This paper systematically investigates reconstruction properties of Greek clitic doubled objects, motivates an analysis, and shows how this new evidence distinguishes between the numerous existing analyses of Clitic Doubling (CD). It is shown that CD-ed objects are externally merged in argument positions, not adjunct (
This paper explores and provides concrete answers about the syntactic position in which Greek CD-ed objects enter the derivation, the kind of syntactic movement they undergo and the height of the syntactic positions that are involved in this movement dependency. This is certainly not the first attempt in the literature. Several previous analyses have undertaken this task without reaching consensus though. Thus, one can find analyses in which the CD-ed XPs enter the derivation as arguments (
This paper resolves the conflicts that arise in these previous analyses by looking at interpretive properties, specifically, reconstruction properties, which as I discuss, bear directly on the more adequate analysis of Greek CD, and rule out several types of analyses which have been pursued in the literature. Concretely, I show using a set of well-established reconstruction diagnostics that CD-ed direct objects of Greek can only be interpreted in two positions, below the indirect object and in the middle field. The middle field position is situated above vP but lower than the position where dative clitics are interpreted, and it is an A-position, as CD-ed objects can bind from there into lower syntactic positions. The position below the indirect object is the argument position where CD-ed objects enter the derivation before they undergo XP/X
Showing that arguments in Greek can undergo scrambling into the middle field has a number of theoretical consequences. First, it corroborates the conclusion in Sportiche (
The paper proceeds with an overview of previous literature on CD, showing the conflicts that arise and the lack of clear conclusions as to whether Greek doubled objects are adjuncts or arguments. Section 2 presents reconstruction diagnostics. These diagnostics show that CD-ed objects enter the derivation as arguments, and that they undergo an A-movement step, which can only be XP/X
This section presents the current state of affairs about analysis of Greek CD in the literature and shows that the empirical data discussed in this literature are compatible with different assumptions about the kind of position i.e. argument or adjunct, that CD-ed objects can occupy.
To start with, previous literature on CD has concluded that the doubled objects of Greek are arguments considering syntactic positions where adjuncts are excluded and testing whether CD-ed objects can occur in them. The syntactic positions that were tested are the subject positions of e.g. control or ECM, and it was observed that CD-ed objects can occur in them, as shown in (1). Given this, it was concluded that Greek CD-ed objects can be arguments (cf.
(1)
a.
O
the
Janis
John.
tin
3
ekane
made.3
tin
the
Maria
Maria.
na
na
chari.
be happy.3
‘John made Maria happy.’
b.
O
the
Janis
John.
tin
3
perimeni
expect.3
ke
and
tin
the
Maria
Maria.
na
na
paraponethi.
complain.3
‘John expects Maria to complain.’
However, most recently, Philippaki-Warburton et al. (
Anagnostopoulou (
(2)
Anagnostopoulou (
a.
Pjos
who
tin
3.
efaghe
ate.3
tin
the
turta?
cake.
‘Who ate the cake?’
b.
Tin
3.
efaghe
ate.3
tin
the
turta
cake.
o
the
Janis.
John.
‘John ate the cake.’
On the other hand, she claims that the surface order in (2b) is never attested in Romance languages e.g. Peninsular Spanish and Catalan, which independently allow an object to be preceded by a doubling clitic. Anagnostopoulou (
(3)
Non
not
l’
3.
ha
has.3
mangiata,
eat.
la
the
torta,
cake.
neanche
not even
Gianni.
Gianni
‘Not even Gianni ate the cake.’
As Krapova & Cinque (
Finally, let us consider the data in (4a) and (4b). These data illustrate that possessor extraction is possible out of undoubled definites (cf.
(4)
a.
Odhighisa
drove.1
[ to
the
aftokinito
car.
tu
the
Jorghu].
George.
‘I drove George’s car.’
b.
Pjanu
whose.
odhighises
drove.2
[ to
the
aftokinito
car.
t
‘Whose car did you drive?’
(5)
a.
To
3
odhighises
drove.2
[ to
the
aftokinito
car.
tu
the
Jorghu]
George.
‘I drove George’s car.’
b.
*[Tu
the
Jorghu]
George.
to
3
odhighises
drove.2
[ to
the
aftokinito
car.
t
‘George’s car I drove.’
c.
*[Pjanu]
whose.
to
3
odhighises
drove.2
[ to
the
aftokinito
car.
‘Whose car did you drive?’
Based on this observation, Philippaki-Warburton et al. (
(6)
I
the
Maria
Maria.
(* tin)
3
episkeftike
visited.3
akoma ke
even
tin
the
Indhia.
India.
‘Maria even visited India.’
Now, since the CD-ed DP has to be –Focus, I argue that (5b) is ruled out because the possessor argument hosted within the CD-ed DP cannot be marked as +Focus and undergo focus movement. Similarly, (5c) is ruled out because
To sum up, the discussion so far must have shown that the question regarding the position in which doubled objects enter the derivation in Greek has not yet been sorted out. The following sections aim to bring further clarity in this discussion. This is achieved by using new evidence which is derived from a systematic investigation of the reconstruction properties of Greek doubled objects.
This section summarizes the assumptions that will be adopted regarding reconstruction. These assumptions were also adopted in Angelopoulos & Sportiche (
(7) | a. | Reconstruction is a property of movement dependencies only. |
b. | Movement is modeled as copying (the copy theory of traces). Reconstruction arises when a trace is interpreted at LF: in other words, with low-XP the trace of high-XP, reconstruction of high-XP = interpret low-XP. | |
c. | Total reconstruction refers to the situation in which only a low trace is interpreted at LF: total reconstruction = delete high-XP & interpret low-XP. |
Let us now consider a few examples. (8) illustrates reconstruction effects with A-bar movement (cf.
(8) | Sportiche ( |
|
a. | No politician |
|
b. | [Which of his |
(9)
[Which picture of hisi father] does no politician
A-bar movement obligatorily leaves a contentful copy. This fact is exemplified with sentences like (10) where Condition C blocks a coreferential relation between the proper name and the subject pronoun.
(10)
*Which picture of John
Condition C effects like the one in (10) shows that A-bar movement is the only derivational option from below the position of the triggering pronoun. If there was no movement involved in (10), we should not observe any Condition C violation. In addition, if A-bar movement did not leave a contentful copy, it would be totally unclear why Condition C ensues. Furthermore, like A-bar moved constituents, A-moved constituents can undergo total reconstruction for purposes of pronominal binding, as shown in (11). This shows that A-movement can leave a contentful copy.
(11)
Sportiche (
Pictures of his seemed to everyone
Next, I consider cases in which Condition C is bled. These are cases in which a proper name (or definite description) is contained in an adjunct or a relative clause combining with a moved constituent, as in (12).
(12)
Which picture that Picasso
These effects have been accounted for by late merging the relative clause (cf.
In this section I lay out the key facts from a nearly exhaustive investigation of the reconstruction properties that CD-ed direct objects exhibit in Greek in order to determine if they enter the derivation as arguments or adjuncts and if they undergo movement, what kind of movement they undergo and to which syntactic positions. I show that CD-ed objects enter the derivation as arguments and that they do not move higher than the subject or the dative clitic. Moreover, I present data showing that CD-ed objects move to a vP peripheral position and that this movement has to be XP/X
In this section I show that CD-ed objects enter the derivation as arguments. To start with, consider (13a) which shows that a plain undoubled direct object hosting a pronoun can be interpreted in the argument position where the pronoun is bound by an indirect object QP scoping below negation, as shown in the translation. In (13b), I show that binding into the CD-ed direct object is possible under identical conditions i.e. with the quantifier scoping below negation.
(13)
a.
Dhen
not
edhiksa
showed.1
se
to
kapjo
some
fititi
student.
to
the
paso
ID.
tu
his.
‘I did not show his ID to any student.’
b.
Dhen
not
to
3.
edhiksa
showed.1
se
to
kapjo
some
fititi
student.
to
the
paso
ID.
tu
his.
‘I did not show his ID to any student.’
This new finding shows that CD-ed objects can be interpreted in the argument position exactly like undoubled arguments and be bound by a low scoping quantifier. In Section 3.4, I show that CD-ed objects undergo obligatorily an A-movement step into the middle field. Given this, I argue that the bound interpretation in (13b) becomes possible under total reconstruction of the CD-ed direct object from the middle field into a position below the indirect object QP, which is the argument position occupied by the undoubled object in (13a).
Importantly, previous literature has concluded that Greek CD-ed objects cannot undergo reconstruction. In particular, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (
(14)
Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (
a.
O
the
Janis
John.
sistise
introduced.3
kathe
every
jineka
woman.
s-ton
to-the
melodiko
future
adra
husband.
tis
her.
‘John introduced every woman to her future husband.’
b.
*O
the
Janis
John.
tu
3
sistise
introduced.3
kathe
every
jineka
woman.
tu
the
melodiku
future
adra
husband.
tis
her.
‘John introduced every woman to her future husband.’
Based on the contrast between (14a) and (14b), Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou conclude that the CD-ed indirect object in (14b) is interpreted in a position higher than the direct object due to (some kind of) movement that the CD-ed object undergoes to this higher position. In addition, they assume that pronominal binding is not possible into the CD-ed indirect object because it cannot undergo total reconstruction below the direct object. Note that the detail that Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (
(15)
a.
*O
the
Janis
John.
sistise
introduced.3
tu
the
melodiku
future
adra
husband.
tis
her.
kathe
every
jineka
woman.
‘John introduced every woman to her future husband.’
b.
*O
the
Janis
John.
sistise
introduced.3
kathe
every
jineka
woman.
tu
the
melodiku
future
adra
husband.
tis
her.
‘John introduced every woman to her future husband.’
Given the above, I argue that the data presented in Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (
This section examines whether CD-ed objects can be interpreted higher than the subject. Thus, I compare only for the purposes of this section the interpretive properties of CD-ed objects to these of C(litic) L(eft) D(islocat)ed ones.
(16)
[Tis
the
fotoghrafies
photos.
pu
that
o
the
Janis
John.
evghale
took.3
s-to
in-the
Parisi]
Paris.
pro
he.
tis
3
ksechase
forgot.3
(sto
in-the
sirtari
drawer.
tu).
his.
‘He forgot (in his drawer) the photos that John took in Paris.’
In (16), the CLLD-ed object is combined with a relative clause that contains a proper name i.e.
(17)
pro
he.
tis
3
ksechase
forgot.3
[tis
the
fotoghrafies
photos.
pu
that
o
the
Janis
John.
evghale
took.3
s-to
in-the
Parisi].
Paris.
‘He forgot the photos that John took in Paris.’
Similar facts have first been reported for Italian in Cecchetto (
(18) | Angelopoulos & Sportiche ( |
|
a. | *He |
|
b. | It seems to John |
(18a) is ruled out under a coreference reading between
In this section I examine the interaction with respect to Condition C between CD-ed direct objects and dative clitics in order to determine the relative height of movement of the first with respect to the latter. In previous literature, Condition C has been argued to rule out coreference between a dative clitic and a definite description hosted within an undoubled direct object, (19a). This literature also reports that if the direct object is CD-ed, Condition C is obviated, as in (19b).
(19)
Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (
a.
*O
the
Janis
John.
tis
3
epestrepse
returned.3
to
the
vivlio
book.
tis
the
Marias
Maria.
simiomeno.
noted
‘John returned Mary’s book to her noted.’
b.
?O
the
Janis
John.
tis
3
to
3.
epestrepse
returned3
to
the
vivlio
book.
tis
the
Marias
Maria.
simiomeno.
noted
‘John returned Mary’s book to her noted.’
Based on this contrast, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou conclude that Condition C is obviated in (19b) because the doubled object undergoes (some kind) of A-movement across the dative clitic.
(20)
a.
O
the
Janis
John.
epestrepse
returned.3
[to
the
vivlio
book.
tis
the
Marias]
Maria.
simiomeno.
with notes
‘John returned Maria’s book with notes.’
b.
O
the
Janis
John.
epestrepse
returned.3
[to
the
vivlio]
book.
[tis
the
Marias]
Maria.
simiomeno.
with notes
‘John returned the book to Maria with notes.’
In (20a),
(21)
a.
O
the
Janis
John.
tis
3
to
3
epestrepse
returned.3
[to
the
vivlio
book.
tis
the
Marias]
Maria.
simiomeno.
with notes
b.
O
the
Janis
John.
tis
3
to
3
epestrepse
returned.3
[to
the
vivlio]
book.
[tis
the
Marias]
Maria.
simiomeno.
with notes
Importantly, Condition C between
(22)
Let us also take (23a) as a benchmark case showing that the dative clitic c-commands the undoubled direct object.
(23)
a.
*I
the
Maria
Maria.
tu
3
epestrepse
returned.3
[tis
the
fotoghrafies
photos.
pu
that
o
the
Janis
John.
evghale
took.3
sto
in-the
chionodhromiko].
ski resort.
‘Maria returned to him the photos that John took in the ski resort.’
b.
*I
the
Maria
Maria.
tu
3
tis
3
epestrepse
returned.3
[tis
the
fotoghrafies
photos.
pu
that
o
the
Janis
John.
evghale
took.3
sto
in-the
chionodhromiko]
ski resort.
‘Maria returned to him the photos that John took in the ski resort.’
In (23a), coreference between the clitic and the proper name in
It has been known for a long time in several languages such as Lebanese Arabic (cf.
(24)
a.
*I
the
mitera
mother.
tu
his.
sinodhepse
escorted.3
to
the
kathe
every
phedhi
kid.
‘His mother did not escort every kid.’
b.
I
the
mitera
mother.
tu
his.
to
3
sinodhepse
escorted.3
to
the
kathe
every
phedhi
kid.
‘His mother did not escort every kid.’ (
In what follows, I present an account for these facts assuming that the CD-ed object undergoes XP/X
In this section, I argue that the absence of WCO in CD can only be accounted for in analyses of CD that integrate one XP movement step in the syntactic derivation underlying CD. These analyses have been proposed in different versions in Sportiche (
(25)
[to kathe phedhi ]]]]]]
In previous literature, it was argued that CD can obviate WCO assuming that CD-ed DPs form an A-chain with the clitic. The clitic which is the head of the chain is assumed to move to T via feature movement, and it is argued to bind from this position into Spec vP where the subject can undergo reconstruction, as shown in the LF representation below (cf.
(26)
Notably, the feature movement analyses never explicitly formulated Binding Theory in terms of features, therefore, it is unclear on what grounds the assumption that features can bind can be evaluated. At any rate, I argue that the real challenge the feature movement account faces is that it relies on the rather doubtful assumption that features can act as binders in the first place. Feature movement was first motivated in Chomsky (
(27)
Cardinaletti (
a.
pro
*arriva/
arrive.3
arrivano
arrive.3
tre
three
ragazze.
girls
b.
There *
Here, Chomsky (
(28) | Chomsky ( |
|
a. | There arrived three men (last night) without identifying themselves. | |
b. | *There seem to each other [ |
Cardinaletti (
(29) | Lasnik ( |
|
a. | Some defendant |
|
b. | *There seems to his |
Based on the conclusions of Cardinaletti (
In the next section, I turn to the grammatical distribution of clitics. Building on Angelopoulos & Sportiche (
Having pointed out preliminary observations about the issues with respect to binding that the feature movement accounts face, I discuss next the most closely related analyses presented more recently in Rezac (
(30)
O
the
Jorghos
George
ton
3
aghapai
loves.3
[ton
the
eafto
self.
tu]
his.
‘George loves himself.’
In (30), the accusative clitic doubles an anaphor bound by the subject (cf.
(31)
*O
the
Jorghos
George
ton
3.
agaphai.
loves.3
‘George loves him.’
Collins (
(32)
O Jorghos ton
Furthermore, in Angelopoulos & Sportiche (
Now, since the clitic is an expletive determiner and lacks reference, it should not be able to bind or change anything with respect to WCO, therefore, the analysis of Rezac (
Under the account in Philippaki-Warburton et al. (
(33)
This section argues that Greek CD-ed XPs undergo movement, like scrambling, into the middle field to license a syntactic feature related to their interpretive properties. In Section 5.1, following Kallulli (
CD-ed definites have been argued in extensive previous literature of Greek to “[…] resemble pronominals in that they cannot be understood as novel, a fact which can be taken to suggest that they obey the
(34)
John read a book about Schubert and wrote to him.
In (34),
(35)
John read a book about Schubert and wrote to the author.
Anagnostopoulou (
(36)
Anagnostopoulou (
O
the
Jannis
John
dhiavase
read.3
ena
a
vivlio
book
jia
about
ton
the
Arthur
Arthur
Miller
Miller
enthusiastike
got enthusiastic.3
ke
and
thelise
wanted.3
na
na
(ton)
3.
ghnorisi
get to know.3
ton
the
singrafea
author.
apo
from
koda.
close
‘John read a book about Arthur Miller, he got enthusiastic, and he wanted to get to know the author.’
It is argued that in the presence of the doubling clitic, the definite
(37)
Diavasa
read.1
ena
an
arthro
article
ja
about
tin
the
mitera
mother
mu.
mine
Itan
was.3
toso
so
apesio
terrible
pu
that
ithela
wanted.1
na
na
(ton)
3
skotoso
kill.1
ton
the
sigrafea.
author.
‘I read an article about my mother. It was so terrible that I wanted to kill the author.’
In (37), the CD-ed definite is free to pick the author of the book as referent despite the fact that there is no previous mention of the author.
(38)
*Dhiavasa
read.1
ena
an
arthro
article
ja
about
tin
the
mitera
mother
mu.
mine.
Itan
was.3
toso
so
apesio
unfair
pu
that
ithela
wanted.1
na
na
ton
3
skotoso.
kill.1
‘I read an article about my mother. It was so terrible that I wanted to kill him.’
Here, it is quite clear that the sentence is strongly ruled out if the pronoun in (38) has the non-familiar reading under which it corefers with the author of the book. This contrast between (37) and (38) is very sharp and this fact is quite unexpected if Heim’s
(39)
I
the
Sofia
Sofia.
dhen
not
to
3.
lipate
care.3
to
the
hrima.
money.
‘approx. Sofia does not care about money.’
(40)
Akoma ce
even
an
if
dhen
not
tin
3.
theoruse
consider.3
tin
the
alghevra
algebra.
simantiki/
important/
endiaferusa,
interesting,
tha
would
eprepe
have
na
na
tin
3.
parakoluthisi.
attend.3
‘Even if she did not consider algebra important/interesting, she would still have to attend it.’
(41)
a.
Tha
would
to
3.
etrogha
eat.1
ena
a
sokolotaki
small chocolate.
tora.
now
‘I would now eat a small chocolate.’
b.
Dhen
not
tha
would
tu
3.
milusa
talk.1
enos
a
sovaru
serious
fititi
student.
etsi.
like that
‘I would not talk like that to a serious student.’
In (41a) and (41b),
As discussed in the previous section, previous analyses have proposed that clitics have semantic import. For instance, clitics have been assumed to be lexically specified as +familiar (cf.
(42)
a.
Akoma ke
even
tu
the
Jani
John.
tha
would
tu
3
arese
like.3
afto
this
to
the
arthro.
paper.
‘Even John would like this paper.’
b.
Tha
would
tu
3
arese
like.3
akoma ke
even
tu
the
Jani
John.
afto
this
to
the
arthro.
paper.
‘Even John would like this paper.’
(42) shows that a dative experiencer, that is,
(43)
Ke
and
pjanu
who.
dhen
not
tu
3
aresi
like.3
to
the
kalokeri?
summer.
‘Who does not like summer?’
(44)
Ke
and
pjon
who.
dhen
not
tha
would
ton
3
endhiefere
be interested.3
aloste?
though
‘Who would not be interested though?’
The clitics used to double experiencers e.g.
In previous literature it has been argued that direct object CD is an optional phenomenon (cf.
(45)
Agouraki (
Pjos
who
(to)
3
idhe
saw.3
to
the
pedhi?
kid.
‘Who saw the kid?’
In (45), the subject is a
(46)
a.
I
the
Maria
Maria.
diavase
read.3
ena
a
vivlio
book
ja
about
ton
the
Yanni
Yanni
Tsarouchi
Tsarouchi
ke
and
anarotithike:
wondered.3
ton
3
ektimise
appreciated.3
pote
never
i
the
ikojenia
family
tu
his.
ton
the
zografo
painter.
‘Maria read a book about Yanni Tsarouchi and wondered: did his family ever appreciated the painter?’
b.
*I
the
Maria
Maria.
diavase
read.3
ena
a
vivlio
book
ja
about
ton
the
Yanni
Yanni
Tsarouchi
Tsarouchi
ke
and
anarotithike:
wondered.3
ektimise
appreciated.3
pote
never
i
the
ikojenia
family
tu
his.
ton
the
zografo
painter.
‘Maria read a book about Yanni Tsarouchi and wondered: did his family ever appreciated the painter?’
In both examples, the direct object is a definite DP,
(47) | a. | [ |
b. | [ |
Let us also assume that clitics are base generated in the middle field between XP and TP in (47a) like in Sportiche (
Interestingly, Preminger (
In this section I discuss a residual issue that has to do with extraction out of CD-ed objects. As discussed in Section 1.1, possessor extraction has been argued in two previous works to be ungrammatical (cf.
(48)
a.
Foresa
wore.1
to
the
forema
dress.
tis
the
Marias.
Maria.
‘I wore Maria’s dress.’
b.
Tinos
whose.
foreses
wore.2
to
the
forema?
dress.
‘Whose dress did you wear?
c.
Tinos
whose.
to
3
foreses
wore.2
to
the
forema?
dress.
‘Whose dress did you wear?
Indeed, (48c) is grammatical, however, one needs to control for the fact that
In this paper, I argued that CD-ed objects in Greek enter the derivation as arguments and undergo XP/X
The following glosses are used in this paper:
Note that the doubled object of (3) is separated with commas while the doubled object of Greek in (2) is not. This should not be taken to illustrate any potential intonational differences between the two. Greek doubled objects form distinct prosodic units (cf.
Note also that in a number of recent works including Krapova & Cinque (
These assumptions are justified in minimalist terms in Fox (
Except possibly for some pseudo-cleft constructions, (cf.
Sportiche (
A contentful copy is a copy whose content can be fully interpreted at LF.
See Sportiche (
An anonymous reviewer points out that Late Merge cannot cover all cases of Principle C bleeding, and therefore, cannot be used as a diagnostic for binding or reconstruction since there is no principled way to know what exactly one is dealing with. Indeed, like the reviewer correctly points out there are different cases of Principle C bleeding. For instance, A-movement as well is well-known to bleed Condition C (see
The discussion above shows that the binding patterns in Bulgarian which in Harizanov (
This position can be in the complement position of the verb or a case position where direct objects move to get Case.
See Angelopoulos & Sportiche (
This judgment was confirmed in a short informal survey conducted with fifteen native speakers of Modern Greek. It was found that all speakers including the author have very strong judgments blocking coreference between the proper name and the pronoun in (17). It is important that while there was no variation in the judgment for (17), 4/15 speakers though did not have clear judgments about (16). An anonymous reviewer disagrees with the judgment in (17). It is unclear at this point what to make of this difference in judgment. I have so far not encountered speaker variation, and am not aware of cross-linguistic disputes in this area (see
I assume that
In Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (
In (20b) and in following examples, the use of
The fact that secondary predicates can extrapose is shown below where
(i) I the Maria Maria. epestrepse returned.3 to the vivlio book s-tin to-the Elena Elena simiomeno. with notes ‘Maria returned the book to Elena with notes.’
Anagnostopoulou (
I also assume as in Angelopoulos & Sportiche (
The exact height of the CL
If the CL
The fact that there can be a copy of the subject in Spec-vP undermines the proposal of Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (
An anonymous reviewer points out that under current theoretical assumptions feature movement has been reduced to Agree.
I would like to refer the reader to the discussion in Angelopoulos & Sportiche (
In Heim (
Note that examples like (36) have been recycled in the literature with
I would like to thank Christos Christopoulos for bringing such examples to my attention.
The intuition reported in (37) has been confirmed in an informal study with fifteen native speakers.
(39) was found in naturally occurring context on the Internet:
i.
In (41b), the CD-ed definite is the subject of a small clause. In Sportiche (
There are different approaches discussing the properties of this A-movement step, why it has to take place, or more specifically, whether it has to take place e.g. for case. For instance, Broekhuis & Corver (
See also Anagnostopoulou (
See Giannakidou (
Source:
Anagnostopoulou (
See Preminger (
In bare cliticization, one could claim that the clitic is obligatorily present because its associate i.e. (i) Cardinaletti ( L’ 3 abbiamo have.1 invitato invited noi, we, a a Gianni. Gianni ‘We have invited John’
Under this approach,
As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, Harizanov (
I would also like to thank a few Greek linguists, Marika Lekakou, Maria-Margarita Makri, Dimitris Michelioudakis, Anna Roussou, Christos Vlachos and Arhonto Terzi, who also confirm the judgments I report here.
The article was partially supported by the NSF, grants 1424054 and 1424336. It has been presented in earlier forms at the LSA 2019, the Syntax Reading Group of Patras and at Semantics in Athens II. The paper has benefited from discussion with Maayan Abenina Adar, Chris Collins, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Christos Christopoulos, Mina Giannoula, Winfried Lechner, Travis Major, Maria Margarita Makri, Dimitris Michelioudakis, Omer Preminger, Anna Roussou, Vassilis Spyropoulos, Tim Stowell and Giorgos Spathas. I am particularly grateful to Hilda Koopman, Dominique Sportiche and Arhonto Terzi for discussion and comments on previous versions of the paper. Lastly, I would like to thank three anonymous reviewers.
The author has no competing interests to declare.