Form E1 2006

TASOS_XRHSTIDIS BOOK

22-03-07

10:21

™ÂÏ›‰·224

I O M ANOLESSOU & G EOFFREY H ORROCKS

The Development of the Definite Article in Greek Abstract Relying on the distinction of semantic vs. pragmatic definiteness, two major stages in the evolution of the definite article in Greek are discussed: (a) the change from demonstrative to definite article and (b) the spread of the definite article to new contexts such as generic expressions and proper names.

1. Introduction: aims and assumptions The development of definite articles from demonstratives used as NP specifiers (and possible further development into class markers) has been frequently discussed in the grammaticalisation literature (e.g. Greenberg 1978; Lehmann 1982; Givón 1984; Hopper & Traugott 1993/2003, 8; Himmelmann 1997; Diessel 1999; Lyons 1999, 331–4), and Greek is often mentioned as providing a good example of such a development (e.g. Himmelmann 1997; Philippi 1997; Lyons 1999; Roberts & Roussou 2003). Unfortunately, however, there has been no work actually dedicated to a detailed investigation of Greek in this respect (Anagnostopoulos 1922 remaining the only comprehensive survey). This paper is a modest contribution towards filling that gap. Though we shall attempt below to trace the whole course of development from the articleless Mycenaean Greek of the 2nd millennium BC to the situation in Modern Greek where articles (definite or indefinite) are used in almost all argument DPs, we shall focus principally on what we take to be the two central aspects of the process, despite the fact that the evidence for each is limited: [1] a. the original evolution from demonstrative to definite article. b. the progressive extension of article usage to new contexts thereafter.

Both evolutions unfortunately belong largely to the two major ‘Dark Ages’ in the evidence for the history of Greek: [1a] falls in the period between the demise of the Mycenaean civilisation c.1200 BC and the first alphabetic Greek texts c. 800 BC (though we do have the evidence of the orally composed and orally transmitted Homeric poems which belong, at least in origin, to this period), while Though much of this paper reflects our own work directly, the discussion of medieval Greek reflects work in progress in connection with the Cambridge-based research project funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council to produce a grammar of Medieval Greek (researchers: David Holton, Geoffrey Horrocks, Tina Lendari, Io Manolessou and Notis Toufexis).

[ 224 ]

TASOS_XRHSTIDIS BOOK

22-03-07

10:21

™ÂÏ›‰·225

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN GREEK

many of the crucial stages of [1b] belong to the poorly documented centuries between the last of the Egyptian papyri (7th/8th c. AD) and the time when we begin again to have some consistent attestation of vernacular Greek (c. AD 1200). Our overall approach is based on the study of variation in article usage in a range of key environments, which we take to be indicative of the spread from “established” contexts of use into “novel” domains where the use of the article was at first optional, and motivated by specific contextual requirements, before finally becoming an obligatory grammatical fixture. But before dealing with the specifics, we must first outline and comment on some standard assumptions about the emergence of definite articles: [2] a. the source of definite articles is generally a distal demonstrative (cf. Latin ille, Old English thæt), used anaphorically, with a gradual extension of an original use referring back to contextually non-topical antecedents, i.e. that are unexpected/contrastive/emphatic, to a more general use to refer back to all kinds of previously mentioned referents, an extension accompanied by progressive loss of deictic function (e.g. Greenberg 1978, 61; Givón 1984, 226; Himmelmann 1997, 97, and esp. Diessel 1999, 128–9, 161).

We will therefore check that the attested variation/optionality occurs in precisely the predicted “anaphoric” contexts. b. there is supposedly a regular ‘path’ of development for definite articles cross-linguistically (Greenberg 1978):

Stage 0: Stage 1: Stage 2:

Stage 3:

no definite article, other means are employed to convey the notion of definiteness. the article emerges from a (usually distal) demonstrative. the article becomes more generalised, e.g. into non-definite but specific uses, with resistance from proper names, generics, predicate nominals, incorporated objects etc. the “article” loses all inherent semantic content, becoming simply a marker of e.g. class (gender), number, or mere nominality.

European languages, however, never reach stage 3, and arguably do not go even as far as stage 2, but rather show variation in usage within stage 1 (cf. Lyons 1999, 337–9). It is useful therefore to consider Lyons’s subdivision of stage 1, as in [3]): [3]

English: French: Italian: Greek:

simple definite simple definite, generic simple definite, generic, possessive simple definite, generic, possessive, proper names/unique-reference nouns

We take the implications of this framework for our study to be: [ 225 ]

TASOS_XRHSTIDIS BOOK

22-03-07

10:21

™ÂÏ›‰·226

I. MANOLESSOU & G. HORROCKS

[4] a. that such a synchronic description of the situation in different languages also reflects the probable path of diachronic development within a given language (thus there will normally be no obligatory use of the article with proper names, for example, unless it is also already used with other types of nominal, or with possessives unless it appears also with generics, etc.). b. that any extension of article usage over time (initially involving optionality/variation of use as determined by detectable semantic or pragmatic considerations) will take place in categories other than “simple definite” (see e.g. Epstein 1993; Crisma 2000; Batllori & Roca 2000 for cross-linguistic corroboration).

2. Definiteness Since there are many different approaches to definiteness (see, for example, Hawkins 1978; Chesterman 1991; Lyons 1999, among the more “linguistic” as opposed to “formal semantic” treatments of relatively recent years), it will also be useful to explain what we have in mind when using this term. In general, we have chosen to follow the general approach of Löbner 1985, which has been successfully exploited by Selig 1992, Himmelmann 1997, and Demske 2001, and which seems especially helpful for the diachronic investigation of article usage. The basic claims embodied in Löbner’s account are therefore summarised in [5]: [5] a. a quantificational approach (Montague-style) to definites is argued to be logically inadequate. b. the logical role of definites is taken to be that of individual expressions (i.e. singular and plural count definites and mass definites are taken to refer to single, though possibly internally complex, objects), and the key properties of definiteness are taken to be existence and unambiguousness of reference (pace Russell, Hawkins and others who focus on existence and uniqueness: see Barwise & Perry 1983,152ff. for some support). c. nouns may denote functional, relational or sortal concepts: sortal nouns simply classify objects (e.g. woman), while relational nouns have arguments (e.g. sister – must be sister of someone), and functional nouns are relational nouns that identify the referent unambiguously (e.g. mother (of X) does not allow for more than one referent). d. semantic definites represent functional concepts independently of the particular situation referred to, while pragmatic definites depend crucially on that situation for unambiguous reference: either way, the definite article indicates that the associated headnoun is/is to be taken as a functional concept with unambiguous reference (other determiners require its interpretation as sortal or relational).

Let us consider the classes of semantic definites and pragmatic definites in more detail. Proper names, 1st /2nd person pronouns, and unique reference nouns (e.g. the sun) are said to denote functional concepts inherently, by virtue of their lexical meaning alone, while certain other nouns that are otherwise non-functional [ 226 ]

TASOS_XRHSTIDIS BOOK

22-03-07

10:21

™ÂÏ›‰·227

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN GREEK

are also taken to be semantically definite when used generically (i.e. when referring to the whole class, e.g. The dog is man’s best friend); a rather different kind of generic use arises when a noun is unambiguous with respect to a particular ‘abstract’ situation in which there is no specific real-world referent (e.g. She goes to church but Sie geht in die Kirche). In such cases use of the article is to some degree redundant and therefore conventional. In other cases semantic definiteness arises when a noun is modified by superlatives, ordinal numerals and polar contrastive adjectives (e.g. the tallest man – i.e. of the set of men, the third occasion – i.e. of the set of occasions, the other book – i.e. of the set of two books), or when used in “associative anaphora” (e.g. I just bought a car. The exhaust [i.e. of the car] fell off as soon as I drove it). Here, then, the article is semantically motivated and functional, distinguishing ‘very X’ from ‘the X-est’, ‘a n-th’ from ‘the n-th’ (cf. a third argument would be…, the third argument is…), ‘other’ from ‘the other’, etc. Pragmatic definites, by contrast, acquire unambiguous reference within the particular linguistic or extralinguistic contexts in which they are used, being endophoric (i.e. when used with a disambiguating attribute, e.g. the prize which she won last week), anaphoric (e.g. A key was stolen from the office. Two days later the key was used to obtain entry to the building), or deictic (where the definite description refers immediately to components of the situation, e.g. Mind the gap!). The use of the definite article with pragmatic definites is therefore ‘motivated’, and it is to be expected that a language will first develop and then quickly generalise the article in precisely those environments where it is functional. Accordingly, if use of the article with pragmatic definites is still optional in some language, its main function is likely still to be semantic, i.e. to ensure the logical analysis of specific nominal expressions as denoting functional concepts. Conversely, since the definite article with those semantic definites that denote functional concepts inherently (i.e. by virtue of their lexical meaning or through generic use) is clearly ‘redundant’, we might expect any further spread of the article to involve only a gradual extension from the contexts in which it is motivated to the remaining cases of semantic definiteness, where it is not. Within the latter domain (comprising proper names, generic and unique reference nouns, prepositional phrases of non-specific reference, etc.) we should not be surprised, therefore, to find significant cross-linguistic variation with respect to the use or absence of the article. Article use may eventually become obligatory with definites of all kinds, but if it remains optional with inherent functional concepts, its presence will normally point to a pragmatic function, e.g. to ensure discourse continuity, to convey contrast or emphasis, etc.

[ 227 ]

TASOS_XRHSTIDIS BOOK

22-03-07

10:21

™ÂÏ›‰·228

I. MANOLESSOU & G. HORROCKS

3. The definite article in Greek 3.1 The shift from demonstrative to article

With this background in mind, we may now begin the task of analysing and interpreting the Greek data specifically. It should be noted at the outset that throughout the remainder of this article we consider only expressions in argument positions: predicative nominals lack the article throughout the history of Greek. Beginning with Mycenaean Greek, it is well known that there is no apparent trace of a definite article (cf., for example, Barton[k 2003). By contrast, Homeric Greek is already in the early stages of transition, and though the (probably) originally demonstrative ï ì Ùfi is still used mainly as an anaphoric or contrastive pronoun, it also has an article-like use with ordinals, superlatives, and polar contrastive adjectives, i.e. with the modifiers that lead to ‘derived’ semantic definiteness for the head noun and where the article is semantically motivated: [6] a. Iliad 1.54: b. Iliad 11.288: c. Iliad 5.130:

ÙFÉ ‰ÂοÙFË ‰’ àÁÔڋӉ ηϤÛÛ·ÙÔ Ï·eÓ \A¯ÈÏχ˜ Ôú¯ÂÙ’ àÓcÚ ôÚÈÛÙÔ˜, âÌÔd ‰b ̤Á’ Âs¯Ô˜ ö‰ˆÎ ̋ ÙÈ Û‡ Á’ àı·Ó¿ÙÔȘ ıÂÔÖ˜ àÓÙÈÎÚf Ì¿¯ÂÛı·È ÙÔÖ˜ ôÏÏÔȘ

Use with simple nouns (of all kinds, including proper names) is still rare, however, and its function cannot therefore simply be to convey definiteness; Chantraine suggests that it is associated with some notion of contrast/emphasis (“sens présentatif net”, “sens affectif”, 1953, 162–4). As far as we can determine, the optional use of the article with common nouns in Homeric Greek is in fact analogous to the role of the article with proper names and generics in later Greek (see below), namely that it serves a pragmatic role in re-topicalising a constituent or in facilitating referent tracking. Thus many cases of a “definite” expression occur within a narrative in which a given participant, once introduced, remains active but backrounded, and the first instance with the “article” then reinstates the item in the foreground (subsequent mentions again being article-less). A good example is provided by the pole which Odysseus uses to blind the Cyclops (for a similar analysis of this passage cf. Ambrosini 1991, 6): [7] Odyssey 9.319–29: a. 319ff ∫‡ÎψÔ˜ ÁaÚ öÎÂÈÙÔ Ì¤Á· ®fi·ÏÔÓ ·Úa ÛËΡá | ¯ÏˆÚeÓ âÏ·˝ÓÂÔÓ b. 325 ÙÔÜ ÌbÓ ¬ÛÔÓ Ù’ ùÚÁ˘È·Ó âÁgÓ à¤ÎÔ„· ·Ú·ÛÙ¿˜ c. 329 ηd Ùe ÌbÓ Âs η٤ıËη ηٷÎÚ‡„·˜ ñe ÎfiÚˇˆ Odyssey 9.375–83: d. 375 ηd ÙfiÙ’ âÁg ÙeÓ ÌÔ¯ÏeÓ ñe ÛÔ‰ÔÜ õÏ·Û· ÔÏÏɘ (‘that pole I mentioned’) e. 378 àÏÏ’ ¬Ù ‰c Ù¿¯’ ï ÌÔ¯Ïe˜ âÏ¿˚ÓÔ˜ âÓ ˘Úd ̤ÏÏÂÓ ±„ÂÛı·È

[ 228 ]

TASOS_XRHSTIDIS BOOK

22-03-07

10:21

™ÂÏ›‰·229

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN GREEK

f. 380ff

àÌÊd ‰’ ëÙ·›ÚÔÈ | úÛÙ·ÓÙ’Ø ·éÙaÚ ı¿ÚÛÔ˜ âÓ¤Ó¢ÛÂÓ Ì¤Á· ‰·›ÌˆÓ. | Ôî ÌbÓ ÌÔ¯ÏeÓ ≤ÏÔÓÙ˜ âÏ¿˚ÓÔÓ, çÍfÓ â’ ôÎÚˇˆ, | çÊı·ÏÌˇá âÓ¤ÚÂÈÛ·Ó.

We may compare here the 15 examples of ï ÍÂÖÓÔ˜ (among 110 attestations of the word in all), of which all but one refer to the as yet unidentified Odysseus: each restores ‘that hero of ours’ to the foreground as required by the narrative. Cf. also ì ÓÉÛÔ˜ (Odyssey 5.55, 9.146, …), Ùa ÌÉÏ· (Odyssey 9.464, 11.4, 20, …), Ùe ÙfiÍÔÓ (Odyssey 21.113, 315, …), each of which similarly brings a key discourse participant back into focus. The issue, unfortunately, must remain at least partly problematical, since the manuscript tradition is often uncertain, and our (Alexandrian) text may well have been affected by copyists introducing the article, at least where it was metrically permissible, according to later usage. E.g. in [7e] above the article is not metrically guaranteed, and Ù¿¯· could be restored, leaving the noun ‘bare’, as perhaps would be expected in the light of what we have proposed. And in general the investigation of article usage in Homeric and Classical Greek must also take into consideration the possibility of scribal interference/manuscript tradition as a cause of variation (cf. Svensson 1946). Once we turn to Classical Greek prose, however, we seem to be dealing with an apparently fully developed article, used virtually obligatorily with common/count nouns to convey pragmatic definiteness (cf. the statistics in Lombardi-Vallarini 2002). We must therefore conclude that any detailed study of the transition from the situation of early development seen in Homeric Greek to that in Classical Greek remains impossible in the absence of relevant sources for investigation. We might, however, speculate (following Wackernagel 1924, 133–5, and Palmer 1962) that further transition from demonstrative/pronominal to true article began in certain contexts where appositions followed a pronominal, with subsequent reanalysis, as in the following: [8]

Iliad 2.445 Ôî ‰’ àÌÊd Ù’ \AÙÚ›ˆÓ· ‰ÈÔÙÚÂʤ˜ ‚·ÛÈÏɘ (Cf. also Iliad 2.316; 3.21; 5.663, 692; 15.74 etc.)

3.2 The spread of the definite article to cases of “inherent” semantic definiteness

In Classical Greek the use of the article is still optional with inherent semantic definites, i.e. generic nouns, abstract nouns, proper names, etc. The general view in the standard grammars is that article use in such cases is “popular” (cf. Gildersleeve 1890, 483 – we may note that language change is often bottom-up), “emphatic”, or “anaphoric”, i.e. with nouns of this type denoting previously mentioned discourse participants (see e.g. Sansone 1993; Manolessou 1997). Thus topicalisation, for example, may lead to the use of the article with a preposed/proleptic nominal belonging to the class of semantic definites (e.g. an abstract noun with a generic meaning): [ 229 ]

TASOS_XRHSTIDIS BOOK

22-03-07

10:21

™ÂÏ›‰·230

I. MANOLESSOU & G. HORROCKS

[9] a. Plato, Protagoras 329b: ÙcÓ àÚÂÙcÓ ÊFc˜ ‰È‰·ÎÙeÓ ÂrÓ·È b. Plato, Protagoras 324c: ‰È‰·ÎÙeÓ … äÁÔÜÓÙ·È àÚÂÙ‹Ó

We may also note the use of the article with proper names as subjects of verbs of saying in order to mark switches of speaker in a dialogue, an extension of the Homeric use for reintroducing “familiar players”. [10]

Plato, Symposium 175d-176b: ηd ÙeÓ ™ˆÎÚ¿ÙË … ÂåÂÖÓ … ñ‚ÚÈÛÙc˜ Âr, öÊË … ï \AÁ¿ıˆÓ… ÙeÓ ÔsÓ ¶·˘Û·Ó›·Ó öÊË ÏfiÁÔ˘ … ηٿگÂÈÓ … ÙeÓ ÔsÓ \AÚÈÛÙÔÊ¿ÓË ÂåÂÖÓ …

(175d) (175e) (176a) (176b)

The article is absent in such circumstances only when a name is specified by an apposition (cf. (*ï) £Ô˘Îȉ›‰Ë˜ (ï) \AıËÓ·ÖÔ˜/ï \OÏfiÚÔ˘), precisely because of the absence of any possible emphatic/anaphoric function when the referent is specifically being (re)identified by the additional material instead. [11]

Plato, Symposium 176b: \EÚ˘Í›Ì·¯ÔÓ ÙeÓ \AÎÔ˘ÌÂÓÔÜ … Ê¿Ó·È …

Though most recent work simply notes the optionality of the article, albeit with increasing frequency over time, without investigation of specific contexts (see e.g. Guardiano (forthcoming)), Manolessou (1997) specifically draws attention to the optional presence of the article with proper names, unique reference nouns, abstract nouns and generics, nouns used in prepositional phrases without a contextually specific referent (meaning e.g. ‘in town’, ‘at sea’, ‘in battle’, etc., cf. Gildersleeve & Miller 1911, 260), and in temporal expressions involving an ordinal numeral, i.e. with the class of semantic definites, inherent and derived, as defined above (excluding, of course, the type involving superlatives etc). Furthermore, the article with inherent semantic definites specifically is strongly disfavoured in belletristic/poetic contexts, official/legal discourse, prepositional phrases, parentheticals and reported speech, but much more common in comedy/dialogue (especially in anaphoric use), with names used as the subjects of verbs of saying, with topicalised and dislocated items, and with nominals premodified by an attributive adjective. In other words, it seems that ‘popular/natural’ styles employed the ‘new’ construction much more readily than more conservative styles for marking the pragmatic/discourse functions attaching to semantic definites (viz. topicalisation, salience, reference-tracking, etc.). Nonetheless, it still remains the case that only the more important referents routinely have the article, and typically only when reintroduced in alternation with other participants, i.e. when there is a clear switch of topic/focus. Hence the article is routinely omitted even with key participants in the absence of such retopicalisation, as also in parentheticals (which are by definition outside the main [ 230 ]

TASOS_XRHSTIDIS BOOK

22-03-07

10:21

™ÂÏ›‰·231

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN GREEK

discourse) and reported speech (which is taken from a different discourse context). As far as we have been able to determine, the overall pattern of usage is very similar in Hellenistic Greek. In the New Testament, however, the omission of the article with generics is much less common than previously, even though the situation with proper names has apparently remained essentially unchanged (Fee 1970–1; Heimerdinger & Levinsohn 1992). Unfortunately, the New Testament also suffers from high levels of variation across manuscripts with respect to the presence/absence of the article in specific contexts, including proper names, and interference from Aramaic also remains a real possibility (based, for example, on omission of the article with proper names, obligatory determiner ‘spreading’, the construct state, etc., see Grant 1951, 117–8, Cignelli-Bottini 1991; Kraus 2000). Detailed analysis of article usage in the Egyptian papyri, which might provide a useful corrective, remains a major desideratum. Earlier descriptive accounts (e.g. Mayser 1906/1938; Eakin 1916, and recently Lombardi-Vallarini 2002) suggest that article usage remains optional with proper names, unique reference nouns and generics (though without any reliable comparative statistical information), and that presence of the article in such cases is determined by the same range of factors that controlled its use in Classical Greek. But once again there are problems. Many papyri are of an official character, and, as we have seen, ‘legal’ Greek traditionally avoids the use of the article with proper names and, to a lesser extent, with other semantic definites (Gildersleeve et al. 1911). In addition, many of the documents are too short to provide scope for the systematic investigation of variation, while interference from Coptic is probable in many cases (e.g. no definite article with proper names etc). In general, however, we find a rather limited further extension of the article with inherent semantic definites, which are now required, for example, with proper names when used with a demonstrative (e.g. ÔyÙÔ˜/âÎÂÖÓÔ˜ ï ™ÔÊÔÎÏɘ), a context in which they remained optional in Classical Greek, cf. Harry 1898. But when we seek to see how the situation progressed in Medieval Greek we unfortunately find ourselves in a domain in which no detailed or systematic research has ever been done on this specific topic, and in which more general studies of historical development focus mainly on phonology, morphology and lexicon to the detriment of syntax. In attempting to tackle this deficiency we were also faced with two further difficulties to do with the primary evidence: [12] a. In the early medieval period (i.e. before 12th c.) there is a serious lack of “vernacular” texts of any kind suitable for study in this connection. b. Though there are plentiful literary and documentary sources for the later medieval period, the latter in particular have remained seriously understudied from a linguistic point of view because of the huge volume and scattered nature of the material, and the absence, or variable quality, of modern editions.

[ 231 ]

TASOS_XRHSTIDIS BOOK

22-03-07

10:21

™ÂÏ›‰·232

I. MANOLESSOU & G. HORROCKS

What we have to offer here is therefore necessarily provisional, but we hope nonetheless to have identified some key characteristics of the period which will help to fill the gap between late antique and modern usage. As is well known, the majority of literary vernacular texts from the 12th–15th c. are in verse (using the 15-syllable “political” verse). Modern editors typically note only that the article is optional and that its use is conditioned by “metrical factors”, though not to the point of permitting outright ungrammaticality. The evidence overall suggests that the article remained optional with proper names and with “generic” prepositional phrases, but had now become obligatory with other types of semantic definite (generics etc.), as already with all cases of pragmatic definiteness. Unfortunately, there are no clear pragmatically determined patterns of usage in the cases of optionality, for familiar reasons that limit the value of these texts as evidence: [13] sometimes the apparatus criticus reveals that modern editors, believing in the general optionality of the article and underestimating the flexibility of the political verse, have intervened in order to ‘restore’ or ‘improve’ the metre, as in the following: a.

Digenes Akrites E, 145: ·Ù‹Ú Ì·˜ qÙÔÓ \A·ÚgÓ Î·d ıÂÖÔ˜ ï ∫·ÚÔ‹Ï˘ ms. ï ·Ù‹Ú Ì·˜ qÙÔÓ \A·ÚgÓ Î·d ï ıÂÖÔ˜ Ì·˜ ï ∫·ÚÔ‹Ï˘

b.

Thysia tou Avraam 155: οÙ¯ g˜ \AʤÓÙ˘ Ì·˜ ηd ¶Ï¿ÛÙ˘ ηd £Âfi˜ Ì·˜ app.crit. o afedis||chio plastis o ms. Marc. gr.XI.19 (Bakker & van Gemert, Thysia, p. 100)

[14] the nominative masculine/feminine article, singular and plural, is often ‘omitted’ where it precedes a word beginning, or follows a word ending, with the same vowel sound (i.e. reflecting the pronunciation, with deletion of one of a pair of like vowels): a.

Alexander (Rhymed) 2402 … ηd Ï·ÎÙ·ÚÂÖ (ì) ηډȿ ÌÔ˘

b.

War of Troy 933 ó˜ Âr‰ÂÓ ¬ÙÈ (Ôî) ≠EÏÏËÓ˜ ÔÏÏa ÙeÓ ˙ËÌÈÒÓÔ˘Ó

[15] forms of the article without initial /t-/ are sometimes omitted in other contexts too, so as to avoid hiatus (both in ms. and perhaps by editors).

Nonetheless, a careful examination of later verse texts suggests that the option of non-articular proper names had declined over time. Thus the concordance to Erotokritos (Crete, late 16th/early 17th c.) shows that the names of its central characters, i.e. (E)Rotokritos and Aretousa, virtually never appear without the article (only 1 exception): its absence with Aristos alone probably reflects the actual pronunciation of ï ôÚÈÛÙÔ˜. We might, then, hope that a study of roughly contemporary prose texts might help to provide answers to the following, still open, questions: [ 232 ]

TASOS_XRHSTIDIS BOOK

22-03-07

10:21

™ÂÏ›‰·233

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN GREEK

[16] a. b. c. d.

When does the article become obligatory with inherent semantic definites? Is there a clear progression from one type to another? What pragmatic factors play a role where optionality survives? Are any other changes observable in the period?

Of these, we are at present in a position to offer tentative conclusions only with respect to a. and d. Thus a preliminary search of our electronic corpus of later prose texts (there are no prose texts in the vernacular before the 15th c.) gave the following results for article use with proper names:

Century 15th

Text §. ª·¯·ÈÚ¿˜, ÃÚÔÓÈÎfiÓ

16th

π. ∫·ÚÙ¿ÓÔ˜, ¶ & ∫¢ (pp. 329–438)

17th

ÃÚÔÓÈÎfi ΔÔ‡ÚÎˆÓ ™Ô˘ÏÙ¿ÓˆÓ μ›Ô˜ Ασπου

18th

ª¿ÍÈÌÔ˜ ∫·ÏÏÈÔ˘ÔÏ›Ù˘ º˘ÏÏ¿‰· ªÂÁ·Ï¤Í·Ó‰ÚÔ˘

Names §Â˘ÎˆÛ›· Aμμχουστος ¶È¤Ú ÃÚÈÛÙfi˜ Πιλ τος ’πˆÛ‹Ê ª·ÁÈ·˙›Ù˘ ªÔ˘Ú¿Ù˘ Ασωπος •¿ÓıÔ˜ ’Ιησος Aλξανδρος ¢¿ÚÂÈÔ˜

Instances - Article 168 0 198 0 98 0 382 2 159 1 72 2 179 1 77 0 1171 3 531 2 554 4 732 35 175 3

Crucially, nearly all cases of omission seem to fall under one or other of the following headings: [17] a. names used in titles of sections, inscriptions b. names followed by an apposition

and it therefore seems reasonable to conclude that the article had become obligatory with names (other than when used with appositional modifiers, or in certain traditional formulae of legal texts, which continue to show optionality, see e.g. the acts of Manolis Varouchas 1597–1613) some time before the 15th c. In confirmation, it is surely no accident that the metaphrase of Blemmydes into a lower register, from the Palaeologan period (Hunger & Sev0enko 1986), also shows significant addition of articles compared with the original. With regard to the issue of further changes in the medieval period (16d), we certainly see an increased degree of bondedness between the article and nomi[ 233 ]

TASOS_XRHSTIDIS BOOK

22-03-07

10:21

™ÂÏ›‰·234

I. MANOLESSOU & G. HORROCKS

nals overall, as reflected above all in the reduction of the range of constituents that may be ‘sandwiched’ between them: increasingly only inflected modifiers, i.e. adjectives, may intervene, cf. Merriam 1882, Manolessou 2000). This suggests an increasingly ‘grammaticalised’/obligatory role for the article, and we may compare data from Anna Comnena’s Atticising Alexiad (12th c.) with the anonymous metaphrase into a “lower” register (Hunger 1981): [18] a. ÙcÓ ÙÔÜ ÙÔÈÔ‡ÙÔ˘ ÔÏÈ¯Ó›Ô˘ ÎÙ›ÛÈÓ (16) > ÙcÓ ÎÙ›ÛÈÓ ÙÔÜ ÙÔÈÔ‡ÙÔ˘ ηÛÙÂÏÏ›Ô˘ b. Ùɘ ÙÔÜ ·éÙÔÎÚ¿ÙÔÚÔ˜ ñÔı‹Î·˜ (87) > ÙeÓ ïÚÈÛÌeÓ ÙÔÜ ‚·ÛÈϤˆ˜

Note too that “normal determiner spreading” is now apparently impossible with non-adjectival modifiers (so *Ùe ‰ˆÌ¿ÙÈÔ Ùe â¿Óˆ), while “reverse determiner” spreading starts to appear with common nouns, as in (19c), the inverse of (19b), which in turn had begun to replace (19a), the earliest type, even in Classical Greek, despite the fact that only the article with the adjective is truly ‘motivated’ as a device for securing unambiguous reference: [19] a. ôÓıÚˆÔ˜ ï ηÏfi˜ b. ï ôÓıÚˆÔ˜ ï ηÏfi˜ c. ï ηÏe˜ ï ôÓıÚˆÔ˜

This too suggests that the article with the noun had by now become obligatory in [19b], so that the two ‘halves’ of the construction could be treated as equal, and so potentially reversible.

4. Conclusion Despite the highly problematical nature of the evidence in key periods, a reasonably clear picture emerges of the development of the definite article in Greek. Beginning with derived semantic definites in Homer, where the article is clearly motivated from the first, we see a gradual extension of usage, first to cases of “significant” pragmatic definiteness, and then to pragmatic definites generally by the time of Classical Greek. Thereafter regular use of the article spreads further, from pragmatic definites to the set of inherent semantic definites, beginning with unique reference nouns and generics and eventually reaching proper names during the Middle Ages. Modern Greek now has an obligatory definite article with all types of definite nominals, with compulsory determiner spreading in complex definite expressions that permit (some degree of) agreement, cf. not only the familiar adjectival type but also the type seen in ÙÔ ÎÔ˘Ù› Ù· Û›ÚÙ· etc. [ 234 ]

TASOS_XRHSTIDIS BOOK

22-03-07

10:21

™ÂÏ›‰·235

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN GREEK

Bibliography Ambrosini, R. 1991. “Osservazioni sulle funzioni referenziali dell’articolo nei poemi omerici”, in Studi di filologia classica in onore di G. Monaco. Palermo, Univ. di Palermo, vol.1, 3–16. Anagnostopoulos, G. 1922. “¶ÂÚd ÙÔÜ ôÚıÚÔ˘”, \AıËÓÄ 34, 166–247. Barton[k, A. 2003. Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch. Heidelberg, Winter. Barwise, J. & J. Perry. 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Batllori, M. & F. Roca. 2000. “The Value of Definite Determiners from Old Spanish to Modern Spanish”, in S. Pintzuk, G. Tsoulas & A. Warner (eds), Diachronic Syntax, Models and Mechanisms. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 241–54. Cignelli, L. & G. C. Bottini. 1991. “L’articolo nel greco biblico”, Liber Annuus 41, 159–99. Chantraine, P. 1953. Grammaire homerique. Vol. II: Syntaxe. Paris, Klincksieck. Chesterman, A. 1991. On Definiteness: A Study with Special Reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Crisma, P. 2000. “Sintassi formale e lingue medievali: l’articolo in inglese antico”, Archivio Glottologico Italiano 85, 38–84. Demske, U. 2001. Merkmale und Relationen. Diachrone Studien zur Nominalphrase des Deutschen. Berlin & New York, de Gruyter. Diessel, H. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalisation. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. Eakin, F. 1916. “The Greek Article in the First and Second Century Papyri”, AJP 37, 333–40. Epstein, R. 1993. “The Later Stages in the Development of the Definite Article in French”, in H. Andersen (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1993. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 159–75. Fee, G. D. 1970–1. “The Use of the Definite Article with Personal Names in the Gospel of John”, New Testament Studies 17, 168–83. Gildersleeve, B.L. 1890. “On the Article with Proper Names”, AJP 11, 483–7. Gildersleeve, B. L. & C.W. E. Miller. 1911. Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes. II. The Syntax of the Simple Sentence Continued, Embracing the Doctrine of the Article. New York, American Books Co. Givón, T. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Approach. Vol. I. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. Grant, W. L. 1951. “Hebrew, Aramaic, and the Greek of the Gospels”, Greece & Rome 20, 115–22. Greenberg, J. 1978. “How a Language Aquires Gender Markers”, in J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language. Stanford, Calif., CSLI. Guardiano, Ch. Forthcoming. “The Diachronic Evolution of the Greek Article”, in A. Ralli, B. Joseph & M. Janse (eds), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory. Patras, University of Patras. Harry, J. E. 1898. “The Omission of the Article with Substantives after ¬‰Â, ÔyÙÔ˜, âÎÂÖÓÔ˜ in Prose”, TAPhA 29, 48–64. Hawkins, J. A. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London, Croom Helm. Heimerdinger, J. & S. Levinsohn. 1992. “The Use of the Definite Article Before Names of People in the Greek Text of Acts with Particular Reference to Codex Bezae”, Filologia Neotestamentaria 5, 15–44. Himmelmann, N. 1997. Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase. Tübingen, Niemeyer.

[ 235 ]

TASOS_XRHSTIDIS BOOK

22-03-07

10:21

™ÂÏ›‰·236

I. MANOLESSOU & G. HORROCKS

Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott (1993/2003). Grammaticalization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Kraus, Th. J. 2000. “Der Artikel im griechischen”, Revue Biblique 107, 260–72. Lehmann, Ch. 1982 [1995]. Thoughts on Grammaticalisation: A Programmatic Sketch. Vol.7, akup 48, Universität zu Köln. Löbner, S. 1985. “Definites”, Journal of Semantics 4, 279–326. Lombardi-Vallarini, E. 2002. “L’articolo greco fra identificabilità ed esclusività del referente”, SILTA 31, 7–33. Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Manolessou, I. 1997. “∞fi ÙËÓ ÈÛÙÔÚ›· ÙÔ˘ ¿ÚıÚÔ˘”, in A. Moser (ed.), Greek Linguistics ’97. 3rd International Conference in Greek Linguistics, Athens 1997. Athens, Ellinika Grammata, 492–8. —. 2000. Greek Noun Phrase Structure: A Study in Syntactic Evolution. Ph.D. Diss., Cambridge University. Mayser, E. 1906/1938. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit, mit Einscluss der gleichzeitigen in Ägypten verfassten Inschriften. Berlin & Leipzig, de Gruyter. Palmer, L. R. 1962. “Homer’s Language”, in A. J. B. Wace & F. H. Stubbings (eds), A Companion to Homer. London, McMillan. Philippi, J. 1997. “The Rise of the Article in the Germanic Languages”, in A. van Kemenade et al. (eds), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 62–93. Roberts, I. & A. Roussou. 2003. Syntactic Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Sansone, D. 1993. “Towards a New Doctrine of the Article in Greek”, Classical Philology 88, 191–205. Selig, M. 1992. Die Entwicklung der Nominaldeterminanten in Spätlatein. Tübingen, Narr. Svensson, A. 1946. “Zum Gebrauch des generalisierenden bestimmten Artikels im Griechischen”, Eranos 44, 249–65. Wackernagel, J. 1924. Vorlesungen über Syntax. Vol. II. Basel, Birkhäuser.

Key-words: ¿ÚıÚÔ, ÔÚÈÛÙÈÎfiÙËÙ·, ‰È·¯ÚÔÓÈ΋ Û‡ÓÙ·ÍË.

[ 236 ]