Verbalizers leave marks: evidence from Greek

Vassilios Spyropoulos1 · Anthi Revithiadou2 ·
Phoevos Panagiotidis3
Received: 8 January 2013 / Accepted: 3 March 2015 / Published online: 1 April 2015
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract In this article we provide evidence that the verbalizing v head in Greek
has a morphological exponence in many more verbs than is apparent. Although, at
first sight, verbs in the traditional second conjugation inflectional class (which exhibit
non-root stress, e.g., aGap-ó ‘I love’, poT-ó ‘I desire’) do not seem to contain
an overt piece of verbalizing morphology, we show that they take a vocalic extension
consisting of an abstract vocalic slot. This slot, which can either be filled in
with vocalic material or remain empty, undertakes the function of a verbalizer. Two
major gains of this analysis is that it provides solid evidence for a v head as a verbalizer
and not as a composite Voice-verbalizing head and that it proposes a unified
treatment of the Greek verb morphology without extensively retreating to stem allomorphy.
Keywords Categorizer · Verbalizer · Verb morphology · Empty vowel · Stress ·
Greek
B V. Spyropoulos
vspyrop@phil.uoa.gr
A. Revithiadou
revith@lit.auth.gr
P. Panagiotidis
phoevos@ucy.ac.cy
1 Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Philology, School of Philosophy, National and
Kapodistrian University of Athens, University Campus at Zographou, Athens 15784, Greece
2 Department of Linguistics, School of Philology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, University
Campus, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece
3 Department of English Studies, University of Cyprus, 75 Kallipoleos Avenue, Nicosia, Cyprus
300 V. Spyropoulos et al.
1 Introduction
This article argues that the categorizing verbalizer, a syntactic head v (Marantz 2001),
is morphologically expressed in Greek more systematically than previously assumed.
It also looks into the morphological exponence of v in this language and the factors,
both morphological and morphophonological, which govern it. More specifically, we
claim that Greek provides concrete evidence for the morphological exponence of a
verbalizing head v, different from Voice—the latter is distinctly and separately expressed
morphologically in this language anyway.1 Therefore, next to derived verbs
with overt verbalizers, e.g. pal-év-o ‘fight-VRB-NONPAST.1SG’2 ‘I fight’ (< pál-i
‘fightF -SG.NOM/ACC’), there exists an inflectional class of verbs, e.g. aGap-ó ‘I love’,
poT-ó ‘I desire’, in which a vocalic extension appears between the root and the inflectional
formatives in certain forms. We claim that this vocalic extension undertakes
the function of a verbalizer and, more specifically, that in this class of verbs
the root is categorized by a verbalizer, the exponent of which is an abstract vocalic
slot which either materializes with a vocalic element, e.g. aGap-í-s-o ‘love-VRB-PFVNONPAST.
1SG’, or remains empty, e.g. aGap-Ø-ó ‘love-VRB-NONPAST.1SG’. In the
latter case, we argue that stress provides direct evidence for the presence of the verbalizer,
since the vowelless slot cannot support stress, forcing it to be realized on the
next vocalic peak as is common in systems with trochaic stress (Halle and Vergnaud
1987).3
Some evidence for the morpho(phono)logical manifestation of such verbalizing
heads have been presented from a variety of native American languages, mostly in
the form of an affixal segment that turns either a category-specified or an a-categorial
root into a verb.4 Verbalizers have been also associated with various morphological
and morphosyntactic features, such as inflectional class, transitivity, etc. In Greek,
verbalizers have been almost exclusively identified with a number of derivational suffixes
that create transitive/causative verbs from nouns and adjectives (Embick 2000;
Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 2004 et seq.; Alexiadou et al. 2006). In this article,
we focus on Greek second-conjugation verbs and we argue that the special vocalic
elements that follow the verb root or, in the absence of such vocalic elements, the post
verb-root stress are the morphophonological effects of the manifestation of a verbalizing
head. Thus, Greek extends our understanding of verbalizing constructions and
the mode they are manifested by providing an interesting case study for the existence
1See Harley (2013a, 2013b) for syntactic arguments for the distinction between Voice and v.
2The following abbreviations are used in the text: ACC: accusative, ACT: active, APU: antepenultimate
stress, C: consonant, F: feminine, GEN: genitive, IMPFV: imperfective, M: masculine, N: neuter, NOM:
nominative, NUC: Nucleus, O: Onset, PASS: passive, PFV: perfective, PL: plural, PU: penultimate stress,
SG: singular, σ : syllable, U: ultimate stress, V: vowel, VRB: verbalizer. The symbol - V is used to indicate
an empty vocalic slot.
3For the trochaic nature of Greek stress, see Malikouti-Drachman and Drachman (1989), Drachman and
Malikouti-Drachman (1999), Revithiadou (1999, 2007), among others.
4See Franchetto (2006) on Kuikuro, Koontz-Garboden (2009) on Ulwa and the discussion on denominal
verb formation in North American languages in the collection of papers by Gerdts and Marlett (2008) and
in Mathieu (2013, 2014).
Verbalizers leave marks: evidence from Greek 301
of verbalizers of purely morphological nature which are associated with inflectional
class and specific stress patterns.
2 What is a verbalizer?
Hale and Keyser (1993, 2002) introduced a syntactic approach to the construction
of lexical categories, like nouns and verbs. The distinct version thereof developed in
Marantz (1997, 2001) has gained considerable currency in the last decade or so. The
general outline of the Marantzian approach is that lexical categories such as ‘noun’,
‘verb’ and ‘adjective’ are not products of the combination of categorial features with
roots in a lexicon: categories are not specified on lexical items in a pre-syntactic lexicon.
On the contrary, roots are inserted bare in syntax, where the assignment of roots
to categories takes place: thus, categorization is a syntactic process. More specifically,
the syntactic environment turns roots into ‘nouns’, ‘verbs’ or ‘adjectives’. This
is achieved not by directly associating roots with categorial features, but by inserting
them inside the complement of specialized syntactic heads, the categorizers—a nominalizer
(n), a verbalizer (v) and an adjectivizer (a). On top of this, a categorizer may
change the category of an already categorized element as, for instance, in the cases
of the derivation of verbs from nouns (e.g., colony→colonize) and the derivation of
nouns from verbs (e.g., colonize→colonization).5
Syntactic categorization analyses are customarily embedded within the framework
of DistributedMorphology (Halle and Marantz 1993; see also Harley and Noyer 2003
and Embick and Noyer 2007 for overviews). However, we would think that any consistently
realizational morphological framework can be used equally well, as long
as it incorporates a separationist distinction (and/or dissociation) between syntactic
feature structures and their morphological exponence (see also Beard 1995). In
other words, syntactic categorization can be framed in any model that lets Syntax
manipulate feature structures, not forms, and lets Morphology deal with forms. However,
for the purposes of the issues discussed in this article, we do not have to take a
rigid stance on the ‘Syntax-all-the-way-down’ view of grammar (cf. Marantz 1997;
Harley and Noyer 2003; Embick and Noyer 2007), i.e. on whether the same combinatorial
mechanism underlies both word formation and sentence building.6
5The empirical consequences of syntactic categorization have been explored in detail in a significant and
radically growing body of work including but not restricted to Marantz (1997, 2001, 2007), Harley and
Noyer (1997), Embick (1998, 2000, 2004a, 2004b, 2010), Alexiadou (2001), Folli et al. (2003), Arad
(2003, 2005), Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2004), Folli and Harley (2005, 2007, 2013), Harley
(2005a, 2005b, 2009, 2013a, 2013b), Alexiadou et al. (2006), Embick andMarantz (2008), Basilico (2008),
Lowenstamm (2008), Ramchand (2008), Volpe (2009), Panagiotidis (2011, 2014) and, in a slightly different
framework but in considerable detail and depth, Borer (2005, 2013). However, an attempt to summarize
the diverse and insightful findings of this line of work in this article will take us too far afield.
6Here we opt for a separationist-realizational approach to morphology (e.g. Beard 1995; Halle andMarantz
1993) for reasons of an ultimately empirical nature. In Sect. 7 of this article, the intricate morphophonological
effects of the verbalizing ghost vowel in second conjugation verbs will be reviewed and discussed.
Assuming that such effects are the workings of a pre-syntactic morphological mechanism, which is separated
from a morphophonological component (as well as the level of Phonology) by the syntactic derivation,
would raise a number of descriptive and explanatory difficulties (reviewed, e.g. in Marantz 1997) and
require a version of look-ahead, to say the least.
302 V. Spyropoulos et al.
Let us now briefly outline how syntactic categorization works. First of all, nouns
and verbs are fully-fledged syntactic structures made of at least a categorizer and a
root: n makes these structures ‘nouns’, v makes them ‘verbs’—and so on. This, of
course, is not the complete story: as Marantz (2001, 2007) illustrates, those nPs and
vPs inevitably also contain (some) internal arguments of nouns and verbs (see also
Basilico 2008). This takes us to the next point, which is that the content and configuration
of those syntactic structures, i.e. nPs and vPs, determine the interpretation of
the noun or verb. In other words, interpretation largely depends on (and is constrained
by): (a) the position of the root within these structures (e.g. predicate, small clause
subject, location, locatum, instrument, etc.), and (b) the inner morphemes and internal
argument(s), if any, the structures may contain. Inner morphemes include elements
like low applicatives, low causativizers, particles, etc.
Concluding this section, if nPs and vPs are indeed phases, that is, cycles of interpretation,
they must receive a morphophonological and a semantic interpretation at
the interfaces once completed. In the remainder of this article we explore the details
of the morphophonological interpretation of such phases with particular emphasis
on unveiling the common ground in the derivation of vPs yielding verbs of the two
conjugations in Greek. Moreover, we propose an analysis that is consistent with our
view that categorization is a syntactic process and, more importantly, accommodates
the morphophonological and, especially, accentual properties of vPs and deverbal
nPs, as a result of their mode of derivation and not by employing rules of allomorphy.
What makes the findings of this article especially appealing is that there is little
evidence cross-linguistically for overt manifestations of the syntactic verbalizer.
True, verbal and verbalizing morphology is ubiquitous. However, it is hardly ever
purely verbalizing, typically conflating ‘verbness’ with expressions of transitivity,
Voice, Aspect or Tense—and more. In this respect, Greek is very interesting in that
the verbalizer is realized as a segment in the vast majority of cases, despite extensive
allomorphy. Thus, Greek provides morphological evidence for a categorizing
verbalizer, a syntactic head v, and displays a situation where the overt (even better,
segmental) manifestation of v is morphologically the rule, say in the sense of Pinker
(1999).
Finally, a technical caveat is in order: for the purposes of this article the label v
stands for the verbalizer, as in Marantz’s work, i.e. the head that categorizes root material
as verbal (see Panagiotidis 2011 on what ‘verbal’ could mean). Consequently,
v throughout this paper should be understood as the syntactic head that says “I am
a verb” to syntax, morphology and semantics, as in the relevant literature (see footnote
5). Hence, as already mentioned above, v should not be confused with Kratzer’s
(1996) Voice, i.e. a causative-transitive or passive head that hosts the external argument
and may assign accusative case if transitive (as per Burzio’s Generalization).We
believe that we should not conflate the two (see also Harley 2013a, 2013b and Anagnostopoulou
and Samioti 2014), as implicit in Chomsky’s post-Derivation by Phase
work (Chomsky 2001 et seq.). Thus, we will only call v the formal element, i.e. the
syntactic head, that turns a piece of structure, be it a root, a noun or an adjective, into
a verb.
Verbalizers leave marks: evidence from Greek 303
3 Greek verbal inflection: 2nd Conjugation and the morpho(phono)logy
of the verbalizer v
Greek verbal inflection manifests the following features:7
(1) voice: ±active
aspect: ±perfective
tense: ±past
subject agreement: 1sg, 2sg, 3sg, 1pl, 2pl, 3pl
mood: ±imperative
The combination of aspect and tense derives the basic verb forms, which are illustrated
below by the 1SG form of the 1st conjugation verb iðrío ‘I found, I establish’:
(2) Active
NON IMPERATIVE IMPERATIVE
NON PAST PAST
IMPERFECTIVE iðrío íðria íðrie
PERFECTIVE iðríso íðrisa íðrise
(3) Non Active
NON IMPERATIVE IMPERATIVE
NON PAST PAST
IMPERFECTIVE iðríome iðriómun(a) (iðríu)
PERFECTIVE iðriTó iðríTika iðrísu
The exponents of the inflectional features are in most cases suffixes8 that attach to
the root. The segmentation of the basic verb forms is given in (4):
(4) a. iðrí-o
√
iðri-NONPAST.1SG
b. íðri-a
√
iðri-PAST.1SG
c. iðrí-s-o
√
iðri-PFV-NONPAST.1SG
d. íðri-s-a
√
iðri-PFV-PAST.1SG
e. iðrí-ome
√
iðri-NONACT.NONPAST.1SG
f. iðri-ómun(a)
√
iðri-IMPFV.NONACT.PAST.1SG
g. iðri-T-ó
√
iðri-PFV.NONACT-NONPAST.1SG
h. iðrí-T-ik-a
√
iðri-PFV.NONACT-PFV.PAST-PAST.1SG
These suffixes are obligatory in the derivation of verb forms in Greek in the sense
that there is no bare verb form, i.e. a verb form which consists of the root only.
7For descriptions and analyses of Greek verbal inflection see: Triantafyllidis (1988[1941]), Hamp (1961),
Koutsoudas (1962), Householder et al. (1964), Warburton (1970, 1973), Babiniotis (1972), Ralli (1988,
1998, 2003, 2005), Clairis and Babiniotis (2005), Galani (2005), Spyropoulos and Revithiadou (2009,
2011), Holton et al. (2012).
8Aspect and tense may also be manifested by means of stem allomorphy, derived by either readjustment
rules or suppletion (for a full list see Holton et al. 2012). Stem allomorphy may be employed alone or in
addition to the relevant suffixation.
304 V. Spyropoulos et al.
There are three inflectional verb classes (traditionally called ‘conjugations’), according
to some distinct properties of the imperfective non-past forms. In 1st Conjugation
verbs (e.g., iðrío ‘I found, I establish’), stress falls on the root of all the
imperfective non-past forms. On the other hand, 2nd Conjugation verbs (Class A:
aGap-á-o ‘I love’, Class B: poTó ‘I desire’)9 exhibit non-root stress in the same forms
and opt for the bare non-past agreement suffixes, i.e. the suffixes without the tensesensitive
theme vowel (see table in (5)).10 Finally, there is a small group of verbs, the
so-called ‘contracted verbs’, which select for the bare non-past agreement suffixes
and exhibit root stress in the imperfective non-past forms. These verbs are classified
in 3rd Conjugation (e.g., akúo ‘I listen’). A detailed presentation of these classes with
representative examples is given in (6)–(9).
(i) Stem allomorphy by readjustment
IMPERFECTIVE PERFECTIVE
NON PAST PAST NON PAST PAST
plé-o é-ple-a pléf-s-o é-plef-s-a ‘I float, sail’
aláz-o álaz-a alák-s-o álak-s-a ‘I change’
prát-o é-prat-a prák-s-o é-prak-s-a ‘I make, act’
anastén-o anásten-a anast-ís-o anást-is-a ‘I resurrect’
sopén-o sópen-a sopá-s-o sópa-s-a ‘I silence’
anasén-o anásen-a anasán-o anásan-a ‘I breath’
varén-o váren-a varín-o várin-a ‘I make/get heavy’
paTén-o páTen-a páT-o é-paT-a ‘I suffer’
pérn-o é-pern-a pár-o pír-a ‘I take’
piGén-o píGen-a pá-o píG-a ‘I go’
klé-o é-kle-G-a kláp-s-o é-klap-s-a ‘I cry’
filá-o fíla-G-a filák-s-o fílak-s-a ‘I guard’
bén-o é-ben-a b-ó b-ík-a ‘I enter’
vrísk-o é-vrisk-a vr-ó vr-ík-a ‘I find’
(ii) Stem allomorphy by suppletion
IMPERFECTIVE PERFECTIVE
NON PAST PAST NON PAST PAST
vlép-o é-vlep-a ð-ó íð-a ‘I see’
érx-ome erx-ómuna érT-o / rT-ó írT-a ‘I come’
lé-o é-le-G-a p-ó íp-a ‘I say’
tró-o é-tro-G-a fá-o é-faG-a ‘I eat’
92nd Conjugation verbs are further classified in two subclasses. Class B verb forms do not take the characteristic
a vowel between the root and the non-past agreement suffixes in imperfective non-past forms and
they do not have the Southern Greek alternative formation of imperfective past forms with the formative
-aG (see Sect. 7.2 and footnote 12). However, many 2nd Conjugation verbs may inflect according to both
the Class A and the Class B pattern or follow a mixed pattern; for a list of these verbs see Holton et al.
(2012).
10A comparison between the 1st Conjugation non-past suffixes and the past suffixes reveals that they
contain a vowel which is sensitive to tense. We assume that this is the exponent of a theme element
attached to the T functional head at Morphological Structure (see Oltra-Massuet 2000; Oltra-Massuet and
Arregi 2005; Embick 2010). 2nd and 3rd Conjugation suffixes do not contain such an element, thus, we
will refer to them as ‘bare suffixes’.
Verbalizers leave marks: evidence from Greek 305
(5) Active tense-agreement suffixes
NON PAST PAST
1ST CONJUGATION 2ND AND 3RD CONJUGATIONS
(BARE SUFFIXES)
1SG -o -o -a
2SG -is -s -es
3SG -i -i -e
1PL -ume -me -ame
2PL -ete -te -ate
3PL -un(e) -n(e) -an(e)
Focusing on the forms of 2nd Conjugation verbs, we observe a number of distinct
properties: (a) they exhibit non-root stress, and (b) they select for the bare non-past
agreement suffixes in non-past imperfective forms. In non-past imperfective forms,
however, a vowel appears between the bare non-past agreement suffixes and the root,
e.g. aGap-á-o, aGap-á-s, aGap-á-me, aGap-á-te, etc. (see the table in (6)). Importantly,
this vowel is different from the tense sensitive theme vowel that occurs in 1st Conjugation
‘full’ agreement suffixes (cf. iðrí-o, iðrí-is, iðrí-ume, iðrí-ete, etc., see table
in (5)):
(6) Non-past imperfective
1ST CONJUGATION 2ND CONJUGATION 3RD CONJUGATION
CLASS A CLASS B
1SG iðrí-o aGap-á-o /
aGap-ó
poT-ó akú-o
2SG iðrí-is aGap-á-s poT-í-s akú-s
3SG iðrí-i aGap-á-i poT-í akú-i
1PL iðrí-ume aGap-á-me /
aGap-ú-me
poT-ú-me akú-me
2PL iðrí-ete aGap-á-te poT-í-te akú-te
3PL iðrí-un(e) aGap-á-n(e) /
aGap-ú-n(e)
poT-ú-n(e) akú-n(e)
In perfective forms, a vowel also appears as a vocalic extension of the root; this
vowel is typically /i/, e.g. aGap-í-s-o, aGap-í-s-is, aGáp-i-s-a, aGáp-i-s-es, etc. (see
table in (7)), but there are also some lexically conditioned exceptions (see Sects. 7.2
and 7.3):
(7) Non-past perfective
1ST CONJUGATION 2ND CONJUGATION 3RD CONJUGATION
CLASS A CLASS B
1SG iðrí-s-o aGap-í-s-o poT-í-s-o akú-s-o
2SG iðrí-s-is aGap-í-s-is poT-í-s-is akú-s-is
3SG iðrí-s-i aGap-í-s-i poT-í-s-i akú-s-i
1PL iðrí-s-ume aGap-í-s-ume poT-í-s-ume akú-s-ume
2PL iðrí-s-ete aGap-í-s-ete poT-í-s-ete akú-s-ete
3PL iðrí-s-un(e) aGap-í-s-un(e) poT-í-s-un(e) akú-s-un(e)
306 V. Spyropoulos et al.
(8) Past perfective
1ST CONJUGATION 2ND CONJUGATION 3RD CONJUGATION
CLASS A CLASS B
1SG íðri-s-a aGáp-i-s-a póT-i-s-a áku-s-a
2SG íðri-s-es aGáp-i-s-es póT-i-s-es áku-s-es
3SG íðri-s-e aGáp-i-s-e póT-i-s-e áku-s-e
1PL iðrí-s-ame aGap-í-s-ame poT-í-s-ame akú-s-ame
2PL iðrí-s-ate aGap-í-s-ate poT-í-s-ate akú-s-ate
3PL íðri-s-an /
iðrí-s-ane
aGáp-i-s-an /
aGap-í-s-ane
póT-i-s-an /
poT-í-s-ane
áku-s-an /
akú-s-ane
Finally, the imperfective past forms contain the stressed formative -us (see table
in (9)), which disrupts the canonical APU stress of Greek past forms.11 The special
behaviour of this element is discussed in Sect. 7.4.
(9) Past imperfective
1ST
CONJUGATION
2ND CONJUGATION 3RD
CLASS A CLASS B CONJUGATION
1SG íðri-a aGap-ús-a aGáp-aG-a12 poT-ús-a áku-G-a
2SG íðri-es aGap-ús-es aGáp-aG-es poT-ús-es áku-G-es
3SG íðri-e aGap-ús-e aGáp-aG-e poT-ús-e áku-G-e
1PL iðrí-ame aGap-ús-ame aGap-áG-ame poT-ús-ame áku-G-ame
2PL iðrí-ate aGap-ús-ate aGap-áG-ate poT-ús-ate áku-G-ate
3PL íðri-an /
iðrí-ane
aGap-ús-an(e) aGáp-aG-an /
aGap-áG-ane
poT-ús-an(e) áku-G-an /
akú-G-ane
We propose that these distinct properties of 2nd Conjugation verbs are not accidental
but rather closely related to each other. More specifically, we claim that the vowel
that appears between the root and the bare agreement suffixes in the non-past imperfective
forms and the vocalic extension in the perfective forms manifest the same
position in the morphosyntactic structure. Technically speaking, they are all the surface
manifestations of an abstract vocalic element V. This empty vocalic slot may
remain a silent, ghost-like element, or it may be realized by means of various vowels,
depending on lexical and morphophonological conditions imposed by neighbouring
elements. (For the surface manifestations of the empty vocalic slot see Sect. 7.) Consequently,
the distinct stress patterns of 2nd Conjugation verbs are argued to result
from the interplay between the mode of surface manifestation of this abstract vowel
and the rules that regulate stress-assignment in Greek verbs.
We can now move a step further and put forward the hypothesis that the empty
vocalic element V in 2nd Conjugation verbs is the morphological exponent of a
categorizing verbal head v, that is to say, it is a verbalizer. For this hypothesis to be
proven to be valid, we must seek to find evidence for the existence of this v head
11SeeWarburton (1970), Babiniotis (1972), Ralli (2005), and more recently, van Oostendorp (2012), Spyropoulos
and Revithiadou (2009, 2011).
12The -aG formative has a restricted and geographically-conditioned distribution. It is frequent in southern
Greek as an alternative to -ús (Holton et al. 2012:151).
Verbalizers leave marks: evidence from Greek 307
in 1st Conjugation verbs as well. In what follows, we claim that a number of suffixes,
which are traditionally described as derivational, forming verbs from nouns,
adjectives and even adverbs, in fact constitute the exponents of the v head in 1st Conjugation
verbs.
4 Verbal derivational suffixes as exponents of v
Let us begin with a straightforward observation: many Greek verbs contain a piece of
morphology that unambiguously signals their stems as verbal. These pieces of verbal
morphology exist in addition to the presence of Voice, Aspect, Tense and Agreement
morphology and include the so-called ‘verbal derivational suffixes’ -ev, -iz, -(i)az,
-on, -ar and -en (Triantafyllidis 1988[1941]; Ralli 2005; Holton et al. 2012), which
have been traditionally described as forming verbs from nouns, adjectives or adverbs.
Some examples of verb formations with these suffixes are given below.
(10) -ev
a. Root:
√
pal-
Noun: pál-i
fightF -SG.NOM/ACC
‘fight’
Verb: pal-év-o
fight-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘I fight’
b. Root:
√
ðiskol-
Adjective: ðískol-os
difficult-M.SG.NOM
‘difficult’
Verb: ðiskol-év-o
difficult-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘I make X / become difficult’
c. Root:
√
kont-
Adverb: kontá
‘near, close’
Verb: kont-év-o
near-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘I am close to X, I approach’
(11) -en
a. Root:
√
pliTNoun:
plíT-os
crowdM-SG.NOM
‘crowd’
Verb: pliT-én-o
crowd-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘I multiply / become more’
308 V. Spyropoulos et al.
b. Root:
√
ksanTAdjective:
ksanT-ós
blond-M.SG.NOM
‘blond’
Verb: ksanT-én-o
blond-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘I make X / become blond’
(12) -ar
a. Root:
√
skits-
Noun: skíts-o
sketchN-SG.NOM/ACC
‘sketch, drawing’
Verb: skits-ár-o
sketch-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘I sketch, I draw’
b. Derivations from non-native roots or material
rilaks-ár-o ‘I relax’ (< relax)
gugl-ár-o ‘I search something in Google’
(13) -on
a. Root:
√
klið-
Noun: klið-í
keyN-SG.NOM/ACC
‘key’
Verb: klið-ón-o
lock-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘I lock’
b. Root:
√
erim-
Adjective: érim-os
deserted-M.SG.NOM
‘deserted’
Verb: erim-ón-o
deserted-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘I make X / become deserted’
c. Root:
√
sim-
Adverb: simá
‘near’
Verb: sim-ón-o
near-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘I come close’
Verbalizers leave marks: evidence from Greek 309
(14) -iz
a. Root:
√
silav-
Noun: silav-í
syllableF-SG.NOM/ACC
‘syllable’
Verb: silav-íz-o
syllable-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘I spell, divide a word in syllables’
b. Root:
√
kaTar-
Adjective: kaTar-ós
clean-M.SG.NOM
‘clean’
Verb: kaTar-íz-o
clean-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘I clean, I become clean’
c. Root:
√
paramer-
Adverb: parámera
‘aside’
Verb: paramer-íz-o
aside-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘I set aside’
d. Sound-mimic verbs
gar-íz-o ‘I bray, I yell’
bubun-íz-o ‘I rumble’
GavG-íz-o ‘I bark’
(15) -(i)az
a. Root:
√
trom-
Noun: tróm-os
terrorM-SG.NOM
‘terror, fear’
Verb: trom-áz-o
terror-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘I terrify / I become terrified’
b. Root:
√
etim-
Adjective: étim-os
ready-M.SG.NOM
‘ready’
Verb: etim-áz-o
ready-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘I prepare, I get X ready’
c. Root:
√
plisi-
Adverb: plisíon
‘near’
310 V. Spyropoulos et al.
Verb: plisi-áz-o
near-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘I come close, I approach’
d. Root:
√
anev-
Verb: anev-én13-o
go up-IMPFV-NONPAST.1SG
‘I come/climb/go up’
Verb: anev-áz-o
go up-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
‘I lift’
These verbal derivational suffixes exhibit some very interesting properties. First,
they combine with morphological roots (Aronoff 1976; Panagiotidis 2011) to yield
verbal stems. Second, they are obligatory in the sense that they appear in all forms
of the relevant verbs without the possibility of omission. In sum, these suffixes coexist
with and thus are independent of Voice, Aspect, Tense and Agreement morphology:
(16) a. ðiskol-év-o (cf. *ðiskól-o)
√
ðiskol-VRB-NONPAST.1SG
b. ðiskól-ev-a (cf. *ðískol-a)
√
ðiskol-VRB-PAST.1SG
c. ðiskol-év-s-o > ðiskol-ép14-s-o (cf. *ðiskól-s-o) √
ðiskol-VRB-PFV-NONPAST.1SG
d. ðiskól-ev-s-a > ðiskól-ep-s-a (cf. *ðískol-s-a) √
ðiskol-VRB-PFV-PAST.1SG
e. ðiskol-év-ome (cf. *ðiskól-ome) √
ðiskol-VRB-NONACT.NONPAST.1SG
f. ðiskol-ev-ómun(a) (cf. *ðiskol-ómun(a)) √
ðiskol-VRB-IMPFV.NONACT.PAST.1SG
g. ðiskol-ev-T-ó > ðiskol-ef-t-ó (cf. *ðiskol-T-ó) √
ðiskol-VRB-PFV.NONACT-NONPAST.1SG
h. ðiskol-év-T-ik-a > ðiskol-éf-t-ik-a15 (cf. *ðiskól-T-ik-a) √
ðiskol-VRB-PFV.NONACT-PFV.PAST-PAST.1SG
Furthermore, the verbal derivational suffixes are neutral with respect to Aktionsart
inner aspect, in the sense that the same suffix may be involved in forming different
types of verbs, as shown by the following examples:
13It is not clear whether the formative -en in this verb formation (and others, such as paT-én-o ‘I suffer’,
sop-én-o ‘I fall silent’, anast-én-o ‘I resurrect’, b-én-o ‘I enter’, piG-én-o ‘I go’) is a verbalizer or an
imperfective aspect marker, because it appears only in the imperfective verb forms. We leave this issue
aside.
14The change of /v/ to [p] is due to manner dissimilation and voicing assimilation with the following
sibilant s.
15The change of /v/ to [f] is due to voicing assimilation and the change of /T/ to [t] is due to manner
dissimilation.
Verbalizers leave marks: evidence from Greek 311
(17) -(i)az
a. apusi-áz-o ‘be absent’: a state (Noun: apusíaF ‘absence’)
b. nist-áz-o ‘be / get sleepy’: a state or a change of state
(Noun: nístaF ‘sleepiness’)
c. isix-áz-o ‘be / become still or inert, relax’: a state or a change of state
(Adjective: ísix-os/-i/-o ‘quiet’)
vs.
d. sxoli-áz-o ‘I comment’: an activity (Noun: sxólioN ‘comment’)
e. anev-áz-o ‘I lift’: an activity or an accomplishment
(Verb: anev-én-o ‘I climb/come/go up’)
These suffixes do not encode transitivity or causativity, and they are not related
to the existence of an external argument (Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 2004 et
seq.), as evident by the fact that they may appear in verb formations which exhibit a
transitive (causative)—intransitive (anticausative/inchoative) alternation without passive
morphology (see also Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 2004; Alexiadou et al.
2006):
(18) -en: farðéno ‘I make X / become wide or wider’
(Adjective: farð-ís ‘wide’)
a. causative
i
the
erGátes
worker-PL.NOM
farð-én-un
wide-VRB-NONPAST.3PL
to
the
ðrómo
road-SG.ACC
‘The workers make the road wid(er).’
b. anticausative
o
the
ðrómos
road-SG.ACC
farðéni
wide-VRB-NONPAST.3SG
‘The road becomes wid(er).’
In fact, the same suffix may appear in verbs which have different argument structures:
(19) -(i)az
a. Transitive only, agentive
steGázo ‘I cover, I provide shelter’ (Noun: stéG-i ‘roofF’)
b. Transitive only, psych
xalvaðjázo ‘I covet’ (Noun: xalvá-s ‘halvaM’)
c. Ergative alternation
aðjázo ‘I (become) empty’ (Adjective: áðj-os/-a/-o ‘empty’)
d. Unergative
piGázo ‘I spring out’ (Noun: piG-í ‘springF’)
e. Unaccusative
xlomjázo ‘I become pale’ (Adjective: xlom-ós/-í/-ó ‘pale’)
In addition, transitivity is not correlated with the choice of the relevant suffix,
which entails that the selection of the relevant suffix is lexically conditioned and
it depends on the root it attaches to and not on the verbalization structure per se.
312 V. Spyropoulos et al.
Therefore, the same suffix may appear in verb formations which encode different
verbalization structures (20) and, vice versa, a given verbalization structure may
be manifested by different suffixes depending on the root involved in the structure
(21):
(20) -on
a. Denominal, root as possessed property
pliGóno ‘I wound X’ (Noun: pliG-í ‘woundF’)
b. Denominal, root as instrument
maxeróno ‘I stub X’ (Noun: maxér-i ‘knifeF’)
c. Denominal, root as resulting state
paGóno ‘I make X / become frozen’ (Noun: páG-os ‘iceM’)
d. Deadjectival, root as resulting state
erimóno ‘I make X / become deserted’
(Adj: érim-os/-i/-o ‘deserted’)
e. Deadverbial, root as location, resulting state
simóno ‘I approach’ (Adverb: simá ‘near’)
(21) Deadjectival, ergative alternation, root as resulting state
a. -on
erimóno ‘I make X / become deserted’
(Adj: érim-os/-i/-o ‘deserted’)
b. -en
vaTéno ‘I make X / become deep’ (Adj: vaT-ís/já/-i ‘deep’)
c. -(i)az
aðjázo ‘I (become) empty’ (Adj: áðj-os/-a/-o ‘empty’)
d. -ev
ðiskolévo ‘I make X / become difficult’
(Adj: ðískol-os/-i/-o ‘difficult’)
e. -iz
nostimízo ‘I make X / become tasty’
(Adj: nóstim-os/-i/-o ‘tasty’)
The data discussed so far point towards the conclusion that the verbal derivational
suffixes undeniably constitute verbalizing morphology (Embick 2000; Alexiadou and
Anagnostopoulou 2004 et seq.; Alexiadou et al. 2006), i.e. they are the morphological
exponents of a verbalizing v head.16 Such a conclusion is further buttressed by the
fact that verb formations with the suffixes at hand are the only ones available when
coining new verbs from non-native roots, sounds, etc. (typically with the suffix -ar,
but also -iz and -on; see examples (12)–(14) above).
16For the purposes of this article, we remain agnostic as to the exact content of the verbalizing v (flavours
of v; Folli and Harley 2005, 2007, 2013). However, we take the properties of the verbalizing suffixes to
indicate that the verbalizing v head is distinct from Voice and it is not correlated, at least directly, with
agentivity, transitivity and Aktionsart inner aspect (contra Kratzer 1996; Chomsky 2001).
Verbalizers leave marks: evidence from Greek 313
5 The Greek verbalizer: one syntactic head, many forms
Let us now put the facts together. We have shown that the morphological make up of
2nd Conjugation verb forms contains an empty vocalic element, which is responsible
for the distinct properties of this conjugation (i.e., non-root stress, various vocalic extensions,
etc.). We have also shown that there exists a number of verbalizing suffixes
which are the exponents of a verbalizing v head in verb formations which obligatorily
follow the 1st Conjugation inflectional pattern. This entails that the verbalizing
suffixes are in complementary distribution with the empty vocalic element. In other
words, the abstract vocalic slot and the verbal derivational suffixes compete for the
exact same morphosyntactic position, which we take as evidence that they constitute
exponents of the verbalizing head v.
Nevertheless, there are a handful of relatively high frequency verbs that lack
(overt) verbalizing morphology. These verbs are exclusively of Ancient Greek stock
and form a closed class. A number of them follow the 3rd Conjugation inflectional
pattern and a few belong to the 1st Conjugation. Some representative examples are
listed in (22).
(22) 1ST CONJUGATION 3RD CONJUGATION
Gráf-o ‘I write X’ ké-o ‘I burn (X)’
tréx-o ‘I run’ akú-o ‘I hear (X), I listen to X’
févG-o ‘I leave’ tró-o ‘I eat X’
One may assume that these verbs contain inherently verbal roots. However, this is
rather unlikely because the same root/stem element appears with no further nominalizing
morphology in noun formations:
(23) VERB NOUN
Gráf-o Graf-í
write-NONPAST.1SG write-SG.NOM
‘I write X’ ‘writing’
An alternative, and more valid, hypothesis is that such verbs contain a morphophonologically
inert verbalizer. In other words, the exponent of v is a null formative
-Ø.
Putting the facts together so far, the empty vocalic slot - V, which maymaterialize
with various vowels (e.g. aGap-á-s ‘you love’, poT-í-s ‘you desire’), is the exponent
of the v head, when the construction involves a 2nd Conjugation verb.17 Certain roots,
17There are two ways to implement this conditioning. First, we may assume that these roots are inherently
specified for belonging to the 2nd Conjugation or that the structure involves a relevant class feature which
conditions the insertion of the empty vocalic slot. Second, we may propose that there is a direct lexical
conditioning, without the mediation of a class feature or a root diacritic. Under the latter scenario, 2nd
Conjugation verbs are listed as lexically selecting the empty vocalic slot as the exponent of v, in the same
way 1st Conjugation verbs with verbalizing suffixes are listed as lexically selecting the relevant suffix.
The gain from this approach is that the 2nd Conjugation inflectional pattern and its distinct properties
independently derive from the morphophonological properties of the empty vocalic slot without the need
to assume an extra class feature or a diacritic. Another welcome result of this analysis is that the inflectional
patterns of the conjugations are only epiphenomena and that verbs are not listed in conjugational classes in
314 V. Spyropoulos et al.
however, lexically select for specific suffixes, resulting in verb formations with overt
suffixal verbalizing morphology which follow the 1st Conjugation inflectional pattern
(e.g. xlom-iáz-o ‘I become pale’, plat-én-o ‘I make/become wide’, skits-ár-o ‘I draw’,
nostim-íz-o ‘I make/become tasty’, erim-ón-o ‘I make/become deserted’). The null
morpheme -Ø, which appears in 3rd Conjugation verbs and in those 1st Conjugation
verbs that do not have an overt verbalizing suffix (e.g. akú-Ø-o ‘I hear’, Gráf -Ø-o
‘I write’), is the elsewhere exponent. All exponents of v and their distribution are
depicted in (24):
(24) a. v ⇔ - V / [second conjugation] ___
b. v ⇔ -(i)az / {
√
xlom-, . . . } ___
-en / {
√
plat-, . . . } ___
-ar / {
√
skits-, . . . } ___
-iz / {
√
nostim-, . . . } ___
-on / {
√
erim-, . . . } ___
c. v ⇔ -Ø / elsewhere
6 The exponents of v and the stress patterns of verb forms
Greek is a language with lexically-encoded stress (Ralli and Touradzidis 1992; Revithiadou
1999, 2007; Burzio and Tantalou 2007, among others). This means that
vocabulary items (roots and affixes alike) may be specified to carry information on
the surface position of stress. This information is encoded in the form of an accent,
that is, an abstract, autosegmental feature which is linked to a specific vocabulary
item. Roots that participate in nominal formations present more accentual contrasts in
the sense that they may be accented, post-accenting or accentless, whereas roots that
combine with verbal categorizers are always accentless (Revithiadou 1999). In the
absence of inherent accents, the elsewhere pattern takes over. In Greek, APU stress
is argued to represent the phonological default (Malikouti-Drachman and Drachman
1989 et seq.; Revithiadou 1999, 2007).
Regarding verbal stress, we observe that the position of stress is not always determined
by the default. This is because roots in verb forms often combine with preaccenting
inflectional suffixes as in the case of the non-past imperfective forms of
the 1st and 3rd Conjugation verbs. In 1st Conjugation verbs with an overt verbalizer,
stress falls, as expected, on the pre-final syllable, i.e. on the verbalizer. In contrast,
2nd Conjugation verbs exhibit post-root stress (see (25)). In the following sections,
we show that the irregularity of 2nd Conjugation stress is only superficial; these verbs
are intended to be stressed on the pre-final syllable but their stress is forced to shift
rightwards on the suffix when v fails to materialize, as in the non-past 1SG form, e.g.
aGap-ó, the alternative form of aGap-á-o ‘I love’.
the lexicon, but rather they are listed as selecting a given exponent of the v head; the conjugation-specific
inflectional pattern, therefore, derives from the morphophonological properties of this exponent. We leave
this issue open to future research.
Verbalizers leave marks: evidence from Greek 315
(25)
1ST CONJUGATION 2ND CONJUGATION 3RD CONJUGATION
v⇔Ø v⇔-ev CLASS A CLASS B
1SG iðrí-o pal-év-o aGap-á-o /
aGap-ó
poT-ó akú-o
2SG iðrí-is pal-év-is aGap-á-s poT-í-s akú-s
3SG iðrí-i pal-év-i aGap-á-i poT-í akú-i
1PL iðrí-ume pal-év-ume aGap-á-me /
aGap-ú-me
poT-ú-me akú-me
2PL iðrí-ete pal-év-ete aGap-á-te poT-í-te akú-te
3PL iðrí-un(e) pal-év-un(e) aGap-á-n(e) /
aGap-ú-n(e)
poT-ú-n(e) akú-n(e)
Focusing on the accentual properties of the suffix, non-past inflections are all preaccenting
(26a), whereas past inflections are associated with APU stress (26b):18
(26) a. ðjaváz-o, -is, -i. . . 19
read-NONPAST.1SG, -NONPAST.2SG, -NONPAST.3SG
b. ðjávaz-a, -es, -e. . .
read-PAST.1SG, -PAST.2SG, -PAST.3SG
As shown in the above examples from the 1st Conjugation, when v ⇔ -Ø, the stress
of the non-past inflection falls on the last syllable of the root (27a). In a similar vein,
when v ⇔ {-ev, -on, -iz, -(i)az, -ar, -en}, the stress falls on the verbalizing suffix
(27b). Crucially, when v ⇔ - V, the stress falls on the vowel that materializes
the vocalic slot of the v (27c).
(27) a. /ðjavaz-Ø -o/ read-v-NONPAST.1SG → ðjaváz-o
b. /pal-ev -o/ fight-v-NONPAST.1SG → pal-év-o
c. /aGap- V
-o/ love-v-NONPAST.1SG → aGap-á-o
On the basis of the above, we can safely conclude that the distinct stress pattern
of the non-past imperfective forms of the 2nd Conjugation verbs is not exceptional
but rather the result of the interplay among the exponence of their morphosyntactic
structure, the stress properties of the relevant exponents and the rules that govern
stress assignment in Greek verbs.
7 The surface manifestations of the exponent - V
According to our proposal, one of the exponents of the v head is an empty vocalic slot,
which may surface in various vowel forms, depending on certain morphophonologi-
18Traditionally past inflections have been argued to require stress to surface on the APU syllable (Warburton
1970; Babiniotis 1972; Ralli 2005). More recent approaches attribute APU stress to the presence
of a stressed proclitic or prefixal element (see van Oostendorp 2012 and Spyropoulos and Revithiadou
2009, 2011, respectively). The specifics of stress assignment in past forms do not have any bearing on the
analysis developed here and, therefore, are left aside.
19Pre-accentuation is indicated with the accent mark placed before the sponsoring morpheme: -σ.
316 V. Spyropoulos et al.
cal conditions. Below we present the surface manifestations of this exponent and we
discuss their distribution, their conditioning factors and their interaction with stress.
7.1 Default: V →/i/
In 2nd Conjugation verbs, the default value for the empty vocalic slot is the vowel /i/;
it is the vowel that exhibits a wider distribution compared to the other vowels, namely,
/e/ and /a/, which can also materialise in the same slot (see Sect. 7.2). The vowel /i/
surfaces in perfective forms immediately before the perfective aspect marker (-s for
active and -θ for non active):
(28)
ACTIVE NON-ACTIVE
CLASS A CLASS B CLASS A CLASS B
PAST aGap-í-s-o poT-í-s-o aGap-i-T-ó poT-i-T-ó
NON PAST aGáp-i-s-a póT-i-s-a aGap-í-T-ik-a poT-í-T-ik-a
The same vowel /i/ also pops up in deverbal noun formations:
(29) CLASS A
root perfective verb form deverbal noun
a. xtip- xtip-í-s-o xtíp-i-ma
‘hit’ hit-v-PFV-NONPAST.1SG ‘hit, tolling’
b. krat- krat-í-s-o krát-i-ma
‘hold’ hold-v-PFV-NONPAST.1SG ‘keeping, steadiness’
krát-i-si
‘arrest, booking’
c. kol- kol-í-s-o kól-i-ma
‘stick’ stick-v-PFV-NONPAST.1SG ‘sticking, obsession’
kse-kol-i-mós
‘cutting loose’
(30) CLASS B
root perfective verb form deverbal noun
a. ðimiurG- ðimiurG-í-s-o ðimiúrG-i-ma
‘create’ create-v-PFV-NONPAST.1SG ‘creation’
b. aðik- aðik-í-s-o aðík-i-ma
‘unjust’ unjust-v-PFV-NONPAST.1SG ‘offence’
c. Teor- Teor-í-s-o Teór-i-ma
‘consider’ consider-v-PFV-NONPAST.1SG ‘theorem’
Teór-i-si
‘point of view’
Finally, /i/ appears in the non-active imperfective forms of the Class A verbs and of
the Class B verbs that may follow this pattern as a variant, e.g. apasxolúme (-íse, -íte,
. . . ) ∼ apasxoljéme ‘I’m occupied’:
Verbalizers leave marks: evidence from Greek 317
(31)
NON-PAST PAST
1SG aGap-i-eme → aGap-j-éme aGap-i-omun(a) → aGap-j-ómun(a)
2SG aGap-i-ese → aGap-j-ése aGap-i-osun(a) → aGap-j-ósun(a)
3SG aGap-i-ete → aGap-j-éte aGap-i-otan(e) → aGap-j-ótan(e)
1PL aGap-i-omaste → aGap-j-ómaste aGap-i-omastan → aGap-j-ómastan
2PL aGap-i-osaste / → aGap-j-ósaste / aGap-i-osastan → aGap-j-ósastan
aGap-i-este → aGap-j-éste
3PL aGap-i-unde → aGap-j-únde aGap-i-ondan / → aGap-j-óndan /
aGap-i-ondusan → aGap-j-óndusan
As shown in the table in (31), when the V slot is filled in with the vowel /i/, it is
forced to become a glide in a hiatus environment, as in /aGap-i-eme/→[aGapjéme].20
This process basically entails that the vowel loses its vocalic peak status and syllabifies
as an onset (32a).21 As a result, the stress, which was originally aimed to be
hosted by the vowel /i/ due to the pre-stressing nature of the suffix / -eme/, is now
forced to migrate onto the vocalic peak of the syllable the glide eventually syllabifies
to (Revithiadou et al. 2014).
The described state of affairs is depicted in (32b). The representation is based on
Turbidity Theory (Goldrick 1998, 2000; van Oostendorp 2006, 2007, Revithiadou
2007, among others) according to which an accent can be projected (straight line)
by a specific element—in our case, the suffix /-eme/—but eventually ends up being
pronounced (dotted line) on another element, i.e. the pre-suffixal vowel due to the
pre-stressing nature of the suffix in question. However, the loss of the vocalic nucleus
and the resulting change of /i/ into a glide cause projection and pronunciation lines to
match, yielding an output with stress on the sponsoring suffix itself.
(32)
20For the status of glides and the processes of glide formation in Greek see Householder et al. (1964),
Setatos (1974, 1987), Warburton (1976), Malikouti-Drachman (1987), Malikouti-Drachman and Drachman
(1990), Rytting (2005), Topintzi (2011), Topintzi and Baltazani (2011, 2013), Baltazani and Topintzi
(2012), Holton et al. (2012), Soultatis (2013), among others.
21That the derived glide occupies the onset position is confirmed by the fact that in standard varieties of
Greek the glides surfaces as a palatal fricative, e.g. [aGapçéme].
318 V. Spyropoulos et al.
7.2 Lexically defined specification
The surface manifestation of V is sometimes lexically determined, so that certain
roots require the position to be filled in by a specific vowel. More specifically, for
Class A verbs the abstract vowel is specified as /a/ in active imperfective non-past
forms:
(33) 1SG aGap- V-o → aGap-á-o
2SG aGap- V-s → aGap-á-s
3SG aGap- V-i → aGap-á-i
1PL aGap- V-me → aGap-á-me
2PL aGap- V-te → aGap-á-te
3PL aGap- V-n(e) → aGap-á-n(e)
The same vowel appears in the element -aG of the Southern Greece alternative
past imperfective forms of the same verbs:
(34) 1SG aGáp- V-G-a → aGáp-aG-a
2SG aGáp- V-G-es → aGáp-aG-es
3SG aGáp- V-G-e → aGáp-aG-e
1PL aGap- V-G-ame → aGap-áG-ame
2PL aGap- V-G-ate → aGap-áG-ate
3PL aGáp- V-G-an / → aGáp-aG-an /
aGap- V-G-ane → aGap-áG-ane
On the basis of the above, we suggest that the element -aG is a composite formative
which consists of the vowel /a/—the surface manifestation of V—and the sound /G/,
which is taken to be either an epenthetic consonant or a [–perfective] exponent. The
same consonant /G/ also materialises in the imperfective forms of the 3rd Conjugation
verbs, which employ full agreement suffixes, that is, suffixes with a theme vowel:
(35) Imperfective forms of akú-o ‘I listen to, I hear’
ACTIVE NON ACTIVE
NON PAST akú-o akú-G-ome
PAST áku-G-a aku-G-ómun(a)
A handful of verbs require that V materialise with the vowels /e/ or /a/ instead of
/i/ in perfective forms:
Verbalizers leave marks: evidence from Greek 319
(36) foráo ‘I wear, I put on’ (Class A)
NON PAST PAST
IMPERFECTIVE for-á-o for-ús-a / fór-aG-a
PERFECTIVE for-é-s-o fór-e-s-a
(37) aferó ‘I remove, I subtract’ (Class B)
NON PAST PAST
IMPERFECTIVE afer-ó afer-ús-a
PERFECTIVE afer-é-s-o afér-e-s-a
(38) antanakláo ‘I reflect’ (Class A)
NON PAST PAST
IMPERFECTIVE antanakl-á-o antanakl-ús-a
PERFECTIVE antanakl-á-s-o antanákl-a-s-a
Once again, the same vowel appears in the deverbal nouns of these verbs:
(39) VERB DEVERBAL NOUN
a. foráo ‘I wear, I put on’ fór-e-ma ‘dress’
b. aferó ‘I remove, I subtract’ afér-e-si ‘removal,
subtraction’
c. antanakláo ‘I reflect’ antanákl-a-si ‘reflection’
7.3 Specification conditioned by the morphophonological context
There are verb forms in which the surface manifestation of the empty vocalic
element is conditioned by the morphological context. Thus, - V surfaces as /u/
immediately before the 1PL and 3PL non-past suffixes. Furthermore, in Class A
verbs /u/-specification is in free variation with the lexically determined /a/-specification:
(40) Morphologically-conditioned specification of - V
CLASS A CLASS B
1PL aGap- V-me → aGap-á-me /
aGap-ú-me
poT- V-me → poT-ú-me
3PL aGap- V-n(e) → aGap-á-n(e) /
aGap-ú-n(e)
poT- V-ne → poT-ú-ne
7.4 Failure to materialize
The empty vocalic slot - V fails to materialise under the following three conditions:
First, an OCP restriction prevents the materialization of the - V if it would create
320 V. Spyropoulos et al.
a sequence of two identical vowels, e.g. i-i.22 The empty vocalic slot is unable to
support stress (since only full vowels can be stressed in Greek23) and, as a result,
stress is realized on the sponsoring morpheme itself:
(41)
Second, certain morphophonological requirements allow the vocalic slot to optionally
remain empty. This is the case in 1SG non-past Class A forms like aGap-ó / aGap-á-o
‘I love’. As a result, the suffix-inflicted stress is forced to surface on the inflectional
suffix, aGap-ó (43) (see also Ralli 2003). However, when the - V is realized as /a/,
the form surfaces with the expected PU stress (42).
(42)
(43)
Third, the V fails to receive vocalic content before the imperfective past formative
/-us/. In that case APU stress—typically associated with the Greek past (see footnote
18)—cannot be realized on the empty vocalic slot and shifts to the right (on the
/-us/ element) changing the surface pattern to PU:
22A sequence of identical vowels is tolerated, however, when both vowels are underlying as in the 3SG
form iðrí-i of the 1st Conjugation verb iðrío ‘I found, I establish’ (cf. Tiikós < /Ti-ikos/ ‘of sulfur’). In
general, in Greek optional vowel insertion is blocked if it would create a hiatus environment, e.g. tin
emfanízi / *tine emfanízi ‘s/he presents her’ but tine Téli ‘s/he wants her’. (The rule of -e insertion on
object clitics is used in somewhat informal or dialectally coloured registers.)
23The constraint *STRESSED- V (where V is an empty vocalic slot) is part of the gradient constraint
scale which prohibits reduced vowels or skeletal slots to carry stress prominence: *STRESS- V
» *STRESS-@ » *STRESS-i, u » . . . » *STRESS-a (see Kenstowicz 1996).
Verbalizers leave marks: evidence from Greek 321
(44)
7.5 Summary: The manifestations of - V
A complete list of the manifestations of - V in Greek is presented in (45):
(45) a. - V → /a/ / [Class A] ___ [−perfective, (−past)]
/ {
√
ANTANAKL-, . . . } ___ [+perfective]
b. - V → /e/ / {
√
FOR-,
√
AFER-, . . . } ___ [+perfective]
c. - V → /u/ / ___ {-me[−past, 1PL], -ne[−past, 3PL]}
d. - V → - V / ___ {-o[−past, 1SG], -us[−perfective, −past]}
e. - V → /i/ / elsewhere
8 Conclusions
In this article we provided evidence that the categorizing head v is morphologically
expressed in a systematic way in Greek. In 1st Conjugation verbs it usually takes
the form of certain verbalizing suffixes or, for a handful of verbs of Ancient Greek
origin, it has no exponence. However, in 2nd Conjugation verbs morphology spells
out this v head as an empty vocalic slot, a ghost vowel, and morphophonology does
the rest. So, the proposal we put forth here is that v in the 2nd Conjugation verbs
has the exponence of an abstract vowel. The way this abstract vowel materializes
distinguishes 2nd Conjugation verbs in two different classes: Class A verbs employ
the vowels -a and -i, whereas Class B verbs use mainly the vowel -i. The special stress
pattern in the imperfective non-past forms of 2nd Conjugation verbs is argued to be
the result of the interplay between the realization of this abstract vowel and the preaccenting
status of the relevant agreement suffixes. Similarly, the vocalic extensions
which appear between the root and the relevant aspect formatives in the rest forms
are also claimed to be realizations of this abstract vowel.
A major gain of this analysis is that it allows us to offer a unified treatment of the
Greek verbal morphology and derivations without retreating extensively to stem allomorphy,
e.g. aGapa-, aGapi-, aGap-, and so on (cf. Ralli 2005). The different ‘stems’
of a given verb are therefore not listed but they are the result of the combination of the
root and the morphophonological manifestation of a categorizing v head. Crucially,
the way morphology spells-out this v head sets apart verbs into two conjugations and
the way morphophonology materializes the abstract vowel of 2nd Conjugation verbs
further distinguishes between the two classes of this conjugation. This entails that
the v head is also associated with certain inflectional class features, which are purely
morphological in nature and have no relevance to syntactic derivation. Given any
322 V. Spyropoulos et al.
version of Late Insertion, syntax only manipulates the v head and its syntactic features,
whatever these may be, and after Spell-Out morphology and morphophonology
do the rest, that is, they assign morphological/lexical and phonological content to it.
The choice of the lexical item (formative) is conditioned by the relevant inflection
class features and its realization depends on the various morphophonological operations
and restrictions. This is a very welcome result from a separationist point of
view, which assumes a distinction (and/or a dissociation) between syntactic featurestructures
and their morphological exponence.
In this article we assume that nouns and verbs result from a syntactic structure
which consists of the relevant categorizing head and a root phrase in an appropriate
syntactic relation. If these nPs and vPs are indeed phases, that is, cycles of interpretation,
then all vPs and nPs must receive a similar morphophonological and a
semantic interpretation at the interfaces once their phases are completed (see also
Alexiadou 2001). This way the morphophonological and, especially, accentual properties
of deverbal nPs, for instance, will not be the outcome of some listed rule of stem
allomorphy but will directly hinge on their mode of derivation, the manipulation of
the relevant features and their morphophonological exponence. To put it simply, if
our analysis is on the right track, then we are able to derive the morphophonological
properties of the vPs of both conjugations as well as of the deverbal nPs by employing
the same set of assumptions, that is, not by associating roots with categorial features,
but by inserting them instead inside the domain of categorizers. The phonological
properties of such outputs result from the mode of derivation and the phonological
properties of the elements that participate in it.
Acknowledgements This article is the outcome of a broader work on Greek verbalizing morphosyntax.
Parts of this work have been presented in the Little v Workshop, Leiden University, 25–26 October 2013
and in talks at the University of Cyprus and the University of Patras.We thank the audiences for providing
useful feedback. We also sincerely thank Elena Anagnostopoulou, Mark Aronoff, Anastasia Giannakidou,
Heidi Harley, Bob Hoberman, Marc van Oostendorp and Angeliki Ralli for their valuable feedback and
constructive criticism. We are also grateful to the Editors of Morphology and two anonymous reviewers
for their insightful comments and helpful suggestions. The usual disclaimers apply.
References
Alexiadou, A. (2001). Functional structure in nominals. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Alexiadou, A., & Anagnostopoulou, E. (2004). Voice morphology in the causative/inchoative alternation:
evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou,
& M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface (pp.
115–136). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Schäfer, F. (2006). The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically.
In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation (pp. 187–211). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Anagnostopoulou, E., & Samioti, Y. (2014). Domains within words and their meanings: a case study. In A.
Alexiadou, H. Borer, & F. Schäfer (Eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax (pp. 81–111).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arad, M. (2003). Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: the case of Hebrew denominal verbs.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 737–778.
Arad, M. (2005). Roots and patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer.
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Babiniotis, G. (1972). To ρ ´ημα της Eλληνικ ´ ης [The verb in Greek]. Athens.
Verbalizers leave marks: evidence from Greek 323
Baltazani, M., & Topintzi, N. (2012). On some phonetic and phonological properties of the Greek glide.
In Z. Gavriilidou, A. Efthymiou, E. Thomadaki, & P. Kambakis-Vougiouklis (Eds.), Selected papers
of the 10th international conference of Greek linguistics (pp. 153–166). Komotini: Democritus
University of Thrace.
Basilico, D. (2008). Particle verbs and benefactive double objects in English: high and low attachments.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 26, 731–773.
Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme-morpheme base morphology. Albany: SUNY Albany Press.
Borer, H. (2005). Structuring sense. Volume I: In name only. Volume II: The normal course of events.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, H. (2013). Structuring sense. Volume III: Taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burzio, L., & Tantalou, N. (2007). Modern Greek accent and faithfulness constraints in OT. Lingua, 117,
1080–1124.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. InM. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language (pp. 1–52).
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Clairis, C., & Babiniotis, G. (2005). Γραμματ ικ ´η της N´εας Eλληνικ ´ ης: Δoμoλειτoυργ ικ´η-
επικoινωνιακ´η [Modern Greek grammar: functional-structural-communicative]. Athens: Ellinika
Grammata.
Drachman, G., & Malikouti-Drachman, A. (1999). Greek word accent. In H. van der Hulst (Ed.), Word
prosodic systems in the languages of Europe (pp. 897–945). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Embick, D. (1998). Voice systems and the syntax-morphology interface. In H. Harley (Ed.), MIT working
papers in linguistics: Vol. 32. The proceedings of the Penn/MIT workshop on aspect, argument
structure, and events, May 1997 (pp. 41–72). Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Embick, D. (2000). Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 185–230.
Embick, D. (2004a). On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 355–392.
Embick, D. (2004b). Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, &
M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface (pp. 137–
158). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Embick, D. (2010). Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Embick, D., & Marantz, A. (2008). Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 1–53.
Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In G.
Ramchand & Ch. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 289–324). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Folli, R., & Harley, H. (2005). Consuming results in Italian and English: flavours of v. In P. Kempchinsky
& R. Slabakova (Eds.), Aspectual inquiries (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Springer.
Folli, R., & Harley, H. (2007). Causation, obligation, and argument structure: on the nature of little v.
Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 197–238.
Folli, R., & Harley, H. (2013). The syntax of argument structure: evidence from Italian complex predicates.
Journal of Linguistics, 49, 93–125.
Folli, R., Harley, H., & Karimi, S. (2003). Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates. In
L. Astruc & M. Richards (Eds.), Cambridge occasional papers in linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 100–120).
Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Franchetto, B. (2006). Are Kuikuro roots lexical categories? In X. Lois & V. Vapnarsky (Eds.), Lexical
categories and root classes in Amerindian languages (pp. 33–68). Bern: Peter Lang.
Galani, A. (2005). The morphosyntax of verbs in Modern Greek. Doctoral dissertation, University of York.
Gerdts, D. B. & Marlett, S. A. (Eds.) (2008). International Journal of American Linguistics, 74(4).
Goldrick, M. (1998). Optimal opacity: covert structure in phonology. Ms., Johns Hopkins University.
Goldrick, M. (2000). Turbid output representations and the unity of opacity. In M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee,
N. Hall, & J.-Y. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS (Vol. 30, pp. 231–245). Amherst: GLSA.
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations.
In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain
Bromberger (pp. 53–109). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale &
S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger
(pp. 111–176). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Halle, M., & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hamp, E. (1961). To ρ´ημα εν τη σημεριν´η oμιλoυμ´ενη ελληνικ´η γλ´ ωσση [The verb in the contemporary
spoken Greek language]. AT6vá [Athena], 65, 101–128.
324 V. Spyropoulos et al.
Harley, H. (2005a). How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation and the ontology
of verb roots in English. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (Eds.), The syntax of aspect:
deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation (pp. 42–64). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harley, H. (2005b). Bare phrase structure, a-categorial roots, one-replacement and unaccusativity. In S.
Gorbachov &A. Nevins (Eds.), Harvard working papers on linguistics (Vol. 9, pp. 1–19). Cambridge:
Harvard.
Harley, H. (2009). The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In A. Giannakidou & M.
Rathert (Eds.), Quantification, definiteness, and nominalization (pp. 320–342). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Harley, H. (2013a). External arguments and the Mirror Principle: on the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua,
125, 34–57.
Harley, H. (2013b). The ‘bundling’ hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v. Paper presented at
the little v workshop, Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, 25–26 October 2013.
Harley, H., & Noyer, R. (1997). Licensing in the non-Lexicalist lexicon: nominalizations, vocabulary items
and the encyclopedia. In H. Harley (Ed.), MIT working papers in linguistics: Vol. 32. Papers from the
UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect (pp. 119–137). Cambridge: MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics.
Harley, H., & Noyer, R. (2003). Distributed morphology. In L. Cheng & R. Sybesma (Eds.), The second
Glot International state-of-the-article book (pp. 463–496). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Holton, D., Mackridge, P., Philippaki-Warburton, I., & Spyropoulos, V. (2012). Greek: a comprehensive
grammar (Second revised ed.). London: Routledge.
Householder, F. W., Kazazis, K., & Koutsoudas, A. (1964). A reference grammar of literary Dhimotiki.
Bloomington: Indiana University.
Kenstowicz, M. (1996). Sonority-driven stress. Ms., MIT. [Rutgers optimality archive #33.]
Koontz-Garboden, A. (2009). Ulwa verb class morphology. International Journal of American Linguistics,
75, 453–512.
Koutsoudas, A. (1962). Verb morphology of Modern Greek. The Hague: Mouton and Co.
Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase
structure and the lexicon (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lowenstamm, J. (2008). On little n,
√
, and types of nouns. In J. Hartmann, V. Hegedus, & H. van Riemsdjik
(Eds.), The sounds of silence: empty elements in syntax and phonology (pp. 105–143). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Malikouti-Drachman, A. (1987). H αντιπρoσ ´ ωπευση των διπλ ´ ων συμϕ ´ ωνων στα N´εα Eλληνικ´α
[The representation of geminates in modern Greek]. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 8, 275–293.
Malikouti-Drachman, A., & Drachman, G. (1989). Stress in Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 9, 127–
143.
Malikouti-Drachman, A., & Drachman, G. (1990). ωνoλoγικ ´η κυβ ´ ερνηση και πρoβoλ´η:
Aϕoμoιω´ σεις, ανoμoιω´ σεις [Phonological government and projection: assimilations, dissimilations].
In Working papers in Greek grammar (pp. 1–20). Salzburg: University of Salzburg.
Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own
lexicon. In A. Dimitriadis, L. Siegel, C. Surek-Clark, & A. Williams (Eds.), University of Pennsylvania
working papers in linguistics (Vol. 4, pp. 201–225). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Marantz, A. (2001). Words. Paper presented at the 20th West Coast conference of Formal linguistics,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles. [A version of the paper has been retrieved from
http://babel.ucsc.edu/~hank/mrg.readings/Marantz_words.pdf.]
Marantz, A. (2007). Phases and words. In S. H. Choe (Ed.), Phases in the theory of grammar (pp. 191–
222). Soeul: Dong-In Publishing Co.
Mathieu, E. (2013). Denominal verbs in Ojibwe. International Journal of American Linguistics, 79, 97–
132.
Mathieu, E. (2014). Nominalizations in Ojibwe. In I. Paul (Ed.), Cross-linguistic investigations of nominalization
patterns (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Oltra-Massuet, I. (2000). On the notion of theme vowel: a new approach to Catalan verbal morphology. In
MIT occasional papers in linguistics (Vol. 19). Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Oltra-Massuet, I., & Arregi, C. (2005). Stress-by-structure in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 43–84.
van Oostendorp, M. (2006). A theory of morphosyntactic colours. Ms., Meertens Institute, Amsterdam.
[URL: http://egg.auf.net/06/docs/Hdt%20Oostendorp%20coulours.pdf.]
van Oostendorp, M. (2007). Derived environment effects and consistency of exponence. In S. Blaho, P.
Bye, & M. Krämer (Eds.), Freedom of analysis? (pp. 123–148). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Verbalizers leave marks: evidence from Greek 325
van Oostendorp, M. (2012). Stress as a proclitic in modern Greek. Lingua, 122, 1165–1181.
Panagiotidis, Ph. (2011). Categorial features and categorizers. The Linguistic Review, 28, 325–346.
Panagiotidis, Ph. (2014). Categorial features: a generative theory of word-class categories. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: the ingredients of language. New York: Harper Perennial.
Ralli, A. (1988). Eléments de la morphologie du Grec Moderne: La structure de la verbe. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Montreal.
Ralli, A. (1998). On the morphological status of inflectional features: evidence from modern Greek. In B.
D. Joseph, G. Horrocks, & I. Philippaki-Warburton (Eds.), Themes in Greek linguistics II (pp. 51–74).
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Ralli, A. (2003). Morphology in Greek linguistics: the state of the art. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 4,
77–129.
Ralli, A. (2005). Moρφoλoγ ´ια [Morphology]. Athens: Patakis.
Ralli, A., & Touradzidis, L. (1992). A computational treatment of stress in Greek inflected forms. Language
and Speech, 35, 435–453.
Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb meaning and the lexicon: a first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Revithiadou, A. (1999). Headmost accent wins: head dominance and ideal prosodic form in lexical accent
systems. LOT dissertation series: Vol. 15. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Doctoral
dissertation, HIL/Leiden University.
Revithiadou, A. (2007). Colored turbid accents and containment: a case study from lexical stress. In S.
Blaho, P. Bye, & M. Krämer (Eds.), Freedom of analysis? (pp. 149–174). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Revithiadou, A., Markopoulos, G., & Messinioti, P. (2014). Gliding under turbidity. Poster presented at
OCP11, Leiden University and Meertens Institute, Amsterdam–Leiden, 22–25 January 2014.
Rytting, A. C. (2005). An iota of difference: attitudes to yod in lexical and social contexts. Journal of
Greek Linguistics, 6, 151–185.
Setatos, M. (1974). Φωνoλoγ ´ια της Koιν ´ ης Nεoελληνικ ´ ης [Phonology of modern Greek Koine].
Athens: Papazisis.
Setatos, M. (1987). Aπ´o τα αρχα´ια στα ν´εα ελληνικ´α: ωνoλoγικ´ες αλλαγ´ες [From ancient to modern
Greek: phonological changes]. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 8, 187–193.
Soultatis, Th. (2013). The status of the glide in modern Greek. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 25,
271–288.
Spyropoulos, V., & Revithiadou, A. (2009). The morphology of PAST in Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics,
29, 108–122.
Spyropoulos, V., & Revithiadou, A. (2011). PAST in Greek: a case study of the interface between morphological
structure and phonological realization. Ms., University of Athens and University of Thessaloniki.
Topintzi, N. (2011). Paradigm structure and Greek glides. Paper presented at the University of Leipzig,
6 June 2011.
Topintzi, N., & Baltazani, M. (2011). The glide’s big fat Greek wedding. . . to the palatals. Poster presented
at OCP8, Marrakech, Morocco, 19–21 January 2011.
Topintzi, N., & Baltazani, M. (2013). Where the glide meets the palatals. In N. Lavidas, Th. Alexiou, &
A. M. Sougari (Eds.), Major trends in theoretical and applied linguistics: selected papers from the
20th international symposium on Theoretical and applied linguistics, April 1–3, 2011 (pp. 177–196).
London: Versita.
Triantafyllidis, M. (1988[1941]). Nεoελληνικ´η γραμματ ικ´η (της δημoτικ ´ ης). Aνατ ´ υπωση της
ε´κδoσης τoυ OEΣB (1941) με διoρθω´ σεις [Modern Greek grammar. reprint of the organization
for the edition of school books edition (1941) with corrections]. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern
Greek Studies, Manolis Triantafyllidis Foundation.
Volpe, M. (2009). Root and deverbal nominalizations: lexical flexibility in Japanese. Resource document,
LingBuzz. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000789.
Warburton, I. (1970). On the verb of modern Greek. The Hague: Mouton and Co.
Warburton, I. (1973).Modern Greek verb conjugation: inflectionalmorphology in a transformational grammar.
Lingua, 32, 193–226.
Warburton, I. (1976). On the boundaries of morphology and phonology: a case study from modern Greek.
Journal of Linguistics, 12, 258–278.