7 Competing constructions and language contact: Slavic discourse-structuring elements on the basis of non-finite verba dicendi
-
Sandra Birzer
Abstract
Based on corpus data from Croatian, Czech, Polish and Russian, this paper explores the role of language contact in the historical development of “discourse structuring elements” (DSEs) based on nonfinite verba dicendi such as Croatian iskreno.adv govoreći.ap ‘frankly speaking’ or Czech upřimně.adv řečeno.ptcp.sg.n ‘honestly speaking (lit. spoken)’ and assesses the development with regard to grammaticalization, lexicalization and pragmaticalization. All four languages feature two nonfinite verb forms as formants. One of them is the adverbial participle, which functions as a formant in all four object languages and may thus be considered the originary Slavic construction. The second verbal formant, namely the past participle passive in Croatian and Czech (e.g. Croatian iskreno.adv rečeno or Czech upřimně.adv řečeno ‘frankly speaking’) and the infinitive in Russian (e.g. tak skazat’ ‘so to say’), has arisen via pattern replication from the source languages German and French respectively. Polish, in contrast, features the perfective adverbial participle as a second formant, but in earlier stages used matter replication from Latin (e.g. generalnie.adv vs. ogolnie.adv mowiąc ‘generally speaking’) to fill the adverbial slot of the construction. In all object languages, only one of the two verbal formants is part of a semiproductive construction. Which construction becomes semiproductive depends on languageinternal factors. On the synchronic level, the DSEs fulfill four domains of function: Pragmatic (e.g. Russian čestno govorja ‘frankly speaking’); contextualization (e.g. Czech řečeno jazykem teologie ‘speaking (lit. said) in the language of theology’); quotative indexing with the prototypical construction govoreći / rečeno + noun.ins + noun.gen (e.g. Croatian govoreći rječnikom sv. Pavla ‘lit. speaking in the language of St. Paul’); direct speech marking with the help of “plain” govoreći, which occurs only in Croatian. The DSEs with contextualising or quotative functions predominantly show a behaviour that is indicative of a grammaticalization process, whereas the DSEs from the pragmatic domain display a behaviour typical of lexicalization with regard to integrity and paradigmatization. Their paradigmatic and syntagmatic variability as well as the leaplike increase of DSEs in the 18th and 19th centuries neatly fit in with cooptation, but rather not with grammaticalization (which Heine 2013 claims to necessarily follow cooptation). Since the development of the DSEs based on nonfinite verba dicendi as an entire group cannot be encompassed by the analytical apparatus of grammaticalization, lexicalization and pragmaticalization research so far, we propose to apply Beijering’s model of composite change. This model allows to form four clusters of DSEs, whose features are characteristic for grammaticalization, lexicalization, pragmaticalization and cooptation respectively, with the latter forming the interface between the clusters.
Abstract
Based on corpus data from Croatian, Czech, Polish and Russian, this paper explores the role of language contact in the historical development of “discourse structuring elements” (DSEs) based on nonfinite verba dicendi such as Croatian iskreno.adv govoreći.ap ‘frankly speaking’ or Czech upřimně.adv řečeno.ptcp.sg.n ‘honestly speaking (lit. spoken)’ and assesses the development with regard to grammaticalization, lexicalization and pragmaticalization. All four languages feature two nonfinite verb forms as formants. One of them is the adverbial participle, which functions as a formant in all four object languages and may thus be considered the originary Slavic construction. The second verbal formant, namely the past participle passive in Croatian and Czech (e.g. Croatian iskreno.adv rečeno or Czech upřimně.adv řečeno ‘frankly speaking’) and the infinitive in Russian (e.g. tak skazat’ ‘so to say’), has arisen via pattern replication from the source languages German and French respectively. Polish, in contrast, features the perfective adverbial participle as a second formant, but in earlier stages used matter replication from Latin (e.g. generalnie.adv vs. ogolnie.adv mowiąc ‘generally speaking’) to fill the adverbial slot of the construction. In all object languages, only one of the two verbal formants is part of a semiproductive construction. Which construction becomes semiproductive depends on languageinternal factors. On the synchronic level, the DSEs fulfill four domains of function: Pragmatic (e.g. Russian čestno govorja ‘frankly speaking’); contextualization (e.g. Czech řečeno jazykem teologie ‘speaking (lit. said) in the language of theology’); quotative indexing with the prototypical construction govoreći / rečeno + noun.ins + noun.gen (e.g. Croatian govoreći rječnikom sv. Pavla ‘lit. speaking in the language of St. Paul’); direct speech marking with the help of “plain” govoreći, which occurs only in Croatian. The DSEs with contextualising or quotative functions predominantly show a behaviour that is indicative of a grammaticalization process, whereas the DSEs from the pragmatic domain display a behaviour typical of lexicalization with regard to integrity and paradigmatization. Their paradigmatic and syntagmatic variability as well as the leaplike increase of DSEs in the 18th and 19th centuries neatly fit in with cooptation, but rather not with grammaticalization (which Heine 2013 claims to necessarily follow cooptation). Since the development of the DSEs based on nonfinite verba dicendi as an entire group cannot be encompassed by the analytical apparatus of grammaticalization, lexicalization and pragmaticalization research so far, we propose to apply Beijering’s model of composite change. This model allows to form four clusters of DSEs, whose features are characteristic for grammaticalization, lexicalization, pragmaticalization and cooptation respectively, with the latter forming the interface between the clusters.
Chapters in this book
- Frontmatter I
- Contents V
-
Introduction
- Pragmaticalization: Language change between text and grammar – Introduction to the volume 1
-
Part I: Pragmaticalization: Pro and contra
- 1 “Pragmaticalization” or “(inter)subjectification” of Slavic aspect – where does it apply? 31
- 2 The parameters of pragmaticalization 103
- 3 Rebalancing indexicality. Why we might not need the concept of pragmaticalization 141
-
Part II: Pragmaticalization of discourse markers and constructions
- 4 Imperatives of visual perception verbs as discourse markers: The case of šūf in Moroccan Arabic 161
- 5 On the emergence and pragmatic functions of discourse markers of interruption: A case in Korean 185
- 6 The pragmaticalization of constructions: The Russian discourse items kak by to/tam ni bylo ‘however that may be’ and čto by to/tam ni bylo ‘whatever it is’ 211
-
Part III: Pragmaticalization and language contact
- 7 Competing constructions and language contact: Slavic discourse-structuring elements on the basis of non-finite verba dicendi 229
- 8 Pragmaticalization and pragmatic borrowing in Resian 283
-
Part IV: Pragmaticalization: Pathways of change
- 9 Imperatives as a source for the emergence of new particles in Russian 319
- 10 The paths of pragmaticalization: Russian pronouns of “free choice” (synchrony and diachrony) 349
- 11 Milestones of pragmaticalization: Russian pragmatic markers 361
- 12 The Russian interrogative particle razve: The pragmaticalization path 377
- Subject index 395
Chapters in this book
- Frontmatter I
- Contents V
-
Introduction
- Pragmaticalization: Language change between text and grammar – Introduction to the volume 1
-
Part I: Pragmaticalization: Pro and contra
- 1 “Pragmaticalization” or “(inter)subjectification” of Slavic aspect – where does it apply? 31
- 2 The parameters of pragmaticalization 103
- 3 Rebalancing indexicality. Why we might not need the concept of pragmaticalization 141
-
Part II: Pragmaticalization of discourse markers and constructions
- 4 Imperatives of visual perception verbs as discourse markers: The case of šūf in Moroccan Arabic 161
- 5 On the emergence and pragmatic functions of discourse markers of interruption: A case in Korean 185
- 6 The pragmaticalization of constructions: The Russian discourse items kak by to/tam ni bylo ‘however that may be’ and čto by to/tam ni bylo ‘whatever it is’ 211
-
Part III: Pragmaticalization and language contact
- 7 Competing constructions and language contact: Slavic discourse-structuring elements on the basis of non-finite verba dicendi 229
- 8 Pragmaticalization and pragmatic borrowing in Resian 283
-
Part IV: Pragmaticalization: Pathways of change
- 9 Imperatives as a source for the emergence of new particles in Russian 319
- 10 The paths of pragmaticalization: Russian pronouns of “free choice” (synchrony and diachrony) 349
- 11 Milestones of pragmaticalization: Russian pragmatic markers 361
- 12 The Russian interrogative particle razve: The pragmaticalization path 377
- Subject index 395
