A diachronic take on the Source–Goal asymmetry
-
Thanasis Georgakopoulos
Abstract
A bulk of typological and crosslinguistic evidence on the internal structure of motion events has shown that Goals and Sources behave asymmetrically. This asymmetry exhibits several morphosyntactic and semantic realizations: Goal markers are morphologically simpler than Source markers; there tend to be more fine-grained semantic distinctions within the Goal domain than within the Source domain, leading to higher numbers of markers for the encoding of Goal than of Source (type level); Goals are more frequently zero-marked than Sources; and, Goal relations are encoded more frequently in discourse (token level). In this chapter, we report similar imbalances in the behavior of Sources and Goals in inner Asia Minor Greek. We find that Goal markers are more numerous than markers denoting Source and that Goal paths are more often explicitly expressed in discourse. Additionally, we test the diachronic validity of these findings, which have been reached on the basis of mostly synchronic investigations, by examining the historical developments that the Modern Greek dialects of inner Asia Minor underwent in the formal expression of Goal and Source. We analyze the (a)symmetrical relations that hold between the two locative roles as evidenced by the qualitative and quantitative use of the prepositions se ‘to, at’, os ‘up to, until’, tʃax/tʃáus ‘up to, until’, and apó ‘from’, focusing specifically on the implications that the diachronic loss of se, the most frequent Goal marker, had for the spatial system of inner Asia Minor Greek. Our analysis shows that overt Goal markers remain morphologically less complex than Source markers across diachronic stages; and, that the Goal marker develops into a zero marker earlier than the Source marker. These findings support the Goal-over-Source predominance hypothesis. However, our analysis also indicates that the asymmetry could under certain circumstances work in the opposite direction.
Abstract
A bulk of typological and crosslinguistic evidence on the internal structure of motion events has shown that Goals and Sources behave asymmetrically. This asymmetry exhibits several morphosyntactic and semantic realizations: Goal markers are morphologically simpler than Source markers; there tend to be more fine-grained semantic distinctions within the Goal domain than within the Source domain, leading to higher numbers of markers for the encoding of Goal than of Source (type level); Goals are more frequently zero-marked than Sources; and, Goal relations are encoded more frequently in discourse (token level). In this chapter, we report similar imbalances in the behavior of Sources and Goals in inner Asia Minor Greek. We find that Goal markers are more numerous than markers denoting Source and that Goal paths are more often explicitly expressed in discourse. Additionally, we test the diachronic validity of these findings, which have been reached on the basis of mostly synchronic investigations, by examining the historical developments that the Modern Greek dialects of inner Asia Minor underwent in the formal expression of Goal and Source. We analyze the (a)symmetrical relations that hold between the two locative roles as evidenced by the qualitative and quantitative use of the prepositions se ‘to, at’, os ‘up to, until’, tʃax/tʃáus ‘up to, until’, and apó ‘from’, focusing specifically on the implications that the diachronic loss of se, the most frequent Goal marker, had for the spatial system of inner Asia Minor Greek. Our analysis shows that overt Goal markers remain morphologically less complex than Source markers across diachronic stages; and, that the Goal marker develops into a zero marker earlier than the Source marker. These findings support the Goal-over-Source predominance hypothesis. However, our analysis also indicates that the asymmetry could under certain circumstances work in the opposite direction.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Abbreviations vii
- Space in Diachrony xi
- The goal-over-source principle in European languages 1
- Overlaps in spatial encodings 41
- Ablative and allative marking of static locations 67
- How should a “classical” Satellite-Framed Language behave? 95
- Differential Goal marking vs. differential Source marking in Ancient Greek 119
- New evidence for the Source–Goal asymmetry 147
- A diachronic take on the Source–Goal asymmetry 179
- Spatial interrogatives 207
- Asymmetries between Goal and Source prefixes in Spanish 241
- Asymmetries in path encoding in Sicilian 281
- Source-oriented and Goal-oriented events in Old and Modern French 305
- Source-Location ambiguity and incipient decline in the recent evolution of the English directional particle away 329
- Prepositional phrase vs. bare instrumental 347
- Language index 369
- Subject index 371
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Abbreviations vii
- Space in Diachrony xi
- The goal-over-source principle in European languages 1
- Overlaps in spatial encodings 41
- Ablative and allative marking of static locations 67
- How should a “classical” Satellite-Framed Language behave? 95
- Differential Goal marking vs. differential Source marking in Ancient Greek 119
- New evidence for the Source–Goal asymmetry 147
- A diachronic take on the Source–Goal asymmetry 179
- Spatial interrogatives 207
- Asymmetries between Goal and Source prefixes in Spanish 241
- Asymmetries in path encoding in Sicilian 281
- Source-oriented and Goal-oriented events in Old and Modern French 305
- Source-Location ambiguity and incipient decline in the recent evolution of the English directional particle away 329
- Prepositional phrase vs. bare instrumental 347
- Language index 369
- Subject index 371
