This paper argues that Greek topicalization is an A’-movement dependency which is headed by a property-denoting phrase (i.e., of type <e,t>), dislocated to a left peripheral topic position (spec,TopicP). Crucially, at the syntax-semantics interface, the dislocated topic phrase
The present study focuses on
(1)
Palto,
coat
aghorase
bought-3
o
the
Kostas.
Kostas
‘Kostas bought a coat.’
In (1), the bare noun leaves the object position and surfaces at the left periphery of the sentence. As its name indicates, topicalization marks the left-dislocated phrase as the topic of the sentence (more on this below). The base order of (1), before the dislocation of the topic-phrase, is the VSO (see (2)), which is generally assumed the basic word order in Greek (see
(2)
Aghorase
bought-3
o
the
Kostas
Kostas
palto.
coat
‘Kostas bought a coat.’
Having said that, postverbal subjects, as in (1) and (2), probably surface in their base position (spec,vP/VoiceP), while preverbal subjects, which are widespread in Greek as in the unmarked SVO order (see (4) below), are assumed to occupy a left-peripheral topic position (
According to the previous literature, which is very limited, topicalization should be considered a twin construction to Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD) (
(3)
To
the
palto,
coat
to=aghorase
it=bought-3
o
the
Kostas.
Kostas
‘Kostas bought the coat.’
The minimal difference between topicalization and CLLD, is that the former lacks a doubling clitic.
(4)
[Enas
a
astinomikos],
policeman
sinodhefse
accompanied-3
tus
the
fitites
students
sto
to-the
spiti
home
tus.
their
‘A policeman accompanied the students to their home.’
For this reason, subject-topicalization is not considered further in this paper (see
Through the study of Greek topicalization, I explore the syntax – semantics mapping for movement dependencies; that is, how a syntactic movement chain is mapped to a transparent logical form, which can be directly translated by the semantic component. More specifically, I investigate the LF-representation of sentences that involve a movement chain, headed by a
In the following section, I establish that topicalization is a topic-marking strategy. Section 2 is also concerned with the distribution of topicalization. In Section 3, I discuss some properties of topicalization which clearly show that it is an A’-movement dependency. Section 4 investigates the LF-representation of topicalization, concluding that topicalization obligatorily undergoes total reconstruction (interpretation of the low copy and deletion of the high copy). The correlation between the LF-behavior of topicalization (mandatory total reconstruction) and its distribution (<e,t>-type topics) is discussed in Section 5. The results of the paper are summarized in Section 6.
Following Reinhart’s (
Dimitriadis (
(5)
A:
Pjos aghorase
B:
[To
The
palto],
coat
to=aghorase
it=bought-3
o
the
Kostas.
Kostas
‘Kostas bought the coat.’
(6)
A:
Pjos aghorase
B:
[Palto],
coat
aghorase
bought-3
o
the
Kostas.
Kostas
‘Kostas bought a coat.’
Old information is not an option for the focus-fronted phrase in the sentence in (7B) though, which is clearly infelicitous. The focus-pitch accent is indicated with small caps.
(7)
A:
Pjos aghorase
B:
#[
the
coat
aghorase
bought-3
o
the
Kostas.
Kostas
‘Kostas bought
Moreover, CLLD and focus-fronting sentences involve different intonational patterns. Baltazani (
(8)
[Int-P To pal
Focus-fronting sentences are expressed with a different intonational pattern. More precisely there is no boundary tone between the focus-phrase and what follows. The focus phrase receives the nuclear pitch accent, while the words that follow the focus-fronted constituent get
(9)
[Int-P pal
Having said that, for a quick diagnostic of the discourse-function (focus vs. topic) of dislocated phrases in the examples below, one can rely on the intonational properties of these two constructions and more specifically on the fact that focus-fronting is associated with de-accentuation of the material that follows the focus-fronted phrase, while de-accentuation does not arise in topicalization sentences at all (
These are not the only differences between topic-marking constructions and focus-fronting. In the
Topic-marking properties across topicalization, CLLD, and focus-fronting.
Old information | √ | √ | X |
Separate intonational phrases | √ | √ | X |
Multiplicity | √ | √ | X |
Focus-fronted XP > dislocated XP | X | X | – |
Dislocated XP > focus-fronted XP | √ | √ | – |
Contrastive topic interpretation | √ | √ | X |
[TOPIC [COMMENT ]] | √ | √ | X |
So far, we concluded that topicalization is a true topic-marking dependency (see
(10)
Note that, as (10) demonstrates, the derivational component of the grammar does not distinguish between CLLDed and topicalized phrases. In both CLLD and topicalization chains, the topic-XP forms an
Ιt has been argued in previous studies that Greek topicalization and CLLD are in complementary distribution, depending on the referential properties of the left-dislocated topic phrase (
(11)
[To
the
palto],
coat,
*(to=)aghorase
it=bought-3
o
the
Kostas.
Kostas
‘Kostas bought the coat.’
The same holds for referential or ‘specific’ indefinites which, as (12) (taken from
(12)
a.
[Mia
a
kokini
red
fusta],
skirt
*(tin=)psahno
her=look-for-1
edho
here
ke
and
meres …
days
‘A red skirt, I‘ve been looking for it for a few days …’
b.
ke dhen boro na thimitho pu tin echo vali.
‘but I cannot remember where I put it.’
By contrast, non-referential topics exclude doubling clitics. The topicalization example in (1), repeated here as (13), involves a
(13)
[Palto],
coat,
(*to=)aghorase
it=bought-3
o
the
Kostas.
Kostas
‘Kostas bought a coat.’
In addition, the following example shows that
(14)
a.
[Mia
a
kokini
red
bluza],
blouse
(*tin=)psahno
her=look-for-1
edho
here
ki
and
enan
one
mina.
month
‘A red blouse, I‘ve been looking for for a month now’
b.
… ke de boro na vro kamia pu na mou aresi.
‘… and I cannot find one that I like anywhere.’
In a recent paper, Angelopoulos & Sportiche (
(15)
[Enan
a
kalo
good
skilo]
dog
dhen
not
tha
would
ton=htipagha
pote.
ever
‘I would never beat a (any/certain) good dog.’
These examples seem to challenge the correlation between specificity and clitic-doubling outlined in the previous paragraphs. Ιn the present paper, following the
(16)
Petia
Petia
budet
will
schastliv,
be-happy
jesli
if
kakaja-
some
devushka
girl
pridet.
come-
‘Petia will be happy if some girl comes.’
It is therefore argued that specific indefinites involve a world variable (an ‘implicit argument’ in
In short, topicalization is a topic-marking dependency which is restricted to non-referential topic phrases. I return to the distribution of topicalization in more detail in Section 5, where I argue that topicalization is restricted to property-denoting topic phrases (i.e., topics of type <e,t>).
In this section I examine the syntactic derivation of topicalization dependencies. More specifically I apply a number of tests which show that topicalization is an
The first piece of evidence for a movement analysis of topicalization comes from island-sensitivity. In particular, a movement analysis predicts that the extraction of topicalized phrases out of strong islands is prohibited. Indeed, the island sensitivity of topicalization is already discussed in Dimitriadis (
(17)
*[Palto]1,
coat
o
the
Janis
John
sinadise
met-3
[island
tin
the
kopela
girl
pu
that
dhen
not
forai
wear-3
t1
pote].
never
‘John met the girl who never wears a coat,.’
(18)
*[Katharistres]1,
cleaners
o
the
ipurghos
minister
paretithike
resigned-3
[island
afu
after
proselave
hired-3
t1].
‘The minister resigned after he had hired some cleaners.’
The second test concerns the reconstruction properties of topicalization. The term
In (19), topicalization shows reconstruction for Binding Condition C (
(19)
*[Fotoghrafies
pictures
tu
of
Kosta1]2,
Kostas
pro1
stelni
sends-3
sti
to-the
Maria t2.
Mary
‘He sends pictures of Kostas to Mary.’
To be more accurate, the Condition C effect in (19) indicates
(20)
[John1’s mother]2 seems to him1 to be t2 smart.
A question that arises at this point concerns the position from which topicalized phrases A’-move to the left-periphery. In (21) the topic phrase exhibits disjoint-reference effects with the postverbal epithet-subject
(21)
*[Fotoghrafies
pictures
tu
of
Kosta1]2,
Kostas
postari
posts-3
[o
the
malakas]1
asshole
t2.
‘The asshole posts pictures of Kostas.’
Moving on, topicalization allows reconstruction for pronominal binding: a pronoun within the displaced topic-phrase can be bound by a QP in a lower position:
(22)
[Fotoghrafies
pictures
tu
the
baba
father
tu1]2,
his
dhen
not
efere
brought-3
[kanenas
no
mathitis]1
student
t2.
‘No student brought pictures of his father.’
In (22), there is a copy of the displaced topic phrase, below the QP
Finally, A’-movement can be diagnosed by Weak Crossover (WCO) (see
(23)
*[Who]1 does [his1 mother] love t1?
From this perspective, the detection of WCO effects in topicalization in (24) provides further support for the A’-movement analysis. I return to the WCO-sensitivity of topicalization in the next section.
(24)
*[Kapjon
some
fititi]1,
student
proselave
hired-3
[o
the
pateras
father
tu1]
his
t1.
‘His father hired some student.’
In sum, Greek topicalization involves A’-movement of the topic phrase to spec,TopP. I argue that an uninterpretable [uTop]-feature on the head of TopP (Topo) turns it into a
(25)
As already mentioned, some of the diagnostics of movement presented above such as reconstruction for Condition C and pronominal binding carry over to CLLD as well (
This section will argue that topicalization chains are associated with a specific representation at LF, which is derived by
(26)
(26) is supported by three independent arguments which pertain to (i)
When it comes to scope, syntax goes hand in hand with the semantics. Simply put,
(27)
[Kapjo
some
traghudi],
song
protine
recommended-3
kathe
every
musikos.
musician
‘Every musician recommended a (potentially different) song.’
(27) involves a displaced existential topic phrase and a universally quantified DP in the post-verbal subject position.
(27’)
[Kapjo traghudi], protine kathe musikos <kapjo traghudi>
It could be argued that the inverse scope reading of (27) is derived by QR of the universal quantifier, rather than by scope reconstruction of the topic phrase. This possibility however is excluded in long-distance topicalization chains as in (28):
(28)
[CP-1
Kapjo
some
traghudhi
song
akusa
heard-3
[CP-2
oti
that
protine
recommended-3
kathe
every
musikos]].
musician
‘I heard that every musician recommended some (different) song.’
Under the standard assumption that QR is clausebound, the narrow scope reading of the topicalized existential QP cannot be derived without total reconstruction.
For comparison reasons, consider now the CLLD sentence in (29) (see
(29)
[Kapjo
some
traghudi],
song
to=protine
it=recommended-3
kathe
every
musikos.
musician.
‘A (specific) song, every musician recommended.’
Interestingly, now we only get the surface scope reading (∃>∀): there is a unique song which was recommended by every musician. The inverse scope reading of CLLDed indefinites is blocked (
So far, we have seen that topicalized phrases
(30)
[Kanena
no
arthro],
paper
dhen
not
perasan
pass-3
dhio
two
krites
referees
persi.
last-year
‘Two referees accepted no papers.’
Now imagine that I have submitted three papers for review and each paper was assigned to four referees. In order for any paper to be published it needs to be approved by at least two of the referees. In
Surface scope scenario (false in inverse scope reading).
Inverse scope scenario (false in surface scope reading).
On the other hand,
It turns out that while (30) can be used to describe the scenario illustrated by
(30’)
[Kanena arthro], dhen perasan dhio krites [kanena arthro] persi.
As expected, the CLLD counterpart of (30), in (31), can only describe the surface scope scenario in
(31)
[Kanena
no
arthro],
paper
dhen
not
to=perasan
it=pass-3
dhio
two
krites
referees
persi.
last-year
‘No paper was approved by two referees.’
In the rest of this section, I will give two more arguments in favor of the obligatory total reconstruction analysis of topicalization.
The second argument involves obviation of Binding Condition C in sentences with
(32)
Which claim [adjunct that John1 made] was he1 willing to discuss?
On the standard analysis, the adjunct-relative clause is adjoined after the wh-phrase has moved (
(32’)
Crucially, the material that undergoes total reconstruction cannot feed late adjunction, because it is not interpreted in its higher position(s) (see
With this in mind, we can now compare topicalization and CLLD, with respect to total reconstruction. Angelopoulos & Sportiche (
(33)
%[Tis
the
fotoghrafies
photos
pu
that
enohopiun
incriminate-3
ton
the
proedhro1]2,
president
pro1
dhen
not
theli
want-3
na
to
pro1
tis=vlepi
them=see-3
t2
kan.
even
‘He does not want to even look at the pictures that incriminate the president.’
(34)
*[Fotoghrafies
photos
pu
that
enohopiun
incriminate-3
ton
the
proedhro1]2,
president
pro1
dhen
not
theli
want-3
na
to
pro1
vlepi
see-3
t2
kan.
even
‘He does not want to even look at pictures that incriminate the president.’
An additional pair ((35)-(36)) is provided, for reasons of concreteness. The intended meaning of these sentences is that Kostas didn’t invite the people who have hurt him.
(35)
%[Ta
the
atoma
people
pu
that
plighosan
hurt-3
ton
the
Kosta1]2,
Kostas
pro1
dhen
not
ta=kalese
them=invited-3
t2
pote
never
sto
at-the
neo
new
tu
his
spiti.
house
‘He never invited the people who hurt Kostas to his new home.’
(36)
*[Atoma
people
pu
that
plighosan
hurt-3
ton
the
Kosta1]2,
Kostas
pro1
dhen
not
kalese
invited-3
t2
pote
never
sto
at-the
neo
new
tu
his
spiti.
house
‘He never invited the people who hurt Kostas to his new home.’
The judgments are subtle and subject to variation.
One more piece of evidence in favor of the total-reconstruction analysis of topicalization comes from anaphor binding. To begin with, in the topicalization sentence (37), the topic phrase contains an anaphor which must be locally bound by a DP-antecedent in satisfaction of Binding Condition A (see
(37)
[Fotoghrafies
pictures
tu
the
eaftu
self
tu1]2,
his
anevazi
uploads-3
sinehia
continuously
[o
the
Kostas]1.
Kostas
‘Pictures of himself, Kostas uploads all the time.’
In (37) the topic phrase reconstructs below the postverbal subject, to its external-merge position, providing the anaphor with a local c-commanding antecedent (
The long-distance topicalization chain in (38) involves movement of the topic to the left periphery of the matrix clause (CP1), through the left periphery of the embedded clause (CP2). This chain consists of (at least) three copies of the topic phrase. On the assumption that topicalization mandatorily undergoes total reconstruction, only the lower copy will be interpreted at LF.
(38)
Topicalization: [CP1 [TopP [topic] … [CP2 [topic] … [VP… [topic] … ]]]]
Given that Greek anaphors must be bound locally, we obtain the following predictions regarding anaphor reconstruction in topicalization.
(39)
a.
[CP1 [TopP [topic] … [CP2 [topic] …
b.
*[CP1 [TopP [topic] … [topic] … [topic] … ]]]
In the following I provide the relevant minimal pairs. Compare (40) with (41):
(40)
[Minisi
charges
kata
against
tu
the
eaftu
self
tu2]1,
his
ipe
said-3
i
the
Maria
Mary
oti
that
katethese
pressed-3
the
Kostas
t1.
‘Mary said that Kostas pressed charges against himself.’
(41)
*[Minisi
charges
kata
against
tu
the
eaftu
self
tu2]1,
his
ipe
said-3
the Kostas
oti
that
katethese
pressed-3
i
the
Maria t1.
Mary
‘Kostas said that Mary pressed charges against himself.’
The data in (40)–(41) confirm the predictions that are laid out in (39), lending further support to the obligatory total reconstruction analysis of topicalization.
Returning to the WCO-sensitivity of topicalization (see (24)), recall that the left-dislocated topic phrase may not bind into the subject from its surface position. I would like now to argue that the total reconstruction analysis of topicalization offers a direct explanation to these WCO effects. As we have seen above, the dislocated topic phrase undergoes total reconstruction below the subject as in (24’). This means that neither of the copies of the topic phrase can bind the intervening pronoun, since the lower copy does not c-command the subject-internal pronoun, while the c-commanding higher copy is not interpreted at all. The intended reading, under co-indexation of the topic phrase and the intervening pronoun, is thus ruled out.
(24’)
*[Kapjon fititi]1,
some student
proselave
hired-3
[o
the
pateras
father
tu1]
his
[kapjon
some
fititi]1
student
‘His father hired some student.’
To summarize, Greek topicalization is a topic-marking strategy that involves A’-movement of a non-referential topic phrase to the spec,TopP. Moreover, the moved topic phrase obligatorily undergoes total reconstruction which means that all, but the lowest copy of the topic phrase, are neglected by LF:
(42)
(42) raises a question with respect to the topic-interpretation of topicalized phrases, though. How do they receive a topic-interpretation, if the semantic component has only access to the low copy which, according to (42), is not associated with the topic-marking projection (TopP) in any direct way? If we consider the syntactic derivation of topicalization more carefully, we will see that this problem is only apparent. As explained above (see (25)), movement of topicalized phrases is mediated by an A
(43)
LF: [TopP topic[iTop] [TP … <topic[iTop]> … ]]
Given (43), I argue that the assignment of the topic-interpretation in topicalization is guided by the topic-feature on the low copy of the topicalized phrase.
An additional issue that arises for the total reconstruction analysis, concerns the
This section established that topicalization must undergo total reconstruction, nevertheless a deeper explanation for the LF-representation of this construction is still missing. It is not clear yet why the topic phrase in a topicalization sentence must totally reconstruct. Below I will attempt to draw a correlation between this behavior of topicalization and the distribution of this construction, after showing that topicalization is restricted to topic phrases of a specific semantic type.
As mentioned in Section 2.2, Alexopoulou & Folli (
(44)
*[TopP XP1-α [ … t1 … ]], where α ≠ <e,t>
The argument proceeds in two steps: (a) in 5.1.1, I examine certain cases of topicalization (with topic-marked bare nouns, weak indefinites, CPs, quantificational phrases) focusing on the semantic type of the topic phrase in each case. It is shown that these topics have been independently analyzed as phrases of type <e,t>; (b) in 5.1.2, I provide independent evidence for the property type analysis from
To begin with, in (45) a bare singular noun is left-dislocated by topicalization. The use of a doubling clitic leads to strong ungrammaticality. The same holds for plural bare nouns (e.g.,
(45)
[Palto],
coat,
(*to=)aghorase
it=bought-3
o
the
Kostas.
Kostas
‘A coat, Kostas bought.’
In this paper I assume that bare nouns in Greek denote properties (<e,t>) (see
(46)
a.
O
the
Kostas
Kostas
aghorase
bought-3
palto.
coat
‘Kostas bought a coat.’
b.
∃x[bought(x,Kostas) & coat(x)]
The <e,t>-type analysis carries over to topicalized
(47)
[Dhio/Kapjies/Poles
two/some/many
kokines
red
bluzes],
blouses
aghorase
bought-3
i
the
Maria.
Mary
‘Mary bought two/many/some red blouses.’
We can employ discourse-anaphora to diagnose the specificity/referentiality of topic-marked indefinites. The indefinite in topicalization (48a) is non-specific and cannot antecede the pronoun in (48b). This is possible for the CLLDed indefinite in (49a) though, which should then be considered a specific indefinite.
(48)
a.
[Dhio
two
mathimata]1,
courses
dhen
not
epelekse
chose-3
kanenas
no
fititis.
student
(topicalization)
‘No student chose two courses.’
b.
#Ta1 dhidhaski enas perierghos tipos.
‘They are taught by a weird guy.’
(49)
a.
[Dhio
two
mathimata]1,
courses
dhen
not
ta=epelekse
them=chose-3
kanenas
no
fititis.
student
(CLLD)
‘No student chose two courses.’
b.
Ta1 dhidhaski enas perierghos tipos.
‘They are taught by a weird guy.’
Negation in the above examples is used to prevent the indefinite from introducing a new discourse referent, which could function as the antecedent of the pronoun. Non-specific indefinites, interpreted as phrases of type <e,t>, fall into the descriptive generalization that property-denoting topics undergo topicalization, excluding clitic-doubling.
Let us now move on to topicalized CPs, as in (50) (see
(50)
[CP
Oti
that
pahina],
got-fat-1
(*to=)epimeni
it=insist-3
i
the
Maria.
Mary
‘Mary insists that I got fat.’
Crucially, the verb
(51)
a.
I
the
Maria
Mary
epimeni
insist-3
[CP
oti
that
pahina].
got-fat-1
‘Mary insists that I got fat.’
b.
*I
the
Maria
Mary
epimeni
insist-3
[DP
afto].
that
‘*Mary insists that.’
How does (50) fit in with the generalization in (44)? If (44) is on the right track CP-topics in topicalization must denote sets of individuals. Indeed, Moulton (
(52)
[DP
O
the
[NP-<e,<s,t>> [NP-<e,<s,t>>
ishirismos] [CP-<e,<s,t>>
claim
oti
that
pahina]]].
got-fat-1
‘The claim that I got fat.’
The predicate-modification analysis in (52), and by extension the <e,<s,t>> type of the
(53)
Ishirizome
claim-1
afto.
that
‘I claim that.’
(54)
*O
the
ishirismos
claim
aftu.
that
‘*The claim of that.’
Interestingly, Greek allows sentential constituents to be headed by a definite determiner (i.e., nominalized CPs), as in (55) (from
(55)
[To
the
oti
that
lei
tell-3
psemata]
lies
ine
be-3
fanero.
obvious
‘That she tells lies is obvious.’
According to Moulton (
Moving on, an obvious problem is posed by the observation that some quantificational phrases (QPs) seem to be able to undergo topicalization. This is clearly at odds with the generalization in (44), because on the standard assumptions QPs are of type <<e,t>t>. In (56) and (57), the topic is a neg(ative)-word and a modified numeral, respectively (more examples of topicalized QPs are given below).
(56)
[Kanena
no
fititi],
student
dhen
not
kalese
invited-3
o
the
Kostas.
Kostas
‘Kostas invited no students.’
(57)
[Perisotera
more
apo
than
pede
five
arthra
papers
(pano sto thema)],
(on this topic)
dhimosiefse
published-3
o
the
Kostas.
Kostas
‘Kostas published more than five papers on this topic.”
Before we procced it should be noted that the topicalization sentences with QP-topics above are significantly improved when realized with a focus pitch accent on the postverbal subject. (56’) illustrates the intonational properties of (56).
(56’)
[Ka
This intonational pattern is characteristic of
(58)
[Kanena
no
arthro],
paper
dhen
not
perasan
pass-3
dhio
two
krites
referees
persi.
last-year
‘Two referees did not accept any paper.’ (*no>two, two>no)
Recall that in (58), to avoid the FOC-accent on the postverbal subject (cf. 56’), which could be argued to force the wide-scope reading of the subject, I have added the adverbial phrase
Crucially, this scope-behavior is not expected under the view that these elements are true quantificational phrases (e.g., of type <<e,t>t>). It is a well-known fact that true QPs give rise to scope ambiguities. Consider the following sentence with a focus-fronted negative QP which takes either wide or narrow scope with respect to the subject (no>two, ?two>no). The prosodic properties of focus-fronting are laid out in section 2.1.
(59)
[
no
paper
dhen
not
perasan
pass-3
dhio
two
krites
referees
persi.
last-year
‘No paper did two referees accept last year.’
As a conclusion, true quantificational phrases (type <<e,t>,t>) can be targeted by focus-fronting, which is not constrained by any propertyhood condition. Scope-ambiguity in these cases is therefore expected. On the other hand, as we have seen topicalized neg-words (as well as other (modified) numeral-DPs) do not give rise to scope-ambiguity. There is thus independent motivation for assigning a non-quantificational analysis to these phrases. In particular, given the fact that these elements follow the other topicalized DPs examined so far (existential bare nouns and indefinites) in showing total reconstruction, it is tempting to analyze them as property-denoting elements of type <e,t>.
Neg-words, such as
As for the rest of QPs which are able to undergo topicalization in Greek (e.g.,
To recapitulate, it was shown that bare nouns, non-specific indefinites, CPs and certain QPs (such as neg-words, modified numerals QPs) may undergo topicalization. What is common to this diverse class of phrases is that all allow a property denotation, satisfying the propertyhood condition on topicalized phrases.
In this subsection I employ the existential construction to test the hypothesis that topicalization is restricted to property-denoting (<e,t>) phrases. According to Milsark (
(60)
a.
*There is the/each/every glass on the table
b.
*There are two of the/most glasses on the table
(61)
a.
There is a glass on the table.
b.
There are some/many/two glasses on the table.
Several analyses (
(62)
*
Existential sentences in Greek can be formed with the impersonal existential verb
(63)
Ehi
has-3
[potirja]
glasses
pano
on
sto
to-the
trapezi.
table
‘There are glasses on the table.’
(64)
Ehi
has-3
[to/kathe
the/every
potiri]
glass
pano
on
sto
to-the
trapezi.
table
‘She has the/every glass on the table.’
(65)
Ehi
has-3
[ta perisotera/ ola ta
the most/ all the
potirja]
glasses
pano
on
sto
to-the
trapezi.
table
‘She has the/the most/all the glasses on the table.’
Definite DPs cooccur with the impersonal
(66)
has-3
[DP
to
the
kotopulo]
chicken
sto
in-the
psijio.
fridge
‘There is [the chicken] in the fridge.’
Following previous studies, I argue that presentational uses of ‘ehi’ should be distinguished from existential sentences (
If the above is on the right track, both topicalization and existential construction require a property-denoting phrase. It is then predicted that the phrases which undergo topicalization (e.g., bare nominals, non-specific indefinites, neg-words), may appear as complements of existential
(67)
Ehi
Has-3
[ena
one
potiri]
glass
pano
on
sto
to-the
trapezi.
table
‘There is one glass on the table.’
(68)
Ehi
Has-3
[polla
many
potirja]
glasses
pano
on
sto
to-the
trapezi.
table
‘There are many glasses on the table.’
(69)
Dhen
not
ehi
has-3
[kanena
no
potiri]
glass
pano
on
sto
to-the
trapezi.
table
‘There are no glasses on the table.’
(70b) below lists some of the QPs that are excluded from the topicalization construction. In (71b) it is shown that it is exactly these QPs that are also excluded from existential sentences:
(70)
[
arthra
papers
(pano sto thema)],
(on this topic)
dhimosiefse
published-3
o
the
Kostas.
Kostas
‘Kostas published
a)
OK:
b)
*:
(71)
Ehi
has-3
[
vivlia]
books
pano
on
sto
the
trapezi.
table
‘There are
a)
OK:
b)
*:
This correlation provides strong evidence in favor of the claim that topicalized QPs must have access to a property-denotation (<e,t>).
Finally, let us examine how some DPs that cannot be topicalized, such as definites and specific indefinites, behave in existential constructions. It has been already shown in (64) that definite DPs do not sit comfortably in the complement position of existential verbs. As for the case of specific indefinites, compare (72) with (73) (based on
(72)
Tha
will
ine
be-3
periergho
strange
an
if
dhen
not
ask-3
[kapjes
some
erotisis]
questions
ton
the
proedhro.
president
‘It will be strange, if they don’t ask the president some (any/specific) questions.’
(73)
Tha
will
ine
be-3
perirgho
strange
an
if
dhen
not
has-3
[kapjes
some
erotisis]
questions
ja
for
ton
the
proedhro.
president
‘It will be strange, if there aren’t some (any/#specific) questions for the president.’
As a result, definite DPs and specific indefinites are excluded from topicalization sentences and existential sentences for the same reason. They lack a property denotation. It is a common assumption that both are individual-denoting phrases: the former through an iota-operator (
As an interim summary, Greek topicalization is a topic-marking construction (Section 2.1) which involves A’-movement of the topic phrase to spec,TopP (Section 3). Furthermore, topicalization shows mandatory total reconstruction, which means that the topic-phrase must be interpreted in its base position (Section 4). In addition, I proposed a descriptive generalization for the distribution of topicalization, according to which topicalization is restricted to property-denoting (<e,t>) topic phrases. (74) summarizes the results of the discussion so far.
(74)
For reasons of clarity, (75) illustrates how the semantic composition of topicalization sentences proceeds:
(75)
a.
Palto,
coat
aghorase
bought-3
o
the
Kostas.
Kostas
‘Kostas bought a coat.’
b.
What is still missing however is a principled explanation for the fact that the topic phrase in Greek topicalization
In a recent work, Poole (
(76)
*XP1 . . . . . . Τ1-<e,t>
How then is movement of phrases of type <e,t> represented at LF? In these cases, the moved phrase must be interpreted in its base-position, through what is here called total reconstruction, as in (77) (see
(77)
XP<e,t> . . . . . . XP<e,t>
Crucial to Poole’s claim is the observation that certain syntactic positions can only host property-denoting phrases. The best-known case is the pivot of an
(78)
*
Heim (
For instance, it has been observed that when it comes to existential constructions, as in (79), the amount wh-question must scope below the modal
(79)
[How many books]1 there should be _ on the table?
(78) requires that the pivot in (79) must be filled with an <e,t>-type element. This forces the restrictor of the wh-phrase to reconstruct deriving the narrow scope interpretation (
(80)
a.
[How many books]1 there should be [many books]<e,t> on the table?
b.
For what n: there should be n-books on the table
Note that if the Grammar allowed <e,t>-type traces, the dislocated wh-phrase would be able to be interpreted in its surface position with a wide scope reading, binding an <e,t>-type variable, contrary to what we actually find. Poole concludes that <e,t>-traces do not exist; thus the wh-phrase must reconstruct into its base position.
The present subsection tried to establish two points: (i) property traces do not exist; (ii) when a moved phrase may not leave an individual-denoting trace, it is forced to totally reconstruct. These points become relevant in the next section, where I discuss the reconstruction behavior of Greek topicalization.
Greek topicalization is a movement dependency which is interpreted through total reconstruction. However, in order to examine the source of total reconstruction in topicalization, let us take a step back: (81) demonstrates movement of a topic phrase to the left periphery without the total reconstruction step. This allows us to explore all the analytical options for the LF-representation of such a movement chain.
(81)
Given the semantic type of the moved topic, there are at least three possible LF-representations for (81) which should be considered:
(82)
a.
LF: [TopP topic<e,t> [CP-<<e,t>t> λT<e,t> … T<e,t> … ]]
b.
LF: [TopP topic<e,t> [CP-<e,t> λx
c.
LF: [TopP topic<e,t> [CP-
In what follows I will argue that (82a) and (82b) are blocked for independent reasons. Specifically, I will show that these LF-representations cannot be translated by standard semantic mechanisms; hence Greek topicalization resorts to total reconstruction (82c).
Let us start from the representation with the property-denoting trace in (82a), where the λ-binder inserted by
It should be noted that traces of higher type (e.g., T<<e,t>t>) are widely assumed to be implicated in the process of
Having excluded property traces, I proceed to the LF-representation with λ-abstraction over individual variables (x
(83)
LF: [TopP topic<e,t> [CP-<e,t> λx
λ-abstraction over x
(84)
⟦TopicP⟧<e,t> = ⟦
The problem with (84) is that it fails to assign to [TopicP] – a sentential constituent, in the sense that all the arguments of the verb are saturated – a propositional semantic type (cf. (75b)).
The proposition-type of [TopicP] is independently justified by the fact that this constituent may be selected by the complementizer
(85)
Ksero
know-1
that
[TopicP
palto,
coat
aghorase
bought-3
o
the
Janis].
John.
‘I know that John bought a coat.’
Moreover, there is vast empirical evidence showing that Greek topicalization is not mapped onto individual variables. First, I made clear in Section 4 that a characteristic property of Greek topicalization is that the topic phrase is restricted to narrow scope readings, that is, it is interpreted within the scope of subject QPs, modals and negation. This property of topicalization clearly contradicts the LF-representation in (83) which predicts a wide scope reading for dislocated topic phrases.
An additional argument against the view that the copy of a topicalized phrase translates into an individual variable at LF comes from the existential construction, introduced in Section 5.1.2. Recall that the existential impersonal verb
(86)
Against this background, the fact that Greek topicalization may freely target the pivot of the existential construction (as illustrated by (87)) is one more piece of evidence that Greek topicalization does not involve individual-type traces.
(87)
[Potirja]<e,t>,
glasses
ehi
has-3
<potirja><e,t>
pano
on
sto
to-the
trapezi.
table
‘There are glasses, on the table.’
To conclude, out of three theoretically possible LF-representations for Greek topicalization (82a-c) two are blocked by the Grammar. More specifically it has been shown that the LF-representations with an individual or a property denoting trace are excluded for independent reasons. As a consequence, Greek topicalization resorts to total reconstruction which is the only well-formed – hence interpretable by the semantic component – LF-representation.
The present paper investigated Greek topicalization, a topic-marking dependency. Topicalization involves A’-movement of a property-denoting (<e,t>) topic phrase to the left periphery of the sentence. What is special about topicalization is the fact that it mandatorily shows total reconstruction. This means that only the copy in the base position of the movement chain is interpreted.
The present study proposed that the reconstruction behavior of topicalization stems from the semantic type of the moved phrase. In particular, given the property-type denotation of topicalized phrases, only the total reconstruction analysis results in a well-formed LF-representation. More precisely, topicalization chains cannot be mapped onto individual or property traces, therefore they resort to total reconstruction. Through the study of Greek topicalization, the present paper provides novel empirical evidence and lends further support to Poole’s conclusion that property traces do not exist. Specifically, if property traces existed, the systematic total reconstruction in Greek topicalization could not be explained without further assumptions.
Topic-marking examples are translated with SVO sentences, since topic-dislocation in English does not always result in well-formed sentences (e.g., ‘*Coat, Kostas bought.’).
In the news-register (TV, newspapers), topic-marking sentences invariably appear without doubling clitics (
(i) Apistefto unbelievable re! dude Tin the parastasi, performance *(ti)=skinothetise it=directed-3 o the Karolos Karolos Kun. Koun ‘That’s unbelievable dude! Karolos Koun directed the performance.’
(ii) Ti the parastasi, performance skinothetise directed-3 o the Karolos Karolos Kun. Koun ‘Karolos Koun directed the performance.’
The construction that this paper is concerned with should not be confused with ‘news-register topicalization’ sentences. First, topicalization, in contrast to ‘news-register topicalization’ is not restricted to the news register or any other pragmatic context. Second, as we will see below, the distribution of topicalization is sensitive to the semantics of the dislocated topic-phrase. No such restriction holds for ‘news-register topicalization’ sentences.
More accurately,
See Féry (
The nature and the role of clitics in CLLD-chains will not concern us here (see
Given the resemblance between topicalization and focus-fronting (i.e., left-dislocation plus lack of clitic doubling) a reviewer asks what kind of diagnostic could exclude that (27) is a focus-fronting setntence, as in (i):
(i) [
First, the comma after the topicalized phrase in (27) indicates a boundary tone and a separate intonational phrase with a pitch accent for the rest of the sentence. Indeed, Alexopoulou & Kolliakou (
(ii) [kapjo tra
Second, as shown in the Appendix, we can add a focus-fronted phrase to the left periphery of the topicalization sentence, without problems as in (iii):
(iii) [Kapjo some traghudhi], song [ just yesterday protine recommended-3 kathe every musikos. musician ‘Every musician recommended a (potentially different) song
The counterpart of (iii) with two separated phonologically marked focus-phrases is ungrammatical, irrespective of the intended interpretation.
(iv) *[ some song [ just yesterday protine recommended kathe every musikos. musician ‘Every musician recommended
On another note, (ii) is relevant to a different question that arises with respect to the narrow scope reading of the topicalized phrase in (27). In (27) the universal subject-QP in the sentence-final position receives a (focus) pitch-accent (see (ii)), thus it could be assumed that this is related to the fact that the subject-QP outscopes the topicalized phrase. However, as can be seen in (iii) the focus-fronted adverbial
The same conclusion is drawn from sentences where the topic phrase reconstructs below negation or modal verbs.
Oikonomou et al. (
(i) [Dhio two vivlia] books ta=dhjavase them=read-3 kathe every mathitis. student ‘Every student read two books.’ Inverse scope: for every student there are two (or more) possibly different books that he read.’
According to these authors the inverse scope reading of CLLD numerals is derived by
(ii) [Dhio
vivlia] ta=djavase kathe mathitis [djio vivlia]
In the present study I use late-merge of adjuncts as a diagnostic tool, leaving aside the theoretical problems of the late-merger mechanism (
As for the acceptability of the above sentences, I created a questionnaire with six pairs of CLLD and topicalization sentences with
Here is a short note on the reconstruction of topicalized direct objects (DOs) with respect to indirect object DPs (IndO-DP). Without going into details, IndO-DPs asymmetrically c-command DOs in Greek (see
(i) ?[Fotoghrafies pictures pu that enohopiun incriminate-3 ton the proedhro1] president dhen not tu1=dhihnun pote never ‘They don’t show pictures that incriminate the president to him.’
The problem with this analysis is that Condition C is bled even when the co-referring R-expression is found within a complement-phrase rather than in an adjunct (
(ii) ?[Fotoghrafies pictures tu the proedhru1] president dhen not (tu1=)dhihnun (tu the kaimenu1) poor pote never ‘They don’t show pictures of the president to him/the poor.’
The comparison between (i)-(ii) suggests that the lack of Condition C in (i) does not rely on the late-insertion of the relative clause. Rather, we could assume that Condition C in these cases is bled due to a short A-movement step of the topicalized phrase across the IndO-DP, but not across the postverbal subject position (cf.
The following contrast (confirmed by 4 speakers) shows that
(i) I the Maria Mary ipe said-3 oti that the Kostas katethese submitted-3 [DP minisi charges kata against tu the eaftu self tu1]. his ‘Mary said that Kostas pressed charges against himself.’
(ii) * the Kostas ipe said-3 oti that i the Maria Mary katethese submitted-3 [DP minisi charges kata against tu the eaftu self tu1]. his ‘Kostas said that Mary pressed charges against himself.’
These results were confirmed by four of the five native speakers I consulted. For one speaker (40) and (41) are both fine.
As a reviewer observes, sentences with anaphors within topicalized ‘
(i) [Fotoghrafies pictures tu the eaftu self tu2]1, his ipe says-3 the Kostas oti that anevazi uploads-3 i the Maria Mary t1 sinehia. continuously ‘Kostas says that Mary uploads pictures of himself all the time.’
This observation was independently made by two of my informants. Does this mean that these cases do not involve total reconstruction? As a matter of fact, the same speakers argue that ‘pictures of himself’ in contrast with other DP-internal anaphors (e.g., charges against himself, see fn.13) allow long-distance binding as in (ii):
(ii) the Kostas lei says-3 oti that i the Maria Mary anevazi uploads-3 [fotoghrafies pictures tu the eaftu self tu1]. his sinehia continuously ‘Kostas says that Mary posts pictures of himself all the time.’
The grammaticality of (ii) suggests that (i) is not true counterevidence against the total-reconstruction analysis of topicalization. A question that arises is why especially ‘pictures-of-himself’ allow long-distance binding. I will leave this issue for future research.
For instance, Heycock (
A reviewer presents this type-restriction as a paradox, arguing that A’-dependencies in general may target a wide array of different types of phrases. This however is not entirely true. For instance QR targets phrases of type <<e,t>,t>. Also, on the assumption that wh-phrases in wh-questions are existential quantifiers (‘
In a recent paper, Alexopoulou & Folli (
(i) Dhen Not dhjavasa read-1 #[vivlia]-1/ books [ta the vivlia]-1. books pro I dhen not ta-1=vrika them=found-1 endhiaferonta. interesting ‘I didn’t read the books. I didn’t find them interesting.’
Bare nouns in Greek, unlike English bare nouns, do not denote
(i) [*(Ta) the skilia] dogs ine are katikidhia domestic zoa. animals ‘Dogs are domestic animals.’
That left-dislocated CPs move and are not base-generated in their surface position (
(i) a. *[Oti that skotosa killed-1 to the baba father tis the Marias1] Mary pro1 epimeni, insists-3 para despite tis the dhiaveveosis assurance tis the astinomias. police ‘Mary insists that I killed her father, ignoring the assurance given by the police.’
b. [Oti that skotosa killed-1 to the baba father tis1] her i the Maria1 Mary epimeni insists-3 para despite tis the dhiaveveosis assurance tis the astinomias. police ‘Mary insists that I killed her father, ignoring the assurance given by the police.’
CLLD of CPs in Greek is possible with verbs that allow a DP-complement (e.g.,
(i) [(to) the oti that lipithika], was-sad-1 to=eksefrasa it=expressed-1 apo from ti the proti first stighmi. moment ‘I expressed my sorrow from the very first moment.’
A question arises with respect to the semantic composition of (51a): how
(i) *[That I got fat], Mary insists.
Whether both approaches are needed to capture this CP-extraction contrast between English and Greek will not concern me here.
Relevant proposals about individual-denoting and property-denoting QPs in topic-marking constructions can be found in Constant (
For instance, Cruschina (
(i) Dhen not ehi has [kotopulo] chicken sto in-the psijio. fridge Tha will prepi need na to feris bring-2 (Existential: Bare N) ‘There is no chicken in the fridge. You got to bring some.
(ii) ?Dhen not ehi has [to the kotopulo] chicken sto in-the psijio. fridge Fae eat-2 kati something alo. else (Presentational: Definite DP) ‘There isn’t (the) chicken in the fridge. Eat something else.’
However, as the following counterexample (provided by a reviewer) shows, exceptions do exist. These cases are not discussed further in this paper.
(iii) An if dhen not ihe has [to the kotopulo chicken tis her mamas mum su] your sto in-the psijio, fridge tha would ihame have-1 pinasi. be-hungry ‘If your mum’s chicken was not in the fridge, we would be very hungry.’
(75b) presumes that verbs reconstruct into their base-position (probably due to their semantic type, see
More accurately, Poole (
(i) *[A potato]1, there is t1-
An additional piece of evidence in favor of this conclusion comes from Sauerland (
(i) [Urenokotta left-unsold hon-o]1 books- John-wa John- Mary-ni Mary- [t1 san=satu] three= ageta. gave ‘John gave Mary three (of the) unsold books.’
Sauerland argues that on the non-specific interpretation, the moved complement of the cardinal quantifier is of type <e,t>. Therefore, these examples seem to parallel the Greek topicalization sentences, in the sense that both involve movement of a property-denoting phrase. Interestingly, while A-movement generally obviates reconstruction for Condition C, the non-specific reading of (ii) (
(ii) [Mary-ga2 Mary- sukina likes hon-o]1 books- John-wa John- kanozyo-ni2 her [t1 san=satu] three= ageta. gave ‘John gave Mary three of the books she liked.’ (partitive, *cardinal)
Sauerland concludes that the moved <e,t>-type complement (which gives rise to the non-specific/cardinal interpretation) is necessarily interpreted in its base position. If traces of type <e,t> were available, the moved NP would be interpreted in its landing position binding an <e,t>-trace without violating Condition C.
A reviewer asks how we can exclude an analysis with a covert existential-closure operator above TopicP, that unselectively binds the free individual-type variables in the topic phrase and in the trace position, followed by abstraction over world-variables:
(i) [λw [TopP ∃ [TopP ⟦
In this paper, I presume that weak NPs (as the topic phrase in (83)) are existentially closed at the level of VP (cf. Mapping Hypothesis,
Similar arguments can be constructed with
(i) [Jani]<e,t.>, John onomasa named-1 <Jani><e,t> ton the skilo dog mu. my ‘I named my dog John.’
(ii) [Prasino]<e,t>, green evapsa dyed-1 <prasino><e,t> to the musi beard mu. my ‘I dyed my beard green.’
1 = 1st person
3 = 3rd person
The additional file for this article can be found as follows:
Various parts of this paper have been presented at the ICGL14 (Patras – September 2019), Cyprus Acquisition Team Lab (Online – March 2020), Patras Syntax-Semantics reading group (online – April 2022), AMGL42 (Thessaloniki – May 2022). I wish to thank the participants for their comments. This paper is part of my doctoral thesis at the University of Patras (
The author has no competing interests to declare.