Information to Users

INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quaiity of the copy sulimitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6* x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. ProQuest Information and Leaming 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 UMI' WEAK OBJECT PRONOUN PLACEMENT IN LATER MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN GREEK DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Panayiotis A. Pappas ***** The Ohio State University 2001 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Brian D. Joseph, Adviser Professor Carl J. Pollard Adviser Professor Donald Winford Linguistics Graduate Program UMI Number: 3022552 UMI' UMI Microform 3022552 Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Leaming Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition Is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Bell & Howell Information and Leaming Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 ABSTRACT In the language of Later Medieval and Early Modem Greek texts the position of weak object pronouns seems to vary fteely between preverbal and postverbal placement. Although this phenomenon has been investigated before, this study is the first time that a detailed catalogue of the data is provided. Furthermore, the evidence is analyzed and evaluated not only according to the traditional methodology of historical linguistics but also with the use of statistical methods. The larger database and the use of an innovative methodology cast a new light on the pattern of variation. The results of this research both challenge previous descriptions of the phenomenon and reveal information about certain types of constructions (such as the imperative and infinitival constructions) which had not been investigated in depth before. Moreover, the analysis presented here exposes the effect of certain intralinguistic as well as extralinguistic parameters on the placement of the pronouns. In particular, it is demonstrated that o\) /u/ ‘not’ and dv od /on u/ ‘if not’ have opposite effects on the position of the pronoun (postverbal and preverbal placement respectively), and that ‘pronoun doubling’ constructions with the adjective oKoç /olos/ ‘all’, favor preverbal pronouns in contrast with the general pattern for these constructions. On the other hand, it is shown that metrical requirements dictate the position of the pronoun when the verb is preceded by a subject or a temporal expression, and that the Cypriot chronicles are maricedly different with respect to pronoun placement. On the basis of this in rkpth examination of the phenomenon it is shown why ii previous analyses which employ the mechanism of ‘verb-movement’ cannot capture the full range of the data. Instead it is proposed here that the variation is in fact complex because it represents a change in progress from Early Medieval to Early Modem Greek. Finally, it is argued that the results of this study indicate that the weak object pronouns of LMG are affix-like rather than word-like in nature, and that the present analysis raises some cmcial questions concerning recent proposals about ‘grammaticalization’, Kroch’s claim that the contexts of syntactic change are abstract, and the scope of generalizations in synchronic analyses. in navra ^êi, oùSkv 8k névei Heracleitus (Fr. 20) iV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To professor Brian Joseph, who patiently and diligently read through several drafts of this thesis providing references, pointing out problems, and offering possible solutions, who has led me by the example of his own work, I will never be able to fully express my gratitude. I would also like to thank professors Don Winford and Carl Pollard—the members of my dissertation committee—for their helpful comments, as well as professor Keith Johnson, who helped me better understand the results of the statistical analysis. In addition, professors Peter Mackridge and Geof&ey Horrocks were more than willing to communicate via e-mail, and provided me with some very important information and encouragement. Much of this research was conducted under a National Science Foundation fellowship, a Foreign Language and Areal Studies fellowship or the OSU Presidential fellowship, all of which I appreciate greatly. Thanks also go to Steve Hartman Keiser and Jennifer Muller for their support as fellow ABDs, the Changelings reading group for providing a forum to test new ideas, and the OSU Linguistics Department for promoting graduate student scholarship in all possible ways. Finally, I thank my parents and the rest of my family on both sides of the Atlantic for their emotional and financial support, especially during my tour of duty with the Hellenic Navy; and Robin, whose relentless quest for knowledge is a constant source of inspiration. VTTA December 15,1971 Bom—Baltimore, Maryland. 1993 B.A. Philosophy and Mathematics, St. John’s College, Annapolis MD. 1994-1997 Fellow, National Science Foundation The Ohio State University. 1999-2000 Graduate Teaching and Research Associate, The Ohio State University. 2000-present Presidential Fellow, The Ohio State University. PUBUCATIONS Research Publications 1. Panayiotis A. Pappas & Brian D. Joseph, “On some recent developments concerning the Greek future system. ’’ Byzfmtine and Modem Greek Studies (2002). 2. Panayiotis A. Pappas, “The microcosm of a morphological change: variation in thelo + infinitive futures and ethela + infinitive counterfactuals in Early Modem Greek. ” Diachronica, 18.1 (2001). 3. Panayiotis A. Pappas, “ ApiSnoi icai Aiaio0Ti(ni. M^oSoi yia rn iieXcni t o O ouvTcicTuoO TÛV McoaiuviKtâv 'EXXtivucûv.” Greek Studies in linguistics 21:591-&i5 (2001). VI 4. Panayiotis A. Pappas, “Unus testis, nuilus testis? The significance of a single token in a problem of Later Medieval Greek Syntax”. The Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 54:171-176 (2000). 5. Panayiotis A. Pappas, “Sanskrit tisrâs ‘3’ fern, and câtasras ‘4’ fern: A critique of Snyder’s (1970) explanation of these forms.” The Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 53:104-107 (2000). 6. Panayiotis A. Pappas, “The Development of Counterfactuals with thélô ’want’ in Early Modem Greek”. The Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 52:15-40 (1999). FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Linguistics vn TABLE OF CONTENTS Pagg Dedication. iv Acknowledgements. .. V Vita____________ vi List of Tables.. .. XI List of Figures ----- xiv Chapters: 1. Introduction. ,1 2. Preliminaries to the study of pronoun placement in LMG- 6 2.1. Summary of the placement of unstressed elements throughout the history of Greek. .10 2.2. Variation in weak object pronoun placement in Later Medieval Greek texts .13 2.2.1. Mackridge’s account.. .15 Methodology.. .19 3.1. Compiling a corpus of texts. 22 3.2. Accountability and the linguistic variable in morphosyntactic research. 28 Results of the analysis. 38 4.1. Raw Data_________________ .38 4.2. Statistical Analysis of Variation. 44 4.3. Interpreting the results _______ .49 Appendix to chapter 4. 54 Intralinguistic parameters ------- 69 5.1 The distinction between oO(ic) and av où(K). 69 5.2. Differentiation within the factor ‘reduplicated object’. .77 5.3 The effect of emphasis on pronoun placement --------- 82 5.4 The effect of discourse constraints on pronoun placement. 84 vm 5.5. Non-fînite forms of the verb ________________________________ 88 5.5.1. Participles ----------------------------------------------------------- 89 5.5.1.1. Present Active Participles ---------------------------- 89 5.5.1.2. Perfect Passive Participles ---------------------------90 5.5.2. Gerunds ________________________________________ 91 5.5.3. Infinitives _______________________________________ 92 5.5.3.1. Articular Infituttve 92 5.5.3.2. Infinitive as a complement of a verb ---------------- 93 5.5.4. Imperatives ---------------------------------------------------------100 5.6. Conclusion _____________________________________________ 102 Appendix to chapter 5 ____________________________________ 104 6. Extralinguistic factors ____________________________________________ 111 6.1. Metrical constraints and weak pronoun placement in LMG texts _____________________________________________ 111 6.1.1. The effect of the caesura ___________________________ 121 6.2. Pronoun placement according to chronology and geography -------------------------------------------------------------------- 124 6.3. Conclusion

Load more