	Personen	Treffen/Publikationen	Fotografien	Intern
jusla-31: Gießen 2023 jusla-30: Jena 2022 jusla-29: Bochum 2021 JuSla-Online-Kaffeepause 2020 jusla-28: Hamburg 2019 jusla-27: Heidelberg 2018 jusla-26: Bamberg 2017 jusla-25: Göttingen 2016 jusla-24: Köln 2015 jusla-23: Dresden 2014 jusla-22: München 2013 jusla-21: Göttingen 2012 jusla-20: Würzburg 2011 jusla-19: Berlin 2010 jusla-18: Regensburg 2009 jusla-17: Frankfurt am Main 2008 jusla-16: Dresden 2007 jusla-15: Bochum 2006 jusla-14: Stuttgart 2005 jusla-13: Leipzig 2004 jusla-12: Gießen 2003 jusla-11: Cambridge 2002 jusla-10: Berlin 2001 jusla-9: Halle/Wittenberg 2000 Vorwort Tanja Anstatt Thomas Daiber Ursula Doleschal Robert Hammel Edgar Hoffmann Uwe Junghanns Marion Krause Holger Kuße Anke Levin-Steinmann Andreas Späth Monika Wingender jusla-8: München 1999 jusla-7: Tübingen/Blaubeuren 1998 jusla-6: Wien 1997 jusla-5: Bautzen 1996 jusla-4: Frankfurt am Main 1995 jusla-3: Hamburg 1994 jusla-2: Leipzig 1993 jusla-1: Wien 1992
Sie sind hier: Homepage → Treffen → jusla-9 → jusla-Junghanns Klitische Elemente im Tschechischen: eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme Uwe Junghanns In the literature on Czech, a plethora of elements have been described as clitics. The set of these elements turns out to be heterogeneous. It is necessary to define clitics more precisely, using empirical criteria and finding formal correlates of clitic status. I am claiming that there are two types of clitics in Czech - (i) lexical clitics, and (ii) phonological clitics. Lexical clitics are characterized by the syntactic (categorial) feature [+cl] that is part of the information given in their lexical entries. [+cl] items necessarily cliticize both syntactically and phonologically, and form a closed class. Phonological clitics do not have the [+cl] feature. They do not cliticize syntactically. The lexical entries of phonological clitics contain the feature ([+phon-cl]) which characterizes them as elements that optionally undergo phonological cliticization. This characterization accounts for the fact that phonological clitics can, but need not, behave as clitics on the surface. Syntactic theories about Czech clitics should first consider lexical clitics. Treating lexical and phonological clitics alike would blur the picture. I am claiming that the set of lexical clitics in Czech comprises the following items: (i) - five forms of personal pronouns: mi, tě, ti, mu, ho; (ii) - the reflexive pronouns se and si; (iii) - the forms of the perfect auxiliary (jsem, jsi, jsme, jste); (iv) the forms of the subjunctive marker (bych, bys, by, bychom, byste, by); (v) - the enclitic conjunction -li; (vi) - the proclitic sentential negation ne-. I am assuming a number of syntactic base positions for lexical clitics. Pronominal clitics are generated as arguments inside the VP. Free datives adjoin to the VP in the base. Reflexive clitics are inserted under Agr(eement) heads. The sentential negation heads its own phrase. Auxiliary clitics (the perfect auxiliary and the subjunctive marker) are generated under the T(ense) head. The conjunction -li is an instantiation of the C head. Linguistische Beiträge zur Slavistik. IX. JungslavistInnen-Treffen Halle a. d. Saale / Lutherstadt Wittenberg 2000. Hg. Thomas Daiber. München: Sagner 2002 (= Specimina Philologiae Slavicae 135), 117–150.

Klitische Elemente im Tschechischen: eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme

Uwe Junghanns

In the literature on Czech, a plethora of elements have been described as clitics. The set of these elements turns out to be heterogeneous. It is necessary to define clitics more precisely, using empirical criteria and finding formal correlates of clitic status. I am claiming that there are two types of clitics in Czech - (i) lexical clitics, and (ii) phonological clitics. Lexical clitics are characterized by the syntactic (categorial) feature [+cl] that is part of the information given in their lexical entries. [+cl] items necessarily cliticize both syntactically and phonologically, and form a closed class. Phonological clitics do not have the [+cl] feature. They do not cliticize syntactically. The lexical entries of phonological clitics contain the feature ([+phon-cl]) which characterizes them as elements that optionally undergo phonological cliticization. This characterization accounts for the fact that phonological clitics can, but need not, behave as clitics on the surface.
Syntactic theories about Czech clitics should first consider lexical clitics. Treating lexical and phonological clitics alike would blur the picture. I am claiming that the set of lexical clitics in Czech comprises the following items: (i) - five forms of personal pronouns: mi, tě, ti, mu, ho; (ii) - the reflexive pronouns se and si; (iii) - the forms of the perfect auxiliary (jsem, jsi, jsme, jste); (iv) the forms of the subjunctive marker (bych, bys, by, bychom, byste, by); (v) - the enclitic conjunction -li; (vi) - the proclitic sentential negation ne-.
I am assuming a number of syntactic base positions for lexical clitics. Pronominal clitics are generated as arguments inside the VP. Free datives adjoin to the VP in the base. Reflexive clitics are inserted under Agr(eement) heads. The sentential negation heads its own phrase. Auxiliary clitics (the perfect auxiliary and the subjunctive marker) are generated under the T(ense) head. The conjunction -li is an instantiation of the C head.

Linguistische Beiträge zur Slavistik. IX. JungslavistInnen-Treffen Halle a. d. Saale / Lutherstadt Wittenberg 2000. Hg. Thomas Daiber. München: Sagner 2002 (= Specimina Philologiae Slavicae 135), 117–150.