Matter versus pattern borrowing in compounding: Evidence from the Asia Minor Greek dialectal variety

Abstract

This paper deals with issues of matter and pattern borrowing as applied to compound formations in four Asia Minor Greek varieties, Aivaliot, Cappadocian, Pharasiot and Pontic, which have been in contact with the typologically and genetically different Turkish. While Pharasiot has been impoverished of Greek-based compound structures due to an extensive Turkish influence, Aivaliot, Pontic, and to a lesser extent Cappadocian, show a wealth of items that are created on the basis of Greek patterns containing right-hand inflection, a compulsory compound-internal marker, and a combination of native and foreign constituents reanalyzed as stems. Assuming that Turkish compounds are phrasal, it is suggested that Greek compounding resists change, since the native compound morphology strongly constrains the adoption of a Turkish compound structure which is built in syntax. More specifically, it is proposed that in a contact situation, it is particularly difficult for a pattern to be transferred from one language to another if it presupposes changing of grammatical domain, that is, shifting from morphology (Greek compounding) to syntax (Turkish compounding). The article also discusses a number of formations in Pharasiot, where a N N phrasal compounding pattern seems to be selectively borrowed from Turkish. Refining the previous claim, it is further proposed that a transfer implying a passage from one grammatical domain to another could become possible in heavy contact situations if one basic condition is fulfilled: that the innovative pattern is allowed by the native properties of the recipient language. As a matter of fact, N N structures are not unknown in the Greek language, which has used them in specific contexts in several periods of its long history.