Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Reading: Reconstructing Clitic Doubling

Download

A- A+
Alt. Display

Research

Reconstructing Clitic Doubling

Author:

Nikos Angelopoulos

University of California, Los Angeles, US
X close

Abstract

This paper systematically investigates reconstruction properties of Greek clitic doubled objects, motivates an analysis, and shows how this new evidence distinguishes between the numerous existing analyses of Clitic Doubling (CD). It is shown that CD-ed objects are externally merged in argument positions, not adjunct (pace Philippaki-Warburton et al. 2004) and that they must undergo XP/Xmax movement, by contrast to non CD-ed objects, into the middle field between vP and TP, like A-scrambling (Sportiche 1996). Alternative analyses where the doubled object undergoes X0/Xmin movement (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1997; Preminger 2019 i.a.) or feature movement (Anagnostopoulou 2003; Marchis & Alexiadou 2013) are shown to be unable to capture this data. Furthermore, the paper argues that CD-ed XPs undergo movement into the middle field in order to license a syntactic feature that relates to their interpretive properties. It also considers the interpretive properties of clitics, and shows that they are expletive determiners lacking semantic import. Lastly, it suggests that clitics can only be present if certain locality conditions are satisfied.

How to Cite: Angelopoulos, N. (2019). Reconstructing Clitic Doubling. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 118. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.748
244
Views
48
Downloads
2
Twitter
  Published on 31 Oct 2019
 Accepted on 04 May 2019            Submitted on 11 Jul 2018

1 Introduction

This paper explores and provides concrete answers about the syntactic position in which Greek CD-ed objects enter the derivation, the kind of syntactic movement they undergo and the height of the syntactic positions that are involved in this movement dependency. This is certainly not the first attempt in the literature. Several previous analyses have undertaken this task without reaching consensus though. Thus, one can find analyses in which the CD-ed XPs enter the derivation as arguments (Sportiche 1996; Anagnostopoulou 2003; Harizanov 2014; Baker & Kramer 2018 i.a.) or as adjuncts (Warburton 1977; Aoun 1985; Philippaki-Warburton 1987; Philippaki-Warburton et al. 2004 i.a.). This is one point in which the possible analyses of CD diverge. Another point has to do with the kind of movement that CD-ed objects undergo. For instance, CD-ed objects have been argued to undergo XP/Xmax movement from the thematic position into the middle field, as in scrambling of the Germanic languages (cf. Uriagereka 1995; Sportiche 1996; Harizanov 2014), or to stay in situ and the doubling clitic to be a spell out of feature movement (cf. Anagnostopoulou 2003; Marchis & Alexiadou 2013), plain head movement (cf. Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1997) or long head movement (cf. Rezac 2008; Roberts 2010b; Preminger 2019).

This paper resolves the conflicts that arise in these previous analyses by looking at interpretive properties, specifically, reconstruction properties, which as I discuss, bear directly on the more adequate analysis of Greek CD, and rule out several types of analyses which have been pursued in the literature. Concretely, I show using a set of well-established reconstruction diagnostics that CD-ed direct objects of Greek can only be interpreted in two positions, below the indirect object and in the middle field. The middle field position is situated above vP but lower than the position where dative clitics are interpreted, and it is an A-position, as CD-ed objects can bind from there into lower syntactic positions. The position below the indirect object is the argument position where CD-ed objects enter the derivation before they undergo XP/Xmax movement into the middle field. Furthermore, I show that feature or long head movement analyses have to be precluded because they cannot account in a principled way for the fact that CD-ed objects have interpretive properties different from these of undoubled objects. Lastly, building on Angelopoulos & Sportiche (2018) and on new data involving CD of experiencer arguments, I draw two new independent conclusions regarding the grammatical contribution of clitics. The first is that Greek clitics do not have referential import. Moreover, clitics are not specified with features such as –Focus or +familiar; only their associate XP i.e. the CD-ed object is. Given this, I propose as in Kallulli (2008), that CD-ed objects must undergo movement into a middle field syntactic position, like scrambled XP objects of Hindi or the Germanic languages, in order to license the –Focus or +familiar feature via Spec head.

Showing that arguments in Greek can undergo scrambling into the middle field has a number of theoretical consequences. First, it corroborates the conclusion in Sportiche (1996) that scrambling of the type found in Hindi or other languages is a lot more pervasive in natural languages than is usually thought. Second, since the alternative X0/Xmin analyses of CD are ruled out, the paper further concludes that scrambling can only be realized as XP/Xmax movement cross-linguistically, and that it cannot be parameterized e.g. as X0/Xmin movement, (pace Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1997; 1998). In addition, given that CD is realized as XP/Xmax movement instead of X0/Xmin, an additional conclusion of this paper is that XP movement is the preferred mode of syntactic remerge (pace Preminger 2019), as has independently been argued in Koopman & Szabolcsi (2000); Mahajan (2003); Cinque (2005; 2010).

The paper proceeds with an overview of previous literature on CD, showing the conflicts that arise and the lack of clear conclusions as to whether Greek doubled objects are adjuncts or arguments. Section 2 presents reconstruction diagnostics. These diagnostics show that CD-ed objects enter the derivation as arguments, and that they undergo an A-movement step, which can only be XP/Xmax targeting a position between vP and the position in which dative clitics are interpreted (Section 3). Section 4 discusses different approaches to CD which do not integrate an XP/Xmax movement step and shows that these approaches cannot account for the interpretive properties of CD-ed objects. In the same section, I also show that clitics do not have interpretive import that matters for binding purposes. Section 5 shows that CD-ed objects are interpreted as –Focus and that this interpretive property is encoded as a syntactic feature that needs to be licensed via movement to the middle field (cf. Kallulli 2000), like A-scrambling of Hindi or Japanese. This section also shows that the position to which CD-ed objects move is not the clitic position. Section 6 discusses few tentative ideas regarding the optional presence of clitics in CD and residual issues. Section 7 concludes.

1.1 CD-ed objects: Adjuncts or arguments

This section presents the current state of affairs about analysis of Greek CD in the literature and shows that the empirical data discussed in this literature are compatible with different assumptions about the kind of position i.e. argument or adjunct, that CD-ed objects can occupy.

To start with, previous literature on CD has concluded that the doubled objects of Greek are arguments considering syntactic positions where adjuncts are excluded and testing whether CD-ed objects can occur in them. The syntactic positions that were tested are the subject positions of e.g. control or ECM, and it was observed that CD-ed objects can occur in them, as shown in (1). Given this, it was concluded that Greek CD-ed objects can be arguments (cf. Collins 1990; Schneider-Zioga 1994; Sportiche 1996; Anagnostopoulou 1999a).

    1. (1)
    1. a.
    1. O
    2. the
    1. Janis
    2. John.NOM
    1. tin
    2. 3S.F.ACC
    1. ekane
    2. made.3S
    1. tin
    2. the
    1. Maria
    2. Maria.S.F.ACC
    1. na
    2. na
    1. chari.
    2. be happy.3S
    1. ‘John made Maria happy.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. O
    2. the
    1. Janis
    2. John.NOM
    1. tin
    2. 3S.F.ACC
    1. perimeni
    2. expect.3S
    1. ke
    2. and
    1. tin
    2. the
    1. Maria
    2. Maria.S.F.ACC
    1. na
    2. na
    1. paraponethi.
    2. complain.3S
    1. ‘John expects Maria to complain.’

However, most recently, Philippaki-Warburton et al. (2004) argue that constructions like the ones in (1) are compatible with an analysis of CD in which doubled objects are adjuncts with the clitic first merging in the argument position. Under this view, (1a) “must be analysed as an object control construction, where the DP [ti Maria] is the double to the clitic ‘tin’ and an adjunct in VP followed by the complement clause in subjunctive.” Philippaki-Warburton et al. also claim that examples like (1b) can be analyzed along similar lines as object control. While this is not the view that will be adopted in this paper, the data in (1) are compatible with the alternative presented in Philippaki-Warburton et al. (2004) challenging the conclusions of Collins (1990); Schneider-Zioga (1994); Sportiche (1996) and Anagnostopoulou (1999a).

Anagnostopoulou (2003) argues that Greek CD-ed objects can occur in argument positions on the basis of a distributional difference in doubling of Greek and Romance languages. Concretely, Anagnostopoulou shows that CD-ed objects can surface before postverbal focused subjects, as in (2). Anagnostopoulou also notes that the subject in this case can bear main sentence stress like in plain VOS orders.

    1. (2)
    1. Anagnostopoulou (to appear: 59a–b)
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. Pjos
    2. who
    1. tin
    2. 3.S.F.ACC
    1. efaghe
    2. ate.3S
    1. tin
    2. the
    1. turta?
    2. cake.S.F.ACC
    1. ‘Who ate the cake?’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Tin
    2. 3.S.F.ACC
    1. efaghe
    2. ate.3S
    1. tin
    2. the
    1. turta
    2. cake.S.F.ACC
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Janis.
    2. John.NOM
    1. ‘John ate the cake.’

On the other hand, she claims that the surface order in (2b) is never attested in Romance languages e.g. Peninsular Spanish and Catalan, which independently allow an object to be preceded by a doubling clitic. Anagnostopoulou (2003) argues that the CD-ed object in (2b) occupies a syntactic position, which is only available for arguments, and that this is also the position that undoubled objects occupy when they surface in the VOS order. In particular, the assumption that Anagnostopoulou (2003) adopts from previous literature for this order is that it is derived via leftward A-movement of the object from the argument position into a position higher than the post-verbal subject. She concludes that Peninsular Spanish and Catalan do not allow the surface order in (2) because these languages have only clitic right dislocation. Clitic right dislocated objects have distinct distributional properties because they do not occupy argument positions like CD-ed objects. Importantly, in a recent intonation study, Revithiadou & Spyropoulos (2009) show that in the VOS order, the object always forms a distinct prosodic unit from the verb if it is doubled by a preceding clitic. On the other hand, if the object is not doubled by a clitic it can form a prosodic unit with the verb. This finding suggests that CLi-VOiS order cannot be treated on a par with the plain VOS one (pace Anagnostopoulou 2003). Furthermore, Krapova & Cinque (2008: 29b) present data showing that the order in (2b) with a focused subject, exactly like in Greek, is allowed in Italian, as illustrated in (3).

    1. (3)
    1. Non
    2. not
    1. l’
    2. 3.S.F.ACC
    1. ha
    2. has.3S
    1. mangiata,
    2. eat.PART
    1. la
    2. the
    1. torta,
    2. cake.S.F.ACC
    1. neanche
    2. not even
    1. Gianni.
    2. Gianni
    1. ‘Not even Gianni ate the cake.’

As Krapova & Cinque (2008) point out, this finding poses a problem for the claim, e.g. in Anagnostopoulou (2003), that doubling of languages like Italian or other Romance languages e.g. Catalan or Peninsular Spanish, should be treated as a distinct syntactic phenomenon from CD.12 Now, since the CD vs. right dislocation distinction of Anagnostopoulou (2003) is weakened in light of the Italian facts and the intonation study of Revithiadou & Spyropoulos (2009), (2b) cannot show conclusively whether the CD-ed object is an argument, therefore, the adjunct status of CD-ed objects (Philippaki-Warburton et al. 2004) is a possible alternative, which cannot be immediately ruled out. This view holds that the doubled object in (2b) is a left adjunct above Spec vP where the post-verbal subject is hosted. Again, the view of Philippaki-Warburton et al. (2004) will not be adopted but it cannot be rejected on the basis of (2).

Finally, let us consider the data in (4a) and (4b). These data illustrate that possessor extraction is possible out of undoubled definites (cf. Horrocks & Stavrou 1987). On the other hand, Philippaki-Warburton et al. (2004) and Revithiadou & Spyropoulos (2009) point out that CD-ed objects block possessor extraction for focus or wh-movement, (5):

    1. (4)
    1. a.
    1. Odhighisa
    2. drove.1S
    1. [ to
    2.   the
    1. aftokinito
    2. car.S.N.ACC
    1. tu
    2. the
    1. Jorghu].
    2. George.GEN
    1. ‘I drove George’s car.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Pjanuj
    2. whose.GEN
    1. odhighises
    2. drove.2S
    1. [ to
    2.   the
    1. aftokinito
    2. car.S.N.ACC
    1. tj]?
    2.  
    1. ‘Whose car did you drive?’
    1. (5)
    1. a.
    1.   Toi
    2.   3S.N.ACC
    1. odhighises
    2. drove.2S
    1. [ to
    2.   the
    1. aftokinito
    2. car.S.N.ACC
    1. tu
    2. the
    1. Jorghu]i.
    2. George.GEN
    1.    ‘I drove George’s car.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *[Tu
    2.   the
    1. Jorghu]j
    2. George.GEN
    1. toi
    2. 3S.N.ACC
    1. odhighises
    2. drove.2S
    1. [ to
    2.   the
    1. aftokinito
    2. car.S.N.ACC
    1. tj]i.
    2.  
    1.    ‘George’s car I drove.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. *[Pjanu]j
    2.   whose.GEN
    1. toi
    2. 3S.N.ACC
    1. odhighises
    2. drove.2S
    1. [ to
    2.   the
    1. aftokinito
    2. car.S.N.ACC
    1. j]i?
    2.  
    1.    ‘Whose car did you drive?’

Based on this observation, Philippaki-Warburton et al. (2004) and Revithiadou & Spyropoulos (2009) claim that the behavior of CD-ed objects with respect to extraction is not expected in an analysis in which the CD-ed objects are arguments, like the corresponding undoubled ones in (4). Note, however, that (4b) does not form real minimal pairs with (5b) and (5c). CD-ed objects are necessarily marked as –Focus whereas undoubled objects are not (cf. Warburton 1975; Kallulli 2000). More specifically, Warburton (1975: 568–569) argues that CD-ed objects cannot be stressed or focal. The fact that Greek CD-ed objects are marked as –Focus is illustrated in (6) where it is shown that the CD-ed DP cannot be combined with a focus marker like akoma-‘even’ (cf. Kallulli 2000):

    1. (6)
    1. I
    2. the
    1. Maria
    2. Maria.NOM
    1. (* tin)
    2.     3S.F.ACC
    1. episkeftike
    2. visited.3S
    1. akoma ke
    2. even
    1. tin
    2. the
    1. Indhia.
    2. India.S.F.ACC
    1. ‘Maria even visited India.’

Now, since the CD-ed DP has to be –Focus, I argue that (5b) is ruled out because the possessor argument hosted within the CD-ed DP cannot be marked as +Focus and undergo focus movement. Similarly, (5c) is ruled out because wh-items are obligatorily +Focus (cf. Horvath 1986; Brody 1990 i.a.). In other words, the possessor cannot undergo focus or wh-movement in which case it would have to be +Focus possibly because the whole doubled DP, that is, to aftokinito tu Jorghu in (5a), constitutes a –Focus domain. Given this, the syntactic position of CD-ed objects cannot be revealed by the data in (5b) and (5c) because the extraction restrictions in these examples are expected to arise regardless of the syntactic position of the CD-ed object i.e. adjunct or argument.

To sum up, the discussion so far must have shown that the question regarding the position in which doubled objects enter the derivation in Greek has not yet been sorted out. The following sections aim to bring further clarity in this discussion. This is achieved by using new evidence which is derived from a systematic investigation of the reconstruction properties of Greek doubled objects.

2 Background on reconstruction

This section summarizes the assumptions that will be adopted regarding reconstruction. These assumptions were also adopted in Angelopoulos & Sportiche (2018), who explore the reconstruction properties of Clitic Left Dislocated objects in Greek and French. I adopt the following assumptions:3

(7) a. Reconstruction is a property of movement dependencies only.4
  b. Movement is modeled as copying (the copy theory of traces). Reconstruction arises when a trace is interpreted at LF: in other words, with low-XP the trace of high-XP, reconstruction of high-XP = interpret low-XP.
  c. Total reconstruction refers to the situation in which only a low trace is interpreted at LF: total reconstruction = delete high-XP & interpret low-XP.5

Let us now consider a few examples. (8) illustrates reconstruction effects with A-bar movement (cf. Sportiche 2017). Here, a pronoun within the wh-moved phrase can be interpreted as a variable bound by the quantifier phrase (QP) which does not outscope it. The pronoun can be interpreted as a bound variable only if it is interpreted within the scope of the quantifier i.e. if it is c-commanded. Thus, the moved constituent has to undergo reconstruction in this particular case, as shown in (9). The fact that reconstruction is possible suggests that A-bar movement “can leave a contentful copy”, as Takahashi & Hulsey (2009: 390) argue,6 in the argument position of the verb.

(8) Sportiche (2017: 9a, 10a)
  a. No politiciani ignores [many of hisi collaborators].
  b. [Which of hisi collaborators] does no politiciani ignore?

    1. (9)
    1. [Which picture of hisi father] does no politiciani ignore [picture of hisi father]?

A-bar movement obligatorily leaves a contentful copy. This fact is exemplified with sentences like (10) where Condition C blocks a coreferential relation between the proper name and the subject pronoun.

    1. (10)
    1. *Which picture of Johni does hei like?

Condition C effects like the one in (10) shows that A-bar movement is the only derivational option from below the position of the triggering pronoun. If there was no movement involved in (10), we should not observe any Condition C violation. In addition, if A-bar movement did not leave a contentful copy, it would be totally unclear why Condition C ensues. Furthermore, like A-bar moved constituents, A-moved constituents can undergo total reconstruction for purposes of pronominal binding, as shown in (11). This shows that A-movement can leave a contentful copy.

    1. (11)
    1. Sportiche (2017: 55a)
    2. Pictures of hisi child seemed to everyonei to be good [pictures of hisi child].

Next, I consider cases in which Condition C is bled. These are cases in which a proper name (or definite description) is contained in an adjunct or a relative clause combining with a moved constituent, as in (12).

    1. (12)
    1. Which picture that Picassoi likes a lot did hei sell?

These effects have been accounted for by late merging the relative clause (cf. Lebeaux 1991 i.a.). I will be referring to these effects in terms of Late Merge, however, the reference to this term is only used for descriptive purposes i.e. to describe the reconstruction effects accounted for by Late Merge.78 Importantly, the effects accounted for by Late Merge can be used to detect the syntactic height of movement, as in Cecchetto (1999). For instance, (12) shows that which picture has undergone movement to a position higher than the pronoun. The wh-phrase can be interpreted at LF in this position which allows the relative clause to undergo Late Merge. Condition C does not ensue after Late Merge has taken place because the proper name is not in the c-command domain of the pronoun.

3 Reconstruction in CD

In this section I lay out the key facts from a nearly exhaustive investigation of the reconstruction properties that CD-ed direct objects exhibit in Greek in order to determine if they enter the derivation as arguments or adjuncts and if they undergo movement, what kind of movement they undergo and to which syntactic positions. I show that CD-ed objects enter the derivation as arguments and that they do not move higher than the subject or the dative clitic. Moreover, I present data showing that CD-ed objects move to a vP peripheral position and that this movement has to be XP/Xmax movement.

3.1 CD-ed objects are arguments

In this section I show that CD-ed objects enter the derivation as arguments. To start with, consider (13a) which shows that a plain undoubled direct object hosting a pronoun can be interpreted in the argument position where the pronoun is bound by an indirect object QP scoping below negation, as shown in the translation. In (13b), I show that binding into the CD-ed direct object is possible under identical conditions i.e. with the quantifier scoping below negation.

    1. (13)
    1. a.
    1. Dhen
    2. not
    1. edhiksa
    2. showed.1S
    1. se
    2. to
    1. kapjo
    2. some
    1. fititii
    2. student.ACC
    1. to
    2. the
    1. paso
    2. ID.S.N.ACC
    1. tui.
    2. his.GEN
    1. ‘I did not show his ID to any student.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Dhen
    2. not
    1. to
    2. 3.S.N.ACC
    1. edhiksa
    2. showed.1S
    1. se
    2. to
    1. kapjo
    2. some
    1. fititii
    2. student.ACC
    1. to
    2. the
    1. paso
    2. ID.S.N.ACC
    1. tui.
    2. his.GEN
    1. ‘I did not show his ID to any student.’

This new finding shows that CD-ed objects can be interpreted in the argument position exactly like undoubled arguments and be bound by a low scoping quantifier. In Section 3.4, I show that CD-ed objects undergo obligatorily an A-movement step into the middle field. Given this, I argue that the bound interpretation in (13b) becomes possible under total reconstruction of the CD-ed direct object from the middle field into a position below the indirect object QP, which is the argument position occupied by the undoubled object in (13a).910

Importantly, previous literature has concluded that Greek CD-ed objects cannot undergo reconstruction. In particular, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1997) point out that the direct object can bind into a PP indirect object as shown in (14a). However, since PPs cannot be CD-ed in Greek, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou construct examples with CD of dative indirect objects as in (14b), where it is shown that pronominal binding is not possible in this case.

    1. (14)
    1. Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1997: 6a–b)
    1.  
    1. a.
    1.   O
    2.   the
    1. Janis
    2. John.NOM
    1. sistise
    2. introduced.3S
    1. kathe
    2. every
    1. jinekai
    2. woman.ACC
    1. s-ton
    2. to-the
    1. melodiko
    2. future
    1. adra
    2. husband.ACC
    1. tisi.
    2. her.GEN
    1.    ‘John introduced every woman to her future husband.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *O
    2.   the
    1. Janis
    2. John.NOM
    1. tu
    2. 3S.M.DAT
    1. sistise
    2. introduced.3S
    1. kathe
    2. every
    1. jinekai
    2. woman.ACC
    1. tu
    2. the
    1. melodiku
    2. future
    1. adra
    2. husband.S.M.DAT
    1. tisi.
    2. her.GEN
    1.    ‘John introduced every woman to her future husband.’

Based on the contrast between (14a) and (14b), Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou conclude that the CD-ed indirect object in (14b) is interpreted in a position higher than the direct object due to (some kind of) movement that the CD-ed object undergoes to this higher position. In addition, they assume that pronominal binding is not possible into the CD-ed indirect object because it cannot undergo total reconstruction below the direct object. Note that the detail that Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1997) do not discuss is that the two sentences in (14) do not form a minimal pair. In (14a), the indirect object is a PP whereas in (14b), it is a dative DP. Moreover, pronominal binding is not expected to be possible in (14b) because bare direct object QPs cannot bind into undoubled dative indirect objects in the first place (cf. Anagnostopoulou 2003). This latter fact is illustrated below:

    1. (15)
    1. a.
    1. *O
    2.   the
    1. Janis
    2. John.NOM
    1. sistise
    2. introduced.3S
    1. tu
    2. the
    1. melodiku
    2. future
    1. adra
    2. husband.DAT
    1. tisj
    2. her.GEN
    1. kathe
    2. every
    1. jinekaj.
    2. woman.ACC
    1.    ‘John introduced every woman to her future husband.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *O
    2.   the
    1. Janis
    2. John.NOM
    1. sistise
    2. introduced.3S
    1. kathe
    2. every
    1. jinekaj
    2. woman.ACC
    1. tu
    2. the
    1. melodiku
    2. future
    1. adra
    2. husband.DAT
    1. tisj.
    2. her.GEN
    1.    ‘John introduced every woman to her future husband.’

Given the above, I argue that the data presented in Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1997) do not pose any challenge to the conclusion that CD-ed direct objects can undergo reconstruction.

3.2 CD-ed XPs do not move higher than the subject

This section examines whether CD-ed objects can be interpreted higher than the subject. Thus, I compare only for the purposes of this section the interpretive properties of CD-ed objects to these of C(litic) L(eft) D(islocat)ed ones.11 CLLD-ed objects are used as a benchmark case, as they surface in the left periphery above the subject, and as shown in (16), can be interpreted in the left periphery.

    1. (16)
    1. [Tis
    2. the
    1. fotoghrafies
    2. photos.PL.F.ACC
    1. pu
    2. that
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Janisk
    2. John.NOM
    1. evghale
    2. took.3S
    1. s-to
    2. in-the
    1. Parisi]
    2. Paris.ACC
    1. prok
    2. he.NOM
    1. tis
    2. 3PL.F.ACC
    1. ksechase
    2. forgot.3S
    1. (sto
    2.   in-the
    1. sirtari
    2. drawer.ACC
    1. tu).
    2. his.GEN
    1. ‘He forgot (in his drawer) the photos that John took in Paris.’

In (16), the CLLD-ed object is combined with a relative clause that contains a proper name i.e. pu o Janis evghale sto Parisi, and the proper name is shown to be able to corefer with the silent subject of ksechase. This shows that the CLLD-ed object can be interpreted in the left periphery, allowing the relative clause to undergo Late Merge with it, which in turn is responsible for bleeding Condition C, as the proper name ends up being interpreted outside the c-command domain of the silent subject pronoun in (16). If CD-ed objects could occur in the left periphery either in the specifier of a TopicP or as adjuncts to a left peripheral projection, like CLLD-ed objects, they should be able to bleed Condition C when they combine with a relative clause. If they do not bleed Condition C, this will in turn suggest that CD-ed objects do not move higher than the subject or that they cannot adjoin to any projection higher than the subject. Note that the latter would be totally unexpected if CD-ed were DP adjuncts as they should in principle be allowed to freely adjoin XPs at different levels. Interestingly, I show that when a CD-ed object combines with a relative clause containing a proper name, coreference between the proper name and the silent subject is blocked, (17).12

    1. (17)
    1. prok
    2. he.NOM
    1. tis
    2. 3PL.F.ACC
    1. ksechase
    2. forgot.3S
    1. [tis
    2.   the
    1. fotoghrafies
    2. photos.PL.F.ACC
    1. pu
    2. that
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Janisk
    2. John.NOM
    1. evghale
    2. took.3S.
    1. s-to
    2. in-the
    1. Parisi].
    2. Paris.ACC
    1. ‘He forgot the photos that John took in Paris.’

Similar facts have first been reported for Italian in Cecchetto (1999); Cardinaletti (2002) and for Dutch in Koopman (2007: 171). I take these facts to provide evidence that CD-ed objects are not adjuncts in Greek, and that if they undergo any movement step, this movement step must be targeting a position below the position where silent subject pronouns are hosted. In Rizzi (1986), this position has to be Spec TP where pro undergoes movement in order to be identified. More recently, the idea that pro is in Spec TP had been defended in Rizzi (1997); Cardinaletti (2004); Holmberg (2005) and Roberts (2010a). Following this previous literature, I assume that subject pro is indeed in Spec TP. Moreover, I assume that pro can only be interpreted in Spec TP. In other words, pro cannot undergo reconstruction to Spec vP where it originates. I suggest that this is so as a result of the fact that A-moved pronouns do not undergo reconstruction. In Sportiche (2017), the fact that A-moved pronouns do not reconstruct was shown on the basis of the following pair from English (see also Angelopoulos & Sportiche 2018):

(18) Angelopoulos & Sportiche (2018: 42a–b)
  a. *Hek seems to Johnk’s father to be tk happy.
  b.   It seems to Johnk’s father that hek is happy.

(18a) is ruled out under a coreference reading between he and John. However, if the raised pronoun could undergo reconstruction, it should be binding theoretically equivalent to (18b). The fact that it is not suggests that A-moved pronouns do not reconstruct.13

3.3 CD-ed objects do not move higher than dative clitics

In this section I examine the interaction with respect to Condition C between CD-ed direct objects and dative clitics in order to determine the relative height of movement of the first with respect to the latter. In previous literature, Condition C has been argued to rule out coreference between a dative clitic and a definite description hosted within an undoubled direct object, (19a). This literature also reports that if the direct object is CD-ed, Condition C is obviated, as in (19b).

    1. (19)
    1. Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1997: 10a–b)
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. *O
    2.   the
    1. Janis
    2. John.NOM
    1. tisi
    2. 3S.F.DAT
    1. epestrepse
    2. returned.3S
    1. to
    2. the
    1. vivlio
    2. book.S.N.ACC
    1. tis
    2. the
    1. Mariasi
    2. Maria.GEN
    1. simiomeno.
    2. noted
    1.    ‘John returned Mary’s book to her noted.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. ?O
    2.   the
    1. Janis
    2. John.NOM
    1. tisi
    2. 3S.F.DAT
    1. to
    2. 3.S.N.ACC
    1. epestrepse
    2. returned3S
    1. to
    2. the
    1. vivlio
    2. book.S.N.ACC
    1. tis
    2. the
    1. Mariasi
    2. Maria.GEN
    1. simiomeno.
    2. noted
    1.    ‘John returned Mary’s book to her noted.’

Based on this contrast, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou conclude that Condition C is obviated in (19b) because the doubled object undergoes (some kind) of A-movement across the dative clitic.14 With that said, I would like to argue that there are confounds in the minimal pair in (19), and as a result of this, that it is not clear whether CD-ed objects move higher than the dative clitic. Let me clarify, first, that genitive and dative are morphologically syncretic in Greek. Thus, (19b) in the absence of the two clitics is ambiguous between (20a) and (20b).15

    1. (20)
    1. a.
    1. O
    2. the
    1. Janis
    2. John.NOM
    1. epestrepse
    2. returned.3S
    1. [to
    2. the
    1. vivlio
    2. book.S.N.ACC
    1. tis
    2. the
    1. Marias]
    2. Maria.GEN
    1. simiomeno.
    2. with notes
    1. ‘John returned Maria’s book with notes.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. O
    2. the
    1. Janis
    2. John.NOM
    1. epestrepse
    2. returned.3S
    1. [to
    2. the
    1. vivlio]
    2. book.S.N.ACC
    1. [tis
    2. the
    1. Marias]
    2. Maria.DAT
    1. simiomeno.
    2. with notes
    1. ‘John returned the book to Maria with notes.’

In (20a), tis Marias functions as possessor forming one constituent with the direct object to vivlio. Simiomeno is a secondary predicate taking to vivlio tis Marias as subject. In (20b), tis Marias is a single constituent functioning as a dative indirect object. In this case, simiomeno is extraposed into a position after its subject, that is, to vivlio.16 Now, if two clitics are present, they can enter dependencies with different arguments. For instance, the accusative clitic to can associate with to vivlio tis Marias, which forms a single constituent, as in (21a). Or, to can associate with the direct object to vivlio in which case tis Marias functions as a dative argument associating with the dative clitic tis, as in (21b).

    1. (21)
    1. a.
    1. O
    2. the
    1. Janis
    2. John.NOM
    1. tis
    2. 3S.F.DAT
    1. toi
    2. 3S.N.ACC
    1. epestrepse
    2. returned.3S
    1. [to
    2. the
    1. vivlio
    2. book.S.N.ACC
    1. tis
    2. the
    1. Marias]i
    2. Maria.GEN
    1. simiomeno.
    2. with notes
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. O
    2. the
    1. Janis
    2. John.NOM
    1. tisj
    2. 3S.F.DAT
    1. toi
    2. 3S.N.ACC
    1. epestrepse
    2. returned.3S
    1. [to
    2. the
    1. vivlio]i
    2. book.S.N.ACC
    1. [tis
    2.   the
    1. Marias]j
    2. Maria.DAT
    1. simiomeno.
    2. with notes

Importantly, Condition C between tis Marias and tis is not expected to arise in (21b) because the two associate via CD. Anagnostopoulou (1994: 127–128) who also observes this structural ambiguity notes that (21b) needs to be suppressed in order to diagnose clearly if Condition C is bled in (21a) or not. Yet, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1997) treat (19b) as one unambiguous string and conclude without further discussion that “the condition C effect disappears once the direct object to vivlio tis Marias is doubled.”17 However, given the confound in these examples, this conclusion is not supported by these data. In fact, I show that Condition C is not expected to be bled in CD of direct objects, and, therefore, that the conclusion that Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1997) report is a result of the confound discussed in Anagnostopoulou (1994). Concretely, let us assume that dative clitics are interpreted in Spec CLDATP and that this position is lower than the subject position, as in Sportiche (1996) (see discussion in Section 3.4.1 for comparison with different analyses of clitic constructions and for more details of Sportiche’s analysis).18

    1. (22)

Let us also take (23a) as a benchmark case showing that the dative clitic c-commands the undoubled direct object.

    1. (23)
    1. a.
    1. *I
    2.   the
    1. Maria
    2. Maria.NOM
    1. tui
    2. 3S.M.DAT
    1. epestrepse
    2. returned.3S
    1. [tis
    2. the
    1. fotoghrafies
    2. photos.PL.F.ACC
    1. pu
    2. that
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Janisi
    2. John.NOM
    1. evghale
    2. took.3S
    1. sto
    2. in-the
    1. chionodhromiko].
    2. ski resort.ACC
    1.    ‘Maria returned to him the photos that John took in the ski resort.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *I
    2.   the
    1. Maria
    2. Maria.NOM
    1. tui
    2. 3S.M.DAT
    1. tisj
    2. 3PL.F.ACC
    1. epestrepse
    2. returned.3S
    1. [tis
    2. the
    1. fotoghrafies
    2. photos.PL.F.ACC
    1. pu
    2. that
    1. o
    2. the
    1. Janisi
    2. John.NOM.
    1. evghale
    2. took.3S
    1. sto
    2. in-the
    1. chionodhromiko]j.
    2. ski resort.ACC
    1.    ‘Maria returned to him the photos that John took in the ski resort.’

In (23a), coreference between the clitic and the proper name in pu o Janis evghale sto chionodhromiko is blocked due to Condition C. If there is a copy of the CD-ed direct object higher than Spec CLDATP in (22),19 Late Merge of the relative clause with this higher copy should bleed the Condition C effect seen in (23a), as the proper name would not be in the c-command domain of the dative clitic. (23b) shows that coreference between the dative clitic and the proper name in the relative clause is blocked after CD suggesting that there is no higher copy of tis fotoghrafies higher than Spec CLDATP, which would allow Late Merge of the relative clause. I conclude based on this that CD-ed direct objects do not move higher than Spec CLDATP in (22). Having clarified this, the next section shows that although CD-ed objects do not move higher than the position in which dative clitics are interpreted, they still undergo movement into a lower vP peripheral specifier.

3.4 CD-ed objects obviate WCO

It has been known for a long time in several languages such as Lebanese Arabic (cf. Aoun 1981) or Greek (cf. Agouraki 1992; Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1997; 2000; Anagnostopoulou 2003) that CD can obviate WCO effects. This effect is illustrated in the following examples, where a pronoun embedded within a subject cannot be bound by an undoubled quantifier in the direct object position, (24a), while if the quantifier is CD-ed, the bound interpretation becomes possible, (24b).

    1. (24)
    1. a.
    1. *I
    2.   the
    1. mitera
    2. mother.NOM
    1. tui
    2. his.GEN
    1. sinodhepse
    2. escorted.3S
    1. to
    2. the
    1. kathe
    2. every
    1. phedhii.
    2. kid.S.N.ACC
    1.    ‘His mother did not escort every kid.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1.   I
    2.   the
    1. mitera
    2. mother.NOM
    1. tui
    2. his.GEN
    1. to
    2. 3S.N.ACC
    1. sinodhepse
    2. escorted.3S
    1. to
    2. the
    1. kathe
    2. every
    1. phedhii.
    2. kid.S.N.ACC
    1.    ‘His mother did not escort every kid.’ (Anagnostopoulou 2003: 293)

In what follows, I present an account for these facts assuming that the CD-ed object undergoes XP/Xmax movement to a vP peripheral specifier. I argue that this movement step is an A-movement step from the argument position. Subsequently, I discuss that competing approaches that do not take CD-ed object to undergo XP/Xmax movement from the argument position fall short in accounting for the absence of WCO in CD and the correlation with Hindi or Japanese A-scrambling.

3.4.1 CD as XP/Xmax movement

In this section, I argue that the absence of WCO in CD can only be accounted for in analyses of CD that integrate one XP movement step in the syntactic derivation underlying CD. These analyses have been proposed in different versions in Sportiche (1996) and in Uriagereka (1995), or more recently in Harizanov (2014). In addition, these analyses share the assumption that doubled XPs undergo movement, like scrambling, but they make different assumptions regarding the relation between the clitic and the associate XP. In Sportiche (1996), clitics are heads situated above vP/VP but (for non-subjects) below TP that attract an agreeing XP. In Uriagereka (1995), the clitic and the doubled XP enter the derivation together in a BIG DP configuration, and they are separated by subsequent movement of the clitic and the XP (see also Kayne 1972; Torrego 1992; Belletti 1999; Papangeli 2000; Nevins 2011 for different versions of BIG DP analyses). In Harizanov (2014), doubled DPs undergo movement embedded within a KP to a vP specifier. Post-syntactic operations turn the higher KP occurrence into a clitic. I do not adopt Harizanov’s analysis due to a more general skepticism in recent literature in regard to the existence of post-syntactic operations (cf. Koopman 2017 and Kayne 2018). As for the two approaches in Sportiche (1996) and Uriagereka (1995), the differences between them are subtle and often inconsequential (see discussion in Angelopoulos & Sportiche 2018). I adopt the analysis of Sportiche (1996) in order to be consistent with Angelopoulos & Sportiche (2018), where the same set of reconstruction diagnostics were used for the analysis of Greek and French Clitic Left Dislocation. Turning to CD again, I argue that doubled XPs undergo one short A-movement step to a middle field position above vP.20 This position is lower than the subject or Spec CLDATP where dative clitics are interpreted, therefore, the fact that dative clitics give rise to Condition C with CD-ed direct objects, as we saw in Section 3.3, follows straightforwardly. In addition, since this middle field position is an A-position, I suggest that CD-ed direct objects can bind from this A-position into Spec vP where subjects can undergo reconstruction, as shown in the LF representation in (25), obviating WCO.21

    1. (25)
    1. [XP to kathe phedhi [X X [vP [DP i mitera tu] [vv [VP V [DP to kathe phedhi ]]]]]]

4 Different approaches to CD

4.1 CD as Feature movement

In previous literature, it was argued that CD can obviate WCO assuming that CD-ed DPs form an A-chain with the clitic. The clitic which is the head of the chain is assumed to move to T via feature movement, and it is argued to bind from this position into Spec vP where the subject can undergo reconstruction, as shown in the LF representation below (cf. Anagnostopoulou 1999b; 2003; Marchis & Alexiadou 2013 i.a.).

    1. (26)

Notably, the feature movement analyses never explicitly formulated Binding Theory in terms of features, therefore, it is unclear on what grounds the assumption that features can bind can be evaluated. At any rate, I argue that the real challenge the feature movement account faces is that it relies on the rather doubtful assumption that features can act as binders in the first place. Feature movement was first motivated in Chomsky (1995) to account for the agreement facts in the expletive constructions of English and Italian shown in (27b) and (27a).22

    1. (27)
    1. Cardinaletti (1997: 1b–c)
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. pro
    2. pro
    1. *arriva/
    2.   arrive.3S/
    1. arrivano
    2. arrive.3P
    1. tre
    2. three
    1. ragazze.
    2. girls
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. There *arrives/arrive three girls.

Here, Chomsky (1995) argues that features of the associate undergo covert movement into T where they check the ø-features of the verb. As Chomsky (1995) supports, these features can bind and license PRO in cases like (28a). Chomsky further observes that, by contrast to PRO, reflexive binding cannot be licensed in expletive constructions, as shown in (28b).

(28) Chomsky (1995: 40a, 44)
  a.   There arrived three men (last night) without identifying themselves.
  b. *There seem to each other [t to have been many linguists given good job offers.]

Cardinaletti (1997: 525) points out other instances from previous literature where binding and control are subject to distinct licensing requirements (cf. Rizzi 1986) and concludes that “both agreement and control are triggered by simple feature movement, whereas binding requires that the antecedent be the whole category (not just some features).” Similarly, Lasnik (1999: 183) shows that pronominal binding is not allowed in expletive constructions, (29), and concludes like Cardinaletti (2008) that feature movement cannot license binding.

(29) Lasnik (1999: 183)
  a.   Some defendanti seems to hisi lawyer to have been at the scene.
  b. *There seems to hisi lawyer to have been some defendanti at the scene.

Based on the conclusions of Cardinaletti (1997) and Lasnik (1999), I reject the feature movement analysis of CD, as there is no independent motivation for feature movement playing a role in binding.

In the next section, I turn to the grammatical distribution of clitics. Building on Angelopoulos & Sportiche (2018), I show that there is no independent motivation for the doubling clitic to have referential import that matters for binding. This suggests even more strongly that the clitic should not be able to bind into anything, like it was shown to be the case with the raised features in English expletive constructions. Based on this finding, the next section also argues that the long head movement analyses of CD must be ruled out because as with the feature movement analysis, they cannot account for the fact that CD-ed objects exhibit interpretive properties as these of objects e.g. of Hindi, that have undergone movement into the middle field.

4.2 CD as Long Head movement

Having pointed out preliminary observations about the issues with respect to binding that the feature movement accounts face, I discuss next the most closely related analyses presented more recently in Rezac (2008); Roberts (2010b) and Preminger (2019). These works assume that CD-ed objects are arguments and that they stay in situ, as in the feature movement analysis. Furthermore, they propose that instead of feature movement, the D-head of the doubled object undergoes long head movement into T or other lower heads. These approaches do not explore WCO in CD, however, since the doubled XP stays in situ, the fact that WCO is obviated in CD can make sense only if the doubling clitic, which is the D head of the CD-ed object has referential properties and thus, can be interpreted after long head movement in a higher functional domain. The issue that arises with this view is that Greek clitics do not have interpretive import. This fact has been shown in previous work on the basis of cases in which a reflexive is CD-ed, as in (30).

    1. (30)
    1. O
    2. the
    1. Jorghosi
    2. George
    1. ton
    2. 3S.M.ACC
    1. aghapai
    2. loves.3S
    1. [ton
    2. the
    1. eafto
    2. self.S.M.ACC
    1. tu]i.
    2. his.GEN
    1. ‘George loves himself.’

In (30), the accusative clitic doubles an anaphor bound by the subject (cf. Iatridou 1986). If clitics had interpretive import and could enter referential/binding dependencies, they should have the index of the anaphor which is the element that the clitic associates with in (30). Nevertheless, if this was true, the clitic should give rise to a Principle B violation because it would be locally bound by the subject, as illustrated in (31).

    1. (31)
    1. *O
    2.   the
    1. Jorghosi
    2. George
    1. toni
    2. 3.S.M.ACC
    1. agaphai.
    2. loves.3S
    1.    ‘George loves him.’

Collins (1990) and Angelopoulos & Sportiche (2018) argue that accusative clitics do not give rise to Principle B violations in (30) because they are expletive elements, like expletive determiners, lacking referential import. In Angelopoulos & Sportiche (2018), this claim also finds further support in the fact that clitics in Greek and French can double elements that lack reference such as embedded clauses or predicates e.g. adjectives, in French.23 Under their analysis, which I adopt, only the element that the clitic associates with has referential properties. In (30), this element is the anaphor, and in plain cliticization, this element is a silent pronoun:

    1. (32)
    1. O Jorghos toni aghapai proi.

Furthermore, in Angelopoulos & Sportiche (2018), the silent pronoun does not remain in situ. Instead, it has to move to the specifier of the phrase headed by the clitic for indentification purposes, exactly like silent pro has been argued to be identified by T in null subject languages (cf. Rizzi 1986).

Now, since the clitic is an expletive determiner and lacks reference, it should not be able to bind or change anything with respect to WCO, therefore, the analysis of Rezac (2008); Roberts (2010b), and Preminger (2019) predicts that the CD-ed and plain objects should be interpreted in situ and that they should not differ in terms of interpretive properties. However, this prediction is wrong since, as we saw, CD-ed objects can obviate WCO effects with the subject.

4.3 CD-ed objects as adjuncts

Under the account in Philippaki-Warburton et al. (2004), the doubled DP is base generated as adjunct e.g. to vP in (33), and the clitic first merges as an argument of the verb and undergoes Xmin/Xmax movement to some higher projection. Here, the doubled DP should not be able bind into anything under the assumption possibly that “adjunct” positions do not have the properties of A-positions (see Angelopoulos et al. 2018 for data showing that binding from adjuncts is not possible in Greek). Moreover, the clitic cannot bind or be interpreted, because accusative clitics, as we discussed, are expletive determiners lacking referential import. The issues that arise here is that, like in previous analyses, the fact that WCO is obviated in CD cannot be accounted for.

    1. (33)

5 CD as A-scrambling

This section argues that Greek CD-ed XPs undergo movement, like scrambling, into the middle field to license a syntactic feature related to their interpretive properties. In Section 5.1, following Kallulli (2000), I suggest that this feature is –Focus. On the other hand, in Section 5.2, I show that Greek clitics are not lexically specified as +familiar or –Focus. Since clitics are empty of such features, I suggest that the interpretive properties that CD-ed objects exhibit in Greek should be dissociated from properties of the clitic.

5.1 CD and Information Structure

CD-ed definites have been argued in extensive previous literature of Greek to “[…] resemble pronominals in that they cannot be understood as novel, a fact which can be taken to suggest that they obey the Prominence Condition” (cf. Anagnostopoulou 1999a: 771). The Prominence Condition was proposed in Heim (1982) and was argued to apply to pronouns like him in (34).24

    1. (34)
    1. John read a book about Schubert and wrote to him.

In (34), him being subject to the Prominence Condition can only refer to Schubert, who has been previously asserted. On the other hand, the definite in (35) is different and can also have the author of the book about Schubert as referent despite the fact that there is no previous mention of an author.

    1. (35)
    1. John read a book about Schubert and wrote to the author.

Anagnostopoulou (1994; 1999a; 2007) argues using evidence from examples like (36) that Heim’s Prominence Condition also applies to CD-ed objects.

    1. (36)
    1. Anagnostopoulou (1999a: 19)
    1.  
    1. O
    2. the
    1. Jannis
    2. John
    1. dhiavase
    2. read.3S
    1. ena
    2. a
    1. vivlio
    2. book
    1. jia
    2. about
    1. ton
    2. the
    1. Arthur
    2. Arthur
    1. Miller
    2. Miller
    1. enthusiastike
    2. got enthusiastic.3S
    1. ke
    2. and
    1. thelise
    2. wanted.3S
    1. na
    2. na
    1. (ton)
    2. 3.S.M.ACC
    1. ghnorisi
    2. get to know.3S
    1. ton
    2. the
    1. singrafea
    2. author.S.M.ACC
    1. apo
    2. from
    1. koda.
    2. close
    1. ‘John read a book about Arthur Miller, he got enthusiastic, and he wanted to get to know the author.’

It is argued that in the presence of the doubling clitic, the definite ton singrafea–‘the author’ can only be interpreted as familiar and like him in (34) it can only have Arthur Miller as its referent, which has been previously asserted. On the other hand, if the clitic is absent, Anagnostopoulou claims that the definite is free to pick the author about the book for Arthur Miller or Arthur Miller himself as a possible referent. Moreover, Anagnostopoulou also argues that CD-ed objects are obligatorily interpreted as familiar because the doubling clitics are contentful. This claim is explored in more depth in Marchis & Alexiadou (2013) who building on Anagnostopoulou’s claims propose that Greek accusative and dative clitics are contentful determiners encoding familiarity in the sense that they are subject to Heim’s Prominence Condition. I argue that the judgments this previous literature reports do not hold uniformly with objects of different predicates. For instance, I show that the direct object of skotoso–‘kill’ in (37) exhibits different behavior.2526

    1. (37)
    1. Diavasa
    2. read.1S
    1. ena
    2. an
    1. arthro
    2. article
    1. ja
    2. about
    1. tin
    2. the
    1. mitera
    2. mother
    1. mu.
    2. mine
    1. Itan
    2. was.3S
    1. toso
    2. so
    1. apesio
    2. terrible
    1. pu
    2. that
    1. ithela
    2. wanted.1S
    1. na
    2. na
    1. (ton)
    2. 3S.M.ACC
    1. skotoso
    2. kill.1S
    1. ton
    2. the
    1. sigrafea.
    2. author.S.M.ACC
    1. ‘I read an article about my mother. It was so terrible that I wanted to kill the author.’

In (37), the CD-ed definite is free to pick the author of the book as referent despite the fact that there is no previous mention of the author.27 This suggests that depending on the lexical semantics of the verb, there can be cases in which CD-ed objects do not have to be subject to the Prominence Condition. Furthermore, note that there is a very sharp contrast if instead of a CD-ed DP in (37), there is a bare clitic:

    1. (38)
    1. *Dhiavasa
    2.   read.1S
    1. ena
    2. an
    1. arthro
    2. article
    1. ja
    2. about
    1. tin
    2. the
    1. mitera
    2. mother
    1. mu.
    2. mine.
    1. Itan
    2. was.3S
    1. toso
    2. so
    1. apesio
    2. unfair
    1. pu
    2. that
    1. ithela
    2. wanted.1S
    1. na
    2. na
    1. ton
    2. 3S.M.ACC
    1. skotoso.
    2. kill.1S
    1.    ‘I read an article about my mother. It was so terrible that I wanted to kill him.’

Here, it is quite clear that the sentence is strongly ruled out if the pronoun in (38) has the non-familiar reading under which it corefers with the author of the book. This contrast between (37) and (38) is very sharp and this fact is quite unexpected if Heim’s Prominence Condition applies invariantly both to CD-ed objects and clitics. With this conclusion in mind, I turn next to more data challenging the idea that CD-ed XPs are always subject to the Prominence Condition. For instance, let us consider the well-formed examples in (39) and (40) where it is shown that generic definites can undergo CD.28

    1. (39)
    1. I
    2. the
    1. Sofia
    2. Sofia.NOM
    1. dhen
    2. not
    1. to
    2. 3.S.N.ACC
    1. lipate
    2. care.3S
    1. to
    2. the
    1. hrima.
    2. money.S.N.ACC
    1. ‘approx. Sofia does not care about money.’
    1. (40)
    1. Akoma ce
    2. even
    1. an
    2. if
    1. dhen
    2. not
    1. tin
    2. 3.S.F.ACC
    1. theoruse
    2. consider.3S
    1. tin
    2. the
    1. alghevra
    2. algebra.S.F.ACC
    1. simantiki/
    2. important/
    1. endiaferusa,
    2. interesting,
    1. tha
    2. would
    1. eprepe
    2. have
    1. na
    2. na
    1. tin
    2. 3.S.F.ACC
    1. parakoluthisi.
    2. attend.3S
    1. ‘Even if she did not consider algebra important/interesting, she would still have to attend it.’

To hrima–‘money’ or tin alghevra–‘algebra’ are generic definites, still, they can be CD-ed although they do not need to have been asserted previously.29 Further support to the assumption that CD-ed objects do not always obey the Prominence Condition comes from indefinites as in (41), that can undergo CD although they do not require any previous mention:

    1. (41)
    1. a.
    1. Tha
    2. would
    1. to
    2. 3.S.N.ACC
    1. etrogha
    2. eat.1S
    1. ena
    2. a
    1. sokolotaki
    2. small chocolate.S.N.ACC
    1. tora.
    2. now
    1. ‘I would now eat a small chocolate.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Dhen
    2. not
    1. tha
    2. would
    1. tu
    2. 3.S.M.DAT
    1. milusa
    2. talk.1S
    1. enos
    2. a
    1. sovaru
    2. serious
    1. fititi
    2. student.S.M.DAT
    1. etsi.
    2. like that
    1. ‘I would not talk like that to a serious student.’

In (41a) and (41b), ena sokolataki–‘small chocolate’ and enos sovaru fititi–‘a serious student’ can be CD-ed and they do not need to have been asserted previously. Sokolotaki in (41a) can refer to any any kind of small chocolate e.g. white or black. Similarly, sovaru fititi in (41b) refers to any serious student and not to a particular one that has been previously mentioned. Notably, the fact that indefinites can be doubled by a clitic has been observed since very early in the literature (see Anagnostopoulou 1994 and references therein). Kallulli (2000) also shows that CD-ed indefinites have the same distributional properties like CD-ed definites e.g. in ECM constructions, small clauses and object control. Moreover, Kallulli (2000), who observes that CD-ed objects are not uniformly subject to the Prominence Condition, like I do here, proposes an alternative analysis according to which CD-ed objects in Greek are uniformly marked as –Focus. In addition, she proposes that –Focus is a syntactic feature that CD-ed objects carry and license via movement into the middle field. Here, I adopt from her analysis the main idea that movement in CD has to take place in order to license a syntactic feature that relates to their –Focus interpretation. Interestingly, scrambled objects e.g. in the Germanic languages or Hindi, have been argued in previous literature to associate with certain interpretative properties, which, as with CD-ed objects, are licensed via movement to a middle field syntactic position (cf. Broekhuis & Corver 2016 i.a.). Moreover, scrambled objects have also been shown to obviate WCO (cf. Mahajan 1990; Miyagawa 2009 i.a.), which like I argued for CD, is due to A-movement of the scambled object into the middle field.30 I argue that these similarities between A-scrambling and CD of objects in Greek are not accidental. Instead, they suggest that movement of CD-ed XPs is the correlate of the XP/Xmax movement step of A-scrambling, as has been proposed in a number of previous works (Sportiche 1996 i.a.).

5.2 Clitics are not +familiar or –focus

As discussed in the previous section, previous analyses have proposed that clitics have semantic import. For instance, clitics have been assumed to be lexically specified as +familiar (cf. Marchis & Alexiadou 2013) or as –Focus in which case they can license the –Focus property of CD-ed objects via Spec head (cf. Kallulli 2000). In this section, I argue that if we take into consideration more predicates, it becomes quite clear that clitics are not intrinsically specified with any of these two properties. The predicates I focus on here are experiencer predicates of Class II or III in the typology of Belletti & Rizzi (1988). These predicates allow CD of the experiencer, as shown in (42):

    1. (42)
    1. a.
    1. Akoma ke
    2. even
    1. tu
    2. the
    1. Jani
    2. John.S.M.DAT
    1. tha
    2. would
    1. tu
    2. 3S.M.DAT
    1. arese
    2. like.3S
    1. afto
    2. this
    1. to
    2. the
    1. arthro.
    2. paper.NOM
    1. ‘Even John would like this paper.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Tha
    2. would
    1. tu
    2. 3S.M.DAT
    1. arese
    2. like.3S
    1. akoma ke
    2. even
    1. tu
    2. the
    1. Jani
    2. John.S.M.DAT
    1. afto
    2. this
    1. to
    2. the
    1. arthro.
    2. paper.NOM
    1. ‘Even John would like this paper.’

(42) shows that a dative experiencer, that is, tu Jani, can be doubled by a clitic, which can surface before or after the experiencer. In both cases, it is crucial that despite the presence of the doubling clitic, the experiencer can be +Focus, as shown by the fact that it can combine with akoma ke–‘even’, which is a focus particle.3132 Moreover, I show in (43) and (44) that doubled experiencers, dative or accusative, can be wh-items.33

    1. (43)
    1. Ke
    2. and
    1. pjanu
    2. who.S.M.DAT
    1. dhen
    2. not
    1. tu
    2. 3S.M.DAT
    1. aresi
    2. like.3S
    1. to
    2. the
    1. kalokeri?
    2. summer.NOM
    1. ‘Who does not like summer?’
    1. (44)
    1. Ke
    2. and
    1. pjon
    2. who.S.M.ACC
    1. dhen
    2. not
    1. tha
    2. would
    1. ton
    2. 3S.M.ACC
    1. endhiefere
    2. be interested.3S
    1. aloste?
    2. though
    1. ‘Who would not be interested though?’

The clitics used to double experiencers e.g. tu and ton in (42), (43) and (44), are identical in form and distribution to the clitics used in doubling of arguments with distinct theta roles e.g. themes, therefore, it cannot be argued that experiencers associate with special clitics. Moreover, doubled experiencers combining with similar focus particles or being realized as wh-items are not only available in Greek. For instance, Krapova & Cinque (2008: 268–270) show that doubled experiencers in Bulgarian can be +Focus or wh-items and hence, propose that doubling of experiencers constitutes a distinct syntactic phenomenon. Given the above, I conclude that Greek clitics are not intrinsically specified as +familiar or –Focus (pace Kallulli 2000; Marchis & Alexiadou 2013) and as a result of this, that the interpretive properties of CD-ed objects or the position in which they license their interpretive properties should be dissociated from the clitics and the clitic position. Building on this conclusion, the next section provides an account for the optional presence of clitics with –Focus DPs.

6 CD and Movement

6.1 Optional CD

In previous literature it has been argued that direct object CD is an optional phenomenon (cf. Anagnostopoulou 2007 i.a.). Building on this claim, this section aims to show that this optionality is not unrestricted. In particular, building on findings of recent literature, I tentatively argue that the presence or the wholesale absence of clitics in CD is constrained and that the constraints that apply are syntactic. Let me start the discussion by taking into consideration sentences like (36) from Anagnostopoulou (1994). Recall that in her analysis clitics mark doubled DPs as familiar. Now, since familiar definite DPs do not have to be CD-ed, as we saw in (36), Anagnostopoulou (2007) argues that CD of direct objects is an optional phenomenon.34 Similarly, citing data from Agouraki (1993); Kallulli (2000: 20) explicitly argues that “it is not the case that for the direct object DP to be interpreted as [–Focus], it has to be clitic doubled (e.g. Greek).” Let us consider some of the data Kallulli considers:

    1. (45)
    1. Agouraki (1993: 154)
    1.  
    1. Pjos
    2. who
    1. (to)
    2. 3S.N.ACC
    1. idhe
    2. saw.3S
    1. to
    2. the
    1. pedhi?
    2. kid.S.N.ACC
    1. ‘Who saw the kid?’

In (45), the subject is a wh-item, that is +Focus and the rest of the sentence is marked as –Focus. Kallulli (2000) argues that despite the fact that the direct object is –Focus in this example, it does not have to be CD-ed and concludes that CD is less strict—and hence optional I add—in Greek. Interestingly, I show next that a crucial difference between the CD-ed –Focus DPs and the undoubled ones is that only the first can be shown to move to the middle field. For instance, let us consider the following minimal pair.

    1. (46)
    1. a.
    1.   I
    2.   the
    1. Maria
    2. Maria.NOM
    1. diavase
    2. read.3S
    1. ena
    2. a
    1. vivlio
    2. book
    1. ja
    2. about
    1. ton
    2. the
    1. Yanni
    2. Yanni
    1. Tsarouchi
    2. Tsarouchi
    1. ke
    2. and
    1. anarotithike:
    2. wondered.3S
    1. ton
    2. 3S.M.ACC
    1. ektimise
    2. appreciated.3S
    1. pote
    2. never
    1. i
    2. the
    1. ikojenia
    2. family
    1. tui
    2. his.GEN
    1. ton
    2. the
    1. zografoi?
    2. painter.S.M.ACC
    1.    ‘Maria read a book about Yanni Tsarouchi and wondered: did his family ever appreciated the painter?’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *I
    2.   the
    1. Maria
    2. Maria.NOM
    1. diavase
    2. read.3S
    1. ena
    2. a
    1. vivlio
    2. book
    1. ja
    2. about
    1. ton
    2. the
    1. Yanni
    2. Yanni
    1. Tsarouchi
    2. Tsarouchi
    1. ke
    2. and
    1. anarotithike:
    2. wondered.3S
    1. ektimise
    2. appreciated.3S
    1. pote
    2. never
    1. i
    2. the
    1. ikojenia
    2. family
    1. tui
    2. his.GEN
    1. ton
    2. the
    1. zografoi?
    2. painter.S.M.ACC
    1.    ‘Maria read a book about Yanni Tsarouchi and wondered: did his family ever appreciated the painter?’

In both examples, the direct object is a definite DP, ton zografo–‘the painter’ referring to a previously introduced individual, that is, ton Yanni Tsarouchi. Moreover, the direct object is –Focus, as it is part of a yes/no question, where the verb only is focused (see Kallulli 2000 for similar examples). (46a) shows that WCO with the subject can be obviated if the object, ton zografo, is CD-ed. On the other hand, the direct object cannot bind the pronoun in the subject, thus, (46b) is ruled out under the indicated bound reading. In Section 4.2, I argued in light of the WCO facts that doubled DPs undergo movement above the vP from where they can bind into a reconstructed subject. Nonetheless, since undoubled –Focus DPs do not behave similarly with respect to WCO, it makes sense to conclude that, if they have to move to a certain syntactic position where they can license their interpretive properties, they do not move as high as the doubled ones. Concretely, I propose that there are two distinct syntactic positions differing in syntactic height where CD-ed DPs can license the –Focus property. The lower one is indicated as YP in (47b) and is situated between VP and vP. The higher one is shown as XP in (47a) and it is higher than the vP, like I argued before.

(47) a. [XP DP [X′ X [vP [DP …] [vv [VP V DP ]]]]]
  b. [vP [DP …] [vv [YP DP [Y′ Y [VP V DP ]]]]]

Let us also assume that clitics are base generated in the middle field between XP and TP in (47a) like in Sportiche (1996), and that they can be present if and only if they can Agree with an object DP.35 In (47a), the direct object undergoes movement to Spec XP higher than the vP phase. Moreover, after movement, the direct object is in the same phase with the clitic. Being in the same phase, the clitic and the direct object can stand in an Agree relation. On the other hand, the direct object does not escape the first phase i.e. the vP in (47b), therefore, it is not in the same phase with the clitic. If this is correct, the prediction is that the clitic should be present in the sentence corresponding to the syntactic structure in (47a), though not in (47b). Indeed, (46a) where the clitic is present corresponds to (47a) whereas (46b) where the clitic is absent corresponds to (47b). Based on these facts, I (tentatively) conclude that indeed clitics are present if they are local enough —possibly in the same phase— with their associate. Increasing the distance between two as in (47b) results in the wholesale absence of the clitic.

Interestingly, Preminger (2009) focuses on CD in Basque and observes that the presence of doubling clitics depends on locality. In fact, he argues that CD always conforms to a locality condition. In Basque, he proposes that this condition (roughly) is the clausemate condition. Preminger argues that dative morphemes in Basque enter a CD dependency with their associate. Under this view, dative clitics are present on the Basque auxiliary only if they are in the same clause with their associate. On the other hand, if this local relation is broken, Preminger claims that this results in the wholesale absence of the dative morpheme. In Greek, the locality condition between the clitic and its associate needs to be defined in more local terms as it is not sufficient for clitics to be in the same clause with their associate. With this in mind, let us now turn to issues and open questions that future research needs to address. For instance, it is important to understand the locality conditions imposed by Greek CD in more precise terms. Or, it is crucial whether clitics are optional or whether they are syntactically present but silent.36 Lastly, it is an open question at this point why only doubled experiencers but e.g. not doubled themes, can be wh-items or combine with focus particles.

6.2 Residual Issues

In this section I discuss a residual issue that has to do with extraction out of CD-ed objects. As discussed in Section 1.1, possessor extraction has been argued in two previous works to be ungrammatical (cf. Philippaki-Warburton et al. 2004; Revithiadou & Spyropoulos 2009). On the other hand, an anonymous reviewer points out that Anagnostopoulou (2007: 19c–d, 23c) presents grammatical sentences showing that CD-ed objects permit possessor extraction:37

    1. (48)
    1. a.
    1. Foresa
    2. wore.1S
    1. to
    2. the
    1. forema
    2. dress.ACC
    1. tis
    2. the
    1. Marias.
    2. Maria.GEN
    1. ‘I wore Maria’s dress.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Tinos
    2. whose.GEN
    1. foreses
    2. wore.2S
    1. to
    2. the
    1. forema?
    2. dress.ACC
    1. ‘Whose dress did you wear?
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. Tinos
    2. whose.GEN
    1. to
    2. 3S.F.ACC
    1. foreses
    2. wore.2S
    1. to
    2. the
    1. forema?
    2. dress.ACC
    1. ‘Whose dress did you wear?

Indeed, (48c) is grammatical, however, one needs to control for the fact that tis Marias in (48a) or tinos in (48c) can also function as dative arguments as I discussed previously. In the latter function, (48a) is interpreted as I put the dress on Mary and (48b)–(48c) as on whom did you put the dress?. In order to control for the ambiguity, I presented (48b) and (48c) to fifteen native speakers in different contexts that were compatible with tinos as possessor or indirect object. All speakers had strong judgments that tinos in (48c) cannot be a possessor while they all found it acceptable if tinos is interpreted as on whom.38 On the other hand, they reported that both readings are available in (48b). These results confirm the intuition presented in Philippaki-Warburton et al. (2004) and Revithiadou & Spyropoulos (2009) that CD-ed object block possessor extraction.

7 Conclusion

In this paper, I argued that CD-ed objects in Greek enter the derivation as arguments and undergo XP/Xmax movement, like A-scrambling, into a position lower than Spec TP and the position where dative clitics are interpreted. I also discussed that there is a lot more in showing that Greek CD involves an XP/Xmax movement step. First, it provides evidence that argument scrambling of the type we observe in the Germanic languages, Hindi or Japanese is a pervasive, as was originally proposed in Sportiche (1996), and that scrambling cannot be parameterized as X0/Xmin movement (pace Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1997). As a consequence of this, I argued that CD does not support the idea that X0/Xmin movement is the preferred mode of syntactic remerge (pace Preminger 2019). Furthermore, I showed that Greek clitics do not have referential import or other properties e.g. –Focus, based on two facts; first, that the content of clitics does not matter for binding purposes and second, that clitics can combine with – or +Focus DPs. Lastly, I provided a phase based analysis to account for the optional presence of clitics with –Focus DPs.

Notes

1Note that the doubled object of (3) is separated with commas while the doubled object of Greek in (2) is not. This should not be taken to illustrate any potential intonational differences between the two. Greek doubled objects form distinct prosodic units (cf. Revithiadou & Spyropoulos 2009) like the doubled objects of e.g. Portuguese or Spanish do (cf. Vallduví 1993; Zubizarreta 1998).

2Note also that in a number of recent works including Krapova & Cinque (2008) it is claimed that in Romance, doubled objects with preceding clitics enter the derivation as arguments (cf. Cecchetto 1999; Cardinaletti 2002 for Italian and Villalba 1998 for Catalan).

3These assumptions are justified in minimalist terms in Fox (1999; 2000); Takahashi & Hulsey (2009); Sportiche (2016; 2017).

4Except possibly for some pseudo-cleft constructions, (cf. Sharvit 1999).

5Sportiche (2016) shows that a moved element can be interpreted in various positions. For instance, in addition to total reconstruction, Sportiche shows that it is possible for a moved element to be interpreted both in its first merge position and in the position it moves to.

6A contentful copy is a copy whose content can be fully interpreted at LF.

7See Sportiche (2016) for a discussion of the serious problems of Late Merge accounts and an alternative.

8An anonymous reviewer points out that Late Merge cannot cover all cases of Principle C bleeding, and therefore, cannot be used as a diagnostic for binding or reconstruction since there is no principled way to know what exactly one is dealing with. Indeed, like the reviewer correctly points out there are different cases of Principle C bleeding. For instance, A-movement as well is well-known to bleed Condition C (see Sportiche 2016 for discussion). Nonetheless, the Late Merge effects that I am using here to detect height of merge are not different cases. They are all based on a single well-known and fairly established in previous literature case where merger of a relative clause can bleed Condition C. Importantly, extensive previous research on clitic constructions has used this particular diagnostic exactly like I do here in order to diagnose height of movement (cf. Cecchetto 2000; Koopman 2007 and Angelopoulos & Sportiche 2018 i.a.). Moreover, to my knowledge, the findings arising from the application of this particular diagnostic have never been contested. Instead, they are discussed as valid in the relevant literature (cf. Cardinaletti 2002).

9The discussion above shows that the binding patterns in Bulgarian which in Harizanov (2014) have been taken to show that A-moved elements cannot totally reconstruct for pronominal binding need to be reconsidered.

10This position can be in the complement position of the verb or a case position where direct objects move to get Case.

11See Angelopoulos & Sportiche (2018) for a detailed examination of the interpretive properties of CLLD-ed objects in Greek and French.

12This judgment was confirmed in a short informal survey conducted with fifteen native speakers of Modern Greek. It was found that all speakers including the author have very strong judgments blocking coreference between the proper name and the pronoun in (17). It is important that while there was no variation in the judgment for (17), 4/15 speakers though did not have clear judgments about (16). An anonymous reviewer disagrees with the judgment in (17). It is unclear at this point what to make of this difference in judgment. I have so far not encountered speaker variation, and am not aware of cross-linguistic disputes in this area (see Cecchetto 1999 for Italian, or Koopman 2007 for Dutch). Perhaps the distance separating the pronoun and the name plays a role. The fact that Condition C can be alleviated with distance (which can be a few words) has most recently been discussed in Adger et al. (2017). This effect of distance might also give the impression that corefence is possible in (17) if, for instance, the proper name in the relative clause is placed after the verb. This judgment is in fact reported by an anonymous reviewer, however, it is not shared by five other native speakers that were consulted or by the author of this paper.

13I assume that pro undergoes movement and that it is in Spec TP. The first assumption, namely, that subjects move finds support in Section 3.4.1 where it is shown that subjects can undergo reconstruction into a lower position from which they must have undergone movement (see Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2000 and Anagnostopoulou 2003 for similar conclusions). There is a different view according to which subjects in Greek never move. They either stay very low in the structure or they are base generated in a high Topic position (cf. Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998 and Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2001). This alternative view cannot account for the reconstruction properties of subjects. Furthermore, it has been argued in previous literature that Greek has a T with a strong D-feature (cf. Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998). This feature can be licensed by merging pro in Spec TP. Alternatively, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998) have argued that v-to-T movement can license this strong feature. In the latter case, pro is possibly encoded as a D-feature on the verb. In both analyses, it is crucial that movement of pro to the T domain is required in one way or another.

14In Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1997) this movement step is realized as head movement.

15In (20b) and in following examples, the use of DAT in the gloss in only meant to indicate a syntactic difference i.e. the fact that the DP in question is an indirect object, and not a morphological difference since tis Marias in both (20a) and (20b) is identical in form.

16The fact that secondary predicates can extrapose is shown below where simiomeno follows the PP indirect object.

    1. (i)
    1. I
    2. the
    1. Maria
    2. Maria.NOM
    1. epestrepse
    2. returned.3S
    1. to
    2. the
    1. vivlio
    2. book
    1. s-tin
    2. to-the
    1. Elena
    2. Elena
    1. simiomeno.
    2. with notes
    1. ‘Maria returned the book to Elena with notes.’

17Anagnostopoulou (1994) had concluded that CD does not bleed Condition C. This conclusion is not taken into consideration in Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1997).

18I also assume as in Angelopoulos & Sportiche (2018) that the pronoun that clitics associate with have undergone A-movement to the Clitic position and as a result of this, that they cannot undergo total reconstruction, as discussed already. Recall that in Sportiche (1996), clitics head CliticPs in the middle field.

19The exact height of the CLDATP does not really matter. It could be higher than T, as in Angelopoulos & Sportiche (2018) or below T, as in Sportiche (1996). In both approaches these clitic positions are lower than the subject.

20If the CLACCP is lower than the CLDATP, CD-ed direct objects probably move to CLACCP after movement to XP in (25).

21The fact that there can be a copy of the subject in Spec-vP undermines the proposal of Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998), who argue that preverbal subjects are base generated in a left peripheral topic position.

22An anonymous reviewer points out that under current theoretical assumptions feature movement has been reduced to Agree.

23I would like to refer the reader to the discussion in Angelopoulos & Sportiche (2018) for more detailed argumentation of the fact that Greek clitics lack reference.

24In Heim (1982), the Prominence Condition is defined as follows: for a pronominal definite NPi to be felicitous w.r.t. a file F, i must be a prominent element of DOM(F). In her file theory, she argues “[…] that a file is not just an amorphous bunch of cards, but is organized in such a way that a small number of cards enjoy a privileged place, “on the top of the file”, so to speak. These are always the cards that the file clerk had to handle most recently, i.e., that were most recently introduced or updated.”

25Note that examples like (36) have been recycled in the literature with ghnorisi–‘know’. For instance, Alexiadou (2014: 23) who also discusses Anagnostopoulou’s claims as correct reproduces examples with the same predicate.

26I would like to thank Christos Christopoulos for bringing such examples to my attention.

27The intuition reported in (37) has been confirmed in an informal study with fifteen native speakers.

28(39) was found in naturally occurring context on the Internet:

29In (41b), the CD-ed definite is the subject of a small clause. In Sportiche (1996), it is argued that CD-ed objects in this position are arguments. Moreover, (41b) has been checked with fifteen native speakers, who confirmed the judgment presented here.

30There are different approaches discussing the properties of this A-movement step, why it has to take place, or more specifically, whether it has to take place e.g. for case. For instance, Broekhuis & Corver (2016) argue that there is a low A-position in Dutch that serves as landing site for scrambled objects that express old-information. They also propose that this position also serves as a case position that scrambled objects have to move to for case. On the other hand, Miyagawa (2009: 115–116) argues that A-scrambling in Japanese is not related to case and claims that the traditional A/A-bar and the interpretive effects that go with it are due to different properties that movement acquires if it happens within a single transfer domain or across different ones (see also Van Urk 2015 and Safir 2018 for different accounts of the A/A-bar distinction).

31See also Anagnostopoulou (1997) who argues that experiencers do not have to be familiar in her own terms.

32See Giannakidou (2006; 2007) and references therein for discussion of akoma ke and other Greek focus particles.

34Anagnostopoulou (1994) discusses cases in which CD is obligatory. These are cases in which the CD-ed DP is an epithet. I would like to thank Elena Anagnostopoulou for bringing this fact to my attention.

35See Preminger (2019) for the idea that CD involves an agreement relation.

36In bare cliticization, one could claim that the clitic is obligatorily present because its associate i.e. pro, undergoes obligatory scrambling into the middle field for “identification”. In fact, one could even argue that in Romance languages like colloquial Central and Southern Italian, the head of XP of (47a) is a of the following example:

    1. (i)
    1. Cardinaletti (2002: 6a)
    1. L’
    2. 3S.M.ACC
    1. abbiamo
    2. have.1PL
    1. invitato
    2. invited
    1. noi,
    2. we,
    1. a
    2. a
    1. Gianni.
    2. Gianni
    1. ‘We have invited John’

Under this approach, a does not directly merge with its surface DP complement. A merges above VP and functions as a probe attracting its surface complement DP from the object position to the middle field, as Kayne (2000; 2005) has proposed for Italian de and French à of causative constructions. Like in Greek (47a), the clitic has to be overt as a result of the fact that the DP has been attracted by a to the middle field in (i). In the absence of a, the object is not attracted to the middle field (cf. Cardinaletti 2002) and the clitic is absent due to lack of locality, as in (47b).

37As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, Harizanov (2014) presents examples with possessor extraction in Bulgarian as grammatical. Nonetheless, in the absence of information about the interpretive properties of Bulgarian CD-ed objects, the Bulgarian data are uninformative.

38I would also like to thank a few Greek linguists, Marika Lekakou, Maria-Margarita Makri, Dimitris Michelioudakis, Anna Roussou, Christos Vlachos and Arhonto Terzi, who also confirm the judgments I report here.

Abbreviations

The following glosses are used in this paper: S = singular; PL = plural; 1 = First person; 2 = Second person; 3 = Third person; F = feminine; M = masculine; N = neutrum; NOM = Nominative; ACC = Accusative; GEN = Genitive; DAT = Dative; CL = clitic. An example marked with ‘*’ or ‘#’ means that the example is unacceptable for grammatical or semantic/pragmatic reasons, respectively.

Acknowledgements

The article was partially supported by the NSF, grants 1424054 and 1424336. It has been presented in earlier forms at the LSA 2019, the Syntax Reading Group of Patras and at Semantics in Athens II. The paper has benefited from discussion with Maayan Abenina Adar, Chris Collins, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Christos Christopoulos, Mina Giannoula, Winfried Lechner, Travis Major, Maria Margarita Makri, Dimitris Michelioudakis, Omer Preminger, Anna Roussou, Vassilis Spyropoulos, Tim Stowell and Giorgos Spathas. I am particularly grateful to Hilda Koopman, Dominique Sportiche and Arhonto Terzi for discussion and comments on previous versions of the paper. Lastly, I would like to thank three anonymous reviewers.

Competing Interests

The author has no competing interests to declare.

References

  1. Adger, David, Alex Drummond, David Hall & Coppe van Urk. 2017. Is there Condition C reconstruction? In Proceedings of NELS 47, 21–30. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 

  2. Agouraki, Yeorgia. 1992. Clitic-left-dislocation and clitic doubling: A unification. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 45–70. 

  3. Agouraki, Yeorgia. 1993. Spec-head Licensing: The Scope of the Theory. London: University College London dissertation. 

  4. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2014. Multiple determiners and the structure of DPs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.211 

  5. Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1997. Toward a uniform account of scrambling and Clitic Doubling. In Elly van Gelderen & Abraham Werner (eds.), German: Syntactic problems–problematic Syntax, 142–161. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110914726-009 

  6. Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16(3). 491–539. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006090432389 

  7. Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2000. Clitic-doubling and (non-) configurationality. In Proceedings of NELS 30, 17–28. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 

  8. Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2001. The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations. Linguistic inquiry 32(2). 193–231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/00243890152001753 

  9. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1994. Clitic dependencies in Modern Greek. Salzburg University of Salzburg dissertation. 

  10. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1997. Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In Elena Anagnostopoulou, Henk van Riemsdijk & Frans Zwarts (eds.), Materials in left dislocation, 151–193. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.14.11ana 

  11. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1999a. Conditions on clitic doubling in Greek. In Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe, 761–798. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804010.761 

  12. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1999b. On clitics, feature movement and double object alternation. In Proceedings of the NELS 29, 41–55. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 

  13. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 

  14. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2007. Clitic doubling. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 519–581. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch14 

  15. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. to appear. Clitic Doubling. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

  16. Angelopoulos, Nikos, Chris Collins & Arhonto Terzi. 2018. Passive by-phrases in Greek and English: Adjuncts or Arguments? Ms., University of California Los Angeles, New York University, University of Patras. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004208. 

  17. Angelopoulos, Nikos & Dominique Sportiche. 2018. Clitic dislocations and clitics in French and Greek: From interpretation to structure. Ms., University of California Los Angeles. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004223. 

  18. Aoun, Joseph. 1985. A grammar of anaphora. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

  19. Aoun, Youssef & Dominique Sportiche. 1981. The Domain of weak cross-over restrictions in theoretical issues in the grammar of Semitic languages. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 3. 43–52. 

  20. Baker, Mark & Ruth Kramer. 2018. Doubling Clitics are pronouns: reduce and interpret. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36. 1035–1088. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9401-8 

  21. Belletti, Adriana. 1999. Italian/romance clitics: Structure and derivation. In Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe, 543–580. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804010.543 

  22. Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6(3). 291–352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133902 

  23. Brody, Michael. 1990. Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 201–225. 

  24. Broekhuis, Hans & Norbert Corver. 2016. Word order in the clause V: Middle field (scrambling). In Hans Broekhuis & Norbert Corver (eds.), Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and verb phrases, 238–288. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_614910 

  25. Cardinaletti, Anna. 1997. Agreement and control in expletive constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 521–533. 

  26. Cardinaletti, Anna. 2002. Against optional and null clitics. Right dislocation vs. marginalization. Studia Linguistica 56(1). 29–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00086 

  27. Cardinaletti, Anna. 2004. Towards a cartography of subject positions. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures 2. 115–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press Oxford. 

  28. Cardinaletti, Anna. 2008. On different types of clitic clusters. In Cecile De Cat & Katherine Demuth (eds.), The Romance-Bantu Connection. A comparative investigation of verbal Agreement, DPs and information structure, 41–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.131.06car 

  29. Cecchetto, Carlo. 1999. A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in romance. Studia Linguistica 53(1). 40–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00039 

  30. Cecchetto, Carlo. 2000. Doubling structures and reconstruction. Probus 12(1). 93–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2000.12.1.93 

  31. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

  32. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic inquiry 36(3). 315–332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396917 

  33. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The syntax of adjectives: A comparative study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014168.001.0001 

  34. Collins, Chris. 1990. Clitic doubling in Modern Greek. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

  35. Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2). 157–196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554020 

  36. Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

  37. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2006. Polarity, questions, and the scalar properties of even. In Gregory Ward & Maria Birner (eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning. Neo-gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn, 95–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.80.07gia 

  38. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2007. The landscape of even. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(1). 39–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9006-5 

  39. Harizanov, Boris. 2014. Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology interface. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(4). 1033–1088. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9249-5 

  40. Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite NPs. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst dissertation. 

  41. Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic inquiry 36(4). 533–564. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438905774464322 

  42. Horrocks, Geoffrey & Melita Stavrou. 1987. Bounding theory and Greek syntax: evidence for wh-movement in NP. Journal of Linguistics 23(1). 79–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670001104X 

  43. Horvath, Julia. 1986. FOCUS in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris. 

  44. Iatridou, Sabine. 1986. An anaphor not bound in its governing category. Linguistic Inquiry 17(4). 766–772. 

  45. Kallulli, Dalina. 2000. Direct object clitic doubling in Albanian and Greek. In Frits Beukema & Marcel Den Dikken (eds.), Clitic phenomena in european languages, 209–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.30.09kal 

  46. Kallulli, Dalina. 2008. Clitic doubling in the Balkan languages. In Kallulli Dalina & Tasmowski Liliane (eds.), Clitic doubling in the Balkan languages, 227–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.130 

  47. Kayne, Richard. 1972. Subject inversion in French interrogatives. In Joseph Casagrande & Saciuk Bohdan (eds.), Generative studies in romance languages, 70–126. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 

  48. Kayne, Richard. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand. 

  49. Kayne, Richard. 2005. Movement and silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

  50. Kayne, Richard. 2018. The place of linear order in the language faculty. Ms. New York University. 

  51. Koopman, Hilda. 2007. Topics in imperatives. In Wim van der Wurff (ed.), Imperative clauses in generative grammar, 153–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.103.06koo 

  52. Koopman, Hilda. 2017. A note on Huave morpheme ordering: Local dislocation or generalized U20? In Gautam Sengupta, Shruti Sircar, Gayatri Raman & Balusu Rahul (eds.), Perspectives on the architecture and acquisition of syntax essays in honor of R. Amritavalli, 23–47. Singapore: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4295-9_2 

  53. Koopman, Hilda & Anna Szabolcsi. 2000. Verbal complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7090.001.0001 

  54. Krapova, Iliyana & Guglielmo Cinque. 2008. Clitic doubling in the Balkan languages. In Kallulli Dalina & Tasmowski Liliane (eds.), Clitic doubling in the Balkan languages, 257–287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.130.15kra 

  55. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 

  56. Lebeaux, David. 1991. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. Syntax and Semantics 25. 209–239. 

  57. Mahajan, Anoop. 2003. Word order and (remnant) VP movement. In Simin Karimi (ed.), Word order and scrambling, 217–237. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758403.ch10 

  58. Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory: Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. 

  59. Marchis, Mihaela & Artemis Alexiadou. 2013. The syntax of clitics revisited: two types of clitics. Lingua 127. 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.01.002 

  60. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2009. Why agree? why move?: Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8116.001.0001 

  61. Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4). 939–971. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9150-4 

  62. Papangeli, Dimitra. 2000. Clitic doubling in Modern Greek: A head-complement relation. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12. 473–497. 

  63. Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1987. The theory of empty categories and the pro-drop parameter in Modern Greek. Journal of Linguistics 23(2). 289–318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011282 

  64. Philippaki-Warburton, Irene, Spyridoula Varlokosta, Michalis Georgiafentis & George Kotzoglou. 2004. Moving from theta-positions: Pronominal clitic doubling in Greek. Lingua 114(8). 963–989. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00100-1 

  65. Preminger, Omer. 2009. Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry 40(4). 619–666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.4.619 

  66. Preminger, Omer. 2019. What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality. Glossa 4(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.315 

  67. Revithiadou, Anthoula & Vassilios Spyropoulos. 2009. A dynamic approach to the syntax-phonology interface: A case study of Greek. In Kleanthes Grohman (ed.), Interphases: Phase-theoretic investigations of linguistic interfaces, 202–233. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

  68. Rezac, Milan. 2008. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and absolutive displacement in Basque. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26(1). 61–106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9032-6 

  69. Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17(3). 501–557. 

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

  71. Roberts, Ian. 2010a. A deletion analysis of null subjects. In Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, Theresa Biberauer & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation: null subjects in minimalist theory, 58–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

  72. Roberts, Ian G. 2010b. Agreement and head movement: clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001 

  73. Safir, Ken. 2018. The A-/A’-distinction as an epiphenomenon. Ms. Rutgers University. 

  74. Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 1994. The syntax of clitic doubling in Modern Greek. Los Angeles: University of Southern California dissertation. 

  75. Sharvit, Yael. 1999. Connectivity in specificational sentences. Natural Language Semantics 7(3). 299–339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008390623435 

  76. Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 213–277. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_9 

  77. Sportiche, Dominique. 2016. Neglect (or doing away with late merger and counter-cyclicity). Ms., University of California Los Angeles. 

  78. Sportiche, Dominique. 2017. Reconstruction, binding and scope. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 3569–3626. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing 2nd edn. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom002 

  79. Takahashi, Shoichi & Sarah Hulsey. 2009. Wholesale late merger: Beyond the A/Ā distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 40(3). 387–426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.387 

  80. Torrego, Esther. 1992. Case and argument structure. Ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst. 

  81. Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic inquiry 26(1). 79–123. 

  82. Vallduví, Enric. 1993. The informational component. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation. 

  83. Van Urk, Coppe. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A case study of Dinka Bor. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. 

  84. Villalba, Xavier. 1998. Right dislocation is not right dislocation. Studies on the syntax of central Romance languages. Girona, Universitat de Girona. 227–241. 

  85. Warburton, Irene. 1975. The passive in English and Greek. Foundations of Language 13(4). 563–578. 

  86. Warburton, Irene P. 1977. Modern Greek clitic pronouns and the ‘surface structure constraints’ hypothesis. Journal of Linguistics 13(2). 259–281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700005429 

  87. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

comments powered by Disqus