Case mismatches in Greek: Evidence for the autonomy of morphology

192 manuel espaol-echevarra and angela ralli
movement chain with a genitive clitic. 13 On the other hand, (15cd) show that
the matrix Case, Nominative in (15c) and Accusative in (15d), cannot surface
on the relative pronoun when there is a dative case checked internally to the free
relative. This state of aairs straightforwardly follows from the reformulation
of Baker's theory proposed in (10). In non-movement chains, as opposed to whchains,
there is no requirement on identity of;Interpretable features, allowing
for Case mismatches in (15ab), but not in (15cd). In addition, the contrast
between obligatory Case matching in argumental free relatives observed in (5),
as opposed to its optionality in left-dislocated position also follows partially
from (10). CLLD constructions, such as the one in (16b), involve a clitic which
checks the Case of the matrix verb, and, according to (10) this Case does not
need to surface on the relative pronoun:
(16) (a) *Agapo opjos m'agapai
love-1g whoever-nom me-acc-loves
(b) Opjos m'agapai, ton agapo
whoever-nom me-acc-loves, him-(cl)-acc love-1sg
`Whoever loves me, I love him'
On the other hand, when the free relative is in argument position, the matrix
Case must be checked by the free relative constituent, so that the Case internal
to the free relative cannot surface on the relative pronoun. The fact that nonmatching
free relatives involve in the general case a pronominal element which
checks the matrix Case seems to be quite general. Consider the following
example from Polish involving Accusative matrix case and Dative in the free
relative, cf. McCreight (1988, 94): 14
13
14
In certain cases (cf. (22) below), genitive case may alternatively surface on the relative
pronoun. Thus, (i) is also possible:
(i) Opjou ftasi protos, tha tu dosume ena vravio
whoever-gen arrives-perf-3sg rst, fut him(cl)-gen give-perf-1pl a prize
`Whoever arrives rst, we'll give him a prize'
We abstract away from the fact that in many languages the pronominal elementchecking
matrix Case may be absent if there is a syncretic form of the relative pronoun that
can accommodate matrix and free relative Cases, as in the Polish example in (i):
(i) kupiam co byo w sklepie
bought what-nom/acc was in the store
`I bought whatwas in the store'
For space reasons, we will not discuss either cases of hierarchical resolution, cf. Harbert
(1983), and McCreight (1988). Our discussion in section 2.3.1, however, is
undoubtedly related to this eect.
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47, 2000