Clausal complementation

Complementizers

The dissertation examines distributional and interpretive properties of complementizers and their surface complements, as well as prepositions and their surface complements in Greek. It establishes that (i) complementizer selection is sensitive to grammatical properties of the embedding verb, (ii) Greek complement clauses have different distributional properties than corresponding DPs: complement clauses obligatorily extrapose and they show striking subject-object asymmetries. Complement clauses also differ from corresponding DPs in that they have to reconstruct for binding purposes. The dissertation argues that these facts follow from where the complementizers enter the derivation, and how they get together with their complements. Concretely, it proposes that complementizers are merged in the matrix clause and that they are probes attracting their surface complements rather than merging directly with them (cf. Kayne 2000, 2005). 

In this paper I present a novel analysis of clausal embeddings based on the distribution of Greek embedded declarative clauses introduced by oti and pu. These clauses exhibit several intriguing properties, including a sensitivity to the aspect of the matrix verb and restrictions on their distribution in the external argument position. To account for them, I propose an analysis where the Root of the matrix verb is first merged in the specifier of oti and pu, driven by the selectional requirements of the complementizers. This contrasts with the traditional view that the matrix verb selects the complementizer as its complement (Bresnan 1972 i.a.). The Root merged in oti/pu’s specifier is then moved to a categorizing head for licensing, explaining the exclusion of these clauses from positions, such as the external argument position, where the Root cannot be licensed. I will also demonstrate that oti- and pu-clauses can be merged as adjuncts in addition to arguments, supporting that adjunction/modification plays a role in the licensing of embedded clauses (Major 2024; Bondarenko 2022; Bochnak and Hanink 2022; Elliott 2020; Özyildiz 2020, among others). However, I will argue that oti and pu select both a complement and a specifier, not only in argument clauses but also when introducing adjunct clauses. This leads to the important conclusion that selection and adjunction/modification are not mutually exclusive. This analysis also has broader implications for understanding clausal embedding cross-linguistically, offering insights into the structure of nominalized clauses and the distribution of clauses introduced by a say-element in languages like Uyghur (Major 2024). The pervasive use of pu in different environments is also shown to be accounted for by this proposal. Lastly, this analysis supports several theoretical claims. First, it aligns with the view that embedded clauses are interpreted as sets of situations (Bondarenko 2022; Moltmann 2021b) or sets of individuals with propositional content (Elliott 2020; Kratzer 2006; Moltmann 1989a, 2013a,b; Moulton 2009, 2015). Second, it provides support for the idea that displacement in attitude and speech reports originates in the left periphery of the embedded clause (Bogal-Allbritten 2016; Kratzer 2006).