Raising without Infinitives and the
Nature of Agreement
*
ARTEMIS ALEXIADOU AND ELENA ANAGNOSTOPOULOU
1
Introduction
The goal of this paper is twofold. First, we present evidence that Greek has
Raising out of subjunctive complements (see also Anagnostopoulou 1999).
Second, we discuss the implications of Greek Raising for the theory of Case
and Agreement, as outlined in Chomsky (1998).
2
Raising, Incomplete Checking and Agreement
Chomsky (1998), following George & Kornfilt (1981), proposes that structural Case (nominative/accusative) is associated to phi-features in the sense
that complete subject-verb and object-verb agreement checking results in
structural Case checking. Chomsky further proposes that successive cyclic
movement depends on incomplete feature checking on v, T, C. Incomplete
feature checking involves checking and erasure of a feature on the target,
but not of features of the moved constituent. In the domain of T, successive
* We would like to thank the audiences at the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics at the University of Tucson, the 9th Colloquium of Generative Grammar in
Barcelona, the GGS meeting in Stuttgart and a seminar at the University of Tübingen. Thanks
to Graham Katz, Winfried Lechner, Cristina Schmitt, Wolfgang Sternefeld, George Tsoulas
and Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta for comments and discussions.
1
cyclic movement depends on defective T, i.e. T that cannot check Case. In
(1) Mickey moves through intermediate Spec,TPs checking their EPP feature; Steve in (2) can't A-move higher once the Case of the NP is checked on
a T head (freezing effect).
(1) Mickey is likely [TP t2 to be asked [TP t1 to t join Juventus]]
(2) *Steve seems [that t is leaving]
If Case and Agreement are two sides of the same coin, it is predicted
that whenever Case on the lower clause has not been checked, agreement
will be impossible. This prediction is trivially borne out in English, where
Raising takes place only out of infinitival clauses which show no agreement
with the subject.
Portuguese presents a more interesting case for Chomsky. As known,
Portuguese has inflected infinitives (cf. Raposo 1987). And indeed Raising
out of inflected infinitives is impossible, as expected (see (3) below, data
from Cristina Schmitt personal communication). This correlates with the
fact that inflected infinitives in Portuguese assign nominative Case (see Raposo 1987).
(3) *As criancas parecem
falarem
portugues
The children seem-3pl to speak-3pl Portuguese
In this paper we argue that the prediction is not borne out in Greek. Based
on Greek Raising out of subjunctive clausal complements, where nominative Case isn't checked, yet full agreement is present, we propose that Case is
not necessarily linked to agreement. We further propose that agreement is a
PF reflex of either EPP or Case formal feature checking relations. In other
words, agreement belongs to the morphological component (cf. Marantz
1991).
3
Greek Subjunctive Complements and Control
Greek is a pro-drop language, showing all the properties that characterise
such languages (cf. Rizzi 1982, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998). All
Greek verbs inflect for person and number, tense, aspect and voice.1
1 Greek has a relative freedom of word order, i.e. SVO, VSO and VOS orders are all possible.
The same flexibility is found with the predicates that we will argue to be Raising predicates,
i.e. the subject can occur in a preverbal position in the matrix clause or in a postverbal
Greek lacks complements whose verbs can be characterised as being [Agr]. In Greek, sentences that correspond to infinitivals in English are introduced by the particle na (cf. (4)). Na has been analysed as a subjunctive
mood marker (cf. Philippaki-Warburton & Veloudis 1984, Philippaki-Warburton 1990, Rivero 1994) or a subjunctive complementizer (Tsoulas 1994,
Aggouraki 1991). For the purposes of this paper either analysis will do. As
shown in (4), the embedded verb, similarly to the matrix verb, shows agreement in number and person with the matrix subject.
(4)
O Petros/ego kser-i/-o
na koliba-i/-o
Peter-nom/I knows/know-1sg subj swim-3sg/-1sg
'Peter knows how to swim/I know how to swim'
Greek subjunctives differ from Romance subjunctives in that they do not
show subject-obviation (cf. Terzi 1992, Varlokosta 1994). While embedded
and matrix subjects must be obligatorily disjoint in reference in Romance
subjunctives (5), this is not the case in Greek (6):
(5) Juani quiere que ECj/*i venga
John wants that
comes-subj
'Johni wants that hej/*i comes'
(6) o Janisi
theli na ECi/j erthi
John-nom wants subj
come-3sg
'John wants that hei/j comes'
Spanish
In this respect Greek subjunctives behave like infinitives.
In the recent literature on the Greek subjunctive, it is generally assumed that the constructions in (4) involve Control (cf. Iatridou 1993, Terzi
1992, Varlokosta 1994 and Tsoulas 1994 but see Philippaki & Catsimali
1999). A case of Control is given in (7), where coreference is obligatory
(7a) and no NP is possible in the embedded clause (7b):
(7) a. *o Petros kseri
Peter-nom knows
b. *o Petros kseri
Peter-nom knows
na kolimbao
subj swim-1sg
na kolimbai i Maria
subj swim-3sg Mary-nom
position in the lower clause. For ease of exposition we represent the subject in the preverbal
position in most cases, but we come back to this.
Na clauses do not always involve Control. This is shown in (8), where there
is no obligatory coreference between the embedded and the matrix subject
(8a) and lexical NPs can be licensed (8b):
(8) a. o Petros perimeni na erthun
Peter-nom expects subj come-3pl
'Peter expects that they come'
b. o Petros
elpizi na figi i Maria
Peter-nom hopes subj go-3sg Mary-nom
'Peter hopes that Mary goes'
Varlokosta (1994) argues that Greek has two types of Control predicates:
optional Control verbs e.g. volitional predicates and obligatory Control
verbs e.g. psych verbs such as ksero 'know how', herome 'be happy', aspectual verbs, such as arhizo 'start/begin', sinehizo 'continue, and verbs like
matheno 'learn', dokimazo 'try'. Note that many predicates that are optional
control in Greek correspond to predicates that are obligatory control in English (cf. Joseph 1992, Terzi 1992, Varlokosta 1994, Martin 1996):
(9) a. Owen tried to score a goal
b. *Owen tried Shearer to score a goal
(10) prospatho na erthi
o Janis
try-1sg subj come-3sg John-nom
'I try for John to come'
4
Raising in Greek
In this section we argue that Greek has Raising out of na-subjunctive complements.2 Two environments must be distinguished: (i) Na-subjunctive
complements of the aspectual verbs arxizo (start) and stamatao (stop) and
(ii) Na-subjunctive complements of the verb fenete (seem). We are not going to discuss environment (ii) which presents a number of complications
(see Anagnostopoulou 1999 for discussion). We present arguments on the
basis of environment (i) that Greek has Raising. As noted in the previous
section, these predicates have been taken to be obligatory Control predicates. However, we reanalyse them as ambiguous between Control and Rais2 The possibility that Greek has Raising has been suggested in Iatridou (1993) but there are
no arguments presented. Anagnostopoulou (1999) discusses a number of arguments for
Raising. These arguments are included in this section.
ing (see Perlmutter 1970 for English aspectual predicates).
With aspectual verbs, the subject agrees obligatorily with the matrix
and the embedded verb in person and number:
(11) Ta pedhia
arxisan
na trexoun
the children-nom started-3pl subj run-3pl
'The children started to run'
(12) *Ta pedhia
arxise
na trexoun
the children-nom started-3sg subj run-3pl
The agreement patterns in (11) and (12) can be explained in terms of Obligatory Control or Raising. Despite the apparent identical shape of examples
(4) and (11-12), we show below that the two construction types show a consistently different behaviour with respect to a number of tests diagnosing
Raising, namely binding and idiom formation.
4.1 Nominative Anaphors3
Greek has nominative anaphors that are licensed mainly with experiencer
object predicates and are bound by the object experiencer after they undergo reconctrusction to a position below the object experiencer, i.e. their base
position (cf. Anagnostopoulou & Everaert 1999 for discussion):
(13) O eaftos tu tu aresi
The self his him likes
'Himself appeals to him'
(14) *O eaftos tu ton antipathi
The self his him dislikes
'Himself dislikes him'
Nominative anaphors are possible in the subject position of aspectual verbs
when the embedded verb is an experiencer object verb:
3 There is another test where the two structures behave differently, pointed to us by Sabine
Iatridou. Pseudocleft formation shows that pseudo-clefts are allowed with control structures
but not with raising ones:
(i)
afto pu kseri o Janis
ine na kolimba
this that knows John-nom is subj swim-3sg
(ii) *afto pu arxise
o Janis
ine na trehi
this that started-3sg John-nom is subj run-3sg
It is generally assumed that only CPs with a Tense structure can form pseudo-clefts.
(15) O eaftos tu
arxizi
na tu
aresi
The self his-nom start-3sg subj Cl-gen appeal-3sg
He starts liking/accepting himself'
(16) *O eaftos tu
arxizi na ton
antipathi
The self his-nom start-3sg subj Cl-gen dislike-3sg
'*Himself starts disliking him'
The grammaticality of (15) shows that the anaphor reconstructs in a position
where it can be bound by the object of the embedded clause, i.e. its base position. This argues for Raising (Reconstruction possible) and against Control (Reconstruction impossible).
Note that nominative anaphors are impossible with obligatory control
verbs, as shown in (17):
(17) *O eaftos tu
kseri
na tu
aresi
The self his-nom know-3sg subj Cl-gen appeal-3sg
4.2 Weak Crossover (WCO) and Clitic Doubling
A second related argument comes from an interaction between clitic
doubling of the object and obviation of WCO effects. In Greek weak
Crossover effects arise when the quantificational object is not in cliticdoubled (18b):
(18) a. Kathe mitera sinodepse to pedhi tis sto sxolio
Every mother accompanied the child hers at school
'Every mother accompanied her child to school'
b. ?*I mitera tu sinodepse
to kathe pedhi sto sxolio
The mother his accompanied the every child at school
'?*His mother accompanied every child to school'
When the quantificational object undergoes clitic doubling the WCO effects
are obviated (18c) (cf. Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1997):
c. I mitera tu
to
sinodepse to kathe pedhi sto sxolio
the mother his cl-acc accompanied the every child at school
His mother accompanied each child at school'
Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1999) argue that the effect is due to
reconstruction of the subject to a position below the object clitic, i.e. its
base-position under the VP-internal subject hypothesis.
The same effect is found with aspectual verbs. WCO effects arise
when the quantificational object of the embedded verb (19b) is not doubled
and the matrix subject contains a pronominal variable:
(19) a. Kathe mitera arxise na
sinodevi to pedhi tis sto sxolio
Every mother started subj accompany the child hers at school
'Every mother started to accompany her child to school'
b. ?*I mitera tu arxise na sinodevi to kathe pedhi sto sxolio
The mother his started subj accompany the every child at school
'?*His mother started to accompany every child to school'
On the other hand, when the embedded object undergoes clitic doubling the
WCO effects disappear (19c).
c. I mitera tu arxise na
to
sinodevi to
kathe pedhi
the mother his started subj cl-acc accompany the every child
sto sxolio
at school
'His mother started to accompany each child to school'
Again, this argues for Raising (Reconstruction possible) and against Control
(Reconstruction impossible).
Obviation of WCO effects is impossible with obligatory control verbs:
(20) ?*I mitera tu kseri
na to sinodevi to kathe pedhi
the mother his knows subj cl-acc accompany the every child
sto sxolio
at school
4.3 Idioms
Fixed nominatives as part of idiomatic expressions in Greek occur in postverbal position.
(21) a. Mu
bikan
psili
st'aftia
cl-1st: sg:gen entered-3pl fleas-nom in the ears
'I became suspicious'
b. *Psili mu bikan st'aftia
Examples like (21a) can be embedded under arxizo and stamatao. The subject in the embedded clause agrees with the embedded and the matrix verb:
(22) Stamatisan/arxisan
na mu
benun
Stopped-3pl/started-3pl subj cl-1st:sg:gen enter-3pl
psili
st'aftia
fleas-nom:pl in the ears
'I stopped being/started becoming suspicious'
In (22) the nominative depends on the lower verb for its interpretation and
yet it agrees with both verbs obligatorily.
(23) *Stamatise/arxise
na mu
benun
psili
Stopped-3sg/started-3sg subj cl-1st:sg:gen enter-3pl fleas-nom
st'aftia
in the ears
'I stopped being/started becoming suspicious'
The fact that agreement between the subject and the matrix verb is obligatory, is an argument that in these constructions there is Raising of the
nominative to the higher clause at some point in the derivation (see the discussion in footnote 1).
Again, idioms are impossible with obligatory control verbs:
(24) *Kserun
na mu
benun psili
st'aftia
Know-3pl subj cl-1st:sg:gen enter-3pl fleas-nom in the ears
4.4 Raising and Obligatory Control
The above tests straightforwardly show that Greek aspectual verbs are Raising verbs.4 The idiom test in addition shows that Greek has covert Raising
manifested as Long Distance Agreement.
Note that Agent-oriented adverbs are possible with aspectual verbs and
they necessarily have matrix scope:
4 These verbs in many languages (German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Japanese and so on) have
been argued to be restructuring verbs. It is not clear whether this is the case in Greek given
that the usual evidence for restructuring such as clitic climbing does not hold (Terzi 1992). It
seems to us that Greek does not have restructuring predicates because of the fact that it does
not have infinitives, a mood marker is present, there is agreement on the lower verb, properties
that would be hard to accommodate if we were to adopt a monoclausal approach to restructuring either along the lines of Picallo 1990, Wurmbrandt 1998 and others.
(24) a. Epitidhes arxisa
na magirevo stis 5.00
on purpose started-1sg subj cook-1sg at 5.00
b. Epitidhes stamatisa
na perno ta farmaka
on purpose stopped-1sg subj take-1sg the medicine
This can be taken to mean that these verbs have a thematic subject position
and that they assign an Agent theta-role to the subject.5 In turn this argues
for an Obligatory Control Analysis of these verbs. Hence we conclude that
arxizo and stamatao can be both Raising or Control predicates.
5
Implications for the Theory of Case and Agreement
Assuming a standard analysis of Raising for Greek, in the cases we have
discussed there is no nominative Case available in the embedded clause.
This means that in Greek agreement does not correlate with Case because
nominative Case is not assigned in Raising subjunctives which nevertheless
show full agreement. On the other hand, we saw that in Portuguese full
agreement does correlate with Case and for this reason nominative Case is
assigned in inflected infinitives and Raising is impossible.6
This flexibility of Agreement-Case relations across languages leads us
to propose that Agreement is a PF reflex of formal feature checking either
Case or EPP.
More specifically, following Chomsky (1995), Collins (1997), and
Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998b), we propose that there are two features associated with T: an EPP feature (D) and a Case feature (N). Both are
formal features of the same type, i.e. [-interpretable] nominal features on
5 Note, however, that agent-oriented adverbs are possible only when the lower verb is
agentive:
(i)
#O Jiannis epitidhes arxise
na stenoxoriete
John-nom on purpose started-3sg subj get upset
More needs to be said about this fact. Possibly it is supports a restructuring analysis of these
verbs (see the previous footnote). Zubizarreta (1982) argues that restructuring verbs are Raising verbs and tht the agentive reading of the subject is the result of an adjunct theta-role assigned to the subject by the adverb. This would be an alternative way of accounting for these
facts without resorting to a lexical ambiguity.
6 There is even a third possibility which we do not discuss here, namely that partial i.e.
number agreement is associated with nominative Case, when a quirky subject checks the EPP.
This is found in Icelandic (Taraldsen 1995).
functional heads and both are responsible for the movement operations performed by the computational system.
(25)
T<D, N>
We propose that Agreement spells-out at the PF branch of the grammar
these formal feature checking relations. Crosslinguistically then there are at
least two types of Agreement-Case, Agreement-EPP relations (and see footnote 6 for an additional option): (i) Agreement is a reflex of N/Case-checking.. This is the case in English and Portuguese. (ii) Agreement is the reflex
of EPP checking. This is found in Greek and potentially in other Balkan languages which lack infinitives (we are not discussing such languages here).
To illustrate this let us consider the derivation of the Greek examples in
(11) in detail. As shown in (26), first movement to the embedded T, TP 1,
occurs. This step is EPP-driven, and Agreement on the embedded verb is
fully specified. This follows if Agreement in Greek is EPP-related.7
(26)
[TP2 DP T<D,N> [TP1 t2 T<D> [vP t1 ]]]
What is the condition for the absence of Case? In the next section we
argue that the condition for the absence of Case is the absence of semantic
Tense, a property which does not appear to vary crosslinguistically (see
Martin 1996 for English).
6
Case and Tense
As first pointed out by Iatridou (1993), in Control subjunctives the embedded clause does not show morphological [(Tense] specification:
(27) *o Petros kseri na
kolimbise
Peter-nom knows subj swam-3sg
On the basis of this, Iatridou (1993) proposed that lack of Tense results in
7 Recall that in Greek it is always possible to have a postverbal subject triggering agreement
on both verbs (see footnote 1 and section 4.3).
(i)
arxizun na trehun ta pedja
start-3pl subj run-3pl the children-nom
For these examples we assume exactly the same derivation except that the movement is 'covert' (covert XP, covert feature or overt feature raising).
lack of nominative Case. Varlokosta (1994) refines this suggestion and introduces a distinction between morphological and semantic Tense. Varlokosta argues that while obligatory and Optional Control take place in
clauses which lack morphological Tense, obligatory Control is further conditioned by the lack of semantic Tense, i.e. absence of independent temporal
reference in the embedded clause. Thus complements of optional Control
verbs such as thelo 'want' lack morphological Tense (28a), but they show
evidence for the presence of semantic Tense, since they permit temporal adverbs (28b). Such complements also show evidence for the presence of
nominative Case as they license NP subjects (28c).
(28) a. *o Janis theli na efige i Maria
John-nom wants subj left-3sg Mary-nom
'lit. John wants Mary to have left'
b. o Janis theli na figi
avrio
John-nom wants subj leave-3sg tomorrow
'John wants to leave tomorrow'
c. o Janis theli
na figi
i Maria
John-nom wants subj leave-3sg Mary-nom
'John wants Mary to leave'
(29c) suggests that nominative Case assignment is contingent on the presence of semantic Tense (contra Iatridou 1993).
On the other hand, complements of obligatory Control verbs lack morphological Tense (29a), and they also lack semantic Tense (29b). The fact
that an embedded subject cannot be licensed in such cases (29c) further
shows that the absence of nominative Case depends on the absence of semantic Tense.
(29) a. *o Janis kseri na kolibise
John-nom knows subj swam-3sg
b. *o Janis kseri na kolibisi
avrio
John-nom knows subj swim-3sg tomorrow
c. *o Janis kseri na kolibisi
i Maria
John-nom knows subj swim-3sg Mary-nom
This conclusion is further supported by Raising. With the complements of
aspectual verbs which display Raising and hence they present strong evidence for the absence of Case, apart from the fact that there is no morphological Tense (30a), there is no semantic Tense as it is not possible to modify
the embedded verb by a temporal adverb with independent reference (30b).
The same of course holds for the obligatory Control version of these predicates, as expected under Varlokosta's proposal (31).
(30) a. *O eaftos tu
arxizi
na ton anisixise
The self his-nom begins-3sg subj Cl-acc worry-3sg-past
'He started being worried about himself'
lit: 'Himself started worrying him'
b. *o eaftos tu
arxizi na ton anisixi avrio
The self his-nom begin-3sg subj cl-acc worry-3sg tomorrow
(31) a. *Epitidhes arxisa
na magirepsa
on purpose started-1sg subj cooked-1sg
b. *Epitidhes arxisa
stis 5.00 na magirevo stis 8.00
on purpose strted-1sg at 5.
subj cook-1sg at 8.00
The relation between Case and Semantic Tense across languages is systematic in Raising constructions. For English Martin (1996) extensively argues
that Raising is contingent on the absence of semantic Tense (cf. 32):
(32) *Mickey seems to pass the ball right now
In Portuguese inflected infinitives where nominative Case is assigned and
Raising is impossible (see section 2), the embedded clause can be modified
by a temporal adverb (data from Cristina Schmitt personal communication).
(33) O jornalista lamentou hoje na BBC terem
The journalist regretted today at the BBC have-inf,3pl
os americanos bombardeado ontem
à Iuguslavia
the Americans bombarded yesterday the Yugoslavia.
Thus even though morphological Tense is not present, semantic Tense is
and the availability of nominative Case depends on the latter. If it turns out
that the correlation between Case and semantic Tense is universal then this
needs to be explained. The most straightforward way to account for this correlation would be to propose that whenever semantic Tense is absent, there
is no Tense node in the clause structure (see Martin 1996 for such a proposal). In turn this would mean that EPP driven movement is Agr related and
not T related since it also takes place in Raising constructions. The view
that EPP is linked to Agr and Case is linked to Tense has been proposed on
independent grounds in Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998a).8
References
Agouraki, Y. 1991 A Modern Greek Complementizer and its significance for Universal Grammar. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3:1-24.
Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou. 1997. Toward a uniform account of scrambling and clitic doubling. German: Syntactic Problems- Problematic Syntax,
eds. W. Abraham & E. van Gelderen, 142-161. Tübingen:Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou. 1998a. Parametrizing Agr: Word Order, Vmovement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:
491-539.
Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou. 1998b. The subject in situ Generalization
and the role of Case in driving Computations. Paper presented at the 21st
GLOW Colloquium, University of Tilburg.
Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou. 1999. Clitic Phenomena and non-configurationality. To appear in Pronominal Arguments: Morphology and Syntax, eds. D.
Jung and J. Helmbrecht. Amstterdam: John Benjamins.
Anagnostopoulou, E. 1999. Double Object Alternations and Clitics, unpublished
manuscript, University of Crete.
Anagnostopoulou, E. & M. Everaert. 1999. Towards a More Complete Typology of
Anaphoric Expressions. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 97-119.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1998. Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework, unpublished manuscript
MIT.
Collins, C. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
George, N. & J. Kornfilt. 1981. Finiteness and Boundedness in Turkish. Binding
and Filtering , ed. F. Heny, 105-127. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Iatridou, S. 1993. On Nominative Case Assignment and a few related things. MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 19:175-198.
Joseph, B. 1992. Diachronic Perspectives on Control. Control and Grammar, eds.
R. Larson, S. Iatridou, U. Lahiri and J. Higginbotham, 105-234. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Marantz, A. 1991. Case and licensing. Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States
Conference on Linguistics, eds, G. F. Westphal, B. Ao and H.-R. Chae, 234253.
8 Note that Agr on this view is not one by one related to agreement on the finite verb.
Agreement is a PF reflex of either EPP-checking or Case-checking, while Agr is uniformly the
locus of EPP.
Martin, R.A. 1996. A Minimalist Theory of PRO and Control. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Connecticut.
Perlmutter, D. 1970. The two verbs 'begin'. English Transformational Grammar,
eds. R. Jacobs, P. Rosenbaum. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell.
Picallo, C. 1990. Modal Verbs in Catalan. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
8:285-312.
Philippaki- Warburton, I. 1990. Subjects in English and in Greek. Proceedings of
the 3d Symposium on the description and/or Comparison of English and Greek,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki: 12-32.
Philippak-Warburton, I. & J. Veloudis. 1984. The Subjunctive in Complement
Clauses, Studies in Greek Linguistics 5.
Philippaki, I. & G. Catsimali. 1999. On Control in Greek. Studies in Greek Syntax,
eds. A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, and M. Stavrou. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Raposo, E. 1987. Case and Infl-to-Comp: the Inflected Infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18:85-109.
Rivero, M. 1994. The Structure of the Clause and V-movement in the Languages of
the Balkans. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12:63-120.
Rizzi, L. 1982. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
Taraldsen, T. 1995. On Agreement and Nominative Objects in Icelandic. Studies in
Comparative Germanic Syntax, eds. H. Haider, S. Olsen and S. Vikner 307-327
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Terzi, A. 1992. PRO in Finite Clauses: a Study of the Inflectional Heads of the
Balkan Languages. Doctoral dissertation, CUNY.
Tsoulas, G. 1993. Remarks on the structure and the interpretation of na-clauses,
Studies in Greek Linguistics 14.
Varlokosta, S. 1994. Issues on Modern Greek Sentential Complementation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
Wurmbrandt, S. 1998. Infinitives. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Zubizarreta, M.L. 1982. On the Relationship of the Lexicon to Syntax. Doctoral
Dissertation, MIT.