Abstract
In Pharasiot Greek, an Asia Minor Greek dialect, a certain particle copied from Turkish, ki, is employed in a number of seemingly unrelated constructions. Close scrutiny, however, reveals that in each of these constructions, ki is employed as a device geared to influencing the interlocutor’s epistemic vigilance. Based on the Cartographic Approach which defends the syntactization of the interpretive domains, I propose that this unique semantics of ki should be represented in the clause structure. Following recent work which advocates the existence of a pragmatic field—Speech Act Phrase (SAP) in particular—above the CP-layer, where discourse and pragmatic roles are mapped onto syntax, I propose that ki is the overt exponent of SA0 and is further endowed with a [+ sentience] feature indexing the speaker as the sentient mind. The apparent differences between various construction types which involve ki—hence, in which SAP projects—then reduce to whether the [+ sentience] feature on SA0 is checked by an internally or externally merging category in Spec, SAP.
Highlights
One of the most remarkable aspects of the Asia Minor Greek dialects—the dialects of Pontus, Cappadocia, Pharasa and Silli—is the substantial number of lexical, functional and phonological items and/or features that are often copied into these dialects from Turkish (a.o., Dawkins 1916, 1937)
Along the lines of the analyses proposed by Hill (2007), Haegeman and Hill (2013) and Haegeman (2014), I propose that ki is a discourse marker that is endowed with a [+sentience] feature indexing the speaker as the sentient individual whose point of view is reflected in a given sentence, and that is geared to influencing the epistemic vigilance mechanism of the hearer
The current paper proposed a unified account for the ki particle in the modern Greek dialect of Pharasa, which is employed in a number of seemingly unrelated constructions
Summary
One of the most remarkable aspects of the Asia Minor Greek dialects (hereafter amg)—the dialects of Pontus, Cappadocia, Pharasa and Silli—is the substantial number of lexical, functional and phonological items and/or features that are often (presumed to be) copied into these dialects from Turkish (a.o., Dawkins 1916, 1937). Similar to the case in quotative constructions, matrix constituents can occur both between the matrix predicate and ki, and in post-ki position, as exemplified in (8) by the possibility of occurrence of the matrix subject—o nomát ‘the man’—in both positions This means that no strict-adjacency of ki with bağrıaçık the verb or the complement clause is required. 6 Note in passim that the generalization that the matrix predicate has to be assertive so that ki can follow seems to hold generally true for quotative constructions as well (modulo the fact that in the latter construction the predicate in question is that of the reporting clause), yet there seems to be exceptions to this in the texts. I will continue following Ernst (2002) and Speas (2004) in treating them as epistemic adverbs
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
