Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:52:21.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aspect Licensing in Serbo-Croatian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Snezana Milovanovic
Snezana Milovanovic*
Affiliation:
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, it is argued that perfective aspect in Serbo-Croatian is licensed in the syntax. Licensing of Aspect requires the presence of a hierarchically higher category. In compound tenses, perfective aspect is licensed by a governing auxiliary in Infl while, in the present tense forms, it may only be licensed by an overt complementizer in Comp. A Comp-Aspect Agreement mechanism is proposed based on the requirement for licensing in the present tense forms. This agreement also obtains between a covert complementizer and perfective aspect in imperative constructions (perfective imperatives move to an empty Comp position to satisfy the Aspect licensing requirement) and between an overt complementizer and the auxiliaries in compound tenses (auxiliaries move to an empty Comp to satisfy the Tense licensing requirement). Although Tense may be licensed by any governor in root sentences, the presence of an overt complementizer, which is a hierarchically higher category, takes precedence for licensing in embedded sentences.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans cet article, il est démontré que l’aspect perfectif en serbo-croate est légitimé en syntaxe. La légitimation de l’aspect requiert la présence d’une catégorie hiérarchiquement supérieure. Dans les temps composés, l’aspect perfectif est légitimé par la présence d’un auxiliaire dans Infl tandis que dans les formes du présent, il ne peut être légitimé que par la présence d’un complémenteur lexical dans Comp. Un mécanisme d’accord Comp-Aspect est proposé pour rendre compte de la condition de légitimation des formes du présent. Cet accord se produit également entre un complémenteur non-réalisé lexicalement et l’aspect perfectif dans les constructions impératives (les impératifs perfectifs se déplacent sous Comp pour satisfaire la condition de légitimation de l’aspect) ainsi qu’ entre un complémenteur lexical et les auxiliaires dans les temps composés (les auxiliaires se déplacent sous Comp pour satisfaire la condition de légitimation du temps). Quoique n’importe quel gouverneur peut légitimer le temps dans les phrases racines, un complémenteur lexical, qui constitue une catégorie hiérarchiquement supérieure, a préséance sur les autres gouverneurs pour la légitimation dans les phrases enchâssées.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 291 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1992. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1:PAGES??Google Scholar
Hendrick, Randall. 1991. The Morphosyntax of Aspect. Lingua 85:171–210.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb Movement, UG, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365–424.Google Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa. 1988a. Barriers and the Null Subject Parameter in Modern Greek. Proceedings of NELS 18. 412–425.Google Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa. 1988b. The Structure of IP and V-Movement in the Languages of the Balkans. Ms. University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa. 1989. Barriers and Rumanian. In Studies in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Seventeenth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. Kirschner, Carl and Cesaris, Janet De, 289–312. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa. 1991a. Exceptional Case Marking Effects in Rumanian Subjunctive Complements. In New Analyses in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. Wanner, Dieter and Kibbee, Douglas A., 273–298. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa. 1991b. Long Head Movement and Negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak and Czech. The Linguistic Review 8:319–351.Google Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa. 1993. Finiteness and Second Position in Long Head Movement Languages: Breton and Slavic. Ms. University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa. 1994a. Clause Structure and V-Movement in the Languages of Balkans. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12:63–120.Google Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa. 1994b. Negation, Imperatives, and Wackernagel Effects. Rivista di Linguistica 6:91–118.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1992. The Representation of Agreement in Comp and Subject Clitics in West Flemish. In Geneva Generative Papers, ed. Starke, Michael, 27–37. Département de linguistique générale, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar