On clausal complementation, once more

Abstract This paper develops a novel analysis of clausal complementation based on the distribution of Greek declarative clauses introduced by oti and pu . These clauses present three puzzles: (i) they are in complementary distribution after most verbs; (ii) they are licensed as internal arguments and derived subjects but are banned from the external argument position; and (iii) complement pu -clauses impose a previously unnoticed stativity restriction on the matrix verb, a restriction absent in their adjunct uses. I argue that (ii) and (iii) receive a unified explanation if oti and pu of complement clauses select a light noun in their specifier (see also Arsenijević 2009; Moltmann 2019, 2024). This noun must be licensed via incorporation into the matrix verb (Hale and Keyser 1993), an operation that succeeds from the complement position but fails from the external argument position, thus explaining the internal–external argument asymmetry. The semantic distinction between content ( oti ) and situation ( pu ) explains their distribution after verbs (see also Bondarenko 2022; Elliott 2020; Kratzer 2006; Moltmann 1989, 2013a,b, 2021; Moulton 2009, 2015). Finally, the stativity restriction reveals a distinction in the way arguments and adjuncts are licensed (Bruening 2013; Hunter 2015; Zeijlstra 2020; Hewett 2023; Neeleman et al. 2023, i.a.). Beyond resolving the puzzles in Greek, this analysis settles the open question of whether embedded clauses occupy the same argument position as DPs. Drawing on multiple diagnostics, I show that they can, thereby directly challenging approaches (e.g., Bondarenko 2022) that deny this possibility. The analysis carries broader implications for the role of selection in clausal complementation, the syntax of nominalized clauses, and the Syntax/Semantics interface.