Temporal modification in Greek adverbial clauses: The role of aspect and negation

Temporal modification in Greek adverbial clauses: The role of

aspect and negation

Ianthi-Maria Tsimpli a,*,1, Despina Papadopoulou b,1, Agapi Mylonaki a

a Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greeceb Department of Linguistics, School of Philology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece

Received 10 December 2007; received in revised form 2 October 2008; accepted 2 October 2008

Available online 23 April 2009

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to provide a formal account of the differences between adverbial clauses introduced by the Greek

temporal connectives kathos, eno and afu. Based on Haegeman’s (2003, this issue) criteria for distinguishing between central and

peripheral clauses, we examine the ‘external’ and ‘internal’ syntax of Greek adverbials introduced by these connectives. Although

Haegeman’s proposal aims to cover not only English but also cross-linguistic properties of central vs. peripheral clauses, we would

like to argue that there are certain language-specific criteria, namely aspect and negation, which could be used as additional support

for the structural distinction proposed and which call for some modifications of the structural differences suggested for English

adverbials. The Greek connectives are shown to be aspectually dependent in the sense that they are specified for [boundedness] as

part of their lexical entry. This property affects their structural position in central vs. peripheral adverbials, on one hand, and the

possibilities of temporal anchoring onto the matrix clause, on the other. Finally, the language-specific criteria discussed, namely

aspect and negation, are tested through an interpretation task with native speakers of Greek in order to establish the preference for

the temporal over the non-temporal readings when aspect and negation are controlled for.

# 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Temporal connectives; Morphological aspect; Boundedness

1. Introduction

In many languages temporal connectives can have non-temporal readings in certain contexts. In Greek too, there

are temporal connectives such as eno (=while), kathos (=as, as soon as) and afu (=after, since) which can have a

non-temporal reading. The English examples in (1a) and (1b) illustrate the difference between the temporal and the

non-temporal interpretations of while (Haegeman, 2003:329):

(1) a. While his wife is in bed John works most efficiently. temporal

b. While his wife is unemployed, John has a high-powered job. non-temporal

www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Lingua 120 (2010) 649–672

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2310997444; fax: +30 2310997432.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (I.-M. Tsimpli), [email protected] (D. Papadopoulou), [email protected] (A. Mylonaki).1 The first two authors contributed equally to the paper.

0024-3841/$ – see front matter # 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.008

mailto:[email protected]



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.008

The non-temporal reading of the connective in (1b) is contrastive. Other English connectives,2 which can also have a

non-temporal reading, are when and since which could have a contrastive or a premise reading depending on the choice

of the connective and the context.3

Haegeman (2003) argues that (1a) and (1b) are both adjunct adverbial clauses but differ in terms of their ‘external’

syntax, i.e. the adjunction site. The adverbial clause in (1a) is referred to as ‘central’ adverbial and is adjoined to the VP

or the IP (Haegeman, 2006) of the main clause, whereas (1b) is a ‘peripheral’ adverbial adjoined to the matrix CP. In

minimalist terms, the difference is that the central adverbial is merged before the matrix IP is completed, whereas the

peripheral adverbial is merged after the matrix CP is completed in the derivation (Haegeman, 2003:132). This

distinction is argued to reflect the interpretation difference in terms of the modification properties of each type of

adverbial.

Starting off with the distinction between event-conditionals and premise-conditionals, Haegeman (1984, 1991),

distinguishes between the modification that these two types have: event-conditionals are central adverbial clauses

which modify the event expressed by the VP (or AspP in Thompson, 1994), whereas premise-conditionals are

peripheral adverbial clauses which modify the proposition expressed by the matrix clause and as such they structure

the discourse4 (cf. Declerck and Reed, 2001). Haegeman (2003, this issue) extends this distinction between

conditional clauses to adjunct adverbial clauses introduced by temporal connectives with the attested difference in

interpretation (e.g. (1a) and (1b) above). The evidence supporting the distinction in the external syntax of adverbial

clauses comes from syntactic and interpretation facts such as VP-anaphora, parasitic gaps, scope of negation and

bound pronominals where central and peripheral adverbial clauses are shown to differ (see Haegeman, 2003 for

details).

We take it that this distinction in the adjunction site of central and peripheral clauses is universal and structural

evidence in its favour should be found in all languages with ambiguous and unambiguous connectives, modulo

language-specific limitations. In the present paper, syntactic evidence pertaining to the distinction of central and

peripheral clauses in terms of their external syntax will also be presented from Greek, providing further support for the

validity of Haegeman’s proposed correlation between the respective syntactic and interpretative properties of these

clauses.

A further difference between the two types of adverbial clauses concerns their ‘internal’ syntax. Specifically, it is

argued that the internal structure of the adverbial clause in (1a) is truncated5 compared to the adverbial clause in (1b).

Adapting Rizzi’s (1997) structure of the left-periphery, Haegeman (2003) suggests that (2a) and (2b) correspond to the

left-periphery of the adverbial clauses (1a) and (1b), respectively:

(2a) a. Sub Fin

(2b) b. Sub Force Top Focus Fin

‘Sub’ is the position that hosts the subordinator (connective) and ‘Force’ is responsible for the illocutionary

force of the sentence as being of a particular clause-type such as statement, interrogative or imperative. The

absence of topic and focus positions is argued to relate to the absence of Force, in central adverbials.

The distinction between (2a) and (2b) is based on evidence from argument-fronting, long-fronted and high

adjuncts in each type of adverbial. Specifically, central adverbials disallow argument, (long) adjunct fronting in

I.-M. Tsimpli et al. / Lingua 120 (2010) 649–672650

2 Some English (and Greek) connectives are unambiguously temporal, e.g. the English after or before and the Greek prin (=before) or the

periphrastic meta pu (lit. ‘after that’) which combines the preposition meta (after) and the factive complementiser pu. There are also unambiguously

non-temporal connectives such as whereas in English and the Greek parolo pu (‘despite that’), an ke (lit. ‘if and’ = even though), molonoti (‘despite

that’).3 Haegeman (2003) concentrates on conditional if and the difference between ‘event’ and ‘premise’ conditionals. The structural analysis and most

of the evidence comes from if-clauses and is further extended to while and when clauses. The Greek complementiser (e)an (=if) can also participate

in these two types of conditional clauses (Iatridou, 2000; Tsangalidis, in press).4 Haegeman (1991) suggests that peripheral adverbial clauses are unattached orphan constituents rather than adjoined to a peripheral position in

the clause.5 Rizzi’s (1997) view of truncation, however, is somewhat different from what Haegeman proposes. In his terms, truncation ‘prunes’ the tree from

the highest layer and cannot affect in-between layers leaving the top node unaffected. Haegeman acknowledges that in her analysis truncation affects

in-between layers of the left periphery leaving the top node, i.e. Sub, in place.

the form of topicalization or focusing whereas peripheral adverbials do not (see Haegeman, 2003 for extensive

exemplification of these facts).

However, Haegeman (2010) reformulates her original analysis by assuming that central and peripheral clauses have

the same internal structure in terms of availability of functional positions in the left-periphery but differ with respect to

the movement of an IP internal operator to the left-periphery. This movement is only found in central adverbial

clauses:

Movement of the temporal operator in (3) creates an intervention effect on any further movement, thus

accounting for the ungrammaticality of argument topicalization and adjunct fronting in central clauses. Haegeman

(2010) argues on both theoretical and empirical grounds that the movement analysis is to be preferred over the

truncation one, as it does away with certain ad hoc stipulations regarding Force and its relation to the topic and

focus positions in the left-periphery (as well as certain implications it has for the availability of movement in

Italian CLLD).

This paper has two aims. The first is to present the syntactic and semantic properties of Greek adverbial clauses

introduced by three ‘ambiguous’ connectives using some of the criteria proposed by Haegeman (2003, this volume) in

relation to their external and internal syntax. Furthermore, certain properties that are specific to these Greek

connectives, namely aspect and negation, will be shown to provide additional evidence for the structural distinction

between central and peripheral adverbial clauses. The second aim is to test our analysis of the Greek connectives in

relation to the central/peripheral distinction with aspect and negation controlled for, on the basis of native speakers’

reading preferences.

Section 2 presents the three Greek connectives studied and the readings that the adverbial clauses they introduce

can have. Evidence pertaining to differences in their external and internal syntax is presented, leading us to an

analysis with respect to the functional architecture of the left-periphery in each type of adverbial clause

(cf. Haegeman, 2003, 2010). Section 3 presents the empirical study we carried out with native speakers of Greek and

the results obtained discussed in the light of the theoretical analysis proposed. Section 4 summarizes the main points

of the study.

2. The Greek connectives kathos, eno and afu

The Greek connectives kathos, eno and afu can introduce temporal and non-temporal adjunct clauses

(cf. Kalokerinos, 2001, 2004; Kitis and Zafiriadou, 2001). Sentences (4)–(6) illustrate the ambiguity of each

connective between a temporal and a non-temporal interpretation6:

(4) Kathos dhuleve endatika, kurastike.

kathos worked-IMPERF .3Sintensively, got-tired- PERF .3S

‘‘While she was working (intensively), she got tired. temporal

Since she was working (intensively), she got tired.’’ premise

(5) Eno diavaze, evlepe tileorasi.

eno read-IMPERF .3S watched-IMPERF .3S TV.

‘‘While she was reading, she was watching TV. temporal

Although she was reading, she was watching TV.’’ concessive

I.-M. Tsimpli et al. / Lingua 120 (2010) 649–672 651

6 The distinction between temporal and non-temporal readings refers primarily to the interpretation of the connective itself. Clearly, a temporal

relation between the adjunct and the main clause is necessarily established. However, in the non-temporal use of the connective this relation is based

on the conceptual link between the two clauses. For example, when there is a causal relation as in (4), the adjunct clause should be situated

temporally prior to the main clause. In contrast, when the connective in (4) is interpreted as temporal the matrix event is understood as interrupting

the event of the adjunct clause.

(6) Afu dhiavase, pighe volta.

afu read-PERF .3S went-PERF .3S out

‘‘After she studied, she went out. temporal

Since she studied (already), she went out.’’ premise

There are, however, certain cases in which the connective is unambiguously non-temporal:

(7) a. Kathos dhulepse (endatika), kurastike.

kathos worked-PERF .3S (intensively) got-tired-PERF .3S

‘‘Since he worked (intensively), he got tired.’’

b. Eno dhulepse (endatika), dhen kurastike.

eno worked-PERF .3S (endatika), not got-tired PERF .3S

‘‘Although he worked intensively, he didn’t get tired.’’

The difference between the ambiguous (4) and (5) and the unambiguous (7a) and (7b), respectively is the

aspectual marking of the verb in the adverbial clause, imperfective in the former and perfective in the latter.7 As a

first approximation we could say that the meaning of the temporal connectives kathos and eno is compatible

with imperfective aspect, hence the obligatory shift to the non-temporal reading in (7a) and (7b). In particular,

when these two connectives introduce a clause including an imperfective verb, the subordinate event is

contemporaneous in relation to the matrix one.8 This reading has two possible variations depending on the

aspectual form of the matrix verb: when it is marked for perfective, the event of the matrix is situated within the

event denoted by the subordinate verb (e.g. (4)), whereas when it is marked for imperfective, the two events are

viewed as parallel (e.g. (5)). The sensitivity of these connectives to the aspectual form of the verb will be addressed

in section 2.2.

Although the contemporaneous reading is the primary temporal reading of the two connectives when they introduce

an adverbial clause with an imperfective verb, kathos differs from eno in allowing an alternative temporal

interpretation in certain contexts with perfective verbs. Specifically, although eno seems to lack a temporal reading

with a perfective verb as shown in (7b) above, kathos is possible in the same context:

(8) Kathos/?*Eno bike sto dhomatio, xtipise to kudhuni.

kathos/eno entered-PERF .3S to-the room rang-PERF .3S the bell

‘‘As soon as she entered the room, the bell rang.’’

The meaning of the connective in these cases is roughly ‘as soon as’ or ‘the moment at which’ and depicts an

instantaneous event occurring immediately prior or at the initial point of the matrix event.9 Thus, whereas kathos

allows for two types of temporal readings, eno only allows the contemporaneous reading. The latter is compatible with

imperfective aspect alone.

The third connective, afu, also shows a preference for one aspectual form, namely the perfective, in order to obtain

the temporal reading (e.g. the ambiguous (6)). Moreover, afu is unambiguously temporal when it introduces the

‘dependent’ form, i.e. the verb form which is specified for non-past, perfective10:


7 The vast majority of Greek verbs are marked for morphological (grammatical) aspect. Each verb possesses two distinct stems, perfective and

imperfective, each of which combines with all other inflectional categories (tense, mood, voice, agreement). There is a further periphrastic form, the

perfect, which involves the auxiliary ‘have’ and a perfective invariable verbal form (Joseph, 1983; Tsangalidis, 1999).8 The ordering of the adverbial and the main clause does not seem to affect the range of the available readings (temporal or non-temporal). There is a

general ‘iconicity’ requirement, however, which renders the ordering adverbial-before-main clause preferable since the cause (premise) and temporal

readings logically precede the time of the proposition expressed by the matrix clause. When the adverbial follows the main clause, prosody changes too.9 There are, nevertheless, restrictions on the type of predicate that can participate in this type of temporal interpretation exemplified in (8) (see

section 2.3 below).10 This form is referred to as ‘dependent’ due to its inability to appear without a modal particle such as the subjunctive marker na, the future particle

tha or one of few connectives/subordinators, such as prin ‘before’ or ite. . .ite (‘either. . .or’).

(9) Afu dhiavasi, grafi.

after read-PERF .3S writes

‘‘After he reads, he writes.’’

The dependent form typically has a shifted future interpretation and requires a main clause in the present or future

in order for the afu-clause to have a temporally anterior reading with respect to the matrix clause. Given that the

dependent form does not involve deictic tense reference, the adverbial clause in (9) can never be construed as a

peripheral adverbial as it cannot depict a temporally independent event. On the other hand, given that the temporal

interpretation of afu-clauses is that of anteriority with respect to the event of the matrix clause, the perfective is the

‘unmarked’ choice as far as the meaning of afu is concerned, in that the perfective provides the endpoint with reference

to which the matrix clause can be viewed as posterior.

Nevertheless, afu does not seem to obligatorily shift to the non-temporal reading when the verbal aspect is

imperfective (cf. the ambiguous (6) where the verb is in the perfective form). Thus, the sentence in (10) is also

ambiguous between the temporal and the premise readings:

(10) Afu dhiavaze arketa, pijene volta. ambiguous

after studied-IMPERF .3S enough went-IMPERF .3S out

‘‘After studying enough, he used to go out./

Since he was studying (enough), he was going out.’’

Notice that the ambiguity holds only when the matrix verb is also in the imperfective. In (10), anteriority of

the ‘studying’ event is established with respect to the event of ‘going out’. However, in the temporal reading,

the imperfectives in (10) denote the habitual rather than the durative/progressive. In contrast, in the premise

reading, the imperfectives can be interpreted as progressive/durative too. It could then be argued that

the sentence involves a habitual operator that scopes over both the main and the subordinate clauses

(Carlson, 1977). This assumption is further supported by the obligatorily non-temporal interpretation that the

sentence acquires if the main and the subordinate verbs do not share the same aspectual features (e.g. (11a)

and (11b))11:

(11) a. Afu dhiavaze arketa, pije volta. premise

afu studied-IMPERF .3S enough went-PERF .3S out

‘‘?*After studying enough, he went out.

Since he was studying (enough), he went out.’’

b. Afu dhiavase arketa, pijene volta. premise

afu studied-PERF .3S enough went-IMPERF .3S out

‘‘?*After he studied enough, he was going out.

Since he studied (enough), he was going out12.’’


11 Also, time adverbials have scope over the whole sentence in the temporal reading (10), regardless of the position of the adverbial (ia). In contrast,

time adverbials with premise reading can have scope over either the matrix or the subordinate clause (ib):

(i) a. Stis dhiakopes kathos kolimbuse (stis dhiakopes) ghimnazotan.

in-the holidays kathos swam-IMPERF .3S (in-the holidays) exercised-MPERF .3S

‘‘While he was swimming during the holidays, he was exercising.’’

b. Kathos etroghe arketa stis dhiakopes, xtes arxize dhieta.

kathos eat IMPERF .3S enough in-the holidays yesterday started-IMPERF .3S diet

‘‘Since he ate quite a lot during the holidays, yesterday he went on diet.’’

12 The premise reading, e.g. in (10) and (11), is usually marked by special prosody too: focus on ‘enough’ and the matrix verb and a more

perceptible pause between the two clauses.

On the basis of the above data, we can conclude that afu also shows sensitivity to (perfective) aspect. The

imperfective is compatible with temporally interpreted afu only if the habitual reading is intended. In section 2.2,

we attribute this requirement of afu to its feature-specification, responsible for establishing the anteriority

reading.

Finally, all three connectives lack a temporal reading, when the adverbial clause is negative:

(12) Kathos/Eno/Afu dhen dhiavaze /dhiavase, . . ...since/although/since not studied-IMPERF .3S/studied-PERF .3S. . .*while/*after not studied-IMPERF .3S/studied-PERF .3S

Note that the temporal reading is blocked regardless of the aspectual form of the subordinate verb and the choice of

the connective used. Negation is thus shown to be incompatible with the temporal reading of these connectives

altogether.13

Crucially, the incompatibility of negation with the temporal reading is not found in adverbial clauses introduced

by other connectives, such as otan (=when), which can, nevertheless, have a non-temporal reading too (see

Lambropoulou (2004) for an extensive presentation of otan primarily in terms of its semantic and pragmatic

properties):

(13) a. Otan dhen kituse, perasa apo brosta tu. temporal

when not looked-IMPERF .3S passed. PERF .1S from front his

‘‘When he was not looking, I passed in front of him.’’

b. Otan dhen kituse, pos na tin proseksi? premise

when not looked-IMPERF .3S how SUBJ her-notice

‘‘Since he was not looking, how could he notice her?’’

Moreover, otan can have a temporal reading regardless of the aspectual form of the subordinate verb:

(14) a. Otan diavaze tin efimeridha, xtipise to kudhuni.

when read-IMPERF .3S the newspaper rang-PERF .3S the bell

‘‘When he was reading the newspaper, the bell rang.’’

b. Otan dhiavase tin efimeridha, xtipise to kudhuni.

when read-PERF .3S the newspaper rang-PERF .3S the bell

‘‘When he read the newspaper, the bell rang.’’


13 An anonymous reviewer asks whether the temporal reading is available in negative adverbial clauses if negation is understood to negate a

specific constituent:

(i) a. Kathos/Eno/Afu den dhiavaze me tus filus tu (ala monos tu), . . .

since/although/since not studied-IMPERF .3S/studied-PERF .3S. . . with the friends his (but alone). . .

*while/*after not studied-IMPERF .3S/studied-PERF .3S with the friends his (but alone). . .

b. Kathos/Eno/Afu dhiavaze oxi me tus filus tu (ala monos tu), . . .since/although/since studied not with the friends his (but alone). . .

while/after studied not with the friends his (but alone). . .

In (ib), where constituent negation is used (with the anaphoric negator oxi) the adverbial clause is ambiguous between the temporal and the non-

temporal readings. However, in (ia) where negation affects the direct object only, the temporal reading is still blocked, indicating that the blocking

effect of negation has to do with its structural position and not with its potential scope effects.

These differences within the class of ‘ambiguous’ connectives indicate that a uniform analysis of their structural

properties may not be feasible.14 In other words, the absence of a blocking effect of negation in otan-clauses and the

compatibility of a temporal reading with either aspectual form requires a close examination of each ‘ambiguous’

connective in syntactic and semantic terms in order to discover the properties of their internal syntax. Thus, in what

follows, we concentrate on the three connectives kathos, eno and afu, which pattern together in relation to the

grammatical features of Aspect and Negation restricting the availability of the temporal interpretation.

In the following two sections, we turn to the evidence from Greek adverbial clauses introduced by kathos, eno and

afu in order to establish formal differences in their external and internal syntax, respectively.

2.1. Central vs. peripheral adverbial clauses in Greek: the external syntax

Haegeman (2003) presents evidence from VP-anaphora, parasitic gaps, clefting, bound pronouns and scope effects

of negation in English to illustrate the difference between central and peripheral adverbial clauses in terms of their

external syntax, i.e. their adjunction site. Of these criteria, two are inapplicable in Greek; parasitic gaps are not

possible and the evidence from bound pronouns is not straightforwardly available due to the null subject property; the

interpretation of the embedded subject pronoun is conditioned by the null vs. overt option and not by subordination or

co-ordination possibilities.

Nevertheless, some indication of the difference between the two types of adverbial clauses can be obtained from the

acceptability grading of overt bound pronominals in subject position:

(15) Kapji fititesi dhen parakoluthun ta mathimata,

some students not attend.3P the classes

a. kathos proi /?aftii ergazonde ta proina. premise

kathos proi/theyi work in the morning

b. kathos proi/*aftii etimazonde ja tis eksetasis. temporal

kathos proi/theyi are-preparing for the exams

‘‘Some students don’t attend classes, since they work in the morning.’’/

‘‘Some students don’t attend classes, while they prepare for the exams.’’


14 The unambiguously temporal connective prin (before) is much more restrictive than the three connectives discussed here in that it cannot

introduce a negative clause but it also selects the dependent (non-past, perfective) form only:

(i) a. Prin na (*min) dhiavasis. . .

before sub. not read–PAST.PERF .2S. . .b. *Prin na dhiavazis/dhiavases/dhiavazes. . .

before sub. read–PAST.PERF .2S/read–PAST.PERF .2S/read–PAST.IMPERF .2S

Similar constraints apply to the other unambiguously temporal connective meta pu (‘after that’; see fn.1): Negation is disallowed and the only

difference with prin is that meta pu it is more flexible with aspectual forms. Specifically, meta pu typically occurs with perfective verb forms (as is the

case with prin) but it can introduce imperfectives too when interpreted habitually, i.e. with the restriction that the main verb be imperfective too (as is

the case with afu). Furthermore, unlike prin, meta pu cannot introduce a dependent form.

There are other ‘ambiguous’ connectives in Greek which are periphrastic forms including the relative/factive subordinator pu: ti stigmi pu

(lit. ‘the moment that’), tin ora pu (lit.‘the hour that’), me to pu (lit.‘with the that’). These connectives seem to differ from the ones discussed in this

paper in that they allow negation in the temporal reading and they can be interpreted temporally with either perfective or imperfective verb forms.

However, the choice of aspectual form determines the interpretation of the connective as denoting contemporaneity or punctuality:

(ii) a. Tin ora pu efevge, . . .

the hour that leavePAST.IMPERF .3S

‘‘While he was leaving, . . .’’

b. Tin ora pu efighe, . . .the hour that leavePAST.PERF .3S

‘‘As soon as he left, . . .’’

Finally, the conditional (e)an (‘if’) patterns with otan (‘when’) in allowing negation and being compatible with all aspectual forms (including the

‘dependent’). A scholarly examination of all connectives is required in order to arrive at generalizations with respect to the role of aspect, negation

and the corresponding syntactic and semantic properties. We leave this for future research.

In both (15a) and (15b) the default option for the embedded subject construed as coreferential with the matrix QP, is

the null subject. However, an overt bound pronoun subject is considerably more acceptable with the premise than the

temporal adverbial indicating that the premise adverbial is structurally independent. Compare the acceptability

difference of (15a) and (15b) with the acceptability of the overt subject pronoun in the cause or the contrast adverbial

which is coordinated with the matrix clause in (16):

(16) Kapji fitites dhen parakoluthun ta mathimata

Some students not attend the classes

epidhi/ala proi /?aftii ergazonde ta proina.

because/but proi/theyi work in the morning

‘‘Some studentsi don’t attend classes, because/but theyi work in the morning.’’

Additional evidence presented in Haegeman (2003) in favour of the distinction between central and peripheral

adverbials comes from clefting. Clefts are largely unacceptable in standard Greek. Nevertheless, a difference in the

degree of acceptability of clefts in central and peripheral adverbial clauses can be found in the Greek examples in (17)

below (see also Kalokerinos, 2001 for afu-clauses):

(17) a. ?Itan kathos tu-milusame pu pareksijithike o Yanis. temporal

was kathos him-talked.IMPERF.1P that got-annoyed the Yanis

‘‘It was while we were talking to him that Yanis got annoyed.’’

b. *Itan kathos dhen tu-milusame pu pareksijithike o Janis. premise

was kathos not-him-talked- IMPERF.1P that got-annoyed the Yanis

‘‘*It was since we were not talking to him, that Yanis got annoyed.’’

The central adverbial in (17a) is largely acceptable whereas in (17b), clefting the obligatorily peripheral kathos-

clause gives rise to ungrammaticality.

Further evidence is provided through VP-anaphora in English (Haegeman, 2003:325). The Greek examples in (18a)

and (18b) below are similar to English, in the relevant respects. Specifically, the peripheral adverbial clause in (18b) is

not contained in the elliptical VP (‘. . .and so was Vasilis’) since it is adjoined in a higher position (CP), whereas the

central adverbial in (18a) is:

(18) a. Eno kimondusan ta pedhia tu, o Yanis majireve ke to idhio ke

eno slept-IMPERF.3S the children his the Yanis cooked-IMPERF.3S and the same and

o Vasilis.

the Vasilis.

‘‘While his children were sleeping, Yanis was cooking and so was Vasilis.’’

(i.e. Vasilis was cooking while his children were sleeping)

b. Eno i jineka tu ine anerji, o Yanis katexi ipsilomisthi thesi ke to idhio

eno the wife his is unemployed the Yanis holds high-salary position and the

idhio ke o Vasilis.

same the Vasilis.

‘‘Although his wife is unemployed, Yanis has a high-salary position and so does Vasilis.’’ (i.e. Vasilis has a

high-salary position too).

In (18a) the central adverbial allows a sloppy reading of the elliptical VP whereas the peripheral adverbial in (18b)

blocks it.

Finally, evidence from the scope possibilities of negation in the matrix clause ranging over the central but not the

peripheral adverbial is found in Greek as in English (Haegeman, 2003:322–323):

(19) I Eleni dhen sinandise tus filus tis kathos/eno pijene sti dhulia,

the Eleni not met the friends-her kathos/eno went-IMPERF.3S to-the work

ala to vradhi sto bar.

but the evening in-the bar

‘‘Helen did not meet her friends while she was going to work, but at the bar in the evening.’’


The continuation provided with but. . . shows that negation can have scope over the temporal clause. If, instead, the

adverbial clause is interpreted as non-temporal, i.e. as premise or concessive depending on the connective used, then

no continuation is possible since negation has scope only over the matrix event.

To summarize the discussion thus far, it was shown that part of the evidence from English showing a difference in

the external syntax of central vs. peripheral adverbial clauses, provided by Haegeman (2003), also extends to Greek.

The Greek data provide further support for the two types of adverbial clauses in terms of their adjunction site.

2.2. Central vs. peripheral adverbial clauses in Greek: the internal syntax

Turning to the evidence pertaining to differences in the internal syntax of central and peripheral adverbial clauses

we consider whether the criteria used by Haegeman (2003) also apply to Greek.

To begin with, in English object topicalization is disallowed in central adverbial clauses but is possible in peripheral

ones. In Greek, object topicalization is clitic-left-dislocation (CLLD) when the preposed object is specific or definite.

Object preposing without an object clitic is possible in focusing where the preposed object appears in the left-

periphery with the appropriate intonation. In focusing, the focus operator associated with the preposed object scopes

over the entire sentence (Agouraki, 1990; Tsimpli, 1990, 1995, 1998). One of the differences between CLLD and

focusing is precisely the availability of an operator-variable dependency in focusing but not in CLLD. On these

grounds, CLLD is possible in more contexts than focusing: the latter is constrained similarly with wh-movement in, for

example, obeying island constraints.

Assuming along with Haegeman (2003, 2010) that argument topicalization (also in the form of CLLD) and

focusing are ungrammatical in central adverbial clauses, we expect fronting through focusing in Greek to be

ungrammatical too. Consider the examples below15:

(20) a. *Kathos TO VIVLIO dhiavaze, evlepe TV.

kathos the book read-IMPERF.3S watch-IMPERF.3S TV

‘‘*While it was the BOOK that he was reading, he was watching TV.’’

b. *Afu TIN EFIMERIDHA diavase, pije na ksaplosi.

Afu the newspaper read-PERF.3S went-PERF.3S SUBJ lie-down-PERF.3S

‘‘After it was THE NEWSPAPER that he read, he went to lie down.’’

The ungrammaticality of the above examples is consistent with Haegeman’s predictions. On the other hand,

focusing is perfectly acceptable in peripheral adverbial clauses:

(21) a. Kathos TO VIVLIO dhiavase prosektika, perase tis eksetasis.

kathos the book it-read-PERF.3S carefully passed-PERF.3S the exams

‘‘Since the book he read carefully, he passed the exams.’’

b. Afu kenurjo AFTOKINITO agorase, jati na pai me to treno?

afu new car bought-PERF.3S why SUBJ go with the train

‘‘Since it’s a new car that he bought, why should he go by train?’’

Turning to CLLD now, Haegeman points out that, in Italian, CLLD does not give rise to ungrammaticality when

appearing in conditional clauses (cf. Haegeman, 2003):

(22) Se gli esami finali non li superi, non otterrai il diploma.

if the final exams not them pass, you won’t obtain the degree

‘‘If you don’t pass the final exams, you won’t get the degree.’’


15 It should be noted that a possible interpretation of the focused object in (16), which renders the sentence more acceptable, is the contrastive

rather than the exhaustive focus reading (Kiss, 1998). The exhaustive reading is associated with operator movement, whereas the contrastive one

could be analyzed as echoic (Tsimpli, 1995).

On the basis of the grammaticality of examples such as (22), Haegeman argues that CLLD is different from English

topicalization in that it does not give rise to the same island effects (see also Cinque, 1990). Although the Greek

conditional corresponding to the Italian (22) is also grammatical as shown by (23), this is not the case for CLLD in

central adverbial clauses16 (e.g. (24)):

(23) An tis telikes eksetasis dhen tis perasis, dhen tha paris ptixio.

If the final exams not them-pass not will get degree

‘‘If you don’t pass the final exams, you won’t get the degree.’’

(24) *Kathos to vilvio to dhiavaze, evlepe tileorasi.

kathos the book read-IMPERF.3S watch-IMPERF.3S TV

‘‘While he was reading the book, he was watching TV.’’

The unacceptability of (24) compared to (23) raises questions with respect to the parallelism raised for event-

conditionals and temporal adverbial clauses, in Greek. Note, however, that argument-fronting as CLLD is possible in

peripheral adverbials (see (25) below), as is focusing (21).

(25) Kathos to vivlio to ixe dhiavasi prosektika, apandise s’oles tis erotisis.

kathos the book it-had read-PERF.3S carefully answered-PERF.3S to-all the questions

‘‘Since she had read the book carefully, she answered all questions.’’

Moreover, adjunct fronting is not attested in central adverbial clauses (cf. Haegeman, 2003). The examples in (26a)

and (26b) involve fronted circumstantial adjuncts, which are associated with a position in the C domain.17 As shown by

the acceptability of these examples, the central adverbial does not tolerate a fronted adjunct but the peripheral one

does:

(26) a. *Kathos perisi eghrafe ena mithistorima, sizituse tin ekseliksi tu.

kathos last-year write.IMPERF.3S a novel discuss IMPERF.3S the development its

‘‘While last year she was writing a novel, she was discussing its development.’’

b. Kathos perisi eghrafe ena mithistorima, stamatise na dhulevi.

kathos last-year write-IMPERF.3S a novel, stopped-IMPERF.3S SUBJ work-IMPERF.3S

‘‘Since last year she was writing a novel, she stopped working.’’

Finally, Haegeman (2006) provides additional evidence for the distinction between central and peripheral adverbial

clauses from coordination in English adverbial clauses. Similar facts hold for Greek:


16 Otan-clauses, similarly with conditionals, allow CLLD:

(i) Otan tis telikes eksetasis dhen tis perasis, dhen pernis ptixio.

when the final exams not them-pass not get degree

‘‘When you don’t pass the final exams, you don’t get a degree.’’

17 The acceptability of these adverbs in central adverbial clauses introduced by connectives other than the ones discussed in this paper, varies; for

example otan (‘when’) is compatible with fronted circumstantial adjuncts:

(i) Otan perisi arxise na grafi ena mithistorima. . .kathos last-year began.3S sub. write.3S a novel

‘‘While last year she began to write a novel,. . .’’

This contrast to differences between central adverbial clauses, which are, nevertheless, expected given the lack of sensitivity to aspectual forms in

otan-central adverbial clauses (see examples in (14) above). It is possible that otan-clauses are adjoined higher than kathos, eno and afu central

adverbial clauses (IP vs. VP adjunction; Haegeman 2006).

(27) *Eno den itan anixto to parathiro ke eno tragudhuse, akugotan ekso sto

eno sing-IMPERF.3S and eno not was open the window was-heard outside in-the

dhromo.

street

‘‘*?Although the window was not open and while she was singing, she could be heard outside

in the street.’’

On the assumption that coordination requires that each part of the coordinate structure be ‘. . . individually admissible

at that place with the same function’ (Huddleston and Pullum, 2006), the unacceptability of (27) can be accounted for

on the grounds that the peripheral and the central clause are adjoined to different positions of the main clause.

The contrast between (20) and (21), (24) and (25), (26a) and (26b) and the unacceptability of (27) further supports

the claim that central and peripheral adverbial clauses are structurally distinct (Haegeman, 2003, 2010). However,

central – but also peripheral (cf. (28c)) – adverbials in Greek allow argument-fronting in positions higher than the

connective. Specifically, when the object is moved across the connective, (24) becomes acceptable (see

(28a)). A similar improvement is found with (21a) if the focused object is further moved across the connective as

in (28b):

(28) a. To vivlio kathos to dhiavaze, evlepe tileorasi.

the book kathos it read-IMPERF.3S watch-IMPERF.3S TV

‘‘The book, while he was reading it, he was watching TV.’’

b. TO VIVLIO kathos dhiavaze, evlepe tileorasi.

the book kathos read-IMPERF.3S watch-IMPERF.3S TV

‘‘While he was reading the BOOK, he was watching TV.’’

c. TA KLIDHIA eno ixe ksexasi, jirise na pari to kinito tis.

the keys eno had-3S forgotten returned-PERF.3S SUBj take-PERF.3S the mobile her

‘‘Although it was THE KEYS that she had forgotten she came back to take her mobile.’’

The grammaticality of (28a) and (28b) gives rise to a number of implications. First, that the structure of the

subordinate clause extends higher than the position which hosts the connective in that there should be topic and focus

positions for the fronted objects in (25). That foci and topics can be fronted higher (but also lower) than a declarative or

interrogative complementiser is a property of other Greek subordinate clauses too (Tsimpli, 1995, 1998):

(29) a. Mu ipe TO VIVLIO oti (TO VIVLIO) exase.

Me-told.3 s the book that the book lost.3 s

‘‘She told me that she lost THE BOOK.’’

b. Mu ipe to vivlio oti (to vivlio) to-exase.

Me-told.3 s the book that the book it-lost.3 s

‘‘She told me that she lost the book.’’

Thus, the fronting positions of (28) are not restricted to adverbial clauses.

The second implication of the grammaticality of (28a) and (28b) compared to the ungrammatical (20a) and (24) has

to do with the seemingly truncated structure of the left-periphery lower than the connective in central adverbial

clauses. Recall that Haegeman (2003) argues for truncation of topic and focus positions as an effect of a missing force

head too. This suggestion is abandoned in Haegeman (2010) where the assumption is that movement of a temporal

operator is responsible for creating island effects on further movement, hence the unavailability of English-type

topicalization.

In addition, consider the central clause in (30), which involves circumstantial long-adjunct fronting in a position

higher than the connective:

(30) Perisi kathos egrafe ena mithistorima, sizituse tin ekseliksi tu.

last-year kathos wrote-IMPERF.3S a novel discussed-IMPERF.3S the development its

‘‘While last year she was writing a novel, she was discussing its development.’’


Sentence (30), even though grammatical, only allows a matrix clause reading of the fronted adjunct, thus indicating

that such adjuncts are completely disallowed in central adverbial clauses. The question is why this is so, especially in

view of the grammatical topicalization and focusing in examples such as (25) above. Clearly, the positions hosting

fronted arguments in (25) must be unavailable for this type of fronted adjuncts.18 As far as the possibility of clausal

truncation is concerned, we need some further assumptions to account for the availability of CLLD-ed fronting and

focusing higher than the connective and lack thereof in the lower peripheral positions. The movement account of the

temporal operator, on the other hand, would predict that object fronting to a position higher than the connective should

also be blocked as an island effect (or a relativized minimality violation, Rizzi, 1990).

Specifically, peripheral adverbials show similar distributional properties of fronted arguments whereas central

adverbials restrict argument-fronting options to peripheral positions higher than the connective.

To summarize, the Greek facts from argument-fronting as well as adjunct fronting support Haegeman’s claim that

central and peripheral adverbials differ in structural terms. However, the fact that argument-fronting in Greek central

adverbial clauses is possible when the focused or CLLD-ed argument appears higher than the connective casts doubt

on both alternatives offered by Haegeman (2003, 2010). In the following section we propose an alternative approach to

account for the Greek facts.

2.3. The proposal

As shown in section 2, the Greek connectives kathos, eno and afu are sensitive to aspectual properties. Furthermore,

they are also partly responsible for temporally anchoring the clause they introduce to the matrix clause, a general

property of temporal connectives (cf. Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria, 2000, 2005; Hornstein, 1990). The role of the

temporal connective in establishing possible and banning impossible temporal relations between the subordinate and

the matrix clause is modulated by constraints of the derivational component and the syntax-semantics interface

(Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria, 2000, 2005; Hornstein, 1990). We will present these alternative accounts in the

following section in an attempt to accommodate the Greek facts. For the moment, it suffices to say that the operations

and constraints on the temporal linking of the subordinate and the matrix clause should be universal. What seems to be

language-specific, and, in addition, connective-specific, is the role of aspect in defining the syntactic contexts in which

the temporal reading is allowed.

In Greek, finiteness is defined in terms of an interaction between aspectual and temporal features, thus

distinguishing between dependent and independent (i.e. fully inflected) forms. It is thus possible to suggest that when

these connectives have a temporal reading they are merged in the lowest C position, i.e. Fin, which forms a

dependency, through an Agree relation, with Tense and Asp heads in the inflectional and the verbal domain,

respectively:

(31) [. . . [TopPTopic [FocPFocus [FinP[+/-bounded] kathosi/enoi/afui [TPTi [vP vi Aspi Vi]]]]]]

Each connective is specified for the feature of [boundedness] with the negative or positive value regulated by lexical

semantics. Accordingly, in the contemporaneous interpretation of matrix and subordinate events with adverbial

clauses introduced by kathos and eno, these connectives are specified as [�bounded]. In contrast, afu is specified as

[+bounded] since it introduces a central adverbial that is interpreted as anterior with respect to the matrix clause.


18 VP-adjuncts can be fronted to these higher positions however both in central adverbials and in complement clauses:

(i) a. Mu ipe GRIGORA oti tha fighi.

me told-3S quickly that will leave-3S

‘‘He told me quickly that he will leave./He told me that he will leave quickly.’’

b. VIASTIKA kathos egrafe, tu-pese to stilo.

hurriedly while write-IMPERF.3S him-fell the pen

‘‘While/As he was writing hurriedly, his pen fell.’’

In (ia) the adjunct can be construed with either the matrix or the complement clause. It seems then that speech act adjuncts cannot be focused or

topicalized but need to be merged in their scope positions which is lower than the Focus and Topic positions in the left-periphery.

Note that the [+bounded] specification on afu is satisfied in the unmarked case when the verb of the subordinate clause

is perfective. When the verb in the afu-clause is imperfective, the obligatory habitual reading obtained is also

compatible with the [+bounded] feature of afu since in the habitual interpretation the imperfective can denote a series

of bounded events (cf. Iatridou, 2000). Thus, the [+bounded] feature of the connective forces this iterative reading and

blocks the durative/progressive reading, which the Greek imperfective can otherwise have (Mozer, 1994). The

[�bounded] specification on kathos and eno, on the other hand, is only compatible with imperfective aspect, hence the

non-temporal reading obtained with perfective verbs.

Recall, however, that in some cases, kathos introduces a clause including a perfective verb and still retains a

temporal reading (e.g. (8), repeated below):

(8) Kathos/?*Eno bike sto dhomatio, xtipise to kudhuni.

kathos/eno entered to-the room rang the bell

‘‘As soon as she entered the room, the bell rang.’’

The crucial point to note is that not all verbs in the perfective form are possible with this temporal reading of kathos.

In particular, activities (e.g. pezo ‘play’), accomplishments (e.g. zografizo ‘draw’) and states (ine arostos ‘be sick’) are

banned whereas semelfactives (e.g. pidho ‘jump’, xtipo ‘hit’, viho ‘cough’) and achievements (anagnorizo ‘recognize’,

prosexo ‘notice’) are possible. Following Levin (2000), the feature that these two classes of verbs share is punctuality, i.e.

the lack of durativity of the event. It is this aspectual property of the verb that is responsible for shifting the reading of the

event in the central adverbial introduced by kathos to [+bounded] and the reading of the connective itself to as soon as.

A question that arises is why this shift to the [+bounded] reading is not possible with eno with the same class of verbs.

We assume that the lexical semantics of kathos differ from eno in encoding manner too. Semelfactives and achievements

are means/manner verbs (Levin, 2000) and are thus compatible with the manner feature of kathos. This is supported by

diachronic evidence which is reflected in the etymology of the two connectives, both consisting of a preposition and a

relative proform: kau z (kathos): {P: kata (kata) + Relative proform: z (os) (=adverbial ‘as’)} and eno: {P: n (en)

+Relative pronoun: (o) (=dative form of ‘which’)} (Andriotis, 1983). The manner feature in kathos, derived from the

relative proform part of the connective, is always present in its temporal readings to different degrees.19 In examples such

as (8) where the verb is punctual, the manner reading of kathos is strengthened, shifting the emphasis to the manner

adverbial status of the connective, hence obtaining the ‘marked’ temporal reading. In the unmarked cases where the verb

is in the imperfective, the manner feature of kathos is weaker; kathos is virtually synonymous with eno, in these cases.

Turning to the non-temporal readings of these connectives, we assume that they are also merged in the left-

periphery but in a higher position which is not relevant to inflection. Specifically, given the similar word-order

possibilities for fronted arguments attested with the connectives discussed and with complementisers such as oti

(=that), we suggest that when introducing peripheral adverbial clauses, the connectives kathos, eno and afu are merged

in the Force position. Since the connectives merged are the same lexical items as those introducing central adverbials,

the [+/�bounded] feature on the connective is lexically specified on the connective even in peripheral adverbials.

However, due to the position in which the connective is merged, namely Force, the feature remains inactive and the

non-temporal interpretation obtained is not sensitive to the aspectual form of the verb.20

In case the verb form happens to be the one compatible with the temporal reading of the connective used, e.g.

imperfective with kathos or eno, the sentence is perceived as ambiguous and the preference for the temporal or the non-

temporal reading is determined by pragmatic and discourse considerations.

The representation of the peripheral adverbial is thus the following:

(32) [TopPTopic [FocPFocus [ForceP kathos/eno/afu [TopPTopic [FocPFocus [FinPFin [TP . . .]]]]]]]


19 Kathos is categorized as an adverb in the grammar of Ancient Greek whereas eno as a connective (Andriotis, 1983). Its function as a connective

encoding manner is very salient in Modern Greek uses too.20 Moreover, Sub stands for ‘subordinator’ and, in a sense, peripheral adverbials are not subordinated to the matrix clause; they seem to be more in

a co-ordination relation (two matrix clauses co-ordinated through a discourse connector with special semantics). Following Roussou (2000) we

assume that the Sub position is reserved for the factive complementiser pu which also introduces relative clauses. Crucially, in clauses introduced by

pu focus and CLLD is not possible in higher positions, indicating that these positions are available between Sub and Force on one hand, and between

Force and Fin on the other.

In view of the contrast between (31) and (32) we can now address the unavailability of the temporal reading when

the adverbial clause is negative, repeated here for convenience (see (12) as well):

(33) Kathos dhen dhiavaze, kopike. premise, *temporal

kathos not read-IMPERF.3S failed-PERF.3S

‘‘Since he did not study, he failed.’’

The negator dhen in Greek which always appears preceding the verbal complex, i.e. immediately before the future

particle, clitics, and the verb, is merged in a NegP high in the clause structure (Philippaki-Warburton, 1994, 1998; Rivero,

1994). In a more recent analysis based on the split-CP structure, Roussou (2000) argues that NegP is in the left-periphery

between Force and Fin. The structure in (34) is based on Roussou (2000:79) but with the notation of the present paper:

(34) [CP Sub [TopP/FocPTopic/Focus [ForceP Force [NegP Neg [FinP Fin [TP . . .T. . .]]]]]]

In central adverbial clauses where the connectives are merged in Fin, as argued above, negation is higher and the

wrong order between Neg and V as well as between Fin and Neg is derived (*dhen kathos dhiavaze).21 Note that

movement of the connective to Force across Neg is blocked due to relativized minimality constraints (Rizzi, 1990; cf.

Roussou, 2000). Moreover, such movement is unmotivated since the feature-specification of the temporal connectives

in terms of boundedness is only compatible with Fin where inflectional features are active and the temporal

interpretation is obtained. Finally, if we considered possible merging of the connectives in Force in negative central

adverbial clauses as in peripheral ones, the dependency between the connective and Asp (and T) would be impossible

due to the intervening Neg. In peripheral adverbial clauses, negation does not interfere with the connectives merged in

Force (e.g. (34)).

To summarize, the ambiguity between temporal and non-temporal readings in Greek adverbial clauses has been

shown to be structural. In particular, the difference in the distribution of argument-fronting and high adjuncts is

consistent with a structurally based account of the distinction between central and peripheral adverbials. Moreover,

two language-specific criteria have been used to further support the structural distinction suggested: aspect and

negation. In the structural account proposed, the role of aspect is captured through the dependency formed between the

connective in Fin and the inflectional-verbal domains. In peripheral adverbials, the connectives are merged in a higher

position where their aspectual/temporal related features are inactive. This difference in the merge position of the

connectives in each type of adverbial clause can also account for the effects of negation in these adverbials: ambiguity

is lost and the negative adverbial clause is necessarily a peripheral rather than a central one.

The structural differences between the central and peripheral adverbial clauses give rise to a distinct behaviour in

relation to the dependent or independent temporal interpretation they receive with respect to the main clause.

In particular, the higher adjunction site of peripheral adverbial clauses as well as the merging of the connective in the

Force position in these clauses allows them to represent a proposition temporally independent from the main clause.

On the other hand, the adjunction site of central adverbial clauses places them within the scope of the main TP. In

addition, the temporal connective in Fin ensures that there is a dependency formed between Fin and T, Asp, V which,

in turn, will be sensitive to the matrix temporal properties.22

In the following section we present two alternative accounts of how temporal anchoring is achieved between matrix

and subordinate temporal adverbial clauses. Our aim is to evaluate whether the Greek central adverbial clauses

introduced by the connectives investigated here can be accommodated within either accounts.


21 Note that the ungrammaticality of this word-order is independently established: Negation cannot be separated from the verb or the clitic+V

combination in Greek.22 An anonymous reviewer points out that the difference between central and peripheral clauses could be accounted for by a movement account,

along the lines of Haegeman (2010) and Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (2005). Accordingly, in the central clause, the connective raises from

Spec,AspP to the Fin position thus establishing an aspectual relation with the subordinate verb. Such movement is not available in peripheral clauses.

However, the movement analysis fails to account for the availability of focus and topicalization higher than the connective itself in central clauses.

Furthermore, if the connective is merged in (rather than moved to) Fin in peripheral clauses, focus and topic positions should be available only

higher than the connective, contrary to fact. Finally, if in peripheral clauses the connective is merged in Force, then the analysis presented here is

more economical since it only assumes distinct merge positions for central and peripheral clauses rather than the additional movement operation.

2.4. Anchoring central adverbial clauses

While there is a considerable body of studies that has examined temporal connectives from a semantic and

pragmatic perspective, very few attempts have been made to provide a syntactic account for temporal adjunct clauses.

Hornstein (1990) and Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (2000, 2005, 2007), however, have put forward structural

analyses for temporal modification.

Hornstein (1990:43–44) adopts the Reichenbachian distinction between S(peech), R(eference) and E(vent) points

in describing the temporal properties of a clause. He argues that the restrictions on the temporal association between

the main and the adjunct clause are captured by the Rule for Temporal Connectives (RTC). The RTC requires the main

and the adjunct clause to share their S and R points. The role of the temporal connective is to locate the event time of

the temporal adverbial clause in relation to the event time of the main clause. However, the formal syntactic operations

presented in (35b) and (36b) below cannot be affected by the connective itself. Hence, (35a) is grammatical because

the S and R points of the clauses can be associated (35b), whereas (36a) is ungrammatical because the association of

the S points results in a violation of linearity (36b)23:

The RTC, however, even though it explains the tense (dis)concord between the two clauses which are temporally

linked, fails to account for the interpretative differences between sentences such as (37a) and (37b) which differ in the

aspectual rather than the tense feature-specification of the subordinate verb. More specifically, according to the RTC,

the S and R points of the main and the adjunct clauses in both sentences can be associated without violating the

linearity condition as shown in (37a’) and (37b’). Yet, in (37b) the relation between the two clauses cannot be

temporal; rather the adverbial clause has a premise interpretation:


23 The examples are taken from Hornstein (1990:45–46).

Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (2000, 2005) also propose a formal account to explain the constraints on the

anchoring between the main and the adjunct clause. Unlike Hornstein, however, Demirdache and Erxebarria take also

into account the aspectual properties of the verbs when analyzing the syntax of temporal adjunct clauses. Their account

is based on the assumption that Tense and Aspect are dyadic spatio-temporal predicates whose arguments

are expressed in the syntax. Tense relates Utterance time (UT-T) to Assertion time (AST-T) while Aspect relates

AST-T to Event time (EV-T). The relation expressed through Tense and Aspect is that of semantic opposition

(+/�central coincidence) of the FIGURE with respect to the GROUND (Hale, 1984). Present Tense and Progressive Aspect

are [+central coincidence] predicates denoting that F is within G; Prospective Aspect and Future Tense are [-central,

+centripetal coincidence] indicating that F is before G; Perfect Aspect and Past Tense are [�central, +centrifugal

coincidence] indicating that the location of F is after G. Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (2005:207) further argue that

two economy principles, which operate at the interface between the computational system and the semantic

component, constrain the possible tense and aspect combinations as well as their interpretations within the main

and the adjunct clause. The two economy principles are presented in (38a) and (38b) below (Demirdache and

Uribe-Etxebarria, 2005:207):

(38) a. Anchoring a subordinate clause into a matrix clause is optimal iff it yields an ordering of their

Assertion times relative to each other.

b. No step in a given temporal derivation can be semantically vacuous: every step in the derivation

must be temporally informative (that is, must yield a temporally distinct interpretation).

Thus, sentence (39) is ungrammatical because the semantic contribution of the connective after is uninformative. This

is because the temporal interpretations of the main and the adverbial clause result in the ordering of AST-T2 before

AST-T1 (AST-T2__UT-T__AST-T1) making the contribution of the connective redundant and, hence, the derivation

in (39) crashes due to economy restrictions:

(39) *Mary will leave after Sue arrived.

Consider now how Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria’s account works for the Greek temporal clauses.24 It is

important to note that the aspectual properties they consider are [+/�progressive]. Bearing in mind that the

Greek aspectual system distinguishes between perfective and imperfective which are not co-extensive with

[+/�progressive], we need to reformulate the notation of the aspectual specification involved in the computation

and elaborate on the role of the aspectual features of (a) the connective, (b) the AST-T, as specified on

morphological aspect, and (c) the EV-T, as specified on the Aktionsart of the verb. In relation to (b), the Greek

imperfective denotes either the progressive or the non-progressive which is iterative i.e. habitual, whereas the

Greek perfective is non-progressive and non-iterative (Mozer, 1994; Iatridou, 2000). The semantic feature of

[boundedness] specified on the Greek connectives imposes s-selectional properties on its complement, the TP,

which also includes the aspectual specification of the verb: [�bounded] is compatible with imperfective alone,

whereas [+bounded] with perfective by default and imperfective when interpreted habitually. This process of

selecting the aspectual form of the verb on the basis of the [boundedness] feature of the connective needs to

be established before the temporal anchoring of the two clauses. This step precedes the final step which is based on

the lexical meaning of the connective; in other words, we suggest that the connective is involved twice in the

computation: first through its [boundedness] feature which imposes selectional restrictions on the aspectual

specification of the verb and second through the anchoring relation with the temporal event of the main clause.

In both steps the [boundedness] feature of the connective is involved.

Consider the Greek examples in (40) and (41) which involve the connectives eno[�BOUNDED] and

kathos[�BOUNDED], respectively. These sentences are licit because eno[�BOUNDED] and kathos[�BOUNDED] order AST-

T1 as occurring within the temporal frame provided by AST-T2, as shown in (40c) and (41c), respectively. In

(40), AST-T1 co-extends with AST-T2, whereas in (41) AST-T1 occurs at some point within the temporal


24 The schemas representing the temporal construal of the sentences necessarily involve both the EV-T and the AST-T, since the aspectual

differences are supposed to be captured by the relation of these two time points (see also Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria, 2005:fn 11).

interval of AST-T2. The checking relation between the connective and the verb is established in (40b) and

(41b)25:

(40) Eno/Kathos[-BOUNDED] T2PAST V2IMP T1PAST V1IMP

a. [EV-T1 [AST-T1IMP]]__UT-T

[EV-T2+/-PUNCTUAL [AST-T2 IMP]]__UT-T

b. [eno/kathos[-BOUNDED] [EV-T2+/-PUNCTUAL [AST-T2IMP]]

c. Temporal anchoring:

[EV-T1 [AST-T1]],[EV-T2 [AST-T2]]__UT

(41) Eno/Kathos[-BOUNDED] T2PAST V2IMP T1PAST V1PERF

a. [EV-T1 AST-T1PERF]__UT-T

[EV-T2+/-PUNCTUAL AST-T2 IMP]__UT-T

b. [eno/kathos[-BOUNDED] [EV-T2+/-PUNCTUAL [AST-T2IMP]]


[EV-T2 [AST-T2] [EV-T1 [AST-T1]]]__UT

In (42) where the adjunct clause is introduced by kathos and the subordinate verb is in the perfective aspect, the

temporal anchoring between the main and the subordinate clause is still possible as shown in (42c). This is because the

meaning of kathos shifts to as soon as due to the situation aspect of the verb (see also section 2.3) and, thus, orders

AST-T2 as being prior to AST-T1.

(42) Kathos[+bounded] T2past V2[+punctual]perf T1past V2perf


[EV-T2+PUNCTUAL AST-T2PERF]__UT-T

b. [kathos[-BOUNDED] [EV-T2+PUNCTUAL [AST-T2PERF]] ! [kathos[+BOUNDED] [EV- T2+PUNCTUAL [AST-T2PERF]]


[EV-T2 [AST-T2]]__[EV-T1 [AST-T1]]__UT

Turning to the temporal clauses introduced by afu, (43) and (44) are possible because afu orders AST-T2 prior to

AST-T1. In (44), however, this ordering involves a series of events, since the imperfective is interpreted as obligatorily

habitual due the [+bounded] feature of afu:

(43) Afu[+bounded] T2past Vperf T1past Vperf


[EV-T2 AST-T2PERF]__UT-T

b. [afu[+BOUNDED] [EV-T2 [AST-T2PERF]]



(44) Afu[+bounded] T2past Vimp T1past Vimp

a. [[EV-T1 AST-T1IMP[-PROG]] [EV-T1 AST-T1IMP[-PROG]]. . .]__UT-T

[[EV-T2 AST-T2IMP[-PROG]] [EV-T2 AST-T2IMP[-PROG]]. . .]__UT-T

b. [afu[+BOUNDED] [[EV-T2 AST-T2IMP[-PROG]] [EV-T2 AST-T2IMP[-PROG]] . . .]c. Temporal anchoring:



25 In cases where the verb is marked for imperfective, for shorthand we choose to instantiate the representation in the (a) step as progressive or non-

progressive according to the way it is finally interpreted. Strictly speaking both the progressive and the non-progressive readings are possible in the

first two steps of the computation, i.e. prior to the introduction of the connective.

To summarize, our analysis constitutes a reformulation of Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria in the following

respects. First, the role of aspect is elaborated on due to the morphological and interpretative possibilities that arise

from the perfective/imperfective distinction of the Greek system. Second, the role of the connective is shown to affect

two steps of the computation. This is due to the inherent aspectual features of the connective, which is, on one hand,

sensitive to the lexical and morphological aspect of the verb and, on the other, to the temporal anchoring of the

subordinate to the matrix clause.

In the following section, we test the role of aspect and negation in the temporal vs. non-temporal interpretation of

the connectives investigated in this paper. The aim is to provide further empirical support for the claim that temporal

and non-temporal readings are partly obtained in the formal component of language and not only at the discourse level.

3. The empirical study

The aim of the empirical study was to investigate the effects of negation and Aspect on Greek native speakers’

interpretations of clauses headed by the connectives kathos, eno and afu.

3.1. Predictions

Based on the theoretical analyses presented above, we predicted the following: first, that the presence of

negation would block the availability of the temporal reading of all three connectives. Our second and third

predictions are related to the aspectual form of the subordinate verb. Specifically, when the aspectual form of the

verb was not the one selected by the [+/�boundedness] feature of the connective, then the non-temporal reading

should be preferred over the temporal one. The third prediction is based on the alternative possibility, namely

when the aspectual form of the subordinate verb was the one selected by the [+/�boundedness] of the connective,

i.e. perfective for afu and imperfective for kathos and eno. In this case, we should expect native speakers to show

no preference for the temporal or the non-temporal reading on the assumption that both representations are

available given that all test sentences were pragmatically open to a non-temporal reading (see section 3.2 and

Appendix A).

Nevertheless, we would like to postulate an auxiliary assumption with respect to the ‘markedness’ of the non-

temporal representation in relation to the temporal one. In particular, we assume that central adverbial clauses, being

syntactically and semantically subordinate to the matrix clause, constitute a less costly option in computational terms

in comparison with peripheral adverbial clauses.26 Thus, our third prediction is that when the aspectual form of the

verb is selected by the connective, the preferred reading would be the temporal one.

3.2. Method

The task used was an interpretation paper-and-pencil experiment. More specifically, the participants were presented

with sentences a part of which had been underlined. The subjects were asked to read the sentences and decide which

adverbial relation the underlined sentence fragments expressed, among four pre-given options (cause, time, manner

and concessiveness). In addition, the informants were instructed to rely on their intuitions rather than on prescriptive

facts. A practice session was included to familiarize the informants with the experimental procedure.

The questionnaire consisted of 44 items: 24 critical sentences and 20 fillers. The fillers were included in order to

distract the participants’ attention from the aim of the experiment and to ensure that that the subjects’ responses do not

result from the development of any strategies.

Three variables were tested: the connective (kathos, eno and afu), negation and Aspect (perfective, imperfective).

All variables were manipulated within the adverbial clause. Given that we were interested in testing the role of

aspect and negation in restricting the temporal reading only, we had to ensure that all sentences were amenable to a


26 The question of ‘markedness’ in the temporal, or not, interpretation of ambiguous connectives such as the ones discussed here could be related to

other issues, such as the diachronic development of these connectives, the acquisition pattern attested, lexical differences between them, etc. Given

the scarcity of relevant data, we would like to remain agnostic, at this stage, as to whether one of the two readings is ‘prototypical’ or ‘simpler’ in

interpretive terms. We thus opt for the structural difference between the two types of adverbial clauses as a good diagnostic of complexity favouring

the central adverbial clause as less complex in comparison with the peripheral one.

non-temporal interpretation in pragmatic terms. The interaction of negation and aspect resulted in four experimental

conditions for each connective as shown below27:

Perfective – affirmative

(45) Afu pighe sti dhulja i Eleni, sinandise tus filus tis.

after went-PERF.3S s-the job the.NOM.F.S Eleni.NOM.F.S, met-PERF.3S the friends her

‘‘After going to work Eleni met her friends./Since Eleni went to work, she met her friends.’’

Imperfective – affirmative

(46) Afu pighene sti dhulja i Eleni, sinandise tus filus tis.

after went-IMP.3S s-the job the.NOM.F.S Eleni.NOM.F.S, met-PERF.3S the friends her

‘‘Since Eleni was going to work, she met her friends.’’

Perfective – negative

(47) Afu dhen pighe sti dhulja i Eleni, sinandise tus filus tis.

after not went-PERF.3S s-the job the.NOM.F.S Eleni.NOM.F.S, met-PERF.3S the friends her

‘‘Since Eleni didn’t go to work, she met her friends.’’

Imperfective – negative

(48) Afu dhen pighene sti dhulja i Eleni, sinandise tus filus tis.

after not went-IMP.3S s-the job the.NOM.F.S Eleni.NOM.F.S, met-PERF.3S the friends her

‘‘Since Eleni wasn’t going to work, she met her friends.’’

There were eight sentences per connective and six per condition. Four versions of the questionnaire were

constructed so that each participant was exposed to all conditions and all three connectives but never saw the same item

more than once.

The experiment was conducted with 44 native speakers of Greek, aged between 18 and 46 years (mean age: 27

years, 24 males and 20 females).

3.3. Results

In the data analysis we made a distinction between temporal and non-temporal interpretations. In the latter case, we

included the ‘cause’, ‘manner’ and ‘concessive’ responses.

The following graph presents the percentages of temporal and non-temporal interpretations per condition for the

connective afu.

As shown in Graph 1, the temporal interpretation of clauses headed by afu is unavailable when the adverbial clause

is negated irrespectively of the aspectual form of the subordinate verb. On the other hand, when the adjunct clause is

affirmative, Aspect affected the subjects’ interpretations (x2 = 8.450, p < 0.01). Moreover, in the affirmative

conditions, when the verb was in the perfective aspect there were significantly more temporal than non-temporal

interpretations (x2 = 13.136, p < 0.001). This result conforms with our third prediction that when the selected aspect

(perfective, since afu is [+bounded]) is used, the temporal reading is ‘unmarked’ and therefore preferred over the non-

temporal one. In the imperfective affirmative condition, a significant difference between the two readings was not

obtained (x2 = 0.182, p < 0.670). This effect was not expected, especially since the main verb was always perfective

(see Appendix A) and, hence, the temporal reading with a habitual interpretation was not possible. Doing a detailed

item-analysis, we found that item 2 yielded a clear non-temporal reading (x2 = 4.455, p < 0.04), item 3 was

more often interpreted as temporal than as non-temporal (x2 = 4.455, p < 0.04) and all other items did not produce

significant differences between the two readings ( p > 0.1). We think that this finding has to do with the interpretative

nature of the task and clearly more research is needed to further investigate this issue.


27 The condition exemplified in (46) with connective afu-imperfective-affirmative cannot give rise to the habitual reading because the matrix verb is

in the perfective. Recall that the habitual reading can only arise if both verbs are in the imperfective which, in this case, is interpreted as habitual

(iterative), i.e. non-progressive.

Graphs 2 and 3 show the percentages of temporal and non-temporal responses for kathos and eno, respectively:

When the subordinate clause is negated, the results are similar to those for afu; namely, the temporal reading is not

available in either aspectual verb form. In addition, the aspectual verb form has an effect on the interpretations when

the clauses are affirmative (kathos: x2 = 9.586, p < 0.01; eno: x2 = 9.133, p < 0.01), as was the case for afu. In

contrast to afu, however, when the subordinate clauses were affirmative, the temporal reading was significantly

enhanced in the imperfective aspect (kathos: x2 = 18.182, p < 0.001; eno: x2 = 7.682, p < 0.01). In the affirmative

perfective condition, there were significantly more non-temporal than temporal interpretations for eno (x2 = 7.682,

p < 0.01), whereas such a difference was not observed in the data from kathos, as the two readings received an equal

number of responses. Again these results support the analysis proposed for these connectives, namely that they are

specified for a [�bounded] feature and are, therefore, primarily compatible with imperfective. Furthermore, these


Graph 1. Temporal and non-temporal responses for afu.

Graph 2. Temporal and non-temporal responses for kathos.

Graph 3. Temporal and non-temporal responses for eno.

findings also provide evidence in favour of the distinction proposed in section 2 between kathos and eno, whereby

kathos is also compatible with perfective aspect in which case its interpretation is shifted to the [+bounded] reading.

Such a shift is not possible for eno.

To summarize the results of the empirical study in relation to the predictions presented in section 3.1 above, overall,

the data appear to support them. Specifically, all three connectives show a robust preference for non-temporal readings

when the clause they introduce is negative.28 This is consistent with our first prediction regarding the effect that

negation has on the (un)availability of the temporal reading of the connective. Our second and third predictions

regarding the effect of aspect on the temporal vs. the non-temporal readings are also supported in that the selected

aspectual form is significantly more preferred than the non-selected one.

However, when looking at the data from the affirmative condition where the aspectual form is not the selected one,

the temporal and the non-temporal readings are equally preferred for kathos and afu. This finding is problematic for

our second prediction according to which, in this condition, there should be a clear preference for the non-temporal

reading. Recall, however, that both of these connectives allow a temporal interpretation with the non-selected

aspectual form, in restricted contexts (see section 2.3 above). We could thus suggest that the lack of preference for the

non-temporal reading in this condition is associated with the alternative temporal interpretations that are shown to be

independently available for these two connectives.

Nevertheless, it is clear from our results, that the effect of negation is much stronger than the effect of aspect on the

distinction between temporal and non-temporal readings of these three connectives. This difference between aspect

and negation could stem from different sources. Specifically, it could be that the effect of negation has to do with its

syntactic properties (structural position in relation to the connective) whereas aspect is more related to semantic,

selectional properties of the connective. Furthermore, morphological aspect has more than one interface

interpretation resulting from its interaction with lexical aspect and the predicate as a whole (e.g. telicity) whereas

sentence negation is closer to a one-to-one relation between form and meaning. We can thus conclude that both aspect

and negation affect the choice of temporal vs. non-temporal readings of these connectives, but the nature of the

restrictions imposed by aspect needs further examination by careful manipulation of lexical aspect, genericity and

type of direct object.

4. Summary and concluding remarks

In this paper we presented theoretical and empirical evidence which support a formal analysis of the ambiguity

arising between temporal and non-temporal interpretations of Greek connectives. Following Haegeman (2003, 2010)

we argued that Greek adverbial clauses also adhere to the distinction between central and peripheral adverbial

clauses. In terms of the differences in the internal syntax of central and peripheral adverbials, we argued that the

Greek data indicate that the connectives investigated are sensitive to aspectual features in that they are themselves

specified in terms of [boundedness]. Thus, when introducing a central adverbial clause, they impose certain

constraints on the temporal/aspectual specification of the verbal form in order to be interpreted accordingly. When

introducing a peripheral adverbial these constraints are inactive. The difference in the internal syntax of adverbial

clauses relates to the merge position of the connective, Fin and Force in central and peripheral adverbials,

respectively. This difference affects the distribution of topics and foci on one hand and negation on the other, in each

type of adverbial clause.

The analysis proposed for the Greek connectives investigated is also shown to affect the way in which temporal

anchoring between the matrix and the central adverbial is established. Based on a modified version of Demirdache and

Uribe-Etxebarria’s (2005) proposal, we provide an account of the computational steps required in order to arrive at

the appropriate aspectual/temporal interpretation. In case the computation crashes, the structural alternative of

representing the clause as a peripheral adverbial remains the only viable possibility.


28 As an anonymous reviewer points out, the temporal readings for negative eno-clauses is around 10% which is unexpected given the syntactic

analysis proposed above. Although it is true that this result cannot be dismissed as a performance error or as a task effect, since the other two

connectives kathos and afu, show a much lower rate of acceptance in the negative conditions, it should be pointed out that this is only found in the

(negative) imperfective condition, i.e. where the aspectual form is selected by eno. Although we cannot account for this difference, we speculate that

negation could be an emphatic add-on over an echo interpretation of the corresponding affirmative clause in the (small number of) sentences which

produce this result.

Acknowledgements

We have greatly benefited from discussions with and comments from Kleanthes Grohmann, Liliane

Haegeman, Anna Roussou and Tasos Tsangalidis as well as from the audience at the Workshop on Universalist

Perspectives on Relative Properties: Features vs. Constructions of the Clausal Left-Periphery held at the 39th

meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their

extensive and very useful comments and suggestions. All errors and inadequacies remain, of course, our

responsibility.

Appendix A

In the appendix we present all the items used in the interpretation task. Each item was presented in four conditions:

the subordinate verb was either in the perfective or the imperfective aspect and the subordinate clause was either

affirmative or negative, as shown in the first item. All the other items are presented in one condition (perfective verb,

affirmative clause). The main clause was kept constant in all conditions.

Connective eno (=while)

1. Eno (dhen) idhe/evlepe tileorasi o Petros ton pire o ipnos

while (not) saw.PERF/IMP.3S TV the Petros him-took the.NOM sleep.NOM

‘‘While Peter watched (didn’t watch)/was (not) watching the TV he fell asleep.’’

2. Eno pandreftike i Vivi skeftotan tis ipoxreosis tu ghamu.

while married.3S the.nom Vivi.nom thought.IMP.3S the.ACC obligations.ACC the.GEN marriage.GEN

‘‘While Vivi got married she was thinking of the marriage obligations.’’

3. Eno pighe sinema i Stella griniaze sinexia.

while went.3S cinema the.NOM Stella.NOM grumbled.IMPERF.3SG all-the-time

‘‘While Stella went to the cinema, she was grumbling all the time.’’

4. Eno akuse musiki i Eleni paraponiotan sinexia stin adhelfi tis.

while heard.3S music the.NOM Eleni.NOM complained.IMP.3S all-the-time to-the.ACC sister.ACC her

‘‘While Eleni listened to the music, she was constantly complaining to her sister.’’

5. Eno milise o Adonis to kino xasmuriotan.

while spoke.3S the.NOM Adonis.NOM the.NOM audience.NOM yawned.IMP.3S

‘‘While Adonis spoke the audience was yawning.’’

6. Eno parusiase tin erghasia tu o Vassilis kapios ton dhiekopse.

while presented.3 s the.acc paper.acc his the.nom Vassilis.nom someone.nom him-interrupted.imp.3 s

‘‘While Vassilis presented his paper someone interrupted him.’’

7. Eno parakoluthise ti dhilaeksi miluse ja ala themata.

while attended.3S the.ACC lecture.ACC spoke.IMP.3S for other topics

‘‘While (s)he attended the lecture (s)he talked about other topics.’’

8. Eno efaghe ghliko i Irini aghorase paghoto.

while ate.3 s sweet.acc the.nom Irini.nom bought.imp.3 s ice-cream.acc

‘‘While Irini ate a sweet she bought an ice-cream.’’

Connective kathos (=as)

1. Kathos kolimbise i Maria idhe to psari.

while swam.3S the.nom Maria.NOM saw.PERF.3S the.ACC fish.ACC

‘‘While Maria swam she saw the fish.’’

2. Kathos eghrapse to ghrama i Xristina esthanthike asxima.

while wrote.3S the.ACC letter.ACC the.NOM Xristina.NOM felt.PERF.3S bad

‘‘While Christina wrote the letter she felt bad.’’

3. Kathos perpatise sto parko i Eleni sinandise to Jani.

while walked.3S in-the park the.NOM Eleni.NOM met.PERF.3S the.ACC Jani.ACC

‘‘While Eleni walked in the park she met Janis.’’


4. Kathos maghirepse o Xristos katharize tin kuzina.

while cooked.3S the.NOM Xristos.NOM cleaned.IMP.3S the.ACC kitchen.ACC

‘‘While Christos cooked he cleaned the kitchen.’’

5. Kathos apomakrinthike o Pavlos o Jorghos ton fonakse.

while walked-away.3S the.NOM Pavlos.NOM the.NOM Jorghos.NOM him-called.PERF.3S

‘‘While Pavlos walked away Jorghos called him.’’

6. Kathos evghale logho o vuleftis vraxniase.

while gave.3S speech.ACC the.NOM deputy.NOM got-hoarse.3S

‘‘While he gave a speech the deputy got hoarse.’’

7. Kathos efighe o Petros apo to spiti o Janis ton xeretise.

while left.3S the.NOM Petros.NOM from the house the.NOM Janis.NOM him-greeted.PERF.3S

‘‘While Petros left from the house Janis greeted him.’’

8. Kathos traghudhise i Ana tin epiase vixas.

while sang.3S the.NOM Ana.NOM her-cought.PERF.3S cough.NOM

‘‘While Ana sang she started coughing.’’

Connective afu (=after)

1. Afu katharise to spiti i Eleni i Maria efere ta epipla.

after cleaned.3S the.ACC house.ACC the.NOM Eleni.NOM the.NOm Maria.NOm brought.PERF.3S the.ACC furniture.ACC

‘‘After Eleni cleaned the house Maria brought the furniture.’’

2. Afu taksidhepse o Petros emathe pola ja ton eafto tu.

after traveled.3S the.NOM Petros.NOM learned many.ACC about the.ACC self.ACC his

‘‘After Petros traveled he learned a lot about himself.’’

3. Afu epestrepse i Maria apo ti dhulja perase apo ti mitera tis.

after returned.3S the.NOM Maria.NOM from the.ACC work.ACC passed.PERF.3S from the.ACC mother.ACC her

‘‘After Maria returned from her work she passed by her mother.’’

4. Afu ghirise spiti i Tasia aghorase efimeridha.

after returned.3S home the.NOM Tasia.NOM bought.PERF.3S newspaper.ACC

‘‘After Tasia returned home she bought a newspaper.’’

5. Afu pighe sti dhulja i Eleni sinandise tus filus tis.

after went.3S to-the.ACc work.ACC the.NOM Eleni.NOM met.PERF.3S the.ACC friends.ACC her

‘‘After Eleni went to her work she met her friends.’’

6. Afu ksekinise dhulja i Maria pighe ghimnastirio.

after started.3S job.ACC the.NOM Maria.NOM went.PERF.3S gym.ACC

‘‘After Maria started her job she went to the gym.’’

7. Afu parakoluthise ta mathimata edhose eksetasis.

after attended.3S the.ACC courses.ACC gave.PERF.3S exams.ACC

‘‘After (s)he attended the courses (s)he gave the exams.’’

8. Afu edhose eksetasis o Filipos pighe dhjakopes.

after gave.3S exams.ACC the.NOM Filipos.NOM went.PERF.3S holidays.ACC

‘‘After Filipos gave the exams he went for holidays.’’

References

Agouraki, G., 1990. On the projection of maximal categories. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 182–200.

Andriotis, N.P., 1983/1990. Etymologiko Lejiko th koinZ neoellhnikZ (Etymological Dictionary of koine Modern Greek). Thessaloniki.

Carlson, G., 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Cinque, G., 1990. Types of A-bar Dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Declerck, R., Reed, S., 2001. Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. Mouton de Gruyter, Amsterdam.

Demirdache, H., Uribe-Etxebarria, M., 2000. The primitives of temporal relations. In: Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J. (Eds.), Step-by-Step:

Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 157–186.

Demirdache, H., Uribe-Etxebarria, M., 2005. Aspect and temporal modification. In: Kempchinsky, P., Slabakova, R. (Eds.), Aspectual Inquiries.

Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 191–221.


Demirdache, H., Uribe-Etxebarria, M., 2007. The syntax of time arguments. Lingua 117, 330–366.

Haegeman, L., 1984. Remarks on adverbial clauses and definite anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 712–715.

Haegeman, L., 1991. Parenthetical adverbials: the radical orphanage approach. In: Chiba, S., Shuki, A., Ogawa, A., Fuiware, Y., Yamada,

N., Koma, O., Yagi, T. (Eds.), Aspects of Modern English Linguistics: Papers Presented to Masatomo Ukaji on his 60th Birthday.

Kaitakushi, Tokyo, pp. 232–254.

Haegeman, L., 2003. Conditional clauses: external and internal syntax. Mind & Language 18 (4), 317–339.

Haegeman, L., 2006. Conditional clauses and the syntax of adverbial clauses in English: internal and external syntax. Paper presented at the

Interdisciplinary Workshop on Conditionals, University of Louvain.

Haegeman, L., 2010. The internal syntax of adverbial clauses. Lingua 120, 628–648.

Hale, K., 1984. Notes on world view and semantic categories: some Warlpiri examples. In: Muysken, P., van Riemsdijk, H. (Eds.), Features and

Projections. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 233–254.

Hornstein, N., 1990. As Time goes by. Tense and Universal Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Huddleston, R., Pullum, G.K., 2006. In: Aarts, B., McMahon, A.M.S. (Eds.), A Handbook of English Linguistics. Blackwell, Oxford.

Iatridou, S., 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 231–270.

Joseph, B., 1983. The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan infinitive: A Study in Areal, General and Historical Linguistics. Cambridge University

Press, Cambrdige.

Kalokerinos, A., 2001. Awob [Since] In: Agouraki, Y., Arvaniti, A., Davy, J., Goutsos, D., Karyolemou, M., Panayiotou-Triantaphyllopoulou,

A., Papapavlou, A., Pavlou, A., Roussou, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Nicosia, Cyprus.

University Studio Press, Thessaloniki.

Kalokerinos, A., 2004. The justifying connection, mostly in Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 5, 27–79.

Kiss, K., 1998. Identificational Focus versus Information Focus. Language 74 (2), 245–273.

Kitis, E., Zafiriadou, K., 2001. Dynamical systems as a metaphor in linguistics. The case of two connectives of Modern Greek, ‘eno’ and ‘kathos’ In:

Kitis, E. (Ed.), The Other Within VII: Aspects of Language and Culture. A.A. Altintzis, Thessaloniki, pp. 87–102.

Lambropoulou, S., 2004. Topic in Narrative Discourse: The Case of Otan-clauses in Modern Greek. Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of

Thessaloniki.

Levin, B., 2000. Aspect, lexical semantic representation, and argument expression. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley

Linguistics Society. pp. 413–429.

Mozer, A., 1994. Poion kai Apoceiz toy PZmatoz [Situational and View point Aspect of the Verb]. Parousia, Athens.

Philippaki-Warburton, I., 1994. Verb movement and clitics in Modern Greek. In: Philippaki-Warburton, I., Nikolaidis, K., Sifianou, M.

(Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 117]. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 53–60.

Philippaki-Warburton, I., 1998. Functional categories and Modern Greek Syntax. The Linguistic Review 15, 159–186.

Rivero, M.L., 1994. Negation, imperatives and Wackernagel effects. Rivista di Linguistica 6, 39–66.

Rizzi, L., 1990. Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Rizzi, L., 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In: Haegeman, L. (Ed.), Elements of Grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 281–337.

Roussou, A., 2000. On the left periphery: modal particles and complementisers. Journal of Greek Linguistics 1, 65–94.

Thompson, E., 1994. The syntax and semantic of temporal adjunct clauses. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 24, 419–428.

Tsangalidis, A., 1999. Will and Tha: A Comparative Study of the Category Future. University Studio Press, Thessaloniki.

Tsangalidis, A. Oi ypouetikoi logoi sthn nea ellhnikZ (Conditionals in Modern Greek). In: Moshonas, S. (Ed.), Melete gia to xroniko

sbsthma th nea ellhnikZ (Studies on the Temporal System of Modern Greek). Patakis, Athens, in press.

Tsimpli, I.M., 1990. The clause structure and word order of Modern Greek. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 227–245.

Tsimpli, I.M., 1995. Focusing in Modern Greek. In: Kiss, K. (Ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford University Press, Oxford,

pp. 176–206.

Tsimpli, I.M., 1998. Individual and functional readings for focus, Wh- and negative operators. Evidence from Greek. In: Brian, J., Horrocks, G.,

Philippaki-Warburton, I. (Eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics II. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 197–228.


Temporal modification in Greek adverbial clauses: The role of aspect and negation

Documents

Transcript of Temporal modification in Greek adverbial clauses: The role of aspect and negation