On interrogative sentences in Macedonian: A generative
perspective
Ana Lazarova-Nikovska
Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics
Abstract
Macedonian is a South Slavic language waiting to be
fully explored in the generative grammar. The few, relatively
certain assumptions we can make are that it is a [+ pro-drop]
language and belongs to the group of discourse configurational
languages, allowing for the possibility of different word orders
and free inversion. Nevertheless, the basic word order is
believed to be SVO. The phenomenon of Verb-movement [±
Infl] has not yet been fully examined for the Macedonian
grammar. This paper looks at the formation of interrogative
sentences, one of the empirical tests for the application of Vraising in a grammar of a language. Following the presentation
and discussion of this phenomenon in the more widely studied
languages, such as English and the Romance languages, we will
focus on the literature on question formation in some other
Balkan/Slavic languages, i.e. in Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian and
Modern Greek. Based on the theory and the data available from
the other languages, a proposal is put forward for the
explanation of the varieties of question types found in Standard
Macedonian. It is concluded that Macedonian is a [+Infl]
language, with a strong interrogative feature, [+Q], realised by
a lexical question particle and/or the raised lexical verb.
Depending on the type of question, it is suggested that the verb
can also occupy other head positions (e.g. Infl, Foc).
Introduction
Macedonian is a South Slavic language, the official language of the
Republic of Macedonia and shares similarities both with the other
Slavic/Balkan languages (e.g. Serbo-Croatian1, Bulgarian, Modern Greek, etc.)
as well as with the Romance languages (e.g. Italian, Spanish). However, it is
clearly not identical with any of these, and moreover, quite under-researched
in the generative framework. As a consequence, it deserves to be studied in its
1
Serbo-Croatian has recently been recognised as two official languages, Serbian and Croatian.
However, for the purposes of this paper, their structure has been assumed to be identical.
130
A NA LAZAROVA -N IKOVSKA
own right and being an interesting combination of various languages, it is very
likely to provide valuable insight into the theory of generative grammar.
Macedonian is a [+ pro-drop] language implying that the grammatical subject
can be omitted and this usually is the case. It belongs to the group of discourse
configurational languages manifesting its membership in allowing free
inversion of the constituents in a sentence as exemplified below:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Jana saka sladoled.
Jana like-3s ice-cream
‘Jana likes ice-cream.’
Saka Jana sladoled.
like-3s Jana ice-cream
‘Jana likes ice-cream.’
Sladoled saka Jana.
ice-cream like-3s Jana
‘Jana likes ice-cream.’
Saka sladoled Jana., etc.
like-3s ice-cream Jana
‘Jana likes ice-cream.’
Sto pravi Jana ? Jade sladoled.
what do-3s Jana ? Eat-3s ice-cream.
‘What is Jana doing?’ ‘She is eating ice-cream.’3
(SVO)2
(VSO)
(OVS)
(VOS)
However, it is believed that the unmarked order of main constituents is SVO
(Friedman 1993). This is the order in which none of the elements in the
sentence bears a prosodic prominence in relation to the others. It is also the
most frequent word order in Macedonian. This does not imply, however, that
it is the underlying word order, i.e. the one requiring the least number of
syntactic operations (movements) for the derivation of all grammatical
sentences.
In this paper, I am looking at the phenomenon of Verb-raising, one of the
‘movements’ described in generative grammar. The paper is organised as
follows: as a background to the main discussion and for reasons of
2
S-subject; V-verb; O-direct or indirect object, as the distinction is irrelevant here. In the
subsequent examples of this paper, Q will refer to the question particle dali, whereas Q-CL will
refer to the question particle li. Finally, WH- wh-word.
3
The initial elements of the answer to the example question are written in italics in order to
emphasise the [+pro-drop] charavter of Macedonian in comparison to English, a [-pro-drop]
language.
IN T E R RO G A T IV E S EN T E N C ES
IN
M A C ED O N IA N
131
convenience, I begin the paper by offering a brief descriptive account of
interrogative sentences in Macedonian. I then introduce the theory of Verb
movement as applied to question formation in general. The following two
sections incorporate illustrations of interrogative sentences from English (Eng),
French (Fr), Spanish (Spa) and Italian (Itl), and examples of Serbo-Croatian
(SC), Bulgarian (Blg) and Modern Greek (MG) interrogative sentences. In the
following section one finds an attempt to accommodate the theoretical
assumptions for V-movement for the structure of Macedonian interrogative
sentences. A suggestion for a possible structural analysis of both yes-no and
wh-questions in Macedonian is offered. The conclusion of this paper is
presented in the last section.
I would like to note that, in the current study, I confine my analysis and
arguments to matrix yes-no and wh-questions, that is, consisting only of one
predicate, a synthetic form of a main lexical verb in present tense.
Descriptive Account of Questions in Macedonian
The range of question types in Macedonian shares similarities with
many other languages. In line with, for example the Romance languages, it
manifests Subject Verb inversion. Moreover, it resembles other Slavic
languages in the use of question particles. Last but not least, it allows
intonationally marked questions.
Yes-no questions in Macedonian
Following Minova-Gurkova’s (1987, 1990, 1994) classification of
questions in Macedonian, we can conclude that the Macedonian language has
a richer spectrum of yes-no question types in comparison to other languages
(e.g. English).
There are various ways of forming yes-no (alternative) questions in
Macedonian, but the most frequent ones are the ‘intonation’ or ‘null’ questions
and the questions with ‘question particles’.
a) Null questions are those that are formed without a question particle. Rather,
it is subject-verb inversion and/or intonation imposed on the basic SVO order
that conveys the interrogative character of the utterance, as shown below.
(6)
Teo sviri klavir ?
Teo play-3s piano-the
‘Does Teo play the piano?’
(SVO)
132
A NA LAZAROVA -N IKOVSKA
(7)
Sviri Teo klavir ?
play-3s Teo piano-the
‘Does Teo play the piano?’
(VSO)
When read with a neutral intonation, the assumed answer in (6) is a ‘yes’ or a
‘no’ to the truth value of the question as a whole. The same may be said for
the interpretation of (7), although one can equally understand the question as
referring to the verb, i.e. the predicate only.
In addition to this model for yes-no question formation in Macedonian, there
is another one which presupposes the use of question particles. The most
common ones in Macedonian are: dali and li:
a) Dali is a full morphological word and therefore has its own stress. It usually
occupies the initial position in the sentence. It is a particle found in questions
that need complete verification of the question rather than requesting
information only about one of its constituents. As such, dali has a broad scope
over the whole proposition, as can be seen in example (8).
(8)
Dali Steve zivee vo London?
Q-particle Steve live-3s in London
‘Does Steve live in London?’
(QSV)
b) Li is a clitic, implying that it has no stress of its own and therefore relies on
the neighbouring element for pronunciation. Syntactically, it is an enclitic and
as such follows the constituent to which it is attached. This constituent,
provided it has its own stress, is placed in initial position, preceding the
interrogative clitic. What is common for li-questions is that the sentence initial
element is always the focus of the question (glossed in CAPITAL letters in the
examples below) and it is this element that is being questioned. The focused
element can be any grammatical category in the sentence (V, Sub, Obj, Adj,
Adv, etc.). On the basis of the choice of the focused constituent, li may imply
two distinct readings:
When it follows the verb, the invited response is meant to provide full
verification of the question. However, such is the case, I assume, as the focused
element is the predicate, which is believed to be the central ingredient adding
to the meaning of a proposition, as exemplified in (9).
(9)
VOZI li majka ti avtomobil ?
drive-3s Q-CL mother Gen-CL-2s car
‘Does your mother drive a car?’
(VQ-CLSO)
IN T E R RO G A T IV E S EN T E N C ES
IN
M A C ED O N IA N
133
When li follows any other constituent in the question, only partial verification
is requested from the answer. Only information relating to the pre-clitic
element is relevant. Again, this is the case, as the internal and external
arguments of the verb only contribute to the complete comprehension of the
question, but are not central to it (cf. Examples 10 and 11).
(10)
(11)
GORDANA li studira medicina ?
(SQ-CLVO)
Gordana Q-CL study-3s medicine
‘Is it GORDANA who studies medicine?’
KOSARKA li trenira Goce ?
(OQ-CLVS)
basketball Q-CL practice-3s Goce
‘Is it BASKETBALL that Goce practices for ?’, etc.
There are a number of other question particles in Macedonian. However, their
use is peripheral in comparison to the use of the particles listed above and I
exclude them from my current analysis.
Wh-questions in Macedonian
There are around ten wh-words in Macedonian (although a more
appropriate abbreviation would be k-words, since most of them begin with the
letter ‘k’). As with wh-questions (i.e. constituent questions) in any language,
the answer to these types of questions are expected to supply the missing
information, the information that wh-phrases ask for. In regard to the syntax
of wh-questions (Korubin 1978), the finite verb should be adjacent to the whword4. This is true for all wh-elements in Macedonian. For example:
4
Various clitics can appear between the wh-word and the finite form of the verb. These clitics
can be pronominal, modal, interrogative, etc. However, in Macedonian the verb forms an
unbreakable cluster with the clausal clitic which is projected in the sentence preceding it and
therefore the combined unit exists as a complex verb form (see Tomic, 1996).
134
A NA LAZAROVA -N IKOVSKA
(12a) Sto jade deteto?
what eat-3s child-the
‘What does the child eat?’
(12b) *Sto deteto jade ?
(13a) Kade uci sesta ti ?
where study-3s sister Gen-CL
‘Where does your sister study?’
(13b) *Kade sestra ti uci ?
(WHVS)
(WHSV)
(WHVS)
(WHSV)
The use of the questions
In the previous two sections some remarks have already been made
about the pragmatics of individual question types. In this subsection, I will
elaborate more on their discourse-pragmatic characteristics, the frequency with
which they are used and the prescribed grammaticality in the word order of the
elements in the question.
Data borrowed from Englund (1977) and a pilot-style questionnaire I
conducted will enable me to comment on the frequency of occurrence and the
syntactic configuration of the most regular yes-no question types in
Macedonian.
Firstly, I would like to reflect upon the assumption (Minova-Gurkova 1994:152
a.o.) that in Macedonian dali is always followed by the finite verb. For
example:
(14a) Dali raboti Zoran vo Ministerstvo za Odbrana?
Q work-3s Zoran at ministery office
‘Does Zoran work at the Ministery of Defence?
(14b) *Dali Zoran raboti vo Ministerstvo za Odbrana?
(QVS)
(QSV)
I believe that this is not always the case and the [+ pro-drop] character of the
language has misguided theoreticians to formulate the norm as such. Namely,
following the economy conditions for derivation of sentences, in [+ pro-drop]
languages the pronoun should always be avoided as its interpretation can be
recovered from the inflectional affixes on the verb. However, when a lexical
subject is overtly realised in the sentence, both an SVO and a VSO order are
possible after dali and in the context-free grammaticality judgement tests I
conducted with native speakers, both orders have equally been accepted.
IN T E R RO G A T IV E S EN T E N C ES
IN
M A C ED O N IA N
135
The observation from above has also been noted in Englund (1977).In her
analysis of Bulgarian and Macedonian yes-no questions, Englund relied on data
excerpted from the books of 16 Macedonian authors published between 19561972. In summary, for the Macedonian data 44.1% of total interrogative
clauses fall in the ‘null questions’ category; in 30% of the cases li is used, in
4.9% dali is chosen, whereas the remaining percentages mark questions using
other question particles (ibid. p. 127). It is worth noting that the situation is
very different in Bulgarian where inversion can be considered a very marginal
means of question formation in comparison to li-questions.
The ‘Avoid Pronoun Principle’ (Chomsky 1965, 1981) is supported by the data
presented in Table 2 (Englund 1977:28) which shows a high percentage of
questions containing only a predicate, 45.8% being null questions, an
indication for the preferred omission of the subject. Amongst the remaining
null questions, 15% contained S+V order and only 3.3% V+S order. In order
to understand the intricacies of word order in null questions, one ought to look
at the distinction between lexical and pronominal subjects, at different types
of predicates (lexical, auxiliaries) and at discourse contexts in general.
However, such investigation is beyond the scope of the present paper as a
much larger survey is needed to determine the assumed relevance of these and
other factors. What is important for the present study is that an overt subject,
preferably a lexical one is needed to test inversion rules and that both SVO and
VSO are possible orders for interrogative sentences in Macedonian.
Based on a test she carried out with native Bulgarian speakers, Englund
concluded that SV inversion does not signal interrogatives as none of the
subjects understood a Verb + Subject word order in that language as a
question. A different observation was made for Russian (Restan 1972) where
interrogative reading was preferred. However, the Russian study has been
criticised for using second person pronoun as a representative of the subject in
the clause, when this particular pronoun is associated with questions more than
with declarative sentences, hence the preferred interrogative reading.
Due to a lack of Macedonian consultants, Englund does not state the preferred
reading of inversion for Macedonian, but rather speculates that it would be
similar to Bulgarian.
However, a very small scale survey I carried out (around 10 consultants)
enables me to suggest that SV inversion in Macedonian has a preferred
question interpretation. All of the Macedonian native speakers I consulted
opted to read the series of inverted constituents as questions, rather than as
affirmative sentences. Please note that I used third person lexical nouns as
136
A NA LAZAROVA -N IKOVSKA
grammatical subjects in order to avoid a possible invitation for an interrogative
reading5.
Furthermore, with regard to the relative order of the elements following dali,
Englund’s Table 4 (1977:46) supports the view that the reality differs from
what has been advocated by the norm and incorrectly described in traditional
grammars. Namely, although 46.3% of the questions with dali had the order
Q+V; 17.9% is in QSV order; and 17.1% in QVS order. Hence, in Englund’s
data and when the subject was lexicalised, QSVO order was as frequent as its
counterpart, the QVSO order, a finding similar to the judgements my
consultants provided in another small scale test. Last but not least on the
frequency count, 86.2% of questions with li represent the V+li order, 2.6%
prepose the Subject, whereas 7.6% prepose other sentential elements (ibid.
Table12:88).
With regard to the illocutionary force and discourse dependence of the
question types, it is argued that in Macedonian there is optionality in the use
of the question particle in the sense that in each null yes-no question a Qparticle can be inserted and vice versa, each yes-no question containing a
question particle can be turned into a null one, without any change in the
meaning of the question (Minova-Gurkova 1987:36). This is in a general sense
true, although subtle differences in the choice of one as opposed to the other
question type have been reported.
Considering the role of dali and li, Rivero (1993) argues that they both have
roughly the same propositional content, although convey a different rhetorical
reading (cf. Above). More specifically, the native speakers I consulted
preferred dali questions for general (non-focused) information. Moreover,
when the subject was unfamiliar in the discourse preceding the question, the
majority of speakers preferred Q(dali) SV(O) order, where they would place
the subject preverbally, without necessarily focusing it. Illustrated with an
example, the preferred answer to the general question:
(15)
5
Q: ‘What does she want to know/what is she asking?’
It has been suggested by Limin Jin that the type of aspectual category a verb belongs to may
play a role on the use of SV inversion. Therefore, in the small questionnaire I included
sentences containing the following aspect types: state, activity, accomplishment and
achievement. Nevertheless, all inversions were read as questions. See also Bentivoglio and
Weber (198 6) for a similar analysis of different communicatively based word orders in
Spanish.
IN T E R RO G A T IV E S EN T E N C ES
IN
M A C ED O N IA N
137
would be:
(16)
‘Dali Zemjata se vrti okolu sonceto?’
Q Earth rotate-3sg(refl) around the sun
‘Does the Earth rotate around the sun?’
(QSVO)
If, on the other hand, the subject was already a ‘given’ material in the
discourse, the preference varied between QVS(O) and QSV(O), with VSO (Qomitted) always in fierce competition for the preferred candidate. What this
implies is that the position of the subject may be guided by pragmatic reasons,
such as the introduction of the subject in the conversation and a number of
structural sites have been suggested as hosts for the subject in this and other [+
pro-drop] languages (see note 17). The position of the verb may also be
pragmatically driven in the sense of the need for the focused verb to move
leftwards. However, the most general reading is derived with the QSV(O)
order.
In agreement with Englund (1979) ‘null’ questions are more often used for
inviting an affirmative reply, whereas li is likely to appear in questions
expecting a negative answer. Moreover, li adds a stronger focus on the
questioned constituent and a tone of surprise, as shown in the examples below.
(17)
Saka Dino sladoled?
like-3s Dino ice-cream ?
‘Does Dino like ice-cream (in general)?’
‘Does Dino want ice-cream (at the moment)?’
(VSO)
(18)
Saka li Dino sladoled?
(VQ-CLSO)
like-3s Q-CL Dino ice-cream
‘Is the case/are you sure that Dino likes ice-cream?’
Furthermore, I suspect that there is a difference among the question types in
the context of formality of use, for example, ‘zero’ questions being more
frequent in oral communication as opposed to dali questions being more
suitable in written works. Finally, Rudin et al. (1999) mention regional
variation as a determinant for the prevailing use of one question type on the
expense of another.
We have concluded that the verb in Macedonian questions can appear before
and after the subject and that at least some differentiation can be found in the
semantics of all these diverse question types, hence pure optionality may not
be a case for Macedonian interrogative sentences. The structural position of the
138
A NA LAZAROVA -N IKOVSKA
verb in these various question types will be discussed in the sections that
follow.
V-movement in Generative Grammar
In this section I give a background of the generative theory behind the
phenomenon known as V-movement. The grammatical background I will be
using is that of the Principles and Parameters (P&P) approach of generative
syntax (cf. Chomsky 1981; 1986a; 1986b, etc.), adopting the Government and
Binding (GB) framework (cf. Haegeman 1994) as yet a narrower orientation.
Within the X’- bar theory, a central theory to the GB framework, each phrase
in the language has a head (X) and a maximal projection (XP). Both lexical
(Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives, etc.) and functional (Inflections, Complementisers,
etc.) categories can be heads and form maximal projections. In this framework,
the base position of the Verb (V) is assumed to be within the Verb Phrase
(VP).
Following the GB approach, we can further assume that each sentence has two
levels of representation, S(urface)-structure and D(eep)-structure. Movement
in this framework is understood as a transformation that applies between the
two levels of representation. Movement that applies at the S-structure has a
direct effect on the word order of the elements in the sentence and therefore is
known as an ‘overt’ type of movement, i.e. visible in the surface structure of
the sentence. In this paper, I will be looking at the movement of the Verb as a
D to S structure operation.
Using the GB framework and terminology, we can describe V(erb)-movement
as a head-to-head movement phenomenon which is controlled by the Head
Movement Constraint (HMC) (Baker 1988; Chomsky 1986b; Travis 1984):
‘Movement of an X0 category " is restricted to the position of
a head $ that governs the maximal projection of " ’.
What this constraint implies is that the movement is local and restricted to the
nearest head above it6. Negation, question formation, adverbs and floating
6
Throughout the paper I will use a simplified rep resentation of the clause, i.e., consisting only
of the CP-IP-VP maximal projections, unless, for explanatory reasons, there is a specific need
to split any of these functional layers and add an additional projection. CP=complementiser
phrase; IP=inflectional phrase; VP= verb phrase. See Pollock (1989, 1997) for the Split-IP, see
Rizzi (1997) for the Split-CP.
IN T E R RO G A T IV E S EN T E N C ES
IN
M A C ED O N IA N
139
quantifiers are reckoned to be the best empirical tests for the existence of Vmovement in languages.
Different heads undergo movement in different languages and the realisation
of such a phenomenon is evidenced by the relative position of the heads that
move with the position of the other elements in the above named structural
situations (i.e. with the negative particle; the position of the grammatical
subject; the position of the adverb of manner/frequency and the position of the
floating quantifier). To summarise so far, based on theoretical argument, we
can expect overt movement in the syntax of a language.
But what is it that triggers a verb to overtly move to a higher node in the
structure? It is suggested that the nature of Inflection (Infl) determines the
possibility of V-movement. For example, languages such as English, with little
overt agreement morphology do not allow lexical verbs to move to Infl;
languages with richer morphological paradigms do. One way of accounting for
this is to argue that Infl is either strong (transparent) or weak (opaque). When
it is strong, Infl attracts the V which raises to pick up the inflection. On the
other hand, weak Infl does not attract the V, therefore the verb remains in V
(Culicover 1997; Haegeman 1994; Ouhalla 1999; Pollock 1989). In summary,
V-raising seems to be directly dependent on the ‘strength’ of the inflectional
morphology.
The immediate subject of investigation in this paper is the process of question
formation, as one of the consequences for the existence of V-raising in a
language. In what follows, I will briefly describe and exemplify the creation
of interrogative sentences in English and French, a pair of languages used in
the generative literature as a prototypical example for the difference in Vmovement between the languages.
V-movement in Question Formations – facts and explanations
Pollock’s (1989, 1997) analysis of the auxiliary system in English and
French (based on earlier work by Emonds 1976, Jackendoff 1972, Kayne 1984,
a.o.) is an influential application of the head movement. His reasoning led to
re-evaluation of the IP structure and the proposal for the Split-Infl hypothesis
according to which Agr(eement) and T(ense) were distinct heads which formed
maximal projection, rather than being unified under Infl (I) as it had previously
been assumed. At the same time, he still pertained that the V is the head of
140
A NA LAZAROVA -N IKOVSKA
VP7. As mentioned in the previous section, based on the position of the
negative particle in both languages as well as on the position of certain adverbs
and floating quantifiers, Pollock concluded that the auxiliaries and the modals
in English behave differently from the main verbs in terms of movement to
Agr (and T)8. It was the case that, in finite clauses, only the former group of
verbs can live in Agr and T, either by movement to these positions (e.g. have
and be) or as base generated there (e.g. modals). Occupying these functional
positions they can appear over the negative particle and over certain adverbials.
On the other hand, main verbs remain under V, therefore always appear in the
post negation and post adverbial node. In French finite clauses, on the other
hand, both auxiliaries and lexical verbs must move to the higher functional
projection (Agr or T)9.
What is important for us is the way this argument continues and its
consequences for the structure and the make up of the Complementiser Phrase
(CP), the domain which determines the illocutionary force of the sentence and
hence the domain of interrogative sentences.
Namely, as we will empirically see in the text below, only those verbs that can
raise to Infl10 can further move to C for the purposes of question formation.
Those that cannot raise to Infl, consequently cannot move all the way to C in
constructions with questions in which case the language under scrutiny resorts
7
As the purpose of this paper is not to p rovide detailed analysis of the reasons behind the Split
IP hypothesis and its implications for V-movement, the interested reader is invited to refer to
Pollock’s original paper (1989 ) as well as to the other sources, particularly those cited in the
previous section.
8
The ordering of the additional functional projections, AgrP and TP is disputable in the
literature. Certain authors (e.g., Pollock, 1989) supp ort the TP above the AgrP hypothesis,
whereas others support the AgrP dominating TP hypothesis (e.g., Chomsky, 199 5; Haegeman,
1994). However, the issue is irrelevant for the purposes of this paper and therefore will not be
pursued any further.
9
For convenience, I will resume the use of Infl (I), referring both to T and Agr, as the
distinction is irrelevant for the remainder of the paper. M oreover, Tomic (1996) writes that a
joined Tense and Subject Agreement Phase is rgued for by the portmanteau morph with respect
to Tense, Person and N umb er in all the Balkan Slavic languages. Hence, for Macedonian
IP=T/AGRsP.
10
Pollock’s Split IP hypothesis was not immune to criticism (see e.g. Iatridou 1990; Ouhalla
1990, etc.). Nevertheless, the number of adherents to the proposal for the hypothesis
outnumbers the skeptics and it is still widely cited as the main reference for the [+Infl]
parameter.
IN T E R RO G A T IV E S EN T E N C ES
IN
M A C ED O N IA N
141
to other ways of satisfying the constraints and criteria that operate in the CP
domain. When raising from I to C, the verb lands in a pre-subject position11.
Let me note again that in the discussion of the languages referred to in this
paper, I will concentrate only on the following types of questions: matrix yesno questions created with Subject Auxiliary Inversion (SAI) and/or question
particle as well as simple wh-questions with a single raised wh-word12.
Furthermore, an attempt will be made for the majority examples of questions
to be in the present tense. As I will not be discussing auxiliaries, but rather
lexical verbs only, SAI should be understood as SVI in languages that allow
V-raising (i.e. in all languages referred to in the paper, except for English).
The Q -feature
From the previous two sections and the languages mentioned there, we
have seen that SAI is needed as a transformational rule responsible for the
conversion of root finite clauses into interrogative sentences. We have also
seen that only those verbs which can move out of V to I can apply the SAI
requirement, i.e. can make an additional movement to the next highest head
above I, the one of C.
This transformational rule which raises Aux to Comp is known as the Subject
Aux Inversion (SAI) and applies under the following conditions:
‘Move Aux to Comp, provided Comp has the feature
specification [+Q] and Comp is situated in a root clause’.
What exactly does the rule imply? In a simplified representation of a sentence,
the maximal clausal projection is CP. The head of this projection, C, which
introduces the type of clause, carries the feature specification [+Q] for
interrogative sentences. If this head is strong, i.e. has strong interrogative
11
For English, I am assuming the analysis according to which the subject is base generated
in [Spec, VP] and moves to [Spec, IP] for case reasons (e.g., Haegeman, 1995; Koopman
and Sportiche, 1991; Sportiche, 1988a).
12
Languages differ with regard to the overt raising of the wh-operator (the wh-word in English
or the -word in Slavic languages). In languages like English, German, French, etc. only one whword must obligatorily move to the [Spec, CP]. On the other hand, in languages like Chinese
the wh-constituent remains in situ, i.e., it does not overtly move to the [Spec, CP] position (e.g.,
Aoun and Li, 1993). There is a third possibility as well, exemplified by languages such as
Macedonian, Polish, and Hungarian in which multiple wh-fronting is permitted (e.g., Puskas
1992). However, I will concentrate in this paper only on questions with a single fronted whconstituent, along the lines of the wh-movement condition.
142
A NA LAZAROVA -N IKOVSKA
features, it has to be filled (Chomsky 1988; Radford 1997). This requirement
is fulfilled either by an insertion of a lexical element under C or by movement
of a head that carries the same features. Therefore, if the language does not
have lexical Q elements to occupy the C position, the strong C will attract the
Aux to move from its position in I to the C node thus passing over the Subject
which, in [- pro-drop] languages like English, has obligatorily raised to the
[Spec,IP].
In summary, once again it is the strength of the feature that triggers movement
of the verb. Strong C will attract the strong verb. This type of movement is also
a head-to-head movement and visible at S-structure, i.e. at PF.
The Wh-criterion
Another requirement for the grammaticality of a question is the
satisfaction of the wh-criterion (May 1985; Rizzi 1990b, 1995):
- A WH-operator must be in a Spec-head configuration with an
X with a feature [WH];
- An X with the feature [WH] must be in a Spec-head
configuration with a WH-operator.
The following definitions obtain:
- WH-operator: a WH-phrase in a scope position.
- Scope position: left-peripheral A’-position, i.e. an adjoined
position [YP,XP] or a specifier position [Spec, XP].
Wh-questions, also known as constituent questions necessarily involve a whword (see footnote 12 for the possible position of the wh-element). In the types
of questions under consideration in this paper, the wh-element, inherently
endowed with a wh-feature, moves to and occupies the [Spec,CP] position and
thus qualifies as an operator. Following the wh-criterion from above, it needs
to establish a relation with a head which carries the wh-feature. The finite verb
in English is a carrier of such feature. In compliance with the wh-criterion, the
relevant head needs to raise to C, the head of CP to establish feature agreement
under Spec-head relation. Hence, the obligatory Aux raising to C in English
wh-questions.
However, considering the wh-criterion stated above, one may wonder how this
requirement is satisfied in yes-no questions where there is no overt wh-operator
in the specifier position of CP. To account for this, let us assume that the wh-
IN T E R RO G A T IV E S EN T E N C ES
IN
M A C ED O N IA N
143
criterion can be partially satisfied by a null operator with the relevant feature
OP[wh]. This analysis is reminiscent of Klima’s (1964) approach where it is
proposed that the element wh- is deleted when it has not incorporated any
lexical material (Haegeman 1995:99). The wh-operator of yes-no questions
arguably ranges over propositions, the wh-operator of constituent questions
ranges over arguments and adjunct (Haegeman 1995:298). As a consequence,
the following sentences will be ungrammatical in English:
(19)
(20)
*What Bob has studied at the University ?
*Why Helen is leaving so soon ?
We have seen from above that lexical verbs do not raise to I and therefore to
C in English. To compensate for the lack of lexical verb raising, English has
developed a language-specific way of satisfying the [+Q] feature under C when
only lexical verbs are present in the question. This idiosyncrasy is the English
do-support. Namely, a semantically empty verb do is inserted in I and then
moved to C in matrix questions. Do-support applies both in yes-no and in whquestions in English (examples are provided in the next Section).
Examples of Interrogative Sentences – Structural Approach
English
Yes-no questions in English are formed using the SAI as a compulsory
operation. The examples of questions given below provide evidence that in
English only the auxiliaries and the modals, but not the main verbs can
undergo SAI, i.e. movement from the I to the C position in the structure:
(21)
Is Lora wearing my coat ?
Do you live in Budapest ?
*Watch you reality shows on TV ?
The requirement for SAI extends to wh-questions as well. The wh-word is
fronted to the [Spec,CP] position whereas the lexical verb remains in situ, i.e.
in V:
Where can I buy kiwi ice-cream ?
What do they think about the project ?
*What buys Sarah at the market every day?
144
A NA LAZAROVA -N IKOVSKA
French
As a result of the difference in the [( Infl] parameter between English
and French, the situation with interrogative sentences in French is different.
In yes-no and wh -questions in French all verbs can appear at the beginning of
the sentence, i.e. in C. For example:
(27)
(28)
Parlez-vous français?
speak-2s you-2p French
‘Do you speak French?’
Quand viendra-t-elle ?
when come-fut3s she
‘When will she come ?’
(from Haegeman, 1994:591)
However, it is not obligatory that the lexical verb and the subject invert, as
there are other ways of satisfying the [+Q] feature under C13. English and
French are [– pro-drop] languages meaning that the subject cannot be omitted
in the sentence. It was concluded that lexical verbs never raise to C in English,
whereas they can always raise in French. The [Q] feature is strong in both
languages, and hence satisfied at PF. They only differ in the types of verbs
allowed in the C node.
In the following subsection we turn our attention to [+ pro-drop] languages to
see whether there will be any differences in V-C movement in questions.
Spanish and Italian
Let me first present the example questions (29 and 30 for Spanish; 31
and 32 for Italian) and then discuss V-movement:
(29)
(30)
13
Desayuna Maria tostadas ?
breakfast-3s Maria toast
‘Does Maria have toasts for breakfast ?’
Cuando llega Juan del trabajo ?
when arrive-3s Juan from work
‘When does Juan arrive from work/the office?’
French has other ways of forming questions; the most frequent and colloquial being SVO with
intonation, whereas a more com plex and written form includes ‘est-ce’. For example ‘est-ce
que vous parlez français?’ ‘Do you speak French?’ and Où est-ce que Jean travaille?’ ‘Where
does Jean work?’ However, I will not be discussing such questions in this paper.
IN T E R RO G A T IV E S EN T E N C ES
(31)
(32)
IN
M A C ED O N IA N
145
Guarda Carla la televisione ?
watch-3s Carla TV
‘Does Carla watch TV?’
Che cosa studia Marco ?
what study-3s Marco
‘What does Marco study?’
In regard to V-movement in root questions with main verbs, the situation is
almost identical for the two languages, therefore a single generalisation can be
drawn. Italian and Spanish being languages with full inflectional paradigms,
the verb always raises to I. However, there is a disagreement regarding further
raising of the verb to the CP domain in main questions. A group of researchers
(Beninca 2001; Poletto 2001; Rizzi 1991, 1997, 2001, a.o.) argue for V-raising
to C, especially discussed in the context of wh-questions. Another group of
researchers claim that lexical verbs never raise to CP in questions in these
languages, but rather they remain in I. In what follows, I will elaborate further
on the arguments given by the latter group of researchers.
The VS surface order, it is claimed, is the result of the subject remaining in
[Spec,VP] as it is the case for the majority of [+ pro-drop] languages. In
compliance with the general requirement of Universal Grammar that each
sentence has a grammatical subject (EPP), an expletive pro occupies [Spec,IP],
the canonical position of subjects (cf. notes 11 and 17).
Furthermore, it is assumed that the wh-feature is weak, therefore V to C applies
at LF (Ordonez 1996). An additional criterion is proposed as a substitution of
the wh-criterion, namely the Argumental Agreement Licensing (Suner
1994:367):
‘[Spec,CP] must be in an Argument Agreement relationship
with V in I’
What this implies is that only argumental wh-phrases require adjaceny with the
finite verb. At the same time, this verb does not have the required [+wh]
feature and therefore cannot move to C, but it remains in I. However, the finite
verb has other features, argumental features, which it shares with the
argumental wh-element. In order to check its features with those on the verb,
the two constituents should be in a local domain and no other argumental DP
should interfere between them. Hence, the following sentence is
ungrammatical:
146
A NA LAZAROVA -N IKOVSKA
(33)
*Que esa chica dice ?
what this girl say-3s
‘What does this girl say?’
Ordonez (1996) offers an alternative explanation regarding the position of the
subject, according to which the pre-verbal lexical subjects in Spanish are in
Topic position and as topics block the movement of overt heads, the overt
lexical subject would block raising of verb to C in LF and therefore render the
question ungrammatical. Moreover, instead of distinguishing between
argumental and non-argumental wh-elements, it has been suggested that the
line should be drawn between complex and non-complex wh-phrases (e.g.
Ordonez and Trevino 1995; Ordonez 1996). In the light of this proposal, it is
assumed that complex wh-phrases are not in Spec CP, but rather ‘left
dislocated’, hence no wh-criterion to be satisfied and subjects can freely
interfere between the wh-phrase and the verb.
(34)
En que momento tus hermanas se fueron ?
in which moment your sisters left-3s
‘In which moment did your sisters leave?’
(from Ordonez 1996:346)
In sum, with Spanish and Italian we have seen arguments for a different
analysis to that described for English and French. With the former group of
languages, the Verb is believed not to raise to C and that the [Q] feature is
weak and therefore satisfied at LF.
In the following section I will present examples and explanations of question
formation in languages which are closer to Macedonian (both geographically
and in terms of the grammatical ways of constructing interrogative sentences).
Moving closer: Questions in Other Slavic/Balkan Languages
The most striking characteristic that differentiates at least SerboCroatian and Bulgarian from the Romance languages and English is the
frequent presence of question particles (as free or bound morphemes) in the
structure of interrogatives in the former group of languages. Of the languages
discussed below, however, there are no such particles in Greek.
Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian
Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian form questions in a similar way, at least
as far as finite simple lexical verbs are concerned. Here are some examples:
IN T E R RO G A T IV E S EN T E N C ES
IN
M A C ED O N IA N
147
Serbo-Croatian:
(35a) Poznaje li Nenad tvog brata?
know-3s Q-CL Nenad your brother
(35b) Da li Nenad poznaje tvog brata?
Q Nenad know-3s your brother, both glossed as:
‘Does Nenad know your brother?’
(36a) Sta kuva Boban ?
what cook-3s Boban
(36b) Sta Boban kuva ?
what Boban cook-3s, both glossed as:
‘What does Boban cook ?’
Bulgarian:
(37a) Vidjaxme li knigata ?14
see-1pl Q-CL book-the
(37b) Dali vidjaxme knigata ?
Q see-1pl book-the, both glossed as:
‘Did we see the book ?’
(38) Kakvo dade Boris na Ivan ?
What give-3s Boris to Ivan
‘What did Boris give to Ivan?’
(from Rivero 1993:568)
What is common for SC and Blg is the preferred use of the question particles
compared to VS inversion as another possible question formation device. The
latter is marginal in Bulgarian and it usually has an affirmative, rather than an
interrogative reading in Serbo-Croatian. Hence, VS inversion has not been
discussed for these two languages.
Another common characteristic is the use of the clitic particle form li, which
always precedes the verb (or other element, see above). Li, right adjoined to
its host, always appears in sentence initial position or using structural
terminology, in the C node (e.g. King 1994; Krapova 1999; Rudin 1993;
Wilder and Cavar 1994, etc.). However, Rivero (1993) notes a possible
difference between li in both languages: in SC, the verb carries [+wh] feature,
whereas li does not, therefore the V must attach to li to satisfy the wh-criterion.
On the other hand, in Blg, li is a carrier of this feature, therefore both finite and
non-finite forms can raise to C.
14
Unfortunately, I could not find any examples of yes-no questions with an overt lexical subject
in Bulgarian, but I would assume that, if realised, the subject would follow the verb + li.
148
A NA LAZAROVA -N IKOVSKA
Nevertheless, regarding the actual movement of the Verb to Comp, there is an
ongoing debate in the literature. One group of researchers support the view that
the verb overtly moves to C before Spell-Out, driven by syntactic reasons. The
other camp support the ‘phonological view’, i.e. incorporation of li to V in the
PF but not in the syntax.
Following Tomic (1996) and Wilder and Cavar (1994), among others, the main
argument for treating V+li adjacency as a syntactic phenomenon is the
following: li is a head-like element generated in C. If the verb remains in I, li
would have to move rightwards, which, compared with the HMC from above,
is a violation of this constraint, as movement should only be leftwards.
Following Franks and Holloway King (2000) and Holloway King (1996),
among others, the verb need not move to C in overt syntax, as there is no
syntactic reason to trigger and support that movement with the [+Q] feature
under C already being satisfied by the li morpheme, which presumably carries
interrogative (and focus) features. Therefore, li attaches to the first prosodic
word to its right in the PF via Prosodic Inversion (notion developed in depth
in Halpern 1995). The requirements for movement would be phonological and
thus commission prosodic, rather than syntactic reordering and therefore
should not be handled in the syntax.
On the other hand, it seems to be agreed that the focused element that may
precede li is in Spec CP and that li attaches to it, thus no V-raising is necessary.
That li is a bound morpheme is proven by the last common ground between SC
and Blg questions, namely the existence of the full lexical word dali, which is
a question particle and always occupies sentence initial position. It seems to be
almost unanimously accepted that dali occupies the C position as well and
being a free morphological form under C, and that it does not trigger V-to-C
raising (Rivero 1993; Rudin 1986). With regard to wh-questions, the verb is
adjacent to the wh-constituent in Blg and it can be (but not necessarily) in SC.15
Eventually, it is worth noting that not all authors agree with li living under C.
Izvorski (1994b) argues that Bulgarian li is not in Comp, but in Focus.
Analogously, wh-phrases in Blg are in Spec FP.
Modern Greek
A VS order is the main device for asking yes-no questions in Greek. Unlike in
Spanish and Italian, it has been suggested for Greek (Tsimpli 1990) that in root
15
I leave aside the discussion of WhSVO questions in this paper.
IN T E R RO G A T IV E S EN T E N C ES
IN
M A C ED O N IA N
149
interrogative clauses the verb moves to a higher functional position than I.
Tsimpli (ibid. p. 249) argues that in MG, matrix clauses are Focus phrases
(FocPs) rather than CP, i.e. they lack a CP projection. Consequently, the verb
is in the head of Foc, whereas the focused element or wh-phrase can be in Spec
FocP. With respect to the features under heads, we can therefore revise the [Q]
feature as an [F] feature, specified both for [f] and [wh] features. In addition,
the verb being in Focus in the VSO order will leave the subject in the Spec of
IP. An evidence for the conclusion that matrix clauses are FocPs rather than
CPs is derived from the fact that in Greek, matrix clauses cannot be introduced
by a complementiser.
(39a) Troi o Jiani mila ?
eat-3s Jiani apples
(39b) Troi mila o Jiani ?
eat-3s apples Jiani, both glossed as:
‘Does Jiani eat apples ?’
(40) Ti troi o Jiani ?
what eat-3s Jiani
‘What does Jiani eat ?’
Structural Account of Questions in Macedonian
Based on the theoretical generative assumptions about interrogative
clauses, the structural descriptions for question formation in the languages
exemplified above and the types of questions that exist in Macedonian, a
number of different, yet related analyses may be pursued. In this paper,
however, I will be arguing for, what I believe to be, syntactically the most
parsimonious and coherent alternative.
The following combinations of word orders and elements are possible in
questions in Macedonian, when the lexical subject is overt: SVO; VSO; VliSO;
Q(dali)SVO; Q(dali)VSO; and WhVSO.
As a prerequisite to any further discussion, let us define Macedonian as a
[+Infl] language due to having rich inflection on the verb. As a result, the verb
always moves from V to I and from there, theoretically possible, it can move
to C.
We may begin the discussion with question types of the VS inverse order, as
V-initial questions are most frequent in Macedonian. The VS order was also
found in Spanish and Italian yes-no questions where it was claimed by some
authors that the [Q] feature is weak and therefore the verb remains in I. This
150
A NA LAZAROVA -N IKOVSKA
was not the explanation given for VS order in Greek, however. Greek is
believed to have strong [Q[=F]] feature but the realisation of that feature is in
FocP, rather than in CP in root clauses, hence FocP=CP. Please note, however,
that in these languages there are no question particles.
On the other hand, the same analysis of V-movement may not be very suitable
for Macedonian, as this language makes use of Q-particles which are believed
to be complementisers and as such occupy the C position. Hence the need for
a CP projection in Macedonian matrix questions. Examples of such particles
are dali and li.
Tomic (p.c.) supports the view that dali is in C in Macedonian just as it is
assumed to be in SC and Blg. As the [Q] feature is economically satisfied by
lexical insertion from the Lexicon, there is no need for the verb to move to it
and therefore it stays in I in sentences like the one in the following example:
(41)
Dali Tina pie kafe ?
Q Tina drink-3s coffee ?
‘Does Tina drink coffee?’
(QSVO)
IN T E R RO G A T IV E S EN T E N C ES
IN
M A C ED O N IA N
151
Since we have established the existence of a CP in Macedonian we can
continue the analysis with the other question particle mentioned above, i.e.
with li. I will adopt the view supported in the majority of analyses that exist in
the literature for li and generate it under C. In addition, following the syntactic
view on V to li incorporation, I will assume that it happens overtly as a D-S
structure operation with the verb moving to C. I choose the following
arguments to support my choice:
V-to-li (in C) is a legitimate head to head movement
V-to-li (in C) is a legitimate leftward movement (as rightward movement,
lowering, is discouraged in the current generative literature)
As it has been argued for by Rivero (1993) for SC, in Macedonian li may also
lack [wh] feature and therefore invites the incorporation of a head carrying
those features (i.e. the finite verb). The context of embedded questions can
further yield support for my argument of V-C movement. If we assume that
such question is introduced by CP, the following examples of embedded
interrogatives suggest that dali and V+li are substitutes for each other under C:
(42a) Taa saka da znae dali Lile igra shah.
she want-3s to know Q Lile play-3s chess
(42b) Taa saka da znae igra li Lile shah.
she want-3s to know play-3s Q-CL Lile chess, both glossed as:
‘She wants to know if Lile plays chess.’
Therefore, I would conclude that V can be analysed as moving to C in
questions with li. For example:
(43)
Pie li Tina kafe ?
drink-3s Q-CL Tina coffee
‘Does Tina drink coffee?’
(VQ-CLSO)
152
A NA LAZAROVA -N IKOVSKA
Let us return to VS question types. I will analyse V to C movement for this
type of question as well, primarily based on the following: It would be in
compliance with the SAI principle of grammar. Since I assume that V has
already moved to C to support li, there is no need to reject the same possibility
when the C is not occupied by an overt complementiser. V-C is a nice way of
accounting for the otherwise optional strength of the [Q] feature under C
(strong, when filled with question particles, weak, when empty). To give an
example:
(44)
Pie Tina kafe ?
drink-3s Tina coffee
‘Does Tina drink coffee?’
(VSO)
Last but not least, a V to C analysis is preferable for constituent questions as
well since it satisfies the wh-criterion, as exemplified in (45):
(45)
Sto jade Tina ?
what eat-3s Tina
‘What is Tina eating?/What does Tina eat?’
(WHVS)
IN T E R RO G A T IV E S EN T E N C ES
IN
M A C ED O N IA N
153
In Macedonian the SVO order can also be used to ask a question:
(46)
Tina pie kafe ?
Tina drink-3s coffee
‘Does Tina drink coffee?’
(SVO)
However, this type of question exists in almost all languages and as such is not
very interesting for the current analysis. Both Tomic and Roberts (p.c.) suggest
that in this question the Q feature is satisfied phonologically by the intonation
contour.
We have observed in a previous section that the verb can follow dali as often
as the subject can (compare 41 and 48):
(47)
Dali pie Tina kafe ?
Q drink-3s Tina coffee
‘Does Tina drink coffee?’
(QVSO)
I will not go into detailed speculations about the rearrangement of constituents
in the structure above, but I would only suggest that the verb has moved to a
154
A NA LAZAROVA -N IKOVSKA
Focus position, the head of a projection between IP and CP16 (see Friedman
1993; Puskas 1997, a.o.). A reason for this preposing of the verb may be the
need to structurally emphasise the verb. Alternatively, we may say that it is the
subject that occupies different positions and in the above construction it has
remained in the SpecVP as ‘old’ information in the discourse.
In summary, under this syntactic approach, V always raises to C in yes/no
questions in Macedonian, except in interrogatives introduced by dali. For the
analysis from above, I take the subject to occupy the canonical Spec of IP
position17.
The [Q] feature is always strong and always filled. C has the following
features: [+Q] and [+F]. Dali has only [+Q], whereas li and the verb have both
[+wh], [+F] and [+Q]. Such is the distribution of features in order to account
for the different rhetoric implications and scope range of questions with dali
as opposed to questions with li or V-initial. Finally, under this analysis, any
focused element or wh-phrase will be in Spec of CP18.
Conclusion
As Macedonian question formation has not yet been specifically studied
in the generative framework, it has been necessary to locate this phenomenon
within the broader theoretical frame and in relation to the more widely studied
languages. The relatively detailed descriptive account of question types in
16
Following Law (1 99 1) and Boskovic (1 996, 1997), a new structure will be projected in the
tree only if it is needed to serve as a landing site for certain elements. Therefore, not all
structures are present by default in the ‘Minimal Structure Principle’. Wih regard to the Focus
Phrase, for instance, English does not project it, as focus is expressed by stressing the relevant
element in situ. In other languages with structural Focus , a landing site must be provided for
the preposed focused constituent. A third group of languages, e.g., Macedonian, have mixed
focus marking (in situ and out of situ).
17
The exact position of the subject in pro-drop languages is beyong the scope of this paper (see
note 11 and Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 1998 and Tsimpli 1990 for Greek; Cardinaletti
1997 for Italian; Gross and Bok-B ennema 1 986 and Suner 2 000 for Spanish, a.o.).
18
A more discourse-based account is also p ossible. In this case, only dali would be in C (hence,
[Q] again always strong), whereas li would be generated under Focus (Foc would have [+Q]
feature). The verb will move to Foc in VSO and VliSO orde rs. W ith such an analysis, the
focused reading of VS O and V liSO question types is structurally accounted for. Consequently,
the focused element and/or wh-phrase will be in Spec of FP. Finally, an embedded question like
(43b ) would be introduced by an FP, rather than by a CP (cf. FP=C P for Greek).
IN T E R RO G A T IV E S EN T E N C ES
IN
M A C ED O N IA N
155
Macedonian, presented above, also serves to establish a foundation for further
research and analysis.
Therefore, English and French were mentioned in order to capture the
chronological development of research on the V-raising phenomenon.
Moreover, they display contrastive patterns in respect to V-raising of lexical
verbs. Equally, Spanish and Italian were thought to be significant as they are
similar to Macedonian in having [+Infl] and allowing VS inversion. A
comparison was also drawn with the neighboring languages as they were
expected to yield even more direct insights into the possible structure of
Macedonian questions. We have seen that the shared features include Qparticles and Subject Verb inversion.
To summarise the main assumption about V-positioning in matrix yes-no and
wh-questions in Macedonian, it has been suggested that finite main verbs in
present tense can be identified under two basic structural positions: the head of
Complementiser (C) and the head of Inflection (T/Agr = I). However, the
possibility of Focus projection may also prove to be a promising array of
further detailed research.
Finally, by building on the comprehensive analysis of the structure of the IP for
Macedonian (Tomic 1996, 2000, 2001), this paper offers a modest step further
towards understanding the higher projections of the Macedonian clause, the
region of the Complementiser Phrase (CP).
156
A NA LAZAROVA -N IKOVSKA
REFERENCES
Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou. E. (1998). Parametrizing AGR: Word
order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 16. 491–539.
Aoun, J. & Li. A. (1993). Wh elements in situ: syntax or LF? Linguistic
Inquiry 24. 199–238.
Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function
Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beninca, P. (2001). The position of focus and topic in the left periphery. In
Cinque, G. & Salvi, G. (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays
Offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 39-64.
Bentivoglio, P. & Weber, E. G. (1986). A functional approach to subject word
order in spoken Spanish. In: Jaeggli, O. & Silva-Corvalan, C. (eds.),
Studies in Romance Linguistics. Publications in Language Sciences 24.
Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 23-39.
Boskovic, Z. (1996). Selection and the categorical status of infinitival
complements. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14. 269–304.
Boskovic, Z. (1997). The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy
Approach. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Cardinaletti, A. (1997). Subjects and clause structure. In: Haegeman, L. (ed.),
The New Comparative Syntax. Harlow: Longman. 33-63.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris
Publications.
Chomsky, N. (1986a). Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Barriers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1988). Generative Grammar, Studies in English Linguistics and
Literature. Kyoto University of Foreign Studies.
Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In: Hale, K.
and Keyser, S.J. (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press. Pp. 1–52.
Chomsky. N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. USA: The MIT Press.
Culicover, P.W. (1997). Principles and Parameters: An Introduction to
Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emonds, J. (1976). A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New
York: Academic Press.
Englund, B. (1977). ‘Yes/no questions in Bulgarian and Macedonian’. PhD
dissertation. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
IN T E R RO G A T IV E S EN T E N C ES
IN
M A C ED O N IA N
157
Englund, B. (1979). The functions of yes/no-questions (on basis of Bulgarian
and Macedonian material). In: Englund, B. et al. (eds), Papers in
Slavonic Linguistics 1. Stockholms universitet, Institutionen for
slaviska och baltiska sprak. Stockholm.
Franks, S. & Holloway King, T. (eds.) (2000). A Handbook of Slavic Clitics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Friedman, V. A. (1993). Macedonian. In: Comrie B. & Corbett, G. C. (eds.),
The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge. 249-305.
Gross, A. & Bok-Bennema, R. (1986). The structure of the sentence in
Spanish. In: Bordelois, J., Contreras, H. & Zagona, K. (eds.),
Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax vol. 27. Dordrecht: Foris
Publications. 67-80.
Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
Haegeman, L. (1995). The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Halpern, A. (1995). On the Morphology and Placement of Clitics. PhD thesis.
Stanford University.
Holloway King, T. (1996). Slavic clitics, long head movement, and prosodic
inversion. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 4/1. 274–311.
Iatridou, S. (1990). About Agr(p). Linguistic Inquiry 21. 551–77.
Izvorski, R. (1994b). Yes-no questions in Bulgarian: Implications for phrase
structure. Paper presented at the 9th Biennial Conference on Balkan
and South Slavic Linguistics, Literature and Folklore, Bloomington,
Indiana.
Izvorski, R., King, T.H., and Rudin, C. (1997). Against li lowering in
Bulgarian. Lingua 102. 274–311.
Jackendoff, R.S. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Kayne, R. (1984). Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris
Publications.
King, T.H. (1994a). Focus in Russian yes-no questions. Journal of Slavic
Linguistics 2. 92–120.
Klima, E. (1964). Negation in English. In: Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J. (eds.),
Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Koopman, H. & Sportiche, D. (1991). The position of subjects. Lingua 85.
211–58.
Korubin, B. (1978). Mestoto na glagolot vo makedonskata prasalna recenica
[The place of the verb in the Macedonian interrogative sentence].
Literaturen Zbor XXV/2. 33–43.
158
A NA LAZAROVA -N IKOVSKA
Krapova, I. (1999). The System of Auxiliaries in Bulgarian. In DimitrovaVulchanova, M. & Hellan, L. (eds.), Topics in South Slavic Syntax and
Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishers. 59-89.
Law, P. (1991). Effect of Head Movement on Theories of Subjacency and
Proper Government’. PhD thesis, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.
May, R. (1985). Logical Form. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Minova-Gurkova, L. (1987). Partikulata ‘li’ vo makedonskiot literaturen jazik
[The li particle in the Macedonian Literary Language]. Godisen
Zbornik na Filoloskiot Fakultet [Faculty of Philology Annual Working
Papers] 13. 29–38.
Minova-Gurkova, L. (1990). Za edna mozna klasifikacija na prasanjata i
odgovorite [A possible classification of questions and answers].
Literaturen Zbor, 3–4. 25–31.
Minova-Gurkova, L. (1994). Sintaksa na Makedonskiot Standarden Jazik [The
Syntax of the Standard Macedonian Language]. Skopje: Ruding.
Ordonez, F. (1996). The Inversion construction in interrogatives in Spanish
and Catalan. In: Lema, J. & Trevino, E. (eds.), Theoretical Analysis on
Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company. 329-50.
Ordonez, F. & Trevino, E. (1995). The preverbal slot in Spanish. Paper
presented at the XXV Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages.
Seattle.
Ouhalla, J. (1990). Sentential negation, relativized minimality and the
aspectual status of auxiliaries. Linguistic Review 7. 183–231.
Ouhalla, J. (1999). Introducing transformational grammar: From Principles
and Parameters to Minimalism. London: Arnold.
Poletto, C. (2001). Complementizer deletion and verb movement in standard
Italian. In: Cinque, G. & Salvi, G. (eds.), Current Studies in Italian
Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 26586.
Pollock, J-Y. (1989). Verb movement, UG and the structure of IP’. Linguistic
Inquiry 20. 365–424.
Pollock, J-Y. (1997). Notes on Clause Structure. In: Haegeman, L. (ed.),
Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax. Kluwer
Academic Publishers. 237-79.
Puskas, G. (1992). The Wh criterion in Hungarian. Rivista di Grammatica
Generativa 17. 141–86.
Puskas, G. (1997). Focus and the CP Domain. In: Haegeman, L. (ed.), The New
Comparative Syntax. Harlow: Longman.
Radford, A. (1997). Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A
Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Restan, P. (1972). Sintaksis voprositel’nogo predlozenija. Oslo.
IN T E R RO G A T IV E S EN T E N C ES
IN
M A C ED O N IA N
159
Rivero, L-M. (1993). Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian yes-no questions: V0raising to –li versus -li hopping. Linguistic Inquiry 24/3. 567–75.
Rizzi, L. (1990). Speculation on verb second. In: Mascaro & Nespol (eds.)
Grammar in Progress, GLOW Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk. 375-86.
Rizzi, L. (1991). Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. Technical reports
in formal and computational linguistics 2. Université de Geneve.
Rizzi, L. (1995). A note on do support. Manuscript. Université of Geneva.
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In: Haegeman, L.
(ed.), Elements of grammar: handbook of generative syntax. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers. 281-337.
Rizzi, L. (2001). On the position of “int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the
clause. In: Cinque, G. & Salvi, G. (eds.), Current studies in Italian
syntax: Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 287-96.
Rudin, C. (1986). Aspects of Bulgarian syntax: complementizers and WH
constructions. USA: Slavica Publishers, Inc.
Rudin, C. (1993). On focus position and focus marking in Bulgarian
questions.’ Paper presented at FLSM 4.
Rudin, C. et al. (1999). Macedonian and Bulgarian LI questions: Beyond
syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17/3. 541-85.
Sportiche, D. (1988). A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for
constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 425–9.
Suner, M. (1994). V-movement and the licensing of argumental Wh-phrases
in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12. 335–72.
Suner, M. (2000). The syntax of direct quotes with special reference to Spanish
and English’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18. 525–78.
Tomic, O. M. (1996a). The Balkan Slavic clausal clitics. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 14/4. 811–72.
Tomic, O. M. (1996b). The Balkan Slavic nominal clitics. In: Halpern, A.L. &
Zwicky, A. M. (eds.), Approaching second. Second position clitics and
related phenomena. USA: California: CSLI Publications. Pp. 511–37.
Tomic, O. M. (2000). On clitic sites. In: Beukema, F. & den Dikken, M. (eds.),
Clitic phenomena in European languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company. Pp. 293–316.
Tomic, O. M. (2001). The Macedonian negation operator and cliticization.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19/3. 647–82.
Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and effects on word order variation.
Dissertation. Cambridge, Massachusetts:MIT.
Tsimpli, I-M. (1990). The clause structure and word order in Modern Greek
UCL Working Papers in Linguistics Vol. 2. London: University
College London. 226-55.
Wilder, C. & Cavar, D. (1994). Word order variation, verb movement, and
economy principles. Studia Linguistica 48/1. 46–86.