1

E

1 UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM

UNIVERSITY OF ERFURT

bstract

The typology of person prominence investigates the role of animacy with respect to the assignment of syntactic functions in d ifferent languages. Some languages tend to assign higher syntactic functions to animates, whereas in other languages the assignment of syntactic functions is not controlled by this feature. Syntactic change in a number of Western Indo-European languages has been shown to be influenced by this typological property of person prominence. In the present paper we examine the history of some sample constructions in Greek: pred ication of possession, modal constructions and experiencer constructions. Empirical evidence in these domains shows that Greek remains typologically stable with respect to person prominence. This conspicuous difference of Greek in comparison to the other members of the same family is interpreted as a consequence of its syntactic properties regarding case assignment and word order.

-

, , , ,

1.

1.1.

.

: / .

/ ,

, ,

( . Lehmann, Shin Verhoeven 2000).

( ) a typology of person vs. relation prominence is also based on the assumption that

both pragmatic and semantic functions can be crucial to the organization of syntactic

structure in language. However, the focus is neither on the basic syntactic structure as

in the typology of subject and topic prominence nor on the identification of the

outstanding syntactic function as in the typology of reference and role domination. A

typology of person prominence vs. relation prominence focuses on the role of animacy

in the assignment of syntactic functions to the participants of a situation. (Lehmann,

Shin Verhoeven 2000)

(1): K

-

.

( . Comrie

2

1981, Ch. 9, Kuno 1987, Langacker 1991:307, Yamamoto 1999:24-38).

(1) / >

>

>

>

>

(2) .

( . Lehmann 1984:Ch. IV.3.1.1, Keenan & Comrie 1977),

/ ( . Croft

1990:105),

( . Pinkster 1988).

(2) >

>

>

>

:

>

(3)-(4).

/

.

(3 ) (4 ). (3 )

(4 ) .

:

, (3 )

(4 ),

.

(3) . The man owns the clothes.

. vir vestis est.

(4) . have to go.

. me ire oportet.

1.2.

.

3

1.2.1.

:

( )

, (

) (1), . .

.

( )

( . . , . .

. Hopper & Thompson 1980).

(5) ,

.

.

.

( )

( ).

.

.

(5)

/

/

1.2.2.

:

4

(6)

5

. .

4

. .

3-2

. .

3

. .

5-6

. .

10

. .

15-16

. .

(recensio E)

1.2.3.

A ( . Allen

1986, 1995, Harris & Campbell 1995, Haspelmath 2001, Lightfoot 1979, Seefranz-Montag 1983)

.

. (7)

like

. ( )

. :

,

( . Lightfoot 1979,

Allen 1986, 1995 Haspelmath 2001).

(7) . ? am wife ? a word

. . .

.

.

. .

wel licodon

.3.

. (Beowulf 639)

. ( .) The woman liked those words well.

,

( . 8) (Seefranz-Montag 1983:191).

(8) mich hungert > ich hungere

.

.

mir bangt > ich bange

.

.

mir/mich ekelt > ich ekele mich

. /

.

.1.

mir traumt > ich traume

.

.

mir denkt > ich denke

.

.

5

( . Seefranz-Montag 1983:191)

,

.

( . - 2003

).

2.

« » (9).

. .

(9) .. ... ... ( ., . 9.111)

.

.

(10) ... .. ( . 124.2.2)

3.

(

B, . . . « » PY Ea 811, PY Ea 754, PY Ea

806, PY Ea 28, PY Ea 778, PY Ea 800).

, . ,

( . 10) .

.

(11)

5. 4.

. .

3/2.

. .

3. 5/6.

10. 15/16.

20.

9.111 . 8.5.17

13.7.6

1.18.2

110.236

2.68.15

. 2.4.9

5.19.6

10.33.1

28.9

110.1237

90.1 +

3.

3.1.

(12).

(12) ( .

: , : , : ).

( :

/ , : / ).

6

( )

( : ..., : ).

(12)

.

(12)

.

( , . .),

(

),

( ).

(13)-(14) .

(13) Yan in naak-al.

.1.

-

.

(14) Taak in beet-ik.

.1.

-

.

, , :

( )

,

« »,

« » ,

( . 15)

( )

, « » ( .

16).

(15) Za-z

wi wan atu-n,

1. :

[

2. :

-

wi sufat aku-n gerek

2. :

- ]

ze-zwa-c.

- -

, . (Haspelmath

1993:360)

7

(16) . I have to/must do it.

. I want/would like to do it.

( . Lehmann, Shin Verhoeven 2000):

( )

,

(12).

( )

,

(12).

( )

, .

( . 13-14).

,

. : ( . 16 )

.

( . Lehmann, Shin Verhoeven 2000).

.

( . Joseph 1983, 2003):

( . 17).

( . 22).

( . 23).

§3.2 §3.3 2

.

, .

3.2.

( . 12)

( . 17, 18, 20).

(19)

.

(17-18), /

.

(17)

( 7.142.18)

(18) ( 8.100.34)

8

(19)

( . . 64.4.5)

(20)

( . .

54.7.3)

O

(21)

.

( . 19).

(21)

5. 4.

. .

3/2.

. .

3. 5/6. 10. 15/16. 20.

. . . 7.142 . 2.4.9

1.14.4 5.20.7

133.23

110.373

. .

. .

. . . 8.100.34 . 5.7.5

6.11a.1

1.17.6

113.22

110.276

. .

. . 3

. . . 54.5 +

. . . 4.1.37

110.129

117.4.7

. .

3.3.

.

( .

22) ( . 23, 24).

/ ( .

25 26:

27, o 26: ).).

(22) ( 1.138.1)

(23)

( 2.2.6)

(24)

(

7.134.5, .

9.45.10)

(25)

( . . 54.11)

9

(26) ...

( . . 80.16.23)

(27)

. ( . . 127.2.7)

(28)

5. 4.

. .

3/2.

. .

3. 5/6. 10. 15/16.

20.

. . .

. 4.1.8

. . 7.134

. . 8.41.3 . 1.13.2

10.8.9

- 74.17 110.613

. . .

3.79.15

. 2.12.2

. . 2.166.7

. 4.1.35

3.23.4

10.22.3

236.17

110.536

. .

( )

. . .

80.16 +

. .

. . 110.124

11.3 +

3.4.

. . ,

. .

/ (12),

. :

(26) ,

.

16

, 21

/

.

(12) ( . §3.2).

4.

H . :

- , ,

- , .

10

:

,

. Bossong

.

Ce qui saute aux yeux tout d abord , c est la stabilite d iachronique remarquable de cette

langue. < > Le grec ancien comme le grec moderne montre une preponderance tres

marquee de la generalisation (= experiencer subject). La langue ( ) a eu depuis toujours de

« sujets » tres generaux et abstraits. (Bossong 1998:274-275)

(30) .

. ,

.

, :

.

:

- ( .

4 like ),

.

.

.

(29) .

/ >

.

/ >

.

.

( ),

( ).

,

.

11

(30)

=

( .) ( .)

ONOM

( .) ( .)

ONOM

ONOM

( .) ( )

ONOM

( .) ( )

ONOM

( .) ( .)

ONOM

( .) ( .)

ONOM

ONOM E

=

( .) ( .)

ONOM

( .) ( .)

ONOM

ONOM o

( .) ( )

ONOM

ONOM

( .) ( / .)

ONOM /

=

( ) ( )

( ) ( .)

5.

5.1.

, :

( )

:

( )

. ,

,

, . . .

( )

,

,

,

( , , ).

[

].

,

/ : ,

. ,

.

(

) .

12

( )

.

:

must, mussen

devoir.

5.2.

, ( ) ,

.

( ( ) §5.1),

.

( .

Seefranz-Montag 1983)

« » ( . Sasse 1982),

. ,

,

( ).

Lightfoot (1979)

.

. ,

.

.

( . Allen 1986, 1995). ,

,

. ,

:

.

,

. ,

.

, ( ),

:

,

.

. . .

13

,

( . ).

, *

.

1 , .

echthild Habermann ( rlangen) Christian Lehmann (Erfurt), .

2

. ( . . , ),

.

3 ( . 4.139.17, 9.79.5, . 1.4.4), ( . 2003:304).

.

Allen, C. L. 1986. Reconsidering the istory of like . Journal of Linguistics 22. 375-409.

Allen, C. L. 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern

English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bossong, G. 1998. Le marquage de l experient dans les langues d Europe . Actance et valence

dans les langues de l Europe, . J. Feuillet, 259-294. Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter.

Croft, W. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- , . 2003.

. :

-Warburton, . - , .,

, ., , ., , . , ., 236-255.

A : .

Harris, A.

Campbell L. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Haspelmath, M. 1993. A Grammar of Lezgian. New York, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Haspelmath, M. 2001. Non-Canonical Marking of Core Arguments in European Languages .

Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects, . Aikhenvald , A. & Dixon, R.M.W. &

Onishi, M., 53-83. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Hopper, P.

Thompson, S. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse . Language 56. 251-

299.

, . 2003. : .

: -Warburton, .

- , ., , ., , ., , .

, ., 299-319. A : .

14

Joseph, B. D. 1983. The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive: A Study in Areal, General,

and Historical Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

Keenan, E. L.

Comrie, B. 1977. Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar .

Linguistic Inquiry 8.1. 63-99.

Kuno, S. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago: Chicago University

Press.

Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford:

Stanford University Press.

Lehmann, Chr. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen,

Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tubingen: Narr.

Lehmann, Chr., Shin, Y.-M.

Verhoeven, E. 2000. Person Prominence and Relation Prominence:

On the Typology of Syntactic Relations with Particular Reference to Yucatec Maya. Munchen:

LINCOM Europa.

Lightfoot, D. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Pinkster, H. 1988. Lateinische Syntax und Semantik. Tubingen: Francke.

Sasse, H.-J. 1982. Subjektprominenz . Fakten und Theorien. Beitrage zur romanischen und

allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft: Festschrift fur Helmut Stimm zum 65. Geburtstag, . Heinz,

S., Wandruszka, U. 267-286. Tubingen: Narr.

Seefranz-Montag, A. von. 1983. Syntaktische Funktionen und Wortstellungsveranderung: Die

Entwicklung subjektloser Konstruktionen in einigen Sprachen. Munchen: Wilhelm Fink

Verlag.

Yamamoto, M. 1999. Animacy and Reference. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.

This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.daneprairie.com.The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.