Συγκριτική συντακτική ανάλυση του Παρακειμένου της Νέας Ελληνικής και των κυριοτέρων ρωμανικών και γερμανικών γλωσσών. / The present thesis is an analysis concerning the periphrases of the present perfect in Modern Greek, and in the main Romance and Germanic languages, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, English, German and Dutch. It consists of three chapters. In the first chapter, I present the data concerning the formation and the uses of the present perfect in the aforementioned languages. I particularly insist on the fact that in some languages there is auxiliary selection. French, Italian, German and Dutch, on one hand, generally select the auxiliary verb “have” to form the periphrases of the present perfect of transitive verbs, whereas, they select the verb “be” to form the present perfect of unaccusative verbs. Moreover, two of these languages, French and Italian have participle agreement. The participle used in the formations of these periphrases agrees in gender and number with the subject of the phrase if the auxiliary verb “be” is used, whereas, it agrees with the object if the verb “have” is used, but only on condition that the object precedes the participle. This can occur mainly when the object is a pronoun. In the second chapter, I proceed to the syntactic analysis of the data. I look into Kayne’s (1993) analysis on auxiliary selection. Kayne, following Freeze (1992), supports that the syntactic analysis of the possessive “have” should be adopted for the auxiliary “have” as well. He believes that the only difference between the two constructions is the fact that the complement of the auxiliary “have” should be one appropriate for a participle. Moreover, Kayne (1993) supports that the two auxiliary verbs “have” and “be” are basically the same. “Have” is “be” with a locative. In this chapter I also present some additional, more recent views concerning the constructions of the periphrases of the present perfect, the ones of Iatridou (2007) and D’Alessandro (2010). In the third chapter, I look into participle agreement. I suggest that this kind of agreement is related to, and depends on the position of adjectives in each language. In languages like French and Italian the adjective is usually put after the substantive. As a result, participles only agree with the argument they characterize/determine, depending on the construction, if they are in a structural position which is compatible with the position of the adjective. In languages like German and Dutch, adjectives always precede substantives. However, participles never do so when they are part of a periphrasis of the present perfect. German and Dutch never show participle agreement. In Greek, on the other hand, the adjective can either precede or follow the verb. This seems to be the reason why participles in Greek always show agreement. Finally, in English, adjectives and consequently participles never show any kind of agreement due to the fact that they lack clitic morphology. Following Wasow (1977) and his analysis on verbal and adjectival participles, but also Kibort (2005), I support that past participles that show agreement constitute an intermediate participial category between the verbal and the adjectival ones. They seem to be “resultative” participles which act as verbs but bear adjectival features. I propose that it is possible that the function of these participles in the periphrases of the present perfect is either to produce or to reinforce the perfect of result. I conclude that Modern Greek is the only language, among the ones examined, that has unconditional participial agreement, and can produce two different kinds of the present perfect with most verbs, the perfect of experience, on one hand, and the perfect of result, on the other.

H παρούσα διατριβή ανήκει στο πεδίο της συγκριτικής μορφολογίας. Μελετάται η μορφολογική διαδικασία της σύνθεσης στη Νέα Ελληνική και τη Γερμανική, σε δύο γλώσσες που μοιράζονται πολλά κοινά μορφολογικά χαρακτηριστικά και στις οποίες το συγκεκριμένο φαινόμενο είναι ιδιαίτερα παραγωγικό. Συγκεκριμένα, τα θέματα που εξετάζονται είναι τα ακόλουθα: α) τα δομικά χαρακτηριστικά των λεγόμενων «πρωτοτυπικών συνθέτων» σε σύγκριση με τις «οριακές περιπτώσεις», όπου και η διαδικασία της παραγωγής εμπλέκεται στο σχηματισμό τους, β) η εμφάνιση συνδετικού στοιχείου και γ) ο σχηματισμός διαφόρων τύπων συνθέτων, όπως για παράδειγμα των εξωκεντρικών και των παρατακτικών συνθέτων. To θεωρητικό πλαίσιο που υιοθετείται είναι αυτό της γενετικής μορφολογίας. Τα κυριότερα συμπεράσματα της διατριβής αφορούν τον καθορισμό των παραμέτρων, βάσει των οποίων μπορούν να ερμηνευθούν οι διαφορές στο σχηματισμό συνθέτων των δύο αυτών γλωσσών. Οι πιο σημαντικοί παράμετροι που εξηγούν τις διαφορές των νεοελληνικών και γερμανικών συνθέτων είναι α) το είδος της μορφολογίας που προτιμά η κάθε γλώσσα, αν δηλαδή βασίζεται στο θέμα ή στη λέξη και β) τα πλούσια ή περιορισμένα ονοματικά κλιτικά παραδείγματα. Μέσω της συγκριτικής ανάλυσης ήρθαν στο φως και νέα συμπεράσματα που αφορούν επιμέρους ζητήματα της διαδικασίας της σύνθεσης των δύο αυτών γλωσσών, όπως για παράδειγμα ο μορφολογικός χαρακτήρας του συνδετικού στοιχείου και το είδος της κεφαλής των εξωκεντρικών συνθέτων της Γερμανικής, καθώς επίσης και τα μορφολογικά χαρακτηριστικά των ονοματικών παρατακτικών συνθέτων της Νέας Ελληνικής. / This thesis belongs to the field of contrastive morphology: it examines the morphological process of compounding in Modern Greek and German, two languages which share many common morphological features and in which the specific phenomenon is especially productive. In more detail, the topics examined are the following: a) the structural features of the so called “prototypical compounds” in contrast to the “borderline cases”, where the process of derivation is also involved in their formation, b) the appearance of the linking element and c) the formation of different types of compounds as for example the exocentric and the copulative ones. The theoretical framework adopted is that of generative morphology. The main conclusions of the thesis concern the definition of parameters that can explain the differences in the formation of compounds in these two languages. The most important parameters that determine the basic differences in the formation of Modern Greek and German compounds are a) the stem vs. word-based morphology and b) the rich vs. limited nominal inflectional paradigms. Through this contrastive analysis various new outcomes came into light concerning special issues in the process of compounding of these two languages, as for instance the morphological status of the linking element in German, the type of head that the German exocentric compounds display and the morphological features of the nominal copulative compounds in Modern Greek.