Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 1293–1350 | Cite as

Middle Voice and reflexive interpretations: afto-prefixation in Greek

  • Giorgos Spathas
  • Artemis Alexiadou
  • Florian Schäfer
Article

Abstract

This paper investigates in detail the properties of a particular morphological reflexivization strategy in Greek, named afto-prefixation. The basic building blocks of afto-prefixation are the prefix afto-, shown to be an anti-assistive intensifier, and Middle Voice, a non-active syntactic Voice that gives rise to an existential interpretation of the implicit external argument, like the canonical Passive, but exhibits no Disjoint Reference Effects, unlike the Passive. The reflexive interpretation of afto-prefixation is the result of semantically composing these two elements. We argue that neither the prefix nor non-active morphology is a reflexivizer, i.e. neither imposes identity between two arguments of the predicate. The results of our analysis are rather surprising to the extent that they show that there exist reflexivization strategies that involve no reflexivization at all. We show that Voice and the class of intensifiers are integral elements of certain reflexivization strategies and demonstrate how and why they interact compositionally in deriving reflexive interpretations. This interaction points towards an account of both anaphoric and morphological reflexivization strategies that depends crucially on properties of predicates (rather than anaphors), and is crucially based on a dissociation of intensification from reflexivization.

Keywords

Reflexivization Middle Voice Passive Voice Disjoint reference Intensification Binding Theory Implicit argument 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Elena Anagnostopoulou, Winnie Lechner, Jakub Dotlačil, Martin Haspelmath, Gereon Müller, as well as three anonymous reviewers for Natural Language and Linguistic Theory for insightful comments and suggestions. This work was supported by a DFG grant to the project B6 ‘Underspecification in Voice systems and the syntax-morphology interface’, as part of the Collaborative Research Center 732 Incremental Specification in Context at the University of Stuttgart.

References

  1. Adger, David, and George Tsoulas. 2000. Aspect and lower VP adverbials. In Adverbs and adjunction, eds. Artemis Alexiadou and Peter Svenonius, 1–19. Potsdam: Linguistics in Potsdam. Google Scholar
  2. Ahn, Byron. 2010. More than just emphatic reflexives themselves: Their syntax, semantics and prosody. Master’s Thesis. UCLA. Google Scholar
  3. Ahn, Byron. 2012. External argument focus and reflexive syntax. Coyote Papers 20. Google Scholar
  4. Alexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb placement: A case study in antisymmetric syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2013. Where is non-active morphology? In Proceedings of the 20th conference on Head-driven phrase structure grammar. CSLI publications, 244–262. Google Scholar
  6. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2014. Roots in transitivity alternations: afto/auto reflexives. In The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, and Florian Schäfer. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parametrizing Agr: Word order, verb-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16(3): 491–539. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1999. Tests for unaccusativity in a language without tests for unaccusativity. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Greek Linguistics, 23–31. Google Scholar
  9. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Edit Doron. 2012. The syntactic construction of two non-active Voices: Passive and middle. Journal of Linguistics 48: 1–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Florian Schäfer. 2014. Towards a non-uniform analysis of naturally reflexive verbs. In Proceedings of WCCFL 31, ed. R. E. Santana-LaBarge, 1–10. Google Scholar
  11. Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Schäfer. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Phases of interpretation, ed. Mara Frascarelli, 187–211. Berlin: Mouton. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Alexiadou, Artemis, Florian Schäfer, and Giorgos Spathas. 2014a. Delimiting Voice in Germanic: On object-drop and naturally reflexive verbs. In Proceedings of NELS 44, eds. Leland Kusmer and Jyoti Iyer. Google Scholar
  13. Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Schäfer. 2014b, to appear. External arguments in transitivity alternations: A layering approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  14. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003a. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  15. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003b. Participles and Voice. In Perfect explorations, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert, and Arnim von Stechow, 1–36. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Martin Everaert. 1999. Towards a more complete typology of anaphoric expressions. Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 97–118. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Panagiota Samioti. 2014. Domains within words and their meanings: A case study. In The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, and Florian Schäfer. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  18. Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  19. Arquiola, Elena Felíu. 2003. Morphology, argument structure and lexical semantics: The case of Spanish auto- and co- prefixation to verbal bases. Linguistics 41(3): 495–513. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Artstein, Ron. 2004. Focus below the word level. Natural Language Semantics 12(1): 1–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Asher, Nicholas. 1995. From discourse macro-structure to micro-structure and back again: Discourse semantics and the focus/background distinction. In Proceedings of the Conference on Semantics in Context, eds. Hans Kamp and Barbara Partee. SFB340 Report, University of Stuttgart. Google Scholar
  22. Asher, Nicholas, and Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  23. Bach, Emmon. 1980. In defense of passive. Linguistics and Philosophy 3: 297–34l. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  25. Baker, Mark, Kyle Johnson, and Ian Roberts. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–252. Google Scholar
  26. Beaver, David, and Brady Clark. 2008. Sense and sensitivity. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Beavers, John, and Andrew Koontz Garboden. 2013a. In defense of the reflexivization analysis of anticausativization. Lingua 131: 199–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Beavers, John, and Andrew Koontz Garboden. 2013b. Complications in diagnosing lexical meaning: A rejoinder to Horvath and Siloni (2013). Lingua 134: 210–218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Beck, Sigrid, and Uli Sauerland. 2000. Cumulation is needed: A reply to Winter (2000). Natural Language Semantics 8(4): 349–371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Bergeton, Uffe. 2004. The independence of binding and intensification. PhD thesis, University of Southern California. Google Scholar
  31. Bergeton, Uffe, and Roumyana Pancheva. 2012. A new perspective on the historical development of English intensifiers and reflexives. In Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes, eds. Dianne Jonas, John Whitman, and Andrew Garrett, 123–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  32. Bhatt, Rajesh, and Roumyana Pancheva. 2006. Implicit arguments. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, Vol. II, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 554–584. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  33. Borer, Hagit. 2013. Taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  34. Bresnan, Joan. 1978. A realistic transformational grammar. In Linguistic theory and psychological reality, eds. Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan, and George A. Miller, 1–59. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  35. Bruening, Benjamin. 2012. By-phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16: 1–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Word formation is syntactic: Adjectival passives in English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32: 363–422. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Castella, Marta. 2010. The semantics and syntax of auto. MA Thesis, Utrecht University. Google Scholar
  39. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  40. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  41. Dechaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2012. The heterogenity of reflexives. Ms. UBC. Google Scholar
  42. Doron, Edit. 2003. Agency and voice: The semantics of the Semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics 11: 1–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Doron, Edit, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2009. A unified approach to reflexivization in Semitic and Romance. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 1: 75–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Eckardt, Regine. 2001. Re-analysing selbst. Natural Language Semantics 9: 371–412. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Embick, David. 1998. Voice systems and the syntax/morphology interface. In Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect, ed. Heidi Harley. Vol. 32 of MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 41–72. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  46. Embick, David. 2004. Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations. In The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert, 137–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Embick, David. 2010. Localism vs. globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Everaert, Martin. 1986. The syntax of reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  49. Faltz, Leonard M. 1985[1977]. Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  50. Fodor, Jerry, and Janet Dean Fodor. 1980. Functional structure, quantifiers, and meaning postulates. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 759–769. Google Scholar
  51. Gast, Volker, and Peter Siemund. 2006. Rethinking the relationship between SELF-intensifiers and reflexives. Linguistics 44(2): 343–381. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gehrke, Berit, Artemis Alexiadou, and Florian Schäfer. 2014. The argument structure of adjectival participles revisited. Lingua 149B: 95–214. Google Scholar
  53. Geurts, Bart. 2004. Weak and strong reflexives in Dutch. In Proceedings of the ESSLLI workshop on semantic approaches to binding theory, eds. Philippe Schlenker and Ed Keenan. Google Scholar
  54. Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinction of Voice and v. Lingua 125: 34–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6(1): 40–63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Heim, Irene. 1998 [1993]. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. In The interpretive tract, eds. Uli Sauerland and Orin Percus, 205–246. Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  57. Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  58. Hellan, Lars. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  59. Hole, Daniel. 2002. Agentive selbst in German. In Sinn und Bedeutung 6: Proceedings of the sixth Meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik, eds. Graham Katz, Sabine Reinhard, and Philip Reuter. Publications of the Institute of Cognitive Science. Osnabrück: University of Osnabrück. Google Scholar
  60. Horvath, Julia, and Tal Siloni. 2011. Anticausatives: Against reflexivization. Lingua 121: 2176–2186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Horvath, Julia, and Tal Siloni. 2013. Anticausatives have no cause(r): A rejoinder to Beavers and Koontz-Garboden. Lingua 131: 217–230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Howell, Jonathan. 2012. Meaning and prosody. PhD dissertation, Cornell University. Google Scholar
  63. Iatridou, Sabine. 1988. Clitics, anaphors, and a problem of co-indexation. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 698–703. Google Scholar
  64. Kaufmann, Ingrid. 2001. Medium und Reflexiv: eine Studie zur Verbsemantik. Habilitationsschrift, University of Düsseldorf. Google Scholar
  65. Keenan, Edward. 1980. Passive is phrasal (not sentential or lexical). In Lexical grammar, eds. Teun Hockstra, Harry van der Hulst, and Michael Moortgat, 181–213. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  66. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kiparsky, Paul. 2013. Towards a null theory of the passive. Lingua 125: 7–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Klaiman, M. H. 1991. Grammatical voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  69. König, Ekkehard, and Volker Gast. 2006. Focused expressions of identity—a typology of intensifiers. Linguistic Typology 10(2): 223–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund. 2000. Locally free self-forms, logophoricity and intensification in English. English Language and Linguistics 4: 183–204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2009. Anticausativization. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27: 77–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building statives. In Proceedings of the twenty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, eds. Lisa J. Conathan, Jeff Good, Darya Kavitskaya, Alyssa B. Wulf, and Alan C. L. Yu. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society. Google Scholar
  74. Kratzer, Angelika. 2003. The event argument, chapter 3. Ms. University of Massachusetts. Available at http://www.semanticsarchive.net.
  75. Labelle, Marie. 2008. The French reflexive and reciprocal se. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26: 833–876. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Landau, Idan. 2010. The explicit syntax of implicit arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 357–388. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Lasersohn, Peter. 1993. Lexical distributivity and implicit arguments. In Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory III, eds. Utpal Lahiri and Adam Wyner, 145–161. Ithaca: CLC Publications. Google Scholar
  79. Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Plurality, conjunction and events. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. PhD dissertation, University of Massachussetts. Google Scholar
  81. Lechner, Winfried. 2012. Towards a theory of transparent reflexivization. Ms., University of Athens. Google Scholar
  82. Lekakou, Marika. 2005. In the middle, somewhat elevated. The semantics of middles and its crosslinguistic realization. PhD thesis, University of London. Google Scholar
  83. Levinson, Lisa. 2014. The ontology of roots and verbs. In The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, and Florian Schäfer. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  84. Lidz, Jeffrey. 2001. The argument structure of verbal reflexives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19(2): 311–353. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Manney, Linda. 2000. Middle Voice in Modern Greek: Meaning and function of an inflectional category. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, eds. Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark, and Alexander Williams. Vol. 4.2 of Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 201–225. Google Scholar
  87. Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phases and words. In Phases in the theory of grammar, ed. Sook-Hee Choe. Seoul: Dong In Publisher. Google Scholar
  88. Marelj, Marijana, and Eric Reuland. 2012. Deriving reflexives: Deriving the lexicon-syntax parameter. Ms., UiL-OTS, Utrecht. Google Scholar
  89. Markantonatou, Stella. 1992. The Syntax of modern Greek Noun Phrases with a derived nominal head. PhD Dissertation, University of Essex. Google Scholar
  90. Martí, Luisa. 2006. Unarticulated constituents revisited. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(2): 135–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. McIntyre, Andrew. 2013. Adjectival passives and adjectival participles in English. In Non-canonical passives, eds. Artemis Alexiadou and Florian Schaefer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  92. Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1): 77–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Mittwoch, Anita. 1982. On the difference between eating and eating something: Activities versus accomplishments. Linguistic Inguiry 13(1): 113–122. Google Scholar
  94. Nissenbaum, Jon. 2000. Covert movement and parasitic gaps. In Proceedings of NELS 30, eds. M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall, and J.-Y. Kim, 541–555. Amherst: GLSA Publications. Google Scholar
  95. Papangeli, Dimitra. 2004. The morpho-syntax of argument realization: Greek argument structure and the Lexicon-Syntax interface. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht. LOT dissertation series. Google Scholar
  96. Partee, Barbara, and Emmon Bach. 1981. Quantification, pronouns, and VP anaphora. In Formal methods in the study of language: Proceedings of the Third Amsterdam Colloquium, eds. Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen, and Martin Stokhof, 445–48l. Google Scholar
  97. Patel-Grosz, Prity. 2013. Complex reflexives and the principle A problem. Journal of South Asian Languages 6: 25–50. Google Scholar
  98. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720. Google Scholar
  100. Reinhart, Tanya, and Tali Siloni. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3): 389–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 439–492. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and language design. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  103. Rivero, Maria Luisa. 1992. Adverb incorporation and the syntax of adverbs in Modern Greek. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 289–331. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Google Scholar
  105. Rossdeutscher, Antje. 2014. When roots license and when they respect semantico-syntactic structure in verbs. In The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, and Florian Schäfer. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  106. Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events: A study in the semantics of Aspect. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Sæbø, Kjell. 2009. Self intensification and focus interpretation. In Structuring information in discourse: The explicit/implicit dimension, eds. Bergljot Behrens and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen. Vol. 1 of Oslo studies in language, 109–129. Google Scholar
  108. Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The syntax of (anti-)causatives. External arguments in change-of-state contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Schäfer, Florian. 2012. The passive of reflexive verbs and its implications for theories of binding and case. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15(3): 213–268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Schäfer, Florian, and Margot Vivanco. 2013. Reflexively marked anticausatives are not semantically reflexive. Talk at Going Romance, Univerity of Amsrerdam. Google Scholar
  111. Sennet, Adam. 2011. Ambiguity. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/ambiguity/. Google Scholar
  112. Siemund, Peter. 2000. Intensifiers: A comparision of English and German. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  113. Spathas, Giorgos. 2010. Focus on anaphora. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht. LOT dissertation series. Google Scholar
  114. Spathas, Giorgos. 2011. Focus on reflexive anaphors. In Proceedings of the Semantics and Linguistic Theory XX, eds. David Lutz and Nan Li, 471–488. Cornell: CLC Publications. Google Scholar
  115. Spathas, Giorgos. 2012. Reflexivizers and intensifiers: Consequences for a theory of focus. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17, eds. Emmanuel Chemla, Vincent Homer, and Grégoire Winterstein, 581–598. Google Scholar
  116. Spathas, Giorgos. 2013. Reflexive anaphors and association with focus. In Proceedings of SALT 23, ed. Todd Snider, 376–393. Cornell University, Ithaca: CLC Publications. Google Scholar
  117. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1992. Combinatory grammar and projection from the lexicon. In Lexical matters, eds. Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolcsi. Stanford: Stanford University. Google Scholar
  118. Tavano, Erin. 2006. A bound-variable analysis of the adverbal emphatic reflexive, or How I wrote this paper myself. Master’s Thesis, University of Southern California. Google Scholar
  119. Theophanopoulou-Kontou, Dimitra. 1981. Middle reflexive verbs in Modern Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics 2: 51–78. Google Scholar
  120. Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria. 1989. On the properties of the passive affix in Modern Greek. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 235–260. Google Scholar
  121. Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria. 2006. The acquisition of voice and transitivity alternations in Greek as native and second language. In Paths of development in L1 and L2 acquisition: In honor of Bonnie D. Schwartz, eds. Sharon Unsworth, Teresa Parodi, Antonella Sorace, and Martha Young-Scholten, 15–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. van Leusen, Noor. 2004. Incompatibility in context: A diagnosis of correction. Journal of Semantics 21(4): 415–441. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Williams, Edwin. 1985. PRO and subject of NP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3: 297–315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Williams, Edwin. 1987. Implicit arguments, the binding theory, and control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5(2): 151–180. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Williams, Alexander. 2009. Themes, cumulativity, and resultatives: Comments on Kratzer 2003. Linguistic Inquiry 40(4): 686–700. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Zombolou, Katerina. 2004. Verbal alternations in Greek: A semantic approach. PhD thesis, University of Reading. Google Scholar
  127. Zombolou, Katerina, and Artemis Alexiadou. 2013. The canonical function of deponent verbs in Modern Greek. In Morphology and meaning, eds. F. Rainer et al., 331–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  128. Zwicky, Arnold, and Jerrold Sadock. 1975. Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. Syntax and Semanticsa 4: 1–36. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giorgos Spathas
    • 1
  • Artemis Alexiadou
    • 1
  • Florian Schäfer
    • 1
  1. 1.University of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations