|Title||Cappadocian Greek ‘agglutinative’ morphology revisited|
Cappadocian Greek (Dawkins, 1916; Janse, 2002) differs from more familiar Greek varieties in possessing a novel morphological construction that has been claimed by Thomason & Kaufman (1988) and Janse (2001) to display a shift from the ‘inherited’ Greek fusional morphology to an ‘innovative’ type of agglutinative morphology, which they classify as a case of contact-induced language change (CILC).
The construction in question involves the use of the morphemes -ju and -ja to mark genitive case and plural number respectively in the model of Turkish (1):
This seemingly agglutinative pattern was the result of a reanalysis of morpheme boundaries triggered by the loss of word-final high vowels which gave rise to the two new inflectional morphemes. The further loss of gender and declensional classes allowed for the use of these morphemes with potentially any noun.
However, the picture of agglutination remains incomplete as a form which would provide uncontroversial evidence for the truly agglutinative nature of nominal morphology in these dialects, namely a genitive plural form of the type adelfo-ja-ju combining both novel morphemes (parallel to the Turkish kardeʃ-ler-in), is not attested. On the other hand, forms of the type nekes-ju ‘of the women’ (Axó dialect), in which the genitive morpheme -ju is suffixed to fusional nominative plural forms (nekes ‘women’), seem to provide evidence in favour of agglutinative patterns.
In this paper, based on the thorough examination of the sources available for the Cappadocian dialects of Ulaghátsh (Dawkins, 1916; Kesisoglou, 1951) and Axó (Dawkins, 1916; Mavrochalyvidis & Kesisoglou 1960), I support the view that
i. The nominal inflection of these dialects was undergoing restructuring processes at the time of its documentation with the two new inflectional morphemes gradually winning over ‘inherited’ endings related to declensional classes.
ii. Though far from complete, the use of -ju and -ja did involve a certain degree of agglutination as shown by forms of the type nekes-ju as well as by the common distributional properties of the two endings.
iii. The claim that this change is to be attributed to contact with Turkish needs to be revised based on current theoretical and empirical research associating CILC with the interrelation of the underlying representations of two languages in bilingual first- and second-language acquisition.
Janse, M. (2001). Morphological borrowing in Asia Minor. In Y. Aggouraki, A. Arvaniti, J. I. M. Davy, D. Goutsos, M. Karyolaimou, A. Panagiotou, P. Pavlou & A. Roussou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (Nicosia, 17-19 September 1999) (pp. 473-479). Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.
Janse, M. (2002). Aspects of bilingualism in the history of the Greek language. In J. N. Adams, M. Janse & S. Swain (Eds.), Bilingualism in ancient society: Language contact and the written text (pp.332-390). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kesigoglou, I.I. (1951). Το γλωσσικό ιδίωμα του Ουλαγάτς [The dialect of Ulaghátsh]. Athens: Institut Français d’ Athènes.
Mavrochalyvidis, G. & Kesisoglou, I.I. (1960). Το γλωσσικό ιδίωμα της Αξού [The dialect of Axó]. Athens: Institut Français d’ Athènes.
Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
|Conference||Continuity and Change in Grammar|
|Accepted author manuscript||CCG08_handout.pdf|