Diachronica - Volume 31, Issue 3, 2014

This paper examines the development of five hearsay evidential markers in Korean, namely, tako, tamye, tamyense, tanun and tanta, and traces their extended pragmatic functions in discourse. We first identify their functions over time, from Middle Korean to Modern and Contemporary Korean, then quantitatively analyze the usage frequency of these functions, diachronically from the 16th century to the early 20th century using the UNICONC historical corpus, and synchronically in present-day Korean using the Sejong contemporary written and spoken corpus. From a pragmatic perspective, we examine how Korean speakers use these hearsay evidential markers to convey the interpersonal and intersubjective stances of interlocutors in natural conversations. Based on the differential rates of grammaticalization of these markers, and on their usage frequency, we also examine the relationship between evidentiality marking and finiteness; more specifically, we analyze the sequences and mechanisms of change whereby different types of non-finite evidential structures develop into finite evidential constructions. Our findings have broader theoretical and crosslinguistic implications for understanding the mechanisms of insubordination, whereby dependent structures become independent, and whereby lexically transparent constructions develop into grammaticalized markers of speakers’ stance.

Among Semitic reciprocal constructions, a division is seen between two types: 1) two-unit constructions, with two components, each filling a different argument position of the verb, and 2) one-unit constructions, with an anaphora that co-refers with the subject (that must be plural) and occupies only the non-subject position required by the verb. The goal of this paper is to explain how these constructions developed, specifically: 1) how did the various types of two-unit constructions evolve? and 2) could diachronic chains be identified in order to explain the development of the one-unit constructions from the two-unit constructions? Previous work on question (1) focuses on the range of phrases that tend to develop into reciprocal markers. Such accounts, however, do not explain how these constructions developed the specific meanings they have. I argue that consideration of the semantics of these constructions is crucial for understanding their evolution. Instead of ‘reciprocal constructions’ it is better to see them as denoting ‘unspecified relations’. As for (2), various attempts have been made to explain such processes focusing on Indo-European languages, which do not capture the Semitic developments; therefore I propose an alternative hypothesis, according to which the one-unit constructions result from a reanalysis of the two-unit constructions.

This paper presents two innovations in the clause chaining system of the Sogeram languages of Papua New Guinea. In the first, chain-final morphology was reanalyzed as chain-medial morphology with different-subject switch reference meaning. In the second, common collocations of two verbs in a clause chain were reanalyzed as constituting a single compound verb stem. Previously, scholars held that increased structural integration of clauses necessarily results in structural asymmetry (that is, subordination), but the Sogeram data show that this need not always be the case. The cross-linguistic impulse towards increased integration is realized in both innovations, but the impulse towards asymmetry is only realized in the first. This paper thus argues that with coordinate source constructions such as these clause chains, one clause may become subordinate to the other, but the clauses may also retain their coordinate relationship as they become more integrated.

The Hokan and Penutian language classifications, introduced by Dixon & Kroeber (1913), remain controversial nearly a century after they were first proposed. Recently developed computational methods for identifying historical relationships between languages are promising tools for assessing distant linguistic relationship proposals such as these. This paper uses a variation of the linguistic relatedness metric and multilateral clustering procedure developed by Kessler (1999, 2001) to study California language phylogenetics. The purpose is twofold: to evaluate the utility of this methodology for identifying deep relationships, and to re-examine the evidence for Hokan and Penutian groupings. While this paper illustrates several advantages of the methodology employed, it ultimately fails to provide any additional support for Hokan or Penutian. I conclude that while this result may be influenced by the sensitivity of the methodology to the composition of the input sample, it ultimately casts further doubt on the genealogical nature of the Hokan and Penutian classificatory groups.