The syntax of Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD) has been widely debated due to its mixed properties, which in some cases indicate movement (e.g. island sensitivity, certain connectivity effects) and in other cases base generation of the CLLD-ed phrase (wide scope, lack of weak crossover). In this paper we discuss scope facts with CLLD in Greek, revealing a contrast depending on the type of quantifier. We present experimental evidence that whereas CLLD-ed plain indefinites take wide scope, CLLD-ed numerals can get a low scope interpretation. We argue that the inverse scope interpretation with CLLD-ed numerals is only apparent, presenting, in fact, an instance of split scope between the degree quantifier and the existential operator. This analysis presents evidence in favor of a movement analysis for CLLD, thus patterning with the observation that binding reconstruction is possible. At the same time, the non-availability of scope reconstruction with CLLD is attributed to stricter locality constraints which have been discussed for quantifier raising as opposed to other types of movement and dependencies.

This study tests grammatical aspect in adult Heritage Speakers (HSs) of Greek in Germany (HSs-Germany) and the US (HSs-US), a topic which has not been investigated before for this language, exploring the role of the dominant language and the default value as an acquisition strategy. In an oral elicitation task (Experiment 1) targeting the production of aspectual marking in Greek, Greek monolinguals (MSs) and HSs-Germany exhibited ceiling performance, while HSs-US were significantly less accurate. Education in Greek reliably predicted their accuracy. In a speeded Grammaticality Judgment task (Experiment 2) targeting the comprehension of aspect in a Grammaticality x Aspect repeated measures design, similar results were obtained for the grammatical conditions as in Experiment 1. In ungrammatical conditions, accuracy on aspect was affected for all groups, and this was more evident for HSs. HSs-US were overall less accurate with the morphologically marked form (perfective). Decision Times (DTs) revealed that only MSs and HSs-Germany were sensitive to aspect violations exhibiting longer DTs. Education in Greek reliably predicted accuracy and DTs. The results are discussed within the realm of heritage languages, language contact, and aspect acquisition in Greek bilingual populations. Finally, certain novel verbal forms produced by HSs are also discussed.

The article discusses compound formation involving proper names from a comparative perspective. While proper names can appear within compounds in English, this is not possible in Greek. The article argues that this follows from a basic difference between English and Greek: English, but not Greek, allows phrases as non-heads of right-headed compounds. As proper names in English are referential in the absence of a determiner, due to the process of D-N merger, they can still be recognized as such within compounds. This is not possible in Greek, where proper names require the presence of a determiner to establish reference.

Passivization played a central role in shaping both linguistic theory and psycholinguistic approaches to sentence processing, language acquisition and impairment. We present the results of two experiments that simultaneously test online processing (self-paced reading) and offline comprehension (through comprehension questions) of passives in German while also manipulating the event structure of the predicates used. In contrast to English, German passives are unambiguously verbal, allowing for the study of passivization independent of a confound in the degree of interpretive ambiguity (verbal/adjectival). In English, this ambiguity interacts with event structure, with passives of stative predicates naturally receiving an adjectival interpretation. In a recent study, Paolazzi et al. (2015, 2016) showed that in contrast to the mainstream theoretical perspective, passive sentences are not inherently harder to process than actives. Complexity of passivization in English is tied to the aspectual class of the verbal predicate passivized: with eventive predicates, passives are read faster (as hinted at in previous literature) and generate no comprehension difficulties (in contrast to previous findings with mixed predicates). Complexity effects with passivization, in turn, are only found with stative predicates. The asymmetry is claimed to stem from the temporary adjectival/verbal ambiguity of stative passives in English. We predict that the observed difficulty with English stative passives disappears in German, given that in this language the passive construction under investigation is unambiguously verbal. The results support this prediction: both offline and online there was no difficulty with passivization, under either eventive or stative predicates. In fact, passives and their rich morphology eased parsing across both types of predicates.

The paper offers a theoretical characterization of the middle Voice as distinct from the passive Voice, and addresses the cross-linguistic morphological variation in realizing these two non-active Voices in different classes of languages, represented by Hebrew, Greek and English. The two non-active Voices are the morphological realization of two distinct syntactic Voice heads generating middle and passive clauses respectively. The former are cross-linguistically interpreted as (i) anticausative, (ii) reflexive (and reciprocal), (iii) dispositional middle, and (iv) medio-passive, which is distinct from passive. This variation in the interpretation of the middle Voice reflects different properties of the root rather than the application of four different lexical rules postulated by lexicalist theories.

In this paper we focus on the ability of ArgumentSupporting Nominalizations (ASNs) to realizemorphological plural. We think that this aspect of their behavior isinstrumental in our understanding of their properties and their syntax withinone language and across languages. Our factual investigation deals withRomanian, English, German and Spanish, as well as Polish and Bulgarian ASNs. Weshow that the interplay between the aspectual properties – eitherinner or outer aspect – and the nominal/verbalcharacteristics, as justifying the internal structure of ASNs, allows us tocharacterize the ability of ASNs to accept plural marking across languages. Wefurther argue for a flexible syntactic theory that enables us to capture themixed properties of ASNs. We provide evidence for two parameters of variation.The first parameter is whether ASNs involve a nominalizer or not. If anominalizer is not included, ASNs lack nominal internal properties. If anominalizer is included, the second parameter comes into play and allows forlanguage variation with respect to the height of attachment of the nominalizer.Specifically, a nominalizer can attach to (and thusnominalize) distinct layers of syntactic structure (VP vs.AspectP).

Adverbs, their placement, and their licensing conditions have been the focus of a number of recent (language-specific and crosslinguistic) studies (e.g., Alexiadou 1997, Ernst 1998, Laenzlinger 1998, and Cinque 1999, among others). Pittner's book complements these studies by offering a detailed investigation of adverbials in German. The book is divided into six main chapters. In what follows I give a brief critical overview of the contents of the study, and I finish my discussion by addressing some general theoretical issues treated by Pittner.