John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from Journal of Historical Linguistics 3:2 © 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet. For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek The dialectological perspective* Petros Karatsareas

University of the West of England & Open University of Cyprus

This article challenges the widely held view that a series of pervasive diachronic innovations in Cappadocian Greek owe their development to language contact with Turkish. Placing particular emphasis on its genealogical relationships with the other dialects of Asia Minor, the claim is that language change in Cappadocian is best understood when considered within a larger dialectological context. Examining the limited use of the definite article as a case in point and in comparison with parallel developments attested in Pontic and Silliot Greek, it is shown in detail that the surface similarity of the outcomes of Cappadocian innovations to their Turkish structural equivalents represents the final stages in long series of language-internal developments whose origins predate the intensification of Cappadocian–Turkish contact. The article thus offers an alternative to contact-oriented approaches and calls for a revision of accepted views on the language-internal and -external dynamics that shaped Cappadocian into its modern form. Keywords: Cappadocian, Turkish, language contact, Asia Minor Greek (Pontic), dialectology

1.

Introduction

It would not be an exaggeration to argue that the Modern Greek (henceforth ModGr) dialect of Cappadocia (henceforth Cappadocian) is the most atypical variety of the language in having undergone an array of unique diachronic innovations that differentiate it greatly from most other ModGr dialects and varieties. As a result, it displays a considerable number of unusual structural characteristics, some of which could even go as far as to provide support for its classification into an unmarked set other than that in which (almost) all other ModGr dialects would be found. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3:2 (2013), 192–229. doi 10.1075/jhl.3.2.02kar issn 2210–2116 / e-issn 2210-2124 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 193

One such ‘un-Greek’ characteristic can be seen in the examples in (1) below, which illustrate the Cappadocian peculiarity Winford describes as the “limited use of the definite article” (2005: 406). In (1a), there is no article preceding çeos and neka even though both noun phrases have a definite reading and would require the presence of a definite article in most other ModGr dialects. In Standard ModGr, for example, we would have o θeos, literally ‘the God’, and i !ineka ‘the woman’. Similarly, in (1b–c) we find kleftʃis and intsan (cf. Standard ModGr o kleftis ‘the thief ’ and i anθropi ‘the people’, respectively). Note, however, that a definite article is found — as would be expected — in so fʃax ‘to the child’ (1a), do ma#ara ‘the cave’ and to koriʃ ‘the girl’ (1b). Araván Cappadocian1 Ø çeos yksen ta ce Ø neka pomne so fʃax. God heard them and woman was.left to.the child ‘God heard their prayers, and the woman became pregnant.’ (Fosteris & Kesisoglou 1960: 98) b. Ghúrzono Cappadocian tote Ø kleftʃis pi"e, transe do ma#ara, to koriʃ den tun. then thief went looked.at the cave the girl neg was ‘Then the thief went in, had a look around the cave, but the girl was not there.’ (Dawkins 1916: 344) c. Mistí Cappadocian an lalis #abas, na xarastun Ø intsan ta exun naŋ$ir"ones. if blows south.wind fut rejoice men rel have melon.fields ‘If a south wind blows, the people who have melon fields will rejoice.’ (ILNE ms. 826: 6)

(1) a.

Like many others, this Cappadocian innovation has the effect of rendering the morphosyntax of NPs in the language more like that of Turkish NPs. In the cases above, we see this in the lack of an overtly expressed marker of definiteness in çeos, neka, kleftʃis and intsan. Compare, for instance, (1a) above with (2). (2) Turkish Ø Allah dualarını kabul etti ve Ø kadın hamile kaldı. God their.prayers accepted and woman became.pregnant ‘God heard their prayers, and the woman became pregnant.’

For most researchers to date, this surface correspondence between the two languages provides sufficient evidence to establish language contact with Turkish as the cause for the limited use of the definite article in Cappadocian (see, inter alia, Thomason & Kaufman 1988: 215–222, Winford 2005: 402–409). However, mere typological similarity between Cappadocian and Turkish structures on a purely contemporary synchronic level does not necessarily have to substantiate a © 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

194 Petros Karatsareas

historical connection between the two languages, let alone a causal one as far as the development in question is concerned. Of course, as will be discussed extensively below, there is a historical connection between Cappadocian and Turkish. Typological similarity between them of the type shown above, however, is not the sort of evidence that shows this to be true. Put briefly, extant accounts fail to demonstrate satisfactorily that what we are dealing with here is an instance of contactinduced language change. Against this backdrop, my aim in this article is to use the limited occurrence of the definite article in Cappadocian as a case in point in order to challenge the widely-held view that a series of pervasive diachronic innovations observable in the dialect came about as a result of language contact with Turkish. This I set out to achieve by placing particular emphasis on the geographical and dialectological context of Cappadocian, that is, on its genealogical relationships with the other ModGr dialects of the Asia Minor area (Pontic, Pharasiot and Silliot), which I believe is key in overcoming the shortcomings of previously proposed explanations. In what follows, I elaborate on the idea, already alluded to by Dawkins as early as 1916, that the origins, triggers and subsequent evolution of diachronic change in Cappadocian are better understood when examined in comparison with similar or even identical developments attested in the other Asia Minor Greek dialects. My approach benefits from the diversity found among the modern dialects themselves, some of which are more conservative while others are more innovative with respect to a significant number of innovations. This synchronic diversity is of great historical and methodological value as the various dialects are essentially found to illustrate distinct developmental stages in the course of specific changes. Here, I take advantage of this finding to reconstruct the trajectory that the development of the overt expression of definiteness by means of the definite article followed in Cappadocian and to argue that, in many cases like this one, the superficial similarity of diachronic change in Cappadocian to Turkish grammatical structures — on a purely synchronic level — represents the final stages in a long series of language-internal developments whose incipient manifestations most probably go back to the common dialectal ancestor of the modern Asia Minor Greek dialects, thus predating the intensification of linguistic exchange between Cappadocian and Turkish. This, however, should not be interpreted to mean that language contact is dismissed as a contributing factor that may have favored or accelerated specific developments. Rather, in my approach, I revisit the influence of Turkish and reassess its role by looking at whether language contact is relevant to the origins of change and whether it is responsible for setting developments in motion in Cappadocian and the other Asia Minor Greek dialects. The paper is structured as follows: in Section 2, I briefly present the social and cultural circumstances in which Cappadocian developed over time and discuss © 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 195

the effects these had on the dialect’s structure. I also critique the analytical emphasis that previous research has placed on language contact with Turkish in trying to explain the points of divergence between Cappadocian and other ModGr dialects. While the material provided in this section might seem familiar from other publications (for example, Janse 2002, Karatsareas 2009), particularly to the specialized reader, its inclusion in this article is, I believe, crucial in understanding the full range of issues that arise in teasing apart the effects of language-internal and -external causes of change in the Cappadocian case. In Section 3, I elaborate on the dialectological background of Cappadocian by examining some of the innovations and convergent developments that it shares with the other Asia Minor Greek dialects. I further present the basic principles of my methodological approach to language change in Cappadocian, drawing on dialectal diversity within the Asia Minor Greek group. I consider the development of definite articles in detail in Section 4 and conclude the article in Section 5. 2. Linguistic continuity and change in Cappadocian: The language contact perspective 2.1 The Byzantine residue of Cappadocia Cappadocian is used here to refer to the dialect cluster comprised of the closely related ModGr varieties that were originally spoken by the Greek Orthodox communities of the Cappadocian plateau of south-eastern Asia Minor (today’s Turkey). At the beginning of the 20th century, the use of Cappadocian had been geographically reduced to twenty villages located in the rural areas between the Ottoman cities of Nevşehir, Kayseri and Niğde that were either entirely or partially inhabited by Cappadocian-speaking communities (Dawkins 1910: 115–117, 1916: 10). The exact location of the Cappadocian-speaking area as defined by these villages and their relative positions are shown in Figures 1 and 2 below. The population of the area, including the villages of Phárasa and Sílli (see below), amounted to 37,650 inhabitants, according to an estimate of Papadopoulos (1998 [1919]: 109), based on Dawkins (1916). Of these, 17,500 were speakers of Cappadocian (Janse 2007: 70); the rest spoke Turkish. The Cappadocian-speaking communities trace their origin to the Byzantine, Greek-speaking people that populated Asia Minor prior to the first Turkish invasions in the area in the early 11th century (Vryonis 1971: 448–452). Owing to its location at the frontier between Byzantium and Arab lands such as Syria and Mesopotamia, Cappadocia was found as early as the mid 7th century in the heart of the confrontation between the Byzantine Empire and Islam, which culminated

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

196 Petros Karatsareas

Black Sea Sinópe

Án

Constantinople

Pontus Lésbos Kydoníes

Ionian Sea

s

isó

m oA

d on biz is e r h T Óp Argyroúpolis

Cappadocia Nevșehir Kayseri Sílli Konya Niğde Phárasa Livísi

Aegean Sea

Cyprus Mediterranean Sea

Figure 1. Cappadocia and other Greek-speaking communities in Asia Minor (beginning of the 20th century)

Kayseri Nevșehir

Sinasós

Anakú Díla Sílata Potámia Malakopí Phloïtá Trokhó Axó Tsharakly Mistí Semenderé Ulaghátsh Delmesó Ghúrzono Ferték Araván Niğde

Phárasa

Figure 2. The Cappadocian-speaking villages (beginning of the 20th century)

in the historic battle of Manzikert in 1071 ce. After their crushing defeat by the Seljuq Turks, the Byzantines lost control of most of Asia Minor, which now passed to the Seljuqs and other Turkish tribes. This had far-reaching consequences for the cultural history of the Greek population: separated from the Orthodox Christian, Greek-speaking contingent of the west, the Greeks of Asia Minor entered a four century long period marked by a gradual religious and linguistic transformation that ultimately led to their islamization and concomitant turkicization (Vryonis 1971: 169–184). Owing to the vastness of the area and other geographic and demographic factors, this process of cultural change did not proceed uniformly throughout Asia Minor. Augustinos (1992: 15) notes that the Greek people of more densely © 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 197

populated western and northeastern coastal areas, such as Pontus, continued the popular traditions of Byzantine civilization longer. Suffice it to mention in that connection that the Pontic Empire of Trebizond, the last standing Greek political entity in Asia Minor, was overthrown by the Ottoman Turks only in 1461. Cultural change in these areas was therefore not as dramatic and thorough as in the more sparsely populated interior of Asia Minor that crucially included Cappadocia, where islamization and turkicization advanced at a much faster rate. There the process appears to have progressed to a very significant degree already by the 15th and 16th centuries. In a testimony written by Hans Dernschwam, a German traveller who spent two years in Constantinople between 1553 and 1555, it says: Not far from the castle, […] there lives a Christian people, whom one calls the Caramanos. They come from the country of Caramania, which borders on Persia. They are Christian and profess the Greek faith. They hold their mass in Greek, but they do not understand Greek. Their language is Turkish. I do not know whether Turkish was their original language. (Babinger 1923: 52, translation by Christopher Geissler)2

In what can only be perceived as a remarkable display of persistence in the face of sweeping cultural assimilation, a number of Orthodox, Greek-speaking communities in northeastern and central Asia Minor were able to survive as such through the range of social and political changes that drove the lengthy transition from the Byzantine Empire to the Seljuq Sultanate of Rûm, and from that to the Ottoman Empire. This is also the case of the Cappadocian communities, in which the preservation of the inherited religion and language was facilitated by their geographical location mainly in rural areas where Turkish settlements occurred at a later time and in fewer numbers than in other regions (Vryonis 1971: 451–452, Augustinos 1992: 17). Alongside groups of Greek speakers in other regions of Asia Minor (most notably Pontus, the long and narrow strip of land on the southern coast of the Black Sea), the Cappadocian-speaking communities represent what Vryonis (1971) has termed the Byzantine residue in Turkish Anatolia, that is, populations defined by cultural traits that are Byzantine Greek in origin but which evolved in time to such a degree so as to distinguish them from Greek populations found elsewhere (see also Augustinos 1992: 5). This, of course, includes the development of the Greek dialect indigenous to Cappadocia. The continuous use of Cappadocian in Asia Minor was brought to an abrupt end as a consequence of the defeat of the Greek army in the Greco-Turkish War of 1920–1922. In accordance with the Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations that was signed by the governments of Greece and Turkey at Lausanne on the 30th of January 1923, the Cappadocian speakers of Asia Minor were uprooted from their eastern homelands and forced to relocate mainly in the © 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

198 Petros Karatsareas

recently acquired northern parts of Greece. At present, Cappadocian is still spoken in Greece in a number of dialect pockets mainly in rural areas of the north, with speakers also found isolated in cities elsewhere in the country. The dialect is used in everyday communication not only by elderly people who came to Greece in 1923–1924 at a very young age but also by second- and third-generation refugees of middle age who acquired it as native or semi-native speakers from their parents and grandparents. Unfortunately, Cappadocian, or rather the remaining varieties of it that are still spoken in Greece, is seriously facing the prospect of extinction (Janse 2007: 71–74, 2008b: 125–129, 2009: 38–39). 2.2 “An excellent example of heavy borrowing” The social and cultural consequences of the events that shaped the history of the Greek Orthodox communities of Asia Minor from the 11th century onwards had a direct impact on the structure of Cappadocian, which developed in (relative) isolation from that of the contiguous Greek-speaking areas of the west, on the one hand, and in the context of intense language contact with the Turkish of the Seljuq and Ottoman conquerors, on the other, for a significant amount of time. Owing to its early separation from the western Greek-speaking contingent, Cappadocian presents numerous grammatical features characteristic of earlier stages in the history of Greek, particularly the Late Medieval period (1100–1500 ce according to Holton & Manolessou 2010: 541). Such is the use of na to mark a present as future, an expression of futurity that fell out of use in this period in favour of constructions that later gave rise to ModGr θa (Markopoulos 2009: 223, Horrocks 2010: 301), or the retention of the relative use of the definite article, a strategy that was fully integrated into the grammatical system of Greek around the 12th century (Manolessou 2003, Horrocks 2010: 293–295). Both these archaic features can be seen in (1c) above (na xarastun ‘they will rejoice’, intsan ta exun naŋ$ir!ones ‘people who have melon fields’). Besides the survival of archaisms, the long linguistic isolation of the Cappadocian speaker communities provided the necessary conditions for the development of a significant number of structural innovations that distinguish it from other ModGr dialects and dialect groups. In many of these, the linguistic effects of language contact with Turkish, whose influence kept growing in the centuries that followed the Seljuq and Ottoman conquests of Asia Minor, become particularly evident. As a direct result of extensive Greek–Turkish bilingualism and consequent linguistic interference from the latter to the former, there can be found in Cappadocian a number of grammatical features whose occurrence can be incontrovertibly attributed to the replication of Turkish linguistic matter and, in some cases, of Turkish grammatical patterns, as well (in the sense of Matras © 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 199

& Sakel 2007, Sakel 2007). In (3), for example, we see the way in which Phloïtá Cappadocian has developed into a Differential Object Marking (DOM) language. The head nouns of NPs found in typically accusative-marked syntactic contexts, such as the direct object position, are marked with morphological accusative case only if the NPs in question are definite (3a); the head nouns of indefinite NPs are marked with morphological nominative (3b). Cappadocian and Pharasiot are the only ModGr dialects to have undergone this innovation, clearly under the influence of Turkish, a textbook example of a DOM language (Janse 2004, Spyropoulos & Tiliopoulou 2006, Karatsareas 2011). (3) Phloïtá Cappadocian a. vutun to stavro sa nera dip the cross.acc in.the waters ‘they dip the cross in the water’ b. fcanun sti "i stavros make in.the ground cross.nom ‘they form a cross on the ground’

(ILNE ms. 811: 52)

(ILNE ms. 811: 87)

In certain cases, language contact with Turkish appears to have favored grammatical and structural variants that are generally marginal or marked in ModGr and which, in Cappadocian, have become the unmarked, default options by virtue of their correspondence to analogous Turkish patterns. The shift from head-initial to head-final constituent order in adnominal genitives is a relevant example. In Cappadocian, genitive NPs precede their nominal heads. In most other ModGr dialects, such as in the standard variety, they typically follow them. In Standard ModGr, the head-final order for adnominal genitives is a marked alternative, reserved mainly for topic and focus constructions, and for wh-elements (Manolessou 2000: 122). In Turkish, by contrast, head-final constructions are the only grammatical option: genitives always precede their nominal heads. It therefore appears that the prenominal genitives already available in Cappadocian lost their marked status and became default due to the influence of Turkish. The effect of this influence is best illustrated in the case of multiple genitive NPs, which in Cappadocian appear consistently prenominally, giving rise to constructions that are disallowed in other ModGr varieties. For example, the structure that corresponds interlinearly to the Cappadocian one in (4a) is grammatical in Turkish (4b) but ungrammatical in Standard ModGr (4c). (4) a.

Axó Cappadocian t vaʃi%u t nifs ta fortses the king.gen the bride.gen the clothes ‘the king’s bride’s clothes’ (Mavrochalyvidis & Kesisoglou 1960: 192)

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

200 Petros Karatsareas

b. Turkish padişah-ın gelin-i-nin elbise-ler-i king-gen bride-3sg-gen clothe-pl-3sg c. Standard Modern Greek * tu vasi%a tis nifis i foresçes the king.gen the bride.gen the clothes

Commenting on the interlinear correspondence between Cappadocian and Turkish with respect to constituent order in head-final constructions such as the one in (3b) as well as to a good deal of idiomatic expressions and light verb formations that were calqued in Cappadocian on the model of Turkish, Dawkins phrased the much-quoted dictum that in Cappadocian “the Turkish has replaced the Greek spirit; the body has remained Greek, but the soul has become Turkish” (1916: 198), a view echoed much later by Kontossopoulos (1981: 7). Due to its vividness, Dawkins’s proclamation became so oft-cited a quotation that the primacy of Turkish influence that it conveys — always and only with reference to headfinal structures and idiomatic expressions — has become quasi programmatic for modern linguistic research dealing with any aspect of the Greek of Cappadocia. Language contact is viewed as the principal, and very often the only, cause of all grammatical developments in Cappadocian, which are usually treated as typical instances of contact-induced change in the historical linguistics and language contact literature (see, for example, inter alia such basic textbooks as Campbell 1998, Thomason 2001, Winford 2003, Matras 2009). Thomason & Kaufman’s discussion of Silliot, Cappadocian and Pharasiot (1988: 215–222) is the best-known example in that connection. Thomason & Kaufman make such a strong case for language contact in the three Asia Minor Greek dialects as to claim that, while most of them “clearly retain enough inherited Greek material to count as Greek dialects in the full genetic sense, a few dialects may be close to or even over the border of nongenetic development” (1988: 93–94). Drawing on Dawkins (1916), they enumerate a variety of lexical and grammatical innovations found in the three dialects, whose development, they argue, must be due to the incorporation of Turkish grammatical features into the Greek grammatical system. Using these features as criteria, Thomason & Kaufman classify Silliot, Cappadocian and Pharasiot as “an excellent example of heavy structural borrowing — category 5” (1988: 215), which on their borrowing scale is the result of very strong cultural pressure and involves the incorporation of major structural features that cause significant typological disruption (1988: 74–76). Revisiting more recently the same set of Cappadocian innovations as Thomason & Kaufman, Winford (2005: 402–409) reaffirmed the claim that they “testify to a strong and pervasive influence by Turkish on Greek” (2005: 407).

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 201

Thomason & Kaufman’s and Winford’s accounts of the changes that Cappadocian has evidently undergone suffer from many of the methodological shortcomings that Poplack & Levey (2010) have recently identified in existing scholarship on the study of language contact (see also King 2000: 46–48, 2005: 234–236). For Poplack & Levey, [a] candidate for contact-induced change in a contact variety is present in the presumed source variety and either (1) absent in the pre-contact or non-contact variety, or (2) if present (e.g., through interlingual coincidence), is not conditioned in the same way as in the source, and (3) can also be shown to parallel in some non-trivial way the behavior of a counterpart feature in the source. (Poplack & Levey 2010: 398, emphasis in the original)

Neither account satisfies these criteria. Neither Thomason & Kaufman nor Winford attempt to define the earlier linguistic form of Greek against which the Cappadocian changes are shown to have been induced by contact nor do they seek to find related developments in the other ModGr dialects of Asia Minor that have been exposed to the influence of Turkish in differing degrees. Standard ModGr serves instead as the point of reference based on the assumption that it is the most relevant and appropriate ModGr variety that can form the basis of comparison in assessing the impact of Turkish on Cappadocian grammar. On this basis, what both accounts do is subject the set of innovative grammatical characteristics in Cappadocian to typological comparisons with corresponding structures in Turkish and Standard ModGr on a strictly synchronic level. Surface similarity and, in many cases, interlinear morphemic correspondence between Cappadocian and Turkish structures, on the one hand, and surface dissimilarity between Cappadocian and Standard ModGr, on the other, are brought forth as evidence to establish language contact with Turkish as the single cause for developments in Cappadocian; consider, for example, the comparison of the article-less structures in (1a) and (2) in Section 1 above. Furthermore, major changes in the structure of Cappadocian such as the loss of grammatical gender distinctions or the reorganization of noun inflection are portrayed in a way that creates the impression they occurred rapidly, without undergoing intermediate stages of development; neither account addresses the actual linguistic mechanisms and processes that resulted in such changes. Overall, Thomason & Kaufman and Winford fail to demonstrate satisfactorily that the most defining Cappadocian innovations are indeed the product of language contact and not of language-internal motivations, essentially because they adhere too much to the “widespread but unfounded assumption that linguistic differences occurring in bilingual contexts are necessarily […] contact-induced” (Poplack & Levey 2010: 397–398).

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

202 Petros Karatsareas

What has, on the other hand, largely escaped the attention of scholars working on language contact and the history of Cappadocian is a proposal of a different nature that was first put forth by Dawkins (1916: 116) with reference to the loss of gender distinctions. Dawkins correctly identifies that this particular Cappadocian innovation is related to developments affecting gender agreement in Pontic, in which the distinction between animate and inanimate nouns determines the selection of gender in the forms of agreeing nominals such as adjectives and pronouns (see Karatsareas 2009, 2011, 2013 for detailed accounts). In light of this relation, Dawkins introduces the idea of a link that connects many Cappadocian innovations with similar developments occurring in the other Asia Minor Greek dialects and which may explain the synchronic occurrence of many Cappadocian peculiarities (see also Dawkins 1937: 30). Dawkins goes on to support this idea further by listing the grammatical features found in all Cappadocian varieties that justify their treatment as forming a single dialect (1916: 212–213). He clarifies that these features, which constitute the Greek element in Cappadocian (1916: 212) and which cannot be attributed to the influence of Turkish, are also found in both Pontic and Pharasiot. Dawkins thus unwittingly provides the crucial suggestion (without, however, elaborating on the specifics) that the pervasive changes Cappadocian has undergone might actually owe their development to the inherited Greek element of the dialect. They may therefore be best understood in the dialectological context of the various Asia Minor Greek dialects as having been internally motivated, rather than as the exclusive outcome of language contact with Turkish when examined in isolation. This would then lead to the rather unsurprising conclusion that the early linguistic separation of the Greek communities of Asia Minor from the Greek contingent of the west created the conditions necessary not only for language-external — that is, contact-induced — but also for language-internal developments. In the remainder of this article, I aim to provide evidence corroborating this possibility, which remains hitherto under-examined. 3. Linguistic continuity and change in Cappadocian: The dialectological perspective 3.1 The common linguistic ancestor of the modern Asia Minor Greek dialects From a genetic point of view, Cappadocian belongs to the Asia Minor Greek dialect group along with:

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 203

a. Pontic, the ModGr dialect of Pontus b. Pharasiot, the ModGr dialect of the town of Phárasa (today’s Çamlıca) and five neighboring villages in the area between the Ala Dağ and Antitaurus mountains c. Silliot, the ModGr dialect of the village of Sílli, found in the environs of the town of Konya (Triantafyllidis 2002 [1938]: 273–295, Anastasiadis 1975, Kontossopoulos 1981, Andriotis 1995: 100–107, Drettas 1999: 15, Arapopoulou 2001: 175, Horrocks 2010: 398–404). The group is identified on the basis of a set of pervasive linguistic innovations that are shared by all of the above dialects, with the exception of some that Silliot has not undergone. Alongside a series of grammatical archaisms, which includes the ones mentioned with respect to Cappadocian in Section 2.2, the shared innovations reflect the early linguistic separation of the Asia Minor Greek speaker communities from the Greek-speaking contingent of the west following the Seljuq invasions of the 11th century. More importantly, they collectively distinguish the Asia Minor Greek dialects from other ModGr dialects and dialect groups, including those that may have been spoken in the western coastal areas of Asia Minor, such as the dialect of Aivalí, Kydoníes and Moschonísia or that of Livísi, but which do not show any evidence of the characteristic innovations found, for example, in Cappadocian or Pontic. A distinction should therefore be drawn between those dialects that are classified as Asia Minor Greek in the genetic sense and those that are so called solely on geographic terms. Τhis article is concerned only with the former group of dialects. The most substantial shared innovations that define the Asia Minor Greek group are listed below. Detailed examples and references for each innovation can be found in Karatsareas (2011: 41–45). 1. Phonology I. Deletion of the high vowels /i, u/ and raising of the mid vowels /&, o/ to /i, u/ in unstressed post-tonic syllables found most commonly at the end of the word. II. Development of the postalveolar fricative /ʃ/ and palato-alveolar affricates /tʃ, d'/ before the front vowels /i, &/ and the glide /j/ as a result of the palatalization of inherited velar consonants /k, g, x/. III. Simplification of the /st/ cluster to /s/ in amalgams consisting of the prepositions se ‘at, to’ and as ‘from’ and the various forms of the definite article. 2. Morphology IV. Extension of the reanalyzed genitive singular and plural, and nominative/accusative plural endings of i-neuter nouns to form the respective

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

204 Petros Karatsareas

V. VI.

forms of nouns belonging to masculine, feminine and other neuter inflectional classes. Use of the suffix -isk- and various reflexes to form the imperfect active of barytone verbs. Null realization of the nominative singular and plural forms of the definite article.

3. Syntax VII. Extended use of neuter forms in gender agreement targets (articles, adjectives, participles, pronouns, numerals) controlled by masculine and feminine nouns. VIII. Development of obligatory definiteness spreading; that is, obligatory appearance of the definite article before both the head noun and preceding adjectival modifiers in definite noun phrases. IX. Replacement of the lost dative case by the accusative for the morphological expression of indirect objects. X. Use of the proximal and distal locative adverbs as proximal and distal pronominal modifiers, respectively. The picture of linguistic unity that emerges from the innovative structural characteristics that the Asia Minor Greek dialects share suggests that, before they started developing idiosyncratically, Pontic, Cappadocian, Pharasiot and Silliot formed a single dialectal variety that must have been spoken in an area of inner Asia Minor minimally defined by the modern Asia Minor Greek-speaking enclaves, as shown in Figure 3.

Pontus Cappadocia Phárasa

Cyprus

Figure 3. The Asia Minor Greek-speaking area during medieval times (approximation)

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 205

It is in this historical variety that the shared innovations listed above are postulated to have first become manifest. This hypothesis is not new; it was first brought forward by Dawkins, who treated the systematic similarities between the modern Asia Minor Greek dialects as evidence for the existence of a medieval Asia Minor Greek Koiné whose idiosyncratic development possibly preceded and was certainly facilitated by the Seljuq invasions of the 11th century (Dawkins 1916: 205, 213, 1940: 6, 14, see also Triantafyllidis 2002 [1938]: 277, Browning 1983: 130, Horrocks 2010: 382). In that connection, some scholars have claimed that at least some of the distinctive developments of Asia Minor Greek originate in the regional form of Koiné Greek that was spoken in Asia Minor and adjacent islands such as Cyprus during Hellenistic and Roman times (Thumb 1914: 199, Kapsomenos 2003 [1985]: 63, see also Thumb 1901, 1906, Drettas 1997: 15). Pace Horrocks (2010: 113–114), however, there appears to be little relation between the grammatical innovations shared by the modern dialects and the region-specific characteristics of the Hellenistic Koiné of Asia Minor recorded by Brixhe (1987) and Bubenik (1989: 237–252). In that light, and taking into consideration the relation between the Asia Minor Greek dialects and the other dialects of ModGr, the formation of the common ancestor of the modern Asia Minor Greek dialects should be placed, following Dawkins, at a point in time between the beginning of the Early Medieval period (500–1100 ce) and the end of the Late Medieval period (1100–1500 ce) in the history of Greek. Evidence supporting this dating can be found in one of the most striking and well-known archaic features of Asia Minor Greek phonology: the retention of the pronunciation of Ancient Greek eta η [&(] as [&] and not as [i], as in all other ModGr dialects (see Manolessou & Pantelidis 2011 and references therein). The retention is attested most prominently in Pontic (for example, aʃcemos ‘ugly’, nife ‘bride’, vexas ‘cough’) with a good number of examples also found in Cappadocian (pe#að ‘well’, pselo ‘tall’) and in Pharasiot (eklesia ‘church’, maθema ‘lesson’; cf. Standard ModGr asçimos, nifi, vixas, pi#aði, psilo, eklisia, maθima). According to Horrocks (2010: 167–168), the raising of [&(] to [i] had been completed in most regional varieties of Greek by the Early Byzantine (i.e., Medieval) period. It therefore appears that Asia Minor Greek was lagging behind other varieties of the language in terms of certain structural developments already at that time.3 It becomes clear from this discussion that questions regarding the causes, triggers, whether language-internal or -external, and subsequent development of diachronic innovations in the Asia Minor Greek dialects cannot be adequately addressed without taking into consideration the grammatical characteristics of their linguistic precursor. Unfortunately, however, written evidence on Asia Minor Greek in the period before the 19th century is extremely limited and varies greatly depending on the region of origin, each source presenting different philological © 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

206 Petros Karatsareas

difficulties (Karatsareas 2011: 22–28). Dialectal features in sources originating in Pontus, for example, have to be sought in long texts that are otherwise written in the high Greek code of Byzantine times for official or semi-official purposes, such as the Vazelon Acts of the homonymous monastery, written over a period spanning the years 1245–1702 (Ouspensky & Bénéchevitch 1927), or the Trebizond Almanac of 1336 (Lamprou 1916). In these texts, the occurrence of dialectal features is attributed to slips and errors by the authors or copyists (Lampsidis 1952, Vagiakakos 1964). Texts from areas closer to Cappadocia such as the Greek verses in the poetry of Jalāl al-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī and his son Baha al-Dīn Muhammad-i Walad (Meyer 1895, Burguière & Mantran 1952, Mertzios 1958, Dedes 1993) present a major difficulty of a different nature: they are written in the Perso-Arabic script, which lacks vowel pointing. This makes reading the Greek texts extremely difficult, allowing for various transliterations and therefore different readings, thus obscuring the use of vernacular forms of Greek, which could, in principle, be considered an advantage compared to the use of the high code in the Pontus texts. This type of linguistic record makes it extremely difficult to carry out a systematic comparison between the early, intermediate and most recent stages of development in order to identify what has changed over time and what the linguistic processes and mechanisms of change were in cases where change has indeed occurred. Fortunately, however, the problem is counterbalanced by the diversity found among the Asia Minor Greek dialects themselves, some of which are more conservative while others more innovative with respect to a significant number of developments. This situation provides an invaluable methodological advantage in that the various dialects often illustrate different developmental stages of change, which assists us in reconstructing the trajectories that it followed over time. In what follows, I show how such a reconstruction can be implemented based on the differentiation of the hypothesized medieval Asia Minor Greek Koiné into the distinct modern Asia Minor Greek dialects. 3.2 Dialectal differentiation in Asia Minor Greek and its historical and methodological value Dialectal differentiation within the Asia Minor Greek dialect group is generally taken to be the indirect result of the advancement of linguistic turkicization in Asia Minor, which was particularly intensified after the foundation of the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century (Dawkins 1931a: 398–399). With the gradual establishment of Turkish as the dominant language in the largest part of the region and the linguistic and cultural assimilation of the majority of its indigenous peoples to the Ottoman Turkish population, the Greek communities of Pontus and Cappadocia, © 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 207

including those in Phárasa and Sílli, were separated from one another by vast numbers of predominantly Turkish speakers. The speaker communities in the resulting Greek-speaking pockets then started developing in relative isolation from one another and under sociolinguistic circumstances that differed in each case, mainly with respect to the linguistic and cultural dominance relations between the Greek and Turkish communities. These conditions naturally favored dialectal divergence and, ultimately, the development of different versions of Asia Minor Greek in the various culturally resistant enclaves. The divergent evolutionary paths that Asia Minor Greek followed after the fragmentation of the Greek population in Asia Minor are vividly illustrated by the rich diversity found among the modern Asia Minor Greek dialects, each of which is characterized by unique grammatical innovations that are not encountered in any other of the related dialects. The emergence of a voiced labiovelar approximant [w] as an allophone of /l/ in clusters formed by a velar consonant plus /l/, as in [#wosa] ‘tongue’ or [xwoɾos] ‘green, fresh’ (cf. Cappadocian [#losa], Pontic [xloɾos]) is a truly Pharasiot innovation (Dawkins 1916: 158, Andriotis 1948: 30). Equally exclusive is the development of a complex system of locative adverbs and particles for the expression of spatial deixis in Pontic (Papadopoulos 1955: 98– 114, Oikonomidis 1958: 353–354, Drettas 1997: 449–508), or the development of a novel accusative plural ending -i%us for masculine nouns in Cappadocian, for example ðaskal-i%us ‘teachers’, kleft-i%us ‘thieves’ (cf. Pontic ðaskal(i), Pharasiot klefti) (Dawkins 1916: 95, 113). At an intermediate level between the shared innovations of the Asia Minor Greek dialects that testify to their common origin in a historical Asia Minor Greek Koiné and the unique structural features of each one of them that justify their treatment as separate linguistic entities in synchronic terms, more restrictedly attested developments are found that allow for the classification of the modern dialects into smaller genealogical groups. The classification that has gained currency in the literature was first proposed by Dawkins, who divided the Asia Minor Greek dialect group in two parts: one core branch that includes Cappadocian, Pontic and Pharasiot and a more peripheral branch with Silliot as its only member. According to Dawkins, the core branch is further subdivided into two sub-branches: a Cappadocian sub-branch and one consisting of Pontic and Pharasiot (Dawkins 1916: 206, 1937: 16–17, see also Triantafyllidis 2002 [1938]: 277, Andriotis 1948: 10, Anastasiadis 1975: 177, 1976: 16, 1995: 111–119, Janse 2008a: 191). In Karatsareas (2011), however, I have recently called for a revision of this classification in view of the fact that the relations between the core dialects, Pontic, Cappadocian and Pharasiot, are defined not on the basis of shared innovations but of shared retentions, which are not strong indicators of close genetic relatedness (Campbell & Poser 2008). Adducing © 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

208 Petros Karatsareas

evidence from the development of gender agreement and noun inflection, I have further argued that Pontic and Cappadocian are genetically much closer than Dawkins’s original classification assumes, whereas I consider Pharasiot to be equally distant from both other dialects. On that basis, I have proposed the genealogical classification illustrated in Figure 4 below. Notice that Silliot remains on the periphery of the dialect group as it has not undergone a number of innovations that are otherwise shared by Pontic, Cappadocian and Pharasiot, most notably, the developments in gender agreement but also the simplification of the /st/ cluster to /s/ in preposition amalgams (see points III. and VII. in Section 3.1 above). ASIA MINOR GREEK Proto-Cappadocian Cappadocian/Pontic Pontic

Silliot

Pharasiot

Cappadocian

Figure 4. The genealogical classification of the Asia Minor Greek dialects (Karatsareas 2011).

My classification, however, should not be interpreted as implying too high a degree of similarity between Pontic and Cappadocian. Despite being the two closest cognates within the dialect group, they remain considerably different and show evidence of separate development in many crucial aspects of their grammatical structure. The patterns of object clitic placement provide one such example. In Cappadocian, clitic pronouns follow the verb unless it is immediately preceded by modal and negative markers, complementizers, wh-expressions or fronted adverbials. This distribution of enclisis and proclisis, which is essentially that of the Late Medieval period, is also found in Pharasiot with the single exception of the negative marker d&o, after which clitic pronouns follow the verb (5–6): (5) a.

Phloïtá Cappadocian ðocen to tria alt+,a. gave him three gold.pieces ‘He gave him three gold pieces.’ b. Phloïtá Cappadocian "at me ðocen ena alt+n? why me gave one gold.piece ‘Why did she give me one gold piece?’

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

(Dawkins 1916: 432)

(Dawkins 1916: 432)

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 209

c.

Axó Cappadocian me t’ ani'is to sand+x. neg it open the chest ‘Don’t open the chest.’

(Dawkins 1916: 392)

(6) Pharasiot a. ðod'en da tria ʃile lires o vasilos. gave him three thousand pounds the king ‘The king gave him three thousand pounds.’ b. na se ðoso ʃile lires. fut you give a.thousand pounds ‘I will give you a thousand pounds.’ c. kanina mi da les. no.one neg them say ‘Don’t tell anyone.’ d. d'o pua#o ta. neg sell them ‘I do not sell them.’

(Dawkins 1916: 492)

(Dawkins 1916: 492)

(Dawkins 1916: 478)

(Dawkins 1916: 492)

Pontic differs greatly from both Cappadocian and Pharasiot in this respect. In Pontic, object clitic pronouns always follow the verb, even in the presence of elements that in the other two dialects trigger preverbal placement of the clitic as in (7). (7) a.

Santá Pontic erθa na araevo se. I.came comp look.for you ‘I came to look for you.’ b. Chaldía Pontic pu θa evrik’ ata? where fut find them ‘Where shall I find them?’ c. Kerasoúnta Pontic esi mi fortus ata. you neg carry them ‘You should not carry them.’

(Lianidis 2007 [1962]: 294)

(Drettas 1997: 540)

(Lianidis 2007 [1962]: 142)

Apart from defining an isogloss distinguishing Cappadocian and Pharasiot from Pontic, this difference shows how the various Asia Minor Greek dialects can be more conservative or innovative with respect to certain diachronic developments. In this case, the former two dialects preserve the proclisis vs. enclisis pattern of Late Medieval Greek while Pontic appears more advanced, having generalized enclitic placement across the board (see Janse 1994, 2008a, Condoravdi & Kiparsky © 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

210 Petros Karatsareas

2001, 2004, Pappas 2004a, 2004b, 2006, Revithiadou 2006, 2008, Revithiadou & Spyropoulos 2007, 2008, and Chatzikyriakidis 2010 for details).4 In other cases, however, like the one that will be discussed in detail in the next section, Pontic is rather conservative compared to the other dialect members of the Asia Minor Greek group. This is especially true of innovations that were set in motion by language-internal triggers at a time before the various dialects started developing idiosyncratically but which were later pushed forward by language contact in those dialects whose communities saw the most intense cultural and linguistic exchange with Turkish populations in their history, for example Cappadocian and Pharasiot. Having come in contact with Turkish four centuries after its Asia Minor Greek sister dialects, Pontic very often illustrates the earliest attested stage(s) of development with respect to such innovations. Dawkins (1940: 12) was the first to recognise that this type of dialectal divergence has great historical and methodological significance. It may compensate for the lack of documentation of previous stages in the history of Asia Minor Greek in cases of diachronic change in which the different Asia Minor Greek dialects are found to represent chronologically distinct developmental stages, as in the case of clitic placement above. In such cases, the synchronic stages in which the various dialects are found can be used to reconstruct the trajectories, pathways and, ultimately, origins of change. Unlike previous accounts, which treat the Cappadocian innovations exclusively as the outcomes of language contact with Turkish, such an approach addresses more readily the likelihood that at least some of them may actually be attributed to language-internal motivations. It is important to clarify, however, that this dialectological approach does not preclude language contact as a major contributing factor in the subsequent development of specific innovations. Besides, it has already been mentioned above that an array of structural features of Cappadocian such as DOM, discussed in Section 2.2, are undoubtedly due to the influence of Turkish. It would therefore not be reasonable to claim that contact had absolutely no role to play in guiding the pathway of internally-motivated innovations by favoring and/or accelerating certain developments at stages following their initial manifestation. With that in mind, I should emphasize that the aim of my approach is to shift the focus away from the effects language contact may have had on the later development of specific Cappadocian innovations, a stance that has otherwise received significant attention in the literature, to their language-internal origins, which as I argue are represented by the more conservative members of the Asia Minor Greek dialect group. In the next section, I elaborate on how this type of methodology proves to be particularly helpful in accounting for the “limited use” of the definite article that was introduced at the beginning of the article.

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek

4. A case in point: The null realization of the definite article A careful examination of the Cappadocian data reveals that the definite article is ‘missing’, in other words it is realized as null, in specific morphosyntactic contexts: when immediately preceding nominative forms, either singular or plural, of nouns that historically belong to masculine or feminine inflectional classes (recall that grammatical gender distinctions have been lost in Cappadocian). In the remaining case/number combinations as well as before nouns that historically belong to neuter inflectional classes, the article is always overtly realized (Dawkins 1916: 87–89, Mavrochalyvidis & Kesisoglou 1960: 29–32, Costakis 1964: 32). The phenomenon is exemplified in (8), while the forms of the definite article that are found in Cappadocian are given in Table 1. (8) Phloïtá Cappadocian5 a. ton te%oʃ Ø lutur"a, Ø papas ferisci to when finishes mass.*F.nom priest.*M.nom brings the.acc nif so #ambro konda. bride.*F.acc to.the.acc groom.*M.acc near ‘When the mass is over, the priest brings the bride to the groom’s side.’ (ILNE ms. 811: 22) b. to θeros so xor"o mas kola ena the.nom summer.*N.nom in.the.acc village.*N.acc our lasts one mina ce perso. month and more ‘Summer in our village lasts more than one month.’ (ILNE ms. 811: 31) c. ula ta spitça nistevun ce psine. all.nom.pl the houses.*N.nom fast and bake ‘All homes fast and bake.’ (ILNE ms. 811: 52)

Due to the loss of gender distinctions, the forms of the definite article provided in the table are, from a diachronic point of view, the ones corresponding to the neuter gender in other ModGr dialects. In the few Cappadocian varieties that preserve traces of gender agreement (Sinasós, Delmesó, Potámia), we additionally find a few gendered forms for the definite article, most notably the accusative masculine and feminine ton and tin, respectively (Dawkins 1916: 87–89). As a consequence of this development, only a subset of definite NPs are overtly marked as such by the definite article, leaving definiteness unmarked in another subset, namely in nominative definite NPs headed by historically non-neuter nouns. Some Cappadocian varieties seem to have been on the way of resolving this discrepancy either by (a) introducing the use of the (proximal) demonstrative pronoun as a marker of definiteness, employing a cross-linguistically well-attested

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

211

212 Petros Karatsareas

Table 1. The forms of the definite article in Cappadocian. SINGULAR

PLURAL

nom

*M/*F

*N

Ø

to

acc

to

gen

t(u)

nom

ta

Ø

acc

ta

gen

t(u)

strategy (Lyons 1999), or (b) extending the use of the originally neuter definite article to (or its reflexes) to non-neuter nouns. Consider, for example, the short extract from Ghúrzono Cappadocian in (9), in which the use of the demonstrative eto ‘this’ three times does not appear to be semantically licensed, as well as the example from Ulaghátsh Cappadocian in (10) in which do precedes two non-neuter nouns. (9) Ghúrzono Cappadocian Tote irtan stratu s’ oltal+x, c’ eto kleftʃis to ’na to tabur then came road to middle and this thief.*M.nom the one the regiment salsen to opiso. Plemni to ’na to tabur. Ama ʃiftasan so ma#ara, sent it back remained the one the regiment when reached to.the cave salse ce t’ alo to tabur. Tote soŋgra eto kleftʃis pire to sent and the other the regiment then later this thief.*M.nom took the koriʃ; edesen to as ta ma%a t sa xad'ar"a. Tote eto kleftʃis girl tied her from the hair her to.the rafters then this thief.*M.nom pi"e … went ‘Then they came to the middle of the road. The thief sent the one regiment back. One regiment remained. When they reached the cave, he sent the other regiment back, too. Then the thief took the girl and tied her hair to the rafters. Then the thief went …’ (Dawkins 1916: 342–344) (10) Ulaghátsh Cappadocian Do xerifos cimi"e $e do neka eripsen ena xter, sanse the man.*M.nom slept and the woman.*F.nom threw a stone thought do tʃ+raq ne. the servant.*N.nom was ‘The man went to sleep, and the woman threw down a stone, thinking it was the servant.’ (Dawkins 1916: 370)

Scholars almost unanimously attribute this innovation to the influence of Turkish, which lacks a definite article altogether. Dawkins was the first one to see in it the

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 213

influence of Turkish (1916: 46), an opinion later adopted also by Anagnostopoulos (1922: 246), Thomason & Kaufman (1988: 222) and Winford (2005: 406). A contact-oriented explanation, however, fails to account for the distribution of the null realization of the definite article in terms of case/number and inflectional class membership. Language contact cannot explain why the article is overtly realized in all case/number combinations other than the nominative singular and plural, as in the accusative singular to nif ‘the bride’ and so #ambro ‘to the groom’ in (8a), or why it is realized in exactly these ones before historically neuter nouns as in to θeros ‘the summer’ in (8b) and ta spitça ‘the houses’ in (8c). If Turkish had indeed provided the model for this development, we would expect the article to be realized as null across the board. In other words, there should not be an article-like determiner expressing definiteness in Cappadocian at all. In Poplack & Levey’s (2010) terms, the Cappadocian phenomenon parallels the behavior of the counterpart feature (or the lack thereof) in Turkish only partially, which raises doubts for its contact-induced status. In contrast, the Cappadocian peculiarity becomes meaningful when examined in the Asia Minor Greek dialectological context. Looking at the morphological expression of definiteness in the other dialects of the group, we find that the same innovation is also attested in Pontic and Silliot. Crucially, in each one of these dialects and in their varieties, the phenomenon has different distributional properties, which sheds valuable light on its origins and development. Starting with Pontic, we find a few varieties in which all forms of the definite article are always overtly realized, much like the overwhelming majority of ModGr dialects. This is the case of Óphis Pontic, as in (11). (11) Óphis Pontic o enas ipe to peðin ats … i ale ipe to peðin ats … the one said the child hers the other said the child hers ‘One [widow] said to her child … the other [widow] said to hers …’ (Dawkins 1931b: 105)

In most varieties of the dialect, however, the definite article is realized as null in the nominative singular and plural before masculine and feminine nouns that begin with a vowel. In the remaining case/number combinations as well as before masculine and feminine nouns beginning with a consonant, and before neuter nouns, the definite article is always overtly realized (Papadopoulos 1933: 17–20, 1955: 10, Oikonomidis 1958: 154–156, Koutita-Kaimaki 1977/1978: 264–266, Tompaidis 1980: 225–227, Henrich 1999: 661–667).6 Consider the examples from the variety of Argyroúpolis in (12) and the forms of the definite article attested in the dialect in Table 2.

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

214 Petros Karatsareas

Table 2. The forms of the definite article in Argyroúpolis Pontic (Oikonomidis 1958: 151–154). SINGULAR

PLURAL

M

F

N

nom

o

i

to

acc

ton

tin

to

gen

ti

ti/tsi

ti

nom

i

i

ta

acc

ti

ti

ta

gen

ti

ti

ti

(12) Argyroúpolis Pontic a. ce Ø ineka epicen amon do ipen Ø andras ats. and woman.F.nom did like what said husband.M.nom her ‘And the woman did what her husband told her.’ (Valavanis 1937: 84) b. istera o "eron e#riksen a. later the.M.nom old.man.M.nom heard it ‘Then the old man heard it.’ (Valavanis 1937: 84) c. teri so celar to cifal c’ i looks in.the.N.acc cellar.N.acc the.N.nom head.N.nom and the.F.nom karðia kh’ in. heart.F.nom neg are ‘She looks in the cellar, and the head and the heart are not there.’ (Valavanis 1937: 85) d. enan imeran atos erotesen ksan tin inekan: “tin one day he asked again the.F.acc woman.F.acc the.F.acc orθian pe me, eʃeten ce to pulin?” ce Ø truth.F.acc say me have and the.N.acc bird.N.acc and ineka ipen: “exum ato”. woman.F.nom said have it ‘One day, he asked the woman again: “Tell me the truth; have you got the bird, too?” And the woman said: “We do”.’ (Valavanis 1937: 84)

The evidence of Pontic varieties such as that of Argyroúpolis shows that the forms of the definite article that are affected by null realization are those consisting of a single vowel: [o] [i]

masculine nominative singular feminine nominative singular and masculine/feminine nominative plural

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 215

It is also clear from the examples in (12) that these are realized as null precisely before another vowel: compare the noun phrases Ø andras-ats and Ø ineca in (12a) with o !eron and i karðia in (12b) and (12c) respectively. Forms of the definite article beginning with a t- plus a vowel such as the remaining masculine and feminine forms and all the neuter forms are not affected (to cifal, tin inekan, to pulin). On the basis of this observation, Papadopoulos (1955: 10) identified hiatus avoidance as the motivation underlying the null realization of the definite article in Pontic, thus essentially treating the phenomenon as the result of a hiatus resolution strategy (see also Koutita-Kaimaki 1977/1978: 264). This explanation initially appears to be in line with Newton’s (1972: 41–52) later generalization that ModGr dialects are known to avoid external hiatus (i.e., the occurrence of two immediately adjacent vowels across a word boundary), as well as with Baltazani’s (2008: 474) finding that external hiatus in ModGr is usually resolved by deleting the first vowel in V1V2 sequences. At the same time, however, Papadopoulos’s account is challenged by a number of observations attesting to the fact that hiatus resolution does not take place across the board in ModGr but is conditioned by certain factors, most notably the vowel sonority hierarchy and morphological opacity (Chatzidakis 1905, Kaisse 1977, Condoravdi 1990, Fallon 1994, Casali 1997). ModGr vowels have been shown to be arranged in terms of the following hierarchy, from most to least sonorant: a > o > u > e > i (Holton, Mackridge & Philippaki-Warburton 1997: 21). If hiatus resolution is to be applied in V1V2 sequences both within and across the word boundary, it will affect (that is, it will delete) the least sonorant vowel of the sequence leaving the most sonorant one intact; for example, Standard ModGr to éðosa > tó Ø’ðosa ‘I gave it’, to ákusa > t’Ø ákusa ‘I heard it’, to ípa > tó Ø’pa ‘I said it’, θa é#rafa > θá Ø’#rafa ‘I would write’, na íθela > ná Ø’θela ‘that I would want’. Crucially, hiatus resolution by means of vowel deletion never applies in sequences involving the monophonemic forms of the definite article (o, i) while it applies only very rarely in the remaining t-initial forms, even if the sonority hierarchy is favorable (Fallon 1994: 219, Holton, Mackridge & Philippaki-Warburton 1997: 21): o anθropos > *Ø anθropos ‘the man’, i anθropi > *Ø anθropi ‘the men’; to álo#o > t’Ø álo#o ‘the horse’, to aftí > t’Ø aftí ‘the ear’ but ta ónira > *ta Ø’nira ‘the dreams’, to éma > *tó Ø’ma ‘the blood’, ta épipla > *tá Ø’pipla ‘the furniture’.7,8 The Pontic data we have seen so far do not conform with these generalizations. As was shown in (12), the monophonemic forms of the definite article do delete before nouns beginning with a vowel in Argyroúpolis. As far as the t-initial forms of the article are concerned, an examination of Oikonomidis’s (1958) grammatical description reveals that the applicability of the sonority hierarchy is not as strong in Pontic as in Standard ModGr and the majority of its dialects, for which Fallon’s, Holton, Mackridge & Philippaki-Warburton’s and the others’ generalizations were © 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

216 Petros Karatsareas

formulated. Across the whole span of Pontic varieties, we find numerous cases of vowel deletion that violate not only the hierarchy but also the morphological opacity constraint that disallows the deletion of morphological material from the definite article forms: to intér > t’Ø intér ‘the intestine’, to emón > t’Ø emón ‘the mine’, to uráð > t’Ø uráð ‘the tail’, ta ímpsa > t’Ø ímpsa ‘the halves’, ta orómata > t’Ø orómata ‘the dreams’, ta émorfa > t’Ø émorfa ‘the beautiful ones’ (see Oikonomidis 1958: 70–77 for more examples). It is therefore clear that hiatus resolution applies differently in Pontic, which may well explain the apparent violation of the generalizations that are generally accepted for the standard and the more ‘mainstream’ ModGr varieties. As for the origins of the innovation, Oikonomidis (1958: 155) hypothesized that it must have first become manifest with masculine and feminine nouns beginning with a phonetic [o] and/or [i], in front of which the homophonous definite article forms were deleted due to their similarity with the word-initial vowels in examples such as (13). (13) Chaldía Pontic Ø okneas epien s’ orman ce t’ orman efortoθen. lazy.M.nom went to.the forest and the forest took.on ‘The lazy one went to the forest and took the forest to his shoulders.’ (Drettas 1997: 112)

According to Newton’s (1972: 43) summary of Chatzidakis’s (1905) discussion of hiatus in ModGr, adjacent identical vowels form the phonetic environment in which resolution is most likely to occur, an observation that lends support to Oikonomidis’s hypothesis. From these contexts, Oikonomidis’s account continues, null realization was extended in most Pontic varieties to all masculine and feminine nouns beginning with any vowel to avoid, or resolve, hiatus in a way that, as was discussed above, distinguishes Pontic from most other ModGr dialects. Interestingly, in the varieties of Áno Amisós and Sinópe, the phenomenon generalized even further to encompass all masculine and feminine nouns irrespective of the quality (vocalic or consonantal) of their initial segment.9 An example of null realization with two nouns beginning with a consonant from Áno Amisós Pontic is given in (14); the forms of the definite article in the variety are given in Table 3. Already, both the table and the example are reminiscent of the Cappadocian data in Table 1 and (8) above, with the only exception that the tripartite gender distinction into masculine, feminine and neuter is still preserved in Pontic. (14) Áno Amisós Pontic a. asa eksi mines isteria erkundane Ø papos tu ce Ø from.the six months later came grandfather.M.nom his and

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 217

neka tu. wife.F.nom his ‘Six months later his grandfather and his wife came.’ (Valavanis 1928: 188) b. atos Ø ondas, ipe Ø kalimana, ani#ari kh’ this.M.nom room.M.nom said grandmother.F.nom key neg eʃi, xaθe. has got.lost ‘This room, said the grandmother, has not key; it got lost.’ (Valavanis 1928: 187) Table 3. The forms of the definite article in Áno Amisós Pontic (Oikonomidis 1958: 151– 154). SINGULAR

PLURAL

M

F

N

nom

Ø

Ø

to

acc

ton

tin

to

gen

ti

tis

ti

nom

Ø

Ø

ta

acc

tus

tus

ta

gen

tu

tu

tu

In accounting for this generalization, Papadopoulos (1955: 157) resorts to the influence of article-less Turkish (see also Papadopoulos 1933: 18–19, Koutita-Kaimaki 1977/1978: 264, Tompaidis 1980: 226). Language contact, however, once again fails to explain the distribution of the null vs. overt realization of the definite article, which, as in Cappadocian, is null only in the masculine and feminine nominative, while it is always overtly realized elsewhere. Oikonomidis (1958: 155–156), on the other hand, considers the generalization to be an instance of analogical extension of the phonologically-conditioned distribution of Pontic varieties such as that of Argyroúpolis, illustrated in (12), while he takes Turkish influence to have played only a secondary role in this development. It is admittedly difficult to identify a motivation for the analogical extension that Áno Amisós and Sinópe Pontic have undergone. While deletion of the monovocalic forms of the definite article in prevocalic environments of the type attested in Argyroúpolis Pontic can be arguably considered to have phonological motivations (hiatus resolution), vowel deletion in preconsonantal environments does not appear to be phonologically justified. One account that could possibly explain the observed development lies with morphologization. Following Anderson (1988) and Joseph & Janda (1988), it can be posited that the phonologically-conditioned alternation between (prevocalic) null and (preconsonantal) overt definite articles © 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

218 Petros Karatsareas

gradually became opaque for speakers or, at least, equally accessible to them by means of a morphological rule that referred to the grammatical features shared by the affected definite article forms, namely non-neuter (masculine or feminine) gender and nominative case. Moving on to Silliot, we find that the dialect represents yet a more advanced stage in the development of null realization. In Silliot, the definite article is realized as null in the nominative singular and plural even before neuter nouns except when prenominally modified, in which case the form t is found. In all other case/ number combinations across the three genders, the article is always overtly realized (Dawkins 1916: 46–47, Costakis 1968: 54–55). The gender-based morphological condition that we find in Áno Amisós and Sinópe Pontic, and Cappadocian has been reanalyzed as a case-based condition. (15) Silliot a. Ø peri me#alusi c’ ister Ø mana tu la"i tu … child.N.nom grew.up and later mother.F.nom its says it ‘The child grew up, and then its mother said to it …’ (Costakis 1968: 120) b. #o ena patiʃaçu t peri ita. I a king’s the.N.nom child.N.nom was ‘I was the son of a king.’ (Dawkins 1916: 290)

It is now clear that the null realization of the definite article is not a phenomenon isolated to Cappadocian. Rather, its occurrence in the dialect is but one of the many reflexes of an innovative development attested widely in the Asia Minor Greek dialects. That these reflexes are found in such distinct dialects as Pontic, Cappadocian and Silliot shows that the origins of null realization go back to a time before these dialects were linguistically separated from one another, that is, at a time when they still constituted a single linguistic entity. In addition, the genetic distance between the three dialects (cf. Figure 4) suggests that the incipient manifestations of the phenomenon must be dated quite early in the history of Asia Minor Greek. They must be traced in the medieval Asia Minor Greek Koiné, the hypothesized linguistic ancestor of all three dialects having undergone the same innovation. Of course, in order to be able to date the early manifestation of the phenomenon more concretely, one would have to examine the few texts that survive from Asia Minor in the period before the 19th century, bearing in mind the philological challenges each text presents (see Section 3.1 above). Unfortunately, a preliminary investigation of the Vazelon Acts, the most extensive text of this corpus, failed to provide firmly conclusive evidence on a possible terminus ante quem for the development of the null realization of the definite article. Prima facie, there are plenty of instances whereby the nominative forms of the definite article, both masculine

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 219

and feminine, do not occur in examples reminiscent of the phenomenon in question: e#o Ø ksaθana i ku!ava eðoka ‘I, Xathana Kujava, gave’ (15.1, ca. 1245, references from Ouspensky & Bénéchevitch 1927), e#o Ø ioanis o kamaçis epolisa ‘I, Ioannis Kamachis, sold’ (21.1, ca. 1260), e#o Ø leon o kurkukas tiθimi ‘I, Leon Kourkoukas, put’ (63.2, ca. 1278), e#o Ø ana i elafinava ‘I, Anna Elafinava’ (65.2, ca. 1302). These, however, seem to involve an opening formula of the type I + name + definite article + surname and cannot therefore be taken to illustrate the early manifestation of null realization. This provisional conclusion is corroborated by cases in which the definite article forms are duly found before nouns beginning with either vowels or consonants: imis i aftaðelfi epiisamen ‘we the brothers made’ (25.4, ca. 1260), o aftaðelfos !eor!ios ‘the brother Georgios (48.10, ca. 1349), ka#o i katafi!i i skularopulos […] paraðiðo ‘I, Katafygi Skoularopoulos, give’ (7.4, ca. 1482), to oper içen i moni apo ton kutzulan ce entellaksen o savas ‘that which the monastery had gotten from Koutzoulas and which Savas exchanged’ (81.3–4, ca. 1397). These last examples, occurring in relatively ‘free’ parts of the text outside of formulaic contexts, would preliminarily suggest that null realization of the definite article had not occurred at the time the texts were written. In any case, the issue requires further research and falls beyond the scope of the present article. Taking into consideration only the differences in the distribution and extent of application of null realization in the various Asia Minor Greek dialects, we can now arrive at the reconstruction of both its origins and its subsequent development. Its phonological origins in homophonous vowel sequences and hiatus avoidance can be reconstructed on the basis of the evidence of Pontic varieties such as that of Argyroúpolis in which null realization has the most limited, phonologically conditioned distribution. Its subsequent evolutionary stages can be sought in Pontic varieties of the Áno Amisós and Sinópe type as well as in Cappadocian, which evidence a reanalysis from the original phonological to a morphological condition. Finally, the most advanced stage of this innovation is found in Silliot, which shows the generalized extension of the Cappadocian morphological condition. The full trajectory of this innovation is summarized as follows: –

STAGE I: All forms of the definite article are overtly realized. o enas ipe to peðin ats […] i ale ipe to peðin ats (Óphis Pontic)

–

CHANGE 1: Definite article forms consisting of a single vowel that are homophonous with the initial vowels of nouns are dropped due to phonetic similarity to resolve hiatus.

–

STAGE II: Phonological conditioning. The nominative singular and plural forms of the masculine and feminine definite article are realized as null before

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

220 Petros Karatsareas

nouns beginning with [o] and/or [i]. Before all other nouns and in all other case/number combinations, the definite article is always overtly realized. (Chaldía Pontic) o okneas epien s’ orman ce t’ orman efortoθen –

CHANGE 2: The phonological condition is extended to include all vowels to resolve hiatus.

–

STAGE III: Phonological conditioning. The nominative singular and plural forms of the masculine and feminine definite article are realized as null before nouns beginning with a vowel. Before all other nouns and in all other case/ number combinations, the definite article is always overtly realized. (Argyroúpolis Pontic) ce i ineka epicen amon do ipen o andras-ats

–

CHANGE 3: The phonological condition is reanalyzed as a morphological, gender-based condition based on the grammatical features that the affected forms of the definite article have in common (non-neuter gender, nominative case).

–

STAGE IV: Morphological conditioning. The nominative forms of the nonneuter definite article are realized as null. Before all other nouns and in all other case/number combinations, the definite article is always overtly realized. asa eksi mines isteria erkundane Ø papos tu ce Ø neka tu (Áno Amisós Pontic) ton te'oʃ Ø lutur!a Ø papas ferisci to nif so #ambro konda (Phloïtá Cappadocian)

–

CHANGE 4: The morphological condition is extended to all genders and is reanalyzed as a case-based condition.

–

STAGE V: Morphological conditioning. The definite article is realized as null in the nominative. In all other case/number combinations, it is always overtly realized. Ø peri me#alusi c’ ister Ø mana tu la!i tu (Silliot)

In conclusion, the null realization of the definite article in Pontic, Cappadocian and Silliot is better accounted for when examined in the dialectological context of Asia Minor Greek. By adopting such an approach, we can account more satisfactorily for the origins and subsequent development of the phenomenon. This approach also helps reassess the role Turkish is presumed to have played in this development, a factor that has been brought forward to explain it as far as all three dialects involved are concerned. In view of the evidence presented here, language contact does not appear to have been a factor relevant to the early manifestations of the null realization of the definite article in Asia Minor Greek, as illustrated by

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 221

the attested Stage II varieties. Of course, Turkish influence must have facilitated the transition from one developmental stage to the other, especially between the most advanced stages IV and V. As Thomason & Kaufman (1988: 222) correctly point out with respect to Silliot, the retention of the accusative forms of the definite article, which are prototypically found in exactly those morphosyntactic contexts where Turkish marks definiteness (i.e. on specific direct objects) cannot be due to chance. Nevertheless, as follows from the analysis of the Pontic data, which represent the earlier stages of the innovation, language contact is highly unlikely to have been the initial trigger for the null realization of the definite article in Asia Minor Greek. 5. Conclusions The major point stemming from the findings presented in this article is that diachronic change in Cappadocian is best understood when examined language internally, that is, within the dialectological context of Asia Minor and in comparison with the other dialects of the Asia Minor Greek group. This is the only perspective that is able to compensate for the lack of early historical records and to open the way for tracing the life of change back in time, for reconstructing the earlier and earliest stages in the development of change and for identifying the linguistic processes and mechanisms that brought it about. It illuminates the aspects and manifestations of change that may have been obscured in the synchronic form in which Cappadocian is known to us. At the same time, this approach does not dismiss language contact with Turkish as a contributing factor in the subsequent development of internally-motivated innovations. In this way, it helps to reassess the language-internal and external dynamics that shaped Cappadocian, as well as in the other dialects of the Asia Minor Greek group, for that matter, in time and space and treats phenomena of language change in a more unified and historically informed way. Having illustrated how this approach can be implemented in accounting for the development of definite articles, the work reported here opens a fresh round of scientific discussion on the historical origins and the diachronic development of many more innovations that are attested in Asia Minor Greek and which are considered by historical linguists and ModGr dialectologists to be untypically Greek or contact-induced or both. On the whole, it is hoped that a significant contribution has been made not only to our knowledge of the history of Cappadocian, which had been hitherto dealt with mainly from a synchronic, language contact perspective, but also to the approach we, as historical linguists, adopt towards apparent cases of contact-induced language change paralleling the one investigated © 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

222 Petros Karatsareas

in detail here. A caveat that the Cappadocian example puts prominently into the picture is that typological, or surface, similarity between two languages that have come in contact with one another may not always be the result of that contact. In certain cases, it may be that surface similarity is the result of independent, unrelated factors or of longer-term processes of change whose origins predate the onset of contact between the languages involved.

Abbreviations 3 acc comp F fut gen

third person accusative complementizer feminine future genitive

M N neg nom pl rel

masculine neuter negation nominative plural relative

Notes * The research reported in this paper was undertaken with the financial support of the Greek State Scholarships Foundation (Ίδρυμα Κρατικών Υποτροφιών — Ι.Κ.Υ.), of the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation, and of the George and Marie Vergottis Fund of the Cambridge European Trust, all of which are hereby gratefully acknowledged. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Director of the Research Centre for Modern Greek Dialects of the Academy of Athens, Dr. Christina Basea-Bezantakou, for granting me access to the Centre’s manuscript archive. Last but not least, I thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable and insightful comments that helped me greatly to improve the first submitted version of this paper. 1. Throughout the article, I provide the names of both the dialect (Cappadocian, Pontic, Silliot) and the respective variety (e.g., Araván Cappadocian, Óphis Pontic etc.) from which each example is drawn. As will be shown below, this is crucial in accounting for the development of definite articles in the various dialects of Asia Minor. 2. Nicht weit von abstander burg, […] wont ein cristen volk, nent man Caramanos, aus dem landt Caramania, an Persia gelegen, seind cristen, haben den krichischen glauben. Vnd ire mes haltten, sy auff krichisch vnd vorstehen doch nicht krichisch. Ir sprach ist turkisch. Nit weiss ich, ab sy anfenglich turkische sprach gehapt haben. 3. The sporadic pronunciation of η as [&] is also found in the Greek dialect of Mariupol in Ukraine, a variety of Pontic descent, and in Bithynian Greek (Manolessou & Pantelidis 2011: 248). 4. According to an alternative hypothesis supported by one anonymous reviewer, the strict enclitic pattern exhibited by Pontic did not develop on the basis of the Medieval Greek clitic

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 223 placement system but has its origins in the Hellenistic and Roman Koiné enclisis pattern. The reviewer, and I, refer the reader to the works cited above for more details on this debated issue. 5. The notations *M, *F and *N are used in the glosses strictly for illustrative and historical reasons. The gender value glossed for each noun refers to the one it had before gender distinctions were lost from Cappadocian. Glossing is based on the gender of cognate nouns in other ModGr dialects. In the case of nouns that lack cognates, inflection provides the evidence for glossing. 6. Deletion of the nominative singular forms of the masculine definite article before nouns beginning with a vowel is also attested in Cretan Greek, an unrelated dialect, from the early 17th century. I thank one anonymous reviewer for bringing this to my attention. 7. I thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments that helped me greatly improve this part of the article. 8. As one anonymous reviewer notes, the non-application of vowel deletion in the former case relates to van Oostendorp’s (2005) Realise Morpheme constraint, according to which for every morpheme in the input, some phonological element should be present in the output (see also Akinlabi 1996, Kurisu 2001, Trommer 2008). 9. The nominative singular forms of the masculine and feminine definite articles are usually omitted also in the Greek dialects of North Euboea and Northeastern Thrace (Papadopoulos 1926: 51). Whether there is a relation between Asia Minor Greek and the Thracian dialects in terms of this phenomenon is an issue open for discussion.

References Akinlabi, Akinbiyi. 1996. Featural Affixation. Journal of Linguistics 32:2.239–289. Anagnostopoulos, Georgios P. 1922. Peri tou arthrou [On the Definite Article]. Athina 34.166– 247. Anastasiadis, Vasileios K. 1975. Istoria kai glossa tis kappadokias kai to glossiko idioma ton Farason [History and Language of Cappadocian and the Dialect of Phárasa]. Mikrasiatika Chronika 16.150–184. Anastasiadis, Vasileios K. 1976. I Syntaksi sto Farasiotiko Idioma tis Kappadokias se Sygkrisi pros ta Ypoloipa Idiomata tis Mikras Asias, kathos kai pros tin Archaia, ti Mesaioniki kai ti Nea Elliniki Glossa [The Syntax of the Pharasiot Dialect of Cappadocia Compared with the Other Dialects of Asia Minor as well as with the Ancient, Medieval and Modern Greek Language]. Ms., Thessaloniki. Anastasiadis, Vasileios K. 1995. Merikes omoiotites tis Pontiakis dialektou me Neoellinika Mikrasiatika glossika idiomata [Some Similarities of the Pontic Dialect with Asia Minor Greek Dialects]. Archeion Pontou 46.73–124. Anderson, Stephen R. 1988. Morphological Change. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey: Volume 1, Linguistic Theory: Foundations ed. by Frederick J. Newmeyer, 324–362. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Andriotis, Nikolaos P. 1948. To Glossiko Idioma ton Farason (Le dialecte de Farassa). Athens: Ikaros.

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

224 Petros Karatsareas Andriotis, Nikolaos P. 1995. Istoria tis Ellinikis Glossas (Tesseris Meletes) [History of the Greek Language: Four Studies]. Thessaloniki: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis — Institouto Neoellinikon Spoudon [Idryma Manoli Triantafyllidi]. Arapopoulou, Maria. 2001. Dialektikoi thylakoi tis ellinikis [Greek Dialect Enclaves]. Egkyklopaidikos Odigos gia ti Glossa [Encyclopedic Guide for Language] ed. by AnastasiosFoivos Christidis, 175–179. Thessaloniki: Kentro Ellinikis Glossas. Augustinos, Gerasimos. 1992. The Greeks of Asia Minor: Confession, Community, and Ethnicity in the Nineteenth Century. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Babinger, Franz. 1923. Hans Dernschwam’s Tagebuch einer Reise nach Konstantinopel und Kleinasien (1553/55). Munich: Duncker & Humblot. Baltazani, Mary. 2008. Focusing, Prosodic Phrasing, and Hiatus Resolution in Greek. Laboratory Phonology 8 ed. by Luis Goldstein, Douglas Whalen & Catherine Best, 473–494. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brixhe, Claude. 1987. Essai sur le Grec Anatolien au Début de Notre Ère. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy. Browning, Robert. 1983. Medieval and Modern Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bubenik, Vit. 1989. Hellenistic and Roman Greece as a Sociolinguistic Area. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Burguière, Paul & Robert Mantran. 1952. Quelques vers grecs du XIIIe siècle en caractères arabes. Byzantion 22.63–80. Campbell, Lyle. 1998. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Campbell, Lyle & William J. Poser. 2008. Language Classification: History and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Casali, Roderic F. 1997. Vowel Elision in Hiatus Contexts: Which Vowel Goes? Language 73:3.493–533. Chatzidakis, Georgios. 1905. Peri fthoggologikon nomon kai tis simasias auton eis tin spoudin tis neas ellinikis [Sound Laws and their Importance in the Study of Modern Greek]. Mesaionika kai Nea Ellinika A’ [Medieval and Modern Greek A’] ed. by Georgios Chatzidakis, 154–201. Athens: P.D. Sakellarios. Chatzikyriakidis, Stergios. 2010. Clitics in Four Dialects of Modern Greek: A Dynamic Account. London: University of London, King’s College PhD dissertation. Condoravdi, Cleo. 1990. Sandhi Rules of Greek and Prosodic Theory. The Phonology–Syntax Connection ed. by Sharon Inkelas & Draga Zec, 63–84. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Condoravdi, Cleo & Paul Kiparsky. 2001. Clitics and Clause Structure. Journal of Greek Linguistics 2.1–40. Condoravdi, Cleo & Paul Kiparksy. 2004. Clitics and Clause Structure: The Late Medieval Greek System. Journal of Greek Linguistics 5.159–183. Costakis, Thanasis P. 1964. Le parler grec d’Anakou. Athens: Centre for Asia Minor Studies. Costakis, Thanasis P. 1968. To Glossiko Idioma tis Sillis [The Dialect of Silli]. Athens: Centre for Asia Minor Studies. Dawkins, Richard M. 1910. Modern Greek in Asia Minor. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 30.109–132, 267–291. Dawkins, Richard M. 1916. Modern Greek in Asia Minor: A Study of the Dialects of Sílli, Cappadocia and Phárasa with Grammar, Texts, Translations and Glossary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 225 Dawkins, Richard M. 1931a. Notes on the Study of the Modern Greek of Pontos. Byzantion 6.389–400. Dawkins, Richard M. 1931b. Paramythia Sourmenon kai Opheos [Fairy Tales from Soúrmena and Óphis]. Archeion Pontou 3.105–107. Dawkins, Richard M. 1937. The Pontic Dialect of Modern Greek in Asia Minor and Russia. Transactions of the Philological Society 36.15–52. Dawkins, Richard M. 1940. The Dialects of Modern Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society 39.1–38. Dedes, Dimitris. 1993. Ta ellinika poiimata tou Mavlana Roumi kai tou giou tou Valent kata ton 13on aiona [The Greek Poems of Mevlana Rumi and of His Son Walad in the 13th Century]. Ta Istorika 10:18–19.3–22. Drettas, Georges. 1997. Aspects pontiques. Paris: Association de recherches pluridisciplinaires. Drettas, Georges. 1999. To ellino-pontiako dialektiko synolo [The Pontic Greek Dialect Group]. Dialektikoi Thylakoi tis Ellinikis Glossas/Dialect Enclaves of the Greek Language ed. by Anastasios-Foivos Christidis, Maria Arapopoulou & Giannoula Giannoulopoulou, 15–24. Athens: Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs/Centre for the Greek Language. Fallon, Paul. 1994. Naturally Occurring Hiatus in Modern Greek. In Irene Philippaki-Warburton, Katerina Nicolaidis & Maria Sifianou, eds., 217–224. Fosteris, Dimitrios & Ioannis I. Kesisoglou. 1960. Leksilogio tou Aravani (Vocabulaire d’Aravani). Athens: Institut Français d’Athènes. Henrich, Günther S. 1999. Grammatika ton krimaioazophikon i tauroroumaiikon dialekton [Grammatical features of the crimaeoazovic or taurorumeic dialects]. O Ellinikos Kosmos anamesa stin Anatoli kai ti Dysi. Praktika tou A’ Europaikou Synedriou Neoellinikon Spoudon. Verolino, 2–4 Oktovriou 1998. Tomos A’ [The Greek World Between East and West. Proceedings of the First European Conference of Modern Greek Studies. Berlin, 2–4 October 1998. Volume 1] ed. by Asterios Argyriou, Konstantinos A. Dimadis & Anastasia Danai Lazaridou, 661–670. Athens: Ellinika Grammata. Holton, David, Peter Mackridge & Irene Philippaki-Warburton. 1997. Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London: Routledge. Holton, David & Io Manolessou. 2010. Medieval and Early Modern Greek. A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language ed. by Egbert J. Bakker, 539–563. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Horrocks, Geoffrey. 2010. Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers. Oxford: WileyBlackwell. Janse, Mark. 1994. Son of Wackernagel: The Distribution of Object Clitic Pronouns in Cappadocian. In Irene Philippaki-Warburton, Katerina Nicolaidis & Mary Sifianou, eds., 435–442. Janse, Mark. 2002. Aspects of Bilingualism in the History of the Greek Language. Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text ed. by James Noel Adams, Mark Janse & Simon Swain, 332–390. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Janse, Mark. 2004. Animacy, Definiteness, and Case in Cappadocian and Other Asia Minor Greek Dialects. Journal of Greek Linguistics 5.3–26. Janse, Mark, Brian D. Joseph & Angela Ralli, eds. 2006. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory. Patras: University of Patras. Janse, Mark. 2007. De Cappadociërs en hun talen. Tetradio 16.57–78. Janse, Mark. 2008a. Clitic Doubling from Ancient to Asia Minor Greek. Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages ed. by Dalina Kallulli & Liliane Tasmowski, 165–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

226 Petros Karatsareas Janse, Mark. 2008b. Grieks lichaam, Turkse ziel: Multiculturele symbiose in Cappadocië en de Cappadocische diaspora. Us and Them: Essays over Filosofie, Politiek, Religie en Cultuur van de Antieke Oudheid tot Islam in Europa ter ere van Herman de Ley ed. by Danny Praet, 107–137. Ghent: Academia Press. Janse, Mark. 2009. Greek–Turkish Language Contact in Asia Minor. Études Helléniques/Hellenic Studies 17:1.37–54. Joseph, Brian D. & Richard D. Janda. 1988. The How and Why of Diachronic Morphologization and Demorphologization. Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics ed. by Michael Hammond & Michael Noonan, 193–210. San Diego: Academic Press. Kaisse, Ellen. 1977. Hiatus in Modern Greek. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PhD dissertation. Kapsomenos, Stylianos G. 2003 [1985]. Apo tin Istoria tis Ellinikis Glossas: I Elliniki Glossa apo ta Ellinistika os ta Neotera Chronia. I Elliniki Glossa stin Aigypto [From the History of the Greek Language: The Greek Language from the Hellenistic until the Modern Times. The Greek Language in Egypt]. Thessaloniki: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis — Institouto Neoellinikon Spoudon [Idryma Manoli Triantafyllidi]. Karatsareas, Petros. 2009. The Loss of Grammatical Gender in Cappadocian Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society 107:2.196–230. Karatsareas, Petros. 2011. A Study of Cappadocian Greek Nominal Morphology from a Diachronic and Dialectological Perspective. Cambridge: University of Cambridge PhD dissertation. Available at http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/240609. Karatsareas, Petros. 2013. On the Diachrony of Gender Agreement in Asia Minor Greek: The Development of Semantic Agreement in Pontic. Language Sciences. Available at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.10.005. King, Ruth. 2000. The Lexical Basis of Grammatical Borrowing: A Prince Edward Island French Case Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. King, Ruth. 2005. Crossing Grammatical Borders: Tracing the Path of Contact-Induced Linguistic Change. Dialects Across Borders: Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on Methods in Dialectology (Methods XI). Joensuu, August 2002 ed. by Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola, Marjatta Palander & Esa Pentillä, 233–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kontossopoulos, Nikolaos. 1981. Dialektoi kai Idiomata tis Neas Ellinikis [Dialects and Varieties of Modern Greek]. Athens: Grigoris. Koutita-Kaimaki, Myrto. 1977/1978. I onomastiki se -n ton arsenikon onomaton tis Pontiakis [The Nominative in -n of Masculine Nouns in Pontic]. Archeion Pontou 34.259–298. Kurisu, Kazutaka. 2001. The Phonology of Morpheme Realization. Santa Cruz: University of California PhD dissertation. Lamprou, Spyridon P. 1916. Trapezountiakon oroskopion tou etous 1336 [A Trebizond Almanac from the Year 1336]. Neos Ellinomnimon 13.33–50. Lampsidis, Odysseas. 1952. Glossika sxolia eis mesaionika keimena tou Pontou [Linguistic Comments on Medieval Texts from Pontus]. Archeion Pontou 17.227–238. Lianidis, Simos. 2007 [1962]. Ta Paramythia tou Pontiakou Laou [The Fairy Tales of the Pontic People]. Athens: Epitropi Pontiakon Meleton. Lyons, John. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manolessou, Io. 2000. Greek Noun Phrase Structure: A Study in Syntactic Evolution. Cambridge: University of Cambridge PhD dissertation.

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 227 Manolessou, Io. 2003. Oi anaphorikes protaseis tis ellinikis: Diachroniki proseggisi [Greek relative clauses: a diachronic approach]. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Greek Linguistics, Rethymno, 18–21 September 2003 ed. by Georgia Katsimali, Alexis Kalokairinos, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Ioanna Kappa. Available at http://www.philology. uoc.gr/conferences/6thICGL/ebook/h/manolessou.pdf. Manolessou, Io & Nikolaos Pantelidis. 2011. To archaio elliniko /&(/ stin Pontiaki [Ancient Greek /&(/ in Pontic]. Neoelliniki Dialektologia 6.245–271. Markopoulos, Theodore. 2009. The Future in Greek: From Ancient to Medieval. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel. 2007. Investigating the Mechanisms of Pattern Replication in Language Convergence. Studies in Language 31:4.829–865. Mavrochalyvidis, Georgios & Ioannis I. Kesisoglou. 1960. To Glossiko Idioma tis Aksou (Le dialecte d’Axos). Athens: Institut Français d’Athènes. Mertzios, Constantinos D. 1958. Quelques vers grecs du XIIIe siècle en caractères arabes. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 51:1.15–16. Meyer, Gustav. 1895. Die griechischen Verse im Rabâbnâma. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 4:3.401– 411. Newton, Brian, 1972. The Generative Interpretation of Dialect: A Study of Modern Greek Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oikonomidis, Dimosthenis I. 1958. Grammatiki tis Ellinikis Dialektou tou Pontou. [Grammar of the Greek Dialect of Pontus]. Athens: Akadimia Athinon. Oostendorp, Marc van. 2005. Expressing Inflection Tonally. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 4.107–126. Ouspensky, Fedor Ivanovitch & Vladimir Bénéchevitch. 1927. Actes de Vazelon: Materiaux pour Servir a l’Histoire de la Propriété Rurale et Monastique à Byzance aux XIII–XV Siècles. Leningrad: Izdanije Gosudarstvennoj Publicnoj Biblioteki. Papadopoulos, Anthimos A. 1926. Grammatiki ton Voreion Idiomaton tis Neas Ellinikis [Grammar of the Northern Dialects of Modern Greek]. Athens: P. D. Sakellarios. Papadopoulos, Anthimos A. 1933. Symboli eis tin ereunan tis Pontikis dialektou (itoi grammatika kai syntaktika zitimata). [Contribution to the Study of the Pontic Dialect: Grammatical and Syntactic Matters)]. Athina 45.15–48. Papadopoulos, Anthimos A. 1955. Istoriki Grammatiki tis Pontikes Dialektou [Historical Grammar of the Pontic Dialect]. Athens: Epitropi Pontiakon Meleton. Papadopoulos, Anthimos A. 1998 [1919]. O Ypodoulos Ellinismos tis Asiatikis Ellados Ethnikos kai Glossikos Eksetazomenos [The Enslaved Hellenism of Asian Greece Nationally and Linguistically Examined]. Athens: Syllogos Pros Diadosin Ofelimon Vivlion. Pappas, Panayiotis. 2004a. Variation and Morphosyntactic Change in Greek: From Clitics to Affixes. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Pappas, Panayiotis. 2004b. Medieval Greek Weak Object Pronouns and Analogical Change: A Response to Condoravdi & Kiparsky (2001). Journal of Greek Linguistics 5.127–158. Pappas, Panayiotis. 2006. Object Clitic Pronouns in the Dialects of Medieval Greek. In Mark Janse, Brian D. Joseph & Angela Ralli, eds., 314–328. Philippaki-Warburton, Irene, Katerina Nicolaidis & Mary Sifianou, eds. 1994. Themes in Greek Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Poplack, Shana & Stephen Levey. 2010. Contact-Induced Grammatical Change: A Cautionary Tale. Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation. Volume 1:

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

228 Petros Karatsareas Theories and Methods ed. by Peter Auer & Jürgen Erich Schmidt, 391–419. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Revithiadou, Anthi. 2006. Prosodic Filters on Syntax: An Interface Account of Second Position Clitics. Lingua 116:2.79–111. Revithiadou, Anthi. 2008. A Cross-Dialectal Study of Cliticization in Greek. Lingua 118:9.1393– 1415. Revithiadou, Anthi & Vassilios Spyropoulos. 2007. A Typology of Greek Clitics with Special Reference to their Diachronic Development. Ms., University of the Aegean. Available at http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000496. Revithiadou, Anthi & Vassilios Spyropoulos. 2008. Greek Object Clitic Pronouns: A Typological Survey of their Grammatical Properties. STUF — Language Typology and Universals 61:1.39–53. Sakel, Jeanette. 2007. Types of Loan: Matter and Pattern. Grammatical Borrowing in CrossLinguistic Perspective ed. by Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel, 15–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Spyropoulos, Vassilios & Maria-Anna Tiliopoulou. 2006. Definiteness and Case in Cappadocian Greek. In Mark Janse, Brian D. Joseph & Angela Ralli, eds., 365–378. Thomason, Sarah Grey. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Thumb, Albert. 1901. Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Beurteilung der Κοινή. Strassburg: K. J. Trübner. Thumb, Albert. 1906. Prinzipienfragen der Koine-Forschung. Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche Litteratur und für Pädagogik 9.246–263. Thumb, Albert. 1914. On the Value of Modern Greek for the Study of Ancient Greek. The Classical Quarterly 8.181–205. Tompaidis, Dimitrios. 1980. Symboli stin ereuna tou onomatikou synolou tis Pontiakis [Contribution to the Study of the Noun Phrase of Pontic]. Archeion Pontou 36.220–237. Triantafyllidis, Manolis. 2002 [1938]. Neoelliniki Grammatiki. Protos Tomos: Istoriki Eisagogi [Modern Greek Grammar. Volume 1: Historical Introduction]. Thessaloniki: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis — Institouto Neoellinikon Spoudon [Idryma Manoli Triantafyllidi]. Trommer, Jochen. 2008. Multiple-Feature Mutation and Realize Morpheme. Varieties of Competition ed. by Fabian Heck, Gereon Müller & Jochen Trommer, 163–182. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik, Universität Leipzig. Valavanis, Ioannis. 1928. Paramythia [Fairy Tales]. Archeion Pontou 1.185–206. Valavanis, Ioannis. 1937. Paramythia [Fairy Tales]. Archeion Pontou 7.83–124. Vagiakakos, Dikeos V. 1964. Dialektika ek tou mesaionikou Pontou [Dialect Features from Medieval Pontus]. Archeion Pontou 26.267–289. Vryonis, Speros Jr. 1971. The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press. Winford, Donald. 2003. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Winford, Donald. 2005. Contact-Induced Changes: Classification and Processes. Diachronica 22.373–427.

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek 229

Appendix. Textual sources The two textual sources used in this article are found in the Manuscript Archive of the Research Centre for Modern Greek Dialects (I.L.N.E.) of the Academy of Athens. I.L.N.E., which has been used in the abbreviations of the two manuscripts, stands for Istoriko Lexiko tis Neas Ellinikis (Historical Dictionary of Modern Greek). ILNE ms. 811: Tsitsopoulos, Eleftherios. 1962. Syllogi glossikou kai laographikou ylikou ek tou choriou Flogita Chalkidikis (prosfygon tou omonymou choriou Kappadokias). [Collection of linguistic and folk material from the village of Flogita of the Chalkidiki Prefecture (refugees from the Cappadocian village of the same name)]. ILNE ms. 826: Costakis, Athanasios. 1963. Glossiko yliko apo to Misti Kappadokias (apo prosfyges sto chorio Thomai (:Mandra) Larissis). [Linguistic material from the village of Misti of Cappadocia (from refugees in the village of Thomai: Mandra of the Larissa Prefecture)].

Author’s address Bristol Centre for Linguistics University of the West of England Frenchay Campus Coldharbour Lane Bristol BS16 1QY United Kingdom [email protected]

© 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved