Tatjana Marvin Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana High and Low Applicatives in Slovenian and Cross-linguistically Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 8 (2011): 95–113 Delo obravnava pomen in skladenjsko zgradbo dvopredmetnih povedi, kjer predmet v dajalni- ku nosi udežensko vlogo prejemnik. Predstavljeni so podatki iz slovenščine in nekaterih drugih južnoslovankih jezikov, ki kličejo po spremembi trenutno uveljavljene analize prejemniških predmetov v tvorbeni slovnici, Pylkkänen (2000, 2002, 2008). This paper deals with double object constructions where the dative object is the applied argu- ment, showing how applicative construction data in Slovenian and in other South Slavic lan- guages cannot be incorporated into the most influential proposal on applicative constructions in the recent generative literature, Pylkkänen (2000, 2002, 2008). A refinement of Pylkkänen’s analysis is thus proposed to deal with the Slavic data. 1. Introduction The work on applicatives in the recent years has largely been directed towards providing an essentially syntactic account of the phenomenon, arguing that the ap- plicative argument in multiple object constructions is introduced by the so-called low and high applicative heads in the syntax instead of being licensed through the verb as one of the verb’s arguments.* Such view was first advocated in Pylkkänen (2000, 2002, 2008) and in subsequent work, McGinnis (2001), Cuervo (2003), Diaconescu (2004), Diaconescu and Rivero (2007), Slavkov (2007). The low applicative head LAppl (argued to exist, e.g., in English, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, Bulgarian, Ru- manian) attaches below the verb and semantically denotes a relation between two in- dividuals, (1a), while the high applicative head HAppl denotes a relation between an event and an individual and attaches above the verb (argued to exist, e.g., in Albanian, Chaga, Venda, Luganda), (1b). (1) a. [vP v 0 [VP V 0 [LApplP IO [LAppl 0 DO ]]]] b. [vP v 0 [HApplP IO [HAppl 0 [VP V 0 DO ]]]] This paper presents how applicative construction data in Slovenian (and in other South Slavic languages) cannot be incorporated into Pylkkänen’s approach in its pres- ent form.1 In these languages the two applicative heads cannot freely attach to any VP, * For insightful comments and discussion, I would like to thank the audience at Sarajevo Linguistic Gathering 4 & SinFonIJA 2 (Sarajevo, September 2009) and the audience at “The End of Argument Structure?” workshop (University of Toronto, October 2010). Thanks also to an anonymous reviewer and the editor for providing helpful comments and suggestions. 96 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 9 (2011) instead, the availability of the low and high applicative meanings seems to depend on the inherent semantic meaning of the verb they are found with—some verbs display a high/low ambiguity while others only show the low applicative reading. In order to keep a Pylkkänen style analysis, in which the applied argument is an argument of the syntactic head that introduces it, the syntactic inventory of applicative heads needs to be enriched with the appropriate semantic content to predict precisely when the high/ low ambiguity will obtain and when only the low reading will be possible. In deter- mining the semantic content to be added, I shall follow Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) division of verbs with respect to their root semantics. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains a general description of applicative constructions, with special emphasis on the approach found in Pylkkän- en’s and subsequent work. Section 3 deals with the main characteristics of Slovenian applicative constructions and the implications they have for Pylkkänen’s analysis. Slovenian data is then linked to the approach found in Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) in Section 4. Finally, data from three other South Slavic languages is presented in Section 5. 2. High and Low Applicatives In its narrow meaning, the term applicative is understood as a construction in which a verb bears a specific morpheme licensing an oblique (non-core) argument that appears in addition to those arguments inherently selected by the verb. Such ar- guments are typically assumed to be interpreted as benefactive or instrumental, Baker (1988), Bresnan and Moshi (1990), Alsina and Mchombo (1993), though the applica- tive construction can be associated with the thematic roles such as malefactive, goal, locative and source as well. Here are some common examples from Chaga found in the literature on applicatives; the affected object wife is added to the argument struc- ture of the transitive verb eat in (2b). (2) a. N - ä - ï - lyì - à k-élyá FOC-1SUB-PR-eat-FV 7-food ‘He/She is eating food’ b. N - ä - ï - lyì - í - à m-kà k-élyá FOC-1SUB-PR-eat-APPL-FV 1-wife 7-food ‘He is eating food for his wife’ Bresnan and Moshi (1990) If the applicative morpheme appears on a transitive verb, it produces a double object construction such as (2b). If attached to an intransitive verb, it makes the verb transi- tive, as in the example (3) from Chaga. 1 This paper introduces a full range of applicative data from Slovenian and a brief typologi- cal comparison with Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian. The ambiguity between high and low applicative readings is found also in other Slavic languages and (with some limitation) at least in Rumanian, Italian and Spanish. A more thorough cross-linguistic comparison goes beyond the scope of this paper and is left for future research. T. Marvin, High and Low Applicatives in Slovenian and Cross-linguistically 97 (3) N - ä - ï - zrìc - í - à mbùyà FOC-1SUB-PR-run-APPL-FV 9-friend ‘He is running for a friend’ Bresnan and Moshi (1990) In its broad meaning, the term applicative is also used for oblique (indirect) ob- jects of the verb that appear together with the direct object in languages even without an overt applicative marker. For example, Marantz (1993) proposes that the English double object constructions such as in (4) and constructions with dative/accusative af- fected arguments in a wide variety of languages are in fact applicative constructions, but do not show phonologically overt applicative morphology on the verb. In this pa- per, the term applicative construction is used in its broad sense, i.e., for constructions with additional indirect objects cross-linguistically. (4) I sent John a letter The most influential work on applied arguments that triggered a fresh research in the field of applicatives is found in Pylkkänen (2000, 2002, 2008).2 Pylkkänen (2002) examines a variety of languages (English, Japanese, Korean, Luganda, Venda, Albanian, Chaga, Chichewa) in terms of their way of adding an indirect object, the so-called applied argument, to the argument structure of the verb.3 The main observa- tion is that all of these languages have a double object construction with an applied, benefactive argument, but only in some languages (Luganda, Venda, Albanian and Chaga) can such a participant be added to an unergative verb, such as, e.g., run: (5) English a. I baked a cake b. I baked him a cake (6) a. I ran b. *I ran him (7) Albanian a. I vrapova himDAT.CL ran1SG ‘I ran for him’ Pylkkänen (2002) Also, in the languages that allow applied arguments with unergative verbs (e.g., in Al- banian) it is possible to applicativize static verbs such as hold , (8), while in English- like languages such applicatives do not exist, (9). 2 Pylkkänen (2008) is a monograph that agrees with Pylkkänen (2002) on all main points. Given that all related subsequent work by other authors is based on Pylkkänen (2002) I shall hereafter mostly refer to the latter when analyzing Slovenian data in terms of a Pylkkänen-like approach. 3 Of these languages, only Chaga, Chichewa, Luganda and Venda show applicative mor- phology on the verb. 98 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 9 (2011) (8) Agimi i mban Drites çanten time Agim.nom DAT.CL holds DritaDAT bagACC my ‘Agim holds my bag for Drita’ Pylkkänen (2002) (9) *John held Mary the bag These observations lead Pylkkänen to propose that the double object constructions in these languages are similar only on surface, while actually they involve two semanti- cally and syntactically different structures. In English-like languages the applicative argument is introduced by the so-called low applicative head, which attaches below the verb and semantically denotes a relation between two individuals.4 In Albanian-like lan- guages, the applicative argument is introduced by the so called high applicative head, which denotes a relation between an event and an individual and is attached above the verb. The two structures proposed by Pylkkänen (2002) are illustrated in (10): (10) a. Low applicative (English, Korean, Japanese): ‘I bake John a cake’: the possessive relation between a cake and John; John is the intended recipient of the cake VoiceP DPsubj I Voice VP V LApplP bake ADP John LAppl DP a cake b. High applicative (Albanian, Chaga, Venda, Luganda): Drita is the recipi- ent of the event of Agim holding the bag VoiceP DPsubj Agim Voice HApplP DP Drita HAppl VP V (DP) hold bag 4 The low applicative structure is similar to the one proposed by Pesetsky (1995) for Eng- lish double object constructions. T. Marvin, High and Low Applicatives in Slovenian and Cross-linguistically 99 The high applicative head is in a sense similar to the external argument in- troducing head Voice, Kratzer (1996)—it adds another participant to the event de- scribed by the verb. Low applied arguments, on the other hand, bear no semantic relation to the verb, but rather bear a transfer of possession relation to the direct object. For example, the English sentence Alec baked David a cake, can only mean that David comes into possession of the cake or is at least intended to, but cannot mean that Alec did the baking for David, so that David wouldn’t have to. Simi- larly, when dealing with static verbs such as hold, x’s holding a bag cannot result in a possessive relationship between y, the applied argument, and the bag, which results into the sentence in (9) being ungrammatical in English. In Albanian-like languages, such as in (8), on the other hand, the relationship established is a bene- factive relationship between y, the applied argument, and the event of holding the bag, while y does not enter into a possessive relation with the bag as a result of x holding the bag. Pylkkänen further proposes that low applicative heads are of two different types. In the English double object construction the indirect object is an intended recipient of the direct object, while in some other languages with low applicatives, e.g., Korean, the indirect object bears a source relation to the direct object, as (11) illustrates. (11) Korean low source applicative Totuk-I Mary-hanthey panci-lul humchi-ess-ta ThiefNOM MaryDAT ringACC stealPAST.PLAIN ‘The thief stole a ring from Mary’ Pylkkänen (2002) 2.1. Pylkkänen (2002) Approach Cross-linguistically The consequent research in other languages reports Spanish, Cuervo (2003), Ru- manian, Diaconescu (2004), Diaconescu and Rivero (2007) and Bulgarian, Slavkov (2007), to be low applicative languages in terms of their double object constructions. Pylkkänen’s approach appears especially suitable for these languages, since they all show clitic doubling of the dative argument in the double object construction—the doubled clitic as e. g. in (12) is then naturally argued to be the morphological spell out of the low applicative head. (12) a. Ivan í prati knigata na Marija Ivan DAT.CL sent3SG the book to Marija ‘Ivan sent Maria the book’ Slavkov (2008) b. Ion îi spală la Maria/Mariei maşina Ion DAT.CL washes to MariaDAT/MariaDAT car-theACC ‘Ion washes Maria’s car’ Diaconescu (2004) 100 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 9 (2011) c. Vicki i Hugo le bailaron un tango a Pablo Vicki and Hugo DAT.CL danced a tango PabloDAT ‘Vicki and Hugo danced a tango for Pablo’ Cuervo (2003) In the rest of the paper it will be shown that applicative construction data in Slovenian cannot be incorporated into Pylkkänen’s approach in its present form. In Slovenian the two applicative heads cannot freely attach to any VP, instead, the avail- ability of the low and high applicative meanings depends on the inherent semantic meaning of the verb (Section 3). The data will then be related to Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) verb-sensitive analysis (Section 4). Finally, similar data from other South Slavic languages, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian will be present- ed (Section 5). 3. Slovenian Applicative Constructions 3.1. The Ambiguity in Slovenian Double Object Constructions In Slovenian, the double object construction illustrated in (13) receives two pos- sible meanings.5,6 The meaning in (13a) is the same as found in the English-like group of languages; the applied argument Binetu is the (intended) recipient of the direct object pismo ‘letter’. The meaning in (13b) is the same as found in the Albanian-like group of languages; the applied argument is not a recipient of the direct object, but rather a recipient of the event of sending a letter—the sentence means that I sent a let- ter to somebody else (e.g., Bine’s friend Zoja) for Bine because Bine for some reason couldn’t do it. (13) Binetu sem poslal pismo BineDAT Aux sent letterACC a. low applicative: I sent Bine a letter (Bine is the intended recipient of the letter) 5 Some native speakers claim that the high applicative reading is somewhat colloquial, the low applicative reading always being the more prominent one in their judgments. Also, some of them report that the high applicative reading becomes even more readily available if the pronoun is used as the dative argument: (i) Poslal sem mu pismo sent Aux heDAT letterACC ‘I sent him a letter’ 6 Standard Slovenian does not have applicative structures with the doubled clitic as in (12). T. Marvin, High and Low Applicatives in Slovenian and Cross-linguistically 101 Voice DPsubj I Voice VP V ApplP send ADP Bine Appl DP letter b. high applicative: I sent a letter for Bine (Bine is the recipient of the event of my sending a letter to someone else) VoiceP DPsubj I Voice ApplP DP Bine Appl VP V DP send letter Some further examples are given in (14). (14) a. Binetu sem spekel torto BineDAT Aux baked cakeACC ‘I baked Bine a cake’ or ‘I baked a cake for Bine/as a favor to Bine’ b. Binetu sem vrgel žogo (na streho) BineDAT Aux thrown ballACC on roof ‘I threw Bine (who was on the roof) the ball’ or ‘I threw the ball onto the roof for Bine/as a favor to Bine’ 102 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 9 (2011) It is important to note that both high and low applied arguments can appear in one sentence, as can be seen in (15).7 It should be noted that such examples are more read- ily acceptable if the high applicative argument is a clitic and are termed unacceptable by some native speakers if the high applicative argument is a DP as in (16). (15) a. Vrgla ti (high) bom žogo Zoji (low) thrown CL 2SGDAT Aux1SG ballACC ZojaDAT ‘I’ll throw Zoja the ball for you’ b. Poslal ji (high) bom pismo Petru (low) sent CL 3SGDAT Aux1SG letterACC PeterDAT ‘I’ll send Peter the letter for her’ (16) ??Binetu (high) bom vrgla žogo Zoji (low) BineDAT Aux thrown ballACC ZojaDAT ‘I’ll throw Zoja the ball for Bine’ 3.2. Possessor Dative Constructions, Unergative Verbs, and Static Verbs Possessor dative constructions (PDCs) are constructions in which the dative ar- gument is the possessor of the direct object. They are superficially similar to double object constructions (DOCs), however, in double object constructions, possessive- ness between the indirect and direct object is not asserted. An example from German is given in (17). (17) Man hat ihm seine Frau getötet One has him his wife killed ‘They killed his wife on him’ To complete the set of data on Slovenian, it should be noted that Slovenian PDCs show same ambiguity between high and low applicative readings as DOCs, which is expected, especially, if PDCs are treated in the same way as DOCs, as in Pylkkänen (2002). Consider (18): (18) Binetu sem ubil psa BineDAT Aux killed dogACC ‘I killed Bine’s dog’ or ‘I killed a dog for Bine’ 7 The possibility of having both applicative arguments in a single sentence is at least in principle consistent with Pylkkänen’s approach, though (to my knowledge) it is not discussed in her or any other subsequent work on the topic. T. Marvin, High and Low Applicatives in Slovenian and Cross-linguistically 103 In the low applicative reading of the sentence Binetu sem ubil psa, the direct object psa ‘dog’ is at the time of the event in a possessive relation to the applied argument Binetu ‘Bine’ or the applied argument is somehow responsible for the direct object (the dog could belong to Zoja, but Bine was taking care of it at the time when I killed it). The meaning is thus equivalent to I killed Bine’s dog. In the high applicative read- ing the direct object is not in a possessive relation to the applied argument, rather the applied argument benefits from the killing event in the sense that he doesn’t have to perform it. Such sentence is, for example, acceptable in a context where Bine is a vet and had to put down a dog, but since he was busy, he asked me to do it for him. The same two readings can be found in (19), as noted in Lipovšek (2007): (19) Prevedla mu je obe knjigi translated himDAT Aux both booksACC ‘She translated both of his books’ or ‘She translated both books (by some- one else) for him’ Lipovšek (2007) Finally, unergative and static verbs behave in an expected fashion—they are ac- ceptable with the high applicative meaning, as can be seen for the unergative spati ‘sleep’ in (20a) and for the static verb držati ‘hold’ in (20b). (20) a. Dojenček ji spi celo noč babyNOM herDAT sleeps all night ‘The baby sleeps through the night on her’ Lit.‘The baby sleeps through the night to her’ b. Bine je Zoji držal vrečko BineNOM Aux ZojaDAT held bagACC ‘Bine held a bag for Zoja’ 3.4. Exceptions: Unambiguous DOCs In Slovenian, some verbs allow only the low applicative reading. Such verbs in the DOC are the verbs whose meaning is a derivative of GIVE: dati ‘give’, dovoliti ‘allow’, podariti ‘present’, posvetiti ‘dedicate’, ponuditi ‘offer’, pomoliti ‘hand’, vzeti ‘take’, prinesti ‘bring’, posoditi ‘lend’ podati ‘hand, pass’, obljubiti ‘promise’, SHOW: pokazati ‘show’, razkazati ‘show around’, prikazati ‘show’, or TELL: pove- dati ‘tell’, ponoviti ‘repeat, re-tell’, sporočiti ‘notify’.8 So, the sentences in (21) can 8 The PDC with the verb videti ‘see’ is also ungrammatical with the high applicative meaning. This is a highly specific construction and is not discussed in this paper. (i) Binetu sem videl popek BineDAT Aux seen belly buttonACC ‘I saw Bine’s belly button’, *‘I saw someone else’s belly button for Bine’ 104 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 9 (2011) only have the meaning in which Bine is a recipient of either the juice (21a), the im- age of the room (21b), or the story (21c) and never the high applicative meaning, in which the juice is given, the room is shown or the story is told for Bine to someone who is not Bine.9 (21) a. Binetu sem dala sok BineDAT Aux given juiceACC ‘I gave Bine some juice’, *‘I gave someone else some juice for Bine (so Bine wouldn’t have to)’ b. Binetu sem pokazala sobo BineDAT Aux shown roomACC ‘I showed Bine the room’, *‘I showed someone else a room for Bine’ c. Binetu sem povedal zgodbo BineDAT Aux told storyACC ‘I told Bine a story’, *‘I told someone else a story for Bine’ The (possibly) causative nature of the verbs in (21) cannot be held responsible for the lack of ambiguity, since causative verbs, such as kill are ambiguous in the expected fashion: (22) Binetu sem ubil psa BineDAT Aux killed dogACC ‘I killed Bine’s dog’ or ‘I killed someone else’s dog for Bine’ It is interesting to note that when the verb forms an idiomatic combination with the direct object, only the low applicative reading is possible, as can be seen in (23). (23) a. Binetu sem vrgel žogo BineDAT Aux thrown ballACC ‘I threw Bine a ball’ or ‘I threw a ball for Bine’ b. Binetu sem vrgel rokavico BineDAT Aux thrown gloveACC 9 As pointed out by a reviewer, the verb give allows also the meaning in which the applied object is only the intended recipient. For example, the sentence in (i) is acceptable even if I give the letter to the secretary and not to the boss directly, though the applied argument direktorju ‘boss’ is the intended recipient of the letter. (i) Pismo sem dala direktorju letterACC Aux given bossDAT ‘I gave the letter to the boss’ T. Marvin, High and Low Applicatives in Slovenian and Cross-linguistically 105 Lit. ‘I threw Bine a glove’, ‘I challenged Bine to a duel’, *‘I challenged someone to a duel for Bine’ In (23a) the verb vreči ‘throw’ is found in a construction that is ambiguous between a low and a high applicative construction: either I throw Bine a ball or throw a ball for Bine. In (23b), which involves the idiom vreči rokavico ‘challenge to a duel’, only the low applicative reading is allowed—I can only challenge Bine to a duel, i.e., liter- ally ‘throw him a glove’ and never challenge someone else to a duel for Bine. Some further examples of the kind are given in (24).10 (24) dati brco lit. give a kick ‘kick’ dati nogo lit. give a foot ‘sack’ dati zaušnico lit. give a slap ‘slap’ dati košarico lit. give a basket ‘reject (a potential partner)’ dati miloščino lit. give alms ‘give alms’ dati sina lit. give a son ‘give birth to a son’ povzročati težave lit. cause troubles ‘cause trouble’ ukrasti srce lit. steal a heart ‘steal someone’s heart’ ukrasti poljub lit. steal a kiss ‘steal a kiss’ 3.5. Ambiguity in Other Languages: Rumanian Recent literature on applicatives does not provide many examples of verbs that display both high and low applicative readings and when it does, not much attention is paid as to whether this ambiguity appears with all or only some verbs. Diaconescu (2004) notes that Rumanian, despite being a low applicative language, also has a high applicative structure with activity verbs (e.g., sing, read, dance, draw, run, work) and the stative verb hold in the double object construction. Similarly to Slovenian examples in (13, 14), the activity verbs mentioned display an ambiguity between a low and high applicative reading, as in (25). (25) a. Ion îi spală la Maria/Mariei maşina Ion CLDAT washes to MariaDAT/MariaDAT car-theACC ‘Ion washes Maria’s car’ low applicative reading of the verb wash 10 In principle, high applicatives can appear with idioms containing accusative objects, e.g., lomiti ga lit. ‘break it’: (i) Lomil mi (high) ga je na vsakem koraku broken ICL.DAT itCL.ACC Aux on every step Lit. ‘He’s broken it to me on every step’, ‘He did everything wrong on every step (and I was a recipient of his behavior)’ 106 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 9 (2011) b. Ion îi spală la Maria/Mariei maşina vecinei Ion CLDAT washes to MariaDAT/MariaDAT car-theACC neighbor-theGEN ‘Ion washes the neighbor’s car for Maria’ (Lit. ‘Ion washes Maria the neighbor’s car’) high applicative reading of the verb wash Diaconescu (2004) However, Diaconescou (2004) is not concerned with the question why only some verbs should be ambiguous in the sense illustrated in (25)—the verbs send or give, for example, are in her work reported to have only the low applicative reading. 4. Describing the Exceptions In this part of the paper I shall link Slovenian applicative data to the verb-sen- sitive approach in Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008). The main observation is that the division into the group of verbs with both high and low applicative meanings and the group with only low applicative meaning in Slovenian overlaps with Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) groups of verbs argued to exist with respect to the dative alternation. Furthermore, it will be established that in order to keep a Pylkkänen-type analysis for languages such as Slovenian, the incompatibility of the high applicative head and the low applicative meaning with the group of verbs discussed in Section 3.4. should be attributed to the semantic properties of the high applicative head. 4.1. A Verb-sensitive Approach to Dative Alternation In their verb-sensitive approach, Rappaport Hovav and Levin claim that a verb’s own meaning plays a key role in determining its argument realization options. Verbs are divided into give-type verbs (denoting only caused possession meaning) and throw-type and send-type verbs (denoting caused motion and caused possession meaning). The behavior of specific verbs with respect to dative alternation as in (26) is argued to follow from the inherent meaning of these verbs. For example, verbs such as give cannot appear in wh-questions as in (27a), but verbs such as throw or send can. Also, verbs such as give allow the to-variant if the indirect object is a person but not a place, (27b), while verbs such as send or throw allow both options, (27c,d). (26) a. John gave/threw a book to Mary b. John gave/threw Mary a book Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) (27) a. Where did you *give/throw/send the ball? b. I gave the package to Maria/*London c. I sent the package to Maria/London d. I threw the ball to Maria/the other side of the field Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) T. Marvin, High and Low Applicatives in Slovenian and Cross-linguistically 107 Major classes of dative verbs as proposed in Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) are as in (28): (28) 1. Dative verbs having only a caused possession meaning (give-type verbs) a) Verbs that inherently signify acts of giving: give, hand, lend, loan, pass, rent, sell, … b) Verbs of future having: allocate, bequeath, grant, offer, owe, promise, … c) Verbs of communication: tell, show, ask, teach, read, write, quote, cite, … 2. Dative verbs having both caused motion and possession meaning d) Verbs of sending (send-type verbs): forward, mail, send, ship, … e) Verbs of instantaneous causation of ballistic motion (throw-type verbs): fling, flip, kick, lob, slap, shoot, throw, toss, … f) Verbs of causation of accompanied motion in a deictically speci- fied direction: bring, take, … g) Verbs of instrument of communication: e-mail, fax, radio, wire, telegraph, telephone, … In Slovenian, verbs having both caused motion and possession meaning (i.e., throw-type and send-type) show ambiguity with respect to the two applicative mean- ings while verbs having only a caused possession meaning (i.e., give-type) can only have the low applicative meaning.11 Some verbs can even appear as full lexical verbs or light verbs, e.g., vreči ‘throw’ is a throw-type verb when ambiguous between a high and a low applicative meaning, (23a), but a give-type verb when found in an idiomatic combination, (23b). Also, the verb dati has only the low reading when its meaning is ‘give’, (21a, 29a), but allows the high reading as well when its meaning is ‘place’, (29b). This is hardly surprising since the verb dati ‘place’ contains the caused motion component as part of its meaning, which makes it a throw-type verb. (29) a. Binetu sem dala knjigo BineDAT Aux given bookACC ‘I gave Bine a/the book’ low applicative reading 11 It should be noted that the high applicative meaning appears with a wider range of verbs than just those containing the caused motion and possession component in their root meaning. An obvious example of a verb that has a high applicative meaning but no caused motion and possession meaning is the static verb hold, exemplified in (20b). Also, further research in this area is needed to classify verbs such as bake and run, which also take the high applicative but do not clearly have a caused motion and possession component in their root meaning. For now, the Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) classification is useful in identifying the group of verbs without the high applicative reading, but does not suffice in terms of establishing a full range of root meaning components for verbs that appear in both high and low applicative constructions. 108 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 9 (2011) b. Binetu sem dala knjigo na zgornjo polico BineDAT Aux placed bookACC on upper shelf ‘I placed a/the book on the upper shelf for Bine’ high applicative reading 4.2. A Possible Solution It appears that due to their root semantics (only caused possession meaning), give- type verbs are compatible with a low applied argument as their complement similarly to light verbs in idioms in (23a, 24), and incompatible with the high applicative argu- ment. First, as already discussed, the sentences such as in (21) are never ambiguous between the high and the low applicative readings. Second, it is not the case that a give-type verb requires a low applicative argument and—if such requirement is met—allows a high applicative as well. This can be tested in sentences with two ap- plied arguments—the high applicative reading cannot be achieved even if a give-type verb appears with a low and a high applied argument simultaneously in a sentence, as can be seen in (30). (30) *Dal sem ji denar beraču given Aux sheDAT moneyACC beggarDAT Intended: ‘I gave the money to the beggar for her’ The ungrammaticality of (30) in Slovenian suggests an inherent incompatibility of the high applicative head and the give-type meaning. If one wants to maintain a Py- lkkänen-type analysis for languages such as Slovenian, the incompatibility of the high applicative head and the give-type meaning should be attributed to the semantic properties of the high applicative head as a selectional requirement on the ban of hav- ing only the caused possession meaning in the complement VP, informally stated as in (31). (31) Selectional relationship between HAppl and V: HAppl bans V (only + caused possession) The low applicative head, on the other hand, has no such requirement on the VP also simply because it is merged lower in the structure than the verb in V, which is consis- tent with the data—all verbs appearing in the double object applicative construction can display the low applicative reading.12, 13 12 The low applicative head could potentially have selectional restrictions on its comple- ment DP, but since this sort of restriction is not the subject of this paper, it shall not be discussed further at this point. 13 It should be noted that in allowing the above sketched proposal to ‘save’ an otherwise appealing syntactic solution we import yet another lexical property of vocabulary items (e.g., the ban on exclusively caused possession meaning of verb roots) into the syntactic structure to do the work that should ideally be done by the syntax component independently. Slovenian applicative data seems to suggest that syntax-driven approaches still need to rely on the lexical entries’ properties and that more linguistic research is needed in this area. T. Marvin, High and Low Applicatives in Slovenian and Cross-linguistically 109 5. Other South Slavic Languages In this section I briefly discuss applicative data from three other South Slavic lan- guages—Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian.14 Serbo-Croatian and Macedo- nian are similar to Slovenian; they allow ambiguity with verbs such as bake, throw or send, but only the low reading with give or show. Some examples from Macedonian are given in (32). (32) a. Mu ispekov torta low & high himDAT baked cakeACC ‘I baked him a cake’or ‘I baked him a cake for him (so he wouldn’t have to)’ b. Mu ja frliv topkata low & high himDAT itACC threw ball-theACC ‘I threw him the ball’ or ‘I threw the ball for him’ c. Mu dadov sok low himDAT gave juiceACC ‘I gave him juice’ d. Mu ja pokažav sobata low him DAT it ACC showed room-the ACC ‘I showed him the room’ In Macedonian, definitness seems to play a role; high applicative meanings are more readily obtained with definite direct objects, (33). (33) a. Mu go prativ na Jovan pismoto. himDAT itACC sent to Jovan letter-theACC low and high b. Mu prativ na Jovan pismo. himDAT sent to Jovan letterACC low and ?high Bulgarian can display the ambiguity with verbs send, throw but only with definite direct objects, while, similarly to other South Slavic languages discussed, only the low reading appears with give, show and send. 6. Conclusion This paper is an attempt to examine Slovenian (and South Slavic) applicative data against recent proposals in the field of applicatives that treat applicative construc- 14 I would like to thank Slavica Kochovska, Tanja Milićev and Penka Stateva for their judgements. 110 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 9 (2011) tions as a result of an applicative head attachment in the syntax, Pylkkänen (2000, 2002, 2008), McGinnis (2001), Cuervo (2003), Diaconescu (2004), Jeong (2007), Diaconescu and Rivero (2007), Slavkov (2007). The examination of the data reveals that Slovenian is consistent with the Pylkkänen-like proposals in terms of the two applicative meanings it displays—the high and the low applicative meaning. Other properties, such as the semantic ambiguity of the applicative structure with throw- type and send-type verbs and the lack of such ambiguity with give-type verbs and idioms, suggest rethinking and further refining of Pylkkänen’s proposal in order for it to be able to account for Slovenian (and South Slavic) data. Section 4.2. provides one possible solution to the problem—the incompatibility of the high applicative head and the give-type meaning is to be attributed to the high applicative head in terms of a selectional requirement on the ban of having only the caused possession meaning in the complement VP that the applicative head attaches to. References Baker, Mark. 1988. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural language and linguistic theory 6: 353–389. Borer, Hagit and Josef Grodzinsky. 1986. Syntactic cliticization and lexical cliticiza- tion: The case of Hebrew dative clitics. In H. Borer (ed) Syntax and Semantics 19: 175–217. Bresnan, Joan and Lioba Moshi. 1993. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. In S. A. Mchombo (ed) Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar 1: 50–93. Cuervo, Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Diaconescu, C. Rodica. 2004. Rumanian applicative constructions. Ph.D. disserta- tion, University of Ottawa. Diaconescu, C. Rodica and Maria Luisa Rivero. 2007. An applicative analysis of double object construction in Rumanian. Probus 19(2): 209–233. Guéron, Jacqueline. 1985. Inalienable possession, PRO-inclusion and lexical chains. In J. Guéron, H.G.Obenauer, and J.Y. Pollock (eds) Grammatical representa- tions: 43–86. Jeong, Youngmi. 2007. Applicatives: Structure and interpretation from a minimalist perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds) Phrase structure and the lexicon: 109–137. Kubo, Miori. 1992. Japanese passives. Working papers of the Department of lan- guages and cultures 23. University of Hokkaido: 231–301. Landau, Idan. 1999. Possessor raising and the structure of VP. Lingua 107: 1–37. Lipovšek, Franja. 2007 O zgradbah eksogene svojilnosti. Jezik in slovstvo 52(1): 17–27. Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In S. A. Mchombo (ed) Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar 1: 113–151. T. Marvin, High and Low Applicatives in Slovenian and Cross-linguistically 111 McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Phases and the syntax of applicatives. In M.-J. Kim and U. Strauss (eds) Proceedings of NELS 31, 333–349. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2000. What applicative heads apply to. In M. Minnick, A. Wil- liams and E. Kaiser (eds) Proceedings of the 24th Annual Penn Linguistics Col- loquium: 1–13. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 2008. The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167. Slavkov, Nikolay. 2008. Formal Consequences of Dative Clitic Doubling in Bulgar- ian Ditransitives: An Applicative Analysis. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 16(1): 139–66. Prispelo decembra 2009, sprejeto oktobra 2010 Received December 2009, accepted October 2010 Visoke in nizke prejemniške zveze v slovenščini in njihova primerjava z nekaterimi drugimi jeziki Delo obravnava pomen in skladenjsko zgradbo dvopredmetnih povedi, kjer predmet v dajalniku nosi udežensko vlogo prejemnik, predmet v tožilniku pa udeležensko vlogo prizadeto (povedi tipa Bine je Zoji spekel torto). V okviru tvorbene slovnice jezikoslovci v zadnjih desetih letih zagovarjajo analizo, kjer se v različnih jezikih prejemnik lahko udejanja kot jedro t.i. 'nizke prejemniške zveze' (npr. v angleščini, španščini, romunščini) ali kot jedro t.i. 'visoke prejemniške zveze' (npr. v albanščini), Pylkkänen (2000, 2002, 2008), McGinnis (2001), Cuervo (2003), Diaconescu (2004), Diaconescu and Rivero (2007), Slavkov (2007). Nizko in visoko prejemniško jedro se razlikujeta po mestu, kjer sta vstavljeni v skladenjsko zgradbo, ter po pomenskih oznakah, ki jih nosita. Nizko prejemniško jedro LAppl je vstavljeno nižje kot glagol in v pomenskem smislu predstavlja odnos med dvema osebkoma, (1a). Visoko pre- jemniško jedro HAppl je v skladenjskem drevesu vstavljeno nad glagol in označuje odnos med dogodkom in osebkom, (1b). (1) a. [vP v 0 [HApplP IO [HAppl 0 [VP V 0 DO ]]]] b. [vP v 0 [VP V 0 [LApplP IO [LAppl 0 DO ]]]] V članku so predstavljeni podatki iz slovenščine in nekaterih drugih južno- slovanskih jezikov (makedonščina, srbohrvaščina, bolgarščina), ki jih tovrstna ana- liza v trenutni obliki ne more zajeti. V slovenščini imajo obravnavane dvopredmetne povedi dva pomena; prvi ustreza pomenu podobnih povedih v jezikih z nizkim pre- jemniškim jedrom, drugi pa pomenu povedi z visokim prejemniškim jedrom. Oba možna pomena sta ponazorjena v zgledu (2). 112 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 9 (2011) (2) Binetu sem poslal pismo nizko prejemniško jedro: Bine je naslovnik pisma. (Bine je prejemnik pi- sma, tj. predmeta v tožilniku) visoko prejemniško jedro: Pismo sem poslal namesto Bineta naslovniku, ki ni Bine. (Bine je prejemnik dogodka pošiljanja pisma) Medtem ko je pomen z nizkim prejemniškim jedrom prisoten pri vseh dvo- predmetnih glagolih, pa pomena z visokim prejemniškim jedrom ne najdemo z glago- li dati, pokazati, brati in glagolih, ki so iz njih izpeljani. V zgledu (3) je edini možni pomen tisti, v katerem je Bine prejemnik soka (torej z nizkim prejemniškim jedrom), nikakor pa povedi v (3) ne moremo razumeti kot povedi z visokim prejemniškim jedrom, kjer osebek razdeli sok namesto Bineta. (3) Binetu sem dal sok Ta dejstva (prisotna tudi v drugih južnoslovanskih jezikih) kličejo po spre- membi trenutno uveljavljene analize prejemniških predmetov, saj le-ta jezikov, kot je slovenščina, v svoji sedanji obliki ne more ustrezno opisati. Članek predlaga, da se nezdružljivost visokega prejemniškega jedra in glagolov tipa dati po terminologiji Rappaport Hovav in Levin (2008) izrazi v pomenski značilnosti visokega prejemni- škega jedra HAppl, ki v svojem dopolnilu prepoveduje pojavljanje tovrstnih glago- lov. High and Low Applicatives in Slovenian and Cross-linguistically The work on applicatives in the recent years has largely been directed towards pro- viding an essentially syntactic account of the phenomenon, arguing that the applica- tive argument in multiple object constructions is introduced by the so-called low and high applicative heads in the syntax instead of being licensed through the verb as one of the verb’s arguments, Pylkkänen (2000, 2002, 2008) and subsequent work. The low applicative head LAppl (e.g., in English, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, Bulgarian, Rumanian) attaches below the verb and semantically denotes a relation between two individuals, (1a), while the high applicative head HAppl denotes a relation between an event and an individual and attaches above the verb (e.g., in Albanian, Chaga, Venda, Luganda), (1b). (1) a. [vP v 0 [HApplP IO [HAppl 0 [VP V 0 DO ]]]] b. [vP v 0 [VP V 0 [LApplP IO [LAppl 0 DO ]]]] This paper presents how applicative construction data in Slovenian (and in oth- er South Slavic languages) cannot be incorporated into Pylkkänen’s approach in its present form. In these languages the two applicative heads cannot freely attach to any VP since some verbs display a high/low ambiguity while others only show the low applicative reading. In order to keep a Pylkkänen style analysis, in which the applied argument is an argument of the syntactic head that introduces it, the syntactic inven- T. Marvin, High and Low Applicatives in Slovenian and Cross-linguistically 113 tory of applicative heads needs to be enriched with the appropriate semantic content to predict precisely when the high/low ambiguity will obtain and when only the low reading will be possible. In determining the semantic content to be added, I shall fol- low Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) division of verbs with respect to their root semantics. The double object construction in Slovenian is ambiguous between high and low applicative readings with a majority of verbs (e.g., send, bake, cook, wash, cut, kill, etc.). (2) Binetu sem poslal pismo BineDAT Aux sent letterACC low applicative: ‘I sent Bine a letter’ or high applicative: ‘I sent a letter for Bine’ However, no such ambiguity appears with verbs dati ‘give’, pokazati ‘show’ and povedati ‘tell’, and their derivatives, (3), suggesting that the availability of the low and high applicative meaning depends on the inherent semantic meaning of the verb. This presents a challenge for a Pylkkänen-type analysis, where languages usually have only high or only low applicatives (or could potentially even have both, as Slo- venian), but without any connection between the verb in V and the possibility of hav- ing a particular applicative head attached (apart from the obvious cases of unergative and static verbs). (3) Binetu sem dal sok BineDAT Aux given juiceACC ‘I gave Bine some/the juice’, *‘I gave someone some/the juice for Bine’ In Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) analysis of verb root meaning this group of verbs is termed give-type verbs; these are verbs that only have the caused pos- session meaning component. I propose that to keep a Pylkkänen-type analysis for languages such as Slovenian, the incompatibility of the high applicative head and the give-type low applicative meaning is attributed to the semantic properties of the high applicative head as a selectional requirement on the on the ban of having only the caused possession meaning in the complement VP. Ključne besede: skladnja, prejemnik, slovenščina Keywords: syntax, applicative, Slovenian