The aim of the paper is to focus on two issues regarding the 
interaction of syntax and cliticization (which I take to be 
exlusively postsyntactic) in Polish and English, and to highlight the 
role of this kind of evidence in constructing syntactic accounts. 
Specifically, I will review some cases where:
(i) cliticization facts can be used as diagnostics for syntactic 
structure, cf. (1), and 
(ii) cliticization facts obscure the syntactic structure, cf. (2).

(1)		a. His baby’s a cute little boy
		b. His *hobby’s swimming
		c. His hobby is swimming
		d. His baby’s swimming

(2)		a. *Nazajutrz=scie     przyszli
			the-day-after=2pl  come-prt
			‘You came the following day’
		b. Wtedy=scie przyszli
			then=2pl   come-prt
			‘You came then’
		c. Nazajutrz      ze=scie  przyszli
			the-day-after  that=2pl come-prt
			‘You came the following day’

Example (1a) shows that predicative _is_ can contract and cliticize 
onto the subject, while the equative _is_ in (1b) cannot do so 
(subjects are vowel-final to eliminate phonotactic interference; (1d) 
is meant to show that there is nothing wrong with the phonological 
context here). Under the assumption that contraction of _is_ is 
sensitive to syntactic structure (cf. e.g. Kaisse 1985 and Wilder 
1997 for some relevant data and discussion), and that the copula 
itself is not responsible for the predicative/equative contrast (cf. 
e.g. Heycock & Kroch 1996 for discussion), it follows that equative 
and predicative constructions must be structurally different. One way 
of describing this difference is the predicate inversion approach 
espoused by e.g. Moro (1997), whereby the order of the syntactic 
subject and the syntactic predicate is reversed in equative 
sentences.

I will also argue that the unacceptability of (2a) vis a vis (2b), 
and the improvement of (2a) by means of an element homophonous with 
the declarative complementizer _ze_ presented in (2c) have nothing 
syntactic about them and are solely caused by the phonological make-
up of the host and the morphological/prosodic properties of the 
auxiliary clitic _scie_.

The first case suggests that certain cliticization facts should not 
be disregarded by syntactic accounts (one more such case from Polish 
will also be discussed), and the other that the usefulness of such 
facts only goes so far: one has to be careful not to exaggerate their 
role.

The paper will concentrate mainly on Polish data. One more case will 
be discussed where cliticization facts are indicative of the prosodic 
structure (and consequently of the syntactic structure from which the 
prosodic structure is mapped) of remnant-extracted predicative 
adjectives in Polish. 


Heycock, Caroline & Anthony Kroch (1996). “Inversion and equation in
     copular sentences”. ZAS Working Papers. Berlin: ZAS.
Kaisse, Ellen (1985). Connected Speech: The interaction of
     syntax and phonology. London: Academic Press.
Moro, Andrea (1997). The raising of predicates: Predicative noun
     phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: CUP.
Wilder, Chris (1997).“English finite auxiliaries in syntax and 
     phonology”. In James R. Black and Virginia Motapanyane (eds)
     Clitics, Pronouns and Movement. John Benjamins:
     Amsterdam/Philadelphia.