A cross-dialectal study of cliticisation in Greek

Revithiadou, Anthi

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.007

Cited by 13 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, the interface accounts put forward by and Revithiadou (2006Revithiadou ( , 2008) make different predictions as regards the course of the L1A of the enclisis-proclisis alternation in CG. 16 Within Mavrogiorgos' (2012) account, a fully-specified F projection, in terms of syntactic features and PF requirements, is a prerequisite for the manifestation of both proclisis and enclisis.…”

Section: L1 Acquisition Of Cg Clitic Pronounsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Most studies on clitic placement in CG have taken proclisis as the default pattern and enclisis as the derived (Agouraki, 2001;Condoravdi and Kiparsky, 2001;Terzi, 1999a,b), while others suggest that the derivation of enclisis and the derivation of proclisis in CG are two (largely) independent procedures Revithiadou, 2006Revithiadou, , 2008.…”

Section: Syntactic Prosodic and Interface Accounts For Clitic Placemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interface approaches Revithiadou, 2006Revithiadou, , 2008, on the other hand, assume that the derivation of each pattern is (largely) independent. Acquisition data constitute a good tool for testing the validity of the aforementioned accounts.…”

Section: As Internal Enclitics: [V Cl] Prw 2 As Affixal Proclitics (mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The L1 acquisition of clitic placement in Cypriot Greek

Neokleous

2015

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the first language acquisition of clitic pronouns in CG, focusing on an exceptional pattern of clitic (mis) placement attested in early data. An elicited production experiment is performed by 50 children from three age groups (age group A: 2;6--3;0, age group B: 3;1--3;6 and age group C: 3;7--4;0). The results obtained reveal that clitic placement in enclisis contexts is adult-like from the onset, whereas one third of the children aged 2;6 to 3;0 misplace clitics in proclisis contexts. Clitic (mis)placement in CG is interpreted within an interface account within which the syntactic outcome is filtered through a PF-controlled procedure. Clitic placement in CG is regulated by a PF filter that requires that clitic pronouns in CG are suffixes to the initial constituent within their Intonation phrase. Young CG-children originally misinterpret this requirement and assume that clitics obligatorily follow the verb within the verb-clitic cluster.

show abstract

Section: L1 Acquisition Of Cg Clitic Pronounsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Syntactic Prosodic and Interface Accounts For Clitic Placemmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The L1 acquisition of clitic placement in Cypriot Greek

Neokleous

2015

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As is well-known, the generalization is that in Standard Greek proclisis (clitic placement in the immediately preverbal position) depends on the finiteness of the verb form, hence gerunds and imperatives trigger enclisis; Cypriot Greek displays clitic-second/ Wackernagel or, alternatively, Tobler-Mussafia effects (Horrocks, 1990;Terzi, 1999;Agouraki, 2001;Condoravdi and Kiparsky, 2002;Pappas, 2004Pappas, , 2014Revithiadou, 2006Revithiadou, , 2008Tsiplakou, 2006;Chatzikyriakidis, 2010Chatzikyriakidis, , 2012Mavrogiorgos, 2010Mavrogiorgos, , 2013Grohmann, 2011;Neokleous, 2015;Grohmann et al, 2017 among others). As with the other variants, while the Cypriot structure, enclisis, was the preferred option, the standard-like strategy of proclisis without a triggering element in C or below, i.e., exceptional clitic placement, was certainly present in that extensive sample of Cypriot Greek oral production.…”

Section: Quantitative Data Convergence To Standard Greek Does Not Affmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imperfect Acquisition of a Related Variety? Residual Clefting and What It Reveals about (Gradient) Bilectalism

Tsiplakou

2017

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the concept of gradient bilectalism by capitalizing on insights from recent developments in second language acquisition, particularly the suggestion that aspects of the syntax-discourse interface that are not easily accessible to the learner may lead to fossilization, even at end state. I explore the implications of this suggestion for bilectal grammars by examining the ways in which speakers of Cypriot Greek do syntactic focusing in Standard Greek. The phenomenon is structurally different in the two varieties of Greek examined: clefting is the Cypriot syntactic focusing strategy par excellence while in Standard Greek the relevant strategy is movement of the focused item to an immediately preverbal position. Interestingly, this focusing strategy is largely unattested in the acrolectal or standard-like production of bilectal Greek Cypriot speakers; on the contrary, the preferred strategy for syntactic focusing appears to be clefting, as is indicated by data from spontaneous speech. Quantitative data from a questionnaire survey presented in this article confirm that such "residual clefting" persists even at end state, which in turn suggests imperfect acquisition of the relevant structural aspect of Standard Greek, the second variety of these otherwise bilectal speakers. The data invite an approach couched within the Interface Hypothesis, and the argument is put forward that, being a structure at the interface between syntax and other modules or cognitive domains (semantics, pragmatics, and discourse), focusing in the target variety is vulnerable as regards acquisition.

show abstract

“…As clitics can be parsed differently in different dialects, as shown for example byRevithiadou's (2008) study of Greek, we make no claims about other dialects without detailed study.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

Halkomelem clitic types

Gerdts

Werle

2014

Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Salish language Halkomelem, there are numerous functional elements that we identify as clitics. In this study, we seek to improve our understanding of Halkomelem clitics by classifying them according to their syntactic and phonological properties. We look in particular at data from the Island dialect, called Hul'q'umi'num'.First, based on their patterns of syntactic placement, we classify Hul'q'umi'num' clitics into two general types, inner and outer. Inner clitics are more constrained in their placement than outer clitics. When they co-occur, inner clitics are closer to the host than outer clitics are. Second, we examine Hul'q'umi'num' clitics in terms of phonological integration, showing that clitics are less integrated than affixes, and, furthermore, that clitics that follow their hosts are more integrated than those that precede their hosts.Finally, we analyze the prosodic representations of Hul'q'umi'num' clitics within Prosodic Clitic Theory. We propose that clitics receive at least three different parses in Hul'q'umi'num', namely internal enclisis, adjoined proclisis, and free clisis. That is, clitics can be parsed at the right edge of a prosodic word, at the left edge of a recursive prosodic word, or directly by a phonological phrase. While Hul'q'umi'num' clitics exhibit a range of behaviors, those clitics with more constrained syntactic placement are generally more phonologically integrated, and vice-versa.

show abstract

A cross-dialectal study of cliticisation in Greek

Cited by 13 publications

References 26 publications

The L1 acquisition of clitic placement in Cypriot Greek

The L1 acquisition of clitic placement in Cypriot Greek

Imperfect Acquisition of a Related Variety? Residual Clefting and What It Reveals about (Gradient) Bilectalism

Halkomelem clitic types

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About