draft of November 2011

More documents

Recommendations

Info

that Greek arguments instantiate Number Phrases. This hypothesis has consequences for the structure and interpretation of pronominals, which, in turn, directly affects the interpretative possibilities in clld in the two languages. Crucially, the clitic in clld cannot be just an overt PF realisation of the epithet assumed in Topicalisation, since its specific properties interact direclty with the topic-strategies in the two languages. Variation in topic-structures then cannot be confined to PF, but rather, interacts with the structure of nominal arguments in the two languages. 3 Further, the hypothesis allows a three way typological distinction between English, Italian and Greek in relation to bare nouns. Unlike English, Italian and Greek do not have argumental nouns (in the sense of Chierchia 1998). Rather nouns are predicative. But while in Italian D acts as the nominalisor turning predicative nouns to arguments, in Greek the nominalisor is Number. In section 2 we briefly review previous approaches to the interpretations of clld-ed indefinites. Section 3 presents a set of facts that correlate with the clld contrasts, drawing from contexts of Indefinite Argument Drop, Bare Subnomianal Ellipsis and the distribution of bare nominals in the two languages. Our analysis of these facts is presented in section 4. 2 Indefinite Topics: Previous Analyses Though no previous analysis has focused on the crosslinguistic variation between Greek and Italian clld, the main facts presented earlier have been discussed for each language. Two kinds of analyses have been proposed to explain the wide scope readings of Greek clld-ed indefinites and the ambiguity of their Italian counterparts: (i) scope based analyses, where the relevant readings are linked to the underlying derivations and (ii) Topichood-based analyses, where referential readings are viewed as a consequence of the discourse function of clld-ed phrases as topics. We review these analyses briefly below. 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 3 A preliminary discussion and analysis of this set of facts is presented in Alexopoulou and Folli (2011). 6
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, no- parasitic 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 In addition, the ”scope” facts are rather complex, posing a problem for the derivational approach. Consider (6a); while the de dicto reading is excluded, this example allows the so- called ”3rd-reading” (Fodor 1970; von Fintel and Heim 2009), according 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. (6) 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 (7) allows only a wide scope reading. 6 (7) ?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 4 But see Haegeman (pear) for some differences. 5 Thanks to S. Iatridou for this observation. 6 This example is due to Longobardi (1986) cited by Cinque (1990). 7
Page 1 and 2: Topic-strategies and the internal s
Page 3 and 4: 1 Introduction Clitic Left Dislocat
Page 5: (5) a. Fetos i moda ine apesia; idi
Page 9 and 10: 3.1 Greek manipulates structure whi
Page 11 and 12: 3.2 Indefinite pronominal anteceden
Page 13 and 14: 3.3 Bare nouns As has become eviden
Page 15 and 16: systematically employs articles and
Page 17 and 18: Syntax They can be left dislocated
Page 19 and 20: Further, Greek bare nouns have atom
Page 21 and 22: You will need a skirt sewn in India
Page 23 and 24: 4.1.2 Towards a crosslinguistic typ
Page 25 and 26: semantics of Greek Number? We will
Page 27 and 28: e felicitous subjects, even under r
Page 29 and 30: However, the data below indicate th
Page 31 and 32: generalisation is that only languag
Page 33 and 34: that the definite is a noun phrase.
Page 35 and 36: excellent one (so the time we took
Page 37 and 38: (66) *den prokite na vri ti yineka
Page 39 and 40: . o Napoleodas epline (ta) piatai k
Page 41 and 42: (75) a. o Yanis psahni idravliko al
Page 43 and 44: Let us now turn to subnominal ellip
Page 45 and 46: Beautiful she is. b. belle lo sono?
Page 47 and 48: just semantically definite elements
Page 49 and 50: topic-strategies between the two la
Page 51 and 52: Alexopoulou, T. and C. Heycock (200
Page 53 and 54: Giusti, G. (1997). The categorial s
Page 55 and 56: Sells, P. (1984). Syntax and Semant

draft of November 2011

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?