer picture of the use of clitics in this non-standard variety.

**Keywords:** clitic doubling, Torlak, cross-linguistic comparison

### **1 Introduction**

Torlak is a dialect spoken in the Southern or Southeastern area of Serbia. It is often called Prizren-Timok dialect to delineate its area in Serbia, despite its distribution in closer areas in Bulgaria and Macedonia as well (Figure 1) and some minor sub-varieties in the inner Bulgaria and Romania.1

1The areas inhabited by the populations of Gorani and Carashovans are disputed and not always considered as Torlak (Ivić 1956, Browne 1993). I will not refer to these areas in this article. The map in Figure 1 does not represent the current distribution, but it is the closest one.

Jelena Živojinović. 2021. Torlak clitic doubling: A cross-linguistic comparison. In Andreas Blümel, Jovana Gajić, Ljudmila Geist, Uwe Junghanns & Hagen Pitsch (eds.), *Advances in formal Slavic linguistics 2018*, 423–441. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5483122

### Jelena Živojinović

Figure 1: Distribution of the Torlak dialect (CC BY Jingiby https:// commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torlak\_dialects\_map\_en.png)

### 16 Torlak clitic doubling: A cross-linguistic comparison

What is relevant is that Torlak contains the majority of features of the so-called Balkan Sprachbund and that there is a high level of microvariation within its area of distribution. It is often disputed by Serbian/Croatian and Bulgarian scholars, who claim that

Therefore, its classification remains controversial, having some features in common with Serbo-Croatian and some others with Bulgarian and Macedonian. Despite genealogical issues, this work seeks to provide a valuable contribution in the domain of typology of South Slavic languages.

In this article, I will address two important issues concerning the phenomenon of clitic doubling. On the one hand, I will represent different types of reduplication constructions by confronting Torlak data with the framework illustrated in Krapova & Cinque (2008). On the other hand, I will deal with word order issues and clitic placement in the same structures.

The introductory §2 will discuss the theoretical framework of clitic doubling, address the phenomenon of doubling in Balkan languages, and delineate the methodology and fieldwork conducted in South-Eastern Serbia. §3 will deal with different types of reduplication constructions, mainly based on Krapova & Cinque (2008), and provide evidence from the gathered data. Finally, §4 will carry out a cross-linguistic comparison between Torlak and its surrounding languages, with respect to word order.

### **2 Theoretical framework: The phenomenon of clitic doubling in a nutshell**

The phenomenon of clitic doubling involves the reduplication of a verbal argument by a clitic pronoun. The doubled argument is usually a full pronoun (1) or a DP (2), or in certain circumstances a CP (3), according to Kallulli & Tasmowski (2008: 1–4), for example:2

2 If not indicated otherwise, examples are from Torlak.

### Jelena Živojinović

	- 'Ana knew (it) that Eva had left.' (Albanian; Kallulli & Tasmowski 2008: 2)

Such patterns have been widely discussed with reference to Romance languages, see, for instance, Jaeggli (1982, 1986), Kayne (1991), Sportiche (1996). Among the mentioned works, the pioneering one is surely Jaeggli (1982) on Rioplatense Spanish, a language spoken in Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay, along with Farkas (1978) and Steriade (1980) on Romanian. Research has shown that both obligatorily demand a construction of doubling, although there are systems in other languages allowing an optional use of it.

Scholars' opinions have been divided when it comes to the formal description of clitic doubling. On the one hand, some scholars assume that clitics move from an argument position to a derived position, whereas other scholars suggest they are base-generated in their surface position as agreement markers. Sportiche (1996), however, proposes a combination of the two approaches. According to his explanation, pre-existing X0 elements are directed to a specifier position where they license a feature F, which has to be marked off in a Spec-Head configuration, since the doubled XP\* must move at LF to XP^ position, as indicated in Figure 2.

In addition, many more recent works deal with the phenomenon of cliticization, such as Roberts (2010), who assumes that a head X0 is a category which is exclusively dominating itself and claims that clitics do not necessarily need to be part of their host, although they can, or Kramer (2014), who provides different criteria on how to distinguish cliticization from agreement.4 I will not insist on any specific theoretical proposal, however, further investigation on cliticization in Torlak might shed light on how this phenomenon works in the grammar.

3The glosses have been slightly modified compared to the original citation.

4Roberts (2010: 54), following Chomsky (1995), distinguishes X0 from Xmin; X0 being a head itself and Xmin consisting merely of features.

16 Torlak clitic doubling: A cross-linguistic comparison

Figure 2: Sportiche's structural analysis of cd (Kallulli & Tasmowski 2008: 6)

### **2.1 Clitic doubling in Balkan languages**

Clitic doubling seems to represent an innovation in Balkan languages arisen among the languages themselves, since there is no historical attestation in either Old Church Slavonic or Ancient Greek (Kallulli & Tasmowski 2008: 9). According to certain works, such as Lopašov (1978) and Mišeska Tomić (2008a,b), there is consistent variation across Balkan languages and even more microvariation within Balkan Slavic. Lopašov (1978) claims that western and southern areas might have strict grammatical constraints which doubling constructions are subject to, whereas northern and eastern areas might use discourse-pragmatic factors to influence cd. Mišeska Tomić (2008a,b), despite being more focused on Balkan Slavic, provides an illustration of the Balkan dialectal continuum. Doubling appears to show variation across a vertical North-South axis as well as across a horizontal East-West one. Moving North to South, "along with the reduction of the distance between the clitics and the verb, the restrictions on the word classes that can be clitic doubled are relaxed" (Mišeska Tomić 2008a: 81). Therefore, Serbo-Croatian shows almost no traces of clitic doubling constructions, Torlak exhibits a wide usage of accusative doubling and to a lesser extent dative doubling, while Macedonian requires clitic doubling constructions obligatorily with definite direct and indirect objects. As one moves from East to West, "along with the gradual disappearance of the rule for non-occurrence of the clitics in clause-initial position, the restrictions on the environments for clitic doubling are relaxed" (Mišeska Tomić 2008a: 81).

### Jelena Živojinović

### **2.2 Data and methods**

The data for this study was collected in the area of Trgovište in South-Eastern Serbia. What is interesting is that the subvariety of Torlak spoken here exhibits overt postposed articles just like Bulgarian and Macedonian (Balkan languages) but unlike Serbo-Croatian (non-Balkan).5 In fact, we find:

(4) Vide saw li q ga him.cl.acc ribarata? fisherman.acc.def 'Have you seen the fisherman?'

The majority of data was collected as free production, particularly due to the age of participants, whose physical conditions did not make specific assignments possible. However, a short elicitation task was done in addition to the free production, with the use of targeted questions, in order to trigger the use of the target word order. Some of the examples can be found in §4.4. The variety of Torlak recorded for this study is specifically relevant due to its geographical position, which is relatively close to both the Macedonian and the Bulgarian border. Therefore, an investigation of contact-induced phenomena might prove fruitful. However, in this article I will focus on a mere comparison of Torlak with its bordering languages.

### **3 Clitic reduplication constructions**

### **3.1 Relevant background: Krapova & Cinque (2008)**

According to Krapova & Cinque (2008), who worked on Bulgarian, clitic doubling cannot be treated as a uniform phenomenon without first mentioning different subtypes of it. As a matter of fact, they identified four divergent subtypes within this macro group. We find:

5Other subvarieties of Torlak might not exhibit overt postposed articles, such as the one analyzed in Runić (2013, 2014).

### 16 Torlak clitic doubling: A cross-linguistic comparison

cd, exemplified in (5), is a construction involving specific groups of predicates, as listed in Krapova & Cinque's (2008) work. For instance, they list psych and physical perception predicates with dative experiencers (e.g. *lipsva mi* 'I miss', lit. 'miss me.dat'), psych and physical perception predicates with accusative experiencers (e.g. *dostrašava me* 'I am afraid of'), predicates with possessor datives (e.g. *bučat mi ušite* 'my ears ring'), predicates with possessor accusatives (e.g. *vărti me ramoto* 'I have a stitch in the shoulder'), predicates in the feel-like constructions (e.g. *iska mi se* 'I feel like'), modal predicates (e.g. *slučva mi se* 'it happens to me'), and predicates indicating presence or absence of something (e.g. *ima* 'there is', *njama* 'there isn't'). Such constructions require obligatory clitic doubling, even in focus movement constructions and allow the clitic's associate to take the stress of the utterance (as new information), to be wh-moved, to be contrastively focused and to be an indefinite quantifier.

(5) Ne not mu him.cl.dat se refl speše slept samo only na to Ivan. Ivan 'Only Ivan didn't feel like sleeping.' (Bulgarian)

clrd is a complementary structure to cd, but at the same time very different, according to Krapova & Cinque (2008). Namely, as in all of the constructions that will follow, doubling is not obligatory. Furthermore, there are no peculiar constraints in terms of types of predicates used, but the associate correlates with topicality and can neither be wh-moved, constitute contrastive focus, nor contain an indefinite quantifier.

(6) Poznavam know.1sg go it.cl.acc tova this čuvstvo. sentiment 'I know this sentiment.' (Bulgarian)

htld and clld are two additional complementary topic structures which mainly differ in pragmatic properties from the previous two subgroups.

Specifically, htld, as clearly stated in the name, creates a general context for the comment from a pragmatic point of view. From a prosodic point of view, instead, there usually is a sharper intonational break between the dislocated element on the left and the rest of the sentence. Here is an example of htld in Bulgarian, taken from the corpus presented in Džonova (2004):

### Jelena Živojinović

(7) Tja she.nom i and bez without tova that ne not moga can.1sg da comp ja her.cl.acc nakaram make.1sg da to jade. eat.3sg 'Her, anyway, I cannot make her eat.' (Bulgarian)

Syntactic properties are the key for distinguishing apparent cases of overlapping between htld and clld. Namely, as Krapova & Cinque (2008) point out, in case of a dislocated phrase as a simple DP without overt case marking, it is necessary to take into account syntactic properties. The presence or absence of case connectivity effects, that is case matching between the dislocated element(s) and the resumptive one inside the clause, draws a clear distinction between the two subcategories. Case connectivity effects are visible in Bulgarian but only with topicalized pronouns and, accordingly, this feature is absent in htld, where a topic simply bears the nominative case. Furthermore, htld is more likely to appear only and exclusively in root contexts and its resumptive element can be any DP.

clld, on the other hand, requires case connectivity effects to show up mandatorily, unlike htld. In addition, it appears both in root and non-root contexts and the resumptive element can only be a clitic.

Based on these assumptions, the examples mentioned seem to represent four distinct types of doubling. More examples are to be found in Krapova & Karastaneva (2002) and Krapova & Cinque (2008).

### **3.2 Evidence from gathered data**

Data that I am presenting here was gathered in April 2018 in the area of Trgovište, more precisely in the village Novi Glog, relatively close to the borders to Macedonia and Bulgaria. Not so surprisingly, many constructions in this dialect have a very similar, if not identical, structure to Bulgarian and/or Macedonian. However, my aim here is to examine whether gathered data can meet the requirements presented in Krapova & Cinque (2008) and to illustrate any possible discrepancy.

I will begin with the most characteristic structure in Torlak involving clitic doubling.

16 Torlak clitic doubling: A cross-linguistic comparison

(9) Mene me.acc me me.cl.acc boli hurts stomak. stomach 'I have a stomach ache.'

This appears to be a case of cd and similar examples with tonic pronouns can be found in Bulgarian as well. What determines the classification of the structure as the cd subtype is the use of topicalization and a specific verbal construction, involving a predicate with possessor accusative. Clitic doubling in such constructions is mandatory. Further confirmation of cd can be found in the following examples using the types of predicates listed in Krapova & Cinque (2008). 6

(12) *Predicates with possessor dative* Na to Marinu Marina.dat gu her.cl.dat lkna felt.relief čim as.soon.as … . 'Marina felt relief as soon as … .'

It is necessary to point out that doubling in Torlak mainly occurs with constructions involving accusative case, whereas there are fewer examples involving dative case. In fact, specific predicates mentioned by Krapova & Cinque (2008), such as *pari mi* (*na ezika*) 'my tongue is burning', are not grammatical in the distinct variety of Torlak analyzed here. clrd occurs in Torlak as well, being the complementary structure to cd. Indeed, example (6) in Bulgarian has its equivalent formation:7

(13) Poznavam know.1sg ga him.cl.acc toga that čoveka. man 'I know that man.'

6The indicated interpretation of (12) is not the only possible one. Another possible translation is 'Marina felt better as soon as …' ('after being sick for days, she felt better'), apart from 'Marina felt relief (on the soul) as soon as …'.

7Torlak does not make a distinction between proximal = V, neutral = T and distal = N articles, as Macedonian does.

### Jelena Živojinović

Other options which are present in Bulgarian, namely htld, clld, are lacking in Torlak. In fact, the equivalent Torlak examples of (7) and (8), illustrated in Krapova & Cinque (2008), are ungrammatical.

Torlak, therefore, only partially resembles the well-defined Bulgarian structure.

### **4 Clitic word order**

The following section presents issues on word order with respect to the phenomenon of clitic doubling. §4.1 presents a theoretical part on generalizations illustrated in Bošković (2001, 2004a,b, 2007, 2016). §4.2 and §4.3 respectively describe all cases of word order involving cliticization in Serbo-Croatian, and Bulgarian and Macedonian, whereas §4.4 provides a general picture of word order in Torlak with respect to the above-listed bordering languages.

### **4.1 Relevant background: Bošković's generalizations**

The basic assumptions for this section mainly involve crosslinguistic generalizations presented in Bošković (2001, 2004a,b, 2007, 2016) and are based on the presumption that languages differ with respect to a number of syntactic and semantic phenomena depending on whether or not they have articles.

Here are the main generalizations, relevant for our word order puzzle:

### 16 Torlak clitic doubling: A cross-linguistic comparison

The remaining generalizations provided by Bošković are not relevant for the purpose of this article. I will refer to these generalizations in the following sections, by illustrating clitic constructions involving auxiliary, pronominal, and other types (such as question clitics, e.g. *li*) of clitics in Torlak and its surrounding languages.

### **4.2 Word order in Serbo-Croatian**

Serbo-Croatian has Wackernagel position clitics, according to Franks & King (2000: 217), whereas according to Bošković (2001) and Radanović-Kocić (1988, 1996) SC clitics occur in the second position of their intonational phrase. The following examples seem to merge these two approaches:

(17) Nešto something nam us.cl.dat dovikuje. shout.out.3sg 'S/he is shouting out to us.' (SC; Radanović-Kocić 1988: 105)

However, Franks & King (2000: 219) further specify that "in SC clitics are traditionally described as being able to fall after either the first prosodic or syntactic phrase". In case of the presence of multiple clitics, the internal organization of the clitic cluster is the following:8

li (q) > aux > dat > acc > gen > se (refl) > je (be.3sg)

In fact, we find the following examples of a maximal projection as in (18) or a prosodic word as in (19).

8 *Je* is an exceptional, yet problematic clitic in SC. It can occur as a 3sg copula/auxiliary but also as a question clitic. Further details can be found in Franks (2017) and Živojinović (2020), among others.

### Jelena Živojinović

Second position clitics are to be found in different types of configurations: in verb-initial clauses as in (20) and with a clitic in first position as in (21).

The clitic-first configuration in (20) illustrates one of the two possible exceptions to the second-position placement. Namely, clitics as unstressed particles cannot occur in the first position. However, the clitic *je* has a stressed counterpart, making it a non-clitic, according to Franks & King (2000: 226). It is followed by the question clitic *li*, which occurs in the typical second position.

Another apparent exception to the second-position is illustrated in the following example:

Despite the apparent violation of the second position placement claimed by both Franks & King (2000) on the one hand and Bošković (2001) and Radanović-Kocić (1988) on the other, this example requires a specific intonation and a separation of the initial constituent from the remaining part of the sentence. In this way, this constituent does not violate the second position placement.

This section concludes that there is no evidence for SC to have any other configurations than second-position placement of clitics.

### **4.3 Word order in Bulgarian and Macedonian**

Despite being typologically related, Bulgarian and Macedonian differ with respect to clitic doubling. Namely, they both allow cd but relate to it in a very different manner. Macedonian has obligatory clitic doubling with definite direct and indirect objects, whereas cd in Bulgarian is optional. In fact, as already mentioned above, it is associated with topicality and specificity (Sportiche 1996, Krapova & Cinque 2008).

In Bulgarian, clitics precede finite verbs (except when the finite verb is in the first position). This means that clitics can be placed in any position in the sentence, except for the first one; see (23).

16 Torlak clitic doubling: A cross-linguistic comparison

A slightly different configuration can be found in Macedonian. Namely, clitics always precede finite verbs and there are no further restrictions. In fact, unlike Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian, Macedonian allows first-position clitics as well.

(25) Im them.cl.dat rekov told.1sg oti comp čovekot person.def te you.cl.acc videl. saw 'I told them that the person saw you.'

(Macedonian; Franks & King 2000: 236)

Let us now examine the word order in Torlak.

### **4.4 Word order in Torlak**

When it comes to the variation in clitic placement, Torlak surely stands somewhere in between the above-mentioned possible scenarios. Because Torlak allows clitic doubling, as exemplified in (26), one might be tempted to assume that word order in clitic constructions might resemble either Bulgarian or Macedonian. But let us check some examples and counter-examples:

(26) Ti you.nom me me.cl.acc mene me.acc čekaš? wait.2sg 'Are you waiting for me?'

Example (27) illustrates the use of a clitic-first construction. Just as in SC, the first-position *je* is stressed and may function as an auxiliary or a copula, or be part of a complex question marker (ex. 27). Therefore, it is not a regular clitic, but is followed by a regular question clitic *li* (shortened *l'*) in the second position.

### Jelena Živojinović

(29) Ja I ga him.cl.acc poznavam know.1sg Milovana. Milovan 'I know Milovan.'

Unlike examples (28) and (29), example (30) displays a configuration involving a verb-initial construction. Just as in previous cases, the clitic appears in the second position (as in example 27).

(30) Poznavam know.1sg ga him.cl.acc Milovana. Milovan 'I know Milovan.'

The following Torlak examples display different configurations suitable for Macedonian, Bulgarian and SC:

16 Torlak clitic doubling: A cross-linguistic comparison

(38) Toga that ga him.cl.acc čoveka man poznavam. know.1sg 'I know that man.'

It emerges from the above-listed examples that configurations which are allowed in both Bulgarian (see (37) where the clitic is in the third position and precedes the main verbs) and Macedonian (see (32), clitic-first construction) are not acceptable in Torlak. On the other hand, as examples (34) and (36) show, Torlak allows non-verb-adjacent clitics, unlike Bulgarian and Macedonian. Just as Serbo-Croatian, it supports the use of clitics after the first prosodic word (example 38), following Bošković (2001) and Radanović-Kocić (1988).

How does such evidence relate to Bošković's generalizations? This sub-variety of Torlak seems to fit into Bošković's Generalization 1, mentioned above, but not into the Generalizations 2 and 3. However, the postposition of the article does not seem to be widespread all across the distribution of Torlak. In fact, the Torlak (Prizren-Timok) data presented in Runić (2014) and gathered in the Timok area shows the use of clitic doubling but no overt articles, fitting into Generalizations 2 and 3, but not 1.

### **5 Conclusion**

The theory displayed in Krapova & Cinque (2008) satisfactorily describes the phenomenon of clitic doubling in Bulgarian by identifying four subtypes:

However, this branching does not seem to adequately work for Torlak, which adopts the canonical structure of clitic doubling mainly with tonic pronouns, but also with DPs.

Concerning word order, it emerges that, although Torlak allows clitic doubling as Bulgarian and Macedonian, it is closer to Serbo-Croatian, which allows only one constituent to precede the clitic cluster. This specific variety, having postpositioned overt articles, is incompatible with Bošković's generalizations.

Jelena Živojinović

### **Abbreviations**

### **Acknowledgements**

I would like to thank the audience of the FDSL 13 in Göttingen and two anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback, as well as the editors of this volume. Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to all the speakers who participated in this study, particularly my great-grandmother, Petkana. I dedicate this article to her memory.

### **References**

16 Torlak clitic doubling: A cross-linguistic comparison

### Jelena Živojinović

*to South Slavic and Balkan languages* (Balkanistica 15), 293–322. Oxford, MS: The University of Mississippi. http://hdl.handle.net/10278/16384.