Resumption and nominal morphosyntax

Resumption and nominal morphosyntax
Theodora Alexopoulou and Raffaella Folli
Cambridge and Ulster
ta259@cam.ac.uk and r.folli@ulster.ac.uk
Jerusalem, July 2012
1 Interpretations of resumptive pronouns
(1) a. dani yimca et ha-i˘sa ˘se hu mexapes
Dani will-find acc the-woman that he seeks
(ambiguous between de re and de dicto)
b. dani yimca et ha-i˘sa ˘se hu mexapes ota
Dani will-find acc the-woman that hes seeks her (only de re)
(Doron 1982, ex.49&50)
• Resumptive pronouns are not gap-like variables; they are interpreted as pronouns.
• In Greek, whether or not a resumptive pronoun is a gap-like variable depends on the
nature of the chain, quantificational vs. anaphoric (in the sense of Lasnik and Stowell
(1991, Tsimpli (1999)). 1 Thus, resumption in quantificational chains like restrictive
relative clauses (2) allows the de dicto interpretations but not in anaphoric chains like
Clitic Left Dislocation (clld) in (3). 2
(2) Relative Clause
a. o Petros psahni tin kopela pu tha tis lei
the-nom Petros-nom look-for-3sg the-acc girl that fut her-gen tell-3sg
1 and its obligatoriness in a quantificational chain.
2 We mark infelicity with ≠.
1

ta mistika tu horis na fovate
the secrets his without subj fear-3sg
Petros is looking for the girl to whom he will tell his secrets without fear.
b. o Petros psahni tin kopela pu tha klepsi tin
the-nom Petros-nom look-for3sg the-acc girl that fut steal-3sg the-acc
kardia tis
heart her-gen
Petros is looking for the girl whose heart he will steal.
(3) CLLD
a. mia kokini fusta tin psahno edho ke meres
a red skirt it look-for-1sg here and days
I’ve been looking for a red skirt for a few days ...
b. ≠ke de boro na vro kamia pu na m’aresi
and not can-1sg subj find-1sg none that subj me-please-3sg
... and I cannot find any that I like.
c. ke de boro na thimitho pu tin eho vali
and not can-1sg subj remember-1sg where her.cl have-1sg put
... and cannot remember where I put it.
(Alexopoulou 2006, ex.37)
(Alexopoulou and Kolliakou 2002)
Greek also suggests that de dicto interpretations of resumptive pronouns are available in
the same quantificational chains that admit quantifiers like resumptive relative clauses in (4)
but unacceptable where quantifiers are also banned as in clld in (4). 3
(4) a. kathe/kamia kopela pu tis lei ta mistika tu o Yanis....
every/no girl that her-gen tell-3sg the Yanis...
every girl that Yanis tells his secrets to...
b. *kanena dhen ton idha
noone not him saw-1sg
I did not see noone.
3 D-linking may improve the acceptability of quantifiers in clld (Giannakidou 1997; Anagnostopoulou 1994).
However, an experimental investigation of the effect of d-linking on the acceptability of wh-questions involving
resumptives shows that d-linking does not restore resumptive structures to full acceptability which remain less
acceptable than corresponding ones involving a gap (Alexopoulou and Keller 201X).
2

The Greek facts strongly suggest that the interpretation of the resumptive pronoun depends
on the type/the syntactic properties of the chain (e.g. quantificational vs. anaphoric). But
Italian, indicates a more complex picture. As in Greek, quantifiers are excluded from Italian
clld (Cinque 1990; Rizzi 1997); but, unlike its Greek counterpart, Italian (6) allows the de
dicto reading.
(5) a. Nessuno (*lo) ho visto
noone him.cl have-1sg seen
Noone I saw him.
b. Tutto (*lo) ho fatto
everything it.cl have-1sg done
Everything I did.
(6) a. una gonna rossa la cerco da un po’
a red skirt her.cl look-for-1sg for a while
A red skirt I’ve been looking for a while...
b. ma non ne ho trovata nessuna che mi piaccia
but not of-them.cl have-1sg found none-fem that me please-3sg.subj
... but have not found anyone that I like.
c. ma non riesco a ricordarmi dove l’ho
messa
but not reach-1sg to remember where her.cl-have-1sg put
puffle ... but I cannot remember where I’ve put it.
The contrast involves interactions between clld-ed indefinites and IP indefinites more
generally: (7) allows wide scope both for the indefinite and the universal Cecchetto (2001)
while (8) only allows wide scope for the indefinite (Iatridou 1995; Anagnostopoulou 1994;
Alexopoulou and Kolliakou 2002).
(7) a. un articolo di Chomsky ogni studente l’ha letto
an article of Chomsky every student it.cl-has read
An article of Chomsky, every student has read it. (wide scope for universal available).
Note further that Greek employs Topicalisation when a non-referential or de dicto interpretation
of the indefinite topic is intended.
3

(8) a. Fetos i moda ine apesia; idika i bluzes ine aparadektes
I hate this year’s fashion; the blouses are especially outrageous.
b. mia kokini bluza psahno edo ki ena mina ke de boro na vro
a red blouse her.cl look-for-1sg here and one month and not can subj
puthena kamia pu na m’aresi
find-1sg anywhere anyone that subj me like-3sg
A red blouse I’ve been looking for for a month now and I cannot find one that I
like.
(Alexopoulou and Kolliakou 2002, ex.51)
Questions: what is the source of the crosslinguistic contrast between Italian and Greek
clld. Why Italian pronouns support non-referential gap-like interpretations (even though
they resist quantifiers) while Greek pronouns do not and Greek employs gaps when relevant
readings are intended?
Hypothesis: Greek nominals lack a D-layer, instantiating Number Phrases while Italian
nominals are DPs.
2 Indefinite Topics: Previous Analyses
Scope based analyses
Iatridou (1995) and Anagnostopoulou (1994) take the impossibility
of interpreting clld-ed indefinites within the scope of IP internal operators as evidence for a
base-generation analysis of Greek clld. Similarly, Cecchetto (2001) takes the Italian facts as
evidence of reconstruction, and, therefore proposes a movement analysis for Italian clld-ed
DPs. Italian and Greek clld then involve distinct derivations, movement and base generation
respectively. However, there is no independent evidence for this derivational contrast. In
fact, in both languages the structures display many standard clld properties (no wco, noparasitic
gaps, sensitivity to islands, unavailability of clld-ed downward entailing quantifiers
see Cinque 1990; Anagnostopoulou 1994; Tsimpli 1995; Rizzi 1997; Alexopoulou, Doron, and
Heycock 2004). 4
(9) allows the so-called ”3rd-reading” (Fodor 1970; von Fintel and Heim 2009), according
4 But see Haegeman (pear) for some differences.
4

to which, I’m looking for a specific type of an Armani skirt, e.g. one that I’ve seen in a
brochure, but still not for a token. 5 Such examples could be taken as evidence that clld may
at least allow partial reconstruction.
(9) a. mia fusta tu Armani tin psahno edho ke meres
a skirt the-gen Armani her.cl look-for-1sg here and days
An Armani skirt I’ve been looking for for a few days ....
b. ke de mporo na vro kamia pu na mu kani
and not can-1sg subj find-1sg none that subj me fit-3sg
... and I cannot find anyone that fits me.
In addition, there is evidence from both Greek and Italian, that the properties of the dislocated
element affect the ”scope” possibilities. For example, the plural clld-ed interrogative in (10)
allows only a wide scope reading. 6
(10) ?quanti pazienti ritieni che li debba visitare ogni medico?
how-many patients think-2pl that them should visit each doctor
How many patients do you think each doctor should visit? (no wide scope for universal)
Unlike clld-ed indefinites, Greek definites may be interpreted under the scope of the universal
quantifier in (11).
(11) to aftokinito tu to asfalise kathe fititis
the car his-gen it insured-3sg each student-nom
Each student insured his car (distributive reading available).
Finally, clld-ed PPs don’t reconstruct in Italian (Cecchetto 2001).
Topichood analyses
Topics are often taken to necessarily involve well established discourse
antecedents and, as a result, be compatible only with referential interpretations (Reinhart
1982; Alexopoulou and Kolliakou 2002; Endriss 2006). This explanation works for Greek
5 Thanks to S. Iatridou for this observation.
6 This example is due to Longobardi (1986) cited by Cinque (1990).
5

clld, since clld-ed phrases are necessarily referential topics (Philippaki-Warburton 1985;
Anagnostopoulou 1994; Tsimpli 1995; Rizzi 1997). However, Italian clld challenges the generalisation
that topics are exclusively referential as we have seen in (6); the Greek Topicalisation
examples in (8b) are equally problematic.
3 Beyond topics: nominals and anaphoric relations in Italian
and Greek
3.1 Greek manipulates structure while Italian manipulates Ds
Greek employs Topicalisation (12b) when a non-referential interpretation is intended while
Italian clld (12a). Further, the dislocated phrase in Greek is a bare noun while in Italian
the indefinite article is indespensible.
(12) a. Una segrataria *(la)-trovi facilmente/ prima o poi una segretaria
A secretary her.cl-find easily/ sooner or later a secretary
*(la)-trovi
her.find
A secretary, you fill find her easily/ sooner or later you will find her
b. Gramatea tha (*ti) vrite sigura
Secretary will her.cl find-2pl certainly
A secretary you will find her certainly.
Thus, indefinite and definite topics are clld-ed in Italian but Greek employs clld only for
definite or referential topics.
(13) a. ti Maria tha ti vrite sigura sto grafio
the-acc Maria will her.cl find-2pl certainly at-the office
Maria you’ll certainly find her at the office.
b. il libro che cerchi lo trovi sul tavolo
the book that are-looking-for.2sg it.cl find-2sg on-the table
The book you are looking for you’ll find it on the table.
6

The pattern becomes somewhat more complicated in Italian when plurals are considered.
As can be seen in (14a) and in (10) repeated as (14b), the plural clitic le resists a non-referential
antecedent, just like the Greek clitics.
(14) a. *Segretarie le
trovi facilemente.
Secretaries them.cl.fem find easily
Secretaries, you will find them easily.
b. ?quanti pazienti ritieni che li
debba visitare ogni medico?
how-many patients think-2sg that them.cl.msc should visit each doctor
How many patients do you think each doctor should visit? (no wide scope for
universal)
For plural indefinite topics Italian employs ne (15).
(15) a. (Delle)-segretarie ne trovi facilemente.
Secretaries of-them.cl find.easily
Secretaries, you will find them easily
b. (Delle)-segretarie se *(ne)
Secretaries refl of-them.cl
Secretaries, can be found easily.
trovano
find
facilmente
easily
3.2 Indefinite pronominal antecedents and Indefinite Argument Drop
(IAD)
The range of available interpretations for an indefinite clld-ed phrase in the two languages
mirrors the possibilities available in intrasentential anaphora. Compare (12a) with (16). The
pronoun la in (16a) and lo in (16b) can admit a non-referential antecedent just like the clld
example in (12a).
(16) a. A:Maria ha trovato una baby sitter? B:Si, l’ha
trovata
A:Maria has-3sg found a baby sitter? B:Yes, her.cl’has-3sg found
A:Has Maria found a baby sitter? B: yes, she found one
b. Gianni sta cercando un idraulico ma non lo trova
Gianni is looking-for a plumber but not him.cl find-3sg
Gianni is looking-for a plumber but cannot find one.
7

There is no pronoun in corresponding Greek examples; rather the (object) argument is
dropped as first observed by Dimitriadis (1994) who also drew a correlation between the availability
of Greek Topicalisation and argument drop in examples like (17).(See also Giannakidou
and Merchant (1997), Tsimpli and Papadopoulou (2005) and Panagiotidis (2002)):
(17) a. A:vrike dada I Maria? B:ne, (*ti) vrike
Q:found-3sg nanny the-nom Maria A:yes, (*her) found-3sg
Has Maria found a nanny? Yes, she found.
b. o Yanis psahni idravliko alla dhe (*ton) vriski puthena
the-nom Yanis look-for-3sg plumber but not (him) find-3sg anywhere
Yanis is looking for a plumber but cannot nd one anywhere.
Note that the problem in (17) is not the bare nominal per se, but the necessarily nonreferential
interpretation of bare nouns which bars them as pronominal antecedents. An indefinite
with enan can license IAD, under the non-referential reading (18b).
(18) a. o Yanis psahni enan idravliko, ala dhe ton vriski puthena
the-nom Yanis look-for-3sg one plumber but not him find-3sg anywhere
Yanis is looking for a plubmer but cannot find him anywhere. ∃ > look-for
b. o Yanis psahni enan idravliko, ala dhe vriski puthena
the-nom Yanis look-for-3sg one plumber but not find-3sg anywhere
Yanis is looking for a plubmer but cannot find one anywhere. look-for > ∃
The facts reviewed so far indicate that: (i) the relation between a clld-ed phrase and the clitic
mirrors intrasentential anaphora in the two languages; (ii) Greek pronouns systematically
resist non-referential antecedents while Italian clitics can accept such antecedents; (iii) Greek
allows Indefinite Argument Drop (IAD) where Italian systematically employs pronouns.
IAD is available also with subjects in Greek as shown in (19) (and noticed by Giannakidou
and Merchant 1997). (19b) can be a felicitous exchange in a context where a new helpline is
set up at a university, available to faculty, students and the general public, but what is of
interest is if students specifically use it.
(19) a. A:irthe kanis? B:ne irthe
A:came-3sg anyone? B:yes, came-3sg
8

A:Did anyone come? B:Yes, someone did.
b. A:tilefonisan fitites? B:ne tilefonisan
A:phoned-3pl students? B:yes, phoned-3pl
A:Did students phone? B:Yes, some did.
By contrast, such indefinite subjects cannot be dropped in Italian.
(20) A:Ha telefonato qualcuno B:Si, qualcuno ha telefonato/*Si, ha telefonato
A:Has phoned someone? B:Yes, someone has phoned/*Yes, has phoned
A: Has anyone phoned? B: Yes, someone has phoned.
3.3 Bare nouns
Bare nouns are very widely available in Greek (21), in contrast to Italian, where their distribution
is restricted (Benincà 1980; Longobardi 1994; Chierchia 1998).
(21) a. i Maria vrike dada gia ta pedhia
the-nom Maria found nanny for the children
Maria found a nanny for the children.
b. mpikan kleftes ke sikosan ta pada
broke-in-3pl burglars and lifted-3pl the all
Burglars broke in and took everything.
c. diadilotes pirpolisan magazia ke aftokinita stus dromus yiro apo
demonstrators set-on-fire shops and cars in-the streets around from
to Politehnio
the Politehnio
Demonstrators set on fire shops and cars in the streets around the School of
Engineering.
The Italian counterparts of Greek (21a) and (17) resist bare nouns as shown in (22).
(22) a. Maria ha trovato una baby-sitter/*baby-sitter
Maria has found a nanny/*nanny
Maria found a nanny for the children.
b. Gianni sta cercando un idraulico/*idraulico.
Gianni is looking-for a plumber/*plumber
Gianni is looking for a plumber.
per
for
i bambini
the children
9

3.4 Bare subnominal ellipsis
In (23) the noun tavolo is elided; the nominal is headed by uno which consists of the indefinite
article and the classifier o, followed by the adjective (Alexiadou and Gengel 2008). In addition,
the elliptical nominal is doubled by the pronoun lo.
(23) A:Vorrei
A:would-like-1sg
un
a
tavolo
table
grande
big
B:Mi spiace. Non lo abbiamo, uno
B:Me displeases-3sg. Not it have-1pl, a
grande
big
I would like to buy a big table. I’m sorry. We do not have a big one.
(From Alexiadou and Gengel 2008, attributed to V.Samek-Lodovici)
In the Greek counterpart of (23) in (24) the noun can be elided, but the adjective alone is
enough.
(24) a. thelo afti ti fusta se kitrino
want-1sg this the skirt in yellow
I would like this skirt in yellow.
b. Distihos
unfortunately
dhen
not
eho kitrini. (Mono mavres mu ehun
have-1sg yellow-fem.sg (Ony black-fem.pl me have-3pl
mini)
left)
Unfortunately I don’t have a yellow one. ( Only black ones are left).
The facts presented in this section are summarised in Table 1. All critical cases involve
non-referential or weak indefinites. The emerging pattern is that for such nominals, Italian
systematically employs articles and pronouns where Greek resorts to bare structures. The
analysis then needs to capture the following: (i) Italian nominals are systematically DPs
where Greek nominals involve less structure; (ii) Italian pronouns are compatible with nonreferential
antecedents where Greek pronouns necessarily involve referential antecedents.
10

Structure Italian Greek
(A) Indefinite Topics clld of an indefinite Bare nominal
nominal (1)
linked to a gap (5,9b)
(B) CLLD-ed De dicto and de re Only de re (3)
indefinites available (1) and 3rd reading (6)
(C) Bare nouns Limited distribution; Productive use
bare partitive
of bare nouns (9b,20)
construction (12,13)
(D) Indefinite Unavailable Obligatory with
Argument Drop (14,19) (some) weak indefinites
and bare nouns (16,17b)
(E) Bare Subnominal Unavailable May involve
Ellipsis always a D element (22) bare adjective (23)
Table 1: Summary of the crosslinguistic contrasts in the realisation of weak indefinites
4 Analysis
4.1 Greek nominal arguments are Number Phrases
Since Horrocks and Stavrou (1987), Greek nominal arguments are assumed to be DPs (see
also Stavrou 1991). This view remains dominant in the Greek literature to date, modulo
Kolliakou’s work on Greek definites (Kolliakou 2003) and two proposals for treating some
cases of Greek bare nouns as NPs by Tomioka (2003) and Tsimpli and Papadopoulou (2005).
In this section we provide arguments that Greek nominals are Number Phrases without a
D layer. We begin our discussion with bare nouns in section 4.1.1 and then move to nominals
with articles and quantifiers in section 4.1.3.
4.1.1 Bare nouns in Greek
We hypothesise the structure in (25). We need to show two things: first, that bare nouns are
arguments and not incorporated properties. Second, that no D layer is needed.
(25) a. aghorasa vivlia
bought-1sg books
I bought books.
11

VP
✟ ✟ ✟ ❍
❍
❍
b. V NumP
aghorasa
✟ ✟❍
❍
Num NP
+Pl
N
vivlia
Morphology
In terms of their morphology, bare nominals are marked for case, gender
and number just like any other argument, in contrast to incorporated arguments which,
crosslinguistically, may show reduced morphology (Farkas and de Swarts 2003).
Syntax
They can be left dislocated (26a), undergo (focus-)movement (26b) or be passivised
(26c) like any other argument. 7
(26) a. danio, kserume pia trapeza tha mas dosi
loan, know-1pl which bank will us give-3sg
A loan, we know which bank will give it to us.
b. gamo theli, ohi tsilimpurdismata
marriage want-3sg not affairs
S/he’s after marriage, not affairs.
c. plastes taftotites ekdothikan mono stin Katohi (ohi ston
fake identity-cards were-issued only in-the Occupation (not in-the
efmilio)
civil-war)
7 Panagiotidis (2003) points out that a predicate like perno tilefono (=take phone) is ambiguous between
I get(=buy/fetch) a phone and make a phonecall. Interestingly, even under the latter interpretation, where
tilefono could be taken as semantically incorporated to the meaning of the whole predicate, the bare noun can
be dislocated as in (i).
(i)
tilefono de mpori na pari i marina;
phonecall not can subj take-3sg the-nom Marina;
Marina cannot make phonecall; she’s only a child.
ine
is
mikro
small
pedhi
child
12

Fake identity cards were issued only during the Occupation period (not during
the Civil war).
In addition, bare nouns can be modified like their non-bare counterparts.
(27) a. agorase akrivo aftokinito
bought-3sg expensive car
She bought an expensive car.
b. theli dada me ptihio
want-3sg baby-sitter with degree
She wants a babysitter with a degree.
c. kalos yatros ton exetase
good-nom doctor-nom clhim examined-3sg
A good doctor examined him, don’t worry.
(min
(not
anisihis)
worry-2sg)
Thus, the morphosyntactic properties of bare nouns provide evidence for an argument analysis
since there is no evidence of incorporation.
No number neutrality for bare singulars
Greek bare singulars do not show number
neutrality, i.e. compatibility with both atomic (singular) and plural interpretations (Farkas
and de Swarts 2003; Espinal 2010). Greek bare singulars are only compatible with an atomic
interpretation. Thus, (28a) denotes reading of one newspaper; characteristically, (28c) is ungrammatical
with the singular, exactly because the predicate necessitates a plural interpretation
(compare with stamp collector in English).
(28) a. dhiavase efimeridha
read-3sg newspaper
S/he read a newspaper. (reading of one newspaper)
b. dhiavase efimeridhes
read-3sg newspapers
She read newspapers. (reading of more than one newspapers)
c. mazevi *gramatosim-o/gramatosim-a
gather-3sg stamp-sg/stamps-pl
She collects stamps.
13

Greek bare singulars cannot license plural interpretations in (29) and (30) (adapted from
Espinal 2010, ex.4a). The second sentence in (29) is infelicitous; Greek contrasts in this respect
with languages like Catalan, where bare nouns license plural interpretations in contexts
like (29) (Espinal 2010).
(29) psahno aftokinito; ≠ ena mikro gia tin poli ki ena fortighaki ya ekdromes
look-for-1sg car; ≠ one small for the city and one van for trips
I’m looking for a car. ≠ a small one for the city and a van for trips.
Further, Greek bare nouns have atomic interpretations in contexts like (30), where their
Catalan counterparts are number neutral and compatible with plural readings.
(30) a. i amigdalia ebgale luludi
the-nom almond-tree made-3sg flower
The almond tree had a flower.
b. eho logariasmo stin ethniki
have-1sg account in-the national
I have an account in the National Bank.
c. eho spiti
have-1sg house
I have a house.
Free adjectival modification
Bare singulars in Catalan can only combine with classifying
modifiers as in (31a) but resist qualitative and descriptive adjectives is in (31b) an (31c), a
contrast indicating that Catalan bare singulars denote properties, not individuals.
(31) a. Per a aquest espectecle necessitareu faldilla llarga/escocesa/ de quadres
for to this event need-fut skirt long/kilt/plaid
For this event you will need a long skirt/a kilt/ a plaid skirt.
b. *Necessiten
need
faldilla
skirt
feta a Singapur/neta
made in Singapore/clean
c. *Té parella alta/malalta
has parner tall/ill
(From Espinal 2010, ex.8,9)
14

Again, Greek bare singulars exhibit properties of arguments denoting individuals, as indicated
by the availability of the descriptive and qualititative adjectives in (32b) and (32c).
(32) a. tha hriastite makria/skotzesiki/plise fusta
will need-2pl long/scotish/plaid skirt
You will need a long skirt/a kilt/a plaid skirt.
b. tha hriastite fusta rameni stin India/kathari fusta
will need-2pl skirt sewn in-the India/clean skirt
You will need a skirt sewn in India/ a clean skirt.
c. ehi arosto pedhi/ehi psilo gkomeno
has ill child/has tall boyfriend
S/he has an ill child/a tall boyfriend.
Discourse transparency
Finally, bare nouns can introduce discourse referents (33), that
is, they can be discourse transparent (Farkas and de Swarts 2003), a fact which, as pointed out
by Kolliakou (2003), indicates that D is not necessary in Greek for referential interpretations.
(33) telika vrike dada; ti gnorisame htes sto parti tis
finally found-3sg nanny; her.cl met-1pl yesterday at-the party the-gen
Yotas
Yota-gen
He finally found a nanny; we met her yesterday at Yota’s party.
The facts reviewed so far indicate that bare nouns in Greek are fully fledged arguments
both in terms of their morphosyntax as well as their semantic interpretations. In addition,
the contrasts with Catalan, clearly indicate that not only plurals, but singular bare nouns
have Number. We have to assume then that these nominals are minimally Number Phrases
(alternatively, they can be Noun Phrases necessarily marked for Number).
The next question is whether we should assume a null D head above NumP. Our answer
is negative. The first set of facts arguing against a null D comes from scope.
Scopal inertia
Greek bare nouns exhibit the scopal inertia standardly exhibited by their
crosslinguistic counterparts (Chierchia 1998; Farkas and de Swarts 2003).
Examples involving the indefinite article like (34b) and (35b) are ambiguous: the former
15

allows a transparent or de re reading and an opaque or de dicto reading while (35b) additionally
allows the 3rd reading according to which Maria is looking for a specific type of Armani skirt.
On the other hand, the bare nouns in the (a) examples allow only the opaque readings.
(34) a. i Maria theli na padrefti Italo
the-nom Maria want-3sg subj marry-3sg Italian
Maria wants to marry an Italian. (only opaque reading)
b. i Maria theli na padrefti enan
the-nom Maria want-3sg subj marry-3sg one-acc
Maria wants to marry an Italian. (ambiguous)
(35) a. i Maria theli n’agorasi fusta tu
the-nom Maria wants subj-buy-3sg skirt the-gen
Maria wants to buy an Armani skirt. only opaque
Italo
Italian
Armani
Armani
b. i Maria theli n’agorasi mia fusta tu
the-nom Maria wants subj-buy-3sg one skirt the-gen
Maria wants to buy an Armani skirt. 3-way ambiguous
Armani
Armani
If the bare nouns involved a null D, we would expect exactly the same range of interpretations
as in the case where the purported D element is overtly present since, the overt/null
alternation should be a PF alternation and should not affect LF interpretations, as is the case
in Italian.
Bare nominals cannot take scope over the universal quantifier (36a) (see Farkas and
de Swarts 2001 for similar facts in Hungarian) or over negation (37a) (Chierchia 1998).
(36) a. kathe episkeptis diavase efimeridha/efimeridhes
each visitor read-3sg newspaper-sg/newspapers-pl
Each visitor read a newspaper/newspapers. Only ∀ > ∃
b. kathe episkeptis diavase mia efimeridha/kapies efimeridhes
each visitor read one newspaper-sg/some newspapers-pl
Each visitor read a newspaper/some newspaper. ∀ > ∃ or ∃ > ∀
(37) a. dhen idhe rogmes sto tavani
not saw-3sg cracks in-the ceiling
S/he didn’t see cracks in the ceiling. Only ¬ > ∃
b. den
not
idhe mia lakuva sto dromo
saw-3sg a hole in-the street
16

S/he didn’t see a hole in the street. ∃ > ¬ or ?¬ > ∃
c. den idhe lakuva sto dromo
not saw-3sg hole in-the street
S/he didn’t see a hole in the street. Only ¬ > ∃
4.1.2 Towards a crosslinguistic typology of bare nouns
Chierchia (1998): nouns varying crosslinguistically in their [+pred],[-arg] values, i.e. whether
they can function as arguments or not. Bare nouns in Italian are assumed to involve a null D
(Longobardi 1986,1994, Chierchia 1998) and are restricted to some special governed positions,
a syntactic condition necessary for licensing the null D head.
(38) a. Lions are wild animals.
b. Dogs are barking in the courtyard.
c. Water is dripping from the faucet.
(39) a. i leoni sono animali selvaggi
the lions are animals of wild
Lions are wild animals.
b. alcuni cani stavano giocando nel giardino
some dogs were playing in-the garden
Some dogs were playing in the garden.
c. Del vino si e’
of-the wine refl past
Some wine got spilled.
rovesciato
spill
(Chierchia 1998)
(Adapted from Chierchia 1998)
So how does Greek fit into this typology? Unlike Italian, Greek bare nouns are much more
productive. 8 However, unlike English, Greek bare nouns exclude kind interpretations, since,
as pointed out by Roussou and Tsimpli (1994), established kinds as in (40) are necessarily
definite.
8 To give a quantitative perspective, according to Marinis (2003), around 45% of target like child Greek
involves bare nouns.
17

(40) a. i/*∅ dinosavri ehun eksafanisti
the-nom/*∅ dinosaurs-nom have-3pl disappeared
Dinosaurs are extinct. (bare nominal ungrammatical under the kind reading)
b. ta/*∅ skilia ine katikidhia zoa
the/*∅ dogs are domestic animals
Dogs are domestic animals.
c. ?dinosavri ehun eksafanisti
dinosaurs-nom have-3pl disappeared
Dinosaurs have disappeared (bare nominal possible only under the existential
reading).
In addition, bare nominals in Greek may be singular as well as plural.
A three-way distinction between Italian, Greek and English:
• Italian and Greek nouns are both [+pred], [-arg] while English are optionally [+pred],
[+arg].
• Nominalisor: D in Italian, Number in Greek
Predictions:
1. wider availability of bare nouns in Greek since number is enough to turn a predicative
noun into an argument in the absence of D.
2. Both singular and plural bare nouns in Greek since Number is the nominalisor (unlike
English where bare nouns are [+arg] kinds).
3. Since Greek nouns are [-arg], they cannot shift to kinds, so kinds have to be definite.
4. Crosslinguistic variation between Italian and Greek with regard to bare nouns and IAD
is accounted for; if both languages involve a null D, it would be hard to capture the
contrasts between Italian and Greek.
Sioupi (2001) notes that bare nominals are excluded from subject positions as in (41),
indicating that there are special structural conditions licensing bare nominals, namely that
the bare nominal be governed. Such structural restrictions are evidence for a null D, which,
as in Italian, is not freely available, but needs to be structurally licensed.
18

(41) *pedia efagan to psari
children ate the fish
Children ate the fish. (From Sioupi 2001, ex.4a)
However, as we have seen already, bare nouns can appear in subject (non-governed) positions;
this is further illustrated by the examples below.
(42) a. itan enas hamos; yinekes epsahnan ta pedia tus mes ta
was a disaster; women were-looking-for the children their in the
halasmata; pedia kitazan yiro tus sastismena
ruins; children were-looking around them startled
It was a mess; women were looking for their children in the ruins; children were
looking around startled.
b. ton gratzunisan gates tu dromu
him.cl scratched-3pl cats the-gen street-gen
Street cats scratched him.(Kolliakou 2003)
c. ta hronia ta palia, varia fortia fevgan ya tin America
the years the old, heavy loads were-leaving for the America
In old times heavy loads (of immigrants) were leaving for Americal (popular song
by D.Papakonstantinou).
d. alepudes irthan ke perisi
foxes came-3pl and last-year
Foxes appeared last year as well.
(43) a. karharias ehi na emfanisti s’afti tin periohi apo to 2002
shark-nom has subj appear-3sg in-this the region since the 2002
A shark has not appeared in this area since 2002.
b. ton exetase yatros
him.cl examined-3sg doctor-nom
A doctor examined him.(Kolliakou 2003)
c. kleftis de spai tetia klidaria me tipota
thieve-nom not break-3sg such lock with nothing
There’s no way a thieve can break such a lock.
Why then the badness of (41)? Preverbal subjects in Greek are standardly viewed as topics
(Philippaki-Warburton 1985; Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 1998). 9 The problem with (41)
9 See though Roussou and Tsimpli (2006), who by and large accept the view that preverbal subjects are
predominately topics but also argue for a preverbal subject position.
19

is that it is hard to see how a bare indefinite which normally is interpreted as a weak indefinite
can be a topic in a sentence where the subject/topic has eaten a specific/definite fish. Consider
now the contrast between (41) and (42a); what is their difference? Intuitively, yinekes and
pedhia are felicitous topics because what is at issue is not specific sets of women or kids,
but some representatives of each kind. By contrast, in (41) the reading that the bare noun
forces, some representatives of the kind of kids ate the fish is an odd one. The more natural
interpretation which is some (specific) kids ate the fish would necessitate an explicit determiner
like kati (=some or other) or kapia (=some). Importantly the fact that these overt elements
are necessary here in order to obtain the right interpretation is evidence that bare nouns
cannot involve a null D since they always appear to have distinct interpretations from their
counterparts with overt prenominal determiners.
This explanation may appear in contradiction with the fact that in examples like (33)
the bare noun introduces a discourse referent whereas in (41) this seems not possible. The
difference lies in the topic interpretation such examples elicit. Bare nouns in subject positions
can introduce discourse referents as shown by yatros in (43b) and (27c), where kalos yatros
is preverbal. The contrasts between (41) and (43b) require a systematic investigation of the
interaction between the semantics of bare nouns and topichood which is beyond the scope of
this paper. However, the data presented here indicate clearly that preverbal bare nouns can
be felicitous subjects, even under referential interpretations.
Returning to our original set of questions, we have shown so far that the indefinite nominals
that are involved as topics in clld and Topicalisation have a different internal syntax in the
two languages. In Italian they systematically involve DPs while in Greek they surface as bare
nouns which we analyse as Number Phrases. We now turn to the properties of the pronominal
element resuming the clld-ed phrase so as to understand how the structural difference in
the indefinite antecedents involved in clld and topicalisation interact with the pronominal
clitic. The properties of the Greek pronominal clitic are inseparable from the properties of the
definite article since the two elements are morphologically identical (in all genders, numbers
and cases) and the pronominal is standardly assumed to be of the same categorical status
with the article (see Alexiadou, Haegeman, and Stavrou (2007) and references therein). We
20

therefore turn to the analysis of Greek definites next.
4.1.3 Greek definites
We have established so far that Greek arguments need not be DPs. The question is whether
Greek nominals are ever DPs and the obvious case to be considered is definites. The analysis
of the definite article has been a matter of controversy in the Greek literature, not the least
because it does not exhibit standard properties of a determiner head. First of all, the article
is not in complementary distribution with demonstratives; in fact, it is obligatory with
demonstratives (44), a fact which has been accounted for by assuming that the article realises
a distinct head, Def (Definiteness), selected by D (determiner) which hosts the demonstrative
in an example like (44) Androutsopoulou 1994, 1995. (Alternatively, the article has been
viewed as agreement—Karanassios 1992, Stavrou 1996, Mathieu and Sitaridou 2002).
(44) afto *∅/to vivlio
this the book
this book
In addition, the article can co-exist with weak possessive pronouns that are attached to the
right of nouns or adjectives (Alexiadou and Stavrou 2000).
(45) a. to vivlio mu
the book my
my book
b. to palio mu aftokinito
the old my car
my old car
Perhaps most problematically for a head analysis of the article, Greek licenses polydefinites
or determiner spreading structures like (46a) along the monadic ones (46b) (for detailed
discussions of polydefinite structures see Androutsopoulou 1994; Alexiadou and Wilder 1998;
Kolliakou 2003,2004, Lekakou and Szendröi 2010 among others and Alexiadou, Haegeman,
and Stavrou 2007 for an overview).
21

(46) a. to kokino to podhilato to kenurjio
the red the bike the new
the red new bike
b. to kokino kenurjio podhilato
the red new bike
the red new bike
Both the monadic and polydefinite above refer uniquely to one bike; thus, the polydefinite
structures are not multiple definite phrases, as a head analysis would predict. To account for
this, many analyses stipulate that the article can be expletive, following Androutsopoulou
(1994). However, such analyses do not clarify when the article is expletive and when not, as
pointed out by Kolliakou (2003). Crucially, this view is misguided. The main piece of evidence
provided in support of the expletive analysis of the Greek article is its obligatoriness with
proper nouns as in (47).
(47) mu aresi o
me-gen like-3sg the-nom
Messi/*Messi
Messi
Maradona/*Maradona
Maradona
I like Messi but I prefer Maradona.
ala protimo to
but prefer-1sg the-acc
However, the data below indicate that the article is not expletive even with proper names.
Consider the contrast in (48) and (49). Examples (48a) and (49a) are specificational sentences
whereas (48b) and (49b) are equatives. (48a) means Messi does not have properties of
Maradona, e.g. he is not as good a player. Similarly, (49a) means that Greece does not have
properties of European countries while (49b) means that the referent of Europe is not the
same as the referent of Germany (there are more countries in Europe). The only difference
between these minimal pairs is the definite article preceding the proper names Maradona and
Evropi.
(48) a. o Messi dhen ine Maradona
the-nom Messi not is Maradhona
Messi is not a Maradona/like Maradona.
22

. aftos dhen
this-nom not
ine
is
o Messi; ine o Maradona; tus
the-nom Messi: is the-nom Maradona; them.cl
mperdhepses
mixed-up-2sg
He is not Messi; he is Maradona; you mixed them up.
(49) a. i Eladha dhen ine Evropi
the-nom not is Europe
Greece is not (like) Europe.
b. i Germania dhen ine i Evropi
the-nom Germany not is the Europe
Germany is not the whole of Europe.
The contrast extends beyond predicative structures. Example (50a) means that someone
with the properties of Judas (e.g. a traitor) advised the subject of the verb (him) while
(50b) means that the object of the verb (him) was examined by someone with properties of
Kassandra (e.g. someone who only makes negative predictions for the future). If these proper
nouns were accompanied by a definite article, they would refer to individuals.
(50) a. ton simvulepse Iudas
him.cl advised-3sg Judas
He was advised by someone like Judas.
b. ton exetase Kassandra
him.cl examined-3sg Kassandra
He was examined by someone like Kassandra.
The above examples indicate that even with proper names the use of the definite article is not
expletive. If the article is not expletive, it is hard to see how it can be a head in polydefinite
structures. Note also that the additional article in polydefinites is not expletive. As discussed
in detail by Kolliakou (2003), the ”second” definite in a polydefinite restricts the range of
the first one, even when proper names are involved. Thus, (51a) presupposes more than one
Christinas and the polydefinite in (51b) picks the one with the surname Sevdali.
(51) a. Pia
Christina tha erthi;
who-fem.nom Christina will come-3sg?
Which Christina will come?
23

. i Christina i Sevdali
the-nom Christina the-nom Sevdali
Christina Sevdali.
When such restrictive modification is not possible for pragmatic reasons, the polydefinites are
infelicitous as shown by (52).
(52) a. Taksidhepse ston plati Iriniko
travelled-3sg in-the wide Pacific
She travelled in the wide Pacific.
b. ≠Taksidhepse
travelled-3sg
ston Iriniko ton plati
in-the Pacific the wide
(From Kolliakou 2003, ex.14)
Research from a different vein indicates that Greek definite phrases behave like noun phrases in
articless languages rather than DPs in languages with articles. In particular, Bo˘sković (2008)
proposes that nominals in languages without articles show properties that systematically
distinguish them from nominals in languages with articles. The contrast can only be explained
if the former instantiate Noun Phrases rather than DPs with null Ds. Interestingly, Greek
nominals exhibit some of the properties of noun phrases in articless languages. 10 The first
generalisation is that only languages without articles, allow Left Branch Extraction (LBE);
thus, LBE is ungrammatical in English (53a), but available in Serbo Croatian (53b).
(53) a. *Expensive/*That I he saw [t i car]
b. Skupa/Ta i je vidio [t i kola] (Serbo Croatian)
expensive/that is seen car
(From Bo˘sković 2008, ex.3-4)
Greek does allow LBE (as also noted by Boskovic). The grammaticality of (54a) is not
surprising, given that we are analysing bare nominals like akrivo aftokinito as NumPs. 11 The
crucial assumption is that there is no DP layer, which, according to Bo˘sković (2008) is a phase
10 Boscovic is aware of the fact that Greek is a potential exception to his generalisations,ibid, fn.3.
11 All LBE examples are pragmatically marked; here we assume that at least one element of the extracted
phrase bears the sentential stress as indicated by the small caps.
24

locking extraction.
(54) akrivo aghorase aftokinito
expensive baught-3sg car
He bought an expensive car.
Cases with a demonstrative are more interesting since, as we’ve seen, a demonstrative like
afto (=this) necessarily involves the definite article. As can be seen in (55), the demonstrative
can be extracted out of the nominal, indicating that afto to aftokinito is in fact a noun phrase.
(55) afto aghorase to aftokinito
this bought-3sg the car
She bought this car.
The crucial fact here is that the presence of the article does not affect the extraction possibilities.
So if we consider a nominal involving a demonstrative and an adjective like afto to akrivo
aftokinito (=this the expensive car) we see in (56) that the demonstrative+article+adjective
can undergo left extraction.
(56) afto to akrivo aghorase aftokinito
this the expensive bought car
Note further that the pattern is exactly the same if the nominal involves a numeral+adjective
as in (57).
(57) a. ena kalo thelo krayon
one/a good want-1sg lipstick
b. dhio
two
kala
good
thelo paradighmata
want-1sg examples
In sum, not only Greek allows LBE despite the fact that it has articles, but, in addition,
definite and indefinite phrases behave alike, indicating that what is of relevance to Boskovic’s
generalisation is not whether a language has a definite article but whether this article is a D
head. The evidence so far indicates that Greek definites are not DPs, but, rather behave like
NPs.
25

Bo˘skovi˘c’s second generalisation is that languages without articles allow adjunct extraction
as in (58a) while languages with articles disallow it (58b). 12
(58) a. *From which city i did Peter meet [ NP girls t i ]?
b. Iz kojeg grada i je Ivan sreo [ NP djevojke t i ] (Serbo Croatian)
From which city did Ivan meet girls?
Again, Greek nominals pattern with an articleless language like Serbo Croatian rather than
English since they allow adjunct extraction as in (59).
(59) apo pia poli gnorise koritsia o Petros?
from who-fem city met-3sg girls the-nom Petros-nom
Petros met girls from which city?
Note that, as shown by Horrocks and Stavrou (1987) , Greek allows possessor extraction; if
DPs are phases and Boskovic’s argumentation is valid, then the extraction in (60) indicates
that the definite is a noun phrase. 13
(60) pianu martira arnithikan na eksetasun tin katathesi
who-gen witness-gen refused-3pl subj examine-3pl the-acc testimony
Whose witness testimony did they refuse to examine?
12 Though both English and Serbo Croatian involve a NP here and, therefore there is no DP phase, only
the SC NP allows AP extraction because AP is heading the NP in English while in SC it sits on Spec,NP.
This difference derives from the fact that English has DPs and SC NPs as arguments. If he is right, then the
evidence indicates that in Greek as well APs are at Spec,NumP; this is exactly the assumption we’ll be making
in the next section when we consider IAD and bare subnominal ellipisis.
13 Horrocks and Stavrou (1987) in fact use this type of evidence to argue for a DP; they link long possessor
extraction as in (60) with focus movement within the nominal as in (i). They argue that tu protu martira
in (i) moves to a position internal to the nominal exactly like the wh-phrase in (60) moves to CP. They take
the article to be a D head allowing focus-movement to its Spec. While examples like (i) necessitate movement
internal to the nominal, it is not necessary that this is to Spec,DP as we will see shortly.
(i)
arnithikan na eksetasun tu protu martira tin katathesi
refused-3pl subj examine-3pl the-gen first-gen the-acc testimony
They refused to examine the first witness’s testimony.
26

The facts reviewed in this section 14 indicate strongly that the Greek article does not behave
like a D head while there is evidence that definite nominals allow extraction possibilities typical
of noun phrases that are not DPs. 15 We will, therefore, assume that the article is not a D
head, but rather a prenominal modifier and that Greek nominals, definite and indefinite, are
uniformingly Number Phrases. 16 Definites then are just definite Number Phrases. Further,
following Giannakidou and Merchant (1997), we assume that numerals including ena are also
prenominal adjectives. This analysis correctly predicts that, bar semantic anomaly, more than
one of these elements may appear prenominally as in (61).
(61) a. afto to ena aftokinito
this the one car
this one car
b. afta ta dhio kokina aftokinita
these the two red cars
these two red cars
Further, the noun can be elided from all these structures as in (62) (Kolliakou 2003; Giannakidou
and Merchant 1997; Giannakidou and Stavrou 1999). We see below that an adjective
alone (62a) or a numeral and an adjective (62d) may be the only (overt) part of a NumP.
14 We note that, unsurprisingly, Italian patterns with English and DP languages with regard to the diagnostics
proposed by Bo˘sković (2008).
15 Bo˘sković (2008) discusses some further generalisations which are either not relevant for Greek (e.g. superiority
effects for multiple wh-fronting) or are trivially relevant: for instance, Greek most is i perissoteri (=the
most), that is it implicates the definite article and has the expected reading of more than half; in addition,
Greek allows clitic doubling since it has articles. Boskovic links clitic doubling to the existence of DPs and,
indeed takes the referentiality of clitic doubling structures as a consequence of the involvement of D. The
facts discussed in this paper are a counter example to these correlations. Firstly, Italian, which clearly has
DPs allows non-referential readings, whereas Greek, which certainly allows NPs does not allow non-referential
readings in doubling structures.
16 This is not too far from Kolliakou (2003) who takes the definite to be an argument of a noun appearing at
its Spec. Further, she assumes that definite and indefinite nominals are all noun phrases; in her HPSG analysis,
any lexical category specified for the head feature nom (in turn specified for number, gender and case) can
project a nominal; apart from nouns, articles, numerals and adjective share this head feature reflecting the
fact that any of these categories can project a nominal argument on its own.
27

The definite article is no different in (62b) and (62c), except for the fact that in these uses
it is, descriptively a pronoun. In other words, the pronominal clitic involved in clld is an
elliptical NumP. 17
(62) a. tu klepsane to aftokinito ke pire kenurjio
his.cl stole-3pl the car and bought new
His car was stolen and he baught a new one.
b. ta dhio prota vivlia ine tis Marias; fer’ta mu se parakalo
the two first books are the-gen Maria-gen; bring them.cl you beg
The first two books belong to Maria. Bring them to me please.
c. aghorase kenurjio aftokinito ke to efere na to dhume
bought-3sg new car and it.cl brought subj it.cl see
d. psahname ya kero mathimatiko ya ti desmi alla kataferame ke
looking-for-1pl for time mathematician for the ”a-levels” for quite a
vrikame enan ekseretiko
bit of time, but managed-1pl and found-1pl an excellent
We were looking for a mathematician for A-levels but we managed to find an
excellent one (so the time we took looking was well spent).
We can now return to our original set of questions 18 and see how the assumption that
Greek nominals involve NumPs can account for the facts presented in section 3, summarised
on table (24). We should point out that, even though we advocate here the total absence
17 Of course, a definite NumP is very different from a ”red” NumP both in semantic terms but also in PF
terms, since the article/pronoun always cliticises on a host adjective/noun or verb. The point though is that
there is no structural difference between a definite NP and any other NumP either in terms of extraction
possibilities or the distribution of the article against all other prenominal elements.
18 Examples like (i), where the definite article is involved in CP nominalisation may support the view that
the article is a head afterall. We speculate that the article contributes nominal phi-features to C but still is
not heading the structure.
(i)
(to) pios tha kerdisi tis ekloyes tha eksartithi apo to pos tha pai i
the who-nom will winn-3sg the-acc elections will depend-3sg from the how will go-3sg the-nom
ikonomia
economy
Who will win the elections will depend on how things go with the economy.
28

of DPs from Greek, a mixed analysis which would assume that bare and indefinite nominals
are NumPs but definite nominals are DPs would also account for the anaphoric patterns and
the clld/topicalisation facts; we will point this out where relevant in the coming sections.
Before we turn to our original set of questions though, we’ll briefly discuss the crosslinguistic
implications of our hypothesis for the nominal system in Italian and Greek.
4.1.4 Definites in Italian and Greek
The main consequence of our analysis so far is that Number is the main nominalisor in
Greek (including definites) while it is D in Italian that plays this role. In fact, this conclusion
can shed light to a further set of crosslinguistic differences between the two languages. First
and foremost, the systematic need of D in Italian to construct a nominal explains the wide
range of D elements available in the language; the article and the pronouns retain distinct
morphology; there is a distinction between a range of definite D elements (il, lo/la, gli/li...)
and indefinite ones (un, bare partitive construction, ne) as we’ve seen bare nouns are very
restricted, while the partitive construction is systematically employed for indefinites and mass
nouns. By contrast, Greek has only one definite element which has both article and pronominal
use; it characteristically lacks a separate indefinite article or pronoun.
Secondly, the Greek article has strong definite and referential interpretations, relevant
even in the case of proper names. By contrast, the Italian, article appears to have weaker
definite semantics. For instance, non referential nouns like gli occhiali in (63) or l’orologio and
la macchina in (64) are definite in Italian.
(63) A:Porti gli occhiali? B:Si, li porto
A:wear the glasses? B:Yes, them.cl wear
Do you wear glasses? Yes, I do.
(64) a. Porti l’orologio?
wear-2sg the watch?
Do you wear watch?
b. Guida la macchina?
drive-3sg the machine
Does he drive a car?
29

Unsurprisingly, the Greek countrparts of these examples involve bare nouns.
(65) foras (*ta) yialia/ (*ti) vera/ (*ta) takunia
wear-2sg (*the) glasses/ (*the) wedding-ring/ (*the) high-heels
Do you wear glasses/a wedding ring/high heels?
(66) odhigis aftokinito
drive-2sg car
Do you/can you drive a car?
Further, as pointed out by Giusti (2010), the definite article is preferred in cases like (67)
where the interpretation is an indefinite one.
(67) Scommetto che non troverai mai la/?una segretaria di un onorevole che
bet-1sg that not will-find never the/a secretary of a depute who
sia disposta a testimoniare contro di lui
can-subj submit-subj a testimony against of him
I bet you’ll never find the secratary of a depute who can testify against him. (Giusti
2010)
Again, the definite article is banned from such environments in Greek, since it cannot head
relatives rendered in subjanctive.
(68) *den prokite na vri ti yineka pu na tu kani ola ta
not going-to-3sg subj find-3sg the-acc woman that subj him.cl do-3sg all the
hatiria
favours
He’s not going to find the woman that will satisfy every whim of his.
This set of contrasts can be understood, if, as proposed by Giusti (1993, 1997, 2002, 2010),
the main role of the Italian article is that of a syntactic/grammatical morpheme acting as the
nominalisor of a predicative noun, building a DP argument. By contrast, in Greek the article
appears only when needed for semantic/pragmatic reasons, since Number is the nominalisor,
hence the stronger definite interpretations when the article is involved.
The crosslinguistic contrast also indicates that the more referential/definite interpretations
arise in the language where the nominal has less structure and, indeed, is not a D head,
30

i.e. Greek. This is expected since the definite article is implicated for interpretation. By contrast,
in Italian, D is syntactically necessary as the nominalisor, and, therefore, weaker/less
referential readings arise when D is needed as a nominalisor in contexts which are not clearly
definite/referential like (67) or under the de dicto reading of (69) or even the use of lo in the
predicative structures in (70). It is worth pointing out that our view departs from the proposals
of
Longobardi (1994) and Déchaine and Wiltschko (2002) in one crucial respect. What
these two proposals share is that D and referentiality are intrinsically linked. Both analyses
assume a structural ambiguity for articles and pronouns, depending on their interpretation.
For instance, lo under the de dicto reading in (69) and in the predicative structure in (70)
lacks a D layer, and is just a NP. 19 We will discuss these examples in more detail in the next
section.
(69) Gianni sta cercando un idraulico ma non lo trova
Gianni is looking-for a plumber but not him.cl find-3sg
Gianni is looking-for a plumber but cannot find one.
(70) a. Bella la/lo e’
beautiful it.cl is
Beautiful she is.
b. belle lo sono?
beautiful it are
Beautiful they are.
In sum then, the hypothesis that D is the nominalisor in Italian while Greek nominals
are NumPs can account for the rich inventory of D elements in Italian as well as the weaker
definite semantics of D elements in this language.
4.2 Indefinite Argument Drop and Bare Subnominal Ellipsis
As Giannakidou and Merchant (1997) show, Greek Indefintie Argument Drop (IAD) involves
recycling of the descriptive content of the antecedent (or property anaphora in terms
19 Longobardi pc after related talk of his at Cambridge University, 2011.
31

of Tomioka 2003).Crucially, it does not pick the discourse referent of the antecedent. 20 Consider
(71). Example (71a) does not allow a reading in which Nafsika dried the dishes Napoleodas
washed, a reading available in (71b) where the pronoun is used. On the basis of the
obligatoriness of the disjoint reading in (71a), Giannakidou and Merchant (1997) conclude
that an empty pro analysis, proposed by Dimitriadis (1994) is not possible, since it would
predict the co-referential reading in (71b). What IAD involves in (71a) is the recycling of
the descriptive content of the antecedent, i.e. piata but not the specific set introduced by the
antecedent.
(71) a. o Napoleodas epline piata ke i Nafsika skupise
the-nom Napoleodas-nom washed-3sg dishes and the-nom Nafsika dried-sg
Napoleon washed dishes and Nafsika dried dishes. (Disjoint reading)
b. o
the-nom
Napoleodas epline (ta) piata i ke i Nafsika ta i
Napoleodas-nom washed the dishes and the-nom Nafsika them
skupise
dried-3sg
Napoleon washed (the) dishes and Nafsika dried them.
That these cases involve property anaphora is further confirmed by the fact that adjectives
like tetios/tetia/tetio standardly used for concept or property anaphora (Kolliakou 2003)
license argument drop.
(72) a. vrikes teties
(melitzanes)?
found-2sg such-acc.fem.pl (aubergines)
Did you find such ones/aubergines?
20 See Giannakidou and Merchant (1997) for a detailed discussion of the properties of IAD. Panagiotidis
(2002) excludes a VP-ellips analysis of the phenomenon; his main argument is that all restrictions relevant to
IAD involve the nominal antecedent and never any verbal element. Further, examples like (i), where only the
object is dropped but other parts of the VP are overt indicate that what is dropped is just the object.
(i)
ti mia mera vrike dulia o Yorgos stu Zografu ke to epomeno proi
the one day found-3sg job the-nom Yorgos-nom at-the Zografu and the next morning
vrike i Maria stin Kesariani
found-3sg the-nom Maria at-the Kesariani
One day Yorgos found a job at Zografu and the next morning Maria found one at Kesariani.
32

. ne, vrika
yes, found-1sg
Yes, I found.
Further, Giannakidou and Merchant (1997) establish that IAD is licensed by weak indefinite
quantifiers while strong quantifiers necessitate a pronoun.
(73) a. Q:Efere o Adreas ola ta/ke ta dio/ta perisotera vivila
Q:Brought-3sg the-nom Adreas all the/and the two/the most books
Did Adread bring all/both/most books?
b. A:Ne, *(ta) efere
A:Yes, *(them) brought-3sg
Yes, he brought them.
(Giannakidou:Merchant:1997)
(74) a. Efere o Adreas merika/kapja/liga/deka/tulahiston
brought-3sg the-nom Adreas several/some/a-few/ten/at-least
tria/parapano apo tria/tipota/∅ vivlia
three/more from three/any/∅ books
Did Andreas bring several/some/a few/at least three/more than three/any/∅
books?
b. Ne, (*ta) efere e.
Yes, (them) brought-3sg e
Yes he brought several/some/a few/ten/at least three/more than three/some/∅
books.
(Giannakidou:Merchant:1997)
Returning to our analysis, we argue that the weak indefinites in (74) are NumPs; we, then,
analyse IAD as a case of NumP ellipsis (Tomioka 2003). 21 A NumP ellipsis analysis of IAD
accounts for the availability of IAD with subjects in Greek—see (19) repeated as (75). We
also explain why IAD is unavailable in Italian, since there are no NumP arguments in the
language.
21 The ellipsis analysis preserves the basic intution of Giannakidou and Merchant (1997) who also propose
that IAD involves NP deletion; however, they assume that the elided NP is headed by a null D.
33

(75) a. A:irthe kanis? B:ne irthe
A:came-3sg anyone? B:yes, came-3sg
A:Did anyone come? B:Yes, someone did.
b. A:tilefonisan fitites? B:ne tilefonisan
A:phoned-3pl students? B:yes, phoned-3pl
A:Did students phone? B:Yes, some did.
One question is why the whole NumP cannot be elided with definites as in (73). The
reason is interpretative. Absence of definite marking gives rise to indefinite interpretations.
Consider for instance (76). The answer in (76b) involves a weak indefinite with an elided noun
despite the definite antecedent; a definite is not appropriate in this case.
(76) a. tis eferes tis valitses
them.cl brought-2sg the-acc suitcases
Did you bring the suitcases?
b. efera (kamposes); mu ehun mini tris teseris akoma
brought-1sg (many); me have-3pl left three four still
I brought quite a few; but still have three or four left.
Let us now reconsider examples like (77), discussed earlier. Following Zimmermann (1993)
let us assume that idravliko and dada in (77) denote properties. The examples indicate that
Greek pronouns resist property anaphora; the pronominal requires a referential antecedent. 22
The property anaphora effect is achieved through IAD, i.e. recycling the antecedent noun.
(77) a. o Yanis psahni idravliko alla dhe (*ton) vriski puthena
the-nom Yanis-nom look-for-3sg plumber but not (him) find-3sg anywhere
Yanis is looking for a plumber but cannot nd one anywhere.
22 Greek pronouns can take natural functions as their antecedents as shown in examples like (i) discussed in
Alexopoulou and Heycock (2003). Such antecedents though are still extensional.
(i) a. i yineka pu misi kathe adras i ine i pethera tu i
the-nom woman that hates-3sg each man is the-nom mother-in-law his
The woman every man hates is his mother in law.
b. tin kopela pu efere kathe fititis ti i valame na katsi dipla tu i
the-acc girl that brought-3sg each student-nom her.cl put-1pl subj sit-3sg next his
The girl each student brought, we put her to sit next to him.
34

. i Maria epsahne
dada ena hrono ke telika (*ti)
the-nom Maria was-looking-for-3sg nanny one year and finally (*her)
vrike meso mias gnostis
found-3sg through an acquaintance
Maria was looking for a nanny for a year and in the end she found one through
an acquaintance.
As noted earlier and illustrated again in (78), the pronoun can take an indefinite antecedent
(78a), including a bare noun (78b), as long as the antecedent is interpreted referentially.
(78) a. o Yanis psahni enan idravliko, ala dhe ton vriski puthena
the-nom Yanis look-for-3sg one plumber but not him find-3sg anywhere
Yanis is looking for a plubmer but cannot find him anywhere. ∃ > look-for
b. o
the-nom
Napoleodas epline (ta) piata i ke i Nafsika ta i
Napoleodas-nom washed the dishes and the-nom Nafsika them
skupise
dried-3sg
Napoleon washed (the) dishes and Nafsika dried them.
By contrast, lo and la in Italian admit property-denoting antecedents (79). Under our
analysis, the crosslinguistic contrast in property anaphora is a consequence of the structural
contrast between DPs and NumPs. The obligatoriness of a D element in (79) means a weakening
of the definite/referential interpretation of the pronominal. Note that we do not predict
that every language that has DPs will allow a ”definite” D in examples like (79); an indefinite
D element may be used instead and it remains an open question how property anaphora is
dealt with in a language. The point we are making here is that the weakening of the definite
semantics of the Italian lo/la is due to the obligatoriness of DPs in Italian. Note further that
these non-referential uses involve clear verbal arguments, arguing against an intrinsic link
between D, argumenthood and referentiality in Italian as proposed by Longobardi (1994). If
lo were to be analysed as involving less structure, e.g. as a np, the immediate question is why
an NP argument is possible at all in Italian all of a sudden and how it is different from Greek.
(79) Gianni sta cercando un idraulico ma non lo trova
Gianni is looking-for a plumber but cannot find one.
35

Note that even Italian, does not universally allow ”definite” pronouns to support property
anaphora. For instance, when the object is plural, as in (80), the plural of lo/la, is not
acceptable. Instead, the clitic ne needs to be used. 23
(80) a. Q: Maria ha trovato delle aiutanti?
Q: Maria has found of helpers?
Has Maria found helpers?
b. A: No, ?le/ne ha trovate
A: No, them.cl/ne has found
No she has not found.
(81) Gianni sta cercando degli aiutanti per l’ufficio ma non ?li/ne
Gianni has-been looking-for of helpers for the-office but not them.cl/ne
trova
find-3sg
Gianni has been looking for assistants for the office but cannot find any.
We will speculate in section 4.4. on the effect of number, but, for the moment, suffice to say
that Italian systematically involves a D element even for arguments that are not referential.
This D element may even be an apparently definite D like lo/la or an indefinite one like
ne. Greek pronouns do not support property anaphora. Instead, the relevant readings are
obtained through IAD which involves NP ellipsis.
Let us now turn to subnominal ellipsis; the relevant examples are repeated below. The
crosslinguistic pattern follows staightforwardly from the contrast between DPs and NumPs.
Despite the non-referential antecedent, Italian obligatorily requires a D element, uno in the
elliptical structure (note that uno grande is doubled by lo). By contrast, in Greek the bare
adjective is enough. 24
(82) A:Vorrei
A:would-like-1sg
grande
big
un
a
tavolo
table
grande
big
B:Mi spiace. Non lo abbiamo, uno
B:Me displeases-3sg. Not it have-1pl, a
23 Notice that the plural le can be used in (80) if the answer is positive, but it forces a discourse transparent
reading,which is not the relevant one here.
24 We do not discuss here the conditions of such subnominal ellipsis; for a detailed discussion see Giannakidou
and Stavrou (1999). The point is that such subnominal ellipsis can take place within a bare nominal in Greek.
36

I would like to buy a big table. I’m sorry. We do not have a big one.
(From Alexiadou and Gengel 2008, attributed to V.Samek-Lodovici)
(83) a. thelo afti ti fusta se kitrino
want-1sg this the skirt in yellow
I would like this skirt in yellow.
b. Distihos
unfortunately
dhen
not
eho kitrini. (Mono mavres mu ehun
have-1sg yellow-fem.sg (Ony black-fem.pl me have-3pl
mini)
left)
Unfortunately I don’t have a yellow one. ( Only black ones are left).
Before we move on, note that the essence of the analysis presented here does not rely critically
on the assumption that the Greek article and pronominal do not project DPs. The critical
element of the analysis is that weak indefinites, the ones that license IAD and bare subnominal
ellipsis are NumPs. The incompatibility of pronouns with property-denoting antecedents is
orthogonal to the categorical status of these elements, since a pronoun can accept a bare
nominal antecedent (i.e. a NumP), as long as it is referential (78b) or indeed a non-bare
one (78a).
4.3 Back to CLLD and Topicalisation
Let us now turn to our very first question, why Italian but not Greek clld-ed elements can
be ambiguous between a referential and non-referential reading. It has now become clear that
the clld facts mirror the anaphoric possibilities in the two languages. Our original example
in (6) repeated in (84) is as ambiguous as the example in (79). The available interpretations
are exactly those allowed in Italian between an indefinite antecedent and lo/la.
(84) a. una gonna rossa la cerco da un po’
a red skirt her.cl look-for-1sg for a while
A red skirt I’ve been looking for a while...
b. ma non ne ho trovata nessuna che mi piaccia
but not of-them.cl have-1sg found none-fem that me please-3sg.subj
... but have not found anyone that I like.
c. ma non riesco a ricordarmi dove l’ho
messa
but not reach-1sg to remember where her.cl-have-1sg put
37

puffle ... but I cannot remember where I’ve put it.
Similarly, Greek ?? repeated in (85), is compatible only with the referential interpretation
since, as we have seen, the Greek pronoun resists property anaphora.
(85) a. mia kokini fusta tin psahno edho ke meres
a red skirt it look-for-1sg here and days
I’ve been looking for a red skirt for a few days ...
b. ≠ke de boro na vro kamia pu na m’aresi
and not can-1sg subj find-1sg none that subj me-please-3sg
... and I cannot find any that I like.
c. ke de boro na thimitho pu tin eho vali
and not can-1sg subj remember-1sg where her.cl have-1sg put
... and cannot remember where I put it.
The possibility of property anaphora in Italian further allows clld examples where the dislocated
element is not an indefinite, but a predicate like bella in (86). Unsurprisingly, this
possibility is not available in Greek.
(86) a. Bella lo é
beautiful it.cl is
Beautiful she is.
b. belle lo sono?
beautiful it are
Beautiful they are.
While clld mirrors the anaphoric possibilities in the two languages; but Topicalisation
does not, at least not directly. The interpretative possiblities in Topicalisation are the ones
predicted by a movement derivation. Thus, the Topicalisation example in (87) is ambiguous
like the corresponding example involving Focus-movement (88). In this, (87) contrasts with
examples like (18b), repeated as (89), where IAD forces a de dicto interpretation of the
antecedent. 25
25 This contrast between IAD and Topicalisation argues against the proposal by Dimitriadis (1994) to assume
that the Topicalisation example is in fact a case of Empty Clitic Left Dislocation involving the same pro element
implicated in IAD.
38

(87) enan idravliko psahni o yanis
one-acc plumber look-for-3sg the-nom Yanis-nom
A plumber Yanis is looking for. look-for > ∃, ∃ > look-for
(88) enan idravliko psahni o yanis
one-acc plumber look-for-3sg the-nom Yanis-nom
A plumber Yanis is looking for. look-for > ∃, ∃ > look-for
(89) o Yanis psahni enan idravliko, ala dhe vriski puthena
the-nom Yanis look-for-3sg one plumber but not find-3sg anywhere
Yanis is looking for a plubmer but cannot find one anywhere. look-for > ∃
These facts point to the following conclusions. First, they reinforce the anaphoric nature
of clld. At the same time they indicate that the properties of the pronominal system of
languages is a crucial element in the crosslinguistic variation of anaphoric chains like clld
and Topicalisation. 26 Second, Topicalisation, at least in Greek, involves a proper copy/trace
rather than some null pronominal element. Taken together, these conclusions indicate that
the the variation in the topic strategies adopted crosslinguistically cannot be understood just
as PF variation, since these topic strategies interact with deeper aspects of the grammars of
languages, in this case the structure of nominals and pronouns.
4.4 Why D in Italian but Number in Greek?
Our main claim is that the variation in the topic-strategies of Greek and Italian interacts
with the structure of nominals. As shown, the relevant structures reflect the anaphoric possibilities
in the two languages which, crucially, are governed by the structure of the relevant
nominal antecedents and pronouns. However, once we move away from topic-strategies and
anaphoric relations to the nominals themselves, the question is whether the variation in nominals
correlates with further contrasts in the two languages, or, to put the question somewhat
differently, what enables Number to be a nominalisor in Greek while D is necessary in Italian?
Our speculation is that the morphological and featural make up of nominal categories in the
26 This is unlike non-anaphoric or true resumption where a line of research systematically relates crosslinguistic
variation to the properties of C rather than the pronominal (Sells 1984; McCloskey 1990; McCloskey
2002; Shlonsky 1992; Rouveret 2002; Alexopoulou 2006).
39

two languages plays a role in this respect. Greek nominal elements such as nouns, adjectives,
numerals, quantifiers and the definite article show morphological case, gender and number.
Any of these elements then can project a NumPhrase. Additionally, while number is crosscategorial
in the sense that both verbal and nominal categories have number, case and gender
are only nominal. Thus, case and gender morphology provide categorical marking crucial for
the identification of syntactic complements, 27 while Number provides relevant individuating
semantics that apply to predicative nouns to turn them into arguments. These three features
then appear to work in tandem to provide syntactic marking and semantics for a nominal
argument. By contrast, Italian nominals are not marked for case. Number marking in Italian
is not as systematic since some D elements like ne and the bare partitive construction do not
bear morphological number marking. It then seems that what Italian lacks in case (and possibly
number) morphology, it makes up in the range of D elements that are central to building
arguments; 28 Greek on the other hand, relies on the features carried by nominal elements
which are crucial for the projection of nominal arguments. The definite article/pronoun are
just semantically definite elements but do not act as D-heads.
A further question is whether the different role of Number in the two languages means that
Number has different semantics/interpretation in the two languages. Greek number indeed
has some unexpected properties; first, as seen already,Greek allows bare singular arguments.
In addition, mass nouns in Greek may show plural morphology as demonstrated by Tsoulas
(2008) (see also Alexiadou 2010). In some intuitive sense then, number appears to be ”active”
in every instance of nominal arguments (e.g. including mass nouns), a fact which can be linked
to its nominalisor role of number.
(90) a. trehun nera apo to tavani
drip-3pl water-pl from the-sg ceiling-sg
Water is dripping from the ceiling.
b. to patoma itan gemato nera
the-sg floor-sg was full waters-pl
27 Indeed, Lekakou and Szendröi (2010) propose that Greek arguments are headed by a Kase head.
28 This again echoes Giusti’s position that the primary role of the definite article as a functional head is
syntactic, to assign case to its complement NP (Giusti 1993,1997, 2002).
40

The floor was full of water.
(From Tsoulas 2008, ex.9,10)
By contrast, bare singular arguments or plural mass nouns are not available in Italian. In
addition, Italian seems to have at its disposal a set of clitic pronouns which are number
neutral (lo, la (in some varieties), si, ne). For instance, when these pronouns take predicates
as antecedents, they are not sensitive to number as seen in (91).
(91) belle lo sono?
beautiful it are
Beautiful they are.
The same number neutrality shows up with mass nouns and reflexive predicates as in (92).
(92) a. di carne ne mangia
of meat ne eats
b. Gianni e Maria si lavano spesso
Gianni e Maria self wash often
Finally, Italian allows some of the number neutral singular bare nouns like Catalan as in (93).
(93) il pero e’ in fiore
the pear-tree is in flower
The pear tree is blossoming.
A systematic investigation of these facts is beyond the scope of this paper. Note though that
if Italian does allow number neutral DPs and this were to be captured by an absent Num
head in the internal structure of the DP, then our analysis would entail less structure for nonreferential
uses of la/lo, just as proposed by Longobardi (1994) and Déchaine and Wiltschko
(2002) do. However, the optional head would be Num in our analysis, not D.
Finally, an understanding of the precise semantic contribution of Greek number may lead
to an even simpler structure for Greek nominals where they are just Noun Phrases with a
Number feature that allows them to be interpreted as arguments.
41

5 Conclusions
• The internal structure of nominal arguments shapes the interpretation of pronouns, and,
as a result the interpretation of resumptive pronouns.
• Italian allows property denoting pronouns which, results in resumptive pronouns allowing
apparently gap-like interpretations in clld.
• Greek nominals are Num Ps: (i) bare singulars nouns (with atomic interpretations),
subnominal deletion, IAD, Topicalisation; (ii) definites have ”strong” definite semantics;
(iii) poor D inventory; (iv) Greek kinds need to be definite since nouns are [+pred].
• Italian nominals are DPs: (i) restricted bare plurals, no subnominal deletion, IAD or
Topicalisation; (ii) definites have ”weak” definite semantics (due to number neutrality?)
(iii) rich D inventory; (iv) Italian kinds are definite due to the obligatory involvement
of D as head.
• If correct, this analysis suggests that argumenthood and D are not intrinsically linked.
This, in turn, suggests that resumption may indeed involve predicates/properties. It is
an open question how ”property anaphora” may relate to ”property resumption”.
A number of questions remain open. How do the Italian facts compare with other Romance
languages? Do other Romance languages allow weaker readings of definite Ds and
property anaphora? Does availability of NP arguments predict IAD? English is a potential
counterexample here since NP ellipsis is ungrammatical in the English *John is looking for
dinosaurs but cannot find, though dinosaurs is a NP. While these answers await a systematic
investigation, our stronger prediction is that the finer variation in the interpretative possibilities
of clld and topicalisation structures across Romance should reflect variation in the
nominal structure.
42

References
Alexiadou, A. (2010). Plural mass nouns and the morpho-syntax of Number. In Proceedings
of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Cascadilla Press.
Alexiadou, A. and E. Anagnostopoulou (1998). Parmetrizing agr: word order, verb movement
and EPPchecking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16 (3), 491–539.
Alexiadou, A. and K. Gengel (2008). Classifiers as morphosyntactic licensors of np ellipsis:
English vs. Romance. In NELS 39.
Alexiadou, A., L. Haegeman, and M. Stavrou (2007). Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective,
Volume 71 of Studies in Generative Grammar. Mouton de Gruyter.
Alexiadou, A. and M. Stavrou (2000). Adjective-clitic combinations in the Greek DP. In
B. Grlach and J. Grijzenhout (Eds.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax.
John Benjamins.
Alexiadou, A. and C. Wilder (1998). Adjectival modification and multiple determiners. In
A. Alexiadou and C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the DP,
pp. 303–332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Alexopoulou, T. (2006). Resumption in relative clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 24 (1), 57–111.
Alexopoulou, T. (2009). Binding illusions. In J. H. Claire Halpert and D. Hill (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop in Greek Syntax and Semantics at MIT, Volume 57,
pp. 33–48. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Alexopoulou, T., E. Doron, and C. Heycock (2004). Broad subjects and clitic left dislocation,.
In D. Adger, C. de Cat, and G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Peripheries: syntactic edges and
their effects, pp. 329–358. Kluwer.
Alexopoulou, T. and R. Folli (2011). Indefinite topics and the syntax of nominals in Italian
and Greek. In M. B. Washburn, S. Ouwayda, C. Ouyang, B. Yin, C. Ipek, L. Marston,
and A. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 28.
Cascadilla Press.
43

Alexopoulou, T. and C. Heycock (2003). Quantifier scope in relative clauses and definiteness
effects. In C. Beyssade, O. Bonami, P. C. Hofherr, and F. Corblin (Eds.), Empirical
Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, Volume 4, pp. 81–96. Presses de l’Université
de Paris-Sorbonne.
Alexopoulou, T. and F. Keller (201X). What vs. who and which: Kind-denoting fillers and
the complexity of whether islands. In N. Horstein and J. Sprouse (Eds.), Experimental
Syntax and island effects. Cambridge University Press.
Alexopoulou, T. and D. Kolliakou (2002). On Linkhood and Clitic Left Dislocation. Journal
of Linguistics 38 (2), 193–245.
Anagnostopoulou, E. (1994). Clitic Dependencies in Modern Greek. Ph. D. thesis, University
of Salzburg.
Androutsopoulou, A. (1994). The distribution of the definite determiner and the syntax of
Greek DPs. In Papers from the 30th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.
University of Chicago Press.
Androutsopoulou, A. (1995). The licensing of adjectival modification. In Proceedings of the
14th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford, California. CSLI Publications.
Belletti, A. and L. Rizzi (1981). The syntax of ”ne”: some theoretical implicatins. The
Linguistic Review 1, 117–154.
Benincà, P. (1980). Nomi senza articolo. Rivista di grammatica generativa 5, 51–63.
Bo˘sković, ˘Z. (2008). What will you have, dp or np? In E. Elfner and M. Walkow (Eds.),
Proceedings of NELS 37. Booksurge.
Cardinaletti, A. and G. Giusti (1990). Partitive ”ne” and the QP hypothesis. a case study.
ms, University of Venice.
Cecchetto, C. (2001). Syntactic or semantic reconstruction? evidence from pseudoclefts and
clitic left dislocation. In C. Cecchetto, G. Chierchia, and M. T. Guasti (Eds.), Semantic
Interfaces. CSLI.
44

Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6,
339–405.
Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A-bar Dependencies, Volume 17. MIT Press. Linguistic Inquiry
Monographs.
Déchaine, R.-M. and M. Wiltschko (2002). Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry
33 (3), 409–442.
Dimitriadis, A. (1994). Clitics and object drop in Modern Greek. In Proceedings of the
Sixth Student Conference in Linguistics (SCIL-6), University of Rochester, Volume 23
of MITWPL, pp. 1–20.
Doron, E. (1982). On the syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Texas Linguistic
Forum 19, 1–48.
Endriss, C. (2006). Quantificational topics, a scopal treatment of exceptional wide scope
phenomen. Ph. D. thesis, University of Potsdam.
Espinal, M. T. (2010). Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish. their structure and meaning.
Lingua 120, 984–1009.
Espinal, M. T. and L. McNally (2007). Bare singular nominals and incorporating verbs. In
G. Kaiser and M. Leonetti (Eds.), Proceedings of the III NEREUS International Workshop.
Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance languages, Universität
Konstanz, pp. 45–62. Arbeitspapier 122.
Farkas, D. F. and H. de Swarts (2001). Bare nominals in the typology of indefinites. Reader
for ESSLLI’01 course on the Typology of Noun Phrases.
Farkas, D. F. and H. de Swarts (2003). The semantics of incorporation: from argument
structure to discourse transparency. Stanford monographs in Linguistics. CSLI Publications.
Fodor, J. D. (1970). The linguistic description of opaque contexts. Ph. D. thesis, MIT,
Published in 1976 by Indiana University Linguistics Club and in 1979 in the Series
“Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics” by Garland.
45

Giannakidou, A. (1997). The Landscape of Polarity Items. Ph. D. thesis, University of
Groningen.
Giannakidou, A. and J. Merchant (1997). On the interpretation of null indefinite objects
in greek. In Studies in Greek Linguistics, Volume 17, pp. 141–155. Aristotle University.
Giannakidou, A. and M. Stavrou (1999). Nominalization and ellipsis in the Greek DP.
Linguistic Review 16 (4), 295–331.
Giusti, G. (1993). La sintassi dei determinanti. Padova:Unipress.
Giusti, G. (1997). The categorial status of determiners. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), The New
Comparative Syntax. London: Longman.
Giusti, G. (2002). The functional structure of noun phrases. a bare phrase structure approach.
In G. Cinque (Ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP: The cartography of
syntactic structures, Volume 1, pp. 54–90. Oxford University Press.
Giusti, G. (2010). The syntax of the definite article at the interfaces. University of Venice,
ms.
Haegeman, L. (to appear). Argument fronting in English, Romance CLLD and the left
periphery. In Negation, Tense and Clausal Architecture: Cross-linguistic Investigations.
Georgetown University Press.
Horrocks, G. and M. Stavrou (1987). Bounding theory and Greek syntax: evidence for
wh-movement in NP. Journal of Linguistics 23, 79–108.
Iatridou, S. (1995). Clitics and Island Effects. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 11–31.
Karanassios, G. (1992). Syntaxe Comparé du Groupe Nominal en Grec Moderne et dans
d’Autre Langues. Ph. D. thesis, Université de Paris VIII.
Kolliakou, D. (2003). Nominal constructions in Modern Greek: Implications for the architecture
of Grammar. Studies in Constraint-based Lexicalism. CSLI Publications.
Kolliakou, D. (2004). Monadic and polydefinites: their form, meaning and use. Journal of
Linguistics 40 (2), 263–323.
Lasnik, H. and T. Stowell (1991). Weakest Crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22 (4), 687–720.
46

Lekakou, M. and K. Szendröi (2010). Eliding the noun in close apposition, or Greek polydefinites
revisited. ms, Meertens Instituut, Amsterdam and University College London.
Longobardi, G. (1986). L’estrazione dalle ”isole” e lo scope dei sintagmi quantificati. In
Parallela 2:Aspetti della sintassi dell’italiano contemporaneo. Tübingen:Gunter Narr.
Longobardi, G. (1994). The structure of dps: Some principles, parameters and problems.
Linguistic Inquiry 25, 609–665.
Marinis, T. (2003). The acquisition of the DP in Modern Greek, Volume 31 of Language
Acquisition and Language Disorders. John Benjamins.
Mathieu, E. and I. Sitaridou (2002). Split wh-constructions in Classical and Modern Greek.
In Linguistics in Potsdam, Number 19, pp. 143–182.
McCloskey, J. (1990). Resumptive pronouns, ā-binding and levels of representation in Irish.
In R. Hendrick (Ed.), Syntax of the modern Celtic languages, Volume 23 of Syntax and
Semantics, pp. 199–248. New York and San Diego: Academic Press.
McCloskey, J. (2002). Resumption, Successive Cyclicity, and the Locality of Operations.
In S. D. Epstein and D. T. Seely (Eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the minimalist
program, pp. 184–226. Oxford: Blackwell.
Panagiotidis, P. (2002). Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns: ‘Pronominality’ and licensing
in syntax. John Benjamins Publications.
Panagiotidis, P. (2003). Empty nouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 381–
432.
Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1985). Word order in Modern Greek. Transactions of the Philological
Society (83), 113–143.
Reinhart, T. (1982). Pragmatics and Linguistics: an Analysis of Sentence Topics. Indiana
University Linguistics Club.
Rizzi, L. (1997). The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements
of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, pp. 281–337. Dordrecht:Kluwer.
47

Roussou, A. and I.-M. Tsimpli (1994). On the interaction of case and definiteness in Modern
Greek. In I. Philippaki-Warburton, K. Nicolaidis, and M. Sifianou (Eds.), Themes in
Greek Linguistics., pp. 69–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Roussou, A. and I.-M. Tsimpli (2006). On Greek VSO again! Journal of Linguistics 42,
317–354.
Rouveret, A. (2002). How are resumptive pronouns linked to the periphery? In Linguistic
Variation Yearbook, pp. 123–184. John Benjamins.
Sells, P. (1984). Syntax and Semantics of Resumptive Pronouns. Ph. D. thesis, university
of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Shlonsky, U. (1992). Resumptive Pronouns as a Last Resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23 (3),
443–448.
Sioupi, A. (2001). On the semantic nature of Bare Singular nps in Greek. In C. Clairis
(Ed.), Recherches en Linguistique Grecque II. Actes du 5e Colloque International de
linguistique Grecque, Volume 2, pp. 231–234. Sorbonne: Paris:Harmattan.
Stavrou, M. (1991). Nominal apposition: more evidence for a DP analysis of NP. In J. Payne
(Ed.), Empirical approaches to Language Typology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stavrou, M. (1996). Adjectives in Modern Greek: an instance of predication or an old issue
revisited. Journal of Linguistics 32, 79–112.
Tomioka, S. (2003). The semantics of null arguments in japanese and its cross-linguistic
implications. In K. Schwabe and S. Winkler (Eds.), Interfaces, pp. 321–339. Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publications.
Tsimpli, I.-M. (1999). Null operators, clitics and identification: a comparison between Greek
and English. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, and M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek
syntax, Volume 43 of Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, pp. 241–262.
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tsimpli, I.-M. and D. Papadopoulou (2005). Aspect and argument realisation: A study on
antecedentless null objects in greek. Lingua 116, 1595–1615.
48

Tsimpli, M. I. (1995). Focusing in Modern Greek. In K. Kiss (Ed.), Discourse Configurational
Languages, Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax, pp. 176–206. Oxford University
Press.
Tsoulas, G. (2008). On the grammar of number and mass terms in greek. In E. Anagnostopoulou
and S. Iatridou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop in Greek Syntax and
Semantics at MIT, Volume 56, pp. 131–46. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
von Fintel, K. and I. Heim (2009). Intensional semantics. Lecture Notes.
Zimmermann, T. E. (1993). On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural
Language Semantics 1 (2), 149–179.
49