Home Towards a typology of change in person marking reference
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Towards a typology of change in person marking reference

  • Jonah Bates EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: August 16, 2021
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Previous studies of person marking referent shifts posited directionality: pl > sg and 3rd > 2nd > 1st person. The current study expands the documentation of person shifts, finding possible counter-examples to any directionality if all shifts represent the same phenomenon. However, comparison of shift trajectories allows them to be separated into two categories: paradigm-dependent and paradigm-independent shifts, analogous to the stages of known cycles like Jespersen’s Cycle for negation. Dependent shifts are context restrictions that occur after the introduction of more specific contrasting person markers. Independent shifts are context extensions. I analyze both shift types using a model of competition between referent-specific and referent-general markers causing pragmatic restriction of the more general form. Dependent shifts occur when the innovation of a referent-specific marker pragmatically restricts a general one to a subset of its original uses with no real change in reference. Independent shifts begin when some speakers use a referent-specific marker non-prototypically in more general contexts, triggering reanalysis of the marker’s reference by reducing specification to match the broader context. Crucially, using a general marker in more specific contexts would not trigger reanalysis, naturally resulting in directionality similar to ‘bleaching’.


Corresponding author: Jonah Bates, Linguistics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA, E-mail:

Acknowledgment

I would like to express my gratitude to Andrew McKenzie, Clifton Pye, Phil Duncan, John Gluckman, Linda Konnerth, Andrea Sansò, and two anonymous reviewers for their insights and assistance. All mistakes are mine.

References

Aalberse, Suzanne & Wessel Stoop. 2015. The exceptional loss of the pronoun T. Journal of Pragmatics 88. 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.07.003.Search in Google Scholar

Amaro, Joaquín Bueno. 2015. “What ye divin’t knaa aboot the canny lads and lasses back yem”: A study of language and identity in the Geordie variety of English. Grove: Working Papers on English Studies 22. 39–57.Search in Google Scholar

Andronov, Mikhail S. 2003. A comparative grammar of the Dravidian languages. London & Weisbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Babaev, Kirill V. 2008. Reconstructing Benue-Congo person marking I: Proto-Bantoid. The Journal of West African Languages 35(1–2). 131–183.Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Jonah. 2018. Typology of person marking referent reanalysis in six language families. University of Kansas Unpublished MA Research Project.Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Jonah & Andrew McKenzie. 2021. A plural-to-singular reanalysis cycle. Journal of Historical Syntax 5(24). 1–16. https://doi.org/10.18148/hs/2021.v5i16-25.65.Search in Google Scholar

Bergqvist, Jan Henrik Göran. 2008. Temporal reference in Lakandon Maya: Speaker- and event-perspectives. London, UK: SOAS University of London PhD thesis. https://doi.org/10.25501/SOAS.00028829.Search in Google Scholar

Blust, Robert. 2009. The Austronesian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar

Cysouw, Michael. 2005. A typology of honorific uses of clusivity. In Elena Filimonova (ed.), Clusivity, 213–230. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.63.10cys.Search in Google Scholar

Deo, Ashwini. 2015. The semantic and pragmatic underpinnings of grammaticalization paths: The progressive to imperfective shift. Semantics & Pragmatics, Annual Review of Linguistics 8(14). 1–52. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.8.14.Search in Google Scholar

Donohue, Mark & John Charles Smith. 1998. What’s happened to us? Some developments in the Malay pronoun system. Oceanic Linguistics 37(1). 65–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/3623280.Search in Google Scholar

Eckardt, Regine. 2009. APO: Avoid Pragmatic Overload. In Jacqueline Visconti & Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen (eds.), Current trends in diachronic semantics and pragmatics, 21–42. London: Emerald.10.1163/9789004253216_003Search in Google Scholar

Eckardt, Regine. 2012. Grammaticalization and semantic reanalysis. In Claudia von Maienborn, Klaus Heusinger & Portner Paul (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3, 2675–2702. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Everett, Daniel. 1986. Pirahã. In Desmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 1, 200–325. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110850819.200Search in Google Scholar

Georg, Stefan. 2003. Ordos. In Juha Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 193–209. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd & Kyung-An Song. 2010. On the genesis of personal pronouns: Some conceptual sources. Language and Cognition 2(1). 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2010.005.Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd & Kyung-An Song. 2011. On the grammaticalization of personal pronouns. Journal of Linguistics 47. 587–630. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226711000016.Search in Google Scholar

Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2004. Personal pronouns - Form, function, and grammaticalization. Erfurt: University of Erfurt.Search in Google Scholar

Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2015. A typology of non-prototypical uses of personal pronouns: Synchrony and diachrony. Journal of Pragmatics 88. 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.004.Search in Google Scholar

Hofling, C. Andrew. 2014. Lacandon Maya-Spanish-English dictionary. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.10.1353/book41404Search in Google Scholar

Hyman, Eric. 2006. The all of you-all. American Speech 81(3). 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2006-022.Search in Google Scholar

Isaksson, Bo. 1998. Comparative survey of some central morphological traits in the Modern Arabic dialects. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Search in Google Scholar

Janhunen, Juha. 2003. Proto-Mongolic. In Juha Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 1–29. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Kaufman, Terrance. 1969. Preliminary Mocho vocabulary. Working Paper Number 5. Laboratory for Language-Behavior Research. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul & Cleo Condoravdi. 2006. Tracking Jespersen’s cycle. In Mark Janse, Brian D. Joseph & Angela Ralli (eds.), The 2nd international conference of Modern Greek dialects and linguistic theory, 172–197. Mytilene: Doukas.Search in Google Scholar

Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486876Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1977a. Reconstruction of pronominal ein Takic. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 85–100. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society.10.3765/bls.v3i0.3282Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1977b. Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar, vol. 1: An overview of Uto-Aztecan grammar. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics; Arlington, TX: University of Texas.Search in Google Scholar

Maxwell, Judith M. 1982. How to talk to people who talk chekel ‘different’: The Chuj (Mayan) solution. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Nugteren, Hans. 2003. Shira Yughur. In Juha Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 265–285. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Parker, David B. 2006. Y’all: Two early examples. American Speech 81(1). 110–112. https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2006-007.Search in Google Scholar

Polian, Gilles. 2013. Gramática del tseltal de Oxchuc. México: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social.Search in Google Scholar

Raymundo González, Sonia, Adán Francisco Pascual, Pedro Mateo Pedro & Eladio Mateo Toledo. 2000. Variación dialectal en Q’anjob’al. Guatemala: Cholsamaj.Search in Google Scholar

Rubino, Carl. 2000. Ilocano dictionary and grammar: Ilocano-English, English-Ilocano. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.10.1515/9780824850494Search in Google Scholar

Schwenter, Scott A. & Richard Waltereit. 2010. Presupposition accommodation and language change. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 75–102. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226102.2.75Search in Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511812729Search in Google Scholar

Song, Kyung-An & Bernd Heine. 2016. On the role of indirect personal reference in the development of personal pronouns. The Linguistics Association of Korea Journal 24(1). 1–20. https://doi.org/10.24303/lakdoi.2016.24.1.1.Search in Google Scholar

Subbiah, Rama. 1965. A syntactic study of spoken Tamil. London, UK: SOAS University of London PhD thesis. https://doi.org/10.25501/SOAS.00029252.Search in Google Scholar

Sutton, Logan. 2014. Kiowa-Tanoan: A synchronic and diachronic study. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico PhD Dissertation. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/ling_etds/34.Search in Google Scholar

Thomason, Sarah G. & Daniel L. Everett. 2002. Pronoun borrowing. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society 27.10.3765/bls.v27i1.1107Search in Google Scholar

Zavala, Roberto. 1992. El Kanjobal de San Miguel Acatań. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-10-28
Accepted: 2021-03-19
Published Online: 2021-08-16
Published in Print: 2021-08-26

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 8.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/flin-2021-2015/html
Scroll to top button