Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Narrog 2017 Typology and Grammaticalization

    Uploaded by

    Nerea Madariaga
    3 views27 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views27 pages

    Narrog 2017 Typology and Grammaticalization

    Uploaded by

    Nerea Madariaga

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 27
    Typology and Grammaticalization Heiko Narrog 6.1 Introduction ‘The goal ofthis chapter is to give an overview of the relationship between language typology and grammaticalization as it is represented in the research literature, structured from a specific perspective. This perspec. tive is provided by the question of how language typology may influence grammaticalization on the one hand, and how grammaticalization may influence typological features of languages on the other hand. Any understanding of this question is necessarily dependent on how we define language typology and grammaticalization. Therefore we will start Out here with a short review of definitions of the main subjects of this chapter. The problem is clearer with language typology than with gram- ‘maticalization, so we will start out with language typology. First, consider the rather traditional and narrow definition in (1) (1) ‘Language typology is thhe classification of languages according to their structural features.’ (Trask and Stockwell 2007: 309) Now compare this with two wider and more modern definitions, first one by Whaley (1997) as in (2) and then one by Velupillai (2012) in (2) ‘Typology is the classification of languages or components of lan- ‘guages based on shared formal characteristcs."(Whaley 1997: 7-11) (3) “To put it very simply, linguistic typology concerns itself with the study of structural differences and similarities between languages [It] is the study and interpretation of linguistic or language types. More specifically, itis the study and interpretation of types of linguis- tic systems.’ (Velupillai 2012: 15) Its easy to see that the scope of language typology widens considerably from (1) through (2) to (3) In (2) ‘components of languages’ are added to 182 HRC NARKOG. tse “tanguages’ and in (3), the study of structural differences and similarities petween languages is taken as the legitimate subject of language typology. If we adhere to a rather narrow definition of language typology as the classification of languages as in (1), the interaction between language typology and grammaticalization will be rather limited. The more we widen our scope. the more potential interaction is there to be observed. Obviously, it is in the interest of this chapter to hold a wider view of Tanguage typology that allows for more interaction. We will therefore go with definition (3), which also more faithfully represents the state-oFthe- lt of the field. A look through the accumulated contents of Language Typoiagy the flagship journal of the field, reveals that language typology indeed deals with practically every aspect of grammar from word order to categories like voice, to features like animacy, and to morphology on the fone hand and complex sentence structures on the other. Also note that the focus ofthis chapter will be on language typology more than on universals, pecause here as well we find more meaningful interaction and more literature discussing this interaction. Now we turn to the definition of grammaticalization. (4) is a classic definition that is frequently cited in the literature, (4) ‘Grammaticalization consists in the increase of the range of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to a grammatical or from ‘a less grammatical to a more grammatical status.” (Kuryiowicz [1965] 1975: 69) ‘The definition in (5), which is currently also often cited, can be considered as an ‘updated’ version of (4), taking into account more recent ideas about contexts and constructions. (5) “{Grammaticalization] is concerned with such questions as how lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic com texts to serve grammatical functions or how grammatical items Gevelop new grammatical functions.’ (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 1) Lastly, Heine (2003: 575) has provided us with the definition of grammati- calization thats the broadest of all, namely of grammaticalization as (6) ‘the way grammatical forms arise and develop through space and time’ For the purposes of this chapter, it doesn't really matter which of these three definitions are chosen. They are all sufficiently broad. As in the case of typology, the problem arises if the definition is narrowed down. 1 will spare the discussion of such narrowed-down alternatives forthe part ofthe ‘chapter where the difference really matters (§6.3), and will for now stick to ‘2 traditional and broad understanding of grammaticalization, which allows fora lot of interaction with language typology. Typology and Grammaticalization 153 Table 6.1 The parameters of grammaticalization (Lehmann 2002: 110) Parameter Paradigmatic ‘Syntagmatic Weight Integrity ‘Struural scope Cohesion _Paradigmaticty Bondedness Variability Paradigrnatc variability Syntagmatic variability Almost as important as the definition of grammaticalization are criteria for grammaticalization, As is often the case with terms that come into vogue, there is a salient tendency to overstretch this term to refer to all Kinds of phenomena, and thus render it almost vacuous. Determining the concrete criteria according to which a certain phenomenon should be actually considered as grammaticalization is an important step. ‘According to my knowledge, the following two sets of criteria by Lehmann, and Heine and Kuteva, respectively, although based on work dating from the 1980s, still constitute the most comprehensive available.” ‘The set of criteria by Lehmann (2002) in Table 6.1 is based on the concept of grammaticalization as decrease in autonomy of a linguistic sign. ‘The concrete criteria are structural in nature and introduced deductively from this overall idea. Presumptive cases of grammaticaljzation can be measured against them. ‘The combination of three parameters of grammaticalization and the syntagmatic and paradigmatic dimensions results in six processes of gram- ‘maticalization, namely (1) oss of integrity (weight), Le. attrition, in the case of phonological substance erosion, in the case of meaning desemanticiza- tion, and in the case of morphosyntax decategorialization, (2) increasing paradigmaticity (cohesion), ie. paradigmaticization, (3) loss of paradigmatic variability (variability), ie. obligatorification, (4) shrinking of the morpho- logical scope of a sign (weight), Le. condensation, (5) increase in bondedness (cokeston), i.e. coalescence (also “univerbation’) and (6) loss of syntagmatic variability (variability), Le. fixation. In contrast, Heine and Kuteva (2002) take a bottom-up approach and, generalizing over many cases of gramma- ticalization, define a set of criteria that is recurrent in grammaticalization as opposed to other types of change. The criteria are listed in (7. (7) a, desemanticization (or ‘semantic bleaching’) - loss in meaning content, ». extension (or context generalization) ~ use in new contexts, . decategorialization — loss in morphosyntactic properties charac- teristic of lexical or other less grammaticalized forms, and 4. erosion (or ‘phonetic reduction’ - loss in phonetic substance. It goes without saying that the focus on the individual Linguistic sign that is apparent in both sets of criteria, especially in Lehmann’s, does not neces- sarily sit well with recent approaches to grammaticalization in terms of 184 Hero Naso constructions (cf. definition (5), Lehmann’s set of criteria have also been criticized as biased towards morphological change, since they basically refer to morphemes as the ‘linguistic sign’, and the formal change mor phemes undergo (cf, e.g,, Traugott 2010: 273-4). Still, these two sets are the best currently available. ‘Now, coming to the main topic, there are logically speaking four possi- ble ways in which grammaticalization and language typology may inter act. Namely, i. grammaticalization motivates structural features that can be typolo- gized but not vice versa; ii, typological features influence aspects of grammaticalization but not vice versa; iii, there is both an influence of grammaticalization on structural features of language that can be typologized, and influence of typological features on aspects of grammaticalization; iv, no interaction, Ifwe choose the definitions that we did above, we can firmly conclude on the basis of extant research that grammaticalization and typological fea- tures influence each other, that is, (ii) is the case. This will be shown below. Section 6.2 deals with the influence of grammaticalization on typological features of languages, section 6.3 with the influence of typoto- gical features on aspects of grammaticalization and section 6.4 will give a short conclusion. 6.2 Grammaticalization Motivates Structural Features that Can Be Typologized This section consists of three subsections, based on type of interaction. The first. $6.2.1, deals with grammaticalization as a partial explanation for some implicational universals, the next, §6.2.2, with grammatical zation as a (partial) explanation for the onder of affixed material and finally §6.2.3 with grammaticalization as an explanation for cross- Linguistic types of the expression of certain grammatical categories. ‘One can view the order of subsections as an ascending order in terms of relevance for the current research landscape in linguistic typology, starting out with material that is meanwhile historical. A short conclu sion follows in §6.2.4. 6.2.1, Grammaticalization as Partial Explanation for Some Implicational Universals Lehmann (1986: 12) observed that the process of grammaticalization can be a causal factor of some of Greenberg's implicational universals}] such as the Typology and Grammaticalization 135 following (the numbers refer to the numbering of the forty-five universals proposed by Greenbeng in his seminal 1961 paper 2. In languages with prepositions, the genitive almost always follows the governing noun, while in fanguages with postpositions it almost always precedes. 3. Languages with dominant VSO order are always prepositional. 4. With overwhelmingly greater than chance frequency, languages with normal SOV order are postpositional 16. In languages with dominant order VSO, an inflected auxiliary always precedes the main verb. In languages with dominant order SOV, an inflected auxiliary always follows the main verb. 27. Ifa language is exclusively suffixing, itis postpositional. If itis exclu sively prefixing, itis propositional. All of the above generalizations can be explained by the fact that when Texical heads of complex constructions grammaticalize (eg. relational noun to adposition: verb to auxiliary), they usually remain in their original position, For example, relational nouns grammaticalize to adpositions (2.. 3., 4), and verbs grammaticalize to auxiliaries (16.) and temain in their original position. However, Lehmann (1986: 13) does not consider this to be a full ‘explanation’. He cautions that it should be clear that the recourse to grammaticalization is not in itself a sufficient explanation of such implicational generalizations. AS | said before, the specific function common to the syntactic relations of a relational noun to its complement and of an adposition to its comple- ‘ment, and the specific flinction common to the syntactic relations of a verb to its object and of an adposition to its complement, are concepts not inherent in grammaticalization, but are, instead, a presupposition for these constructions to be connected by grammaticalization ‘Thus, Lehmann seems to consider grammaticalization asa channel but not as the ultimate cause or motivation for the order and relationship between elements of the sentence. Relatedly, Greenberg himself (1995) saw a role for grammaticalization in his four-part approach to diachronic typology. which consists of the following elements: i, Dynamicized state-process model. Synchronically, there are certain states within a specific typology, or within a specific language; eg. OV (vs. VO}; AN (vs. NA} etc, The typology describes the process by ‘which the language changes from one state to another. In order for this model to lead to interesting generalizations, a ‘strong connection’ must hold, i. it must be possible to move from one state to another within that typology. ii, Dynamicized state-process model of an elaborate (or: sub) typology. This model looks at intermediate states between the main states in 186 Heo NeROG a typology and tries to find generalizations about the diachronic rel tionship between these states. Intragenetic comparison: comparison within one genetic language group. iv. Intergenetic comparison: comparison between two or more genetic Janguage groups. Within this four-part approach, Greenberg (1995: 157, 159-60) primarily locates the study of grammaticalization in intragenetic comparison, where grammaticalization theory provides knowledge about the direc- tionality of change, but also in intergenetic comparison, where gramma- ticalization theory does the same on a larger scale. He was mainly interested in how grammaticalization interacts with global constituent order and word order changes to come up for detailed variations in word. order within one language, and counterexamples to implicational univer sals such as the above. The following (reconstructed) stages of word order development in Ethiopian Semitic languages is an example (we are here in the context of intragenetic comparison). (8) PrING/NA -+ Pr/NG/AN ~» Pr/GN/AN — Pp/GNJAN (p. 155)* ‘The highlighted part of the chain constitutes a violation of implicational ‘universal (2). However, it can be explained through the interplay of prince ples of grammaticalization and global constituent order and word order ‘change in this language. Among noun genitive, noun-adjective and adpost- tionhhead, nounadjective order is the type of word ortler that is most unstable and susceptible to change. It will change first, followed by noun- genitive order, while grammaticalization from relational noun to adposition will take the most time, and therefore adpositions will lag behind. This ‘szadual sequence of changes, then, in which grammaticalization plays a role, leads to violations of universal in the ordering of meaningful elements. Lehmann (1986: 15-17) also discussed the role of grammaticalization in this type of historically conditioned intra‘anguage (and intragenetic) var- iation. However, he argues (pp. 17-20) that not constituent order and word order, but the area on the borderline between syntax and morphology should be at the centre of the study of grammaticalization and linguistic typology. According to him, high-level syntax like constituent order is not grammatically determined enough but may be pragmatically determined. Morphophonemic processes tend to be irregular, and thus difficult to generalize upon, crosslinguistically. Pure meaning (semantics) and expression (phonology) are also excluded because it is the combination of meaning and form that is typical for language. The lexicon (lexical typology) is not regular enough. Indeed, to my knowledge, the study of the role of grammaticalization in the development of constituent order and word order has remained at the fringe of typologically oriented research in grammaticatization. Typology and Grammaticalization 187 62.2 Grammaticalization as (Partial) Explanation for the Order of Affixed Material Via the principles of grammaticalization, we expect morpheme order tobe frozen word order. Originally independent words that grammaticalize become increasingly prosodically dependent on adjacent lexemes or words and end up as affixes in their original position. In typology, there are at least two related topics, namely the suffixing preference and mor- pheme order in complex words. 6.2.2.1 Suffixing Preference ‘There is an overall tendency in languages to prefer suffixes over prefixes, which has been well known in language typology at least since the 1980s. ‘As Bybee, Pagliuica and Perkins (1990) showed, this tendency even holds in. the majority of head-initial, especially SVO, languages. Table 6.2 shows the overall preference for suffixation, irrespective of basic word order, accort- ing to data by Dryer (2005). ‘A more detailed breakup of where we find suffixes and prefixes shows that there are considerable differences by grammatical categories. Related findings by Gysouw (2006) are displayed in Table 6.3. As Table 6.3 shows, there are significant differences with respect to what categories get suffixed vs. prefixed. These differences may be ascribed to the different positions in which the morphemes grammaticalize, which in turn may depend on mechanisms of discourse. Perhaps the most detailed study on the extent of the suffixation prefer ence and its causes is found in Bybee et al. (1990), and to my knowledge there is no research that substantially contradicts the findings and the conclusions in this study. Bybee et al. (1990), after giving an overview of the suffixation prefer- cence, in a language as a whole and also by word order type, investigate a number of psycholinguistic (processing) and phonological factors possi bly leading to the suffixing preference, and find that none of them can account for it, They conchide that the ‘fossilized syntax hypothesis’ explains the suffixing preference best (p. 35). The ‘fossilized syntax hypothesis” goes back to the idea by Givon (1971) that ‘yesterday's syntax Table 6.2 Prefixing versus suffiing in inflectional morphology (Dryer 2005: 110) Litle or no iflecional morphology 122 Predominantly suffcng 302 Moderate peterence for sufing na Approximately equal amounts of suing and prefaing 130, Moderate pelerenc for prefining 2 Predominantly prefxing 34 Total 138 HEIKO NARROG. Table 6.3 Rate of suffixation (vs. prefixation) by grommatical category (Cysouw 2006: 11) 100. | 74.4 % overall ‘Sufization (ne) «0 20 10 ‘case plurality tense/aspect pronominal person person Possession grams paradigms is today's morphology’. It assumes that ‘the position of an affix is the same as the position of the nonbound lexical or grammatical material from which the affix developed’ (Bybee et al. 1990: 3). AS is well known, this idea is the starting point for the revival of interest in grammaticalization in modern mainstream linguistics, However, strikingly, fossilized syntax does not necessarily reflect nor mal word order, Pethaps the most conspicuous example is (subject) person endings being suffixed even in SOV languages, where they aze expected to precede the verbal root. The most likely reason is that it is unstressed pronominal subject pronouns postposed to the vetb, rather than pronouns in their normal position that get grammaticalized (cf. Bybee et al. 1990: 10; based on Comrie 1980). Further research has shown that within person paradigms, there is 2 prefixing preference for very small and very large paradigms, while those in the middle are predominantly suffixing (Cysouw 2006). ‘As Cysouw concludes, “The big riddle of the suffixation preference thus actually consists of various smaller-scale riddles concerning different Kinds of affixation asymmetry’ (2006: 14). Typology and Grammaticalization 159 Se eta eee ee) we 6 | pe [ram nev [suv |naDavayeay| 3”frewr wobec Sb ui en fda | falar ree] L Digit tao Comprcipeines | Figure 6.1, Navajo verb template (according to Young and Morgan 1987: 37-8) Mithun (2003) argues that the ultimate answer to the suffixing prefer ence must be sought in the history (ie, grammaticalization) of the indivi- dual morphemes that as an aggregate make up the suffixing preference. Generally speaking. itis reasonable to assume that the position of a bound morpheme vis-vis its host reflects the order of the erstwhile independent ‘word vis-i-vis this host, unless one can make the wellfounded assumption that a morpheme changed its position after grammaticalization. Harris and Campbell (1995: 64-70) refer rather abstractly to cases where reana- lysis in changes that we would identify as grammaticalization led to a change in position. These cases should probably be considered as excep- tional, since bound morphemes are by definition less mobile than inde- pendent ones. However, a change of position may become more likely if a morpheme goes through a clitic stage. Comrie (1980: 85-7; 1989: 217-18) observed that the position of clitics, while less free than that of indepen- dent words, is more free than that of other bound morphemes, and that for prosodic reasons. clitics may follow rules that differ from those of inde- pendent words. Ifa clitic stage is involved in the grammaticalization of a morpheme, the possibility that morpheme order does not reflect erst- while word order becomes greater. Comrie has argued that this is the case for pronominal clities, which are the most prominent type of clitis in the Indo-European languages, and it remains to be seen if this is also true of, other grammatical categories. Note, though, that grammaticalization is the mechanism through which grammatical elements become frozen in a certain position, but grammaticalization alone does not really explain why an element is in a position before or after the verb when it grammaticalizes in the first place. 6.2.2.2 Morpheme Order in Languages with Highly Complex Words In languages with a complex morphology, morpheme order can also be ‘a highly complex issue. There are different approaches, and it is fair to say that motivations for morpheme order are not yet resolved. But grammati- alization may be one important motivation. Morpheme order in the Navajo verb, as presented by Mithun (2011), is a case in point. Figure 6.1 shows the Navajo verb template with the various morphemes involved in abbreviation, and (9) spells out the abbreviations. 160 HEIKO NARROG _—_ ee 9) Position classes (according to Young 2000) 0 Object of a postposition [applied objects} la Null postposition Ib Postpositions {applicatives}, Adverbial-Thematic, Nominal prefixes Ie Reflexive 1d Reversionary: ‘returning back’ Je Semeliterative ‘once more" TT iterative I Distributive plurat IV Object pronominals V Subject pronominals: third person VI ‘Thematic and adverbial prefixes [three slots} Vil_ Mode modality. aspect} VIM Subject pronominals; first and second persons IX [Classifiers] (valency markers} X Stem ‘The order represented in Figure 6.1 posits a number of difficulties for any attempt at explanation. According to Mithun (2011: 179-80), the following four points are especially challenging. i. Languages with verb-final syntactic structure are expected to be suffix wv. ing. Navajo shows strong verb-final order in clauses, but itis exclu- sively prefixing. . Mutually dependent morphemes are often expected to be contiguous, but many Navajo lexical entries consist of parts scattered throughout the verb. Also, mode-aspect categories are expressed by combinations of non-contiguous prefixes and stem shape. Inflectional affixes are expected to occur outside of derivational affixes, but in Navajo derivational and inflectional prefixes are intercalated. Paradigmatically related affixes, usually mutually exclusive, typically all occur in the same position in a template. But they don’t do so in Navajo. It is impossible to go into detail here, but according to Mithun (2011), the ‘most popular explanations of this order in terms of syntax (the ‘mirror principle’; Baker 1988), semantic scope (Rice 2000}, and combination of syntactic and phonological principles (Hale 2001) cannot really explain the non-contiguity of morphemes of the same category and the overall ‘patchi- ness’ of morpheme order: In contrast, there is good evidence that the order of morphemes can be explained as reflecting the order in which they grammaticalized historically, Mithun (2011) describe some detail how prefixes increase in (1) phonological reduction, (2) generality and abstrac- tion and (3) diffuse meaning from left to right. Thus, from leftto right, they Typology and Grammaticalization 161 show an increasing degree of grammaticalization (see the parameters by Lehmann (2002) and Heine and Kuteva (2002) as presented in §6.1) In conclusion, ‘the positions of prefixes in the verb correlate with their age: those closest to the stem are the oldest. and those furthest the young: est’ (Mithun 2011: 184). Furthermore, ‘the Navajo prefixes whose sources are still identifiable developed from words that still occur syntactically before the verb’ (p. 189). Hence grammaticalization explains morpheme order best. ‘Thus, Mithun (2011) presented a wellargued case for morpheme order reflecting grammaticalization, rather than any other (syntactic or seman- tic) motivation in the Navajo verb. Note that this case is different from that presented in the discussion of the suffixing preference in section 6.2.2.1. In the case of the suffixing preference, grammaticalization is seen as mediating between the word order of independent words and of bound morphemes. In the case of order between morphemes in the Navajo template, the question is the reason for the relative position of mor- hemes to each other. In this case, grammaticalization appears to be the immediate cause and therefore a valid explanation, 6.2.3 Grammaticalization as Explanation for Cross-linguistic Types of Expression of Certain Grammatical Categories ‘The past twenty or so years of typological and functional research related to grammaticalization have brought to the forefront the observation that ‘many linguistic categories are crossJinguistically expressed by a limited number of structural types. These structural types are the product of ‘grammaticalization, Furthermore, the genesis of these types can explain at least some structural and semantic features that they have. This approach to linking typological patterns with grammaticalization is parti- ularly associated with the lines of research of Heine (1997; Heine and Kuteva 2002) and Bybee (2006; Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994). In the following, | present a number of prominent examples that have been brought up in the literature: Indefinite articles: According to Heine (2004; Heine and Kuteva 2006), ¢.89 per cent ofall indefinite articles cross-linguistically are derived from the numeral ‘one’. This explains some positional tendencies of indefinite articles, the fact that they are often confined to singulars, and beyond that, the fact there is the following implicational hierarchy for their apptica- tion: mass noun > plural noun > singular noun, Possessive constructions: Heine (1997) identified eight source sche- mas for possessive constructions cross-linguistically. They are displayed in Table 6.4. According to Heine (1997: 102-3), these source schemas can account for some characteristics of specific possessive constructions, such as why they often have non-verbal, or copularlike, predicates, or how the possessor is 182 HERO NARROS: Oe Table 6.4 Source schemas for predicative possessive constructions (Heine 1997: 91) Source schema Label of schema Xtakes¥ ‘Action Yis located atx Location Xiswih ¥ Companion XS Yexists Genitive Y existsfor/toX Goal Y¥ ens trom x Source As forX Yess Topic Yisxs 0) Equation movement characteretic ater Figure 6.2 Paths forthe development of future mosphemes (Bybee 1988: 374) encoded in a specific language, ie. as a comitative, locative, etc., or why they frequently have locative morphology, etc. Furthermore, these constructions often undergo a development, at the end of which 1. the possessor precedes the possessee. 2. the possessor has properties of a subject, and the possessee has proper- ties of clausal object. 3, the possessor is definite and the possessee is indefinite. Depending on the stage of development, possessive constructions often display ‘bybrid’ properties between source and target structures (Heine 1997: 98-9) (see also Comrie 1989: 219-25 fora somewhat detailed descrip- tion of such a process in Maltese). In this manner, grammaticalization also accounts for their properties as a process. Future: Bybee (1988; and elsewhere) investigated cross-linguistic poly emy of future morphemes and found that the polysemy can be explained by reference to the diachronic evolution of these elements, which can be represented as in Figure 6.2 above. ‘According to Bybee (1988: 374-5), these paths of development are expla- natory because they explain (1) why itis difficult to find a single abstract ‘meaning for a polysemous morpheme (like many future morphemes}, (2) the cross-linguistic similarities of grammatical meanings by similar paths of development and principles of historical change and (3) differences Typology and Grammaticalization 163 between morphemes in different languages with reference to different lexical sources and different extent of change along the universal paths of change. Also, (4) they predict possible combinations of meanings, and (5) they allow reconstruction of the lexical sources of grams. Bybee’s line of research continues to emphasize the explanatory potential that gramma- ticatization has for crosslinguistically reoccurring patterns of expression of grammatical categories, The quote in (10) from Bybee (2009) sum- ‘marizes this perspective on grammaticalization and typology. (10) ‘... | Ihave identified several mechanisms of change, all of which are driven by increased usage: phonetic reduction, automatization, increasing autonomy, semantic bleaching, and pragmatic infer- fence. These are the basic mechanisms of change that can act on any grammaticalizing material and render it part of the grammar Although these processes explain similarities across languages, they also allow for and create differences .... Thus, grammaticalization hhas great potential for explaining the similarities as well as the differences among languages." (Bybee 2009: 30) Passives: Givon (2008, 2009) identifies six common types of passive con- structions. (A) the adjectival tative passive (e.g. English common passive) (B) the reflexive passive (eg. English getpassive); (C) the serialverb adversive passive (eg. Chinese); (D) the VPnominalization passive (eg. Ute}; (8) the left dislocation-cum-impersonakpassive (eg. Kimbundu); (F) the zero-anaphora passive (eg. Sherpa). Note that (AJ-{C) are promotional passives (ie. the erstwhile object becomes the new subject), while (D}{F) are non: Promotional. The concept of passives, on which the identification of the six patterns is based, is a functional one and fairly broad. It should be cautioned that not every concept of passives would include the same range of constructions, In any case, the source constructions reflect functional similarities. ‘The concrete structural properties of these passive structures in individual languages can be explained by the degree to which they have grammati- calized (and emancipated themselves) to full-fledged, more prototypical passives from their source constructions. For example, non-promotional passives may eventually become promotional as subject properties gradu- ally shift to the object patient. Similarly, oblique agents may eventually be added (in early stages of development of passives, agents are usually not expressed). In this way, ctoss-linguistically common types of passives and their concrete morphosyntactic features can be explained with reference to their source construction and their degree of grammaticalization. 6.2.4 Summary First, since grammaticalizing items usually grammaticalize in a position ‘that was occupied by their lexical predecessor, the order of grammatical 164 HEIKO NARROG: items with respect to other items can be explained by their position at the time of their grammaticalization. This seems to hold for bound as well as non-bound morphemes and is a partial explanation for some language patterns of typological interest. Secondly, commonalities and differences in the expression of grammatical categories across languages can be explained to a large degree by reference to grammaticalization. With respect to the expression of grammatical categories, it has even been claimed that true universals are diachronic. It is the processes and paths of grammaticalization that are shared more or less universally, rather than their synchronic outcomes. Here I will cite Bybee again, who formulated this idea succinctly as in (1), (11) [The] remarkable similarity in grammaticization paths across unre- lated languages strongly suggests that universals of diachronic development be included in a theory of language universals. J would further argue that the diachronic universals are much stronger than any synchronic universals we can formulate concern- ing the presence and meaning of tense and aspect markers in the languages of the world ... Thus the very robust and very specific paths of development shown above constitute much stronger cross- linguistic statements than any statements we could devise about synchronic states.’ (Bybee 2006: 186-7) 63 Typological Features Influence Grammaticalization ‘Compared to the scenarios discussed in the previous section, some of the scenarios presented here are more hypothetical. Clearly, certain historical processes lead to certain outcomes, but are there target structures of ‘change that influence the pathways of change? This is more difficult to demonstrate. Before going into possible scenarios, I wish to highlight two presuppositions for the following discussion. First. very generally, motiva- tions for grammaticalization itself must be sought in cognition and syn- chronic Janguage activity, such as online processing of language and ‘memory storage. This is a point readily acknowledged by scholars who have been concerned with the relationship between synchrony and dia- chrony. For example, Greenberg (1995: 164) suggested that ‘there is a gradual process by which innovations originating in discourse ultimately ‘become established as part of the system of language’, that is, he sought the origins of change in discourse. Haspelmath (2008: 214) suggests ‘econ- omy’ as the most important motivation of change: [Diachronic| changes are motivated by economy, ie., by the innovating speakers’ desire to speak economically. This is not a synchronic grammatical constraint, or even & more general cognitive constraint. It is simply a constraint on any rational behavior.’ Hawkins (2011: 225) considers grammars as the Typology and Grammaticalzation 165 ‘conventionalizations of the same processing mechanisms that psycholo- gists find evidence for in experimental and corpus data’. He also views thems ‘adaptive systems’, and change as driven by efficiency and ease of, processing, Thus, for Hawkins, efficiency and ease of processing are the causes of language change and grammaticalization. However, factors such as cognition, discourse or efficiency are not typological: they operate as constraints on language activity in general, irvespective of the typological features of the language. Secondly, the extent to which typological features influence grammati- ‘alization, or the question if this is the case at all, strongly depends on the definition of grammaticalization. The more abstract the definition of grammaticalization, that is, the mote itis reduced to a universal essence, the smaller the possibility for variation. While the common definitions of grammaticalization (section 6.1) allow for wide interaction between gram- ‘maticalization and typological features, this interaction is considerably reduced if the definition is narrowed down. For example, Himmelmann (2005: 82) proposes that 4 grammaticisation process can be defined asa process of context expansion on all three levels, as summarised in the following formula: (Xn) ADB | Kn(Xn4-x) An+xb| Kn+x where A and B represent full lexical items, ba grammaticised element and the following three types of contextual changes occur: {a} host class formationjexpansion: An + Andx (e.g. common nouns — common and proper nouns) (b} syntactic context expansion: Xn — Xn4x (e.g. core argument position — core and peripheral argument positions} (c) semantic-pragmatic context expansion: Kn -> Knéx(e-g. anaphoricuse — anaphoric and associative anaphoric use) (@timmelmann 2005: 82} Himmelmann’s definition seeks to reduce grammaticalization toa process of ‘expansion’ on several levels. Importantly for our purposes here, one goal of his definition is to exclude typological factors from grammaticali- zation, since they are viewed as epiphenomenal. Himmelmann (2005: 83) is explicit about this as stated in (12). (12) "The above definition of grammaticisation ... differs from previous efinitions of grammaticisation in two ways. Firs, itis selective, singling out context expansion in general and semantic-pragmatic context expansion in particular as the major defining feature of grammaticisation, All the other phenomena which are often observed in grammaticisation processes and which are considered crterial in other definitions (such as paradigm formation, erosion, obligatori- nessjredundancy, etc) do not occur in this definition ... {Erosion 166 Heiko NARROG and fusion here are considered epiphenomena. Their occurrence depends on at least two factors. For one, they depend on the overall typological profile of a given language (eg. in isolating languages the potential for fusion is generally very limited). For another, the construction type also appears to play a major role.” In agenerative view of grammaticalization as well, it should be possible to reduce grammaticalization to a core or essence that is universal and not amenable to typological influences. In generative grammar, fundamen- tally, “grammaticalization” is regarded as the diachronic development of lexical heads into functional heads’ (Roberts and Roussou 1999: 1011} Similarly. van Gelderen (2004) views grammaticalization as change from lower head to higher head (Late Merge’) or from Spec to Head. There might bbe some typological variation in the heads that are the sources and the targets of change, but the essence would remain unaffected. However, in this chapter, we are interested in the traditional ‘full package’ of gramma- ticalization, including phonological and morphological changes, and this full package is the subject of the discussion in the remainder of this section. Lastly, note that in the following it will also become clear that typological features influencing grammaticalization can be shared across a language area. This is a topic of great potential interest but cannot be pursued here systematically. 6.3.1 Synchronic Universals Constrain Grammaticalization ‘Trivially, absolute universals will constrain grammaticalization, in that grammaticalization cannot result in a structure that violates an absolute universal. However, there are few true universals, especially in grammar, ‘and it is difficult to come up with an actual example of this type of constraint. It is potentially more fruitful to ask whether typological tendencies (relative universals) constrain grammaticalization, that is, is 2 grammaticalization process influenced by the existence or non- ‘existence of a target structure that conforms to a relative universal? This ‘would be the converse of grammaticalization leading to typological ten- dencies, and so the question is do paths of grammaticalization lead to typological universals. as claimed in 2.1, or do typological universals con- strain paths of grammaticalization? The latter would presuppose that there is some teleology in change, which is an unpopular position in ‘current historical linguistics in general (see Luraghi 2010), and in gram- maticalization studies in. particular (see Hopper and Traugott 2003: 74). Haspelmath (p.c) suggested to me that in the case of ditransitive construc- tions (see Malchukov. Haspelmath and Comrie 2010) he believes that there are cross-linguistic target structures that may constrain paths of gramma- ticalization. However, given the lack of related discussions in the Typology and Grammaticalization 167 literature, I don’t see myself in the position to pursue this possibility ‘meaningfully within the framework of this chapter. A more remotely related predecessor of this issue can be found in the discussion about the extent to which typology can be used for reconstruc. tion (e.g. Greenberg 1995: 145; Shields 2011). It is only remotely related because here we deal with a question of possible former synchronic states rather than processes. In Comrie (1989: 210-18), we find a sceptical dis- cussion of this possibility, based on the observation that there are too many exceptions, Nevertheless, applied with some caution, itis possible to argue that reconstructions should take into account the typologically plausible (see Comrie 1993). 63.2 Typological Language Structures Constrain Grammaticalization Processes 6.3.2.1 Phonological and Morphological Aspects There are several ways in which phonological and morphological typolo- gical features may be considered as a constraint or a guiding factor for grammaticalization processes. First, im head-final languages, grammaticalization is more likely to lead to bound morphemes than in heact-initial languages because of the suffix- ing preference; ie. a stronger tendency for postposed than preposed mor- phemes to become bound (cf. §6.2.1; Bybee et al. 1990). Secondly, it has been observed that grammaticalization in tonal, isolat- {ng languages like the:Sinitic languages does not accompany reduction of syllables. Ansaldo and Lim (2004: 345) observe that ‘{sjtrongly isolating languages typically do not allow yesterday's syntax to become today's morphology ... syllable boundaries are discrete and phonotactic con- straints rule out reduced syllables of the kind observed elsewhere, the material available for reduction is not easily found at the morphological level’ (cf. also Bisang 2004, 2010}. However, Ansaldo and Lim (2004) show that a reduction in suprasegmental features takes place. The authors found that erosion was primarily found in vowel quality and duration. Thus, even in this type of language, some of the phonological and morphological criteria of grammaticalization (see section 6.1) do apply. Along similar lines, Schiering (2007, 2010) proposes a three-way rhythm typology of languages of mora-based, syllable-based and stress-based lan- guages. He claims that in grammaticalization in general, and in cliticiza- tion in particular, phonological reduction will be greater in the order mora-based > syllable based > stress-based. Schiering (2007, 2010) provides evidence from twenty languages. In Figure 6.3 below, the left side of each bar represents phonetic strength of stress, and the right side degree of segmental effect. Ccorroetes Ml Eifect ruba, nna = 1X66, den = Slave Kt ne Jasgue, fn = Fresh, ckt= Chukchi, ude = Udibe, see Gana, aey = Amele,iae ~ Tariana, yd = Kayarih, 36a = Koyra aun mao\< Maori, c= Mander Chinese, cat = Catalan, Pom = Ng rian Pidgin, mit = Maltese) Figure 63 Segretal fic of sess (Schiring 2007; 342; 2010: 88) Itis puzaling to see that for Mandarin Chinese, classified as mixed stress] tone, a high degree of erosion is predicted, while research in Chinese Linguistics stresses how litte reduction takes place in this type of lane sage, This may be due to the way in which segmental effect Is measured, Samely through phonetic effects of stress as described in the grammars of tach language, rather than through empirical or experimental data (cE Schiering 2007: 342-3). Possibly, the classification into mora-based, syllable based and stress ‘based languages can explain differences in phonological reduction only partially. For example, there isa striking contrast in the degree of erosion in grammaticalization between Korean (cf. Rhee 2011) and Japanese {Nartog and Ohori 2011), which are both often classified as mors:based In Korean, phonological and morphological erosion is rampant, while itis moderate in Japanese. Furthermore, in both languages, contrary to Schiering’s prediction, we find plenty of phonological and morphological ‘erosion in grammaticalization, unlike in Chinese. Perhaps, Schiering’s {2010) findings should be understood as being valid for cliticization, Put cannot be generalized beyond clticization. In any case, Schiering’s (2010) hypothesis is a promising starting point for further research. 63.2.2 Semantic and Syntactic Aspects Bisang, in a series of publications (eg. 2004, 2008, 2011) claims a number of constraints on grammaticalization in Sinitic languages. Besides the small extent of changes in phonology (lack of cocvolution of meaning, and form’) that was already discussed above, these are «+ lack of obligatoriness of grammatical categories; e. lack of grammatr cal paradigms in general; > « Jack of clearly determined semantic domains, Typology and Grammaticalization 169 ‘+ existence of rigid syntactic patterns (word order patterns) within which lexical items grammaticalize, and pervasiveness of inference. which enables language users to encode and decode the function of a specific item in a specific semantic context: ‘+ no grammaticalization chains (i, grammaticalization of one category leading to the next category} Thus, according to Bisang, none of Lehmann’s six parameters of gramma- ticalization (Table 6.1) applies except syntagmatic variability, nor do other traditional models of grammaticalization. Besides Sinitic, the same char- acteristics are claimed to hold for Tai, Mon-Khmer and Hmong-Mien lan- guages (cf. Bisang 2008: 25-31). That is, the same constraints on grammaticalization hold for an areal language type 6.5.3 Extant Target Structures Influence Processes of Grammaticalization Very generally, it may be assumed that, cetera paribus, the typological morphological tendencies of a language (fusional. agglutinative, isolating) may induce the same morphological types as target structures languages with agglutinative morphology, grammaticalization is more likely to lead to affixation than in isolating languages. However, the synchronic morphological structures are not necessarily the direct causes for different outcome of grammaticalization. There may be indirect, or deeper, causes for the historical continuation of morphological types. such as prosodic structure (cf. §6.3.2.1). Furthermore, since the morphological structure of languages can change significantly over the course of history, it is also clear that morphological structures are not always replicated through cycles of grammaticatization. Replication of existing structures through grammaticalization may apply not only to morphology (and syntax) but also to grammatical categories. Ideally, every language would have one exponent for each crosslinguistically available grammatical category. In reality, indivi- dual languages, figuratively speaking, often cannot seem to get enough of specific categories, while they don't care at all about grammaticaliz- ing other categories. These categories may be expressed indirectly through other categories, lexically or not at all (depending on the analysis and theoretical point of view). It appears, then, that a preferred set of categories is grammaticalized over and over in waves or cycles (or spirals). The categories whose grammaticalization is preferred may further impact the mode of grammaticalization of other categories, For example, in the area of tense, aspect, mood (TAM), Bhat (1999) described how languages may be either tense-, aspect, or mood promi- nent, and the not overtly expressed categories may be indirectly expressed 170 eKONARROG through the well-grammaticalized ones. In terms of grammaticalization, ‘we can surmise that languages tend to maintain this typological profile by renewing their preferred category rather than grammaticalizing the “neglected” ones. Bhat (1999: 182} suggests different paths of grammaticalization: “[Languages that give greater prominence to aspect than to tense develop a perfective form from an earlier perfect construction and an imperfective form from an earlier progressive construction, whereas languages that give greater prominence to tense than to aspect develop past and present forms directly from their perfect and progressive constructions respec- tively.’ As Bhat further maintains (pp. 182-3): (13) ‘aspect:prominent and mood-prominent languages show distinct tendencies of change when they develop temporal distinctions. In the case of aspect-prominent languages, we generally find a two- way pastjnon-past distinction or a three-way past-presentfuture distinction developing from an earlier perfective-imperfective dis- tinction, which correlates with the fact that from an aspectual point of view present and future appear as imperfective and past as per- fective. For example, the Semitic languages had originally an aspec- tual system, which distinguished between perfective and imperfective events, but in some of the modem languages this has changed into a temporal system in which the distinction is between past and present ... In the case of mood-prominent languages, on the other hand, the general tendency is to develop primarily a future/non-future distinction. (hat 19997 182-3) While Bhat (1999) saw different degrees of ‘prominence’ of certain cate- sgories in languages, Chafe (2000) coined the term ‘florescence’. He sug- gests that, ‘like forests, languages may develop toward a climax stage ‘where particular combinations of features, like plant communities, may flourish to define a particular language type. I think itis useful to think in terms of the florescence of linguistic features in this sense - the flowering of features that come to dominate the form a language takes’ (p. 39). Some features of Troquoian languages serve as examples for this florescence. First, oquoian languages (especially Northern Iroquoian) have extremely elaborate pronominal prefixes that may lead to an inventory of 60~70 prefixes, Besides singular, plural and dual number distinctions in the first and second persons of both agents and patients (which are also differentiated), there is even an inclusive-exclusive distinction in Cherokee, and the addition of gender distinctions with thitd persons (see Chafe 2000: 41). Decisively, this elaborate pronominal prefix system is described (reconstructed) by Chafe as the result of successive grammatica- lizations. Secondly, Iroquoian languages are characterized by noun Typology and Grammaticalization wm incorporation of a wide range of concepts, e.g, animals, foods and body parts. Even whole events can be incorporated as verb roots are incorpo- rated into nouns, Again, interlanguage comparison suggests that these incorporations developed not at once but over time, newer incorporations following older ones. They also range from productive to fixatedjidiomatic. ‘Thinking of parallels in other, more easily accessible, languages, the relatively large variety of modal and semi-modal verbs in English or German may be a good example. South Asian languages also have many (see Narrog 2010), but other languages have none at all. Historically speak- ing, we have a wave of emergence of the modals from Old to Middle English, and a wave of emergence of the semi-modals from Middle to ‘Modern English. The prior emergence of one or two auxiliary verbs first seems to have drawn others along the same path thereafter, and the existence of the modals may have induced the later development of the semi-modals ‘Krug (2000) tries to account for the development of the semi-modals in terms of a ‘gravitational model’, which operates on the principle that ‘larger masses (in our case highly frequent emerging auxiliaries) attract, smaller masses (in our case less common constructions’ (p. 226). Based on frequency and similarity (a qualitative measure), he calculates to which extent specific semi-modals are influencing others (p. 232). Changes in a field of related items can be easiest observed in phonology (e.g. want to> ‘wanna; go to > gonna), but actually ‘extend to all basic linguistic levels i.e phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics’ (p. 227). More generally and more traditionally, it may be possible to describe such changes in terms‘of ‘analogy’. Grammatical items and constructions ‘with low frequency change in analogy to high-frequency items and con- structions. Type frequency determines the influence ofa group of items on other items outside that group, as already observed very early by Paul (1891: 100) (‘But all that part of language which lacks the support of an environing group. or which enjoys it only in a limited measure, proves, unless impressed by repeated usage intensely upon the memory, not strong enough to withstand the power of the larger groups”, or later by Bybee and Thompson (1997: 384) ("high type frequency ensures that a construction will be used frequently, which will strengthen its represen tational schema, making it more accessible for further use, possibly with. new items’), In contrast, token frequency may determine the item or construction with the biggest influence within 2 group. In this manner, the dominant structural and functional types of a language may have a strong influence on new grammaticalizations. ‘An almost complementary concept to “florescence’ is DeLancey’s (2001) “functional sink’, which he defines as ‘a function which is important enough, crosslinguistically, that in language which does not formally express it with dedicated grammatical machinery. any construction or lexical means which expresses a related function is a likely candidate for 1m HEKONARROS pee ‘grammaticalization’ (p. 15). For example, adjectives are based on the func tion of noun modification, which is universal, even if adjectives are not. Certain nouns or verbs may be drawn into this functional sink, eventually leading to the development of the new category adjective. The same can ‘occur with clearly grammatical categories. For example, Thomnes (2013) claims that stch a functional sink is at work in the grammaticalization of ‘causative constructions in Norther Paiute. Causative is a grammatical function with a high communicative need that is usually available even in the absence of grammatical means and, because of the frequent need of expression, attracts lexical materials to grammaticalize. 63.4 Summary ‘We have seen a number of cases where synchronic typological structures of a specific language may either constrain or guide the direction of grammaticalization, especially phonological and morphological aspects, and the categories being grammaticalized. These aspects of grammatical zation might be considered as ‘epiphenomenal’ in a stripped-down or highly abstract concept of grammaticalization, but they are nevertheless of typological interest. As for synchronic universals constraining gramma- ticalization, we have found no good examples. 6.4 Conclusion ‘Paths of grammaticalization lead to cross-linguistically recurrent language patterns. Deeper motivations for these paths must be sought in general Principles of communication and cognition, Also, morphological aspects of synchronic language structure tend to reflect properties of their gram- ‘maticalization. Reversely, synchronic language structures may constrain and guide some aspects of grammaticalization. Here, the impact of extant phonological and morphological structures, and the impact of extant ‘grammatical categories on further grammaticalizations may be of parti cular interest for further study. This chapter is organized in accordance with the question how grammaticalization may impact typological fea- tures of languages, and how reversely, typological features of languages ‘may impact paths of grammaticalization. Under a different perspective,

    You might also like