Gašper Ilc
University of Ljubljana*
UDK 811.163.6'367
JESPERSEN'S CYCLE IN SLOVENIAN
0. Introduction
The paper examines the syntactic properties of the negative marker in standard Slovenian and its Pannonian dialects in terms of Jespersen's cycle (Jespersen's 1924: 335). The term Jespersen's Cycle refers to the historic morpho-phonological process of grammaticalisation which involves repeated weakening and strengthening of the negative marker. Although the original claim (Jespersen ibid.) involves only the diachronic perspective, later research (Zanuttini 1991, Kiparsky and Cordoravdi 2006, van der Auwera 2009 and in press, Willis in press inter alii) has shown that the same process can also be observed synchronically. In view of the latter claim, the paper argues that in modern Slovenian at least three morphologically distinct stages of Jespersen's cycle co-exist, namely, (i) the clitic-like negation, (ii) the adverb-like negation, and (iii) the bipartite negation. The syntactic account proposed herein assumes that there is a direct correlation between the morpho-phonological status of the negative marker and the derivation of negative clauses (cf.: Haegeman 1995). While a clitic-like negative marker heads the Negative Phrase and requires a syntactic host, an adverb-like negative marker occupies the specifier position of the Negative Phrase and functions as an independent syntactic constituent. In the case of Slovenian, the clitic-like negation is typical of standard Slovenian, while the adverb-like negation can be found in Pannonian dialects of Slovenian.
In addition, the paper explores the claim put forward by Zanuttini (1989) and Rowlett (1997) that the morpho-phonological status of the negative marker and its syntactic position(s) directly determine the semantic interpretation of multiple occurrences of negative elements. The authors suggest that the negative concord interpretation is possible only with a clitic-like negative marker, while the double negation interpretation is typical of languages with an adverb-like negative marker. The analysis of the relevant Slovenian data disproves the claim and shows that there is no direct correlation between the morpho-phonological status of the negative marker and the semantic interpretation of multiple occurrences of negative elements.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 offers a concise outline of the theoretical framework which forms the background to this paper. Section 2 deals with the negation and the status of the negative marker in standard Slovenian (2.1) and the Pannonian dialect group (2.2). In section 3, we present the relevant data, and
* Author's address: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za anglistiko in amerikanistiko, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana. Email: gasper.ilc@ff.uni-lj.si
develop a generative syntactic account of the Slovenian negative marker in terms of Jespersen's cycle. Section 4 concludes the paper.
1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 1.1 Jespersen's cycle
It is a well-known fact that in many languages the negative marker has historically undergone the cyclic process of morpho-phonological weakening and strengthening known as Jespersen's cycle. The term was first used by Dahl in his seminal paper (1979) on the typology of negation, and it is accredited to Jespersen's (1924: 335) observation about the diachronic status of negative markers in sundry languages:
The negative adverb is often weakly stressed, because some other word in the sentence has to receive a strong stress of contrast. But when the negtive has become a mere proclitic syllable or even a single sound, it is felt to be too weak, and has to be strengthened by some additional word, and this in its turn may come to be felt as the negative proper, which then may be subject to the same development as the original word. We have thus a constant interplay of weakening and strengthening, which with the further tendency to place the negative in the beginning of the sentence where it is likely to be dropped [...] leads to curious results.
Jespersen (1924: 335)
Jespersen (ibid.) identifies five different stages of the described cycle:
Stage 1. Negation is expressed by a pre-verbal negative marker, typically associated with the morpho-syntactic properties of a clitic (1a).
Stage 2. Negation is expressed by a bipartite negative marker, consisting of a weak pre-verbal element and a reinforcing post-verbal negative element. The reinforcing element acquires a secondary grammatical meaning even while retaining some of its original lexical meaning (1b). At this stage, the grammaticalisation process of the reinforcing element has begun.
Stage 3. The original pre-verbal marker is reduced to a phonologically null element; the post-verbal negative marker is completely grammaticalised, and functions as the sole negative marker (1c).
Stage 4. The post-verbal negative marker moves to the pre-verbal position (1d), but still retains some of its adverb-like syntactic properties.
Stage 5. The new pre-verbal negative marker becomes subject to a new process of weakening (1e). The cycle has come full circle: stages 1 and 5 display the same mor-pho-syntactic properties of the negative marker.
In what follows, we will use the term clitic-like negation for stages 1 and 5, bipartite negation for stage 2 and adverb-like negation for stages 3 and 4.1
(1)	a) ic ne secge.	English (diachronic perspective, from Jespersen 1924: 335-6)
b)	i ne seye not.
c)	i say not.
d)	i do not say.
e)	i don't say. 'I don't say.'
Although Jespersen (ibid.) builds his argumentation from the diachronic perspective, more recent syntactic analyses have argued (Haegeman 1995, Zanuttini 1997 inter alii) that within the same language different stages of Jespersen's cycle can be found synchronically. In French, for instance, stage 1 is still present in literary or elevated contexts with the expletive or pleonastic negation (2a) and some negated modals (2b). Stage 2, the bipartite negation, is commonly used in standard French (2c), while stage 3 is typical of colloquial and Québécois French.
(2)	a) J'ai peur qu'elle ne soit déjà là.
I have fear that-she not is-subj. already there 'I'm afraid that she might already be here.'
b)	Je ne savais comment répondre. I not knew how to-reply 'I didn't know how to reply.'
c)	Je ne parle pas chinois. I not speak not Chinese 'I don't speak Chinese.'
d)	Je sais pas quoi faire. I know not what to-do 'I don't know what to do.'
It is noteworthy that in recent linguistic theory, the term Jespersen's cycle is no longer associated only with negation, but refers to any process of grammaticalisa-tion, during which an independent lexical item gradually acquires a secondary grammatical meaning and function, and is consequently subject to a morpho-phonologi-
1 For a detailed presentation of the stages within Jespersen's cycle and cross-linguistic typology see inter alii Kiparsky and Cordoravdi 2006, van der Auwera 2009 and in press, and Willis in press.
cal weakening, the final result of which is a reduction to a clitic, an affix or even a phonologically null element (cf.: Van Gelderen 2004 inter alii).2
1.2 Generative grammar, negation and Jespersen's cycle: basic tenets
Ever since Pollock's (1989) influential work on the verb movement, generative analysis has assumed (Laka 1990, Haegeman 1995, Cinque 1999 inter alii) that negated clauses contain an additional functional projection, the Negation Phrase (henceforth: NegP), which according to the X-bar theory of phrase structure3 comprises of the head, the specifier and the complement (3a).
(3) a) the structure of the Negation Phrase (NegP):
NegP
Specifier	Neg
Head Complement
With regard to the hierarchical order of the functional projections, Chomsky (1998: 15) proposes the following system of core functional categories: (i) Complementizer) expressing force/mood, (ii) T(ense) expressing tense/event structure, and (iii) v (light verb) heading the verbal (transitive) constructions. The hierarchical ordering of these functional categories depends on their selectional properties: C selects T, while T selects v, which in turn selects verbal (V) elements (3b). It needs to be stressed, however, that Chomsky (op. cit.: 15, fn 31) uses functional categories C and T "as surrogates for richer systems", such as those proposed by Pollock (1989), Rizzi (1997) and Cinque (1999); therefore, the analysis in the subsequent sections assumes the presence of at least one additional functional category, Neg(ation), in negative clauses. The functional category Neg is selected by T (3c).4
2	For example, in Slavic languages some locative prepositions have undergone the process of grammat-icalisation, during which they have been reduced to verbal prefixes denoting the perfective aspect:
(i)	Janez	je	skočil prek ovire.	Slovenian Janez	is	jumped over	hurdle
(ii)	Janez	je	preskočil	oviro.	Slovenian Janez	is	over-jumped	hurdle
'Janez jumped over the hurdle.'
3	Since the 1970s X-bar theory has been standardly assumed in Chomskian grammar, including early work on Minimalism (cf. Chomsky 1995, chapters 1-3). More recently, however, Chomsky has proposed to eliminate the X-bar theory as a separate module of the grammar, arguing that restrictions on the form of structural descriptions follow directly from the properties of structure-building processes themselves (cf. op. cit.: chapter 4, Chomsky 1998, 1999, 2001).
4	Both categories, T and Neg, are typically associated with the tense/event structure (cf.: Cinque 1999).
(3)	b) clausal structure (non-negative sentences):
CP [TP [vP [VP ]]]
c) clausal structure (negative sentences): CP [TP [NegP [vP [VP ]]]]
The syntactic accounts of Romance (Zanuttini 1989, Laka 1990 inter alii), Germanic (Haegeman 1995 inter alii), and Slavic (Abels 2005, Sue Brown and Adam Przepiorkowski 2007, Ilc and Milojevic Sheppard 2005 inter alii) languages, have claimed that there is a direct correlation between Jespersen's Cycle and the structural position of the negative marker within the NegP. In languages with a weak, cliticlike preverbal negative marker (stages 1 and 5), the negative marker is in the head position of the NegP. In languages with a strong, adverb-like negative marker (stages 3 and 4), the negative marker occupies the specifier position of the NegP. In the case of a bipartite negative marker (stage 2), the weakened element is in the head position, and the reinforcing element in the specifier position:
(4)	a) weak negative marker: b) strong negative marker: c) bipartite negative marker:
NegP
NegP not (Eng) Neg
ne (Slo/Rus) non (It) n't (Eng)
Zanuttini (1989) and Rowlett (1997) explore the relation further, and claim that there is a direct correlation between the syntactic position of the negative marker (4) and the semantic interpretation of multiple occurrences of negative elements, more precisely, the negative concord interpretation and the double negation interpretation. The term negative concord (henceforth: NC) refers to all cases in which multiple occurrences of morphologically negative elements are interpreted as a single semantic negation (4d). In contrast, the double negation interpretation (henceforth: DN) follows the logical reasoning in which one negation cancels the other (4e).
(4) d) Je n'ai vu personne.	(NC)	French
I not-have seen nobody 'I didn't see anybody.'
e) i did not see nobody.	(DN)	standard English
'I saw somebody.'
Zanuttini (1989) and Rowlett (1997) suggest that NC is possible only in languages in which the negative marker occupies the head position, for example, in Romance languages. On the other hand, the DN exists in languages with the negative marker in the specifier position, typically in the Germanic language group. This claim, however, is refuted by Haegeman (1995):
[T]here is no general correlation between NC and the presence of an overt Neg [head]. The Bavarian dialect of German [...] lacks an overt negative head and yet it has NC (Bayer 1990); in WF and in French, NC available regardless of the overt realization of the negative head.
Haegeman (1995: 165-166) In section 2.3, the analysis of the Slovenian data confirms Hageman's (1995) conclusion.
2 NEGATION IN SLOVENIAN 2.1 Standard Slovenian
In standard Slovenian, negation is expressed with the particle ne, which is typically unstressed in neutral and/or unmarked environments.5
The negative marker ne displays characteristics typical of a verbal proclitic, requiring a strict adjacent position to the finite-verb (5a). Toporišič (2000: 671) claims that the particle ne is the final element of the Wackernagel clitic cluster (i.e. clitic-second position); this, however, is not a valid assumption since the particle ne can occur outside the Wackernagel clitic cluster (Orešnik 1985-86: 213), and can together with the finite verb function as a host to the Wackernagel clitic cluster (5b), as argued by Milojevic Sheppard and Golden (2000: 96). These facts lead to the conclusion that the combination ne+finite verb functions as a single syntactic constituent, as in (5b). In the case of the present tense forms of the verbs biti (to be), imeti (to have) and hoteti (to want), the two elements form a morpho-phonological constituent: nisem,
5 The occurrences of the stressed negative marker are rare and/or contextually specific, for example, with the non-finite verbs (i), VP preposing (ii), and VP ellipsis (iii).
opravičevati! apologise
Golden 2000: 43, (74d)
Golden 2000: 44, (79)
(i)	Ne se mi	več not reHcl. to-me-cl. anymore 'Stop apologising to me.'
(ii)	Dam toliko ne, posodim pa. give so-much not lend	but 'I won't give so much, but I can lend it.'
(iii)	Janez ne bo prišel in tudi Marija Janez not will come and also Marija 'John won't come and also Mary won't.'
Since the negative marker ne in the stressed position is no longer a clitic, it does not require a verbal host, therefore, it functions syntactically as an independent constituent.
verjetno ne. probably not
nimam and nočem respectively (5c). In question formation, the tense auxiliary must move to the complementizer position together with the negative marker (5d).
(5)	a) Janez ne (*nikoli/rad) bere rumenega tiska.
Janez not never/glad read yellow press 'Janez doesn't read yellow press.'
b)	[Ne dam] ti ga. not give you-cl. it-cl. 'I won't give it to you.'
c)	Janez ni bral rumenega tiska. Janez not+is read yellow press 'Janez didn't read yellow press.'
d)	[cp[c Ali nisii] [jtj ] [^eg ti] [vp videla Micke?]]6
Q not-are	seen Micka
'Haven't you seen Micka?'
In regard to Jespersen's cycle, Slovenian examples with the unstressed negative marker ne (5a-d) place standard Slovenian at stage 1 of the cycle: negation is expressed by a pre-verbal negative marker with the morpho-syntactic status of a clitic.
Slovenian, like other Slavic languages, is a typical negative concord language: the overt negative marker ne and the co-occurring negative elements are interpreted as a single negation (6a). In terms of its scope (Ilc in press),7 the negative marker ne is limited to a finite clause and its non-finite complements (6b), unless introduced by a wh-word (6c). The negative marker in the matrix clause cannot have scope over a finite complement clause (6d).
(6)	a) Nihče ne bo odšel nikamor.
nobody notwill gone nowhere 'Nobody will go nowhere.'
6	Cf.: (i) *Ali si ne videla Micke?
Q are not seen Micka 'Haven't you seen Micka?'
7	The scope of the negative marker in (standard) Slovenian can be easily determined by the presence of the Genitive of negation: a direct object within the scope of negation is marked with the Genitive case instead of the Accusative case.
b)	Učitelj ne sili študentov reševati takšnih problemov. teacher not forces students-GEN solve-iNF such problems-GEN 'The teacher does not force the students to solve such problems.'
c)	*Ne vem zakaj napisati pisma.
not know why write letter-GEN
'I don't know why to write a letter.'
d)	* Janez ne pravi, da bere časopisov.
Janez not says that reads newspapers-GEN
'John doesn't say that he reads newspapers.'
2.2 Pannonian dialect group
The Pannonian dialect group is spoken in the North-eastern parts of Slovenia, including Prekmurje and the Easternmost areas of Styria, and is comprised of four dialects: (i) Prekmurje dialect, (ii) Slovenian Hills dialect, (iii) Prlekija dialect and (iv) Haloze dialect (Smole 1998: 1-5).
2.2.1 Data
In the Pannonian dialect group, the negative marker appears in two morphologically related forms. First, the adverb-like negative marker ne (also pronounced in some dialects as nei) does not require the adjacent position to the finite verb (7a-e), is not typically merged with the present tense form of the auxiliary to be (7a-c), and can independently function as a host to a Wackernagel clitic (7e). If the finite verb is the tense auxiliary (7a,b) or the copula (7c), the negative marker follows the verbal form, but if the finite verb is a full lexical verb, then the negation precedes the verbal form (7d,e). In questions, the tense auxiliary moves to the complementizer position without the negative marker (7f), which is not the case with the standard Slovenian (5d). In the Prekmurje dialect, the present form of the auxiliary to be and the negative marker ne are merged (7g,h), but only if they are stressed (Zorko 1998: 232).
(7) a) Še plačati je mugo,pa ga je nikdar ne več	vzeo na delo.
even paid is had-to but him is never not anymore taken on work 'Even though he had to pay for it, he was never hired for work anymore.'
b)	Počitka smo ne meli kak mojo zei tota deca. rest are not had as have now these children 'We didn't have so much rest as children have today.'
c)	To je ne tak. this is not so 'This isn't so.'
d) Tega nene dobro vem. this not well know 'I don't know this very well.'
e)	Ne me izdoti. not me betray 'Don't betray me.'
f)	[cp[c Sii ga [^i] [NegP nei [Neg ] [vP cula?]]]
are him	not	heard
'Have you not heard him?'
g)	Pa jes san tou nei poznala, pa neisan znala. but I am this not known but not-am known 'Since I wasn't familiar with it, I didn't know how to do it.'
h)	Nikoga pa nei taksnoga bilou, ka bi se gor postavu. nobody not-is that been who would self up stand 'There was nobody who would stand up for it.'
Second, the negative particle also occurs in the form nene, which can be seen as a result of the morpho-phonological reduplication. Same as ne/nei, the form nene is typically stressed in unmarked and/or neutral environments, therefore, identical syntactic features can be observed:
(8) a) Nene te poznan. not you know 'I don't know you.'
b) Tega sn se nene cula. This am yet not heard 'I haven't heard that before.'
Occasionally, though not very frequently, a bipartite negative marker can be found: a weak clitic-like negative marker is merged with the finite verbal form, and then reinforced by the adverb-like marker ne/nei:8
8 It is unclear at this point whether the negative marker nei in (9) functions as the reinforcing negative element of the bipartite negative marker ne...nei or whether it is a marker of negative polarity in answers to questions (cf.: No, we do not know). Explanations provided by Zorko (2009: 230) and judgements by some speakers of Pannonian dialects suggest that the former explanation is most promising.
(9)	a) Nei ne nucamo.
not notneed 'We don't need it.'
b) Nei ne veimo. not not know 'We don't know.'
As in standard Slovenian, multiple occurrences of negative constituents are typically interpreted as the negative concord in the Pannonian dialect group:
(10)	Nikaj je nei. nothing is not. 'There's nothing.'
3 DATA DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
In this section, we develop a syntactic analysis of the negative marker both in the standard Slovenian and in the Pannonian dialect group in terms of Jespersen's cycle. Based on the data presented and discussed in section 2, we argue that in standard Slovenian the unstressed negative marker ne (henceforth: ne1) in (5a-d) should be analysed as the head of the NegP. Due to its relatively weak syntactic properties (stage 1 of Jespersen's cycle), ne! requires that it be merged with the finite verbal form during the derivation. This syntactic step is achieved by the movement of the finite verb from its base-generated position in the verbal layer of the clause structure (3b) to the head position of the NegP (3a,c). As soon as the two elements are merged, the unit ne1+finite verb is accessible to the derivation only as a single syntactic constituent. This fact is best captured by (5b), where the unit ne1+finite verb functions as a host to a Wackernagel clitic, and by (5c), where the unit ne1+finite verb moves overtly to the complementizer position. In the Pannonian dialect group, there is a homo-phonic negative marker ne (also spelt-out as nei or nene; henceforth: ne2) with adverblike properties, which occupies the specifier position of the NegP. Since ne2 is not clitic in nature, it does not require a verbal host and is thus accessible to the derivation as an independent syntactic unit; for example, in (7e) it hosts a Wackernagel clitic, and in questions it remains in situ when the tense auxiliary moves to the complementizer position (7f). Examples (9) show that in the Pannonian dialect group, both ne1 and ne2 can co-occur in a form of a bipartite negative marker (stage 2 of Jespersen's cycle). Thus, we can assume that ne1 has undergone the process of a mor-pho-phonological weakening, and has been reinforced by a homophonic adverb-like lexical element ne2. The different syntactic properties of the two negative markers can be observed in (9): the clitic-like ne1 is adjacent to the finite verb, whereas ne2 in the sentence initial position is separated from the finite verbal form. Since the occurrences of the bipartite negative marker nej...ne2 in the Pannonian dialect group are scarce, we can conclude that the morpho-syntactic weakening of ne1 has reached its
endpoint, the result of which is a phonologically null element, leaving the reinforcing negative marker ne2 as the sole negative marker (stages 3 and 4 of Jespersen's cycle). It is on account of its observed syntactic properties in (7) and (8) that we propose it be analysed as the specifier of the NegP.
The asymmetric position of the negative marker ne2 with regard to the finite verb (7c,d) can be explained in terms of the structural position of the finite verb. Assuming the hierarchical order of the functional projections to be T>Neg>v (3), and the fact that full lexical verbs are base-generated in the verbal layer of functional projections, then ne2 in the specifier position of the NegP must preceded the finite verb in v (Neg>v). The auxiliaries and the copular verbs in Slovenian, however, move overtly to T (Ilc and Sheppard 2003), so they must precede ne2, which is in a structurally lower position (T>Neg).
Comparing now the derivation of sentences with ne1 and ne2 with regard to the position of the finite verb, the proposal claims that there are two different derivations. In the case of the neh the finite verb must move from its base-generated position to Neg to be merged with the clitic negative marker (11a). As soon as they merge, they are accessible to further derivation only as a syntactic constituent (5a). The marker ne2, on the other hand, lacks the clitic nature, so the finite verb does not move to the Neg to host the clitic. As a consequence, the finite verb remains in-situ (11b). The fact that ne2 and the finite verb do not form a syntactic unit can best be observed in (7a,d), where ne2 is separated from the finite verb by nikdar and dobro respectively (cf.: (5a)). The negative marker is also unaffected by the movement of the tense auxiliary to the complementizer position (cf.: (5d) and (7f)).
(11) a) ne1+finite verb:
...[NegP [Neg ne1 ] [vP [ verb ]]]
t_i
b) ne2+finite verb:
...[NegP ne2 [Neg ] [vP [ verb ]]]
To sum up, diagram 1 represents the stages of Jespersen's cycle in Slovenian from a diachronic perspective.
Stage 1: Clitic-like negation Standard Slovenian nej
Stage 2: Bipartite negation Pannonian dialect group nej ... ne2
Stages3/4: adverb-like negation Pannonian dialect group ne2
Diagram 1: Jespersen's cycle in Slovenian from a diachronic perspective.
What remains to be addressed is the syntactic difference between the emphatic use of the unit nej+to be^present) tense -
neisan and nei in (7g,h) - and their non-adjacent counterparts san...nei and je...nei. Speakers' judgements with regard to their usage as well as their (non-) emphatic status vary, so it remains unclear whether the two forms should be treated as interchangeable or not. Hence, the question remains unanswered, and merits further research into the subject matter.
Examples containing the negative marker as well as negative elements ((7a,h) and (10)) demonstrate that regardless of the syntactic position of the negative marker, be it in the head (stages 1 and/or 2) or the specifier position (stages 2-4), multiple occurrences of negative elements in Slovenian always give rise to the negative concord interpretation. Slovenian examples thus confirm the conclusion by Haegeman (1995: 165-166, cf.: section 1.2) that there is no general correlation between NC/DN and the presence of an expressed element in the Neg.
4 CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have argued that, synchronically, Slovenian displays at least three stages of Jespersen's cycle: (i) the clitic-like negation in Standard Slovenian (stage 1), (ii) the bipartite negation in the Pannonian dialect group (stage 2), and the adverb-like negation in the Pannonian dialect group (stages 3 and 4). For the cliticlike negation we have proposed the analysis which places the negative marker in the head position of the NegP. In addition, due to its proclitic nature, it is merged with the finite verbal form into a single syntactic constituent. In the case of the adverblike negation, the negative marker occupies the specifier position of the NegP, and behaves as an independent syntactic constituent. The bipartite negation combines the properties of both the clitic-like and adverb-like negations: the weak negative
marker occupies the head position, whereas the stronger negative marker occupies the specifier position within the NegP.
With regard to the possible interpretations of multiple occurrences of the negative elements, there is no direct correlation between the morpho-syntactic properties of the negative marker and the negative concord or double negation interpretation, since in Slovenian, the negative concord interpretation is available in all cases.
Bibliography
ABELS, Klaus (2005) "Expletive negation' in Russian: A conspiracy theory." Journal of Slavic Linguistics 13, 5-74.
BROWN, Sue/Adam PRZEPIORKOWSKI (eds.) (2007) Negation in Slavic. Bloomington. In: Slavica Publishers.
CARDINALETTI, Anna/Maria Teresa GUASTI (1993) "Negation in epistemic small clauses." Probus 5, 39-61.
CHOMSKY, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. CHOMSKY, Noam (1998) "Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework." MIT Occasional Papers in
Linguistics 15. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. CHOMSKY, Noam (1999) "Derivation by phase." MiT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. CHOMSKY, Noam (2001) "Beyond Explanatory Adequacy." MiT Occasional Papers in
Linguistics 20. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. CINQUE, Guglielmo (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads. A cross-Linguistic Perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. DAHL, Osten (1979) "Typology of sentence negation." Linguistics 17, 79-106. GELDEREN, Elly van (2004) Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. GOLDEN, Marija (2000) Teorija opisnega jezikoslovja. 1. skladnja. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. GOLDEN, Marija/Milena MILOJEVIC SHEPPARD (2000) "Slovene pronominal clitics." In: F. Beukema/M. den Dikken (eds.) Clitic Phenomena in european Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 191-207. HAEGEMAN, Liliane (1995) The syntax of negation. Cambridge: CUP. ILC Gašper/Milena MILOJEVIC SHEPPARD (2005) "Negative pronouns in Slovene : a minimalist account." Linguistica 45, 107-120. ILC, Gašper (in press) "Optionality of the Genitive (of Negation) in Slovene." Proceedings of
FDSL 8, Potsdam 2009. ILC, Gašper/Milena MILOJEVIC SHEPPARD (2003) "Verb movement in Slovenian : a comparative perspective." In: J. Orešnik/D. F. Reindl (eds.). Slovenian from a typological perspective, (Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung = Language typology and Universals, 56(3)). Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 266-286. JESPERSEN, Otto (1924) The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen&Unwin Ltd. KIPARSKY, Paul/Cleo CONDORAVDI (2006) "Tracking Jespersen's cycle." In: M. Janse/B.D. Joseph/A. Ralli (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd international Conference of Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory. Mytilene: Doukas, 172-197.
LAKA, Miren Itziar Mugarza (1990) "Negation in syntax: on the nature of functional categories and projections." PhD Thesis. MIT: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. OREŠNIK, Janez (1985-86) "O naslonskem nizu v knjižnji slovenščini." Jezik in slovstvo 31, 213-215.
ROWLETT, Paul (1997) "Jespersen, Negative Concord and A'-Binding. " In: D. Forget/P. Hirchbuhler/F. Martineau/M. L. Rivero (eds.) Negation and Polarity, Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 323-340. SMOLE, Vera (1998) "Slovenska narečja" Enciklopedija Slovenije 12, 1-5, Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga.
TOPORIŠIČ, Jože (2000) Slovenska Slovnica. Maribor: Obzorja.
VAN DER AUWERA, Johan (2009) "The Jespersen cycles." In: E. van Gelderen (ed.) Cyclical
change. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 35-71. VAN DER AUWERA, Johan/L.Van Alsenoy (in press) "Indefinite pronouns, synchrony and diachrony - comments on Willis." In: P. Larrivee/R. Ingham (eds.) The evolution of negation: Beyond the Jespersen cycle. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. WILLIS, David (in press.) "A minimalist approach to Jespersen's Cycle in Welsh." In: Jonas, D./J. Whitman/A. Garrett (eds.) Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ZANUTTINI, Rafaella (1991) Negation and Clausal Structure. A coparative Study of Romance
Languages. Oxford: OUP. ZANUTTINI, Raffaela (1989) "The structure of Negative clasues in Romance." Paper presented at the XII GLOW conference, Utrecht. ZORKO, Zinka (1998) Haloško narečje in druge dialektološke študije. Maribor: Dravska tiskarna. ZORKO, Zinka (2009) Narečjeslovne razprave o koroških, štajerskih in panonskih govorih. Maribor: Dravska tiskarna.
Abstract
JESPERSEN'S CYCLE IN SLOVENIAN
The paper examines the syntactic status of the negative marker in standard Slovenian and its Pannonian dialects in terms of the grammaticalisation process known as Jespersen's cycle. Assuming that Jespersen's Cycle can be observed synchronically, the paper focusses on the correlation between the morpho-phonological strength of the negative marker and the syntactic derivation of negative clauses. The data analysis identifies at least three different stages of Jespersen's cycle in modern Slovenian: (i) the clitic-like negation, (ii) the bipartite negation, and (iii) the adverb-like negation, the first occurring in standard Slovenian and the latter two in the Pannonian dialect group. In terms of the generative syntactic derivation, the analysis proposes that the negative marker occupies three different structural positions: (i) the head of the Negation Phrase (clitic-like negation), (ii) the specifier of the Negation phrase (adverblike negation) or (iii) both syntactic positions (bipartite negation). In addition, the paper explores the question whether the syntactic position of the negative marker determines the semantic interpretation of multiple occurrences of negative elements, in particular, the neg-
ative concord and the double negation interpretation. The analysis shows that in Slovenian the morpho-phonological properties of the negative marker and its structural position bear no consequences for the semantic interpretation of multiple occurrences of negative elements.
Povzetek
JESPERSENOV KROG V SLOVENŠČINI
Prispevek obravnava skladenjske lastnosti označevalca zanikanja v knjižni slovenščini in v panonski narečni skupini z vidika procesa morfofonološkega krčenja, v literaturi znanega kot Jespersenov krog. Izhajajoč iz uveljavljene teze, da lahko različne razvojne stopnje Jespersenovega kroga opazujemo tudi sinhrono, se prispevek osredini na soodvisnost med morfofonološkimi lastnostmi nikalnega označevalca in skladenjsko izgradnjo nikalnih stavkov. Analiza podatkov pokaže, da lahko v sodobni slovenščini govorimo o vsaj treh različnih stopnjah Jespersenovega kroga, in sicer o naslonskem, prislovnem in dvodelnem zanikanju. Prvo je značilno za knjižno slovenščino, medtem ko moremo slednja najti v panonski narečni skupini. Na osnovi pridobljenih podatkov prispevek razvije razčlembo skladenjske izgradnje nikalnih stavkov, ki temelji na sodobnem tvorbeno-pretvorbenem pristopu. Razčlemba pokaže, da lahko označevalec zanikanja zaseda dve različni skladenjski mesti v nikalni zvezi, in sicer jedro pri naslonskem tipu zanikanja, določilo pri prislovnem tipu zanikanja ter obe mesti hkrati pri dvodelnem tipu zanikanja. Prispevek pokaže, da morfo-fonološke lastnosti označevalca zanikanja vplivajo samo na skladenjsko izpeljavo nikalnih stavkov, medtem ko nimajo vpliva na njihovo semantično interpretacijo.