No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Determiner Spreading (DS) occurs in adjectivally modified nominal phrases comprising more than one definite article, a phenomenon that has received considerable attention and has been extensively described in Greek. This paper discusses the syntactic properties of DS in detail and argues that DS structures are both arguments and predication configurations involving two DPs. This account successfully captures the word-order facts and the distinctive interpretation of DS, while also laying the groundwork towards unifying it with other structures linking two DPs in a predicative relation. * We are grateful to the anonymous referees, Melita Stavrou, Io Manolessou, Richard Larson, Catherine Heycock, Kleanthes Grohmann, Brian Joseph, and Giuliana Giusti for comments, discussions and encouragement. Nevertheless, all errors, omissions and misconceptions are to be credited to the co-authors. 1 To the best of our knowledge, the term ÔDeterminer SpreadingÕ was introduced by Androutsopoulou (1994). We prefer this neutral term over the more recent ÔpolydefiniteÕ (Kolliakou 2003(Kolliakou , 2004, because Greek ÔdefiniteÕ determiners (the o, i, to paradigm) are not exclusively definite in interpretation: Giannakidou & Stavrou (1999) have shown the Greek ÔdefiniteÕ article to be an intensionalisation operator. Expectedly, Determiner Spreading is not a definite construction: for instance, it is possible with a generic reading. We will nevertheless continue using ÔDÕ, Ô(definite) determinerÕ and Ô(definite) articleÕ throughout this paper to refer to the o, i, to paradigm. Regarding the Greek Ôindefinite determinerÕ, we will have very little to say about it, as this never occurs in DS structures and it does not uncontroversially belong to the syntactic category of Determiner.2 See Manolessou (2000: Ch. 4) for a detailed description and discussion.

The standard analysis that the ''pronominal count noun'' one is an N′-or NP-level element is challenged and it is argued to be an N 0 . Moreover, the behavior of one is identified with that of a phonologically empty counterpart. The fact that these N heads lack descriptive content is shown to be the source of two of their distinctive properties: their inability to take arguments, which accounts for their superficially phrasal status, and their triggering of pronominal reference. The existence of a [pronominal] feature is argued against; instead, such noun heads' lack of descriptive content is claimed to be what LF interprets as ''pronominal.'' an anonymous reviewer for their comments, suggestions, help, and intuitions. All errors, omissions, and misconceptions remain mine.1 Kester's analysis faces two problems: if one is a functional head, it is an ''intransitive'' one; and unifying its behavior with that of e necessitates a more elaborate mechanism (see section 2 for details). I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for inquiring about the status of one as a functional item.