ISSN 0024-3922 LINGUISTICA LX PRISPEVKI O MORFOLOGIJI JUŽNOSLOVANSKIH JEZIKOV Topics on the Morphology of South Slavic Languages Ljubljana 2020 Revijo sta ustanovila †Stanko Škerlj in †Milan Grošelj Revue fondée par †Stanko Škerlj et †Milan Grošelj Glavna in odgovorna urednica – Rédactrice en chef Martina Ožbot Številko LX uredili – Responsables du numéro LX Christina Manouilidou, Tatjana Marvin, Gašper Ilc, Andrej Stopar Uredniški svet – Comité de rédaction Janez Orešnik, Stojan Bračič, Gregor Perko Znanstveni svet – Comité scientifique Wolfgang U. Dressler (Wien), Martin Maiden (Oxford), Rosanna Sornicola (Napoli), Pierre Swiggers (Leuven) Svetovalni odbor številke LIX – Comité consultatif du numéro LIX Bożena Cetnarowska, Antonio Fábregas, Valentin Gusev, Sabina Halupka-Rešetar, Nikos Koutsoukos, Franc Marušič, Tatjana Marvin, Bożena Rozwadowska, Florian Schaefer, Marko Simonović, Penka Stateva, Rok Žaucer Izid revije je finančno podprla JAVNA AGENCIJA ZA RAZISKOVALNO DEJAVNOST RS Publié avec le soutien de L’AGENCE NATIONALE SLOVENE POUR LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. / To delo je ponujeno pod licenco Creative Commons Priznanje avtorstva-Deljenje pod enakimi pogoji 4.0 Mednarodna licenca CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana 811.163'366(082) PRISPEVKI o morfologiji južnoslovanskih jezikov = Topics on the morphology of south Slavic languages / [uredili Christina Manouilidou ... et al.]. - Ljubljana : Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete = Presses scienti­fiques de la Faculté des lettres, 2020. - (Linguistica, ISSN 0024-3922 ; 60) ISBN 978-961-06-0413-6 1. Vzp. stv. nasl. 2. Manouilidou, Christina COBISS.SI-ID 43822851 VSEBINA INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 5 Boban Arsenijević DEVERBAL NOUNS IN -IE AND THEIR VARIATION ACROSS THE SOUTH SLAVIC AREA 7............................................................................................. Marta Petrak DEVELOPMENT OF A PRODUCTIVE DERIVATIONAL PATTERN ON THE BASIS OF LOAN TRANSLATION? THE CASE OF CROATIAN ADJECTIVES FORMED WITH THE PREFIX MEĐU- 31...................... Gergana Popova, Andrew Spencer VOLITIONAL MOOD IN SOUTH SLAVIC WITH A FOCUS ON BULGARIAN: A PARADIGMATIC VIEW 61.......................................................... Marko Simonović, Petra Mišmaš .ov IS IN THE AIR: THE EXTREME MULTIFUNCTIONALITY OF THE SLOVENIAN AFFIX OV 83.................................................................................. Marko Simonović CATEGORIES, ROOT COMPLEXES AND DEFAULT STRESS: SLOVENIAN NOMINALIZATIONS REVISITED 103................................................... Susanne Wurmbrand, Iva Kovač, Magdalena Lohninger, Caroline Pajančič, Neda Todorović FINITENESS IN SOUTH SLAVIC COMPLEMENT CLAUSES: EVIDENCE FOR AN IMPLICATIONAL FINITENESS UNIVERSAL 119................ INTRODUCTION This special issue of Linguistica features a collection of articles dealing with the mor­phology of South Slavic Languages. The idea behind the volume came from a work­shop we organized in the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, in June 2019, which brought to light various intriguing issues relating to the morphology of the South Slavic languages. This, in combination with the fact that there is no other article collection dedicated to South Slavic morphology, makes the current volume a unique contribution to the topic. The South Slavic languages belong to the Slavic language family and form a dia­lectal continuum. They are further divided into West (Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian and Slovenian) and East (Bulgarian and Macedonian) subgroups. Some of them are part of the Balkan sprachbund and thus share features with non-Slavic languages spoken in the Balkans. The languages discussed in this volume present a variety of issues relating to morphology and its interaction with other domains of grammar such as phonology and syntax. The six articles in this special issue examine a range of morphological phenom­ena either in a cross-linguistic manner across the South Slavic languages (Arsenijević; Wumbrandt et al.) or focus on a specific linguistic phenomenon in a single language, such as Bulgarian (Popova/Spencer), Croatian (Petrak) and Slovenian (Simonović; Simonović/Mišmaš). The frameworks used by the authors are diverse and so are their approaches to morphology and its interplay with syntax, semantics and phonology. They either contribute new theoretical insights or provide new descriptive evidence and theoretical argumentation for existing analyses. The individual contributions are presented in alphabetical order. Boban Arse­nijević’s article deals with -ie nominalizations across the South Slavic languages. He proposes a new analysis of the phenomenon, taking into account the prosodic as well as semantic properties of the roots which combine with this suffix. Marta Petrak elaborates on the phenomenon of loan affixes in Croatian and provides a diachronic as well as synchronic analysis of the prefix među-. Inflectional mor­phology, and more specifically the expression of volitional mood, is the topic of Geri Popova’s and Andrew Spencer’s article; the authors examine the inflectional and analytic forms of expressing volitional mood using the concept of periphrasis, basing their account on data from Bulgarian. Marko Simonović proposes a new analysis of stress assignment in Slovenian deadjectival and deverbal nominaliza­tions. He focuses on the suffixes’ influence on stress assignment in Slovenian and proposes, within a Distributive Morphology framework, that the affixes involved in these nominalizations should be treated as roots. Similarly, Marko Simonović and Petra Mišmaš combine Distributive Morphology and Optimality Theory to ana­lyze the suffix -ov- in Slovenian, providing a unified account of an affix which has traditionally been considered polysemous. Finally, Susi Wumbrand, Iva Kovač, Magdalena Lohninger, Caroline Pajančič and Neda Todorović revisit the is­sue of finiteness in South Slavic complement clauses, a topic which touches upon morphology, syntax and semantics, and contribute both interesting cross-linguistic data and an innovative analysis. All papers were subject to rigorous, double-blind review; they received comments from expert peer reviewers and were further read by the editors. We are grateful to the following colleagues who acted as reviewers and contributed to the realization of this volume: Bożena Cetnarowska, Antonio Fábregas, Valentin Gusev, Sabina Halupka-Rešetar, Nikos Koutsoukos, Franc Marušič, Tatjana Marvin, Bożena Rozwadowska, Florian Schaefer, Marko Simonović, Penka Stateva, and Rok Žaucer. The Editors Ljubljana, November 2020 Boban Arsenijević* UDK 811.163'367.622:81'373.611 University of Graz, Austria DOI: 10.4312/linguistica.60.1.7-29 DEVERBAL NOUNS IN -IE AND THEIR VARIATION ACROSS THE SOUTH SLAVIC AREA 1 INTRODUCTION The suffix -ie occurs throughout the Slavic languages as a nominalizing suffix par­ticularly productive with verbal bases. To the best of my knowledge, the analysis of its instantiation in Serbo-Croatian (SC) in Arsenijević (2010) and Simonović and Arsenijević (2014) has been the only attempt so far to capture its general morphopho­nological and semantic properties. This paper has two goals. The first is to present this analysis and some facts which pose problems for it, as well as to modify it to capture the problematic facts while at the same time providing a more principled account for the prosodic effects of the suffix. The second is to provide an overview of the variation in behavior of the suffix -ie across South Slavic languages in light of the category of the base, and to model it based on the modified analysis. Section 2 introduces the nominalizing suffix -ie. Section 3 presents in more detail its properties in SC and section 4 focuses on its prosodic effects. In section 5, the analysis developed in Arsenijević (2010) and Simonović and Arsenijević (2014) is outlined, and some problems that it faces are pointed out. A refinement of the analysis to capture these facts is proposed in section 6. Section 7 gives an overview of the properties of the suffix across South Slavic languages, and section 8 models the variation in terms of the analysis proposed for SC. Section 9 concludes the paper. 2 DEVERBAL NOUNS IN -IE In all Slavic languages, the default pattern of derivation of deverbal nouns – the coun­terpart of the English -ing or German -ung derivations – involves the suffix -ie, added to the uninflected form of the passive participle. (1) Czech Polish Russian Old Church Slavonic (OCS) lámán-í łaman-ie (raz)rušen-ie pleten-ie broken-ie broken-ie broken-ie knotted-ie ‘breaking’ ‘breaking’ ‘breaking’ ‘knitting’ The suffix takes different phonological and phonetic shapes across the Slavic lan­guages, occurring as: -je, -ie, -e, -i. For the sake of uniformity, I refer to it in the text and glosses as the suffix -ie. Slavic verbs are marked for grammatical aspect (e.g. Comrie 1976). Each verb bears the aspectual value imperfective or perfective. Several tests can be implemented to verify the aspectual value of the verb. For instance, in the morphological present form, only imperfective verbs may receive the progressive interpretation. Perfective verbs in this form force non-veridical meanings.1* boban.arsenijevic@uni-graz.at (2) Trenutno čitam / *pročitam jednu knjigu. Serbo-Croatian (SC)21 There is, however, variation among Slavic languages in where the boundaries lie between the uses reserved for the perfective verbs, for the imperfective verbs, or available to both. In this sec­tion, we abstract away these asymmetries, but later they will be playing an important role in the analysis. currently read.1sgIpf/ Prf one book ‘I’m currently reading a book.’ Traditional classifications also recognise a third class, termed biaspectual verbs: verbs which are both perfective and imperfective (e.g. Gladney 1982). However, since traditional imperfective verbs normally can be coerced into at least some of the perfec­tive uses, and it is impossible to draw a clear line between biaspectuals, more easily coercable imperfectives and imperfectives which are harder to coerce – the reality of the third class is questionable. Arsenijević (2018) argues that in fact there are only biaspectual and perfective verbs, i.e. that all traditional imperfective verbs are bia­spectual, but their perfective interpretations are blocked to a greater or lesser extent by antipresupposition as defined in Percus (2006), due to the availability of their marked perfective counterparts. As they are ambiguous between the two values of aspect, even­tual biaspectual verbs do not participate in any contrast relevant for the topic of this paper, and therefore are irrelevant for this discussion. In the interest of simplicity, I am retaining the traditional classification, and considering only the traditional perfective and imperfective verbs. Across Slavic languages, the deverbal noun (henceforth abbreviated as DN) suffix -ie displays different interactions with grammatical aspect, with a trivial selection of perfective bases in Old Church Slavonic (OCS), a preference for perfective basis in Russian, an equal availability of perfective and imperfective bases in Polish and Czech, a slight preference for imperfectives in Slovenian, full productivity with imperfective bases but limited productivity with perfective ones in SC, and exclusive selection of imperfective ones in Bulgarian and Macedonian. The suffix -ie also varies in the set of categories with which it combines. While in all Slavic languages it combines with verbs, and is used to derive mass and collective nouns, in some of them it also com­bines with verb phrases (VP), nouns (N), noun phrases (NP), adjectives (Adj), adjective phrases (AdjP) and preposition phrases (PPs), that is with different subsets of these categories. 3 SUFFIX -IE IN SC In SC, DNs in -ie from imperfective verbs are productive, compositionally interpreted and denote a homogeneous eventuality – a state or process (Simonović/Arsenijević 2014). When the base verb denotes a state or a process, this is also the eventuality de­noted by the DN, as in (3a). A DN from an accomplishment denotes its process subev­ent or an unbounded sequence of iterations of the accomplishment, as in (3b), and a DN from an achievement denotes its preparatory stage or again an unbounded sequence of iterations of the event, as in (3c). (3) a. spavan-je b. jeden-je c. dosezan-je sleepIpf.pass.ptcp-ie eatIpf.pass.ptcp-ie reachIpf.pass.ptcp-ie ‘sleeping’ ‘eating’ ‘reaching’ Examples in (4) illustrate each of the listed interpretations for the three (types of) verbs. (4) a. a state or process: Za vreme spavanja izgubite prosečno 311g težine. for time sleeping lose.2hon on_average 311g weight ‘During sleep, you lose an average of 311g of weight.’ b. the process component of an accomplishment: Čišćenje dok je dete u kući je kao pranje zuba  za vreme cleaning while is child in home is like washing teeth for time jedenja pakovanja čokolade. eating pack.gen chocolate.gen ‘Cleaning while a child is in the house is like brushing teeth while eating a bar of chocolate.’ c. iterations of an accomplishment: Frakcijsko hranjenje – jedenje svaki put  u malim obrocima. fractional feeding eating every time in small meals ‘Fraction feeding – eating always in small meals.’ d. the preparatory stage of an achievement: Đivatma zadržava grubo i suptilno telo tokom dosezanja najvišeg jivatma preserves rough and subtle body during reaching highest stanja kreacije, Kailaša, čistog uma. state creation.gen Kailash.gen pure.gen mind.gen ‘Jivatma preserves a rough and subtle body during the reaching of the high­est state of creation, Kailash, the pure mind.’ e. iterations of an achievement: To mu daje osećaj višestrukog dosezanja izgubljenih granica that him gives feeling multiple reaching lost.gen borders. gen prostora. space.gen ‘That gives him the feeling of a multiple reaching of the lost boundaries of space.’ Only an idiosyncratic subset of perfective verbs derive DNs in SC. These DNs take three types of meanings in an unpredictable fashion: the phase transition that introduces quantization into the verb’s semantics (the transition from the culmination not being reached to its being reached), as in (5a), a concrete or abstract object resulting from the eventuality described by the verb, as in (5b) and (5c), respectively. (5) a. zaređen-je b. zadebljan-je c. osiguran-je consecratePrf.pass.ptcp-ie thickenPrf.pass.ptcp-ie securePrf.pass.ptcp-ie ‘consecration’ ‘bump’ ‘insurance’ According to Simonović and Arsenijević (2014), the following aspectual asymmetries can be observed on DNs in -ie in SC: DNs from imperfectives verbs are productive, compositionally interpreted and prosodically faithful to the base, while among perfective verbs they target an idiosyncratic subset of bases, show a tendency for idiomatic inter­pretations and bear a long-rising accent on the penultimate syllable, as illustrated in (6). (6) imperfective: koncentrisan+je > koncentrisanje concentrated+ie ‘concentrating’ perfective: izjednaačen+je > izjednačénje equalized+ie ‘equalization, phase-transition from a lead to a tie’ (sport) The contrasts observed are summarized in (7). (7) Imperfective base Perfective base Productivity productive idiosyncratic Compositionality compositional idiomatic Prosody faithful to base long rising penultimate As already pointed out, suffix -ie does not only select verbs. With variable produc­tivity, it also combines with nouns and NPs, adjectives and AdjPs, PPs and VPs, as il­lustrated in (8). In SC, the only category with which the suffix is productive apart from verbs are nouns, with some limited productivity being attested with PPs. A number of -ie-nouns from unproductive categories are inherited from older phases in the develop­ment of the language – OCS or Old Church Serbian. (8) N (productive) NP (not productive) PP (limited productivity) kamen-je mal-o-duš-je pri-obal-je stone-je little-o-soul-je by-coast-je ‘stones’ (collective) ‘despondency’ ‘coastal area’ VP (not productive) Adj (not productive) AdjP (not productive) istin-o-ljub-je pošten-je celo-mudr-ije (archaic) truth-o-love-je decent-je whole-wise-ije ‘love for truth’ ‘decency’ ‘abstinence/virginity’ The derived category is, however, fixed irrespective of the base: suffix -ie univer­sally derives nouns and no other category.32 Henceforth, most examples will be from SC. Therefore, examples from SC will not be specified for language, while all other examples will. Moreover, the nouns it derives – unless lexicalized with an idiosyncratic meaning – tend to denote mereologically homogene­ous predicates when it comes to properties of quantity; all the nouns in (8) denote ho­mogeneous predicates. An exception are perfective DNs denoting the respective phase transition to the (holding of the) culmination state, or an object resulting from the event, which can have a quantized interpretation, as illustrated in (9). (9) Na dnevnom redu su tri razrešen-j-a. on daily order are three discharged-ie-pauc ‘Three discharges are on the meeting agenda.’ 4 PROSODIC EFFECTS OF THE SUFFIX -IE IN SERBO-CROATIAN While all Slavic languages do indeed have the nominalizing suffix -ie, as stated in the previous section, even just within the Slavic languages, significant variation along two dimensions may be observed. One dimension is its cross-categorial productivity: does it derive nouns from bases of diverse categories, from a subset of them, or only from verbs? The other is its productivity within the verbal category: is it productive only with imperfective verbs, or with perfectives as well? When it comes to categories, in OCS the suffix is productive across the board: in addition to verbs, it takes nouns and different kinds of NPs, adjectives and AdjPs, PPs, VPs. In Slovenian and SC, besides verbs it only productively selects for nouns, shows restricted productivity with PPs, and, not counting the nominalizations inherited from OCS, does not combine with any other bases. In Macedonian and Bulgarian, again leaving aside loan nominalizations from OCS, it does not take any bases other than verbs. We focus here on the facts relevant for the prosody. While it is hard to reliably reconstruct the prosodic patterns in OCS, -ie-nomi­nalizations inherited from it in South Slavic languages display templatic prosody, typically with properties of default assignment. This is not to say that they all have the same prosodic template, as the default prosodic assignment is sensitive to the cat­egory of the base and the phonotactic properties of the components (see Simonović/Arsenijević 2014 for a case study of a default sensitive to the morphological and phonotactic structure). The inherited DNs, effectively borrowed from OCS, display prosodic prominence on the stem-final syllable – not only in SC, but also in Bulgarian, and trivially so in Macedonian which has a fixed antipenultimate stress (the OCS realization of the suffix is disyllabic). In Bulgarian and Macedonian, the same pattern appears in all other -ie nominalizations too, as well as in the phonologically non-adopted ones in SC (each of the Bulgarian examples in (10), with the same prosody, occurs also in SC as a phono­logically non-adopted borrowing from OCS). (10) SC Bulgarian V V NP Adj otpuštén-je prosvetlén-ie blagoród-ie pet-o-kníž-ie indulged-ie enlightened-ie noble-ie five-o-book-ie ‘indulgence (of sins)’ ‘enlightment’ ‘nobility’ ‘five-volume set’ In SC, a language with a free lexically specified tone (which then determines the placement of stress), other phonologically adopted -ie-nominalizations inherited from OCS show diverse prosodic patterns, all of which display properties of default assign­ment. When the base is an NP, PP or VP, the suffix -ie imposes a short falling accent on the initial syllable, argued to be the main default pattern which is assigned to lexical items lacking lexical prosodic specification (Zec 1999; Simonović/Arsenijević 2014; Simonović 2020). This is illustrated in (11). (11) a. NP: p.toknjiižje b. PP: pr.obaalje c. VP: .stinoljuublje pet-o-knjig-je pri-obal-je istin-o-ljub-je five-o-book-ie by-coast-ie truth-o-love-ie ‘5-volume set’ ‘coastal area’ ‘love for truth’ Cases where the base consists of a morpheme lacking any prosody (because it is smaller than a syllable as in (12a), or a clitic as in (12b)) followed by a monosyllabic morpheme are an exception. There, -ie nominalizations surface with a rising accent on the initial syllable, as illustrated in (12). (12) a. NP: dvoknjiižje b. PP: prímoorje dv-o-knjig-je pri-mor-je two-o-book-ie by-sea-ie ‘2-volume set’ ‘coastal area’ Under all available models of SC lexical prosody, these nominalizations are as­signed height on the second morpheme of the base – the monosyllabic one. On the assumption that the monosyllabic nature of the second morpheme somehow leave com­posed clitics outside of the prosodic assignment domain, prosodic assignment in these nominalizations is the same as in those in (11): high tone is assigned to the leftmost syl­lable in the domain. The only difference is that due to the epenthesis of a vowel or the syllabic status of the clitic morpheme, respectively, the tone may spread one syllable to the left (which is a general rule for SC, see Zec 1999) and thus surface as a raising ac­cent. This is formally represented in (13), where the assignment of the high tone occurs before the emergence of eventual epenthetic vowels, and the latter in some cases does, while in others does not affect the surface prosody. (13) a. (petH-knjig-je b. (priH-obal-je c. (isHtin-ljub-je five-book-ie by-coast-ie truth-love-ie ‘5-volume set’ ‘coastal area’ ‘love for truth’ d. dv-(knjigH-je › dv-oH -knjigH-je e. pri-(morH-je › priH-morH-je two-book-ie by-sea-ie ‘2-volume set’ ‘coastal area’ When the base is a simple count noun, the derivation results in a rising antipenul­timate syllable (i.e. the penultimate syllable of the stem), unless the base is monosyl­labic, in which case the resulting derivation has a falling accent on the single syllable of the base (the penultimate syllable of the nominalization). This indicates that with a noun as the base, the suffix generally imposes a High tone on the stem-final syllable of the base-noun, which then spreads to the left-adjacent syllable when there is one (Zec 1999). (14) a. k.meen-je › kameenje b. gr.n-je › gr.nje stone-ie branch-ie ‘stones’ (collective) ‘branch’ (collective) Finally, in DNs, i.e. with verbal bases, when the verb is perfective, the prosody of the base plays no role, and the nominalization receives a pattern with a long-rising stem-final syllable, argued to be one of the default prosodic assignment patterns in SC (Simonović/Arsenijević 2014). (15) a. pošten-je > pošténje b. ispunjen-je > ispunjénje decent-ie fulfillPrf.pass.ptcp-ie ‘decency’ ‘fulfillment’ Only when the verb is imperfective does the suffix preserve the prosody of the base, as in (16). (16) a. sečen-je > sečenje b. dozívati > dozívanje cutIpf.pass.ptcp-je callIpf.pass.ptcp-je ‘cutting’ ‘calling’ All in all, -ie-nominalizations inherited from OCS which are phonologically adopt­ed, as well as SC DNs from perfective bases, tend to display templatic prosody, in some cases clearly and in others likely emerging from default prosodic assignment. The only class in which lexically specified prosody, in particular the prosody of the base, surfaces on the DN are the imperfective verbs. A tentative generalization emerges that in those cases where the suffix combines with a categorized, compositionally in­terpreted structure – i.e. with imperfective verbs, the base-prosody is preserved. In all other cases, the surface prosody is default-looking and the suffix combines with a base which is not categorized and/or receives a non-compositional interpretation – because it is borrowed, as in the case of OCS nominalizations, or because it is a root or a root-complex, which is plausibly the case with perfective verbs, nouns (not the entire noun, but typically its root actually derives the -je noun, see (14)) and apparent PPs as bases. In support of PP-like bases being root-complexes, the generalization holds that only PPs with morphologically simplex prepositions and complements can be selected by the suffix, and that even though the preposition normally assigns case, the case ending fails to show up in any way in the nominalization, as illustrated in (17). This is to be expected if the base is maximally a pair of roots: that of the preposition and that of the nominal complement. (17) a. za brd-om za-brd-je behind hill-inst.n.sg ‘area behind hill(s)’ ‘behind the hill’ među rek-ama među-rek-je between river-inst.f.pl ‘area between rivers’ ‘between the rivers’ b. za pešč-ar-ama *za-pešč-ar-je behind sand-n-inst.n.pl (‘sandpit’) int. ‘area by sandpits’ ‘behind the sandpits’ pri kotl-in-ama *pri-kotl-in-je by cauldron-n-dat.f.pl (‘ravine’) int. ‘area by a ravine’ ‘by the ravine’ c. iz-pod brd-a *iz-pod-brd-je from-below hill-gen.n.sg int. ‘area below the hill’ ‘below the hill’ po-kraj rek-e *po-kraj-rek-je over-area river-gen.f.sg int. ‘area next to/around a river’ ‘next to the river’ 5 PREVIOUS ANALYSES 5.1 Structural Flattening Triggers Prosodic Deletion The only formal analysis of the prosodic, morphological and semantic properties of the suffix -ie in SC proposed so far is that in Arsenijević (2010) and Simonović and Arsenijević (2014). They observe that the opposition between the prosody faithful to the base and the pattern with a long rising penultimate syllable among derived nouns correlates with the opposition between compositional and idiomatic derivation with a range of SC derivational suffixes (besides -ie, also -ost, -stvo and others). Hence, they argue that the long-rising stem-final prosody is the outcome of the default prosodic as­signment when the penultimate syllable of the base is long. They further observe that the suffix -ie tends to derive mereologically homogene­ous predicates (i.e. mass and collective nouns). Imperfective verbs also denote homo­geneous predicates, while predicates denoted by perfective verbs are quantized. The central component of their analysis is that when combined with perfective bases, the homogeneous semantics of the suffix clashes with the quantization of the predicate base, leading to ungrammaticality. No such issue emerges with imperfective verbs. The only way for a passive participle of a perfective verb to combine with the suffix is if its verbal structure which specifies its perfective aspect is erased, effectively forming an adjective, i.e. – an aspectually unspecified base. Afterall, adjectivization of participles is a productive operation in SC, as well as cross-linguistically. Accord­ing to this analysis, the structural flattening that lexicalizes the perfective verb into an adjective also erases its lexical prosodic specification, and the derived noun is assigned default prosody. 5.2 Marvin (2003): Phasal Spell-Out An alternative analysis for the prosodic prominence of the suffix in perfective DNs which is applicable to the suffix -ie has been proposed by Marvin (2003). In her ac­count, the suffix becomes prosodically prominent when it is a head and is spelled out together with the verbal stem, because they sit in the same phase (Chomsky 2001). In such a configuration, due to its syntactically stronger status as the phase head, its prosodic specification wins out, and the prosodic specification of the base fails to be realized, as it would yield two prosodically prominent syllables within the pho­nological word. The suffix cannot bear prominence when it is in a different phase from the base, because the base gets spelled out first, together with its prosodic specification, and by the time the suffix gets spelled out – the prosodic properties of the derived word have already been fixed to realize the specification of the base (the verb in this case). A possible implementation of this analysis is that when the suffix -ie selects an im­perfective verb, it selects an AspP which is or contains a phase (even more than one). This means that the verbal base is spelled out separately from the suffix. This explains why the prosody of such DNs is faithful to the base. When the suffix selects a perfective verb and structural flattening applies, one could in principle argue that it results in the verbal base and the suffix being in the same phase, and hence the suffix surfaces with prosodic prominence. This latter account faces a severe problem. Without the structural flattening from the other analysis, it requires that with imperfective bases the suffix is not in the same phase as the base, but that it is with perfective roots. Since simplex verbs are typically imperfective (there are not more than a dozen exceptions) and perfectives are typically derived from imperfective verbs, this is an unlikely structure. Assuming structural flattening, the structure targeted by it does not include the phase head – the adjectival (or participial) suffix -en/an/t. Hence structural flattening does not get the suffix -ie to the same phase as the verbal base. The analysis hence incorrectly predicts the prosodic prominence of the verbal base. A way out could be to argue that the adjectival/participial suffix, unlike verbal and nominal category heads, does not head a phase, but it is hard to find principled support for such an argument. 5.3 Support for Structural Flattening There is thus an advantage in the analysis relying on structural flattening and prosodic deletion. The view that perfective DNs rely on an operation that turns a structurally complex verb into a root, resulting in the lexical storing of its meaning instead of a compositional interpretation, is supported by the observation that -ie nominalizations from perfective verbs are indeed extremely prone to having idiomatic interpretations significantly narrower than those of their base verbs, or metaphorically shifted ones. Their interpretations moreover vary unpredictably between an object and a phase tran­sition to the culmination state, whether abstract or resulting from the described eventu­ality, as illustrated in (5) above and in (18). (18) Imperfective, compositional Perfective, lexicalized (idiosyncratic) hlad-jen-je za-hlad-jen-je coldIpf-pass.ptcp-ie for-coldPrf-pass.ptcp-ie ‘cooling’ ‘a weather-change to colder’ Perfective, OCS-loan (idiomatic) Perfective (compositional): impossible prikazanje (*za)-lom-jen-je (za-lom-jen ‘chipped’) OCS-loanPrf-ie for-breakPrf-pass.ptcp-ie ‘vision’ ‘breaking’ (not ‘chipping’) Additional support for the correspondence between idiomatized meanings and the prosodic pattern comes from the imperfective DNs. Though rare, cases exist where an imperfective verb derives a DN with a shifted interpretation. All such DNs surface with the prosodic template of perfective nominalizations: a long rising accent on the penul­timate syllable. The idiomatic, idiosyncratic DN then exists parallel to the productive, compositional one. This is illustrated in (19). (19) Base verb Productive DN Idiomatic DN putovatiIpf > putovaanje / putovánje ‘to travel’ ‘travelling’ ‘trip’ obrazovatiIpf > obrazovaanje / obrazovánje ‘to form/educate’ ‘forming/educating’ ‘education’ odlikovatiIpf > odlikovaanje / odlikovánje ‘to decorate’ ‘decorating’ ‘medal’ 5.4 Weaknesses of the Analysis A weak point of the analysis proposed by Arsenijević (2010) and Simonović and Arsenijević (2014) is its (lack of an explicit) account for the deletion of the prosody of the base. It links it to the conversion of the structurally complex verbal participle into a simple adjective by the flattening of its internal structure, but is not specific about the particular operation responsible for the deletion and how it is triggered by the structural flattening. Moreover, it has been argued (e.g. Trezner 1970) that the set of perfective verbs deriv­ing -ie nouns is not entirely idiosyncratic. On a closer look, it turns out that it is almost exclusively the morphologically complex perfective verbs which are not compositionally interpreted from the meaning of an imperfective base verb and a prefix that combine with the suffix (which we shall term primary perfective verbs). There are two big classes of such verbs: idiomatic perfectives, as in (20a), where the verb involves an intransparent root which is idiosyncratic for this verb (observe the absence of a corresponding passive participle even without the prefix), and those borrowed from OCS, as in (20b).43 Considering that the suffix -ie derives neuter gender nouns with a stem ending in a palatal seg­ment, and that these nouns have the NSg ending -e, strictly speaking only -i/j is the actual deri­vational suffix – selecting in the particular case the declension class corresponding to the neuter gender. The same suffix then occurs with the traditional masculine declension class, but only when it selects perfective verbs. It is of limited productivity in this domain and derives nouns denoting episodic quantized occurrences of events (*(u-)disPrf-a-j ‘breath’, *(za-)grliPrf -a-j ‘hug’, where without the perfectivizing suffix, the imperfective verb does not combine with the mas­culine-selecting -i/j). This also makes sense considering Arsenijević (2017), who argues that the neuter gender stands for the absence of a syntactic realization of the unit of counting, and mas­culine for its weak specification. In the interest of simplicity – I ignore this and other potential realizations of the suffix in the present paper. (20) a. pri-sp-et-je *sp-et b. prestavi-en-je by-??Prf-pass.ptcp-ie ??-pass.ptcp pass_overPrfOCS-pass.ptcp-ie ‘arrival’ ‘death’ (the event) This puts the structural flattening in a different perspective. If the perfective verbs deriving DNs are already non-compositional, then the structural flattening is not a last resort operation licensing the derivation of a DN, but rather occurs as an independent property of the verb that makes its participle available to the DN derivational pattern. There seem nevertheless to be additional factors involved, as not all primary perfec­tives (those derived from morphologically simple imperfectives) derive DNs. Some of them do not sound perfect, such as the example in (21a), but become much more ac­ceptable in an appropriate context, as in (22a). Others, like the one in (21b), remain bad across salient contexts – see (22b). (21) a. ruš-en ruš-en-je destroyIpf-pass.ptcp destroyIpf-pass.ptcp-ie ‘destroyed’ ‘destroying’ pre-ruš-en ?pre-ruš-en-je over-dressPrf-pass.ptcp over-dressPrf-pass.ptcp-ie ‘disguised’ ‘getting disguised’ b. građ-en građ-en-je buildIpf-pass.ptcp-ie buildIpf-pass.ptcp-ie ‘built’ ‘building’ na-građ-en ??na-građ-en-je on-buildPrf-pass.ptcp on-buildPrf-pass.ptcp-ie ‘awarded’ ‘getting awarded’ (22) a. Njegovim prerušenjem u boga kiše his.inst disguising.inst in god rain.gen počinje prolećni ritual plodnosti. begins spring ritual fertility.gen ‘With him disguising into the god of rain begins the spring ritual of fertility.’ b. ??Njegovim nagrađenjem za životno delo počinje his.inst awarding.inst for life achievement.gen begins festival vina. festival wine.gen ‘With him receiving the life achievement award begins the festival of wine.’ Note that both sentences in (22) would be fine with the respective imperfective DNs, but with a different interpretation. In that case, it would be the process or the preparatory stage, and not the phase transition into the culmination state that marks the beginning of the ritual, i.e. of the festival, respectively. The problem that emerges with this change of perspective is that it implies that the idiomatic semantics does not emerge through the structural flattening of the participle required for nominalization as previously argued, but rather presents an independent property of the verb. The participle then cannot be aspectually different from the verb, i.e. it is perfective and quantized. Moreover, primary perfectives quite regularly derive secondary imperfectives with which they establish aspectual pairs: the two verbs semantically minimally differ in the aspectual value, as in (23). The view in Arsenijević (2010) that -ie, which derives mereologically homogeneous predicates, takes imperfective bases because they also denote homogeneous predicates, predicts that here, too, -ie will combine with the sec­ondary imperfective only, which will block the DN derived from the perfective verb. However, such perfective verbs still derive DNs on their idiomatic interpretation, while the DNs from their imperfective counterparts preserve the compositional interpretation. (23) po-stavi-ti : po-stavi-a-ti u-blaži-ti : u-blaži-va-ti over-putPrf-inf over-put-ipfIpf-inf in-mildenPrf-inf in-milden-ipfIpf-inf ‘place’ (Prf) ‘place’ (Ipf) ‘milden’ (Prf) ‘milden’ (Ipf) postavljenje postavljanje ublaženje ublaživanje ‘appointment’ ‘placing’ ‘mildening’ ‘mildening’ ‘appointment’ (of measures) (any) If idiomatization is not a tool to enable perfective DNs but an independent process, then why are perfective -ie DNs available in the first place? Why is the -ie DN of verbs like in (23) not derived only from the secondary imperfective? In particular since there are also DN suffixes restricted to perfective verbs, such as -aj and -a illustrated in (24): why does a perfective verb combine with the homogeneous, rather than a quantized DN suffix? (24) u-dis-aj po_kuš-aj iz_daj-a pro_val-a in-breathePrf-aj tryPrf-aj betrayPrf-a break_inPrf-a ‘inbreath’ ‘tryN’ ‘betrayal’ ‘burglary’ 6 A MODIFIED ANALYSIS In this section, I present a modification of the analysis presented in section 5, necessary to capture the empirical insights from subsection 5.4, as well as an extension based on Simonović (2019), which gives a principled and independently motivated account for the prosodic regularities. 6.1 Suffix -ie in SC May Select Roots – It Is Only Incompatible with a Quantized AspP A small modification of the analysis from Arsenijević (2010) and Simonović and Arsenijević (2014) suffices to account for the observed facts. Idiomatic and borrowed primary perfective verbs are regular perfectives, yet their perfectivity is not structurally derived but stored as part of the lexical semantics of their respective roots. They are thus effectively non-derived perfectives. Their intransparent semantics triggers their storing in the lexicon as roots. For instance, the intransparent meaning of the mor­phological complex u-stolič ‘in-chair’ (meaning enthrone rather than into (a) chair) triggers the storing of the complex in the lexicon as a root instead of a compositional interpretation in a verbal structural sequence, as illustrated in (25). (25) [AspP u- [vP [x] –i [[y] .stolič [[y] u [z]]]] › .ustolič lx ly le [$e1, e2. cause(e, e1, e2) & act(e1, x) & in(e2, y, z) & chair(z) When these verbs take verbal inflection, they project the perfective structure with the respective aspectual head filled by a null element (with possible head-movement into it by the root and the material it picks up). However, when they build DNs, the roots are directly selected by the adjectival suffix -en/an/t. This structure is then select­ed by the DN suffix -ie. This is illustrated for the two verbs from (20), one idiomatized and one borrowed primary perfective, in (26) below. (26) a. [TP –m [AspP -Ř [vP –i [.ustolič]]]] b. [TP –m [AspP -Ř [vP –i [.osvešt]]]] ustolič-i-m osvešt-a-m enthrone-._vowel-1sg sanctify-._vowel-1sg ‘I enthrone’ ‘I sanctify’ [nP –ie [adjP –n [.ustolič]]] [nP –ie [adjP –n [.osvešt]]] .ustolič-en-je .osvešt-an-je in-thronePrf-adj-ie sanctifyPrfOCS-adj-ie ‘enthronement’ ‘sanctification’ Rather than triggering the flattening of the perfective verbal structure to delete its quantized semantics, the suffix -ie simply selects for the suffix -en/an/t which in turn does not select a quantized AspP but a root (for a general overview of the suffix -en/an/t, see Simonović/Arsenijević 2014). Suffix -en/an/t selecting a root is a proper target on this view. This means that, in principle, for every verb the suffix may select either the fully-fledged passive participle – as long as its AspP is not specified as quantized, or just the root combined with the adjectivizing suffix. With imperfective verbs, both options are available, the participle being preferred due to its compositional interpretation. Therefore, imperfective verbs productively de­rive compositional DNs, and idiosyncratically root-based ones, i.e. only where an idi­omatic interpretation is pragmatically supported, as in (19). With perfective verbs, the option with the participial base is not available, as it involves an AspP specified for quantization. Idiomatic primary perfective verbs act as roots available as legitimate bases for DNs. But on this view, structural flattening cannot be responsible for the prosodic effects. If it had such effects, they should be visible already on the primary perfective verbs. 6.2 Radical Cores The prosodic contrast between the prosody faithful to the compositional base and the default-looking prosody of DNs with root-bases receives a neat explanation from the model proposed by Lowenstamm (2014), in particular in the version developed for the South Slavic data in Simonović (2019). Lowenstamm argues within the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM, Halle/Marantz 1993) that (at least some) derivational morphemes are roots. He views these roots as semantically light, and dissociates them from the functional effects that they coincide with – such as the category change. Cat­egory change does not come from these suffixes, but from an independent phonologi­cally null category head. Simonović, also in the framework of DM, radicalizes Lowenstamm’s view that some derivational affixes are roots: he takes all phonological material to come from roots and all functional material to be phonologically empty. Traditional derivational suffixes are chunks of structure consisting of an empty category head and a light root (the one surfacing as the suffix), which are stored in the Encyclopedia. Simonović provides additional empirical support for this view, and argues that in Slovenian, con­figurations with at least one functional head between every two roots results in resolved prosody (i.e. surface prosody matching the lexical specification of one of the compo­nents), illustrated in (27a), and configurations with radical cores (structural segments consisting of two or more structurally adjacent roots without any intervening functional items) trigger default prosody, as in (27b). xP xP .2 x .P x .2 .1 .1 (27) a. Resolved prosody (typically, b. Default prosody lex. prosody of .1 surfaces) Simonović argues, based on minimal pairs such as those with the deadjectival nomi­nalizing suffix -ost in (28), that prosody faithful to the base surfaces in compositionally interpreted derivations because they involve no radical cores, while their idiomatically interpreted counterparts carry the default stress, which is stem-final in Slovenian. (28) stár ‘old’ + ost Slovenian stárost ‘oldness’ staróst ‘old age’ nP .P nP n . ost n aP .P a . ost . star . star 6.3 Applying the Modified Analysis to SC DNs With this view adopted, the default stress does not require deletion – it is straightfor­wardly predicted from the root status of the base. Consider (29), where the structural contrast from Simonović is applied to the minimal pair of two DNs derived from the same verb. One DN is derived from the participle, i.e. from the combination of the adjectivizing chunk (i.e. [aP a [.an … ]]) and the verb (the vP), as represented in (29a). The other is formed from the combination of the adjectivizing chunk with a root com­plex, as represented in (29b).54 OCS verbs have a hybrid status regarding complexity. They involve prefixes which are always homophonous with SC counterparts (even when OCS had a different realization for a prefix, it is adapted to its SC counterpart) and simple verbs which may or may not have SC counterparts, and for this reason they are identified as morphologically complex. However, their meaning is typi­cally not compositional in this regard, so they are recognized as very similar to idiomatic verbs. (29) a. A compositional DN, b. An idiomatic DN: no radical cores a radical core nP nP .P .P n n .je .je aP aP a a .P .P .an .an vP .putov v .putov This analysis both fits the data better, considering that the perfective verbs with cor­responding DNs are independently idiomatized and that imperfective verbs also may derive idiomatic DNs with the default prosody, and also provides a principled account for the assignment of default prosody. 7 SUFFIX -IE ACROSS THE SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES South Slavic languages show a great deal of variation in the productivity and selection properties of the suffix -ie. 7.1 OCS In OCS, the suffix is highly promiscuous and productive. It productively combines with PPs, nouns and NPs (involving numerals or attributive adjectives), verbs and VPs, adjectives and AdjPs, as illustrated in (30) and (31). (30) N NP PP OCS kamen-ie pęt-o-knjig-ie za-brěg-ie stone-ie five-o-book-ie by-hill-ie ‘stones’ (collective) ‘5-volume set’ ‘outback’ VP Adj AdjP hrist-o-ljub-ie blažen-ie cělo-modr-ie Christ-o-love-ie blessed-ie whole-wise-ie ‘love for Christ’ ‘bliss’ ‘abstinence/virginity’ Both imperfective and perfective verbs in OCS derive DNs, but perfective DNs are about ten times more frequent. A vast majority of imperfective nominalizations, if not all, are of the idiomatized type, in the sense that they do not denote the process com­ponent of the described event, but typically its product. This is illustrated by the DNs deriving from imperfective verbs in (31), where rather than denoting, respectively, the states of knowing (znanie), of not bearing (neterpenie), the preparatory states or pro­cesses of blinking (mgnovenie) and reading (čtenie), each of them denotes an individual associated with the event-kind described by the base. (31) im-an-ie zn-an-ie ne-terp-en-ie mgnov-en-ie čt-en-ie OCS have-pass.ptcp-ie know-pass.ptcp-ie not-bear-pass.ptcp-ie blink-pass.ptcp-ie read-pass.ptcp-ie ‘property’ ‘knowledge’ ‘impatience’ ‘moment’ ‘text’ Finally, the passive participle in -en/an/t in OCS is universally perfective, irrespec­tive of the grammatical aspect of the verb, which means that ultimately all the bases of -ie DNs in OCS are perfective. In other words, the OCS suffix -ie effectively selects no imperfective (i.e. homogeneous) bases whatsoever. This is probably also the explana­tion for the preference that the suffix shows for perfective verbs: these verbs are more likely to be used in the perfective passive participle form. 7.2 Macedonian and Bulgarian In Macedonian and Bulgarian, the picture is the exact opposite. The suffix only com­bines with imperfective verbs, and in this domain it is fully productive, see the exam­ples in (32a). Native perfective verbs do not derive DNs – see (32b). Both languages have a limited number of perfective DNs inherited from OCS or Russian Church Sla­vonic (RCS), but these are clearly marked as borrowed, rather than derived words. In both languages, their ending differs segmentally from the native DN suffix, and in Bulgarian they are also characterized by the antepenultimate stress inherited from the source language. The DNs borrowed from OCS and RCS, include a small number of imperfective idiomatic ones. Three such Bulgarian DNs of OCS origin, two perfective and one imperfective, are given in (32c). (32) a. bjága-n-e kára-n-e mísle-n-e Bulgarian runImpf-pass.ptcp-ie driveImpf-pass.ptcp-ie thinkImpf-pass.ptcp-ie ‘running’ ‘driving’ ‘thinking’ b. *iz-bjága-n-e *pre-kára-n-e *iz-mísle-n-e away-runPrf-pass.ptcp-ie over-driveImpf-pass.ptcp-ie out-thinkImpf-pass.ptcp-ie ‘running’ ‘driving’ ‘thinking’ c. nastroé-n-ie opravdá-e-ie ží-t-ie directPrf-pass.ptcp-ie justifyPrf-pass.ptcp-ie livePrf-pass.ptcp-ie ‘mood’ ‘justification’ ‘life’ (the literary genre) 7.3 Serbo-Croatian As already discussed, suffix -ie is fully productive with imperfective verbs, and limited to (a subset of) those perfectives which are not compositionally derived. It also produc­tively combines with nouns, deriving collectives, and with limited productivity with PPs, deriving mass nouns. 7.4 Slovenian When it comes to non-verbal bases, suffix -ie in Slovenian behaves like SC: it pro­ductively combines with nouns, and with limited productivity also with PPs. When it comes to verbs, a difference can be observed. Like in Bulgarian, Macedonian and SC, the suffix is productive with imperfective verbs (although for some bases blocked by other DN suffixes, in particular -va). Unlike in these other three contemporary South Slavic languages, in Slovenian, the suffix -ie is also relatively productive with perfec­tive verbs, and certainly not limited to the loan vocabulary and/or the idiomatic perfec­tive verbs. This is illustrated in (33). (33) Slovenian PP (limited productivity) N (productive) Perfective V (productive) pod-kolen-je list-je raz-cvet-an-je under-knee-je leaf-je away-flowerPrf-pass.ptcp-je ‘knee pit (area)’ ‘leaves’ (collective) ‘blooming’ Some of the perfective DNs give a first impression of degradation, but they most often improve in an adequate context, and can easily be found in colloquial use. In any case, there is a large number of compositionally interpreted ones like razcvetanje ‘blooming’ above, podkurjenje ‘lighting up’, začaranje ‘enchantment’, which would be out in Macedonian, Bulgarian and SC. Finally, Slovenian DNs differ from all others in systematically preserving the pros­ody of the base, irrespective of its grammatical aspect. Consider the examples in (34). Both stand for a pair of verbs, one with the prefix in brackets and the other without it (prečiščenje and čiščenje, začudenje and čudenje). Prefixed versions are perfective and prefixless imperfective. In both variants, each of the two DNs has the same prosody – that inherited from the base. (34) (pre)-číst-iti (za-)čúd-iti Slovenian overPrf-cleanIpf-inf forPrf-wonderIpf-iti ‘clean (up)’ ‘(begin to) wonder’ (pre)-číst-jen-je ((pre)číščenje) (za-)čúd-en-je overPrf-cleanIpf-pass.ptcp-je forPrf-wonderIpf-pass.ptcp-je ‘cleaning (up)’ ‘wondering / beginning to wonder’ Simonović (2019) points out a small number of exceptions with a stem-final stress. (35) Slovenian míšljen > mišljén-je, *míšljen-je vprášan > vprašán-je, *vprášan-je ‘thought’ ‘opinion, thinking’ ‘asked’ ‘question’ All these exceptional DNs involve idiomatic perfective bases. 8 MODELLING VARIATION The main observations based on the overview of the suffix -ie in South Slavic are the following: 1. There is a substantial difference between the behavior of the suffix -ie in OCS and in the contemporary South Slavic languages: in OCS it is quite unselective, and combines with several types of expressions that are unavailable to it in the four living varieties: with different kinds of NPs, with adjectives and AdjPs, and with VPs. In Slovenian and SC, the suffix is productive with nouns and shows restricted productivity in the PP domain, while in Bulgarian and Macedonian it is limited to imperfective verbs. 2. It takes only perfective bases in OCS, both perfective and imperfective in SC and Slovenian – with a strong preference for imperfective bases in SC, and a mild one in Slovenian, and only imperfective bases in Bulgarian and Macedonian. I propose the following account. The suffix -ie is the default nominalizer in OCS, while in the living South Slavic varieties it has grammaticalized to carry homogene­ous semantics. In OCS, it takes (homogeneous and) quantized bases (perfective verbs, numeral-noun expressions), in contrast to the living varieties, where it avoids the latter. Among the contemporary South Slavic languages, only in Bulgarian and Macedonian, it is further restricted to the verbal category. It prefers perfective bases in OCS because they are more likely to derive the form that it selects: the perfective passive participle. In SC and Slovenian, it combines with verbal bases, and – under pragmatic licensing – also with roots. Where both are available and semantically equivalent, the suffix prefers compo­sitional bases to roots. The reason why it shows a decent degree of productivity with perfective bases in Slovenian is that Slovenian verbal aspect has significantly bleached the quantized semantics of the perfective verbs. This observation has been made inde­pendently (Dickey 2003), and can be supported by many contrasts, such as for instance the availability of perfective verbs in different homogeneous contexts, in which they cannot be used in other Slavic languages. Consider the contrasts in the use of perfective verbs for the present performative semantics (36). (36) Slovenian SC Dickey (2003:196–197) Obljubim, da tega ne bom več naredil. : *Obećam da to više neću raditi. promisePrf.1sg... promisePrf.1sg... ‘I promise I won’t do that ever again.’ Priznamo. Strah nas je. : *Priznamo. Strah nas je. admitPrf.1pl... admitPrf.1pl... ‘We admit it. We’re afraid.’ We arrive at a picture where suffix -ie has been grammaticalized from a general nominalizer in OCS into one restricted in terms of the category and properties of quan­tity of the base in all the living South Slavic languages. In Bulgarian and Macedonian it is specified to select only verbal bases, in Slovenian and SC – roots are valid targets as well, and in OCS its domain is categorially unrestricted. The weakened quantized semantics of perfectives in Slovenian licenses a more liberal combination of the suffix with verbal bases regarding the grammatical aspect. 9 CONCLUSION This paper has focused on two different perspectives of -ie-DNs: an analysis of DNs in contemporary SC and the variation across South Slavic languages. After presenting the main properties of -ie nominalizations, a modified analysis is proposed to fit the observation that the perfective verbs which derive DNs are all already idiomatically interpreted. It is further combined with the Lowenstammian model of prosodic assign­ment from Simonović (2019) in order to capture the prosodic effects of the suffix in a principled way. An overview of the general situation in South Slavic is provided, which is then modelled in terms of the analysis proposed for SC with a refinement varying the speci­fication of the suffix across the target languages. The empirical contrasts observed are shown to follow from two aspects of the specification of the suffix: whether it is sensi­tive to the structurally realized quantization, and whether it is restricted to verbs. Its good fit to the South Slavic data lends additional support to Lowenstamm’s (2014) and Simonović’s (2019) view of derivational suffixes as roots, and to the analy­sis by the latter where radical cores, i.e. structurally adjacent roots, result in default prosody. References ARSENIJEVIĆ, Boban (2010) “On two types of deadjectival nominalisation in Ser­bian.” Suvremena lingvistika 36/70, 129–145. https://hrcak.srce.hr/62322 ARSENIJEVIĆ, Boban (2017) “Gender, like classifiers, specifies the type of partition: Evidence from Serbo-Croatian.” In: J. Kantarovich/T. Truong/O. Xherija (eds), Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 21–37. ARSENIJEVIĆ, Boban (2018) “Serbo-Croatian suffix -va and the illusion of the im­perfective specification.” Paper presented at the conference Ambigo: Workshop on Ambiguity – Theory, Development, and Processing, University of Göttingen on 4–6 July 2018. Gottingen: University of Göttingen. COMRIE, Bernard (1976) Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DICKEY, Stephen M. (2003) “Verbal Aspect in Slovene.” In: J. Orešnik/D. F. Reindl (eds), Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 56/3. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 182–207. GLADNEY, Frank Y. (1982) “Biaspectual Verbs and the Syntax of Aspect in Russian.” The Slavic and East European Journal 26/2, 202–215. https://doi.org/10.2307/308089 HALLE, Morris/Alec MARANTZ (1993) “Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection.” In K. Hale/S. J. Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–176. LOWENSTAMM, Jean (2014) “Derivational affixes as roots: Phasal spell-out meets English stress shift.” In: A. Alexiadou/H. Borer/F. Schafer (eds), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 230–259.  MARVIN, Tatjana (2003) Topics in the stress and syntax of words. Doctoral disserta­tion. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. PERCUS, Orin (2006) “Antipresuppositions.” In: A. Ueyama (ed), Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Reference and Anaphora: Toward the establishment of gen­erative grammar as an empirical science, Report of the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), Project No. 15320052. Fukuoka: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, 52–73. SIMONOVIĆ, Marko/Boban ARSENIJEVIĆ (2014) “Regular and honorary member­ship: On two kinds of deverbal nouns in Serbo-Croatian.” Lingue e linguaggio 13/2, 185–210. https://doi.org/10.1418/78407 SIMONOVIĆ, Marko (2019) “Radical core, prosody preservation and default stress: Revisiting Slovenian nominalisations.” Manuscript. Graz: University of Graz. SIMONOVIĆ, Marko (2020) “Tonal spans in Neo-Štokavian.” Manuscript. Graz/Nova Gorica: University of Graz/University of Nova Gorica. TREZNER, Tomislav (1970) “Glagolske imenice na -nje.” Jezik: časopis za kulturu hrvatskoga književnog jezika 18/2, 50–54. ZEC, Draga (1999) “Footed tones and tonal feet: rhythmic constituency in a pitch-accent language.” Phonology 16, 225–264. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675799003759 Abstract DEVERBAL NOUNS IN -IE AND THEIR VARIATION ACROSS THE SOUTH SLAVIC AREA The paper proposes an analysis of the correlation between the semantic and pro­sodic properties of the suffix -ie and of its variation across the South Slavic languages. Empirical facts about the suffix are outlined, and previous analyses are presented and confronted with empirical and theoretical problems. A slight modification of the analy­sis of Arsenijević (2010) and Simonović and Arsenijević (2014) enables its combina­tion with the model from Simonović (2019, 2020). The combined analysis neatly ac­counts for the facts. A model of the variation in the behaviour of the suffix across South Slavic languages is formulated in terms of the modified analysis. Keywords: deverbal nominalizations, radical cores, South Slavic, grammatical aspect, default prosody Povzetek IZGLAGOLSKI SAMOSTALNIKI Z MORFEMOM -IE IN NJIHOVE RAZLIČICE V JUŽNOSLOVANSKIH JEZIKIH Prispevek predstavi analizo korelacije med pomenskimi in prozodičnimi lastnostmi morfema -ie in njegovih različic v južnoslovanskih jezikih. V članku orišemo empirična dejstva, predstavimo dosedanje razčlembe ter navedemo z njimi povezane empirične in teoretične zagate. Razprava nato preoblikuje analizo Arsenijevića (2010) in Simono­vića in Arsenijevića (2014), tako da postane združljiva z modelom Simonovića (2019, 2020). Delno preoblikovana razčlemba lepo pojasni obravnavane podatke; prispevek z njeno pomočjo uvede model, ki razloži razlike v vedenju obravnavanega morfema v južnoslovanskih jezikih. Ključne besede: izglagolske nominalizacije, korenski skupek, južnoslovanski jeziki, slovnični vid, privzeta prozodija Marta Petrak* UDK 811.163.42'367.623:81'373.611 University of Zagreb, Croatia DOI: 10.4312/linguistica.60.1.31-60 DEVELOPMENT OF A PRODUCTIVE DERIVATIONAL PATTERN ON THE BASIS OF LOAN TRANSLATION? THE CASE OF CROATIAN ADJECTIVES FORMED WITH THE PREFIX MEĐU-15 At the merger of two roots, one of them semantically projects, by projecting its ontological class. The emerging asymmetry can be stipulated to suffice to drive the LF interpretation, as well as the phonological linearization, but fails to properly feed the prosodic processing, thus resulting in the default prosody assignment. 1 INTRODUCTION This paper deals with Croatian adjectives containing the prefix među- ‘inter-’, the ma­jority of which are derived on the basis of the [među-N-Suff]Adj pattern. Such adjectives are a result of the simultaneous addition of a prefix and a suffix to a nominal base, as in the examples među-grad-ski ‘intercity’2* mpetrak@ffzg.hr 1 An earlier version of this paper was presented in the form of a poster at the Mediterranean Mor­phology Meeting (MMM12) in Ljubljana in June 2019. I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their numerous comments and suggestions, which were almost entirely included in this revised version of the paper. ( Polish przedrozszerzenie, Trajder 2007: 140), and of the second one loan translation of the affix only (e.g. French supercommissaire ‘super-commis­sioner’ -> Polish superkomisarz) (ibid.). In the examples analysed in this paper, i.e. in Croatian među- prefixed adjectives, entire calque is at work due to the fact that both the prefix (među-), the base and (usu­ally) the suffix are borrowed and translated, i.e. expressed with Croatian linguistic ma­terial, such as in the following example: Latin internationalis (inter- ‘inter- + natio ‘na­tion’ +-alis ‘adjectival suffix’ = ‘international’) > Croatian međunarodan ‘international’ (među- ‘inter-’ + narod ‘people’ + -an ‘suffix’). Before proceeding with the analysis of adjectives, some details need to be provided about major linguistic influences on Croatian, as well as about the formation of Croatian adjectives in general. 3 CROATIAN IN THE CONTEXT OF LANGUAGE CONTACT At its very beginnings, Croatian already came into contact with several substrate lan­guages, and had lasting contact with Latin as the language of Western Christianity, ad­ministration and education (Samardžija 2002: 61). By the end of the Middle Ages, it had also established contacts with a number of neighbouring languages: Italian, Hungarian, German and later on Turkish, all of which exerted influence primarily on the lexical level, at times very strongly32 All the English equivalents in the paper, unless otherwise indicated, were provided from the Merriam Webster online dictionary available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/ (accessed in August 2020). The writing rules, especially those related to hyphenation, were preserved as they appear in the dictionary. (Samardžija 2002: 61–62). Latin loanwords from the areas of Christianity and philosophy, but also related to administration, law and new inventions, were for a long time the most numerous ones in Croatian (Samardžija 2002: 63). Calques became a regular phenomenon in the Croatian lexicon starting from the second half of the 16th century, and were especially related to the publication of first larger dictionaries (Samardžija 2002: 63). Older Croatian lexicographic works were usually bi- or even multi-lingual, and their source language was usually a foreign one, mostly Latin (Gostl 1995). Faced with numerous gaps on the Croatian side, lexicog­raphers were oftentimes forced to invent equivalents themselves, which resulted in a large number of neologisms, calques, etc. (Samardžija 2002: 64). At the time of the industrial revolution, a considerable number of new technical and scientific terms were formed on the basis of classical languages (Latin and Greek), which are sometimes called Europeisms (Croatian europeizmi) due to their presence in a number of modern European languages (Samardžija 2002: 65). At the end of the 19th century, Croatian borrowed a number of internationalisms through its contacts with German and Italian (Samardžija 2002: 65). It needs to be emphasized that Latin was the official language in continental Croatia until 1847, followed by German until 1860 (Samardžija 2002: 66). When Croatian finally became the official language, it lacked functional diversity. It therefore saw numerous additions in the second half of the 19th century, during which time two prominent lexicographers played a key role: Šulek in continental Croatia and Parčić in littoral Croatia (Samardžija 2002: 66–67). They both agreed on providing Croatized words for all notions where it was possible (Samardžija 2002: 67), which left the language once again with a substantial portion of calques. In recent history, English is undoubtedly the language that has exercised by far the strongest influence on Croatian (Samardžija 2002: 72). Numerous Anglo-American elements have spread into Croatian owing primarily to the media, and have entered the language at a quick pace (Samardžija 2002: 72). Moreover, Turk (2013: 159) claims that in the second half of the 20th century Croatian was “inundated” by loanwords from English. English influence on the Croatian language has occurred both overtly, in the acceptance and adaptation of English lexemes into the lexicon, and covertly, as loan translations, which are “really numerous” (Muhvić-Dimanovski 1992: 94), and can be found on virtually all language levels (Margić Drljača 2009). 4 ADJECTIVAL WORD-FORMATION PROCESSES IN CROATIAN Having given an overview of language contact phenomena relevant for this paper, this section shall provide some more details about the formation of adjectives in Croa­tian. The major word-formation processes on the basis of which Croatian adjectives are formed are the following: suffixation (e.g. glazba ‘music’ + -en ‘suffix’ > glaz­ben ‘musical’), prefixation (e.g. ne- ‘un-’ + služben ‘official’ > neslužben ‘unofficial’), prefix-suffix combination (e.g. izvan- ‘out-’ + brak ‘marriage’ + -ni ‘suffix’ > izvanbračni ‘extramarital’), compound-suffix combination (e.g. hladan ‘cold’ + krv ‘blood’ + -(a)n ‘suffix’ > hladnokrvan ‘cold-blooded’) and compounding (e.g. vatra ‘fire’ + otporan ‘resistant’ > vatrootporan ‘fireproof’) (Babić 2002: 381; 445; 459; 463; 472–473). The word-formation process that accounts for the majority of adjectives is suffixation (Babić 2002: 381). When it comes specifically to the question of word-formation with the prefix među-, the author of the most comprehensive manual on Croatian word-formation, Babić (2002: 445; 461; 468; 473), claims that it participates in the following four types of adjective formation: 1) prefix-suffix combination of relational adjectives (e.g. međugradski ‘intercity’, međuzubni ‘interdental’, međunarodni ‘international’, etc.), 2) prefix-suffix formation of descriptive adjectives (1 example: međusobni ‘mutual’), 3) prefix-suffix formation of descriptive adjectives with zero suffix (1 example: međuvremen ‘intertime’), 4) formation of descriptive adjectives through prefixation (1 example: međuzavisan ‘interdependent’). From the abovementioned list, it can firstly be concluded that all types of adjective formation but the first one – prefix-suffix combination of relational adjectives – are rather unproductive and of very limited scope, because they are all used to form a single adjective, according to Babić (2002). Unlike these three processes, prefix-suffix com­bination results in a number of relational adjectives. Secondly, it can also be concluded from the aforementioned facts that the među- prefix is productive in the formation of relational, and not descriptive adjectives. Prefix-suffix combination, or the formation of new lexemes through the simultane­ous addition of a prefix and a suffix, is also called parasynthetic formation or parasyn­thesis (e.g. Serrano-Dolader 2015; Iacobini 2020). The term parasynthesis is mostly used today to refer to Romance verbs formed from adjectival or nominal bases (e.g. French embarquer ‘to load, board’ < em- ‘in’ + barque ‘boat’ -er ‘infinitive ending’) (Serrano-Dolader 2015: 524), but some authors also use it to refer to nouns and adjec­tives formed through the addition of a prefix and a suffix to a base (Serrano-Dolader 2015; Iacobini 2020). It is important to emphasize that, in order for a formation to be considered a case of parasynthesis, many authors argue that there should not be an at­tested “intermediate stage”: thus, in the above French example, there are no words such as *barquer or *embarque. Authors writing from a generative point of view explain that requirement on the basis of the binary branching hypothesis, which specifies that only one word-formation process can apply at a time (cf. Serrano-Dolader 2015). In other words, they reject the possibility of ternary structures for parasynthetic deriva­tions (ibid.).43 Multinational states such as the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, which Croatia was a part of, were an important factor that contributed to language contacts (Turk 2013: 15). When applied to Croatian adjectives formed according to the [među-N-Suff]Adj pat­tern, however, this principle does not seem to work formally because a simple adjec­tive can be found in the language for every parasynthetic one, such as in the following examples: gradski ‘urban’ <> međugradski ‘intercity’; državni ‘state’ <> međudržavni ‘interstate’; zvjezdani ‘stellar’ <> međuzvjezdani ‘interstellar’, etc. Still, all these ad­jectives are claimed to be parasynthetic or prefix-suffix formations by Babić (2002) due to the fact that their meaning cannot be construed as the sum of the prefix and an adjective: for instance, međugradski ‘intercity’ does not mean ‘occurring between what pertains to the city’ (*među- ‘inter-’ + gradski ‘pertaining to the city’), but its meaning is ‘relative to what is between cities’, thus među- ‘inter-’ + grad ‘city’ + -ski ‘suffix’. In this paper, such adjectives are considered parasynthetic formations. The fact that Babić (2002) enumerates a number of adjectives formed through pre­fix-suffix combination with među- points to the conclusion that adjectives formed ac­cording to this process are fairly present and regular in contemporary Croatian. What Babić (2002) omits to specify, however, is, firstly, how productive the derivational pattern [među-N-Suff]Adj is, and secondly and more interestingly, how it emerged in Croatian.54 For more details on the treatment of parasynthesis in linguistic literature, see Serrano-Dolader (2015). It is therefore the goal of this paper to shed some light on the history of the formation of među- prefixed adjectives and to explore their productivity in present-day Croatian language. 5 METHODOLOGY In order to explore the emergence of među- prefixed adjectives in Croatian and the pro­ductivity of the patterns according to which they are created, available lexicographic works and corpora were consulted. More precisely, three dictionaries were used: the Academy’s Dictionary (Budmani/Maretić 1904–1910), Benešić’s dictionary (1957), and VRH (2015). Brief explanations shall be given as to why the three dictionaries mentioned were chosen for the analysis presented in this paper. The Academy’s Dictionary is a rich historical dictionary of Croats, Serbs, Bosnian-Herzegovinian Muslims and Montenegrins that provides information from the earliest linguistic sources in the 12th century up until works of the 19th century. In the period when it was written, it was considered that these ethnic groups spoke a single language called Croato-Serbian or Serbo-Croatian. Importantly for this paper, it is also a termi­nological dictionary, as well as a dictionary of foreign words and loanwords. The exact title of Benešić’s dictionary (1957) is Rječnik hrvatskoga književnoga jezika od preporoda do I. G. Kovačića (Dictionary of the Croatian Literary Language from the National Revival until I. G. Kovačić). Its intention was to be a dictionary of contemporary Croatian literary language as a collection of quotes from the most excel­lent Croatian writers who published between the very beginning of the 19th century until the 1940s (Nikolić-Hoyt 2010: 63–64). It was chosen due to the fact that it cov­ers the “middle” period between early 20th century and the 1940s. One of Benešić’s goals in compiling his dictionary was to revise and modernize the data found in earlier dictionaries, for instance by leaving out words that were no longer used in the Croatian literary language, and by introducing those that were used by Croatian modern authors (Nikolić-Hoyt 2010: 62). It should therefore serve as a good illustration of the Croatian lexicon from early 19th century to mid-20th century. Finally, the VRH dictionary is the largest and most recent dictionary of the Croatian standard language (Slišković 2016: 244). It is based on older relevant lexicographic works, manuals, specialized dictionaries and digital corpora. After an analysis of the mentioned lexicographic works, three major digital cor­pora were also consulted: Riznica, HNK and hrWaC. The Riznica corpus, compiled by the Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics, contains literary and other written sources from the second half of the 19th century to this day.65 The second question was outside Babić’s (2002) scope because he wrote a synchronic word-formation manual. The corpus contains 100 million tokens (Brozović Rončević and Ćavar 2012). Due to its specificities, Riznica was searched via the među.* standard regular expression, providing all words starting with the graphic sequence među. The HNK, 3.0 beta version, contains more than 2.3 billion words (Tadić 2009). Much larger than Riznica, it is a balanced and representative corpus76 The Riznica corpus comprises the following: fundamental works of Croatian literature, popular works, scientific works and university manuals from different domains, elementary and high school manuals, translations by prominent Croatian translators, daily, weekly and monthly news­papers available online, books from the pre-standard period of the Croatian language, see http://riznica.ihjj.hr/dokumentacija/index.hr.html. of standard con­temporary Croatian, which contains a certain amount of faction (such as magazines, newspapers, books, diaries, novels, etc.), fiction, etc., in line with text typology stand­ards (Tadić 2002: 442). The HNK corpus was also searched via the među.* standard regular expression, providing all words starting with the graphic sequence među. The results obtained were then organized through the Frequency – Lemma function, provid­ing a list of među- words with their number of occurrences in the corpus. The results were manually checked. The hrWaC (Ljubešić and Erjavec 2011) is a web corpus whose 2.2 version was crawled in 2014 from the .hr domain, so it provides us with data about very recent Croatian language usage. It is the largest extant Croatian corpus, with 1.4 billion to­kens. Adjectives entering the analysis were extracted from the corpus via the following CQL order: [word=”među.*”] containing [tag=”A.*”] The order searches for all words beginning with the sequence među and bearing the PoS mark “A”, i.e. adjective. After that, using the option Frequency – Lemma, all the obtained results were organized according to their frequency of appearance in the corpus. For the purposes of this paper, only adjectives with freq . 10, which enables the finding of both high- and lower frequency lexemes, were taken into consideration. The corpus data was checked manually in order to eliminate noise such as adjectives formed via other word-formation processes (e.g. međunarodno-pravni ‘related to inter­national law’), typos (međusubni, međunardni), etc., leaving a final list of 134 adjec­tives. This figure itself already suggest that adjectives formed with the prefix među- are fairly numerous in contemporary Croatian, and that the derivational pattern is a rather productive one. 6 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS This section first presents the results of the lexicographic analysis, followed by corpus results. 6.1 Older Dictionaries 6.1.1 Academy’s Dictionary Table 1 presents the među- adjectives in the Academy’s Dictionary (1904–1910). Table 1: Adjectives formed with među- in the Academy’s Dictionary (1904–1910). Adjective Etymology (as specified by the Academy’s Dictionary) Comment (from the Academy’s Dictionary) 1 međudnevički ‘related to međudnevica’ Derived through suffixation from the noun međudnevica ‘three-week period between the Assumption and the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary’ In Vuk’s dictionary;87 See http://filip.ffzg.hr/cgi-bin/run.cgi/corp_info?corpname=HNK_v30. The corpus consists of two components: 1) written contemporary Croatian texts, dating from 1990 onwards, and 2) the so-called text archive, comprising various genres published before or after 1990, such as classical Croatian authors, but also chatroom discussions, etc. (Tadić 2002: 443). in the work of M. Đ. Milićević 2 međunarodan98 Srpski rječnik (Serbian Dictionary) (1818). ‘international’ formed after Latin internationalis ‘international’ recent word-formation Adjective Etymology (as specified by the Academy’s Dictionary) Comment (from the Academy’s Dictionary) 3 međusoban: a) ‘internal, domestic’ b) ‘mutual, occurring between people’ - a) only found in Daničić’s dictionary109 The adjective međunarodan ‘international’ appears with the–(a)n suffix in the Academy’s Dic­tionary and Benešić’s dictionary, while in the VRH it appears as međunarodni, with the –ni suffix. An average Croatian speaker would not note any difference in meaning between these two adjectives. An average Croatian speaker with more linguistic knowledge would probably say that međunarodni is the definite form of the indefinite adjective međunarodan, with no other difference in meaning. Babić (2002: 451–456) has dedicated a whole chapter to the question of differentiating between the -(a)n and -ni suffixes, which proves in itself that the question is rather complex. These two suffixes present differences on both formal and semantic level. Put briefly, -(a)n is used to form descriptive adjectives (e.g. pametan ‘intelligent’), while -ni is used to form relational adjectives (e.g. autobusni ‘pertaining to buses’). Adjectives taking the -(a)n suffix have both indefinite and definite forms, can be compared and can have two types of declension (in­definite and definite), while adjectives formed with –ni cannot be compared and only have the definite type of declension. as a quote from a 14th century document b) appears in certain works written by J. Rajić, V. Karadžić, P. Petrović, M. Pavlinović and B. Bogišić 4 međusošan ‘interfurcal’ formed after Latin interfurcalis or German gabelstandig ‘forked’ only in Šulek’s DST1110 Rječnik iz književnih starina srpskih (Dictionary of Older Serbian Literature), 1863–1864. 5 međustaničan ‘intercellular’ formed after Latin intercellularis. e.g. međustanična tvar as equivalent for German Intercellularsubstanz ‘intercellular matter’ only in Šulek’s DST 6 međusudan ‘interjudicial’ equivalent of Latin interiudicialis ‘interjudicial’, a Church law term only found in one writer’s work 7 međutiman ‘temporary’ među- ‘between’ + tim ‘that’; e.g. Zwischenregierung – međutimna vlada ‘interim government’ a recent legal term 8 međuviličan ‘intermaxillary’ equivalent of German Zwiscbenkieferknochen ‘intermaxillary bone’ only in Šulek’s DST 9 međuzeman ‘occurring between countries’ međuzemno more ‘sea between countries’ as equivalent of German Binnenmeer only in Šulek’s DST 10 međuzemski SYN međuzeman ‘intercountry’ equivalent of German Zwischenverkehr ‘intercountry traffic’ - When one observes the adjectives from Table 1, one immediately understands that, firstly, their number is rather limited, amounting to as few as ten adjectives altogether.1211 Hrvatsko-njemačko-talijanski rječnik znanstvenoga nazivlja (Croatian-German-Italian Diction­ary of Scientific Terminology) published by Bogoslav Šulek in 1874/1875. The Dictionary ofter provides French and English, as well as Latin and Greek equivalents. See http://ihjj.hr/iz-povijes­ti/bogoslav-sulek/38/. Secondly, and more importantly, almost all of the listed Croatian adjectives are claimed to be equivalents of Latin(ate) or German specialized terms, which means these are intentional calques created for the purposes of filling specific lexical gaps. Thirdly, and probably most importantly, five of the total of ten adjectives are hapax legomena, i.e. lexemes found in a single work, whether it be the opus of an uncited writer (međusudan ‘interjudicial’) or, for the remaining four, terms coined by Bogoslav Šulek for the pur­poses of compiling his previously mentioned DST. It needs to be emphasized that Šulek played a large role in the formation of several domains of Croatian scientific terminol­ogy, which were a result of real needs for Croatian terms in specific scientific domains and also a way to resist Germanization and/or Hungarization (Samardžija 1997: 178). A special comment should be made concerning the adjectives međudnevički ‘related to međudnevica (‘three-week period between the Assumption and the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary’)’ and međusoban ‘mutual’. The first adjective is derived from the noun međudnevica as a result of suffixation, and thus the prefix među- was not directly involved in its formation ([međudnevica]N + -čki ‘suffix’ > [međudnevički]Adj). In other words, the prefix među- is actually present in the adjective međudnevički as part of the noun from which the adjective was derived. The adjective međusoban ‘mutual’ is more interesting. According to the Academy’s Dictionary (1904–1910), at the beginning of the 20th century, it had two possible mean­ings: 1) ‘internal, domestic’ and 2) ‘mutual, occurring between people’. The first mean­ing is claimed to be found only in Daničić’s dictionary (1863/64) as part of a quote from a 14th century Serbian document, while the second appears in some works written by Croatian, Serbian and Montenegrin authors (see footnote 12), who were mostly ac­tive during the 19th century. The first meaning is not recorded in the Croatian language today,1312 One of the anonymous reviewers has asked why there are so few adjectives, and whether the reason lies in their predictability. We do not think that is a plausible answer, firstly, due to the fact that the Academy’s Dictionary is a very comprehensive one, and it would thus list as many pos­sible lexemes as there are; and secondly, because the adjectives from Table 1 mostly belong to specialized languages, which points to the conclusion that među- adjectives were rare in general language. and it was probably never part of it, according to the diachronic information from the Academy’s Dictionary (cf. Matasović et al. 2016: 600). The second mean­ing of the adjective međusoban, ‘mutual’, is the only meaning the adjective has in contemporary Croatian. The adjective was formed according to the [Pref-Pron-Suff]Adj pattern, or more precisely according to the following formula: među- ‘inter-’ + sebe ‘reflexive-possessive pronoun’ + -(a)n ‘suffix’ > međusoban. It is the only adjective in the Academy’s Dictionary (and in the analysed corpora, as will be said infra) that was formed from a pronoun. Thus, the word-formation pattern from which it resulted is an isolated one, and did not have further impact on the formation of Croatian adjectives. It should also be added that the Academy’s Dictionary lists a number of među- pre­fixed nouns1413 Cf. http://hjp.znanje.hr/index.php?show=search_by_id&id=e1tjURM%3D&keyword=me%C4%91usoban. (e.g. međubrđe ‘place between hills’ (< brdo ‘hill’); međuvođe ‘place be­tween waters’ natrijski ‘related to natrium’; laboratorij ‘laboratory’ > laboratorijski ‘related to laboratory’, etc. (Babić 2002: 429). The -ni suffix is used, for example, with bases ending in –st or –št: e.g. čeljust and međupovezan ‘inter­connected’. They are formed via the addition of the prefix među- to a base without the participation of a suffix. These three adjectives account for only 2.2% of all the među- prefixed adjectives in the corpus. 6.5 Semantic Analysis Without entering into details, one can observe that the prefix među- connects with nom­inal bases from various semantic domains to form adjectives, resulting in terms related to administration (e.g. međuopćinski ‘occurring between municipalities’), traffic (e.g. međukontinentalan ‘intercontinental’), zoology (e.g. međutelidbeni ‘(of cows) inter­calving’), finance (e.g. međuvalutni ‘intercurrency’), astronomy (e.g. međugalaktički ‘intergalactic’), politics (e.g. međustranački ‘interparty’), religion (međureligijski ‘in­terreligious’), etc. What interests us more here is prefixal meanings. The prefix među- realizes two types of meanings in the analysed adjectives: concrete and abstract. Its concrete mean­ing is ‘located between two or more (concrete) entities’ (e.g. međustaklen ‘between two glass surfaces’). This is the core or prototype (e.g. Lakoff 1987) meaning that refers to the concrete spatial position of concrete objects. The abstract meanings of the prefix među- in the analysed adjectives are the following: a) ‘between two or more abstract entities’ (e.g. međugeneracijska solidarnost ‘inter­generational solidarity’), and b) ‘between two or more periods of time’ (e.g. međutelidbeno razdoblje ‘intercalv­ing period’). The semantic network that the prefix među- realizes with adjectives can thus be il­lustrated by the following image. ‘located physically between two or more concrete objects’ međuzubni ‘interdental’ ‘between two or more periods of time’ međuratni ‘interwar’ ‘between two or more abstract entities’ međuvjerski ‘interfaith’ Figure 1: Semantic network of the prefix među- in the analysed adjectives. The abstract meaning ‘between two abstract entities’ relies upon the abstract is con­crete metaphor (e.g. Lakoff 1987) on the basis of which we conceptualize more abstract entities through more concrete ones. In examples such as međuvjerski dijalog ‘interfaith dialogue’ or međukulturno razumijevanje ‘intercultural understanding’, for instance, we perceive abstract phenomena such as dialogue and understanding taking place between faiths or cultures as phenomena occurring between two concrete things, thus we express them with the same preposition (među ‘between’) or prepositional prefix među- ‘inter-’. The concrete meaning ‘located physically between two or more concrete objects’ is metaphorically extended into the meaning ‘between two periods in time’ on the basis of the frequent time is space metaphor (e.g. Kövecses 2010). This metaphor enables human beings to conceptualize time phenomena on the basis of concrete, spatial phe­nomena of which they have better understanding. Thus, in examples from hrWaC such as međusezonska kolekcija ‘interseasonal (clothing or shoes) collection’ what happens between two periods of time, i.e. two seasons, is conceptualized as being physically located between two concrete objects. In the conclusion to this part, it must be emphasized that the prefix među- is a poly­semous affix which, when attached to adjectives, realizes three related meanings, both concrete and abstract, the latter of which are based on metaphor. The semantic network of the prefix među- in the analysed adjectives demonstrates that it behaves much like other lexical categories such as nouns and verbs, construing a radial structure with the prototypical sense as the centre of its semantic network (cf. Tyler and Evans 2003: 31). The semantic level of the formation of the analysed adjectives was insisted upon owing to the fact that, according to our understanding, all complex words are motivated both grammatically (or morphologically) and semantically, i.e. that derivational processes cannot be separated from the semantic ones (cf. Booij 2005; Raffaelli 2013).22čeljusni ‘related to jaw’; kazalište ‘theatre’ > kazališni ‘related to theatre’, etc. (Babić 2002: 430). ‘jaw’ > The semantic network of this particular prefix is just an example of the complex relations that exist between word-formation processes and meanings that are created during the derivation of new complex lexemes. Therefore, some authors (e.g. Raffaelli 2018: 153) emphasize that one of the major future tasks of word-formation as a linguis­tic subdiscipline is to systematically study the semantic processes which accompany the formation of complex words. 7 CONCLUDING REMARKS This paper explores Croatian adjectives formed with the prefix među-. While adjectives derived according to the [među-N-Suff]Adj pattern are fairly numerous in contemporary Croatian, according to Babić (2002), the author of the most comprehensive manual of Croatian word-formation, as well as lexicographic sources (the Academy’s Dictionary, Benešić’s dictionary and the VRH) and large digital corpora (hrWaC and HNK), from a diachronic point of view that was not the case as recently as only a hundred years ago. More precisely, both an analysis of older lexicographic works (the Academy’s Diction­ary and Benešić’s dictionary), as well as of digital corpora covering older texts (Riznica and HNK) have showed that in early 20th century među- prefixed adjectives were very rare. Moreover, the Academy’s Dictionary (1904–1910) specifies that almost all such adjectives were hapaxes and calques made according to Latin(ate) or German models. In mid-20th century, the situation was rather similar according to both dictionaries and corpora, and adjectives formed with među- only seem to have become more numerous later in the 20th century. The question is, obviously, why. The Academy’s Dictionary’s explicit claim that all adjectives formed with među- but one, međusoban ‘mutual’, are hapaxes and equivalents of foreign terms is a very important one, because it points to a temporarily conclusion that these are not native Croatian formations. It must be added immediately, however, that there were a number of nouns in the same period that were formed with među-. In other words, it seems that među- used to be an exclusively noun-forming prefix, which was impossible to be used with adjectives before the 19th century. When it comes to the adjective međusoban ‘mutual’, it was demonstrated that it was used with two meanings, the first of which, ‘domestic’, appears in a single 14th century Serbian document, and the second of which, ‘mutual’, which is the meaning it still has in contemporary Croatian, has been reg­istered in texts of Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian authors mostly from the 19th century. In other words, even the adjective međusoban ‘mutual’, as an isolated deriva­tion resulting from a prefix-suffix combination with a pronominal base (i.e. from the reflexive-possessive pronoun se(be)), is a creation dating back to the 19th century, as the rest of među- prefixed adjectives. Apart from the case of the adjective međusoban ‘mutual’, the influence of foreign languages seems to be a key element contributing to the possibility of adjective formation with the prefix među-. While Latin inter- ‘between’ was the earliest language source of Croatian među- prefixed adjective calques, followed by few German words formed with zwischen- ‘inter-’, neither of these languages seemed to provide a large number of new adjectives in Croatian. It was only in late 20th century, which coincided with the advent of English predominance and the spread of its influence on Croatian (Filipović 1990; Muhvić Dimanovski 1992: 94; Samardžija 2002: 72), that the Croatian language saw a large number of new među- prefixed adjectives. It is therefore arguably under English influence that numerous adjectives with među- were formed and then spread in Croa­tian from mid-20th century onwards, reinforcing the derivational pattern [među-N-Suff]Adj which had already existed in the language as a result of early Latin(ate) and German calques. The Etymological Dictionary of the Croatian Language (Matasović et al. 2016)2321 The adjectives međuzavisan and međuovisan are near-synonyms and can be used interchange­ably in most contexts. Cf. http://hjp.znanje.hr/index.php?show=search_by_id&id=e1tjUBQ%3D&keyword=me%C4%91uzavisan. also hints at this. Moreover, Ranko Matasović (p. c.),2422 For a different view on word-formation, see Aronoff (1976) and Scalise (1984) among others. one of the leading experts on the history of the Croatian language and Slavonic languages in general, considers that the pattern has recently become productive in Croatian, and that several decades ago most of među- adjectives could have been formed as calques of English adjectives. A subsequent question would be whether this particular derivational pattern came to be through indirect or direct English influence (cf. Seifart 2015). While the question cannot be answered with certainty, it was probably a case of direct borrowing, or direct calque, as English has been a rather widespread language among Croatian speakers, and the most spoken foreign one, in the last decades. More precisely, due to increas­ingly intensive contacts with English inter- prefixed adjectives, Croatian speakers have probably started to calque them in the domains they needed them to fill in lexical gaps, using the Croatian prefix među- coupled with Croatian nominal bases and a suffix. At some point in time, the derivational pattern [među-N-Suff]Adj could probably have become as “natural” as any other adjective-deriving native Croatian pattern. If this scenario were correct, it would not be a case of the introduction of a new element in the Croatian language, but of a reinforcement of an existing prefix (među-) in a new “sur­rounding”, i.e. with adjectival bases, because the prefix had been used to form complex nouns in the 19th century and even earlier (for instance in a number of toponyms). The analysis of complex među- prefixed adjectives presented in this paper demon­strates that the adjective-forming pattern [među-N-Suff]Adj, which has entered the Croa­tian language as a result of loan translation of Latin(ate) and German terms, and was subsequently probably reinforced through the calquing of English inter- adjectives, is a productive word-formation pattern in contemporary Croatian. More precisely, today it accounts for a number of adjectives belonging to semantically various domains, ac­cording to Croatian word-formation manuals and recent lexicographic works. Moreo­ver, it continues to produce new adjectives, as attested by large web corpora. Not only do these insights illustrate the complex influences foreign languages (such as Latin, German and English) have had on the Croatian word-formation and lexicon, but they also make a contribution, however modest, to the study of morphological borrowing as a phenomenon in general. Primary sources Hrvatski jezični portal (Croatian Language Portal). August 2020. http://hjp.znanje.hr/ HNK (Croatian National Corpus). August 2020. http://filip.ffzg.hr/cgi-bin/run.cgi/first_form?corpname=HNK_v30;align= hrWaC Croatian web corpus. August 2020. http://nlp.ffzg.hr/resources/corpora/hrwac/ Riznica corpus. August 2020. http://riznica.ihjj.hr/ References ARONOFF, Mark (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. BABIĆ, Stjepan (2002) Tvorba riječi u hrvatskome književnome jeziku. 2. izdanje. Za­greb: Nakladni zavod Globus/Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. BALTEIRO, Isabel (2007) The Directionality of Conversion in English: A Dia-syn­chronic Study. Bern: Peter Lang. BOOIJ, Geert E. (2005) The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Linguistic Mor­phology. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. BROZOVIĆ RONČEVIĆ, Dunja/Damir ĆAVAR (2012) “Riznica: The Croatian Lan­guage Corpus.” Prace filologiczne 63, 51–65. BUDMANI, Pero/Tomo MARETIĆ (1904–1910) Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskog jezika. Dio VI. Lekenički – Moračice. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. COGHILL, Eleanor (2015) “Borrowing of verbal derivational morphology between Semitic languages: the case of Arabic verb derivations in Neo-Aramaic.” In: F. Gardani/P. Arkadiev/N. Amiridze (eds), 83–108. DABO-DENEGRI, Ljuba (2007) Hrvatsko-francuski jezični dodiri: s rječnikom galici­zama u hrvatskom standardnom jeziku. Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Globus. DELLA VOLPE, Angela (1997) “Should we ‘re-consider’? A look at the pragmatics of the semantics of re-.” In: R. Hickey/S. Puppel (eds), Language History and Lin­guistic Modelling: A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th birthday. Volume II: Linguistic Modelling. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1653–1665. FILIPOVIĆ, Rudolf (1990) Anglicizmi u hrvatskom ili srpskom jeziku. Zagreb: Jugo­slavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti/Školska knjiga. GARDANI, Francesco/Peter ARKADIEV/Nino AMIRIDZE (2015) “Borrowed mor­phology: an overview.” In: F. Gardani/P. Arkadiev/N. Amiridze, 1–24. GOSTL, Igor (1995) Bogoslav Šulek: otac hrvatskoga znanstvenoga nazivlja. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska. GRANT, Anthony P. (2019) “Contact-Induced Linguistic Change: An Introduction.” In: A. P. Grant (ed), The Oxford Handbook on Language Contact. New York: Ox­ford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199945092.013.1 IACOBINI, Claudio (2020) “Parasynthesis in morphology.” In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.509 JAKOBSON, Roman (1938) “Sur la théorie des affinités phonologiques entre les langues.” In: Actes du quatrieme Congres International de Linguistes, tenu a Copen­hague du 27 aout au 1er septembre 1936. Copenhagen: Einar Munskgaard, 48–59. KOVAČEC, August (1967) “Bilingvizam i aloglotski utjecaji na morfosintaktičku struk­turu jezika (na istrorumunjskom materijalu).” Suvremena lingvistika 4, 101–114. KÖVECSES, Zoltan (2010) “Metaphor, language, and culture.” DELTA: Documen­taçao de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 26, 739–757. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-44502010000300017 LAKOFF, George (1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Re­veal about the Mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. LJUBEŠIĆ, Nikola/ERJAVEC, Tomaž (2011) “hrWaC and slWaC: Compiling Web Corpora for Croatian and Slovene.” In: I. Habernal/V. Matousek (eds), Speech and Dialogue, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 395–402. MARGIĆ DRLJAČA, Branka (2009) “Latentno posuđivanje u hrvatskome i drugim je­zicima – posljedice i otpori.” Rasprave: Časopis Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jeziko­slovlje 35/1, 53–71. https://hrcak.srce.hr/50700 MARTINET, André (1980) Eléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Armand Colin. MATASOVIĆ, Ranko/Tijmen PRONK/Dubravka IVŠIĆ/Dunja BROZOVIĆ RONČEVIĆ (2016) Etimološki rječnik hrvatskoga jezika. 1. svezak. A–Nj. Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje. MEILLET, Antoine (21926) Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: H. Champion. MINAYEVA, Vera (2003) “Russian grammatical interference in Ket.” STUF - Language Typology and Universals 56/1-2, 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2003.56.12.40 MUHVIĆ-DIMANOVSKI, Vesna (1992) “Prevedenice – jedan oblik neologizama.” Rad HAZU 446, 93–205. https://dizbi.hazu.hr/a/?pr=iiif.v.a&id=18809 NIKOLIĆ-HOYT, Anja (2010) “Uz dovršavanje Benešićeva rječnika.” Filologija 55, 61–87. https://hrcak.srce.hr/65800 POPLACK, Shana (2018) Borrowing. Loanwords in the speech community and in the grammar. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. RAFFAELLI, Ida (2013) “The model of morphosemantic patterns in the description of lexical architecture.” Lingue e linguaggio 1, 47–72. RAFFAELLI, Ida (2018) “Kroz leksikologiju i semantiku”. In: P. Košutar/M. Kovačić (eds), Od dvojbe do razdvojbe. Zbornik radova u čast profesorici Branki Tafri. Za­greb: Ibis grafika, 143–159. SAKEL, Jeannette (2007) “Types of loan: matter and pattern.” In: Y. Matras/J. Sakel (eds), Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 15–30. SAMARDŽIJA, Marko (1997) “Utjecaj sociopolitičkih mijena na leksik hrvatskoga jezika u XX. stoljeću.” Croatica 45–46, 177–192. https://hrcak.srce.hr/214731 SAMARDŽIJA, Marko (2002) Nekoć i nedavno. Odabrane teme iz leksikologije i novi­je povijesti hrvatskoga standardnoga jezika. Rijeka: Izdavački centar Rijeka. SCALISE, Sergio (1984) Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: De Gruyter. SEIFART, Frank (2015) “Direct and indirect affix borrowing.” Language 91/3, 511–532. https://doi.org/10.1353/LAN.2015.0044 SERRANO-DOLADER, David (2015) “Parasynthesis in Romance.” In: P. O. Müller/I. Ohnheiser/S. Olsen/F. Rainer. Word formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter, 524–536. SLIŠKOVIĆ, Andrea (2016) “Hrvatski leksikografski vrhovi. Veliki rječnik hrvatsko­ga standardnog jezika.” Fluminensia 28/1, 244–275. https://hrcak.srce.hr/161103 TADIĆ, Marko (2002) “Building the Croatian National Corpus.” In: M. González Rodriguez/C. P. Suarez Araujo (eds), Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation LREC2002, Paris/Las Palmas: ELRA, 441–446. TADIĆ, Marko (2009) “New version of the Croatian National Corpus.” In: D. Hlaváčková/A. Horák/K. Osolsobě/P. Rychlý (eds), After Half a Century of Sla­vonic Natural Language Processing. Brno: Masaryk University, 199–205. THOMASON, Sarah Grey (2001) Language contact: An introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. TRAJDER, Wojciech (2007) “Procédé du calque des nouveaux dérivés préfixaux français en ‘euro-langage’ polonais.” Studia Romanica Posnaniensia 34, 137–150. http://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/srp/article/download/9799/9426 TURK, Marija (2013) Jezično kalkiranje u teoriji i praksi. Prilog lingvistici jezičnih dodira. Zagreb: Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada/Filozofski fakultet u Rijeci. TYLER, Andrea/Vyvyan EVANS (2003) The Semantics of English Prepositions. Spa­tial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. WEINREICH, Uriel (1963). Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York. ZOMBORI, Lajos/Hernik STEINMANN (1999) Handbook of Zoology. Volume IV: Anthropoda/Insecta. Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter. Abstract DEVELOPMENT OF A PRODUCTIVE DERIVATIONAL PATTERN ON THE BASIS OF LOAN TRANSLATION? THE CASE OF CROATIAN ADJECTIVES FORMED WITH THE PREFIX MEĐU- This paper deals with the question of the formation of Croatian adjectives with the prefix među-. While such adjectives were very rare in late 19th and early 20th century, an analysis of relevant lexicographic works and digital corpora demonstrated that their number started to become larger in later 20th century, culminating in recent decades. Today, the [među-N-Suff]Adj derivational pattern is a productive, accounting for 134 adjectives with a frequency of ten occurrences or more retrieved from the largest extant Croatian web corpus, hrWaC. On the basis of an analysis of available older lexico­graphic works and digital corpora, it can be concluded that među- prefixed adjectives first entered into Croatian as loan translations (calques) of Latin(ate) and German terms. According to more recent lexicographic works and digital corpora, later on, and especially in recent decades, which coincided with a growing English influence on Cro­atian, među- prefixed adjectives were probably produced as equivalents of English in­ter- prefixed adjectives. The number of među- prefixed adjectives, as well as the variety of semantic domains in which they are used, testify to the fact that the [među-N-Suff]Adj pattern is well-established and productive in contemporary Croatian. The analysis of Croatian među- prefixed adjectives in this paper could contribute to shedding more light on the question of morphological borrowing phenomena in general. Keywords: derivational pattern, adjective formation, loan translation (calque), Croa­tian, language contact Povzetek RAZVOJ PRODUKTIVNEGA DERIVACIJSKEGA VZORCA NA PODLAGI IZPOSOJENK? PRIMER HRVAŠKIH PRIDEVNIKOV, IZPELJANIH S PREDPONO MEĐU- Prispevek obravnava izpeljavo hrvaških pridevnikov s predpono među-. Medtem ko so bili takšni pridevniki v 19. in 20. stoletju redki, razčlemba sodobnih leksikograf­skih virov in digitalnih korpusov pokaže, da se je njihovo število začelo povečevati v poznem 20. stoletju, sploh pa v zadnjih desetletjih. Danes je torej derivacijski vzorec [među-N-Suff]Adj v hrvaščini produktiven, saj v trenutno največjem hrvaškem spletnem korpusu hrWaC najdemo 134 takšnih pridevnikov s pogostnostjo nad 10. Razčlemba starejših leksikografskih virov in digitalnih korpusov pokaže, da so se pridevniki s predpono među- v hrvaščini najprej pojavili kot izposojenke (kalki) latinskih in nem­ških izrazov. V novejših leksikografskih virih in digitalnih korpusih pa so se kasneje, sploh v zadnjih desetletjih, ko se povečuje vpliv angleščine na hrvaščino, pridevniki z među- verjetno pojavili kot ustreznice angleških pridevnikov s predpono inter-. Število pridevnikov s predpono među- in različna pomenska polja, kjer se uporabljajo, pričajo o dejstvu, da je vzorec [među-N-Suff]Adj v sodobni hrvaščini ustaljen in produktiven. Pričujoča analiza hrvaških pridevnikov s predpono među- prispeva tudi k razumevanju morfološkega izposojanja na splošno. Ključne besede: derivacijski vzorec, izpeljava pridevnikov, izposojenke (kalki), hrva­ščina, jezikovni stik Gergana Popova* UDK 811.163.2'366.593 Goldsmiths, DOI: 10.4312/linguistica.60.1.61-81 University of London, UK Andrew Spencer** University of Essex, UK VOLITIONAL MOOD IN SOUTH SLAVIC WITH A FOCUS ON BULGARIAN: A PARADIGMATIC VIEW 1 INTRODUCTION Most of the South Slavic languages have inflected imperative forms, as well as forms that seem to have the same directive force, but are analytic, rather than synthetic. In ad­dition, there is a range of inflected and analytic forms which can be said to have related meanings, e.g. optative and hortative. We will follow the lead of Ammann and van der Auwera (2004) and use the term ‘volitional mood’ as a cover term for this set of related meanings and forms. Following their suggestion, the term ‘optative’ will be reserved for the expression of wishes, ‘imperative’ will be reserved for second person forms with directive force, and the term ‘hortative’ for appeals to act directed to first or third persons (with a further distinction between co-hortative for first person and ex-hortative for third persons possible). We return to the motivation for these distinctions below. In this paper we investigate the relationship between inflected and analytic vo­litional mood forms, focusing in particular on analytic forms. We will argue that despite their syntactic nature, these forms exhibit some properties typical of paradig­matic organisation, e.g. complex interactions between different morphosyntactic fea­tures. In taking a paradigmatic approach, our paper builds on the review of syntactic volitional mood forms in Ammann and van der Auwera (2004), where they are seen as a features typical of Balkan languages. Here we suggest that analytic and inflected forms occupy the same information space and can be organised into a complex set of form and content paradigms (along the lines of Stump (2016)). We test these forms against the concept of periphrasis discussed in recent work in theoretical linguistics (Sadler/Spencer 2001; Ackerman/Stump 2004; Brown et al. 2012; Spencer/Popova 2015; Bonami 2015; Bonami et al. 2016; among others) and conclude that they ex­hibit some, but not all properties associated with canonical periphrases. In the next section we introduce inflected volitional mood and some analytical constructions in South Slavic, and argue that volitional mood paradigms tend to ‘fracture’, justify­ing the distinction between different sub-categories. Next we turn our attention to a particular analytic construction, the da-form construction, drawing primarily on data from Bulgarian where it is well-developed, and argue that this polyfunctional form does not fill cells in an otherwise inflected paradigm, the way canonical periphrastic constructions do, but shares information space with inflected forms, exhibits non-compositionality and can be understood as a set of forms which are structured in paradigmatic oppositions with each other. We argue that this construction, whose volitional mood interpretation relies on it appearing in a main clause, should be con­strained partially by syntax and partially by morphology. Finally, we sketch what an account along these lines might look like. 2 VOLITIONAL MOOD IN SOUTH SLAVIC South Slavic languages have a set of synthetic inflectional forms with primarily imper­ative meaning, alongside, in most cases, a more or less developed paradigm of analytic forms with imperative, hortative and optative meanings. We provide a brief description of synthetic imperatives below, before turning to the analytic forms. 2.1 Synthetic Imperative/Hortative Forms Like many other languages (for a very useful overview of imperatives see van der Wurff 2007), South Slavic synthetic imperatives have second person forms (singular and plural, also dual where dual verbal forms exist), which are used mostly in main imperative clauses. Inflectionally, these forms are fairly paired back: 2SG forms are equivalent to one of the stems of the verb, 2PL/DU forms add to the stem an ending indicating the respective person/number.123 The dictionary lists only three među- adjectives: međunarodni ‘interational’, which it claims to be a calque of English and French international, međusoban ‘mutual’, derived from među ‘between’ and se ‘oneself’, and međugradski ‘inter-city’, for which it claims that it was formed after the English adjective inter-city (Matasović et al. 2016: 600). In addition, in some of the South Slavic lan­guages, e.g. Slovene and Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS), there is also a synthetic 1PL (and 1DU where appropriate) form, which similarly adds the requisite person/number endings to the verbal stem. In (1) below we give some examples of synthetic inflected imperatives and first person hortatives across the South Slavic languages. (1) Slovene BCS Bulgarian Macedonian 2SG cˇitaj cˇitaj cˇeti cˇitaj 1DU cˇitajva 2DU cˇitajta 1PL cˇitajmo cˇitajmo 2PL cˇitajte cˇitajte cˇetete cˇitajte Although part of the same paradigm, the first person forms have a somewhat differ­ent semantics, in that they express an appeal to do something to a group of addressees that includes the speaker and express an exhortation, rather than a command. As is clear from (1), not all the South Slavic languages have this form, for which Ammann and van der Auwera (2004) reserve the term (co-)hortative. This separation between the second person and first/third person forms is rooted partially in the inherent seman­tic distinctions between appeals to action made directly to an addressee, indirectly to a third person, or to self, possibly as a member of a group. This could, of course, be considered a polysemy, but another motivation for the distinction stems from intra- or inter-linguistic comparisons: different languages have forms that specialise for some, but not all of these meanings and we can find forms specialising for some of these meanings within the same language, as we shall see when we examine the analytic volitional mood forms. We might assume on these grounds that the forms in (1) really express two features: hortative and imperative. The paradigms in (1) appear somewhat circumscribed, since both imperative and hortative cross-categorise with a limited number of the available feature-values in the language: they have limited person forms (there are no third person or 1sg forms in the paradigms shown above) and there are no tense distinctions, even though South Slavic languages have inflected tenses and, in some cases, for instance Bulgarian and Macedo­nian, a number of periphrastic tenses. This is, however, not untypical of imperatives cross-linguistically (see van der Wurff 2007; Goussev 2013; among others). For this reason even in paradigmatic ap­proaches to morphology the paradigms above are considered complete and the impera­tive paradigm is assumed a priori to be limited, for instance to second persons (see the treatment of the imperative in Bulgarian in Stump 2001, for instance). Inflected imperatives do not make tense distinctions and combine with limited person values. In this respect, however, they are fairly typical of this grammatical category (some tense marked imperative forms are noted in van der Wurff 2007, for instance, see also discus­sion of imperative paradigms in Goussev 2013). There are some paradigm cells that could be considered gaps even in such circum­scribed paradigms. Slavic verbs distinguish perfective and imperfective aspect and af­firmative imperative forms are possible with both perfective and imperfective verbs. Negated imperative forms with perfective verbs, however, are either rarer (e.g. in BCS, see Szucsich 2010), or deemed impossible (for instance in Bulgarian). Descriptive grammars often motivate this gap in semantic terms. We return to this gap later. 2.2 Analytic Volitional Mood Constructions Alongside the synthetic imperatives South Slavic languages also have a range of syntac­tic constructions with similar semantics, which in some cases complement and in others appear to be synonymous with the synthetic forms. What follows is not a comprehen­sive description of these constructions across all South Slavic languages. Instead, we will focus on one of the most widespread and productive ones – what we will call the da-verb forms – and will limit our discussion mostly to Bulgarian. Before we turn to our main data, however, we will show that some of the volitional mood constructions appear to support the distinction between different ‘sub-features’ under the label of ‘volitional mood’ put forward in Ammann and van der Auwera (2004). Heterogeneous constructions some of which specialise for particular person-number combinations are not, it would appear, typologically surprising (see van der Auwera et al. 2004, for instance). Volitional mood constructions appear to be numerous, heterogeneous, and grammaticalised to a different degree (on the grammaticalisations of some volitional mood constructions in some Slavic languages see Hansen 2004 and Cˇaka˘rova 2009, for example). There is a tendency, however, for some constructions to be restricted to certain person-number combinations, in other words, some constructions appear to reflect the distinctions between imperative (with second persons) and hortative (with first and/or third persons). For example, according to Herrity (2016), Slovene, which as we saw above has synthetic forms for the imperative and the co-hortative, has analytic constructions which we will refer to as ‘hortative’.224 I would hereby like to thank Ranko Matasović, fellow of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, for having kindly shared his helpful insights regarding the question addressed in this paper. According to Herrity (2016), these Slovene constructions are used to express a wish, desire, necessity, mild command, exhortation or regret on the part of the speaker. They are formed with the particle naj and either (i) 1st or 3rd persons of the present tense (ii) the future of the verb bi´ti ‘be’ or (iii) the third persons of the conditional (we illustrate (i) in 3 with examples from Herrity 2016, glosses added). (3) a. Vse` naj osta´ne, ka`kor je. All let remain.3sg as be.3sg ‘Let everything remain as it is.’ b. Naj strokovnja´ki re´cˇejo, ka`r ho´cˇejo. let experts say.3pl what want.3pl ‘Let the experts say what they want.’ These forms are similar to the Bulgarian forms with the particle neka ‘let’, illus­trated below (neka can optionally be followed by da): (4) a. Neka (da) idem na kino! Let’s da go.1pl to cinema ‘Let’s go to the cinema.’ b. Neka (da) se ugovorjat koga sˇte idem na kino. Let da refl agree.3pl when fut go.1pl to cinema ‘Let them agree a time for us to go to the cinema.’ Although some scholars consider there to be a full paradigm of neka (da) forms, Ivanova and Gradinarova (2015: 56) note that in the contemporary language the second person forms are used very rarely. In BCS, the cognate constructions with neka seem to have specialised even further: Szucsich (2010) reports that in main clauses neka occurs primarily with third person forms. Other person forms seldom occur in main clauses. We give some of his exam­ples (glosses adapted) for the neka construction in BCS in (5). (5) a. Neka pob(ij)edi naobolja ekipa. opt win.prs.3.sg best.f.sg.nom team.f.sg.nom ‘May the best team win.’ b. Neka umrem <…> OPT die.prs.1.sg <…> otišla je drugom. away.went.1lptcp.f.sg be.3.sg other.m.sg.dat ‘Let me die … she went to another one.’ (from a song text) There are also constructions specialising for second persons, or imperatives. For example, in addition to the usual negation of imperatives with ne, there are specialised negated imperatives. In Bulgarian these are constructions with the special negative nedej/nedejte, historically (negated) imperative forms of the verb dejati ‘do’ and a da-form of the verb (or, less frequently, a remnant of the infinitive, which has practically disappeared from the language). The constructions with da-forms are illustrated below: (6) a. Nedej da xodisˇ na kino! not.do.2sg da go.2sg to cinema ‘Don’t go (sg) to the cinema!’ b. Nedejte da xodite na kino! not.do.2pl da go.2pl to cinema ‘Don’t go (pl) to the cinema!’ There are cognate negative imperative forms in other Slavic languages, see e.g. nemoj/nemojte constructions in BCS (Hansen 2004). In contrast to these analytic constructions, which seem to have specialised or be specialising for particular persons-numbers, the constructions we will discuss in more detail, the da-form constructions, have forms for all person-number combinations. Though formally similar, in terms of meaning they can be organised around some of the different sub-features of the volitional mood. We turn to da-forms next. 3 DA-FORM VOLITIONAL MOOD CONSTRUCTIONS Da-form constructions comprise the particle da and a verb inflected for tense and agreement features. The verb can be in some, though not all, of the tenses available in the language. The particle/marker da is present throughout South Slavic. In Bulgar­ian, as in the other languages where it is found, it is polyfunctional and as a conse­quence its status is disputed and it has variably been considered a mood particle, or a complementiser; da-form constructions are also seen as a replacement of the infini­tive, which some Slavic languages have (nearly) lost (a very useful overview can be found in Pitsch 2018). Pitsch (2018) summarises the arguments in favour of consid­ering da a modal particle: unlike typical complementisers, da is strictly adjacent to the verb and can be separated from it only by clitics (like the negative particle ne, da behaves as a clitic which can head the clitic cluster); in addition, da can co-occur with undisputed complementisers like če ‘that’, but not with other modal particles like bix (conditional mood particle) and šte (the future tense particle). In the remainder of this paper we will adopt this position and will treat da as a verbal/modal particle. The modality associated with da in most of its uses comes from its tendency to appear in irrealis contexts. Certain da-forms are traditionally included in grammatical descriptions of Bulgar­ian (e.g. Nicolova 2008 and references therein) as alternative or complementary to the inflected imperative forms see (7), in other words, these forms have volitional mood meanings. We illustrate the basic constructions with the perfective verb kupja ‘buy’, but da- constructions can be used with both perfective and imperfective verbs. (7) da+present tense da+present perfect da+past perfect da+imperfect 1sg da kupja da săm kupil/a/o da bjax kupil/a/o da kupex 2sg da kupisˇ da si kupil/a/o da besˇe kupil/a/o da kupeše 3sg da kupi da e kupil/a/o da besˇe kupil/a/o da kupeše 1pl da kupim da sme kupili da bjaxme kupili da kupexme 2pl da kupite da ste kupili da bjaxte kupili da kupexte 3pl da kupjat da sa kupili da bjaxa kupili da kupexa Volitional mood meanings for the da-forms illustrated above are available when they are used in main clauses, compare (8) with (9). The phenomenon is described and discussed as a possible Balkanism in Ammann and van der Auwera (2004). Some ex­amples of the uses of such main clause da-constructions are given in (8). (8) a. Da kupisˇ xljab! da buy.2sg.prs bread ‘Buy bread!’ b. Da imasˇ mnogo kăsmet! da have.2sg.prs much luck ‘May you have a lot of luck!’ c. Do utre da sme kupili xljab! by tomorrow da be.3pl buy.lptcp.pl bread ‘We must have bought bread by tomorrow/Let’s buy bread by tomorrow.’ d. Ex, da bjax kupila xljab! ah da be.imperf.1sg buy.lptcp.3sg.f bread ‘I wish I had bought bread.’ e. Ex, da imax sega mnogo pari! ah da have.imperf.1sg now much money ‘If only I had a lot of money!’ The same da-forms are found in subordinate clauses, indeed the typical uses of da-forms, usually considered analogues of subjunctives and/or infinitives, are in subordi­nate clauses. The da-forms with present tense verb are the most extensively discussed in the literature and seem to have the widest range of uses. We illustrate some of this range in (9), where subordinate da-clauses are used as complements of control verbs (9a, b, c), purpose clauses (9d), as well as subject clauses (9e) and nominal comple­ments (9f). (9) a. Naredix da kupisˇ xljab. order.1sg.pst da buy.prs.2sg bread. ‘I ordered (you) to buy bread.’ b. Naredix Ivan da kupi xljab. order.1sg.pst Ivan da buy.prs.3sg bread. ‘I ordered Ivan to buy bread.’ c. Togava sˇte zapocˇnesˇ da peesˇ. then fut start.2sg da sing.prs.2sg ‘Then (you) will start singing.’ d. Zaminax da ucˇa v cˇuzˇbina. depart.aor.1sg da study.prs.1sg in abroad ‘I left to study abroad.’ e. Da kupisˇ xljab e neobxodimo. da buy.prs.3sg bread is.3sg necessary ‘(For you) to buy bread is necessary. (It is necessary for you to buy bread.)’ f. Tja ima namerenie da ucˇi v cˇuzˇbina. she has intention da study.prs.3sg in abroad ‘She has the intention to study abroad.’ Da-forms with other tenses are also possible in subordinate clauses. Da-forms with the perfect tense are used in irrealis future-perfect contexts (10), whereas da-forms with the imperfect and past perfect are found in the protasis of conditional sen­tences with past semantics (11), and in other subordinate clauses with counterfactual meaning (12). (10) Nadjavam se do dovečera hope.prs.1sg refl by tonight da ste kupili xljab. DA be.prs.3sg buy.lptcp.pl bread ‘I hope that by tonight you will have bought bread.’ (11) a. Da bjaxte stojali na opasˇki pred da be.imperf stand.lptcp on queues in-front-of izbiratelnite urni, sega sˇtjaxte da bădete evropejci. ballot.def boxes now want.imperf da be.3pl Europeans ‘Had you queued in front of the ballot boxes, you would have been Euro­peans now.’ b. Dori da imaxme obxvat, ne bixme even da have.imperf.1pl coverage not be.cond.1pl mogli da pomognem koj znae kolko. be.able da help.prs.1pl who knows how.much ‘Even if we had coverage, we wouldn’t be able to help much.’ (12) Knigata, kojato iskate roditelite vi book.def which want.prs.2pl parents.def your.cl da bjaxa procˇeli, veče e na pazara. da be.imperf.2pl read.lptcp.pl already is.prs.3sg on market.def ‘The book you wish your parents had read is already on the market.’ Da-forms in main clauses are not exclusive to Bulgarian, they occur in South Slavic more generally. We list some examples below, though given the rather complex nature of the phenomenon, we don’t undertake a detailed comparison. For BCS, Alexander (2006: 249–250) points out that a da-clause that stands alone can communicate a wish, desire or request. We provide some of her examples in (13), with added glosses. Independent da-clauses seem to be possible with both present and past tense, with past tenses they are said to express a veiled threat. (13) a. Da vas upoznam. da you.pl introduce.prs.1sg ‘Let me introduce you.’ b. Da se nagodimo. da refl agree.prs.1pl ‘Let’s make a deal.’ c. Samo da daska ne pukne! only da board not break.prs.3sg ‘If only the board doesn’t break! (I hope that the board won’t break!)’ d. Da to visˇe nikad nisi ucˇinio! da that more never not.be.2sg do.ptcp ‘Don’t you ever do that again!’ Uses of da-clauses with volitional meanings in BCS are described also in Szucsich (2010). A comparison between da and neka highlights the propensity of da to appear in irrealis contexts. Uses of da with the subjunctive are also recorded. We give some of Szucsich’s (2010: 400ff.) examples (with adapted glosses) in (14). (14) a. Samo da bi dosˇao! only that sbjv.3sg come.lptcp.m.sg ‘If only he came!’ b. Da si samo brzˇe vozio! that be.2sg only faster drive.lptcp.m.sg ‘If only you had gone faster!’ c. Da ste odmah isˇli u prodav(ao)nicu! that be.2.pl immediately go.lptcp.m.pl in store.f.sg.acc ‘Immediately, go to the store!’ In Macedonian, Mišeska Tomić (2012: 374–375) notes the use of a da-form with a perfective imperfect verb to express a missed opportunity, her example is reproduced in (15) (glosses adapted). (15) a. Da dojdea! da come.3pl.pfv.imperf ‘They (were invited and) should have come! (They shouldn’t blame any­body for not coming.)’ b. Da go zemesˇe! da 3sg.m.acc.cl take.2/3sg.pfv.imperf ‘You/(s)he should have taken it! (Now you/(s)he cannot blame anyone for not taking it.)’ The phenomenon of volitional mood main clause constructions appears to be an example of what Evans (2007) calls ‘insubordination’, the use of typical subordinate clauses as main clauses, sometimes with conventionalised semantics. In the case of the South Slavic constructions this conventionalisation of insubordination is expressed in the association of da-form main clause uses with volitional mood semantics. As a result, these da-form uses are semantically non-compositional, in other words, the imperative meaning associated with da kupisˇ (xljab) ‘to buy bread’ comes precisely from the use of the construction in a main clause, rather than from the meaning of any of its components, which can appear in different syntactic contexts with different interpretations. 3.1 The Content Paradigm of Analytic Volitional Mood Constructions In a number of ways volitional mood da-forms are similar to other analytic forms that have been considered periphrastic, i.e. syntactic forms that bear similarities to inflected word-forms, discussed recently in a score of studies (e.g. Sadler and Spencer 2001; Ackerman/Stump 2004; Brown et al. 2012; Bonami/Webelhuth 2013; Bonami 2015; Spencer/Popova 2015; Bonami et al. 2016; among others). The most clear-cut defini­tional property for periphrasis is paradigm intersection: the case where a syntactic con­struction occupies a cell in an otherwise inflected paradigm. We will discuss a putative case of paradigm intersection between the inflected imperative and the analytic da-vo­litional forms below, but will conclude that although there are complex interactions be­tween the inflected and the syntactic paradigm, it is difficult to claim a straightforward case of paradigm intersection. However, there is another property – (morphosyntac­tic) non-compositionality – that has been put forward as definitional for periphrasis in Ackerman and Stump (2004), for instance, see also discussion in Brown et al. (2012). As we saw before, da-form volitional constructions are non-compositional. We will therefore treat them as periphrastic, i.e. as forms that are, on some sense, equivalent to inflected forms of lexemes, which can be seen as part of the paradigm of these lexemes and which can, at least in part, be regulated by the morphology. We will sketch below what form this interaction could take. The da-clauses are polyfunctional in much the same way that inflected word forms can be polyfunctional, a situation described in morphology as syncretism. For instance, the -ing form of an English verb is ambiguous between four or five separate uses, as the progressive aspect converb (Mary is singing), an adjectival, participial form (the girl singing the song last night), a gerund or adverbial usage (Singing loudly, Mary walked on stage) and perhaps two distinct types of nominalization (We didn’t expect you singing so loudly; Your singing is loud). In the inferential-realizational morpholog­ical model advocated in Stump (2016), for instance, such syncretisms are handled by setting up two types of paradigm for an inflecting lexeme, content paradigms and form paradigms. The content paradigm is defined over the set of morphosyntactic properties accessible to syntax and semantics. In the case of English verbs this would include the features defining the four or five uses just illustrated (say, [ASPECT: prog], [PTCP: prs] and so on). The feature value pairs would thus define four or five distinct cells in the content paradigm of the lexeme sing. The form paradigm, on the other hand would be much simpler and would include just one cell corresponding to the four of five cells of the content paradigm: [Vform: ing]. In Stump’s model the content and form paradigms are related through Paradigm Linkage, mediated by a function which in the present case would map each of the content paradigm cells realizing [ASPECT: prog], [PTCP: prs] etc. to the single form paradigm cell [Vform: ing]. We propose that, similar to the synthetic imperatives, Bulgarian da-forms in (7) can be interpreted as a form paradigm. It maps from content paradigms in complex ways. Using available descriptions of these forms, below we sketch a possible content-para­digmatic organisation of these constructions, based on the distinctions we introduced earlier. Some da-forms can be used as synonyms of the synthetic imperative – closest in meaning are the second person forms with the present tense. We illustrated with (8a) for the second singular, repeated here. (8) a. [repeated] Da kupisˇ xljab! da buy.2sg.prs.pfv bread ‘Buy bread!’ In paradigmatic terms, forms like (8a) and the analogous 2PL constructions cre­ate an over-abundance in the system. However, the da-construction forms, unlike the synthetic imperatives, cross-categorise with all person-numbers and also interact with tense, as the labels we have been using and the examples in (7) suggest. These are, how­ever, what might be called non-cumulative paradigms, in other words, the present tense da-forms are not simply forms in which the semantics of the present tense is added to some other semantics marked elsewhere in the construction. On the contrary, the tense semantics is neutralised (similar to the synthetic imperatives, the present tense forms have futurate interpretation) Since these forms are very close in meaning to the syn­thetic imperative, we will call them ‘unmarked’. It should be noted, however, that the present tense 2sg and 2pl da-forms are less formal and have stronger pragmatic force than their synthetic counterparts (see Nicolova 2008 for details). The present tense da-forms can also be used as hortative 1pl3* g.popova@gold.ac.uk (see 16) and third person forms (see 17). (16) Da kupim xljab! da buy.1pl bread ‘Let’s buy bread.’ (17) a. Deteto da večerja! child.def da eat.dinner.3sg ‘The child should have dinner.’ b. Decata da večerjat! children.def da eat.dinner.3pl ‘The children should have dinner.’ The perfect tense da-forms can be used as commands/exhortations which reference an action that should be completed by some future point in time (compare 18a with 18b). (18) a. Do dovecˇera da si kupil xljab! by tonight da be.2sg buy.lptcp.m bread ‘(You) should have bought bread by tonight.’ b. Do dovecˇera sˇte si kupil xljab. by tonight fut be.2sg buy.lptcp.m bread ‘(You) will have bought bread by tonight.’ The use of the 1pl and third person perfect tense da-forms is similar. Thus, the im­perative-hortative paradigm of da-forms has two cells: an ‘unmarked’ one (the present tense da-forms) and a ‘future perfect’ one (perfect tense da-forms). The present tense da-forms can be used also for wishes and curses, i.e. to express the optative mood in the terminology of Ammann and van der Auwera (2004). One set of optative mood forms is syncretic to the unmarked imperative/hortative, i.e. these are the present tense da-forms. In (19) we illustrate with the wish ‘may (I/you/she/he/it/etc.) be healthy’: (19) SG PL 1 da băda zdrav/a/o da bădem zdravi 2 da bădeš zdrav/a/o da bădete zdravi 3 da băde zdrav/a/o da bădat zdravi This use is available to synthetic volitional mood forms as well, but only with the second person (20). (20) SG PL 2 bădi zdrav/a/o bădete zdrav/a/o The optative can be expressed also by da-forms with imperfect or past perfect in main clauses. These forms are interpreted as counterfactual wishes, see (21). In other words, this part of the paradigm also has two cells: unmarked optative and counterfac­tual optatives. (21) a. Ex, da bjaxme kato Estonia! Ah, da be.imperf.1pl like Estonia ‘If only we were like Estonia!’ b. Ex, da imax pari! Ah, da have.imperf.1sg money ‘If only I had money!’ or ‘I wish I had money!’ c. Pone lipite da bjaxa pozˇalili! at.least linden.trees da be.imperf take.pity.lptcp.pl ‘(I wish) they had at least spared the linden trees!’ d. Da bjaxa kupili xljab! da be.imperf.3pl buy.lptcp.pl bread ‘I wish they had bought bread!’ e. Da bjaxa imali kăsmet da idat na more! da be.imperf.3pl have.lptcp.pl luck da go to sea ‘I wish they had the luck to go to the seaside.’ To sum up, what we find in Bulgarian is a set of da-forms with verbs in the pre­sent, perfect, past perfect and imperfect tenses, which map onto functions in a complex way. They partially overlap with synthetic imperative forms, but their own paradigm is fuller. In some cases the da-forms have meanings very similar to the meaning of the inflected imperative, but as there are stylistic differences between them, we will consider them almost synonymous forms that nonetheless belong to two separate, if semantically related paradigms. There is one set of forms that could be seen to fill in a gap in the inflected para­digm, and these are the negated perfective da-forms. Inflected imperative forms, just like da-forms, are negated with the default negator ne. In some South Slavic languages (Slovene, for instance) negated inflected imperatives are possible with both imper­fective and with perfective verbs. Negated imperatives with perfective verbs have a slightly different semantics, sometimes denoted with the term preventative – for warn­ings, or when the speaker wishes to draw attention to the unwanted consequences of a particular action. We illustrate with a Slovene example from Herrity (2016) in (22), glosses added. (22) Ne odpri` vra´t za nobe^no ce´no not open.imp.2sg.pfv door for no price ‘Do not open the door on any account.’ In Bulgarian synthetic imperatives are disallowed with perfective verbs when ne­gated. With volitional da-forms, on the other hand, there is no such restriction. When perfective da-forms with imperative function are negated, they also function as a pre­ventative imperative, i.e. they are appropriate in those cases where a speaker considers an event to be undesirable and urges the listener to take action to prevent that event from happening (Academy Grammar, vol. 3, 68, see examples in 23). (23) a. Da ne padnesˇ! da not fall.2sg ‘(be careful) Don’t fall!’ b. Da ne nastinete! da not catch.cold.2pl ‘(be careful) Don’t catch a cold!’ Although in Bulgarian the da-forms have taken on a function which is performed by the inflected imperative in other languages, it is difficult to consider this a gap in the paradigm because of the ‘fractured’ nature of the volitional mood paradigms, that is, the propensity of different person-number combinations in this paradigm to assume a different meaning, i.e. the propensity of the form paradigms to ‘fracture’ into a number of separate paradigms. Although we will consider the inflectional and the syntactic paradigm independent of each other, we will suggest below that we can still make use of the fact that they occupy a similar information space to block inflected negated im­peratives with perfective verbs in Bulgarian.4** spena@essex.ac.uk 4 ACCOUNTING FOR ANALYTIC VOLITIONAL MOOD CONSTRUC­TIONS: A SKETCH OF A PROPOSAL In the previous sections we argued that da-form constructions, when used in main clauses, play a role in the language which is very similar to that of inflected impera­tive forms. Volitional mood da-form constructions can also be seen as a paradigm, which depends on the cross-categorisation of mood and tense features. At the same time da-form constructions are similar syntactically to da-forms used in subordinate clauses. Here we propose that this complex behaviour calls for an account in which the properties of these constructions are constrained partially by the syntax and partially by the morphology. Our account is thus similar to the account we have proposed for periphrastic constructions in other work. What da-forms show even more clearly than more canonical periphrases is that grammatical analytic constructions share properties with other syntactic constructions in the language, while at the same time expressing information which elsewhere can be expressed by indisputably inflected forms (a point made as early as the seminal Ackerman/Webelhuth 1998). The analysis sketched below is based on the assumptions of a paradigm-based approach to morphology along the lines of Paradigm Function Morphology (PFM) (Stump 2001, and later updates of the framework as in Stump 2016, see also Bonami/Stump 2016), on the one hand, and lexicalist syntactic frameworks like Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) (Pollard/Sag 1994, especially HPSG approaches that integrate constructions Ginzburg/Sag 2000). PFM is an inferential-realizational framework in which the phonological form of an inflected word-form is inferred from the information associated with the cell in the paradigm of that form. HPSG approaches like those in Sag (1997) and Ginzburg and Sag (2000), on the other hand, assume that the grammar contains descriptions of phrasal signs arranged in a default inheritance hierarchy, much like descriptions of words can be. This allows phrasal signs to share properties or be more or less specific than each other. Some constraints over phrases are default constraints and can be overridden when stated over more specific constructions. We will assume that da-forms are constructions in this sense, i.e. they are phrasal signs, partially constrained by their descriptions in the grammar. In some constructional approaches within HPSG certain constraints are specified to be default constraints, i.e. they can be overridden in specific constructions. This is the case with the Head-Feature Principle, which says that the HEAD features of a phrasal sign with a head-daughter and a complement daughter would be inherited from the head-daughter. In what follows we assume that HEAD features are not necessarily passed on to the phrase level by the head-daughter, where a phrasal description or some other constraints says otherwise. As we said earlier, we assume that da is a modal particle and we account for it as a raising verb, much like the account of English infinitival to in Sag et al. (2003), for instance. We show the properties of a subordinate da-construction in Figure 1. For simplicity, we focus on constructions with present tense verbs. This construction has a head daughter (HD-DTR) – da itself – and one other daugh­ter on its daughters list (DTRS) – the lexical verb. The description of this construction specifies that the lexical verb should be in the present tense, and that its agreement and aspectual values are shared with the construction as a whole (this sharing is indicated by numbered tags like 4 ). The construction itself is specified to have VFORM daform, to allow it to be subcategorized for by verbs that require da-forms as their complements. In this construction, the present tense is not passed on to the level of the construc­tion. This reflects the observation that in at least some da-form constructions the pre­sent tense is pleonastic (see discussion in Pitsch 2018). The subject s on the list of arguments of the lexical verb daughter is also the subject of the HD-DTR. The con­struction as a whole inherits its lexemic identity (LID) from the lexical verb. An impor­tant specification on the level of the construction is the negative value for the feature I(indepedent) C(lause) (a similar feature is used in Ginzburg/Sag 2000). This ensures that this construction cannot be used as a main clause. Volitional mood da-form constructions are very similar to subordinate construc­tions. The information they express, however, is partially specified by the morphology. In some formalisations of PFM-style approaches word-forms are constrained by impli­cational statements whose antecedent mentions relevant morphosyntactic properties of signs and whose consequent states properties of words that can express these morpho­syntactic properties (see Crysmann/Bonami 2016). Such implicational statements are in Paninian competition – those with a more specific set of morphosyntactic properties in the antecedent ‘win out’, i.e. pre-empt the application of implicational statements with more general antecedents. The paradigm cells of the analytic volitional mood constructions include the specification VFORM da-form alongside features associated with the mood they express, for example [MOOD: imp]. This feature would appear in the relevant antecedents and ensure that the syntactic paradigms don’t directly compete with the inflected imperative paradigm. The imperative main clause syntactic construc­tions, for instance, can be subject to the constraints in (25). (25) This constraint specifies that the cell in the paradigm that includes the features [MOOD imp] and [VFORM daform] is realised by a sub-type of da-constructions which has as part of its head-features the specification [MOOD imp], [VFORM da­form] and a positive value for the feature IC, in other words, this construction has to appear in a main clause. A fuller description of the construction is given in Figure 2. Figure 2: The main-clause imperative da-construction And finally, we can capitalise on the fact that there are no negated inflected impera­tives with perfective verbs, we could assume the constraint in (26), which gives as the realisation of the respective paradigm cell the da-form construction, rather than an inflected verb. (26) 5 CONCLUSION As the preceding discussion suggests, the volitional mood paradigm is ‘fractured’: we find somewhat different, but related, meanings for specific cells in the paradigm. This makes it difficult to claim that a volitional mood paradigm is ‘deficient’, since such deficiency is not exceptional: the imperative hierarchy formulated in van der Auwera et al. (2004), for instance, predicts that cross-linguistically different person-number combinations may be associated with different forms, or indeed, with no forms at all. Thus, in South Slavic we find a somewhat sparse but typical inflected paradigm. How­ever, in some languages, for example Bulgarian, the volitional mood is also associated with a rather rich range of analytic forms. We focused on one set of such forms, the constructions with the modal particle da. We claimed that these form a syntactic para­digm, part of the volitional mood category. Given the non-compositionality of this construction, the fact that it shares properties with other constructions in the language and that it shares information space with the inflected imperatives we suggested that it should be constrained jointly by the morphology and by the syntax and outlined a tentative analysis. References Academy Grammar, vol. 3 (1983) Gramatika na săvremenniia bălgarski knizˇoven ezik. Sintaksis. Sofia: Izdatelsto na Bălgarskata akademija na naukite. ACKERMAN, Farrell/Gregory STUMP (2004) “Paradigms and periphrastic expres­sions.” In: L. Sadler/A. Spencer (eds), Projecting morphology. Stanford Studies in Morphology and the Lexicon. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications, 111–157. ACKERMAN, Farrell/Gert WEBELHUTH (1998) A theory of predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. ALEXANDER, Ronelle (2006) Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian: A grammar with sociolin­guistic commentary. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. AMMANN, Andreas/Johan VAN DER AUWERA (2004) Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods in the languages of South- Eastern Europe: A Balkanism? In: O. Misˇeska Tomic´ (ed.), Balkan syntax and semantics, vol. 67 Lin­gustik Aktuell/Linguistics Today. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub­lishing Company, 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.67 BONAMI, Olivier (2015) “Periphrasis as collocation.” Morphology 25/1, 63–110. htt­ps://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-015-9254-3 BONAMI, Olivier/Robert D. BORSLEY/Maggie TALLERMAN (2016) “On pseudo-non-finite clauses in Welsh.” In: D. Arnold/M. Butt/B. Crysmann/T. Holloway King/S. Mu¨ller (eds), Proceedings of the joint 2016 conference on Head-driven Phrase Struc­ture Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar. Polish Academy of Sciences, War­saw, Poland. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 104–124. BONAMI, Olivier/Gregory STUMP (2016) “Paradigm function morphology.” In: A. Hippisley/G. Stump (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge Uni­versity Press, 449–481. BONAMI, Olivier/Gert WEBELHUTH (2013) “The phrase-structural diversity of pe­riphrasis: a lexicalist account.” In: M. Chumakina/G. Corbett (eds), Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 141–167. BROWN, Dunstan/Marina CHUMAKINA/Greville CORBETT/Gergana POPOVA/Andrew SPENCER (2012) “Defining ‘periphrasis’: key notions.” Morphology 22, 233–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-012-9201-5 CˇAKĂROVA, Krasimira. 2009. Imperativa˘t v sa˘vremennija ba˘lgarski ezik. Plovdiv: Izdatelstvo “Pigmalion”. CRYSMANN, Berthold/Olivier BONAMI (2016) “Variable morphotactics in Infor­mation-based Morphology.” Journal of Linguistics 52/2, 311–374. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226715000018 EVANS, Nicholas (2007) “Insubordination and its uses.” In: I. Nikolaeva (ed.), Finite­ness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press. GINZBURG, Jonathan/Ivan A. SAG (2000) Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning and use of English interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. GOUSSEV, V. Ju. (2013) Tipologija imperativa. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury. HANSEN, Bjo¨rn (2004) “The grammaticalization of the analytical imperatives in Rus­sian, Polish and Serbian/Croatian.” Die Welt der Slaven XLIX/2, 257–274. HERRITY, Peter (2016) Slovene: A comprehensive grammar. London and New York: Routledge. IVANOVA, E. Ju./A. A. GRADINAROVA (2015) Sintaksicˇeskaja sistema bolgarskogo jazyka na fone russkogo. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury. KUEHNAST, Milena (2008) “Aspectual coercion in Bulgarian negative imperatives.” In: W. Abraham/E. Leiss (eds) Modality-Aspect interfaces: Implications and typo­logical solutions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 175–196. MIŠESKA TOMIĆ, Olga (2012) A grammar of Macedonian. Bloomington, In.: Slav­ica Publishers. NICOLOVA, Ruselina (2008) Bălgarska gramatika: Morfologija. Sofija: Universitet­sko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Oxridski”. PITSCH, Hagen (2018) “Bulgarian moods.” Journal of Slavic Linguistics 26/1, 55–100. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsl.2018.0003 POLLARD, Carl/Ivan A. SAG (1994) Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chi­cago: University of Chicago Press. SADLER, Louisa/Andrew SPENCER (2001) “Syntax as an exponent of morphological features.” In: G. Booij/J. van Marle (eds) Yearbook of morphology 2000. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 71–96. SAG, Ivan A. (1997) “English relative clause constructions.” Journal of Linguistics 33, 431–484. SAG, Ivan A./Thomas WASOW/Emily M. BENDER (2003) Syntactic theory: A for­mal introduction, 2nd edn. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. SPENCER, Andrew/Gergana POPOVA (2015) “Periphrasis and inflection.” In: The Oxford Handbook of Inflection. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 197–230. STUMP, Gregory (2001) Paradigm Function Morphology. A theory of inflectional form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. STUMP, Gregory (2016) Inflectional Paradigms: Content and form at the syntax-mor­phology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SZUCSICH, Luka (2010) “Mood in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian.” In: B. Rothstein/R. Thieroff (eds) Mood in the Languages of Europe, vol. 120 Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 394–408. VAN DER AUWERA, Johan/Nina DOBRUSHINA/Valentin GOUSSEV (2004) “A se­mantic map for imperative-hortatives.” In: D. Willems/B. Defrancq/T. Colleman/D. Noe¨l (eds), Contrastive Analysis in Language: Identifying linguistic units of com­parison. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 44–66. VAN DER WURFF, Wim (2007) “Imperative clauses in generative grammar. An intro­duction.” In: W. van der Wurff (ed.), Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar: Studies in honour of Frits Beukema. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 1–94. Abstract VOLITIONAL MOOD IN SOUTH SLAVIC WITH A FOCUS ON BULGARIAN: A PARADIGMATIC VIEW In this paper, we survey some of the inflected and periphrastic volitional mood para­digms in South Slavic with a focus on Bulgarian data. Our review confirms typologi­cal observations in the literature that volitional mood paradigms tend to ‘fracture’, in that the cross-categorisation with different person/number features leads to systematic associations with different meanings and, typologically, frequent associations with dif­ferent forms. This makes it difficult to argue that non-existent inflected forms are gaps in the inflected paradigm. Because of this periphrastic volitional mood forms that exist alongside inflected forms have to be seen as independent (syntactic) paradigms, rather than forms that fill missing cells in inflected paradigms, i.e. the product of feature in­tersection. Like more canonical periphrases, however, syntactic volitional mood forms are non-compositional and exhibit an organisation akin to the content-form paradigm organisation of inflected paradigms developed in certain inferential-realizational ap­proaches to morphology. Following some recent formalisations, we suggest a tentative analysis of the most productive periphrastic volitional mood forms in Bulgarian based on the assumption that their properties are constrained partially by the morphology and partially in the syntax. Keywords: Bulgarian, Slavic, volitional mood, periphrasis Povzetek VELELNI NAKLON V JUŽNOSLOVANSKIH JEZIKIH S POUDARKOM NA BOLGARŠČINI: PARADIGMATSKI POGLED Prispevek obravnava pregibne in sestavljene paradigme velelnega naklona v juž­noslovanskih jezikih s poudarkom na podatkih iz bolgarščine. Pregled literature potrdi tipološka opažanja o 'lomljenju' paradigem velelnega naklona, saj se navzkrižna kate­gorizacija oznak osebe/števila sistematično povezuje z različnimi pomeni in, s tipolo­škega vidika, pogosto tudi z različnimi oblikami. Zato težko trdimo, da neobstoječe pregibne oblike predstavljajo vrzeli v pregibni paradigmi. Sestavljene oblike velelnega naklona, ki obstajajo ob pregibnih, torej razumemo kot samostojne (skladenjske) para­digme, in ne kot oblike, ki zapolnijo prazna mesta v pregibnih paradigmah, tj. rezultat križanja oznak. Kot bolj kanonične sestavljene oblike pa so skladenjske oblike velelne­ga naklona nekompozicijske in izkazujejo organizacijo, ki je podobna tisti v paradigmi vsebina-oblika pri pregibnih paradigmah, kot jih poznajo v nekaterih inferenčno-reali­zacijskih pristopih k morfologiji. V prispevku sledimo novejšim formalnim pristopom in predlagamo razčlembo najbolj produktivnih sestavljenih oblik velelnega naklona v bolgarščini, ki privzema, da so lastnosti teh oblik omejene tako oblikoslovno kot skladenjsko. Ključne besede: bolgarščina, slovanski jeziki, velelni naklon, sestavljene oblike Marko Simonović* UDK 811.163.6'367.622:81'373.611 University of Graz/ DOI: 10.4312/linguistica.60.1.83-102 University of Nova Gorica, Austria/Slovenia Petra Mišmaš** University of Nova Gorica/ University of Graz, Slovenia/Austria .ov IS IN THE AIR: THE EXTREME MULTIFUNCTIONALITY OF THE SLOVENIAN AFFIX OV11 We use the following abbreviations 1/2/3 first/second/third person, acc accusative, aor aorist, cl clitic, dat dative, def definite, du dual, f feminine, fut future, imp imperative, imperf imperfect, lptcp l-participle, m masculine, nom nominative, opt optative, perf perfect, pfv perfective, pl plural, prog progressive, prs present, pst past, ptcp participle, refl reflexive, sbjv subjunctive, sg singular. 1 INTRODUCTION One of the classical features of Distributed Morphology (Halle/Marantz 1993, 1994) is the assumption that derivational affixes correspond to categorial heads (n, v, a). However, several recent proposals within Distributed Morphology (Lowenstamm 2014; Nevins 2015; Creemers et al. 2017) argue that (either some or all) derivational affixes should be analyzed as roots. As core evidence, these authors discuss affixes which are promiscuous both in terms of what categories they select and what cat­egories they can realize (or, be selected by, if they are viewed as roots). We observe that such promiscuous affixes discussed in the literature have either highly abstract or highly unpredictable meaning, potentially pointing in the direction of no stored meaning at all. Working in a related approach, Simonović and Arsenijević (2020) argue that certain affixes in Serbo-Croatian function either as inflectional or as deri­vational, deriving either passive participles or adjectives. Importantly, in this case as well, once the categorial content is removed, the affix/root appears rather light in terms of its semantic content. Testing the limits of the unification of affixes which appear both in inflection and derivation and with different categorial embeddings, we focus on the Slovenian affix ov, which can be found in nouns, adjectives and verbs. Based on this distribu­tion, one could at first sight take these occurrences of ov as several different af­fixes which coincidentally have the same phonological form. However, considering the semantic contribution of ov as well as its prosodic effects, we will argue for a single, extremely multifunctional ov. As a result, we will provide a comprehensive analysis of the morpheme ov in Slovenian and give further support for the unifica­tion approach of affixes proposed in the literature. Furthermore, in dealing with the specific contexts where ov appears, we further elaborate the model initially proposed by Lowenstamm (2014), by answering the question what entry or entries for ov the Encyclopedia needs to contain. In what follows, we first give an overview of the account which treats affixes as roots in section 2. Then section 3 focuses on the morpheme ov in contexts which would be traditionally classified as derivational: derived verbs, possessive and kind adjectives and adjectives with the affix ov(e)n. Section 4 focuses on ov in nominal declensions. Section 5 is the conclusion. 2 DERIVATIONAL AFFIXES AS ROOTS One of the postulates of Distributed Morphology is that roots do not carry infor­mation about the category of the word (Halle/Marantz 1993, 1994; Marantz 1996). Rather, the category of the word is determined by a categorial head. These heads can either have no phonological content (e.g. in travel, where the root .travel is combined with a mute categorizer v or n) or they can be phonologically realized, as is the case in most derivational affixes (e.g. in traveler). Recently, however, Lowen­stamm (2014) showed that the assumption that derivational affixes are exponents of categorial heads runs into problems and instead proposed that derivational affixes are a subset of roots. Put differently, Lowenstamm (2014) proposes that derivational affixes are like roots in that they do not carry information about their category, but receive a category by being merged into the complement position of a categorial head. This move entails a separation between phonological/semantic content, on the one hand, and categorial heads, on the other, for both ‘traditional’ roots and affixes. Roots (including derivational affixes) have phonological content and/or meaning, while categorial heads are mute and have no semantic contribution. In this revised picture, affixes such as the English ic (which can be found in adjectives such as atomic below) are not analyzed as in (1a), but rather as in (1b), both of which taken form Lowenstamm (2014: 232, (6)). As (1b) already indicates, a crucial distinction between ‘traditional’ roots (e.g. .travel) and affixes comes from the affixes’ requirement to take complements. Cru­cially, affixes can select roots, as ic in (1b), or categories, as is the case for ness, shown in (2) below. One argument for the ‘affixes are roots’ treatment comes from the observation that certain derivational affixes, such as the English ic, surface under different categorial embeddings, as shown in (3). Note that in this respect affixes are no different from regular roots such as .work or .travel. (3) a. n: comic, academic, basics, sceptic b. a: comic, academic, basic, atomic One consequence of treating derivational affixes as roots is the necessity of storing them as such, an issue not explicitly tackled by Lowenstamm. Simonović (2020) argues that the categorial embeddings of affixal roots need to be stored in the Encyclopedia. Storing the categorial embedding of roots is classically assumed in DM for ‘traditional’ roots (such as .cat), as summarized in the title of Marantz (1996) ‘Cat is a phrasal idiom’. Extending this to affixal roots, Simonović suggests that the categorial embed­ding of affixal roots should not be stored for each derived word, but once in an abstract schema, which also specifies the selectional behavior of the root. The Encyclopedia entries for the nominal and adjectival ic, and for ness would look as represented in (4). These Encyclopedia entries raise the further question of their stored meaning. Simonović suggests that, unlike ‘traditional’ roots, affixal roots are potentially stored without any meaning. This is compatible with the observation that the meaning of af­fixal roots is often extremely vague or unpredictable (especially of those that appear under different categorial embeddings). For example, as Creemers et al. (2017: 75) note, “[affixes such as ic] have, among other interpretations, meanings such as ‘of,’ ‘relating to,’ ‘engaged in,’ and ‘connected with.” Assuming (nearly) meaningless roots then leads to one further question, i.e. why such roots do not appear in all environments without any limitations. The tentative answer is that their insertion generally leads to well-formed items, but some items are dispreferred if a less complex structure is available. However, as will be shown, certain (nearly) meaningless roots do indeed appear in a variety of contexts, includ­ing inflection. One example of such an affixal root is ov, which we will consider in section 3. The second argument for the root analysis of affixes comes from English stress. While we will not go into the details of Lowenstamm’s account here, suffice it to say that under his approach the combination of affixes-as-roots analysis and phrasal spell-out can account for the prosodic contrast between stress-affecting affixes, (e.g. ity in at­omicity) and stress-neutral ones (e.g. ness in atomicness). The relevant trees are shown in (5) below. The stress-affecting behavior is not essentially a property of the affix ity, but of the structure it appears in. The structures with multiple roots heading each other, termed “radical cores” by Lowenstamm, always constitute a single phase and therefore a single stress-assignment domain. Here Lowenstamm assumes that phonological rules re-apply with each new root phrase, but the same result can be obtained by having the rules apply to the whole radical core at once, on the first spell-out. Crucially for what follows, Simonović (2020) extends this approach to Slovenian and shows how observations about word stress first made in Marvin (2003) can be accounted for if we treat affixes as roots. Marvin observes that there exists a prosodic contrast in (apparently) deadjectival ost-nominalizations, illustrated by minimal pairs such as mládost ‘youngness’ (prosodically faithful to the adjective mlád ‘young’) and mladóst ‘youth, young years’. Marvin’s analysis, which Simonović follows, is that mládost is a deadjectival nominalization (i.e. the more productive type, composition­ally interpreted and prosodically faithful to the base adjective), while mladóst is a root nominalization (i.e. the more rare, idiomatic type, characterized by stress-shifting). For Marvin, the stress-shifting behavior of ost is a consequence of a prosodic specification on the suffix, which is only realized phase-internally. Simonović dispenses with pro­sodic specifications on affixes altogether and proposes that the ‘idiomatic’ nominaliza­tion mladóst contains a radical core (a combination of two roots) and that radical cores always receive the default stress pattern. In Slovenian, the default stress is stem-final. Stem-final stress is also the most com­mon prosodic pattern in the language, as established based on the stress pattern of the 3,000 most frequent nouns, verbs and adjectives. For each of these 9,000 words, we marked the stress pattern and annotated whether stress is stem-final. Items which can either have stem-final stress or another stress pattern were excluded from the count. In each of the three categories the stem-final stress pattern is by far the most common one, and a majority of words have this pattern, specifically, 63% of verbs, 70% of nouns and 73% of adjectives receive the stem-final stress. While mladóst has a default stress pattern, mládost is a deadjectival nominalization in which the root ost takes an adjective as its complement, which naturally leads to faithful prosody. The relevant trees are shown in (6). To sum up the theoretical background presented in this section, we assume an ap­proach under which derivational affixes can be treated as roots with potentially little or no meaning and according to which word stress is dependent on the structure of the word. In section 3, we show how this approach successfully captures the behavior of ov in the verbal and adjectival domain in Slovenian. 3 SLOVENIAN AFFIX OV IN THE DERIVATIONAL MORPHOLOGY Before proceeding to the contexts in which ov can be found, we first need to note that ov surfaces either as ov or as ev, depending on the preceding consonant. This is a purely phonologically driven allomorphy, as illustrated in the possessive adjectives in (7). (7) a. Vid-ov b. Rok-ov c. Maj-ev  ‘Vid’s’ ‘Rok’s’ ‘Maj’s’ In traditional grammars, ov was in some instances taken to be a morpheme, for example in possessive adjectives as in examples such as (7) above, but it was primar­ily treated as a part of larger morphemes. For example, Toporišič (2000: 184) lists several affixes that are used to derive collective nouns. Among these we can find je (as in cvet-je ‘flowers’, related to cvet ‘flower’) but also evje and ovje (as in borovničevje ‘blueberry plants’, related to borovnica ‘blueberry’, and cvetovje ‘flowers’, related to cvet ‘flower’), stvo (as in članstvo ‘members’, related to član ‘member’) and ovstvo (as in judovstvo ‘Judaism’, related to jud ‘Jew’), while ov is not listed as a morpheme in this context. Notably, such treatment suggests that stvo as a morpheme has nothing in common with ovstvo. Marvin (2003) makes a similar point regarding morphemes ec and je in deverbal nominalizations. In order to avoid the undesirable reduplication of affixes, we assume as a null hy­pothesis that all instances of ov are instances of the same derivational affix, which can also combine with other derivational affixes. Especially illustrative of this behavior are the pairs with and without ov which have slightly different meanings and can be found among denominal adjectives (8), collective nouns (9) and denominal nouns (10). In each of these contexts, it is unclear what the semantic contribution of ov is or what conditions its presence. (8) a. jezik-ov-en b. jezič-en language-ov-en language-en ‘related to language’ ‘related to tongue’ (9) a. grm-ov-je b. sad-je bush-ov-je fruit-je ‘shrubbery’ ‘fruit’ (10) a. bank-ov-ec b. obraz-ec bank-ov-ec face-ec ‘banknote’ ‘form’ In the above contexts, the affix ov is sandwiched between other categorized ele­ments, therefore revealing no category with which it is associated. There are, however, instances of ov which would be analyzed as categorizers in classical Distributed Mor­phology. Such is the ov in possessive adjectives illustrated in (7). A similar analysis is plausible for denominal verbs in (11). (11) a. pot-ov-a-ti (cf. pot) b. glas-ov-a-ti (cf. glas) travel-ov-theme-inf vote-ov-theme-inf ‘to travel’ ‘path, travel’ ‘to vote’ ‘voice, vote’ There appear to be no clear cases in which ov functions as a nominalizer (but we will argue that such cases actually exist in the inflectional domain in Section 4). In sum, the derivational uses of ov point towards ov being an extremely multifunc­tional affix, comparable to the English ic, i.e. a root that has little to no semantic con­tribution, which can appear in various categorial contexts. As is clear from the examples above, the contexts in which ov shows up are ex­tremely numerous and analyzing all of them would go beyond the scope of this article. We therefore made a representative selection of the derivational uses of ov. In 3.1, we turn to the verbal ov, which functions as a verbalizer and as an imperfectivizer. In 3.2 we offer an analysis of the adjectival ov in denominal adjectives. Finally, in 3.3 we turn to a case where ov itself reveals no category, as it is followed by the adjectivizing affix -n. In each case our discussion will be guided by the question what the prosodic and semantic effects of ov are and what needs to be stored in the Encyclopedia in order to obtain these effects. 3.1 The affix ov in verbs Before turning to the combinatorial possibilities of the verbal ov, it should be pointed out that ov in verbal contexts is characterized by allomorphy. The version ov shows up in the non-finite forms, where it is accompanied by the theme vowel a, (12a), whereas the version u shows up in the non-finite forms, where it is accompanied by the theme vowel je (12b). (12) a. pot-ov-á-ti b. pot-ú-je-mo travel-ov-theme-inf travel-u-theme-1sg.pres ‘to travel’ ‘we travel’ As the examples in (12) show, the two allomorphs display different prosodic pat­terns: while in the non-finite forms form the theme vowel is stressed, the stem-final vowel receives the stress in the present tense. As argued by Simonović (2020), these prosodic patterns are not a feature of the morpheme ov, but rather imposed by the theme vowels, since they are also attested with other roots (e.g. or-á-ti ‘to plough’, ór-je-mo ‘we plough’). When it comes to the categories which the verbalizing ov selects and the effects it has, there seem to be two large classes. In most cases, ov shows up as an imperfectiv­izer, (13), which derives imperfective verbs (13a, c) from perfective ones (13b, d). (13) a. kup-ov-ati b. kup-i-ti buy-ov-theme-inf buy-theme-inf ‘to buy.imperf’ ‘to buy.perf’ c. pre-pis-ov-ati d. pre-pis-a-ti over-write-ov-theme-inf over-write-theme-inf ‘to copy’ (imperf.) ‘to copy’ (perf.) In other cases ov shows up as a verbalizer, as illustrated in (14), taking bases of all other categories: nouns, (14a), adjectives, (14b), phrases, (14c) and roots which do not surface as independent words, (14d). (14) a. pot-ov-ati (cf. pot) b. modr-ov-a-ti (cf. moder) ‘to travel’ ‘travel’ ‘to theorize’ ‘wise’ c. vseb-ov-a-ti (cf. v sebi) d. spošt-ov-a-ti ‘to contain’ ‘in oneself’ ‘to respect’ At first sight the imperfectivizing function seems to require a separate entry in the Encyclopedia. However, as proposed by Arsenijević (2018) for Serbo-Croatian, im­pefectivizers can be analyzed as re-verbalizers, which reverse the value of the verbal aspect to its default, which is imperfective. If this is the case, then the verbalized ov is a good example of a universal selector, which can have any kind of element (phrase or root) in its complement. The Encyclopedia entry of the verbal ov is shown in (15), where x represents any element. Before turning to the adjectivized ov, a remark is in order concerning the stress of ov-verbs. The stress pattern described above and imposed by the theme vowels is preferred for all ov-verbs by all Slovenian speakers, and a majority of the consulted speakers report not ever using any other stress pattern on these verbs. However, some speakers (from Upper Carniola, Lower Carniola and Ljubljana) allow the exceptional pattern with the stress on the syllable preceding ov. These speakers have realizations such as pót-ov-a-ti ‘to travel’ and vér-ov-a-ti ‘to believe’, next to more common pot-ov-á-ti and ver-ov-á-ti. We take this exceptional stress as evidence of the incorporation of an nP into the verb (in these cases of pót ‘travel’ and vér-a ‘faith’, respectively), which enables the preservation of the nominal stress. This is not unexpected given the cross-linguistic evidence that nominal lexical stress tends to be more strongly protected than that of verbs (Smith 2011). Assuming that the incorporation of nPs is the general way of capturing exceptional (i.e. not theme-controlled) stress in Slovenian verbs leads to the postulation of some nPs which do not surface independently. In our data set var and napred in the verbs vár-ov-a-ti ‘to guard’ and napréd-ov-a-ti ‘to make progress’ are instances of such non-attested nPs. However, while var and napred are not attested nouns, they are attested (with the expected stress pattern) inside adjectives vár-en ‘safe’ and napréd-en ‘progressive’, respectively. 3.2 The affix ov in possessive and kind adjectives As already shown in the examples in (7), ov can be found in possessive adjectives, which are derived from either masculine or neuter animate nouns (but not feminine, which take the suffix -in). In (16) we provide further examples, together with bases, shown in the genitive singular form. (16) a. kralj-a b. vladark-e c. deklet-a king.m.sg.gen ruler.f.sg.gen girl.n.sg.gen a’. kralj-ev b’. vladark-in/*-ov c’. deklet-ov ‘king’s’ ‘ruler’s’ ‘girl’s’ Kind adjectives formed with ov, on the other hand, are derived from nouns of either masculine, feminine or neuter gender. Nouns in these cases are interpreted as mass nouns and the adjectives generally have the interpretation ‘made of x’. (17) a. fižol-a b. limon-e c. žvepl-a bean.m.sg.gen lemon.f.sg.gen sulfur.n.sg.gen a’. fižol-ov b’. limon-ov c’. žvepl-ov ‘bean’ ‘lemon’ ‘sulfur’ Given the two groups of adjectives, which behave differently with respect to the gender of the noun they are derived from, the first option to be considered is that (i) possessive adjectives are derived from nPs (18a), and (ii) kind adjectives are derived from roots, (18b). However, as we have seen in section 2 and as proposed in Simonović (2020), radical cores (i.e. roots directly adjacent to roots) trigger default stress, which in Slovenian is stem-final stress. This means that we would expect adjectives such as fižolov, (17b’), to be pronounced as *fižolóv (to be more precise, *fižol[.´w]), which is not the case. In fact, the stress pattern of the two kind and possessive ov-adjectivizations is the same (and faithful to the stress of the nominal base). (19) a. králj-ev b. vladárk-in/*-ov c. deklét-ov ‘king’s’ ‘ruler’s’ ‘girl’s’ (20) a. fižól-ov b. limón-ov c. žvépl-ov ‘bean’ ‘lemon’ ‘sulfur’ Furthermore, kind adjectives always take nominal bases (and not bound roots or other categories), which again indicates that the structure in (18b) is not accurate. There is only a very small class of ov-adjectives which does have all the expected features of root adjectivizations (such as stem-final stress): (21) a. kralj-év ‘royal’ (cf. kralj ‘king’) b. njeg-[.´]v ‘his’ (cf. nj-ega ‘him’) c. kak-[.´]v-ost ‘quality’ (implying the unattested adjective kak-óv) This means that we need three distinct structures in order to capture the three groups of adjectives and two of them need to include an nP. We suggest that nPs can be se­lected either with the inflectional class/gender specified or without such a specifica­tion. Then, the structure for possessive adjectives (králj-ev) incorporates an nP with a declension class specified on the n, see (22a). On the other hand, the structure for kind adjectives (fižól-ov) incorporates an nP without a declension class specified on the n, (22b), which explains the fact that kind adjectives can also be derived from femi­nine bases. Finally, adjectives like kralj-év are genuine root adjectivizations and are all stored with a specific meaning. As for the meaning of these adjectives, we argue that the morpheme ov has no concrete semantic contribution, but that the possessive and kind meanings are a conse­quence of the structure. That is, we suggest that the possessive meaning might be the default meaning for an adjective derived from an animate noun. This seems especially plausible given possessive constructions in other languages where no overt possessive morphology is used, but rather simple adjacency. Such a language is Egyptian Arabic in which possessive phrases have the structure as in (23). (23) a. kitaab Hasan b. kitaab il-walad book Hasan book the-boy ‘Hasan’s book’ ‘the boy’s book’ Similarly, we suggest that the mass meaning of kind adjectives is essentially a de­fault. This meaning is achieved by simple adjacency in a variety of languages, includ­ing English, as shown in (24). (24) a. bean soup b. lemon juice As for the third group, listed in (21), their meaning is simply stored. 3.3 The affix ov with n in adjectives While staying in the adjectival domain, we now focus on a context in which ov does not appear to be immediately headed by any category, as it is selected by another root. The selecting root in this case is .n, which is part of the most general adjectivizer in Slo­venian (surfacing as en in the citation form). As mentioned in Section 2, en-adjectives are one of the contexts in which minimal pairs with and without .ov are attested, as illustrated in (25). (25) a. jezik b. jezik-ov-en c. jezič-en ‘language, tongue’ ‘related to language’ ‘related to tongue’ a’. plod b’. plod-ov-en c’. plod-en ‘fruit’ ‘related to a/the fruit’ ‘fertile’ Not surprisingly, in the face of such data, traditional grammars list three differ­ent affixes used to derive adjectives that express ‘the relation to what the noun (from which the adjective is derived) expresses’: oven (as in časoven ‘temporal’ related to čas ‘time’), but also en (as in čajen ‘tea [adjective]’, related to čaj ‘tea’) and ov (ogljikov ‘carbon [adjective]’, related to ogljik ‘carbon’) (Toporišič 2000: 197–198). Our analysis only assumes roots .n and .ov, which can be in the complement of an adjectival head, but can also combine with each other in more than one configura­tion, as shown by the prosody. Adjectives in oven display prosodic variation with a major and a minor pattern, comparable to the situation in the verbs in ovati in 3.1 and adjectives in ov in 3.2. The major pattern is stem-final prosody, while a few items have either optional or obligatory preservation of the prosodic pattern of the base noun. This once again points in the direction of the exceptional preservation of nominal prosody under other categorial embeddings. The three possibilities are illustrated in (26), where all the adjectives are in the definite form because the citation form (e.g. posloven), which has no ending, contains an epenthetic shwa vowel, which obscures the stem-final stress position. (26) a. posl-[.´]v-n-i b. dél-ov-n-i c. blók-ov-n-i/blok-[.´]v-n-i ‘business-related’ ‘work-related’ ‘bloc-related’ In order to establish the quantitative relations between the three patterns, we ex­tracted the adjectives in -oven attested more than ten times in the Slovenian national corpus Gigafida. The search yielded 210 adjectives which were plausibly analyzable as containing ov+n. The relevant figures are shown in the Table 1 below. Table 1: Stress on ov+n-adjectives Stress pattern Stem-final On the base noun Either stem-final or on the base noun Number of adjectives 195 11 4 Given the stem-final stress on the majority of the oven-adjectives, we propose that the structure in (27) is the stored structure. Note that we remain agnostic as to which category ov selects (a root or an nP), as we do not have enough data to tease apart these two options. More generally, the well-formedness of structures in which a category appears below a radical core and their predicted stress pattern need to be addressed by further research. The instances of ov in what is traditionally considered to be derivation show that ov can be analyzed as a single root which has no specific meaning, can select different categories or roots and can in turn appear embedded under a root such as .n or different categories. In the next section, we turn to ov in inflection. 4 THE AFFIX OV IN THE NOMINAL DECLENSION In inflection we can observe ov acting as the genitive case ending in dual and plural of the main masculine declension: (28) ‘hill’ ‘address’ nom.sg hrib naslov gen.sg hrib-a naslov-a nom.du hrib-a naslov-a gen.du hrib-ov naslov-ov nom.pl hrib-i naslov-i gen.pl hrib-ov naslov-ov Additionally, we can also observe ov in about 40 monosyllabic nouns, which take an ov augment in dual and plural (see Mirtič 2016 for a recent list of nouns taking the augment). (29) ‘edge’ nom.sg rob nom.du rob-[.´]v-a nom.pl rob-[.´]v-i The genitive and the augment ov display an interaction. In the plural dual/paradigms where there is an augment, the genitive form only contains one ov, as shown by the genitive dual/plural form rob-[.´]v in (30). (30) ‘hill’ ‘address’ ‘edge’ nom.sg hrib nasl[.´]v rób gen.sg hrib-a nasl[.´]v-a rób-a nom.du hríb-a nasl[.´]v-a rob-[.´]v-a gen.du hríb-ov nasl[.´]v-ov rob-[.´]v (??rob-ov-ov) nom.pl hríb-i nasl[.´]v-i rob-[.´]v-i gen.pl hríb-ov nasl[.´]v-ov rob-[.´]v (??rob-ov-ov) Crucially, this is not due to haplology, as examples such as nasl[.´]v-ov ‘address.gen.du/pl’ show. The natural question is then which of the two ovs is pronounced in rob-[.´]v ‘edge.gen.du/pl’. The stress pattern provides a clear clue. The augment ov is always stressed, as can be seen from the augmented forms of rob in the table above. On the other hand, the genitive ov is never stressed, as can be seen from the forms hríb-ov ‘hill.gen.du/pl’ and nasl[.´]v-ov ‘address.gen.du/pl’ (the only exceptions being the few nouns in which the ending contains the only stressable syllable nucleus in the word, e.g. ps-a ‘dog.nom.du’, ps-i ‘dog.nom.pl’, ps-[.´]v ‘dog.gen.du/pl’). The stress pattern in rob-[.´]v ‘edge.gen.du/pl’ is the same as in all the forms with the augment, but different from all forms with just a case ending (e.g. the genitive singular rób-a), from which we can infer that it is the genitive ov that is deleted and hence that it is the augment ov that survives. (31) singular dual plural nominative rób            rob-[.´]v-a rob-[.´]v-i genitive rób-a rob-[.´]v rob-[.´]v dative rób-u rob-[.´]v-oma rob-[.´]v-om accusative rób rob-[.´]v-a rob-[.´]v-e locative rób-u rob-[.´]v-ih rob-[.´]v-ih instrumental rób-om rob-[.´]v-oma rob-[.´]v-i The question is then how we can account for the two instances of ov in the nominal declension, as well as their interaction. Starting with the genitive ov, our proposal is that ov is the Elsewhere allomorph in the nominal paradigm and that its insertion is conditioned by phonological constraints. The Vocabulary Item for this item is as shown in (32). (32) /ov/ - [ ] The assumption that there is no specialized genitive dual or plural ending in Slove­nian is confirmed by the broader picture. The genitive dual and plural form is typically the form with no ending in both most common feminine (e.g. ženska ‘woman’) and most common neuter (delo ‘work’) declensions, but also in some nouns of the mascu­line declension class to which nouns such as hrib ‘hill’ belong. In addition to the ones that receive the augment ov, we find zero genitive plural/dual ending in otrok ‘child’, konj ‘horse’, las ‘hair’, zob ‘tooth’ etc. (Toporišič 2000: 283).22 Herrity (2016) refers to them as ‘optative mood’, a label we reserve here for forms that are used to express wishes, and notes that contemporary grammars of the language generally don’t recognise these forms as a distinct mood. Below we show exam­ples of plural paradigms with a zero ending in the genitive form. (33) ‘teeth’ ‘women’ ‘works’ nominative zob-je žensk-e del-a genitive zob žensk del dative zob-em žensk-am del-om accusative zob-e žensk-e del-a locative zob-eh žensk-ah del-ih instrumental zob-mi žensk-ami del-i In sum, based on this lack of an overt genitive ending in two major feminine and neuter declension classes and in several exceptions in the masculine class, we can assume that Slovenian has no specialized genitive dual/plural ending, and that what shows up in gen.du/pl is the Elsewhere allomorph. Importantly, the insertion of the Elsewhere allomorph is restricted to very few cases, while being generally blocked. The competition between forms including the Elsewhere allomorph and those without it can be modeled in an Optimality Theory model. The issue of the relation between Lexical Insertion and phonology proper is a complex one (see Wolf 2013 for an overview). For the simplicity, we assume here that phonology (con­strued as an OT grammar) evaluates the candidates which are results of Lexical Insertion. Since Lexical Insertion is guided by the Subset principle, there is, as far as the Subset principle is concerned, no limit on inserting Elsewhere allomorphs. What filters those Elsewhere allomorphs out in most forms is a phonological constraint. One of the con­straints that can be used to model this is the Optimality Theory’s classic *structure (Zoll 1992; Prince/Smolensky 1993). This constraint militates against structure in general, al­ways picking the candidate that has less structure. Given the Vocabulary Item in (32), any number of additions of ov are lexically sponsored, so they will never incur a violation of Faithfulness. However, each of them will incur a violation of *structure, which, for the purpose of this example we assume to assign a violation mark for each morpheme. In (34) this is illustrated using the tableau for the Instrumental Singular form of hrib. (34) hrib + om Faithfulness *Structure a. . hribom   ** b. hribovom   ***! c. ovhribovom   ***!* d. hribomovovov ***!** e. hrib *! The only situations in which the elsewhere allomorph can survive in Slovenian are cases in which its addition prevents a violation of another constraint. In this case, the relevant constraint is one militating against syncretism with the citation form. (35) Contrast-Citation (ConC): Incur a violation if an output form A is segmentally identical to the citation form of the lexeme that A belongs to. (Pertsova 2015) Pertsova (2015) proposed this constraint based on Russian Genitive plural. Interest­ingly, Pertsova shows that, diachronically, Slavic genitive plural ov became general­ized as a consequence of homonymy avoidance. In Slovenian, the problem of syncretism of genitive dual/plural with nominative singular does not arise in declensions of the type žensk-a and del-o (as they have overt nominative singular endings). The situation in the type hrib is different, since leaving the genitive dual/plural without an overt ending would lead to a violation of ConC. This violation is avoided by allowing the Elsewhere allomorph in genitive dual/plural. The full picture obtained this way is that no big declension class in Slovenian violates ConC, as can be verified from (36). (36) ‘hill’ ‘linden ‘work’ ‘thing’ nom.sg hrib lip-a del-o    stvar gen.sg hrib-a lip-e del-a stvar-i nom.du hríb-a lip-i deli stvar-i gen.du hríb-ov lip del stvar-i nom.pl hríb-i lip-e del-a stvar-i gen.pl hríb-ov lip del stvar-i The tableau below shows the evaluation of the genitive dual/plural form of hrib form assuming the citation form hrib. (37) hrib CF: hrib Faithfulness Contrast-Citation *Structure a. hrib *! * b. . hribov ** c. hribovov ***! The affix ov in the genitive dual/plural is therefore the Elsewhere morpheme used to avoid a ConC violation. As for the always-stressed augment ov, we propose that nouns like rob ‘edge’ have two stored allomorphs and the phonological constraints choose between them (as in various phonological models of root allomorphy, e.g. Kager 2008). One allomorph is the root rob with its category, the second is the root rob in a root complex with the root .ov. As we have seen above, the augment ov is always stressed (rob-.´v-i), which provides evidence for the root complex structure: A crucial point for the evaluation below is that phonology does not have access to the internal structure of complex roots so it will consider the two stem allomorphs (rób ~ rob.´v) as introducing the same amount of structure. As a result, the two allo­morphs will be deployed to cover the two different positions in which no overt ending is inserted. (39) rób ~ rob.´v CF: rob Faithfulness Contrast-Citation *Structure a. rob *! * b. . rob.´v * c. róbov **! c. robóvov **! Note that in the forms with an overt case ending, no preference can be established by the constraints. As a consequence, we assume that the forms which do have a pref­erence (nom.sg and gen.du/pl) impose their selected allomorphs upon the remainder of the number sub-paradigm through a uniformity constraint, which leads to the entire singular sub-paradigm taking the root allomorph rob and the entire dual and plural sub-paradigms taking the root allomorph rob[.´]v. (40) singular dual plural nominative rób rob-.´v-a rob-.´v-i genitive rób-a rob-.´v rob-.´v dative rób-u rob-.´v-oma rob-.´v-om locative rób-u rob-.´v-ih rob-.´v-ih instrumental rób-om rob- .´v-oma rob-.´v-i In sum, in this section we have shown that .ov figures as a root with no specific meaning and as the Elsewhere allomorph in the nominal declension. 5 CONCLUSION In this paper we have focused on the Slovenian affix ov, which can be found in nouns, adjectives and verbs. While these occurrences of ov appear prima facie to be several different affixes which only coincidentally have the same phonological form, we argue for a single multifunctional ov, which can appear both in inflection and derivation. In line with proposals within Distributed Morphology which claim that derivational af­fixes should be analyzed as roots, we have treated ov as a potentially meaningless root which can take as a complement other roots (thus forming a “radical core”) or phrases, resulting in different structures and consequently different stress patterns and mean­ings. In the nominal declension, ov acts as an Elsewhere allomorph, whose insertion is guided by an interplay of phonological and morphological constraints. Such a treatment of ov enables us both to give further support for the unification approach of affixes pro­posed in the literature and to further elaborate the affixes-as-roots model by addressing the question what the Encyclopedia entry or entries for ov need to contain. Our consideration of the multifunctional morpheme ov in Slovenian is by no means intended as a definitive account (of this morpheme or of multifunctional morphemes in general). We therefore hope that further research will address our claims and predic­tions and broaden the data set, but also provide formal modeling of aspects we have not explored here. One aspect of the account which has not been entirely formalized is the ability of the (semantically light) root to surface as the Elsewhere allomorph in the nominal paradigm. While semantically light roots are more plausibly expected to appear as Elsewhere allomorphs than roots with a fully specified meaning, we leave it to future research to account for the relevant mechanism. Slovenian seems a good start­ing point for such an account, as the same kind of parallelism is attested in the verbal domain (see Simonović, this volume). Primary sources Gigafida. 24 February 2020. http://www.gigafida.net/. References ARSENIJEVIĆ, Boban (2018) “Serbo-Croatian suffix -va and the illusion of the im­perfective specification.” Paper presented at the conference Ambigo: Workshop on Ambiguity – Theory, Development, and Processing, University of Göttingen on 4–6 July 2018. Gottingen: University of Göttingen. CREEMERS, Ava/Jan DON/Paula FENGER (2017) “Some affixes are roots, oth­ers are heads.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36/1 45–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9372-1 HALLE, Morris/Alec MARANTZ (1993) “Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection.” In: K. Hale/S. J. Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Es­says in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–176. HALLE, Morris/Alec MARANTZ (1994) “Some key features of distributed morphol­ogy.” In: A. Carnie/H. Harley/T. Bures (eds), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, 275–288. KAGER, René (2008) “Lexical irregularity and the typology of contrast.” In: K. Hanson/S. Inkelas (eds), The nature of the word: studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 397–432. LOWENSTAMM, Jean (2014) “Affixes as roots.” In: A. Alexiadou/H. Borer/F. Schäfer (eds), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax. Oxford: Oxford Univer­sity Press, 230–259. MARANTZ, Alec (1996) “‘Cat’ as a phrasal idiom.” Manuscript. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MARVIN, Tatjana (2003) Topics in the stress and syntax of words. Doctoral disserta­tion. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIRTIČ, Tanja (2016) “Podaljševanje osnove z morfemom -ov- pri samostalnikih prve moške sklanjatve v sodobni knjižni slovenščini.” In: F. Marušič/P. Mišmaš/R. Žaucer (eds), Škrabčevi dnevi 9. Zbornik prispevkov s simpozija 2015. Nova Gori­ca: Založba Univerze v Novi Gorici, 16–33. NEVINS, Andrew (2015) “Free-Rides in Morphological Classification: The Case of Catalan Pre-Stressing Suffixes.” In: M. Lloret/C. Pons-Moll/E. Bosch-Roura (eds), Classics d'ahir i d'avui en la gramatica del catala. Barcelona: Edicions Universitat Barcelona, 105–118. PRINCE, Alan/Paul SMOLENSKY (1993) Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. SIMONOVIĆ, Marko (2020) “Derivational affixes as roots across categories.” [In press.] SIMONOVIĆ, Marko/Boban Arsenijević (2020) “Syntax predicts prosody: Multi-purpose morphemes in Serbo-Croatian.” In: F. Marušič/P. Mišmaš/R. Žaucer (eds), Advances in formal Slavic linguistics 2017. Berlin: Language Science Press, 277–304. SMITH, Jennifer (2011) “Category-specific effects.” In: M. van Oostendorp/C. J. Ewen/E. Hume/K. Rice (eds), The Blackwell companion to phonology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2439–2463. TOPORIŠIČ, Jože (2000) Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Obzorja. WOLF, Matthew (2013) “Lexical insertion occurs in the phonological component.” In: E. Bonet/M. Lloret/J. Mascaró (eds), Understanding allomorphy: perspectives from Optimality Theory. London: Equinox Publishing, 361–407. ZOLL, Cheryl (1992) “When syllables collide: a theory of alternating quantity.” Manu­script. Brandeis University. Abstract .OV IS IN THE AIR: THE EXTREME MULTIFUNCTIONALITY OF THE SLOVENIAN AFFIX OV In this paper we consider several instances of the Slovenian affix ov, which surfaces in many, apparently unrelated contexts. Here we focus on (i) ov in verbs, where it can act as an imperfectivizer or a verbalizer, (ii) ov found in possessive adjectives and kind adjectives derived from nouns, (iii) ov which precedes the adjectiviser (e)n in denomi­nal adjectives, and (iv) ov in nominal declension (acting as a genitive case ending in dual and plural or as a dual/plural augment). Building on the observation that certain affixes function either as inflectional or as derivational (see Simonović and Arsenijević 2020), and working within a Distributed Morphology approach which postulates that derivational affixes should be analyzed as roots (e.g. Lowenstamm 2014), we argue for a single multifunctional ov. This ov is a potentially meaningless root that can take as a complement other roots (thus forming a “radical core”) or phrases, resulting in different structures and consequently different stress patterns and meanings, but can also act as an Elsewhere allomorph, whose insertion is guided by an interplay of phonological and morphological constraints. Keywords: morphology, Distributed Morphology, Slovenian, multifunctional affix, roots Povzetek EN ALI VEČ MORFEM-.OV: IZJEMNA VEČFUNKCIJSKOST SLOVENSKEGA MORFEMA OV V prispevku obravnavamo več funkcij slovenskega morfema ov, ki se pojavlja v številnih, med seboj navidezno nepovezanih okoljih. Osredotočamo se na (i) ov v gla­golih, v katerih določa nedovršnost ali samo besedno vrsto, (ii) ov, ki ga najdemo v svojilnih in vrstnih pridevnikih, izpeljanih iz samostalnikov, (iii) ov, ki se v izsamos­talniških pridevnikih pojavlja pred pridevniškim morfemom (e)n, in (iv) ov v samos­talniških sklanjatvah, kjer služi kot rodilniška končnica v dvojini in množini ali za po­daljšanje osnove. Na osnovi trditve, da so nekateri morfemi bodisi oblikotvorni bodisi besedotvorni (gl. Simonović in Arsenijević 2020), in v skladu s pristopom, ki v okviru t. i. razpršene morfologije predlaga, da je treba besedotvorne morfeme analizirati kot korene (npr. Lowenstamm 2014), trdimo, da obstaja v slovenščini en sam večfunkcijski morfem ov. Gre za potencialno brezpomenski koren, ki lahko za svoja dopolnila izbira druge korene (in tako tvori korenski skupek) ali zveze, kar vodi v različne strukture in se posledično odraža v različnih naglasnih vzorcih in pomenih. Poleg tega ima lahko morfem ov tudi vlogo zapolnjevalnega alomorfa, katerega rabo določajo tako fonolo­ške kot morfološke omejitve. Ključne besede: morfologija, razpršena morfologija, slovenščina, večfunkcijski mor­fem, koreni Marko Simonović* UDK 811.163.6'366'373.611 University of Graz/ DOI: 10.4312/linguistica.60.1.103-117 University of Nova Gorica, Austria/Slovenia CATEGORIES, ROOT COMPLEXES AND DEFAULT STRESS: SLOVENIAN NOMINALIZATIONS REVISITED13 1sg forms are rare, as one would expect of appeals to act addressed to self. 1 INTRODUCTION Standard Slovenian is a language with lexical prosody in nouns, verbs and adjectives (the default prosodic pattern assigned when no lexical prosody is present or available is discussed in section 3.1). Further, derivational morphemes which behave as nominal­izers, verbalizers and adjectivizers can have stress-shifting effects. The interaction between lexical stress and the structure of words in Slovenian is discussed in Marvin (2003), where a detailed analysis of stress assignment in Slovenian nominalizations is presented. The nominalizations analysed by Marvin fall into two broad categories in terms of prosody: the nominalizing affix either leaves the prosodic pattern of the base unaffected or it causes the word stress to shift to a new position. In some cases, the same nominalizing affix can appear in both prosodic types, giving rise to minimal pairs that differ only in stress. It is exactly such cases that make a struc­tural analysis of stress assignment all the more necessary, since the problem cannot be solved through lexical specification on either the base or the affix entailing multiple suspiciously homonymous affixes belonging to the same category. The prosodic dichotomy between affixes is illustrated in (1). The nominalizations in (1a) inherit the prosodic pattern of the base, but those in (1b) have a different prosodic pattern from the base. (1) Deadjectival and deverbal nominalizations in Slovenian a. Stress-preserving nominalizations Nominalization Base Nominalization Base stár-ost stár anketíran-ec anketíran old-ost interview.pass.ptcp-c interview.pass.ptcp ‘oldness’ ‘old’ ‘interviewee’ ‘interviewed’ b. Stress-shifting nominalizations Nominalization Base Nominalization Base star-óst stár napadál-ec napádal star-ost attack.lptcp-c attack.lptcp ‘old age’ ‘old’ ‘attacker’ ‘attacked’ Note that only the deadjectival nominalizations (stár-ost and star-óst) form a true minimal pair, as the deverbal nominalizations involve different participles. This is why Marvin’s analysis will first be summarised based on the pair stár-ost vs. star-óst. The crux of the analysis is that the stress pattern of complex words is negotiated as a function of Phasal Spell-out. An affix can only influence the prosody of the root if it is in the same phase with that root. This means that stress-preserving nominaliza­tions contain several phases and the potentially stress-affecting affix is merged in a different phase from the root, i.e., it arrives ‘too late’ to change the spell-out of the root. For the pair stár-ost vs. star-óst, this means that the former is a truly deadjec­tival nominalization containing an adjectival and a nominal head, whereas the latter is a root nominalization (with no adjectival head). As illustrated in the trees in (2), in both stár-ost and star-óst the only two pieces of structure that have phonological content are the root .star and the nominalizer -ost. However, while in the dead­jectival nominalization stár-ost they are separated by a phase boundary (aP being a phase), in the root nominalization star-óst they are adjacent. Assuming that -ost has underlying stress and is able to shift the stress from the adjacent head yields the right result. As Marvin points out, the difference between the two structures plays a role not only at the PF, but also at the LF interface. Indeed, in such pairs, the true deadjectival nominalizations tend to have a more transparent interpretation: stár-ost means the property of being star ‘old’, whereas the root nominalizations tend to have rather idiomatic meanings. (2) stár-ost vs. star-óst: The analysis in terms of Marvin (2003) As far as the deverbal nominalizations in (1) are concerned, it has already been noted that they do not form a perfect minimal pair, as they incorporate different partici­ples. The logic of their analysis is therefore somewhat different, as the structure of the nominalization depends on the structure made available by the participle. As Marvin convincingly shows, only the passive participle has a truly adjectival structure, whereas the l-participle does not introduce a categorial head. This adjectival vs. non-adjectival contrast leads to a dichotomy similar to that between stár-ost and star-óst discussed above: the passive-participle nominalizations contain an adjectival phrase and there­fore the nominalizer cannot be stress-shifting, whereas in the case of the l-participle nominalizations all pieces which have phonological content are in the same phase and the nominalizer can impose its own prosodic pattern. One important assumption necessary for this account to work is that when catego­rial affixes and roots have conflicting prosodic requirements, the affixes win. This is not explicitly spelled out in Marvin (2003). However, since categorizers are heads, any model that assumes the phonological privilege of syntactic heads predicts this result. Such models have indeed been proposed, see Revithiadou (1999) for a cross-linguisti­cally grounded proposal. 2 PREDICTIONS OF THE MODEL AND UNEXPECTED GAPS Marvin’s analysis makes several predictions concerning the prosody of nominaliza­tions. In this section I will consider Slovenian data against the background of these pre­dictions and establish a list of empirical issues which need to addressed when revisiting Marvin’s model. Reasoning from the type of base, the predictions are as follows: A1) If the base is a root, we expect differences between stress-shifting and stress-preserving nominalizers (reflecting the lexical specification of the affix). A2) If the base is a root accompanied by a non-categorial affix (as with l-participle bases), the situation should be as with roots, i.e. we expect differences between stress-shifting and stress-preserving nominalizers (reflecting the lexical speci­fication of the affix). A3) If the base has a category, we should always observe the stress-preserving be­haviour of the nominalizers (as the lexical specification of the affix cannot be enforced across the phase boundary). Some of the predictions above are easier to test than others. A1 is extremely hard to test because a root cannot easily be distinguished from a combination of a root and a phonologically mute categorial head. On the other hand, A2 can be tested using deriva­tions which incorporate the l-participle. Here, the results are quite unexpected: all af­fixes, nominal and adjectival, which combine with the l-participle cause a stress shift. This is illustrated in (3) using the family of words which incorporate the l-participle méril ‘measured’. (3) Derivations incorporating méril ‘measured’ Nouns: meríl-ec meríl-ka meríl-o measure.lptcp-c measure.lptcp-ka measure.lptcp-o ‘timekeeper’ ‘timekeeper’ (fem.) ‘measure, scale’ Adjectives: meríl-n-a meríl-sk-a measure.lptcp-n-fem measure.lptcp-sk-fem ‘measuring’ (fem.) ‘related to measuring’ The lack of stress preserving derivations with l-participles is the first empirical issue (EI1) which I seek to account for in this article by building on Marvin’s model. EI1: L-participle derivations are always stress-shifting. A3 can be tested by isolating those bases which have an overt categorial head. If we remain focused on deadjectival ost-nominalizations and participle nominalizations, we expect the following: a) Derived adjectives (i.e. those adjectives which contain an overt adjectivizer) should never derive ost-nominalization with the stressed ost. b) Passive participles should never derive nominalizations with a stress-shift. In order to test the first prediction, I extracted all ost-nominalizations which had more than 300 attestations in the Slovenian national corpus Gigafida. I annotated the 1,231 items obtained for their stress pattern (whether -ost is stressed) and the visibility of adjec­tivizing morphology (whether the base contains a common adjectivizing suffix). Table 1: Stress and the visibility of the adjectivizer in ost-nominalization Stress Stress not on -ost Stress on -ost Visibility of an adjectivizer Adjectivizer visible Adjectivizer not visible Adjectivizer visible Adjectivizer not visible Example oséb-n-ost person-adj-nom ‘personality’ pogóst-ost frequent-nom ‘frequency’ last-n-óst property-adj-nom ‘feature’ nor-óst insane-nom ‘insanity’ Number 1079 126 4 22 Percentage (within the stress type) 90% 10% 15% 85% The first observation to be made based on the above data is that the relative frequen­cies observed fit the model quite well, which means that what we need to handle are essentially exceptions. The only ost-nominalizations which contradict the model are the four nominalizations with a stressed affix -ost which cannot be analysed as root nominalizations since they contain clearly derived adjectives. Beside last-n-óst ‘fea­ture’, these are skriv-n-óst ‘secret’, dolž-n-óst ‘obligation’ and uč-en-óst ‘erudition’. While both their form and their meaning clearly point in the direction of idiomatized items, it is still an issue how we represent such items, as introducing new roots (.lastn, .skrivn etc.) just to fit the data seems a counter-intuitive move. EI2: There are (clearly exceptional) items in which the nominalizer -ost is stressed, although there is a visible adjectival head under it. The nominalization uč-en-óst ‘erudition’ actually contains a passive participle uč[.]n ‘learned’ and is therefore an exception relevant for the next prediction we are considering: passive participles should never form nominalizations with a stress-shift. Just like with the previous set, we are again dealing with exceptions, which require a representational solution. The examples of stress-shifting nominalizations from passive participle are very few, but they are attested in every type of nominalization. In the ex­amples below, I use the nominalizations of the passive participle mérjen ‘measured’ in order to illustrate the regular pattern and the full list of exceptions I have identified (and which were confirmed as familiar to more than one third of the speakers I consulted). (4) c-nominalizations from passive participles a. Regular pattern (faithful prosody) b. Exceptional pattern (shifted prosody) Base Nominalization Base Nominalization mérjen mérjen-ec múčen muč[.]n-ec ‘measured’ ‘measured one ’ ‘tortured’ ‘marthyr’ (5) ka-nominalizations from passive participles a. Regular pattern (faithful prosody) b. Exceptional pattern (shifted prosody) Base Nominalization Base Nominalization mérjen mérjen-ka múčen muč[.]n-ka ‘measured’ ‘measured one’ (fem.) ‘tortured’ ‘marthyr’ (fem.) (6) je-nominalizations from passive participles a. Regular pattern (faithful prosody) b. Exceptional pattern (shifted prosody) Base Nominalization Base Nominalization mérjen mérjen-je míšljen mišlj[.]n-je ‘measured’ ‘measuring’ ‘thought’ ‘opinion, thinking’ vprášan vprašán-je ‘asked’ ‘question’ This list of frequent exceptions leads us to the next empirical issue. EI3: There are (clearly exceptional) items in which the nominalization of a passive participle is stress shifting. Another issue that arises from these data is the exceptional stress-shifting behaviour of many different affixes. In the examples above, beside -ost, these are, -c, -ka and -je. Especially the last one seems to behave as a stress shifter only in the two examples quoted above (plus potentially several words with a variable stress pattern). This makes it considerably less plausible to specify the stress-shifting behaviour in their lexical entry. Therefore, we can identify the last empirical issue. EI4: Several affixes (e.g. -ost, -c, -ka and -je) act as stress-shifters in very few items. 3 DESIDERATA FOR AN IMPROVED MODEL AND A NEW PROPOSAL If the model of stress assignment in Slovenian discussed so far is to be improved, it is crucial not to lose its many virtues. The correlation between root-selecting be­haviour and stress-shifting effects on the one hand, and adjective-selecting behaviour and stress-neutrality on the other is a robust fact confirmed by corpus data. I used the same methodology as for ost-nominalizations above on two more nominalizers the stress-shifting -ota (e.g. in lep-ota ‘beauty’) and stress-neutral -ež (e.g. in perverz-n-ež ‘pervert’). Ota-nominalizations show no clear examples of derived bases (based on 23 items), whereas ež-nominalizations have derived bases in 94% of the cases (based on 48 items). There is, however, an overgeneration problem. The original model predicts the ex­istence of root-selecting stress-neutral affixes. Recall that in this model the prosody of affixes was lexically specified and, while category-selecting affixes are necessarily stress-neutral, root-selecting affixes can be either stress-shifting or stress-neutral. Since I have not identified any stress-neutral nominalizers which generally select roots, I will present a proposal which excludes such a structure. My proposal dispenses with lexical prosody on derivational affixes altogether. In­stead, all the prosodic effects follow from the structural position in which the affix appears. Before I define the relevant positions, I first take a closer look at the prosodic effect which I have referred to as stress-shifting in the presentation of the data so far. 3.1 Stem-Final Stress as the Default in Slovenian All the data in which we found stress-shifting behaviour so far share the same stress pattern: stress is always stem-final, i.e. falling on the syllable preceding the inflectional ending. In some of the examples above, the stem-final position of stress was somewhat obscured in the citation form due to an epenthetic process in forms without overt in­flectional morphology (e.g. in muč[.´]n[.]c, where the schwa is epenthetic and absent from all other forms, which have overt inflection). In (7) I provide the dual forms of examples of all the classes considered as stress-shifting in the text so far, since the dual ending always has an overt exponent. Note that in (7) the hyphen only separates the stem from the inflectional ending. (7) a. ost-nominalizations staróst-i učenóst-i ‘old ages’ (dual) ‘eruditions’ (dual) b. derivations incorporating the l-participle méril ‘measured’ Nouns: merílc-a merílk-i meríl-i timekeepers’ (dual) ‘timekeepers’ (fem.) (dual) ‘measures, scales’ (du.) Adjectives: meríln-i merílsk-i ‘measuring’ (fem.) (dual) ‘related to measuring’ (fem.) (dual) c. nominalizations incorporating passive participles muč[.´]nc-a muč[.´]nk-i ‘martyrs’ (dual) ‘marthyrs’ (fem.) (dual) mišlj[.´]nj-i vprašánj-i ‘opinions’ (dual) ‘questions’ (dual) d. ota-nominalizations lep[.´]t-i groz[.´]t-i ‘beauties’ (dual) ‘horrors’ (dual) As the reader can testify, in all the examples above the stress is stem-final. This is by far the most common stress pattern in Slovenian and I argue that this is the Slovenian default prosodic pattern. Essentially, this means that stem-final stress is assigned to all words in which lexical prosody is not present or not available. In order to substantiate the claim that stem-final stress is the most common one in Slovenian, Simonović and Mišmaš (this volume) isolated the 3,000 most frequent nouns, verbs and adjectives and marked the stress pattern of each category. Items that can either have the stem-final stress or another stress pattern were excluded from the count. In each of the categories the stem-final stress pattern is by far the most common one and a majority of words has this pattern. The stem-final stress pattern was encoun­tered in 63% of the verbs, 70% of the nouns and 73% of the adjectives. 3.2 Derivational Affixes as Roots Now that I have identified the stress pattern common to all the stress-shifting environ­ments, I turn to the task of identifying what these environments have in common and considering why this should lead to the assignment of the default stress pattern. As it stands now, this class of environments looks quite heterogeneous, encompassing vari­ous nominalising affixes (-ota, -ost, -c, -ka, -je) with an environment which can only be described as a combination of the l-participle and any suffix which is added to it. In a sense, following the intuition from Marvin’s proposal that stress-shifting is a phenomenon related to the root domain, I propose that what triggers the default proso­dy in Slovenian is indeed a root phenomenon, but of a kind that was not available in the theory used so far. Following Lowenstamm (2014), I assume that derivational affixes are transitive roots, some of which select categories, whereas others select other roots (see Simonović 2020) and Simonović and Mišmaš (this volume) for applications of this model to Slovenian). Lowenstamm’s model, originally proposed to resolve several is­sues in English nominalizations, predicts the existence of complex root phrases with no intervening functional structure. These structures are termed radical cores by Lowen­stamm. My central assumption concerning the prosody of Slovenian radical cores is that they always receive default prosody. The idea is that the regular algorithm that computes compositional prosody requires the presence of functional projections that can decide which morphemes win in the event of conflict (much as in Revithiadou 1999, where heads win). Due to the disruption of the usual asymmetry caused by the lack of functional structure, the prosody in radical cores cannot be computed composi­tionally and therefore the assignment of default stress ensues. We can now revisit our first nominalization examples stárost and staróst and apply the new model to them. My analysis of stárost is basically still that of Marvin (2003) in that stárost is a deadjectival nominalization. The technical innovation illustrated in (8a) is that -ost is now a root that selects an adjective as its complement, which naturally leads to preserving the prosodic pattern of the base. The root nominalization staróst is still a root nominalization, but it now contains two roots, .star and .ost, which form a radical core, triggering default stress. Note that, unlike Marvin’s model, the proposed model can represent the exceptional ost-nominalizations with an overt derivational affix preceeding -ost, such as last-n-óst ‘feature’ (thereby resolving the Empirical Issue 2 identified in Section 2). In the four items like last-n-óst, n will be part of the radical core, as shown in (9). While such items are representable, they are also expected to be rare, as they require a specific Encyclopedia entry. This prediction is borne out, as we only found four such items. 4 CONSEQUENCES With the new proposed model in place and having applied it to the first portion of the data, I now turn to the more general picture. The stress-shifting affixes we have seen so far fall into three different categories when it comes to their selectional properties: a) Affixal roots like -ota always select other roots so it seems safe to assume that they have the selectional feature [.P]. b) Affixal roots like -ost, -c, -ka, and -je select roots only in a subset of their uses, which can be seen as exceptions. These roots are then generally category select­ing, having the feature [xP], but they can be stored as part of radical cores as well. c) Combinations of the ending -l and other affixes generally shift stress. Roots like -ota are entirely unproblematic and their stress pattern follows from the structure imposed by their selectional properties, as illustrated in (10). The account for the other two types needs to be rather more elaborate, as there is more variation and interaction between several affixes. I address the exceptional forma­tion of radical cores in 4.1. and the interactions of .l with other affixes in 4.2. 4.1 Exceptional Radical Cores The exceptional radical cores are readily analysed as cases of storage of a simplified structure, which contains just the bare minimum of functional projections, i.e. the top­most categorizing head, without which no well-formed word can exist. Note that I am now considering the ost-nominalizations with stressed ost (e.g. staróst) as exceptions. This is justified by the quantitative data presented in Table 1, which show that less than 3% of all ost-nominalization have the shifted stress pattern. While in examples of the type staróst only one functional projection was removed from the structure, other examples involve several removed projections. In order to illustrate this, I quote a minimal pair that some of the speakers have involving two c-nominalizations of the passive participle múčen ‘tortured’. (11) Two possible c-nominalizations of múčen ‘tortured’ Base Nominalization 1 Nominalization 2 múčen múčenc-a muč[.´]nc-a ‘tortured’ ‘tortured persons’ (dual) ‘martyrs’ (dual) Based both on the stress pattern and on meaning, it is clear that Nominalization 1 contains more functional structure than Nominalization 2. Nominalization 1 therefore also has more structure in common with the passive participle than Nominalization 2. The relevant trees for múčenec and muč[.´]nec, respectively are provided in (12). (12) múčenec ‘tortured persons’ vs muč[.´]nec ‘marthyr’ Note that the proposed analysis is clearly distinct from the more traditional analysis which would simply state that the muč[.´]nec is stored as a single item. Crucially, there is no new root .mučenc and the two items still contain the same roots, which are con­nected in a different structure. This subsection addressed the Empirical Issues 3 and 4 from Section 2 by providing a model which can handle the exceptions, that is items exceptionally lacking functional layers present in more compositionally built related words. In the following subsection I address Empirical Issue 1, which concerns the stress-shifting behavior of the deriva­tions that contain the l-participle. 4.2 L-participle, .l, or Both? Turning now to the nominalizations which appear to be derived from l-participles, I can already formalize what was formulated as Empirical Issue 1 in Section 2: the fact that “L-participle nominalizations are always stress-shifting.” All that needs to be speci­fied is that .l is a root-selector and the result of .l always triggering default stress is achieved. Now we can go through the contexts in which .l appears and see how plau­sible this assumption is. While a combination of .l with other affixes is very common, there actually is a class of nominalizations which show no other (overt) derivational affix on top of .l. One example quoted in (3) above was merilo ‘measure, scale’. Nominalizations of this type usually have the structure verbal root + theme vowel + l + o (o being a case end­ing). Marvin (2003: 108) notes that the theme vowel in some cases is not the same as the one attested in the verb. Furthermore, there are cases in which the root is not verbal at all. All three types are illustrated in (13). (13) Three types of lo-nominalizations a. verbal root + theme vowel attested with the same root + lo Nominalization Related l-participle merílo méril ‘measure scale’ ‘measured’ pisálo písal ‘writing device’ ‘written’ b. verbal root + theme vowel not attested with the same root + lo Nominalization Related l-participle barvílo bárval ‘pigment’ ‘coloured’ tolkálo tólkel ‘percussion’ ‘banged’ c. non-verbal root + theme vowel + lo Nominal Related l-participle Related noun glasbíl-o / glásb-a ‘musical instrument’ ‘music’ zrcál-o / / ‘mirror’ This variety of patterns attested in lo-nominalizations suggests a structure which is not necessarily deverbal, although it does seem to host roots which also show up in verbs more often than others. The analysis I propose is then that in (14). The inflec­tional ending -o is shown between brackets, which is a clear oversimplification: the -o is an exponent of a higher functional head (presumably K, the case head) which is not visible in the tree built so far. I remain agnostic as to whether the root .l is the same as the morpheme at the end of l-participles, which Marvin (2003: 90) convincingly shows to be the Elsewhere allo­morph in the verbal inflection. If this is the case, the picture is very well comparable to that in the nominal domain found by Simonović and Mišmaš (this volume) and it would necessitate a more general reconsideration of the distinction between the Encyclopedia and the Vocabulary. Note, however, that the lexical prosody of l-participles (e.g. méri-l ‘measured’ versus morí-l ‘murdered’) indicates that l-participles contain a vP under the position where the Elsewhere allomorph is inserted, so that there is no radical core in these forms and no default prosody emerges. The most prominent feature of the root .l beyond lo-nominalizations is that it is very often selected by other roots, which then leads to whole families of related words as the one shown in (3) and repeated here in (15). (15) Derivations containing méri+l related to mériti ‘measure’ Nouns: meríl-ec meríl-ka meríl-o ‘timekeeper’ ‘timekeeper’ (fem) ‘measure, scale’ Adjectives: meríl-n-a meríl-sk-i ‘measuring’ (fem) ‘related to measuring’ Especially productive are the agentive nominalizations in which .l is selected by .c and .k(a): out of 3000 most frequent verbs in the corpus Gigafida, more than 500 have nominalizations in .l+.c (-lec) or .l+.k(a) (-lka), making this the most pro­ductive pattern for agent nominalizations in Slovenian. This being so, it may appear more plausible to assume a verbal structure under .l. While this may be an option worth exploring, there are several good reasons for sticking with Lowenstamm’s initial model in which no categories are allowed under radical cores. First, nominalizations in .l+.c (-lec) or .l+.k(a) (-lka) resist productively combining with the frequent ver­balizer -irati, typically used in borrowed verbs (e.g. analizirati ‘analyse’, promovirati ‘promote’, etc.). Out of 125 verbs derived with -irati which figure among the 3000 most frequent verbs in the corpus Gigafida, only two have attested nominalizations of this type, and both of them are attested less than three times: kopiralec ‘copier’ and parkiralec ‘parker’. Second, there are nominalization in which .l+.c (or .l+.k(a)) is preceded by verbal-looking material which is not attested in any actual verb. Such .l+.c-nominalizations are illustrated in (16). (16) .l+.c-nominalizations lacking the base verb Nominalization Implied verb Actual verb Nominalization of the actual verb posnemovalec *posnemovati posnemati ?posnemalec ‘imitator’ ‘imitate’ ‘imitator’ obračunovalec *obračunovati obračunavati *obračunavalec ‘calculator’ ‘calculate’ obveščevalec ?obevščevati obveščati *obveščalec ‘informant’ ‘inform’ A remarkable feature of the nominalizations in (16) is that they all contain the se­quence ova/eva, which is readily analysed as the root .ov in combination with the theme vowel a, a pattern widely attested in actual verbs (see Simonović/Mišmaš, this volume). So, similarly to the examples in (13b) and (13c), .l selects a structure which contains a theme vowel, but this structure is not necessarily an existing verb. Before concluding this contribution, it should be pointed out that the model present­ed predicts the existence of words in which root-selecting and category-selecting af­fixes co-occur in the same structure. I have not presented any such words so far because the presentation has focused on the dichotomy between radical cores and their default stress, on the one hand, and structures which intertwined roots and functional structure with their faithful stress, on the other. However, words which have both radical cores and category-selecting affixes are amply attested in Slovenian. In (17) two such nouns are presented which are related to the verb mériti ‘measure’. (17) Derivations containing méri+l related to mériti ‘measure’ (part 2) merílnic-a merílnik ‘measuring room’ ‘measuring device’ Note that these nominalizations do not have stem-final stress, but they crucially contain a radical core (meriln) which has received the default stress. The analysis is shown in (18). 5 CONCLUSION In this contribution, a principled account has been presented of stress assignment in deadjectival and deverbal nominalizations in Slovenian, explicitly addressing both regular cases and exceptions. The analysis has been couched in the model proposed by Lowenstamm (2014), which views derivational affixes as transitive roots. The main ad­dition to the model was the proposal that parts of the structure which only contain roots with no intermediate functional structure (the ‘radical cores’) always receive default prosody. The analysis presented dispenses with lexical stress in Slovenian affixes and derives the prosodic properties of affixed words solely from their structure. The proposed model has been applied only to a limited number of derivational pat­terns, but it makes rather clear predictions as to what is to be expected in the rest of the language(s). It is therefore a worthwhile endeavor for future research to test the proposed model using additional data both from Slovenian and other languages. Finally, since the main focus has been on prosody, at least two aspects of the data analysed have received less attention than they deserve. The first is the semantics of the nominalizations discussed, which has only been addressed in passing. The second is the nature of the theme vowels in Slovenian (and beyond). For the sake convenience, I have followed Marvin (2003) in assuming that theme vowels belong to the root. It, however, remains a fact that theme vowels only play a role in analyses which relate mainly to the verbal domain. It is therefore necessary to explore further their nature and their lexical representation. It is my hope that further research will tackle these issues and bring new insights to bear on the matter. Primary Sources Gigafida. 24 February 2020. http://www.gigafida.net/. References HALLE, Morris/Alec MARANTZ (1993) “Distributed morphology and the pieces of in­flection.” In: K. Hale/S. J. Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguis­tics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–176. HALLE, Morris/Alec MARANTZ (1994) “Some key features of distributed morphol­ogy.” In: A. Carnie/H. Harley/T. Bures (eds), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, 275–288. LOWENSTAMM, Jean (2014) “Affixes as roots.” In: A. Alexiadou/H. Borer/F. Schäfer (eds), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax. Oxford: Oxford Univer­sity Press, 230–259. MARANTZ, Alec (1996) “‘Cat’ as a phrasal idiom.” Manuscript. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MARVIN, Tatjana (2003) Topics in the stress and syntax of words. Doctoral disserta­tion. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. REVITHIADOU, Anthi (1999) Headmost accent wins: Head dominance and ide­alprosodic form in lexical accent systems. Doctoral dissertation. Leiden: Leiden University. SIMONOVIĆ, Marko (2020) “Derivational affixes as roots across categories.” [In press.] Abstract CATEGORIES, ROOT COMPLEXES AND DEFAULT STRESS: SLOVENIAN NOMINALIZATIONS REVISITED A new account is presented of stress assignment in deadjectival and deverbal nomi­nalizations in Slovenian, explicitly addressing both regular cases and exceptions. The analysis is an extension of the account by Marvin (2003) and is couched in the model developed by Lowenstamm (2014), which views derivational affixes as transitive roots. The main addition to Lowenstamm’s model is the proposal that parts of the structure which only contain roots with no intermediate functional structure (the ‘radical cores’) always receive default prosody. The presented analysis dispenses with lexical stress in Slovenian affixes and derives the prosodic properties of affixed words solely from their structure. Keywords: stress, nominalizations, Distributed Morphology, default stress pattern, derivational affixes as roots, radical cores Povzetek KATEGORIJE, KORENSKI SKUPKI IN PRIVZETI NAGLAS: PONOVNO O SLOVENSKIH NOMINALIZACIJah V prispevku je predstavljen nov pristop k določevanju naglasnega mesta izpridev­niških in izglagolskih nominalizacij, ki neposredno naslavlja tako običajne kot izjemne primere. Pristop nadgrajuje analizo Tatjane Marvin (2003) z modelom Jeana Lowen­stamma (2014), v katerem so besedotvorni morfemi obravnavani kot prehodni mor­femi. Glavni prispevek k Lowenstammovemu modelu je predlog, v skladu s katerim deli strukture, ki vsebujejo le korene brez vmesne funkcijske strukture (t. i. korenski skupki), vedno pridobijo privzeto prozodijo. Predstavljena analiza tako odpravlja leksi­kalen naglas v slovenskih morfemih in razlaga prozodične lastnosti tvorjenk izključno z vidika njihove strukture. Ključne besede: naglas, nominalizacije, razpršena morfologija, privzeti naglasni vzo­rec, besedotvorni morfemi kot koreni, korenski skupki Susanne Wurmbrand* UDK 811.163'367.625:81'362 University of Vienna, Austria DOI: 10.4312/linguistica.60.1.119-137 Iva Kovač** University of Vienna, Austria Magdalena Lohninger*** University of Vienna, Austria Caroline Pajančič**** University of Vienna, Austria Neda Todorović***** University of British Columbia, Canada FINITENESS IN SOUTH SLAVIC COMPLEMENT CLAUSES: EVIDENCE FOR AN IMPLICATIONAL FINITENESS UNIVERSAL 1 INTRODUCTION The notion of finiteness is a much-debated topic in syntax, morphology, and seman­tics, as many fundamental questions have not been answered yet. Due to the vast cross-linguistic variation in the distribution of finiteness, many works have concluded that there is no single morpho-syntactic definition of finiteness, nor a single semantic function associated with it (see e.g., Cristofaro 2007; Bisang 2007; Nikolaeva 2007). Among the morpho-syntactic categories that have been suggested to reflect finiteness are tense, aspect, mood, illocutionary force, person marking, politeness, special forms not used in independent clauses, and/or nominal morphology on the verb (see the works in Nikolaeva 2007). Semantically, finiteness is often associated with clausal independ­ence, specifically, the possibility of a sentence to occur as a free-standing (declarative) main clause (Maas 2004; Bisang 2007; Givón 1990), or, particularly in the Government and Binding and Minimalism traditions, with independent tense or an anchoring to the logophoric center of a clause (Bianchi 2003; Adger 2007). Despite the (theoretical and empirical) variation, various distributional tendencies and patterns have been observed (see Givón 1990; Cristofaro 2007), which indicate that the distribution is not arbitrary but follows certain implicational relations. In this paper, we will look at variation in the distribution of finiteness in a well-defined empirical domain – the South Slavic languages (SSL), and show that it falls along two dimensions: language and type of complement. To illustrate, while Serbian (Sr) allows finite and non-finite complements of verbs like try (1a), Slovenian (Sl) only allows non-finite complements in this context (1b).14 For a fuller overview of this in Slavic and for an account of the Bulgarian data which attributes the unavailability of inflected imperative with perfective verbs in Bulgarian to the morphoseman­tics of tense and aspect categories in the language, see Kuehnast (2008). Our account is closer to the traditional view that the loss of these forms became more likely due to the existence of synonymous syntactic constructions. On the other hand, when the matrix verb is a speech verb like claim in (1c), the distribution in Slovenian is exactly the op­posite from (1b) – only a finite complement is possible. (1) a. Pokušala sam {da čitam / čitati} ovu knjigu. (Sr) tried.sg.f aux.1sg {da read.1sg / read.inf.ipfv} this book ‘I tried to read this book.’ b. Poskusila sem {*da berem / brati } to knjigo. (Sl) tried.sg.f aux.1sg {*da read.1sg / read.inf.ipfv } this book ‘I tried to read this book.’ (Adrian Stegovec, p.c.) c. Trdim, {da berem / *brati} to knjigo. (Sl) claim.1sg {da read.1sg / *read.inf.ipfv} this book ‘I claim that I am reading/to be reading this book.’ (Adrian Stegovec, p.c.) The property in (1c) holds for all SSL and we propose that the uniformity in the choice of finite forms in these types of complements is due to a grammatical constraint shared by all SSL. We also show that in addition to the two types of complements in (1), there is a third class, illustrated by complements to verbs like decide in (2), which shows flexibility regarding finiteness in most, but not all SSL languages. (2) Odločila sem se {brati /da bom brala} (Sl) decided.sg.f aux.1sg refl {read.inf.ipfv /da will.1sg read.sg.f} to knjigo. this book ‘I decided to read this book.’ (Adrian Stegovec, p.c.) Comparing constructions like (1) and (2) across the SSL, we argue that complement clauses form a semantic hierarchy, and that the distribution of (non-)finiteness in the SSL reflects an implicational scale along this hierarchy. We suggest that the implica­tional nature of the hierarchy (and the distribution of finiteness) is derived via contain­ment relations of clausal domains. Lastly, we propose that the variation is the result of different distributions of the features triggering finiteness, specifically in SSL, agree­ment features. Our findings thus support the existence of implicational hierarchies, defined in semantic terms, on which morphological coding, such as manifestations of finiteness, operates. More broadly, we will conclude that: i) there is no (universal) semantic correlate of (non-)finiteness, since cross-linguistically, all types of complements can be realized as finite or non-finite in at least some language; ii) finiteness is not confined to a particular domain in the clause, but can be distributed over all clausal domains (see also Adger 2007); but iii) there are systematic implicational relations which hold among different types of complements and which, despite possibly arbitrary specific finiteness settings, allow us to predict certain properties of finiteness. 2 IMPLICATIONAL COMPLEMENTATION HIERARCHY (ICH) Languages exhibit a variety of different types of complementation, which can be di­vided into different classes based on their semantic and/or their morphosyntactic prop­erties, such as finite/non-finite, subjunctive, nominalization (see among others Givón 1980; Pesetsky 1992; Horie 2001; Cristofaro 2005; Dixon 2006; Noonan 2007 for dif­ferent approaches). This paper follows Givón’s basic insight that classes are defined semantically, forming an implicational complementation hierarchy (ICH), which we define below. Syntactic and morphological distinctions (such as finiteness), if present in a language, operate along that scale. While morphosyntactic effects may be neu­tralized in different languages, the semantic scale is observable cross-linguistically, and morphosyntactic distinctions can never go against the hierarchy. Wurmbrand and Lohninger (to appear) propose that in addition to the fine-grained semantic scale given in Givón (1980), languages bundle categories into three super-sets, which we refer to as Proposition, Situation, and Event, adopting the terminology and definitions in Ram­chand and Svenonius (2014) (a similar classification has been proposed in Rochette 1988, 1990, although with different terminology). Complements of the type Proposi­tion involve speech, epistemic, and factive contexts. These types of complements are temporally independent, have no pre-specified tense value, are anchored in an utterance or embedding context, and may involve speaker-oriented parameters. Complements of the type Situation involve emotive and irrealis contexts. These types of complements are elaborate eventualities without speaker- and utterance-oriented properties, but with time and world parameters, allowing them to refer to a specific, possibly pre-deter­mined, time. The most common type of Situation complements are forward expanded unrealized events where the time of the complement must be after the time of the ma­trix verb (Abusch 2004; Wurmbrand 2014b). Complements of the type Event include implicative and strong attempt contexts. These types of complements are semantic Properties (Chierchia 1984; Wurmbrand 2002) in that they lack speaker- and utter­ance-oriented, as well as time and world parameters; they are tenseless, may involve actuality entailments (Hacquard 2006), and may have reduced argument structure and/or event properties. Using this classification, Wurmbrand (2014a, 2015), and Wurm­brand and Lohninger (to appear) establish the implicational nature of the ICH as in Table 1. Independence refers to properties such as the presence and/or interpretation of an independent subject in the complement clause; transparency characterizes whether the embedded clause is permeable for certain cross-clausal operations or dependencies; and integration refers to the degree to which the embedded predicate is incorporated into the matrix predicate. Table 1: Implicational complementation hierarchy (ICH) most independent least transparent least integrated Proposition » Situation » Event least independent most transparent most integrated ICH hierarchy effects have originally been discussed predominantly for infini­tives, where clause union or restructuring effects are easily detectable. However, in Todorović and Wurmbrand (2020) and Wurmbrand and Lohninger (to appear), it is observed that even in languages with no infinitives, complements show (in)dependence and transparency effects that track the ICH. Moreover, the semantic classes identified above are typologically robust, whereas morphosyntactic properties differ significantly across languages. If, as we suggest, the basic complementation classes are defined se­mantically by the ICH, we expect to see the different (semantic) types of complements to display variable properties, even when morphosyntactic finiteness does not distin­guish between them. That the ICH applies to finite and non-finite complements alike is illustrated here by the distribution of clause-introducers in complement clauses in Bul­garian and Macedonian, both languages that do not have infinitives. As shown in (3a), Proposition complements must occur with če in Bulgarian and cannot be introduced by da. Situation complements as in (3b) can occur with either če or da. Lastly, Event complements can only occur with da, as in (3c). (3) a. Lea tvărdi {če / *da} čete kniga. Lea claim.prs.3sg {that / *da} read.prs.3sg book ‘Lea claims that she is reading a book.’ (Marchela Oleinikova, p.c.) b. Lea reši {če *(šte) / da } čete kniga. Lea decided.prf.3sg {that *(will) / da } read.prs.3sg book ‘Lea decided to read/that she will read a book.’ c. Lea se opitvaše {*če / da} čete kniga. Lea refl try.prf.3sg {*that / da} read.prs.3sg book ‘Lea tried to read a book.’ The same restrictions hold for Macedonian as illustrated in (4). (4) a. Lea tvărdi {deka / *da} čita kniga. Lea claim.prs.3sg {that / *da} read.prs.3sg book ‘Lea claims that she is reading a book.’ (Sandra Jakimovska, p.c.) b. Lea se rešila {deka *(e) / da } čita kniga. Lea refl decided.prf.3sg {that *(will) / da } read.prs.3sg book ‘Lea decided to read/that she will read a book.’ c. Lea probala {*deka / da} čita kniga. Lea try.prf.3sg {*that / da} read.prs.3sg book ‘Lea tried to read a book.’ As shown in (3b), while da complements can encode future directly, če/deka com­plements require an overt future element to be interpreted as a Situation complement (see section 4.1 for an explanation of this difference). In Bulgarian, some speakers may also allow a decide complement introduced by če and no overt future. In this case, the configuration typically cannot receive a Situation interpretation, but is instead shifted to a Proposition context such as a performative use where the matrix subject evaluates or assigns truth to the embedded proposition (similar to cases like I decided that he is a nice person; but other attitude meanings are possible for some speakers as well). Thus, predicates may sometimes undergo a class change, and it is therefore essential to pair the morphosyntactic properties with the interpretation when evaluating ICH ef­fects. If a Situation predicate can be changed or coerced into a Proposition predicate, it follows from the ICH (which is defined semantically) that the predicate then takes on the morphosyntactic properties of the Proposition class (such as the complementizer če). The distribution of complement clauses in Bulgarian (Bu) and Macedonian (Ma) is summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Clause introducers in Bu, Ma Proposition Situation Event če/deka . . (with future) * da * . . As shown in Table 2, Bulgarian and Macedonian exhibit what we refer to as an ICH signature effect: the two classes at the opposite ends of the ICH scale show the opposite properties, while the class in the middle is ‘in-between’ in that it is compatible with both properties (in this case). In the next section, we will show that the distribution of finiteness in SSL shows ICH signature effects and follows the ICH in an interesting way. In section 4, we then suggest a direction for deriving the ICH and the finiteness distribution. Section 5 concludes the paper. 3 FINITENESS HIERARCHY 3.1 A Finiteness ICH Signature Effect We now turn to the SSL that have infinitives, i.e., Bosnian, Croatian, Slovenian, and Serbian. To illustrate that SSL show ICH signature effects regarding (non-)finiteness, we begin by summarizing the finiteness property of the three types of complements in Slovenian, as shown in (5) (repeated from (1) and (2); see below for further explana­tions regarding (5b)). (5) a. Trdim, {da berem / *brati} to knjigo. (Sl) claim.1sg {da read.1sg / *read.inf.ipfv} this book ‘I claim that I am reading/to be reading this book.’ b. Odločila sem se {brati / da bom brala / decided.sg.f aux.1sg refl {read.inf.ipfv / da will.1sg read.sg.f / (*) da berem} to knjigo. (*) da read.1.sg} this book ‘I decided to read this book.’ c. Poskusila sem {brati / *da berem / *da bom tried.sg.f aux.1sg {read.inf.ipfv / *da read.1sg / *da will.1sg brala} to knjigo. read.sg.f} this book ‘I tried to read this book.’ As in all SSL, Proposition complements can only be finite (5a). Situation comple­ments can be either non-finite or finite. In Slovenian (and many other languages), finite complements usually require an overt future tense to convey the same meaning as the infinitive in (5b), unless the language and context allows future interpretations to be ex­pressed by present tense (e.g., as in planned or scheduled events). If a present-for-future use is not possible, for whatever reasons, a finite form without overt future (i.e., the third option in (5b)) is excluded when the intended reading is the same as the reading of the corresponding infinitival construction. Similarly to Bulgarian, however, this form may still be rendered acceptable if the matrix verb is shifted to a performative (i.e., a Proposition) interpretation (e.g., (5b) could be used in a situation where the subject is making a decision about which book to read in a play and then declares which book they decided on). Finally, Slovenian Event complements, as shown in (5c), can only occur as non-finite. These observations are summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Finiteness in Slovenian complements Proposition Situation Event finite . . (with future) * non-finite * . . Comparing the distribution of Bulgarian and Macedonian clause introducers with the finiteness distribution in Slovenian, we see an obvious parallel. Both cases display a clear ICH signature effect: the Proposition and Event classes show opposing properties, whereas the Situation class allows both (albeit with certain restrictions). 3.2 A Possible Finiteness Universal In the broader context of South Slavic, different languages show different patterns of availability of infinitives and finite forms; the distribution of these forms seems to be largely dependent on the geographical location and language contact. As can be seen in Figure 1, Bulgarian and Macedonian do not allow infinitives at all, Croatian is the most infinitive-friendly language, and Bosnian, Slovenian, and Serbian occupy the middle of the scale; Slovenian inclines more towards the non-finite, Serbian towards the finite extreme of the scale, and Bosnian is in the middle (judgements for Bosnian differ, thus illustrating the language contact situation quite well). Figure 1: Infinitives in the SSL Since Bulgarian and Macedonian do not use infinitives, we concentrate here on the grammatical patterns of the other four SSL, Bosnian (Bo), Croatian (Cr), Slovenian (Sl), and Serbian (Sr). The distribution is given in (6). Note that due to the contact situation of these languages, language/dialect affiliation is not always clear-cut. Since categorical judgments may not always be possible, the marks should be understood as preferences. The data are given in Serbian in (6) (see Vrzić 1996), but the judgments are to be understood as applying to the translations of these examples into the different languages. (6) a. Tvrdim {da čitam / čitati} ovu knjigu. claim.1sg {da read.1sg / read.inf.ipfv} this book ‘I claim that I am reading this book.’ (finite) .Sr, .Bo, .Sl, .Cr ‘I claim to be reading this book.’ (non-finite) *Sr, *Bo, *Sl, *Cr b. Odlučila sam {da čitam / da ću čitati / čitati} decided.sg.f aux.1sg {da read.1sg / da will.1sg read / read.inf.ipfv} ovu knjigu. this book ‘I decided that I will read this book.’ (finite) .Sr, .Bo, .Sl, */?Cr ‘I decided to read this book.’ (non-finite) ?Sr, .Bo, .Sl, .Cr c. Pokušala sam { da čitam / čitati} ovu knjigu. tried.sg.f aux.1sg { da read.1sg / read.inf.ipfv} this book ‘I tried that I am reading/will read this book.’ (finite) .Sr, ?Bo, *Sl, *Cr ‘I tried to read this book.’ (non-finite) .Sr, .Bo, .Sl, .Cr As shown in (6a), the SSL are uniform with Proposition complements in that they disallow infinitives across the board. The Situation class in (6b) allows infinitives in all SSL (even though they are dispreferred in many Serbian varieties), but otherwise exhibits variation. Serbian (and possibly Slovenian)2* rkicma@gmail.com ** petra.mismas@ung.si 1 We acknowledge the financial support by the Austrian Science Fund FWF (grant I 4215) and the Slovenian Research Agency ARRS (grant N6-0113). can express the future meaning with a finite present tense form. Bosnian, Slovenian, and Serbian allow infinitives or finite overt future forms, but Croatian strongly disprefers any finite form.32 Additional evidence for this claim comes from plurale tantum nouns such as možgan-i ‘brain’, which can have a bare genitive plural možgan (but also možgan-ov). Lastly, the Event class in (6c) permits infinitives in all SSL, with it being the only possible form in Croatian and Slovenian. A finite complement clause is allowed in Serbian and possibly in Bosnian, but judgements in Bosnian differ and we have not been able to conclu­sively determine the distribution. The distribution of finite vs. non-finite complements is summarized in Table 4 (due to the variation within Bosnian, we have not been able to conclusively allocate it to a category, and we therefore list it in two places). The distri­bution clearly shows that there is a variation according to the two parameters: language and type of complement. Table 4: Finiteness in South Slavic Proposition Situation Event Bulgarian, Macedonian finite finite finite Serbian, Bosnian? finite (non-)finite (non-)finite Slovenian, Bosnian? finite (non-)finite non-finite Croatian finite non-finite non-finite The tendencies observed in the SSL reveal a clear finiteness scale which follows the ICH: a type of complement can never be ‘more’ finite than the type of complement to its left. On the basis of this distribution we propose the (hypothetical) finiteness universal in (7). (7) (Hypothetical) Finiteness Universal If a language {allows/requires} finiteness in a type of complement, all types of complements further to the left on ICH also {allow/require} finiteness. 4 A SKETCH OF AN ACCOUNT 4.1 Towards Deriving the ICH While the ICH in Givón 1980 is defined functionally, Wurmbrand and Lohninger (to appear) propose a grammatical approach. To address the question of how the ordering and implicational nature of the ICH arise, we start with the mapping of the semantic sorts Proposition, Situation, and Event to syntax. Following Ramchand and Svenonius (2014), Propositions, Situations, and Events are semantic sorts expressing conceptual primitives which are in a coherent containment relation – Situations are elaborations of Events, Propositions are elaborations of Situations. More specifically, Situations are created by combining time/world parameters with an existentially closed Event, and Propositions combine speaker-oriented/discourse-linking parameters with an existen­tially closed Situation. In other words, these semantic sorts are computed in a predict­able way by combining the verb with its arguments (creating an Event), by relating an (existentially closed) Event to a time through T or other temporal elements (creating a Situation), and by anchoring a Situation to a context through an element of the opera­tor domain (e.g., C, creating a Proposition). Note that while the broad distinction into clausal domains is considered a general property of phrase structure (see also Grohm­ann 2003), the detailed internal organization of these domains (e.g., CP, TMA, and vP) may vary cross-linguistically. Figure 2 illustrates the containment relations among clausal domains and their semantic correspondences. Figure 2: Clausal domains Since, as we propose, complementation is also defined by the semantic sorts Propo­sition, Situation, and Event, the same containment implications arise. As specified in Table 5, the three types of complements have different minimal requirements. Propo­sition complements are cognition and utterance complements with independent and not predetermined tense interpretations (I said that he left/will leave/is leaving). There is still a tense dependency in the sense that the tense in every complement clause is interpreted relative to the event time of the matrix predicate, but, crucially, the choice of the embedded tense value is free. Following Kratzer (2006) and Moulton (2009a,b), aspects of the meaning of an attitude configuration are situated in the operator domain of the complement clause. The operator domain also separates the matrix predicate and the embedded temporal domain, leading to the tense value independence of these complements. Situation complements involve an independent temporal domain in that the matrix and embedded temporal interpretation can differ (e.g., I decided yesterday to leave tomorrow). However, the tense value is predetermined – the embedded clause, whether infinitive or finite, should be situated after the event time of the matrix predi­cate. There is thus a closer/tighter connection between the matrix predicate and the embedded temporal domain. Lastly, Event complements do not involve an independ­ent tense – they are always interpreted as simultaneous with the matrix predicate. The ranking and implicational nature of the ICH can then be seen as a reflex of the resulting semantic complexity scale. Table 5: Clausal domains and complexity Proposition Situation Event Minimal requirement Operator domain TMA domain Theta domain TMA domain Theta domain Theta domain Complexity most complex intermediate least complex In this paper, we will pursue the hypothesis that the different types of complements can vary in minimal size as in (8). This does not mean that Event complements are nec­essarily always just theta domains (e.g., vPs). Structures could vary across languages, however, our main claim is that they can never go against the hierarchy. For instance, there could not be a language where Proposition complements are always less complex than Event or Situation complements. Returning to the distribution of clause introducers in Bulgarian, the system outlined here can derive the ICH signature effect as well as the restriction noted about overt future. The assumption we make is that če is a true complementizer (i.e., a head in the operator domain), whereas da is a lower clausal head. Since Proposition complements require the operator domain, it follows that they always occur with če, as in (9a). Situa­tion complements can occur without the operator domain, in which case the embedded clause, a TMA domain, directly combines with the matrix verb. The irrealis interpreta­tion arises through a covert future modal woll (Wurmbrand 2014b; Todorović 2015), which, following Todorović and Wurmbrand (2020), needs to be identified within the syntactic context. One way to license woll is via Merge with a Situation verb as in (9b) (we leave open whether this is a selectional or featural relation). If, on the other hand, a Situation verb combines with an operator domain, (9c), the matrix verb and woll are too far apart, and only an independent overt future is possible (in which case woll is licensed by Tense (Abusch 1988)). The resulting future statement, although structurally more complex than a simple woll-clause, still satisfies the semantic requirement of a Situation verb, which only demands that the complement refers to a forward expanded unrealized event. In the next section, we show how this implementation of the ICH derives the finite­ness universal in (7) (repeated in (10)). (10) (Hypothetical) Finiteness Universal If a language {allows/requires} finiteness in a type of complement, all types of complements further to the left on ICH also {allow/require} finiteness. 4.2 Finiteness in the SSL An account of the distribution of finiteness in the SSL in Table 4, repeated as Table 6, needs to derive the following properties: i) Proposition complements are always finite in the SSL (but not cross-linguistically). ii) Situation and Event complements can be finite or non-finite in the SSL, with language-specific settings restricting the options. iii) The distribution of finiteness follows the implicational universal in (7). Table 6: Finiteness in South Slavic Proposition Situation Event Bulgarian, Macedonian finite finite finite Serbian, Bosnian? finite (non-)finite (non-)finite Slovenian, Bosnian? finite (non-)finite non-finite Croatian finite non-finite non-finite Before answering these questions, we need to address one basic, yet very difficult question, namely what finiteness is. 4.2.1 What is Finiteness? Typically, finiteness is associated with a property of the temporal domain (but see Cris­tofaro 2007; Bisang 2007 for other options). Comparing the distribution of finiteness in Table 6 with the temporal properties of these complements in Table 7, it becomes clear that there is no general semantic tense property that can be mapped to a morphosyntac­tic category finite or non-finite in SSL. Table 7: Embedded tense properties Proposition Situation Event Embedded temporal domain yes yes no Predetermined tense value no yes N/A While it may be tempting to treat the uniformity of finiteness in Proposition comple­ments as a reflex of a semantic property (e.g., independent, non-predetermined tense; see also below), this would raise the question of why Situation complements can (Ser­bian, Bosnian, Slovenian) or must (Bulgarian, Macedonian) also be finite, and why even Event complements can (Serbian, Bosnian) or must (Bulgarian, Macedonian) be finite. It would also be difficult to extend such an account to languages outside the SSL, where Proposition complements can also be non-finite (e.g., English She claims to have won). Similarly, although Event complements tend to be non-finite, this cannot be the result of mapping the semantic lack of tense to a morphosyntactic category non-finite, since it is only a trend – Serbian and Bosnian allow, and Bulgarian, Macedonian require finite Event complements, where, importantly, the interpretation is the same as in Event con­texts in the other languages. Lastly, Situation complements also show the entire spectrum from obligatory finite (Bulgarian, Macedonian), optionally finite (Serbian, Bosnian, Slo­venian), to non-finite (Croatian), where, once again, the interpretation of the complement in all languages is the same, namely that of a forward expanded unrealized event. While we conclude that it is not possible to directly derive the distribution of finite­ness from semantic properties, we have seen in section 4.1 that the dependencies in Table 7 nevertheless play an important role in the distribution of complementation it­self. The different temporal properties reflect a scale of independence of the embedded clauses, which we have suggested is structurally implemented via different syntactic complexities. This approach allows us to derive the implicational nature of the ICH, and it will also provide an answer for the question of why the distribution of finiteness follows the implicational universal in (7). Returning to the question of what finiteness is, we follow Cristofaro (2007) and Bisang (2007), who argue that there is no universal category of finiteness, but that lan­guages can differ in what properties they utilize to express finiteness. We suggest that in the SSL, finiteness corresponds to agreement (whereas in other languages it could be tense, the combination thereof, or even other properties). More specifically, we follow Adger (2007), where it is suggested that features related to finiteness are not confined to a particular syntactic position (such as a Fin head in the CP), but can also occur on lower clausal heads. For instance, Adger suggests that subject licensing in Scottish Gaelic (a finiteness property) requires the (uninterpretable) features [T] and [Agr], but these features do not necessitate a semantic T or C head – they can also be inserted (somewhat parasitically) on other heads or project independent AgrPs in any domain of the clause. Although the details of finiteness in Scottish Gaelic and the SSL differ, we adopt this proposal in spirit and assume that in the SSL, finiteness is the spell-out of agreement features, which can occur on v, T, or C. 4.2.2 Proposition Complements We are now able to derive the distribution of finiteness in complement clauses in SSL, starting with Proposition complements. We have observed that, whenever the operator domain must be projected, i.e., in Proposition complements (see Table 5), finiteness is obligatory (and this holds regardless of the finiteness settings of Event and Situation complements). We propose that in Proposition complements, the locus of finiteness is the CP in SSL. More specifically, as illustrated in (11), if the operator domain is projected in a complement clause, agreement features are obligatory and they occur on C or a split CP with a separate agreement projection (we do not split Agr in the trees). Finiteness in the CP is, of course, what one would expect following cartographic approaches. Our approach differs, however, in several respects. First, as we will see momentarily, finiteness is not restricted to the CP domain. In particular, we argue, following Adger (2007), that finiteness cannot entail the presence of a CP. Adger pro­poses that finiteness comes in two versions – a semantic notion of finiteness, associated with the CP, and occurrences of finiteness in the lower clausal domains which are not associated with a semantic function of finiteness. While we adopt the second part of Adger’s proposal, we submit that finiteness in complement clauses is never associated with a semantic property. Following Bianchi (2003), Adger suggests that a semantic finiteness head in the CP is responsible for identifying the embedded event/reference time [E/R] with the speech time [S] and/or the relation of participants to the external logophoric center, the external speech event. While this is a possible approach for main clauses, it does not carry over to embedded clauses. Bianchi (2003: 7) already qualifies the claim that “A finite verb form can encode the relation of E/R to S” with “at least in main clauses.” In complement clauses, the embedded tense is not related to the speech time, but always evaluated with respect to the matrix tense. Thus, even in Proposi­tion complements, which have their own temporal domain and no predetermined tense value, there is a tense dependency with the matrix clause and not the speech event. Furthermore, according to Bianchi (2003: 7), “A non-finite form does not encode any relation to S”. Since this is true for all types of complement clauses (none of them involve deictic tense), it would not allow us to distinguish between the different types of complements, and it therefore offers no way to approach the distribution in Table 6. The only option to tie finiteness in Proposition complements in the SSL to a seman­tic property is to associate it with the attitude property itself (following Kratzer 2006; Moulton 2009a,b). But since Proposition complements are not finite universally (see e.g., English, German), it once again cannot be a necessary connection between a se­mantic and morphosyntactic property. Our approach captures this – finiteness is not semantic but purely morphosyntactic. However, the distribution of this morphosyntac­tic property, implemented by the projection of agreement features, is sensitive to the structure, which in turn is determined by semantic properties. For the SSL we thus have the language-specific property in (12). (12) C [Proposition]: +Agr The last point to note is how an Agr head/feature in the CP triggers finiteness on the verb. There are various technical ways to derive this. For the sake of simplicity, we as­sume that the clausal heads C, T, v+V enter a dependency with each other (this could be V/T-movement, Agree, or feature lowering) and that the highest verbal element must realize the Agr feature. 4.2.3 Situation and Event Complements Since Situation and Event complements can lack the operator domain (see Progovac 1993a,b, 1994, 1996; Stjepanović 2004; Todorović and Wurmbrand 2020 for detailed motivation for clause reduction despite finiteness), under a cartographic approach where finiteness is located (solely or partially) in the CP, the question arising is how clauses without CP can be finite. Our account can successfully capture the presence of finiteness in the absence of CP as well as the distribution in Table 6. Following Adger (2007), we assume that agreement features, which are responsible for finiteness in the SSL, can be located in the other clausal domains, i.e., on heads of the TMA domain and even on heads of the theta domain. The structure of a finite Situation complement is given in (13a), the one of a finite Event complement in (13b). The distribution of agreement features in the TMA and theta domains must be re­stricted by language-specific settings, which are spelled out in Table 8 for the SSL. Table 8: Agr distribution CP domain TMA domain Theta domain Bulgarian, Macedonian Agr Agr Agr Serbian, Bosnian? Agr optional Agr optional Agr Slovenian, Bosnian? Agr optional Agr no Agr Croatian Agr no/marginal Agr no Agr The approach thus captures the fact that Situation and Event complements can be finite or non-finite, even though Proposition complements must always be finite in the SSL. Since the finiteness of Proposition complements comes from the CP, and the CP can be missing in non-Proposition complements, it is correctly predicted that finiteness is only obligatory (in the SSL) when the operator domain is required. In all other types of complements, non-finite forms could be possible due to different settings of the lower clausal heads, which may or may not come with an Agr head. The approach thus allows us to derive the cross-linguistic variation – languages could differ in the inven­tory of Agr associated with heads of the different domains. The last advantage of this approach is that, despite the language-specific settings in Table 8, there are predictions it makes, which we turn to in the last subsection. 4.2.4 Finiteness Universal Recall that the distribution of finiteness in different types of complements is systematic and follows the finiteness universal – if a complement is allowed/required to be finite in a language, all the complements to the left of it allow/require finiteness. Thus, for instance, there is no language where Event complements are obligatorily finite and Situation and/or Proposition complements optionally non-finite; or no language where Event complements are optionally finite but Situation and/or Proposition obligatorily non-finite. Note that this does not mean that it is not possible for a language to realize finite Event complements and non-finite Situation complements at the same time – but what is impossible is that these be the only options in the language. Our approach derives these implicational relations in the distribution of finiteness. Since clausal domains are in a containment configuration (see Figure 2), it follows that settings in a lower domain affect all clauses that include that domain, i.e. also clauses with additional higher domains, since higher domains necessarily include the lower ones. To be more concrete, if in a language the theta domain is specified as (obligato­rily) finite (Bulgarian, Macedonian), all types of clauses will be realized as finite since the theta domain is included in all clause types.4* rkicma@gmail.com 1 I acknowledge the financial support by the Austrian Science Fund FWF (grant I 4215) and the Slovenian Research Agency ARRS (grant N6-0113). In other words, if Event complements can or must be finite in a language, all other types of complements in the language can or must be finite as well. This is illustrated in (14) – finiteness as in (14a) entails finite­ness in configurations (14b,c). Although the Agr specifications for heads can differ in our system, it is not possible to derive a configuration in which, for instance, the theta domain contains Agr but clauses that include higher domains do not. Even if one were to posit Agr on v, but no Agr specifications on TMA or CP heads, the containment rela­tions predict that lower Agr specifications can never be ‘undone’. 5 CONCLUSION We have shown in this paper that the distribution of (non-)finiteness in the SSL reflects an implicational scale along an independently attested semantic hierarchy. We have suggested that in the SSL, finiteness is triggered by clausal agreement features associ­ated with different syntactic heads. Building on a complexity approach to the comple­mentation hierarchy, cross-linguistic variation in finiteness, as well as variation across different types of complements is derived as the result of language-specific differences in the distribution of agreement features. More broadly, we have concluded that there is no (universal) semantic correlate of (non-)finiteness and, contra cartographic ap­proaches, that finiteness is not confined to a particular domain in the clause, but can be distributed over all clausal domains. Acknowledgements We thank the audience of the Workshop on the Morphology of South Slavic languages and an anonymous reviewer for invaluable feedback. This work has been supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): M 2332-G30 (Universals and variation in clausal complementation) and P34012-G (Implicational hierarchies in clausal complementation). References ABUSCH, Dorit (1988) “Sequence of Tense, intensionality and scope.” In: H. Borer (ed), The Proceedings of the 7th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Standford: CSLI Publications, 1–14. ABUSCH, Dorit (2004) “On the temporal compostion of infinitives.” In: J. Guéron/ J. Lecarme (eds), The syntax of time. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 27–53. ADGER, David (2007) “Three domains of finiteness: A minimalist perspective.” In: I. Nikolaeva (ed), 23–58. BIANCHI, Valentina (2003) “On finiteness as logophoric anchoring.” In: J. Guéron/L. Tasmovski (eds), Temps et point de vue/Tense and Point of View. Paris: Université Paris X. 213–246. BISANG, Walter (2007) “Categories that make finiteness: Discreteness from a func­tional perspective and some of its repercussions.” In: I. Nikolaeva (ed), 115–137. CHIERCHIA, Gennaro (1984) Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. Doctoral dissertation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. CRISTOFARO, Sonia (2005) Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CRISTOFARO, Sonia (2007) “Deconstructing finiteness: Finiteness in a functional-typological perspective.” In: I. Nikolaeva (ed), 91–114. DIXON, Robert M. W (2006) “Complement clauses and complementation strategies in typological perspective.” In: R. M. W Dixon/A. Y. Aikhenvald (eds), Complemen­tation: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–48. GIVÓN, Talmy (1980) “The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements.” Studies in Language 4/3, 333–377. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.4.3.03giv GIVÓN, Talmy (1990) Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, Vol. II. Am­sterdam: J. Benjamins. GROHMANN, Kleanthes K. (2003) Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of move­ment dependencies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. HACQUARD, Valentine (2006) Aspects of modality. Doctoral dissertation. Cam­bridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. HORIE, Kaoru (2001) “Complement clauses.” Language Typology and Language Uni­versals. An International Handbook 2, 979–993. KRATZER, Angelika (2006) “Decomposing Proposition verbs.” Talk given in honor of Anita Mittwoch. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. MAAS, Utz (2004) “‘Finite’ and ‘nonfinite’ from a typological perspective.” Linguis­tics 42/2, 359–385. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2004.012 MOULTON, Keir (2009a) “Clausal complementation and the wager-class.” In: A. Schardl/M. Walkow/M. Abdurrahman (eds), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting 38. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA,165–178. MOULTON, Keir (2009b) Natural selection and the syntax of clausal complementa­tion. Doctoral dissertation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. NIKOLAEVA, Irina (2007a) “Constructional economy and nonfinite independent clauses.” In: I. Nikolaeva (ed), 138–180. NIKOLAEVA, Irina (ed) (2007b) Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. NIKOLAEVA, Irina (2007c) “Introduction.” In: I. Nikolaeva (ed), 1–19. NOONAN, Michael (2007) “Complementation.” In: T. Shopen (ed), Language typol­ogy and syntactic description: Complex Constructions (Volume II). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 52–150. PESETSKY, David (1992) Zero syntax II: An essay on infinitives. Cambridge, MA: MIT. PROGOVAC, Ljiljana (1993a) “Locality and subjunctive-like complements in Serbo-Croatian.” Journal of Slavic Linguistics 1, 116–144. PROGOVAC, Ljiljana (1993b) “Subjunctive: The (mis)behavior of anaphora and negative polarity.” The Linguistic Review 10, 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1993.10.1.37 PROGOVAC, Ljiljana (1994) Negative and positive polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PROGOVAC, Ljiljana (1996) “Clitics in Serbian/Croatian: Comp as the second posi­tion.” In: A. Halpern/A. Zwicky (eds), Approaching second: Second position clitics and related phenomena. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 441–428. RAMCHAND, Gillian/Peter SVENONIUS (2014) “Deriving the functional hierarchy.” Language sciences 46, 152–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013 ROCHETTE, Anne (1988) Semantic and syntactic aspects of Romance sentential com­plementation. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ROCHETTE, Anne (1990) “On the restructuring classes of verbs in Romance.” In: A. Di Sciullo/A. Rochette (eds), Binding in Romance: Essays in honour of Judith McA’Nulty. Ottawa: Canadian Linguistic Association, 96 –128. STJEPANOVIĆ, Sandra (2004) “Clitic climbing and restructuring with ‘finite clause’ and infinitive complements.” Journal of Slavic Linguistics 12/1–2, 173–212. TODOROVIĆ, Neda (2015) “Tense and aspect (in)compatibility in Serbian ma­trix and subordinate clauses.” Lingua 167, 82–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.04.007 TODOROVIĆ, Neda/Susi WURMBRAND (2020) “Finiteness across domains.” In: T. Radeva-Bork/P. Kosta (eds), Current Developments in Slavic Linguistics. Twenty Years After (based on selected papers from FDSL 11). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 47 –66. VRZIĆ, Zvjezdana (1996) “Categorial status of the Serbo-Croatian ‘modal’ da.” In: J. Toman (ed), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The College Park Meeting 1994. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 291–312. WURMBRAND, Susi (2002) “Syntactic versus semantic control.” In: C. J. Zwart/W. Abraham (eds), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax. Amsterdam: John Benja­mins, 95–129. WURMBRAND, Susi (2014a) “Restructuring across the world.” In: L. Veselovská/M. Janebová (eds), Complex Visibles Out There. Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguis­tics Colloquium 2014: Language Use and Linguistic Structure. Olomouc: Palacky´ University, 275–294. WURMBRAND, Susi (2014b) “Tense and aspect in English infinitives.” Linguistic Inquiry 45/3, 403–447. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00161 WURMBRAND, Susi (2015) “Restructuring cross-linguistically.” In: T. Bui/D. Özyildiz (eds), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meet­ing 45. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA, 227–240. WURMBRAND, Susi/Magdalena LOHNINGER (to appear) “An implicational uni­versal in complementation – Theoretical insights and empirical progress.” In: J. M. Hartmann/A. Wöllstein (eds), Propositional Arguments in Cross-Linguistic Re­search: Theoretical and Empirical Issues. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Abstract FINITENESS IN SOUTH SLAVIC COMPLEMENT CLAUSES: EVIDENCE FOR AN IMPLICATIONAL FINITENESS UNIVERSAL This paper shows that the distribution of (non-)finiteness in the South Slavic lan­guages reflects an implicational scale along an independently attested semantic comple­mentation hierarchy (e.g., Givón 1980). We suggest that in the South Slavic languages, finiteness is triggered by clausal agreement features associated with different syntactic heads. Building on a complexity approach to the complementation hierarchy, we pro­pose that cross-linguistic variation in finiteness and variation across different types of complements are the result of language-specific differences in the distribution of agreement features. More broadly, we conclude that there is no (universal) semantic correlate of (non-)finiteness and, contra cartographic approaches, that finiteness is not confined to a particular domain in the clause. Following Adger (2007), we argue that finiteness can be distributed over all clausal domains.  Keywords: syntax, morphology, language variation, implicational hierarchies, com­plementation, infinitives, finiteness, South Slavic Povzetek OSEBNE IN NEOSEBNE GLAGOLSKE OBLIKE V JUŽNOSLOVANSKIH DOPOLNILIH: DOKAZI ZA IMPLIKACIJSKO UNIVERZALIJO V članku pokažemo, da porazdelitev osebnih in neosebnih glagolskih oblik v južno­slovanskih jezikih odraža implikacijsko lestvico po neodvisno potrjeni semantični hie­rarhiji dopolnil (npr. Givón 1980). Zagovarjamo trditev, da v južnoslovanskih jezikih pojavnost (ne)osebnih glagolskih oblik sprožajo stavčne ujemalne oznake, povezane z različnimi skladenjskimi jedri. Na podlagi pristopa kompleksnosti k hierarhiji dopolnil predlagamo, da so medjezikovne razlike v pojavnosti (ne)osebnih glagolskih oblik in razlike med vrstami dopolnil rezultat jezikovno specifičnih razlik v porazdelitvi uje­malnih oznak. V splošnem zaključujemo, da ne obstaja (univerzalni) pomenski korelat pojavnosti (ne)osebnih glagolskih oblik in da, v nasprotju s kartografskim pristopom, ta lastnost ni omejena na specifično domeno v stavku. Podobno kot Adger (2007) trdimo, da se lastnost (ne)osebnih glagolskih oblik lahko porazdeli po vseh stavčnih domenah. Ključne besede: skladnja, morfologija, jezikovna variacija, implikacijske hierarhije, dopolnila, nedoločniki, (ne)osebne glagolske oblike, južnoslovanski jeziki * susanne.wurmbrand@univie.ac.at ** iva.kovac@univie.ac.at *** magdalena.lohninger@univie.ac.at **** caroline.pajancic@univie.ac.at ***** neda.todorovic@ubc.ca 1 Since we will argue that da does not always act as a complementizer, we gloss it as da in the examples. 2 An anonymous reviewer suggested that this may be possible in Slovenian as well, but we have not investigated yet whether this is restricted to present-for-future contexts or possible for future statements in general. 3 This has been confirmed by speaker judgements, preliminary corpus searches on Google, and a query on hrWaC (the Croatian web corpus). 4 The specification for Agr in Table 8 would thus not be necessary for the TMA and CP domains in these languages, since the Agr feature in the theta domain is sufficient to trigger finiteness in all types of clauses. We included it in the table for expository purposes, but also to leave open the option of double finiteness marking (see Todorović and Wurmbrand 2020). Figure 1: The da-construction LINGUISTICA LX (2020) Založila Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani Izdal Oddelek za romanske jezike in književnosti Revue éditée par les Presses scientifiques de la Faculté des Lettres et publiée par le Département des Langues et Littératures Romanes Za založbo – Responsable Roman Kuhar Dekan Filozofske fakultete – Doyen de la Faculté des Lettres Glavna in odgovorna urednica – Rédactrice en chef Martina Ožbot Številko LX uredili – Numéro LX dirigés par Christina Manouilidou, Tatjana Marvin, Gašper Ilc, Andrej Stopar Lektoriranje – Relecture Oliver Currie Tajnica redakcije – Secrétaire de rédaction Metka Šorli Dopise nasloviti na: Priere d’adresser toute correspondance a : Martina Ožbot Filozofska fakulteta Oddelek za romanske jezike in književnosti Aškerčeva 2 1000 Ljubljana Slovénie linguistica@ff.uni-lj.si Tel.: + 386 1 241 13 98 Fax: + 386 1 425 93 37 Naklada: 400 izvodov – Tirage : 400 exemplaires Računalniški prelom – Mise en page Aleš Cimprič Tisk – Impression Birografika BORI, d. o. o. Linhartova cesta 1, 1000 Ljubljana Cena: 17 €