Diachronica - Volume 30, Issue 3, 2013

In Old and Middle French (12th–16th centuries), va [“goes”] + inf was used in narrations in the past. A similar usage seems to have reappeared and be spreading today. However, the old construction combined with past tenses whereas the new one is found only with forms anchored in present and future. We argue that the contemporary construction derives not from the old one, but from a metanarrative construction. On the basis of its future interpretation, va + inf aids the organization of the narration, announcing subsequent events through a hypernymic process. The periphrasis thus approaches a narrative value by projecting the time of events onto that of narration. With the disappearance of all deictic markers, the go-periphrases are no longer hypernyms: they appear on the same temporal line of events as the neighboring situations and are understood as fully completed.

Encouraged by ongoing discussion of the classification of the Uralic languages, we investigate the family quantitatively using Bayesian phylogenetics and basic vocabulary from seventeen languages. To estimate the heterogeneity within this family and the robustness of its subgroupings, we analyse ten divergent sets of basic vocabulary, including basic vocabulary lists from the literature, lists that exclude borrowing-susceptible meanings, lists with varying degrees of borrowing-susceptible meanings and a list combining all of the examined items. The results show that the Uralic phylogeny has a fairly robust shape from the perspective of basic vocabulary, and is not dramatically altered by borrowing-susceptible meanings. The results differ to some extent from the ‘standard paradigm’ classification of these languages, such as the lack of firm evidence for Finno-Permian.

A bias towards formal texts obscures our view of language change and gives a misleading impression of actual developments if ‘changes from below’ are in conflict with ‘changes from above,’ resulting from norms that are visible in particular in formal language. A corpus of 17th-century Amsterdam texts with varying levels of formality is assembled to study the loss of genitive and dative case-marking in Dutch. These results are compared with the use of present participle constructions, which serve as an extra variable to gauge how formal a text is. We argue that nominal case-marking no longer existed in informal language in 17th-century Amsterdam and that the genitive became a feature of formal norms and was hence subject to pressures from above.

We present a cross-constructional approach to the history of the genitive alternation and the dative alternation in Late Modern English (AD 1650 to AD 1999), drawing on richly annotated datasets and modern statistical modeling techniques. We identify cross-constructional similarities in the development of the genitive and the dative alternation over time (mainly with regard to the loosening of the animacy constraint), a development which parallels distributional changes in animacy categories in the corpus material. Theoretically, we transfer the notion of ‘probabilistic grammar’ to historical data and claim that the corpus models presented reflect past speakers’ knowledge about the distribution of genitive and dative variants. The historical data also helps to determine what is constant (and timeless) in the effect of selected factors such as animacy or length, and what is variant.