Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T15:08:56.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Afterthoughts in Greek: Gender mismatches under a dynamic framework1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

STERGIOS CHATZIKYRIAKIDIS
STERGIOS CHATZIKYRIAKIDIS*
Affiliation:
Centre for Linguistic Theory and Studies in Probability, University of Gothenburg
*
Author’s address: Centre for Linguistic Theory and Studies in Probability, University of Gothenburg, Dicksonsgatan 4, 41256, Gothenburg, Sweden[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper deals with the syntax of afterthoughts in Greek under a parsing-oriented perspective. The main claim is that afterthoughts can receive a straightforward explanation once we make the assumption that afterthoughts can be seen as answers to implicit questions. A formal syntactic account based on this assumption is put forth, and its ability to deal with gender mismatches exhibited in Greek afterthoughts is shown. Afterthoughts are further discussed in a more general perspective, arguing that once we turn into a dynamic model where context re-use and update are taken to be core components of syntax, a number of issues regarding afterthoughts like connectivity effects, locality constraints, freedom of positioning and reconstruction effects can receive a straightforward explanation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , 01 April 2017 , pp. 279 - 325
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1] The author gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Centre of Linguistic Theory and Studies in Probability (CLASP).

References

Agouraki, Yorjia. 1993. Spec-head licensing: The scope of the theory. Ph.D. thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1999. Conditions on clitic doubling in Greek. In Riemsdijk, Henk (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe, 761–798. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos. 2010. Ellipsis in split questions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28, 539–592.Google Scholar
Averintseva-Klisch, Maria. 2006. Separate performative account of the German right dislocation. Proceedings of the Sinn und Bedeutung 10, 15–28.Google Scholar
Averintseva-Klisch, Maria. 2008. To the right of the clause: Right dislocation vs. afterthought. In Fabricius-Hansen, Catherine & Ramm, Wiebke (eds.), Subordination vs. coordination in sentence and text from a cross-linguistic perspective, 217–239. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Averintseva-Klisch, Maria. 2009. Rechte Satzperipherie im Diskurs: Die NP-Rechtsversetzung im Deutschen. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Averintseva-Klisch, Maria. 2010. German right dislocation and afterthought in discourse. In Benz, Anton & Kahnlein, Peter (eds.), Constraints in discourse, 225–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blackburn, Patrick & Meyer-Viol, Wilfried. 1994. Linguistics, logic and finite trees. Bulletin of Interest Group of Pure and Applied Logics 2, 2–39.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Cann, Ronnie, Kempson, Ruth & Marten, Lutz. 2005. The dynamics of language. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Cann, Ronnie, Kempson, Ruth, Marten, Lutz & Swinburne, David. 2004. On the left and on the right. In Tsoulas, George & de Cat, Cecile (eds.), Peripheries, 19–47. Springer, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1988. Linking intonation units in spoken English. In Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 1–27. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chatzikyriakidis, Stergios. 2010. Clitics in four dialects of modern Greek: A dynamic account. Ph.D. thesis, King’s College, London.Google Scholar
Chatzikyriakidis, Stergios. 2011. A dynamic account of clitic climbing: A first sketch. In Kempson, Ruth, Gregoromichelaki, Eleni & Howes, Chris (eds.), The dynamics of lexical interfaces. CSLI publications.Google Scholar
Chatzikyriakidis, Stergios. 2012. A dynamic account of the Cypriot Greek clitic positioning system. Lingua 122, 642–672.Google Scholar
Chatzikyriakids, S. & Kempson, Ruth. 2011. Standard modern and Pontic Greek person restrictions: Feature-free dynamic account. Journal of Greek Linguistics 10, 127–166.Google Scholar
Demberg, Vera, Keller, Frank & Koller, Alexander. 2013. Incremental, predictive parsing with psycholinguistically motivated tree-adjoining grammar. Computational Linguistics 39.4, 1025–1066.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon et al. 1980. On the typology of focus phenomena. In Leids Taalkundig Bulletin GLOT 3, 41–74.Google Scholar
Eshghi, Arash, Purver, Matthew & Hough, Julian. 2012. DyLan: Parser for dynamic syntax. Technical Report, Queen Mary, University of London.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny & Lasnik, Howard. 2003. Successive-cyclic movement and island repair. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 143–154.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Li, Charles (ed.), Subject and topic, 149–188. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gregoromichelaki, Eleni. 2013. Clitic left dislocation and clitic doubling: A dynamic perspective on left–right asymmetries in Greek. In Webelhuth, Gert, Sailer, Manfred & Walker, Heike (eds.), Rightward movement in a comparative perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Kempson, Ruth & Cann, Ronnie. 2012. Language as tools for interaction: Grammar and the dynamics of ellipsis resolution. The Linguistic Review 29.4, 563–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hefny, Ahmed, Hassan, Hany & Bahgat, Mohamed. 2011. Incremental combinatory categorial grammar and its derivations. Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing, 96–108. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Hilbert, David & Bernays, Paul. 1939. Grundlagen der mathematik. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1975. On the change from SOV to SVO: Evidence from Niger-Congo. In Li, Charles (ed.), Word order and word order change, 113–147. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth & Kiaer, Jieun. 2010. Multiple long-distance scrambling: Syntax as reflections of processing. Journal of Linguistics 46.1, 127–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempson, Ruth, Meyer-viol, Wilfried & Gabbay, Dov. 2001. Dynamic syntax: The flow of language understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth, Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Meyer-Viol, Wilfried, Purver, Matthew, White, Graham & Cann, Ronnie. 2011. Natural language syntax as procedures for interpretation: The dynamics of ellipsis construal. In Alain, Lecomte & Troncon, Samuel (eds.), Ludics, dialogue and interaction, 114–133.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth, Gregoromichelaki, Eleni & Chatzikyriakidis, Stergios. 2012. Joint utterances in Greek: their implications for linguistic modelling. Proceedings of the The 33rd Annual Linguistics Meeting, Thessaloniki, 26–27 April 2012.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1981. Topic, antitopic and verb agreement in non-standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 2001. Dislocation. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf & Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, 1050–1078. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661–738.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998. Constructive case: Evidence from Australian languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis & de Vries, Mark. 2012a. Right-dislocation as deletion. Manuscript, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis & de Vries, Mark. 2012b. Thinking in the right direction: an ellipsis analysis of right-dislocation. Linguistics in the Netherlands 29, 123–133.Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis & de Vries, Mark. 2014. A biclausal analysis of right-dislocation. Proceedings of NELS 43.Google Scholar
Philippaki-Warburton, Irene, Varlokosta, Spyridoula, Georgiafentis, Michalis & Kotzoglou, George. 2002. On the status of clitics and their doubles in Greek. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 6, 57–84.Google Scholar
Purver, Matthew & Otsuka, Masayuki. 2003. Incremental generation by incremental parsing: Tactical generation in dynamic syntax. Proceedings of the 9th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation, 79–86.Google Scholar
Purver, Matthew, Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Meyer-Viol, Wilfried & Cann, Ronnie. 2010. Splitting the I’s & crossing the You’s: Context, speech acts grammar. Proceedings of SemDial 2010, (PozDial), Poznan, Poland, June 2010.Google Scholar
Purver, Matthew, Hough, Julian & Gregoromichelaki, Eleni. 2014. Dialogue and compound contributions. Natural language generation in interactive systems, 63–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stabler, Edward. 2013. Two models of minimalist, incremental syntactic analysis. Topics in Cognitive Science 5.3, 611–633.Google Scholar
Vallduvi, Enric. 1992. The informational component. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Valiouli, Maria. 1994. Anaphora, agreement, and right dislocation in Greek. Journal of Semantics 11, 55–82.Google Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2007. Dislocation and backgrounding. Linguistics in the Netherlands 24, 235–247.Google Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2009. The left and right periphery in Dutch. Linguistic Review 26, 291–327.Google Scholar
Wang, Chyan-An Arthur. 2006. Sluicing and resumption. The 37th North East Linguistic Society, 239–252. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar