Article published In:
Linguistic Variation: Online-First Articles

Emergence of differential object marking in Asia Minor Greek

A computational approach to language change

ORCID logo | Boğaziçi University
ORCID logo | Boğaziçi University
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.
Keywords: language contact, language change, mixed input, differential object marking, Tolerance Principle, abductive learning, Asia Minor Greek, Turkish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.DOM in the Greek dialect of Pharasa
  • 3.A comparison of DOM in Turkish and PhG Greek
    • 3.1Features involved in DOM
    • 3.2DOM is structural accusative
  • 4.Accounting for DOM
    • 4.1Nominative, accusative, and dative
    • 4.2Feature relativized dependent case
  • 5.Language change as a learning problem
    • 5.1Triggers for DOM in PhG
      • 5.1.1Cues for the accusative in MG…
      • 5.1.2…and their loss in PhG
      • 5.1.3Calquing from Turkish
    • 5.2Learning DOM in Turkish
      • 5.2.1The learning algorithm
    • 5.3Turkish simulations
      • 5.3.1100-NP simulations
      • 5.3.2Realistic data simulations
    • 5.4PhG simulations
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.23019.atl
References (83)
References
Aissen, Judith (2003). “Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy”. In: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21 . 3 , pp. 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 38 . 4 , pp. 987–1051. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anastasiadis, Vasilis (1976). “I sintaksi sto Pharasiotiko idioma tis Kappadokias [The syntax of the dialect of Pharasa in Cappadocia]”. PhD thesis. University of Ioannina.
Andersen, Henning (1973). “Abductive and deductive change”. In: Language, pp. 765–793. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andriotis, Nikolaos (1948). To glossiko idioma ton Pharason [The dialect of Pharasa]. Athens: Ikaros.Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos and Andrews Nevins (2012). Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bagriacik, Metin (2018). “Pharasiot Greek: Word order and clause structure”. PhD thesis. Ghent University.
Baker, Mark C. (2015). Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. and Jonathan David Bobaljik (2017). “On inherent and dependent theories of ergative case”. In: The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Ed. by Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa deMena Travis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. by Peter Staroverov. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Department of Linguistics, pp. 31–63.Google Scholar
Bárány, András (2017). Person, case, and agreement: The morphosyntax of inverse agreement and global case splits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Belth, Caleb et al. (2021). The Greedy and recursive search for morphological productivity. arXiv: 2105.05790v1 [cs.CL].Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa et al. (2014). “Complexity in comparative syntax: the view from Modern parametric theory”. In: Measuring grammatical complexity. Ed. by Frederick J. Newmeyer and Laurel B. Preston. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 103–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cattell, Ray (1981). Composite predicates in English. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo (1999). Adverbs and functional heads. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Robin and Ian Roberts (1993). “A computational approach to language learnability and language change”. In: Linguistic Inquiry 241, pp. 299–345. url: [URL]
Comrie, Bernard (1979). “Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class”. In: Linguistica Silesiana 31, pp. 13–21.Google Scholar
Croft, William (1988). “Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects”. In: Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions. Ed. by Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 159–179.Google Scholar
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
(1940). “The dialects of Modern Greek”. In: Transactions of the Philological Society 391, pp. 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen and Andrej L. Malchukov (2008). “Case-marking strategies”. In: Linguistic Inquiry 391, pp. 565–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet (1991). “The semantics of specificity”. In: Linguistic inquiry 221, pp. 1–25. url: [URL]
Everaert, Martin et al., eds. (1995). Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaim.Google Scholar
Favis, Vasilis (1948). “Sintaktike paratirisis is to idioma ton Farason [Syntactic observations on the dialect of Pharasa]”. In: Epetiris Vizantinon Spoudon 181, pp. 173–191.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet D. and Ivan A. Sag (1982). “Referential and quantificational indefinites”. In: Linguistics and Philosophy 5 1, pp. 355–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce (1970). “Idioms within a Transformational Grammar”. In: Foundations of Language 61, pp. 22–42. url: [URL]
Gignac, Francis (1981). A Grammar of the Greek papyri of the Roman and Byzantine periods. Vol. 21: Morphology. Milano: Cisalpino-La Go-liardica.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (1978). “Definiteness and referentiality”. In: Universals of human language. Ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, and Edith A. Moravcsik. Vol. 41. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 291–330.Google Scholar
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 611, pp. 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice and Lyle Campbell (1995). Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Einar (1950). “The analysis of linguistic borrowing”. In: Language 261, pp. 210–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders (1986). “Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages and English”. PhD thesis. Stockholm University.
Holton, David et al. (2019). The Cambridge grammar of Medieval and Early Modern Greek. Vol. 2, 4. Cambrdige, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janse, Mark (2004). “Animacy, definiteness, and case in Cappadocian and other Asia Minor Greek dialects”. In: Journal of Greek linguistics 51, pp. 3–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kakarikos, Konstantinos (2009). “Morphological and “semantic” examination of the case system of Ancient Greek”. PhD thesis. University of Athens.
Kalin, Laura (2018). “Licensing and Differential Object Marking: the view from Neo-Aramaic”. In: Syntax 21 1, pp. 112–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalin, Laura and Philipp Weisser (2019). “Asymmetric DOM in coordination: A problem for movement-based approaches”. In: Linguistic Inquiry 501, pp. 662–676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karatsareas, Petros (2011). “A study of Cappadocian Greek nominal morphology from a diachronic and dialectological perspective”. PhD thesis. University of Cambridge.
(2020). “The Development, preservation and loss of Differential Case Marking in Inner Asia Minor Greek”. In: Journal of Language Contact 131, pp. 177–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kodner, Jordan (2020). “Language acquisition in the past”. PhD thesis. University of Pennsylvania.
Kornfilt, Jaklin (2009). “DOM and two types of DSM in Turkish”. In: Differential Subject Marking. Ed. by Helen de Hoop and Peter de Swart. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 79–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony (1989). “Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change”. In: Language Variation and Change 11, pp. 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Levin, Theodore and Omer Preminger (2015). “Case in Sakha: Are two modalities really necessary?” In: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 331, pp. 231–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1991). How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1999). The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2006). How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). “Acquisition and learnability”. In: The Cambridge handbook of historical syntax. Ed. by Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 381–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec (1991). “Case and licensing”. In: Proceedings of the 8th Eastern states conference on linguistics. Ed. by Benjamin Westphal and Hee-Rahk Chae. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, pp. 234–253.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter (2010). “Scenarios for language contact”. In: The handbook of language contact. Ed. by Raymond Hickey. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 265–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild (2004). “What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects”. In: Lingua 1141, pp. 1186–1212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niyogi, Partha (2006). The computational nature of language learning and evolution. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niyogi, Partha and Robert Berwick (1997). “A dynamical systems model for language change”. In: Complex Systems 111, pp. 161–204.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven and Alan Prince (1988). “On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition”. In: Cognition 281, pp. 73–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan (1999). Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Qi, Peng et al. (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: [URL]. DOI logo
Ralli, Angela (2000). “A feature-based analysis of Greek nominal inflection”. In: Glossologia 11–121, pp. 201–227.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian (2021). Diachronic syntax. Second edition. Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou (2003). Syntactic change: A Minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sarantidis, Archelaos I. (1899). I Sinasos [Sinasos]. Athens: Tipografion Ioannou Nikolaïdu.Google Scholar
Seliger, Herbert (1996). “Primary language attrition in the context of bilingualism”. In: Handbook of second language acquisition. Ed. by William C. Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia. New York: Academic Press, pp. 605–626.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (1976). “Hierarchy of features and ergativity”. In: Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Ed. by R. M. W. Dixon. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, pp. 112–171.Google Scholar
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. by András Bárány and Laura Kalin. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 175–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. by Mark Janse, Brian D. Joseph, and Angela Ralli. University of Patras, pp. 365–378.Google Scholar
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
(1960). “Pharasiotikes paradosis, mithi kai paramithia [Pharasiot customs, myths and stories]”. In: Laografia: Deltion tis Ellinikis Laografikis Etaireias 191, pp. 221–263.Google Scholar
(1964). “Pharasiotikes paradosis, mithi kai paramithia 2 [Pharasiot customs, myths and stories 2]”. In: Laografia: Deltion tis Ellinikis Laografikis Etaireias 211, pp. 209–336.Google Scholar
(1966). “Pharasiotikos istorikos dialogos [A historical dialogue in Pharasiot Greek]”. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
. (undated). “Dictionary of the Greek dialect of Pharasa”. Unpublished Manuscript, probably completed in 1950s.
Triantafyllidis, Manolis (1938). Neoeliniki grammatiki I: Istoriki isagogi [Modern Greek grammar I: A historical introduction]. Thessaloniki: Institute for Modern Greek Studies.Google Scholar
van Coetsem, Frans (1988). Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus and Jaklin Kornfilt (2005). “The case of the direct object in Turkish: Semantics, syntax and morphology”. In: Turkic languages 9 1, pp. 3–44.Google Scholar
Vries, Mark de (2002). The syntax of relativization. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel (1953). Languages in contact. Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov, and Marvin Herzog (1968). “Empirical foundations for a theory of language change”. In: Directions for historical linguistics: A Symposium. Ed. by Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, pp. 95–188.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald (2003). An introduction to contact linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2005). “Contact-induced changes. Classification and processes”. In: Diachronica 221, pp. 373–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen (2006). “Lexical case and inherent case and argument structure”. In: Linguistic Inquiry 371, pp. 111–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, Charles (2002). “Grammar competition and language change”. In: Syntactic effects of morphological change. Ed. by David Lightfoot. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 367–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). The price of linguistic productivity: How children learn to break the rules of language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). A User’s Guide to Tolerance Principle. [URL]. Accessed: 2022-12-03.