Äîêóìåíò âçÿò èç êýøà ïîèñêîâîé ìàøèíû. Àäðåñ îðèãèíàëüíîãî äîêóìåíòà : http://www.philol.msu.ru/~otipl/new/fdsl/abstracts/damonte.pdf Äàòà èçìåíåíèÿ: Sun Nov 9 20:24:52 2008 Äàòà èíäåêñèðîâàíèÿ: Wed Jan 14 13:13:48 2009 Êîäèðîâêà:

The Russian subjunctive complementizer ctoby can be analyzed as the declarative complementizer cto plus the conditional particle by. Brecht (1977), for instance, has pointed out that, when two subjunctive predicates are coordinated, ctoby is present in the first one, while the second one can be introduced only by by. (1) Ty velel, ctoby ja uekhal v Minsk odin, a Vasja by ostalsja s toboj? you ordered that-SUBJ I go to Minsk alone and Vasja BY remain with you `Did you order that I leave for Minsk alone and Vasja remain with you?' (Brecht 1977, 35-36, (6e))

Notice that in similar constructions, the particle by can occur in different positions in the second clause, and, in colloquial speech, can appear multiple times, which are properties of the independent conditional particle by (Franks & King 2000, 190-192): (2) Ty velel ctoby ja uekhal v Minsk odin, a Vasja (by) ostalsja (by) s toboj?

If the by in ctoby is the independent conditional marker, why has it to be attached to the complementizer cto if this is spelled out? We will assume that by encodes a [+mood] feature and can be merged in different positions in the clause structure. The most common positions of by are after the verb or the "Wackernagel" second position: (3) a. Ja s udovol'stviem posel by zavtra v teatr. I with happiness go BY tomorrow to theater `I would happily go to the theater tomorrow.' Ja by s udovol'stviem posel zavtra v teatr. (Franks & King, 2000, 191, (11a-b))

b.

Other, less common, orders are derived by the activation of Topic and Focus positions. In (3a) by is merged in the IP layer, in (3b) it is merged in CP: (4) a. b. [ [
TOPICP TOPICP

Ja [

TOPICP OODP

s udovol'stviem [IP posel [M by [
TOPICP

OODP

by ...]]]] (3a)

Ja [M

s udovol'stviem [IP posel ...]]]] (3b)

This analysis is based on the claim that [mood] features in IP are copied onto functional projections inside the CP layer (the Mood Concord principle, as originally proposed by Rivero (1988)). In Russian by can be spelled out in one (or more than one, in colloquial Russian) of the positions involved in the Mood Concord relation. When a verb or predicate selects a ctoby complement, that is a [+mood] complement, by must be spelled out in the highest possible position inside the complement CP. This position is higher than left dislocated topics (5b-c): (5) a. b. Ja velel ctoby ty uekhal v Minsk odin. I ordered that-SUBJ you go to Minsk alone *Ja velel v Minsk ctoby ty uekhal odin.


c.

*Ja velel ty ctoby uekhal v Minsk odin. `I ordered that you leave for Minsk alone.'

Notice that both the declarative complementizer cto and the subjunctive/modal complementizer ctoby are higher than left dislocated topics: (6) a. b. c. Ja dumaju cto on uekhal v Minsk odin. I think that he go to Minsk alone *Ja dumaju v Minsk cto on uekhal odin. *Ja dumaju on cto uekhal v Minsk odin. `I think that he left for Minsk alone.'

We will assume that the position of ctoby is Force° in Rizzi's (1997) framework. Although the final positions of the declarative complementizer cto and the subjunctive/modal complementizer ctoby are the same, the derivations of the two structures are different. In particular, ctoby is derived by moving cto (which is possibly merged in Finitiness°) through the Mood head in CP and then to Force°. Declarative cto is directly merged in Force° or, if it is merged in Finitiness°, is moved directly to Force°: (7) a. b. [Force cto [Topic [Fin cto [IP]]]] [Force cto-by [Topic [mood by [Fin cto [IP]]]]]

Comparative data from Italo-Romance show that complementizers can move through the left periphery (Ledgeway 2003 and works cited there). The difference between Russian and ItaloRomance is that Russian has only one complementizer in the lexicon. When the matrix verb selects a [+mood] complement, Mood of the embedded clause can be spelled out only in the higher position and it is "visible" only if cto moves through Mood°. This a sort of Locality constraint on mood selection. Russian lacks a true morphological subjunctive and a separate modal complementizer in the lexicon, thus it builds up a modal marker in CP by the means of syntactic movement, by incorporating the declarative complementizer with the modal particle. This analysis gives a unified account of the conditional marker by and the modal complementizer ctoby. Moreover, it explains why by cannot appear in IP when a matrix verb selects a modal complement and why ctoby, contrary to modal complementizers in other languages, occupies a high position in the CP layer. References Brecht (1977), "Ctoby or cto and by". Folia Slavica 1, 33-41. Franks & King (2000), A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. New York, Oxford University Press. Ledgeway (2003), "Il sistema completivo dei dialetti meridionali: la doppia serie di complementatori", Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 27, 89­147. Rivero (1988), "Barriers and Rumanian". In: Kirschner (ed.) Studies in Romance Linguistics. Rizzi (1997), "The fine structure of the left periphery". In: Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar.