Cover not available
Part of
Non-canonical Control in a Cross-linguistic Perspective
Edited by Anne Mucha, Jutta M. Hartmann and Beata Trawiński
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 270] 2021
► pp. 15–34

Backward control, long distance agree, nominative case and TP/CP transparency

| Humboldt Universität zu Berlin | Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS)
| University of Crete
In this paper, we revisit the evidence that what has been analyzed as Backward Control in Greek is just another instance of Long Distance Agree. Through the formation of such long distance chains, Greek allows non-local assignment of nominative. We further argue that long distance chains come in two versions, obligatory ones and optional ones; the former involve uninterpretable T in the embedded clause, while the latter involve the formation of a chain between matrix T and embedded T with interpretable features across a CP phase boundary, which can be suspended. We finally attempt an explanation for the observation that [+Perfective] Aspect may disallow long distance chain formation in Greek.
Article outline
  • 1.Aims and goals
  • 2.Control and raising in Greek
    • 2.1BC
    • 2.2LDA
  • 3.An analysis of LDA
  • 4.LDA disrupted
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 17 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.270.01ale
References (46)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. Parametrizing Agr: Word order, V- movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Raising without infinitives and the nature of Agreement. In Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen & Peter Norquest (eds), 14–26. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. Rethinking the nature of nominative case. In Syntactic Structure and its Consequences III. Inside Syntax, András Bárány, Theresa Biberauer, Jamie Douglas & Sten Vikner (eds). Berlin: Language Science Press.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Iordăchioaia, Gianina & Marchis, Mihaela. 2010. No objection to Backward Control. In Movement Theory of Control [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 154], Norbert Hornstein & Masha Polinsky (eds), 89–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Iordachioaia, Gianina & Marchis, Mihaela. 2012. In support of Long Distance Agree. In Local Modeling of Non-local Dependencies in Syntax, Artemis Alexiadou, Gereon Müller & Tibor Kiss (eds), 85–110. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Case. Its Principles and Parameters. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar. 2019. pro as a minimal nP. Towards a unified approach to pro-drop. Linguistic Inquiry 50: 487–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 757–807. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Phi Theory: Phi-features across Modules and Interfaces, Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds), 295–328. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Börjesson, Kristin & Müller, Gereon. 2019. Long Distance Agreement and locality: A reprojection approach. In Agree to Agree: Agreement in the Minimalist Programme, Peter Smith, Johannes Mursell & Katharina Hartmann (eds), 225–265. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki & Diercks, Michael. 2013. Parameterizing case and activity: Hyper-raising in Bantu. In Proceedings of NELS 40, Seda Kan, Claire Moore-Cantwell & Robert Staubs (eds), 99–118. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Christopoulos, Christos & Petrosino, Roberto. 2018. Conditioning Greek root allomorphy without spans. In Proceedings of the 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Wm. G. Bennett, Lindsay Hracs & Dennis Ryan Storoshenko (eds), 151–160. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2010. Localism and Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2007. Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro: An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(4): 691–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2009. On the temporal properties of mood: The subjunctive revisited. Lingua 119: 1883–1908. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halpert, Claire. 2016. Raising parameters. In Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Kyeong-min Kim, Pocholo Umbal, Trevor Block, Queenie Chan, Tanie Chen, Kelli Finney, Mara Katz, Sophie Nickel-Thompson & Lisa Shorten (eds), 186–195. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little Pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 533–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 1993. On nominative case assignment and a few related things. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 175–198.Google Scholar
Kapetangianni, Konstantia & Seely, T. Daniel. 2007. Control in Modern Greek: It’s another good move. In New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, William Davies & Stanley Dubinsky (eds), 133–157. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2015. How much context is enough? Two cases of span-conditioned allomorphy. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 273–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2017. Structure removal: An argument for feature-driven Merge. Glossa 2(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2004. Derivations without the activity condition. In Perspectives on Phases [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49], Martha McGinnis & Norvin Richards (eds), 287–310. Cambridge MA: MIT.Google Scholar
van Oostendorp, Mark. 2012. Stress as a proclitic in Modern Greek. Lingua 122: 1165–1181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ordóñez, Francisco. 2018. Verbal complex formation and overt subjects in infinitivals in Spanish. In Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences, Ángel Gallego & Roger Martin (eds), 34–57. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2016. Exfoliation: Towards a derivational theory of clause size. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101], Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds), 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1990. The analysis of the verb group in Modern Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics 11: 119–138.Google Scholar
Philippaki-Warburton, Irene & Veloudis, Janis. 1984. The subjunctive in complement clauses. Studies in Greek Linguistics 5: 87–104.Google Scholar
Philippaki, Irene & Catsimali, Georgia. 1999. On control in Greek. Studies in Greek Syntax, Artemis Alexiadou, Geoffrey Horrocks & Melita Stavrou (eds), 153–168. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Masha & Potsdam, Eric. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9(2): 171–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its Failures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea & Richards, Norvin. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 565–599. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivero, Maria. 1994. The structure of the clause and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 63–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roussou, Anna. 2009. In the mood for Control. Lingua 119: 1811–1836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Selecting complementizers. Lingua 120: 582–603. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spyropoulos, Vasilis. 2007. Finiteness and control in Greek. In New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, William Davies & Stanley Dubinsky (eds), 159–183. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spyropoulos, Vasilis & Revithiadou, Anthi. 2008. The morphology of past in Greek. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Meeting of Greek Linguistics, Thessaloniki.
Terzi, Arhonto. 1992. PRO in Finite Clauses: A Study of the Inflectional Heads of the Balkan Languages. PhD dissertation, CUNY.Google Scholar
Todorović, Neda & Wurmbrand, Susi. 2020. Finiteness across domains. In Current Developments in Slavic Linguistics – Twenty Years After, Teodora Radeva-Bork & Peter Kosta (eds), 47–66. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Tsakali, Vina, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Alexiadou, Artemis. 2017. A new pattern of CP transparency: Implications for the analysis of Backward Control. Talk presented at the GLOW 40, Leiden.
Tsoulas, George. 1993. Remarks on the structure and the interpretation of na-clauses. Studies in Greek Linguistics 14: 191–206.Google Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1994. Varieties of Raising and the Feature-based Bare Phrase Structure Theory [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 7]. Cambridge MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Varlokosta, Spyridoula. 1994. Issues on Modern Greek Sentential Complementation. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. The Merge condition: A syntactic approach to selection. In Minimalism and Beyond. Radicalizing the Interfaces [Language Faculty and Beyond 11], Peter Kosta, Steven Franks, Teodora Radev-Bork & Lilia Schürcks (eds), 139–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Landau, Idan
2024. Noncanonical Obligatory Control. Language and Linguistics Compass 18:3 DOI logo
Alexiadou, Artemis
2022. Obligatory subjects and the SVO/SOV debate. Theoretical Linguistics 48:1-2 ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.