Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T20:06:45.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonological Movement in Classical Greek

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Brian Agbayani  and
Chris Golston
Brian Agbayani*
Affiliation:
California State University, Fresno
Chris Golston*
Affiliation:
California State University, Fresno
*
Department of Linguistics California State University, Fresno 5245 N. Backer Ave. M/S PB 92 Fresno, CA 93740 [bagbayan@csufresno.edu]
[chrisg@csufresno.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We show that Classical Greek HYPERBATON involves pervasive phonological movement. Hyperbaton moves prosodic constituents to prosodic positions, subject to prosodic boundaries and to prosodic conditions on well-formedness. Syntactic analyses of hyperbaton fail insofar as they require the movement of heads, phrases, and nonconstituents to positions that are difficult to define syntactically. Furthermore, hyperbaton disobeys anti-locality constraints and a host of well-studied syntactic island conditions. We propose that phonological movement arises as the result of constraint interaction in the phonological component, subsequent to the interface between syntax and phonology.

Keywords

Classical Greekdiscontinuous constituentshyperbatonPF movementprosodic constituentssyntax-phonology interface

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 86 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 133 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1996. The poly synthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basic, Monica. 2004. Nominal subextractions and the structure of NPs in Serbian and English. Tromsø: University of Tromsø masters thesis.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59.1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko, and Takahashi, Daiko. 1998. Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 29.347–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, Carl Darling. 1933. Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bulloch, Anthony W. 1970. A Callimachean refinement of the Greek hexameter: A new ‘law’ and some observations on Greek proclitics. Classical Quarterly 20.258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calhoun, Sasha. 2006. Information structure and the prosodic structure of English: A probabilistic relationship. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.Google Scholar
Ćavar, Damir, and Fanselow, Gisbert. 2000. Discontinuous constituents in Slavic and Germanic languages. Hamburg: University of Hamburg, and Potsdam: University of Potsdam, ms.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Miller, George A.. 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2, ed. by Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, Robert R., and Galanter, Eugene, 269–321. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 1992. Left branch extraction. North East Linguistic Society 22.67–84.Google Scholar
Costa, João. 1997. Word order and constraint interaction. Seminários de Linguística 1.65–102.Google Scholar
de Haas, W. G. 1988. A formal theory of vowel-coalescence: A case study of Ancient Greek. Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit te Nijmegen dissertation. [Distributed, Dordrecht: ICG Printing.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denniston, J. D. 1966. The Greek particles. 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Devine, A. M., and Stephens, Laurence D.. 1978. The Greek appositives: Toward a linguistically adequate definition of caesura and bridge. Classical Philology 73.314–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, A. M., and Stephens, Laurence D.. 1981. Bridges in the Iambographers. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 22.305–21.Google Scholar
Devine, A. M., and Stephens, Laurence D.. 1983. Semantics, syntax, and phonological organization in Greek: Aspects of the theory of metrical bridges. Classical Philology 78.1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, A. M., and Stephens, Laurence D.. 1994. The prosody of Greek speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, A. M., and Stephens, Laurence D.. 2000. Discontinuous syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, A. M., and Stephens, Laurence D.. 2006. Latin word order: Structured meaning and information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, Helma. 1995. Word order in Ancient Greek: A pragmatic account of word order variation in Herodotus. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrov, Gregory. 1988. The syntax of coreference in Greek. Classical Philology 83.275–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dover, K. J. 1960. Greek word order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Embick, David, and Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 22.555–95.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline, and Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82.131–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fränkel, H. F. 1960. Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven, and Progovac, Ljiljana. 1994. On the placement of Serbo-Croatian clitics. Indiana Linguistic Studies 7.69–78.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki, and Sakai, Hiromu. 2003. The visibility guideline for functional categories: Verb raising in Japanese and related issues. Lingua 113.321–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golston, Chris. 1988. Phrasal morphology in Homeric Greek. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles masters thesis.Google Scholar
Golston, Chris. 1995. Syntax outranks phonology: Evidence from Ancient Greek. Phonology 21.325–57.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria. 2000. Split scrambling: Barriers as violable constraints. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 20.220–33.Google Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2002. Anti-locality and clause types. Theoretical Linguistics 28.43–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 1974. Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 69.287–310.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of nonconfigurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1.5–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, Aaron L. 1995. On the placement and morphology of clitics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Harford, Carolyn, and Demuth, Katherine. 1999. Prosody outranks syntax: An optimality approach to subject inversion in Bantu relatives. Linguistic Analysis 29.47–68.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1996. Who's on first? Toward a prosodic account of P2 clitics. Approaching second: Second position clitics and related phenomena, ed. by Halpern, Aaron L. and Zwicky, Arnold M., 199–270. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hoji, Hajime. 1987. Japanese clefts and chain binding/reconstruction effects. Paper presented at the 6th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting: How any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry 31.445–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1996. The difficulty of (so-called) self-embedded structures. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8.283–314.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, and Zec, Draga. 1990. Prosodically constrained syntax. The phonology-syntax connection, ed. by Inkelas, Sharon and Zec, Draga, 365–78. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2.39–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1998. Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax 1.128–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2005. Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, ed. by Cinque, Guglielmo and Kayne, Richard S., 3–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank, and Alexopoulou, Theodora. 2001. Phonology competes with syntax: Experimental evidence for the interaction of word order and accent placement in the realization of information structure. Cognition 79.301–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kidwai, Ayesha. 1999. Word order and focus positions in universal grammar. The grammar of focus, ed. by Rebuschi, Georges and Tuller, Laurice, 213–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kidwai, Ayesha. 2000. XP-adjunction in universal grammar: Scrambling and binding in Hindi-Urdu. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2000. String vacuous overt verb raising. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9.227–85.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Move a: Conditions on its application and output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leben, Will. 1973. Suprasegmental phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Lee, Felicia. 2000. VP remnant movement and VSO in Quiavini Zapotec. The syntax of verb initial languages, ed. by Carnie, Andrew and Guilfoyle, Eithne, 143–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mathieu, Eric. 2004. Hyperbaton and haplology. Triggers, ed. by Breitbarth, Anne and Riemsdijk, Henk van, 293–330. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, Eric, and Sitaridou, Ioanna. 2005. Split wh-constructions in Classical and Modern Greek: A diachronic perspective. Grammaticalization and parametric variation, ed. by Batllori, Montserrat, Hernanz, Maria-Lluïsa, Picallo, Carme, and Roca, Francesc, 236–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matić, D. 2003. Topic, focus and discourse structure: Ancient Greek word order. Studies in Language 27.573–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, George, and Chomsky, Noam. 1963. Finitary models of language users. Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2, ed. by Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, Robert R., and Galanter, Eugene, 419–93. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1997. Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28.1–25.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1998. Incomplete category fronting. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. College Park: University of Maryland dissertation.Google Scholar
Ntelitheos, Dimitrios. 2004. Syntax of elliptical and discontinuous nominals. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles masters thesis.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1996. On the interface principles for intonational focus. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 6, ed. by Galloway, Teresa and Spence, Justin, 202–26. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A ´-movement. Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, ed. by Baltin, Mark and Kroch, Anthony, 182–200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli, and Elbourne, Paul. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33.283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayeed, Asad B. 2005. Minimalist parsing of subjects displaced from embedded clauses in free word order languages. Proceedings of the ACL Student Research Workshop, 97–102, Ann Arbor, Michigan, June 2005.Google Scholar
Sayeed, Asad B., and Szpakowicz, Stan. 2004. Developing a minimalist parser for free word order languages with discontinuous constituency. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3230.115–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3.371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1995. The prosodic structure of function words. Papers in optimality theory (University of Massachusetts occasional papers 18), ed. by Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 439–70. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 2002. Contrastive FOCUS vs. presentational focus: Prosodic evidence from right node raising in English. Speech prosody 2002: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Speech Prosody, 643–446.Google Scholar
Smyth, Herbert Weir. 1920. Greek grammar for colleges. New York: American Book Company.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. The noun phrase. Syntax and semantics, vol. 27: The syntactic structure of Hungarian, ed. by Kiefer, Ferenc and Kiss, Katalin É., 179–274. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szendröi, Kriszta. 2001. Focus and the syntax-phonology interface. London: University College London dissertation.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 1993. Minimality of movement. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Takano, Yuji. 2002. Surprising constituents. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11.243–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Ann. 1996. A prosodic account of clitic position in Ancient Greek. Approaching second: Second position clitics and related phenomena, ed. by Halpern, Aaron L. and Zwicky, Arnold M., 477–503. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Irvine: University of California, Irvine. Online: http://www.tlg.uci.edu/.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus and prominence. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Walter, Mary Ann. 2007. Repetition avoidance in human language. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1993. The interaction of Align, PARSE-Place and *Echo in reduplication. Paper presented at the Rutgers Optimality Workshop, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Zlatic, Larisa. 1997. The structure of the Serbian noun phrase. Austin: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Zoerner, Ed. 1999. One coordinator for all. Linguistic Analysis 29.322–41.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold, and Pullum, Geoffrey. 1986a. The principle of phonology-free syntax: Introductory remarks. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32.63–91.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold, and Pullum, Geoffrey. 1986b. Two spurious counterexamples to the principle of phonology-free syntax. The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32.92–99.Google Scholar