Ancient Greek infinitives and Phases

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper is about infinitival clauses and their subjects in Ancient Greek. AncientGreek has a tripartite paradigm that involves: (a) infinitives with overt accusative subjects(distinct from main-clause subjects and also coreferential but emphatic), (b) infinitives with nullcontrolled subjects that copy the case of their controller (resulting in the operation of caseagreement across copula [CAAC]), and (c) infinitives with null accusative subjects that arereferential and arbitrary. To account for this, I first argue that all infinitival clauses are CPs.Arguments for this include the modal distinctions among Ancient Greek infinitival clauses, thecoordination of infinitival clauses with finite embedded clauses, the existence of infinitivalclauses with overt complementizers, evidence from binding of infinitival subjects as well asenclitic focus particles in Ancient Greek infinitives. Although all infinitives are CPs, I arguethat there is a further distinction between strong- and weak-phase CPs, with phasehood beingrelated to features in the left periphery of the clause. Infinitives with overt and null accusativesubjects are strong phases, C*Ps, whereas control infinitives are weak phases—CPs that aretransparent domains and can therefore allow case agreement to operate across a clauseboundary. I also compare Ancient Greek to Latin and argue that the distinction between strongandweak-phase CPs is also found in the finite domain. The main implication of this proposal isthat the availability of a subject is only a property of a clause, defined as a strong-phase CP.
LanguageEnglish
Pages1-38
JournalSyntax
Volume16
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 12 Mar 2013

Fingerprint

Infinitive
Clause
Ancient Greek
paradigm
evidence
Accusative
Complementizer
Left Periphery
Main Clause
Coreferential
Emphatics
Copula
Paradigm
Focus Particles
Latin Language

Cite this

Sevdali, Christina. / Ancient Greek infinitives and Phases. In: Syntax. 2013 ; Vol. 16, No. 4. pp. 1-38.
@article{2b1a14a750034c9db746874d2d83f2a2,
title = "Ancient Greek infinitives and Phases",
abstract = "This paper is about infinitival clauses and their subjects in Ancient Greek. AncientGreek has a tripartite paradigm that involves: (a) infinitives with overt accusative subjects(distinct from main-clause subjects and also coreferential but emphatic), (b) infinitives with nullcontrolled subjects that copy the case of their controller (resulting in the operation of caseagreement across copula [CAAC]), and (c) infinitives with null accusative subjects that arereferential and arbitrary. To account for this, I first argue that all infinitival clauses are CPs.Arguments for this include the modal distinctions among Ancient Greek infinitival clauses, thecoordination of infinitival clauses with finite embedded clauses, the existence of infinitivalclauses with overt complementizers, evidence from binding of infinitival subjects as well asenclitic focus particles in Ancient Greek infinitives. Although all infinitives are CPs, I arguethat there is a further distinction between strong- and weak-phase CPs, with phasehood beingrelated to features in the left periphery of the clause. Infinitives with overt and null accusativesubjects are strong phases, C*Ps, whereas control infinitives are weak phases—CPs that aretransparent domains and can therefore allow case agreement to operate across a clauseboundary. I also compare Ancient Greek to Latin and argue that the distinction between strongandweak-phase CPs is also found in the finite domain. The main implication of this proposal isthat the availability of a subject is only a property of a clause, defined as a strong-phase CP.",
author = "Christina Sevdali",
year = "2013",
month = "3",
day = "12",
doi = "10.1111/synt.12004",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "1--38",
journal = "Syntax",
issn = "1467-9612",
number = "4",

}

Ancient Greek infinitives and Phases. / Sevdali, Christina.

In: Syntax, Vol. 16, No. 4, 12.03.2013, p. 1-38.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ancient Greek infinitives and Phases

AU - Sevdali, Christina

PY - 2013/3/12

Y1 - 2013/3/12

N2 - This paper is about infinitival clauses and their subjects in Ancient Greek. AncientGreek has a tripartite paradigm that involves: (a) infinitives with overt accusative subjects(distinct from main-clause subjects and also coreferential but emphatic), (b) infinitives with nullcontrolled subjects that copy the case of their controller (resulting in the operation of caseagreement across copula [CAAC]), and (c) infinitives with null accusative subjects that arereferential and arbitrary. To account for this, I first argue that all infinitival clauses are CPs.Arguments for this include the modal distinctions among Ancient Greek infinitival clauses, thecoordination of infinitival clauses with finite embedded clauses, the existence of infinitivalclauses with overt complementizers, evidence from binding of infinitival subjects as well asenclitic focus particles in Ancient Greek infinitives. Although all infinitives are CPs, I arguethat there is a further distinction between strong- and weak-phase CPs, with phasehood beingrelated to features in the left periphery of the clause. Infinitives with overt and null accusativesubjects are strong phases, C*Ps, whereas control infinitives are weak phases—CPs that aretransparent domains and can therefore allow case agreement to operate across a clauseboundary. I also compare Ancient Greek to Latin and argue that the distinction between strongandweak-phase CPs is also found in the finite domain. The main implication of this proposal isthat the availability of a subject is only a property of a clause, defined as a strong-phase CP.

AB - This paper is about infinitival clauses and their subjects in Ancient Greek. AncientGreek has a tripartite paradigm that involves: (a) infinitives with overt accusative subjects(distinct from main-clause subjects and also coreferential but emphatic), (b) infinitives with nullcontrolled subjects that copy the case of their controller (resulting in the operation of caseagreement across copula [CAAC]), and (c) infinitives with null accusative subjects that arereferential and arbitrary. To account for this, I first argue that all infinitival clauses are CPs.Arguments for this include the modal distinctions among Ancient Greek infinitival clauses, thecoordination of infinitival clauses with finite embedded clauses, the existence of infinitivalclauses with overt complementizers, evidence from binding of infinitival subjects as well asenclitic focus particles in Ancient Greek infinitives. Although all infinitives are CPs, I arguethat there is a further distinction between strong- and weak-phase CPs, with phasehood beingrelated to features in the left periphery of the clause. Infinitives with overt and null accusativesubjects are strong phases, C*Ps, whereas control infinitives are weak phases—CPs that aretransparent domains and can therefore allow case agreement to operate across a clauseboundary. I also compare Ancient Greek to Latin and argue that the distinction between strongandweak-phase CPs is also found in the finite domain. The main implication of this proposal isthat the availability of a subject is only a property of a clause, defined as a strong-phase CP.

U2 - 10.1111/synt.12004

DO - 10.1111/synt.12004

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 1

EP - 38

JO - Syntax

T2 - Syntax

JF - Syntax

SN - 1467-9612

IS - 4

ER -