Complementizer Doubling in Croatian Church Slavonic

In Croatian-Glagolitic texts Mihaljevie (2003) noted a number of examples in which two or even three occurrences of the Church Slavonic word da correspond to only one occurrence of the Latin ut. In all such examples da has a typical role of a complementizer, i.e. it introduces complement, final or consecutive clauses. According to Slovnik jazyka staroslovenskeho (1967: 453) double-da structures occured already in Old Church Slavonic Codex Suprasliensis. The author describes the structure of these Church Slavonic sentences using the so-called cartographic model, which assumes for sentence periphery to the left of the subject the existence of a number of hierarchically ordered functional projections, instead of a single CP projection. The phenomenon of complementizer doubling is attested and studied in different languages. It is generally assumed that the first instance of the complementizer is in Force, while the position of the second instance is disputable. Some authors assume that optional secondary complementizer is in Fin, while according to others it is in lbp. The main goal of the paper is to determine which description is more adequate for Croatian Church Slavonic. The author investigates the conditions for the appearance of doubling, as well as the properties and the distribution of doubled da with respect to the left-peripheral phenomena, and concludes that the lowest copy of da heads FinP. This conclusion is confirmed by the following facts: no left-dislocated constituent can follow the lowest da, the doubling of da is possible only in irreal (subjunctive) contexts, and therefore the verb in the subordinated TP can only be in the present tense, conditional or imperative. Consequently, he assumes that in the triple-da constructions the intermediate copy of da is in Top. In the concluding part of the paper he discusses the relationship between the high and the low instances of da, i.e. whether they are different lexical units which only superficially look like the same item, or the copies of the same complementizer. He presents arguments for and against both solutions, but does not give a definite answer and leaves the question open for future research.