Cover not available
Part of
Reorganising Grammatical Variation: Diachronic studies in the retention, redistribution and refunctionalisation of linguistic variants
Edited by Antje Dammel, Matthias Eitelmann and Mirjam Schmuck
[Studies in Language Companion Series 203] 2018
► pp. 175–208

Reorganising voice in the history of Greek

Split complexity and prescriptivism

| National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

In this study, I analyse the reorganisation of voice variation in Greek in terms of an increase or decrease in complexity. I support the view of split complexity (E[xternal]- vs. I[nternal]-complexity), and I add the role of parametric routes to the whole picture of grammatical complexity in cases of reorganisation of variation. In this respect, the new active anticausatives resulted in a lower degree of complexity in terms of derivation; conversely, the parametric route became more complex because a microparameter determines the lexically constrained group of active anticausatives. In terms of E-complexity, the option of this microparameter results in lower complexity because it is related to frequent elements. However, E-complexity is also affected by a prescriptive rule that favours elements that are less frequent (nonactive anticausatives).

Keywords: complexity, prescriptivism, Voice, anticausatives, Greek
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background on complexity: Contradictions and split complexity
    • 2.1Contradictions in the analysis of complexity
    • 2.2Split complexity
      • 2.2.1E- vs. I-complexity
      • 2.2.2Hypothesis of further split complexity: d-I- vs. p-I-complexity
  • 3.Voice morphology variation in Greek and complexity
    • 3.1Voice morphology in Greek
    • 3.2Anticausatives in the Greek diachrony: an overview of a reorganisation
  • 4.Split complexity and the (morpho-)syntax of Voice in Greek
    • 4.1Processing results and corpus frequencies
    • 4.2Parametric routes for Voice in Greek
    • 4.3The role of prescriptivism
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.203.07lav
References
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena
2004 Voice morphology in the causative-inchoative alternation: evidence for a non unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds), 114–136. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allan, Rutger
2003 The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy. Amsterdam: Gieben.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Roberts, Ian
2012 Towards a parameter hierarchy for auxiliaries: Diachronic considerations. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6: 209–236.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Roberts, Ian, Sheehan, Michelle & Holmberg, Anders
2014 Complexity in comparative Syntax: The view from modern parametric theory. In Measuring Grammatical Complexity, Frederick J. Newmeyer & Laurel B. Preston (eds), 103–127. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek
1984 The language bioprogram hypothesis. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7: 173–221.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit
2005 Structuring Sense, Volume 2: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Branigan, Phil
2012 Macroparameter Learnability: An Algonquian Case Study. Ms, Memorial University of Newfoundland.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen
2004 The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity [Studie in Language Companion Series 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Increases in complexity as a result of language contact. In Convergence and Divergence in Language Contact Situations [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 8], Kurt Braunmüller & Juliane House (eds), 41–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria
2005 Asymmetry in Morphology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2012 Perspectives on morphological complexity. In Current Issues in Morphology. (Ir)regularity, Frequency, Typology [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 322], Ferenc Kiefer, Mária Ladányi & Péter Siptár (eds), 105–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fotiadou, Georgia
2010 Voice Morphology and Transitivity Alternations in Greek: Evidence from Corpora and Psycholinguistic Experiments. PhD Dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Fotiadou, Georgia & Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria
2010 The acquisition of transitivity alternations in Greek: Does frequency count? Lingua 120(11): 2605–2626.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly
2004 Grammaticalization as Economy [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Economy against prescriptivism: Internal and external factors of language change. LASSO Presidential address. SWJL 25(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Gildersleeve, Basil L.
1900 Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes. New York NY: American Book Company.Google Scholar
Goodwin, William W.
1978 [1894]. A Greek Grammar. London: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
1980 The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56: 515–540.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1983 Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59: 781–819.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John. A.
2004 Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Humbert, Jean
1945 Syntaxe Grecque. Paris: Librairie Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Jankuhn, Harald
1969 Die passive Bedeutung medialer Formen untersucht an der Sprache Homers [KZ; Ergänzungsheft 21]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Joseph, John E. & Newmeyer, Frederick J.
2012 All languages are equally complex. Historiographia Linguistica 39(2–3): 341–368.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kolmogorov, Andrej N.
1965 Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information. Problemy Peredachi Informatsii 1(1): 3–11.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
(eds) 2012 Linguistic Complexity: Second Language Acquisition, Indigenization, Contact. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid & Lavidas, Nikolaos
2017 Between passive and middle. Evidence from Greek and beyond. In Contrastive Studies in Verbal Valency [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 237], Lars Hellan, Andrej L. Malchukov & Michela Cennamo (eds), 298–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kusters, Wouter
2003 Linguistic Complexity: The Influence of Social Change on Verbal Inflection. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
2008 Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning and language change. In Miestamo, Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds), 3–22.Google Scholar
Kühner, Raphael & Gerth, Bernhard
1963[1898–1904]. Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache, Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. Hannover: Hannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Lavidas, Nikolaos
2009 Transitivity Alternations in Diachrony. Changes in Argument Structure and Voice Morphology. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Lavidas, Nikolaos, Fotiadou, Georgia & Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria
2012 Active vs nonactive voice in the Greek diachrony: Real or apparent optionality in the use of voice morphology? In Selected Papers of the 10th ICGL, Zoe Gavriilidou, Angeliki Efthymiou, Evangelia Thomadaki & Penelope Kambakis-Vougiouklis (eds), 390–400. Komotini: Democritus University of Thrace.Google Scholar
Lavidas, Nikolaos & Papangeli, Dimitra
2007 Deponency in the diachrony of Greek. In Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett, Dunstan Brown & Andrew Hippisley (eds), 97–126. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David
1979 Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Lightfoot David
2006 How New Languages Emerge. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia
2010 The extension of the transitive construction in Ancient Greek. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42(1): 60–74.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMahon, April M. S.
1994 Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John H.
2002 What happened to English? Diachronica 19(2): 217–272.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Linguistic Simplicity and Complexity: Why Do Languages Undress? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti
2008 Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Miestamo, Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds), 23–41.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemäki, Kaius & Karlsson, Fred
(eds) 2008 Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 94]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter
1977 Pidginisation and Simplification of Language. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
2001 Typology and universals of pidginization. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 2, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1648–1655. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1992 Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peristeri, Eleni, Tsimpli, Ianthi-Maria & Tsapkini, Kyrana
2013 The on-line processing of unaccusativity in Greek agrammatism. Applied Psycholinguistics 34(2): 233–276.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian
2008 Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian
1999 Verb movement and markedness. In Language Creation and Language Change, Michel DeGraff (ed), 287–328. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2012 Macroparameters and Minimalism: A programme for comparative research. In Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change, Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopez, Filomena Sandalo & Juanito Avelar (eds), 319–334. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna
2003 Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David & Trudgill, Peter
(eds) 2009 Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard & Debrunner, Albert
1950 Griechische Grammatik. Zweiter Band: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik [Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 2. Abt., 1. Teil, 2. Bd], rev. ed. by Gordon M. Messing, 13th edn. Munich: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Smyth, Herbert W.
1984[1920] Greek Grammar. Cambridge MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Stahl, Johann M.
1907 Kritisch-historische Syntax des griechischen Verbums der klassischen Zeit. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Theophanopoulou-Kontou, Dimitra
2004 The structure of the VP and the mediopassive morphology. The passives and anticausatives in Modern Greek. Parousia 15–16: 173–206.Google Scholar
Thompson, Cynthia K.
2003 Unaccusative verb production in agrammatic aphasia: The argument structure complexity hypothesis. Journal of Neurolinguistics 16: 151–167.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter
1983 On Dialect: Social and Geographical Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2009 Sociolinguistic typology and complexification. In Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable, Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds), 97–108. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2011 Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Tsapkini, Kyrana, Jarema, Gonia & Di Sciullo, Anna Maria
2004 The role of configurational asymmetry in the lexical access of prefixed verbs: Evidence from French. Brain and Language 90: 143–150.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria
2006 The acquisition of voice and transitivity alternations in Greek as native and second language. In Paths of Development in L1 and L2 Acquisition. In Honor of Bonnie D. Schwartz [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 39], Sharon Unsworth, Teresa Parodi, Antonella Sorace & Martha Young-Scholten (eds), 15–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vassilaki, Sofia
1989 The morphology of passive voice in Modern Greek (in Greek). Studies in Greek Linguistics 9: 185–204.Google Scholar