BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:NPI-licensing in the subjunctive-like 'da'-clauses in Serbian - Na
 taša Milićević (Tilburg University)
DTSTART:20080506T170000Z
DTEND:20080506T180000Z
UID:TALK11035@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Dr Anne Breitbarth
DESCRIPTION:The topic of this talk is the licensing of NPIs by a higher ne
 gation in Serbian in the ‘subjunctive-like _da_ clauses’ exemplified i
 n (1). The licensing of n-words in the apparently embedded finite clause t
 ogether with the clitic climbing has been taken as an indication that the 
 construction in question (modal/intensional verb + embedded verb) is a mon
 o-clausal structure. This has been argued to be an effect of the COMP/INFL
 -deletion at LF in Progovac (1994)\, or the result of the functional statu
 s of the higher\, restructuring verb as in Stjepanović (2001) in the spir
 it or Wurmbrand (2001).  I follow the observation by Aljović (2004) that 
 the domain of licensing of n-words is wider than the domain that allows cl
 itic-climbing in Serbian\, as shown in (2)\, and involves at least the TP 
 functional layer. More precisely\, the blocking of clitic climbing by nega
 tion is due the existence of the extended/functional layer of VP in the pr
 esence of the negated higher verb. I add to her conclusion the data in (3)
 \, which  have not been discussed so far. (3a) exemplifies the subject/obj
 ect asymmetry in licensing of n-words by the higher negation\, while in (3
 b) we are witnessing the break-down of the general rule of complementary d
 istribution of the i-words and n-words in the case of indicative clauses. 
 Most importantly\, unlike (1) this example shows that key to a proper solu
 tion of this problem in the “subjunctive-like” complements does not li
 e in the varying size of the subjunctive ‘_da_- clause’\, since these 
 two types of NPIs can co-occur .\nThe approach the issue that I will prese
 nt points again to the parallelism between the wh and n-words distribution
 \, and extends the feature-checking analysis of the ECP effects in the dom
 ain of wh-movement (Pesetsky and Torrego 2004) to the latter case. However
 \, the data also lead to a conclusion that the checking domain for neg-fea
 tures and negative concord is not as local as often suggested.\n\nExamples
 :\n\n(1)Ne želim da vidim nikoga/?ikoga.\n\n   not want.1sg that see.1sg 
 noone/anyone.\n\n   “I don’t want to see anyone”\n\n(2)Marija {(x)ga
 }ne želi da ga proda nikome.\n\n   Mary it not wants that it sells noone\
 n\n   “Mary doesn’t want to sell it to anyone.”\n\n(3) a. Ne želim	
 da (x)niko/iko poseti Mariju.\n\n       not want.1sg that noone/anyone vis
 its Mary\n\n    “ I don’t want anyone to visit Mary.”\n\n    b. Ne 
 želim niko da ikoga povredi.\n\n       not want.1.Sg noone  that anyone h
 urts\n\n    “I want no one to hurt anyone.”
LOCATION:(SyntaxLab)
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR