COMPLEMENT VERB VARIATION IN PRESENT-DAY SERBIAN DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Bojan Belic, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Professor Brian D. Joseph, Adviser Approved by Professor Charles E. Gribble ____________________________________ Adviser Professor Daniel E. Collins Graduate Program in Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures ABSTRACT Strictly synchronically speaking, with verbs, nouns, and adjectives as heads of matrix clauses in a sentence, standard Serbian syntax allows for variation between a non-finite complement – that is, a complement headed by a verb not inflected for tense, grammatical person and number – and a finite complement – that is, a complement headed by a verb inflected for tense, grammatical person and number. The non-finite complement is exclusively headed by an infinitive, a non-finite verb form in Serbian, whereas the finite complement is headed by a present tense form, a finite verb form in Serbian, invariably introduced by a complementizer da ‘that’ and, at the same time, in full grammatical agreement in person and number with the matrix. The variation of the two complements, referred to here as complement variation in Serbian (CVS), is a well- known and a long-documented syntactic phenomenon, though never fully explained, at least not in syntactic terms. In this study I offer a critical view of the previous scholarship about the phenomenon, after which I provide a novel account of CVS. I view the phenomenon from the position of the latest views of control, more specifically unique control as a general linguistic phenomenon. ii I propose that the syntax of CVS is best understood if the role of all other factors responsible for CVS, such as dialectal, regional, socioloectal, idiolectal, semantic, and pragmatic factors, is minimized. I do exactly that in research that I conducted on a sample of native speakers from the territory of the city of Belgrade, the capital of Serbia. The research decisively proved that there is indeed one syntactic factor that crucially determines which complement, infinitival or da+present, is chosen in CVS. The syntactic factor was the presence or absence in the syntax of the matrix of the controller of the complement. This was the basis for a formal theoretical account of CVS. I demonstrate that CVS, as an instantiation of unique control, operates according to the following ((α)) β formula: X MATRIX (Y ) [((α))/(β) COMPLEMENT]. iii Slobodanu, Gordani i Branku: jer verujete u mene! iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation, the most voluminous piece I have written in my life so far, I dedicate to my family: my father, my mother, and my brother. It feels only right that with this work, in which I invested as much energy as I possibly could at this moment, I try to begin to thank them for everything they have given me over the years. Here, however, I would like to acknowledge the people in part responsible for the way this dissertation looks. It has been a unique privilege to call Professor Brian D. Joseph my mentor, and to be his student for five years at The Ohio State University. To learn from Professor Joseph and to communicate with him is an experience that I can hardly, if ever, express in words other than “A-haaa!” I would leave every single meeting with him with this feeling of revelation, and with an ever empowering sensation that I have again gained something. As the number of our meetings grew, the sensation kept growing. His discreet guidance in all of what I did as a graduate student has made me discover what it is that I actually like doing in linguistics, and for that I will remain eternally indebted. Professors Charles E. Gribble and Daniel E. Collins have offered constructive support on numerous occasions – working on this dissertation was but the latest one. They have always accepted my ideas with scholarly appreciation for which I am grateful. v At a very important stage in the creation of this dissertation, Professor Peter W. Culicover generously offered his time, his linguistic insights, and then, ultimately, his own theoretical views, on which I rely in this dissertation. I thank him for all of the inspiring conversations both in and out of class. I would like to thank Mary Allen Johnson in particular for reading my whole dissertation before anybody else and offering invaluable comments. Her readiness to help is a rare quality and I therefore cherish it with special care. Pašo, hvala! I would also like to thank Andrea Sims who dedicated a substantial amount of her time providing help with statistical testing of the data presented in this dissertation. She also read and commented on the first two chapters of this dissertation. Finally, the theory developed in this dissertation is based on the contemporary Serbian data obtained from a representative sample of 204 native speakers who participated in my research. Their input provides the initial point in all of the considerations presented here. I thank them all! While all of the people mentioned above did their best in making this dissertation better, I take full responsibility for all of its shortcomings. Бојан Белић 22 August 2005 vi VITA 6 November 1972…………………………………. Born – Belgrade, Serbia 1998……………………………………………….. profesor srpskog jezika i književnosti (B.A.), University of Belgrade 1998-2000………………………………………… Graduate Teaching Assistant, University of Illinois at Chicago 2000……………………………………………….. M.A. Slavic Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago 2000-present………………………………………. Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS 1. Bojan Belić, “Singular, Plural and Paucal: On Grammatical Number in Serbian,” OSU Working Papers in Slavic Studies, (June 2003). FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures Slavic Linguistics vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract…………………………………………………………………………... ii Dedication……………………………………………………………………........ iv Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………….. v Vita……………………………………………………………………………….. vii List of Tables…………………………………………………………………….. xi List of Figures…………………………………………………………………….. xvi List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………….. xv Chapters: 1 Introduction………………………………………………………………. 1 2 Language Issues……………………………………………………………9 2.1. The Serbian Language……………………………………………….. 10 2.2. Sources………………………………………………………………. 13 2.3. Conclusion…………………………………………………………… 14 3 Configuration of CVS…………………………………………………….. 16 3.1. Configuration………………………………………………………… 17 3.1.1. Essentials…………………………………………………… 18 3.1.2. Motivation………………………………………………….. 20 3.1.3. Place of Infinitive………………………………………….. 23 3.1.4. Summary…………………………………………………… 32 3.2. Matrix………………………………………………………………… 32 3.2.1. Nouns………………………………………………………. 34 viii 3.2.2. Adjectives………………………………………………….. 37 3.2.3. Verbs……………………………………………………….. 40 3.2.4. Future Tense……………………………………………….. 48 3.2.5. Summary…………………………………………………… 51 3.3. Complement………………………………………………………….. 52 3.3.1. Infinitive……………………………………………………. 53 3.3.2. Da+Present…………………………………………………. 53 3.3.3. Summary…………………………………………………… 60 3.4. Conclusion…………………………………………………………… 61 4 Previous Accounts of CVS……………………………………………….. 62 4.1. Dialectology and Sociolinguistics of CVS………………………….. 64 4.2. Descriptive Accounts………………………………………………… 69 4.2.1. True Descriptive Accounts………………………………… 69 4.2.2. Descriptive-Explanatory Accounts………………………… 76 4.2.3. Summary…………………………………………………… 81 4.3. Explanatory Accounts……………………………………………….. 82 4.3.1. Generative Explanatory Accounts…………………………. 82 4.3.2. Non-Generative Explanatory Accounts……………………. 92 4.3.3. Summary…………………………………………………… 98 4.4. Conclusion…………………………………………………………… 98 5 A Study of CVS………………………………………………………….. 102 5.1. Research……………………………………………………………… 104 5.2. Overall CVS………………………………………………………….. 109 5.3. Syntactic Factors in CVS…………………………………………….. 113 5.3.1. Additional Linguistic Material……………………………... 113 5.3.2. Adverbials in CVS…………………………………………. 115 5.3.3. Direct and Indirect Objects in CVS………………………... 120 5.3.4. Verb Aspect and Tense in CVS……………………………. 127 5.3.5. Summary…………………………………………………… 131 5.4. Controller of the Complement in CVS………………………………. 133 5.4.1. Adjectives………………………………………………….. 134 5.4.2. Nouns………………………………………………………. 137 5.4.3. Verbs……………………………………………………….. 142 5.4.4. Summary…………………………………………………….146 5.5. Sociolinguistic factors in CVS……………………………………….. 148 5.5.1. Sex………………………………………………………….. 149 5.5.2. Education…………………………………………………... 150 5.5.3. Age…………………………………………………………. 152 5.5.4. Summary…………………………………………………… 154 5.6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………… 154 ix 6 Towards a Formalization of CVS………………………………………… 158 6.1. Control and CVS…………………………………………………….. 160 6.2. A Theory of Control………………………………………………….. 164 6.2.1. Semantic Treatment of Control…………………………….. 165 6.2.2. Treatment of Matrices……………………………………… 167 6.2.3. Treatment of Complements………………………………… 168 6.2.4. Formalizing Control………………………………………... 169 6.2.5. Summary…………………………………………………… 170 6.3. CVS as Control………………………………………………………. 170 6.3.1. CVS Matrices………………………………………………. 171 6.3.2. CVS Complements…………………………………………. 177 6.3.3. Summary…………………………………………………… 179 6.4. Formalizing CVS…………………………………………………….. 180 6.4.1. Relevant Factors……………………………………………. 181 6.4.2. Controller with Adjectives…………………………………. 182 6.4.3. Controller with Nouns……………………………………… 184 6.4.4. Controller with Verbs……………………………………… 185 6.4.4.1. Depersonalized Verbs……………………………. 186 6.4.4.2. Personalized Verbs……………………………….