Clitics in Grecia Salentina Greek: A dynamic account

Chatzikyriakidis, Stergios

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.003

Cited by 14 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As is well-known, the generalization is that in Standard Greek proclisis (clitic placement in the immediately preverbal position) depends on the finiteness of the verb form, hence gerunds and imperatives trigger enclisis; Cypriot Greek displays clitic-second/ Wackernagel or, alternatively, Tobler-Mussafia effects (Horrocks, 1990;Terzi, 1999;Agouraki, 2001;Condoravdi and Kiparsky, 2002;Pappas, 2004Pappas, , 2014Revithiadou, 2006Revithiadou, , 2008Tsiplakou, 2006;Chatzikyriakidis, 2010Chatzikyriakidis, , 2012Mavrogiorgos, 2010Mavrogiorgos, , 2013Grohmann, 2011;Neokleous, 2015;Grohmann et al, 2017 among others). As with the other variants, while the Cypriot structure, enclisis, was the preferred option, the standard-like strategy of proclisis without a triggering element in C or below, i.e., exceptional clitic placement, was certainly present in that extensive sample of Cypriot Greek oral production.…”

Section: Quantitative Data Convergence To Standard Greek Does Not Affmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imperfect Acquisition of a Related Variety? Residual Clefting and What It Reveals about (Gradient) Bilectalism

Tsiplakou

2017

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the concept of gradient bilectalism by capitalizing on insights from recent developments in second language acquisition, particularly the suggestion that aspects of the syntax-discourse interface that are not easily accessible to the learner may lead to fossilization, even at end state. I explore the implications of this suggestion for bilectal grammars by examining the ways in which speakers of Cypriot Greek do syntactic focusing in Standard Greek. The phenomenon is structurally different in the two varieties of Greek examined: clefting is the Cypriot syntactic focusing strategy par excellence while in Standard Greek the relevant strategy is movement of the focused item to an immediately preverbal position. Interestingly, this focusing strategy is largely unattested in the acrolectal or standard-like production of bilectal Greek Cypriot speakers; on the contrary, the preferred strategy for syntactic focusing appears to be clefting, as is indicated by data from spontaneous speech. Quantitative data from a questionnaire survey presented in this article confirm that such "residual clefting" persists even at end state, which in turn suggests imperfect acquisition of the relevant structural aspect of Standard Greek, the second variety of these otherwise bilectal speakers. The data invite an approach couched within the Interface Hypothesis, and the argument is put forward that, being a structure at the interface between syntax and other modules or cognitive domains (semantics, pragmatics, and discourse), focusing in the target variety is vulnerable as regards acquisition.

show abstract

Section: Quantitative Data Convergence To Standard Greek Does Not Affmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imperfect Acquisition of a Related Variety? Residual Clefting and What It Reveals about (Gradient) Bilectalism

Tsiplakou

2017

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the motivation for V movement in Terzi (1999a,b) and Agouraki (2001), or the existence of two NegPs in Agouraki (2001). These approaches are discussed in detail in Revithiadou (2006), Chatzikyriakidis (2010) and Pappas (2010), showing the problems associated with these accounts in full detail and as such will not be reviewed here again. The interested reader is directed to Revithiadou (2006), Chatzikyriakidis (2010) and Pappas (2010) for more details on these approaches.…”

Section: Existing Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 The formal details of the information on the situation argument node shall not bother us here. However, the interested reader is directed to Cann (2011) and Chatzikyriakidis (2010Chatzikyriakidis ( , 2011 for a detailed explanation.…”

Section: Ty(e) Fo(gianis )mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These concern subordinating conjunctions and complementizers that freely allow proclisis and enclisis without any interpretational difference whatsoever. The first such element is the non-factive complementizer oti, which was firstly reported to trigger both proclisis and enclisis in Revithiadou (2006) Pappas (2010) as well as Chatzikyriakidis (2010) independently reported that variation is also possible with subordinates of cause epidi and giati 'why', with Pappas further identifying variation with afu 'given that' as well: …”

Section: Introducing the Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A dynamic account of clitic positioning in Cypriot Greek

Chatzikyriakidis¹

2012

Lingua

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…(Grohmann, 2014a, p. 4) CG and SMG differ most obviously in their phonetics, (morpho)phonology, and lexicon (e.g., Newton, 1972;Theodorou, 2007;Arvaniti, 2010). As for morphosyntax, there are also a large number of differences, but it is clitic placement that has arguably drawn the greatest attention (e.g., Agouraki, 1997Agouraki, , 2001Terzi, 1999a,b;Revithiadou, 2006;Revithiadou and Spyropoulos, 2008;Chatzikyriakidis, 2010Chatzikyriakidis, , 2012Pappas, 2012Pappas, , 2014. The following provides a brief overview of clitic placement in the two varieties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acquiring Clitic Placement in Bilectal Settings: Interactions between Social Factors

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the development of object clitic placement by children acquiring Cypriot Greek. Greek-speaking Cyprus is sociolinguistically characterized by diglossia between two varieties of Greek, the local Cypriot Greek and the official Standard Modern Greek. Arguably as a result of this situation, clitics may be placed postverbally (enclisis) or preverbally (proclisis) in the same syntactic environment; while the former is a property of Cypriot Greek and the latter is typically considered an effect of the standard language. The following issues are investigated here: (a) how such bilectal speakers distinguish between the two Greek varieties with respect to clitic placement; (b) how the acquisition of clitics develops over time; (c) how, and which, sociolinguistic factors determine clitic placement; and (d) how schooling may affect clitic placement. To address (a)-(d), a sentence completion task was used to elicit clitic productions, administered to 431 children around Cyprus ranging from 2 years 8 months to 8 years 11 months. The C5.0 machine-learning algorithm was employed to model the interaction of (socio-)linguistic factors on the development of clitic placement. The model shows that speakers acquire the relevant features very early, yet compartmentalization of form and function according to style emerges only as they engage in the larger speech community. In addition, the effects of sociolinguistic factors on clitic placement appear gradually.

show abstract

Clitics in Grecia Salentina Greek: A dynamic account

Cited by 14 publications

References 36 publications

Imperfect Acquisition of a Related Variety? Residual Clefting and What It Reveals about (Gradient) Bilectalism

Imperfect Acquisition of a Related Variety? Residual Clefting and What It Reveals about (Gradient) Bilectalism

A dynamic account of clitic positioning in Cypriot Greek

Acquiring Clitic Placement in Bilectal Settings: Interactions between Social Factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About