Abstract

The aim of this research is analyzing Voice-related constructions in Istanbul Greek, namely anticausative and passive predicates, and addressing the synchronic differences between the Istanbul dialect and Standard Greek in terms of these constructions from a language-contact perspective. As a morphosyntactic analysis of Istanbul Greek, this research is the first of its kind, and is based on data collected from native speakers, namely the Istanbul Greeks. Voice-related constructions in Greek involve regular use of non-active morphology. Hence, the empirical domain of this research covers the use of non-active morphology in Istanbul Greek. My hypothesis is that the markedness of Istanbul Greek anticausatives is correlated with the markedness of their Turkish counterparts, contrary to Standard Greek. By markedness, I refer to the existence of an overt exponent for the binary morphological distinction between active and non-active forms. I claim that language contact between Istanbul Greek and Turkish is a possible reason for the dialectal differences between Istanbul Greek and Standard Greek in terms of the marking of Voice-related constructions.In terms of setting the theoretical background for Voice-related constructions in Standard Greek, I utilized Alexiadou et al.’s (2015) work about Standard Greek marked/unmarked anticausatives. I also collected data on Standard Greek from ten speakers, which diverged from Alexiadou et al.’s (2015) explanation of Voice-related constructions in the standard dialect. For setting the linguistic background on Istanbul Greek, I utilized the study of Pandelidis (2019). To offer a morphosyntactic explanation for the dialectal differences observed in the Istanbul Greek data, I utilized language contact concepts such as interference (Thomason 2003), convergence (Clyne 2003), valency-copying (Grossman and Witzlack-Makarevich 2019), morphophonological explanations such as the presence vs. absence of an augment, and Haspelmath’s (1993) spontaneity scale, among others.

Highlights

  • This article focuses on anticausatives in Istanbul Greek and addresses the synchronic differences between the Istanbul dialect and Standard Greek regarding such Voicerelated constructions from a language-contact perspective

  • The results of this study show that there is little variation between Istanbul Greek Class A and Class B verbs and their Standard Greek (SG) counterparts in terms of markedness

  • The markedness of Istanbul Greek (IG) anticausatives is correlated with the markedness of their Turkish counterparts, contrary to SG, especially for IG Class C verbs

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This article focuses on anticausatives in Istanbul Greek and addresses the synchronic differences between the Istanbul dialect and Standard Greek regarding such Voicerelated constructions from a language-contact perspective. the data for this research was collected from native speakers of Istanbul Greek. This article focuses on anticausatives in Istanbul Greek and addresses the synchronic differences between the Istanbul dialect and Standard Greek regarding such Voicerelated constructions from a language-contact perspective.. As Voice-related constructions in Greek involve non-active marking, this research focuses on the usage of non-active morphology in Istanbul Greek. The claim of this article will be that the markedness of Istanbul Greek anticausatives is correlated with the markedness of their Turkish counterparts, contrary to Standard Greek. What is meant by markedness is the existence of an overt exponent for the binary morphological distinction between active and non-active forms. A possible reason for the dialectal differences between Istanbul Greek and Standard Greek in terms of the marking of Voice-related constructions, I claim, is language contact between Istanbul Greek and Turkish

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

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 call