El problema de la història

Panagiotidis and Marinis (2011) analyse polydefinites in a DP-predication

struc-ture. They assume that the adjective and the definite article that precedes it are part of a DP with a null noun. When the adjective is prenominal, the elliptical DP is the subject, while the noun and its article are the predicate, as schematised in (48). The meaning linked to this structure is ‘the big one which is the house’.

(48) DP

DP D⁰ to

‘the’

FP AP meGalo

‘big’

F^′ F⁰ Ø

N⁰ eN

D^′ D⁰ to

‘the’

N⁰ spiti

‘house’

In the instances where the adjective is found postnominally the order is again base generated, but this time it is the DP which contains the noun that is the subject. The corresponding meaning for the structure in (49) is ‘the house which is the big one’.

(49) DP

DP D⁰ to

‘the’

N⁰ spiti

‘house’

D^′ D⁰ to

‘the’

FP AP meGalo

‘big’

F^′ F⁰ Ø

N⁰ e_N

The predication operator in these structures is the D⁰ head of the top DP. This entails that the D⁰ in polydefinites has different properties from the D⁰ in mon-odefinites. Panagiotidis and Marinis propose that the D⁰ in monodefinites can only be referential and its specifier is an A^′-position. On the other hand, the D⁰in polydefinites is both referential and predicative and its specifier is an A-position, as it hosts the subject of predication.

A question that arises from this analysis is why Panagiotidis and Marinis do not adopt a reduced relative structure, if, as Alexiadou and Wilder (1998), their main purpose is to account for the predicative nature of polydefinites. Their

argument against adopting such an analysis is that while the D-A constituent can stand as an elliptical DP in predicative environments with a copula, it cannot do so within a relative clause. This is illustrated in the example below, taken from Panagiotidis and Marinis (2011:280–281, (16)):

(50) Context: The personnel of an institute consists of researchers (erevnites) and teaching staff. In this particular institute some of the personnel are competent and some are incompetent. A number of people have just left the institute and someone comments:

a. i

‘The researchers who were the competent ones left.’

c. i

‘The researchers were the competent ones.’

If Greek polydefinites are indeed derived in a relative clause, then it is unclear why the presence of the definite article in front of the adjective results in unac-ceptability in (50b).

Concerning the semantics of polydefinites, Panagiotidis and Marinis argue that their interpretation is predicative and intersective. As for the restrictive interpretation which is often associated with polydefinites, they claim that it is actually derived from the predication relation. Under their analysis a polydefinite is interpreted as the intersection of two or more sets, depending on the number of adjectives in the structure. As a result, it could sometimes be the case that one of the sets is the proper subset of the other one.

Another point that Panagiotidis and Marinis bring up is that while (51a) is unacceptable, there is nothing in their analysis to prevent indefinites from appearing as subjects. The reason this is ungrammatical, they claim, is due to the fact that Greek forbids bare plurals from appearing as subjects of sentences and small clauses. This is seen in (51b) and (51c) respectively, where both a generic subject and the subject of a small clause require a definite article.

(51) a. *ena

b. *(i)

‘I consider writing boring.’

Some of the criticisms for Alexiadou and Wilder’s analysis, also hold for Panagi-otidis and Marinis’s analysis. Firstly, it cannot account for the instances where a nonpredicative adjective enters a polydefinite as in o proiGumenos o proeDros

‘the previous the president’. Moreover, it assumes that the adjective and its def-inite article are merged inside a fully fledged DP, which predicts that it should be possible to find another modifier in the DP, but as we have seen above in examples (34) and (35), the patterns in (52) are ungrammatical.

(52) a. *D–Num/A–A–D–N b. *D–N–D–Num/A–A

Panagiotidis and Marinis (2011:293–94), however, argue that ellipsis sufficiently accounts for the unavailability of the above sequences. The claim is that an elliptical DP is never acceptable when more that one adjective is present, and they state that this is something observed in both Greek and English. Given that in their analysis the sequence D–A is always part of a DP which contains an elided noun (i.e. D–A–eN), a second adjective will be disallowed from appearing in the same DP. Nevertheless, there seems to be a problem with this presumption.

Crucially, Greek speakers seem to agree that the (a) examples in (53) and (54) are acceptable, and English speakers accept the English translations of the same examples. As for the Greek speakers who find the elided examples with two modifiers somewhat degraded, they note that there is a strong contrast between those examples and polydefinites with two modifiers; while the elided examples are simply dispreferred, the polydefinites in the (b) examples are ungrammatical.

(53) a.(?)agaliasa

‘I hugged the chubby green aliens, and Ruth the thin purple ones.’

b. *i

‘the thin purple aliens’

(54) a.(?)agaliasa

‘I hugged the two green aliens, and Ruth the three purple ones.’

b. *i

‘the three purple aliens’

This shows that the ungrammaticality of the patterns in (52) is not simply the result of ellipsis. As a consequence, Panagiotidis and Marinis’s analysis, as it stands, incorrectly generates the polydefinite patterns in (52). Related to this point is that, as we have seen in (38), which is repeated below, polydefinites do not allow coordination of two adjectives. Again, this is not something that could be explained by employing ellipsis, as coordination survives under ellipsis. This is shown in (55).

‘the small and cheap room’

(55) Dialeksa

‘I picked the small and cheap room, while Ahmad picked the big and expensive one.’

Another problem for this analysis, which again arises from the assumption that adjectives in polydefinites are merged inside a fully fledged DP with an elided noun, is that it incorrectly predicts that superlatives should be allowed in poly-definites. In section 3.5.3 of chapter 3, it was mentioned that Matushansky (2008) analyses superlatives as attributive modifiers. Specifically, Matushansky argues that even in cases where the noun is not phonologically realised, there must be an elided noun in the structure. In other words, the structure Matushansky proposes for superlatives corresponds to Panagiotidis and Marinis’s subordinate DP struc-ture in which adjectives in polydefinites are merged. If Matushansky’s analysis is correct, then the ungrammaticality of (56a) under Panagiotidis and Marinis’s

analysis is unexpected, as it can be derived in their proposed structure:

(56) a. *to the

psilotero highest

to the

vuno mountain

ine is

to the

Everest Everest

‘The highest mountain is Everest.’

b. DP

DP D⁰ to

‘the’

FP AP psilotero

‘highest’

F^′ F⁰ Ø

N⁰ eN

D^′ D⁰ to

‘the’

N⁰ vuno

‘mountain’

Finally, the analysis does not make any clear predictions as to which DP is the subject in one case, but the predicate in another. While Panagiotidis and Marinis claim that each order is associated with a different reading, there does not seem to be an obvious interpretive difference between the two orders.