This paper deals with Modern Greek ditransitives constructions of the following form:
| 1. | O Petros | estile | to paketo | s-tin mitera tu | polu prosfata. |
| the Peter.Nom | send.3SG.PAST | the packet.Acc | to-the mother.Acc his.Cl.Gen | very recently |
| ``Peter sent the packet to his mother very recently''. |
| 2. | O Petros | estile | tis miteras tu | to paketo | polu prosfata. |
| the Peter.Nom | send.3SG.PAST | the mother.Gen his.Cl.Gen | the packet.Acc | very recently |
| ``Peter sent his mother the packet very recently''. |
| 3. | O kathigitis | didakse | tus fitites | tin ili | ton mathimatikon | prosfata. |
| the professor.Nom | teach.3SG.PAST | the student.Acc.PL | the course-material.Acc | the maths.Gen.PL | recently |
| ``The professor taught the students the course material for the maths recently''. |
| 4. | O kathigitis | didakse | tin ili | ton mathimatikon | s-tus fitites | prosfata. |
| the professor.Nom | teach.3SG.PAST | the course-material.Acc | the maths.Gen.PL | to-the student.Acc.PL | recently |
| ``The professor taught the course material for the maths to the students recently''. |
I argue for an account which shares with the ``dative shift''
approaches the idea that there is a single verb meaning involved, and
with the ``dative alternation'' approaches the idea that variants are
nonderivationally related (see Butt, Darlymple and Frank 1997,
Wechsler 1995, among others, for similar approaches in LFG and HPSG,
respectively, to English ditransitives). The starting point of the
analysis for predicates heading Modern Greek genitive ditransitive
constructions is that they are not polysemous and, more generally, the
genitive ditransitive alternation does not involve two distinct
meanings for each individual ditransitive predicate. In the spirit of
Levin and Rappaport Hovan 2002, I propose that the key idea is that
the genitive ditransitive alternation in Modern Greek is not about
alternate objects, like for instance, the locative alternation in
Modern Greek, but about alternate expressions of recipients (i.e.,
animate goals). That is, recipients in Modern Greek genitive
ditransitive constructions may be realized in two ways as they are
open to two semantic characterizations (see also Goldsmith 1980 for
English): (i) a type of possessor, (ii) a type of goal, as the
Localist Hypothesis predicts (cf., also Gruber 1965, Jackendoff
1972). The consequence of the availability of two semantic
characterizations for recipients in the case of Modern Greek genitive
ditransitive constructions (i.e., possessors and goals) is that
recipients have also two potential modes of syntactic instantiation:
(i) a genitive case-marked NP (see example (2)), (ii) a PP ("s-tin"
(to)-phrase in example (1)). For Modern Greek double accusative
ditransitive constructions I propose an analysis which shares with the
``dative alternation'' approaches the idea that variants are
nonderivationally related. I also propose, though, that unlike the
genitive ditransitive constructions in Modern Greek the double
accusative ditransitive construction is about alternate objects, like
for instance, the locative alternation in Modern Greek. This proposal
is strongly supported by the evidence from adjectival passives and
nominalizations in relation to Modern Greek double accusative
ditransitive constructions, which shows that with predicates heading
double accusative ditransitives either the "theme" or the "recipient"
argument exhibits ``object'' properties, depending on which is (the
primary) object. Such an analysis also tends to be accompanied by
different lexical semantic entailments in relation to the two
variants.