'Split wh-constructions in Classical and Modern Greek'

(12) a. Which power i does it have t i?
b. Whose book i did you bring t i?
(13) The RED DRESS i I saw t i.
Following ideas by Devine & Stephens (2000), we assume that
splitting can be traced back to two NPs in apposition. NP 1 contains
a nominal. NP 2 consists of [Mod e], whereby Mod = modifier and
e an empty category - the semantic equivalent of pro –which
stands for a nominal). The modifier is thus a so-called null head
modifier. By ‘modifier’, we mean a superclass which includes
both adjectives and wh-words. By ‘null head modifier’ we mean,
following Devine & Stephens’s definition a modifier that can
stand by itself in place of a noun phrase without the support of a
noun or an overt pronoun. The modifier restricts e. The nominal
(unselectively) binds the empty category. This means that the
configuration yielded by split constructions is like (14b) rather
than (14a):
(14) a. *X i [ ZP t i Y]
b. [XP] i [ ZP Y ] t i
The point is that what moves is not a head, but a DP. This is most
obvious in the case of bare adjectival extraction ((9) which is repeated
here for convenience):
(9) b. [To KOKKINO] F idha forema. (CG)
the red see PAST 1SG dress
‘It is the RED dress that I saw.’
(Androutsopoulou 1997:2)
148