1887
Volume 33, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Cappadocian Greek is reported to display agglutinative inflection in its nominal system, namely, mono-exponential formatives for the marking of case and number, and nom.sg-looking forms as the morphemic units to which inflection applies. Previous scholarship has interpreted these developments as indicating a shift in morphological type from fusion to agglutination, brought about by contact with Turkish. This study takes issue with these conclusions. By casting a wider net over the inflectional system of the language, it shows that, of the two types of agglutinative formations identified, only one evidences a radical departure from the inherited structural properties of Cappadocian noun inflection. The other, on the contrary, represents a typologically more conservative innovation. The study presents evidence that a combination of system-internal and -external motivations triggered the development of both types, it describes the mechanisms through which the innovation was implemented, and discusses the factors that favoured change.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.33.1.02kar
2016-01-01
2018-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y
    2007 Grammars in contact: A cross‑linguistic perspective. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.), Grammar in contact: A cross‑linguistic perspective, 1–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alektoridis, Anastasios S
    1833 Lexilogion tou en Fertakainois tis Kappadokias glossikou idiomatos [Glossary of the Cappadocian dialect of Ferték]. Deltion Istorikis Ethnologikis Etaireias [Historical and Ethnological Society Bulletin] 1. 480–508.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anastasiadis‑Symeonidis, Anna & Despina Chila‑Markopoulou
    2003 Synchronikes kai diachronikes taseis sto genos tis ellinikis: Mia theoritiki proseggisi [Synchronic and diachronic tendencies in the gender of Greek: A theoretical approach]. In Anna Anastassiadis‑Symeonidis , Angela Ralli & Despina Chila‑Markopoulou (eds.), To Genos [Gender], 13–56. Athens: Patakis.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, Stephen R
    1985 Typological distinctions in word formation. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. III, 3–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Aronoff, Mark
    1994Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Backus, Ad
    2005 Codeswitching and language change: One thing leads to another?International Journal of Bilingualism9(3–4). 307–340. doi: 10.1177/13670069050090030101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069050090030101 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bauer, Laurie
    1988Introducing linguistic morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chamoreau, Claudine & Isabelle Léglise
    2012 A multi‑model approach to contact‑induced language change. In Claudine Chamoreau & Isabelle Léglise (eds.), Dynamics of contact‑induced language change, 1–15. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110271430.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110271430.1 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clyne, Michael G
    2003Dynamics of language contact: English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511606526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606526 [Google Scholar]
  10. Costakis, Athanasios P
    1959Glossikon ylikon ek katoikon toy choriou Misthi Kappadokias engatestimenon nyn eis Agioneri Axioupoleos Makedonias [Linguistic material from the inhabitants of the Cappadocian village of Misthi that now reside in the village of Agioneri in Axioupolis of the Macedonia Prefecture]. Manuscript № 755. Research Centre for Modern Greek Dialects (I.L.N.E.), Academy of Athens.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1962Glossikon ylikon apo ta Flogita Chalkidikis (prosfygikon chorion) [Linguistic material from the village of Flogita of the Chalkidiki Prefecture (refugee village)]. Manuscript № 812. Research Centre for Modern Greek Dialects (I.L.N.E.), Academy of Athens.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Costakis, Athansios P
    1963Glossiko yliko apo to Misti Kappadokias (apo prosfyges sto chorio Thomai (: Mandra) Larisis) [Linguistic material from the Cappadocian village of Misti (from the refugees of the village of Thomai (: Mandra) of the Larissa Prefecture]. Manuscript № 826. Research Centre for Modern Greek Dialects (I.L.N.E.), Academy of Athens.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Costakis, Athanasios P
    1964Le parler grec d’Anakou. Athens: Centre for Asia Minor Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1967Glossiki yli ek Kappadokias (Misti – Dila) [Linguistic material from Cappadocia (Misti – Dila)]. Manuscript № 887. Research Centre for Modern Greek Dialects (I.L.N.E.), Academy of Athens.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Croft, William
    2000Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dawkins, Richard M
    1916Modern Greek in Asia Minor: A study of the dialects of Sílli, Cappadocia and Phárasa with grammar, texts, translations and glossary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dorian, Nancy C
    1993 Internally and externally motivated change in language contact settings: Doubts about dichotomy. In Charles Jones (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, 131–155. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dressler, Wolfgang U
    2003 Naturalness and morphological change. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 461–471. Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470756393.ch12
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch12 [Google Scholar]
  19. Drinka, Bridget
    2010 Language contact. In Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.), The Continuum companion to historical linguistics, 325–345. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Farrar, Kimberley & Mari C. Jones
    2002 Introduction. In Mari C. Jones & Edith Esch (eds.), Language change: The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors, 1–16. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110892598.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892598.1 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fates, Thomas
    2012Chiogos as si charis: Ekmathisi tou mistiotikou idiomatos (anef didaskalou) [May God bless you: A course in the Mistiot dialect (without a teacher)]. Konitsa: n.p.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fosteris, Dimitrios & Ioannis I. Kesisoglou
    1960Lexilogio tou Aravani (Vocabulaire d’Aravani). Athens: Institut Français d’Athènes.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fraser, Norman M. & Greville G
    . Corbett. 1995. Gender, animacy, and declensional class assignment: A unified account for Russian. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.) Yearbook of Morphology 1994, 123–150. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gardani, Francesco
    2008Borrowing of inflectional morphemes in language contact. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2013Dynamics of morphological productivity: The evolution of noun classes from Latin to Italian. Leiden: Brill. doi: 10.1163/9789004244658
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004244658 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gumperz, John J. & Robert Wilson
    1971 Convergence and creolization: A case from the Indo‑Aryan/Dravidian border in India. In Dell Hymes (ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages: Proceedings of a conference held at the University of the West Indies , Mona, Jamaica, April 1968, 151–167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Haspelmath, Martin
    2009 An empirical test of the Agglutination Hypothesis. In Sergio Scales , Elisabetta Magni & Antonietta Bisetto (eds.), Universals of language today, 13–29. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑8825‑4_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8825-4_2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2005Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511614132
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614132 [Google Scholar]
  29. Henrich, Günther S
    1976Klitikes kai genikes se ‑o apo arsenika se ‑os sta Mesaionika kai Nea Ellinika [Vocative and genitive forms in ‑o from masculines in ‑os in Medieval and Modern Greek]. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hickey, Raymond
    2010 Language contact: Reconsideration and reassessment. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The handbook of language contact, 1‑28. Oxford: Wiley‑Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444318159.ch
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318159.ch [Google Scholar]
  31. Horrocks, Geoffrey
    2010Greek: A history of the language and its speakers. Oxford: Wiley‑Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444318913
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318913 [Google Scholar]
  32. Janse, Mark
    2001 Morphological borrowing in Asia Minor Greek. In Yoryia Aggouraki , Amalia Arvaniti , Jim Davy , Dionysis Goutsos , Marilena Karyolaimou , Anna Panagiotou , Andreas Papapavlou , Pavlos Pavlou & Anna Roussou (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Greek Linguistics. Nicosia 17‑19 September 1999, 473‑479. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2002 Aspects of bilingualism in the history of the Greek language. In James Noel Adams , Mark Janse & Simon Swain (eds.), Bilingualism in ancient society: Language contact and the written text, 332–390. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199245062.003.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199245062.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2004 Animacy, definiteness and case in Cappadocian and other Asia Minor Greek dialects. Journal of Greek Linguistics5. 3–26. doi: 10.1075/jgl.5.03jan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jgl.5.03jan [Google Scholar]
  35. 2009 Greek‑Turkish language contact in Asia Minor. Études Helléniques/Hellenic Studies17(1). 37–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Johanson, Lars
    2002Structural factors in Turkic language contacts. Richmond: Curzon.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Joseph, Brian
    1983The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive: A study in areal, general, and historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Karampodas, Vassileios
    1948To Gourdonos kai to Aravani [Ghúrzono and Araván]. Istanbul: M. Konstantinopoulos.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Karatsareas, Petros
    2009 The loss of grammatical gender in Cappadocian Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society107(2). 196–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2009.01217.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2009.01217.x [Google Scholar]
  40. 2011A study of Cappadocian Greek nominal morphology from a diachronic and dialectological perspective. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2013 Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek: The dialectological perspective. Journal of Historical Linguistics3(2). 192–229. doi: 10.1075/jhl.3.2.02kar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.3.2.02kar [Google Scholar]
  42. 2014 On the diachrony of gender in Asia Minor Greek: The development of semantic agreement in Pontic. Language Sciences43. 77–101. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.10.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.10.005 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2016 The Asia Minor Greek adpositional cycle: A tale of multiple causation. Journal of Greek Linguistics16(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Kesisoglou, Ioannis I
    1951To glossiko idioma tou Oulagats (Le dialecte d’Oulagatch). Athens: Institut Français d’Athènes.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kim, Ronald I
    2008 An individual twist on the individualizing suffix: Definite n‑stem nouns in Pontic Greek. Glotta84. 72–113. doi: 10.13109/glot.2008.84.14.72
    https://doi.org/10.13109/glot.2008.84.14.72 [Google Scholar]
  46. King, Ruth
    2000The lexical basis of grammatical borrowing: A Prince Edward Island French case study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.209
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.209 [Google Scholar]
  47. Krinopoulos, Socrates
    1889Ta Fertakaina ypo ethnologikin kai filologikin epopsin exetazomena [Ferték examined from an ethnological and philological perspective]. Athens: Fexis.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Matras, Yaron
    2009Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511809873
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809873 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2010 Contact, convergence, and typology. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The handbook of language contact, 66–85. Oxford: Wiley‑Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444318159.ch3
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318159.ch3 [Google Scholar]
  50. Mavrochalyvidis, Georgios & Ioannis I. Kesisoglou
    1960To glossiko idioma tis Axou (Le dialecte d’Axos). Athens: Institut Français d’Athènes.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Melissaropoulou, Dimitra
    2013 Reorganization of grammar in the light of the language contact factor: A case study on Grico and Cappadocian. In Mark Janse , Brian Joseph , Angela Ralli & Metin Bağrıaçık (eds.), Online proceedings of MGDLT5. 5th International Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory. Ghent, Belgium . September 20–22, 2012, 311–334. Patras, Greece.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Ortmann, Albert
    1998 The role of [±animate] in inflection. In Ray Fabri , Albert Ortmann & Teresa Parodi (eds.), Models of inflection, 60–84. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783110919745
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110919745 [Google Scholar]
  53. Plank, Frans
    1999 Split morphology: How agglutination and flexion mix. Linguistic Typology3(3). 279–340. doi: 10.1515/lity.1999.3.3.279
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1999.3.3.279 [Google Scholar]
  54. Plungian, Vladimir A
    2001 Agglutination and flection. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, 669–678. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Pöchtrager, Markus A. , Csanád Bodó , Wolfgang U. Dressler & Teresa Schweiger
    1998 On some inflectional properties of the agglutinating type illustrated from Finnish, Hungarian and Turkish inflection. Wiener Linguistische Gazette62–63. 57–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Ralli, Angela
    2000 A feature‑based analysis of Greek nominal inflection. Γλωσσολογία/Glossologia11‑12. 201–227.
  57. 2005Morfologia [Morphology]. Athens: Patakis.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 2009 Morphology meets dialectology: Insights from Modern Greek dialects. Morphology19. 87–105. doi: 10.1007/s11525‑009‑9134‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-009-9134-9 [Google Scholar]
  59. Ross, Malcolm D
    1997 Social networks and kinds of speech‑community event. In Roger Blench & Matthew Spriggs (eds.), Archaeology and language 1: Theoretical and methodological orientations, 209–261. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Sapir, Edward
    1921Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Sarantidis, Archelaos I
    1899I Sinasos, itoi thesis, istoria, ithiki kai dianoitiki katastasis, ithi, ethima kai glossa tis en Kappadokia komopoleos Sinasou [Sinasos, that is, position, history, moral and intellectual state, customs and language of the Cappadocian town Sinasos]. Athens: Ioannis Nikolaidis.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Sasse, Hans‑Jürgen
    1992 Language decay and contact‑induced change: Similarities and differences. In Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Language death: Factual and theoretical explorations with special reference to East Africa, 59–80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Spencer, Andrew
    1991Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in generative grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Spyropoulos, Vassilios & Konstantinos Kakarikos
    2011 A feature‑based analysis of Cappadocian Greek nominal inflection. In Mark Janse , Brian Joseph , Pavlos Pavlou , Angela Ralli & Spyros Armosti (eds.), Studies in Modern Greek dialects and linguistic theory, 203–213. Nicosia: Research Centre of Kykkos Monastery.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Spyropoulos, Vassilios & Marianna Tiliopoulou
    2006 Definiteness and case in Cappadocian Greek. In Mark Janse , Brian D. Joseph & Angela Ralli (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory, 366–378. Patras: University of Patras.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Stump, Gregory T
    2001Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486333
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486333 [Google Scholar]
  67. Thomason, Sarah G
    2001Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 2008 Social and linguistic factors as predictors of contact‑induced change. Journal of Language Contact2(1). 42–56. doi: 10.1163/000000008792525381
    https://doi.org/10.1163/000000008792525381 [Google Scholar]
  69. 2010 Contact explanations in linguistics. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The handbook of language contact, 31–47. Oxford: Wiley‑Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Thomason, Sarah G. & Terrence Kaufman
    1988Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Tsitsopoulos, Eleftherios
    1962Syllogi glossikou kai laografikou ylikou ek tou choriou Flogita Chalkidikis (prosfygon tou omonymou choriou Kappadokias) [Collection of linguistic and folk material from the village of Flogita of the Chalkidiki Prefecture (refugees from the Cappadocian village of the same name)]. Manuscript № 811. Research Centre for Modern Greek Dialects (I.L.N.E.), Academy of Athens.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Vryonis, Speros Jr
    1971The decline of medieval hellenism in Asia Minor and the process of islamization from the eleventh through the fifteenth century. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Winford, Donald
    2003An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 2005 Contact‑induced changes: Classification and processes. Diachronica22(2). 373–427. doi: 10.1075/dia.22.2.05win
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.22.2.05win [Google Scholar]
  75. 2010 Contact and borrowing. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The handbook of language contact, 170–187. Oxford: Wiley‑Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444318159.ch8
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318159.ch8 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/dia.33.1.02kar
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error