Suppletion or illusion?
-
Johanna Nichols
Abstract
Constructing a typology and cross-linguistic survey for Aktionsart, actionality, and related notions is largely infeasible at present because so few Aktionsart systems have been fully described, they are typically complex and intricately dependent on verbal semantics and classification, and despite the inherent connection to the lexicon information about Aktionsart categories is rarely recoverable from dictionaries. As a first step this paper proposes a very minimal distinction of continuous (lacking inherent endpoints, chiefly states and activities) vs. bounded (having one or more endpoints, e.g. punctual, telic, and ingressive predicates and subtypes such as accomplishments and achievements). The word family of a predicate like sit can be based on the continuous form (as in English, where continuous sit is the base and sit down is derived) or on the bounded form (e.g. Slavic *sed- ‘sit down’ and derivative *sid-e-). A stumbling block in this endeavor has been sets like continuous know: bounded find out realize, etc. where no regular derivation relates the forms. Are they a paradigm? If so, what is the base? Structuralist criteria and Andersen's notion of markedness agreement indicate that they do form a paradigm and the continuous form is the base.
Abstract
Constructing a typology and cross-linguistic survey for Aktionsart, actionality, and related notions is largely infeasible at present because so few Aktionsart systems have been fully described, they are typically complex and intricately dependent on verbal semantics and classification, and despite the inherent connection to the lexicon information about Aktionsart categories is rarely recoverable from dictionaries. As a first step this paper proposes a very minimal distinction of continuous (lacking inherent endpoints, chiefly states and activities) vs. bounded (having one or more endpoints, e.g. punctual, telic, and ingressive predicates and subtypes such as accomplishments and achievements). The word family of a predicate like sit can be based on the continuous form (as in English, where continuous sit is the base and sit down is derived) or on the bounded form (e.g. Slavic *sed- ‘sit down’ and derivative *sid-e-). A stumbling block in this endeavor has been sets like continuous know: bounded find out realize, etc. where no regular derivation relates the forms. Are they a paradigm? If so, what is the base? Structuralist criteria and Andersen's notion of markedness agreement indicate that they do form a paradigm and the continuous form is the base.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Preface ix
- Perspectives on language structure and language change 1
-
Part I. On the theory of language change
- Andersen (1973) and dichotomies of change 13
- Induction and tradition 35
- Approaching the typology and diachrony of morphological reversals 81
- Deconstructing markedness in sound change typology 107
-
Part II. Indexicality
- Diachronic morphology, indexical function and a critique of the morphome analysis 125
- Word order as grammaticalised semiotic systems 151
-
Part III. Problems of reanalysis
- Anticausative and passive in Vedic 181
- Grammaticalization and degrammati(calizati)on in the development of the Iranian verb system 193
- Aspects of grammaticalization and reanalysis in the voice domain in the transition from Latin to early Italo-Romance 205
- From preverbal to postverbal in the early history of Japanese 233
- Reanalysis in the Russian past tense 253
- From a single lexical unit to multiple grammatical paradigms 271
- Morphosyntactic reanalysis in Australian languages 295
- Definiteness in Germanic and Balto-Slavic 311
-
Part IV. Actualization
- Diatopy and frequency as indicators of spread 327
- Suppletion or illusion? 345
-
Part V. Language change and diachronic typology in Balto-Slavic
- A complicated relationship 359
- Name-calling 381
- Changes of tense and modality in Late Mediaeval Slovene 395
- Index 411
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Preface ix
- Perspectives on language structure and language change 1
-
Part I. On the theory of language change
- Andersen (1973) and dichotomies of change 13
- Induction and tradition 35
- Approaching the typology and diachrony of morphological reversals 81
- Deconstructing markedness in sound change typology 107
-
Part II. Indexicality
- Diachronic morphology, indexical function and a critique of the morphome analysis 125
- Word order as grammaticalised semiotic systems 151
-
Part III. Problems of reanalysis
- Anticausative and passive in Vedic 181
- Grammaticalization and degrammati(calizati)on in the development of the Iranian verb system 193
- Aspects of grammaticalization and reanalysis in the voice domain in the transition from Latin to early Italo-Romance 205
- From preverbal to postverbal in the early history of Japanese 233
- Reanalysis in the Russian past tense 253
- From a single lexical unit to multiple grammatical paradigms 271
- Morphosyntactic reanalysis in Australian languages 295
- Definiteness in Germanic and Balto-Slavic 311
-
Part IV. Actualization
- Diatopy and frequency as indicators of spread 327
- Suppletion or illusion? 345
-
Part V. Language change and diachronic typology in Balto-Slavic
- A complicated relationship 359
- Name-calling 381
- Changes of tense and modality in Late Mediaeval Slovene 395
- Index 411
