1887
Volume 26, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Cross-linguistic diachronic studies have focused on the parallel or divergent development of cognate or functionally equivalent items. This paper traces the diachronic convergent development of two unrelated items by means of a case study, the development of the German verb ‘shine, emit light’ and English ‘(originally) befit, beseem’. Despite their different source meanings, the two verbs have grammaticalized into evidential markers, as is evidenced by the constructions + + infinitive and + + infinitive. We use historical corpus data to show that the two verbs have converged both semantically and syntactically. Semantically the verbs converge when they acquire the sense ‘appear, become visible’, a well-known source of evidentials. Syntactically, and come to occur in the same range of constructional patterns. This development is more advanced in English, so that it is ahead of German by at least four centuries.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.15062.sta
2019-08-02
2019-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2009 Seem and evidentiality. Functions of Language16. 63–88. 10.1075/fol.16.1.05aij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.05aij [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2003 Evidentiality in typological perspective. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality, 1–31. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.54.04aik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54.04aik [Google Scholar]
  3. 2004Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, Lloyd B.
    1986 Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. InWallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 273–312. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barber, Charles
    1993The English language: A historical introduction. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder
    2009 Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language16. 9–43. 10.1075/fol.16.1.03boy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.03boy [Google Scholar]
  7. BNC = The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition)
    BNC = The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) 2007 Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Available online atwww.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
  8. Bybee, Joan
    1985Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2001Phonology and language use. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511612886
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612886 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, Joan, Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994The Evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cornillie, Bert
    2008 On the grammaticalization and (inter)subjectivity of evidential (semi-)auxiliaries in Spanish. InElena Seoane & María José López-Couso (eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, 55–76. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.77.05cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.77.05cor [Google Scholar]
  12. COSMAS I/II = Corpus Search, Management and Analysis System
    COSMAS I/II = Corpus Search, Management and Analysis System 1991–2012 Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Mannheim. Available online atwww.ids-mannheim.de/cosmas2/
  13. De Haan, Ferdinand
    1999 Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics18. 83–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2007 Raising as grammaticalization: The case of Germanic seem-verbs. Rivista di Linguistica19(1). 129–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. DeReKo = Das Deutsche Referenzkorpus DeReKo
    DeReKo = Das Deutsche Referenzkorpus DeReKo. Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Mannheim. Available online atwww.ids-mannheim.de/kl/projekte/korpora/
  16. Diewald, Gabriele
    2001Scheinen-Probleme: Analogie, Konstruktionsmischung und die Sogwirkung aktiver Grammatikalisierungskanäle. InReimar Müller & Marga Reis (eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, 87–110. Hamburg: Buske.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2004 Faktizität und Evidentialität: Semantische Differenzierungen bei den Modal- und Modalitätsverben im Deutschen. InOddleif Leirbukt (ed.), Tempus/Temporalität und Modus/Modalität im Deutschen – auch in konstrastiver Perspektive. Internationales Kolloquium, 8–9 September 2000, Bergen, 231–258. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2010 On some problem areas in grammaticalization theory. InKaterina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, 17–50. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.119.04die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.119.04die [Google Scholar]
  19. Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova
    2010Evidentiality in German. Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110241037
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110241037 [Google Scholar]
  20. Diewald, Gabriele & Ilse Wischer
    2013 Markers of futurity in Old High German and Old English: A comparative corpus-based study. InGabriele Diewald, Leena Kahlas-Tarkka & Ilse Wischer (eds.), Comparative studies in early Germanic languages. With a focus on verbal categories, 195–216. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.138.09die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.138.09die [Google Scholar]
  21. Durrell, Martin, Astrid Ensslin & Paul Bennett
    2007 The GerManC project. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung31. 71–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. DWB = Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm
    DWB = Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm. 16Volumes. Leipzig1854–1961. Available online atdwb.uni-trier.de/de/
    [Google Scholar]
  23. FnhdC = Das Bonner Frühneuhochdeutsch-Korpus
    FnhdC = Das Bonner Frühneuhochdeutsch-Korpus. Available online atwww.korpora.org/fnhd/
  24. Gisborne, Nikolas & Jasper Holmes
    2007 A history of English evidential verbs of appearance. English Language and Linguistics11. 1–29. 10.1017/S1360674306002097
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674306002097 [Google Scholar]
  25. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2002World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  26. Howe, Chad
    2009 Revisiting perfect pathways: Trends in the grammaticalization of periphrastic pasts. InPatience Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds.), New challenges in typology: Transcending the borders and refining the distinctions, 151–174. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Johanson, Stig
    2001 The English verb seem and its correspondences in Norwegian: What seems to be the problem?InKarin Aijmer (ed.), A Wealth of English. Studies in honour of Göran Kjellmer, 221–245. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kali-Korpus: Leibniz Universität Hannover
    Kali-Korpus: Leibniz Universität Hannover. Available online atwww.kali.uni-hannover.de
  29. Koops, Christian & Martin Hilpert
    2009 The co-evolution of syntactic and pragmatic complexity: Diachronic and cross-linguistic aspects of pseudoclefts. InTalmy Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, 215–238. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.85.09the
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.85.09the [Google Scholar]
  30. Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Lauren Delfs
    2004The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st edn.Available online atwww.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Ariel Diertani
    2010The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st edn.Available online atwww.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor
    2000The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 2nd edn.Available online atwww.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lamiroy, Béatrice
    2011 Degrés de grammaticalisation à travers les langues de mème famille. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, NS19. 167–192.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lamiroy, Béatrice & Walter De Mulder
    2011 Degrees of grammaticalization across languages. InBernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 302–317. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. MHDWB = Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch
    MHDWB = Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Available online atwww.mhdwb-online.de/
  36. Mortelmans, Tanja
    2004 Grammatikalisierung und Subjektivierung: Traugott und Langacker revisited. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik32. 188–209. 10.1515/zfgl.2004.32.2.188
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfgl.2004.32.2.188 [Google Scholar]
  37. OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online
    OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press.
  38. Primus, Beatrice
    2012Semantische Rollen. Heidelberg: Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Schmidt, Wilhelm
    2007Geschichte der deutschen Sprache: Ein Lehrbuch für das germanistische Studium, 10th edn.Stuttgart: Hirzel.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Stammler, Wolfgang, Karl Langosch & Kurt Ruh
    1978–2007Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon (Vol. 1–13), 2nd edn.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Van Bogaert, Julie & Timothy Colleman
    2015 On the grammaticalization of (’t) schijnt ‘it seems’ as an evidential particle in colloquial Belgian Dutch. Folia Linguistica47. 481–520.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Van Bogaert, Julie & Torsten Leuschner
    2015 Dutch (’t) schijnt and German scheint(’)s: On the grammaticalization of evidential particles. Studia Linguistica69. 86–117. 10.1111/stul.12030
    https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12030 [Google Scholar]
  43. Vliegen, Maurice
    2011 Scheinbar identisch: Niederländisch schijnen, deutsch scheinen. InWilfried Kürschner, Reinhard Rapp, Jürg Strässler, Maurice Vliegen & Heinrich Weber (eds.), Neue linguistische Perspektiven: Festschrift für Abraham P. ten Cate, 231–244. Frankfurt: Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Wiemer, Björn & Katerina Stathi
    2010 The database of evidential markers in European languages: A bird’s eye view of the conception of the database (the template and problems hidden beneath it). Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF)63. 275–289.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Willett, Thomas
    1988 A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language12. 51–97. 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  46. Whitt, Richard J.
    2015 On the grammaticalization of inferential evidential meaning: English seem and German scheinen. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis, 20(2). 233–271.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 2018Evidentiality and propositional scope in Early Modern German. Journal of Historical Pragmatics19(1). 122–149.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.15062.sta
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.15062.sta
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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