1. Boban Arsenijević, Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Verb prefixation of the Slavic type in terms of concord and relativization
Boban Arsenijević,
Universitat Pompeu Fabra 1

2. The inventory: Event-related quantification
Next to the standard conservative readings of quantifiers (collective, distributive, cumulative), there is a type of interpretation that targets events rather than referents of the quantified nominal expressions (see Krifka 1990).
(1) The referee showed seven yellow cards.
Possibly 1 yellow card, but 7 events. 2

3. Targets non-specific arguments
Only non-specific, non-incorporating quantified arguments can receive this type of interpretation.
(2) a ships passed through the lock last year.
b. The 4000 ships passed through the lock last year.
Hierarchy: DO – IO/Goal – Subj. 3

4. Similar to negative concord
Only non-specific non-incorporating participants.
Different in allowing only one instance of a concord marker (German, French Neg).
(6)a. Niko nije odveo nikoga nigde. N-who n-Aux lead n-who n-where b. (6) vodiča je odvelo 6 ljudi do (6) izlaza guides Aux lead 6 people to 6 exits 4

5. Ingredients An aspectual operator in AspP.
Arguments unspecified for quantity features or higher components of referenciality.
Verb, which is aspectually sensitive too.
Agreement involving the operator, the verb and its arguments with the right properties.
Agreement shown on the argument most directly involved in the quantity of the event. 5

6. The analysis Adopting Haegeman & Lohndal (2011): AspP …VP 5 show card6

7. [asp]: hosting and interpretability
interpretable
carried
verb +
incremental theme
goal -
other participants 7

8. To the point: Verbal prefixes
Almost all morphologically bare verbs in S-C are atelic and perfective.
Prefixation makes a verb perfective; it can be imperfectivized again, and/or receive another prefix.
No telic (culminative) meaning in S-C is expressed by a verb without a prefix (even kill, die, join, divide: u-biti, u-mreti, s-pojiti, raz-dvojiti). 8

9. Internal and external prefixes
Internal prefixes contribute a resultative component to the VP and correspond to the preposition heading the goal phrase.
The contribution of external predicates relates to the quantity of the eventuality (and of its incremental theme).
(7)Iz-na-vlačio si reze na vrata. from-on-pull Aux.2Sg bars.Acc on doors ‘You placed all the bars on the doors.’ 9

10. External vs. Internal prefixes
Resultative
Quantitative
Add a non-selected argument
No added arguments?
Do not stack
Stack
Closest to the verb
Any ?
Conjunctive interpretation

11. Questions, hypotheses
Relative strategies have been argued for in the nominal domain, also at the clausal level – how about the verbal domain?
Is stacking a sign of type-recursion? Type recursion is typically/universally a product of relativization?
Variation between languages without prefixes, those with prefixes that do not stack, and those with stacking verb prexifes lies in the availability of agreement and relativization inside the VP.

12. Standard analyses AspextP… vP
external
RP/AspintP
internal
Two different functional projections for the two types of aspect.
(Svenonius 2004, DiSciullo&Slabakova 2005). 12

13. Resultativity – no difference
External prefixes are also resultative; the difference is in the complement of the preposition, DP vs. VP (Arsenijević 2006).
(11) Jovan je na-pekao palačinke. J Aux on-baked pancakes ‘Jovan baked a lot of pancakes.’ ~Jovan acted and the result was ‘on pancake-baking’, i.e. event-accumulation. 13

14. Resultative interpretation
The quantity effects of the typical external prefixes can be derived from the semantics of the corresponding preposition:
na ‘on’: acummulation;
po ‘over’: full or partial coverage;
iz ‘from’: exhaustion;
za ‘behind’: cross a phase transition (zapevati, zalomiti, zaleteti se, zabrazditi) 14

15. Added argument – no difference
External prefixes also add non-selected arguments Arsenijević (2006), Žaucer (2010).
(12) a. Pio sam (*se) vode. drink.ptc Aux1Sg Refl water.Gen ‘I drank water.’ b. Na-pio sam *(se) vode. drink.ptc Aux1Sg Refl water.Gen ‘I got my fill of drinking water.’ 15

16. External vs. Internal prefixes
Resultative
Add a non-selected argument
Do not stack
Stack
Closest to the verb
Any ?
Conjunctive interpretation

17. One projection for both
Conclusion: an analysis with both types of prefixes related to the same structural position is not only parsimonious, but also empirically better.
Both types of prefixes relate to the specification of result, which in turn can take different complements: DPs or VPs. 17

18. Žaucer (2010) Jovan v’ V2P v palačinke V2’ [DO] PP pekao na [DO] V1P
pekao na pekao na palačinke pekao 18

19. Remaining general problems
General problem 1: syntactic encoding that the result predicate describes a subevent of the macropredicate?
General problem 2: lexicalized preposition in internal prefixation – together with the corresponding (incorporated!) prefix?
Žaucer´s problem: external prefixes end up at the right of the verb in head mvt. 19

20. Agreement
General problem 2: why the preposition still receives phonological realization in internal prefixation – together with the corresponding prefix?
This is a pattern typical for agreement.
Not surprisingly, established between the verb and the bounder, two elements that carry/contribute to the [asp] feature. 20

21. The analysis, step 1: scopePP
sto
[aspu]
pod
[aspu:pod] VP
vukao
[aspi:dyn]
stolice 21

22. Analysis, step 1, effects C-command: checking, valuation. PP VP/AspP
sto
[aspu:dyn:pod]
pod-vukao
[aspi:dyn:pod]
stolice
pod
[aspu:dyn:pod]
VP/AspP 22

23. Analysis, step 2: relativisation
AspP PP
VP/AspP
sto
[aspu:dyn:pod]
pod
[aspu:dyn:pod]
pod-vukao
[aspi:dyn:pod]
pod-vukao
[aspi:dyn:pod]
VP/AspP
stolice 23

24. Analysis: step3, recursionPP iz
[aspu:iz]
AspP
pod-vukao
[aspi:dyn:pod] PP 24

25. External prefixes: recursive agreementPP
Asp2P iz
[aspu:dyn:pod:iz]
Asp2P
iz-pod-vukao
[aspi:dyn:pod:iz] PP 25

26. Multiple aspectual relativization
The analysis derives structures analogous to Bianchi’s (2000) Kaynean analysis of multiple relative clauses.
Aspectual relativization: enables multiple (recursive) resultative specification.
The rather abstract interpretation of external prefixes comes from the fact that the complement of the respective preposition is a quantity specification (AspP), not a lexical phrase (VP). 26

27. Explaining the observed facts
prefix (stacking) variation
richness of agreement
(recursive)prefix stacking
relativization
internal vs. external
special nature of the first step of relativization
quantitative vs. lexical
detto
lexicalized preposition
agreement
macroevent unification
one event modifies the other as a bound/telos

28. Some new issues
Non-lexicalized prepositions corresponding to external prefixes.
Goal (result) PPs above DOs.
Lexical bottoms universally – verbs also do not take complements (Kayne 2009).

29. New issues: PP specifiers
How come external prefixes have no specifiers?
They actually do: either the direct object moves up to each of the SpecPPs, resulting in a measuring out interpretation.
(13) Jovan je na-pekao palačinke. J Aux on-baked pancakes ‘Jovan baked a lot of pancakes.’ #..., although he baked a couple only. 29

30. New issues: PP specifiers
… or a new one is (i.e. externally) merged.
(14) Jovan se na-pekao palačinki. J Refl on-baked pancakes.Gen ‘Jovan got his fill of baking pancakes.’ ..., although he baked a couple only. 30

31. New issues: goal-PP above VP
Standard analyses have it below, perhaps assuming that this corresponds to the temporal posteriority.
In line with general (cartographic) practice: all the modifiers specific for a projecting lexical item are in its extended projection.
P goes with a nominal expression which has its case assigned by the verb, not P. 31

32. New issues: goal-PP above VP
Trčim u sobu/sobi. run.1Sg in room.Acc/Loc ‘I’m running into/within the room.’
Complements of goal Ps bear the same case as direct objects.
Postpositions in some languages: Ik ren de (in) kamer (in). Dutch I run the (in) room (in) Loc Acc 32

33. How come the order is P, DP?
i.e. how come not all languages are like Dutch?
Prepositions lexically specified as proclitics?
Agreement? 33

34. New issues: lexical bottoms
Kayne (2009) argues that lexical nouns cannot have complements because of their lexical nature – they have to bottom t heir structure.
The argument extends to lexical verbs, to the extent they are open class lexical elements.
Indeed, in the present analysis the verb bottoms its structure. 34

35. Wrap up
Asp probes into the c-commanded structure, looking for elements with the [asp] feature.
When found, checking and/or evaluation are triggered, and possibly reflected in agreement.
In some languages, in the right syntactic context, an empty AspP may be projected, prompting aspectual relativization. 35

36. THANK YOU! 36