Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FromLexicaltoDependent:thecaseofGreekDative
ELENAANAGNOSTOPOULOU & CHRISTINASEVDALIUNIVERSITYOFCRETE ULSTERUNIVERSITY
48THANNUALMEETINGOFTHENORTHEASTLINGUISTICSOCIETY, WORKSHOPONTHETYPOLOGYOFCASEUNIVERSITYOF ICELAND,REYKJAVÍK, 27– 29OCTOBER2017
ThreecentralquestionsvProperties ofdative/genitiveobjectsinClassicalandStandardModernGreek(CGvs.SMG)asawindowtothenatureanddiversityofdativeandgenitivecasecross-linguistically;
vThetransition fromonesystemofcaseassignmenttoanother;
vTherelationship betweenthediachronyofmorphologicalcaseandthediachronyofprepositions.
2
RoadmapvEnvironmentsandbehaviour ofargumental dativesandgenitivesinCG;
vEnvironmentsandbehaviour ofargumental genitivesinSMG;
vProposal:CGdative/genitiveislexical/prepositionalcase,and
vSMGgenitiveisdependent caseinthesenseofBaker(2015);
vConsequenceregardingpassivization oftheindirectobject(IO)inCG;
vDiachronicchangeofPPstoDPs;
vRelationshipbetweenlossofthemorphologicaldativecaseanddiachrony ofprepositionsinGreek.
3
ClassicalGreekvFivemorphologicalcases(nominative,accusative,dative,genitiveandvocative);
vCGcasesystem:reductionfromtheoriginalIndo-European(IE)system(Luraghi,2003a.o.)
vCGcasesaresyncretic:genitive<IEgenitiveandablative, dative<IEdative,locativeandinstrumental;
vNominativecaseisreservedforsubjectsoffiniteclauses;
vAccusativeisthemostcommoncaseforobjects(Delaunois,1988);
vThechoiceofdativeorgenitivecasecanbe partiallyreducedtosemanticgeneralizations(Luraghi,2010:64-67;Anagnostopoulou &Sevdali,2015:451-452)andarealsopartiallyidiosyncraticallydeterminedbyparticularverbs orprepositions(butseealsoStolk,2015foradifferentview).
4
ClassicalGreek (Anagnostopoulou &Sevdali,2015)
vTherearespecificverbclassesselectingfordativeDPobjectsanddifferentonesforgenitiveobjects(monotransitives);
vFourarraysforditransitives (Acc-Acc;Dat-Acc;Gen-Acc andDat-Gen);
vDativeandgenitivesubjecttothematicandmorpho-syntacticgeneralizations:goals tendtobedative,sourcesandpossessorstendtobegenitive;
vVerbsprefixedbydativeorgenitiveassigningprepositionsmustassigndativeorgenitivetothegoal inbothmonotransitive andditransitiveenvironments.
5
StandardModernGreekBasiccharacteristicsoftheSMGsystem:
i. Reduction ofmorphologicalcases(lossofdative);
ii. Systematicreplacementofdativebyeithergenitiveoraccusativedependingonthesyntacticenvironment(ditransitives vs.transitives);
iii. AccusativesurfacesonalmostallobjectsoftransitiveverbsandthevastmajorityoftheverbsthatselectedfordativeandgenitiveobjectsinCGnowtakeaccusativeobjects.
(1)a.HoOdusse-us ephthon-e:se Palame:d-ei dia sophia-n.
theUlysses-nom envy-3sg.aor.act Palamedes-Dat becausewisdom
‘UlysseswasjealousofPalamedesbecauseofhiswisdom.’ (CG)
b.OOdiseas fthonise tonPalamidi gia tinsofia tu
theUlysses-nom envy-3sg.aor.act Palamedes-Acc because thewisdomhis
‘UlysseswasjealousofPalamedesbecauseofhiswisdom.’ (SMG)
6
StandardModernGreekvInSMGIObearsgenitiveandtheDOaccusative,(Anagnostopoulou,2003,Michelioudakis,2012,Georgala,2012,i.a.):
(2)Edhosa tu Petru ena paghoto SMG
Gave-1sg.pst.act the Peter-Gen an icecream-Acc
‘IgavePeteranicecream.’
7
SMGvs.CGdatives/genitives:differentsystemsDifference#1:veryfewSMGmono-transitives assigngenitivetotheircomplements,includingonesprefixedwitharchaicprepositions:
(3) Tilefonisa/milisa tu PetruCalled/talked.1sg.pst thePeter-gen‘IcalledPeter/talkedtoPeter’
(4) Oproedros iper-aminthike tisepilogis tuThepresident- nom defended thechoicehis-gen‘Thepresidentdefendedhischoice’
à ThisisnotthecaseforCG
8
SMGvs.CGdatives/genitives:differentsystemsDifference#2:Genitiveisnotrelatedtoaspecifictheta-roleGenitivehasbeengeneralizedtoallIOsinSMG,regardlessofwhethertheyaregoals(with‘give’),sources(with‘steal’)orbeneficiaries(with‘buy’):(5) Edhosa tisMarias tovivlio Goal
Gave-1sg theMary-Gen thebook-Acc‘IgaveMarythebook’
(6) Eklepsa tisMarias tovivlio SourceStole-1sg theMary-Gen thebook-Acc‘IstolethebookfromMary’
(7) Eftiaksa tisMarias pagoto BeneficiaryMade-1sg theMary-Gen icecream-Acc‘ImadeMaryicecream’
à ThisisnotthecaseinCG
9
Lexical/InherentcasecannotaccountfortheCGvs.SMGdifferencesAnagnostopoulou (2003,2005),Michelioudakis (2012)andGeorgala (2012)allanalyzeSMGIOsasbearinginherent/quirkyCase assignedbyanapplicativeheadinastructurelike(8),inagreementwithWoolford(2006)andothers:
(8) vAPPLP3
IO-GEN vAPPL’3
vAPPL’ ROOTP3
Root DO-ACC
10
CGvs.SMGdifferencesButonthebasisofWoolford’scriteriaCGdative/genitiveisalsolexical/inherent,since:
vInmonotransitives theyareidiosyncraticallyassignedbyparticularverbsandprepositions(lexical);
vInditransitives theyareinherentCases,astheyaresystematicallyassociatedwithspecificthematicroles,suchas‘goal’,‘source’,‘possessor’(inherent).
11
OurproposalvTherearetwowaysofassigningdativecasecross-linguistically:à Aslexical/inherentcaseálaWoolford(2006);wherecaseisassignedbyazeroP(Rezac 2008,Pesetsky 2013,Baker2015a.o.).à ConfigurationallyálaBaker(2015)buildingonMarantz(1991):withdativeasdependentcase.AccordingtoBaker,thecrucialpropertyofdativeisthatitisassignedinoppositiontoalowerargumentintheVP domain,unlikeaccusativewhichisassignedinoppositiontoahigherargument(theexternalargument,EA)intheIP/CP domain.GeneralDependentCaserule(adaptingMarantz1991) (Baker2015:79,111)(9) IfXPbearsc-commandrelationshipYtoZPinlocaldomainWP,thenassigncaseVto
XP.ForDative:(Baker2015:131)(10) IfXPc-commandsZPinVP,thenassignU(dative)toXPNB.WeassumethatXPandZPin(10)areDPsandVPin(10)isvAPPLP (seetree(8).
12
OurproposalProposingthatdative/genitiveisassignedinCGdifferentlyfromSMGcanprimafacieexplainthedifferencesbetweenthetwosystems;
à butitopensnewquestions:
i. WhatistheindependentsynchronicevidencethatSMGgenitiveisdependentcase;
ii. Whataboutpassivisation ofIOinCG(Anagnostopoulou &Sevdali 2015),ahallmarkpropertyofstructuralcase?
vIntherestofthetalk,wefirstfocusonevidencefordependentcasefromSMG;
vThenwediscussthepassivisation facts;
vAndfinallywemovetothetransitionbetweenthetwosystemsandhowthediachronyofmorphologicalcaseinteractswithchangesinprepositionsinGreek.
13
SMGgenitiveasdependentcaseBaker&Bobaljik (2017)distinguishbetweendependentandinherent(ergative)casebasedontwotypesofevidence:
i. ThiscasemustbesensitiveNOTtoaspecificthetarolebuttothepresenceofanotherargumentinalocaldomain,and
ii. Lackofthiscasemustbereducedtoalackofanothernominalinthelocaldomain.
vRepoint(i):SMGIOsinditransitives appearingenitiveregardlessoftheirthetarole(source,goal,beneficiary)≠CG.
vLackofproductivityofgenitivecaseinmonotransitives andthereplacementofCGdativesandgenitivesbyaccusativesinthiscontext.
vInthenextsection,weprovidesomefurtherargumentsshowingthattheSMGgenitiveisindeedsensitivetothepresenceofalowerargumentinthevAPPLP domain.
14
SMGgenitiveasdependentcaseArgument#1:Dyadicunaccusative verbswithgenitivesandnominatives
PsychologicalpredicatescorrespondingtoItalian‘piacere’verbs(Belletti &Rizzi 1988,i.a.,seeAnagnostopoulou 1999forSMG),sensationpredicates,differenttypesofpossessiveandchangeoflocationverbs productivelyselectforagenitiveexperiencer,possessororgoalargumentandanominativetheme,asshownin(11)and(12):
(11) Tu Petru tu aresi i musikiThePeter-GEN cl-GEN please-3SG themusic-NOM‘Peterlikesmusic’
(12) Tu Petru tu xriazete/lipi enas anaptirasThePeter-GEN cl-GEN need-3SG/lack.3SG alighter-NOM‘Peterneeds/lacksalighter’
15
SMGgenitiveasdependentcaseThevAPPLP intheseconstructionscontainsalowerthemeobjectintroducedattheRoot-level.à Genitivecaseisassignedinoppositiontothelowerargument
Caseassignmentproceedsjustasinditransitives exceptthatthethemebearsnominativemorphologysincethereisnoEAunlikeinditransitives whereatransitivev/Voiceheadispresent(VoiceinAlexiadou etal.2006,2015,Schäfer 2008,i.a.).GENisassignedinoppositiontothelowerargumentnotbearingcaseatthevAPPLP level. AttheTP/CPlevel,theDOisassignedenvironment-sensitive(unmarked)NOMcase.(13) vAPPLP
3
Exp/Poss/Goal-GEN vAPPL’3
vAPPL’ ROOTP3
Root Theme-NOM
16
SMGgenitiveasdependentcaseArgument#2:Genitivealternateswithnominativeintheabsenceofathemeargumentwithsensationverbslike‘hurt’,‘becold’etc.=>GENisnotlinkedtoaparticulartheta-role&itsassignmentdependsonthepresenceofalowerargument:(14) OJanis ponai
TheJohn-NOM hurt-3SG‘Jianis hurts’
(15) Tu Jani tu ponai olemos tuTheJohn-GEN cl.GEN hurt-3SG thethroat-NOM his-GEN‘Jianis hasasorethroat’
vTheexperiencer(in14)isthesingleargumentoftheRoot+vAPPL complexandreceivesunmarked/environmentsensitiveNomsincedependentgenitivecannotbeassigned,becausecruciallythereisnolowerargumenttobeassignedinoppositionto.vTheexperiencer(in15)receivesdependentgenitiveinoppositiontothelowervP-internalolemostu ‘histhroat’.
17
SMGgenitiveasdependentcasevThelowerNOMargumentin(15)containsapossessor,providingevidenceagainstapossessor-raisinganalysisoftheseconstructions(clitic doublingwithinDPsisimpossibleinGreekandhence,(15)couldnotinvolvepossessorraising+clitic doubling).
vBycontrast,eventhoughGreekhashighapplicatives withstaticpredicates(16a)itdoesnotallowthemwithunergatives (16b)becausethereisnolowerargumentforGENtobeassigned:
(16)a. Kratisa tisMarias tintsanda gia na vgali topalto tisHeld-1sgtheMar-GEN thebag-ACC to na take.out-3sgthecoather-GEN‘IheldMary’sbag(forher)totakeouthercoat’
b. *Etreksa/*Kolimpisa/*Perpatisa tu Petru
Run-1SG/Swam-1SG/Walked-1SGthePeter-GEN
*’Irun/swam/walkedforPeter’
18
SMGgenitivesArgument#3:Directobjectincorporationandgenitive/accusativealternation
(17) Dino mistho tu stratioti
Give-1SG salary-ACC thesoldier-GEN
‘Igiveasalarytothesoldier’
(18) Misthodoto tonstratioti
Salary.give-1SG thesoldier-ACC
‘Ipaythesoldier’
Themeincorporationin(low)goalapplicatives yieldsrealizationoftheIOasACC.ThisisevidencethatGENisnottiedtothetheta-rolegoal,buttothepresenceofalowerDPinthevAPPLPdomain.
19
APredictionOuranalysispredictsthatCGdatives/genitivesshouldretaintheircaseinalternationslike(17)-(18)aboveinvolvingtheme-incorporation.
v Strikingly,thispredictionisindeedborneout:(19) Misthon didontes tois nautais
payment.ACC give.PRCPL thecrew.DAT“wepaidthecrewout”(Isocrates,InCallimachum,60,7)
(20) ekei de Kyniskos humin misthodote:seiThere then Kyniskos-NOM us-DAT hire.FUT.3SG“thereCyniscus willtakeyouintohisservice”(Xenophon,Anabasis7,1:13)
20
SMGvs.CG- summaryDative/GenitiveIOs(monotransitives&ditransitives)
Theta-rolerestrictionsoncasechoice
Prepositions(&prefixes)assigningobliques
GenitivesbeingsensitivetothepresenceofalowerargumentinvAPPL
ClassicalGreek✓ ✓ ✓ ✗
StandardModernGreek ✗
(ditransitivesonly)
✗ ✗ ✓
21
è SMGgenitiveisdependentcaseinthesenseofBaker(2015).è CGgenitive/dativearelexical/inherentcases.è ButthenhowdoweaccountfortheirabilitytoalternatewithnominativeinCGpassives?
SMGpassivization ofIOsvIOsarenotallowedtoalternatewithnominativeinSMG.
(21) a. *OPetros dothike ena pagoto SMG
ThePeter.NOM gave.NACT anicecream.ACC
‘Peterwasgivenanicecream’
b. Hewasgivenanicecream English
ThisdifferencebetweenGreekandEnglishfollowsifSMGissensitivetothepresenceofalowerDP,whileEnglishIOs(atleastpronounsthatsurfacewithovertACCandNOM)beardependentcasesensitivetoahigher DP(seeBaker2015,ch. 6onthemechanicsofthisinEnglish-typesystems).
22
CGpassivization ofdatives/genitivesAnagnostopoulou&Sevdali 2015,Alexiadou,Anagnostopoulou&Sevdali 2014
(22) DAT-NOM ALTERNATIONS IN TRANSITIVES:a. Athe:nai-oi epibouleu-ousin he:m-in.
Athenians-NOM betray-3SG.PRS.ACT us-DAT‘TheAthenians arebetraying us.’
b. He:m-eis hup’ Athe:nai-o:n epibouleu-ometha.we-NOM by Athenians-GEN betray-1PL.PRS.PASS‘Wearebetrayed by the Athenians.’(Thucydides,Historia I:82.1)
(23) GEN-NOM ALTERNATIONS IN TRANSITIVES:a. Katapse:phe:z-o: tin-os.
condemn-1SG.PRS.ACT someone-GEN‘Icondemn someone.’
b. Ekeino-s katepse:phis-the:.he-NOM condemn-3SG.AOR.PASS‘Hewascondemned.’ (Xenophon,Historia V: 2.36)
23
CGpassivization ofdatives/genitivesAnagnostopoulou&Sevdali 2015,Alexiadou,Anagnostopoulou&Sevdali 2014
(24) DAT-NOM ALTERNATIONS IN DITRANSITIVES:
a. All-o ti meiz-on hum-in epitaks-ousin. (Active:ACC-DAT)something.else-ACC bigger-ACC you-DAT order-3PL.PRS.ACT‘They will orderyou to dosomething else bigger/greater.’
◦ b. All-o ti meiz-on hum-eis epitachthe:s-esthe. (Passivized:ACC-NOM)something.else-ACC bigger-ACC you-NOM order-2PL.PRS.PASS‘You will be ordered to dosomething else,bigger.’(Thucydides,Historia I:140.5)
(25) GEN-NOM ALTERNATIONS IN DITRANSITIVES:
a. Apetem-on to:n strate:g-o:n taskephal-as.(Active:GEN-ACC)cut.off-3PL.AOR.ACT the generals-GEN the heads-ACC‘They cutthe heads from the generals.’
b. Hoi strate:g-oi apetme:th-e:san tas kephal-as. (Passivized:NOM-ACC)the generals-NOM cut.off-3PL.AOR.PASS the heads-ACC‘Thegenerals were beheaded/Thegenerals hadtheir heads cutoff.’ (Xenophon,Anabasis II:6.29)
24
CGpassivization ofdatives/genitivesThecoreobservationwewillbuildonisthatallverbsintheexamplesabove,andingeneralthemajorityofverbsthatallowpassivization ofdative/genitiveIOsinCGareprefixed (cf.alsoMichelioudakis 2012):
(26) a. epi-bouleuometha ‘be betrayed’
b. kat-epse:phis-the:‘be condemed’
c. epi-tachthe:s-esthe:‘be ordered’
d. ap-etme:th-e:san:‘be cutoff’
vTheseprefixesarehomophonoustothecorrespondingprepositionswhichretaintheircase-assigningpropertieswhentheyareprefixedtotheverbs.
25
CGpassivization ofdatives/genitivesvFollowingAAS(2014)weproposethatgenitivesanddativesinCGarealwayscontainedwithinPPs,overt,asintheprefixedexamplesdiscussedhere,orcovertwithnon-prefixal verbs;
vPrefixal verbsinCGareformedbyP(reposition)-incorporationoftheprepositionsintroducingthedativeandgenitiveobjects;
vGenerallyspeaking,PPsarephases,and,DPscontainedwithinthemareinaccessibletooperationstriggeredbyhigherheads;i.e.opaquetooperationslikeAgree&Move;
vHowever,therearestrategiesbywhichsuchPPsbecometransparent(Rezac (2008)fordifferentdialectsofBasque);
vOnemajorstrategyleadingtothetransparencyofdativeandgenitiveobjectsisPincorporationintoahigherhead,thecomplexV-Voice.
vWeproposethatP-incorporationinCGmakestherelevantPPstransparent,andthedativeandgenitiveobjectsareallowedtopassivize,asshownin(22-25)above.
26
OnthediachronyofGreekcasesandprepositionsvProposalsofar:
CGdatives/genitivesarelexical/inherentcases
àtheyarehiddenPPs
SMGgenitivesbeardependentGEN
àtheyareDPs
27
Question:howdidthischangetakeplace?
HowdoesitrelatetothelossofmorphologicaldativefromGreek?
WewillpresentevidencethatchangesinthePP-systemplayedakeyrole.
LossofmorphologicaldativevReplacementof(morphological)dativeinStandardModernGreek
a)Accusatives (asobjectsoftransitiveverbs).
b)Genitives asIOsinSMG.
c)PPs (forlocative,instrumentalandotheradverbialusesofCGdatives).
vArgumental dativelosstimeline:
3rd – 9th/10th centuriesaccordingto Humbert(1930)or4th – 8th centuryA.D. accordingtoLuraghi(2003)
Humbert(1930):thethreemainusesofthedative:locative,instrumentalandargumental havethreeveryseparatediachronicpaths.
28
DiachronyofprepositionsvPrepositionsinCGfunctionasheadsofPPs,butalsoasprefixes.vCGPsassignallthreeobjectivecases;vSMGPslosttheirobliquecaseassigningcapacities,assigningonlyaccusative(exceptions:archaicprepositionsfromthe“katharevousa”registermetaksi ‘between’,enantion ‘against’,kata ‘against’);
vTherearetwointerrelatedchangesintheprepositionalsystemofGreekthatconcernushere:i. Withdativesandgenitives,prepositionsarefirstusedto“reinforce”(Bortone,
2010)/i.e.‘double’thesemanticroleofGreekcases,leadingultimatelytothereplacementofthetwoobliquecasesbyprepositions;
ii. Prepositionsthemselveslosetheirobliquecase-assigningabilitiesandareonlyabletoassignaccusativecase(Hatzidakis,1892,Bortone,2010).
29
DiachronyofprepositionsvPrepositionsarestartingtolosetheircapacityofassigningdativeandgenitivefrom3rd century(Lavidas,2010)andthischangeconcludesduringtheearlyMedievalGreekperiod(Horrocks,2007)orthe10th century(Browning1983:42– 43),i.e.Pshadlosttheiridiosyncraticcase-assigningcapacity.
v ThischangeisespeciallyinterestingifviewedfromtheperspectiveofPesetsky’s (2013)proposalaboutthenatureofobliquecaseinconnectiontoprepositions:
30
Diachrony ofGreekPs,DOs&IOs
31
a)ClassicalGreek:
Prepositionsassignoblique;
Dative/genitiveIOsandDOsinvolveacovertpreposition.
b)HellenisticGreek/Koiné:Prepositionsstartlosingtheirobliquecaseassigningcapacity
(reinforcement/doubling)
c)MedievalGreek:
Prepositionshavelosttheirobliquecaseassigningcapacity
vLearnersacquirethemasprepositions;
vlearnerscanacquirethemasPPsexactlybecausetheybearovertobliquecasemorphology.
qLearnerscannotstraightforwardlyacquirethemassuch (Grammarsincompetition)
ØInargumental positionPscannotbeanalysed asprepositionsanymore;
ØLearnersreanalyse DOsandIOsasDPs;
ØTheseDPscannotreceivecasebyanythingphraseinternal;
ØGreekgenitiveIOsandDOsgetreanalysed asDPsreceivingdependentcase,inoppositiontoalower(GEN)orhigher(ACC)DPargumentwithintheVP.
SummaryvCGdative/genitiveIOsareinherent/lexicalcases,assignedbyazeroP;
vSMGgenitivesareDPsthatreceivedependentcaseconfigurationallywithinvAPPL;
vThechangeinGreekisacategorychangeinthestructuralmakeupofGreekDOsandIOs,fromPPstoDPs.
vTriggerforchange:changesinthecase-assigningpropertiesofprepositions;
thelossofmorphologicaldativecaseanditssyncretismwithgenitiveandaccusativewasnotthemaincauseoftheobservedsyntacticchange.
v Variationintwowaysofassigningdativecasecross-linguistically(Baker,2015)isconfirmeddiachronicallytoo(cf.Polinsky 2016fortwotypesofergativecaseandtheevolutionfromaPP-ergativetoaDP-ergative).
32
