ZAS, Göttingen May, 2015

1

Da da da—(In)Finite possibilities Restructuring the tense and aspect domains

Neda Todorović and Susi Wurmbrand University of Connecticut

1. Introduction

Finiteness

• Traditional view: [+FINITE] ≈ [+TENSE] • Stowell (1982): [–FINITE] can be [±TENSE] • Finiteness is typically encoded in the C-domain (e.g., Rizzi 1997 FinP), and restricts the values in

T (that he ate/eats/will eat/is eating/has eaten; *that he to eat/eating/eaten) • Embedded finite CPs are less transparent than non-finite complements, which are porous for vari-

ous properties

Transparency effects cross-linguistically (see Wurmbrand 2014b, c for details)

• Three types of infinitives

(1) a. Leo tried/began/managed/forgot to eat (*tomorrow). tenseless b. Leo decided/planned/promised to eat (tomorrow). irreals, future c. Leo claimed to be eating (*tomorrow). propositional, simultaneous

(2) a. João {*me} tentou {✓me} ver. Brazilian Portuguese: Type 1 João {*me} tried {✓me} see.INF ‘João tried to see me.’ [Cyrino 2010: 9, (38)]

b. Piero ti ✓verrà a / *deciderà di parlare di parapsicologia. Italian: Type 2 Piero to.you ✓will.come / *will.decide to speak about parapsychology ‘Piero will come to/decide to speak to you about parapsychology.’ [Rizzi 1982:1, (1a,b)]

c. Jirka se mu rozhodl pomoct. Czech: Type 3 Jirka.NOM SE him.DAT decided help.INF

‘Jirka decided to help him.’ [Dotlačil 2004: 79, (119a)]

• Grohmann (2003): 3 clausal domains

(3) Ω (CP) 4 C Φ (TP) 4 T/Mod Θ (vP)

• Size restructuring: Non-projection of the Φ and/or Ω domains—condition: recoverability • Clitics and scrambling target: Θ domain (Type 1), Φ domain (Type 2), Ω domain (Type 3) • Clitic climbing, cross-clausal scrambling: only possible when the domain targeted by these opera-

tions is not projected via size restructuring

Table 1 Clitic climbing, scrambling tenseless future propositional, CP Type 1 (Norwegian, BP) * * * Type 2 (Italian, Romanian) ✓ * * Type 3 (German, Czech) ✓ ✓ * Θ domain Φ domain Ω domain

2

Serbo-Croatian

• All three types of embedded clauses can be expressed via (morphologically) finite clauses

(4) a. Jovan je pokušao da čita / pročita knjigu. Jovan AUX tried DA read.3.SG.PRES.IMPFV / read.3.SG.PRES.PFV book ‘Jovan tried to read the (entire) book.’

b. Jovan je odlučio da čita / pročita knjigu. Jovan AUX decided DA read.3.SG.PRES.IMPFV / read.3.SG.PRES.PFV book ‘Jovan decided to read the (entire) book.’

c. Jovan je tvrdio da čita / *pročita knjigu. Jovan AUX claimed DA read.3.SG.PRES.IMPFV / *read.3.SG.PRES.PFV book ‘Jovan claimed to be reading the book.’ IMPERFECTIVE ‘Jovan claimed to have finished reading the book (right then).’ PERFECTIVE [Perfective is possible in certain generic/habitual interpretations; e.g., he claimed to read a book every time/whenever…]

• If finiteness is (solely) a matter of the CP domain, SC embedded clauses should be non-transparent and behave like the ‘strongest’ boundaries, finite CPs—this is not the case

• Instead we find evidence for exactly the same clausal domains as in other languages • Progovac (1993a, b, 1994, 1996), Stjepanović (2004): I-verbs (opaque, not transparent) vs. S-verbs

(transparent, restructuring) • We will show that three types of embedded domains need to be distinguished

Table 2 claim decide, expect try, manage Tense propositional, [+TENSE] future irrealis (woll) tenseless da V.PRES *PERFECTIVE ✓PERFECTIVE ✓PERFECTIVE Infinitive possible No Yes (dialectal pref-

erences) Yes (dialectal pref-erences)

Clitic climbing No Yes, sort of Yes NPI licensing by matrix NEG No Yes Yes wh ordering Matrix » embedded Free Free Long passive (with INF) No No Yes Adverb positions {da} ADV {*da} {da} ADV {da} {?-*da} ADV {da} Size Ω domain Φ domain Θ domain

This talk

• Properties in Table 2—Evidence that SC also displays three ‘sizes’ of embedded clauses, despite all of them appearing as finite complements

• What about finiteness then? Finiteness is a syntactic phenomenon, indicating the presence of a functional domain, but not necessarily only the CP

• Degrees of finiteness: capturing language variation • Loss of infinitives: spreading of a finiteness feature to the lower clausal domains, elimination of a

non-finite option for the higher domains

2. Aspect—A window into the composition of the tense domain

Perfective puzzle

• Finite and non-finite complements display the same aspect restrictions: episodic interpretations are not available in certain temporal configurations (generics and statives may be different)

3

(5) a. Mary *sleeps/✓is sleeping right now. *PERFECTIVE b. John believes/claims that Mary *sleeps/✓is sleeping right now. c. John believes Mary to *sleep/✓be sleeping right now. d. John claims to *eat/✓be eating right now. e. John decided to eat a frog tomorrow. ✓PERFECTIVE f. John expects Mary to eat a frog tomorrow. g. John tried to eat a frog yesterday.

(6) a. Milan prevodi / *prevede pesmu. simple clause Milan translate.3.SG.PRES.IMPFV / *translate.3.SG.PRES.PFV poems ‘Milan is translating a poem.’/*‘Milan has translated a poem (just now).’

b. Verujem da Jovan prevodi pesmu. propositional believe.1.SG.PRES DA Jovan translates.3.SG.PRES.IMPFV poem ‘I believe that John is translating a poem (right now).’

c. *Verujem da Jovan prevede pesmu. believe.1.SG.PRES DA Jovan translates.3.SG.PRES.PFV poem Intended interpretation: ‘I believe that John has translated a poem (just now).’

d. Odlučila sam da sutra popodne prevodim pesmu. future decided.SG.FEM AUX.1SG DA tomorrow afternoon translate.1.SG.PRES.IMPFV poem ‘I decided to be translating a poem tomorrow afternoon.’

e. Odlučila sam da sutra popodne prevedem pesmu. decided.SG.FEM AUX.1SG DA tomorrow afternoon translate.1.SG.PRES.PFV poem ‘I decided to translate the (entire) poem tomorrow afternoon.’

f. Pokušala sam juče da prevodim pesmu. tenseless tried.SG.FEM AUX.1SG yesterday DA translate.1.SG.PRES.IMPFV poem ‘I tried to be translating a poem yesterday.’

g. Pokušala sam juče da prevedem pesmu. tried.SG.FEM AUX.1SG yesterday DA translate.1.SG.PRES.PFV poem ‘I tried to translate the (entire) poem yesterday.’

(7) a. PAST/FUTURE/PERFECT [PERFECTIVE/IMPERFECTIVE] (simplified) b. PRESENT/ATTITUDE HOLDER’S NOW [*PERFECTIVE/IMPERFECTIVE]

• Todorović (To appear), Wurmbrand (2014d): aspectual restrictions are the result of incompatibili-ties of aspect (PERFECTIVE) and the temporal domain above aspect

(8) a. PERFECTIVE: λP.λt.λw.∃e [time(e) ⊆ t & P(w)(e)] Kratzer (1998) Informally: event time must be included in the reference time

b. IMPERFECTIVE: λP.λt.λw.∃e [t ⊆ time(e) & P(w)(e)] Informally: reference time must be included in the event time

3. Finiteness across domains 3.1 Main proposal

(9) a. believe, claim b. decide, expect c. try, manage Ω 4 4 AH NOW Φ V Φ da 4 decide 4 4 T/Mod Θ T/Mod Θ V Θ PRES/∅ # WOLL # try #

4

• In both English and SC, the complements of propositional, future, and tenseless complements are of different sizes

Questions to be addressed

• What/where is da in future and tenseless complements? • How does (morphological) present tense arise in future and tenseless complements? • Evidence for reduced structures

3.2 Propositional complements

• Embedded finite clauses typically can occur with any temporal orientation

(10) a. John believes/claims that Mary will sleep well tomorrow. FUT b. John believes/claims that Mary slept well yesterday. PAST c. John believes/claims that Mary is sleeping well right now. PRES

• Infinitives show temporal restrictions imposed by the matrix verb: propositional verbs cannot combine with future infinitives

(11) a. *John believes Mary to sleep well tomorrow. *FUT b. John believes Mary to have slept well. PERFECT c. John believes Mary to be sleeping right now. SIMULTANEOUS

(12) a. *Leo claims to sleep/be sleeping in the garage tomorrow. *FUT b. Leo claims to have slept in the garage. PERFECT c. Leo claims to be eating a frog right now. SIMULTANEOUS

• No such restriction is found in SC—propositional da complements allow overt future

Finiteness does not automatically license different tenses; an overt future auxiliary is not always pos-sible (even when the interpretation is compatible with a future orientation; see Appendix)

(13) a. Jovan veruje/tvrdi da će sledeće godine sagraditi kuću. Jovan believes/claims DA will next year build.INF.PFV house ‘Jovan believes/claims that he will build a house next year.’

b. *Jovan je pokušao/uspeo da će sledeće godine sagraditi kuću. Jovan AUX tried/managed DA will next year build.INF.PFV house

*‘Jovan tried/managed to build a house next year.’ c. *Jovan želi/planira da će sledeće godine sagraditi kuću.

Jovan wants/plans DA will next year build.INF.PFV house ‘Jovan wants/plans to build a house next year.’

• SC still allows infinitives (frequency and preferences vary in different regional varieties) • Crucially: Infinitives are impossible in propositional contexts, but possible in future and tenseless

contexts (14) a. Tvrdim {da čitam / *čitati } ovu knjigu.

claim.1SG {DA read.1SG / *read.INF.IMPFV } this book ‘I claim to be reading this book.’ [Vrzić 1996: 305, (22a,b)]

b. Želim {da čitam / čitati } ovu knjigu. wish.1SG {DA read.1SG / read.INF.IMPFV } this book ‘I want/wish to read this book.’ [Vrzić 1996: 305, (21a,b)]

5

c. Pokušala sam {da čitam / čitati } ovu knjigu. tried.SG.FEM AUX.1SG {DA read.1SG / read.INF.IMPFV } this book ‘I tried to read this book.’

d. Odlučila sam {da čitam / čitati } ovu knjigu. decide.SG.FEM AUX.1SG {DA read.1SG / read.INF.IMPFV } this book ‘I decided to read this book.’

• The simultaneous interpretation in English propositional infinitives is different from an English present tense interpretation

(15) a. #Five years ago, Julia claimed that she is pregnant. Double access b. Five years ago, Julia claimed to be pregnant. no PRES

(16) a. Pre pet godina, Marija je tvrdila da je trudna. SIMULTANEOUS before five years, Marija AUX claimed DA is pregnant ‘Five years ago, Julia claimed that she is pregnant.’

b. *Pre pet godina, Marija je tvrdila biti trudna. *propositional INF before five years, Marija AUX claimed be.INF pregnant ‘Five years ago, Julia claimed to be pregnant.’

Table 3 Finite Non-finite claim, believe (E) no temporal restriction simultaneous; zero tense tvrditi, verovati (SC) no temporal restriction *

Analysis: ~ Propositional complements always project an Ω domain (context variable, speaker coordinates etc.;

John said: “I left.” ➟ John said that he left; given here as AH NOW [attitude holder ‘now’]) ~ E allows [–FINITE] C ~ SC only has [+FINITE] C (this is in part what it means to ‘lose’ infinitives) ~ [–FINITE] C selects a zero tense

(17) a. Finite CP: E, SC b. Non-Finite CP: E, *SC 3 3 V ΩPROP V ΩPROP claim 3 claim 3 C Φ C Φ [+FINITE, AH NOW] 3 [–FINITE, AH NOW] 3 that/da TFINITE … ∅ T … [PRES] ∅ [PAST] [MODAL]

• Propositional Vs require a CP complement, which must be finite in SC, hence INFS are impossible • Both PRESENT, and zero tense yield a context in which the embedded reference time (the attitude

holder’s ‘now’) is a very short interval which cannot include the event time; hence PERFECTIVE is impossible in both languages (in simultaneous contexts, which is the only interpretation in propo-sitional infinitives in English)

3.3 Future, modal da

• Certain matrix verbs require an embedded future interpretation [some contexts may allow decide ➟ pretend coercion; e.g., he decided (to pretend) to have slept in the garage]

6

• Future contexts: [VP decide, expect [XP future] ]

(18) a. Leo decided to sleep in the garage tomorrow. FUT b. *Leo decided to have slept in the garage. *PERFECT c. *Leo decided to be eating a frog right then. *SIMULTANEOUS

(19) a. *Jovan je rešio da je spavao u garaži. Jovan AUX.3.SG decided DA AUX.3.SG slept.3.SG.MASC in garage ‘Jovan decided to have slept in the garage.’

b. Jovan je rešio da spava / spavati u garaži. Jovan AUX.3.SG decided DA sleep.3.SG.PRES.IMPFV / sleep.INF.IMPFV in garage ‘Jovan decided to sleep in the garage.’ ✓FUT

*‘Jovan decided to be sleeping in garage right then.’ *SIMULTANEOUS

Composite nature of future

• Finite future: semantic PRESENT + modal WOLL (Abusch 1985, 1988, Thomason 1970, Condoravdi 2001, Copley 2002, Kaufmann 2005, Wurmbrand 2014d, Todorović To appear)

Assumption: WOLL must be licensed (valued) by tense or an irrealis element

(20) XP 4 X ModP PRES, WOLL ➟ will (E), će (SC) F: IRR/PRES/PAST 4 PAST, WOLL ➟ would (E), će (SC) Mod … IRR, WOLL ➟ ∅ (E, %SC), da (SC) WOLL, F: ___

• Verbs selecting a future infinitive: can be assumed to have an irrealis feature which must match with an irrealis/future complement (semantic selection)

• Assuming selection is a local process, the matrix verb must combine with the projection hosting the relevant future element—future infinitives lack the Ω-domain (see next section for evidence)

(21) 3 Future complement: E, SC V ΦIRR decide 3 [For a CP-less structure, but different motivation [IRR] WOLL … see also Bošković (1997b)] uF: IRR ➟ ∅/da

[For verbs like decide, which allow finite CP complements (Jovan je rešio da će sagraditi kuću; John decided that he will/would build a house) either an irrealis complementizer is present in the embedded CP (Pesetsky 1992) or the CP is semantically transparent/not visible.]

Perfective puzzle—repeated

(22) a. *Tvrdim da prevedem pesmu. claim.1.SG.PRES DA translates.1.SG.PRES.PFV poem

*‘I claim to translate the entire poem (right now).’ b. Želim da prevedem pesmu.

want.1.SG.PRES DA translate.1.SG.PRES.PFV poem ‘I want to translate the entire poem.’

e. Odlučio sam da prevedem pesmu. decided AUX.1SG DA translate.1.SG.PRES.PFV poem ‘I decided to translate the (entire) poem.’

7

Future infinitives involve a future element (WOLL) extending the reference time, thereby allowing in-clusion of the event time interval in the reference time interval (Abusch 1985, 1988, Todorović To appear, Wurmbrand 2014d).

da PRESENT ≠ da morphological present (Progovac 1993a, b, 1994, 1996, Stjepanović 2004)

WOLL licensers

• Future selecting verbs (verbs that semantically require an irrealis complement) • Irrealis C: questions, exclamatives/wishes

(23) a. Da ti se sve želje ostvare! DA you.DAT SE all wishes come.true.3.PL.PRES ‘May all your wishes come true!’

b. Da Vesna pročita ovu knjigu? DA Vesna read.3.SG.PRES this book ‘Should Vesna read this book?’ [Vrzić 1996: 292: (2a)]

c. Da li da Vesna pročita ovu knjigu? Q DA Vesna read.3.SG.PRES this book ‘Should Vesna read this book?’ [Vrzić 1996: 292: (2b)]

d. Koju knjigu da Vesna pročita? which book DA Vesna read.3.SG.PRES ‘Which book should Vesna read?’ [translation corrected] [Vrzić 1996: 292: (2c)]

• Declaratives do not license modal DA; an overt modal is required

(24) a. *Da Vesna pročita ovu knjigu. DA Vesna read.3.SG.PRES this book ‘Vesna should read this book.’ [Vrzić 1996: 292: (2d)]

b. Vesna treba pročitati ovu knjigu. Vesna should read.INF this book ‘Vesna should read this book.’ [Vrzić 1996: 292: (2e)]

• Interrogative C has irrealis feature (Givón 1995: 119, Palmer 2001: 172-173, Mauri 2008: 175, Magni 2010: 243)

(25) a. Ωwh b. * Ωdecl 4 3

wh-XP/Q/C Φ Cdecl Φ [IRR] 3 3 WOLL, F: IRR … Mod … WOLL, *F: ___

da li da *da/✓treba

English vs. SC

• Finite WOLL without tense is impossible in English (only PRES/PAST & WOLL has a realization) • Lexical gap: no [+FINITE, WOLL]

(26) a. Which book is John reading/does John read? *WOLL Cannot mean: Which book should John read?

8

b. John wonders which book to read. ✓WOLL Can mean: … which book he should read

c. … a book (for John) to read. ✓WOLL Can mean: a book John should/could read (Hackl and Nissenbaum 2012)

(27) a. Finite WOLL: ✓SC, *E b. Non-Finite woll: ✓E, ✓SC CPwh CPwh 4 4 wh-XP C’ wh-XP C’ [IRR] 4 4 C Φ C Φ [+FINITE, IRR] 3 [–FINITE, IRR] 3 Mod … Mod … [+FINITE, WOLL] [–FINITE, WOLL]

c. [–FINITE, WOLL] ➟ ∅ (E, SC) d. [+FINITE, WOLL] ➟ — (E), da (SC)

3.4 Interim summary

(28) a. Verujem da Jovan (*da) prevodi pesmu. believe.1.SG.PRES DA Jovan (*DA) translates.3.SG.PRES.IMPFV poem ‘I believe that John is translating a poem (right now).’

b. Da li da Vesna pročita ovu knjigu? Q DA Vesna read.3.SG.PRES this book ‘Should Vesna read this book?’ [Vrzić 1996: 292: (2b)]

c. *Da Vesna pročita ovu knjigu. DA Vesna read.3.SG.PRES this book ‘Vesna should read this book.’ [Vrzić 1996: 292: (2d)]

(29) a. [Ω [+FINITE, AH NOW] [Φ [+FINITE, PRES] [Θ ]]] *Two DAs da *da

b. [Ω [+FINITE, IRR] [Φ [+FINITE, WOLL] [Θ ]]] Two DAs da li da

c. [Φ [+FINITE, PRES] [Θ ]]] *da

da as a ‘finiteness visualizer’

• da spells out [+FINITE] if no other features are spelled out in that domain • Rationale: PRES, PAST are overtly expressed as finite elements; no additional finiteness marker is

needed • [WOLL], [AH NOW], [IRR]: non-overt; if these features occur with [+FINITE] (for [WOLL] only possi-

ble in SC, not in E), da is used to make finiteness visible

3.5 Transparency effects

Multiple wh-fronting (Stjepanović 2004)

• Local wh-movement: ordering is free • When wh-phrases are from different clauses, the order is rigid—matrix wh » embedded wh

9

(30) a. Ko koga voli? Koga ko voli? who whom loves whom who loves ‘Who loves whom?’ [Stjepanović 2004: 178, (9a,b)]

b. ?Ko koga tvrdi / kaže da je upoznao? who whom claims / says DA is met ‘Who claims/says that he met whom?’ [Stjepanović 2004: 178, (10a)]

c. *Koga ko tvrdi / kaže da je upoznao? whom who claims / says DA is met ‘Who claims/says that he met whom?’ [Stjepanović 2004: 178, (10b)]

• Long-distance wh-movement, specifically movement through CP (Bošković 1997, 2002), is sub-ject to superiority/order preservation

• Future and tenseless complements: no superiority effect arises—there is no embedded CP [In all of the following examples, only the non-superiority obeying order is given; the matrix-wh » embedded-wh ordering is, of course, also possible]

(31) a. Koga ko mora / želi da upozna? whom who must / wants DA meet ‘Who has to/wants to meet whom?’ [translation corrected] [Stjepanović 2004: 179, (11b)]

b. Koga je ko pokušavao da vidi? whom is who tried DA see ‘Who tried to see whom?

c. Koga je ko odlučio da vidi? whom is who decided DA see ‘Who decided to see whom?

d. Koga je ko očekivao da vidi? whom is who expected DA see ‘Who expected to see whom?

e. Koga je ko planirao da vidi? whom is who planned DA see ‘Who planned to see whom?

Clitic climbing

• Progovac (1993b, 1996): propositional complements do not allow clitic climbing but tenseless complements do

• Note: Although many speakers generally do not find examples with clitic climbing from da com-plements very natural, the contrasts between different types of embedding are usually observed

(32) a. Petar je mora / želi da vidi. Petar.NOM her.ACC has.to / wants DA see.3.SG.PRES ‘Peter has to/wants to see her.’ [Progovac 1993b, 1996; Stjepanović 2004: 175, (4a)]

b. Milan {?ga} želi da {✓ga} vidi. Milan {?him} wants DA {✓him} see.3.SG.PRES ‘Milan wants to see him.’ [Progovac 1993a: 119, (14-15) ; Progovac 1996: 423, (48-49); Bošković 2001: 78, (146a,b)]

c. Milan {*ga} kaže da {✓ga} vidi. Milan {*him} says DA {✓him} see.3.SG.PRES ‘Milan says that he can see him.’ [Progovac 1993a: 119, (12-13); Progovac 1996: 423, (46-47); Bošković 2001: 78, (145a,b)]

10

d. Ona ga je odlučila / planirala da posjeti. she him.ACC is decided / planned DA visit.3.SG.PRES ‘She decided/planned to visit him.’ [Stjepanović 2004: 197, fn. 14, (ia)]

• Clitic climbing also shows a finiteness difference: it is possible (in some cases even preferred) from tenseless infinitives, but dispreferred from tenseless da complements

(33) a. Marko {✓ih} je probao napisati {?ih}. Mark {✓them} is tried write.INF {them} ‘Mark tried to write them.’

b. Marko {??ih} je probao da {✓ih} napiše. Mark {??them} is tried DA {✓them} writes ‘Mark tried to write them.’

ni-NPI licensing

• Progovac (1993a, b, 1994, 1996): propositional complements do not allow NPI licensing across them, but future/tenseless complements do

(34) a. Petar ne mora / želi da vidi nikoga. % Petar not must / wants DA see.3.SG PRES nobody ‘Peter doesn’t have to/want to see anybody.’ [Stjepanović 2004: 175, (4c)]

b. *Petar ne kaže / tvrdi da vidi nikoga. Petar not says / claims DA see.3.SG PRES nobody ‘Petar doesn’t say/claim that he sees anybody.’ [Stjepanović 2004: 175, (4d)]

c. Petar nije očekivao da vidi nikoga. Petar not.is expected DA see.3.SG.PRES nobody ‘Peter didn’t expect to see anybody.’

d. Petar nije pokušao da pozove nikoga. Petar not.is tried DA invite.3.SG.PRES nobody ‘Peter didn’t try to invite anybody.’

3.6 Tenseless infinitives

Another restructuring property—Long object movement (LOM)

(35) a. Configuration: [Matrix object.NOM SE/VP.PASS [Embedded VP.ACT/DEFAULT object ]] b. Typical matrix verbs: try, forget, begin, continue c. Shows many language specific idiosyncrasies and restrictions

Notation: since there is no direct translation of LOM in English (cf. *it was tried/began to…), the ex-amples are paraphrased with an active matrix predicate and an impersonal they subject.

(36) a. Slike ting forsøkes ofte å gjøre. Norwegian such things try.PRES.PASS often to do.INF ‘One often tries to do such things.’ [Lødrup 2014: 371, (13)]

b. La casa fu finita di costruiere il mese scorso. Italian the house.FEM.SG was finished.FEM.SG to build the last month ‘They finished building the house last month.’ [SW] [(116b) of Van Tiel Di Maio 1978,97; via Cinque 2002: 4, (6u)]

c. dass der Traktor und der Lastwagen zu reparieren versucht wurden. German that [the tractor and the truck].NOM to repair tried were.PASS.PL ‘that they tried to repair the tractor and the truck’ [Wurmbrand 2001: 19, (6c)]

11

Table 4 LOM Clitic climbing, scrambling tenseless future propositional, CP Type 1 (Norwegian, BP) */✓ * * * Type 2 (Italian, Romanian) */✓ ✓ * * Type 3 (German, Czech) */✓ ✓ ✓ * Θ domain Φ domain Ω domain

Analysis

• Embedded complement lacks an active v-domain: there is either no vP (Wurmbrand 2001) or an underspecified vP, which crucially lacks the potential to license structural ACC Case (Wurmbrand 2013, 2014b, Wurmbrand and Shimamura 2015)

• Since the embedded complement lacks structural Case, the embedded object moves to the matrix clause for Case reasons

• LOM is A-movement, which then triggers NOM and agreement with the matrix T/AUX

Setting aside: Double passive (see http://wurmbrand.uconn.edu/Papers/RATW-data.pdf for data)

• Constructions like the ones below can be attested in many languages; however, speaker intuitions are often rather unclear; see Wurmbrand (2014c), Wurmbrand and Shimamura (2015)

• It is also not clear whether such cases involve restructuring LOM or ‘regular’ raising

(37) a. And how much fuel is proposed to be produced? [June 2, 2008, NPR; J. Merchant, p.c.] b. That’s how our politics has been taught to be played.

[speech 4/17/08 by Obama; J. Merchant, p.c.)] c. Snapshots will be tried to be updated on reboot/shutdown

[http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/hardy/man7/casper.7.html]

LOM in SC

• Tenseless infinitives allow LOM— matrix SE; embedded active (various double PASSIVE/se con-structions are possible, too, but see above)

• Crucially: da complements do not allow this form of LOM (an impersonal construction is possible, but in that case the matrix predicate would not agree with the moved object, which would presum-ably be A’-moved in such a case)

(38) a. Ti glasači su se probali obmanuti. Those voters.MASC.NOM are SE tried.PL.MASC trick.INF ‘They tried to trick those voters’

b. Te melodije su se probale odsvirati. Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE tried.PL.FEM play.INF ‘They tried to play these melodies.’

c. Te melodije se svako malo probaju odsvirati. Those melodies.FEM.NOM SE every little try.3.PL.PRES play.INF ‘They try to play these melodies from time to time.’

d. Ova melodija se svako malo proba odsvirati. This melody.FEM.NOM SE every little try.3.SG.PRES play.INF ‘They try to play this melody from time to time.’

e. *Te melodije su se probale da odsviraju. Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE tried.PL.FEM DA play.3.PL.PRES ‘They tried to play these melodies.’

12

f. *Te melodije se svako malo probaju da odsviraju. Those melodies.FEM.NOM SE every little try.3.PL.PRES DA play.3.PL.PRES ‘They try to play these melodies from time to time.’

(39) a. Te melodije su se morale odsvirati. Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE must.PL.FEM play.INF ‘They had to play these melodies.’

b. *Te melodije su se morale da odsviraju. Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE must.PL.FEM DA play.3.PL.PRES ‘They tried to play these melodies.’

(40) a. Te melodije su se počele svirati. Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE begun.PL.FEM play.INF.IMPFV ‘They started playing these melodies.’

b. *Te melodije su se počele da (od)sviraju. Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE begun.PL.FEM DA play.3.PL.PRES ‘They started playing these melodies.’

(41) a. Te melodije su se uspele odsvirati. Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE managed.PL.FEM play.INF ‘They managed to play these melodies.’

b. *Te melodije su se uspele da (od)sviraju. Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE managed.PL.FEM DA play.3.PL.PRES ‘They managed to play these melodies.’

(42) a. Te melodije su se zaboravile (od)svirati. Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE forgotten.PL.FEM play.INF ‘They forgot to play these melodies.’

b. *Te melodije su se zaboravile da (od)sviraju. Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE forgotten.PL.FEM DA play.3.PL.PRES ‘They forgot to play these melodies.’

Future infinitives do not allow this form of LOM

(43) a. ?*Te melodije su se odlučile / odlučivale (od)svirati. Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE decided.PL.FEM.PFV / PL.FEM.IMPFV play.INF ‘They decided to play these melodies.’ / ‘They were deciding to play those melodies.’

b. *Te melodije se odlučuju (od)svirati. Those melodies.FEM.NOM SE 3.PL.PRES.IMPFV play.INF ‘They are deciding to play these melodies.’

c. *Te melodije su se odlučile / odlučivale da (od)sviraju. Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE decided.PL.FEM.PFV / PL.FEM.IMPFV DA play.3.PL.PRES ‘They decided to play these melodies.’ / ‘They were deciding to play those melodies.’

(44) a. ?*Te melodije su se očekivale (od)svirati. Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE expected.PL.FEM play.INF ‘They expected for those melodies to be played.’

b. ?*Te melodije se očekuju (od)svirati. Those melodies.FEM.NOM SE expect.3.PL.PRES.IMPFV play.INF ‘They expect for those melodies to be played.’

c. *Te melodije su se očekivale da (od)sviraju. Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE expected.PL.FEM DA play.3.PL.PRES ‘Those melodies were expected to be played.’

13

Proposal

• Restructuring: stopping early—no truncation from the middle • Implicational relation of clause structure: presence of Φ domain entails (full) Θ domain • LOM: only VP—no regular vP, no Φ and Ω domains • Only tenseless infinitives can lack the Φ-domain (see Appendix for plan)

(45) a. Te melodije su se probale odsvirati TENSELESS Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE tried.PL.FEM play.INF ‘They tried to play these melodies.’

b. ?*Te melodije su se odlučile (od)svirati. FUTURE Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE decided.PL.FEM play.INF ‘They decided to play these melodies.’

c. Tenseless—LOM d. Future—no LOM 4 4 V Θ V Φ try # decide 4 (v) VP Mod Θ [–ACC] [–FINITE, WOLL] 3 v @ [ACC] V • Finiteness: [+FINITE] feature on clausal functional projections • Tenseless complements: [+FINITE] Θ domain

(46) a. *Te melodije su se probale da odsviraju. Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE tried.PL.FEM DA play.3.PL.PRES ‘They tried to play these melodies.’

b. Tenseless—LOM; only INF c. Tenseless—full Θ domain; no LOM 4 4 V Θ V Θ try # decide 4 (v) VP v VP no room for DA ➟ [–ACC] [+FINITE, +ACC] # da DP.ACC Evidence—Adverb distribution

• In tenseless complements, low adverbs precede da [but see section 5 for some speaker variation]

(47) a. Mogli su {*da} brže {✓da} stignu. could.3.PL AUX {*DA} quicker {✓DA} arrive.3.PL.PRES.PFV ‘They could have come quicker.’ [based on Sočanac 2011: 64, (26a)]

b. Pokušavali su {?da} brže {✓da} stignu. tried.PART.PL.MASC are {?DA} quicker {✓DA} arrive.3.PL.PRES.PFV ‘They tried to arrive quicker.’

c. Počeli su {?*da} brže {✓da} stižu. started.PART.PL.MASC are {?*DA} quicker {✓DA} arrive.3.PL.PRES.IMPFV ‘They started to arrive quicker’

d. Uspeli su {?*da} brže {?da} stignu. managed.PART.PL.MASC.PFV are {?*DA} quicker {?DA} arrive.3.PL.PRES.PFV ‘They managed to arrive quicker’

e. Oni će {*da} brže {✓da} stignu. They will.3.PL {*DA} quicker {✓DA} arrive.3.PL.PRES.PFV ‘They will arrive quicker.’

14

• This is expected if in these constructions, DA is within the Θ domain

(48) 4 TENSELESS V Θ try 4 ADV Θ 4 v VP [+FINITE] # da V.PRES

• Assuming that adverbs are in the same position in the two orders (unless focused), the order da » ADV would require projecting a Φ domain, which may be dispreferred for speakers (e.g., for the SC variety above) since it would be semantically vacuous

• In future infinitives, the Φ domain is projected, and both orders are therefore possible (see next section for restrictions on multiple DAs)

(49) a. Odlučili su {✓da} brže {✓da} stignu. decided.PART.PL.MASC are {✓DA} quicker {✓DA} come.3.PL.PRES.PFV ‘They decided to come quicker.’

b. Očekivali su {✓da} brže {✓da} stignu. expect.PART.PL.MASC are {✓DA} quicker {✓DA} arrive.3.PL.PRES.PFV ‘They were expecting to arrive quicker.’

(50) a. TENSELESS (?/%) b. FUTURE 4 4 V Φ V Φ try 4 decide 4 [+FINITE] Θ [+FINITE, WOLL] Θ da 4 da 4 ADV 4 ADV 4 v # v # [+FINITE] V.PRES [+FINITE] V.PRES da da

4. da, da, da

Distribution of finiteness in SC and E

(51) a. [Ω [+FINITE] da [Φ [±FINITE] da [Θ [±FINITE] da ]]] SC (variety 1) b. [Ω [±FINITE] da [Φ [±FINITE] da [Θ [–FINITE] da ]]] E

• SC: da is a visualizer of [+FINITE] in any of the clausal domains • Finiteness of Ω and Φ must match (maybe this is related to feature inheritance)

(52) a. Ω: [+FINITE] in SC (but Ω domains can be missing in restructuring contexts) b. Φ: [±FINITE] (subject to Ω—Φ matching); regional preferences c. Θ: [±FINITE]; regional preferences

Lack of [–FINITE] CP in SC

• i-NPIs require negation in a higher clause; within one CP *NEG—i-NPI • If i-NPI ➟ CP ➟ [+FINITE] • With finite complements, restructuring is optional, though may be preferred for certain predicates

(e.g., modals; want, plan for certain speakers; see Appendix)

15

(53) a. Petar nije pokušao / želio / mogao kupiti ništa. Peter isn’t tried / wanted / could buy.INF nothing ‘Petar didn’t try/want/wasn’t able to buy anything.’ [Stjepanović 2004: 184, (22a)]

b. *Petar nije pokušao / želio / mogao kupiti išta. Peter isn’t tried / wanted / could buy.INF anyhting ‘Petar didn’t try/want/wasn’t able to buy anything.’ [Stjepanović 2004: 184, (22b)]

% c. ?Petar ne želi da kupi išta. Peter not wants DA buy.3.SG.PRES anyhting ‘Petar doesn’t want to buy anything.’ [Stjepanović 2004: 185, (23a)]

d. ?*Petar ne mora da kupi išta. Peter not must DA buy.3.SG.PRES anyhting ‘Petar doesn’t have to buy anything.’ [Stjepanović 2004: 185, (23b)]

Optional finiteness of Φ , Θ

(54) a. Odlučili su (*da) brže (*da) stići. Φ , Θ: [–FINITE] decided.PL AUX.3.PL (*DA) quicker (*DA) arrive.INF ‘They decided to arrive quicker.’

b. Mogli su (*da) brže (*da) stići. could.3.PL AUX.3.PL (*DA) quicker (*DA) arrive.INF ‘They could have arrived quicker.’

Multiple DAs

• This account predicts that multiple DAs should be possible

(55) a. Da Ω li da Φ Vesna pročita ovu knjigu? Ω & Φ Q DA Vesna read.3.SG.PRES this book ‘Should Vesna read this book?’ [Vrzić 1996: 292: (2b)]

b. Kaže da Ω će da Θ dođe. Ω & Θ says DA will.3.SG DA come.3.SG.PRES ‘He says he will come.’ [Sočanac 2011: 55, (8)]

(56) a. Ω b. Ω 4 4 C Φ C Φ [+FINITE, IRR] 4 [+FINITE] 4 da li T/Mod Θ da T/Mod Θ [+FINITE, WOLL]] 3 [+FINITE, PRES, WOLL] 3 da v @ će v @ V [+FINITE] V uF: FINITE da uF: FINITE

• DA selects morphological present tense (present as default [+FINITE] realization)

Multiple DAs aren’t always possible…

(57) a. Kaže da će (*da) brže da dođe. says DA will.3.SG (*DA) quicker DA come.3.SG.PRES ‘He says he will arrive quicker.’

b. Kaže da (*da) brže (*da) dolazi. says DA (*DA) quicker (*DA) come.3.SG.PRES.IMPFV ‘He says he is coming quicker.’

16

DA in the Φ domain

• da spells out [+FINITE] only if no other features are spelled out in that domain (see section 3.4) • [PRES] is realized on V: either via affix hopping or (downward) feature valuation under Agree

(Adger 2003, Wurmbrand 2014a)

(58) a. *PRES + da b. *će + daΦ *Double PF realization Ω Ω 4 4 C Φ C Φ [+FINITE] 4 [+FINITE] 4 da T/Mod Θ da T/Mod Θ [PRES, +FINITE] 3 [PRES, WOLL, +FINITE] 3 *da v @ će *da v @ V V uF: PRES uF: INF DA in the Θ domain

(59) a. Kaže da će brže da dođe. =(57) says DA will.3.SG quicker DA come.3.SG.PRES ‘He says he will arrive quicker.’

b. Kaže da brže (*da) dolazi. says DA quicker (*DA) come.3.SG.PRES.IMPFV ‘He says he is coming quicker.’

• Finite Ω contexts: a [+FINITE] Φ value is required (PRES, PAST, MODAL) • * Ω [+FINITE] Φ [–FINITE] • Locality: intervening finite elements blocks the [PRES]—V dependency

(60) a. Affix hopping, Agree b. *Locality Ω Ω 4 4 C Φ C Φ [+FINITE] 4 [+FINITE] 4 da T Θ da T Θ [PRES, +FINITE] 3 [PRES, +FINITE] 3 v @ v @ V [+FINITE] V uF: PRES *da uF: ___

Future complements—preliminary

• Future complement can involve da before or after a low adverb—this is expected since there are two domains which each could realize a [+FINITE] feature

• However: it is impossible to have multiple DAs in this case • Preliminary suggestion: when both Φ and Θ are [+FINITE], da movement applies rather than inser-

tion of a separate da.

(61) a. Odlučili su da brže stignu. decided.3.PL are DA quicker arrive.3.PL.PRES.PFV ‘They decided to arrive quicker.’

b. Odlučili su brže da stignu. decided.3.PL are quicker DA arrive.3.PL.PRES.PFV ‘They decided to arrive quicker.’

17

c. *Odlučili su da brže da stignu. decided.3.PL are DA quicker DA arrive.3.PL.PRES.PFV ‘They decided to arrive quicker.’

(62) a. VP b. VP 4 4 V Φ V Φ [IRR] 4 [IRR] 4 decide T/Mod Θ decide T/Mod Θ [–FINITE, WOLL] 3 [+FINITE, WOLL] 3 v @ da v @ [+FINITE] V [–FINITE] V da uF: PRES uF: PRES

c. VP 4 V Φ [IRR] 4 decide T/Mod Θ [+FINITE, WOLL] 3 da v @ [+FINITE] V da uF: PRES

5. Variation in the spreading of finiteness

• Spreading of finiteness is often seen as a gradual process • The system here can capture variation in two ways:

o Downward spreading of [+FINITE]: SC da complements for even the ‘smallest’ embeddings o Upward spreading of [–FINITE]: E propositional complements; non-restructured infinitives

• Certain varieties, e.g., Bosnian seem to be a mix between SC and E: SC Ω domain, E Θ domain

(63) a. [Ω [+FINITE] da [Φ [±FINITE] da [Θ [±FINITE] da ]]] SC (variety 1) b. [Ω [±FINITE] da [Φ [±FINITE] da [Θ [–FINITE] da ]]] E c. [Ω [+FINITE] da [Φ [±FINITE] da [Θ [–FINITE] da ]]] SC (variety 2)

• This predicts that infinitives are used (sometimes preferred) for tenseless complements which in-volve only the Θ domain when restructured (but, as pointed out above, restructuring can be op-tional), and infinitives are also more frequent for future infinitives (A. Talić, p.c)

• Furthermore da in the Θ domain is disfavored (due to extensive bilingualism within BSC and re-sulting possible dialectal code switching, judgments are not categorical but gradient)

(64) a. Odlučili su {✓da} brže {??da} hodaju. decided.PART.PL.MASC are {✓DA} quicker {??DA} walk.3.PL.PRES.PFV ‘They decided to walk quicker.’ [A. Talić, p.c.]

b. Očekivali su {✓da} brže {?*da} stignu. expect.PART.PL.MASC are {DA} quicker {?*DA} arrive.3.PL.PRES.PFV ‘They were expecting to arrive quicker.’ [A. Talić, p.c.]

c. Pokušavali su {✓da} brže {?da} stignu. tried.PART.PL.MASC are {✓DA} quicker {?DA} arrive.3.SG.PRES.PFV ‘They tried to arrive quicker.’ [A. Talić, p.c.]

18

d. Uspeli su {✓da} brže {?*da} stignu. managed.PART.PL.MASC.PFV are {✓DA} quicker {?*DA} arrive.3.PL.PRES.PFV ‘They managed to arrive quicker’ [A. Talić, p.c.]

• In contrast to English, propositional complements would still resist non-finite construals

(65) a. Tvrdili su {✓da} ubrzo {*da} stižu. claimed.PL.MASC are {✓DA} quickly {*DA} arrive.3.PL.PRES.IMPFV ‘They claimed to arrive quickly.’ [A. Talić, p.c.]

b. *Tvrdili su ubrzo stići. claimed.PL.MASC are quickly arrive.INF ‘They claimed to arrive quickly.’ [A. Talić, p.c.]

6. Conclusion and outlook

Variation in the degree of finiteness • Finiteness as a property of clausal domains, not only/necessarily specific left-periphery heads (no

unique finiteness position as assumed in cartographic models) Aspect as a window into the composition of clausal domains • (Im)possibility of perfective as an indication of higher tense/C domains • Further implications: Tenseless infinitives show aspectual restrictions imposed by matrix verbs

(even in English: He began smoking/to smoke; He stopped smoking/*to smoke); it remains to be seen whether these are selectional or semantic restrictions.

(66) Te melodije su se počele svirati / *odsvirati Those melodies.NOM are SE begun.PL.FEM.PFV play.INF.IMPFV / *play.INF.PFV ‘They started playing these melodies.’

Restructuring • Not restricted to infinitives Table 5 claim decide, expect try, manage Tense propositional, [+TENSE] future irrealis (woll) tenseless da V.PRES *PERFECTIVE ✓PERFECTIVE ✓PERFECTIVE Infinitive possible No Yes (dialectal preferences) Yes (dialectal preferences) Clitic climbing No Yes, sort of Yes NPI licensing by matrix NEG No Yes Yes wh ordering Matrix » embedded Free Free Long passive (with INF) No No Yes Adverb positions {da} ADV {*da} {da} ADV {da} {?-*da} ADV {da} Size Ω domain Φ domain Θ domain

7. Appendix—Planning puzzles

• In both English and SC, plan (also want) is marked when combined with finite CPs (the data are murky; speakers not certain)

• Matrix present seems more marked

(67) a. He is planning to get married next year. b. ??He is planning that he will get married next year. c. *He is planning that he would get married next year. d. He planned to get married soon. e. ?He planned that he will get married soon. f. He planned that he would get married soon.

19

g. He was planning to get married soon. h. *He was planning that he will get married soon. i. He was planning that he would get married soon.

• Overt future is impossible in SC; but perfective is nevertheless licensed (vs. propositional com-plements which require an overt future to license perfective in a future context)

(68) a. *Jovan planira da će sledeće godine izgraditi kuću. Jovan plans DA will next year build.INF.PFV house ‘Jovan plans to build a house next year.’

b. Jovan planira da sledeće godine izgradi kuću. Jovan plans DA next year build.3.SG. PRES.PFV house ‘Jovan plans to build a house next year.’

c. *Jovan tvrdi/veruje da sledeće godine izgradi kuću. Jovan claims/believes DA next year builds.3.SG. PRES.PFV house ‘Jovan claims/believes that he will build a house next year.’

d. Jovan tvrdi/veruje da sledeće godine gradi kuću Jovan claims/believes DA next year builds.3.SG. PRES.IMPFV house ‘Jovan claims/believes that he will be building a house next year.’

• Plan also allows long passive, which indicates that there may not be future/WOLL in the structure

(69) a. Te melodije se planiraju (od)svirati Those melodies.FEM.NOM SE plan.3.PL.PRES.IMPFV play.INF.(IM)PFV ‘They are planning to play those melodies.’

b. Te melodije su se planirale (od)svirati Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE planned.PL.FEM play.INF.(IM)PFV ‘They planned to play these melodies.’

c. *Te melodije su se planirale da (od)sviraju Those melodies.FEM.NOM are SE planned.PL.FEM DA play.3.PL.PRES.(IM)PFV ‘They planned to play these melodies.’

• Preliminary: plan (also want) combines with a tenseless complement (no Ω & Φ domains); for some speakers this is obligatory (cf. the impossibility of) i-NPIs); future orientation is contributed by the meaning of the matrix verb directly (these verbs are future operators themselves).

8. References Abusch, Dorit. 1985. On verbs and time. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Abusch, Dorit. 1988. Sequence of tense, intensionality, and scope. In Proceedings of the 7th West Coast

Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Hagit Borer, 1-14. Stanford, Calif: CSLI Publications. Adger, David. 2003. Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford, England: Oxford UP. Benthem, van J. 1985. A Manual of Intensional Logic. Stanford, Calif: CSLI Publications. Bošković, Željko. 1997a. Superiority effects with multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian. Lingua 102.1:1-20. Bošković, Željko. 1997b. The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press. Bošković, Željko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenomena.

Oxford: North-Holland Elsevier. Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33.3:351-383. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2002. The interaction of passive, causative, and 'restructuring' in Romance. In The syntax of

Italian dialects, ed. by C. M. Tortora, 50-66. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Condoravdi, Cleo. 2001. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In Stanford

Papers on Semantics, ed. by D. Beaver, S. Kaufmann, B. Clark and L. Casillas. Stanford, Calif: CSLI. Copley, Bridget. 2002. The semantics of the future. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

20

Cyrino, Sonia. 2010. On complex predicates in Brazilian Portuguese. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2.2:1-21.

Dotlačil, Jakub. 2004. The syntax of infinitives in Czech. M.A. Thesis. Tromsø: University of Tromsø. Givón, Talmy. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. John Benjamins Publishing. Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hackl, Martin, and Jon Nissenbaum. 2012. A modal ambiguity in for-infinitival relative clauses. Natural

language semantics 20.1:59-81. Kaufmann, Stefan. 2005. Conditonal truth and future reference. Journal of Semantics 22.3:231-280. Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Proceedings from

Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII, ed. by D. Strolovitch and A. Lawson, 92-110. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, CLC Publications.

Lødrup, Helge. 2014. Long passives in Norwegian: Evidence for complex predicates. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 37.3:367-391.

Magni, Elisabetta. 2010. Mood and Modality. In New perspectives on historical Latin syntax II, 193-275. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Mauri, Caterina. 2008. Coordination relations in the languages of Europe and beyond. Walter de Gruyter. Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pesetsky, David. 1992. Zero syntax II: An essay on infinitives. Ms., MIT. Cambridge, MA. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1993a. Locality and subjunctive-like complements in Serbo-Croatian. Journal of Slavic

Linguistics 1:116-144. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1993b. Subjunctive: the (mis)behavior of anaphora and negative polarity. The Linguistic

Review 10:37-59. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1994. Negative and positive polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge University Press. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1996. Clitics in Serbian/Croatian: Comp as the second position. In Approaching second:

Second position clitics and related phenomena, ed. by A. Halpern and A. Zwicky, 441-428. Stanford, Calif: CSLI.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative

syntax, ed. by L. Haegeman, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sočanac, Tomislav. 2011. Subjunctive in Serbian/Croation. In Geneva Generative Papers 7, 49-70. Université

de Genève. Stjepanović, Sandra. 2004. Clitic climbing and restructuring with "finite clause" and infinitive complements.

Journal of Slavic Linguistics 12.1-2:173-212. Stowell, Tim. 1982. The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13:561-570. Thomason, Richmond. 1970. Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria 36:264-281. Todorović, Neda. To appear. Tense and aspect (in)compatibility in Serbian matrix and subordinate clauses.

Lingua. Vrzić, Zvjezdana. 1996. Categorial status of the Serbo-Croatian “modal” da. In Annual Workshop on Formal

Approaches to Slavic Linguisircs: The college Park Meeting 1994, ed. by J. Toman, 291-312. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2013. Complex predicate formation via voice incorporation. Ms., UConn. Storrs. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014a. The Merge Condition: A syntactic approach to selection. In Minimalism and Beyond:

Radicalizing the interfaces, ed. by P. Kosta, L. Schürcks, S. Franks and T. Radev-Bork, 139-177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014b. Restructuring across the world. In Complex Visibles Out There. Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2014: Language Use and Linguistic Structure, ed. by L. Veselovská and M. Janebová, 275-294. Olomouc: Palacký University.

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014c. Restructuring across the world—Data summary. http://wurmbrand.uconn.edu/Papers/RATW-data.pdf.

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014d. Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 45.3:403-447. Wurmbrand, Susi, and Koji Shimamura. 2015. The features of the voice domain: actives, passives, and

restructuring. Ms., University of Connecticut. Storrs.

Neda Todorović Susi Wurmbrand neda.todorovic@uconn.edu susi@alum.mit.edu