From: Aroldo de Andrade <aroldo.andradegmail.com>
Subject: Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory
E-mail this message to a friend
Discuss this message
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/19/19-1235.html
EDITOR: Eythórsson, Thórhallur TITLE: Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory SUBTITLE: The Rosendal Papers SERIES: Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today PUBLISHER: John Benjamins YEAR: 2008
Aroldo L. Andrade, Department of Linguistics, State University of Campinas
SUMMARY This book includes a collection of papers originally presented at the symposium ''Linguistic Theory and Grammatical Change'' held at Rosendal, Norway, in 2005, under the aegis of The Centre for Advanced Study (CAS) at the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, Oslo. The papers discuss internal factors in grammatical change from different theoretical perspectives. It gives a detailed picture of some of the most recent and overwhelming trends in Historical Linguistics.
The book is divided into fifteen chapters, organized in alphabetical order by author. In the introduction, the editor presents the following main topics covered in the book: (i) theoretical and empirical perspectives on grammaticalization, including chapters 1, 2, 7 and 8, which are either critical of classical Grammaticalization Theory or relate it to a formal account; (ii) case studies on grammaticalization, including chapters 4, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15, which, while focusing on changes in specific languages, discuss the theoretical implications they present for the attainment of descriptive (and explanatory) adequacy; (iii) chapters 3, 5 and 6, which explore endogenous and exogenous motivations for syntactic change as well as evidence for identifying instances of change; and (iv) chapters 11 and 12, which inquire into a hypothesis according to which morphological change can occur ''by itself''. Keeping these main topics in mind, I present a brief summary of the contents of each chapter, in the order shown in the book.
Chapter 1, ''Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change'' by Henning Andersen, expresses the need to distinguish various levels of change and to qualify grammaticalization either as a type and or as a token. This permits one to account for partial instances of actualization of the cline and to set apart a change from lexical to grammatical category (grammation) or between grammatical categories (regrammation), among other change typologies proposed. The author shows that, while reanalysis is the main source of innovation, markedness and iconicity drive its direction, so that drift follows a structural order. This said, in order to understand the way language patterns are passed among individuals one must be open to recognize peculiarities not foreseen by overwhelming theories.
Chapter 2 by John Ole Askedal is entitled '''Degrammaticalization' versus typology: Reflections on a strained relationship'' and pursues the idea according to which the grammaticalization cline is too general to capture the more specific categorical aspects of grammatical processes. Haspelmath's (2004) eight alleged instances of attested degrammaticalization are assessed in terms of Schlegel's (1971) classical synthetic-analytic distinction. The main assumption is that difference or equivalence of grammatical level must be based in abstract functional terms in accordance with typological properties of the language, not in the cline, especially if the relevant change points to the stages that involve change in the morphophonological status of a lexical item. Some of the changes discussed did show some kind of backward development but together with a functional split, i.e., the survival of the erstwhile lexical entry alongside the 'degrammaticalized' element. In a nutshell, the unidirectionality principle is strengthened under a new frame.
In Chapter 3, Theresa Biberauer and Ian Roberts put forward the idea that syntactic change can result either from changes in other aspects of grammar or from other syntactic changes recursively, which gives the illusion of a typological drift in the sense of Sapir (1921). ''Cascading parameter changes: Internally-driven change in Middle and Early Modern English'' is therefore a paper on a series of changes with a focus on word order. Sharing the basic assumptions of the Minimalist Program, it is argued that Old English had the option of stranding or pied-piping VP- and vP-internal material at the v and T levels for satisfaction of EPP-features. Pied-piping was lost first at the VP level due to a decrease in unambiguous triggering evidence, and at the T level as a result of the increase in the number of VO orders in the Primary Linguistic Data. Subsequent changes consisted in the loss of Verb Second (V2), the development of lexical Tense, the loss of V-to-T movement, the development of negative auxiliaries (owing also to the effect of contraction of negation) and the development of 'do'-support. Thus the proposal gives support to Keenan's (2002) Inertia Principle and the functionalist notion of drift is brought to formal terms.
Chapter 4, ''The rise and development of analytic perfects in Italo-Romance'', by Michela Cennamo, relates the interaction of the disruption of grammatical voice and the loss of a clear notion of grammatical relation in Latin with the creation of context for the rise of 'esse' and 'habere' as perfective auxiliaries, as a tool to mark transitive subject (A) / Object (O) status and, by the 7th century onwards, also unaccusatives and unergatives together with past participle agreement. The reflexes of this latter use in Old Neapolitan and in contemporary Campanian varieties are analyzed. While in the former HAVE has gradually invaded the functional domains of BE, the latter shows the opposite phenomenon. These changes are respectively related to the rise of a nominative-accusative and of an active-inactive system, following paths and implicational sequences consistent with a gradient model of split intransitivity (in the line of Sorace 2000) and reflecting the more general principle of markedness.
In Chapter 5 (''Raising patterns in Old High German'') Ulrike Demske provides evidence that subject raising patterns with German verbs such as 'dünken' and 'scheinen' are well attested in Old High German, contrary to the received wisdom that they only subcategorized for NP and AP complements. After reviewing the properties of raising constructions and analyzing their connections with different classes of infinitival complementation, it is shown that both subject-to-subject and object-to-subject raising occurred optionally. With respect to the classes of infinitives, it does not seem possible to draw a correlation with the distinction between coherent and incoherent predicates, so a mono-clausal structure is proposed in order to allow for subject raising as well as pronoun fronting, Third Constructions (in which the non-finite verb follow the matrix verb, taken as a kind of coherent infinitival) and topicalization, in terms of a VP structure, including cases with extraposition of the embedded verb and its complements. In conclusion, it is proposed that only with an increase in the auxiliarization process does the distinctive behavior of the mentioned classes of infinitival complement predicates come to exist.
Chapter 6, ''The New Passive in Icelandic really is a passive'', by Thórhallur Eythórsson, analyzes a change in progress, the so-called New Passive in Icelandic, which he contends really is a passive without NP-movement but with structural accusative case assignment. Since the standard account by Maling & Sigurjónsdóttir (2002) proposes that the construction should be identified with an impersonal active, Eythórsson analyzes each of the arguments put forward by the authors. He contends that the passive analysis has parallels in Norwegian and Faroese, and is directly comparable to the -no/to- construction in Ukrainian, which also shows accusative although there is no external argument (pace Burzio's Generalization), due to a parametric variation [+/- accusative] in a functional head F taking a VP complement. Finally, it is argued that the construction emerged from the canonical passive through reanalysis involving cases where both these constructions are indistinguishable.
In Chapter 7, ''A mentalist interpretation of grammaticalization theory'', Jan Terje Faarlund tackles the problem of accounting for grammaticalization in a speaker-related theory. For him, this is not a true theory in the sense that it has no explanatory value, although the descriptive phenomena it refers to are correct. Adopting van Gelderen's (2004) account of grammaticalization in a formal generativist perspective, Faarlund considers the following initial premise of Universal Grammar: ''there are words; and words have meaning'' and the null hypothesis: ''a string is a word with lexical content''. The predominant directionality of change is accounted for considering that, in the process of segmentation taking place in the acquisitional stages, morpheme boundaries may not be assigned as in the adults' grammar, with a tendency for omission. Examples of this process are offered in Norwegian and in Zoque, a Meso-American language, with special attention to the phenomenon of 'trapped morphemes', as in the case of affixes that tend to be reduced or lost as a consequence of posterior cliticization to their right.
Elly van Gelderen's chapter (8), ''Linguistic cycles and Economy Principles: The role of Universal Grammar in language change'', reviews two economy mechanisms proposed in a previous work in order to account for grammaticalization in a formal perspective: the Head Preference Principle and the Late Merge Principle. These principles, operative in language acquisition, are not absolute, but can be bypassed by prescription or innovation. A third is the Specifier Incorporation Principle, phrased as ''when possible, be a specifier rather than an adjunct''. Three linguistic cycles in which the principles mentioned are operative are proposed: the negative cycle, the aspect cycle and the CP cycle, with examples from Scandinavian, Germanic and Finno-Ugric languages.
In chapter 9, ''Explaining exuberant agreement'', Alice C. Harris aims to describe and unveil the origins of exuberant agreement in languages of the Nakh-Dagestanian family. The term 'exuberant agreement' refers to multiple agreement marking with a single argument. The origin of the morphemes is attributed to the grammaticalization of light verbs, pronouns or preverbs, and as a result of verb compounding. In order to explain the retention of trapped morphemes, Harris proposes that, in the process of language acquisition, the child learns that an interior inflection realized by a class marker is unmarked for the language; in a functional view, this may be due to its potential distinguishing feature as a lexeme. The rarity of the phenomenon is explained by the probability of a language combining various attributes and changes. Such an approach deals with the origin and longevity of rare phenomena without recourse to subjective notions such as functionality or ease of acquisition.
Dag Haug discusses the semantic change from resultative to anterior, (''From resultatives to anteriors in Ancient Greek: On the role of paradigmaticity in semantic change'' - Chapter 10) with the assumption that, differently from similar changes in the 'have'-perfect of Germanic and Romance, the Greek resultative was much more influenced by paradigmatic relations, thus remaining untouched by pragmatic inferencing exerted in syntagmatic relations, which Traugott & Dasher's (2005) Invited Inference Theory of Semantic Change seems to predict. On the other hand, the semantic change that has taken place in the Greek perfect had the creation of a middle perfect tense as a conditioning factor, which assumed the previous resultative meaning. This development took place in the class of normal transitive verbs with theme-like objects, because of a semantic correspondence between tenses, while morphologically the perfect had more affinity with the present active. It is suggested that invited inference and subjectification are more important at earlier stages of grammaticalization, which involve semantic change of lexical items, not of grams. This last type of change seems to be influenced by other grams expressing related traits.
Chapter 11, ''Lexical nonsense and morphological sense: on the real importance of 'folk etymology' and related phenomena for historical linguistics'', by Martin Maiden, advances a thesis according to which purely morphological structure plays a role in language change, even in abstraction of semantic content. Lexical formatives of different morphological statuses seem to be diachronically relevant only in terms of their 'signata', meaning that they lie outside conventional lexical or grammatical meaning. Folk etymology analyses are brought about in order to illustrate the tendency of endowing the unfamiliar with familiar content. With the intent of showing that lexical meaning is not sufficient to determine the changes, Maiden goes on to show that homophonous formatives are sometimes analyzed as lexically, but not morphologically identical. Although synonymy is recognized as a 'smooth' strategy of change, some cases of lexical replacement are offered in which no necessary correspondence exists, as in the case of the reflexes of the Latin verbs DARE and DONARE in Romance varieties, the first being linked to a number of distinct lexemes due to its light verb status.
Ottosson's chapter 12 (''The diffusion of systemic changes through the inflectional system: Evidence from person-number inflection in the Nordic languages and German'') explores the systemic changes of inflectional morphology. Once this type of study tries to identify the motivation for the constituent changes, it does not focus on diachronic correspondences, because these may relate two items that have undergone a chain of changes causally unrelated.The examined data refer to internally motivated changes in Icelandic, Norwegian and High German analyzed in terms of Wurzel's (1984) brand of Natural Morphology. The author observes System-Defining Structural Properties of the verbal inflection as a point of departure to establish generalizations that can be slowed down by more specific factors for individual subdomains. For instance, in High German one strong generalization states that person-number forms are the same for all subparadigms regardless of tense and mood. This tendency could at some stages be overruled by phonological changes such as umlaut, creating an ambiguity between the second person of the past indicative and the first and third persons of the past subjunctive, until a later stage when umlaut was eliminated from the innovative forms.
Christer Platzack (chapter 13: ''Left Branch Extraction of nominal modifiers in Old Scandinavian'') offers an analysis for the loss of Left Branch Extraction (LBE) of nominal modifiers in Scandinavian. The phenomenon consists of the possibility of dislocating a phrase from inside a Determiner Phrase. Apart from Old Scandinavian, it exists nowadays in other languages, such as Greek and Serbo-Croatian. The author assumes that the demise of LBE is attached to the loss of Stylistic Fronting in embedded clauses that lack a subject in front of the finite verb, a type of movement which remains in modern Icelandic and Faroese. Platzack assumes, following Boskovic (2005), that LBE is possible when a Modifier Phrase is adjoined to an NP. He then postulates that a change in Noun Phrase organization took place from Old to Modern Icelandic, in which the Modifier Phrase changes from an adjoined element to one which dominates and selects NP. This is in line with van Gelderen's (2004) Head Preference Principle. A minimalist account of closeness for movement is offered together with evidence for the proposed analysis.
Chapter 14, entitled ''On incorporation in Athapaskan languages: Aspects of language change'', written by Keren Rice, relates the development of incorporability of nouns in Athapaskan languages to different subject positions: one external and another internal to the VP. Focusing on Slave and Ahtna, Rice points out that, while the last language is more conservative, allowing some incorporation of non-animate external subjects, the former does not show any incorporation of subjects, which is due to a syntacticization of subjects to the external position. The Apachean language Navajo is then exemplified as having gone through a loss of incorporation, due to a competition between inflectional agreement and incorporation, with retention of the first process.
In chapter 15 (''Argument marking from Latin to Modern Romance languages: An illustration of 'combined grammaticalisation processes'''), Lene Schøsler discusses the status of valency patterns with a focus on the way grammar enables speakers and listeners to identify arguments. The author criticizes the traditional functionalist account according to which the rigidification of order has supplanted the Latin declension system in the function of identifying arguments. First of all, Schøsler agrees with two remarks found in Pinkster (1990): (i) that the identification of arguments is not the main function of morphology and (ii) that valency patterns in Latin have no general semantic motivation. This last claim practically means that constructions in the sense of Goldberg (1995) are exceptional in Latin, but came to be used in Romance languages as a mechanism of identification of valency patterns. This happened, for instance, through the introduction of prepositional objects as a result of grammaticalization of specialized patterns. Combined grammaticalization patterns then resulted in complex functional systems of argument structure involving lexical, morphological and analytical marking.
CRITICAL EVALUATION The collection of papers comprised in the book presents a good selection of outstanding lines of research in the field of Historical Linguistics. This sort of multitheoretical stance is extremely beneficial to the development of this area of Linguistics, where the dialogue between formal and functional perspectives is increasingly strong. Apart from this, one can observe real interaction between the participants, reflected in cross-citation of the chapters in the book, thanks to the initiative of the CAS. In what follows I pinpoint some recurrent themes mentioned in the book and discuss them.
The chapters which focus on grammaticalization discuss its validity as an explanatory theory of language change. Although no one denies the usefulness of grammaticalization as a descriptive generalization, the need to frame it in a more rigorous theoretical support is agreed upon by many functionalists and formalists. Various solutions to disentangle grammaticalization from its difficult theoretical status are offered. On the functionalist side: (i) Anderson (chapter 1) proposes different levels and typologies of change; (ii) Askedal (chapter 2) assumes that the morphophonological stages of the cline should not count as criterion for improvement in functional status. On the formalist side: (i) Biberauer & Roberts (chapter 3) assume the previous work by Roberts & Roussou (2003) according to which the basic type of grammaticalization involves the realization of a functional feature in a higher category in syntax; (ii) van Gelderen (chapter 8) assumes three economy principles operative in language acquisition. It is clear that these solutions involve different balances between descriptive and explanatory adequacy (in the sense of Chomsky 1965).
The traditional account of grammaticalization is not clear with respect to the notion of function, with which it managed to obtain an allure of uniformity, using the same cline to describe phenomena in different levels of analysis. In fact, as the chapter by Askedal has pointed out, this hides different criteria for assessing what is more functional. Two approaches are presented: giving a clear definition for the relation between function and grammaticalization (and losing sight of the morphophonological part of the cline) as Askedal does, or breaking it up into many subcomponents (and explaining more change data) as is the case with Anderson's paper. Just as an example of how fluid the use of the notion of 'function' is, two chapters in the book come up with (apparently) opposite claims: Askedal assumes that a broadening of function is expected, while Biberauer & Roberts suggest that restriction of function is the result of grammaticalization (cf. pages 72 and 108).
Other papers in the book are also not clear enough with respect to the role of function in grammatical change. This is the case with Maiden's and Ottosson's chapters (11 and 12). If lexical formatives have a psychological reality independent of their meaning, what is the functional explanation for them? What is the function related to the generalizations stated in terms of the System-Defining Structural Properties? These chapters seem to imply different ideas about function (re-)assignment in the line of Smith (2006), but the specific contours for each case study are still to be developed.
As noticed by Faarlund (chapter 7) one of the problems with the classical functionalist approach to change is the 'social' conception of grammars, the fact that the notions of grammaticalization and drift must be reinterpreted in terms of a speaker-oriented theory (see also Biberauer & Roberts's chapter 3). When it comes to the formalist solutions, economy of operations is agreed upon, but the specific ways to implement this idea diverge: procrastination can be stated as Late Merge - a principle of grammar according to van Gelderen (2004 and chapter 8) - or as a change in formal features of functional heads, according to Roberts & Roussou (2003). In any case, these proposals are restricted to syntax, which reinforces Newmeyer's (2000) observation that grammaticalization is an epiphenomenon, thus encompassing different phenomena (in grammar and phonology for example) which may or may not coincide.
Apart from the connection between a theory of grammatical change and a specific view about language, it is very interesting that some chapters in this book also present the opposite implicational path: the observation of change in different levels of description is also used as a point of departure to evaluate current linguistic theories, primarily intended to describe synchronic data. This is the case with the chapters by Maiden (11), Schøsler (15) and Haug (10). While Maiden considers Distributed Morphology (and other separationist views of morphology) as inadequate because they do not consider the possibility of lexical formatives without any meaning (features) related to them, Schøsler criticizes Construction Grammar because constructions as form/meaning pairs are not necessarily overwhelming in all languages, but can arise to fulfill the role of valency identification. Haug restricts the validity of Invited Inference Theory of Semantic Change by Traugott & Dasher (2005) to the first stages of semantic grammaticalization. The observation of these wider implications should be pursued in further research.
Many other chapters are case studies and adopt, adapt or propose a theory of change that better fits the data. Rice's chapter (14) incorporates formal/structural evidence in a functionalist framework. Harris's chapter (9) is quite theoretically independent; her proposal to use 'chance' as an explanation for the markedness of exuberant agreement could become more informative if put in line with other more encompassing proposals that embrace the notion of parameter hierarchy (Baker 2005 or Roberts & Holmberg (to appear)). Other chapters (by Eythórsson (6) and Demske (5), for example) show alternative analyses emerging from a new look to data from one or many languages.
In sum, the book organized by Eythórsson contains many interesting studies, with different theoretical backgrounds and implications. Certainly more than one of the papers will be of interest to any researcher working in Historical Linguistics.
REFERENCES Baker, M. (2005) Mapping the Terrain of Language Learning. _Language Learning and Development_. 1(1), 93-129.
Boskovic, Z. (2005) On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. _Studia Linguistica_ 59: 1-45.
Chomsky, Noam. (1965) _Aspects of the Theory of Syntax_. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.
van Gelderen, E. (2004) _Grammaticalization as Economy_. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. (1995) _A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure_. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Haspelmath, M. (2004) On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In: O.S. Fischer, M. Norde & H. Perridon (eds.) _Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization_. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, p. 14-44.
Keenan, E. (2002) Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English. In: D. Minkova & R. Stockwell (eds.) _Studies in the History of English: A Millennial Perspective_. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 325-355.
Maling, J. & Sigurjónsdóttir, S.( 2002) The 'new impersonal' construction in Icelandic. _Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics_ 5: 97-142.
Newmeyer, F. J. (2000) _Language Form and Language Function_. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Pinkster, H. (1990) _Latin Syntax and Semantics_. London: Routledge.
Roberts, I. & Holmberg, A. (to appear) Introduction: Parameters in Minimalist Theory.
Roberts, I. & Roussou, A. (2003) _Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sapir, E. (1921) _Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech-. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Schlegel, A. W. (1971 ) Observations sur la Langue et la Litterature Provençales. _Neudruck der ersten Aufgabe Paris 1818 herausgegeben mit einem Vorwort von Gunther Narr: 'August Wilhelm Schlegel - ein Wegbereiter der Romanishen Philologie'_. Tübingen: Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik.
Smith, J. C. (2006) How to do things without junk: the refunctionalization of a pronominal subsystem between Latin and Romance. In: J-P Y. Montreuil (ed) N_ew Perspectives on Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 35th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL) Austin, Texas, February 2005. Volume II: Phonetics, Phonology and Dialectology_. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, p. 183-205.
Sorace, A. (2000) Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. _Language_ 76: 859-890.
Traugott, E. & Dasher, R. B. (2005) _Regularity in Semantic Change_. Cambridge: CUP.
Wurzel, W.U. (1984) _Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit_. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. (English translation (1989): _Inflectional morphology and naturalness_. Dordrecht: Kluwer.)
ABOUT THE REVIEWER Aroldo Andrade is currently a visiting student at the Department of Linguistics, University of Cambridge (UK), and PhD student at State University of Campinas (Brazil), with research focus on clitic placement in the history of Portuguese.