futures in polish and slovenian: “a hole in a sock” theory
DESCRIPTION
Futures in Polish and Slovenian: “a hole in a sock” theory. Joanna B ł aszczak and Dorota Klimek-Jankowska. Outline. The issue Facts, observations Hypothesis New observations Our analysis Final conclusions. The issue. Polish has two future forms: a simple future form, and - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Futures in Polish and Slovenian:
“a hole in a sock” theory
Joanna Błaszczak and
Dorota Klimek-Jankowska
2
Outline The issue Facts, observations Hypothesis New observations Our analysis Final conclusions
3
The issue Polish has two future forms:
a simple future form, and a periphrastic future form.
4
Two future forms in Polish simple future
(=SF): just a lexical verb,
no auxiliary zje
eat.prs.perf.3sg ( ‘He/she will eat.’)
periphrastic future (=PF)
a combination of the so-called “future auxiliary” BE and an imperfective lexical verb ( in form of an l-participle or an infinitive)
będzie jadł be.aux.3sg eat.prt.impf.sg.m
będzie jeść be.aux.3sg eat.inf.impf
( ‘He/she will eat.’)
5
Observation The same selectional restriction is observed
in other Slavic languages such as Russian, Czech, Slovak. Russian (Mezhevich 2006:22):
Vasja budet čitat’ knigu.Vasja be.3sg read.inf.impf book‘Vasja will be reading a/the book.’
The auxiliary BE + [impf] verbal complement seems to be a general pattern.
6
BUT: surprise surprise Slovenian:
Unlike in Polish, in Slovenian the l-participle in PF can be both [+impf] and [+perf].
bom napisalbe.aux.prs.3sg write.prt.perf.sg.m
bom pisal
be.aux.prs.3sg write.prt.impf.sg.m
7
Facts: summary Polish
two futures: simple future
SFlexical_verb.prs.perf periphrastic
future PFbe.aux +lexical_verb.prt.impf
orlexical_verb.inf.impf
Slovenian: two futures
periphrastic future PF
be.aux +lexical_verb.prt.perf periphrastic
future PFbe.aux +lexical_verb.prt.imp
f
8
Question Can we expect any
correspondence between the Polish and the Slovenian future forms?
If so, what would the nature of this correspondence be and how could it be accounted for?
9
A first intuitive answer At first glance, it seems that there
are no clear correspondences between those forms.
Why?
10
Observation The PF forms in Polish and
Slovenian have a similar morphological make-up.
BUT: They are different both diachronically and syntactically.
11
Diachronically different Evidence (following Whaley 2000):
The Slovenian bo+l-participle.impf/perf stems from the Old Slavic Future Perfect.
In contrast, the participial future in Polish is an innovative construction. rarely attested in the earliest Polish texts
The original future form in Polish was (and it is still preserved) the infinitival BE-future.
Recall:będzie jeść
be.aux.3sg eat.inf.impf ( ‘He/she will eat.’)
12
Syntactically different Evidence:
At first glance it might seem that there is no difference between the Polish PF and the Slovenian PF as negation precedes both bo and będzie.
PolishJan nie będzie pisał.Jan NEG be.aux
write.prt.impf.3sg.m Slovenian
Janez ne bo pisal.Janez NEG be.aux
write.prt.impf.sg.m ‘John will not write.’ (‘John will not be writing.’)
13
Syntactically different BUT: There is an important syntactic
difference between Polish and Slovenian. First, it is a standard assumption in Slavic
linguistics (Rivero 1991, Borsley&Rivero 1994) that there is a difference in the position of negation between Polish and Slovenian.
NegP > TP > VP Slovenian TP > NegP > VP Polish
Second, bo in Slovenian is a second position clitic (Franks&Holloway King 2000, Migdalski 2010).
14
Difference between BE in Polish and Slovenian as to its syntactic position: In Slovenian:
BE is higher in the syntactic tree ( in T°) In Polish:
BE is lower in the syntactic tree ( in some light vP-shell)
Syntactically different: Our assumptions
15
Consequences of different syntactic positions The BE-aux in Slovenian is a TP-
related functional element (“higher auxiliary”). Given its high position, it does not
have any influence on the selection of the aspectual form of the l-participle.
It can take both [+impf] and [+perf] verbal complements.
16
Consequences of different syntactic positions In contrast, będzie in Polish is a VP-
related element (“lower auxiliary”). Given its low position it can directly
select its verbal complement. It is compatible only with [+impf].
In this respect będzie shows a similar behavior to phase verbs like ‘begin’, which also only select [+impf] VP-complements (Veselovska 1995).
będzie pisać / * napisać be.aux.3.sg write.inf.impf / * write.inf.perf
‘(s)he will write’ ((s)he will be writing’) imperfective perfective
zacznie pisać / * napisać begin.3.sg write.inf.impf / *
write.inf.perf‘(s)he will begin to write’ imperfective perfective
17
Question Why is będzie compatible only with
[+impf] verbal complements?
18
Answer Unlike the Slovenian bo, the Polish
będzie is not completely devoid of a lexical content It denotes a state BE.
Denoting a state, będzie is compatible only with [+durative] eventualities. Hence only [+impf] VP-complements are
possible.
19
Prediction Only in Slovenian it should be
possible to use a second BE, spelling out the lower VP-part of the tree.
Why? Because the high BE-aux in T0 in
Slovenian is completely devoid of a lexical content.
bo + BE Slovenian będzie + BE Polish
20
Our prediction is corroborated.
Slovenian (due to Lanko Marušić)
bom bilbe.aux.1.sg be.prt.sg.m
‘I will be.’
Polish *będę był
be.aux.1.sg be.prt.sg.m
*będę być be.aux.1.sg be.inf
(intended: ‘I will be’)
bo + BE będzie + BE
21
Hypothesis Despite the above mentioned differences,
the semantic contrasts between BE-aux+l-participle.impf and BE-aux+l-participle.perf in Slovenian have their mirror image in the opposition between the PF and the SF in Polish. Slov. BE-aux+l-participle.impf Pol. PF Slov. BE-aux+l-participle.perf Pol. SF
Slov. BE+[impf] Pol. PFSlov. BE+[perf] Pol. SF
22
Hypothesis In short:
Slov. BE+[impf] / Pol. PF syntactically different semantically equivalent
Slov. BE+[perf] / Pol. SF syntactically different semantically equivalent
23
Common knowledge Obvious aspectual differences
between BE+[perf]/SF and BE+[impf]/PF: bounded BE+[perf]/SF vs. unbounded BE+[impf]/PF
24
Slovenian: Observation [bounded] (due to Lanko Marušić, p.c.)
Pismo bom napisal letter be.aux.prs.1sg write.prt.perf.sg.m
v 3 ure /*3 ure. in 3 hours / *3 hours‘I’ll write the letter in three hours.’
Pismo bom pisal letter be.aux.prs.1sg write.prt.imp.sg.m 3 ure / *v 3 ure.3 hours / *in 3 hours‘I’ll write the letter for three hours.’
bounded
unbounded
25
Polish: Observation Simple future:
O 5:00 wzejdzie słońce.
(≈ ‘The sun will rise at 5 a.m.’)
Periphrastic future: O 5:00 będzie
wschodziło/ będzie wschodzić słońce.
(≈ ‘The sun will rise at 5 a.m.’)
26
Simple future O 5:00 wzejdzie
słońce. ≈ ‘The sun will have risen at 5 a.m.’
O 5:00 wzejdzie już słońce. ≈ ‘The sun will already have risen at 5 a.m.’
27
Periphrastic future O 5:00 będzie
wschodziło słońce.
≈ ‘The sun will be rising at 5 a.m.’
O 5:00 będzie już wschodziło słońce.
‘The sun will already have risen at 5 a.m.’
(≈ ‘It is already at 5 a.m. that the sun will be rising.’)
28
New facts Even if there are contexts in which
both SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] are equally good, there are other contexts in which only
one future form, either SF/BE+[perf] or PF/BE+[impf],
is acceptable or at least strongly preferred.
29
SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] equally good
Contexts: prediction intention
30
Context: prediction SF and PF are
equally good Scenario:
Look at her face:Basia się zaraz rozpłacze.Basia zaraz będzie płakać.‘Basia is going to / will cry right now.’
32
SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] are NOT equally good
Contexts: warning offering I can‘t believe (= I am amazed
that ...) questions
33
Methodology A scenario-based online
questionnaire for Polish
www.ifa.uni.wroc.pl/questionnairePL
for Slovenian www.ifa.uni.wroc.pl/questionnaireSL
34
“Warning contexts” SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] have
completely different interpretations.
35
“Warning contexts”: SF/BE+[perf]
Scenario: We see a blind man walking
towards a precipice. We see that he is just about to fall down. So we want to prevent this and warn the man.
Uwaga, spadniesz! (PL) Pazi, padel boš. (SL)
‘Be careful/Watch out: You are going to fall down (otherwise)!’’
warning – the hearer can still do something to prevent falling
36
“Warning contexts” watch out SF/BE+[perf] ok PF/BE+[impf] not
ok
37
“Warning contexts”: PF/BE+[impf]
Scenario: You are a parachuting
instructor. Your pupil is just about to jump. You want to signal this.
Uwaga, będziesz spadał! (PL)
Pazi, boš padal (SL)‘Caution: you are now beginning to fall down.’
announcement – the falling is prearranged
38
“Warning contexts” announcement PF/BE+[impf] ok SF/BE+[perf] not
ok
39
“Offering contexts” (Copley 2002, 2009)
SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] have completely different interpretations.
“Offering contexts” SF/BE+[perf] Scenario:
If you want, our company will repair your car.
Jeśli chcesz, nasza firma naprawi ci samochód. (PL)
Če želiš, ti bo naše podjetje popravilo avto. (SL)
episodic reading
“Offering contexts” PF/BE+[impf] Scenario:
If you want, our company will repair your car.
#Jeśli chcesz, nasza firma będzie ci naprawiać samochód. (PL)
#Če želiš, ti bo naše podjetje popravljalo avto. (SL)
implausible under an episodic reading; a kind of a habitual reading; a longer plan/agreement
42
“Offering contexts” (Copley 2002, 2009)
SF / BE+[perf] ok
PF /BE+[impf]
not ok
Offering entails that the decision as to a future action has not been made yet and the hearer can still decide whether he or she wants the offer to be realized in the future.
PF/BE+[impf] is not suitable in offering
contexts since it presupposes that the future action is prearranged at the moment of speaking and the hearer has no say on the offered issue.
43
“I can‘t believe” (Copley 2002, 2009)
Two interpretations: literal meaning I can’t believe idiomatic meaning I can’t believe = I am
amazed that… SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] have
completely different interpretations: SF/BE+[perf] only literal meaning, no
idiomatic meaning PF/BE+[impf] literal meaning + idiomatic
meaning
44
Idiomatic I can‘t believe PF/BE+[impf] Scenario:
Your boss has just asked your colleague John to organize a conference for 200 people. You think this decision is wrong because John is unexperienced and badly-organized. After coming back home you express your amazement to your wife.
Only PF/BE+[impf] can be used in this context.
45
Idiomatic I can‘t believe PF/BE+[impf] Ciągle jeszcze nie mogę
uwierzyć, że Janek będzie wykonywał tak odpowiedzialne zadanie. (PL)
Ne morem verjeti, da bo Janek opravljal tako odgovorno nalogo. (SL)‘I cannot believe that John will be performing such a responsible task.’
= ‘I am amazed that John will be performing such a responsible task.’
46
“I can‘t believe” contexts
SF/BE+[perf] only literal meaning, no idiomatic
meaning
Nie chce mi się wierzyć, że Janek wykona tak odpowiedzialne zadanie. (PL)
Ne morem verjeti, da bo Janek opravil tako odgovorno nalogo. (SL)‘I can’t believe (# ‘I am amazed) that John will fulfil/perform such a responsible task.’
47
Idiomatic I can‘t believe (Copley 2002, 2009)
PF/BE+[impf] ok SF/
BE+[perf] not ok
48
“Question contexts” SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] have
different interpretations: SF/BE+[perf]: whether =
undetermined, who = undetermined PF/BE+[impf] whether =
determined, who = undetermined
49
“Question contexts” SF/BE+[perf]
Scenario: Your car has just broken down.
You need help so you ask your older brothers who of them would agree to help you repair the car. It is not predetermined whether any of them would agree to do this. So you actually ask whether a future action is going to take place and who will perform it.
Kto naprawi mi samochód? (PL)
Kdo mi bo popravil avto? (SL)‘Who will repair my car?’
50
“Question contexts”: who and whether = undetermined
SF/BE+[perf]
51
“Question contexts” PF/BE+[impf]
Scenario: Your car has broken down. You
take it to a car repair station. They agree to repair your car within a week. You are still curious which mechanic exactly will be repairing your car. In this context the future action is preplanned and you only want to know who will perform it.
Kto będzie mi naprawiał samochód? (PL)
Kdo mi bo popravljal avto? (SL)‘Who will be repairing my car?’
52
“Question contexts”: whether = determined, who = undetermined PF/BE+
[impf]
53
Contexts: Summary SF and BE +
[perf] okay in: Warning as caution Offering context I can‘t believe
(literal meaning) Questions: whether
= undetermined, who = undetermined
PF and BE + [impf] okay in: Warning as
announcement I can‘t believe = I
am amazed Questions:
whether = determined, who = undetermined
54
Contexts: Summary Conclusion:
PF/BE + [impf] but not SF / BE + [perf] is compatible with contexts in which the future action is settled at the moment of speaking.
Question Why are some
contexts compatible with SF (Pol.) / BE+ [perf] (Slov.)?
And why are some other contexts compatible with PF (Pol.) / BE+[impf] (Slov.)?- warning as caution
- offering- questions (whether + who = undetermined)
- warning as announcement- idiomatic I can‘t believe (= I am amazed that ...)- questions (whether = determined, who = undetermined)
56
Question Why do we have the semantic
correspondence between the Polish and Slovenian future forms despite their different composition?
SF (Pol.) BE + [perf] (Slov.)PF (Pol.) BE + [impf] (Slov.)
57
Observation Offering and warning presuppose
that it should be possible to change or to prevent a future eventuality, hence such events cannot be settled or
prearranged at the moment of speaking. In contrast, one can only be amazed
by something which is already settled (prearranged) at the
moment of speaking.
58
Hypothesis In order to be able to change or to
prevent a future eventuality, there must be time between the moment of speaking and the beginning of an event: this is our “hole in a sock” theory.
59
Hypothesis Since only the SF in Polish and BE-
aux + l-participle.[perf] in Slovenian are good in ‘warning’ and ‘offering’ contexts,
we expect to find “a hole” in these future forms.
60
Question How is this hole obtained
compositionally in these two future constructions,
especially since the SF in Polish is syntactically different from BE-aux + l-participle.[perf] in Slovenian?
61
Our analysis: BE+[perf] (Slov.)
The Slovenian bo – being a TP-related auxiliary – has a purely temporal function of locating the reference time right after the speech time. R1T ST
Perfective marked on the l-participle further forward-shifts the reference time and situates the event time within the reference time. R1T < R2T
& ET R2T
Perfective aspect alone is sufficient to forward-shift RT
Compare the following modal contexts in Polish: Muszę czytać książkę.
must.prs.1sg read.inf.impf book ‘I have an obligation to read a book.’ ( now)
Muszę przeczytać książkę. must.prs.1sg read.inf.perf book‘I have an obligation to read a book.’ ( tomorrow)
In both cases, the modal element must is marked for the present tense but only the second context can mean that I have an obligation to read a book tomorrow
because perfective aspect on the verb forward-shifts RT and situates ET within RT.
63
BE+[perf] (Slov.): composition
TP [“AspP” + “VP”]
bo perfectiveReference time Event is properly after speech time included in the the reference timeR1T ST R1T< R2T & ET R2T
BE+[perf] (Slov.) - GAP
64
GAP between ST and the boundary of an event
65
Our analysis: SF (Pol.) A similar temporal gap is obtained in
Polish in the SF form in which there is no TP-related BE-aux.
The SF form is a combination of present tense and perfective aspect.
zjeeat.prs.perf.3sg‘S/he will eat.’
present tense + perfective aspect
66
Our analysis: SF (Pol.) What is the role of these components?
Present tense locates the reference time around the speech time.
ST R1T Due to the presence of the perfective aspect
the R2T is forward-shifted from “around the ST” (ST R1T) to “after the ST” (R1T < R2T) and the temporal trace of an event is situated within the forward-shifted reference time (ET R2T).
67
SF (Pol.): composition
TP [“AspP” + “VP”]
Moment of speech present perfective forward-shifting
of the reference timeST R1T R1T < R2T & ET R2T
68
SF (Pol.) - GAP
GAP between ST and the boundary of an event
69
Intermediate conclusion In contexts in which there is no
plan, in which we want to prevent or to change a future event, a gap is necessary.
We find SF (Pol.) / BE + [perf] (Slov.) in those contexts.
And those contexts have a gap.
70
Hypothesis In contrast, both BE-aux+l-
participle.impf in Slovenian and the PF in Polish can be used to express prearranged events.
Hence we expect that these future forms do not have any temporal gap: “no hole in a sock”.
71
Question Why is there no gap in these
forms? How can this lack of gap be
obtained compositionally?
72
Our analysis: BE+[impf] (Slov.) As in the previous case, the temporal
auxiliary bo in Slovenian situates the reference time right after the speech time. R1T ST
The tenseless imperfective l-participle locates the event time around the reference time R1T ET. Hence there is no temporal gap (in a default
case) between the speech time and the event time.
73
BE+[impf](Slov.): composition
TP [“AspP” + “VP”]
bo imperfectiveReference time Reference timeafter speech time is properly included in the running time
of the eventR1T ST R1T ET
74
No gap in Slovenian BE+[impf]
NO GAP between ST and the boundary of an event
75
Our analysis: PF (Pol.) A similar situation arises in the Polish
PF form despite its different syntactic make-up.
Recall: PF = będzie + [impf]-complement
What is będzie?
76
Assumptions wrt będzie Unlike the Slovenian bo, the Polish
będzie is not completely devoid of a lexical content: It denotes a state BE.
Morphologically and diachronically, będzie is a perfective present tense form of BE (van Schooneveld 1951).
Evidence: diachronic aspectual opposition
77
Evidence Diachronic facts:
Będzie originates from the perfective present tense paradigm of the Old Church Slavonic verb byti ‘to be’ (van Schooneveld 1951).
78
Old Church Slavonic byti ‘to be’ (van Schooneveld 1951)
impf perf
sing pl dual
sing pl dual
1st jesmЬ
jesmЪ
jesvě
bǫdǫ bǫdemЪ
bǫdevě
2nd jesi jeste jesta
bǫdeši
bǫdete bǫdeta
3rd jestЪ sǫtЪ jeste
bǫdetЪ
bǫdǫtЪ bǫdete
79
Evidence Aspectual opposition:
Polish verbs demonstrate a regular perfective-imperfective morphological opposition:
verb [imperfective] vs. verb [perfective]
Given this, it can be argued that this morphological aspectual opposition is also demonstrated in the case of BE:
jest [imperfective] vs. będzie [perfective]
80
Aspectual opposition Imperfective
pisze write.prs.impf.3sg ‘s/he writes / s/he is writing’
BUT NOT:*‘s/he will write’
Perfective napisze write.prs.perf.3sg ‘s/he will write’
BUT NOT:* ‘s/he writes / s/he is writing’
Aspectual opposition Imperfective
jest be.prs.impf.3sg ‘s/he is’
BUT NOT:*‘s/he will be’
Perfective będzie be.prs.perf.3sg ‘s/he will be’
BUT NOT:*‘s/he is’
82
Our analysis: PF (Pol.) Decomposing periphrastic future:
będzie + jadł /jeść be.prs.perf.3sg +
eat.prt.impf.sg.m/eat.inf.impf
Combination of: BE= present tense + perfective+ l-participle/infinitive = imperfective
83
Question What is the role
of będzie ? be.prs.perf
What is the role of l-participle/infinitive? lexical_verb.impf
84
The role of będzie Będzie is:
semi-functional + semi-lexical a kind of “light v”
Semi-lexical it introduces a state BE. Semi-functional being a perfective present
tense form, it forward-shifts the reference time and locates it after the speech time (R1T≥ST).
Consequently, the beginning of the state
denoted by BE coincides with the beginning of the forward-shifted reference time R1T.
The role of będzie - scheme
85
86
The role of l-participle/infinitive
l-participle/infinitive is: a purely lexical verb imperfective aspect
Being imperfective, it denotes an unbounded [+durative] eventuality which complements a state BE introduced by będzie.
No gap in Polish PF The state BE and the [+durative]
eventuality form a unit (a complex durative eventuality) which is coextensive with the reference time R1T, which is by default situated right after ST (R1T≥ST). by default means here ‘in the absence of
adverbial restrictors such as, e.g., tomorrow’.
88
No gap in Polish PF
NO GAP between ST and the boundary of [a state BE + a durative eventuality]
89
PF (Pol.): composition TP [“AspP” + “VP”]
będzieMoment of speech present perfective
forward-shifting of the reference timeRT ST R1T≥ST
lexical semi-lexical [+durative] complement
state BE of state BE (states/processes)
[imperfective] morphology The temporal trace of [a state BE + a durative eventuality] is coextensive with R1T
90
Intermediate conclusion We find PF (Pol.) / BE + [impf] (Slov.)
in preplanned/prearranged contexts. In these forms in a default case (i.e., if
there is no adverbial restriction like tomorrow) we will have no gap.
Given this, these forms are more compatible with situations in which the durative event is a continuation of a plan.
91
Prediction If our analysis is correct, then only
those future forms in Polish and in Slovenian which have no temporal gap between the speech time and the event time, i.e., only the PF in Polish and only the BE-aux+l-participle.impf in Slovenian, should be compatible with a ‘still’ context.
In short PF (Pol.) /
BE + [impf] (Slov.)
in ‘still’-contexts
SF (Pol.) / BE + [perf] (Slov.)
in ‘still’-contexts
93
Our prediction is borne out. PF ok Janek czyta gazetę i nadal
będzie ją czytał.‘John is reading a newspaper and he will still be reading it.’
SF not ok *Janek czyta gazetę i nadal
ją przeczyta.‘*John is reading a newspaper and he will still have read it.’
94
Our prediction is borne out. BE + [impf] ok Jan bere knjigo. On
bo še vedno bral knjigo.‘John is reading a newspaper and he will still be reading it.’
BE + [perf] not ok
Jan bere knjigo. *On bo še vedno prebral knjigo. ‘*John is reading a newspaper and he will still have read it.’
95
Final conclusion There are two future forms in Polish
and Slovenian. Despite syntactic (and diachronic)
differences, we observe a semantic equivalence: Slov. BE-aux+l-participle.impf Pol.
PF Slov. BE-aux+l-participle.perf Pol.
SF
96
Final conclusion
In PF/BE+[impf] there is no gap between the moment of speaking and the beginning of the durative eventuality. Hence PF/BE+[impf] is compatible with the
contexts in which the future event is already settled/determined at the moment of speaking.
97
Final conclusion
In SF/BE+[perf] there is a gap between the moment of speaking and the (initial or final) boundary of an event. Hence SF/BE+[perf] is compatible with the
contexts in which we want to have time to prevent, change or decide on a future event.
98
Thank you!
99
References Borsley, R. D. and M.-L. Rivero. (1994). Clitic
Auxiliaries and Incorporation in Polish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12, pp. 373-422.
Copley, B. (2002). The Semantics of the Future. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. To appear in Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics, Routledge.
Copley, B. (2009). The Semantics of the Future. Routledge, New York.
Franks, S. and T. Holloway King. (2000). A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. Oxford University Press, New York.
100
References Mezhevich, I. (2006). Featuring Russian Tense: A
Feature-Theoretic Account of the Russian Tense System. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Calgary.
Mezhevich, I. (2008). A Feature-Theoretic Account of Tense and Aspect in Russian. Natural Laguage and Linguistic Theory 26, 359-401.
Migdalski, K. (2010). On the Loss of Tense and Verb-Adjacent Clitics in Slavic. Paper presented at the DiGS XII, Cambridge University, July 14-16, 2010.
Rivero, M.-L. (1991). Long Head Movement and Negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak and Czech. The Linguistic Review 8, pp. 319-351.
101
References Schooneveld, van C.H. (1951). The Aspect
System of the Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian verbum finitum byti. Word 7/2, pp. 96-103.
Veselovska, L. 1995. Phrasal Movement and X0-Morphology. Word Order Parallels in Czech and English Nominal and Verbal Projections. Ph. D. Thesis, Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Whaley, M. L. (2000). The Evolution of the Slavic ‘BE(COME)’-Type Compound Future. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Ohio State University.
102
This research has been supported by the Foundation for Polish Science
(Fundacja na rzecz Nauki Polskiej), programme FOCUS.