Search results

Яковлева А. В. Пространственные отношения «справа/слева» в кафаревусе: корпусное исследование // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия III: Филология. 2019. Вып. 58. С. 43-58. DOI: 10.15382/sturIII201958.43-58
This article deals with the encoding of “right” and “left” in the offi cial language of Greece until 1976, which never functioned as a spoken native variety. Katharevousa provides signifi cant data on intentionally archaising, artifi cial language variety of the 19th — 20th centuries. The study demonstrates the instability of this register in the domain of peripheral spatial relations. Since Katharevousa is an archaising language, one can suppose that it would copy the ancient means of marking “right” and “left”. On the other hand, the language was artifi cial but based on the variety spoken by educated Greek people; therefore, strategies of the spoken language of that time can also be expected. The manifestation of these spatial relations is usually not codifi ed in grammar books, which is the reason why in this domain one can fi nd an opportunity to analyse intuitive choices of speakers. This study explores the issue in question drawing on corpus evidence; the research is carried out on the basis of the Corpus of Modern Greek and the translations of two Classical Greek texts (Anabasis by Xenophon and the History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides) into Katharevousa. The results demonstrate that even translators of ancient texts did not simply copy the Ancient Greek means of marking left and right and preferred an innovative strategy, i.e. the use of adverbs (δεξιά vs. αριστερά ‘on the right / left’) and dynamic means of marking static location. It is obvious not only from the translations, but also from the quantitative distribution of the markers. Moreover, the choice of the spatial marker can depend on extralinguistic factors, such as the genre of the text. Katharevousa abounds in strategies not attested or extremely rare in Ancient and Modern Greek (e. g. the archaic affi x -θεν in the adverb δεξιόθεν ‘from the right’). To summarise, the archaisation in spatial strategies is rather selective and depends on preferences of a particular writer as well as on extralinguistic factors; it is mostly infl uenced by the Old and New Testament texts, rather than by the Classical Antiquity.
Greek language, Katharevousa, spatial relations, right, left, dynamic projections, diglossy, archaisation, diachrony, history of Greek language
  1. Adrados F. (2005) A history of the Greek language: from its origins to the present. Leiden.
  2. Bortone P. (2010) Greek Prepositions: From Antiquity to the Present. Oxford.
  3. Browning R. (1983). Medieval and Modern Greek. Cambridge.
  4. Eloeva F. (2014) “Kafarevusa v sovremennoi novogrecheskoi literature — lingvisticheskii eksperiment ili otrazhenie diakhronii?” [Katharevousa in Modern Greek Fiction — Linguistic Experiment or Refl ection of Diachrony?], in Materialy vosemnadtsatykh chtenii pamiati I. M. Tronskogo «Indoevropeiskoe iazykoznanie i klassicheskaia fi lologiia, XVIII» [Indo-European Linguistics and Classical Philology. Proceedings of the 18th Conference in Memory of Professor I. Tronsky]. St. Petersburg, pp. 246‒267 (in Russian).
  5. Fedchenko V. (2016) “Svidetel’stva o grecheskom iazyke Konstantinopolia” [Evidence About the Greek Language of Constantinople]. Acta linguistica Petropolitana, vol. 12, № 1, pp. 215‒244 (in Russian).
  6. Ferguson Ch. (1959) “Diglossia”. Word, vol. 15, pp. 325–340.
  7. Horrocks G. (2010) Greek: a History of the Language and its Speakers. Chichester; Malden.
  8. Kalospyros N. (2007) “Alexandros Papadiamantis and the Language Question”, in O ellinikos kosmos anamesa stin epokhi tou diaphotismou kai ston ikosto aiona: praktika tou G’ Evropaïkou Sinedriou Neoellinikon Spoudon, Voukouresti 2‒4 Iouniou 2006 [Greek World between the Age of Enlightenment and the Twentieth Century. Proceedings of the 3rd European Congress of Modern Greek Studies]. Athens, vol. 2, pp. 277‒286.
  9. Kamperidis L. (1991) “Oi glosses tou Papadiamanti” [The Languages of Papadiamantis], in Praktika A΄ diethnous Sinedriou Alexantrou Papadiamanti [Proceedings of International Conference for Papadiamanti]. Skiathos, pp. 538‒539 (in Greek).
  10. Kisilier M., Fedchenko V. (2011) “O iazyke novogrecheskoi literatury” [Some Remarks on the Language of Modern Greek Literature]. Acta linguistica Petropolitana, vol. 7, № 1, pp. 409‒444 (in Russian).
  11. Lejeune M. (1939) Les adverbes grecs en -θεν. Bordeaux.
  12. Mackridge P. (2004) “Diglossia and the Separation of Discourses in Greek Culture”, in Teoreticheskie problemy iazykoznaniia: k 140-letiiu kafedry obshchego iazykoznaniia Filologicheskogo fakul’teta SPbGU [Theoretical Problems of Linguistics. Collection of Papers Dedicated to the 140th Anniversary of the Department of General Linguistics of St Petersburg State University]. St. Petersburg, pp. 112‒130.
  13. Mackridge P. (2009) Language and National Identity in Greece, 1766‒1976. Oxford.
  14. Mackridge P. (2012) “Multilingualism and Standardization in Greece”, in Standard Languages and Multilingualism in European History. Amsterdam, рp. 153‒177.
  15. Nikitina T. (2017) “Ablative and Allative Marking of Static Locations: A Historical Perspective”, in S. Luraghi, T. Nikitina, C. Zanchi (eds.) Space in Diachrony. Amsterdam, pp. 67–94.
  16. Skopeteas S. (2008) “Encoding Spatial Relations: Language Typology and Diachronic Change in Greek”, in Language Typology and Universals, № 61, pp. 54–66.
  17. Talmy L. (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, I‒II. Cambridge.
Yakovleva Anastasia
Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: National Research University “Higher School of Economics”; 20 Miasnitskaya Str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0003-0925-2362;
Email: yaknastak@gmail.com.