Abstract This study examines question-word interrogatives followed by the vocative-based markers vre and moré in Greek talk-in-interaction, drawing on Interactional Linguistics and Construction Grammar. The analysis of data from audio-recorded everyday conversations and telephone calls shows that these interrogatives instantiate a network of related, partially schematic, and entrenched constructions that carry the meaning ‘beyond information seeking’ and ‘reactive challenge’. The challenging construction is embedded into a larger construction, namely a sequential structure consisting of an assertion about a state of affairs that falls within both the speaker’s and the recipient’s epistemic domains and a response to the assertion, implemented via a question-word interrogative-plus-vocative-based marker, that carries the meaning ‘reactive challenge, counter-expectation to the speaker, solidary interpersonal function’. The study sheds light on the benefits of bringing together constructional and interactional approaches to grammar.

Abstract This paper discusses novel empirical evidence from Greek showing that a wh-clause (i.e., a CP) may correspond to a nominal constituent with referential interpretation (just like a DP). The evidence comes from the distribution of wh-clauses with the presentative particle nà (roughly translating to the English here is/are, the Italian ecco, or the French voilà). Nà places two restrictions on the type of complement it may take, one relating to syntax and the other to the semantics: The complement must be ‘nominal’ in nature and must bear a referential reading. After showing that a wh-clause combined with nà is a complement and not an adjunct, I propose that the nominal status of the wh-clause comes from its D-label. This label, in turn, results from the association of the wh-phrase with C, on the following two assumptions (both of which are established elsewhere, while I further elaborate here on the second): (i) Greek wh-phrases, regardless of the grammatical category they belong to (i.e., N, Adj., Adv.), are (bare) indefinite D-elements (and not intrinsically interrogative quantifiers); and (ii) C bears a generalized Op(erator) feature that requires a value and assigns quantificational properties to the element it combines with (here, the wh-phrase). More generally, this analysis raises important, and far-reaching, implications vis-à-vis the syntax and semantics of wh-clauses, clause-typing, and clausal complement selection, discussion of which I mostly leave for a future study.

Abstract We compare here the left periphery of the D- and the C- domain. Looking at cases where a genitive possessor is separated from an accusative possessum, we argue that D differs from C in lacking an articulated left periphery and dedicated Focus and Topic projections. Instead, we propose that there is a unique left-peripheral position above D. It resembles positions in the CP-periphery in being a criterial position, but the criterial feature involved is distinct from the ones encoded by CP-peripheral projections. We thus align with Szendrői (2010) in assuming that information-structural properties such as Focus and Topic operate at the propositional level, which makes them unavailable within the DP.

Abstract This introduction lays out the issues in the study of information structure with regard to Modern Greek in particular, but also with an eye to the relevance of Greek data to the architecture of grammar more generally.

Abstract It is almost univocally claimed that in Standard Greek ex situ focusing involves syntactic focus movement to a Focus position below C, while Cypriot Greek is claimed to be the only Greek dialect with genuine focus clefts. The grammaticality/acceptability of focus clefts in Standard Greek is not unequivocal and depends on the type of clefted constituent. In this study we present results from a questionnaire survey in which we test for the acceptability of it-clefts in Standard and Cypriot Greek. Results indicate that speakers of Standard Greek show a significant preference for clefted third person subjects, while the rates of acceptance of clefted first and second person subjects improves if be displays subject agreement; rates of acceptance also improve if the copula displays tense features matching the tense of the verb in the pu clause. Such differences do not hold for speakers of Cypriot Greek, who accept clefts across the board. The results suggest that Cypriot Greek has bona fide it-clefts, while similar structures in Standard Greek are most likely equative constructions derived from pseudo-clefts.

Abstract This study investigates a prosody-syntax mismatch that appears with left peripheral additive phrases in Greek and Hungarian. In these constructions, the additive phrase is focused, which is reflected in prosody, such that it attracts the nuclear stress. However, fronted additive phrases display deviations from the morphosyntactic properties of constructions with fronted foci in both languages. In Greek, such phrases can be co-indexed with pronominal clitics, a property only marginally observed with fronted foci. In Hungarian, they do not trigger verb fronting, which is otherwise obligatory for narrow foci. Analyzing the questions under discussion (QUD’s) for these constructions, we conclude that the focus structure of these utterances is directly reflected in prosody, while their morphosyntactic properties align with discourse properties that are independent of focus.

Abstract We examine utterances that contain merely contrastive, corrective, confirmative, and mirative focus structures in Greek. Through a perception experiment, we provide evidence regarding listener preferences about the syntactic position (‘high’ vs ‘low’) of the contrastively focused objects in SVO vs OVS patterns. The results suggest that listeners consider utterances with all four focus types acceptable, regardless of whether the sentential object appears in a ‘high’ or ‘low’ position in Greek, unlike other languages. Moreover, specific listener preferences are brought to light for each focus type: there is a clear preference for a ‘low’ position for mere focus, versus a ‘high’ one for corrective, while there is almost equal preference for both positions in the mirative and the confirmative structures. These findings support the distinction among the different types of contrastive focus with their respective (semantic, pragmatic, syntactic, and intonational) properties.