- 1

-

dtheofan@phil.uoa.gr
Abstract
The tendency to treat restrictive pu-relative clauses as constructions the interpretation of
which depends solely on structural considerations (Nikiforidou 2005: 169) has recently been
challenged within the cognitive model (Nikiforidou 2005, & 2007),
emphasis being given to pragmatic constraints when the head is underspecified. The aim of
this paper is to support the priority of the syntactic constraints. Following the generative
approach and focusing upon cases with target IOdat, DPgen complement of noun and PP
complement/adjunct I shall try to show that the interpretation of the null target and,
consequently, of the underspecified head is related (a) to syntactic constraints of the narrow
syntax (on Agree or movement), determining the null vs. lexical realization of the target and
(b) to constraints at the interface levels (Full Interpretation). Pragmatic factors contribute to
the interpretation of the syntactically underspecified head, on the condition that universal
syntactic principles are not violated.

1.
-
(Nikiforidou
2005, & 2007).
(Comrie 1998)
, (1)-(3)
( (1), (2)) ( (3))
, ,
.

8
(30-8-2007) , ,
.
.
.

828

 .
:
(1)

(2)

(3)

( Nikiforidou .. 179 (1), 178 (2) 172 (3).

, ,
2 ,
(), ,

()

,
. :
()
. (4), (5) (6)
, , ,
:
(4)

*()

(5)

*()

(6)

o (Nikiforidou .. 181)

(que, dass, that, che)

.

(.., , ):
(7)

*the girl

that I

gave

the book was very pretty

(8)

cest l ami

a qui/

*que

j ai demand de l argent

/

(9)

la persona

a cui/

*che scrivo e

mio

amico

, : Joseph (1980, 1983),

- (1985).

829

 /

(10)

Ich kenne keine einzige Frau, deren/*dass der Mann bereit ist, die Hausarbeit mit ihr
zu teilen
/

() (
)
(6)
(Nikiforidou .. 181-182) , ,
. :
(11)

( 2004: 142)

(12)

(Joseph 1980: 238)

, ,
(3)
, ,
,
, 3

.
(Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001)

, , -
, ,

, , ,
(3).
/
,

830

 ,
, ,
,
.
, ,

.
2. :
2.1. -

.
: (Chomsky 1977, Borsley 1997, Radford
1997) (Kayne 1994 ).
, ,
(Operator), ()
, ( ) [, ] 4
.
[, ],
. , ,
& (2003), - ,
.
,
( - . - 5
, 6 ,
3

,
(, ).
4
(. Specifier, . Spec)
(. Complementizer, . C).
5
Extended Projection Principle, . .
( ) ,
,
[, ], .
6
Chomsky (1995)
(copy) (merge) ,
.

. ,
(, ,
), ( ,
, , Bobaljik 2002, Spyropoulos & Revithiadou 2007),

(Grohmann & Panagiotidis 2004).

831

/ 7 ).
(- )
:
(13)

[ [ i [ [ [ .proi]]]]] 8

(pro)
[, ], , -.
.
[+ ] ([+ Rel]
Pesetsky & Torrego 2006: 18, [ wh ] Alexopoulou 2006: 73, 75)
, , 9 (Tsimpli, 1999)
[, ].
, , ,
(D feature, Roussou 1994), (Alexopoulou .. 76-80, .
18).
.
: ,
(Joseph 1980, 1997), pro (Ingria 1981: 163-64,
- 1986/87: 48 , Alexopoulou

.. 75), wh

(Kotzoglou 2005: 265).

(Ingria,
- ..) (Alexopoulou .. 75,
. 16)
( ) -
-
pro 10 .
( , ) .
7

, (,
probe) ( goal)
. ( ) , -, ,
o ,
(value)
(Chomsky 2000, 2001).
8
: = (.= Determiner
Phrase, . DP), = (. Tense Phrase, . TP). o . . 4.
9
- (quantificational) (nonquantificational) . Lasnik & Stowell (1991). / . simpli
(1999).
10
.
- (1986/87: 47-50) .

832

2.2. () ()
- ,
,
, -
-
.
:
(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(14) (16)
(pro) :
(18)

[ i [ proi[ [ j[ pro [ tj[ [ tj ti ]]]]]]]] 11

(19)

[ i [ proi [ [ j [ proi [ tj[ [ tj ]]]]]]]]

, , ..,
, .
- (, ) (pro)

/ ()
() .

[, ],
, -.
, ,
,
.

, , /
11

. . 8. : = (. Tense , . T), (. vP)

833

( ).
()
, ,
12 .


( , ), :
,
( ) - - (
)
( & .. 183).
(
) :
(20)

(
2003: 340)

(21)

( 2003: 343)

, /
.
2.3. :

- .
, ( )
( Drachman 1977, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2000, &
2003, Alexopoulou 2006):
(22)

*() ;

(23)

() (Joseph 1980: 237)

(24)

*()

( ), = (. Verb Phrase, . VP), = (.Verb,

.V). (t) .
12
. . 5.
pro
*()
.

.

834

(25)

- *()

,
, ,

.
:
(i)

( ,
).

(ii)

.
(iii)

, .

2.4. : - - /
, / ,
, . , () (
.) , (),
(Anagnostopoulou 2003, 2005, &
2003) , , [, ] ( &
..203)

[,

APPL] 13

Anagnostopoulou 2003: 147).

(23)
14 , (Anagnostopoulou 2003):
(26) [ i [ proi [ [ [ pro [ [ i [ [ o]]]]]]]]

13

APPL - -
(nagnostopoulou 2003: 34-38)

.
.
(.
, ),
, [, ].
, , .
14

,
: [ i [ proi [ [ i [ pro [

835


, ,


( [ , ]) .
, . -

,

. 15 pro
[, ] ,
/ 16 .
, ,
.
,
.
.
, , Bobaljik (2002), Spyropoulos &
Revithiadou (2007)
, /,

.
(
)
( )

(. .) .

, , ,
( ) ( ).
, ( [ , ]), ,
(Strict Adjacency)17 , .
15

Bianchi (2004: 95-97). , . 96 .

pro (/)
. .
Grohmann & Panagiotidis (2004).
17
. Spyropoulos & Revithiadou (.. 22-27)
Bobaljik (2002) .
16

836


. , ,
corpus 30 - /
- 20 .
, ,

.
(Holton al. 1997: 443) (Joseph 1980: 237, ()
) 18 .
, ,
, ,
() . .
(27)

;
( )

(28)

( = )

(29)

( / )

, ,
,
( (27) ).
,

/ , - , ,
19 -
(Full Interpretation).

.
.
18

Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou

(2000), & (2003), .
19
(probe)
,
.

837

2.5. :
, ,
,
.
, ,
, ,
.

(/
, ).
(Alexopoulou .. 80)
,
. , ,


.

. , ,
(. .)
.
, ,
(intervention effect) ( )
20

.
, ,
. ,
,
, ( ).
, [, ]
,
(Adjacency), .

20

838

2.6.
..
, (blending) -
-
(Joseph 1980, - 1985, Alexopoulou 2006: 97-100, Nikiforidou 2005,
& 2007),
.

, ,
(31),
(30).
(32):
(30)

( .. )

(31)

( .. )

(32)

( & 2007: 310-311)

( , , )

/ , ,

,
.
/
, - (33), (34) -
- (35), (36):
(33)

( , )

(34)

( ,
, ? )

(35)

* ( )

(36)

* ( )

839

 .


( )
, .
,
/
,

.

: /
,
,
, .
3. :
, ,
,
, .
,
, ,
.

, ,
,
.
,
, ( ..)
- , ,

(3).

, . ,
, ,
:

840

 ( & 2007,
2001). , ,

,
: /
;


,
.
; , ,
;
, ,
, .

Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou, (2000). Asymmetries in the distribution of clitics: The case of
Greek restrictive relatives. In F. Beukema & M. den Dikken (eds.), Clitic Phenomena in European
Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 47-70.
Alexopoulou, Th., (2006). Resumption in relative clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
24: 57-111.
Anagnostopoulou, E., (2003). The syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin, New York:
De Gruyter.
Anagnostopoulou, E., (2005). Cross-linguistic and cross-categorial variation of datives. In M.
Stavrou & A. Terzi (eds.), Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 60-126.
, . & . o, (2003).
: . . -, .
, . , . & . (.),
: -Warburton. : ,
169-191.
Bianchi, V., (2004). Resumptive relatives and LF chains. In L. Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and
IP. New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press, 76-114.
Bobaljik, J.D., (2002). A-chains at the PF interface and covert movement. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 20, 197-267.
Borsley, R.D., (1997). Relative clauses and the theory of phrase structure. Linguistic Inquiry 28,
629-647.
, . & . , (2003). - : .
. -, . , . , . & .
(.), :
-Warburton. : , 192- 216.
Chomsky, N., (1977). On wh-movement. In P. W. Culicover, T. Wasow and A. Akmajian (eds.),
Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 71-132.
Chomsky, N., ( 1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N., (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J.
Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89-155.
Chomsky, N., (2001). Derivation by phase. In . Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language.
Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 1-52.
Comrie, B., (1998). Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design I, 59-85.

841

Drachman, G., (1997). Some properties of clitics with special reference to Modern Greek. In A.
Alexiadou & T. Allan Hall (eds.), Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation.
Linguistik Aktuell. Series. 13 Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 219-248.
, ., (1997). - .
17, 318-327.
Grohmann, K. K. & P. Panagiotidis, (2004). Demonstrative doubling in Greek. University of
Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 13, 109- 131.
Holton D., P. Mackridge & I. Philippaki-Warburton, (1997). Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the
Modern Language. London and New York: Routledge.
-, ., (1985). -
. 3, 17-45.
-, ., (1986/87). :
. 5-6, 41-68.
Joseph, B., (1980). Recovery of information in relative clauses: Evidence from Greek and Hebrew.
Journal of Linguistics 16, 237-244.
Joseph, B., (1983). Relativization in odern Greek: Another look at the Accessibility Hierarchy
constraints. Lingua 60, 1-24.
Ingria, R., (1981). Sentential Complementation in Modern Greek. Ph.D. Thesis MIT.
Kayne, R. S., (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kotzoglou, G., (2005). Wh-extraction and Locality in Greek. Ph.D. Thesis University of Reading.
Lasnik, H. & T. Stowell, (1991). Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 687- 720.
Nikiforidou, K., (2005). Conceptual blending and the interpretation of relatives. Cognitive
Linguistics 16, 169-206.
N, . & . , (2007). :
.
, .-. , 27, 309-321.
Pesetsky, D. & E. Torrego, (2006). Probes, Goals and Syntactic Categories. In Proceedings of the
7th Annual Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (Keio University, Japan), 1-37.
Radford, A., (1997). Syntactic theory and the structure of English: A minimalist approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Roussou, A., (1994). The Syntax of Complementizers. Ph.D. Thesis, University College London.
Spyropoulos, V. & A. Revithiadou, (2007). Subject chains in Greek and PF processing. Workshop on
Greek Syntax and Semantics May 20-22, 2007 MIT, 1-32.
Tsimpli, I.-M., (1999). Null operators, clitics and identification: A comparison between Greek and
English. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks & M. Stavrou (eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax. Dordrecht:
Kluver Academic Publishers, 241-262.
, ., (2003). . : .
, ., (2005). . , , . . :
.
, .-., (2001). . .-. (.)
: . , &
, 21- 52.

842