Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 39:3 (2022) ► pp.369–408

Never just contact

The rise of final auxiliaries in Asia Minor Greek

| University of Cambridge, Queens’ College
ORCID logo | University of Cambridge, Queens’ College
In this article, we investigate the diachronic developments that gave rise to final auxiliaries – a hallmark of head-final syntax – in Asia Minor Greek, a cluster of Greek varieties originally spoken in the area historically known as Asia Minor (present-day Anatolia, Turkey) within the recent developments of the generative framework, i.e., the minimalist program. We propose that the original source for the final auxiliaries in Asia Minor Greek is to be found in Hellenistic Greek conditionals, whereas it can be traced back to Medieval Greek pluperfects. The role of contact with Anatolian Turkish is limited to rendering the available – albeit pragmatically marked – Verb-Auxiliary as the only available order. Importantly, this bottom-up change did not switch Asia Minor Greek from harmonic head-initial to harmonic head-final, but, rather, made it a mixed-directionality language. In minimalist terms, we propose that attrition, one of the ways that language contact manifests itself, targets SEM-uninterpretable features; from this point onwards contact may or may not ensue depending on the feature (mis)match between the two languages.
Keywords: Asia Minor Greek, Anatolian Turkish, final auxiliaries, Final-over-Final Condition, SEM-(un)interpretable features, language contact, attrition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Phylogeny, historical context and methodology
    • 2.1Phylogeny and historical context
    • 2.2Methodology of the present study
  • 3.Micro-variation in Asia Minor Greek auxiliary constructions
    • 3.1Final auxiliaries in negated nonveridical conditionals (apodosis) in Asia Minor Greek
    • 3.2Final auxiliaries in counterfactual conditionals (protasis) in Asia Minor Greek
    • 3.3Final auxiliaries in counterfactual conditionals (apodosis) in Asia Minor Greek
    • 3.4Final auxiliaries in counterfactual matrix clauses in Asia Minor Greek
    • 3.5Final auxiliaries in pluperfect (anterior in the past) matrix clauses in Asia Minor Greek
  • 4.The syntax of the AUX-V structures
  • 5.Reconstructing the rise of final auxiliaries in Asia Minor Greek: Incipient stage
    • 5.1The original source for final auxiliaries in conditionals is Hellenistic Greek
    • 5.2The original source for final auxiliaries in pluperfects is Medieval Greek
  • 6.Reconstructing the final stage of the rise of final auxiliaries in Asia Minor Greek: Contact-induced change
    • 6.1The sociolinguistic record
    • 6.2Modelling a contact scenario for the rise of final auxiliaries in Asia Minor Greek
    • 6.3Predictions: From head-initial to head-final in Cappadocian
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.17048.neo
References (71)
References
Aboh, Enoch O. 2017. The emergence of hybrid grammars: A rejoinder to Peter Bakker. WORD 63(3). 207–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anastasiadis, Vasileios K. 1976. Ἡ Σύνταξη στὸ Φαρασιώτικο Ἰδίωμα τῆς Καππαδοκίας σὲ Σύγκριση πρὸς τὰ Ὑπόλοιπα Ἰδιώματα τῆς Μικρᾶς Ἀσίας, καθὼς καὶ πρὸς τὴν Ἀρχαία, τὴ Μεσαιωνικὴ καὶ τὴ Νέα Ἑλληνικὴ Γλῶσσα [The syntax of the idiom of Pharasa in Cappadocia in comparison to the other idioms of Asia Minor and Ancient, Medieval and Modern Greek language]. Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Andriotis, Nikolaos Pantelis. 1995. Ιστορία της Ελληνικής Γλώσσας (Τέσσερις Μελέτες) [History of Greek language (Four Studies)]. Thessaloniki: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis – Institouto Neoellinikon Spoudon [Idryma Manoli Triantafyllidi].Google Scholar
Arapopoulou, Maria. 2001. Διαλεκτικοί θύλακοι της ελληνικής. In Anastasios-Foivos Christidis. (ed.), Εγκυκλοπαιδικός οδηγός για τη γλώσσα. 175–179. Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa. 2017. Particles and the Final-over-Final Condition. In Michelle Sheehan, Theresa Biberauer, Ian Roberts & Anders Holmberg. The Final-Over-Final Condition: A syntactic universal. 187–296. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Ian Roberts. 2015. Rethinking formal hierarchies: A proposed unification. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7 1. 1–31.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg & Ian Roberts. 2014. A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2). 169–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2007. Syntactic change and syntactic borrowing in generative grammar. In Gisella Ferarresi and Maria Goldbach. (eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chatzopoulou & Ioanna Sitaridou. 2014. Jespersen’s cycle for NEG2 and conditional inversion in the history of Greek: Evidence from Romeyka conditionals. 16th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference, Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 3–5 July.Google Scholar
Costakis, Athanasios P. 1968. Τὸ γλωσσικὸ ἰδίωμα τῆς Σίλλης [The linguistic idiom of Silli]. Athens: Centre for Asia Minor Studies.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. M. 1910. Modern Greek in Asia Minor. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 30. 109–132, 267–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1916. Modern 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
Dawkins, Richard M. 1940. The dialects of Modern Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society 39(1). 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drettas, George. 1997. Aspects pontiques. Paris: Association de recherches pluridisciplinaires.Google Scholar
. 1999. The Greek-Pontic Dialect Group. In A. F. Christidis, Anastasios-Foivos, Maria Arapopoulou & Giannoula Giannoulopoulou. Dialect enclaves of the Greek language. 91–100. Athens: Hellenic Republic, Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı, Eser. 1984. The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2009. Speaker-oriented adverbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27(3). 497–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Español-Echevarría, Manuel. 1993. Auxiliary selection in Greek dialects. Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL 93) 61. 94–105.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2007. The landscape of EVEN. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 251. 39–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horrocks, Geoffrey. 2010. Greek: A history of the language and its speakers. Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iakovou, Maria. 2003. «Πρέπει» και «μπορεί». Η γραμματικοποίηση της απόστασης [“Must” and “can”. The grammaticalisation of distality]. In Dimitra Theofanopoulou-Kontou, Chryssoula Laskaratou, Maria Sifianou, Michalis Georgiafentis & Vassilios Spyropoulos, Σύγχρονες τάσεις στην ελληνική γλωσσολογία [Contemporary trends in Greek linguistics], 299–319. Athens: Patakis.Google Scholar
Kapsomenos, Stylianos G. 2003/1985. Ἀπὸ τὴν Ἱστορία τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς Γλώσσας: Ἡ Ἑλληνικὴ Γλώσσα ἀπὸ τὰ Ἑλληνιστικὰ ὣς τὰ Νεότερα Χρόνια. Ἡ Ἑλληνικὴ Γλώσσα στὴν Αἴγυπτο [From the history of Greek language: Greek language from the Hellenistic to the Modern era]. Thessaloniki: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis – Institouto Neoellinikon Spoudon [Idryma Manoli Triantafyllidi].Google Scholar
Karatsareas, Petros. 2011. A study of Cappadocian Greek nominal morphology from a diachronic and dialectological perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Kesisoglou, Ioannis I. 1951. Τὸ γλωσσικὸ ἰδίωμα τοῦ Οὐλαγὰτς (Le dialecte d’Oulagatch). Athens: Institut Français d’Athènes.Google Scholar
Kontossopoulos, Nikolaos. 1981. Διάλεκτοι καὶ ἰδιώματα τῆς Νέας Ἑλληνικῆς [Dialects and idioms of Modern Greek]. Athens: Grigoris.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. On rightward movement in Turkish. In Lars Johanson. (ed.), The Mainz Meeting: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. 107–123. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Krinopoulos, Socrates. 1889. Τὰ Φερτάκαινα ὑπὸ Ἐθνολογικὴν καὶ Φιλολογικὴν Ἔποψιν Ἐξεταζόμενα [An ethnographic and philological examination of the dialect of Fertaki]. Athens: Fexis.Google Scholar
Kural, Murat. 1997. Postverbal constituents in Turkish and the Linear Correspondence Axiom. Linguistic Inquiry 281. 498–519.Google Scholar
Lewis, David K. 1973. Counterfactuals. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Liosis, Nikos. 2007. Γλωσσικές επαφές στη νοτιοανατολική Πελοπόννησο [Language contact in southeast Peloponnese]. PhD dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
. 2012. Modal and future periphrases with eimai in the history of Greek and its dialects. In Zoe Gavriilidou, Angeliki Efthymiou, Evangelia Thomadaki & Penelope Kambakis-Vougiouklis. (eds.), Selected papers of the 10th ICGL. 408–416. Komotini: Democritus University of Thrace.Google Scholar
Markopoulos, Theodore. 2009. The future in Greek: From Ancient to Medieval. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mavrochalyvidis, Georgios & Ioannis I. Kesisoglou. 1960. Τὸ γλωσσικὸ ἰδίωμα τῆς Ἀξοῦ (Le dialecte d’Axos). Athens: Institut Français d’Athènes.Google Scholar
Michelioudakis, Dimitris & Ioanna Sitaridou. 2016. Recasting the typology of multiple wh-fronting: Evidence from Pontic Greek. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1). 40–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser, Amalia. 1988. The history of the perfect periphrasis in Greek. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Neocleous, Nicolaos. 2020. Word order and information structure in Romeyka: A syntax and semantics interface account of order in a minimalist system. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Papadopoulos, Anthimos A. 1998/1919. Ὁ Ὑπόδουλος Ἑλληνισμὸς τῆς Ἀσιατικὴς Ἑλλάδος Ἐθνικῶς καὶ Γλωσσικῶς Ἐξεταζόμενος [An ethnographic and linguistic account of the occupied Greeks of Asian Greece]. Athens: Syllogos Pros Diadosin Ofelimon Vivlion.Google Scholar
1955. Ἱστορικὴ Γραμματικὴ τῆς Ποντικῆς Διαλέκτου [Historical Grammar of the Pontic Greek dialect]. Athens: Epitropi Pontiakon Meleton.Google Scholar
Pappou-Zhouravliova, Ekaterina. 1995. Η ταυρορουμαίικη διάλεκτος των Ελλήνων της Αζοφικής στη Νοτιοανατολική Ουκρανία (περιοχή Μαριούπολης) [The Tauro-Romaic dialect of the Greeks of the Sea of Azov in southeast Ukraine (Region of Mariupol)]. Archeion Pontou 461. 165–274.Google Scholar
Phosteris, Dimitrios & Ioannis I. Kesisoglou. 1960. Λεξιλόγιο τοῦ Ἀραβανὶ (Vocabulaire d’Aravani). Athens: Institut Français d’Athènes.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2001. Leerdil yuujmen bana yanangarr (Old and new Lardil). In Jane Simpson, David Nash, Mary Laughren, Peter Austin & Barry Alpher (eds.), Forty Years On: Ken Hale and Australian languages, 431–445. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Schreiber, Laurentia & Ioanna Sitaridou. 2017. Assessing the sociolinguistic vitality of Istanbulite Romeyka: An attitudinal study. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 1–16.Google Scholar
Şener, Serkan. 2010. (Non-)Peripheral matters in Turkish syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Skopeteas, Stavros, Caroline Féry & Rusudan Asatiani. 2009. Word order and intonation in Georgian. Lingua 119(1). 102–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sitaridou, Ioanna. 2009. How can we tell? Investigating contact induced change in the historical record. Paper presented at the Grammatical Development Symposium in Honour of Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Jürgen Meisel , University of Hamburg , 13 March 2009.
. 2013. Greek-speaking enclaves in Pontus today: The documentation and revitalization of Romeyka. In Mari C. Jones & Sarah Ogilvie. (eds.), Keeping languages alive. Language endangerment: Documentation, pedagogy and revitalization. 98–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. Modality, antiverdicality and complementation: The Romeyka infinitive as a negative polarity item. Lingua 1481. 118–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Reframing the phylogeny of Asia Minor Greek: The view from Pontic Greek. CHS Research Bulletin, Center for Hellenic Studies, Harvard University 4(1). 1–17.Google Scholar
. 2017. Null objects in Romeyka: Contact with Turkish or internal conditioning? ISTAL, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 1st April 2017 Workshop Language Contact in English and Beyond.Google Scholar
. in prep. Romeyka negators: Nothing makes sense except in the light of diachrony. University of Cambridge.
. to appear. On the redundancy of a theory for language contact. In Nikolaos Lavidas & Kiki Nikiforidou. (eds.), Linguistic theory and language change in the 21st century. 1–25. Leiden: Brill.
Sitaridou, Ioanna. & Maria Kaltsa. 2014. Contrastivity in Pontic Greek. Lingua 1461. 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1968. A theory of conditionals. In N. Rescher. (ed.), Studies in logical theory. 98–112. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Symeonidis, Charalampos & Dimitrios Tompaidis. 1999. Η Σημερινή Ελληνική Διάλεκτος της Ουκρανίας (Περιοχή Μαριούπολης) [The contemporary Greek dialect of Ukraine (Region of Mariupol)]. Arxeion Pontou, Parartima 20.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey. 2001. Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tompaidis, Dimitrios. 1996. Μελετήματα Ποντιακής Διαλέκτου. Thessaloniki: Kodikas.Google Scholar
Triantafyllidis, Manolis. 2002/1938. Νεοελληνικὴ γραμματική, vol. 1, Ἱστορικὴ εἰσαγωγή [Modern Greek Grammar, vol I, A historical introduction]. Thessaloniki: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis – Institouto Neoellinikon Spoudon [Idryma Manoli Triantafyllidi].Google Scholar
Tsimpli, Ianthi-Maria. 2003. Interrogatives in the Greek / English interlanguage: A minimalist account. In Elizabeth Mela-Athanasopoulou. (ed.), Selected papers on theoretical and applied linguistics. 214–225. Thessaloniki: Department of Theoretical & Applied Linguistics, School of English, Aristotle University.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, Ianthi-Maria & Maria Dimitrakopoulou. 2007. The Interpretability Hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 23(2). 215–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, Ianthi-Maria & Maria Mastropavlou. 2007. Feature interpretability in L2 acquisition and SLI: Greek clitics and determiners. In Helen Goodluck, Juana Liceras & Helmut Zobl. The role of formal features in Second Language Acquisition. 143–183. Routledge.Google Scholar
Valavanis, Ioannis. 1934. Παραμύθια Ἄνω Ἀμισοῦ. [Fairy tales of Αno Amisos]. Archeion Pontou 61: 228–239.Google Scholar
Vryonis, Speros. 1986. The decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the process of Izlamisation from the eleventh through the fifteenth century. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 2003. An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2005. Contact-induced changes: Classification and processes. Diachronica 221. 373–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Sitaridou, Ioanna & Jerneja Kavčič
2023. Petnajst let terenskih raziskav romejščine: ključne ugotovitve o jeziku ter o njegovem razvoju, vitalnosti in možnostih preživetja. Keria: Studia Latina et Graeca 25:2 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.