Little v as a categorizing verbal head: Evidence from Greek

Leiden_vs4
Little v as a categorizing verbal head: Evidence from Greek
Phoevos Panagiotidis Vassilios Spyropoulos Anthi Revithiadou University of Cyprus University of Athens University of Thessaloniki [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
| Little v as a categorizing verbal head 2
1. Introduction #1| Topic: The systematic morphophonological manifestation of a categorizing head v as evidence for its independent existence in the morphosyntax of verbs. #2| Case study: Greek provides concrete morphophonological evidence for the existence of a verbalizing head v, distinct from Voice and Aspect. #3| Facts: o Greek possesses a series of verbalizing suffixes to derive verbs, e.g. -ev, -iz, -en
etc. (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2004, also Ralli 2005, Holton et al. 2012): (1) pal-év-o < pál-i
fight-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I fight’ fightF-SG.NOM/ACC ‘the fight’
| Little v Workshop 3
o A whole inflectional class, i.e. the so-called Second Conjugation, exhibits a distinct morphophonological behavior in that its members take a vocalic extension in certain forms (2c-d) and shift the stress away from the root in others (2c) (Triantafylidis 1988[1941], Mackridge 1985, Joseph & Philippaki- Warburton 1986, Ralli 2005, Holton et al. 2012).
(2) 1st Conjugation 2nd Conjugation a. ráf-o ‘write-NONPAST.1SG’ c. aap-ó ‘love-NONPAST.1SG’ ráf-is ‘write-NONPAST.2SG’ aap-á-s ‘love-NONPAST.2SG’ b. ráp-s-o ‘write-PFV-NONPAST.1SG’ d. aap-í-s-o ‘love-?-PFV-NONPAST.1SG’ ráp-s-is ‘write-PFV-NONPAST.2SG’ aap-í-s-is‘love-?-PFV-NONPAST.2SG’ o The verbalizing suffixes are in complementary distribution with the inflectional
pattern of 2nd Conjugation.
CLAIMS: #1| In 2nd Conjugation verbs, the special vocalic element that follows the verb root and post-root stress are the morphophonological effects of the exponence of a verbalizing head v by means of an abstract/empty vocalic element -0V. #2| The verbalizing suffixes -ev, -en, -on, -iz, -az, etc. are also exponents of this verbalizing v head as allomorphs of -0V. #3| This v head is a simple categorizer, in the sense that (a) it combines with a category specific or an a-categorial root to derive a verb and (b) it is not related to transitivity and/or agentivity or to argument or event structure.
2. What is a verbalizer? Syntactic / decomposition approach to lexical categories (Marantz 1997, 2000; cf. Hale & Keyser 1993, 2002) ü Lexical categories are not the products of the combination of categorial features
with roots in the lexicon. ü Roots are inserted bare in syntax, where they are assigned categories according
to the syntactic environment in which they are inserted. ü Categorization is a syntactic process and the result of associating roots with
certain categorizers, i.e. nominalizers n, verbalizers v, adjectivizers a. ü A categorizer may change the category of an already categorized element, which
is inserted in its complement, e.g. the derivation of deverbal nouns (colonize → colonization).
Syntactic categorization ü Lexical categories derive from fully-fledged syntactic structures made of at least
a categorizer and a root. ü The content and the configuration of these structures determine the
interpretation of the relevant categories: ⇒ The position and the status of the root within these structures (bare
complement, directly merged with the categorizer, predicate, small clause, location or locatum, instrument, etc.).
⇒ The inner morphemes (low applicatives, low causativizers, particles, etc.) and internal argument(s).
The empirical consequences of syntactic categorization have been explored in detail in a
significant and radically growing body of work including but not restricted to Marantz (1997, 2000, 2005, 2006), Harley and Noyer (1997), Embick (1998, 2000, 2004a,b, 2010), Alexiadou (2001), Folli, Harley and Karimi (2003), Arad (2003, 2005), Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (2004), Borer (2005) Folli and Harley (2005, 2007), Harley (2005a,b, 2009, 2013), Alexiadou et al. (2006), Embick and Marantz (2008), Basilico (2008), Ramchand (2008), Volpe (2009), Lowenstamm (2008), Panagiotidis (2011, to appear).
Assumptions about the verbalizer v ü A categorizing head that ‘makes’ verbs out of (a) roots and root material or (b)
nouns and adjectives, in the case of denominal and deadjectival verbs, respectively.
ü v should be understood as the syntactic head that says “I am a verb” to syntax, morphology and semantics.
ü v is a different head from Kratzer’s (1996) Voice, a causative-transitive or passive head that hosts the external argument, and may assign accusative case if transitive (as per Burzio’s Generalization).
ü In general, v is distinct from Voice (either as a functional head or as a dissociated feature), contra Chomsky (2001 et seq.) (Embick 1998, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2004, et seq., Collins 2005, Harley 2009, 2013 and references therein, cf. Anagnostopoulou & Samioti 2012).
ü It has been proposed that v may come in different flavors: vDO, vBECOME, vRESULT, vFIENT, etc. (Folli & Harley 2005, 2007, Embick 2004a; cf. Ramchand 2008). For the purposes of this talk, we will not be concerned with this issue.
Evidence for the morpho(phono)logical manifestation of the categorizer v: Non-systematic ü In most cases, only causative morphology and derivational suffixes forming
denominal or deadjectival verbs are discussed as the exponents of v. (E.g. Embick 2004a on English -en, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (2004) on Greek verbal derivational suffixes, Harley (2013) on Hiaki, Gerdts & Marlett (2008) and Mathieu (2013) on denominal verb formation in North-American languages; but see also Franchetto (2006) on Kuikuro and Koontz-Garboden (2009) on Ulwa for case studies with more pervasive morphological effects)
Greek presents a case study for systematic morphophonological manifestation
of v, which has pervasive effects on verbal inflection.
3. Greek verbal inflection: 2nd Conjugation and the morpho(phono)logy of the verbalizer v
o Features of Greek verbal inflection:
– voice: ±active – aspect: ±perfective – tense: ±past – subject agreement: 1sg, 2sg, 3sg, 1pl, 2pl, 3pl – mood: ±imperative
For descriptions and analyses of Greek verbal inflection see: Triantafyllidis (1988[1941]),
Hamp (1961), Koutsoudas (1962), Householder et al. (1964), Warburton (1970, 1973), Babiniotis (1972), Ralli (1988, 1998, 2003, 2005), Clairis & Babiniotis (2005), Galani (2005), Spyropoulos & Revithiadou (2009, 2011), Holton et al. (2012).
The basic verb forms illustrated by the 1sg form of the 1st conjugation verb iðrío ‘I found, establish’: (3) Active NON IMPERATIVE IMPERATIVE
NON PAST PAST IMPERFECTIVE iðrío íðria íðrie PERFECTIVE iðríso íðrisa íðrise (4) Non Active NON IMPERATIVE IMPERATIVE
NON PAST PAST IMPERFECTIVE iðríome iðriómun(a) (iðríu) PERFECTIVE iðriθó iðríθika iðrísu
The exponents of the inflectional features are suffixes that attach to the root (5) a. iðrí-o √iðri-NONPAST.1SG b. íðri-a √iðri-PAST.1SG c. iðrí-s-o √iðri-PFV-NONPAST.1SG d. íðri-s-a √iðri-PFV-PAST.1SG
e. iðrí-ome √iðri-NONACT.NONPAST.1SG f. iðri-ómun(a) √iðri-IMPFV.NONACT.PAST.1SG
g. iðri-θ-ó √iðri-PFV.NONACT-NONPAST.1SG h. iðrí-θ-ik-a √iðri-PFV.NONACT-PFV.PAST-PAST.1SG
o Three main inflectional classes (traditionally called conjugations), according to some distinct properties of the imperfective non-past forms:
ü 1st Conjugation (iðrío): The stress falls on the root ü 2nd Conjugation (CLASS A: aap-á-o ‘I love’, class B: poθó ‘I desire’): Non-root
stress; bare non-past agreement suffixes, i.e. without the tense sensitive theme vowel
ü 3rd Conjugation (akúo ‘I listen’, the so-called contracted verbs): Root stress, bare non-past agreement suffixes
(6) Active Tense-Agreement suffixes NON PAST PAST
1ST CONJUGATION 2ND & 3RD CONJUGATIONS 1SG -o -o -a 2SG -is -s -es 3SG -i -i -e 1PL -ume -me -ame 2PL -ete -te -ate 3PL -un(e) -n(e) -an(e)
A comparison between the 1st Conjugation non-past suffixes and the past suffixes reveals that they contain a vowel which is sensitive to tense. We assume that this is the exponent of a theme element attached to the T functional head at MS (cf. Oltra-Massuet 2000, Oltra Massuet & Arregi 2005, Embick 2010). 2nd and 3rd Conjugation suffixes do not contain such an element (= bare suffixes).
(7) Non-past Imperfective 1ST CONJUGATION 2ND CONJUGATION 3RD CONJUGATION
CLASS A CLASS B 1SG iðrí-o aap-á-o / aap-ó poθ-ó akú-o 2SG iðrí-is aap-á-s poθ-í-s akú-s 3SG iðrí-i aap-á-i poθ-í akú-i 1PL iðrí-ume aap-á-me / aap-ú-me poθ-ú-me akú-me 2PL iðrí-ete aap-á-te poθ-í-te akú-te 3PL iðrí-un(e) aap-á-n(e) / aap-ú-n(e) poθ-ú-n(e) akú-n(e) (8) Past Imperfective 1ST
CONJUGATION 2ND CONJUGATION 3RD CONJUGATION CLASS A CLASS B
1SG íðri-a aap-ús-a aáp-a-a poθ-ús-a áku--a 2SG íðri-es aap-ús-es aáp-a-es poθ-ús-es áku--es 3SG íðri-e aap-ús-e aáp-a-e poθ-ús-e áku--e 1PL iðrí-ame aap-ús-ame aap-á-ame poθ-ús-ame áku--ame 2PL iðrí-ate aap-ús-ate aap-á-ate poθ-ús-ate áku--ate 3PL íðri-an /
iðrí-ane aap-ús-an(e) aáp-a-an /
aap-á-ane poθ-ús-an(e) áku--an /
CLASS A CLASS B 1SG iðrí-s-o aap-í-s-o poθ-í-s-o akú-s-o 2SG iðrí-s-is aap-í-s-is poθ-í-s-is akú-s-is 3SG iðrí-s-i aap-í-s-i poθ-í-s-i akú-s-i 1PL iðrí-s-ume aap-í-s-ume poθ-í-s-ume akú-s-ume 2PL iðrí-s-ete aap-í-s-ete poθ-í-s-ete akú-s-ete 3PL iðrí-s-un(e) aap-í-s-un(e) poθ-í-s-un(e) akú-s-un(e) (10)Past Perfective 1ST CONJUGATION 2ND CONJUGATION 3RD CONJUGATION
CLASS A CLASS B 1SG íðri-s-a aáp-i-s-a póθ-i-s-a áku-s-a 2SG íðri-s-es aáp-i-s-es póθ-i-s-es áku-s-es 3SG íðri-s-e aáp-i-s-e póθ-i-s-e áku-s-e 1PL iðrí-s-ame aap-í-s-ame poθ-í-s-ame akú-s-ame 2PL iðrí-s-ate aap-í-s-ate poθ-í-s-ate akú-s-ate 3PL íðri-s-an /
iðrí-s-ane aáp-i-s-an / aap-í-s-ane
Distinct properties of second conjugation o Non-root stress in non-past imperfective forms. o Bare non-past agreement suffixes in non-past imperfective forms. o A vowel appears between the bare non-past agreement suffixes and the root in
non-past imperfective forms, e.g. aap-á-o / aap-ó; this vowel is not the tense sensitive theme vowel we find in 1st conjugation ‘full’ agreement suffixes.
o A vowel appears as a vocalic extension of the root in perfective forms (normally /i/ with some lexically conditioned exceptions; see below), e.g., aap-í-s-o.
o The past imperfective forms contain the formative -us, which attracts the stress and creates a stress pattern that obliterates the canonical APU stress pattern of past forms in Greek.
PROPOSAL: The distinct properties of 2nd conjugation verbs listed above are related to each other.
More specifically:
ü The vowel that appears between the root and the bare agreement suffixes in the non-past imperfective forms and the vocalic extension in the perfective forms manifest the same position in the morphosyntactic structure.
ü Technically speaking, they are surface manifestations of an abstract vocalic element -0V.
ü This abstract vowel may be realized with a different vowel, depending on lexical and morphophonological conditions imposed by neighbouring elements, or it may be a silent, ghost-like element.

⇒ Hypothesis: The empty vocalic element 0V in 2nd conjugation verbs is the morphological exponent of a categorizing verbal head v, i.e. it is a verbalizer.
§ Issue: Is there any evidence for the existence of this v head in 1st conjugation
verbs? § Answer: Yes, the suffixes which are traditionally described as derivational
suffixes that derive verbs from nouns, adjectives and even adverbs.
4. Greek verbal derivational suffixes as exponents of v Observations:
ü Many Greek verbs contain a piece of morphology that unambiguously signals their stems as verbal.
ü This piece of morphology exists in addition to the presence of Voice, Aspect, Tense and Agreement morphology.
ü This morphology includes the so-called ‘verbal derivational suffixes’ (Triantafyllidis 1988[1941], Ralli 2005, Holton et al. 2012), which have been traditionally described as forming verbs from nouns, adjectives or adverbs: -ev, -iz, -(i)az, -on, -ar, -en.
These suffixes are verbalizers, i.e. morphological exponents of a v head.

Noun: pál-i fightF-NOM/ACC.SG ‘fight’ Verb: pal-év-o fight-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I fight’ b. Root: √ðiskol-
Adjective: ðískol-os difficult-M.SG.NOM ‘difficult’ Verb: ðiskol-év-o difficult-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I make X / become difficult’ c. Root: √kont-
Adverb: kontá ‘near, close’ Verb: kont-év-o near-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I am close to X, I approach’
(12) -en a. Root: √pliθ-
Noun: plíθ-os crowdM-NOM.SG ‘crowd’ Verb: pliθ-én-o crowd-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I multiply / become more’ b. Root: √ksanθ-
Adjective: ksanθ-ós blond-M.SG.NOM ‘blond’ Verb: ksanθ-én-o blond-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I make X / become blond’ (13) -ar a. Root: √skits-
Noun: skíts-o sketchN-NOM/ACC.SG ‘sketch, drawing’ Verb: skits-ár-o syllable-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I sketch I draw’
b. Derivations from non-native roots or material rilaks-ár-o ‘I relax’ (< relax), gugl-ár-o ‘I search something in Google’
Noun: klið-í keyN-NOM/ACC.SG ‘key’ Verb: klið-ón-o lock-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I lock’ b. Root: √erim-
Adjective: érim-os deserted-M.SG.NOM ‘deserted’ Verb: erim-ón-o deserted-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I make X / become deserted’ c. Root: √sim-
Adverb: simá ‘near’ Verb: sim-ón-o near-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I come close’
(15) -iz a. Root: √silav-
Noun: silav-í syllableF-NOM/ACC.SG ‘syllable’ Verb: silav-íz-o syllable-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I spell, divide a word in syllables’ b. Root: √kaθar-
Adjective: kaθar-ós clean-M.SG.NOM ‘deserted’ Verb: kaθar-íz-o clean-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I clean, I become clean’ c. Root: √paramer-
Adverb: parámera ‘aside’ Verb: paramer-íz-o aside-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I set aside’ d. Sound-mimic verbs gar-íz-o ‘I bray, I yell’, bubun-íz-o ‘I rumble’, av-íz-o ‘I bark’
Noun: tróm-os terrorM-NOM.SG ‘terror, fear’ Verb: trom-áz-o terror-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I terrify / I become terrified’ b. Root: √etim-
Adjective: étim-os ready-M.SG.NOM ‘deserted’ Verb: etim-áz-o ready-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I prepare, I get X ready’ c. Root: √plisi-
Adverb: plisíon ‘near’ Verb: plisi-áz-o near-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I come close, I approach’
d. Root: √anev- Verb: anev-én-o go up-IMPFV-NONPAST.1SG ‘I come/climb/go up’
Verb: anev-áz-o go up-VRB-NONPAST.1SG ‘I lift’
Properties of these suffixes and consequently of the v head
#1| They coexist with and thus are independent of Voice, Aspect, Tense and Agreement morphology: (17) a. ðiskol-év-o √ðiskol-VRB-NONPAST.1SG b. ðiskól-ev-a √ðiskol-VRB-PAST.1SG c. ðiskol-év-s-o > ðiskol-ép-s-o √ðiskol-VRB-PFV-NONPAST.1SG d. ðiskól-ev-s-a > ðiskól-ep-s-a √ðiskol-VRB-PFV-PAST.1SG
e. ðiskol-év-ome √ðiskol-VRB-NONACT.NONPAST.1SG f. ðiskol-ev-ómun(a) √ðiskol-VRB-IMPFV.NONACT.PAST.1SG
g. ðiskol-ev-θ-ó > ðiskol-ef-t-ó √ðiskol-VRB-PFV.NONACT-NONPAST.1SG h. ðiskol-év-θ-ik-a > ðiskol-éf-t-ik-a √ðiskol-VRB-PFV.NONACT-PFV.PAST-PAST.1SG
due to manner dissimilation and voicing assimilation
#2| It is impossible to form verbs from the relevant roots without these suffixes. #3| They are obligatory (typically the suffix -ar, but also -iz and -on) when coining new verbs, e.g. from non-native roots, sounds, etc. #4| The verbs with these suffixes obligatorily follow the 1st Conjugation inflectional pattern.
Verbalizing suffixes are neutral with respect to Aktionsart / inner aspect: (18) -(i)az
a. apusi-áz-o ‘be absent’: a state (Noun: apusíaF ‘absence’)
b. nist-áz-o ‘be / get sleepy’: a state or a change of state
(Noun: nístaF ‘sleepiness’) c. isix-áz-o ‘be / become still or inert, relax’: a state or a change of state
(Adjective: ísix-os/-i/-o ‘quiet’) vs.
(Verb: anev-én-o ‘I climb/come/go up’)
Verbalizing suffixes do not encode transitivity (as we would expect if v and Voice were conflated) and they are not related to the existence of an external argument (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2004 et seq.). Transitivity is also not correlated with the choice of the verbalizing suffix. ü Transitive (causative) – intransitive (anticausative/inchoative) alternations
with the suffix and without passive morphology (see also Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2004, Alexiadou et al. 2006)
(19) -en: farðéno ‘I make X / become wide or wider’ (Adjective: farð-ís ‘wide’)
a. causative i erátes farð-én-un to ðrómo the worker-PL.NOM wide-VRB-NONPAST.3PL the road-SG.ACC ‘The workers make the road wid(er).’
b. anticausative o ðrómos farðéni the road-SG.ACC wide-VRB-NONPAST.3SG
‘The road becomes wid(er).’
(20) -on: paóno ‘I freeze X, I become cold / frozen’ (Noun: pá-os ‘iceM’) a. causative
o níkos pá-o-s-e ta psárja the Nikos-NOM ice-VRB-PFV-PAST.3SG the fish-PL.ACC
‘Nick froze the fish.’ due to n-deletion before an s-initial suffix
b. anticausative to neró pá-o-s-e the water-SG.NOM ice-VRB-PFV-PAST.3SG
‘The water became frozen’ (21) -iz: jalízo ‘I shine, I polish’ (Noun: jal-í ‘glassN’)
a. causative o fantáros jal-íz-i tis bótes the soldier-SG.NOM glass-VRB-NONPAST.3SG the boot-PL.ACC
‘The soldier is polishing the boots.’
b. anticausative i bótes jal-íz-un the boot-PL.NOM glass-VRB-NONPAST.3PL
‘The boots are shining.’
(22) -ev: ðiskolévo ‘I make X / become difficult’ (Adjective: ðískol-os ‘difficult’) a. causative
i kaθiités ðiskól-ep-s-an tis eksetásis the professor-PL.NOM difficult-VRB-PFV-PAST.3PL the exam-PL.ACC
‘The professors made the exams (more) difficult.’
b. anticausative i eksetasis ðiskól-ep-s-an fetos the exams-PL.NOM difficult-VRB-PFV-PAST.3PL this year ‘The exams became/were (more) difficult this year.’
(23) -ar: frikáro ‘I freak (X) out, I horrify / become horrified’
a. causative aftí i katástasi me frik-ár-i this the situation-SG.NOM CL:1-SG.ACC freak-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘This situation freaks me out.’
b. anticausative o níkos frík-ar-e the Nikos-NOM freak-VRB-PAST.3SG
‘Nikos freaked out.’
ü Same suffix, different argument structures: (24) -(i)az a. Transitive only, agentive
steázo ‘I cover, I provide shelter’ (Noun: sté-i ‘roofF’) b. Transitive only, psych xalvaðjázo ‘I covet’ (Noun: xalvá-s ‘halvaM’) c. Ergative alternation aðjázo ‘I (become) empty’ (Adjective: áðj-os/-a/-o ‘empty’) d. Unergative piázo ‘I spring out’ (Noun: pi-í ‘springF’) e. Unaccusative xlomjázo ‘I become pale’ (Adjective: xlom-ós/-i/-o ‘pale’)
The choice of the verbalizing suffix is a morphological process: The actual form depends on the root it attaches to and not on the structure per se. ü Same suffix, different structures:
(25) -on a. Denominal, root as possessed property
plióno ‘I wound X’ (Noun: pli-í ‘woundF’)
b. Denominal, root as instrument maxeróno ‘I stub X’ (Noun: maxér-i ‘knifeF’)
c. Denominal, root as resulting state paóno ‘I make X / become frozen’ (Noun: pá-os ‘iceM’)
d. Deadjectival, root as resulting state erimóno ‘I make X / become deserted’ (Adj: érim-os/-i/-o ‘deserted’)
e. Deadverbial, root as location, resulting state simóno ‘I approach’ (Adverb: simá ‘near’)
ü Same structure, different suffix: (26) Deadjectival, ergative alternation, root as resulting state:
a. -on erimóno ‘I make X / become deserted’ (Adj: érim-os/-i/-o ‘deserted’)
b. -en
vaθéno ‘I make X / become deep’ (Adj: vaθ-ís/ja/-i ‘deep’) c. -(i)az
aðjázo ‘I (become) empty’ (Adj: áðj-os/-a/-o ‘empty’) d. -ev
ðiskolévo ‘I make X / become difficult’ (Adj: ðískol-os/-i/-o ‘difficult’) e. -iz
nostimízo ‘I make X / become tasty’ (Adj: nóstim-os/-i/-o ‘tasty’)

5. The Greek verbalizer: One syntactic head, many forms Putting the facts together: ü Verbs with verbal derivational suffixes obligatorily follow the 1st conjugation
pattern. ü 2nd conjugation verbs contain an empty vocalic element, which is responsible for
some of the distinct properties of this conjugation (non-root stress, vocalic extensions, etc.).
⇒ The abstract vocalic slot and the verbal derivational suffixes compete for the
same morphosyntactic position. ⇒ They are exponents of the verbalizing head v.
Residue: There is a small class of verbs with no verbalizing morphology: (27) 1st Conjugation 3rd Conjugation
ráf-o ‘I write X’ ké-o ‘I burn (X)’ tréx-o ‘I run’ akú-o ‘I hear (X), I listen to X’ fév-o ‘I leave’ tró-o ‘I eat X’
ü They belong to the 1st or to the 3rd conjugation. ü They are few in number, of relatively high frequency in use, exclusively of
Ancient Greek stock and they form a closed-class.
o Two speculations: ü Their roots are inherently verbal (a rather doubtful hypothesis) D ü Their roots contain a morphophonologically inert verbalizer, i.e. -∅ C
Summing up: The exponents of v in Greek (28) a. v ⇔ -0V / [second conjugation] ___
b. v ⇔ -(i)az / {√xlom-, …} ___ -en / {√plat-, …} ___ -ar / {√skits-, …} ___ -iz / {√nostim-, …} ___
-on / {√erim-, …} ___
6. The exponents of v and the stress patterns in verb forms o Non-past imperfective forms:
ü 1st conjugation and 3rd conjugation verbs exhibit root-stress. ü 2nd conjugation verbs exhibit non-root stress. ü However, 1st conjugation verbs with an overt verbalizer exhibit non-root
stress: stress falls on the verbalizer. (29) 1ST CONJUGATION 2ND CONJUGATION 3RD
CONJUGATION v ⇔ ∅ v ⇔ -ev CLASS A CLASS B 1SG iðrí-o pal-év-o aap-á-o / aap-ó poθ-ó akú-o 2SG iðrí-is pal-év-is aap-á-s poθ-í-s akú-s 3SG iðrí-i pal-év-i aap-á-i poθ-í akú-i 1PL iðrí-ume pal-év-ume aap-á-me / aap-ú-me poθ-ú-me akú-me 2PL iðrí-ete pal-év-ete aap-á-te poθ-í-te akú-te 3PL iðrí-un(e) pal-év-un(e) aap-á-n(e) / aap-ú-n(e) poθ-ú-n(e) akú-n(e)
6.1. Stress assignment in Greek verb forms o Greek is a language with lexically-encoded stress (Ralli & Touratzidis 1992,
Revithiadou 1999, 2007). This means that vocabulary items (roots and affixes alike) are lexically specified to carry information regarding the position of stress.
ü A root may be specified to carry stress on itself or impose stress on a
neighbouring morpheme: (30) a. kumbáros /kumbár-os/ best manM-SG.NOM b. uranós /uran^-os/ skyM-SG.NOM
ü A suffix may be accented or pre-accenting; If inflectional, it can reveal its inherent accentual preferences only when combined with accentless roots:
(31) a. anθrópu /anθrop-û/ manM-SG.GEN b. meéθus /mee-ûs/ sizeN-SG.GEN c. meeθón /meeθ-ón/ sizeN-PL.GEN
ü Otherwise, it loses stress to an accented root: (32) a. kumbáru /kumbár-û/ b. uranú /uran^root-^sfxu/ è Root accent prevails.
o The elsewhere or default stress for Greek is on the antepenultimate syllable (APU) (Malikouti-Drachman & Drachman 1990, Revithiadou 1999, 2007, Burzio & Tantalou 2007 a.o., see also Apostolouda et al. 2011a,b, Apostolouda 2012, Topintzi & Kainada 2012, Revithiadou et al. 2012, 2013).
o Unlike nouns, verbal roots are accentless (Revithiadou 1999) and quite often combine with pre-accenting or accented inflectional suffixes. Stress exhibits mobility in the verbal paradigm but not always in the nominal one:
(33) stress mobility in the verbal paradigm a. ðjaváz-o PU read-NONPAST.1SG b. ðjávaz-a APU read-PAST.1SG (34) stress immobility in the nominal paradigm a. kumbáros PU best man-SG.NOM b. kumbáru PU best man-SG.GEN
V vs. N stress differences explained: o Stress mobility in verb forms is due to the different accentual status of verbal
inflections:
ü Non-past inflections are all pre-accenting causing stress to surface on the final syllable of the element they attach to:
(35) ðjavázo, -is, -i… /ðjavaz-ô, -îs, -î/ read-NONPAST.1SG, -NONPAST.2SG, -NONPAST.3SG
ü APU stress is affiliated with the past either because past inflections have been (traditionally) argued to require stress to surface on the APU syllable (Warburton 1970, Babiniotis 1972, Ralli 2005) or because a stressed proclitic or prefixal element is present in the past form (see van Oostendorp 2007, 2012 and Spyropoulos & Revithiadou 2009, 2011, respectively).
(36) ðjávaz-a, -es, -e… /ðjavaz-a, -es, -es/ read-PAST.1SG, -PAST.2SG, -PAST.3SG
6.2. Deriving the differences between 1st and 2nd conjugation stress patterns o Non-past agreement suffixes are pre-accenting: The stress falls on the last
syllable of the element they attach to. o This element consists of the root and the v.
ü When v ⇔ -∅, the stress falls on the last syllable of the root (37) /ðjavaz-∅-ô/ read-v-NONPAST.1SG → ðjaváz-o root stress
ü When v ⇔ {-ev, -on, -iz, -(i)az, -ar, -en}, stress falls on the verbalizing suffix
(38) /pal-ev-ô/ fight-v-NONPAST.1SG → pal-év-o non-root stress
ü When v ⇔ -0V, stress falls on the element that materializes the empty vocalic
slot (39) /aap-0V-ô/ love-v-NONPAST.1SG → aap-á-o non-root stress
è PU stress because non-past inflection is pre-accenting
(40) pre-accentuation (simplified representation) * | accent ‘*’ is sponsored by suffix -o but realized/pronounced on V V-o
The distinct stress pattern of non-past imperfective forms of 2nd conjugation verbs is not exceptional but the result of the exponence of their morphosyntactic structure, the stress properties of the relevant exponents and the rules that govern stress assignment in Greek verbs.
7. The surface manifestations of the exponent -0V 7.1. Default: -0V → /i/ o It appears in perfective forms: (41) ACTIVE NON ACTIVE
CLASS A CLASS B CLASS A CLASS B PAST aap-í-s-o poθ-í-s-o aap-i-θ-ó poθ-i-θ-ó NON PAST aáp-i-s-a póθ-i-s-a aap-í-θ-ik-a poθ-í-θ-ik-a
o It also pops up in deverbal nouns: (42) CLASS A
root perfective verb form deverbal noun a. xtip- xtip-í-s-o xtíp-i-ma ‘hit’ hit-v-PFV-NONPAST.1SG ‘hit, tolling’ b. krat- krat-í-s-o krát-i-ma
‘hold’ hold-v-PFV-NONPAST.1SG ‘keeping, steadiness’ krát-i-si ‘arrest, booking’
c. kol- kol-í-s-o kól-i-ma ‘stick’ stick-v-PFV-NONPAST.1SG ‘sticking, obsession’
kse-kol-i-mós ‘cutting loose’
‘unjust’ unjust-v-PFV-NONPAST.1SG ‘offence’
θeór-i-si ‘point of view’
o It appears in non-active imperfective forms of the Class A verbs (and of the Class B verbs that may follow this pattern as a variant):
(44) NON PAST PAST 1SG aap-i-eme → aap-j-éme aap-i-omun(a) → aap-j-ómun(a) 2SG aap-i-ese → aap-j-ése aap-i-osun(a) → aap-j-ósun(a) 3SG aap-i-ete → aap-j-éte aap-i-otan(e) → aap-j-ótan(e) 1PL aap-i-omaste → aap-j-ómaste aap-i-omastan → aap-j-ómastan 2PL aap-i-osaste/
aap-i-este → →
→
* | σ σ | | V V a a p i e m e [a a p j é m e]
Although stress should have been pronounced on /i/, it is forced to be realized/pronounced on neighbouring /e/ because /i/ loses its vocalic peak status.
7.2. Lexically defined specification #1| Class A verbs specify the abstract vowel as /a/ in active imperfective non-past forms: (46) 1SG aap-0V-o → aap-á-o 2SG aap-0V-s → aap-á-s 3SG aap-0V-i → aap-á-i 1PL aap-0V-me → aap-á-me 2PL aap-0V-te → aap-á-te 3PL aap-0V-n(e) → aap-á-n(e)
The same vowel appears in the element -a of the alternative past imperfective forms of southern Greece: (47) 1SG aáp-0V--a → aáp-a-a 2SG aáp-0V--es → aáp-a-es 3SG aáp-0V--e → aáp-a-e 1PL aap-0V--ame → aap-á-ame 2PL aap-0V--ate → aap-á-ate 3PL aáp-0V--an /
aap-0V--ane → →
aáp-a-an / aap-á-ane
-a: -a + = either an epenthetic consonant or a [–perfective] exponent. Cf. the 3rd conjugation pattern: (48) Imperfective forms of akú-o ‘I listen to, I hear’ ACTIVE NON ACTIVE NON PAST akú-o akú--ome PAST áku--a aku--ómun(a)
#2| Certain verbs require that -0V surface as /e/ or /a/ instead of /i/ in perfective forms: (49) foráo ‘I wear, I put on’ (Class A) NON PAST PAST IMPERFECTIVE for-á-o for-ús-a / fór-a-a PERFECTIVE for-é-s-o fór-e-s-a (50) aferó ‘I remove, I subtract’ (Class B) NON PAST PAST IMPERFECTIVE afer-ó afer-ús-a PERFECTIVE afer-é-s-o afér-e-s-a (51) antanakláo ‘I reflect’ (Class A) NON PAST PAST IMPERFECTIVE antanakl-á-o antanakl-ús-a PERFECTIVE antanakl-á-s-o antanákl-a-s-a
The same vowel appears in deverbal nouns: (52) verb deverbal noun a. foráo ‘I wear, I put on’ fór-e-ma ‘dress’
b. aferó ‘I remove, I subtract’ afér-e-si ‘removal, subtraction’
c. antanakláo ‘I reflect’ antanákl-a-si ‘reflection’
7.3. Specification conditioned by the morphophonological context o The empty vocalic element surfaces as /u/ immediately before the 1PL and 3PL
non-past suffixes: (53) CLASS A CLASS B 1PL aap-0V-me
→ aap-á-me /
7.4. Failure to materialize
#1| Due to morphophonological restrictions, class A verbs like aap-á-o ∼ aap-ó (see also Ralli 2003), do not have to realize their V-element, thus forcing the suffix- inflicted stress to be pronounced on the suffix itself (55). Rightward shift in this case is due to the trochaic nature of Greek stress (Halle & Vergnaud 1987).
(54)
-0V is segmentally realized; PU stress [aapáo]
(55) * -0V is not segmentally realized; U stress
| σ σ | | aap-0V-ô [aapó] (See van Oostendorp 2006, 2007, Revithiadou 2007, Trommer & Zimmermann 2010 for the representation of hidden phonological structure.)
#2| Due to an OCP restriction, when the materialization of the -0V would create a sequence of two identical vowels, e.g. i-i: (56)
* | σ σ | | a. / poθ-0V-î /
→
*
|
#3| Before the imperfective past formative /-us/. In this case the APU stress – typically associated with the Greek past (van Oostendorp 2012, Spyropoulos & Revithiadou 2009, 2011) migrates to the /-us/ formative along the lines of the pronunciation requirements described above: (57)
* | σ | a. / aap-0V-us-a/ /poθ -0V-us-a/
→
* | σ σ | | b. aap-0V-us-a [aapúsa] poθ- 0V-us-a [poθúsa]
7.5. Summing up the manifestations of 0V -0V → /a/ / [Class A] ___ [–perfective, (–past)] / {√antanakl-, …} ___ [+perfective] -0V → /e/ / {√for-, √afer-, …} ___ [+perfective] -0V → /u/ / ___ {-me[–past, 1pl], -ne[–past, 3pl]} -0V → -0V / ___ {-o[–past, 1sg], -us[–perfective, –past]} -0V → /i/ / elsewhere
8. Conclusions o We have shown that:
ü Greek exhibits systematic verbalizing morphology. ü The case study at hand extends our understanding of categorization and its
modes of manifestation. o We offered an analysis that is consistent with the view that categorization is a
syntactic process and, more importantly, accommodates the morphophonological and, especially, stress properties of verbs and deverbal nouns, as a result of their mode of derivation, and not by employing rules of allomorphy in the lexicon.
o We further established that stress is yet in another way morphology-oriented in
Greek: it is regulated by the exponence of the verbalizing head v.
References Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2004. Voice morphology in the causative-
inchoative Alternation: evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, 115-136. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Florian Schäfer. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically In Mara Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of Interpretation, 187- 211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Yota Samioti. 2012. Domains within words and their meanings: a case study. In Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer and Florian Schäfer (eds.), The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Apostolouda, Vasso. 2012. O Tνος των Oυσιαστικν της Ελληνικς: Μια Πειραµατικ Προσγγιση. [Nominal stress in Greek: An experimental approach.] MA thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Apostolouda, Vasso, Kalomoira Nikolou, Anthi Revithiadou & Despina Papadopoulou. 2011. Experimental investigations on Greek stress. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Suprasegmentals in Acquisition and Processing (May 31-June 01, 2011), University of Konstanz, Konstanz.
Apostolouda, Vasso, Despina Papadopoulou & Anthi Revithiadou. 2011. Phonological factors outrank frequency effects. Paper presented at OCP9 (January 19-21, 2011), ZAS Berlin, Berlin
Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 737-778.
Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-Syntax. Dordrecht: Springer. Babiniotis, Georgios. 1972. Το Ρμα της Ελληνικς [The Verb in Greek]. Athens. Basilico, David. 2008. Particle verbs and benefactive double objects in English: High and low
attachments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 731-773. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring Sense. Volume I: In Name Only. Volume II: The Normal Course
of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burzio, Luigi & Niki Tantalou. 2007. Modern Greek accent and faithfulness constraints in OT.
Lingua 117: 1080-1124. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in
Language, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clairis, Christos & Georgios Babiniotis. 2005. Γραμματικ της Νας Ελληνικς: Δομολειτουργικ-
Eπικοινωνιακ [Modern Greek Grammar: Functional-Structural and Communicative]. Αthens: Ellinika Grammata.
Collins, Chris. 2005. A Smuggling Approach to the Passive in English. Syntax 8: 81-120. Drachman, Gaberel & Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman. 1999. Greek word accent. In Harry van
der Hulst (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe, 897-945. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Embick, David. 1998. Voice systems and the syntax-morphology interface. In Heidi Harley (ed.), The Proceedings of the Penn/MIT Workshop on Aspect, Argument Structure, and Events, May 1997. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 41-72. Cambridge MA, MIT, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Embick, David. 2000. Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 185-230.
Embick, David. 2004a. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 355-392.
Embick, David. 2004b. Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, 137-158. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Embick, David & Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 1-53. Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology
interface. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 289-324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Folli, Rafaella, Heidi Harley & Simin Karimi. 2003. Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates. In Luisa Astruc & Marc Richards (eds.), Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1, 100-120. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2005. Flavours of v: Consuming results in Italian & English. In Paula Kempchinsky, & Roumyana Slabakova (eds.), Aspectual Inquiries, 1-25. Dordrecht: Springer.
Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 197-238.
Franchetto, Bruna. 2006. Are Kuikuro Roots Lexical Categories? In Ximena Lois & Valentina Vapnarsky (eds.), Lexical Categories and Root Classes in Amerindian Languages, 33-68. Bern: Peter Lang.
Galani, Alexandra. 2005. The Morphosyntax of Verbs in Modern Greek. Doctoral dissertation, University of York.
Gerdts, Dona B. & Stephen A. Marlett (Eds.) 2008. International Journal of American Linguistics 74(4).
Hale, Kenneth & Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53-109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hale, Kenneth & Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Halle, Morris and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hamp, Eric. 1961. Το ρμα εν τη σημεριν ομιλουμνη ελληνικ γλσση [The verb in the
contemporary spoken Greek language]. Αθην [Athena] 65: 101-128.
Harley, Heidi. 2005a. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation and the ontology of verb roots in English. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapoport (eds.), The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation, 42-64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harley, Heidi. 2005b. Bare phrase structure, a-categorial roots, one-replacement and unaccusativity. In Slava Gorbachov & Andrew Nevins (eds.), Harvard Working Papers on Linguistics 9, 1-19. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Harley, Heidi. 2009. The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In Anastasia Giannakidou & Monica Rathert (eds.), Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization, 320-342. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125: 34-57.
Harley, Heidi & Rolf Noyer. 1997. Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon: Nominalizations, vocabulary items and the Encyclopaedia. In Heidi Harley (ed.), Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 119-137. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Holton, David, Peter Mackridge, Irene Philippaki-Warburton & Vassilios Spyropoulos, V. 2012. Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar. Second Revised Edition. London: Routledge.
Householder, Fred W., Kostas Kazazis & Andreas Koutsoudas. 1964. A Reference Grammar of Literary Dhimotiki. Bloomington: Indiana University.
Joseph, Brian & Irene Philippaki-Warburton. 1986. Modern Greek. London:
Croom Helm.Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2009. Ulwa Verb Class Morphology. International Journal of American Linguistics 75: 453-512.
Koutsoudas, Andreas. 1962. Verb morphology of Modern Greek. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck &
Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lowenstamm, Jean. 2008. On little n, √, and types of nouns. In Jutta Hartmann, Veronika
Hegedus & Henk van Riemsdjik (eds.), The Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology, 105-143. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Mackridge, Peter. 1985. The Modern Greek language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Malikouti-Drachman, Angeliki & Gaberel Drachman. 1990. Τονισμς στα Ελληνικ [Stress in
Greek]. Studies in Greek Linguistics 10: 127-143. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of
your own lexicon. In Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarisa Surek-Clark & Alexander Williams (eds.), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4, 201-225. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Marantz, Alec. 2000. Words. Ms., MIT. Marantz, Alec. 2005. Rederived generalizations. Ms., MIT. Marantz, Alec. 2006. Phases and words. Ms., NYU. Mathieu, Eric. 2013. Denominal verbs in Ojibwe. International Journal of American Linguistics
79: 97-132.
Oltra-Massuet, Isabel. 2000. On the notion of theme vowel: A new approach to Catalan verbal morphology. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 19. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Oltra-Massuet, Isabel & Carlos Arregi. 2005. Stress-by-Structure in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 43-84.
Oostendorp, Marc van. 2006. A theory of morphosyntactic colours. Ms., Meertens Institute, Amsterdam. [URL: http://egg.auf.net/06/docs/Hdt%20Oostendorp%20coulours.pdf.]
Oostendorp, Marc van. 2007. Derived Environment Effects and Consistency of Exponence. In: Sylvia Blaho, Patrik Bye & Martin Krämer (eds.), Freedom of Analysis?. 123-148, Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Oostendorp, Marc van. 2012. Stress as a proclitic in Modern Greek. Lingua 122: 1165-1181. Panagiotidis, Phoevos. 2011. Categorial features and categorizers. The Linguistic Review 28:
325-346. Panagiotidis, Phoevos. To appear. Categorial Features: A Generative Theory of Word-Class
Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ralli, Angela. 1988. Eléments de la Morphologie du Grec Moderne: La Structure de la Verbe.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Montreal. Ralli, Angela. 1998. On the morphological status of inflectional features: Evidence from
Modern Greek. In Brian D. Joseph, Geoffrey C. Horrocks & Irene Philippaki-Warburton (eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics II, 51-74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ralli, Angela. 2003. Morphology in Greek linguistics: The state of the art. Journal of Greek Linguistics 4: 77-129.
Ralli, Angela. 2005. Μορφολογα [Morphology]. Athens: Patakis. Ralli, Angela & Louvodikos Touradzidis. 1992. A computational treatment of stress in Greek
inflected forms. Language and Speech 35: 435-453. Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Revithiadou, Anthi. 1999. Headmost Accent Wins: Head Dominance and Ideal Prosodic Form in
Lexical Accent Systems. Doctoral dissertation, LOT Dissertation Series 15 (HIL/Leiden University), The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
Revithiadou, Anthi. 2007. Colored Turbid accents and Containment: A case study from lexical stress. In Sylvia Blaho, Patrick Bye & Martin Krämer (eds.), Freedom of Analysis?, 149- 174. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Revithiadou, Anthi, Aggelos Lengeris & Dimitra Ioannou. 2012. Is there a default stress in Greek? Paper presented at the University of Delaware Conference on Stress and Accent, 29 November – 1 December 2012. Delaware: University of Delaware.
Spyropoulos, Vassilios & Anthi Revithiadou. 2009. The morphology of PAST in Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics 29: 108-122.
Spyropoulos, Vassilios & Anthi Revithiadou. 2011. PAST in Greek: A case study of the interface between morphological structure and phonological realization. Ms. University of Athens and University of Thessaloniki.
Topintzi, Nina & Evia Kainada. 2012. Acronyms and the placement of default stress in Greek. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (September 1- 4, 2011). Komotini: Democritus University of Thrace.
Triantafyllidis, Manolis. 1988[1941]. Νεοελληνικ Γραμματικ (της Δημοτικς). Ανατπωση της κδοσης του ΟΕΣΒ (1941) με Διορθσεις [Modern Greek Grammar. Reprint of the Organization for the Edition of School Books Edition (1941) with Corrections]. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies, Manolis Triantafyllidis Foundation.
Trommer, Jochem & Eva Zimmerman. 2010. Mora affixation. Paper presented at the WOTM 5/6th Network Meeting Lutherstadt-Wittenberg, July 25th 2010.
Volpe, Mark. 2009. Root and deverbal nominalizations: Lexical flexibility in Japanese. Resource document. LingBuzz. [http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000789].
Warburton, Irene. 1970. On the Verb of Modern Greek. The Hague: Mouton and Co. Warburton, Irene. 1973. Modern Greek verb conjugation: Inflectional morphology in a
Transformational Grammar. Lingua 32: 193-226.

Documents

Little v as a categorizing verbal head: Evidence from Greek