draft of November 2011
draft of November 2011
draft of November 2011
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Topic-strategies and the internal structure <strong>of</strong> nominal<br />
arguments in Greek and Italian ∗<br />
Theodora Alexopoulou and Raffaella Folli<br />
Cambridge and Ulster<br />
ta259@cam.ac.uk and r.folli@ulster.ac.uk<br />
Draft <strong>of</strong> <strong>November</strong> <strong>2011</strong><br />
Abstract<br />
The paper investigates investigates how Italian and Greek employ Clitic Left Disloca-<br />
tion (clld) to encode discourse topics. Greek is sensitive to the definiteness/referentiality<br />
<strong>of</strong> the topic, employing clld exclusively for referential topics and resorting to Topi-<br />
calisation for non-referential/property denoting topics. By contrast, clld is the main<br />
topic-strategy in Italian including non-referential/property denoting topics. This contrast<br />
is shown to mirror variation in more general patterns <strong>of</strong> anaphoric relations in the two<br />
languages, which, in turn, relate to the structure <strong>of</strong> nominal arguments: the fact that<br />
Greek non-referential indefinites systematically involve bare nouns which may be dropped<br />
rather than picked up by a pronoun in intrasentential anaphora contexts; the fact that<br />
Italian indefinites always involve a determiner and Italian pronouns can support property<br />
anaphora.<br />
The hypothesis is that the crosslignuistic variation in the anaphoric and clld patterns<br />
is the consequence <strong>of</strong> structural variation in the syntax <strong>of</strong> nominal arguments. Greek<br />
∗ We would like to thank the audiences <strong>of</strong> the following workshops and conferences: Funny Indefinites, June<br />
2008, Berlin, LAGB, September 2009, Edinburgh, Bare Nouns, <strong>November</strong> 2009, Paris, Syntax Workshop <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Irish Network on Formal Syntax, February 2010, Belfast, Meditereanean Syntax, October 2010, Athens, On<br />
Linguistics Interfaces, December 2010, Belfast and Workshop on Current Issues in Semantics and Pragmatics,<br />
June <strong>2011</strong>, York. Special thanks to George Tsoulas for discussion.<br />
1
nominal arguments lack a D-layer; rather they are Number Phrases. On a par with Italian,<br />
Greek nouns are predicative; however, while the nominalisor in Italian is D, in Greek it<br />
is Number. The hypothesis allows for a three-way distinction between Italian, Greek and<br />
English which explains the properties <strong>of</strong> bare nouns in the these languages and further<br />
patterns relating to the availability <strong>of</strong> Indefinite Argument Drop and Subnominal Deletion.<br />
It further suggests that D and referentiality are not intrinsically linked. Finally, under this<br />
analysis, variation in the realisation <strong>of</strong> topic-structures is not confined to PF (i.e. whether<br />
the in-situ element is a gap/null epithet or a pronoun); rather the specific properties <strong>of</strong><br />
the pronominal are crucial, in turn interacting with the syntax <strong>of</strong> nominal arguments in<br />
each language.<br />
2
1 Introduction<br />
Clitic Left Dislocation (clld) is standardly assumed as the main topic-strategy in Italian and<br />
Greek (Cinque 1990; Anagnostopoulou 1994; Rizzi 1997; Tsimpli 1995). On a par with English<br />
Topicalisation, the (A ′ ) topic-operator involved in clld is analysed as anaphoric in the sense<br />
<strong>of</strong> Lasnik and Stowell (1991); rather than binding a variable (like a quantificational operator),<br />
is linked anaphorically to the in-situ element <strong>of</strong> the dependency, through co-reference. The<br />
pronominal in clld is <strong>of</strong>ten analysed as an overt counterpart <strong>of</strong> the gap element in Topical-<br />
isation (Rizzi 1997; Tsimpli 1999). The crosslinguistic variation then is confined to PF, the<br />
choice between a pronominal element and a gap (null epithet for Lasnik and Stowell 1991).<br />
Under this view, crosslinguistic variation is primarily related to the nature <strong>of</strong> the operator,<br />
anaphoric vs. quantificational while variation in the nature <strong>of</strong> the in-situ element has been<br />
much less in focus. Current assumptions make the prediction that the range <strong>of</strong> intepretations<br />
available for Topicalisation should be available for clld structures; in addition, no variation<br />
is expected within clld since, ultimately, the involvement <strong>of</strong> the pronominal is taken as a PF<br />
realisation <strong>of</strong> the gap involved in Topicalisation. 1<br />
Indeed, clld-ed indefinites in Italian allow both the de re (wide scope) reading in (1a) as<br />
well as a de dicto reading, as indicated by the continuations in (1b) and (1c). If clld involves<br />
movement just like Topicalisation, then the indefinite in (1a) should reconstruct under the<br />
scope <strong>of</strong> the intensional predicate.<br />
(1) a. una gonna rossa la cerco da un po’<br />
a red skirt her.cl look-for-1sg for a while<br />
A red skirt I’ve been looking for a while...<br />
b. ma non ne ho trovata nessuna che mi piaccia<br />
but not <strong>of</strong>-them.cl have-1sg found none-fem that me please-3sg.subj<br />
... but have not found anyone that I like.<br />
c. ma non riesco a ricordarmi dove l’ho<br />
messa<br />
but not reach-1sg to remember where her.cl-have-1sg put<br />
puffle ... but I cannot remember where I’ve put it.<br />
1 To be precise, Lasnik and Stowell (1991) argue that the gap element in Topicalisation is a null epithet rather<br />
than a variable. The fact remains that the pronominals in clld should allow the same range <strong>of</strong> interpretations<br />
as the null epithet in Topicalisation.<br />
3
Indeed, this is the analysis proposed by Cecchetto (2001) who discusses cases <strong>of</strong> clld-ed<br />
indefinites interpreted in the scope <strong>of</strong> IP internal quantifiers. For instance, (2) is ambiguous<br />
between a wide scope reading for the indefinite and a wide scope reading for the universal.<br />
(2) a. un articolo di Chomsky ogni studente l’ha letto<br />
an article <strong>of</strong> Chomsky every student it.cl-has read<br />
An article <strong>of</strong> Chomsky, every student has read it.<br />
However, there are two unexpected facts for the view that clld and Topicalisation are<br />
different (PF) realisations <strong>of</strong> the same structure. The first is that Italian clld is rather<br />
exceptional in allowing ambiguous readings for clld-ed indefinites. For instance, in Greek,<br />
clld-ed indefinites can only admit wide-scope interpretations (Iatridou 1995; Alexopoulou<br />
and Kolliakou 2002) as indicated in (3). Mia kokini fusta resists the opaque or de dicto reading,<br />
as indicated by the infelicity <strong>of</strong> the continuation in (3b) (Iatridou 1995; Anagnostopoulou 1994;<br />
Alexopoulou and Kolliakou 2002). 2 Similarly, ena artrho tu Chomsky cannot be interpreted<br />
under the scope <strong>of</strong> the universal in (4).<br />
(3) a. mia kokini fusta tin psahno edho ke meres<br />
a red skirt it look-for-1sg here and days<br />
I’ve been looking for a red skirt for a few days ...<br />
b. =ke de boro na vro kamia pu na m’aresi<br />
and not can-1sg subj find-1sg none<br />
... and I cannot find any that I like.<br />
that subj me-please-3sg<br />
c. ke de boro na thimitho pu tin eho vali<br />
and not can-1sg subj remember-1sg where her.cl have-1sg put<br />
... and cannot remember where I put it. (Alexopoulou and Kolliakou 2002)<br />
(4) ena artrho tu Chomsky to diavase kathe fititis<br />
an article the-gen Chomsky it-cl read-3sg each student-nom<br />
There’s an article <strong>of</strong> Chomsky that every student read (only wide scope for indefinite).<br />
Second, Greek employs Topicalisation when a non-referential or de dicto interpretation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
indefinite topic is intended.<br />
2 We mark infelicity with =.<br />
4
(5) a. Fetos i moda ine apesia; idika i bluzes ine aparadektes<br />
I hate this year’s fashion; the blouses are especially outrageous.<br />
b. mia kokini bluza psahno edo ki ena mina ke de boro na vro<br />
a red blouse her.cl look-for-1sg here and one month and not can subj<br />
puthena kamia pu na m’aresi<br />
find-1sg anywhere anyone that subj me like-3sg<br />
A red blouse I’ve been looking for for a month now and I cannot find one that I<br />
like.<br />
(Alexopoulou and Kolliakou 2002, ex.51)<br />
So, while the hypothesis that clld and Topicalisation are different PF realisations <strong>of</strong> the<br />
same structure can elegantly capture the variation between English and Italian, the Greek<br />
facts are problematic, since this language has two distinct syntactic structures for topics,<br />
namely Topicalisation and clld, a fact that indicates that the presence <strong>of</strong> the pronominal<br />
has interpretative consequences. We turn to the discussion <strong>of</strong> the differences between these<br />
two languages next.<br />
The minimal pairs in Italian (1) and Greek (3)&(5) illustrate a contrast between Italian<br />
and Greek topic-strategies. Italian employs clld as the main topic-strategy, regardless <strong>of</strong> the<br />
referentiality <strong>of</strong> the dislocated topic. Greek, by contrast, employs clld only for referential top-<br />
ics; non-referential topics undergo Topicalisation. The present paper investigates the source<br />
<strong>of</strong> this contrast. Our analysis builds on the insight <strong>of</strong> Rizzi (1997),Cinque (1990), Anagnos-<br />
topoulou (1994) and Tsimpli (1999) according to which clld is characterised by the absence<br />
<strong>of</strong> quantifier-variable chain and the presennce <strong>of</strong> an anaphoric link between the dislocated<br />
phrase and the pronominal. Indeed we demonstrate that clld mirrors general anaphoric<br />
possibilities between pronouns and their antecedents in the two languages. We show that<br />
the contrast regarding clld is not an isolated fact, but rather, is linked to a further set <strong>of</strong><br />
empirical contrasts regarding the availability <strong>of</strong> Indefinite Argument Drop, bare subnominal<br />
ellipsis and the availability <strong>of</strong> bare nouns in the two languages. The emerging patterns indi-<br />
cate strongly that variation is these contexts is linked to variation in the internal structure <strong>of</strong><br />
the nominals and pronouns involved. Our central claim is that all relevant contrasts can be<br />
reduced to one: the absence <strong>of</strong> a D-layer from Greek nominal arguments and the hypothesis<br />
5
that Greek arguments instantiate Number Phrases. This hypothesis has consequences for the<br />
structure and interpretation <strong>of</strong> pronominals, which, in turn, directly affects the interpretative<br />
possibilities in clld in the two languages. Crucially, the clitic in clld cannot be just an overt<br />
PF realisation <strong>of</strong> the epithet assumed in Topicalisation, since its specific properties interact<br />
direclty with the topic-strategies in the two languages. Variation in topic-structures then can-<br />
not be confined to PF, but rather, interacts with the structure <strong>of</strong> nominal arguments in the<br />
two languages. 3 Further, the hypothesis allows a three way typological distinction between<br />
English, Italian and Greek in relation to bare nouns. Unlike English, Italian and Greek do not<br />
have argumental nouns (in the sense <strong>of</strong> Chierchia 1998). Rather nouns are predicative. But<br />
while in Italian D acts as the nominalisor turning predicative nouns to arguments, in Greek<br />
the nominalisor is Number.<br />
In section 2 we briefly review previous approaches to the interpretations <strong>of</strong> clld-ed in-<br />
definites. Section 3 presents a set <strong>of</strong> facts that correlate with the clld contrasts, drawing<br />
from contexts <strong>of</strong> Indefinite Argument Drop, Bare Subnomianal Ellipsis and the distribution<br />
<strong>of</strong> bare nominals in the two languages. Our analysis <strong>of</strong> these facts is presented in section 4.<br />
2 Indefinite Topics: Previous Analyses<br />
Though no previous analysis has focused on the crosslinguistic variation between Greek and<br />
Italian clld, the main facts presented earlier have been discussed for each language. Two<br />
kinds <strong>of</strong> analyses have been proposed to explain the wide scope readings <strong>of</strong> Greek clld-ed<br />
indefinites and the ambiguity <strong>of</strong> their Italian counterparts: (i) scope based analyses, where the<br />
relevant readings are linked to the underlying derivations and (ii) Topichood-based analyses,<br />
where referential readings are viewed as a consequence <strong>of</strong> the discourse function <strong>of</strong> clld-ed<br />
phrases as topics. We review these analyses briefly below.<br />
Scope based analyses Iatridou (1995) and Anagnostopoulou (1994) take the impossibility<br />
<strong>of</strong> interpreting clld-ed indefinites within the scope <strong>of</strong> IP internal operators as evidence for a<br />
base-generation analysis <strong>of</strong> Greek clld. Similarly, Cecchetto (2001) takes the Italian facts as<br />
3 A preliminary discussion and analysis <strong>of</strong> this set <strong>of</strong> facts is presented in Alexopoulou and Folli (<strong>2011</strong>).<br />
6
evidence <strong>of</strong> reconstruction, and, therefore proposes a movement analysis for Italian clld-ed<br />
DPs. Italian and Greek clld then involve distinct derivations, movement and base generation<br />
respectively. However, there is no independent evidence for this derivational contrast. In<br />
fact, in both languages the structures display many standard clld properties (no wco, no-<br />
parasitic gaps, sensitivity to islands, unavailability <strong>of</strong> clld-ed downward entailing quantifiers<br />
see Cinque 1990; Anagnostopoulou 1994; Tsimpli 1995; Rizzi 1997; Alexopoulou, Doron, and<br />
Heycock 2004). 4<br />
In addition, the ”scope” facts are rather complex, posing a problem for the derivational<br />
approach. Consider (6a); while the de dicto reading is excluded, this example allows the so-<br />
called ”3rd-reading” (Fodor 1970; von Fintel and Heim 2009), according to which, I’m looking<br />
for a specific type <strong>of</strong> an Armani skirt, e.g. one that I’ve seen in a brochure, but still not for<br />
a token. 5 Such examples could be taken as evidence that clld may at least allow partial<br />
reconstruction.<br />
(6) a. mia fusta tu Armani tin psahno edho ke meres<br />
a skirt the-gen Armani her.cl look-for-1sg here and days<br />
An Armani skirt I’ve been looking for for a few days ....<br />
b. ke de mporo na vro kamia pu na mu kani<br />
and not can-1sg subj find-1sg none that subj me fit-3sg<br />
... and I cannot find anyone that fits me.<br />
In addition, there is evidence from both Greek and Italian, that the properties <strong>of</strong> the dislocated<br />
element affect the ”scope” possibilities. For example, the plural clld-ed interrogative in (7)<br />
allows only a wide scope reading. 6<br />
(7) ?quanti pazienti ritieni che li debba visitare ogni medico?<br />
how-many patients think-2pl that them should visit each doctor<br />
How many patients do you think each doctor should visit? (no wide scope for universal)<br />
Unlike clld-ed indefinites, Greek definites may be interpreted under the scope <strong>of</strong> the universal<br />
4 But see Haegeman (pear) for some differences.<br />
5 Thanks to S. Iatridou for this observation.<br />
6 This example is due to Longobardi (1986) cited by Cinque (1990).<br />
7
quantifier in (8).<br />
(8) to aftokinito tu to asfalise kathe fititis<br />
the car his-gen it insured-3sg each student-nom<br />
Each student insured his car (distributive reading available).<br />
Finally, clld-ed PPs don’t reconstruct in Italian (Cecchetto 2001).<br />
In sum, there are at least three factors that may affect reconstruction: the number <strong>of</strong> the<br />
dislocated element (7), its definiteness (8) and its category. 7 Under the scope approach, these<br />
interactions are mysterious.<br />
Topichood analyses Topics are <strong>of</strong>ten taken to necessarily involve well established dis-<br />
course antecedents and, as a result, be compatible only with referential interpretations (Rein-<br />
hart 1982; Alexopoulou and Kolliakou 2002; Endriss 2006). This explanation works for Greek<br />
clld, since clld-ed phrases are necessarily referential topics (Philippaki-Warburton 1985;<br />
Anagnostopoulou 1994; Tsimpli 1995; Rizzi 1997). However, Italian clld challenges the gen-<br />
eralisation that topics are exclusively referential as we have seen in (1); the Greek Topicali-<br />
sation examples in (5b) are equally problematic.<br />
3 Beyond topics: nominals and anaphoric relations in Italian<br />
and Greek<br />
In this section we show that the clld facts mirror more general anaphoric possibilities in the<br />
two languages, which in turn relate to the make up <strong>of</strong> the nominals in the two languages.<br />
In particular, we draw evidence from the availability <strong>of</strong> Indefinite Argument Drop, Bare<br />
subnominal deletion and bare nominals. The most important shortcoming <strong>of</strong> the scope-based<br />
and topichood analyses reviewed in the previous section is that they could not capture the<br />
more general patterns discussed below. We begin by looking at the basic contrast between<br />
clld and Greek Topicalisation in some more detail.<br />
7 The presence <strong>of</strong> modal operators further affects readings (Alexopoulou 2009).<br />
8
3.1 Greek manipulates structure while Italian manipulates Ds<br />
Let us focus on the non-referential indefinites in some more detail. Consider the minimal pair<br />
in (9).<br />
(9) a. Una segrataria *(la)-trovi facilmente/ prima o poi una segretaria *(la)-trovi<br />
A secretary her.cl-find easily/ sooner or later a secretary her.find<br />
A secretary, you fill find her easily/ sooner or later you will find her<br />
b. Gramatea tha (*ti) vrite sigura<br />
Secretary will her.cl find-2pl certainly<br />
A secretary you will find her certainly.<br />
As already seen, Greek employs Topicalisation when a non-referential interpretation is in-<br />
tended while Italian clld. Thus, the clitic ti is ungrammatical in Greek but la obligatory<br />
in Italian. However, (9b) points to a further difference between the two languages: the dislo-<br />
cated phrase in Greek is a bare noun while in Italian the indefinite article is indespensible.<br />
Example (10), where the bare noun is preceded by mia is possible in Greek, but there is a<br />
strong preference to read mia as one. 8<br />
(10) mia grammatea tha vrite sigura<br />
one-fem secretary will find-2pl certainly<br />
It seems then that Greek is sensitive to the (in)definiteness <strong>of</strong> the topic and has two<br />
distinct topic strategies: indefinite topics are typically bare nominals linked to a gap, while<br />
definite/referential topics are preceded by an article and linked to a pronominal clitic (11).<br />
By contrast, Italian indefinite topics as in (9a) are structurally very similar to the clld-ed<br />
definite topic in (11b); both types involve clld.<br />
(11) a. ti Maria tha ti vrite sigura sto grafio<br />
the-acc Maria will her.cl find-2pl certainly at-the <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
Maria you’ll certainly find her at the <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
b. il libro che cerchi lo trovi sul tavolo<br />
the book that are-looking-for.2sg it.cl find-2sg on-the table<br />
8 Greek has no indefinite article distinct from the numeral one.<br />
9
The book you are looking for you’ll find it on the table.<br />
The pattern becomes somewhat more complicated in Italian when plurals are considered.<br />
As can be seen in (12a) and in (7) repeated as (12b), the plural clitic le resists a non-referential<br />
antecedent, just like the Greek clitics.<br />
(12) a. *Segretarie le<br />
trovi facilemente.<br />
Secretaries them.cl.fem find easily<br />
Secretaries, you will find them easily.<br />
b. ?quanti pazienti ritieni che li<br />
debba visitare ogni medico?<br />
how-many patients think-2sg that them.cl.msc should visit each doctor<br />
How many patients do you think each doctor should visit? (no wide scope for<br />
universal)<br />
However, unlike Greek, Italian does not resort to an alternative structure (Topicalisation)<br />
to realise plural indefinite topics. Rather it employs an alternative clitic, namely ne as shown<br />
in (13). Importantly, while a bare plural is possible in these structures, a DP involving the<br />
bare partititive construction delle N is also available.<br />
(13) a. (Delle)-segretarie ne trovi facilemente.<br />
Secretaries <strong>of</strong>-them.cl find.easily<br />
Secretaries, you will find them easily<br />
b. (Delle)-segretarie se *(ne) trovano facilmente<br />
Secretaries refl <strong>of</strong>-them.cl find easily<br />
Secretaries, can be found easily.<br />
In sum then, Greek non-referential/indefinite topics are structurally different from their<br />
definite/referential counterparts; they involve bare nominals linked to a gap. By contrast,<br />
Italian systematically employs clld as its topic strategy but manipulates the type <strong>of</strong> D-<br />
elements (pronominals/articles) involved.<br />
10
3.2 Indefinite pronominal antecedents and Indefinite Argument Drop<br />
(IAD)<br />
The range <strong>of</strong> available interpretations for an indefinite clld-ed phrase in the two languages<br />
mirrors the possibilities available in intrasentential anaphora. Compare (9a) with (14). The<br />
pronoun la in (14a) and lo in (14b) can admit a non-referential antecedent just like the clld<br />
example in (9a). Notice again that la and lo cannot be ommitted in (14).<br />
(14) a. A:Maria ha trovato una baby sitter? B:Si, l’ha<br />
trovata<br />
A:Maria has-3sg found a baby sitter? B:Yes, her.cl’has-3sg found<br />
A:Has Maria found a baby sitter? B: yes, she found one<br />
b. Gianni sta cercando un idraulico ma non lo trova<br />
Gianni is looking-for a plumber but not him.cl find-3sg<br />
Gianni is looking-for a plumber but cannot find one.<br />
Compare now the Greek Topicalisation example in (9b) with (15). The pronouns ti and<br />
ton are incompatible with the indefinite bare noun antecedents, just as in (9b). In fact, there<br />
is no pronoun in these examples; rather the (object) argument is dropped; the phenomenon<br />
was first observed by Dimitriadis (1994) who also drew a correlation between the availability<br />
<strong>of</strong> Greek Topicalisation and argument drop in examples like (15). 9 (See also Giannakidou and<br />
Merchant (1997), Tsimpli and Papadopoulou (2005) and Panagiotidis (2002)):<br />
(15) a. A:vrike dada I Maria? B:ne, (*ti) vrike<br />
Q:found-3sg nanny the-nom Maria A:yes, (*her) found-3sg<br />
Has Maria found a nanny? Yes, she found.<br />
b. o Yanis psahni idravliko alla dhe (*ton) vriski puthena<br />
the-nom Yanis look-for-3sg plumber but not (him) find-3sg anywhere<br />
Yanis is looking for a plumber but cannot nd one anywhere.<br />
Note that the problem in (15) is not the bare nominal per se, but the necessarily non-<br />
referential interpretation <strong>of</strong> bare nouns which bars them as pronominal antecedents. As we<br />
shall see in the next section, bare nouns can be discourse transparent, i.e. act as pronoun<br />
antecedents. But in (15) the interpretations are necessarily non-referential/weak. When enan<br />
9 He refers to what we call Topicalisation as Empty clld.<br />
11
(=a/one) is involved in (16), ambiguity arises. The presence <strong>of</strong> the pronominal in (16a) forces<br />
a referential interpretation for the indefinite, exactly as in the clld case in (3). The indefinite<br />
interpretation is only available when the object is dropped in the second clause (16b), on a<br />
par with (5).<br />
(16) a. o Yanis psahni enan idravliko, ala dhe ton vriski puthena<br />
the-nom Yanis look-for-3sg one plumber but not him find-3sg anywhere<br />
Yanis is looking for a plubmer but cannot find him anywhere. ∃ > look-for<br />
b. o Yanis psahni enan idravliko, ala dhe vriski puthena<br />
the-nom Yanis look-for-3sg one plumber but not find-3sg anywhere<br />
Yanis is looking for a plubmer but cannot find one anywhere. look-for > ∃<br />
The facts reviewed so far indicate that: (i) the relation between a clld-ed phrase and the clitic<br />
mirrors intrasentential anaphora in the two languages; (ii) Greek pronouns systematically<br />
resist non-referential antecedents while Italian clitics can accept such antecedents; (iii) Greek<br />
allows Indefinite Argument Drop (IAD) where Italian systematically employs pronouns.<br />
Before moving on it is worth pointing out that IAD is available also with subjects in Greek<br />
as shown in (17) (and noticed by Giannakidou and Merchant 1997). (17b) can be a felicitous<br />
exchange in a context where a new helpline is set up at a university, available to faculty,<br />
students and the general public, but what is <strong>of</strong> interest is if students specifically use it.<br />
(17) a. A:irthe kanis? B:ne irthe<br />
A:came-3sg anyone? B:yes, came-3sg<br />
A:Did anyone come? B:Yes, someone did.<br />
b. A:tilefonisan fitites? B:ne tilefonisan<br />
A:phoned-3pl students? B:yes, phoned-3pl<br />
A:Did students phone? B:Yes, some did.<br />
By contrast, such indefinite subjects cannot be dropped in Italian.<br />
(18) A:Ha telefonato qualcuno B:Si, qualcuno ha telefonato/*Si, ha telefonato<br />
A:Has phoned someone? B:Yes, someone has phoned/*Yes, has phoned<br />
A: Has anyone phoned? B: Yes, someone has phoned.<br />
12
3.3 Bare nouns<br />
As has become evident, many <strong>of</strong> the critical examples in Greek involve bare nouns. In fact, bare<br />
nouns are very widely available in Greek (19), in contrast to Italian, where their distribution<br />
is restricted (Benincà 1980; Longobardi 1994; Chierchia 1998). Crucially for the present<br />
discussion, a bare noun is ungrammatical in examples like (20) where Greek naturally prefers<br />
a bare noun.<br />
(19) a. i Maria vrike dada gia ta pedhia<br />
the-nom Maria found nanny for the children<br />
Maria found a nanny for the children.<br />
b. mpikan kleftes ke sikosan ta pada<br />
broke-in-3pl burglars and lifted-3pl the all<br />
Burglars broke in and took everything.<br />
c. diadilotes pirpolisan magazia ke aftokinita stus dromus yiro apo<br />
demonstrators set-on-fire shops and cars in-the streets around from<br />
to Politehnio<br />
the Politehnio<br />
Demonstrators set on fire shops and cars in the streets around the School <strong>of</strong><br />
Engineering.<br />
The Italian counterparts <strong>of</strong> Greek (19a) and (15) resist bare nouns as shown in (20).<br />
(20) a. Maria ha trovato una baby-sitter/*baby-sitter per i bambini<br />
Maria has found a nanny/*nanny for the children<br />
Maria found a nanny for the children.<br />
b. Gianni sta cercando un idraulico/*idraulico.<br />
Gianni is looking-for a plumber/*plumber<br />
Gianni is looking for a plumber.<br />
3.4 Bare subnominal ellipsis<br />
The final set <strong>of</strong> observations comes from another context <strong>of</strong> intrasentential anaphora which<br />
gives rise to the deletion <strong>of</strong> the nominal antecedent. Consider (21). In the answer, the noun<br />
tavolo is elided; the nominal is headed by uno which consists <strong>of</strong> the indefinite article and the<br />
classifier o, followed by the adjective (Alexiadou and Gengel 2008). In addition, the elliptical<br />
13
nominal is doubled by the pronoun lo, which in this case is non-referential. 10<br />
(21) A:Vorrei un tavolo grande B:Mi spiace. Non lo abbiamo, uno<br />
A:would-like-1sg a<br />
grande<br />
big<br />
table big B:Me displeases-3sg. Not it have-1pl, a<br />
I would like to buy a big table. I’m sorry. We do not have a big one.<br />
(From Alexiadou and Gengel 2008, attributed to V.Samek-Lodovici)<br />
Compare now with the Greek counterpart <strong>of</strong> (21) in (22). As in Italian, the noun can be<br />
elided, but the adjective alone is enough; there is no element heading the nominal and, in<br />
addition, there is no doubling. All we have is a bare adjective holding the place <strong>of</strong> a nominal<br />
object.<br />
(22) a. thelo afti ti fusta se kitrino<br />
want-1sg this the skirt in yellow<br />
I would like this skirt in yellow.<br />
b. Distihos dhen eho kitrini. (Mono mavres mu ehun<br />
unfortunately not<br />
mini)<br />
left)<br />
have-1sg yellow-fem.sg (Ony black-fem.pl me have-3pl<br />
Unfortunately I don’t have a yellow one. ( Only black ones are left).<br />
The facts presented in this section are summarised in Table 1. All critical cases involve<br />
non-referential or weak indefinites. The emerging pattern is that for such nominals, Italian<br />
10 Belletti and Rizzi (1981) argue on the basis <strong>of</strong> the examples below where ne is obligatory and uno un-<br />
grammatical, that ne involves less structure than DP. However, Cardinaletti and Giusti (1990) have argued<br />
against this position and analyse ne as a head Q, although in their paper they do not take an explicit position<br />
on whether Q is a functional category different from D or it is the head <strong>of</strong> D. In the discussion to come we will<br />
adopt this latter position.<br />
(i) a. ho letto un lunghissimo libro<br />
have-1sg read a very-long book<br />
I have read a very long book.<br />
b. ne/*uno ho letto uno/*un (lunghissimo)<br />
14
systematically employs articles and pronouns where Greek resorts to bare structures. The<br />
analysis then needs to capture the following: (i) Italian nominals are systematically DPs<br />
where Greek nominals involve less structure; (ii) Italian pronouns are compatible with non-<br />
referential antecedents where Greek pronouns necessarily involve referential antecedents.<br />
Structure Italian Greek<br />
(A) Indefinite Topics clld <strong>of</strong> an indefinite Bare nominal<br />
nominal (1) linked to a gap (5,9b)<br />
(B) CLLD-ed De dicto and de re Only de re (3)<br />
indefinites available (1) and 3rd reading (6)<br />
(C) Bare nouns Limited distribution; Productive use<br />
bare partitive <strong>of</strong> bare nouns (9b,20)<br />
construction (12,13)<br />
(D) Indefinite Unavailable Obligatory with<br />
Argument Drop (14,19) (some) weak indefinites<br />
and bare nouns (16,17b)<br />
(E) Bare Subnominal Unavailable May involve<br />
Ellipsis always a D element (22) bare adjective (23)<br />
Table 1: Summary <strong>of</strong> the crosslinguistic contrasts in the realisation <strong>of</strong> weak indefinites<br />
15
4 Analysis<br />
4.1 Greek nominal arguments are Number Phrases<br />
Since Horrocks and Stavrou (1987), Greek nominal arguments are assumed to be DPs (see<br />
also Stavrou 1991). This view remains dominant in the Greek literature to date, modulo<br />
Kolliakou’s work on Greek definites (Kolliakou 2003) and two proposals for treating some<br />
cases <strong>of</strong> Greek bare nouns as NPs by Tomioka (2003) and Tsimpli and Papadopoulou (2005).<br />
In this section we provide arguments that Greek nominals are Number Phrases without a<br />
D layer. We begin our discussion with bare nouns in section 4.1.1 and then move to nominals<br />
with articles and quantifiers in section 4.1.3.<br />
4.1.1 Bare nouns in Greek<br />
We hypothesise the structure in (23). We need to show two things: first, that bare nouns are<br />
arguments and not incorporated properties. Second, that no D layer is needed.<br />
(23) a. aghorasa vivlia<br />
bought-1sg books<br />
I bought books.<br />
VP<br />
✟❍<br />
✟<br />
✟ ❍<br />
❍<br />
b. V NumP<br />
aghorasa<br />
✟ ✟ ❍<br />
❍<br />
Num NP<br />
+Pl<br />
N<br />
vivlia<br />
Morphology In terms <strong>of</strong> their morphology, bare nominals are marked for case, gender<br />
and number just like any other argument, in contrast to incorporated arguments which,<br />
crosslinguistically, may show reduced morphology (Farkas and de Swarts 2003).<br />
16
Syntax They can be left dislocated (24a), undergo (focus-)movement (24b) or be pas-<br />
sivised (24c) like any other argument. 11<br />
(24) a. danio, kserume pia trapeza tha mas dosi<br />
loan, know-1pl which bank will us give-3sg<br />
A loan, we know which bank will give it to us.<br />
b. gamo theli, ohi tsilimpurdismata<br />
marriage want-3sg not affairs<br />
S/he’s after marriage, not affairs.<br />
c. plastes taftotites ekdothikan mono stin Katohi (ohi ston<br />
fake identity-cards were-issued only in-the Occupation (not in-the<br />
efmilio)<br />
civil-war)<br />
Fake identity cards were issued only during the Occupation period (not during<br />
the Civil war).<br />
In addition, bare nouns can be modified like their non-bare counterparts.<br />
(25) a. agorase akrivo aftokinito<br />
bought-3sg expensive car<br />
She bought an expensive car.<br />
b. theli dada me ptihio<br />
want-3sg baby-sitter with degree<br />
She wants a babysitter with a degree.<br />
c. kalos yatros ton exetase (min anisihis)<br />
good-nom doctor-nom clhim examined-3sg (not<br />
A good doctor examined him, don’t worry.<br />
worry-2sg)<br />
11 Panagiotidis (2003) points out that a predicate like perno tilefono (=take phone) is ambiguous between<br />
I get(=buy/fetch) a phone and make a phonecall. Interestingly, even under the latter interpretation, where<br />
tilefono could be taken as semantically incorporated to the meaning <strong>of</strong> the whole predicate, the bare noun can<br />
be dislocated as in (i).<br />
(i) tilefono de mpori na pari i marina; ine mikro pedhi<br />
phonecall not can subj take-3sg the-nom Marina; is small child<br />
Marina cannot make phonecall; she’s only a child.<br />
17
Thus, the morphosyntactic properties <strong>of</strong> bare nouns provide evidence for an argument analysis<br />
since there is no evidence <strong>of</strong> incorporation.<br />
No number neutrality for bare singulars Semantic evidence also indicates that bare<br />
nouns are arguments and excludes an incorporation analysis. A characteristic property <strong>of</strong><br />
incorporated bare nouns is number neutrality, even when they are marked with singular<br />
morphology. Number neutrality entails compatibility with both atomic (singular) and plural<br />
interpretations (Farkas and de Swarts 2003; Espinal 2010). Greek bare singulars are only<br />
compatible with an atomic interpretation. Thus, (26a) denotes reading <strong>of</strong> one newspaper;<br />
characteristically, (26c) is ungrammatical with the singular, exactly because the predicate<br />
necessitates a plural interpretation (compare with stamp collector in English).<br />
(26) a. dhiavase efimeridha<br />
read-3sg newspaper<br />
S/he read a newspaper. (reading <strong>of</strong> one newspaper)<br />
b. dhiavase efimeridhes<br />
read-3sg newspapers<br />
She read newspapers. (reading <strong>of</strong> more than one newspapers)<br />
c. mazevi *gramatosim-o/gramatosim-a<br />
gather-3sg stamp-sg/stamps-pl<br />
She collects stamps.<br />
Greek bare singulars cannot license plural interpretations in (27) and (28) (adapted from<br />
Espinal 2010, ex.4a). The second sentence in (27) is infelicitous; Greek contrasts in this re-<br />
spect with languages like Catalan, where bare nouns license plural interpretations in contexts<br />
like (27) (Espinal 2010).<br />
(27) psahno aftokinito; = ena mikro gia tin poli ki ena fortighaki ya ekdromes<br />
look-for-1sg car; = one small for the city and one van for trips<br />
I’m looking for a car. = a small one for the city and a van for trips.<br />
18
Further, Greek bare nouns have atomic interpretations in contexts like (28), where their<br />
Catalan counterparts are number neutral and compatible with plural readings. 12 - 13<br />
12 With focal stress on the verb, we can get the implicature <strong>of</strong> more flowers, accounts or houses in (28). But,<br />
this is just the fact that, any indefinite interpreted existentially is true even if more than one such entities<br />
exist. In other words, the Greek examples in (i) are no different from their English translations in this respect.<br />
13 Espinal (2010) further notes that bare singulars in Catalan are restricted to predicates that allow an<br />
interpretation where the predicate (verb+bare singular) denotes a characterising property <strong>of</strong> the subject. This<br />
assumption explains the contrast between (ia) and (ib). (ia) involves a characterising property <strong>of</strong> the external<br />
argument, that <strong>of</strong> car-owner, while (ib) does not. Building on Espinal and McNally (2007), Espinal (2010)<br />
assumes that only ”have”-predicates are compatible with these characterising interpretations. Example (ib),<br />
then, is bad because it cannot be analysed as a ”have” predicate.<br />
(i) a. Tengo choche<br />
have car<br />
I have a car. (It could be one or more than one; I am a car-owner).<br />
b. =Limpio choche<br />
clean car<br />
I’m cleaning a car.<br />
(From Espinal 2010, ex.18)<br />
Greek examples like (ia) can certainly be interpreted as providing a characterising property <strong>of</strong> the subject.<br />
Crucially, though, bare singulars can appear as objects <strong>of</strong> a wider range <strong>of</strong> predicates, that resist this interpre-<br />
tation (15) but can also appear as subjects themselves (25c). Further note that while (iib) is not felicitous in<br />
the minimal context <strong>of</strong> (iia), it can be felicitous in (iii); suppose that speaker B owns a company which takes<br />
on cleaning <strong>of</strong> public buildings such as schools, churches and gyms. Assuming shared knowledge between A<br />
and B that cleaning a church is the most difficult and time consuming <strong>of</strong> these jobs, B’s reply is natural, since<br />
”cleaning a church” is a predicate that is implicitly contrasted with ”cleaning a gym or school”.<br />
(ii) a. ti kanis?<br />
what doing-2pl<br />
What are you doing?<br />
b. =?katharizo aftokinito<br />
clean-1sg car<br />
I am cleaning a car.<br />
(iii) a. A:pu vriskete o Yanis<br />
A:where is-3sg<br />
Where is Yanis?<br />
the-nom Yanis-nom<br />
b. B:katharizi eklisia; katalavenis; tha ton dume se kamia bdomada pali<br />
B:clean-3sg church; understand-2sg; will him see-1pl in a week again<br />
19
(28) a. i amigdalia ebgale luludi<br />
the-nom almond-tree made-3sg flower<br />
The almond tree had a flower.<br />
b. eho logariasmo stin ethniki<br />
have-1sg account in-the national<br />
I have an account in the National Bank.<br />
c. eho spiti<br />
have-1sg house<br />
I have a house.<br />
Free adjectival modification Bare singulars in Catalan can only combine with classifying<br />
modifiers as in (29a) but resist qualitative and descriptive adjectives is in (29b) an (29c).<br />
Llarga, escocesa and de quadres denote a subtype <strong>of</strong> skirt while alta in (29c) can only modify<br />
individual entities. This contrast indicates that in Catalan bare singulars denote properties<br />
and cannot denote individuals.<br />
(29) a. Per a aquest espectecle necessitareu faldilla llarga/escocesa/ de quadres<br />
for to this event need-fut skirt long/kilt/plaid<br />
For this event you will need a long skirt/a kilt/ a plaid skirt.<br />
b. *Necessiten<br />
need<br />
faldilla<br />
skirt<br />
c. *Té parella alta/malalta<br />
has parner tall/ill<br />
feta a Singapur/neta<br />
made in Singapore/clean<br />
(From Espinal 2010, ex.8,9)<br />
Again, Greek bare singulars exhibit properties <strong>of</strong> arguments denoting individuals, as in-<br />
dicated by the availability <strong>of</strong> the descriptive and qualititative adjectives in (30b) and (30c).<br />
(30) a. tha hriastite makria/skotzesiki/plise fusta<br />
will need-2pl long/scotish/plaid skirt<br />
You will need a long skirt/a kilt/a plaid skirt.<br />
b. tha hriastite fusta rameni stin India/kathari fusta<br />
will need-2pl skirt sewn in-the India/clean skirt<br />
He’s cleaning a church. You know; we won’t see him for a week.<br />
20
You will need a skirt sewn in India/ a clean skirt.<br />
c. ehi arosto pedhi/ehi psilo gkomeno<br />
has ill child/has tall boyfriend<br />
S/he has an ill child/a tall boyfriend.<br />
Discourse transparency Finally, bare nouns can introduce discourse referents (31), that<br />
is, they can be discourse transparent (Farkas and de Swarts 2003), a fact which, as pointed out<br />
by Kolliakou (2003), indicates that D is not necessary in Greek for referential interpretations.<br />
(31) telika vrike dada; ti gnorisame htes sto parti tis<br />
finally found-3sg nanny; her.cl met-1pl<br />
Yotas<br />
Yota-gen<br />
yesterday at-the party the-gen<br />
He finally found a nanny; we met her yesterday at Yota’s party.<br />
The facts reviewed so far indicate that bare nouns in Greek are fully fledged arguments<br />
both in terms <strong>of</strong> their morphosyntax as well as their semantic interpretations. In addition,<br />
the contrasts with Catalan, clearly indicate that not only plurals, but singular bare nouns<br />
have Number. We have to assume then that these nominals are minimally Number Phrases<br />
(alternatively, they can be Noun Phrases necessarily marked for Number).<br />
The next question is whether we should assume a null D head above NumP. Our answer<br />
is negative. The first set <strong>of</strong> facts arguing against a null D comes from scope.<br />
Scopal inertia Greek bare nouns exhibit the scopal inertia standardly exhibited by their<br />
crosslinguistic counterparts (Chierchia 1998; Farkas and de Swarts 2003).<br />
Examples involving the indefinite article like (32b) and (33b) are ambiguous: the former<br />
allows a transparent or de re reading and an opaque or de dicto reading while (33b) additionally<br />
allows the 3rd reading according to which Maria is looking for a specific type <strong>of</strong> Armani skirt.<br />
On the other hand, the bare nouns in the (a) examples allow only the opaque readings.<br />
(32) a. i Maria theli na padrefti Italo<br />
the-nom Maria want-3sg subj marry-3sg Italian<br />
Maria wants to marry an Italian. (only opaque reading)<br />
21
. i Maria theli na padrefti enan<br />
the-nom Maria want-3sg subj marry-3sg one-acc<br />
Maria wants to marry an Italian. (ambiguous)<br />
(33) a. i Maria theli n’agorasi fusta tu<br />
the-nom Maria wants subj-buy-3sg skirt the-gen<br />
Maria wants to buy an Armani skirt. only opaque<br />
Italo<br />
Italian<br />
Armani<br />
Armani<br />
b. i Maria theli n’agorasi mia fusta tu<br />
the-nom Maria wants subj-buy-3sg one skirt the-gen<br />
Maria wants to buy an Armani skirt. 3-way ambiguous<br />
Armani<br />
Armani<br />
If the bare nouns involved a null D, we would expect exactly the same range <strong>of</strong> interpre-<br />
tations as in the case where the purported D element is overtly present since, the overt/null<br />
alternation should be a PF alternation and should not affect LF interpretations, as is the<br />
case in Italian. But (33) and (32) indicate that this is not so. This is then our first argument<br />
against postulating a null D for Greek bare nouns.<br />
The contrast between bare and non-bare nouns extends beyond the above intensional<br />
contexts to interactions with the universal quantifer (34) and with negation (35). Bare nomi-<br />
nals cannot take scope over the universal quantifier (34a) (see Farkas and de Swarts 2001 for<br />
similar facts in Hungarian) or over negation (35a) (Chierchia 1998).<br />
(34) a. kathe episkeptis diavase efimeridha/efimeridhes<br />
each visitor read-3sg newspaper-sg/newspapers-pl<br />
Each visitor read a newspaper/newspapers. Only ∀ > ∃<br />
b. kathe episkeptis diavase mia efimeridha/kapies efimeridhes<br />
each visitor read one newspaper-sg/some newspapers-pl<br />
Each visitor read a newspaper/some newspaper. ∀ > ∃ or ∃ > ∀<br />
(35) a. dhen idhe rogmes sto tavani<br />
not saw-3sg cracks in-the ceiling<br />
S/he didn’t see cracks in the ceiling. Only ¬ > ∃<br />
b. den idhe mia lakuva sto dromo<br />
not saw-3sg a hole in-the street<br />
S/he didn’t see a hole in the street. ∃ > ¬ or ?¬ > ∃<br />
c. den idhe lakuva sto dromo<br />
not saw-3sg hole in-the street<br />
S/he didn’t see a hole in the street. Only ¬ > ∃<br />
22
4.1.2 Towards a crosslinguistic typology <strong>of</strong> bare nouns<br />
In his seminal paper on kinds, Chierchia (1998) proposes a semantic parameter according to<br />
which languages vary in the way their nouns may be allowed to function as arguments or<br />
not. Accordingly, there is variation across languages in the denotation <strong>of</strong> nominal categories:<br />
nouns may be classified by means <strong>of</strong> two features, [+/-pred] and [+/-arg]. In Italian, for<br />
instance (and Romance more generally), noun phrases are [+pred],[-arg], hence are always<br />
headed by a determiner head D to turn into arguments. By contrast, English nouns are<br />
optionally [+pred] or [+arg]. Thus, a D <strong>of</strong>ten heads a predicative noun to form an argument,<br />
but English allows nouns to function as arguments without D, as in the case <strong>of</strong> bare plurals.<br />
The hypothesis accounts for a number <strong>of</strong> contrasts between Italian and English. Where English<br />
allows bare plurals as in (36), Italian necessarily involves a definite article (37a), or some<br />
indefinite determiner (37b) or the bare-partitive construction (37c). Bare nouns in Italian are<br />
assumed to involve a null D (Longobardi 1986,1994, Chierchia 1998) and are restricted to<br />
some special governed positions, a syntactic condition necessary for licensing the null D head.<br />
(36) a. Lions are wild animals.<br />
b. Dogs are barking in the courtyard.<br />
c. Water is dripping from the faucet.<br />
(37) a. i leoni sono animali selvaggi<br />
the lions are animals <strong>of</strong> wild<br />
Lions are wild animals.<br />
b. alcuni cani stavano giocando nel giardino<br />
some dogs were playing in-the garden<br />
Some dogs were playing in the garden.<br />
c. Del vino si e’<br />
<strong>of</strong>-the wine refl past<br />
Some wine got spilled.<br />
rovesciato<br />
spill<br />
23<br />
(Chierchia 1998)<br />
(Adapted from Chierchia 1998)
So how does Greek fit into this typology? Unlike Italian, Greek bare nouns are much more<br />
productive. 14 However, unlike English, Greek bare nouns exclude kind interpretations, since,<br />
as pointed out by Roussou and Tsimpli (1994), established kinds as in (38) are necessarily<br />
definite.<br />
(38) a. i/*∅ dinosavri ehun eksafanisti<br />
the-nom/*∅ dinosaurs-nom have-3pl disappeared<br />
Dinosaurs are extinct. (bare nominal ungrammatical under the kind reading)<br />
b. ta/*∅ skilia ine katikidhia zoa<br />
the/*∅ dogs are domestic animals<br />
Dogs are domestic animals.<br />
c. ?dinosavri ehun eksafanisti<br />
dinosaurs-nom have-3pl disappeared<br />
Dinosaurs have disappeared (bare nominal possible only under the existential<br />
reading).<br />
In addition, bare nominals in Greek may be singular as well as plural.<br />
In sum, we need a three-way distinction between Italian, Greek and English. We propose<br />
that Italian and Greek nouns are both [+pred], [-arg]. The difference lies in the element that<br />
turns the predicative noun into an argument, i.e. on the ”nominalisor”; we propose that it<br />
is D in Italian but Number in Greek. The first consequence <strong>of</strong> this difference is the wider<br />
availability <strong>of</strong> bare nouns in Greek. If number is enough to turn a predicative noun into an<br />
argument in the absence <strong>of</strong> D, bare nouns are expected to be more widespread. In addition,<br />
if number is the nominalisor, both singular and plural bare nouns are also expected. Finally,<br />
since Greek nouns are not [+arg] they cannot freely shift to kinds and, thus, established kinds<br />
cannot be bare nouns (38), in contrast to English.<br />
The strength <strong>of</strong> this view lies in the fact that it allows us to give a three way varia-<br />
tion relying on existing analytical tools: Chierchia’s semantic parameter and the possibility<br />
that different individuating heads (D or Num) may act as nominalisors crosslinguistically.<br />
Of course, it raises a host <strong>of</strong> questions: why number in Greek but D in Italian? What is the<br />
14 To give a quantitative perspective, according to Marinis (2003), around 45% <strong>of</strong> target like child Greek<br />
involves bare nouns.<br />
24
semantics <strong>of</strong> Greek Number? We will provide some speculative answers to these questions in<br />
our concluding section.<br />
The crosslinguistic variation provides our second counter argument to the hypoethesis<br />
that Greek bare nouns involve a null D. Quite apart from the Greek internal facts reviewed<br />
in section 4.1.1, it is hard to see how the variation between Italian and Greek is to be accounted<br />
for if in both languages bare nouns are DPs with a null D. At this point, it is worth considering<br />
one argument presented in favor <strong>of</strong> the null D hypothesis in Greek. Sioupi (2001) notes that<br />
bare nominals are excluded from subject positions as in (39). She takes such examples to<br />
indicate that there are special structural conditions licensing bare nominals, namely that the<br />
bare nominal be governed. Such structural restrictions are evidence for a null D, which, as in<br />
Italian, is not freely available, but needs to be structurally licensed.<br />
(39) *pedia efagan to psari<br />
children ate the fish<br />
Children ate the fish. (From Sioupi 2001, ex.4a)<br />
However, as we have seen already, bare nouns can appear in subject (non-governed) posi-<br />
tions; this is further illustrated by the examples below.<br />
(40) a. itan enas hamos; yinekes epsahnan ta pedia tus mes ta<br />
was a disaster; women were-looking-for the children their in the<br />
halasmata; pedia kitazan yiro tus sastismena<br />
ruins; children were-looking around them startled<br />
It was a mess; women were looking for their children in the ruins; children were<br />
looking around startled.<br />
b. ton gratzunisan gates tu dromu<br />
him.cl scratched-3pl cats the-gen street-gen<br />
Street cats scratched him.(Kolliakou 2003)<br />
c. ta hronia ta palia, varia fortia fevgan ya tin America<br />
the years the old, heavy loads were-leaving for the America<br />
In old times heavy loads (<strong>of</strong> immigrants) were leaving for Americal (popular song<br />
by D.Papakonstantinou).<br />
d. alepudes irthan ke perisi<br />
foxes came-3pl and last-year<br />
Foxes appeared last year as well.<br />
25
(41) a. karharias ehi na emfanisti s’afti tin periohi apo to 2002<br />
shark-nom has subj appear-3sg in-this the region<br />
A shark has not appeared in this area since 2002.<br />
since the 2002<br />
b. ton exetase yatros<br />
him.cl examined-3sg doctor-nom<br />
A doctor examined him.(Kolliakou 2003)<br />
c. kleftis de spai tetia klidaria me tipota<br />
thieve-nom not break-3sg such lock with nothing<br />
There’s no way a thieve can break such a lock.<br />
Why then the badness <strong>of</strong> (39)? Preverbal subjects in Greek are standardly viewed as topics<br />
(Philippaki-Warburton 1985; Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 1998). 15 The problem with (39)<br />
is that it is hard to see how a bare indefinite which normally is interpreted as a weak indefinite<br />
can be a topic in a sentence where the subject/topic has eaten a specific/definite fish. Consider<br />
now the contrast between (39) and (40a); what is their difference? Intuitively, yinekes and<br />
pedhia are felicitous topics because what is at issue is not specific sets <strong>of</strong> women or kids,<br />
but some representatives <strong>of</strong> each kind. By contrast, in (39) the reading that the bare noun<br />
forces, some representatives <strong>of</strong> the kind <strong>of</strong> kids ate the fish is an odd one. The more natural<br />
interpretation which is some (specific) kids ate the fish would necessitate an explicit determiner<br />
like kati (=some or other) or kapia (=some). Importantly the fact that these overt elements<br />
are necessary here in order to obtain the right interpretation is evidence that bare nouns<br />
cannot involve a null D since they always appear to have distinct interpretations from their<br />
counterparts with overt prenominal determiners.<br />
This explanation may appear in contradiction with the fact that in examples like (31)<br />
the bare noun introduces a discourse referent whereas in (39) this seems not possible. The<br />
difference lies in the topic interpretation such examples elicit. Bare nouns in subject positions<br />
can introduce discourse referents as shown by yatros in (41b) and (25c), where kalos yatros<br />
is preverbal. The contrasts between (39) and (41b) require a systematic investigation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
interaction between the semantics <strong>of</strong> bare nouns and topichood which is beyond the scope <strong>of</strong><br />
this paper. However, the data presented here indicate clearly that preverbal bare nouns can<br />
15 See though Roussou and Tsimpli (2006), who by and large accept the view that preverbal subjects are<br />
predominately topics but also argue for a preverbal subject position.<br />
26
e felicitous subjects, even under referential interpretations.<br />
Returning to our original set <strong>of</strong> questions, we have shown so far that the indefinite nominals<br />
that are involved as topics in clld and Topicalisation have a different internal syntax in the<br />
two languages. In Italian they systematically involve DPs while in Greek they surface as bare<br />
nouns which we analyse as Number Phrases. We now turn to the properties <strong>of</strong> the pronominal<br />
element resuming the clld-ed phrase so as to understand how the structural difference in<br />
the indefinite antecedents involved in clld and topicalisation interact with the pronominal<br />
clitic. The properties <strong>of</strong> the Greek pronominal clitic are inseparable from the properties <strong>of</strong> the<br />
definite article since the two elements are morphologically identical (in all genders, numbers<br />
and cases) and the pronominal is standardly assumed to be <strong>of</strong> the same categorical status<br />
with the article (see Alexiadou, Haegeman, and Stavrou (2007) and references therein). We<br />
therefore turn to the analysis <strong>of</strong> Greek definites next.<br />
4.1.3 Greek definites<br />
We have established so far that Greek arguments need not be DPs. The question is whether<br />
Greek nominals are ever DPs and the obvious case to be considered is definites. The analysis<br />
<strong>of</strong> the definite article has been a matter <strong>of</strong> controversy in the Greek literature, not the least<br />
because it does not exhibit standard properties <strong>of</strong> a determiner head. First <strong>of</strong> all, the arti-<br />
cle is not in complementary distribution with demonstratives; in fact, it is obligatory with<br />
demonstratives (42), a fact which has been accounted for by assuming that the article realises<br />
a distinct head, Def (Definiteness), selected by D (determiner) which hosts the demonstra-<br />
tive in an example like (42) Androutsopoulou 1994, 1995. (Alternatively, the article has been<br />
viewed as agreement—Karanassios 1992, Stavrou 1996, Mathieu and Sitaridou 2002).<br />
(42) afto *∅/to vivlio<br />
this the<br />
this book<br />
book<br />
In addition, the article can co-exist with weak possessive pronouns that are attached to the<br />
right <strong>of</strong> nouns or adjectives (Alexiadou and Stavrou 2000).<br />
27
(43) a. to vivlio mu<br />
the book<br />
my book<br />
my<br />
b. to palio mu aftokinito<br />
the old my car<br />
my old car<br />
Perhaps most problematically for a head analysis <strong>of</strong> the article, Greek licenses polydefinites<br />
or determiner spreading structures like (44a) along the monadic ones (44b) (for detailed<br />
discussions <strong>of</strong> polydefinite structures see Androutsopoulou 1994; Alexiadou and Wilder 1998;<br />
Kolliakou 2003,2004, Lekakou and Szendröi 2010 among others and Alexiadou, Haegeman,<br />
and Stavrou 2007 for an overview).<br />
(44) a. to kokino to podhilato to kenurjio<br />
the red the bike the new<br />
the red new bike<br />
b. to kokino kenurjio podhilato<br />
the red new bike<br />
the red new bike<br />
Both the monadic and polydefinite above refer uniquely to one bike; thus, the polydefinite<br />
structures are not multiple definite phrases, as a head analysis would predict. To account for<br />
this, many analyses stipulate that the article can be expletive, following Androutsopoulou<br />
(1994). However, such analyses do not clarify when the article is expletive and when not, as<br />
pointed out by Kolliakou (2003). Crucially, this view is misguided. The main piece <strong>of</strong> evidence<br />
provided in support <strong>of</strong> the expletive analysis <strong>of</strong> the Greek article is its obligatoriness with<br />
proper nouns as in (45).<br />
(45) mu aresi o Messi/*Messi ala protimo to<br />
me-gen like-3sg the-nom Messi<br />
Maradona/*Maradona<br />
Maradona<br />
I like Messi but I prefer Maradona.<br />
but prefer-1sg the-acc<br />
28
However, the data below indicate that the article is not expletive even with proper names.<br />
Consider the contrast in (46) and (47). Examples (46a) and (47a) are specificational sen-<br />
tences whereas (46b) and (47b) are equatives. (46a) means Messi does not have properties <strong>of</strong><br />
Maradona, e.g. he is not as good a player. Similarly, (47a) means that Greece does not have<br />
properties <strong>of</strong> European countries while (47b) means that the referent <strong>of</strong> Europe is not the<br />
same as the referent <strong>of</strong> Germany (there are more countries in Europe). The only difference<br />
between these minimal pairs is the definite article preceding the proper names Maradona and<br />
Evropi.<br />
(46) a. o Messi dhen ine Maradona<br />
the-nom Messi not is Maradhona<br />
Messi is not a Maradona/like Maradona.<br />
b. aftos dhen ine o Messi; ine o Maradona; tus<br />
this-nom not<br />
mperdhepses<br />
mixed-up-2sg<br />
is the-nom Messi: is the-nom Maradona; them.cl<br />
He is not Messi; he is Maradona; you mixed them up.<br />
(47) a. i Eladha dhen ine Evropi<br />
the-nom not is Europe<br />
Greece is not (like) Europe.<br />
b. i Germania dhen ine i Evropi<br />
the-nom Germany not is the Europe<br />
Germany is not the whole <strong>of</strong> Europe.<br />
The contrast extends beyond predicative structures. Example (48a) means that someone<br />
with the properties <strong>of</strong> Judas (e.g. a traitor) advised the subject <strong>of</strong> the verb (him) while<br />
(48b) means that the object <strong>of</strong> the verb (him) was examined by someone with properties <strong>of</strong><br />
Kassandra (e.g. someone who only makes negative predictions for the future). If these proper<br />
nouns were accompanied by a definite article, they would refer to individuals.<br />
(48) a. ton simvulepse Iudas<br />
him.cl advised-3sg Judas<br />
He was advised by someone like Judas.<br />
b. ton exetase Kassandra<br />
him.cl examined-3sg Kassandra<br />
29
He was examined by someone like Kassandra.<br />
The above examples indicate that even with proper names the use <strong>of</strong> the definite article is not<br />
expletive. If the article is not expletive, it is hard to see how it can be a head in polydefinite<br />
structures. Note also that the additional article in polydefinites is not expletive. As discussed<br />
in detail by Kolliakou (2003), the ”second” definite in a polydefinite restricts the range <strong>of</strong><br />
the first one, even when proper names are involved. Thus, (49a) presupposes more than one<br />
Christinas and the polydefinite in (49b) picks the one with the surname Sevdali.<br />
(49) a. Pia<br />
Christina tha erthi;<br />
who-fem.nom Christina will come-3sg?<br />
Which Christina will come?<br />
b. i Christina i Sevdali<br />
the-nom Christina the-nom Sevdali<br />
Christina Sevdali.<br />
When such restrictive modification is not possible for pragmatic reasons, the polydefinites are<br />
infelicitous as shown by (50).<br />
(50) a. Taksidhepse ston plati Iriniko<br />
travelled-3sg in-the wide Pacific<br />
She travelled in the wide Pacific.<br />
b. =Taksidhepse<br />
travelled-3sg<br />
ston Iriniko ton plati<br />
in-the Pacific the wide<br />
(From Kolliakou 2003, ex.14)<br />
Research from a different vein indicates that Greek definite phrases behave like noun phrases in<br />
articless languages rather than DPs in languages with articles. In particular, Bo˘sković (2008)<br />
proposes that nominals in languages without articles show properties that systematically<br />
distinguish them from nominals in languages with articles. The contrast can only be explained<br />
if the former instantiate Noun Phrases rather than DPs with null Ds. Interestingly, Greek<br />
nominals exhibit some <strong>of</strong> the properties <strong>of</strong> noun phrases in articless languages. 16 The first<br />
16 Boscovic is aware <strong>of</strong> the fact that Greek is a potential exception to his generalisations,ibid, fn.3.<br />
30
generalisation is that only languages without articles, allow Left Branch Extraction (LBE);<br />
thus, LBE is ungrammatical in English (51a), but available in Serbo Croatian (51b).<br />
(51) a. *Expensive/*ThatI he saw [ti car]<br />
b. Skupa/Tai je vidio [ti kola] (Serbo Croatian)<br />
expensive/that is seen car<br />
(From Bo˘sković 2008, ex.3-4)<br />
Greek does allow LBE (as also noted by Boskovic). The grammaticality <strong>of</strong> (52a) is not<br />
surprising, given that we are analysing bare nominals like akrivo aftokinito as NumPs. 17 The<br />
crucial assumption is that there is no DP layer, which, according to Bo˘sković (2008) is a phase<br />
blocking extraction.<br />
(52) akrivo aghorase aftokinito<br />
expensive baught-3sg car<br />
He bought an expensive car.<br />
Cases with a demonstrative are more interesting since, as we’ve seen, a demonstrative like<br />
afto (=this) necessarily involves the definite article. As can be seen in (53), the demonstrative<br />
can be extracted out <strong>of</strong> the nominal, indicating that afto to aftokinito is in fact a noun phrase.<br />
(53) afto aghorase to aftokinito<br />
this bought-3sg the car<br />
She bought this car.<br />
The crucial fact here is that the presence <strong>of</strong> the article does not affect the extraction possibili-<br />
ties. So if we consider a nominal involving a demonstrative and an adjective like afto to akrivo<br />
aftokinito (=this the expensive car) we see in (54) that the demonstrative+article+adjective<br />
can undergo left extraction.<br />
(54) afto to akrivo aghorase aftokinito<br />
this the expensive bought car<br />
17 All LBE examples are pragmatically marked; here we assume that at least one element <strong>of</strong> the extracted<br />
phrase bears the sentential stress as indicated by the small caps.<br />
31
Note further that the pattern is exactly the same if the nominal involves a numeral+adjective<br />
as in (55).<br />
(55) a. ena kalo thelo krayon<br />
one/a good want-1sg lipstick<br />
b. dhio<br />
two<br />
kala<br />
good<br />
thelo paradighmata<br />
want-1sg examples<br />
In sum, not only Greek allows LBE despite the fact that it has articles, but, in addition,<br />
definite and indefinite phrases behave alike, indicating that what is <strong>of</strong> relevance to Boskovic’s<br />
generalisation is not whether a language has a definite article but whether this article is a D<br />
head. The evidence so far indicates that Greek definites are not DPs, but, rather behave like<br />
NPs.<br />
Bo˘skovi˘c’s second generalisation is that languages without articles allow adjunct extraction<br />
as in (56a) while languages with articles disallow it (56b). 18<br />
(56) a. *From which cityi did Peter meet [NP girls ti ]?<br />
b. Iz kojeg gradai je Ivan sreo [NP djevojke ti] (Serbo Croatian)<br />
From which city did Ivan meet girls?<br />
Again, Greek nominals pattern with an articleless language like Serbo Croatian rather than<br />
English since they allow adjunct extraction as in (57).<br />
(57) apo pia poli gnorise koritsia o Petros?<br />
from who-fem city met-3sg girls<br />
Petros met girls from which city?<br />
the-nom Petros-nom<br />
Note that, as shown by Horrocks and Stavrou (1987) , Greek allows possessor extraction; if<br />
DPs are phases and Boskovic’s argumentation is valid, then the extraction in (58) indicates<br />
18 Though both English and Serbo Croatian involve a NP here and, therefore there is no DP phase, only<br />
the SC NP allows AP extraction because AP is heading the NP in English while in SC it sits on Spec,NP.<br />
This difference derives from the fact that English has DPs and SC NPs as arguments. If he is right, then the<br />
evidence indicates that in Greek as well APs are at Spec,NumP; this is exactly the assumption we’ll be making<br />
in the next section when we consider IAD and bare subnominal ellipisis.<br />
32
that the definite is a noun phrase. 19<br />
(58) pianu martira arnithikan na eksetasun tin katathesi<br />
who-gen witness-gen refused-3pl subj examine-3pl the-acc testimony<br />
Whose witness testimony did they refuse to examine?<br />
The facts reviewed in this section 20 indicate strongly that the Greek article does not behave<br />
like a D head while there is evidence that definite nominals allow extraction possibilities typical<br />
<strong>of</strong> noun phrases that are not DPs. 21 We will, therefore, assume that the article is not a D<br />
head, but rather a prenominal modifier and that Greek nominals, definite and indefinite, are<br />
uniformingly Number Phrases. 22 Definites then are just definite Number Phrases. Further,<br />
19 Horrocks and Stavrou (1987) in fact use this type <strong>of</strong> evidence to argue for a DP; they link long possessor<br />
extraction as in (58) with focus movement within the nominal as in (i). They argue that tu protu martira<br />
in (i) moves to a position internal to the nominal exactly like the wh-phrase in (58) moves to CP. They take<br />
the article to be a D head allowing focus-movement to its Spec. While examples like (i) necessitate movement<br />
internal to the nominal, it is not necessary that this is to Spec,DP as we will see shortly.<br />
(i) arnithikan na eksetasun tu protu martira tin katathesi<br />
refused-3pl subj examine-3pl the-gen first-gen the-acc testimony<br />
They refused to examine the first witness’s testimony.<br />
20 We note that, unsurprisingly, Italian patterns with English and DP languages with regard to the diagnostics<br />
proposed by Bo˘sković (2008).<br />
21 Bo˘sković (2008) discusses some further generalisations which are either not relevant for Greek (e.g. supe-<br />
riority effects for multiple wh-fronting) or are trivially relevant: for instance, Greek most is i perissoteri (=the<br />
most), that is it implicates the definite article and has the expected reading <strong>of</strong> more than half; in addition,<br />
Greek allows clitic doubling since it has articles. Boskovic links clitic doubling to the existence <strong>of</strong> DPs and,<br />
indeed takes the referentiality <strong>of</strong> clitic doubling structures as a consequence <strong>of</strong> the involvement <strong>of</strong> D. The<br />
facts discussed in this paper are a counter example to these correlations. Firstly, Italian, which clearly has<br />
DPs allows non-referential readings, whereas Greek, which certainly allows NPs does not allow non-referential<br />
readings in doubling structures.<br />
22 This is not too far from Kolliakou (2003) who takes the definite to be an argument <strong>of</strong> a noun appearing at<br />
its Spec. Further, she assumes that definite and indefinite nominals are all noun phrases; in her HPSG analysis,<br />
any lexical category specified for the head feature nom (in turn specified for number, gender and case) can<br />
project a nominal; apart from nouns, articles, numerals and adjective share this head feature reflecting the<br />
fact that any <strong>of</strong> these categories can project a nominal argument on its own.<br />
33
following Giannakidou and Merchant (1997), we assume that numerals including ena are also<br />
prenominal adjectives. This analysis correctly predicts that, bar semantic anomaly, more than<br />
one <strong>of</strong> these elements may appear prenominally as in (59).<br />
(59) a. afto to ena aftokinito<br />
this the one car<br />
this one car<br />
b. afta ta dhio kokina aftokinita<br />
these the two red cars<br />
these two red cars<br />
Further, the noun can be elided from all these structures as in (60) (Kolliakou 2003; Gian-<br />
nakidou and Merchant 1997; Giannakidou and Stavrou 1999). We see below that an adjective<br />
alone (60a) or a numeral and an adjective (60d) may be the only (overt) part <strong>of</strong> a NumP.<br />
The definite article is no different in (60b) and (60c), except for the fact that in these uses<br />
it is, descriptively a pronoun. In other words, the pronominal clitic involved in clld is an<br />
elliptical NumP. 23<br />
(60) a. tu klepsane to aftokinito ke pire kenurjio<br />
his.cl stole-3pl the car and bought new<br />
His car was stolen and he baught a new one.<br />
b. ta dhio prota vivlia ine tis Marias; fer’ta mu se parakalo<br />
the two first books are the-gen Maria-gen; bring them.cl you beg<br />
The first two books belong to Maria. Bring them to me please.<br />
c. aghorase kenurjio aftokinito ke to efere na to dhume<br />
bought-3sg new car and it.cl brought subj it.cl see<br />
d. psahname ya kero mathimatiko ya ti desmi alla kataferame ke<br />
looking-for-1pl for time mathematician for the ”a-levels” for<br />
vrikame enan ekseretiko<br />
quite a<br />
bit <strong>of</strong> time, but managed-1pl and found-1pl an excellent<br />
We were looking for a mathematician for A-levels but we managed to find an<br />
23 Of course, a definite NumP is very different from a ”red” NumP both in semantic terms but also in PF<br />
terms, since the article/pronoun always cliticises on a host adjective/noun or verb. The point though is that<br />
there is no structural difference between a definite NP and any other NumP either in terms <strong>of</strong> extraction<br />
possibilities or the distribution <strong>of</strong> the article against all other prenominal elements.<br />
34
excellent one (so the time we took looking was well spent).<br />
We can now return to our original set <strong>of</strong> questions 24 and see how the assumption that<br />
Greek nominals involve NumPs can account for the facts presented in section 3, summarised<br />
on table (22). We should point out that, even though we advocate here the total absence<br />
<strong>of</strong> DPs from Greek, a mixed analysis which would assume that bare and indefinite nominals<br />
are NumPs but definite nominals are DPs would also account for the anaphoric patterns and<br />
the clld/topicalisation facts; we will point this out where relevant in the coming sections.<br />
Before we turn to our original set <strong>of</strong> questions though, we’ll briefly discuss the crosslinguistic<br />
implications <strong>of</strong> our hypothesis for the nominal system in Italian and Greek.<br />
4.1.4 Definites in Italian and Greek<br />
The main consequence <strong>of</strong> our analysis so far is that Number is the main nominalisor in<br />
Greek (including definites) while it is D in Italian that plays this role. In fact, this conclusion<br />
can shed light to a further set <strong>of</strong> crosslinguistic differences between the two languages. First<br />
and foremost, the systematic need <strong>of</strong> D in Italian to construct a nominal explains the wide<br />
range <strong>of</strong> D elements available in the language; the article and the pronouns retain distinct<br />
morphology; there is a distinction between a range <strong>of</strong> definite D elements (il, lo/la, gli/li...)<br />
and indefinite ones (un, bare partitive construction, ne) as we’ve seen bare nouns are very<br />
restricted, while the partitive construction is systematically employed for indefinites and mass<br />
nouns. By contrast, Greek has only one definite element which has both article and pronominal<br />
use; it characteristically lacks a separate indefinite article or pronoun.<br />
24 Examples like (i), where the definite article is involved in CP nominalisation may support the view that<br />
the article is a head afterall. We speculate that the article contributes nominal phi-features to C but still is<br />
not heading the structure.<br />
(i) (to) pios tha kerdisi tis ekloyes tha eksartithi apo to pos tha pai i<br />
the who-nom will winn-3sg the-acc elections will depend-3sg from the how will go-3sg the-nom<br />
ikonomia<br />
economy<br />
Who will win the elections will depend on how things go with the economy.<br />
35
Secondly, the Greek article has strong definite and referential interpretations, relevant<br />
even in the case <strong>of</strong> proper names. By contrast, the Italian, article appears to have weaker<br />
definite semantics. For instance, non referential nouns like gli occhiali in (61) or l’orologio and<br />
la macchina in (62) are definite in Italian.<br />
(61) A:Porti gli occhiali? B:Si, li porto<br />
A:wear the glasses? B:Yes, them.cl wear<br />
Do you wear glasses? Yes, I do.<br />
(62) a. Porti l’orologio?<br />
wear-2sg the<br />
Do you wear watch?<br />
watch?<br />
b. Guida la macchina?<br />
drive-3sg the machine<br />
Does he drive a car?<br />
Unsurprisingly, the Greek countrparts <strong>of</strong> these examples involve bare nouns.<br />
(63) foras (*ta) yialia/ (*ti) vera/ (*ta) takunia<br />
wear-2sg (*the) glasses/ (*the) wedding-ring/ (*the) high-heels<br />
Do you wear glasses/a wedding ring/high heels?<br />
(64) odhigis aftokinito<br />
drive-2sg car<br />
Do you/can you drive a car?<br />
Further, as pointed out by Giusti (2010), the definite article is preferred in cases like (65)<br />
where the interpretation is an indefinite one.<br />
(65) Scommetto che non troverai mai la/?una segretaria di un onorevole che<br />
bet-1sg that not will-find never the/a secretary <strong>of</strong> a depute who<br />
sia disposta a testimoniare contro di lui<br />
can-subj submit-subj a testimony against <strong>of</strong> him<br />
I bet you’ll never find the secratary <strong>of</strong> a depute who can testify against him. (Giusti<br />
2010)<br />
Again, the definite article is banned from such environments in Greek, since it cannot head<br />
relatives rendered in subjanctive.<br />
36
(66) *den prokite na vri ti yineka pu na tu kani ola ta<br />
not going-to-3sg subj find-3sg the-acc woman that subj him.cl do-3sg all<br />
hatiria<br />
favours<br />
He’s not going to find the woman that will satisfy every whim <strong>of</strong> his.<br />
the<br />
This set <strong>of</strong> contrasts can be understood, if, as proposed by Giusti (1993, 1997, 2002, 2010),<br />
the main role <strong>of</strong> the Italian article is that <strong>of</strong> a syntactic/grammatical morpheme acting as the<br />
nominalisor <strong>of</strong> a predicative noun, building a DP argument. By contrast, in Greek the article<br />
appears only when needed for semantic/pragmatic reasons, since Number is the nominalisor,<br />
hence the stronger definite interpretations when the article is involved.<br />
The crosslinguistic contrast also indicates that the more referential/definite interpreta-<br />
tions arise in the language where the nominal has less structure and, indeed, is not a D head,<br />
i.e. Greek. This is expected since the definite article is implicated for interpretation. By con-<br />
trast, in Italian, D is syntactically necessary as the nominalisor, and, therefore, weaker/less<br />
referential readings arise when D is needed as a nominalisor in contexts which are not clearly<br />
definite/referential like (65) or under the de dicto reading <strong>of</strong> (67) or even the use <strong>of</strong> lo in the<br />
predicative structures in (68). It is worth pointing out that our view departs from the propos-<br />
als <strong>of</strong> Longobardi (1994) and Déchaine and Wiltschko (2002) in one crucial respect. What<br />
these two proposals share is that D and referentiality are intrinsically linked. Both analyses<br />
assume a structural ambiguity for articles and pronouns, depending on their interpretation.<br />
For instance, lo under the de dicto reading in (67) and in the predicative structure in (68)<br />
lacks a D layer, and is just a NP. 25 We will discuss these examples in more detail in the next<br />
section.<br />
(67) Gianni sta cercando un idraulico ma non lo trova<br />
Gianni is looking-for a plumber but not him.cl find-3sg<br />
Gianni is looking-for a plumber but cannot find one.<br />
(68) a. Bella la/lo e’<br />
beautiful it.cl is<br />
Beautiful she is.<br />
25 Longobardi pc after related talk <strong>of</strong> his at Cambridge University, <strong>2011</strong>.<br />
37
. belle lo sono?<br />
beautiful it are<br />
Beautiful they are.<br />
In sum then, the hypothesis that D is the nominalisor in Italian while Greek nominals<br />
are NumPs can account for the rich inventory <strong>of</strong> D elements in Italian as well as the weaker<br />
definite semantics <strong>of</strong> D elements in this language.<br />
4.2 Indefinite Argument Drop and Bare Subnominal Ellipsis<br />
As Giannakidou and Merchant (1997) show, Greek Indefintie Argument Drop (IAD) in-<br />
volves recycling <strong>of</strong> the descriptive content <strong>of</strong> the antecedent (or property anaphora in terms<br />
<strong>of</strong> Tomioka 2003).Crucially, it does not pick the discourse referent <strong>of</strong> the antecedent. 26 Con-<br />
sider (69). Example (69a) does not allow a reading in which Nafsika dried the dishes Napoleo-<br />
das washed, a reading available in (69b) where the pronoun is used. On the basis <strong>of</strong> the<br />
obligatoriness <strong>of</strong> the disjoint reading in (69a), Giannakidou and Merchant (1997) conclude<br />
that an empty pro analysis, proposed by Dimitriadis (1994) is not possible, since it would<br />
predict the co-referential reading in (69b). What IAD involves in (69a) is the recycling <strong>of</strong><br />
the descriptive content <strong>of</strong> the antecedent, i.e. piata but not the specific set introduced by the<br />
antecedent.<br />
(69) a. o Napoleodas epline piata ke i Nafsika skupise<br />
the-nom Napoleodas-nom washed-3sg dishes and the-nom Nafsika dried-sg<br />
Napoleon washed dishes and Nafsika dried dishes. (Disjoint reading)<br />
26 See Giannakidou and Merchant (1997) for a detailed discussion <strong>of</strong> the properties <strong>of</strong> IAD. Panagiotidis<br />
(2002) excludes a VP-ellips analysis <strong>of</strong> the phenomenon; his main argument is that all restrictions relevant to<br />
IAD involve the nominal antecedent and never any verbal element. Further, examples like (i), where only the<br />
object is dropped but other parts <strong>of</strong> the VP are overt indicate that what is dropped is just the object.<br />
(i) ti mia mera vrike dulia o Yorgos stu Zografu ke to epomeno proi<br />
the one day found-3sg job the-nom Yorgos-nom at-the Zografu and the next morning<br />
vrike i Maria stin Kesariani<br />
found-3sg the-nom Maria at-the Kesariani<br />
One day Yorgos found a job at Zografu and the next morning Maria found one at Kesariani.<br />
38
. o Napoleodas epline (ta) piatai ke i Nafsika tai<br />
the-nom Napoleodas-nom washed the<br />
skupise<br />
dried-3sg<br />
dishes and the-nom Nafsika them<br />
Napoleon washed (the) dishes and Nafsika dried them.<br />
That these cases involve property anaphora is further confirmed by the fact that adjec-<br />
tives like tetios/tetia/tetio standardly used for concept or property anaphora (Kolliakou 2003)<br />
license argument drop.<br />
(70) a. vrikes teties<br />
(melitzanes)?<br />
found-2sg such-acc.fem.pl (aubergines)<br />
Did you find such ones/aubergines?<br />
b. ne, vrika<br />
yes, found-1sg<br />
Yes, I found.<br />
Further, Giannakidou and Merchant (1997) establish that IAD is licensed by weak indefinite<br />
quantifiers while strong quantifiers necessitate a pronoun.<br />
(71) a. Q:Efere o Adreas ola ta/ke ta dio/ta perisotera vivila<br />
Q:Brought-3sg the-nom Adreas all the/and the two/the most books<br />
Did Adread bring all/both/most books?<br />
b. A:Ne, *(ta) efere<br />
A:Yes, *(them) brought-3sg<br />
Yes, he brought them.<br />
(Giannakidou:Merchant:1997)<br />
(72) a. Efere o Adreas merika/kapja/liga/deka/tulahiston<br />
brought-3sg the-nom Adreas several/some/a-few/ten/at-least<br />
tria/parapano apo tria/tipota/∅ vivlia<br />
three/more from three/any/∅ books<br />
Did Andreas bring several/some/a few/at least three/more than three/any/∅<br />
books?<br />
b. Ne, (*ta) efere e.<br />
Yes, (them) brought-3sg e<br />
Yes he brought several/some/a few/ten/at least three/more than three/some/∅<br />
books.<br />
39
(Giannakidou:Merchant:1997)<br />
Returning to our analysis, we argue that the weak indefinites in (72) are NumPs; we, then,<br />
analyse IAD as a case <strong>of</strong> NumP ellipsis (Tomioka 2003). 27 A NumP ellipsis analysis <strong>of</strong> IAD<br />
accounts for the availability <strong>of</strong> IAD with subjects in Greek—see (17) repeated as (73). We<br />
also explain why IAD is unavailable in Italian, since there are no NumP arguments in the<br />
language.<br />
(73) a. A:irthe kanis? B:ne irthe<br />
A:came-3sg anyone? B:yes, came-3sg<br />
A:Did anyone come? B:Yes, someone did.<br />
b. A:tilefonisan fitites? B:ne tilefonisan<br />
A:phoned-3pl students? B:yes, phoned-3pl<br />
A:Did students phone? B:Yes, some did.<br />
One question is why the whole NumP cannot be elided with definites as in (71). The<br />
reason is interpretative. Absence <strong>of</strong> definite marking gives rise to indefinite interpretations.<br />
Consider for instance (74). The answer in (74b) involves a weak indefinite with an elided noun<br />
despite the definite antecedent; a definite is not appropriate in this case.<br />
(74) a. tis eferes tis valitses<br />
them.cl brought-2sg the-acc suitcases<br />
Did you bring the suitcases?<br />
b. efera (kamposes); mu ehun mini tris teseris akoma<br />
brought-1sg (many); me have-3pl left three four still<br />
I brought quite a few; but still have three or four left.<br />
Let us now reconsider examples like (75), discussed earlier. Following Zimmermann (1993)<br />
let us assume that idravliko and dada in (75) denote properties. The examples indicate that<br />
Greek pronouns resist property anaphora; the pronominal requires a referential antecedent. 28<br />
The property anaphora effect is achieved through IAD, i.e. recycling the antecedent noun.<br />
27 The ellipsis analysis preserves the basic intution <strong>of</strong> Giannakidou and Merchant (1997) who also propose<br />
that IAD involves NP deletion; however, they assume that the elided NP is headed by a null D.<br />
28 Greek pronouns can take natural functions as their antecedents as shown in examples like (i) discussed in<br />
Alexopoulou and Heycock (2003). Such antecedents though are still extensional.<br />
40
(75) a. o Yanis psahni idravliko alla dhe (*ton) vriski puthena<br />
the-nom Yanis-nom look-for-3sg plumber but not (him) find-3sg anywhere<br />
Yanis is looking for a plumber but cannot nd one anywhere.<br />
b. i Maria epsahne<br />
dada ena hrono ke telika (*ti)<br />
the-nom Maria was-looking-for-3sg nanny one year and finally (*her)<br />
vrike meso mias gnostis<br />
found-3sg through an acquaintance<br />
Maria was looking for a nanny for a year and in the end she found one through<br />
an acquaintance.<br />
As noted earlier and illustrated again in (76), the pronoun can take an indefinite an-<br />
tecedent (76a), including a bare noun (76b), as long as the antecedent is interpreted referen-<br />
tially.<br />
(76) a. o Yanis psahni enan idravliko, ala dhe ton vriski puthena<br />
the-nom Yanis look-for-3sg one plumber but not him find-3sg anywhere<br />
Yanis is looking for a plubmer but cannot find him anywhere. ∃ > look-for<br />
b. o Napoleodas epline (ta) piatai ke i Nafsika tai<br />
the-nom Napoleodas-nom washed the<br />
skupise<br />
dried-3sg<br />
dishes and the-nom Nafsika them<br />
Napoleon washed (the) dishes and Nafsika dried them.<br />
By contrast, lo and la in Italian admit property-denoting antecedents (77). Under our<br />
analysis, the crosslinguistic contrast in property anaphora is a consequence <strong>of</strong> the structural<br />
contrast between DPs and NumPs. The obligatoriness <strong>of</strong> a D element in (77) means a weak-<br />
ening <strong>of</strong> the definite/referential interpretation <strong>of</strong> the pronominal. Note that we do not predict<br />
that every language that has DPs will allow a ”definite” D in examples like (77); an indefinite<br />
D element may be used instead and it remains an open question how property anaphora is<br />
(i) a. i yineka pu misi kathe adrasi ine i pethera tui<br />
the-nom woman that hates-3sg each man is the-nom mother-in-law his<br />
The woman every man hates is his mother in law.<br />
b. tin kopela pu efere kathe fititis tii valame na katsi dipla tui<br />
the-acc girl that brought-3sg each student-nom her.cl put-1pl subj sit-3sg next his<br />
The girl each student brought, we put her to sit next to him.<br />
41
dealt with in a language. The point we are making here is that the weakening <strong>of</strong> the definite<br />
semantics <strong>of</strong> the Italian lo/la is due to the obligatoriness <strong>of</strong> DPs in Italian. Note further that<br />
these non-referential uses involve clear verbal arguments, arguing against an intrinsic link<br />
between D, argumenthood and referentiality in Italian as proposed by Longobardi (1994). If<br />
lo were to be analysed as involving less structure, e.g. as a np, the immediate question is why<br />
an NP argument is possible at all in Italian all <strong>of</strong> a sudden and how it is different from Greek.<br />
(77) Gianni sta cercando un idraulico ma non lo trova<br />
Gianni is looking-for a plumber but cannot find one.<br />
Note that even Italian, does not universally allow ”definite” pronouns to support property<br />
anaphora. For instance, when the object is plural, as in (78), the plural <strong>of</strong> lo/la, is not<br />
acceptable. Instead, the clitic ne needs to be used. 29<br />
(78) a. Q: Maria ha trovato delle aiutanti?<br />
Q: Maria has found <strong>of</strong> helpers?<br />
Has Maria found helpers?<br />
b. A: No, ?le/ne ha trovate<br />
A: No, them.cl/ne has found<br />
No she has not found.<br />
(79) Gianni sta cercando degli aiutanti per l’ufficio ma non ?li/ne<br />
Gianni has-been looking-for <strong>of</strong><br />
trova<br />
find-3sg<br />
helpers for the-<strong>of</strong>fice but not them.cl/ne<br />
Gianni has been looking for assistants for the <strong>of</strong>fice but cannot find any.<br />
We will speculate in section 4.4. on the effect <strong>of</strong> number, but, for the moment, suffice to say<br />
that Italian systematically involves a D element even for arguments that are not referential.<br />
This D element may even be an apparently definite D like lo/la or an indefinite one like<br />
ne. Greek pronouns do not support property anaphora. Instead, the relevant readings are<br />
obtained through IAD which involves NP ellipsis.<br />
29 Notice that the plural le can be used in (78) if the answer is positive, but it forces a discourse transparent<br />
reading,which is not the relevant one here.<br />
42
Let us now turn to subnominal ellipsis; the relevant examples are repeated below. The<br />
crosslinguistic pattern follows staightforwardly from the contrast between DPs and NumPs.<br />
Despite the non-referential antecedent, Italian obligatorily requires a D element, uno in the<br />
elliptical structure (note that uno grande is doubled by lo). By contrast, in Greek the bare<br />
adjective is enough. 30<br />
(80) A:Vorrei un tavolo grande B:Mi spiace. Non lo abbiamo, uno<br />
A:would-like-1sg a<br />
grande<br />
big<br />
table big B:Me displeases-3sg. Not it have-1pl, a<br />
I would like to buy a big table. I’m sorry. We do not have a big one.<br />
(From Alexiadou and Gengel 2008, attributed to V.Samek-Lodovici)<br />
(81) a. thelo afti ti fusta se kitrino<br />
want-1sg this the skirt in yellow<br />
I would like this skirt in yellow.<br />
b. Distihos dhen eho kitrini. (Mono mavres mu ehun<br />
unfortunately not<br />
mini)<br />
left)<br />
have-1sg yellow-fem.sg (Ony black-fem.pl me have-3pl<br />
Unfortunately I don’t have a yellow one. ( Only black ones are left).<br />
Before we move on, note that the essence <strong>of</strong> the analysis presented here does not rely critically<br />
on the assumption that the Greek article and pronominal do not project DPs. The critical<br />
element <strong>of</strong> the analysis is that weak indefinites, the ones that license IAD and bare subnominal<br />
ellipsis are NumPs. The incompatibility <strong>of</strong> pronouns with property-denoting antecedents is<br />
orthogonal to the categorical status <strong>of</strong> these elements, since a pronoun can accept a bare<br />
nominal antecedent (i.e. a NumP), as long as it is referential (76b) or indeed a non-bare<br />
one (76a).<br />
30 We do not discuss here the conditions <strong>of</strong> such subnominal ellipsis; for a detailed discussion see Giannakidou<br />
and Stavrou (1999). The point is that such subnominal ellipsis can take place within a bare nominal in Greek.<br />
43
4.3 Back to CLLD and Topicalisation<br />
Let us now turn to our very first question, why Italian but not Greek clld-ed elements can<br />
be ambiguous between a referential and non-referential reading. It has now become clear that<br />
the clld facts mirror the anaphoric possibilities in the two languages. Our original example<br />
in (1) repeated in (82) is as ambiguous as the example in (77). The available interpretations<br />
are exactly those allowed in Italian between an indefinite antecedent and lo/la.<br />
(82) a. una gonna rossa la cerco da un po’<br />
a red skirt her.cl look-for-1sg for a while<br />
A red skirt I’ve been looking for a while...<br />
b. ma non ne ho trovata nessuna che mi piaccia<br />
but not <strong>of</strong>-them.cl have-1sg found none-fem that me please-3sg.subj<br />
... but have not found anyone that I like.<br />
c. ma non riesco a ricordarmi dove l’ho<br />
messa<br />
but not reach-1sg to remember where her.cl-have-1sg put<br />
puffle ... but I cannot remember where I’ve put it.<br />
Similarly, Greek (3) repeated in (83), is compatible only with the referential interpretation<br />
since, as we have seen, the Greek pronoun resists property anaphora.<br />
(83) a. mia kokini fusta tin psahno edho ke meres<br />
a red skirt it look-for-1sg here and days<br />
I’ve been looking for a red skirt for a few days ...<br />
b. =ke de boro na vro kamia pu na m’aresi<br />
and not can-1sg subj find-1sg none<br />
... and I cannot find any that I like.<br />
that subj me-please-3sg<br />
c. ke de boro na thimitho pu tin eho vali<br />
and not can-1sg subj remember-1sg where her.cl have-1sg put<br />
... and cannot remember where I put it.<br />
The possibility <strong>of</strong> property anaphora in Italian further allows clld examples where the dis-<br />
located element is not an indefinite, but a predicate like bella in (84). Unsurprisingly, this<br />
possibility is not available in Greek.<br />
(84) a. Bella lo é<br />
beautiful it.cl is<br />
44
Beautiful she is.<br />
b. belle lo sono?<br />
beautiful it are<br />
Beautiful they are.<br />
While clld mirrors the anaphoric possibilities in the two languages; but Topicalisation<br />
does not, at least not directly. The interpretative possiblities in Topicalisation are the ones<br />
predicted by a movement derivation. Thus, the Topicalisation example in (85) is ambiguous<br />
like the corresponding example involving Focus-movement (86). In this, (85) contrasts with<br />
examples like (16b), repeated as (87), where IAD forces a de dicto interpretation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
antecedent. 31<br />
(85) enan idravliko psahni o yanis<br />
one-acc plumber look-for-3sg the-nom Yanis-nom<br />
A plumber Yanis is looking for. look-for > ∃, ∃ > look-for<br />
(86) enan idravliko psahni o yanis<br />
one-acc plumber look-for-3sg the-nom Yanis-nom<br />
A plumber Yanis is looking for. look-for > ∃, ∃ > look-for<br />
(87) o Yanis psahni enan idravliko, ala dhe vriski puthena<br />
the-nom Yanis look-for-3sg one plumber but not find-3sg anywhere<br />
Yanis is looking for a plubmer but cannot find one anywhere. look-for > ∃<br />
These facts point to the following conclusions. First, they reinforce the anaphoric nature<br />
<strong>of</strong> clld. At the same time they indicate that the properties <strong>of</strong> the pronominal system <strong>of</strong><br />
languages is a crucial element in the crosslinguistic variation <strong>of</strong> anaphoric chains like clld<br />
and Topicalisation. 32 Second, Topicalisation, at least in Greek, involves a proper copy/trace<br />
rather than some null pronominal element. Taken together, these conclusions indicate that<br />
the the variation in the topic strategies adopted crosslinguistically cannot be understood just<br />
31 This contrast between IAD and Topicalisation argues against the proposal by Dimitriadis (1994) to assume<br />
that the Topicalisation example is in fact a case <strong>of</strong> Empty Clitic Left Dislocation involving the same pro element<br />
implicated in IAD.<br />
32 This is unlike non-anaphoric or true resumption where a line <strong>of</strong> research systematically relates crosslin-<br />
guistic variation to the properties <strong>of</strong> C rather than the pronominal (Sells 1984; McCloskey 1990; McCloskey<br />
2002; Shlonsky 1992; Rouveret 2002; Alexopoulou 2006).<br />
45
as PF variation, since these topic strategies interact with deeper aspects <strong>of</strong> the grammars <strong>of</strong><br />
languages, in this case the structure <strong>of</strong> nominals and pronouns.<br />
4.4 Why D in Italian but Number in Greek?<br />
Our main claim is that the variation in the topic-strategies <strong>of</strong> Greek and Italian interacts<br />
with the structure <strong>of</strong> nominals. As shown, the relevant structures reflect the anaphoric pos-<br />
sibilities in the two languages which, crucially, are governed by the structure <strong>of</strong> the relevant<br />
nominal antecedents and pronouns. However, once we move away from topic-strategies and<br />
anaphoric relations to the nominals themselves, the question is whether the variation in nom-<br />
inals correlates with further contrasts in the two languages, or, to put the question somewhat<br />
differently, what enables Number to be a nominalisor in Greek while D is necessary in Italian?<br />
Our speculation is that the morphological and featural make up <strong>of</strong> nominal categories in the<br />
two languages plays a role in this respect. Greek nominal elements such as nouns, adjectives,<br />
numerals, quantifiers and the definite article show morphological case, gender and number.<br />
Any <strong>of</strong> these elements then can project a NumPhrase. Additionally, while number is crosscat-<br />
egorial in the sense that both verbal and nominal categories have number, case and gender<br />
are only nominal. Thus, case and gender morphology provide categorical marking crucial for<br />
the identification <strong>of</strong> syntactic complements, 33 while Number provides relevant individuating<br />
semantics that apply to predicative nouns to turn them into arguments. These three features<br />
then appear to work in tandem to provide syntactic marking and semantics for a nominal<br />
argument. By contrast, Italian nominals are not marked for case. Number marking in Italian<br />
is not as systematic since some D elements like ne and the bare partitive construction do not<br />
bear morphological number marking. It then seems that what Italian lacks in case (and possi-<br />
bly number) morphology, it makes up in the range <strong>of</strong> D elements that are central to building<br />
arguments; 34 Greek on the other hand, relies on the features carried by nominal elements<br />
which are crucial for the projection <strong>of</strong> nominal arguments. The definite article/pronoun are<br />
33 Indeed, Lekakou and Szendröi (2010) propose that Greek arguments are headed by a Kase head.<br />
34 This again echoes Giusti’s position that the primary role <strong>of</strong> the definite article as a functional head is<br />
syntactic, to assign case to its complement NP (Giusti 1993,1997, 2002).<br />
46
just semantically definite elements but do not act as D-heads.<br />
A further question is whether the different role <strong>of</strong> Number in the two languages means that<br />
Number has different semantics/interpretation in the two languages. Greek number indeed<br />
has some unexpected properties; first, as seen already,Greek allows bare singular arguments.<br />
In addition, mass nouns in Greek may show plural morphology as demonstrated by Tsoulas<br />
(2008) (see also Alexiadou 2010). In some intuitive sense then, number appears to be ”active”<br />
in every instance <strong>of</strong> nominal arguments (e.g. including mass nouns), a fact which can be linked<br />
to its nominalisor role <strong>of</strong> number.<br />
(88) a. trehun nera apo to tavani<br />
drip-3pl water-pl from the-sg ceiling-sg<br />
Water is dripping from the ceiling.<br />
b. to patoma itan gemato nera<br />
the-sg floor-sg was full<br />
The floor was full <strong>of</strong> water.<br />
waters-pl<br />
(From Tsoulas 2008, ex.9,10)<br />
By contrast, bare singular arguments or plural mass nouns are not available in Italian. In<br />
addition, Italian seems to have at its disposal a set <strong>of</strong> clitic pronouns which are number<br />
neutral (lo, la (in some varieties), si, ne). For instance, when these pronouns take predicates<br />
as antecedents, they are not sensitive to number as seen in (89).<br />
(89) belle lo sono?<br />
beautiful it are<br />
Beautiful they are.<br />
The same number neutrality shows up with mass nouns and reflexive predicates as in (90).<br />
(90) a. di carne ne mangia<br />
<strong>of</strong> meat ne eats<br />
b. Gianni e Maria si lavano spesso<br />
Gianni e Maria self wash <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
Finally, Italian allows some <strong>of</strong> the number neutral singular bare nouns like Catalan as in (91).<br />
47
(91) il pero e’ in fiore<br />
the pear-tree is in flower<br />
The pear tree is blossoming.<br />
A systematic investigation <strong>of</strong> these facts is beyond the scope <strong>of</strong> this paper. Note though that<br />
if Italian does allow number neutral DPs and this were to be captured by an absent Num<br />
head in the internal structure <strong>of</strong> the DP, then our analysis would entail less structure for non-<br />
referential uses <strong>of</strong> la/lo, just as proposed by Longobardi (1994) and Déchaine and Wiltschko<br />
(2002) do. However, the optional head would be Num in our analysis, not D.<br />
Finally, an understanding <strong>of</strong> the precise semantic contribution <strong>of</strong> Greek number may lead<br />
to an even simpler structure for Greek nominals where they are just Noun Phrases with a<br />
Number feature that allows them to be interpreted as arguments.<br />
5 Conclusion<br />
clld has been assumed to be the main topic-strategy in Greek and Italian; the topic oper-<br />
ator assumed in these structures is linked anaphorically to the in-situ element <strong>of</strong> the A-bar<br />
dependency (rather than through binding as is the case in quantificational A-bar chains).<br />
clld and Topicalisation have been viewed as distinct PF realisations <strong>of</strong> topic-operator struc-<br />
tures, with the pronominal in clld analysed as an overt realisation <strong>of</strong> the gap/null epithet<br />
involved in Topicalisation. We showed that the relation between the clld-ed phrase and the<br />
pronominal clitic mirror general anaphoric patterns in the two languages, therefore, reinforc-<br />
ing the view <strong>of</strong> these structures as involving an anaphoric operator. But, at the same time,<br />
we showed that the properties <strong>of</strong> the prononimal are crucial since they affect the anaphoric<br />
possibilities in each language and, as a result, the range <strong>of</strong> available readings in clld. Cru-<br />
cially, the properties <strong>of</strong> the pronominal have consequences for interpretation indicating that<br />
the crosslinguistic variation in the realisation <strong>of</strong> topic-operator structures is not confined to<br />
PF variation regarding the overtness <strong>of</strong> the in-situ element. Indeed, our main claim is that<br />
the variation in topic-structures interacts with the internal structures <strong>of</strong> nominal arguments<br />
in the two languages.<br />
We focused on the realisation <strong>of</strong> indefinite topics which is where the contrast in the<br />
48
topic-strategies between the two languages surfaces; Italian allows property denoting phrases<br />
(indefinite DPs or indeed adjectives) to be clld-ed and resumed by a clitic, while Greek<br />
clld is restricted to referential topics; non-referential/property denoting topics are necessarily<br />
topicalised. We showed that this contrast reflects a more general pattern according to which<br />
Greek pronouns resist property anaphora where Italian systematically allows a pronominal to<br />
take a non-referential antecedent. We argued that the contrast stems from the fact that Greek<br />
nominal arguments lack a D-layer and are instead NumPs. As a result, property denoting<br />
indefinites in the relevant contexts systematically involve bare nouns in Greek but DPs in<br />
Italian. These non-referential DPs can be antecedents <strong>of</strong> D-pronouns in Italian while in Greek<br />
the effect <strong>of</strong> property anaphora is achieved through NumP ellipsis (IAD) which allows the<br />
”recycling <strong>of</strong> the descriptive content <strong>of</strong> the antecedent”.<br />
The variation in the topic-strategies then is reduced to variation in the syntax <strong>of</strong> nominal<br />
arguments in the two languages. We argued that nouns are [+pred] and [-arg] in both Greek<br />
and Italian, but the two languages differ in the nominalising head, D for Italian and Num<br />
for Greek. We linked this hypothesis to the rich morphological make up <strong>of</strong> Greek nominals<br />
and the poor inventory <strong>of</strong> D-elements—-indeed we argued that even the Greek definite article<br />
is not a D head— which contrasts with the poorer case and number morphology <strong>of</strong> Italian<br />
nominal elements but the wider range <strong>of</strong> D elements. In addition, we linked the D/Num<br />
contrast to the ”weaker” semantics <strong>of</strong> the Italian definite Ds and the stronger readings <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Greek definite clitic.<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> questions remain open. How do the Italian facts compare with other Ro-<br />
mance languages? Do other Romance languages allow weaker readings <strong>of</strong> definite Ds and<br />
property anaphora? Does availability <strong>of</strong> NP arguments predict IAD? English is a potential<br />
counterexample here since NP ellipsis is ungrammatical in the English *John is looking for<br />
dinosaurs but cannot find, though dinosaurs is a NP. While these answers await a systematic<br />
investigation, our stronger prediction is that the finer variation in the interpretative possi-<br />
bilities <strong>of</strong> clld and topicalisation structures across Romance should reflect variation in the<br />
nominal structure.<br />
49
References<br />
Alexiadou, A. (2010). Plural mass nouns and the morpho-syntax <strong>of</strong> Number. In Proceedings<br />
<strong>of</strong> West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Cascadilla Press.<br />
Alexiadou, A. and E. Anagnostopoulou (1998). Parmetrizing agr: word order, verb move-<br />
ment and EPPchecking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16 (3), 491–539.<br />
Alexiadou, A. and K. Gengel (2008). Classifiers as morphosyntactic licensors <strong>of</strong> np ellipsis:<br />
English vs. Romance. In NELS 39.<br />
Alexiadou, A., L. Haegeman, and M. Stavrou (2007). Noun Phrase in the Generative Per-<br />
spective, Volume 71 <strong>of</strong> Studies in Generative Grammar. Mouton de Gruyter.<br />
Alexiadou, A. and M. Stavrou (2000). Adjective-clitic combinations in the Greek DP. In<br />
B. Grlach and J. Grijzenhout (Eds.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax.<br />
John Benjamins.<br />
Alexiadou, A. and C. Wilder (1998). Adjectival modification and multiple determiners. In<br />
A. Alexiadou and C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the DP,<br />
pp. 303–332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.<br />
Alexopoulou, T. (2006). Resumption in relative clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic<br />
Theory 24 (1), 57–111.<br />
Alexopoulou, T. (2009). Binding illusions. In J. H. Claire Halpert and D. Hill (Eds.),<br />
Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the 2007 Workshop in Greek Syntax and Semantics at MIT, Volume 57,<br />
pp. 33–48. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.<br />
Alexopoulou, T., E. Doron, and C. Heycock (2004). Broad subjects and clitic left disloca-<br />
tion,. In D. Adger, C. de Cat, and G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Peripheries: syntactic edges and<br />
their effects, pp. 329–358. Kluwer.<br />
Alexopoulou, T. and R. Folli (<strong>2011</strong>). Indefinite topics and the syntax <strong>of</strong> nominals in Italian<br />
and Greek. In M. B. Washburn, S. Ouwayda, C. Ouyang, B. Yin, C. Ipek, L. Marston,<br />
and A. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings <strong>of</strong> West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 28.<br />
Cascadilla Press.<br />
50
Alexopoulou, T. and C. Heycock (2003). Quantifier scope in relative clauses and definiteness<br />
effects. In C. Beyssade, O. Bonami, P. C. H<strong>of</strong>herr, and F. Corblin (Eds.), Empirical<br />
Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, Volume 4, pp. 81–96. Presses de l’Université<br />
de Paris-Sorbonne.<br />
Alexopoulou, T. and D. Kolliakou (2002). On Linkhood and Clitic Left Dislocation. Journal<br />
<strong>of</strong> Linguistics 38 (2), 193–245.<br />
Anagnostopoulou, E. (1994). Clitic Dependencies in Modern Greek. Ph. D. thesis, Univer-<br />
sity <strong>of</strong> Salzburg.<br />
Androutsopoulou, A. (1994). The distribution <strong>of</strong> the definite determiner and the syntax <strong>of</strong><br />
Greek DPs. In Papers from the 30th Annual Meeting <strong>of</strong> the Chicago Linguistic Society.<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Chicago Press.<br />
Androutsopoulou, A. (1995). The licensing <strong>of</strong> adjectival modification. In Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the<br />
14th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford, California. CSLI Publi-<br />
cations.<br />
Belletti, A. and L. Rizzi (1981). The syntax <strong>of</strong> ”ne”: some theoretical implicatins. The<br />
Linguistic Review 1, 117–154.<br />
Benincà, P. (1980). Nomi senza articolo. Rivista di grammatica generativa 5, 51–63.<br />
Bo˘sković, ˘ Z. (2008). What will you have, dp or np? In E. Elfner and M. Walkow (Eds.),<br />
Proceedings <strong>of</strong> NELS 37. Booksurge.<br />
Cardinaletti, A. and G. Giusti (1990). Partitive ”ne” and the QP hypothesis. a case study.<br />
ms, University <strong>of</strong> Venice.<br />
Cecchetto, C. (2001). Syntactic or semantic reconstruction? evidence from pseudoclefts and<br />
clitic left dislocation. In C. Cecchetto, G. Chierchia, and M. T. Guasti (Eds.), Semantic<br />
Interfaces. CSLI.<br />
Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6,<br />
339–405.<br />
Cinque, G. (1990). Types <strong>of</strong> A-bar Dependencies, Volume 17. MIT Press. Linguistic Inquiry<br />
51
Monographs.<br />
Déchaine, R.-M. and M. Wiltschko (2002). Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic In-<br />
quiry 33 (3), 409–442.<br />
Dimitriadis, A. (1994). Clitics and object drop in Modern Greek. In Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Sixth Student Conference in Linguistics (SCIL-6), University <strong>of</strong> Rochester, Volume 23<br />
<strong>of</strong> MITWPL, pp. 1–20.<br />
Endriss, C. (2006). Quantificational topics, a scopal treatment <strong>of</strong> exceptional wide scope<br />
phenomen. Ph. D. thesis, University <strong>of</strong> Potsdam.<br />
Espinal, M. T. (2010). Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish. their structure and meaning.<br />
Lingua 120, 984–1009.<br />
Espinal, M. T. and L. McNally (2007). Bare singular nominals and incorporating verbs. In<br />
G. Kaiser and M. Leonetti (Eds.), Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the III NEREUS International Work-<br />
shop. Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance languages, Universität<br />
Konstanz, pp. 45–62. Arbeitspapier 122.<br />
Farkas, D. F. and H. de Swarts (2001). Bare nominals in the typology <strong>of</strong> indefinites. Reader<br />
for ESSLLI’01 course on the Typology <strong>of</strong> Noun Phrases.<br />
Farkas, D. F. and H. de Swarts (2003). The semantics <strong>of</strong> incorporation: from argument<br />
structure to discourse transparency. Stanford monographs in Linguistics. CSLI Publica-<br />
tions.<br />
Fodor, J. D. (1970). The linguistic description <strong>of</strong> opaque contexts. Ph. D. thesis, MIT,<br />
Published in 1976 by Indiana University Linguistics Club and in 1979 in the Series<br />
“Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics” by Garland.<br />
Giannakidou, A. and J. Merchant (1997). On the interpretation <strong>of</strong> null indefinite objects<br />
in greek. In Studies in Greek Linguistics, Volume 17, pp. 141–155. Aristotle University.<br />
Giannakidou, A. and M. Stavrou (1999). Nominalization and ellipsis in the Greek DP.<br />
Linguistic Review 16 (4), 295–331.<br />
Giusti, G. (1993). La sintassi dei determinanti. Padova:Unipress.<br />
52
Giusti, G. (1997). The categorial status <strong>of</strong> determiners. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), The New<br />
Comparative Syntax. London: Longman.<br />
Giusti, G. (2002). The functional structure <strong>of</strong> noun phrases. a bare phrase structure ap-<br />
proach. In G. Cinque (Ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP: The cartography <strong>of</strong><br />
syntactic structures, Volume 1, pp. 54–90. Oxford University Press.<br />
Giusti, G. (2010). The syntax <strong>of</strong> the definite article at the interfaces. University <strong>of</strong> Venice,<br />
ms.<br />
Haegeman, L. (to appear). Argument fronting in English, Romance CLLD and the left<br />
periphery. In Negation, Tense and Clausal Architecture: Cross-linguistic Investigations.<br />
Georgetown University Press.<br />
Horrocks, G. and M. Stavrou (1987). Bounding theory and Greek syntax: evidence for<br />
wh-movement in NP. Journal <strong>of</strong> Linguistics 23, 79–108.<br />
Iatridou, S. (1995). Clitics and Island Effects. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 11–31.<br />
Karanassios, G. (1992). Syntaxe Comparé du Groupe Nominal en Grec Moderne et dans<br />
d’Autre Langues. Ph. D. thesis, Université de Paris VIII.<br />
Kolliakou, D. (2003). Nominal constructions in Modern Greek: Implications for the archi-<br />
tecture <strong>of</strong> Grammar. Studies in Constraint-based Lexicalism. CSLI Publications.<br />
Kolliakou, D. (2004). Monadic and polydefinites: their form, meaning and use. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Linguistics 40 (2), 263–323.<br />
Lasnik, H. and T. Stowell (1991). Weakest Crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22 (4), 687–720.<br />
Lekakou, M. and K. Szendröi (2010). Eliding the noun in close apposition, or Greek poly-<br />
definites revisited. ms, Meertens Instituut, Amsterdam and University College London.<br />
Longobardi, G. (1986). L’estrazione dalle ”isole” e lo scope dei sintagmi quantificati. In<br />
Parallela 2:Aspetti della sintassi dell’italiano contemporaneo. Tübingen:Gunter Narr.<br />
Longobardi, G. (1994). The structure <strong>of</strong> dps: Some principles, parameters and problems.<br />
Linguistic Inquiry 25, 609–665.<br />
53
Marinis, T. (2003). The acquisition <strong>of</strong> the DP in Modern Greek, Volume 31 <strong>of</strong> Language<br />
Acquisition and Language Disorders. John Benjamins.<br />
Mathieu, E. and I. Sitaridou (2002). Split wh-constructions in Classical and Modern Greek.<br />
In Linguistics in Potsdam, Number 19, pp. 143–182.<br />
McCloskey, J. (1990). Resumptive pronouns, ā-binding and levels <strong>of</strong> representation in Irish.<br />
In R. Hendrick (Ed.), Syntax <strong>of</strong> the modern Celtic languages, Volume 23 <strong>of</strong> Syntax and<br />
Semantics, pp. 199–248. New York and San Diego: Academic Press.<br />
McCloskey, J. (2002). Resumption, Successive Cyclicity, and the Locality <strong>of</strong> Operations.<br />
In S. D. Epstein and D. T. Seely (Eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the minimalist<br />
program, pp. 184–226. Oxford: Blackwell.<br />
Panagiotidis, P. (2002). Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns: ‘Pronominality’ and licensing<br />
in syntax. John Benjamins Publications.<br />
Panagiotidis, P. (2003). Empty nouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 381–<br />
432.<br />
Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1985). Word order in Modern Greek. Transactions <strong>of</strong> the Philo-<br />
logical Society (83), 113–143.<br />
Reinhart, T. (1982). Pragmatics and Linguistics: an Analysis <strong>of</strong> Sentence Topics. Indiana<br />
University Linguistics Club.<br />
Rizzi, L. (1997). The Fine Structure <strong>of</strong> the Left Periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements<br />
<strong>of</strong> Grammar: Handbook <strong>of</strong> Generative Syntax, pp. 281–337. Dordrecht:Kluwer.<br />
Roussou, A. and I.-M. Tsimpli (1994). On the interaction <strong>of</strong> case and definiteness in Modern<br />
Greek. In I. Philippaki-Warburton, K. Nicolaidis, and M. Sifianou (Eds.), Themes in<br />
Greek Linguistics., pp. 69–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.<br />
Roussou, A. and I.-M. Tsimpli (2006). On Greek VSO again! Journal <strong>of</strong> Linguistics 42,<br />
317–354.<br />
Rouveret, A. (2002). How are resumptive pronouns linked to the periphery? In Linguistic<br />
Variation Yearbook, pp. 123–184. John Benjamins.<br />
54
Sells, P. (1984). Syntax and Semantics <strong>of</strong> Resumptive Pronouns. Ph. D. thesis, university<br />
<strong>of</strong> Massachusetts at Amherst.<br />
Shlonsky, U. (1992). Resumptive Pronouns as a Last Resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23 (3),<br />
443–448.<br />
Sioupi, A. (2001). On the semantic nature <strong>of</strong> Bare Singular nps in Greek. In C. Clairis<br />
(Ed.), Recherches en Linguistique Grecque II. Actes du 5e Colloque International de<br />
linguistique Grecque, Volume 2, pp. 231–234. Sorbonne: Paris:Harmattan.<br />
Stavrou, M. (1991). Nominal apposition: more evidence for a DP analysis <strong>of</strong> NP. In J. Payne<br />
(Ed.), Empirical approaches to Language Typology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br />
Stavrou, M. (1996). Adjectives in Modern Greek: an instance <strong>of</strong> predication or an old issue<br />
revisited. Journal <strong>of</strong> Linguistics 32, 79–112.<br />
Tomioka, S. (2003). The semantics <strong>of</strong> null arguments in japanese and its cross-linguistic<br />
implications. In K. Schwabe and S. Winkler (Eds.), Interfaces, pp. 321–339. Amsterdam<br />
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publications.<br />
Tsimpli, I.-M. (1999). Null operators, clitics and identification: a comparison between Greek<br />
and English. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, and M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek<br />
syntax, Volume 43 <strong>of</strong> Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, pp. 241–262.<br />
Kluwer Academic Publishers.<br />
Tsimpli, I.-M. and D. Papadopoulou (2005). Aspect and argument realisation: A study on<br />
antecedentless null objects in greek. Lingua 116, 1595–1615.<br />
Tsimpli, M. I. (1995). Focusing in Modern Greek. In K. Kiss (Ed.), Discourse Configura-<br />
tional Languages, Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax, pp. 176–206. Oxford Univer-<br />
sity Press.<br />
Tsoulas, G. (2008). On the grammar <strong>of</strong> number and mass terms in greek. In E. Anagnos-<br />
topoulou and S. Iatridou (Eds.), Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the 2007 Workshop in Greek Syntax and<br />
Semantics at MIT, Volume 56, pp. 131–46. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.<br />
von Fintel, K. and I. Heim (2009). Intensional semantics. Lecture Notes.<br />
55
Zimmermann, T. E. (1993). On the proper treatment <strong>of</strong> opacity in certain verbs. Natural<br />
Language Semantics 1 (2), 149–179.<br />
56