The distinction between projective and non-projective locative prepositions that has been proposed in the semantic literature (
Greek has two classes of complex locative PPs. These are minimally different on the surface by means of the preposition marking the DP complement (
(1)
a.
I
the
gata
cat
ine
is
to
the
kuti.
box
‘The cat is behind the box.’
b.
I
the
gata
cat
ine
is
kuti.
box
‘The cat is in the box.’
Following Talmy (
Left:
A typical trait of projective expressions is that they can be modified by
(2)
a.
b.
The tree is
(adapted from Zwarts & Winter (
(3)
a.
b.
# The cat is
# The cat is
Given that measure phrases (henceforth: MPs) such as
Zwarts & Winter (
Zwarts (
Another class of prepositions that may be used in a locative context involve
(4)
a.
b.
c.
d.
John is in the pool.
John dived into the pool.
The man came from the city.
The horse raced past the barn.
(5)
a.
b.
c.
The crowd is standing around the house.
There is a promenade along the river.
The blanket is over the chair.
Zwarts (
In his discussion of English prepositions, Svenonius (
(6)
a.
b.
There was a beach. Next *(to it), the cliffs swarmed with birds.
There was a beach. Above (it), the cliffs swarmed with birds.
from Svenonius (
The picture gets more complicated as some prepositions with apparently similar denotations have different distributions and thus may belong to different classes. For instance, Zwarts & Winter (
(7)
a.
b.
The nail is 1 inch inside the wall. (from
*The nail is 1 inch in the wall. (mine)
These and other observations from the literature suggest that the semantic taxonomy of locative expressions is a rich one. Whether this taxonomy is reflected in the syntax of locative PPs, however, and if so, how and to what extent, is an independent question. Svenonius (
The interplay between syntax and the semantic typology of locative expressions has not received much attention in crosslinguistic studies. Ursini & Long & Zhang (
The Greek data discussed in this paper present a different picture in this regard, in that the semantic typology is reflected in syntax and morphology. Specifically, while projective PPs support a decompositional account along the lines of Svenonius (
(8)
a.
I
the
gata
cat
ine
is
to
the
kuti.
box
‘The cat is behind the box.’
b.
I
the
gata
cat
ine
is
kuti.
box
‘The cat is in the box.’
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 is an introduction to the prepositional system of Greek and discusses previous analyses of locative PPs. Section 3 discusses and runs the diagnostics for projective prepositions, and then examines the behavior of the newly established classes, presenting evidence for different underlying structures. Section 4 lays out the details of the syntactic analysis and semantic composition of projective and non-projective locative PPs. Section 5 concludes.
Lechner & Anagnostopoulou (
(9)
Functional (light) prepositions:
(10)
Lexical (heavy) prepositions:
The light prepositions in (9), particularly
Intransitive prepositions may appear with or without a complement, which can be either a light PP (11a–b), or a genitive DP (11c):
(11)
Intransitive prepositions
a.
mesa ( s-to spiti)
inside at-the house
‘inside (the house)’
mazi (me ton Petro)
together with the Peter
‘together (with Peter)’
kato (apo to trapezi)
under from the table
‘underneath (the table)’
b.
meta (apo to fagito)
after from the dinner
‘after dinner’
prin (apo ton Petro)
before from the Peter
‘before Peter’
c.
iper (tu Petru)
in_favor_of the Petergen
‘in favor (of Peter)’
kata ( tu Petru)
against the Petergen
‘against (Peter)’
enantion ( tu Petru)
against the Petergen
‘against (Peter)’
The intransitive prepositions that participate in the formation of spatial expressions, a list of which is given in (12), are also referred to in the literature as “adverbs” (
(12)
(13)
a.
kathome
sit.I
piso
‘I’m sitting at the back.’
b.
kano
do.I
piso
‘I’m moving backwards / I’m withdrawing.’
c.
to
the
piso
kathisma
seat
The function and the syntactic status of these multi-faceted items are different in each case. Moreover, as is argued in this paper, their syntactic status varies within the spatial domain as well, correlating with the semantic type of the expression. For this reason, they will henceforth be referred to by the more abstract and atheoretic term
Simple locative PPs are formed by
(14)
a.
Ta
the
klidia
keys
ine
are
s-to
trapezi.
table
‘The keys are on the table.’
b.
Ta
the
ruxa
clothes
ine
are
s-tin
dulapa.
closet
‘The clothes are in the closet.’
c.
I
the
Maria
Mary
ine
is
s-to
spiti.
house
‘Mary is at home.’
d.
I
the
Maria
Mary
/
ta
the
psaria
fish
/
to
the
spiti
house
ine
is/are
s-ti
thalasa.
sea
‘Mary/the fish/the house is/are at/in/by the sea.’
The exact interpretation of these PPs is contextually determined, i.e. it depends on world knowledge and properties of the figure and the ground. For example, a bottle of milk is more likely to be found
(15)
a.
mesa
s-tin
dulapa
closet
‘in the closet’
b.
piso
apo
ton
the
kanape
couch
‘behind the couch’
Some spatial words can combine with either
(16)
a.
I
the
Maria
Mary
ine
is
tileorasi.
TV
b.
I
the
Maria
Mary
ine
is
tin
the
tileorasi.
TV
‘Mary is in front of the TV.’
(17)
a.
I
the
laba
lamp
ine
is
trapezi.
table
‘The lamp is on the table.’
b.
I
the
laba
lamp
ine
is
to
the
trapezi.
table
‘The lamp is above the table.’
Although the two kinds of complex PPs are similar on the surface, previous research has posited the existence of two distinct syntactic frames underlying complex PPs in Greek. Theophanopoulou-Kontou (
(18)
a.
I
the
gata
cat
ine
is
(
pano )
s-to
trapezi.
table
‘The cat is on the table.
b.
I
the
gata
cat
ine
is
#(kato )
apo
to
the
trapezi.
table
‘The cat is under the table.’ / # ‘The cat is from the table.’
If the spatial word is omitted from a complex
(19)
[PP piso [CP apo [DP ti Maria]]] (based on
Although Theophanopoulou-Kontou (
Terzi (
(20)
[PPLoc [PLoc 0 [SC [DP ø [NP
‘above/on Mary’
pano Place]] [PP
apo/se [DP
ti Maria]]]]]
the Mary
(based on
However, in (20), complex
The account developed in Section 4 builds on Theophanopoulou-Kontou (
This section presents the novel data supporting the main claim of this paper, namely that the choice between
Zwarts & Winter (
(21)
a.
b.
The tree is behind the house.
The doghouse is behind the house.
a house (
Zwarts & Winter (
Another property of projective expressions is that they can be modified by the projective modifiers
(22)
a.
b.
?The workers are waiting straight/diagonally outside the building.
*The workers are waiting straight/diagonally out of the building.
The rest of this subsection uses MP and projective modification as diagnostics to detect projective PPs in Greek.
Complex PPs formed with
mesa | ‘in’ | ‘on the other side of’ |
ekso | ‘outside, out of’ | |
pano | ‘on’ | ‘above, over’ |
kato | ‘under, below’ | |
dipla | ‘by, next to’ | ‘beside’ |
brosta | ‘in front of, before’ | ‘in front of’ |
piso | ‘behind’ | |
deksia | ‘to the right of’ | |
aristera | ‘to the left of’ | |
voria | ‘north of’ | |
notia | ‘south of’ | |
anatolika | ‘east of’ | |
ditika | ‘west of’ | |
konta | ‘close to, near’ | ‘close to, not far from’ |
makria | ‘far from’ | |
anamesa | ‘between, among’ | |
kontra | ‘against’ | |
gyro | ‘around’ |
around |
A quick look at Column 3 is suggestive of the projective nature of complex
If complex
(23)
a.
O
the
Yanis
Yanis
kathete
sits
2 m
2 m
brosta
/
dipla
apo
tin
the
tileorasi.
TV
IM: ‘Yanis is sitting 2 meters in front of / beside the TV.’
b.
To
the
dentro
tree
ine
is
10m
10m
ekso
/
piso
apo
to
the
spiti.
house
‘The tree is 10m outside / behind the house.’
c.
To
the
aeroplano
plane
petuse
flew
1000
1000
podia
ft
pano
apo
to
the
stadio.
stadium
‘The plane was flying at 1000 ft above the stadium.’
d.
O
the
thisavros
treasure
ine
is
krimenos
hidden
50m
50m
kato
apo
tin
the
eklisia.
church
‘The treasure is hidden 50m under the church.’
e.
I
the
Maria
Mary
kathete
sits
2m
2m
aristera
/
deksia
apo
ti
the
Georgia.
Georgia
‘Mary is sitting 2m to the left/right of Georgia.’
f.
Ta
the
Meteora
Meteora
vriskonte
lie
200km voria/notia/anatolika/dytika
200km
apo
to
the
Miami.
Miami
‘Meteora lies 200 km north/south/east/west of Miami.’
An interesting case is
(24)
Context:
% To
the
xrimatokivotio
safe
ine
is
(2m)
2m
mesa
apo
afton
this
ton
the
tixo.
wall
‘The safe is on the other (inner) side of this wall at a 2m distance.’
The next diagnostic is projective modification. As is shown in (25), all the PPs in (23) and (24) can be modified by the projective modifiers
(25)
a.
O
the
Yanis
Yanis
kathete
sits
isia/diagonia
straight/diagonally
brosta/dipla
apo
tin
the
tileorasi.
TV
‘Yanis is sitting straight/diagonally in front of / beside the TV.’
b.
To
the
dentro
tree
ine
is
isia/diagonia
straight/diagonally
ekso
/
/
piso
apo
to
the
spiti.
house
‘The tree is straight/diagonally outside / behind the house.’
c.
To
the
aeroplano
plane
petuse
flew
isia/diagonia
straight/diagonally
pano
apo
to
the
stadio.
stadium
‘The plane was flying straight/diagonally above the stadium.’
d.
O
the
thisavros
treasure
ine
is
krimenos
hidden
isia/diagonia
straight/diagonally
kato
apo
tin
the
eklisia.
church
‘The treasure is hidden straight/diagonally under the church.’
e.
I
the
Maria
Mary
kathete
sits
isia/diagonia
straight/diagonally
aristera
/deksia
/
apo
ti
the
Georgia
Georgia
‘Mary is sitting straight/diagonally to the left/right of Georgia.’
f.
To
the
xrimatokivotio
safe
ine
is
isia/diagonia
straight/diagonally
mesa
apo
afton
this
ton
the
tixo.
wall
‘The safe is straight/diagonally behind this wall.’
All the complex
(26)
To
the
farmakio
pharmacy
ine
is
(*[isia/diagonia])
straight/diagonally
%konta /
close
makria
far
apo
tin
the
eklisia.
church
MP modification is never allowed with
(27)
a.
% Eksaxronos
6-year-old
vrethike
was_found
(*250m)
250m
konta
away
apo
to
the
nipiagogio
kindergarten
tu.
his.cl
b.
Eksaxronos
6-year-old
vrethike
was_found
250m
250m
makria
away
apo
to
the
nipiagogio
kindergarten
tu.
his.cl
‘A 6-year-old was found 250m away/*far from his kindergarten.’
Moreover, a contrast is found between
(28)
a.
I
the
Chios
Turkey
ine
is
konta
s-tin
/ %
[apo
tin ]
the
Turkia.
Turkey
‘The island of Chios is [close to] / [not far from] Turkey.’
b.
I
the
Turkia
Turkey
ine
is
konta
/ % [apo
ti
the
]
Xio.
Chios
‘Turkey is #[close to] / [not far from] Chios.’
Lastly, the complex
(29)
a.
To
the
plithos
crowd
ine
is
gyro
apo
to
the
dikastirio.
courthouse
‘The crowd is gathered around the courthouse.’
b.
To
the
rixtari
drape
ine
is
pano
apo
ton
the
kanape.
couch
R1 (route/“extended”): ‘The drape is over the couch.’
#R2 (projective): ‘The drape is above the couch.’
Moving on to complex
(30)
a.
Ta
the
molyvia
pencils
ine
are
(* 5
5
ek)
cm
mesa
s-to
syrtari.
drawer
‘The pencils are (* 5 cm) in the drawer.’
b.
Ta
the
molyvia
pencils
ine
are
(* 5
5
ek )
cm
pano
s-to
trapezi.
table
‘The pencils are (* 5 cm) on the table.’
Note that the compound preposition
(31)
a.
To
the
karfi
nail
ine
is
5 xiliosta
5 mm
mesa
s-ton
tixo.
wall
‘The nail is 5mm inside/into the wall.’
b.
Imaste
we.are
100
100
km
km
mesa
s-ti
Servia.
Serbia
‘We are 100km inside/into Serbia.’
These examples likely involve embedded paths (cf.
(32)
a.
To
the
karfi
nail
ine
is
#(5 xiliosta)
5 mm
mesa
s-ton
tixo.
wall
‘The nail is 5mm inside/into the wall.’
b.
To
the
karfi
nail
ine
is
mesa
s-ton
tixo.
wall
‘The nail is in/inside the wall.’
Turning to the rest of the
(33)
a.
I
the
Maria
Mary
egerne
leaned
(*10
10
ek)
cm
kontra
against
s-ton
tixo.
wall
‘Mary was leaning (*10cm) against the wall’.
b.
O
the
Yanis
Yanis
itan
was
( *2km )
2km
konta
s-to
parko.
park
‘Yanis was (*2km) close to the park.’
c.
I
the
gata
cat
itan
was
(*2m)
2m
anamesa
between
s-ton
Yani
Yanis
ke
and
ti
the
Maria.
Mary
IM: ‘The cat was lying between Yanis and Mary at a 2m distance from either.’
As was mentioned above, there are two
(34)
a.
O
the
Yanis
Yanis
kathete
sits
(*2 m)
2 m
brosta
/
dipla
s-tin
tileorasi.
TV
IM: ‘Yanis is sitting 2 meters in front of / beside the TV.’
b.
O
the
Yanis
Yanis
kathete (
sits
*isia
straight
/
* diagonia )
diagonally
brosta /dipla
s-ti
Maria.
Mary
‘Yanis is sitting straight / diagonally in front of / beside Mary.’
Furthermore, in some cases,
(35)
a.
I
the
Maria
Mary
agorase
bought
ena
a
spiti
house
brosta
s
/ # apo
ti
the
thalasa.
sea
‘Mary bought a house by /# in front of the sea.’
b.
I
the
Maria
Mary
agorase
bought
ena
a
spiti
house
dipla
s
/ #
apo
ti
the
thalasa.
sea
‘Mary bought a house by /# beside the sea.’
Here, the
Lastly, projective modification is impossible with
(36)
To
the
vivlio
book
ine
is
??isia
straight
/
/
(?)diagonia
diagonally
pano
s-to
trapezi.
table
‘The book is lying ??straight/diagonally on the table.’
Summing up, complex
Recall from Section 2.2 that Theophanopoulou-Kontou (
(37)
a.
b.
[
[swP SW [
The first piece of evidence comes from movement of the light PP. Complex
(38)
a.
I
the
valitsa
suitcase
ine
is
mesa
s-to
aftokinito.
car
‘The suitcase is inside the car.’
b.
I
the
valitsa
suitcase
ine
is
s-to
aftokinito
car
mesa.
‘The suitcase is inside the car.’
(39)
a.
I
the
motosikleta
motorcycle
ine
is
piso
apo
to
the
aftokinito.
car
‘The motorcycle is behind the car.’
b.
* I
the
motosikleta
motorcycle
ine
is
apo
to
the
aftokinito
car
piso
‘The motorcycle is behind the car.’
A similar effect is found with
(40)
a.
Pano
se
ti
what
to
it.cl
evales?
put.2sg
‘What did you put it on?’
(from
b.
Se
ti
what
to
it.cl
evales
put.2sg
pano?
(41)
a.
Kato
apo
ti
what
to
it.cl
evales?
put.2sg
‘What did you put it under?’
b.
* Apo
ti
what
to
it.cl
evales
put.2sg
kato?
Under the assumption that the spatial word is a head in complex
(42)
a.
Gia
for
pion
whom
ine
is
to
the
doro?
present
‘For whom is the present?’
b.
* Pion
whom
ine
is
to
the
doro
present
gia?
for
‘Who is the present for?’
(43)
a.
San
like
pion
whom
milai
talks
o
the
Yanis?
Yanis
‘Like whom does Yanis talk?’
b.
* Pion
whom
milai
talks
o
the
Yanis
Yanis
san?
like
‘Who does he talk like?’
Stranding is also ungrammatical in non-spatial complex PPs:
(44)
a.
anti
instead
gia
for
ti
the
Maria
Mary
‘instead of Mary’
b.
* gia
for
ti
the
Maria
Mary
anti
instead
‘instead of Mary’
c.
Pige
went.3sg
o
the
Yanis
Yanis
anti
instead
gia
for
ti
the
Maria.
Mary
‘Yanis went in Mary’s place (on Mary’s behalf).’
d.
* (Anti)
instead
gia
for
pion
who
pige
went.3sg
o
the
Yanis
Yanis
(*anti)?
‘Yanis went in Mary’s place (on Mary’s behalf).’
An anonymous reviewer comments that examples (39b) and (41b) become grammatical if modified by (
(45)
a.
I
the
motosikleta
motorcycle
ine
is
apo
to
the
aftokinito
car
(ligo)
little
pio
more
piso.
b.
? Apo
ti
what
to
it.cl
evales
put.2sg
(ligo)
little
pio
more
kato?
I suggest that these constructions involve comparatives in which the
(46)
a.
I
the
gata
cat
ine
is
(# (ligo)
little
pio
more
)
kato
apo
to
the
krevati.
bed
Modified: ‘The cat is further down/below than the bed.’
Unmodified: ‘The cat is under the bed.’
b.
Oi
the
pinakes
paintings
ine
are
(# (ligo)
little
pio
more
)
piso
apo
to
the
piano.
piano
Modified: ‘The paintings are further back/behind than the piano.’
Unmodified: ‘The paintings are behind the piano.’
The modified version of (46a) has an odd reading in which both the cat and the bed are below a third object, with the cat at a greater distance from it. Similarly, the modified version of (46b) has a reading in which both the paintings and the piano are behind something else. Thus, when
(47)
I
the
motosikleta
motorcycle
ine
is
apo
to
the
aftokinito
car
(ligo)
little
pio
more
kato.
‘The motorcycle is a bit further down (the road) than the car.’
⊭‘The motorcycle is under the car.’
Crucially,
(48)
Apo
pion
whom
ine
is
pio
more
psili
tall
i
the
Maria?
Mary
‘Who is Mary taller than?’
Therefore, while spatial constructions involving comparatives seem to be orthogonal to the present discussion, they are interesting and should be looked at in future research.
Moving on to the second piece of evidence supporting the different syntactic status of the spatial word in complex
(49)
a.
I
the
gata
cat
kathete
sits
pano
s-to
trapezi.
table
‘The cat is sitting on the table.’
b.
Eki
there
ine
is
ena
a
trapezi
table
ke
and
i
the
gata
cat
kathete
sits
pano.
‘(Over) there is a table and the cat is sitting on top.’
This is not the case with complex
(50)
a.
O
the
Michalis
Michael
kathete
sits
piso
apo
to
the
dentro.
tree
‘Michael is standing/sitting behind the tree.’
b.
# Eki
there
ine
is
ena
a
dentro
tree
ke
and
o
the
Michalis
Michael
kathete
sits
piso.
# ‘(Over) there is a tree and Michael is sitting in the back.’
c.
Eki
there
ine
is
ena
a
dentro
tree
ke
and
o
the
Michalis
Michael
kathete
sits
apo-piso.
‘(Over) there is a tree and Michael is standing/sitting behind it.’
All complex
The third piece of evidence that the spatial word is a head in the projective complex
All locative PPs in Greek are homophonous with their goal counterparts because Greek is a V(erb)-framed language in the sense of Talmy (
(51)
a.
I
the
Maria
Mary
ine
is
s-ton
kipo.
garden
‘Mary is in the garden.’
b.
I
the
Maria
Mary
pige
went
s-ton
kipo.
garden
‘Mary went to the garden.’
(52)
I
the
Maria
Mary
xorepse
danced
s-to
saloni.
living-room
‘Mary danced in the living-room.’
Simple source and route arguments are marked by
(53)
a.
I
the
Maria
Mary
efige
left
apo
ton
the
kipo.
garden
‘Mary left (from) the garden.’
b.
I
the
Maria
Mary
perase
passed
apo
to
the
spiti.
house
‘Mary went/stopped by the house.’
Thus, there is an one-to-many relation between the light P and the spatial types it can express. Although the specific interpretation is co-determined by the verb, the choice between a
(54)
a.
I
the
Maria
Mary
efige
left
s-ti
Germania.
Germany
‘Mary went away to Germany.’
b.
I
the
Maria
Mary
perase
passed
s-to
saloni.
living-room
‘Mary moved on into the living room.’
Complex non-projective PPs follow the same pattern as simple ones, i.e. goals are homophonous with their locative counterparts (55a–b), but in sources and routes, the light preposition changes to
(55)
Non-projective complex path PPs
Thus, the locative complex
(56)
[PathP from [PlaceP inside [DP the box]]]
Under the assumptions: (a) that the order in (56) is (at least underlyingly) universal; and (b) that
(57)
* I
the
gata
cat
vgike / perase
got_out / passed
apo
mesa
kuti.
box
‘The cat [got out of] / [went through] the box.’
In the grammatical examples (55c–d), the path is expressed both before (optionally) and after (obligatorily) the locative modifier. The optional instance of
The assumption that the higher instance of
(58)
Projective path PPs
In projectives, therefore, the ground is invariably marked by
This section presents a syntactic analysis and a compositional semantics for projective and non-projective PPs in Greek. A Minimalist syntax with late insertion is adopted. The discussion proceeds as follows: Section 4.1 is concerned with non-projectives, Section 4.2 with projectives; Section 4.3 proposes an insertion mechanism connecting the various instances of spatial words throughout (and outside) the prepositional domain.
Section 3 presented evidence that the spatial word in a complex
(59)
pano
s-ton
kanape
couch
‘on the couch’
(60)
In (60), KP is the projection headed by the case-markers
Spatial words take the ground’s
The figure is finally introduced by
The definitions and a sample derivation are given below (abstracting away from the verb’s contribution):
(61)
Types and variables
Basic types:
Variables:
e
p
xe
P<<p, t>, t>
individuals
points
individuals
points
regions
sets of regions
(62)
=
=
λxe.
λ
where
(63)
Sample derivation:
i
the
gata
cat
(ine)
(is)
pano
s-ton
kanape
couch
‘The cat is on the couch.’
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
⟦DPground⟧
⟦
⟦KP1⟧
⟦Non-Proj Mod KP1⟧
⟦KP2⟧
⟦
⟦DPfig
⟦
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
ce
λxe. [
λ
λ
λP<<p, t>, t>. λxe. [∃
λxe. [∃
∃
Going through the steps in (63), the couch is first type-shifted from an individual to a region via the
I assume that locative KPs can alternatively merge with Path, with the figure being introduced higher. KP is then interpreted as a start, end, or transitory location, according to the type of the Path head (goal
(64)
Non-projective goal path
a.
(I
the
gata
cat
anevike)
got_on
pano
s-ton
kanape.
couch
‘The cat jumped onto the couch.’
b.
(65)
Non-projective source (or route) path
a.
(I
the
gata
cat
efige)
left
?(apo)
pano
apo
ton
the
kanape.
couch
‘The cat got off the couch.’
b.
I suggest that Path
The analysis of Greek non-projective complex PPs advanced here is similar to Pesetsky (
(66)
Pesetsky (
The counterpart of Pesetsky’s P in the present account is the spatial word
Lastly, the adjunct analysis of the spatial word in non-projectives accounts for the ability of the ground KP to move without the spatial word (38)–(40). Example (67) shows this for scrambling/fronting of the
(67)
The analysis of Greek projective PPs builds on Zwarts & Winter (
(68)
piso
apo
ton
the
kanape
couch
‘behind the couch’
(69)
The following types and variables are used:
(70)
Types and variables
Basic types:
Variables:
e
p
v
xe
P<<p, t>, t>
individuals
points
vectors
individuals
points
vectors
regions
vector spaces
sets of regions
Firstly, the ground is type-shifted from an individual into a region via the
(71)
The Project head is responsible for the vector semantics of projective expressions. There are different instantiations of Project corresponding to the varying directions
(72)
(73)
(74)
The Region head shifts the vector space back to a region. The semantic entry for Region in (75) is a modification of Zwarts & Winter (
(75)
Region<<v, t>,<<p, t>,t>> =
(76)
(77)
Sample derivation
i
the
gata
cat
(ine)
is
piso
apo
ton
the
kanape
couch
‘The cat (is) behind the couch.’
(78)
Composition
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
⟦DPground⟧
⟦
⟦KP⟧
⟦Project KP⟧
⟦ProjectP⟧
⟦Region ProjectP⟧
⟦RegionP⟧
⟦
⟦DPfig
⟦
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
ce
λxe. [
λ
λ
λ
λ
λP<<p, t>, t>. λxe. [∃
λxe. [∃
∃
Note that RegionPs and non-projective KPs have the same semantic type, i.e. <<p, t>,t>, which is why both may combine with either
(79)
Projective goal path
a.
(i
the
gata
cat
pige)
went
piso
apo
ton
the
kanape
couch
‘The cat went behind the couch.’
b.
(80)
Projective source (or route) path
a.
(i
the
gata
cat
efige)
left
apo
piso
apo
ton
the
kanape
couch
‘The cat left from behind the couch.’
b.
Unlike in non-projectives, spatial words in projectives cannot be stranded because they are heads, specifically, instantiations of Project. Consequently, KP cannot move without pied-piping Project (cf. (39b)–(41b)), as is shown in (81):
(81)
Lastly, the proposed analysis provides a way to account for the projective pro-forms discussed in (50c), repeated below as (82). In (83), an empty/defective D moves and incorporates into Project via K in a roll-up fashion:
(82)
Eki
there
ine
is
ena
a
dentro
tree
ke
and
o
the
Michalis
Michael
kathete
sits
‘(Over) there is a tree and Michael is standing/sitting behind it.’
(83)
In the analysis above, it was shown that the syntactic and/or categorial status of spatial words may vary. For example, in the projective compound
This paper has shown that the semantic typology of spatial relations is partially reflected in the grammar of Greek via the projective/non-projective split. While some types of spatial relations may be cognitively more complex than others, e.g. projective
Typological implications of this interplay may also be of interest. In many Germanic and Slavic languages, the case of the ground correlates with the path environment, regardless of the type of the locative relation involved (e.g. it can be either projective or non-projective). By contrast, in Greek, the case of the ground may correlate with the type of the spatial relation (grounds are marked by
2 = second person, 3 = third person, cl = clitic, gen = genitive, sg = singular
The light preposition
Cf. German
The idea that some prepositions have a functional and/or force-dynamic meaning originates in the cognitive literature (
For the typology and properties of paths see Kracht (
Interestingly, Piaget considered proximity and neighborhood relations “topological” when he formulated the hypothesis that children start with a topological representation of space and then switch to a Euclidean one (
Examples (9)–(10) are modified from Lechner & Anagnostopoulou (
Unlike the light prepositions in (9), which are phonological clitics, spatial words are phonological words. On how the different uses of spatial words are interconnected see Section 4.3.
There is a confound, namely a construction in which the spatial word is adjacent to a
(i) O the Yanis Yanis ine is pano (,) s-tin taratsa roof ‘Yanis is up on the roof.’
Two spatial words, one acting as a deictic and another as part of a complex PP (in the sense described in the main text), may co-occur:
(ii) O the Yanis Yanis epese fell.3sg kato (,) pano sta karfia nails / sta vraxia. rocks ‘Yanis fell down/off onto the nails/rocks’.
An anonymous reviewer comments that the possibility to omit the spatial word in (18a) is not compelling evidence for its adjunct status, and argues that what we see is semantic entailment. In Section 3.2, further evidence for the adjunct analysis in non-projectives is presented. Furthermore, entailment is orthogonal to the head
(i) a. I the Maria Mary ine is konta s-to spiti. house
a’. ‘Mary is close to home’.
b. I the Maria Mary ine is s-to spiti. house
b’. ‘Mary is at home.’
Even though projective expressions are expected to allow MP modification, there are some prepositions that “misbehave”, such as English
The most common occurrence of
The absolute-frame spatial words
This construction is not accepted by some speakers, including an anonymous reviewer. Ten informants from different parts of the country were asked to evaluate on a Likert 1–5 scale possible descriptions of a picture. The examples contained
The compound
Thanks to anonymous reviewer for pointing this out. Example (27b) is theirs.
Generally, it seems that object size does not pose any constraints in the case of projectives. For example, if Mary has a picture of her taken in front of a mountain we may utter (i):
(i) To the vuno mountain ine is piso apo ti the Maria. Mary ‘The mountain is behind Mary.’
In another scenario, we might imagine that we and Mary are in front of a building. Then Mary goes around the block to the back of the building and stands behind it. If we ask ourselves what the position of the building is with respect to Mary from our POV, (iia) is a possible description, whereas (iib) is not:
(ii) a. ? Ine is to the ktirio building brosta apo ti the Maria, Mary ‘The building is in front of Mary,’
b. # Ine Is to the ktirio building brosta s-ti Maria, Mary … ke gia afto den borume na ti dume. … ‘and that’s why we can’t see her.’
A reviewer asks whether
(i) Ine is kolimeno stuck ena a aftokolito sticker pano s-to thranio. desk ‘There is a sticker on the desk(’s side).’
It seems that there is no direct correspondence between Greek
(i) mesa se/ *apo to the psygio fridge ‘in/inside the fridge’
(ii) mesa *se/ apo ta the synora borders ‘inside the borders’
(iii) endos inside psygiu fridge.gen / synoron borders.gen ‘inside the fridge/borders’
(iv) (*mesa) s-ton aera air ‘in the air / on air’
Moreover, (iv) shows that
The
i. O the Michalis Michael kathete sits apo-piso apo to the dentro. tree ‘Michael is sitting/standing behind the tree.’
Moreover, as a reviewer notes,
Specifically,
An anonymous reviewer asks with regard to examples (55c–d) whether it could be possible that Greek resorts to projective PPs to express source and route paths. This is not possible because paths have a different ontology from projectives (cf.
(i) # I the gata cat ine is mesa apo to the kuti. box # ‘The cat is on the other side of the box’.
Another way to interpret “resorting” to projectives is having the same construction with different semantics, i.e. lexical ambiguity. However, lexical ambiguity cannot derive the syntactic facts discussed in a principled manner.
There is a counterpart closer to the English gloss in which the directional information contributed by
(i) I the gata cat vgike got_out.3sg ekso out apo to the kuti. box ‘The cat got out of the box.’
In the absence of an overt modifier, i.e. in simple
We can assume that a unique
This projection corresponds to Svenonius (
I would like to extend a special thanks to Winfried Lechner for his valuable feedback throughout the writing of this paper. Many thanks are also due to Elena Anagnostopoulou and
This research was supported by the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI) under the HFRI PhD Fellowship Grant (Fellowship Number: 1590).
The author has no competing interests to declare.