The aim of the present project was to study the grammar of clitic pronouns in (Late) Medieval Greek with particular attention to text-pragmatic, geographic and diachronic variation. Its initial focus was on the following unresolved puzzles in the literature on Late Medieval Greek clitics:
1. Is the grammar of clitics in Late Medieval Greek determined by grammatical rules, as in Standard Modern Greek, and if so: are these rules syntactic or morphological (the word vs. affix controversy)?
2. What is the role of pragmatic processes like focalization and topicalization, which seem to influence the position of clitic pronouns in Ancient (including Post-Classical) Greek, but also in some Modern Greek dialects?
3. What is the relation between post- c.q. preverbal syntax and en- c.q. proclisis in Late Medieval Greek (and the Modern Greek dialects referred to under 2)? Is there evidence that the clitics in Late Medieval Greek have become (or are becoming) proclitic in preverbal position, as in Standard Modern Greek, while in Post-Classical Greek they are still enclitic in this position? Is it possible to differentiate the observed variation chronologically in Late Medieval Greek?
4. Is it possible to differentiate the observed variation in Late Medieval Greek on the basis of geographic criteria? It stands to reason to look for the origins of the split in the Modern Greek dialects in regional variation in Late Medieval Greek.
5. Is it possible to differentiate the observed variation in Late Medieval Greek on the basis of text-pragmatic criteria? It is conceivable that the variation has to do with linguistic variables such as style and register, possibly in combination with geographic origin.
6. What is the nature of the diachronic processes in the evolution of Ancient to Modern Greek and its dialects. Grammaticalization and / or reanalysis? What is the part of analogy? Clitics and the so-called “clitic cline” play an important role in the development of the theory of grammaticalization.