Volume 54, Issue 4 - Special issue: “Through a minimalist lens: Issues in Polish syntax and morpho-syntax” Guest-edited by Przemysław Tajsner and Jacek Witkoś

The paper addresses the question whether Subject Experiencer (henceforth, SE) verbs can form the stative and eventive passive in Polish. The analysis shows that SE verbs in Polish only sporadically give rise to the stative passive, and whenever this is possible, the stative passive derived from an SE verb can be classed as the target state passive in Kratzer’s typology (2000). Polish SE verbs are susceptible to two types of eventive passive – (i) with the auxiliary zostać ‘to become’, co-occurring with the perfective passive participle; and (ii) with the auxiliary być ‘to be’, followed by the imperfective passive participle. The fact that SE verbs can give rise to zostać -passives is unproblematic, as this type of passive contains the passive participle derived from the perfective form of the verb, which is always eventive. Stative SE verbs can serve as good inputs to the być + imperfective passive on account of the fact that they can be coerced from states into non-dynamic events, as proposed for Spanish in Fábregas and Marín (2017).

This paper aims to account for peculiar binding properties of non-nominative arguments of Polish psychological predicates focusing on accusative Object Experiencers (hence, OE). It has been observed that although Polish anaphors are subject oriented, they can be bound by accusative experiencers (Bondaruk and Szymanek 2007; Tajsner 2008; Wiland 2016). At the same time, these arguments, unlike nominative subjects, are also proper antecedents for both reflexive and pronominal possessives. This mixed behaviour poses a puzzle for the traditional formulation of Binding Theory (Chomsky 1981, 1986; Manzini and Wexler 1987; Rappaport 1986; Willim 1986/1989; Reinders-Machowska 1991), which assumes complementarity between anaphors and pronominals in their local domains and plainly states that the subject is the privileged binder in Slavic. We base our analysis on a number of recent proposals, including Hicks (2009), Safir (2014) and Nikolaeva (2014), following Hestvik (1992). The proposal implements the concept of binding as (upward) Agree as well as Index Raising (IR), where the head of the anaphoric/pronominal element (henceforth the index) is (covertly) moved and adjoined to v or T. Lexicalisation and distribution of anaphoric and pronominal elements is determined by two factors: the movement of the index and the case position of the binder.

Our paper focuses on binding relations in the Polish piacere -type psychological verb podobać się ‘to please’. In particular, we aim to test the make-up of the argument structure of this verb, which is taken in the literature to be of a double object unaccusative verb (Belletti and Rizzi 1988; Miechowicz-Mathiasen and Scheffler 2008; Jiménez-Fernández and Rozwadowska 2016; a.o.). To this end, we conduct an experimental study, which examines the ability of pre-verbally spelled-out NOM and DAT arguments of podobać się to bind possessive pronouns/reflexives. As a point of reference, we use the results of our previous study on binding relations in Polish double object constructions (DOCs). The study revealed that the higher object, in [Spec;VP], can bind only a possessive pronoun, and not a possessive reflexive embedded in the lower object. The results of our present study display analogous binding relations in podobać się , which provides an argument in favor of the double object unaccusative structure of this verb. Based on our results, we advance a theoretical account of binding in podobać się , which assumes the Index Theory of Binding (Hestvik 1992; Nikolaeva 2014) together with a slightly modified version of a recent analysis of podobać się put forward in Jiménez-Fernández and Rozwadowska (2016).

The article offers a non-cartographic approach to the syntax of the left-peripheral particle to in Polish and Czech. It is claimed here that to is neither a topic nor a focus head. Instead, it has a status of a neutral Relator , a head of Relator Phrase , operative in the formation of the non-directional Structure of Predication . This structure serves the needs of Information Structure in providing a syntactic blueprint for segregating topics from foci, but these notions themselves are solely the interpretations of constituents and not independent syntactic categories. The analysis capitalizes on a clitic status of to in Czech, the lack of special clitics in Polish, and makes use of the ideas of the parametric directionality of Agreement and Labelling Algorithm allowing for merging heads to project.

The contrast between the Russian čto and the Polish co ‘what’ is syntactic and reflects the way in which an identical sequence of features in the syntactic representation becomes realized as morphology. Specifically, I argue that this scenario follows from a spell-out mechanism outlined in Starke (2018), where prefix formation, as in the Russian tri-morphemic čt-o but not in the Polish bi-morphemic c-o , takes place in order to spell out a feature which cannot be spelled out in the mainline derivation. Next, I explore a possibility that the wh-prefix in kto ‘who’, the same form in Russian and Polish, merges with a syntactically different stem than the one present in the lexical items for ‘what’, a scenario more transparently visible on the example of English wh-at and wh-o .

The goal of this study is to argue for a more widespread application of a uniform representation of Numeral Noun Constructions (NNCs) which captures both patterns with higher numerals (≥5, NumH) agreeing in case with the modified noun (case matching pattern) or bearing a distinct case from a noun (case independence pattern) in Polish and in other languages. Our account draws on the analysis of cardinal numerals in Bailyn (2004) in which both agreeing and non-agreeing numerals are placed within the projection (QP) of the functional head FQ, but contrary to Bailyn (2004), it advocates a predominant cardinal-as-specifier representation of NNCc and complex NNCs in Polish, a language whose numeral/quantificational system is fairly challenging. We propose that many cases discussed in Bošković (2006), Ionin and Matushansky (2006), Kayne (2010), Danon (2012), Norris (2014) and Willim (2015) may have a uniform representation. In short, both the case matching and the case independence patterns are represented as equivalent to the cardinal-as-specifier representation. This serves to preserve derivational and structure building transparency and avoids the issue of look-ahead and the No Tampering ban (Chomsky 2000, 2001; Stepanov 2001, 2007). In the spirit of Burzio’s (1986) Generalization we submit that the case valuation capacity of FQ is conditioned directly by an independent case (feature) of NumP occupying FQ’s specifier position. Our proposal receives further support from recent work on the structure of complex numerals in Di Sciullo (2015, 2017) and Kayne (2016), where their component parts are combined in asymmetric structures involving silent functional projections.

In this paper it will be argued that the difference between existential and locative sentences is primarily structurally encoded at the v P/VP level (at the first phase of a derivation). The crucial question is which argument of the verb BE (the Location or the nominal argument (“Theme”)) is projected as the “external argument”, i.e., which argument is the subject of inner predication. In the case of existential sentences it is the Location argument which is the subject of inner predication, and in the case of locative sentences it is the nominal argument. The subject of inner predication becomes by default also the subject of outer predication, i.e., the topic of the sentence. Hence, in the case of locative sentences the nominal argument is the subject of outer predication, i.e., the topic of the sentence, and in the case of existential sentences it is the Location which becomes the topic. (Or, alternatively, the actual topic (the subject of outer predication) might be the situational/ event variable, and the Location functions as a restriction on it.) However, the actual arrangement of constituents in the sentences under discussion, as in any other Polish sentence, is determined by the pragmatic/communicative principles. Given this, it is reasonable to think that the NOM/GEN case alternation in negated existential/locative sentences is primarily a matter of syntax, and not one of information structure or scope of negation. The analysis will be modeled in accordance with the phasal model of Chomsky (2000 et seq.).