Cover not available
Part of
Space in Diachrony
Edited by Silvia Luraghi, Tatiana Nikitina and Chiara Zanchi
[Studies in Language Companion Series 188] 2017
► pp. 179–206

A diachronic take on the Source–Goal asymmetry

Evidence from inner Asia Minor Greek

 | Université de Liège
 | University of Westminster
A bulk of typological and crosslinguistic evidence on the internal structure of motion events has shown that Goals and Sources behave asymmetrically. This asymmetry exhibits several morphosyntactic and semantic realizations: Goal markers are morphologically simpler than Source markers; there tend to be more fine-grained semantic distinctions within the Goal domain than within the Source domain, leading to higher numbers of markers for the encoding of Goal than of Source (type level); Goals are more frequently zero-marked than Sources; and, Goal relations are encoded more frequently in discourse (token level). In this chapter, we report similar imbalances in the behavior of Sources and Goals in inner Asia Minor Greek. We find that Goal markers are more numerous than markers denoting Source and that Goal paths are more often explicitly expressed in discourse. Additionally, we test the diachronic validity of these findings, which have been reached on the basis of mostly synchronic investigations, by examining the historical developments that the Modern Greek dialects of inner Asia Minor underwent in the formal expression of Goal and Source. We analyze the (a)symmetrical relations that hold between the two locative roles as evidenced by the qualitative and quantitative use of the prepositions se ‘to, at’, os ‘up to, until’, tʃax/tʃáus ‘up to, until’, and apó ‘from’, focusing specifically on the implications that the diachronic loss of se, the most frequent Goal marker, had for the spatial system of inner Asia Minor Greek. Our analysis shows that overt Goal markers remain morphologically less complex than Source markers across diachronic stages; and, that the Goal marker develops into a zero marker earlier than the Source marker. These findings support the Goal-over-Source predominance hypothesis. However, our analysis also indicates that the asymmetry could under certain circumstances work in the opposite direction.
Keywords: Source–Goal asymmetry, spatial zeroes, adpositions, Asia Minor Greek, Cappadocian, Silliot
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The inner Asia Minor Greek dialect group and the diatopy-as-diachrony method
  • 3.Theoretical and terminological background
  • 4.Source–Goal (a)symmetry in inner Asia Minor Greek
    • 4.1Manifestations of (a)symmetry
    • 4.2 Source–Goal (a)symmetry in Stage I varieties
    • 4.3Source–Goal (a)symmetry in Stage II and Stage III varieties
  • 5.Further developments in the marking of Source and Goal in iAMGr
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 August 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.188.07geo
References (68)
References
Andriotis, Nikolaos P.. 1948. To Glossiko Idioma ton Farason (Τὸ γλωσσικὸ ἰδίωμα τῶν Φαράσων) (The Dialect of Pharasa). Athens: Ikaros.Google Scholar
Bağrıaçık, Metin. 2016. Ki as a spurious complementizer in Pharasiot Greek. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Freie Universität Berlin, 16–19 September 2015.
Costakis, Athanase P.. 1964. Le parler grec d’Anakou (The Greek Dialect of Anaku). Athens.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Encoding the distinction between location and destination: A typological study. In Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories [Typological Studies in Language 66], Maya Hickmann & Stéphane Robert (eds), 19–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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: CUP.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory, Vol.1: Methodology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Acson, Veneeta. 1985. On the diachrony of subtractive operations: evidence for semiotically based models of Natural Phonology and Natural Morphology from Northern and Anatolian Greek dialects. In Papers from the 6th International Conference on Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 34], Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 105–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fates, Thomas. 2012. Chiogos as si charis: Ekmathisi tou Mistiotikou idiomatos (Anef Didaskalou) (Χιογός ας σι χαρίς: εκμάθηση του Μιστιώτικου ιδιώματος (άνευ διδασκάλου)) (May God Bless You: A Course in the Mistiot Dialect). Konitsa: n.p.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.. 1971. How to know whether you’re going or coming. In Linguistik 1971: Referate des 6. Linguistischen Kolloquims, 11–14 August 1971 in Kopenhagen, Hyldgaard-Jensen Karl (ed.), 369–379. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Fosteris, Dimitrios & Kesisoglou, Ioannis I.. 1960. Lexilogio tou Aravani (Λεξιλόγιο τοῦ Ἀραβανί) (Glossary of Aravan). Athens: Institut Français d’Athènes.Google Scholar
Gehrke, Berit. 2008. Ps in Motion: On the Semantics and Syntax of P lements and Motion Events. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis. 2013. The source–goal asymmetry in Ancient Greek motion events. Paper presented at the 21st International Conference on Historical Linguistics, University of Oslo, 5–9 August.
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Sioupi, Athina. 2015. Framing the difference between Sources and Goals in change of possession events: A corpus-based study in German and Modern Greek. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3: 105–122.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goutsos, Dionysis. 2007. Vasika topika epirimata se ilektronika somata kimenon: Prokatarktikes paratirisis (Βασικά τοπικά επιρρήματα σε ηλεκτρονικά σώματα κειμένων: προκαταρκτικές παρατηρήσεις) (Basic local adverbs in electronic corpora: Preliminary observations). In Glossikos Periplous: Meletes afieromenes sti Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou, Tomeas Glossologias, Panepistimiou Athinon (ed), 36–46. Athens: Kardamitsa (Καρδαμίτσα).Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2014. Arguments and adjuncts as language-particular syntactic categories and as comparative concepts. Linguistic Discovery 12(2): 3–11.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1987. ‘Source’ vs. ‘goal’: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. In Concepts of Case, René Dirven & Günter Radden (eds), 122–146. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janse, Mark. 1999. Greek, Turkish and Cappadocian relatives revis(it)ed. In Ελληνική Γλωσσολογία: Πρακτικά του 3ου Διεθνούς Γλωσσολογικού Συνεδρίου για την Ελληνική Γλώσσα (Greek Linguistics: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Greek Linguistics), Amalia Moser (ed), 453–462. Athens: Ellinika Grammata (Ελληνικά Γράμματα).Google Scholar
. 2002. Aspects of bilingualism in the history of the Greek language. In Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text, James Noel Adams, Mark Janse & Simon Swain (eds), 332–390. Oxford: OUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Palio krasi se kainourgia askia: Tourkoellinika “anaforika” stin kentriki Mikrasia (Παλιό κρασί σε καινούρια ασκιά: τουρκοελληνικά «αναφορικά» στην κεντρική Μικρασία) [Old wine in new skins: Turkish-Greek “relatives” in Central Asia Minor]. In Neoelliniki Dialektologia 4: Praktika tou Tetartou Diethnous Synedriou Neoellinikis Dialektologias (Νεοελληνική Διαλεκτολογία 4: Πρακτικά του Τέταρου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Νεοελληνικής Διαλεκτολογίας) (Modern Greek Dialectology 4: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of Modern Greek Dialectology), 173–182. Athens: Etaireia Neoellinikis Dialektologias (Εταιρεία Νεοελληνικής Διαλεκτολογίας).
. 2007. De Cappadociërs en hun talen. Tetradio 16: 57–78.Google Scholar
. 2009. Greek-Turkish language contact in Asia Minor. Études Helléniques/Hellenic Studies 17(1): 37–54.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2002. Structural Factors in Turkic Language Contacts. Richmond: Curzon.Google Scholar
Johnston, Judith R. & Slobin, Dan I.. 1979. The development of locative expressions in English, Italian, Serbo- Croatian and Turkish. Journal of Child Language 6: 529–545.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kabata, Kaori. 2013. Goal-source asymmetry and crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns: A cognitive-typological approach. Language Sciences 36: 78–89.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karatsareas, Petros. 2009. The loss of grammatical gender in Cappadocian Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society 107(2): 196–230.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011a. A Study of Cappadocian Greek Nominal Morphology from a Diachronic and Dialectological Perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
. 2011b. Neuter heteroclisis in Asia Minor Greek: Origin and development. xml:lang="el"Neoelliniki Dialektologia (Νεοελληνική Διαλεκτολογία) (Modern Greek Dialectology) 6: 111–135.Google Scholar
. 2013. Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek: The dialectological perspective. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3(2): 192–229.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. On the diachrony of gender in Asia Minor Greek: The development of semantic agreement in Pontic. Language Sciences 43: 77–101.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. The adpositional cycle in Asia Minor Greek: A tale of multiple causation. Journal of Greek Linguistics 16(1): 1–40.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karatsareas, Petros & Georgakopoulos, Thanasis. 2016. From syntagmatic to paradigmatic spatial zeroes: The loss of the preposition se in inner Asia Minor Greek. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 69(2): 309–340.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kesisoglou, Ioannis I.. 1951. To glossiko idioma tou Oulagats (Τὸ γλωσσικὸ ἰδίωμα τοῦ Οὐλαγάτς) (The dialect of Ulaghátsh). Athens: Institut Français d’Athènes.Google Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta. 2012. Semantic granularity of placement and removal in Polish. In Anetta, Kopecka & Bhuvana, Narasimhan, (eds), 327–347.Google Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta & Narasimhan, Bhuvana (eds). 2012. Events of Putting and Taking. A Crosslinguistic Perspective [Typological Studies in Language 100]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd (ed.). 2004. Dialectology meets Typology: Dialect Grammar from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kostakis, Thanasis P.. 1968. To glossiko idioma tis Sillis (Τὸ γλωσσικὸ ἰδίωμα τῆς Σίλλης) (The dialect of Sílli). Athens: Kentro Mikrasiatiko Spoudon (Κέντρο Μικρασιατικῶν Σπουδῶν) (Centre for Asia Minor Studies).Google Scholar
Kutscher, Silvia. 2010. When ‘towards’ means ‘away from’: the case of directional-ablative syncretism in Ardeşen-variety of Laz (South-Caucasian). STUF – Language Typology and Universals 63(3): 252–271.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, Laura M.. 2005. Source and Goal Asymmetry in Non-linguistic Motion Event Representations. PhD disseration, Johns Hopkins University.
Lakusta, Laura M. & Landau, Barbara. 2005. Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition 96: 1–33.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, Barbara & Zukowski, Andrea. 2003. Objects, motions and paths: Spatial language in children with Williams syndrome. Developmental Neuropsychology 23: 107–139.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2012. Converse categorization strategies. Linguistics 50(3): 467–494.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lestrade, Sander 2010. The Space of Case. PhD dissertation, Romboud University Nijmegen.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2014. Plotting diachronic semantic maps. The role of metaphor. In Perspectives on Semantic Roles [Typological Studies in Language 106], Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds), 99–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markopoulos, Thodoris. 2014. Modal markers in Pontic and Cappadocian: Disentangling the evidences. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory, University of Patras, 25–28 September.
Mavrochalyvidis, Georgios & Kesisoglou, Ioannis I.. 1960. To glossiko Idioma tis Axou (Τὸ γλωσσικὸ ἰδίωμα τῆς Ἀξοῦ) (The dialect of Axos). Athens: Institut Français d’Athènes.Google Scholar
Melissaropoulou, Dimitra. 2016. Variation in word formation in situations of language contact: The case of Cappadocian Greek. Language Sciences 55: 55–67.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nam, Seungho. 2004. Goal and source: Asymmetry in their syntax and semantics. Paper presented at the Workshop on Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation, Universität Leipzig, Germany, 17–19 March.
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2009. Subcategorization pattern and lexical meaning of motion verbs: A study of the source/goal ambiguity. Linguistics 47(5): 1113–1141.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The many ways to find the “right” and “left”: On dynamic projection models in the encoding of spatial relations. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Christine Sheil, Florian Carpenter Lionnet, Kim Kayla, David Kyung-ah, Tammy Stark Oana & Vivian Wauters (eds), 338–354. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana & Spano, Marianna. 2014. ‘Behind’ and ‘in front’ in Ancient Greek: A case study in orientation asymmetry. In On Ancient Grammars of Space, Silvia Kutscher & Daniel Werning (eds), 67–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Oikonomidis, Dimosthenis. 1958. Grammatiki tis Ellinikis Dialektou tou Pontou (Γραμματικὴ τῆς ἑλληνικῆς διαλέκτου τοῦ Πόντου) (A Grammar of the Greek Dialect of Pontus). Athens: Academy of Athens.Google Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina. 2010. The syntactic structure of locations, goals, and sources. Linguistics 48(5): 1043–1082.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pantelidis, Nikolaos. 2016. To rimatiko epithima -(i)sk stin Kappadokiki (Το ρηματικό επίθημα -(ι)σκ στην Καππαδοκική) (The verbal suffix -(ι)σκ in Cappadocian). Proceedings of the 6th Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory Meeting (MGDLT6), Patras, 25–28 September 2014, 133–142. Patras: University of Patras.
Papafragou, Anna. 2010. Source–Goal asymmetries in motion representation: Implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive Science 34: 1064–1092.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, Sandra & Kabata, Kaori. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalisation patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11(3): 451–514.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros. 2008. Grammaticalization and sets of form-function pairs: Encoding spatial concepts in Greek. In Studies on Grammaticalization, Elisabeth Verhoeven, Stavros Skopeteas, Yong-Min Shin, Yoko Nishina & Johannes Helmbrecht (eds), 25–56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Rohde, Ada. 2004. The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In Studies in Linguistic Motivation, Günter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds), 249–268. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Lestrade, Sander & Stolz, Christel. 2014. The Crosslinguistics of Zero-marking of Spatial Relations. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 57–149. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Søren. 2014. Arguments and adjuncts cross-linguistically. Linguistic Discovery 12(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winford, Donald. 2005. Contact-induced changes: Classification and processes. Diachronica 22(2): 373–427.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woidich, Manfred. 2006. Das Kairenish-Arabische: Eine Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Chen, Sihan, Richard Futrell & Kyle Mahowald
2023. An information-theoretic approach to the typology of spatial demonstratives. Cognition 240 ► pp. 105505 ff. DOI logo
Kopecka, Anetta & Marine Vuillermet
2021. Source-Goal (a)symmetries across languages. Studies in Language 45:1 ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis
2018. A frame-based approach to the source-goal asymmetry. Constructions and Frames 10:1 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.