Trondheim Summer School, June 23-27, 2003

Poster Presentation:
Li-Attachment in Multi-Verb Constructions
in Bulgarian
Rositsa Dekova, NTNU, Norway
SOME FACTS ABOUT LI
 Li is a question marker in Bulgarian
 It is a clitic element
 There can be only one li in the sentence (as opposed to the
possibility of multiple wh-questions in Bulgarian)
 We can find both li and a wh-word in one sentence,
i.e. in Bulgarian they are not in complementary distribution
2
CURRENT ACCOUNTS
 Rivero (1992): Li is a bound morpheme, generated in Co.
Two options for verb support for li were offered:
• V-raising, incorporating V to li (the main option)
• Affix-hopping as li-lowering (only if the main option
was constrained)
 Penchev (1993): Li is searching for the focus of the sentence
and can be attached to any word (phrase) in it.
 Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Hellan (1996): Li is generated
in the ‘FRONT’ site identified as part of a double ClargP,
where special Spec-Head relations obtain depending on what
raises to Spec-li. Lowering of li from its original position
accounts for the cases of independent questioning of the
embedded clauses in a multi-verb construction.
3
THE EMPIRICAL DATA
1. Ivan prochete knigata. Ivan read the book.
Ivan read-past book-the
2. Ivan li prochete knigata? Was it Ivan who read the book?
Ivan li read-past book-the
3. Ivan prochete li knigata? Did Ivan read the book?
Ivan read-past li book-the
4. Ivan prochete knigata li? ?Was it the book that Ivan read?
Ivan read-past book-the li
[Ivan prochete knigata] li? (Did you say that) Ivan read the book?
5. Knigata li prochete Ivan? Was it the book that Ivan read?
Book-the li read-past Ivan
4
EVIDENCE FROM WH-QUESTIONS
6. Kakvo shte e vremeto utre?
What will is weather-the tomorrow
What will the weather be tomorrow?
7. Kakvo li shte e vremeto utre?
What li will is weather-the tomorrow
(I wonder…) What will be the weather tomorrow?
8. [Kakvo shte e vremeto utre] li?
What will is weather-the tomorrow li
(You ask me…) What will be the weather tomorrow?
9. *Kakvo shte e vremeto li utre?
What will is weather-the li tomorrow
10. *Kakvo shte e li vremeto utre?
What will is li weather-the tomorrow
5
EVIDENCE FROM CLITIC DOUBLING
11.Kogo koi deća go vidjaha?
whom which children him see-past
Whom did which children see?
12. Kogo li koi deća go vidjaha?
whom li which children him see-past
(You ask me) whom which children saw?
13. Kogo koi li deća go vidjaha?
whom which li children him see-past
(I wonder) which children saw whom?
14. Kogo koi deća li go vidjaha?
whom which children li him see-past
(You ask me) which children saw whom?
15. *Kogo koi deća go li vidjaha?
whom which children him li see-past
6
Li-ATTACHMENT AND TOPICALITY
 The topic of a sentence is what a sentence primarily
provides or requests information about.
(for ABOUTNESS, cf. Reinhart 1982, Lambrecht 1994, Jacobs 2001)
 The empirical data show that in terms of distribution li is
largely dependent on the topic of the sentence (given in italics)
 In the simple sentence, li is primarily attached to the topic
of the sentence and takes it in its scope
 Topics are often subjects, but not every constituent can act
as topic (indefinite NPs or certain quantifiers are difficult to
be construed as topics)
 Within the definition of topic given above some or all
wh-words in questions can be treated as topics.
7
THE MULTI-VERB CONSTRUCTION IN BULGARIAN
THE STATUS OF DA-CLAUSES
 Multi-verb constructions in Bulgarian are formed with da
(cf. Dimitrova-Vulchanova & Hellan, 1998)
 Da does not fit into familiar complementizer categories
 Differences:
• Da does not allow a FRONT complex under it
(as opposed to  - the Bulgarian counterpart of ‘that’)
• Da is followed by a T/Agr[p,n]P, i.e. it is finite
(as opposed to ‘infinitival complementizers’ like English ‘to’)
 Similarity:
• Da functions as a domain for cliticization for Argument clitics
(one of the complementizer-like characteristics of da)
8
LI WITHIN THE MULTI-VERB CONSTRUCTION
16. [
S
Ivan obeshta [
S´´
da otide [

da kupi knigata]]].
Ivan promise-past to go to buy book-the.
Ivan promised to go and buy the book.
17. [
S
[
ClP
Ivan li] obeshta [
S´´
da otide [

da kupi knigata]]]?
Ivan li promise-past to go to buy book-the?
Was it Ivan who promised to go and buy the book?
18. [
S
[
ClP
Ivan [
ClP
obeshta li ]][
S´´
da otide [

da kupi knigata]]]]?
Ivan promise-past li to go to buy book-the?
Did Ivan promise to go and buy the book?
9
LI WITHIN THE MULTI-VERB CONSTRUCTION
19. a) [
S
Ivan obeshta [
S´´
da otide [

da kupi [
ClP
knigata li]]]]?
Ivan promise-past to go to buy book-the li?
Did Ivan promise to go and buy the book?
b) [
S=ClP
[Ivan obeshta [
S´´
da otide [

da kupi knigata]]] li]?
Ivan promise-past to go to buy book-the li?
Was it the case that Ivan promised to go and buy the book?
20. a) [
S
[
ClP
Knigata li] [
S´´´
Ivan obeshta [
S´´
da otide [

da kupi]]]]?
book-the li Ivan promise-past to go to buy?
b) [
S
[
ClP
Ivan [
ClP
knigata li]] obeshta [
S´´
da otide [

da kupi]]]?
Ivan book-the li promise-past to go to buy
c) [
S
Ivan obeshta [
S´´
[
ClP
knigata li] [
S´´
da otide [

da kupi]]]]]?
Ivan promise-past book-the li to go to buy?
d) [
S
Ivan obeshta [
S´´
da otide [
S´´
[
ClP
knigata li] [

da kupi]]]]]?
Ivan promise-past book-the li to go to buy?
10
Was it the book that Ivan promised to buy?
CONSTRAINTS AND GRAMMATICALITY
In multi-verb constructions independent questioning of the
embedded clause is also allowed as in sentences (15)- (18) above.
Yet, there are certain restrictions in the positions li can occupy:
21. *Ivan obeshta da otide li da kupi knigata?
*Ivan promise-past to go li to buy book-the?
22. *Ivan obeshta da otide da kupi li knigata?
*Ivan promise-past to go to buy li book-the?
A plausible account for the restrictions on the otherwise
‘flexible’ movement of li is seen in the segmentation constraints
within the MVC in Bulgarian, as well as some semantic
constraints on the conceptual units li can take in its scope. The
11
possibility (or rather the impossibility) of those segments to act
as topic of the sentence may also play an important role.
THE HPSG ACCOUNT
With regard to the possible segmentation of the complex
predicate and the unification of li-semantics with the semantics
of the particular unit over which li has scope, li-attachment in
multi-verb constructions is formally presented in an HPSG
perspective, relying on the MOD feature, basically employing
the analysis of adjunction and the Linearization Principle.
In addition a variant of HPSG that contains the notion of
order domain (Kathol, 1998, cf. Hinrichs et al. 1998) is used to
license the combination of the potential constituents to be
unified within the multi-verb construction.
12
THE FORMAL REPRESENTATION
S[DOM<[1],[2],{[3],[4]},{[5],[6]},[7]>]
VP[DOM<[2],{[3],[4]},{[5],[6]},[7]>]

S´´[DOM<{[3],[4]},{[5],[6]},[7]>]

S´[DOM<{[5],[6]},[7]>]

IP´´ [DOM<[3],[4]>] IP´[DOM<[5],[6]>]


[1]
NP
[2]
V’
[3]
I/Comp
[4]
V
[5]
I/Comp
[6]
V
[7]
NP
| | | | | | |
Ivan obeshta da otide da kupi knigata
13
Ivan promissed-3Psg to go-3Psg to buy-3Psg book-Def
The clitic li:
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
]
1

¸

1
1
1
]
1

¸


¹
)
¹
¹
'
¹
1
]
1

¸

1
1
1
1
]
1

¸

1
1
1
]
1

¸

1
]
1

¸

[ 2 ]
[ 1 ] A R G
r e l - Q
R E S T R I C
[ 1 ] I N D E X
C O N T
s a t u r a t e d V A L

[ 2 ] R E S T R I C
[ 1 ] I N D E X
: X P M O D
c l i t i c
H E A D
C A T
l i P H O N
15
Where XP can be any member of the set [NP, V’, VP, CP] and
is marked with the features {+[Topic], +[Q(uestion)]}
THE ATTACHMENT OF LI
S [CONT [2] ]
H A
16
[1]XP
1
]
1

¸

+
+
[ Q u e s t i o n ]
[ T o p i c ]
li
1
]
1

¸

[ 2 ] C O N T
[ 1 ] M O D

Conclusion:
 The distribution of the question word li in Bulgarian is
largely dependent on the topic of the sentence
17
 The attachment of li in multi-verb constructions depends
also on the possible segmentation in the sentence
 Syntactically, li-attachment is presented as an adjunction
of li to a head XP : [NP, V’, VP, CP]
 Semantically, li has a scope over the pharse it modifies and
imposes some semantic restrictions upon it {[+T], [+Q]}
Referneces:
Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Mila and Lars Hellan, 1996. Clitics and the Bulgarian Clause
Structure. In: Henk Van Riemsdijk (ed.) Clitics in the Languages of Europe,
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Hinrichs, E. et al. (ed) 1998. Syntax and Semantics, 30. San Diego: Academic Press
18
Jaeger, Florian. 2003a. Topicality and Superiority in Bulgarian wh-questions.
Jaeger, Florian. 2003b. Multiple wh-questions, Superiority and Clitic Doubling in
colloqual Bulgarian, A Construction-based HPSG account.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Topic, Focus, and
the mental representations of discourse referents; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Penchev, Jordan 1993. Bulgarski sintaksis – upravlenie i svurzvane. Plovdiv:
Plovdivsko univirsitetsko izdatelstvo.
Reinhart, Tanya 1982. Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics;
Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana
Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1992. Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian Yes-No Questions:
Vo-Raising vs. Li-Hopping.
19

e.SOME FACTS ABOUT LI  Li is a question marker in Bulgarian  It is a clitic element  There can be only one li in the sentence (as opposed to the possibility of multiple wh-questions in Bulgarian) We can find both li and a wh-word in one sentence. in Bulgarian they are not in complementary distribution  2 . i.

incorporating V to li (the main option) • Affix-hopping as li-lowering (only if the main option was constrained)  Penchev (1993): Li is searching for the focus of the sentence and can be attached to any word (phrase) in it.  Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Hellan (1996): Li is generated in the ‘FRONT’ site identified as part of a double ClargP. generated in Co.CURRENT ACCOUNTS  Rivero (1992): Li is a bound morpheme. Lowering of li from its original position accounts for the cases of independent questioning of the embedded clauses in a multi-verb construction. Two options for verb support for li were offered: • V-raising. 3 . where special Spec-Head relations obtain depending on what raises to Spec-li.

Ivan read the book. Was it Ivan who read the book? Did Ivan read the book? ?Was it the book that Ivan read? read-past li read-past read-past read-past book-the book-the li book-the book-the li Ivan li prochete knigata? Ivan 3. Ivan prochete knigata li? Ivan [Ivan prochete knigata] li? (Did you say that) Ivan read the book? 5.THE EMPIRICAL DATA 1. Ivan prochete li knigata? Ivan 4. Ivan prochete knigata. Ivan 2. Knigata li prochete Ivan? Was it the book that Ivan read? Book-the li read-past Ivan 4 .

*Kakvo shte e vremeto li utre? What will is weather-the li tomorrow 10. *Kakvo shte e li vremeto utre? What will is li weather-the tomorrow 5 . Kakvo shte e vremeto utre? What will is weather-the tomorrow What will the weather be tomorrow? 7. [Kakvo shte e vremeto utre] li? What will is weather-the tomorrow li (You ask me…) What will be the weather tomorrow? 9. Kakvo li shte e vremeto utre? What li will is weather-the tomorrow (I wonder…) What will be the weather tomorrow? 8.EVIDENCE FROM WH-QUESTIONS 6.

*Kogo koi deća go li vidjaha? whom which children him li see-past 6 . Kogo li koi deća go vidjaha? whom li which children him see-past (You ask me) whom which children saw? 13.EVIDENCE FROM CLITIC DOUBLING 11.Kogo koi deća go vidjaha? whom which children him see-past Whom did which children see? 12. Kogo koi li deća go vidjaha? whom which li children him see-past (I wonder) which children saw whom? 14. Kogo koi deća li go vidjaha? whom which children li him see-past (You ask me) which children saw whom? 15.

(for ABOUTNESS. li is primarily attached to the topic of the sentence and takes it in its scope  Topics are often subjects. cf. Lambrecht 1994. Reinhart 1982. 7 . but not every constituent can act as topic (indefinite NPs or certain quantifiers are difficult to be construed as topics)  Within the definition of topic given above some or all wh-words in questions can be treated as topics.Li-ATTACHMENT AND TOPICALITY  The topic of a sentence is what a sentence primarily provides or requests information about. Jacobs 2001)  The empirical data show that in terms of distribution li is largely dependent on the topic of the sentence (given in italics)  In the simple sentence.

Dimitrova-Vulchanova & Hellan. i.n]P.the Bulgarian counterpart of ‘that’) • Da is followed by a T/Agr[p. it is finite (as opposed to ‘infinitival complementizers’ like English ‘to’)  Similarity: • Da functions as a domain for cliticization for Argument clitics (one of the complementizer-like characteristics of da) 8 .THE MULTI-VERB CONSTRUCTION IN BULGARIAN THE STATUS OF DA-CLAUSES  Multi-verb constructions in Bulgarian are formed with da (cf.e. 1998)  Da does not fit into familiar complementizer categories  Differences: • Da does not allow a FRONT complex under it (as opposed to   .

[S[ClPIvan [ClPobeshta li ]][S´´da otide [S´da kupi knigata]]]]? Ivan promise-past li to go to buy book-the? Did Ivan promise to go and buy the book? 9 . Ivan promised to go and buy the book. 17.LI WITHIN THE MULTI-VERB CONSTRUCTION 16. [S[ClPIvan li] obeshta [S´´da otide [S´da kupi knigata]]]? Ivan li promise-past to go to buy book-the? Was it Ivan who promised to go and buy the book? 18. Ivan promise-past to go to buy book-the. [SIvan obeshta [S´´da otide [S´da kupi knigata]]].

LI WITHIN THE MULTI-VERB CONSTRUCTION 19. a) [SIvan obeshta [S´´da otide [S´da kupi [ClPknigata li]]]]? Ivan promise-past to go to buy book-the li? Did Ivan promise to go and buy the book? b) [S=ClP[Ivan obeshta [S´´da otide [S´da kupi knigata]]] li]? Ivan promise-past to go to buy book-the li? Was it the case that Ivan promised to go and buy the book? 20. a) [S [ClPKnigata li] [S´´´Ivan obeshta [S´´da otide [S´da kupi]]]]? book-the b) li Ivan promise-past to go buy to buy? [S[ClP Ivan [ClPknigata li]] obeshta [S´´da otide [S´da kupi]]]? Ivan book-the li promise-past to go to to go to go c) [SIvan obeshta [S´´[ClP knigata li] [S´´da otide [S´da kupi]]]]]? Ivan promise-past book-the li promise-past book-the li to buy? to buy? 10 d) [SIvan obeshta [S´´da otide [S´´[ClPknigata li] [S´da kupi]]]]]? Ivan .

as well as some semantic constraints on the conceptual units li can take in its scope. promise-past to go promise-past to go li to buy to buy book-the? li book-the? *Ivan obeshta da otide da kupi li knigata? *Ivan A plausible account for the restrictions on the otherwise ‘flexible’ movement of li is seen in the segmentation constraints within the MVC in Bulgarian. Yet. *Ivan obeshta da otide li da kupi knigata? *Ivan 22. there are certain restrictions in the positions li can occupy: 21.(18) above.Was it the book that Ivan promised to buy? CONSTRAINTS AND GRAMMATICALITY In multi-verb constructions independent questioning of the embedded clause is also allowed as in sentences (15). The 11 .

cf. THE HPSG ACCOUNT With regard to the possible segmentation of the complex predicate and the unification of li-semantics with the semantics of the particular unit over which li has scope. 1998) is used to license the combination of the potential constituents to be unified within the multi-verb construction. In addition a variant of HPSG that contains the notion of order domain (Kathol. 1998. li-attachment in multi-verb constructions is formally presented in an HPSG perspective. basically employing the analysis of adjunction and the Linearization Principle. Hinrichs et al. relying on the MOD feature. 12 .possibility (or rather the impossibility) of those segments to act as topic of the sentence may also play an important role.

{[3].[7]>] S´´[DOM<{[3].{[5].[6]>] [6] NP [2] V’ [3] I/Comp [4] V [5] I/Comp V [7] NP | Ivan | obeshta | da | otide | da | kupi | knigata 13 .[4]}.{[3].THE FORMAL REPRESENTATION S[DOM<[1].[6]}.{[5].[4]>] [1] IP´[DOM<[5].[6]}.[6]}.[7]>] IP´´ [DOM<[3].[7]>] VP[DOM<[2].[6]}.[7]>] S´[DOM<{[5].[4]}.{[5].[4]}.[2].

Ivan promissed-3Psg to go-3Psg to buy-3Psg book-Def The clitic li: 14 .

 P lH i O N      c l i t i c       H E  I AN [  1DD ] E X C  A M X :T O P  D    R [E  2 S ] T R I C      V s Aa t Lu r a t e d    I N [ 1 D ]  E  X    C  O   -Q rN  e  Tl  R  E  S∪ [ 2T ] R I C 15 .

CP] and is marked with the features {+[Topic]. VP. +[Q(uestion)]} THE ATTACHMENT OF LI S [CONT [2] ] H A 16 . V’.Where XP can be any member of the set [NP.

+ [ T [1]XP + [ Q  o p i c ] u e s t i o n ]  li M C  [ O1 ]D  2 N] T O[  Conclusion:  The distribution of the question word li in Bulgarian is largely dependent on the topic of the sentence 17 .

San Diego: Academic Press 18 . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Hinrichs. li has a scope over the pharse it modifies and imposes some semantic restrictions upon it {[+T]. Clitics and the Bulgarian Clause Structure. (ed) 1998. Mila and Lars Hellan. et al. E. CP]  Semantically.) Clitics in the Languages of Europe. The attachment of li in multi-verb constructions depends also on the possible segmentation in the sentence Syntactically. V’. VP. In: Henk Van Riemsdijk (ed. 30. [+Q]}  Referneces: Dimitrova-Vulchanova. 1996. Syntax and Semantics. li-attachment is presented as an adjunction of li to a head XP : [NP.

Indiana Rivero. 1992. Bulgarski sintaksis – upravlenie i svurzvane. Topic. Multiple wh-questions. Jaeger. Maria-Luisa. Topicality and Superiority in Bulgarian wh-questions. Focus. Bloomington. Plovdiv: Plovdivsko univirsitetsko izdatelstvo. Florian. Lambrecht. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. and the mental representations of discourse referents. A Construction-based HPSG account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Penchev. Superiority and Clitic Doubling in colloqual Bulgarian. Knud. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club. Jordan 1993. 2003a. Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian Yes-No Questions: Vo-Raising vs. 2003b. Li-Hopping. Florian. 19 .Jaeger. Reinhart. Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Tanya 1982.