1 Introduction

Cross-linguistically, oblique theta roles such as LOCATION can be encoded by both adpositions and applicative morphemes, namely valency increasing morphemes that attach on the verb (Polinsky 2013). The two devices are illustrated below with English and Kichaga, a Bantu language spoken in Tanzania (Bresnan & Moshi 1990).

In the English example (1), the location of the eating event is introduced by the preposition at, whereas in the Kichaga example (2a), it is introduced by the applicative morpheme í. The latter increases the valency of the verb to which it attaches, by enabling the addition of an extra locative object. Thus, whereas the simple verbal predicate in (2b) is a transitive verb followed by a single object (the patient DP kélyà ‘food’), the derived verbal predicate in (2a) is a ditransitive followed by two objects: the patient DP kélyà ‘food’ and, in addition, the locative DP mrìnyì ‘homestead’.

We will argue that Standard Modern Greek (SMG), an Indo-European language that encodes location primarily with prepositions, has a restricted set of predicates belonging to a formal register – such as iperiptame ‘to fly over’ in (3) – that behave like locative applicative constructions.

These predicates share a unique cluster of properties: Morphologically, they consist of an intransitive verbal root and a locative prefix that is homophonous with an independently available locative preposition. Syntactically, they take an optionally realized object argument that realizes genitive case, encodes the theta role LOCATION, and resists cliticization and passivization.

We argue that the locative prefix of these predicates functions like an applicative head in the sense that it attaches to an intransitive root and licenses the addition of a locative DP argument. Specifically, we argue that the applicative head has the following properties: (i) It case- and theta-licenses the added argument, but being void of phi features, it blocks its cliticization; (ii) It is distinct from its homophonous free standing P, as shown by a range of interpretational and syntactic differences that cannot be accounted for under the assumption that they are the same lexical item; (iii) It is undergoing grammaticalization, as evidenced by the emergence of a novel configuration, in which the locative predicates combine with locative PPs that retrieve the semantic and syntactic information of the locative prefix.

The paper is of descriptive, typological, and theoretical importance: At a descriptive level, it offers a thorough description of a set of complex locative predicates that have received little attention in the Greek literature.¹ In this respect, in addition to enhancing our understanding of how location is encoded in Greek, it opens up the possibility for future cross-linguistic comparisons with complex locative predicates in other languages (see, for instance, Wilhelm 2007 and references therein for German and Svenonius 2004b and references therein for Slavic languages). At a typological level, it complements the inventory of Greek applicatives, which, so far, has been shown to include null applicatives introducing goals, benefeciaries, and maleficiaries (Anagnostopoulou 2003; 2005; Georgala 2012; Michelioudakis 2012), and it, furthermore, contributes to existing debates concerning their adpositional nature. In this regard, it compares two analytical possibilities – their analysis as incorporated adpositions (Baker 1988; 1996; Zeller 2006) with their analysis as functional verbal morphemes (Marantz 1993; Baker 1996; McGinnis 2001; Anagnostopoulou 2003; 2005; Pylkännen 2008) – and proposes a number of diagnostics that allow us to differentiate between the two (see also Zeller 2006 and Kim 2014, for a discussion along these lines). One of the main conclusions of this comparison is that the same language may use homophonous analytic (i.e., prepositions) and synthetic devices (i.e., applicative morphemes) of encoding location that – despite their homophony – cannot be reduced to the same lexical item. Finally, the paper informs our theory, by showing that applicative heads do not only differ with respect to their structural position (see Pylkkänen’s 2008 analysis of low and high applicatives; McGinnis 2008), but also with respect to their featural composition. The latter, we argue, can account for the observed variation of applied objects in case, theta role, and cliticization.

The discussion is structured as follows: After giving background information on the origin and properties of the locative predicates and their arguments (section 2), we provide evidence in support of the claim that the predicates are prefixed by a non-adpositional, applicative-like morpheme (section 3). In section 4, we relate the properties of the locative arguments to the properties of the locative predicates. Specifically, we argue that the lack of cliticization can be reduced to the featural composition of the locative applicative/prefix, whereas the lack of passivization is reduced to the independent fact that our predicates are unaccusatives. Finally, in section 5, we discuss an alternative configuration suggesting that the locative prefix/applicative is undergoing grammaticalization, and in section 6, we conclude the discussion.

2 The properties of locative predicates and arguments

As mentioned in our introduction, SMG has a restricted set of locative predicates – listed in Table 1 – that belong to a formal register.²

These predicates are of Ancient Greek origin and were introduced into SMG through the formal register, known as katharevousa. Some of these predicates are more frequent, and morpho-syntactically more productive than others. For instance, verbs such as iperisxio ‘to prevail’, ekserxome ‘to go out’, proiparxo ‘to preexist’, or epizo ‘to survive’ are quite frequent (as a preliminary Google search reveals), and may inflect for all person-number combinations, in most tenses, and in both perfective and imperfective aspect.⁴ On the contrary, verbs such as afistame ‘to abstain from’, katisxio ‘to prevail’, or ipolipome ‘to be inferior to’ are less frequent, and are fairly restricted morpho-syntactically.⁵

Despite the above differences, all these predicates show a unique cluster of morphological, semantic, and syntactic properties: In terms of morphological composition, they all consist of an intransitive verbal root and a locative morpheme, which according to Ralli (2005: 42–47) synchronically functions as a prefix (see also Ralli 2004 for the same point for prefixes of Ancient Greek origin more generally).

The verbal root can be synchronically bound (hence its meaning is derived in association with the prefix), as the root -tero in ipertero ‘to prevail’, or unbound, as the root iptame ‘to fly’ in iperiptame ‘to fly over’.⁶ As to the locative prefix, it is always homophonous to an independently available formal locative preposition.⁷

As far as their semantics is concerned, the locative prefix can be interpreted literally, as in epiveno ‘to ride on’, and/or metaphorically, as in epilamvanome ‘to take on’. Typically, a literal vs. metaphorical reading of the prefix correlates with a literal vs. metaphorical reading of the root, giving rise to a gradation of compositionality with the less compositional readings being more common with synchronically bound roots.

Finally, with respect to their syntactic subcategorization, locative predicates take two arguments: A nominative FIGURE/THEME and a genitive LOCATIVE argument (or, in Talmy’s 1978; 2000 terms, a GROUND argument), whereby the location expressed by the LOCATIVE argument is predicated of the moving FIGURE /THEME.

With all the verbs, except epiveno ‘to ride on’, iperaminome ‘to defend’, ipolipome ‘to be inferior’, and afistame ‘to abstain from’, the GROUND argument is optional. For example, epiveno ‘to ride on’ in (4) takes the FIGURE/THEME argument o proθipurγos ‘the Prime Minister’ and the obligatorily realized GROUND argument tu oximatos ‘the vehicle’, whereas iperisxio ‘to prevail’ in (5) takes the FIGURE/THEME o olimbiakos ‘olimbiakos’ and the optionally realized GROUND argument tu Panaθinaiku ‘Panathinaikos.’

The theta role of FIGURE/THEME is complex, in the sense that it conveys both an entity that is located in relation to a stationary location (FIGURE) and an entity that moves or is movable (and therefore ends up being located in relation to a stationary location) (THEME). The theta role of GROUND, on the other hand, may involve both literal and metaphorical extensions (see Jackendoff 1983 for temporal meanings and Beavers 2011 for property scales). In all these uses, the locative predicate relates two entities, so that one entity (the moving/movable entity, or FIGURE/THEME) is positioned with regard to some other entity (the fixed one, or GROUND) in terms of place, time, hierarchy, or more generally some scalar property.⁸ For example, in the case of epizo ‘to survive’, the predicate relates two entities on a time scale. Thus, in (6) below, Janis is located on a time scale with respect to a particular event (namely, an accident), such as Janis still lives after the culmination of the event.

In the case of iperaminome ‘to defend’, the scale implicated could be a scale of preference (cf. the meaning of iper ‘in favor’). Under this view, Janis in (7) is located with respect to tu nomu ‘the law’ on the positive side of a scale (assuming a negative-positive scale).

What is of primary importance to us is that despite the fact that the scale may differ (literal location, temporal location, hierarchy, change), the syntax is shared across all these predicates.

Shifting our attention from the LOCATIVE predicate to the LOCATIVE argument, it is clear that the latter shows an equally interesting cluster of properties that sets it apart from other types of objects in Greek:

First, it realizes genitive case differing in this respect from both direct objects, which realize accusative (8a), and from indirect objects whose genitive case is traced back to historical dative (8b).⁹

Second, as already pointed out, it encodes the theta role LOCATION/GROUND, unlike direct objects that are typically THEMES AND PATIENTS, and, unlike indirect objects, that are typically GOALS/SOURCES and BENEFICIARIES/MALEFICIARIES.

Third, it resists cliticization (9a) (see Holton et al. 2004) as well as any other pattern that is contingent on cliticization, including Clitic Doubling (CD) (9b) (Anagnostopoulou 2003), Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD) (9c), Clitic Right Dislocation (CLRD) (9d), and Resumption (9e) (Daskalaki 2008; Daskalaki & Mavrogiorgos 2013).¹⁰

In this respect, it differs from indirect/dative and direct/accusative objects, which allow cliticization (10a–b) (and, subsequently, all clitic dependencies available in the language).

Finally, as illustrated in (11), the locative argument cannot undergo passivization (see Anagnostopoulou 2003).

The same applies to indirect/dative objects (12a), although direct/accusative objects are passivizable (12b).

Summing up, locative predicates and their arguments display an intriguing cluster of properties listed in (13) and (14), respectively, which sets them apart from direct/indirect objects:

These properties, in turn, combined with the Ancient Greek origin of the predicates under consideration, pose an interesting question regarding the dilemma the language learner – and the linguist, for that matter – is faced with: What is the most appropriate way to analyze such structures within the SMG system? More specifically:

And, finally:

To anticipate our analysis, we provide evidence indicating that the prefix of the locative predicate is a semantically and syntactically active applicative head (section 3.1) that is synchronically distinct from its homophonous locative preposition (section 3.2). Furthermore, we argue that both the lack of cliticization and the lack of passivization derive from properties of the functional projection of the applicative predicate (section 4). We assume that speakers reach this analysis by learning the specific semantic-syntactic content of the locative prefixes (a Lexicon issue), as well as by using the tools that already exist in the system (including applicative/valency-increasing morphemes, genitive case arguments, roots and prefixes that exist independently in the language, albeit possibly with distinct properties). In section 5, we show that competition with independently available, more productive means of encoding location (such as locative/directional PPs and predicates without a locative prefix) leads to semantic and syntactic bleaching which deprives the locative prefix of these special properties. The end result of this process is that location ends up encoded on the root and/or a PP (depending on the properties of the root), on a par with more productive structures. This process is common in case two or more partially overlapping means of encoding the same syntactico-semantic notion co-occur in the same grammar, and in this respect locative predicates behave in a quite regular fashion.

3 Accounting for the properties of locative predicates and their arguments

4 Analysis: The locative prefix and the locative DP argument

In the previous section, we provided empirical evidence in support of the claim that the locative prefix of Greek complex predicates is an applicative head, homophonous though distinct from the corresponding locative preposition. Our aim in this section will be to develop an analysis that in addition to capturing the “valency increasing” effect of the applicative morpheme, accommodates the “curious properties” of the added argument summarized in (14) and repeated in (34), for convenience:

To this end, we will first motivate our assumptions and we will, then, show how our analysis derives the properties listed in (34).

5 PP Alternates

In our discussion so far, we have focused on locative predicates taking locative DP arguments and we have argued that they are prefixed by a semantically/syntactically active applicative head. In this section, we will consider the emergence of a novel, less formal configuration, in which the same predicates are followed by locative PPs rather than by locative DPs. In these cases, we argue, the prefix of the locative predicate has undergone a significant degree of grammaticalization, in the sense that it has lost its syntactic (case and theta assigning) and semantic (spatial) properties (see Dimela & Ralli 2012 for the properties of grammaticalization in Greek prefixation; see also Narrog & Heine 2011 for an introduction into the various aspects of grammaticalization phenomena). Grammaticalization has resulted in the creation of a novel verb with different syntax and less transparent semantics. In what follows, we will first present the data and we will then provide evidence in support of our hypothesis.

As already mentioned, all the predicates discussed in section 2 allow their locative DP to be replaced by a prepositional PP. The two possibilities are illustrated with proeðrevo ‘to preside over’ in (52), whereas a complete list of the attested possibilities is given in Table 2.

For each one of the locative predicates, Table 2 provides the prepositional variants reported in Babiniotis (1998) – a well-regarded dictionary of SMG – as well as those ones attested in recent online documents (primarily newspapers). The latter ones were gathered through a Google search and are illustrated with complete (numbered) examples in the Appendix (X denotes unavailability).³¹

The hypothesis that the prefix of predicates combining with PPs has undergone grammaticalization is supported by a number of considerations. First of all, cross-linguistically, overtly realized applicative heads introduce, to the best of our knowledge, DPs. Thus, arguing that in examples such as (52b) above, the locative prefix is an applicative that licenses a locative PP would be odd from a typological perspective.³²

But even if we set the cross-linguistic perspective aside, there is language specific evidence suggesting that the prefix of predicates combining with PPs is syntactically/semantically impoverished compared to the prefix of predicates combining with DPs. First, the locative PP shows a wider distribution than the locative DP. As illustrated in (53) below, the PP apo ti vuli ‘from the Parliament’ is equally grammatical with the complex predicate ekserxome ‘to come out’ (53a) – that consists of the prefix ek- ‘out’ and the verb erxome ‘to come’ – and with the simple predicates erxome ‘to come’ (53b) and vjeno ‘to come out’ (53c).

In this respect, it differs from its DP counterpart tis vulis ‘the parliament’ whose locative interpretation and overall grammaticality is clearly contingent on the presence of the locative prefix.

What the above contrast suggests is that whereas in (54a) the locative meaning and correlated syntax (i.e. theta role, case) are located entirely on the prefix ek- (and as a result, on the verbal predicate), in (53a) the locative meaning and syntax are located partially on the verbal predicate ekserxome (it means ‘come out’ and it selects a directional PP complement) and partially on the preposition apo ‘from’ (it assigns structural case to the DP complement and it also theta-marks it in association with the main predicate – see Pesetsky 1982). In other words, the prefix of PP predicates is syntactically impoverished compared to the prefix of DP predicates.

Further evidence in support of the grammaticalization hypothesis comes from the observation that in many cases the P-head of the locative PPs spells out a semantic relation close to the original one expressed by the prefix. By way of illustration, we may consider the verbs iperaminome ‘to defend’ (55) and iperiptame ‘to fly over’ (56).

Both verbs are prefixed by iper- ‘over; in favor of’. The first one is followed by a PP headed by the preposition iper ‘in favor of’, which replicates the metaphorical interpretation of the homophonous prefix, whereas the second one is followed by a PP headed by the complex preposition pano apo ‘over’ which replicates the literal interpretation of the locative prefix.³³ The replication of the locative meaning by the preposition suggests that the prefix has started to lose part of its semantic (locative) content.³⁴

If we are right that in the PP cases the locative prefix has undergone grammaticalization giving rise to a novel verb, the next question that arises is whether the novel verb takes the locative PP as an argument or an adjunct. The evidence coming from argumenthood diagnostics reveals a non-uniform picture. On the one hand, one can show that the meaning of the DP which is introduced by P may also be dependent on the verbal predicate. Such semantic dependency is considered to be characteristic of theta-role assignment (see Marantz 1984). For example, in (57a) the PP apo ton Kosta ‘from Kostas’ is semantically dependent on the verbal predicate (its meaning is that of a GROUND in relation to which the FIGURE/THEME is metaphorically located), hence it is an argument. On the other hand, in (57b) the PP sto staðio Irinis ke Filias ‘the stadium of Peace and Friendship’ can only be interpreted as an optional location which modifies the whole event (an adjunct), but crucially not as a GROUND.

Syntactic diagnostics also give rise to a mixed picture. On the one hand, there are verbs like epikrato ‘to prevail’, whose PP displays adjunct like properties: It can be headed by a range of synonymous prepositions (epi/enandi/enandion/kondra se ‘against/over’) and, in addition, it can be exempted from VP ellipsis:

On the other hand, there are verbs like ekserxome ‘to come out’ whose PP appears to pattern with arguments with respect to both diagnostics: Thus, it can be headed by a single preposition (apo ‘from’) and it cannot be exempted from VP ellipsis.

All in all, what we see here is that a locative PP, which may or may not complement the verbal predicate, shows up when the prefix has lost part or all of its semantic/syntactic properties. As already mentioned in section 2, it is possible that the emergence of this novel construction results from the native speaker’s attempt to integrate a non-productive set of applicative verbs into the existing system. Thus, the speaker resorts to the reanalysis of locative applicative prefixes as syntactically/semantically inactive morphemes and to the expression of the locative relationship by means of independently available analytic expressions (i.e. PPs).³⁶

6 Conclusions

To conclude, SMG, an Indo-European language which normally uses a P predicate to express location, has a restricted set of morphologically complex predicates that belong to a formal register and that behave like locative applicative constructions. In particular, these predicates involve an overt locative prefix which, when added to an intransitive root, introduces an optional locative DP argument with lexical genitive case and the theta-role GROUND. We have argued that the locative prefix cannot be identified with an independently available homophonous free P (although the two might be related at earlier stages of the language, an issue for further research). This fact combined with the lack of an underlying PP input and the fact that the root is not an accusative case assigner makes a P-incorporation/promotion analysis extremely unlikely. Regarding certain morpho-syntactic properties of the locative argument (such as lack of cliticization or passivization), we argued that these are related to the featural make up of the applicative prefix (and not to the structural/PP status of the locative argument). Finally, we showed that locative predicates may also combine with a PP argument or adjunct (depending on the predicate), which constitutes a novel, informal, analytical environment, and which correlates with loss of semantic and syntactic content from the locative prefix (via grammaticalization).

These findings are of typological interest as they show that SMG, in addition to the relatively well studied type of null applicatives that encode the theta roles of goal, maleficiary and beneficiary (Anagnostopoulou 2003; 2005; Georgala 2012; Michelioudakis 2012), has a restricted set of overt locative prefixes that display an applicative-like behaviour. How exactly these prefixes compare with overt locative applicatives that are productive in African and Native American languages (see, e.g. Bresnan & Moshi 1990 for Bantu languages; Beck 2009 for Salish) and how common it is for languages to combine overt analytic (adpositions) and synthetic devices (applicatives) of encoding location are interesting questions that require a systematic cross-linguistic comparison. Given though that both devices have the same function, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that languages that make an equally productive use of both them are less common than languages that only use one of the two, or both but in different degrees.

In addition to its typological interest, our study has interesting theoretical implications. Thus, it suggests that applicative morphemes do not only vary in terms of their structural position within the clause (high vs. low), but also in terms of their featural make-up (see e.g. Anagnostopoulou 2003; 2005 for Greek low applicatives; Arad 1999 for flavors of v cross-linguistically). This is compatible with the Chomsky-Borer conjecture that linguistic variation is located in the functional Lexicon, and it follows directly from the nature of AGREE.

Equally importantly, our analysis implies that not all oblique arguments taking inherent and/or lexical case (also known as semantic case) can be analysed as PPs. In particular, we argue that lexical case is assigned to an argument when the latter is selected by a particular flavor of v head, an assumption that is fully compatible with structural approaches to case (e.g. Marantz 1992). Of course, this does not entail that there are no instances of inherent and/or lexical case which may be reducible to the categorial status of the case-marked DP. Rather, it means that what renders a DP structurally case-marked or not (in terms of its morpho-syntactic behavior, such as passivization, cliticization, agreement, etc.) may be related to more than one structural strategy (e.g. an applicative morpheme, a P/p predicate, or a K morpheme). In this case, the question that arises is whether all these strategies are reducible to a single underlying strategy or not, and if yes in what way exactly.

Accordingly, the development of novel uses for the locative predicates shows that both applicative morphemes and P/p predicates (and K morphemes, for that matter) contain semantic/syntactic information, which may license a spatial argument. What varies is the morphological realization (which is language specific, and clearly influenced from diachrony), but also the domain in which such a morpheme belongs to (e.g. nominal domain, verbal domain, or an independent domain projected by an additional predicate).³⁷ In this regard, further empirical and theoretical evidence may be provided by a cross-linguistic comparison of locative morphemes (including, affixes, particles, case, and P/p-predicates), as they seem to differ morpho-syntactically and semantically in various respects (see e.g. Svenonius 2004b for aspect and case in Slavic prefixes; Wilhelm 2007 for German particles).

Abbreviations

1 = first person, 2 = second person, 3 = third person, ACC = accusative, CL = clitic, FEM = feminine, FM = future marker, GEN = genitive, MASC = masculine, NOM = nominative, PASS = passive, PL = plural, SG = singular, SUBJM = subjunctive marker. For the Kichaga examples, we follow the conventions of Bresnan and Moshi (1990). These include: Arabic Numbers = Noun Classes, Ap = Applicative, Foc = focus, Fv = Final Vowel, Loc = Locative, Pr = Present, S = Subject.

Supplementary Files

The supplementary material for this article can be found here:

• Supplementary File 1: Appendix. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.74.s1

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.