DOI: 10.1515/qal-2016-0001 ISSN: 2299–8942

What does żeby introduce? Old and new research questions about the Polish żeby complementizer Marcin Orszulak

ABSTRACT The article explores the status of żeby-clauses in the Polish mood system. Clauses introduced by the complex complementizer żeby defy a unified description and traditional Polish grammars classify them either as indicative or conditional/subjunctive. The paper provides evidence that żeby-clauses can be classified as irrealis on the basis of their temporal properties. Furthermore, żeby-clauses introduced by non-veridical verbs share affinities with the subjunctive structures in other languages; specifically, they exhibit subjunctive-related phenomena, such as obviation effects. The present discussion also gives more general insights into the traditional mood classification in Polish and its problems. Keywords: mood, irrealis, subjunctive, complementizer, żeby, subordinate clause

1 Introduction

Żeby-clauses constitute a theoretical problem for the systematic description of the Polish mood system (see Bańko, 2012a, p. 162). Traditional Polish grammars distinguish between three moods in Polish: indicative (tryb oznajmujący), conditional/subjunctive (tryb przypuszczający) and imperative (tryb rozkazujący) (e.g., see Nagórko, 2007, p. 103). This division is mainly based on functional properties: the indicative mood is used to express statements, the imperative mood is meant to express orders/appeals and the conditional/subjunctive mood functions to express possible but unreal events (Nagórko, 2007, pp. 102–104). Some linguists classify żeby-clauses as a subtype of the conditional/subjunctive mood (e.g., Tokarski, 1973/2001; Laskowski, 1984), whereas others claim that clauses introduced by żeby should be treated as indicative (e.g., Puzynina, 1971; Nagórko, 2007; see Section 2.3 for a short review of this debate). The aim of the present paper is to discuss the status of clauses introduced by the Polish complementizer żeby with respect to the Polish mood system and provide arguments for classifying żeby-clauses as irrealis. Specifically, I will seek answers to the following research questions: – Should żeby-clauses be classified as realis or irrealis clauses? – What are the semantic properties of verbs that select for żeby-clauses? – What are the affinities between żeby-clauses and subjunctive structures in other languages? At this point, a terminological excurse is necessary. The Polish term tryb przypuszczający in the literature is translated either as ‘conditional’ or as ‘subjunctive.’ To avoid possible confusion,

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 3, NUMBER 1, 2016, PAGES: 27-47 © 2016 Center for General and Comparative Linguistics, University of Wrocław, Poland WHAT DOES ŻEBY INTRODUCE? 28

I need to stress that in the present discussion I will use the term ‘conditional/subjunctive mood’ to refer to tryb przypuszczający understood as a category traditionally recognized by Polish grammarians, which encompasses a variety of irrealis moods, such as conditional, hypothetical, subjunctive and optative. The term ‘conditional/subjunctive mood’ should be distinguished from ‘subjunctive mood’ (discussed in Section 3), which I define as an irrealis dependent mood usually found in embedded clauses (following Quer, 2006). The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a traditional grammar description of żeby- clauses with a special focus on their distribution and debatable status in the Polish mood system. Section 3 shows that – on the basis of their temporal properties – żeby-clauses can be classified as irrealis clauses that share various semantic and syntactic properties with subjunctive structures in other languages. Section 4 presents conclusions and questions for further research.

2 A descriptive look at żeby

The aim of this section is to discuss grammatical properties of żeby, such as its internal composition, syntactic distribution and variants, following the Polish descriptive grammar tradition. Observations about żeby will then serve as a basis for discussing controversies about its status as part of the conditional/subjunctive mood in Polish.

2.1 Żeby as a complex complementizer

From the morphological perspective, żeby is a complex complementizer1 composed of the simple complementizer że (subordinating conjunction equivalent to English that) and the particle by, which is traditionally taken as the marker of the conditional/subjunctive mood in Polish (Sadowska, 2012, p. 404). Żeby (analogously to że) also functions as a subordinating complementizer but its distribution is restricted to specific contexts often determined by the selectional properties of matrix predicates (see Section 2.2):2

(1) Moja żona chce, że-by nasze dzieci my wife want.PRS.3SG that-COND/SBJV our children skończyły studia. complete.PST.PTCP.PL.NONVIR studies ‘My wife wants our children to complete their studies.’

Crucially, by in żeby-clauses is not moveable and thus cannot be separated and adjoined to a subordinate clause verb. This is a crucial difference which distinguishes żeby-clauses from other contexts in which conditional/subjunctive by appears (see Section 2.3); compare (1) and (2):

1 We will use the term complementizer instead of the traditional grammar term conjunction to make the discussion of the traditional grammar sources compatible with the second part of the paper, which is based on the generative grammar research. 2 The glosses in the present paper describe only those grammatical features that are relevant for specific points in the discussion. In the glosses l-participle is marked as PST.PTCP (past participle), whereas -no/-to constructions are marked as NO/TO. In terms of gender, plural l-participles can have either virile or nonvirile forms (marked in the glosses as VIR and NONVIR, respectively). The remaining abbreviations are taken from The Leipzig Glossing Rules (2015).

29 MARCIN ORSZULAK

(2) *Moja żona chce, że nasze dzieci skończyły-by studia. my wife want.PRS.3SG that our children complete.PST.PTCP.PL.-COND/SBJV studies Intended meaning: ‘My wife wants our children to complete their studies.’

The picture of żeby distribution is additionally complicated by its different variants: aby, ażeby, iżby, coby and by, which are not morphologically related with że (‘that’) (Tomaszewicz, 2009, p. 222). According to Tomaszewicz (2009, p. 222, fn. 2), “aby, by are more formal, iżby, ażeby sound dated, coby is very colloquial. Also, coby somehow fits well only in purpose clauses, but not in complements to volitionals, whereas iżby seems fine only with volitionals.” It seems that variants of żeby are generally governed by stylistic preferences and register. Such a view is shared by Bańko (2012b), who treats żeby as a neutral form, by, aby, iżby and ażeby as formal variants and coby as a colloquial form. Finally, żeby carries person and number suffixes that mark 1st and 2nd person singular and plural; 3rd person singular and plural have zero affix (see (3) based on Sadowska, 2012, p. 455):

(3) żeby-m ‘that I would’ (1SG) żeby-ś ‘that you would’ (2SG) żeby-Ø ‘that he, that she, that it, that they would’ (3SG/PL) żeby-śmy ‘that we would’ (1PL) żeby-ście ‘that you would’ (2PL)

Żeby as well as person and number suffixes form an agglutinative complex that cannot be separated, i.e., these grammatical features cannot be alternatively expressed on a verb.

2.2 Distribution and composition of żeby-clauses

As Pisarkowa (1972, p. 185) notes, żeby can introduce two major types of sentential complements classified according to the Polish descriptive grammar as complement clauses (zdania dopełnieniowe), which serve as complements to verba sentiendi et dicendi, and subject clauses (zdania podmiotowe), selected by verbs without prototypical subjects (see (4) and (5) from Nagórko, 2007, pp. 306, 308):

(4) Radził, że-by-m przyznał się advise.PST.PTCP.3SG.M that-COND/SBJV-1SG plead.PST.PTCP.SG.M REFL do winy. to guilt ‘He advised me to plead guilty.’ (5) Nie wypada, że-by-ś palił przy NEG be.good.manners.PRS.3SG that-COND/SBJV-2SG smoke.PST.PTCP.SG.M next.to rodzicach. parents ‘It is not good manners for you to smoke when your parents are around.’

In terms of selectional properties of matrix verbs, complement clauses can be classified into three groups. There is a group of verbs that can select for complements introduced only by żeby (e.g., compare (6) and (7)): błagać (‘to beg’), chcieć (‘to want’), kazać (‘to tell’), pragnąć (‘to desire’),

WHAT DOES ŻEBY INTRODUCE? 30

rozkazać (‘to order’), radzić (‘to advise’), wzywać (‘to summon’), zabiegać (‘to strive’), zachęcać (‘to encourage’), zezwalać (‘to permit’), zmuszać (‘to force’), zakazać (‘to prohibit’), żądać (‘to demand’), żebrać (‘to plead’) (this group roughly corresponds to non-veridical verbs defined by Gianakidou, 2009, discussed further in Section 3.4). Apart from this list, there are classes of verbs which select for żeby-complement but can also select for sentential complements introduced by other complementizers, e.g., uważać (‘to mind’), troszczyć się (‘take care’) (select for żeby and czy (‘if’), consider (8) and (9)); mówić (‘to say’), pamiętać (‘to remember’) (select for żeby, czy (‘if’) and że (‘that’); consider examples (10)–(12)) (cf. Pisarkowa, 1972, pp. 185– 1863):

(6) Błagał, że-by żona do niego beg.PST.PTCP.3SG.M that-COND/SBJV wife to him wróciła. come.back.PST.PTCP.SG.F ‘He begged his wife to come back to him.’ (7) *Błagał, że żona do niego wróciła. beg.PST.PTCP.3SG.M that wife to him come.back.PST.PTCP.3SG.F Intended meaning: ‘He begged his wife to come back to him.’ (8) Troszczyła się, że-by wszyscy goście take.care.PST.PTCP.3SG.F REFL that-COND/SBJV all guests mieli miejsca siedzące. have.PST.PTCP.PL.VIR seats ‘She took care of the sufficient number of seats for all the guests.’ (9) Troszczyła się, czy nie zabraknie miejsc siedzących dla take.care.PST.PTCP.3SG.F REFL if NEG lack.3SG.PRS seats for wszystkich gości. all guests ‘She took care of the sufficient number of seats for all the guests.’ (10) Pamiętaj, że-by dzieci wzięły jutro remember.IMP that-COND/SBJV children take.PST.PTCP.PL.NONVIR tomorrow książki. books ‘Remember that children should take their books tomorrow.’ (11) Nie pamiętam, czy o tym wcześniej wspomniałem. NEG remember.PRS.1SG if about it earlier mention.PST.PTCP.1SG.M ‘I can’t remember if I mentioned that earlier.’ (12) Pamiętam, że kiedyś najlepszy chleb sprzedawali na rynku. remember.PRS.1SG that in.the.past best bread sell.PST.PTCP.3PL.VIR on market ‘I remember that in the past the best bread was sold on the market square.’

3 Still, one can find data that deviate from Pisarkowa’s classification. For example, some Polish speakers use rozkazać (‘to order’) with że (not only żeby).

31 MARCIN ORSZULAK

Discussing żeby-selectors in Polish, we need to note that some verbs that typically select for a clause introduced by że (indicative complement) can take żeby-clauses as their complements in the negative context (see (13)–(15)):

(13) Wierzę, że / *żeby nasz zespół wygra believe.PRS.1SG that / that-COND/SBJV our team win.PRS.PFV.3SG konkurs. competition ‘I believe that our team will win the competition.’ (14) Nie wierzę, że nasz zespół wygra konkurs. NEG believe.PRS.1SG that our team win.PRS.PFV.3SG competition ‘I don’t believe that our team will win the competition.’ (15) Nie wierzę, że-by nasz zespół wygrał konkurs. NEG believe.PRS.1SG that-COND/SBJV our team win.PST.PTCP.SG.M competition ‘I don’t believe that our team could win the competition.’

As illustrated in (13), wierzyć (‘to believe’) selects for an indicative że-complement; however, when negated, it can select for a że-clause (see (14)) and a żeby-clause (see (15)) with a subtle difference in meaning (in the version with żeby the event of winning the competition is less probable). The sentence in (15) is an example of polarity subjunctive, which is not a result of lexical selection but of the presence of an additional element that functions as a subjunctive licensor – in the discussed case this is negation (see Stowell, 1993, after Quer, 1998, pp. 32, 59). Additionally, except for complement and subject clauses, żeby (together with other complementizers, such as by and aby) can also introduce adverbial clauses that express purpose (see (16)) (Nagórko, 2007, p. 312), e.g.:

(16) Zapłaciłem bratu za kurs niemieckiego, że-by pay.PST.PTCP.1SG.M brother.DAT for course German that-COND/SBJV znalazł pracę w Niemczech. find.PST.PTCP.SG.M job in Germany ‘I paid for my brother’s German course so that he could find a job in Germany.’

However, this type of żeby use should be clearly distinguished from complement and subject clauses as it is not restricted by selectional properties of matrix verbs. Finally, according to Nagórko (2007, p. 307), żeby can also introduce a relative clause and thus function as a variant relative pronoun (though this context seems marginal and archaic4); see (17):

(17) Najchętniej kupił-by-m mieszkanie, że-by preferably buy.PST.PTCP.M-COND/SBJV-1SG flat that-COND/SBJV pomieściło wszystkie moje książki. accommodate.PST.PTCP.SG.N all my books ‘Preferably, I would buy a flat that would accommodate all my books.’

4 To illustrate this use of żeby, Nagórko (2007, p. 307) uses a fragment from Adam Mickiewicz’s “Pan Tadeusz” (an epic poem from the 19th century).

WHAT DOES ŻEBY INTRODUCE? 32

The relative clause in example (17) describes a wish that the apartment would be spacious enough to accommodate all the books. However, it should be noted that such meaning in Polish is usually conveyed by a clause that is introduced by a relative pronoun and that comprises a verb with by (as a conditional/subjunctive marker); compare (17) and (18):

(18) Najchętniej kupił-by-m mieszkanie, które preferably buy.PST.PTCP.M-COND/SBJV-1SG flat that pomieściło-by wszystkie moje książki. accommodate.PST.PTCP.SG.N-COND/SBJV all my books ‘Preferably, I would buy a flat that would accommodate all my books.’

Apart from embedded contexts, in the literature there is also evidence that żeby can appear alone in the matrix sentence to mark the conditional/subjunctive mood (see (19) based on Gębka- Wolak, 2010, p. 38):

(19) Że-by // o-by // by nasze dzieci zdrowo that-COND/SBJV // PARTICLE-COND/SBJV // COND/SBJV our children healthily się chowały! REFL grow.PST.PTCP.PL.NONVIR ‘May our children thrive!’

The sentence in (19) can by introduced by three elements: żeby, oby (combination of the particle o and the conditional/subjunctive marker by) and by alone.5 Gębka-Wolak (2010, p. 38) treats such examples as semantic equivalents in which by functions as a mood operator which marks such sentences as conditional/subjunctive. However, Gębka-Wolak does not explain why there are variants in which by needs to adjoin to complementizers and how żeby in such sentences is different from żeby in subordinate clauses. Tomaszewicz (2009, p. 231), however, refers to such structures as optatives (expressing desired states), which are related to the subjunctive mood, but – in contrast to it – appear unembedded. Also the internal structure of żeby-clauses is far from being unified. Subordinate clauses introduced by żeby can comprise three forms of verbs: past participle (l-participle without past reference), infinitival form or impersonal form (so-called ‘-no/-to constructions,’ discussed in Section 3.2) (Pisarkowa, 1972, p. 186); consider examples (20)–(22):

(20) Zachęcał, że-by wybrali wycieczkę do Włoch. encourage.PST.PTCP.3SG.M that-COND/SBJV choose.PST.PTCP.PL.VIR trip to Italy ‘He encourage them to choose a trip to Italy.’ (21) Zachęcał, że-by wybrać wycieczkę do Włoch. encourage.PST.PTCP.3SG.M that-COND/SBJV choose.INF trip to Italy ‘He encouraged choosing a trip to Italy.’

5 There is also another type of optatives that start with niechby (combination of the particle niech and the conditional/subjunctive marker by). However, they can have a pejorative meaning of a threat/curse, e.g., Niechby go szlag trafił! (‘Damn him,’ intended meaning: wishing someone to die).

33 MARCIN ORSZULAK

(22) Zachęcał, że-by wybrano wycieczkę do Włoch. encourage.PST.PTCP.3SG.M that-COND/SBJV choose.NO/TO trip to Italy ‘He encouraged choosing a trip to Italy.’

These three variants differ in referential properties. The variant of żeby-clause with l-participle (example (20)) allows for an overt subject but excludes any coreference between the subject of the main clause and the subject of subordinate clause; even if the grammatical values on verbs (person and number) are the same (consider (23)):

(23) Zachęcali, że-by wybrali wycieczkę do Włoch. encourage.PST.PTCP.3PL.VIR that-COND/SBJV choose.PST.PTCP.PL.VIR trip to Italy ‘They encouraged them to choose a trip to Italy.’

In the examples with the infinitival and impersonal forms of verbs in the subordinate clause (21– 22), the subject of the embedded clause seems unspecified. In example (21) the subject of the matrix clause could also participate in the event described by the żeby-clause, but an interpretation in which there is no coreference between the matrix and embedded subject is also possible. The variant with the impersonal form of the verb (22) is more difficult to assess, but I would argue against the coreference with the matrix subject in this case. To sum up the distribution of żeby, I can conclude that żeby appears in a variety of irrealis contexts related to expressing wish, desire and purpose.6 Although traditionally in Polish only three moods are distinguished (indicative, imperative and conditional/subjunctive; see Nagórko, 2007, pp. 103–104), żeby functions as a marker of different irrealis moods, such as conditional, subjunctive and optative. Such multifunctionality is found also for grammatical markers of mood and modality in other languages, which blurs the precise boundaries between specific mood categories (Nordström, 2010, p. 16).

2.3 Żeby and the conditional/subjunctive mood in Polish

Żeby and other complementizers containing by have constituted a theoretical challenge in the description of the conditional/subjunctive mood in Polish. As already mentioned, the particle by is a conditional/subjunctive marker that is adjoined to a verb to create the conditional/subjunctive form.7 However, there is also a possibility of detaching by and move it to the position after the subject (see Sadowska, 2012, p. 405); compare (24) with (25):

(24) Zjadła-by coś słodkiego. eat.PST.PTCP.SG.F-COND/SBJV something sweet ‘She would eat something sweet.’ (25) Ona by zjadła coś słodkiego. she COND/SBJV eat.PST.PTCP.SG.F something sweet ‘She would eat something sweet.’

6 In line with Palmer (2001, p. 1), I assume the binary distinction into realis and irrealis; however, in Section 3.1 I will adopt Mezhevich’s (2006) definition of the irrealis mood based on the temporal properties of a clause. 7 Migdalski (2006, p. 253) calls by “an invariant conditional auxiliary” that can encliticize to verbs and complementizers. Also Borsley and Rivero (1994) analyze by as a conditional auxiliary.

WHAT DOES ŻEBY INTRODUCE? 34

What is important, this moveability is blocked when by is part of a complementizer, e.g., in the case of żeby (compare (26) and (27)):

(26) Mama chce, że-by-śmy odpoczeli. mum want.PRS.3SG that-COND/SBJV-1PL rest.PST.PTCP.PL.VIR ‘Mum wants us to rest.’ (27) *Mama chce, że odpoczeli-by-śmy. mum want.PRS.3SG that rest.PST.PTCP.PL.VIR-COND/SBJV-1PL Intended meaning: ‘Mum wants us to rest.’

As Puzynina (1971, pp. 131–132) stresses, in the case of żeby not only by stays immobile, but also person and number inflectional suffix must be adjoined to the complementizer and it is not possible to express it on the verb. These properties are shared by other complementizers with by, such as gdyby and jakby (‘if’). However, the division into moveable and immoveable contexts is additionally blurred by sentences in which the matrix sentence verb can select for both że and żeby (see (28) and (29), examples after Puzynina, 1971, p. 134):

(28) Powiedział, że on by to zrobił. say.PST.PTCP.3SG.M that he COND/SBJV it do.PST.PTCP.SG.M ‘He said that he would do it.’ (29) Powiedział, że-by on to zrobił. say.PST.PTCP.3SG.M that-COND/SBJV he it do.PST.PTCP.SG.M ‘He told him to do it.’

The described intricacies of by separation led the debate about its unified status as a conditional/subjunctive marker. In this discussion two main stands evolved: (i) to treat all the instances of the particle by as the conditional/subjunctive mood contexts; (ii) to distinguish the contexts with the immovable by and treat them as a separate mood. The first stand is expressed by Tokarski (1973/2001, p. 202), who treats żeby as a complex complementizer in which the simple complementizer że “absorbs” the particle by to create a construction with the past form of a verb (l-participle, past participle). For Tokarski such a structure should be classified as the conditional/subjunctive mood because l-participle, although morphologically marked as past, does not have a past reference. This view is shared by Laskowski (1984, p. 135), who admits that constructions involving a complementizer with by and a past participle constitute a problem for the description of the Polish conditional/subjunctive mood category. However, he argues that such structures are contextually determined variants of the conditional/subjunctive mood; the claim supported by the lack of the past reference of the past participle as well as the non-factual and conditional meaning. The second stance, in which moveable and immoveable by contexts are distinguished as separate moods, was thoroughly presented by Puzynina (1971), who followed Gołąb’s view on two forms of the conditional/subjunctive mood in Polish. Gołąb (1964; cited after Puzynina, 1971, pp. 133– 134) argued that the immoveable by is reserved to subordinate clauses of subjunctive and purposive function, whereas the moveable by appears in matrix clauses. Nevertheless, this claim was refuted by Puzynina (1971, p. 134) on the basis of the aforementioned optative sentences in which żeby is placed unembedded at the beginning of a sentence (consider (30) and (31)):

35 MARCIN ORSZULAK

(30) Że-by-śmy zawsze byli zdrowi. that-COND/SBJV-1PL always be.PST.PTCP.PL.VIR healthy.PL.VIR ‘May we always be in good health.’ (31) *Że zawsze byli-by-śmy zdrowi. that always be.PST.PTCP.PL.VIR-COND/SBJV-1PL healthy.PL.VIR Intended meaning: ‘May we always be in good health.’

As observed in examples (30) and (31), in such contexts we cannot separate że and by, which is obviously at odds with Gołąb’s claim. Alternatively, Puzynina (1971, p. 136) proposed that the instances of the immoveable by should be subsumed into the indicative mood irrespective of the matrix clause/subordinate clause context: “these forms should be treated as a positional variant [of the indicative mood – M.O.] characterized by past morphology on the verb and person/number suffixes immobilized at the conjunction or particle” [translation – M.O]. According to her reasoning, sentences with żeby belong to the indicative mood in which the category of mood expressed on the verb is neutralized by the modal meaning expressed by the complementizer or the modal verb in the matrix clause (Puzynina, 1971, p. 136). From the diachronic perspective, such forms result from the process in which complementizers and particles take over modal functions from verbs (Puzynina, 1971, p. 139). It must be noted that Puzynina’s view is followed in many more contemporary works (e.g., see Nagórko, 2007; Gębka-Wolak, 2010). Nevertheless, as Gaszyńska-Magiera (1998, p. 52) notices, the literature on the mood categories in Polish is rather scarce and there are theoretical problems which have yet to find a universally accepted account.8 Among such issues, Gaszyńska-Magiera (1998, p. 54) pinpoints the case of the immoveable by and the problem of mood selection in subordinate clauses, in which we can find interesting mood oppositions, such as those illustrated by the verb mówić (‘to say’), which selects for both że- and żeby-clauses (see examples (28) and (29)). In the next section, I will follow the conditional/subjunctive view on żeby-clauses and show that they can be classified as irrealis on the basis of their temporal properties.

3 Żeby-clauses and the realis/irrealis distinction

In this section I follow the basic mood distinction into realis and irrealis and adopt Mezhevich’s proposal of treating mood as a dyadic predicate that relates two times (Mezhevich, 2006) to show that żeby-clauses actually belong to the irrealis side. Next, I have a closer look at various verb forms that are licit in żeby-clauses and elaborate on their temporal interpretation, drawing an interesting analogy between Polish and Greek data. Finally, I focus on the notion of subjunctive, understood as a dependent mood found in embedded clauses (see Quer, 2006), and demonstrate that żeby-clauses can be classified as subjunctive on the basis of selectional properties of matrix verbs (the contrast between veridical and non-veridical verbs, proposed by Giannakidou, 2009)

8 Gaszyńska-Magiera (1998) analyzed descriptions of the Polish conditional/subjunctive mood in textbooks for learning Polish as a foreign language. She showed that the lack of a unified theoretical account on the descriptive side results in prescriptive inconsistencies.

WHAT DOES ŻEBY INTRODUCE? 36

and various transparency effects that are found in embedded subjunctive clauses crosslinguistically (as described by Quer, 2006).

3.1 Żeby-clauses as irrealis clauses

Mezhevich (2006, p. 119) proposes that mood should be analyzed as a dyadic predicate that relates two times: the evaluation time (“time relative to which the situation described by the utterance is evaluated”) and the utterance time. As a consequence, the relation between these two times is a basis for the realis/irrealis distinction: “in realis mood, the utterance time is interpreted as the evaluation time: the situation is evaluated relative to the utterance time. […] In irrealis mood, the utterance time is interpreted as not being the evaluation time: the situation cannot be evaluated relative to the utterance time” (Mezhevich, 2006, p. 124). For example, consider the pair of sentences in (32) and (33) (from Mezhevich, 2006, p. 125):

(32) I had a car. (33) I wish I had a car.

In the realis sentence I had a car the utterance time is actually the evaluation time, which means that the situation time (the time of the propositional content) is interpreted with respect to the utterance time: the event of having a car was prior to the utterance (past tense interpretation). On the other hand, the interpretation of the irrealis sentence in (33) involves two different time lines: the time line at which the utterance time is located and the time line at which the situation time is placed (the event of having a car). In her analysis, Mezhevich (2006) follows Iatridou (2000, p. 247), who analyzed mood as a dyadic predicate that relates two types of worlds: topic worlds (“the worlds that we are talking about”) and actual worlds (“the worlds that for all we know are the worlds of the speaker”). However, Mezehevich’s (2006) modification to define mood not as the relation between worlds but as the relation between times (or time lines) allows capturing a number of properties that tense and mood share (literature review in Mezhevich, 2006, pp. 122-123): – mood and tense systems are structured based on binary distinctions: realis/irrealis for mood, past/non-past and future/non-future for tense; – languages do not have special verbal morphology to express the indicative/realis mood and if a clause has a temporal interpretation, then it is indicative; – crosslinguistically, the irrealis mood is commonly expressed by past morphology without past interpretation (“fake past” as Iatridou (2000, p. 244) labels it). Similar connections between tense and mood are visible in the Polish data. Żeby-clauses comprise l-participles (apart from infinitives and impersonal verbs as already mentioned), which are morphologically past, but lack a past interpretation. However, when an l-participle is found in an indicative clause, it receives the past interpretation, consider the following examples:

(34) Mówi, że brat kupił nowy samochód say.PRS.3SG that brother buy.PST.PTCP.3SG.M new car w tamtym tygodniu / *w następnym tygodniu. in last week / in next week ‘He says that his brother bought a car last week/*next week.’

37 MARCIN ORSZULAK

(35) Mówi, że-by brat kupił nowy say.PRS.3SG that-COND/SBJV brother buy.PST.PTCP.SG.M new samochód *w tamtym tygodniu / w następnym tygodniu. car in last week / in next week ‘He tells his brother to buy a new car *last week/next week.’

The pair of sentences presented in (34) and (35) features the verb mówić (‘to say’), which alternates between the indicative and subjunctive complements (i.e., it can select for both). The indicative clause in (34) is only grammatical with the past tense adverbial w tamtym tygodniu (‘last week’), but not with the future tense adverbial w następnym tygodniu (‘next week’). In contrast, the subjunctive clause in (35), despite being morphologically past, is not compatible with the past adverbial. The same contrast was observed in Russian by Mezhevich (2006, p. 148), who points out that “embedded subjunctives typically denote a hypothetical situation in the future relative to the matrix event.” To recapitulate the main tenets of Mezhevich’s proposal, indicative clauses have an independent tense interpretation and the time of the event that they describe is evaluated with respect to the utterance time, which is characteristic of the realis mood. On the other hand, subjunctive clauses have a temporal interpretation dependent on the context (for matrix subjunctives) or on the matrix clause and the event described by a subjunctive clause is not interpreted relative to the utterance time (Mezhevich, 2006, pp. 126, 151).

3.2 Żeby-clauses with -no/-to verb forms and infinitives

The discussion at this point must turn to other verb forms found in żeby-clauses: -no/-to constructions and infinitives. I will show similarities that they share with l-participles in terms of temporal interpretation. The -no/-to constructions are impersonal verb forms ending with -no or -to suffix. Such forms exhibit rare syntactic properties, such as no overt subject, PROarb interpretation and the ability to assign the accusative case to their complements (cf. Lavine, 2005 and Ruda, 2014 for discussion). However, what is important for our analysis is the fact that -no/-to forms can be used only with past tense adverbials if they appear in a realis/indicative sentence (see Ruda, 2014, p. 210); consider (36):

(36) W dawnych czasach / *obecnie / *w przyszłości budowano domy z drewna. in old times / at.present / in future build.NO/TO houses of wood ‘In the past/*at present/*in the future houses were made of wood.’

However, if the -no/-to forms are used in żeby-clauses they lose their past reference and are interpreted as hypothetical future relative to the matrix predicate event; see (37):

(37) Mieszkańcy chcą, że-by wybudowano szkołę residents want.PRS.3PL that-COND/SBJV build.NO/TO school *w tamtym roku / w następnym roku. in last year / in next year ‘The residents want the school to be built *last year/next year.’

WHAT DOES ŻEBY INTRODUCE? 38

The examples in (36) and (37) show that the verbs with -no/-to suffixes have the past interpretation (i.e., compatible with past tense adverbials) only in indicative sentences. This is an exact analogy to the l-participle, which is interpreted as past in realis clauses, but loses this interpretation in irrealis contexts. Again here we deal with “fake past,” which – as already mentioned – is typical for irrealis contexts crosslinguistically. According to Mezhevich (2006, p. 125), irrealis sentences do not have a temporal interpretation because “[a] clause can have a temporal interpretation only if it describes a situation whose time is located on the same time line as the utterance time.” Similar properties are attributed to infinitives. Wurmbrand (2007) argues that infinitives are tenseless, i.e., they lack their own temporal denotation, consider the following sentences (examples from Wurmbrand, 2007, p. 409):

(38) Leo decided a week ago that he will go to the party (*yesterday). (39) Leo decided a week ago to go to the party yesterday.

(38) presents the example of a finite future statement that has an absolute interpretation: the event of going to the party needs to occur after the utterance time; hence the incompatibility with the past tense adverbial. In contrast, the infinitival event in (39) must follow the matrix event; the utterance time is irrelevant here. Such a contrast can be also observed in Polish: embedded realis sentences with the compound future construction9 have an independent future interpretation as opposed to their irrealis infinitival counterparts; compare (40) and (41):

(40) Marek powiedział tydzień temu, że jutro / *wczoraj Mark say.PST.PTCP.3SG.M week ago that tomorrow / yesterday będzie kupował nowy samochód. be.PRS.PFV.3SG buy.PST.PTCP.IPFV.SG.M new car ‘Mark said a week ago that tomorrow/*yesterday he would buy a new car.’ (41) Marek powiedział tydzień temu, że-by jutro / Mark say.PST.PTCP.3SG.M week ago that-COND/SBJV tomorrow / wczoraj kupić nowy samochód. yesterday buy.INF new car

The clause with finite future construction in (40) is acceptable only with the future tense adverbial jutro (‘tomorrow’); however, its infinitival counterpart introduced by żeby is fine with both past tense and future tense adverbial (see (41)). This is so because the event expressed by the infinitive should occur after the matrix clause event (hypothetical future) and thus any adverbial that describes an event happening later than a week ago fulfils this requirement. In sum, the common denominator of all the forms that can be found in żeby-clauses – l-participles, -no/-to constructions and infinitives – is the property of losing independent temporal interpretation that is evaluated with respect to the utterance time. Such a conclusion is in line with Mezhevich’s (2006) insights into the nature of the irrealis mood, in which the situation time and utterance time are located on different time lines and thus the propositional content of a clause

9 Polish has two constructions to express future time: the so-called simple future with perfective verbs and the compound/periphrastic future with imperfective verbs (see Sadowska, 2012, pp. 398ff). The incompatibility with past tense adverbials holds for both types of future constructions in Polish.

39 MARCIN ORSZULAK

cannot be evaluated with respect to the utterance time. Furthermore, as illustrated with the examples in this section, verb forms that have an independent temporal reference are compatible with the realis mood since only in such cases the situation time and the utterance time are located on the same time line, which allows for an absolute temporal interpretation.

3.3 The puzzle of fake past

At this juncture, one needs to pose a question about l-participles and -no/-to constructions and their ability to lose past interpretation. If we assume that these verb forms are past and in the subjunctive/conditional context they lose this interpretation, then we posit that there are actually two different l-participles and two different -no/-to constructions – one type with past interpretation found in indicative clauses and the other type without past interpretation found in the subjunctive/conditional clauses. Another line of reasoning would be to assume that l-participles and -no/-to constructions are temporally unspecified and that they acquire specific temporal properties depending on a context, i.e., in connection with other elements such as subjunctive particles. A similar analysis was proposed by Giannakidou (2009) with respect to Greek perfective nonpast forms (PNP).10 In Greek the PNP cannot appear on its own and it must be licensed by other particles: the subjunctive na, the future tha, the conditional an and future-oriented connectives, e.g., prin ‘before’ (examples from Giannakidou, 2009, pp. 1885-1886):

(42) Na/as to pis. SBJV it say.PNP.2SG ‘You may say it.’ (43) Tha to pis. FUT it say.PNP.2SG ‘You will say it.’ (44) Prin to pis. before it say.PNP.2SG ‘Before you say it,…’ (45) *To pis. (PNP: *on its own)

Assuming the pronominal theory of tense, Giannakidou (2009, p. 1906) considers the PNP “a referentially deficient dependent variable […] a variable that cannot be used deictically to refer to a particular time specified by the context only.” Thus, the specific interpretation of PNP forms is that of time intervals starting with t, a variable that cannot be interpreted deictically, and moving forward to unspecified future (Giannakidou, 2009, p. 1898). The particles like na and tha are necessary for the PNP to be grammatical as they provide a now variable n with which t variable is identified. Crucially, Giannakidou (2009, p. 1906) proposes a clear interpretational difference between embedded uses of the PNP with the subjunctive particle na and main uses with the future particle tha. Embedded PNPs are interpreted with respect to the matrix event: “The temporal n of the subjunctive in embedded clauses remains a relative now, an idea consistent with the fact that embedded na is triggered by a higher predicate” (ibidem). Main

10 I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for suggesting the analogy between Polish and Greek data.

WHAT DOES ŻEBY INTRODUCE? 40

clause PNP forms, on the other hand, are interpreted with respect to the utterance time since the now variable n introduced by tha is identified with the utterance time and, as a result, “futurate reading” arises (ibidem). Drawing an analogy between the PNP in Greek and l-participles and -no/-to constructions in Polish, we can notice that żeby behaves in a similar way to Greek na as it introduces embedded subjunctives whose temporal interpretation is analogous to their Greek counterparts. Specifically, events expressed by żeby-clauses have a future interpretation with respect to the matrix event and thus, in Giannakidou’s terms, żeby introduces a now variable that is identified with the attitude verb. However, the discussed similarity between Greek and Polish is weakened by the fact żeby- clauses can feature infinitives, whereas Greek has only finite complementation (see Giannakidou, 2009, p. 1885). Another parallel between Polish and Greek concerns the future particle tha, which licenses main clause PNP forms. Tha bears resemblance to the subjunctive/conditional by used in main clauses in Polish. What is especially interesting is an observation that tha and by appear lower in the structure than na and żeby. Still, tha has a future tense interpretation which is equivalent rather to Polish simple future construction than to the hypothetical by (still the future interpretation may be considered irrealis similarly to the hypothetical mood; see Dahl, 1985, p. 103). To sum up this part of the discussion, the analogy between Greek and Polish provides grounds for an alternative analysis of fake past forms in subjunctive clauses in Polish. Instead of proposing a kind of homonymy, comprising “real” past and “fake” past, we may posit that l-participles and -no/-to constructions are temporally deficient and their temporal interpretation must be completed by another element (polarity behavior) that in subjunctive clauses would be żeby, which would introduce the now variable n and thus provide a starting point for the time interval. Nonetheless, such an analysis requires further research to account for the past interpretation of these verb forms in indicative clauses.11

3.4 Żeby as a subjunctive complementizer

So far I have shown that żeby-clauses are irrealis clauses; however, the irrealis mood is an umbrella term that encapsulates such moods as conditional, subjunctive, hypothetical or optative. In the next section I will show that żeby-clauses introduced by a specific group of predicates can be classified as subjunctives (see also Section 4). Żeby-clauses in Polish have a close affinity with subjunctive structures in numerous European languages. Here I understand the subjunctive mood as a mood found typically in embedded clauses which are complements to verbs with particular semantic properties, such as volitionals and directives (see Giannakidou, 2009; Quer, 2006). On the interpretation side, in contrast with realis/indicative, subjunctive is an irrealis mood, which is often used to express wish, obligation and request. From the typological perspective, the category of subjunctive may be realized in various forms: separate verbal paradigm (Romance languages), inflectional particles (e.g., Greek na) and complementizers (e.g., Russian čtoby) (Quer, 2006, p. 660). According to Giannakidou (2009, p. 1884), subjunctive realization generally follows two patterns: verbal subjunctive (“a piece of morphology on the verb specific to this category”) and subjunctive external to the verb, i.e., expressed by uninflected particles, also combined with complementizers.

11 Dornisch (1997) proposed a cover past tense auxiliary that would be responsible for the past interpretation.

41 MARCIN ORSZULAK

Against this background, Polish żeby-clauses pattern with non-verbal forms of the subjunctive in which this mood is expressed by a special complementizer (this is also the case of other Slavic languages, e.g., Russian čtoby and Czech/Slovak aby; see Tomaszewicz, 2009, p. 222). At this point, it is crucial to discuss selectional properties of verbs which select for żeby-clauses in Polish, because, as Giannakidou (2009, p. 1887) argues, crosslinguistically subjunctive clauses are selected by specific classes of predicates. Giannakidou (2009, p. 1885) elaborates on the distinction between veridical and non-veridical verbs, which is based on the availability of truth inference. If a verb expresses the speakers’s or subject’s commitment to the truth of the complement clause, then it is veridical and selects for the indicative (ibidem). Veridical verbs include such categories as assertives (to say), fiction verbs (to dream), epistemics (to believe), factive verbs (to know), semifactives (to remember) (ibidem). Non-veridical verbs, on the other hand, do not ascertain truth, e.g., from the sentence John wants to find a snake, one cannot know if John actually found a snake (example from Giannakidou, 2009, p. 1889). The class of non-veridical verbs includes volitionals (to want), directives (to order), modals (must), permissives (to allow) and negative verbs (to refuse) (Giannakidou, 2009, p. 1888). Although Ginnakidou’s classification is based on Greek verbs, it seems more universal and applicable to the data from Polish. It is important to stress that all the verbs that select for żeby- clauses in Polish (see Section 2.2) fall into the non-veridical category associated with the subjunctive (mainly volitionals, such as chcieć ‘to want’, pragnąć ‘to desire,’ and directives, e.g., kazać ‘to tell’ and rozkazać ‘to order’). Therefore, under the selectional criterion, żeby-clauses selected by non-veridical verbs can be categorized as subjunctives. If this assumption is true, then such complex sentences should exhibit specific syntactic transparency phenomena typical for similar structures in other languages. Quer (2006, pp. 661-669) discusses several syntactic effects that show transparency of subjunctive clauses which allow for some syntactic and semantic relations which are not possible for indicative clauses (“subjunctive-related phenomena”). To illustrate this property, he collated linguistic data from various languages referring to obviation effects (in Spanish), long-distance anaphoric binding (in Icelandic) and NPI-licensing (in French) as well as subject raising 12 (Romanian and Greek). Żeby-clauses exhibit obviation effects, which are “a ban on coreference between the embedded and the matrix subject” (Quer, 2006, p. 662); see (46) and (47):

(46) Piotri chciał, że-by pro*i/j wyszedł Peter want.PST.PTCP.3SG.M that-COND/SBJV pro leave.PST.PTCP.SG.M z pokoju. from room ‘Peter wanted him to leave the room.’

(47) Piotri powiedział, że proi/j wyszedł z pokoju. Peter say.PST.PTCP.3SG.M that pro leave.PST.PTCP.3SG.M from room ‘Peter said that he left the room.’

12 Raising verbs in Polish do not select for żeby-clauses and therefore this subjunctive diagnostic cannot be applied to Polish data.

WHAT DOES ŻEBY INTRODUCE? 42

As observed in (46) and (47), there is a difference between the subjunctive complement (46) and the indicative complement (47) in terms of coreference and lack of coreference between embedded and matrix subjects: żeby-clause disallows coreference. However, obviation effects become less strong in żeby-clauses with infinitives (see (48)):

(48) Piotri chciał, że-by PROi + j wyjść Peter want.PST.PTCP.3SG.M that-COND/SBJV PRO leave.INF z pokoju. from room ‘Peter wanted us (including himself) to leave the room.’

As already mentioned in Section 2.2 (see example (21)), in such sentences as (48) the matrix subject can take part in the embedded event but together with other unspecified participants, i.e., Peter wanted to leave together with other people. Still, the interpretation that Peter was the only subject of wanting and leaving is blocked. Obviation effects also influence long-distance anaphoric binding possibilities, i.e., if the subject of the embedded subjunctive clause cannot be coindexed with the matrix subject as in (50), then the reflexive pronoun sobie cannot refer to the subject in the main clause, in contrast with (49) and (51), where the matrix subject can serve as an antecedent for the reflexive pronoun.

(49) Piotri chciał PROi ogolić sobiei głowę. Peter want.PST.PTCP.3SG.M PRO shave.INF REFL head ‘Peter wanted to shave his head.’

(50) Piotri chciał, że-by proj ogolił sobie*i/j Peter want.PST.PTCP.3SG.M that-COND/SBJV pro shave.PST.PTCP.SG.M REFL głowę. head ‘Peter wanted him to shave his head.’

(51) Piotri powiedział, że proi/j ogolił sobiei/j głowę. Peter say.PST.PTCP.3SG.M that pro shave.PST.PTCP.3SG.M REFL head ‘Peter said that he shaved his head.’

The data presented by Quer (2006, p. 664) actually show that in Icelandic the reflexive pronoun sig located in the subjunctive clause can be coindexed with the matrix subject, which is not the case in Polish. Still, Polish subjunctive and indicative complements differ with respect to reference possibilities: the subjunctive context (50) excludes the possibility of the coreference between the reflexive pronoun and the matrix subject, whereas in the indicative context (51) such coreference is allowed. As far as NPI-licensing is concerned, żeby-clauses pattern with indicative clauses and NPIs13 cannot be licensed over the clause boundary; see (52)-(53):14

13 Here we assume, after Giannakidou (2011, p. 1661), that the core property of negative polarity items is “exclusion from positive assertions with simple past.” Mind that in (52)-(53) we only refer to n-words understood as a type of NPIs.

43 MARCIN ORSZULAK

(52) *Maria nie chciała, że-by kupiła niczego. Mary NEG want.PST.PTCP.3SG.F that-COND/SBJV buy.PST.PTCP.SG.F nothing Intended meaning: ‘Mary didn’t want her to buy anything.’ (53) *Maria nie powiedziała, że kupiła niczego. Mary NEG say.PST.PTCP.3SG.F that buy.PST.PTCP.3SG.F nothing Intended meaning: ‘Mary didn’t say that she bought anything.’

Indicative and żeby-clauses also behave alike with respect to Genitive of Negation (GoN). In Polish transitive verbs assign the Accusative case to their objects, but when a verb is negated objects are marked as Genitive (Witkoś, 1995, p. 246); compare (54) and (55):

(54) Maria kupiła nowy samochód. Mary buy.PST.PTCP.3SG.F new.ACC car.ACC ‘Mary bought a new car.’ (55) Maria nie kupiła *nowy samochód / nowego samochodu. Mary NEG buy.PST.PTCP.3SG.F new.ACC car.ACC / new.GEN car.GEN ‘Mary didn’t buy a new car.’

However, for both indicative and żeby-complements, GoN cannot be assigned over the finite clause boundary, i.e., when negation is placed in the matrix clause; compare (56) and (57):

(56) Maria nie chce, że-by Jan kupił Mary NEG want.PRS.3SG that-COND/SBJV John buy.PST.PTCP.SG.M *nowego samochodu / nowy samochód. new.GEN car.GEN / new.ACC car.ACC ‘Mary doesn’t want John to buy a new car.’ (57) Maria nie powiedziała, że Jan kupił Mary NEG say.PST.PTCP.3SG.F that John buy.PST.PTCP.3SG.M *nowego samochodu / nowy samochód. new.GEN car.GEN / new.ACC car.ACC ‘Mary didn’t say that John bought a new car.’

These four contexts show that there is no systematic difference between embedded żeby-clauses and indicative clauses in Polish: they differ in the case of coreference possibilities but not in the case of NPI licensing and Genitive of Negation. The contrast between these two types of clauses is blurred in the case of movement operations: long-distance wh-extraction and clitic climbing. Żeby-clauses in Polish allow for long-distance wh-extraction but only in the case of verbs that also select for infinitival complements (such as chcieć ‘to want’) (see Willim, 1989). In contrast, the extraction out of the indicative complement is blocked; compare (58) and (59):15

14 However, in Italian the matrix negation can license NPIs in embedded subjunctive clauses (see Quer, 2005, pp. 664–665). 15 See Willim (1989) and Witkoś (1995) for the details concerning extractions out of indicatives and subjunctives as extraction possibilities differ with respect to varied factors, e.g., bridge verbs, subject-position extraction, multiple wh-extraction, etc.

WHAT DOES ŻEBY INTRODUCE? 44

(58) Co Maria chce, że-by Piotr kupił? what Mary want.PRS.3SG that-COND/SBJV Peter buy.PST.PTCP.SG.M ‘What does Mary want Peter to buy?’ (59) *Co Maria sądziła, że Piotr wcześniej studiował? what Mary think.PST.PTCP .3SG.F that Peter before study.PST.PTCP.3SG.M Intended meaning: ‘What did Mary think that Peter studied before?’

What is interesting is that the movement contrast disappears in the case of clitic climbing: the object pronoun can move out neither from the żeby-complement nor from the indicative complement (see Witkoś, 1995, p. 245); consider (60) and (61):

(60) *Maria go chciała, że-by Jan uderzył. Mary him want.PST.PTCP.3SG.F that-COND/SBJV John hit.PST.PTCP.SG.M Intended meaning: ‘Mary wanted John to hit him.’ (61) *Maria go powiedziała, że Jan uderzył. Mary him say.PST.PTCP.3SG.F that John hit.PST.PTCP.3SG.M Intended meaning: ‘Mary said that John hit him.’

The contrast between wh-extraction and clitic climbing may result from different types of movement (wh-movement and NP movement as suggested by Witkoś, 1995, p. 245) and thus different constraints that determine such operations. Nonetheless, these two contexts also show that in Polish it is difficult to classify clausal complements into transparent subjunctives and opaque indicatives. Żeby-clauses are transparent only for certain relations/operations: obviation effects and long-distance wh-extraction. This is actually predictable because as Quer (2006, p. 661) pointed out: […] subjunctive does not constitute a syntactically uniform object, either cross-linguistically or even within the same language. For instance, some of the subjunctive-related phenomena described for one language do not hold for other languages having subjunctive mood. Similarly, some allegedly subjunctive-related phenomena show up in a subset of the subjunctive clauses in a language, but not in all of them. Quer’s observations are confirmed by the Polish data: in Polish we can find only some of the subjunctive-related phenomena and, moreover, there are phenomena like long-distance wh- extraction which are restricted to “a subset of the subjunctive clauses” – in this case subjunctive clauses that also select for infinitives. To sum up, the data presented in this section support the claim that subordinate żeby-clauses can be classified as subjunctive clauses. Based on the comparison with other languages that exhibit various forms of the subjunctive mood, I showed that żeby-clauses are selected by non-veridical verbs, which are typical subjunctive selectors, and are transparent for some syntactic and semantic relations. At this juncture, I need to return to the theoretical discussion about the status of żeby-clauses in the Polish mood system (summarized in Section 2.3). I cannot agree with Puzynina (1971) and Nagórko (2007), who treat subordinate żeby-clauses as indicative clauses, first because of the distinction into veridical and non-veridical selectors and second because of the different syntactic and semantic properties that they have. Furthermore, classifying żeby- clauses as indicative would obscure the distinction between realis and irrealis mood as well as be

45 MARCIN ORSZULAK

at odds with the observation that predicates that select for żeby belong to the irrealis side as they do not ascertain truth and express non-actualized events (see Nordström, 2010, p. 30).

4 Conclusions and further research problems

In the present article I delved into the problematic status of żeby-clauses in the Polish mood system. I reviewed the Polish literature on the subject and showed that żeby-clauses lack a unified account since they are classified either as conditional/subjunctive (Tokarski, 1973/2001; Laskowski, 1984) or as indicative (Puzynina, 1971; Nagórko, 2007). In this debate about the mood value of żeby-clauses I took a stance that they are irrealis clauses, which is supported by their temporal properties. On the basis of Mezhevich’s (2006) definition of mood, I demonstrated that żeby-clauses are irrealis since they are interpreted relative to the matrix event and not to the utterance time as the situation time and the utterance time are placed on different time lines. Furthermore, żeby-clauses can only comprise verb forms that have a dependent tense interpretation in certain contexts, that is, l-participle and -no/-to constructions as well as infinitives. I also recognized a problem with two different temporal make-ups of l-participles and -no/-to constructions (absolute tense, deficient tense) depending on the mood of a clause. As a preliminary solution, I suggested an alternative analysis of these forms based on the Greek data. In the further discussion, I focused on żeby-complements and showed that they are selected by non-veridical verbs, which is the property of subjunctive complements (Giannakidou, 2009). Embedded żeby-clauses that function as complements to non-veridical verbs bear similarities to subjunctive structures in other languages. I followed Quer’s (2006) digest of subjunctive-related phenomena and showed that żeby-clauses are transparent domains for some semantic and syntactic operations; specifically: obviation effects and long-distance wh-extraction. However, I found that in Polish there is no systematic difference between indicative and subjunctive żeby- complements: they differ in terms of reference possibilities and wh-extraction but pattern alike with respect to clitic climbing, Genitive of Negation and NPI licensing. The present account of żeby-clauses cannot be treated as exhaustive. I mainly elaborated on the subset of those żeby-clauses that function as complements to non-veridical verbs. As discussed in Section 2.2, the complementizer żeby can also introduce purpose clauses, unembedded optative clauses, relative clauses and subject clauses. The first three contexts can be subsumed under the irrealis mood based on their semantic properties, i.e., they express unreal/hypothetical events.16 Still, their status in the Polish mood system requires further research. An interesting aspect, which actually escapes the present analysis, is the context of subject clauses introduces by żeby. As already mentioned, such żeby-clauses function as subjects and are selected by verbs without prototypical subjects (e.g., wypadać ‘to be good manners’). It would be interesting to compare such verbs with non-veridical verbs to seek semantic properties which trigger the emergence of żeby in both contexts. It must be also stressed that the analysis of the mood system in Polish should be supplemented by thorough corpus research. It would be crucial to verify the existing classifications of indicative

16 Giannakidou (2009, pp. 1888-1889) presents examples of subjunctive relative clauses in Greek and suggests that they are licensed by non-veridicality.

WHAT DOES ŻEBY INTRODUCE? 46

and subjunctive selectors found in descriptive grammars of Polish. Furthermore, corpora can show whether że-selectors (indicative) and żeby-selectors (subjunctive) actually overlap with Giannakidou’s veridical/non-veridical distinction. What would be also interesting is to see which verbs that typically select for an indicative complement can be turned into subjunctive selectors by the presence of matrix negation (polarity subjunctive). Finally, the issues discussed in the present paper contribute to a wider discussion about the category of subjunctive. As noted by Quer (2006), subjunctive structures do not exhibit uniform properties both within a given language and crosslinguistically. Still, the mood value of a subordinate clause (realis/irrealis, indicative/subjunctive) has an impact on various syntactic and semantic relations between the main clause and the subordinate clause.

References

Bańko, M. (2012a). Wykłady z polskiej fleksji. Warszawa: PWN. Bańko, M. (2012b). Żeby i iż. Retrieved December 29, 2015 from: http://sjp.pwn.pl/poradnia/haslo/zeby-i-iz;13517.html. Borsley, R. D. and Rivero, L. M. (1994). Clitic auxiliaries and incorporation in Polish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 373-422. Dahl, Ö. (1985). Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Dornisch, E. (1997). Auxiliaries and functional projections in Polish. In W. Browne, E. Dornisch, N. Kondrashova, and D. Zec (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) IV: The Cornell Meeting 1995 (pp. 183-209). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publishers. Gaszyńska-Magiera, M. (1998). Tryb przypuszczający w nauczaniu języka polskiego jako obcego. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, 10, 51-60. Gębka-Wolak, M. (2010). Ile form bezokolicznikowych jest w paradygmacie czasownika? Problem trybu przypuszczającego bezokolicznika. Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne. Seria językoznawcza, 17(37), 25-39. Giannakidou, A. (2009). The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua, 199, 1883-1908. Giannakidou, A. (2011). Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: Variation, licensing, and compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (pp. 1661-1712). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gołąb, Z. (1964). Conditionalis typu bałkańskiego w językach południowosłowiańskich. International Journal of Slavic Languages and Poetics, 8, 1-36. Iatridou, S. (2000). The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(2), 231-270. Laskowski, R. (1984). Kategorie morfologiczne języka polskiego – charakterystyka funkcjonalna. In R. Grzegorczykowa, R. Laskowski, and H. Wróbel (Eds.), Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia (pp. 121-169). Warszawa: PWN.

47 MARCIN ORSZULAK

Lavine, J. L. (2005). The morphosyntax of Polish and Ukrainian -no/-to. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 13(1), 75-117. Mezhevich, I. (2006). Featuring Russian Tense: A Feature-Theoretic Account of the Russian Tense System. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary. Migdalski, K. (2006). The Syntax of Compound Tenses in Slavic. Utrecht: LOT. Nagórko, A. (2007). Zarys gramatyki polskiej. Warszawa: PWN. Nordström, J. (2010). Modality and Subordinators. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP. Pisarkowa K. (1972). Tryb przypuszczający i czas zaprzeszły w polszczyźnie współczesnej (formy i funkcje). Język Polski, LII(3), 183-189. Puzynina, J. (1971). Jeden tryb czy dwa tryby? Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego, XXIX, 131-139. Quer, J. (1998). Mood at the Interface. (The LOT International Series). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Quer, J. (2006). Subjunctives. In M. Everaert, H. van Riemsdijk, R. Goedemans, and B. Hollebrandse (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. IV (pp. 660-684). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Ruda, M. (2014). The impersonal subject -n/-t construction in Polish and the typology of voice heads. Studies in Polish Linguistics, 9(4), 203-243. Sadowska, I. (2012). Polish: A Comprehensive Grammar. New York: Routledge. Stowell, T. (1993). Syntax of Tense. (Unpublished manuscript). University of California, Los Angles, USA. Tokarski, J. (1973/2001). Fleksja polska. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Tomaszewicz, B. (2009). Subjunctive mood in Polish. In G. Zybatow, U. Junghaus, D. Lenertova, and P. Biskup (Eds.), Studies in Formal Slavic Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics and Information Structure: Proceedings of FDSL 7 (pp. 221-233). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Willim, E. (1989). On Word Order: A Government-Binding Study of English and Polish. Kraków: UJ. Witkoś, J. (1995). Wh-extraction from clausal complements in Polish: A minimality/locality account. Folia Linguistica, 39, 223-264. Wurmbrand, S. (2007). Infinitives are tenseless. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 13(1), 407-420.

Marcin Orszulak University of Wrocław Institute of English Studies Kuźnicza 22 50-138 Wrocław, Poland e-mail: [email protected]