Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2017: Selected papers from the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 31 July – 4 August 2017
Edited by Bridget Drinka
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 350] 2020
► pp. 29–48

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.
Keywords: Classical Greek, non-canonical subjects, participles, coreference, case mismatch
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
Published online: 9 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.350.02ben
References (56)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y., Dixon, R. M. V. & Onishi, M. (2001). (Eds.), Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrews, A. (1976). The VP complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 6, 1–21.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24(1), 65–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2000). Oblique subjects in Old Scandinavian. NOWELE 37, 25–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. & Eythórsson, Th. (2009). The origin of the oblique subject construction: an Indo-European comparison. In V. Bubenik, J. Hewson & S. Rose (Eds.), Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages (pp. 179–193). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). What is a Subject: The Nature and Validity of Subject Tests. In J. Barðdal, N. Pat-El & S. M. Carey (Eds.), Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects. The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers (pp. 257-274). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Bary, C. & Haug, D. T. T. (2011). Temporal anaphora across and inside sentences: The function of participles. Semantics and Pragmatics, 4, 1–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buijs, M. (2013). Participle. In G. K. Giannakis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Conti, L. (2008). Synchronie und Diachronie des altgriechischen Genitivs als Semisubjekt. Historische Sprachforschung, 121, 94–113.Google Scholar
(2009). Weiteres zum Genitiv als Semisubjekt im Altgriechischen: Analyse des Kasus bei impersonalen Konstruktionen. Historische Sprachforschung, 122, 182–207.Google Scholar
Cooper, G. L. (1988). Attic Greek Prose Syntax. 2 Volumes. After K. W. Krüger. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Crespo, E., Conti, L., Maquieira, H. (2003). Sintaxis del Griego Clásico. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1990). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Th. & Barðdal, J. (2005). Oblique subjects: a common Germanic inheritance. Language 81, 824–881. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, C. (2009). The “Behaviour-Before-Coding” Principle: Further Evidence from Latin. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 94(2), 156–184.Google Scholar
(2014). Experiential Constructions in Latin. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse. A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 1–41). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, D. (2016). Classical Greek Syntax. Wackernagel’s Law in Herodotus. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2001). Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Aikhenvald et al. (Eds.), pp. 53–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haug, D. T. T. (2010). PROIEL Guidelines for Annotation. Ms., University of Oslo, [URL]
(2017). Backward control in Ancient Greek and Latin participial adjuncts. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35(1), 99–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Humbert, J. (1960). Syntaxe grecque. 3rd. ed. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Jøhndal, M. L. (2012). Non-finiteness in Latin. PhD Dissertation, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
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
Keydana, G. (1997). Absolute Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (2012). Greek Anaphora in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 12, 84–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaiman, M. H. (1980). Bengali Dative Subjects. Lingua 51(4), 275–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kühner, R. & Gerth, B. (1898; 1904). Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache3 , II-1; II–2. Hannover/Leipzig: Hannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
Masica, C. P. (1976). Defining a Linguistic Area. South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, I. (2007) (Ed.). Finiteness. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Onishi, M. (2001). Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: Parameters and Properties. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. et al. (Eds.), pp. 1–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peels, S. (2007). ἑωυτόν as a long-distance anaphor in Herodotus’ histories. Master Thesis, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Petit, D. (1999). *Su̯e- en grec ancien : la famille du pronom réfléchi. Linguistique grecque et comparaison indo-européenne. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
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
Powell, J. E. (1933). Studies on the Greek reflexive – Herodotus. The Classical Quarterly 27, 208–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1934). Studies on the Greek Reflexive – Thucydides. The Classical Quarterly 28, 159–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seržant, I. A. & Kulikov, L. (2013). (Eds.). The Diachronic Typology of Non-Canonical Subjects, Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sevdali, Ch. (2013). Case transmission beyond control and the role of Person. Journal of Historical Syntax, 24, 1–52.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. (2004). Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix
2023. Support‐Verb Constructions with Objects:Greek‐CopticInterference in the Documentary Papyri?1. Transactions of the Philological Society 121:3 ► pp. 382 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 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.