image of Emergence of differential object marking in Asia Minor Greek
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper investigates the emergence of differential object marking (DOM) in the Asia Minor Greek dialect of Pharasa (PhG) under contact with Turkish. We show that DOM in Turkish and PhG are both instances of structural accusative case and DOM can be formally modeled as context sensitive dependent case. We propose that two factors caused the emergence of DOM in PhG, namely (i) case neutralization in indefinite contexts, and (ii) an increase in the number of V-NP idioms borrowed from Turkish where the NP is in bare form. These perturbations led to a significant change in the overall data created by the community resulting in mixed input for the younger generations. Once the amount of bare NPs passed a certain threshold, a divergent grammar became inevitable. We test our proposal using an abductive generalization learning algorithm based on the Tolerance Principle and running a number of simulations. Our simulation results confirm our hypothesis.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aissen, Judith
    (2003) “Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy”. In: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory., pp.–. 10.1023/A:1024109008573
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anagnostopoulou, Elena and Christina Sevdali
    (2020) “Two modes of dative and genitive case assignment: Evidence from two stages of Greek”. In: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory., pp.–. 10.1007/s11049‑020‑09465‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09465-z [Google Scholar]
  3. Anastasiadis, Vasilis
    (1976) “I sintaksi sto Pharasiotiko idioma tis Kappadokias [The syntax of the dialect of Pharasa in Cappadocia]”. PhD thesis. University of Ioannina.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Andersen, Henning
    (1973) “Abductive and deductive change”. In: Language, pp.–. 10.2307/412063
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412063 [Google Scholar]
  5. Andriotis, Nikolaos
    (1948) To glossiko idioma ton Pharason [The dialect of Pharasa]. Athens: Ikaros.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Arregi, Karlos and Andrews Nevins
    (2012) Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑3889‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3889-8 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bagriacik, Metin
    (2018) “Pharasiot Greek: Word order and clause structure”. PhD thesis. Ghent University.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Baker, Mark C.
    (2015) Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107295186
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107295186 [Google Scholar]
  9. Baker, Mark C. and Jonathan David Bobaljik
    (2017) “On inherent and dependent theories of ergative case”. In: The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Ed. byJessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa deMena Travis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.–. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.5
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.5 [Google Scholar]
  10. Baker, Mark C. and Nadezhda Vinokurova
    (2010) “On tense and copular verbs in nonverbal predications in Sakha”. In: Rutgers Working Papers in Linguistics 3. Ed. byPeter Staroverov. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Department of Linguistics, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bárány, András
    (2017) Person, case, and agreement: The morphosyntax of inverse agreement and global case splits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Belth, Caleb
    (2021) The Greedy and recursive search for morphological productivity. arXiv: 2105.05790v1 [cs.CL].
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Biberauer, Theresa
    (2014) “Complexity in comparative syntax: the view from Modern parametric theory”. In: Measuring grammatical complexity. Ed. byFrederick J. Newmeyer and Laurel B. Preston. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.–. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cattell, Ray
    (1981) Composite predicates in English. Sydney: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cinque, Guglielmo
    (1999) Adverbs and functional heads. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195115260.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195115260.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Clark, Robin and Ian Roberts
    (1993) “A computational approach to language learnability and language change”. In: Linguistic Inquiry, pp.–. url: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178813
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Comrie, Bernard
    (1979) “Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class”. In: Linguistica Silesiana, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Croft, William
    (1988) “Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects”. In: Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions. Ed. byMichael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dawkins, Richard M.
    (1916) Modern Greek in Asia Minor: A study of the dialects of Silli, Cappadocia and Pharasa, with grammar, texts, translations and glossary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1940) “The dialects of Modern Greek”. In: Transactions of the Philological Society, pp.–. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.1940.tb01219.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1940.tb01219.x [Google Scholar]
  21. de Hoop, Helen and Andrej L. Malchukov
    (2008) “Case-marking strategies”. In: Linguistic Inquiry, pp.–. 10.1162/ling.2008.39.4.565
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.4.565 [Google Scholar]
  22. Diesing, Molly
    (1992) Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Enç, Mürvet
    (1991) “The semantics of specificity”. In: Linguistic inquiry, pp.–. url: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178706
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Everaert, Martin
    eds. (1995) Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaim.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Favis, Vasilis
    (1948) “Sintaktike paratirisis is to idioma ton Farason [Syntactic observations on the dialect of Pharasa]”. In: Epetiris Vizantinon Spoudon, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Fodor, Janet D. and Ivan A. Sag
    (1982) “Referential and quantificational indefinites”. In: Linguistics and Philosophy, pp.–. 10.1007/BF00351459
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351459 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fraser, Bruce
    (1970) “Idioms within a Transformational Grammar”. In: Foundations of Language, pp.–. url: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25000426
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gignac, Francis
    (1981) A Grammar of the Greek papyri of the Roman and Byzantine periods. Vol.: Morphology. Milano: Cisalpino-La Go-liardica.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Givón, Talmy
    (1978) “Definiteness and referentiality”. In: Universals of human language. Ed. byJoseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, and Edith A. Moravcsik. Vol.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Grubinger, Thomas, Achim Zeileis, and Karl-Peter Pfeiffer
    (2014) “evtree: Evolutionary learning of globally optimal classification and regression trees in R”. In: Journal of Statistical Software, pp.–. 10.18637/jss.v061.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v061.i01 [Google Scholar]
  31. Harris, Alice and Lyle Campbell
    (1995) Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620553
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620553 [Google Scholar]
  32. Haugen, Einar
    (1950) “The analysis of linguistic borrowing”. In: Language, pp.–. 10.2307/410058
    https://doi.org/10.2307/410058 [Google Scholar]
  33. Holmberg, Anders
    (1986) “Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages and English”. PhD thesis. Stockholm University.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Holton, David
    (2019) The Cambridge grammar of Medieval and Early Modern Greek. Vol., . Cambrdige, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316632840
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316632840 [Google Scholar]
  35. Janse, Mark
    (2004) “Animacy, definiteness, and case in Cappadocian and other Asia Minor Greek dialects”. In: Journal of Greek linguistics, pp.–. 10.1075/jgl.5.03jan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jgl.5.03jan [Google Scholar]
  36. Kakarikos, Konstantinos
    (2009) “Morphological and “semantic” examination of the case system of Ancient Greek”. PhD thesis. University of Athens.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kalin, Laura
    (2018) “Licensing and Differential Object Marking: the view from Neo-Aramaic”. In: Syntax, pp.–. 10.1111/synt.12153
    https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12153 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kalin, Laura and Philipp Weisser
    (2019) “Asymmetric DOM in coordination: A problem for movement-based approaches”. In: Linguistic Inquiry, pp.–. 10.1162/ling_a_00298
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00298 [Google Scholar]
  39. Karatsareas, Petros
    (2011) “A study of Cappadocian Greek nominal morphology from a diachronic and dialectological perspective”. PhD thesis. University of Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2020) “The Development, preservation and loss of Differential Case Marking in Inner Asia Minor Greek”. In: Journal of Language Contact, pp.–. 10.1163/19552629‑bja10008
    https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-bja10008 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kodner, Jordan
    (2020) “Language acquisition in the past”. PhD thesis. University of Pennsylvania.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kornfilt, Jaklin
    (2009) “DOM and two types of DSM in Turkish”. In: Differential Subject Marking. Ed. byHelen de Hoop and Peter de Swart. Dordrecht: Springer, pp.–. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6497‑5_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6497-5_5 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kroch, Anthony
    (1989) “Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change”. In: Language Variation and Change, pp.–. 10.1017/S0954394500000168
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000168 [Google Scholar]
  44. Levidis, Anastasios
    (1892) “Pragmatia peri tis en Kapadokia lalumenis glosis ipo Anastasiu M. Levidu [A treatise by Anastasios M. Levidis on the language spoken in Cappadocia]”. Manuscript deposited at the Center of Asia Minor Greek Studies, Athens.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Levin, Theodore and Omer Preminger
    (2015) “Case in Sakha: Are two modalities really necessary?” In: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, pp.–. 10.1007/s11049‑014‑9250‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9250-z [Google Scholar]
  46. Lightfoot, David
    (1979) Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (1991) How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (1999) The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (2006) How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511616204
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616204 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2017) “Acquisition and learnability”. In: The Cambridge handbook of historical syntax. Ed. byAdam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.–. 10.1017/9781107279070.019
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107279070.019 [Google Scholar]
  51. Marantz, Alec
    (1991) “Case and licensing”. In: Proceedings of the 8th Eastern states conference on linguistics. Ed. byBenjamin Westphal and Hee-Rahk Chae. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Muysken, Pieter
    (2010) “Scenarios for language contact”. In: The handbook of language contact. Ed. byRaymond Hickey. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.–. 10.1002/9781444318159.ch13
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318159.ch13 [Google Scholar]
  53. Næss, Åshild
    (2004) “What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects”. In: Lingua, pp.–. 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  54. Niyogi, Partha
    (2006) The computational nature of language learning and evolution. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/2024.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2024.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  55. Niyogi, Partha and Robert Berwick
    (1997) “A dynamical systems model for language change”. In: Complex Systems, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Pinker, Steven and Alan Prince
    (1988) “On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition”. In: Cognition, pp.–. 10.1016/0010‑0277(88)90032‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90032-7 [Google Scholar]
  57. Pintzuk, Susan
    (1999) Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Qi, Peng
    (2020) “Stanza: A Python natural language processing toolkit for many human languages”. In: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations. url: https://nlp.stanford.edu/pubs/qi2020stanza.pdf. 10.18653/v1/2020.acl‑demos.14
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-demos.14 [Google Scholar]
  59. Ralli, Angela
    (2000) “A feature-based analysis of Greek nominal inflection”. In: Glossologia, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Roberts, Ian
    (2021) Diachronic syntax. Second edition. Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou
    (2003) Syntactic change: A Minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486326
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486326 [Google Scholar]
  62. Sarantidis, Archelaos I.
    (1899) I Sinasos [Sinasos]. Athens: Tipografion Ioannou Nikolaïdu.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Seliger, Herbert
    (1996) “Primary language attrition in the context of bilingualism”. In: Handbook of second language acquisition. Ed. byWilliam C. Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia. New York: Academic Press, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Silverstein, Michael
    (1976) “Hierarchy of features and ergativity”. In: Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Ed. byR. M. W. Dixon. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Spyropoulos, Vassilios
    (2020) “Abstract and morphological case in a nominative-accusative system with differential case marking”. In: Case, agreement, and their interactions: New perspectives on differential argument marking. Ed. byAndrás Bárány and Laura Kalin. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp.–. 10.1515/9783110666137‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666137-005 [Google Scholar]
  66. Spyropoulos, Vassilios and Maria-Anna Tiliopoulou
    (2006) “Definiteness and case in Cappadocian Greek”. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory. Ed. byMark Janse, Brian D. Joseph, and Angela Ralli. University of Patras, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Theodoridis, Theodoros
    (1939) “Diorthosi kimenu ke scholia paramithion pharasiotikon [Corrections and comentary on the Pharasiot Greek stories collected by R. M. Dawkins]”. Unpublished Manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. (1960) “Pharasiotikes paradosis, mithi kai paramithia [Pharasiot customs, myths and stories]”. In: Laografia: Deltion tis Ellinikis Laografikis Etaireias, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. (1964) “Pharasiotikes paradosis, mithi kai paramithia 2 [Pharasiot customs, myths and stories 2]”. In: Laografia: Deltion tis Ellinikis Laografikis Etaireias, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. (1966) “Pharasiotikos istorikos dialogos [A historical dialogue in Pharasiot Greek]”. Unpublished Manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. . (undated). “Dictionary of the Greek dialect of Pharasa”. Unpublished Manuscript, probably completed in 1950s.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Triantafyllidis, Manolis
    (1938) Neoeliniki grammatiki I: Istoriki isagogi [Modern Greek grammar I: A historical introduction]. Thessaloniki: Institute for Modern Greek Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. van Coetsem, Frans
    (1988) Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110884869
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884869 [Google Scholar]
  74. von Heusinger, Klaus and Jaklin Kornfilt
    (2005) “The case of the direct object in Turkish: Semantics, syntax and morphology”. In: Turkic languages, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Vries, Mark de
    (2002) The syntax of relativization. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Weinreich, Uriel
    (1953) Languages in contact. Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov, and Marvin Herzog
    (1968) “Empirical foundations for a theory of language change”. In: Directions for historical linguistics: A Symposium. Ed. byWinfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, pp.–.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Winford, Donald
    (2003) An introduction to contact linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. (2005) “Contact-induced changes. Classification and processes”. In: Diachronica, pp.–. 10.1075/dia.22.2.05win
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.22.2.05win [Google Scholar]
  80. Woolford, Ellen
    (2006) “Lexical case and inherent case and argument structure”. In: Linguistic Inquiry, pp.–. 10.1162/002438906775321175
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438906775321175 [Google Scholar]
  81. Yang, Charles
    (2002) “Grammar competition and language change”. In: Syntactic effects of morphological change. Ed. byDavid Lightfoot. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.–. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0021 [Google Scholar]
  82. (2016) The price of linguistic productivity: How children learn to break the rules of language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262035323.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262035323.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  83. (2018) A User’s Guide to Tolerance Principle. ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004146. Accessed: 2022-12-03.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media 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