Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2017: Selected papers from the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 31 July – 4 August 2017
Edited by Bridget Drinka
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 350] 2020
► pp. 9–28

Strategies for aligning syntactic roles and case marking with semantic properties

The case of the accusative of respect in ancient Greek

In the present paper, we show that: (1) the accusative of respect, a case marker for inalienable possession in ancient Greek, represents a strategy for aligning syntactic roles and case marking with animacy; (2) this hypothesis can consistently account for a series of issues that remained unsettled; (3) the semantic properties of the predicate involved in the accusative of respect are fundamental to defining its function and specifically govern its distribution. Our analysis comprises Greek literary texts, from Homer to the fifth century B.C.
Keywords: ancient Greek, accusative case, inalienable possession, possessor ascension, syntactic roles, animacy hierarchy, semantic roles, actionality
Article outline
  • 1.The unsettled question of the accusative of respect in ancient Greek
  • 2.A case marker for inalienable possession
    • 2.1Accusative of respect and inalienable possession: Key questions
  • 3.The function and distribution of the accusative of respect: Research questions
  • 4.A strategy for aligning syntactic roles and case marking with animacy
    • 4.1Accusative of respect and double accusative
    • 4.2The noteworthy exception of kin terms
    • 4.3The strange case of an accusative depending on a passive and the lack of double nominative in Homer
  • 5.A case marker for undergoer arguments
    • 5.1A restriction on telic predicates
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
  • Texts and translations
Published online: 9 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.350.01rom
References (88)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y., Dixon, R. M. W. & Onishi, M. (Eds.). (2001). Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. & Dixon, R. (Eds.). (2013). Possession and ownership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barshi, I. & Payne, D. (Eds.). (1999). External possession, Amsterdam/Philadelphia Benjamins.Google Scholar
Beavers, J. (2013). Aspectual classes and scales of change. Linguistics, 51, 681–706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M. (1986). Tempo, aspetto e azione nel verbo italiano. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M. & Squartini, M. (1995). An attempt at defining the class of gradual completion verbs. In P. M. Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, J. Higginbotham, & M. Squartini (Eds.), Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality, vol. I: Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives. (pp. 11–26). Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Blake, B. (2002). Relational Grammar. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossaglia, G. (2005). L’‘accusativo greco’ in Omero e nella letteratura successiva. BA Thesis, University of Pisa.Google Scholar
Bossong, G. (1998). La marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In J. Feuillet (Ed.). Actance et Valence dans les langues de l’Europe (pp. 193–258). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brugmann, K. (1910). Der sogenannte Akkusativ der Beziehung im Arischen, Griechischen, Lateinischen, Germanischen, Indogermanische Forschungen. 27: 121–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carruba, O. (1992). Le notazioni dell’agente animato nelle lingue anatoliche (e l’ergativo). In O. Carruba. Per una Grammatica Ittita / Towards a Hittite Grammar. (pp. 61–98). Pavia: Iuculano.Google Scholar
Chantraine, P. (1942). Grammaire Homérique, I. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
DELG, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. (repr. 2009). Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Chappel, H. & McGregor, W. (Eds.). (1996). The grammar of inalienability. A typological perspective of body part terms and the part–whole relation. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1978). Ergativity. In W. P. Lehmann (Ed.). Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language. pp. 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Courtney, E. (2004). The ‘Greek’ accusative. The Classical Journal 99, 4, 425–431.Google Scholar
Crespo, E. (1988). The semantic and syntactic functions of the accusative. In A. Rijksbaron et al. (Eds.). In the Footsteps of Raphael Kühner (pp. 99–121). Amsterdam: Gieben.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. & Fraurud, K. (1996). Animacy in grammar and discourse. In T. Fretheim and J. K. Gundel (Eds.). Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 47–65). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, P., Lamers, M. & Lestrade, S. (2008). Animacy, argument structure and argument encoding. Lingua 118, 131–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deal, A. R. (2013). Possessor raising. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 3, 391–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, B. (1893). Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Vol. 1. Strassburg: Trübner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67, 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fici Giusti, F. (1994). Il passivo nelle lingue slave. Tipologia e semantica. Milano: F. Angeli.Google Scholar
Fillmore, (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.). Universals in Linguistic Theory. (pp. 1–25). London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. & Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frei, H. (1939). Sylvie est jolie des yeux. In A. Sechehaye et al. (Eds.). Mélanges de linguistique offerts à Charles Bally (pp. 185–192). Geneve: Georg.Google Scholar
Hahn, A. (1954). Partitive Apposition in Homer and the Greek Accusative. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 85, 197–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1993). More on the typology of inchoative/causative alternation. In B. Comrie & M. Polinsky (Eds.). Causatives and Transitivity (Studies in Language Companion Series, 23) (pp. 87–120). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). External possession in a European areal perspective. In I. Barshi & D. Payne (Eds.). External possession (pp. 109–35). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D. & Comrie, B. (2005). The World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. (1997). Possession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1976). Toward an Explanatory Semantic Representation. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 1, 89–150.Google Scholar
(1987). The Status of Thematic Relations in Linguistic Theory, Linguistic Inquiry 18, 3, 369–411.Google Scholar
Jacquinod, B. (1989). Le double accusatif en grec d’Homère à la fin du V siècle avant J.C., Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
(2006). Le domaine de l’accusatif de relation. In E. Crespo et al. (Eds.). Word classes and related topics in Ancient Greek (pp. 59–68). Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
(2016). Entre tradition et modernité. Syntaktika 50, Numéro spécial: Hommage à Bernard Jacquinod, pp. 1–43.Google Scholar
Kemmerer, D. (2003). Why can you hit someone on the arm but not break someone on the arm? A neuropsychological investigation of the English body-part possessor ascension. Journal of Neurolinguistics 16, 16–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E. & Haspelmath, M. (1997). Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues d’Europe, in J. Feuillet (Ed.). Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology/EUROTYP, 20- 2.) (pp. 525–606). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kulikov, L. I. (1998). Passive, anticausative and classification of verbs: the case of Vedic. In L. Kulikov & H. Vater (Eds.). Typology of verbal categories: Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the occasion of his 70th birthday (pp. 139–153). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
La Roche, J. (1861). Homerische Studien. Der Akkusativ in Homer. Wien: Gerold.Google Scholar
Lavidas, N. (2013). Accusative. In: Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazzeroni, R. (2002a). Ruoli tematici e genere grammaticale. Un aspetto della morfosintassi Indoeuropea. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 87, 1, 3–19.Google Scholar
(2002b). Il nome greco del sogno e il neutro indoeuropeo. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 87, 2, 145–162.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity. At the syntax/lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lévy-Bruhl, L. (1916). L’expression de la possession dans les langues mélanesiénnes. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique 19, 96–104.Google Scholar
Malchukov, A., Haspelmath, M. & Comrie, B. (2010). Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In A. Malchukov, M. Haspelmath, & B. Comrie (Eds.). Studies in ditransitive constructions. A comparative handbook (pp. 1–64). Berlin / New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marouzeau, J. (1969). Lexique de la terminologie linguistique, 3rd ed. Paris: Geuthner.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. & Vendryes, J. (1927). Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques, Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Mirto, I. & Rosen, C. (1994). Meronyms as predicates: An apparent ‘inalienable possession’ construction. Ithaca, N.Y: Ms. Cornell University.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. (1988). On alienable and inalienable possession. In W. Shipley (Ed.). In honor of Mary Haas (pp. 475–521). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. & Bickel, B. (2005). Possessive classification. In M. Haspelmath et al. (Eds.). The World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS) (pp. 242–245). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. & Postal, P. (1983). The Relational Succession Law. In D. Perlmutter (Ed.). Studies in Relational Grammar 1 (pp. 30–80). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Romagno, D. (2005). La codificazione degli attanti nel Mediterraneo romanzo: Accordo del participio e marcatura dell’oggetto. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 90, 90–113.Google Scholar
(2006). Gradiente di transitività e codifica dell’oggetto. Dall’accusativo preposizionale al partitivo. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 91, 203–222.Google Scholar
(2007). Canonical and non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. A typological approach. In P. Ramat & E. Roma (Eds.). Europe and the Mediterranean as linguistic areas. Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective (pp. 289–315). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Anticausativi, passivi, riflessivi: considerazioni sul medio oppositivo. In I. Putzu, G. Paulis, G. F. Nieddu, & P. Cuzzolin (Eds.). La morfologia del greco fra tipologia e diacronia (pp. 430–441). Milano: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
(2014). The aorist in –ην in Homeric Greek: At the Morphosyntax/Semantics Interface. A thorough analysis of Iliad and Odyssey. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 99, 155–186.Google Scholar
(2017). The accusative of respect in Ancient Greek: Animacy hierarchy, semantic roles and event type. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 55, 65–91.Google Scholar
Rosen, C. (1976). Accusativus graecus: A relational analysis. In R. L. Brown et al. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 1976 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, pp. 285–295.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, E. & Debrunner, A. (1950). Griechische Grammatik, Bd. II. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.). Grammatical categories in Australian languages. (pp. 112–171). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Smyth, H. W. (1956). Greek Grammar (revised by Gordon M. Messing). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tenny, C. L. (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (1990). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity, Language, 66, 221–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. & La Polla, R. J. (1997). Syntax: structure, meaning and function, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, K. (1971). Formal frequency and linguistic change: some preliminary comments, «Folia Linguistica», 5, pp. 55–61.Google Scholar
Texts and translations
Andocides, On the Mysteries: Meidment, K. J. (1968). Andocides. Minor Attic Orators in two volumes 1, Antiphon Andocides, with an English translation by K. J. Maidment, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA and William Heinemann Ltd., London.Google Scholar
Aristophanes, Clouds: Hickie, W. J. (1853). Aristophanes. Clouds. The Comedies of Aristophanes, by William James Hickie, vol. I, Bohn’s Classical Library, London.Google Scholar
: Hall, F. W. & Geldart, W. M. (1907). Aristophanes Comoediae, ed. by F. W. Hall and W. M. Geldart, vol. 2, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Demosthenes: Vince, C. A. & Vince, H. (1926). Demosthenes with an English translation by C. A. Vince and J. H. Vince, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA and William Heinemann Ltd. London.Google Scholar
Euripides, Medea: Kovacs, D. (1994). Euripides, Vol. I, Cyclops, Alcestis, Medea , edited and translated by David Kovacs, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Euripides, Suppliants: Oates, W. J. & O’Neill, E. (1938). Euripides. The Complete Greek Drama, edited by Whitney J. Oates and Eugene O’Neill, Jr. in two volumes. Vol. 1. The Suppliants, translated by E. P. Coleridge, Random House, New York.Google Scholar
Herodotus: Codley, A. D. (1920). Herodotus, with an English translation by A. D. Godley, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Homer, Iliad: Murray, A. T. (1924). Homer. The Iliad with an English Translation, 2 volumes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Homer, Odyssey: Di Benedetto, V. (2010). Omero, Odissea, a cura di Vincenzo Di Benedetto, traduzione di Vincenzo Di Benedetto e Pierangelo Fabrini, BUR, Rizzoli, Milano.Google Scholar
: Murray, A. T. (1919). Homer. The Odyssey with an English Translation, 2 volumes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
IG, XIV = Inscriptiones Graecae Siciliae et Italiae, additis Galliae, Hispaniae, Britanniae, Germaniae inscriptionibus, ed. by Georg Kaibel, Berlin, 1890.Google Scholar
Plato, Republic: Shorey, P. (1969). Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vols. 5 and 6, translated by Paul Shorey, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA and William Heinemann Ltd., London.Google Scholar
Sophocles, Ajax: Jebb, R. (1893). Sophocles. The Ajax of Sophocles. Edited with introduction and notes, by Sir Richard Jebb, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus: Jebb, R. (1887). The Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles. Edited with introduction and notes by Sir Richard Jebb, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Xenophon, Anabasis: Brownson, C. L. (1961). Xenophon, Anabasis, Translated by Carleton L. Browson, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Xenophon, Memorabilia: Marchant, E. B. (1923). Xenophon in seven volumes, vol. IV, Translated by E. C. Marchant, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA and William Heinemann, Ltd., London.Google Scholar