Preposition Allomorphy in Calabrian Greek (Greko) and Standard Modern Greek and Its Theoretical Implications
2. Materials and Methods
3. The Distribution of asce and an
3.1. Etymology and Dialectal Variation
3.2. Evidence for an Allomorphic Relationship
|(Crupi 1980, p. 38, ‘To próvato ácharo curemmeno’)|
|‘Who do you come from/are you coming from?’||(Rohlfs 1950, p. 170)|
4. Allomorphic Realisations of the Preposition se in SMG and Greko
5. Theoretical Accounts
5.1. The Structure of Spatial PPs
5.2. Syntactic Structure of Crucial Configurations
5.3. Analysing the P+D Interactions as Portmanteaux
|(37)||Spell-out-driven movement (Caha 2010, p. 59, (38); referring to 2009 class notes by Michal Starke)|
|If at a point of cyclic lexical access, a phrasal node can be spelled out only after the evacuation of a sub-constituent, then the constituent is marked for extraction.|
|(38)||Vocabulary insertion principle/VIP (Radkevich 2010, p. 8, (7))|
|The phonological exponent of a vocabulary item is inserted at the minimal node dominating all the features for which the exponent is specified.|
5.4. Allomorphy and Adjacency
|(59)||Head adjunction (van Riemsdijk 1998, p. 645, (10a))|
|Two phonetically identified (i.e., not silent) heads are joined, yielding an adjunction structure, in which case the two heads must be strictly linearly adjacent at the moment of application of the rule.|
5.5. A Note on Phonology
|(64)||a.||Contextually conditioned allomorphy may impose linear adjacency requirements on the triggering context.|
|b.||There is an operation for the formation of complex heads that involves a linear adjacency requirement (van Riemsdijk 1998).|
|(66)||a.||Who do you want (who) to kiss you?|
|b.||*Who do you wanna kiss you?||(after Postal and Pullum 1982, p. 122, (1/2))|
|(67)||a.||?I don’t want [[to flagellate oneself in public] to become standard practice in this monastery].|
|b.||*I don’t wanna flagellate oneself in public to become standard practice in this monastery. (after Postal and Pullum 1982, p. 124, (3bc))|
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
The software ocrmypdf (https://github.com/ocrmypdf/OCRmyPDF, accessed on 19 December 2021) was used with the Italian language package.
Anecdotally observed treatments of the prepositions asce and an in current Greko teaching practice as distinct (unrelated?) prepositions—rather than as allomorphs—may be reflective of this perspective of two different sources.
An anonymous reviewer points out that this alternation closely parallels the alternation between di and de in Italian.
Note that voiceless stop in the onset of the definite article regularly undergoes voice assimilation after a preceding nasal, a common sandhi effect in Greko applying also after an. In (68a), for instance, the definite article is pronounced with a voiced onset leading to a realisation of the preposition + determiner string as /andon/. Rohlfs (1950, 1964) generally writes these voice assimilated and contracted forms and so do some speakers. My notation of the examples follows the current practice in revitalisation efforts aiming for a standardised orthography, which retains the initial t-grapheme of the article.
While nouns and adjectives generally inflect for case, number, and gender in both Greko and SMG, in most examples I gloss these features only on determiners for better readability and because my focus is not on nominal inflection here. An exception is made for certain examples involving genitives.
Preposed genitives do not seem to be productively available in Greko, so this particular alternation does not apply there. While a consultant initially seemed to accept a simple preposed genitive construction, all further examples were rejected—particularly those where the genitive construction was the complement of a preposition.
See Stavrou (1995) and Höhn (2016) for similar structures for adnominal pronoun constructions like emis i fitites ‘we students’ in SMG. Notice also that there are proposals in the literature that demonstratives may differ between and within languages concerning their status as phrase or head (Dékány 2011; Sybesma and Sio 2008), which to me seems the most plausible approach. For Greek varieties see also Guardiano and Michelioudakis (2019).
While s(e) may be reduced to /s/ in (68b), this is due to hiatus avoidance as discussed in Section 4. The notation #s- indicates that the reduced form cannot be the marked allomorph.
While this is most naturally accommodated when assuming that demonstratives are specifiers, a similar analysis is possible if prenominal demonstratives are treated as heads (see also Bernstein 1997).
It does not matter whether the P+D portmanteau is realised before or after the demonstrative, since the use of the portmanteau is deviant anyway.
If one adopts the head-analysis for demonstratives just mentioned, the considerations below apply to postnominal demonstratives as well. An alternative analysis, mentioned by a reviewer, where the quantifier is adjoined, would avoid the issues mentioned below for the postnominal quantifier configuration, but the prenominal configuration would raise the same problems as those discussed above for a phrasal analysis of the demonstratives (i.e., the prenominal quantifier would falsely fail to prevent occurrence of the marked preposition allomorph).
Alternatively, the assumption that this DP is already fully spelled out and is therefore ignored for phrasal spell-out (Caha 2009, p. 67, (27)).
A reviewer alludes to tentative alternative analysis where the quantifier is adjoined in order to facilitate the alternation with the postnominal position. This would raise a problem for the hyper-contextual account, since an adjunct should not influence the accessibility of the D head, wrongly predicting that the marked allomorph should be used. The -LIN approach would only run into issues if adjuncts are assumed to be inserted so late that the tentative adjoined quantifier would not be visible when the preposition undergoes VI.
While D is a plausible candidate as a cyclic node given that it has also often been considered to be a phase head in the sense of Chomsky (2001), it is less clear if Place (or P) needs to be a cyclic node (Embick 2010, pp. 89–91). I do not aim to give a full account of cyclic domains here, the discussion simply serves to illustrate that issues beyond adjacency also come into play here.
Thanks to Stavros Skopeteas for pointing out the similarity of these data.
An anonymous reviewer points out the Italian data in (i), which display the di/de alternation in an otherwise identical immediate segmental and prosodic context, suggesting that there, too, the definite article is the relevant factor rather than phonological factors.
- Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman, and Melita Stavrou. 2007. Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asbury, Anna, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit Gehrke, and Rick Nouwen, eds. 2008. Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bernstein, Judy B. 1997. Demonstratives and reinforces in Romance and Germanic languages. Lingua 102: 87–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics. Edited by Kleanthes K. Grohmann and Caro Struijke. Maryland: University of Maryland, pp. 35–71. [Google Scholar]
- Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2012. Universals in Comparative Morphology. Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structure of Words. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Brugè, Laura. 1996. Demonstrative movement in Spanish: A comparative approach. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 1. [Google Scholar]
- Brugè, Laura. 2002. The positions of demonstratives in the extended nominal projection. In Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Edited by Guglielmo Cinque. Oxford: Oxford University Press, chp. 2. vol. 1, pp. 15–53. [Google Scholar]
- Caha, Pavel. 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. Ph. D. thesis, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway. [Google Scholar]
- Caha, Pavel. 2010. The parameters of case marking and spell out driven movement. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 10: 32–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caha, Pavel, and Marina Pantcheva. 2020. Locatives in Shona and Luganda. In Variation in P: Comparative Approaches to Adpositional Phrases. Edited by Jacopo Garzonio and Silvia Rossi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, Jaehoon. 2014. Pronoun-Noun Constructions and the Syntax of DP. Ph.D. thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale. A Life in Language. Edited by Michael Kenstowicz. Cambridge and London: MIT Press, pp. 1–52. [Google Scholar]
- Christopoulos, Christos, and Roberto Petrosino. 2018. Greek root-allomorphy without spans. In Proceedings of the 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Edited by William G. Bennett, Lindsay Hracs and Dennis R. Storoshenko. Sommerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 151–60. [Google Scholar]
- Corver, Norbert. 2017. Freezing effects. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. Malden and Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crupi, Giovanni Andrea. 1980. La “glossa” di Bova. Cento favole esopiche in greco calabro. Schema grammaticale, Lessico. Roccella Jonica: Associazione Culturale Jonica. [Google Scholar]
- Dékány, Éva Katalin. 2011. A Profile of the Hungarian DP. The Interaction of Lexicalization, Agreement and Linearization with the Functional Sequence. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway. [Google Scholar]
- den Dikken, Marcel. 2010. On the syntax of locative and directional prepositional phrases. In Mapping Spatial PPs, Volume 6 of the Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Edited by Guglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 74–126. [Google Scholar]
- Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Embick, David. 2015. The Morpheme. A Theoretical Introduction. Berlin: de Gruyter. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Embick, David. 2017. On the targets of phonological realization. In The Morphosyntax-Phonology Connection. Edited by Vera Gribanova and Stephanie S. Shih. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 255–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Etxepare, Ricardo. 2013. Basque primary adpositions from a clausal perspective. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 12: 41–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falk, Yehuda N. 2007. Do we wanna (or hafta) have empty categories? In Proceedings of LFG07. Edited by Miriam Butt and Tracy H. King. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 184–97. [Google Scholar]
- Felice, Lydia. 2021. A novel argument for PF operations: STAMP morphs in Gã. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 6: 844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giusti, Giuliana. 1997. The categorial status of determiners. In The New Comparative Syntax. Edited by Liliane Haegeman. London and New York: Longman, pp. 95–123. [Google Scholar]
- Giusti, Giuliana. 2002. The functional structure of noun phrases. a bare phrase structure approach. In Functional Structure in DP in IP; The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Edited by Guglielmo Cinque. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 54–90. [Google Scholar]
- Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Extended Projection. Revision of the 1991 Manuscript. Stanford: CSLI Publications, chp. 1. pp. 1–71. [Google Scholar]
- Guardiano, Cristina, and Dimitris Michelioudakis. 2019. Syntactic variation across greek dialects. In Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 319–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20. Edited by Ken Hale and Samuel J. Keyser. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 111–76. [Google Scholar]
- Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath, and Sebastian Bank. 2021. Glottolog 4.5. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harizanov, Boris, and Vera Gribanova. 2018. Whither head movement? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37: 461–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Höhn, Georg F. K. 2014. Contextually conditioned allomorphy and the Basque locative. Spelling out the Basque extended nominal projection. In ConSOLE XXI, Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, Potsdam, Germany, 8–10 January 2013. Edited by Martin Kohlberger, Kate Bellamy and Eleanor Dutton. Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, pp. 146–70. [Google Scholar]
- Höhn, Georg F. K. 2016. Unagreement is an illusion: Apparent person mismatches and nominal structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34: 543–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Holton, David, Peter Mackridge, Irene Philippaki-Warburton, and Vassilios Spyropoulos. 2012. Greek. A Comprehensive Grammar, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Horrocks, Geoffrey, and Melita Stavrou. 1987. Bounding theory and Greek syntax: Evidence for wh-movement in NP. Journal of Linguistics 23: 79–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobsen, William H., Jr. 1977. The Basque locative suffix. In Anglo-American Contributions to Basque Studies: Essays in Honor of Jon Bilbao. Edited by William A. Douglass, Richard W. Etulain and William H. Jacobsen Jr. Reno: Desert Research Institute, pp. 163–68. [Google Scholar]
- Julien, Marit. 2005. Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahle, David, and Hadley Wickham. 2013. ggmap: Spatial visualization with ggplot2. The R Journal 5: 144–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Karanastasis, Anastasios. 1997. Γραμματική των ελληνικών ιδιομάτων της Κάτω Ίταλιας [Grammatiki ton ellinikon idiomaton tis Kato Italias]. Athens: Akadimia Athinon. [Google Scholar]
- Kremers, Joost. 2015. Morphology is in the eye of the beholder. Linguistische Berichte 243: 245–94. [Google Scholar]
- Lakoff, George. 1970. Global rules. Language 46: 627–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Volume 4 of U.Penn Working Papers in Linguistics. Edited by Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark and Alexander Williams. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, pp. 201–25. [Google Scholar]
- Merchant, Jason. 2015. How much context is enough? Two cases of span-conditioned stem allomorphy. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 273–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michelioudakis, Dimitris. 2011. Dative arguments and abstract Case in Greek. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. [Google Scholar]
- Moskal, Beata. 2015a. Domains on the Border: Between Morphology and Phonology. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Moskal, Beata. 2015b. Limits on allomorphy: A case study in nominal suppletion. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 363–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moskal, Beata, and Peter W. Smith. 2016. Towards a theory without adjacency: Hyper-contextual VI-rules. Morphology 26: 295–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newell, Heather. 2009. Aspects of the Morphology and Phonology of Phases. Ph.D. thesis, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada. [Google Scholar]
- Ostrove, Jason. 2018. Stretching, spanning, and linear adjacency in vocabulary insertion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36: 1263–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pak, Marjorie. 2016. How allomorphic is English article allomorphy? Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1: 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Panagiotidis, Phoevos. 2000. Demonstrative determiners and operators: The case of MG. Lingua 110: 717–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pantcheva, Marina. 2010. The syntactic structure of Locations, Goals, and Sources. Linguistics 48: 1043–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Postal, Paul M., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1982. The contraction debate. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 122–38. [Google Scholar]
- R Core Team. 2022. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Google Scholar]
- Radkevich, Nina V. 2010. On Location: The Structure of Case and Adpositions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
- Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. Relativized minimality effects. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Edited by Mark Baltin and Chris Collins. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 89–110. [Google Scholar]
- Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1950. Historische Grammatik der unteritalischen Gräzität. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. [Google Scholar]
- Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1964. Lexicon Graecanicum Italiae Inferioris. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der unteritalienischen Gräzität. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. [Google Scholar]
- Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- RStudio Team. 2022. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Boston: RStudio, Inc. [Google Scholar]
- Schmerling, Susan F. 2019. Sound and Grammar. A Neo-Sapirian Theory of Language. Leiden: Brill. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, Peter W., Beata Moskal, Ting Xu, Jungmin Kang, and Jonathan David Bobaljik. 2019. Case and number suppletion in pronouns. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37: 1029–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd 36: 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Stavrou, Melita. 1995. Epexegesis vs. apposition in Modern Greek. In Scientific Bulletin of the School of Philology. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University, vol. 5, pp. 217–50. [Google Scholar]
- Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Spanning. Ms. University of Tromsø. Available online: http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001501 (accessed on 7 January 2017).
- Sybesma, Rint, and Joanna Ut-Seong Sio. 2008. D is for demonstrative—Investigating the position of the demonstrative in Chinese and Zhuang. The Linguistic Review 25: 453–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terzi, Arhonto. 2010a. Locative prepositions and place. In Mapping Spatial PPs. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Edited by Guglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, vol. 6, pp. 196–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terzi, Arhonto. 2010b. On null spatial Ps and their arguments. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 9: 167–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Travis, Lisa DeMena. 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1998. Head movement and adjacency. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16: 633–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wickham, Hadley. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
- Zwarts, Joost. 2017. Spatial semantics: Modeling the meaning of prepositions. Language and Linguistics Compass 11: e12241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|not definite article||0||17||35||1|
|definite article||(3), (6), (11)||✓||✗|
|+ postnominal demonstrative||(13a)||✓||✗|
|+ postnominal Q olo||(13b)||✓||✗|
|(wh-word tinon; deprecated?)||(8a)||(✓)||(✗?)|
|NP-initial demonstrative||(9), (10)||✗||✓|
|NP-initial quantifier ola||(12)||✗||✓|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Höhn, G.F.K. Preposition Allomorphy in Calabrian Greek (Greko) and Standard Modern Greek and Its Theoretical Implications. Languages 2022, 7, 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7030169
Höhn GFK. Preposition Allomorphy in Calabrian Greek (Greko) and Standard Modern Greek and Its Theoretical Implications. Languages. 2022; 7(3):169. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7030169Chicago/Turabian Style
Höhn, Georg F. K. 2022. "Preposition Allomorphy in Calabrian Greek (Greko) and Standard Modern Greek and Its Theoretical Implications" Languages 7, no. 3: 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7030169