Advances in Greek Generative Syntax: In Honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-kontou

Advances in Greek Generative Syntax Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) pr...

Author: Helga Kotthoff | Ruth Wodak

99 downloads 905 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Advances in Greek Generative Syntax

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.

Series Editors Werner Abraham

Elly van Gelderen

University of Vienna

Arizona State University

Advisory Editorial Board Cedric Boeckx

Ian Roberts

Harvard University

Cambridge University

Guglielmo Cinque

Ken Saﬁr

University of Venice

Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ

Günther Grewendorf

Lisa deMena Travis

J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt

McGill University

Liliane Haegeman

Sten Vikner

University of Lille, France

University of Aarhus

Hubert Haider

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart

University of Salzburg

University of Groningen

Christer Platzack University of Lund

Volume 76 Advances in Greek Generative Syntax: In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou Edited by Melita Stavrou and Arhonto Terzi

Advances in Greek Generative Syntax In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou

Edited by

Melita Stavrou Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Arhonto Terzi Technological Educational Institute of Patras

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Advances in Greek Generative Syntax : In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou / edited by Melita Stavrou and Arhonto Terzi. p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166–0829 ; v. 76) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Greek language, Modern--Syntax. 2. Greek language, Modern-Grammar, Gednerative. I. Theophanopoulou-Kontou, Demetra. II. Stavrou, Melita. III. Terzi, Arhonto. IV. Linguistik aktuell ; Bd. 76. PA1091.A38 2005 489’.35--dc22 isbn 90 272 2800 0 (Eur.) / 1 58811 624 7 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)

2004062773

© 2005 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microﬁlm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents

Contributors

vii

Introduction

1

Agreement and multiple case licensing in Greek Vassilios Spyropoulos Determiner heads as arguments and the Pronominal Argument (macro)parameter Phoevos Panagiotidis Cross-linguistic and cross-categorial variation of datives Elena Anagnostopoulou

15

41 61

A possessive adjective in the Greek DP Artemis Alexiadou

127

Subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of the definite article in Greek Theodoros Marinis

153

Peripheral positions in early Greek Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

179

Eventivity, modality and temporal reference in child Greek Spyridoula Varlokosta

217

From participles to gerunds Io Manolessou

241

WH-clauses in DP-positions Yoryia Agouraki

285

The syntax of non-volitional θelo in Greek Anna Roussou

331

Index

361

Contributors

Yoryia Agouraki University of Cyprus Department of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies P.O. Box 20537 Nicosia, CY-1678 Cyprus [email protected]

Phoevos Panagiotidis Cyprus College Department of Humanities Diogenous Str. 6, Engomi P.O. Box 22006 1516 Nicosia Cyprus [email protected]

Artemis Alexiadou University of Stuttgart Institute of English Linguistics Keplerstr. 17, 70174 Stuttgart Germany [email protected]

Anna Roussou University of Patras Department of Philology GR 26500, Patras Greece [email protected]

Elena Anagnostopoulou University of Crete Department of Philology GR 74100, Rethymno Greece [email protected]

Vassilios Spyropoulos University of the Aegean Department of Mediterranean Studies l, Democratias Ave. GR 85100, Rhodes Greece [email protected]

Io Manolessou Academy of Athens 129, Syngrou Ave. GR 11745, Athens Greece [email protected] Theodoros Marinis University College London Department of Human Communication Science Chandler House 2, Wakefield Str. London WC1N 1PF UK [email protected]

Ianthi Maria Tsimpli Aristotle University of Thessaloniki School of English Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics GR 54124, Thessaloniki Greece [email protected] Spyridoula Varlokosta University of the Aegean Department of Mediterranean Studies l, Democratias Ave. GR 85100, Rhodes Greece [email protected]

 Contributors

Editors Melita Stavrou Aristotle University of Thessaloniki School of Philology Department of Linguistics GR 54124, Thessaloniki Greece [email protected]

Arhonto Terzi Technological Educational Institute of Patras Department of Speech and Language Therapy GR 26334, Patras Greece [email protected]

Introduction

It is probably not an overstatement to say that contemporary Greek linguistics is of a particularly idiosyncratic nature. Indeed, the study of language and the preoccupation with linguistic issues has a very long history in Greece, dating back to ancient times. At the same time, the study of Greek in the light of contemporary theoretical linguistics can easily be traced back to the early seventies, a period roughly coinciding with the growth and recognition of Generative Grammar as the dominant model of research in the syntax of natural language in the United States and Europe. Since then, studies on the morphosyntax (and phonology) of Greek have followed a steadily rising curve culminating today at a well-established and influential field of research. It is the strongly rooted philological tradition in combination with the recent systematic occupation with formal grammar that is to be held responsible for the Janus-like character of Greek linguistics: on the one hand the field continues a longstanding tradition that originates in both historical and notional grammar following a continuous evolutionary thread from the 19th century to the present day, while, on the other, it has caught up in an impressively effective way with current linguistic developments as pursued primarily within the generative paradigm. This state of affairs does not come as a surprise for anyone who is familiar with some of the history and the dynamics of Greek academia. The latter aspect of contemporary Greek linguistics in particular, namely the fact that it has developed and been shaped primarily within the generative tradition, is intimately tied to the appointment of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou as a Professor in the Linguistics Department of the School of Philology at the University of Athens in the 1970s. The presence of Professor Theophanopoulou-Kontou has marked the character of the Department as one with focus on generative grammar. As a consequence, traditional and conservative ways of exploring linguistic issues have since then been productively recast in the light of the concepts and discoveries of generative theory, while, as expected, her teaching, the textbooks she has written, her research and publications have exerted a strong unfluence on her many students. During the last thirty years or so, the impressive expansion of the scope of inquiry and the fruitful results of research on Greek carried out by generative linguists have contributed to the evolution of the field of generative syntax and the search for the properties of Universal Grammar. Putting the matter differently, the impact of the study of Greek, on a par with that of other languages or language groups, has become central to current claims and advances in contemporary generative syntax. With few exceptions, the linguists who are responsible for this progress started off their under-



Introduction

graduate studies at the University of Athens with Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou as their first syntax teacher. It goes without saying therefore that the current state of affairs in the generative linguistic research on Greek, and the impact of that work on other languages, owes a great deal to Dimitra’s intellectual influence. Her adherence to and respect for the data, her insightful and in-depth observations and her descriptive generalizations have become a model for approaching linguistic phenomena. The breadth of her knowledge of the Greek language, her genuine and creative ideas and proposals, the reasoning through which these have been developed and presented, and her critical approach to the tenets of the theory have made her a true role model for her students. It is no exaggeration to say that Professor Theophanopoulou’s early work laid the foundations for generative linguistic research in Greece, research which has also had and continues to have an impact on generative linguistic research beyond Greek and Greece. The ten contributors to this volume have all been students of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou at some stage of their undergraduate studies at the University of Athens. The editors of the volume have not. But they have benefited enormously from Dimitra’s presence in Greek linguistics. The first editor will always remember Dimitra’s sincerely warm and positive response after her first conference presentation as a graduate student several years ago, and her constant encouragement and support ever since. The second editor likewise will always appreciate Dimitra’s warm welcome when relocating to Greece (and Greek linguistics), after a long stay abroad and a training in linguistics exclusively outside the country and her continuous advice since then. We are among those – and there are many – who believe that Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou is one of those outstanding individuals who bring together a critical scientific mind, an inspiring teaching style and commitment to research – not to mention her unusual personal qualities of genuine sincerity and true modesty. Dimitra’s beaming smile is another of her distinctive features – such a rare characteristic in the higher levels of Greek academia. We hope that the current volume will be thought of as a modest recognition of all her exceptional talents and achievements.

The volume The majority of the contributions to the volume fall within syntax proper (and/or its close interaction with language acquisition), while two of the articles are more appropriately placed within the area of syntax-semantics interface. Below are listed the general issues addressed by the articles: i.

Aspects of the syntax of clausal and nominal structure (agreement, pro, beneficiaries and possessive adjectives) are addressed by Spyropoulos, Panagiotidis, Anagnostopoulou and Alexiadou.

Introduction

ii. The acquisition of nominal and clausal structure is investigated by Marinis, Tsimpli and Varlokosta. iii. A study of the diachronic evolution of participles is undertaken by Manolessou. iv. The syntax and semantics of (a special kind of) wh-clauses and of modal θelo ‘want’ in its non-volitional use are studied by Agouraki and Roussou respectively. In what follows we offer an outline of each contribution. In order to help the reader’s access to the particular issues addressed in the volume, however, we first provide an overview of the prominent characteristics of Greek, in particular those that play a role in the various chapters of the volume (and see Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2000 for a thorough overview). Greek belongs to the group of pro-drop languages. The subject of the clause is regularly dropped from all types of clauses – main and subordinate alike – and can recover its formal features through the ending of the verb. Six different endings – three for the singular and three for the plural – are distinguished in all tenses, in the indicative and the subjunctive. When the subject is present, it may follow the verb regardless of whether it is transitive or intransitive. Numerous studies and discussions, dating from the seventies and carried out in various frameworks, have concluded that whereas the absence vs. presence and the position of the overt subject (i.e., before or after the verb) is dictated by discourse needs, its status and grammatical properties are expressible in theoretical terms (see Tzanidaki 1999 for an overview). Thus, when a lexical DP is missing, the Extended Projection Principle is satisfied by the raising of the verb to the head of TP/IP – the propositional content in this case asserting the whole event rather than parts of it, cf.: ti ejine? ‘what happened?’ – Irθan ‘they came’. If a lexical DP is present, if it precedes the verb, it is unanimuously thought of as being the topic of the whole clause rather than a subject of the English-type languages. In this case it has the status of an adjunct, as it is a DP generated in a Topic position and the assertion of the clause is made of this topic: pjios irθe? ‘who came?’ – O Jianis irθe ‘John came’. Linguists agree less among themselves as to the exact position and origin of the ‘postverbal’ subject, however. A related issue of dispute has been the existence (or non- existence) of pro. Thus, Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998) argue that pro can only be stipulated, as the EPP (i.e., the formal features of the clausal subject) can be satisfied by raising the verb. Spyropoulos and Philippaki-Warburton (2002) on the other hand maintain that pro always resides with spec TP and is coindexed with the lexical subject inside the VP, when present. Another trait of the language is the presence of pronominal clitics. Greek clitics are the weak, non-emphatic, unstressed forms of the personal pronouns (that is, Greek has nothing comparable to Romance and Slavic locative or auxiliary clitics). Greek clitics are found in the accusative and genitive/dative case in both the singular and the plural, undertaking the role of the direct (accusative) and indirect (dative) object in the clause and that of arguments of DPs or possessors (genitive) in the nominal domain. Dative case has collapsed morphologically with genitive in Modern Greek. Hence, the form of the clitic that encodes the possessor is identical to that encoding the indirect object,





Introduction

and, as Anagnostopoulou discusses in her contribution to this volume (and in previous work of hers), also the benefactive and other ‘dative’ functions. Greek pronominal clitics are proclitic with finite verbs in the indicative and the subjunctive, but enclitic to imperatives and gerunds (see Terzi 1999 for the order of clitics with respect to the verb and between themselves). Examples are: to ðjiavase ‘(s/he) read it’, mu to eðose ‘(s/he) gave it to me’, ðjiavase to ‘read it!’, ðjiavase mu to or ðjiavase to mu ‘read it to me!’. Greek is also a clitic doubling language. The clitic can double the direct object, the indirect object and (some) beneficiaries. See Anagnostopoulou (1994, 1997) for these issues. As a Balkan language, Greek has lost its (ancient) infinitives; these have been replaced by the ‘subjunctive’. It is important to note that all verb forms are finite in all moods. The subjunctive mood (also called ‘dependent’ by Holton, Mackridge, & Philippaki-Warburton 1997) is formed by the fully inflected verb forms preceded by the particle na if the subjunctive clause is embedded, or (optionally) by as when it is a main clause: θelo na pao ‘I want to go’, θelo na pame ‘I want us to go’, as pame ‘let us go’. Just as in non-subjunctive clauses, the subject may be missing in subjunctives too and is retrieved through the inflection of the finite verb. There is an ongoing dispute over the status of the particle na (Infl element or complementizer) as well as over the status of control in Greek, given the lack of infinitives (Philippaki-Warburton 1987; Agouraki 1990, 1991; Tsimpli 1990; Iatridou 1993; Terzi 1992, 1997; Varlokosta 1993; Philippaki-Warburton & Catsimali 1999). The future tense is also formed by a particle, θa, heading a Modal Phrase (Philippaki-Warburton 1990b), followed by the finite verb. Periphrastic future is another Balkan feature (see Rivero & Ralli 2001 for a collection of articles on Balkan features shared by Greek as well). See Roussou 2000 for a recent approach to the Greek particles and proposals for reallocating them to the left periphery. Turning next to the nominal domain, Greek has a definite article, along with the indefinite one which is homophonous to the numeral ‘one’ enas. The language makes extensive use of the definite article, which accompanies not just common nouns but also all proper names, human and non-human, and generic nouns. In other words, the definite article in Greek has an expletive usage as well. Another striking property pervaiding the nominal field is the agreement that holds between the article, the noun, and any element (adjective, demonstrative or other) that may intervene between the DP and the lexical NP. Overt agreement encodes number, gender and case: to oreo erγo ‘the good play’, i eksipni jineka ‘the intelligent woman’. The various functions of the article, its expletive usage – in the sense of Longobardi (1994) – the extended agreement and the morphological categories which may intervene between DP and NP are only some of the topics that have dominated the research in the DP area since Horrocks and Stavrou (1987) (see also Alexiadou 2001 for references). This much said about the properties of Greek that feature in the articles of the volume, we now turn to the presentation of each one of the articles.

Introduction

i.

Aspects of the syntax of clausal and nominal structure (agreement, pro, beneficiaries and possessive adjectives) Spyropoulos, Panagiotidis, Anagnostopoulou and Alexiadou

In Agreement and case checking in Greek Vassilios Spyropoulos examines the implications of current syntactic developments for the notion of agreement and its interaction with case assigning/licensing in two domains: DP subjects and nominal predicates in small clauses, and postverbal subjects in the full clause. He observes that the case of predicate nominals in small clauses cannot easily follow as a flagging property of the goal, targeted by a probe in a higher phase along with the subject DP in an instance of multiple targeting, since the two may manifest different cases. He proposes that the case feature of the nominal predicate activates the relevant F as a probe and an Agree operation with the DP subject is established. Crucially, for such an operation case must be considered a phi-feature. In the (full) clausal domain, postverbal subjects in VSO structures are shown to agree with the verb, despite that fact that an unambiguous (expletive) pro has to be assumed in SpecTP. Hence, the covert movement of FF (DP subject) to the complex V-T, as in Cardinaletti (1997), is not supported – a desirable consequence – since covert movement is replaced by the operation Agree in Chomsky (2000, 2001). Postverbal subjects are claimed to agree with a null clitic instead, forming a kind of clitic doubling configuration. Thus, nominative case is either assigned by the subject agreement features of T targeting both clitic and subject DP, or it is checked by the Agree operation established between them. The latter option also takes case to be a phi-feature. This view has the consequence of making a distinction between interpretability and value of features, which is worth investigating further. In Determiner Heads as arguments and the pronominal argument (macro)parameter, a paper that has both typological and theoretical implications, Phoevos Panagiotidis addresses the following issue: what is responsible for the fact that some languages have phrasal nominal arguments, others have zero-level (morphologically coded as verb suffixes) ones while a third type of languages have both types of arguments? Put simply, the focus in this paper is the status of pro – as a head or maximal projection, as a DP or NP. Panagiotidis challenges the pronominal Argument Parameter (Jelinek 1995; Jelinek & Demers 1994), which was formulated on the basis of the pro-drop phenomenon, by producing empirical evidence from languages in which subjects may either be morphologically encoded on the verb or have the form of a full DP (or both simultaneously). He concludes that the crosslinguistic distribution of affixal and phrasal arguments cannot be reduced to an ‘on/off ’ parametric setting. The author puts forth an account of the choice languages make between D0 or DP arguments which is built on the DP/NP distinction. He takes as a starting point the well-established fact that nouns are formally predicates but can also head nominal projections which function as arguments (a fact also discussed by Marinis from an aquisitional perspective) and explores the question whether it is the DP as a whole that satisfies a particular function of the predicate or some subpart of it, including the





Introduction

head D itself. In other words, is it the case that the internal structure of the DP can be transparent for the purposes of argumenthood? Panagiotidis’ reply is negative. He proposes that some languages afford a special kind of determiner – a ‘verbal’ one, on a par with Tense, Aspect or v – which forms part of the verbal extended projection. The crosslinguistic variation discussed in this article is thus located in the lexicon. A welcome result of the proposal that the arguments which appear as pronominal suffixes are D heads is that D, and not the whole DP, is what is indispensable for argumenthood. The proposed analysis thus renders the distinction between D0 and DP superfluous, at least as regards argumenthood. Elena Anagnostopoulou in her paper on Cross-linguistic and cross-categorial distribution of datives takes as a starting point the observation that Greek beneficiary arguments have three alternative realizations. They are realized either as genitive DPs or as PPs introduced by se or jia. Based on a number of diagnostics (recipient interpretation, predicate restrictions, passivization and nominalization) she notices that, contrary to what one would expect perhaps, beneficiaries introduced by se pattern with genitive beneficiaries rather than beneficiaries introduced by the preposition jia. In line with earlier work of hers on ditransitive constructions crosslinguistically, she argues that se-beneficiaries in Greek are double object constructions in that they are specifiers of a light applicative v (asymmetrically c-commanding their themes, as manifested by the relevant binding facts), while jia-beneficiaries are adjuncts introduced at the lexical root level. An attempt is made to place these constructions within the broader typology of ditransitives. The investigation focuses in particular on beneficiaries introduced by the prepositional element se, which are compared with and contrasted to goals surfacing with se in Greek as well as with dative arguments introduced by comparable prepositions in English, Japanese, French and Spanish. She demonstrates that dative arguments introduced by se occur in double object beneficiary and goal constructions and in prepositional goal ditransitives, unlike to in English which is limited to prepositional goal constructions. Anagnostopoulou further compares se-datives to à-datives in French. The meaning, distribution and syntactic properties of French à-datives are argued to be very similar to those displayed by se-datives, except that the former behave like DPs and the latter like PPs. This leads the author to conclude that the (syntactic) category of indirect objects is orthogonal to their distribution in ditransitives. Indirect object DPs may occur in so called ‘prepositional ditransitives’ and, conversely, indirect object PPs are allowed to surface in double object constructions. It is therefore incorrect to think of the ‘dative alternation’ in terms of alternative categorial realizations of indirect object arguments. The crucial property is the association of indirect objects with extra functional structure (i.e., light applicative heads) in the double object construction. This structure is missing in so called ‘prepositional ditransitives’ where indirect objects are introduced at the root level. In A possessive adjective in the Greek DP Artemis Alexiadou investigates the syntactic and semantic properties of what she calls ‘complex possessive adjective’ (o ðikos mu lit. the own my ‘my own’ / ‘my’) in Greek, both synchronically and historically.

Introduction

The possessive construction under investigation contains a determiner, a possessive adjective (meaning something like ‘own’), a possessive clitic, and the head noun. This complex possessive construction, Alexiadou claims, comparing it to its English counterpart, is non-reflexive and emphatic, emphasising the possessor; it is further characterised by animacy (like its ‘simplex’ possessive counterpart) and it cannot be doubled by a DP possessor. However, it is subject to different conditions when compared with its simplex possessive counterpart. The study is guided by the spirit of discovering structural parallelisms between the nominal and the clausal domain. In view of the fact that the Modern Greek possessive adjective (PA) cannot co-occur with adjectives of the evaluative type, Alexiadou proposes that it is base generated in Spec,FP, a position otherwise occupied by evaluative adjectives in Greek. The possessor clitic is merged in the thematic position Spec,nP, a semi-functional projection dominating the lexical N(P) – with which it forms an NP-shell – and obligatorily cliticizes on the PA, a fact which is related to animacy. The category nP parallels Kratzer’s (1994) VoiceP in that it introduces the external argument of noun phrases. This line of thought takes as a starting point the similarities between possessor constructions and the double object construction (Marantz 1993). The paper extends Alexiadou’s earlier findings concerning the position of possessors and DP (functional) structure more generally (Alexiadou 2001). ii. The acquisition of nominal and clausal projections Marinis, Tsimpli and Varlokosta Theodoros Marinis’s article, Subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of the definite article in Greek, is placed within Chierchia’s (1998) Nominal Mapping Parameter hypothesis, whereby the binary features [±arg] for arguments, [±pred] for predicates form the basis for splitting languages in three major groups ([+arg, –pred], [+arg, +pred] and [–arg, +pred]), each one representing a setting of the Nominal Mapping Parameter. Chierchia’s model makes specific predictions for the acquisition of articles, which have been tested on the basis of acquisition data across various languages. It predicts, for instance, that definite articles should emerge in the speech of children acquiring Romance languages earlier than in the speech of children acquiring Germanic languages, a prediction that has been borne out in Chierchia, Guasti and Gualmini (1999). Greek, along with Romance languages, falls within the [–arg, +pred] setting, which means that nouns are predicative, and so they need a DP-layer in order to be able to occur in argument positions. Bare nouns in argument positions are licit only in restricted environments. Bare nouns in subject and object position involve a null D0 , licensed by a lexical or functional head. Marinis shows that the factors relevant for the licensing of bare nouns are argumenthood, syntactic position, noun class, number marking, verb type and word-order. Since nouns in Greek have the specification [–arg, +pred], a null D0 head is assumed to project a DP layer and map the interpretation of the noun onto that of an argument. Marinis tests the predictions for the acquisition of definite articles and for





Introduction

the licensing of bare arguments in Greek on the basis of a longitudinal corpus consisting of audio-recordings of one monolingual Greek child. The results show that the child initially drops definite articles altogether, as s/he initially hypothesizes that nouns are argumental, i.e., [+arg, –pred]. At a second stage, children acquiring Greek will start using definite articles in obligatory contexts. However, given the (positive) evidence of bare nouns in argument positions children will use definite articles in an optional manner until they discover the licensing conditions for bare arguments, Proper Names (PNs) and Kinship terms (KTs), which are always preceded by the definite article in Greek and provide unambiguous evidence that Greek nouns are predicative. Since the structures comprising the trigger often emerge early in child speech, the third prediction is that children will use definite articles with PNs and KTs as soon as they start using definite articles productively. The child recorded uses (correctly) bare nouns in argument positions from the beginning of Stage 2, hence he has some knowledge of the licensing of bare arguments at the stage at which he uses definite articles productively. In her article on Peripheral positions in early Greek, Ianthi Tsimpli departs from previous proposals of hers (Tsimpli 1992/1996) according to which the earliest stage(s) of first language consist(s) of lexical projections only. After examining the spontaneous speech of two Greek speaking children ages 1;9 to 2;2 with regard to the order of acquisition of focus, clitic left dislocation, clitic doubling, wh-movement, Agr, Tense and Mood, she argues that the periphery (the C domain) is acquired before the Infl domain. This is so, the author claims, because these are positions associated with interpretable features, in contrast to the Infl domain which is associated with uninterpretable features. The proposal predicts the distinct developmental patterns of focusing/interrogatives and topicalization/dislocation that are detected through close inspection of the data. An issue that arises is where Tense belongs in this theory, since it is a substantive, thus interpretable at LF, but at the same time it appears relatively late. The author adopts a version of the Aspect-before-Tense hypothesis (Antinucci & Miller 1976), concluding that aspect is responsible for delimiting the contour of the event and is situated inside the VP. Speech time, on the other hand, is situated in C, hence, it behaves in line with the theory she proposes. With respect to Mood, the author holds that it is not equivalent to modality, an interpretable feature represented in the C domain, but rather to the grammaticalization of features such as +/–indicative or imperative, hence its late emergence is also explained in terms of uninterpetable features. As for agreement, it is expected to be delayed under standard assumptions and is indeed found to be delayed – but see the article by Varlokosta (this volume) which draws the opposite conclusions based on a different set of child data. The proposed theory argues clearly against ‘truncation’ and ‘structure-building’ views of early language and is incompatible with the strong continuity approach. Finally, as the author points out, since it depends heavily on the interpretability of features at LF, it leads to the conclusion that it is not morphology that drives the development of clause structure.

Introduction

In Eventivity, modality, and temporal reference in child Greek, Spyridoula Varlokosta re-examines earlier work of hers (Varlokosta et al. 1996, 1998) on the counterpart of Root Infinitives (RIs) in early Greek. She clarifies certain misconceptions regarding the -i verb form that corresponds to RIs, notably its characterization as a participle in Varlokosta et al., and she states that the term is not to be taken literally – or at least not with the intention to render it comparable to participials in other null subject languages. A more accurate characterization of the -i forms can be attained under the proposal by Giannakidou and Zwarts (to appear), according to whom the non-finite form that is used in the Greek perfect tenses is the Perfective non-Past, a form that does not convey past time reference, but aspectual information. It is also shown that the overwhelming majority of the early -i forms are encountered in the perfective aspect, a characteristic that is in line with findings from other languages where it is observed that RIs are primarily eventive. The correlation between perfective aspect and eventivity, which renders Greek -i forms more similar to RIs in other languages, derives from claims of Giannakidou’s (2002) according to which perfective aspect in Greek turns verb forms into eventives. Another property of the -i forms that the author investigates is their association – much greater than in the case of other forms – with modal interpretation, a property also associated with RI crosslinguistically. Finally, the absence of significant agreement errors with the non-i forms is taken by the author as evidence for the strong continuity hypothesis. It is worth noticing at this point the discrepancy, stemming both from the different data and the detailed percentages counted, between this article and the article by Tsimpli with respect to the significance of agreement errors. iii. The diachronic evolution of participles Io Manolessou Io Manolessou in her contribution From participles to gerunds examines in detail the transition from the inflected Ancient Greek active participle to the uninflected Modern Greek active gerund. The main claim is that the development in this domain of Greek syntax can be satisfactorily explained only if set in a wider context, taking into account (a) similar developments in other languages – namely the transition from the participle to the gerund in Romance, Slavic and Baltic and (b) other diachronic changes involving the category participle in Greek, as is the change of the Greek passive participle into a nominal (adjectival) category. The evolution of the Greek participle, which is described in terms of a series of seven stages, is interpreted as a gradual restriction of an initially “mixed” category, possessing both verbal and nominal features, to a purely verbal category (the active gerund) on the one hand and a purely nominal one (the passive participle) on the other. iv. The syntax and semantics of (some) wh-clauses and of non-volitional θelo Agouraki, Roussou





Introduction

In Wh-clauses in DP-positions Yoryia Agouraki focuses primarily on a certain type of wh-clause in DP position, what she identifies as Future wh-clauses (FWHCs), a previously unstudied construction in Greek. She carefully sets FWHCs apart from realis and irrealis free relatives (RFRs and IFRs, respectively) with which FWHCs share a number of properties, hence they can potentially be confused with them, and studies their behavior in detail. She argues extensively that FWHCs are interpreted as intensional definite DPs and attributes their nominal interpretation to the meaning of wh-clauses, which type-shifts to an NP-type meaning (not the same as the meaning of RFRs, however). The author also shows that FWHCs are freely interchangeable with definite DPs and comply with all the diagnostic tests for intensionality. The latter property is considered as a consequence of the intensional use of the selecting predicates. Some of the distinct properties of FWHCs include a strong feel of current relevance associated with the predicates that select them and the requirement that they exhibit Future Tense. The author discovers that all predicates that select FWHCs have a c-selection frame which includes an object DP and an (object)-modifying phrase which obligatorily has a future orientation. She conjectures that the requirement for Future Tense in the wh-clause is precisely a consequence of the fact that the FWHC ‘corresponds’ semantically to this modifying phrase. The syntactic structure that the author attributes to FHWCs is that of a DP headed by a null determiner which selects a nominal predicate realized as a wh-clause (contra the CP analysis proposed by Grosu (2004) for the similar IRFs – or Modal existential wh-constructions in his terms). The same syntactic structure is assigned to IFRs, the difference between them and FWHCs being attributed to the semantic features of the D-head (null in both instances). In contrast to RFRs, the wh-phrase in FWHCs and IFRs does not raise to the null D. This difference explains differences in behavior between FWHCs and IFRs, on the one hand, and RFRs, on the other. As for the current relevance associated with the structures under investigation, the author points to the relation between wh-clauses and ‘selection’. While it has been generally assumed that selected wh-clauses can only be interpreted as questions, the author has identified a type of ‘selected’ wh-clauses that appear in DP-positions and have an NP-type interpretation. It is made clear that what is selected in the case of FWHCs is not the wh-clause form as such, but the particular NP-type interpretation. Anna Roussou’s paper on The syntax of non-volitional θelo in Greek is a detailed study of the syntactic and semantic behavior of this use of θelo. Its rough translation in English is ‘need’, in contrast to volitional θelo which corresponds to ‘want’. She compares volitional with non-volitional θelo and demonstrates a number of differences between the two in terms of their complements (CP and/or DPs), animacy and person restrictions on their subjects, and aspectual and finiteness restrictions on nonvolitional θelo but not on its volitional counterpart. Subsequently, Roussou develops a fine-grained distinction between two types of non-volitional θelo, personal and impersonal. It emerges from a close inspection that personal non-volitional θelo is a control predicate (in contrast to its volitional counterpart, which is not – or at least is a nonobligatory control predicate) with obligatory coreference between the matrix subject

Introduction

and one of the embedded arguments (subject or the object clitic). As for impersonal (non-volitional) θeli it is argued that it is closer to an epistemic modal in terms of its interpretation, and has no external argument (therefore this construction is closer to raising than to control). Roussou next discusses non-volitional θelo with a DP complement. She argues that when the DP is a deverbal noun it denotes a complex event (see Alexiadou 2001) and shares its argument structure with the matrix predicate as in the case of control into nominals: thus, the subject DP is associated with both, θeli and the complex event predicate. If the complement is not a deverbal noun, the assumption is that there is a null P (locative) that forms a complex predicate with the matrix verb. Finally, the author argues that the 1st/2nd person restriction attested with nonvolitional θeli is reminiscent of the split-ergativity pattern found in various languages and, more particularly, in some central Italian dialects. In this respect non-volitional θelo followed by a CP complement displays a type of ergative syntax determined by person. On the basis of the above patterns the author concludes that non-volitional θelo is more ‘grammaticalised’ than its volitional counterpart. Following Roberts and Roussou (2003) this difference is expressed by directly merging non-volitional θelo in v, while its volitional counterpart is merged in V.

A broad phonetic transcription of the Greek data has been used throughout in the volume. Hence, palatalized allophones of velar sounds are represented but sandhi phenomena at word boundaries are not. Word internal assimilation is also represented when it constitutes the only way a particular word is pronounced. For the data in Manolessou’s paper from earlier stages of Greek, the following additional transliteration symbols have been used: a:, o:, e:, u: to represent long vowels, h for aspiration, y for ypsilon, and ph, th, kh to represent the aspirated plosives which correspond to later f, theta (θ), rh for initial r-, and dz for zeta (z).

References Agouraki, Y. (1991). A modern Greek complementizer and its significance for universal grammar. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 1–24. Agouraki, Y. (1993). Spec-head Licensing: The scope of the theory. Ph.D. Dissertation, University College London. Alexiadou, A. (1997). Adverb Placement: A case study in antisymmetric syntax. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A. (2001). Functional Structure In Nominals: Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou (1998). Parametrizing AGR: Word order, verb movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 491–539. Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou (2000). Greek syntax: A principles and parameters perspective. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 1, 223–263.





Introduction

Alexiadou, A., G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.). (1999). Studies in Greek Syntax. Dordecht: Kluwer Academic. Alexiadou, A. & M. Stavrou (1997). Crosslinguistic asymmetries in N-movement: A view from morphology. ZAS Working Papers, 8, 1–16. Alexiadou, A. & M. Stavrou (1998). (A)symmetries in DPs and clauses: Evidence from derived nominals. The Linguistic Review, 15(2–3), 257–276. Anagnostopoulou, E. (1994). Clitic Dependencies in Modern Greek. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Salzburg. Anagnostopoulou, E. (1997). Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In E. Anagnostopoulou, H. van Riemsdijk, & F. Zwarts (Eds.), Materials in Left Dislocation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 14] (pp. 151–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Antinucci, F. & R. Miller (1976). How children talk about what happened. Journal of Child Language, 3, 167–189. Cardinaletti, A. (1997). Agreement and control in expletive constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 521–533. Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339– 405. Chierchia, G., M. T. Guasti, & A. Gualmini (1999). Early omission of articles and the syntax/ semantics map. Paper presented at the 1999 GALA Conference, University of Potsdam, September 1999. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Giannakidou, A. (2002). UNTIL crosslinguistically, aspect, and negation: A novel argument for two untils. To appear in the Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 12. Giannakidou, A. & F. Zwarts (to appear). Temporal, aspectual operators and (non)veridicality. In A. Giorgi, J. Higginbotham, & F. Pianesi (Eds.), Tense and Mood Selection (Selected papers from the Workshop on Tense and Mood Selection, University of Bergamo, July 1998). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grosu, A. (2004). The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh-constructions. In O. Mišeska Tomi´c (Ed.), Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Balkan Languages [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 67]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Holton, D., P. Mackridge, & I. Philippaki-Warburton (1997). A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Greek Language. London: Routledge. Horrocks, G. & M. Stavrou (1987). Bounding theory and Greek syntax: Evidence for whmovement in NP. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 79–108. Iatridou, S. (1993). On nominative case-assignment and a few related things. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 19, 175–196 (first appeared in 1988). Jelinek, E. & R. Demers (1994). Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish. Language, 70, 696–736. Jelinek, E. (1995). Quantification in Straits Salish. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, & B. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in Natural Language (pp. 487–540). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Joseph, B. & I. Philippaki-Warburton (1985). Modern Greek. London: Croom Helm. Joseph, B., G. Horrocks, & I. Philippaki-Warburton (Eds.). (1998). Themes in Greek Linguistics [Current issues in Linguistic Theory 159]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Introduction

Kratzer, A. (1994). On external arguments. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers, 17, 103–130. Longobardi, G. (1994). Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and LF. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 609–665. Marantz, A. (1993). Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In S. A. Mchombo (Ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar (pp. 113–149). Stanford: CSLI. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1987). The theory of empty categories and the pro-drop parameter in Modern Greek. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 289–318. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1990a). Subject in English and in Greek. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on the Description and/or Comparison of English and Greek (pp. 12–32). Thessaloniki: Aristotle University, School of English. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1990b). H analysh toy rhmatikoy synoloy sta nea ellhnika (The analysis of the verbal group in Modern Greek). Studies in Greek Linguistics, 11, 119–138. Philippaki-Warburton, I. & G. Catsimali (1999). On control in Greek. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax (pp. 153–168). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Rivero, M. L. & A. Ralli (Eds.). (2001). Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, I. & A. Roussou (2003). Syntactic Change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roussou, A. (2000). On left periphery. Modal particles and complementisers. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 1, 65–94. Spyropoulos, V. & I. Philippaki-Warburton (2002). Subject and EPP in Greek: The discontinuous subject hypothesis. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 2, 149–186. Terzi, A. (1992). PRO in Finite Clauses: A study of the inflectional heads of the Balkan Languages. Ph.D. Dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center. Terzi, A. (1997). PRO and null Case in finite clauses. The Linguistic Review, 14, 335–360. Terzi, A. (1999). Clitic combinations, their hosts and their ordering. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 85–121. Theophanopoulou-Kontou, D. (1994). Transformational grammar and Modern Greek syntax: An overview and some problematic cases. In I. Philippaki-Warburton, K. Nikolaidis, & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics (pp. 11–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tsimpli, I. M. (1990). Clause structure and word order in Modern Greek. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 226–255. Tsimpli, I. M. (1992/1996). The Prefunctional Stage of First Language Acquisition: A crosslinguistic study. (Ph.D. Dissertation, UCL.) New York: Garland. Tzanidaki, D. (1999). Clause Structure and Word order in Modern Greek. In B. Joseph, G. Horrocks, & I. Philippaki-Warburton (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics II. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 159] (pp. 229–256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Varlokosta, S. (1993). Control in Modern Greek. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 144–163. Varlokosta, S., A. Vainikka, & B. Rohrbacher (1998). Functional projections, markedness, and ‘root infinitives’ in early child Greek. The Linguistic Review, 15, 187–207. Varlokosta, S. (1998). Eventivity, modality and temporal reference in early child Greek. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Section of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki, April 1998.



Agreement and multiple case licensing in Greek* Vassilios Spyropoulos

In this paper I investigate the relation between agreement checking and case licensing. I consider two constructions from Greek: (a) obligatory case agreement between the nominal predicate and the DP of which it is predicated in small clause structures, (b) nominative case assignment to subjects. Both constructions share the property of involving multiple case-assignment with two nominal elements that agree in case. I draw a distinction between case assignment and case agreement and show that case licensing is possible even in agreement pairs that do not involve a case assigning head. Therefore, I propose that case is not the by-product of agreement checking, but a feature subject to checking theory in the same way other phi-features are.

.

Introduction

The notion of agreement has received a central status in syntactic theory by the developments of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 2000, 2001). It is proposed that formal features are licensed by means of Agree, an operation that is established between two agreeing elements and results in feature checking. Operation Agree is also responsible for case assignment: when one of the two agreeing elements is a case assigning head, case is assigned to the other element of the pair. According to this analysis, case is not a feature but the by-product of agreement checking. In this paper I investigate the relation between agreement checking and case licensing by considering two constructions from Greek: (i) case agreement in small clauses with a nominal predicate (Spyropoulos 1998), and (ii) nominative case assignment to subjects under the subject-clitic doubling analysis (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998 and Spyropoulos & Philippaki-Warburton 2002). Both constructions share the property of involving multiple case-assignment with two nominal elements that agree in case. It will be shown that case licensing is possible even in agreement pairs that do not involve a case assigning head. On the basis of this evidence, it will be argued that case is not the by-product of agreement checking but a feature that participates in checking relations in the same way as all the other phi-features.



Vassilios Spyropoulos

. A definition of agreement Agreement can be defined in pre-theoretical terms as follows (Ferguson & Barlow 1988: 1): (1) Grammatical agreement is a phenomenon by which a grammatical element α matches a grammatical element β in some property γ within a grammatical configuration. In formal terms, agreement is a relation, more specifically an asymmetrical relation, in which the member α depends on the element β for some or all of its morphosyntactic properties. In this sense agreement is directional. (2) O Jianis pezi bala. the John.nom.sg.msc play.3sg football.acc.sg.fem ‘John plays football.’ In example (2) the verb form pezi has the morphosyntactic properties of 3rd person and singular number because it agrees with its DP-subject O Jianis. While the morphosyntactic properties of person and number are inherent to nouns (i.e. they are part of their lexicosemantic constitution) and therefore of the DPs they head, their presence on a certain verb form depends on their being present on the DP-subject; namely, the verb form of a certain verb lexeme varies in person and number according to the feature specification of the DP-subject. These morphosyntactic properties, i.e., the features that the dependent member of an agreement relation carries by virtue of its participation in this agreement relation, are called agreement features. Furthermore, the dependent member in an agreement relation may also agree with its controller in a morphosyntactic property that denotes that this controller participates in a certain syntactic relation, such as the case of nouns/DPs. Thus, in examples (3a–b), the predicative adjective eksipnos/eksipno agrees with the DP o Jianis/to Jiani, in number, gender and case. Whereas number and gender are inherent properties of the nouns/DPs, case is not. The case of the DP o Jianis/to Jiani is specified by the relevant case assigning head in the matrix clause (T/v) and the predicative adjective eksipnos/eksipno matches this property as well. (3) a.

O Jianis ine eksipnos. the John.nom.sg.masc is clever.nom.sg.masc ‘John is clever.’ b. I Maria θeori to Jiani eksipno. the Mary considers the John.acc.sg.masc clever.acc.sg.masc ‘Mary considers John clever.’

Agreement and multiple case licensing

. The licensing of agreement Since agreement features are not inherent to the lexicosemantic constitution of the dependent element in an agreement configuration, they must be licensed in the syntactic derivation. The syntactic mechanism responsible for feature licensing is feature checking, which is in fact a feature matching operation (Chomsky 1995: 310): (4) Feature F of FF[F] is in a checking configuration with f; and F is in a checking relation with f if, furthermore, F and f match. Feature checking has been considered to be the driving force for movement, either overt or covert. Overt movement creates a local checking configuration in terms of a Spec-head (5a) or head-adjunction (5b) relation. Covert movement involves feature movement and it therefore establishes a checking relation between two elements that are not in a local checking configuration (6). (5) a.

KP XP

K’

X0

K0

ZP tXP

b.

KP K0max X0

...

K0

ZP tX

(6)

KP K0max FF[X]

K0

... ZP X tFF[X]

Chomsky (2000, 2001) proposes that feature checking is the product of the more abstract operation Agree, which determines both movement and feature licensing. The operation Agree is based on the fundamental distinction between interpretable and non-interpretable formal features. Interpretable features are the features inherent to the lexicosemantic constitution of elements, whereas non-interpretable are the features





Vassilios Spyropoulos

acquired by the participation in a syntactic configuration. Agreement features therefore are always non-interpretable and must be licensed, that is, acquire their values, by means of an Agree operation. The operation Agree is established between an element that has non-interpretable features, the probe, and an element in its domain that has the same features interpretable, the goal. Agree is activated only when both the probe and the goal have some features non-interpretable and the goal has a complete set of phi-features. Agree triggers overt movement when the probe has a strong functional feature, which requires to be licensed by means of an overt operation. Otherwise, Agree is able to value and erase the non-interpretable features of the probe, making covert feature movement operation redundant. Thus, covert feature movement is replaced by the more general Agree operation. The implications of this theoretical move will be assessed by examining the VS(O) orders in null-subject languages. A very important aspect of the Agree operation is that it treats case assignment as the by-product of agreement checking. In other words, case is not a feature, but rather a flagging property of the goal. Thus, when a probe valuates its non-interpretable agreement features by targeting a goal, it assigns to this goal the relevant case as a by-product of the agreement checking. In what follows, we examine Greek ECM-like small clauses, because they involve an instance of multiple case assignment that cannot be accounted for by an analysis that considers case as the flagging property of the goal and thus, it offers evidence for the view that case is a phi-feature, as originally proposed by Chomsky (1981).

. Agreement in small clauses . The issue The term small clause refers to the secondary predicative relation between a DP and an XP predicate, in most cases nominal. (7) a.

I epitropi ekrine [SC [DP ton ipopsifio] the committee judged.3sg the candidate.acc.sg.masc [AP aneparci]] inadequate.acc.sg.masc ‘The committee found that the candidate was not adequate.’ b. O Nikos θeori [SC [DP ti Maria] [DP to kalitero the Nick considers the Mary.acc.sg.fem the nicest koritsi]]. girl.acc.sg.neut ‘Nick considers Mary the nicest girl.’

This relation between the DP and the XP seems identical to the one between the DPsubject and the verb of a full clause (Den Dikken 1995). Following the clausal theory of predication (Stowell 1983, 1991), we assume that the string [DP XP] is a clausal

Agreement and multiple case licensing

element, that is, a small clause. A small clause consists of a predicative XP and the projection of a functional head F above it.1 The functional category F is analogous to the functional category T (or INFL) of full clauses and hosts the phi-features of the lexical category X. (8) [FP F [ . . . [XP X ] . . . ]] Complex evidence from predicate movement and binding domain effects shows that the DP of which the XP is predicated occupies a position outside and higher than the lexical domain of XP (Takano 1995; Williams 1994).2 We assume that this position is the [Spec, FP] position,3 which is projected by a strong D feature on F.4 Thus, the DP is originally merged within the XP to acquire its theta-role and then moves to the [Spec, FP] to satisfy the strong D feature of F and, therefore, it functions as the DP-subject of the small clause (from now on we will refer to this DP as the DP-subject of the small clause):5 (9)

FP Spec DP-subjecti

F’ F

XP ti

X

The functional category F is not a case assigner, and the case feature of the DP-subject of the small clause is always determined by a case assigning head of the next phase up. Let us examine example (7a). The DP ton ipopsifio acquires accusative case by means of an operation Agree established by the probe v of the main clause. The V ekrine has a full argument structure and, therefore, v has a complete set of nominal phi-features (the object features), which are non-interpretable (the probe). These features establish an Agree relation with the DP ton ipopsifio, which is phi-complete and active. The goal values the phi-set of v and acquires structural accusative case. (10) [vP [v ekrine] [FP [DP ton ipopsifio] F [AP aneparci]]] The main characteristic of a small clause is that there is an agreement relation between its DP-subject and the nominal predicate, as indicated by the rich morphology of languages such as Greek. Thus, an adjective predicate always agrees with its DP-subject in case, number and gender (11), whereas a noun predicate agrees at least in case (12). (11) Oli θeorun ti Maria xazi. all consider the Mary.acc.sg.fem stupid.acc.sg.fem ‘Everybody considers Mary stupid.’





Vassilios Spyropoulos

Θeorun to Jiani os ton kalitero consider.3pl the John.acc.sg.masc as the best ipopsifio. candidate.acc.sg.masc ‘They consider John the best candidate.’ b. Θeori ti Maria to kalitero koritsi. considers the Mary.acc.sg.fem the nicest girl.acc.sg.neut ‘He considers Mary the nicest girl.’ c. Θeorun tis epenðisis os ti monadici consider.3pl the investments.acc.pl.fem as the only lisi. solution.acc.sg.fem ‘They consider the investments as the only solution.’

(12) a.

This agreement pattern can be attributed to the different morphosyntactic properties of adjectives and nouns. A syntactic element when selected by Numeration enters the derivation carrying a set of phi-features. Leaving case aside, these features are marked with a value of interpretability relevant to the morphosyntactic constitution of the element. Nominal elements, such as nouns and adjectives, are marked for gender and number; however, gender and number features are considered to be interpretable for nouns, since they are inherent to their morphosyntactic constitution and their value is lexically determined, but non-interpretable for adjectives, because their value depends on that of a DP in the syntactic configuration: (13) N A number [+] number [–] gender [+] gender [–] Let us now examine the derivation of a small clause with an adjective predicate ((7a), (11)). The values of the gender and number features of the A(djective) match the values of those of the DP-subject. This fact indicates that an Agree operation is established in the small clause between the A and the DP-subject, triggered by the non-interpretable phi-features of A. Let us assume that this is a Spec-Head relation between the DP-subject and the F, which carries the phi-features of A. The phi-features of A match those of the DP-subject, acquire their values and erase. Subsequently, the DP-subject is assigned accusative case by participating in an Agree operation triggered by the v head of the main clause, as described above. However such a derivation cannot explain how A is assigned its case. If case assignment is the by-product of agreement checking, then it is expected that A acquire its case by participating in an Agree operation as the goal. The derivation described above does not include such an operation, since A only participates as a probe in an Agree operation established with the DP-subject and, therefore, there is no way by which A is assigned its case.

Agreement and multiple case licensing

. Chomsky’s (2001) proposal Chomsky (2001) discusses a similar problem with English, Romance and Mainland Scandinavian participial constructions and proposes that PRT acquires its case by being targeted by the v/T probe of the next phase. (14) [vP v [á DP PRT]] The v/T probe targets both the DP and the PRT assigning their case feature. The multiple case-assignment is therefore explained as the by-product of the double targeting by the v/T probe. Chomsky’s analysis of multiple case-assignment in participial constructions can be extended to Greek small clauses. Let us consider the details of the derivation of example (7a), in order to illustrate how such an analysis works. The non-interpretable gender and number features of F target those of the DP-subject and acquire their values. With its features valued, F is now phi-complete and thus can be targeted by a probe. The object phi-features of the main v target both the DP-subject and F and establish two Agree operations, one with the DP-subject and another with F. Both elements value the object phi-features of the v probe and acquire the accusative case value. The case agreement pattern between the DP-subject and A is therefore a side effect of their double targeting by the v probe. (15)

accusative

[vP [v ekrine]

[FP

accusative

[DP ton ipopsifio]

F

[AP aneparci]]]

gender, number

However, such an analysis goes against the standard intuition that the case of A is determined by the DP-subject, together with its other phi-features. In Greek small clauses the adjectival predicate always agrees with its DP-subject in case. This is obvious in the following constructions. (16) a.

[SC O Olibiakos protaθlitis] apoteli panta the Olympiakos.nom champion.nom constitutes always ðisaresti iðisi. bad news ‘That Olympiakos is the champion is always bad news.’ b. [SC To Niko meθizmeno] ine kati pu ðe θa the Nick.acc drunk.acc is something that neg fut borusa pote na fantasto. could.1sg never sub imagine.1sg ‘That Nick is drunk is something I could never imagine.’





Vassilios Spyropoulos

In these constructions the small clause functions as the subject of the main clause. No matter how such constructions are properly analyzed, the important point is that the case of the adjective predicate again always agrees with the case of its DP-subject. In addition, since these constructions are not ECM-like constructions, there is no way for A to be targeted by a probe in the full-clause and acquire its case by participating in an Agree operation with this probe. Similarly, small clauses may occur in adjunct/modifier positions. (17) a.

O Nikos çeretise tus kalesmenus telefteos. the Nick.nom greeted the guests.acc last.nom.sg.masc ‘Nick was the last one to greet the guests.’ (lit. ‘Nick greeted the guests last.’) b. I Maria filise to Jiani telefteo. the Mary.nom kissed the John.acc last.acc.sg.masc ‘Mary kissed John last.’

(18) a. O Nikosi çeretise tus kalesmenus [SC [ei ] telefteos]. b. I Maria filise to Jianii [SC [ei ] telefteo] These constructions are analyzed as involving an adjunct small clause with a nullsubject that is coindexed with the argument of the main clause it modifies. The adjectival predicate always agrees with this element in gender, number and case. Since such constructions are not ECM-like constructions, the adjectival predicate cannot be assigned its case by a main clause probe, leaving the agreement with its null-subject as the only option. The small clause constructions examined above show that the adjectival predicate does not depend on a main clause probe for its case, but it rather matches that of its DP-subject in the same way as for all of its other features. Furthermore, a strong argument against Chomsky’s analysis comes from small clauses with a DP predicate, such as the following: Θeori ti Maria to kalitero koritsi. considers the Mary.acc.sg.fem the nicest girl.acc.sg.neut ‘He considers Mary the nicest girl.’ b. Θeorun tis epenðisis os ti monaðici consider.3pl the investments.acc.pl.fem as the only lisi. solution.acc.sg.fem ‘They consider the investments as the only solution.’

(19) a.

As mentioned above, the DP-subject and the N (that heads the DP predicate) in a small clause obligatorily agree only as far as case is concerned, because the phi-features of N are interpretable and need not enter an Agree operation with those of the DP-subject. Thus, the values of the gender and number features of the DP-subject and N may not agree, as in (19).

Agreement and multiple case licensing

(20) a.

[vP v [FP DP-subject F [feminine] [singular] b. [vP v [FP DP-subject F [feminine] [plural]

[DP N ] ]] [neuter] [singular] [DP N ] ]] [feminine] [singular]

Now, if according to Chomsky’s analysis, both the DP-subject and F (which carries the features of N) are targeted by the v probe, the object phi-features of v will be valued by non-matching features. Let us examine example (19a = 20a). The main clause v has a set of non-interpretable/unvalued phi-features, which will activate it as a probe. These features will target both the DP-subject ti Maria and the N koritsi in order to acquire their values. However, the gender features of the two targets have different values, i.e., feminine and neuter respectively. Thus, the gender feature of the probe v will target two different values of the same feature. Since features have only one value per element, we expect the derivation to crash. The same holds for example (19b = 20b) as far as the number feature is concerned, with the same results. The agreement pattern of the examples in (19) indicates that the case of the nominal predicate is not determined by the v probe but, rather, it depends on its DP-subject. We conclude that an analysis that attributes the case of the predicate of a small clause to its being targeted by a main clause probe is empirically inadequate for two reasons: (i) it cannot explain the case of the predicate of a small clause in a non-ECM environment (subject or adjunct small clauses), and, (ii) it predicts a non-converging derivation when parts of this multiple Agree do not match. The problematic point seems to be the double targeting by the main clause probe and the assumption that case is not a feature itself but rather a flagging property of the goal. In what follows we will propose an analysis that builds on the assumption that case is an independent feature and that the case of the predicate is determined by its participation in the Agree operation established with its DP-subject.

. The alternative: Case agreement The intuition that the case feature of the nominal predicate in a small clause structure depends on its DP-subject together with its other phi-features leads to an alternative analysis of multiple case-assignment.6 If case is considered to be a phi-feature itself, as originally suggested by Chomsky (1981), then case agreement is also possible,7 when established and licensed by an Agree operation. The difference from case assignment is that in case agreement both the probe and the goal have non-interpretable case features and neither has case assigning properties. Such a proposal dispenses with the exceptional treatment of case as a flagging property of the goal, since it considers case as a feature together with other nominal properties. The small clause constructions examined above offer examples of case licensing in an agreement relation in which there is case sharing rather than case assignment. As described above, these constructions





Vassilios Spyropoulos

cannot be accounted for by an analysis that considers case as the flagging property of the goal, which is valued by a case assigning head. Thus, our analysis returns to the more conventional assumption that case is a feature subject to checking theory. Let us examine again the derivation of a small clause with an AP predicate (example (7a)). (21) [vP [v ekrine]

[FP

F

[DP ton ipopsifio]

accusative

[AP aneparci]]]

gender, number accusative

The functional category F is activated as a probe by the non-interpretable phi-features of A, it targets the DP-subject and an Agree operation is established. The DP-subject qualifies as a goal because it has a complete set of phi-features (person, number, gender) and is active because it has a non-interpretable case feature. The probe F has its own non-interpretable phi-features valued and, because it is not a case assigner, it does not value the case feature of the DP-subject, but it rather matches its own case feature with that. Having its case feature unchecked, the DP-subject remains active and it qualifies as a goal for the v probe. The phi-features of the DP-subject value and erase the object features of v and as a consequence the DP-subject has its accusative case feature valued and checked. Since the Agree operation between the DP-subject and F has established case matching, the case feature of F is also valued and erased. All features are therefore checked and the derivation converges. Let us now consider the derivation of a small clause with a DP predicate (example (12b)). (22) [vP [v èeori]

[FP

accusative

[DP ti Maria]

F

[DP to kalitero koritsi]]]

accusative

All the phi-features of the N that heads the DP predicate are interpretable, except from case. This case feature will activate F as a probe and will establish an Agree operation with the DP-subject of the small clause. But the features of F, being interpretable, are already valued and need not participate in this Agree operation in order to acquire the values of the features of the DP-subject. Operation Agree establishes only the obligatory matching of the case features of the probe and the goal. Such an analysis allows for the DP-subject and the DP predicate of the small clause to vary as far as the values of their gender and number features are concerned, without causing a feature mismatch in the derivation (see the examples in (19)). Since gender and number features are interpretable and valued for Ns, they do not qualify as probes. It is only the case feature of the DP predicate that activates F as a probe and establishes the case agreement with the DP-subject. In conclusion, the proposed analysis has the advantage of accounting for the whole range of agreement patterns in a small clause, without violating the principles of checking theory. The empirical facts from Greek small clause constructions show that

Agreement and multiple case licensing

case functions as a phi-feature participating in an agreement relation. Such a proposal has no implications for conventional case checking, i.e., that including a case assigning head; it rather sharpens the theoretical apparatus by accounting for an instance of case licensing that has not been seriously considered so far. Parametric variation is expected to rely on the properties of the case feature in each occasion.8 Theoretically, this analysis goes back to the conventional approaches of case checking (Chomsky 1995). However, this return has no implications for the otherwise desired formulation of feature checking by means of the abstract operation Agree.

. Agreement between the DP-subject and the verb An analysis of subject-agreement and nominative case assignment in Greek full clauses should take into consideration the position of the DP-subject in the relevant configuration. DP-subjects in Greek may be either preverbal or postverbal in SV(O), VS(O) or V(O)S constructions. It has been convincingly argued that DP-subjects in Greek never occupy the [Spec, TP] position projected by the strong D feature of T (PhilippakiWarburton 1987, 1989; Tsimpli 1990; Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998; Alexiadou 1999; Spyropoulos & Philippaki-Warburton 2002). Thus, preverbal DP-subjects in SV(O) orders have been argued to be either adjoined to the structure (PhilippakiWarburton 1987, 1989; Spyropoulos & Philippaki-Warburton 2002) or to occupy a [Spec, TopicP] position (Alexiadou 1999).9 Agreement in this case is mediated by a pro, which occupies the relevant theta-position inside the vP.10 On the other hand, in VS(O) structures the DP-subject has been identified as occupying its vP-internal thetaposition.11 Since the verb always agrees with its subject in Greek, subject-agreement seems to be determined by a relation between T (the functional head that carries the subject-agreement features of the verb) and the DP-subject/pro in the vP-internal position. Before we address the issue of nominative case assignment, we will explore a number of issues concerning (i) the relation between the directionality of agreement and control in VS(O) structures in general and (ii) the satisfaction of EPP and the definition of ‘subject’ in Greek.

. Subject-agreement in VS(O) and nominative case The agreement between T and the DP-subject in VS(O) structures is established by means of a covert operation, since the DP-subject remains in its theta-position inside the vP. In the framework of Chomsky (1995), the agreement features of V, which has risen to T overtly, trigger the covert movement of the formal features of the DP-subject, which occupies its vP-internal theta-position. Since EPP, in this case, is satisfied by merging an expletive, the DP-subject remains in situ.





Vassilios Spyropoulos

(23)

TP Spec

T’ T

expl FF[DP-subject]

T

v-V

vP T DP-subject

Cardinaletti (1997) has formulated the following generalization about the agreement pattern in VS(O) constructions: (24) The Nominative Agreement Hypothesis (i) The verb agrees with the expletive if and only if the expletive morpheme is not ambiguous with an object morpheme. (ii) Only those expletives that are unambiguously marked as nominative trigger agreement with the verb. According to this generalization, agreement is established with the postverbal DPsubject only when the expletive in the EPP position is not specified for nominative case. Thus, in Italian and English VS constructions, (25), T agrees with the postverbal DP-subject, because the expletives pro and there in these languages are underspecified as far as their case is concerned, since pro in Italian can be used both as a subject and as an object (Rizzi 1986), whereas there in English is an adverbial/prepositional element. On the other hand, French il and Northern Italian subject-clitic/pro are specified for nominative case12 and therefore, agreement is established with them and not with the postverbal DP-subject (26): (25) a.

Italian pro arrivano / *arriva tre ragazze. arrived.3pl / arrived.3sg three girls b. English There arrived three girls.

(26) a.

French Il *arrivent / it arrived.3pl / b. Bellunese13 pro l’é rivà cl arrived.3sg

arrive trois filles. arrived.3sg three girls tre omini. three men

There are two very important points about this generalization. First, it establishes a correlation between the direction of subject-agreement and control. Second, it strengthens the relation between agreement and abstract case licensing, which acquires

Agreement and multiple case licensing

a central role in the framework of Chomsky (2000, 2001). In what follows we discuss these two points in detail.

.. Agreement and control Cardinaletti (1997) has noticed that there is a robust correlation between the direction of agreement and control. Thus, agreeing vP-internal DP-subjects are able to control the null-subject of a vP-adjoined non-finite clause, while, when T agrees with the expletive, control is not available: (27) a.

English There arrived three men without identifying themselves. b. Italian Sono entrati due uomini senza neanche identificarsi. are entered two men without neg identify.inf.cl ‘Two men entered without identifying themselves.’

(28) a.

French s’excusier. *?Il est entré trois hommes sans it entered three men without cl.excuse ‘Three men entered without asking permission.’ b. Bellunese *L’é rivà tre omini sensa presentarse. cl.arrived three men without present.inf.cl ‘There arrived three men without presenting themselves.’

Cardinalletti attributes this correlation to the operation of covert feature movement. The FF[DP-subject] is attracted by the non-interpretable agreement features of the Verb, and adjoins to the complex head V-T. From this position it can control the nullsubject of the adjunct clause: (29)

TP Spec expl

T’ T

FF[DP-subject]

T v-V

vP T

vP

DP-subjecti tv-V

XP PROi V

Such an analysis relies on the assumption that formal features can function as controllers. If Cardinalletti’s analysis is correct, then these structures offer a strong piece of evidence for the existence of the covert feature movement operation. In the framework of Chomsky (2000, 2001), covert feature movement has been replaced by operation





Vassilios Spyropoulos

Agree, according to which the non-interpretable subject-agreement features of the T probe target the FF[DP-subject] and acquire their values. Since the FF[DP-subject] remain together with the DP-subject inside the vP, the availability of subject-control in (27) receives no explanation.14 Nevertheless, the assumption that formal features alone can function as controllers is problematic. Let us examine example (30): (30) Johni dated Maryj [without PROi/*j telling anyone about it] The null-subject PRO of the adjunct clause is controlled by the DP-subject John and not the DP-object Mary. However, if we allowed for the phi-features alone to function as controllers, then the predicted pattern would be the opposite, i.e., object control, because the object phi-features being adjoined to T, would be closer15 to PRO than the DP-subject in the [Spec, TP] position: (31)

TP Spec

T’ T

Johni FF[DP-object]

... T

vP

FF[v-V] T

vP

ti v-V DP-object dated

Maryj

CP without PROi/*j telling

The same problem will occur in a VS(O) construction where T agrees with the vPinternal DP-subject. Let us examine the following Greek example: (32) An sinantisi o Jianisi ti Mariaj [[ei/*j ] pijenondas sti if meet.3sg the John.nom the Maria.acc go.ger to.the vivlioθici]. . . library ‘If John meets Mary on his way to the library. . . ’ (lit. ‘If John meets Mary going to the library.’) In example (32) the null-subject of the gerundival adjunct clause is controlled by the postverbal DP-subject and not by the DP-object. However, if phi-features were able to control then the predicted pattern would be ambiguity between subject- and objectcontrol, contrary to the facts.

Agreement and multiple case licensing

(33)

TP T FF[DP-object]

T

FF[DP-subject]

T

v-V

T vP

sinantisi vP

XP

DP-subjecti DP-objectj ei/*j pijenondas o Jianis

ti Maria

FF[DP-subject] and FF[DP-object] will be attracted by v-V-T and adjoin to the T head. From this position they both c-command the null-subject of the adverbial clause and neither is closer to it, since they are both segments of T. Thus, both subject and object control are predicted to be available. Since object control is again not attested, we conclude that Cardinaletti’s analysis makes wrong predictions and that control cannot be attributed to covert feature movement and the ability of phi-features to function as controllers.

.. Greek and Cardinaletti’s generalization Let us now examine Greek VS(O) orders in relation to Cardinaletti’s generalization. In Greek, a postverbal DP-subject always agrees with T. In that respect Greek resembles Italian, and thus, Cardinalletti’s generalization predicts that Greek VS(O) structures involve an expletive pro satisfying the EPP, which is underspecified as far as case is concerned, so that agreement is established between T and the postverbal DP-subject. This prediction is falsified because Greek, unlike Italian, does not allow for a pro in object position (34b), a fact that indicates that pro is unambiguously marked for nominative. Thus, according to Cardinalletti’s generalization T is expected to agree with the expletive and not with the postverbal DP-subject, contrary to the facts. (34) a.

L’ambizione spesso spinge pro a commettere errori. the ambition often forces to commit mistakes b. I filoðoksia *(se) sproxni sixna na kanis laθi. the ambition you pushes often sub make.2sg mistakes c. Ambition often makes *(one/you) make mistakes





Vassilios Spyropoulos

Thus, Greek seems to offer counterevidence for Cardinalletti’s generalization in various ways. Nevertheless, a closer look at Greek VS(O) structures reveals properties that are not predicted by the expletive analysis: VS(O) structures are available with all kinds of predicates and they do not exhibit Definiteness Restriction effects, as shown by Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998) and Alexiadou (1999): Efaje i Maria to γliko. ate.3sg the Mary.nom the cake.acc ‘Mary ate the cake.’ b. Pezun ta peðjia. play.3pl the children.nom ‘The children are playing’ c. Irθan i fili mu. came.3pl the friends.nom my ‘My friends came.’ d. Vrazun ta xorta. boil.3pl the vegetables.nom ‘The vegetables are boiling.’

(35) a.

(transitive)

(unergative)

(unaccusative)

(ergative)

These properties have led to the assumption that Greek VS(O) structures do not involve an expletive-associate but a clitic-doubling construction (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998; Spyropoulos & Philippaki-Warburton 2002). According to this proposal, the strong D feature of T is not satisfied by merging an expletive, but rather by a subject-clitic, which is either considered to be incorporated in the verbal head as the verbal ending (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998) or is an independent X0/max element merged in the [Spec, TP] position (Spyropoulos & Philippaki-Warburton 2002).16 T therefore agrees with the subject-clitic, so that no covert operation is established between T and the postverbal DP-subject. The postverbal DP-subject indirectly agrees with T, because it participates in a clitic-doubling pair with the subject-clitic. (36) Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou’s (1998) analysis TP T v-V

T

Vstem subj.CLi

vP proi/(DP-subjecti)

tv-V

Agreement and multiple case licensing

(37) Spyropoulos and Philippaki’s (2002) analysis TP Spec

T’

subj.CLi

T

v-V

T

VP proi/DP-subjecti

tv-V

The clitic-doubling analysis of Greek postverbal subjects, which is independently motivated, maintains Cardinalletti’s generalization for Greek without the covert feature movement operation.

.. Subject-clitics and control In Section 5.1.1 we showed that subject control in adjunct clauses in VS(O) structures cannot be attributed to the covert movement of the FF[DP-subject]. It is also obvious that neither does the Agree alternative to covert feature movement offer a solution, because the controller, i.e., the DP-subject, remains inside the vP and therefore it does not c-command the null-subject of the embedded clause (but see Note 14). This of course leaves the control pattern in Italian and English VS structures (27) unaccounted for. Consider now Greek. The subject-clitic analysis of Greek VS(O) orders offers an explanation for the availability of subject control since it is the subject-clitic element that functions as the controller. Thus, it may be the alternative analysis of the corresponding Italian structures, (27b), which have been left unaccounted for by the replacement of the covert feature movement by operation Agree. We follow the proposals by Safir (1985), Sportiche (1998) and Manzini and Savoia (1997), according to which Italian possesses a null subject-clitic,17 which is the head of a separate functional category above T and carries the subject-agreement features and the EPP. (38)

AGRclP AGRcl subj.CL v-V

T T T

vP pro/DP-subject

tV

Thus, according to such an analysis, Italian VS structures involve clitic-doubling and the correlation between agreement and control is due to the existence of this null





Vassilios Spyropoulos

subject-clitic head, which agrees with the postverbal DP-subject and functions as the controller for the null-subject of the non finite adjunct clause.18 To sum up, the detailed investigation of Greek VS(O) orders leads to an analysis that attributes subject control in VS(O) structures to the existence of a subject-clitic. Thus, Cardinalletti’s generalization remains unaffected by the replacement of covert feature movement by the operation Agree, since the correlation between agreement and control is mediated by the existence of a subject-clitic.

. Agreement and case licensing Given the clitic-doubling analysis of Greek subjects adopted in this paper, the vPinternal DP-subject does not enter in any checking relation with the T head. If so, the case feature of the DP-subject remains unchecked and the derivation is expected to crash. There are two alternative ways to explain the nominative case assignment to the postverbal DP-subject. The first alternative is based on the following proposal by Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998: 529–530): The AGR/clitic-NP pair establishes the ‘non-trivial’ chain which is necessary for Case-checking of the NP. Specifically, [+D] agreement and the clitic share Case features with the NP, and when the clitic checks its [–interpretable] Case feature against the Case feature in INFL, the [–interpretable] Case feature of the NP is also checked, because these two Case features are non distinct. Formally, the chain between the clitic and the NP is the equivalent of an LF chain between the FF(NP) and the NP in languages like English.

Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou’s proposal relies on the representational notion of a pair with a non-distinct case feature, and equates the subject-clitic/DP-subject pair (Greek) with the FF[DP-subject]/DP-subject chain (English). However, there is a significant difference between the two pairs: In the subject-clitic/DP-subject pair there are two set of phi-features, namely FF[subject-clitic] and FF[DP-subject], and the FF[DPsubject] does not move out of the DP-subject, whereas in the FF[DP-subject]/DPsubject chain there is only one set of phi-features, namely the FF[DP-subject], which moves out of the DP-subject. Moreover, it has been shown that the different properties of Greek and English subjects derive from the different status of these two subject elements, i.e., the subject-clitic/DP-subject pair (Greek) and the FF[DP-subject]/DPsubject chain (English) (Spyropoulos 1999; Spyropoulos & Philippaki-Warburton 2002). For this reason we will keep the spirit of Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou’s proposal and we will try to formalize it in derivational terms by means of an operation Agree established between the subject-clitic and the postverbal DP-subject. Subject-clitics are nominal elements and therefore, their features of person, number and gender are part of their lexicosemantic constitution, which means that they are interpretable. However, their values depend on the clitic antecedent, since clitics are not referentially independent elements (Fiengo & May 1994). We therefore,

Agreement and multiple case licensing

propose that the phi-features of subject-clitics are unvalued despite the fact that they are interpretable.19 If, according to Chomsky (2001), Agree values unvalued features, we can propose that unvalued features are able to activate an operation Agree. Since the phi-features of the subject-clitic are unvalued, they activate the clitic as a probe and target the features of the postverbal DP-subject acquiring their values. These features however do not erase, because they are interpretable. Both subject-clitic and the DP-subject have non-interpretable and unvalued case features. The operation Agree established between these two elements does not value and erase these features, because none of the two elements has case assigning properties. It rather establishes that the two elements match20 as far as their case feature value is concerned. Thus, when the subject-clitic values and erases the agreement features of the T, it also has its case feature valued and erased. The Agree relation between the subject-clitic and the DP-subject values and erases the case feature of the latter and the derivation converges. (39)

TP T’ person, number

T

subj.CL case

v-V

T

vP DP-subject

person, number case

The analysis outlined above disassociates the notion of interpretability from that of the value of a feature. Interpretability refers to the lexicosemantic constitution of an element and the features relevant to this constitution enter the derivation marked as interpretable. On the other hand, features must have a value, and this value is assigned either in the lexicon or in the course of derivation. Such a disassociation creates the possibility of unvalued interpretable features, i.e., interpretable features,21 the values of which are not determined in the lexicon but acquired in the course of derivation. I suggest that the nominal features of subject-clitics are such features.22 If the main function of the operation Agree is to assign values to features, then it can be argued that interpretable unvalued features are able to activate a probe and enter in an Agree operation. Non-interpretable features that acquire their values by an Agree operation erase and are no more accessible in the derivation. Interpretable features, on the other hand, do not erase and can participate in other operations. The second alternative was suggested to me by an anonymous reviewer and relies on double targeting by the T probe. More specifically, the subject-agreement features of T target both the FF[subject-clitic] and the FF[DP-subject] and establish an Agree





Vassilios Spyropoulos

operation with each of them. As a result of such an agreement checking, T assigns nominative case to both subject-clitic and the DP-subject and the derivation converges. (40)

TP T’ person, number

T

subj.CL case

v-V

T

VP person, number

DP-subject

case

Such a proposal has the advantage of accounting for the nominative case assignment to the postverbal DP-subject in the spirit of Chomsky’s recent view on case assignment. Moreover, it does not require the disassociation between interpretability and value. On the other hand, if the disassociation view is proved to be right, the first alternative will be more adequate, in that it accounts for the intuition that the subject-clitic directly agrees with its associate DP-subject, and it can be extended to explain in derivational terms the sharing of features between a clitic and its associate DP in all instances of clitic-doubling constructions. I leave the issue open for further research.

. Conclusion In this paper I examined the operation Agree in relation to case licensing. I drew a distinction between case assignment and case agreement. Although both are licensed by an Agree operation, it is only in the first instance that a case assigning head is involved. In the second, case itself is considered to be an agreement feature that enters in an agreement relation together with all the other phi-features, so that it is valued and erased not by the case assigning properties of a head but by the case feature of another nominal element under matching (as in the pairs DP – nominal predicate in small clause structures, and clitic – DP-associate in a clitic doubling structures). Case agreement therefore provides evidence for the ‘traditional’ view that case is itself a feature subject to checking theory in the same way as the other phi-features.

Notes * This paper is a minimum ‘thank you’ to Prof. Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou, my first syntax teacher. I am greatful to her for supporting, encouraging and helping me to continue my studies at a postgraduate level and to pursue a career in this field.

Agreement and multiple case licensing

Parts of this work have been presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the section of Linguistics of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (17–19 May 2002), the audience of which is kindly acknowledged for their comments. Special thanks are due to Irene Philippaki-Warburton for the stimulating discussions on many of the ideas developed in this paper. I would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and criticism and Arhonto Terzi for her comments and editorial help on the final version of the paper. Any remaining errors are my own responsibility. . See the discussion in Cardinalletti and Guasti (1995). The exact nature of the functional category F has not been convincingly identified yet. See Spyropoulos (1999) for a discussion of the existing proposals. . See Spyropoulos (1998, 1999) for a discussion of the relevant data in English and Greek. . I further assume that this is an A-position, similar to the [Spec, T] position of a full clause. This assumption is supported by the observation that this position is a non theta- and a non L-marked position, as indicated by passive constructions (Hoekstra 1988): (i)

I want [the message]i delivered ti at once.

It is further justified by the fact that we can find small clauses with expletive subjects (Webelhuth 1995; Authier 1991): (ii) I find it strange that Mary didn’t say anything. . The proposed structure treats small clauses as phases with an EPP feature, on a par with full clauses. . For the purposes of this paper, I adopt a more simplified structure of Greek small clauses, similar to that of English small clauses. There is enough evidence that in Greek small clauses the DP-subject does not occupy the [Spec, FP] position, but it is rather adjoined to FP. We will not enter into the details of such an analysis (see Spyropoulos 1998, 1999), since it has no effect on the discussion of the issues examined in this paper. . An anonymous reviewer suggests that case and feature agreement in secondary predicative structures may belong to the morphological component and be explained in terms of feature sharing or copying. Such a proposal however is more compatible with the predication analysis of these structures (Napoli 1989; Williams 1983). The small clause analysis adopted here assumes a syntactic status and derivation for these structures, the same as that of a full clause. Any kind of relation between the elements of such a structure is therefore expected to be accounted for by means of syntactic operations. . Typological descriptions of the phenomenon of agreement recognize the possibility that agreement features also include government features, where government features are defined as those that depend on a certain strict syntactic configuration (Corbett 1998). . An anonymous reviewer pointed out the case of Russian small clauses in which the nominal predicate does not agree with its DP-subject in case, but it rather appears in instrumental case. Such a fact receives a straightforward explanation by the assumption that instrumental case is an instance of inherent or default case. Since such a case feature does not depend on a syntactic configuration but it is rather lexically or semantically conditioned, it can be argued that it requires no checking in the syntactic derivation. Thus, the nominal predicate is not activated as a probe by a case feature and any Agree operation established with the DP-subject does not include case matching.





Vassilios Spyropoulos . In most cases a preverbal DP-subject has a topic reading. See Philippaki-Warburton (1985), Tzanidaki (1998), Laskaratou (1998) and the discussion in Horrocks (1994). . The exact position of the DP-subject in V(O)S constructions is a complicated issue. Alexiadou (1999) suggests that it occupies its theta-position inside the vP and that the order is derived with the DP-object moving over it by means of a p-movement (Zubizarretta 1998). PhilippakiWarburton (2001), in a survey of the word-order patterns in Greek in relation to the possible functions of the DP-subject, points out that such an analysis makes wrong predictions about the possible readings of the DP-subject in VOS structures (see also Roussou 2001). The investigation of this issue goes far beyond the scope of this paper. The reader is referred to the works of Haidou (2000), Georgiafentis (2001) and Georgiafentis and Sfakianaki (2002) for a detailed presentation of the properties of this word order, which clearly show that an analysis in terms of p-movement of the DP-object is not adequate, and for proposals about its derivation. . Such an analysis has been originally proposed and supported by Philippaki-Warburton (1987) and Catsimali (1990) and it has received a detailed argumentation by Alexiadou (1999) and Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998). See also Spyropoulos (1999). . See the discussion in Cardinaletti (1997). French il cannot be used in an object position, whereas Northern Italian dialects lack null-objects. . We will not address the issue of the exact structure of Northern Italian dialects subject-clitics, since it is of no relevance to our point (see Poletto 2000 and Manzini & Savoia 2001). We simply cite Cardinaletti’s example and structure, which implies that the subject-clitic is a head element and pro is its associate that occupies the EPP position. . A possible solution to this problem would be to follow Landau’s (2000) analysis of control in terms of Agree. His analysis would account for the control pattern in (27) as follows: the non-interpretable subject-agreement features of T will target both the DP-subject inside the vP and the null-subject of the adjunct clause, establishing two Agree operations and resulting in the sharing of features between the DP-subject and the PRO. If Landau’s analysis of control is correct, Cardinalletti’s argument for the connection between covert feature movement and control collapses. We leave the issue open for further research. . Such a conclusion presupposes a definition of closeness in terms of strict c-command. However, if, following Chomsky (1995: 356), we include the notions of equidistance and minimal domain in the definition of closeness, the predicted pattern will be ambiguity between subjectand object- control. In this case as well, there is an additional reading, i.e., object control, which is not attested, and therefore the feature movement analysis of control makes wrong predictions. I thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this to me. . The evaluation of the two analyses is out of the purposes of this paper. What is of our interest is their common proposal that the agreement between T and the postverbal DP-subject is mediated by the existence of a clitic element that satisfies the EPP and enters in a checking relation with T. . An anonymous reviewer asks how the differences between Greek and Italian derive, if both languages involve null subject-clitics. We will just speculate that these differences derive from the different status of the subject-clitic in the two languages, i.e., functional head (Italian) vs. X0/max element (Greek). See Spyropoulos (2002) for a suggestion along these lines. . The subject-clitic analysis cannot be extended to cover English VS constructions, because English does not exhibit clitic structures in general and also lacks the required rich agreement to recover the content of the null-subject clitic. This, of course, leaves the subject-control pattern

Agreement and multiple case licensing

in English VS constructions unaccounted for. One may propose that subject-control is available in English examples such as (27a), repeated here for convenience, (i)

There arrived three men [PRO without identifying themselves]

because the string [without identifying themselves] is a reduced relative clause (Lasnik 1999). As such it is not adjoined to the vP, but it is rather a part of the postverbal DP-subject and the controller is the DP-subject itself. Such a proposal implies that Italian VS structures are different from the English ones, a plausible conclusion given the different properties of the two languages (existence vs. absence of null-subjects, clitics, verb movement). I leave the issue open to further research. . This is another way to formalize the widely accepted weakness/deficiency of clitics. Recall that Cardinalletti and Starke (1999) have formulated this deficiency in terms of absence of the upper functional layer and have argued that for this reason their features require support. We can consider this feature deficiency as the requirement that they acquire values during the derivation. . Such a proposal departs from Chomsky’s assumption that “Case itself is not matched, but deleted under matching of phi-features” (2001: 6), and returns to the ‘traditional’ view that case is a phi-feature (Chomsky 1981). This paper argues that case, being a phi-feature, can be matched, as became evident from the examination of small clauses in the previous sections. . The disassociation view creates another possibility, namely that of non-interpretable valued features. An anonymous reviewer wonders whether such features exist, and if not, why. It is not easy to find such features, because of the nature of non-interpretable features. Non-interpretable are considered to be the features that do not belong to the lexicosemantic constitution of the element. These are, in the traditional/typological terminology, the agreement and governed features. Given that these properties are a matter of syntax, we conclude that prototypically non-interpretable features are unvalued. However, there is an instance of feature that may fit in this gap, namely inherent and default case. Even if we follow Chomsky’s recent proposal that abstract case is not a feature (a proposal challenged in this paper), inherent and default case cannot be considered as a by-product of agreement checking, and therefore it is better analyzed as a feature. If case is a non-interpretable feature (Chomsky 1995), it may be proposed that inherent and default case features are valued non-interpretable features, because they differ from abstract case in that their value is fixed rather than being determined by the syntactic derivation (Chomsky 1981). . Another example of unvalued interpretable features can be argued to be the mood and tense feature of the verb of an embedded clause in languages in which it is determined by the tense and the selectional requirements of the main verb (e.g., Ancient Greek).

References Alexiadou, A. (1999). On the properties of some Greek word order patterns. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek syntax (pp. 45–65). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou (1998). Parametrizing AGR: Word-order, V-movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 491–539. Authier, J.-M. (1991). V-governed expletives, case theory and the projection principle. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 721–740.





Vassilios Spyropoulos

Cardinaletti, A. (1997). Agreement and control in expletive constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 521–533. Cardinaletti, A. & M. T. Guasti (1995). Small clauses: Some controversies and issues of acquisition. In A. Cardinaletti & M.-T. Guasti (Eds.), Small Clauses [Syntax and Semantics 28] (pp. 1–23). London: Academic Press. Cardinaletti, A. & M. Starke (1999). The typology of structural deficiency. In H. van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe (pp. 145–234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Catsimali, G. (1990). Case in Modern Greek. Implications for Clause Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Reading. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Corbett, G. G. (1998). Morphology and agreement. In A. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The Handbook of Morphology (pp. 191–205). Oxford: Blackwell. Den Dikken, M. (1995). Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic and causative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fiengo, R. & R. May (1994). Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Ferguson, Ch. & M. Barlow (1988). Introduction. In M. Barlow & Ch. Ferguson (Eds.), Agreement in Natural Language (pp. 1–22). Stanford: CSLI. Georgiafentis, M. (2001). On the properties of VOS order in Greek. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 5, 137–154. Georgiafentis, M. & A. Sfakianaki (2002). The syntax-prosody interface: VOS in Greek. In Ch. Clairis (Ed.), Recherches en linguistique grecque, Vol. I (pp. 211–214). Paris: L’ Harmattan. Haidou, K. (2000). Word order, DP-focusing and the PF interface. The case of Modern Greek. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 161–192. Hoekstra, T. (1988). Small clause results. Lingua, 74, 101–139. Horrocks, G. (1994). Subjects and configurationality: Modern Greek clause structure. Journal of Linguistics, 30, 81–109. Landau, I. (2000). Elements of Control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Laskaratou, Ch. (1998). Basic characteristics of Modern Greek word order. In A. Siewierska (Ed.), Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe (pp. 151–174). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lasnik, H. (1999). Minimalist Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Manzini, M. R. & L. M. Savoia (1997). Null subjects without pro. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 9. Manzini, M. R. & L. M. Savoia (2002). Parameters of subject-inflection in Northern Italian dialects. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), Subjects, Expletives and the EPP (pp. 155–198). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Napoli, D. J. (1989). Predication Theory: A case study of indexing theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1985). Word order in MG. Transactions of the Philological Society, 83, 114–143.

Agreement and multiple case licensing

Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1987). The theory of empty categories and the pro-drop parameter in Modern Greek. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 289–318. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1989). Subject in English and Greek. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on the Description and/or Comparison of English and Greek (pp. 11–32). Thessaloniki: Aristotle University, School of English. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (2001). Glossologiki theoria ke sintaksi tis ellinikis: I pikilia sti sira ton oron ke i erminia tis (Linguistic theory and Greek syntax: The word-order variation and its explanation). In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp. 217–231). Thessaloniki: University Studio Press. Poletto, C. (2000). The Higher Functional Field: Evidence from northern Italian dialects. New York: Oxford University Press. Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 501–557. Roussou, A. (2001). Review of A. Alexiadou, Adverb placement: A case study in the antisymmetric syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 37, 393–403. Safir, K. (1985). Syntactic Chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sportiche, D. (1998). Subject clitics in French and Romance, complex inversion and clitic doubling. In D. Sportiche (Ed.), Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure: Subjects, agreement, case and clitics. London: Routledge. Spyropoulos, V. (1998). The structure of small clauses in Modern Greek. In B. D. Joseph, G. Horrocks, & I. Philippaki-Warburto (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics II [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 159] (pp. 169–196). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Spyropoulos, V. (1999). Agreement Relations in Greek. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Reading. Spyropoulos, V. (2002). Null-subject languages and subject-clitics. GLOW Newsletter, 48. Spyropoulos, V. & I. Philippaki-Warburton (2002). Subject and EPP in Greek: The discontinuous subject hypothesis. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 2, 149–186. Stowell, T. (1983). Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review, 2, 285–312. Stowell, T. (1991). Small clause restructuring. In R. Freidin (Ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar (pp. 182–218). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Takano, Y. (1995). Predicate fronting and internal subjects. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 327–340. Tsimpli, I.-M. (1990). The clause structure and word-order in Modern Greek. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 226–255. Tzanidaki, D. (1998). Clause structure and word order in Modern Greek. In B. D. Joseph, G. Horrocks, & I. Philippaki-Warburton (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics II [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 159] (pp. 229–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Webelhuth, G. (1995). X-bar theory and case theory. In G. Webelhuth (Ed.), Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program (pp. 15–95). Oxford: Blackwell. Williams, E. (1983). Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 287–308. Williams, E. (1994). Thematic Structure in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Zubizaretta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.



Determiner heads as arguments and the Pronominal Argument (macro)parameter* Phoevos Panagiotidis This chapter examines Jelinek’s Pronominal Argument Parameter and argues that it does not predict the existence of languages taking both affixal and phrasal arguments, such as Koranic Arabic, Basso Polesano as well as Greek, Romance and many others. It then proposes an analysis whereby in (at least) these languages all arguments are Determiner heads and their surface appearance is a result of the Determiner heads’ selectional properties.

.

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to propose an account of the factors underlying the choice of arguments (phrases, affixes or either) in natural language. In order to do this, after having reviewed the related literature in Section 2 below, I am going to argue first against an ‘on/off ’ structural parametric approach in Sections 3 and 4. In Section 5, I am going to argue for an analysis along the following lines: only Determiner heads (D0 ) can be arguments cross-linguistically – whether surfacing with an NP complement or as D0 affixes; variation arises because of different selectional properties of Determiners themselves. After a typological sketch, a conclusion of the discussion follows.

. DP versus D0 arguments and parametrisation Let us consider the English sentences below: (1) a. [Water] boils at 100 ◦ C. b. [A lawyer] rented the office. c. Tea is mainly [water]. Considering (1) above, we naturally realise that nominal expressions of some form can serve as arguments of verbal predicates. More specifically, in the case of example (1a), it appears to be the case that a bare noun, water, can be a subject. Nevertheless, in example (1c), water can also act as a predicate. Nominal expressions prima facie



Phoevos Panagiotidis

appear to be ambiguous between two so different functions: (referential) argument versus predicate; this is certainly an intriguing state of affairs. Similar considerations have forced Stowell (1991: 209) to formulate the following distinction, in the spirit of Higginbotham (1985): (2) a. A predicative category may not function as an argument. b. Only a referential category may function as an argument. (3) A lexical predicate may not be the head of an argument. Both (2) and (3) appear to be interpretive, rather than syntactic, constraints and hence must apply at the level of LF. What they exclude is the possibility of a bare N(P) like water, functioning as an argument – as it is by hypothesis a predicative category, like all lexical categories are assumed to be. Now, if (2) and (3) are true, then (1), containing seemingly bare N(P)s as arguments, water, should crash at LF, which is obviously not the case. If we nevertheless take a closer look at (1b) we can immediately realise that the NP lawyer is embedded in a phrase headed by the ‘indefinite article’ a. Perhaps water under in (1a) is also headed by a referential element, albeit a phonologically null one, that denotes type <e> functions and makes water a legitimate argument. In subsequent research the category D(eterminer) was explicitly identified as the ‘referential’ category in the examples a. and b. of (1). Longobardi (1994) stands out in this line of research and his interpretation of (2) and (3) is given below as (4), from Longobardi (1994: 620), and (5), from ibid.: 628: (4) A “nominal expression” is an argument only if it is introduced by a category D. (5) DP can be an argument, NP cannot. The outcome is conceptually neater: N is a predicative lexical category, D is by definition both a functional item and the locus of reference. Hence, DPs are arguments; in fact, only DPs are arguments, at least at LF. This entails that the noun water in (1a) is headed by a (phonologically null) D at LF, unlike its predicative instance in (1c). The prediction (4) and (5) make for a language like English is that all arguments will be headed by a D head, whether a, ∅, the or other. The indefinite Determiner a agrees (with a Num head, Ritter 1991) for singular number, whereas the null D ∅ seems to be a ‘default’ form agreeing for plural and mass number specifications (Delfitto & Schroten 1991; Longobardi 1994). In a parallel strand of research, Jelinek (1995) and Jelinek and Demers (1994) argue for what is known as the Pronominal Argument Parameter. They show that in a number of languages, exemplified by Salish, there is no need for full DPs as arguments, because pronominal affixes fulfil the role of arguments instead. Hence, in such languages arguments are morphological, affixes, rather than syntactic, DPs. What is more, any full DPs in a sentence are adjuncts rather than arguments. Without getting into more detail here – the interested reader is referred to the work cited above – we can formulate this state of affairs under (6):

Determiner heads as arguments

(6) In languages with a positive setting for the Pronominal Argument Parameter, a pronominal affix can be an argument, DP/NP cannot. The tension between (4)/(5) and (6) is evident. First of all, one can no more attempt to formulate (4) and (5) as principles of grammar, in the face of (6) contradicting them. The situation now is that (4)/(5) on the one hand and (6) on the other, each constitute a parametric choice: a language can take either full DP arguments or pronominal affix arguments. Speakers of languages like English have set the Pronominal Argument Parameter so that their mental grammar abides by (4) and (5): they only have ‘syntactic’ DP arguments. Speakers of languages like Salish have set this parameter so that their mental grammar only permits pronominal affix ‘morphological’ arguments. Now, if Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998) are correct in arguing that pronominal affix arguments are D0 heads, then the intuition behind the Pronominal Argument Parameter can be sharpened even further: the language learner has to make a parametric choice between DP and D0 arguments, this is what the contrast between (4)/(5) and (6) boils down to. Granting that pronominal affix arguments are indeed D0 heads, we arrive at the welcome result that all arguments are of category D. We can then recast (4) as (7) below and the Pronominal Argument Parameter as (8):1 (7) An expression is an argument only if it is of category D. (8) The choice between D0 and DP arguments is a matter of an on/off parametric choice. Given the short discussion above, (7) and (8) appear to be adequate statements and can readily replace (4)/(5) and (6): all arguments will be of category D; whether they have phrasal (XP) or head (X0 ) standing is a matter of parametric variation. At a more abstract level, (macro)parameters like the Pronominal Argument Parameter in (8) can capture the possible search space of a learner when constructing a mental grammar, assuming now that (7) has the status of a principle of Universal Grammar.2 The theoretical advantage of a macroparameter is that a host of properties automatically follows from its setting, like in the case of the more familiar Null Subject (macro)parameter: null subjects entail lack of that-trace effects, the possibility of VS orders, the absence of (overt) expletive subjects etc. Languages with a setting of the Pronominal Argument Parameter for D0 , allegedly also possess a number of properties, reviewed in Davis (2001), some of which are: the existence of full agreement paradigms; the freedom of order among argument DPs; the possibility of Condition C violations; the lack of Determiner quantifiers; the absence of A-movement, of lexical anaphors and of infinitival PRO. The above briefly illustrate the conceptual desirability of macroparameters, such as the Pronominal Argument Parameter. The problem is whether they are an accurate description (let alone explanation) of what can be an argument in a given grammar. In the following sections, two groups of problems will be presented regarding the Pronominal Argument (macro)parameter, namely problems of conceptual (Section 3) and of empirical nature (Section 4).





Phoevos Panagiotidis

. Some conceptual difficulties with the relevance of N to argumenthood In this section I am going to show that it is not viable to talk of an ‘on/off ’ parameter setting that refers to phrasal levels of arguments (X0 versus XP). Moreover I am going to show that, even if (8) is plausible, it is also inaccurate.

. Distinguishing between X0 and XP Let us now dwell a bit more on those languages that, according to (8) have an XP setting for the Pronominal Argument Parameter: languages that take phrasal (DP) arguments. To begin, suppose that in such languages, say English, it is the whole DP that is an argument, not a specific subconstituent thereof, whether head or phrase. In more detail, such a requirement would not only entail that NPs or NumPs cannot be arguments, but also that bare Ds cannot be arguments in English either. So, it is the DP as a whole that satisfies a particular function of the predicate or is assigned a thematic role or can be part of an argument structure. Assuming for exposition the structure of a simple DP to be as in (9), we have to affirm that neither of its subconstituents can be an argument on its own, they can only be an argument together and as a set when c-commanded by D.3 In any case, and as discussed above, an N(P) cannot be an argument. (9) [DP [D the] [[NumP [A cynical] Num] [N warmongers]]] The obvious question is how to implement such a requirement. Is it the case that the internal structure of the DP can be transparent for the purposes of argumenthood? This is a rather undesirable assumption, at least in the theoretical framework employed here, because a requirement that a syntactic argument be a DP, instead of a ‘solitary’ D head, is not easy to formulate in a satisfactory manner. A serious problem with transparent DPs for the purposes of argumenthood is that a mechanism able to look into a constituent’s structure at LF, inside the complement of D in our case, probably violates the Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky 2001), or its variants: assuming a DP is a phase, only its specifier and its head D should be externally visible. Suppose now that the transparency issue is somehow resolved – possible ways to do so will be proposed below – and that it is indeed possible for an LF mechanism relevant to assigning argument status to see into a DP. A real problem would now be what such a mechanism would look for. We would certainly like it to scan for particular features, telltale signs of the presence of more categories in the complement of D. Which features, though? Obviously not number features, or gender features, as these can be absent and cannot be credibly related to argument status. Similarly, the hypothetical aforementioned mechanism cannot look for descriptive features of N either, viz. concept-denoting features, as these are altogether absent from pronominal and elliptical DPs (i.e., DPs without a descriptive noun). Hence, we would be forced to say that it is the categorial feature [N] of a noun that makes a DP appropriate for argu-

Determiner heads as arguments

menthood in English.4 Thus, a D and a categorial feature [N] can make an argument in English. How is this feature going to be made visible? The visibility of N at LF can be secured by means of a syntactic mechanism like movement of N-to-D (Longobardi 1994), of NP to SpecDP (cf. Campbell 1996), feature movement or percolation of [N] features.5 Suppose now the way the phrasal status of an argument in English is ‘secured’ is by N-to-D movement. In other words, an argument in English must be an object of the type [D [N] D], the result of X0 movement or feature movement. We could now say that although an N constituent can never be an argument by itself, it may enable a D constituent to become one. Additionally, in ‘pronominal affix argument’ languages, this option should be banned. (10) below summarises this hypothetical state of affairs, a recasting of (7) and (8) respectively: (10) a. An expression is an argument only if it is of category D. b. The choice between D0 and [D [N] D] arguments is a matter of an on/off parametric choice. Such an analysis could be theoretically adequate and it would entail the following consequence of (7)/(8) = (10): in ‘pronominal affix argument’ languages, all arguments are pronominal: they refer to, but cannot denote, entities.6 In these languages, the denotation of an argument is guaranteed by linking the pronominal D affix (possibly via an A´-chain) with an adjunct nominal phrase. For the purposes of the discussion here, I shall call the linking between a pronominal D affix and a co-referent nominal phrase doubling, remaining agnostic on whether it invariably involves A or A´ dependencies. We will briefly return to doubling in Sections 4 and 5 and Note 20; for the time being, observe that all denoting arguments in ‘pronominal affix argument’ languages must be doubled somehow. So, by clause b. of (10), in DP argument languages arguments must always involve a noun (a categorial feature [N]) on their D, whereas in D0 argument ones they must never involve a noun (or an [N] feature). But, is it the case that in DP argument languages arguments always involve a noun? I will show this to be dubious in the following subsection.

. Clausal arguments In (allegedly) DP argument languages like Modern Greek, clauses headed by a D can appear as arguments (11). This state of affairs is obligatory for clausal arguments of prepositions, as in (12): see Roussou (1991). (11) Iða (to) ti ejine. saw.1sg the what happened ‘I saw what happened.’ (12) Apo *(to) oti θimoses. . . from the that got.angry.2sg ‘From that you got angry. . . ’





Phoevos Panagiotidis

It is not the case that in (11) and (12) above the D to c-commands any nominal constituents that could move to it via either head movement or feature movement: the absence of a noun does not prevent D from being present and apparently selecting a CP. Nevertheless, both D+CP elements function as arguments and, as mentioned, a Determiner is obligatory in cases like (12), when the D+CP element is the argument of a preposition. Turning now to a prototypical DP argument language, consider Poss-ing gerunds in English. Whichever the accurate analysis for them is,7 most researchers would agree that they include no lexical noun. Descriptively, they appear to be made up of a higher nominal functional field and a lower verbal one but no lexical noun whatsoever, as Borsley and Kornfilt (2000) point out. Now, given all the above discussion and (10) in particular, we would expect all English argument Ds to be associated with Ns and be of the form [D [N] D]. Nevertheless, this plainly appears not to be the case: Determiners like possessive ’s (or the empty D it probably identifies) can still head gerund arguments despite their not being associated with a local N/NP – hence not being of the form [D [N] D]: (13) Philip resented [John’s breaking the £300 vase] An even more potent piece of evidence against the relevance of nouns or [N] for argumenthood in English is, unsurprisingly, the fact that CP arguments do exist in that language: sentences like I saw [what happened] and I believe [(that) you promised to go] are perfectly grammatical. If Kayne (1998, 2000) is correct that C(omplementisers) are in fact Ds, then the irrelevance of nominal expressions to argumenthood can be established in a plausible way but even if Cs are not Ds, it is still the case that both C and D are, in a sense, ‘referential’, as D denotes entities and (one of the heads in the complex of) C denotes events (Rizzi 1997; Roberts & Roussou 2002). What emerges from at least the presence of a D without an accessible N in (11) and (12) as well as the presence of a ‘nounless’ D head ’s or ∅ in (13) is that D is indispensable for argumenthood, not N. This appears to be the case for both English and Greek. Details aside, I think the natural conclusion of the discussion above is that, even in DP argument languages, it is D0 heads that are the actual arguments. Before exploring this claim in more depth, let us now turn to languages that seem to share both pronominal affix and DP arguments, thus casting doubt on the empirical value of an alleged on/off parametric choice.

. Languages with both D0 and DP arguments There appear to exist languages that can take both pronominal affixes and whole phrases as arguments. The existence of such languages certainly weakens the plausibility of an on/off Pronominal Argument Parameter.

Determiner heads as arguments

. Yagua Yagua, an Amazonian language studied by Tom and Doris Payne and as reported in Everett (1989), is one of the languages where a verb can have an “agreement marker” or a full DP as a subject argument and doubling is available. Consider the following examples adapted from Everett (1989): (14) a.

Anita sííy. Anita runs b. Sa-sííy s/he-runs c. *Sííy runs d. Sa-sííy Anita s/he-runs Anita ‘(Anita) runs.’

As illustrated in (14) above, subject drop is only available when sa, a ‘subject clitic’ according to Everett, is affixed, (1c). Hence if neither a lexical subject, as in (14a), or a clitic, as in (14b), are present, the result is ungrammatical. Because Yagua is a doubling language, and sa can co-occur with a lexical subject, as in (14d), one could possibly argue that sa is not the argument in (14b), but rather that it licenses a pro. Although one of the working hypotheses here is that pro must be eliminated, we will have to look into DP argument languages in which nevertheless the ‘pronominal affix’ can never be doubled by a full DP, thus corroborating our hypotheses that such languages can also take ‘pronominal affixes’ as arguments. Such ‘non-doubling’ languages include Koranic Arabic and the North Italian dialect of Basso Polesano.

. Koranic Arabic8 In Koranic Arabic either an affix or a full DP can be the external argument of a verb. In (15) below, the verb akal (‘ate’) has no subject agreement suffix in examples a. and b. and full DP arguments are possible; moreover, they are necessary: a non-agreeing form is ungrammatical without a full DP argument in example c. The mirror image of this situation is example d., where the pronominal affix -uu on akal-uu makes a full DP subject argument unnecessary and, eventually, redundant: see example e. Doubling is not an option in Koranic Arabic. (15) a.

Akal Ali-un al-tofaha-ta. ate Ali-nom the-apple-acc ‘Ali ate the apple.’ b. Akal al-tullab-u al-tofaha-ta ate the-students-nom.pl the-apple-acc ‘The students ate the apple.’





Phoevos Panagiotidis

c. *Akal al-tofaha-ta ate the-apple-acc ‘(S/he) ate the apple.’ d. Akal-uu al-tofaha-ta ate-3sg the-apple-acc ‘He ate the apple’. e. *Akal-uu Ali-un al-tofaha-ta ate-3sg Ali.nom the-apple-acc ‘Ali ate the apple’. A straightforward account for the complementary distribution of full DP subjects such as Aliun and the pronominal affix -uu is to say that both are equally good subject arguments in non-doubling Koranic Arabic and hence can never co-occur.9 Koranic Arabic then is sometimes a DP argument and sometimes a D0 argument language and a first clear-cut problem for the Pronominal Argument Parameter. An equally interesting aspect of (15) is that it cannot be captured with an analysis according to which Koranic Arabic possesses a ‘Romance style’ pro. Such an analysis would rule in the ungrammatical example e., given that full subjects and subject morphology can co-exist in Romance, but would erroneously rule out examples a. and b., as subject inflection is obligatory in Romance languages.10 So, not only Koranic Arabic has both D0 (-uu) and DP (Ali-un, al-tullab-u) arguments, but also it is impossible to analyse as involving a subject pro of the more familiar variety.

. Basso Polesano Basso Polesano (Poletto 1996, 2000: Ch. 2) is similar to Koranic Arabic, but with a twist that brings it closer to English. (16) a.

El magna. cl.sg.masc eats ‘He eats.’ b. Mario magna. Mario eats ‘Mario eats.’ c. *Mario el magna. Mario cl.sg.masc eats d. A ze morto do fiole. expl is dead.sg.masc two girls ‘There died two girls.’

Like Koranic Arabic, Basso Polesano can take a pronominal affix (subject clitic) argument el, a D0 that is morphologically identical to the masculine singular article in example a.; it can also take full DP arguments like Mario in example b., but not both; example c. is out: hence Basso Polesano is a non-doubling language. So, Basso Pole-

Determiner heads as arguments

sano is also quite happy with either D0 (el) or DP (Mario) arguments. The fact that like Koranic Arabic it is a non-doubling language makes this characteristic easier to detect. As above, the availability of both types of arguments poses a serious challenge to the Pronominal Argument Parameter. For the sake of completeness, let us note that Basso Polesano also features an expletive subject clitic a which occurs in what looks like English expletive-associate constructions (16d). In fact, (16d) looks intriguingly like expletive-associate constructions because it lacks any agreement between the verb ze morto and the associate, like in most dialects of English: #There isn’t any coins in here.11 Hence, although a probably satisfies EPP, do fiole, a DP, is the argument.

. Determiners as arguments From the discussion above we can clearly see that next to languages that have ‘syntactic’ arguments, DPs, and languages with ‘morphological’ arguments, pronominal D0 affixes, there appear to exist languages where both DP and D0 arguments are legitimate. I think this is enough evidence to call for a reformulation, or altogether scrapping, of the Pronominal Argument parameter, as by now there is no clear distinction between two types of languages each of which set a parameter either as DP or as D0 . This anomaly substantiates the less practical, albeit equally serious, problems, raised in Section 3; namely, how to implement the ‘visibility’ of DP as an XP and how to capture gerund, clausal and D+CP arguments in ‘DP argument’ languages under the Pronominal Argument Parameter or any of its variants. Before proceeding to a proposal about how to capture all these different types of arguments, let me point out that the languages previously mentioned are by no means unique in being ‘mixed’, in having both DP and D0 arguments. In other words, the ‘mixed’ case is not as marginal as it might appear, just because only two examples have been reviewed here: Koranic Arabic and Basso Polesano. Rather, these (and surely more) languages are special because not only can they take both DP and D0 arguments, but also because they do not double their D0 arguments. Hence, they make good examples, as mentioned above. In fact, I believe that all ‘pro-drop’ languages are ‘mixed’ argument – but doubling – languages, at least as far as their subject arguments are concerned, and still the list of ‘mixed’ languages would be far from complete. Regarding ‘pro-drop’ languages as ‘mixed’ doubling languages, decisive evidence comes from the Greek example below: (17) a.

Ta ferame. cl.acc.pl brought.1pl b. Ta ferame ta vivlia. cl.acc.pl brought.1pl the.acc.pl books c. Ferame ta vivlia. brought.1pl the.acc.pl books





Phoevos Panagiotidis

d. (Ta) ferame emis ta vivlia. cl.acc.pl brought.1pl we the.acc.pl books ‘We brought them/the books.’ While the subject argument throughout (17) can be claimed to be the pronominal suffix -ame, a D0 , in a post-pro analysis like those in Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998), Manzini and Savoia (2002) and Panagiotidis (2002), the object argument is still a full DP in example c.: ta vivlia (‘the books’). So, in example c. we can observe a D0 subject argument, the pronominal suffix -ame, and a DP object argument, ta vivlia, coexisting in harmony. Of course, Greek, like most pro-drop languages, can also double the subject affix argument with a full DP, like emis in example d.12 Interestingly, as (17) also illustrates, in Greek a putative D0 object argument, such as the clitic ta, can either be the sole object, as in example a., or be doubled by a full DP, as in (17b) and (17d). The above spell trouble for the Pronominal Argument parameter: Greek, at least for subjects, can have either a D0 or a DP argument, or double the former with the latter. Still, if the parameter is invalid, how do we explain the existence of ‘pure’ DP argument languages? Why do English, Malay13 or German lack D0 ‘morphological’ pronominal affix arguments? Is there a coherent way to capture the existence of ‘mixed’ languages while granting that others exclusively take either DP or D0 arguments?

. Only Determiners can be arguments Given that, for the purposes of argumenthood (theta assignment / satisfying predicates / ‘filling in’ argument structure) D0 can probably not be distinguished from a maximal projection DP and that some languages are quite happy with both DPs and D0 heads as arguments, we perhaps need to ascribe parametric variation to the lexicon (more on this below). As far as (quasi-)structural requirements on what can be / cannot be an argument, all we have to say is the following, a revised version of (7) and (10): (18) Only Determiner heads (D0 ) can be arguments. The idea above may sound quite radical and overly minimalist in spirit. It amounts to saying that in a sentence like the horses eat the oats, the two arguments, subject and object, of the verb eat are the and the, rather than the horses and the oats respectively. Of course such a claim brings DP argument languages on a par with D0 ones like Lummi. Observe in (19) what the putative arguments (in italics) will be in Lummi (adapted from Davis 2001: 5) and English respectively, if this claim is correct: kw 6ni]-t-o]e l6 sxw help-tran-1pl.acc past 2sg.nom ‘You helped us.’ b. The horses eat the oats.

(19) a.

Lummi

English

Determiner heads as arguments

The statement in (18) is nevertheless conceptually elegant: the Pronominal Argument Parameter (or its equivalents) is done away with and D heads are arguments in all languages, including those that typically appear to take full DP arguments. Having supplied some conceptual and empirical evidence against the existence of DP arguments and their being the result of parameter setting, let us now explore arguments in favour of (19), namely that arguments are Determiner heads universally.14

. The semantics of D and argumenthood Although it is fair to say that Determiners ensure the referentiality of the argument expression, how could we actually make the leap to (18) and claim that in example b. of (19), for instance, the rather than the oats is the object argument? Given our brief touching upon clausal arguments in Section 3.2, we naturally cannot say that arguments in ‘DP languages’ must have the form of [DP D . . . NP], but, surely, shouldn’t we argue that something exists in the complement of D for the whole expression to be an argument? After all *The horses ate the is ungrammatical. The answer is still negative. In no language is it necessary that anything (do not) exist as the complement of D so that it can be an argument. All that is needed for an expression to function as an argument is to be a D head and this becomes clearer once we review what Determiners denote, their semantic function. Intricacies concerning definite descriptions and related matters aside (for recent reviews see Uriagereka 1998; Lyons 1999), we can follow Heim and Kratzer (1998: 52– 53), and take Determiners to be of the semantic type <<e,t>,e>: Determiners are functions taking a predicate, type <e,t>, (the nominal expression, let’s say the NP for concreteness) and yield an individual, type <e>. Illustrating, a Determiner like the takes a predicate like key, true for all keys, and yields the individual referred to by the expression the key.15 The Determiner thus denotes the function <<e,t>,e>. We can plausibly claim that the function the Determiner denotes is satisfied at LF. Crucially, if Determiners denote functions that yield individuals, roughly expressions that refer to objects in the real world, we can derive why Determiners are referential, as expressed in studies like Longobardi (1994). Although the D crucially depends on some kind of predicative expression in its complement,16 it should be clearer by now that the actual Determiner head is the locus of referentiality, an expression of type <e>. So, although D heads do depend on their complement for a predicate which will be true for the entity they denote, it is them that are the real arguments, as they encode referentiality by actually denoting the entity the whole DP is about. In other words, the function the D denotes is the argument, rather than either the nominal predicate (NP or N) this D depends on, or the combination of the two (D and N).





Phoevos Panagiotidis

. Parametric variation without a Pronominal Argument parameter What must now be addressed is how we can capture the fact that some languages take only DP arguments while granting (18). Before addressing the existence of ‘DP argument’ languages, recall the existence of ‘mixed’ ones, (at least) two of which were presented in Section 4. The obvious way to capture all this variety, while not overlooking the robust tendency of a lot of languages to take DPs as arguments, is to express variation in terms of a parameter, albeit a parameter in the lexicon. In other words, siding with Borer (1984), Wexler and Manzini (1987), Ouhalla (1991), Chomsky (1995) and others, I argue that there exist no structural parameters but, rather, that parametric variation is in fact due to the (non)availability of certain lexical items in the lexicon and their properties. What this boils down to in the case of the D0 versus DP argument matter is the availability of a certain kind of Determiners in a given grammar. As noted in Jelinek and Demers (1994), D0 argument languages possess a full paradigm of pronominal affixes. Such affixes do not exist in English, so the only Ds that can be arguments are Ds heading DPs, like the, you, these and the like. Languages like Yagua, Basso Polesano, Arabic, and the other null subject languages, possess D0 pronominal affixes for the subject positions, hence they can ‘drop’ full DP subjects. Let us now spell out the consequences of our analysis for arguments that apparently are DPs. If only Ds can be arguments and not whole phrases, then the consistent or frequent usage of ‘phrasal’ arguments must be down to some property of the Determiners heading them. In other words, the DP status of arguments in English or Greek is not due to some syntactic requirement concerning argumenthood, but a result of independent selectional requirements of the argument D0 itself. Hence, the is a D head that must always take an overt NP complement; you can take either an overt (e.g. you linguists) or a silent NP complement; mine can only take a silent NP complement (Felix 1990; Corver & Delfitto 1999; Panagiotidis 2002). True, in all three cases, the argument D heads a phrase, but it is the D head that is the argument, rather than the whole phrase. The ‘phrasehood’ of English arguments is due to the selectional properties of English D heads: they all select NPs (or NumPs) and at least some one of them (’s) whatever constituent gerunds are. In any case, it could be claimed that all English Ds select elements of a nominal nature. Again, the surface ‘appearance’ of the argument D0 depends on its selectional properties, which are encoded on its lexical entry. There are no ‘morphological’ arguments in English simply because its lexicon does not contain any, rather than because of the setting of an ‘argument’ parameter. Towards this, recall that Greek contains both Determiners that take nominal complements and ‘morphological’ D affix arguments, such as the subject agreement in (17) – setting aside the clitic here for want of an analysis of its exact nature. Exactly the same holds for Basso Polesano and Koranic Arabic. Let us now turn to examining the nature of the pronominal D0 affixes that can be such morphological arguments. Recall that these include subject agreement in null subject languages (e.g. -ame in (17)), as well as all the arguments in languages like

Determiner heads as arguments

Lummi. These could be argued to be akin to pronominal clitics, that is D heads that attach to the Infl complex originating from within DPs, but such an account would not be without serious problems, especially having to do with doubling (see Panagiotidis 2002: Ch. 4 for discussion). Hence, following Ritter (1995), Torrego (1998) and Manzini and Savoia (2002), I will argue here for the existence of verbal Determiners. Such elements appear to be part of the verbal projection line, similarly with heads like T, Asp and v. They do not seem to have moved there from a DP, like pronominal clitics, and although they are also of the type <e,<e,t>>, they do not involve any N head in their complement. In other words, verbal Determiners are D heads selecting part of the verbal functional complex instead of an NP. A consequence of the total absence of any N associated with verbal Determiners is that verbal Ds will exclusively have a pronominal interpretation, although they can be doubled. Thus, verbal D heads are the pronominal affix arguments of the discussion above. The simplified trees in (20) and (21) below illustrate the possible state of affairs with ‘D0 arguments’ (=verbal Determiners) and ‘DP arguments’ (= ‘familiar’ Determiners selecting nominal complements) respectively. Arguments are marked in boldface.17 (20) ‘D0 argument’ languages DV P DV

TP T

...

(21) ‘DP argument’ languages TP DP D

T´ NP

T

...

The unavailability of verbal Determiners in the lexicon leads to Determiners selecting NP exclusively being used as arguments. As no functional item can stand without a matching lexical element in its complement (Corver & Delfitto 1999; Panagiotidis 2002), these Ds will have an NP complement, whether phonologically overt or not. Observe how such a statement a.

captures the phrasal nature of arguments in English and Malay without the need to ‘scan’ the internal structure of a D element in order to define its XP status and so ‘assess’ its legitimacy as an argument b. does not exclude the possibility of a lexicon possessing both D heads selecting nominal complements as well as verbal Determiners, yielding ‘mixed’ type languages.





Phoevos Panagiotidis

Moreover, in the analysis presented here, nothing prevents a D from selecting either an NP or a CP to be an argument, as under (11): what a D can select is an issue pertaining to its selectional properties and is irrelevant to a grammatical requirement on what can be an argument. The analysis presented here does not only predict the existence of ‘mixed’ languages like Basso Polesano, Koranic Arabic and – as it turns out – Romance and other ‘pro-drop’ languages, but also suggests that mixed cases (lexica containing both types of Determiners) should form the majority in the world’s languages and that English (a language with only ‘nominal’ Ds) and Lummi (a language with only verbal Ds) should form a minority.18 Before closing this section, I would wish to dedicate a few words in the way of a succinct remark towards explaining the battery of characteristics a ‘pure’ D0 argument language like Lummi displays. As Davis (2001) has shown while independently ‘deconstructing’ the Pronominal Argument Parameter, other closely related Salish languages, also of the D0 argument ilk, display only a subset of these properties; hence, we can no longer talk about a battery of properties associated with this or that setting of an argument parameter. Nevertheless, let us list the properties in question: (22) ‘Properties of D0 argument languages’: a. the existence of full agreement paradigms b. the freedom of order among argument DPs c. the possibility of Condition C violations d. the lack of Determiner quantifiers e. the absence of A-movement f. the absence of lexical anaphors g. the absence of infinitival PRO First of all, properties b., and e. follow automatically from every analysis considering verbal Ds to be ‘base-generated’, instead of pronominal clitics: any full DPs must be doubled adjuncts, hence the freedom of ordering pointed out in b.; as argument verbal Ds are already part of the verbal projection, they need not move in order to receive Case: θ-assignment and Case checking both probably take place in-situ, simultaneously making them invisible for raising purposes, hence e. If lexical reflexives and quantifiers are Determiner expressions, we would expect a ‘pure’ D0 argument language to also possess verbal D ones (thus deriving properties d. and f.) and, a fortiori, to possess a ‘full agreement paradigm’ (property a.), verbal Ds marking all legitimate φ-feature combinations (so as to void the need for ‘nominal’ Ds in order to express, say, 2nd person dual arguments). The absence of Condition C effects crucially relates to the by definition inability of pronominals in such languages, verbal Ds, to bind full DPs in A´-positions (all full DPs must be adjuncts), hence to cause Condition C violations – deriving property c. Finally, the absence of PRO, property g., is probably independent of the type of Ds available in a given lexicon and would merit further researching into.

Determiner heads as arguments

. Verbal vs. nominal D The analysis presented here is one that reaffirms the finding that Determiners are the locus of referentiality, hence the only valid arguments, as well as one committed to the concept of parametric variation as variation in the lexicon, as first expressed in work by Borer (1984) and Wexler and Manzini (1987). Before going on to sketch a typology of arguments based on this analysis, I would like to address the question of whether there is any preference for verbal or nominal Determiners cross-linguistically. Reviewing the data in example (17), one could be led to believe that verbal Determiner arguments are preferred over nominal ones. Some support for such an assertion could be drawn by looking at the situation with the subject argument in Greek. More specifically, -ame (1st person plural) in fer-ame cannot be omitted even if replaced by a nominal D argument. Hence *fer- emis is ungrammatical. This is the situation observed in most null subject languages. A first explanation for this could be that indeed verbal Determiner arguments are preferred over nominal Determiner arguments. Nevertheless, this could hardly be the whole story, as *fer- is morphophonologically ill-formed. Turning to the Koranic Arabic examples in (15), we encounter a rather different picture. Especially comparing example a. with b., repeated below with subject arguments in italics, we realise that this variety of Arabic seems to show no grammatical preference for a verbal D over a nominal one.19 Both a nominal D argument (Ali-un) and a verbal D one (-uu) are equally well-formed. (15) a.

Akal Ali-un al-tofaha-ta. ate Ali-nom the-apple-acc ‘Ali ate the apple.’ b. Akal-uu al-tofaha-ta ate-3sg the-apple-acc ‘He ate the apple’.

Given the above, we can argue that there appears to hardly exist any evidence for a cross-linguistic preference for verbal Ds over nominal Ds. Consequently, a question would be the following: if there is no preference for a verbal D (typically an affix) over a nominal D argument (like pronouns), what becomes of the Avoid Pronoun principle? It could positively be alive and well if it remains framed as a preference for less structure, an Economy principle, as it has been originally formulated, rather than a preference for a particular flavour of Determiner. Before concluding, notice that the preference for clitic pronouns over strong pronouns is also irrelevant if clitic pronouns are analysed as extracted from full DPs (Laenzlinger & Shlonsky 1997; Panagiotidis 2002). For a discussion of Avoid Pronoun as economy of structure with particular reference to pronominal clitics, weak and strong pronouns, the reader is referred to Cardinaletti and Starke (1999).





Phoevos Panagiotidis

. A typology of arguments Elements of a typology of arguments are already present in the discussion above. As already mentioned, there are languages possessing verbal Determiners in their lexicon, or Determiners selecting NP, or both kinds. For completeness, we also need to stress that some languages can actually double their verbal Determiner arguments (like Greek verbal D subjects or, even, objects), whereas others cannot (like Koranic Arabic verbal D subjects). Although, as mentioned in Section 3.1, an account of doubling or the possible structural positions of doubles is beyond the scope of this contribution, we can construct a typology of arguments by considering first what kind of Determiner is available in a given lexicon and second whether doubling is available in the grammar of a language.20 The argument typology can now be expressed as follows: a.

A language may possess no verbal Determiners (pronominal affixes) and all arguments are ‘familiar’ Ds that take nominal complements (and sit in specifiers). English is one of those languages. b. A language may possess some verbal Determiners (pronominal affixes) that can be doubled. Yagua, Italian and Greek are examples. c. A language may possess some verbal Determiners (pronominal affixes) that cannot be doubled. Pronominal affixes and argument Ds heading DPs are in complementary distribution. Basso Polesano and Koranic Arabic are examples. d. A language may possess only verbal Determiners (pronominal affixes) that can be doubled. Pashto is possibly an example. e. A language may possess only verbal Determiners (pronominal affixes) that cannot be doubled. All full DPs are adjuncts. Lummi is an example.

. Conclusion In this chapter I argued that the Pronominal Argument (macro)parameter, an on/off parametric choice between D0 morphological affix arguments and DP syntactic phrasal arguments is untenable. I further argued that arguments are invariably Determiner heads, either the familiar ones that take nominal complements, or verbal Determiner affixes. The variation involved is a result of the availability of either or both in the lexicon. The interaction between the type of Ds available and doubling options yields an argument typology.

Notes * This chapter is cordially dedicated to Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou, my first teacher in Syntax and a source of inspiration and support. I wish to thank Eidah Al-Malki, Mark Baker, Jonathan Bobaljik, Bob Borsley, Henry Davis, Wong Bee Eng, Mohammad Al-Hammad, Roger

Determiner heads as arguments

Hawkins, Eloise Jelinek, Arhonto Terzi, and the audience at the ‘Agreement in Argument Structure’ Workshop at the University of Utrecht. Special thanks must go to the anonymous referees for their insightful and constructive comments. All errors remain mine. . An alternative conception of the Pronominal Argument Parameter is to construe the parameter setting as one between languages that take DP arguments and languages that take only pro arguments, licensed by pronominal affixes (Baker 1988, 1996). As pro cannot ultimately resist scrutiny under current more parsimonious models of grammar, I will take for granted here that pro does not exist. See Borer (1994), Arad (1996, 1998) Anagnostopoulou and Alexiadou (1998), Philippaki-Warburton and Spyropoulos (1999), Manzini and Savoia (2002), Panagiotidis (2002) for arguments against pro and for what should or can replace it. . A caveat is necessary here: Baker (2003: Ch. 3) forcefully argues that there are languages without Determiners and with Noun arguments, Mohawk being just one of them. In this case the statement in (7) must be trivially limited to languages possessing Ds, as well as the subsequent discussion here. In Panagiotidis (in preparation) I return to Determiner and Noun arguments in detail. . I place the adjective at the specifier of Num (Panagiotidis 2000), but little would follow from this here. . Dwelling a bit further on theoretical problems regarding the relevance of N for argumenthood, suppose on top of everything that XPs are not syntactic primitives and, along with Chomsky (1998) and Mahajan (2000), that the XP/X0 distinction is actually invisible in syntax. Should syntactic operations be blind regarding the XP/X0 distinction, it becomes even harder to state a requirement that arguments be phrases or heads, and (8) cannot straightforwardly be construed as a matter of parametric syntax. . Percolation or its equivalent would be an optimal solution, but theoretical frameworks like HPSG and LFG, that avail themselves such an operation, are loathe to phonologically empty constituents. . Quite naively, by denotation we should here understand ‘describing a concept’ and by reference ‘picking out an entity or a set of entities in the universe of discourse’. So, denotation of an argument here would roughly mean signifying ‘catness’ rather than just ‘the contextually salient entity’ – the contrast between a cat and it. Note that by the very broad brush used here to delineate ‘reference’, I mean to also include quantification, as quantified expressions can be, and perhaps exclusively are, arguments. I wish to thank an anonymous reviewer for raising the issue. . Extensive literature exists on the matter, good synopses can be found in Hudson (2003) and Borsley and Kornfilt (2000). . I am grateful to Mohammad Al-Hammad and Eidah Al-Malki for discussing and elaborating the facts about Arabic with me. . A reviewer wonders whether these facts can be captured by an analysis whereby -uu is a pronoun that incorporates on the verb. Although this could be further researched elsewhere, let me just say here that incorporation to the right of an object argument in a ‘head-first’ and otherwise inflected language (including a lot of infixation, as well) looks rather suspect. . The ‘Romance’ situation is parallel to the one in Classical Arabic, the dialect sometimes known as akaluni al baragheeth. . I use negation contra Chomsky (1995: 384, Note 43), who claims that there’s is a frozen form.





Phoevos Panagiotidis . Greek is almost invariably taken to be a VSO language: Alexiadou (1999); Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998); Philippaki-Warburton (1987); Philippaki-Warburton and Spyropoulos (1999); Tsimpli (1990, 1995). Hence the postverbal subject in (17) is a ‘real’ one, not a topic. . I am grateful to Wong Bee Eng for discussing Malay with me. . Pace Note 2, naturally. . The oats and the horses, being definite sets, are also of type <e>, of course, but issues of individuation and plurality are set aside here. . Be this a concept denoting noun, like key or oats, or a semantically empty one – like one or its null variety – denoting a trivial predicate, or other. See Panagiotidis (2002) for an analysis of semantically empty nouns and Chapter 5 therein for their semantics (denoting trvial <e,t> functions) and their role in syntactically licensing Determiners. . A valid question raised by an anonymous reviewer is how it is possible for verbal Ds to interrupt the verbal projection line, i.e., stand between TP and CP. This is indeed a problem not addressed in the relevant literature so far and I expect further research would shed more light on this issue. . An anonymous reviewer wonders what the status of participle agreement is under the current analysis. A tentative answer is whichever the status of adjectival agreement, probably the result of checking uninterpretable φ-features, as in Carstens (2000). . I stress grammatical here because, obviously, Pragmatics imposes its own restrictions and preferences that have to do with communicative efficiency and/or least effort. . Clitic doubling is different from the kind of doubling discussed here. Clitic doubling is either between a clitic argument and an adjunct or a clitic and a DP that share argumenthood; it is qualitatively different because pronominal clitics start off as full DPs: Kayne (1989, 1991), Laenzlinger and Shlonsky (1997), but see Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998).

References Alexiadou, A. (1999). On the properties of some Greek word order patterns. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax (pp. 45–65). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou (1998). Parametrizing Agr: Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 491–539. Arad, M. (1996). A minimalist view of the syntax-lexical semantics interface. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 215–242. Arad, M. (1998). Are unaccusatives aspectually characterised? (and other related questions). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 32, 1–20. Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation. A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Baker, M. C. (1996). The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baker, M. C. (2003). Lexical Categories: Verbs, nouns and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Borer, H. (1984). Parametric Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Borer, H. (1994). The projection of arguments. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers, 17, 19–47.

Determiner heads as arguments

Borsley, R. & J. Kornfilt (2000). Mixed extended projections. In R. Borsley (Ed.), The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories [Syntax & Semantics 32] (pp. 101–131). New York, NY: Academic Press. Campbell, R. (1996). Specificity operators in spec DP. Studia Linguisitica, 50, 161–188. Cardinaletti, A. & M. Starke (1999). The typology of structural deficiency. A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In H. van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe (pp. 145–234). Berlin: De Gruyter. Carstens, V. (2000). Concord in minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 319–355. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1998). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 15, 1–56. Reprinted in R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step. Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Corver, N. & D. Delfitto (1999). On the nature of pronoun movement. In H. van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe (pp. 799–861). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Davis, H. (2001). Is there a pronominal argument parameter? Talk delivered at the Agreement in Argument Structure Workshop, University of Utrecht. Delfitto, D. & J. Schroten (1991). Bare plurals and the Number affix in DP. Probus, 3, 155–185. Everett, D. L. (1989). Clitic doubling, reflexives and word order alternations in Yagua. Language, 65, 339–372. Felix, S. (1990). The structure of functional categories. Linguistische Berichte, 125, 46–71. Heim, I. & A. Kratzer (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 547–593. Hudson, R. (2003). Gerunds without phrase structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 579–615. Jelinek, E. & R. Demers (1994). Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish. Language, 70, 696–736. Jelinek, E. (1995). Quantification in Straits Salish. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, & B. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in Natural Language (pp. 487–540). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Kayne, R. (1989). Null subjects and clitic climbing. In O. Jaeggli & K. Safir (Eds.), The Null Subject Parameter (pp. 239–261). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Kayne, R. (1991). Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 647–686. Kayne, R. (1998). A note on prepositions and complementizers. Ms., NYU. Kayne, R. (2000). Parameters and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Laenzlinger, C. & U. Shlonsky (1997). Weak pronouns as LF clitics: Clustering and adjacency effects in the pronominal systems of German and Hebrew. Studia Linguistica, 51, 154–185. Longobardi, G. (1994). Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in Syntax and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 609–665. Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mahajan, A. (2000). Eliminating head movement. Talk presented at GLOW 2000, Vitoria-Gasteiz. Manzini, M.-R. & L. M. Savoia (2002). Parameters of subject inflection in Italian dialects. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), Subjects, Expletives and the EPP (pp. 155–198). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ouhalla, J. (1991). Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. London: Routledge. Panagiotidis, Ph. (2000). Demonstrative determiners and operators: The case of Greek. Lingua, 110, 717–742.





Phoevos Panagiotidis

Panagiotidis, Ph. (2002). Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Panagiotidis, Ph. (in preparation). Categorial features and mixed projections. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1987). The theory of empty categories and the pro-drop parameter in Greek. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 289–318. Philippaki-Warburton, I. & V. Spyropoulos (1999). Subject and EPP in Modern Greek: The discontinuous subject hypothesis. Unpublished Ms., University of Reading. Poletto, C. (1996). Three kinds of subject clitics in Basso Polesano and the theory of pro. In A. Belletti & L. Rizzi (Eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in comparative syntax (pp. 269–300). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Poletto, C. (2000). The Higher Functional Field: Evidence from northern Italian dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ritter, E. (1991). Two functional categories in noun phrases: evidence from Modern Hebrew. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and licensing [Syntax and Semantics 25] (pp. 37–62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ritter, E. (1995). On the syntactic category of pronouns and agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 405–443. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of Grammar (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Roberts, I. & A. Roussou (2002). The extended projection principle as a condition on the tense dependency. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), Subjects, Expletives and the EPP (pp. 125–155). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roussou, A. (1991). Nominalized clauses in the syntax of Modern Greek. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 77–100. Stowell, T. (1991). Determiners in NP and DP. In K. Leffel & D. Bouchard (Eds.), Views on Phrase Structure (pp. 37–56). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Torrego, E. (1998). Nominative subjects and pro-drop Infl. Syntax, 1, 206–219. Tsimpli, I.-M. (1990). The clause structure and word order of Modern Greek. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 226–255. Tsimpli, I.-M. (1995). Focusing in Modern Greek. In K. É. Kiss (Ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages (pp. 176–206). New York: Oxford University Press. Uriagereka, J. (1998). A note on rigidity. In A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase (pp. 361–382). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wexler, K. & M.-R. Manzini (1987). Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In T. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 77–89). Dordrecht: Reidel.

Cross-linguistic and cross-categorial variation of datives* Elena Anagnostopoulou This paper investigates goal and beneficiary arguments introduced by the preposition se in Greek. I argue that dative arguments introduced by se occur in double object beneficiary and goal constructions and in prepositional goal ditransitives, unlike to in English which is limited to prepositional goal constructions. I account for this difference between Greek and English in terms of the differences between se and to with respect to the feature DIRECTION/ PATH and the related function of resultativity. I furthermore compare Greek se-datives to arguments introduced by comparable prepositions in Japanese, French and Spanish. I demonstrate that the meaning, distribution and syntactic properties of a-datives in French are very similar to those displayed by se-datives, except that the former behave like DPs and the latter like PPs under co-ordination. This leads me to conclude that the category of indirect objects is orthogonal to their distribution in ditransitives. Indirect object DPs may occur in so called ‘prepositional ditransitives’ and, conversely, indirect object PPs are allowed to surface in double object constructions. The crucial property of the double object construction is the fact that the indirect object is introduced by a light applicative head and the direct object is part of the domain headed by the verbal root (Marantz 1993). This extra layer of functional structure is missing in so called ‘prepositional ditransitives’ where indirect and direct objects are both introduced at the root level.

.

Introduction

In many languages, oblique arguments with an indirect object role (goal, beneficiary, possessor) surface either as DPs or as PPs, an alternation known in the literature as the ‘dative alternation’. According to a widely attested crosslinguistic pattern, there is a systematic correlation between the categorial status of dative arguments and their hierarchical position. In the English double object construction, exemplified in (1), DP goals and beneficiaries precede and asymmetrically c-command themes. On the other hand, in prepositional ditransitives exemplified in (2) PP goals and beneficiaries follow and are asymmetrically c-commanded by themes (see Barss & Lasnik 1986; Larson 1988, among many others):



Elena Anagnostopoulou

(1) a. John sent Mary a book. b. John baked Mary a cake. (2) a. John sent a book to Mary. b. John baked a cake for Mary.

Double Object Construction Prepositional Ditransitive

Even though the proper structural analysis of (1) and (2) as well as their (transformational or non-transformational) relation have been a matter of considerable debate in the literature, there is, nevertheless, a consensus that DP-datives are hierarchically high (i.e., higher than themes) and PP-datives low (i.e., lower than themes). In this paper, I present evidence against this correlation between category (DP vs. PP) and hierarchical position (high vs. low) of dative arguments. More specifically, I investigate the syntax of prepositional goals and beneficiaries in Greek, focusing on the properties of phrases introduced by the preposition se, a locative preposition corresponding to English to.1 Interestingly, goals and beneficiaries can both be introduced by se in Greek, unlike English where to is limited to goals. Initially I demonstrate that se-PPs do not have a uniform behavior in goal and benefactive constructions. Goal constructions with se-PPs qualify as prepositional ditransitives, i.e., Greek se-goals behave syntactically similarly to English to-goals. On the other hand, benefactive constructions with se-PPs share relevant properties with double object constructions. I argue that goals introduced by se are VP-internal, selected by the lexical verb V, while beneficiaries introduced by se are VP-external, merged as specifiers of the light applicative v which combines with a VP to yield the double object construction (Marantz 1993; Collins 1997; McGinnis 1998; Anagnostopoulou 1999a, b, 2003). I furthermore present evidence showing that goal se-PPs can also occur in the double object frame, despite appearances to the contrary. I discuss certain interpretational differences between Greek se-PPs and English to-PPs which are, arguably, responsible for the fact that the former have a wider distribution than the latter. Finally, I connect the Greek facts to parallel patterns in other languages. On the basis of a comparative examination of Greek, Japanese, French and Spanish, I argue that there is no necessary link between the categorial status of dative arguments and the position in which they are merged. Datives can be either DPs or PPs, and can be generated either high or low, regardless of categorial status. Different combinations of these options give rise to a typology of datives which is much richer than usually recognized. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, I discuss goal-ditransitives. I present evidence that constructions with se-goals qualify as prepositional ditransitives, while constructions in which the goal surfaces as a DP with genitive case are double object constructions (see also Anagnostopoulou 2003). In Section 3, I turn to beneficiaries which are either introduced by the preposition jia ‘for’, or introduced by the preposition se ‘to’, or they surface as genitive DPs. I argue that jia- PPs correspond to for – beneficiaries in English, while constructions with se-beneficiaries and genitive DP-beneficiaries qualify as double object constructions. In Section 4, I argue that goals introduced by se are ambiguous: they form prepositional ditransitives as well as double object constructions. In Section 5, I discuss a number of disparities in the interpreta-

Variation of datives

tion of se-PPs and to-PPs which explain their different distribution in ditransitives. Finally, in Section 6, I examine Japanese, French and Spanish which have dative arguments that are similar to Greek se-datives, focusing on the question of the categorial status of high and low datives.

. Goal ditransitives . Forms of goals Greek possesses a variety of ditransitive goal constructions, in which indirect object goals are realized as PPs, as DPs with morphological genitive case or as DPs with morphological accusative case (see Tzartzanos 1945/1989; Mackridge 1985/ 1987; Philippaki-Warburton 1977; Holton, Mackridge, & Philippaki-Warburton 1997 among others). The first construction consists of an accusative DP denoting a theme and a goal PP introduced by the preposition s(e) ‘to’. The DP is assigned morphological accusative case by the preposition, as shown in (3a). Similarly to English to, Greek s(e) is also used as a locative preposition, as in (3b): (3) ACCTheme – PPGoal a. O Jianis estile to γrama sti Maria. the Jianis.nom sent.3sg the letter.acc to.the Maria.acc ‘John sent the letter to Mary.’ b. O Jianis pije stin Olanðia. the Jianis.nom went.3sg to.the Holland.acc ‘John went to Holland.’ The second construction combines two non-prepositional DPs, a goal and a theme. The goal bears morphological genitive case, while the theme surfaces with morphological accusative: (4) GENGoal – ACCTheme O Jianis estile tis Marias to γrama. the Jianis.nom sent.3sg the Maria.gen the letter.acc ‘John sent Mary the letter.’ Greek has lost the morphological distinction between genitive and dative case and has generalized the use of genitive. Finally, with a limited set of verbs, the goal can either be introduced by a PP headed by s(e), as in (5a), it can surface as a genitive DP (5b), or it can be projected into a structure in which both the indirect object and the direct object surface with morphological accusative case, as in (5c):





Elena Anagnostopoulou

(5) ACCTheme – PPGoal a. ðiðaksa γramatici ston Petro. taught.1sg grammar.acc to.the Peter.acc ‘I taught grammar to Peter.’ GENGoal – ACCTheme b. ðiðaksa tu Petru γramatici. taught.1sg the Peter.gen grammar.acc ‘I taught Peter grammar.’ ACCGoal – ACCTheme c. ðiðaksa ton Petro γramatici. taught.1sg the Peter.acc grammar.acc ‘I taught the children grammar.’ The construction in (5c) is discussed in detail in Anagnostopoulou (2001) and will not concern me here.

. The genitive-PP alternation is a ‘dative alternation’ As discussed at length in Anagnostopoulou (1999a, b, 2001, 2003), the Greek alternation between a genitive DP and a PP shares many characteristics typical of the dative shift alternation in English (see also Markantonatou 1994). The former qualifies as a double object construction and the latter as a prepositional ditransitive, according to a number of criteria. Among them, I note here four:

(i) Animacy. First, the DP construction in Greek is only tolerated with animate goals, similarly to the double object construction in English. (6) *I Ilektra estile tis γalias ena ðema. the Ilektra.nom sent.3sg the France.gen a parcel.acc ‘*Ilektra sent France a parcel.’ Se-phrases can be inanimate, similarly to to-PPs in English: (7) I Ilektra estile ena ðema sti γalia. the Ilektra.nom sent.3sg a parcel.acc to.the France ‘Ilektra sent a parcel to France.’ The animacy restriction illustrated in (6) has been argued in the literature to reduce to possession (see, among others, den Dikken 1995; Pesetsky 1995 for discussion and references).2

(ii) Predicate restrictions. Second, there are verb classes that allow the genitive construction and others which don’t in Greek, similarly to English. PPs introduced by se are less restricted, similarly to to-PPs in English. (See Anagnostopoulou 2003: 11–15,

Variation of datives

for a detailed comparison of the restrictions in Greek as opposed to the English ones discussed in Oehrle 1976; Pesetsky 1995: 141; Pinker 1989; Gropen et al. 1989: 243ff.)

(iii) Passivization. Third, as was first pointed out by Markantonatou (1994) and is extensively discussed in Anagnostopoulou (2003), passivization is prohibited from operating on ditransitive predicates which overtly project a genitive goal, similarly to English which prohibits, so called, ‘direct passives’ (compare the Greek examples below to their English translations; see Larson 1988 among many others for discussion):3 (8) a. ?*To vivlio xaristice tis Marias apo ton Petro. the book.nom award.nact.3sg the Maria.gen from the Petros ‘?*The book was awarded Mary by Peter.’ ? b. *To γrama taçiðromiθice tu Petru apo tin Ilektra. the letter.nom mailed.nact.3sg the Petros.gen from the Ilektra ‘?*The letter was mailed Peter by Ilektra.’ Goals introduced by se may freely occur in passives, similarly to English goals introduced by the preposition to: (9) To vivlio ðoθice sti Maria apo ton Petro. the book.nom gave.nact.3sg to-the Maria from the Petros ‘The book was given to Mary by Peter.’

(iv) Nominalizations. Finally, nominalizations related to the genitive construction are ruled out in Greek while nominalizations in which goals are realized as PPs are licit (see Alexiadou 2001; Anagnostopoulou 1999b, 2003): (10) a. *I anaθesi mias ðiskolis sonatas tis Marias apo the assignment a difficult.gen sonata.gen the Mary.gen by ti ðaskala. the teacher ‘The assignment of a difficult sonata of Mary by the teacher.’ b. I anaθesi mias ðiskolis sonatas sti Maria apo ti the assignment a difficult.gen sonata.gen to.the Mary by the ðaskala. teacher ‘The assignment of a difficult sonata to Mary by the teacher.’ A similar contrast obtains in English. As discussed in Kayne (1984), Pesetsky (1995), Marantz (1997), Beck and Johnson (2004), among others, nominalizations cannot have the double object construction as their input, while nominalizations based on the to-construction are well formed:4





Elena Anagnostopoulou

(11) a. *Sue’s gift of Mary (of) a book. b. *John’s assignment of Mary (of) a hard sonata. c. *Sue’s presentation of Mary (of) a metal. (12) a. Sue’s gift of a book to Mary. b. John’s assignment of a hard sonata to Mary. c. Sue’s presentation of a metal to Mary. On the basis of the tests presented in this section, I conclude that constructions with genitive goals in Greek are double object constructions, while their counterparts with se-goals are prepositional ditransitives.

. The syntax of genitive goals and goals introduced by ‘se’ Having presented evidence that the genitive construction is a double object construction and the se-construction a prepositional ditransitive, I now turn to their structural analysis. Following Marantz (1993), Collins (1997), McGinnis (1998) and Anagnostopoulou (1999a, b, 2001, 2003), among others, I assume that in double object constructions the indirect object is introduced by a semi-functional head vAPPL. This head is a light v which takes a VP complement. Applicative constructions in e.g. Bantu languages, which behave on a par with double object constructions (Baker 1988; Marantz 1993), provide evidence that a head separate from the lexical verb introduces the indirect object argument. In applicatives the verb stem necessarily combines with an overt affix, the applicative affix. Following Baker (1988) and Marantz (1993), I assume that a null applicative affix is also present in double object constructions. Following Kratzer (1994) and Chomsky (1995), I furthermore assume that the external argument is introduced by a higher causative or agentive transitive v/Voice. The above considerations lead to the structure (13) for Greek ditransitives in which the goal surfaces as a genitive DP: v1P

(13) Subj

v1’ vTR

v2P

DPGEN

v’

vAPPL V

VP DPACC

Variation of datives

Structure (13) correctly accounts for the fact that in the genitive construction, the goal asymmetrically c-commands the theme, as illustrated in (14), on the basis of Barss and Lasnik’s (1986) each. . . the other test: (14) a.

Estila tis mias miteras to peði tis alis. sent.1sg the one mother.gen the child.acc the other.gen ‘I sent each mother the other’s child.’ b. *Estila tis miteras tu alu to ena peði. sent.sg the mother.gen the other.gen the one child.acc ‘*I sent the other’s mother each child.’

Greek also permits the ACC>GEN permutation (see e.g. Mackridge 1985/1987; Markantonatou 1994), unlike English where the order DP-THEME>DP-GOAL is strictly ungrammatical. The ACC>GEN order is more marked than the GEN>ACC order but is nevertheless possible. As argued for in Anagnostopoulou (2003), the ACC>GEN permutation results from A’ movement/scrambling of the theme across goal because the theme is not allowed to bind into the goal in e.g. (15):5,6 (15) *Estila to ena peði tis miteras tu alu. sent.1sg the one child.acc the mother.gen the other.gen ‘I sent each child (to) the other’s mother.’ Turning to se-PPs, note first that Greek permits both the DP>PP and the PP>DP permutation, as shown in (16a, b). This correlates with the fact that, as illustrated by the pair in (16c, d), Greek generally displays a freedom in the ordering of verbal DP and PP complements, which is not found in English: Estila ena ðema sti γalia. sent.1sg a parcel.acc to.the France ‘I sent a parcel to France.’ b. Estila sti γalia ena ðema. sent.1sg to.the France a parcel.acc ‘*I sent to France a parcel.’ c. Evala to vivlio sto trapezi. put.1sg the book.acc to.the table ‘I put the book on the table.’ d. Evala sto trapezi to vivlio. put.1sg to.the table the book.acc ‘*I put on the table the book.’

(16) a.

In each order the first object asymmetrically binds into the second. This is illustrated in (17a, b) for the DP>PP order and in (17c, d) for the PP>DP order (compare these facts to the properties of the ACC>GEN permutation in (15)):





Elena Anagnostopoulou

(17) a.

Estila to ena peði stin mitera tu alu. sent.sg the one child.acc to.the mother the other.gen ‘I sent each child to the other’s mother.’ b. *Estila to peði tis alis sti mia mitera. sent.1sg the child.acc the other.gen to.the one mother ‘*I sent the other’s child to each mother.’ c. Estila sti mia mitera to peði tis alis sent.1sg to.the one mother the child.acc the other.gen d. *Estila sti mitera tu alu to ena peði. sent.1sg to.the mother the other.gen the one child.acc

There are three analytical possibilities for the word order and binding facts illustrated in (16), (17) (see Anagnostopoulou 2003 for discussion):

(i) The DP>PP order is basic, as argued for by Larson (1988) for English: (18)

VP DPACC

V’ V

se-PP

In this analysis, the PP>DP order is derived from the DP>PP one by leftward scrambling of the PP over the DP. This type of scrambling must be A-scrambling, which has been argued in the literature to feed binding and to not reconstruct for the purposes of the computation of binding principles (see e.g. Webelhuth 1989; Mahajan 1990, among many others, for discussion).

(ii) Alternatively, the PP>DP order is basic, as depicted in (19): (19)

VP se-PP

V’ V

DPACC

In this analysis, it is the DP>PP order which is derived, by leftward movement of the DP across the PP. Once again, this must be A movement feeding binding. Pesetsky (1995: 221–223) argues for such an analysis for English on the basis of backward binding facts in (20a) and (20b) first noted in Burzio (1986: 199–203): (20) a. Sue showed John and Mary to each other’s friends. b. Sue showed each other’s friends to John and Mary.

Variation of datives

According to Pesetsky, the grammatical backward binding example in (20b) provides evidence that the theme in the English PP construction is at some stage in the derivation c-commanded by the goal.

(iii) The third option is that both are base generated orders, as depicted in (21): (21) a.

DPACC

VP

b.

VP

se-PP

V’ V

se-PP

V’ V

DPACC

A rationale behind a free base-generation analysis might be that in the case at hand, there is no linking principle forcing one argument to be higher than the other. Marantz (1993) argues that certain thematic roles are such that it doesn’t matter where the one is merged relatively to the other. In Anagnostopoulou (2003) I point out that there are no strong empirical reasons favoring one of these analyses against the others.7 I will assume here the free basegeneration option, for simplicity reasons mainly. Assuming that the external argument is always introduced by a transitive light v, vTR, the vP shell in constructions including se-goals is as in (22): (22)

vP Subj

v vTR

VP PP V DPACC

. Accounting for passives and derived nominals In this section, I argue that the structures (13) and (22) proposed in Section 2.3 for genitive and se-goals, respectively, correctly account for their different behavior in passives and nominalizations (see Anagnostopoulou 2003 for extensive discussion of theme passivization in the presence of a goal in Greek and many other languages).

(i) Passives. Following Chomsky (1995, 2000) and Collins (1997), among others, I assume that movement proceeds in a local function, being subject to condition (23): (23) If β c-commands α, and τ is the target of movement, then β is closer to τ than α unless β is in the same minimal domain as (i) τ or (ii) α.





Elena Anagnostopoulou

According to (23), α can move across a c-commanding β to target τ if (i) either α and β belong to the minimal domain of the same head (XP and spec1 in 24a) (ii) or β and τ belong to the minimal domain of the same head (spec1 and spec2 in 24b): KP

(24) a. spec2

KP

b. spec2

K’ K0

spec1

YP spec1

K’

K0

Y’ Y0

K’ YP Y0

XP

XP

Given the definition of “closeness” based on minimal domains in (23), the illformedness of passives projecting a genitive goal follows from locality. Goals block NP movement of themes to T, as illustrated in (25) (following Marantz 1997; Collins 1997; Alexiadou 2001 and many others, I assume that passives feature an intransitive light v, vINTR, carrying agentive features): (25) Passives: Intervening genitive goal T’ T

v1P

vINTR<+agent, –trans>

v2P

DPGEN

v’

vAPPL V

VP Theme

In (25), the genitive goal is higher and in a different minimal domain than the theme, qualifying as being closer to T, the target of NP-movement. The ungrammaticality of passivization of the theme in the presence of a genitive goal is thus correctly accounted for.8 Unlike genitives, goal PPs introduced by se have been seen above to be well-formed in passives. Within the approach defended here, this asymmetry naturally follows from the hierarchical position of se-PPs. While DPs are located in a minimal domain which excludes the nominative, structures including PPs lack a vAPPL head, and PPs are therefore in the same minimal domain as themes. Theme NP-movement to T is thus well-formed, even in the presence of an intervening PP, as in structures (19) and (21b) discussed in Section 2.3 above. This derivation is depicted in (26):

Variation of datives

(26) Passives: Intervening goal se-PP T’ T

vP vINTR<+agent, –trans> VP PP

V’ V

Theme

Notice, incidentally, that the order of the theme and the PP in (26) could also be reversed, as in (18) and (21a), with no effect.

(ii) Derived nominals. According to an influential line of approache, the restriction on event nominalizations based on the double object construction in English (examples (11) repeated below) is caused by the zero (applicative) head which is present in double object structures.9 The PP-goal construction does not include such a head and therefore, nominalizations as in (12), here repeated, are well-formed. (11) a. *Sue’s gift of Mary (of) a book. b. *John’s assignment of Mary (of) a hard sonata. c. *Sue’s presentation of Mary (of) a metal. (12) a. Sue’s gift of a book to Mary. b. John’s assignment of a hard sonata to Mary. c. Sue’s presentation of a metal to Mary. Two different implementations of this core idea have been developed in the literature:

(i) According to Pesetsky (1995) and Marantz (1993), attachment of a derivational (adjectivizing10 or nominalizing) affix on a predicate consisting of the main verb and a zero affix attached to it leads to a violation of Myers’s Generalization (27) (Myers 1984): (27) Zero-derived words do not permit affixation of further derivational morphemes. In order for the goal/beneficiary to be included in a nominalization, a zero applicative head must be present, as in (28a).11 But this will yield the form in (28b), with a √ nominalizer attaching to the zero-derived word [[ give V] 0 V ], violating (27).





Elena Anagnostopoulou

√ b. [[ give V] 0 V ]ion N ]

N

(28) a. -ion

vP goal

v’

vAPPL V

VP theme

Prepositional ditransitives are grammatical, as shown in (12), because they do not contain a zero affix (see structures (18), (19), (21), (22)), and can be embedded under the nominalizer as they do not violate (27).

(ii) Pesetsky (1995) argues that Myers’s Generalization also accounts for the lack of transitive nominalizations (see (30)) based on verbs participating in the causativeinchoative alternation (see (29)). Specifically he assumes that the causer in (29a) is introduced by a zero causative head CAUS. vCAUS cannot be included in the derived nominal in (30a), because this would lead to a violation of Myers’s Generalization (27). (29) a. John grows tomatoes. b. Tomatoes grow.

√ (30) a. *John’s growth of tomatoes. *[[[ grow V] 0CAUS V ]ion n ] √ b. The tomatoes’ growth. [[ grow V] ion n ] Marantz (1997) offers an alternative explanation for the ban on causative nominaliza√ √ tions in (30). Specifically, he proposes that roots like DESTROY and GROW are category neutral between N and V. When they are placed in a nominal environment the result is a nominalization. When they are placed in a verbal environment they become verbs. D’s are functional heads in whose environments roots become nouns, while light v’s are functional heads in whose environments roots become verbs, as illustrated in (31): D

(31) a. D

b.

GROW / DESTROY

GROW / DESTROY tomatoes / the city v v

GROW / DESTROY

GROW / DESTROY tomatoes / the city

In this analysis, (30a) is ungrammatical because a light v introducing the agent/causer is illicit in the root-nominal12 construction (31a). Its presence would create a verbal

Variation of datives

environment, as in (31b).13 The grammaticality of transitive nominalizations with √ roots like DESTROY, as in (32a) below, is due to the fact that such roots necessarily imply an external cause or agent, and a possessor optionally present in a nominal con√ figuration which embeds DESTROY can be interpreted as the causer of the externally caused change of state denoted by this root. (32) a. Nero’s destruction of the city. b. The city’s destruction. Marantz’s analysis of (30) can be straightforwardly extended to (11) if the goal in the double object construction is introduced by the light applicative verb v-APPL, as in structure (13). Assuming that vAPPL belongs to the class of heads that create a verbal environment, the ungrammaticality of nominalizations based on the double √ object construction is accounted for on a par with the ban of transitive GROWnominalizations. In this analysis, goals introduced by to are well-formed (see (12)) because they are introduced at the root-level (see (18), (19), (21), (22) above) and therefore, they can be embedded under D yielding a nominal, as in (31a). Turning to Greek, recall that genitive goals cannot be included in nominals while se-goals are licit in nominalizations, as was shown by (10a) and (10b), repeated here: (10) a. *I anaθesi mias ðiskolis sonatas tis Marias apo the assignment a difficult.gen sonata.gen the Mary.gen by ti ðaskala. the teacher ‘The assignment of a difficult sonata of Mary by the teacher.’ b. I anaθesi mias ðiskolis sonatas sti Maria apo ti the assignment a difficult.gen sonata.gen to.the Mary by the ðaskala. teacher ‘The assignment of a difficult sonata to Mary by the teacher.’ Structures (13) and (22) proposed in Section 2.3 for genitive and se-goals, respectively, correctly account for the facts in (10). Genitive goals in (10a) are introduced by vAPPL, as in (13), which cannot be included in nominals for the reasons outlined above. On the other hand, goals introduced by se are represented as in (22) which lacks vAPPL, and goal se-PPs are licit (10b).14 To sum up, in this section I argued that the difference between genitive and se goals in terms of the presence vs. absence of vAPPL correctly accounts for their distribution in passives and nominals. Having discussed the properties of genitive and se-goals, I now turn to benefactive constructions.





Elena Anagnostopoulou

. Benefactive ditransitives . Forms of beneficiaries Like goals, beneficiaries are realized either as PPs or as DPs with morphological genitive case. Unlike goals, though, beneficiaries can be introduced by two different prepositions: the preposition jia ‘for’ and the preposition se ‘to’. As a result, Greek has three variants of the benefactive construction: two prepositional ones (one with jia and one with se) and one non prepositional. These options are illustrated in (33): (33) ACCTheme – PPBeneficiary introduced by jia a. O Jianis eftiakse kafe jia ti Maria. the Jianis.nom made.3sg coffee.acc for the Mary.acc ‘John made coffee for Mary.’ ACCTheme – PPBeneficiary introduced by se b. O Jianis eftiakse kafe sti Maria. the Jianis.nom made.3sg coffee.acc to.the Mary.acc ‘*John made coffee to Mary.’ GENBeneficiary – ACCTheme c. O Jianis eftiakse tis Marias kafe. the Jianis.nom made.3sg the Mary.gen coffee.acc ‘John made Mary coffee.’

. The properties of benefactive constructions As with goals, the alternation between genitive beneficiaries and beneficiaries introduced by jia ‘for’ corresponds to the English benefactive alternation. The genitive benefactive construction qualifies a double object construction, and jia-PPs behave like for-beneficiaries. Se-PPs behave on a par with genitive beneficiary DPs rather than with jia-PPs with respect to the tests diagnosing ‘double object-hood’:

(i) Recipient interpretation. The examples in (34) illustrate an interpretational difference between genitive beneficiaries and beneficiaries introduced by jia (based on Kayne 1975: 137; see Section 6 below on a comparable contrast in French): (34) a.

Aγorazi pexniðjia tu egonu tu egonu tu. buy.3sg toys.acc the grandchild.gen the grandchild.gen his b. Aγorazi pexniðjia jia ton egono tu egonu tu. buy.3sg toys.acc for the grandchild.acc the grandchild.gen his ‘He buys some toys for the grandson of his grandson.’

Using the genitive in (34a) is appropriate only when there is a direct connection between the subject and the beneficiary. The sentence implies that the grandchild of the grandchild of the subject actually receives the toys, an interpretation requiring that

Variation of datives

both the subject and the beneficiary be alive. (34b) shows no such restriction. The subject may be merely thinking of his future descendent. A comparable difference in interpretation characterizes the English sentences in (35): (35) a. John bought his wife a kimono #but finally gave it to his mistress. b. John bought a kimono for his wife, but finally gave it to his mistress. In (35a) the ‘dative shifted’ beneficiary is the recipient of the theme. In (35b) the prepositional beneficiary is not. The genitive construction in (34a) patterns with the double object construction in (35a), while beneficiaries introduced by jia in (34b) behave similarly to beneficiaries introduced by ‘for’ in (35b). Interestingly, beneficiaries introduced by se are also understood as recipients, i.e., (36) has an interpretation similar to the interpretation of (34a/35a): (36) Agorazi pexniðjia ston egono tu egonu tu. buy.3sg toys.acc to the grandchild.acc the grandchild.gen his ‘He buys some toys for the grandson of his grandson.’ A different set of examples showing that double object beneficiaries have a recipient interpretation while for beneficiaries do not impose such a restriction is discussed in Beck and Johnson (2004). Consider the sentences in (37): (37) a. Thilo cooked spätzle for Satoshi. b. Thilo cooked Satoshi spätzle. Beck and Johnson point out that the indirect object in (37a) has a significantly wider range of roles than the indirect object in (37b). For example, (37a) can be said in a situation in which Thilo cooked spätzle in place of Satoshi who was supposed to do the cooking, but wasn’t able to for some reason. This interpretation is absent in (37b) which can only mean that Thilo cooked spätzle for Satoshi to have. Exactly the same difference is found in Greek. The jia-PP in (38a) is interpreted similarly to the forPP in (37a). In contrast, the genitive DP in (38b) and the se-PP in (38c) can only be understood as recipients, on a par with the double object beneficiary in (37b): (38) a.

O Jianis majirepse spanakopita jia ton Petro. the Jianis.nom cooked.3sg spinach pie for the Peter ‘Jianis cooked spinach pie for Peter.’ b. O Jianis majirepse tu Petru spanakopita. the Jianis.nom cooked.3sg the Peter.gen spinach pie ‘Jianis cooked Peter spinach pie.’ c. O Jianis majirepse ston Petro spanakopita. the Jianis.nom cooked.3sg to.the Peter spinach pie ‘Jianis cooked Peter spinach pie.’

(ii) Predicate restrictions. The se-construction is only permitted with a limited set of predicates (e.g. buy-verbs, verbs of creation) similarly to the genitive construc-





Elena Anagnostopoulou

tion. Both types are disallowed in many other environments which permit the jiaconstruction. Thus, while a verb like majirevo ‘cook’ permits all three options, as illustrated in (39), with a predicate like diasçizo tin erimo ‘cross the desert’ only the jia-construction is permitted, as illustrated in (40): (39) a.

O Jianis majirepse tis Marias ceftedacia. the Jianis.nom cooked.3sg the Mary.gen meatballs.acc ‘John cooked Mary meatballs.’ b. O Jianis majirepse sti Maria ceftedacia. the Jianis.nom cooked.3sg to.the Mary.acc meatballs.acc c. O Jianis majirepse ceftedacia jia ti Maria. the Jianis.nom cooked.3sg meatballs.acc for the Mary.acc ‘John cooked a meal for Mary.’

(40) a. *O Jianis ðiesçise tis Marias tin erimo. the Jianis.nom crossed.3sg the Mary.gen the desert.acc ‘*John crossed Mary the desert.’ b. *O Jianis ðiesçise sti Maria tin erimo. the Jianis.nom crossed.3sg to.the Mary.acc the desert.acc ‘*John crossed Mary the desert.’ c. O Jianis ðiesçise tin erimo jia ti Maria. the Jianis.nom crossed.3sg the desert.acc for the Mary.acc ‘John crossed the desert for Mary.’ Predicates behaving like the ones in (39) are e.g. ftiaxno kafe ‘make coffee’, xtizo ‘build’, ravo ‘sew’, pleko ‘knit’ etc. which in English allow the double object structure (see e.g. Pesetsky 1995: 142). Predicates behaving similarly to the ones in (40) are e.g. kateðafizo to ktirio ‘demolish the building’, ðolofono ton proeðro ‘murder the president’, which in English do not allow the double object structure. The preposition jia can add a beneficiary argument to all kinds of different predicates, while se-beneficiaries are allowed with a restricted set of verbs. Genitives occur with a superset of the verbs selecting for se-beneficiaries. Except for buy-verbs and verbs of creation which license genitive and se-beneficiaries, genitive DPs are also licensed with some transitive predicates e.g. break the door receiving a malefactive (adversely affected) interpretation. In conclusion, predicate restrictions constitute the second criterion distinguishing genitive and se-beneficiaries from jia-beneficiaries. The former two are licensed by the specific semantics of the verbs, hence qualifying as arguments; the latter are independent of the verb qualifying as adjuncts.

(iii) Passivization. The third diagnostic is based on the behavior of beneficiaries in passives. Passives do not permit se-beneficiary PPs, as shown in (41b), (42b) similarly to genitives as in (41a), (42a) and unlike jia-PPs, which are well-formed as illustrated by (41c), (42c):

Variation of datives

(41) a. *O kafes ftiaxtice tis Marias (apo ton Petro). the coffee.nom made.nact.3sg the Mary.gen (by the Peter) ‘*The coffee was made Mary by Peter’ b. *O kafes ftiaxtice sti Maria (apo ton Petro). the coffee.nom made.nact.3sg to.the Mary.acc (by the Peter) c. O kafes ftiaxtice jia ti Maria (apo ton Petro). the coffee.nom made.nact.3sg for the Mary.acc (by the Peter) ‘The coffee was made for Mary by Peter.’ (42) a. *To fajito majireftice tis Marias (apo ton Petro). the food.nom cooked.nact the Mary.gen (by the Peter) ‘*The meal was cooked Mary by Peter.’ b. *To fajito majireftice sti Maria (apo ton Petro). the food.nom cooked.nact.3sg to.the Mary.acc (by the Peter) c. To fajito majireftice jia ti Maria (apo ton Petro). the food.nom cooked.nact.3sg for the Mary.acc (by the Peter) ‘The meal was cooked for Mary by Peter.’ It is important to note that the restriction against double object beneficiaries in passives illustrated in (41) and (42) is not identical to the restriction against double object goals in passives discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 above (see also Anagnostopoulou 1999b for discussion). More specifically, as discussed in Anagnostopoulou (1999a, b, 2003), the ban against double object goals in Greek passives is not absolute. While passivization is prohibited from operating on ditransitive predicates which overtly project a genitive goal (see (8a) repeated here), the restriction on genitive goals can be canceled when the goal is realized as a clitic or is related to a doubling clitic, as in (43): (8) a. ?*To vivlio xaristice tis Marias apo ton Petro. the book.nom award.nact.3sg the Maria.gen from the Petros ‘?*The book was awarded Mary by Peter.’ (43) To vivlio tis xaristice (tis Marias). the book.nom cl.gen award.nact.3sg the Maria.gen ‘The book was awarded to Mary.’ Recall from Section 2.4 that genitive goals in (8a) block NP-movement because they are higher than the base position of the nominative theme and not contained in the same domain as the nominative theme, as schematized in (44). (44) [NOM [Domain á DAT] [Domain â tNOM]]]

In Anagnostopoulou (1999a, b, 2003), I argue that in clitic-constructions the intervening features of the genitive goal move out of the way of the lower nominative theme, as schematized in (45), and thus the higher goal argument does not count as an intevener.





Elena Anagnostopoulou

(45) [NOM [DAT-Clitic[Domain á tDAT-Clitic [Domain â tNOM]]]] STEP II STEP I

In this analysis, clitic doubling is a manifestation of local movement which licenses an otherwise impossible movement operation. Unlike goal constructions, theme passivization does not become grammatical under cliticization or clitic doubling of the genitive beneficiary: (46) a. *O kafes tis ftiaxtice the coffee.nom cl.gen made.nact.3sg Petro. Peter ‘*The coffee was made Mary by Peter.’ b. *To fajito tis majireftice the food.nom cl.gen cooked.nact.3sg Petro. Peter ‘*The meal was cooked Mary by Peter.’

(tis Marias) apo ton the Mary.gen by the

(tis Marias) apo ton the Mary.gen by the

The fact that theme passivization in the presence of a double object beneficiary is beyond repair, suggests that the ban against double object (genitive or se)-beneficiaries in passives should not to be attributed to locality. If the ungrammaticality of these examples were to be explained in terms of (44), then clitic doubling and cliticization of the intervening beneficiary would rescue theme passivization, contrary to facts. I therefore propose that the Greek double object benefactive construction cannot be the input to passivization at all, unlike the double object goal construction where passivization is, in principle, possible. It appears that the projection of a double object beneficiary is possible only in the context of a transitive v (vTR). Genitives are accepted in passives formed with verbs of creation, provided that the agent is not expressed overtly in a by-phrase, as shown in (47). Crucially, the genitive argument in (47) is interpreted as being simultaneously the agent and the person that is negatively affected by the cooking event, i.e., it does not bear the beneficiary role. The presence of a doubling clitic is obligatory, as shown in (47), as is always the case in passives (see the discussion of (8a) vs. (43) above). (47) To fajito ðen ?*(tis) majireftice tis Marias kala (*apo the food.nom not cl.gen cooked.nact.3sg the Mary.gen well by ton Petro). the Peter ‘The meal was not cooked well by Mary and Mary was unhappy about it.’ In short, passives add an interesting wrinkle to the theory of double object constructions, as goal, beneficiary and adversely affected datives are subject to different restrictions. Before concluding, I would like to point out that the differences between

Variation of datives

double object goal- and beneficiary-passives are not an idiosyncratic property of Greek but fall under a more general crosslinguistic pattern. More specifically, Spanish shows a similar contrast. While theme passivization in the presence of dative goal is freely allowed, with or without clitic doubling (as indicated in (48a) where the doubling clitic is put in brackets), theme passivization in the presence of an a-dative beneficiary, which requires clitic doubling, is prohibited (48b)15 (see Section 6 below for discussion of obligatory doubling of Spanish beneficiaries). These facts are discussed in Demonte (1995: 11–12) and have been confirmed to me by Josep Quer (personal communication):16 (48) a.

El premio Nobel (le) fue concedido a Cela el año pasado. the Nobel prize cl.dat was awarded to Cela last year ‘The Nobel prize was awarded to Cela last year.’ b. *La casa le fue pintada a Juan anteayer. the house cl.dat was painted to Juan the day before yesterday ‘The house was painted Juan the day before yesterday.’

According to Demonte (1995: 11), a similar contrast is also attested in English. While theme-passivization in the presence of a DP-goal is, for some speakers, grammatical, theme passivization in the presence of a DP-beneficiary is for those speakers ill-formed (see (49a, b)). Moreover, goal passivization is always perfect, while beneficiary passivization is not when the direct object is definite (see (49c, d, e)): (49) a. ( ?) The book was given Mary. b. *The sandwich was fixed Mary. c. Mary was given the book. d. *Mary was fixed the sandwich. e. Mary was fixed a sandwich. (Native speakers of English disagree on the judgments in (49), as pointed out by Demonte 1995: 11, fn. 9; the disagreement on these data has been confirmed to me by David Pesetsky, personal communication.)

(iv) Nominalizations. The final test showing that se-phrases qualify as double object beneficiaries, like genitive DPs and unlike jia-PPs, comes from the distribution of beneficiaries in nominalizations. Nominalizations including the form with se are impossible, as shown in (50b), (51b), like nominalizations related to the genitive construction in (50a), (51a) and unlike nominalizations based on jia-beneficiaries in (50c), (51c): (50) a. *I the b. *I the

sinθesi composition sinθesi composition

tu the tu the

traγuðjiu song.gen traγuðjiu song.gen

tis Marias. the Mary.gen sti Maria. to.the Mary





Elena Anagnostopoulou

c.

I sinθesi tu traγuðjiu jia ti Maria. the composition the song.gen for the Mary.acc ‘The composition of the song for Mary.’

(51) a. *To majirema tu fajitu tis Marias. the cooking the food.gen the Mary.gen b. *To majirema tu fajitu sti Maria. the cooking the food.gen to.the Mary.acc c. To majirema tu fajitu jia ti Maria. the cooking the food.gen for the Mary.acc ‘The preparation of the food for Mary.’

. The structures of benefactive constructions On the basis of the discussion in Section 3.2, I propose that genitive and seconstructions are double object constructions. They are represented as in (52): v1P

(52) Subj

v1’ vTR

v2P

DPGEN v’ se-BENEF vAPPL VP V

DPACC

Under structure (52) the properties (i)–(iv) discussed in Section 3.2 can be accounted for as follows:

(i) Recipient interpretation. The recipient interpretation of double object beneficiaries can be accounted for in terms of the proposal that vAPPL assigns a recipient theta-role to its specifier. Recall that genitive DPs can also have a malefactive (adversely affected) interpretation, entailing that a more refined typology of applicatives is necessary in order for the various interpretations of double object arguments to be accounted for. I would like to suggest that double object benefactive/malefactive constructions involve two different types of vAPPL, one assigning the role “recipient” (vAPPL1) and one assigning the role “(adversely) affected” (vAPPL2) to their specifiers. Se PPs and genitive beneficiaries are introduced by vAPPL1. Adversely affected genitives are introduced by vAPPL2. (Cf. Kratzer 1994 who proposes that there are two different types of transitive Voice, vTR, one assigning the role Agent and one assigning the role Possessor.)

Variation of datives

(ii) Predicate restrictions. Se-beneficiaries and beneficiary genitives can be added only to certain types of predicates (buy-verbs, creation verbs) because vAPPL1 imposes selection restrictions on its complement related to the recipient role it assigns. Similarly, malefactive genitives are licensed when the complement of vAPPL2 denotes an event that can be perceived of as negatively affecting the genitive argument. (iii) Passives. In the preceding section, I have concluded that the projection of a double object beneficiary is possible only in the context of vTR. In the vAPPL analysis this constraint can be expressed in terms of selection. Only vTR, as in (52) can select for a v2P headed by a beneficiary vAPPL1. A passive vINTR not overtly projecting an agent and not assigning Case cannot combine with a beneficiary vAPPL1. Therefore double object beneficiaries are absolutely impossible in passives. Adversely affected genitives have been seen to be licit in passives. This suggests that the applicative head vAPPL2 can combine with a passive vINTR. In addition, the agent cannot be overtly expressed in a by-phrase and the adversely affected genitive is also interpreted as the agent of the event. To account for these effects, I will assume that the two heads, passive vINTR and vAPPL2, are “fused” into one in Greek. See Pylkkänen (2002) for arguments that light vs can occur “packaged” into one syntactic head, this being a point of variation across languages and constructions. (iv) Nominalizations. Finally, beneficiary vAPPL1 as well as vAPPL2 cannot be present in nominalizations, either because of Myers’s (1984) Generalization (Pesetsky 1995) or because they are verbalizing heads (Marantz 1997). See the discussion of goal nominalizations in Section 2.4 above. Structure (52) predicts that beneficiaries asymmetrically c-command themes. This is indeed correct. Consider first binding in the genitive construction: (53) a.

?O

arçitektonas sçeðiase tu enos pelati to spiti the architect sketched.3sg the one client.gen the house.acc tu alu.17 the other.gen ‘The architect sketched each client the other’s house.’ b. *O arçitektonas sçeðiase tu iðioktiti tu alu to the architect sketched.3sg the owner.gen the other.gen the ena spiti. one house.acc ‘The architect sketched the other’s owner each house.’

Next, consider binding in the se-construction: (54) a.

O arçitektonas sçeðiase ston ena pelati to spiti the architect sketched.3sg to.the one client.acc the house.acc





Elena Anagnostopoulou

tu alu. the other.gen ‘The architect sketched each client the other’s house.’ b. *O arçitektonas sçeðiase ston iðioktiti tu alu to the architect sketched.3sg the owner.acc the other.gen the ena spiti. one house.acc ‘*The architect sketched the other’s owner each house.’ Note that in the ACC>se-beneficiary permutation, which is possible in Greek, binding of the theme into the beneficiary is deviant, as illustrated in (55), suggesting that the order feeding binding is the se-beneficiary>ACC order in (54). Compare the facts in (55) to the goal facts in (15) discussed in Section 2.3: (55) a. ?*O raftis ekane laθos ce erapse to ena kustumi the tailor made.3sg a mistake and sewed.3sg the one suit.acc ston aγorasti tu alu. to.the buyer.acc the other.gen ‘*The tailor made a mistake and sew each costume to the other’s buyer.’ b. ?*O arçitektonas sçeðiase to ena spiti ston iðioktiti the architect sketched.3sg the one house.acc to.the owner.acc tu alu. the other.gen ‘*The architect sketched each house to the other’s owner.’ Turning to the jia-beneficiary construction, it allows for two permutations, as exemplified by (56): (56) a.

Eftiaksa to fajito jia ti Maria. made.1sg the food.acc for the Mary.acc b. Eftiaksa jia ti Maria to fajito. made.1sg for the Mary the food.acc ‘I made the food for Mary.’

In each order, precedence matches c-command modulo the preposition, similarly to prepositional goal constructions discussed in Section 2.3. (57) shows that in the ACC>PP permutation the theme asymmetrically binds into the beneficiary. (58) shows that in the PP>ACC permutation the beneficiary asymmetrically binds into the theme: (57) a.

O raftis ekane laθos ce erapse to ena kustumi jia the tailor made.3sg a mistake and sewed.3sg the one suit.acc for ton aγorasti tu alu. the buyer.acc the other.gen

Variation of datives

b. *O raftis ekane laθos ce erapse to kustumi tu the tailor made.3sg a mistake and sewed.3sg the suit.acc the alu jia ton ena pelati. other.gen for the one client (58) a.

O arçitektonas sçeðiase jia ton ena pelati the architect sketched.3sg for the one client.acc tu alu. the other.gen b. *O arçitektonas sçeðiase jia ton iðioktiti tu the architect sketched.3sg for the owner.acc the ena spiti. one house.acc ‘*The architect sketched the other’s owner each house.’

to spiti the house.acc

alu to other.gen the

The above binding facts lead to the structures in (59) for jia-benefactive constructions: (59) a.

VP DPACC

jia-PP

V’ V

VP

b.

jia-PP

V’ V

DPACC

The same structures have been proposed in Section 2.3 for se-goal constructions (compare (59) to (21)). It should be pointed out, though, that there is a potential tension between the structures in (59) which place jia-PPs as arguments of the base verb and the data in (40), repeated here: (40) a. *O Jianis ðiesçise tis Marias tin erimo. the Jianis.nom crossed.3sg the Mary.gen the desert.acc ‘*John crossed Mary the desert.’ b. *O Jianis ðiesçise sti Maria tin erimo. the Jianis.nom crossed.3sg to.the Mary.acc the desert.acc ‘*John crossed Mary the desert.’ c. O Jianis ðiesçise tin erimo jia ti Maria. the Jianis.nom crossed.3sg the desert.acc for the Mary.acc ‘John crossed the desert for Mary.’ The fact that jia beneficiaries can be added to any predicate, leads to their classification as adjuncts. And indeed, there is independent evidence for the adjuncthood of jia beneficiaries, as opposed to genitive- and se-beneficiaries and genitive and se-goals which qualify as arguments. Greek has a kind of VP ellipsis that seems to correspond to do so ellipsis in English.18 More specifically, Greek employs the expression kano to iðjio ‘do the same’





Elena Anagnostopoulou

whose antecedent has to include internal arguments but may exclude VP-adjuncts. (60) exemplifies the construction: (60) a.

O Kostas efaje to milo stin kuzina ce o Petros the Kostas ate.3sg the apple in.the kitchen and the Peter ekane to iðjio ston cipo. did.3sg the same in the garden ‘Kostas ate the apple in the kitchen and Peter did so in the garden.’ b. *O Kostas pije stin Olanðia ce o Petros ekane to the Kostas went.3sg to-the Holland and the Peter did.3sg the iðjio sti γalia. same to the France ‘*Kostas went to Holland and Peter did so to France.’

The locative phrase in (60a) is an adjunct and therefore kano to iðjio can be anaphoric to the V+DP constituent excluding the PP. In (60b), on the other hand, the locative is an argument of pao ‘go’ and for this reason the antecedent of kano to iðjio must include the PP. Thus, the kano to iðjio construction can be used as a test for argumenthood. On the basis of this diagnostic it can be inferred that jia beneficiaries are adjuncts, while all other types of beneficiaries and goals qualify as arguments. The beneficiary sentences in (61) and the goal sentences in (62) provide the relevant examples: (61) a.

O Petros eftiakse kafe jia ti Maria ce o Kostas the Peter.nom made.3sg coffee for the Mary.acc and the Kostas ekane to iðjio jia tin Katerina. did.3sg the same for the Katerina ‘?Peter made coffee for Mary and Kostas did the same/ did so for Katerina.’ b. ?*O Petros eftiakse kafe sti Maria ce o Kostas the Peter.nom made.3sg coffee to.the Mary.acc and the Kostas ekane to iðjio stin Katerina. did.3sg the same to.the Katerina ‘*Peter made Mary coffee and Kostas did so Katerina.’ eftiakse kafe tis Marias ce o Kostas c. ?*O Petros the Peter.nom made coffee the Mary.gen and the Kostas ekane to iðjio tis Katerinas. did.3sg the same the Katerina.gen ‘*Peter made Mary coffee and Kostas did so Katerina.’

(62) a. ?*O Petros estile to vivlio sti Maria ce o the Peter.nom sent.3sg the book.acc to.the Mary.acc and the Kostas ekane to iðjio stin Katerina. Kostas did.3sg the same to.the Katerina ‘?*Peter sent the book to Mary and Kostas did so to Katerina.’

Variation of datives

b. ?*O Petros estile to vivlio tis Marias ce o the Peter.nom sent.3sg the book.acc the Mary.gen and the Kostas ekane to iðjio tis Katerinas. Kostas did.3sg the same the Katerina.gen ‘*Peter sent Mary the book and Kostas did so Katerina.’ The grammaticality of (61a) can be accounted for if jia beneficiaries are adjoined to a verb phrase constituent, either VP, as in (63) or vP, as in (64): vP

(63) Subj

v’ vTR

VP

VP V eftiakse

PP DP kafe

jia tin Maria

vP

(64)

PP

vP Subj

jia tin Maria

v’ vTR

VP

eftiakse

kafe

Under either representation, the antecedent of kano to iðjio is an XP, VP in (63), vP in (64),19 explaining why (61a) is grammatical. In contrast, the antecedent of kano to iðjo is either an intermediate-level X’ constituent – vAPPL’ in (61b, c)/(62b), V’ if the goal-PP in (62a) has the structure (19) – or no constituent at all, if the goal-PP in (62b) has the structure in (18), explaining why these sentences are ungrammatical. The above considerations lead to the conclusion that jia-beneficiary constructions present conflicting evidence for constituency. On the one hand, binding suggests that they are attached low, which leads to their analysis as arguments.20 On the other hand, ellipsis suggests that they are adjuncts attached above the verbal constituent that contains the theme. The adjunct analysis is further corroborated by the observation that they can be added to any predicate, unlike genitive and se-beneficiaries. Even though I will not attempt to resolve the issue here, I would like to point out that the problem posed by jia-beneficiaries is not unique. Similar phrase structure paradoxes posed by PPs have been noted and are extensively discussed in the work of Pesetsky (1995), Phillips (1996), Lechner (2003) and others.





Elena Anagnostopoulou

. Oehrle’s contexts and the ambiguity of se-goals We have seen that se-PPs can occur in double object beneficiary constructions, unlike to-PPs which are limited to goal prepositional ditransitives. There is a related important difference between se-PPs and to-PPs, which can be detected when both realize goals: se-goals are licit in, so called, “Oehrle’s contexts”, which exclude to-goals. Consider the sentences in (65): (65) a. Nixon gave Mailer a book. b. Nixon gave a book to Mailer. As pointed out by Oehrle (1976), the double object construction in (65a) has a reading which is paraphrased in (66): (66) “Mailer wrote a book which he wouldn’t have been able to write if it hadn’t been for Nixon.” (65b) cannot be interpreted this way. Nixon must be understood as having performed an action. This difference between prepositional ditransitives and double object constructions becomes clear once the subject is replaced by a DP which cannot be an agent (the examples below are taken from Oehrle 1976 and Pesetsky 1995): (67) a. The war years gave Mailer his first big success. b. *The war years gave his first big success to Mailer. (68) a. b. c. d.

Katya taught me Russian. Katya taught Russian to me. Lipson’s textbook taught me Russian. *Lipson’s book taught Russian to me.

As pointed out by Anagnostopoulou (1999b), Greek se-goals, unlike English to-goals, are licit in Oehrle’s contexts (69), along with genitive DPs (70). Ta xroña tis eksorias eðosan sto Θeoðoraci tin proti the years of exile.nom gave.3pl to.the Theodorakis the first meγali epitiçia. big success.acc ‘The years of exile gave Theodhorakis his first big success.’ b. O γamos xarise sti Maria staθerotita. the marriage.nom gave.3sg to.the Mary stability ‘Marriage gave Mary stability.’

(69) a.

(70) a.

Ta xroña tis eksorias tu eðosan tu Θeoðoraci tin the years of exile.nom cl.gen gave.3pl the Theodorakis.gen the proti meγali epitiçia. first big success.acc ‘The years of exile gave Theodhorakis his first big success.’

Variation of datives

b. O γamos tis xarise tis Marias staθerotita. the marriage.nom cl.gen gave.3sg the Mary.gen stability.acc ‘Marriage gave Mary stability.’ The grammaticality of se-goals in Oehrle’s environments, which may only tolerate double object goals in English and other languages, provides evidence that se-PPs may, in fact, realize double object goals, despite appearances to the contrary. Interestingly, there is a tendency for the goal-PPs to precede theme-DPs in examples like (69), which is reminiscent of the tendency of genitive goals to precede accusative themes in the genitive construction (see the text surrounding example (15) in Section 2 above). Unlike se-beneficiary PPs, which only occur in the double object frame, se-goal PPs are also employed in prepositional ditransitives, explaining why se-goal constructions fail the tests diagnosing “double-objecthood” such as animacy restrictions, nominalizations and passivization, as discussed in Section 2. Non-animate se-PPs are licit in prepositional ditransitives, which can furthermore be the input to nominalizations and theme-passives, yielding well-formed results. For this reason, the only diagnostic that can reveal the ambiguity of se-goals is provided by examples like (69), as prepositional goals are ruled out in these contexts.

. Se-PPs vs. to-PPs The discussion in the preceding sections has established an important disparity in the distribution of se-PPs and to-PPs in Greek and English ditransitives. The former realize prepositional goals but may also realize goals and beneficiaries in constructions that qualify as double object/applicative constructions. The latter occur exclusively in goal prepositional ditransitives. The question that arises is what explains this difference. In this section, I will argue that English to is directional and resultative, properties which prevent it from introducing arguments carrying the beneficiary role and from occurring in the double object frame. Greek se lacks these properties and therefore, has a wider distribution. I will start with the facts illustrating the difference between se and to with respect to the feature ‘directional’.21 To begin with, se occurs in environments where English employs the non-directional prepositions in or at, as shown in (71a) and (71b). English to is ruled out in these environments because it is directional. (71) a.

O Petros zi stin Americi. the Peter lives.3sg to/at.the America ‘Peter lives in the US.’ b. O Petros emine sto spiti. the Peter stayed.3sg to/at.the home ‘Peter stayed at home.’





Elena Anagnostopoulou

Furthermore, to has the capacity to combine with pure locative prepositions like in and on yielding a directional meaning (see Pesetsky 1995: 141–140, examples (376)): (72) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Mary pulled the trunk on the mat/ onto the mat. Mary pushed the heavy box in its proper place/ into its proper place. Sue dragged the sack in the office/ into the office. Mary shlepped the box in the office/ into the office. Mary lifted the box on the platform/ onto the platform. Mary gently lowered the saddle on the horse/ onto the horse. Mary drove the car in the garage/ into the garage. Mary lowered the balloon on the runway/ onto the runway.

According to Pesetsky, only the pure locative reading is possible for in and on in the above examples. For instance, the car in the in the garage version of (72g) must be in the garage during the entire event of driving. On the other hand, the car is not in the garage and ends up being in the garage in the into the garage version of (72g). In the Greek counterparts of (72) se is invariably used, and it is ambiguous between a pure locative and a directional reading. For example, in (73) below (the Greek counterpart of (72g)), the se-PP can describe a situation in which the car is in the garage throughout the driving event as well as a situation in which the car starts outside the garage and ends up in the garage as a result of Mary’s driving. (73) I Maria oðijise to aftocinito sto garage. the Maria drove.3sg the car to.the garage ‘Mary drove the car in/into the garage.’ Thus, se is neither a locative corresponding to in nor a directional corresponding to into. Se is unspecified for directionality and, therefore, it is compatible with both interpretations. The fact that to-PPs denote direction while se-PPs can denote location or direction correlates with a significant contrast in their function in goal-ditransitives. There is one class of motion predicates that requires the presence of to in English and disallows the presence of se in Greek. More specifically, verbs that denote “continuous causation of accompanied motion in some manner” (an external agent is involved at all stages of motion) disallow the double object construction, as shown in (75), unlike verbs of “instantaneous causation of ballistic motion” (verbs denoting motion that is initiated by an external causer but its continuation depends on natural forces) which may occur in the double object frame along with the prepositional frame, as illustrated in (74) (see Pinker 1989; Gropen et al. 1989; Pesetsky 1995: 137–141, the data are Pesetsky’s examples (370) and (371)): (74) a. b. c. d.

Mary threw John the book. Mary threw the book to John. Mary flung Sue the package. Mary flung the package to Sue.

Variation of datives

e. f. (75) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Mary kicked John the ball. Mary kicked the ball to John. Mary pulled the trunk to Sue. *Mary pulled Sue the trunk. Mary pushed the boulder to John. *Mary pushed John the boulder. Mary schlepped the box to John. *Mary schlepped John the box.

Pesetsky proposes that the ungrammaticality of the double object construction in (75) is due to the specialized semantics of to, the presence of which is required to assign a theta-role to the goal when the selecting predicate denotes the presence of an external agent at all stages of motion. Condition (76) (Pesetsky’s 1995: 141 condition (377)) captures the obligatory presence of to introducing goals with these verbs: (76) A Goal arrived at because of continuous imparting of force must be θ-selected by to. Since the double object construction lacks to, it is not licensed with verbs denoting continuous imparting of force. Interestingly, verbs of “continuous causation of accompanied motion in some manner” in Greek do not tolerate the preposition se, but require mexri, eos ‘up to’ instead (see Anagnostopoulou 2003): (77) a.

Traviksa tin poliθrona (?*sti)/ mexri/ eos ti Maria. pulled.1sg the armchair.acc to/up to the Maria ‘I pulled the armchair to Mary.’ b. Xamilosa to fos (*sti)/ mexri/ eos ti Maria. lowered.1sg the light.acc to/up to the Maria ‘I lowered the light to Mary.’

Both mexri and eos are directional, as is evidenced by the fact that they are licit as complements of pijeno ‘go’ (78a) and illicit with meno ‘live’ (78b):22 (78) a.

I Maria pije mexri/ eos to Vorio Polo. the Maria went.3sg to the North Pole ‘Mary went to the North Pole.’ b. *O Petros meni mexri/ eos tin Americi. the Peter live.3sg to the America ‘*Peter lives to the US.’

The contrast between to and se as well as the contrast between se and mexri/ eos suggest that verbs of “continuous causation of accompanied motion in some manner” must combine with goals introduced by prepositions that are specified as directional, i.e., it is the semantic feature DIRECTION/PATH that underlies θ-selection of Goals by to in Pesetsky’s Condition (76).23





Elena Anagnostopoulou

The meaning difference between to-PPs and se-PPs described so far can explain why se is associated with more theta-roles than to in ditransitives. To is directional and is therefore limited to goals. On the other hand, we have seen that se may introduce goals and pure locations. I propose that the unspecified meaning of se is responsible for the fact that it may also introduce beneficiaries, i.e. the lack of specialized semantics makes se compatible with at least three different roles: goal, location, beneficiary. I now turn to another set of facts which illustrate that to-PPs and se-PPs have a different behavior with respect to telicity. This potentially explains why the former are limited to prepositional ditransitives while the latter can also occur in double object constructions. As is well-known (see e.g. Levin & Rapapport 1995; Snyder 2001; Beck & Snyder 2001 for recent discussions and references), English to-PPs can create accomplishments by combining with activity verbs. Greek se-PPs differ in this respect: they cannot turn atelic predicates into telic. Consider the sentences in (79) and (80): (79) a. Paul walked for an hour. b. *Paul walked in an hour. c. Paul walked to the summit in an hour. (80) a.

O Petros perpatise jia/ epi mia ora. the Peter walked for/ for one hour ‘Peter walked for an hour.’ b. *O Petros perpatise se mia ora. the Peter walked in one hour ‘*Peter walked in an hour.’ c. *O Petros perpatise stin korifi se mia ora. the Peter walked to.the summit in one hour ‘Peter walked to the summit in an hour.’

(79a) and (80a) vs. (79b) and (80b) exemplify for English and Greek, respectively, the well known fact that activity predicates are compatible with for-adverbials and incompatible with in-adverbials (see Dowty 1979 and many others). In-adverbials become licit, though, when activities combine with directional to-PPs, as in (79c), showing that the predicate qualifies as an accomplishment. In contrast, in-adverbials are impossible in examples like (80c), which contain locative se-PPs, indicating that Greek se-phrases cannot alter the telicity of the base predicate (Horrocks & Stavrou 2003). A possible explanation for this contrast between to-PPs and se-PPs would be to resort to a property that English has and Greek lacks: the availability of resultative constructions. More specifically, Snyder (1995) and Beck and Snyder (2001) argue on the basis of a comparative examination of English, German, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Mandarin, French, Hebrew, Hindi/Urdu, Russian and Spanish that the telic interpretation of predicates like walk to the summit is possible only in languages that have resultatives and a number of further properties correlating with resultative formation. These are: (i) Availability of verb-particle constructions. (ii) Availability of root compounding as a productive means of word formation (Snyder 1995, 2001). (iii)

Variation of datives

Availability of restitutive readings of again along with repetitive readings (von Stechow 1995; Beck & Snyder 2001). In the repetitive interpretation of again, an action has happened before. In the restitutive interpretation, the result of an action has happened before, but not necessarily the action itself. To illustrate, walk to the summit is an accomplishment in English which also allows resultative constructions as in (81a), root compounding as in (81b), and a restitutive repetitive ambiguity of (82a) which is interpreted either as (82b) or as (82c): (81) a. Mary beat the metal smooth. b. worm can (82) a. Sally walked to the summit again. b. Sally walked to the summit, and she had done that before. c. Sally walked to the summit, and she had been there before.

repetitive restitutive

On the other hand, walk to the summit is not an accomplishment in Spanish since it cannot be combined with an in an hour adverbial (83a). In this language, resultatives (83b), root compounding (83c), and restitutive again interpretations (83d) are also ruled out: (83) a. *Juan anduvo hasta la cima de la montaña en una hora. Juan walked to the summit of the mountain in one hour b. *María golpeó el metal liso. Mary beat the metal smooth c. bote *(de) gusanos can *(of) worms d. Suresh anduvo hasta la aldea otra vez. Suresh walked to the village again Interpreted only as: Suresh walked to the village and he had walked to the village before – repetitive Beck and Snyder (2001) argue that the (un-)availability of accomplishments with goal-PPs and the (un-)availability of resultatives, root compounding and restitutive again result from a single semantic parameter which consists in the (un-)availability of a principle of semantic composition creating accomplishments (proposed by von Stechow 1995). English has this principle, and an accomplishment can be created syntactically from the combination of an activity (the matrix predicate) and a state (the result predicate) explaining the grammaticality of (79c) and (81a). Spanish lacks this principle, and the examples in (83a, b) are ruled out as uninterpretable. Greek could be claimed to be like Spanish. We already saw that Greek lacks the ability to construct accomplishments from activities with the goal preposition se, as in (80) above. This correlates with the fact that it also lacks resultatives, as shown in (84), (see Giannakidou & Merchant 1999 and Horrocks & Stavrou 2003 for discussion) as well as verb-particle constructions:





Elena Anagnostopoulou

(84) *O Petros sfirilatise to metalo malako. the Peter beat.3sg the metal smooth ‘Peter beat the metal smooth.’ However, the status of Greek with respect to Beck and Snyder’s (2001) parameter is not as clear-cut as the status of most of the languages they discuss (see also Horrocks & Stavrou 2003 who point out that Snyder’s 1995 parameter is too strong for Greek).24 First, the creation of an accomplishment from an activity via a goal se-PP is possible with a few verbs, such as sernome ‘crawl’: (85) a.

O Petros sirθice sto patoma jia ðeka lepta. the Peter crawled.3sg on.the floor for ten minutes ‘Peter crawled on the floor for ten minutes.’ b. *O Petros sirθice sto patoma se ðeka lepta. the Peter crawled.3sg on.the floor in ten minutes ‘Peter crawled on the floor in ten minutes.’ c. O Petros sirθice stin eksoðo se ðeka lepta. the Peter crawled.3sg to.the exit in ten minutes ‘Peter crawled to the exit in ten minutes.’

Second, availability of resultatives appears to be allowed when the result state is a color or some gradable properties, like high or low:25 (86) a.

O Petros evapse to spiti aspro. the Peter painted.3sg the house white ‘Peter painted the house white.’ b. O Petros extise to spiti psilo. the Peter built.3sg the house tall ‘Peter built the house tall’

In these cases, again has a restitutive interpretation, as shown by contexts like (87): (87) a.

Otan o Petros niciase to spiti itan poli vromiko. when the Peter rented.3sg the house it was very dirty b. Ce etsi evapse tus tixus asprus ksana. and so painted.3sg the walls white again ‘When Peter rented the house it was very dirty. So, he painted the walls white again.’

Clearly, the restitutive reading is the only available reading of (87b) in the context of (87a). The walls of the house had been white before, but crucially they were not painted white by Peter who paints them white for the first time after he rents the house in a dirty state. Finally, Snyder’s compounding parameter (“The grammar does (not) freely allow open-class, non-affixal lexical items to be marked [+“Affixal]”, Snyder 1995: 63) is too strong for Greek as there are cases of free N-N compounds (Anastassiadi-Simeonidi

Variation of datives

1986), and A-N compounds (Ralli & Stavrou 1997/1998) – i.e. open-class items (i.e. words) that function like affixes (e.g. nomos plesio ‘law-framework’, taksidi astrapi ‘trip lightning’ (nam. very brief trip) – see also Horrocks & Stavrou 2003). In view of the fact that Greek shows a mixed behavior with respect to the resultative parameter, an alternative, more conservative, explanation for the difference between se and to with respect to telicity might be that only directional PPs can turn atelic predicates into telic (see e.g. Levin 1993: 105), and se-phrases are not directional, unlike to-phrases (see Horrocks & Stavrou 2003 on the non-directional meaning of se, as opposed to to, and on the relation between (non-)directionality and (non-)telicity of prepositions). This proposal is supported by the observation that Greek can construct accomplishments from activities with mexri and eos ‘up to’, which have been argued above to be directional (see the discussion of (77) and (78)):26 (88) O Petros perpatise mexri/ eos tin korifi se mia ora. the Peter walked.3sg up to the summit in one hour ‘Peter walked to the summit in an hour.’ With these considerations in mind, let us turn to ditransitives. Recall that se-PPs, unlike mexri/eos-PPs, are incompatible with verbs of “continuous causation of accompanied motion in some manner” (see (77)). This incompatibility can now be linked to the fact that se-PPs cannot create accomplishments from activities. Verbs of continuous causation of accompanied motion are atelic, as can been seen from examples where they occur with a single theme complement: (89) a.

Traviksa to scini jia ðio lepta/ ?*se ðio lepta. pulled.1sg the rope for two minutes/ ?*in two minutes ‘I pulled the rope for two minutes/ ?*in two minutes.’ b. Esproksa to karotsi jia ðio lepta/ ?*se ðio lepta. pushed.1sg the cart for two minutes/ ?*in two minutes ‘I pushed the cart for two minutes/ ?*in two minutes.’

It is therefore expected that such predicates will be incompatible with se-goals and will require mexri/eos-goals when used in a ditransitive frame: we just saw that only the latter prepositions can create telic predicates from atelic ones. Note that verbs like stelno ‘send’ and pulao ‘sell’, which co-occur with se-goals, qualify as telic when they surface with a single theme complement:27 (90) a.

Estila to fax ?*jia ðio lepta / se ðio lepta. sent.1sg the fax ?*for two minutes / in two minutes ‘I sent the fax ?*for two minutes/ in two minutes.’ b. Pulisa to spiti mu ?*jia ena mina / se ena mina. sold.1sg the house my for one month / in one month ‘I sold my house in a month.’

Note, furthermore, that there are some verbs in the Greek “continuous causation of accompanied motion” class which may tolerate in-adverbials along with for-adverbials





Elena Anagnostopoulou

when used with a single complement, a fact suggesting that they can be construed as either telic or atelic: (91) Kuvalisa to karotsi jia ðio lepta/? se ðio lepta. carried.1sg the cart for two minutes/ in two minutes ‘I carried the cart for two minutes/ ?*in two minutes.’ These verbs tolerate se-goals on a par with mexri/ eos-goals: (92) Kuvalisa to karotsi mexri/ eos ti Maria / ?sti Maria. carried.1sg the cart up to the Mary / to.the Mary ‘I carried the cart to Mary.’ Finally, very few verbs which are atelic when they combine with a single complement become telic when a se-goal is added. One such example is serno ‘drag’: (93) a.

Esira to karotsi jia ðio lepta/ ?*se ðio lepta. dragged.1sg the cart for two minutes/ ?*in two minutes ‘I dragged the cart for two minutes/ ?*in two minutes.’ b. Esira to karotsi stin eksoðo se ðio lepta. dragged.1sg the cart to.the exit in two minutes ‘I dragged the cart to the exit in two minutes.’

Recall that creation of an accomplishment from an activity via a goal se-PP is also possible with a few intransitive verbs, such as sernome ‘crawl’, the intransitive variant of serno (see (85) above). In conclusion, verbs of continuous causation of accompanied motion in English and Greek reveal a significant disparity in the semantics of to-goals and se-goals in ditransitives. When to-goals are added to atelic predicates they invariably yield accomplishments from activities by introducing an end-point to the ongoing event denoted by the V + theme complex. Greek se-goals do not introduce such an end-point. Beck and Johnson (2004) argue on the basis of restitutive again that to-goals always introduce result states in English prepositional ditransitives. In Beck and Johnson’s proposal (as in Snyder 2001), prepositional ditransitives are resultatives arising from the combination of an activity and a result state through the application of von Stechow’s (1995) principle of semantic composition discussed above. The result states are the denotations of the to-PPs, which provide the crucial information about the result state of the event. Beck and Johnson argue that the end-state of double object constructions is uniformly a state of possession of the theme by the goal rather than a state provided by the goal argument alone. Greek se-goals have been shown to be in most cases illicit when the V + theme complex is atelic (with the exception of a few verbs like serno ‘drag’ in (93)), which entails that they do not denote result states in these constructions. Possibly they never denote result states, in which case they are interpreted as modifiers (see Beck & Snyder 2001).28 I would like to propose that the different properties of to-PPs and se-PPs w.r.t. resultativity explains why the former are limited to the prepositional frame while the latter can also be employed in

Variation of datives

the double object frame. To-PPs necessarily denote result states, and are therefore licit only in prepositional ditransitives where the result state is contributed by the PP. On the other hand, se-PPs are incapable of introducing result states with most (intransitive and transitive) activities, and it is questionable if they ever make a result state available (see Note 28). Nothing in its semantics, therefore, limits se to prepositional ditransitives and prevents it from introducing arguments in double object/applicative constructions. Se has very little meaning; there is not much distinguishing it from a dummy element.

. On the categories of high and low datives In the preceding sections, I have argued that the Greek preposition se has two interesting properties. (a) It introduces not only goals but also beneficiaries. (b) Indirect object arguments headed by se are inserted not only in prepositional ditransitives but also in double object constructions. The English locative preposition to differs from se in both respects: it introduces exclusively goals, and only in prepositional ditransitives. I have argued that this difference in distribution can be explained in terms of the semantic properties of to vs. se. The question I will address in this section is whether the contrasting semantics and external syntax of to and se are associated with a difference in their internal syntax, more specifically in their categorial status. One might expect that to is a true preposition while se is a case marker comparable to accusative or dative, at least when it occurs in the double object frame. On the standard view that indirect objects are DPs in double object constructions and PPs in prepositional ditransitives, this would, in fact, be the null hypothesis to pursue. In order to answer this question, I will compare Greek se-datives to Japanese ni-goals and French a-datives (goals and beneficiaries). At first, I will discuss Japanese which supports the view that high goals are DPs and low goals PPs. A comparative analysis of French and Greek, though, will lead me to finally reject the view that there is a necessary correlation between the hierarchical position and the categorial status of dative arguments. I will close with a discussion of Spanish a-datives which require clitic doubling when they occur in the double object frame. A comparison of Greek, French and Spanish will lead me to conclude that cliticization and clitic doubling do not constitute reliable diagnostics for determining the categorial status of dative arguments, contrary to what is often assumed in the literature.

. Japanese high ‘ni’-datives are DPs and low ‘ni’-datives are PPs In Japanese, indirect object goals are marked by the dative postposition ni and direct objects surface with the accusative postposition o.29 The relative order of goals and themes is flexible, as illustrated in (94) (from Miyagawa 1997: 1):





Elena Anagnostopoulou

(94) IO > DO / DO > IO a. John ga Mary ni pizza John nom Mary dat pizza ‘John gave Mary pizza.’ b. John ga pizza o Mary John nom pizza acc Mary ‘*John gave pizza Mary.’

o ageta. acc gave ni ageta. dat gave

The two surface strings in (94) are bi-uniquely mapped into two different hierarchical tree representations, as documented by the distribution of anaphoric dependencies. In the order dative- accusative, the dative may bind a reciprocal contained within the accusative, as in (95a), whereas the accusative cannot license a reciprocal in the dative, as in (95b) (from Ura 1996: 193): (95) a.

IOi [DO reciprocali ] Mary ga [John to Billk ] ni [otagaik no sensei] Mary nom John and Bill dat each other gen teacher syookaisita. introduced ‘Mary introduced each other’s teachers to John and Bill.’ b. *[IO reciprocali ] DOi *Mary ga [otagaik no sensei] ni [John to Billk ] Mary nom each other gen teacher dat John and Bill syookaisita. introduced ‘Mary introduced John and Bill to each other’s teachers.’

o acc

o acc

In the accusative-dative order, binding relations are reversed. The accusative can bind a reciprocal inside the dative (see (96a)), from Ura 1996: 195), but not vice versa (see (96b), provided by Kazuko Yatsushiro p.c.; see also Miyagawa 1997: 4): (96) a.

DOi [IO reciprocali ] Mary ga [John to Bill]k o [otagaik no sensei] Mary nom John and Bill acc each other gen teacher syookaisita. introduced ‘Mary introduced John and Bill to each other’s teachers.’ b. *[DO reciprocali ] IOi *Mary ga [otagaik no sensei] o [John to Bill]k Mary nom each other gen teacher acc John and Bill syookaisita. introduced ‘Mary introduced each other’s teachers to John and Bill.’

ni dat

ni dat

Variation of datives

Two competing analyses for the word order alternation in (94)–(96) have been proposed in the literature. According to the standard view (Hoji 1985; Takano 1998; Yatsushiro 2001), Japanese lacks the dative alternation. The goal>theme order in (94a) is considered to be basic, while the permutation in (94b) is argued to derive from (94a) by optional scrambling of the theme across the goal. On the other hand, Miyagawa (1997) and Miyagawa and Tsujioka (to appear) argue convincingly that the scrambling analysis is incorrect and that strings in which the goal precedes the theme are double object constructions, whereas theme-goal orders are prepositional ditransitives. Central for their argumentation is the proposal that the suffix ni is a case marker in the goal-theme construction and a postposition in the theme-goal construction. Evidence for the ambiguity of ni is provided by numeral quantifier float. As shown in (97a, b), Q-float in Japanese is licit with DPs and blocked with PPs (data from Ura 1996: 201, 204–205): (97) a.

John ga hon o Mary ni san-satsu age John nom book acc Mary dat three.cl give ‘John gave three books to Mary.’ b. *John ga tomodati kara san nin tegami o John nom friends from three.cl letters acc ‘John received letters from three of his friends.’

ta. past orat ta. receive past

Crucially, Q-float of numerals construed with datives leads to well-formed results only when the goal is animate (see (98); Miyagawa & Tsujioka to appear), and only when the animate goal precedes the theme (see (99), data from Miyagawa 1997): (98) a.

Taroo ga gakusei ni futa-ri nimotu o okutta. Taro nom students dat 2.cl package acc sent ‘Taro sent two students a package’ b. *Daitooryoo ga kokkyoo-ni futa-tu heitai o okutta. president nom borders-to 2.cl soldiers acc sent ‘*The President sent two borders soldiers’

(99) a.

Mary ga tomodati ni futa-ri CD o Mary nom friends dat 2.cl CD acc ‘Mary sent two friends a CD’ b. ???Mary ga CD o tomodati ni futa-ri Mary nom CD acc friends dat 2.cl

okutta. sent okutta. sent

The fact that dative goals are DPs when they are animate and precede themes, while they are PPs when they are inanimate or when they are animate and follow themes can be explained in terms of the hypothesis that ni is ambiguous between a case marker and a postposition. Since the alternation in category is typical of the dative shift alternation, Q-float leads to the conjecture that the goal>theme construction in (94a) is a double object construction and the theme>goal construction in (94b) a prepositional ditransitive.30





Elena Anagnostopoulou

And indeed, the goal>theme construction shows characteristics typical of the double object construction. These are particularly clear under Q-float because goals are unambiguously high DPs when they are associated with floated numerals. One such characteristic is the fact that high goals can be passivized, similarly to goals in English,31 while low goals cannot, as shown in (100). In (100a), which is well-formed, the stranded quantifier marks the position of a high goal while in (100b), which is ill-formed, the quantifier marks the position of the low goal (data from Miyagawa & Tsujioka to appear): (100) a.

Gakuseij ga Taroo-ni tj san-nin nimotu o studentsj nom Taro-by tj 3.cl package acc ‘Three students were sent a package by Taro.’ tj san-nin b. *Gakuseij ga Taroo-ni nimotu-o studentsj nom Taro-by package.acc tj 3.cl ‘Three students were sent a package by Taro.’

okur-are-ta. send.pass.past okur-are-ta. send.pass.past

Inanimate goals cannot be passivized patterning with low animate goals: (101) *Tokyo ga nimotu o okur-are-ta. Tokyo nom package acc send.pass.past ‘Tokyo was sent a package.’ A further characteristic is exemplified by (102). Theme passivization cannot proceed across a high goal, as shown in (102a) where the high goal is marked by Q-float, while it may proceed across a low goal, as illustrated by (102b) where there is no Q-float associated with the dative goal: (102) a. *Nimotu ga Taroo-ni (yotte) gakusei ni package nom Taro-by students dat ‘?*A package was sent two students by Taro.’ b. Nimotu ga Taroo-ni (yotte) Hanako ni package nom Taro-by Hanako dat ‘A package was sent to Hanako by Taro.’

futa-ri okur-are-ta. 2.cl send.pass.past okur-are-ta. send.pass.past

The reader is referred to Miyagawa and Tsujioka (to appear) for more evidence that the goal>theme construction is a double object construction. In conclusion, Japanese ni-goals, similarly to Greek se-datives, occur both in double object constructions and in prepositional ditransitives. Moreover, Japanese presents straightforward evidence that the category of goal phrases is not identical in the two constructions. High goals are DPs and low goals are PPs, exactly as expected by theories viewing the alternation in the categorial status of dative arguments as a defining property of the dative alternation.

Variation of datives

. High and low French ‘à’-datives French ‘à’-datives are very similar to Greek se-datives both in their semantics and in their distribution (unless otherwise indicated, the French data in this and the next section have been provided to me by Dominique Sportiche, personal communication). To begin with the semantics, the prepositional element ‘à’ is locative not specified for the feature DIRECTION/PATH, just like Greek se ((103a) from Kayne 1975: 1): (103) a.

Les garçons sont tous partis à la guerre. the boys are all gone to the war ‘The boys have all gone to the war.’ b. Jean est à la maison. Jean is a the home ‘Jean is at home.’ c. Kyriakos vit à Athènes. Kyriakos lives a Athens ‘Kyriakos lives in Athens.’

Like se and unlike to, à cannot shift an activity to an accomplishment ((104) is taken from Beck & Snyder 2001): (104) *Jean a marché au sommet en une heure. Jean has walked a.the summit in one hour ‘Jean walked to the summit in an hour.’ More generally, French has a negative setting of the resultative parameter, according to Beck and Snyder (2001), as it lacks resultatives, verb particle constructions, noun compounding, and restitutive readings of again in examples like (105) (from Beck & Snyder 2001):32 (105) Jean a marché de nouveau au sommet. Jean has walked again a.the summit ‘Jean walked to the summit again.’ Turning from the meaning to the distribution of à, note first that à, like se, introduces goals and also beneficiaries: (106) a.

Il a donné un gâteau à la femme. he has given a cake a the woman ‘He has given a cake to the woman.’ b. Il a préparé un gâteau à la femme. he has made a cake a the woman ‘He has made a cake for the woman.’

A-beneficiaries alternate with beneficiaries introduced by the preposition pour in French, just as se-beneficiaries alternate with jia-beneficiaries in Greek:



 Elena Anagnostopoulou

(107) Il a préparé un gâteau pour la femme. he has made a cake for the woman ‘He has made a cake for the woman.’ In what follows, I will discuss the goal construction in (106a) first, proceeding from there to the beneficiary construction in (106b). As in Greek se-goal ditransitives, precedence matches c-command in French àgoal ditransitives. (108a) illustrates that indirect object quantifiers may bind pronominal variables to their right, whereas direct object quantifiers take scope over indirect objects which they precede, as documented by (108b) (from McGinnis 1998: 98–99; compare these facts to the Greek facts in (17) earlier): (108) a.

Jean a attribué [à chaque mot]i soni symbole. Jean has attributed to each word its symbol ‘Jean attributed to each word its symbol.’ b. Jean a attribué [chaque mot]i à soni symbole. word to its symbol Jean has attributed each ‘Jean attributed each word to its symbol.’

French resembles Greek once again in that the well-formedness of the two alternative permutations in (108) correlates with a more general freedom in the relative ordering of verbal DP and PP complements (data from Belletti & Shlonsky 1995; compare the data in (109) to their Greek counterparts in (16c) and (16d)): (109) a.

J’ ai mis ce livre sur la I have put this book on the ‘I put this book on the table.’ b. J’ ai mis sur la table ce I have put on the table this

table. table livre. book

In passives, à-goals are well-formed, similarly to Greek se-goals (data from McGinnis 1998; compare (110) to (9) in Section 2): (110) Un cadeau a été offert à Marie. ‘A gift has been given to Marie.’ Finally, à-goals are licit in nominalizations (compare (111), provided to me by Cedric Boeckx, personal communication, to the Greek example (10b) above): (111) La restitution des territoires aux Palestiniens. the return of.the territories to.the Palestinians Recall that nominalizations are derivationally related to the PP-goal construction in English and Greek, as in Sue’s gift of a book to Mary, but not to the double object construction, as in *Sue’s gift of Mary (of) a book. In Section 2 this asymmetry has been accounted for in terms of the hypothesis that vAPPL, which introduces the goal in the double object construction, is not licensed in nominals. On this view, the well-

Variation of datives

formedness of (111) indicates that à-goals are not introduced by vAPPL; rather they are arguments of the root. The freedom of word order and binding exemplified in (108a) and (108b) can be analyzed similarly to the Greek alternation in (16) and (17) proposed in Section 2, i.e. either in terms of A-scrambling of one object across the other (taking either the theme>goal as basic as in (18) or the goal>theme order as basic as in (19)) or in terms of free base-generation of the two objects, as in (21). What is crucial for present purposes is the fact that both the theme and the goal are arguments of V. In the passive (110) the theme moves to T from the minimal domain of V which contains the dative à-goal, and the sentence is correctly predicted to be well-formed even if the goal is taken to c-command the theme, as in (26) repeated here:33 (26)

T’ T

vP v<+/–agent, –trans>

VP

PP

V’ V

Theme

The data discussed so far strongly suggest that à-goals and se-goals share the same syntax, namely that of a dative in a prepositional ditransitive. But there is also evidence that à-goals are inserted in the double object frame. Specifically, à-goals are licit in Oehrle’s contexts which do not allow the prepositional construction in English and other languages: (112) a.

Le livre de Lipson a appris le Russe à Marie. ‘Lipson’s textbook taught Mary Russian.’ b. ?Le fait de rencontrer Paul a donné mal de tête à Marie.34 ‘Meeting Paul gave Mary a headache.’

Recall from Section 4 that se-goals are also permitted in these contexts (see examples (69)), a fact I proposed to interpret as an argument that they occur in the double object construction. This led me to conclude that sentences with se-goals are ambiguous between prepositional ditransitives and double object constructions. French à-goals can similarly be concluded to be ambiguous. In sentences like (112) they instantiate double object goals. Turning to benefactive constructions, and in particular to the alternation between (106b) and (107) repeated below, two criteria show that the à-benefactive (106b) is a double object construction and the pour-construction (107) is the counterpart of Greek jia- and English for-benefactives.



 Elena Anagnostopoulou

(106) b. Il a préparé un gâteau à la femme. he has made a cake a the woman ‘He has made a cake for the woman.’ (107) Il a préparé un gâteau pour la femme. he has made a cake for the woman ‘He has made a cake for the woman.’

(i) Recipient interpretation. As pointed out by Kayne (1975: 137), (113a) below implies a direct connection between the subject and the à-beneficiary and is therefore appropriate only if the subject is the head of a huge family.35 On the other hand, (113b) with pour can be said in a situation in which the subject is merely thinking of the future, i.e., when there is no direct connection between the subject and the beneficiary. (113) a.

Il achète des jouets aux petits-fils de ses petits-fils. he buys some toys to.the grandchildren of his grandchildren b. Il achète des jouets pour les petits-fils de ses petits-fils. He buys some toys to.the grandchildren of his grandchildren ‘He is buying toys for his grandchildren’s grandchildren.’

The French alternation is characterized by the same meaning difference described in Section 3.2 above for Greek. A-beneficiaries have the same interpretation as genitive DPs in (34a) and se-PPs in (36), and pour-beneficiaries correspond to the jiabeneficiary in (34b). Recall that I take the meaning difference in (34), (36), (113) to derive from the fact that genitive-, se-, and à-beneficiaries are interpreted as recipients while jia-, for- and pour-beneficiaries denote individuals for the benefit of which some action happens.

(ii) Nominalizations. As shown in (114), à-beneficiaries are illicit in nominalizations. In contrast, pour-beneficiaries are well-formed: (114) La préparation du repas pour/ *à Marie. ‘The preparation of the meal for Marie.’ The contrast in (114) is entirely parallel to the one in (51), repeated here from Section 3.2, which shows that neither genitive nor se-beneficiaries are licit in Greek nominalizations while jia-beneficiaries are allowed. (51) a. *To majirema tu fajitu tis Marias. the cooking the food.gen the Mary.gen b. *To majirema tu fajitu sti Maria. the cooking the food.gen to.the Mary.acc c. To majirema tu fajitu jia ti Maria. the cooking the food.gen for the Mary.acc ‘The preparation of the food for Mary.’

Variation of datives 

The ban on nominalizations with à-beneficiaries in French suggests that they are introduced by vAPPL, leading to the structural analysis in (115) which is identical to (52) proposed in Section 3 for se-beneficiaries: (115)

v1P Subj

v1’ vTR

v2P

à Marie

v’

vAPPL V

VP DPACC

v2P cannot be the input to the formation of a root nominal, explaining the ungrammaticality of the à Marie version of (114). vAPPL assigns a recipient role to its specifier, explaining the interpretation of (113a). The pour Marie version of (114) is well-formed because pour-beneficiaries are adjuncts not introduced by vAPPL which is therefore not receiving a recipient role in (113b). Pour beneficiaries are adjuncts which share the same syntax as Greek jia-beneficiaries and English for-beneficiaries (see the discussion of structures (59), (63) and (64) in Section 3 above). The analysis predicts that à-beneficiaries are licensed with certain verb classes, unlike pour beneficiaries which can be added to virtually any predicate. I haven’t tested this prediction yet, but I would be surprised if it were incorrect. Is the analysis of à-beneficiaries in terms of structure (115) corroborated by evidence from passives and binding? The answer to this question is not straightforward, as will be seen immediately, but the observed contrasts seem to indicate that the analysis is on the right track. More specifically, theme passives are worse in the presence of an à-beneficiary than with a pour-beneficiary, as illustrated by (116): (116) a.

?Un gâteau a été fait à Marie par Kyriakos.

‘A cake was made to Mary by Kyriakos.’ b. Un gâteau a été fait pour Marie par Kyriakos. ‘A cake was made for Mary by Kyriakos.’ Interestingly, according to Dominique Sportiche (116a) is not entirely natural but improves if Marie is understood as adversely affected by the baking of the cake. Adversely affected genitives have also been seen to be legitimate in Greek passives; compare (116a) to (47), repeated here:

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

(47) To fajito ðen ?*(tis) majireftice tis Marias kala (*apo the food.nom not cl.gen cooked.nact.3sg the Mary.gen well by ton Petro). the Peter ‘The meal was not cooked well by Mary and Mary was unhappy about it.’ I would like to suggest that à Marie in (116a) is not a true beneficiary but the French counterpart of tis Marias in (47) and that the applicative head vAPPL1 introducing beneficiaries cannot combine with a passive light v in French, as in Greek. vAPPL2 introducing adversely affected arguments is allowed to co-occur with a passive vINTR in both languages. The difference between French (116a) and Greek (47) is that the agent and the affected dative can be disjoint in reference in (116a), as shown by the fact that the agent can be overtly expressed in the par-phrase. In Greek, the affected dative is also interpreted as the agent and the by-phrase is ungrammatical. I take this contrast between the two languages to indicate that passive v-INTR and the vAPPL2 introducing malefactive datives are two separate syntactic heads in French; recall that they form a single syntactic unit in Greek. Turning, finally, to evidence from binding, French permits both the a-beneficiary> theme and the theme>à-beneficiary permutation, similarly to Greek (see Section 3). Under structure (115) the à-beneficiary>theme permutation reflects the base order, in which the beneficiary asymmetrically c-commands the theme. The theme>àbeneficiary serialization derives either from (A or A’) scrambling of the theme across the beneficiary or from post-posing of the beneficiary to the right of the theme. Pronominal variable binding is accordingly expected to be perfect in the beneficiary>theme order, while it will be problematic in the alternative theme>beneficiary order, if this order is derived either by A’ scrambling or beneficiary-post-posing. And indeed, binding of the pronoun is easier in the beneficiary>theme permutation than in the theme>beneficiary permutation, as shown in (117): (117) a.

beneficiary>theme Marie a fait à chaque cuisinierj un gâteau Marie made to each cookj a cake b. theme>beneficiary ?Kyriakos a fait chaque gâteau au cuisinier j Kyriakos made each cakej for the cook

qu’ilj a inventé. that hej invented qui lj ’a inventé. who invented itj

The contrast between (117a) and (117b) is not as sharp as would be expected under e.g. an A’ scrambling analysis of (117b),36 but is nevertheless present.

. French ‘à’-datives are DPs and Greek ‘se’-datives are PPs Section 6.2 established that French à-datives and Greek se-datives share the same syntax. As goals they are ambiguous occurring low as arguments of the root (prepositional ditransitives) or high as specifiers of vAPPL (double object constructions). As ben-

Variation of datives 

eficiaries they are specifiers of vAPPL. However, à-datives and se-datives also differ in important ways with respect to their categorial status and their interaction with cliticization (see also Anagnostopoulou 2003 for discussion). In this section, I will concentrate on the first difference. The second one will be taken up in the next subsection, which discusses more closely cliticization and clitic doubling of dative arguments. One important difference between Greek and French manifests itself in the categorial status of the term introducing the dative argument. Even though it has been occasionally claimed that a is a preposition, Jeaggli (1982: 28), drawing on Vergnaud (1974), presents convincing evidence that à is a case marker, not a true preposition. The arguments in support of this view are based on the behavior of à under co-ordination. First, while a conjoined DP may serve as the complement of a preposition, illustrated in (118a), a DP-conjunct cannot combine with à, as exemplified by (118b). Instead, coordination must target two full à-phrases, as in (118c), suggesting that à-phrases are DPs: (118) a.

Ils se sont assis sur la table et les chaises. they cl.refl are sat on the table and the chairs ‘They sat on the table and the chairs.’ b. *Ils ont parlé à Marie et le directeur. they have.3pl talked to Marie and the director ‘They talked to Mary and the director.’ c. Ils ont parlé à Marie et au directeur. they have.3pl talked to Marie and to.the director ‘They talked to Mary and to the director.’

A-goals and à-beneficiaries pattern with à Marie in (118b, c), as shown in (119): (119) a.

Il a donné un gâteau à la femme et au/ *le directeur. he has given a cake to the woman and to.the/ *the director ‘He has given a cake to the woman and to the director.’ b. Il a préparé un gâteau à la femme et au/ *le he has made a cake to the woman and to.the/ *the directeur. director ‘He has made a cake for the woman and to the director.’

Coordination of two à-phrases is obligatory in both (119a) and (119b) suggesting that à-datives are always DPs, regardless of whether they occur high (as beneficiaries or high goals) or low (as low goals). Second, as illustrated by (120), coordinated PPs may not serve as the head of a relative clause which functions as a (derived) collective predicate:

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

(120) *Il a compté sur l’ homme et sur la femme qui se he has.3sg counted on the man and on the woman who cl.refl sont rencontrés hier. are met yesterday ‘He counted on the man and the woman who met yesterday.’ As suggested to me by Winfried Lechner (personal communication), there are two potential explanations for the ungrammaticality of (120), both of which are reasonable.

(i) One possibility is that modification of a PP by a relative clause is not allowed, i.e., neither (121a) nor (121b) are possible parses for (120): PP

(121) a. PP PP

RC

et

sur l’homme

qui se sont rencontrés hier

PP sur la femme PP

b. PP

et

sur l’homme

PP PP

RC

sur la femme

qui se sont rencontrés hier

The relative clause must therefore attach to the NP of the second conjunct, as in (122), barring a group reading of the head of the relative in terms of non-Boolean conjunction: (122)

PP PP sur l’homme

et

PP sur

DP D la NP femme

NP RC qui se sont rencontrés hier

Variation of datives 

(ii) Alternatively, modification of the conjoined PP in (121a) is licit, but the conjunction of two PPs does not allow for a non-Boolean group reading, and structure (121a) is uninterpretable. Co-ordinated à-phrases differ from ordinary PPs in that relative clause modification is well-formed, as shown by (123). Once again, the presence of à in the second conjunct of (123) is obligatory (compare (123) to (118c) above): (123) Il a parlé à l’ homme et * (à) la femme qui se he has spoken to the man and to the woman who cl.refl sont rencontrés hier. are met yesterday ‘He spoke to the man and the woman who met yesterday.’ A-goals and à-beneficiaries behave just like the coordinated single à-complements in (123) with respect to this diagnostic: (124) Il a donné/préparé un gateau à l’ homme et *(à) la femme he has given/prepared a cake to the man and to the woman qui se sont rencontrés hier. who cl.refl are met yesterday ‘He gave a cake to the man and the woman who met yesterday.’ ‘He made a cake for the man and the woman who met yesterday.’ Thus, the contrast between (120) and (123), (124) provides the second argument that French à-phrases are DPs. Applying Vergnaud’s tests to Greek reveals that Greek se – unlike French à – falls in the same group as prototypical prepositions: first, conjoined se-goals and sebeneficiaries can only marginally be assigned a group interpretation, as shown by (125a, b), (126a, b). Second, se can serve as the head of a conjunction of noun phrases (goals and beneficiaries), as in (125c), (126c): γramata ston anðra ce sti jineka pu sent.3pl letters.acc to.the man and to.the woman who zusan mazi. were.living together ‘They sent letters to the man and to the woman who were living together.’ b. Estilan γramata ston anðra ce ti jineka pu zusan sent.3pl letters.acc to.the man and the woman who were.living mazi. together ‘They sent letters to the man and the woman who were living together.’

(125) a.

??Estilan

 Elena Anagnostopoulou

c.

(126) a.

Estilan γramata stus γonis ce tus/stus papuðes ton sent.3pl letters.acc to.the parents and the/to.the grandparents the enðiaferomenon. interested.gen ‘They sent letters to the parents and (to the) grandparents of the interested party.’ ??Eftiaksa

kafe ston anðra ke sti jineka pu made.1sg coffee.acc to.the man and to.the woman who protosinantiθikan xtes. first met.3pl yesterday ‘I made coffee for the man and for the woman who met for the first time yesterday.’ b. Eftiaksa kafe ston anðra ke ti jineka pu made.1sg coffee.acc to.the man and the woman who protosinantiθikan xtes. first met.3pl yesterday ‘I made coffee for the man and the woman who met for the first time yesterday.’ c. Eftiaksa kafe sto Jiani ke ti/sti Maria made.1sg coffee.acc to.the Gianis and the/to.the Maria ‘I made coffee for John and Mary/ for John and for Mary.’

To conclude, the diagnostics derived from co-ordination demonstrate that à-datives are DPs and se-datives are PPs. The fact that à-goals occur in prepositional ditransitives leads to the conclusion that not all indirect objects which surface as DPs need to be related to an applicative head. And conversely, the fact that se-goals and sebeneficiaries occur in double object constructions shows that indirect objects which have the catagorial status of PPs can be introduced by an applicative head. Unlike Japanese ni which is a preposition in low goal constructions and a case marker in high goal constructions, French à is always a case marker and Greek se always a preposition, regardless of whether the arguments they introduce occur high or low.

. Cliticization and clitic doubling of datives The second difference between se and à emerges in contexts of cliticization. In Greek, clitic doubling may affect indirect objects bearing genitive case, as in (127a), but it must not apply to goals which are introduced by se, as illustrated by (127b): (127) a.

Tu eðosa tu Jiani to vivlio. cl.gen gave.1sg the Jianis.gen the book.acc ‘I gave John the book.’

Variation of datives 

b. *Tu eðosa to vivlio sto Jiani. cl.gen gave.1sg the book.acc to.the Jianis ‘I gave the book to John.’ This restriction does not only hold of clitic doubling, but also discriminates between licit and illicit instances of Clitic Left Dislocation, as in (128), and (Clitic) Right Dislocation, as in (129): (128) a.

Tu Jiani tu eðosa to vivlio. the Jianis.gen cl.gen gave.1sg the book b. Sto Jiani (* tu) eðosa to vivlio. to-the Jianis cl.gen gave.1sg the book ‘To John I gave the book.’

(129) a.

Tu eðose to vivlio i Maria # tu Jiani. cl.gen gave.3sg the book.acc the Mary.nom the Jianis.gen b. (*Tu) eðose to vivlio i Maria # sto Jiani. cl.gen gave.3sg the book.acc the Mary.nom to.the Jianis ‘It was Mary that gave him a book, to John.’

As will be seen immediately, French by and large limits cliticization to phrases headed by à (Kayne 1975: 134–160; see in particular Kayne 1975: 141–142 for a reanalysis of apparent dative cliticization with après, sur/dessus). In this respect, à-phrases behave similarly to Greek genitive DPs and differ from se-PPs (see Jeaggli 1982: 29 for discussion of cliticization with à-datives in French). French generally lacks clitic doubling (see e.g. Kayne 1975; Jeaggli 1982; Sportiche 1992, 1998 among many others). Thus, independent factors exclude the French counterpart of (127a). However, clitic doubling of personal pronouns is possible, as discussed in Kayne (2000), and doubling of à-dative personal pronouns is well-formed, as shown in (130a, b) (from Kayne 2000: 165): (130) a.

Jean me parle à Jean me speaks to ‘Jean speaks to me.’ b. Jean lui parle à Jean her speaks to ‘Jean speaks to her.’

moi. me elle. her

Moreover, there are other constructions in which dative clitics undergo chain formation. In these contexts, the foot of the chain must be occupied by an à-phrase. For one, in what Kayne (1975: 138–139) calls the detachment construction (i.e., Right Disloaction), a dative clitic may form a chain with a right dislocated beneficiary or goal headed by à, as illustrated by (131). Detachment with a pour-beneficiary in (132), leads to ill-formed results:37



Elena Anagnostopoulou

(131) a.

On leur en construira, à tes amis. we cl.dat cl.part build.fut, to your friends ‘We’ll build them some, your friends.’ b. On leur en donnera, à tes amis. we cl.dat cl.part give.fut, to your friends ‘We’ll give them some, your friends.’

(132) a. *On leur en construira, pour we cl.dat cl.part build.fut, for ‘We’ll build some for your friends.’ b. *Cela leur est pénible, pour ces this cl.dat is painful, for those ‘This is painful for those children.’

tes amis. your friends enfants. children

Another instance of chain formation of a dative clitic with an à-phrase involves stranded quantifiers. As exemplified by the contrast between (133a) and (133b) (Kayne 1975: 136), dative clitics may associate with quantifiers introduced by à, but not with quantifiers introduced by pour: (133) a.

Elle leur a souri à tous. she cl.dat has smiled to all ‘She smiled at all of them.’ b. *Il leur en a construit pour tous les deux. he cl.dat cl.part has built for both of them ‘He built some for both of them.’

In sum, the cross-linguistic comparison between French and Greek shows that French à-datives exhibit hybrid characteristics. The majority of the diagnostics suggest that à-datives share the syntax of Greek se-datives. But it was also seen that two phenomena, co-ordination and cliticization, group à-phrases together with Greek genitive DPs. The evidence based on co-ordination presented in the preceding section convincingly demonstrates that French à-datives are DPs and Greek se-datives PPs. The question that arises now is whether the (un-)availability of clitic doubling and cliticization constitute further diagnostics for categorial status. Under the hypothesis that only DPs are allowed to undergo chain formation with clitics it would be immediately explained why cliticization and clitic doubling are precluded with se-PPs in Greek and are licit with à-DPs in French and genitive DPs in Greek. In order for the above hypothesis to receive support it would have to be demonstrated for all clitic languages that pronominal clitics form chains with categories that can be independently argued to be DPs on the basis of evidence like e.g. Q-float or co-ordination. Spanish shows that this is incorrect. As will be discussed immediately, dative arguments introduced by a undergo clitic doubling in Spanish, similarly to Greek genitive DPs and unlike se-PPs. Spanish double object constructions show obligatory clitic doubling of a-datives, unlike Greek genitive double object constructions which show optional clitic doubling. And yet, Spanish clitic doubled a-datives qualify

Variation of datives

as PPs on the basis of the co-ordination tests discussed above, similarly to se-PPs and unlike genitive DPs in Greek or à-DPs in French. In the literature on Spanish there is a growing consensus that the double object construction is signaled by the obligatory presence of dative clitics. Demonte (1995), Torrego (1998), Bleam (1999), Ormazabal and Romero (2001), Cuervo (2003) and others point out that the presence vs. absence of dative clitics in goal ditransitives correlates with a number of syntactic and semantic phenomena characterizing the dative alternation in English (cf. Uriagereka 1988 on similar asymmetries in Galician). In particular, Spanish ditransitives with clitic doubled a-goals pattern with English double object constructions, while their counterparts without clitic doubling show properties of prepositional ditransitives. For one, animate goals can be doubled while locative goals cannot (see Bleam 1999; Ormazabal & Romero 2001; Cuervo 2003): (134) Andrea le envió un dictionario a Gabi/ *a Barcelona. Andrea cl.dat sent a dictionary to Gabi/ to Barcelona ‘Andrea sent Gabi/ *Barcelona a dictionary.’ Animate and locative datives may equally occur undoubled, as in prepositional ditransitives which do not discriminate between animate and inanimate goals: (135) Andrea envió un dictionario a Gabi / a Barcelona. Andrea sent a dictionary to Gabi/ to Barcelona ‘Andrea sent Gabi/ Barcelona a dictionary.’ Clitics are allowed to double inanimate dative goals only when the goal and the theme stand in a part-whole relationship. In (136a) below el mantel can be construed as a part of a la mesa, and doubling is licit. In (136b) los platos cannot be construed as a part of a la mesa, and doubling is ruled out. This restriction is similar to the one attested in English, where the double object construction is licensed only when the indirect object can be understood as a possessor of the direct object (see Demonte 1995): (136) a.

Le puse el mantel a la mesa. cl.dat put.1sg the tablecloth to the table ‘I put the tablecloth on the table.’ b. *Le puse los platos a la mesa. cl.dat put.sg the dishes to the table ‘I put the dishes on the table.’

Furthermore, datives are permitted exclusively under clitic doubling in Oehrle’s environments (Demonte 1995; Bleam 1999; Cuervo 2003; data from Cuervo 2003): (137) a. *El viaje the trip practicar practice

a Troncoso ofreció a Maria la oportunidad de to Troncoso offered to Maria the opportunity to portugués. Portuguese





Elena Anagnostopoulou

‘The trip to Troncoso offered Maria the opportunity tuguese.’ b. El viaje a Troncoso le ofreció a Maria la the trip to Troncoso cl.dat offered to Maria the de practicar portugués. to practice Portuguese ‘The trip to Troncoso offered Mary the opportunity tuguese.’

to practice Poroportunidad opportunity

to practice Por-

Recall that only the double object construction is licit in these contexts. Binding provides syntactic evidence that the clitic doubling construction is a double object construction. In the absence of a dative clitic, a direct object can bind a reflexive indirect object while the reverse is not possible, as shown in (138). When a dative clitic is present, the indirect object can bind into the direct object while the reverse is impossible, as shown in (139): (138) a.

El tratamiento psicoanalítico reintegró a María a sí misma. the therapy psychoanalytic gave.back to Mary.do to herself.io ‘The psychoanalytic therapy gave back Mary to herself.’ b. *El tratamiento psicoanalítico reintegró/devolvió (a) sí misma a the therapy psychoanalytic gave.back (to) herself.do to Maria. Mary-io ‘*The psychoanalytic therapy gave back herself to Mary.’

(139) a. *El tratamiento psicoanalítico le devolvió a María a the therapy psychoanalytic cl.dat gave.back to Mary.do to la estima de sí misma. the esteem of herself.io ‘The psychoanalytic therapy gave back her self-esteem to Mary.’ b. El tratamiento psicoanalítico le devolvió a la estima the therapy psychoanalytic cl.dat gave.back to the esteem de sí misma a María. of herself.do to Mary.io ‘The psychoanalytic therapy gave back Mary her self-esteem.’ A-beneficiaries undergo clitic doubling obligatorily, as shown in (140) (Demonte 1995: 7, fn. 5; Cuervo 2003; Josep Quer, personal communication): (140) *(Le) cociné el pollo a Mario. cl.dat cooked.1sg the chicken to Mario ‘I cooked Mario the chicken.’ The obligatoriness of clitic doubling in (140) entails that beneficiaries introduced by a are necessarily arguments of vAPPL in Spanish, just like Greek se-beneficiaries and French à-beneficiaries. The clitic doubling construction alternates with the preposi-

Variation of datives

tional construction in (141) where the beneficiary argument is introduced by para ‘for’ (Demonte 1995: 7): (141) Cociné el pollo para Mario. cooked.1sg the chicken for Mario ‘I cooked the chicken for Mario.’ The alternation between the clitic doubled a-beneficiary in (140) and the parabeneficiary in (141) shows characteristics that are similar to the properties displayed by the alternation between genitive and se- vs. jia-beneficiaries in Greek and à- vs. pour-beneficiaries in French:

(i) A-beneficiaries are impossible in nominalizations while para-beneficiaries are well-formed (Josep Quer, personal communication): (142) a.

La preparación del pastel para María/ *a María. the baking of the cake for Maria/ of Maria b. La construcción de un gran palacio para/*a Luis de Baviera. the building of a big palace for Ludwig of Bavaria c. La preparación de una fiesta sorpresa para/*a el director. the preparation of a party surprise for the director ‘The preparation of a surprise party for the director.’

(ii) Clitic doubled a-beneficiaries are impossible in passives, just like genitive and sebeneficiaries in Greek. The data illustrating this are repeated here from Section 3: (48) b. *La casa le fue pintada a Juan anteayer. the house cl.dat was painted to Juan the day before yesterday Para-beneficiaries are well-formed, similarly to jia-beneficiaries (Josep Quer, personal communication): (143) Este pastel ha sido preparado para Juan. this cake has been prepared for Juan

(iii) Like pour-beneficiaries in French, Spanish para-beneficiaries are not allowed to form an (A or A’) chain with a clitic. (144a) illustrates this with an example of right dislocation. Right dislocation of an a-beneficiary is wellformed in Spanish, just as in French (see (144b), data provided by Josep Quer, personal communication): (144) a. *Les cl.dat b. Les cl.dat

prepararan prepare.fut.3sg prepararan prepare.fut.3sg

algunos, some, algunos, some,

para tus amigos. to your friends a tus amigos. to your friends

In the literature on Spanish it is commonly assumed that a-datives are PPs when they occur undoubled and DPs when they undergo clitic doubling (see e.g. Demonte 1995;





Elena Anagnostopoulou

Bleam 1999; Cuervo 2003). There are two reasons for this claim. First, PPs generally do not undergo clitic doubling in Spanish; if doubled a-datives are PPs, then they are the only ones to permit doubling. Second, as has been seen above, there is ample evidence that undoubled a-goals occur in prepositional ditransitives while constructions with doubled a-goals and a-beneficiaries are double object constructions. The view that the former arguments are PPs and the latter DPs fits the standard picture of the ‘dative alternation’ as an alternation in category (‘oblique’ PP vs. ‘structural or semi-structural’ DP). But the discussion of Greek and French in the preceding sections has shown that there is empirical evidence against the second argument. The first argument in itself is weak, as the unavailability of doubling with all other PPs could derive from independent factors.38 It is therefore important to examine how clitic doubled a-datives fare with respect to the co-ordination tests discussed in the preceding section. As pointed out by Jeaggli (1982: 32), the evidence from co-ordination classifies Spanish a-datives as PPs. Unlike French à, Spanish a may take the conjunction of DPs as its complement. Jeaggli’s original examples are provided in (145): (145) a.

Les compraron una casa a Maria y el director. cl.dat bought.3pl a house for Maria and the director ‘They bought a house for Maria and the director.’ b. Les mandaron cartas a los padres y los abuelos cl.dat sent.3pl letters to the parents and the grandparents del interesado. of.the interested party ‘They sent cards to the parents and the grandparents of the interested party.’

Two more examples, one with an optionally doubled goal and one with an obligatory doubled beneficiary, are given in (146) (Josep Quer, personal communication). They show that co-ordination can take place either at the DP level or at the PP level, as is always the case with PPs (see (147): (146) a.

Juan (les) regaló un retrato al rey y (a) la reina. Juan cl.dat gave a portrait a.the king and a the queen ‘Juan gave a portrait to the king and (to) the queen.’ b. Juan les pintó un retrato al rey y (a) la reina. Juan cl.dat painted a portrait a.the king and a the queen ‘Juan painted a portrait for the king and (for) the queen.’

(147) a.

Hablaron con María y el director. talked.3pl with Maria and the director ‘They talked with Maria and the director.’ b. Hablaron con María y con el director. talked.3pl with Maria and with the director ‘They talked with Maria and with the director.’

Variation of datives

Jeaggli did not discuss the behavior of co-ordinated Spanish a-datives when these are modified by a relative clause. As pointed out to me by Josep Quer (personal communication), repetition of a is optional in these constructions, similarly to (146) and (147) above. Judgments appear to be subject to dialectal variation: some speakers prefer co-ordination of two a-datives when these are modified by a relative clause while for others repetition of a is entirely optional. Interestingly, when the predicate in the relative clause is collective, as in (148), forcing a group reading of the head of the relative, the speakers that prefer the conjunction of two a-datives find it quite natural not to repeat a in the second conjunct: (148) a.

Les preparé café al chico y (a) la chica que cl.dat prepared.1sg coffee to.the boy and to the girl that se conocieron ayer. cl.refl met yesterday ‘I prepared coffee for the boy and the girl who met yesterday.’ b. (Les) han enviado una carta al chico y (a) la chica cl.dat have.3P sent a letter to.the boy and to the girl que se conocieron ayer. that cl.refl met yesterday ‘They sent a letter to the boy and the girl who met yesterday.’

Recall that co-ordination of two à-datives is obligatory in comparable French examples (see (124)) while co-ordinated se-datives resist a group interpretation in the Greek counterparts of (148) (see (125a vs. b) and (126a vs. b) above). Spanish appears to be in between French and Greek: repetition is neither obligatory, as in French, nor dispreferred, as in Greek. The fact that co-ordination of two a-datives in these environments is optional, though, as well as the fact that the preference for repetition of a is relaxed in the presence of a collective predicate in the relative suggest that Spanish a is closer to Greek se than to French à, providing one more piece of evidence that it is a preposition rather than a case marker. And yet, a-PPs are allowed to form chains with pronominal clitics in Spanish, unlike Greek se-PPs which are not allowed to form chains with clitics patterning, in this respect, with jia-, para- and pour-beneficiaries. I therefore conclude that the DP vs. PP status of dative arguments cannot be determined on the basis of chain formation with a clitic, contrary to what is often assumed in the literature on Spanish. Before closing this section, a final remark must be made on the cross-linguistic distribution of clitic doubling. As is well known, clitic doubling is attested to varying extents in Spanish and Romanian, while it is absent in French, except for the personal pronoun cases discussed in Kayne (2000; see examples (130) above). In the GB literature it was widely assumed that the property that regulates the cross-linguistic distribution of doubling is Kayne’s Generalization: an object NP may undergo doubling only if it is preceded by a special preposition. In order to account for Kayne’s Generalization, Jeaggli (1982) proposed that clitics absorb government of the verb (a special kind of government called “subcategorization-government”). As a result, when





Elena Anagnostopoulou

an overt NP occurs in object position, it cannot receive Case, which must be assigned under government. Therefore, clitic doubling is ruled out as a violation of the Case Filter, unless a preposition is present, which can assign Case to the NP. On the basis of the evidence from co-ordination also discussed here, Jeaggli argued that dative clitic doubling is licit in Spanish because a is a true preposition which can license the doubled NP for Case. It is illicit in French because a is a case marker which realizes dative case rather than assigning it to the dative NP. The evidence from Greek discussed in the present paper clearly shows that this line of argument is incorrect. In Greek, clitic doubling is licit with genitive arguments which are DPs and illicit with se-datives which are PPs. In conclusion, the complex patterning of Spanish a-PPs, French à-DPs, Greek sePPs and genitive DPs with respect to cliticization and clitic doubling shows that it is incorrect to appeal to the category of the associate in order to explain the crosslinguistic distribution of clitic doubling. I will have to leave the exploration of ramifications of this result to further research.

. Concluding remarks This paper took as a starting point the observation that Greek beneficiary arguments have three alternative realizations. An attempt was made to place these constructions within the broader typology of ditransitives. The investigation focused in particular on beneficiaries introduced by the prepositional element se which were compared and contrasted to goals surfacing with se in Greek as well as dative arguments introduced by comparable prepositions in English, Japanese, French and Spanish. In the first part of the paper I argued that dative arguments introduced by se occur in double object benefactive and goal constructions and in prepositional goal ditransitives, unlike to in English which is limited to prepositional goal constructions. I linked this cross-linguistic difference to the contrasting semantic properties of se and to with respect to the feature DIRECTION/PATH and the (possibly related) function of resultativity. In the second part of the paper, I compared se-datives to a/à-datives in French and Spanish. The meaning, distribution and syntactic properties of à-datives in French were argued to be very similar those displayed by se-datives, except that the former behave like DPs and the latter like PPs under co-ordination. This led me to conclude that the category of indirect objects is orthogonal to their distribution in ditransitives. Indirect object DPs may occur in so called ‘prepositional ditransitives’ and, conversely, indirect object PPs are allowed to surface in double object constructions. It is therefore incorrect to think of the ‘dative alternation’ in terms of alternative categorial realizations of indirect object arguments. The crucial property is the association of indirect objects with extra functional structure (i.e., light applicative heads) in the double object construction. This structure is missing in so called ‘prepositional ditransitives’ where indirect objects are introduced at the root level.

Variation of datives

A further difference between Greek se-datives and French à-datives manifests itself in their behavior under cliticization, clitic doubling and other instances of chain formation with dative clitics. Se-datives do not form dependencies with clitics, while à-datives do. The question I investigated is whether this difference can be derived from the hypothesis that PPs prohibit and DPs permit chain formation with clitics. As it turned out, the answer to this question is negative. Spanish provides crucial evidence for this. Indirect objects introduced by a undergo obligatory clitic doubling in Spanish double object constructions, and yet they act like PPs under co-ordination. This led me to conclude that the category of indirect objects is not the crucial factor that determines the well-formedness of clitic dependencies. Which property underlies the parametric (un-)availability of clitic doubling and other clitic dependencies remains an open question.

Notes * I would like to express my debt to Prof. Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou for the fact that by being my first teacher in theoretical syntax she inspired me to become a linguist. I would also like to thank her for her help and support throughout the years.Many thanks to Artemis Alexiadou, Melita Stavrou, David Pesetsky, Shigeru Miyagawa, Sigrid Beck and Orin Percus for discussions on the material presented here, and to Winfried Lechner and two anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments on an earlier draft. I am grateful to Freiderikos Valetopoulos, Cedric Boeckx and, especially, Dominique Sportiche and Josep Quer for their help with the French and Spanish data. . There are important differences between Greek se and English to discussed in detail in Section 5. . In Greek, both possession and affectedness seem to be relevant notions. . As discussed in Anagnostopoulou (1999a, b, 2003), the ban against genitive DPs in passives is obviated when the genitive undergoes cliticization or clitic doubling. This fact will generally not concern me here. I will return to this, though, in Section 3.2. . Note that the English nominalizations in (11) and (12) are transitive nominalizations while the Greek ones in (10) have the appearance of passive nominalizations in which the agent surfaces as a by-phrase. As discussed at great length in Alexiadou (2001), Greek lacks transitive nominalizations. Alexiadou (2001) furthermore argues that the Greek nominalizations in (10) are not the counterpart of English passive nominalizations but rather of English transitive ones. . An anonymous reviewer points out that leftward A-bar scrambling, in itself, does not explain the lack of quantifier binding, since A’ movement can feed quantifier binding in other contexts: (i)

a. *The other’s child hated each mother. b. Each mother, the other’s child hated.

[The reviewer is not sure (b) is perfect, but he is confident it’s better than (a).] An alternative way of looking at things, according to the reviewer, would derive the ACC-GEN word order not by ACC-preposing but by GEN-postposing. The latter adjoins GEN to VP, which is higher than ACC, explaining the effect in (15).





Elena Anagnostopoulou

The alternative explanation suggested by the reviewer does not affect my analysis of the genitive goal construction in (13). . Another anonymous reviewer questions the validity of the explanation offered in the main text (or, for that matter, in Note 5) for the ungrammaticality of (15), by pointing out that s/he finds (i) as unacceptable as (15): (i)

Estila to peði tis miteras tu. sent.1sg the child.acc the mother.gen his.gen ‘I sent the child to his/her mother.’

I disagree with the reviewer’s judgments. I find (i) significantly better than (15). . Winfried Lechner (personal communication) points out that scope might help us decide the base order among goals and themes if Greek turns out to be like other scrambling languages, e.g. German, Japanese, where base orders are unambiguous and derived orders show scope ambiguity (see Lechner 1998 for discussion and references). I leave this issue for future research. . An anonymous reviewer takes as a starting point the view that head movement extends minimal domains (Chomsky 1993; Bobaljik & Jonas 1996, among others) and asks why verb movement in (25) does not make the Theme and DPGEN equidistant from T. Following Chomsky (1995), Collins (1997), Richards (1997), Anagnostopoulou (2003), among others, I assume that minimal domains are defined over trivial (i.e., single-membered) head chains, and that head movement does not extend minimal domains. Since the main empirical motivation for linking verb movement to equidistance comes from Holmberg’s Generalization (HG 1986) effects on Object Shift, the position I am taking here entails that I do not assume that HG effects should be tied to minimal domains and equidistance (see Bobaljik 2002; Holmberg 1999; Fox & Pesetsky 2002 for alternative accounts of HG effects not relying on equidistance; see Anagnostopoulou 2002 for critical discussion). . See Kayne (1984) and Beck and Johnson (2004) for an alternative account which takes the ungrammaticality of (11) to derive from a structure in which double object verbs take a small clause complement with the goal/beneficiary DP as the small clause subject. On this account, the restriction in (11) is treated on a par with the ungrammaticality of examples like *the belief of John handsome which show that nominalizations are not possible if the object of the verb is not its logical object, i.e. its argument. The evidence presented in the present paper, though, shows that indirect objects in Greek double object constructions do not have to be DPs and can also be PPs. This is unexpected in a small clause analysis of the double object construction (small clause subjects are DPs and not PPs), while it is not incompatible with the applicative analysis, which does not a priori impose a restriction on the categorial status of applied arguments. . Marantz (1993) extends Pesetsky’s (1995) account of nominalizations to synthetic compounding in adjectival passives. He points out that while predicates with two internal arguments form adjectival passives involving synthetic compounding, as illustrated in (i), double object verbs do not permit this kind of adjectival passive formation. It is neither possible for the goal argument to combine with the verb excluding the theme, as illustrated in (ii-a), nor is it possible for the theme argument to combine with the verb, excluding the goal, as in (ii-b): (i) a. c. d. e.

hand-made cookies home-made cookies paint-sprayed cart clean-shaven face

instrument locative theme result

Variation of datives

(ii) a. *boss-given flowers b. *flower-given boss

goal theme

Marantz proposes that the ungrammaticality of (iib) is due to a violation of Myers’s Generalization. . Pesetsky (1995) assumes that the zero head present in the double object construction is a null preposition introducing the theme rather than a null verb introducing the goal. See Anagnostopoulou (2003: 51–73) for arguments against Pesetsky’s analysis of the double object construction. . According to Marantz (1997) only -ing nominalizations are true nominalizations in the sense of embedding a verbal construction into a nominal one. . The restriction against nominalizations of verbs selecting for small clause complements (see Note 9) can, perhaps, be subsumed under Marantz’s (1997) proposal that deverbal nominals can only be based on roots, if subjects of small clause complements are taken to require the presence of a Case-checking verbal head in order for their subject to be licensed. . While nominalizations in which the goal surfaces as the non-prepositional complement of the noun are never possible with the verbs forming the Genitive Construction (see (10) above as well as (i) below), they are possible with the verbs forming the Double Accusative Construction (see (5c) above), as shown in (ii): (i)

a. b.

(ii) a.

b.

c.

To the To the

xarisma enos vivliu/ *to xarisma enos peðiu. gift of a book/ *the gift of a child (i.e., to a child) niciasma tu spitiu/ *to niciasma tu fititi. rental of the house/ *the rental of a student (i.e., to a student)

I ðiðaskalia ton maθimatikon/ i ðiðaskalia ton the teaching of math/ the teaching of the peðion. children (i.e., to the children) I taktici pliromi ton loγarismon/ i taktici pliromi ton the regular payment of the bills/ the regular payment of the ipalilon. employees (i.e., to the employees) To γriγoro servirizma tu fajitu/ to γriγoro servirizma tu the fast serving of the food/ the fast serving of the pelati. customer (i.e., to the customer)

In Anagnostopoulou (2001) I argue that the above contrast can be accounted for if the goal in the Genitive construction is introduced by vAPPL while the goal in the Double Accusative construction is introduced at the root-level. . See Demonte (1995), Bleam (1999), Ormazabal and Romero (2001), Anagnostopoulou (2003), Cuervo (2003) for arguments that the Spanish goal construction without doubling is a prepositional goal ditransitive and the one with doubling a double object construction. I will come back to this in Section 6. . Josep Quer points out that beneficiaries are only licensed in impersonal passives in Spanish:



 Elena Anagnostopoulou

(i)

Se *(le) preparó un gran pastel a María. ‘A big cake has been made for Maria.’

This probably provides the key to the understanding of the ban against beneficiaries in personal passives, but I am currently not in a position to uncover its significance. Perhaps this fact is related to the Greek facts in (47). . As noted by Markantonatou (1994) and Anagnostopoulou (2003) indefinite, and quantificational genitive indirect objects are marginal in Greek. Abstracting away from this, the reciprocal interpretation in (53a) is possible. . This construction has not been studied in the literature. One property it shares with do so ellipsis is that it is licensed only with eventive predicates: (i) *O Petros kseri γalika ce i Maria kani to iðjio. the Peter know.3sg French and the Mary do.3sg the same ‘*Peter knows French and Mary does so too.’ Another property the two constructions have in common is that they do not permit Antecedent Contained Deletion: (ii) *O Petros sinantise ton Anðra pu i Maria ekane to iðjio. the Peter met.3sg the man that Mary did.3sg the same ‘*Peter met the man that Mary did so too.’ . See Beck and Johnson (2004) for an argument based on repetitive vs. restitutive Again (see Section 5) that for-beneficiaries in English have the structure in (64). If it turns out that (64) is the correct structure for Greek as well, then it must be assumed that the subject position contains a trace of the raised subject (or a null resumptive pro connected to a clitic left dislocated subject; see Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998). . In English, for-beneficiary constructions behave similarly to goal constructions with respect to Barss and Lasnik’s tests, i.e., precedence matches c-command, as shown in (i-a, b). As pointed out to me by Orin Percus, though, for-beneficiary constructions in English do not permit (backward) co-reference, as shown in (i-c), for unclear reasons: (i)

a. John designed every housej for itsj future owner. b. *John designed hisj house for every clientj. c. ?*John built herj house for Maryj.

The awkwardness of (ic) constitutes an additional complication for the analysis of prepositional benefactive constructions, which cannot be fully assimilated to prepositional goal constructions where backward coreference is licit and backward binding not: (ii) a. *John returned hisj book to every manj. b. John returned herj book to Maryj. Note that the same contrast obtains in Greek: (iii) a. ?*O the b. ?O the

Petros Peter Petros Peter

extise to built.3sg the epestrepse returned.3sg

spiti tisj jia ti house her for to vivlio tisj sti the book her to

I leave this issue open for further research.

Mariaj. Mary Mariaj. Mary

Variation of datives . In the typological literature (Talmy 1985) languages are divided into two main categories. (a) Those that express the distinction between direction and pure location by verbs and prepositions. (b) Those that express the distinction between direction and pure location only by the verb. English is taken to belong to category (a) and Spanish to category (b). Unlike Ancient Greek which fell under category (a), Modern Greek belongs to category (b), i.e., locative prepositions generally do not lexicalize the distinction between motion and pure location, which is expressed exclusively by verbs (see Scopeteas 2003 for discussion of the history of Greek locative prepositions). . These prepositions also have a temporal use corresponding to English until. . According to Pesetsky, condition (76) also explains why the preposition at used to express approximation to a goal is compatible with verbs denoting “instantaneous causation of ballistic motion” and incompatible with verbs of “continuous causation of accompanied motion in some manner”, as shown by the data in (i) and (ii), respectively (Pesetsky’s examples (373), (374)): (i)

a. b. c. d.

(ii) a. b. c. d.

Mary threw the book at John. Mary flung the package at Sue. Mary kicked the ball at John. John flicked the coin at her. *Mary pulled the trunk at Sue. *Mary pushed the boulder at John. *Mary dragged the sack at Bill. *Mary schlepped the box at John.

The Greek counterparts of the sentences in (ii) employing the preposition pros ’towards’ which expresses approximation to a goal are grammatical (see Anagnostopoulou 2003). . Beck and Snyder (2001) point out that from the languages they discuss the only one that shows a mixed behavior with respect to their diagnostics is Japanese. Greek also shows a mixed behavior. . Though see Horrocks and Stavrou (2003) who argue that the adjectives here are more like modifiers of the resultant state, which is lexically encoded in the verb itself, they do not denote the result state; thus, they are like depictive adjectives. . Note that the telicity shift in (88) provides an argument for the view that the nondirectionality of se prevents it from making the predicate telic but does not, in itself, argue against the view that Greek has a negative setting of Beck and Snyder’s (2001) parameter. Crucially, the restitutive reading of again (Greek ‘ksana’) is impossible in the presence of a mexri and eos-PP suggesting that the accomplishment reading in (88) is not created by the principle of semantic composition proposed by von Stechow (1995). . The unacceptable examples in (89) become acceptable if either an implicit goal argument is postulated (which is not necessary; the implicit goal is optional) or under an interpretation like “it took me two minutes to be able to start pushing/moving the cart”. The unacceptable interpretations in (90) become acceptable if the for-PP is taken to modify the reversible endstate (the target state see Parsons 1990; Kratzer 2000) of the event expressed by the predicate, for example if the person receiving the fax may only keep it for two minutes, or if I will get my house back after a month. . The issue requires further investigation, though, because, to the extent that I have checked, it seems that restitutive readings of ksana ‘again’ are possible in Greek prepositional ditransitives



 Elena Anagnostopoulou

with se-goals. If true, this would suggest that se-goals are sometimes resultative and sometimes not, i.e., that they denote result states with verbs like give, send, drag but not with push, pull or lower. . Beneficiaries surface with a different postposition (Shigeru Miyagawa, personal communication), and will not be discussed here. . Since inanimate goals are generally not licensed in the double object construction, they are always PPs, even when they precede themes, as in (98b). As discussed by Miyagawa and Tsujioka, low PP-goals are allowed to precede or follow themes, unlike high DP goals which prevent themes from moving across them. . Japanese datives can become nominative under passivization acting as if they have purely structural Case, unlike e.g. Greek genitives and Icelandic datives (see Larson 1988; Ura 1996; Anagnostopoulou 2003 for discussion). . If the proposal put forth in Section 5 to analyze ditransitives with verbs of continuous imparting of force on a par with examples like (104) and (105) is correct, then such predicates are predicted to qualify as atelic in French. I haven’t tested this prediction. . See McGinnis (1998) and Anagnostopoulou (2003) for evidence that Greek se-datives and French à-datives block NP-movement when they are higher and in a different minimal domain than the moved element. Specifically, à-datives and se-datives are illicit when they realize experiencers in raising contexts because they belong in the minimal domain of the matrix V seem and raising takes place from the embedded clause violating locality. The blocking effect of à-experiencers is obviated under cliticization of the intervener in French as in Greek. . According to Dominique Sportiche, there is a slight contrast between (112b) and its counterpart with the dative clitic in (i), which is perfect: (i)

Le fait de rencontrer Paul lui a donné mal de tête. ‘Meeting Paul gave her a headache.’

In Anagnostopoulou (1999b) I noticed a similar contrast in Greek. When the goal is realized as a genitive DP and the subject is a non-volitional causer there is a preference for cliticization or clitic doubling of the genitive, for unclear reasons. . For Dominique Sportiche (113a) is out, presumably because such a scenario is too farfetched. . The fact that (117b) is basically fine suggests that the theme>beneficiary order is derived by A-movement of the theme over the beneficiary. As extensively discussed in Anagnostopoulou (2002, 2003) so called “symmetric double object languages” show a correlation between the availability of direct object>indirect object orders in transitive sentences and the grammaticality of theme passivization across a higher intervening indirect object in passives. This correlation can be accounted for if it is assumed that in symmetric double object languages vAPPL licenses a secondary specifier which functions as an escape hatch for further A-movement (object shift, passivization, A-scrambling) of the direct object across the indirect object (the specifier to vAPPL parameter). The fact that (i) the theme undergoes A movement across the beneficiary in (117b) and (ii) theme passivization across an adversely affected dative in (116a) is well-formed suggests that French behaves like a symmetric double object language with respect to the specifier to vAPPL parameter. . Dominique Sportiche points out that (132a) is fine with the beneficiary pour-phrase unrelated to the clitic. In (132b) the pour-phrase would be interpreted as “according to these chil-

Variation of datives

dren”. Similarly, (133b) below is grammatical on a reading according to which the pour-phrase is not related to the clitic. . For example, it could be suggested that only à-PPs are allowed to form double object constructions, which in Spanish necessitate the presence of a doubling clitic (see Demonte 1995; Torrego 1998; Bleam 1999; Cuervo 2003 for some explanations of the requirement for doubling in the Spanish double object construction). The reasons for this could be similar to the ones discussed in Section 5 for Greek se and French à, though there is a complication, namely that a-phrases in Spanish do not denote pure location, i.e. they are not allowed as complements of ‘live’ or ‘stay’ (Josep Quer, personal communication).

References Alexiadou, A. (2001). Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou (1998). Parametrizing AGR: Word order, verb-movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 491–539. Anagnostopoulou, E. (1999a). On clitics, feature movement and double object alternations. In Proceedings of the 29th North East Linguistic Society. Papers from the poster sessions (pp. 41– 55). Amherst: GLSA. Anagnostopoulou, E. (1999b). On double object alternations and clitics. Unpublished Ms., University of Crete. Anagnostopoulou, E. (2001). Two classes of double object verbs: The role of zero-morphology. In M. van Oostendorp & E. Anagnostopoulou (Eds.) Progress in Grammar. Articles at the 20th anniversary of the comparison of grammatical models group in Tilburg. Dutch Royal Academy Publications: Electronic book in progress. Anagnostopoulou, E. (2002). Movement across phonologically visible categories. Talk presented at MIT-Ling-Lunch, December 5, 2002. Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). The Syntax of Ditransitives. Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Anastassiadi-Simeonidi, A. (1986). Neology in Modern Greek Koine. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Barss, A. & H. Lasnik (1986). A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 347–354. Beck, S. & K. Johnson (2004). Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 97–123. Beck, S. & W. Snyder (2001). The resultative parameter and restitutive ‘again’. In C. Fery & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Auditur vox Sapientiae: A festschrift for Arnim von Stechow (pp. 81–95). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Belletti, A. & U. Shlonsky (1995). The order of verbal complements: A comparative study. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 489–526. Bleam, T. (1999). Leísta Spanish and the Syntax of Clitic Doubling. Ph.D. Disseration, University of Delaware. (Distributed by the Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.) Bobaljik, J. (2002). A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and ‘covert’ movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 197–267.



 Elena Anagnostopoulou

Bobaljik, J. & D. Jonas (1996). Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry, 27, 195– 236. Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax: Dordrecht: Reidel. Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20 (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1995). Categories and transformations. In The Minimalist Program (pp. 219–394). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Collins, C. (1997). Local Economy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Cuervo, M. C. (2003). Structural asymmetries but same word order: The dative alternation in Spanish. In A.-M. DiSciullo (Ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 57]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Demonte, V. (1995). Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus, 7, 5–30. Dikken, M. den (1995). Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic and causative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Fox, D. & D. Pesetsky (2002). Cyclic spellout, ordering and the typology of movement. Handout, MIT. Giannakidou, A. & J. Merchant (1999). Why Giannis can’t scrub his plate clean: On the absence of resultative secondary predication in Greek. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp. 95–105). Athens: Ellinika Grammata. Gropen, J., S. Pinker, M. Hollander, R. Goldberg, & R. Wilson (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203–257. Hoji, H. (1985). Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington. Holmberg, A. (1986). Word Order and Syntactic Features. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Stockholm. Holmberg, A. (1999). Remarks on ‘Holmberg’s Generalization’. Studia Linguistica, 53, 1–39. Holton, D., P. Mackridge, & I. Philippaki-Warburton (1997). Greek. A comprehensive grammar of the Modern Greek language. London: Routledge. Horrocks, G. & M. Stavrou (2003). Actions and their results in Greek and English: The complementarity of morphologically encoded (viewpoint) aspect and syntactic resultative predication. Journal of Semantics, 20, 297–327. Jaeggli, O. (1982). Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Kayne, R. (1975). French Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kayne, R. (1984). Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrect: Foris. Kayne, R. (2000). Parameters and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kratzer, A. (1994). The event argument and the semantics of voice. Unpublished Ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Kratzer, A. (2000). Building statives. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 26. Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335–392. Lechner, W. (1998). Two kinds of reconstruction. Studia Linguistica, 52, 276–310. Lechner, W. (2003). Phrase structure paradoxes, movement and ellipsis. In K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (Eds.), The Interfaces. Deriving and interpreting omitted structures [Linguistik Akuell/Lnguistics Today 61] (pp. 177–203). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Variation of datives

Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav (1995). Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Mackridge, P. (1985). The Modern Greek Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [1987: H Nεοελληνικη´ Γλω´σσα. Translation of Mackridge 1985 by K. N. Petropoulos. Athens: Patakis.] Mahajan, A. (1990). The A/A-bar Distinction and Movement Theory. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Marantz, A. (1993). Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In S. Mchombo (Ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar (pp. 113–150). Stanford, CA: CSLI. Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. Paper presented at the 21st Penn Linguistics Colloquium. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(2). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Markantonatou, S. (1994). ∆HÜπτωτα ρήµατα: µHÜα λεξικο-σηµασιολογική προσ7Ü γγιση (Ditransitive verbs: A lexical-semantic approach). In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics of the University of Thessaloniki (pp. 360–371). McGinnis, M. J. (1998). Locality in A-Movement. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Miyagawa, S. (1997). Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 1–25. Miyagawa, S. & T. Tsujioka (to appear). High and low goals and word order in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics. Myers, S. (1984). Zero-derivation and inflection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 7: Papers from the January 1984 MIT Workshop in Morphology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Oehrle, R. (1976). The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Ormazabal, J. & J. Romero (2001). Agreement Restrictions. Unpublished Ms., University of the Basque Country (EHU)/Basque Center for Language Research (LEHIA) and U. of Alcalá/U. Autónoma de Madrid. Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the Semantics of English. A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1977). Modern Greek clitic pronouns and the ‘surface structure constraints’. Journal of Linguistics, 13, 259–281. Phillips, C. (1996). Order and Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Pylkkänen, L. (2002). Introducing Arguments. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Ralli, A. & M. Stavrou (1997). Morphology-syntax interface: A-N compounds vs. A-N constructs in Modern Greek. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology (pp. 243–265). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Richards, N. (1997). What Moves Where When in Which Language. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Scopeteas, S. (2003). The evolution of control in Greek verbs of motion. Unpublished Ms., University of Erfurt. Snyder, W. (1995). Language Acquisition and Language Variation: The role of morphology. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Snyder, W. (2001). On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language, 77, 324–342. Sportiche, D. (1992). Clitic constructions. Unpublished Ms., UCLA. Sportiche, D. (1998). Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure. Subjects, agreement, case and clitics. London: Routledge.



 Elena Anagnostopoulou

Stechow, A. von (1995). Lexical decomposition in syntax. In U. Egli, P. E. Pause, C. Schwarze, A. von Stechow, & G. Wienhold (Eds.), Lexical Knowledge in the Organization of Language [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 114] (pp. 81–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Takano, Y. (1998). Object shift and scrambling. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 817–889. Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Torrego, E. (1998). The Dependencies of Objects. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Tzartzanos, A. (1946/1989). Nεοελληνικη´ Συ´νταξις της Kοινη´ς ∆ηµοτικη´ς (Modern Greek Syntax of Standard Demotic). Thessaloniki: Kiriakidis (2nd edition). Ura, H. (1996). Multiple Feature-Checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Vergnaud, J.-R. (1974). French Relative Clauses. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Uriagereka, J. (1988). On Government. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut. Webelhuth, G. (1989). Syntactic Saturation Phenomena and the Modern Germanic Languages. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Yatsushiro, K. (2001). Case Licensing and VP Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut [Distributed by MITWPL, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press].

A possessive adjective in the Greek DP* Artemis Alexiadou In this paper I discuss the properties of Modern Greek (MG) possessive constructions from a diachronic perspective. The particular question I am pursuing concerns the status of possessive adjectives (PAs) in the history of Greek. Unlike what we find in, e.g. the Romance languages, Greek lost almost all possessive adjectives in the course of its history preserving only one, namely ðiko, which is similar in interpretation to English own or Italian proprio. Here I discuss in detail the differences and similarities between Greek ðiko and its counterparts in other languages. I further show that the construction with ðiko is subject to different conditions from the ones that pertain to possessive constructions without ðiko.

.

Introduction

In MG, the phrase bearing the possessor theta role has either the form of a clitic or is a DP in the genitive; both instantiations of the possessor always co-occur with determiners as shown in (1a–b) (from Alexiadou & Stavrou 2000). The basic/unmarked position of possessive clitics as well as of genitive DPs is the postnominal one. The clitic cannot double a possessor DP, (1c): (1) a.

To vivlio-tu. the book-his ‘His book.’ b. To vivlio tu fititi. the book the.gen student.gen ‘The student’s book.’ c. *To vivlio-tu tu fititi. the book-his the.gen student.gen

The possessive clitics are actually the weak/clitic forms of the genitive of personal pronouns for the first and the second person, and of the demonstrative pronoun for the third person. Possessive clitics manifest person and number distinctions (six forms overall for singular and plural: mu/su/tu, mas/sas/tus), have gender morphology only when found in the third person, and show no agreement in phi-features with the pos-

 Artemis Alexiadou

sessed object (note that in the plural the genitive has the same form as the accusative). The paradigm of the possessive clitic is illustrated in (2): (2)

Singular 1 mu 2 su 3 tu.masc, neut/tis.fem

Plural mas sas tus

According to Alexiadou and Stavrou (op.cit.), m-/s-/t- can be identified as person morphemes. In addition, MG uses a complex construction to express possession, which constitutes the main focus of this paper (see Drachman 1991 for a preliminary investigation). This contains a determiner, a possessive adjective meaning something like ‘own’, a possessive clitic, and the head noun (3a).1 As was the case with (1c), no doubling of the possessor DP is permitted – (3b): (3) a.

To ðiko-mu vivlio. the own-my book ‘my own book’ b. *To ðiko-tu vivlio tu fititi. the own-his book the.gen student.gen

The PA agrees in all features with the possessed noun, i.e., case, number and gender, as is the rule for all other adjectives in the language. The possessive clitic inflects for person, number and gender in the third person much like it does in (1a). (4) illustrates further forms of this construction: (4) a.

To the b. Ta the

ðiko own.sg.neut ðika own.pl.neut

su/tu/tis/tu/mas/sas/tus vivlio. your/his/her/its/our/your/their book mu/su/tu/tis/tu/mas/sas/tus vivlia. my/your/his/her/its/our/your books

In what follows I refer to the construction in (1a–b) as the simple possessive construction, and to the construction in (3a) as the complex possessive construction, since it contains a possessive clitic and a PA. ðiko is the only PA MG has, since the language lacks PAs of the Romance type (for which see Giorgi & Longobardi 1991; Cardinaletti 1998 – consider (5) from Cardinaletti 1998: 18): (5) La sua casa. the (his/her) house ‘His/her house.’ In this respect MG also differs from Classical Greek (CG), which had PAs of this type, as shown in (6). In (6) the PA agrees in all phi-features with the head noun:2

A possessive adjective in the DP 

(6) Ton emon filon. the mine.acc.sg.ms friend.acc.sg.ms ‘My friend.’ The interpretation of the MG PA seems to be related to that of anaphoric PAs in e.g. Romance and English, (7a–b). (7) a.

Il proprio figlio. the own/self son ‘His own son’ b. My own book.

Italian

The following questions arise. First of all, given that in MG the choice exists between a complex and a simple possessive construction, is the use of one or the other expression guided by certain syntactic and/or semantic conditions? Does the complex possessive construction behave like a reflexive element? How similar is it to, e.g., its English or Italian counterpart? What is the structural position of ðiko? Finally, what is, if any, the relation between the CG PAs and the MG PA? The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 I turn to a description of the syntactic and semantic properties of the MG complex possessive construction. In particular I address the question of whether (3a) is a reflexive element (2.1). I examine the distributional properties of the MG PA (2.2), and, finally, I investigate the semantic differences between the simple and complex possessive construction (2.3). In Section 3, I turn to a brief examination of the diachronic development of Greek PAs. In Section 4, I present the structure for the Greek PAs. In Section 5, I discuss a construction related and yet quite different from that in (3a) containing the adjective iðios ‘the same/own’. Both iðios and ðiko derive from the same source diachronically, but they behave very differently. Section 6 concludes my discussion.

. The properties of the MG complex possessive construction . +Reflexive or –reflexive? As already mentioned in the previous section, the MG PA seems superficially similar to anaphor possessives in languages such as Italian and English. Though it is agreed upon that Italian proprio is a long distance anaphor (see Giorgi 1984, 1987; Sells 1987; Chierchia 1989 among others), the status of its English counterpart is a matter of dispute, see, for instance, Higginbotham (1985), Chomsky (1986), Saxon (1991), among others, for arguments that own is reflexive, and Reinhart (1983), Baker (1995) and Zribi-Hertz (1995), among others, for arguments that it is not. In this section I raise the same question for the Greek construction in (3a). In what follows I mainly compare the MG construction to the English x’s own construction.

 Artemis Alexiadou

Examples such as the ones in (8), cited in Higginbotham (1985: 576–577), were taken as evidence suggesting that English my own behaves like a reflexive pronoun.3 A contrast in naturalness between (8a) and (8b) can be observed: (8b) is not acceptable without emphatic stress. (8) a. Tie your own shoelaces! b. ??Tie his own shoelaces! In support of this note also that in canonical contexts for reflexives X’s own and X-self exhibit the property of requiring a local antecedent: (9) a. He read that his own/*her own play had bombed on Broadway. b. He read that pictures of himself/*herself had appeared in press. However, Baker (1995: 75) notes that examples like (8a) have an idiomatic interpretation. (8a) can roughly be paraphrased as ‘tie your boots yourself ’. Hence they are not crucial for determining the status of own. In addition, Reinhart (1983) observes, citing an example due to David Dowty, that X’s own, unlike third person reflexive self, can occur in contexts without a linguistic antecedent (cited in Saxon 1991: 501ff.): (10) a. That is his own book. b. That is your own book. (11) a. ?Physicists like herself are rare. b. Physicists like yourself are rare. Furthermore, Baker (1995), as well as Zribi-Hertz (1995: 364), note that my own may be sentence free, which confirms the view that it is not subject to the c-command condition. Both these authors stress the emphatic use of English X’s own: (12) Isabel was silent. Suddenly, she was anxious for them to be installed. Her own thesis had been hanging fire for too long. While Baker considers X’s own as a logophor,4 in Zribi-Hertz’s analysis X’s own is a complex pronoun, the pronoun component of which is not a pronominal but a bindable expression unspecified for disjoint reference and locality. The presence of the adjectival part de-stresses the pronoun, and is interpreted as endophoric (for further discussion see Baker 1995; Saxon 1991; Zribi-Hertz 1995 and references therein). The examples in (9) would then be accounted for under the logophoric use of own. Let us now see how the Greek complex possessive fares. One superficial difference that we can observe between the MG and the English construction is that in MG the PA co-occurs both with a determiner and a possessive clitic. This follows from the differences in the syntactic representation of possession in the two languages. Namely, the English possessive necessarily cliticizes to D◦ , while it is an enclitic (on the noun) in Greek, see Section 5. Consider now the data in (13). In (13a) only Kostas can serve as the antecedent of the pronoun. In (13b) the pronoun could be referring to somebody else.

A possessive adjective in the DP

O Kostasi θa feri to the Kostas fut bring.3sg the ‘Kostas will bring his own car.’ to b. O Kostasi θa feri the Kostas fut bring.3sg the ‘Kostas will bring his car.’

(13) a.

ðiko-tui/*j aftocinito. own-his car aftocinito-tui/j car-his

(13) would then suggest that the MG PA is somehow similar to the reflexive pronoun of MG, o eaftos mu, which is built on the basis of a determiner, a reflexive pronoun and a possessive clitic ((14), see Iatridou 1988 and Anagnostopoulou & Everaert 1999 for extensive discussion).5 (14) a.

O Jianisi misi ton eafto-tui/*j. the John.nom hate.3sg the self-his ‘John hates himself.’ b. O Jianisj toni/*j misi. the John.nom him hate.3sg ‘John hates him.’

The counterpart of (11a) is ungrammatical in Greek. But, as (15) shows, the complex possessive can occur without a linguistic antecedent: (15) a.

Afto ine to ðiko-tu vivlio. this is the own-his book ‘This is his own book.’ b. Afto ine to ðiko-su vivlio. this is the own-your book ‘This is your own book.’

Consider also (16)–(17). stin ekðromi ce o Kostas I Mariai ðen θa erθi the Mary neg fut come.3sg to-the excursion and the Kostas θa pari.3sg to {ðiko-tisi poðilato, to poðilato-tisi }. fut brings the {own-her bicycle, bicycle-her} ‘Mary will not come to the excursion and Kostas will bring her own/her bicycle.’ b. I Mariai epetrepse ston Kosta na pari to {ðiko-tisi the Mary allowed.3sg to.the Kostas sub take.3sg the {own-her poðilato, poðilato-tisi }. bicycle, bicycle-her ‘Mary allowed Kostas to take her own/her bicycle.’ c. I Mariai lipiθice pu o Kostas pire to {ðiko-tisi the Mary was-sad that the Kostas took.3sg the {own-her

(16) a.





Artemis Alexiadou

poðilato, poðilato tisi }. bicycle, bicycle-her} ‘Mary was sad that Kostas took her own/her bicycle.’ (17) a. *I Mariai epetrepse ston Kosta na katiγorisi ton eafto-tisi. the Mary allowed.3sg to-the Kostas sub accuse.3sg the self-her *‘Mary allowed Kostas to accuse herself.’ b. *I Mariai lipiθice pu o Kostas katiγorise ton eafto-tisi. Mary was-sad that the Kostas accused.3sg the self-her *‘Mary was sad that Kostas accused herself.’ In (16) the DP binding the pronominal is not in a specific local domain. In this respect the construction differs from the reflexive which cannot undergo long distance binding (17). As mentioned earlier the English complex possessive is considered by some linguists as an intensive/emphatic possessive, hence not strictly a reflexive. Traditional grammars of Greek (Mackridge 1985) also consider the MG complex construction as emphatic, emphasising mainly the possessor. Hence a parallelism can be established here between the Greek and the English PA. Let me now turn to some distributional properties of the MG PA.

. Distributional properties The word order in the complex possessive construction is Determiner + PA + clitic + head noun, (18a). At first sight, this seems similar to other adj-clitic combinations in the Greek DP, illustrated in (18b). (18) a.

To ðiko-mu vivlio. the own-my book ‘My own book.’ b. To oreo-mu vivlio. the nice-my book ‘My nice book.’

Note, however, that (18b) is only one of two possible word orders. A second option, and for some speakers the canonical word order, is the one in (19a), where the clitic follows the head noun. This word order is not possible for ðiko, as the ungrammaticality of (19b) shows: (19) a.

To oreo vivlio-mu. the nice book-my ‘My nice book.’

A possessive adjective in the DP

b. *To ðiko vivlio-mu. the own book-my The order in (18b) is subject to certain semantic conditions that have been discussed in detail in Alexiadou and Stavrou (2000). In particular, it was observed there that (18b) exhibits an animacy restriction: (20) a.

O trelos oðiγos-tu. the crazy driver-its ‘Its crazy driver/the crazy driver of the lorry.’ b. *O trelos-tu oðiγos. the crazy-his driver c. O omorfos iðioktitis-tu the handsome owner-its ‘Its handsome owner.’ d. *O omorfos-tu iðioktitis (vs. to omorfo-mu spiti). the handsome-its owner (vs. the beautiful-my house) ‘Its handsome owner/ the handsome owner of the shop.’

As (20) shows, while the clitic can refer to both an animate and a non-animate entity when it follows the noun, it can only refer to an animate entity when it follows the adjective. As (21) shows, the complex possessive construction is also characterised by animacy: (21) a.

I Maria oðijise to Jiani stin kuzina. the Mary took.3sg the John to.the kitchen b. O Jianis sceftice oti ta ðika-tis dulapjia ine ta pjo the John thought.3sg that the own-her cupboards are the more orea. nice ‘John thought that her own cupboards were the most beautiful ones.’

Crucially, ta ðika tis in (21b) cannot refer to the kitchen – much like the post-adjectival clitic in (20). In the analysis of Alexiadou and Stavrou (2000), the animacy restriction was accounted for structurally. I come back to this in Section 4. Interestingly, both examples in (18) can be understood as instantiations of what Manolessou (2000) calls internal genitives in Classical G. An example of an internal genitive is given in (22). In this case the possessor genitive precedes the noun, the so-called ‘sandwitched’ position: (22) To tutu vivlion. the his.gen book ‘His book.’ (22) is no longer possible in MG, but internal clitics are clearly historically related to this construction. Manolessou (op.cit.) notes that internal genitives passed through an



 Artemis Alexiadou

intermediate stage in which they could appear in the sandwitched position only if they were accompanied by an attributive adjective to support them, as in (23): (23) Ta eujenika tu Xalepe korasia. the kind.pl the Halepe.gen girls ‘The kind girls of Halepe.’ Only in later texts (14th–15th c.) do we attest the complete disappearance of the internal genitive, replaced by the clitic. We can thus quite safely conclude that the pattern in (18b) is historically related to that of (22) and (23). A similar conclusion can be reached for (18a). The MG PA derives from the adjective iðios ‘own’, which appears in the era of the New Testament and takes over the place of the CG PA (from Brixhe 1984). This adjective is used in MG outside the possessive system and has a number of special properties (see Varlokosta & Hornstein 1993; Iatridou 1986). (24) Eis ton iðion aγron. to the own land ‘To the own land.’ The adjective appears in prenominal position. Most frequently, the adjective has a reflexive meaning, but not necessarily so. According to Brixhe (1984), the reflexive interpretation comes about when the adjective combines with the genitive of the personal pronoun: (25) Ton iðion autis aγron. the own hers land ‘To her own land.’ Brixhe further suggests that the construction in (25) is in fact the origin of the MG form ðiko mu.6 Under this hypothesis, the origin of the complex MG construction is in fact a reflexive possessive construction (iðion changes to i/e-ðiko, which is the form from which the MG PA actually derives). (25) is similar to (23) in that it seems that both the MG complex possessive construction and the adjective + clitic combination have followed a parallel development. I come back to the emergence of clitics in Section 3. However, there are differences between the two constructions. As already pointed out, while possessive clitics show a certain flexibility with respect to their attachment site, as opposed to DP possessors (see (26) and the discussion in Alexiadou & Stavrou 2000), this is not the case with the possessive clitics of the ðiko mu construction. (27) is ungrammatical, cf. (19a–b): (26) a.

To cenurjio-(tu) poðilato-(tu). the new-his bike-his ‘His new bicycle.’

A possessive adjective in the DP

b. *To cenurjio tu peðju poðilato. the new the-gen kid-gen bike ‘The child’s new bicycle.’ (27) *To ðiko vivlio-mu. the mine book-my Crucially, the clitic and the PA must appear adjacent, and there is no choice, at least in MG, as to the host of the clitic.7 Second, the PA is sensitive as to the types of adjectives it can co-occur with: (28) a. *To oreo ðiko-mu vivlio. the nice own-my book ?? b. To ðiko-mu oreo vivlio. the own-my nice book c. ?I ðici-mu θraciotici foresia. the own-my Thracian costume ‘My own Thracian costume.’ d. To meγalo-mu kocino vivlio. the big-my red book ‘My big red book.’ e. ?To meγalo kocino-mu vivlio. the big red-my book Both orders in (28b) and (28c) are marginal, but speakers suggest that (28b) is somewhat better. Note here that when the adjective is of the classificatory/objective type (see Stavrou 1999 for discussion), the status of the whole noun phrase improves (28c). In this particular case, the adjective and the noun together refer to a particular kind of costume and, as Stavrou (1999) argues, they form a N0 syntactically. Hence the contrast between (28a) and (28b) can be explained as follows: in (28a), where the adjective ‘nice’ has a clearly evaluative interpretation, the PA cannot co-occur. On the other hand, in (28b), the adjective ‘nice’ receives an absolute (objective) reading (see Sleeman 1996, for the claim that adjectives like ‘good’ can acquire a classificatory role), similar to the interpretation of (28c), which clearly involves a classificatory adjective, hence the example becomes acceptable. Assuming that evaluative adjectives occupy the specifier of a functional position FP within the DP, as in Stavrou (1999), the above data suggest that the two adjectives, the possessive and the evaluative one, compete for the same position, namely Spec,FP in (29); see also the discussion in Section 4.8 (29) [DP [FP Adj [NP]]] Here the PA differs from its Romance counterparts, which seem to be able to co-occur with other adjectives (example due to R. d’ Alessandro, personal communication).



 Artemis Alexiadou

(30) Ciascuno ha offerto il proprio generoso contributo each has offered the proprio generous contribution all’associazione. to the association ‘Each person has offered his own generous contribution to the association.’ In view of (29) the contrast between Italian and Greek can be understood as follows. Proprio must occupy a high position within the DP, namely one higher that the one evaluative adjectives occupy; crucially, MG, unlike Romance, makes available less specifier positions DP-internally for the placement of adjectives. Further supporting evidence for the view that the MG PA occupies a high position comes from the similaritiy between PA and adjectival quantifiers/cardinals in ellipsis contexts. The MG PA (+clitic) licenses ellipsis in a way that parallels the way quantificational adjectives/quantifiers do: (31) Θa fero to cenurjio aftocinito-mu, ala pare ci esi to fut bring.1sg the new car-my, but take.2sg and you the ðiko-su aftocinito. own your car ‘I will bring my new car, but you should also take yours.’ Giannakidou and Stavrou (1999) point out that in ellipsis certain types of adjectives can be omitted and recovered along with the omitted noun, while others cannot. In particular, classificatory adjectives are recovered,9 while this is not the case with evaluative adjectives: I Maria aγorase tria γalika servitsia ce i Eleni the Mary bought.3sg three French tea-sets and the Eleni aγorase ðio γalika servitsia.10 bought.3sg two French tea-sets b. I Maria aγorase.3sg ðio iperoçes γlastres eno i Eleni the Mary bought.3sg two wonderful plant-pots while the Eleni ðen aγorase kamia γlastra. neg bought.3sg none plant-pot ‘Mary bought two wonderful plant pots while Helen bought none.’

(32) a.

The crucial point here is that in (32b) what Eleni did not buy was a plant pot. The sentence does not have a reading according to which Eleni bought a plant pot, just not a magnificent one. On the other hand, (32a) means that Eleni bought two French teasets. Classificatory adjectives form a compound with the head noun, which means that what is omitted in (32a) is actually a noun. Now in (31), what is meant is that someone is asked to bring his car, not necessarily a new one. Ðiko in this context patterns like ðio (‘two’) and kamia (‘none’): not only does it allow omission of N but it does so by behaving like a pronominal that ‘stands for’ this omitted N. Further support for

A possessive adjective in the DP

the pronominal – hence intransitive – use of ðiko is provided by the examples in (33) below – cf. also (15): Pjianu aftocinito θa feris? whose car will bring.2sg? ‘Whose car will you bring along?’ b. To ðiko-mu. the own-my ‘Mine’ b’. *mu/*ðiko my/own

(33) a.

The above examples rather strongly suggest that ðiko occupies a high position in the nominal structure, like numerals or quantificational adjectives. In this respect the complex possessive seems to have properties of both types of possessors investigated in Cardinaletti (1998), strong and weak ones. According to Cardinaletti (op.cit.), strong possessors appear in their thematic position, can be coordinated and modified, and appear in isolation. They are taken to be more complex in terms of their internal structure. On the other hand, weak possessors appear in derived positions and can license ellipsis in languages such as Italian. In the next section I turn to the semantic properties of the MG complex possessive construction comparing it to English X’s own (English data and discussion are from Saxon 1991, unless otherwise indicated).

. Semantic properties Saxon (1991) observes that English X’s own is ambiguous between a contrastive and an attributive interpretation. Consider (34): (34) a. Martha wants her own car. b. Martha wants her car. The (b) example presupposes that a certain car exists which can be called Martha’s. (a) is ambiguous between a contrastive interpretation, which is also available for (b) if her in (b) is stress-focussed, and an attributive interpretation according to which no particular car exists that can be called Martha’s. (35) reproduces the same contrast for Greek: I Maria θeli to the Mary want.3sg the ‘Mary wants her own car.’ b. I Maria θeli to the Mary want.3sg the ‘Mary wants her car.’

(35) a.

ðiko-tis aftocinito. own-her car aftocinito-tis. car-her



 Artemis Alexiadou

(35b) presupposes that Maria has a car. (35a), like its English counterpart, is ambiguous between a contrastive interpretation and an attributive interpretation, according to which no particular car exists that can be called Maria’s. The examples in (36) also contrast in interpretation. (36) a. Mary isn’t using her own computer anymore. b. Mary isn’t using her computer anymore. As Saxon observers, (36a) carries the presupposition that Mary is no longer using the computer that belongs to her, but there is some computer which she is using. On the other hand, (36b) can be used to mean that Mary isn’t using any computer. Such an interpretation is possible, since (36a) has a primarily emphatic interpretation, which is used to distinguish this computer from other computers. (37) reproduces the pattern for Greek: (37) a.

I Maria ðe xrisimopii to ðiko-tis ipolojisti. the Mary neg use.3sg the own-her computer ‘Mary is not using her own computer.’ b. I Maria ðe xrisimopii ton ipolojisti-tis. the Mary neg use.3sg the computer-her ‘Mary is not using her computer.’

(37a) has a similar interpretation to (36a), i.e., Maria is no longer using the computer that belongs to her, but there is some computer or other that she is using. On the other hand, (37b) can be used to mean that Mary does not use a computer in general. A further environment which disambiguates between the complex and the simple possessive in English involves the collective vs. distributive interpretation of plural NPs. As is known, plural NPs are often ambiguous between collective and distributive interpretations: (38) a. Carol and Ann washed their own cars. b. Carol and Ann washed their cars. (38a) is primarily understood as involving emphasis, that is, Carol and Ann washed their cars versus some other cars. In addition, the example means that Carol and Ann each washed their own cars. In other words, Carol washed her car and Ann washed her car. In (38b), on the other hand, Carol and Ann may be understood as acting jointly, washing cars as a team. (39) reproduces the facts for Greek. (39) a.

O Petros ce o Jianis eplinan the Peter and the John washed.3sg ‘Peter and John washed their own cars.’ b. O Petros ce o Jianis eplinan the Peter and the John washed.3sg ‘Peter and John washed their cars.’

ta ðika-tus aftocinita. the own-their cars ta aftocinita-tus. the cars-their

A possessive adjective in the DP 

(39a) is primarily understood as meaning that Petros and Jianis washed their cars versus some other cars, as was the case for (38a) as well. (39a) can further be interpreted as meaning that each individual washed a car, i.e., the additional distributive interpretation of (38a) is also available in Greek. In (39b) Petros and Jianis may be understood as acting as a team.11 In the next section I turn to some more detailed historical remarks on the development of the Greek possessive system, which is necessary, as in Section 2.2 I made the observation that the historical development of the complex possessive construction resembles that of other adjective +clitic combinations in the history of Greek. I further noted that the complex possessive seems to emerge in a period that coincides with the disappearance of other PAs in the language.

. PAs in Ancient Greek As mentioned in Section 2.2, MG ðiko mu evolved out of a reflexive possessive construction in New Testament Greek, a novelty in comparison to the CG system. In Section 1 I pointed out that CG had PAs, similar to those of Romance. In particular CG had separate first and second (but not third) person forms of the PA, however their genitives are the same as the genitives of the personal pronoun. Table 1 demonstrates the PAs of CG. Table 1. 1st 2nd

emos, -i, -on sos, -i, -on

he:meteros, -tera, -teron hymeteros, -tera, -teron

Such adjectives could precede the possessed noun as in (40a) below, or they could follow it, in which case they were preceded by the definite article:12 (40) a.

Hora ton emon filon. see.3sg the mine friend ‘(He/she) sees my friend.’ b. Ton patera ton emon. the father the mine ‘My father.’

In the third person, the genitive of the demonstrative is used (see (22)), which, as Manolessou (2000) argues in detail, is similar to PAs in Romance and Slavic, in the sense that it occupies the structural position PAs occupy in these languages, e.g. FP in (29). Support for this comes also from the fact that in Manolessou’s extensive investigation of CG texts, the possessive genitive in prenominal position never co-occurs with another adjective. PAs seem to have disappeared by the time of New Testament Greek, where their function was taken over by the weak forms of the personal pronouns. One could imag-

 Artemis Alexiadou

ine the following scenario. First, the development of the weak forms for the third person pronouns takes place – ‘auton’ → ‘ton’. The formation of the reduced/weak forms of pronouns (clitics) continues and is completed in the Byzantine period. Second, first and second person PAs are replaced by the weak form of personal pronouns mu ‘my’, and su ‘your’. In a system such as the one put forth in Cardinaletti and Starke (1999), whenever there is a choice between a so called weak element, which (certain) possessive adjectives arguably are (see Cardinaletti 1998), and a clitic, the clitic form is always preferred. This usually happens within one and the same paradigm. In Greek this took place across paradigms: the weak forms were adjectives, the clitic forms derive from personal pronouns.13 In addition, in all the constructions in which a ‘sandwitched’ genitive was possible (see Section 2.2) this was replaced by the clitic. The complex possessive construction emerges, which now follows the pattern of other adj + clitic combinations in the Greek DP. The result of this re-organisation is the emergence of the MG complex possessive construction, which has the form adj + clitic. In the next section I turn to the structural analysis of the complex possessive construction.

. The structure of the complex possessive in Modern Greek It should be noted that no syntactic analysis of exclusively ‘anaphoric’ PAs exists that considers their distribution inside the DP in detail. In general, non-anaphoric PAs are taken to occupy the specifier position of a projection following D, labelled FP in (41a) (see e.g. Cardinaletti 1998, among others). PAs contrast to possessive clitics which are located in D◦ , as in (41b). (41) a. [DP il [FP mioi . . . [YP librok [NP ti [tk . . . b. [DP myi [FP ti [NP ti book . . . Note that both D◦ and Spec, FP occupied by the possessor clitic and the PAs respectively are taken to be derived positions. Following Cinque (1980), Szabolcsi (1994) and others, much recent work takes possessors to uniformly behave like clausal subjects. Hence it is assumed that such elements are merged in DP internal subject positions, e.g. Spec,NP or Spec,nP, assuming a split nP-NP (see Radford 2000; Carstens 2000; Alexiadou 2003). In particular, Cardinaletti (1998) argues that mio in (41a) moves to Spec,FP for reasons of licensing, while my in (41b) makes a further step, involving head movement and cliticizes onto D◦ . This is developed into a system that distinguishes between different types of possessors, weak, as in (41a), clitic, as in (41b), and strong, which remain in their thematic position. One could assume that ‘anaphoric’ PAs are situated in Spec,FP much like other PAs. The question that arises is whether they are base generated there or moved into that position. I come back to this.

A possessive adjective in the DP

Turning now to the structure of the Greek possessive system, I assume that possessors are generated as subjects of the NP, in Spec,nP, a functional projection contained within DPs introducing the possessor argument (see Carstens 2000; Alexiadou 2003). nP parallels Kratzer’s (1994) VoiceP in that it introduces the external argument of noun phrases. This proposal was developed on the basis of the similarities between possessor constructions and the double object construction. In particular, Marantz (1993) proposes that the structure of the double object construction involves a light head introducing the GOAL argument, while the analysis of the prepositional construction involves a small clause (see also McGinnis 1998 and Anagnostopoulou 2003). The proposal runs as follows. In double object constructions, the direct object is introduced by the lexical verb, the indirect object by an applicative head, called R by McGinnis, and the external argument by a causative v (42a). An analysis involving a second abstract head in the double object construction accounts for the fact that there are two objective Cases for the two DP objects. The main idea here is that this head is a light verb similar to the causative verb that introduces the external argument in transitive constructions. On the other hand, in the PP construction the GOAL is contained within the same VP containing the THEME (42b): (42) a.

vP someone

v’

v

RP

gave Archy

R’ R

VP V

b.

a book

VP THEME V

V’ PP

Since the relation between the two elements in the double object construction is one of (alienable) possession, I take the possessor in the alienable construction to be introduced by a light functional head, call it nP, the equivalent of R/v in (40). I further assume that the structure of the Greek DP contains a further functional projection, FP, which contains Number and Case features (see Alexiadou & Stavrou 2000; Manolessou 2000 and references therein). The proposed structure is illustrated in (43):14



 Artemis Alexiadou

(43)

DP Spec

D’ D

FP spec PA

F’ F

nP

Possessor n

n’ NP

In view of the fact that the MG PA cannot co-occur with adjectives of the evaluative type, I suggested in Section 2.2 that this must compete for the same position occupied by these adjectives. According to Stavrou (1999), this is FP in (43), cf. (29) above. In fact, this must be the position PAs occupied also in CG. The difference between the MG PA and their CG counterpart is that the former is merged in this position, while the latter was moved to that position for reasons of licensing/anchoring, much like their Romance counterparts. The possessor clitic is merged in Spec,nP and cliticizes onto the MG PA. This is in line with the diachronic development of the adjective ðiko.15 The CG PA must have been generated in Spec,nP where it received its thematic role. Following Cardinaletti (1998), the PA moves from this position to Spec,FP.16 Evidence that this movement takes place comes from the observation that possessive adjectives never co-occur with adjectives in CG, which are assumed to occupy FP as well (see Manolessou 2000). Moreover, CG PAs pattern like other evaluative adjectives in Greek, also located in Spec,FP (or Cardinaletti’s weak possessors, cf. (45) from Cardinaletti (1998: 36) and (32) repeated here) from what can be seen in at least one context, namely in ellipsis, see (44): (44) Oi emoi ofthalmoi kalliones an ton son eihsan. he my eyes better than the your will.prove.to.be ‘My eyes will prove to be better than yours.’ (Smyth 1956: 300) (45) Ho invitato i miei amici, e Gianni i suoi. have.1sg invited the my friends and Gianni the his ‘I invited my friends and Gianni his.’ (32) a.

I Maria aγorase tria γalika servitsia ce i Eleni the Mary bought.3sg three French tea-sets and the Eleni aγorase ðio. bought.3sg two

A possessive adjective in the DP 

b. I Maria aγorase ðio iperoçes γlastres eno i Eleni the Mary bought.3sg two magnificent plant-pots while the Eleni ðen aγorase kamia. neg bought.3sg none ‘Mary bought two wonderful plant-pots, while Helen bought none.’ As Cardinaletti points out, the possessors that occur with an empty noun are prenominal and agreeing. In the analysis of MG noun ellipsis presented in Giannakidou and Stavrou (1999) the adjective which is merged in FP cannot be recovered; rather it licenses ellipsis. Following their reasoning, since CG possessive adjectives are in FP, it is expected that they are not omitted under ellipsis. In other words, what is omitted in (44) is the complement of the FP. In (44) the possessors move from their thematic position to their licensing position which corresponds to FP in (43) above. On the other hand, ðiko is base-generated in Spec,FP. The thematic role of the possessor is assigned to the possessive clitic. In other words, the PA occupies a structural position similar to that of other evaluative adjectives and to PAs of CG. This captures the fact that CG PAs and the MG PA cannot co-occur with adjectives and it also explains the parallel development of the A-genitive/clitic and PA-genitive/clitic combinations described in Section 2.2. Moreover, note that traditional grammars of CG (e.g. Smyth 1956) generally characterize the prenominal position for possessives, genitives and adjectives as emphatic. If this is so, then we can explain why the new PA, i.e., iðio/ðik- appears in this position.17 Two questions arise. First, what is the nature of FP. Second, why is the clitic obligatorily after ðiko and not after other prenominal adjectives? Let me deal with the second question first. Recall that PAs, with the exception of the complex possessive construction, itself a later development, are replaced by clitic elements. The MG clitics developed out of the genitive of the personal pronoun, i.e., from non-agreeing forms. Recall further that these clitic possessors do not double a DP in their domain, and are not determiner like in the sense that they co-occur with articles. The first property suggests that these are necessarily generated in thematic positions. Moreover, these clitics are specified as being enclitic. Since they are specified as enclitics, they need to cliticize on an element that can function as host. The MG determiner does not qualify as such, since it itself has become an agreement/inflectional marker (see Karanassios 1992; Stavrou 1996). Hence it obligatorily cliticizes on the head noun appearing in NP final position, and it can optionally cliticize on the adjective, if there is one. Note that in order for the clitic to en-cliticize on the head noun in the syntax one would need to assume that the head noun raises to an intermediate head position. However, the arguments for head movement are not so compelling for Greek (see in particular Stavrou 1999; and Alexiadou & Stavrou 1998). Thus we could assume that this en-cliticisation process takes place at the level of morpho-phonology. This is not what happens in the case of Adj-clitic combinations, where the clitic moves to F, and thus they have clear semantic (as well as syntactic) effects. One could hypothesize that the condition specifying the

 Artemis Alexiadou

host of the (possessive) clitic is related to morphological properties along the lines proposed in Sadock (1991), see (46). As a result, it appears in post-nominal position or follows other elements such as adjectives which also bear agreement (see Alexiadou & Stavrou 2000 for further discussion of these patterns). (46) X may be X-cl only if X = X-Qgender/number In Section 2.2 I pointed out that the clitic in the complex possessive construction is necessarily animate. On Alexiadou and Stavrou’s (2000) account, this involves obligatory cliticization to FP. Hence in this case, the clitic obligatorily cliticizes on the adjective, located in Spec,FP. This relates to the nature of FP to which I briefly turn below. In Alexiadou and Stavrou (2000) the claim was made that this FP is reminiscent of the category TP in the verbal clauses and its function is to anchor animacy/person features. I assume this approach here too. On this view, the role of FP is to identify person features, which possessors arguably have. If this is so, then we expect the clitic to necessarily cliticize to this position as is the case in the adj+clitic combinations we saw in Section 2.2. In the next section I take up another complex construction of MG, which is diachronically related to the one I have been discussing so far.

. Possessive iðios As mentioned in passing in Section 3, MG has another complex possessive construction, also related to the New Testament adjective iðjio. (47) Ta iðjia-mu ta matjia. the own-my the eyes ‘My own eyes.’ This also contains an adjective, a possessor clitic and a determiner. It differs from (3a) in that in (47) the presence of the second determiner, preceding the possessed noun is obligatory, making it superficially similar to determiner spreading contexts (see Note 12). Both (3a) and (47) are found in medieval texts (from Kriaras 1980): (48) H oikia ine eðici-mu. the house is own-my lit. ‘The house is my own.’ (49) a.

Pros tin iðjian sizigon. towards the own wife ‘Towards my own wife.’ b. Ton iðjio aðelfo-mu. the own brother-my ‘My own brother.’

A possessive adjective in the DP 

Note here that in (49b) the clitic appears in post-nominal position. While both possessor types are emphatic, it appears that iðjio is favoured in cases of inalienable possession, i.e., it is better with body part nouns, the result being that the construction is interpreted idiomatically as putting emphasis on the possessed noun. Consider the contrast in (50):18 (50) a.

ðjiavazo to ðiko-mu vivlio. read.1sg the own-my book ‘I read my own book and not somebody else’s. ’ b. *ðjiavazo to iðjio-mu to vivlio. read.1sg the own-my the book c. Eftiaksa tin pita me ta iðjia-mu ta çeria. made.1sg the pie with the own-my the hands ‘I made the pie with my own hands.’ d. Jia tin patriða eçisan to iðjio-tus to ema. for the country spilt.3pl the own-their the blood ‘They spilt their own blood for their country.’

(50) suggests that the relationship between the possessed noun and the possessor in the iðjios construction is more intimate.19 In this connection note that (50b) improves when the predicate changes, cf. (51): (51) Katestrepsa to iðjio-mu to vivlio. destroyed.1sg the own-my book ‘I destroyed my own book.’ In this example, the object is interpreted as ‘affected’ in the traditional sense, i.e., as being affected by the action denoted by the predicate. In that case the head noun functions as inalienable by extension. As with the ðiko mu construction, no modification is licit: (52) a.

To iða me it saw.1sg with b. ??Ta iðjia-mu ta the own-my the c. *Ta iðjia-mu ta the own-my the

*ta kastana iðjia-mu ta matjia. the brown own-my the eyes kastana matjia. brown eyes entiposiaka matjia. impressive eyes

Iðjios cannot occur in ellipsis in contrast with ðiko mu: (53) *To iða me ta matjia-mu ci esi me ta iðjia-su. it saw.1sg with the eyes-my and you with the own-your Moreover, it cannot be used predicatively: (54) *Ta vivlia ine iðjia-mu. the books are own- my

 Artemis Alexiadou

Using iðjio instead of ðiko leads to ungrammaticality in all contexts involving binding. Note that (55) does not involve any inalienable possession relationship: (55) a. *I Mariai the Mary pari to brings the b. *I Mariai the Mary poðilato. bicycle c. *I Mariai the Mary

ðen θa erθi stin neg fut comes to.the iðjio-tisi to poðilato. own-her the bicycle epetrepse ston Kosta allowed to.the Kostas

ekðromi ala o Kostas θa excursion but the Kostas fut

na pari to iðjio tisi to sub takes the own-her the

lipiθice pu o Kostas pire to iðjio-tisi to poðilato. got-sad that the Kostas took the own-her the bicycle

When bound by a complex DP, iðjio is grammatical only under co-reference with the possessed noun, and only if the head noun denotes a body part: (56) a.

I mitera tu Jiani iðe tin ekriksi me ta iðjia-tis the mother the John.gen saw.3sg the explosion with the own-her ta matjia. the eyes ‘John’s mother saw the explosion with her own eyes.’ a.’ *I mitera tu Jiani iðe tin ekriksi me ta iðjia-tis the mother the John.gen saw.3sg the explosion with the own-her ta jiaλa. glasses b. *I mitera tu Jiani iðe tin ekriksi me ta iðjia-tu ta matjia. ‘*John’s mother saw.3sg the explosion with his own eyes.’ c. I mitera tu Jiani iðe tin ekriksi me ta ðika tu matjia. ‘John’s mother saw.3sg the explosion with his eyes.’ (meaning: John’s mother experienced the explosion through his eyes, she may not have actually seen it herself.)

Furthermore, using iðjios in any of the contexts in 2.3 leads to ungrammaticality (according to my intuitions). Although, diachronically, the above construction obviously derives from a similar source to ðiko, its synchronic properties are quite different. The fact that the adjective together with the clitic cannot appear in isolation in ellipsis and in predicative position suggests that in this case the two DPs form a complex unit together. However, unlike other inalienable constructions, the clitic in (46) has always animate reference, i.e., in (57) tu cannot refer to a table. In a sense this is expected if the construction is mostly used with body parts, which have animate possessors:

A possessive adjective in the DP 

(57) Ta iðjia-tu ta poðjia. the own-his the legs ‘John’s/*the table’s legs.’ The fact that in earlier stages the clitic could cliticize on the head noun seems to suggest that initially the two were placed in different slots in the structure. Iðjios has the function of an emphatic modifier.20 All things being equal, we could assign the same structural position to it, as ðiko occupies. Given that the possessive clitic is necessarily interpreted as animate, following a certain period it had to cliticize on the FP. This presumably led to a re-analysis of the construction as an idiomatic expression.21

. Conclusions In this paper I examined the syntactic and semantic properties of the complex possessive construction in MG both from a diachronic and a synchronic point of view. I showed that the construction with ðiko and the construction without ðiko are subject to different conditions. I proposed that the MG PA is base generated in Spec,FP, a position otherwise occupied by evaluative adjectives in Greek. The possessor clitic, which is generated in a thematic position within the nP shell, obligatorily cliticizes to the PA, a fact which I related to animacy. Finally, I briefly examined the properties of a related construction containing iðjios showing that this exhibits properties related to inalienable possession, although it differs from ðiko.

Notes * I would like to thank the editors of this volume and two anonymous reviewers for discussion and suggestions. I express my gratitude to Dimitra Theophanopoulou for her support and encouragement over the years. The DGF grant AL 554/1-1 is hereby acknowledged. . I translate ðiko with ‘own’ though the meaning of the MG PA does not fully correspond to the meaning of English own. . ðiko in fact is itself a later development of the Greek possessive system: its emergence seems to co-exist with the gradient disappearance of PAs such as the ones illustrated in (6). . Higginbotham used this contrast to show that there is no complementary distribution between pronominals and anaphors in English. . The English construction is treated as [+contrastive], [+prominent] by Baker (1995). It should be noted here that Sells (1987) and Chierchia (1989) treat Italian proprio as a logophor as well. . Note that this might correlate with the fact that the originally reflexive meaning was expressed via the adjective ðiko on its own. When this meaning was lost, the presence of a clitic was responsible for the establishment of such a relation. See Section 2.2.

 Artemis Alexiadou . In fact there are two construction in MG that arguably derive from (25). The construction in (3a) and the one in (i) below. In general, speakers consider both constructions to be emphatic. According to Mackridge (1985), (i) is used when emphasis is put on the possessed noun, and not on the possessor, as is the case with ðiko mu. Both can be translated with the English my own. See Section 5. (i)

To iða me ta iðjia-mu ta matjia. it saw.1sg with the own-my the eyes ‘I saw it with my own eyes.’

. Such optionality can be attested in medieval texts, e.g. examples like (i) are possible; see Section 5: (i)

Ton iðjio aðelfo-mu. the own brother-my ‘My own brother’

. A reviewer raises the following question: if we assume the structure in (29), then what explains the grammaticality of (28d)? In Stavrou’s (1999) account, bare prenominal adjectives which are adjacent to the noun, such as red, form an N◦ syntactically together with the head noun, along the lines of Sadler and Arnold (1994) (as well as Bouchard 1998). Hence the occurrence of two adjectives is possible, as is the case for (28c). Note here that Alexiadou and Stavrou (1998) observe that it is not possible to have more than three (and usually even just two) prenominal adjectives modifying the head noun. . Classificatory adjectives are those adjectives which, like γalikos (‘French’) in (32) are used to (sub)classify the denotation of the noun they modify. γaliko servitsio (French tea set) is a type of tea set. . Classificatory adjectives have been taken to form a syntactic compound with the adjacent N; on the other hand, evaluative adjectives do not form such a compound (Ralli & Stavrou 1997; Sadler & Arnold 1994). Consequently, what is omitted here is just a N0 consisting of an A0 and a N0 . . It should be noted here that it is not clear whether the contrast in the Greek examples is as sharp as in English, as native speakers seem to have different judgements. . The word order pattern of (40b) is reminiscent of the phenomenon found in MG and labeled by Androutsopoulou (1994) Determiner Spreading (DS). This involves multiple occurrences of the same definite determiner in the same noun phrase. In MG, DS is possible only with adjectives, but in CG it was possible also with non-agreeing elements, i.e., genitives and PPs. (i) illustrates MG DS, where each adjective is accompanied by its own determiner: (i)

a. b.

To the To the

vivlio to kocino to meγalo. book the red the big meγalo to kocino to vivlio. big the red the book

The order of constituents in the MG noun phrases is rigid in the absence of DS. On the other hand, in the presence of DS a number of different orders become available. As Manolessou (2002) points out, the order in (i-b) emerged in the middle ages. See also Campos and Stavrou (2004). . Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to me.

A possessive adjective in the DP  . An alternative would be to assume that the possessor is generated inside the NP. The question that arises is exactly the same in the domain of double objects, i.e., whether the Spec,R and Spec,N position in (42a) and (42b) respectively are derivationally linked to a VP and NP internal position, or the possessor and the double object are base generated there. In the absence of any evidence for one or the other view, I leave this question open here. . See Drachman (1991) for an alternative analysis, according to which both ðiko and the possessive clitic are the complex possessor subject of the NP. . What about the pattern in (40b), repeated below? (i)

Ton patera ton emon. the father the mine

This could be straightforwardly accounted for under Alexiadou and Wilder’s (1998) analysis of DS. Alexiadou and Wilder build on Kayne’s (1994) analysis of relative clauses, adjectives and possessors. Specifically, (i) would involve raising of the predicate to Spec,CP, followed by raising of the nominal subject to Spec,DP, see (ii): (ii) a. b. c.

[DP ton [CP [ton patera emon]] [DP ton [CP emon [ton patera]] [DP ton patera [D ton [CP emon]]

. Note here that English own could be argued to also be generated in this position. In English, the clitic-possessor, which receives the thematic role, moves to D◦ . . In Italian, proprio can co-occur with a possessive adjective (and a determiner) only with body parts and kinship terms, Anna Cardinaletti (personal communication). This seems similar to the Greek data discussed here. (i)

Il mio proprio figlio. the my own son

(ii) Le mie proprie mani. the my own hands . In fact the construction with iðjio is problematic for the analysis of DS according to which the adjective originates in a predicative position. This suggest that this construction cannot be analyzed on a par with the other cases of DS discussed here and in Alexiadou and Wilder (1998). . See Iatridou (1986) for a discussion of the construction o iðjios o jiatros ‘the self the doctor’. . But what is the source of the second determiner, which seems to be a later development? It seems to be the case that to iðjio mu is listed as such in the lexicon. One wonders here whether this specific form is due to the fact that it has an identificational meaning similar to that found in DS (Manolessou 2000; Alexiadou 2002). I leave this matter open here for further research.

References Alexiadou, A. (2002). Adjectival determiners. Paper presented at the Kollo quium of the Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, University of Tübingen, May 2002.

 Artemis Alexiadou

Alexiadou, A. (2003). Some notes on the structure of alienable and inalienable Possessors. In M. Coene & Y. D’ Hulst (Eds.), From NP to DP [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 56] (pp. 167–188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A. & M. Stavrou (1998). (A)symmetries in DPs and clauses: Evidence from derived nominals. The Linguistic Review, 15, 257–276. Alexiadou, A. & M. Stavrou (2000). Adjective-clitic combinations in the Greek DP. In B. Gerlach & J. Grijzenhout (Eds.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 36] (pp. 63–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A. & C. Wilder (1998). Adjectival modification and multiple determiners. In A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the DP [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 22] (pp. 303–332). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Anagnostopoulou, E. & M. Everaert (1999). Towards a more complete typology of anaphoric expressions. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 97–119. Androutsopoulou, A. (1994). The distribution of the definite determiner and the syntax of Greek DPs. Proceedings of CLS, 30. Baker, C. L. (1995). Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special emphasis to locally free reflexives in British English. Language, 71, 63–101. Brixhe, C. (1984). Essai sur le Grec Anatolien au début de notre ére. Paris: Presse Universitaires de Nancy. Bouchard, D. (1998). The distribution and interpretation of adjectives in French: A consequence of bare phrase structure. Probus, 10, 139–183. Campos, H. & M. Stavrou (2004). Polydefinite constructions in Modern Greek and in Aromanian. In O. Mišeska Tomi´c (Ed.), Balkan Syntax and Semantics [Linguistik Aktuell/ Lingustics Today 67] (pp. 137–174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cardinaletti, A. (1998). On the deficient/strong opposition in possessive systems. In A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the DP [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 22] (pp. 17–53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cardinaletti, A. & M. Starke (1999). The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three grammatical classes. In H. van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe (pp. 145–233). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Carstens, V. (2000). Concord in minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 319–355. Cinque, G. (1980). On extraction from NP in Italian. Journal of Italian Linguistics, 5, 47–99. Chierchia, G. (1989). Anaphora and attitudes De Se. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, & P. van Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression (pp. 1–31). Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language. New York, NY: Praeger. Drachman, G. (1991). Das Possessiv im Neugriechischen. In S. Olsen & G. Fanselow (Eds.), DET, COMP, INFL: Zur Syntax funktionaler Kategorien und grammatischer Funktionen (pp. 57–72). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Giannakidou, A. & M. Stavrou (1999). Nominalization and ellipsis in the Greek DP. The Linguistic Review, 16, 295–331. Giorgi, A. (1984). Toward a theory of long distance anaphors: A GB approach. The Linguistic Review, 3, 307–361. Giorgi, A. (1987). The notion of complete functional complex: Some evidence from Italian. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 511–518. Giorgi, A. & G. Longobardi (1991). The Syntax of Noun Phrases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A possessive adjective in the DP

Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 547–593. Iatridou, S. (1986). An anaphor not bound in its governing category. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 766– 772. Iatridou, S. (1988). Clitics, Anaphors and a problem of coindexation. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 698– 703. Karanassios, G. (1992). Syntaxe comparée du group nominale en grec et dans d’autres langues. Doctorat d’Etat Université de Paris VIII, Vincenne. Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kratzer, A. (1994). On external arguments. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers, 17, 103–130. Kriaras, E. (1980). Dictionary of Medieval Greek. Thessaloniki. Mackridge, P. (1985). The Modern Greek Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Manolessou, I. (2000). Greek Noun Phrase Structure: A study in syntactic evolution. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cambridge. Marantz, A. (1993). Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions”. In S. A. Mchombo (Ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar (pp. 113–149). Stanford: CSLI. McGinnis, M. J. (1998). Locality in A-movement. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Radford, A. (2000). NP-shells. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 33, 2–20. Reinhart, T. (1983). Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 47–88. Reinhart, T. & E. Reuland (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 657–720. Sadler, L. & D. Arnold (1994). Prenominal adjectives and the phrasal/lexical distinction. Journal of Linguistics, 30, 187–226. Sadock, J. (1991). Autolexical Syntax. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Saxon, L. (1991). On one’s own: The semantics and pragmatics of reflexives. In R. Ishihara & C. Georgopoulos (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in honour of S. Y. Kuroda (pp. 501–517). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Sells, P. (1987). Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 445–479. Sleeman, P. (1996). Licensing Empty Nouns in French. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Smyth, H. W. (1956). Greek Grammar. Harvard University Press. Stavrou, M. (1996). Adjectives in Modern Greek. An instance of predication, or an old issue revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 32, 79–111. Stavrou, M. (1999). The position and serialization of APs in the DP: evidence from Greek. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax (pp. 201–225). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Szabolcsi, A. (1994). The noun phrase. In F. Kiefer & K. Kiss (Eds.), The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian [Syntax and Semantics 27] (pp. 179–274). New York, NY: Academic Press. Varlokosta, S. & N. Hornstein (1993). A bound pronoun in Modern Greek. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 11, 175–195. Zribi-Hertz, A. (1995). Emphatic or reflexive. On the endophoric character of French lui-même and similar complex pronouns. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 33–374.



Subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of the definite article in Greek* Theodoros Marinis This paper offers new data for the acquisition of the DP in Greek by investigating the acquisition of the syntax-semantics mapping within Chierchia’s Nominal Mapping Parameter Hypothesis. As Greek nouns have a [–arg, +pred] specification (Sioupi 1999; Marinis 2000/2003), this hypothesis predicts an initial stage of definite-article-drop followed by consistent use of definite articles, which was borne out by the data. A subject-object asymmetry in the use of bare arguments and the distribution of Bare-Singular-Count-Nouns revealed knowledge of the licensing conditions for bare arguments when definite articles were used productively. Finally, the use of definite articles with proper names and kinship terms shows that the contrastive frame vocative vs. non-vocative provides the unambiguous trigger for the feature-specification of nouns in Greek.

.

Introduction

The study of language acquisition has played a central role in the generative framework from the early 60s until now for reasons related to the innateness hypothesis. Based on the idea that humans have a genetic endowment that enables them to learn language – the Language Acquisition Device or Language Faculty – knowledge of language is considered to be innate. Although the ideas about the form of the Language Faculty have changed over time, the general idea remains the same: the Language Faculty is thought to provide the child with a blueprint for developing grammar on the basis of linguistic experience. Although language acquisition studies for obvious reasons cannot explore the Initial State – the Language Faculty prior to any linguistic experience – they can shed light on intermediate grammars, i.e., grammars which are halfway between the Initial State and the Final State – the adult grammar. Consequently, by revealing how the Language Faculty develops, language acquisition studies can offer insights into the design of the Language Faculty. The acquisition of the definite article has been one of the central topics of interest in the acquisition literature during the last decade. After the introduction of the DPHypothesis (Horrocks & Stavrou 1986, 1987; Abney 1987), studies on the acquisition of the definite article have been of considerable importance because – as definite arti-

 Theodoros Marinis

cles belong to the category D – they can provide evidence for the presence of the DP in child grammar, and thus, for the acquisition of the functional domain. As a result, the bulk of studies on the acquisition of the definite article within the generative framework has investigated the emergence and mastery of the definite article in child speech (Radford 1990; Clahsen et al. 1994; Penner & Weissenborn 1996, among others). However, the majority of these studies have not separately investigated the different obligatory contexts of the definite article (e.g., definite articles used with different noun classes or in different syntactic positions). Moreover, very few, if any, specific studies have been undertaken on the acquisition of grammatical bare nouns and their licensing conditions. As a result, very little is known as to when children acquire the licensing conditions for bare nouns and how this knowledge is related to the acquisition of the definite article. This paper addresses this vacuum by comparing the acquisition of the definite article with the acquisition of bare nouns in argument positions and the licensing of bare singular count nouns. In Section 2, I will present the factors involved in the licensing of bare nouns in argument positions. These will be couched within Chierchia’s Nominal Mapping Parameter hypothesis in Section 3. Section 4 is concerned with the predictions for the acquisition of the definite article and the licensing of bare nouns in argument positions, which will be tested on the basis of acquisition data in Section 5. The results are summarised and further discussed in Section 6.

. Factors involved in the licensing of bare nouns The main factors involved in the licensing of bare nouns are: (a) argumenthood, (b) syntactic position, (c) noun class, (d) number marking, (e) verb type, and (f) wordorder. Nouns in argument positions are, apart from the exceptions discussed below, used with articles, as shown in examples (1) and (2). This does not hold for nouns in nonargument positions, as shown in example (3). (1) a.

(argument, subject)

(2) a.

(argument, object)

To peði cimate. the child sleeps ‘The child is sleeping.’ b. *Peði cimate. child sleeps ‘The child is sleeping.’ Iða to peði sto parko. saw the child in.the park ‘I saw the child in the park.’ b. *Iða peði sto parko. saw child in.the park ‘I saw the child in the park.’

Acquisition of definite articles

(3) Afto ine vivlio. this is book ‘This is a book.’

(non-argument)

Since this paper focuses on the acquisition of argumental noun phrases, the issue of bare nouns in non-argument positions will not be further discussed. There is a subject-object asymmetry in the use of bare nouns, as shown in examples (4) and (5) below. The generalisation is that bare nouns are in principle not licit in the subject position, whereas they can be licit in the object position. (4) *γala ine sto trapezi. milk is on.the table ‘Milk is on the table.’ (5) Aγorasa γala. bought milk ‘I bought milk.’

(subject)

(object)

However, bare nouns in the object position are only licit under certain conditions. Moreover, in certain contexts bare nouns are also licit in the subject position. As far as bare nouns in the object position are concerned, four factors are important for their licensing: noun class, number marking, verb type, and word-order. The relevance of the factor noun class is illustrated by examples (6), (7) and (8) below. Mass nouns are licit as bare objects – consider example (6) below – whereas this does not hold in general for count nouns, as shown in example (7) below. Finally, proper names in their typical use cannot be used as bare objects, as shown in example (8) below.1 (6) a.

(object, mass noun)

(7) a.

(object, count noun)

O Nikos ipje to çimo. the Nikos drank the juice ‘Nick drank the juice.’ b. O Nikos ipje çimo. the Nick drank juice ‘Nick drank juice.’ O Nikos siðerose ena pukamiso. the Nick ironed a/one shirt ‘Nick ironed a/one shirt.’ b. *O Nikos siðerose pukamiso. the Nick ironed shirt ‘Nick ironed a/one shirt.’

(8) a.

Aγapao ti Maria. love the Mary ‘I love Mary.’

(object, proper name)



 Theodoros Marinis

b. *Aγapao Maria. love Mary ‘I love Mary.’ Noun class interacts with number marking. Count nouns are illicit as bare objects when used in the singular, as already shown in example (7) above, but they are licit in the plural, as in example (9) below. (9) O Nikos siðerose pukamisa. the Nick ironed shirts ‘Nick ironed shirts.’

(object, count noun, plural)

Bare singular count nouns (BSCNs) are in general illicit, as illustrated in example (7b) above. However, in some contexts they are fully grammatical. This holds when they are objects of verbs of accomplishment (Vendler 1967), as shown in example (10) below, light verbs, such as the verb kano ‘do’, see example (11) below, the verb θelo ‘want’, see example (12) below and the copula exo ‘have’, see example (13) below, something which has also been noted in Tzartzanos (1946), Mackridge (1990), Holton, Mackridge and Philippaki-Warburton (1997) and Tsimpli and Stavrakaki (1999). (10) I Maria aγorase aftocinito. the Mary bought car ‘Mary bought a car.’ (11) I Maria ekane ba^o sti Varkiza. the Mary did bath in.the Varkiza ‘Mary had a bath/swim in Varkiza.’ (12) I Maria pantrevete ke θeli spiti stin Kifisia. the Mary gets.married and wants house in.the Kifisia ‘Maria is getting married and wants a house in Kifisia.’ (13) I Maria eçi aftocinito Italiko. the Mary has car Italian ‘Mary has an Italian car.’ As far as word-order is concerned, bare nouns in object position are licit post-verbally, i.e., in lexically governed positions, as shown in examples (14) and (15) below, but they can also surface pre-verbally when they are focused, as shown in example (16) below.2 (14) I Maria aγorase aftocinito. the Mary bought car ‘Mary bought a car.’ (15) *Aftocinito aγorase i Maria. car bought the Mary ‘Maria bought a car.’

Acquisition of definite articles

(16) AFTOCINITO aγorase i Maria. car bought the Mary ‘It is a car that Mary bought.’ Bare nouns in subject position are licit in even more restrictive ways, namely, when the noun is used contrastively, as in example (17) below, in the scope of negation, as in example (18) below (both from Setatos 1995), in the context of headlines or as announcements, as in example (19) below (Marmaridou 1984: 171; Mackridge 1990: 300; Holton, Mackridge, & Philippaki-Warburton 1997: 284), as meta-language, as in example (20) below (Anastasiadi-Simeonidi p.c.) and with existential verbs, as in (21) below.3 (17) Stratiotis perase apo ðo, politis apo ci. soldier passed from here civilian from there ‘A soldier passed from here, a civilian from there.’ (18) Scilos ðen troi tetjia. dog neg eats such ‘Dogs do not eat such things.’ (19) Mitera skotose ta ðio tis peðjia . . . . mother killed the two her children . . . ‘Mother killed her two children . . . .’ (20) ‘Efimeriða’ ine usiastiko θiliku jenus. newspaper is noun feminine gender ‘Newspaper is a feminine noun.’ (21) γala eçi sto psijio. milk has in.the fridge ‘There is milk in the fridge.’ Finally, bare arguments have a different interpretation as compared to arguments involving articles; they are typically interpreted as non-specific, as shown in examples (22)–(24) below for bare nouns as objects and in examples (17)–(21) above for bare nouns as subjects. (22) O Nikos ipjie çimo. the Nick drank juice ‘Nick drank juice.’ (23) Aγorasa vivlia. bought books ‘I bought books.’ (24) I Maria extise spiti. the Mary built house ‘Mary has built a house.’

(object, mass, non-specific)

(object, count, plural, non-specific)

(object, count, singular, non-specific)





Theodoros Marinis

Summarising this section, I have demonstrated that the relevant factors for the licensing of bare nouns are: argumenthood, syntactic position, noun class, number marking, verb type, and word-order. Crucially, there is a subject-object asymmetry in the use of bare nouns. Bare nouns in subject position are licit in much more restricted environments than bare nouns in object position. These descriptive generalisations will be discussed in the next section within Chierchia’s Nominal Mapping Parameter hypothesis (Chierchia 1998).

. Chierchia’s Nominal Mapping Parameter According to standard assumptions concerning the mapping of nominal categories onto their denotations, common nouns are of the type <e, t> – they are mapped onto predicates –, whereas DPs are of the type e (referential nominals), or <<e, t>, t> (quantificational nominals) – they are mapped onto arguments. Thus, bare common nouns should not appear in argument positions because they are of the wrong type, <e, t>, namely, they cannot be mapped onto arguments. This has led to the assumption that the DP layer must be projected with a null D0 each time a bare common noun appears in an argument position (Longobardi 1994).4 Chierchia’s (1998) approach treats these facts differently. According to Chierchia, there is no cross-linguistic isomorphism between arguments and the DP layer. In his account, count nouns are not cross-linguistically of the type <e, t>, they are not per definition predicates. They can or even sometimes must be kind-denoting in the sense of Carlson (1977). In other words, count nouns can and sometimes must be of the type e, that of arguments. Hence, there is no need to assume the presence of a DP layer with a null D0 every time bare common nouns appear in argument positions.5 The mapping of nouns onto their interpretations is constrained in Chiechia’s model through the use of the binary features [±arg] for argument and [±pred] for predicate. When a noun has a [+arg] specification, this means that it can be mapped onto an argument and it can appear as a bare noun in an argument position. Nouns with a [–arg] specification, on the other hand, cannot be mapped onto arguments. In order to do so they need a DP layer. Similarly, for [+pred] and [–pred].6 Cross-linguistic variation is expressed through the combination of these two binary features. Three combinations represent the possible language types, i.e., [+arg, –pred], [–arg, +pred] and [+arg, +pred],7 each one of which represents a setting of the Nominal Mapping Parameter. The three possible combinations correspond to three language types, Chinese, Romance and Germanic. The specification [+arg, –pred] appears in languages of the Chinese type, such as Chinese and Japanese, the specification [–arg, +pred] in Romance languages, such as French and Italian, and the specification [+arg, +pred] in Germanic languages, such as English and German. Nouns in Chinese are [+arg, –pred], they are argumental (names of kinds) and can occur without determiners in argument positions, as illustrated in example (25) below. The extension of all nouns is mass and there is no plural marking, as shown

Acquisition of definite articles 

in example (26). Finally, Chinese has a Generalised Classifier System, as illustrated in example (27). (25) Wò kànjiàn xióng le. I see bear asp ‘I saw (some/the) bears.’ (26) Liang zhang zhuozi. two cl table ‘Two (pieces of) tables.’ (27) Yí zhang zhuozi. one cl table ‘One (piece of) table.’

(from Chierchia 1998)

In Romance languages, nouns are [–arg, +pred] and are mapped onto predicates. Consequently, they need a DP layer whenever they occur in argument positions. The extension of nouns is count or mass, and count nouns may have plural marking. French does not have bare nouns in argument positions, as illustrated in examples (28) and (29) below, whereas Italian does so in positions governed by a lexical head, as illustrated in examples (30) and (31). In this case it is assumed that a null D0 is present. The null D0 is licensed by a lexical head, in this case the verb. (28) *Enfants sont venus chez nous. children are come at us ‘Children have come to our place.’ (29) *J’ ai mangé biscuits dans mon lait. I have eaten biscuits in my milk ‘I have eaten biscuits with my milk.’ (30) *Bambini sono venuti da noi. children are come at us ‘Children have come to our place.’ (31) Ho mangiato biscotti con il latte. have eaten biscuits with the milk ‘I have eaten biscuits with my milk.’

(from Longobardi 1994)

Finally, nouns in the Germanic languages have the specification [+arg, +pred], that is, some nouns are argumental and some others are predicative. For example, English allows both predicative and argumental NPs, and behaves like French for certain aspects of its nominal system, i.e., for singular count nouns and like Chinese for other aspects, namely, for plurals and mass nouns, as illustrated by examples (32) and (33) below.8 (32) Dogs are widespread. (33) Gold is rare.

 Theodoros Marinis

The distribution of bare objects in Greek has been analysed within Chierchia’s Nominal Mapping Parameter hypothesis by Sioupi (2001, 2002) and Marinis (2000/2003, 2002). According to them Greek matches the [–arg, +pred] setting, the Romance setting. The rest of this section provides the argumentation of Sioupi and Marinis for this claim. As shown in Section 2, in Greek bare nouns in argument positions are licit only in specific environments. Since nouns in Greek have the specification [–arg, +pred], as nouns in Romance do, a null D0 head is assumed to project a DP layer and map the interpretation of the noun onto an argument. In the case of post-verbal bare objects, the null D0 is licensed by a lexical head, i.e. the verb that takes the bare object as its argument (cf. Longobardi 1994; Rousou & Tsimpli 1993). Pre-verbal focused bare objects, on the other hand, are licensed via Spec-Head Agreement by the head of a Focus Phrase in a system á la Rizzi (1997). Evidence for a null D0 in BSCNs has been provided in Sioupi (2001) by word-order facts, and in Sioupi (2001) by the interpretation of bare objects. Moreover, evidence against an incorporation analysis and a complex predicate analysis has been provided by a series of tests involving co-ordination, focalisation, wh-questions, adjectival modification, and the use of adverbs (Sioupi 2001). Consider examples (33a–e) below, which correspond to the five tests. (34) a.

Efaγa milo ce portokali. ate.1sg apple and orange ‘I ate an apple and an orange.’ b. MILO troo. apple eat.1sg ‘I eat an apple.’ c. Ti extise o Petros? – Spiti. what built the Peter house ‘What did Peter build? – A house. d. Extise oreo spiti. built.3sg nice house ‘He built a nice house.’ e. ðjiavaze siniθos efimeriða o Jianis. read.3sg usually newspaper the John ‘John was usually reading the newspaper.’

(coordination)

(focalisation)

(wh-question)

(adjectival modification)

(use of adverbs) (from Sioupi 1999)

Example (34a) above shows that BSCNs can be co-ordinated, example (34b) that they can be focused, example (34c) that they can be used in isolation as an answer to a whquestion, example (34d) that they can be modified by adjectives and example (34e) that adverbs may intervene between the verb and the bare object. If the bare object formed a unit with the verb either by incorporation or as a complex predicate, (34a–e) above would be ungrammatical. As far as bare nouns in subject position are concerned, Section 2 showed that these are restricted to cases involving a contrastive interpretation, negation, context of headlines, use in meta-language and use with existential verbs. The context of headlines and

Acquisition of definite articles

the use of expressions as meta-language often display exceptional behavior, therefore, they will not be further discussed. Bare subjects in contrastive contexts and in the scope of negation, however, can be analysed on a par with bare objects involving a null D0 . The null D0 in bare subjects involving a contrastive interpretation can be licensed by a functional head similarly to the null D0 in bare objects involving focus, whereas the null D0 in bare subjects which appear in the scope of negation can be licensed by the head of a NegPhrase. Summarising this section, within Chierchia’s Nominal Mapping Parameter model, nouns in Greek have the specification [–arg, +pred] and need a DP layer in order to be able to surface as arguments. Bare nouns in both subject and object position involve a null D0 , which is licensed by a lexical or a functional head. Based on these assumptions, in the next section I shall develop the predictions for the acquisition of the definite article and the licensing conditions for bare nouns in argument positions.

. Predictions for the acquisition of the definite article and the licensing conditions for bare arguments The Nominal Mapping Parameter model predicts a very specific acquisition sequence of articles. Based on the Subset Principle (Wexler & Manzini 1987), according to which children hypothesise the most restrictive grammar, children should start with the feature specification that rules out the most, so that they may revise their hypothesis on the basis of positive evidence. Consider (35) below. (35) Chinese Type: [+arg, –pred]

C B

Romance Type: [–arg, +pred]

Germanic Type: [ +arg, +pred]

A

In (35) above, the most restrictive feature specification within the Nominal Mapping Parameter model is [+arg, –pred], which corresponds to the Chinese setting. This is based on the idea that in languages of this type: a. b. c. d.

nouns occur without determiners, the extension of nouns is mass, there is no plural marking and a classifier system is operative.



 Theodoros Marinis

Properties (a) to (d) are contained in the Romance and Germanic type of languages. If the initial setting is [+arg, –pred], we expect children to initially omit definite articles, treat all nouns as mass and not use plural morphology. The existence of definite articles, plural morphology and numeral quantifiers combining directly with nouns (which are not part of the properties of Chinese type languages) can provide positive evidence to the language learner to change the feature specification of nouns. Upon discovering definite articles, plural marking and quantifiers combined directly with nouns in the input, children should change the initial feature specification to [–arg, +pred] (Romance type). The value of Romance type languages is the next most restrictive feature matrix, since in Romance type languages: a. b. c. d.

the extension of nouns is mass or count, nouns occur with determiners, there is plural marking on count nouns and a classifier system is operative.

The second setting excludes bare nouns altogether. Consequently, children are expected to project a DP-layer always, when the noun phrase is in an argument position. However, they have to figure out which nouns are mass and which are count, as well as when a null D0 is licit and when it is not. Finally, unrestricted occurrence of bare mass nouns in argument positions should lead children to change the value of the Nominal Mapping Parameter to the setting of Germanic type languages, i.e., [+arg, +pred]. The value of Germanic type languages is the least restrictive feature matrix, since: a. b. c. d.

the extension of nouns is mass or count, nouns may occur with or without determiners, there is plural marking on count nouns and a classifier system is operative with mass nouns.

Since all children are expected to start with the Chinese setting irrespective of the language they are acquiring, the first prediction concerning the use of articles is that initially children will use only bare nouns. Children acquiring Greek, upon discovering definite articles, plural morphology and/or numeral quantifiers combining directly with nouns, should switch to the Romance setting. This predicts that at a second stage, they will always project a DP-layer. However, the input to children acquiring Greek contains bare nouns in argument positions. Thus, children must discover, in which positions bare nouns are licit. This involves: a. discovering the distinction between argument vs. non-argument, b. identifying the subject and object position and that Greek displays a subject-object asymmetry, c. discovering the distinction between mass and count nouns and the possibility of mass nouns to appear as bare singular objects,

Acquisition of definite articles 

d. detecting plural marking and finding out that bare plurals are licit in the object position, e. identifying which verb classes allow BSCNs as arguments and f. observing the impact of word-order and focalisation in the use of bare nouns. Uncertainty in these aspects may result in the optional use of definite articles. However, given that the input to the child acquiring Greek includes bare nouns, how is it possible to exclude the possibility that children will change the feature value of the Nominal Mapping Parameter to [+arg, +pred] (Germanic type)? Are there any contexts, which provide unambiguous evidence that nouns in Greek are [–arg, +pred]? Unambiguous contexts that nouns in Greek are [–arg, +pred] can indeed be provided by the use of proper names (hereafter PNs) and kinship terms (hereafter KTs). PNs and KTs are the only nouns that cannot be used as bare nouns in argument positions: in argument positions they must be used obligatorily with definite articles, in non-argument positions – for example in the vocative – they must be used obligatorily without definite articles. This minimal pair can act as a Unique Trigger (Roeper & Weissenborn 1990) providing the relevant information for the feature specification of nouns. According to Roeper and Weissenborn, for each parameter there is a Unique Trigger in the input to the child, which causes the setting of the parameter to its target value. Roeper and Weissenborn developed this idea for the setting of the pro-drop parameter. The notion of Unique Triggers is related to the existence of specific syntactic domains, which provide unambiguous evidence to the child for Parameter Setting. For example, as far as the pro-drop parameter is concerned, according to Roeper and Weissenborn, the Unique Trigger for the setting of the pro-drop parameter is the subordinate clause. With respect to the feature specification of nouns in Greek, the Unique Trigger that shows the child that nouns have the specification [–arg, +pred] is provided by the distribution of PNs and KTs. Importantly, PNs and KTs are very frequent in child directed speech in both argument and non-argument positions, which ensures that children will get enough input from these two contexts. Considering this last property of Greek, under the assumption that the trigger not only contributes to the setting of a parameter, but also that the structure comprising the trigger emerges quite early in child speech, it is expected that children will use definite articles with PNs and KTs as soon as they start using definite articles productively. This does not imply that they will use definite articles only with PNs and KTs but not with nouns belonging to other classes, since having the right specification will lead them to use definite articles with all noun classes. As already shown in Section 2, there is a subject-object asymmetry in the use of bare nouns in Greek. Moreover, BSCNs are restricted to appear as objects of a specific set of verbs. Acquisition of the Greek nominal system should be reflected in the conformity of these restrictions, if children have knowledge of the grammar of the target

 Theodoros Marinis

Table 1. Predictions for the acquisition of definite articles and the licensing of bare arguments Prediction 1 Prediction 2 Prediction 3 Prediction 4 Prediction 5

initial stage: drop of definite articles second stage: optional use of definite articles definite articles with PNs and KTs at the outset of productive use of definite articles subject-object asymmetry compliance with the licensing conditions for BSCNs

language. The predictions for the acquisition of definite articles and for the licensing of bare arguments in Greek are summarised in Table 1. These predictions will be tested in the next section.

. The data This study is based on a longitudinal corpus, the Christofidou Corpus, which consists of audio-recordings of one monolingual child, Christos, growing up in Athens, Greece. The collection was made by the mother of the child, Anastasia Christofidou, who was the main person interacting with the child. The recordings, which were made on a weekly basis, took place in a natural setting in the house of the family and consisted mainly of the description of picture books, free play with toys and talking about activities during the day or previous days. The data analysed in this study consist of 69 recordings between the age of 1;7 and 2;8. The data have been transcribed in CHAT format and coded on the basis of the CHILDES coding scheme. Noun phrases involving article omission were coded separately from noun phrases involving grammatical bare nouns. Bare nouns in which it was not clear from the context whether they involve article omission or a grammatical bare noun were excluded from the analysis. Noun phrases involving imitations of preceding adult utterances, self-repetitions and formulaic expressions were also excluded. The total number of noun phrases entered into the analysis is 5,203.

. The acquisition of definite articles: Overall use of definite articles There are four stages in the acquisition of articles, as illustrated in Figure 1. In Stage 0, which is at the age of 1;7 (MLU = 1.2), Christos does not use any definite articles at all. Definite articles are omitted in all 28 obligatory contexts. Stage 1 covers the age of 1;8 to 1;11.0 and corresponds to Stage I according to Brown (1973), as the MLU of Christos is lower than 2.0. During this stage, Christos uses a very small number of definite articles (type/token = 9/12) with a restricted set of nouns. This indicates that he uses definite articles in a lexically based fashion. Additional evidence for a lexically based use of definite articles comes from the fact that

Acquisition of definite articles 

Stage 0 no articles

Stage 1 lexical

Stage 2 productive

Stage 3 acquired 91%

97% 95%

77%

75% 66%

63% 47% 32% 11% 0% 1;7

1;8

6%

11% 3%

1;9 1;10 1;11 2;0

2;1 2;2 Age

2;3

2;4

2;5

2;6

2;7

2;8

Figure 1. Percentage of use of definite articles in obligatory contexts

from 1;11.10 to 1;11.19 he does not use any definite articles at all. As a result we can see a U-shaped curve in Figure 1.9 Stage 2, corresponds to Brown’s Stage II, as from 2;0.15 onwards the MLU of Christos is over 2.0. As far as the use of definite articles is concerned, definite articles are used productively in the speech of Christos. Evidence for the productive use of definite articles comes form the fact that Christos uses definite articles: a. b. c. d.

with more nouns than he did before, with nouns that appear for the first time in his speech, with nouns from different noun classes (count nouns, PNs and KTs) and with nouns in different syntactic positions (in both subject and object position).

Despite the productive use of definite articles, the percentage of definite articles in obligatory contexts is from the age of 2;0 until the age of 2;5 lower than 90% (Brown’s acquisition criterion). This shows that definite articles are used during this stage in an optional manner. Definite articles become obligatory in Stage 3, that is from the age of 2;6 onwards, when they are used in more than 90% in obligatory contexts. Stage 3 corresponds to Brown’s Stage III, as the MLU of Christos at the age of 2;6 is over 2.5. In sum, at the initial stage (Stage 0), there are no definite articles found in the speech of Christos. In the next stage (Stage 1), Christos uses definite articles, but there is no evidence for productivity. Productive use of definite articles is attested in the subsequent stage (Stage 2), however, at that stage definite articles are used optionally. Definite articles are fully acquired only at the last stage attested in Christos’ speech (Stage 3). The stages in the acquisition of the definite article correlate nicely to Brown’s developmental stages.

 Theodoros Marinis

Does the use of definite articles by Christos support the predictions deriving from the Nominal Mapping Parameter model? The development of the use of definite articles attested in the speech of Christos is very similar to the one predicted by the Nominal Mapping Parameter model. As shown in Section 3, this model predicts an initial stage, in which children drop definite articles altogether (Prediction 1) followed by a stage of optional use of definite articles (Prediction 2). The stages predicted correspond to Stage 0 and Stage 2 in the speech of Christos. Although the Nominal Mapping Parameter model does not predict a stage of lexically based use of definite articles, such a stage does not pose a problem for the following reason: considering that the stage of lexical usage of definite articles is possibly the result of memorising definite articles with nouns, this stage is not related to any model that predicts the development of a system of rules, like the Nominal Mapping Parameter model does.

. Looking for the trigger: The use of articles with proper names and kinship terms As discussed in Section 3, the presence of bare nouns in the input of the child acquiring Greek may lead children to hypothesise that Greek nouns have the feature specification of Germanic type languages, i.e., [+arg, +pred]. Unambiguous cues that Greek has the Romance type specification, i.e., [–arg, +pred], can be provided by the use of PNs and KTs. Evidence for the function of PNs and KTs as triggers for the setting of the Nominal Mapping Parameter may be provided by the use of definite articles with these noun classes. If PNs and KTs are unambiguous triggers, children should use definite articles with these noun classes as soon as they start to use definite articles productively. In the case of Christos, given that he uses definite articles from Stage 2 productively, the prediction is that he will use definite articles with PNs and KTs from that stage onwards. In order to test this prediction, I analysed the use of definite articles with PNs, KTs and count nouns (hereafter CNs) in the speech of Christos at Stage 1 to Stage 3. The number of definite articles used with nouns belonging to these noun classes and the percentage of definite articles used in obligatory contexts is illustrated in Table 2. Table 2 shows that Christos uses a small number of definite articles with all noun classes at the stage in which definite articles are used in a lexically-based fashion (Stage 1). At Stage 2 there is an immense increase of the number of definite articles used with all noun classes. At this stage, Christos uses more definite articles with KTs and PNs than with CNs. However, comparison of the percentage of use of definite articles with these noun classes shows that in 2;0 and 2;1 the percentage of use of definite articles with CNs is higher than with KTs and PNs. From 2;3 onwards the reverse pattern is attested, but the differences are small. Do these data pose a problem to the idea that PNs and KTs encode the trigger for the setting of the Nominal Mapping Parameter in Greek? Unambiguous evidence that PNs and KTs cannot be the trigger would have been provided if the child had used definite articles only with CNs but not with PNs and KTs. This would have shown

Acquisition of definite articles 

Table 2. The use of definite articles with CNs, PNs and KTs Stage

Age

CNs

PNs & KTs

1

1;08 1;09 1;10 1;11

0 1 3 0

[100%] [33%] [0%]

2 1 3 4

[11%] [3%] [7%] [3%]

2

2;00 2;01 2;02 2;03 2;04 2;05

38 93 57 109 51 61

[54%] [64%] [63%] [71%] [62%] [77%]

44 106 89 192 118 85

[24%] [37%] [62%] [75%] [68%] [77%]

3

2;06 2;07 2;08 Total

71 129 137 750

[87%] [96%] [94%]

109 74 146 973

[94%] [97%] [98%]

that the child has ignored the presence of definite articles with PNs and KTs. However, given the early use of definite articles with KTs and PNs, the data show that Christos, as early as 2;0, has figured out that KTs and PNs (like CNs) are used with definite articles in Greek. However, he has not yet discovered that definite articles are obligatory with KTs and PNs when these are used in argument positions. Discovering that Greek has the [–arg, +pred] setting entails that the child will start using definite articles with CNs. If this has been triggered by the use of definite articles with KTs and PNs, the prediction is that the child will use definite articles with those noun classes as soon as s/he uses definite articles with CNs. Identifying the trigger does not imply that the relevant structure has to be found in children’s speech 100% of the time. Consequently, these data do not pose a problem to the idea that KTs and PNs provide unambiguous evidence that Greek has the setting [–arg, +pred].

. Acquiring bare arguments Productive use of definite articles does not necessarily comprise a target-like use of definite articles. Indeed, as shown in Section 5.1, there is a high rate of definite article omission in the speech of Christos at Stage 2, although he uses definite articles productively. Given this observation, the next question is how much knowledge he has of the use of definite articles in obligatory contexts. This issue will be addressed by analysing the use of bare nouns in argument positions. As shown in Section 2, Greek allows bare nouns in argument positions under specific licensing conditions. This should be reflected in the speech of children acquiring Greek, if they have the knowledge of the target grammar. In the speech of Christos, the relevant stage for this issue is Stage 2, since this is the stage in which he uses def-

 Theodoros Marinis

Stage 2 productive 34%

24%

25%

31% 39%

18%

38%

Stage 3 acquired 34% 40%

43%

45%

49% 48% 48%

42%

38% bare arguments def. art. present def. art. missing 2;0

2;1

44%

56% 58%

52%

2% 2;7

3%

26% 20%

2;2

2;3

19% 2;4

13% 2;5

10% 2;6

2;8

Figure 2. Bare nouns vs. definite articles present and missing

inite articles productively, but the percentage of definite articles is lower than 90% in obligatory contexts indicating that he has not fully acquired the target grammar. Figure 2 illustrates the percentage of bare (grammatical) nouns compared to the percentage of nouns used with definite articles present and missing in his speech. Bare nouns make up approximately one third of the noun phrases in argument positions at the age of 2;0. Comparison of the development of bare nouns as opposed to noun phrases with definite articles present shows that both types increase through time, but the rate of bare nouns increases in a different manner than the rate of noun phrases with definite articles: a.

at Stage 2 there is a great increase of the rate of noun phrases with definite articles (from 18% to 44%), whereas the rate of bare nouns is at the beginning of Stage 2 already 34% and ranges between 24% and 43%, b. there is a radical increase of noun phrases with definite articles between 2;0 and 2;2 (from 18% to 49%), whereas there appears to be no radical increase in the rate of bare nouns, and c. the increase rate of noun phrases with definite articles coincides with a decrease rate of bare nouns and vice versa. The rate of nouns with definite articles increases between 2;0 and 2;2 (from 18% to 49%) and between 2;5 and 2;6 (from 44% to 56%), whereas in the same periods the rate of bare nouns drops (from 34% to 25% and from 43% to 34% respectively). Additionally, the rate of nouns used with definite articles decreases between 2;2 and 2;4 (from 49% to 42%) and between 2;7 and 2;8 (from 58% to 52%), and in the same periods the rate of bare nouns increases (from 25% to 39% and from 40% to 45% respectively). A simultaneous increase of both nouns used with definite articles and bare nouns takes place only between 2;4 and 2;5 and between 2;6 and 2;7.

Acquisition of definite articles 

0%

0%

1%

2%

27%

0%

0%

0%

Stage 2 productive

47%

1%

2%

Stage 3 acquired

65% 72%

73%

68%

78%

83% 96%

96%

53% 35% 26%

32% 22%

bare subjects def. art. present def. art. missing 2;0

2;1

17% 2;2

2;3

2;4

2;5

2;6

2% 2;7

2% 2;8

Figure 3. Bare subjects vs. definite articles present and missing

From this figure, it is not possible to establish whether there is a correlation between the increase/decrease of nouns with definite articles and bare nouns. However, two things are clear: (a) a great percentage of grammatical bare nouns is used by Christos from the beginning of Stage 2, and (b) the increase rate of bare nouns from Stage 2 to Stage 3 is only approximately 10% (unlike the increase of definite articles, which is approximately 40%). The fact that Christos is using (grammatical) bare nouns along with noun phrases with definite articles from the beginning of Stage 2 indicates that he has some knowledge of the target grammar. In order to take a closer look at this issue, it is necessary to analyse the contexts in which Christos uses bare nouns. Is there a subject-object asymmetry in his use of bare arguments? This issue will be discussed in the next section.

. Subject-object asymmetry The use of bare arguments in the subject versus in the object position is illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. Here, the subject-object asymmetry in the use of bare nouns is apparent. Figure 3 shows that there are hardly any bare subjects present, whereas in Figure 4 bare nouns make up roughly two thirds of the noun phrases in the object position. Interestingly, although the rate of bare nouns in the object position at Stage 2 shows an increase and decrease in specific points in time, there is no vital change between Stage 2 and Stage 3. The comparison of the two figures is also revealing with respect to the acquisition of definite articles. Looking at the acquisition of definite articles in Section 5.1, two stages have been established (based on Brown’s criterion of 90% use in obligatory contexts): Stage 2, in which Christos uses definite articles productively, but the rate of

 Theodoros Marinis

bare subjects def. art. present def. art. missing

Stage 2 productive

Stage 3 acquired

50%

53% 60%

69%

63%

27% 9% 22% 2;0

27%

70% 76%

20% 2;1

13%

14%

2;2

2;3

63%

30%

34%

43%

23% 17%

68%

23%

7%

7%

7%

2;4

2;5

2;6

2% 2;7

3% 2;8

Figure 4. Bare objects vs. definite articles present and missing

omission is more than 10%, and Stage 3, in which he uses definite articles over 90% in obligatory contexts. This picture changes radically by distinguishing between noun phrases in the subject and in the object position. Although the rate of definite article omission at Stage 3 is similar in the two figures, the rate of definite article omission at the beginning of Stage 2 shows a profound difference: 73% in Figure 3 vs. 22% in Figure 4. Additionally, there is a remarkable difference in the course of development of definite article omission. In Figure 3 there is a considerable drop from 2;0 to 2;3 (from 73% to 26%). The rate of definite article omission in Figure 4, on the other hand, does not show any big changes. There is a very gradual drop from the age of 2;0 until the beginning of Stage 3 (from 22% to 7%). Finally, there is a difference in the point of full acquisition of definite articles in subject position as opposed to object position. The rate of definite article omission in the subject position drops under 10% (Brown’s criterion) at 2;7, whereas the same is true in the object position much earlier, at the age of 2;4. The data concerning the subject-object asymmetry in the use of bare nouns in argument positions shows that Christos as young as 2;0 has grasped the target system according to which bare nouns in the object position are licit in a less restrictive way than bare nouns in the subject position. The implication is that productive use of definite articles goes hand in hand with the licensing conditions for the use of bare nouns. The next issue to consider is how the licensing conditions for bare nouns are acquired. Since Christos uses very few bare nouns in the subject position (types/tokens = 4/6), it is not possible to draw any conclusions about his knowledge of the licensing mechanism of bare subjects. On the other hand, it is possible to explore his knowledge of the licensing conditions for bare objects. Given that one of the distinctive properties

Acquisition of definite articles

of the Greek DP is the existence of BSCNs, the analysis of the acquisition of the licensing conditions of bare arguments will focus on this type of noun phrases. This issue will be taken up in the next section.

. Acquiring the licensing conditions for bare singular count nouns BSCNs are restricted to appear as objects of a specific set of verbs (verbs of accomplishment, light verbs, the copula exo ‘have’ and the verb θelo ‘want’). If Christos has the knowledge of the licensing conditions of BSCNs, this should be reflected in his use of BSCNs with this set of verbs. Indeed BSCNs emerge in the speech of Christos initially with this set of verbs, as shown in examples (36) and (37) below. (36) Child: O Pupis ci petelo. o Gufi exi kapelo (target) the Gufi has hut ‘Gufi has a hut.’

(Christos 2;0.16)

(37) Child: Oi telo cicineto. ðen θelo aftocinito (target) neg want car ‘I don’t want a car.’

(Christos 2;3.14)

BSCNs emerge in his speech at the age of 1;10 with the verb θelo ‘want’. The next verb to be used with BSCNs is the copula exo ‘have’ at the age of 2;0, followed by the light verb kano ‘do’. However, the use of grammatical BSCNs with this set of verbs does not necessarily provide evidence that Christos has acquired the licensing conditions for BSCNs. It may be that Christos uses BSCNs in a lexically based fashion. There are at least two ways to test whether he is using BSCNs in a lexically based way. Lexically based use of BSCNs can be indicated from their use with a small number of verbs. Moreover, if Christos is using BSCNs in a lexically based manner, he may use a specific set of verbs only with BSCNs and not with nouns preceded by a definite article. In order to test the first scenario, I compiled all verbs used by Christos with BSCNs by month. The list is given in Table 3. Table 3 shows that the core verbs used with BSCNs are the verb θelo ‘want’, the copula exo ‘have’ and the light verb kano ‘do’. From 1;10 to 2;3, Christos is using BSCNs only with this set of verbs. However, subsequently, BSCNs are also used with other verbs and the number of verbs used with BSCNs increases through time. Consequently, the scenario in which Christos uses BSCNs in a lexically based manner in a sense that he uses them only with a small number of verbs can be maintained only for the age range of 1;10 to 2;3. In order to test the second scenario, I looked at whether the verbs used with BSCNs appear exclusively with BSCNs or whether they are also used in noun phrases containing definite articles. Consider Table 4.



 Theodoros Marinis

Table 3. Verbs used with BSCNs Age

Verbs used with BSCNs

1;10 1;11 2;00 2;01 2;02 2;03 2;04 2;05 2;06 2;07 2;08

Θelo ‘want’ Θelo ‘want’ Exo ‘have’ Θelo ‘want’, exo ‘have’ Exo ‘have’, kano ‘do’ Θelo ‘want’, exo ‘have’, pezo ‘play’ Exo ‘have’, alazo ‘change’, oðiγao ‘drive’ Θelo ‘want’, exo ‘have’, perno ‘take’, vazo ‘put’ Θelo ‘want’, exo ‘have’, kano ‘do’ Θelo ‘want’, exo ‘have’, kano, ‘do’, perno ‘take’, vazo ‘put’, troo ‘eat’ Θelo ‘want’, exo ‘have’, kano ‘do’, perno ‘take’, vazo ‘put’, troo ‘eat’, ðino ‘give’, ftjiaxno ‘construct’, vafo ‘paint’, vrisko ‘find’

Table 4. Verbs used with BSCNs and definite articles Age

Verbs used only with BSCNs

1;10 1;11 2;00 2;01 2;02 2;03 2;04 2;05 2;06 2;07

Θelo ‘want’ Θelo ‘want’ Exo ‘have’ Θelo ‘want’, exo ‘have’ Exo ‘have’, kano ‘do’ Pezo ‘play’ Alazo ‘change’, oðiγao ‘drive’

2;08

Ftjiaxno ‘construct’, vrisko ‘find’

Verbs used with BSCNs and definite articles

Θelo ‘want’, exo ‘have’ Exo ‘have’ Θelo ‘want’, exo ‘have’, perno ‘take’, vazo ‘put’ Θelo ‘want’, exo ‘have’, kano ‘do’ Θelo ‘want’, exo ‘have’, kano ‘do’, perno ‘take’, vazo ‘put’, troo ‘eat’ Θelo ‘want’, exo ‘have’, kano ‘do’, perno ‘take’, vazo ‘put’, troo ‘eat’, ðino ‘give’, vafo ‘paint’

This is a possible scenario until the age of 2;3, because until then the verbs used with BSCNs are not used with noun phrases involving definite articles. The verb exo ‘have’ is used initially only with bare objects. Only from 2;3 onwards does Christos start using it with objects preceded by the definite article. The same is true for the verb θelo ‘want’, which is used initially with bare nouns. Consider example (38) below, in which Christos is using a BSCN with the verb θelo ‘want’, but also examples (39) and (40), where he uses the same verb with mass nouns and abstract nouns.10 (38) Child: Θeli pipilia. Θelo pipila (target-utterance) want pacifier ‘I want the pacifier.’

(Christos 1;10.9)

Acquisition of definite articles

(39) Child: Eli ciaγjia. Θelo γala (target-utterance) want milk ‘I want some milk.’

(Christos 1;10.9)

(40) Child: Eli meci. Θelo musici (target-utterance) want music ‘I want some music.’

(Christos 1;10.9)

As in the case of the verb exo ‘have’, only from the age of 2;3 does Christos use the verb θelo ‘want’ with nouns preceded by the definite article. Summarising, this section showed that BSCNs are attested in the speech of Christos as early as at the age of 1;10. However, from 1;10 to 2;3, it is likely that he is using BSCNs in a lexically based fashion, because he is using BSCNs only with three verbs. Moreover, he uses these three verbs until 2;3 only with BSCNs and not with nouns preceded by the definite article. The use of BSCNs with a greater number of verbs and also the use of these verbs with noun phrases involving definite articles suggests that from the age of 2;3, Christos is using BSCNs productively. This can be taken as an indication that he has knowledge of the licensing conditions for BSCNs.

. Summary and conclusion The majority of studies on the acquisition of the definite article have focused on determining the emergence and target-like use of definite articles, the rationale behind this being that it can provide evidence for the acquisition of functional categories (Radford 1990; Clahsen et al. 1994; Penner & Weissenborn 1996, among others). In the present study, I addressed four further issues: a. b. c. d.

the use of definite articles with different noun classes, the use of definite articles in subject vs. in object position, the use of bare nouns in argument positions, the use of verbs with BSCNs.

Given that children pass through a stage in which they use definite articles productively but there is a high rate of definite article omission, investigation of these issues can shed light on children’s knowledge of the obligatory contexts for the use of definite articles and the licensing conditions for bare arguments. The main factors involved in the licensing of bare nouns in Greek are argumenthood, syntactic position, noun class, number marking, verb type, and word order. There is a subject-object asymmetry in the use of bare nouns: bare nouns in the subject position are licit in more restricted environments than bare nouns in the object position. These descriptive observations were framed in this paper within Chierchia’s Nominal Mapping Parameter model. Based on the licensing conditions for bare nouns



 Theodoros Marinis

in argument positions, it was suggested that Greek matches the Romance setting in Chierchia’s model. Accordingly, nouns have the specification [–arg, +pred], which means that they are predicative, hence, they need a DP-layer in order to be able to be used in argument positions. Bare nouns in the subject and object position involve a null D0 , which is licensed by a lexical or a functional head. Chierchia’s Nominal Mapping Parameter model makes a set of very specific predictions for the acquisition of articles, which was tested on the basis of acquisition data. This model predicts that children will initially drop articles irrespective of the language they are acquiring. The initial hypothesis of children will be that nouns are argumental, i.e., [+arg, –pred] (Prediction 1). This prediction was supported by the Greek data. Christos does not use any definite articles at all in Stage 0. Prediction 2 consists of two parts. The first part is that at a second stage children acquiring Greek will start using definite articles in obligatory contexts. This is based on the idea that children will change their initial hypothesis and shift to the Romance setting upon discovering articles in the input, plural marking and/or quantifiers combined directly with nouns. However, the presence of bare nouns in argument positions may cause uncertainty as to when bare nouns are licit. This leads to the second part of the prediction according to which children will use definite articles in an optional manner until they discover the licensing conditions for bare arguments. The second prediction was also borne out by the data. In Stage 2, Christos uses definite articles in obligatory contexts productively, however, the rate of definite article omission is less than 90% in obligatory contexts. The next prediction (Prediction 3) is related to the triggering information for the setting of the Nominal Mapping Parameter. Given that PNs and KTs are the only nouns in Greek that cannot be used as bare nouns in argument positions, PNs and KTs (but not CNs) can provide unambiguous information that Greek nouns are predicative. Since structures comprising the trigger often emerge early in child speech (Penner 1994), children should use definite articles with PNs and KTs as soon as they start using definite articles productively. Data from the speech of Christos support this prediction: Christos uses definite articles with KTs and PNs in Stage 2. The next set of predictions is independent from the Nominal Mapping Parameter model; they are based on the idea that knowledge of the system of the target grammar should be reflected on the use of definite articles and bare nouns in argument positions. Consequently, a subject-object asymmetry in the use of bare nouns (Prediction 4) and compliance with the licensing conditions for BSCNs (Prediction 5) can be used as criteria for the knowledge of the target system of grammar. Christos uses (grammatical) bare nouns in argument positions from the beginning of Stage 2. This indicates that he has some knowledge of the licensing of bare arguments when he uses definite articles productively. A subject-object asymmetry was attested at Stage 2, i.e., the rate of bare nouns in object position is much higher than the rate of bare nouns in subject position. Interestingly, there is also a subject-object asymmetry in the rate of definite article omission. The rate of definite article omission in object position is below 10% at the age of 2;4, whereas in subject position it is below 10% at the age of 2;7. This

Acquisition of definite articles

indicates that definite article omission is ruled out in the speech of Christos earlier in the object position than in the subject position. Finally, evidence for the knowledge of the licensing conditions of BSCNs comes from the use of verb + BSCN combinations. From the age of 2;3 onwards Christos uses BSCNs with the set of verbs that may take BSCNs as complements in the target language. Moreover, these verbs are also used with nouns preceded by definite articles. This observation together with the fact that the rate of definite article omission for noun phrases in the object position is less than 10% after the age of 2;3 provides conclusive evidence that, from that age onwards, Christos has knowledge of the licensing conditions of BSCNs. Some discussion about the advantages of the Nominal Mapping Parameter model for the acquisition process over other hypotheses is in order here. As far as the predictions for the acquisition process are concerned, the Nominal Mapping Parameter model is not the only model that predicts a stage in which children should omit articles followed by a stage in which they should start using articles productively. For example, the Structure Building Hypothesis (Radford 1990) makes exactly the same predictions. The advantage of the Nominal Mapping Parameter model is that it can provide predictions for the acquisition process across several languages, something that is not possible in other models. For example, the Nominal Mapping Parameter model predicts that definite articles should emerge in the speech of children acquiring Romance languages earlier than in the speech of children acquiring Germanic languages, a prediction that was borne out in Chierchia, Guasti and Gualmini (1999). In conclusion, a detailed analysis of the speech of one child acquiring Greek revealed that the acquisition of definite articles is related to the acquisition of bare nouns in argument positions. Several issues have not been discussed, such as: (a) how children find out that the language they are learning has null Ds, (b) how they determine when to use null Ds and when contentfull Ds, (c) how they identify lexically governed and focus positions and (d) how they discover that BSCNs are licit with a specific set of verbs. These questions remain open for further research. Finally, given that the data used in this study consist of the corpus of one child only, further research is necessary in order to ensure that the development attested in the speech of Christos is typical of children acquiring Greek.

Notes * My research in language acquisition would not have started, had I not met Dimitra Theofanopoulou-Kontou. I am indebted to her for her advice. I would like to thank Anastasia Christofidou for providing me with the corpus of her son Christos. I am grateful to Susan Powers, Jürgen Weissenborn, Doug Saddy, Thomas Hanneforth, Dagmar Bittner, Athina Sioupi and Leah Roberts for helpful comments. Parts of this paper have been presented at the 34th Colloquium of Linguistics in Germersheim, at the Psycholinguistic Colloquium at the University of Potsdam, at the ZAS in Berlin and at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. An earlier version



 Theodoros Marinis

of this paper has appeared in the Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 39 and parts of this paper are included in Marinis (2000/2003). . See Marmaridou (1984, 1989) for other uses of proper names. . According to an anonymous reviewer, the sentence in example (15) can become grammatical when the subject ‘i Maria’ is stressed, in which case we have contrastive focus and the interpretation is that it was Mary and not, for example, Helen that bought a car. . I wish to thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing examples such as the one in (21) to my attention. . As far as proper names are concerned, under the assumption that they are universally of type e, they are of the right type to appear as bare nouns in argument positions. In order to account for languages in which proper names are preceded by determiners (Northern Italian dialects, Swiss German, High German and Modern Greek, among others), Longobardi (1994), Rousou and Tsimpli (1993), Penner (1994), Marinis (1998), have suggested that definite articles used with proper names are expletive elements. . In Chierchia’s approach, the denotation of proper names, like the denotation of common nouns, is not cross-linguistically uniform: proper names may have the semantic type <e, t>, meaning that they are predicates true of just one individual. . Since this paper focuses on the use of nouns in argument positions, we will not discuss further the issue of the specification of nouns that are used as predicates. . The [–arg, –pred] specification is not a possible option, because it would prevent nouns from having any interpretation at all, i.e., nouns would be mapped neither onto arguments nor onto predicates. . An anonymous reviewer questioned Chierchia’s hypothesis on the basis that in German proper names may, but do not have to, be preceded by the definite article. As nouns in Germanic languages have the specification [+arg, +pred], optional use of definite articles with proper names, instead of posing a problem, is predicted within this system. . A U-shaped curve has often been reported to indicate the switch from the use of elements belonging to functional categories as impostors into their use in a target-like fashion (Marcus, Pinker, Ullman, Hollander, Rosen, & Xu 1992; Eisenbeiss 2000). . Interestingly, in all three examples the verb does not show target-like person marking, but is rather used with the suffix -i. Katis (1984), Stephany (1997) and Varlokosta et al. (1998) have reported that children acquiring Greek pass through a stage in which they overgeneralise this suffix -i, which corresponds to the 3rd person singular. Varlokosta et al. have related the use of this suffix to the form of the past participle and suggested that although Greek does not have infinitival forms, verbs with the suffix -i in Greek child speech correspond to Root Infinitives in languages that have infinitival forms.

References Abney, S. (1987). The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Carlson, G. (1977). Reference to Kinds in English. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Acquisition of definite articles 

Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339– 405. Chierchia, G., M. T. Guasti, & A. Gualmini (1999). Early omission of articles and the syntax/ semantics map. Paper presented at the 1999 GALA Conference, University of Potsdam, September 1999. Clahsen, H., S. Eisenbeiss, & A. Vainikka (1994). The seeds of structure: A syntactic analysis of the acquisition of case marking. In T. Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar [Language Acqusisition & Language Disorders 8] (pp. 85– 118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Eisenbeiss, S. (2000). The acquisition of the DP in German child language. In M.-A. Friedemann & L. Rizzi (Eds.), Acquisition of Syntax. Issues in Comparative Developmental Linguistics. London: Longman. Holton, D., P. Mackridge, & I. Philippaki-Warburton (1997). A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Greek Language. London: Routledge. Horrocks, G. & M. Stavrou (1986). Mια πρώτη προσ7Ü γγιση και ερµηνεHÜα των επιθετικών προσδιορισµών στα N7Ü α Eλληνικά. (A first approach and interpretation of adjectival modifiers in Modern Greek). Studies in Greek Linguistics, 7, 109–116. Horrocks, G. & M. Stavrou (1987). Bounding theory and Greek syntax: Evidence for whmovement in NP. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 79–108. Katis, D. (1984). The Acquisition of the Modern Greek Verb: With special reference to the imperfective past and perfect classes. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Reading. Longobardi, G. (1994). Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and LF. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 609–665. Mackridge, P. (1990). H Nεοελληνικη´ Γλω´σσα (Modern Greek Language). Athens: Patakis. Marcus, G., S. Pinker, M. Ullman, M. Hollander, T. J. Rosen, & F. Xu (1992). Overgeneralizations in Language Acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(4). Marinis, T. (1998). The acquisition of expletive definite articles in Modern Greek. In T. CambierLangeveld, A. Lipták, & M. Radford (Eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE 6 (pp. 169–184). Marinis, T. (2000/2003). The Acquisition of the DP in Modern Greek. (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Potsdam). [Language Acquisition & Language Disorders 31]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Marinis, T. (2002). Minimal inquiries and the acquisition of the definite article in Modern Greek. In R. Rapp (Ed.), Linguistics on the Way into the Third Millennium. Proceedings of the 34th Linguistics Colloquium, Germersheim 1999 (pp. 73–82). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Marmaridou, S. S. A. (1984). The study of Reference, Attribution and Genericness in the Context of English and their Grammaticalization in Modern Greek Noun Phrases. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cambridge. Marmaridou, S. S. A. (1989). Proper names in communication. Journal of Linguistics, 25, 355– 372. Penner, Z. (1994). Ordered Parmeter Setting in First Language Acquisition: The role of syntactic bootstrapping and the triggering hierarchy in determining the developmental sequence in early grammar. Habilitation, University of Bern. Penner, Z. & J. Weissenborn (1996). Strong continuity, parameter setting and the trigger hierarchy: On the acquisition of the DP in Bernese Swiss German and High German. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), Generative Perspectives on Language Acquisition [Language Acquisition & Language Disorders 14] (pp. 161–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 Theodoros Marinis

Radford, A. (1990). The syntax of nominal arguments in early child English. Language Acquisition, 1, 195–223. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Handbook in Generative Syntax: Elements of grammar (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Roeper, T. & J. Weissenborn (1990). How to make parameters work: Comments on Valian. In L. Frazier & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language Processing and Language Acquisition (pp. 147–162). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Rousou, A. & I. M. Tsimpli (1993). On the interaction of case and definiteness in Modern Greek. In I. Philippaki-Warburton, K. Nicolaidis, & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics (pp. 69–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Setatos, M. (1995). Παρατηρήσεις στα ’Aρθρα και στις AντωνυµHÜες της Kοινής Nεοελληνικής (Notes on the Articles and Pronouns of Standard Modern Greek). Eπιστηµονικη´ Eπετηρíδα της Φιλοσοφικη´ς Σχολη´ς του AΠΘ, 5, 181–214. (Proceedings of the School of Philosophy of the Aristotel University of Thessaloniki, 5, 181–214.) Sioupi, A. (2001). The distribution of object bare singulars. In Y. Agouraki et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Linguistics Conference on Greek Linguistics, September 1999, Nicosia, Cyprus (pp. 292–299). Thessaloniki: University Studio Press. Sioupi, A. (2002). On the semantic nature of bare singular NPs in Greek. In C. Clairis (Ed.), Recherches en Linguistique Grecque, Vol. II (pp. 231–234). Paris: L’Harmattan. Stephany, U. (1997). The acquisition of Greek. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition 4 (pp. 183–333). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tsimpli, I.-M. & S. Stavrakaki (1999). The effects of a morphosyntactic deficit in the determiner system: The case of a Greek SLI child. Lingua, 108, 31–85. Tzartzanos (1946). Nεοελληνικη´ Σύνταξη (Modern Greek Syntax). Thessaloniki: Kiriakidis. Varlokosta, S., A. Vainikka, & B. Rohrbacher (1998). Functional projections, markedness, and ‘Root Infinitives’ in early child Greek. The Linguistic Review, 15, 187–207. Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Wexler, K. & M. R. Manzini (1987). Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In T. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter Setting (pp. 41–76). Dordrecht: Reidel.

Peripheral positions in early Greek* Ianthi Maria Tsimpli This paper aims to provide a new approach to the development of clause structure in L1 acquisition on the basis of the distinction between LF-interpretable and LF-uninterpretable features which is argued to have effects on learnability. The study concentrates on the acquisition of syntactic phenomena which are related to the syntax/pragmatics interface, namely focusing, dislocation and clitic-doubling in Greek. On the assumption that these syntactic phenomena involve a grammatical representation of certain functional features on ‘peripheral’ functional heads (CP/FP), the aim is to identify a developmental pattern that describes the sequence in which these structures emerge in Greek L1 acquisition. The early acquisition of the left-periphery is then juxtaposed to the relatively delayed acquisition of the inflectional domain.

.

Introduction

Recent work on first language acquisition has concentrated on the development of functional categories and the properties of early clause structure. The motivation has been both theoretical and empirical. Theoretically, the aim is to investigate the developmental process of parameter-setting on assumptions based on the Functional Parameterisation Hypothesis (Borer 1984; Ouhalla 1991; Chomsky 1991, 1995, a.o.). According to this hypothesis, parameters are associated with functional categories exclusively; lexical categories are part of the linguistic lexicon but not parameterised. Empirically, the aim has been to account for some ‘optional’ grammatical phenomena attested in early crosslinguistic data, e.g. the use of infinitival forms in root clauses and the use of null subjects. Research on the nature of the CP-domain in L1 acquisition has also been concerned with the representation of finiteness as a feature on the C head in verb-second languages, the nature of subject-drop as an instance of topic-drop in these languages, but, also, the structure of interrogatives in early data, i.e., the role of the wh-feature and the Q-feature in child language. This study concentrates on the acquisition of syntactic phenomena which are related to the syntax/pragmatics interface, namely focusing, dislocation and cliticdoubling in Greek (see Marinis 2000, 2002). On the assumption that these syntactic phenomena involve a grammatical representation of certain functional features on ‘peripheral’ functional heads (CP/FP), the aim is to identify a developmental pattern

 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

that describes the sequence in which these structures emerge in Greek L1 acquisition. A distinction between focusing and topicalisation/dislocation is based on the assumption that focusing involves an LF-interpretable feature hosted by an individual Operator (Kiss 1998; Tsimpli 1998) whereas dislocation/topicalisation do not involve Operator-movement or, in comparable terms, an LF-interpretable feature (Agouraki 1990; Tsimpli 1995).1 Instead, the topicalised/dislocated constituent in Clitic-LeftDislocation structures is assumed to be base-generated in a peripheral non-Operator position and the co-indexed element (clitic) in the argument position is not a variable but a pronominal. An investigation of a different pattern in the emergence and use of these discourserelated structures will be argued to provide evidence for a developmental distinction within the set of functional features, namely between LF-interpretable and uninterpretable features. That this distinction seems to have effects on learnability has been argued for SLI children and L2 learners (Tsimpli 1997, 2001; Tsimpli & Stavrakaki 1999). On the assumption that functional features develop gradually (an assumption incompatible with Strong Continuity), a distinction based on interpretability aims to distinguish between discourse-related structures which are, however, distinct in terms of their LF-representation. Thus, structures involving an Operator in the left periphery are interpretable and, as such, they are predicted to develop earlier than structures like CLLD which do not include an Operator-variable chain. The difference between interpretable and uninterpretable features in L1 acquisition is also examined in terms of the ‘timing’ in the development of structures such as focusing compared with that of Mood, Tense, Agreement and null subjects. This comparison is expected to provide a picture of the acquisition of inflectional as opposed to ‘peripheral’ features in Greek. It is argued that the acquisition of inflection follows acquisition of focusing and, consequently, a gradual (bottom-up) structure-building approach is refuted. It is, instead, proposed that the acquisition of functional structure proceeds on the basis of the interpretability distinction of features at LF, interpretable features being acquired earlier than uninterpretable ones. As a result, operators like negation, Q, Modality and Focus are found in child grammars from the earliest stage whereas functional features in the inflectional domain appear later.2

. The adult grammar Greek is a null subject language with rich subject-verb agreement morphology and no infinitival forms. Mood distinctions between indicative and subjunctive are morphologically marked via the presence of the subjunctive mood marker na. Imperative forms are morphologically marked on the verb’s ending. Tense and Aspect distinctions are marked on the verbal form giving combinations of the [+/–past], [+/–perfective] features as shown in the following examples:

Early peripheral positions

(1) a.

Févj-i. leave.non-past.imperf.3sg ‘(He) leaves / is leaving.’ b. *Fíj-i. leave.non-past.perf.3sg c. éfevj-e. leave.past.imperf.3sg ‘(He) was leaving.’ d. éfij-e. leave.past.perf.3sg ‘(He) left.’

(Unified Future Category)

(1c&d) show that [+past] forms are marked in two ways. First, phonologically by stress-shift to the antepenultimate syllable which in the case of the disyllabic verb ‘févgho’ requires an augment in initial position. Second, morphologically by a change in the suffix which is thus shown to carry both agreement and tense features. Further, note that the non-past/perfective form in (1b) (referred to as UFC (Unified Future Category) in Tsimpli & Stavrakaki 1999; Tsimpli 2001) is a form that may not appear on its own in a matrix clause, but requires the subjunctive or the future particle to introduce it, as shown in (2): (2) a.

Na fiji. subj leave.non-past.perf.3sg ‘(He) should go.’ b. Θa fiji. fut leave.non-past.perf.3sg ‘(He) will go.’

Nevertheless, forms such as (1b) are frequently used in early child Greek without a particle, as has been repeatedly noted in the literature (Katis 1984; Stephany 1997; Tsimpli 1992/1996; Varlokosta et al. 1998; Varlokosta this volume). Varlokosta et al. argue that this form is the Greek equivalent of root infinitives found in early data from languages like German, Dutch, French, etc. (Wexler 1992, 1994; Poeppel & Wexler 1993, a.o.) and suggest that there appears to be a correlation between the form in (1b) and null subjects, similar to the one found in these other languages in root infinitive contexts. Irrespective of the analysis, it appears that Greek children in early stages of linguistic development produce forms which are not appropriately marked for tense and agreement features, thus showing a developmental pattern not unlike the one found in other languages. Turning now to word-order possibilities, adult Greek shows relative flexibility in word-order patterns. Some of the different word-orders are related to properties of (null) subjects and the subject position in the language (arguably, VSO (PhilippakiWarburton 1985, 1987; Tsimpli 1990; Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998)), and some to discourse-related structures, i.e. focusing and topicalisation/dislocation



 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

(Philippaki-Warburton 1985; Agouraki 1990, 1993; Alexiadou 1999; Anagnostopoulou 1994, 2003; Tsimpli 1995; Alexopoulou 1999). The latter give rise to clearer effects in the case of objects or adjuncts which appear ‘displaced’ from their original position. The examples in (3a, b & c) involve CLLD (Clitic-Left-Dislocation), (object) topicalisation and ClD (Clitic-Doubling) structures respectively. The examples in (4a, b & c) illustrate focus-movement affecting a direct object, a predicate adjective and a manner adjunct PP, respectively. (3) a.

To vivlio, to ðjiavasa. the book it read.1sg ‘The book, I read it.’ b. Afto, ti ine? this what is.3sg ‘What is this?’ c. To ðjiavasa to vivlio. it read.1sg the book ‘I read the book.’

(4) a.

TIN KOPELA silavane. the girl.acc arrested.3pl ‘It was the girl that they arrested.’ b. KURASMENOS mu fenete o Jianis. tired.nom.masc me seems the John.nom ‘John seems to me to be tired.’ c. ME ðISKOLIA mu ipan oti apandise stis erotisis. with difficulty me told.3pl that answered.3sg to.the questions ‘They told me that he answered the questions with difficulty.’

Following assumptions in previous studies (e.g. Agouraki 1990; Tsimpli 1990) focusing is associated with a focus-feature which triggers movement of the Focus operator to FP/CP, the implication being that structures like (4) are relevant to the LF interface and the focus-feature is LF-interpretable. On the other hand, topicalisation and CLLD structures are assumed not to involve operator-movement or an interpretable feature3 (Tsimpli 1998). Instead, they are representations relevant at a post-LF level where discourse structure is represented. With respect to clitic-doubling, it has been suggested that the (cl+)verb is focused in this structure (Agouraki 1993). The focused interpretation of the verb is related to its movement to the F position with the object clitic. The object DP doubled by the clitic is necessarily unfocused and in this respect its interpretation resembles that of CLLD structures4 in that the object phrase is understood as old information in both cases. Clearly, CLLD and clitic-doubling cluster together both in discourse terms but also syntactically, given that both structures involve resumptive clitics, i.e., clitics doubling morphological features specified on a co-indexed phrase (cf. Agouraki 1993; Anagnostopoulou 1994, 2001; Philippaki-Warburton & Spyropoulos 1999; Philippaki-Warburton et al. 2002 for alternative views). Nevertheless, the dif-

Early peripheral positions 

ference between CLLD and clitic-doubling at the syntax-discourse level is assumed to involve the verb-focusing effect associated with clitic-doubling. Dividing the clause structure in the lexical projection of the predicate, the inflectional functional clause structure, and the periphery (cf. Rizzi 1997), an abbreviated tree-diagram of the Greek clause is shown in (5) below: (5)

FP SPEC Wh/focus

F’

F

CP Spec

C’ C

Left periphery

MP M θa/na

TP

Spec

T’

T[Agr]

vP

Spec Main clause

v’ v

VP

[clitic] V

NP

Notice that the left-periphery consists of functional heads and features which, unlike in V2 languages, are not inflectional. In the main inflectional domain of the clause, subjects and objects are associated with heads in the extended domain of the verb, i.e., the v projection for clitics, case and object agreement, Tense and Mood for subjects and the modal particles.5 Given this brief outline, we may consider the predictions made for the developmental pattern of discourse-related structures such as focusing, CLLD and cliticdoubling. Before attempting to do so, some general background on alternative theories regarding the Initial State in first language acquisition as well as their predictions with respect to the developmental pattern followed are in order.

. The theory of L1 acquisition and predictions This section is only intended as a selective sketch of generative theories of first language acquisition and the assumptions they make about early clause structure. Dis-

 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

tinguishing among theories of early child grammars can be drawn along two different dimensions: either as a contrast between continuity and maturation or as a contrast between theories of a ‘complete’ or ‘incomplete’ clause structure. The relevance of the present data is more obviously shown with regard to the division of theories along the second dimension, i.e., the nature of the clause structure in the early stages. As far as the maturation/continuity contrast is concerned, it is relevant to this study only insofar as the strong version of the continuity approach is concerned. Specifically, the data presented here is incompatible with strong continuity in the same way that any empirical evidence indicating selective development of functional heads is incompatible with this approach.6 With regard to the distinction between assumptions regarding ‘completeness’ of early clause structure, there are various suggestions. For ease of exposition, only representative examples are mentioned. Poeppel and Wexler (1993), Harris and Wexler (1996), Hyams (1996) argue for a fully-fledged clause structure with IP and CP from the earliest stage of development. Theories assuming an ‘incomplete’ clause structure differ, among other things, in terms of the direction in which clauses may end up incomplete at a particular stage of L1 development, that is, bottom-up or top-down. Radford (1990, 1996) argues for a structure-building approach whereby lexical structure characterizes the initial state and functional categories develop gradually bottomup.7 Clahsen et al. (1996) also suggest structure-building and morphological triggers motivating the development of functional structure. The initial state includes the projection of the predicate but also an inflectional projection specified for a binary feature of finiteness. Top-down theories include the ‘truncation’ account for early clause structure; they differ from bottom-up theories in that functional heads are argued to be available in the initial state but child grammars may opt for a truncation option in root infinitive contexts (Rizzi 1994; Haegeman 1996). Notice that although theories of ‘incomplete’ early clause structure differ in many ways, some of which were mentioned above, they are similar in that they assume that functional heads are affected by ‘truncation’ or ‘structure-building’ according to the sequence in which they appear in the clause structure (Platzack 1999). Thus, in neither theory can IP be truncated or not ‘built’ yet, if CP is assumed to be part of the structure at the same time. On the basis of the Greek data presented here it will be argued that the ‘incomplete’ clause structure theories (either structure-building ones or truncation) are problematical. In particular it will be shown that structures involving elements in peripheral positions are found in the earliest child data where tense and agreement features are not acquired as yet. The analysis is based on the following assumptions: (i) move (or merge) to scope positions (associated with LF-interpretable features, e.g. focus or Q) is part of UG, non-parameterised, therefore available from the first stage of development, (ii) parametric values of inflectional features are not interpretable at LF. One implication of these assumptions is that clause structure is acquired on the criterion of LF-interpretability of functional features. This implies that positions which host Operators, Focus or wh- (Q), being interpretable at LF, will be available earlier than inflectional projections. Furthermore, the left-periphery will host sentential op-

Early peripheral positions 

erators like negation or modality which are also LF-interpretable.8 Evidence for these features/categories is also expected to be found from the earliest stage. First language acquisition data from very early stages of German also shows evidence for early emergence and appropriate use of focus particles (such as auch ‘also’) and negation (Penner et al. 2000). The data from German and Swiss German suggests that even at the two-word stage of language production, German children produce focus particles and negation markers with almost no errors on ‘local scrambling’ of the object. Penner et al. (2000) claim that the constraint on scrambling definite objects is observed by the child grammar albeit not at the level of morphological production of definite determiners or case, since these categories are, at the period under discussion, still underspecified. Nevertheless, it is argued that scrambled nouns are ‘implicitly definite’ and therefore meet the criterion for scrambling despite the absence of determiners or explicitly marked definiteness. In terms of the theory of interpretability presented here and its effects on early clause structure, the German data provides direct support not only for the early use of the focus particles – argued to be (quantificational) operators – but also for the dissociation between their emergence and the derivation they trigger, i.e., scrambling, on one hand, and the use of definite articles on the other.9 This proposal contrasts with my earlier proposal (Tsimpli 1992/1996) regarding maturation of functional categories, according to which the earliest (prefunctional) stage of L1 development consists of lexical projections only. The underlying assumption behind the distinction between lexical and functional categories involves their distinct cognitive status in language and cognition (see also Smith & Tsimpli 1995). Assuming that there is a further distinction within the set of functional categories based on their interpretability at LF departs from the previous lexical/functional distinction but maintains the essential characteristic of it, namely the ‘double’ role that interpretable features play at the LF interface on one hand, and at more ‘central’ cognitive processing that deals with information structure on the other. The data presented in this study comes from Greek, a language where focusing is a grammaticalised structure relevant to the syntactic computation. Grammaticalisation of an LF-interpretable feature implies that the feature is active in the derivation (i.e., triggers Merge or Move) and that it cannot be deleted/erased at LF in that it contributes to the convergence of the representation. The difference between a grammaticalised LF-interpretable feature and a non-grammaticalised one (e.g. the contrast between Focus in Greek and Hungarian versus English) is that the former has effects on the derivation, the PF and the LF interface. Non-grammaticalised interpretable features (‘weak’ interpretable features) are LF-interpretable but not relevant to the derivation or the PF-interface.10 Note that topicalisation too (in the form of CLLD in Greek) is a discourse-related feature which, however, is assumed not to be LF-interpretable for reasons that have to do with its syntactic ‘freedom’ and status, i.e., that of a non-operator, A’-element. The implication is that CLLD is a PF-phenomenon that affects the derivation (insofar as spell-out conditions on the clitic pronoun are concerned). Thus, LF-interpretability is taken to be responsible for a distinction between (i) discourse-related features, i.e.,

 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

focusing and topicalisation/dislocation, and (ii) peripheral LF-interpretable features, e.g. focusing or wh- on one hand, and non-peripheral, uninterpretable features such as inflectional features on the verb triggering movement from the thematic domain (vp) to the inflectional domain, i.e., the main clause in (5). Regarding predictions for a developmental pattern of the structures examined here, note first that CLLD and clitic-doubling cluster together in the adult language, not just with respect to the interpretation of the object but also syntactically, given that they both presuppose the acquisition of clitics in contexts where these are used resumptively, i.e., where clitics double morphological features specified on a co-indexed phrase. Assuming that ‘old information’ as a discourse notion is available to the child from the earliest stage, the prediction is that when clitics are acquired the two structures should become available to the child (see Marinis 2000 for extensive discussion). Recall, however, that there is a difference between CLLD and clitic-doubling with regard to the focused interpretation of the verb in clitic-doubling but not in CLLD structures.11 Therefore, if focusing is, for reasons that have to do with LF-interpretability, a structure available to the child earlier than other discourse-related structures, it is possible that, when clitics are acquired, clitic-doubling would be more frequent in early data compared to CLLD. Nevertheless, it is crucial to note that when clitics are acquired, uninterpretable parameterised features are found in the child’s grammar. That is, if clitics are INFL-elements (Terzi 1999) or v-elements (Tsimpli 1999), it follows that they are associated with functional heads including uninterpretable features. Therefore, if there is a preference or more frequent use of clitic-doubling over CLLD this is based only on discourse effects: DP-topicalisation and V-focusing in clitic-doubling as opposed to DP-topicalisation in CLLD. Assuming that the Q-feature is also LF-interpretable, similarly with the focus feature, we expect wh-questions to involve movement to specFP, i.e., the relevant scope position, in the earliest stage of development. Thus, data from early interrogatives will also be included.12 Overall, the predictions with regard to the development of functional structure are the following: (6) a. Focus and wh-structures will be target-like from the earliest stage. b. CLLD and clitic-doubling structures presuppose the development of clitics. Clitics are realisations of uninterpretable features (Agr-O, Case). Therefore, their emergence should follow focus and wh-movement. c. Evidence for the inflectional domain (Mood, Tns, Agr) will not be found in the earliest stage and so the contrast between interpretable features of the left-periphery and Inflection will be supported developmentally. Before presenting the data a point of caution should be made regarding comparisons between the developmental patterns of structures like focusing, CLLD and cliticdoubling. Although these structures are fully grammatical in the adult language, they are ‘optional’ in that their use is regulated by pragmatic/discourse-related factors. As such, the notion of obligatory context does not apply in the way that it does in the

Early peripheral positions 

Table 1. Alexia’s word-order patterns in transitive structures AGE

TRANS. STRUCT.

OV

VO

CL

ClD

CLLD

1;11

22

67*

2;2

111#

2 7% 9 13% 22 20%

0

2;1

1 4% 2 7% 6 8% 23 20%

0

27

5 22.7% 11 40% 26 39% 30 27%

0

2;0

16 72% 12 44% 15 22% 16 14%

1 1% 9 8%

* The remaining 10 cases include 1 object omission and 9 clausal complements. # The remaining 11 cases are all clausal complements.

examination of L1 data regarding use of inflectional morphology, determiners etc. where conditions defining obligatory contexts are more easily specified. Therefore, acquisition of structures such as the ones investigated here refers to appropriate wordorder/interpretation pairings in the case of focusing, whereas in the case of CLLD and clitic-doubling morphological well-formedness in the use of clitics is also required (Marinis 2000).

. The data The data presented consists of spontaneously produced utterances from two Greekspeaking children, Alexia and Elli, recorded at regular monthly intervals.13 There are four consecutive recordings for Alexia and five for Elli presented here both beginning with the earliest two-word combinations from each child. Alexia’s two-word production started slightly later than Elli’s (1;11 versus 1;9) and by the final stage presented here (Alexia, 2;2 and Elli, 2;1) the two children showed similar grammatical patterns in the use of inflection, clitics and subjects.

. Focusing, CLLD, clitic-doubling and interrogatives Greek is a VO language with OV orders being produced as the result of object displacement to clause-initial position. In CLLD, a clitic necessarily appears prefixed to the verb whereas in focusing clitics are ungrammatical and focal stress is assigned to the moved object. In Table 1, Alexia’s uses of sentences with transitive verbs are presented. Distinctions are made between uses of the unmarked VO order as well as OV, CLLD and ClD (clitic-doubling) structures. Given that CLLD and ClD presuppose the acquisition of clitics, the use of accusative, direct object clitics is also included in Table 1.

 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

Table 2. Elli’s use of word-order patterns in transitive structures AGE

TRANS. STRUCT.

OV

VO

CL

ClD

CLLD

1;9

49*

40

2;0

78#

2;1

101ˆ

2 3% 2 5% 18 23% 9 9%

0

1;11

4 9% 11 13% 9 22% 10 13% 25 25%

0

82*

26 60% 42 51% 17 42% 24 31% 53 52%

0

1;10

8 18% 24 29% 12 30% 19 24% 7 6%

0 2 2.5% 3 3%

* The remaining cases are instances of object omission. # Of the remaining cases, 2 are object omissions and 3 clausal complements. ˆ The remaining 4 cases are clausal complements.

Alexia’s data show use of focus structures with objects in preverbal position from the first recording. Clitics are used productively from 2;1 and at the same stage cliticdoubling is also used. CLLD is found in comparatively fewer contexts in the following stage only. Examples from Alexia’s OV, VO, ClD and CLLD structures are given in (7) below: (7) a.

Nelo pini Atsia. water drinks Alexia ‘Alexia is drinking water.’ b. Seli to xataci Atsia. wants the paper.dim Alexia ‘Alexia wants the little paper.’ c. To anitse to fos i mama. it opened the light the mummy ‘Mummy switched on the light.’ d. Ato sa to pali i Efi. this will it take.3sg the Efi.nom ‘This, Efi will take it.’

(Alexia, 1;11)

(Alexia, 2;0)

(Alexia, 2;1)

(Alexia, 2;2)

In the first month of Elli’s data we find a relatively large number of object omission (22%) which is radically reduced in the second month (4%). OV orders are found from the first stage, as in Alexia’s data, but there is individual variation in the frequency in which OV focus structures are used. Within the set of transitive structures are included copula structures of the form ‘this is John’s’ / ‘this is dirty’ which are used frequently in Elli’s speech. At 1;10, the copula is missing from these structures leaving the sentence with a Noun-Noun or Noun-Adjective combination. Almost half of these structures are in the marked predicate/argument order which is also found in later stages too

Early peripheral positions 

when the copula is appropriately used (e.g. from 1;11 onwards). Examples of Elli’s sentences from various stages are provided below: (Elli, 1;9) Tuto kopsi. this cut.ufc.3sg ‘(You) should cut this.’ (Elli, 1;9) b. Su valis. you put.ufc.2sg ‘I want you to put the earrings on me.’ (lit. ‘You put on you.’) (Elli, 1;11) c. To javasume to Ned. it read.ufc.1pl the Ned ‘I want us to read Ned.’ (Elli, 2;0) d. Θes stafili ci alo. want.2sg grape and more ‘I want more grapes.’ (Elli, 2;1) e. Paputsia tis mamas to foes i Elli shoes the mummy.gen it wear.ufc.3sg the Elli.nom ‘Elli will wear mummy’s shoes.’ (Elli, 1;10) f. Vomiko to vivlio. dirty the book ‘The book is dirty.’ (Elli, 1;9) g. Papaki tuto. daddy’s this ‘This is daddy’s.’

(8) a.

In Elli’s data, clitic-doubling structures precede the use of CLLD, as is the case in Alexia’s data too. To summarise, the data presented shows that ‘marked’, i.e., non-VO, patterns are found even in the earliest data. It is noteworthy that the preverbal object in all these cases is appropriately marked for heavy stress and it has a contrastive or identificational reading. Clitic-doubling seems to coincide with the development of clitics whereas CLLD lags behind in its uses compared to clitic-doubling. Thus, in developmental terms we find an initial stage where object clitics, clitic-doubling and CLLD are not used by the two children (see also Marinis 2000) but focusing is. We could then assume that an operator position, namely specFP, is available from the earliest stage in Greek child grammar. When clitics appear, the number of VO utterances with NP objects seems to decrease in favour of clitic pronouns. At this stage, focusing continues to be available both as head-movement in clitic-doubling where the cl+verb complex moves to F and as phrasal-movement in ordinary focus structures. Notice that from the earliest stages wh-questions also appear in the speech of both children as shown in Tables 3 and 4 below. The majority of wh-interrogatives used by the children are ‘where’ and ‘what’ interrogatives usually with a copula following the wh-word rather than another verb. All

 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

Table 3. Alexia’s questions AGE

‘Pu’ (where)

‘Ti’ (what)

Other wh-

Copula questions

Total

1;11 2;0 2;1 2;2

3 (75%) 8 (62%) 5 (42%) 5 (20%)

1 (25%) 5 (38%) 3 (25%) 7 (28%)

0 0 4 (33%) 13 (52%)

3/4 (75%) 5/13 (38%) 4/12 (33%) 7/25 (28%)

4 13 12 25

Table 4. Elli’s questions AGE

‘Pu’ (where)

‘Ti’ (what)

Other wh-

Copula questions

Total

1;9 1;10 1;11 2;0 2;1

9 (50%) 5 (26%) 4 (17%) 8 (42%) 13 (62%)

6 (33%) 9 (47%) 14 (58%) 9 (47%) 7 (33%)

3 (17%) 4 (21%) 6 (25%) 2 (11%) 1 (5%)

11/18 (61%) 9/19 (47%) 6/24 (25%) 10/19 (52%) 13/21 (62%)

18 19 24 19 21

of the interrogatives produced are wh-initial. In Alexia’s case ‘other’ wh-interrogatives start being used at 2;1 and they include verb-initial yes/no questions. Examples from Alexia’s and Elli’s questions are presented in (9) and (10) respectively: (9) a.

Ti aponi ejo Atsia? what spread.3sg here Alexia ‘What is Alexia spreading here?’ b. Pu pai Atsia? where go.3sg Alexia ‘Where is Alexia going?’ c. Pu valo nelaci? where put.1sg water.dim ‘Where should I put water?’ d. Θeli anitsi to fos? want.3sg open.3sg the light ‘Do you want me to switch on the light?’ e. Pu’ne tola to akuzaci mu? where.is now the teddy.bear my ‘Where is my teddy bear now?’ f. Pos to cepazun ato? how it cover.3pl this ‘How do they cover this?’

(10) a.

Pu pai Elli? where go.3sg Elli ‘Where is Elli going?’ b. Ti kani apopos? what do.3sg man ‘What is the man doing?’

(Alexia, 2;0)

(Alexia, 2;0)

(Alexia, 2;1)

(Alexia, 2;1)

(Alexia, 2;2)

(Alexia, 2;2)

(Elli, 1;10)

(Elli, 1;10)

Early peripheral positions

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

k.

Ti kani Pitel? what do.3sg Peter ‘What is Peter doing?’ Pu’ne kaseta? where.is tape ‘Where is the tape?’ Pun’t’avγo? where.is the.egg pun’ avγo? where.is egg ‘Where is the egg?’ Ti’n aftes oles? what.are these all ‘What are all these?’ Ti foa i Elli? what wear.3sg the Elli ‘What is Elli wearing?’ Pun to xati tis Ellis? where.is the paper the Elli.gen ‘Where is Elli’s paper?’ Ti kani to koitsaci eðo? what do.3sg the girl.dim here ‘What is the little girl doing here?’ Pu’n tis Ellis to zaxtilizi? where.is the Elli.gen the ring ‘Where is Elli’s ring?’ Pu pai i kukla? where go.3sg the doll ‘Where is the doll going?’

(Elli, 1;11)

(Elli, 1;11)

(Elli, 1;11)

(Elli, 2;0)

(Elli, 2;0)

(Elli, 2;1)

(Elli, 2;1)

(Elli, 2;2)

(Elli, 2;2)

It should be noted that interrogatives with the reduced copula attached to the wh-word are likely to be treated as unanalysed forms by the children especially in the first stages (Stephany 1997). In Alexia’s data, wh-questions with the copula decrease steadily in favour of other verbs whereas in Elli’s case there is a decrease up to the age of 2;0. It is possible that copula questions after this age are analysed in the adult way, given the development of inflection. From the data presented so far, it appears that peripheral positions are used from the earliest stage with focusing and wh-interrogatives preceding the other two structures. Recall that one of the predictions made earlier regarding the distinction between peripheral (focus and Q) and IP-internal positions is that the latter should appear later than the former on the basis of their LF-properties. In order to test this claim an analysis of verb forms, modal particles and subjects is required. We turn to this in the following section.



 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

. Tense, Agreement, Modal particles and Subjects In order to compare the evidence for early clause structure in Greek and given the hypothesis that the left-periphery is in place before the main inflectional domain, an analysis of morphological and syntactic properties of Inflection from the two children’s production data is necessary. In the following two sections, the data from Alexia and Elli are analysed from these two perspectives. Mophologically, the emergence of the modal particles na and tha, subject-verb agreement and +/–past tense marking are presented. The aim is to compare the three functional features/categories that are assumed to be the host categories of these elements, namely Mood, Tense and Agreement. Assuming that in adult Greek, Mood carries a distinction between [+/–imperative] as well, the emergence of morphological imperatives is also examined. Syntactically, the nature of the subject (null/overt), the position of the subject (preverbal or postverbal) and the emergence of the VSO order are discussed on the basis of the relevant data from the two children. The aim is to substantiate the suggestion that there is a correlation between morphological and syntactic acquisition when the relevant functional features/categories are in place. In the first stage of acquisition, however, this correlation is not found. Instead, morphological development shows individual variation and does not correlate with syntactic development. The underlying motivation for examining both morphological and syntactic aspects of the Inflectional domain is that ‘acquisition’ of functional heads or features is evidenced in both domains, i.e., the morphological and the syntactic.

.. Alexia’s use of Inflection and Subjects In the presentation of the data in Table 5, Alexia’s use of null and overt (preverbal and postverbal) subjects, agreement and [past] tense marking, the use of the UFC (Unified Future Category) form and modal particles (na and tha) are included. The total number of declarative sentences including transitive and intransitive verbs is included, whereas questions and imperatives are excluded. The total number of sentences examined for the analysis of the data presented in this Table is provided in ‘Total’ in the column ‘Subjects’. With respect to the use of tense and aspect on verb forms, in the first two months Alexia uses primarily present tense forms (i.e., [–past], [–perfective]) and few instances of the UFC and past tense forms. From 2;1 the number of present forms decreases and the first occurrences of modal particles na and tha are attested. At 2;2 the UFC form is not found, present tense forms retain their frequency of use and the number of past tense forms increases.14 Subject agreement marking also shows an interesting change in the data from 2;1 where the number of 3sg forms is radically reduced and 1s forms are used much more frequently, followed by 2sg forms. At 2;2, this pattern is strengthened. In the first two months the large majority of verb forms are in the third singular, a finding frequently noted in other studies on Greek L1 data (Katis 1984; Stephany 1997; Tsimpli 1992/1996; Varlokosta et al. 1998, a.o.). Notice, however, that the overuse of this form

Early peripheral positions 

Table 5. Alexia’s use of Subjects, Modal particles, Tense and Agreement AGE null

subjects overt

ufc

3s: 20 (71%) 1s: 2 (7%) 2s: 1 (3%) 3s: 21 (75%) 1s: 6 (20%) 2s: 1(3%) Err: 8 (27%) 3s: 21 (31%) 1s: 35 (51%) 2s: 6 (8%) Err: 2 (3%) 1s: 64 (58%) 2s: 19 (17%) 3s: 16 (14%)

3 (11%) 1 (3%) 0 Pres.: 21 (75%)

past

mod. prt.

total

1;11 6 (21%)

2;0

agr#

22 (79%) 28 SV: 3 (14%) VS: 19 (86%) 15 (50%) 15 (50%) 30 SV: 2 (13%) VS: 13 (87%)

2;1

37 (54%) 31 (46%) 68 SV: 4 (13%) VS: 27 (87%)

2;2

57 (51%) 54 (49%) 111 SV: 13 (24%) VS: 41 (76%)

2 (6%)

3 (10%) 0 Pres.: 25 (83%)

7 (10%) 6 (8%) 13 na Pres.: 37 (54%) 5 tha (26%)

0

17 (15%) 20 na Pres.: 45 (41%) 29 tha (44%)

# Only the most frequent agreement endings used are presented.

is not related to the use of the UFC form in Alexia’s data, which is, in any case, rather infrequent. Given that the majority of verbs used by Alexia in the first two months are present tense forms, if there is any correlation to be drawn here it is between third singular agreement and present tense forms. However, there is no independent reason to cluster these two features together and therefore I conclude that no grammatical link is to be sought between the choice of this agreement marker and the present tense form. Turning now to the use of null and overt subjects, there are two strong tendencies shown in the data. The first one is that overt subjects outnumber null subjects in the first month, whereas in the following three months null subjects are used in, roughly, half of the child’s utterances. The second finding concerns the distribution of pre- and postverbal subjects. In the data from all four months, postverbal subjects constitute the overwhelming majority of overt subjects. At 2;1 and 2;2, postverbal subjects include a number of occurrences of nominative pronouns. In the data from 2;1, 10/12 uses of the personal pronoun eγo (‘I’) and emis (‘we’) appear in postverbal position. At 2;2, 29 out of a total of 38 occurrences of nominative personal pronouns appear in postverbal position. The remaining preverbal nominative pronouns usually bear focal stress as is the case with most of the preverbal subjects in Alexia’s data. Examples of the use of overt subjects are provided below: (11) a.

Xolevi kucitsa. dance.3sg doll.dim ‘The doll is dancing.’ b. Kasizi kato Atsia. sit.3sg down Alexia ‘Alexia is sitting down.’

(Alexia, 1;10)

(Alexia, 1;10)

 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

k.

l.

m.

n.

o.

Teno penai train pass.3sg ‘A train is passing.’ Jefilula ine apti. bridge.dim is this ‘This is a little bridge.’ Ejo cimate kucitsa. here sleep.3sg doll.dim ‘The doll is sleeping here.’ E’ bolo. Mama boli. neg can.1sg. Mummy can.3sg ‘I can’t. Mummy can.’ To cepaso eγo to kunelaci. it cover.ufc I the rabbit.dim ‘I will cover the little rabbit.’ Ezo mesa itane to poðalaci mu. here inside was the leg.dim my ‘My leg was in here.’ ðjiavazo eγo. read.pres.1sg I ‘I am reading.’ Penete i Atsia. wash.pres.3sg the Alexia ‘Alexia is washing herself.’ Ton Pippo to javaso eγo. the Pippo it read.ufc.1sg I ‘I will read Pippo.’ Eγo θa fao γliko. I fut eat.1sg sweet ‘I will eat some sweet.’ Eγo θa to psakso, oçi esi. I fut it look.for.1sg no you ‘I will look for it, not you.’ To esploksa eγo ce kateveni kato it pushed.1sg I and go.3sg down ‘I pushed it and it’s going down.’ Eγo θarθo pali eðo mesa ti tileorasi. I fut.come.1sg again here inside the television ‘I will come here to the television again.’

(Alexia, 1;11)

(Alexia, 1;11)

(Alexia, 1;11)

(Alexia, 2;0)

(Alexia, 2;1)

(Alexia, 2;1)

(Alexia, 2;1)

(Alexia, 2;1)

(Alexia, 2;1)

(Alexia, 2;1)

(Alexia, 2;2)

(Alexia, 2;2)

(Alexia, 2;2)

Given that the majority of preverbal subjects is focused and the usual option for overt subjects in Alexia’s and Elli’s data too, as will be shown in the following section, is the postverbal position, I conclude that the unfocused preverbal subject position of the adult grammar is not available at the early stage, i.e., SpecTP.

Early peripheral positions 

Table 6. Alexia’s use of her name and nominative pronoun in subject position AGE Name

1;11 2;0 2;1 2;2

0% 0% 25% 0%

preverbal Pronoun Total (N): name, pron. & other 0% 0% 25% 54%

3 2 4 13

Name

68% 69% 30% 2%

postverbal Pronoun Total (N): name, pron. & other 0% 0% 37% 68%

19 13 27 41

The appearance and productive use of the first person subject pronoun at 2;1 and 2;2 can be compared with the use of the child’s own name in subject position at 1;11 and 2;0. In Table 6 the percentage of use of the child’s name and the first person singular nominative pronoun out of the total number of overt preverbal and postverbal subjects is presented. In the first two months no nominative pronoun is found in either subject position. On the other hand, the use of the child’s name as subject is not found (except for one case) at 2;2 and at 2;1 its use is clearly reduced. Furthermore, the name occurs in preverbal position only once. When nominative pronouns are used (from 2;1), they are found primarily in postverbal position but do appear in preverbal position as well mostly with focused (contrastive) interpretation (see (11m)). This is also the interpretation of other preverbal subjects (e.g. (11f)). The use of the nominative pronoun from 2;1 coincides with the increase in the use of the 1st and 2nd singular agreement markings on the verb. It is plausible then to suggest that the co-occurrence of the pronoun with these agreement endings is related to the acquisition of AGR-S in the child’s grammar. The preference for the postverbal subject position and the focused interpretation associated with most preverbal subjects indicates that the preverbal position in Alexia’s grammar is associated with the focus feature while the default order is VS. Notice, however, that in the first two months (when agreement is not yet acquired), postverbal subjects also constitute the majority of overt subjects. This implies that the development of AGR-S does not have implications on the spell-out conditions for the subject (but see below on VSO). Turning to the development of Mood and Tense, notice that at 2;1 the use of modal particles increases and past tense forms begin to appear. Therefore, Mood emerges at the stage that AGR-S is acquired as shown by the use of modal particles. Note that Mood is also supposed to encode [+/–imperative]; thus, the acquisition of Mood should also be evidenced by the appropriate use of morphological imperatives. In Table 7 Alexia’s use of negative and affirmative imperatives is presented. Negative imperatives (prohibitions) are found in Alexia’s data from 2;0, where there are five such negatives all of which have wrong agreement marking and two of them (12a and b) have the wrong negative marker.

 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

Table 7. Alexia’s use of imperatives AGE

AFFIRMATIVE

NEGATIVE

TOTAL

1;11 2;0 2;1 2;2

0 1 8 20

0 5 6 8

0 6 14 28

(12) a.

Ze kunjete, mama. neg move.3sg mummy ‘Don’t move, mummy.’ b. Ze fiji, mama. neg leave.3sg mummy ‘Don’t leave, mummy.’ c. Mi piazi Atsia mam. neg touch.3sg Alexia food ‘Don’t touch Alexia’s food.’ d. Min pilaji ta pojalacia Atsia. neg touch.3sg the legs.dim Alexia ‘Don’t touch Alexia’s legs.’ e. Min pilaji Atsia, baba. neg touch.3sg Alexia daddy ‘Don’t touch Alexia, daddy.’

(Alexia, 2;0)

(Alexia, 2;0)

(Alexia, 2;0)

(Alexia, 2;0)

(Alexia, 2;0)

In adult language, negative imperatives are morphologically subjunctive in that the negative marker used is mi(n), that is, the one used in negative subjunctive clauses, and the form of the verb follows the agreement paradigm of indicatives and subjunctives. Thus, it is only affirmative imperatives that show a distinct agreement paradigm (Rivero & Terzi 1995; Philippaki-Warburton 1998). Notice, however, that affirmative matrix subjunctives can be interpreted as having imperative force. Thus, the deontic interpretation in matrix clauses can be morphologically conveyed either by using a subjunctive introduced with the marker na or by using the distinct imperative form. In Alexia’s and Elli’s data, affirmative sentences with imperative force are found from the earliest stage. Their morphological marking though shows individual variation: Elli primarily uses the precursor of the subjunctive form (see following section) and later the subjunctive particle itself to convey imperative force. On the other hand, Alexia uses morphological imperatives from 2;1 and all of them show correct agreement marking. The use of affirmative imperatives in Alexia’s data coincides with the acquisition of agreement marking on other verb forms. It thus seems that acquisition of this category is evidenced simultaneously in distinct Mood forms too in Alexia’s data. Tense distinctions are also found at this stage suggesting that Tense is acquired along with Mood and AGR-S in the course of development.

Early peripheral positions 

Table 8. Elli’s use of Subjects, Modal particles, Tense and Agreement AGE null 1;9

subjects overt

43 (77%) 13 (23%)

agr#

ufc

past

mod. prt.

3s: 25 (46%) 1p: 11 (20%) 1s: 10 (19%) 2s: 9 (17%) Err: 22 (41%) 3s: 40 (53%) 1p: 19 (25%) 2s: 15 (20%) Err: 21 (28%) 3s: 28 (62%) 2s: 5 (11%) 1s: 6 (13%) Err: 12 (27%) 3s: 58 (64%) 1p: 15 (16%) 2s: 12 (13%) Err: 13 (14%) 3s: 91 (71%) 1p: 24 (18%) 1s: 6 (4%)

24 (43%) 4 (7%) Pres.: 18 (32%)

4a 6 na (18%)

23 (30%) 14 Pres.: 28 (37%)

3a 6 na 2 θa

5 (11%)

7 (16%) Pres.: 22 (49%)

2a 9 na (24%)

2 (2%)

18 (20%) 37 na Pres*.: 29 (32%) 4 θa (45%)

2 (2%)

29 (22%) Pres.: 42 (33%)

total 56

SV: 2 (15%) VS: 11 (84%) 1;10 42 (55%) 34 (45%) 76 SV: 7 (21%) VS: 27 (36%) 1;11 26 (58%) 19 (42%) 45 SV: 6 (32%) VS: 13 (68%) 2;0

36 (40%) 55 (60%) 91 SV: 16 (29%) VS: 39 (43%)

2;1

53 (41%) 76 (59%) 129 SV: 28 (37%) VS: 48 (63%)

47 na 9 θa (43%)

* There is one instance of present perfect. # The most frequent agreement endings used are presented.

.. Elli’s use of Subjects and Inflection Table 8 presents Elli’s use of null and overt (preverbal and postverbal) subjects, agreement and [past] tense marking, the use of the UFC form and modal particles (na and θa). The total number of sentences examined is presented under ‘Total’ in the column ‘Subjects’. With regard to overt subjects, Elli, like Alexia, uses postverbal subjects considerably more frequently than preverbal ones. The rise in the percentage of preverbal subjects is due to the use of this position to mark focused subjects too. The sentences in (13b) and (c) are responses to subject ‘who’ questions whereas (13a) is a request with a focused preverbal subject.15 (13) a.

I Elli na to plini. the Elli subj it wash.3sg ‘Elli (wants to) wash it.’ b. I Loa eksipnise. the Laura woke up ‘Laura woke up.’

(Elli, 1;11)

(Elli, 1;11)

 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

c.

(Elli, 1;11)

I Elli toi. the Elli eats ‘Elli is eating.’

Unlike Alexia, Elli uses null subjects frequently from the first month. The occurrence of null subjects does not seem to correlate with the UFC form, or a specific agreement category or the combination of the UFC and 3sg agreement (cf. Varlokosta et al. 1998; Varlokosta this volume). Specifically, there are only 5 instances of the 3sg [–past, +perfective] form (the ‘non-finite’ form in Varlokosta et al.’s 1998 analysis) of which 3 appear with a null subject and 2 with an overt subject. As far as the use of agreement forms other than the third singular is concerned, a number of them is used from the first month in Elli’s data, contrary to what was found in Alexia’s data, where the use of non-3sg forms increased at 2;1 and at the same time very few agreement errors were produced. In Elli’s case, agreement errors are found in the first three months, decrease at 2;0 and disappear at 2;1. Overall, then, acquisition of agreement in Elli’s data coincides with the decrease in the number of agreement errors and does not correlate with the use of null subjects. Table 9 below shows the distribution of agreement errors in relation to null/overt subjects and the agreement morphology produced in each case (the total number of null and overt subjects and the total number of use of third singular vs. other agreement markings is also shown in Table 8 above). Some examples including agreement errors are presented in (14) below: (14) a.

Zoso katali. (= na mu ðosis to kutali) give.ufc.1sg spoon (= subj me give.2sg the spoon) ‘Give me the spoon.’ b. Fei calo. (= θa fero cialo) bring.3sg more (= fut bring.1sg more) ‘I will bring more.’ c. Miizi katses. smell.3sg socks ‘The socks smell.’ d. Selis potokali. (= θelo portokali) want.2sg orange (= want.1sg orange) ‘I want an orange.’

(Elli, 1;9)

(Elli, 1;9)

(Elli, 1;9)

(Elli, 1;10)

Table 9. Agreement errors in Elli’s data AGE 1;9 1;10 1;11 2;0

subjects

morphology other

null

overt

3sg

19/43 (44%) 16/42 (38%) 10/26 (38%) 10/36 (28%)

3/13 (23%) 5/34 (15%) 2/19 (11%) 3/55 (5%)

9/25 (36%) 6/40 (15%) 2/28 (7%) 1/58 (2%)

13/31 (42%) 15/36 (42%) 10/17 (59%) 12/33 (36%)

Early peripheral positions 

e.

Vali to loloi mu. put.ufc.3sg the watch my ‘I want to put on my watch.’ f. A kanum palilato i Elli. a do.1pl bicycle the Elli ‘Elli wants to ride the bicycle.’ g. Θa to plino i Elli. fut it wash.1sg the Elli ‘Elli will wash it.’

(Elli, 1;10)

(Elli, 1;11)

(Elli, 1;11)

On the basis of the data in Table 9, it is reasonable to conclude that Elli’s use of ‘other’ forms from the first month is partly responsible for the larger number of errors produced compared to the ones found in Alexia’s data. This raises interesting questions as far as the notion of ‘default’ for the third singular form is concerned (Katis 1984; Stephany 1997; Tsimpli 1992/1996). In both Alexia’s and Elli’s data the frequency of this form is indeed greater than that of any of the other members of the agreement paradigm. On the other hand, there is individual variation as to whether this form is so frequent that it is almost exclusively used in early data (e.g. Alexia at 1;11) or whether other forms are also used (Elli, during all months). Given this difference, it is more plausible to assume that the third singular form is a default form at the morphophonological level only and not at the level of abstract morphological specification. If it were the case that the third singular is ‘default’ at some deeper level we would expect exclusive use of this form at the stage in which AGR-S is not as yet acquired by the child, contrary to fact. Furthermore, the fact that no correlation seems to be found between the use of the third singular form and null subjects, or the use of the 3sg, –past, +perfective and null subjects supports the idea that this form is unmarked only at some surface morphological level and not otherwise (e.g. in terms of a [+/–finite] distinction (cf. Hoekstra & Hyams 1998; Varlokosta et al. 1998; Varlokosta this volume). As far as the development of modal particles in Elli’s data is concerned, the UFC form is frequently used up to the age of 2;0; during the first three months its use is related to the use of an undifferentiated phonological place-holder a (Stephany 1997) instead of the modal particles θa and na. In other words, during this period the child uses the UFC form with or without the phonological place-holder introducing it. By 2;0, there are no uses of this place-holder and modal particles are used instead (the majority are occurrences of the subjunctive marker na). At the same time, the UFC form disappears. Tense distinctions are also found by the age of 2;0 and at that time there seems to be equal distribution between modal particles and past/present uses. Recall that acquisition of agreement was argued to be related to the development of Mood in Alexia’s data, as this is shown by the use of morphological (affirmative) imperatives as well as indicatives and subjunctives. In Elli’s case, however, (affirmative) utterances with imperative force are mostly subjunctive in form, i.e., they are matrix clauses introduced by na. Notice that matrix na-clauses are not unambiguously interpreted as imperatives (see Rouchota 1994) and this is primarily the difference be-

 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

tween them and morphologically-marked imperatives which only have an imperative reading. Nevertheless, the deontic (imperative) reading is a common interpretation associated with matrix subjunctives and it is found in many of the na-uses in Elli’s data from 2;0 onwards. An important point with regard to the development of modal particles is related to the ‘continuity’ found in the interpretation of the UFC form (with or without the place-holder introducing it) and the later verbal forms introduced by na and θa. Specifically, as noted in earlier studies (Katis 1984; Stephany 1997; Tsimpli 1992/1996) these forms express boulemaic or deontic modality. The use of the future marker θa is, in some cases, associated with a modal and a (future) tense intepretation in that the child’s utterance can be interpreted as her wish for something to happen rather than simply as a statement about the future. In this respect, the perfective marking on the verbal form does not denote completion of an event or ‘pastness’ but can also denote a modal (and, therefore, necessarily future) interpretation (see Hoekstra & Hyams 1998; Hyams 2001, 2002). Recall that tense and modal particles appear simultaneously in both children’s data, i.e., at 2;2 in Alexia’s data and at 2;0 in Elli’s. Assuming that Mood and Tense are functional projections that belong to the main clause (rather than the periphery) as shown in the structure in (5), and that they develop at the stages in which evidence for the use of tense distinctions and modal particles is found, how can the continuity in the expression of modal readings be explained? Possible answers to this question are the following: (i) a strong continuity approach suggesting that Mood and Tense are represented throughout but initially they lack any morphological specification for reasons that have to do with the child’s gradual development of overt morphology, (ii) Tense and Mood are not available from the beginning as independent functional heads; however, the modal reading is structurally represented in the periphery of the clause as a modal operator in a scope position. The first possibility is, as it stands, incomplete. In both children’s data the development of subject agreement, Mood and Tense coincide. If overt morphology develops gradually there is no reason why members of different morphological paradigms should appear at the same time. Moreover, if we assume that a null modal occupies the Mood or Tense position before overt morphology is developed (cf. Hyams 1994), we should also expect the functional heads of Mood and Tense to be syntactically available for movement to the specifier of these projections or to the head position. In the adult language, the assumption is that verb-movement always takes place in Greek (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998, a.o.). Specifically, in the absence of infinitives, all Greek clauses should instantiate verb-raising to inflectional heads. Thus, if early Greek has the relevant inflectional heads available, according to a strong continuity perspective, we should expect verb-movement to take place. Relevant evidence should come from word-order patterns, the clearest data being declaratives in the VSO order.

Early peripheral positions 

. Word-order Assuming that F (the head of the Focus Phrase) is available from the earliest stage, OV structures will involve movement of the object to specFP and of the verb to F as is the case in the adult grammar16 (see (5)). Furthermore, both preverbal and postverbal subjects can be represented in a structure containing the verbal and the focus projections given that preverbal subjects may appear in specFP when focused and in specVP otherwise.17 Postverbal subjects, on the other hand, require different analyses depending on whether the structure is OVS or VOS. In the first case, the object and the verb occupy peripheral positions (in FP) and the subject remains in VP. In VOS structures, however, the subject cannot be in specVP unless the whole VP predicate is focused (cf. Sifaki 2001). Note that postverbal subjects are never prosodically stressed in the children’s data; instead, they are associated with a low-fall intonation and as such they are interpreted as ‘old information’. This interpretation of postverbal subjects is clearly compatible with Alexia’s data where in most utterances the subject refers to the child herself through the use of her own name or of the first person singular pronoun (see Table 6). We could then suggest that postverbal subjects in VOS orders can be either in specVP if the whole VP predicate is focused or could be adjoined to a right-dislocated position and associated with a PRO subject in specVP (cf. Tsimpli 1992/1996). Whatever the analysis, VOS structures do not provide evidence for the presence of the Mood and Tense projections in the clause structure. The only, remaining, word-order pattern that necessarily presupposes movement of the verb to an inflectional head leaving the subject and the object in lower positions is VSO (cf. Philippaki-Warburton 1987; Tsimpli 1990; Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998). Tables 10 and 11 below show the different word-order patterns used by each child during the whole period discussed here. Note that only transitive verbs with overt subjects and non-clitic objects are included.18 The VSO examples found in Alexia’s data at 2;1 and 2;2 are presented in (15)–(16) below: (15) a.

Je’ ponai Atsia to çelaci tis. neg hurts Alexia the hand her ‘Alexia’s hand is not hurt.’ b. E’ vali Atsia ata. neg put.3sg Alexia these ‘Alexia (doesn’t want) to put these on.’

Tola θa kano eγo nani. now fut do.1sg I sleep ‘I will go to sleep now.’ b. Θelo eγo sokolata. want.1sg I chocolate ‘I want chocolate.’

(16) a.

(Alexia, 2;1)

(Alexia, 2;1)

(Alexia, 2;2)

(Alexia, 2;2)

 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

Table 10. Alexia’s use of alternative word-order patterns AGE

SVO

VSO

OVS

VOS

1;11 2;0 2;1 2;2

1 1 1 9

0 0 2 5

13 7 9 10

3 4 5 8

Table 11. Elli’s use of word-order patterns AGE

SVO

VSO

OVS

VOS

1;9 1;10 1;11 2;0 2;1

1 4 2 8 13

0 0 0 1 8

1 4 3 6 2

1 10 2 16 17

Θelo eγo avγo. want.1sg I egg ‘I want an egg.’ d. Ze sa kano eγo banjio. neg fut do.1sg I bath ‘I won’t have a bath.’ e. (Pijene) na γaγalisis esi to baba ce eγo (go) subj tickle.2sg you the daddy and I ti mama. the mummy ‘Go and tickle daddy and I will tickle mummy.’ c.

(Alexia, 2;2)

(Alexia, 2;2)

(Alexia, 2;2)

The VSO examples found in Elli’s data are presented in (17)–(18) below: (17) Na vosisi ti Elli ti Vangjelia. sub help.3sg the Elli the Vangelia ‘Elli should help Evangelia. or Evangelia should help Elli.’

(Elli, 2;0)

As shown by the English translation, the example in (17) is not clearly a VSO one given that the determiners introducing the two arguments are identical and both in the accusative. (18) a.

Seli i Elli psomi. want.3sg the Elli.nom bread ‘Elli wants bread.’ b. Na vali i Elli vutio. sub put.3sg the Eli.nom butter ‘Elli (wants to) put butter.’

(Elli, 2;1)

(Elli, 2;1)

Early peripheral positions 

c.

Tomakse i Elli ti Vangjelia. frightened.3sg the Elli.nom the Vangelia.acc ‘Elli frightened Evangelia.’ d. Na vali i Anna ti zaceta tis. sub put.3sg the Anna.nom the jacket.acc hers ‘Anna should put on her jacket.’ e. Zen boi i Zafni na tis sikosi. neg can.3sg the Dafni.nom sub them lift.3sg ‘Dafni cannot lift them.’ f. Extipisen i Elli to çelaci. hurt.3sg the Elli.nom the hand.acc ‘Elli hurt her hand.’ g. Pezi to kunelaci tambulo. play.3sg the rabbit.dim drum ‘The little rabbit is playing the drum.’

(Elli, 2;1)

(Elli, 2;1)

(Elli, 2;1)

(Elli, 2;1)

(Elli, 2;1)

What is clear from Tables 10 and 11 is that in both children’s data the VSO order is attested only after inflection is acquired.19 Assuming, following recent assumptions (e.g. Chomsky 1995) that agreement is specified on T, verb-movement to this position becomes available when the features in question are acquired. In Elli’s VSO data, examples (18b&d) involve sentences introduced with the mood marker na. In these cases it can be argued that the verb moves and head-adjoins to Mood (cf. Terzi 1992, 1997; Roussou 2000) given that subjects and objects cannot appear between this marker and the verb (but object clitics can). Finally, negative indicatives as in (13a&b) also require verb-raising because negation is high in the clause structure and, like the subjunctive marker, it is part of the verbal complex (Tsimpli 1990; Drachman & Klidi 1993; Philippaki-Warburton 1994, a.o.). Overall then, the possibility that Tense and Mood are available from the earliest stage of development is untenable on the grounds that modal particles, tense and agreement distinctions are not acquired yet and the VSO order is not attested.

. Modality Assuming that the Mood projection is unavailable in the earliest stage, the question of how the modal interpretation is derived is still open. The second possibility mentioned in Section 4.2.2 above with respect to the modal interpretation associated with child data is that a modal operator encoding boulemaic or deontic modality can be present in a clause-peripheral position.20 This assumption is consistent with a scope position of the operator in the left-periphery. A modal operator in the CP domain is also compatible with the alternative modal readings, e.g. the boulemaic and the deontic found in child grammars prior to the acquisition of inflection. Dissociating modality from the development of the Mood and Tense categories is a desirable result given that modal readings in early grammars are conveyed in contexts which the adult

 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

grammar distinguishes on the basis of grammaticalised Mood and Tense distinctions (Stephany 1986). For example, the UFC form, which is ungrammatical as a bare form in adult language (see Section 2 above), can denote intention, wish and deontic readings in child grammar. In the adult language these readings are distinguished by the use of the future marker θa, the use of main modal verbs selecting subjunctive complement clauses and the use of morphologically marked imperatives. Subjunctive clauses have different interpretations depending on whether they are matrix or embedded. In matrix contexts they necessarily have a modal reading whose nature is also determined by the agreement, tense and aspectual properties of the verb form. Consider the examples below: (19) a.

Na fíjis! sub leave.perf.2sg ‘You should go!’ b. Na éfevγa! sub leave.past.imperf.1sg ‘I wish I left.’

The strongly preferred reading of (19a) is deontic (it can also denote permission) whereas that of (19b) is optative. These readings are related to the agreement markings (2nd vs. 1st singular), to the tense distinction (non-past vs. past) and to the aspect marking (perfective vs imperfective) respectively. In the absence of these distinctions in early Greek, the modal interpretation is compatible with the context and is largely underspecified by the form used. In other words, although the UFC form usually encodes modality in child grammar, its morphological make-up does not grammaticalise modality in the adult grammar since it can appear as part of an embedded subjunctive (with no modal reading), as part of a verb marked for future tense (again with no modal interpretation) or as part of the present perfect form (with no modal reading either). Furthermore, the present tense form can also convey a modal interpretation since the only difference it has from the UFC is aspectual. In other words, the contrast between the UFC and the present form is in the description of the aspectual features of each, the former being perfective and the latter imperfective. Both forms can be introduced by the modal particles na and θa and both forms can have modal readings associated with the use of these modal particles. Thus, the use of [–past, –perfective] forms in the earliest stages of child Greek referred to as ‘present’ is also compatible with a modal, future interpretation in the absence of modal particles. The implication is then that modality in early data is encoded not as a particular morphological form but as an independent feature which only needs to be compatible with the morphological specification of the verb form at the relevant stage. In the examples below, some uses of ‘present’ forms with a potentially modal interpretation are presented:

Early peripheral positions 

(20) a.

Kubela pame. swing go.1pl ‘We are going to the swing. / Let’s go to the swing.’ b. E’ kani nani Atsia. neg does sleep Alexia ‘Alexia is not asleep. /Alexia does not want to sleep.’ c. Xolio pai Atsia. school go.3sg Alexia ‘Alexia is going to school. / Alexia wants to go to school.’

(Alexia, 2;0)

(Alexia, 2;0)

(Alexia, 2;0)

The two readings, a modal and a non-modal, are presented in the English translation of each form. However, in the context that the forms were produced the interpretation was modal rather than ‘present’ tense. The ambiguity is stronger since the verbs pao ‘go’ and kano ‘do’ in Greek are the same in the perfective and the imperfective form. Furthermore, the modal interpretation of early negatives (e.g. (20b)) has been observed in child data crosslinguistically (cf. Hoekstra & Jordens 1994; Tsimpli 1992/1996). Thus, modality is encoded in early grammars albeit not in the adult way where, in Greek for example, it is derived from the co-occurrence of modal particles and/or verbal inflections. It is then concluded that the ‘continuity’ in the modal interpretations found in child grammars involves the presence of a null modal Operator in a scope position in the periphery of the clause in early and later stages (and adult grammar too). The development of inflection restricts the choices between modal interpretations but not in an unambiguous way since modality is not grammaticalised in a single verbal or other morpheme in adult Greek. In other words, on the assumption of a close relation but not identity between the categories of Mood and Modality (Palmer 2001), modality is a universal, LF-interpretable feature independent from the possible grammaticalisation of mood in different languages. The representation of modality is thus predicted to be available to all early grammars, as a modal Operator in a peripheral position, regardless of the Mood properties of the adult clause. Given that the subjunctive marker na encodes mood rather than modality, its function is associated with different contexts in some of which (primarily matrix clauses) the modal interpretation is more salient. When Mood and Tense develop, modal readings become more clearly identifiable in child language, similarly with the adult language. Overall then, the suggestion that a modal Operator is structurally represented independently of Mood, Tense and Agreement can account for the modal interpretations associated with child and adult Greek. Its presence from the earliest stages of development is consistent with the claim that LF-interpretable features are available throughout, both as (abstract) morphological features and structurally in the relevant positions. Assuming that the modal Operator, qua operator, is represented in the clause’s periphery, child utterances conveying modality are structurally represented as FP/CP clauses throughout.

 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

. Implications and conclusions In what follows, I will summarise the main arguments put forward on the basis of the data and the theoretical implications which arise for early clause structure. First, with respect to the peripheral/non-peripheral distinction in clausal positions, focusing and interrogative structures, both involving verb-movement to a peripheral position (F/C) together with XP-movement to specFP (or specCP) have been compared with verbmovement to inflectional heads in the domain of the main clause. It was shown that the peripheral positions associated with Focus and Questions are acquired before Tense, Mood and Agreement positions, suggesting that ‘truncation’ and structure-building accounts for functional structure are not on the right track. An alternative suggestion formulated on the basis of LF-interpretability appears more promising (Tsimpli 1997, 2001; Tsimpli & Stavrakaki 1999). In particular, assuming that the Focus and Q features are LF-interpretable and appear in peripheral, scope positions they are predicted to be available to early grammars right from the start. Assuming that agreement features on the verb are not interpretable at LF (Chomsky 1995), the interpretability of Tense and Mood is the next question. Chomsky (2001) suggests that Tense could be substantive and as such its interpretability at LF follows. He also makes the distinction between ‘complete’ and ‘defective’ T being related to the presence and absence of phi-features and C. As far as child grammars are concerned, it is well-known that early verb forms do not exhibit Tense distinctions. Various analyses of this fact have been put forward suggesting the Aspectbefore-Tense hypothesis (e.g. Antinucci & Miller 1976), maturation of Tense (Wexler 1992, 1994), delay in a pragmatic principle affecting tense interpretation (Hyams 1996), etc. As far as early Greek is concerned, it has been suggested that aspectual distinctions between perfective and imperfective forms appear earlier than [+/–past] tense distinctions (Katis 1984; Tsimpli 1992/1996; Stephany 1986, 1997). In Tsimpli (1992/1996) it is argued that Aspect is an argument of the verb and saturates the <e> position of the verb (cf. Higginbotham 1985). I will maintain this analysis and suggest that the ‘substantive’ nature of temporal anchoring in adult grammars is instantiated by a Tense/Aspect relation possibly along the lines of Giorgi and Pianesi (1997), along with an aspectual distinction between situation types and viewpoint aspect in the sense of Smith (1991). Giorgi and Pianesi (1997) argue for two tense projections, the lower one encoding the R/E relation and the higher one the S/R relation. If aspect is associated with the event position of the verb, the lower TP encodes a tense/aspect link in our terms. In the absence of tense in early grammars, R is missing and aspect is responsible for delimiting the contour of the event grammatically, i.e., by virtue of its structural representation inside the VP.21 The interpretability of aspect at LF follows from its thematic status. The lack of tense projections in early clause structure also implies that there are two possible readings, either a modal (temporally, future) or a non-modal. In the nonmodal interpretation, either the (unmarked) simultaneity of S,E is possible – which is also the apparently ‘present tense’ reading found frequently in early data – or a reading

Early peripheral positions 

of ‘pastness’ in the sense of completion of the event as conveyed by the use of a perfective verb form (usually, a participle). In this case, event precedes speech time (E_S) and thus the past interpretation is derived. Regarding Mood, as already discussed in the preceding section, it is not equivalent to modality but grammaticalises features such as [+/–indicative], and [+/–imperative] which happen to have distinct morphological realisations in Greek evidenced in terms of the subjunctive marker na and a distinct agreement paradigm respectively. Modality is expressed as an Operator in the C position, i.e., the position where S (Speech Time) is also represented. Recall that the modal reading entails futurity but, crucially, not through tense marking. In the earliest stage, modal and non-modal readings are structurally available, but Mood distinctions are not. The distinction of features based on their interpretability also implies a different developmental pattern between focusing and interrogatives, on one hand, and dislocation/topicalisation patterns, on the other. Specifically, as argued in Section 2, on the assumption that dislocation/topicalisation do not involve an operator-variable structure, the displaced constituent is not associated with a functional position hosting an interpretable feature and as such it is expected to be delayed compared to focusing. Notice that the two structures investigated here in early Greek, namely CLLD and ClD, presuppose the acquisition of clitics which have been argued to be clusters of uninterpretable features, i.e., case and (resumptive) agreement features lacking referentiality (cf. Cardinaletti & Starke 1999; Tsimpli 1999 for Greek). Thus, the fact that these two structures are indeed found later than focusing, can be explained on the basis of the delay in the development of clitics and not as a consequence of the absence of an interpretable feature associated with the structures themselves. However, in Alexia’s and Elli’s data, there seems to be a preference for ClD over CLLD structures, which was argued above to be due to the verb-focusing effect closely associated with the former but not with the latter. Clearly, the evidence does not show a developmental difference between ClD and CLLD in terms of consecutive stages of development (cf. Marinis 2002). Nevertheless, it is indicative of the priority of interpretable features in focusing (and, by consequence, in ClD) and lack of interpretable features in CLLD structures. On the basis of the above discussion, the earliest clause structure in child Greek is schematically represented in the following tree-structure: (21)

FP SPEC [+wh]/[+f]

F’

F [+f]/[Q]/[Neg]

CP

C[S] [Mod.Op.]

VP

Spec

VP

V[Asp]

NP

 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

The inflectional domain of the clause develops in the second stage where Mood, Tense, Agreement and clitics develop. The almost simultaneous appearance of these inflectional categories suggests, once again, that neither structure-building nor truncation are accurate descriptions of language acquisition. Furthermore, notice that according to the structure in (21), the functional heads in the periphery are specified for LF-interpretable features only. As discussed above in terms of the representation of modality, there are certain implications that this theory suggests with respect to the universality of early clause structure. For example, the prediction made for early modal sentences would be that a modal Operator is available crosslinguistically in some peripheral scope position. However, this is not extended to all LF-interpretable features which happen to be represented in the early Greek clause in (21). Specifically, focusing, a grammaticalised feature in Greek, gives rise to adult-like focused structures even from the earliest stage. On the assumption that focus is grammaticalised in some languages and, furthermore, that, within this set of languages, its grammaticalisation is also parameterised (e.g. by movement in Greek and Hungarian, by movement plus a focus particle in Berber (Ouhalla 1994), it is predicted that syntactic focus structures in early data will be found in those languages where the input provides evidence for its grammaticalisation.22 Furthermore, the different ways in which focus is grammaticalised would also play a role in the developmental pattern observed. Thus, it is possible that merge of a focus particle should be delayed compared to focus-movement of a consituent (verb or XP) for reasons that have to do with the functional versus lexical status of the element carrying the focus feature. Similarly, in English interrogatives, movement of the wh-phrase is expected to emerge earlier than I-to-C movement since the latter involves a functional element (also carrying uninterpretable (Infl) features) moving to the host of the Q feature. On the other hand, in languages like Greek and Italian, V-to-I-to-C is predicted to emerge earlier than the English I-to-C structures since the difference is that between a lexical and a functional category. Summarising, the theory proposed here is based on the earlier lexical/functional distinction which is, however, reformulated in view of the (functional) feature distinction on the basis of LF-interpretability. Interpretable features can be associated with PF-parameterisation, i.e., alternative ways of grammaticalising an LF-interpretable feature. Grammaticalised interpretable features are predicted to be available from the onset of language acquisition. Thus, interpretable features of the left-periphery, e.g. focus or wh-, are found earlier than formal features of inflectional categories. In addition, LF-interpretable features which are encoded on substantives are predicted to be acquired earlier than those encoded on functional elements (e.g. free or bound morphemes/particles – see Collins 1997 and Note 8). PF-parameterisation also involves uninterpretable features on functional heads (formal features), as in the case of (resumptive) agreement and case. In L1 acquisition, as soon as inflectional heads appear (around the age of 2;023 ), the lexical/functional and the interpretable/uninterpretable distinctions do not have clear effects any more24 (see Tsimpli 2001 for the difference between normal and SLI children in terms of these distinctions). The clause struc-

Early peripheral positions 

ture develops with Mood, Tense and Agreement appearing in the clause structure together with their syntactic consequences, e.g. subject-verb agreement and the VSO order. In view of this pattern of development, the theory proposed here suggests that overt morphology does not drive syntax. Instead, a feature-based developmental pattern distinguishing between interpretable and uninterpretable features is argued to be more promising.

Notes * As this volume is dedicated to a former teacher of mine, Professor Dimitra TheophanopoulouKontou, this is the right place to emphasize her invaluable contribution to Greek linguistics but also to my becoming a ‘convert’ to the discipline after my first degree. Greek linguistics has greatly benefited from Theophanopoulou-Kontou’s research, teaching and guidance throughout the years. My ‘thanks’ are therefore added to those of the numerous other students and researchers who have had the chance to meet her and learn from her. Many thanks go to the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. Parts of this paper have been presented at the 5th International Conference on Greek Linguistics in Paris as well as at the University of Cambridge and the University College London. Many thanks to the audiences there. Errors remain, of course, mine. . In terms of discourse effects, topicalisation and CLLD are considered to be the same. I will assume that object DPs in Greek are CLLD-ed when specific, and topicalised when non-specific (cf. Anagnostopoulou 1994). The specificity difference does not always correlate with the presence vs. absence of the definite D (e.g. Ena kafeðaki θa to epina efxaristos. Lit.: ‘A cup of coffee, I would drink-it with pleasure’). . It seems that the development of the inflectional domain is not complete at the same time crosslinguistically. For example, in Greek and Spanish, the development of agreement appears earlier than in English. Presumably, parameterised options in the role of inflection and its morphological saliency determine the speed in which inflectional features are acquired. . Topicalisation in English is analysed as involving operator-movement (of a null operator) and predication, both of which are LF-relevant constructs (Chomsky 1977; Culicover 1991). However, topicalisation and CLLD in Greek are, probably, the same discourse structure but differ only in the elements that participate in each. Thus, subjects can only be topicalised but not CLLD-ed in the absence of subject clitics, and bare indefinite objects may only be topicalised but not CLLD-ed in the absence of a determiner introducing the object (Theophanopoulou-Kontou 1986; Roussou & Tsimpli 1994). I take it that such constraints distinguish between topicalisation and CLLD at PF but not at a discourse level. . The question whether the clitic or the DP in clitic-doubling structures is the argument of the verb is controversial (cf. Anagnostopoulou 1999; Papangeli 2000; Philippaki-Warburton 1987, 1998; Schneider-Zioga 1993). For the purposes of this paper, it is not important to choose between the two analyses: the features relevant to the discussion on L1 acquisition are the focus feature associated with the verb and the features of the clitic (D, Agr and Case) which doubles the phrase. . The structure is oversimplified. It could well be that the future particle θa is not merged in the same position with na (Agouraki 1991; Philippaki-Warburton 1998; Rivero 1994; Roussou

 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

2000). A specification for a preverbal subject position is missing too. This could be in specTP or a dislocated position in the SVO order (see Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2000 for a recent review of alternative analyses). . Data from the first stage of linguistic development, e.g. the two-word stage, can hardly provide empirical evidence for a fully-fledged clause structure of the type in (5) above: if a structural position is not used via either of the computational processes, i.e., Merge or Move, it is difficult to see how one can maintain availability of this position at the relevant stage, short of theoretical elegance, of course. In Hyams (1996), Harris and Wexler (1996) a.o., strong continuity is defended with assumptions concerning ‘underspecification’ of functional features or some other operating constraint which does not appear in the adult grammar (see e.g. the unique feature-checking constraint, Wexler 1998). . Radford (1990) suggests a maturation account for functional categories (see also Guilfoyle & Noonan 1988; Tsimpli 1992/1996) whereas Radford (1996) proposes a weak-continuity approach with extra assumptions regarding lexical/morphological bootstrapping. . Collins (1997) suggests that the +/–interpretable distinction is based on a difference between inherent as opposed to relational features. Thus, phi-features on Nouns are inherent and therefore interpretable whereas phi-features on Verbs or Adjectives are relational and therefore uninterpretable. The contrast between interpretable and uninterpretable features in Chomsky’s terms seems to cut across lexical and functional categories. However, categorial features, although inherently interpretable by minimalist assumptions, become uninterpretable at LF if the category that hosts them is functional (e.g. wh- in C is erased at LF but remains on the lexical category that enters in a checking relation with it – see Ndayirajige 1999 for discussion). As already mentioned above, I assume that the categorial features of functional or lexical heads, which are responsible for an Operator-based dependency at LF, are available from the earliest stage. This is based on the idea that parameterisation involves uninterpretable features which, at the earliest stage, are not active in the grammatical derivation. I come back to this point in the final section. . In Penner et al.’s (2000) account, the Focus Particle Phrase (FPP) belongs to the Middle Field. There is no a priori reason why grammaticalisation of focusing should always involve the projection of a left-periphery FP, as is the case in Greek (see also Belletti 2001 for a ‘low’ FP in Italian). If interpretability of features characterises early clause structure and focus is +interpretable (being an individual operator), the implication is that evidence for its early emergence should be available in all languages where it is grammaticalised. Furthermore, this evidence should contrast with the (relatively) later emergence/acquisition of uninterpretable formal features (e.g. the expletive article introducing implicitly definite nouns) (see Penner & Weissenborn 1996; Penner & Hamann 1998). . That focusing is an LF-interpretable feature is based on the analysis of focusing as an operator-variable structure and, crucially, focus as a grammaticalised feature (as is the case in languages like Hungarian, for example, Brody 1990; Kiss 1995). In English and French, for example, focusing does not seem to be grammaticalised, i.e., it does not have effects on the derivation, in that identificational or contrastive focus interpretations are optionally associated with a variety of structures (clefts, topicalisation or in-situ). There are implications of this difference for the question of LF-universality but also for developmental issues: peripheral positions associated with LF-interpretable features in English, French etc. are not the same as those in Greek and therefore predictions regarding the development of these positions in English and French should be relevant to wh-movement in interrogatives but not focus movement. Languages which

Early peripheral positions

may offer some evidence regarding the development of peripheral positions in structures other than interrogatives are V2 languages but only in cases of non-subject clause-initial elements. However, in these languages it is not the focus feature which motivates V2; instead, the focus interpretation is possibly associated with object-initial structures at the post-LF level. Therefore, the comparison with Greek focus structures is not accurate in this case either. . It is indeed possible for the verb to be focused in CLLD structures too. The point is that CLLD is not associated with verb-focusing in terms of the syntactic derivation (on Agouraki’s 1993 assumptions) the way that clitic-doubling does. . Interrogatives differ from focus structures in that morphological information is specified on the moved wh-phrase. In focus structures no morphological specification is associated with the moved constituent, only prosodic focus. . I am grateful to Anna Roussou for letting me have access to Elli’s data. . Utterances with imperative force are found even in earlier data. Notice, however, that in the early ‘imperatives’ the form used is the UFC (i.e., [–past, +perfective]) introduced by a vocalic place-holder (see below). In adult Greek, imperative force can be conveyed by the use of a matrix subjunctive e.g. na fijis (‘you should leave’) but also, unambiguously, by the use of morphologically-marked imperatives, e.g. Fije (‘Leave’). In Alexia’s data, morphological imperatives are attested at 2;2. . In fact, all preverbal subjects in sentences including the UFC or modal particles have a focused subject interpretation. . There are no instances of OSV structures in either child’s data and therefore the assumption that V moves to F is also supported. However, given that most overt subjects in the child data are postverbal it is possible that the verb does not move to F when the object is focused, but remains in VP. The surface order would still be OVS in this case. . This is the assumption Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998) make for adult Greek where they assume that the verb raises but the subject remains in specVP (cf. Roussou & Tsimpli 2002). . Clitic-doubling and CLLD structures are also excluded although if the clitic is ignored, sentences including clitic-doubling could in principle be categorised as VSO or VOS. However, given that in clitic-doubling or CLLD structures the object is displaced to a peripheral position we cannot use these structures as evidence for the position of the subject. . The SOV order is not found in either Elli’s or Alexia’s data. In the adult language it is possible to derive SOV by topicalising the subject and focusing the object. However, both in discourse and in syntactic terms, the SOV order is not comparable with the VSO: the latter can be discourseneutral and ‘canonical’, according to most analyses of Greek word-order (see Section 2) whereas the former is neither. . Epistemic modality is not encoded in early data. Its development has been argued to correlate with the development of the Theory of Mind component for reasons that have to do with epistemic expressions involving a second-order representation (Papafragou 1997; Smith & Tsimpli 1995; Tsimpli & Smith 1998). . I take it that speech time (S) may be either pragmatically determined (the here-and-now) or structurally represented in a peripheral (C) position. Both possibilities are compatible with the present account, although theoretically I would opt for the latter if C is a position that encodes S universally.



 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli . In verb-second languages, early data should also show focus structures with non-subjectinitial constituents, where the displaced element is focused. Such examples are reported in various works on the acquisition of V2 (although the emphasis falls on the morphological status of the verb as [+/–finite] rather than the focused or unfocused status of the initial constituent). As suggested earlier, however, the motivation for XP-movement to a peripheral position in adult V2 clauses is not a focus feature (see also Note 9). What is expected from early data from V2 languages, then, is sentences with non-subjects in initial position as focused elements, alongside with subjects in initial position (focused or not). In the first case, target-like movement to a peripheral position would be the appropriate structural description whereas in the latter, independent evidence is required to show that the same functional positions host the subject and the verb (see Poeppel & Wexler 1993). . In the second stage of development, then, inflectional heads are acquired. This is indeed strikingly early development and it is compatible (at some superficial level) with the ‘very early parameter-setting view’ of Wexler (1996). However, since it is not Stage I, it is incompatible with Wexler’s theory. . But categorial features do seem to determine the developmental sequence. For example, the complementiser oti ‘that’ in Greek develops later than resumptive clitics. If both elements are uninterpretable at LF, the developmental difference must be based on differences in categorial features. Other complementisers (e.g. the factive pu) develops earlier than ‘that’ and therefore the implication is that C elements develop gradually on the basis of their feature-composition. On the other hand, resumptive clitics, being Agr+Case elements develop as soon as these features are part of the child grammar.

References Agouraki, Y. (1990). On the projection of maximal categories: The case of CP and FP in Modern Greek. UCL Working papers in Linguistics, 2, 183–199. Agouraki, Y. (1991). A Modern Greek complementizer and its significance for Universal Grammar. UCL Working papers in Linguistics, 3, 1–24. Agouraki, Y. (1993). Spec-Head Licensing: The case of foci, clitic-constructions and polarity items: A case study of Modern Greek. Ph.D. Dissertation, UCL. Alexiadou, A. (1999). On the properties of some Greek word-order patterns. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax (pp. 45–65). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou (1998). Parametrizing AGR: Word order, verb movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 142–161. Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou (2000). Greek syntax: A principles and parameters perspective. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 1, 171–222. Alexopoulou, T. (1999). The Syntax of Discourse Functions in Greek: A non-configurational approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh. Anagnostopoulou, E. (1994). Clitic Dependencies in Modern Greek. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Salzburg. Anagnostopoulou, E. (1999). On experiencers. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax (pp. 67–93). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Early peripheral positions 

Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). The Syntax of Ditransitives. Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Antinucci, F. & R. Miller (1976). How children talk about what happened. Journal of Child Language, 3, 167–189. Belletti, A. (2001). Inversion as focalisation. In A. Hulk & J.-Y. Pollock (Eds.), Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Grammar (pp. 60–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, H. (1984). Parametric Syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris. Brody, M. (1990). Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian. UCL Working papers in Linguistics, 2, 201–225. Cardinaletti, A. & M. Starke (1999). The typology of structural deficiency. In H. van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe (pp. 145–234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow, & A. Akmajan (Eds.), Formal Syntax (pp. 71–132). New York, NY: Academic Press. Chomsky, N. (1991). Some notes on the economy of derivation and representation. In R. Freidin (Ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar (pp. 417–454). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Clahsen, H. (Ed.). (1996). Generative Perspectives on Language Acquisition: Empirical findings, theoretical considerations, crosslinguistic comparisons [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 14]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Clahsen, H., S. Eisenbeiss, & M. Penke (1996). Lexical learning in early syntactic development. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), 129–159. Collins, C. (1997). Local Economy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Culicover, P. (1991). Topicalisation, inversion and complementisers in English. In D. Delfitto, M. Everaert, A. Evers, & F. Stuurman (Eds.), Going Romance and Beyond (pp. 1–43). Utrecht: University of Utrecht. Drachman, G. & S. Klidi (1993). The extended minimal structure hypothesis. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 17, 225–243. Giorgi, A. & F. Pianesi (1997). Tense and Aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Guilfoyle, E. & M. Noonan (1988). Functional categories and language acquisition. Paper presented at the 13th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston. Haegeman, L. (1996). Root infinitives, clitics and truncated structures. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), 271–308. Harris, T. & K. Wexler (1996). The optional infinitive stage in child English: Evidence from negation. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), 1–42. Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 547–594. Hoekstra, T. & N. Hyams (1998). Aspects of root infinitives. Lingua, 106, 81–112. Hoekstra, T. & P. Jordens (1994). From adjunct to head. In T. Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar [Language Acquisition & Language Disorders 8] (pp. 119–149). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hyams, N. (1994). V2, null arguments and COMP projections. In T. Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar [Language Acquisition & Language Disorders 8] (pp. 21–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

Hyams, N. (1996). The underspecification of functional categories in early grammar. In Clahsen (Ed.), 91–128. Hyams, N. (2001). Now you hear it, now you don’t: The nature of optionality in child grammars. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 34–58). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Hyams, N. (2002). Clausal structure in child Greek: A reply to Varlokosta, Vainikka and Rohrbacher and a reanalysis. The Linguistic Review, 19, 225–270. Katis, D. (1984). The Acquisition of the Modern Greek Verb with Special Reference to the Imperfective Past and Perfect Classes. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Reading. Kiss, K. (1995). Introduction. In K. Kiss (Ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages (pp. 3–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kiss, K. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74, 245–273. Marinis, T. (2000). The acquisition of clitic objects in Modern Greek: Single clitics, clitic doubling, clitic left dislocation. ZAS Working Papers 15. Marinis, T. (2002). Acquiring the left periphery of the Modern Greek DP. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 39, 1–30. University of Essex. Ndayiragije, J. (1999). Checking economy. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(3), 399–444. Ouhalla, J. (1991). Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. London: Routledge. Ouhalla, J. (1994). Focus in standard Arabic. Linguistics in Potsdam, 1, 65–92. Palmer, F. (2001). Mood and Modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambreidge University Press. Papafragou, A. (1997). Modality in language development: A reconsideration of the evidence. UCL Working papers in Linguistics, 9, 77–106. Papangeli, D. (2000). Clitic doubling in Modern Greek: A head-complement relation. UCL Working papers in Linguistics, 12, 473–498. Penner, Z. & C. Hamann (1998). The emergence of discourse/syntax interface problems in impaired grammar. In Proceedings of the 22nd Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 626–639). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Penner, Z., R. Tracy, & J. Weissenborn (2000). Triggering object scrambling. In S. Powers & C. Hamann (Eds.), The Acquisition of Scrambling and Cliticization (pp. 127–164). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Penner, Z. & J. Weissenborn (1996). Strong continuity, parameter-setting and the trigger hierarchy. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), 161–200. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1985). Word order in Modern Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society, 2, 113–143. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1987). The theory of empty categories and the pro-drop parameter in Modern Greek. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 289–318. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1994). The subjunctive mood and the syntactic status of the particle na in Modern Greek. Folia Linguistica, XXVIII(3–4), 297–328. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1998). Functional categories and Modern Greek syntax. The Linguistic Review, 15, 159–186. Philippaki-Warburton, I. & V. Spyropoulos (1999). On the boundaries of inflection and syntax: Greek pronominal clitics and particles. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), The Yearbook of Morphology 1998 (pp. 45–72). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Philippaki-Warburton, I., S. Varlokosta, M. Georgiafentis, & G. Kotzoglou (2002). On the status of clitics and their ‘doubles’ in Greek. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 6, 57–84. Platzack, D. (1999). Multiple interfaces. Unpublished Ms., University of Lund. Poeppel, D. & K. Wexler (1993). The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in early German. Language, 69, 1–33.

Early peripheral positions 

Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax: The nature of early child grammars of English. Oxford: Blackwell. Radford, A. (1996). Towards a structure-building model of acquisition. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), 34–90. Rivero, M. L. (1994). Verb movement and the structure of IP in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 63–120. Rivero, M. L. & A. Terzi (1995). Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood. Journal of Linguistics, 33, 301–332. Rizzi, L. (1994). Early null subjects and root null subjects. In T. Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar [Language Acquisition & Language Disorders 8] (pp. 151–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of Grammar. Handbook in Generative Syntax (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Rouchota, V. (1994). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Subjunctive in Modern Greek: A relevance-theoretic approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, UCL. Roussou, A. (2000). On the left periphery: Modal particles and complementizers. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 1, 65–94. Roussou, A. & I. M. Tsimpli (1994). On the interaction of case and definiteness in Modern Greek. In I. Philippaki-Warburton, K. Nicolaidis, & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 117] (pp. 69–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Roussou, A. & I. M. Tsimpli (2002). Postverbal subjects and microparametric variation. Paper presented at the GLOW conference, Amsterdam. Schneider-Zioga, P. (1993). The Syntax of Clitic Doubling in Modern Greek. Ph.D. Dissertation, USC. Sifaki, E. (2001). On the derivation of VOS in Greek. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Thessaloniki. Smith, C. S. (1991). The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Smith, N. V. & I. M. Tsimpli (1995). The Mind of a Savant: Language learning and modularity. Oxford: Blackwell. Stephany, U. (1986). Modality. In P. Fletcher & M. Garman (Eds.), Language Acquisition (pp. 375–400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stephany, U. (1997). The acquisition of Greek. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition 4 (pp. 183–333). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Terzi, A. (1992). PRO in Finite Clauses. A study of the inflectional heads of the Balkan languages. Ph.D. Dissertation, CUNY Graduate Centre. Terzi, A. (1997). PRO and null case in finite clauses. The Linguistic Review, 14, 335–360. Terzi, A. (1999). Clitic combinations, their hosts and their ordering. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 85–121. Theophanopoulou-Kontou, D. (1986). Empty categories in Modern Greek. Glossologia, 5, 41– 68. Tsimpli, I. M. (1990). The clause structure and word order in Modern Greek. UCL Working papers in Linguistics, 2, 226–258. Tsimpli, I. M. (1992/1996). The Prefunctional Stage of First Language Acquisition: A crosslinguistic study. (Ph.D. Dissertation, UCL.) New York, NY: Garland. Tsimpli, I. M. (1995). Focusing in Modern Greek. In K. Kiss (Ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages (pp. 176–206). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

Tsimpli, I. M. (1997). Resumptive features and L2A: A minimalist account. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 639–655). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Tsimpli, I. M. (1998). Individual and functional reading for focus, wh- and negative operators: Evidence from Greek. In B. Joseph, G. Horrocks, & I. Philippaki-Warburton (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics II [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 159] (pp. 197–227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tsimpli, I. M. (1999). Null operators, clitics and identification. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax (pp. 241–262). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Tsimpli, I. M. (2001). LF-interpretability and language development: A study of verbal and nominal features in Greek normally developing and SLI children. Brain and Language, 77, 432–448. Tsimpli, I. M. & N. V. Smith (1998). Modules and quasi-modules: Language and theory of mind in a polyglot savant. Learning and Individual Differences,10, 193–215. Tsimpli, I. M. & S. Stavrakaki (1999). The effects of a morpho-syntactic deficit in the determiner system: The case of a Greek SLI child. Lingua, 108, 31–85. Varlokosta, S., A. Vainikka, & B. Rohrbacher (1998). Functional projections. Markedness, and ‘root infinitives’ in early child Greek. The Linguistic Review, 15, 187–207. Varlokosta, S. (this volume). Eventivity, modality and temporal reference in child Greek. Wexler, K. (1992). Optional infinitives, head movement, and the economy of derivations in child grammar. Occasional Papers, 45. MIT Department of Brain Cognitive Science. Wexler, K. (1994). Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivations. In D. Lightfoot & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Verb Movement (pp. 305–350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wexler, K. (1996). The development of inflection in a biologically-based theory of language acquisition. In M. L. Rice (Ed.), Toward a Genetics of Language (pp. 113–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation for the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106, 23–79.

Eventivity, modality and temporal reference in child Greek* Spyridoula Varlokosta This paper examines the modal, aspectual and temporal properties of verbal forms in early child Greek in light of the view that there is a ‘non-finite’ stage in the acquisition of Greek, equivalent to the Root Infinitive stage of the Germanic and some Romance languages. It is argued that the interpretative properties of ‘non-finite’ verbs in early child Greek provide an additional argument for their ‘non-finite’ status, specifically for the analysis advocated in Varlokosta, Vainikka and Rohrbacher (1998). Furthermore, it is claimed that the verbal agreement paradigm in early child Greek provides evidence that functional categories are present and, therefore, supports the Strong Continuity or Full Clause Hypothesis and not the Maturation or the Structure Building Approach.

.

Introduction

Within the past decade, a number of studies in the field of language acquisition have focused on the phenomenon of Root Infinitives (henceforth RIs) in child language. The issues raised in these studies concern mainly the structure underlying RIs and the crosslinguistic picture regarding this phenomenon (see Boser, Lust, Santelmann & Whitman 1992; Hoekstra & Hyams 1995; Rizzi 1994; Wexler 1994, 1998, among others). More recently, research on RIs has paid attention to their interpretative properties, in particular their aspectual, modal and temporal characteristics (see Ferdinand 1996; Hoekstra & Hyams 1998; Ingram & Thompson 1996; Wijnen 1997). In this paper we examine the modal, aspectual and temporal properties of verbal forms in early child Greek in light of the view that there is a ‘non-finite’ stage in the acquisition of Greek, equivalent to the RI stage of the Germanic and some Romance languages (Varlokosta, Vainikka & Rohrbacher 1996, 1998). It will be argued that the interpretative properties of what are claimed to be non-finite verbs in early child Greek provide an additional argument for their non-finite status, specifically for the analysis advocated in Varlokosta et al. (1998). Furthermore, it will be claimed that the verbal agreement paradigm in early child Greek provides evidence that functional categories are present and, therefore, supports the Strong Continuity or Full Clause Hypothesis and not the Maturation or the Structure Building Approach.

 Spyridoula Varlokosta

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we provide an overview of the distributional and semantic properties of RIs in child language. In Section 3, we discuss the distribution of verbs in early child Greek and we summarise the arguments of Varlokosta et al. (1998) for the non-finite status of the verbal forms with the suffix -i. In Section 4, we examine the interpretative properties of early verbal forms in child Greek and we discuss how these properties support the analysis of i-forms advocated in Varlokosta et al. (op. cit.). In Section 5, we raise the issue of continuity and illustrate why the early child Greek data support the Strong Continuity or Full Clause Hypothesis.

. Root infinitives in child language: Distribution and interpretation . Distribution It has been well documented that children acquiring Germanic languages and at least one Romance language go through an early stage during which they produce declarative sentences with a RI, as in (1), which are ungrammatical in the adult language (Stern & Stern 1928; Weverink 1989; Pierce 1992; Wexler 1994, among others):1,2 (German: Sabrina 1;11) Mina einer gucken. Mina one look.inf (Clahsen, Penke & Parodi 1994) ‘Mina is looking at somebody.’ (Swedish: Markus 1;10) b. Gubbe vara där. old.man be.inf there (Platzack 1994) ‘The (or an) old man was there.’ (Dutch: Niek 3;1) c. Die helemaal kapot maken. that.one altogether broke make.inf (Wijnen 1997) ‘I am going to break this down completely.’ (French: Daniel 1;10) d. Moi dessiner la mer. me draw.inf the sea (Pierce 1992)

(1) a.

RIs occur roughly around the age of 2;0 and their proportion varies from language to language, as well as from child to child within a language. Table 1 summarizes the rates of RI use for some of the youngest children discussed in the literature. There are two important properties regarding the RI stage. First, during this stage children produce both finite and non-finite verbs in root clauses. In fact, Wexler (1994) argues that children know the difference between finite and non-finite clauses, that is, children know that finite verbs raise and non-finite verbs do not raise (see also Pierce 1992; Poeppel & Wexler 1993; Rohrbacher & Vainikka 1994). Evidence for this claim is drawn from the different distribution of finite and non-finite verbs with respect to negation in child French (Pierce 1992; Wexler 1994), as well as from the second position of finite verbs and the final clause position of RIs in child German (Boser et al. 1992; Poepel & Wexler 1993). Finite verbs in child French appear systematically before the negation pas, whereas non-finite forms occur after pas (Table 2). Finite verbs in

Eventivity and modality in child Greek 

Table 1. Proportion of RIs in child languages (from Varlokosta et al. 1998) Language

Child

Age

Proportion of RIs

Source

German

Katrin Nicole Peter I Peter II Markus I Markus II Markus III Daniel Gregoire Nathalie Philippe

1;5 1;8 1;9–1;11 2;0–2;2 1;7–1;9 1;9–1;11 1;11 1;8 1;9 1;9 2;1

58% 68% 94% 34% 100% 82% 45% 60% 30% 96% 21%

Rohrbacher & Vainikka (1994)

Dutch Swedish

French

Wijnen (1994) Rohrbacher & Vainikka (1994)

Pierce (1992)

Table 2. Finiteness and position of negation in child French (from Wexler 1994) Verb-Negation Order

+Finite

–Finite

pas verb Verb pas

11 185

77 2

Table 3. Finiteness and verb position in child German (from Poeppel & Wexler 1993) V position

+Finite

–Finite

V2 V final

197 11

6 37

child German appear systematically in second position, whereas non-finite verbs occur clause finally (Table 3). Both of these facts indicate knowledge of the adult grammar despite the unproductive use of agreement at this stage. A second important property related to the RI stage is that when finite forms are used, they are used correctly, i.e., despite the rather limited agreement paradigm, there are no agreement errors.3 Poeppel and Wexler (1993) argue that German-speaking children do not make agreement errors; when they produce a verbal inflection, the subject agrees with it (see also Rohrbacher & Vainikka 1994). Similar results have been reported for English too (Harris & Wexler 1996). These facts have led a number of researchers to the conclusion that correct agreement features on verbal inflectional morphology are known to children very early in the course of acquisition. The idea of early knowledge of inflectional morphology is formalised by Wexler (1998) as the hypothesis of Very Early Knowledge of Inflection (VEKI) and by Hoekstra and Hyams (1995) as the hypothesis of Early Morphosyntactic Convergence (EMC). The RI phenomenon appears to show some variability crosslinguistically. In particular, it has been proposed that languages like Italian, Spanish and Catalan do not undergo a RI stage (Wexler 1994; Guasti 1994; Hoekstra & Hyams 1995). The pro-

 Spyridoula Varlokosta

portion of RIs in these languages is very low compared to the proportion of RIs in the Germanic languages and in French (Guasti 1994; Hoekstra & Hyams 1998). This finding has led many researchers to the hypothesis that the RI stage is not a universal property in child language and that RIs do not occur in INFL-licensed null subject languages (Wexler 1998; Sano & Hyams 1994; Hoekstra & Hyams 1995).4 Nonetheless, it should be pointed out that although Italian- or Spanish- and Catalan-speaking children do not produce RIs with the rate observed in non-null subject languages, they do produce bare participles, as well as other non-finite forms:5 (2) a.

Quetto qui mangiare chellini. this her eat.inf piglets b. Andato via. (participle) gone.sg.masc away c. Caduto. (participle) fallen.sg.masc down

(3) a.

Dormir. sleep.inf b. Caigut. (participle) fallen c. xx dormant. (gerund) (unintelligible) sleeping

(Italian: Martina 1;11) (From Guasti 1994)

(Teresa Guasti p.c.) (Catalan: Laura 1;7) (Catalan: Laura 1;10) (Catalan: Pep 1;8) (From Grinstead 2000)

Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that the low frequency of RIs per se in null-subject languages like Italian and Catalan is related to the use of other non-finite structures. Furthermore, the overall lower rate of RI forms usually observed in nullsubject languages might be linked to the fact that the RI stage in these languages is much shorter than in the Germanic languages.6 Moreover, there is evidence that even in null-subject languages, children go through a stage where they make use of non-finite forms. Children in Greek, a null subject language albeit one with no infinitival forms, produce a construction that strongly resembles RIs in other languages (Varlokosta et al. 1996, 1998). Therefore, the distinction between null vs. non-null subject languages regarding the existence of a RI or rather a ‘root non-finite’ stage deserves further investigation. However, before we discuss the child Greek facts in detail, we will first examine the interpretative properties of RIs crosslinguistically.

. Interpretation The co-occurrence of finite forms and non-finite/infinitival forms in child language has raised the question whether these two have the same interpretative properties or not. There is some evidence in the literature suggesting that the temporal reference of RIs is similar to that of finite forms. For example, according to Pierce (1992), RIs in child French describe ongoing activities along with finite verbs. Similarly, Poeppel

Eventivity and modality in child Greek 

and Wexler (1993) argue that the temporal reference of finite and RI structures was identical for their German-speaking child. However, evidence from other studies suggests that RIs and finite forms differ regarding their interpretative properties in two respects. First, it has been argued that RIs receive most often a modal interpretation, which entails reference to a likely future event (Ferdinand 1996; Wijnen 1997; Ingram & Thompson 1996; Lasser 1997). Second, there appears to be a constraint on the aspectual properties of the verbs occurring in RI constructions: the majority of these verbs are eventive predicates. Finite constructions, on the other hand, allow both eventive and stative predicates (Jordens 1990; Ferdinand 1996; Wijnen 1997). More specifically, Wijnen (1997) observes that the majority (93% or more) of RIs in the Dutch corpus he examined consisted of eventive predicates. Furthermore, the majority of these forms (86.3%) had a modal interpretation. Nonetheless, a significant proportion (13.7%) of the eventive RIs referred to ongoing or past eventualities.7 Wijnen (op. cit.) interprets this fact as an indication that temporal reference in these constructions is essentially free. More importantly, Wijnen (op. cit.) points out that the temporal reference of non-eventive RIs (which constituted approximately 7% of RIs), is restricted to future (i.e., modal). Finite sentences, on the other hand, show a completely different picture. Wijnen reports that eventive and non-eventive predicates are equally represented (on average 51% non-eventive verbs) and temporal reference corresponds to the pattern in the adult language, with present/ongoing eventualities being the most predominant (on average 94%). Similar observations regarding eventivity have been made by Jordens (1990) for Dutch too and by Ferdinand (1996) for French. Ferdinand (op. cit.) observes that during the RI stage in French, stative verbs are exclusively finite, while eventive verbs occur both in finite and non-finite forms. Hoekstra and Hyams (1998) draw upon the predominant future interpretation of RIs observed in the above studies and argue that the temporal reference of RIs is fixed to a modal (irrealis) interpretation: RIs convey deontic and boulemaic/bouletic modalities, expressing necessities and desires. Furthermore, Hoekstra and Hyams (1998) claim that the modal interpretation of RIs is a result of the infinitival morpheme itself. In particular, based on Giorgi and Pianesi (1997), they propose that infinitives in the Germanic and Romance languages are not inherently perfective but may refer to the processual part of an event. In that sense, infinitives differ from past/perfect participles, which refer to the completion of an eventuality. It is this aspectual value of [-realized] that is the basis for their modal interpretation. According to Hoekstra and Hyams (op. cit.), children’s RIs contrast with finite clauses in that while the latter describe actual states of affairs, RIs do not refer to actual eventualities but eventualities that are not realized and are, therefore, interpreted as statements of desire with respect to these eventualities.8 Furthermore, they propose that the constraint on the eventivity of the predicates follows from the modal nature of RIs. Deontic modality is typically found with event-denoting predicates and tends to exclude stative predicates, while epistemic modality is typically found with state-denoting predicates.9 Since children’s RIs express deontic modality, the fact that only event-denoting predicates are found in these environments follows as a rather natural consequence.

 Spyridoula Varlokosta

Building on Hoekstra and Hyams (1998), Hyams (2001) proposes that children’s use of non-finite forms is not an optional process in the early grammars but results from their attempt to map different meanings onto specific inflectional elements according to a semantic hierarchy (The Semantic Opposition Hierarchy) in which the category of Mood and, in particular, the realis-irrealis opposition is the most primitive one (RIs are irrealis forms whereas finite forms are realis). To sum up, it appears that the majority of RI forms are eventive predicates that denote predominantly a modal interpretation. Although we adopt this thesis in the present paper, given that the evidence regarding the temporal reference of RIs is not uncontroversial (see Pierce 1992; Poeppel & Wexler 1993; Schönenberger, Pierce, Wexler & Wijnen 1995; Wijnen 1997), we believe that this issue deserves further investigation.

. Root non-finite forms in child Greek It has been observed by Katis (1984), Stephany (1981, 1997), Tsimpli (1992/1996) and Varlokosta et al. (1996, 1998) that in the early stages of child Greek, children overuse a verb form that involves the suffix -i, referred to as the 3rd singular person.10 Varlokosta et al. (1996, 1998) point out that the overused forms with the suffix -i involve predominantly the perfective stem.11 Thus, (4a) and (4b) are observed in the context of a 1sg subject and (4c) in the context of a 2sg one.12 (Spiros 1;9 file 1) Adult: Ce to peðaci. and the child.dimin ‘And the little child.’ Child: Opaci vali aopaci. person.dimin put.perf.*3sg person.dimin ‘I want to place/put the little person.’ (lit. ‘He places/puts the little person.’) (Spiros 1;9 file 2) b. Adult: Afti ine i karðula. this is the heart.dimin ‘This is the little heart.’ Child: Cepasi i gazula a cover.perf.*3sg the.*nom heart.dimin [a = na(?)] fai o likos. eat.perf.3sg the wolf.nom ‘I (will/should) cover the little heart for the wolf not to eat it.’ (lit. ‘He covers the little heart for the wolf not to eat it.’) c. Adult: Etsi? (Janna 1;11 file 2) like.this ‘Like this?’

(4) a.

Eventivity and modality in child Greek 

Child:

Nitsi tola! open.perf.*3sg now ‘(You) open (it) now!’ (lit. ‘She opens it now.’) Child: Anitsi! open.perf.*3sg ‘Open (it)!’ (lit. ‘She opens.’) Adult: Nitsi? open.perf.*3sg ‘Open (it)?’ (lit. ‘She opens?’) Child: Ne. ‘Yes.’ The data analyzed in Varlokosta et al. (1996, 1998) and reported in this paper too are from the Stephany Corpus of the CHILDES database (MacWhinney & Snow 1985). In the present paper, we report data only from two of the four Greek-speaking children, Spiros at 1;9 and Janna at 1;11 and 2;5. Varlokosta et al. (1996, 1998) identify two distinct stages in the use of the -i form in early child Greek. During the first stage, which corresponds to the speech of Spiros at 1;9 and Janna at 1;11, the i-form is used over half the time (Table 4) and approximately 40% of the time ‘incorrectly’ in non-3sg contexts (Table 5). During the second stage, on the other hand, which corresponds to the speech of Janna at 2;5, i-forms are used much less (Table 4) and, moreover, appropriately in 3sg contexts (Table 5). Although i-forms are overused during Stage I, there are essentially no ‘true’ agreement errors, i.e., incorrect uses of non-i-forms. Thus, despite the fact that the agreement paradigm is more limited in the first stage of development (Stage I) compared to the second (Stage II), it is used most of the time correctly, as shown in Table 6.13 Table 4. Distribution of the i-form in sentences with verbs (excluding the copula be) (from Varlokosta et al. 1998)

i-form other TOTAL

Spiros 1;9 Stage I

Janna 1;11 Stage I

Janna 2;5 Stage II

96 (76%) 31 (24%) 127

45 (51%) 43 (49%) 88

62 (35%) 116 (65%) 178

Table 5. Proportion of correct vs. incorrect uses of the i-form (excluding the copula be) (from Varlokosta et al. 1998)

i-f. in 3sg context i-f. in other contexts TOTAL

Spiros 1;9 Stage I

Janna 1;11 Stage I

Janna 2;5 Stage II

58 (60%) 38 (40%) 96

28 (62%) 17 (38%) 45

62 (100%) 0 (0%) 62

 Spyridoula Varlokosta

Table 6. The distribution of the non-3sg verb forms (excluding the copula be and imperatives) (C = correct, I = incorrect agreement) 1SG Spi. 1;9 (Stage I) Jan. 1;11 (Stage I) Jan. 2;5 (Stage II)

C

I

C

2SG I

C

1PL I

C

2PL I

C

3PL I

% C

4 7 58

0 1 0

2 0 20

1 0 0

5 11 19

1 0 0

0 0 2

0 0 0

4 3 6

1 1 1

83% 91% 99%

Table 7. The distribution of past tense in early child Greek

+past TOTAL

Spiros 1;9 Stage I

Janna 1;11 Stage I

Janna 2;5 Stage II

6 (5%) 127

7 (8%) 88

22 (12,5%) 178

This observation is consistent with similar findings in other languages (see Section 2) and, thus, provides further support for the hypothesis that correct agreement features on verbal inflectional morphology are known to children very early in the course of acquisition (Wexler 1998; Hoekstra & Hyams 1995).14 A further observation regarding early child Greek is that during Stage I, which is characterised by the overuse of the i-form, tense distinctions tend to be absent. Although Janna (1;11) produces 7 instances of [+past] forms, all of them are instances of the same verb, the verb ‘to make’ (ekane.3SG ‘it made’). Spiros (1;9) produces 5 instances of [+past] forms (with the verbs tavale.3SG ‘s/he put it’, epese-3SG ‘it fell’, bice.3SG ‘it got in’, fonakse.3SG ‘s/he screamed’). However, given the fact that the predicates involved are eventive, it is not obvious whether the past tense indicates temporal order or rather the completion/culmination of an event, that is, perfective aspect (Varlokosta 1998). On the other hand, Janna at Stage II (2;5) produces 22 instances of [+past] forms with a variety of predicates (eventive and non-eventive). Varlokosta et al. (1998) analyze the verbal forms with the suffix -i in child Greek as non-finite forms. The main arguments for the non-finite status of i-forms are two. First, they occur with ‘incorrect’ agreement or more precisely with no agreement, i.e., they do not refer only to 3sg person subjects, although the suffix -i is the suffix for the 3sg person. Second, they occur mostly with null subjects contrary to the situation with finite verbs, where both null and overt subjects are observed.15 Varlokosta et al. (op. cit.) take the argument one step further and propose that the non-agreeing i-form in child Greek corresponds to the non-finite form used to compose the complex tenses in the adult language (see Note 11), which is formed exclusively by the suffix -i and perfective aspect (e.g. [exo] ðjiavas-i ‘I have read’ but *[exo] ðjiavaz-i).16 Crucial evidence for this proposal constitutes the fact that the overuse of the i-form in child Greek is more prominent with the perfective than with the imperfective stem. If this form were not a non-finite form but a finite 3sg form (i.e., the perfective form used with the subjunctive particle na and the future particle θa [see Note 11]), we would not expect

Eventivity and modality in child Greek 

it to co-occur more with the perfective than with the imperfective aspect, given that the subjunctive and the future have both a perfective and an imperfective 3sg person (na/θa ðjiavas-i ‘to/will read’, na/θa ðjiavaz-i ‘to/will be reading’).17

. The aspectual, modal and temporal properties of verb forms in child Greek In this section, it will be argued that there is a further argument for the non-finite status of non-agreeing i-forms in child Greek. In particular, it will be shown that these forms parallel RI constructions in other languages in terms of their semantic properties. As mentioned in Section 2, one major observation regarding the interpretative properties of RIs is that the majority of these forms involve eventive predicates. One of the questions addressed in this section is whether there is a difference between i-forms with no agreement and other forms in early Greek regarding the type of predicate involved. The distinction between eventive vs. non-eventive predicates corresponds to Vendler’s (1957) distinction between activity, accomplishment and achievement predicates vs. state predicates. Eventive predicates denote a dynamic change that takes place within a clearly confined period of time, i.e., they refer to eventualities with a specific onset and/or a definite end point. Verbs like eat, kiss, hit, etc. are some typical examples. Non-eventive predicates, on the other hand, denote situations without a clearly defined beginning or end point. Verbs like know, want or love are considered to be typical representatives of this category. Giannakidou (2002) argues that Greek verb forms, unlike English, are unambiguously eventive or stative, depending on whether they have perfective or imperfective aspect. According to Giannakidou (op. cit.), perfective aspect in Greek takes a ‘bare’ verb (i.e., a lexical entry with its argument slots) and gives back a predicate of events with a culmination point for the event. Thus, perfective verb forms are true eventives, namely, they end up denoting events which culminate. This proposal is further supported by the fact that when statives undergo perfectivization, they are coerced into an eventive meaning (achievement or accomplishment).18 Assuming Giannakidou’s (op. cit.) claim is on the right track, we expect that verb forms that involve the perfective aspect in child Greek will be unambiguously eventive. Thus, it is expected that since the majority of the non-agreeing i-forms involve perfective aspect (Varlokosta et al. 1998), they will denote eventualities with a culmination point. Indeed, a great proportion (87%) of non-agreeing i-forms involve eventive predicates. This is not true, however, for other forms (i.e., non-i-forms), which are spread more equally between eventive (46%) and stative verbs (54%), as shown in Table 8 (see also Varlokosta 1998).19 We observe, nonetheless, that i-forms with agreement (i.e., in 3sg contexts) involve also a great proportion of eventive predicates (79%). This is probably due to the fact that the majority of these forms are perfective forms, and thus, if we follow

 Spyridoula Varlokosta

Table 8. Proportion of eventive vs. non-eventive predicates during Stage I (Spiros 1;9 and Janna 1;11)

i-forms/no Agr i-forms/Agr Other forms

Eventive

Non-eventive

48/55 (87%) 68/86 (79%) 34/74 (46%)

7/55 (13%) 18/86 (21%) 40/74 (54%)

Giannakidou (op. cit.), true eventives. What is crucial for our claim though is that eventive and non-eventive predicates are spread more equally in agreeing i-forms and other forms (102/160 (64%) vs. 58/160 (36%)) than in non-agreeing i-forms (48/55 (87%) vs. 7/55 (13%)). The difference in proportions between non-agreeing i-forms, on the one hand, and agreeing i-forms and other forms, on the other hand, was analysed using a chi-square test and found to be significant (p = .001). This indicates a strong association in the use of eventive predicates with non-agreeing i-forms. Examples of eventive and non-eventive predicates in child Greek are shown in (5): (5) a.

Child:

b. Child:

Anici akua. (eventive) open.perf.*3sg bear ‘Open the book with the bear.’ (lit. ‘She opens the bear.’) Seli o pios. (non-eventive) want.imperf.3sg the Spiros ‘Spiros wants [this].’

(Spiros 1;9 file 2)

(Spiros 1;9 file 2)

Another crucial property associated with RIs, as mentioned in Section 2, is their modal or irrealis interpretation (Ingram & Thompson 1996; Ferdinand 1996; Lasser 1997; Wijnen 1997). However, this property is not uncontroversial. Pierce (1992) reports that RIs in child French can be used to describe ongoing activities along with finite forms and Poeppel and Wexler (1993) report that there is no difference in the temporal reference of non-finite and finite verbs in child German. Moreover, Wijnen (1997) points out that some of the RI constructions in the Dutch database he considered did not have future interpretation; present and past reference was also possible. Schönenberger, Pierce, Wexler and Wijnen (1995) tested the temporal reference of RIs in 13 Dutch children ranging between 1;11 and 3;4 and showed that simple finite sentences were interpreted as referring to ongoing eventualities (present tense) 92% of the time, whereas for RIs the percentage was 61%. Based on these results, they conclude that the temporal interpretation of RIs is essentially free. Thus, the second question addressed in this section concerns the temporal interpretation of non-agreeing i-forms in child Greek. Indeed, it appears that non-agreeing i-forms receive more often a future or modal interpretation, as illustrated in Table 9, although there are a number of cases with non-modal interpretation (past or present) (see also Varlokosta 1998). In contrast, agreeing i-forms, as well as other forms appear to have predominantly non-modal interpretations. Again, the difference in propor-

Eventivity and modality in child Greek 

Table 9. Proportion of modal vs. non-modal readings of verb forms during Stage I (Spiros 1;9 and Janna 1;11)

i-forms/no Agr i-forms/Agr Other forms

Modal

Non-modal

32/55 (58%) 19/86 (22%) 19/74 (26%)

23/55 (42%) 67/86 (78%) 55/74 (74%)

tions between non-agreeing i-forms, on the one hand, and agreeing i-forms and other forms, on the other hand, was analysed using a chi-square test and found to be significant (p < .001). This shows a strong association between modal interpretations and the use of non-agreeing i-forms. Examples of modal and non-modal readings of i-forms in child Greek are given in (6) and (7) respectively.20 (Spiros 1;9, file 2) Anici akua. open.perf.*3sg bear ‘Open the book with the bear.’ (lit. ‘She opens the bear.’) [Context: book on bear is still in the researcher’s shopping net] (Spiros 1;9 file 2) b. Adult: Afti ine i karðula. this is the heart.dimin ‘This is the little heart.’ Child: Cepasi i gazula a cover.perf.*3sg the.*nom heart.dimin [a = na(?)] fai o likos. eat.perf.3sg the wolf.nom ‘I (will/should) cover the little heart for the wolf not to eat it.’ (lit. ‘He covers the little heart for the wolf to eat it.’) (Janna 1;11 file 2) c. Adult: Kalimera, peðaca. good.morning, children [=dolls] ‘Good morning, children.’ Child: Te teteno pai. *the (to) *train (treno) goes.perf.*3sg ‘They will go by train.’ [Context: referring to several dolls] (lit. ‘(With) the train goes.’) d. Adult: Etsi? (Janna 1;11 file 2) like.this ‘Like this?’ Child: Nitsi tola! open.perf.*3sg now ‘(You) open (it) now!’ (lit. ‘She opens it now.’)

(6) a.

Child:

 Spyridoula Varlokosta

Child:

(7) a.

Anitsi! open.perf.*3sg ‘Open (it)!’ (lit. ‘She opens.’)

Child:

Mbesi. (Spiros 1;9 file 1) fall.perf.3sg (instead of epese) ‘It fell.’ [Context: after object has fallen] (Janna 1;11 file 2) b. Adult: Ti ekane mana mu? what did dear my ‘What happened my dear?’ Child: Etesi. fell.perf.3sg (instead of epese) ‘It fell.’ [Context: referring to monkey falling down] (Spiros 1;9 file 2) c. Child: Pai zozes. go.perf.*3sg tires ‘The tires are going/are gone.’

Given the fact that despite the more frequent use of modal interpretations, nonagreeing i-forms in child Greek receive non-modal interpretations too, we can conclude that their temporal reference is essentially free (contra Hyams 2001), similarly to the temporal reference of RIs in Dutch child language (Wijnen 1997; Schönenberger, Pierce, Wexler & Wijnen 1995). The eventivity constraint associated with non-agreeing i-forms as well as the fact that these forms receive more frequently a modal interpretation compared to other forms indicates that they have parallel semantics to RIs in other child languages. Therefore, this evidence provides further support for the ‘non-finite’ status of these forms (Varlokosta 1998). The question arising then, is how are these semantic properties compatible with the specific analysis proposed in Varlokosta et al. (1998), according to which these forms correspond to the non-finite form that composes complex tenses in adult Greek. This issue is addressed in Hyams (2001), who takes literally the term ‘participle’ that Varlokosta et al. (1998) use for the non-finite form of the complex tenses and, thus, attributes to them the claim that early i-forms in child Greek are analogous to bare participles in child Italian, such as those in (2a and b), repeated here as (8a and b): (8) a.

Andato via gone.sg.masc away b. Caduto fallen.sg.masc down

Based on this misunderstanding, Hyams (op. cit.) argues that the early i-forms in child Greek cannot correspond to the ‘active participle’ of the complex tenses because the semantics of participles are not compatible with the modal interpretation of i-forms.21,22 Indeed, the semantics of ‘true’ participles describe perfective or closed events, as first pointed out by Antinucci and Miller (1976) and adopted by Hyams (op. cit.) as well.

Eventivity and modality in child Greek 

Thus, the bare participles used by Italian-speaking children, such as the ones in (8a and b), refer to past or closed events. However, the non-finite form used in complex tenses in Greek is not a ‘genuine’ participle and, therefore, the interpretative facts do not constitute counter evidence for the ‘non-finite’ analysis of non-agreeing i-forms in child Greek as advocated in Varlokosta et al. (1998). We will show that the non-finite form that is used in Greek to compose complex tenses does not share the same semantic properties with participles in other languages. Therefore, the interpretation of i-forms in early Greek is not incompatible with the analysis that treats them as instances of the non-finite form that composes the complex tenses in Greek. First, historically, the non-finite form that composes the complex tenses in Greek is the residue of the Ancient Greek infinitive and does not derive from participial forms of Ancient Greek.23 Second, it seems to display different properties from participial forms in other languages, as well as from ‘genuine’ participles in Greek. Although participial forms that are used to compose complex tenses in English, Italian, Spanish and Catalan, (9a, b, c, and d), can be used adjectively, (10a, b, c, and d), the non-finite form that is used to compose the complex tense in Greek, (9e), cannot, (10e). On the other hand, the passive participle in Greek can be used adjectively, as illustrated in (10f).24 (9) a. I have written. b. L’ ho scritta, la lettera. it.sg.fem have written the letter ‘I have written the letter.’ c. He escrito. have.3sg written ‘I have written.’ d. He escrit. have.3sg written ‘I have written.’ e. Eχo γrapsi. have.3sg written ‘I have written.’ (10) a. The written letter. b. La lettera scritta. the letter written.sg.fem ‘The written letter.’ c. La carta escrita por Juan. the letter written by Juan ‘The letter written by Juan.’ d. La carta escrita per Joan. the letter written by Juan ‘The letter written by Juan.’ e. *To γrapsi γrama. the written letter

(English) (Italian)

(Spanish)

(Catalan)

(Greek)

(English) (Italian)

(Spanish)

(Catalan)

(Greek)

 Spyridoula Varlokosta

f.

To γrameno γrama the written.sg.neut letter ‘The written letter.’

The above pattern presumably derives from the different morphological properties of the forms involved to compose complex tenses in the aforementioned languages. In particular, the non-finite form that is used to compose perfect tenses in Greek is the Perfective Non Past form. According to Giannakidou and Zwarts (to appear) and Giannakidou (2003), Perfective Non Past does not convey tense (specifically, past) information, so it cannot locate in time events that have taken place. Perfective Non Past conveys aspectual information, in particular, it refers to non-actualized events. So this form can be used to refer to events but these events cannot be located in the past (or in the present or the future for that matter).25 When the Perfective Non Past is combined with directive particles like na, as or θa, a future (irrealis) orientation arises, but this is because of the semantics associated with the particles.26 When the Perfective Non Past is combined with the auxiliary exo ‘have’ to form perfect tenses, temporal information comes from the auxiliary. We suggest, therefore, that the modal interpretation that early non-finite forms (non-agreeing i-forms) have in child Greek is due to the Perfective Non Past morphology of these forms, which essentially denotes episodic forms that cannot be used factually, i.e., that are [-realized]. It is this aspectual value of [-realized] that is the basis for their modal interpretation. Thus, we conclude that the modal interpretation of non-agreeing i-forms in child Greek is not incompatible with an analysis that treats them as non-finite forms, albeit the ones used to form the complex tenses in the adult language.27

. A note on the functional architecture Having shown that the early non-agreeing forms with perfective aspect and the suffix -i in child Greek resemble RIs in terms of their interpretative properties as well, the last issue we will address in this paper, is what do the early child Greek data contribute to the continuity issue, i.e., to the theories of early functional architecture. The status of functional projections in child language has been quite controversial. The controversy arises from an apparent paradox: the recurrent absence of morpholexical material associated with functional projections in the early language, on the one hand, and the early presence of syntactic operations, such as movement, on the other hand. There are two prevalent views on the issue of early functional architecture. According to the Strong Continuity or Full Clause Hypothesis (FCH), all functional categories are present from the beginning. There are two flavours of this hypothesis. According to one of them, functional projections are not only present from the beginning but also fully specified (Boser et al. 1992; Poeppel & Wexler 1993). Despite the absence of functional material, the presence of syntactic movement in early language (e.g. V to C movement in early German) is taken as an argument for the presence and

Eventivity and modality in child Greek

full specification of functional categories (e.g. CP in early German). A second variant of the FCH claims that functional categories are present but underspecified for their features (Hyams 1992; Hoekstra & Hyams 1995; Schütze & Wexler 1996). The underspecification approach explains thus the absence of the full range of a paradigm in the early language. Within this view, RIs are the result of the underspecification of some functional category: Number Phrase for Hoekstra and Hyams (1995), Tense and/or Agreement Phrase for Wexler (1994) and Schütze and Wexler (1996). Rizzi’s (1994) view is also a version of the underspecification hypothesis. According to his analysis, RIs are the result of truncation of the syntactic tree above TP. According to the second view, the Maturation Hypothesis, functional categories are not available in the early grammar but mature according to a program prescribed by UG (Radford 1990; Tsimpli 1992/1996). There are weaker versions of the non-Continuity view, such as the Structure Building Hypothesis (SBH). For example, Clahsen (1991) and Clahsen and Penke (1992) claim that the functional architecture is built up gradually based on the acquisition of the agreement and case paradigms in the target language. The absence of morpholexical material associated with functional projections is taken as a strong argument for either Maturation or the SBH. However, it is not the case that morpholexical material is totally absent from early language. Thus, it is claimed by the proponents of these approaches that the occurrence of morphemes in the early stages does not necessarily imply the instantiation of a functional projection. It is argued instead that the presence of some functional morphemes does not imply knowledge of the full range of a paradigm, unless one can establish correct use of the paradigm over 90% of the time (Clahsen, Penke & Parodi 1994). Alternatively, it is also claimed that the particular morpheme occupies in the child language a position different from the one it does in the target language (e.g. wh-phrases are assumed to be adjoined to VP for Radford 1990). Under both Maturation and SBH, RIs are taken as evidence for the lack of a functional category, namely the Inflection Phrase. Regarding early functional architecture, Tsimpli (1992/1996) makes the claim that despite the appearance of agreement morphemes in early child Greek, it cannot be argued that functional categories are present. What she takes to be crucial evidence for her position is precisely the cases where the agreement morpheme on the verb does not agree with the subject, i.e., non-agreeing i-forms, as in example (4). This shows, according to Tsimpli (op. cit.), that the two elements are not in the proper configurational relation of Spec-Head agreement. The appearance of functional morphemes in the early stages of Greek is due to the fact that in order for a verb in Greek to be well-formed it has to have an agreement morpheme attached to it. However, we saw in Section 3 that whenever Greek children use agreement, they use it correctly. Thus, even during Stage I, the proportion of agreement mistakes observed is on average only 12% (17% in Spiros (1;9) and 9% in Janna (1;11), as illustrated in Table 10). This, in fact, is in agreement with findings from other languages that children do not make agreement mistakes (Guasti 1994; Harris & Wexler 1996; Poeppel & Wexler 1993; Vainikka & Rohrbacher 1994) and in accordance with



 Spyridoula Varlokosta

Table 10. Proportion of correct agreement during Stages I and II Spiros 1;9 (Stage I) Janna 1;11 (Stage I) Janna 2;5 (Stage II)

15/18 (83%) 21/23 (91%) 105/106 (99%)

Wexler’s (1998) Very Early Knowledge of Inflection (VEKI) and Hoekstra and Hyams’s (1994) Early Morphosyntactic Convergence (EMC). The apparent agreement errors observed in child Greek i-forms are not in fact agreement errors but instances of non-agreement (see also Borer & Rohrbacher 1997). Children do not make agreement errors; they either use agreement correctly or avoid it altogether. The Maturation or Prefunctional Stage Hypothesis, such as the one advocated, for example, in Tsimpli (1992/1996), depends crucially on the existence of agreement mistakes in the early stages. However, if there is indeed a stage where agreement mistakes are made, it is expected that these mistakes would affect the whole agreement paradigm. In other words, children should make agreement errors regarding the 1sg or 2sg person as well as the 1pl or 3pl person. However, the only ‘agreement mistakes’ observed are in reference to ‘the 3sg person’.28 Therefore, we conclude that i-forms are instances of ‘non-agreement’ and not ‘wrong agreement’. To sum up, we take the fact that agreement in child language (when used) is used mostly correctly as a strong indication that children project the full functional structure and, thus, as evidence for the FCH.29 Under standard assumptions within the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), inflectional features of the verb are checked, via movement, against the corresponding functional heads. Thus, the lack of agreement errors in Greek (as well as in other child languages) indicates that children are checking the relevant inflectional features of the verb against AgrS. Developmental models that assume an early clausal structure without an AgrSP or other functional projections predict random use of verb inflection and thus inflectional errors, since inflectional features on the verb cannot be checked against any functional heads. The use of nonagreeing i-forms in early child Greek (and for that matter the use of RIs in other child languages) represents presumably a strategy on the part of the child to avoid agreement errors by using “that well-formed item of the verbal paradigm that allows him/her to use as little of the functional hierarchy as possible” (Varlokosta et al. 1998: 204). Given the functional architecture in (11), proposed for Greek in Philippaki-Warburton (1998), non-finite forms marked invariantly with the suffix -i and perfective aspect in Greek involve checking only against the Asp head. (11) a.

[CP C [MoodP MoodInd [Ø] [NegP Neg [FutP F [θa] [AgrSP AgrS [TP T [VoiceP Voice [AspP Asp [VP V]]]]] b. [CP C [Ø] [MoodP MoodSub [na] [NegP Neg [AgrSP AgrS [TP T [VoiceP Voice [AspP Asp [VP V]]]]]

Thus, these forms constitute in child Greek that well-formed item of the verbal paradigm that allows children to do as little checking as possible.

Eventivity and modality in child Greek 

. Concluding remarks In the present paper we argued that the interpretational properties of the early verbal forms with the suffix -i and no agreement in child Greek (i.e., their eventivity and modal reading) provide a further argument for their non-finite status. Based on the semantic analysis of the Perfective Non Past advocated in Giannakidou and Zwarts (to appear) and Giannakidou (2003), it was claimed that the analysis proposed in Varlokosta et al. (1998) for the early i-forms in child Greek is compatible with their semantic properties, in particular with their modal or irrealis interpretation. Last, it was claimed that the evidence from early child Greek regarding the acquisition of the agreement paradigm supports the FCH and not the Maturation or the SBH. Before closing, we would like to note that the claims made in this paper are based on the data available in the Stephany Corpus, in particular on only four recordings from two children (two recordings from Spiros at the age of 1;9 and two recordings from Janna at the age of 1;11). Thus, the specific analysis and claims proposed here could always turn out to be a result of sampling (cf. for example, the claims in Tsimpli this volume, which are based on a different dataset). However, we do hope that the issues raised and discussed in this paper show that further investigation, as well as data is necessary before we reach any firm conclusions regarding the status of early child Greek verb forms and early child grammars in general.

Notes * The present Festschrift offers me an opportunity to express my gratitude to Professor Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou, the person who introduced me to Chomsky’s fascinating world of Generative Grammar and primarily inspired me to pursue postgraduate studies in linguistics. I would like to thank her deeply for her trust in me, her constant support, encouragement and love, as well as for the valuable time she has offered me all these past years without anything in exchange. I would also like to thank the ‘A. S. Onassis’ Foundation for a fellowship granted to me during 1997–1998, which funded this research while I was a visiting scholar at the Linguistics Section of the University of Athens. I am grateful to two anonymous reviewers for many insightful comments, as well as to the two editors, Melita Stavrou and Arhonto Terzi, for their initiative and hard work to put together this Festschrift. I would also like to thank Arhonto Terzi and Richard Ingham for their helpful suggestions on an earlier draft. Parts of this paper were presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Section of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in April 1998. A version of this paper has appeared at the Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 6 (2002). . The term Optional Infinitives, due to Wexler (1994), is also used for the same phenomenon. . It is evident from the available translations in (1) that the semantic interpretation of these forms varies. We discuss this further in Section 2.2. . This is true for regular forms but false for suppletive be (Ingham 1998).

 Spyridoula Varlokosta . The explanations regarding this correlation vary. Hoekstra and Hyams (1995), for example, attribute the RI phenomenon to the underspecification of Number in child language and claim that RIs are observed in languages which show only obligatory Number specification. In prodrop languages, however, where the verb always carries Person marking, Person is marked from the earliest stages. Wexler (1998), on the other hand, derives the correlation from the Unique Checking Constraint (UCC), a developmental constraint that prevents a D-feature on DP from checking more than one D-feature on functional categories in child language. The UCC forces either Agreement or Tense to be omitted. However, in pro-drop languages there is no D-feature on Agreement so the UCC applies vacuously and thus neither Agreement nor Tense is omitted. . According to Guasti (1994: 12), the proportion of RIs for the Italian-speaking child Martina is 22% at 1;9 and 16% at 1;11. However, if one adds in the proportion of past participles missing from the early Italian grammars, then the overall rate of missing non-finite root structures in early Italian becomes relatively high (for example, 22% for Martina at 1;11), in fact comparable to the proportion of RIs in some other languages, as Guasti (1994: 12) herself points out. In Catalan, the rate of RIs and other non-finite root structures seems to vary from child to child. For example, the frequency of root non-finite forms in the early stages is 20% for Laura at 1;7– 2;2, 64% for Pep at 1;0–1;8 but 10% for Guillem at 1;0–1;9 (calculated on the basis of Table 4 from Grinstead 2000). . Guasti (1994) reports that Italian-speaking children cease to use RIs before the age of 2;0, whereas the RI stage extends beyond the second year in non-null subject languages. . This is further supported by experimental data reported in Schönenberger, Pierce, Wexler and Wijnen (1995). . Hoekstra and Hyams (op. cit.) claim that this is not true for English bare forms. A significant proportion of bare forms in English (25%) do not consist of eventive predicates. Moreover, bare forms do not have a modal interpretation but a deictic temporal interpretation (present or past) (in 87% of the cases), with present tense being the most frequent. In that sense, bare and finite forms in English are quite similar. Hoekstra and Hyams (op. cit.) attribute these properties of English bare forms to the claim that they are not instances of genuine infinitives and, as such, they can only refer to actualised eventualities. . A reviewer points out, however, that Hoekstra and Hyams’s (1998) explanation that epistemic modality is typically found with state-denoting predicates whereas deontic modality with event-denoting predicates is shaky because epistemic modality can be construed with eventive predicates (John must have left at 5pm) and deontic modality with stative verbs (John must stay home all evening). . It should be pointed out here that the Greek verbal paradigm distinguishes six person inflections, as illustrated in (i) for the present tense. The same agreement paradigm is observed in the future, as well as in the na-construction (subjunctive): (i)

(eγo) pez-o ‘I play.’ (emis) pez-ume/pez-ome ‘we play.’ (esi) pez-is ‘you play.’ (esis) pez-ete ‘you play.’ (aftos/-i/-o) pez-i ‘he/she/it plays.’ (afti/-es/-a) pez-un(e) ‘they play.’

. Greek is a language that makes an aspectual distinction between perfective and imperfective aspect. The aspectual distinction surfaces in the verb stem and shows up in the past tense, in the future, as well as in na-constructions. There is no aspectual distinction in the present tense, which always uses the imperfective stem.

Eventivity and modality in child Greek 

Present Past Future na-construction

Imperfective pez-o ‘I play.’ e-pez-a ‘I was playing.’ θa pez-o ‘I will be playing.’ na pez-o ‘To be playing.’

Perfective n.a. e-peks-a ‘I played.’ θa peks-o ‘I will play.’ na peks-o ‘To play.’

Also, the perfective stem marks the non-finite form (e.g. peks-i) that is used to compose the compound tenses in Greek (e.g. exo peksi ‘I have played.’, ixa peksi ‘I had played.’, θa exo peksi ‘I will have played.’). . The asterisk indicates erratic use of person or case. . The only person missing from the first stage is the 2pl. which is the last to be acquired. Also, there are only 2 (correct) instances of the 2sg in Spiros’s (1;9) speech and none in Janna’s (1;11) speech compared to the 20 (correct) 2sg instances in her latter stage (2;5). . However, Tsimpli (this volume) reports data from two other children, Alexia (1;11 to 2;2) and Elli (1;9 to 2;1), that do not conform to this pattern. In particular, although Alexia uses verb forms with the suffix -i between the ages of 1;11 and 2;0, the overuse of this form is not related to the use of perfective aspect (unlike the data reported in our study, as well as in Varlokosta et al. 1996, 1998) but to imperfective aspect (present tense). Furthermore, Tsimpli (op. cit.) reports that the proportion of null subjects in Alexia’s data during the first two months is lower than the proportion of overt subjects, again unlike the data reported in our study and in Varlokosta et al. (1996, 1998). Similarly, there are only 5 instances of i-forms with perfective aspect in Elli’s data from the first month, 3 of which appear with a null subject. What is more striking is the fact that Tsimpli (op. cit.) reports ‘true’ agreement errors in Elli’s data between the ages of 1;9 and 2;0, that is incorrect use of non-i-forms. Although Tsimpli (op. cit.) does not provide percentages, we will assume that the proportion of ‘true’ agreement errors she reports is significantly higher than the errors reported in our Table 6. Based on the lack of correlation between the use of iforms and perfective aspect or null subjects in her data, Tsimpli (op. cit.) argues that the early verb forms with the suffix -i are unmarked only at some surface morphological level and not in terms of the [+/–finite] distinction, as claimed in Varlokosta et al. (1996, 1998). Thus, Tsimpli (op. cit.) maintains the claim in Tsimpli (1992/1996) that there is an initial stage during which agreement features have not been acquired and argues further that during this stage there is individual variation as to the number of alternative agreement forms that the child may use. . Of course, one needs to be cautious about this argument given that Greek is a null subject language. Although null subjects are licensed in both finite and non-finite contexts, Varlokosta et al. (op. cit.) show that the proportion of null subjects in non-finite contexts (i.e. sentences with the i-form and no agreement) is significantly higher than in finite contexts. . This form is referred to as ‘the infinitive’ by traditional grammars (Triantafillides 1941). Varlokosta et al. (1998) refer to it as the ‘active participle’, given that it no longer bears an infinitival function (i.e., it does not occur in modal and other embedded contexts). Nonetheless, they do not attribute participial properties to it. Here, we will refer to it as ‘the non-finite’ form, following Holton, Mackridge and Philippaki-Warburton (1997). It should also be noted that this form does not bear nominal features, thus it is not used in contexts where the passive participle with the suffix -menos appears (e.g. to γrama ine γrameno stin aglici ‘the letter is written in English’, o γramenos tixos ‘the written wall’) (see Section 4). . Varlokosta (2002) discusses two further potential sources of evidence for the claim that the non-agreeing verb forms with perfective aspect and the suffix -i in early child Greek are non-finite forms. The first one concerns a possible correlation between these forms and clitic

 Spyridoula Varlokosta

omission while the second one a correlation between these forms and determiner omission, along the lines of similar findings during the RI stage in other child languages (Hamann, Rizzi & Frauenfelder 1996; Haegeman 1996; Baauw, de Roo & Avrutin 2002). However, the evidence for such correlations in child Greek does not appear to be very firm. There are various possible reasons for this. First, regarding the correlation between i-forms and clitic omission, child Greek has object omission rather than clitic omission (Marinis 1999) and, moreover, it is not clear whether object/clitic omission is as frequent in child Greek as in other child languages such as Italian or French (Vina Tsakali & Ken Wexler p.c.). Second, the aforementioned correlations have been established only for infinitival forms in child language and not for other non-finite forms. Last, but not least, there were hardly any data for some of the categories compared. For instance, although 13 out of 23 cases of clitic/object omission were observed in non-agreeing iform contexts (i.e., 57%) in Spiros’s data (and 10, i.e., 43%, in non-i-form contexts), there were hardly any instances of clitics in the corpus at large (only one clitic was observed) to be able to test statistically whether indeed there is a correlation between clitic/object drop and the use of i-forms. Similar limitations applied in the determiner-drop cases. Given the above reasons, the lack of firm evidence for such correlations does not necessarily count as counter evidence for the non-finite status of i-forms. . For example, when a stative verb like aγapo ‘to love’ is modified by the perfective, it results in an achievement reading of stative (the ‘inchoative’ reading) (Giannakidou op. cit.): (i)

I Maria aγapise to Jiani. the Mary loved.perf the John ‘Mary fell in love with John.’

. This conclusion is compatible with Stephany’s (1981) claim that the category ‘Modal Perfective’ (na/θa γrapso ‘to/will write.’) includes dynamic, i.e., eventive predicates. However, it is important to note that our analysis concerns only the category ‘non-agreeing i-forms’, that is, only those verb forms that we claim to be non-finite. . Our judgements regarding the interpretation of verbs in child Greek are based on the information provided in the Stephany Corpus. However, it is not that trivial to figure out the intended interpretation at least in some cases because contextual cues are not always sufficient. . Hyams (op. cit.) bases her claim concerning the modal interpretation of i-forms in child Greek on Stephany’s (1981) claim that the category ‘Modal Perfective’ in Greek has clearly a modal interpretation. However, the category ‘Modal Perfective’ includes many more forms than the i-form and, moreover, i-forms do not always have a modal interpretation (cf. Table 9). . Similar arguments are presented in Hyams (2002). . See Joseph (1983) for an extended discussion on the loss of infinitive in Greek and its consequences. . A passive particle is a non-finite form of the verb that involves the suffix -menos/-i/-o and can be used as an adjective too (to vivlio ine grameno ‘the book is written’, to grameno vivlio ‘the written book’) (Holton, Mackridge, & Philippaki-Warburton 1997). . Perfective Past (e.g. epese ‘fell.perf.3sg), on the other hand, is episodic and thus factual (i.e., an event has taken place in a time prior to the utterance time) (Giannakidou & Zwarts to appear). . If the particle does not allow it, no future orientation arises, as shown in (i), where the particle xoris is involved (Giannakidou & Zwarts to appear):

Eventivity and modality in child Greek 

(i)

Kaθise xoris na milisi se kanenan. sat.down.3sg without sub talk.perf.3sg to anyone ‘He sat down without talking to anyone.’

. The alternative analysis, which assumes that the early forms with the perfective aspect in child Greek correspond to the perfective subjunctive or future without the modal particles na and θa respectively must explain why it is that this form is used without agreement, i.e., only with the suffix -i. Hyams (2001) puts forward an analysis along these lines and argues that in the absence of a tense chain in these forms, agreement is not licensed and the verb appears in the ‘default’ 3sg person. Although we have no objection to such a solution, there is a problem with it. An analysis which treats i-forms as the precursor of na-clauses or the future, predicts that as soon as the modal particles are acquired, they should occur with both perfective and imperfective aspect. However, this prediction is not borne out by the data. An inspection of Janna’s later recordings at the age of 2;5, when both particles have been acquired, shows that they occur almost exclusively with perfective aspect (there is only 1 instance of an imperfective form out of a total of 37 na-clauses and another one out of a total of 18 future forms). Moreover, the perfective aspect is still used erratically, i.e., it is used instead of imperfective. . However, see Tsimpli (this volume) for the opposite view (see also Note 14). . Varlokosta et al. (1996, 1998) remain essentially agnostic on the question of continuity.

References Antinucci, F. & R. Miller (1976). How children talk about what happened. Journal of Child Language, 3, 167–189. Baauw, S., E. de Roo, & S. Avrutin (2002). Determiner omission in language acquisition and language impairment: Syntactic and discourse factors. In Proceedings of the 26st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 24–35). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Borer, H. & B. Rohrbacher (1997). Features and projections: Arguments for the full competence hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 24–35). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Boser, K., B. Lust, L. Santelmann, & J. Whitman (1992). The syntax of CP and V-2 in early child German (ECG) – the strong continuity hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 22nd North Eastern Linguistic Society (pp. 51–65). University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Clahsen, H. (1991). Constraints on parameter setting: A grammatical analysis of some acquisition stages in German child language. Language Acquisition, 1, 361–391. Clahsen, H. & M. Penke (1992). The acquisition of agreement morphology and its syntactic consequences. In J. Meisel (Ed.), The Acquisition of Verb Placement (pp. 181–224). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Clahsen, H., M. Penke, & T. Parodi (1994). Functional categories in early child German. Language Acquisition, 3, 395–429. Ferdinand, A. (1996). The Acquisition of the Subject in French. Ph.D. Dissertation, HIL/Leiden University. Giannakidou, A. (2002). UNTIL crosslinguistically, aspect, and negation: A novel argument for two untils. In the Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 12.

 Spyridoula Varlokosta

Giannakidou, A. (2003). A puzzle about UNTIL and the present perfect. In A. Alexiadou, M. Rathert, & A. von Stechow (Eds.) Perfect Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Giannakidou, A. & F. Zwarts (to appear). Temporal, aspectual operators and (non)veridicality. In A. Giorgi, J. Higginbotham, & F. Pianesi (Eds.), Tense and Mood Selection (Selected papers from the Workshop on Tense and Mood Selection, University of Bergamo, July 1998). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giorgi, A. & F. Pianesi (1997). Tense and Aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grinstead, J. (2000). Case, inflection and subject licensing in child Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Child Development, 27, 119–155. Guasti, M. T. (1994). Verb syntax in Italian child grammar: Finite and non-finite verbs. Language Acquisition, 3, 1–40. Haegeman, L. (1996). Root infinitives, clitics and trunctated structures. In H. Clashen (Ed.), Generative Perspectives on Language Acquisition. Empirical findings, theoretical considerations and crosslinguistic comparisons [Language Acquistion & Language Disorders 14] (pp. 271– 307). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hamann, C., L. Rizzi, & U. H. Frauenfelder (1996). On the acquisition of subject and object clitics in French. In H. Clashen (Ed.), Generative Perspectives on Language Acquisition. Empirical findings, theoretical considerations and crosslinguistic comparisons [Language Aquisition & Language Disorders 14] (pp. 309–334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Harris, T. & K. Wexler (1996). The optional infinitive stage in child English. In H. Clashen (Ed.), Generative Perspectives on Language Acquisition. Empirical findings, theoretical considerations and crosslinguistic comparisons [Language Aquisition & Language Disorders 14] (pp. 1–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hoekstra, T. & N. Hyams (1995). The syntax and interpretation of dropped categories in child language: A unified account. In Proceedings of the 14th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 123–136). Hoekstra, T. & N. Hyams (1998). Aspects of root infinitives. Lingua, 106, 81–112. Holton, D., P. Mackridge, & I. Philippaki-Warburton (1997). Greek: A comprehensive grammar of the Modern Greek language. London: Routledge. Hyams, N. (1992). A reanalysis of null subjects in child language. In J. Weissenborn, H. Goodluck, & T. Roper (Eds.), Theoretical Issues in Language Acquisition (pp. 249–267). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hyams, N. (2001). Now you hear it, now you don’t: The nature of optionality in child grammars. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 34–58). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Hyams, N. (2002). Clausal structure in child Greek: A reply to Varlokosta, Vainikka and Rohrbacher and a reanalysis. The Linguistic Review, 19, 225–269. Joseph, B. (1983). The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Supplementary Volume]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ingham, R. (1998). Tense without agreement in early clause structure. Language Acquisition, 7, 51–81. Ingram, D. & W. Thompson (1996). Early syntactic acquisition in German: Evidence for the modal hypothesis. Language, 72, 97–120. Jordens, P. (1990). The acquisition of verb placement in Dutch and German. Linguistics, 28, 1407–1448. Katis, D. (1984). The Acquisition of the Modern Greek Verb. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Reading.

Eventivity and modality in child Greek 

Lasser, I. (1997). The interpretation of root infinitive constructions in adult and child German. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 12, 26–64. MacWhinney, B. & K. Snow (1985). The child language data exchange system. Journal of Child Language, 12, 271–296. Marinis, Th. (1999). The acquisition of clitic objects in Modern Greek: Single clitics, clitic doubling and clitic left dislocation. Unpublished Ms., University of Potsdam. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1998). Functional categories and Modern Greek syntax. The Linguistic Review, 15, 159–186. Pierce, A. (1992). Language Acquisition and Syntactic Theory: A comparative analysis of French and English child grammars. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Platzack, Ch. (1994). The initial hypothesis of syntax: A minimalist perspective on language acquisition and attrition. WPSS, 54, 59–88. Poeppel, D. & K. Wexler (1993). The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in early German. Language, 69, 1–33. Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax: The nature of early child grammar of English. Oxford: Blackwell. Rizzi, L. (1994). Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: The case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition, 3, 371–393. Rohrbacher, B. & A. Vainikka (1994). Verbs and subjects before age 2: The earliest stages in Germanic L1 acquisition. In Proceedings of the 25th North Eastern Linguistics Society, Papers from the Workshop on Language Acquisition and Language Change (pp. 55–69). Sano, T. & N. Hyams (1994). Agreement, finiteness, and the development of null arguments. Unpublished Ms., UCLA. Schutze, C. & K. Wexler (1996). Subject case licensing and English root infinitives. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 670–681). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Schönenberger, M., A. Pierce, K. Wexler, & F. Wijnen (1995). Accounts of root infinitives and the interpretation of root infinitives. Geneva Generative Papers, 3, 47–71. Stephany, U. (1981). Verbal grammar in early Modern Greek child language. In P. S. Dale & D. Ingram (Eds.), Child Language: An international perspective (pp. 45–57). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Stephany, U. (1997). The acquisition of Greek. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Volume 4 (pp. 183–333). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Stern, C. & W. Stern (1928). Die Kindersprache: Eine Psychologische und Sprachtheoritische Untersuchung. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (4th ed., 1975). Triantafillides, M. (1941). Neoelliniki Grammatiki (tis Dimotikis) [Modern Greek Grammar (of the Demotic)]. Athens. Tsimpli, I.-M. (1992). The Acquisition of Functional Categories. Ph.D. Dissertation, UCL. Published in 1996 as The Prefunctional Stage of First Language Acquisition: A crosslinguistic study. New York, NY: Garland Publishing. Varlokosta, S. (1998). Eventivity, modality and temporal reference in early child Greek. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Section of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki, April 1998. Varlokosta, S. (2002). On the semantic properties of non-finite clauses in early child Greek. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 6, 133–159. Varlokosta, S., A. Vainikka, & B. Rohrbacher (1996). Root infinitives without infinitives. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 816–827). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

 Spyridoula Varlokosta

Varlokosta, S., A. Vainikka, & B. Rohrbacher (1998). Functional projections, markedness, and ‘root infinitives’ in early child Greek. The Linguistic Review, 15, 187–207. Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, 66, 143–160. Weverink, M. (1989). The Subject in Relation to Inflection in Child Language. MA Thesis, University of Utrecht. Wexler, K. (1994). Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivations. In N. Hornstein & D. Lightfoot (Eds.), Verb Movement (pp. 305–350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106, 23–79. Wijnen, F. (1994). Incremental acquisition of phrase structure: A longitudinal analysis of verb placement in Dutch child language. In Proceedings of the 25th North Eastern Linguistics Society, Papers from the Workshop on Language Acquisition and Language Change (pp. 105– 118). Wijnen, F. (1997). Temporal reference and eventivity in root infinitivals. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 12, 1–25.

From participles to gerunds* Io Manolessou

El gerundio llegó a ser un tumor maligno en el cuerpo del idioma. . . Muñío Valverde (1995: 9) This article examines the passage from the inflected Ancient Greek (AG) active participle to the uninflected Modern Greek (MG) active gerund, by offering a synchronic morphological and syntactic description period-by-period. It claims that this evolution can be satisfactorily explained only if set in a wider context, taking into account (a) similar evolutions in other languages, namely, the transition from partiple to gerund in Romance, Slavic and Baltic, and, (b) other evolutions involving the participle within Greek, namely, the transformation of the Greek passive participle into a nominal (adjectival) category. The change is interpreted as the split of a “mixed” category (the participle), possessing both verbal and nominal features, to a purely verbal category (the active gerund) and a purely nominal one (the passive participle).

.

Introduction

The present paper investigates the transition from the complex AG participle system, which involves full nominal agreement (gender, number, case), multiple tenses and 3 voices (active, middle and passive), to the MG system, where the active voice possesses only an indeclinable gerund.1 It also proposes a general, cross-linguistic motivation for participle evolution, and sets down the implications of historical research for current theoretical approaches to Greek gerunds. The MG gerund is quite different from the English one,2 and therefore, the largest part of current research on the syntax of gerunds is irrelevant to it. Furthermore, there is a gap in the research on the historical evolution of the Greek gerund,3 since most of the work done is now several decades old, not extensive and in some cases factually inaccurate or lacking a theoretical framework. The main claim in this paper is that gerund evolution in Greek can be properly interpreted only if viewed in a wider context, and not examined as an isolated phenomenon. What must also be taken into account is (a) similar evolutions in other languages and (b) other evolutions involving the participle within Greek.

 Io Manolessou

Section 2 gives a stage-by-stage account of the parallel evolution of the gerund and the passive participle, and Section 3 a short exposition of similar developments in other languages. In Section 4 the various theories concerning the development of the MG gerund are evaluated. Finally, in Section 5 the theoretical implications of the data are explored.

. The data and the historical process of development What follows is an overview of the developments leading from the AG to the MG participial system in a series of stages/steps, both from a morphological and a syntactic viewpoint. This hopes to supplement the only available information until now, which comes either from a limited set of examples in standard grammars or the at times inaccurate account by the only comprehensive article on the topic, Mirambel (1961). It should be noted that in order to acquire a secure picture of the linguistic situation in each period – especially of the earlier stages, where the origins of the development are to be sought – a scanning of large textual samples would be desirable, in order to check the distribution of the various alternative morphological and syntactic options. Unfortunately, such data are unavailable,4 and their collection goes much beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, an effort was made to back up the description with substantial cross-checking from texts.

. Stage 1 – Ancient Greek Morphology AG has two types of participle: active (consonant-stem) and middle/passive (o-stem), both fully inflected for gender, number and case, and also indicating aspect and tense.5 The active participle shows a tendency to imitate the large sub-classes of consonantstem adjectives which have a common form for both masculine and feminine, and exhibits the same usage. This is shown by Rupprecht (1926), Langholf (1977) and Petersmann (1979), who examine the appearance of masculine forms of the participle with feminine subjects in Classical and Post-Classical authors, (1): (1) a.

Khlo:rai de skiades brithontes green ptcl testers.nom.pl.fem abounding.nom.pl.masc.act anne:thou. dill ‘And leafy testers well-dressed with dill.’ (Theocr.Idyll.15.119) b. Hepta. . . pyra:n. . . seven. . . funeral.pyres.gen.pl.fem . . . telesthento:n. having.been consumed.gen.pl.masc.act ‘When the seven funeral pyres had been consumed.’ (Pind.Olymp.6.15)

From participles to gerunds 

This usage is especially frequent in the corpus Hippocraticum (5th–4th c BC) and can easily be observed in the gynaecological treatises, where the subject is unambiguously a woman and where the masculine form is very often used for the active participle but never for the passive one (Langholf 1977: 300–302), (2): (2) a.

Myrsine:s phylla embalo:n. . . ito: myrtle leaves having.placed.on.nom.sg.masc.act. . . go.imper.3sg pros ton andra. to the man ‘Having placed myrtle leaves (on herself). . . let her go to the man.’ (Hp.Mul.I.viii.168.11–12) b. Rhidzas anadzesa:s. . . kai roots having.boiled.nom.sg.masc.act and lu:samene:. . . ito: pros ton andra having.bathed.nom.sg.fem.mid. go.imper.3sg to the man ‘Having boiled roots. . . and bathed. . . let her go to the man.’ (Hp.Steril.VIII.434.7–10)

Thus, what previous accounts usually consider a “first evidence” of indeclinability is a feature of spoken language, already present in AG.6

Syntax The participle, both active and passive, has three uses (cf. Smyth 1965: 454–479 and Schwyzer 1950: 387–403 for details): attributive (adjectival modifier), complement (of verbs), and adverbial (temporal, causal, manner, concessive, conditional, final etc). In all three cases it behaves like an adnominal modifier, agreeing in case, number and gender with its subject (cf. (1) and (2)). The participle is either “conjoined”, if its subject is co-referential with a constituent in the main clause, in which case the participle agrees with this constituent, or “absolute”, if its subject is unrelated with all constituents of the main clause, in which case both the participle and its subject appear in the genitive case. Circumstantial participles can be introduced by a variety of conjunctions: temporal (hama), causal (hate, hoion, ho:s), final (ho:s), concessive (kaiper, kai tauta) etc. . Stage 2 – Koine (New Testament (NT) & papyri) Morphology The AG system is maintained in general, but papyri show frequent cases of masculine forms for feminine, and of occasional errors of formation (cf. Dieterich 1898: 207; Mayser 1934: 35, 194; Mandilaras 1973: 353–358; Gignac 1981: 131–132). Also, the papyri often display the nominative form of the participle in preference to cases, something which happens with other consonant stem adjectives as well (r-stems, s-stems etc.). However, several of the examples of lack of agreement proposed by Grammars

 Io Manolessou

(refs. above) are not true cases of lack of agreement, but instances of analogical reformations of endings. For example, the masculine nominative plural ending [-es] instead of the accusative [-as] in the participle (e.g. autu:s. . . tithentes BGU.1122, 14–5, 13 BC, tu:s philu:ntes P.Fay.119.26, 100 AD) is not a case of nominative being substituted for by the accusative, but of the new analogical accusative ending, which had begun to spread already in the Hellenistic period.7 Mirambel (1961: 50) claims that the first stage of development is the disappearance of inflection, followed only later by confusion of gender, something that is inexact. As shown in 2.1, masculine forms in place of feminine ones are a feature of AG already, and, as will be described in 2.3, masculine forms instead of neuter ones (i.e., [-onta] instead of [-on]) are not a phenomenon of gender change, but of morphological innovation, i.e. a new neuter termination. Furthermore, some of his examples do not belong to this period at all (to:n riθen, ton sximatisθen quoted from Dieterich (1898: 207) but come from documents of the 12th c. AD). So in this period, participle inflection seems to be rather well maintained.8 In order to acquire a clearer picture of the functioning of the participial system in the papyri, a closer look at the primary data is required, as the standard Grammars offer no quantitative information concerning the frequency of “incorrect” usage, which would give one an idea of the extent to which the change was beginning to spread. A search of two 3rd c. BC corpora, P.Cair.Zen I–IV and P.Hibeh I, which contain both official and private documents show that breaches of participial agreement are very rare: among the hundreds of instances of participles occurring in the large corpus of these documents, one can hardly find 4–5 examples. These include: use of the masculine instead of the feminine form, (3a), appearance of the masc. nom. plural ending [-es] instead of acc. [-as] as described above, (3b), use of the participle instead of the infinitive, (3c), and, once, use of the masc.nom.sing instead of the fem.acc.sing., (3d). (3) a.

To:n aigo:n tiktonto:n. the goats.gen.pl.fem giving.birth.gen.pl.masc.act ‘The goats giving birth.’ (P.Cair.Zen.59338.2) b. Ginoske. . . upote eile:photes he:mas. know.imp.2sg never having.taken.nom.pl.masc.act we.acc.pl.masc ‘Know that we never took.’ (P.Cair.Zen.59343.7) c. Eneukhomai soi. . . apheis te:n gynaika pres.1sg you.dat.sg. . . . leaving.nom.sg.masc.act the wife mu. my ‘I am ordering you. . . to leave my wife.’ (P.Cair.Zen.59482.5) d. Apestalka soi te:n gynaika send.perf.1sg you.dat.sg the woman.acc.sg.fem phero:n soi te:n epistole:n. bringing.nom.sg.masc.act you.dat.sg the letteracc.sg ‘I have sent you the woman bringing you the letter.’ (P.Cair.Zen.59443.12)

From participles to gerunds 

On the contrary, the 2nd c. corpus of the Tebtunis papyri (P.Tebt.I and II) contains dozens of instances of failing agreement. A crucial point is that they do not concern only 3rd declension participles, although, in the standard literature it is usually assumed that it is the difficult inflection pattern of the 3rd declension (consonant-stem), that has caused the eventual fossilization of the active participle into the gerund, (4): (4) a.

To hypomne:ma epidedomenon para Mestasytmios. . . the report delivered by Mestasytmis.gen.sg.masc. . . hypiskhnu:menos. promising.nom.sg.masc ‘The report delivered by Mestasytmis, promising. . . ’ (P.Tebt.58) b. Ge:s kle:rukhike:s syno:rismene:n. land.gen.sg.fem cleruchic bordered.acc.sg.fem.pass ‘Of cleruchic land, bordered. . . ’ (P.Tebt.82)

A comparison with another 2nd c. corpus, UPZ I and I.II, shows that this high frequency is rather above the norm; in the UPZ corpus breaches of agreement occur only 5–6 times. Similarly, the papyrological specimens of the Christian era examined (Pap.Cair.Masp.I and III, BGU XV) contain very few instances of aberrant participial usage. The conclusion to be drawn from the above overview is that the image presented by the papyri depends mainly on whether the writer’s native idiom is Greek (as in most of the Zenon and UPZ papyri) or Egyptian (as in most of the Tebtunis corpus) or on the level of his education (as in the Christian era documents, which are mostly legal texts).

Syntax Some uses of the participle are reduced: Thus, the predicative participle (i.e., in the function of a verbal complement) is radically restricted in the NT, confined almost entirely to Luke and Paul (Blass & Debrunner 1961: §414). Of the circumstantial meanings, some are retained (temporal, causal, concessive) and some are on their way to disappear (conditional, final), and the same is valid for the papyrological data too (Mayser 1926: 348–352; Blass & Debrunner 1961: §411; Jannaris 1897: 506). However, other uses are still quite strong, if not increased- extensive participle usage is a characteristic feature of the Koine (cf. Horrocks 1997: 46; Mayser 1934: 62). Most of the conjunctions accompanying participles disappear or are retained only when the participle is used absolutely (Blass & Debrunner 1961: §425; Mayser 1934: 64, 74). An important syntactic innovation is the increase of unclassical “absolute” participial constructions,9 in two different structures: use of genitive absolute participles’ although the participial subject is co-referential with a term in the clause (5a and b) and “hanging” nominative, a participle whose subject is not co-referential with any term in (5c):

 Io Manolessou

(5) a.

Apestale:n eis ton hypo soi nomon. . . emu: send.aor.pass.1sg to the under you nome. . . I.gen aite:samenu: having.petitioned.gen.sg.masc.act ‘I was sent to your district, having asked for it myself.’ (P.Giss.11.4 (118 AD)) b. Me: ekhontos autu: apodu:nai, ekeleusen neg having.gen.sg.masc.act he.gen.sg to.give.back, ordered auton ho kyrios autu:. him.acc.sg the master his ‘He being unable to give it back, his master ordered him. . . ’ (Ev.Matt.18.25) c. Ekballu:sa hemas anekho:re:samen. kicking.out.nom.sg.fem.act us left.1pl ‘After she kicked us out, we left.’ (UPZ 18.17 (163 BC))

This “breach” of the classical norm is not a Hellenistic evolution, as it already existed to a certain degree in AG – Spieker (1885) and Schwyzer (1942) provide several examples. The innovation lies in the increased frequency of the phenomenon. An examination of the 4 Gospels of the NT, for example, shows that the norm is to use the absolute construction whenever the participle is not subject-oriented, and to employ the conjoined participle when it refers to the main clause subject (in which case it appears in the nominative) or to an infinitival clause subject (in which case it appears in the accusative). In the same vein, Whaley (1990), examining the choice of the absolute vs. the conjoined construction in the NT, establishes that absolute participles occur even when their subject is a constituent of the matrix clause when (a) the participial subject is co-referent with a non-primary term, such as an indirect object, a prepositional complement or noun raised out of a participial or subordinate clause or (b) the participle belongs to an intransitive verb.

. Stage 2 – Late post-classical / early medieval (4th–6th c.) Morphology The first concrete signs of inflectional erosion are neuter nom./acc. singular forms ending in [-onta] instead of [-on], appearing ca. the 4th c. (Kapsomenakis 1938: 40), (6). (6) a.

Zoðion. . . katexonta lampaða. animal.acc.sg.neut. . . . holding.acc.sg.masc.act torch ‘An animal holding a torch.’ (PGM.II.36.179, 4th c. AD) b. To praγma to ðia Evðemonos lekθenta. the thing.acc.sg.neut the by Eudaimon said.acc.sg.masc.pass ‘The thing that was said by Eudaimon.’ (POxy.1348, late 3rd c. AD)

From participles to gerunds 

It is unclear whether this ending is an extension of the neuter plural nom./accusative or of the masculine singular accusative, as both end in [-onta]. The second alternative is much more likely, both because the masculine is more frequent in speech than the neuter, and also because of a possible analogy with the 2nd declension (o-stem) passive participles:10 in the 2nd declension, the masculine singular acc. ending is identical to the neuter singular nom. and acc. (being in all cases [-menon]), so this formal identity between masculine and neuter might have been carried over to the 3rd declension as well. In texts, active participles with the new ending frequently occur side by side with medio-passive ones, (7): (7) a.

Cektime ktima mite possess.perf.1sg possession.acc.sg.neut neither fθiromenon mite liγonta. decaying.acc.sg.neut.pass neither ending.acc.sg.masc.act ‘I possess a possession which neither decays nor ends.’ (Acta Thomae 136.15) b. Lutron mi ypoceomenon alla. . . bath.acc.sg.neut neg burning.under.acc.sg.neut.pass but parexonta. offering.masc.sg.acc.act ‘A bath not heated underneath, but offering. . . ’ (Malalas 178.65)

In early Medieval Greek (MedG) texts, such neuter forms occur occasionally.11 There are no quantitative studies on the extent of the phenomenon, and indeed it is almost impossible for them to exist or to form a solid basis for conclusions, due to the textual tradition of these linguistic monuments: the evidence for spoken language for the period between the 6th and the 12th c. is very meager, and in most cases preserved in manuscript copies several centuries posterior to the date of composition. The different manuscripts preserving a text of the period may present several variant readings in the passages in question, some maintaining the “classical” form and others showing the innovative one. To give some examples: the text of the critical edition of the Life of St. John the Almsgiver, 6th c. (Gelzer 1893) prints 6 cases of the neuter participle with the new [-onta] ending (cf. the editor’s Grammatisches Verzeichnis, entry Participia), and there are alternative readings in -onta in 3 more cases, to be spotted only by checking the apparatus (at 50.6, 87.22 and 97.15). However, the manuscript tradition (the 6 mss., ABCDEF, used in the edition) is unanimous in none of these eight cases: three appear only in A, two only in C, one only in E, one in ACEF and one in ABCE. It is thus impossible to guess which and how many of those stood in the original text, and which are readings introduced by a later copyist. On the other hand, the text of Malalas’s chronicle, a main source for the low-register language of the period, is preserved in only one manuscript, of the 12th c., and thus the lack of corroborating manuscript evidence renders it another kind of insecure textual witness.

 Io Manolessou

Table 1. Text

Century

Attributive

Complement

Adverbial

Malalas Leontios of Neapolis Chronicon Paschale Vita Epiphanii Apocalypses Apocryphae Funerary inscriptions Digenis E Chronicle of Morea (6000vv.) War of Troy (4000vv.) Velthandros Livistros E Machairas (40pp.)

6th 6th 5th 6th 2nd–6th 5th–7th 12th 14th 14th 14th 14th–15th 15th

15 4 3 3 5 formulaic 0 0 0 0 0 2

2 0 0 0 1 – 2 9 2 3 0 0

4 2 0 0 0 – 5 45 17 7 2 49

Nevertheless, considering that the new neuter [-onta] ending appears in almost all the near-vernacular texts we possess from the period (even if not in unanimous textual tradition, and even if less frequently than the classical ending) its usage must be seen as established in the spoken language by this time. The inscriptional evidence from the same period (cf. Section 2.4 below) corroborates this assumption. A further development in the active participle is the obsolescence of the Perfect form (in -o:s, -yia, -os). It occurs very rarely in early MedG texts, often conjoined with Aorist forms (e.g. elθo:n. . . ce eorako:s Mal.221.62, pyisas ce. . . katesxiko:s Mal.372.15), showing that the feeling for a special meaning of the Perfect had been lost. This semantic development in the Perfect (cf. Hatzidakis 1892: 204–205; Wolf 1911: 65–66, and esp. Moser 1988 for details), which led to the loss of monolectic Perfect forms and the evolution of periphrastic ones, left the Passive Perfect Participle without paradigm support. Gradually, one of its main characteristics, initial reduplication, was lost, and this marked a step away from verbal properties.

Syntax The new neuter form is still an agreeing participle, employed mostly with attributive meaning. This can be gauged from Table 1 which lists the usage of [-onta/-ontas] forms in earlier vs. later MedG texts. All [-onta] forms in earlier texts are neuter nom. or acc. singular, while those in the later texts are of any gender/number. “Attributive usage” includes cases where the participle is used as: –

an attributive modifier, equivalent to a relative clause, (8): (8) a.

Etiçise to ðoras, xorion fortify.aor.3sg the Doras.acc.sg.neut, village onta. being.acc.sg.masc.act ‘He fortified Doras, which is a village. . . .’

(Mal.326.54)

From participles to gerunds 

b. To paraksenon lutron tu xrisokastrou/ to the beautiful bath.acc.sg.neut. of the golden-castle the jemonta tas iðonas. filled.acc.sg.masc.act the pleasures ‘The beautiful bath of the Golden Castle / filled with every kind of pleasure.’ (Kallimachos 1720) –

a substantivised adjective, (9): (9) Meli to pote apoθanonta ce going.to.3sg the.acc.sg.neut once dead.acc.sg.masc.act and anastanta. . . apelefsesθe. having.risen.acc.sg.masc.act. . . leave.inf ‘That which has died and risen again is going to leave.’ (Vit.Epiph.89A)

–

a predicative modifier (i.e., a small clause), (10): (10) Peðariu teleftisantos, zonta apeðoce child.gen.sg.neut having died, living.acc.sg.masc.act give.3sg.aor ti mitri. to the mother ‘A little child having died, he gave it back to its mother alive.’ (Chr.Pasch.181)

“Complement” includes cases where the participle is the complement of a verb, (11): θeorunton to θirion ekfevγonta. seeing.gen.pl the beast.acc.sg.neut escaping.acc.sg.masc.pres.act ‘Seeing the beast escape.’ (Romanus Melodus 72.κδ.2) b. Fenome pipraskonta ton emon ambelona. appear.pres.1sg selling.acc.sg.masc.act the my vineyard ‘I declare that I am selling my vineyard.’ (Guillou, Messina 5, 1135 AD)

(11) a.

“Adverbial usage” includes cases where the participle is used as an adverbial, expressing manner, cause, concession, etc., (12): (12) a.

ðeçete afton jyneon greet.1sg.pres him woman.nom.sg.neut prospiptonta ce leγonta. falling.down.acc.sg.masc.act and saying.acc.sg.masc.act ‘A woman greets him by falling on her knees and saying.’ (Leontios 64.1) b. Kleonta ce oðiromenos cite crying.acc.sg.masc.act and wailing.nom.sg.masc.pass lie.3sg.pres is to klinarin. at the bed ‘He lies on the bed, crying and wailing.’ (Digenis E 393)

 Io Manolessou

The old forms of the participle (masculine, feminine, other cases of the neuter), perfective and imperfective stem, are still in full use and extremely frequent. In early MedG the unclassical usage of absolute participles observed in the previous period continues and even increases (cf. Jannaris 1897: 500; Weierholt 1963: 70– 75). At the same time, a more clear-cut indication of the breakdown of agreement between the matrix clause and the participial clause appears: the participle often seems to agree with the element immediately adjacent to it instead of with its subject (cf. also Wolf 1912: 27–28), (13). (13) a.

Emine to jenos tu Perseos remained the kin.nom.sg.neut of Perseus.gen.sg vasilevontos [instead of vasilevon]. ruling.gen.sg.neut.act ‘The kin of Perseus remained ruling (in power).’ (Mal.28.24) b. Apelθonta ce to riγonti having.left.acc.sg.masc.act and the shivering.dat.sg.masc.act synantisanti [instead of synantisanta]. met.dat.sg.masc.act ‘When he left and he met the shivering one.’ (Leontios 48.8) c. Eroso my cyrie mu pater, be.healthy.imp.2sg me.dat, lord my father, eftyxunti my [instead of eftyxon]. being.happy.dat.sg.masc.act me.dat ‘Be healthy, my lord father, being happy for my sake.’ (Rev.Eg.1919.201)

Another potential symptom of a purely “verbal” re-interpretation of the participle is the tendency to equate it with a finite verb, able to be coordinated with it (cf. Jannaris 1897: §2168b; Wolf 1911: 56; Frisk 1928; Schwyzer 1950: 407; Mandilaras 1973: 372; Kavˇciˇc 2001, and esp. Cheila-Markopoulou 2003), (14). (14) γrapsas ðe o Zakçeos. . . ce leγi. having.written.nom.sg.masc.act and the Zacchaeus. . . and say.pres.3sg. ‘Zacchaeus has written. . . and says.’ (Evang.Thomae B 7.1)

. Stage 3 – Middle Byzantine Morphology The next step in the evolution is the spread of the [-onta] ending to masculine and feminine forms. Early examples occur in inscriptions from Asia Minor (Klaffenbach 1933). A search in inscriptional corpora12 shows that early Christian funerary inscriptions standardly contain the formula mnimion/mnimorion/cymitirion ðiaferonta tu X (‘grave.neut belonging to X’, cf. Bees 1910). There are abundant attestations from Corinth, Thessaly, Macedonia, Attica etc., evidence of the spread of the new neuter ending. In the inscriptions from Korykos (5th and 6th c., Keil & Wilhelm 1931), the fu-

From participles to gerunds

nerary formula is feminine: θici/somatoθici ðiaferusa tu X (‘coffin.fem belonging.fem to X’). In many cases, it has changed to θici ðiaferonta. These are the earliest consistent13 attestations of the spread of [-onta] to the feminine. The earliest securely dated (9th c.) occurrence of the [-onta] suffix in an adverbial function with a masculine noun occurs in the Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions (Beshevliev 1963), (15): (15) Is tis Plskas ton kampon menonta at the Plska.gen the plain remaining.acc.sg.masc.act epyisen avlin. make.aor.3sg court ‘Remaining in the plain of Plska, he built a court.’ (56.5–7, 822 AD)

Syntax Unfortunately, texts close to the spoken language are insufficient in this period, and thus do not allow reliable conclusions. The [-onta] form seems to be still mainly attributive; however, the adverbial usage of the gerund form has already appeared. The AG participle form is still extensively used, mainly in temporal and causal function. The passive participle is used mainly attributively, and often as a verbal complement, being very frequent in perfect periphrases with the verbs “to be” and “to have” (cf. Browning 1983: 32–34; Aerts 1965; Moser 1988 for an overview). . Stage 4 – Later Byzantine (12th–15th c.) Morphology The [-onta] gerund becomes established for all genders and cases. From the 14th c. onwards, a final -s is added to the ending, giving it the standard MG form [-ontas].14 This is in all likelihood an adverbial suffix, appearing in other adverbs as well, e.g. totes ‘then’, potes ‘never’, tipotas ‘nothing’ (Hatzidakis 1934; Horrocks 1997: 229), and not the [-s] suffix of the nominative (as in Schwyzer 1950: 410). The forms with and without [-s] coexist in texts of the period, but distributional data are lacking. This period sees an important evolution in the passive participle, nom. the extension of passive perfect forms to active morphology verbs with stative, inchoative, unaccusative or unergative meaning, something that is maintained in MG (Tzartzanos 1989: 330–331; Moser 1988: 145–152; Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1999: 25), (16): (16) pinao → pinazmenos ‘I am hungry’ troo → faγomenos ‘I eat’ nistazo → nistaγmenos ‘I am sleepy’ γonatizo → γonatizmenos ‘I kneel’ citrinizo → citrinizmenos ‘I grow yellow’ This was not the case in AG, except for a couple of isolated instances; it is a Medieval evolution (details in Hatzidakis 1924, 1927) but there is no information on when these



 Io Manolessou

participles first appeared. Examples do occur in the first vernacular medieval texts (12th–13th c.), (17). (17) Ipate, kinijisete opu iste maθimeni. go.imp.2sg hunt.imp.2sg where are.2pl learned.nom.pl.masc.pass ‘Go hunt where you used to.’ (Digenis E 1303) It also seems that passive participles with active meanings are a Balkan Sprachbund phenomenon, appearing in some Balkan languages as well (cf. Lindstedt 2002); this would point to a medieval dating of this evolution as well.15

Syntax The main function of the active participle is adverbial – complement usage is rare, and attributive almost non-existent. The active form can now be properly called a gerund, as it is not an acceptable nominal modifier any more, (18): (18) a.

Tafta ipon estrafice jelonta that saying.nom.sg.masc.act turned.3sg laughing.acc.sg.masc.act pros ecinin. towards her ‘Having said that, he turned to her laughing.’ (Velthandros 861) b. Utos exonta jinekan, to ðiceon orizi. he having.acc.sg.masc.act wife, the law dictate.3sg ‘If he has a wife, the law dictates. . . ’ (Assizai.146.15–6)

However, the complement usage is not yet extinct, (19): (19) a.

Tote na iðes arxondises. . . kratunta ta then sub see.2sg.aor noblewomen holding.acc.sg.masc.act the peðia tus. children-their ‘Then you could have seen. . . noblewomen holding their children.’ (War of Troy 1101) b. Fenome pipraskonta ton emon ambelona. appear.pres.1sg selling.acc.sg.masc.act the my vineyard ‘I declare that I am selling my vineyard.’ (Guillou, Messina 5, 1135 AD)

The only attributive usages appear with the neuter (cf. the formula xorion to onta ce ðiacimenon ‘the village being and located’ in S. Italian documents).16 The passive participle is mainly used adjectivally (details in Moser 1988: 229–235). The AG forms are still used side by side with the gerundival ones, their frequency depending on the register of the text. With the loss of case from the gerund, the ancient type of “absolute” participles (in the genitive or hanging nominative) disappear. However, vestiges of absolute participles in the genitive survive in conservative MG dialects, such as Cypriot and Cretan,

From participles to gerunds 

in the form of gerunds having genitive subjects (Menardos 1925b: 64; Giakoumaki 1993), (20): (20) a.

Poθanonta tu pappu mu, epiramen to dying.acc.sg.masc.act the grandfather.gen.sg. my, get.aor.1pl the spitin. house ‘Upon my grandfather’s dying, we got the house.’ b. Kateontas mu inda muflusis ine, ðe du knowing I.gen.sg what bankrupt is, not he.gen.sg ðuðo ðanika. give.pres.1sg loan ‘Knowing what kind of a loser he is, I’m not giving him a loan.’

Alternatively, these examples of deviant dialectal syntax, unacceptable in standard MG, could be viewed not as archaic survivals but as new independent evolutions. In this connection, the parallel with the structures evolved in languages such as English or Hebrew, where genitive subjects for indeclinable gerunds are the norm, is quite striking. However, it has to be noted that these constructions are of at least late MedG date, as they can be found in works of the period, (21): (21) a.

I rijena i Alis. . . pijenonta the queen.nom.sg.fem the Alice going.acc.sg.masc.act tis is ton Maçeran. . . eθelise na bi. she.gen.sg to the Machairas want.aor.3sg sub enter.aor.3sg ‘Queen Alice, upon her going to Machairas. . . wanted to enter.’ (Machairas 54.18) b. Strefonta tus i mandatofori. . . turning.acc.sg.masc.act they.gen.sg the envoys . . . eðokan tas γrafas. give.aor.3pl the letters ‘Upon their returning, the envoys gave the letters.’ (Machairas 94.36)

Apart from these dialectal constructions with the genitive, the gerund does have “absolute” uses, in that its subject is not co-referential with that of the main clause, (22): ðiavonta γar enas ceros, having.passed.acc.sg.masc.act a time.nom.sg.masc ejirisen ecinos. return.aor.3sg that.nom.sg ‘Some time having passed, he returned.’ (Chr.M.1048) b. Ce lalonta ton loγon, ekaθarisen i and speaking.acc.sg.masc.act the word, clear.aor.3sg the

(22) a.

 Io Manolessou

γlosa tis. tongue.nom.sg hers ‘And as she spoke the word, her tongue was freed.’

(Machairas 68.21)

This continues into the next period, and is maintained up to MG (details of this usage in MG literature in Nakas 1985), cf. two examples from the 17th c., (23): (23) a.

Ontas aftos peðion akomi, ton being.acc.sg.masc.act he.nom.sg child still, he.acc.sg estilen o pateras tu. send.3sg.aor the father he.gen.sg ‘When he was still a child, his father sent him. . . ’ (BGV III, 362.21) b. Angaliazontas ena ðendro. . . me ektipusan embracing.acc.sg.masc.act a tree. . . I.acc.sg hit.3pl.imperf e petre. the rocks.nom.pl ‘As I was holding on to a tree. . . the rocks were hitting me.’ (BGV I, 331)

. Stage 5 – Post-Byzantine Greek Morphology The next stage in the evolution of the gerund is the loss of tense. In the previous period active participles could be formed both from aorist and present stems, (24):17 (24) a.

Staθonta kata anatolas anaγnose ce ipe having.stood towards east read.2sg.imp and tell.2sg.imp ton. he.acc.sg ‘First stand facing east, and then read and tell him.’ (War of Troy 561) b. Iðontas tuto o ajios. having.seen that the holy ‘The holy father, having seen that. . . ’ (Chr.M.18)

After the end of the MedG period, gerunds can only be formed from present stems, except in the Greek dialects of S. Italy. In some of these dialects, aorist gerunds are used only with the verb “to be” in perfect periphrases and the present stem is employed in all other functions (Katsoyannou 1995); however, in others the aorist gerund is still a living category (Karanastasis 1997: 144), (25). (25) Vletsonta o cˇ ero, en ixa panta Luppiu. having.seen the weather, not have.1sg gone Lecce ‘If I had seen the weather, I wouldn’t have gone to Lecce.’ As far as the passive participle is concerned, the present form of the participle (-omenos) becomes gradually reduced in use, and in fact ceases to be an integrated

From participles to gerunds 

part of the participial system. Apart from a few analogically created popular forms in [-amenos] and [-umenos], (e.g. trexamenos ‘running’, petumenos ‘flying’), which have almost exclusively attributive function,18 the present passive participle in MG is a formation re-introduced in the language via the kathareuousa (see below 2.7). So the system of the participle, as presented in the first Grammar of MG, Nikolaos Sofianos (ca.1544), is as follows (Papadopoulos 1977: 76): all the participles of the old Greeks are analysed with the finite verb of the tense in which the participle would stand, plus [the relative complementiser] opu. . . In all active tenses. . . there is only one non-finite participle, γrafontas, kratontas. . . As for the passive verbs, the perfect participle has been maintained up to our time, and it is inflected in the three genders, o γramenos, i γrameni, to γrameno. . .

Around the 16th c., therefore, the active voice possessed only the active gerund in [-ontas], while in the passive voice only the perfect participle survived. The situation described by Sofianos is easily exemplified by a recent study on the transposition of AG participles in 17th c. vernacular translations of the lives of Aesop (Karla 2002). In this case, the large majority of participles of the original, post-classical, text have been replaced by finite clauses or adjectives, and only 11% of them have been retained (either as archaic inflected participles or as gerunds).

Syntax The MG situation, with the active gerund having predominantly adverbial usage and the passive participle predominantly adjectival, has been reached. . Stage 6 – Modern Greek Morphology Standard MG sees a new regularisation/filling out of the participial and gerundival paradigm. Side-by-side with the “present” gerund, a periphrastic perfect form is created, using the gerund of the auxiliary verb “to have” along with a perfective infinitive form (e.g. exontas γrapsi). There are no data concerning the date of appearance and the spread of this new formation (Nakas 1991: 178), but older Grammars (Triantafyllidis 1941: 373; Tzartzanos 1989: 339) recognise its innovative, “artificial”, status, and statistical analyses of participial usage in MG (Iordanidou 1985; Rydå 1988) show that it is very rare; some Grammars (including school grammars) do not mention it at all. In the passive domain, the present participle is re-introduced. This is generally accepted to be a feature of kathareuousa, and not a direct inheritance from AG (Nakas 1991: 182–187). Earlier Grammars explicitly state that it is an element foreign to “demotic”, and statistical investigations also show that its use is limited. Furthermore, it is far from productive; thus, verbs of modern/demotic origin rarely if ever have present participles (e.g. *lavonomenos, *viðonomenos, *leronomenos, *spazomenos) and verbs which have both a kathareuousa and a demotic variant possess a present participle only for the first (liomenos vs. *linomenos, enðiomenos vs. *dinomenos, feromenos vs.

 Io Manolessou

*fernomenos etc.). The passive present participle cannot therefore be considered as fully integrated into the verbal paradigm, on a par with any other verbal form. Another evolution belonging to the MG period is the appearance of a periphrastic passive gerund, formed by the gerund of the verb ‘to have’ and a perfective passive infinitive (e.g. exontas γrafθi). This is yet another new and rarely used form, frequently absent from Grammars of MG. The evolution of this form is one more indication of the non-verbal character of the monolectic passive participle: it is this new periphrastic formation, and not the inherited “perfect participle”, that unambiguously expresses the categories of “perfect tense”, “perfective aspect”, and “passive voice”. But it is a gerundival, and not a participial form, showing that verbal and nominal features are incompatible in MG participles.

Syntax This topic is extensively treated in Tsoulas (1996), Tsimpli (2000), Sitaridou and Haidou (2002), Moser (2002) and Tsokoglou and Kleidi (2002) and will therefore not be developed in any detail here. The MG gerund has only adverbial meaning and cannot appear in argument positions.19 Its temporal interpretation is dependent on the meaning of the verb and the general context (cf. Tsimpli 2000; Moser 2002 for details). Contrast (26a) with (26b): (26) a.

Efije klinontas ðinata tin porta. leave.aor.3sg shutting loudly the door ‘He left, banging the door loudly.’ (anteriority) b. Klinontas tin porta, iðe tin efimeriða sto shutting the door, saw.3sg the newspaper at.the katofli (simultaneity) threshold “As he was shutting the door, he saw the newspaper on the threshold.”

Furthermore, the gerund is often considered exclusively subject oriented, although it is possible to find gerund subjects which are: (a) null and non-co-referential with the main clause subject in the case of impersonal or arbitrary/generic reference (27a) (b) co-referential with another term in the clause (27b) and (c) “nominative absolute” subjects different from that of the main clause, always appearing after the gerund (27c): (27) a.

Troγontas erçete i oreksi. eating come.pres.3sg the appetite.nom.sg ‘The appetite comes with eating.’ b. Telionontas to Panepistimio, ton pirane sto strato. finishing the University, he.acc.sg take.aor.3pl to the army ‘When he finished the University, he was drafted in the Army.’ c. Fevγontas i ðaskala, jelasan ta peðjia. leaving the teacher.nom.sg, laugh.aor.3pl the children ‘As the teacher left, the children laughed.’

From participles to gerunds 

As for the passive participle, there is a relative consensus that it has a number of nominal properties which make it distinct from a simple adjective difficult. These include (Moser 1988: 167–168; Anagnostopoulou 2001: 2–4): a. b. c. d. e. f.

it can occur in pre-nominal position as noun modifier it can have comparative and superlative it can be conjoined (with ce (‘and’)) with true adjectives it can occur as predicate with verbs like fenome (‘look’), mnjiazo (look like’) etc. the agent can be incorporated, e.g. iliomavrismenos (suntanned) it can be intensified with para-(‘too’) , e.g. paramavrismenos (with too much suntan) g. it can form adverbials with -a, e.g. θlimenos > θlimena (‘sad’ > ’sadly’) h. its derivation is irregular, i.e., several active morphology verbs form it, and several passive forms verbs do not. The passive participial clauses quoted in Tsimpli (2000: 159) are no different from other adjective small clauses which attribute a “temporary” property to the modified noun. Thus, compare the sets of sentences in (28a, b) and (29a, b): (28) a.

Me ðemena ta çerjia ðen borusa na with tied the hands neg can.imperf.1sg sub ksisto. scratch.aor.pass.1sg ‘With my hands tied, I couldn’t scratch myself.’ b. Me elefθera pja ta çerjia, boresa na with free at.last the hands can.aor.1sg sub ksisto. scratch.aor.pass.1sg ‘With my hands free at last, I managed to scratch myself.’

(29) a.

Kinijimenos / ðjoγmenos o Jianis, anangastike na hunted / kicked.out the John, force.aor.pass.3sg sub fiji. leave.aor.3sg ‘John, hunted / kicked out, was forced to leave.’ b. Etimos jia ola o Jianis, arniθice na fiji. ready for everything the John, refuse.aor.3sg sub leave.aor.3sg ‘John, ready for anything, refused to flee.’

In these examples the syntactic roles of the passive participle are identical to those of the adjective.20

. Summary of evolution On the basis of the above, the evolution of the Greek participial system can be summarised as follows:

 Io Manolessou

1. The active participle already showed diminished gender agreement from AG times, but maintained its functionality until the first centuries AD. The first sign of evolution is syntactic, namely the increase in absolute constructions in the Koine period, an indication that the agreement mechanism of the participle with the matrix clause is breaking down. Around the 4th c. the first morphological effects of change become evident, with a reduction in the inflectional system represented by the innovative neuter ending [-onta] (arising probably from collocations with the accusative of the passive participle). This spreads to masculine and feminine nouns during the 6th–8th c., as testified by inscriptional evidence. The next step in the evolution, after the loss of agreement, is the loss of tense (in reality of the imperfective/perfective distinction), occurring around the 14th c. The addition of the adverbial [-s] suffix marks the final and definitive reanalysis of the gerund as an adverb. The MG gerund has neither Agreement nor Tense – however, it is in the process of acquiring a new aspectual distinction. 2. The passive participle maintained its full nominal agreement system throughout the history of Greek. The development went rather in the way of loss of verbal characteristics. Thus, Koine times see a reduction in the types of participle available (loss of final, concessive, causal etc. participles), as well as of the subordinating conjunctions/complementisers introducing them. Also, the Tenses become reduced, with first the loss of the Future and the Aorist, and later of the Present. In later stages, the uses of the participle become further reduced, until it is reserved only for attributive functions. At some point in the Medieval Period, the category of Voice is lost as well, since Passive participles begin to be formed also from active morphology verbs with unaccusative or unergative meaning. Thus it is a crucial misconception that “the active participle changed and disappeared”, while “the passive participle did not change and was maintained”. In fact, the passive participle has changed; an indication of this are the numerous studies examining the similarities and differences between “passive participles” and adjectives, and proposing criteria of differentiation, e.g. Laskaratou and Philippaki (1984), Setatos (1985), Sklavounou (2000), Anagnostopoulou (2001). The evolution examined here is not a change affecting one part of the participle system while leaving the other intact, but a restructuring of the whole system, affecting both parts in different ways.

. Parallel evolution in other languages The change from participle to gerund is not a phenomenon unique to Greek, but well attested cross-linguistically. In the words of Haspelmath (1995: 17): Converbs [=nonfinite verb forms functioning as adverbial modifiers] seem to arise from two main types of sources: (a) . . . verbal nouns which have become independent from their original paradigm; and (b) . . . participles which lost their capability for agreement.

From participles to gerunds 

As will be shown below, process (b) appears in Slavic, Baltic and Romance, where, independently, the active present participle has become a gerund, as in Greek.

. Romance The historical syntax of the Romance languages displays a pattern very similar to Greek: the indeclinable gerund acquires all the verbal functions of the active participle, while the latter becomes a pure adjective, lying outside the verbal system (Harris 1978: 199–203). More specifically: Classical Latin possessed a triple opposition between (a) an agreeing passive gerundive, (b) a non-agreeing active gerund, similar to a verbal noun and (c) an agreeing active present participle. The gerundive disappeared completely, and so did three out of the four cases of the noun-like gerund (genitive, dative and accusative). The ablative case of the gerund, however, originally denoting only instrumental notions such as manner, accompaniment etc., gained ground widely, and rivalled the present participle as an adverbial modifier of the main verb. Already in Classical Latin it was possible to find present participles co-coordinated with ablative gerunds (Kühner-Stegman 1966: 753), (30). (30) incendium. . . in edita assurgens et rursus fire. . . in high climbing.neut.nom.sg.pres.act and then inferiora populando lower devastating.ger.abl ‘The fire. . . climbing first to the high places and then devastating the lower ones.’ (Tacitus 15.38) Later Latin sees: (a) the reduction of the active present participle to adjectival usage, (b) the extension of absolute constructions, even when the subject is a term of the clause, (c) the use of the participle as a finite verb (three developments identical to Greek) and (d) the transposition of the adverbial uses of the participle to the ablative of the gerund.21 For example, in Medieval Spanish translations of Latin texts, the participle, especially in absolute usages, is often glossed by the gerund (Muñío Valverde 1995: 12). ignorans: glosed as non sapiendo ignoring-masc.sg.nom.pres.act: glossed as not knowing-gerund.abl In French, the gerund and the participle coalesced morphologically to give a single form, ending in -ant, which is used either as an uninfelcted gerund or as an inflected adjectival participle, (31): (31) Je viens en chantant (‘I come singing)’ La femme chantante vient (‘The singing woman comes’) In the other Western Romance languages, Spanish and Portuguese, the two forms are still morphologically separate, but the gerund (-ndo) has both retained its original gerundival functions (as a manner adverbial) and taken over all the verbal functions of the present participle, including all occurrences of periphrastic verbal paradigms; and

 Io Manolessou

the still agreeing present participle (-nte) is wholly adjectival, lying outside the verbal system proper and unable to express any circumstantial notion.

. Slavic and Baltic The Russian gerund (deeprichastiye) evolved out of the active present participle, and is in the modern language a tenseless nonfinite form (Babby & Franks 1998). First traces of this development appear already in Old Church Slavonic translations of the Gospels, and become more frequent in later texts (Vaillant 1964: 252–253). Examining the Bulgarian participle, Hult (1991: 100) offers an overview of participle evolution in the Slavic languages. According to him, the gerund of Russian, Czech and Slovenian goes back to the Old Church Slavonic masculine/neuter nominative form of the present active participle, while the gerund of Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Polish, Slovak, Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian to the oblique case stem of the same form. Taube (1981: 128–129) describes the environments in which the breach of agreement between subject and participle occurs most frequently in Old Russian texts (chronicles of the 15th c. AD). Research shows it is exceptional when the participle has adjectival (attributive) function, or is used as a predicate with a copula or an auxiliary verb; it is occasional when the participle is absolute and it is regular when the participle has an adverbial function. Although the Lithuanian participial system is more complex than that of other examined languages, the general evolution is similar: a language which did not originally possess gerund forms develops them out of active participles with adverbial meaning.22 As in Greek, the change starts from active neuter forms in the accusative, later spreading to masculine and feminine nouns and pronouns (Ambrazas 1990: 253). So the developments in the participle of other languages bear a striking similarity to those of Greek: in the environments where the participle has a more strongly “verbal” meaning (i.e., imparts a temporal, causal etc. sense) it tends to lose its nominal characteristics and become a pure indeclinable adverbial, whereas in cases where its attributive function is strong it verges towards total loss of verbal features.23

. The evolution from participle to gerund . Introduction The evolution described in Sections 2 and 3 constitutes a potentially fruitful testing ground for theories of syntactic change. It involves a radical change in a specific syntactic category – a change which takes place over a long period of time, appears in several languages, has not up to now been sufficiently investigated, and does not fall under the heading of grammaticalisation, the kind of change most commonly examined in diachronic syntax. However, the restricted amount of interest it has triggered is, to a certain extent, a limiting factor for its in-depth investigation.

From participles to gerunds 

More specifically, as discussed in 2.1, there are no studies offering syntactic accounts of the complex AG participial system or the quantitative data necessary for them, and even the comparatively simpler MG gerund is an object of controversy (see Section 5); thus, neither the beginning nor the end of the process are securely established. Furthermore, none of the well-studied modern languages possesses a participial system similar to the AG one, and so the analyses covering the participles of other languages cannot apply to AG without further considerable elaboration. Moreover, current analyses of participles tend to focus on the question either of internal participial structure or of participles in auxiliary verb structures; thus they have very little to say on topics that are relevant for the evolution under investigation, which involves mainly participles in adverbial function.

. Previous accounts The standard interpretation of the evolution of the Greek active participle is based on morphological considerations. According to this view (cf. Jannaris 1897: 206; Dieterich 1898: 206; Horrocks 1997: 122–124), the active participle, which belongs to the complex AG 3rd (consonant-stem) declension and has several widely differing endings according to person and tense, has limited learnability, in contrast to the passive participle, which belongs to the more regular 2nd declension (o-stem). The “unwieldy” active form, after going through a period of instability, as attested by numerous errors of agreement in papyri, ends up in total indeclinability, whereas the passive form is maintained throughout the history of Greek. There are a number of problems with this account. First, as shown in 2.2, the papyrological data are not conclusive: errors of agreement occur also with 2nd declension forms, and are much more common when the writer is not a native speaker of Greek – so the picture of inflectional instability presented in Grammars of papyri cannot be relied upon without systematic textual investigations. However, the main difficulty with this account is that “indeclinability” is not an option for Greek, whose overall system depends on overt case differentiation; in cases of “difficult” inflection patterns, the evolution is metaplasm, i.e. analogical remodelling according to a simpler paradigm. Thus, as Hatzidakis (1928: 635) notes, the corresponding 3rd declension ntstem nouns such as drako:n, gero:n, Kharo:n, have had a totally different evolution from the participle: they have not lost inflection, but have been remodelled according to 1st or 2nd declension ones (ðrakos, γeros/γerontas, Xaros), and the same goes for substantivised participles as well (arkho:n, patho:n > arxontas, paθos). And generally, the whole of the AG 3rd, consonant-stem, noun declension has changed over to a simpler vowel-stem paradigm in MG, apart from certain subclasses (cf. Seiler 1958). Similarly, 3rd declension adjectives with comparable inflection patterns (e.g. s- or r-stems) also show break-down of agreement (cf. Gignac 1981: 138–141) in the papyri, without ending up in indeclinability. These too are remodelled analogically, following the vowel stem declensions (Browning 1983: 78), e.g. melas > melanos, ale:the:s >

 Io Manolessou

aliθinos etc. In other words, the process of indeclinability affects only participles, and not nouns and adjectives of similar inflectional patterns. The morphology-based interpretation of the participle > gerund evolution has the additional disadvantage that it cannot account for two main claims made in this paper, namely that: (i) this evolution is not an exclusively Greek phenomenon, but, as demonstrated in Section 3, is to be found in several languages, thus precluding a Greek-specific causation and (ii) the parallel developments in the domain of the passive participle, i.e., the evolution participle > adjective (crucially, also not an exclusively Greek phenomenon) show that we are dealing with a larger change, which affects the whole participial and agreement system.

. Origins of the change If the standard view of gerund evolution is rejected, an alternative interpretation, not involving a direct morphological trigger and taking into consideration the crosslinguistic extent of the phenomenon is desirable. In this section, a potential alternative interpretation will be pursued, based on the syntactic mechanism of control in participial subjects. Some initial assumptions concerning the analysis of participles must be made: – –

–

All participles must have a subject of their own, due to theta-role considerations. This subject may be a full lexical noun phrase (in the case, e.g., of absolute participles) but is usually a null phrase (in the case of conjoined adverbial participles). When the subject of the participle is null, it is standardly assumed to belong to the category PRO (cf. Kester 1994; Alexandrova 1995), i.e., it is a null pronoun appearing as the subject of non-finite forms, which acquires reference through a control mechanism. Participles agree with their subjects. Gender and number features are transmitted from the subject to the participle. Case, however, depends on the syntactic function of the participle.

On the basis of the above, the following analysis of AG participles can be attempted: Participles have three main functions, as described in 2.1: I. Attributive modifiers, functioning as adjectives or relative clauses. II. Complements of verbs, functioning as non-finite complement clauses. III. Adverbial modifiers, functioning as clausal adjuncts. In case (I) participial syntax is relatively simple, as participles appear in the same syntactic positions as adjectives. Presumably, adjectival participles are located in some functional specifier within the noun phrase (DP). They therefore acquire their φfeatures in the same way as adjectives do, from spec-head agreement with the head noun. Attributive participles have a PRO subject, which is always co-indexed with the head of the nominal projection DP where the participle occurs. So: adnominal partici-

From participles to gerunds 

ples obtain number, gender and case from the head of the nominal projection within which they show up. In case (II), things are straightforward again: participial complements function like infinitival ones, with the added proviso that they agree with their subject. Presumably, participles are complements of VP, and acquire case from the main verb, (32). (32) a.

De:los e:mi erkhomenos. obvious be.1sg coming.nom.sg.masc.pass ‘I am seen to be coming.’ b. Eidon auton erkhomenon. see.aor.1sg he.acc.sg coming.acc.sg.masc.pass ‘I saw him coming.’ c. E:kusa autu: erkhomenu:. hear.1sg.aor he.gen.sg coming.gen.sg.masc.pass ‘I heard him coming.’

Gender and number agreement of the participle does not originate from the main verb, but from the participial subject. Case on the participial subject can be interpreted as originating either from the participle, once it has acquired it from the matrix verb, or as in regular raising/ECM constructions, where the participial subject gets case from the main verb as well. So, in case II, participles acquire two f-features from their subject (gender and number) and one from the verbal projection of which they are complements (case). If the participial subject is PRO, it can be controlled and co-indexed since it occurs in a c-commanded position. On the other hand, construction (III), namely participles functioning as adverbial modifiers, presents a number of difficulties. Most analyses agree that adverbial participles and gerunds are clausal adjuncts (see e.g. Kester 1994; Pires to appear). This follows from their free position in the clause, but also from semantic considerations: what they modify by their adverbial meaning (cause, consequence, aim, concession etc.) is a verbal action and not a noun. This becomes obvious in sentences containing sequences of participles, which all refer to the same subject, but which modify different verbal actions, (33): (33) a.

Eteteleute:kei pharmakon pio:n die.3sg.pluperf medicine having.drunk.nom.sg.masc (X.Anab.6.4.11) pyresso:n. having.fever.nom.sg.masc ‘He died after having drunk a medicine, because he had a fever.’ b. Hois pa:si khro:menoi krea which.dat.pl all.dat.pl using.nom.pl.masc meats.acc.pl (X.Anab.2.1.6) epsontes e:sthion. roasting.nom.pl.masc eat.imperf.3pl ‘Using all the aforementioned (wood), roasting meat, they ate.’

 Io Manolessou

Under this analysis, adverbial participles occupy a peripheral position within the verbal projection of the main clause, on a par with adverbs. This would be either an external adjunct to CP, VP or IP, or a special functional projection hosting the relevant adverbial function (cause, manner etc.) – cf. 5.3 below for discussion. Such a peripheral position, however, entails difficulties for the establishment of agreement and control between the participle and the matrix term to which it refers.24 “Conjoined” participles have a PRO subject, co-referential with a term in the matrix clause, usually the subject but not necessarily so. However, the relationship between PRO and this term must work on a very loose basis: the structural position of PRO is such that it does not allow any formal mechanism of control or licensing – as argued above, the adverbial participle will be in the specifier of a projection functioning as an adverbial adjunct: it is neither within a nominal projection, nor in a complement position. Furthermore, since the participle displays case, gender and number features, which are in fact the overt indications of its co-reference with a matrix term, one would have to assume that they have somehow been transmitted from this matrix term to the participial subject, and thence on to the participle. There is no other source for them, as adverbial adjuncts are not related to case-marked positions and gender and number have to be identical with those of the matrix term. Assuming that participial subject is PRO, which by definition carries null case, and invariable gender and number features (3rd sing. masc. in the case of arbitrary reference) the agreement mechanism of adverbial participles becomes even more complex.25 On the other hand, absolute adverbial participles do not present any difficulties: they obtain gender and number from their subjects, which are full lexical noun phrases. And they acquire case (genitive) by default, so their position within the matrix clause is immaterial. No relationship with the matrix clause is established; the absolute participle is completely independent and its agreement mechanisms are local. From the perspective of agreement, therefore, the conjoined adverbial participle is a marked and complex construction, possessing a much simpler counterpart in the absolute participle. Crucially, as discussed in Sections 2 and 3, the history of both Greek and the Romance languages displays a growing preference for the absolute over the conjoined construction. This can be interpreted, following Roberts and Roussou (2002), as a natural result of the make-up of the human language learning device, which is conservative and has an inherent tendency for unmarked representations (marked in the sense of less economical, requiring additional movement or realisation of features). Given two equivalent constructions, one marked26 and one unmarked, diachronic change will go in the direction of the unmarked option, and in the presence of less and less evidence to the contrary, the simpler structure will be attributed to all instantiations of the construction. In this particular case, the radical increase in absolute participles will in the end limit the input evidence for agreement between the participle and the matrix clause to such a degree that this will be in the end unlearnable to future generations of language learners.

From participles to gerunds 

So, in the case of the participle > gerund evolution, language change can be seen to be inherently connected with language acquisition (for this cf. Kroch 2001). The change will not affect passive participles in the same way, as, due to their resultative meaning (Haspelmath 1994), they will much more frequently modify nouns than verbs, and will thus occur much less frequently in adverbial function.

. From participle to gerund In more detail, the evolution from participle to gerund can be viewed as a three-stage process. In the first, initial, stage, adverbial participles have an agreement requirement with a term in the main clause, usually the subject but not necessarily so. The alternative of the absolute participle exists in AG, even when the participial subject is co-referential to a term in the clause; so a “more economical” equivalent was already in place in the language. In step II, the agreement requirement with the matrix clause is dropped, something which is mirrored in the radical increase of absolute participles. In this step, the participial clause is independent, and thus equivalent to an infinitival or subordinate clause. In this connection, one should mention the view of Mandilaras (1973: 352– 373), according to which the indeclinability of the active participle is caused by its confusion with the infinitive. He provides a considerable amount of evidence for an interchange of functions between infinitive and participle in the non-literary papyri. Examples include prepositional participles instead of prepositional infinitives, (34a), participles as complements of verbs which in AG were construed with the infinitive, (34b), and infinitive as complement of verbs which in AG were construed with the participle, (34c): (34) a.

Dia to eme metrio:s ekhonta. for the.acc.sg.neut I.acc.sg mediocrely having.acc.sg.masc.act ‘Because I am in mediocre health.’ (P. Lips.108.5–6, 3rd c. AD) b. Sy ikanos e: you.nom.sg capable.nom.sg.masc be.2sg dioiko:n. managing.nom.sg.masc.act ‘You are capable of managing.’ (P. Cair.Zen.59060.11, 257 BC) c. Tynkhaneis ekhein. happen.2sg have.inf.pres ‘You happen to have.’ (P. Grenf.ii.57.8, 168 AD)

Of course, none of the “interchanged” constructions appearing in the papyri are found later, i.e., articular participles are very rare,27 and there are no verbs which prefer the participial over the AG infinitival syntax; however, there are several verbs which prefer the infinitival over the AG participial syntax (cf. Jannaris 1897: 493), something which goes hand-in-hand with the general reduction in the uses of the participle. What is

 Io Manolessou

more, the infinitive was also undergoing change and weakening in the same period. Especially the declarative infinitive (corresponding to oti (‘that’) complement clauses), had all but disappeared by the beginning of the medieval period, when the first instances of the gerund appear (cf. Jannaris 1897: 572–574; Mackridge 1997). Thus the confusion of participle and infinitive cannot have been the cause, but the result of the evolution of the former into the gerund. An additional indication of the break-down of agreement between the matrix and the participial clause are the multiple examples of faulty agreement of the participle with the constituent immediately adjacent to it, and an indication of the more clearly verbal status of the participle is its use in conjunction with a finite form (for both phenomena cf. Section 2.3). Step III. If the participle is a non-finite verbal element independent from the matrix clause, it need have no agreement at all – therefore, its form becomes fixed, in the form most frequently used. It is here that morphological considerations can play a role: not to motivate the freezing of a form, but to explain which specific shape it will take. In this respect, one should bear in mind the evolutions described in Section 3 for Romance and Slavic: in each case, it was a different case-form of the present active participle that constituted the origin of the gerund; in some cases it was the nominative, in others the oblique form. The [-onta] ending had by then become the most frequent one because: (a) it was an accusative ending, and the accusative was by far the most common case, as it became more and more the default oblique case, due to the loss of the dative and the restriction of the genitive to adnominal usages (Horrocks 1997: 122); (b) conjoined participles, if oblique, would almost never be co-referent with a non-primary term in the clause, such as an indirect object or a participial complement (cf. Whaley 1990); and (c) the [-onta] ending had spread to the neuter singular as well, as described in 2.3. On a more speculative level, considering the fact that the consonant-stem 3rd declension was passing over to the a-stem 1st declension due to its formal identity with it in the accusative case (cf. Hatzidakis 1892: 379–380), even the participial genitive ending, could, at some point in the Medieval period, have changed from [-ontos] to [-onta], which would then be the unique oblique ending of a 1st declension form. The example below, could, e.g., be interpreted as an absolute participle in the genitive case, (35): (35) Sy autos panta hyperthemenos e:ke, ekeinu: to you.nom.sg self everything putting.aside come, he.gen.sg the son ergon poiu:nta. your work doing.acc.sg.masc.act ‘Put everything aside and come yourself, letting him do your work.’ (P.Oxy.120, 4th c. AD) Another potential piece of evidence for the existence of absolute genitive participles in [-onta] is the existence of gerunds with genitive subjects in MedG and contemporary MG dialects such as Cypriot and Cretan, as in (20) and (21).

From participles to gerunds 

A further contributing factor in the preference for the [-onta] oblique ending must have been the final vowel -a, which is an ending characteristic of adverbs: superlative (arista ‘best’, takhista ‘fastest’) and irregular adverbs (mala ‘well’) end in -a since AG times, and this form becomes generalised for all adverbs in the early MedG period.28 The external similarity of the oblique masculine (and neuter) participle to an adverb must have promoted the possibility of its being interpreted as an uninflected adverbial modifier (for this view cf. Hatzidakis 1928 and Horrocks 1997: 123). The adverbial interpretation of the participle was strengthened by the fact that, as was discussed in 2.2, it is possible, since the time of the Koine, to observe a gradual limitation in the uses of the participle – though not in its frequency –, as some of its meanings are gradually replaced by finite subordinate clauses.29 In any case, the adverbial use is considered, in standard Grammars, to be the main function of the participle even from AG times (Schwyzer 1950: 387). Summing up, the change from participle to gerund could be interpreted, for all the languages involved, as originating in the domain of the adverbial participle: this was first analysed as an independent participial clause without reference to the matrix clause, fulfilling its agreement requirement in a local domain, and then as a non-finite, exclusively verbal non-agreeing element, fixed in the most frequently appearing form.

. Implications for syntactic theory The above account of the consecutive stages in the evolution of the gerund and the motivation behind it have repercussions on our conception of gerundival and participial syntax. The discussion does not aim to innovate in current views of Verb Phrase structure. Rather, it aims to tabulate the implications of the historical research conducted above for the extant proposals concerning the representation of MG gerunds (Rivero 1994; Tsoulas 1996; Tsimpli 2000; Sitaridou & Haidou 2002), and to constitute a stepping stone for further theoretical elaboration on this topic.

. The status and external syntax of MG gerunds The structural position standardly assumed for gerund clauses is that of adjuncts to one of the verbal projections of the matrix clause, e.g. VP or IP (Tsoulas 1996: 445; Spyropoulos & Philippaki 2001: 157; Pires to appear) or even CP (Tsokoglou & Kleidi 2002: 279). On the other hand, an analysis of gerunds as adverbial modifiers in line with current analyses of adverbs such as Alexiadou (1997) allows one to capture the connection between gerunds and adverbs on the one hand, and participles and adjectives on the other in a more systematic way. According to Alexiadou (1997), adverbs and adjectives are in reality manifestations of one and the same category, with standard similarities and differences. The adverbial ending -ly (or MG -a, -os) is in reality an agreement marker with the verb,

 Io Manolessou

equivalent to the case endings of the adjective, which mark agreement with the noun. A corresponding situation obtains with gerunds and participles in MG, i.e., the description proposed for the nominal domain can also apply to the verbal one: the participle can be informally termed as the “verbal adjective”, and the gerund as the “verbal adverb”, with the ending [-ontas] being interpreted as an agreement marker with the verb. In more detail: Adjectives and adverbs form a single category. The category A can be realised either as an adjective or an adverb, depending on its location. Thus, if it is located in a verbal Specifier (Tense, Aspect etc., according to meaning) it is an Adverb. If it is located in a nominal functional Specifier (which hosts the agreement features of the noun phrase), it is an adjective. Both realisations of A enter into Spec-Head relationships with the corresponding lexical head, V or N, resulting in the first case in the licensing of the adverbial ending and in the other in agreement with the noun. Correspondingly, gerunds and participles also form a single category, which will differ in realisation according to its location. Location in a verbal specifier entails that the element is a gerund, whereas location in a nominal specifier entails that the element is an attributive participle. Both realisations of this category will enter into Spec-Head relationships with the corresponding lexical head, resulting, in the case of participles, in full nominal Agreement, and for gerunds in the checking of the agreement ending [-ontas]. On the contrary, the AG-type adverbial participles are (as discussed in Section 4) located in a verbal specifier, where a Spec-Head relationship with a lexical head is unavailable and they thus require a more complex mechanism to ensure agreement. As far as language history is concerned, the developments can be seen as a re-analysis of the adverbial participle, interpreted as a verbal element not requiring agreement, an evolution which avoids a situation where a lexical category has mixed nominal and verbal characteristics.

. The internal structure of Passive Participles There is doubt in the literature concerning whether Passive Participles are derived syntactically or lexically (cf. mainly Laskaratou & Philippaki 1984). In the former case, there is uncertainty concerning the number and nature of functional projections constituting them. The historical overview, showing as it does a drive towards an unambiguously nominal status, argues in favour of the lexical derivation of Passive Participles in certain cases, i.e., without an articulated internal verbal structure, since there is clear evidence for the loss of all verbal categories (Tense, Aspect, Voice). Thus, in the case of so-called “lexical” passives (for terminology and criteria of differentiation cf. Anagnostopoulou 2001), all functional verbal projections, including Voice, should be absent. This is evidenced by the existence of unaccusative and unergative “perfect participles”, which, crucially, started to appear only in the Medieval period, when the split between the “verbal” gerund and the “nominal” participle took place.30

From participles to gerunds 

However, since not all perfect participles have the same stative interpretation, a more articulated verbal structure, which includes a Voice and an Aspect Phrase, should perhaps still be accepted for other instantiations of this form, along the lines proposed by Anagnostopoulou (2001), mainly for cases where the participle is accompanied by a Prepositional Phrase expressing the agent or an adverb expressing manner/time, i.e., in environments where the verbal, eventive reading of the participle is still possible.

. The internal structure of gerunds Viewing the verb phrase top down, the historical evidence speaks against the postulation of a CP projection for gerunds. This was already proposed by Tsimpli (2000: 143– 144), reviewing previous literature on the topic (Tsoulas 1996 and PhilippakiWarburton 1995). Her arguments were purely synchronic, namely that gerunds (a) cannot be introduced by conjunctions, (b) disallow operator movement (e.g. extraction of wh-phrases),31 (c) resist nominalisation and (d) do not provide a landing position for topics and dislocated elements. Apart from these crucial arguments, the historical data also supports the rejection of a CP projection. As described in Section 2.1 above, AG participles were frequently introduced by complementisers, i.e., causal, final etc. conjunctions. This possibility gradually disappeared, and thus we have not only theoretical but also tangible evidence of the loss of the CP projection.32 Furthermore, if one adopts the proposal of interpretation of gerunds as adverbs along the lines proposed by Alexiadou (1997), there is no need to posit a CP projection responsible for their semantic interpretation (temporal, causal etc.) through a covert operator, as Tsoulas (1996) suggests. The interpretation of gerunds is identical to that of adverbs: it depends on the functional verbal specifier they are located in. As a final point, the inability of MG gerunds to occupy argument positions can also be connected with their lack of a CP projection: CP has often been argued to be responsible for turning the verb phrase into a sentence, capable of occurring as a complement; this is the equivalent of noun phrase syntax, where only full DPs can be arguments (cf. Longobardi 1994).33 The issue of the existence of a Tense projection in Greek gerunds is harder to discuss, mainly because tense has a quite complex structure and is not a simple propositional operator, and also because its relationship to Aspect is not entirely clear; it can thus not be represented as just one projection responsible for the temporal interpretation of the clause. Furthermore, since Tense phrases are standardly viewed as the locus where subjects check case, this projection is closely connected with the licencing of subjects in clausal gerunds. Tsimpli (2000: 142) takes the gerunds’ context-dependency for temporal interpretation, as well as their inability to express Future, as evidence of lack of a proper Tense projection; on the other hand, context-dependency for temporal interpretation is not sufficient for the rejection of a Tense Phrase. Here a distinction should be made between null subject, obligatory control gerunds on the one hand, and nominative subject gerunds on the other. For the first type, the relevant literature in other lan-

 Io Manolessou

guages accepts the absence of a Tense projection,34 and the same claim is made for Greek (Sitaridou & Haidou 2002: 585). Nominative subject clausal gerunds, however, require some device for the licensing of their subject. For Sitaridou-Haidou (2002) this device is a Tense projection, bearing semantic but not morphological tense, where the gerundival subject ends up after movement out of the VP. Its presence as a separate projection is supported by the co-occurrence of temporal adverbs with gerunds, (36): (36) Pernontas xθes o Kostas to ðromo, ton xtipise crossing yesterday the Kostas.nom the street, he.acc.sg hit.aor.3sg ena aftocinito. a car.nom ‘As Costas was crossing the street yesterday, a car hit him.’ It is true that movement of the subject from VP to the postulated TP would be invisible in most gerund phrases, as e.g. in the example above, although the subject is almost always post-verbal in MG gerunds.35 This surface order can be seen as the result of movement of the gerund to a higher projection, past the subject. However, in perfective gerunds, a subject having moved to a Tense projection should precede perfective infinitival forms (located in Aspect), something which does not happen; the subject follows all the modifiers of the gerund, i.e., does not seem to have moved at all, cf. (37): (37) Exontas pjia vareθi i Maria, aftoktonise. having already had.enough the Mary.nom, kill.oneself.aor.3sg ‘Having had enough by now, Mary killed herself.’ Word order data therefore speak against a TP as the host of the subject in gerunds. Furthermore, without conclusive independent motivation for the projection of TP in certain types of gerunds (even in not disjoint temporal interpretation), it is difficult to explain why, in identical environments, TP is sometimes projected and sometimes not. A further problem with Tense in MG gerunds appears when one considers the evolution set forth in Section 2, which shows clearly that there are morphological reflexes of the reduction of tense in MG gerunds. In the Medieval period, it was possible to express anteriority/perfectivity through a special “aoristic/perfective” form, which later disappeared. The absence of a TP in MG gerunds would be one way of explaining why perfective gerunds such as vlepsontas, γrapsontas (‘having seen’, ‘having written’) are no longer possible, as in MedG or the S. Italian dialects. Similarly, futurity is another temporal interpretation that was available for participles/gerunds in earlier phases of the language, but is impossible in MG. In Hellenistic (Mayser 1926: 170) and MedG it was possible to express posteriority/futurity/finality through an imperfective form modifying verbs denoting motion, (38): (38) a.

Na apelθomen eðo is tin Romanian kursevonta, zimiononta. sub come.1pl here to the Romania plundering, destroying ‘To come here, to Greece, in order to plunder and destroy.’ (Chr. M.3648)

From participles to gerunds 

b. O Anθenor eðievike tus θeus proskinonta. the Anthenor.nom go.aor.3sg the gods.acc.pl doing.homage ‘Antenor went to do homage before the gods.’ (War of Troy 1489) This usage has disappeared in MG, even though the form of the gerund has not changed. Positing, therefore, an identical functional structure for earlier and later forms of the gerund cannot capture this differentiation. On the other hand, nominative case licensing in gerunds does require an explanation, which is most readily furnished by the postulation of a TP, as Sitaridou and Haidou (2002), and Pires (2001, to appear) propose. Earlier proposals, such as default nominative case for gerund subjects (Philippaki & Katsimali 1995; Alexiadou 1995; also accepted in Tsokoglou & Kleidi 2002) face the difficulty that they constitute a Greek-specific solution, although exceptions to subject control in gerunds are not a Greek-specific phenomenon: they occur in several languages, often dismissed as nonnormative by standard grammars (Haspelmath 1995: 30) or belonging to an earlier historical phase (Babby & Franks 1998: 487; Egerland 1999). Furthermore, Torrego’s (1998) study on adverbial infinitive clauses in several Romance languages shows that other non-finite forms in adverbial function may also exhibit nominative subjects. Turning now to less complex issues, on the basis of the historical evidence, a case can be made for the projection of the other verbal categories, namely Voice, Mood and Aspect. Voice, first of all, as was discussed in 2.4.2, is the main distinguishing characteristic of the gerund, which is unambiguously active, and the participle, which is not exclusively passive. As for Aspect, the process of evolution has shown that aspectual distinctions were lost, along with temporal ones; however, the 20th c. saw their re-establishment, with the novel evolution of periphrastic active and passive Perfect gerunds (exo γrapsi, exo γrafθi). The developments examined in 2.6 above, with the creation of the new perfective gerund forms both for the active and the passive voice, show that a category “Aspect”, hosting a gerundival form of the auxiliary verb, does indeed exist in MG, contrasting with the previous periods. Tsimpli (2000: 146) terms this category “PerfP”, considering it a functional projection containing “aspectual features”, while Rivero (1994) terms it simply Aspect Phrase; so, terminological distinctions aside, the recent literature seems to agree on the existence of an aspectual projection.36 The projection of a Mood Phrase in MG gerunds and its exact location is more controversial. For Philippaki (1995), the [-ontas] ending is a suffix belonging to an Agreement projection and not to Mood, because its placement in MoodP, which occurs above Negation, should block the occurrence of negative gerunds (mi γrafontas), something which does not happen. For Rivero (1994) and Roussou (2000: 86–88), Mood exists, but located below negation, and for Tsimpli (2000), the [-ontas] suffix belongs in Mood, but the surface word order is due to the raising of the Negation µην to Mood. Remaining agnostic on the question of the relative order of NegP and MP, what must be pointed out is that the very fact that gerunds are negated by min is an indi-

 Io Manolessou

cation of the existence of a Mood projection. Note crucially that this is a diachronic evolution, as in previous phases the Negation u: or ðen was also possible: AG participles allowed both kinds of negation, depending on the type of participle, and this was to a certain extent maintained in MedG as well, (39):37 U poseos to sinolon θelonta tu neg drink.gen.sg the total.acc.sg wanting the.gen.sg.neut γefθine. taste.inf ‘Not wanting to taste any drink at all.’ (Digenis G 4.381) b. ðen eγnorizontas o trisaθlios pjios ine. neg knowing the triply.miserable.nom who.nom be.3sg ‘Not knowing, the triply miserable, who it is.’ (Kechagioglou 2001: 316, 1632 AD)

(39) a.

It seems therefore that some syntactic mechanism is required in MG in order to account for the selection of the negation min.

. Conclusions This paper gives a detailed stage-by-stage exposition of the history of the Greek participle system. A new interpretation of gerund evolution is offered, taking into consideration (a) similar phenomena in other languages, showing that the transformation of participle to gerund is a cross-linguistically well-attested evolutionary path and (b) corresponding evolutions in the domain of the passive participle. Gerund evolution is viewed under the perspective of a gradual specialisation of an originally mixed category, possessing both verbal and nominal features, as a purely verbal category. Similarly, the evolution from passive participle to participial adjective is interpreted as the gradual specialisation of the same mixed category as a purely nominal one. The motivation behind the evolution to gerund is partly attributed to the complex agreement requirements of the adverbial participle. Finally, the implications of the diachronic data for our conception of participial syntax are discussed.

Notes * I would like to dedicate this paper to Prof. Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou, who was my first teacher in linguistics, my supervisor on behalf of the Greek State Scholarships Foundation, and, more importantly, my first model of scholarly integrity. I would also like to thank Profs. Despina Cheila-Markopoulou and Amalia Moser and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on this paper. . This development concerns only Standard MG; some dialects have followed diverging paths, which range from extension of the active participle to Present tense periphrases (Tsakonian)

From participles to gerunds 

to its total elimination (Asia Minor dialects) – for this cf. Mirambel (1961: 70–77) and Nakas (1991: 188–189). . The English gerund has a double status, both nominal (“the giving of gifts”) and verbal (“I hate giving gifts”) – for an overview of current treatments of this “mixed” status cf. Hudson (2000). On the contrary, the MG form has no nominal features, corresponding rather to the French gérondif. In more detail, the MG gerund does not possess any of the following properties (from Blevins 1994): (a) nominal inflection- genitive and plural forms (b) argumental function (subject, object, predicate) (c) determination through articles (d) adnominal modifiers such as genitive DPs. The MG gerund is uninflected and takes only verbal complements – nominative subjects, accusative objects and adverbial modifiers, cf. the references in Section 2.7. In this respect, Moser (2002: 111) is correct in doubting the applicability of the term “gerund” to the MG form; its is maintained here because of the wider cross-linguistic scope of the discussion. . Mainly: Jannaris (1897: 504–506), Hatzidakis (1924, 1927, 1928), Mirambel (1961), Mandilaras (1973: 352–373), Horrocks (1997: 120–124, 228–229). . Works treating AG participles (Mugler 1938; Oguse 1962; cf. also Jimenez 1987 and the references in Schwyzer 1950: 385) do not provide the kind of quantitative information that would be helpful to the present investigation. Also, large-scale computerised tagging of AG texts does not exist, and for later texts nothing is at all available, with the exception of the New Testament. Studies on the NT sometimes also provide comparative data for AG authors; cf. e.g. Fisher (1989). . For morphology and inflection paradigms cf. Smyth (1965: 81–85). The AG participle has separate forms for Present, Aorist, Future and Perfect. The difference between Present and Aorist is not temporal, but aspectual (imperfective vs. perfective). If one interprets the Perfect as also expressing aspect, and the Future as belonging to the field of modality, it could be argued that the AG participle does not have tense. . The term “spoken language” requires some qualification. It is generally accepted that AG literature is mostly written in literary dialects or in an high register, not representative of everyday spoken language. However, it is possible to find testimonies of colloquial language in certain types of texts – cf. Dover (1987) for examples. The medical treatises discussed here, written in a non-literary, factual prose style, are usually considered as containing a higher concentration of colloquial features than standard literature. . Gignac (1981: 46–47), Horrocks (1997: 66–67), cf. also Note 15 below for the reverse phenomenon. . Note that our evidence for this period comes almost exclusively from Egyptian papyri, mostly written by non-native speakers, whose command of the language may have been imperfect; so the picture emerging from participle use in papyri may not be representative of Greek in general, esp. since neither case nor adverbial participles exist in Egyptian (Schwyzer 1950: 386; Loprieno 1995: 55–56, 87). . Cf. Mandilaras (1973: 356–358, 369), Mayser (1934: 67–70), and Soliman (1965: 103–105) for the papyri, de Foucault (1972: 173) for the literary Koine and esp. Blass and Debrunner (1961: 423) for the NT: “The NT authors tend to make the participial clause independent and to prefer the absolute construction. . . where a classical author would not have admitted it even as a special license.” . Mendez-Dosuna (2000: 290–291) adduces another reason to consider the [-onta] ending as stemming from the masculine: gerunds are mainly subject oriented, and so are more likely to

 Io Manolessou

have developed out of masculines, which have higher agentivity than neuters. An anonymous reviewer has suggested that the analogical presence in [-onta] forms of the final [-n] of the acc. sg. which appears in other masc. inflectional paradigms would provide additional proof that these are masculine forms. Such cases do exist (e.g. fenome kaθaran amfierosin. . . piontan = “I declare I am making a clear dedication”, Guillou Oppido, doc.24, 1053); however, the presence of the final [-n] is not significant, since in MedG there was a tendency for it to extend to any wordclass ending in a vowel, including neuter nouns (e.g. praγman, γramman), cf. Minas (1994: 62), Jannaris (1897: 544). . List of the examples in Malalas in Wolf (1911: 54), additional instances in Hatzidakis (1892: 144) and Jannaris (1897: 207); cf. also Gelzer (1893: 198), Reinhold (1898: 57–58, Addenda), Mitsakis (1967: 158–159). Note that instances of the [-onta] ending often do not appear in the text of the edition of such early texts, but only in the apparatus criticus. This makes them difficult to locate, as they will not be mentioned in any index or introduction and, more importantly, will never be hit upon by a computer search, even when a machine-readable version the text exists. . CD-ROM PHI #7, Greek Documentary Texts, Packard Humanities Institute: [-onta] in CHR0013 (Christian inscriptions of mainland Greece) and CHR0010 (Christian inscriptions of Asia Minor). . One example of an [-onta] masculine participle occurs in Malalas, 29.43: jynekoðis exon frenas ce polypraγmonunta (= having.nom.sg. masc a female mind and being-meddlesome.acc. sg.masc.), cf. Wolf 1911.II.28. However, in opposition to the neuter [-onta] forms, which appear in equal proportion with the “correctly” inflected forms in this text, this masculine participle is an isolated case, contrasting with hundreds of “correct” forms, and could thus be considered as a scribal intervention. There is also the single example of a feminine form in [-onta] in the NT, ikusa fonin mian. . . leγonta Apoc.9.13–4 (= I heard one voice.acc.sg.fem. . . saying.acc.sg.masc, but (a) there are variant readings with the feminine form (Blass & Debrunner 1961: §136 n.3) and (b) this need not be a gerund form, but an agreeing participle, i.e., a simple case of a masculine form instead of a feminine one, as occurs several times in the Revelation (4.1, 5.12, 11.15 etc.). So Hatzidakis (1928: 636) correctly rejects this example as the earliest instance of the gerund. . It is thus a misconception to consider early, Hellenistic, forms of a non-agreeing participle in [-ontas] as first attestations of the MG situation, since the [-s] suffix on the [-onta] ending appears only during the later MedG period. So, the examples quoted by Mandilaras (1973: 358) following Kapsomenakis (1938: 40) are not early precursors of the MG gerund: pantes ofilomen stefaniforuntas ce vuθituntas. . . iðene P.Oxy.1021.14–8, 54 AD, kata ton polemon symmaçisantes ce panijirizontas P.Oxy.705.33–5 (200 AD). These are nominative plural endings, a hypercorrect reaction against the [-es] ending which had begun to replace [-as] in the accusative, and are thus unrelated to the history of the participle. . Note crucially that Haspelmath (1994) considers that the formation of past passivemorphology participles from active-form intransitive and unaccusative verbs is a universal tendency, due to the resultative semantics associated with such verbs. . Cf. Minas (1994: 176–177) for examples of complement and attributive use in MedG S. Italian documents. . The Aorist ending being reformed from [-anta] to [-onta] under the analogical influence of the Present.

From participles to gerunds  . Thus, in the northern dialects, the vestiges of the present participle in [-amenos] and [-umenos] are exclusively attributive or substantivised: l’paminus ‘compassionate’ (< lipame ‘to be sorry’), ixuminus ‘rich’ (< exo ‘to have’), pirazaminus ‘passer-by’ (< perno ‘to pass’) etc. (Papadopoulos 1926: 96–97), and the same is valid for the Cypriot and the Rhodian dialects as well (Menardos 1925a: 66–67; Papachristodoulou 1958: 75–76). . Pace Tsoulas (1996) who accepts argumental readings. Examples like θimiθika ton Kosta oðiγontas to aftocinito (1996: 462) can only mean ‘I remembered Costas as I was driving’ and not ‘I remembered Costas driving’. For this cf. the discussion in Spyropoulos and PhilippakiWarburton (2001: 158). . The participial clauses in [-omenos] proposed in Tsokoglou and Kleidi (2002) are a different case: they concern not the resultative passive past participles discussed here, but relic present passive participles such as erxomenos, erγazomenos, which constitute a small non-productive subset within MG. . For this cf. in detail: Svennung (1935: 425–432), Leumann, Hoffmann and Szantyr (1965: 383–384, 389, 392) and, more recently, Bauer (1993) and Egerland (1999). . Cf. Ambrazas (1990: 261): “Die Partizipien, die eine verallgemeinerte adverbiale Bedeutung genommen haben, lösen sich ganz vom Kasusparadigm und gewinnen die für Adverbien typische unflektierte Form”. . All the languages examined here belong to the Indo-European family; in order to ascertain whether the phenomenon appears in other families as well, further research is required. Cf. for example Gordon (1982: 3), who, examining the history of the Hebrew participle claims that it “undergoes polarization; from an intermediate form with some nominal and some verbal qualities in Biblical Hebrew, it develops to become, in Modern Hebrew, either clearly nominal or clearly verbal in any given sense”. . Cf. Tsokoglou and Kleidi (2002) on the cases of adjective agreement within participial clauses in MG, where it is argued that such agreement is achieved not structurally, but through co-reference with the subject PRO which is in turn co-referent with the matrix subject: a multistep semantic path. . A potential solution would be to consider, following Torrego (1998), that the subjects of non-finite forms displaying agreement (in her case, mostly inflected infinitives) are not PRO but pro. However, pro is inherently nominative in Torrego’s examples, something that is not valid for AG participial subjects. . From another viewpoint as well, the AG participle is a much more marked construction than the gerund: it possesses overt features belonging both to the nominal and to the verbal domain, whereas the gerund is a purely verbal category. The evolution of the passive participle towards adjectivisation can also be viewed under the perspective of a marked “mixed” category evolving into a purely nominal one. . There are some examples in the apocryphal Gospels, e.g. ðia to mi ekðoton emaftin piisasa Acta Thomae 215.21, Ljungvik (1926: 55), but these disappear in later texts, and indeed the articular infinitive is a very productive construction in MedG; cf. Mackridge (1997) for details of this construction. . For this cf. Hatzidakis (1892: 52 Anm.3), Jannaris (1897: §518b). . See also Kurzova (1997) who views the replacement of the participle through finite clauses within the general framework of a change from a system of paratactic adjuncts to one of clearly defined subordination.

 Io Manolessou . The split evolution of active gerund vs. non-active (not just passive) participle lends credibility to recent proposals (Kratzer 1996; Arad 1999) concerning the status of external arguments, which are argued to belong to a Voice projection and not to the VP proper. The Greek gerund, being a verbal category, can be interpreted as possessing the category Voice, which thus licenses an Agent; the gerund is therefore active. The participle, on the other hand, having lost all verbal categories, has no Voice and no external argument. Therefore, any verb which is not active (be it passive, unaccusative or unergative) might form “passive participles”. . Cf. similar tests in Stowell (1982) for English. . The arguments in Katsimali (2003) against the existence of a CP projection in AG participial clauses are dubious: the fact that AG adverbial participles are not accompanied by complementisers introducing object clauses, such as hoti or hina, is due to their meaning and their function in the clause, and not to the absence of a CP projection. Furthermore, the optional appearance of a complementiser does not entail the absence of a CP projection, as e.g. in the English complement clauses optionally introduced by that. . In the latest papers asserting the existence of CP in Greek gerunds (Roussou 2000 and, following her, Sitaridou & Haidou 2002), the projection argued for is in fact a kind of Mood projection and has no bearing on the discussion in the present paragraph. Cf. also Pires (to appear) for additional arguments (involving indirect questions and complementisers) against a CP projection in English clausal gerunds. . Cf. Alexandrova (1995) for Bulgarian, Babby and Franks (1998) for Russian, Pires (2001) for English. The seminal discussion of Stowell (1982) also argues against a Tense projection in gerunds, based on the internally determined future interpretation of infinitives as compared with the “completely malleable” temporal interpretation of the gerund, which is determined externally by the semantics of the control verb. The opposite view is defended in Tsokoglou and Tsimpli (2002), who argue in favour of a TP projection in MG gerunds based on examples with independent temporal adverbs, e.g. Fevγontas noris simera to proi, θa ise sto Parisi avrio ‘Leaving early this morning, you’ll be in Paris tomorrow’. . The exceptions are topicalised or focused subjects, cf. Rivero (1994). . Cf. Moser (2002) for the most recent account of the semantics of aspect in MG gerunds. . For participle negation in Classical and Hellenistic Greek cf. Moorhouse (1948), and for later developments cf. Jannaris (1897: 430–432), Landsman (1988–1989: 26) and references cited therein.

References Aerts, W. J. (1965). Periphrastica. Amsterdam: A. Hakkert. Alexandrova, G. (1995). Participial clauses in Bulgarian, Italian and Spanish: Argument structure, agreement and case. In K. Zagona (Ed.), Grammatical Theory and the Romance Languages. Selected papers from the 25th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XXV) Seattle, 2–4 March 1995 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 133] (pp. 1–12). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A. (1995). Subject positions in Modern Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 16, 242– 253.

From participles to gerunds 

Alexiadou, A. (1997). Adverb Placement: A case study in antisymmetric syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou (1999). Tests for unaccusativity in a language without tests for unaccusativity. In A. Moser (Ed.), Greek Linguistics ’97. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Greek language (pp. 23–31). Athens: Ellinika Grammata. Ambrazas, V. (1990). Vergleichende Syntax der baltischen Partizipien. Vilnius: Academy of Sciences, Inst. of Language and Literature. Anagnostopoulou, E. (2001). On the distinction between verbal and adjectival passives: Evidence from Greek. Paper presented at the Tübingen Workshop on Participles. Arad, M. (1999). On little v. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 33, 1–25. Babby, L. & S. Franks (1998). The syntax of Adverbial Participles in Russian Revisited. Slavic and East European Journal, 42(3), 483–515. Bauer, B. (1993). The coalescence of the participle and the gerund/gerundive: An integrated change. In H. Aertsen & R. J. Jeffers (Eds.), Historical Linguistics 1989 (pp. 59–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Blass, F. & A. Debrunner (1961). A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Transl. by R. W. Funk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beshevliev, V. (1963). Die protobulgarischen Inschriften. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Bees, N. (1910). Über die Konstruktion von diaferein (gehören) mit dem Genetiv. Glotta, 2, 118–124 & 300. Blevins, J. (1994). A lexicalist analysis of gerundive nominals in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 14, 1–38. Browning, R. (1983). Medieval and Modern Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cheila-Markopoulou, D. (2003). Protasiakotita ce metoçices ðomes stin aleksanðrini ce meseonici ellinici (Sentence and participial structure in Hellenistic and Medieval Greek). In D. Theophanopoulou-Kontou et al. (Eds.), Sinxrones tasis stin ellinici γlosoloγia. Meletes afieromenes stin Irini Philippaki-Warburton (Current trends in Modern Greek Linguistics. Studies dedicated to Irini Philippaki-Warburton) (pp. 128–143). Athens: Patakis. Dieterich, K. (1898). Untersuchungen zur Geschichte den griechishen Sprache von den hellenistischen Zeit bis zum 10. Jhrh. N. Chr [Byzantinisches Archiv, Heft 1]. Leipzig: Teubner. Dover, K. J. (1987). The colloquial stratum in classical Attic prose. In K. J. Dover, Greek and the Greeks, Collected papers (Vol. 1) (pp. 16–30). Oxford: Blackwell. Egerland, V. (1999). Sulla sintassi delle costruzioni assolute participiali e gerundive nell’ italiano antico ed il concetto di anacoluto. Revue Romane, 34(2), 181–204. de Foucault, J. A. (1972). Recherches sur la langue et le style de Polybe. Paris: Belles Lettres. Fisher, W. F. (1989). The Participle in the Greek Pentateuch: A descriptive analysis and comparison to New Testament usage. Ph.D. Dissertation, SW Baptist Theological Seminary. Frisk, H. (1928). Participium und verbum finitum im Spätgriechischen. Glotta, 17, 56–66. Gelzer, H. (1893). Leontios von Neapolis, Leben des heiligen Iohannes des Barmherzigen, Erzbischofs von Alexandrien. Freiburg: Akademische Verlagsbuchhandlung. Giakoumaki, E. (1993). Iðiazuses sintaksis rimaton tis kriticis ðialektu (Special syntax of verbs in the Cretan dialect). Lexicografikon Deltion, 18, 39–53. Gignac, F. T. (1981). A Grammar of the Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Vol. II), Morphology. Milano: Cisalpino-Goliardica. Gordon, A. (1982). The development of the participle in Biblical, Mishnaic and Modern Hebrew. Afroasiatic Linguistics, 8(3), 122–179. Harris, M. (1978). The Evolution of French Syntax: A comparative approach. London: Longman.

 Io Manolessou

Haspelmath, M. (1994). Passive participles across languages. In B. Fox & P. J. Hopper (Eds.), Voice. Form and function (pp. 151–177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haspelmath, M. (1995). The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In M. Haspelmath & E. König (Eds.), Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – adverbial participles, gerunds (pp. 1–55). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hatzidakis, G. N. (1892). Einleitung in die Neugriechische Grammatik. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel. Hatzidakis, G. N. (1924). Paθitice metoçe meta enerγiticis simasias (Passive participles with active meaning). Athena, 36, 197–199. Hatzidakis, G. N. (1927). Peri tis metoçis tu paθitiku parakimenu en ti meseonici ce nea Ellinici (On the perfect passive participle in Medieval and Modern Greek). EEFSPTh, 1, 3–34. Hatzidakis, G. N. (1928). Simvoli is tin istorian tis ellinicis γlosis. Peri ton metoxon (Contribution to the history of the Greek language. On participles). Proceedings of the Academy of Athens, 3, 634–645. Hatzidakis, G. N. (1934). Parektetamena moria tis neas ellinicis (Suffixed particles of Modern Greek). In G. N. Hatzidakis, Γlosoloγice erevne A´ (pp. 223–226). Athens: Academy of Athens. Horrocks, G. (1997). Greek: A history of the language and its speakers. London: Longman. Hudson, R. (2000). Gerunds and multiple default inheritance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 12, 417–449. Hult, A. (1991). On the Development of the Present Active Participle in Bulgarian [Commentationes Slavicae Gothoburgenses 6]. Göteborg: University of Göteborg. Iordanidou, A. (1985). La diglossie en Grèce: Étude d’un cas précis, le participe. Ph.D. Dissertation, Université de Paris VII. Jannaris, G. (1897). An Historical Greek Grammar, Chiefly of the Attic Dialect. London: MacMillan. Jimenez, M. A. D. (1987). La distribucion de participio concertado y subordinada adverbial en la lengua literaria griega del s. V a.C. Emerita, 55(1), 51–62. Kapsomenakis, S. (1938). Voruntersuchungen zu einer Grammatik der griechischen Papyri. Beiträge zur Herstellung und Deutung einzelner Texten. München. Karanastasis, A. (1997). Γramatici ton elinikon iðiomaton tis Kato Italias (Grammar of the Greek dialects of Southern Italy). Athens: Academy of Athens. Karla, G. (2002). Metafrazontas metoçes se ðimoði loγo to 1600 (Translating participles in colloquial language in 1600). In P. Agapitos & M. Pieris (Eds.), T aiðonin cinon pu γlika θlivate. . . Acts of the 4th International Conference Neograeca Medii Aevi (November 1997, Nicosia) (pp. 185–205). Herakleion: Panepistimiakes Ekdoseis Kritis. Katsimali, G. (2003). Xalari ipotaksi. I periptosi tis metoçis se γenici apoliti (Loose subordination. The case of the genitive absolute participle). In D. TheophanopoulouKontou et al. (Eds.), Sinxrones tasis stin ellinici γlosoloγia. Meletes afieromenes stin Irini Philippaki-Warburton (pp. 144–157). Athens: Patakis. Katsoyannou, M. (1995). To rima sto eliniko iðioma tis Kalavrias (The verb in the Greek dialect of Calabria). Studies in Greek Linguistics, 15, 542–553. Kavˇciˇc, J. (2001). On the use of the participle functioning as a finite verbal form in the chronicle of John Malalas. Linguistica, 41, 77–92. Kechagioglou, G. (2001). Pezoγrafici anθoloγia. Afiγimatikos γraptos neoelinikos loγos (Prose Anthology. Narrative Modern Greek prose) Vol. 1. Thessaloniki: Manolis Triantafyllidis Foundation.

From participles to gerunds 

Keil, J. & A. Wilhelm (1931). Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua (Vol. III), Denkmäler aus dem Rauhen Kilikien. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Kester, H. P. (1994). EUROTRA Grammar: Adnominal participles and infinitives in Germanic and Romance languages. Torino: Edizioni dell’ Orso. Klaffenbach, G. (1933). Book review of Keil and Wilhelm (1931). Deutsche Literaturzeitung (12/3/1933), Heft, 11, 492–499. Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its head. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Kroch, A. (2001). Syntactic change. In M. Baltin & C. Collins, The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory (pp. 699–729). Oxford: Blackwell. Kühner, R. & C. Stegmann (1966). Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischer Sprache (Teil II, Satzlehre). Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung. Kurzova, H. (1997). Notes on Greek participial constructions. In E. Banfi (Ed.), Studi di linguistica greca II (pp. 107–127). Milano: Franco Angeli. Langholf, V. (1977). Unmovierte Partizipien im Griechischen. Hermes, 105, 290–307. Landsman, D. M. (1988–1989). The history of some Greek negatives: Phonology, grammar and meaning. Glossologia, 7–8, 13–31. Laskaratou, G. & I. Philippaki (1984). Lexical versus transformational passives in Modern Greek. Glossologia, 2–3, 99–109. Leumann, M., J. B. Hofmann, & A. Szantyr (1965). Lateinische Grammatik (Bd. 2), Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. München: Beck. Ljungvik, H. (1926). Studien zur Sprache der apokryphen Apostelgeschichten. Uppsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln. Lindstedt, J. (2002). Is there a Balkan verb system? Balkanistika, 15, 323–336. Longobardi, G. (1994). Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 609–665. Loprieno, A. (1995). Ancient Egyptian. A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mackridge, P. (1997). The medieval Greek infinitive in the light of dialectal evidence. In K. Konstantinides et al. (Eds.), ΦIΛEΛΛHN. Studies in honour of R. Browning (pp. 191–204). Venice: Istituto ellenico di studi bizantini e postbizantini. Mandilaras, B. (1973). The Verb in the Greek Non Literary Papyri. Athens: Ministry of Culture. Mayser, E. (1926). Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit (Bd.I, 1926), Formenlehre (Bd.II.2, 1934), Satzlehre (Bd.II.3, 1935). Berlin: De Gruyter. Menardos, S. (1925a). Peri tis ðiaθeseos ton cipriakon rimaton (On the the aspect of the Cypriot verb). EEFSPA, 1, 75–86. Menardos, S. (1925b). Cipriaci γramatici. Rimata (Cypriot Grammar. Verbs) Athena, 37, 35–79. Mendez-Dosuna, J. (2000). Book review of Horrocks (1997). Journal of Greek Linguistics, 1, 274– 295. Minas, K. (1994). I γlosa ton ðimosievmenon meseonikon elinikon engrafon tis Kato Italias ce Sicelias (The language of the published Medieval Greek documents of Southern Italy and Sicily). Athens: Academy of Athens. Mitsakis, K. (1967). The language of Romanos the Melodist. München: Beck. Mirambel, A. (1961). Participe et gérondif en grec medieval et moderne. Bulletin de la Societé Linguistique de Paris, 56, 46–79. Moorhouse, A. C. (1948). On negativing Greek participles, where the leading verbs are of a type to require µη´. Classical Quarterly, 42, 35–40.

 Io Manolessou

Moser, A. (1988). A History of the Greek Perfect Periphrases. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cambridge. Moser, A. (2002). Metoçes, γerunðia, -ontas. Xronos ce apopsi (Participles, gerunds, -ontas. Tense and aspect). In Ch. Clairis (Ed.), Recherches en linguistique grecque. Actes du 5e colloque international de linguistique grecque. Sorbonne, 13–15 Septembre 2001 (Vol. II) (pp. 111–114). Paris: L’Harmattan. Mugler, C. (1938). L’évolution des constructions participiales complexes en grec et en latin. Paris: Belles Lettres. Muñio Valverde, J.-L. (1995). El gerundio en el espanol medieval (s.XII– XIV). Malaga: Libreria Agora. Nakas, A. (1985). Metoçika, i pos xrisimopiun ti metoçi o Seferis, o Makrijianis, o Elitis (Participials, or how Seferis, Makrijianis and Elitis use the participle). In A. Nakas (Ed.), Γlosofiloloγika (pp. 136–174). Athens: Kalvos. Nakas, A. (1991). Γia ti metoçi ce to rimatiko epiθeto se -tos opos emfanizete stin Cini Nea Ellinici ce tis ðialektus (On the participle and the verbal adjective in -tos as it appears in Standard Modern Greek and its dialects). In B. A. Nakas (Ed.), Γlosofiloloγika (pp. 177–204). Athens: Smili. Oguse, A. (1962). Recherches sur le participe circonstanciel en grec ancien. Wetteren: Imprimerie Cultura. Papachristodoulou, Ch. (1958). Morfoloγia ton roðitikon iðiomaton (Morphology of the dialects of Rhodes). Dodekanisiakon Arxion, 3, 9–106. Papadopoulos, A. (1926). Γramatici ton vorion iðiomaton tis neas ellinicis γlosis (Grammar of the Northern dialects of the Modern Greek language). Athens: Sakellariou. Papadopoulos, Th. (1977). Nikolau Sofianu, γramatici tis cinis ton Ellinon γlosis (Nikolaos Sofianos, Grammar of Standard Modern Greek). Athens: Kedros. Petersmann, H. (1979). Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der motionslosen Partizipia im Griechischen. Die Sprache, 25, 144–166. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1995). Diaxronici θeorisi tis θesis ton englitikon mesa stin protasi (A diachronic overview of the position of clitis in the sentence). Studies in Greek Linguistics, 15, 123–134. Philippaki-Warburton, I. & G. Katsimali (1995). Control in Ancient Greek. In G. Drachman et al. (Eds.), Greek Linguistics ’95 (pp. 577–598). Salzburg. Pires, A. (2001). Clausal and TP-defective gerunds: Control without tense. Preceedings of NELS, 31, 389–406. Pires, A. (to appear). Clausal gerunds in minimalism. Univ. of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 12 (Special volume on Control and Binding). Reinhold, H. (1898). De graecitate patrum apostolicorum librorumque apocryphorum Novi Testamenti quaestiones grammaticae. Ph.D. Dissertation, Halle. Rivero, M.-L. (1994). Verb movement in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 12, 63–120. Roberts, I. & A. Roussou (2002). The history of the future. In D. Lightfoot (Ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change (pp. 23–56). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roussou, A. (2000). On the left periphery: Modal particles and complementisers. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 1, 65–94. Rupprecht, K. (1926). Zwei Probleme der griechischen Syntax. 1: Der Gebrauch maskuliner Formen bei Femininen. Philologus, 81(NF 35), 101–106. Rydå, S. (1988). Present and Aorist Participles in Contemporary Greek Newspapers (Dissertationes Neohellenicae Universitatis Stockholmiensis 2). Stockholm.

From participles to gerunds 

Schwyzer, E. (1942). Zum sog. genitivus absolutus statt participium coniunctum im Griechischen. Emerita, 10, 98–104. Schwyzer, E. (1950). Griechische Grammatik (Bd. II). München: Beck. Seiler, H.-J. (1958). Zur Systematik und Entwicklungsgeschichte der griechischen Nominaldeklination. Glotta, 37, 4–67. Setatos, M. (1985). Paratirisis sta rimatika epiθeta se -menos ce -tos tis Cinis Neas Ellinicis (Observations on the verbal adjectives in -menos and -tos in Standard Modern Greek). Studies in Greek Linguistics, 5, 73–87. Sitaridou, I. & K. Haidou (2002). I arçi tis nomimopiisis ton ipocimenon sta ellinika γerunðia (The licensing of subjects in Greek gerunds). Studies in Greek linguistics, 22, 583–592. Sklavounou, E. (2000). Ta epiθeta tis neoellinicis se -menos (The Modern Greek adjectives in -menos). Studies in Greek Linguistics, 20, 499–510. Smyth, H. W. (1956). Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Soliman, A. H. (1965). Xrisis tis γenicis en tis metaptolemaicis papiris (The use of the genitive in the postptolemaic papyri). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Athens. Spieker, E. H. (1885). On the so-called genitive absolute and its use especially in the Attic orators. American Journal of Philology, 6, 310–343. Spyropoulos, V. & I. Philippaki-Warburton (2001). “Subject” and EPP in Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 2, 149–186. Stowell, T. (1982). The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(3), 561–570. Svennung, J. (1935). Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur Lateinischen Fach- und Volkssprache. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells. Taube, M. (1981). Participe et gérondif en vieux russe. Folia Linguistica Historica, 2, 125–132. Torrego, E. (1998). Nominative subjects and pro-drop Infl. Syntax, 1–2, 206–219. Triantafyllidis, M. et al. (1941). Neolinici Gramatici tis Dimotikis (Modern Greek Grammar of the Demotic language). Athens: OESV. Tsoulas, G. (1996). Notes on temporal interpretation and control in Modern Greek gerunds. York Papers in Linguistics, 17, 441–470. Tsimpli, I.-M. (2000). Gerunds in Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 1, 131–169. Tsokoglou, A. & S. Kleidi (2002). I ðomes ton metoxon -ontas ce -menos (The structure of participles in -ontas and -menos). In Ch. Clairis (Ed.), Recherches en linguistique grecque. Actes du 5e colloque international de linguistique grecque. Sorbonne, 13–15 Septembre 2001 (Vol. II) (pp. 279–282). Paris: L’Harmattan. Tzartzanos, A. (1989). Neoelinici Sintaksis tis Cinis ðimotikis (Modern Greek Syntax of Standard Demotic). Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis (2nd edition). Vaillant, A. (1964). Manuel du vieux slave. Paris: Institut d’ Études Slaves. Weierholt, K. (1963). Studien im Sprachgebrauch des Malalas. Symb.Osl. Suppl.18, Oslo. Whaley, L. (1990). The effect of non-surface grammatical relations on the genitive absolute in Koine Greek. In K. Dziwirek et al. (Eds.), Grammatical Relations: A cross-theoretical perspective (pp. 457–472). Stanford: CSLI. Wolf, K. (1911–1912). Studien zur Sprache des Malalas (Vol. I & II). München: Straub.

Primary sources Acta Thomae: Bonnet, M. (Ed.). (1883). Acta Thomae. Leipzig: Mendelssohn. Apocalypses Apocryphae: Tischendorf, C. (Ed.). (1866). Apocalypses Apocryphae. Leipzig: Mendelssohn.

 Io Manolessou

Assizai: Sathas, K. N. (Ed.). (1877). Asize tu vasiliou ton Ierosolimon ce tis Cipru, Cipriaci nomi, vizandina simvolea, kritice diathice. Meseonici Vivliothici 6. Paris: Maisonneuve et Cie . BGU: Schubart, W. et al. (Eds.). (1895–). Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen (Staatlichen) Museen zu Berlin. Berlin. BGV: Legrand, E. (1880–1913). Bibliothèque Grecque Vulgaire. Paris: Maisonneuve. Chr. M.: Schmitt, J. (Ed.). (1904). The Chronicle of Morea. London: Methuen. Chr. Pasch.: Chronicon Paschale in J. P. Migne (Ed.), Patrologiae Graecae cursus completus, 92, 70–1023. Digenis E: Jeffreys, E. (Ed.). (1998). Digenis Akritis. The Grottaferatta and Escorial versions. Cambridge Medieval Classics 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Digenis G: Jeffreys, E. (Ed.). (1998). Digenis Akritis. The Grottaferatta and Escorial versions. Cambridge Medieval Classics 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ev. Matt: Evangelium secundum Matthaeum. In K. Aland et al. (Eds.). (19912 ): Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Evang. Thomae: Tischendorf, C. (Ed.). (1876). Evangelia Apocrypha, Leipzig, 140–163. Guillou, Messina: Guillou, A. (Ed.). (1963). Les actes grecs de S. Maria di Messina. Enquête sur les populations grecques de l’Italie du Sud (XI–XIVe sc.). Palermo: Istituto Siciliano di studi bizantini e neoellenici. Guillou, Oppido: Guillou, A. (Ed.). (1972). La Theotokos de Hagia-Agathe (Oppido) 1050–1064. Vatican: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana. Hp.Mul.: Hippocrates, Gynaikeia. Hp.Steril.: Hippocrates, Peri aphoro:n. Kallimachos: Pichard, M. (Ed.). (1956). Le Roman de Callimaque et de Chrysorrhoé. Paris: Belles Lettres. Leontios: Gelzer, H. (Ed.). (1893). Leontios von Neapolis, Leben des heiligen Iohannes des Barmherzigen, Erzbischofs von Alexandrien. Freiburg i.B. / Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsbuchhandlung von J. C. B. Mohr. Livistros E: Lambert, J. A. (Ed.). (1935). Le roman de Libistros et Rhodamné publié d’après les manuscrits de Leyde et de Madrid avec une introduction, des observations grammaticales et un glossaire. Amsterdam. Machairas: Dawkins, R. M. (Ed.). (1932). Leontios Makhairas. Recital concerning the Sweet Land of Cyprus entitled “Chronicle”. Vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Malalas: von Thurn, I. (Ed.). (2000): Ioannis Malalae Chronographia. Berlin: De Gruyter. P. Fay.: Grenfell, B. P. & A. S. Hunt (Eds.). (1900). Fayum Towns and their Papyri. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. P. Grenf.ii: Grenfell, B. P. & A. S. Hunt (Eds.). (1897). New Classical Fragments and oother Greek and Latin Papyri. Oxford: Clarendon Press. P. Lips.: Mitteis, L. (Ed.). (1906). Griechische Urkunden der Papyrussammlung zu Leipzig. Leipzig: Teubner. P.Cair.Zen.: Edgar, C. C. (Ed.). (1925–1951). Zenon papyri. Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut français d’archéologie. P.Giss: Eger, O., Kornemann, E., & Meyer, P. (Eds.). (1910–1912). Griechische papyri im Museum des oberhessischen Geschichtsvereins zu Giessen. Leipzig & Berlin: Teubner. P.Hib.: Grenfell, B. P. et al. (1906–1955): The Hibeh papyri. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. P.Tebt.: Grenfell, B. P. et al. (1902–1976): The Tebtunis papyri. London/NY: H. Frowde, Oxford University Press. Pap.Cair.Masp.: Maspero, J. (Ed.). (1911–1916). Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire: Papyrus grecs d’époque byzantine. Cairo: Institut Français d’archéologie.

From participles to gerunds 

PGM: Papyri Magicae Graecae, ed. by K. Preisendanz et al. Leipzig & Berlin, 1928, 1931, 1941. Pind.Olymp.: Pindarus, Olympian Odes. POxy: Grenfell, B. P. et al. (Eds.). (1898–). The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. London: Egyptian Exploration Fund. Rev.Eg.: Revue d’Égyptologie. Published by La Société Française de l’Égypte, 1933– Romanus Melodus: Maas, P. & Trypanis, C. (Eds.). (1963). Sancti Romani Melodi Cantica. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tacitus: P. Cornelius Tacitus, Annales. Theocr.Idyll.: Theocritus, Eidyllia. UPZ: Wilcken, U. (1922–1937): Urkunde der Ptolemäerzeit. Berlin: De Gruyter. Velthadros: “Velthandros ce Xrisandza”, in E. Kriaras (Ed.). (1955), Vizandina ipotika mithistorimata. Athens: Aetos. Vita Epiph.: Vita Epiphanii, in J. P. Migne (Ed.). (1858), Patrologiae Graecae cursus completus, Vol. 41. War of Troy: Papathomopoulos, M. & Jeffreys, E. M. (Eds.). (1996). O polemos tis Troados – The War of Troy. Athens: MIET. X.Anab.: Xenophon, Anabasis.

WH-clauses in DP-positions* Yoryia Agouraki The paper presents a ‘new’ type of wh-clause filling DP-positions, and aims at describing – as well as explaining – its key properties. In particular: (a) this type of wh-clause obeys a requirement for Future Tense, hence the term Future wh-clauses (FWHCs) for this wh-construction; (b) FWHCs have a limited distribution; (c) FWHCs are morphologically distinct from (ir)realis free relatives; (d) FWHCs have an NP-type non-presuppositional interpretation, which is, however, distinct from that of irrealis free relatives or nonspecific indefinites; (e) there is a strong feeling of current relevance associated with the selecting predicates. The paper advances two main claims: (1) in selecting FWHCs the matrix predicates take intensional complements, and FWHCs are interpreted as intensional definite DPs; (2) in selecting FWHCs, the matrix verb focuses on the state that results from the event it describes.

.

Introduction

Using Greek data, the paper presents evidence for a ‘new’ type of wh-clause (cf. (1)) and discusses its key properties. The wh-construction in (1) has the morphological appearance of a wh-interrogative complement, but has the non-presuppositional semantics of an NP. It is argued that wh-clauses of the type in (1) are interpreted as intensional definite DPs. Aγorases ti θa foresis sto parti? bought.2sg what will wear.2sg at.the party? ‘Have you bought what you are going to wear at the party?’ b. Exo iði aγorasi ti θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought.1sg what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have already bought what I am going to wear at the party.’

(1) a.

Section 2 presents five pieces of evidence for setting the wh-construction in (1) apart from other wh-constructions. First, the wh-clause in (1) obeys the restriction that the verb in the wh-clause can only appear in the future tense, which is why I will hence refer to the wh-construction under examination as Future wh-clauses (FWHCs). Second, FWHCs are selected by a small class of verbs. Third, the wh-clause in (1) is morphologically distinct from realis free relatives. Fourth, FWHCs have an

 Yoryia Agouraki

NP-type non-presuppositional interpretation, which is, however, distinct from the non-presuppositional interpretation of irrealis free relatives (IFRs) or nonspecific indefinites. Finally, in the future wh-construction there is a strong feeling of current relevance associated with the selecting predicates. Thus, in (1) the activity of having bought x is somehow relevant for current purposes. Notably, this strong feeling of current relevance is not due to the present perfect tense of the matrix predicate in (1b), and obtains with all tenses formed by means of the perfective aspect of the verb, as illustrated by (1a), where the matrix predicate is in the past tense (see Section 2). Sections 3–5 illustrate in detail that FWHCs are distinct from realis free relatives (RFRs). The distinct morphological marking, the restriction for future tense, their limited distribution, their obligatory non-presuppositional reading and the strong feeling of current relevance associated with the activity of the selecting predicate are not the only differences between FWHCs and RFRs. As shown in Section 3, FWHCs and RFRs have additional morphological, syntactic and semantic differences. In particular, (a) FWHCs are formally marked as wh-interrogatives; (b) the head features of the wh-word are checked inside the wh-clause; (c) FWHCs do not allow the -ðipote ‘-ever’ marker; (d) the wh-phrase in FWHCs cannot contain an explicit sortal; (e) FWHCs cannot be passivized or topicalized; (f) FWHCs can support null anaphora, besides definite DP anaphora (see Section 4); (g) FWHCs allow impersonal proforms; (h) FWHCs have narrow scope with respect to logical operators and quantifiers (see Section 5). In all the above respects FWHCs differ from RFRs. Section 6 examines the relation, if any, between FWHCs and IFRs (cf. (2)). It is first noted that these two types of wh-clauses present a number of similarities. First of all, IFRs share the similarities between RFRs and FWHCs. Also, as shown in Section 6.1, if we go back to the properties that differentiate FWHCs from RFRs (see previous paragraph), we note that FWHCs pattern identically with IFRs in terms of all these properties. Moreover, FWHCs, just like IFRs, have an NP-type non-presuppositional reading. (2) ðen exo ti na foreso sto parti. neg have.1sg what to wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have nothing to wear at the party.’ However, as discussed in Section 6.2, FWHCs also differ from IFRs in a number of important respects. In particular, (a) FWHCs and IFRs have distinct tense requirements; (b) with FWHCs, but not with IFRs, the eventuality described in the wh-clause is necessarily posterior to the one described in the matrix clause; (c) with FWHCs, but not with IFRs, the moment of utterance plays a role in the form of the verb; (d) FWHCs and IFRs do not share the same distribution. For instance, IFRs, but not FWHCs, can serve as pivots of existential sentences; (e) FWHCs and IFRs have distinct NP-type interpretations, although they share a non-presuppositional reading. In particular, FWHCs, contrary to IFRs, lack an availability reading; (f) not unrelated to the previous point, FWHCs are in free distribution with definite DPs, while IFRs are in free distribution with indefinite DPs; (g) there is a strong feeling of current relevance associated with the predicates that select FWHCs, but not with the predicates that select

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

IFRs; and (h) not unrelated to the previous point, FWHCs and IFRs behave differently with respect to temporal modifiers. On the basis of these differences, it is argued that FWHCs and IFRs are distinct constructions. A semantic analysis for FWHCs is provided in Section 7 (see claim (3) below). Concerning claim (3a), it is shown how certain aspects of the meaning of FWHCs are composed from elements present in its morphosyntactic representation. (3) a. FWHCs are interpreted as intensional definite DPs (semantic type <s,e>). b. In selecting FWHCs the matrix predicates are used intensionally. In Section 8 FWHCs are assigned a syntactic structure where a null D selects a CP which functions as a predicate. The D head is responsible for the semantic interpretation of FWHCs. In Section 9 it is shown that the selecting predicates, in that particular frame, besides being used intensionally, have an unbounbed eventuality component in their aspectual structure. The claim is based on three pieces of evidence. First, as already noted, there is a strong feeling of current relevance associated with the selecting predicates. Second, in the FWHC construction since-adverbials can modify the selecting predicate, even though, crucially, since-adverbials are not normally compatible with the lexical meaning of the selecting predicates (cf., for instance, aγorazo ‘buy’). And third, the selecting predicates allow perfect tense formations that are only possible with unaccusative verbs. As already discussed, Section 6.2 presents a number of differences that distinguish FWHCs from IFRs. Exactly where the division of labour between IFRs and FWHCs lies cannot be determined without comprehensive information about the distribution and uses of IFRs. A preliminary characterisation for IFRs and the predicates that select them is provided in Section 10. IFRs are analysed as intensional indefinite DPs. Syntactically, they are analysed as DPs. The syntactic structure they are assigned differs from that of FWHCs in the properties of the D head. Finally, in Section 11, the paper draws attention to the theoretical consequences of the data discussed. The existence of FWHCs shows that the space occupied by complement wh-clauses is even more varied than previously thought (see Grosu & Landman 1998). At least, prima facie, FWHCs seem to constitute an argument that there are selected wh-clauses in DP-positions.

. Future wh-clauses In (1), repeated below, we see examples of FWHCs. Since, as far as I know, these data have not been discussed elsewhere in the literature, I have included Appendix I, where examples for most of the selecting predicates are provided. The selecting predicates are DP-predicates, the complement DP of which is realized as a FWHC.

 Yoryia Agouraki

Aγorases ti θa foresis sto parti? bought.2sg what will wear.2sg at.the party? ‘Have you bought what you are going to wear at the party?’ b. Exo iði aγorasi ti θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have already bought what I am going to wear at the party.’

(1) a.

Concerning the restriction for future tense only in the wh-clause, consider ungrammatical (4), where the verb is in the past tense. Ungrammatical (4) contrasts minimally not only with grammatical (1), but also with grammatical (5), where past tense in the wh-clause, a realis free relative (RFR), is OK. (4) *Aγorasa ti foresa sto parti apo ti Vostoni. bought.1sg what.fwhc wore.1sg at.the party from the Boston ‘I bought what I wore at the party in Boston.’1 (5) Aγorasa oti/afto pu foresa sto parti apo ti Vostoni. bought.1sg what.rfr wore.1sg at.the party from the Boston ‘I bought what I wore at the party in Boston.’ This restriction for future tense in the wh-clause most probably constitutes an epiphenomenon of a more basic property of FWHCs, or a consequence of a semantic property of the predicates that select FWHCs. Namely, for some reason the eventuality described in the wh-complement of a specific set of verbs is, in the particular reading we are exploring, obligatorily posterior to the event described by the matrix verb. As a consequence, the only possible tenses in the wh-complement are simple future, future continuous and conditional present. The tense in the wh-clause is simple future or future continuous when the event time in the wh-clause follows not only the event time of the matrix clause but also the utterance time. On the other hand, the tense in the wh-clause is conditional present when the event time in the wh-clause precedes the utterance time. With conditional present both the matrix event and the event described in the FWHC are situated in the past. Irrespective of whether the eventuality described by the FWHC is posterior or anterior to the utterance time, there is no entailment that the object will be or was actually put to the use described in the FWHC or just that use (cf. earlier (1), and (6) below). In (6) the particular dress that was bought to be worn at a particular party may actually have never been worn at that party. (6) Aγorasa ti θa forusa sto parti apo ti Vostoni. bought.1sg what would wear.1sg at.the party from the Boston ‘I bought what I was going to wear at the party in Boston.’ The predicates that select FWHCs include the following: aγorazo ‘buy’, ferno ‘bring’, perno/pijeno ‘take to somebody’, perno ‘take with one’, vγazo/krato ‘keep’, filao ‘save’, vazo ‘put’, etimazo ‘prepare’, majirevo ‘cook’, ftiaxno ‘make’, ravo ‘sew’, pleko ‘knit, crochet’, ekleγo ‘elect’, ðjialeγo ‘choose’ vrisko ‘find’, vlepo ‘see’, exo ‘have made arrange-

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

ments, find’, γrafo ‘write up’, arçizo ‘start’, teliono ‘finish’, sçeðiazo ‘design’, siðerono ‘iron’, pleno ‘wash’, tiliγo ‘wrap up’. It is obvious that the above predicates do not select exclusively FWHCs. In terms of their semantics, the predicates that select FWHCs seem to belong to the class of accomplishment verbs. Accomplishment verb phrases are distinguished by the fact that the entailment from the progressive tenses to the simple tenses fails. However, this cannot be an adequate characterisation of the selecting predicates as there are accomplishment predicates that do not select FWHCs. Moreover, although it is true that a large part of the predicates that select FWHCs are creation predicates, creation predicates is not an adequate description either, as (a) not all selecting predicates are creation predicates (e.g. aγorazo ‘buy’), and (b) these are creation predicates also when they take presuppositional DPs (or RFRs) as their complements. The semantic analysis of the selecting predicates is addressed in Sections 7 and 9. Given (a) that FWHCs constitute a previously unknown construction, the semantic properties of which need to be made explicit, and (b) that native speakers appear to disagree regarding the legitimacy of the data, where (a) and (b) are not necessarily unrelated, a couple of observations are in order at this point. To start with the intuitions, the first reviewer and one of the editors accept the data in the paper, while the other editor only accepts examples (12) and (13) of Appendix I. Also, according to the second reviewer, of the three native speakers (s)he consulted, two rejected all the data in Appendix I, except those examples that seem to allow an interrogative construal, while the third speaker accepted most of the data in Appendix I. What I am going to argue next is that there is a pattern behind the mixed intuitions described above. Namely, a number of speakers straightforwardly accept the examples of FWHCs in the paper. At the same time, however, there are informants for whom FWHCs are acceptable only if a suitable context has been made sufficiently salient. The suitable context can be of two types: (a) the FWHC is in the scope of a propositional operator,2 or (b) the matrix predicate is in the perfect aspect (i.e., present perfect, past perfect or future perfect tenses). With respect to (a), consider the second reviewer’s point that the first two native speakers who were consulted accepted all data that allowed an interrogative construal, Question being a propositional operator. If the unacceptable data, as far as these speakers are concerned, are put in the scope of the Question operator the data cease being unacceptable; the Question operator somehow saves the construction for these speakers. The interrogative context is the most frequent propositional operator context, but not the only one, native speakers prefer placing sentences with FWHCs in. As shown in Section 5, Negation, the Future, the Intensional, the Necessity, the Possibility and the Habitual operators, all propositional operators, are further contexts where FWHCs seem to be preferred by native speakers. At the same time, it needs to be stressed that even if, prima facie and for some speakers, the examples of FWHCs in Appendix I are only accepted, or are preferred in interrogative contexts, this does not mean that FWHCs are not selected by the particular set of DP-predicates the paper has identified.3 Anticipating the analysis of FWHCs as intensional definites presented in Section

 Yoryia Agouraki

7.1, I conjecture that the reason why FWHCs are preferred in the scope of a propositional operator is because the reading of an intensional definite is admittedly easier to get/select in the scope of an intensional operator, or, more generally, in the scope of a propositional operator. Why would that be the case? Perhaps because the selecting verbs can also be used extensionally, and the propositional operators help some informants narrow down to the intensional use of these verbs. It seems that most speakers accept FWHCs, with the particular set of verbs I have identified, or most of these verbs, in the scope of a propositional operator. And perhaps the most common environment that will come to their mind when they think of a suitable context for FWHCs is that of interrogative sentences. This does not mean that the preferred context is the only context. As mentioned previously, another suitable context for FWHCs is one where the matrix predicate is in the perfect aspect (i.e., present perfect, past perfect or future perfect tenses). It seems to me that an account for context (b) can be found in a shared semantic property of the universal perfect and the predicates in the FWHC selection frame. Namely, both the universal perfect and the predicates that select FWHCs have an unbounded eventuality component as part of their semantic structure. The perfect context somehow builds on a semantic property of the selecting predicates in that particular use, i.e., the unbounded eventuality component (for a discussion see Section 9). The overt present perfect form of the selecting predicate, where it occurs, just like the use of the perfect adverb iði/ciolas ‘already’, makes it easier for the hearer to narrow down to this particular intensional use of the selecting predicates. To sum up, the way I have accounted for the fact that for a number of speakers FWHCs are a possible complement type for a particular set of predicates iff these predicates are in the scope of a propositional operator or in the scope of the Perfect operator is by claiming that this is so because for these speakers these particular operators make more visible the same type characteristics/components in the semantic structure of the matrix predicates when they select FWHCs. The discussion may remind readers of Spec-head agreement theories of polarity items, foci and so on in the following sense. The paper discusses a use (FWHCs) of a particular set of verbs. This set of verbs in that particular use are (a) intensional and (b) have an unbounbed eventuality component in their decomposed lexical structure. We observe that for some speakers the FWHC use of these verbs is OK only if the semantic characteristics of these verbs in that use are enhanced, either by the matrix verb being put in the scope of a propositional operator or by the matrix verb being put in the perfect aspect. Concerning the interpretation of FWHCs, it is that of a non-presuppositional DP. For instance, earlier example (1b) is infelicitous in a context where the speaker has already shown the hearer a particular dress in some shop window, and is now telling the hearer that she (i.e., the speaker) has in fact bought that dress. Even though the interpretation of FWHCs is non-presuppositional, it differs from that of nonspecific indefinites. To mention a couple of differences between the two, FWHCs are shown in Section 4 to support null anaphora, which is the equivalent of one-anaphora in English. Nonspecific indefinites in Greek do not support null anaphora. Also, nonspecific

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

indefinites do not show the restricted distribution of FWHCs. The interpretation of FWHCs, though non-presuppositional, also differs from that of Irrealis Free Relatives (IFRs), as shown in Section 6. The semantics of FWHCs is addressed in Section 7. Another important property of the FWHC construction is that there is a strong feeling of current relevance associated with the predicate that selects the FWHC. Consider example (7), where the same predicate, i.e., aγorazo ‘buy’, selects a FWHC in (7a) and a RFR in (7b). There is a strong feeling of current relevance associated with the activity of buying in (7a) but not in (7b). Given that in both (7a) and (7b) we have the same matrix predicate, what the data suggest is that the semantic structure of the matrix predicate is different depending on whether its complement is a FWHC or not. Aγorasa ti θa foreso sto parti. bought.1sg what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have bought what I am going to wear at the party.’ b. Aγorasa afto pu iða sti vitrina. bought.1sg what.rfr saw.1sg at.the shop window ‘I bought what I saw at the shop window.’

(7) a.

In the next few sections it is illustrated why FWHCs cannot be assimilated to Realis or Irrealis Free Relatives. These three types of wh-clauses are shown to have a substantial number of distinct morphological, syntactic and semantic properties. It could still be argued, however, that FWHCs are a third type of free relatives, distinct from both Realis and Irrealis Free Relatives. In that sense, the term free relative would be synonymous with wh-clause in DP-position.

. Future wh-clauses vs. Realis Free Relatives If we attempt to provide a syntactic definition for Realis Free Relatives (RFRs), we could, perhaps, say that these are wh-clauses in DP-positions.4 So are FWHCs, one would observe. RFRs and FWHCs in fact share a small number of properties, presumably attributable to their nominal nature: (a) neither RFRs nor FWHCs can have in their Spec of CP a phrase that includes a DP which dominates, but is not a projection of, the wh-word; (b) neither RFRs nor FWHCs allow for multiple wh-phrases; (c) neither RFRs nor IFRs can stack; (d) extraction out of either RFRs or FWHCs is bad. For reasons of space, the common properties of RFRs and IFRs will not be illustrated. Yet, as shown in detail next, FWHCs and RFRs have, besides their distinct distribution and distinct interpretation, a considerable number of distinct morphological, syntactic and semantic properties. These differences support the hypothesis that RFRs and FWHCs belong to distinct semantic types.

 Yoryia Agouraki

. Morphological differences (i) Formal marking The first argument against taking FWHCs to be RFRs is based on the fact that RFRs in Greek are formally marked, and FWHCs are not marked as RFRs. Consider (8), which differs minimally from earlier (1b) in that the wh-complement is a RFR. Free relative words in Greek have the prefix o – attached to the corresponding wh-words.5 ,6 (8) Aγorasa oti vrika sto maγazi. bought.1sg what.rfr found.1sg at.the shop ‘I bought what I found at the shop. (1) b. Exo iði aγorasi ti θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have already bought what I am going to wear at the party.’

(ii) Unavailability of the -ever marker on the wh-words of FWHCs Another difference between RFRs and FWHCs is the unavailability of the -ðipote ‘ever’ marker with FWHCs (cf. (9)). (9) a.

Aγorasa oti-ðipote vrika sto maγazi. bought.1sg whatever.rfr found.1sg at.the shop ‘I bought what I found at the shop.’ b. *Exo iði aγorasi ti-ðipote θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought whatever.fwhc will wear.1sg at.the party

(iii) Internal checking of the head features of the wh-word The third argument against a RFR analysis of FWHCs comes from an examination of the head features (i.e., the categorial and case features) of the wh-phrases introducing RFRs and FWHCs, respectively. In particular, in Greek RFRs the head features of the wh-phrase are checked by the complement- or specifier-features of some category in the matrix clause (i.e., INFL in the case of subject RFRs). In FWHCs, on the other hand, the head features of the wh-phrase are checked inside the FWHC. Let us consider the categorial features of the wh-phrase first. As shown by the grammaticality contrast between (10a) and (10b), the categorial feature of the whphrase introducing the RFR is checked by the relevant complement feature of the matrix predicate and cannot be checked clause-internally by the preposition me ‘with’. (10) a. *Θa eknevrisi me opjion pai ðiakopes. will annoy.3sg with whom.rfr go.3sg holidays b. Θa eknevrisi opjion pai ðiakopes mazi tu. will annoy.3sg whom.rfr go.3sg holidays with him ‘He will annoy whoever he goes on holiday with.’ It should be stressed that the data in (10) do not show the matching effect in RFRs manifested by a number of languages. In languages that manifest the matching

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

effect no RFR is possible when the matrix position and the gap position have different categorial requirements. What we see in (10) is different. Namely, the matrix position and the gap position have different categorial requirements, and the matrix position categorial requirement takes precedence. What (10a) also shows is that RFRs in Greek do not involve case-attraction. In particular, in (10a) the preposition me ‘with’ is a closer head, the complement features of which could be checked by the free relative phrase. Yet, as we see, this is not possible. In contrast to the situation with RFRs, the category of wh-phrase in FWHCs is checked inside the wh-clause (cf. (11)). Grammatical (11a) is to be contrasted with ungrammatical (10a) in this respect. Sçeðiasa me ti θa stoliso to ðendro. designed.1sg with what will decorate.1sg the tree ‘I have designed what I am going to decorate the tree with.’ 7 b. *Sçeðiasa ti θa stoliso to ðendro me afto. designed.1sg what will decorate.1sg the tree with it

(11) a.

In RFRs, except for the categorial feature of the wh-phrase, its case feature is also checked externally by the appropriate complement- or specifier-feature of the same head in the matrix clause that checks its categorial feature (cf. grammatical (12a) vs. ungrammatical (12b)). In (12a) the accusative complement feature of the matrix predicate checks the accusative feature of the wh-phrase. In ungrammatical (12b) it is the nominative specifier-feature of the embedded INFL that checks the nominative feature of the wh-phrase. With respect to the case feature of the wh-phrase, just as with its categorial feature, the situation with RFRs in Greek is different from the matching effect observed in other languages. More specifically, in languages that manifest the matching effect no RFR is possible when the matrix position and the gap position have distinct case requirements. What we see in (12) is different. Namely, the matrix position and the gap position have distinct case requirements, and the case requirement of the matrix position takes precedence over the case requirement of the gap position. (12) a.

I polites psifisan opjion içe kales iðees. the citizens voted.3pl whoever.acc had.3sg good ideas ‘The citizens voted for whoever had good ideas.’ b. *I polites psifisan opjios içe kales iðees. the citizens voted.3pl whoever.nom had.3sg good ideas

In FWHCs, on the other hand, the case feature of the wh-phrase is checked inside the wh-clause (cf. (13)). The nominative case of the wh-phrase in (13a) is checked by the nominative specifier feature of INFL in the FWHC. (13) a.

Eçis pjios θa su kratisi to peði apopse? have.2sg who.nom will you stay with the child tonight? ‘Have you arranged for who is going to babysit for you tonight?’

 Yoryia Agouraki

b. *Eçis pjion θa su kratisi to peði apopse? have.2sg who.acc will you stay with the child tonight?

. Syntactic differences (i) Restriction for future tense As already suggested in Section 2, in sentences with FWHCs the eventuality described in the wh-clause is necessarily posterior to the one described in the matrix; hence the restriction for future tense. RFRs, on the other hand, show no restriction for posterior eventuality, which would be manifested as a restriction with respect to possible tenses. The requirement for posterior eventuality in FWHCs needs to be accounted for, and will be addressed in Section 7. The question could arise whether FWHCs are in fact RFRs with some special interpretation due to the fact that they have embedded future. It seems to me that the answer to this question is negative. Crucially, the interpretation of FWHCs is not the same as the interpretation of RFRs with embedded future (cf. (14), to be contrasted with (1b)) (on the semantic differences between FWHCs and RFRs see the detailed discussion in Sections 3.3 and 5). (14) ðulevo afto pu θa parusiaso sto sineðrio. work.1sg what.rfr will present.1sg at.the conference ‘I am working on what I am going to present at the conference.’ Also, with respect to the remaining morphological, syntactic and semantic differences between FWHCs and RFRs, it is not at all obvious how they could be explained away by the embedded future of the wh-clause.

(ii) Only wh-words can introduce FWHCs The wh-phrase in FWHCs cannot contain an explicit sortal. Namely, there can be no wh-phrase like which N (cf. ungrammatical (15b)), or what type of N introducing FWHCs. The wh-phrase in RFRs, on the other hand, can contain an explicit sortal (cf. (16b)). Exo iði aγorasi ti θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have already bought what I am going to wear at the party.’ b. *Exo iði aγorasi pjio forema θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought which dress will wear.1sg at.the party

(15) a.

Θa xariso oti ðe mu kani pjia. will give.away.1sg whatever.rfr neg me fit.3sg any longer ‘I will give away whatever (i.e. dresses) no longer fits me.’ b. Θa xariso opjia foremata ðe mu kanun pjia. will give.away.1sg whatever dresses.rfr neg me fit.3pl any longer ‘I will give away whatever dresses no longer fit me.’

(16) a.

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

(iii) Syntactic movement FWHCs cannot be passivised (cf. (17a–b)) or topicalised (cf. (18)), while they can be syntactically focused (cf. (19)).8,9 RFRs, on the other hand, can be passived, topicalised (clitic-left-dislocated, though not simply left dislocated), or syntactically focused (for reasons of space, examples are not provided). (17) a. *Ti θa foreso sto what will wear.1sg at.the ðanika. borrowed money b. *Aγorastice ti θa was.bought.3sg what will ðanika. borrowed money

parti aγorastice me party was.bought.3sg with

foreso sto parti me wear.1sg at.the party with

(18) *[Ti θa foreso sto parti]1 *(*to1 ) aγorasa e1 xtes. what will wear.1sg at.the party it bought.1sg yesterday (19) [Ti θa foreso sto PARTI]1 aγorasa e1 oçi ti θa what will wear.1sg at.the party bought.1sg neg what will xriasto sto taksiði. need.1sg at.the trip ‘I’ve bought what I am gonna wear at the party, not what I am gonna need for the trip.’

(v) Anaphoric properties As shown in detail in Section 4, FWHCs allow for both definite DP-anaphora, as RFRs, and null anaphora, unlike RFRs. In addition, FWHCs, but not RFRs, allow impersonal proforms. . Semantic differences (i) Limited distribution FWHCs, contrary to RFRs, have a limited distribution. Namely, FWHCs are only possible in the complement position of a small set of verbs (cf. Section 2). RFRs, on the other hand, can appear in all argument and adjunct positions. Notably, in the complement position of the predicates that select FWHCs it is possible to have a RFR, with a difference in interpretation though (cf. points (ii) and (iii) next, as well as the discussion in Section 5). The opposite does not hold. Namely, it is not possible to substitute FWHCs for all complement RFRs. (ii) Obligatory non-presuppositional reading RFRs appearing in complement positions are necessarily interpreted as presuppositional DPs. FWHCs, on the other hand, can only be interpreted as non-

 Yoryia Agouraki

presuppositional DPs. Given that all the predicates which select FWHCs can also ‘select’ RFRs in their complement position, it helps to look at pairs of examples where the same predicate selects a FWHC in one case, and a RFR in the other. Looking at such pairs of examples can help us obtain a more precise idea about the difference in interpretation between FWHCs and RFRs. Consider next the examples in (20a–e), which involve the verb ravo ‘sew’. Ravo ‘sew’ is a two-place predicate, where the complement DP can denote either the entity operated on, i.e., some material, or the end product / the result of the action, i.e. some piece of garment. (20) a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

Erapsa ti θa valo sto parti. sewed.1sg what.fwhc will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I’ve sewn what I’m going to wear at the party.’ NON-PRESUP *Θa rapso ti θa feris apo to Parisi. will sew.1sg what.fwhc will bring.2sg from the Paris ‘I’ll sew what (i.e., the material) you’ll bring from Paris.’ NON-PRESUP ?Erapsa afto pu θa valo sto parti. sewed.1sg what.rfr will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I’ve sewn what (i.e., the dress) I’ll wear at the party.’ PRESUP Afto pu θa valo sto parti to erapsa moni mu. what.rfr will wear.1sg at.the party it sewed.1sg myself ‘I’ve sewn what (i.e., the dress) I’ll wear at the party myself.’ PRESUP afto pu eferes apo to Parisi. Erapsa sewed.1sg what.rfr brought.2sg from the Paris ‘I’ve sewn what (i.e., the material) you brought me from Paris.’ PRESUP

A first observation is that the RFR complement of ravo ‘sew’ can denote either the material (cf. (20e)) or the piece of garment (cf. (20c–d)). In both readings the predicate takes an individual as its complement. On the other hand, a FWHC selected by ravo ‘sew’ can only denote the piece of garment, and never the material (cf. grammatical (20a) vs. ungrammatical (20b)). If we take the case where both the RFR and the FWHC denote a piece of garment, we notice that the FWHC is necessarily interpreted as a nonpresuppositional DP, while the RFR is necessarily interpreted as a presuppositional DP. The obligatorily presuppositional reading for RFR complements is the reason why (20c) is not such a good example, which, however, improves as soon as the RFR is topicalised, as in (20d). I am not so sure that the answer to the question why the FWHC complement of ravo ‘sew’ cannot denote the material to be used is as simple as to say that the material operated on by the activity of the verb cannot but be a presuppositional DP. The ban on presuppositional readings for FWHCs would thus block the reading where the FWHC denotes some material.

(iii) Strong feeling of current relevance with FWHCs, but not with RFRs Consider the earlier pair of examples (7a–b). In (7a) the complement of aγorazo ‘buy’ is a FWHC, while in (7b) the complement of aγorazo ‘buy’ is a RFR. While (7a) en-

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

tails that the speaker is still, at the moment of utterance, in possession of what was bought, there is no such entailment in (7b). An account for the strong feeling of current relevance with FWHCs is offered in Section 9. Aγorasa ti θa foreso sto parti. bought.1sg what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have bought what I am going to wear at the party.’ b. Aγorasa afto pu iða sti vitrina. bought.1sg what.rfr saw.1sg at.the shop window ‘I have bought what I saw at the shop window.’

(7) a.

(iv) Narrow scope with respect to logical operators FWHCs and RFRs have distinct scope properties. In particular, RFRs have wide scope with respect to logical operators, while, as shown in Section 5, FWHCs have narrow scope with respect to logical operators. . Conclusion To sum up, against the hypothesis that FWHCs are a subtype of RFRs I have presented morphological arguments (i.e., formal marking, unavailability of the ever-marker and internal checking of the head features of the wh-phrase), syntactic arguments (i.e., the requirement for future tense, unavailability of explicit sortals in the wh-phrase, lack of passivisation or topicalisation, null anaphora, and impersonal proforms), and semantic arguments (i.e., limited distribution, obligatory nonpresuppositional interpretation, strong feeling of current relevance and narrow scope with respect to logical operators), on the basis of which it is maintained that FWHCs are a distinct creature from RFRs. An alternative hypothesis, according to which FWHCs are RFRs with some special interpretation, due to the fact that they have embedded future, does not seem tenable. One would need to show how the future tense could account for the distinct morphological, syntactic and semantic properties of FWHCs and RFRs. I could see no way this could be done. Moreover, if this alternative hypothesis were on the right tract, we would, most probably, expect the only differences between the two types of wh-clauses to be semantic (i.e., difference in interpretation and different scope properties). Here, however, we have a list of additional syntactic and morphological differences, which seem to suggest that with respect to FWHCs and RFRs it would not be optimal to argue that one of the two is a subtype of the other. The objections voiced in the previous paragraph do not carry over to a working hypothesis according to which FWHCs and RFRs are distinct types of a superordinate category, where the distinct properties of the two types of wh-clauses reduce to their distribution. The assumption would be that both RFRs and FWHCs occupy/are associated with DP positions, and in particular that the two are in complementary distribution. What the differences between FWHCs and RFRs show is not that FWHCs

 Yoryia Agouraki

are not free relatives, but, rather, that there is a third reading/subtype of free relatives, besides RFRs and IFRs. If we adopted a syntactic definition of free relatives as whclauses in DP-positions, it could be maintained that free relatives have three subtypes, i.e., RFRs, IFRs and FWHCs.10 Selection of IFRs and FWHCs versus apparent lack of selection for RFRs is an issue for future research.

. The anaphoric properties of FWHCs This section discusses in detail point (v) of Section 3.2, on the syntactic differences between FWHCs and RFRs.

(i) Null anaphora Consider the exchange in (21), where the same predicate is used in both A’s and B’s utterances. We observe that FWHCs in Greek support null anaphora, which here seems to be the equivalent of one-anaphora in English. The meaning of B’s utterance in (21) is not that she is going to buy the exact thing A bought, on the assumption that A would sell it to B. Null anaphora in B’s utterance does not, therefore, refer back to the entity introduced by the FWHC, but introduces a different entity with the following property attributed to it, i.e., that it will be worn at the party by B. As shown by B’s utterance, definite DP anaphora is not a possibility in that interpretation. (21) A. Exo iði aγorasi ti θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have already bought what I am going to wear at the party.’ B. Eγo θa Ø/ *to aγoraso avrio. I will Ø/ *it buy.1sg tomorrow ‘I will buy what I am going to wear at the party tomorrow.’ Null anaphora seems to be best analysed as discourse transparent property anaphora. There is evidence for this analysis if we contrast example (21) with example (22) next. What we see is that null anaphora is only possible in the scope of an operator. (22) A. Exo aγorasi eðo ce poli cero ti θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg bought a long time ago what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘It’s a long time since I bought what I am going to wear at the party.’ B. Eγo *Ø/ *to exo aγorasi apo tin perazmeni vðomaða. I Ø/ it have.1sg bought since last week

(ii) Definite DP anaphora Besides null anaphora, FWHCs also support definite DP anaphora when we want to refer back to the entity that was introduced by the FWHC (cf. (23)).

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

(23) Exo aγorasi ti θa foreso sto parti; to exo sti have.1sg bought what will wear.1sg at the party; it have.1sg in.the dulapa. wardrobe ‘I have bought what I am going to wear at the party. It’s in the wardrobe.’ However, if the FWHC is in the scope of a logical operator, FWHCs support definite DP anaphora in modal contexts only. Consider (24a), where the FWHC is in the scope of the Future operator in the matrix clause; the pro subject in (24b), interpreted as a definite pronoun, is only possible in the context of a modal operator (the Necessity operator in this case). Avrio θa aγoraso ti θa foreso sto parti. tomorrow will buy.1sg what will wear.1sg at.the party b. pro *(prepi na) ine makri forema it must.3sg to is long dress ‘Tomorrow I will buy what I’m going to wear at the party. It must be/*is a long dress.’

(24) a.

These data remind us of Moltmann’s (1997) data involving intensional indefinite DPs. In particular, Moltmann (1997) has shown that predicates selecting intensional indefinite DPs support definite DP anaphora in modal contexts only (cf. (25a–b) from Moltmann 1997). (25) a. *John is looking for a horse. Mary is looking for it too. b. John is looking for a horse. It must be white and have a golden mane. There is the following difference between Moltmann’s (1997) data and the data discussed here. A FWHC does not support definite DP-anaphora unless in a modal context only when it is itself in the scope of an operator. If the FWHC is not in the scope of a logical operator, the FWHC has no problem to support definite DP anaphora in the absence of a modal operator (cf. (23)). With predicates selecting intensional indefinite DPs, on the other hand, for the intensional indefinite DP to support definite DP anaphora, it plays no role whether the predicate selecting the intensional indefinite DP is in the scope of a logical operator or not; presumably because the predicate itself, being intensional, is an operator.

(iii) Use of impersonal proforms Moltmann (1997) has also shown that verbs selecting intensional indefinite DPs allow only impersonal proforms (something, what, -thing) to stand for their complement, and disallow personal ones (someone, whom, person), regardless of the descriptive content of the complement NP. The use of impersonal proforms is taken to be a criterion for intensionality. Similarly, FWHCs allow only an impersonal interrogative proform, i.e., ti ‘what’ (cf. (26)). In particular, (26a) is an appropriate question to ask for earlier example (1b), while (26b) is not.

 Yoryia Agouraki

(26) a.

Ti aγorases? what bought.2sg? ‘What have you bought?’ b. Pjio praγma /pjio adicimeno aγorases? which thing /which item bought.2sg? ‘Which item have you bought?’

. Narrow scope in quantificational constructions This section discusses in detail point (iv) of Section 3.3, on the semantic differences between FWHCs and RFRs. In the absence of a logical operator, the interpretation of FWHCs seems to involve an existential quantifier as an understood argument (cf. (27) as the semantic representation of earlier (1b)).11 (1) b. Exo iði aγorasi ti θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have already bought what I am going to wear at the party.’ (27) ∃x FUT[I wear x at the party] & [I have already bought x] As I. Veloudis (p.c.) points out, with respect to the logical representation in (27), the presence of the existential quantifier is due to (a) the fact that the predicate selecting the FWHC denotes a completed action and (b) the meaning of the selecting predicate. With respect to point (a), we observe that, when the matrix predicate is in the imperfective, the interpretation of the sentence does not involve an existential quantifier as an understood argument (cf. (28)). ðjialeji ti θa foresi sto parti. choose.3sg what will wear.3sg at.the party ‘She is choosing what she is going to wear at the party.’ b. *∃x FUT[she wears x at the party] & [she is choosing x]

(28) a.

It has been independently noted with respect to the object of creation verbs that the wide scope reading is not entailed when the selecting predicate is in the imperfective. Burton (1995) has shown that in many cases accomplishment verbs pattern like creation verbs with respect to the referential status of their DP-complements; namely, the individual named by the object DP need not exist in the imperfective. Interestingly, when there is a logical operator in the matrix sentence, the FWHC (or, more precisely, the existential quantifier) can only take narrow scope with respect to the logical operator.12 Consider examples (29)–(35), which involve Negation, Question, the Future operator, an intensional operator, Necessity, Possibility and the Habitual operator, respectively.

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

ðen exo aγorasi akoma ti θa foreso sto parti. neg have.1sg bought yet what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I haven’t bought yet what I am going to wear at the party.’ Negation b. *∃x ¬ [I have bought x] & FUT [I wear x at the party] c. ¬∃x [I have bought x] & FUT [I wear x at the party]

(29) a.

Eçis aγorasi ti θa foresis sto parti? have.2sg bought what will wear.2sg at.the party? ‘Have you bought what you are going to wear at the party?’ b. *∃x Q [you have bought x] & FUT [you wear x at the party] c. Q ∃x [you have bought x] & FUT [you wear x at the party]

(30) a.

Θa aγoraso apo tora ti θa foreso sto parti. will buy.1sg from now what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I will buy soon what I am going to wear at the party.’ b. *∃x FUT [I buy x] & FUT [I wear x at the party] c. FUT ∃x [I buy x] & FUT [I wear x at the party]

Question

(31) a.

Future

Θelo na aγoraso apo tora ti θa foreso sto parti. want.1sg to buy.1sg from now what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I want to buy soon what I am going to wear at the party.’ Intensional b. *∃x WANT [I buy x] & FUT [I wear x at the party] c. WANT ∃x [I buy x] & FUT [I wear x at the party]

(32) a.

Prepi na aγoraso apo tora ti θa foreso sto parti. must.3sg to buy.1sg from now what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I must buy soon what I am going to wear at the party.’ Necessity b. *∃x [I buy x] & FUT [I wear x at the party] c. ∃x [I buy x] & FUT [I wear x at the party]

(33) a.

Bori na aγoraso apo tora ti θa foreso sto parti. may.3sg to buy.1sg from now what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I may buy soon what I am going to wear at the party.’ Possibility b. *∃x ♦ [I buy x] & FUT [I wear x at the party] c. ♦ ∃x [I buy x] & FUT [I wear x at the party]

(34) a.

(35) Siniθos etimazo ti θa kano sto maθima mia mera prin. usually prepare.1sg what will do.1sg in.the class one day before ‘I usually prepare what I am going to do in class the day before.’ Habitual As shown, FWHCs can only have narrow scope with respect to logical operators. Besides FWHCs, there are other types of DPs that obligatorily have narrow scope with respect to logical operators in Greek and/or other languages. Consider, among others, narrow scope indefinites in English (cf. Diesing 1992), or narrow scope indefinites in Maori (cf. Chung & Ladusaw 2001).13 The absence of a quantificational reading for FWHCs in the scope of logical operators reminds one of earlier example (24), repeated below. As shown by (24), if the FWHC is in the scope of a logical operator, FWHCs support definite DP anaphora in

 Yoryia Agouraki

modal contexts only. Why in modal contexts only? Presumably because the quantificational reading of FWHCs, and their coreferential pronouns, is only blocked in the scope of logical operators. Example (24a) contains the Future operator; the pro subject in (24b), interpreted as a definite pronoun, is only possible in the context of a modal operator (the Necessity operator in this case). Avrio θa aγoraso ti θa foreso sto parti. tomorrow will buy.1sg what will wear.1sg at.the party b. pro *(prepi na) ine makri forema. it must.3sg to is long dress ‘Tomorrow I will buy what I’m going to wear at the party. It must be/*is a long dress.’

(24) a.

. Future wh-clauses vs. Irrealis Free Relatives On the basis of the substantial differences between FWHCs and IFRs, presented in Sections 6.2 and 6.3, it is argued that FWHCs are a distinct construction from IFRs, as well (cf. earlier example (2), repeated below). (2) ðen exo ti na foreso sto parti. neg have.1sg what to wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have nothing to wear at the party.’ According to Izvorski (1998: 4), in IFRs “the matrix predicate is limited to existential and possessive be/have and a small class of other predicates like find, look for, choose.” The predicates that select IFRs in Greek include the following: exo ‘have’, eçi ‘existential have’, ðino ‘give’, psaxno ‘look for’, vrisko ‘find’, perno/pijeno ‘take to somebody.’ and ferno ‘bring’. We observe that while all the predicates that select FWHCs are accomplishment predicates, this is not the case with the selecting predicates for IFRs (cf. psaxno ‘look for’, exo ‘have’).

. Similarities between FWHCs and IFRs FWHCs and IFRs present a considerable number of similarities in their morphological (cf. (36a–c)), syntactic (cf. (37a–h)) and semantic (cf. (40a–b)) properties. For reasons of space the shared properties of FWHCs and IFRs are not illustrated for IFRs. (36) Morphological properties a. Both FWHCs and IFRs are not marked as RFRs. b. Both FWHCs and IFRs do not allow for the -ever marker on wh-words. c. The head features of the wh-word in both FWHCs and IFRs are checked inside the wh-clause.

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

(37) Syntactic properties a. Neither FWHCs nor IFRs can be passivised or topicalised. b. Both FWHCs and IFRs support null anaphora. c. Both FWHCs and IFRs allow impersonal proforms. d. Neither FWHCs nor IFRs can stack (for IFRs see Grosu & Landman 1998). e. Neither FWHCs nor IFRs allow multiple wh-phrases. f. Neither FWHCs nor IFRs allow for an explicit sortal in the wh-phrase.14 g. Extraction out of both FWHCs (cf. (38)) and IFRs is bad. h. Neither FWHCs (cf. (39)) nor IFRs can have in their Spec of CP a phrase that includes a DP which dominates, but is not a projection of, the whword. Examples (38) and (39) below illustrate properties (37g) and (37h), respectively. iði sçeðiasi me ti θa stoliso to ðendro. Exo have.1sg already designed with what will decorate.1sg the tree ‘I have already designed what I am going to decorate the tree with.’ b. *Ti1 eçis iði sçeðiasi me ti θa stolisis e1 ? what have.2sg already designed with what will decorate.2sg? ‘*What have you already designed what you are going to decorate with?’

(38) a.

(39) *Arçises ti zoi tinos θa parusiasis stin ekpobi? started.2sg the life whose will present.2sg at.the programme? ‘Have you started working on the life of the person you’ll present at the programme?’ (40) Semantic properties a. Both FWHCs and IFRs have an NP-type, non-presuppositional interpretation. b. Both FWHCs and IFRs have narrow scope with respect to logical operators. Do the properties FWHCs share with IFRs make FWHCs a subcategory of IFRs, or IFRs a subcategory of FWHCs? In principle, it could be either; one would tend to favour the first hypothesis over the second hypothesis, only because IFRs are already known in the bibliography. Interestingly, besides the similarities, there is a considerable number of differences between FWHCs and IFRs. These are presented in Sections 6.2 and 6.3.

. Differences between FWHCs and IFRs The differences between FWHCs and IFRs are summarised in (41) below.

 Yoryia Agouraki

(41) Differences between FWHCs and IFRs: a. FWHCs and IFRs have distinct tense requirements (Future Tense vs. naclauses).15 b. With FWHCs, but not with IFRs, the eventuality described in the whclause is necessarily posterior to the one described in the matrix clause. c. With FWHCs, but not with IFRs, the moment of utterance plays a role in the form of the verb. d. FWHCs and IFRs do not share the same distribution. For instance, IFRs, but not FWHCs, can serve as pivots of existential sentences. e. FWHCs and IFRs have distinct NP-type interpretations, although they share a non-presuppositional reading. In particular, FWHCs, contrary to IFRs, lack an availability reading. f. Not unrelated to the previous point, FWHCs are in free distribution with definite DPs, while IFRs are in free distribution with indefinite DPs. g. There is a strong feeling of current relevance associated with the predicates that select FWHCs, but not with the predicates that select IFRs. h. Not unrelated to the previous point, FWHCs and IFRs behave differently with respect to temporal modifiers. According to (41a), while FWHCs obey the restriction that their tense be future, IFRs in Greek obey the restriction that they be na-clauses. It is not possible to substitute IFRs for FWHCs, and vice versa (cf. (42) and (43), respectively). Exo iði aγorasi ti θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have already bought what I am going to wear at the party.’ b. *Exo iði aγorasi ti na foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought what to wear.1sg at.the party

(42) a.

(43) a.

ðen exo ti na foreso sto parti. neg have.1sg what to wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have nothing to wear at the party.’ b. *ðen exo ti θa foreso sto parti. neg have.1sg what will wear.1sg at.the party

According to (41b), in IFRs, contrary to FWHCs, the eventuality described in the wh-clause is not necessarily posterior to the one described in the matrix clause. Example (44) below illustrates the myth of future orientation for IFRs. The eventuality described in the IFR is simultaneous with the one described in the matrix. (44) Apo ton perazmeno mina ðen exo me pjion na miliso. since the last month neg have.1sg with whom to talk.1sg ‘It’s a month now I have noone to talk to.’ According to (41c), with IFRs, contrary to FWHCs, the moment of utterance plays no role in the form of the verb. More specifically, irrespective of whether the time of the

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

event in the IFR follows or precedes the moment of utterance, the form of the verb in the IFR is the same (cf. (45a and c), and the ungrammaticality of (45b)). As shown by (46), when the time of the event in the FWHC precedes the moment of utterance, the tense of the FWHC can only be Conditional Present. ðe θa exo me pjion na miliso apopse sto parti. neg will have.1sg with whom to talk.1sg tonight at.the party ‘Tonight at the party there will be noone for me to talk to.’ b. *ðen ixa me pjion na milusa xtes sto parti. neg had.1sg with whom to talked.1sg yesterday at.the party c. ðen ixa me pjion na miliso xtes sto parti. neg had.1sg with whom to talk.1sg yesterday at.the party ‘Yesterday at the party there was noone for me to talk to.’

(45) a.

Exo iði aγorasi ti θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have already bought what I am going to wear at the party.’ b. Ixa iði aγorasi ti θa forusa sto parti. had.1sg already bought what would wear.1sg at.the party ‘I had already bought what I would wear at the party.’ c. *Ixa iði aγorasi ti θa foreso sto parti. had.1sg already bought what will wear.1sg at.the party

(46) a.

Also, in an example like (47) below, we have no way of knowing, other than the context, whether the event in the IFR is placed in the past or the future with respect to utterance time. (47) Tu eðosa ti na fai. him gave.1sg what to eat.3sg ‘I gave him what to eat.’ According to (41d), and as mentioned already at the beginning of Section 6 (see also ungrammatical (42b) and (43b)), FWHCs and IFRs are also distinguished in terms of their selecting predicates. For instance, FWHCs are not allowed as complements of existential or possessive predicates. If we juxtapose the lists of selecting predicates for FWHCs and IFRs, we notice, however, that a couple of predicates, i.e. vrisko ‘find’, ferno ‘bring’ and perno/pijeno ‘take to sb.’, can select both FWHCs and IRFs. This behaviour is not problematic for the claim that FWHCs and IFRs are distinct constructions. Where the same predicate selects both, the predicate appears in two distinct semantic structures. Crucially, as shown below for vrisko ‘find’ (cf. (48)), which selects both FWHCs and IFRs, there is a difference in interpretation depending on whether it selects a FWHC or an IFR. The difference in the interpretation is illustrated in the translations of examples (48a and b).

 Yoryia Agouraki

Vrika pu θa mino sti Lefkosia. found.1sg where will stay.1sg in.the Nicosia ‘I have found my future flat in Nicosia.’ b. Vrika pu na mino sti Lefkosia. found.1sg where to stay.1sg in.the Nicosia ‘I have found a place to stay in Nicosia.’

(48) a.

In (49) we see that IFRs, but not FWHCs, can serve as pivots of existential sentences. This behaviour of IFRs leads Izvorski (1998: 5) to conclude that IFRs have the semantic behaviour of weak NPs. This is not the case with FWHCs. (49) a.

Eçi ti na fame? there.is what to eat.1pl? ‘Is there anything to eat?’ b. *Eçi ti θa fame? there.is what will eat.1pl?

The distinct distribution of FWHCs and IFRs brings us to point (41e), i.e., the distinct interpretations of FWHCs and IFRs. It will be argued in Section 7 that FWHCs are interpreted as intensional definite DPs; as far as IFRs are concerned, Section 10 advances the hypothesis that these are interpreted as intensional indefinite DPs. Consider next three pieces of evidence for the claim that FWHCs and IFRs have distinct interpretations. First, we have already seen that IFRs, contrary to FWHCs, behave as weak DPs, in terms of their capacity to serve as pivots of existential sentences. Second, as argued in Izvorski (1998), sentences with IFRs have an availability reading. As explained in Izvorski (1998: 2), what she means by an availability reading is “an existential modal restricted by a bouletic accessibility relation”. FWHCs, on the other hand, lack an availability reading. Arguably, the availability reading associated with IFRs could be attributed to the interpretation of IFRs. In particular, it could be claimed that IFRs do not have a modal reading either, and that what prima facie appears to be a modal reading is in fact the intensional indefinite reading of IFRs. Third, we note (cf. (41f)) that FWHCs are in free distribution with definite DPs (cf. (50)), while IFRs are in free distribution with indefinite DPs (cf. (51)). Exo iði sçeðiasi me ti θa stoliso to ðendro. have.1sg already designed with what will decorate.1sg the tree ‘I have already designed what I am going to decorate the tree with.’ b. Exo iði sçeðiasi ta stoliðjia jia to ðendro. have.1sg already designed the ornaments for the tree ‘I have already designed the tree ornaments.’

(50) a.

(51) a.

ðen exo ti na valo. neg have.1sg what to wear.1sg ‘I have nothing to wear.’

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

b. ðen exo ruxa. neg have.1sg clothes ‘I have nothing to wear.’ Points (41g) and (41h) are addressed in Section 9.

. Some less comprehensible differences Besides the difference in interpretation between FWHCs and IFRs, illustrated at its best when the same predicate selects either a FWHC or an IFR (cf. earlier (48a–b)), it is important to note that those predicates that select both FWHCs and IFRs, modulo the difference in interpretation, cannot do so for all wh-complements (cf. (52)). For instance, ferno ‘bring’, a predicate that selects both FWHCs and IFRs, can only select a FWHC, and not an IFR, in examples (52a and c). In example (52b), on the other hand, the same predicate can only select an IFR, and not a FWHC. Su efera ti *na /θa xriastis jia to γliko. you brought.1sg what to/will need.2sg for the cake ‘I have brought you what you are going to need for the cake.’ b. Mu efere ti na/*θa etimaso jia tin ekθesi moðas. me brought.3sg what to/will prepare.1sg for the fashion show ‘She has given me what to prepare for the exhibition.’ c. Efera ti *na/θa etimaso jia tin ekθesi moðas. brought.1sg what to/will prepare.1sg for the fashion show ‘I have brought with me what I am going to prepare for the fashion show.’

(52) a.

The data suggest that FWHCs are incompatible with non-subject control by a matrix predicate, if the predicate of the FWHC is an activity predicate (cf. (52b)). If, on the other hand, the predicate of the FWHC is a non-activity predicate, non-subject control by the matrix predicate is possible (cf. (52a)). With IFRs, on the other hand, the only possibility seems to be object control with activity predicates inside the IFR (cf. also (53) below). (53) Mu efere ti na etimaso/ *na etimasi/ θa me brought.3sg what to prepare.1sg/ to prepare.3sg/ will etimasi jia ekθesi prepare.3sg for show ‘He has given me stuff to prepare / what he is going to prepare for a show.’ At this point we could make a couple of observations on the basis of the data above, although I am far from offering an account for the patterning of the data. First, when there is a violation of the control requirements for FWHCs (cf. (52b), for instance), my intuition is that what is wrong is that the future particle θa acquires a deontic interpretation, which is one of the possible readings for the future particle θa, but is incompatible with the FWHC reading. Second, the ungrammatical FWHCs and IFRs

 Yoryia Agouraki

in (52) and (53) indicate that, in some sense, the semantic content of the wh-clause plays a role in the selection. How can that be so? Only in the sense that the semantic content of the wh-clause forces, allows or disallows the verb meaning that selects a FWHC or an IFR, depending on the case.

. The semantics of FWHCs Once it is assessed that we are dealing with a new construction, the data are interesting for a number of reasons, the most obvious being the need to identify the semantics of the construction. The construction-specific goal of the paper is twofold. On the one hand, to probe into the interpretation and the properties of FWHCs. On the other hand, to understand in what sense the predicates that select FWHCs form a natural class; which could in turn lead to an understanding of why they select FWHCs. It is argued that the key to both questions is intensionality (cf. claim (3a–b)). (3) a. FWHCs are interpreted as intensional definite DP (semantic type <s,e>). b. In selecting FWHCs the matrix predicates are used intensionally.

. FWHCs are intensional definite DPs Starting with the assumption that FWHCs have an NP-type interpretation, this section looks into their precise semantics. It is claimed that FWHCs are interpreted as intensional definite DPs (semantic type <s,e>) (cf. claim (3a)). The arguments in support of this claim are given in (54). (54) FWHCs: a. show a ban on substitution b. do not allow for explicit sortals c. allow for impersonal proforms d. allow for one-/null-anaphora According to (54a), it is not possible to substitute a DP for the FWHC, where the DP and the FWHC have the same reference (cf. (55)). Failure of substitution is known to be the standard test for intensionality. Exo iði aγorasi ti θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have already bought what I am going to wear at the party.’ b. Sto parti θa foreso to kocino forema. at.the party will wear.1sg the red dress ‘At the party I am going to wear the red dress.’ c. #Exo iði aγorasi to kocino forema. have.1sg already bought the red dress ‘I have already bought the red dress.’

(55) a.

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

Three more intensionality tests, i.e., the ban on explicit sortals (cf. discussion in Section 3.2 and example (15b), repeated below), the possibility for one-/null-anaphora (cf. discussion in Section 4 and example (21), repeated below) and the requirement for impersonal proforms (cf. discussion in Section 4 and examples (1) and (26), repeated below) apply successfully to FWHCs (on these intensionality tests see Moltmann 1997). (15) b. *Exo iði aγorasi pjio forema θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought which dress will wear.1sg at.the party ‘*I have already bought which dress I am going to wear at the party.’ (21) A. Exo iði aγorasi ti θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have already bought what I am going to wear at the party.’ B. Eγo θa Ø / *to aγoraso avrio. I will Ø / *it buy.1sg tomorrow ‘I will buy what I am going to wear at the party tomorrow.’ (1) b. Exo iði aγorasi ti θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have already bought what I am going to wear at the party.’ (26) a.

Ti aγorases? what bought.2sg? ‘What have you bought?’ b. Pjio praγma /pjio adicimeno aγorases? which thing /which item bought.2sg? ‘Which item have you bought?’

The question arises whether the restriction for future tense relates to the intensionality of FWHCs. It could be argued that the future tense of FWHCs marks the intensionality of FWHCs. Still, IFRs, which are also intensional, obey the restriction that they be nontensed. The fact that FWHCs and IFRs, both of which are intensional according to the intensionality tests, obey different tense requirements does not necessarily indicate that the requirement for future tense in FWHCs has a different source than intensionality. The Future operator in the FWHC could signal this particular type of intensionality that FWHCs have (i.e., intensional definite DPs), which is distinct from the intensionality of IFRs (i.e., intensional indefinite DPs). How the semantics of FWHCs is derived from the basic semantics of a whconstruction is of particular interest. It is standardly assumed that relative clauses denote functions characterising sets of individuals (cf. Heim & Kratzer 1998). Cooper (1983) extends this assumption to all wh-clauses, claiming that wh-clauses in general are born with this type of meaning. Under Cooper’s analysis this meaning can then type-shift in one of two ways – it can be mapped either into a question-type meaning or into an NP-type meaning to give a free relative. Following Cooper’s claim that the root meaning of all wh-clauses is that of a property, I am proposing that in FWHCs

 Yoryia Agouraki

the meaning of wh-clauses type-shifts into an NP-type meaning, which is, however, not the same as the meaning of a RFR. To sum up, in the last two paragraphs it is shown how certain aspects of the meaning of FWHCs are composed from elements present in their morphosyntactic representation. Namely, the nominal interpretation and the intensional individual interpretation of FWHCs are composed from the wh-clause form and the Future marker of FWHCs, respectively.

. The selecting predicates are used intensionally As was presented in Section 2, the predicates that select FWHCs include the following: aγorazo ‘buy’, ferno ‘bring’, perno/pijeno ‘take to sb’, perno ‘take with one’, vγazo/krato ‘keep’, filao ‘save’, vazo ‘put’, etimazo ‘prepare’, majirevo ‘cook’, ftiaxno ‘make’, ravo ‘sew’, pleko ‘knit, crochet’, ekleγo ‘elect’, ðjialeγo ‘choose’, vrisko ‘find’, vlepo ‘see’, exo ‘have made arrangements, find’, γrafo ‘write up’, arçizo ‘start’, teliono ‘finish’, sçeðiazo design’, siðerono ‘iron’, pleno ‘wash’, tiliγo ‘wrap up’. The claim defended in this section is (3b), repeated below. It is important to note that (3b) is distinct from a claim like (3 b). In fact, it would not be easy, or even possible, to argue that buy, get, give , keep , put etc. are intensional. (3) b. In selecting FWHCs the matrix predicates are used intensionally. (3 ) b. The predicates that select FWHCs are intensional. Before presenting the arguments for (3b), it should be noted that for a number of the selecting predicates, there have been independent claims in the literature that they can be used intensionally, though their intensional complements are not interpreted in the same way as FWHCs. The two proposals that have been put forward are Burton (1995) and Moltmann (1997). Burton (1995), in particular, has shown that accomplishment predicates can be used intensionally. It was argued in Section 7.1 that FWHCs are intensional definite DPs. I am claiming in (3b) that their intensionality is attributed to the selecting predicates, which have an intensional use, in addition to their highly frequent extensional use. The possible frames for the selecting predicates appear in (56). These predicates are used extensionally (a) when they select (in)definite DPs (cf. (56a)), as well as when they take RFR complements; and (b) when they select an (in)definite DP and an ‘as’-phrase modifying that DP (cf. (56d)). In addition, I am putting forward the hypothesis that selection of FWHCs (cf. (56c)) is not the only case where these predicates are used intensionally; in particular, that most of the predicates in question can also select intensional indefinite DPs, which are realized in Greek as null determiner DPs (cf. (56c)). (56) The set of predicates under examination select: a. (in)definite DPs b. FWHCs or definite DPs in free distribution with FWHCs

WH-clauses in DP-positions

c. null determiner DPs d. (in)definite DPs and DP-modifying phrases It is one thing to claim that the entire future wh-construction involves intensionality and another thing to attribute the intensionality of the construction to the selecting predicates, as defended here. On the other hand, it is not at all obvious what an alternative account for the intensionality of FWHCs would be like. If examples of FWHCs systematically involved some operator in the matrix clause, e.g. Negation, modals or generic adverbials, the intensionality of FWHCs could, in principle, be attributed to them.16 This is not the case, however. Attributing the intensionality of FWHCs to the selecting predicates cannot be the end of the story; we ultimately need an account for why these particular predicates can be used intensionally. It seems to me that the answer to this question lies in the construction in (56d), where the predicates in question c-select an (in)definite DP and a DP-modifying as-phrase (cf. (57)). Semantically, they s-select an individual and a property modifying that individual. The object-modifying phrase obligatorily has future orientation.17 (57) Aγorasa ena forema jia kalo. bought.1sg a dress as good ‘I have bought a dress to have it as my Sunday dress.’ I would like to explore the following working hypothesis concerning the origin of the Future Wh-Construction; namely, that only those predicates which can select an extensional object and an object-modifying phrase with future orientation can alternatively select intensional individuals with future orientation; these intensional individuals are realized as either FWHCs or definite DPs. According to this hypothesis, the capacity of a predicate to appear in the construction (56d) signals that this predicate can also select FWHCs. It can be shown, though I will not do it here for reasons of space, that all the predicates that select FWHCs have a c-selection frame which includes an object DP and an object-modifying phrase. Presumably, it is not a coincidence that precisely those predicates which can select an object and an object-modifying phrase can alternatively select FWHCs. We have seen that the class of predicates that take object-modifying phrases with future orientation coincides with the class of predicates which select FWHCs. Moreover, the interpretation of the sentences with object-modifying phrases bears similarities to the interpretation of the sentences with FWHCs. I propose the following parallelism between the two constructions. On the one hand, we have the construction where these predicates select two internal arguments, i.e., an object and an objectmodifying phrase (cf. (56d)). In these examples the predicates have an extensional use and their object is extensional. On the other hand, we have the construction where the same predicates have an intensional use and their object is intensional (cf. (56b)). The intensional object is realized as a FWHC. The intensional argument of the second construction corresponds to the object-modifying phrase of the first construction. The





Yoryia Agouraki

intensional object of the second construction fills the canonical object position, i.e., the same position that is filled with an extensional object in the first construction. To exemplify the above proposal, consider next the minimal pair in (58a–b). In (58a) the verb has an intensional complement, which is realized as a FWHC. In (58b), on the other hand, the verb selects an extensional complement, i.e., the definite DP afto to forema ‘this dress’, which occupies the object position, and an object-modifying phrase, i.e., the PP jia kalo ‘as my Sunday dress’. Aγorasa ti θa foreso sto parti. bought.1sg what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have bought what I am going to wear at the party.’ b. Aγorasa afto to forema jia kalo. bought.1sg this the dress as good ‘I have bought this dress to have it as my Sunday dress.’

(58) a.

(58a) and (58b) differ in the interpretation of the object. In (58b) the object is a definite description, which takes wide scope with respect to logical operators, while in (58a) the intensional object takes narrow scope with respect to logical operators. We can now explain the ungrammaticality of examples (59) and (60) below. (59) *Aγorasa afto to forema ti θa foreso sto parti. bought.1sg this the dress what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have bought this dress as what [i.e., the dress] I am going to wear at the party.’ (60) *Aγorasa ti θa foreso sto parti jia kalo. bought.1sg what will wear.1sg at.the party as good ‘I have bought what I am going to wear at the party as my good dress.’ In (59) we see that it is not possible to substitute a FWHC for an object-modifying phrase. The ungrammaticality of (59) can be explained as a clash of selection requirements; namely, a predicate (e.g. aγorazo) cannot simultaneously select an extensional (i.e. afto to forema) and an intensional (i.e. ti θa foreso sto parti) complement. In (60) we see that a sentence cannot contain both a FWHC and an objectmodifying phrase. The ungrammaticality of (60) in fact offers one more argument for the intensionality of FWHCs, which should be added to the intensionality arguments presented in Section 7.1. More specifically, the reason why the same sentence cannot contain both a FWHC and an object-modifying phrase is because one of the two constituents will be redundant as they both target the same kind of argument, i.e. an intensional individual/property. The situation reminds one of Burton’s (1995: 9) observation that “an object-modifying as-phrase will disambiguate an otherwise ambiguous sentence with a possessive verb, and block a creation-type reading for the possessive verb”. In particular, the DP an assistant in (61a) is ambiguous between an extensional and an intensional reading, while the DP an assistant in (61b) can only have an extensional reading.

WH-clauses in DP-positions

(61) a. Mary got an assistant. b. Mary got an assistant as a dance partner. To come back to example (60), mutatis mutandis, if FWHCs could be used extensionally, as (in)definite DPs can, example (60) would be grammatical (contrast the ungrammaticality of (60) with the grammaticality of (57)). The anticipated corresponding effect of the object-modifying as-phrase jia kalo in (60) would be to block the intensional reading of aγorazo ‘buy’ and force the extensional reading of the verb. This cannot happen in Greek because the FWHC form marks the wh-clause as intensional. The extensional use of aγorazo ‘buy’ would require an extensional wh-clause, i.e., a RFR. As shown in Section 3, free relatives are morphologically marked in Greek, which is why the FWHC in (60) cannot be interpreted as a RFR. The grammaticality of the English translation of (60) does not pose a problem for the ungrammaticality account of (60). The English translation of (60) is grammatical, because the wh-clause in the English translation is read as an extensional complement, i.e., a RFR; this is possible because free relatives in English are not morphologically marked, as they are in Greek. If we assume that FWHCs are intensional objects, the ungrammaticality of (60) is easily explained; it is not possible for a verb to take an extensional and an intensional complement at the same time. If I am right in that the ability of a particular set of verbs to select FWHCs has its origin in their capacity to select a DP and a DP-modifying phrase with future orientation, it could be argued that the requirement for future tense in the wh-clause is precisely a consequence of the fact that the FWHC corresponds semantically to the object-modifying phrase with future orientation in the construction where the same set of predicates select an object and an object-modifying phrase. To sum up the discussion in this section, I started by pointing out that the predicates that select FWHCs can also select an object DP and an object-modifying phrase, where the interpretation of the verb in the second construction is similar to the interpretation of the verb when it selects a FWHC. In principle, the similarity in interpretation between the two constructions could suggest, though not necessarily, that also when they select FWHCs these predicates are three-place predicates. Alternatively, it could only indicate that these predicates have a construction where they take extensional objects and object-modifying phrases, and another construction where they take intensional objects, i.e., when they select FWHCs. It was argued that the latter seems to be the case.

. Selection and FWHCs The limited distribution of FWHCs strongly suggests selection. In fact, upon more careful examination it becomes obvious that the distribution of FWHCs offers itself to two possible analyses (cf. (62)), each with distinct implications.



 Yoryia Agouraki

(62) Two possible analyses: a. FWHCs as such are selected by the specific set of predicates. b. The specific set of predicates, in this particular reading, select a particular semantic complement, i.e., intensional definite DPs, which can be realized, among other things, as FWHCs. The claim that FWHCs are selected is not trivial. It is one thing to claim that FWHCs are placed in positions where a particular NP type is selected and another thing to claim that it is FWHCs as such that are selected. The formulation in (56b) of the previous section already suggests that the proposal defended in the paper is that it is a particular NP type, i.e., intensional definite DPs, and not FWHCs as such, that is selected. These may be realized as definite DPs or as FWHCs. FWHCs as such are not selected.18 That FWHCs are in free distribution with definite DPs is illustrated in (63) below. Exo iði sçeðiasi me ti θa stoliso to ðendro. have.1sg already designed with what will decorate.1sg the tree ‘I have already designed what I am going to decorate the tree with.’ b. Exo iði sçeðiasi ta stoliðjia jia to ðendro. have.1sg already designed the ornaments for the tree ‘I have already designed the tree ornaments.’

(63) a.

. The syntax of FWHCs The mapping from the semantics to the syntax of FWHCs is examined next. I have proposed that FWHCs are interpreted as intensional definite DPs. The syntactic structure I am proposing for FWHCs is one where FWHCs are DPs, and the CP with the whphrase in its Spec occupies the complement position of a D head. The CP is interpreted as a predicate and the DP is interpreted as an intensional individual (cf. (64)). (64) a. Future wh-clauses are DPs. b. DP D Ø

CP wh-phrase

C’

The D head, which is occupied by a null determiner, selects a nominal predicate. The nominal predicate is realized as a wh-clause. I follow Cooper’s claim that all wh-clauses, and not just wh-relatives, are predicates initially. There is independent evidence that wh-clauses can function as predicates. Consider example (65) below, where we have a post-copular use of a wh-clause.

WH-clauses in DP-positions

(65) Aftos ine ti θa fai ti θa pji. he is what will eat.3sg what will drink.3sg ‘He’s only interested in what he can eat or drink.’ (Meaning: ‘He’s only interested in material things.’) Crucially, the D head of FWHCs is not the pivot of a relative clause. This is in contrast with the structure of a RFR, where the D head, the prefix o-, is a pivot and the CP is not in the complement position of the D head but in an adjunct position. I assume that in free relatives the wh-word -pjios is contracted with the D head, i.e., o-, and the contracted form occupies the D-position. It should be clear that I am not arguing for a complex-DP analysis of FWHCs, along the lines that have been proposed for RFRs. I am arguing that in RFRs, IFRs and FWHCs, alike, a D head merges with a CP, i.e., a wh-clause, to give a DP. I assume that the CP is an adjunct in the case of RFRs but a complement of D in the cases of FWHCs and IFRs. In each case the D head bears the morpho-syntactic and semantic features of the DP. In the case of Greek RFRs the whword -pjios contracts with the D head o- (cf. (66a)); there is morphological evidence for the contraction. There is no evidence for contraction between the D head, which is null, and the wh-word in FWHCs and IFRs. I am arguing that case attaction in RFRs is due to contraction between the D-head and the wh-word. Support for this claim is provided by the alternative way of forming RFRs in Greek, where the D head, the demonstrative pronoun aftos ‘this’, merges with a relative wh-clause, and yet there is no case attraction (cf. (66b) below) because the D head is not contracted with the whword. Θa andikruso opjion/*opjios ipostirikse oti . . . will challenge.1sg whom/who argued that ‘I will challenge whoever has argued that . . . ’ b. Θa andikruso afton o opjios/*ton opjio ipostirikse oti . . . will challenge.1sg him who/whom argued that ‘I will challenge whoever has argued that . . . ’

(66) a.

The question arises why there is contraction between the D head and the wh-phrase in one way of forming RFRs (cf. (66a)) but not in FWHCs or IFRs, or in the alternative way of forming RFRs (cf. (66b)), if I am right in my assumptions. As shown by (66), it is not the case that there is always contraction between D and the wh-phrase of RFRs. Contraction takes place only when D is a bound morph, as in (66a)). As discussed in Grosu (2004), “When the matrix clause is semantically negative, negation contracts morphologically with the wh-pronoun, and the resulting complex word may be separated from the remainder of the subordinate clause by elements of the matrix . . . – a state of affairs which suggests that the wh-element is itself part of the matrix, at least in superficial representation”. The Greek free relative pronoun in (66a) has undergone contraction just like Russian MEC pronouns must contract with matrix negation. Grosu (2004) lists a number of tests which support a bare CP analysis, versus a DP analysis, for IFRs, referred to in that paper as Modal Existential wh Constructions



 Yoryia Agouraki

(MECs). Next, it will be examined whether these independent tests support a bare CP analysis for FWHCs, as well. It will be shown that they do not. There follows a brief discussion of each one of the four tests. Grosu’s first argument is that “extraction out of MECs is easier than extraction out of FRs or overtly headed DPs in certain languages, and moreover has the essential degree of acceptability of extraction out of non-indicative interrogatives (which [Grosu] takes to be uncontroversially bare CPs) in the corresponding languages”. This argument does not go through with FWHCs, as extraction out of FWHCs yields ungrammaticality (cf. example (38) in Section 6.1). Second, according to Grosu, the “strongest argument in favour of a bare CP analysis of MECs, is the total absence of certain constraints that are typically found in complex nominals that consist of a CP-external head and an adjunct clause with a filled [Spec, CP]”. Grosu discusses two such constraints, i.e., matching effects and piedpiping. As he puts it, “the first constraint concerns the extent to which the Case and categorial properties of the external head and those of the phrase in [Spec, CP] may differ from each other when exactly one of these two elements is null”. As illustrated in Section 2, FWHCs do not show matching effects. However, the point I want to make is that the absence of matching effects in FWHCs is not necessarily evidence for a bare CP analysis, as Grosu maintains. Crucially, it is not the case that there is only one alternative to the bare CP analysis Grosu argues against, namely a complex nominal analysis, where there is a CP-external head and an adjunct clause with a filled [Spec, CP]”. There is at least a third possibility, i.e., the analysis I propose for FWHCs. Crucially, there is an important difference between a potential complex nominal analysis of FWHCs and the analysis proposed for FWHCs. Namely, in the proposed analysis, the CP is not an adjunct clause but a bare predicate, and the D-head is not the head of the construction, but a higher projection that informs us on the type of nominal the wh-clause/FWHC has type-shifted in. In the proposed analysis there is no external head which is coreferential with the wh-phrase in [Spec, CP]. The presence of the restriction on DP-pied-piping by a wh-pronoun in its spec is taken by Grosu to be an argument against a bare CP analysis of wh-clauses. As shown by example (67), pied piping is not allowed in FWHCs, which, in Grosu’s theory, would argue against a bare CP analysis of FWHCs. In Grosu’s theory, the presence of the restriction on DP-pied-piping in FWHCs would be analysed as a consequence of the wh-clause being headed by some category external to the wh-clause. Even though I argue for a DP analysis of FWHCs, I think that the restriction on DP-pied-piping holds for an independent reason. Namely, for the same reason that explicit sortals are not allowed in FWHCs. In fact any means by which more content is given to the wh-phrase is disallowed. Explicit sortals is one such means, the structure required for pied piping is another. This paper attributes the absence of pied-piping with FWHCs not to the D head but, rather, to the semantic properties of the construction.

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

(67) *Exo iði sçeðiasi me ta kosmimata tinos θa have.1sg already designed with the jewellery whose will stoliso to ðendro. decorate.1sg the tree ‘*I’ve already designed with whose jewellery I’m going to decorate the tree.’ A third argument for a bare CP analysis of wh-clauses presented by Grosu is that “Multiple wh-phrases seem to be generally possible in CPs that do not form a constituent with an external “head”” (ibid.). The argument is inapplicable, as Greek has a general ban against multiple fronting of wh-phrases. A fourth argument, which again is inapplicable in Greek, is clitic climbing out of the wh-clause. To sum up, of the four tests for bare CP structure Grosu proposes, only part of one, i.e., absence of matching effects applies successfully to FWHCs. The extraction test, and the pied-piping test fail. The remaining two tests, i.e., multiple wh-phrases and clitic-climbing are inapplicable because Greek does not have these constructions in general. It seems to me that what the lack of matching effects shows is not the absence of a D-head, but rather that the wh-phrase is not an adjunct of the D head. Concerning free relative pronouns in Greek, which manifest case attraction, it was pointed out in Section 2 that the prefix o- of free relative pronouns, which appears to be a definiteness marker, is identical to the masculine singular definite article. Still, it could not be claimed that synchronically the prefix o- of free relative wh-words is the definite article as such, as the latter is declined for gender, case and number, while the former is not. It turns out that I was on the wrong track, trying to synchronically establish the origin of the prefix o-. Having looked at dictionaries, it turns out that the prefix o- in fact comes from the Classical Greek relative pronoun hos, which in turn contracts with the interrogative adjective pjios ‘which’; the contracted form has been lexicalized and has become an element of the matrix clause. The historical decomposition of Greek relative pronouns, where the which-clause functioned like a predicate and the relative pronoun, a D head, merged with the which-clause, is compatible with (a) the claim in the paper that the wh-clause of FWHCs, as the wh-clause of RFRs or the wh-clause of IFRs, functions like a predicate and (b) the claim that it is a D head that bears the semantic and morpho-syntactic features of the wh-complement. The D head is the prefix o- in the case of free relatives, or a null determiner in the case of FWHCs and IFRs. I think that the decomposed structure of free relatives, where a D head merges with a wh-clause, by analogy provides a weak argument for an analysis of FWHCs and IFRs according to which a D head merges with a wh-clause. The following question arises. Is it problematic to assume that both FWHCs and IFRs are headed by a null D with distinct properties in each case? I do not think so. There is no reason why null determiners should differ from overt determiners in that respect. Consider, for instance, the definite determiner, which can introduce DPs with distinct semantic properties, i.e., extensional DPs, intensional DPs, generic DPs. If FWHCs are DPs, as claimed, the question arises why they are not assigned case by the higher predicate (cf. (68a)), as are free relatives (cf. (68b)).

 Yoryia Agouraki

Θa ekleksun pjios θa tus ekprosopisi. will elect.3pl who.nom.fwhc will them represent.3sg ‘They will elect who is going to represent them.’ b. Θa ekleksun opjion tus ðosi perisoteres iposçesis. will elect.3pl whoever.acc.rfr them give.3sg more promises ‘They will elect whoever is going to give them more promises.’

(68) a.

The wh-word in the FWHC (cf. (68a)), i.e. pjios, bears the case allowed in situ inside the wh-clause, i.e., nominative. On the other hand, the wh-word heading the free relative in (68b), i.e., opjion, does not bear the case that would be assigned to it in situ, i.e., nominative; it bears accusative, which is assigned by the matrix predicate. It appears that there is case attraction only when the wh-phrase is contracted with an external D-head and the contracted form occupies a matrix position, i.e., the position of the D-head, as is the case with RFRs. If there is no contraction, the D-head cannot pass down its case to the wh-phrase in [Spec, CP]. That a D-head does not pass down its case on the wh-phrase is independently shown by nominalized wh-clauses in Greek (cf. (69)). (69) Sizitisan to pji /*pjius θa simetasxun. discussed.3pl the.acc who.nom.pl/who.acc.pl will take.part.3pl ‘They discussed who is going to take part.’ As with nominalized clauses in Greek, or with examples like I met those who called me, where the D head those has accusative case but the wh-phrase in [Spec,CP] who has nominative Case, I assume that in FWHCs the accusative case feature of the matrix predicate is checked against the accusative case of the null determiner heading the FWHC. The case feature of the wh-phrase in the Spec of the FWHC is checked inside its clause. A second argument, beyond the analogy among RFRs, FWHCs and IFRs, for analysing FWHCs as DPs, rather than CPs, has to do with the selection requirements of the matrix predicates. In the case of FWHCs, I think that there is no basis for extending the subcategorization options of the matrix predicates from nominal to CP arguments. A third argument for analysing FWHCs as DPs, rather than CPs, has to do with the free distribution between FWHCs and definite DPs. As illustrated, there is no difference in interpretation between these two syntactic realisations. I do not think there would be adequate motivation in claiming that the same reading in the complement position of a specific set of predicates can be realized as either a DP or a CP. In Grosu’s (2004) analysis of MECs as CPs, the reading of MECs is not seen as sharing, in its totality, the semantics of any other NP-type (cf. specifically the possibility/ability force of MECs). I assume the bare CP analysis is deemed optimal in that case also because it is not obvious how the modal force of MECs could be accommodated within a DP analysis. Concerning FWHCs, I could think of no way the semantics of intensional definite DPs could be syntactically analysed as CPs.

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

In addition, in the case of FWHCs I could think of no semantic-pragmatic properties of the matrix predicates or of contextual factors that could in principle seem plausible candidates for licensing an extension of subcategorization options from nominal to CP arguments. But even if one could formulate a working hypothesis along those lines, it would need to be explained why these properties/factors become inactive when definite DPs are selected in that interpretation by the same set of predicates.

. The selecting predicates have an unbounbed eventuality component We have seen that the predicates that select FWHCs belong to the class of accomplishment predicates. Dowty (1979) has argued that the meaning of an accomplishment verb phrase invariably involves the coming about of a particular state of affairs. Given that the set of accomplishment predicates is larger than the set of predicates that select FWHCs, it will be investigated whether it is possible to describe the set of accomplishment predicates that select FWHCs by identifying more specifically the state they induce. On the basis of the pieces of evidence in (70) the paper advances the claim in (71). (70) The selecting predicates, in selecting FWHCs: a. have a strong feeling of current relevance; b. are compatible with apo ‘since’-phrases; c. allow ‘parakimenos B’ (i.e. exo ‘have’ + perfective participle) as a present perfect form. (71) The selecting predicates have a unbounbed eventuality component as part of their aspectual structure. Interestingly, characteristics (70a–b) of FWHCs are shared with the universal perfect. Iatridou, Anagnostopoulou and Izvorski (2001) argue that the universal perfect can be formed only if the underlying eventuality is unbounded. An eventuality is described as unbounded when it is ongoing at an interval and is therefore not asserted to have reached an endpoint. As properties (70a–b) constitute evidence for the existence of an unbounbed eventuality component, claim (71) is advanced for the predicates that select FWHCs. Properties (70a–c) are presented next. Concerning (70a) the reader is referred to the brief discussion in Section 2 (on the strong feeling of current relevance with the universal perfect see Veloudis 1990, 1991, 2003). With respect to property (70b), it is noted that sentences with FWHCs present a time reference puzzle. Namely, the selecting predicates, which are notably eventive predicates, are compatible with apo ‘since’-phrases (cf. (72)). This is not expected. On the contrary, we would expect the selecting predicates to be solely compatible with time adverbials that mark a point in time (cf. (73)).

 Yoryia Agouraki

(72) Aγorasa iði apo ton perasmeno mina ti θa foreso sto bought.1sg already since last month what will wear.1sg at.the parti. party ‘It’s already a month since I bought what I am going to wear at the party.’ (73) Xtes aγorasa ti θa foreso sto parti. yesterday bought.1sg what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘Yesterday I bought what I am going to wear at the party.’ The preposition apo ‘since, from’ standardly marks the left boundary of a period of time, and is compatible with the universal and the experiential readings of the semantic category “perfect”. The right boundary may or may not be expressed. It has been noted that the universal perfect can be formed only if the “underlying eventuality” (the eventuality referred to by the syntactic material occurring just below the perfect) is a stative verb or adjective or a progressive. As already pointed out, Iatridou, Anagnostopoulou and Izvorski (2001) argue that what is required is unboundedness, a notion related but not identical with stativity. An eventuality is described as unbounded when it is ongoing at an interval and is therefore not asserted to have reached an endpoint. The syntacticosemantic feature [unbounded] is realized by progressive or imperfective morphology. If so, as expected, apo ‘since’-phrases are not compatible with eventive verbs / eventive past tense (cf. (74)). (74) (*Apo) tin Paraskevi aγorasa to ble mu forema. since the Friday bought.1sg the blue my dress ‘(*Since) last Friday I bought my blue dress.’ Given the ungrammaticality of (74), the availability of apo-phrases with predicates selecting FWHCs is puzzling (cf. (72)). In order to deal with this puzzle we must first specify whether it is the universal or the experiential reading that supports the apo ‘since’-phrase in sentences with FWHCs. One piece of evidence for the universal reading hypothesis is supplied by the fact that the adverbial modifier iði ‘already’ is compatible with the meaning of these sentences (cf. (72)). We have seen that the universal reading is possible only if the underlying eventuality is unbounded, i.e., is ongoing at an interval and is therefore not asserted to have reached an endpoint; the syntacticosemantic feature [unbounded] is realized by progressive or imperfective morphology. However, the verb in (72), i.e., aγorasa ‘bought’, is in the perfective form and the eventuality described by the verb is bounded. It will be proposed that the answer to this puzzle is provided by the hypothesis in (71). In selecting FWHCs, the verbs in question focus on the state that results from the event they describe. Namely, in (72) the focus is on the state that results from the event of buying some piece of garment. The property of focusing on a state that results from a prior event characterises a particular semantic class of verbs when they select FWHCs. Concerning property (70c), it holds for the selecting predicates irrespective of whether or not they are in the selection frame under investigation. Greek has two ways

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

of forming present perfect: (a) with the present tense of the auxiliary verb exo ‘have’ and an invariant perfective participle of the lexical verb (parakimenos A / present perfect A), or (b) with the present tense of the auxiliary verb exo ‘have’ and a variant perfective participle of the lexical verb, where the perfective participle agrees in gender and number with the complement of the verb (parakimenos B / present perfect B). While all verbs can form present perfect A, the set of verbs that can form present perfect B is limited. As argued in Veloudis 1991, present perfect B forms are only allowed if the event is easily related to some result, that is if the event leaves recognizable traces on some individual. Notably, unaccusative verbs can form present perfect B. As shown by the grammaticality of (75b) below, for those predicates that select FWHCs, among other complements, it is possible to form, besides present perfect A, present perfect B. Exo iði aγorasi ti θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have already bought what I am going to wear at the party.’ b. Exo iði aγorasmeno ti θa foreso sto parti. have.1sg already bought what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have already bought what I am going to wear at the party.’

(75) a.

On the basis of (70a–c) I advance the hypothesis that the predicates that select FWHCs include an unbounbed eventuality component in their decomposed lexical structure. The unbounbed eventuality component has as its left boundary the action described by the selecting verb; the event described by the FWHC may, but need not mark the right boundary of the unbounbed eventuality component.

. Irrealis Free Relatives It is outside the scope of this paper to propose an analysis for IFRs (for more data consider Appendix II). On the other hand, it seems necessary to sketch a working hypothesis for IFRs, in so far as we need to set apart FWHCs from IFRs in view of the similarities the two constructions bear, as shown in Section 6.1. However, we have also seen (cf. Sections 6.2 and 6.3) that the two types of wh-clauses also bear a substantial number of differences. The working hypothesis the paper puts forward is that IFRs are interpreted as intensional indefinite DPs.

. The selecting predicates The predicates that select IFRs in Greek include exo ‘have’, eçi ‘existential have’, ðino ‘give’, psaxno ‘look for’, vrisko ‘find’, perno/pijeno ‘take to sb’, and ferno ‘bring’. It has been noted with respect to a number of languages that IFRs occur mainly when the selecting predicate is modified by a propositional operator, in particular Negation or Question. In fact, according to Izvorski (1998), the intensionality observed with respect to IFRs is due to the intensionality of the propositional operators. If, in fact, it

 Yoryia Agouraki

holds that IFRs are licensed in the scope of a propositional operator, there could perhaps be some connection between IFRs and negative polarity items, which are also licensed in the scope of a propositional operator. This is a question that we should bear in mind in the brief discussion of IFRs to follow. If we consider the Greek data (in fact we need more data than the examples of IFRs in Appendix II), we will see that the predicates that select IFRs somehow fall in two categories. On the one hand, we have the predicates exo ‘have’, eçi ‘existential have’, and vrisko ‘find’, which can only select IFRs if they are modified by a propositional operator. On the other hand, we have the remaining predicates, which can select IFRs regardless. Of these predicates psaxno ‘look for’ is intensional. The other predicates of this group include ðino ‘give’, perno/pijeno ‘take to sb’ and ferno ‘bring’. The triggering versus cancellation of the requirement for the presence of propositional operators seems quite puzzling at first. The working hypothesis I put forward is the following. The semantics of the selecting predicates must be of a type that needs to be identified. What we note is that for some predicates the semantics required is a result of the association of propositional operators with particular predicates. These are just three predicates, i.e., exo ‘have’, eçi ‘existential have’, and vrisko ‘find’. For the other predicates that select IFRs the presence of a propositional operator is not necessary, simply because they seem to inherently have the required semantics. The working hypothesis I intend to investigate in future work is that the selecting predicates are used intensionally when they take IFR complements. And, in particular, that IFRs are interpreted as intensional indefinite DPs. One of the selecting predicates, namely psaxno ‘look for’, is generally taken to be intensional. It remains to be explored whether ðino ‘give’, perno/pijeno ‘take to sb’ and ferno ‘bring’ are in fact used intensionally when they take IFR complements. That perno/pijeno ‘take to sb’ and ferno ‘bring’ can be used intensionally we already knew, as they have been shown to select FWHCs.

. The semantics of IFRs The working hypothesis under investigation is that IFRs are interpreted as intensional indefinite DPs. Prima facie, IFRs are interpreted as nonspecific indefinites. The affinity between IFRs and NPIs does not stop at the observation that IFRs are sometimes licensed in the same environments as NPIs. The interpretation of IFRs seems to bear similarities to the interpretation of NPIs. Again, this is an issue that I investigate in work in progress. According to Grosu (1989: 52), IFRs “are semantically characterized by an indefinite ‘understood’ head and by ‘future orientation”’. Grosu (2004) modifies the claim that IFRs necessarily have future orientation. In particular, according to Grosu (2004), the predicates that select IFRs fall into two major classes; (i) assertion of existence (usually expressed by verbs of the be or have type), and (ii) coming into being, view, or availability, or causation of one of these (for example, arrive, be born, choose, look for, find, send, obtain, and wangle. With predicates of type (i), which are stative, there is no necessary directional relation between the time of the assertion/denial of existence and

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

the time of the eventuality in the scope of modality. In contrast, predicates of type (ii) denote events that bring about the emergence of the denotatum of the IFR into existence, availability, and/or the universe of discourse, and the eventuality in the scope of modality has a non-past orientation, apparently with purpose import.” Suñer (1984) notes that IFRs may occur as direct objects of just any V that allows indefinite direct objects. This is a very important observation. In (76) we see that IFRs are in free distribution with null determiner DPs, singular or plural. In those cases where the IFR is paraphrased with a singular DP, the head noun is a collective noun (e.g. fai ‘food’) or a noun like ðoro ‘gift’. (76) a.

Mas efere ti na ðjiavasume. us brought.3sg what to read.1pl ‘He brought us what to read.’ b. Mas efere vivlia. us brought.3sg books ‘He brought us books.’

As with FWHCs, aspects of the meaning of IFRs are composed from elements present in their morphosyntactic representation. In work in progress it is explored how the nominal interpretation and the intensional indefinite DP/property interpretation of IFRs are composed from the wh-clause form and the na-marker of IFRs, respectively.

. The syntax of IFRs I have proposed that IFRs are interpreted as intensional indefinite DPs. I assume that IFRs have a DP layer on top of CP (cf. (77)). (77) a. IFRs are DPs. b. DP D Ø

CP wh-phrase

C’

The D head selects a nominal predicate. FWHCs and IFRs are taken to have the same syntactic structure. Their difference lies in the distinct semantic features of the D-head, which is null in both cases.

. Theoretical consequences The paper has presented a ‘new’ type of wh-clause filling DP-positions, i.e., Future wh-clauses. It has been argued that in selecting FWHCs the matrix predicates take an

 Yoryia Agouraki

intensional complement, and that FWHCs are interpreted as intensional definite DPs (semantic type <s,e>). The cross-linguistic considerations of the presented data, are, I believe, worth pursuing and I intend to address them in future work. Namely, do other languages have the semantic equivalent of FWHCs? If yes, are they realized as FWHCs? In this section I only pinpoint the theoretical implications of FWHCs that have to do with whether or not selection is involved. It is generally thought that selected whclauses can only be interpreted as questions. I have presented data which show that there are in fact selected wh-clauses in DP-positions. On the basis of Greek data, I have identified a type of selected wh-clause that appears in DP-positions and is interpreted as an intensional definite DP. In line with Cooper (1983), who has argued that the root meaning of all wh-clauses is that of properties, the data presented in the paper are precisely a case where wh-clauses have type-shifted into an NP-type meaning, distinct from that of free relatives. Given that at least one type of selected wh-clause occurs in DP-positions and has an NP-type meaning, we should perhaps re-examine the status of other types of selected wh-clauses, where by types I mean nothing more than distinct interpretations of selected wh-clauses. The relation among the various types of wh-clauses in DP-positions, i.e., FWHCs, RFRs and IFRs, is another issue that also needs to be addressed.

Notes * The paper is dedicated to Prof. Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou, my first Greek Syntax teacher. I am grateful to Irene Heim and the two reviewers for this volume, whose very detailed comments and objections enabled me to better understand the construction under examination, as well as improve on the presentation. I would also like to thank Sabine Iatridou and Ioannis Veloudis, whose observations on the first drafts of this paper guided me through the various ‘sides’ of this construction and helped me focus on particular aspects, and Phoevos Panagiotides for some useful suggestions. Last, but not least, I would like to thank the editors of this volume for both content and presentation comments, but also for their patience regarding long missed deadlines, as well as the series editors for their comments on the organization of the paper. . The ungrammaticality of (4) in Greek appears puzzling given the grammaticality of its English translation. The English translation is OK because the wh-clause is interpreted as a presuppositional RFR. The intended reading, i.e., that of a non-presuppositional DP, is excluded for the English translation, as well. . On some other properties of propositional operators see Agouraki (1999). . Crucially, if other DP-predicates than those in question are put in the scope of an interrogative operator, selection of FWHCs will not be possible (cf. ungrammatical (i) below). (i) *Aγapai pjion θa padrefti? love.3sg who.fwhc will marry.3sg? ‘*Is she in love with who-FWHC she is going to marry?’ . Or AdvP-positions, for that matter.

WH-clauses in DP-positions  . The prefix o-, which appears to be a definiteness marker, is in fact identical to the masculine singular definite article (see, however, the discussion in Section 8). Synchronically it could not be claimed that the prefix o- of free relative wh-words is the definite article as such, as the latter is declined for gender, case and number, while the former is not. I. Veloudis (p.c.) points out two more reasons why, synchronically, the prefix o- of free relative words cannot be taken to be the same as the definite article. One reason is that it is the neuter article to, rather than the masculine article o or the feminine article i, that combines with whclauses in subject position (cf. (i), where the wh-clause, which is the subject of the matrix verb, is introduced with the neuter article to). (i)

To ti tis ipe θa paramini aγnosto. the what her told.3sg will remain.3sg unknown ‘It will remain unknown what he told her.’

The other reason why, according to Veloudis, the prefix o- of free relative words and the definite article, in particular the homophonous masculine article o, should be kept apart is because the definite article is not stressed while the prefix o- of free relative words is stressed. . There is, in fact, an alternative way of forming RFRs in Greek. Namely, by means of the demonstrative pronoun followed by a relative clause (e.g. aftos pu . . . ‘this that . . . ’). Admittedly, there are meaning differences between the two ways of forming RFRs, which, however, are outside the scope of this paper. . It could be that the apparent categorial identity between the matrix position and the gap position in the English translation of (11a) has a source different than the alleged matching effect. As known, English has general preposition stranding (cf. (i-a–b)), with the exception of relative clauses, where preposition stranding is not obligatory (cf. (i-c)). (i)

a. *With what are you going to decorate the tree? b. *I don’t know with what he is going to decorate the tree. c. I’ve just bought the ornaments with which I am going to decorate the tree.

. In (17a) the FWHC is moved to a preverbal subject position, while in (17b) the FWHC remains in the complement position, which is O.K. in Greek passive sentences. . In (18) I have checked for both Left Dislocation (i.e., no clitic) and Clitic Left Dislocation (i.e., clitic required). . For instance, for those who would want to treat FWHCs as a subtype of free relatives, the fact that Greek FWHCs, unlike Greek RFRs, do not have the definiteness marker o- is not necessarily evidence against the free relative analysis of FWHCs. Instead, we could simply assume that this particular type of free relatives does not semantically need the definiteness marker o-, in the same way that English RFRs in the identity reading do not take the -ever marking. . However, so do specific indefinites, and perhaps also IFRs. In what ways does the interpretation of FWHCs differ from the interpretation of specific indefinites, or the interpretation of IFRs? The precise interpretation of FWHCs is investigated in Section 7. . I have translated FWHCs with the be going to future in English, rather than the will Future. However, there appears to be variation among native speakers with respect to which of the two futures in English forces the narrow scope of the wh-clause with respect to logical operators, which is the reading that FWHCs obligatorily have. According to one informant, the be going to future forces the narrow scope. However, according to another informant, it is the will future that favours the narrow scope. Clearly, more data eliciting is required for English.

 Yoryia Agouraki . Diesing (1992: 110–111) has shown that verbs of creation (e.g. write, paint) do not permit a quantificational reading of an indefinite object. For example, sentence (i-a) does not permit an interpretation such as ‘Whenever there is a book about slugs, I write it’. (i)

a. b. c.

I usually write a book about slugs. I usually paint a picture of Barbary apes. I usually draw a map of Bechertown.

The absence of wide scope readings with creation verbs is not surprising. Creation verbs denote the bringing of their objects into existence and therefore are incompatible with the notion of pre-existence. Diesing (1992: 110) draws the conclusion that “things that are only just brought into existence cannot be mapped into a restrictive clause, and are limited to only the cardinal (existential) reading”. The observation that verbs of creation permit only the existential closure reading is supported by three tests that act as indicators for the quantificational reading of an indefinite object: the acceptability of the determiner any, antecedent-contained deletions, and scrambling of indefinites in German. It is obvious that the narrow scope of FWHCs does not reduce to the facts discussed by Diesing; in particular, verbs of creation are only a small subset of the verbs that select FWHCs. . However, in other languages IFRs are known to allow for an explicit sortal in the wh-phrase (cf. Grosu & Landman 1998 on Romanian). . On na-clauses see Agouraki (1991). . Izvorski (1998), for example, derives the modality/intensionality of IFRs from the irrealis nature of the embedded clause. . Consider in (i) an example where a predicate selects an object and an object-modifying phrase, which, however, does not have future orientation. (i)

Ton ixan jia peθameno. him had.3pl as dead ‘They considered him dead.’

The clause for the future orientation of the object-modifying phrase also correctly excludes predicates where the property modifying the individual is a result of the activity of the predicate/impact of the predicate on a particular individual (as in strike the iron flat, for instance) from selecting FWHCs. For a predicate selecting an object and an object-modifying phrase to be able to also select FWHCs, the property modifying the individual selected by the verb should do no more than indicate the use in which the individual selected by the verb will be put. . Which means that they could in principle be analysed as (a subtype of) free relatives.

References Agouraki, Y. (1991). A Modern Greek complementizer and its significance for Universal Grammar. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 1–24. Agouraki, Y. (1999). Propositional operators. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax (pp. 23–44). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Burton, S. (1995). Six Issues to Consider in Choosing a Husband: Possessive relations in the lexical semantic structures of verbs. Ph.D. Dissertation, Rutgers University.

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

Chung, S. & W. Ladusaw (2001). Restriction and saturation. Ms. University of California, Santa Cruz. Cooper, R. (1983). Quantification and Syntactic Theory. Dordrecht: Reidel. Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Grosu, A. & F. Landman (1998). Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 125–170. Grosu, A. (1989). Pied-piping and the matching parameter. The Linguistic Review, 6(1), 41–58. Grosu, A. (2004). The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh-constructions. In O. Mišeska Tomi´c (Ed.), Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Balkan Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Heim, I. & A. Kratzer (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Iatridou, S., E. Anagnostopoulou, & R. Izvorski (2001). Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 189–238). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Izvorski, R. (1998). Non-Indicative Wh-Complements of Possessive and Existential Predicates. In P. N. Tamanji & K. Kusumoto (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 28 (pp. 159–173). Moltmann, F. (1997). Intensional verbs and quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 5, 1–52. Suñer, M. (1984). Free relatives and the matching parameter. The Linguistic Review, 3, 363–387. Veloudis, I. (1990). O metaγlosikos xaraktiras tu parakimenu: Parakimenos A’ (The metalinguistic character of present perfect: Present perfect A’). Studies in Greek Linguistics, 10, 359– 377. Thessaloniki: Kyriakides Press. Veloudis, I. (1991). O metaγlosikos xaraktiras tu parakimenu: Parakimenos B’ (The metalinguistic character of present perfect: Present perfect B’. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 11, 195– 214. Thessaloniki: Kyriakides Press. Veloudis, I. (2003). Possession and conversation: The case of the category “perfect.” In A. Alexiadou, M. Rathert, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Perfect Explorations. The Hague: Mouton.

Appendix I Examples of FWHCs Examples (1)–(21) constitute a corpus of FWHCs. (1) Aγorasa ti θa foreso sto parti. bought.1sg what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have bought what I am going to wear at the party.’ (2) Sçeðiasa me ti θa stoliso to ðendro designed.1sg with what will decorate.1sg the tree ‘I have designed what I am going to decorate the tree with.’ (3) Su efera ti θa xriastis jia to γliko. you brought.1sg what will need.2sg for the cake ‘I have brought you what you are going to need for the cake.’

 Yoryia Agouraki

(4) Pira mazi mu ti θa ðjavaso sto taksiði. took.1sg with me what will read.1sg on.the trip ‘I have taken with me what I am going to read on the trip.’ (5) Exo iði vγali/ kratisi/ filaksi ti θa fao to vraði. have.1sg already took out/ kept/ saved what will eat.1sg the evening ‘I have already taken out/ kept/ saved what I am going to eat for dinner.’ (6) Evala ti θa xriastis stin akri. put.1sg what will need.2sg on.the side ‘I have put what you are going to need on the side.’ (7) Etimases ti θa kanis sto maθima avrio? prepared.2sg what will do.2sg in.the class tomorrow? ‘Have you prepared what you are going to do in class tomorrow?’ (8) Akoma ðen majirepsa ti θa pao stus erγates. yet neg cooked.1sg what will take.1sg to.the workers ‘I have not cooked yet what I am going to take to the workers.’ (9) Exo iði ftiaksi ti θa stilo stin ekθesi. have.1sg already made what will send.1sg to.the show ‘I have already finished making what I am going to send to the show.’ (10) Erapsa ti θa valo sto parti. sewed.1sg what will wear.1sg at.the party ‘I have sewn what I am going to wear at the party.’ (11) Epleksa ti θa valo sto tzaki. crocheted.1sg what will put.1sg on.the mantelpiece ‘I have crocheted what I am going to put over the mantelpiece.’ (12) Vrika pu θa mino. found.1sg where will stay.1sg ‘I have found where I am going to stay.’ (13) Eγrapses ti θa tus pis? wrote.2sg what will them tell.2sg? ‘Have you written up what you are going to tell them?’ (14) Eçis pjios θa su kratisi to peði apopse? have.2sg who.nom will you stay with the child tonight? ‘Have you made arrangements for who is going to babysit for you tonight?’ (15) Eçis pjios θa mas pai sto xorjio apopse? have.2sg who will us take.3sg to.the village tonight? ‘Have you arranged who’s going to drive us to the village tonight?’ (16) Telioses ti θa parusiasis sto sineðrio? finished.2sg what will present.2sg at.the conference? ‘Have you finished what you are going to present at the conference?’

WH-clauses in DP-positions 

(17) Arçises ti θa parusiasis sto sineðrio? started.2sg what will present.2sg at.the conference? ‘Have you started working on what you’re going to present at the conference?’ (18) Siðeroses /eplines ti θa paris mazi su sto taksiði? ironed.2sg /washed.2sg what will take.2sg with you on.the trip? ‘Have you ironed /washed the clothes you’re going to take with you on the trip?’ (19) Tilikses ti θa tu pas jia ðoro? wrapped.2sg what will him take.2sg as gift? ‘Have you wrapped up what you are going to take him as a gift?’

Appendix II Examples of IFRs Examples (1)–(6) constitute a corpus of IFRs. (1) Vrices pjion na stilis stin trapeza? found.2sg who to send.2sg to.the bank? ‘Have you found someone to send to the bank?’ (2) Psaxno pu na mino. look.for.1sg where to stay.1sg ‘I am looking for a place to stay.’ (3) Mu efere ti na etimaso jia tin ekθesi moðas. me brought.3sg what to prepare.1sg for the fashion show ‘She has given me what to prepare for the fashion show.’ (4) Tu eðosa ti na ðjiavasi. him gave.1sg what to read.3sg ‘I gave him things to read.’ (5) ðen exo ti na valo. neg have.1sg what to wear.1sg ‘I have nothing to wear.’ (6) Tu piγa ti na ipoγrapsi. him took.1sg what to sign.3sg ‘I took to him documents to sign.’ (7) Tis evala ti na fai. her laid.1sg what to eat.3sg ‘I laid the table for her.’

The syntax of non-volitional θelo in Greek* Anna Roussou The aim of this paper is to discuss the syntactic properties of non-volitional θelo (need) in Greek, comparing it where necessary to its volitional counterpart (want). It is shown that non-volitional θelo triggers coreference with an embedded argument when it takes a CP-complement, and forms a complex predicate with its nominal complement. On the basis of these characteristics, it is argued that the ‘lexical split’ regarding the two readings of θelo is derived syntactically, namely, as the result of the different syntactic structures in which it occurs. In general, non-volitional θelo appears to be morphosyntactically more defective, and for this reason more ‘grammaticalised’ than its volitional counterpart.

.

Volitional and non-volitional θelo: General properties

The verb θelo in Greek is ambiguous between a volitional (want) and a non-volitional (need) interpretation,1 as illustrated by the following two examples: O Petros θeli tin efimeriða. the Peter want.3sg the newspaper ‘Peter wants the newspaper.’ b. O tixos θeli vapsimo. the wall need.3sg painting ‘The wall needs painting.’

(1) a.

(1a) converges with the volitional reading, while (1b) is only possible with the nonvolitional one. The same effect is attested with the sentential complement which in both cases is introduced by the modal (subjunctive) particle na: O Petros θeli na ðjiavasi tin efimeriða. the Peter want.3sg sub read.3sg the newspaper ‘Peter wants (him/her) to read the newspaper.’ b. (Aftos) o tixos θeli na vafti ble. (this) the wall need.3sg sub be.painted.3sg blue ‘This wall needs/ought to be painted blue.’

(2) a.

 Anna Roussou

The complement in both cases is a CP but the interpretation differs along the volitional vs. non-volitional dimension for (2a and b) respectively. As a first approximation, the difference seems to arise from the properties of the (matrix) subject: namely in (1a)–(2a) the subject is animate and therefore the volitional reading is possible, while in (1b)–(2b) the subject is inanimate and the volitional reading is blocked on the assumption that volition is predicated of animate entities. Thus, animacy on the matrix subject is the first clear difference between the two uses of the verb θelo. The second difference has to do with the (un)availability of perfective aspect on θelo. Consider the following examples: (3) a.

O Petros iθele/θelise na fiji. the Peter wanted.imperf/perf.3sg sub leave.3sg ‘Peter wanted to leave.’ b. O tixos iθele/#θelise na vafti. the wall wanted.imperf/perf.3sg sub be.painted.3sg ‘The wall needed to be painted.’

Volitional θelo in (3a), unlike its non-volitional counterpart in (3b), can inflect for perfective aspect (θelise). Note that perfective aspect in (3b) does not actually lead to ungrammaticality, but derives a pragmatically odd reading, on the assumption that walls cannot have desires, or wishes. In other words, perfective aspect forces a volitional reading which is incompatible with the properties of the inanimate subject in (3b). We could then say that non-volition θelo appears to be morphologically defective, in the sense that it cannot inflect for perfective aspect (and is therefore necessarily imperfective).2 A third difference concerns the relation between θelo and the argument(s) of the embedded clause in its two readings, as in the following cases: O Petrosi θeli na toni/j aγapisis. the Peter want.3sg sub him love.2sg ‘Peteri wants you to love himi/j .’ b. O kaktosi θeli na toni/*j potisis (ja na meγalosi). the cactus need.3sg sub him water.2sg (for sub grow.3sg) ‘The cactus needs to be watered (in order to grow).’

(5) a.

In (5a and b) there is a clitic present in the embedded clause. However, in (5a) the clitic has free reference: it can be coreferential with the matrix subject, but crucially it doesn’t have to be. In (5b), on the other hand, coreference is obligatory otherwise the sentence is ungrammatical. Furthermore the clitic is obligatory, as shown in (6a). The clitic can be absent if the embedded verb is passivised, or of the ergative intransitive class, as in (6b and c) respectively. Crucially in this case it is the embedded subject that is coreferential with the matrix one: (6) a.

O kaktos θeli na *(ton) potisis. the cactus need.3sg sub him water.2sg

Non-volitional θelo 

b. O kaktos θeli na potisti. the cactus need.3sg sub be.watered.3sg ‘The cactus needs to be watered.’ c. O kaktos θeli na meγalosi liγo akoma. the cactus need.3sg sub grow.3sg more yet ‘The cactus needs to grow a bit more.’ As the translation of (5b) and (6b) shows, English shows the same pattern as Greek with the difference though that coreference necessarily involves the two subjects, while Greek allows for coreference with the embedded object, arguably due to the availability of object clitics. We will discuss this pattern in detail when we consider the relation of non-volitional θelo with its CP complement. At this point, we simply observe that while volitional θelo does not trigger obligatory coreference of the matrix subject with any of the embedded arguments, non-volitional θelo does. A fourth difference regards the person specification of the matrix subject in the two uses of θelo. More precisely, non-volitional θelo appears to be incompatible with a 1st/2nd person when it takes a sentential complement. This restriction does not hold either for volitional θelo, or the non-volitional one when the latter takes a nominal complement. Consider the examples in (7): Θelo na me plinis/ pliθo want.1sg sub me wash.2sg/ be.washed.1sg ‘I want you to wash me/ I want to be washed.’ b. Θelis na se plino/ pliθis. want.2sg sub you wash.1sg/ be.washed.2sg ‘You want me to wash you./You want to be washed.’ c. (To peði) θeli na to plinis/ pliθi. the child want.3sg sub it wash.2sg/ be.washed.3sg ‘The child wants/needs you to wash him/ the child wants/needs to be washed.’ d. Θelo/θelis/θeli plisimo. need.1sg/-2sg/-3sg/ washing ‘I/you/he/ need(s) washing.’

(7) a.

In (7a and b) the matrix subject is 1st and 2nd person respectively, as shown by the verbal agreement on θelo/θelis (and the same holds for the corresponding clitics in the na-clause). The only possible interpretation in this case is that of volition: the ‘need’ interpretation is not available. In (7c), on the other hand, both readings are available in the presence of an animate subject (to peði). Finally, in (7d), where there is a nominal complement (plisimo), no person restriction arises, and the ‘need’ reading is present (perhaps as the most salient one). As the above data show, the person restriction for non-volitional θelo arises only in the presence of a na-complement. Non-volitional θelo may also appear in an impersonal construction. Consider the following contrast:

 Anna Roussou

I patates θelun na tis vrasis kala. the potatoes.nom need.3pl sub them boil.2sg well ‘The potatoes need to boil well (in order to be tasty).’ b. I patates θeli na tis vrasis kala. the potatoes.nom need.3sg sub them boil.2sg well ‘It is necessary that you boil the potatoes well. / You ought to boil the potatoes well (in order to be tasty).’

(8) a.

In (8a) the matrix verb agrees in number with the preverbal DP i patates. In (8b) there is no such agreement: the DP in the matrix clause is in plural while the matrix V in the singular. It is interesting to note that the two constructions yield different interpretations: agreeing θelun has the ‘need’ reading, while the non-agreeing one has the ‘it is necessary’ reading. In other words, the impersonal construction yields a third kind of modality, and more precisely deontic modality. We then notice that nonvolitional θelo can further ‘split’ into a deontic modal, when it lacks agreement and takes a na-complement. A fifth difference between volitional and non-volitional θelo arises in relation to the nominal complement, as non-volitional θelo appears to impose some selectional restrictions in this case. Consider the following examples: O kafes θeli zaxari. the coffee need.3sg sugar ‘The coffee needs sugar.’ b. To pukamiso θeli siðeroma. the shirt need.3sg ironing ‘The shirt needs ironing.’ c. Aftos o tixos θeli enan/*ton kaθrefti. this the wall need.3sg a/the mirror ‘This wall needs a mirror.’

(9) a.

In (9a and b) the complement is a bare noun, while in (9c) it is an indefinite. The bare noun in the above examples can be a mass noun, as in (9a), or a deverbal noun, as in (9b). As (9c) shows the presence of the definite article in this context gives rise to ungrammaticality (this extends to (9a and b) as well). The definiteness restriction noted above can be voided, provided certain conditions hold: (a) the nominal is doubled by a clitic (clitic doubling), as in (10a), or (b) the nominal is modified by a restrictive relative clause, as in (10b), or there is a possessive clitic present, as in (10c):3 Aftos o tixos ton θeli ton kaθrefti. this the wall it need.3sg the mirror ‘This wall does need the mirror.’ b. Aftos o tixos θeli ton kaθrefti pu mas eðose i Maria. this the wall need.3sg the mirror that us gave.3sg the Mary ‘This wall needs the mirror that Mary gave us.’

(10) a.

Non-volitional θelo 

c.

Aftos o tixos θeli ton kaθrefti tu. this the wall need.3sg the mirror its ‘This wall needs its (own) mirror.’

The definiteness restriction that also holds for the examples in (9a and b) is voided in the same way, as for (9c) (as shown in (10)). At this point it is worth mentioning that volitional θelo does not impose any restrictions of this kind. More precisely the nominal complement can be definite or indefinite alike: O Petros θeli mia/tin efimeriða. the Peter want.3sg a/the newspaper ‘Peter wants a/the newspaper.’ b. O Petros θeli (ton) kafe. the Peter want.3sg (the) coffee ‘Peter wants/(needs) (the) coffee.’

(11) a.

In (11a) the complement is countable, and can be definite or indefinite without any further modification; in (11b) it is a mass noun which again can be definite or indefinite. The example in (7d) earlier also shows the possibility of having a deverbal noun in the complement. (7d) and (11b) (without the definite article) can be ambiguous between a volitional and non-volitional reading, provided the subject is animate. According to the data in (9)–(11) then there is a further distinction between the two θelo which involves the properties of the nominal complement. To summarise, we have looked at the differences between the two uses of θelo as these are expressed through its subject and complement. The next step is to account for these differences, focusing on non-volitional θelo, as we will do in the following sections. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 discusses the properties of the na-complement of non-volitional θelo and provides an account for the coreference relation between the matrix subject and the embedded clitic (or null subject), as the result of Agree. Section 3 discusses the nominal complement and argues that nonvolitional θelo forms a complex predicate with the nominal in this case. Section 4 discusses the relation between volitional and non-volitional θelo, focusing on the person restriction in the presence of a na-complement. The account provided analyses non-volitional θelo as an ergative predicate. It is furthermore argued that the two different readings are derived syntactically, as the result of Merge in different verbal heads (v for non-volitional and V for volitional). Section 5 concludes the discussion.

. Non-volitional θelo and the na-complement Let us start our account of non-volitional θelo by considering the na-complement first. As mentioned in the previous section, non-volitional θelo shows a person restriction when it takes a na-complement, and moreover may allow for an impersonal construction. We will discuss the person restriction in Section 4 when we compare

 Anna Roussou

non-volitional to volitional θelo. In this section we will first consider the personal construction, focusing on the relation between the matrix subject and the embedded argument (in subject or object position), and then briefly discuss the impersonal one. Consider the following examples: I patates θelun na tis vrasis kala. the potatoes need.3pl sub them boil.2sg well b. I patates θelun na vrasun kala. the potatoes need.3pl sub boil.3pl well ‘The potatoes need to boil well.’4

(12) a.

In (12a) the verb vrazo ‘boil’ is used as transitive and the object clitic is present, entering a coreference relation with the matrix subject. In (12b) the intransitive construction is used and coreference holds between the two subjects. The question that arises is what sort of dependency is formed between the matrix and the embedded argument, regardless of whether the latter corresponds to the subject or the object. Let us start with the structure in (12b). The obligatory coreference that holds between the two subjects points towards a control structure. This is confirmed by the fact that the DP in the preverbal position bears a thematic relation to the matrix stative predicate θelun, namely ‘x is in need of y’, whereby x is the matrix DP. Moreover, the embedded predicate assigns a theta-role to the null subject, namely the entity affected by the event that the embedded predicate denotes (‘boil’).5 The structure in (12b) then involves a null coreferential subject in the embedded clause. How exactly the null subject in control structures is to be analysed has been a matter of debate: either as PRO (Iatridou 1993; Varlokosta 1994; Terzi 1992, 1997, a.o.), or pro (Philippaki-Warburton & Catsimali 1999; Philippaki-Warburton & Spyropoulos 2001), thus yielding the two possible representations in (13a and b) respectively: (13) a. I patates θelun [PRO na vrasun kala]. b. I patates θelun [pro na vrasun kala]. For the PRO approach what counts is the absence of semantic Tense, which in turn implies the absence of Nominative Case.6 For the pro approach what counts is the presence of agreement in the embedded clause. The latter is further supported by the fact that in some cases coreference may not be necessarily triggered, a result which is expected given the pronominal nature of pro. Control in this case is determined lexically, that is, as the result of the properties of the selecting predicate. Bearing the above in mind, let us return to (12a) which involves a coreference relation with the embedded object that is realised as a clitic. Note first that the standard assumption in the PRO literature is that control can only involve the embedded subject position (due to lack of Case, or the presence of special Case provided by non-finite T, as in Chomsky & Lasnik 1995 for example). The availability of control (obligatory coreference) with an embedded lexical object cannot be predicted to hold in the PROframework. In this respect the case-marked (accusative) argument in (12a) cannot be coreferential with the matrix subject; in other words there can be no control. Thus, if

Non-volitional θelo 

we assume that the embedded subject in (12a) is PRO, then we will also have to assume that there is a different relation involved in (12b), albeit with the same output, namely coreference with a matrix argument. The alternative is to give a unified account for (12a and b), in which case the representation in (13a) is ruled out, leaving us with the one in (13b). The question then is to see how and in what way pro and object clitics pattern alike. Before we provide an account, it is worth mentioning two sets of data that seem to be relevant. The first comes from a number of examples that have already been mentioned in the literature (cf. Ingria 1981; Philippaki-Warburton & Spyropoulos 2001) and show that coreference with the embedded object is indeed possible in Greek (data based on Ingria 1981: 226–227): (14) a.

ðen aksizis na su ðinun lefta. not deserve.2sg sub you give.3pl money ‘You don’t deserve to be given money.’ b. ðen aksizis na (tin) pantreftis afti tin kopela. not deserve.2sg sub (her) marry.2sg this the girl ‘You don’t deserve to marry this girl.’ c. O Jiorγos ine siniθizmenos na ton kalopjianun. the George is used.masc sub him flatter.3pl ‘George is used to being flattered.’ d. O Jiorγos ine siniθizmenos na perni pola xrimata. the George is used.masc sub take.3pl much money ‘George is used to earning lots of money.’

The examples in (14b and d) exhibit control in the subject position while those in (14a and c) exhibit control in the object position. The object is realised as a clitic: genitive in (14a) and accusative in (14c). This clearly shows that control can involve a case-marked position, given also the sensitivity to the case-marking properties of the embedded predicate. Thus, the examples above indicate that in the presence of a clitic in the embedded clause (which agrees in phi-features with a matrix argument), control in the object position is also possible. In the light of these data, the pattern we find with (personal) non-volitional θelo is no longer an exception. The second piece of data comes from the so-called ‘tough-movement’ or ‘easy-toplease’ constructions in Greek (see Theophanopoulou-Kontou 1986, 1988, and more recently Tsimpli 1999), as in (15): (15) a.

Ta Aglika ine ðiskola na *(ta) maθis. the English is difficult sub them learn.2sg ‘English is difficult to learn.’ b. O musakas ine etimos na *(ton) valume ston furno. the mousaka is ready sub him put.1pl in.the oven ‘The mousaka is ready for us to put in the oven.’

 Anna Roussou

In (15a and b) the matrix predicate is an adjective that agrees with its subject in terms of phi-features (number and gender), and through that with the embedded clitic. There have been at least two proposals put forward with respect to the constructions in (15). First, Theophanopoulou-Kontou (1988) accounts for these data as follows: the matrix subject originates in the position where it surfaces, namely in the matrix clause. The embedded object corresponds to pro, which is in turn realised as a clitic. This is schematically given in (16a and b): (16) a. Ta Aglika ine ðiskola [na pro maθis] → b. Ta Aglika ine ðiskola [na ta maθis] The pro object in (16a) cannot be identified in its own clause due to the absence of a local binder. Furthermore, given the unavailability of infinitivals in (Modern) Greek and the presence of a finite na-clause instead, reanalysis is blocked and as a result of this pro also fails to get a local binder in the matrix clause. Its realisation as a clitic then is the only way to have its features identified.7 In more current terms we would say that spelling out pro as a clitic in this case is a Last Resort operation. Under this approach the Greek constructions in (15) differ from the corresponding ones in English to the extent that they do not involve a null operator in the embedded clause (see also Rizzi 1982 for an analysis of the relevant Italian constructions as the result of an A-dependency). On the other hand, Tsimpli (1999) argues that the data in (15) involve a null operator in the embedded Spec,CP, exactly as in English. Given that the operator (the local binder) is null, it cannot identify the phi-features associated with object agreement, which are necessarily spelled out and therefore identified by the clitic. The features of the operator in turn are identified through a predication relation with the matrix argument. The relevant representation is the one given below: (17) Ta Aglikai ine ðiskola [Opi na tai maθis] The structures in (16) and (17) differ in the way the (agreement) features of the embedded object are being identified, via a null operator or not (and therefore via an Aor an A’-dependency). At the same time, they both argue that the object clitic spellsout and consequently identifies the phi-features associated with the object position. For our purposes the above constructions in Greek show that the clitic can enter a ‘coreference’ relation of some sort with a matrix argument. In other words, the clitic can be construed with an argument in a higher clause. The sentences in (15) differ from those discussed in (14) in certain ways. For example the former can be analysed as purpose clauses (see Tsimpli 1999), while the latter occur in complement position. However, this is not necessarily a problem if we bear in mind that coreference relations extend to adjunct clauses as well. In this respect the data in (12), (14) and (15) exhibit a control structure in the sense that an embedded argument is construed with a matrix one. What is relevant for our discussion is that this relation can also involve the embedded object, when this is realised as a clitic. (Personal) non-volitional θelo then follows the same pattern. Before we attempt to provide

Non-volitional θelo 

a formal account of the data in (12) it is interesting to note that non-volitional θelo differs from its volitional counterpart in that the former, but not the latter, triggers an obligatory construal between the matrix and an embedded argument. Let us now see how we can formally describe the data in (12) (and by extension those in (14)–(15)). The data presented above, and especially those in (12) and (14), appear to favour an analysis which is not based on PRO. As already mentioned, a null (or no) Case account of control (i.e., PRO) turns out to be quite problematic as the controlled argument is lexicalised and case-marked with accusative (or genitive, depending on the predicate). The picture that emerges then is that pro and object clitics in the constructions under discussion appear to function in the same way. Suppose the representations we have for the data in (12) are as follows: (18) a. (I patatesi ) [proi θelun [proi na vrasun kala]] b. (I patatesi ) [proi θelun [na tisi vrasis kala]] In (18) the preverbal subject can be optional, or when present occupy a peripheral (topic) position (see Philippaki-Warburton 1985; Tsimpli 1995; Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998, among others). According to the representation in (18a), the matrix and embedded pro are coreferential, regardless of the presence of the subject DP. In (18b), on the other hand, coreference involves the matrix pro and the object clitic. The question that was raised at the beginning of this section was what sort of properties pro and clitics share that allow them to behave in a rather uniform way in these contexts. Let us start by considering pro which, following Chomsky (1982), was required to satisfy the Extended Projection Principle (EPP). Borer (1986) argued against the postulation of an expletive pro in the presence of a postverbal subject, on the basis that the latter receives both Case and a theta role, thus an expletive pro purely satisfies a theory internal requirement (the EPP) (see also Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998 for a recent account which argues that in this case the EPP is satisfied by the verbal agreement). The elimination of referential pro remains more problematic, as it is the only element present to receive a theta-role and Case. While Case can reduce to an expression of agreement or of the EPP (cf. Chomsky 2000), the issue of the thematic role remains. However, this problem can be circumvented if we make the following assumptions: (a) theta-roles can be conceived as a by-product of the semantic properties of lexical predicates, which can be represented configurationally (cf. Hale & Keyser 1993, 2002), (b) the notion of an argument corresponds to an inflectional position in the clause-structure, prototypically realised by a D-like element (Sportiche 1996/1999; Manzini & Roussou 2000). The predicate and the relevant syntactic positions are ‘put together’ in the derivation via the operation Agree (see Chomsky 2000, 2001). In other words, Agree relates the positions that express D and phi-features in the clause-structure with those of the predicate (v or V for example), as illustrated in (19) below: (19) (19) [IP John I [VP left]]]

 Anna Roussou

The DP John lexicalises the Agr features of I, while it receives its interpretation (i.e., theta-role) from the predicate left, via the operation Agree (John, left). In recent work, Manzini and Savoia (2002) elaborate on this analysis and extend it to the elimination of pro. Following their approach, a null subject language like Greek has a further way to lexicalise the D/phi-features: through the presence of agreement on V (see also Roberts & Roussou 2003). In their analysis, agreement affixes are treated as (subject) clitics. Agree then relates a clitic (realised as an affix) with a predicate, as shown in (20) for Greek. (20) [IP Efije [VP V]] The representation in (20) differs from the one in (19) in the following two ways: in Greek the verb raises to I, and (b) Agree associates a clitic, instead of a full DP, with the predicate. If the DP subject is present, then it appears in a peripheral position, such as Topic (see the references above for Greek). In this case Agree also associates the DP with the agreement clitic/affix, and through that with the predicate. If we follow this kind of analysis, then the similarities between agreement affixes and clitics become more transparent: they are both treated as pieces of inflection. Keeping the above clarifications in mind, we are ready to go back to the examples in (18), which are now represented as in (21): (21) a. (I patates) [I θelun [na [.. [I vrasun kala]]]] b. (I patates) [I θelun [na [Cl tis [I vrasis kala]]]]

(. . . = clitic positions)

Given that clitics are inflectional elements, they are taken to correspond to distinct inflectional heads in the clause structure (cf. Sportiche 1996; Manzini & Savoia 2002). The underlined elements are all related through the operation of Agree. The difference between (21a) and (21b) can be summarised as follows: in (21a) Agree relates two inflectional elements associated with the subject features, while in (21b) the same operation relates an inflectional element realising the features of the object, and a higher one realising the features of the (matrix) subject. Under this approach we have a way to account for the presence of a ‘control’ relation with an object clitic, as a by-product of the Agree operation that puts together (non-distinct) inflectional features. Of course the analysis needs to be further worked out in order to account for the implications it has for the theory of control as construal of two (or more) syntactic positions. However, this is beyond the scope of the present paper whose aim is to discuss the syntactic behaviour of non-volitional θelo (for a preliminary discussion of these implications see Roussou 2002). Having discussed the personal construction, we can now briefly consider the impersonal one. As mentioned in Section 1, non-volitional θelo can also be used as an impersonal in which case it does not agree in number with the DP in the matrix clause. Note that this DP may also be in the accusative, as illustrated in the data below: (22) a.

I patates/*tis patates [θeli [na [vrasun kala]]] the potatoes.nom/the potatoes.acc need.3sg sub boil.3pl well

Non-volitional θelo 

b. I patates/tis patates [θeli [na [tis [vrasis the potatoes.nom/the potatoes.acc need.3sg sub them boil.2sg kala]]]] well Unlike the personal construction, in this case the matrix DP is not the subject (or more precisely is not associated with the subject) of the matrix clause. This is supported by the following two facts: (a) there is no agreement with the matrix verb, and (b) the DP can be in the accusative. The DP in (22) then is a topic which is related to either the embedded subject or the embedded object without the mediation of the matrix subject. Nominative case on the DP is possible irrespectively of the position it is associated with in the embedded clause, while the accusative is only possible in association with the embedded clitic. This is a typical pattern of topicalisation structures in Greek. We will not discuss this issue here, as it is not relevant to the preceding discussion (but see Tsimpli 1995 and Anagnostopoulou 1997 for an analysis). The question that concerns us here is what sort of relation impersonal θeli reflects in (22). Recall that in the personal construction, there is obligatory coreference: the agreement affix/clitic on the matrix verb is construed with a clitic (agreement or object) in the embedded clause. Based on this, the most natural way to express the absence of agreement in (22) is to attribute it to the absence of such a coreference relation. In other words the operation Agree does not relate the inflectional features of θeli with an argument inside the embedded clause. Instead, the relation involves the whole embedded CP. This accounts for the fact that θeli in (22) has a different interpretation closer to that of a deontic modal. If θeli in this reading lacks an external argument, then the absence of coreference is to be expected. We thus see that non-volitional θelo further splits to a deontic modal which is syntactically expressed through the absence of agreement (for number). To summarise, in the present section we considered the CP (na-) complement of non-volitional θelo. It was argued that in its personal construction non-volitional θelo exhibits properties of control, differing in this respect from its volitional counterpart. The coreference relation attested in this case may involve either the embedded subject or object. If the former, then the relation holds of the two agreement affixes (analysed as clitics) on the matrix and embedded Vs; if the latter, then the relation holds of the matrix agreement and the embedded object clitic. This pattern has certain implications for the theory of control and the role of inflection which are left open in the present paper. The impersonal construction was also considered briefly: the lack of (number) agreement was taken to be the reflex of the absence of a coreference relation. Personal and impersonal θeli differ in terms of meaning as well: the former translates as ‘need’, while the latter as ‘it is necessary’. We thus see that the two (sub-) readings have a syntactic correlate. In the next section we will consider the nominal complement of non-volitional θelo.

 Anna Roussou

. Non-volitional θelo and the nominal complement As already mentioned in Section 1, non-volitional θelo selects certain types of nominal complements. The relevant data are repeated below for ease of exposition: To pukamiso θeli siðeroma. the shirt need.3sg ironing ‘The shirt needs ironing.’ b. O kafes θeli zaxari. the coffee need.3sg sugar ‘The coffee needs sugar.’ c. Aftos o tixos θeli enan/*ton kaθrefti. this the wall need.3sg a/the mirror ‘This wall needs a mirror.’

(23) a.

In (23a and b) the complement is a bare noun: a deverbal and mass noun respectively. In (23c) the nominal complement is an indefinite (countable); as the ungrammatical version of (23c) shows, a definite nominal is not possible in this position. (The same definiteness restriction holds for the examples in (23a and b)). All the examples in (23) can have a CP paraphrase, given in (24a–c) below: To pukamiso θeli na to siðerosis. the shirt need.3sg sub it iron.2sg ‘The shirt needs to be ironed.’ b. O kafes θeli na eçi zaxari. the coffee need.3sg sub have.3sg sugar ‘The coffee needs to have sugar.’ c. Aftos o tixos θeli na eçi enan kaθrefti. this the wall need.3sg sub have.3sg a mirror ‘This wall needs to have a mirror.’

(24) a.

The nominal does not translate in the same way in all cases: (23b and c) pattern alike as shown in (24b and c) respectively, while (23a) differs as shown in (24a). Let us start with the deverbal noun siðeroma which corresponds to the verbal predicate siðerono ‘iron’ in (24a). As the English translation shows, the -ma nominal is like the -ing nominal, which according to Grimshaw (1990) can give rise to a complex event reading. The availability of this interpretation with -ma/-mo (and other) deverbal nouns in Greek has also been discussed in the literature (see Markantonatou 1992; Kolliakou 1995; Alexiadou 1999). The complex event reading in (23a) is supported by the fact that the nominal accepts modification by an adjective like frequent: (25) To pukamiso θeli sixno siðeroma. the shirt need.3sg frequent ironing ‘The shirt needs frequent ironing.’

Non-volitional θelo 

Grimshaw (1990) argues that complex event nominals have argument structure (part of which is the Event argument as well). Assuming this to be correct, we notice that the subject DP in (23a) and (25a) is also thematically related to the nominal siðeroma, given that it bears the interpretation of the affected argument. A further piece of evidence for this relation comes from the fact that the DP is sensitive to the selectional properties of the verbal predicate from which the nominal is derived. More precisely, the verb siðerono requires an inanimate object; an animate object gives rise to an infelicitous reading. The same restriction holds for the deverbal noun siðeroma. A verb like pleno, on the other hand, can take a +/–animate object, and the same extends to its nominal plisimo. This difference is illustrated in (26) below: (26) a.

I Maria siðeroni to pukamiso. the Mary iron.3sg the shirt ‘Mary is ironing/irons the shirt.’ b. To siðeroma tu pukamisu. the ironing the.gen shirt.gen ‘The ironing of the shirt.’ c. I Maria pleni to pukamiso/ to moro. the Mary wash.3sg the shirt/ the baby ‘Mary is washing/washes the shirt/the baby.’ d. To plisimo tu pukamisu/ tu moru the washing the.gen shirt.gen/ the.gen baby.gen ‘The washing of the shirt/the baby.’ e. To moro/ to pukamiso θeli plisimo. the baby/ the shirt need.3sg washing ‘The baby needs/wants washing. / The shirt needs washing.’ f. To pukamiso/ *to moro θeli siðeroma. the shirt/ the baby need.3sg ironing ‘The shirt/*the baby needs ironing.’

In (26a and b) the sentences are grammatical as the verbal and nominal predicates take an inanimate entity as their object (the affected argument). In (26c and d) the verbal and nominal predicates can take either an animate or an inanimate entity as their object and the result is grammatical in both cases. This pattern extends to (26e) where the nominal is embedded under the predicate θeli. Note that when the subject of θeli is animate (to moro), the volitional reading is also available (although less salient), while it is excluded with the inanimate subject to pukamiso. If we substitute plisimo with siðeroma in (26e) then only the inanimate subject can be present, as shown in (26f), and of course only the non-volitional reading is available. The different properties of the nominal can also explain why in some cases a 1st/2nd person subject is excluded, as in (27):

 Anna Roussou

(27) Θelo plisimo/*siðeroma. need.1sg washing/ironing ‘I need/want washing/*ironing.’ The example in (27) converges with the nominal plisimo only. The apparent person restriction in this case stems from the properties of the nominal as well, on the basis that siðeroma cannot select for a +animate entity, while plisimo can. Given that 1st and 2nd person are necessarily animate, as they map onto the speaker and hearer respectively, the above pattern is the result of the animacy restriction imposed by the nominal. In (27) the verb θeli can be either volitional or non-volitional in the presence of an animate subject, as already mentioned. It is worth noting that the person restriction that arises with the CP-complement is not of the same type. Recall from Section 1 that a 1st/2nd person subject triggers the volitional reading only (provided that the embedded predicate allows for an animate argument). The relevant example is repeated in (28) below for ease of exposition: (28) Θelo na me plinis want.1sg sub me wash.2sg ‘I want/*need you to wash me.’ The person restriction in (28) has to be attributed to some other reason which is related to the presence of the CP-complement. In other words, the person restriction with the nominal complement directly stems from its selectional properties, and is only apparent as it results from the availability of a +/–animate object. The person restriction that arises with the na-complement, on the other hand, depends only partly on the properties of the embedded predicate. What is crucial in this case is that a 1st/2nd person subject blocks the non-volitional reading. We will come back to this issue in Section 4. Going back to the data in (23a) we notice that the subject DP behaves like the argument of both the nominal and the verb thelo: it is both the entity affected by the event that the nominal denotes, and also the one that is at the state of need (as further evidenced by the CP-paraphrase in (24a)). Therefore it is thematically related to two predicates, as is actually the case in control structures, discussed in the previous section in relation to the na-complement. In the previous section we argued that coreference (control) is the result of the operation of Agree that matches (non-distinct) inflectional features. Assuming that the deverbal noun in (23a) is argument-taking, then we would expect that the same operation relates the argument of the nominal with that of the verbal predicate θeli. The problem in the present case is that the DP only agrees with θeli. To be more precise, the inflectional (phi-) features associated with the subject DP are only present once on the verbal predicate, and not on the nominal one. Therefore Agree cannot match two sets of features, as these are not present on both predicates. Given that Agree is a binary operation the problem that arises is evident. In order to solve this problem, let us briefly consider the internal structure of the DP complement. In some recent approaches to nominalization, the idea has been that derivational morphology can also be the output of syntactic operations (see for exam-

Non-volitional θelo 

ple Marantz 1997; Borer 2000, and references cited there). According to Borer (2000) the event structure of complex event nominals is not the result of affixation as such, but of the availability of an event structure which is then embedded under the nominal one, as in (29), for a word ending in -ation/-ing: (29) [N -ation/-ing [EP/AspQ [L-D . . . L. . . ]]] In (29) the lexical item enters the derivation with as little specification as possible, namely as a stem with no categorial characterisation. The L-D (Lexical Domain) becomes a VP once it is embedded under an event denoting functional head, such as EP/AspQ (event/aspect). In this respect Event/Asp is a verbaliser, which has the effect of providing the lexical stem with argument structure as well, on the assumption that arguments are aspectually determined (i.e. as part of the event structure). In this context then L = V. Further embedding of this structure under a nominal affix turns the structure from a VP to an NP (with the addition of the functional structure associated with nominals). Following Borer (2000), we can assign the same structure to the Greek complex-event denoting nominals in -ma/mo (and the like) (but see Alexiadou 1999 for a different account, based on Marantz 1997). What is crucial for our purposes is the fact that the position responsible for the licensing of the internal (affected) argument is syntactically present, exactly as with verbal predicates. The operation Agree then matches the relevant aspectual/verbal position inside the nominal with the relevant one above the verbal predicate (θel-). In other words, Agree relates the verb and the nominal (or more precisely the event positions they are associated with) with a single inflectional (D) position, as in (30) (abstracting away from the internal structure of the nominal): (30) [Top To pukamiso [I θel-i [ V [D plisimo]]]] The operation Agree matches a clitic/agreement affix with two event structures. This amounts to having a complex predicate which consists of the verb and its nominal complement. ‘Control’ in this case then is not derived through the mediation of inflectional features, given that the latter are absent from the embedded predicate. This is to be expected on the basis that the embedded predicate in (30) is nominal, and, therefore, lacks the positions for the relevant inflectional features. If our line of reasoning is on the right track, then in this case as well control is the result of Agree. The difference is that when the na-complement is present, and, given the finite character of the verbal predicate, Agree matches inflectional features and through those it matches event structures. The absence of such features on the embedded predicate in (30) gives rise to a direct matching between the two predicates with a single DP. Incidentally, control as matching of one D (inflectional) position with two predicates has been argued for English by Manzini and Roussou (2000), on the grounds that infinitival clauses in English do not have an inflectional D head (i.e., no EPP position). On the basis of this, the structure in (30) comes as no surprise and what unites (30) with English control (infinitival) structures is essentially the absence of an EPP property in the form of an inflectional D feature/head.

 Anna Roussou

Having provided an account of the properties of the nominal complement in (23a), let us next consider the other two cases, namely those in (23b and c) where the complement is a mass noun and an indefinite respectively. The CP paraphrases of (23b and c) make use of a verb of possession, such as exi (has). The nominal appears as the complement of this verb, therefore, coreference involves the matrix and the embedded subject.8 Other paraphrases are possible, whereby a locative verb such as vazo/valo (put, +/–perfective) is being used. The relevant examples are given in (31) below: O kafes θeli na tu valis zaxari. the coffee need.3sg sub him put.2sg sugar ‘The coffee needs to have sugar.’ (lit. ‘The coffee needs to put sugar in it.’) b. Aftos o tixos θeli na tu valume enan kaθrefti. this the wall need.3sg sub him put.1pl a mirror ‘This wall needs to have a mirror.’ (lit. ‘This wall needs to hang a mirror on it.’)

(31) a.

In (31) the nominal surfaces as the direct object of the embedded predicate, while the indirect object is a (genitive) clitic coreferential with the matrix subject. When eçi is being used, on the other hand, as in (24b and c), the goal of possession (that is, the possessor) corresponds to the embedded subject which is necessarily null and coreferential with the matrix one. This alternation is reminiscent of the one found with the transitive vs. intransitive (ergative)/passive pairs in (6). Going back to the data in (31) and (24b–c) we notice that they share a common property: in both cases there is a notion of possession (implicit or explicit), assuming that location in (31) implicates some transfer of possession, namely, that the coffee ends up with/having sugar, the wall ends up with/having a mirror. If this is correct, then we could say that the clitic in the embedded clauses in (31) has the interpretation of the possessor in a broad sense. Alternatively, if possession implies a locative construction (have = be+P/D), as argued recently by Kayne (1993) (following Freeze 1992; Benveniste 1966), then the common notion that underlies the paraphrases in (24b and c) and (31) is some notion of location. What is relevant for our purposes is the fact that the relation between the matrix DP and the nominal in the embedded clause is established through a locative predicate. In light of these paraphrases let us turn to the nominal complements in (23b and c). The obvious question is whether there is a complex predicate, and if so, what this predicate involves. In the examples with the deverbal nominal, the assumption was that the event structure (responsible for argument licensing) is syntactically present; further embedding under a nominal head, yields a DP, namely what surfaces as the nominal complement. This is consistent with the complex event interpretation of the noun, as well as the fact that it has argument structure. In the present case though a mass noun like zaxari (sugar), or the countable indefinite do not have an event position and, if our assumptions are correct, they cannot as such license an argument. Given, however, that the relation that holds between the DP subject and the nominal

Non-volitional θelo 

involves the notion of location/possession, we can solve the above problem, if we postulate a prepositional head that essentially derives the desired interpretation. In other words, the claim is that both the DP and the nominal in complement position are thematically related to a P predicate. In order to show how this analysis works, it is worth referring to the analysis of location/locatum verbs proposed by Hale and Keyser (2002). According to their approach these verbs are synthetic in the sense that they embed a prepositional head which determines argument structure in a configurational fashion as in (32): (32) [V [PP DPGoal [P Pwith DPTheme ]]] This structure surfaces as such in cases like I fitted him with shoes, etc., while it is implicated in sentences like I shelved the books, etc. Some variant of (32) is then argued to account for Double Object Constructions as well (see also Salles 1997). Suppose next that a structure like the one in (32) is also present in the examples in (23b and c) (o kafes θeli zaxari, aftos o tixos θeli enan kaθrefti). What this amounts to is the following: the DP subject and the nominal complement are both thematically related to a (null) prepositional head, as in (32); P expresses a bi-relational property and therefore requires two entities/arguments. In fact, we could take it a step further and assign some sort of an event structure to P itself, which is in turn responsible for the presence of the two arguments, in the spirit of Borer’s (2000) analysis. (We will not discuss this option here, as it requires a more elaborate analysis of prepositions as predicates.) Suppose furthermore that the higher head in this case is the verb θeli, yielding the structure in (33): (33) O kafes [θeli [V [P zaxari]]] The subject DP o kafes is associated with the verb θeli (the entity in need of something) as well as the embedded P. Without analysing this structure further, we are now in a position to account for (33) in the same way as we did for (23a) which has a deverbal noun in complement position. In particular, the same Agree operation that establishes a relation between the subject DP and the deverbal nominal in (23a) is found in the examples in (23b and c), the difference being that in the latter case Agree forms a relation between the inflectional morpheme (the agreement affix/clitic, and through that with the DP) and the V and P predicates. The nominal (mass/indefinite) that appears to function as the object of the verb θeli is in essence the complement of P. In the structure in (33) then, it is the verb and the preposition that form a complex predicate (we could actually assume that P incorporates to V, but we leave this option aside in the present discussion). Consequently, through the formation of a complex predicate, the nominal also surfaces as the complement of θeli.9 To summarise the discussion so far, we have argued that the verb θeli and the deverbal nominal complement form a complex predicate. The DP subject is interpreted as the argument of both θeli and the nominal, on the assumption that deverbal nouns have an event structure as part of their syntactic realisation. The situation is slightly more complicated in case the complement is a mass or indefinite (countable) noun.

 Anna Roussou

The suggestion was that in this construction, some notion of possession/location is implicated which is formally expressed through a (null) P head that ultimately forms a complex predicate with θeli. What appears as the complement is actually the complement of this P head, and ends up as the complement of θeli as part of the complex predicate. In both cases though the operation Agree works in the same way, associating the inflectional feature that realises the subject (and ultimately the DP) with two predicates. Before we leave this section, it is worth discussing briefly the definiteness restriction found with the nominal complement, as mentioned in Section 1. It was shown that this kind of restriction is voided under certain conditions that make the presence of the definite legitimate. Although we will not provide an account of the definiteness restriction, we will briefly discuss the conditions under which this effect is suspended. Recall from our discussion in Section 1 that a definite article can be present if there is a clitic in the clause, either in the form of a possessive clitic, or in the form of clitic doubling, as shown in (34a and b). The third case involves modification by a restrictive relative clause, as in (34c): O espresso θeli ti zaxari tu. the espresso need.3sg the sugar its ‘The espresso needs its sugar (i.e. a certain amount of sugar).’ b. O espresso ti θeli ti zaxari. this espresso her need.3sg the sugar ‘Espresso does need sugar.’ c. Aftos o kafes θeli ti zaxari pu θeli o espresso. this the coffee need.3sg the sugar that need.3sg the espresso ‘This coffee needs the same amount of sugar that espresso needs.’

(34) a.

The presence of the definite article in (34a and b) is not independent of the presence and the properties of clitics. More precisely, possessive clitics in Greek appear inside the DP, following the noun, and require the presence of the definite article, as shown in (35): (35) *(To) vivlio mu. the book my ‘My book.’ The absence of the definite article gives rise to ungrammaticality. The pattern in (35) is partly at least due to the properties of the Greek definite article, which behaves like an agreement marker, and therefore can have an ‘expletive’ use with proper names, or nominalise other syntactic categories (e.g. clauses) (see Roussou & Tsimpli 1994; Tsimpli & Stavrakaki 1999). On this basis then, we could tentatively suggest that the presence of the definite article is triggered by some licensing requirement of the possessive clitic, which needs to enter a relation with an agreeing head, namely the article. Similarly, we can account for the presence of the article in (34b): the object clitic needs to match the DP in terms of phi-features. These features are morphologically and syn-

Non-volitional θelo 

tactically expressed on the D head of the doubled DP, hence the presence of the definite article in this case as well. It should also be pointed out that the clitic in (34b) plays the role of a focus marker on the verb; in other words the clitic+V complex bears focus. Once again then the presence of the definite article is triggered due to the independent presence of the clitic. The construction in (34c) with the relative clause is slightly different, as there is no clitic present. The suggestion is to treat it along the analysis proposed for the following English examples (Vergnaud 1974 and more recently Kayne (1994: 103)): (36) a. *The Paris. b. The Paris that I knew. c. The Paris of my youth. According to Kayne (1994) these examples receive a unified account if we adopt a raising analysis of relative clauses (and possessives): the CP-relative is a complement of D and the head of the relative clause raises from inside the relative clause to the Spec,CP, as in (37): (37) [D the [CP Parisi that [IP I knew ti ]]] According to the structure in (37), the determiner the does not form a constituent with the ‘head’ of the relative clause, and its presence is required for the purposes of relativisation. The same account can then extend to the example in (34c): (38) [D ti [CP zaxarii pu [IP θeli o espresso ti ]]] Thus the suspension of the definiteness effect in (34) is due to independent reasons and is consistent with the properties of clitics and relative clauses in connection with the properties of the definite article in Greek. To this end, the selectional restrictions of non-volitional θeli are not affected.10 To summarise, in the present section we discussed the nominal complement of non-volitional θelo. It was argued that θelo and the nominal form a complex predicate. In case the nominal is deverbal (denoting a complex event), the complex predicate is directly formed by the verb θelo and the nominal. Otherwise, as in the case of mass and indefinite nouns, the verb θelo forms a complex predicate with an embedded (null) P. In both constructions what surfaces as the matrix subject is thematically related to both θeli and the embedded predicate. This relation is established by the operation Agree. Having discussed the two complements of non-volitional θelo, we will next turn to a discussion of the two interpretations of θelo, namely volitional vs. non-volitional.

. ‘Want’ and ‘need’: The two faces of θelo In Section 1 we introduced the basic differences between the two readings of θelo. In particular, we showed that non-volitional θelo has a number of morphosyntac-

 Anna Roussou

tic properties that distinguish it from its volitional counterpart. These properties are summarised in (39) below: (39) Non-volitional θelo a. Absence of perfective aspectual marking. b. 1st/2nd person unavailable in the presence of a CP-complement. c. The nominal complement has to be of a certain type. On the other hand, volitional θelo appears to select its subject which has to be +animate, on the assumption that only animate entities can have wishes, desires, etc. (metaphorical uses are excluded of course). The question that arises in connection with the two readings of θelo is whether we actually have two distinct lexical items, or a single one whose different interpretations are syntactically derived, i.e., as the result of different syntactic derivations. Related to this is the question whether non-volitional θelo appears to be more ‘grammaticalised’, namely more functional than its volitional counterpart, and if so how this property is formally expressed. Before we discuss the relation between the two readings of θelo, let us consider property (39b), that is the incompatibility of non-volitional θelo with 1st/2nd person in the presence of a na-complement. Recall from our discussion of the relevant data in Section 1 that the structure converges with the volitional reading only. This kind of split between the two readings of θelo which is conditioned by person is reminiscent of split-ergativity patterns: in some ergative-absolutive systems, the presence of a 1st/2nd person subject acts as a switch to a nominative-accusative system (see Dixon 1994); on the other hand, in some nominative-accusative systems, such as certain Central Italian dialects, 1st/2nd person triggers the presence of the auxiliary be instead of have (Kayne 1993; Manzini & Savoia 1998). Drawing the parallelism with the above cases, we could say that non-volitional θelo behaves like the ergative counterpart of volitional θelo when it takes a na-complement. In order to explore this idea further, we should first outline some current syntactic approaches to ergativity. According to Benua and Borer (1996) the nominative-accusative vs. ergativeabsolutive distinction is the result of relatively different ‘rankings’ of the aspectual nodes that license arguments in the two systems: in the former, the head/phrase that derives the Event Originator (proto-typical Agent) is the primary one, while in the latter, the primary one is the head/phrase that licenses the Event Measurer (or Subjectof-Quantity, in Borer 2000). Based, to some extent, on a similar line of reasoning, Manzini and Savoia (1998) argue that the distinction under consideration is due to the different ways languages choose to lexicalise features that can be associated with thematic properties. In particular, in nominative-accusative languages, accusative case is theta-role sensitive, i.e., it lexicalises the prototypical Patient or Event Measurer, while nominative is indifferent to theta-roles and therefore can be associated with the Originator or the Event Measurer as in passives, unaccusatives, and so on. In ergativeabsolutive systems, on the other hand, the reverse pattern holds: ergative is sensitive to a theta-role (Originator), while absolutive isn’t. Under this approach, nominative matches absolutive and accusative matches ergative. The person split, found in both

Non-volitional θelo

systems, shows two things: first, that inflectional affixes and clitics can behave like case-marked DPs with respect to their sensitivity to theta-roles, and second, that not all affixes/clitics behave in the same way, thus an individuation between 1st/2nd and 3rd person pronominal elements in terms of their structural realisation is necessary. Bearing the above clarifications in mind, let us go back to the data with nonvolitional θelo and the exclusion of 1st/2nd person in this case. The relevant examples are repeated below for ease of exposition: Θelo na me plinis. want.1sg sub me wash.2sg ‘I want/*need you to wash me.’ b. Θeli na to plinis. want.3sg sub it wash.2sg ‘It wants/needs to be washed.’ c. Θelo/θeli plisimo. want.1sg/3sg washing ‘I want/need washing. / It wants/needs washing.’

(40) a.

In (40a) 1st person marking on θelo excludes the non-volitional reading; in (40b) the verb θeli bears 3rd person marking and the sentence can be ambiguous, depending also on whether the discourse referent is animate (e.g. to moro ‘the baby’) or not (e.g. to aftocinito ‘the car’). In (40c) finally, the verb can be 1st or 3rd person and the sentence is ambiguous. Recall also that if the derived reading in (40b) is that of need, the embedded clitic is necessarily coreferential with the matrix subject. Given the absence of a person-split in (40c), that is, with the nominal complement, and its presence in (40a), we have to conclude that the person restriction is derived in connection with the CP-complement, and more precisely the realisation of the embedded arguments. In other words, there is an interaction between the inflectional realisation of the embedded argument(s) and the presence of a 1st/2nd person affix on the matrix verb. If this is correct, the absence of such an effect with the nominal complement is to be expected: the argument(s) associated with the nominal are not realised inside the DP due to the absence of the appropriate inflectional positions (recall the way Agree operates in the two cases discussed in Sections 2 and 3). The split in (40) is reminiscent of patterns of auxiliary selection in Standard Italian and some Central Italian dialects discussed by Manzini and Savoia (1998). In these dialects, auxiliary selection is conditioned by the person specification and not by the thematic properties of the participle, as is the case in Standard Italian. More precisely, 1st/2nd person triggers auxiliary essere (to be), while 3rd person triggers auxiliary avere (to have). In Standard Italian, on the other hand, essere is used with ergative intransitives, unaccusatives, reflexives and passives, while avere is used with transitives and unergative intransitives (see Burzio 1986). This is illustrated in (41a) with Standard Italian, and (41b and d) with the dialect of Amandola (Manzini & Savoia 1998):



 Anna Roussou

(41) a.

Maria è partita. Mary is left ‘Mary has left.’ b. Lu Ásf caÁmatu. him I.am called ‘I have called him.’ c. Lu Ási caÁmatu. him you.are called ‘You have called him.’ d. Lu Áa caÁmatu. him he.has called ‘He has called him.’

The contrast between (41a) vs. (41b–d) is evident. In order to account for the above pattern, Manzini and Savoia (1998) make the following assumptions: first, the constructions in (41) are analysed as bi-clausal, as in Kayne (1993). Second, they treat both auxiliaries as distinct lexical items, which select different ‘clitic-shells’: when essere is selected there is no distinct position in the matrix clause that could lexicalise the Measurer (the internal argument) of the embedded predicate, so it is lexicalised by the nominative DP (or the agreement affix on V); when avere is selected, then the Measurer position in the matrix clause is activated, and it lexicalises the internal argument of the embedded clause, associating the Originator (external argument) with the nominative DP (or the agreement affix on V). Therefore, in Standard Italian, where auxiliary selection is sensitive to the thematic properties of the embedded predicate, the prediction is that essere appears with predicates that have an internal argument (which may be externalised, as in passives), while avere appears with predicates that have both an internal and an external argument, which can be distinctly realised. Roughly speaking we could say that while avere is transitive, essere is intransitive. In (41b–d), on the other hand, auxiliary selection is not sensitive to the thematic properties of the embedded predicate but to person, showing that 1st/2nd person, unlike 3rd person, behaves like nominative DPs in that it is not sensitive to thematic roles. In this case an ‘anti-accusative’ effect is triggered, yielding the presence of essere. In ergative languages like Georgian, on the other hand, 1st/2nd person has the reverse effect: it activates an accusative (Event Measurer) position, yielding the nominative-accusative pattern. Based on the above brief presentation, let us see how we can account for the Greek data in (40a and b). Despite similarities, there are a number of important differences, as 3rd person is not in principle incompatible with the volitional reading. Note nevertheless that the sensitivity to person attested in the Greek construction under consideration shares with the cases of auxiliary selection in (41b and c) the property of operating over a bi-clausal structure. It also shares with Standard Italian the property that the choice between the two readings of θelo is to some extent conditioned by the thematic requirements of the embedded predicate: recall from Section 1 (examples (6b and c)) that in the non-volitional reading there is obligatory coreference

Non-volitional θelo 

between the object clitic (internal argument) and the matrix subject; coreference with the embedded subject (agreement affix/clitic on V) arises in very restricted cases: when the intransitive (ergative) variant of the predicate is being used (as with the verb vrazo ‘boil’), or the verb is passivised; in both cases the internal argument has been in some way ‘externalised’. The inflectional relation that holds between the two predicates also holds in (41), given that the participle shows agreement. The person split in the Greek case shows that 1st/2nd person triggers an accusative-effect, as in ergative languages, while 3rd person doesn’t (and is therefore compatible with either reading). In other words, non-volitional θelo shows an ‘ergative’ syntax, while its volitional counterpart shows an ‘unergative’ one. A 3rd person subject is compatible with either syntax, while a 1st/2nd person is only compatible in this case with the ‘unergative’ one. In general terms, we could say that volitional θelo is ‘transitive’, while nonvolitional θelo is ‘intransitive’. Notice in this respect that while volitional θelo can take an object clitic, the non-volitional cannot: To θelun. it want.3pl ‘They want it.’ b. Ta θeli na ta majirepsi. them want.3pl sub them cook.3sg ‘(S/he) wants them (in order) to cook them.’

(42) a.

In the above examples θelun has the volitional reading, and is thus incompatible with the ‘need’ reading. In (42a) the clitic corresponds to the internal argument and could stand for a nominal or sentential complement. In (42b) the clitic in the matrix clause doubles the one in the embedded (whose interpretation is closer to that of a purpose clause); we can treat this as an instance of clitic-copying. (Greek has no clitic-climbing perhaps due to the presence of a finite na-complement.) The availability of constructions like the ones in (42) with volitional θelo support the idea that an ‘accusative’ position is/can be activated with volitional θelo only. Let us next see whether the above properties reflect a syntactic difference between the two readings of the verb θelo. As has emerged from the present discussion, nonvolitional θelo appears to be ‘defective’ in a number of ways: in terms of argument structure (it necessarily forms a complex predicate with its nominal, it lacks an internal argument, as subsumed under (39b and c)), as well as in terms of aspectual specification (property (39a)). Suppose then that this kind of ‘lexical split’ between the two θelo is taken to show that the non-volitional one is more ‘grammaticalised’ in the sense of Roberts and Roussou (2003). In terms of their analysis, the two readings arise as the result of the different positions the lexical item is merged in. For ease of exposition let us assume a VP-shell structure, as in (43) (it could be replaced by an Aspectual structure as in Borer’s 2000 account for example): (43) a. [I [v [V θelo]]] b. [I [v θelo [V ]]]

 Anna Roussou

Direct merger in v in (43) makes θelo closer to a light-verb: it has to some extent reduced predicative content (which arises in connection to v only), and reduced argument structure (on the assumption that transitivity requires the combination of v-V in a lexical item). With respect to the latter note that merger in v still allows θelo to be related to an external argument, and therefore exhibit ‘control’ properties. We could further assume that its direct merger in v can also derive the absence of perfective aspect, on the assumption that perfectivity requires the combination of two sub-events. In other words, the defective properties of θelo as ‘need’ can indeed be syntactically derived. Under this approach the ‘lexical split’ between the two readings is formally expressed. This issue is discussed in detail in Roberts and Roussou (2003), so we will not discuss it further here. A final note before we conclude the present section concerns the semantic properties of θelo. We could indeed say that the notion of ‘want’ implicates that of ‘need’, in the sense that the latter meaning is part of the former (i.e., I need something → I want something). This can be attested if we take an example like that in (1), in Section 1 (O Petros θeli tin efimeriða ‘Peter wants the newspaper’) where θeli has the volitional reading, but is possible to derive the ‘need’ reading as an implicature: Peter needs the newspaper and for this reason he wants it. In other words, the ‘need’ interpretation can be part of the implicatures derived by the ‘want’ reading in the relevant context. If this is correct, then in this particular case the ‘need’ reading is not grammaticalised, but is linked to the semantics of the volitional modal verb. On the other hand, when the two readings are clearly distinguished syntactically, as in most cases we have discussed in the present paper, this is taken as evidence that the ‘need’ reading as part of ‘want’ is grammatically encoded for the same lexical item. To summarise, in this section we considered the person split found with θelo and we provided an account in terms of ‘split-ergativity’. On the basis of the differences between the two readings we further argued that non-volitional θelo is more ‘grammaticalised’ than its volitional counterpart. This difference was formally expressed as the result of the different positions the same element is merged in the structure (v vs. V).

. Conclusion This paper discussed the two readings of the verb θelo: the volitional and the nonvolitional one, focusing primarily on the latter. In the first part of the paper, we introduced the data and showed that there are some clear syntactic differences between the two types of θelo. In the second part, we discussed the properties of the nominal and the na-complement of non-volitional θelo. In relation to the na-complement it was shown that there is an obligatory coreference relation between the matrix subject and one of the embedded arguments. This relation is derived through the operation Agree, which matches inflectional features. In the case of the nominal complement we first provided an account of the properties of the nominal, and we next argued that non-volitional θelo forms a complex predicate with its nominal complement: the sub-

Non-volitional θelo 

ject is thematically related to the nominal as well (either the nominal itself or to a null P) through Agree which in the construction under consideration matches one inflectional position with two predicates. Finally, we provided an account of the person split between the two readings and in relation to the na-complement in terms of an ‘ergative pattern’. We also argued, following Roberts and Roussou (2003), that the two readings are syntactically derived on the basis that non-volitional θelo is merged in v.

Notes * I would like to thank Annabel Cormack, Ian Roberts, Tasos Tsangalidis, and Ianthi Tsimpli for comments and discussions. This paper was presented at the 14th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (Thessaloniki, May 2001), the 5th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (Paris, September 2001), and the UCL Research Seminar (October 2001). I would like to thank all audiences, as well as the two anonymous reviewers and the editors of this volume for their suggestions. This paper is dedicated to Professor Dimitra TheophanopoulouKontou, my first syntax teacher, with respect and gratitude. . It should be noted that ‘non-volitional’ does not imply an epistemic modal. By ‘nonvolitional’ we mean that the verb θelo, a prototypical verb of volition, may also be interpreted as ‘x needs/is in need of y’ subject to certain syntactic conditions. When used as an impersonal, it triggers a further reading, namely ‘it is necessary for x that . . . ’ (see the discussion that follows and Section 2). See also Bhatt (1999) for an interesting discussion of the different readings associated with ability modals. . Note that the gerundive (-ondas) form, as in (i) below, is also unavailable with non-volitional ‘thelo’: (i)

Θelondas na cerðisi. . . want.ger sub win.3sg ‘Wanting to win. . . ’

In (i) the volitional reading is the only possible one. . There is a further case, namely when the definite article is focused as in (i) below: (i)

Aftos o tixos θeli TON kaθrefti. this the wall need.3sg the mirror ‘This wall needs THE mirror.’

As this interacts with a phonological property, we will not consider it in the discussion that follows. . The constructions with non-volitional θelo and a na-complement may not be equally accepted by all native speakers, compared to the ones with the nominal complement, especially when this is a deverbal noun. . Personal θelo is incompatible with a subject idiom in the embedded clause, while impersonal θeli isn’t, as shown in (i): (i)

a.

Tu bikan psili sta aftia. him got.3pl flees in.the ears ‘He got suspicious.’

 Anna Roussou

b.

θeli/*θelun na tu bun psili sta aftia. need.3sg/3pl sub him get.3pl flees in.the ears ‘It is necessary that he gets suspicious.’

Furthermore, personal θelo is compatible with the formation of a pseudo-cleft construction, as is typical of control predicates (for the application of this test in Greek see Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1999): (ii) Afto pu θelun i patates ine na tis vrasis kala. this that need.3pl the potatoes are sub them boil.2sg well. ‘What the potatoes need is to boil them well.’ The data in (i) and (ii) then support our assumption that personal non-volitional θelo is a control predicate. . In the examples under discussion the absence of semantic Tense in Iatridou’s (1993) sense holds: the embedded clause cannot bear an independent tense/temporal specification. . According to Joseph (1978) the construction in (15a) is an instance of object raising which necessarily involves a ‘copying’ mechanism due to the fact that the embedded clause is finite. On the other hand, (15b) is an instance of ‘complement object deletion’ (COD) (Lasnik & Fiengo 1974). In this case as well, the presence of the clitic is associated with the finiteness of the embedded clause. The different account of the two examples is based on the availability of an impersonal construction with the adjective ðiskolos and its absence with the adjective etimos, as shown in (i) and (ii) respectively: (i)

Ine ðiskolo na maθis Aglika. is difficult sub learn.2sg English ‘It is difficult to learn English.’

(ii) *Ine etimo na valume to musaka ston furno. is ready sub put.1pl the musaka in.the oven . In some other cases the paraphrase is quite different, and yields yet another interpretation of non-volitional θelo, as shown in (i): (i)

a.

I spuðes θelun (na kanis) ipomoni. the studies require.3pl (sub do.2sg) patience ‘Studying requires patience/to be patient.’

In (i) the verb θelun translates as ‘require’ and not ‘need’. In the CP-paraphrase the verb used is kanis (do.2sg). Crucially, there is no coreference relation between the matrix and the embedded subject. Instead the coreference relation seems to hold of an implicit argument of θelun (‘require’) and the embedded subject, namely ‘studying requires of you to be patient’. We will not discuss these cases in the present paper. . One obvious question that arises is whether the nominal complement of volitional θelo also has a structure of the type invoked for its non-volitional counterpart. This may indeed be the case, a fact that is supported by the ambiguity of θelo in the presence of an animate subject. That the nominal complement of volitional (intensional in general) predicates is a concealed clause has been argued for in the literature. For a more recent account see Den Dikken, Larson and Ludlow (1997). . Note that if we treat the nominal complement of non-volitional θelo as a predicate, then the definiteness restrictions that hold in the cases under consideration, fall in the same rubric as

Non-volitional θelo 

those that hold for nominal predicates in general. This may require a different approach to the nominal predicate of volitional θelo though (contra the suggestion made in Note 9), as in this case we have no such restrictions. I leave this issue open.

References Alexiadou, A. (1999). On the Syntax of Nominalization and Possession: Remarks on Patterns of Ergativity. Habilitation Thesis, University of Potsdam. Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou (1998). Parametrizing Agr: Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 491–539. Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou (1999). Raising without infinitives and the nature of agreement. In Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 14–26). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Anagnostopoulou, E. (1997). Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In E. Anagnostopoulou, H. van Riemsdijk, & F. Zwarts (Eds.), Materials on Left Dislocation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 14] (pp. 151–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Benua, L. & H. Borer (1996). Passive/anti-passive in a predicate based approach to argument structure. GLOW Newsletter, 36, 20–21. Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de Linguistique Générale. Paris: Gallimard. Bhatt, R. (1999). Actuality entailments of ability modals. In Proceedings of the 17th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 74–87). Palo Alto: CSLI. Borer, H. (1986). I-subjects. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 375–416. Borer, H. (2000). Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. Ms., UCSC (paper presented at the conference on Explanation in Linguistics, December 1999, UCSD). Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Chomsky, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–156). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. & H. Lasnik (1995). The theory of principles and parameters. In N. Chomsky, The Minimalist Program (pp. 13–127). (Chapter 1). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. den Dikken, M., R. Larson, & P. Ludlow (1997). Intensional “transitive” verbs and concealed complement clauses. In P. Ludlow (Ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Language (pp. 1041– 1053). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freeze, R. (1992). Existentials and other locatives. Language, 68, 553–596. Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20 (pp. 53–109). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

 Anna Roussou

Iatridou, S. (1993). On nominative Case assignment and a few related things. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 19, Papers on Case and Agreement II, 175–196. Ingria, J. P. (1981). Sentential Complementation in Modern Greek. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Joseph, B. (1978). Morphology and Universals in Syntactic Change: Evidence from Medieval and Modern Greek. PhD Dissertation, Harvard University. (Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club) Kayne, R. (1993). Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica, 47, 3–31. Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kolliakou, D. (1995). Definites and Possessives in Modern Greek: An HPSG Syntax for Noun Phrases. PhD Dissertation, University of Edinburgh. Lasnik, H. & R. Fiengo (1974). Complement object deletion. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 535–571. Manzini, M. R. & A. Roussou (2000). A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua, 110, 409–447. Manzini, M. R. & L. Savoia (1998). Clitics and auxiliary choice in Italian dialects: Their relevance for the person ergativity split. Recherches Linguistiques à Vincennes, 27, 115–138. Manzini, M. R. & L. Savoia (2002). Parameters of subject inflection in Italian dialects. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP (pp. 159–199). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don’t try a morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. Paper presented at the 21st Penn Linguistics Colloquium. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(2). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania. Markantonatou, S. (1992). The Syntax of Modern Greek Noun Phrases with a Derived Nominal Head. PhD Dissertation, University of Essex. Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1985). Word order in Modern Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society, 2, 113–143. Philippaki-Warburton, I. & G. Catsimali (1999). On control in Greek. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax (pp. 153–168). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Philippaki-Warburton, I. & V. Spyropoulos (2001). Ipotaktiki, tautoprosopia kai i ipotheoria tou elegxou stin Elliniki (Subjunctive, coreference and the theory of control in Greek). Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Paris. Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Roberts, I. & A. Roussou (2003). Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roussou, A. (2002). Construal I. Paper presented at the conference Minimalist Fact, Mayfest, University of Maryland, May 2002. Roussou, A. & I. M. Tsimpli (1994). On the interaction of case and definiteness in Modern Greek. In I. Philippaki-Warburton, K. Nicolaidis, & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 117] (pp. 69–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Salles, H. M. (1997). Prepositions and the Syntax of Complementation. PhD Dissertation, University of Wales, Bangor. Sportiche, D. (1996/1999). Reconstruction, movement, and scope. Unpublished Ms., UCLA. Sportiche, D. (1996). Clitic constructions. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon (pp. 213–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Terzi, A. (1992). PRO in Finite Clauses. A Study of the Functional Heads of the Balkan Languages. PhD Dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center.

Non-volitional θelo 

Terzi, A. (1997). PRO and null Case in finite clauses. The Linguistic Review, 14, 335–360. Theophanopoulou-Kontou, D. (1986). The clitic/gap alternation in COD constructions: The involvement of the focalization of the subject. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 7, 87–108. Theophanopoulou-Kontou, D. (1988). Kenes katigories ke klitika sti NE. I periptosi tou amesou antikeimenou (Empty categories and clitics in MG. The case of the direct object). Glossologia, 5–6, 41–68. Tsimpli, I. M. (1995). Focusing in Modern Greek. In È. Kiss (Ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages (pp. 176–206). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tsimpli, I. M. (1999). Null operators, clitics and identification: a comparison between Greek and English. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax (pp. 241–262). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Tsimpli, I. M. & S. Stavrakaki (1999). The effects of a morphosyntactic deficit in the determiner system: The case of a Greek SLI child. Lingua, 108, 31–85. Varlokosta, S. (1994). Issues on Modern Greek Sentential Complementation. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park. Vergnaud, J.-R. (1974). French Relative Clauses. PhD Dissertation, MIT.

Index

A Adjective simple 4, 6, 16, 19–20, 127, 135, 148 complex 142–143 possessive 4, 6, 127–128, 140–144 classificatory 135–136, 142 evaluative 7, 135–136, 142, 143, 147, 148 Agree 17–18, 32–34, 335, 339–341, 344–345, 347, 355 agreement 4, 5, 16, 18–34, 47, 54, 128, 144,193, 197, 198, 200, 203, 204, 206–208, 219, 223–225, 232, 241, 243–245, 250, 258, 260–268, 272, 334, 338–341, 348, 352 agreement checking 15, 18, 20, 34, 37 agreement features 5, 16–18, 25, 27, 33–35, 181, 184, 206, 207, 219, 224, 235, 268, 338 alienable possession 141 animacy restrictions 64, 133, 332, 344 applicative head 71, 80–81, 104, 108, 141 Avoid Pronoun 55

B benefactive 4, 62, 74–86, 101, 116, 120 beneficiary/ies 4–6, 61–62, 74–86, 99, 101–108, 109–110, 112–114, 116, 118, 120, 122

C case agreement 15, 23–25, 34 assignment 15, 18, 20, 23, 25, 32, 34 multiple 15, 18, 21, 23 causative v /Head 66, 141, 353–355

clitic doubling 5, 8, 31, 34, 47–49, 58, 78–79, 95, 105, 108–117, 122, 179, 182, 187–189, 207, 334, 348 Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD) 180, 182 185–189, 207, 209, 211 complex predicate 11, 160, 331, 345–349, 353, 354 Continuity Hypothesis 8, 9, 180, 206, 216, 230–233 control 4, 10, 11, 27–32, 36, 262, 264, 271, 276, 307, 336–341, 344–345, 354, 356 count noun 155–156 bare singular – 154–157, 171 covert feature movement 18, 27, 29, 31, 32, 36 D datives 3, 6, 61–63, 78, 95, 97–117, 122 definiteness restriction 30, 334–335, 342, 348 determiner 5, 7, 10, 41–43, 46, 49–51, 54–57, 128, 131, 143, 144, 153, 158, 161–163, 164, 209, 236, 310, 311, 314, 317, 318, 323, 326, 348–349 definite – 153, 158, 161–163 verbal – 55–56 double object construction 6, 61, 64–66, 71, 74–75, 86, 88–89, 97–98, 100–101, 111–112, 116, 118–119, 121–123, 141 DP argument languages 45–50, 52, 53 E Early Morphosyntactic Convergence 219 ellipsis 83–85, 120, 136, 142, 143, 145, 146 ergative 11, 30, 332, 346, 350, 355 eventive predicates 221–222, 225–226, 234, 236, 319

 Index

eventivity 9, 217, 228, 233 expletives 4, 25–27, 29, 30, 35, 43, 49, 339, 348 F feature checking 15, 17, 25 matching 17 mismatch 24 Functional Parametrisation Hypothesis 179 future Tense 4, 10, 200, 204, 221, 226, 285, 286, 288, 294, 297, 304, 309, 313 future Wh-clauses (FWHCs) 10, 285–326 G gender features 23, 44 gerund 9, 46, 49, 220, 241–242, 245, 251–256, 258–262, 265–268, 269–276 goal(s) 5, 6, 18–20, 23, 24, 61–67, 69–71, 77–79, 81, 84, 87, 89–92, 97–101, 104, 111, 114, 116, 141, 346 government features 35 grammaticalisation 185, 205, 208, 260 Greek, Ancient 9, 37, 121, 139, 229, 241, 242 Classical 128 Hellenistic 276 Koine 245, 258, 267 Medieval 247 New Testament 139, 243 I i-form(s) 218, 223–233, 235 imperfective (aspect) 204, 206–207, 224–225, 258 impersonal construction 333, 334, 341, 356 impersonal proform 286, 295, 297, 299, 303, 308, 309 inalienable possession 145–147 intensional definite DPs 10, 287, 308–310, 314, 324 indefinite DPs 287, 299, 310, 321–323 individual 310, 312, 314 intensional use (of verbs) 10, 290

intensive/emphatic possessive 132 interpretable features 8, 17, 33, 37, 180, 185, 186, 207, 208 Irrealis Free Relative (IFR) 10, 285–287, 291, 298, 302–307, 315, 317, 321–326, 329 K kinship term

8, 149, 163, 166

L Language Acquisition Device 153 learnability 179, 180, 261 left periphery 4, 180, 183, 206 light verb 171 locative construction 346–347 long distance binding 132, 146 M macroparameter 43 mass noun 155, 157, 161, 334, 335, 342, 346 Maturation Hypothesis 231 modal existential wh-constructions (MECs) 10, 316, 318 modality 8, 9, 180, 185, 200, 203–205, 207, 208, 211, 217, 221, 234, 273, 323, 326, 334 Mood P(hrase) 271 morphological pronominal affix argument 50 N Na-clauses 199, 237, 304, 326, 333, 335–341, 338 negation 157, 160, 161, 180, 185, 203, 218, 219, 271–272, 276, 289, 300, 301, 311, 315, 321 Nominal Mapping Parameter 7, 153, 154, 158, 160–163, 166, 173–175 Nominative Agreement Hypothesis 26 nominative case 5, 15, 25–26, 32, 34, 271, 293, 318, 336, 341 non-interpretable features see also uninterpretable, 18, 33, 37 non-modal 205–207, 226–228

Index 

non-presuppositional interpretation 285, 286, 303 non-volitional 3, 10, 122, 331–356 null subject languages 3, 9, 29, 52, 55, 180, 220, 235, 340 number features 20–24, 44, 262, 264 O object modifying phrase 311–313 P parameter 5, 7, 41–43, 52–54, 91–93, 99, 121, 122, 153, 158–163, 166, 173–175 participial constructions 21, 245 participle, absolute 264–266 active 9, 228, 235, 243, 245, 248, 252, 258–260, 265, 266 passive 229, 241, 242, 251, 254–258, 261, 262, 272, 275, 276 perfect aspect see also perfective, 289, 290 perfect tense(s) 9, 230, 256, 286, 287, 289, 290 perfective 224, 225, 230, 232, 235, 237, 256, 286, 332, 354 person restriction 11, 333, 335, 344, 351 personal construction 336, 340, 341 phase 5, 19, 21, 44 Phase Impenetrability Condition 44 phi-complete 19, 21 possessive clitic 7, 128, 130, 131, 143, 144, 147, 149, 334, 348 postverbal subjects 3, 5, 25, 31, 192, 193, 195, 197, 201, 339 prepositional ditransitives 6, 61–62, 64, 66, 72, 86–90, 95–98, 101, 104–108, 111–121 prepositions 6, 45, 61, 74, 87–89, 107, 116, 347 à 99–108, 109, 110 a 79, 111–115 jia 6, 62, 74–85, 92–94, 102, 120, 311–314, 326, 329 para 113 pour 100, 102, 103, 110, 122 se 6, 61, 62, 64–68, 73–80, 87–95, 104–108, 115–117, 121, 123, 220 to 6, 62, 71, 86, 87–90

present perfect 197, 204, 286, 289, 290, 319, 321 PRO 28, 36, 37, 43, 54, 120, 201, 262–264, 275, 336 pro 3, 5, 25–26, 29, 47, 54, 57, 302, 336–340 probe 5, 18–24, 28, 33 pronominal affix 43, 45–48, 50, 53 pronominal affix argument 43, 53 languages 45 Pronominal Argument Parameter 5, 41–44, 46, 48–52, 57 propositional operator 269, 289, 290, 321, 322 R Realis Free Relative (RFR) 288, 286, 291–297 reflexive pronoun 130–131 root infinitive 181, 184, 217, 218–222 S since-adverbials 287, 319–320 small clauses 5, 15, 18–24, 34, 35, 37, 118, 119, 141, 249, 257 stative predicates 221, 225, 336 Structure Building Hypothesis 175, 208, 231 subject clitics 31–32, 47–49, 209, 340 Subset Principle 161 T temporal modifiers 287, 307, 320–321 Tense 33–34, 180, 195, 200, 205, 206–209 Tense P(hrase) 269 U unbounded eventuality 290, 319–321 Unified Future Category (UFC) 181, 189, 192, 197 Unique Trigger 163 uninterpretable features see also non-interpretable features, 180, 186, 207–208 universal perfect 290, 319–320

 Index

V value 18–24, 33–34, 37, 162–163, 221, 230 Very Early Knowledge of Inflection (non)-volitional 10–11, 331–357

219

W Whinterrogatives 189–191 future clauses (FWHCs) see future Wh-clauses

In the series Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 20 LAENZLINGER, Christopher: Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation. Adverbs, pronouns, and clause structure in Romance and Germanic. 1998. x, 371 pp. 21 KLEIN, Henny: Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Languages. 1998. x, 232 pp. 22 ALEXIADOU, Artemis and Chris WILDER (eds.): Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. 1998. vi, 388 pp. 23 GIANNAKIDOU, Anastasia: Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. 1998. xvi, 282 pp. 24 REBUSCHI, Georges and Laurice TULLER (eds.): The Grammar of Focus. 1999. vi, 366 pp. 25 FELSER, Claudia: Verbal Complement Clauses. A minimalist study of direct perception constructions. 1999. xiv, 278 pp. 26 ACKEMA, Peter: Issues in Morphosyntax. 1999. viii, 310 pp. 27 RŮŽIČKA, Rudolf: Control in Grammar and Pragmatics. A cross-linguistic study. 1999. x, 206 pp. 28 HERMANS, Ben and Marc van OOSTENDORP (eds.): The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory. 2000. viii, 322 pp. 29 MIYAMOTO, Tadao: The Light Verb Construction in Japanese. The role of the verbal noun. 2000. xiv, 232 pp. 30 BEUKEMA, Frits and Marcel den DIKKEN (eds.): Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. 2000. x, 324 pp. 31 SVENONIUS, Peter (ed.): The Derivation of VO and OV. 2000. vi, 372 pp. 32 ALEXIADOU, Artemis, Paul LAW, Andre MEINUNGER and Chris WILDER (eds.): The Syntax of Relative Clauses. 2000. vi, 397 pp. 33 PUSKÁS, Genoveva: Word Order in Hungarian. The syntax of Ā-positions. 2000. xvi, 398 pp. 34 REULAND, Eric (ed.): Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. 2000. xii, 255 pp. 35 HRÓARSDÓTTIR, Thorbjörg: Word Order Change in Icelandic. From OV to VO. 2001. xiv, 385 pp. 36 GERLACH, Birgit and Janet GRIJZENHOUT (eds.): Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. 2001. xii, 441 pp. 37 LUTZ, Uli, Gereon MÜLLER and Arnim von STECHOW (eds.): Wh-Scope Marking. 2000. vi, 483 pp. 38 MEINUNGER, Andre: Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. 2000. xii, 247 pp. 39 GELDEREN, Elly van: A History of English Reﬂexive Pronouns. Person, Self, and Interpretability. 2000. xiv, 279 pp. 40 HOEKSEMA, Jack, Hotze RULLMANN, Víctor SÁNCHEZ-VALENCIA and Ton van der WOUDEN (eds.): Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. 2001. xii, 368 pp. 41 ZELLER, Jochen: Particle Verbs and Local Domains. 2001. xii, 325 pp. 42 ALEXIADOU, Artemis: Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. 2001. x, 233 pp. 43 FEATHERSTON, Sam: Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. 2001. xvi, 279 pp. 44 TAYLAN, Eser Erguvanlı (ed.): The Verb in Turkish. 2002. xviii, 267 pp. 45 ABRAHAM, Werner and C. Jan-Wouter ZWART (eds.): Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology. 2002. xviii, 336 pp. 46 PANAGIOTIDIS, Phoevos: Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. ‘Pronominality’ and licensing in syntax. 2002. x, 214 pp. 47 BARBIERS, Sjef, Frits BEUKEMA and Wim van der WURFF (eds.): Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System. 2002. x, 290 pp. 48 ALEXIADOU, Artemis, Elena ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Sjef BARBIERS and Hans-Martin GÄRTNER (eds.): Dimensions of Movement. From features to remnants. 2002. vi, 345 pp. 49 ALEXIADOU, Artemis (ed.): Theoretical Approaches to Universals. 2002. viii, 319 pp. 50 STEINBACH, Markus: Middle Voice. A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German. 2002. xii, 340 pp.

51 GERLACH, Birgit: Clitics between Syntax and Lexicon. 2002. xii, 282 pp. 52 SIMON, Horst J. and Heike WIESE (eds.): Pronouns – Grammar and Representation. 2002. xii, 294 pp. 53 ZWART, C. Jan-Wouter and Werner ABRAHAM (eds.): Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (Groningen, May 26–27, 2000). 2002. xiv, 407 pp. 54 BAPTISTA, Marlyse: The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole. The Sotavento varieties. 2003. xxii, 294 pp. (incl. CD-rom). 55 COENE, Martine and Yves D’HULST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. 2003. vi, 362 pp. 56 COENE, Martine and Yves D’HULST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases. 2003. x, 295 pp. 57 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 1: Syntax and semantics. 2003. vi, 405 pp. 58 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition. 2003. vi, 309 pp. 59 DEHÉ, Nicole: Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, information structure and intonation. 2002. xii, 305 pp. 60 TRIPS, Carola: From OV to VO in Early Middle English. 2002. xiv, 359 pp. 61 SCHWABE, Kerstin and Susanne WINKLER (eds.): The Interfaces. Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. 2003. vi, 403 pp. 62 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and MaryAnn WILLIE (eds.): Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar. In honor of Eloise Jelinek. 2003. xii, 378 pp. 63 BOECKX, Cedric: Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. 2003. xii, 224 pp. 64 BOECKX, Cedric and Kleanthes K. GROHMANN (eds.): Multiple Wh-Fronting. 2003. x, 292 pp. 65 MANNINEN, Satu Helena: Small Phrase Layers. A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. 2003. xii, 275 pp. 66 GROHMANN, Kleanthes K.: Proliﬁc Domains. On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies. 2003. xvi, 372 pp. 67 MIŠESKA TOMIĆ, Olga (ed.): Balkan Syntax and Semantics. 2004. xvi, 499 pp. 68 BREUL, Carsten: Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An integrated syntactic, semantic and intonational approach. 2004. x, 432 pp. 69 KISS, Katalin É. and Henk van RIEMSDIJK (eds.): Verb Clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. 2004. vi, 514 pp. 70 AUSTIN, Jennifer R., Stefan ENGELBERG and Gisa RAUH (eds.): Adverbials. The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. 2004. x, 346 pp. 71 GELDEREN, Elly van: Grammaticalization as Economy. 2004. xvi, 320 pp. 72 FUSS, Eric and Carola TRIPS (eds.): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. 2004. viii, 228 pp. 73 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and Sheila Ann DOOLEY (eds.): Verb First. On the syntax of verb-initial languages. 2005. xiv, 434 pp. 74 HEGGIE, Lorie and Francisco ORDÓÑEZ (eds.): Clitic and Aﬃx Combinations. Theoretical perspectives. 2005. viii, 390 pp. 75 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): UG and External Systems. Language, brain and computation. 2005. xviii, 398 pp. 76 STAVROU, Melita and Arhonto TERZI (eds.): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou. 2005. viii, 364 pp. 77 ÖZTÜRK, Balkız: Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. 2005. x, 268 pp. 78 DIKKEN, Marcel den and Christina M. TORTORA (eds.): The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. viii, 285 pp. + index. Expected September 2005 79 SCHMID, Tanja: Inﬁnitival Syntax. Inﬁnitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy. xiv, 251 pp. Expected July 2005

A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers website, www.benjamins.com