35.3509, Review: Morphology, Syntax; Periphrasis and Inflexion in Diachrony : Fendel (2022)
The LINGUIST List
linguist at listserv.linguistlist.org
Tue Dec 10 01:05:02 UTC 2024
LINGUIST List: Vol-35-3509. Tue Dec 10 2024. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.
Subject: 35.3509, Review: Morphology, Syntax; Periphrasis and Inflexion in Diachrony : Fendel (2022)
Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Justin Fuller
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Steven Franks, Joel Jenkins, Daniel Swanson, Erin Steitz
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org
Editor for this issue: Joel Jenkins <joel at linguistlist.org>
================================================================
Date: 03-Dec-2024
From: Victoria Fendel [vbmf2 at cantab.ac.uk]
Subject: Morphology, Syntax; Periphrasis and Inflexion in Diachrony : Fendel (2022)
Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/33.3426
EDITOR: Adam Ledgeway
EDITOR: John Charles Smith
EDITOR: Nigel Vincent
TITLE: Periphrasis and Inflexion in Diachrony
SUBTITLE: A View from Romance
SERIES TITLE: Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2022
REVIEWER: Victoria Fendel
Review of Ledgeway, Adam, John Charles Smith, and Nigel Vincent
(eds.), Periphrasis and Inflexion in Diachrony: A View from Romance.
Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 48. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2022. ISBN 9780198870807. £90.00.
SUMMARY
The fourteen chapters of the volume are subsumed under the broad
topics of ‘The status of periphrasis and inflexion’, ‘Periphrasis’,
and ‘Auxiliation’. The first two chapters provide an introductory
overview of the issues related to periphrasis in the Romance
languages. The remaining chapters contain specific case studies.
Chapters 3 and 14 consider Ibero-Romance, Chapter 4 French and
Occitan, Chapters 5 to 8 and 12 Italo-Romance, Chapters 9 and 10
Romanian, and Chapter 11 (late) Latin. Chapter 13 has a broad
comparative focus. Chapters 3 to 9 and 12 focus on verbal patterns,
Chapters 10 and 11 on nominal patterns, Chapter 13 and 14 feature
verbal and nominal patterns. The volume relies on Haspelmath’s
distinction between categorial and suppletive periphrasis. Chapters 3,
7, 8, and 12 (on verbs) as well as 10 and 11 (on nouns) focus on
suppletive periphrasis, chapters 4 to 6, and 9 on categorial
periphrasis. Chapters 13 and 14 do not easily fall into either
category and seem more tangentially related.
Chapter 1 (by Ledgeway and Vincent) distinguishes analytic from
synthetic structures, yet not every analytic structure is
periphrastic. Only ‘where analyticity and inflexion intersect’ (p.
14), a structure is periphrastic. The chapter contrast the lexical
Distributed Morphology (DM) approach, in which periphrasis has no
place (p. 17), and the inferential Paradigm Function Morphology (PFM)
approach, which accommodates a morphological paradigm (p. 18 and n.
10). The chapter sides with PFM (p. 20). It discusses the aspects of
intersectivity (pp. 21–27), overdifferentiation (pp. 26–27),
non-compositionality (pp. 27–30) (easier to accommodate in PFM than
DM, p. 28), distributed exponence (pp. 31–32), compound periphrases
(pp. 32–34), gradience in the sense of desyntacticization and
morphologization accommodating both synchronic and diachronic
variation (pp. 34–37) with relevant case studies.
Chapter 2 (by Smith) examines the blurry boundaries of the paradigm
and questions whether to assess tokens or types as periphrastic vs
inflectional, using the future and conditional forms built from Latin
habere as examples (pp. 71–73). Based on this, Smith explores whether
speakers have different mental reference grammars (p. 71) and
eventually concludes that ‘if the crucial notion of paradigmatic
intersectivity is being defined in terms of a variable which is
present only for certain speakers, then what counts as a periphrasis
(or the extent to which a given form counts as a periphrasis) will
differ from one speaker to the next’ (p. 89). The largest part of the
chapter is devoted to assessing features of periphrasis from the
perspectives of prototypicality, which ‘involves psychological
salience’, and canonicity, ‘which is an analytical tool’ (p. 73). This
‘scalar nature of the phenomenon’ involves ‘an element of fuzziness’
(p. 90), not least because what is periphrastic may be
speaker-specific (p. 90).
Chapter 3 (by Vincent and Wheeler) considers the parallel lexical and
auxiliary morphology of items from the perspectives of layering and
divergence (pp. 94–96). The have-verb paradigm undergoes a split in
the proto-Romance period, into paradigms A (regular reflex of Latin),
B (monosyllabic word forms in the N-pattern), C (variant of paradigm B
with -av- element missing in 1st/2nd person plural too) (p. 96–108).
Competing long and short forms are exemplified for the Spanish 1st/2nd
person plural (pp. 103–105) and the Catalan perfect auxiliary (pp.
105–108). In both scenarios, the short form dominates in more
grammaticalized contexts before other contexts. In the Italian dialect
of Ponte di Legno, the lexical verb ‘have’ is even reinforced by
initial /g/ (from ghe < Latin hic) (pp. 118–119). Similarly, the
go-verb paradigm derives from three Latin lexemes (ire, vadere,
a-verb) (pp. 108–118). In Italian, uniformity of form holds across
lexical and grammatical uses; in Catalan (p. 110), a paradigm split
seems to affect only go + infinitive expressing the perfective past,
as it does in Guardiol and Aragonese too (p. 117). In some southern
Italian dialects, grammaticalisation of the go verb even results in
loss of inflexion, yet the N-pattern is still visible (va vs scia)
(pp. 120–121). The chapter concludes that (i) ‘there is no overarching
requirement that form layers should match with content layers in a
one-to-one fashion’ (p. 121), (ii) ‘there are structural pressures
which can push back against that tendency’ (p. 121), and (iii)
morphological structure, including morphomic templates such as the
N-patterns, can stabilise form even when content changes (pp.
121–121).
Chapter 4 (by Paoli and Woolfe) considers comparatively the go-future
in French and the go-past in Occitan. They propose that ‘the two
developments into past and future expressions stemmed from a common
construction’, namely a basic expression of posteriority (p. 126), the
meaning of which is determined by the reference time (p. 140). The
French go-future arises in the 15th / 16th c. with a strong preference
for 1st-person subjects initially (pp. 126–132). By the 18th c., aller
can occur in the periphrasis in various tense forms (p. 131). In
contemporary French, diatopic and diastratic difference apply to the
go-future. The old Occitan go-past was current during the 13th to 15th
c. for third-person subjects and the go- verb in the present tense
(pp. 132–137). Conversely, the 1st/2nd-person structure expressed
futurity (p. 136). However, from the 14th c. some past uses appear, as
a change from above (pp. 140–141). Yet, eventually the ‘forces from
below’ win out and from the 14th c. the 3rd person is found with a
non-past interpretation (p. 142).
Chapter 5 (by Parry) considers periphrasis with tornare in
Italo-Romance, distinguishing between restitutive, continuative and
iterative meanings (p. 147). Two features are used to determine the
degree of grammaticalisation of the tornare + a + infinitive
structures: auxiliary switch (p. 148) and clitic climbing (p. 149) [NB
p. 158 states that clitic climbing is independent of the literal or
metaphorical senses of tornare]. Omission of a is attributed to rapid
speech production (p. 150 n. 10; p. 166). Noticeably, auxiliary
switching may indicate different types of ‘again’ (pp. 151–153). An
alternative to the infinitival structure in southern dialects is
(monoclausal) paratactic periphrases in which two verbs are
co-ordinated by reflexes of Latin et or ac (pp. 154–155). The
grammaticalisation into an aspectual periphrasis seems to be a
development of the 19th / 20th c. (pp. 161–162). Auxiliary switch is
said to be only possible from avere to essere but not vice versa (p.
164), however contradicting dialect data is presented here (p. 165).
Some dialects show the syntactic lexicalisation of the former verb
into an adverb (torna) (pp. 166–167).
Chapter 6 (by Cruschina) discusses categorial periphrases and their
adoption of properties of the irregular inflexional paradigms (pp.
170–171). The structures in question are Double Inflected
Constructions (DICs) ‘where the two verbs share the same inflexional
features and express a single event’ with the first verb (V1) being a
motion verb (p. 172). In some dialects, V1 is affixed (pp. 173–174);
in others, the inflexional morphology of V1 is reduced (pp. 174–175).
In Sicilian, the DIC is defective, in that the 1st/2nd person plural
are replaced by the infinitival construction (p. 177). This pattern
persists when V1 is reduced to an invariant form (p. 179). The same
pattern ‘has spread to other, non-suppletive motion verbs such as
passari ‘pass’ and mannari ‘send’, which can enter the DIC as V1’ (p.
180). However, the infinitive and DIC patterns are only
interchangeable, and the paradigm suppletive, when the DIC is not
fully desemanticised (i.e. not in the mirative DIC) (pp. 177–182).
Sicilian aviri a ‘have to’ + infinitive also draws on reduced forms of
the verb pointing to its grammaticalized nature and shows root
alternation for the 2nd person singular/plural in the preterite
(W-pattern) (pp. 183–187). The chapter concludes that ‘periphrastic
morphomes emerge in highly grammaticalized periphrases’ (p. 187) and
are due to ‘attraction to a recurrent pattern of irregularity’ (p.
188). There is no phonological, syntactic, or semantic motivation for
these patterns (p. 189).
Chapter 7 (by Bach and Stichauer) examines auxiliary alternation (have
vs be) in Italo-Romance from the perspective of inflexional classes
(pp. 193–194). It distinguishes between a content paradigm (abstract
feature intersection), a form paradigm (considering syncretisms), and
a realized paradigm (actual reality) (pp. 194–197). The inflexional
class of an item sometimes determines part of the paradigm (e.g. Latin
-are verbs for present vs perfect) (pp. 197–199). Several Italian
dialects show a mixed auxiliation system. The chapter is interested in
those that show heteroclisis in reflexives, combining forms from the
transitive and the unaccusative paradigms (pp. 199–202). Heteroclisis
can take several forms, e.g. a different 3rd person, default marking
across transitives / reflexives / unaccusatives, or seemingly free
variation of auxiliaries in the 3rd person singular (pp. 202–208). The
authors conclude that ‘the change or impetus towards mixed systems
spreads from reflexives, where the mixing of the two auxiliaries might
be due to the different nature of various reflexive subclasses … It is
therefore not surprising that reflexives are the first to show a mixed
pattern’ (p. 208). Mixed auxiliary systems seem however ‘a
transitional stage towards one auxiliary encroaching on more classes’
and changes from have to be and vice versa may be happening
simultaneously in the system (p. 212).
Chapter 8 (by Loporcaro) examines auxiliary alternation (have vs be)
in the 3rd-person singular of the compound perfect paradigms of three
Italian dialects (of Apulia, i.e. Ruvo, Gravina and Bitetto) (p. 214,
see pp. 219–229) – ‘ˈε/ˈje is selected before consonant-initial
participles, and the third-person singular form of have ˈavә/ˈɔvә
before vowel-initial participles’ (p. 223). Unlike the distribution of
auxiliaries across verb classes (e.g. unaccusatives vs unergatives),
this distribution is morphological. The has/is alternation ‘depend[s]
on a shape condition comparable to that accounting for the a/an
alternation in the English indefinite article’ (p. 214, see also pp.
229–230), which is ‘sensitive to the postlexical phonological context’
(p. 230). The chapter details differing approaches to the matter (pp.
215–217) but relies on Loporcaro’s implicational scale (pp. 217–219)
to account for the existing mixed auxiliary situations. The
phonology-free syntax principle (p. 224) makes it impossible to
account for the be/have alternation as depending on the syntax.
Have/be in mixed auxiliation patterns are ‘one more case where
‘lexemes become allomorphs’’ (p. 230), such that the ‘person-driven
alternation can be viewed as heteroclisis’ and ‘free variation between
them within a paradigm cell can be equated to overabundance’ (p. 231).
Shape conditions as the one proposed here are limited to mixed systems
(e.g. standard French) (pp. 233–236).
Chapter 9 (by Dragomirescu, Nicolae, and Zafiu) provides a detailed
overview of categorial (p. 241 n. 1) ‘periphrases with tense, aspect,
and mood auxiliaries’ (p. 242) in old (16th–18th c.) vs modern
Romanian. Old Romanian periphrases differ from those in modern
Romanian, in that ‘they are more numerous’, ‘those with the FI ‘be’
auxiliary are built on a pattern which allows for the recursive
extension of the structure’, ‘the auxiliary FI ‘be’ may inflect for
tense (and aspect)’, and ‘the auxiliary FI ‘be’ is not restricted to
irrealis forms’ (pp. 254–255). In modern Romanian, periphrasis with
the lexical verb in the subjunctive exists additionally and
progressive periphrases have specialised to have an epistemic value
(pp. 255–258). While modern Romanian prefers synthetic forms,
Daco-Romanian dialects preserve some older periphrases (pp. 258–262).
The chapter argues that ‘the auxiliaries of the forms which have been
diachronically preserved have an impoverished feature matrix, devoid
of tense features’ (p. 262). Tense (and aspect) is now specified ‘by
the morphology of the lexical verb’ (p. 266). The diachronically
stable periphrases (e.g. the ‘colloquial future consisting of the
particle o + subjunctive’) differ from those that disappeared, in that
they are biclausal as evidenced by clitic climbing and negation
patterns (p. 268).
Chapter 10 (by Pană Dindelegan and Uță Bărbulescu) discusses
inflexional vs prepositional marking of oblique functions in old vs
modern Romanian and focuses on the prepositions a, de, la, and către
(pp. 272–275). In old Romanian (16th c. onwards), a, la, and de appear
in the nominal domain and a, la, and către in the verbal domain, with
only a and de inherited from Latin (pp. 275–294). Their equivalence to
synthetic markers is shown by the possibility of ‘double marking
within the same noun phrase’, ‘mixed marking in coordinated
structures’, and ‘alternation, within the same text’ (pp. 277–278).
Grammaticalisation of la in the nominal domain is advanced to the
point when ‘there are no signs of any connection to verbs of giving or
saying or to verbs involving a Recipient’ (p. 285). With quantifiers
in particular, ‘prepositional marking is triggered by the
impossibility of inflexional case marking on the leftmost constituent
of the DP’ (p. 287). So-called heterogenous constructions involve
universal quantifiers in the adverbal form (in the singular analytic,
in the plural synthetic) and the nominal with adnominal inflexional
marking. These decline from the end of the 18th c. onwards (p. 294).
In modern Romanian (pp. 294–300), synthetic marking is preferred to
analytical marking and the four prepositions discussed are
functionally (including definiteness constraints) and/or
diastratically and/or diatopically constrained (pp. 300–302).
Chapter 11 (by Sornicola) discusses polymorphism (= mapping many forms
to one function, e.g. polythematism and suppletion) and
polyfunctionalism (= mapping many functions to one form, e.g.
syncretism), based on 8th/9th c. Latin noun paradigms from Italy (pp.
305–308), with a primary interest in diachrony (p. 317). The chapter
distinguishes exogenous (contact-induced) from endogenous
(internal-development-related) polymorphism (p. 309). Overabundance is
viewed as the synchronic face of polymorphism (p. 310). The 8th / 9th
c. paradigms are divided by relational categories ‘subject, object,
specifier, and indirect object’ along with ‘prepositional phrase’ (p.
319) due to structural changes in the language that make the classical
paradigm cells an anachronism. The chapter details factors that shaped
the paradigm vis-à-vis classical ancestors, including phonetic factors
by inflexional class (p. 322), atrophization / formulaicity (p. 322),
analogical extension of the stem (p. 323), extension of inflexional
endings (pp. 323–324), and the relative retention of class III nouns
properties, including the dative (p. 324). Fluctuation of form is
particularly frequent after prepositions, which are interpreted as
having ‘a particularly important role in the breakdown of the
classical Latin system of nominal inflexion’ (p. 330). The chapter
concludes that ‘[t]he polymorphism attested in the documents can be
represented as the copresence of forms in free variation within the
individual paradigmatic cells’ (p. 332).
Chapter 12 (by Bentley and Cennamo) discusses verb-subject agreement
in inversion contexts testing ‘the claim that verb-subject agreement
is sensitive to discourse and thematic properties of the controller’
(p. 337). Verb agreement signals a thematic subject, non-agreement an
aboutness phrase (p. 338, 361). Verbs are classified into Vendler’s
classes of activities, states, achievements and accomplishments (pp.
338–340). Questionnaires were constructed to test for the relevance of
the factors ±state of the verb and ±definite / ±pronominal of the
subject (pp. 340–341). With –state verbs (pp. 342–349) and +state
verbs (pp. 349–355), the agreement option is preferred for pronominal
subjects (at the top of the definiteness hierarchy); ‘+state verbs are
more strongly associated with non-agreement’ overall (p. 355). With
+state verbs, there was less variation inter-dialectally as compared
to –state verbs. Overall, ‘[t]he different behaviour of pronominal vs
lexical Ss can be better understood if … viewed as instantiating
aspects of a change in progress leading to the gradual retrenchment of
non-agreement’ (p. 356). A logistic regression model was used to test
the statistical significance of the impact of each factor and returned
a significant p-value for ±pronominal and ±state (pp. 356–360).
Apparently, ‘agreement grammaticalizes first in the syntactic domains
in which an anaphoric relation with an antecedent is established’ (p.
360). Thus, the ‘anaphoric relation between agreement inflexion and
antecedent outranks the thematic constraints on V–S agreement, and
hence thematic subjecthood’ (p. 361).
Chapter 13 (by Aronoff and Repetti) discusses epenthesis, i.e. ‘the
interposition of a letter or syllable in the midst of a word’ (p.
362). While the existence of the epenthetic element is phonologically
conditioned, i.e. in order to resolve impossible clusters, the quality
is not (p. 364). The chapter offers the case studies of [z] vs [j] in
Brazilian Portuguese hiatus between morphemes (pp. 365–366), [ɪ] vs
[ɐ] in word-final position with 2nd / 3rd / 4th-conjugation 3rd-person
singular and plural verbs in San Marino (pp. 366–368), [e] vs [o] in
Paduan ‘at the right edge of a phrase consisting of a verb + pronoun’
(p. 368), [i] vs [o] in the definite article of the masculine singular
in Italian (pp. 369–370), and [i] vs [u] before the masculine plural
suffix /s/ in Sardinian Catalan (p. 370). The case studies show that
‘the choice between two epenthetic segments is made based on
morphosyntactic considerations (morpheme boundaries … [Brazilian
Portuguese], verb classes … [San Marino], phrases involving clitic
pronouns … [Paduan]) and on specific morphemes (definite article …
[Italian], plural suffix … [Sardinian Catalan])’ (pp. 370–371). The
authors argue that ‘positing a restricted allomorph should always be
the solution of last resort’ (p. 372) due to its lack of explanatory
power. The chapter concludes that epenthesis is motivated by
phonology, but that ‘morphology plays a role in its quality and
distribution’ in some cases (p. 379).
Chapter 14 (by Finbow and O’Neill) considers the ‘reorganisation of
pronominal and verbal paradigms during koineization of standard
Spanish and Portuguese in Iberia and of Portugese varieties in Brazil’
along with the influence of language contact of Portuguese on
(typologically distinct) Tupi-Guarani Yegatu (p. 381). The two
periphrastics appear to be (i) analytic pronouns reestablishing a
contrast levelled during koineization, and (ii) the go-future in
Yegatu as a morphological copy of the Romance go-future. The two
processes prevalent in koineization are reallocation (i.e. assigning
forms to specific domains) and levelling (i.e. losing forms) (pp.
381–384). With the distinction between deferential / non-deferential
in the 2nd person plural levelled, forms could be preserved by
grammarians and subsequently reallocated becoming ‘quasi-stylistic
formality markers in planned discourse’ (p. 389). Yegatu auxiliaries
follow main verbs, Yegatu has no infinitive, SU ‘go’ was not fully
semantically bleached in the 19th/20th c.. The rise of the go-future
seems driven by contact with Portugese (p. 394–411). The chapter
concludes that considering ‘social factors [is] crucial for
interpreting the interaction of periphrasis and inflexion’ (p. 411)
and that periphrastics are developed in language-contact situations
where previously levelled forms would have been needed (e.g. the
go-future for the earlier nominal ram-future) (p. 412).
EVALUATION
The volume aims to underscore the fact that morphology is an
independent domain of the language (esp. pp. 2 and 14). The volume is
aimed at ‘general linguists with a view to demonstrating the
theoretical lessons that can be learned from the evidence provided by
the Romance languages’ (p. 4). Especially the introductory chapters
open the book up to an audience beyond those interested in Romance
linguistics, since a wealth of theoretical discussion of periphrasis
as a general phenomenon is proffered. The volume acknowledges the
difficulty of defining and working with the notion of periphrasis
(esp. Chapters 1 and 2) and thus offers a valuable resource in a
terminological jungle. Furthermore, throughout diastratic and diatopic
variation within what is traditionally called one language is amply
discussed, thus including those interested in sociolinguistics and
dialectology in the target audience. The volume fits into the growing
field of research interested in multi-word expressions and the
interfaces that these involve (here primarily the morphology-syntax
and the syntax-semantics interfaces) (e.g. the PARSEME project),
research interested in varieties of a language and the relationship
between analyticity and syntheticity (e.g. Adams 2003; Adams 2013;
Adams 2007 on Latin), and research into the diachronic development of
the Romance language family. Chapters 1 to 12 form an internally
coherent whole. Chapters 13 and 14 seem to be more tangentially
related, yet chapter 14 touches upon the area of language contact and
possibly morphology copying, thus opening the door to research into
contact between typologically unrelated languages, as opposed to the
remainder of the book. Chapter 13 discusses epenthesis, a phenomenon
often exclusively attributed to phonology, and shows how phonology,
morphology and syntax collaborate to explain the relevant patterns,
thus again opening the door to future endeavours. I include specific
notes chapter by chapter below.
Chapter 1 (by Ledgeway and Vincent) offers the reader a condensed, yet
well-illustrated overview of the theoretical backdrop based on which
the volume operates. References towards individual chapters in the
volume make it possible to read selectively if preferred.
In Chapter 2 (by Smith), I am wondering whether the intervening items
in exx. 3 and 4 from French are parenthetical and thus stand outside
the sentence grammar (Koev 2022), which would alter the line of
argument; moreover, sociolinguistic aspects are mentioned only in
passing (p. 87), although for the issue of different mental grammars
or the different instantiations of the same feature bundle at the same
time, these provide important information, as Smith notes himself when
discussing the French passé surcomposé in the context of
intersectivity (p. 89).
Chapter 4 (by Paoli and Woolfe) is a brilliant chapter about a
historical dead-end situation and the interplay of changes from above
and below.
In Chapter 5 (by Parry), as a minor comment on the statement that
‘[b]y late Latin the originally transitive verb meaning ‘turn (on a
lathe)’, ‘fashion’ had developed a middle sense’ (p. 156), I am
wondering whether lability was something already present in classical
times (Gianollo 2014; Inglese 2021) and may only have increased. This
does not impact on the line of argument run, but rather raises the
question of whether the structure was present in earlier sources
already.
In Chapter 6 (by Cruschina), the DIC patterns are noticeable as in
most verbal periphrastic patterns discussed in the volume one element
(the auxiliary) is finite and the other (the infinitive, gerund,
participle, etc.) infinite, whereas in DICs, both elements are
initially finite (yet see also Chapter 5). I am wondering whether
there is a link with earlier Latin structures, such as licet +
subjunctive, often called asyndetic (Rosén 2009: 410–412; Adams 2021:
20–27). Would as soon as V1 develops into a sentence adverb, the
pattern resemble DIC patterns (Claridge & Arnovick 2010; Molinelli
2010)?
In Chapter 7 (by Bach and Stichauer), space and effort permitting, it
would be interesting to know what circumstances favour mixed
auxiliation systems as a change in progress. E.g. is this a change
from below or above, socio-linguistically speaking? Is there evidence
for a time frame for this change?
Chapter 9 (by Dragomirescu, Nicolae, and Zafiu) provides a very
interesting case study of a tendency from analytic to synthetic (as
opposed to the often-discussed reverse process) and the retention of
older forms in diatopic varieties. However, the golden thread is at
times lost due to lengthy footnotes and the grammar-book presentation.
Incidentally, I am wondering whether there was a standard-language
paradigm in old Romanian, such that comparison of same with same would
be possible (i.e. non-standard including dialectal forms in old vs
modern Romanian).
Chapter 10 (by Pană Dindelegan and Uță Bărbulescu) provides a good
mirror image to the preceding chapter by focusing on the nominal
domain in Romanian. The results are comparable, in that modern
Romanian prefers synthetic marking in both the verbal and nominal
paradigms, yet in that layering and reallocation can account for the
retention of older forms.
Chapter 11 (by Sornicola) is theory-heavy. I find the presentation of
the paradigms misleading, e.g. in that forms that are tied to specific
formulaic contexts are listed in the paradigms (p. 330) and considered
‘inert paradigms’ (pp. 325–328). This resembles a situation where we
list old, no longer productive locative endings, preserved in a small
number of items in classical Latin (e.g. ruri, domi) in a classical
paradigm. Have these forms not lost compositionality and become part
of the lexicon, e.g. we gloss domi as an adverb in classical Latin?
Generally speaking, formulaic language has a status different from
non-formulaic contexts (e.g. Fendel 2022: chap. 8 with further
references; Wood 2015) and cannot always be analysed based on
synchronically productive paradigms (cf. Finkbeiner 2008).
Furthermore, a good amount of overlap between case endings existed
already in classical times, e.g. -is/-es (Zair 2023) (vs p. 324). I
think that a different presentation of the paradigms would clarify
this for the reader, especially given the introductory discussion
which highlights the importance of diatopic, diastratic, etc.
variation (‘[i]f the variants have particular geographical, cultural,
social, or generational connotations, they are not strictly speaking
free’ (p. 307)).
For Chapter 13 (by Aronoff and Repetti), I find the link to
periphrasis tangential. Epenthetic elements essentially solve
phonological problems, even though their quality and distribution are
morpho-syntactically motivated. The epenthetic elements are
analysable, they are not meaning bearing and they are not morphs (p.
375). The relevant forms do not exist without the epenthetic element.
Does the chapter want to think about periphrasis at the phonological
level or below the word level, i.e. linking elements such as verb
stems and endings (cf. Taylor 2015)? Or does it add a further
interface to the debate?
For Chapter 14 (by Finbow and O’Neill), the link to periphrasis seems
tangential. Yet the contrast between (Portuguese) voce and o senhor
could perhaps be considered. This would widen the scope of the volume
to pronouns in addition to verbal and nominal paradigms. The rise of
the Yegatu go-future under the influence of language contact seems an
instance of pattern replication, in Matras’ (2009) terms, reflecting
the fact that the pattern was analysable to the language users and was
adapted to the structure of the target language.
A final structure that is referenced in passing throughout the volume
is verb-noun patterns, so-called light-verb or support-verb
constructions, such as English to give rise or French avoir peur. The
chapters in the volume consider combinations of verbs and verbs or
nouns and prepositions, whereas support-verb constructions constitute
a crossover between the two spheres – yet note the controversy on
whether the noun in the support-verb construction has to be deverbal,
eventive, etc. (e.g. Tovena 2017; Huyghe et al. 2017; Meinschaefer
2016). Chapter 3 – when exploring the paradigm split of the have-verb
– closes with the remark that ‘[t]he emergent Romance order Aux + V
preserves the syntactic independence of the grammaticalized item by
contrast with the univerbated reflex of the earlier V + Aux order
which lies, for example, behind the Romance inflexional futures and
conditionals’ (p. 121). Marchello-Nizia (1996) argues that the
word-order pattern object-verb is still intact for support-verb
constructions in the 13th c. prose text La Queste del saint Graal
(e.g. ..., car poor a de mourir), but it is replaced soon after in
line with the general change in French. Univerbation of support-verb
constructions is widely attested (e.g. Rosén 2020; Lehmann 2020;
Creissels 2016) and can result in the creation of new affixes through
subsequent reanalysis (e.g. Schutzeichel 2013; Booij 2014). Chapter 5
– discussing the grammaticalisation of tornare into an aspectual
marker – mentions in passing a cline from full verbs via light verbs
to auxiliaries (p. 146), yet later refutes this claim (p. 164, with
reference to (Butt 1997; Cinque 2004; see also Butt & Lahiri 2013)).
Chapter 8 – examining auxiliary alternation (have vs be) in the
third-person singular of the compound perfect paradigms of three
Italian dialects – mentions in n. 16 that ‘the local outcomes of Lat.
habere ‘have’ have been generally ousted by those of tenere ‘hold,
keep’ in their functions as verb of possession and support verb across
all of this area’, with the example for the latter being Bit.
ˈteŋɡә/**ˈaɟɟә ˈtrend ˈannә ‘I am (lit. “have”) thirty’. The support
verb seems to formally pair with the lexical rather than the auxiliary
uses.
Support-verb constructions resemble the periphrastic structures
discussed in the volume, in that (i) they are analytic structures
filling the predicate slot of a sentence, which is most visible in
languages that allow for a direct object with a support-verb
construction (e.g. Ittzés 2007; Reintges 2001; yet also Lowe 2017),
(ii) one element (the support verb) bears the morpho-syntactic weight
and the other element (the predicative noun) the semantic weight
(Langer 2004; vs Pompei 2006), (iii) there is diatopic / diastratic /
diachronic variation as regards especially the verbal element bearing
the morphosyntactic weight (e.g. Gross 1998). Like the periphrastics
discussed (cf. Chapter 2, p. 88; Chapter 1, p. 51), support-verb
constructions do not form an internally homogenous group of
constructions (Kamber 2008; Savary et al. 2018), such that we have to
operate with subsets or even singular types when assessing e.g. their
relationship to the paradigm – statives with have and antipassives /
middles (Marini 2010) that achieve valency reduction may fit into the
paradigm at least in the sense of categorial periphrasis, unlike e.g.
negatives (to lack confidence) (Gross 1998). Furthermore, like in the
periphrastics discussed, lexicalisation may interfere (cf. Chapter 2,
but also Chapter 11).
Support-verb constructions differ from the periphrastics discussed in
the volume, in that (i) they consist of a verb and a noun rather than
two elements of the verbal or two of the nominal domain, (ii) the
support verb contributes to the lexical meaning of the periphrasis –
support-verb constructions straddle the morphology-syntax interface
discussed in the volume, but also the morphosyntax-lexicon interface
(yet see Ch. 12: ‘the lexicon is [to be] given recognition as an
independent module of grammar’ (p. 361)) –, (iii) the support verb
retains a reduced argument grid (Butt & Lahiri 2013) and participates
in argument sharing with the predicative noun (Tovena 2017), thus
differing from an auxiliary (cf. Chapter 8 on ancillaries, p. 216),
and (iv) the range of support verbs (and verbs of realisation, see
(Mel’čuk 2004)) is larger than that of auxiliary verbs.
Support-verb constructions have been discussed in detail for Latin
(e.g. Bodelot & Spevak 2018) and a range of Romance languages, e.g.
French (e.g. Giry-Schneider 1987; Vivès 1983; Gross 1993), Italian
(e.g. Tovena 2017), Spanish (e.g. Sanroman Vilas 2009), Portuguese
(e.g. Rassi et al. 2014). They seem to be type of structure that is
attested across languages, both Indo-European and non-Indo-European
(e.g. Reintges 2001; Zakrzewska 2017), but that is language-specific
in its formal realisation (Savary et al. 2018) as well as its
relationship to the paradigm, which is considered an essential
criterion to determine what is periphrastic in this volume (p. 14).
REFERENCES
Adams, James. 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Adams, James. 2007. The regional diversification of Latin, 200 BC-AD
600. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Adams, James. 2013. Social variation and the Latin language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Adams, James. 2021. Asyndeton and its interpretation in Latin
literature: history, patterns, textual criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bodelot, Colette & Olga Spevak (eds.). 2018. Les constructions à verbe
support en latin (Cahiers Du LRL). Vol. 7. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses
Universitaires Blaise Pascal.
Booij, Geert. 2014. The structure of words. In John Taylor (ed.), The
Oxford handbook of the word, 157–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Butt, Miriam. 1997. Complex predicates in Urdu. In Alex Alsina, Joan
Bresnan & Peter Sells (eds.), Complex predicates, 107–149. Stanford:
CSLI Publications.
Butt, Miriam & Aditi Lahiri. 2013. Diachronic pertinacity of light
verbs. Lingua 135. 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.11.006.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2004. Restructuring and functional structure. In
Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol.
3, 132–191. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Claridge, Claudia & Leslie Arnovick. 2010. Pragmaticalisation and
Discursisation. In Andreas Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.),
Historical Pragmatics, 165–192. Berlin ; Boston: Mouton De Gruyter.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214284.3.165.
Creissels, Denis. 2016. Univerbation of light verb compounds and the
obligatory coding principle. In Léa Nash & Pollet Samvelian (eds.),
Approaches to complex predicates (Syntax and Semantics), vol. 41,
46–69. Leiden ; Boston: Brill.
Fendel, Victoria. 2022. Coptic interference in the syntax of Greek
letters from Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Finkbeiner, Rita. 2008. Zur Produktivität idiomatischer
Konstruktionsmuster. Interpretierbarkeit und Produzierbarkeit
idiomatischer Sätze im Test. Linguistische Berichte 216. 391–430.
Gianollo, Chiara. 2014. Labile verbs in Late Latin. Linguistics. De
Gruyter Mouton 52(4). 945–1002.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2014-0013.
Giry-Schneider, J. 1987. Les prédicats nominaux en français: les
phrases simples à verbe support (Langue & cultures). Vol. 18. Geneva:
Droz.
Gross, M. 1993. Trois applications de la notion de verbe support.
L’information grammaticale 59(1). 16–22.
https://doi.org/10.3406/igram.1993.3137.
Gross, Maurice. 1998. La fonction sémantique des verbes supports.
Travaux de Linguistique : Revue Internationale de Linguistique
Française 37(1). 25–46.
Huyghe, Richard, Lucie Barque, Pauline Haas & Delphine Tribout. 2017.
The semantics of underived event nouns in French. Journal of
Linguistics 29(1). 117–142.
Inglese, Guglielmo. 2021. Anticausativization and basic valency
orientation in Latin. In Silvia Luraghi & Elisa Roma (eds.), Valency
over Time: Diachronic Perspectives on Valency Patterns and Valency
Orientation (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM]),
vol. 368, 133–168. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110755657-005.
Ittzés, Máté. 2007. Remarks on the Periphrastic Constructions with the
Verb ‘to make, to do’ in Sanskrit, Greek and Latin. In Dezső Csaba
(ed.), Indian Languages and Texts Through the Ages. Essays of
Hungarian Indologists in Honour of Prof. Csaba Töttössy, 1–40. New
Delhi: Manohar.
Kamber, Alain. 2008. Funktionsverbgefüge-- empirisch: eine
korpusbasierte Untersuchung zu den nominalen Prädikaten des Deutschen
(Reihe Germanistische Linguistik). Vol. 281. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Koev, Todor. 2022. Parenthetical meaning (Oxford Studies in Semantics
and Pragmatics). Vol. 14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langer, Stefan. 2004. A linguistic test battery for support verb
constructions. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 27(2). 171–184.
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.27.2.03lan.
Lehmann, Christian. 2020. Univerbation. Folia Linguistica Historica
41(1). 205–252. https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2020-0007.
Lowe, John. 2017. Transitive Nouns and Adjectives: Evidence from Early
Indo-Aryan (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198793571.001.0001.
Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 1996. Les verbes supports en diachronie :
le cas du français. Langages 30(121). 91–98.
https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1996.1742.
Marini, Emanuela. 2010. L’antipassivo in greco antico: ποιείσθαι come
verbo supporto in Aristotele. Journal of Latin Linguistics 11(1).
147–180. https://doi.org/10.1515/joll.2010.11.1.147.
Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact (Cambridge Textbooks in
Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meinschaefer, Judith. 2016. Nominalizations. In Susann Fischer &
Christoph Gabriel (eds.), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance,
391–418. Berlin ; Boston: Mouton De Gruyter.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110311860-016.
Mel’čuk, Igor. 2004. Verbes supports sans peine. Lingvisticæ
Investigationes 27(2). 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1075/li.27.2.05mel.
Molinelli, Piera. 2010. From verbs to interactional discourse markers:
the pragmaticalization of Latin rogo, quaeso. Journal of Latin
Linguistics 11. 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1515 / joll.2010.11.1.181.
Pompei, Anna. 2006. Tracce di incorporazione in greco antico. In
Pierluigi Cuzzolin & Maria Napoli (eds.), Fonologia e tipologia
lessicale nella storia della lingua greca. Atti del Incontro
Internazionale di Linguistica Greca, Bergamo, 15–17 September 2005,
216–237. Milan: FrancoAngeli.
Rassi, Amanda, Cristina Santos-Turati, Jorge Baptista, Nuno Mamede &
Oto Vale. 2014. The fuzzy boundaries of operator verb and support verb
constructions with dar “give” and ter “have” in Brazilian Portuguese.
In Jorge Baptista, Pushpak Bhattacharyya, Christiane Fellbaum, Mikel
Forcada, Chu-Ren Huang, Svetla Koeva, Cvetana Krstev & Eric Laporte
(eds.), Proceedings of Workshop on Lexical and Grammatical Resources
for Language Processing, 92–101. Dublin: Association for Computational
Linguistics and Dublin City University.
https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-5812.
Reintges, Christoph. 2001. Code-mixing strategies in Coptic Egyptian.
In Orly Goldwasser & Deborah Sweeney (eds.), Structuring Egyptian
syntax: a tribute to Sarah Israelit- Groll (Lingua Aegyptia), vol. 9,
193–237. Hamburg: Widmaier.
Rosén, Hannah. 2009. Coherence, sentence modification, and sentence
-part-modification. The contribution of particles. In Philip Baldi &
Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin
syntax, vol. 4, 317–441. Berlin; Boston: Mouton De Gruyter.
Rosén, Hannah. 2020. Composite predicates in the layers of Latin.
Journal of Latin Linguistics 19(2). 231–279.
https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2020-2009.
Sanroman Vilas, Begona. 2009. Diferencias semanticas entre
construcciones con verbo de apoyo y sus correlatos verbales simples.
Estudios de Lingüística. Universidad de Alicante 23. 289–314.
Savary, Agata, Marie Candito, Verginica Mititelu, Eduard Bejček,
Fabienne Cap, Slavomír Čéplö, Silvio Cordeiro, et al. 2018. PARSEME
multilingual corpus of verbal multiword expressions. In Stella
Markantonatou, Carlos Ramisch, Agata Savary & Veronika Vincze (eds.),
Multiword expressions at length and in depth: Extended papers from the
MWE 2017 workshop, 87–147. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Schutzeichel, Marc. 2013. Indogermanische Funktionsverbgefüge.
Münster: Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität PhD thesis.
Taylor, John. 2015. The Oxford Handbook of The Word (Oxford Handbooks
in Linguistics). 1st edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tovena, Lucia. 2017. Some constraints on the arguments of an event
noun with special aspectual properties. In Maria Bloch-Trojnar & Anna
Malicka-Kleparska (eds.), Some constraints on the arguments of an
event noun with special aspectual properties, 301–328. Berlin ;
Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505430-013.
Vivès, R. 1983. Avoir, prendre, perdre: Constructions à verbe support
et extensions aspectualles. France: Paris 8 Thèse de 3e cycle.
Wood, David. 2015. Fundamentals of formulaic language: an
introduction. London: Bloomsbury.
Zair, Nicholas. 2023. Orthographic Traditions and the Sub-elite in the
Roman Empire (Cambridge Classical Studies). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Zakrzewska, Ewa. 2017. Complex verbs in Bohairic Coptic: Language
contact and valency. In Brian Nolan & Elke Diedrichsen (eds.),
Argument realisation in complex predicates and complex events:
Verb-verb constructions at the syntax-semantics interface (Studies in
Language Companion Series), vol. 180, 213–243. Amsterdam ;
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
The present reviewer has a background in historical and contact
linguistics. Current research interests lie with periphrastic
structures and communicative strategies in corpus languages. The
present reviewer is currently holding a Leverhulme Early Career
Fellowship at the University of Oxford, which focuses on support-verb
constructions in literary classical Attic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List to support the student editors:
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8
LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:
Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/
Brill http://www.brill.com
Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics
Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/
De Gruyter Mouton https://cloud.newsletter.degruyter.com/mouton
Edinburgh University Press https://edinburghuniversitypress.com
Elsevier Ltd http://www.elsevier.com/linguistics
Equinox Publishing Ltd http://www.equinoxpub.com/
European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info
John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/
Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org
Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/
Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/
Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/
Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/
Oxford University Press http://www.oup.com/us
Wiley http://www.wiley.com
----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-35-3509
----------------------------------------------------------
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list