This paper elucidates the adjacency requirement between a preposed focus phrase and the finite verb, proposing a series of hypotheses to account for the existence of the following three groups of Modern Greek speakers (A, B, and C):
(1) Group A:
a. ti NINA o Yorghos tha feri.
b. ston PAVLO ktes edose i Maria ta lefta.
(2) Group B:
a. to MORO o Yiorghos frondise?
b.*o YIORGHOS to moro to-frondise.
(3) Group C:
a.*to GLIKO o Janis efaje.
b.*o JANIS to gliko to-efaje.
Based on Relativized Minimality defined on Full Match in (4) and (5), we assume the basic premises embodied in the assignment of the features [+Op(erator)] and [+D(Linked)]:
(4) A. Preposed focus XP's are assigned the feature [+Op], [[±] and the feature [+Op][+D]].
B. Preposed subjects are assigned the feature the feature [+Op][+D]/[+Op].
C. CLLD's are assigned the feature [+Op][+D], [[±[and the feature [+Op]].
(5) X Z Y chain formation
a. +α +α +α *
b. +α,+β +α +α,+β レ
c. +α +β +α レ
d. +α +α,+β +α *
In Group A and Group B, in which preposed focus XP's are endowed with the feature [+Op][+D]/[+Op], (1a) and (2a) are predicted to be grammatical, owing to the scheme in (5b). In Group C, in which preposed focus XP's are given the feature [+Op], (3a) is rejected, because of the scheme in (5a) or (5d). CLLD's are assigned the feature [+Op][+D]/[+Op] in Group A, while the feature [+Op][+D], leading to acceptance of (1b) (scheme (5b)) or to rejection of (2b) and (3b) (scheme (5a) or (5d)). The same strategy accounts for the difference in (6a) and (6b), since (6a), where subject-verb does not apply, is rejected by Relativized Minimality.
(6) a.*[to vivlio]i stin MARIA o Yiorghos toi-edhikse.
b. [to vivlio]i stin MARIA toi-edhikse o Yiorghos.