Geoffrey e Stravou 1987

Bounding Theory and Greek Syntax: Evidence for wh-Movement in NP
Author(s): Geoffrey Horrocks and Melita Stavrou

Source: Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 79-108
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4175868
Accessed: 28-06-2016 17:29 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Linguistics
This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:29:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
J. Linguistics 23 (i987), 79-108. Printed in Great Britain
Bounding theory and Greek syntax: evidence for

wh-movement in NP
GEOFFREY HORROCKS AND MELITA STAVROU
St John's College, Cambridge and University of Crete
(Received 2 July I986)
I. INTRODUCTION
It is a standard assumption of government-binding theory that the relation-

ship between a constituent displaced by the transformational rule schema
Move a and its trace is subject to the locality condition known as subjacency,
the central principle of the subtheory of universal grammar known as
bounding theory (Chomsky, I98I, I982, I986). Subjacency requires that not
more than one 'barrier' intervene between a moved constituent and its trace,
but the definition of the relevant barriers has been, and remains, an issue of
considerable controversy. In Chomsky (I977) it is suggested that NP and one
of S or S are the 'bounding nodes' for English, and many standard textbooks
have since argued for NP and S (e.g. Radford, I98I: Ch. 7; van Riemsdijk
& Williams, I986: Ch. 4). Nevertheless, the possibility of cross-linguistic
parametric variation may have to be allowed for, since Rizzi (1978) makes
out a case for S rather than S as the clausal bounding node for Italian in order
to account for the freedom of extraction from so-called 'wh-islands' in that
language. Chomsky (I980), however, puts forward the possibility that S may
be a bounding node universally, and that languages vary according to
whether S is also. If it is, then there will be no long-distance movement (cf.
standard German and Russian) unless individual verbs are specified in the
lexicon as 'bridges' which nullify the barrierhood of S (cf. the majority of
verbs subcategorized by clausal complements in English). This view is revised
and refined in Chomsky (I98I: 307), where S is taken to be a bounding node
universally when it includes a complementizer or wh-phrase preceding a finite
clause, in which case the finite clause S may also optionally be a barrier, and
S is taken to be a bounding node when it is governed, as is the case after
S-deletion in the complements of 'raising' predicates.' Finally, Chomsky
[i] Thus the following sentence is ungrammatical after S-pruning, on the assumption that
governed S is a bounding node:
* John seems [ that it is certain [S t to like chips]]

S S
One might object that the evidence for S as a bounding node provided by examples of this
sort is not very strong since they are all independently ungrammatical because the trace
of NP is not bound in its governing category, contrary to the requirements of the binding
theory for anaphors (including trace of NP). S-pruning is assumed to be necessary in such
cases because the trace has to be 'properly governed' according to the Empty Category
Principle, and S is taken to be a barrier to government from a superordinate clause. See
Chomsky (I98I: Chs. 3 and 4) for a full discussion.
79
(I986) seeks to unite the definition of barrier for the purposes both of
movement and government, assuming two barriers block movement and one
barrier blocks government, by proposing that any ungoverned maximal
projection is a barrier, and that any maximal projection immediately
dominating such a barrier, whether lexically governed or not, is also a barrier
by inheritance. By extending the principles of X-theory to COMP and INFL,
Chomsky defines S (= INFL) and S (= COMP) as maximal projections, but
makes a special provision for S; it is never inherently a barrier and can only
inherit barrierhood from a barrier that it dominates.
Clearly it would take a great deal of time to investigate the consequences
of adopting any one of these proposals in any detail; indeed, this would be
a well-nigh impossible task, since the range of relevant phenomena in the
world's languages has barely yet been sampled. Many of the possibilities have
been advanced as suggestions for dealing with specific ranges of problems in
specific languages and are obviously not mutually consistent. None has been
fully worked out with a view to establishing its wider implications. Since there
is no orthodoxy that we can follow in the matter, we have decided at the outset
to adopt a fairly conservative position, but one which seems to have the right
sort of consequences across a reasonable domain of data, namely that the
principal bounding nodes, or barriers, for subjacency are NP, S and S (i.e.
those categories within which Move a takes place), with S optionally a
barrier, NP and S obligatorily barriers. Where S is a barrier it may or may
not have its effects limited to particular contexts. It will be a useful
preliminary to see how these proposals are intended to work for English.
Consider the following ungrammatical strings:
(i) (a)
*[S who [S do you believe [NP the story [S t that [S Maggie promoted t]]]]]
yes yes no
2I
(b)
*[S what [S do you wonder [S who [S t leaked t]]]]

yes yes)
(c)
*[S what [S is [NP[S t that [S Leon did t ]]] incredible]l

yes yes no
2 I
(d)
*NP Geoffrey's review [pp of [NP the implications tNPIPP1NP] was savaged [for the future]
Vyes yes
8o
BOUNDING THEORY AND GREEK SYNTAX
In each example the barriers are marked yes, the non-barriers no; movement
across more than one barrier results in an ungrammatical string. Considering
each case in detail, (i a) is ungrammatical because the second movement
crosses two barriers, NP and S. Thus the 'complex noun phrase constraint'
is enforced by the general principle of subjacency. S is taken not to be a barrier
except under the circumstances illustrated in (i b), where it follows an S
containing a wh-phrase. The selection of S in this case as a barrier has the
effect of enforcing the 'wh-island constraint' strictly, given that English does
not tolerate two wh-expressions in a single COMP, since once a wh-phrase
has been moved into COMP, or if there is a wh-element such as whether there
already in D-structure, there will be a double barrier (S and S) and no further
extraction is permissible. Extraction from a sentential subject as in (i c) is
blocked, on the assumption that NP dominates S as indicated, because once
again the second movement indicated crosses two barriers. Example (i d) is
ungrammatical because the rightwards movement of PP ('extraposition from
NP') crosses two NP barriers.
While it is clearly possible, and desirable, that this formulation be improved
upon along the lines of Chomsky (I986), specifically by providing a general
definition of barrier that gives the required results without the need to list
individual categories and contexts, it is not our purpose here to try to achieve
such an objective. Instead, assuming the basic descriptive adequacy of the
proposals outlined above, we wish to consider the question of how far such
an approach can provide an accurate account of the restrictions on the
extraction of interrogative and relative expressions from various positions in
Modern Greek sentences, and of the extent to which it can reasonably be
'parametrised' to account for any differences in extractability between the
two languages that emerge in the course of the investigation.
2. THE DATA AND THE PROBLEMS
Consider first of all the ungrammatical strings in (2):
(2) (a)
*r F ti [ anarotyese [ pyos [ ipe t t1112
L what wonder-2s who [S said-3s iii]
S L
yes yes
2 i
'what do you wonder who said?'
[2] We assume here that both subject and object originate in post-verbal position, on the
grounds that both traces must be properly governed, and subject traces in Greek appear
to meet this requirement even when they are preceded by an overt complementizer (i.e. the
that-t constraint, however formulated, does not appear to hold). In Horrocks (I984) it is
8i
(b)
* ti t oti L ekane o Mitsotakis t ine apistefto

LSwhatL hat did-3s the Mitsotakis) 1] is incredible 11
yes yes no
2 I
what is that Mitsotakis did incredible?'
(c)
i perilipsi [ ton andiloyion t ] ] ekdhothike khtes
NP the summary L NP the-gen objections-gen NP NP was published yesterday
yes yes
stis isiyisis tu Andrea

pp to-the proposals the-gen Andreas-gen J
'the summary of the objections was published yesterday to Andreas' proposals'
Example (2 a) is ungrammatical if we assume, as in the case of the English

example (i b), that S is a barrier when there is a wh-phrase in the preceding
COMP, and that Greek, like English, does not tolerate multiple wh-phrases
in COMP. This is not an unreasonable assumption, since no example
involving doubly filled COMP is grammatical, whether we are dealing with
two wh-phrases or one wh-phrase and one complementizer. If such combin-
ations of phrases with lexical content are not permitted, there seems no reason
to think that 'empty' categories should be treated any differently.
argued that government of a subject trace from COMP by a co-indexed phrase is not
permitted in Greek because of the obligatoriness of the complementizer, and that the
inversion of subjects in pro-drop languages such as Greek is motivated precisely by the need
to get subjects into governed positions to allow them to be questioned. In (2 a), therefore,
ipe governs subject and object traces alike. Further evidence in favour of this inversion
is provided by echo questions, where one wh-element appears in COMP the other in
argument position; where the latter is a subject, it MUST follow the verb if the sentence is
to be grammatical:
ti ipe pyos?
what said-3s who
'what did who say?'
*ti pyos ipe?

what who said-2s
Iwhat did who say?'
[31 A different account of the ungrammaticality of extraction from 'sentential subjects' will
be offered below in Section 3.
82
It is not, however, the case that the 'wh-island constraint' holds in all cases.
For example, sentence (3) is perfectly grammatical:
(3)
aftos ine o politikos [ 0 pu [ dhen gzerume pyos dhorodhokise t t

this is the politician LS hat not know-[-p - who bribed-31s
2I
'this is the politician that we do not know who bribed'
To judge from the translation of (3), we may reasonably conclude that English
sentences of this sort too, though still slightly odd, are certainly better than
(i b). Perhaps the barrierhood of S should be restricted still more narrowly
to cases where a wh-phrase stands in the preceding COMP and an
INTERROGATIVE wh-phrase appears as one of the sentence's constituents, thus
allowing the extraction of relative wh-phrases as in (3). The remaining
examples in (2), involving extraction from a sentential subject (2b) and
extraposition from NP (2c), are straightforwardly ungrammatical because in
each case a wh-phrase has moved over two boundaries, S and NP, and NP
and NP respectively.
Thus far it seems that Greek and English are very similar with respect to
the operation of subjacency. A problem arises, however, in connexion with
sentences such as (4):
(4)
L pyon akuses ti fimi [ t oti [ apelisan t 11111
L whom L heard-2s tthe story hat ' dismissed-3p 111
who NP te str F
yes yes no
'who did you hear the story that they dismissed?'
Despite the fact that the second movement crosses what is, on present
assumptions, an impermissible succession of barriers, the sentence is
grammatical.
One JL reviewer [a native speaker - Ed.] had difficulty in accepting the
grammaticality of some of the examples we employ, particularly sentences of
the type in (4), which are central to the argument. In view of this, we have
decided to make the sources and status of our data as clear as we can, so that
readers can assess their reliability for themselves. Although one of the authors
is a native speaker, we thought it best to test our interpretation of the data
more thoroughly by inviting over twenty native speakers to complete a
83
questionnaire containing examples of the kinds of sentence and non-sentence

we discuss below. In each case the results overwhelmingly confirmed the
conclusions obtained by introspection, although it must be said that certain
sentences involving what would be, in English, complex noun-phrase-
constraint violations were found to be low in acceptability. These were
sentences of considerable length and complex internal structure. Sentences
such as (4), however, were universally judged to be grammatical and, equally
importantly, natural. In support of this, it should be said that sentences of
this type have been discussed on several occasions in recent years at the annual
conference on Greek linguistics at the University of Salonica, and indeed this
article was presented as a paper at this conference in the spring of 1985, in
Greek, before an audience of native speakers. On none of these occasions has
any native speaker found fault with the data. Furthermore, examples of
sentences such as (4) can be found quite regularly in magazines and news-
papers, and Professor Theophanopoulou of the Linguistics Department of
the University of Athens was kind enough to show her collection to one of us
and to discuss our ideas in some detail before we put pen to paper. In view of all
this, we are confident that a significant proportion of native speakers of
Greek agree with the data judgments presented below, and further, that
the grammatical examples are of a reasonably natural, colloquial character.
Given that the JL reviewer was a native speaker, however, it must be supposed
that not everyone will agree with our interpretation of the data in this article.
All we can say is that no native speaker that we have asked has yet expressed
such disagreement to us.
The obvious initial response to the grammaticality of (4) is to seek to adjust
the definition of barrier, so that the relevant movements in (2) are excluded
but that in (4) is permitted. One possibility would be to argue that one or
both of lexically governed NP and S do not count as barriers in Greek. This
would immediately solve the problem in (4), but raises problems elsewhere.
Thus if lexically governed NP is not a barrier, it should be the case that (2c)
is grammatical, because the internal NP is governed by the noun perilipsi and
the movement would cross only one barrier. Unfortunately (2C) is ungram-
matical. Similarly, if lexically governed S did not count as a barrier, there
would be no explanation for the ungrammaticality of (2 a), since S is governed
by the verb anarotyese, and only one barrier would be crossed by the
movement of ti to initial position. We could try to salvage this approach by
arguing that only a subset of governing lexical categories can override
barrierhood, and that only certain barriers lose their barrier status when so
governed. Suppose, for example, that only V has this power and only with
respect to NP. There would then still be two barriers in (2 a, c), but only one
barrier in (4), thus giving us the correct results. However, quite apart from
the fact that the character of this 'explanation' is becoming increasingly
ad hoc, the ungrammaticality of (5) presents an immediate problem:
84
(5)
* se ti F eksefrasan [ epikrisi [ tis andiloyias tis t111
L to what L expressed-3p LNP criticism LNP the-gen objection her-gen
no no yes
. I
'to what did they express criticism of her objection?'
On present assumptions the NP governed by eksefrasan is not a barrier. There

is therefore only one barrier and there is no reason why the sentence should
be ungrammatical. In particular, it is clear that N can 'properly govern' the
trace of a displaced PP in accordance with the requirements of the Empty
Category Principle. Thus the sentence in (6) is perfectly well formed:
(6)
[ya pyon ine pseftiko to endhiaferon tis Thatcher t

about whom is false the interest the-gen Thatcher)
'in whom is Thatcher's interest feigned?'
At this point it seems worthwhile to consider the possibility of an alternative

type of explanation that does not involve attempts to parametrize the
definition of barrier in this way. Specifically, we should like to suggest that
the differences between Greek and English with respect to the extractability
of wh-expressions follow from certain independently attested and motivated
differences in NP structure between the two languages.
3. A SOLUTION
Reverting to a standardized definition of the relevant barriers for subjacency,

we assume that NP and S are the principal barriers, and that some degree
of parametric variation must be allowed for with regard to the status of S,
specifically that S may or may not be a barrier, and that if it is, its barrierhood
may be limited to specific contexts (as in the case of 'wh-islands' in English
and, somewhat less restrictively, in Greek).
These assumptions, together with the requirement of binding theory that
wh-traces be 'free' (i.e. not bound by any c-commanding constituent in
argument position), guarantee that movement from English complex NPs
and sentential subjects (assuming the NP-dominating S analysis) will always
violate subjacency. Since there are no non-argument positions in English NPs
analogous to the COMP position in 3, wh-movement will always adjoin
constituents to the clausal non-argument position COMP and will violate
subjacency whenever S is contained within NP. It is our intention to present
evidence that in Greek wh-phrases may be adjoined to a non-argument
position in NP, and that the subjacency violation involving complex noun
phrases exemplified above for English is thereby avoided. Consider first of

all the Greek NPs in (7) and (8):
(7) (a) to vivlio afto
the book this
'this book'
(b) to vivlio tu Chomsky
the book the-gen Chomsky
'Chomsky's book'
(c) i kritiki tu vivliu
the review the-gen book-gen
'the review of the book'
(d) to endhiaferon ya to arthro afto
the interest about the article this
'the interest in this article'
(8) (a) afto to vivlio

this the book
'this book'
(b) tu Chomsky to vivlio
the-gen Chomsky the book
'Chomsky's book'
(c) tu vivliu i kritiki
the-gen book-gen the review
'the review of the book'
(d) ya to arthro afto to endhiaferon
about the article this the interest
'the interest in this article'
In each example of (8) a post-head constituent of the corresponding example

in (7) has been moved to a pre-head position. The effect of the fronting in
each case is to focalize the constituent in question for the purpose of emphasis
or contrast (represented by the italicizing in the English translation of the
examples in (8)). All of this is obviously reminiscent of the fronting of
constituents that takes place in sentences for the purpose of bringing a
particular constituent into prominence. Consider the examples in (g) and
(Io):
(9) (a) edhose to vravio tis Afrodhitis

gave-3s the prize the-gen Aphrodite-gen
'he gave the prize to Aphrodite'
(b) edhose to vravio stin Afrodhiti
gave-3s the prize to-the Aphrodite
(io) (a) tis Afrodhitis edhose to vravio

the-gen Aphrodite-gen gave-3s the prize
86
(b) to vravio edhose tis Afrodhitis

the prize gave-3s the-gen Aphrodite-gen
(c) stin Afrodhiti edhose to vravio
to-the Aphrodite gave-3s the prize
(d) to vravio edhose stin Afrodhiti
the prize gave-3s to-the Aphrodite
Examples (g a, b) show that the indirect object of a verb such as edhose may
be expressed as a noun phrase inflected in the genitive or as a prepositional
phrase introduced by the preposition s(e); (ioa, b) show that either the
genitive indirect object or the direct object may be focalized by fronting, and
(IOc, d) that either the prepositional indirect object or the direct object may
be focalized by fronting. (See Horrocks, I983, for a fuller discussion of the
order of constituents in Modern Greek.) The focalization of constituents
illustrated in (8) and (io) has the following characteristics. First, the process
in question is not 'relation-dependent'; ANY constituent that can appear in
X (NP, PP, S) may also appear in initial position. Secondly, the movements
involved have the appearance of being unbounded, leaving behind a 'gap'
in X. The long-distance nature of the dependency is illustrated in (I I a, b),
for movement from N and VP respectively.
(I I) (a) tu vivliu mu ipes pos dhiavases tin kritiki t

the-gen book-gen me-gen said-2s that read-2s the review
'you told me you read the review of the book'
(b) to vravio mu ipes pos ehoses stin Afrodhiti t
the prize me-gen said-2s that gave-2s to-the Aphrodite
'you told me you gave the prize to Aphrodite'
Further, it is clear that the trace is Case-marked, since there is no question

of Case being assigned directly to these displaced constituents in their
S-structure positions, given the variety of grammatical functions they may
bear. If these properties are indeed critical of wh-movement (cf. Chomsky,
I977, I98 I), and examples such as (io) and (I I b) may reasonably be analysed
as involving the generation of the focalized element in place together with
successive cyclic (COMP-to-COMP) application of this rule (or at any rate
the movement of some wh-like null operator (cf. Chomsky, I982)), there
seems to be no reason why the parallel (8) and (i i a) should not also be
analysed in essentially the same way. In particular, if the examples in (io)
and (i i b) involve adjunction to a non-argument position in S (COMP), there
seems to be no reason to deny that the examples in (8) and (i i a) involve,
in the latter case at least as one step in the derivation, adjunction to an
analogous non-argument position in NP. Indeed the pre-head position in
question cannot be an argument position if the trace, which is evidently to
87
be interpreted as a variable, is to be 'free' in accordance with the requirements

of the binding theory. This would mean that example (i i a) would in fact
involve successive cyclic movement first from a D-structure argument
position (that of 'direct object ')4 to a non-argument position at the beginning
of the NP tin kritiki, then movement to the COMP position of the embedded
S, and finally movement to the COMP position of the matrix clause, as
illustrated in (I2). For the moment we simply assume that the displaced
wh-phrase is adjoined to NP in the conventional way. This, of course, runs
counter to the generally acknowledged constraint, just alluded to, that
adjunction must be to non-arguments. In fact this problem is purely
notational, and a solution is presented in Section 4 below which eliminates
the difficulty by reanalysing the structure of NP in a way which highlights
the parallelism with clauses with respect to focalization and other phenomena
involving apparently unbounded dependencies.5
(I2)
NP (focus) S
COMP S
NP, COMP V
clit v S
COMP S
NP1 COMP/" N
V / NP
NP|.
DET N
N NP.
tu vivliu mu ipes pos dhiavases tin kritiki
One would naturally expect 'overt' wh-movement to apply in the same

general fashion as that supposed for 'covert' wh-movement in examples such
as (ii a) and (I2), and this is indeed the case. Consider the data in (I3):
[41 This assumes a definition of 'subject', 'direct object', etc., that generalizes across S and
NP.
[5] The node S in (I 2) is taken to be an optional projection of S under which are generated
'displaced' constituents that are interpreted as topics or foci, cf. Chomsky (1977).
Following Horrocks (I984), and contrary to standard assumptions of government-binding
theory, cf. Chomsky (I98I, I982), we assume that there really is no subject NP position
in 'subjectless' sentences in a pro-drop language. The phenomenon of pro-drop is analysed
as a kind of 'cliticization' of inverted subjects. Thus any NP is optional if it is lexically
governed by V and if its features are somehow marked on V (either as a clitic pronoun
in the case of objects, or as a verb ending in the case of (inverted) subjects). If any reader
feels (s)he must die for the Projection Principle, an empty NP (the pro of Chomsky, I982)
and a VP node can be mentally inserted into tree diagrams at the appropriate places.
88
(I3) (a) to vivlio tinos

the book who-gen
'whose book'
(b) tinos to vivlio
who-gen the book
'whose book'
(c) ekane ti
did-3s what
'he did what'
(d) ti ekane
what did-3s
'what did he do'
The effect of the movement of tinos from post-head position (I 3 a) to pre-head

position ( 3 b) is exactly the same as that of the movement of ti from post-head
position (I3c) to pre-head position (i3d), namely to convert an 'echo'
question into a straightforward, non-echo, wh-question. As before, we
assume that the wh-phrase is adjoined to NP (in the case of i3 b) or COMP
(in the case of 13d). Consider now the sentences in (14):
(I4) (a) mu ipes pos dhiavases [to vivlio tinos

me-gen said-2s that read-2s the book who-gen
'you told me you read whose book?'
(b) mu ipes pos dhiavases [tin t]
(c) [t[t ps [dhiavases [t [to vivlio t]]]
(d) [tin t]] mu ipes [t pos [dhiavases t]]
(e) [to vivlio tinos] mu ipes [t pos [dhiavases t]]
All the sentences in (I4) are fully grammatical. Example (14a) is the surface
structure which most closely represents the order of elements in D-structure.
In (14b) the genitive phrase tinos has been moved from N and adjoined to
NP, and in (14c) from there (via the COMP position of the embedded clause)
to the COMP position of the matrix S. In (14d) and (14e) we have adjunction
of the whole NP to the COMP position of the matrix S, again via the COMP
position of the embedded clause. In the former, NP has the form it takes in
(14b), with tinos preposed, while in the latter it has the D-structure
configuration retained also in (14a).
Perhaps the most striking example is (I4C), since at first glance it might
be thought that a left-branch modifier has been detached, much as if one could
say in English:
(I5) *Whose did you say that you read book?
89
Obviously tinos here might have moved directly from post-head position in
N, but given the possibility of adjunction to the left of the DET+N
combination, the possibility of further movement from this position cannot
be excluded. Concentrating exclusively on this possibility, it is important to
note that wh-determiners are not detachable in Greek any more than they are
in English. Thus (I6) is ungrammatical:
(i6) *pyon idhes anthropo

which saw-2s person
'which did you see person?'
Clearly tinos in examples such as (14b) is in a different position from that

occupied by pyon in (I 7):
(17) idhes pyon anthropo

saw-2s which person
'you saw which person?'
Notice that pyon appears in the same position as non-interrogative articles

and article-like quantifiers, as we would expect:
(i8) o
the-s
enas anthropos
a person
kanenas
any/no
the-pl
meriki anthropi
some people
kabosi
some
while tinos in (14b) appears in a pre-article position in line with our

assumptions so far about adjunction to the left of NP. Only items that can
appear on left branches in this pre-article position may also appear detached
from NP as sentence-initial foci. Consider the data in (I9), where omission
of the article before the noun produces an ungrammatical string:
90
(i9) (a) afto mu ipes pos dhiavases *(to) vivlio

this me-gen said-2s that read-2s the book
'you told me that you read this book'
(cf. afto *(to) vivlio this the book)
(b) to kokino mu ipes pos aghorases *(to) forema
the red (to) me-gen said-2s that bought-2s the dress
'you told me you bought the red dress'
(cf. to kokino (to) forema the red the dress)
It is important to note that while the demonstrative afto(s) must always

accompany a definite NP (marked by the presence of the definite article), the
pre-nominal article is optional in a phrase such as to kokino (to) forema. It
is clear, however, from (igb) that the article-adjective combination can be
focalized sentence-initially only when the pre-nominal article is present. This
is naturally accounted for if we assume the structures given in (20) for NPs
involving demonstratives and adjectives.
(20) (a)
N NP
XP (fcus NP DET N
XP. NP AP N
DET N A
N XPi to kokino forema

{afto to vivlio
to kokino to forema
Within a definite NP an AP may appear sandwiched between article and N,

but must precede the head (*toforema kokino), cf. (20b). An adjective may,
however, have the same distribution as the demonstrative afto(s), i.e.
post-head in N or pre-head as a focalized sister of NP, if it is provided with
its own article (to forema to kokino, to kokino toforema), cf. (2oa). In other
words only those maximal projections which can appear in X, and so be
governed by a lexical head, are permitted also in a position of focus. In the
cases we are considering, therefore, the positions in question are within N
(a supercategory of N parallel to S in (12)), as in (2oa), or in clause-initial
position in 3, as in (i9), the gap in N in both cases being the result of (covert)
wh-movement.
The question immediately arises, however, of why (I6) should be ungram-
matical, given the possibility of movement to an adjunct position prior to
extraction from NP. The situation is analogous to the movement of subject
wh-phrases in S. If, in the absence of a complementizer, a wh-trace in COMP
may properly govern a wh-trace in subject position (so-called 'antecedent
government') as in (2I):
9I
(2 I)
s .~~~~~~
C.lOMP
NP (coMP) NPi VP
It is not clear why the trace of pyon in adjunct-of-NP position should not
properly govern the trace of pyon in determiner position of (i6), as illustrated
in (22):
(22) e _NP
X DETi N
A
On the assumption that there is no violation of any principle of government

theory, specifically of the Empty Category Principle, the correct explanation
is perhaps the commonly assumed restriction on adjunction that only
maximal projections may be involved either as moved elements or as targets
(cf. Chomsky (I986)). DET, as a lexical category in (22), cannot be
adjoined to NP in the same way as the maximal projection NP is adjoined
to COMP in (2I). That this solution is along the right lines is suggested by
the grammaticality of (23):
(23) [poso] ine [t psilos] o Yannis? (cf. poso psilos)

how-much is tall the John how-much tall
'how tall is John?'
On the face of it, this would appear to involve the displacement of a degree
adverb from a position in AP exactly analogous to that of DET in NP. There
is, however, reason to think that the movement in (23) involves an ADVP
rather than a simple ADV, in view of data of the type illustrated in (24):
(24) (a) [poso poli] ine [t psilos] o Yannis?

how much is tall the John
'how tall is John?'
(b) [[poso poli pyo poli] omorfos] ine o Yannis?
how much more much handsome is the John
'how much more handsome is John?'
The theory of government cannot distinguish between the ungrammatical

(i6) and grammatical examples such as (23) or (24a), but the restriction of
92
adjunction of Xmax discriminates correctly, on the assumption that the

specifier of A is a maximal projection of ADV, as (24a, b) suggest. Notice
that we must assume an adjunct-of-AP position exactly parallel to the
suggested adjunct-of-NP position in order to account for the proper
government of the trace in specifier-of-A position in (23) and (24a):
(25) c AP
ADVPi AP
ADVPi AA
The restriction on extractions from NP is clearly not a matter of government

theory, therefore, but simply a reflexion of the relatively degenerate character
of the determiner system. The effect is to limit extraction (and hence
focalization) to cases where proper government of a trace in argument
position is effected by the head N.
To summarize, while whose in English noun phrases has the same
distribution as other wh-determiners such as which and what (cf. Jackendoff,
1977; Ch. 5), tinos in Greek has a different distribution from that of
wh-determiners such as pyos and it is because of this that tinos can escape
from Greek noun phrases. Let us now consider the internal structure of
English and Greek NPs a little more carefully to see if further evidence in
support of our initial conclusions can be found. First, it is generally agreed
that there are two 'genitive' positions in English noun phrases, an NP slot
where determiners ordinarily appear and a PP slot in N. Very often, though
not necessarily, these positions can be characterized as 'subject' and 'object'
position respectively (cf. the traditional labels 'subjective' and 'objective'
genitive):
(26) The enemy's destruction of the city
It is commonly argued that NP-movement can take place within NPs in

English much as it takes place within sentences (cf. Chomsky, 1970;
Akmajian, 1975; Jackendoff, I977). Thus given a D-structure like (27a),
NP-movement will produce the S-structure (27b), where the NP-trace is
governed but lacks Case, and is bound by a c-commanding argument, as
required.
(27) (a) np destruction the city by the enemy

(b) the city's destruction t by the enemy
The situation in Greek NPs is somewhat different in that it is clear that there
is no genitive NP position distributionally equivalent to the determiner slot
93
in NPs. As we have seen, ANY pre-head genitive, including interrogatives,

must precede the article and not 'replace' it:6
(28) (a) tu Chomsky to vivlio
the-gen Chomsky the book
'Chomsky's book'
(b) tinos to vivlio
who-gen the book
'whose book'
In view of this, we conclude that there is no pre-head argument position in

Greek NPs ('subject of NP'), that ALL types of genitive originate in N in
D-structure and that the movement to initial position is an adjunction
operation and not a substitution. This would contrast with English, where
the only movement permitted is a substitution WITHIN NP involving move-
ment from one argument position to another (object to subject). If the
analysis of Greek NPs offered is correct, it should be the case that NP-
movement of the type exemplified in the English NP in (27 a) is excluded. This
is correctly predicted:
(29) *tis Mariasi apoplanisi ti apo to Yani

the-gen Mary-gen seduction by the John
'Mary's seduction by John'
Secondly, it is important to note that two 'genitive' NPs cannot co-occur

in post-head position in English. Thus, in (30) the 'logical' subject (by the
enemy) may appear alongside the objective genitive (of the city) in ; ost-head
position, but it cannot have genitive form - i.e. the preposition must be by
and not of (cf. 31, which is ungrammatical in the intended sense):
(30) the destruction of the city by the enemy

(31) *the destruction of the city of the enemy
'Subjective' genitives can, however, appear post-verbally introduced by of

provided there is no 'objective' genitive similarly introduced:
(32) the love of God
A 'logical' object that appears post-verbally in a NP such as (32) must be

introduced by for:
(33) the love of God for his people
[6] There are apparent counterexamples of the form:
tinos vivlio
who-gen book
These in fact are exactly parallel to the cases we have already examined and have a quite
different interpretation from English examples like whose book. The Greek example has
a null determiner and means 'some book of whom?' rather than 'the book of whom?'.
94
Assuming that there is also only a single post-head genitival slot available
in Greek NPs, and that there is no pre-head 'subjective' slot at all, it should
follow that, with both 'subjective' and 'objective' genitives originating
post-nominally in N, these should not co-occur in a single NP (either together
in post-head position or with one genitive preceding the head as focus and
the other following). It should also be the case that if 'logical' subject and
'logical' object are both present, one or the other should be of non-genitival
(i.e. prepositional) form. All of this is correctly predicted:
(34) (a) *i kritiki tu Papadhopulu tu erghu

the criticism the-gen Papadopoulos-gen the-gen play-gen
'the criticism of Papadopoulos of the play'
(b) ??? tu Papadhopulu i kritiki tu erghu
the-gen Papadoulos-gen the criticism the-gen play-gen
'the criticism of Papadopoulos of the play'
(c) i kritiki tu Papadhopulu ya to ergho
the criticism the-gen Papadopoulos-gen for the play
'Papadopoulos' criticism of the play'
(d) i kritiki tu erghu apo tom Papadhopulo
the criticismi the-gen play-gen by the Papadoupulos
'Papadopoulos' criticism of the play'
Finally, it is worthwhile repeating the two crucial pieces of evidence

introduced earlier. First, if it were the case that pre-head genitives were in
a position structurally parallel to that occupied by pre-head genitives in
English NPs, there would be no explanation of the fact that non-interrogatives
in this position are necessarily focalized. It is evident that there is no such
contrast in 'corresponding' English pairs with genitives in post-head and
pre-head positions:
(35) the love of God for his people/God's love for his people
It was also observed that the fronting process in Greek NPs is not 'relation-
dependent', in the sense that ANY constituent governed by N in D-structure
may be displaced. This is obviously compatible with a wh-movement analysis,
with focalized elements generated 'in place', but not with an NP-movement
analysis, for obvious reasons to do with structure preservation, Case theory
and binding theory.
We believe, in the light of the evidence introduced above, that there is a
good case for assuming the possibility of wh-movement in Greek NPs (and
APs). An attempt will be made in Section 4 below to formalize the differences
between Greek and English NPs in a way that makes the distinction between
them seem less arbitrary, and which avoids the problem of assuming
95
adjunction to arguments. For the moment, we should like to return to

example (4), repeated here as (36):
(36) [ pyon [ akuses [ ti fimi t oti [ apelisan t 11111

LS whom Sheard-2s L NP the story LS that S dismissed-3p 11111
It should be clear that, if wh-movement is possible within NP, there can now
be THREE successive cyclic movements of pyon, none of which will violate
subjacency. We take the barriers to be S and NP as before, but assume that
adjunction to a constituent does not involve movement outside it; in other
words, that only the higher NP is a barrier to movement in (37):
(37)
[ pyon F akuses F t [ ti fimi [ t oti F apelisan t 111111
- whom s heard-2s L NP NP the story L that L S dismissed-3p / J]
no yes no yes no
3 2
It does, however, seem that in solving one problem we have created another,
because we now have no obvious explanation for the ungrammaticality of
(2a), repeated here as (38):
(38) ti t oti F ekane o Mitsotakis tll ine apistefto 1

LS what LSL L S that LS did-3s the Mitsotakis 111 is incredible ii
'what is that Mitsotakis did incredible?'
Clearly if Greek NPs allow adjunction of wh-phrases there should be nothing

to prevent ti moving three times, with none of the movements violating
subjacency:
(39)
* ti r [ t [ [ t oti F ekane o Mitsotakis tll ine apistefto
L s Lwhat S NP L NP _ that L S did-3s the Mitsotakis / is incredible ii
Iyes no yes no
3 21
'what is that Mitsotakis did incredible?'
The answer to this dilemma has been provided by Koster (I978), who presents
a series of arguments which show quite convincingly that subject sentences
do not have the analysis we have been assuming so far. If NP exclusively
dominates S, there is no good reason why sentential subjects should not
behave like ordinary NPs. Yet in several respects they are anomalous; in
96
particular 'subject sentences' can only appear in sentence-initial position,

and all the following examples are ungrammatical:
(40) (a) *did that John came to your party please you?
(b) *how likely is that John will come to your party?
(c) *although that John came to your party pleased you, it really
annoyed me.
Koster explains these otherwise anomalous factors by arguing that sentential

subjects do not exist. Rather, certain verbs and adjectives are subcategorized
to take sentential complements and necessarily have it as their syntactic
subject. Such clauses may, however, function as topics and be base-generated
in initial position, as are all topics. The restriction to initial position is thus
explained. The gap in subject position in these circumstances, as opposed to
it, is the product of the usual movement to COMP postulated for such
constructions (whether movement of wh- followed by delection, or movement
of a null wh-operator). The existence of a semantic relationship ('predication',
cf. Chomsky, I977) between such a topicalized sentence and the wh-NP (or
null wh-like NP) in COMP is not a problem in view of overt sentence/wh-NP
relations in sentences such as:
(41) John will come to your party, which is a real bore.
Thus a sentence such as (42):
(42) That John will come to your party is likely.
would be analysed by Koster as in (43):
(43) s
s s
COMP S
/P1 COMP NPi VP
that John will come ... is likely
As one would hope, there is a similar constraint on 'sentential subjects' in

Greek. Thus a sentence such as (44) is ungrammatical, though ordinarily there
is no constraint on subject inversion in Greek (as a so-called 'pro-drop'
language):
(44) *ine oti ekane afto o Andreas apistefto

is that did-3s this the Andreas incredible
'it is incredible that Andreas did this'
4 97 LIN 23
More importantly, the assumption that 'sentential subjects' are in fact topics
solves the problem that arose with respect to the ungrammaticality of
(38)/(39). The structure of this sentence may now be represented as in (45):
(45)
s
S (topic) S
COMP COMP S
NPi COMP V NP NP. NP. COMP V NPj AP
ti oti ekane o M. ine apistefto

what that did-3s the M. is incredible
'what is that Mitsotakis did incredible'?
Assuming, as before, that two items cannot appear simultaneously in COMP,

it is clear that ti will have to move on from the COMP position of the S in
topic position. However, given that this S is a topic, there is now no available
COMP for ti to move on to. Consequently sentences such as (2 a)
(= 38/39/45) will always be ungrammatical, but the ungrammaticality has
nothing to do with subjacency.
Thus far we have provided a definition of barrierhood for subjacency which
applies equally well to English and Greek and which, in conjunction with the
differences in NP structure between the two languages, accounts for the
presence or absence of restrictions on extraction from complex NPs. There
remain, however, one or two points of detail to be dealt with, in particular
the ungrammaticality of the following:
(46) (a)
* tinos r to endhiaferon [ ya [ t F ti fili t 1111
LNP who-gen NP' the interest pp for [NP NP the friend Jil]
no no yes no
2 _
'the interest in whose friend'
(b)
[ tinos F i kritiki F t r tu vivliu t

NP who-gen
LNP [P the review
LNP' LNP [P NP
tNPthe-gen
/book-gen
2 li
no yes no
'the review of whose book'
98
Both of the phrases in (46) are, of course, grammatical if tinos is taken as

a modifier of the head of the matrix NP. The problem is to explain the
ungrammaticality that results when tinos is extracted from the embedded NP,
since on the basis of the assumptions made so far there is no subjacency
violation. The simplest solution is to make the 'governing category' of PPs
and genitive NPs (i.e. the minimal NP or S that contains the lexical head that
governs a PP or genitive NP) a barrier. Thus in (46) the two NPs marked
with a prime (') would become barriers and subjacency would be violated.
Similarly in the examples in (47) the S marked with a prime becomes a barrier,
and once again this has the effect of making PPs and genitive NPs islands:
(47) (a)
* tinos r endhiaferese [ ya F t F ti fili t
s who-gen LS be-interested-2s L for [ N the friend 11111
wyes yes no
2I
'whose friend are you interested in?'
(b)
* tinos r edhoses ta lefta [ t r tis filis tl111

LS who-gen LS gave-2s the money NP P the-gen friend-gen
yes yes no
2I
'whose friend did you give the money to?'
It would be possible to include the case of wh-islands in this account of the

occasional barrierhood of NP and S, by saying that if a lexical head governs
a PP, a genitive NP, or an interrogative wh-phrase, the governing category
of that phrase (the minimal NP or S that contains the lexical head that governs
it) is a barrier; cf. the effect of this on the examples (2 a) and (3) discussed
earlier.
In passing we note the possibility of seeking to motivate the constraints
on movement that follow from this in terms of the relative semantic
'complexity' of the items from which extraction takes place. Thus PPs,
genitive NPs and interrogative expressions all carry more information than
simple subject or direct object NPs. We might also reasonably expect
languages to vary with regard to which of the items subcategorized, and
therefore governed, by a lexical head they treat as 'islands'. We will not,
however, explore this suggestion in any detail in the present paper (though
see the Appendix).
99 4-2
4. A FORMALIZATION
It remains for us to attempt to provide an explanation of the differences in

NP structure between Greek and English that have been investigated above
in Section 3. In particular we wish to concentrate on the question of why
English allows NP-movement in NP while Greek allows wh-movement;
equivalently one might ask why the pre-head target position in English NPs
is an argument position (subject) while the pre-head target position in Greek
NPs is a non-argument position.=
Suppose S is analysed as INFL (I), and S as COMP (C) (cf. Chomsky, I986).
Sentences could now be represented schematically as in (48):
(48) =(_
C (=S)
(X) C
COMP I (= S)
N I
INFL V VP)
(ADV) V
V X
The X-position in C is where wh-phrases are moved to. The important thing
to note here is that the maximal projection of V, V, is contained within two
superordinate maximal projections, I and C. It is assumed in government-
binding theory that V is ALWAYS contained in such a fashion and that
apparent 'VP complements' are in fact clausal (cf. Chomsky, I981: 25 ff.).
Thus V is never involved in the subcategorization of lexical heads._
Suppose now that, contrary to standard assumptions, N is like V in that
it too can never be an_ 'argument' of a lexical head, or indeed the subject of
a sentence, and that N must be contained within a superordinate category
just as V must be, before it can assume such a role. Let us assume that N
appears as a complement of DET and that DET is the category that appears
in 'argument' positions. In support of this move we might cite John Lyons,
who says I
[7] We are grateful to Nigel Vincent for bringing this reference to our attention. A recent general
discussion of heads is provided by Zwicky (I985) and by Hudson (this volume). Szabolcsi
(1985) has proposed a non-argument position in Hungarian NPs, analogous to the X in
DET in (51), to account for certain extraction phenomena in that language.
100
Noun-phrases in English, such as the boy or my friend, are generally

regarded as endocentric, the noun being taken as the head and the article
or determiner as the modifier. This is obviously incorrect, as far as
countable common nouns such as boy or friend are concerned: the boy or
my friend are not syntactically equivalent to boy or friend (i.e. they are not
intersubstitutable throughout the grammatically well-formed sentences of
English). (I977: 392)
In fact, they are distributionally equivalent to personal pronouns and various

deictic or interrogative expressions, many of which can also appear in
'determiner position' (cf. he wants this/that (book), she wants some (attention),
what/which (book) does he want?, whose (book) is this?, etc.). Similar
observations apply to Greek mutatis mutandis. We find, for example, a variety
of 'pronouns' which typically function also as determiners (cf. ti/pyo (vivlio)
theli = 'what (-sort-of)/which (book) does-he-want?', poso (fai) efaye =
'how-much (food) did-he-eat?', idhe merika (vivlia' = 'he-saw some (books) ',
kapyos (ipalilos) irthe= 'some (clerk) came', etc.). That determiners might
plausibly be regarded as the heads of the constituents containing them is a
view endorsed by Hudson (I984: 90 and this volume).
Several advantages follow directly from the reanalysis which we are
proposing. For example, predicate nominals in Greek necessarily lack a
determiner; since these expressions are clearly non-referential (attributive) it
is convenient to treat these as N rather than DET. It also provides a natural
analysis of 'headless' relatives such as:
(49) idha osus irthan

saw-Is as-many-as (acc.) came-3p1
'I saw all those who came'
Here the case of the relative pronoun in accusative, as determined by the main
verb idha, even though it is in some sense the subject of the verb of the relative
clause. This means that, if we analyse such expressions as genuinely
'headless', some highly ad hoc manipulation of the usual Case-marking
mechanisms will be required or, if we assume that some sort of movement
rule has raised the wh-phrase into the empty (phrasal) head position, that
wh-movement can be to a 0-position, contrary to all standard assumptions
about Move a. Given our analysis of 'noun phrases' the problem is very
neatly solved, as (50) makes clear:
IOI
7
(50)
V
V ih
V DET
DET C
DET DET1 C
DET COMP I
] ~ ~~~DT1 V
idha osus irthan
Here the ordinary Case-marking mechanism assigns accusative Case to the

object of idha, and (covert) wh-movement creates a subject gap in S (= I) in
the conventional way. We may assume that no NP (DET) can exhibit two
overt wh-expressions simultaneously (one in the DET position and one in the
specifier of COMP position), so that the gap-creating movement indicated
can have no visible surface realization in these cases. It is, of course, routine
that a certain choice of specifier should entail a particular option in the
COMP of an embedded clause within the same NP (DET). For example tosos
requires osos (cf. idha tosus anthropus osus idhes esi = 'I-saw as-many people
as you-saw (yourself)'), just as osos in the example above requires zero.
The proposed structure, then, for 'determiner phrases' is given in (5I):
(51)
DET (= NP)
(X) DET
DET N
(A) N
N X
The effect of this innovation is to make what are traditionally thought of as

Ns into maximal projections (Ns), but maximal projections that have to be
embedded in another maximal projection before they can function as subjects,
objects, etc. Putting the matter slightly differently, what makes a maximal
102
projection of N into a referring expression that can function as an argument

is its inclusion in a 'determiner phrase'. The role of X in DET will be
considered in a moment.
Let us now compare the structure of 'sentences' (incorporating the
innovation involving DET) with the structure of 'noun phrases':
(52)
(X) C Greek (X) DET
co i ET
Greekad English s
DET I(A N
INF V
ADV) V
In both English and Greek N and V have the same basic 'geometry'. We also
assume that V is contained within I and C in both languages,' and that N
is contained within DET in both languages. The crucial difference between
Greek and English is that_in the latter DET corresponds to I, while in the
former it corresponds to C. Everything now follows automatically. Thus in
English 'noun phrases' X in DET can only be DET, because this is a 'subject'
position parallel to that of DET in I. It is natural that 'NP-movement' should
apply in this domain taking a DET from N and moving it to the vacant
'subject' position. Notice too the parallelism between INFL and DET; both
have a role to play in determining the case of the 'subject'. Thus INFL, if
marked [+TENSE], requires the subject to be nominative, while DET, if
marked [POSS], requires its subject to be genitive. Both INFL and DET have
lexical and abstract representatives, therefore; in the former case auxiliary
verbs and [ TENSE], and in the latter ordinary articles and [POSS]. In Greek
on the other hand X in DET can naturally be anything that can also appear
in N; it is a non-argument position exactly like that of X in C, and
wh-movement naturally takes place within this domain. Notice that in the
Greek case there is no relationshipbetween DET and X, just as there is no
relationship between COMP and X; neither the case nor even the category
of X is determined by DET or COMP. There is, however, a relationship
[8] At least for 'configurational' sentences in Greek. Quite what should be done for 'inverted'
sentences is a complex matter that cannot be resolved here. For some discussion see
Horrocks (I983) and Philippaki-Warburton (I985).
103
between COMP and INFL and V in that certain complementizers are

regularly associated with finiteness or non-finiteness, with corresponding
consequences for verbal morphology. This relationship is paralleled in 'noun
phrases', whether DET is parallel to COMP (Greek) or INFL (English), in
the sense that the morphology of the head noun is determined by the features
of DET (the noun has to agree with the article in number, gender and case).9
If we now assume that C and DET are the principal barriers for subjacency,
and that the governing categories (i.e. I and, in Greek, N, since this, rather
than DET, is the minimal maximal projection containing the arguments of
N) of certain items in X may be treated as barriers in the circumstances
already mentioned, the correct predictions about extractability of wh-
expressions in Greek and English follow straightforwardly from the inter-
action of subjacency with the two different interpretations of DET outlined
above. Notice that now we have dispensed with the notion of adjunction of
wh to NP, we have eliminated the problem that arose earlier. 'Adjunction'
is no longer to an argument. Articles in Greek 'noun phrases' are structurally
parallel to complementizers in Greek 'sentences'; both are heads of maximal
projections into which the maximal projections of N and INFL have to be
embedded before these can function as arguments, and wh-movement is now
interpreted as movement into the specifier slot of these heads.
It remains to offer an account of what it is that determines the choice
languages make with respect to the interpretation of X in DET as an
argument or non-argument position. The most natural explanation derives
from Case theory, in particular from whether or not nouns in a given language
can Case-mark NP complements. If we can properly distinguish between wh-t
and NP-t on the grounds of presence or absence of Case-marking, it is natural
that an NP moved out of N in Greek will be interpreted as leaving behind
a wh-t, because Greek nouns not only properly govern their NP comple-
ments, they also assign genitive Case to them. The destination of the moved
constituent will therefore be interpreted as a non-argument position. English
nouns on the other hand do not have the power to assign Case. Thus even
though general principles of X-theory allow NP complements to nouns in
D-structure, it will be necessary for such NPs to move if they are to acquire
Case (as all lexical NPs must to escape the Case filter). Obviously movement
in this instance must be to a position that is interpreted as an argument
position, since only these positions are associated with Case-marking, and the
trace that is left behind will be Caseless. The interpretation of X in DET thus
depends very largely on the properties of the traces with which constituents
moved to this position are associated. If X is interpreted as a non-argument
position, as when associated with Case-marked traces, it is natural that
[9] The relationship between COMP and INFL and V is 'transitive' in the sense that COMP
and V are associated as much as INFL and V are. In the circumstances, therefore, it is
not surprising that there should be a relationship between the two members of the chain
DET-N whichever interpretation of DET is selected.
104
constituents other than NP should be permitted to move there. If it is

interpreted as an argument position (that of subject), as when associated with
a Caseless trace, it is natural that constituents other than NP should NOT be
permitted to move there. It is also natural that lexical NPs should be
base-generated in this position, just as they are in subject position in
sentences. It is worth noting finally that where no movement is involved,
quantifiers and wh-expressions can appear in pre-article position in English
too. Consider the examples in (53):
(53) (a) all the problems.

(b) what the hell?
(c) what a disaster!
The main conclusions of this paper are as follows. First, that the principle
of subjacency is not subject to major parametric variation with respect to the
choice of barriers, and that the difference between Greek and English in the
matter of extraction from 'noun phrases' follows from a difference in 'noun
phrase' structure. This conclusion is a vindication of the strategy adopted in
Horrocks (I984), where the set of differences between Greek and English that
would typically be discussed under the heading of the 'pro-drop parameter'
were accounted for not in terms of parametric variation within government
theory but in terms of the interaction of a uniform definition of proper
government and certain differences in sentence structure between the two
languages. Very often it is possible to maintain the view that principles of
subtheories of universal grammar hold in substantially the same way across
languages, provided that due attention is paid to evidence for differences in
the internal structure of constituents in the languages concerned. Universal,
or near-universal, principles can then be shown to interact with these different
structures to give different results. Since the differences in syntactic structure
in question have to be allowed for within X-theory independently, we avoid
needless proliferation of parametric variation elsewhere and so secure a more
restrictive theory of universal grammar. The second conclusion is that the
identity, or near-identity, of distribution between 'clauses' and 'noun
phrases' across languages now has a clear formal parallel in terms of the
INTERNAL structure of the elements concerned. Finally, if it is reasonable to
regard the maximal projection of N as a category which has universally to
be included in DET,10 and also to assumed that DET may be interpreted as
parallel either to C or I, as we have suggested, then the consideration of
further evidence concerning the factors which determine the choice languages
make in this respect may well prove to be a fruitful new line of investigation
into the organization of the grammars of natural languages.
[io] There are, of course, languages which lack articles as traditionally defined, Latin and
Russian for example. None of these, however, lacks demonstratives or quantifiers, and it
is a commonplace that definite articles frequently derive historically from demonstratives,
I05
APPENDIX
One JL reviewer suggested that our analysis of 'noun phrases' predicts that sentences such as
(54) will be grammatical.
(54) *PYi [kseris [tin nosokoma [pu [filisan t till

who-nom pl know-2s the-acc nurse-acc that kissed-3pI
'who do you know the nurse that (they) kissed?'
The reasons for the ungrammaticality of this, and other sentences involving similar extractions
from relative clauses, have nothing to do with phrase structure, but involve a general restriction
on multiple dependencies into a single constituent discussed in Horrocks (I983). The only
exception to this is illustrated in example (3) above, where a constituent question is contained
within a relative clause. More generally, a focalized constituent may appear within the scope
of a topicalized constituent in a more peripheral position
(55) to vivlio, tu Aristoteli mu ipes pos to edhoses

the book, to-the Aristotle to-me you-said that it you-gave
'As for the book, you told me you gave it to Aristotle'
It is not clear that the problems raised by these data have a wholly satisfactory solution within
the 'barriers' approach adopted within GB theory, since it is not merely cases where an
interrogative expression has been extracted from a relative clause that are ungrammatical but
also cases where a second relative element has been moved out, as the NP (DET) (56) makes
clear:
(56) *i arosti pu kseris tin nosokoma pu filisan

the-nom-pl patients that know-2s the-acc nurse that kissed-3pI
'the patients that you know the nurse that (they) kissed'
What is needed, then, is a formulation of barrierhood which identifies S (= I) as a barrier

whenever the preceding C contains a relative wh-phrase (overt or covert) or when the preceding
C contains an interrogative wh-phrase and the second wh-phrase to be extracted is itself
interrogative. This obviously inelegant account of the facts can be significantly improved upon
if topicalizations (including relative clause formation) and focalizations (including constituent
question formation) are distinguished in some way. We can then say that a focalization is
permitted within the scope of a topicalization, but that no other type of 'multiple' dependency
is allowed. See Horrocks (I983) for a tentative, and partial, solution along these lines.
The same JL reviewer also suggested that the complements of locative adverbs and adjectives
are 'extractable' in much the same way as the complements of nouns, but that the explanation
we offer of extraction from Greek NPs (DET) in terms of Case theory does not generalize
satisfactorily to these other cases. To give an example, the phrase iperijanos ya to yo tu (= 'proud
for the son of-him'), allows the fronting (ya to yo tu iperifanos) and the extraction (ya to yo
tu itan iperifanos = 'for the son of-him he-was proud') of the PP complement. Clearly, given
that adjectives in Greek (unlike nouns) cannot assign Case to a complement NP (DET), we might
expect NP (DET) movement to a 'subject' position in the adjective phrase as an alternative to
the appearance of a governing, and Case-assigning, preposition (much as there is NP (DET)
as indefinite articles derive from the numeral 'one'. The notation DET is therefore to be
interpreted generally, so as to allow not only for articles but also for demonstratives,
quantifiers, interrogative adjectives and so on to appear in the head position where relevant.
Where 'noun phrases' refer but lack overt specification we may suppose that DET is simply
left empty.
io6
movement in English NPs (DET) as an alternative to of-insertion). Since, however, adjective

phrases in Greek, as in English, lack a subject position to which Case is assigned, this option
is not in fact available. (The reason why subjects are peculiar to NP (DET) (at least in English)
and S (I) will be dealt with in a moment.) Rather mysteriously, the reviewer nevertheless suggests
that the permitted reordering and extraction of the complement following preposition insertion
must correspond to NP (DET) movement and not to wh-movement. This can only mean that
the reviewer takes the inserted preposition in these cases to be some kind of adjunct to NP
(DET), so that the complement to the adjective, a opposed to the 'complement' of the inserted
preposition, actually remains a Caseless NP (DET) (because adjectives do not assign Case). The
structure assumed is presumably as below:
(57)
A
A
A NP (DET)
[-Case]
P NP (DET)
[+ Case]
The trace left behind by movement is therefore Caseless, and so cannot be a variable (i.e. a
Case-marked trace left by wh-movement) but must be the trace of NP (DET) movement.
Even if we go along with the (questionable) assumptions concerning the categorial status of
the complement after preposition insertion, it is clear that NP (DET) movement can only be
involved if there is a (#) A-position within adjective phrases corresponding to the subject position
within sentences and 'noun phrases'. If there is no such position, and clearly there is not, the
movement involved in these cases must be an adjunction (or at least a movement to a A-position)
and not a substitution, and so cannot be NP (DET) movement. And if it is the case that such
adjunctions must leave a Case-marked trace, as standardly assumed, it follows that the reviewer's
assumptions about the categorial effects of preposition insertion are problematical. Given that
there are certain categories that cannot assign Case to their complements, it is surely simpler
to allow NP (DET) complements in D-structure only to that subset of these categories whose
maximal projections (or the categories containing whose maximal projections) have a 'subject'
position for the NP (DET) to move to in order to be Case-marked, and require all other such
categories to take PP complements directly. This avoids the obvious nonsense of having to treat
clear cases of focalization or topicalization as involving NP (DET) movement rather than
wh-movement simply because dubious assumptions about the nature of preposition insertion
result in the appearance of Caseless traces.
It remains to explain why subject positions are available only in NP (DET) (in English at least)
and S (I). The solution has in fact already been hinted at in the discussion of examples (2l)-(25).
DET and COMP are 'defective' categories in the sense that there is no 'natural' specifier of
the head in X corresponding to A in N, ADV in V, DEG in A or ADV in P. The specifier slot
is therefore vacant as a potential landing-site for moved constituents. In the case of T, however,
it is natural that thespecifier here should 'specify' the verbal inflexion; this is the essential role
of a subject NP (DET). Naturally, if this is a 6-position, it will be empty at D-structure and
so will also be available as a potential landing-site for a moved constituent. The crucial difference,
of course, between the specifier positions of DET and C on the one hand and that of I on the
other is that only the latter is automatically an A-position. Movement to subject position is
therefore different in kind from movement to the X position in COMP. As far as movement
to the X position in DET is concerned, everything depends, as explained in the text, on whether
this is treated as analogous to the NP (DET) specifier slot in I or the X specifier slot in C the
choice depends, as we have seen, on whether or not nouns can assign Case to their NP (DET)
complements. If they can, then X in DiET is parallel to the X position in C, otherwise it is parallel
to the subject position in T. This follows automatically from the assumption that Case-marked
107
traces are variables (the product of wh-movement) and Caseless traces anaphors (the product
of NP (DET) movement.
If they can, then X in DET is parallel to the X position in C, otherwise it is parallel to the subject
position in I. This follows automatically from the assumption that Case-marked traces are
variables (the product of wh-movement) and Caseless traces anaphors (the product of NP (DET)
movement.
Thus, DET as a specifier is basically unique to S (I) just as A is to N and ADV is to V; DET
may, however, take a DET specifier 'by analogy' with I, because its specifier slot is 'free' to
be interpreted in this way. No other category (apart from C) lacks a 'natural' specifier, so no
other category can ordinarily have a subject position 'by analogy' with I (the case of so-called
'small clauses' isa possible exception, the reasons for which cannot be investigated here). The
vacant slot in C cannot, of course, be interpreted as an A-position, because the subject
argument' is already provided for; it must, therefore, be an A-position. The specifier slot in
DET is, of course, also 'free' to be interpreted as parallel to X in C (provided the items which
move there leave Case-marked traces).
Since all categories apart from COMP and DET have 'natural' specifiers, it also follows that
leftwards displacement of the complements of their heads involves adjunction rather than
movement to a 'vacant' X specifier position. Such movements will therefore necessarily be
instances of wh-movement rather than of NP (DET) movement. We may take it that they are
in some sense 'parasitic' on the more or less parallel movement of wh-phrases to a A-position
in NP (DET) and are therefore possible in Greek but not in English, which interprets NP (DET)
as analogous to I.
REFERENCES
Akmajian, A. (I975). More evidence for the NP cycle. LIn 6. I I5-I29.

Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalisation. In Jacobs, R., Rosenbaum, P. (eds), Readings
in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn. I84-22 I.
Chomsky, N. (1972). Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton. 62-1 19.
Chomsky, N. (I977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T. & Akmajian, A. (eds),
Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press. 71-132.
Chomsky, N. (I980). On binding. LIn II. I-46.
Chomsky, N. (I98I). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (I982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (I986). Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Gazdar, G., Pullum, G. K., Klein, E. & Sag, I. (I985). Generalized phrase structure grammar.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Horrocks, G. C. (I983). The order of constituents in Modern Greek. In Gazdar, G., Klein, E.
& Pullum, G. K. (eds). Order, concord and constituency. Dordrecht: Foris. 95-I I I.
Horrocks, G. C. (I984). The lexical head constraint, X-theory and the pro-drop parameter. In
de Geest, W., Putseys, Y. (eds). Sentential complementation. Dordrecht: Foris. 117-125.
Jackendoff, R. (I977). X-syntax: 'a study of phrase structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Koster, J. (I978). Why subject sentences don't exist. In Keyser, S. J. (ed), (1978). Recent
transformational studies in European languages. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 53-64.
Lyons, J. (I977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Philippaki-Warburton, I. (I985). Word order in Modern Greek. Transactions of the Philological
Society, 113-143.
Radford, A. (I98I). Transformational syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rizzi, L. (1978). Violations of the wh-island constraint in Italian and the subjacency condition.
In Dubisson, C., Lightfoot, D. & Morin, Y. C. (eds), Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics,
II.
Rizzi, L. (I982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.

Szabolcsi, A. (I985). The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3. 89-102.
van Riemsdijk, H. & Williams, E. (I986). Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge,
Mass. & London: MIT Press.
Zwicky, A. (I985). Heads. JL 21. 1-29.
io8

Geoffrey e Stravou 1987

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Geoffrey e Stravou 1987

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Bounding Theory and Greek Syntax: Evidence for wh-Movement in NP

Author(s): Geoffrey Horrocks and Melita Stavrou

Bounding theory and Greek syntax: evidence for

St John's College, Cambridge and University of Crete

(Received 2 July I986)

It is a standard assumption of government-binding theory that the relation-

* John seems [ that it is certain [S t to like chips]]

*[S what [S do you wonder [S who [S t leaked t]]]]

*[S what [S is [NP[S t that [S Leon did t ]]] incredible]l

2. THE DATA AND THE PROBLEMS

Consider first of all the ungrammatical strings in (2):

'what do you wonder who said?'

* ti t oti L ekane o Mitsotakis t ine apistefto

what is that Mitsotakis did incredible?'

stis isiyisis tu Andrea

'the summary of the objections was published yesterday to Andreas' proposals'

Example (2 a) is ungrammatical if we assume, as in the case of the English

*ti pyos ipe?

aftos ine o politikos [ 0 pu [ dhen gzerume pyos dhorodhokise t t

'this is the politician that we do not know who bribed'

'who did you hear the story that they dismissed?'

questionnaire containing examples of the kinds of sentence and non-sentence

'to what did they express criticism of her objection?'

On present assumptions the NP governed by eksefrasan is not a barrier. There

[ya pyon ine pseftiko to endhiaferon tis Thatcher t

'in whom is Thatcher's interest feigned?'

At this point it seems worthwhile to consider the possibility of an alternative

Reverting to a standardized definition of the relevant barriers for subjacency,

phrases exemplified above for English is thereby avoided. Consider first of

(8) (a) afto to vivlio

In each example of (8) a post-head constituent of the corresponding example

(9) (a) edhose to vravio tis Afrodhitis

(io) (a) tis Afrodhitis edhose to vravio

(b) to vravio edhose tis Afrodhitis

(I I) (a) tu vivliu mu ipes pos dhiavases tin kritiki t

Further, it is clear that the trace is Case-marked, since there is no question

be interpreted as a variable, is to be 'free' in accordance with the requirements

tu vivliu mu ipes pos dhiavases tin kritiki

One would naturally expect 'overt' wh-movement to apply in the same

(I3) (a) to vivlio tinos

The effect of the movement of tinos from post-head position (I 3 a) to pre-head

(I4) (a) mu ipes pos dhiavases [to vivlio tinos

(b) mu ipes pos dhiavases [tin t]

(c) [t[t ps [dhiavases [t [to vivlio t]]]

(d) [tin t]] mu ipes [t pos [dhiavases t]]

(e) [to vivlio tinos] mu ipes [t pos [dhiavases t]]

(I5) *Whose did you say that you read book?

(i6) *pyon idhes anthropo

Clearly tinos in examples such as (14b) is in a different position from that

(17) idhes pyon anthropo

Notice that pyon appears in the same position as non-interrogative articles

while tinos in (14b) appears in a pre-article position in line with our

(i9) (a) afto mu ipes pos dhiavases *(to) vivlio

It is important to note that while the demonstrative afto(s) must always

N XPi to kokino forema

Within a definite NP an AP may appear sandwiched between article and N,

On the assumption that there is no violation of any principle of government

(23) [poso] ine [t psilos] o Yannis? (cf. poso psilos)

(24) (a) [poso poli] ine [t psilos] o Yannis?

The theory of government cannot distinguish between the ungrammatical

adjunction of Xmax discriminates correctly, on the assumption that the

The restriction on extractions from NP is clearly not a matter of government

(26) The enemy's destruction of the city

It is commonly argued that NP-movement can take place within NPs in