Anna Roussou

A minimalist theory of A-movement and control

Abstract In this article, we point out some problems in the theory of A-movement and control within Principles and Parameters models, and specifically within the minimalist approach of Chomsky (1995). In order to overcome these problems, we motivate a departure from the standard transformational theory of A-movement. In particular, we argue that DPs are merged in the position where they surface, and from there they attract (an aspectual feature of) a predicate. On this basis, control can simply be construed as the special case in which the same DP attracts more than one predicate. Arbitrary control reduces to the attraction of a predicate by an operator in C. We show that the basic locality properties of control follow from an appropriate Scopal version of Chomskys (1995) Minimal Link Condition and from Kaynes (1984) Connectedness, phrased as conditions on the Attract operation. Our approach has considerable advantages in standard cases of A-movement as well, deriving the distribution of reconstruction effects at LF as well as the blocking effects on phonosyntactic rules at PF.

A formal approach to grammaticalization

Abstract This paper presents an approach to the well-known diachronic phenomenon of grammaticalization in terms of a modified version of Chomskys (1995: chapter 4) minimalist approach to syntax, combined with the general approach to language change outlined in Clark and Roberts (1993). The central idea that we follow is that grammaticalization involves the reanalysis of lexical material as functional material. We argue that the reason this kind of change is so common is that the reanalysis involves structural simplification, a kind of change that is preferred by the parameter-setting device, according to Clark and Roberts (1993). A number of well-known cases of grammaticalization are discussed: the development of English modal auxiliaries, the development of agreement markers from pronouns, the development of negation and N-words, and the development of wh-pronouns. In the last two cases a different kind of simplification is involved: the lexical subset principle, which requires lexical items to be interpreted in the smallest set of contexts consistent with the input. Both the lexical subset principle and the tendency toward structural simplification stem from the same property of computational conservativity that characterizes the parameter-setting device.

On Greek VSO again

In the present paper we provide an account of VSO in Greek and its (relative) absence in Italian, despite the fact that both languages allow for postverbal subjects. We argue that this parametric difference reduces to different lexicalisation options regarding the D-system of the two grammars. We assume that the clause structure divides into three basic domains (V, T, and C), and that nominal (clitic) positions are available in each of these domains, which, as we argue, can be lexicalised not only by clitics but also by full DPs. On this basis, we argue that the subject and object DP in Greek can appear in the same domain (V), as they spell out different features depending on their grammatical function, while this is not so in Italian, given that DPs spell out the same set of features irrespective of their grammatical function. This basic difference is responsible for the presence of VSO in Greek but not in Italian. We also consider the implications of our approach for the interpretation of subjects and arguments in general.

C, T, and the subject : That-t phenomena revisited

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to provide a novel account to ‘ that -t’ phenomena, following minimalist assumptions. Taking subject extraction out of complement clauses (the ‘ that -t’ effect) as the key case, it is argued that the licensing and identification parts of the ECP correspond to PF and LF requirements respectively. In particular, subject extraction over that yields ungrammaticality because in this case the Agr-features of T fail to be lexicalized; thus the CP phase contains features that have not been satisfied and the derivation crashes. C 0 is taken to correspond to the realization of the feature content of T (plus Agr) in C, thus allowing for the lexicalization of Agr. The interpretation of Agr as a variable is determined in connection with the wh-phrase in the matrix Spec,CP via the operation Agree . To this end, I consider the relation between C and T, the one between C and Agr in non-extraction contexts as well (e.g. ‘pro-drop’ under V2), and also the parameterization of subject extraction as a by-product of the different ways of lexicalizing Agr and/or C. The proposed analysis succeeds in deriving the empirical effects of the ECP derivationally, without furthermore postulating extra technical devices such as proper head government and traces.

Modals and the Subjunctive

A property of the Greek (Gr) complementation system, shared to a greater or lesser extent by all Balkan languages, is the lack of infmitives and the use of the subjunctive in the corresponding infmitival Romance (and English) constructions.

From the Editors: Fulfilling Our Mission?

With the publication of volume 13 of Journal of Greek Linguistics ( JGL) last fall, the journal completed its fifth year, spanning 2009–2013 and volumes 9–13, in our new instantiation under Brill Publishers. In switching to Brill from our previous publisher, we have opened up the journal in a couple of ways. The first is simply a matter of presentation, as we now appear in two issues a year, with a total of some 350 pages. This is not an insignificant change from volumes 1–8, which had only one issue per year and averaged 233 pages, for it means that more content focused on Greek linguistics can be provided in a given year. But more important is the second way in which we have opened up the journal, namely as to the specifics of that content. That is, JGLwas founded in 2000,with amission statement that said wewould “publish papers on any aspect of Greek Linguistics”, but we nonetheless expressed a preference for papers dealingwith “the more recent stages of the language, especially contemporary (Modern) Greek”. Starting with volume 9 (2009), in our new guise, we have explicitly welcomed papers pertaining to all eras of Greek, with no preference for one stage over another.1 That 2009 volume contained articles on Ancient Greek, without any overt looking ahead temporally towards related developments in later stages, as some of the articles in previous issues had, and now we have evenhada special thematic issuedevoted entirely toAncientGreekLinguistics, issue 12.1 (2012). Bywayof seeinghowwellwehavebeen fulfilling ourmission to cover the full chronological rangeof theGreek language,wehave taken stockofwhatwehave published over the past five years. All in all, looking just at research articles, i.e. our regular articles, the occasional short article, and one discussion note that was research oriented, there have been 47 items in the 9 issues from 2009 to 2013. Of those, 29.5 have been on Modern Greek, 16.5 on Ancient Greek, and one onMedieval Greek.2 Given that there aremore journal outlets for linguistic