FDSL 11 Potsdam
Hagen Pitsch (Göttingen)
Nov 3, 2015
Bulgarian da as non-indicative placeholder
b. non-finite (no [T] feature; KRAPOVA 1998: [–T])
Hagen Pitsch
o NOM not licensed → (2b)
o present tense only [NB: ‘perfect tense’ as in (2c) = resultative present!]
o in monoclausal structures under modal/phase auxiliaries → (2a-c)
[NB: without ‘modal’ interpretation (cf. GENADIEVA-MUTAFČIEVA 1976)]
o as modifying adjunct to VPs (2d) and NPs (2e)
o used in case of coreference [exception: under verbs of perception] → (2d)
o no independent use as main clause
(Göttingen)
1. Observations
 there are two types of da-constructions (cf. KRAPOVA 1997, 1998)
a. finite ([T] feature present; KRAPOVA 1998: [+T])
o
o
o
o
o
(1)
NOM licensed → (1a-d)
diverse tense forms possible → e.g., pluperfect in (1e)
if embedded: used in case of obviation [exception: contrastive focus] → (1c)
independent use as main clause → (1e-h)
contextually determined ‘modal’ interpretation (irrealis, hypthetical, volitional,
nonveridical, optative, permissive, dubitative, etc.)
(2)
a.
sprjah
da pitam
stop.1SG. AOR DA ask.1SG
‘I stopped asking’
b.
{az}
moga {az}
da rabotja
I.NOM can.1SG I.NOM DA work.1SG
‘I can work’
c.
Čovek
trjabva da e
rabotil
predi tova.
man.NOM must DA be.3SG work.LPT. SG.M before this
‘One must have worked before that.’
(BÜTTNER 2014: 141)
(LEMPP 1981: 16)
(ibid.: 62)
a.
Ivanov
predlaga
Hans
da otide.
Ivanov. NOM suggest.3SG Hans.NOM DA leave.3SG
‘Ivanov suggests Hans to leave.’
b.
Tja
mi
piše
az
da se
griža
za tjah. (Tilkov et al. 1994: 339)
she.NOM me.DAT write.3. SG I.NOM DA REFL care.1SG about them
‘She writes me to care about them.’
d.
(SCATTON 1984: 379)
c.
Toj
e
vzel
decata
bez
tja
da uznae.
he.NOM be.3SG take. LPT. SG.M children-DEF without she.NOM DA notice.3SG
‘He has taken the children without her noticing.’
Toj
vleze
bez
da počuka.
he.NOM enter.3SG. AOR without DA knock.3SG
‘He entered without knocking.’
e.
(BÜTTNER 2014: 312)
d.
Donesi
dărva, če Petăr
da zapali
ogăn!
fetch. IMP.SG wood that Peter.NOM DA light.3SG fire
‘Fetch some wood so that Peter can light a fire!’
šekerlija.
Običam kafe da e
love.1SG coffee DA be.3SG sweet.SG.M
‘I love my coffee to be sweet.’
e.
f.
g.
(W&K 1987: 371)
(Google)
(KRĂSTINA ARBOVA, p.c.)
(cf. T ILKOV et al. 1983: 382)
Tja
da e
imala
togava naj-mnogo dvajset godini. (BÜTTNER 2014: 506)
she.NOM DA be.3SG have. LPT. SG.F then at most
twenty years
‘[I guess] She was at most twenty years old then.’
Godinata da e
bereketlija!
year.DEF DA be.3SG fertile.SG.M
‘May the year be fertile!’
(ibid.: 499)
Da beše
potănal
v moreto!
be.3SG. IPF sink. LPT.SG.M in sea.DEF
‘If only he had sunk in(to) the sea!’
(ibid.: 518)
DA
h.
1
Bulgarian da as non-indicative placeholder
Da ne si
bolen?
DA NEG be.2SG sick.SG. M
‘You aren’t sick, are you?’
(HAUGE 1999: 216)
[email protected]
2. Theoretical foundations
 (finite) structures minimally consist of the lexical and functional layers in (3):
(3)
[CP C [IP I [VP V ]]]
 V forms the lexical basis (descriptive meaning, possible arguments)
 aspect and imperfect/aorist-distinction as lexical categories (cf. SONNENHAUSER 2006, 2012)
 in Bulgarian, [uT] on ‘present tense’ Vs is only optional:
α. pita-m[uφ][uT:pres] ‘(I) ask’
β. pita-m[uφ]
‘(to) ask’ (cf. P ETKOVA SCHICK 1977; KRAPOVA 1998; GIANNAKIDOU 2009)
→ Bulgarian verb forms generally agree, but aren’t necessarily finite
→ β compensates for the lost infinitive on -ti
→ since infinitives are non-indicative, β generally co-occurs with da (see below)
[email protected]
2
FDSL 11 Potsdam
 I is the canonical position of Verbal Mood (cf. EMONDS & VESELOVSKÁ 2012: 4)
o indicative: morphosyntactically unmarked (), semantically marked: “[it] triggers
a presupposition on the value of a world term, of the form w{CS(x’, t’, w’)},
indicating that the world denoted by w lies in the Context Set of individual x’
at time t’ in world w’ ” (SCHLENKER 2005: 1)
o NB: x’ is not necessarily the speaker, but the (matrix) subject
(cf. SIEGEL 2009 introducing the notion of subject certainty for Balkan languages)
o non-indicative: morphosyntactically marked (da), semantic default: it occurs
when the indicative (and imperative) is blocked to avoid a presupposition failure
→ da is semantically vacuous, i.e. a mere placeholder
→ ‘modal’ implicatures arise due to the absence of the indicative presupposition
o depending on finiteness, da-construction come in two variants:
 finite: ‘da-subjunctives’ (obviation; cf. FARKAS 1992)
 non-finite: ‘da-infinitives’ (coreference)
 C is the canonical position of Sentence Mood (illocutionary force) and clause typing
 additionally, C is the source of finiteness (cf. CHOMSKY 2005)
o finite structures:
 C hosts interpretable, but unvalued Tense feature ([iT: ])
 tense morphology on V is uninterpretable, but valued ([uT:val])
 DP is also equipped with [uT] (cf. PESETSKY & TORREGO 2001 ff.)
→ morphological tense on V values semantic tense in C (interpreted on LF)
→ [uT] on V and D can both be deleted, NOM licensed on DP
[CP C[iT: ] [IP I [VP DP[uT] V[uT:val] ]]] → [CP C[iT:val] [IP I [VP DP[uT] V[uT:val] ]]]
(4)
↓
LF
↓
NOM
[IP I [VP DP[uT] V ]]
*NOM
3. Da-constructions: intermediate summary





3
(6)
a.
Tja
mi
piše,
če az
 se
griža
za tjah.
she.NOM me.DAT write.3SG that I.NOM I REFL care.1SG about them
‘She writes me that I care about them.’
b.
griža
za tjah.
Tja
mi
piše
 az
da se
she.NOM me.DAT write.3SSG C
I.NOM DA REFL care.1SG about them
‘She writes me to care about them.’
da in I marks absence of indicative (CS-presupposition), is semantically vacuous
absence of indicative may trigger diverse ‘modal’ implicatures (pragmatics! context!)
da-constructions can be finite (CPs) or non-finite (IPs)
finite da-constructions (‘subjunctives’) are predominantly used in case of obviation
non-finite da-constructions (‘infinitives’) are predominantly used in case of coreference
[email protected]
= (1b)
 both embedded structures are finite CPs:
o NOM is licensed
o null C in (6b) shows that finite embedded da-clauses are indeed “connected to the
matrix without a subjunction” (GOŁĄB 1954; cf. PETKOVA SCHICK 1977: 127)
 NB: C must be null, since the co-occurence of če and da is restricted to
consecutive adverbial clauses; cf. (1d) above!
 (6a) is indicative (null I), whereas (6b) is non-indicative (da in I)
 (6a) shows the neutral ‘content’ reading (the indicative adds that the referent of tja presupposses the truth of the embedded proposition), whereas (6b) shows a directive reading
→ the latter is an implicature induced by the absence of the CS-presupposition
4.2 Implicature of ‘uncertainty’ reading (cf. SIEGEL 2009: ‘subject certainty’)
(7)
 săm
go
viždal.
I be.1SG him. ACC see. LPT.SG.M
a.
pro Ne pomnja,
če pro
1SG NEG remember.1SG that 1SG
‘I don’t remember that I saw him.’
b.
proi Ne pomnja,
PROi da săm
go
viždal.
1SG NEG remember.1SG
I be.1SG him. ACC see. LPT.SG.M
‘I don’t remember to have seen him.’
 the embedded structure in (7a) is a finite CP (če in C; NOM licensed), whereas the embedded
structure in (7b) is a non-finite IP (da in I; NOM not licensed)
o NB: In case of a contrast, a finite da-CP has to be chosen to enable the overt
realization of the focussed embedded subject AZ ‘I’ as in (7c):
c.
↓
Bulgarian da as non-indicative placeholder
4. Illustrations
4.1 Implicature of directive reading
[φ-features omitted]
o non-finite structures:
 C is absent, hence no [iT: ]
 I is alwys overtly realized as da to mark non-indicative (see above)
 V is not associated with [uT] (‘neutral/pleonastic present’; see above)
→ NOM is not licensed → Control / Raising / ECM (under verbs of perception)
(5)
Hagen Pitsch (Göttingen)
Nov 3, 2015
proi Ne pomnja,
 AZi da săm
go
viždal.
1SG NEG remember.1SG C I.NOM I be.1SG him. ACC see. LPT.SG.M
‘I don’t remember that it was ME to have seen him.’
 (7a) is indicative (null I), whereas (7b) and (7c) are non-indicative (da in I)
 (7a) is uttered when the subject presupposes the embedded proposition to really have taken
place, whereas (7b) doesn’t convey this presupposition
→ ‘uncertainty’ reading of (7b) is again an implicature induced by the absence of indicative
[email protected]
4
FDSL 11 Potsdam
Hagen Pitsch (Göttingen)
Nov 3, 2015
4.3 Independent da-clauses




(8)
4.5 Coreference vs. obviation
form independent speech acts, are always finite (NOM licensed) → are CPs
since there is no matrix (subject), the evaluating individuum can only the be the speaker
da in I → non-indicative (no CS-presupposition)
diverse readings possible; cf. (8a-e):
(10) Toj
vleze,
he.NOM
enter.3SG. AOR
‘He entered without knocking.’
a.
imala
togava naj-mnogo dvajset godini.
Tja
da e
she.NOM DA be.3SG have. LPT. SG.F then at most
twenty years
‘[I guess] She was at most twenty years old then.’
= (1e)
b.
Godinata da e
bereketlija!
year.DEF DA be.3SG fertile.SG.M
‘May the year be fertile!’
= (1f)
Da beše
potănal
v moreto!
be.3SG. IPF sink. LPT.SG.M in sea.DEF
‘If only he had sunk in(to) the sea!’
= (1g)
c.
DA
d.
Da vlezeme v knižarnicata!
enter.1PL in bookstore.DEF
‘Let’s go into the bookstore!’
(HAUGE 1999: 216)
DA
e.





(8a)
(8b)
(8c)
(8d)
(8e)
Da ne si
bolen?
DA NEG be.2SG sick.SG. M
‘You aren’t sick, are you?’
speaker expresses assumption
speaker expresses future-oriented (perf. aspect!) wish (present optative)
speaker expresses counterfactual wish (past optative)
speaker expresses future-oriented wish + (indirect) request for permission
speaker expresses his fear for a positive answer (cf. HAUGE 1999: 216), hence does not
(want to) believe the proposition to be true (which he would by using the indicative)
4.4 ‘Da-infinitives’ underlying monoclausal structures
(9)
5
non-finite da-IPs (NOM not licensed) corresponding to bare VPs in ‘infinitive languages’
despite the presence of da, these IPs are cleary non-modal (bare desriptive meaning)
the modal/phase auxiliary projects a separate VP (> IP > CP) above the infinitival da-IP
the thematic subject of the da-verb is raised and realized as NOM-subject of the auxiliary:
[CP C[iT] [IP I [VP proNOM sprjah[uT] [IP da [VP pro pitam ]]]]]
‘I stopped asking’
[email protected]
bez
PROi
without
da počuka.
knock.3SG
DA
(11) Toj
e
vzel
decata
bez
tja
da uznae.
he.NOM be.3SG take.LPT.SG.M children-DEF without she. NOM DA notice.3SG
‘He has taken the children without her noticing.’
= (1c)
 both (10) and (11) represent adverbial adjuncts headed by a P(reposition)
o while (10) is a non-finite IP (NOM not licensed), (11) is a finite CP (NOM licensed)
o both (10) and (11) are non-indicative (da in I)
 NB: the indicative is blocked here due to the semantics of bez ‘without’
→ ‘non-realization’ reading of the embedded proposition arises by implicature
 non-finite (10) is the optimal choice to express coreference (cf. FARKAS 1992)
 finite (11) has to be used in case of obviation
4.6 Verbs of perception
(12) a.
Starecăt
vidja,
če Elka
 sliza
po pătja.
old man.NOM.DEF see.3SG. AOR that Elka.NOM I come down.3SG on road.DEF
‘The old man saw that Elka came down (on) the road.’
b.
Starecăt
vidja
Elka
da sliza
po pătja.
old man.NOM.DEF see.3SG. AOR
Elka. ACC DA come down.3SG on road.DEF
‘The old man saw Elka come down (on) the road.’
= (1h)
→ da marks that the world w is not presupposed to lie within CS(x’, t’, w’), i.e. it is obvious
that the speaker doesn’t take the uttered propositions to be real(ity)
→ the only pragmatically coherent way to interprete these utterances is, then, to construe them
as assumptions, wishes (optatives), requests for permission, ‘fearful questions’, etc.




Bulgarian da as non-indicative placeholder
 bold parts of (12a) = finite CP (NOM licensed; če in C)
o indirect perception report (NB: direct perception reading is not excluded)
o proposition of type t
 bold parts of (12b) = non-finite IP (NOM not licensed, ACC assigned from matrix; da in I)
o direct perception report (‘indirect perception’ excluded)
o bare event of type e (cf. HIGGINBOTHAM 1983)
o embedded subject DP is in accusative case (cf. WERKMANN 2007: [2])
 accusative case is licensed by the matrix perception verb
→ ECM as last resort:
- explicit direct perception reports cannot be expressed by finite CPs (denoting propositions, hence being necessarily endowed with Tense and world reference)
- given the lack of a morphological infinitive, a non-finite (non-indicative) da-IP is
the only choice left
- but due to non-finiteness, the NOM is not licensed → ECM licenses ACC instead
= (2a)
[email protected]
6
FDSL 11 Potsdam
Nov 3, 2015
Hagen Pitsch (Göttingen)
Bulgarian da as non-indicative placeholder
Hauge, K. R. (1999): A short grammar of contemporary Bulgarian. Bloomington: Slavica.
5. Why is the claim that da is ‘marked’ too strong?
Higginbotham, J. (1983): The logic of perceptual reports: An extensional alternative to situation semantics. The Journal
 many descriptive as well as formal analyses claim that da is a ‘modal particle’ adding
modal semantics, thus forming sort of an ‘analytic irrealis/subjunctive’
(cf., a.o., SELIŠČEV 1952, MASLOV 1962; BERNŠTEJN 1961; PETKOV 1962; GOŁAB 1954;
GENADIEVA-MUTAFČIEVA 1976; PETKOVA-SCHICK 1977; RUDIN 1986; KRAMER 1992;
DIPPONG 1996; WERKMANN 2003; ROUSSOU 2000 [wrt Greek na];
PITSCH 2010; TODOROVIĆ & WURMBRAND 2015 [wrt BCS da])
 there are various options to explain or formalize the ‘modal nature’ of da:
o PETKOVA SCHICK (1977): da is “a modal complex with diverse nuances”
o da introduces generalized/underspecified modality (cf. LEMPP 1981)
o DIPPONG (1996): da is “a grammatical plus-sign with little meaning”
o da expresses the ‘marked’ mood (subjunctive) triggering a presupposition according
to which the relevant proposition is not part of the epistemic model (M EP) of the
modal subject (cf. ZIMMERMANN 2013 wrt the Russian subjunctive)
o da expresses the ‘marked’ mood (subjunctive) adding the information that world w’
does not conform with the actual world w0 of the modal subject
(cf. ZIMMERMANN 2015 wrt the Russian by-subjunctive)
 however, ‘burdening’ Bulgarian da with explicit ‘modal’ semantics makes the prediction that
da-constructions show up in a ‘natural class of environments’ (cf. SCHLENKER 2005), which
is clearly not the case (see already examples above)
 rather, they seem to assume certain readings in certain contexts (by implicature):
o future-oriented, directive, uncertainty, direct perception, optative, permissive, …
 clearly, it is more adequate to follow SCHLENKER (2005) and SIEGEL (2009) in saying that da
occurs in the complement of a natural class, namely the marked indicative
of Philosophy 80/2: 100-127.
Kramer, C. E. (1992): Analytic modality in Balkan Slavic. Indiana Slavic Studies 6: 113-122.
Krapova, I. (1997): On control in Bulgarian. In: Junghanns, U. & G. Zybatow (eds.): Formale Slavistik. Frankfurt a. M.:
Vervuert, 93-107.
Krapova, I. (1998): Subjunctive complements, null subjects and case checking in Bulgarian. University of Venice
Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 73-93.
Lempp, A. (1981): Das zusammengesetzte Verbalprädikat mit ‘da’ im Neubulgarischen. München: Sagner.
Maslov, Ju. S. (1962): K semantike bolgarskogo kon”junktiva. Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie 316; Serija filologičeskich
nauk 64: 3-10.
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E. (2001): T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In: Kenstowicz, M. (ed.): Ken Hale: A
life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 355-426.
Petkov, P. (1962): Da + glagolna forma. Izrazjavane na trudno osăštestvimi ili neosăštestvimi želanija. Bălgarski ezik
12: 181-186.
Petkova Schick, I. (1977): Die bulgarischen ‘da’-Konstruktionen als Träger spezifischer Modalitäten. Linguistische
Studien A 43: 117-185.
Pitsch, H. (2010): Complex verbs between syntax and morphology in Bulgarian. Russian Linguistics 34/3: 307-329.
Roussou, A. (2000): On the left periphery: Modal particles and complementisers. Journal of Greek Linguistics 1: 65-94.
Rudin, C. (1986): Aspects of Bulgarian syntax. Complementizers and WH constructions. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.
Scatton, E. A. (1984): A reference grammar of modern Bulgarian. Columbus: Slavica.
Schlenker, P. (2005): The lazy Frenchman’s approach to the subjunctive: Speculations on reference to worlds and
semantic defaults in the analysis of mood. Ms. [Published in Proceedings of Going Romance XVII].
Seliščev, A. M. (1952): Staroslavjanskij jazyk. 2: Teksty, slovar’, očerki morfologii. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe učebnopedagogičeskoe izdateľstvo Ministerstva prosveščenija RSFSR.
References
Siegel, L. (2009): Mood selection in Balkan and Romance. Lingua 119/12: 1859-1882.
Bernštejn, S. B. (1961): Očerk sravniteľnoj grammatiki slavjanskich jazykov. Moskva: AN SSSR.
Büttner, U. (2014): Bulgarisch. Lehrbuch für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene. Leipzig: Universitätsbibliothek.
<http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:15-qucosa-147010>
Sonnenhauser, B. (2006): Aspekt und Aorist/Imperfekt im Bulgarischen – eine intervall-basierte Analyse. Die Welt der
Slaven 51: 116-140.
Sonnenhauser, B. (2012): Auxiliar-Variation und Textstruktur im Bulgarischen. Die Welt der Slaven 62: 351-379.
Chomsky, N. (2005): On phases. Ms. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Tilkov, D. et al. (red.) (1983/1994): Gramatika na săvremennija bălgarski knižoven ezik. 3: Sintaksis. Sofija: BAN.
Dippong, H. (1996): да-Konstruktionen im Bulgarischen: Ein Überblick. In: Schindler, F. (Hg.): Linguistische Beiträge
zur Slavistik aus Deutschland und Österreich. IV. JungslavistInnen-Treffen Frankfurt am Main 1995. München:
Sagner, 47-62.
Todorović, N. & S. Wurmbrand (2015): da, da, da: (In)finite possibilities. Handout, Univ. of Göttingen, 2015/05/13.
W&K = Walter, H. & E. G. Karvanbasieva (Hgg.) (1987): Lehrbuch der bulgarischen Sprache. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.
Werkmann, V. (2003): Objektklitika im Bulgarischen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Emonds, J. & L. Veselovská (2012): The cross-linguistic homes of Mood and Tense. Handout, ZAS Berlin, 2012/02/24.
Farkas, D. (1992): On obviation. In: Sag. I. & A. Sazbolcsi (eds.): Lexical matters. Stanford: CSLI, 85-109.
Gołąb, Z. (1954): Funkcja syntaktyczna partykuły da w językach pd.-słowiańskich (bułgarskim, macedońskim, serbochorwackim). Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 13: 67-92.
Genadieva-Mutafčieva, Z. (1976): Slučai na nemodalna upotreba na modalna častica DA. Bălgarski ezik 1/2: 58-89.
Giannakidou, A. (2009): The dependency of the subjunctive revisited. Temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua 119:
Werkmann, V. (2007): Verbs of perception in Bulgarian. Abstract.
<http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~jungslav/fdsl/fdsl7/abstracts/Werkmann_FA.pdf>
Zimmermann, I. (2013): Selektion und Interpretation morpho-syntaktischer Einheiten. In: Härtl, H. (ed.): Interfaces of
morphology. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 217-228.
Zimmermann, I. (2015): The Russian subjunctive. In: Zybatow, G. et al. (eds.): Slavic Grammar from a formal perspective. The 10th Anniversary FDSL Conference, Leipzig 2013. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 579-594.
1883-1908.
7
[email protected]
[email protected]
8