1 Introduction

Roussou (2024) draws attention to a peculiar construction exemplified by the Greek sentences in (1) and (2) below:

    1. (1)
    1. I went to Mary’s party yesterday. There were lots of people there.
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. pçon
    2. who
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. iða.
    2. saw.1sg
    1. ‘I saw everyone.’ (Lit. ‘And who not I saw.’)
    2. (adapted from Roussou 2024: 1, ex.(2a))
    1. (2)
    1. I’m going to Paris next week. There are so many places to visit.
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. pu
    2. where
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. θa
    2. will
    1. pao.
    2. go.1sg
    1. ‘I will go everywhere.’ (Lit. ‘And where not I will go.’)
    2. (adapted from Roussou 2024: 1, ex.(2b))

The peculiarity of these two sentences and the grammatical construction they represent consists in their four characteristic properties: (i) the licensing of wh-words in the context of a non-interrogative sentence type, (ii) the presence of the conjunction ce ‘and’ in the absence of a second (syntactic) conjunct, (iii) the presence of the sentential negation marker ðen interpreted –at first sight at least– non-negatively, and (iv) the universal quantification reading in the apparent absence of a universal quantifier. Picking up the thread from Roussou (2024), this paper seeks to uncover the syntactic structure of the construction under study –let us dub it the and-what-not-construction– and explore how its relatively unexpected interpretation is derived.1

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 gives the detailed syntactic and interpretative profile of and-what-not-sentences. Section 3 defines the and-what-not-construction negatively, showing that, despite appearances, it cannot be treated as a subcategory of wh-questions, rhetorical questions, exclamatives or free-choice constructions. Section 4 provides the syntactic analysis of and-what-not-sentences as declaratives involving a fronted wh-phrase. Section 5 shows how the universal quantifier reading is derived based on the wh-phrase being an indefinite, ce being an additive morpheme, and negation licensed via modality. Finally, Section 6 considers how the and-what-not structure fits in the more general typological pattern of universal quantifiers, while Section 7 concludes the paper.

2 The data

Before we try to determine the exact grammatical status of Greek and-what-not-sentences, let us take a deeper look at what they look like. The first property highlighted regarding the phenomenon is the involvement of a wh-word. Intriguingly, not all wh-words make good candidates for the and-what-not-construction. Wh-words denoting degree variables for example, such as poso ‘how much’ or posa ‘how many’, yield ungrammaticality in and-what-not-sentences. Observe the contrast between (3), on the one hand, and (4) and (5), on the other:

    1. (3)
    1. My father-in-law is helping us so much with the baby.
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. kani.
    2. do.3sg
    1. ‘He does everything.’
    1. (4)
    1. Maria’s son has grown so much.
    1. *Ce
    2.   and
    1. poso
    2. how.much
    1. psilos
    2. tall
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. ine.
    2. be.3sg
    1.   Intended: ‘He is super tall.’
    1. (5)
    1. John’s brother asked me for some newborn clothes.
    1. *Ce
    2.   and
    1. posa
    2. how.many
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. tu
    2. him
    1. ðosa.
    2. gave.1sg
    1.   Intended: ‘I gave him so many/all the newborn clothes.’

Furthermore, the wh-phrase must be bare and cannot have an NP-restrictor. In other words, D-linked wh-phrases are at best deviant. This is illustrated in (6) and (7) below, modifying (1) and (2) respectively:

    1. (6)
    1. *Ce
    2.   and
    1. pçon
    2. which
    1. filo/prosceklimeno
    2. friend/guest
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. iða.
    2. saw.1sg
    1.   ‘I saw every friend/guest.’ (Lit. ‘And which friend/guest not I saw!’)
    1. (7)
    1. *Ce
    2.   and
    1. se
    2. to
    1. pço
    2. which
    1. meros
    2. place
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. θa
    2. will
    1. pao.
    2. go.1sg
    1.   ‘I will go to every place.’ (Lit. ‘And to which place not I will go.’)

Moving on to what was listed in Section 1 as the second characteristic property of the Greek and-what-not-construction, namely the presence of the coordinator ce ‘and’ and the lack of an overt second conjunct, two complementary statements are in order. The first one is that ce cannot be dropped without compromising grammaticality:2

    1. (8)
    1. Tomorrow we are having lunch at grandma’s.
    1. *(Ce)
    2.   and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. θa
    2. will
    1. fao.
    2. eat.1sg
    1.   ‘I will eat everything.’

The second is that the absence of an overtly expressed second conjunct is not simply possible but obligatory. In example (9) below, where ce ‘and’ is meant to coordinate two answers to two distinct questions, the and-what-not-interpretation of the second answer is not available.

    1. (9)
    1. Q:
    1.   Pços
    2.   who
    1. ixe
    2. had.3sg
    1. jeneθlia
    2. birthday
    1. ce
    2. and
    1. pçi
    2. who
    1. irθan
    2. came.3pl
    1. sto
    2. to.the
    1. parti?
    2. party
    1.   ‘Whose birthday was it and who came to the party?’
    1.  
    1. A:
    1. *I
    2.   the
    1. Maria
    2. Maria
    1. ce
    2. and
    1. pços
    2. who
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. irθe.
    2. came.3sg
    1.   Intended: ‘It was Maria’s birthday and everybody came.’

Regarding the presence of the negative marker ðen in and-what-not-sentences, it should be highlighted that this is also obligatory:

    1. (10)
    1. Tomorrow, we are going shopping. I am so excited!
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. *(ðen)
    2. neg
    1. θa
    2. will
    1. paro.
    2. take.1sg
    1. ‘I will buy everything.’

At the same time, ðen does not seem to behave like a sentential negative operator given that it excludes the licensing of both Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) such as kanenas ‘anyone’ and Negative Concord Items (NCIs) such as kanenas ‘no one’ (see Tsimpli & Roussou 1996; Giannakidou 1998) This is shown in (11).

    1. (11)
    1. *Ce
    2.   and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. efaje
    2. ate.3sg
    1. kanenas/
    2. anyone
    1. kanenas.
    2. no one
    1.   Intended reading: ‘Noone ate everything.’

Failure of polarity item licensing seems to indicate that the negative marker lacks the required negative import in this case.

Moreover, ðen is the only sentential negation marker that is allowed in the and-what-not-construction; the complementary negator min (Holton et al. 2012) found in modalized sentences is out:

    1. (12)
    1. Q:
    1.   Pços
    2.   who
    1. na
    2. prt
    1. fai
    2. eat.3sg
    1. apo
    2. from
    1. to
    2. the
    1. γliko?
    2. dessert
    1.   ‘Who should have part of the dessert?’
    1.  
    1. A:
    1. *Ce
    2.   And
    1. pços
    2. who
    1. na
    2. prt
    1. min
    2. neg
    1. fai.
    2. eat.3sg
    1.   Intended: ‘Everyone should.’

It is worth noting that min does have non-negatively interpreted uses (see Makri 2013; Roussou 2015; Chatzopoulou 2018; Tsiakmakis et al. 2023) so this cannot be the reason it is excluded from and-what-not-sentences.3 Anticipating the discussion in Section 3, given that min is excluded from root declarative sentences, the ungrammaticality of (12) is an argument for treating and-what-not-sentences as declaratives.

The last characteristic property of the and-what-not-construction anticipated in the introductory section is the universal quantification reading with an unclear source, reflected in the English translations of all the examples used so far. Notice that this reading arises regardless of whether the wh-phrase is specified for singular or plural number:4

    1. (13)
    1. a.
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. pços
    2. who.sg
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. efaje
    2. ate.3sg
    1. apo
    2. from
    1. to
    2. the
    1. γliko
    2. dessert
    1. tis
    2. the.gen
    1. Marias.
    2. Maria.gen
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. pçi
    2. who.pl
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. efaγan
    2. ate.3pl
    1. apo
    2. from
    1. to
    2. the
    1. γliko
    2. dessert
    1. tis
    2. the.gen
    1. Marias.
    2. Maria.gen
    1.   ‘Everyone tried Maria’s dessert.’

In light of the above, the grammatical profile of and-what-not-sentences can now be made specific:

  • (i) They license wh-words that denote variables.

  • (ii) They obligatorily include the coordinator ce ‘and’ but lack (or rather exclude) an overtly realized second conjunct.

  • (iii) They necessarily feature an instance of the negative marker ðen that appears to be interpreted non-negatively.

  • (iv) Their interpretation is (akin to) universal quantification.

With this in place, we can now determine the place of and-what-not-sentences in Greek grammar specifically, and natural language grammar more broadly.

3 What Greek and-what-not-sentences aren’t

Although understudied in itself, the and-what-not-construction shares major properties with other well-known types of sentences exhibited by Greek or other natural languages. In this section we show that and-what-not-sentences cannot be subsumed under any of these seemingly affinitive sentence types.

3.1 and-what-not-sentences are not wh-questions

One of the main properties of the and-what-not-construction already exposed is the presence of a fronted wh-word, such as ti ‘what’ in (14) below.

    1. (14)
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. ekana.
    2. did.1sg
    1. ‘I did everything.’

Wh-fronting is typical of Greek wh-questions (Holton et al. 2012). See, for example, (15).

    1. (15)
    1. Ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. ekana?
    2. did.1sg
    1. ‘What did I not do?’

This gives rise to the plausible question whether (14) simply instantiates a wh-question. There are three empirical reasons to dismiss this hypothesis.

The first reason is that wh-questions call for an answer, while and-what-not-sentences cannot even tolerate one, as the contrast between (16) and (17) shows. On the other hand, and-what-not sentences can be answers to questions as we see in (18) (see also fn. 5).

    1. (16)
    1. Q:
    1. Ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. efaje
    2. ate.3sg
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Petros?
    2. Petros
    1. ‘What did Petros not eat?’
    1.  
    1. A:
    1. To
    2. the
    1. ceik.
    2. cake
    1. ‘The cake.’
    1. (17)
    1. Q:
    1.   Ce
    2.   and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. efaje
    2. ate.3sg
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Petros.
    2. Petros
    1.   ‘Petros ate everything.’
    1.  
    1. A:
    1. #To
    2.   the
    1. ceik.
    2. cake
    1.   ‘The cake.’
    1. (18)
    1. Q:
    1. Ti
    2. what
    1. efaje
    2. ate.3sg
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Petros?
    2. Petros
    1. ‘What did Petros eat?’
    1.  
    1. A:
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. efaje.5
    2. ate.3sg
    1. ‘He ate everything.’

The pattern in (18) is an argument against treating and-what-not-sentences as canonical wh-questions but leaves open the possibility that they are rhetorical wh-questions. In subsection 3.2 we dismiss this alternative as well.

The second reason is that a wh-question may feature more than one wh-words (Holton et al. 2012) –one ex situ and the rest in situ– while and-what-not-sentences must involve only one:

    1. (19)
    1. a.
    1.   Pços
    2.   who
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. efaje
    2. ate
    1. ti?
    2. what
    1.   ‘Who didn’t eat what?’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *Ce
    2.   and
    1. pços
    2. who
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. efaje
    2. ate
    1. ti.
    2. what

The third but equally important empirical reason to distinguish and-what-not-sentences from wh-questions is that a wh-word can stay in-situ in the latter (Sinopoulou 2009; Vlachos 2012; 2014) but never in the case of the former:

    1. (20)
    1.   ðen
    2.   neg
    1. ekanes
    2. did.2sg
    1. ti?
    2. what
    1.   ‘You didn’t do what?’
    1. (21)
    1. *Ce
    2.   and
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. ekana
    2. did.2sg
    1. ti.
    2. what

Given the above, we conclude that and-what-not-sentences do not instantiate run-of-the-mill wh-questions.

3.2 and-what-not-sentences are not rhetorical questions

Having simply shown that and-what-not-sentences are not standard wh-questions, the possibility that they are at least derived from a wh-question structural basis remains. Concretely, an alternative hypothesis to entertain is that the type of sentences under study are rhetorical questions (Sadock 1971; Rohde 2006; Caponigro & Sprouse 2007; Reese & Asher 2009; Delfitto & Fiorin 2014, among others; see Veloudis 2018 for Greek). Notice the similarity in form and interpretation between the rhetorical question in (22B) and the and-what-not-sentence in (23B) below. The ‘?!’ mark is used to indicate the rhetorical question.

    1. (22)
    1. A:
    1. Aγapai
    2. love.3sg
    1. ton
    2. the
    1. scilo
    2. dog
    1. tu?
    2. his
    1. ‘Does he love his dog?’
    1.  
    1. B:
    1. Pços
    2. who
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. ton
    2. it
    1. aγapai?!
    2. love.3sg
    1. ‘Who doesn’t?!’ ≈ ‘Everyone loves their dog.’
    1. (23)
    1. A:
    1. Pços
    2. who
    1. aγapai
    2. love.3sg
    1. ton
    2. the
    1. skilo
    2. dog
    1. tu?
    2. his
    1. ‘Who loves their dog?’
    1.  
    1. B:
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. pços
    2. who
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. ton
    2. it
    1. aγapai.
    2. love.3sg
    1. ‘Everyone loves their dog.’

Treating and-what-not-sentences as rhetorical questions would account for the licensing of wh-words, the non-negative interpretation of ðen ‘not’, the universal quantification reading and, even, the fact that they do not trigger an answer. Crucially, though, while rhetorical questions do not need an answer, they are in principle compatible with one. And-what-not-sentences, on the other hand, have already been reported to reject answers altogether. Compare (24) and (25):

    1. (24)
    1. A:
    1. Aγapai
    2. love.3sg
    1. ton
    2. the
    1. skilo
    2. dog
    1. tu?
    2. his
    1. ‘Does he love his dog?’
    1.  
    1. B:
    1. Pços
    2. who
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. ton
    2. it
    1. aγapai?!
    2. love.3sg
    1. ‘Who doesn’t?’ ≈ ‘Everyone loves their dog.’
    1.  
    1. A:
    1. Oli
    2. all
    1. ton
    2. it
    1. aγapane.
    2. love.3pl
    1. Eçis
    2. have.2sg
    1. ðico.
    2. right
    1. ‘Everyone loves it. You are right.’
    1. (25)
    1. A:
    1.   Pços
    2.   who
    1. aγapai
    2. love.3sg
    1. ton
    2. the
    1. skilo
    2. dog
    1. tu?
    2. his
    1.   ‘Who loves their dog?’
    1.  
    1. B:
    1.   Ce
    2.   and
    1. pços
    2. who
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. ton
    2. it
    1. aγapai.
    2. love.3sg
    1.   ‘Everyone loves their dog.’
    1.  
    1. A:
    1. #Oli
    2.   all
    1. ton
    2. it
    1. aγapane.
    2. love.3pl
    1. Eçis
    2. have.2sg
    1. ðico.
    2. right
    1.   ‘Everyone loves it. You are right.’

Furthermore, rhetorical questions can be preceded by specific discourse marking expressions –see Sadock’s (1971) after all-diagnostic– which are not available for and-what-not-sentences. Notice that the Greek expression sto kato kato ‘after all’ can felicitously precede the rhetorical question in (26) but is infelicitous in the and-what-not-sentence in (27):

    1. (26)
    1.   Sto
    2.   at.the
    1. kato
    2. down
    1. kato,
    2. down
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. ipa?!
    2. saw.1sg
    1.   ‘After all, what did I not say?’ ≈ ‘After all, I said everything.’
    1. (27)
    1. #Sto
    2.   at.the
    1. kato
    2. down
    1. kato,
    2. down
    1. ce
    2. and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. ipa.
    2. saw.1sg

Last but far from least, only a subset of rhetorical questions seems to have an and-what-not-equivalent. Wh-words such as posa ‘how many’, for example, may feature in rhetorical questions but have already been claimed to be ungrammatical with the and-what-not-construction:

    1. (28)
    1. A:
    1. O
    2. the
    1. Janis
    2. Yanis
    1. vrice
    2. found.3sg
    1. poli
    2. very
    1. kali
    2. good
    1. ðuʎa.
    2. job
    1. ‘Yanis found a very good job.’
    1.  
    1. B:
    1. Posa
    2. how.many
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. eðosa
    2. gave.1sg
    1. ja
    2. for
    1. na
    2. PRT
    1. ton
    2. him
    1. spuðaso?!
    2. cause.study
    1. ‘How much money didn’t I give to send him to college?’ ≈ ‘I gave a lot of money to send him to college.’
    1. (29)
    1. A:
    1.   Posa
    2.   how.many
    1. eðoses
    2. gave.2sg
    1. ja
    2. for
    1. to
    2. the
    1. neo
    2. new
    1. amaksi?
    2. car?
    1.   ‘How much did you pay for the new car?’
    1.  
    1. B:
    1. *Ce
    2.   and
    1. posa
    2. how.many
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. eðosa.
    2. gave.1sg
    1.   Intended: ‘I gave a lot of money.’

The idea of treating and-what-not-sentences as rhetorical questions looks at first sight rather promising due to its high explanatory prospect. Based on the asymmetries exposed in the present subsection, however, we argue that the corresponding hypothesis should be abandoned.

3.3 and-what-not-sentences are not exclamatives

A third potential analytical alternative regarding and-what-not-sentences is that they are exclamative sentences. This hypothesis is inspired by the two constructions sharing the presence of a fronted wh-word and, potentially, exclamation intonation (represented graphically via the exclamation mark). Let us look at a typical example of an exclamative (Holton et al. 2012), such as (30) below.

    1. (30)
    1. Ti
    2. what
    1. oreo
    2. nice
    1. ðoro
    2. gift
    1. (pu)
    2. comp
    1. tu=pires!
    2. him=took.2sg
    1. ‘What a nice gift you got him!’

The first difference we observe is that while the complementizer/relativizer pu is optional in exclamatives, this is not the case with and-what-not sentences, as we have seen so far. In other words, the presence of pu yields ungrammaticality:

    1. (31)
    1. *Ce
    2.   and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. pu
    2. comp
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. tu=pires.
    2. him=took.2sg

A second difference has to do with embeddability. Concretely, exclamatives are embeddable under certain predicates, such as emotive factives for example (Elliott 1974; Grimshaw 1979; Portner & Zanuttini 2000; Zanuttini & Portner 2003; Gutiérrez-Rexach & Andueza 2017), while and-what-not-sentences are not:

    1. (32)
    1. Ine
    2. be.3sg
    1. endiposiako
    2. amazing
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. oreo
    2. nice
    1. ðoro
    2. gift
    1. vrices!
    2. found.2sg
    1. ‘It’s amazing what a nice gift you found!’
    1. (33)
    1. *Ine
    2.   be.3sg
    1. endiposiako
    2. amazing
    1. ce
    2. and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. pira!
    2. took.1sg
    1.   Intended: ‘It’s amazing that I got everything.’

Next, negation has already been reported to be obligatory for Greek and-what-not-sentences (34), while it often leads to infelicity or awkwardness in the case of exclamatives (35); see Villalba (2004).6

    1. (34)
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. *(ðen)
    2. neg
    1. ipe.
    2. said.3sg
    1. ‘She said all kinds of things.’
    1. (35)
    1. #Ti
    2.   what
    1. apistefto
    2. unbelievable
    1. praγma
    2. thing
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. ipe!
    2. said.3sg
    1.   Intended: ‘What an unbelievable thing she said!’

Lastly, certain wh-words that are unavailable for the and-what-not-construction appear to be fine with exclamatives. Observe the following contrast:

    1. (36)
    1. Poso
    2. how.much
    1. psilose
    2. grew.taller.3sg
    1. apo
    2. from
    1. persi!
    2. last.year
    1. ‘How taller she has grown since last year!’
    1. (37)
    1. *Ce
    2.   and
    1. poso
    2. how.much
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. psilose
    2. grew.taller.3sg
    1. apo
    2. from
    1. persi.
    2. last.year
    1.   Intended: ‘She has grown so much taller since last year.’

Vice versa, while and-what-not-sentences are very productive with wh-words such as pços ‘who’ and pu ‘where’ (see also Veloudis 2023: fn. 14), as in (38), exclamatives exclude them (Elliott 1974; Castroviejo 2010, a.o.), as shown in (39):

    1. (38)
    1. a.
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. pços
    2. who
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. irθe
    2. came.3sg
    1. sto
    2. to.the
    1. parti.
    2. party
    1. ‘Everyone came to the party.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. pu
    2. where
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. perpatisa.
    2. walked.1sg
    1. ‘I walked everywhere.’
    1. (39)
    1. a.
    1. *Pços
    2.   who
    1. irθe
    2. came.3sg
    1. sto
    2. to.the
    1. parti!
    2. party
    1.   Intended: ‘Who came to the party!’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *Pu
    2.   where
    1. perpatisa!
    2. walked.1sg
    1.   Intended: ‘Where I walked!’

The restriction in (39) is uplifted in embedded contexts though, as observed by Grimshaw (1979) for English. The same holds for Greek. The exclamatives sentences in (39) are grammatical as complement clauses under a predicate such as endiposiako ‘amazing’, as pointed out above, i.e. ine apistefto pços irθe sto parti/pu perpatisa ‘it’s amazing who came to the party/where I walked’. This can be considered as another point of similarity between and-what-not sentences and exclamative ones.

In short, considering the above, we conclude that Greek and-what-not-sentences do not pattern with the sentence type –that is form and meaning pair in the sense of Sadock and Zwicky (1985)– instantiated by Greek exclamatives. Importantly, however, and-what-not-sentences may be uttered as exclamations, possibly conveying surprise or admiration (see Michaelis 2001). In this respect we keep the notions of exclamative and exclamation apart, since the first refers to a clause-type while the latter to an interpretation which can be associated with different clause-types or fragments.

3.4 and-what-not-sentences do not involve Free Choice Items

A fourth hypothesis regarding the status of and-what-not-sentences is put forth if one capitalizes on their featuring a negative marker that seems to be interpreted non-negatively. Specifically, the combination of a wh-word with an “expletive” negative marker, at least at first sight, brings and-what-not-sentences close to Hebrew free relatives (Eilam 2009):

    1. (40)
    1. ma
    2. what
    1. še-dani
    2. comp.Danny
    1. lo
    2. neg
    1. katav
    2. wrote
    1. hitparsem
    2. was.published
    1. ba-iton.
    2. in.the-newspaper
    1. ‘Whatever Danny wrote was published in the newspaper.’
    2. (Eilam 2009: 45, ex. (14))

According to Eilam (2009), the negative marker lo in (40) above is not interpreted as a sentential negation marker –as suggested by the English translation provided– but as an element similar to the English bound morpheme -ever. Building on von Fintel’s (2000) analysis of English whatever, Eilam (2009) proposes that the full interpretation of the utterance in (40) is as specified in (41):

    1. (41)
    1. Assertion: The things Danny wrote were published in the newspaper.
    2. Indifference presupposition: In all of the minimally different counterfactual worlds in which Danny wrote different things, they were published in the newspaper.
    3. (Eilam 2009: 45, (14))

If we hypothetically extend this insight to and-what-not-sentences, the interpretation of (42) is predicted to be as shown in (43):

    1. (42)
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. eγrapse
    2. wrote.3sg
    1. stin
    2. in.the
    1. efimeriða.
    2. newspaper
    1. ‘She wrote everything in the newspaper.’
    1. (43)
    1. Assertion: There are things that she wrote about in the newspaper.
    2. Indifference presupposition: In all of the minimally different counterfactual worlds in which there are different things to write about, she wrote about them in the newspaper.

While (43) comes close to the interpretation of the and-what-not-construction, the indifference presupposition component seems to be a bit too strong. The and-what-not-sentence in (42) does not come with an indifference-presupposition, as suggested by its compatibility with a list-follow-up:

    1. (42ˈ)
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. eγrapse
    2. wrote.3sg
    1. stin
    2. in.the
    1. efimeriða.
    2. newspaper
    1. Oti
    2. that
    1. o
    2. the
    1. proeðros
    2. president
    1. emblecete
    2. be.involved.3sg
    1. se
    2. in
    1. skanðalo,
    2. scandal
    1. oti
    2. that
    1. o
    2. the
    1. tamias
    2. treasurer
    1. ine
    2. be.3sg
    1. anipsços
    2. nephew
    1. tu
    2. his
    1. ke
    2. and
    1. oti
    2. that
    1. o
    2. the
    1. omilos
    2. club
    1. ine
    2. be.3sg
    1. kataxreomenos.
    2. bankrupt
    1. ‘She wrote everything in the newspaper. That the president is involved in a scandal, that his nephew is the treasurer and that the club is bankrupt.’

The inadequacy of the free-choice analysis for and-what-not-sentences is corroborated further by the fact that standard Free Choice Items (Giannakidou 2001), such as otiðipote ‘anything’, cannot be used in the same communicative situations as the and-what-not-construction:

    1. (44)
    1. Q:
    1.   Ti
    2.   what
    1. eγrapse
    2. wrote.3sg
    1. stin
    2. in.the
    1. efimeriða?
    2. newspaper
    1.   ‘What did she write in the newspaper?’
    1.  
    1. A1:
    1.   Ce
    2.   and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. eγrapse.
    2. wrote.3sg
    1.   ‘She wrote everything.’
    1.  
    1. A2:
    1. #Otiðipote.7
    2.   anything
    1.   ‘Anything.’

One could argue that the infelicity of the Free Choice Item in (44) is due to the fact the question is in the episodic past (we thank an anonymous reviewer for this comment). If the past is non-perfective (i.e., not episodic), otiðipote is predicted to be available. Substituting eγrapse for eγrafe in (44) renders the answer in A2 felicitous. However, this is indeed at the heart of our argument here. If the and-what-not-sentence yielded a Free Choice Item, it would have been excluded in episodic past contexts, contrary to fact, as A2 in (44) suggests. We consider this distributional asymmetry as evidence that the two should be kept distinct.

The present subsection explored the hypothesis that and-what-not-sentences are interpreted similarly to constructions involving Free Choice Items and, thus, come close to a grammatical construction found not in Greek but in other languages: Hebrew free relatives with so-called expletive negation. However, in light of the arguments presented above, this hypothesis cannot be maintained.

The characteristic properties of and-what-not-sentences suggest that, at least on the surface, they are similar to wh-questions, rhetorical questions, exclamatives and sentences featuring Free Choice Items. Crucially, the deep and systematic differences revealed once one compares each of these constructions with and-what-not-sentences show that such similarity is not but superficial. We conclude that and-what-not-sentences cannot be subsumed under any of the contrasted sentence types.

4 What and-what-not-sentences are

After the extensive negative definition of and-what-not-sentences in the previous section, let us now try to define this peculiar construction positively. Having discarded all other alternatives, we revert to the last alternative, namely that and-what-not-sentences are declaratives and, specifically, root declaratives; recall that they cannot be embedded. But how exactly are they syntactically derived? Beyond being a label facilitating reference, and-what-not also summarizes the syntactic identity of the grammatical construction under study here, which consists in the combination of ce ‘and’, a wh-word, and the negative marker ðen ‘not’, all in the same sentence.

4.1 The wh-phrase

Let us explore how the three first elements are incorporated in the syntactic structure of the sentence, starting with the wh-phrase. Below we set (45) as our reference example for ease of exposition:

    1. (45)
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. majirepse
    2. cooked.3sg
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Fanis.
    2. Fanis
    1. ‘Fanis cooked all kinds of things.’

The first thing to highlight is that the wh-word ti ‘what’ has moved from the internal argument position to the left periphery of the clause. In wh-questions, such movement is traditionally assumed to be triggered by the syntactic properties of the interrogative Complementizer (Chomsky 1977). In more current terms (Chomsky 2000; 2001), this translates to a Q feature associated with C which turns the latter into a Probe, while the wh-phrase qualifies as a Goal, bearing a matching uninterpretable feature. This yields an Agree relation between Q in C and the wh-phrase. Given the Edge feature of C (or the Extended Projection Principle, EPP), Agree is followed by internal merge of C with a copy of the wh-phrase. The lower copy deletes as part of the process of externalization (EXT), leaving the higher one for spell-out, hence the displacement effect which makes Greek a (dominantly) wh-fronting language in typological terms. At the interpretation process (INT), both copies survive, with the higher copy being interpreted as a quantifier and the lower one as a variable. Leaving certain technical details aside, such as an additional wh-copy at the vP phase edge, the matrix wh-question in (46a) roughly has the derivation in (46b):

    1. (46)
    1. a.
    1. Ti
    2. what
    1. majirepse
    2. cooked.3sg
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Fanis?
    2. Fanis
    1. ‘What did Fanis cook?’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. [CP ti CQ/EPP [TP pro majirepse [vP o Fanis majirepse ti]]]

Tsoulas and Yeo (2017) slightly modify this account to accommodate the cross-linguistic variation regarding wh-questions. They argue that wh-questions involve two separate mechanisms. The first is associated with an interrogative (Inter) feature which has a clause-typing function: it marks the sentence as an interrogative. We can think of this as substitute of Chomsky’s Q (see Huddleston’s (1994) distinction between ‘interrogatives’ for grammatical form vs ‘questions’ for meaning). Thus, a clause can be interrogative without a wh-phrase, as is indeed the case in yes/no-questions. The second mechanism concerns the scope-fixing of the wh-phrase. As Tsoulas and Yeo (2017) argue, in languages like Greek which have wh-fronting, these two mechanisms seem to overlap given that both Inter and wh-scope are marked in the left periphery.8 Movement of the wh-phrase turns it to a quantifier and creates a quantifier-variable dependency. Following standard assumptions in the literature (e.g., Tsimpli 1995), let us assume that wh-fronting in Greek is due to focus. In other words, the wh-phrase acquires quantificational force due to focus. Whether the wh-phrase targets a dedicated focus position as in cartographic approaches or internally merges with C (a specifier) is not strictly speaking relevant to the present discussion. For reasons of simplicity, we stick to the latter and modify (46b) as in (47):

    1. (47)
    1. [CP tiFOCUS CINTER/EPP [TP pro majirepse [vP o Fanis majirepse ti]]]

In case C has no Inter feature, wh-fronting is still possible if it can independently take place for scope reasons. This is essentially a declarative sentence with wh-fronting, as in (48a), with the structure in (48b). In the absence of Inter, the wh-phrase fails to receive an interrogative reading.

    1. (48)
    1. a.
    1. *Ti
    2.   what
    1. majirepse
    2. cooked.3sg
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Fanis.
    2. Fanis
    1.   ‘*What Fanis cooked.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   [CP tiFOCUS CEPP [TP pro majirepse [vP o Fanis majirepse ti]]]

Note though that the sentence in (48a) can converge with an exclamation, that is a mirative reading, as in (49a). This is what we find in so-called ‘guess-contexts’. Another way to save this structure is via embedding as in (49b) (see Roussou and Vlachos 2024):

    1. (49)
    1. a.
    1. [Mantepse]
    2. guess
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. majirepse
    2. cooked. 3sg
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Fanis!
    2. Fanis
    1. ‘[Guess] What Fanis cooked!’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Ksero
    2. know.1sg
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. majirepse
    2. cooked. 3sg
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Fanis.
    2. Fanis
    1. ‘I know what Fanis cooked.’

The presence of negation does not affect the above reading. More precisely, the negative version of (49a), as in (50), means that there is something (a particular dish) that Fanis didn’t cook.

    1. (50)
    1. [Mantepse]
    2. guess
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. majirepse
    2. cooked. 3sg
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Fanis!
    2. Fanis
    1. ‘[Guess] What Fanis didn’t cook!’

The above discussion shows two things. First, a wh-phrase is (marginally) available in a non-interrogative sentence. In this case, the value assigned to the wh-variable is known and fixed. Second, in this context, ðen negates the proposition, i.e., it is a true negation. Turning now to the and-what-not-construction, we observe that although a wh-phrase is possible in the non-interrogative sentence, there are two basic differences from the above cases: first, the value assigned to the variable is not known or specific, and second, ðen does not yield sentential negation. Since the only difference between the and-what-not-construction and the sentence in (50) is the presence vs absence of the coordinator ce, it is reasonable to assume that ce plays a crucial role. We turn to this immediately below.

4.2 The coordinator

The morpheme ce ‘and’ has been observed to have a variety of –at least impressionistically– heterogeneous uses already since Tzartzanos (1989); see Canakis (1995) for an extensive study. The major uses compatible with the absence of a second syntactic conjunct preceding ce –as is the case with and-what-not-sentences– boil down to (i) the use of ce as a topic marker (Vlachos & Chiou 2020; see also Poletto 2005 on Italian e ‘and’), and (ii) the use of ce as an additive/scalar operator (see Chatzikyriakidis et al. 2015). The former case is exemplified by (51B), while the latter is exemplified by (52).

    1. (51)
    1. A:
    1. Xtes
    2. yesterday
    1. piγame
    2. went.1pl
    1. sto
    2. to.the
    1. parti
    2. party
    1. tis
    2. the.gen
    1. Marias.
    2. Maria.gen
    1. ‘We went to Maria’s party yesterday.’
    1.  
    1. B:
    1. Orea!
    2. nice
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. pços
    2. who
    1. itan
    2. was
    1. eci?
    2. there
    1. ‘Nice! And who was there?’
    1. (52)
    1. Pira
    2. took.1sg
    1. ce
    2. and
    1. fraules.
    2. strawberries.
    1. ‘I also bought strawberries.’

As a topic marker, ce can be followed by left-peripheral constituents, such as Clitic-Left-Dislocated (ClLD) phrases (53). Ce in Greek and-what-not-sentences, on the other hand, appears to be inseparable from its associate (54).

    1. (53)
    1. A:
    1. O
    2. the
    1. Petros,
    2. Petros
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Vasilis
    2. Vasilis
    1. ce
    2. and
    1. i
    2. the
    1. Sofia
    2. Sofia
    1. itan
    2. were
    1. sto
    2. at.the
    1. parti.
    2. party
    1. ‘Petros, Vasilis and Sofia were at the party.’
    1.  
    1. B:
    1. Orea!
    2. nice
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. ti
    2. the
    1. Dina,
    2. Dina
    1. jati
    2. why
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. tin
    2. her
    1. kalesan?
    2. invited.3pl
    1. ‘Nice! And Dina, why did they not invite her?’
    1. (54)
    1. a.
    1.   Ce
    2.   and
    1. pços
    2. who
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. tin
    2. her
    1. kalese
    2. invited.3sg
    1. ti
    2. the
    1. Dina.
    2. Dina
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *Ce
    2.   and
    1. ti
    2. the
    1. Dina,
    2. Dina
    1. pços
    2. who
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. tin
    2. her
    1. kalese.
    2. invited.3sg
    1.   ‘Everybody invited Dina.’

We take the asymmetry above as evidence that ce ‘and’ in and-what-not-sentences is not a topic marker. This leaves us with the alternative (ii), namely, that of the additive ce, which operates on the (focused) wh-word (see Chatzikyriakidis et al. 2015).

Syntactically, we can assume that ce functions as an operator that takes a DP as its complement. This pattern is independently attested, as in (52), where any DP can be introduced by ce. In the cases under consideration the DP-complement is a wh-phrase, and the relevant structure is the one in (55):

    1. (55)
    1. [OpP ce [DP wh-phrase ]]

What moves to the left periphery then is not the bare wh-phrase but the ce-wh-phrase. Recall that the wh-phrase can independently move to the left periphery via focus. Thus, the presence of ce does not alter this. However, what ce does is to define an operator feature on the wh-phrase. Assuming that ce and the wh-phrase form a constituent, we can further account for the fact that no element can intervene between them, hence accounting for the ungrammaticality of (54b).

What we have so far is that the wh-phrase (i) is not inherently interrogative, and (ii) is introduced by the additive particle ce. This yields the structure in (55) with the rough reading ‘also x’. We turn to the details of this approach in Section 5.

4.3 The negation

We next turn to negation, the third obligatory component of the and-what-not construction. As we saw in Sections 1 and 2, only negator ðen is available in and-what-not-structures, while the modality-sensitive negator min is excluded, as it is excluded from root declaratives as well. A second property is that in these structures ðen does not license NPIs (and NCIs); this property seems to suggest that we are dealing with an instance of expletive negation, at least at first approximation. This is further corroborated by the fact that the clause converges with an affirmative and not a negative reading. In the present subsection we will consider the syntactic projection of ðen in the clause structure and its syntactic properties. Note that ðen cannot function as constituent negation or anaphoric negation; thus, it is restricted to sentential uses (Veloudis 1982).

Let us start with the position of ðen in the clause structure. Roussou (2000), in the context of an articulated CP, argues that negation (NegP) in Greek projects in the left periphery of the clause. This is supported by the fact that negation precedes not only clitics but the modal particle θa as well, as in (56). Roussou (2000) assumes that the Mood/Modality phrase corresponds to a low C head (cf. Rizzi’s (1997) Fin) and precedes clitics which attach to I along with the finite verb.

    1. (56)
    1. [CP C [NegP ðen [MP θa [IP clitic-V [  …]]]

Since θa is possible in and-what-not constructions and ðen precedes θa (cf. example (2)), we adopt the structure in (56).

Although at this point of the discussion we restrict our attention to the morphosyntactic properties of negation, it is worth clarifying our assumption regarding the feature content of Neg(P) and how this is compatible with negation being interpreted as true or expletive. The core issue is whether the negator ðen is the realization of the negative operator (as in true negation) or the realization of some other property which can be licensed by the negative operator. Laka (1990) was perhaps the first one to argue that negation is just one manifestation of what she called a Σ projection, that is, a polarity head that can be affirmative or negative. In a rather similar spirit, Manzini & Savoia (2012), in their discussion of negation in Romance varieties, dissociate the morphosyntactic realization of negation from its interpretation as a logical operator. More precisely, they show that negation can be realized in different positions in the clause structure as an adverb, noun, or clitic; essentially as a nominal which can be construed as a polarity item. As such, morphosyntactic realizations of negation may semantically imply the negative operator, which at sentential level reverses the truth value of the sentence. However, their polarity property allows them to be available in modal (non-veridical in their terms) contexts, such as conditionals or exclamatives, in which case they give rise to what is known as ‘expletive negation’.9 Adopting this approach allows us to dissociate the presence of negator ðen from the (logical) negation and, consequently, whether it is construed as true or expletive negation depends on the context it occurs in. Keeping with standard notation, we use the label ‘NegP’ to indicate the syntactic position of ðen in the clause structure. Anticipating the discussion that follows in Section 5, the ‘expletive’ flavor of ðen is due to modality.

Going back to the syntax of and-what-not sentences what we have so far are the following: (i) a wh-phrase which is not inherently interrogative (an indefinite), (ii) ce as an additive particle, and (iii) ðen as a polarity head. Given the position of each element in the left periphery the structure we arrive at is given in (57) below:

    1. (57)
    1. [CP [OpP ce [DP wh-phrase ]] C [NegP ðen [MP θa [IP clitic-V [  …]]]]]

As (57) shows, the and-what phrase merges above Neg(P). Syntactically, the structure in (57) has the following properties: C is declarative and hosts the ce-wh-phrase which is in a local configuration with the NegP headed by ðen. A clarification on what we mean by ‘local configuration’ is necessary at this point. The idea is that locality is computed on heads on which merge operates (see for example Manzini 1995). In (57) C merges with Neg(P); given the bottom-up fashion of merge, C c-commands Neg(P). At the next step of the derivation C(P) merges with the ce-wh-phrase (merger of two phrases), yielding what is standardly notated as the specifier of C (spec-head agreement). Since the ce-wh-phrase is in the domain of C (spec-head agreement in the traditional terminology) it enters a local configuration with Neg by transitivity. The three elements, namely, ce, ðen and the wh-phrase are interlinked to bring out an affirmative declarative sentence. We turn to how this is achieved in the immediately following section.

5 What Greek and-what-not-sentences mean

With a fully-fledged proposal regarding the syntactic derivation of and-what-not-sentences in place, let us address their meaning composition. We stick to our reference example about Fanis’ cooking, repeated below as (58), and focus again on the constitutive parts of the specific construction under study: the wh-phrase, the coordinator ce ‘and’ and the negator ðen.

    1. (58)
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. majirepse
    2. cooked.3sg
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Fanis.
    2. Fanis
    1. ‘Fanis cooked all kinds of things.’

Following Roussou and Vlachos (2024), we assume that wh-words in Greek are indefinite pronouns (cf. also the typology of Haspelmath 2001) which introduce a variable. Consequently, the denotation of the wh-word ti ‘what’ in (58) can be represented roughly as in (59):

    1. (59)
    1. ⟦ti⟧ = λP.∃x[P(x)]10

Recall that the wh-phrase in and-what-not-sentences is focused. Adopting the main insight in Delfitto and Fiorin (2014) regarding wh-phrases in interrogatives and exclamatives going back to Han (2002), we take the focus value of a focused wh-phrase to be a structured Boolean algebra of alternatives. For ease of exposition, we assume that in the context of our example (58) Fanis could have only cooked pizza, pasta and shepherd’s pie. In this case, the focus value of focused ti ‘what’ can be represented as in the algebra below:

    1. (60)

Consider next how the presence of ce ‘and’ affects the above picture. Chatzikyriakidis et al. (2015) analyze Greek additive ce as a Focus Association Operator that interacts with the focus value of its associate in the following way:11 it introduces a presupposition that at least one focus alternative distinct from the one denoted by the associate also makes the corresponding proposition true. Consequently, the interpretation of the complex ce ti ‘and what’ from our example can be represented as follows:

    1. (61)
    1. ⟦ce ti⟧ = λP.∃x[P(x)]
    2. provided that ∃y[P(y) ∧ y ∈ A ∧ y ≠ x ]
    3. where A = {∅, {pizza}, {pasta}, {shepherd’s pie}, {pizza ⊕ pasta}, {pasta ⊕
    4. shepherd’s pie}, {pizza ⊕ shepherd’s pie}, {pizza ⊕ pasta ⊕ shepherd’s pie}}

Once the ce ti wh-phrase –merged as an internal argument– composes with the verb majirepse ‘cooked’ and the external argument Fanis, the interpretation of the derived structure amounts to the following:

    1. (62)
    1. ⟦o Fanis majirepse ce ti⟧12 = ∃x[cooked(Fanis, x)]
    2. provided that ∃y[cooked (Fanis, y) ∧ y ∈ A ∧ y ≠ x ]
    3. where A = {∅, {pizza}, {pasta}, {shepherd’s pie}, {pizza ⊕ pasta}, {pasta ⊕ shepherd’s pie}, {pizza ⊕ shepherd’s pie}, {pizza ⊕ pasta ⊕ shepherd’s pie}}

Importantly, at this point in the derivation, the focus value of the derived structure can be represented also as in the structured Boolean algebra of alternative propositions in (60ˈ) below (see also Delfitto & Fiorin 2014):

    1. (60ˈ)

Note that the alternative propositions in the algebra above are ordered by entailment. Consequently, and following standard assumptions (see Han 2002; Delfitto & Fiorin 2014), informativity increases and probability decreases, as one moves upwards in the algebra, with the top element being the one with lowest probability to make the corresponding proposition true.

It is finally time to move to the role of the negative marker ðen. We have anticipated that ðen is construed as a polarity term which yields a negative reading when the negative operator is imported at the point of interpretation or not, if modality for example is at play. We saw that in and-what-not-sentences ðen does not yield a sentential negation reading, since it does not reverse the truth value of the proposition. This leaves us with the second option, namely the non-canonical (expletive) one where the interpretation that arises relates to modality. Interestingly, according to Veloudis (2023), “utterances [like those we dub as and-what-not-sentences] point basically to the upper value of a pragmatic scale that the speaker shares (or considers shared) with her addressee. Hence, the ‘even’ aura of these utterances.” Also enlightening is Veloudis’ (2023) association of such utterances with “scale reversal”.13 We depart from Veloudis (2023) in distinguishing and-what-not-sentences from negative rhetorical questions (see Section 3), but side with him in reserving a scale-reversal interpretation for the negator ðen in this construction. Note that the polarity property of ðen is consistent with the notion of ‘reversal’. The latter is not restricted to propositional content but can hold for ordering as is the case with alternatives, inducing a modal reading. We formally capture Veloudis’ insight by extending the spirit of Delfitto & Fiorin’s (2014) analysis of non-canonically interpreted negators in Romance and Germanic rhetorical questions and exclamatives to Greek and-what-not-sentences. Concretely, we propose that ðen does not operate on the propositional meaning of the declarative and-what-not-sentence but on the focus value of the structure featuring the focused wh-phrase (see (60ˈ)). Instead of reversing the truth conditions under which the sentence is true, as would be the case of a canonically interpreted sentential negator, ðen reverses the probability scale in the algebra of focus alternatives in such a way that the top element of the algebra becomes now the least informative and, thus, most probable.14 This interpretative import associated with ðen can be considered as a non-at-issue modal statement, in line with Delfitto (2020) and Veloudis (2023).

With all the bits in place, our analysis predicts the complete interpretation of our reference example (58) to be as follows:

    1. (63)
    1. ⟦Ce ti ðen majirepse o Fanis⟧ = ∃x[cooked(Fanis, x)]
    2. provided that ∃y[cooked (Fanis, y) ∧ y ∈ A ∧ y ≠ x ]
    3. where A = {∅, {pizza}, {pasta}, {shepherd’s pie}, {pizza ⊕ pasta}, {pasta ⊕ shepherd’s pie}, {pizza ⊕ shepherd’s pie}, {pizza ⊕ pasta ⊕ shepherd’s pie}}
    1.  
    1. non-at-issue meaning: {cooked (Fanis, (pizza ⊕ pasta ⊕ shepherd’s pie))} >probable {cooked (Fanis, (pizza ⊕ pasta))}, {cooked (Fanis, (pasta ⊕ shepherd’s pie))}, {cooked (Fanis, (pizza ⊕ shepherd’s pie))} >probable {cooked (Fanis, pizza)}, {cooked (Fanis, pasta)}, {cooked (Fanis, shepherd’s pie)} >probable {cooked (Fanis, ∅)}

Unpacking the notation above, the and-what-not-sentence in (58) is predicted to (i) assert the existence of something that Fanis cooked, (ii) carry the presupposition that Fanis cooked more than one thing, and (iii) convey in a non-at-issue manner that it is more probable that Fanis cooked more things than less.

Considering the above, our account derives the interpretation of Greek and-what-not-sentences. Importantly, however, it predicts that non-uniqueness is part of the semantic core of the and-what-not-construction, while the universal quantification arises as part of an additional, non-at-issue modal statement. The gradually increasing felicity of the follow-ups in the following three examples can be considered as evidence that this aspect of the proposed account is on the right track:

    1. (64)
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. majirepse
    2. cooked.3sg
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Fanis.
    2. Fanis
    1. #Arni
    2. lamb
    1. sto
    2. in.the
    1. furno.
    2. oven
    1. ‘Fanis cooked all kinds of things. Roasted lamb.’
    1. (65)
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. majirepse
    2. cooked.3sg
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Fanis.
    2. Fanis
    1. ?Arni
    2. lamb
    1. sto
    2. in.the
    1. furno
    2. oven
    1. ce
    2. and
    1. γariðomakaronaða.
    2. pasta.with.shrimp
    1. ‘Fanis cooked all kinds of things. Roasted lamb and pasta with shrimp.’
    1. (66)
    1. Ce
    2. and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. ðen
    2. neg
    1. majirepse
    2. cooked.3sg
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Fanis.
    2. Fanis
    1. Arni
    2. lamb
    1. sto
    2. in.the
    1. furno,
    2. oven
    1. γariðomakaronaða
    2. pasta.with.shrimp
    1. ce
    2. and
    1. musaka.
    2. moussaka
    1. ‘Fanis cooked all kinds of things. Roasted lamb, pasta with shrimp and moussaka.’

Taking stock, the analysis of the and-what-not-construction proposed here correctly derives its interpretation as a result of the interaction of its constitutive parts. Importantly, it is not forced to make any unmotivated assumptions regarding the meaning contribution of each of these parts. Greek wh-words have been independently motivated to be interpreted as indefinites (Roussou & Vlachos 2024), additive uses of the coordinator ce ‘and’ have independently been linked to a non-uniqueness presupposition and non-canonically interpreted negative markers have been independently related to modal interpretative import both in Greek (Makri 2013; Tsiakmakis et al. 2023) and in other languages (Yoon 2011; Delfitto & Fiorin 2014; Choi & Lee 2017; Tsiakmakis & Espinal 2022, among many others).

Before closing off this section, we need to briefly address two other properties of and-what-not-sentences that we saw in Section 2 in the context of the above account. Specifically, wh-phrases with an NP restrictor, that is D-linked phrases in the sense of Pesetsky (1987), and degree wh-phrases are excluded from and-what-not-structures. Our analysis predicts that D-linked and degree wh-phrases may be allowed to enter and-what-not-sentences in syntax but are filtered out at the level of interpretation because their focus alternatives are not organized in a structured Boolean algebra with inherent probability on which ðen can operate. Concretely, the alternative focus values of a degree wh-phrase are ordered on a continuous scale and the probability of the focus alternatives of a D-linked phrase heavily relies on the context. Both conditions would render the application of the scale-reversal effect of ðen problematic.

6 A note on typological patterns

The universal quantification-like reading of and-what-not-sentences was derived earlier as the result of the combination of three elements, namely ce ‘and’ as an additive particle, the wh-phrase (an indefinite) and the negator ðen ‘not’. In this section we focus on the combination of the first two elements, since the participation of conjunction in universal quantification constructions is a well-documented typological tendency (Bhat 2000; Haspelmath 2001; Jayaseelan 2001; Gil 2013; Szabolsci 2013; 2015; among others). In his typological review, Gil (2013) adopts a wide definition of ‘conjunctions’ as “taken to include not only forms with meanings similar to that of and, but in addition expressions that are sometimes characterized as conjunctive operators or focus particles, with meanings resembling those of also, even, another, again, and in addition the restrictive only.” Similarly, for ‘universal quantifiers’, “these are assumed to encompass not only forms with meanings such as those of every, each and all, but also expressions that are sometimes referred to as free-choice, with meanings corresponding to that of any”. The and-what-not-construction seems to fall under this pattern, given that ce ‘and’ has the additive ‘also’ meaning and the reading that arises falls within what Gil (2013) includes in the universal quantifier set.

The second important typological generalization refers to the role of the wh-phrase which combines with the conjunction (of any of the sorts above). In languages where such combinations are available, the wh-phrase is taken to be an ‘indeterminate pronoun’ in the sense of Nishigauchi (1990), that is an indefinite pronoun subject to (selective or unselective) binding. In Japanese for example, the particle -mo ‘and/also’ can attach to the indeterminate pronoun and yield different readings which fall under universal quantification in Gil’s (2013) sense. Consider the examples below, cited in Gil & Tsoulas (2013: ex. (2), ex. (10a,b)):

    1. (67)
    1. a.
    1. Taka-wa
    2. Taka-top
    1. [nani-mo]
    2. what-conj
    1. yoku
    2. well
    1. tabe-na-katta
    2. eat-neg-past
    1. ‘Taka ate nothing well.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Reiko-wa
    2. Reiko-top
    1. hitoride
    2. alone
    1. [doko-mo]
    2. where-conj
    1. ik-eru
    2. go-can
    1. ‘Reiko can go anywhere alone.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. Noriko-wa
    2. Noriko-top
    1. [dono
    2. which
    1. hon-o
    2. book-acc
    1. mo]
    2. conj
    1. suki-ta
    2. likes
    1. ‘Noriko likes any of these books.’

In all cases the item mo is involved but the reading changes depending on the attachment site of mo in combination with negation and/or modality, ranging from a negative quantifier (no-x) to a polarity item (any-x) to a free choice item (any-x).

With respect to Malayalam, Jayaseelan (2001: 66) observes that “the adding of the conjunction marker to a question word yields a universal quantifier”, e.g., aar-um (who+conj) = ‘any’. This reading is also polarity sensitive and falls under Gil’s (2013) notion of universal quantifiers. Jayaseelan (2001: 86, ex. (64)) provides the following statement:

    1. (68)
    1. A conjunction/disjunction operator can be applied to a focused variable in its domain by association with focus; it then interprets the variable as an infinite conjunction/disjunction.

Given the above, the data and the analysis of and-what-not-structures in Greek seems to obey a more general typological pattern. Interestingly, the combinations of wh+conj in the languages under consideration are polarity sensitive (see Gil & Tsoulas 2013; and for a semantics approach Szabolsci 2015). Unlike Japanese and Malayalam, the Greek ce+what combination exhibits a quite restricted distribution, as it arises only in the presence of the negator ðen in a declarative; when ce takes a wh-complement in the absence of negation, the universal quantifier reading does not arise:

    1. (69)
    1. *Ce
    2.   and
    1. ti
    2. what
    1. majirepse
    2. cooked.3sg
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Fanis.
    2. Fanis
    1.   Intended: ‘Fanis cooked all kinds of things.’

As discussed in Section 5, negation in and-what-not sentences contributes towards a modal reading computed outside syntax. Tentatively we could say that this accounts for the fact that other types of modality markers in Greek morphosyntax (e.g., modal verbs or adverbs) do not license this reading. Note that no equivalent of the Japanese (67b) is available in Greek.

Space limitations do not allow us to offer a more thorough typological study at this point or derive theoretically the similarities and differences between the Greek and-what-not-construction and its near-parallels sampled above. Before we conclude this section, we would like to add to this cross-linguistic excursus a structure from Russian which is intriguingly similar to Greek and-what-not-sentences.15 Take a look at example (70) below:

    1. (70)
    1. Kogo
    2. whom
    1. ja
    2. I
    1. tol’ko
    2. only
    1. ne
    2. neg
    1. videla.
    2. saw.fsg
    1. ‘I saw everyone (who one could imagine I could see in that situation).’
    2. (Ora Matuskansky; p.c.)

The sentence in (70) includes a wh-word, namely kogo ‘whom’, an instance of the negative marker ne ‘not’ that, at least on the surface, does not contribute sentential negation, and tol’ko ‘only’, which can be considered a conjunction in Gil’s (2013) terms. Moreover, the whole example is interpreted as involving universal quantification in the apparent absence of a typical universal quantifier. These properties bring the Russian construction –let us dub it as the “what-only-not-construction”– strikingly close to the Greek and-what-not-construction.

Other than the surface similarities mentioned above, there are two more empirical reasons to posit a significant parallel between Russian what-only-not-sentences and Greek and-what-not-sentences. First, like its Greek counterpart, the Russian what-only-not-construction is incompatible with wh-words such as kak sil’no or skol’ko ‘how much’:

    1. (71)
    1. *Kak
    2.   how
    1. sil’no
    2. much
    1. on
    2. he
    1. tol’ko
    2. only
    1. ne
    2. neg
    1. vyros.
    2. grew.up.sg
    1.   Intended: ‘He got so much taller.’
    1. (72)
    1. *Skol’ko
    2.   how.much
    1. deneg
    2. money
    1. ja
    2. I
    1. tol’ko
    2. only
    1. ne
    2. neg
    1. potratila.
    2. spent.fsg
    1.   Intended: ‘I spent so much money.’
    2. (Mariia Onoeva and Mariia Razguliaeva; p.c.)

Second, Russian what-only-not-sentences seem to fall into the declarative sentence type too, as they can be used also for explicit (and exhaustive) listing:

    1. (73)
    1. Kogo
    2. who
    1. oni
    2. they
    1. tolʹko
    2. only
    1. ne
    2. neg
    1. eli:
    2. ate
    1. utok,
    2. ducks
    1. fazanov,
    2. pheasants
    1. lebedej-šipunov,
    2. mute-swans
    1. daze
    2. even
    1. vorobʹev
    2. sparrows
    1. i
    2. and
    1. balkanskix
    2. Balkan
    1. čerepax.
    2. turtles
    1. ‘They ate everything: ducks, pheasants, mute-swans, even sparrows and Balkan turtles.’
    2. (Mariia Onoeva and Mariia Razguliaeva; p.c.)

We do not have enough evidence to commit to any strong theoretical claim regarding the syntax and interpretation of Russian what-only-not-sentences at this point. We simply mention in passing that, if one were to extend our analysis of Greek and-what-not-sentences to Russian, they would have to dispense with the non-uniqueness presupposition –which in the Greek case is contributed by ce ‘and’– and possibly take tol’ko ‘only’ to contribute an exhaustivity operator operating on the focus alternatives of the wh-word. At this point we acknowledge the potential similarities and leave the discussion of the Russian data open for future research.

7 Conclusions

The present paper focused on a peculiar construction exhibited by Greek with the following characteristic properties: (i) the licensing of fronted wh-words that denote variables in the absence of an Inter operator, (ii) the obligatory presence of the coordinator ce ‘and’ in the absence of an overtly realized second conjunct, (iii) the obligatory presence of the Greek negative marker ðen in the absence of sentential negation semantics, and (iv) an interpretation involving universal quantification. After disproving several plausible alternative analytical hypotheses, we concluded that the best way to account for what we dubbed as the Greek and-what-not-sentences is to treat the latter as declaratives featuring a fronted wh-phrase. Regarding their interpretation, Greek and-what-not-sentences are existential statements enriched with a non-uniqueness presupposition and a modal statement giving rise to a universal quantification-like inference. Our analysis derived the syntactic and interpretative behavior of the and-what-not-construction as a function of the interaction of its constitutive parts, while ascribing to the negator ðen in and-what-not-sentences a modal interpretation independently available to other non-canonically interpreted negative markers in Greek and other languages. Finally, we showed how the Greek data fit in the typological picture of universal quantifiers formed by conjunction and indefinite pronouns. In this respect the present discussion enriches the empirical typological base while maintaining parametric variation. It also contributes to a better understanding of the mapping between morphosyntax and semantics regarding what looks like sentential negation.

Abbreviations

ClLD = Clitic-Left-Dislocation, C(P) = Complementizer (Phrase), DP = Determiner Phrase, EPP = Extended Projection Principle, EXT = externalization process, Fin = Finiteness, INT = interpretation process, IP = Inflection Phrase, MP = Mood/Modality Phrase, NCI = Negative Concord Item, Neg(P) = Negation (Phrase), NPI = Negative Polarity Item, Op(P) = Operator Phrase, Σ(P) = Polarity (Phrase).

Funding information

The second author acknowledges the Juan de la Cierva Grant JDC2023-051865-I funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by ESF+, and support from the PID2023-150347NB-I00 project funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by FEDER, EU.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and transformative comments that led to a significantly improved version of the initially submitted manuscript, as well as the editorial team of Glossa: a journal of general linguistics for their support. All remaining errors are our own.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Notes

  1. Veloudis (2023) mentions these data in the context of negation without considering the role of the other two elements. On the other hand, Dalpanagioti (2026) puts these constructions under the umbrella of ‘interrogative-negative exclamatives’ based on data from corpora. In the discussion that follows we take the lead from Roussou (2024) and argue that these constructions are neither interrogatives nor exclamatives. [^]
  2. An anonymous reviewer mentions that the and-what-not-interpretation is available even in the absence of ce ‘and’. We do not abide by this judgement. For us, the absence of ce gives a grammatical output but with a different reading, as in ‘guess’ contexts, i.e., (Mantepse) Ti ðen θa fao = ‘(Guess!) What I’m not gonna eat’. Here the meaning is ‘guess what the thing I will not eat is.’ [^]
  3. For more information on the similarities and differences between the Greek sentential negation markers ðen and min, see Veloudis (1982; 2023); Holton et al. (2012); Roussou (2015); Chatzopoulou (2018); Tsiakmakis (2025), among others. [^]
  4. Whether the universal reading is distributive or not is a separate issue, and judgements are not clear-cut. An anonymous reviewer points out that a collective reading may also be available, as in the following example:
      1. (i)
      1. A.
      1. Pça
      2. who.pl
      1. koritsia
      2. girls
      1. efaγan
      2. ate.3pl
      1. pitsa?
      2. pizza
      1. ‘Which girls ate pizza?’
      1.  
      1. B.
      1. Ce
      2. and
      1. pça
      2. who.pl
      1. ðen
      2. neg
      1. efaγan.
      2. ate.3pl
      1. ‘They all did’
    The reading is that they all ate pizza, but not necessarily one each. If this is correct, then the universal reading that arises is not restricted to a distributive vs collective one. We leave this issue open at this point. [^]
  5. Note that the sequence *ce ti cannot be a fragment answer. The sequence ce ti ðen (‘and what not) as an answer to (18Q) is only marginally acceptable. Uttering this fragment further requires lengthening of e in ðen forming a high low prosodic unit. [^]
  6. In some languages, including Greek, negation in exclamatives can be interpreted as “expletive” (Espinal 1997; Portner & Zanuttini 2000; Castroviejo 2006; Eilam 2007; Delfitto & Fiorin 2014, among many others). Crucially, even in such cases, negation is not obligatory and the exclamative gets a quantity- instead of a degree-reading. For more information on the behavior of “expletive” negation in Greek exclamatives, see Tsiakmakis (2023; 2025). [^]
  7. For the sake of completeness, we note that the free relative pronoun oti without the ðipote can be used as an answer to the question in (44) as follows:
      1. (i)
      1. What did she write in the newspaper?
      1. (ii)
      1. Oti
      2. what
      1. na
      2. prt
      1. ne!
      2. be
    The implied reading is that she wrote all sorts of irrelevant things. We do not discuss these cases further as they are beyond the scope of the present paper. [^]
  8. Tsoulas and Yeo (2017) dissociate clause-typing from strategies of wh-clause formation. See also Cable (2010), Yeo (2010), and Slade (2011), among others. [^]
  9. Roussou (2015) argues that the negator min is also a polarity item, thus it can be interpreted as true or expletive depending on the context. Makri (2013) argues that the so-called expletive min with ‘fear’-predicates in Greek marks modality. We consider modality in relation to ðen in Section 5 below. [^]
  10. For simplicity, existential closure of the variable is included in (59). [^]
  11. For a typological overview of additive markers, see König (1991); Forker (2016). [^]
  12. The word order at this stage reflects the initial merge position of the verb and its two arguments. [^]
  13. This is reminiscent of Zanuttini and Portner’s (2000) discussion of the clitic negator no in Paduan. They argue that no, found in exclamatives, has the interpretation that “takes the form of a scalar conventional implicature similar to that generated by even.” [^]
  14. An anonymous reviewer raises the following question with respect to the directionality of operators. Given the discussion in the text and the structure in (57) how does the negator ðen scope over the ce-wh-phrase to reverse its probability scale, given that the latter c-commands the former? The reviewer suggests two possible ways out. One option is to assume that the ce-wh-phrase moves to C via Neg (spec,NegP). The other is to assume that an m-merger operation turns the ce-wh-phrase and ðen into a complex head, which would also explain why NP restrictors are excluded in this case. We are not in favor of these alternatives for the following reasons. The first is built on the assumption that there is a one-to-one mapping between narrow syntax and semantics, forcing movement to Neg. Our discussion regarding (57) showed that such a step is not required, given that the ce-wh-phrase and Neg are in a local configuration. The second alternative is problematic as it requires semantics to be sensitive to a morphological (m-merger) process, that is to an externalization effect. There are other alternatives available however that need not alter the structure in (57). For example, it is possible to assume that negation scopes over the whole structure as part of the INT process (mimicking the LF-raising of Government and Binding). The other option is to assume that the scope effect of negation operates directly on the lower copy of the ce-wh-phrase, which is also responsible for introducing the focus alternatives. We leave the choice between the two open here. [^]
  15. We are grateful to Daria Seres, Ora Matushansky, Mariia Onoeva, Mariia Razguliaeva and Yulia Yakubenkova for generously sharing with us Russian data, their introspective judgments and related insights. The speculative analytical claims advanced in this section are ours alone and so are potential errors. [^]

References

Bhat, Darbhe Narayana Shankara. 2000. The indefinite-interrogative puzzle. Linguistic Typology 4. 365–400.

Cable, Seth. 2010. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392265.001.0001

Canakis, Costas. 1995. Kai: The story of a conjunction. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.

Caponigro, Ivano & Sprouse, Jon. 2007. Rhetorical questions as questions. In Puig-Waldmüller, Estela (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 121–133. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.  http://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2007.v11i0.635

Castroviejo, Elena. 2006. Wh-exclamatives in Catalan. Barcelona: University of Barcelona dissertation.

Castroviejo, Elena. 2010. An expressive answer: Some considerations on the semantics and pragmatics of wh-exclamatives. In Bane, Max & Bueno Holle, José & Grano, Thomas & Lynn Grotberg, April & McNabb, Yaron (eds.), Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 44, Vol. 2, 3–17. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Chatzikyriakidis, Stergios & Michelioudakis, Dimitris & Spathas, Giorgos. 2015. Greek focus operators and their associates. In Papanastasiou, Giorgos & Koutsoyannis, Dimitris & Theodoropoulou, Maria (eds.), Studies in Greek Linguistics 35, 167–179. Thessaloniki: Institouto Neoellinikon Spoudon.

Chatzopoulou, Aikaterini. 2018. Negation and non-veridicality in the history of Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198712404.001.0001

Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On WH-movement. In Cullicover, Peter W. & Wasow, Thomas & Akmajian, Adrian (eds.), Formal syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. The framework. In Martin, Roger & Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–53. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004

Dalpanagioti, Thomai. 2026. From lexico- to constructico-graphy in Modern Greek: The case of interrogative-negative exclamatives. Journal of Greek Linguistics 26(1). 40–67.  http://doi.org/10.1163/15699846-02601005

Delfitto, Denis & Fiorin, Gaetano. 2014. Negation in exclamatives. Studia Linguistica 68(3). 284–327.  http://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12024

Eilam, Aviad. 2007. Expletive negation in Modern Hebrew: Neither expletive nor negation. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics (IATL). Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Eilam, Aviad. 2009. The crosslinguistic realization of -ever: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Elliott, Malcolm & Kirby, James & Sawada, Osamu & Staraki, Eleni & Yoon, Suwon (eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 2, 39–53. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Elliott, Dale E. 1974. Toward a grammar of exclamatives. Foundations of Language 11. 231–246.

Espinal, M. Teresa. 1997. Non-negative negation and Wh-exclamatives. In Forget, Danielle & Hirschbühler, Paul & Martineau, France & Rivero, María Luisa (eds.), Negation and polarity: Syntax and semantics, 75–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  http://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.155.05esp

Forker, Diana. 2016. Toward a typology for additive markers. Lingua 180. 69–100.  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.03.008

Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  http://doi.org/10.1075/la.23

Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2001. The meaning of free choice. Linguistics and Philosophy 24. 659–735.  http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012758115458

Gil, David. 2013. Conjunctions and Universal Quantifiers. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), WALS Online (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/56, Accessed on 8 February 2026).  http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591

Gil, Kook-Hee & Tsoulas, George. 2013. Features, concord, and quantification: Licensing of conjunctive quantifiers and its implications. In Gil, Kook-Hee & Harlow, Stephen & Tsoulas, George (eds.), Strategies of quantification, 155–172. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199692439.003.0008

Grimshaw, Jane. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 279–326.

Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier & Andueza, Patricia. 2017. Embedded exclamatives and the ingredients of grounded belief. In Bosque, Ignacio (ed.), Advances in the analysis of Spanish exclamatives, 181–210. Ohio: Ohio State University Press.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.  http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198235606.001.0001

Holton, David & Mackridge, Peter & Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 2012 [1997]. Greek: A comprehensive grammar of the modern language. Revised by Vassilios Spyropoulos. London: Routledge.  http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203802380

Huddleston, Rodney. 1994. The contrast between interrogatives and questions. Journal of Linguistics 30. 411–439.  http://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016704

Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil Achuthan. 2001. Questions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam. Syntax 4(2). 63–83.  http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00037

König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles. A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.

Makri, Maria Margarita. 2013. Expletive negation beyond Romance. Clausal complementation and epistemic modality. York: University of York MA dissertation.

Manzini, M. Rita. 1995. From merge and move to form dependency. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7. 323–345.

Manzini, M. Rita & Savoia, Leonardo M. 2012. On the lexical/functional divide: The case of negation. In Brugé, Laura & Cardinaletti, Anna & Giusti, Giuliana & Munaro, Nicola & Poletto, Cecilia (eds.), Functional heads, Volume 7: The cartography of syntactic structures, 338–350. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746736.003.0026

Michaelis, Laura. 2001. Exclamative constructions. In Haspelmath, Martin & König, Ekkehard & Oesterreicher, Wulf & Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language universals and language typology. An international handbook, 1038–1050. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.  http://doi.org/10.1515/9783110194265-016

Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1990. Quantification in the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Springer.  http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1972-3

Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Reuland, Eric J. & ter Meulen, Alice G. B. (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Poletto, Cecilia. 2005. Sì and e as CP expletives in Old Italian. In Batllori, Montserrat & Hernanz, Maria-Lluïsa & Picallo, Carme & Roca, Francesc (eds.), Grammaticalization and parametric variation, 206–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272129.003.0013

Portner, Paul & Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2000. The force of negation in wh exclamatives and interrogatives. In Horn, Laurence & Kato, Yasuhiko (eds.), Negation and polarity, 193–231. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238744.003.0007

Reese, Brian & Asher, Nicholas. 2009. Biased questions, intonation and discourse. In Zimmermann, Malte & Féry, Caroline (eds.), Information structure. Theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectives, 139–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0007

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook of generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.  http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7

Rohde, Hannah. 2006. Rhetorical questions as redundant interrogatives. San Diego Linguistic Papers 2. 134–168. http://repositories.cdlib.org/ucsdling/sdlp2/7.

Roussou, Anna. 2000. On the left periphery: Modal particles and complementisers. Journal of Greek Linguistics 1. 65–94.  http://doi.org/10.1075/jgl.1.05rou

Roussou, Anna. 2015. Is particle a unified category? In Bayer, Josef & Hinterhölzl, Roland & Trotzke, Andreas (eds.), Discourse-oriented syntax, 121–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  http://doi.org/10.1075/la.226.06rou

Roussou, Anna. 2024. A peculiar distribution of wh-phrases in Greek. Paper presented at the 26th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Roussou, Anna & Vlachos, Christos. 2024. The morphosyntax of wh-pronouns in Greek: implications for parametrization. Ms. University of Patras.

Sadock, Jerrold. 1971. Queclaratives. In Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 223–232. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Sadock, Jerrold & Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sinopoulou, Ourania. 2009. Aples erotiseis me erotimatiki leksi in situ: i periptosi ton Ellinikon [Simple questions with wh-in situ: the case of Greek]. In Giannakis, Georgios & Baltazani, Mary & Xydopoulos, Georgios & Tsaggalidis, Anastasios (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Ioannina 30 August–2 September 2007, 1118–1132. Ioannina: University of Ioannina.

Slade, Benjamin Martin. 2011. Formal and philological inquiries into the nature of interrogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in Sinhala and other languages. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Ph.D. dissertation.

Szabolsci, Anna. 2013. Quantifier particles and compositionality. In Aloni, Maria & Franke, Michael & Roelofsen, Floris (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 27–34. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.

Szabolsci, Anna. 2015. What do quantifier particles do? Linguistics and Philosophy 38. 159–204.  http://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9166-z

Tsiakmakis, Evripidis. 2023. Expletiveness across functional categories: Evidence from Greek. Barcelona: Autonomous University of Barcelona dissertation.

Tsiakmakis, Evripidis. 2025. On the non-homogeneity of expletive negation in Greek and beyond. Linguistics.  http://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2024-0063

Tsiakmakis, Evripidis & Borràs-Comes, Joan & Espinal, M. Teresa. 2023. Greek non-negative min, epistemic modality, and positive bias. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 41. 1257–1285.  http://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-022-09565-y

Tsiakmakis, Evripidis & Espinal, M. Teresa. 2022. Expletiveness in grammar and beyond. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 7(1).  http://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5807

Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria. 1995. Focusing in Modern Greek. In Kiss, Katalin É. (ed.), Discourse configurational languages, 176–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195088335.003.0007

Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria & Roussou, Anna. 1996. Negation and polarity items in Modern Greek. The Linguistic Review 13. 49–81.  http://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1996.13.1.49

Tsoulas, George & Yeo, Norman. 2017. Scope assignment: From wh- to QR. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2(1). 87. 1–33.  http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.308

Tzartzanos, Achilleas. 1989. Neoelliniki sintaxis [Modern Greek syntax]. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidi.

Veloudis, Ioannis. 2018. Exploiting polar questions for expressive purposes: “Queclaratives” and “whimperatives” in Modern Greek. Lingua 204. 117–133.  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.12.008

Veloudis, Ioannis. 2023. Negation in Modern Greek revisited: selecting between two speaker-based accounts. Folia Linguistica 57(3). 689–721.  http://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2023-2027

Villalba, Xavier. 2004. Exclamatives and negation. Ms. Autonomous University of Barcelona. https://clt.uab.cat/publicacions_clt/reports/pdf/GGT-04-2.pdf

Vlachos, Christos. 2012. Wh-constructions and the division of labour between syntax and the interfaces. Patras: University of Patras Ph.D. dissertation.

Vlachos, Christos. 2014. Wh-inquiries into Modern Greek and their theoretical import(ance). Journal of Greek Linguistics 14(2). 212–247.  http://doi.org/10.1163/15699846-01402003

Vlachos, Christos & Chiou, Michalis. 2020. The syntax, semantics and pragmatics of ‘optional’ wh-in situ in Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 20(1). 102–131.  http://doi.org/10.1163/15699846-02001001

von Fintel, Kai. 2000. Whatever. In Jackson, Brendan & Matthews, Tanya (eds.), Proceedings of SALT X, 27–40. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.  http://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v10i0.3101

Yeo, Norman. 2010. Unifying optional wh-movement. York: University of York dissertation.

Zanuttini, Raffaella & Portner, Paul. 2000. The characterization of exclamative clauses in Paduan. Language 76(1). 123–132.  http://doi.org/10.2307/417396

Zanuttini, Raffaella & Portner, Paul. 2003. Exclamative clauses: At the syntax–semantics interface. Language 79(1). 39–81.  http://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0105