1887
Volume 36, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The principle of directionality is an important part of the comparative method: in order to arrive at a reconstruction, historical linguists need a robust theory that informs them in what direction linguistic change is likely to proceed. But any such theory will have exceptions. How are these to be spotted? I examine one case in which a counter-directional change, degrammaticalization, can be reconstructed by invoking the phonotactics of the proto-language. The degrammaticalized form is the Sirva 3 pronoun , and the proto-language is Proto-Sogeram. After making this reconstruction, I also demonstrate that it can be used to enhance our understanding of degrammaticalization. spawned a small family of related forms, which shows us that degrammaticalized forms can become polygrammaticalized in the same way as other grammatical morphemes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.18015.dan
2019-04-05
2019-08-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahern, Christopher & Robin Clark
    2017 Conflict, cheap talk, and Jespersen’s cycle. Semantics and Pragmatics10. doi:  10.3765/sp.10.11
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.11 [Google Scholar]
  2. Auwera, Johan van der
    2002 More thoughts on degrammaticalization. InIlse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 19–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.04auw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.04auw [Google Scholar]
  3. Balles, Irene
    2008 Principles of syntactic reconstruction and “morphology as paleosyntax”: The case of some Indo-European secondary verbal formations. InGisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach (eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 302), 161–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.302.08bal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.302.08bal [Google Scholar]
  4. Barðdal, Jóhanna
    2013 Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction. InThomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 438–457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols
    2007 Inflectional morphology. InTimothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol.III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 169–240. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511618437.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618437.003 [Google Scholar]
  6. Börjars, Kersti & Nigel Vincent
    2011 Grammaticalization and directionality. InHeiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 163–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bybee, Joan
    2001Phonology and language use. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612886
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612886 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2006 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language82(4). 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Campbell, Lyle & Alice C. Harris
    2002 Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing “Myths and the prehistory of grammars.” Journal of Linguistics38(3). 599–618. doi:  10.1017/S0022226702001706
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226702001706 [Google Scholar]
  11. Carroll, Matthew
    2016 The Ngkolmpu language, with special reference to distributed exponence. Canberra: Australian National University Ph.D. dissertation.
  12. Craig, Colette
    1991 Ways to go in Rama: A case study in polygrammaticalization. InElizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization II. (Typological Studies in Language 19), vol.II: Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers, 455–492. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.2.20cra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.20cra [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, William
    2001Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dahl, Östen
    2001 Inflationary effects in language and elsewhere. InJoan Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. (Typological Studies in Language 45), 471–480. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.24dah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.24dah [Google Scholar]
  15. Daniels, Don
    2015 A reconstruction of Proto-Sogeram: Phonology, lexicon, and morphosyntax. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Santa Barbara Ph.D. dissertation.
  16. 2016 Magɨ: An undocumented language of Papua New Guinea. Oceanic Linguistics55(1). 199–224. 10.1353/ol.2016.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2016.0004 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2017a Gants is a Sogeram language. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia35. 82–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2017b A method for mitigating the problem of borrowing in syntactic reconstruction. Studies in Language41(3). 577–614. 10.1075/sl.41.3.02dan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.3.02dan [Google Scholar]
  19. 2018 Papuan Languages Collection. Archival collection, 960 items. Pacific and Regional Archive for Digital Sources in Endangered Cultures (PARADISEC). catalog.paradisec.org.au/collections/DD1
  20. Daniels, Don, Danielle Barth & Wolfgang Barth
    . Forthcoming. Subgrouping the Sogeram languages: A critical appraisal of historical glottometry. Journal of Historical Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Daniels, Don & Joseph D. Brooks
    . Forthcoming. The history of *=a: Contact and reconstruction in northeast New Guinea. Journal of Language Contact.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C. Levinson
    2009 The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences32(5). 429–448. doi:  10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999094X [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Harris, Alice C.
    2008 Reconstruction in syntax: Reconstruction of patterns. InGisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach (eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 302), 73–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.302.05har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.302.05har [Google Scholar]
  25. Harris, Kyle
    . n.d.Nend texts. Electronic files, Pioneer Bible Translators.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1990 Nend grammar essentials. InJohn R. Roberts (ed.), Two grammatical studies (Data Papers on Papua New Guinea Languages 37), 73–156. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Haspelmath, Martin
    1999 Why is grammaticalization irreversible?Linguistics37. 1043–1068. 10.1515/ling.37.6.1043
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.6.1043 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2004 On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. InOlga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization, 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.59.03has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.59.03has [Google Scholar]
  29. Heine, Bernd
    2003a On degrammaticalization. InBarry J. Blake & Kate Burridge (eds.), Historical linguistics 2001: Selected papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, 13–17 August 2001, 163–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.237.12hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.237.12hei [Google Scholar]
  30. 2003b Grammaticalization. InBrian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 575–601. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch18
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch18 [Google Scholar]
  31. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Frederike Hünnemeyer
    1991Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2002World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  33. Heine, Bernd & Kyung-An Song
    2011 On the grammaticalization of personal pronouns. Journal of Linguistics47(3). 587–630. doi:  10.1017/S0022226711000016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226711000016 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hetzron, Robert
    1976 Two principles of genetic reconstruction. Lingua38(2). 89–108. 10.1016/0024‑3841(76)90074‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(76)90074-7 [Google Scholar]
  35. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    2004 Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal?InWalter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 21–42. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale
    2013 Construction Grammar: Introduction. InThomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 1–12. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hopper, Paul J.
    1991 On some principles of grammaticization. InElizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language 19), 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  38. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
    2003Grammaticalization. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  39. Joseph, Brian D.
    2014 What counts as (an instance of) grammaticalization?Folia Linguistica48(2). 361–383. doi:  10.1515/flin.2014.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2014.013 [Google Scholar]
  40. Koch, Harold
    1996 Reconstruction in morphology. InMark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change, 218–263. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kulick, Don
    1992Language shift and cultural reproduction: Socialization, self, and syncretism in a Papua New Guinean village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Lehmann, Christian
    2002Thoughts on grammaticalization. 2nd ed.Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Lightfoot, David W.
    2002 Myths and the prehistory of grammars. Journal of Linguistics38(1). 113–136. 10.1017/S0022226701001268
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226701001268 [Google Scholar]
  44. Matsumoto, Yoshiko, Bernard Comrie & Peter Sells
    (eds.) 2017Noun-modifying clause constructions in languages of Eurasia: Rethinking theoretical and geographical boundaries. (Typological Studies in Language 116.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Mengden, Ferdinand von
    2008 Reconstructing complex structures: A typological perspective. InGisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach (eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 302), 97–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.302.06men
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.302.06men [Google Scholar]
  46. Narrog, Heiko & Bernd Heine
    (eds.) 2011The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Nevis, Joel A.
    1986 Decliticization and deaffixation in Saame: Abessive taga. InBrian D. Joseph (ed.), Studies on language change. (The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 34), 1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Newmeyer, Frederick J.
    1998Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Norde, Muriel
    2009Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207923.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207923.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2010 Degrammaticalization: Three common controversies. InKaterina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, 123–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.119.08nor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.119.08nor [Google Scholar]
  51. 2011 Degrammaticalization. InHeiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 475–487. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Pawley, Andrew
    1995 C. L. Voorhoeve and the Trans New Guinea Phylum hypothesis. InConnie Baak, Mary Bakker & Dick van der Meij (eds.), Tales from a concave world: Liber amicorum Bert Voorhoeve, 83–123. Leiden: Leiden University.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 1998 The Trans New Guinea Phylum hypothesis: A reassessment. InJelle Miedema, Cecilia Odé & Rien A. C. Dam (eds.), Perspectives on the Bird’s Head of Irian Jaya, Indonesia: Proceedings of the conference, Leiden, 13–17 October 1997, 655–690. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2005 The chequered career of the Trans New Guinea hypothesis: Recent research and its implications. InAndrew Pawley, Robert Attenborough, Jack Golson & Robin Hide (eds.), Papuan pasts: Cultural, linguistic and biological histories of Papuan-speaking peoples, 67–107. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2012 How reconstructible is Proto Trans New Guinea? Problems, progress, prospects. InHarald Hammarström & Wilco van den Heuvel (eds.), History, contact and classification of Papuan languages. (Special issue of Language and Linguistics in Melanesia), 88–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Pawley, Andrew & Harald Hammarström
    2017 The Trans New Guinea family. InBill Palmer (ed.), The languages and linguistics of the New Guinea area: A comprehensive guide, 21–195. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110295252‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110295252-002 [Google Scholar]
  57. Pelkey, Jamin
    2011A Phula comparative lexicon: Phola, Phuza, Muji, Phowa, Azha. SIL International.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Reinöhl, Uta & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann
    2017 Renewal: A figure of speech or a process sui generis?Language93(2). 381–413. doi:  10.1353/lan.2017.0018
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0018 [Google Scholar]
  59. Ross, Malcolm
    2000 A preliminary subgrouping of the Madang languages based on pronouns. Unpublished ms, Australian National University.
  60. 2005 Pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan languages. InAndrew Pawley, Robert Attenborough, Jack Golson & Robin Hide (eds.), Papuan pasts: Cultural, linguistic and biological histories of Papuan-speaking peoples, 15–65. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 2015 The argument indexing of Early Austronesian verbs: A reconstructional myth?InDag T. T. Haug (ed.), Historical linguistics 2013: Selected papers from the21st International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Oslo, 5–9 August 2013, 257–279. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  62. Sweeney, Mike
    . n.d.Mum texts. Electronic files, Pioneer Bible Translators.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
    2013Constructionalization and constructional changes. (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 6.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  64. Viti, Carlotta
    2015 On degrammaticalization: Controversial points and possible explanations. Folia Linguistica49(2). 381–419. 10.1515/flin‑2015‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2015-0014 [Google Scholar]
  65. Wade, Martha
    1989A survey of the grammatical structures and semantic functions of the Apalɨ (Emerum) language. Ms, Pioneer Bible Translators.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Walkden, George
    2013 The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction. Diachronica30(1). 95–122. doi:  10.1075/dia.30.1.04wal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.1.04wal [Google Scholar]
  67. Wilkins, David P.
    1996 Natural tendencies of semantic change and the search for cognates. InMark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change, 264–304. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Willis, David
    2010 Degrammaticalization and obsolescent morphology: Evidence from Slavonic. InKaterina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, 151–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.119.09wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.119.09wil [Google Scholar]
  69. Ylikoski, Jussi
    2016 Degrammaticalization in North Saami: Development of adpositions, adverbs and a free lexical noun from inflectional and derivational suffixes. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen40. 113–173.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Z’graggen, John A.
    1971Classificatory and typological studies in languages of the Madang District (Pacific Linguistics C 19). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 1975a The Madang-Adelbert Range subphylum. InStephen A. Wurm (ed.), Papuan languages and the New Guinea linguistic scene. (Pacific Linguistics C 38), 569–612. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 1975bThe languages of the Madang District, Papua New Guinea. (Pacific Linguistics B 41.) Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 1980A comparative word list of the Southern Adelbert Range languages, Madang Province, Papua New Guinea. (Pacific Linguistics D 33.) Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/dia.18015.dan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.18015.dan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error