Definiteness Marking in the Bulgarian

Much of the work in lexicalist theories of grammar argues for the validity of a theoretical distinction
between (postlexical) clitics and affixes, corresponding to syntactic vs. lexical modes of composition
(e.g., Zwicky and Pullum (1983)). An analysis of Bulgarian definiteness marking (D E F) in Embick and
Noyer (2001; henceforth E&N) claims that distribution of the article--frequently analysed as an affix--
must be stated in syntactic terms (E&N, p. 568). Using this, E&N argue against a syntactic/lexical split
for Bulgarian and conclude that without the split, the clitic/affix distinction has no theoretical consequence
(E&N, p. 573). We show that the analysis in E&N suffers from non-trivial drawbacks and provide an
alternative lexicalist treatment that avoids the relevant complications. The analysis we propose naturally
accounts for several morphophonological aspects of D E F that remain unexplained under E&N's proposal,
precisely because they dispense with lexical modes of composition. We conclude that the issue of whether
the lexicalist distinction between clitics and affixes is empirically supported is still an open one.
In contemporary standard Bulgarian, D E F appears as a suffix on the leftmost adjective or noun in the nominal
projection (1a,b), but cannot appear on demonstratives (cf. 1c,d) or initial adverbs (cf. 1e,f). Assuming the
framework of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz, 1993), E&N account for this distribution with a
post-syntactic Lowering operation, which lowers D E F from D to the head of its complement. The analysis
crucially relies on a syntactic structure for DP (following Abney (1987)) in which prenominal modifiers
(i.e., APs) are sisters to D, instead of adjuncts to the nouns they modify. Following Hankamer and Mikkelsen
(2002), we demonstrate this structure to be both theoretically unmotivated and empirically problematic.
E&N also observe (following Franks (2001)) that the distribution of Bulgarian possessive clitics (P O S S)
mirrors that of D E F (cf. (2a,c) with (2b,d)). They claim P O S S adjoins to D in the syntax, and consequently
that Lowering targets the [D E F + P O S S] complex, moving it as a unit. E&N argue that the distributional
identity of D E F and P O S S leads lexicalist accounts into a paradox, as the appearance of P O S S adjacent to
D E F argues for one mode of composition (i.e., lexical), while its inherent properties as a (postlexical) clitic
argue for another (i.e., syntactic). We show this argument to be invalid, and more importantly that an analysis
of P O S S is, in fact, compatible with a lexicalist treatment of D E F.
We treat Bulgarian D E F as a phrasal affix (in the sense of Zwicky (1987) and others), similar to English
possessive 's. That is, while D E F is realised morphologically on its host, it is associated syntactically with
the nominal phrase. We argue (following Miller (1992)) that D E F's distribution results from an interaction
of Edge inflection on the nominal phrase with a lexical constraint restricting D E F to appear on just those
hosts that are normally inflected for person and gender. The analysis correctly predicts D E F's distribution
without relying on the problematic syntactic assumptions in E&N. We also provide an account of P O S S that
captures its mirrored distribution. We agree with E&N in assuming P O S S is attracted to definiteness, but
we claim that it adjoins to the inflected host (i.e., Adj, N) and not to definite D. Our account makes the
same predictions regarding clitic placement and maintains compatibility with the lexicalist treatment of
D E F. Additionally, the proposed alternative naturally accommodates the observation that D E F participates
in word-level phonological processes, while P O S S does not. For example, D E F bleeds a general process of
word-final devoicing (3a,b) and can attract stress (3c). Both of these facts pose problems for the analysis
in E&N, which assumes strict syntactic composition of D E F and P O S S. In the approach we advocate, the
phonological observations fall out from the fact that D E F is an inflectional affix; hence it composes with its
host at the lexical level.
We show explicitly that Bulgarian D E F's distribution is open to a lexicalist treatment, and that the identical
distribution of D E F and P O S S can be easily predicted by such an analysis. The alternative we propose avoids
the drawbacks of E&N's analysis by not relying on a problematic syntactic structure for the nominal phrase.
Our approach has the advantage of naturally accounting for the fact that Bulgarian D E F participates in word-
level phonology. A broader implication of this paper is that a distinction between clitics and affixes, based
on different modes of composition, is not, it would seem, without theoretical consequence.


                                                       1

(1)     a.    kniga-ta        `the book'
              book-D E F
        b.    interesna-ta           kniga   `the interesting book'
                                     book
              interesting-D E F
              tazi-ta
        c.                  kniga     `this book (definite)'
                            book
              this-D E F
        d.    tazi kniga-ta

              mnogo-to        interesna      kniga   `the very interesting book'
        e.
                              interesting    book
              very-D E F
        f.    mnogo interesna-ta kniga

(2)     a.    tazi      kniga-ta     vi      `this book of yours'
                                     your
              this      book-D E F
              tazi   vi kniga-ta
        b.

        c.    interesna-ta           vi      kniga   `your interesting book (definite)'
                                     your    book
              interesting-D E F
              interesna-ta    kniga vi
        d.


             /bratovced/ (`cousin')  [bratovcet]
                                            
(3)     a.
             /bratovced- t/ (`the cousin')  [bratovced t]
                                                   
                    
        b.
        c.   [xúbost] (`beauty'), [xubostá] (`the beauty')


References
Abney, Steven. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32:555­595.
Franks, Steven. 2001. The internal structure of Slavic NPs, with special reference to Bulgarian. In
                                ´
  A. Przepiórkowski and P. Banski (Eds.), Generative Linguistics in Poland: Syntax and Morphosyntax,
  53­69.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale and
  S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger,
  111­176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hankamer, Jorge, and Line Mikkelsen. 2002. A morphological analysis of definite nouns in Danish. Journal
  of Germanic Linguistics 14:137­175.
Miller, Philip H. 1992. Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. New York: Garland Pub-
  lishing, Inc. published version of PhD thesis (University of Utrecht, the Netherlands).
Zwicky, Arnold, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't. Language 59:502­
  513.
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1987. Suppressing the Zs. Journal of Linguistics 23:133­148.


                                                         2