Criteria for subjecthood and non-canonical subjects in Classical
Greek
The dative-marked argument of the verb
dokéō ‘seem’ in Classical Greek displays
syntactic, semantic and pragmatic properties that qualify it as a
non-canonical subject. To substantiate this claim, three phenomena
are analyzed, all involving coreference resolution across clause
boundaries: long-distance reflexivization, interclausal coreference,
and case mismatch in participial constructions. For the latter
phenomenon, the observed mismatch between case marking and
referential properties is captured by positing the same coreference
mechanism for finite clauses and for a class of participial
constructions that qualify as a full clausal domain.
Article outline
- 1.Non-canonical subjects in Classical Greek
- 2.A case study: The dative argument of dokéō
- 3.Reflexivization
- 4.Interclausal coreference with finite clauses
- 5.Interclausal coreference with participial clauses
- 6.Conclusions
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
Abbreviations
-
References
References (56)
References
Andrews, A. (1976). The
VP complement analysis in Modern
Icelandic. Proceedings of the
North Eastern Linguistic
Society, 6, 1–21.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ariel, M. (1988). Referring
and accessibility. Journal of
Linguistics 24(1), 65–87. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility
theory. An
overview. In T. J. M. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, W. Spooren (Eds.), Text
Representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic
aspects (pp. 29–87). Amsterdam: Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, J. & Smitherman, Th. (2013). The
Quest for Cognates: A Reconstruction of Oblique Subject
Constructions in
Proto-Indo-European. Language
Dynamics and
Change, 3(1), 28–67.. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, J., Smitherman, Th., Bjarnadóttir, V., Danesi, S., Jenset, G. B., McGillivray & B. (2012). Reconstructing
constructional semantics. The dative subject construction in
Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and
Old Lithuanian. Studies in
Language, 36(3), 511–547. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bary, C. & Haug, D. T. T. (2011). Temporal
anaphora across and inside sentences: The function of
participles. Semantics and
Pragmatics, 4, 1–56. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Buijs, M. (2013). Participle. In G. K. Giannakis (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of Ancient Greek Language and
Linguistics, Leiden: Brill.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Conti, L. (2008). Synchronie
und Diachronie des altgriechischen Genitivs als
Semisubjekt. Historische
Sprachforschung, 121, 94–113.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Conti, L. (2009). Weiteres
zum Genitiv als Semisubjekt im Altgriechischen: Analyse des
Kasus bei impersonalen
Konstruktionen. Historische
Sprachforschung, 122, 182–207.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cooper, G. L. (1988). Attic
Greek Prose
Syntax. 2 Volumes. After K. W. Krüger. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Crespo, E., Conti, L., Maquieira, H. (2003). Sintaxis
del Griego
Clásico. Madrid: Gredos.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W. (1990). Typology
and
Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dahl, E. & Fedriani, C. (2012). The
argument structure of experience: experiential constructions
in Early Vedic, Homeric Greek and Early
Latin. Transactions of the
Philological
Society, 110(3), 342–362. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Danesi, D., Johnson, C. A. & Barðdal, J. (2018). Where
Does the Modality of Ancient Greek Modal Verbs Come From?
The Relation between Modality and Oblique Case
Marking. Journal of Greek
Linguistics 18, 45–92. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dimitriadis, A. (1996). When
Pro-Drop Languages Don’t. Overt Pronominal Subjects and
Pragmatic
Inference. In L. Dobrin, K. Singer & L. McNair (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 32nd Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics
Society (pp. 33–47).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dryer, M. S. (1997). Are
grammatical relations
universal? In J. L. Bybee, J. Haiman, S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays
on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T.
Givón (pp. 115–143). Amsterdam: Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eythórsson, Th. & Barðdal, J. (2005). Oblique
subjects: a common Germanic
inheritance. Language 81, 824–881. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fedriani, C. (2009). The
“Behaviour-Before-Coding” Principle: Further Evidence from
Latin. Archivio Glottologico
Italiano 94(2), 156–184.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fedriani, C. (2014). Experiential
Constructions in
Latin. Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Frascarelli, M. (2007). Subjects,
topics and the interpretation of referential
pro: An interface approach to the
linking of (null)
pronouns. Natural Language
and Linguistic
Theory 25(4), 691–734. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldstein, D. (2016). Classical
Greek Syntax. Wackernagel’s Law in
Herodotus. Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haug, D. T. T. (2010). PROIEL
Guidelines for
Annotation. Ms., University of Oslo, [URL]
Haug, D. T. T. (2017). Backward
control in Ancient Greek and Latin participial
adjuncts. Natural Language
and Linguistic
Theory 35(1), 99–159. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hock, H. H. (1990). Oblique
subjects in
Sanskrit? In M. K. Verma & K. P. Mohanan (Eds.), Experiencer
Subjects in South Asian
Languages (pp. 119–139). Stanford: CSLI Publication.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Humbert, J. (1960). Syntaxe
grecque. 3rd.
ed. Paris: Klincksieck.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jøhndal, M. L. (2012). Non-finiteness
in Latin. PhD
Dissertation, Cambridge University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Keenan, E. L. (1976). Towards
a universal definition of “Subject
of”. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject
and
Topic (pp. 303–333). New York: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Keydana, G. (1997). Absolute
Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen
Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kiparsky, P. (2012). Greek
Anaphora in Cross-Linguistic
Perspective. Journal of Greek
Linguistics, 12, 84–117. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Klaiman, M. H. (1980). Bengali
Dative
Subjects. Lingua 51(4), 275–295. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kühner, R. & Gerth, B. (1898;
1904). Ausführliche Grammatik der
Griechischen
Sprache3
, II-1; II–2. Hannover/Leipzig: Hannsche Buchhandlung.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Le Mair, E., Johnson, C. A., Frotscher, M., Eythórsson, Th. & Barðdal, J. (2017). Position
as a behavioral property of subjects. The case of Old
Irish. Indogermanische
Forschungen 122(1), 111–142. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lühr, R. (2011). Zur
Validität linguistischer Theorien in der
Indogermanistik. In Th. Krisch, Th. Lindner (Eds.), Indogermanistik
und Linguistik im Dialog. Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der
Indogermanischen
Gesellschaft (pp. 321–330). Wiesbaden: Reichert.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Luraghi, S. (2010). Experiencer
predicates in
Hittite. In R. I. Kim, E. Riecken, N. Oettinger & M. J. Weiss (Eds.), Ex
Anatolia
lux (pp. 249–264). Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Masica, C. P. (1976). Defining
a Linguistic Area. South
Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nikolaeva, I. (2007) (Ed.). Finiteness.
Theoretical and Empirical
Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Peels, S. (2007). ἑωυτόν
as a long-distance anaphor in Herodotus’
histories. Master
Thesis, Leiden University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Petit, D. (1999). *Su̯e-
en grec ancien : la famille du pronom réfléchi. Linguistique
grecque et comparaison
indo-européenne. Louvain: Peeters.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pieroni, S. (2007). Soggetto
e
riflessivo. In N. La Fauci & S. Pieroni (Eds.), Morfosintassi
latina. Punti di
vista (pp. 27–39). Pisa: ETS.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Powell, J. E. (1933). Studies
on the Greek reflexive –
Herodotus. The Classical
Quarterly 27, 208–221. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Powell, J. E. (1934). Studies
on the Greek Reflexive –
Thucydides. The Classical
Quarterly 28, 159–174. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sevdali, Ch. (2013). Case
transmission beyond control and the role of
Person. Journal of Historical
Syntax, 24, 1–52.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Siewierska, A. (2004). Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Torregrossa, J., Bongartz, C. & Tsimpli, I. (2015). Testing
accessibility: A cross-linguistic comparison of the syntax
of referring
expressions. Extended
abstract for
the
Proceedings of
the 89th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of
America
, [URL]
Tronci, L. (2012). Sur
le réfléchi en grec ancien: notes
préliminaires. In Dupraz, E. (Ed.), Anaphore
et anaphoriques: variété des langues, variété des
emplois (pp. 151–166). Mont-Saint-Aignan: Publications des Universités de Rouen et du Havre.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tsimpli, I. M., Sorace, A., Heycock, C. & Filiaci, F. (2004). First
language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek
and Italian near-native speakers of
English. International
Journal of
Bilingualism, 8, 257–277. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verbeke, S., Kulikov, L. & Willems, K. (2015). Oblique
case-marking in Indo-Aryan experiencer constructions:
historical roots and synchronic
variation. Lingua 163, 23–39. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Benedetti, Marina & Chiara Gianollo
2023.
Morphosyntactic Contact in Translation: Greek ídios and Latin proprius in the Bible.
Transactions of the Philological Society 121:3
► pp. 404 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix
2023.
Support‐Verb Constructions with Objects: Greek‐Coptic Interference in the Documentary Papyri?1.
Transactions of the Philological Society 121:3
► pp. 382 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.