Case mismatches in Greek: Evidence for the autonomy of morphology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

190 manuel espaol-echevarra and angela ralli dislocated constituents, Nominative could appear as the only alternative value expressed by these constituents, beside Genitive (11b) or Accusative (12b), depending on the case of the doubling clitic. The proposal that CLLD contexts constitute a kind of non-checking syntactic conguration, where Nominative may be used as a default option is also supported by the examples below: it is shown that when there is a clear-cut checking requirement for the presence of another case value, i.e., Genitive orAccusative: Nominative is not possible. (13) (a) Opjon tu dosis to onoma mu, tha ton voihiso whoever-acc him-gen give-perf-2sg the name my-gen, fut him-acc help-perf-1s `I'll help whoever you give my name to' (b) Opju tu dosis to onoma mu, tha ton voithiso whoever-gen him-gen ........................ him-acc ........ (c) Opjos tu dosis to onoma mu, tha ton voithiso whoever-nom him-gen ........................ him-acc ........ (d) *Opjos tu dosis to onoma mu, tha voithiso whoever-nom him-gen ................... fut help-perf-1sg (e) *Opjos dosis to onoma mu, tha voithiso whoever-nom ................... fut help-perf-1sg As shown in (13a), Greek free relative clauses can also contain clitics agreeing with the relativized constituent (cf. HorrocksStavrou 1987). With two clitics, one in the free relative and another in the main clause, we have three possible Cases for the relative pronoun: Accusative (13a), Genitive (13b), and also Nominative (13c), although somehow marginally. However, Nominative for the relative pronoun is completely excluded if one of the clitics is missing, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (13de). This shows that Nominative is only possible on the relative pronoun when the pronoun is coindexed with clitics, i.e., tu and to in (13c). When one of the clitics is missing, which istantamount to saying that there is a movement chain which requires a Case corresponding to the one checked against the verb without a clitic, then Nominative isnotan option any more. Thus, we can conclude that Nominative is a sort of default option, only available when the relative pronoun does not check any Case, either in the free relative or in the main clause. Notice, however, that this default use of Nominative for syntactic reasons does not coincide with what can be a morphologically unmarked option, since Nominative in Greek very However, non-matching free relatives in left-dislocated position do not necessarily show Nominative case, as can be seen from examples like (7a) or (8c)). This indicates that the characterisation of free relatives as hanging topics is incorrect. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47, 2000
case mismatches in greek 191 often constitutes the marked form of the nominal paradigm. Consider, for instance, the very common masculine nouns in -is or -as (cf. (14)), where the Nominative singular is expressed by the ax -s whereas the Genitive is not overtly expressed (or expressed by the -ax). This is another example in favour of the independence of the morphological module: (14) Nominative Genitive titi-s titi `student' tamia-s tamia `cashier' 2.3. Greek free relatives Case resolution in Greek CLLD-free relatives constitutes an interesting case study from a typological point ofview.The reason is that Greek is a language which combines overt case marking with CLLD constructions. Most of the literature on Case related eects in free relatives deals either with languages that have clitics and CLLD constructions, but not overt case marking like Spanish or Catalan (e.g., HirschblerRivero 1981 Suer 1984) or with languages that have rich case systems but not clitics (e.g., Groosvan Riemsdijk 1981 Harbert 1983 McCreight 1988). From the consideration of Greek free relatives in CLLD constituents, we can draw further evidence for our claim that non-movement chains may involve dierent values for ;Interpretable features in dierent members of the chain. Consider, for instance, the behaviour of Genitive case as illustrated in (15): (15) (a) Opjos ftasi protos, tha tu dosume ena vravio whoever-nom arrives-perf-3sg rst, fut him(cl)-gen give-perf-1pl a prize `Whoever arrives rst, we'll give him a prize' (b) Opjon epileksume, i Anna tha tu dosi ena vravio whoever-acc choose-perf-1pl, the Anna fut him(cl)-gen give-perf-3sg a prize `Whoever we choose, Anna will give him a prize' (cf. (8c)) (c) *Opjos dosume to vravio, tha jini diasimos whoever-nom give-perf-1pl the prize, fut become-perf-3sg famous `Whoever we give the prize will become famous' (cf. (7b)) (d) *Opjon dosume to vravio, i Anna tha ton proslavi whoever-acc give-perf-1pl the prize, the Anna fut him(cl)-acc hire `Whoever we give the prize, Anna will hire him' (15ab) show that the Case checked inside the free relative may surface on the relative pronoun, in spite of the fact that the free relative forms a non- Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47, 2000
Page 1 and 2: Acta Linguistica Hungarica, Vol. 47
Page 3 and 4: case mismatches in greek 181 howeve
Page 5 and 6: case mismatches in greek 183 (5) (a
Page 7 and 8: case mismatches in greek 185 2. The
Page 9 and 10: case mismatches in greek 187 tween
Page 11: 2.2. Nominative as a default Case v
Page 15 and 16: case mismatches in greek 193 (17) M
Page 17 and 18: case mismatches in greek 195 that,
Page 19 and 20: case mismatches in greek 197 (c) I
Page 21 and 22: case mismatches in greek 199 value.
Page 23 and 24: case mismatches in greek 201 in Ger
Page 25: case mismatches in greek 203 Smyth,

Case mismatches in Greek: Evidence for the autonomy of morphology

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?