NANENIZTHMIO KYNPOY UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS EAAHNIKH FAQXEZOAOTIA ‘99 / GREEK LINGUISTICS ‘99 nNeakTika 4°" Aie8vouc Luvedpiou EAAnvikng FAwooodoyiac Aeuxwoia, tentépBpiog 1999 Proceedings of the 4'" International Conference on Greek Linguistics Nicosia, September 1999 a UNIVERSITY STUDIO PRESSTAQXZOAOTIKH OEOPIA KAI LYNTA: THE EAAHNIKHE: H MOIKIAIA ZTH LEIPA TON OPQN KAI H EPMHNEIA THE Expivy @varraxy-Warburton University of Reading ABSTRACT The main purpose of this paper is to show the dialectic relation that exists between the lin- guistic theory and the description of a language. This is revealed in two different ways. First, through a review of the studies concerning the issue of word order in Greek, we show how the theory inspires and guides the description, but we especially want to stress that the reverse miust also hold, i.e., that a description of the language which is objective and sensi- tive informs, influences and shapes the theory. Second, we examine a specific word order VOS, which presents both descriptive and theoretical problems, which also show this ten- sion between theory and description. We then propose that to analyse this order we need more empirical information about the properties (intonational and scopal) and the role of this order but also that the theory will probably need some extension by incorporating movement rules with phonological motivation 1, EIEATOTH Me thy napodoa avaxoivacn, Oéh@ va emotpéyse ato eporjia Tov anuoxSknoe TY A. OcogavorosAov-Kovrow (1994) wg pos to Tova eivan 1] oYEoN avéptesu rH YL@aaohoy- ki} Bewpia Ka mY nEprypagh Ihkas YAHooug Ka naipvoveas VRbYN HOD Tig mo MpdapaTES ekehiEeIs ota Sv0 nedia va GvUTANPdsw THY eKova. EPL GiEpA. Oa SeiEo Sti n Ocwpia Sev eivar éva Svovonto SiavoyTiKd naryvi6t we apNpHLEva GHUBOAA Tov naiLovv KGmoL0L EXKEVIpiKol yhMooORGyo1, AAG Eva oTLAVTIKS KReIBI nov BoN|PG oTHV mo aKpIBI Eprypa- GH KaL OTH BabStEpN KataVsnoN TOV TPdaV HE TOUS oRO{OUG LeITOUPyEl TO YhOooIKS ompa. Ednio axdpn va gavel tt Kat t0 avtiotpogo toxbet. AGOd [1a vytiIc Bempia Bpi- oxetat névra ev cEchiGet, Eumerpixés napatnpiicers naver ota SopiKG Kat RettoupytKé zapa- KTpIoTIKG pag yhsous PETE va oKObV ér*yYo OM PEupia éTOI ote GAAOTE HEV Va tHg Rapéxovv onFpiEN Ka GAAOTE va THY OBH YON GE UIKPETEPES H HEYAASTEpEs aRRayES KaL avadewphoeis. Ty dickextuxh avr oxéon avapteca om Bempia Kar THY RpAEN Oa tr SOOE néoa an6 ja cdvtopN avaoKSmMON TaV avakboemv MoV ExOvV mpoTaBEl yia TY REpLYPAg! THe RoKKA{ag oT GEIPE TOV KUpLOV Sav Tov mpotdicEwY THs EXAnVIKIIg YAdoouc. AND E- kei Oa oBnynOobpe TOV mo ovyKEKpYLévo OTSYO pS TOV evan n enaveEsraon ms SuitaeNs P-A-Y (1.x. Aydpace ta pride o Nios) 1, omoia xapovordcer axdyn SvoKonies Kat yEvve &- poriqora. 217218 Expijvn @idsnnéxy-Warburton 2, TO EPQTHMA THE “BALIKHE EEIPAE” To Oéua ts ceIpas tov dpa Eyer EEETUTeL aNd RapaBocIUKés neprypAMse ms EXInvuEIE Sno 0 TEéprtavoc (1963), 0 Mirambel (1978), 0 Toonavans (1994) x.4., ot onofor xapa- Tmpowv Ort dhes ot mOavés dardEers eivan anodextéc. Ki ev 0 Mirambel éet 6x1 Kapté o- 6 tig cerpés Sev pnopet va Oewpnoet Baoua}, ot vRdAoWoL mpoteivowy drt BactKH SiétaeN eivat 1 Y-P-A (O Nikos ayépace ta priAa). To i510 vnoampiCovv o Greenberg (1963), 0 Lightfoot (1981) x.4. H G£0n 6t 1 Y-P-A oeipét efvat 1 mo PaorxA eivar SiKALOAOYNHEVN HEoO ota Thaioia jag GedpRang nov Epjinvedet « Back Sop} To oxhya Kov napovardcerar ovzvétepa oT Apron. O Greenberg Aéer dui “Pasa” apéret va Gewpndel 1 Suétaén nov Kupiapyet oe K6- ples (aveképrntes) npotdels He NeTupaTIK6 pijia Kat pe OVONETE avoIaoTIKG. GE BEEN U- TOKEIPEVvOv Kat avtikeévov. Ta KpITfipia SyAadi mY EMrroy mE BuotKA|g Sopiig efvor Kpitfipta zpijong Kau yonoySrHtas tov evés Hy Tov GAAoD Oy"paItOs pésa oto A6yo. (BA. Ka Aackapétov 1984, 1989 ya otatiotuch pekérm nov ompiCet Thy dxoyn St n ceIpé Y-P-A eivat n mo ovyvi). 0 6pog “Bact cepa” anoKté An Evo oto Aaico me Bewpiag tg PevertKig Tpappanuciig tov Chomsky zov xévet pia avornpr Siagoporoinan aviesa om “Badd” Kat thy “empaveraxr}” dojth tas mpdtans. Agod o optapds ms “PuctKiig /Padras” Sons Gt0 Maio. avr efver wwetKde Kat KaBopiCetar ou and to dho cbompa Sev ppOdpE va eRUKGhEsTOOME To KpITHpLO TH GvZvoTHTU OTH yon, Pevvitat exopévos to epotBA Tota eivar ta KpiTApia ov Oa anogacicovy nora ané Tig MOavEs RoIKidies oT SuécaEN TOV Spov anotedei ty Padé Soph. Ta va KaBopicope ta Kprtipia xov anogacifov now Soni mpéner va Gewpndet “BaorKiy/Pabié” ogeihope Va AéPope vRdyN Las Tovs otdxoUs mg PeveriKiig Tpappartinyis. Avtoi apopoby a) my neprypagrxi] Kat B) thy epymvevtuRr THE endpKera. H meprypUpLKy E- pKeta anattei va StajoppGooue jue neprypaph nov Oa anoKadinteL UE Eva Tpdn0 evaic- Onto, aKpIBh Kat tov aMhobatepo Swvard tic AenToKEperes TOV GUYKEKPINEVOD YAMGOIKOS ovoripatos, eve 1 eppnvEvtiKH exdpKera GtoyEver OTH Sta6pe~cn OEapiag nO Va jLTO- pet va epappdierar KadOiKi oF hes tic ~OooES, Mua xpaer mpooéynion omy KaBoAu YLaooth empla (Chomsky 1965) mpoteiver 611 01 ppactixot Kavéves mE Pions civar KaBOAIKOL, MPdyA TOD oT}Laiver x1 Ot YAODEES Shes éxov THY iia Babré Sop}, nov gatverar ato (1): 0) 0 00 Po io. P oo An6 thy Gn Mevpé ja and Tig 1expstepEs aaLTHoEI ME Bewpias (n OnOa Woxv- ponoiettar cto mo xpospato Lovtého THs Owpias tov Mivipditopos, Chomsky 1995), ei- vat 611 ja YpapHETUR} Apénet va eivat y aMAovatEpn Svvar}, AUTO To KpITTpIO as oBNyEL oto vu eEetdoope MoV and tis evadAaKriKés oEIpés NOV anavrovear omy EXAnviKH efvar exeivn and Ty onoia 0a xapayBoby o1 dAAEs HE TOUS mo OVEIKObG Kat aRRObETEPOUS dv- vatots kavéves, H Sony avy npénet va. eva exeivn 1 onoia empedteran Aydtepo and ma payovtes GAovs and THY Edom avayRn va SOB0bV SiaypappariKe OL KOPLOL 6por Ts apotaons. Pia va tkavoroujcoue THY meprypagich exGpxeia THE ypapHaTURrG, OL avandoerS