Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages (Oxford ... - Cryptm.org

134 DALINA KALLULLId. What did Ana do to/with the book?The Greek example (13b) may be a felicitous answer to either of the questionsunder (14). However, (15b), the doubled version of (13b), is preferred as ananswer to (14c) and (14d) even in Greek. Crucially, (15a) and (15b), focusichdouble (13a) and (13b), may in both languages only be a felicitous reply to (14c)and (14d) but not to (14a) and (14b). This latter fact suggests that direct objectclitic doubling in Albanian and Greek is incompatible with direct object DPsthat are marked [+Focus] (alternatively: are contained in focus domains).(15) a. An-a e lexoi libr-in. Albb. I Ana to djavase to vivlio. MGrkthe Ana it-CL read the book'Ann did read the book.'/' It was Ann who read the book.'I devote the next two sections to a brief review of some recent ideas on the syntacticencoding of focus and to how focus interacts with clitic doubling of directobject DPs in Albanian and Greek.3.2. Focus, wh-elements, and clitic doublingFollowing Horvath (1988), Brody (1990) assumes that just as there is a feature+ wh, which marks phrases as +wh-elements, there is a feature +f that indicatesfocushood; +wh-phrases are argued to be necessarily [+f] and the conditionson +wh and (+WH) CPs are generalized to the +f and F(ocus) P(hrase) so thatthey will entail (16), which may be regarded as a focus criterion. The unavoidableimplication is that Rizzi's (1991) Wft-criterion is a subcase of the focuscriterion and that the Specifier position of (root) CPs is one of the canonicalpositions for focus.(16) (Brody 1990.208)a. At S-structure and LF the Spec of an FP must contain a +f-phraseb. At LF all +f-phrases must be in an FP.Just as the corresponding notion on +wh CPs is parametrized, it is assumed that(16a) may or may not hold in a given language. Construction (16b), on the otherhand, like the condition on +vv/i-elements, should be universal. Further, adistinction is drawn between + and -wh FPs.If rny claim is correct that direct object clitics license nonfocusing of theDPs they double, and if we assume with Brody (1990) that +wh-elements arenecessarily foci, then clitic doubling of +wh-direct object DPs in Albanian andGreek is bound to yield ungrammaticality. The examples in (17) show that thisis indeed the Case.(17) a. Ke/ffare e