Voice in Istanbul Greek: A Language Contact Explanation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3765/ptu.v6i1.5059Keywords:
Istanbul Greek, Turkish, language contact, Voice, anticausatives, morphosyntax, non-active morphology, markedness, GreekAbstract
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.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Published by the LSA with permission of the author(s) under a CC BY 4.0 license.
