Morphosyntactic Triggers of Tone (Leipzig)

Tali

Tonal marking of specificity in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian

Morphosyntactic Triggers of Tone at Leipzig University, Jun 12-13, 2015
Aida Tali (UConn)
aida.talic@uconn.edu
Overview:
In this talk, I explore the connection between the (morpho)syntactic structure and tone in
Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS).
I show that some seemingly unsystematic accentual differences between BCS long and
short adjectives reflect a structural difference between the two adjectival forms.
I argue that the exponent for specificity on BCS adjectives is a phonemically null item with
a High tone.
Finally, the structural difference between phrases with long and short adjectives affects
syntactic extraction of elements out of adjective phrases.
1. BCS adjectival forms
1.2. Background
Most BCS adjectives have two forms reserved for different contexts:
o Short form non-specific NPs and in the predicative position
(1) a. jedan poznat
pjesnik
one
famous.SF poet
a famous poet
b. Mak Dizdar je poznat.
Mak Dizdar is famous.SF
Mak Dizdar is famous.
(2)

o Long form specific NPs

a. taj poznati pjesnik
that famous.LF poet
that famous poet
b. *taj
poznat pjesnik
that famous.SF poet
that famous poet
c. *Mak Dizdar je poznati.
Mak Dizdar is famous.LF
Mak Dizdar is famous.

According to traditional descriptions and some earlier accounts of these two forms (Leko
1986; 1999, Progovac 1998) long adjectives occur in definite NPs in BCS.
However, Aljovi (2002) shows that long adjectives do not only occur in definite
environments and that this adjectival distinction is correlated with specificity based on cases
where long adjectives occur in indefinite specific contexts.
1

Morphosyntactic Triggers of Tone (Leipzig)

(3)

On je jedan poznati
he is
one
famous.LF
He is a famous poet

Tali

pjesnik
poet

Based on this, I assume that long adjectives contain an exponent realizing the feature
[specific].
Historically long adjectives originate from a pronoun in Old Church Slavonic that is
added on top of the short form.
(4)

a. short form
(Old Church Slavonic: Schenker 1993; Aljovi 2010)
star a
old GEN.SG.M (nominal inflection)
b. long form
star a
jego
old GEN.SG.M (nominal inflection) GEN.SG.M (pronominal inflection)1

BCS adjectives used to have a similar distinction, where short adjectival endings were
nominal inflection (5a), and long adjectival endings were pronominal inflection (5b).
(5)
a. Nominal Declension
b. Pronominal Declension
Short
Noun
Long
Pronoun
N nov
krov
nov i
on
G nov - a
krov a
nov o:g
nje ga
D nov - u
krov - u
nov o:m
nje mu
new
roof
new
he
However, a wide-spread tendency nowadays (at least in Bosnia) is to use pronominal
endings with both long and short adjectives:
(6)
Pronominal Declension
Short
Long
Pronoun
N nov
nov i
on
G nv o:g nv o:g nje ga
D nv o:m nv o:m nje mu
new
new
he
Thus, morphological distinction between the two forms is almost entirely neutralized.

Pronounced as starago after a series of phonological processes: starajegostaraegostaraagostarago (Schenker 1993).

Morphosyntactic Triggers of Tone (Leipzig)

Tali

What seems to be the only remaining overt morphological contrast between the two forms
of adjectives is [-i] in NOM.SG.M.
However, BCS speakers of these varieties still distinguish between the two forms, but
contemporary short/long adjective distinction is almost entirely prosodic (Aljovi 2002).
(7)

(8)

short: pl:va
long: pl:va:
blue.NOM.SG.F

-rising tone on the 1st syllable; short final vowel

-falling tone on the 1st syllable; long final vowel

Diacritics and marking used:

[ ] rising accent; [ ` ] falling accent; [ : ] long vowel
bold = locus of the winning H tone

Only in NOM.SG.M an overt inflection [-i] occurs in the long form in addition to the
prosodic contrast present in other cases2:
(9)

short:
long:

gl:dan
gl:dn-i
hungry-NOM.SG.M

-rising tone on the 1st syllable

-falling tone on the 1st syllable

It is usually assumed that exponents for the long form inflection that have survived
language change are the ones in (10) and that they are added on top of short adjectival
inflection (e.g. Aljovi 2002):
(10) a. [-i] / NOM.SG.M
b. (with lengthening the final vowel and accent change) / elsewhere
Q: What do accentual differences tell us about the nature of these two adjectival forms?
Q: Since long forms occur in specific contexts:
What is the exponent for [specific] in BCS adjectives? Items in (10) or something else.
2. Specificity and Tone in BCS
2.1. Tonal contrasts between BCS short and long adjectives
Putting aside, [-i] for the moment, if prosodic differences between the two forms are what
marks specificity in BCS, we expect them to be systematic.

Some BCS varieties still have different overt inflections for the two forms in Genitive, Dative, and Locative. Rianovi (2012)
reports three forms of adjectives: short (nominal declension endings), long (pronominal declension endings), and mixed
(pronominal declension endings). What Rianovi calls the mixed form is the only short form I use productively.

Morphosyntactic Triggers of Tone (Leipzig)

Tali

However, at first glance, this does not seem to be the case.

(i) if the short form has a rising tone it becomes a falling tone in the long form:
(11a)-(12a)
(ii) if the short form has a rising tone, it shifts one syllable to the left and remains a
rising tone in the long form: (11b)-(12b);
(iii) the accentual difference is neutralized: (11c)-(12c).
(11)
(12)

short: a. pl:vo:j
long: a. pl:vo:j
blue.DAT.SG.F

b. visko:j
c. lbavo:j
b. vsoko:j
c. lbavo:j
tall.DAT.SG.F
loose.DAT.SG.F

I show that these prosodic differences reveal a different exponent for specificity than those
in (10).
2.2. The exponent for specificity in BCS
(13) The Structure of adjectives (to be motivated further below):
a. short

b. long
XPAP

AP

XAP

AP
A

Short adjectives project bare APs

Long adjectives have an extra projection
I argue that:
The only exponent for long form inflection is a phonemically null item with a H tone.
This item is a realization of the functional head X that projects XP above AP):
X H
The long form inflection is between the adjectival stem and agreement morphemes.
[-i] is not a long form inflection: contexts other than long adjectives
Before addressing each of these points it is necessary to mention that BCS falling or rising
tones (for the most part) result from the following rules:
(14) a. In a word with multiple inherent H tones, the leftmost H is realized.
b. If the winning H is not preceded by a vowel in the same domain falling
c. If the winning H is preceded by a vowel in the same domain rising
(see e.g. Inkelas and Zec 1988)
Short and long adjectives have the following morpheme sequences, with the underlying H
tones indicated by [H]:
4

Morphosyntactic Triggers of Tone (Leipzig)

(15) short: a.
(16) long: a.

pl:v-oH:j
A - DAT.SG.F
pl:v-H-oH:j
A - X -DAT.SG.F
blue

Tali

b. visk-oH:j
c. lHbav-oH:j
A - DAT.SG.F
A -DAT.SG.F
H H
H
b. vsok- -o :j
c. l bav-H-oH:j
A - X -DAT.SG.F
A - X -DAT.SG.F
tall
loose

To derive the tonal contrasts:

The agreement suffix [oH:j] has an underlying H tone;
It is attached to a toneless A (= adjectival stem) in (15a-b);
This H tone spreads to the preceding vowel.
o The preceding vowel has a rising tone.
In contrast, the vowel preceding [oH:j] in (16a-b) does not have a rising tone, which
indicates that the H tone of the agreement suffix is not realized.
Instead, the vowel preceding the agreement suffix has its own H tone.
o A monosyllabic adjectival stem has a falling initial tone.
o A bisyllabic adjectival stem has a rising initial tone.
Q: Where does this H tone come from?
As suggested above, the exponent for the functional head X is H.
This H tone is thus not inherently linked to a vowel, so it links to the first vowel
immediately preceding it, i.e. the final vowel of A (= adjectival stem).
If A is monosyllabic, this results in a falling initial accent (16a).
If A is polysyllabic, the H tone spreads to the vowel preceding it, giving it a rising accent
(16b).
Short/Long form distinction is neutralized in (15c)-(16c) due to the underlying initial H
tone of the A, which wins in both short and long adjectives as the leftmost H in the
sequence, regardless of the presence of other H tones, and is realized as falling.
Next, I turn to the morphosyntactic structure of BCS adjectives.
3. The structure of adjectives in the syntax and in PF
Regarding the structure of the adjectival head, I follow Distributed Morphology style
approaches (e.g. Halle and Marantz 1993; Embick and Noyer 2007, a.o.) where words are
(for the most part) assembled by the syntax.
Q: The question about the two forms arises: Which of these morphemes in (15)-(16)
correspond to heads that project syntactic structure and which ones do not?
5

Morphosyntactic Triggers of Tone (Leipzig)

Tali

Assuming the syntax provides input to PF and LF, elements that are present in the syntax
are expected to have semantic and/or syntactic reflexes.
Elements that have neither syntactic nor semantic effect can be inserted in PF, as argued for
agreement nodes (Embick and Noyer 2007).
(17) Italian
Root v TH TNS AGR
laud a ba - mus
We were praising.
Proposal:
I suggest that A projects AP in both short and long adjectives (18a-b).
The long form inflection (X=H) projects XP above AP (18b).
I show below that the presence of XP in the syntax is supported by a blocking effect on
extraction with long form adjectives.
The syntax sends the following structures to PF.
(18)

a.

b.
AP

XPAP
XAP

M-Merger

AP
A

XAP lowers to A in PF by M-merger (Marantz 1984; Bobaljik 1995):

(19) Long adjective after M-merger:
A
A

XAP

Morphemes marking agreement of the adjective with the noun do not have a semantic or
syntactic effect. Thus, I assume they are inserted in PF. The final structure of the complex long
adjectival head after Vocabulary Insertion is:
(20) Long adjective after AGR node insertion and Vocabulary Insertion:
A
A
A
pla:v

XAP
H

blue LF

AGR
-oH:j

DAT.SG.F
6

Morphosyntactic Triggers of Tone (Leipzig)

Tali

This is why the long form inflection ends up between A and AGR and disrupts the
interaction between the H tone on AGR and the final vowel in A.
In contrast, with short adjectives, the AGR node attaches directly to A, so the H tone from
AGR can interact with A.
(21) Short adjective after AGR node insertion and Vocabulary Insertion:
A
A
pla:v

blue

AGR
-oH:j

DAT.SG.F

The presence of H between the adjectival stem and the agreement morpheme in long
adjectives, but not in short adjectives accounts for all the prosodic contrasts between the two
forms of adjectives.
I take this to be the only exponent for X (specificity) in BCS adjectives.
3.1. A case of contextual allomorphy
We have seen that in NOM.SG.M in addition to the prosodic contrast an overt suffix [-i] occurs.
(22)

a. short:
b. long:

gl:dan
gl:dn-i
hungry.NOM.SG.M

-rising on the 1st syllable

-falling on the 1st syllable + [-i]

Q: What is [-i] if not the exponent for X?

It is an exponent for agreement that occurs in the presence of a functional head within the
adjectival complex. More precisely, NOM.SG.M has two exponents:
(23) a. NOM.SG.M [-i] / X___
b. NOM.SG.M H 3
The exponent in (23a) is specified to occur in the environment of X, while the exponent in
(23b) can occur in any environment.
The choice between them in NOM.SG.M is determined by The Elsewhere Condition
(Kiparsky 1973), so (23a) occurs in the long form and (23b) in the short form.

This is another segmentally null item in BCS that has only a High tone.
Compare: (i) pl:v-H blue.M.SF
(iii)
pl:v-aH blue.F.SF
(ii) zlen-H green.M.SF (iv)
zeln-aH green.F.SF

Morphosyntactic Triggers of Tone (Leipzig)

Tali

(24)
A

A
XAP
gla:dan H

AGR
-i

This suggestion is supported by the fact that [-i] does not occur only to distinguish long
from short adjectives.
o We also find [-i] in comparatives and superlatives. It is usually claimed that they only
have the long form.
Crucially, while long adjectives do not occur in the predicative position (25a), comparatives
and superlatives do (25b-c).
(25)

a. *Mak
Mak

Dizdar
Dizdar

je poznat-i.
is famous.LF-AGR

b. Mak Dizdar je poznatij-i

od
Abdulaha
Mak Dizdar is famous.CMPR-AGR than
Abdulah
Mak Dizdar is more famous than Abdulah Sidran.
c. Mak Dizdar
je naj-poznatij-i
Mak Dizdar
is most-famous.CMPR-AGR
Mak Dizdar is the most famous poet.

Sidrana.
Sidran

pjesnik.
poet

Given the mismatch in distribution of long adjectives and comparatives/superlatives, I

assume comparatives/superlatives are not long adjectives in (25).
Q: Why do they get [-i] then?
Bobaljik (2012) argues that comparatives/superlatives project functional structure on top of
AP, where superlatives contain comparatives.
s

(26)
c
a
|

SPRL
CMPR

ADJ

Given that [-i] occurs in NOM.SG.M in all the three contexts where there is functional
structure above AP, the context for its insertion is not just the functional projection hosting
long form inflection, but functional heads present in comparative/superlative as well.
In contemporary BCS [-i] is not an exponent for specificity on adjectives.

Morphosyntactic Triggers of Tone (Leipzig)

Tali

3.1. A note on Accentual domains vs. (word internal) Spell-Out domains in BCS
So far I have stayed neutral to whether the adjectival stem (A) is split further into a root and
a category defining node a (as usually assumed in DM), or not.
(27)
a

a
a
ROOT
pla:v

XAP
H

AGR
-oH:j

However, if it is split, under an approach such as Embick (2010), where category defining
heads induce spell-out of their complement (i.e. the root in this case), it is necessary to say
that the first spell-out domain is not an accentual domain, or that accentual rules applied at
the root can be overridden by later rules.
We see this from the behavior of BCS adjectives. If the root alone were an accentual
domain, it would always receive a default initial High tone.
(28) pla:v plaH:v blue
visok viHsok tall
This H tone would be the leftmost in the sequence, and any High tone introduced in later
cycles would not be realized.
There would be no prosodic contrast between long and short adjectives at all (29).
In some cases, this would generate wrong forms for both long and short adjectives (30).
(29) a. short: plaH:v - oH:j
b. long: plaH:v - H - oH:j
(30) a. short:
b. long:

*pl:vo:j
pl:vo:j

viHsok - oH:j
*vsoko:j
H
H
H
vi sok - - o :j *vsoko:j

The first accentual domain contains the agreement morpheme.

4. Syntactic evidence for XP with long adjectives
I have suggested above that long adjectives have a functional projection above AP.
We have so far seen prosodic reflexes of the existence of such projection.
There is also evidence from syntax that this projection exists.

Morphosyntactic Triggers of Tone (Leipzig)

Tali

To diagnose the amount of structure projected in the extended domain of a lexical head, it
is possible to use extraction.
In particular, Chomsky (2000) proposes that syntactic operations are limited by syntactic
domains (phases).
Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) - only the head of the phase and its edge are
accessible for syntactic operations, i.e. movement steps cannot be too long.
A number of researchers have argued that movement steps cannot be too short either
(Bokovi 1994, 2005; Saito and Murasugi 1999; Grohmann 2003; Abels 2003; Ticio 2003;
a.o.); a constraint dubbed anti-locality by Grohmann (2003).
Bokovi: a moving element has to cross at least one full phrase.
While Chomsky (2000) assumes that vP and CP are phases, more recent approaches to
phases hold that phasehood of a phrase depends on its syntactic context.
(e.g. Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2005; Bokovi 2005, 2013, 2014; Gallego and Uriagereka
2007; Despi 2011; den Dikken 2007, a.o.)
Bokovi (2013):
o all lexical categories (N, V, A, P) project phases,
o the highest phrase in the extended projection of every lexical category is a phase.
The amount of structure projected within the extended domain of a lexical head varies
cross-linguistically and within a single language.
This affects phasehood and extraction possibilities.
Left-Branch Extraction (LBE) in BCS vs. English
In the nominal domain, LBE of adjectives is available in BCS (i.e. languages without
articles), but it is unavailable in English (i.e. languages with articles) (see Uriagereka
(1988); Corver (1992); Bokovi (2005/2008/2012)).
(31) a. Pametnii su oni [
ti studenti].
smart
are they
students
They are smart students.
b. *Smarti they are [ ti students].

(BCS)

(English)

Bokovi (2005/2008/2012/2013) argues that in the nominal domain:

o APs are NP-adjoined
o Languages with overt articles have a DP DP is a phase DP blocks LBE
o Languages without overt articles do not have a DP (Fukui 1988; Corver 1992; Zlati
1997; Chierchia 1998; Baker 2003; Bokovi 2005, 2008, 2012, 2013; Marelj 2008;
Despi 2011, 2013) NP is a phase LBE not blocked

10

Morphosyntactic Triggers of Tone (Leipzig)

(32)

a.

PIC
Anti-locality -

DP
D

Tali

b.
NP

NP

PIC AP

NP

AP

NP

Anti-locality -

Adverb extraction (AdvE) out of adjectival phrases in BCS

In the adjectival domain in BCS, AdvE out of adjectival phrases with long adjectives is not
possible (33a), but AdvE out of adjectival phrases with short adjectives is possible (33b-c)
(Tali to appear).
(33) a. *Izuzetnoi
su kupili
[ ti skupi ]
extremely are bought
expensive.LF
They bought the extremely expensive car.

automobil.
car

b. Izuzetnoi
su kupili
[ ti skup ]
extremely
are bought
expensive.SF
They bought an extremely expensive car.

automobil.
car

c. Stranoi je bila [ ti umorna].

terribly is been
tired.F.SF
cf. Bila je strano umorna.
She was terribly tired.

(BCS)

This is similar to LBE: More structure = no extraction; less structure = extraction possible
Recall that adjectival phrases with long adjectives have a functional layer above AP, while
the ones with short adjectives are bare APs.
Adverbs are AP-adjoined
Long form XPAP is a phase XPAP blocks AdvE
Short form AP is a phase AdvE not blocked
(34)

a.

XPAP

PIC
Anti-locality -

XAP
AdvP

b.
AP

AP
AP

PIC AdvP
Anti-locality -

11

AP

Morphosyntactic Triggers of Tone (Leipzig)

Tali

Conclusion:
Prosodic differences between BCS long and short adjectives reflect a structural difference
between the two forms.
The exponent for the feature [specific] is: H
What is traditionally assumed to be the only remaining long form inflection [-i] is actually
an agreement marker allomorph inserted in the context of functional projections in long
adjectives, comparatives, and superlatives.
The presence of XP in adjectival phrases with long adjectives blocks adverb extraction.
References:
Abels, K. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Aljovi, N. 2002. Long adjectival inflection and specificity in Serbo-Croatian. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 31. 27-42.
Aljovi, N. 2010. Syntactic positions of attributive adjectives. In P. Cabredo Hofherr et al (eds.), Adjectives, 29-52. John
Benjamins.
Baker, M. 2003. Lexical categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bobaljik, J. and S. Wurmbrand. 2005. The domain of agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic theory 23: 809-865.
Bobaljik, J. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Bobaljik, J. 2012. Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words. MIT Press.
Bokovi, . 1994. D-structure, -criterion, and movement into -positions. Linguistic Analysis 24: 247-286.
Bokovi, . 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59: 1-45.
Bokovi, . 2008. What will you have, DP or NP?. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 37. 101-114.
Bokovi, . 2012. On NPs and clauses. In Discourse and grammar, ed. G. Grewendorf and T. E. Zimmermann, 179-246. M. de Gruyter.
Bokovi, . 2013. Phases beyond clauses. In The nominal constructions in Slavic and beyond, ed. Lilla Schrcks et al, 75-128. M. de Gruyter.
Chierchia, G. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339-405.
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Step by step, ed. Roger Martin et al, 89-155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Corver, N. 1992. On deriving certain left branch extraction asymmetries. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 22. 67-84.
den Dikken, M. 2007. Phase extension. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 1-41.
Despi, M. 2011. Syntax in the absence of determiner phrase. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Despi, M. 2013. Binding and the structure of NP in Serbo-Croatian. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 239-270.
Embick, D. & R. Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 289324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Embick, D. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fukui, N. 1988. Deriving the differences between English and Japanese. English Linguistics 5: 249-270.
Gallego, A. and J. Uriagereka. 2007. A critique of phase extension, with a comparison to phase sliding. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 65-74.
Grohmann, K. 2003. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In: K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.), The
view from building 20. 111-176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Inkelas, S. and D. Zec. 1988. Serbo-Croatian Pitch Accent. Language 64. 227-248.
Kiparsky, P. 1973. "Elsewhere" in Phonology. In S.R. Anderson et al (eds.), Festschrift for Morris Halle, 93-106. Rinehart and Winston.
Leko, N. 1986. Syntax of Noun Headed Structures in Serbo-Croatian and Corresponding Phrasal Structures in English.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University dissertation.
Leko, N. 1999. Functional categories and the structure of the DP in Bosnian. In Topics in South Slavic Syntax and Semantics, ed.
by Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Mila and Lars Hellan, 229-252. John Benjamins.
Marantz, A. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Marelj, M. 2008. Bound-variable anaphora and left branch condition. Syntax 14: 205-229.
Progovac, Lj. 1998. Determiner phrase in a language without determiners. Journal of Linguistics 34. 165179.
Rianovi, M. 2012. Bosnian for Foreigners: With a comprehensive grammar. Sarajevo: Rabic.
Saito, M. and K. Murasugi. 1999. Subject predication within IP and DP. In Beyond principles and parameters, ed. Kyle Johnson
and Ian Roberts, 167-188. Dodrecht: Kluwer.
Schenker, A. 1993. Proto-Slavonic. In B. Comrie et al (eds.), The Slavonic Languages, 60-123. London: Routledge.
Tali, A. to appear. Adverb extraction, specificity, and structural parallelism. To appear in Canadian Journal of Linguistics.
Ticio, E. 2003. On the structure of the DPs. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Uriagereka, J. 1988. On government. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Zlati, L. 1997. The structure of the Serbian noun phrase. Austin, TX: University of Texas dissertation.

12