Internal and External Causes of Language Change: The Naxos Papers 3031309758, 9783031309755

Citation preview

Internal and External Causes of Language Change The Naxos Papers Edited by Nikolaos Lavidas · Alexander Bergs Elly van Gelderen · Ioanna Sitaridou

Internal and External Causes of Language Change

Nikolaos Lavidas  •  Alexander Bergs Elly van Gelderen  •  Ioanna Sitaridou Editors

Internal and External Causes of Language Change The Naxos Papers

Editors Nikolaos Lavidas National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece Elly van Gelderen Arizona State University Tempe, AZ, USA

Alexander Bergs Osnabrueck University Osnabrueck, Germany Ioanna Sitaridou Queens’ College University of Cambridge Cambridge, UK

ISBN 978-3-031-30975-5    ISBN 978-3-031-30976-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30976-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: ©Milan Gonda / Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

1 I ntroduction  1 Nikolaos Lavidas Part I The Role of Typological Aspects and Structural Characteristics in Language Change  17 2 The  Prehistory of Weak Adjectival Phrases in Old Norse 19 Alexander Pfaff 3 The  Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek 49 Vassilios Spyropoulos 4 Synecdochic  Chains and Semantic Change: The Case of the Upper Limbs in Homeric Greek 87 Iván Andrés-Alba 5 The  Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases in Ancient Greek: Evidence for Syntactic Change and Reconstruction119 Thanasis Giannaris v

vi Contents

6 Verb-Adjective  Combinations in Late Modern English: Syntactic Reanalysis and Analogical Generalisation169 Ljubica Leone 7 The  Evolution of Temporal Adverbs into Discourse Markers: Grammaticalization or Pragmaticalization? The Case of Romanian atunci “then” and apoi “afterwards”189 Gina Scarpete Walters Part II Linguistic Diachronies and the Role of Language Contact 211 8 Long-Distance  Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property Theory Analysis of Diachronic Change213 Eirini Apostolopoulou 9 Documenting  Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced Grammaticalization in the Romance Variety of the Jewish Community of Corfu247 Georgios Vardakis 10 Gender  Hypercharacterization in Modern Judeo-Spanish Adjectives287 Branka Arrivé 11 The  RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts with Uralic315 Sampsa Holopainen I ndex347

List of Contributors

Iván Andrés-Alba  Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Eirini  Apostolopoulou  Aristotle Thessaloniki, Greece

University

of

Thessaloniki,

Branka  Arrivé INALCO, Middle East and Mediterranean Research Centre (CERMOM), Paris, France Thanasis  Giannaris  National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece Sampsa Holopainen  University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Nikolaos  Lavidas National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece Ljubica Leone  University of Verona, Verona, Italy Alexander Pfaff  University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany Gina Scarpete Walters  Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA Vassilios Spyropoulos  National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece Georgios Vardakis  University of Padua, Padua, Italy vii

List of Figures

Fig. 5.1

The noun-to-verb time-stability scale (after Givón 2001 [1984]: 55) 125 Fig. 5.2 Participles in time-stability scale 125 Fig. 5.3 Values of parameters on noun-to-verb continuum 126 Fig. 5.4 Distribution of the eimí-periphrases in Classical Greek 140 Fig. 5.5 Distribution of meanings of the perfect periphrasis in Classical Greek 141 Fig. 5.6 Frequency of the ’stative’ and ‘progressive’ present periphrasis in Classical Greek 145 Fig. 5.7 Frequency of use of the eimí-periphrases in Post-classical Greek147 Fig. 5.8 Distribution of the eimí-periphrases in Classical and Post-­Classical Greek 147 Fig. 5.9 Distribution of the ‘stative and ‘progressive’ periphrasis in Classical and Post-Classical Greek 150 Fig. 5.10 The verbalization of the ‘copula + participle’ construction in Greek (adapted from De Smet 2009) 154 Fig. 6.1 Verb-adjective combinations (Nf per 10 K) 176 Fig. 6.2 Token frequency of verb-adjective combinations without break open (Nf per 10 K) 178

ix

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6

Development of adjectives from PIE into North Germanic “Adjectives” in Proto-Indo-European Strong and weak adjectives in Gothic Strong adjective and corresponding (a-stem) noun in Gothic Weak adjectives and weak (n-stem) nouns in Gothic Reconstructed Proto-Germanic n-stem nominal and weak noun in Gothic Table 2.7 Adjectives in Proto-Germanic Table 2.8 Adjectives in Early Norse Table 2.9 Weak and strong adjectival phrases in Later Norse Table 2.10 Weak adjectives and weak nouns in Old Norse Table 4.1 Schematization of the upper limb Table 4.2 Terms employed in English for the segments and articulations of the upper limb Table 4.3 Terms employed in Spanish for the segments and articulations of the upper limb Table 4.4 Distribution of the suprasegmental units and their parts in English and Spanish Table 4.5 Distribution of the suprasegmental units and their parts in Modern Greek and Russian Table 4.6 Number of attestations of each term (all cases and numbers) in Homeric Greek (excluding parts of animals and metaphorical uses)

21 27 28 29 31 32 34 36 38 39 91 91 91 92 94 95 xi

xii 

List of Tables

Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 Table 4.10 Table 4.11 Table 4.12 Table 4.13 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table 8.3 Table 8.4 Table 8.5 Table 8.6 Table 8.7 Table 8.8 Table 8.9

Case of χείρ kheír, πῆχυς pêkhus and βραχίων brakhíōn in Homeric Greek 96 Synthesis of the semantic roles of χείρ kheír98 Classification of segments meant by χείρ kheír105 Classification of segments expressed by πῆχυς pêkhus and βραχίων brakhíōn107 Correspondence among the different translations of χείρ kheír, ὦμος ômos and βραχίων brakhíōn111 Original schematization of the upper limbs in Greek 113 Schematization of the upper limbs in Homeric Greek 115 Participial periphrases in IE languages 123 Parameters which define class convergence 129 The periphrases in Classical and Post-Classical Greek (Active voice) 135 The periphrases in Classical and Post-Classical Greek (Medio-­passive voice) 135 Suppletion in Classical Greek perfect paradigm (consonant-stem verbs—mediopassive) 142 Suppletion in Classical Greek perfect paradigm (consonant-stem verbs—active) 142 The diachronic evolution of ‘eimí + participle’ in Greek (until 8th c. AD) 152 The LModE-OBC corpus architecture and size 174 Type frequency of verb-­adjective combinations and TTR 177 Frequency of all verb-adjective combinations formed with open (Nf per 10 K) 181 Classification of the LDM languages based on the source environment 218 Classification of the LDM languages based on locality restrictions219 The attested LDM typology 219 Factorial typology 225 /pakRata/ vs. /pakatRa/ 227 /paRkata/ vs. /pakaRta/ 227 Properties 234 Property analysis 235 Minimal change in the languages with unrestricted LDM: L.1 > L.2 > L.3 237

  List of Tables 

Table 8.10

xiii

Minimal change in the languages with local LDM: L.1 > L.5 > L.4 238 Table 8.11 Minimal change L.1 > L.5 > L.4 > L.3 238 Table 9.1 Morphophonological specialization in the paradigm of the verb ‘have’ in Corfioto 263 Table 10.1 Appendix Probi 290 Table 10.2 Hypercharacterized forms in traditional/patrimonial literature295 Table 10.3 cualo/cuala/cualos/cualas in CORDE 296 Table 10.4 Late twentieth/twenty-first century documents 296 Table 10.5 Adjectives in -al in patrimonial literature 297 Table 10.6 Adjectives in -al/-ar in CORDE between 1400 and 1800 297 Table 10.7 Denominal adjectives in -al/-ar in the Judeo-Spanish press (1872–1948) 298 Table 10.8 Denominal adjectives in -al/-ar in CORHIJE (sixteenth–twentieth century) 299 Table 10.9 Adjectives in -(i) or in the Judeo-Spanish press (1871–1931)300 Table 10.10 Adjectives in -(i) or in CORHIJE 301 Table 10.11 Hypercharacterized nouns, relative pronouns and adjectives in Hayim Moshe Bejarano’s Colección de refranes301 Table 11.1 Consonant system of Proto-Uralic 318 Table 11.2 Consonant system of Proto-Indo-Iranian 318

1 Introduction Nikolaos Lavidas

1 Introduction This volume collects ten studies that analyze and explain language change through modern methodologies. The studies were first presented in workshops at the “Language Variation and Change in Ancient and Medieval Europe” summer schools, which were organized on the island of Naxos (Cyclades), Greece, and online. The second volume of “The Naxos Papers” includes studies derived from the fourth, fifth, and sixth workshops of the Naxos summer schools: “Language Change in IndoEuropean and Beyond” (2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively). The Naxos summer school and the Naxos workshops aimed at discussing in depth the ongoing research of young and established scholars working on diachronic linguistics. The studies presented at the workshops of the Naxos summer school cover a variety of topics and may concern the association between historical data and linguistic theory, or questions related to the N. Lavidas (*) National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Lavidas et al. (eds.), Internal and External Causes of Language Change, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30976-2_1

1

2 

N. Lavidas

examination of language change at any level of linguistic analysis (including historical morpho-syntax, historical phonology, historical sociolinguistics, and historical pragmatics). The volume is divided into two parts, both of which are focused on modern tools and methodologies for analyzing and accounting for language change. The first part focuses on common directions of change in Indo-European languages and beyond, and the second part emphasizes explanations that reveal the role of language contact. The volume promotes a dialogue between approaches to language change that have their starting point in structural and typological aspects of the history of languages, on the one hand, and approaches that concentrate on external causes of change, on the other. Through this type of dialogue, the volume enriches our knowledge on the contrast or complementarity of internally motivated and externally motivated causes of language change.

2 On Internal vs. External Change Two main models of accounting for language change have affected historical linguistic thinking from early on. First, the family tree model is the output of the comparative linguistic methodology and represents the internal development of languages. Second, the wave model of change can explain difficult cases of influence of the branches of a family tree on one another—for instance, in cases of long periods of bilingualism or in sprachbunds. Internal development/ change and internal factors are related to structural characteristics of languages/ varieties. For instance, internal factors may concern morphological regularity through analogical extension of leveling. External factors primarily refer to the role of language in society. In the latter case, changes are triggered by social considerations and are characterized as externally motivated. Accommodation of and dissociation from a social group’s linguistic features can also be seen as examples of externally motivated changes (Trudgill 1986: chapter 1; Gerritsen and Stein 1992; Hickey 2002; Pargman 2002; Jones and Esch 2002; Jones and Singh 2005: 1–54; Hickey 2013, 2020).

1 Introduction 

3

Various terms have been used to describe the distinction between internally and externally motivated change, for instance “evolutive” vs. “adaptive” change (Andersen 1973), “transmission” vs. “diffusion” (Labov 2007), and “endogenous” vs. “exogenous” change (Galloway and Rose 2015). The above distinctions reflect, on the one hand, psychological, cognitive, and individual aspects of language and, on the other, its social and interactional aspects. Moreover, the above distinctions have been seen as complementary rather than competing (cf. Hamp’s [1977: 279] characterization of the two types of change as “twin faces of diachronic linguistics”). According to Dawson and Joseph (2019), we can realize what is triggered by contact only if we have knowledge of what is inherited, and we can realize what is inherited only if we rule out similarities that are due to contact. Dawson and Joseph further argued that in several examples of change, language contact (an external factor) results in tendencies already present in a language (i.e., enhancement of internal characteristics). Examples of multiple causation include Joseph’s studies (1982, 1983: chapter 7) accounting for the loss of the infinitive in the Balkan sprachbund on the basis of multiple causative factors.

3 Historical Overview The studies of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries recognized a “triad” of sound change, analogy, and borrowing—and Charles Hockett (1958) was the first to propose a dual division of change into internal change and external change. Leonard Bloomfield (1926, 1933) distinguished between “sound change” and “analogic change,” which are system-internal, and “linguistic borrowing” and “linguistic substitution,” which are system-­ external. Uriel Weinreich (1953) referred to a contrast between “purely linguistic studies of languages in contact” and “extra-linguistic studies on bilingualism and related phenomena,” which is closely related to the contrast between internal and external causes of change. Weinreich et  al. (1968) suggested that to describe the linguistic competence adequately, a model of linguistic analysis should account for the social and stylistic determinants of variable usage. Starting with his 1965 paper and in many

4 

N. Lavidas

later publications, Labov recognized the value of both internal relations and external (sociolinguistic) relations in any account for language change. Henning Andersen distinguished between the following two types of language change as early as 1972 and 1973: evolutive change, that is, “change entirely explainable in terms of the linguistic system that gave rise to it,” and adaptive change, that is, “a change not explainable without reference to factors outside the linguistic system in question.” Andersen (1972: 12, fn. 1) presented the two types of language change as follows: evolutive change can be characterized as internally motivated change, as change in a linguistic system entirely explainable in terms of that system itself. adaptive change, by contrast, is change in a linguistic system explainable only with reference to factors extraneous to that linguistic system, whether linguistic (e.g. language contact) or non-linguistic (e.g. the introduction of labrets).

The term evolutive is based on a metaphor of language as an organism that changes because of its own structure and constraints; the term adaptive points to speakers accommodating their usage’s characteristics to avoid stigmatization. Note that it was Thomason and Kaufman’s (1988) influential work that contributed to the establishment of the above distinction as a standard distinction in the field of language change studies. More recently, D’Arcy and Tagliamonte (2015) discussed the various terms used in the relevant literature and demonstrated their interrelations: Change from below (or from within; Labov 2006: 203) constitutes the ‘normal type of internal change,’ originating within the linguistic system […] Because actuation is internal, change from below is evolutive. This means that it is explicable with reference to the community-based ­linguistic system (e.g., Andersen 1973), emerging from the inherited structure of grammatical systems (i.e., via adult to child transmission; cf. Labov 2007). […] As an innovation moves from speaker to speaker or from group to group, its diffusion is exogenous, propelled by influences outside the community grammar, what Andersen (1973) referred to as adaptive change.

1 Introduction 

5

Several studies have questioned the possibility of distinguishing between internal change and borrowing and also therefore the feasibility of subgrouping language families (Dench 2001; Dixon 2001). In this respect, there is a significant challenge concerning closely related languages with similar structures and how to differentiate in such cases between external causes of change (due to contact) and internal causes of change (internal development). Genetically similar linguistic systems can be more easily affected by borrowing than linguistic systems that are not genetically similar (Thomason 2001); however, it is complex to trace borrowing in the case of genetically similar languages. In a similar manner of argumentation, Aikhenvald (2001), for instance, pointed out that extensive contact made it almost impossible to distinguish between inherent characteristics and areal diffusion in the case of Arawak, an Amazonian language. Pat-El (2013) suggested that the following criteria can help us distinguish between internally and externally motivated changes in the case of genetically similar languages: (i) intermediate stages of a process of change can be observed in one language (internally motivated change), whereas in the other language, only the final output of the change is attested (externally motivated change); (ii) a change is consistent and attested in various structures in one language (internally motivated change), whereas it has a limited presence in the other language (externally motivated change).

4 Learnability and Other Parameters of the Different Types of Change Labov (2007) referred to the unbroken sequence of L1 acquisition (and continuous incrementation) by children that results in the continuity of dialects and languages across time as “linguistic transmission.” Children can acquire the older generation’s language; however, imperfect replication of linguistic characteristics does not mean a break in the continuation but rather a change in the structures and forms of the language. This type of change is an internal language change, which is characterized as “change from below” or “change from within the system” by Labov

6 

N. Lavidas

(1966)—in contrast to “change from above” or “importation of elements from other systems.” Labov characterized external causes of change and transfer of linguistic characteristics across branches of the family tree as “linguistic diffusion.” In this respect, the contrast between the transmission and the diffusion of change should be analyzed as the result of two types of language learning. Transmission is the result of L1 acquisition by children, and diffusion is the result of language contact that mainly takes place between adults. Note that studies on language change in individuals of different ages have shown that adults can change their linguistic characteristics—but at a significantly slower rate than children. Hence, according to Labov, the contrast between transmission and diffusion as well as the constraints of diffusion should be accounted for in terms of a contrast between the role of generational learning in transmission processes and the role of extra-generational learning in the case of diffusion. Therefore, the effects of language contact are slower and more irregular than internally motivated changes. Thomason (2020) offered a stable basis for any discussion of externally and internally motivated change through a presentation of the major predictors or conditions for each of these types of change. According to her analysis, imperfect learning, intensity of contact, and speakers’ attitudes should be considered as important social factors that constitute predictors of contact-induced change. Imperfect learning does not concern internally motivated changes because the agents of change in that case are native or near-native speakers or children acquiring their first language (Thomason and Kaufman 1988; Thomason 2001: 66–76). In contrast, the intensity of contact is a major predictor of both internally and externally motivated changes. However, it can be related to internally motivated changes only if we include person-­to-person transfer of variants in contact processes. The intensity of contact is linked to the level of bilingualism and the duration of contact. Note that the intensity of change is connected to the spread of a change only (e.g., through social networks; cf. Milroy 1987)—and not to the initial innovation of an internally motivated change. Speakers’ attitudes can also be related to both externally and internally motivated changes. To provide evidence that speakers’ attitudes affected

1 Introduction 

7

the diachrony of a language is not a simple task. For instance, researchers are not always able to reconstruct the attitudes of speakers of the past if metalinguistic comments on innovations are rare in or absent from old texts. According to Thomason (2020), speakers’ attitudes can be effective in innovation and spread of internally and externally motivated change— in contrast to the intensity of contact that is effective only in the case of spread of a change if the change is internally motivated. Aside from the above social predictors, Thomason (2020: 39–43) recognized linguistic conditions/predictors of contact-induced/externally motivated and internally motivated changes. For externally motivated changes, the major predictors are typological distance, universal markedness, and degree of integration within the linguistic system. Typological distance does not concern internally motivated changes—but universal markedness and the degree of integration are relevant for both types of change. Typological distance can demonstrate the structural differences between two linguistic systems. Therefore, it cannot affect the internal factors that concern only one linguistic system. For instance, a small typological distance would mean that the probability of the occurrence of a contact-induced change is higher in linguistic subsystems in which contact-induced change is generally infrequent. The second factor, markedness, is linked to the ease of acquisition: marked features are more difficult to acquire than unmarked features. In the case of internally motivated changes, drift is related to the ease of learning and structural imbalances and irregularities (Thomason 2008, 2020). The degree of integration into the linguistic system can also account for both internally and externally motivated changes. Regarding contactinduced changes, loosely integrated linguistic subsystems undergo changes of the above type more easily than tightly integrated subsystems do. To summarize, Thomason’s analysis reveals that two predictors of change—that is, imperfect learning and typological distance—are limited and specialized to accounts related to external causes of change only. The intensity of contact is important for externally motivated explanations but less so for internal causes of change. The degree of integration within a linguistic system, speakers’ attitudes, and markedness are important in both types of accounts.

8 

N. Lavidas

An additional distinction between speaker-internal vs. speaker-external and community-internal vs. community-external has also been proposed as relevant for any discussion of internal and external causes of language change (Hickey 2020). Speaker-internal vs. speaker-external causes of change concern another important dimension of accounting for language change: the dimension of formal and functional explanations (Newmeyer 2003). Formal explanations align to speaker-internal causes, whereas functional explanations align to speaker-external causes. Trudgill’s (2010: 313) contrast between contact situations featuring child bilingualism and additive complexification and those featuring adult L2 learning and structural simplification can be regarded as close to the proposal of a contrast between changes related to imperfect learning and those unrelated to imperfect learning (Thomason and Kaufman 1988; van Coetsem 1988). Lifespan (individual speakers’ specific ages) is another parameter linked to the different types of internal and external causes of change (Hickey 2020). For instance, according to the usage-based theory, innovation can emerge at any point in a speaker’s lifespan; additionally, there is variation in usage of different structures across the lifespan. First, language acquisition, which can demonstrate many instances of leveling and regularization, is associated with internal causes of change. In contrast, the roles of social status and affiliation become important in adolescence and adulthood and can then be reflected in language use. For this reason, external causes of change are mainly related to adults’ linguistic features. In adulthood and later life, all stages of a change can be externally triggered: social factors, for instance, can be determining factors allowing a variation to pass a threshold and become a change; they can also determine the propagation and conclusion of a language change. Note, however, that for most past cases of change, there is little knowledge of the social and linguistic conditions that can establish externally or internally motivated change. Pessimism, though, should not be the consequence of the above unfortunate fact. Research is always revealing in such cases and can advance our analyses of the probabilities of change (Thomason 2020). The studies in the present volume also contribute to dissolving such pessimism.

1 Introduction 

9

5 The Studies in the Volume The first part of the volume focuses on questions dealing with the role of typological aspects and structural characteristics in language change. Alexander Pfaff’s chapter focuses on the development of the weak “adjectives” of Germanic: weak “adjectives” started out as nominals in early Germanic and became adjectivals only in a later stage. The starting point of Pfaff’s study is the development of the Proto-Norse demonstrative hinn, which acquired the status of an adjectival article—not that of a definite article—in Old Norse. It appears that there is a significant correlation between (in)definiteness and the development of adjectival inflection in Germanic. According to Pfaff’s proposal, Proto-Indo-­ European did not have a separate category of adjectives, that is, adjectives did not have a distinct status from nouns. Pfaff suggests that weak “adjectives” were nominals in Proto-Germanic and maintained their nominal status in later stages through the weak inflection acting as a nominalizer. He demonstrates that the nominalizing function was taken over by the appositive article (h)inn in Old Norse, and that the Old Norse weak adjectival phrase resulted from a reanalysis of the nominal appositive phrase. In this respect, Pfaff reveals that, at least in North Germanic, the article (h)inn facilitated the transition from a weak nominal phrase to a weak adjectival phrase. Vassilios Spyropoulos’ study also concentrates on the syntactic characteristics of a construction in an ancient Indo-European language and their development—but it concerns a different branch of Indo-European than Pfaff’s study does. Spyropoulos investigates absolute participial constructions in Ancient Greek that are typologically special in that they have a full verbal structure and a full clausal distribution, and their subjects have no restrictions. According to Spyropoulos’ proposal, the genitive case of absolute participial constructions is a semantic case and is related to the prepositional structure. In this respect, Spyropoulos suggests that genitive absolute participial constructions are nominalized clausal formations embedded in a prepositional functional layer where a pcase head is responsible for assigning the genitive case. Regarding the development of the absolute participial constructions, the loss of a transparent link between

10 

N. Lavidas

function and case in prepositional constructions parallels the loss of the absolute constructions. After the loss of agreement, absolute constructions of all types became restricted in use and have only nominative subjects in gerundival/converbial constructions. Iván Andrés-Alba also investigates early Greek, but he follows a cognitive semantic perspective to investigate words referring to different parts of the human body’s upper limbs in Homeric Greek. For instance, in Homeric Greek, χείρ  kheír—together with πῆχυς  pêkhus and βραχίων brakhíōn—had the meaning of ‘hand’ and occasionally that of ‘arm.’ Andrés-Alba examines these words’ semantic roles and their contexts in the Homeric texts. He attempts to answer questions such as whether the Homeric words χείρ kheír and πῆχυς pêkhus refer to the same ‘arm,’ and why translators render χείρ kheír into ‘hand’ in some cases but into ‘arm’ in other passages. He observes that, in Homer, χείρ kheír has the role of the prototypical Instrument of the body in nearly 50% of its attestations—whereas πῆχυς pêkhus and βραχίων brakhíōn, for instance, never have the role of the prototypical Instrument. Andrés-Alba offers a holistic analysis of the Homeric conception of the upper limbs and its development within the framework of Cognitive Linguistics. According to his proposal, the upper limbs of the human body constitute an anatomical continuum, a synecdochic chain that forms a semantic link between them, constrains their linguistic expression, and plays a significant role in semantic change. Data from Ancient Greek are also examined in Thanasis Giannaris’ study, which focuses on the copular participial construction (e:mi ‘be’  +  participle’). Giannaris aims to analyze the factors triggering the emergence and development of the copular participial construction. According to his proposal, the participial periphrases are the result of a gradual accretion of verbal properties at the constructional level and are triggered by analogical mappings of different types of participles in the same syntactic pattern. Giannaris suggests that paradigmatic extension plays a significant role even in cases of grammaticalization: for instance, paradigmatic extension can account for the participial periphrases of Greek and their gradual process of verbalization. Giannaris argues that the gradient status of participles led to a verbalization process and, then, to syntactic transformation of participles into full verbal periphrases.

1 Introduction 

11

Ljubica Leone’s chapter concerns morpho-syntactic characteristics of a modern Indo-European language: it investigates less-examined characteristics of a less-examined period of English, that is, verb–adjective combinations in Late Modern English. Each verb–adjective combination comprises a base verb and an adjective and behaves like a single lexeme. These combinations belong to the multiword verbs of English, together with phrasal verbs, prepositional verbs, phrasal–prepositional verbs (e.g., get out of), verb–verb combinations (e.g., make do), verb–prepositional phrase combinations (e.g., bear in mind), and verb–noun phrase combinations (e.g., take care of). Leone’s chapter analyzes data from a corpus-­ based survey on the Late Modern English–Old Bailey corpus (1750–1850). Leone shows that the use and productivity of verb–adjective combinations are stable across the various decades of Late Modern English. However, her data demonstrate that analogical processes led to the direct formation of new combinations and the loss of already-existent combinations. Data on aspects of the diachrony of another Indo-European language are presented in Gina Scarpete Walters’ chapter. Her study concerns the development of Romanian temporal adverbs into discourse markers— and, especially, changes in the temporal adverbs atunci ‘then’ and apoi ‘afterwards.’ Scarpete Walters reveals the contrast between the complete pragmaticalization of apoi and the partial pragmaticalization of atunci using a corpus of Romanian texts from the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries and the Corpus of Spoken Romanian. According to her proposal, pragmaticalization should be seen as a process separate from that of grammaticalization. Scarpete Walters suggests that the markers atunci and apoi of Romanian acquired pragmatic features in a late stage, such as the features of marking a conclusion, indicating progression of a discourse, or prefacing a response. According to her analysis, apoi pragmaticalized completely, but atunci did not reach the end stage despite following a similar development from having an adverbial function to being a consecutive–conclusive connector. The second part of the volume concentrates on questions mainly concerning the association between aspects of language contact and language change.

12 

N. Lavidas

Eirini Apostolopoulou’s chapter discusses typological aspects of language change (as do the studies included in the first part of the volume) and further introduces the parameter of language contact in the analysis of language change. Her study differentiates itself from the surveys of the first part of the volume in other aspects too: it concerns metathesis, a type of phonological change, and focuses on Romance varieties and Greek varieties in long-term contact with Romance varieties. Metathesis refers to phenomena in which the linear order of a sound string is scrambled and concerns both features and segments. Apostolopoulou discusses different manifestations of long-distance liquid metathesis in Romance varieties. She proposes a constraint-based analysis within Optimality Theory that can explain the phonological computation of relevant data. She suggests that language change should be formalized as minimal shifts/ switches in the values of the properties of long-distance metathesis typology. Accordingly, Apostolopoulou puts forth hypotheses regarding the reconstruction of possible paths of change. Georgios Vardakis’ chapter also investigates a Romance variety, Corfioto (the Romance variety of Corfu), through a clear language contact perspective. Corfioto is spoken by Corfiot Jews in Corfu and Israel. Vardakis’ study is based on oral data collected in fieldwork in Corfu and Israel in 2019. He argues that two features of the variety under investigation are the result of contact with varieties of Greek and Italian: (i) the analytic future construction and (ii) the characteristics of the verb ‘have,’ which has a perfective auxiliary paradigm of specialized forms as well as a future auxiliary paradigm. According to Vardakis’ proposal, only a hypothesis of a contact-induced change can account for the abovementioned features of Corfioto. In this respect, Vardakis links the future periphrasis of Corfioto to a contact-induced replication within the periphery of the Balkan Sprachbund. In contrast, the paradigms of ‘have’ should be the result of contact of Corfioto with Romance varieties and of a common pattern of reanalysis and grammaticalization in Romance. Branka Arrivé also reveals the role of contact and socio-political change in the development of grammatical characteristics of another variety spoken by Jewish speakers, Judeo-Spanish. Judeo-Spanish was used in the extra-Iberian diaspora for four centuries until the nineteenth century and contained only a few borrowings from the languages spoken in different

1 Introduction 

13

areas of the Ottoman Empire. Arrivé argues that the Alliance Israelite Universelle (AIU), founded in Paris in 1860 to safeguard Jews’ human rights, strongly affected characteristics of the language of the Sephardic Jews who attended the AIU.  For instance, marked feminine adjectives in -a, replacing unmarked adjectives, are one of the most significant new features of the variety. Arrivé examines the development of the abovementioned forms in corpora and accounts for the relevant morphological change. According to her proposal, the data reveal a case of gender hypercharacterization that is also attested in various Romance varieties; however, this feature emerged in Judeo-Spanish during a period when there were no parallel phenomena in other Romance varieties. Sampsa Holopainen’s study also investigates a type of language contact: an early contact between Indo-Iranian and Uralic. Holopainen investigates the development of Proto-Indo-European voiceless and voiced sibilants *s to *š and *z to *ž after r, u, k, and i (the so-called ruki-­ rule) that affected Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic varieties (and possibly other satem languages too). However, the absence of ruki in varieties of the Nuristani branch of Indo-Iranian and the exceptions in varieties of Balto-Slavic provide evidence in favor of ruki as a late areal innovation. Holopainen argues that the early Indo-Iranian loanwords in the Uralic languages can be of significance when seeking a solution to the abovementioned challenge. According to his analysis, Indo-Iranian loanwords in Uralic reflect the ruki sibilant in that Indo-Iranian *š is substituted by Uralic *š, with some exceptions. In this respect, the study answers two basic questions: how reliable the evidence of loanwords can be and whether loanwords can support an early change in the case of ruki sibilants.

6 Concluding Remarks The second volume of the Naxos Papers reflects new developments in the research of language change but also innovative aspects of the second phase of the Naxos summer school. The Naxos summer school attracted the interest of students and scholars from its first version (July 2016) and accompanied its members with its online versions during the difficult

14 

N. Lavidas

years of COVID.  During this period, the summer school proved how durable the interest in diachronic linguistics is, and how people and approaches can connect and continue their fight for scientific truth— even under unsupportive circumstances. We would like to use the opportunity of the introductory chapter of the second volume derived from the Naxos summer school on diachronic linguistics (“Language Variation and Change in Ancient and Medieval Europe”) to re-express our deep gratitude to all people and institutions that kept the Naxos summer school and workshops alive: the Municipality of Naxos and Small Cyclades, the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Arizona State University, the University of Osnabrück, and the University of Cambridge.

References Aikhenvald, A.Y. 2001. Areal diffusion, genetic inheritance, and problems of subgrouping: A North Arawak case study. In Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics, ed. A.Y.  Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon, 167–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Andersen, H. 1972. Diphthongization. Language 48: 11–50. ———. 1973. Abductive and deductive change. Language 49: 567–595. Bloomfield, L. 1926. A set of postulates for the science of language. Language 2: 153–164. ———. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt & Co. D’Arcy, A., and S.A. Tagliamonte. 2015. Not always variable: Probing the vernacular grammar. Language Variation and Change 27: 255–285. Dawson, H.C., and B.D.  Joseph. 2019. Andersen 1973 and dichotomies of change. In Perspectives on language structure and language change. Studies in honor of Henning Andersen, ed. L. Heltoft, I. Igartua, B. Joseph, K. Jeppesen Kragh, and L. Schøsler, 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dench, A. 2001. Descent and diffusion: The complexity of the Pilbara situation. Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance. In Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics, ed. A.Y.  Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon, 103–133. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dixon, R.M.W. 2001. The Australian linguistic area. In Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics, ed. A.Y.  Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon, 64–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

1 Introduction 

15

Galloway, N., and H.  Rose. 2015. Introducing global Englishes. Abingdon: Routledge. Gerritsen, M., and D. Stein, eds. 1992. Internal and external factors in syntactic change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hamp, E.P. 1977. On some questions of areal linguistics. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. K. Whistler, R.D. van Valin, C. Chiarello, J.J. Jaeger, M. Petruck, H. Thompson, R. Javkin, and A. Woodbury, 279–282. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Hickey, R. 2002. Internal and external forces again: Word order change in Old English and Old Irish. Language Sciences 24 (3–4): 261–283. Special issue. Collecting views on language change. Edited by R. Hickey. ———. 2013. Supraregionalisation and dissociation. In Handbook of language variation and change, ed. J.K. Chambers and N. Schilling, 2nd ed., 537–554. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ———. 2020. The interplay of internal and external factors in varieties of English. In Late Modern English: Novel encounters, ed. M.  Kytö and E. Smitterberg, 43–64. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hockett, C. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. Jones, M.C., and E. Esch, eds. 2002. Language change: The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Jones, M., and I. Singh. 2005. Exploring language change. London: Routledge. Joseph, B.D. 1982. Multiple causation in language contact change. Published in microfiche in ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center). Database by ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, document #ED205021,17. ———. 1983. The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive. A study in areal, general, and historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Labov, W. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. ———. 2006. The social stratification of English in New  York City. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83: 344–387. Milroy, L. 1987. Observing & analysing natural language. Oxford: Blackwell. Newmeyer, F. 2003. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 79: 682–707. Pargman, S. 2002. Internal and external factors in language change. PhD diss., University of Chicago.

16 

N. Lavidas

Pat-El, N. 2013. Contact or inheritance? Criteria for distinguishing internal and external change in genetically related languages. Journal of Language Contact 6 (2): 313–328. Thomason, S.G. 2001. Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh and Washington, DC: Edinburgh University Press and Georgetown University Press. Thomason, S. 2008. Social and linguistic factors as predictors of contact-induced change. Journal of Language Contact 2 (1): 42–56. Thomason, S.G. 2020. Contact explanations in linguistics. In The handbook of language contact, ed. R. Hickey, 33–49. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell. Thomason, S.G., and T.  Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Trudgill, P. 1986. Dialects in contact. Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell. ———. 2010. Contact and sociolinguistic typology. In The handbook of language contact, ed. R. Hickey, 299–319. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Van Coetsem, F. 1988. Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris. Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in contact. Findings and problems. New  York: Linguistic Circle of New York. Weinreich, U., W. Labov, and M. Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium, ed. W.P. Lehmann and Y. Malkeil, 95–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Part I The Role of Typological Aspects and Structural Characteristics in Language Change

2 The Prehistory of Weak Adjectival Phrases in Old Norse Alexander Pfaff

1 Weak Adjectival Inflection in Germanic The development of two sets of adjectival inflection, traditionally labelled ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ (after Grimm 1837), is a common (Proto-) Germanic innovation whose repercussions are still observable today to various degrees in several Germanic languages, albeit with functional differences. Modern German, for instance, distinguishes strong and weak endings with attributive adjectives; here, the strong/weak inflection is determined by morphology, or more precisely, by the inflection of a preceding determiner. In the Scandinavian languages, on the other hand, weakly inflected adjectives occur in adnominal contexts that can be characterized as semantically definite, and strongly inflected ones occur in all other— indefinite and predicative—contexts (see, e.g., Kester 1993; Vangsnes 1999; Julien 2005; Leu 2008; Roehrs 2009; Roehrs and Julien 2014; Pfaff 2017). The correlation between (in)definiteness and adjectival

A. Pfaff (*) University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Lavidas et al. (eds.), Internal and External Causes of Language Change, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30976-2_2

19

20 

A. Pfaff

inflection is also one prominent factor in the diachronic development of the Germanic adjectival inflection. Even though the weak inflection has been extensively studied for more than 150  years from various different angles, “[t]he emergence of this inflectional type and its syntactic use belong to the most controversial problems of Germanic linguistics” (Bammesberger 1990: 230; see Rehn 2018: 60). Weak nominals, with weak adjectives as a derivative, originally involved a stem formation element (or rather, a derivational suffix) ‘-n-’ (hence the designation ‘n-stem nominals’), which has largely been recognized as a nominalization suffix with an individualizing function since the nineteenth century (esp. Osthoff 1876a, 1876b; Heinrichs 1954). Accordingly, most researchers do emphasize the nominal character of weak adjectives one way or another, but, eventually, the discussion is always framed around the opposition strong vs. weak adjective. Taking the nominalizing aspect more seriously, in this chapter I will argue that this is gravely misleading and that weak “adjectives” in Proto-Germanic are genuinely nominal. As a consequence, they are at the center of a nominal— not adjectival—projection, that is NP, rather than AP. The central component in the argument is the Old Norse adjectival article (h)inn,1 which is why the point of departure is Old Norse. We will be looking at a particular kind of adjectival constituent, referred to here as “weak sequence”, which consists of the adjectival article and a weak adjective (while weak adjectives occurring on their own are highly exceptional). The relevant question to ask here is how this constellation could come about, and why it is the sequence (h)inn—a former demonstrative—plus a weak adjective—rather than merely a weak adjective—that forms a weak adjectival phrase proper. The answer that I will provide is that the same sequence, at a previous stage, constituted a(n appositive) nominal phrase with the weak “adjective” as its head noun. I will sketch

 Descriptively, by “adjectival article”, I refer to an article element that specifically occurs in the context of adjectival modification; in the next section, I will narrow down the notion a bit. Related phenomena are also known from languages like Modern Scandinavian, Modern Greek, Hebrew, Romanian and Slovenian, going by names like “determiner spreading”, “polydefiniteness”, “linking article”, “attributive article” and so on.; see, for example, Himmelmann (1997) and Rießler (2016) for a typological overview. 1

2  The Prehistory of Weak Adjectival Phrases in Old Norse 

21

Table 2.1  Development of adjectives from PIE into North Germanic i. PIE

ii. Germanic

iii. Proto-Norse

iv. Viking period/Old Norse

[NP “A”.wk]

[NP dem “A”.wk]

[AP A.str]

[AP A.str]

[NP art “A”.wk] [AP art A.wk] [AP A.str]

[NP “A”]

the development from Proto-Indo-European (PIE) towards Old Norse arguing that weak adjectival phrases emerged via phrasal reanalysis, from nominal phrase to adjectival phrase, in which process that sequence gets reanalysed and re-categorized in its entirety and the demonstrative gets “trapped” inside the adjectival phrase. The central plot is summarized in Table 2.1.2, 3 In Sect. 2, I will establish the relevant facts about weakly inflected adjectives and the adjectival article (h)inn in Old Icelandic, which constitutes the point of departure for the discussion to follow. In Sect. 3, I will sketch the development of adjectives from Proto-Indo-European to Germanic introducing the idea that Proto-Indo-European did not have a separate category adjective distinct from nouns, and taking a look at the two adjectival paradigms in Proto-Germanic. I will then discuss the role of the n-suffix involved in the creation of weak nominals, and suggest that what are usually called weak “adjectives” are really nouns. In Sect. 4, I will take a closer look at the development from Proto-Norse towards Old Norse. It will be shown that nominal epithets constitute the oldest (systematically attested) context for weak “adjectives”, but also for hinn in non-demonstrative function. I will suggest that the (former) demonstrative—or appositive article—gradually takes over the nominalization function originally associated with the weak inflection. During the Viking period, the sequence (h)inn + weak “adjective” is reanalysed in its entirety, from nominal phrase to adjectival phrase, leading to the development of  On the periodization of Norse, see Sect. 2, and fn. 4. Glosses used here: ART: freestanding (adjectival/appositive) article; DEF: suffixed definite article; DEM: demonstrative; WK: weak adjectival inflection; STR: strong adjectival inflection; POSS – 3.reflexive possessive. 3  Note that the notation in Table 2.1 is not meant to literally suggest that an element of the category A projects a nominal phrase. Hence, I will use quotation marks: “A” to indicate that certain elements that are traditionally considered adjectives are actually nominals heading an NP.  For the same reason, I will use quotation marks (“adjective”) in the text when referring to such elements. 2

22 

A. Pfaff

an adjectival article and weak adjectival phrases. In Sect. 5, some remaining issues are addressed. Section 6 concludes.

2 Weak Adjectival Inflection in Old Icelandic 2.1 From Proto-Norse to Old Norse The Proto-Norse4 pronominal/deictic element h-inn can be reconstructed as a merger of two pronominal stems PIE *ke + *eno- (Pokorny 1959; see also Skrzypek 2009; Stroh-Wollin 2014, 2020). It is attested as a demonstrative in Proto-Norse Runic inscriptions (cf. (1)).5 From the Viking period onward hinn, or the reduced form inn, systematically co-­occurs with a weakly inflected adjective functioning as an epithet (with a proper name) (cf. (2))6: (1)

a.

(2)

a.

b.

hali hino   (N KJ50$U) stone dem kuna harats hins kuþa wife [Haraldr art good.wk]-gen “wife of Haraldr the Good” abtir kara faþur sin  in  malsbaka after Kári father poss art eloquent.wk “in memory of Kári the eloquent, their father”

b.

a hitt land on dem land (DR55)

(KJ101 $U)

     (U1146)

 Unless indicated otherwise, Runic examples, including signature, are taken from Samnordisk Rundatabas (http://www.nordiska.uu.se/forskn/samnord.htm). I also adopt the (labels for) periodization for “Proto-Norse” (prior to ca. 725) and “Viking period” (ca. 725–1100) used in Rundatabas, but instead of “Medieval Period” (from 1100 onward), I will use the label “Old Norse”, even though, technically speaking, I will be specifically concerned with Old West Norse (Old Icelandic); see also footnote 6. 5  See especially Stroh-Wollin (2020) for a discussion on the status of the h-, and whether there were, in fact, two demonstratives. 6  For the sake of exposition, I will use this term throughout this section for the element (h)inn, but in Sect. 4, I will distinguish between adjectival article proper and appositive article for uses as in (2). Note that, in Old East Norse (Old Swedish, Old Danish), the demonstrative sá took over these functions of (h)inn early on, cf. Stroh-Wollin (2009, 2015a, 2015b, 2016); Pfaff (2019: 199–200). 4

2  The Prehistory of Weak Adjectival Phrases in Old Norse 

23

Towards the end of the Viking period, we find suffixed forms where (h) inn forms one prosodic word with the preceding noun, first with a following adjective, later without: (3)

a.

mirki-t7    mikla (Sö 41) monument-def great

b.

ant-ini soul-def

(U669†)

Today the consensus is, by and large, that the suffixed article def directly developed from the demonstrative occurring in postposition, rather than from art (e.g. Nygaard 1906; Skrzypek 2009, 2010, 2012; Stroh-Wollin 2009, 2014, 2015a, 2015b, 2016; Perridon and Sleeman 2011; Dahl 2015; Pfaff 2019). In addition, it should be mentioned that hinn has survived as a demonstrative beyond Old Norse (into Modern Icelandic). We can thus isolate the following (more or less) parallel developments: (4) Proto-Norse Demonstrative hinn

Old Norse (Old Icelandic) >> >> >>

Demonstrative hinn Adjectival article (h)inn (art) Nominal article -inn (def)

While most authors focus on the grammaticalization of the (nominal) definite article and thus on the development of the suffixed article, I will take a closer look at the adjectival article and its development from a demonstrative (see Sect. 4).

2.2 Adjectival Article and Adjectival Phrases Over time, many linguists have argued that the adjectival article (h)inn in Old Norse belongs with the weak adjective, that is, that it actually is an element of the adjectival constituent8 such that (h)inn and the weak  The neuter form is (h)it, and thus the relevant part of (3a) is to be reconstructed as *mirki (h)it ➔ *mirki it ➔ mirkit. 8  Of course, the older authors did not use technical terms like “constituent” or “AP” and so on, but they clearly express the general idea, for example Nygaard (1906: 48): “Den foranstillede artikel er adjektivisk” [“The preposed article is adjectival”]. 7

24 

A. Pfaff

adjective form a unit to the exclusion of the noun (e.g. Nygaard 1906; Delbrück 1916; Lundeby 1965; Perridon 1996; Skrzypek 2009, 2010; Perridon and Sleeman 2011; Stroh-Wollin 2009, 2015a, 2020; Börjars and Payne 2016; Börjars et al. 2016; “Gelenkartikel” (“linking article”) in Heinrichs 1954; Himmelmann 1997; “attributive article” in Rießler 2016; “adjectival complementizer” in Pfaff 2019, ‘categorizer/a0’ in Pfaff 2020). In the following, I will refer to this unit as “weak sequence”. There are two core sets of arguments that support this idea, one of which concerns the intimate relationship between (h)inn and a weak adjective. For one thing, (h)inn only occurs when immediately followed by exactly one weakly inflected adjective. Stroh-Wollin (2009: 7) notes that “(h)inn seems to be just a formal element preceding adjectives with so called weak inflection”, and Börjars and Payne (2016: 2) state that “(h)inn is a functional element whose role it is to allow a weak adjective to function as an ADJ”. Pfaff (2019, 2020) shows in detail, that “bare” weak adjectives are highly exceptional and, normally, do not occur without preceding (h)inn either.9 Taking Börjars and Payne (2016) one step further, Pfaff (2019) therefore suggests that weak adjectives are “defective”, or “incomplete” APs, as it were, and that (h)inn is an “adjectival complementizer” that, by merging with a weak adjective, produces a “complete” adjectival phrase: [AP (h)inn [weakP A.wk.]]. In Pfaff (2020), this is reformulated to the effect that (h)inn contributes a categorial (adjective) feature. The idea that weak sequences constitute adjectival phrases (APs) has ramifications and leads to the second set of arguments in support of this idea that make reference to syntactic distribution. By and large, weak sequences (but not bare weak adjectives) display the same distributional patterns as strong adjectives. This means that the two occur in the same syntactic environments—often seemingly regardless of whether the context can be characterized as definite or not. The following examples are taken from Pfaff (2020: 22–3) giving a brief, non-exhaustive summary of

 Those that do occasionally occur without (h)inn constitute a small class of functional adjectives like sami “same” or fyrsti “first”. 9

2  The Prehistory of Weak Adjectival Phrases in Old Norse 

25

some relevant contexts: possessive + AP, cf. (5); demonstrative + AP, cf. (6); and AP in vocative noun phrases, cf. (7); underlining indicates AP.10 (5) a. sinni fullkomin-ni vináttu poss perfect-str    friendship (SC: Sturlunga saga) (6) a. þessi vond-ur svikari this evil-str   traitor (SC: Íslendinga þættir) (7) a. Ér, góð-ar  konur, bölvið eigi ye good-str woman curse not (=“don’t curse”) (IcePaHC: 1150.homiliubok) b. það skulu þér vita, inir vösk-u   drengir that shall ye know art brave-wk lads (IcePaHC: 1300.alexander)

b. þín  hin mest-a   gæfa your art greatest-wk luck (SC: Njáls saga) b. þann hinn digr-a  mann that  art  stout-wk  man (SC: Heimskringla)

This constitutes a recurrent distributional pattern: in adjectival contexts, we either find a strong adjective or a weak sequence, but negligibly rarely (or not at all) a bare weak adjective.11 See Pfaff (2019, 2020) for a discussion of some more cases, including evidence from predicative APs, coordination structures, “occurrence per adjective”, and the fact that nothing can intervene between (h)inn and the weak adjective. For the purpose of this chapter, I adopt the conclusion that weak sequences constitute adjectival phrases, and that (h)inn is a narrow component of AP in Old Norse. Considering the biography of hinn discussed in the previous subsection, and given that demonstratives are immediate constituents in the noun phrase, we can give the following simplified abstract representations of two stages in the development: (8)

a. b. c.

[NP dem [ A.wk ] N ] …? ? ? [NP [AP art A.wk ] N ]

(dem = ProtoNorse hinn) (art = Old Norse (h)inn)

 Examples are taken from the Saga Corpus (https://malheildir.arnastofnun.is/?mode=fornrit), henceforth SC, and IcePaHC (Wallenberg et al. 2011). 11  Note that, in Modern Icelandic, neither strong adjectives nor weak sequences can be used in the adnominal contexts (5)–(7); instead, we usually find a bare weak adjective. This is an indication that, in Modern Icelandic, it is really weak adjectives (not weak sequences) that are in complementary distribution with strong adjectives, with the determining factor definiteness; see Pfaff (2017). 10

26 

A. Pfaff

Given (8), the reanalysis from demonstrative to adjectival article seems to result from a development into an embedded constituent (from NP into AP). But this process may also be construed as a reanalysis at a larger, namely the phrasal, level: some (particular kind of ) nominal projection in its entirety is reanalysed as an adjectival projection, and in this process of phrasal reanalysis, the (former) demonstrative “gets trapped” inside the AP, and is itself reanalysed—as an adjectival article. A simplified model of this idea is as follows: (9)

[NP hinn N.wk ]

>>>

[AP (h)inn A.wk ]

Note that this way of putting it is reminiscent of the traditional notion analogical change: it suggests that the demonstrative hinn has the same structural and functional relationship with the lexical head element (N) and the constituent at large (NP), as the adjectival article (h)inn with the weak adjective and the AP constituent. The only thing that has changed is the categorial specification. I will return to this question after discussing the development of the weak inflection in the broader Germanic context.

3 From Proto-Indo-European to (Proto-) Germanic 3.1 Adjectives in Proto-Indo-European (PIE) Over time, many researchers have suggested that PIE did not have a separate morpho-syntactic category “adjective”, but only one superordinate category “nominal” featuring adjectives and nouns as contextual manifestations. A distinct category ‘adjective’ only emerges as a result of diachronic development from PIE towards her daughter languages (e.g. Osthoff 1876b; Törnqvist 1974; Werner 1984; Bhat 1994, 2000; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995; Viti 2015; Adrados et  al. 2016; Rehn 2018). Instead of adjectival attribution, PIE is often assumed to have employed close apposition of two nominals, as still observed in Sanskrit: We may have reasons to assume, in the case of languages like Sanskrit, that the strategy used in the structuring of noun phrases is to juxtapose two dif-

2  The Prehistory of Weak Adjectival Phrases in Old Norse 

27

Table 2.2  “Adjectives” in Proto-Indo-European i. PIE

ii. Germanic

iii. Proto-Norse

iv. Viking period/Old Norse

[NP “A”.wk]

[NP dem “A”.wk]

[AP A.str]

[AP A.str]

[NP art “A”.wk] [AP art A.wk] [AP A.str]

[NP “A”]

ferent referring words (nouns) rather than to modify a referring word by a property word (adjective) as in the case of familiar languages like English; the use of this alternative strategy makes it unnecessary for the former type of languages to have a distinct class of adjectives [...]. (Bhat 2000: 47)

On this view, an “adjectivally” modified noun phrase in PIE is basically nothing but a sequence of two (or possibly more) nouns: [NP N1. .. N2]. Another prominent observation that has been repeatedly pointed out is the lack of a morphological difference between nouns and adjectives in PIE, both concerning stem formation and inflection. While there are different inflectional classes, or stems, there is no difference between a nominal and a designated “adjectival” inflection, which is still reflected in languages like Latin (cf. domin-us bon-us; domin-a bon-a; oppid-um bon­um). As a point of departure, I will adopt the idea that PIE did not have a distinct morpho-syntactic category adjective, but only one category nominal that subsumes both nouns and (alleged) adjectives (Table 2.2): In other words, what appears to be an adjective (hence the notation “A”; see fn. 3) actually has the categorial status of N and projects an NP.

3.2 Adjectives in (Proto-) Germanic The PIE daughter language Germanic does have a separate category adjective. In fact, Germanic appears to have developed two adjectival paradigms, traditionally referred to as strong and weak, illustrated in Table 2.3 with Gothic, the oldest attested Germanic language.12,13  Here and in the following, Gothic paradigms are taken from (Krahe 1967: 72; 83; 102–104).  A reviewer points out that the discussion inevitably suggests some broader questions, for example How did the transition from N to A proceed in the other Indo-European languages? and Why don’t we (or: do we) find analogues to the strong–weak distinction in the other Indo-European languages? However, these questions constitute a research agenda in its own right beyond the scope of this chapter, which is why I will leave them for further research. 12 13

28 

A. Pfaff

Table 2.3  Strong and weak adjectives in Gothic blinds

“blind”

Strong nom.sg acc.sg dat.sg gen.sg nom.pl acc.pl dat.pl den.pl

Weak

Masc

Fem

Neut

Masc

Fem

Neut

blind-s blind-ana blind-­mma blind-is blind-ai blind-ans blind-aim blind-aizē

blind-a blind-a blind-ai blind-aizōs blind-ōs blind-ōs blind-aim blind-aizō

blind-ata blind-ata blind-­amma blind-is blind-a blind-a blind-aim blind-aizē

blind-a blind-an blind-in blind-ins blind-­ans blind-­ans blind-am blind-anē

blind-ō blind-ōn blind-ōn blind-ōns blind-ōns blind-ōns blind-ōm blind-ōnō

blind-ō blind-ō blind-in blind-ins blind-ōna blind-ōna blind-am blind-anē

As for what caused this dual development, and what are the (functional, semantic and/ or syntactic) differences between weak and strong adjectives, no definite consensus has been reached, but the smallest common denominator seems to be semantic determination: strong adjectives occur in indefinite environments, while weak adjectives indicate definiteness (e.g. Delbrück 1909; Curme 1910; Klein 2007; Ratkus 2011; Rehn 2018; Evans 2019). However, even this seems to be an oversimplification (see Ratkus 2018). For methodological (and space) reasons, I will largely ignore the aspect of definiteness (without implying that it is irrelevant), and will instead focus on the aspect of syntactic category when addressing the weak inflection below. The strong inflection, to put it simply, may be considered an intersection of two originally distinct sets of inflectional endings: on the one hand, it contains endings from the PIE nominal (o−/a-stem) inflection, but it has furthermore adopted several endings from the pronominal paradigm.14 Thus, for some case-number-gender values, adjective and noun

 For a thorough discussion, see Bammesberger (1990); more recent discussions can be found in Ratkus (2011) and Rehn (2018). 14

2  The Prehistory of Weak Adjectival Phrases in Old Norse 

29

Table 2.4  Strong adjective and corresponding (a-stem) noun in Gothic nom.sg acc.sg dat.sg gen.sg nom.pl acc.pl dat.pl den.pl

Adjective (masc)blinds “blind”

Noun (masc)dags “day”

blind-s blind-ana blind-amma blind-is blind-ai blind-ans blind-aim blind-aizē

dag-s dag-Ø dag-a dag-is dag-ōs dag-ans dag-am dag-ē

have the same endings; for others, the endings differ. An illustration for masculine adjective and noun is given below; bold print indicates inflectional differences (Table 2.4): In other words, one effect of this development is that, in spite of individual congruities, we can clearly distinguish two sets of inflectional endings. In this sense, the Germanic strong inflection may be considered a genuine adjectival inflection, systematically distinct from the nominal inflection, which, in turn, reinforces the notion that strong adjectives do constitute a distinct morpho-syntactic category in Germanic.

3.3 The Weak Inflection: N-Stems The weak adjectival inflection is a Germanic innovation that results from a larger development that crucially produced the class of Germanic n-stem (or weak) nouns. Although not undisputed (esp. Ratkus 2011), the majority view following Osthoff (1876a, 1876b) has been that the Germanic n-stems developed from the PIE n-stems and the -n- in question can be identified as a nominalizing suffix with an individualizing function (e.g. Curme 1910; Heinrichs 1954; Krahe 1967; Krahe and Meid 1967, 1969; Törnqvist 1974; Kovari 1984; Bammesberger 1990). Heinrichs (1954: 61–65) illustrates in great detail how several IE languages use an n-suffix to derive nouns (from nouns and adjectives) denoting (nick)names, nomina agentis, persons with the respective property, and so on. Some illustrations are given below:

30  (10)

A. Pfaff Lat.: catus mentum Gr.: platus pordē

“clever, wise” “chin” “broad(−shouldered)” “fart”

➔ ➔ ➔ ➔

Cato, −onis mento, −onis Platōn, −onos pordōn, −onos

Cato (“the shrewd one”) “one with a long chin” Plato (“broad-shoulders”) “farter”

Either way, n-stems underwent a systematic expansion in Germanic. In other IE languages such as Greek, n-stems are merely one minor subclass of the consonantal stems, which include, inter alia, liquid stems, dental stems, nt-stems and sigma-stems, while the Germanic n-stems constitute a distinct and separate (“weak”) nominal paradigm contrasting with the vocalic (“strong”) stems. This expansion also involved establishing a class of feminine n-stems, which “did not exist to any significant extent in Indo-European” (Heinrichs 1954: 65). As a result, Germanic n-stems include all three genders, which may be seen as a decisive prerequisite for a later use as an adjectival inflectional paradigm. Of particular interest is the observation that “the weak adjectival inflection is inherently identical with the declension of the nominal n-stems” (Krahe and Meid 1967: 80), that is, there is no morphological distinction between weak adjectives and weak nouns. Consider the illustration from Gothic in Table 2.5. In light of this non-distinctness, it is less obvious that the weak inflection can strictly be considered an adjectival inflection in the same sense as the strong inflection (see Table 2.4). I will therefore assume that, originally, there was only one weak inflection, and, crucially, that there was only one class of weak nominals. Moreover, I will follow the traditional idea that the n-suffix was a nominalizer, and elaborate on a notion that was already expressed by Osthoff (1876b: 125, emphasis mine): The weak adjective [...] is an adjective that has been elevated to the status of a noun, thus, actually, it is no longer a real adjective, and only later [...] did it re-enter the sphere of adjective or quality word.

nom.sg

gen.pl

dat.pl

acc.pl

nom.pl

gen.sg

dat.sg

acc.sg

han-a han-an han-in han-ins han-ans han-ans han-am han-anē

blind-ō blind-ōn blind-ōn blind-ōns blind-ōns blind-ōns blind-ōm blind-ōnō

AdjectiveBlind

blind-a blind-an blind-in blind-ins blind-ans blind-ans blind-am blind-anē

Fem

AdjectiveBlind

NounRooster

Masc

Table 2.5  Weak adjectives and weak (n-stem) nouns in Gothic

tugg-ō tugg-ōn tugg-ōn tugg-ōns tugg-ōns tugg-ōns tugg-ōm tugg-ōnō

NounTongue

blind-ō blind-ō blind-in blind-ins blind-ōna blind-ōna blind-am blind-anē

AdjectiveBlind

Neut haírt-ō haírt-ō haírt-in haírt-ins haírt-ōna haírt-ōna haírt-am haírt-anē

NounHeart

2  The Prehistory of Weak Adjectival Phrases in Old Norse 

31

32 

A. Pfaff

The quintessence of this idea—which is formulated within the dominant framework and terminology of the nineteenth century—is that an item that would traditionally be classified as a weak adjective (A) is actually a noun (N). I will try to re-formulate this idea in somewhat more contemporary terms. Let us assume that the n-suffix originally spells out n0 and merges with some (uncategorized) root, which formally captures its nominalization property (the “little n”, n0, is a nominalizing head, cf. Marantz 1997, 2000). In parallel, we can, for the sake of simplicity, assume that the strong inflection is the spellout of an adjectivalizing head a0; we thus have: (11)

a. b.

root

-n-infl

root–str

(n-stem nominal) (strong adjective)

The nominalizing suffix must still have been highly productive in Proto-Germanic, notably, since feminine n-stems are a Germanic innovation (see above). Note, however, that the -n- itself is not preserved as such, that is, as a separate suffix, in the historical Germanic languages; traces are discernible in some cases where it has merged with the inflection. This is illustrated in Table  2.6 with the reconstructed Proto-­Germanic form (taken from Bammesberger 1990: 165) and the w This in turn suggests that what we call the weak inflection is actually the result of wthe original n-suffix and inflection merging into one, which we can put more abstractly as follows: Table 2.6 Reconstructed Proto-Germanic n-stem nominal and weak noun in Gothic nom.sg acc.sg dat.sg gen.sg nom.pl acc.pl dat.pl gen.pl

Proto-Germanic

Gothic

*han-õ *han-an-un *han-en-i *han-en-az *han-an-ez *han-an-unz *han-(u)n-miz *han-(a)n-ōn

han-a han-an han-in han-ins han-ans han-ans han-am han-anē

2  The Prehistory of Weak Adjectival Phrases in Old Norse  (12) a. i.

root-n-­ infl

b. i. Root-str

(n-stem nominal) (strong adjective)

33

>> ii. nominal-wk

(weaknominal)

>> ii. nominal/ adjectival-str

(strongadjective)

Assume that the relevant root-pool contained both potential noun stems and prospective adjective stems; assume further that the weak inflection takes over the function of nominalizing, for the time being, such that nominal in the string in (12-ii) would still be simply a root. But in the long run, that string becomes reanalysed as (categorized) stem + inflection. This, however, also entails that two subtly different developments take place. With a core set of roots, the weak inflection gradually develops from a nominalizer to mere inflection; these are the first weak noun stems proper. At the same time, weak inflection remains an active nominalizer with another set of roots; this set will largely overlap with the set of roots that also occur with the strong inflection, that is, the prospective adjectival stems. This would be the first step in bringing about a division amongst the class of weak nominals, by the end of which process there are two categorially distinct items: weak nouns and weak adjectives (cf. (13a-iii1) vs. (13a-iii2)).15 (13) a. ii.

root-n-infl

b. ii. Nominal/ adjectival-str

(n-stem nominal) (strong adjective 1)

>> iii1 N-wk (weak noun) >> iii2 A-wk (weak adjective) >> iii. A-str (strong adjective 2)

Obviously, this is a simplification at several levels, but it seems to be one reasonable way of reformulating Osthoff’s idea of “re-entering the sphere of adjective”. I will maintain the general idea that the prospective weak adjectives started out as weak nominals, but also assume that the transition process sketched in (13a) lasted beyond the Proto-Germanic period, and that, at least for North Germanic, the “only later” in the above Osthoff quote becomes “much later”.

 Note that (12)/(13) is not meant to suggest a literally parallel chronology, but rather sketches three broad developmental stages. 15

34 

A. Pfaff

Table 2.7  Adjectives in Proto-Germanic i. PIE

ii. Germanic

iii. Proto-Norse

iv. Viking period /Old Norse

[NP “A”.wk]

[NP dem “A”.wk]

[AP A.str]

[AP A.str]

[NP art “A”.wk] [AP art A.wk] [AP A.str]

[NP “A”]

In a nutshell, I will assume that there was only one class of weak nominals in Proto-Germanic, with no categorial distinction between nouns and adjectives, and only one class of actual adjectives (Table 2.7): On this view, the locution “strong vs. weak adjectives” implies, strictly speaking, a false dichotomy; only the former are adjectives proper, while weak “adjectives” are actually (still) nominals (hence the notation “A”).

4 Adjectives in North Germanic In Sect. 3, I suggested that weak “adjectives” are nominals, not proper adjectives in early Germanic, but as was shown in Sect. 2.2, we do find weak adjectival phrases (= weak sequences) in Old Icelandic. However, I also argued that a complete weak adjectival phrase involves the adjectival article (h)inn, not merely a (bare) weak adjective. Therefore, the status of (h)inn/weak sequences needs to be taken into account when examining this development. In this section, I will sketch the development from Proto-Norse (where weak “adjectives” are still nominal in nature) to Old Icelandic (where weak sequences constitute genuine adjectival phrases).

4.1 Proto-Norse and Viking Period: Epithets and the Appositive Article The oldest attestations of weak “adjectives” in North Germanic are nominal epithets, that is, appositive constructions that stand with a proper name (and have essentially the function of a last name): (14) hariuha haitika farauisa hariuha am.called danger.wise.wk “I am called Hariuha Farauisa (= the one who knows danger/is aware of danger)” (Sjælland bracteate; see Krause 1971: 162 and Ratkus 2011: 182)

2  The Prehistory of Weak Adjectival Phrases in Old Norse 

35

There is very little material from the Proto-Norse period containing adjectives, but from the Viking period onward, we find that weak “adjectives” systematically occur as appositions. Note, however, that these appositions equally systematically involve the element (h)inn (art), and thus we can speak of weak sequences in the sense of Sect. 2.2. (15)

a.

b.

harats hins kuþa (DR55) Haraldr art good.wk. “Haraldr the Good” kara in malsbaka (U1146) Kári art eloquent.wk “Kári the Eloquent”

c.

d.

sontulf in suarti (Vs15) Sontúlfr art black.wk “Sontúlfr the Black” kunburka in kuþa (Hs21) Gunnborga art good.wk “Gunnborga the Good”

Under the general heading “Attributive Nominalization”, Rießler (2016: 52/53) proposes that a particular appositive article, distinct from both demonstratives and regular definite articles, is involved in nominal appositions of the type “Frederick the Great”. Obviously, this is the same type of construction as in the examples above, and I will thus assume that (h)inn in (15) should be construed as an appositive article—no longer as a genuine demonstrative, but not as a general definite article either, nor as an adjectival article insofar as the above appositions should be construed as nominal constituents. Incidentally, the appositive use of early weak “adjectives” is also emphasized by Osthoff (1876b) and Heinrichs (1954) (see also Rehn 2018: 61), and it is tempting to see these examples as a continuation of the PIE mode of modification (albeit on a smaller scale), viz. close apposition of two nominals (a “smaller scale” because, in PIE, apposition was assumed to be the general mode of modification, also with common nouns, not merely with proper names; see Sect. 3.1). Even though (h)inn is only systematically attested from the Viking period onward, we can safely assume that this use as an appositive article is the result of a process that had already started much earlier. Thus during the Proto-Norse period, we first have bare weak “adjectives” as in (14), but, first sporadically and then increasingly, the demonstrative hinn came to be used with weak “adjectives”, and at some point, it had become obligatory in that context (cf. (15)). Focusing on this development of hinn, we get the following picture (Table 2.8): The appositive use discussed above does seem to constitute a highly relevant context—both concerning the development of weak adjectives in

36 

A. Pfaff

Table 2.8  Adjectives in Early Norse i. PIE

ii. Germanic

iii. Proto-Norse

iv. Viking period /Old Norse

[NP “A”.wk]

[NP dem “A”.wk]

[AP A.str]

[AP A.str]

[NP art “A”.wk] [AP art A.wk] [AP A.str]

[NP “A”]

Germanic and the grammaticalization of definite articles more generally.16 A special status of this use may not always be immediately obvious because the respective article element tends to be identical to the eventual regular definite article in many languages (cf. “Alexander the Great”, “Alexander der Große”). In North Germanic, however, we find two parallel developments: a freestanding version of the demonstrative hinn first occurs as an appositive article, and then as an adjectival article (see next subsection), while simultaneously a postposed version gets cliticized to the noun and over time becomes grammaticalized as the regular (nominal) definite article (see the schematic in (4)).17

4.2 Viking Period: Phrasal Reanalysis In Sect. 3.3, I suggested that weak “adjectives” maintained their nominal status beyond the Proto-Germanic period. If this is still the case around the onset of the Viking period, the appositive phrases in (15) would simply be [NP Det + N] constituents (with N = “A”.wk). A more nuanced view takes into account the diachronic dimension underlying the development sketched in (13a). On this view, “A”.wk—originally a full-­fledged noun—gradually loses certain nominal features; more specifically, the weak inflection gradually loses its ability to nominalize, as was already hinted at in Sect. 3.3. Instead, the incipient appositive article increasingly

16  See also examples like Lat. Alexander magnus >> Alexander ille magnus “Alexander (the) great”, where the demonstrative ille eventually develops into the definite article in many Romance languages. For a discussion of ille as a “linking article”, see Himmelmann (1997: 184–188). 17  Skrzypek (2009, 2010) argues that the formation of the suffixed definite article must have happened before 800, which would be in the early part of the Viking period. Insofar as the examples above illustrating the use of the appositive article are, roughly, from that period, we can really speak of a parallel development.

2  The Prehistory of Weak Adjectival Phrases in Old Norse 

37

takes over the function of nominalization, that is, (h)inn gradually takes over functions originally associated with the weak inflection.18 In the process, the two develop a close relationship and eventually form a narrow constituent—such as an epithet. Epithets instantiate the oldest systematic use of a weak sequence attested from the Viking period onward. But during that period we also find some examples that seem to indicate adjectival use in a more narrow sense, notably, in contexts where we also find strongly inflected adjectives (see (16)). (16)

a.

in heilhi kristr art holy.wk. Christ

(Sö 125)

b.

hilakR kristr holy.str Christ

(Vg 186)

Note that, even though the head nominal in (16) is also a (quasi) name, these examples are not appositions in the same manner as in (15); instead they are more akin to some kind of non-restrictive (adjectival) modification emphasizing an inherent property of the referent. We can see this as the first step towards the situation in Old Norse as discussed in Sect. 2. Weak sequences must have gradually occurred in a wider range of contexts during the Viking period, increasingly more often in those environments where we otherwise find strong adjectives, and increasingly more often with common nouns, no longer just proper names, because this is what we eventually observe. To put it differently, they increasingly occur in genuine adjectival contexts. I propose that, during that time and in those environments, the weak sequence in its entirety is categorially reanalysed from a nominal constituent (epithet) to an adjectival constituent (cf. Table 2.9). This process of phrasal reanalysis from NP to AP is to be understood as a concerted effort that also affects the individual components: (1) the appositive article and former demonstrative (h)inn, a component of NP, “gets trapped” inside the emerging adjectival phrase, and is itself

 More broadly, the idea that the emerging definite article acts as a reinforcer, one whose primary function it is to take over functions originally associated with the weak inflection, is already discussed by Heinrichs (1954) (even though he focuses on the semantic function of definiteness marking). 18

38 

A. Pfaff

Table 2.9  Weak and strong adjectival phrases in Later Norse i. PIE

ii. Germanic

iii. Proto-Norse

iv. Viking period/Old Norse

[NP “A”.wk]

[NP dem “A”.wk]

[AP A.str]

[AP A.str]

[NP art “A”.wk] [AP art A.wk] [AP A.str]

[NP “A”]

reanalysed as adjectival article, a component of AP, and (2) the weak nominal (N) is reanalysed as a weak adjective (A). As for (2), I have proposed that weak nominals of the type “A”.wk. maintained their nominal status beyond Proto-Germanic, but I also suggest that the weak inflection gradually lost its ability to nominalize, a function which was increasingly being taken over by the emerging appositive article. But “less nominal” does not automatically mean “adjectival”; only after phrasal reanalysis can we speak of weak adjectives in a narrow sense. Strictly speaking, this view entails that “nominality” is not a discrete property and that those weakly inflected elements are, in some sense, categorially underspecified, in fact both before and after phrasal reanalysis. This, in turn, ties in with the notion introduced in Sect. 2.2 that weak adjectives are “defective” in Old Icelandic and do not project a full adjectival phrase on their own. As suggested above, the appositive article (h)inn had taken over the nominalization function and is thus responsible for the categorial status of the whole constituent. After phrasal reanalysis, the categorial specification has changed, but it is still (h)inn, now an adjectival article, that contributes the categorial feature of the constituent. Thus the internal structural and functional relations between (h)inn and the lexical core, whether weak nominal or weak adjective, have remained the same. In other words, the commonality between appositive and adjectival article lies in the contribution of a categorial feature, and their difference in the categorial specification. One final observation: as already mentioned, originally, there was no (morphological) distinction between weak nouns and weak “adjectives” in early Germanic, a state of affairs that lasted well into the historical Old Germanic languages (see Table 2.5 for Gothic; the same holds true, e.g., for Old High German and Old Saxon; see Krahe and Meid 1967: 80). When looking at Old Norse, however, we find that a differentiation had taken place, at least in the plural (see Table 2.10).

gen.pl

dat.pl

acc.pl

nom.pl

gen.sg

dat.sg

acc.sg

nom.sg

spak-a spǫk-u spǫk-u spǫk-u spǫk-u spǫk-u spǫk-um spǫk-u

Adjective Wise

han-i han-a han-a han-a han-ar han-a hǫn-um han-a

Noun Rooster

Adjective Wise

spak-i spak-a spak-a spak-a spǫk-u spǫk-u spǫk-um spǫk-u

Fem

Masc

Table 2.10  Weak adjectives and weak nouns in Old Norse

tung-a tung-u tung-u tung-u tung-ur tung-ur tung-um tung-na

Noun Tongue

spak-a spak-a spak-a spak-a spǫk-u spǫk-u spǫk-um spǫk-u

Adjective Wise

Neut hjart-a hjart-a hjart-a hjart-a hjǫrt-u hjǫrt-u hjǫrt-um hjart-na

Noun Heart

2  The Prehistory of Weak Adjectival Phrases in Old Norse 

39

40 

A. Pfaff

Evidently, in the adjectival paradigm, the neuter nom/acc plural form started spreading, a process that continued beyond the Old Norse period.19 It is hard to tell when this process started, but it would seem plausible that a morphological differentiation between nouns and adjectives occurred as a concomitant of phrasal reanalysis, when an explicit categorial division between weak nominals and weak adjectivals was being established.

5 Open Issues The present account is an attempt to shed light on the development of weakly inflected adjectives from a specifically Old Norse perspective where we find that a former demonstrative had become a narrow component of the weak AP.  By exploiting Osthoff’s idea that weak adjectives were originally nouns, I sketched a development that suggests a relatively smooth transition from noun via appositive noun phrase to weak adjectival phrase, where the appositive/adjectival article played a decisive role. Osthoff’s approach to n-stems and to the weak inflection, one central fundament of the present account, has represented the majority view during the past 150 years. However, it should be mentioned that it has not been accepted entirely unanimously.20 Ratkus (2011), for instance, strongly opposes Osthoff’s view that weak adjectives are related to the PIE n-stems: I would like to argue that the Germanic weak adjective inflection is not a derived form, and it cannot be explained in terms of a nasal element (a suffix) either in or outside Germanic which would help derive definite adjectives from indefinite ones. It is my conviction that we need not look any further for the source of the Germanic weak adjective inflection than the Germanic n-stem nouns, a highly robust set which, conveniently, had no gender exponence restrictions and thus accommodated members of all genders. (Ratkus 2011: 234)

19 20

 In Modern Icelandic, there is only one plural ending for weak adjectives, viz. -u.  For early criticism, see Lichtenheld (1875); for a recent radically different view, see Evans (2019).

2  The Prehistory of Weak Adjectival Phrases in Old Norse 

41

Strictly speaking, the relationship with the PIE n-stems (cf. (10)) is only of secondary importance for the account developed here. Like Ratkus, I also assume, in a sense, that the Germanic n-stem nouns are the immediate source for the weak adjectival inflection. However, one crucial difference is that, in Ratkus’ account, adjectives adopted the inflectional endings of the weak nouns with definiteness being the driving force. He seems to assume that definiteness as a formal category already existed in Proto-Germanic: [W]hen the necessity for definiteness exponence arose in Germanic [...] it was in need of an additional set of inflections which contained the categorial exponence properties available in strong adjectives (i.e. three genders, two numbers and four cases). (Ratkus 2011: 234–35)

For the sake of simplicity, I have not addressed definiteness here, and instead focused on the categorial status. In the Osthoff tradition, definiteness, or more specifically, the association of the weak adjectival inflection with definiteness, can be seen as a remnant and/or subsequent further development of the original individualizing function of the n-­suffix (see, e.g., Heinrichs 1954). Thus one key difference can be framed in terms of causality/chronology; to put it succinctly: definiteness causes weak inflection (Ratkus) vs. (development of) weak inflection interacts with (the development of) definiteness (present account). Note that “the necessity for definiteness exponence” is still a tendency at best in the oldest attested Germanic languages; as late as the Old Norse period, semantically definite noun phrases are still frequently expressed by bare nouns without definiteness exponence (see, e.g., Skrzypek 2012), and conversely, in formally definite noun phrases, we find strongly inflected adjectives (see (5a), (6a) and (7a)). In contrast, in the modern Germanic languages, which also have fully developed definite articles, exponence is virtually mandatory in definite environments. I take this to mean that “the necessity for definiteness exponence” is the result or consequence of a development, rather than its beginning or cause (for further discussion on the topic of (in)definiteness in the context of Germanic adjectival inflection see, e.g., Heinrichs (1954); Fischer (2000, 2001); Demske (2001); StrohWollin (2015a, 2018); Ratkus (2018); and Rehn (2018)).

42 

A. Pfaff

There are two further questions of relevance that have not been addressed here. One question is to what extent the other Old Germanic languages provide evidence for the claim that weak “adjectives” remain nominal beyond Proto-Germanic. The particular appositive use of weak adjectives has already been pointed out (see Sect. 4.1). Beyond that, weak adjectives have been associated with a specifically attributive function, or a non-predicative and individual-level semantics (e.g. Fischer 2000, 2001, 2012; Haumann 2003, 2010 on Old English; also, e.g., van Gelderen and Lohndal 2008). Ratkus (2011: 136) observes that “the most interesting finding is that the weak inflection is the most common among substantivised forms” (i.e. :nominalized” adjectives in Gothic). More generally, most authors emphasize the “nominal character” of weak adjectives one way or another, but still talk about “weak adjectives”. Several of such characteristics might be taken as the remnants of a nominal past, and in individual cases, perhaps even as a genuinely nominal present. A related question is whether we can identify a designated adjectival article for West and East Germanic as we find in North Germanic. Obviously, it is not difficult to find instances of article elements occurring in epithets (“the Great”) in those languages. However, since no separate developments into suffixed vs. freestanding article elements occurred, it is more difficult to diagnose an appositive article, not to mention an adjectival article, on purely formal grounds. But there seem to be some indications that a particular article use with weak adjectives can be identified. Ratkus (2011: 139–141) observes that, when rendering Greek polydefinite structures, that is, noun phrases involving an article element with both noun and adjective, Gothic often omits one article, but it is always the article with the adjective that is retained: (17) a. Greek: (Ratkus 2011: 141; bold print mine) hypo [tou pneumatos tou hagiou] from the spirit the holy b. Gothic: fram [ ahmin þamma weihin] from spirit the holy

2  The Prehistory of Weak Adjectival Phrases in Old Norse 

43

Ratkus concludes that “the definite determiner and the adjective can perhaps be seen to form an indivisible unit” (Ratkus 2011: 141). This, in turn, is precisely the characterization of the adjectival article in Old Norse underlying the discussion in Sect. 2.2. Likewise, Pfaff and Walkden (forthcoming) argue that the West Germanic languages also provide evidence for a designated adjectival article of the type described in Sect. 2.2. This is not immediately obvious precisely because the item in question is formally identical to the emerging definite article, but the authors show that there is subtle evidence from the distribution and occurrences of demonstratives that seem to specifically require the presence of a weakly inflected adjective.

6 Conclusion In this chapter, I have discussed the development of those elements traditionally referred to as “weak adjectives” from a particular Norse point of view. I adopted the idea that weak inflection originally involved nominalization, and that weak “adjectives” are actually nominals in Proto-­ Germanic. I moreover suggested that they maintained their nominal categorial status beyond Proto-Germanic by virtue of the weak inflection acting as a nominalizer. However, the nominalizing function is gradually taken over by the emerging appositive article (h)inn. The oldest systematic use of weak sequences consisting of (h)inn + weak “adjective” is instantiated by epithets. During the Viking period, weak sequences increasingly occur in a wider range of adjectival contexts, which eventually leads to a phrasal reanalysis from nominal phrase to adjectival phrase. In the process, (h)inn is reanalysed from an appositive article to an adjectival article. This explains the state of affairs found in Old Icelandic where (1) bare weak adjectives are “defective” and do not project an adjectival phrase on their own, and (2) (h)inn acts as an adjectival article required to project a “complete” weak adjectival phrase. The reason is that (h)inn maintains its core function of contributing a categorial feature; the only thing that has changed in the course of phrasal reanalysis is its categorial specification. Thus at least for North Germanic, it would seem as though the article element (h)inn was constitutive in facilitating the transition from a weak nominal phrase to a weak adjectival phrase.

44 

A. Pfaff

References Adrados, Francisco Rodriguez, Alberto Bernabé, and Julia Mendoza. 2016. Manual of Indo-European Linguistics: Vol. 2: Nominal and Verbal Morphology. Leuven: Peeters. Bammesberger, Alfred. 1990. Die Morphologie des urgermanischen Nomens. Heidelberg: Winter. Bhat, Durbhe Narayana, and Shankara. 1994. The Adjectival Category: Criteria for Differentiation and Identification. Berlin: John Benjamins. ———. 2000. Word Classes and Sentential Functions. In Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, ed. Petra Vogel and Bernard Comrie, 47–64. Berlin: de Gruyter. Börjars, Kersti, and John Payne. 2016. Adjectival Definiteness Marking and Noun-Phrase Internal Functions. University of Manchester, HEADLEX, 25 July 2016. Börjars, Kersti, Pauline Harries, and Nigel Vincent. 2016. Growing Syntax: The Development of a DP in North Germanic. Language 92 (1): 1–37. Curme, George O. 1910. The Origin and Growth of the Adjective Declension in Germanic. The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 9 (4): 439–482. Dahl, Östen. 2015. Grammaticalization in the North: Noun Phrase Morphosyntax in Scandinavian Vernaculars. Berlin: Language Science Press. Delbrück, Berthold. 1909. Das schwache adjektivum und der artikel im germanischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 26: 187–199. ———. 1916. Der altisländische Artikel. Germanische Syntax III. Leipzig: Teubner. Demske, Ulrike. 2001. Merkmale und Relationen: Diachrone Studien zur Nominalphrase des Deutschen. Berlin: de Gruyter. Evans, Elliott. 2019. The Origin, Functions, and Histories of Germanic Adjective Endings. PhD thesis, Indiana University. Fischer, Olga. 2000. The Position of the Adjective in Old English. In Generative Theory and Corpus Studies: A Dialogue from 10 ICEHL, 153–181. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2001. The Position of the Adjective in (Old) English from an Iconic Perspective. In The Motivated Sign. Iconicity in Language and Literature, ed. Olga Fischer and Max Nänny, vol. 2, 249–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ———. 2012. The Status of the Postposed ‘and-Adjective’ Construction in Old English: Attributive or Predicative? In Analysing older English, ed. David Denison, Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, Chris McCully, and Emma Moore, 251–284. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2  The Prehistory of Weak Adjectival Phrases in Old Norse 

45

Gamkrelidze, Thomas V., and Vjaceslav V. Ivanov. 1995. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-language and a Proto-culture. Berlin: de Gruyter. Grimm, Jacob. 1837. Deutsche Grammatik. Göttingen: Dieterische Buchhandlung. Haumann, Dagmar. 2003. The Postnominal ‘and Adjective’ Construction in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 7 (1): 57–83. ———. 2010. Adnominal Adjectives in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 14 (1): 53–81. Heinrichs, Heinrich Matthias. 1954. Studien zum bestimmten Artikel in den germanischen Sprachen. Giessen: W. Schmitz. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1997. Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase: Zur Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Julien, Marit. 2005. Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kester, Ellen Petra. 1993. The Inflectional Properties of Scandinavian Adjectives. Studia Linguistica 47 (2): 139–153. Klein, Thomas. 2007. Von der semantischen zur morphologischen Steuerung. In Beiträge zur Morphologie: Germanisch, Baltisch, Ostseefinnisch, ed. Hans Fix, 193–226. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark. Kovari, Geoffrey. 1984. Studien zum germanischen Artikel: Entstehung und Verwendung des Artikels im Gotischen. Wien: Halosar. Krahe, Hans. 1967. Historische Laut-und Formenlehre des Gotischen: zugleich eine Einführung in die germanische Sprachwissenschaft. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Krahe, Hans, and Wolfgang Meid. 1967. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft III: Wortbildungslehre. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 1969. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft II: Formenlehre. Berlin: de Gruyter. Krause, Wolfgang. 1971. Die Sprache der urnordischen Runeninschriften. Winter: Universitätsverlag. Leu, Thomas. 2008. The Internal Syntax of Determiners. PhD thesis, New York University. Lichtenheld, Adolf. 1875. Das schwache adjectiv im gotischen. Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum 18: 17–43. Lundeby, Einar. 1965. Overbestemt substantiv i norsk og andre nordiske språk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn

46 

A. Pfaff

Linguistics Colloquium, ed. Alexis Dimitrades and Laura Siegel, 201–225. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. ———. 2000. Words. Unpublished ms. NYU. Nygaard, Marius. 1906. Norrøn syntax. Oslo: H.  Aschehoug & Company (W. Nygaard). [2nd, unrevised edition, 1966]. Osthoff, Hermann. 1876a. Zur Frage des Ursprungs der germanischen N-Declination. (Nebst einer theorie über die ursprüngliche unterscheidung starker und schwacher casus im indogermanischen). Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (PBB) 3 (1): 1–89. ———. 1876b. Zur Geschichte des schwachen deutschen Adjectivums: eine sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchung. Jena: Costenoble. Perridon, Harry. 1996. Noun phrases in Runic Swedish. In The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics, vol. 9: Proceedings of The Ninth International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics, ed. Kjartan G. Ottóson et al., 248–261. Oslo: Novus Forlag. Perridon, Harry, and Petra Sleeman. 2011. The noun phrase in Germanic and romance. In The noun phrase in romance and Germanic, ed. Harry Perridon and Petra Sleeman, 1–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pfaff, Alexander. 2017. Adjectival inflection as diagnostic for structural position—Inside and outside the Icelandic definiteness domain. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 20 (3): 283–322. ———. 2019. Reunited after 1000 years. The development of definite articles in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 42 (2): 165–207. ———. 2020. How to become an adjective when you’re not strong (enough)? Nordlyd 44 (1): 19–34. Pfaff, Alexander, and George Walkden. forthcoming. Adjectival articles in Old Germanic. To appear in Noun phrases in early Germanic languages, ed. Kristin Bech and Alexander Pfaff. Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch [Indo-­ European Etymological Dictionary]. Bern: Francke. Ratkus, Artūras. 2011. The adjective inflection in Gothic and early Germanic: Structure and development. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge. ———. 2018. Weak adjectives need not be definite. Indogermanische Forschungen 123 (1): 27–64. Rehn, Alexandra. 2018. Adjectives and the Syntax of German(ic) DPs—A diachronic and dialectal Perspective. PhD thesis,. University of Konstanz. Rießler, Michael. 2016. Adjective attribution. Berlin: Language Science Press.

2  The Prehistory of Weak Adjectival Phrases in Old Norse 

47

Roehrs, Dorian. 2009. Demonstratives and definite articles as nominal auxiliaries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Roehrs, Dorian, and Marit Julien. 2014. Adjectives in German and Norwegian. Differences in weak and strong inflection. In Adjectives in Germanic and romance, ed. Petra Sleeman, Freek Van de Velde, and Harry Perridon, 245–261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Skrzypek, Dominika. 2009. The formation of the definite article in the Nordic languages. Lingua Posnaniensis 51: 65–76. ———. 2010. Between a demonstrative and an article. The status of -in in Old Swedish. Folia Scandinavica 11: 145–162. ———. 2012. Grammaticalization of (in)definiteness in Swedish. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Stroh-Wollin, Ulla. 2009. On the development of definiteness markers in Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 83: 1–25. ———. 2014. Hinn, inn eller enn? Om uppkomsten av det nordiska bestämdhetssuffixet. In Studier i svensk språkhistoria 12. Variation och förändring, ed. Maria Bylin, Cecilia Falk, and Tomas Riad, 229–239. Stockholm University. ———. 2015a. Från gammal man till den gamle mannen: Definitmarkering i fornsvenska nominalfraser med adjektivattribut. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 130: 101–138. ———. 2015b. Understanding the gradual development of definiteness marking: The case of Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 95: 11–32. ———. 2016. The emergence of definiteness marking in Scandinavian—New answers to old questions. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 131: 129–169. ———. 2018. Stark eller svag? Bestämd eller obestämd?: Om utvecklingen av adjektivets former i fornsvenskan. In Studier i svensk språkhistoria 14: Svenska språkets historia, 261–276. Vaasa University. ———. 2020. Hinn and hinn: Early Icelandic as the clue to the history and etymology of two Old Scandinavian words. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 43 (2): 205–228. Törnqvist, Nils. 1974. Zur Geschichte der deutschen Adjektivflexion. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 75 (2): 317–331. van Gelderen, Elly, and Terje Lohndal. 2008. The position of adjectives and double definiteness. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 82: 1–22. Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander. 1999. ‘Identification’ and the role of morphology in the Scandinavian noun phrase. Ms., University of Bergen. Viti, Carlotta. 2015. Variation und Wandel in der Syntax der alten indogermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.

48 

A. Pfaff

Wallenberg, Joel, Anton Karl Ingason, Einar Freyr Sigurðsson, and Eiríkur Rögnvaldsson. 2011. Icelandic parsed historical corpus (IcePaHC). Version 0.9. (http://www.linguist.is/icelandic_treebank). Werner, Otmar. 1984. Morphologische Entwicklungen in den Germanischen Sprachen. In Das Germanische und die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Grundsprache, ed. Jürgen Untermann and Bela Brogyanyi, 181–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

3 The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek Vassilios Spyropoulos

1 Introduction Absolute participial constructions constitute a prominent feature of the Ancient Greek (AG) language. Expressed mostly in the form of the absolute genitive, they involve an adjunct clause-like construction, with both the participle and its DP-subject appearing, mostly, in the genitive case, and they are used as an alternative way of expressing adjunct finite clauses (1).

I would like to thank the audience of the Workshop: Language Change in Indo-European (Naxos, 31 July 2019) of the 4th Naxos Summer School: Language Variation and Change in Ancient and Medieval Europe (28 July–3 August 2019) and especially Thórhallur Eythórsson, Alexander Peter Pfaff and Dag Trygve Truslew Haug for their comments. The paper has also been benefitted by the comments of an anonymous reviewer, who is kindly acknowledged. All errors are mine.

V. Spyropoulos (*) National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Lavidas et al. (eds.), Internal and External Causes of Language Change, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30976-2_3

49

50 

V. Spyropoulos

(1) pesoːsɛːs fall-aor.prtc.f.sg.gen1

dryos paːs oak-gen every-m.nom

ksyleuetai anɛːr man-nom cut.wood-mdpsv.3sg

‘After an oak has fallen, anyone can cut wood’ (Men.Mon. 123)2

However, this feature of the language was lost in the course of its historical development. Thus, in Modern Greek, absolute constructions are very restricted in use, and they appear in the form of a gerundival/converbial construction with a nominative subject (Tsimpli 2000; Panagiotidis 2010; Holton et al. 2012; Kotzoglou 2016), illustrated in example (2). (2)

[ɣirizondas come.back-ger efiɣa leave-pst.1sg

i the eɣo pr1-sg.nom

maria Maria-nom

apo from

tin the

patra] Patra

‘As soon as Maria came back from Patras, I left’

One of the most intriguing issues regarding the AG genitive absolute construction is the source of the genitive case and, more specifically, whether this genitive case is a property of the participial structure itself or whether it is assigned by an external case assigner. Dealing with this issue, I will put forward the hypothesis that AG genitive absolute participial constructions involve a mixed projection embedded in a prepositional structure fragment. In particular, I will propose that participles are mixed verb–adjective projections, which involve almost the whole array of verbal functional categories, as evident from their morphology. Thus, participial constructions are viewed as small-clause constituents formed by the participle in predicative function and a DP-subject. When used adverbially, such constructions are embedded in a prepositional structure fragment, which involves a case-assigning pgen functional head. Based on the decomposition approach to AG prepositions proposed by Spyropoulos (2017, 2018), I will assume that such pcase functional heads are responsible for

 The following abbreviations are used in the glosses: abl = ablative, abs = absolutive, acc = accusative, aor = aorist, dat = dative, erg = ergative, f = feminine, fut = future, gen = genitive, ger = gerund, inf = infinitive, loc = locative, m = masculine, mdpsv = mediopassive, neg = negation, nom = nominative, n = neuter, opt = optative, pl = plural, pr = pronoun, prep = preposition, prf = perfect, prt = particle, prtc = participle, pst = past, psv = passive, refl = reflexive, sg = singular, sub = subordinator. 2  For the abbreviations used for the AG authors and texts I follow Liddel and Scott (1996). 1

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek 

51

the case of the DP in a Prepositional Phrase, as well as for the semantic case marking of DPs in adjunct-like adverbial functions. Then, I will show that the historical demise of the genitive absolute participles from the post-Classical period (third century BC–first century AD) onward goes hand-in-hand with the loss of the distinctions in case assignment within the prepositional phrase, in a way that eventually led to the disappearance of absolute participial constructions in Modern Greek.

2 Background: Absolute Participial Constructions in Ancient Greek and Elsewhere 2.1 Absolute Constructions It is quite hard to state a proper definition of absolute constructions that covers all of their properties, mostly because of their extended cross-­linguistic variation (Ruppel 2013; see also Alcázar 2007). Typically, they constitute a clause-like construction that stands in a loose relationship with a matrix clause, acting like an adverbial modifier or an adjunct clause. On most occasions, they involve a non-finite verb form and an overt DP-subject, which is, normally, different from any of the matrix clause terms. (3)

(4)

English a. b. c.

Nobody being around, I broke the lock Muffins baking in the oven, I could get ready for the dinner Muffins freshly baked, it was time for breakfast

Spanish (Alcázar 2007) a. Habiendo comido having eaten b.

la the

pasta pasta

Juan, Juan

‘Having eaten the pasta, Juan felt tired’ Comida la pasta, se sentia eaten the pasta refl felt

se refl

sentia felt

cansado tired

cansado tired

‘With the past eaten, Juan felt tired’ (5)

Basque (Alcázar and Saltarelli 2007) Ume-ak gol-a sartu-ta, child-erg goal-abs enter-and

Miren Miren-sg.abs

‘The child [having] scored a goal, Miren left’

joa-n go-per

da be-3sg

52  (6)

V. Spyropoulos Hebrew (Siloni 1997) Bi-rʔot Dan in-seeing Dan

ʔet acc

ʔim-o, mother-his

ʔalac exulted

lib-o heart-his

‘When Dan saw his mother, his heart exulted’

There is a considerable cross-linguistic variation with respect to two basic factors: (a) the type of the non-finite verb form and (b) the verb class. Thus, the non-finite form can be a participle, an infinitive, a gerund/gerundival or even a converb. In addition, verb class membership seems to impose certain restrictions: there seems to be a continuum ranging from languages that allow only for absolute constructions with unaccusative and passive verbs (e.g. absolute participial constructions in most of the Romance languages and English) to languages that freely accept all types of constructions with an overt (obviating) DP-subject (e.g. absolute participial constructions in Early Italian, Ancient Greek and Basque, gerund/gerundival constructions in Romance languages and English).3 Moving away from the verb class restrictions issue, the DP-subject of the absolute construction normally appears in the case in which a DP-subject appears in finite clauses (e.g. nominative in Romance, English and Greek, ergative vs. absolutive in Basque). However, in most of the old Indo-European languages, such as Ancient Greek, Latin and Sanskrit, the absolute construction is signalled by a special case, in which both the participle and its DP-subject appear, and which deviates from the usual case that marks the subject in a finite clause (Keydana 1997; Bauer 2000; Ruppel 2013, among others). Thus, Ancient Greek and Classical Sanskrit utilize the genitive case (7), Latin the ablative (8) and Early Sanskrit the locative, whereas Gothic and Balto-Slavic utilize the dative. (7)

Ancient Greek Kyros Cyrus-nom oudenos nobody-m.sg.gen

anebɛː went.up-pst.3sg kɔːlyontos block-prtc.m.sg.gen

epi on

ta the

orɛː mountains-acc

‘Cyrus went up the mountains, because nobody blocked him’ (X.An. 1.2.22)  See Stump (1985), Belletti (1990, 1992), López (1994, 2001), Egerland (1996), Doron and Reintges (2005), Alcázar (2007), Panagiotidis (2010), and Bruno (2011) for various case studies, and König and van der Auwera (1990) for a typological survey. 3

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek 

(8) Latin id … this

53

paucis dependentibus expugnare non potuit few-­pl.abl defend-prtc.pl.abl conquer-inf neg be.able-­pst.3sg

‘He was not able to conquer it, although there were few men to defend it’ (Caes.Gal. 2.12.2)

In what follows, I focus on the AG genitive absolute participial construction and attempt to provide a formal analysis of its structure, which will allow us to trace its development and fate from the post-Classical years to the modern language.

2.2 Absolute Participial Constructions in Ancient Greek and Their Fate The AG genitive absolute construction is widely attested as the equivalent to a finite adjunct clause, so that it undertakes almost all the relevant clausal functions (temporal, causal, conditional, concessive, manner) (see examples 9–12). Such participial constructions are traditionally referred to as ‘circumstantial’, because they express the circumstances or the conditions under which the event described by the matrix clause takes place (Spieker 1885; Goodwin 1889; Jannaris 1897; Kühner and Gerth 1898–1904; Schwyzer and Debrunner 1950; Humbert 1960; see also Vasilaros 1993; Keydana 1997; Buijs 2005; Maiocco 2005). (9) Temporal pesoːsɛːs fall-aor.prtc.f.sg.gen

dryos paːs oak-gen every-m.nom

anɛːr ksyleuetai man-nom cut.wood-mdpsv.3sg

‘After an oak has fallen, anyone can cut wood’ (Men.Mon. 123) (10) Conditional Athɛːnaiɔːn de to Atheneans-gen prt the diplasian an tɛːn double-f.sg.acc prt the-­acc

auto this dynamin power-acc

toːto pathontɔːn that suffer-­mdpsv.aor.prtc.m.pl.gen eikadzesthai infer-­mdpsv.inf

‘Whereas, if Atheneans suffered the same fate, [I think that] their power would be inferred to be the double…’ (Th. 1.10)

54  (11)

V. Spyropoulos Causal ta the tɔːn the-pl.gen apollymenɔːn die-mdpsv.prtc.m.pl.gen

plɛːromata crew-pl.nom nautɔːn … sailor-pl.gen

dia prep

hypo prep

tode this-acc tɔːn the-­pl.gen

ephtharɛː … destroy-­mdpsv.aor.3sg hippeɔːn horse.rider-pl.gen

‘The crews were perished for this reason, because the sailors … were being killed by the cavalry’ (Th. 7.13.2) (12) Temporal and concessive aphiketo deuro arrive-­pst.3sg here tɔːn kephallɛːnɔːn the Cephalonian-­pl.gen

to ploion the ship-nom antiprattontos toːtoː… object-­prtc.m.sg.gen pr3-­m.sg.gen

gnontɔːn decide-­aor.prtc.m.pl.gen kataplein come.ashore-inf

‘The ship arrived here, when the Cephalonians decided to come ashore, even though he objected’ (Dem. 32.14)

‘Circumstantial’ participles also involve the so-called participles-in-­ construction; the main difference between the two constructions is that, whereas absolute constructions have their own subject, the subject of the ‘participles-in-construction’ is a matrix clause term with which the participle agrees in case, as seen in examples (13–14).4 (13) Participles in nominative and accusative agreeing with matrix subject and object respectively korinthioi… propemp­santes kyrɛːka… polemon Corinthians-nom send-­ ambassador- war-acc aor.prtc.m.pl.nom acc proeroːnta tois kerkyraiois… epleon declarethe-pl.dat Corfuans-dat sail-pst.3pl aor.prtc.m.sg.acc epi tɛːn epidamnon kerkyraiois enantia polemɛː sontes prep the-acc Epidamnos-­ Corfuans-­ against fightacc dat fut.prtc.m.pl.nom ‘The Corinthians, after they sent ambassador to declare war to the Corfuans, they sailed to Epidamnos in order to fight against the Corfuans’ (Th. 1.29.1.) (14)

Participle in dative agreeing with a dative matrix term akousaːsi tois stratɛːgois hear.aor.prtc.m.pl.dat the-pl.dat general-­pl.dat to strateuma synanageːn the-acc army-acc gather-­aor.inf

tauta this-­pl.acc

edokse seem-­pst.3sg

‘And when the generals heard that, they decided to gather the army’ (Xen.An. 4.4.19)

 This shared term may phonologically appear either in the matrix clause (the participial subject is null) or in the participial clause (the matrix term is null). See Haug (2011, 2016) for a backward control analysis of such phenomena. 4

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek 

55

The DP-subject of an absolute participial construction may also be coreferent with a matrix clause term, but, crucially, it does not copy its case, as illustrated in examples (15–19). (15)

Genitive null-subject coreferent with a matrix clause pronoun apo tɛːs krɛːnɛːs de apalassomenɔːn prep the-gen fountain-­gen prt depart-­mdpsv.prtc.m.pl.gen agageːn sfeas es desmɔːtɛːrion bring-­aor.inf pr3-­m.pl.acc prep prison-acc ‘[He said that], when they left the fountain, he brought them to a prison’ (Hdt. 3.23.4)

(16) Genitive DP-subject coreferent with a matrix clause pronoun kai es autɛːn diabebɛːkotos ɛːdɛː and prep 3-f.sg.acc pass-prf.prtc.m.sg.gen already …ɛːggelthɛː autɔːi … announce-mdpsv.pst.3sg pr3-­m.sg.dat

perikleoːs Pericles-gen

‘and when Pericles had already passed to it, it was announced to him…’ (Th. 1.114.1) (17)

Genitive pronoun-subject coreferent with a matrix clause null-subject boɛːthɛːsantɔːn hymɔːn … polin te proslɛːpsesthe … help-aor.prtc.m.pl.gen pr2-pl.gen city-acc and receive-fut.2pl ‘if you help us, you will add in your alliance a city…’ (Th. 3.13.7)

(18)

Genitive null-subject coreferent with a matrix clause null-subject keːtai en pediɔːi megalɔːi, …, eoːsɛːs lie-mdpsv.3sg prep plain-dat big-dat be-prtc.f.sg.gen

tetragɔːno rectangular-­gen

‘It is situated in a big plain, …, being rectangular in shape’ (Hdt. 1.178.2) (19)

Genitive pronoun-subject coreferent with a matrix clause DP-object asthenɛːsantos autoː get.sick-­prtc.aor.m.sg.gen pr3-­m.sg.gen oudepote apeleipe ton pappon never leave-pst.3sg the-acc grandfather-acc ‘and, when the grandfather got sick, he never left him’ (Xen.Cyr. 1.4.2)

Ancient Greek also exhibits accusative and nominative absolute participial structures, which are, nonetheless, not so frequent and obey certain restrictions regarding their distribution. Thus, the accusative absolute participial constructions appear normally with impersonal verbs (20a). From the fifth century BC onward, they started appearing with all verb structures in a similar way to genitive absolutes (20b). In this latter function they are always introduced by the particles hɔːs / hɔːsper (< ὡς / ὥσπερ >).

56 

V. Spyropoulos

(20)

a.

b.

egɔːge … oimai, I-certainly think-1sg hama de partly prt

hama men partly prt kai aiskhron and disgrace-acc

hɛːmɔːn 1-pl.gen hon be-­prtc.sg.acc

synagoreuontɔːn speak.in.favour-­prtc.pl.gen antilegeːn … speak.against-inf

‘I certainly agree, partly because we recommend it and partly because it is a disgrace to oppose…’ (Xen.Cyr. 2.2.20) hoti misthon aitoːsin that salary-acc claim-3pl hɔːs… ɔːpheleian esomenɛːn prt benefit-­acc be-­fut.prtc.f.sg.acc ‘that they demanded a salary, so that there will be a benefit…’ (Pl.R. 345e)

Moreover, the nominative absolute construction constituted an innovation, which, in the beginning, was used in a similar way to the ‘nominative in suspense case’ in the so-called anacolouthon schema.5 Typically, nominative absolute participles have a null-subject, which is coreferent with a matrix clause term in a different case; on such occasions, they are used either as the topic of the speaker’s thought in the beginning of the clause or as an afterthought at the end (21a). However, rarely though, they can also be used as pure absolute constructions with an overt nominative subject which is not coreferent with a matrix clause term (21b). (21) a. apoblepsas pros toːton ton look.at-­aor.prtc.m.sg.nom to that-acc the edokse moi pankalos eːnai seem-pst.3sg 1-dat totally.good-nom be-inf ‘And by looking at this fleet, it seemed to me to be great’ (Pl.Leg. 686d)

stolon … fleet-­acc

 The nominative in this function was used with a DP in the beginning of the clause to denote what the clause is about. In this way, it marked a hanging topic construction, as evident from the example below. 5

(i)

oi

de

philoi,

an

tis

epistɛːtai

the

prt

friend-pl.nom

conj

someone-m.nom

know-mdpsv.3sg

autois

khrɛːsthai

hɔːste

ɔːphelɛːsthai

apo

autɔːn,

pr3-m.dat

use-inf.mdpsv.aor

sub

benefit-inf. mdpsv.aor

prep

pr3-pl.gen

ti

phɛːsomen

autoːs

eːnai

what-n.acc say-3pl pr3-m. pl.acc be-inf ‘About friends now, if one knows how to make use of them so as to profit by them, what would we say that they are?’ (Xen.Oec. 1.14)

57

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek  b. halɛːs in.mass-­f.sg.nom kheːr hand-nom

genomenɛː be-­prtc.f.sg.nom megalɛː big-­f.sg.nom

paːsa hɛː all the synagetai draw.together-mdpsv.3sg

hellaːs Hellas-­nom

‘If all Greece comes together, a great number of men will be gathered’ (Hdt. 7.157)

Absolute constructions gradually lost their distribution from the post-­ Classical period onward (see Jannaris 1897; Manolessou 2005; Horrocks 2010). The accusative absolute disappeared quite early in the Hellenistic and Roman period (third century BC–third century AD). The genitive and nominative absolutes enjoyed a significant distribution in the Hellenistic and Roman period, but they radically receded in the medieval period (fourth century–fifteenth century AD), during which they occurred mostly, although not exclusively, in registers that tried to imitate the ancient language or the language of the religious texts, or as the result of scholastic practice. The genitive absolute lost ground quite early and was not an active feature of the language by the early medieval period (sixth century onward).6 Interestingly, the nominative absolute, which was a rare and rather marked construction in AG, gained more distribution and prevailed in the relevant constructions in the medieval period, as it spread to cover the distribution of the genitive absolute (Jannaris 1897). However, even this construction had essentially disappeared by the early Modern Greek period; the Modern Greek gerundival/converbial construction with a nominative subject (22) (Tsimpli 2000; Panagiotidis 2010; Holton et al. 2012; Kotzoglou 2016) is a relic of this nominative absolute construction. (22)

[ɣirizondas come.back-ger efiɣa leave-pst.1sg

i the eɣo pr1-sg.nom

maria Maria-nom

apo from

tin the

Patra] Patra

‘As soon as Maria came back from Patras, I left’

 Relics of this construction are attested quite frequently in the semi-literary texts of the early medieval period (see Weierholt 1963 on Malalas), and, scarcely, later in the vernacular medieval texts. However, such constructions seem to belong to a scholarly or elevated style in deference to ancient practice (Holton et al. 2019). 6

58 

V. Spyropoulos

3 Absolute Participial Structure Based on Panagiotidis’ (2010) analysis of absolute constructions as mixed projections (see also Doron and Reintges 2006), I will put forward the hypothesis that AG absolute participial constructions involve a participial formation, which is a mixed projection involving a verbal structure being adjectivized by an a categorizer. This adjectivized participial formation constitutes the predicative core of a small clause and it is predicated of a DP-subject, which is an argument of the participle and with which it agrees in gender, number and case.7 This small clause constituent is further nominalized by being embedded in a D head8 and, subsequently, it is embedded in a prepositional functional structure fragment that is responsible for its case properties as genitive, as well as for its semantic properties as circumstantial. In what follows, I develop the relevant parts of this hypothesis step by step, by presenting evidence for the syntactic structure that underlies the absolute participial constructions.

 See also López (1994, 2001) for an analysis of Romance absolute constructions as small clauses.  See Keydana (1997) and Nikitina and Haug (2016) for proposals that AG and Latin absolute constructions involve nominalized structures. 7 8

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek 

59

3.1 Participles as Mixed Verb–Adjective Projection The participial part of the construction has full verbal syntactic properties, as the participle may appear in all possible verbal constructions (transitive, unergative, unaccusative) and take all possible adverbial modification (adverbs, prepositional phrases, adjunct clauses, even other genitive absolute participial constructions) and complementation (case marked objects, non-finite and finite complement clauses) like finite verbs. The participles in the following examples illustrate these properties. (23) aphiketo arrive-­pst.3sg tɔːn the

deuro here kephallɛːnɔːn Cephalonian-­pl.gen

to ploion the ship-nom antiprattontos toːtoː … object-­prtc.m.sg.gen pr3-­m.sg.gen

gnontɔːn decide-aor.prtc.m.pl.gen kataplein come.ashore-inf

‘The ship arrived here, when the Cephalonians decided to come ashore, even though he objected’ (Dem. 32.14)

Thus, in example (23) the genitive absolute participle gnontɔːn ‘when (they) decided’ takes the infinitival complement kataplein ‘to come ashore’ and it is also modified by another genitive absolute construction in a concessive function, that is, antiprattontos ‘even though (he) objected’. Similarly, in example (24), the conjoined genitive absolute participles epitrepsantos ‘because (he) entrusted’ and boulomenɔːn ‘because (they) wanted to’ take the finite adjunct clauses ote estrateue ‘when he was on expedition’ and hɔːs ouketi anekhɔːrɛːsen eurystheus ‘when Eurystheus did not come back’ respectively as temporal adverbial modifications. Moreover, the genitive absolute participle epitrepsantos ‘because (he) entrusted’ has a direct object, which is a conjoined DP, marked with accusative (mykɛːnas te kai tɛːn arkhɛːn ‘Mycenae and the sovereignty’) and an indirect object marked with dative (atrei ‘to Atreus’), behaving in the same way as finite verbs in this respect.

epitrepsa­ntos intrust-­aor.prtc.m.sg.gen te and to the-acc hɔːs when kai and tɔːn the-pl.gen mykɛːnaiɔːn Mycenean-­pl.gen tɛːn the-acc

prt

eurystheɔːs Eurystheus-gen hɛːrakleːdɔːn Heracleids-gen de

tɔːn the-pl.gen hɛːrakleːdɔːn … Heracleids-gen te and basileian sovereignty-­acc

neg

kai and atrea Atreus-acc

adelphoː brother-gen ote when tɛːn the-acc atrei … Atreus-dat anekhɔːrɛːsen come.back-pst.3sg mykɛːnaiɔːn Mycenean-­pl.gen

prep

apot anontos, die-­aor.prtc.m.sg.gen mɛːtros mother-gen eurystheɔːs Eurystheus-gen kai and oikeion kinship-acc ouketi

en

prt h

men

hosɔːn whoever-m.pl.gen paralabeːn receive-aor.inf

eurystheus Eurystheus-nom

ontos be-­prtc.m.sg.gen estrateue set.out.on.expedi­tion-­pst.3sg arkhɛːn sovereignty-acc

tɛːi the-dat

eurystheus Eurystheus-nom

autɔːi pr3-m.sg.dat

attikɛːi Attica-dat

‘and (they) say that, since Eurystheus was killed in Attica by the Heracleids and since Atreus was his mother’s brother and because, when he was on expedition, Eurystheus entrusted Atreus with Mycenae and the sovereignty because of kinship and because, when Eurystheus did not come back, the Myceneans were willing for that, because they were afraid of the Heracleids, Atreus received the sovereignty over the Myceneans and those that were under Eurystheus’ rule’ (Th. 1.9)

kai and boulo­menɔːn want-mdpsv.prtc.m.pl.gen phobɔːi fear-dat tɔːn the-pl.gen ɛːrkhe rule-3sg

prep

atreɔːs Atreus-gen kai and mykɛːnas Mycenae-acc kata

prep

(24) legoːsi … say-3pl hypo

60  V. Spyropoulos

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek 

61

Morphologically speaking, the segmentation of the participial forms indicates that they involve both verbal and adjectival morphology (25). (25)

The participles of the verb lyɔː ‘I loosen, set free’ exemplified by the msc.nom.sg form active

middle

present aorist (past)

lyɔːn (< ly-o-nt-Ø) lysɔːn (< ly-s-o-nt-Ø) lysaːs (< ly-s-a-nt-s)

ly-o-men-os ly-s-o-­men-os ly-thɛː-s-o-men-os ly-s-a-­men-os lytheːs (< ly-thɛː-nt-s)

perfect

lelykɔːs (< le-ly-k-wos-Ø)

le-ly-men-os

future

passive

Abstracting away from the details of the morphological exponence in the formation of participles in AG, the participial form exhibits verbal morphology for voice (e.g. the passive suffix -th(ɛː)), aspect (e.g. the perfective suffix -s, the perfect suffix -k and the reduplication), and even tense (e.g. the theme vowels -o and -a for non-past and past respectively).9 Thus, the morphological make-up of participles suggests that they involve a verbal extended projection with the functional categories of Voice, Aspect and Tense, but, crucially, they lack verbal AgrS (26).  An anonymous reviewer is sceptical about the postulation of a T head in the participial structure on the basis of the morphological status of the theme vowels -o and -a as temporal manifestations and they question the validity of such a morphological argument by pointing out the morphological make-up of the so-called thematic or asigmatic aorist participles. Such participial formations do not involve the normal -s exponent of the perfective aspect, which is manifested by means of root allomorphy, and take the -o theme vowel: 9

(i)

labɔːn




gerɔːn

>

bele-mn-o-n

‘old-sg.nom’ ‘old-sg.gen’ ‘old-pl.nom/acc’ ‘arrow-sg.nom/acc’

Based on these facts, I suggest that these suffixes are exponents of a categorizing a/n head, which takes the verbal extended projection as a complement and re-categorizes it as a nominal/adjectival projection. This proposal gains further support from the fact that the participle also inflects for gender, number and, crucially, case, fully agreeing with its DP-subject, as adjectives do in their predicative function (29). (29) masculine

feminine

neuter

singular nom gen dat acc

lysaːs (< ly-s-ant-s) lysantos (< ly-s-ant-os) lysanti (< ly-s-ant-i) lysanta (< ly-s-ant-a)

lysaːsa (< ly-s-ant-ja) lysaːsɛːs (< ly-s-ant-ja-as) lysaːsɛːi (< ly-s-ant-jaː-i) lysaːsan (< ly-s-ant-ja-n)

lysantes (< ly-s-ant-es) lysantɔːn (< ly-s-ant-ɔːn) lysaːsi (< ly-s-ant-si) lysantas (< ly-s-ant-as)

lysaːsai (< ly-s-ant-ja-i) lysaːsɔːn (< ly-s-ant-ja-ɔːn) lysaːsais (< ly-s-ant-ja-is) lysaːsaːs (< ly-s-ant-ja-ns)

lysan (< ly-s-ant-∅) lysantos (< ly-s-ant-os) lysanti (< ly-s-ant-i) lysan (< ly-s-ant-∅)

plural nom gen dat acc

lysanta (< ly-s-ant-a) lysantɔːn (< ly-s-ant-ɔːn) lysaːsi (< ly-s-ant-si) lysanta (< ly-s-ant-a)

Crucially, the morphology involved here is the one involved in nominal feature sharing (concord and predicative agreement) and not the (verbal) one involved in the agreement between an argument and the verb. Thus, participles are proposed to be adjectivized verbal projections and to involve the following syntactic (30) and morphological (31) structures.

64 

V. Spyropoulos

(30) aP a

TP AspP

T Asp

VoiceP

vP

Voice v

VP V

(31) The morphological structure of the participle (active forms, f.sg.nom) a a

T

Asp Voice

v-V

Voice

ly ly ly

Ø Ø Ø

T Asp

T

Th

Ø -s -s

Ø Ø Ø

-o -o -a

a

Agr

-nt -nt -nt

-ja -ja -ja

3.2 Participial Structure as a Small Clause The order of the morphological exponents of the participle indicates that agreement with its DP-subject takes place after the adjectivization of the structure. I propose that this agreement takes place in a small clause configuration, in which the aP participial structure is embedded in an F head and its DP-subject occupies the Spec, FP position (32).

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek 

65

(32) FP F΄

DP-subjecti

aP

F

DP-subjecti

Evidence for the small clause constituency of the participial structure comes from the fact that it may occur as a clausal complement of verbs in subject-raising (33-34) and Exceptional Case Martking (ECM) (35) configurations. (33)

Subject raising with raising verbs hɛː mathɛːsis … anamnɛːsis the-nom learning-nom memory-nom

tygkhanei happen-3sg

oːsa be-­prtc.f.sg.nom

‘it happens that learning is … remembering’ (Pl.Phd. 72e) (34) Subject raising in passive construction hɔːs autɔːi apɛːggelthɛː toː phɔːros when pr3-­m.sg.dat announce-mdpsv.pst.3sg the-gen thief-­gen ho nekys ekkeklemmenos the-nom corpse-nom steal-­mdpsv.prf.prtc.m.sg.nom ‘When it was announced to him that the corpse of the thief had been stolen…’ (Hdt. 2.121ε.1)

(35)

ECM-complement ouk ɛːidesan neg know-pst.3pl

auton pr3-­m.sg.acc

tethnɛːkota die-­prf.prtc.m.sg.acc

‘They didn’t know that he had died’ (Xen.An. 1.10.16)

66 

V. Spyropoulos

3.3 Absolute Participial Constructions as Prepositional Structures I follow Panagiotidis’ (2010) proposal that absolute constructions are prepositional constructions headed by an empty P head, which provides them with their ‘circumstantial’ semantics. Panagiotidis (2010) argues that this is a temporal P head, which takes the default semantic interpretation of temporal ‘containment’. Although this temporal ‘containment’ interpretation is prevalent in the way such AG ‘circumstantial’ participles were construed and was also crucial in their emergence and diachronic development, it is not the only one available in such constructions, since ‘circumstantial’ semantics seem to involve a broader set of interpretations, including cause and temporal source.10 The latter involves situations according to which the participial construction denotes an event that temporally precedes the event denoted by the matrix clause, providing it with the relevant temporal situational context as a starting point.11 Thus, I assume that this empty P head is more abstract in its content, so that it is not limited to a temporal ‘containment’ interpretation. According to Panagiotidis’ analysis, the clausal part of the absolute construction is nominalized before it is embedded in the P head. There is distributional evidence that in AG the [DP-subject + participle] constituent also behaves like a DP, as it may have the distribution of a DP-subject  For the ‘containment’ semantics of these constructions see the discussion in Schwyzer and Debrunner ((1950)); see also Keydana (1997) and Nikitina and Haug (2016). 11  In the following example the participial construction presents an event that constitutes the temporal situational context and the temporal point after which the events described by the matrix clause take place (temporal source). 10

(i)

harpasantos snatch-aor.

autoː

helenɛːn,

toisi

hellɛːsi

doksai …

pr3-m.sg.dat

Helen-acc

the-dat

Greeks-dat

seem-aor.inf

te

helenɛːn

kai

dika:s

tɛːs

prtc.m.sg.gen

apaiteein

harpagɛːs

aiteein

cl.and demand-inf Helen-acc and judgements-acc the-gen snatch-gen ask-inf ‘since he has snatched Helen, the Greeks decided … to demand her back and ask retribution for the snatch’

(Hdt. 1.3.2)

Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this detail to me.

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek 

67

(36), a DP-object (37), an adnominal DP (38), a prepositional DP-complement (39) and an adverbial DP (40), in the so-called dominant participle or ab urbe condita constructions.12 (36)Subject a. autoːs pr3-m.pl.acc

ho the-nom

stratos army-nom

eti yet

tais Athɛːnais the-dat Athens-­

en prep

dat

ɔːn be-­

epeskhen hold. prtc.m.sg.nom back-­pst.3sg ‘The fact that the army was still in Athens held them back’ (Th. 4.5.1) b. dia gar aretɛːn gɛːs ai te prep prt fertility-acc earth- the pl.nom and gen

tisi some-pl.dat

meːdzoːs great-­pl.nom

dynameːs power.pl. nom

eggigno­menai staseːs enepoioːn become-­ revolt-­ cause-­ prtc.f.pl.nom pl.acc pst.3pl

‘The fact that some people grew in power because of the fertility of the land caused rebellions’ (Th. 1.2.4) (37)

Object nikɔːsan win-­prtc.f.sg.acc en prep

aretɛːn goodness-­acc tɔːi the-dat

hɛːttɔːmenɛːn defeat-­mdpsv.prtc.f.sg.acc panti all-dat

de prt

parekhoi provide-­opt.3sg

kakian evil-acc malista best

an prt

‘it would best provide once and for all the win of the goodness and the defeat of the evil’ (Pl.Leg. 904b) (38)

Adnominal sarpɛːdonti … Sarpedon-dat

axos pain-gen

egeneto become-pst.3sg

glaukoː Glaucus-gen

apiontos leave-­prtc.m.sg.gen

‘Sarpedon was in pain because of Glaucus departure’ (Il. 12.392) (39)

Prepositional complement hypo tɛːs prep the-gen

dekeleias Deceleia-­gen

polla many

adynatoi weak-m.pl.nom

tois the-dat

khrɛːmasi money-pl.dat

egenonto become-­pst.3pl

blaptoːsɛːs … damage-­prtc.f.sg.gen

‘because Deceleia was damaging them a lot…they became every weak in terms of money’ (Th. 7.28.4)

 See Goodwin (1889), Kühner and Gerth (1898–1904), Brugmann and Thumb (1913), Smyth (1918), Jones (1939), Schwyzer and Debrunner (1950) and Ruppel (2013); see also Haug and Nikitina (2016) and Nikitina and Haug (2016) for a formal analysis of the similar Latin constructions.

12

68  (40)

V. Spyropoulos Adverbial DP oi plataiɛːs … tɔːi sitɔːi epiliponti the-nom Plataians-­nom the-­dat wheat-­dat be.in.lack-­prtc.m.sg.dat epiedzonto be.in.pressure-­pst.3pl ‘The Plataians...started being in pressure because of the lack of food’ (Th. 3.20.1)

This ambivalent categorial status of the [subject + participle] constituent, that is, its behavior either as a clause or as a DP, is an intriguing theoretical issue, which I leave for future research. For the purposes of this chapter, I adopt Panagiotidis’ (2010) proposal that the clausal part of the participial construction becomes a DP by being embedded in an empty D head (see also Doron and Reintges 2006) and I assume that the structure of absolute constructions is the one presented in (41). (41) PP P

DP D

FP F΄

DP-subject i F

aP

DP-subjecti

The next step in this analysis is to address the issue of the nature of the P head that introduces the absolute construction. Such P heads with no overt manifestation as prepositions are standardly assumed to involve some kind of abstract or covert preposition. Based on Spyropoulos’ (2017, 2018) analysis of the AG prepositional structure, I assume that this abstract preposition is a prepositional functional structure fragment, not lexicalized by a prepositional lexical item. In particular, and in line with the syntactic decomposition approach to categorization (Marantz 1997,

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek 

69

2001, 2007; Embick 1998, 2010; Alexiadou 2001; Harley 2005a, b, 2013, 2017; Borer 2006 & 2013; Ramchand 2008; Panagiotidis 2011, 2014; Anagnostopoulou and Samioti 2014; Spyropoulos et  al. 2015; Panagiotidis et  al. 2017, among many others) and the decomposition approach to prepositions (Svenonius 2003, 2006, 2007, 2010; Koopman 2010; Terzi 2010, among many others), I assume that the category of preposition is decomposed into a Root element √, void of grammatical/ syntactic information, and a functional layer, which includes, besides the functional projections relevant to its locative semantics, a categorizing p head and a case-assigning pcase head; these two heads are responsible for the categorial status of the preposition and its case-­assigning properties (Spyropoulos 2017, 2018). Thus, the empty abstract P head that introduces the absolute participial construction is taken to be a prepositional structure fragment, which includes the pcase head, but is crucially not lexicalized by a prepositional lexical item.

A Formal Analysis of AG Prepositional Phrase Structure The AG prepositional system includes the following prepositional lexical items13: (42)

AG prepositions amphi ‘on both sides’ ana ‘up’ anti ‘instead of’ apo ‘from’ dia ‘through’ en ‘in’ es/eːs ‘into’ eks ‘out of’ epi ‘on’

kata meta para peri pro pros syn hyper hypo

‘down’ ‘with, among, after’ ‘at/from/to the side of, by’ ‘around, about’ ‘in front of, before’ ‘towards, at’ ‘with’ ‘over, above’ ‘under’

13  See Adams (1885), Goodwin (1894), Jannaris (1897), Kühner and Gerth (1898–1904), Brugmann and Thumb (1913), Smyth (1918), Schwyzer and Debrunner (1950) and references therein, Humbert (1960) and Wackernagel (2009); also, Horrocks (1981), Bortone (2010), Luraghi (2003) and Acedo-Matellán (2016).

70 

V. Spyropoulos

AG prepositions have a locative (spatial and/or temporal) core meaning and they may also express abstract grammatical functions. The DP-complement of the PP may appear in genitive, dative or accusative. In fact, AG prepositions may be constructed with one (e.g. es/eːs + accusative ‘into’; en + dative ‘in’; apo + genitive ‘from’), two (e.g. dia + accusative/dative ‘through’) or three cases (e.g. hypo + accusative/dative/genitive ‘under’); the choice of the case depends on the function/meaning of the PP, either concrete locative or abstract. Thus, dative, which has subsumed the functions of the old locative, denotes a spatial/temporal location (44a). However, it can also rarely denote the ‘motion towards’ as an extension of its function in marking the Goal argument in ditransitive constructions (44b). The genitive in its ‘ablative’ reading indicates the source/starting point of a motion (43a, 44c), whereas in its ‘proper’ reading, which subsumes the partitive/whole meaning, it has a locative function, denoting a spatial/temporal location viewed as a whole or a series of parts (44d). Finally, the accusative denotes either the endpoint of a motion (44e) or a location in its extent (‘along’) (43b). (43) kata ‘down’ a. + genitive = from (ablative) hieis sauton throw-pst.3sg yourself-acc b.

kata prep

to: the-sg.gen

teikho:s walls-sg.gen

‘you were throwing yourself down from the walls’ (Ar.V. 355) + accusative = along (locative extension) epleon kata potamon sail-pst.3pl prep river-sg.acc ‘they sailed down (along) the river’ (Hdt. 4, 44)

(44) hypo ‘under’ a. + dative = under (locative) hypo possi mega prep foot-pl.dat greatly

stenakhidzeto gaia resound-­mdpsv.pst.3sg earth-­nom

‘under his feet the earth resounded greatly’ (Il. 2.784) b. + dative = to under (lative) edzeuksan hyp harmasin hippoːs yoke-pst.3pl prep chariot-­pl.dat horse-pl.acc ‘they yoked the horses under the chariots’ (Od. 3.478) c. + genitive = from under (ablative) hippoːs … lysan hypo dzygoː horse-pl.acc loosen-­pst.3pl prep yoke-gen ‘they loosened the horses from under the yoke’ (Il. 8.543)

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek 

71

d. + genitive = under (locative in a partitive/ whole sense) hypo sternoio tykhɛːsas prep chest-gen hit-­aor.prtc.m.sg.nom ‘hitting it under the chest’ (Il. 4.106) e. + accusative = towards under (allative) hypo … speos ɛːlase mɛːla prep cave-acc lead-pst.3sg animal-pl.acc ‘he led the flock inside under the cave’ (Il. 4.279)

The case–function correlation cuts across the various prepositions, so that a preposition may be constructed with any of the three cases; in fact, as mentioned above, most prepositions are constructed with either two or three cases, thus providing the relevant meanings (see Bortone 2010: 143ff for a discussion). (45)

Accusative = goal motion (allative) Genitive = source motion (ablative) Dative = state/ rest (locative)

(46) a.

b.

c.

hypo + genitive = from under hypo + dative = (at) under hypo + accusative = to under para + genitive = from the side of para + dative = at the side of para + accusative = to the side of pros + genitive = from the vicinity of pros + dative = at the vicinity of pros + accusative = to the vicinity of

This correlation of function and case is independent of the prepositional lexical item, so that adverbial DPs can also denote the same function as a PP, when they appear in the relevant case. (47) Genitive (ablative) eikoːsi tɛːs leave-3pl the

odoː road-gen

‘they retreat from the road’ (Hdt. 2.80) (48) Genitive (partitive) tɛːs de ionias kai allothi pollakhoː the prt Ionia-­gen and else-­loc many.places aiskhron nenomistai opprobrious-nom consider-­prf.mdpsv.3sg ‘In Ionia and elsewhere in many places it is considered opprobrious’ (Pl.Symp. 182b)

72 

V. Spyropoulos

(49) Dative (locative) tɔːn de the-pl.gen prt

marathɔːni Marathon-dat

makhesamenɔːn fight-mdpsv.aor.prtc.m.pl.gen

‘of those who have fought in Marathon’ (Lycurg. 104B) (50) Dative (lative) thɛːriois wild.animal-pl.dat

peladzein be.close-inf

‘to approach wild animals’ (Xen.Cyr. 1.4.7) (51) Accusative (allative) ɛːlthon patros come-pst.3pl father-gen

arkhaion ancient-acc

taphon grave-acc

‘They came to the ancient grave of their father’ (Soph.El. 893) (52) Accusative (locative extension) agein … stenaːs … lead-inf narrow-pl.acc

odoːs street-pl.acc

‘to lead over narrow streets’ (Xen.Cyr. 1.6.43)

The data above show that case assignment in PPs is not a property of the prepositional lexical item, but it correlates with function. This conclusion brings forward the issue of the status and the source of the case of a DP when it occurs as a complement in a PP or as an adverbial DP with the same function. Based on the decomposition approach to prepositions (Svenonius 2003, 2006, 2007, 2010; Koopman 2010; Terzi 2010, among others), I assume that the PP structure involves a functional layer with a number of functional projections relevant to the function and the argument structure of the PP (p, Path, Axis, Place, etc.). I put forward the hypothesis that, when case is semantically determined in relation to function, it is assigned to the DP by means of a case feature on a pcase functional head in the prepositional functional layer. This pcase head may come in different flavours (parallel to the ‘flavoured’ v heads suggested by Folli and Harley 2005, 2007): pacc, pgen and pdat. The exact flavour of this head is selected by the functional specification of the structure relevant to its meaning and function. Thus, a prepositional structure involves a set of functional categories, which provide the relevant semantic (meaning and function) and syntactic properties (argument structure and case assignment); this structure is lexicalized by a root element, which attaches to a categorizing p head and constitutes the base for the prepositional lexical formation (53).

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek  (53)

73

[F-layer … [pcaseP pcase … [pP √-p DP] … ] … ]

Adverbial DP constructions involve the same prepositional functional layer, including the pcase head, but, crucially, without the lexical element of the preposition, that is, the prepositional structure is not lexicalized by a root (54). (54)

[F-layer … [pcaseP pcase … [DP] … ] … ]

To sum up, the pcase head is responsible for the case of the DP (and its relevant function) either inside a PP or as an adverbial DP. This analysis accounts for the similarities between PPs and adverbial DPs and also between prepositions and the so-called semantic cases (an insight that goes back to Fillmore 1968; see also McFadden 2004). Thus, covert prepositions, which are standardly assumed to account for the semantic case of adverbial DPs (see McFadden 2004, among others), are in fact prepositional structure fragments, that is, functional projections, including the pcase head, not lexicalized by a root.

3.4 Participial Structure and Genitive Absolute Construction The correlation of function, case and prepositional functional structure has certain implications for the hypothesis that absolute constructions are in fact prepositional constructions. Thus, I propose that genitive absolute participial constructions are similar to adverbial DPs in that they are headed by a prepositional functional structure fragment, which includes the functional head pgen, but, crucially, lacks lexicalization by means of a root. The choice of the genitive flavour for the pcase is associated with the ‘circumstantial’ semantics of the absolute construction. In AG, the functions of (temporal) containment and source, which constitute the core of the circumstantial meaning of the construction, are expressed by means of the genitive (partitive and ablative genitive) (Jannaris 1897; Kühner and Gerth 1898–1904; Schwyzer and Debrunner 1950), as shown in the following examples:

74 

V. Spyropoulos

(55) Temporal containment ton men kheimɔːna the-acc prt winter-acc toː the-gen

de prt

thereos summer-­gen

hyei rain-3sg

o the-­nom

theos god-­nom

xrɛːisontai need-3pl

tɔːi the-dat

hydati water-­dat

‘During the winter the God pours rain, but in some days of the summer they are in need of water’ (Hdt. 3.117) (56)

Temporal source deuterɔːi second-dat

etei year-dat

toːtɔːn that-n.pl.gen

‘in the second year starting from those incidents’ (Hdt. 4.46) (57)

Source a

b.

(58)

pephykas ...    esthlɔːn      kakɛː bear-prf.2sg   good-pl.gen    bad-nom ‘you were born bad from good parents’ (S.Ant. 38) emoː    akousesthe     paːsan   tɛːn    alɛːtheian pr1-sg.gen   hear-mdpsv.fut.3pl   all-acc   the-acc   truth-acc ‘You will hear all the truth from me’ (Pl.Ap. 17b)

Temporal source se ɛːydaimonisa pr2-sg.acc call.happy-pst.1sg

toː the-gen

tropoː behaviour-gen

‘I called you happy because of you ways’ (Pl.Cri. 43b)

Thus, the proposed structure for participial constructions is as follows: (59) [F-layer …

pGENP

genitive absolute

pGEN

ab urbe condita constructions

DP D

FP DP-subjecti

participles as complements

F΄ F

aP

DP-subjecti

participles as adjectives

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek 

75

The structure in (59) presents the full participial construction, that is, the full extended projection of a participle. Interestingly, this structure involves different layers of projections that correspond to the various identities and distributions that a participle may have in AG. Thus, the first set of projections at the aP level gives the adjectival functions of the participle. A layer up, the small-clause constituent FP provides the clausal function of participles, which allows them to occur as clausal complements and adjuncts. The next layer, which is headed by a D head that nominalizes these constructions, gives the ab urbe condita participial constructions. This layer, by being embedded in a prepositional functional structure fragment, which involves the relevant functional projections that provide the ‘circumstantial’ semantics and the appropriately chosen pgen head, gives the genitive absolute construction. The layered structure in (59) also accounts for the nominative absolute participial constructions. Since the nominative absolute construction was an innovation that started by positioning a participle with a null subject that was coreferent with a matrix clause term either in the beginning of the clause as a hanging topic or at the end of the clause as an afterthought, it can be argued that this absolute construction is, in fact, a DP construction, that is, an ab urbe condita construction, that is assigned default nominative.14

 I will not deal with the accusative absolute participial construction. For the purposes of this chapter, suffices it to say that its core distribution with impersonal verbs brings it closer to the exceptional appearance of accusative as a subject case in AG, as in accusativus cum infinitivo constructions (Spyropoulos 2005; Sevdali 2007; Keydana 2017). Its later extended distribution as a proper absolute construction can also be argued to be related with the prepositional functional layer. As mentioned in Sect. 2.2, such constructions are introduced by hɔːs, a particle that is also used as a preposition, and, in fact, in this function it is constructed only with the accusative. I leave the issue open to further research. 14

76 

V. Spyropoulos

4 The Historical Development of the Absolute Constructions and the Role of the pcase Head Both absolute and ‘in-construction’ participial structures gradually disappeared from the Greek language, a process which started in the post-­ Classical period and radically proceeded in the medieval period (see Jannaris 1897; Mirambel 1961; Horrocks 2010 and the detailed exposition in Manolessou 2005). In Modern Greek, participles have survived in the forms of (a) a passive participle, developed from the -men series, which is mainly used as an adjective (60), and (b) an invariable active gerund/converb with the suffix -ondas, developed from the -nt series, which has an adverbial function only and is used either as subject-­ controlled manner adjunct or, rarely, in absolute constructions with a nominative subject (61). (60) a. o kanapes the couch-nom ‘the couch was dirty’ b. vrika ton find-­pst.1sg the ‘I found the couch dirty’ c. i leromeni the make.dirty-psv.prtc.m.pl.acc

itan be-pst.3sg

leromenos make.dirty-­psv.prtc.m.sg.nom

kanape couch-acc

leromeno make.dirty-psv.prtc.m.pl.acc

kanapeðes couch-­pl.nom

‘the dirty couches’

(61) a. o nikosi xeretise ti the Nikos-­nom greet-­pst.3sg the ‘Nikos sent of Mary with tears in his eyes’ b. [ɣirizondas i maria apo come.back-ger the Maria-­nom from efiɣa eɣo leave-pst.1sg 1-sg.nom

mariaj [ [ec]i/*j/*k kleɣondas] Maria-­acc cry-ger tin the

patra] Patra

‘As soon as Maria came back from Patras, I left’

In particular, the demise of absolute participial constructions was associated with a number of developments regarding the participial morphosyntax in general. First, the participial constructions, either with a controlled subject or with a case-marked obviating subject, were replaced by their finite clause counterparts. This was part of a general development

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek 

77

in Greek, according to which all non-finite clauses were replaced by finite clauses.15 Such a development facilitated simplification. The participial constructions constituted a marked structure in all respects. Morphologically, they combined verbal and nominal formatives in a rather mixed manner. Syntactically, they took verbal modification, despite their nominal morphological make-up, and they involved very complex and long-distance agreement rules (see the discussion in Haug and Nikitina 2016). Semantically, their meaning was not transparent, since there was no marker in the participial construction that could unambiguously relate it with a certain function. An additional development affected participial inflection. The -nt series of participles, which was essential in forming active constructions, became indeclinable by being formed with the invariant -onda ending already from the early medieval period (sixth century AD onward). This development started from the breaking of the agreement rules in the post-Classical period (see Whaley 1990 on New Testament Koine Greek) and the gradual spread of the form ending in -nda in all cases, because of its underspecification, transparency and high frequency (Manolessou 2005). As a consequence, the invariant form in -onda destroyed the identification of the DP-subject of the participial construction by means of its agreement with the participle and paved the way for the prevalence of the controlled subject construction in Modern Greek gerund/converb constructions. In parallel, from the Hellenistic and Roman period onward, absolute constructions started also being expressed in the form of the nominative absolute, where nominative was a kind of default case assigned in a hanging topic-like structure (62). This construction gained significant distribution as an absolute construction, so that in the semi-literary texts of the early medieval period, it is prevalently used either in parallel with or substituting for the receding genitive absolute (63) (Horrocks 2010).

 See also the parallel development of the disappearance of the infinitival clauses: Joseph (1983, 1990), James (2007) and Horrocks (2010).

15

78  (62)

V. Spyropoulos symbulion meeting-acc edoksen seem-pst.3sg

poiẹsantes make-­aor.prtc.m.pl.nom aftois pr3-m.pl.dat

pantes all-m.pl.nom

oi the

iudæoi Jews-­nom

‘after all the Jews had a meeting, they decided...’ (NT. Acta Petri et Pauli 179.6f)

(63)

kliθen bend-­mdpsv.prtc.n.sg.nom

to the

ðenðron tree-nom

prosekynisen worship-­pst.3sg

afto pr3-­n.sg.dat

‘as the tree was bent, he worshiped it’ (Theophanes Chronographia AM 5854; 627/8 AD)

In what follows, I put forward the hypothesis that the demise of absolute participial constructions in particular is also closely associated with the fate of the pcase head in prepositional constructions, because this head determined the case properties of the participial construction in relation to its ‘circumstantial’ semantics. From very early, even in the Classical period, the transparent correlation of function and case was undermined by the confusion in the use of the various cases inside the prepositional phrase, resulting in variation and ambiguity, as illustrated in examples (64–65). (64)

a.

hypo prep

b.

hypo prep

c.

hypo prep

gɛːs earth-gen gɛːi earth-dat gɛːn earth-acc

(Pl.Ap. 18b) (Arist.Cael. 295a.28) (Hdt. 7.14)

‘under the earth’ (65)

ton the ton the

men

pros

prt

prep

de

pros

prt

prep

boreɔː north-gen noton south-acc

esteɔːa, ... stand-­prtc.m.sg.acc

‘one standing facing towards the north and the other towards the south’ (Hdt. 2.121)

From the Hellenistic period (third century BC–first century AD) onward, the accusative started taking over the distribution of all cases assigned in the prepositional structure, as is notably evident in the low Koine language of the papyri of the Roman period (66) (see Horrocks 2010 and, particularly, Bortone 2010 on this development).

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek  (66)

eks + acc (eks afton) instead of eks + gen (eks aftu) ke tθeli eks afton ekopse and want-3sg from it-acc cut-aor.inf

79

pfyta plants-acc

‘and he wants to cut down some trees of it’ (P.Fay 114; AD 100)

This change was completed by the early medieval period (fourth century–eighth century AD). The semantic nuances denoted by the various cases were lexicalized by means of either specialized prepositions or complex prepositional formations. In parallel, the adverbial DPs were replaced by full prepositional phrases (67), a development that indicates that the correlation of case and function was no longer transparent, and it needed to be lexically reinforced. (67) en + dat instead of dat = commitative ke apestilen basileɸs asyrion ... and send-­pst.3sg king-­nom assyrians-­gen pros to

ton the-acc

basilea king-acc

ezekian Hesekiah-­acc

ton rapsakẹn ... the Rab-­shakeh-­acc en prep

dynami force-dat

barea heavy-dat

‘and the king of Assyria sent Rab-shakeh to king Hezekiah with a heavy force...’ (OT. 18.17)

I suggest that the last two developments reveal a change in the prepositional structure with respect to its case-assigning properties. In particular, I argue that the language lost from its inventory the pcase head, so that a structural accusative case is assigned in prepositional structures, perhaps by the p head that introduces the Figure argument (Svenonius 2007, 2010), in a similar way as the Voice functional head is assumed to assign accusative case to the object of the verb (Kratzer 1996). Since pcase became unavailable, the supporting head for the genitive absolute construction disappeared. In the beginning, genitive absolute was replaced by the nominative absolute, in which nominative was assigned as a default case, supported by the agreement with the participle and the prevalent function of the nominative as a subject case. But even this development was undermined by (a) the complexity of the participial constructions in comparison to the corresponding finite clauses both in function and in the case of the subject, (b) the last resort nature of default case, and, finally, (c) the loss of the agreement and the disappearance of the inflection of the -nt series of participles.

80 

V. Spyropoulos

The outcome of these developments was that participial constructions essentially disappeared in both complementation and adjunct subordination and were replaced by their finite counterparts. In fact, genitive absolute constructions disappeared because of the loss of the pcase head. In other words, the genitive absolute was associated with the robustness of the morphological expression of semantic case, and it disappeared when the correlation of function and case was no longer transparent. Nominative absolutes survived mostly in subject-oriented constructions and with a participial form that became increasingly and rapidly indeclinable. The loss of agreement resulted in the Modern Greek strictly subject-controlled manner gerund/converb construction. The Modern Greek nominative absolute construction is a relic of the older stage of this development, and this explains its very limited distribution and marked status.

5 Concluding Remarks Ancient Greek absolute participial constructions are typologically notable, because they (a) exhibit a full verbal structure (morphologically and syntactically), (b) have a full clausal distribution and (c) obey no restrictions with respect to their subject.16 The special genitive case in which they appear is a kind of semantic case and as such it is related to the prepositional structure. Thus, it is proposed that genitive absolute participial constructions are nominalized clausal formations embedded in a prepositional functional layer which includes a pcase case-assigning head and is responsible for its case marking as genitive. This analysis gains further support from the fact that the demise of the absolute constructions went hand-in-hand with the demise of the transparent association between function and semantic case in prepositional constructions. Thus, the loss of the pcase head in prepositional structure led to the disappearance of the genitive absolute constructions and paved the way, together with the loss of the agreement, for the almost total disappearance of the absolute constructions in Modern Greek.  Of course, this does not mean that Ancient Greek is unique in this respect, since other archaic Indo-European, as well as Germanic languages may exhibit similar constructions. See, for example, Eythórsson and Indriðadóttir (2018) on Old and Modern Icelandic. 16

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek 

81

References Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2016. The Morphosyntax of Transitions: A Case Study in Latin and Other Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Adams, F.A. 1885. The Greek Prepositions, Studied from their Original Meanings of Designations of Space. New York: D. Appleton and Co. Alcázar, Asier. 2007. A Minimalist Analysis of Participial Constructions: Towards a Phase Account of Non-Finite Structures. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California. Alcázar, Asier, and Mario Saltarelli. 2007. The Case of Participial Clauses and the Universality of Unaccusatives. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2005, ed. Sergio Baauw, Frank Drijkoningen, and Manula Pinto, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Yota Samioti. 2014. Domains within Words and Their Meanings: A Case Study. In The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax, ed. Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, and Florian Schäfer, 81–111. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bary, Corien, and Dag Trygve Truslew Haug. 2011. Temporal Anaphora Across and Inside Sentences: The Function of Participles. Semantics and Pragmatics 4: article 8. Bauer, Brigitte. 2000. Archaic Syntax in Indo-European. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Belletti, Adriana. 1990. Generalized Verb Movement: Aspects of Verb Syntax. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier. ———. 1992. Agreement and Case in Past Participle Clauses. In Syntax and Semantics 26: Syntax and the Lexicon, ed. Tim Stowell and Eric Wehlri, 21–44. New York: Academic Press. Borer, Hagit. 2006. Structuring Sense. Volume I: In Name Only. Volume II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, Hagit. 2013. Structuring Sense. Volume III: Taking Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bortone, Pietro. 2010. Greek Prepositions: From Antiquity to Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brugmann, Karl, and Albert Thumb. 1913. Griechische Grammatik. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Bruno, James. 2011. Absolute Constructions: Telicity, Abstract Case, and Micro-Variation. In Selected Proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, ed. Luis A. Ortiz-López, 264–274. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

82 

V. Spyropoulos

Buijs, Michel. 2005. Clause Combining in Ancient Greek Narrative Discourse. Leiden: Brill. Chantraine, Pierre. 1961. Morphologie Historique du Grec. Paris: Libraire C. Klincksieck. Debrunner, Albert. 1917. Griechische Wortbildungslehre. Heidelberg: Carl Winners Universitätsbuchhandlung. Doron, Edit, and Chris Reitges. 2006. On the syntax of participial modifiers. Unpublished manuscript. [Retrieved from: https://pluto.huji.ac.il/~edit/ papers/DORON%26REINTGES2.pdf ]. Egerland, Verner. 1996. The Syntax of Past Participles: A Generative Study of Non-­ Finite Constructions in Ancient and Modern Italian. Lund: Lund University Press. Embick, David. 1998. Voice Systems and the Syntax-Morphology Interface. In The Proceedings of the Penn/MIT Workshop on Aspect, Argument Structure, and Events, May 1997. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, ed. Heidi Harley, 32, 41–72. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. ———. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Eythórsson, Thórhallur, and Ingunn H. Indriðadóttir. 2018. The Prepositional Absolute Construction in Icelandic. Scandinavian Philology 16: 3–18. Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The Case for Case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, ed. Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Folli, Raffaella, and Heidi Harley. 2005. Flavours of v: Consuming Results in Italian and English. In Aspectual Inquiries, ed. Paula Kempchinsky and Roumyana Slabakova, 1–25. Dordrecht: Springer. ———. 2007. Causation, Obligation, and Argument Structure: On the Nature of Little V. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 197–238. Goodwin, William W. 1889. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. London: Macmillan and Co. ———. 1894. A Greek Grammar. London: Macmillan and Co. Grestenberger, Laura. 2020. The Diachrony of Participles in the (Pre)history of Greek and Hittite. Losing and Gaining Functional Structure. Diachronica 37: 215–263. Harley, Heidi. 2005a. How Do Verbs Get Their Names? Denominal Verbs, Manner Incorporation and the Ontology of Verb Roots in English. In The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation, ed. Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Tova Rapoport, 42–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek 

83

———. 2005b. Bare Phrase Structure, A-Categorial Roots, One-Replacement and Unaccusativity. In Slava Gorbachov and Andrew Nevins (eds.), Harvard Working Papers on Linguistics, 9, 1–19. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. ———. 2013. External Arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the Distinctness of Voice and V. Lingua 125: 34–57. ———. 2017. The ‘Bundling’ Hypothesis and the Disparate Functions of Little V. In The Verbal Domain, ed. Roberta d’Alessandro, Irene Franco, and Ángel J. Gallego, 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew. 2016. Backward Control in Ancient Greek and Latin Participial Adjuncts. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 35: 99–159. ———. 2011. Backward Control in Ancient Greek: Subsumption or Linearization. In Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, ed. Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, 278–298. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew, and Tatiana Nikitina. 2016. Feature Sharing in Agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34: 865–910. Holton, David, Peter Mackridge, Irene Philippaki-Warburton, and Vassilios Spyropoulos. 2012. Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar. Second Revised Edition. London: Routledge. Holton, David, Geoffrey Horrocks, Marjolijne Janssen, Tina Lendari, Io Manolessou, and Notis Toufexis. 2019. The Cambridge Grammar of Medieval and Early Modern Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horrocks, Geoffrey. 1981. Space and Time in Homer: Prepositional and Adverbial Particles in the Greek Epic. New York: Arno Press. ———. 2010. Greek: A History of the Language and its People. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley & Blackwell. Humbert, Jean. 1960. Syntaxe Grecque. Paris: Klincksieck. James, Patrick. 2007. Retention and Retreat: Complementary Participles and Infinitives with Verbs of Perception and Declaration in the Roman and Byzantine Documentary Papyri. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge. Jannaris, Antonius N. 1897. An Historical Greek Grammar, Chiefly of the Attic Dialect. London: Macmillan. Jones, Frank Pierce. 1939. The ab urbe condita Construction in Greek: A Study in the Classification of the Participle. Language 15.1. Language Dissertation n. 28. Joseph, Brian. 1983. The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive: A Study in Areal, General and Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1990. Morphology and Universals in Syntactic Change: Evidence from Medieval and Modern Greek. London: Routledge.

84 

V. Spyropoulos

Keydana, Götz. 1997. Absolute Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprech. ———. 2017. ‘Finite’ Infinitives in Ancient Greek. Indo-European Linguistics 5: 49–76. König, Ekkehard, and Johan van der Auwera. 1990. Adverbial Participles, Gerunds and Absolute Constructions. In Toward a Typology of European Languages, ed. Johannes Bechert, Giuliano Bernini, and Claude Buridant, 337–355. Berlin: Moyton de Gruyter. Koopman, Hilda. 2010. Prepositions, Postpositions, Circumpositions and Particles: The Structure of Dutch PPs. In Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 6, ed. Guglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi, 26–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kotzoglou, George. 2016. Control in Greek Gerunds: Implicit Arguments and Other Factors. In Selected Papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics from ISTAL, 2013, ed. Marina Mattheoudakis and Katerina Nikolaidis, 166–185. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the External Argument from Its Verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, ed. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kühner, Rapael, and Bernhard Gerth. 1898. Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache. Teil II: Satzlehre. Hannover & Leipzig: Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung. Liddel, Henry George, and Robert Scott. 1996. Greek-English Lexicon. With a Revised Supplement. Revised and Augmented by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the Assistance of Roderick McKenzie. Oxford: Oxford University Press. López, Luis. 1994. The Internal Structure of Absolute Small Clauses. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 45–92. ———. 2001. On the (Non)complementarity of θ-Theory and Checking Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 694–716. Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Maiocco, Marco. 2005. Absolute Participial Constructions: A Contrastive Approach to the Syntax of Greek and Latin. Pisa: Edizioni dell’ Orso. Manolessou, Ioanna. 2005. From Participles to gerunds. In Advances in Greek Generative Syntax, ed. Melita Stavrou and Arhonto Terzí, 241–284. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from Syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own Lexicon. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, ed. Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarisa Surek-­

3  The Development of Absolute Participial Constructions in Greek 

85

Clark, and Alexander Williams, 201–225. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. ———. 2001. Words. Paper presented at the 20th West Coast Conference of Formal Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. [A version of the paper has been retrieved from http://babel.ucsc.edu/~hank/mrg. readings/Marantz_words.pdf ] ———. 2007. Phases and Words. In Phases in the Theory of Grammar, ed. Sook-­ Hee Choe, 191–222. Soeul: Dong-In Publishing Co. McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax-Morphology Interface. Ph.D.  Thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Mirambel, André. 1961. Participe et gérondif en grec médiéval et moderne. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 56: 46–79. Nikitina, Tatiana, and Dag Trygve Truslew Haug. 2016. Syntactic Nominalization in Latin: A Case of Non-Canonical Subject Agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society 114: 25–50. Panagiotidis, Phoevos. 2010. Nonargumental mixed projections. Syntax 13: 165–182. ———. 2011. Categorial features and categorizers. The Linguistic Review 28: 325-346. ———. 2014. Categorial Features: A Generative Theory of Word-Class Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Panagiotidis, Phoevos, Vassilios Spyropoulos, and Anthi Revithiadou. 2017. Little v as a Categorizing Verbal Head: Evidence from Greek. In The Verbal Domain, ed. Roberta d’Alessandro, Irene Franco, and Ángel J.  Gallego, 29–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ruppel, Antonia. 2013. Absolute Constructions in Early Indo-European. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schwyzer, Eduard, and Albert Debrunner. 1950. Griechische Grammatik. Zweiter Band: Syntax und Syntaktische Stilistik. München: C.  H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Sevdali, Christina. 2007. Infinitival Clauses in Ancient Greek: Overt and Null-­ Subjects, the role of Case and Focus. Ph.D. Thesis,. University of Cambridge. Siloni, Tal. 1997. Noun Phrases and Nominalizations. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Smyth, Herbert Weir. 1918. Greek Grammar. Harvard University Press. Spieker, Edward. 1885. On the So-Called Genitive Absolute and Its Use Especially in the Attic Orators. American Journal of Philology 6: 310–343.

86 

V. Spyropoulos

Spyropoulos, Vassilios. 2005. The syntax of Classical Greek infinitive. In Universal Grammar in the Reconstruction of Ancient Languages, ed. Katalin É. Kiss, 295–337. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ———. 2017. Decomposing Prepositions: Function, Case and Prepositional Prefixation in Ancient Greek. Paper presented at Morphosyntactic Variation in Adpositions, Queens’ College, University of Cambridge, 8–9 May 2017. ———. 2018. Case, Function and PP Structure in Ancient Greek. Paper presented at On the Place of Case in Grammar. Rethymnon, 18–20 October 2018. Spyropoulos, Vassilios, Anthi Revithiadou, and Phoevos Panagiotidis. 2015. Verbalizers Leave Marks: Evidence from Greek. Morphology 25: 299–325. Stump, Gregory. 1985. The Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions. Dordrecht: Reidel. Svenonius, Peter. 2003. Limits on P: Filling in Holes vs. Falling in Holes. Nordlyd 31 (2): 431–445. ———. 2006. The Emergence of Axial Parts. Nordlyd 33 (1): 49–77. ———. 2007. Adpositions, Particles and the Arguments They Introduce. In Argument Structure, ed. Eric Reuland, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, and Giorgos Spathas, 64–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ———. 2010. Spatial P in English. In Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 6, ed. Guglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Terzi, Arhonto. 2010. Locative Prepositions and Place. In Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 6, ed. Guglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tsimpli, Ianthi-Maria. 2000. Gerunds in Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 1: 133–169. Vasilaros, Georgios. 1993. Der Gebrauch des Genitivus Absolutus bei Apollonios Rhodios im Verhältnis zu Homer. Athens: National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. Wackernagel, Jacob. 2009. Lectures on Syntax: With Special Reference to Greek, Latin and Germanic. Edited by David Langslow. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weierholt, Kristen. 1963. Studien im Sprachgebrauch des Malalas. Symbolae Osloenses Supplement 18. Oslo. Whaley, Lindsay. 1990. The Effect of Non-surface Grammatical Relations on the Genitive Absolute in Koine Greek. In Grammatical Relations: A Cross-­ Theoretical Perspective, ed. Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick Farrell, and Errapel Mejías-Bikandi, 459–471. CSLI: Stanford University.

4 Synecdochic Chains and Semantic Change: The Case of the Upper Limbs in Homeric Greek Iván Andrés-Alba

1 Introduction: Synecdochic Chains and Upper Limbs 1.1 Research Questions and Aims It is a well-known fact that χείρ kheír meant ‘hand’ and occasionally ‘arm’ (together with πῆχυς pêkhus and βραχίων brakhíōn). However, are χείρ kheír and πῆχυς pêkhus referring to the same ‘arm’? Why do we translate χείρ kheír sometimes as ‘hand’ and sometimes as ‘arm’? In short, do we really understand the Homeric conception of the upper limbs?

This investigation was founded by a predoctoral contract (FPU17/03052) of the Spanish Ministry for Universities. I want to thank Prof. Emilio Crespo and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments as well as Georgia Simakou for her proof-reading of the article.

I. Andrés-Alba (*) Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Lavidas et al. (eds.), Internal and External Causes of Language Change, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30976-2_4

87

88 

I. Andrés-Alba

To answer these questions, we must not rely on the translations of the Homeric text—which necessarily reflects our own conception of the body—nor on our knowledge of more recent stages of Greek, where the conception might have slightly changed. Rather, we must exclusively attend to the Homeric text and carefully analyse it from within, paying special attention to the semantic roles that these terms played and the entire context where they are inserted. Thus, the ultimate purpose of this study, which is to be understood within the framework of Cognitive Linguistics, is to achieve a holistic comprehension of the Homeric conception of the upper limbs and its development.

1.2 Semantic Change, Synecdochic Changes and Synecdochic Chains Wilkins (1996: 273–274; building on Wilkins 1981), in his explanation about semantic shifts in terms that designate parts of the human body, states that there are five main natural tendencies affecting semantic change within that field. Only two of them are relevant for our study: (1) Terms designating a visible part of the body tend to shift their meaning to the visible whole of which they are part (on the concepts part and whole as employed here, cf. Croft and Cruse 2004: 151). For instance, a term designating navel1 could shift to refer to belly, which is the contiguous part and also the container part of navel; in turn, the term for belly could shift to trunk, and trunk to ‘body’ as a whole, which is close to the top of the chain. This development could be schematised as navel → belly → trunk → body. The reverse process, that is, the designation of a visible part after the visible whole of it, is not natural (e.g., naming navel after belly). (2) Within a given whole, it is fairly recurrent to find that the term for a given part shifts its meaning to another contiguous part, for example,  Small capitals are used to designate body parts and concepts (e.g., belly) and semantic roles are noted with the first letter in upper-case (e.g., Instrument). 1

4  Synecdochic Chains and Semantic Change… 

89

belly shifting to breast (both within the whole trunk) or cheek shifting to jaw (within the whole face). Both trends are actually clear samples of synecdoche as it is traditionally understood: a word is replaced by a narrower or a wider term of the same entity (i.e., part → whole, cf. Luján 2010: 291). Regarding the first trend, which Wilkins (1996: 275) calls “unidirectional synecdoche” (since it only works in one direction), we have seen that the series of shifts is limited and cannot go further once it has reached the last element of the “chain”.2 Wilkins also establishes four continua where these synecdochic changes can take place, namely upper limbs, lower limbs, head and trunk. Every continuum has, in turn, a top concept that the synecdoche cannot overcome. That means that a synecdochic change like toe → foot → leg cannot go further than leg as a whole (for instance, it could not shift to body). Synecdochic changes as employed by Wilkins are used to explain semantic shifts, that is, they play a role in diachrony. However, this phenomenon has an empirical basis, namely, the conception that the speaker has about his/her own body (note the theory of Johnson (1987) about image schemas as mental structures abstracted from our environment). Actually, the assumption of continua and their peculiarities, as seen above, relies on this empirical base, which is rather synchronic and independent to the further diachronic developments. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish between synecdochic change as a kind of semantic change (and hence, a diachronic phenomenon) and its underlying empirical basis (a synchronic phenomenon). This kind of part-whole relation is referred by Croft & Cruse (2004: 154) as part-whole chains. Here, in order to emphasise their relationship with synecdoche, we will use the term synecdochic chains, building on the concept of ‘chain’ as employed by Cruse (1986: 189).  This “unidirectionallity” relies on the assumption that the concept of ‘part’ necessarily implies the idea of a ‘whole’, but a ‘whole’ does not necessarily require the existence of a ‘part’ (Wilkins 1981: 99). It would be possible for a language to have a word for arm without having other terms for its parts, but if a language has a word for finger, it would be logical that it also has a term for some other superordinate part to finger such as hand or arm. However, this statement is not always true, as Wilkins (1996: 279) admits. 2

90 

I. Andrés-Alba

Synecdochic chains are the conceptual base for synecdochic changes. They consist of a series of parts and an ultimate whole (the top of the chain). Each part constitutes a link of the chain, which not necessarily corresponds with the anatomical segmentation of the body (which we could call anatomical chain). As concepts, these links may vary from language to language or even from speaker to speaker (Wilkins 1996: 277). Even if the body and its anatomy is universal, some speakers might perceive and linguistically express segmentations which for other speakers do not exist.3 For instance, within the above mentioned continuum of the lower limbs, a language can segment the following parts: A (toe) – B (foot) – C (leg), while another one could segment A (toe) – B (foot + lower leg) – C (upper leg) or A (toe + foot) – B (leg).4 We will come back to the problem of chain segmentation in the following section. Finally, we must note that visual continuity operates within every synecdochic chain, since visible parts are interconnected and it is difficult to perceive a given part independently of its contiguous parts (for instance, when we visualise a nose, we have in mind also a face, at least in the background).5 That is due to the fact that every part is indivisible and inalienable from its whole and it is functionally integrated in the continuum to which it belongs (we can think about the idea of movement, for instance: if the foot moves while walking, all the leg has to move, cf. Wilkins 1996: 280).

1.3 The Synecdochic Chain ‘Upper Limbs’ In the present section, we focus on the synecdochic chain the upper limbs build, which we will label as UL.  First of all, we need to segment the chain in standard units based on functional and visual anatomical criteria. In other words, we must establish the anatomical chain underlying the conceptual chain. Leaving aside the fingers, we can divide the upper  For instance, Modern Greek has no standard term for the knuckle (as finger joint) and has to describe it periphrastically, unlike, say, Spanish, where the term nudillo exists. 4  According to Brown (1976: 406), in Chirah-mbaw, a Cameroonian language, pošiykow ‘toes’ is followed by kow which means leg + foot, without a separate term for foot. 5  From the cognitivist perspective of Langacker (1987), cheek (the part) is the profile and face (the whole) is the base or domain. A profile is insufficient to define a concept and needs its base. 3

4  Synecdochic Chains and Semantic Change… 

91

limbs into three segments interconnected by three articulations: segment 1 (S1) corresponds to the lowest part of the upper limb, that is, from the lowest articulation (A1) to the end of the upper limb; segment 2 (S2) is located between the lowest (A1) and the middle articulation (A2) and segment 3 (S3), between the middle (A2) and the upper articulation (A3). The third articulation connects the upper limb with the rest of the body. This can be depicted as in Table 4.1. The depicted schema of the anatomical chain actually fits with the synecdochic chain built in languages such as English (see Table 4.2). However, as mentioned above, not every link on the anatomical chain must match with a link on the synecdochic chain in a particular language (in other words, it does not need to be conceptualised with a name). In Spanish, for instance, S3 does not have a proper name for most speakers, and it must be described periphrastically as “the upper part of the arm” or using an articulation or a muscle as a reference point, as in “above the elbow” and “on the biceps”. As mentioned above, this does not imply that S3 does not exist in Spanish: The anatomical S3 does exist, but for some speakers it is not regarded as part of the synecdochic chain (according to the DLE, S3 is called brazo and that is true for some speakers, but for many others S3 has no proper name as S2 does) (Table 4.3). Table 4.1  Schematization of the upper limb ‘upper limb’ (UL) S1

A1

‘body’ S2

A2

S3

A3

Table 4.2  Terms employed in English for the segments and articulations of the upper limb English

S1

A1

S2

A2

S3

A3

hand

wrist

forearm

elbow

upper arm

shoulder

Table 4.3  Terms employed in Spanish for the segments and articulations of the upper limb Spanish

S1

A1

S2

A2

S3

A3

mano

muñeca

antebrazo

codo

–

hombro

92 

I. Andrés-Alba

Table 4.4  Distribution of the suprasegmental units and their parts in English and Spanish English

Spanish

S1

A1

S2

A2

S3

A3

hand1 hand2 arm3 mano1

wrist arm2

forearm

elbow

upper arm

shoulder

muñeca

antebrazo

codo

(brazo1)

hombro

mano2

brazo2

brazo3

Additionally, the links of synecdochic chains might be conceived as belonging to an immediate whole before being subsumed by the ultimate whole (Croft and Cruse 2004: 154). We will call these supraordinate elements “suprasegmental units”. In the case of English or Spanish, upper limbs are divided into two suprasegmental units: a lower and an upper one. The lower suprasegmental includes S1 and partially A1, while the upper one starts on A1 and finishes on A3, including the whole S2 and S3 (note that joints usually play an interstitial role in suprasegmental units: they can be seen as part of the lower or of the upper suprasegmental without affecting their basic conception). Table  4.4 presents the schema of English and Spanish, both having a 1+2 system (that is, the lower suprasegmental includes one segment, while the upper suprasegmental includes two). These suprasegmental units imply that there are two levels of segmentation together with the global whole: there is a segmental level (integrated by the segments and the articulations), a suprasegmental level (where the suprasegmental units operate) and a holistic level (the top of the chain as a whole). 6 Note that the same term can be employed in more than one level (we distinguish them graphically by adding a number as index). The fact that hand1 (as a segment) and hand2 (as a suprasegmental unit) are different concepts is proved by their contrast relations: in (1), hand1 (as a segment) is opposed to wrist (both belonging to the segmental level), while in (2) hand2 (as a suprasegmental) contrasts with arm2 (as a  According to Theory of prototypes (cf. Rosch et al. 1976) it is possible to distinguish various levels of categorization according to different levels of inclusiveness, where more specific levels are included in more inclusive ones (subordinate level → basic level → supraordinate level). Croft & Cruse (2004: 96–97) mention the possibility of variation in level construal between speakers and even “within the usage of a given speaker at different times and in different contexts”. 6

4  Synecdochic Chains and Semantic Change… 

93

suprasegmental too—certainly not as a whole), both being part of the suprasegmental level.7 ( 1) He has severe burns on hands and wrists. (2) He has severe burns on hands and arms. As for arm, it can refer to both the upper segmental and the whole of the upper limb: confront the last example (as a suprasegmental) with (3) where it is employed in the holistic level for the whole upper limb (contrasting with leg as lower limb).8 The same analysis applies for Spanish mano and brazo.9 (3) He has severe burns on arms and legs. However, as mentioned above, this conception of the upper limb may vary from language to language, both in the segmental and the suprasegmental level. Thus, other languages, such as Modern Greek or Russian, do not share the 1+2 system, even though they have similar segmentations. In Modern Greek, the lower suprasegmental includes S2 as well, whereas the upper suprasegmental starts on the A2 and not on the A1. Hence, we can classify the Modern Greek synecdochic chain as a 2+1 system.10 However, Russian has no effective supraordinate units and the  Croft & Cruse (2004: 156–159) talk about variable construal: in a sentence like the hand is part of the arm, arm receives an inclusive construal (the one we label arm3), for it includes hand, while in the hand is attached to the arm, it receives an exclusive construal excluding hand (namely, arm2). However, note that this theory presupposes only two levels, not three as we propose here. 8  This system of oppositions can also be understood from the viewpoint of the Theory of lexical fields (Coseriu 1967). For instance arm3 || arm2 | hand2: ‘upper limb’ || ‘upper suprasegmental’ | ‘lower suprasegmental’ as man || man | woman: ‘human being’ || ‘male’ | ‘female’. 9  According to DLE, (2014) Spanish mano includes also muñeca (‘wrist’), but examples as dolor en mano y muñeca ‘pain in hand and wrist’ evidence that mano1 is different from mano2. Regarding brazo, the DLE describes it as either upper limb as a whole or S3. However, in a personal consultation addressed to the Royal Spanish Academy, they admitted the employment as upper segmental as well. Thus, brazo could be used as S3 (opposed to antebrazo); as upper suprasegmental (opposed to hand, the lower one); and as upper limb (opposed to leg, as lower limb). 10  Croft & Cruse (2004: 162) are aware of this particularity in Modern Greek and use the term “extended hand”. Note that parallel to Spanish brazo, Modern Greek χέρι xéri appears in all three levels: χέρι1 xéri1 as S1 (opposed to πήχης píxis, βραχίονας vraxíonas…), χέρι2 xéri2 as lower suprasegmental and hence opposed to μπράτσο brátso (e.g., έχει τατουάζ στο χέρι και στο μπράτσο éxi tatuáz sto xéri ke sto brátso ‘he has tattoos on his forearm and his upper arm’) and χέρι3 xéri3 as upper segmental as a whole (opposed to πόδι póði ‘leg’). Note also that πήχης píxis and βραχίονας vraxíonas are technical terms. For most speakers S2 has no proper name and S3 is called μπράτσο brátso. 7

94 

I. Andrés-Alba

Table 4.5  Distribution of the suprasegmental units and their parts in Modern Greek and Russian S1

A1

S2

Modern Greek χέρι1 καρπός (πήχης) xéri1 karpós (píxis) χέρι2 xéri2 χέρι3 xéri3 Russian ruká1 zapjást’je predpléč’je

A2

S3

αγκώνας (βραχίονας) agónas (vraxíonas) μπράτσο brátso

lókot’

(predpléč’je) plečó

A3 ώμος ómos

plečó

ruká2

chain functions as a whole (it has a 3 system where the three segments are at the same level)11 (Table 4.5). And now, turning into Homeric Greek, we can easily segment the upper limb and assign a term to each part. However, on the basis of description in grammars and dictionaries we cannot easily determine whether Homeric Greek had a 1+2 system (as English or Spanish), a 2+1 system (like Modern Greek) or a 3 system (as Russian), nor determine if there were any kind of suprasegmental level. For that purpose, we shall carefully examine the Homeric corpus.

2 The Upper Limbs in Homer 2.1 An Overview on Frequency and Morphology As Table 4.6 shows, the frequency of the different terms for the segments and articulations of the upper limb in Homer differs considerably: χείρ kheír appears 632 times and ὦμος ômos 154 times, while the other terms do not appear more than ten times. In the following paragraphs, we focus on the words χείρ kheír, πῆχυς pêkhus and βραχίων brakhíōn, leaving aside the terms for the joints, which belong to a different ontological class.  The term used for S3 in Russian also varies from speaker to speaker. The formal one is plečó but many speakers call it predpléč’je (like S2), which literally means ‘before the plečó’ (cf. Latin antebrachium), because—given that plečó also means A3—S3 is indeed located before the plečó. 11

95

4  Synecdochic Chains and Semantic Change… 

Table 4.6  Number of attestations of each term (all cases and numbers) in Homeric Greek (excluding parts of animals and metaphorical uses) S1 A1 S2 A2 S3 A3

Term

Iliad

Odyssey

Total

χείρ kheír καρπός karpós πῆχυς pêkhus ἀγκών ankṓn βραχίων brakhíōn ὦμος ômos

382 7 2 5 5 109

250 3 3 2 1 41

632 10 5 7 6 150

Table 4.7  Case of χείρ kheír, πῆχυς pêkhus and βραχίων brakhíōn in Homeric Greek Case Nominative Accusative Genitive Dative

χείρ kheír

πῆχυς pêkhus

βραχίων brakhíōn

19 184 94 334

0 5 0 0

1 4 0 1

Regarding case, χείρ kheír appears mostly in the dative (334 times) and the accusative (184). The genitive (94) and the nominative (19) are not so common. As for number, the plural and dual are more frequent than the singular (443 against 189). The difference between plural and dual is not relevant for this study, but it is important to distinguish between singular and non-singular. The term πῆχυς pêkhus appears in the accusative case, and βραχίων brakhíōn in the accusative, nominative, and dative. The high frequency of χείρ kheír in the dative is not trivial, since, as we will see, its instrumental value is one of its main features (note that the Greek dative is the result from the syncretism of the Indo-­ European dative, locative and instrumental, encoding the semantic role Instrument, cf. Luraghi 2001, 2015: 610). Similarly, the fact that accusative is the most frequent case of πῆχυς pêkhus and βραχίων brakhíōn is also relevant because these segments lack of instrumental traits (they cannot perform actions) (Table 4.7).

96 

I. Andrés-Alba

2.2 An Approach to the Semantic Roles of χείρ kheír, πῆχυς pêkhus and βραχίων brakhíōn In order to discern which segment is meant in any of the cases in which these terms are involved, we should first take a brief look at their main semantic roles. To begin with, we shall consider the most common role of χείρ kheír, namely Instrument. In nearly two hundred cases, it acts as the Instrument that an Agent uses to carry out an action. This can be expressed either in a prototypical way (4) or combined with other spatial functions (5), where χείρ kheír is not only the Instrument but also the place where one of the actants is to be located.12 Note that neither πῆχυς pêkhus nor βραχίων brakhíōn ever adopt this role. (4) χείρεσσ’ ἀθανάτηισι φαεινὴν ἀσπίδα νύσσων. kheíress’ athanátēisi phaeinḕn aspída nússōn (Il. 16.704) ‘with his immortal hands beating back the bright shield’.*13 (5) Εὐρύμαχος δ’ ἤδη τόξον μετὰ χερσὶν ἐνώμα Eurímakhos d’ ḗdē tókson metà khersìn enṓma (Od. 21.245) ‘Eurymachus was already handling the bow between his hands’.* Now we turn into the second largest sort of semantic roles, those in which the part acts as the Undergoer of some action or process affecting the possessor (cf. Crespo et  al. 2003: 117). The role of Patient―also called goal (Dik 1989)―of an action is possible for χείρ kheír, πῆχυς pêkhus and βραχίων brakhíōn, as in the examples (6) and (7). Reflexive actions are especially frequent, such as in (8). (6) (…) Ὀδυσεὺς δὲ λαβὼν κύσε χεῖρ’ ἐπὶ καρπῶι Oduseùs dè labṑn kúse kheîr’ epì karpôi (Od. 24.398) ‘and he clasped the hand of Odysseus and kissed it on the wrist’.  Conti (2003) analyses the instrumental constructions in Homer and their connection with local values. Luraghi (2015: 605) suggests a possible original spatial meaning for the Indo-European Instrumental, since languages preserving an instrumental case also attest some spatial usages. In Greek, we can find local values in some archaic instrumental suffixes, such as in the adverb πῃ pē ‘in any way, anywhere’ (< *kwe-h1). 13  Greek examples follow the editions of West (1998, 2000, 2017) and the translations of Lattimore (1951) for the Iliad and Murray (1995/1919) for the Odyssey. Own translations are marked with an asterisk. 12

4  Synecdochic Chains and Semantic Change… 

97

(7) δουρὶ βραχίονα τύψεν ἐπάλμενος (…) dourì brakhíona túpsen epálmenos (Il. 13.529) ‘plunging upon him [sc. Deiphobos] stabbed [sc. Meriones] his arm with the spear’. (8) ἀμφὶ δὲ παιδὶ φίλωι βάλε πήχεε⋅ (…) amphì dè paidì phílōi bále pḗkhee (Od. 24.347) ‘He threw both his arms about his dear son’.* Now turning into the group of semantic roles of local specification, we can broadly distinguish up to three main roles: Location (the actant where something is located), Direction (the actant towards which something moves or is moved) and Source (the actant from which something moves or is moved). (9) νῦν δέ μοι ἐν χείρεσσιν ἄγη ξίφος (…) nûn dé moi en kheíressin ágē ksíphos (Il. 3.367) ‘and now my sword is broken in my hands’. (10) τοῖσι δὲ κήρυκες μὲν ὕδωρ ἐπὶ χεῖρας ἔχευαν toîsi dè kḗrukes mèn húdōr epì kheîras ékheuan (Od. 1.146) ‘Heralds poured water over their hands’. (11) ἐξέρυσε πρυμνοῖο βραχίονος ὄβριμον ἔγχος ekséruse prumnoîo brakhíonos óbrimon énkhos (Il. 13.532) ‘and he plucked out the heavy spear from his upper arm [sc. of Deiphobus]’.* Locations, Directions and Sources are common semantic roles for χείρ kheír and tend to combine with the instrumental function. In (12), χείρ kheír is both the direction of the movement and the Instrument of the action of receiving some object; similarly, in (13), the part is not only the source, but also the Instrument that carries out the action of throwing: (12) κήρυξ δ’ ἐν χερσὶν κίθαριν περικαλλέα θῆκεν / Φημίωι (…) kēruks d’ en khersìn kítharin perikalléa thêken Phēmíōi (Od. 1.153–154) ‘And a herald put the beautiful cithara in the hands of Phemius’.* (13) ἀντίον ἵστανται καὶ ἀκοντίζουσι θαμειάς / αἰχμὰς ἐκ χειρῶν⋅ (…)

98 

I. Andrés-Alba

Table 4.8  Synthesis of the semantic roles of χείρ kheír Semantic role Instrument

Undergoer

Instrument Instrument + local specification “Agent-like” Patient Theme Processed

Local specification (non-instrumental) Others Total

Frequency 198 110 3 158 32 10

311 (49.2%)

94

(14.9%)

200 (31.6%)

27 632

antíon hístantai kaì akontízousi thameiás aikhmàs ek kheirôn (Il. 12.44–45) ‘They stand up to face him, and cast at him spears thick and fast thrown from their hands’.* If we combine the prototypical Instruments of χείρ kheír with those that also have an additional local nuance, the number of instrumental roles of χείρ kheír is even higher. Nearly the half of all attested cases, as shown in Table 4.8. To summarise, while χείρ kheír usually takes the role of Instrument, nor πῆχυς pêkhus or βραχίων brakhíōn have this feature. Hence, we can conclude this section by stating that χείρ kheír has a high degree of instrumentality, whereas πῆχυς pêkhus or βραχίων brakhíōn are rather passive parts of the body, without any instrumentality.14

 The instrumental role is also the most common in the Old Iranian cognates of χείρ kheír: Avestan zasta- appears more frequently in the instrumental case and also Old Persian dasta- (two of three cases are the instrumental plural dastai̭biyā). The instrumental can be found in compouds such as Avestan zastā-išta ‘setting in motion by hand’, zastā.maršta ‘touched by hand’, and perhaps also Old Persian dastakṛta ‘made by hand’. Moreover, two of the three occurences of the Phrygian word zeira ‘hand’ appear in the dative singular (Obrador Cursach 2020). 14

4  Synecdochic Chains and Semantic Change… 

99

3 Determining Which Segment is Referred 3.1 Factors and Possible Classification In the following sections, we try to determine which segment of the chain is meant by χείρ kheír, πῆχυς pêkhus and βραχίων brakhíōn. For that purpose, we analyse different relevant factors. The first of these factors is connected to the above discussed degree of instrumentality: in the case of a word being used as an Instrument, we have to look at the semantic characteristics of the verb. Some actions such as “to grab” or “to touch” necessarily imply S1, while others, such as “to swim”, require the intervention of the whole upper segment. In a similar way, it is also relevant to consider the object which is being manipulated by the body part. Some require S1 (for instance, a “sword”), but others (usually because of their size or volume) actively need S1 and S2 at once (e.g., a “baby” cannot be held only by S1). Certainly, from a physiological point of view, every part of the limb is involved in nearly every action we carry out, but we are analysing actions from a visual perception, that is, focusing on what the speaker sees and perceives. Note that semantic roles are part of the process of abstraction to encode the real world into the linguistic reality of the speaker (cf. Lehmann 2005). Thus, we cannot say *he eats with his left arm (even if the whole arm moves while eating) nor *she swims with her hands (since that would probably imply that she only moves her hands—not the prototypical way of swimming). In the first case (eating) we could say that S1 is being used actively (the other segments being used passively), and in the second one (swimming), the whole upper limb is being used in an active way. Besides these features, we also have to consider some indirect factors, such as the context of the event itself, references to other parts of the upper limbs (like ἀγκών ankṓn, καρπός karpós, etc.), references to other parts of the body in virtue of “specular analogy”15 (πούς poús, γυῖα guîa,  According to Wilkins (1996: 273–274), terms designating a given part located in the upper half of the body tend to shift to refer to another part in the lower half or vice versa. Both parts must have some affinity (function, shape, size, etc.), like elbow and knee. This phenomenon is one of the natural tendencies mentioned in Sect. 1.2. 15

100 

I. Andrés-Alba

etc.) or the use of particular adjectives or prepositions which can provide us with relevant information. Finally, we also need to pay attention to some metaphorical and metonymical usages, locutions (such as “under the hands of ”) and what we will call realia: the knowledge that we have, as speakers, about the real world and its relationship with our body. For instance, by an action involving the verb δέω déō ‘to bind’ and χείρ kheír, we know that it is necessary to bind S1 by the wrist, because if only S2 is bound (by the elbow), the bound person could still use his S1 and untie himself. Based on these factors, we classify the examples of χείρ kheír, πῆχυς pêkhus and βραχίων brakhíōn into: • Segmental usage (S1, S2 or S3): Only one segment is actively involved. • Suprasegmental usage (either lower or upper suprasegmental): Two segments of the chain are actively involved, while a third plays a rather passive role. • Holistic usage: The whole upper limb is involved. All segments are actively involved to a similar extent. • Indeterminable: It is not possible to determine which segment or suprasegmental is meant.

3.2 Analysis of χείρ kheír as Segmental Usage Most of the cases can certainly be classified as S1, because the verb (14) or the manipulated object (15)―or even both at the same time (16)― provide relevant information. (14) χειρί τέ μιν κατέρεξεν ἔπος τ’ ἔφατ’ ἔκ τ’ ὀνόμαζεν⋅ kheirí té min katéreksen épos t’ éphat’ ék t’ onómazen (Il. 6.485) ‘and stroked her with his hand, and called her by name and spoke to her’. (15) τῶν δ’ ἄρα δεισάντων ἐκ χειρῶν ἔπτατ’ ἐρετμά tôn d’ ára deisántōn ek kheirôn éptat’ eretmá (Od. 12.203) ‘The oars flew from the hands of the terrified men’.* (16) αὐτίκ’ ἔπειτα τρίαιναν ἑλὼν χερσὶ στιβαρῆισιν autík’ épeita tríainan helṑn khersì stibarêisin (Od. 4.506) ‘and at once took his trident in his mighty hands’.

4  Synecdochic Chains and Semantic Change… 

101

In some other examples nor the verb or the object are helpful to determine the segment, but S1 is still more likely to be referred. That is the case with locutions such as (17), where S1 appears as the metaphorical Instrument of the Agent, or with actions implying some spatial element, such as ἐπί epí in (18), where laying suggests that a segment other than S1 would not be logical. Here we can include the actions where καρπός karpós ‘wrist’ is the only relevant piece of information provided. For instance, the above-mentioned example (6) shows that the Patient is grabbed by the wrist and kissed on χείρ kheír, that is, in S1 (there is no example of πῆχυς pêkhus being kissed). (17) χερσὶν ὕπ’ Αἴαντος θανέειν Τελαμωνιάδαο⋅ khersìn húp’ Aíantos thanéein Telamōniádao (Il. 15.289) ‘he was killed under the hands of Telamonian Aias’. (18) μὴ μὲν ἐγὼ κούρηι Βρισηΐδι χεῖρ’ ἐπένεικα mḕ mèn egṑ koúrēi Brisēḯdi kheîr’ epéneika (Il. 19.261) ‘that I have not laid a hand on the girl Briseis’.* As mentioned above, our knowledge of the world is also a useful factor for the relevant classification. That can be seen in actions of binding, such as (19) or washing/cleaning (20), where the affected part was probably only S1.16 (19) δῆσε δ’ ὀπίσσω χεῖρας ἐϋτμήτοισιν ἱμᾶσιν dêse d’ opíssō kheîras eütmḗtoisin himâsin (Il. 21.30) ‘and bound their hands behind them with thongs well cut out of leather’. (20) (…), ἀτὰρ βασιλεῦσιν ὕδωρ ἐπὶ χεῖρας ἔχευαν. atàr basileûsin húdōr epì kheîras ékheuan (Il. 3.270) ‘and poured water over the hands of the princes’.

 In scenes where someone pours water, it is difficult to imagine the water being poured to S2 instead of S1. Moreover, in case other segments are being cleaned, they are clearly specified: ἔς ῥ’ ἀσάμινθον ἕσασα λό’ ἐκ τρίποδος μεγάλοιο, / (…), κατὰ κρατός τε καὶ ὤμων és rh’ asáminthon hésasa ló’ ek trípodos megáloio, kata kratós te kaì ṓmōn (Od. 10.361–362) ‘she set to me in a bath, and bathed me with water from the great cauldron, (…), and pouring it over my head and shoulders’. 16

102 

I. Andrés-Alba

Also, the context can be relevant for classifying χείρ kheír as S1. In (21), the given object (μνῆμα mnêma) is a πέπλος péplos(Od. 15.124) which Helen wove (using S1), so that the segment meant by χειρῶν kheirôn must be S1 too. In (22), we can determine that χειρός kheirós in verse 595 refers to S1 because, in the previous verses, it has been said that the Patient was holding a bow (necessarily in S1). (21) δῶρόν τοι καὶ ἐγώ, τέκνον φίλε, τοῦτο δίδωμι, / μνῆμ’ Ἑλένης χειρῶν (…) dôrón toi kaì egṓ, téknon phíle, toûto dídōmi, mnêm’ Helénēs kheirôn (Od. 15.125–126) ‘This gift, dear child, I too give you, a remembrance of the hands of Helen’. (22) Ἀτρείδης δ’ ἄρα χεῖρα βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Μενέλαος / τὴν βάλεν, ἧι ῥ’ ἔχε τόξον ἐΰξοον⋅ ἐν δ’ ἄρα τόξωι / ἀντικρὺ διὰ χειρὸς ἐλήλατο χάλκεον ἔγχος. Atreídēs d’ ára kheîra boḕn agathòs Menélaos tḕn bálen, hêi rh’ ékhe tókson eǘksoon; en d’ ára tóksōi antikrù dià kheiròs elḗlato khálkeon énkhos (Il. 13.593–595) ‘But the son of Atreus, Menelaus, good at the war cry, struck him [sc. Helenus] in the hand with which he was holding the polished bow: the bronze spear was driven into the bow clean through the hand’.* Less clear than these context-restricted cases are the metaphorical uses of χείρ kheír, such as the ones in (23) and (24). Probably, they are also to be included in S1, since it is the prototypical instrumental segment and also the only one that can carry out violent actions or handle weapons. (23) Αἴαντος προφυγόντα μένος καὶ χεῖρας ἀάπτους Aíantos prophúgonta ménos kaì kheîras aáptous (Il. 7.309) ‘escaping the strength and the unconquerable hands of Aias’. (24) ἐν γὰρ χερσὶ τέλος πολέμου, ἐπέων δ’ ἐνὶ βουλῆι⋅ en gàr khersì télos polémou, epéōn d’ enì boulêi (Il. 16.630) ‘The outcome of war lies in our hands; that of words in the counsel’.*

4  Synecdochic Chains and Semantic Change… 

103

3.3 Analysis of χείρ kheír as Suprasegmental or Holistic Usage Among the cases concerning suprasegmental usages of χείρ kheír, one should include those depending on actions that imply the physical movement of two segments at once—cf., for instance, (25)—and those with objects that cannot be handled only with S1 (26). (25) λαοὶ δ’ ἠρήσαντο, θεοῖσι δὲ χεῖρας ἀνέσχον laoì d’ ērḗsanto, theoîsi dè kheîras anéskhon (Il. 3.318) ‘And the armies prayed and lifted up their hands to the gods’.* (26) ὣς εἰπὼν ἀλόχοιο φίλης ἐν χερσὶν ἔθηκεν / παῖδ’ ἑόν⋅ (…) hṑs eipṑn alókhoio phílēs en khersìn éthēken paîd’ heón (Il. 6.482) ‘So saying, he set his child in the arms of his dear wife’.* Besides this suprasegmental usage, there is also the possibility of full implication of the upper limb. In these instances, there is no concrete segment or suprasegmental affected, but the whole limb. Hence, full implication of the limb can be seen in scenes of embracing such as the one provided in (27), where the whole upper limb encircles the Undergoer (as the preverb ἀμφί amphí shows). However, most examples are context-­ specific. In (28), it is said that χεῖρες kheîres swing from ὤμων ṓmōn ‘shoulders’, so it is likely that all the limb from S1 to S3 is to be understood. In (29), after Deukalion had been wounded in the elbow, the Patient is described as χεῖρα βαρυνθείς kheîra baruntheís (‘heavy, lamed’ regarding to the χείρ kheír). Since the wound is affecting ἀγκών ankṓn, probably the whole limb is undergoing the same process. (27) κλαῖον ἄρ’ ἀμφ’ Ὀδυσῆϊ δαΐφρονι χεῖρε βαλόντε klaîon ár’ Odusêï daḯphroni kheîre balónte (Od. 21.223) ‘they threw their arms around wise Odysseus, and wept’. (28) οὐ γὰρ ἔτ’ ἔμπεδα γυῖα, φίλος, πόδες, οὐδέ τι χεῖρες / {ὤμων ἀμφοτέρωθεν ἐπαΐσσονται ἐλαφραί}. ou gàr ét’ émpeda guîa, phílos, pódes, oudé ti kheîres ṓmōn amphotérōthen epaḯssontai elaphraí (Il. 23.627–628)

104 

I. Andrés-Alba

‘My limbs are no longer firm, my friend; not my feet, neither do my arms swing upon my shoulders on both sides’.* (29) (…). ὃ δέ μιν μένε χεῖρα βαρυνθείς hó dé min méne kheîra baruntheís (Il. 20.480) ‘And he awaited him, weighed in his hand’.* In addition to these context-specific cases, we must include two examples of χείρ kheír where we can assert with certainty that it refers to a segment other than S1. Both are in relation with ἀγκών ankṓn (the second joint), when it is employed in scenes where somebody is injured. (30) Δευκαλίωνα δ’ ἔπειθ’, ἵνα τε ξυνέχουσι τένοντες / ἀγκῶνος, τῆι τόν γε φίλης διὰ χειρὸς ἔπειρεν / αἰχμῆι χαλκείηι. Deukalíōna d’ épeith’, hína te ksunékhousi ténontes ankônos, têi tón ge phílēs dià kheiròs épeiren aikhmêi khalkeíēi (Il. 20.478–479) ‘Then, at a place where the tendons of the elbow come together, there he pierced Deukalion through the arm with a spear of bronze’.* (31) νύξε δέ μιν κατὰ χεῖρα μέσην ἀγκῶνος ἔνερθεν núkse dé min kata kheîra mésēn ankônos énerthen (Il. 11.252) ‘and he stabbed him at the middle arm beneath the elbow’.* Finally, some cases cannot be classified due to the lack of more indicative information. That is common in physical actions implying some kind of attack or simply of grabbing or touching (32), in which case the affected segment could be any of them. (32) χειρὸς ἑλόντ’ ἀγέμεν Βρισηΐδα καλλιπάρηον. kheiròs helónt’ agémen Brisēḯda kallipárēon (Il. 1.323) ‘taking by the hand the fair-­cheeked Briseis bring her here’.* As mentioned above, the difference between suprasegmental and holistic usage lies on the degree of implication of each segment. In an action of raising hands, as (25), S1 still plays an active role (surely, S1 will not just hang motionless), much more relevant than the role of S3, which not necessarily must be lifted. Hence, we can talk about suprasegmental usage. The cases shown in (27–29), however, present a similar degree of implication in every segment and can be considered holistic usages. For instance, if one employs the upper arms for embrace, all three segments are

4  Synecdochic Chains and Semantic Change… 

105

Table 4.9  Classification of segments meant by χείρ kheír Segment meant

Frequency

Summatory

Frequency

Segment 1 Segment 1 (likely) Lower Suprasegmental Upper limb Upper limb (likely) Unclassified segment

397 87 69 24 28 27

Segment 1 as core

553 (87.5%)

Upper limb as a whole

52 (8.3%)

Unclassified

27

similarly involved, since it is actually hard to properly embrace somebody without surrounding him with S1, S2 and S3 at once. As a conclusion, we can state that χείρ kheír is mainly employed for segmental usages, where the referred segment is exclusively S1. It is also found in suprasegmental usages, where S1 is always included—that is, these uses refer to the lower suprasegmental. Besides, we find certain cases of holistic usages. If we combine segmental and suprasegmental usages, where S1 plays a major role, we can confirm that S1 is the core of the vast majority of cases. Table 4.9 summarises the preceding analysis.

3.4 Analysis of πῆχυς pêkhus and βραχίων brakhíōn Due to the low frequency of these words, it is difficult to carry out an analysis based on indirect factors (verbs, objects, context, etc.) as we did in the case of χείρ kheír. However, since none of these terms appear as an Instrument, we already can state that they are not referred to S1 (at least exclusively). We shall now determine whether they refer to S2, S3 or any other possible combination. Beginning with πῆχυς pêkhus, four of the five usages are cases of Patients involved in actions of embracement, where necessarily the whole upper limb is involved, as mentioned above. (33) ἀμφὶ δὲ παιδὶ φίλωι βάλε πήχεε δακρύσασα amphì dè paidì phílōi bále pḗkhee dakrúsasa (Od. 17.38) ‘Crying, she threw both her arms around her son’.* The fifth example is not a scene of embracement but the result of an attack. Usually, as stated in 3.1, these situations do not provide useful

106 

I. Andrés-Alba

information about the affected segment, but in this particular case it does: the poet specifies that Achilles is struck on the πῆχυς pêkhus of the right hand (χείρ kheír). This excludes S1 and restricts the segment meant to S2 or S3. Since, as we will see in the next examples, S3 has a specific term, we can state that (34) is referred to S2. (34) τῶι δ’ ἑτέρωι μιν πῆχυν ἐπιγράβδην βάλε χειρός / δεξιτερῆς, (…) tôi d’ hetérōi min pêkhun epigrábdēn bále kheirós deksiterês (Il. 21.166–167) ‘and with the other [sc. spear] he struck him [sc. Achilles] on the right forearm grazing it’.* As for βραχίων brakhíōn, despite the low number of references, there are many interesting factors related to its meaning and usage that must be considered. Ιn (35) Teukros hits Glaukos’ βραχίων brakhíōn with an arrow. This case does not provide any relevant information if considered out of context. However, in (36), Glaukos, complaining about his pain, squeezes his βραχίων brakhíōn with his χείρ kheír, which evidences that this term must be referred either to S2 or S3. (35) Τεῦκρος δὲ Γλαῦκον (…) / ἰῶι ἐπεσσύμενον βάλε τείχεος ὑψηλοῖο, / ἧι ῥ’ ἴδε γυμνωθέντα βραχίονα (…) Teûkros dè Glaûkon iôi epessúmenon bále teíkheos hupsēloîo, hêi rh’ íde gumnōthénta brakhíona (Il. 12.387–389) ‘And Teukros struck Glaukos (…) with an arrow, as he rushed from the high wall, where he saw his arm uncovered’.* (36) χειρὶ δ’ ἑλὼν ἐπίεζε βραχίονα⋅ (…) kheirì d’ helṑn epíeze brakhíona (Il. 16.510) ‘And taking his arm with his hand, he squeezed it’.* Ιn (37), Meriones stabs Deiphobos’ βραχίων brakhíōn, which makes him drop the helmet which he was holding in χείρ kheír. This implies that an action on S2–S3 has physical consequences on S1. Some verses later, presented in (38), he plucks out the stabbed spear from Deiphobos’ βραχίων brakhíōn, which is characterised as πρυμνός prumnós

4  Synecdochic Chains and Semantic Change… 

107

‘hindmost, undermost’ in this verse. We find the same adjective in (39), again in a military context and spatially related to ὦμος ômos. (37) δουρὶ βραχίονα τύψεν ἐπάλμενος, ἐκ δ’ ἄρα χειρός / αὐλῶπις τρυφάλεια χαμαὶ βόμβησε πεσοῦσα. dourì brakhíona túpsen epálmenos, ek d’ ára kheirós aulôpis trupháleia khamaì bómbēse pesoûsa (Il. 13.529–530) ‘plunging upon him [sc. Deiphobos] stabbed [sc. Meriones] his arm with the spear, and the hollow-eyed helmet dropped from his hand and fell to the ground clashing’. (38) ἐξέρυσε πρυμνοῖο βραχίονος ὄβριμον ἔγχος ekséruse prumnoîo brakhíonos óbrimon énkhos (Il. 13.532) ‘and he plucked out the heavy spear from his upper arm [sc. of Deiphobos]’.* (39) (…) οὐδ’ ἀφάμαρτεν, / ὦμον ἄφαρ⋅ πρυμνὸν δὲ βραχίονα δουρὸς ἀκωκή / δρύψ’ ἀπὸ μυώνων, (…) oud’ aphámarten, ômon áphar; prumnòn dè brakhíona douròs akōkḗ drúps’ apò muṓnōn (Il. 16.322–324) ‘and he did not miss his stroke right into the shoulder: the spearhead tore off the upper arm from the muscles’.* Example (39) is also relevant because of the allusion to the muscles inside βραχίων brakhíōn. Certainly, S2 has muscles too, but these are by far much more prominent in S3. The passage in (40) illustrates this physical feature of S3, where different body parts such as μηρός, ὦμος ômos and στῆθος stêthos are mentioned and characterised by their beauty and size. (40) (…) φαῖνε δὲ μηρούς / καλούς τε μεγάλους τε, φάνεν δέ οἱ εὐρέες ὦμοι / στήθεά τε στιβαροί τε βραχίονες⋅ (…) phaîne dè mēroús kaloús te megálous te, phánen dé hoi eurées ômoi stḗtheá te stibaroí te brakhíones (Od. 18.67–69) ‘and showed [sc. Odysseus] his thighs shapely and stout, and his broad shoulders came to view, and his chest and mighty arms’.

108 

I. Andrés-Alba

Table 4.10  Classification of segments expressed by πῆχυς pêkhus and βραχίων brakhíōn Segment referred

πῆχυς pêkhus

βραχίων brakhíōn

Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Upper limb

0 1 0 4

0 0 7 0

As a conclusion, it appears that both πῆχυς pêkhus and βραχίων brakhíōn refer to segments other than S1. As for πῆχυς pêkhus, the scenes of embracement point to a holistic usage as we find with χείρ kheír, while example (34) proves the segmental use for S2. Regarding βραχίων brakhíōn, all examples are clearly employed to designate S3. The assumption of a suprasegmental usage for the upper suprasegmental is excluded. Considering (36), given that it is not possible to hit or squeeze both S2 and S3 at once, we must understand that only one of the segments was meant, and, since S2 is referred as πῆχυς pêkhus, there is no other possible term than βραχίων brakhíōn (Table 4.10).

4 Final Considerations 4.1 Need for Specificity and Semantic Relevance We must firstly notice that Homeric Greek did have specific terms for all segments and articulations, as proved by the analysis provided in Sect. 3. Therefore, it was always possible to employ a different word in order to specify which segment of the upper limb was referred. This phenomenon is linked to the need for specificity: if it was necessary to specify the affected point, it was possible to do so either by using the specific term for that segment or just by indicating it through reference to one of the joints (check, for instance, examples (6) and (31)). Nonetheless, in most cases, as we have seen, the need for specificity was superfluous, since many other factors (verb, manipulated object, realia, context, etc.) facilitated the identification of the segment at issue.

4  Synecdochic Chains and Semantic Change… 

109

Example (34) evidences this need for specificity, because the poet employs πῆχυς pêkhus χειρός to point out that the wound specifically happens in S2 and not in any other segment of the limb. Similarly, the passage from which examples (37) and (38) derive also enlightens this need for specificity. There, the wound of Deiphobos affected his βραχίων brakhíōn (S3) and not, say, his S2 or his S1. However, some verses later, presented in (41), specificity is no longer required: the blood runs from his arm (expressed as χείρ kheír), since the whole limb is stained by blood. The addressees can infer from the context that the blood blows from S3, so it is no longer necessary to specify it as it was at the beginning of the scene. (41) (…) κατὰ δ’ αἷμα νεουτάτου ἔρρεε χειρός. katà d’ haîma neoutátou érree kheirós (Il. 13.539) ‘since the blood was running from his arm’s fresh wound’. However, Homeric Greek did not have an exclusive term for the upper limb as a whole (except for γυῖον guîon, which typically refers to the lower limbs).17 Actually, if we examine other languages, we will realise that, in most cases, there is no specific term for the limb as a whole (besides general terms such as English limb, German Glied, Spanish miembro, Modern Greek άκρο ákro, which usually appear in plural and need a spatial specification such as upper limbs, obere Glieder, miembros superiores, άνω άκρα áno ákra, etc.). In fact, as presented in Sect. 1.3, the term used for that purpose in English is arm, which is also employed to refer to the upper suprasegmental. The same happens with Spanish brazo or German Arm, to name but a few European languages. On the contrary, in languages such as Modern Greek or Russian, the term employed is the one also used for the lower suprasegmental (χέρι xéri, ruká). Linking those considerations with the outcome of the former analysis in Sect. 3, we should not forget that S1 is by far much more semantically relevant (cf. the concept of “saliency” in Croft and Cruse 2004: 46–47). In other words, S1 plays a major role in most of the actions, inasmuch as it is the only segment that can act as an Instrument (in fact, besides actions such as to swim, which require the implication of the whole 17

 From the 52 examples of γυῖα guîa, 37 (71%) certainly refer to the lower limbs.

110 

I. Andrés-Alba

limb, it is difficult to figure out an action where only S2 or S3 take part actively). Consequently, S2 and S3, in turn, play a sort of passive role in these actions. However, since all three segments are part of a continuum, S1 cannot carry out any action without the intervention of the contiguous segments (as discussed in Sect. 3.3; cf. example (25)). This makes S2 and S3 less semantically relevant than S1.

4.2 Need for Specificity Across Languages: Two Practical Cases Finally, to conclude the present section, it will be enlightening to take a closer look at two different passages already mentioned. In (42), Hypsenor is struck by Eurypylos in A3 (ὦμος ômos). As a consequence, the whole limb is detached from the body and it falls to the ground. In both cases, χείρ kheír is the employed term, without S1 being exclusively meant.18 (42) τὸν μὲν ἄρ’ Εὐρύπυλος, (…/…) ἔλασ’ ὦμον / φασγάνωι ἀΐξας, ἀπὸ δ’ ἔξεσε χεῖρα βαρεῖαν⋅ / αἱματόεσσα δὲ χεὶρ πεδίωι πέσε, (…) tòn mèn ár’ Eurúpulos, élas’ ômon phasgánōi aḯksas, apò d’ éksese kheîra bareîan; haimatóessa dè kheìr pedíōi pése (Il. 5.79–82) ‘Eurypylos (…) struck him in the shoulder with his sword and lopped off his heavy arm, so that the arm fell bleeding to the ground’.* In (43), Glaukos complains about the pains in his χείρ kheír, which are affecting his A3 (ὦμος ômos) as well. Here χείρ kheír is certainly not to be understood as S1 but as the whole upper limb, because some verses before (see Example (36)) he is said to have squeezed his wounded βραχίων brakhíōn with his S1 (χείρ kheír) as a result of a stroke on his S3 (βραχίων brakhíōn), as shown in (35). (43) ἕλκος μὲν γὰρ ἔχω τόδε καρτερόν, ἀμφὶ δέ μοι χείρ / ὀξείηις ὀδύνηισιν ἐλήλαται, (…/…), βαρύθει δέ μοι ὦμος ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ⋅ hélkos mèn gàr ékhō tóde karterón, amphì dé moi kheír okseíēis odúnēisin elḗlatai, barúthei dé moi ômos hup’ autoû (Il. 16.517–519)  It could happen that the wound in A3 and the drop of χείρ kheír were not related, but the verb ξέω kséō ‘cut’ and the preverb ἀπό apó seem to be used here to express the detaching of the arm from the shoulder. 18

111

4  Synecdochic Chains and Semantic Change… 

Table 4.11  Correspondence among the different translations of χείρ kheír, ὦμος ômos and βραχίων brakhíōn Homer

S

English

ὦμος ômos

A3

shoulder hombro

χείρ kheír

UL

arm

brazo

χείρ kheír

UL

arm

brazo

(35)

βραχίων brakhíōn

S3

arm

brazo

(36)

χείρ kheír

S1

hand

(elided)

βραχίων brakhíōn

S3

arm

brazo

χείρ kheír

UL

arm

brazo

ὦμος ômos

A3

shoulder hombro

(42)

(43)

Spanish

Modern Greek

Russian

ὦμος ómos χέρι xéri χέρι xéri βραχίονας vraxíonas χέρι xéri μπράτσο brátso μπράτσο brátso ὦμος ómos

plečó ruká ruká ruká ladón’ ruká ruká plečó

‘For I have this strong wound, and my arm on both sides is driven through with sharp pains (…), and my shoulder is weighed down because of it’.* If we compare the English translations offered here for (42) and (35, 36, 43) with the ones in Modern Greek (Maronitis 2016), where the terms for the upper limbs follow a different distribution, we can verify that the difficulties in determining which segment was meant only exist in languages with a 1+2 system for the upper limbs (such as English or Spanish). The speaker of a language with a 2+1 system may discern by itself the segment at issue without this indeterminacy causing him any troubles with the comprehension of the message. Comparing the English with the Modern Greek translations and adding a Russian (Veresaev 1949) and a Spanish (Crespo 1996) one, we observe the characteristics of the different systems. All languages examined employ a specific term for A3 (shoulder, hombro, ὦμος ómos, plečó), but there are differences regarding the general designation of the upper

112 

I. Andrés-Alba

limb. While the 1+2 systems use the term for S3 (arm, brazo), the 2+1 systems refer to it with the same term for S1 (χέρι xéri, ruká)19 (Table 4.11).

4.3  Core Parts and Synecdochic Stray Field Given its semantic relevance—which is also confirmed by its much higher frequency—we can certainly consider χείρ kheír (when referred to S1) as the core part of the upper limbs chain.20 Transferring this concept into the field of semantic change, we could regard S1 as the “core point of radiation” of the synecdoche, whereas S2 and S3 are part of its “synecdochic stray field” (Langacker (1991) employs the term “maximal scope”). Accordingly, the closer a segment is to the core, the likelier it is to be designated by the name of this core. Thus, it would be possible to refer to S2 and even to S3 as S1, but it is not possible to refer to parts outside its stray field (for example, shoulder or neck) as S1.21 The above approach explains the employment of χείρ kheír not only as S1, but also as lower suprasegmental (opposed to βραχίων brakhíōn) and as upper limb by means of the synecdochic chain. However, strictly speaking, synecdoche requires two different terms in order to be considered a semantic shift (as in Russian predpléč’je, technically S2, replacing plečó, originally S3–A3); if there is no second term, the shift is a just an extension of the meaning of the first term. Consequently, could we state that the case of χείρ kheír is a synecdoche? In Homeric Greek, as we have seen, only πῆχυς pêkhus partially converges with χείρ kheír (both referring to the upper limb as a whole). From a synchronic point of view, πῆχυς pêkhus is a much less common term  Note that Russian is not a standard 2+1 system but rather a 3 system. That is why S3 is also called ruká. In verse χειρὶ δ’ ἑλὼν ἐπίεζε βραχίονα kheirì d’ helṑn epíeze brakhíona Veresaev (1949) translates χείρ kheír as ladón’ ‘palm’ in order to clearly specify S1 (since ruká was already employed for S3). 20  Croft & Cruse (2004: 156) describe core parts as “the smallest possible portion of an X that can be construed as a whole X”. In the case of χείρ kheír, it is also the main functional part (Cruse 1986: 168–169). 21  This principle works also outside the human body. We can say that someone is at home if he is in any of the rooms of the house (the core), but also if he is in the garage or even in the garden (stray field). However, it is not possible if he is on the street or in his neighbour’s kitchen, because they are outside the stray field of the core. 19

4  Synecdochic Chains and Semantic Change… 

113

Table 4.12  Original schematization of the upper limbs in Greek Level

S1

S2

Suprasegmental

χείρ kheír

πῆχυς2 pêkhus2

Holistic level

πῆχυς3 pêkhus3

S3

than χείρ kheír and, besides Example (34), all cases appear in dual (πήχεε pḗkhee) in scenes of embrace (“X throws his arms around Y”). Its rather formulaic character leads us to the assumption that πῆχυς pêkhus is actually an archaism within the Homeric text. From a diachronic perspective, it is the inherited term for arm, from Indo-European *bheh2ǵh-u-.22 Hence, we can assume that, in pre-Homeric Greek, πῆχυς pêkhus was the term for the upper limb. Since it does not refer to S1 nor in Greek or in any other languages where it is documented, we should exclude the possibility that it could have ever referred to the lower suprasegmental as well (which necessarily includes S1). Considering that χείρ kheír is also inherited from Indo-European,23 we can propose the schema presented in Table 4.12 for the upper limbs (living aside the articulations). In Table 4.12, we have intentionally eluded the segmental level. As we have mentioned in Sect. 1, not every segment on the chain must have a proper name. Since they are part of the subordinate level, their existence depends on the previously mentioned need for specificity. Usually, terms for S2 and S3 are merely descriptive compounds (like forearm and upper arm) or learned words (such as Modern Greek πήχης píxis) that do not belong to the standard language. They are specific and hence they belong to a rather technical register. If we accept the schema in Table 4.12, then, the question that arises is why πῆχυς pêkhus restricted its meaning. The answer can be related to the missing term in Table 4.12, namely βραχίων brakhíōn. Since it is not an inherited word but a Greek innovation―either as a comparative from βραχύς brakhús ‘short’ (doubtful, since the regular comparative is βράσσων brássōn, cf. Il. 10.226) or as a derivate from a -iōn suffix, as  Cf. Sanskrit bāhú-, Avestan bāzu- ‘forearm, arm; foreleg of an animal; Old Norse bógr, Old High German buog ‘upperpart of the foreleg; bow’; Tocharian A poke ‘arm’ (Beekes 2010). 23  From Indo-European *ǵhés-r̥, *ǵhs-r-ós. Cf. Hittite keššar, kiš(ša)raš, Tocharian A tsar, B ṣar, and also Sanskrit hásta-, Avestan zasta-, from *ǵhes-to- (Beekes 2010). 22

114 

I. Andrés-Alba

Ruijgh (1968: 147) suggested―we can suppose that its employment for S3 (as the Homeric usage evidences) displaced πῆχυς pêkhus and motivated the contrast with S2 and the upper suprasegmental.24 The fact that its Homeric usage has been restricted to S2 (and a technicism for the handgrip of the bow, cf. Il. 11.375.) seems to corroborate this shift. Once πῆχυς pêkhus was displaced and semantically restricted, speakers could easily have started replacing it for the more frequent and semantically relevant χείρ kheír both as lower suprasegmental (in contrast to the more recent βραχίων brakhíōn) and as upper limb. The archaic duals πήχεε pḗkhee are the remnant of its original meaning. The emergence of a new term for S3 changed the whole system of Greek. However, one should not forget that βραχίων brakhíōn was also borrowed into Latin as bracchium, where it certainly adopted a major role in the conception of the upper limbs, presumably displacing—and finally completely replacing—the older lacertus, which unlike bracchium did not enter the Romance languages. It is also noteworthy that it was borrowed to Celtic languages as well (cf. Welsh braich) and it even re-entered Modern Greek as a loanword from an Italian dialect (μπράτσο brátso). Thus, it appears that also S3 can be the core part and even the core point of “radiation” of the synecdoche, that is, the part where the synecdoche starts (as it happens in the Romance and Germanic languages).25 Synecdochic chains operate, therefore, either in an upward (S1 → S2 → S3) or in a downward direction (S3 → S2 → S1). At this point, we should remind the reader that synecdochic chains are a multidimensional system, with different levels of conceptualisation (segmental, suprasegmental, holistic). Therefore, this amphidirectionality does not contradict the unidirectionality principle of Wilkins (Sect. 1.2), because it applies within different levels (segment → suprasegment). Synecdochic chains are  Similarly, Avestan daoš- ‘upper arm’ (Sanskrit doṣ ‘forearm, arm’) might have displaced bāzu‘forearm, arm’ (Mayrhofer 1992). 25  The term arm derives from Indo-European *h2er-: compare Latin armus ‘shoulder, forequarter of animals’, Old Prussian irmo ‘arm’, Sanskrit īrmá- ‘arm, forequarter’, and so on. In the case of Ossetian (Iranian language) arm, the synecdoche was fulfilled until ‘hand’. 24

4  Synecdochic Chains and Semantic Change… 

115

unidirectional within the multidimensional system (part → whole), but also amphidirectional as for the direction (upwards/downwards) of their fulfilment. However, the above statement is not a law but a trend, so it may be altered on certain occasions (for instance, if an external element enters the chain, as in the case of βραχίων brakhíōn).

5 Conclusions From a synchronic point of view, χείρ kheír can be considered the prototypical Instrument of the body, playing this semantic role in nearly 50% of its attestations (this role is never found in the case of πῆχυς pêkhus or βραχίων brakhíōn). Regarding the inner segmentation of the upper limb, over 60% of the examples of χείρ kheír certainly refer exclusively to S1 (over 85%, if we also include S2). This shows that S1 has a much greater semantic relevance than S2 and S3. As for the Homeric conceptualisation of the upper limbs, χείρ kheír appears at the three conceptual levels (as a segment opposed to καρπός karpós, πῆχυς pêkhus, and so on, as a suprasegmental opposed to βραχίων brakhíōn and at the holistic level), whereas πῆχυς pêkhus and βραχίων brakhíōn are essentially employed at the segmental level (Table 4.13). From a diachronic perspective, Greek experienced a plausible shift in the conception of the upper limbs. It passed from its inherited Indo-­ European 1+2 system (χείρ kheír as S1, πῆχυς pêkhus as S2–S3) to a 2+1 system (χείρ kheír as S1–S2 and βραχίων brakhíōn as S3) due to the introduction of a new term for S3 (βραχίων brakhíōn). Consequently, χείρ kheír took the place of πῆχυς pêkhus at the holistic level as term for the whole upper limb, whereas πῆχυς pêkhus was restricted to S2 and marginal formulaic usages in Homer. This shift, which has parallels in Table 4.13  Schematization of the upper limbs in Homeric Greek Level

S1

S2

S3

Segmental

χείρ1 kheír1

(πῆχυς1 pêkhus1)

βραχίων1/2 brakhíōn1/2

Suprasegmental Holistic level

χείρ2 kheír2 χείρ3 kheír3 (πῆχυς3 pêkhus3)

116 

I. Andrés-Alba

other Indo-European languages, must be understood within the peculiarities of the synecdochic chain of the upper limbs in Greek, whose core is S1, being S2 and S3 its stray field. The resulting 2+1 system has been basically maintained until Modern Greek (Homeric χείρ kheír || χείρ kheír | βραχίων brakhíōn versus Modern Greek χέρι xéri || χέρι xéri | μπράτσο brátso), staying stable for nearly 3000 years. Its core, χείρ kheír, despite the high frequency of use (one should not forget that χείρ kheír is the most frequent body part term in Homer), has shown a very high degree of stability and resistance against semantic change. As a conclusion, we can state that the internal structure of the synecdochic chain (composed of a core part and a stray field), together with the need for specificity felt by the speaker, are the internal causes of the semantic changes within the lexicon for the upper limbs in Homeric Greek.

References Beekes, Robert S.P. 2010. Etymological dictionary of Greek. 2 Volumes. Leiden: Brill. Brown, Cecil H. 1976. General principles of human anatomical partonomy and speculations on the growth of partonomic nomenclature. American Anthropologist 3: 400–424. Conti, Luz. 2003. Die Bezeichnung instrumentalischer Bezüge bei Homer. Indogermanische Forschungen 108: 195–222. Coseriu, Eugenio. 1967. Lexicalische Solidaritäten. Poetica 1 (3): 293–303. Crespo, Emilio. 1996. Homero. Ilíada. Madrid: Gredos. Crespo, Emilio, Luz Conti, and Helena Maquieira. 2003. Sintaxis del griego clásico. Madrid: Gredos. Croft, William, and D.  Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dik, Simon C. 1989. The theory of functional grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin: De Gruyter. DLE = Real Academia Española. 2014. Diccionario de la lengua española. 23rd ed. Madrid: RAE. Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

4  Synecdochic Chains and Semantic Change… 

117

Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ———. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lattimore, Richmond. 1951. Homer. The Iliad. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lehmann, Christian. 2005. Participant roles, thematic roles and syntactic functions. In Voice and grammatical relations. Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani, ed. Tasaku Tsunoda and Taro Kageyama, 153–174. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Luján, Eugenio. 2010. Semantic change. In The continuum companion to historical linguistics, ed. Silvia Luraghi and Vit Bubenik, 286–310. London: Continuum. Luraghi, Silvia. 2001. Syncretism and the classification of semantic roles. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 54 (1): 35–51. ———. 2015. Instrument and cause in the Indo-European languages and in Proto-Indo-European. Индоевропейское Языкознание и Классическая Филология 19: 603–618. Maronitis, Dimitris N. 2016. Ὁμήρου Ἰλιάς. Athens: Εκδόσεις Άγρα. Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1992. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Vol. 1. Heidelberg: Winter. Murray, Augustus T. 1995/1919. Homer. The Odyssey. 2 Volumes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Obrador Cursach, Bartolomeu. 2020. The Phrygian language. Leiden: Brill. Rosch, Eleanor, Carolyn B. Mervis, Wayne D. Gray, David M. Johnson, and Penny Boyes-Braem. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8: 382–439. Ruijgh, Cornelis J. 1968. Les noms en -won- (-āwon-, -īwon-), -uon- en grec alphabetique et mycénien. Minos 9: 109–155. Veresaev, Vikenty V. 1949. Гомер. Илиада. Moscow: ГИХЛ. West, Martin. 1998. Homeri Ilias, Rhapsodiae I–XII. Wiesbaden: Teubner. ———. 2000. Homeri Ilias, Rhapsodiae XIII–XXIV. Munich: KG Saur. ———. 2017. Homerus Odyssea. Berlin: De Gruyter. Wilkins, David P. 1981. Towards a theory of semantic change. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,. University of Canberra. ———. 1996. Natural tendencies of semantic change and the search for Cognates. In The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change, ed. Mark Durie and Malcolm Ross, 264–230. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

5 The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases in Ancient Greek: Evidence for Syntactic Change and Reconstruction Thanasis Giannaris

1 Introduction A well-known property of the IE participles (apart from their adverbial, modifying, and predicative function) is that they were used in the so-­ called periphrastic construction (i.e. copula + participle).1 These analytic formations, traditionally subsumed under the term periphrasis, are found in many IE languages and they have been a favorable topic of philologists and historical linguistics. A systematic correlation between the so-called  In the context of the IE linguistics, the term periphrastic is traditionally used to include constructions formed by the copula verb BE or the possessive verb HAVE (Gk. ékhō) (or event other semi-­ copula verbs like the Ancient Greek tygkháno ‘happen to be’). In this chapter, I am concerned only with BE-periphrases. Hence, the terms periphrastic construction or participial periphrasis are used with reference to HAVE-pattern. 1

T. Giannaris (*) National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Lavidas et al. (eds.), Internal and External Causes of Language Change, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30976-2_5

119

120 

T. Giannaris

BE-periphrases and the diachronic evolution of aspectual and voice categories is a reason which has frequently excited the interest of researchers about the historical evolution of these constructions. A much-debated issue is their unclear categorization, given their varied syntactic distribution and functional behavior. In this chapter, I take a different track from the one usually assumed for the diachrony of these constructions and propose an analysis of the copular participial periphrases based synchronically on the notion of syntactic gradience and diachronically on the mechanism of analogy. Analogical spread of use seems to be responsible for a diachronically stepwise expansion of the lexical input acceptable in the construction. Gradually, this process brought about the loss of the original semantic compositionality of a copular type of sentence and incited grammaticalization that led to an auxiliary verb construction at a later stage. Language contact, through translational interference from Biblical Hebrew or Aramaic, which took place in Greek-speaking Jewish communities of the early Roman times, is also assumed to have played a key role in the shaping of some aspects of, on a whole, internally motivated change. The examination of the diachronic path followed by these constructions is based on a collection of Ancient and Late Antique Greek linguistic data. The rich array of Greek participial periphrases provides a very suitable place for understanding the ways by which the specific syntactic pattern evolves diachronically. The periods of investigation include Archaic Greek (ArGk) (8–6th c. BC), Classical Greek (ClGk) (5–4th c. BC) and Post-Classical Greek (PClGk) (3rd c. BC–8th c. AD).2 The periphrases I look at are formed with the copular verb eimí ‘to be’ and three participial forms (present, aorist and perfect). For convenience, I will use the labels perfect, present and aorist periphrasis to refer to the three combinations formed by the copula plus the participle that derives from each of the

 The usual term used for the centuries that follow ClGk is Hellenistic-Roman Greek (or Koine Greek) (see e.g. Horrocks 2010). However, the term PClGk is preferred for two reasons: first, it can broadly refer to varieties of Greek that deviate from the typical Koine of the New Testament (i.e. more literary or middle register Greek); second, it can be more easily include in its reference the first centuries (6th–8th c. AD) of Medieval Greek. This flexibility is a significant advantage, especially if it is kept in mind that is notoriously difficult for a convincing line to be drawn between late antiquity and the early middle ages (cf. Horrocks 2020: 485; Rafiyenko and Seržant 2020: 1–2). In Sect. 3.1, Ι explain why I opted to include the first medieval centuries in the research scope of this chapter. 2

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

121

three stems respectively.3 Historically, these constructions are characterized by an increased frequency and generalization of use. This is typical of grammaticalization which is normally recognized when a lexical verb changes into auxiliary in a specific constructional context. This means that, in terms of a diachronic analysis, the change behind the historical development of the Greek periphrases basically includes two stages: a first one, which coincides with the copular use of BE verb and explains the more restricted distribution of the early period; and a second one during which the original pattern expanded and took on auxiliary-­like properties. However, as it will be shown below, this analysis is ill-­suited for accounting the data accurately. Its main drawback is that the developments do not seem to be adequately explained by the acceptance of a two phase (i.e. copula and auxiliary) evolution. Rather, they require a finer articulation of the diachronic stages acknowledged. The chapter is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces the topic by focusing on the problems of the diachronic analysis of the participial periphrases in IE. Section 3 surveys the Greek diachronic data and elaborates on the explanatory parameters they reveal. In Sect. 4, all the theoretical observations are drawn together and a more compelling diachronic scenario is proposed, the adoption of which recasts also the role of the external factors (i.e. language contact). The section is concluded by the implications the suggested analysis can have for the reconstruction of the relevant syntactic categories in PIE. The chapter is rounded off by the conclusion in Sect. 5.

2 Some Preliminaries 2.1 Participles in IE The participles of PIE are well explored issue, especially from a morphological point of view (e.g. Le Feuvre et al. 2017; Fellner and Grestenberger 2018). Three sets of forms are reconstructed for the verb system of PIE,  Let it be noted that these terms do not refer to each periphrasis’ functional content, which can differ considerably from the one implied by these labels. 3

122 

T. Giannaris

the present/aorist (*-nt-), the perfect (*-wos/us), and the mediopassive (*-meno-/-mno-) participles. These formations are considered to have verbal status in the sense that their full integration into the verbal system of PIE is recognized. Alongside this tripartite system, two other formations are also posited, namely *-to- and *-no- (see Meillet 1929; Drinka 2009). The categorial status and the syntactic properties of these two PIE forms have been debated, given the contradictory evidence provided by the older IE languages. For instance, the -nt- forms, although they can rather straightforwardly be traced back to a single reconstructed PIE participle form, in the various IE languages they have functionally divergent reflexes. In Hittite the -nt- suffix had a clearly stative semantic value; in the majority of IE languages -nt- became the basic formant of active participles (see discussion in Melchert 2017). In a similar fashion, formations with -tosuffix failed to spread into the verbal paradigm in Greek and Armenia, probably due to the retention of their original adjectival nature. In contrast, in Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, and Indo-­Iranian the same formations became an essential part of the verbal system, eventually forming the past passive participial paradigm. In historical linguistic studies, constructions formed by a copular verb with a participle are subsumed under the general term periphrastic construction. Table 5.1 shows how widespread this pattern had been in several IE languages. The periphrastic use of participles in IE is usually examined through the lens of the semantic (mainly aspectual) category they relate to. Synchronic and diachronic literature on these constructions is extensive.4 Greek provides perhaps the most opportune place for testing diachronic explanations of the periphrastic use of the participle, since it is the only language which possesses the full range of all possible combinations, as is seen in Table 5.1.

 See indicatively, Inglese and Luraghi (2020) for Hittite, Hristov (2020) and Killie (2014) for Old and Middle English, Hoffmann (1997) for Latin, Miller (2019) for Gothic, Kotin (2000, 2020) for Old High German, Bentein (2016) for Greek, Arkadiev and Wiemer (2020) for Baltic and Slavic. 4

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

123

Table 5.1  Participial periphrases in IE languagesa Greek Hittite Old Indic Tocharian Latin Old English Gothic Old High German Baltic

*-nt-

*-to-/-no-

*-men-/-mno- *-wos/us

√ √ √

√b

√

√

√

√ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

Table 5.1 is indicative and not exhaustive of all lE languages where participial periphrases are found (see also Meiser 2004 and Kümmel 2017, 2020) b In Greek, the formation in -to- is purely adjectival (see Schwyzer 1950; Drinka 2009) and is not considered as part of the participial paradigm. For this reason, although it combines, of course, with the copula, it is not traditionally counted among those forms which could build periphrastic constructions a

2.2 Problems of Categorization A first question which is usually asked about the combination of a copular verb plus a participle is whether its characterization as periphrasis constitutes a legitimate option. I do not intend to discuss here the term periphrasis at length. Suffice it to say that in diachronic and typological literature the term is standardly related to grammaticalized constructions that involve an auxiliary and express meanings belonging to TAM categories (see Haspelmath 2000; Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994). Various scholars, who have investigated data from a variety of languages, have repeatedly attempted to clarify whether the syntactic status of the so-­called BE-periphrases is that of an auxiliary verb construction or not. The main hindering factor is the ‘adjectivelike’ nature of the participle which is responsible for a primarily ‘property-referring’ function to be ascribed to the construction including the participle. Differently put, the ‘copula + participle’ constructions can be analyzed in two ways from a synchronic viewpoint: (1) a. A  s a non-verbal predication clausal type formed by copula plus an adjective;   b. As a periphrasis formed by an auxiliary plus a non-finite verbal element.

124 

T. Giannaris

The first option lays emphasis on the nominal properties of the participle, whereas the second on the verbal. This ambiguity has led to radically different proposals for the categorization of constructions of this type. For example, some researchers analyze the German construction built by sein plus Partizip II either as a copular construction, when it has the properties of the so-called Zustandspassiv (2a), or a verbal periphrasis, when it is closer to the semantics of the Perfect (2b) (see Thierhoff 2007: 168): (2) a.

Die the

Haare hair

sind are

gefärbt paint.PST.PTCP.PASS

- Passive

sind are

gewachsen grown.PST.PTCP.PASS

- Perfect

‘the hair is dyed’ (2) b.

Die the

Haare hair

‘the hair has grown’

This distinction is based on their different function. However, their formal identity makes the acceptance of a double categorial status for the examples in (2) not plausible. Semantic criteria, mostly relating to the class of verb that the participle derives from, or some syntactic distributional features, such as the incompatibility of the Zustandpassiv with a secondary predicate (e.g. Man serviert das Fleisch roh vs. Das Fleish ist (*roh) serviert) have been commonly served as diagnostics which arguably distinguish between the adjectival and verbal uses (see Nicolay 2007). Other researchers believe that any distinction inevitably includes a great deal of arbitrariness and propose that all cases must be treated as instantiations of the non-verbal predication pattern (cf. Thierhoff 2007). The synchronic dimension of the problem just presented is essentially a matter of linguistic categorization. The ‘mixed’ (nominal and verbal) character of the participle is responsible for the indeterminacy which, although it originally relates only to the participle, it eventually percolates to the whole of the construction. Thus, a proper way of understanding the participial ambiguity is an issue that plays a key role in understanding the syntax of ‘copula + participle’ pattern. This problem, of course, boils down to the general difficulty of postulating criteria which can demarcate the traditional parts of speech from one another and, in the particular case,

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

125

adjectives from verbs. In the literature (e.g. Givón (2001 [1984]); Croft 1991, 2001; Hengeveld 1992; Wetzer 1996 etc.), the categorization issues have been usually treated from the perspective of prototypicality which is inspired by the work of Eleanor Rosch (1973). In an attempt to account for the difficulties that notoriously undermined the drawing of a credible dividing line between nouns and verbs, Givón (2001 [1984]: 72) has influentially proposed the parameter of ‘time-­stability’. The ambivalent character of the adjectival class derives from the nature of time property they encode semantically which is seen as more stable than that of nouns and less stable than the respective property of verbs. Thus, according to this line of thought, adjectives are intermediately classified on a noun to verb continuum: See Fig. 5.1. Participles, as a minor part of speech, which resembles adjectives, could also be located in this cline: See Fig. 5.2. This continuum is reminiscent of Ross (1972: 316) “squish” which classifies the different kinds of participles along a cline. The placement is done with respect to their noun- or verb-most semantic properties: See Fig. 5.3. (3) verb > present participle > perfect participle > passive participle > adjective > preposition > adjectival noun > noun

Nouns

Most time-stable

Adjectives

Verbs

Intermediate states

Least time-stable

Fig. 5.1  The noun-to-verb time-stability scale (after Givón 2001 [1984]: 55)

Nouns

Adjectives

Most time-stable

Intermediate states

Fig. 5.2  Participles in time-stability scale

Participles

Verbs

Least time-stable

126 

T. Giannaris

Noun

Verb

+Agreement

- Agreement

-Transitivity

+ Transitivity

- Dynamicity

+ Dynamicity

+ Compositionality

- Compositionality

Fig. 5.3  Values of parameters on noun-to-verb continuum

Albeit sharing obvious affinities with Prototype Theory, the notion of gradience introduces a different perspective on how the categoriality of lexical classes is looked at. As Aarts (2007: 87) clarifies, gradience is a predominantly grammatical phenomenon, which can be studied purely by considering linguistic elements and their configurations. Prototype theory, by contrast, has applications beyond linguistics. Further, according to Aarts’ (2004, 2007) approach to gradience, categorial indeterminacy is not a matter of non-clear-cut or fuzzy boundaries between the various classes, as usually assumed by prototypically oriented studies. Instead, the categorial borders are rigid and well-defined. Accordingly, the indeterminacy must be explained in terms of gradience at the syntactic level. In his analysis, the distribution of several morpho-syntactic properties (e.g. agreement features, object, or prepositional phrase complements etc.) is of pivotal importance for specifying the categoriality of a linguistic item. According to the accumulation of syntactic features that are compatible with one class or another, an indeterminate item is essentially a gradient in the sense that it can converge with the boundaries of one class or the other. In this light, participles can be thought of as syntactically gradient, that is to say, they converge between categories rather than fall in neatly in only one syntactic domain. This kind of inter-categorial resemblance is named by Aarts’ intersective gradience (2007: 124, 141). In (4a), the participle is best regarded as verb insofar as it accepts a verbal modifier, whereas in (4b)

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

127

it is slightly more towards the adjectival end, given that it allows un- prefixation, a typical property of adjectives. (4) a. the quickly moved car b. the unmoved car

In the same vein, when a participle complements a copular verb (predicative position), it triggers the convergence with the class of adjectives. Or, a participle is licensed in a predicative position by virtue of its adjectival (or nominal) syntactic properties: See (5). (5) a. He is disgusted b. He is worried

Apart from the syntactic position, the eventual adjectival interpretation of the participle is reinforced by its stative semantics in both examples of (5). The verbality is represented by the suffix -ed. However, in other constructions, such as the German examples in (1b) or the English sentences in (6a-b), the syntactic behavior and the respective categorial interpretation differs: See (6). (6) a. They were arrested by the police b. He was given a puppy by a farmer

In (6a–b), despite the predicative position held by the participle, the dynamic meaning of the verb along with the by-phrase favors a verbal convergence of the participle. In these cases, the intersective gradience of the participial forms projects upwards at the phrase level and is responsible for what Aarts calls the passive gradient (2007: 178–179).5 This is recognized as a special kind of syntactic gradience, that is, the intersective constructional gradience which emerges when the properties of two constructions (verbal – non-verbal predication) can be identified in a particular string of words. The prominence of the nominal or verbal features of the participle creates a variety of syntactic combinations which favor the adjectival or verbal readings respectively. As far as participles are concerned, intersective constructional gradience can be noticed not only in

 According to Aarts (2007: 180), the passive gradient can be analyzed as either a case of intersective or subsective constructional gradience. 5

128 

T. Giannaris

the formation of passives, but also with other kinds of similarly ambiguous forms, for example, gerunds: See (7). (7) a. His opinions are shocking to me b. His opinions are shocking me

In (7a) the prepositional complement derives from the syntactic nominality of the gerundial from, whereas in (7b) the direct object urges the fully verbal status of construction ‘be + -ing’. Similar phenomena of gradience, as those analyzed by Aarts for English, can be observed in other languages which use the same syntactic pattern, such as German (example 1) or Modern Greek. In the latter, as it is shown in (8a, b), a resultative construction with the verb íme ‘to be’ plus a verbal adjective (participle) in -ménos can be analyzed synchronically in terms of syntactic gradience: See (8). (8) a.

o the

Jànis John

íne is

kurazménos tired.RES.NOM.M.SG

apó from

to the

perpátima walking

‘John is tired/has been tired from walking’ (8) b.

o the

Jánis John

íne is

lipiménos sad.RES.NOM.M.SG

‘John is sad’

Both participial forms (kurazménos and lipiménos) are nominal insofar as they bear the noun morphological markers -os (for nominative masculine singular). However, in (8a) the non-stative meaning of the participle along with the presence of a verbal (causal) modification bring the construction closer to the noun-verb border. Aarts’ proposals depend much on the way a series of prototypical semantic and morpho-syntactic features bundle in each case and may bring about the syntactically gradient character of a class. For diagnosing convergence with a particular class at the constructional level, I will make use of three types of properties (also exploited by Aarts). All of three are naturally in close interaction and combinatorily they define how a structure converges with the one or the other category (i.e. adjectival or verbal). These properties are presented in Table 5.2.

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

129

Table 5.2  Parameters which define class convergence Semantic Syntactic Morphological

Actionality/aspectuality Transitivity Agreement

The classification according to actional class evokes the basic distinction between stativity versus dynamicity as an inherent semantic property of a predicate. This is a parameter commonly referred to in many proposals which wish to define criteria for the distinction between the verbal and the nominal elements in cases where these two seem to conflate (e.g. Pustet 2003). Dynamic predicates correspond to Vendler’s (1967) three actional classes (ACTIVITIES, ACHIEVEMENTS, and ACCOMPLISH MENTS) and stative to STATES. In the case of participles, actional class can also interacts with the grammatical aspect (perfective vs. imperfective) of the specific form to yield the final meaning. In addition, transitivity correlates with the verbal properties of a predicate, whereas the lack of an object complement reduces its verbality. Eventually, the presence or absence of nominal agreement reinforces the final syntactic categorization as noun- or verb-most respectively. The exact constellation of these parameters defines the outcome of convergence and hence the categorial features of the copular periphrasis. Between the ‘clear’ cases, where all the values are confluent, there are many ‘intermediate’ combinations that are mainly responsible for the syntactic gradience exhibited by this type of construction. Another parameter can be added to these three: the compositionality of meaning of the whole pattern. As far we move from the non-verbal predication (and the noun pole), we shall see that some non-compositional semantic features become available. This tendency is connected to the accretion of a ‘holistic’ verbal interpretation of the construction. Thus, the criteria we will refer to are those in Fig. 5.3. In the case of Greek participial periphrases, the morphological parameter of nominal agreement remained unchanged (at least in the periods of Greek investigated here), showing no indication of loss or weakening. Hence, it functioned as a constantly reinforcing factor of the non-­verbality of the predicative structure.

130 

T. Giannaris

2.3 Problems of Diachronic Analysis The notion of gradience is by definition restricted to account for the synchronic architecture of grammars. The understanding of a system as gradient can easily bring to mind the assumption that diachronic change is most often gradual in nature, especially from the perspective of grammaticalization understood as the development of grammatical functions (Traugott and Trousdale 2010: 19).6 Essentially, gradience concerns the synchronic alternation between innovative and old forms or meanings, and in this respect, it is naturally tied to factors which drive diachronic change. The establishment of a traditional grammaticalization approach to the diachronic evolution of the type of periphrases discussed here requires two rather specific presuppositions. The first one is that a semantic motivation for the change must be clearly pinpointed in a specific context. The structural corollary of the semantic change is the reanalysis which creates ambiguity and in our case is responsible for the transformation of the copular sentential type into an auxiliary verb construction. Generally speaking, reanalysis is understood as the intrinsic change in syntactic relations without any modification in the surface forms and, as Hopper and Traugott (2003: 39) note, is a mechanism tied with grammaticalization.7 Reanalysis provides an answer to how the changes are manifested by describing the syntactic modifications that yield the novel construction. According to most grammaticalization studies, behind the beginning of a reanalysis process is found the more fundamental motive for change, that is, the cognitive disposition or the semanto-pragmatic dynamics of the linguistic

 The close relationship between the synchronic notion of gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization has been alluded to by Haspelmath who states that “since grammaticalization is generally regarded as a gradual diachronic process, it is expected that the resulting function words form a gradient from full-content words to clear function words” (Haspelmath 2001: 16539). See also Traugott and Trousdale (2010). 7  It must be noted that not all theoreticians accept this close interconnectedness. Lehmann (2004) suggests a more indirect relation between the two concepts, while Haspelmath (1998) rejects any connection altogether. 6

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

131

units.8 Thus, according this view, periphrases result from a ­process of semantically driven meaning loss or abstraction usually called semantic bleaching. The second is that the identified change is unidirectional in the sense that the followed route strictly involves the general downgrading of the construction on both semantic and formal grounds. If restated to apply to case examined here, the unidirectionality assumption implies that a synchronically gradient construction moves rather uniformly towards the verbal interpretation of the participial form. In standard grammaticalization approaches, semantic loss and structural condensation, such as those involved in the formation of auxiliary verb constructions, are captured by the widely used parameters which had been proposed by Lehmann (1985) and Heine (1993). All these criteria are based on the assumption that speech units, which are originally semantically, syntactically, and morphologically autonomous, gradually lose their independence in these regards and simultaneously become dependent on another unit. However, the standard assumptions about grammaticalization processes turn out rather ill-suited when a construction formed by the combination of a BE-verb plus a participle need to be described from a diachronic viewpoint. The main problems are two: first, the verb serves as a copular element that is already bleached semantically; second, the participle and the verb belong to the same clausal domain from the very outset of use of the collocation. This means that no process of merging two clausal domains into one is relevant, as usually observed in the creation of functionally similar periphrases, such as those formed with Latin habeo ‘have’ plus participle (e.g. Vincent 1982). Despite these problems, it cannot be denied that the copular participial constructions of many languages changed to expressions that denote primarily grammatical meanings of aspect or voice. The validity of a grammaticalization-induced change depends on the establishment of a  Some researchers (e.g. Heine et al. 1991) focus on the cognitive forces, and consider grammaticalization as originating in metaphorical thinking, while others (since Traugott and König 1991 and Traugott and Dasher 2002) emphasize conceptual metonymic thinking (e.g. the semanticization of the ‘invited inferences’ during the pragmatic manipulation of semantic content of specific lexical items or Traugott’s notion of subjectification). In both perspectives, the result is the loss of more concrete (lexical) semantic content and the retention of more abstract (grammatical) meaning. 8

132 

T. Giannaris

corresponding cline that captures the semantic ‘downgrading’ of a lexical verb to auxiliary through the intermediate stage of a copula. Such an explanation may be formulated as in (9). (9)    a. lexical verb > b. copula > b. auxiliary

On the syntactic level, this change correlates with the transformation of the adjectival participle into a non-finite verb form. Clines of the type in (9) have been proposed and discussed in the literature (e.g. Devitt 1994). This scenario, plausible as it may be, is not entirely unproblematic. The BE copular verb, which used in the predicative construction, is a syntactic factor, a dummy element that is already deprived of any lexical content. This leads to the rather odd assumption that the starting point of the auxiliation includes an element which is non-contentful from the outset. Τhe lexical stage is relevant only to the extent that it is the source of the copula and it only indirectly relates to the development of the copula to an auxiliary. In other words, the copula and auxiliary stages belong to different clines of grammaticalization, since either of them can perfectly be the endpoint of a grammaticalization development. The correct cline must be one which would eventually include a two-stage development: see (10). (10) a. lexical verb > b.1 copular verb b. 2 copular verb > c. auxiliary

But even this account makes little sense. One may actually wonder which kind of semantic bleaching might be involved in the step from b.2 to c stage, given that the auxiliary does not seem to be more “abstract” than the copula (cf. Arkadiev and Wiemer 2020: 148). The second parameter also meets with similar difficulties. A grammaticalization explanation presupposes that the diachronic movement is clearly unidirectional. Adapted to the context of the particular change, unidirectionality means that the actual route followed by the construction is from a phase of non-verbal, non-grammaticalized status to a phase of a verbal and grammaticalized one. Thus, if unidirectional, the constructional gradience must display a clear tendency only to the verbal type of use which would be the outcome of auxiliation (cf. Kuteva 2001). This process transforms the (less grammaticalized) copula to the (more grammaticalized)

133

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

auxiliary. On the contrary, Pustet (2003), in her study on copular verbs, mentions that the auxiliaries are semantically richer than the copulas, so the latter can also spring from the former through reanalysis. The examples she uses are mainly from English and specifically from the past participles paradigm like astonished, scared, worried, which, to her view, in the current phase of English are undergoing a transition from participle to adjective. These participial forms have already acquired some adjectival characteristics, such as compatibility with the modifier very (cf. Aarts 2007: 41). The transition to adjectivalness pushes the auxiliary verb, which occurs with the participles and forms progressive or voice periphrases, to de-categorialize as copula, according to Pustet’s argumentation. Her approach can acquire greater plausibility if data from earlier periods of English (e.g. Old English) are added. See (11): (11) as when

ha they

ƥreo three

weren were.3PL.PST

ifolen fallen.PST.PASS. PTCP

onslepe asleep

‘when the three of them have fallen asleep’ (CMANCRIW-2, II.272.440) (McFadden and Alexiadou 2010: 389)

In examples like (11), the past participle of the main verb plus the copula be look very much like the periphrastic perfects of modern European languages (e.g. German, Dutch, Italian), where the phenomenon of ‘splitauxiliariness’ is observed (e.g. Aranovich 2007). In Present-­Day English BE-perfect is not possible anymore;9 ‘be + past participle’ is the sole way of building adjectival passives. In theoretical terms, this approach assumes that auxiliaries are the input of copularization process and reverses the directionality from copula to auxiliary. In consequence, a process of degrammaticalization must be added to our theoretical machinery. Thus, the cline in (10) must be further revised as in (12). (12)    copula > auxiliary > copula

The crucial point here is that, while a diachronic movement of specific participial forms towards a more nominal status is acceptable, a respective  However, attention should be drawn to some interesting regionalisms (e.g. I am finished my homework) which occur, according to Comrie (2020: 10–12), as innovations in Present Day English.

9

134 

T. Giannaris

movement of the whole ‘copula + participle’ construction cannot be equally acceptable, since it implies bi-directionality between copula and auxiliary stage of the BE-verb.10 Therefore, if it is eventually maintained that the standard criteria of grammaticalization cannot capture important aspects of the development of the BE-periphrases, we still need to provide plausible answers to the persisting question about the nature of the diachronic mechanism which is responsible for their frequent transformation into passives, perfects and pasts or progressives and durative aspectual grammatical forms. This question will be picked up again in Sect. 4. In sum, the notion of syntactic gradience appears to offer a valuable interpretative tool, at least as far as the synchronic distribution of syntactic properties is concerned. The ambiguities between verbal and nominal interpretation, or between periphrasis and non-verbal predication, can be resolved by using the concept of constructional gradience. Nevertheless, gradience does not provide answers for diachronic questions such as how the grammatical meanings of the ‘copula  +  participle’ come about, or which is the mechanism underlying the development of the relevant syntactic configurations (non-verbal predication or verbal periphrasis). The questions are essentially a matter of finding a diachronic motivation for explaining constructional gradience and its relation to grammatical meanings.

3 Participial Periphrases in Greek: Emergence and Evolution 3.1 An Outline Copular participial periphrases have been a feature of all the periods of Greek (from Ancient to Modern). My focus on the early phases (Ancient and Post-Classical) is justified by the fact that these were the periods where a great variety of participles gave rise to a similarly variable group of

 For similar points of concern about the fuzzy boundary existing between copula and auxiliary uses of BE-verbs, see Arkadiev and Wiemer (2020: 142, 183) and Wiemer (2004). 10

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

135

periphrases.11 The constructions are formed by the copular verb eimí plus a participle which denotes aspect (i.e. imperfective, perfective, and perfect) (see Moser 2009; Willi 2018). The participles are traditionally known as the present, aorist, and perfect participle, respectively. Apart from aspect, they are also marked for the nominal categories of gender, number, and case. Tense is marked on the copula, which is responsible for fulfilling finiteness requirement (Tables 5.3 and 5.4). An important characteristic of the Greek participles is their full integration into the verbal system (cf. Drinka 2003, 2009). The periphrastic use also reflects the verbal nature of the participles, especially with respect to Table 5.3  The periphrases in Classical and Post-Classical Greek (Active voice) Verb: gráphō ‘to write’ Aspect

Imperfective (‘present’) Perfective (‘aorist’)

Present eimí gráphōn, - ousa, eimí gráspsas, -asa, Past - on -an Future ên graphōn, - ousa, -on ên gráspsas, -asa, ésomai gráphōn, -an - ousa, -on ésomai gráspsas,-asa,-an

Perfect eimí gegraphṓs, -yı̑a, -ós ên gegraphṓs, -yı̑a, -ós ésomai gegraphṓs, -yı̑a, -ós

Table 5.4 The periphrases in Classical and Post-Classical Greek (Medio-­ passive voice) Verb: gráphomai ‘to be written’ Aspect

Imperfective (‘present’)

Perfective (‘aorist’)

Perfect

Present eimí graphómenos, -i, eimí grapsámenos, eimí gegramménos, -i, Past -on -i,-on -on Future ên graphómenos, -i, ên grapsámenos, -i, ên gegramménos, -i, -on -on -on ésomai graphómenos, ésomai grapsámenos, ésomai gegramménos, -i, -on -i, -on -i, -on

 Post-Classical encompasses the periods of Hellenistic-Roman Greek (3rd c. BC–4th c. AD) and the first centuries of Early Medieval Greek (5th c.–8th c.), as noted in footnote 1. In the last centuries of Early Medieval Greek and in the subsequent periods of Late Medieval and Modern Greek, the Greek participial system changed considerably in terms of its morpho-syntax (see Manolessou 2005; Gorton 2013). I will not touch upon these periods in this paper (see Giannaris 2011a). 11

136 

T. Giannaris

the expression of the verbal aspect. The aspectual meaning conveyed by the periphrases did not differ essentially from the one expressed by the corresponding synthetic verbs. A distinctive property of almost all these constructions is that their selection by the speaker is not compulsory since they are used alongside the synthetic verb forms. This characteristic often beclouds the traditional discussion of the specific factors that motivate the use of the periphrasis (e.g. Aerts 1965). In some cases, the identification of a ‘suppletive’ role (i.e. filling a gap in the synthetic verbal paradigm) eased the doubt about their functional value (see below section “Classical Greek: The Rise of Constructional Gradience”).12 In later literature, the main questions revolve around grammaticalization (e.g. Moser 1988 on the perfect periphrasis, Amenta 2003 on the present periphrasis) or the identification of the syntactic and semantic properties of each construction, with an eye to understanding their general diachronic semantic development (e.g. Bentein 2012, 2013a). In recent studies, (e.g. Giannaris 2011a; Bentein 2016; Sturm 2019) the increase of attestation of the various types of periphrases is systematically analyzed and attributed to the rise of the verbal character of the three constructions. This process was steered principally by the actional properties of the verb and transitivity of the participial forms. Building on these findings, I distinguish three successive stages in the evolution of eimí-periphrases. All of them coincide roughly to the periodization of Greek (from Archaic to Post-Classical) and they will be discussed in some detail in the following section. For the purposes of the investigation of the eimí-periphrases, the data were elicited primarily from the database of Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG). Additionally, the papyri collection of the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri (DDbDP) was advised through the use of Papyri. info portal.

 The eimí-periphrases had received exhaustive treatment from the philological tradition; Alexander (1883), Björck (1940), Aerts (1965), Dietrich (1973) are the major accounts, where a massive collection of data can be found, especially for the Classical Greek. 12

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

137

3.2 Stages of Diachronic Development  rchaic Greek: Perfect Restructuring and the Emergence A of Periphrastic Constructions In ArGk, the copular verb can only be combined with the perfect participle (Giannaris 2011a: 122–124; Bentein 2016: 112–113). The syntactic and semantic properties of the resulting periphrasis depend on the way the synthetic perfect paradigm was organized at that time. ArGk perfect was a category that bore a very loose relation to the inflectional classes of the ArGk verbal system. It primarily denoted the ensuing state (cf. Crellin 2020: 446; Chantraine 1926: 13) and was intransitive: See (13). (13) a. bébrykha ‘roar’ b. tétiē: a ‘feel sad’

In addition, stativity was not only connected to the perfect category but depended strongly on the lexical semantics of the verbs, with stative and atelic ones being the most suitable candidates for building perfect forms.13 ArGk perfect mostly corresponded to a present-like tense category (cf. Moser 2009: 159–160; Kümmel 2020: 18), bearing a relationship to the inherent actional class of the verb and the argument structure. In this sense, it must be rather considered as a derivational (making new verbs out of verbs) than an inflectional category. The participial forms are used predicatively forming periphrases, as in example (14). Nevertheless, these cases are not numerous: (14) dḕn long

d’ PRT

áneō silently

êsan be.PST.3PL

tetiēótes sad.PRF.PTCP. ACT.M.PL

hyieìs sons

Akhaiôn Achaeans. GEN.M.PL

‘For a long time they were sad in silence, the sons of the Achaeans’ (Homer I, 695)

 Crellin (2020: 449) adds that ArGk perfect is compatible with change-of-state predicates as well. In this case, perfect’s role is to de-transitivize the predicate. However, the great majority of instances pertain to state predicates. 13

138 

T. Giannaris

These forms reflect the older layer (probably PIE) of the Greek perfect, which had been acquired a residual status at a very early stage. It is very doubtful if the participial forms occurred in the attested periphrases may be justifiably considered as participles in any proper sense; rather, they probably resembled a (de-verbal) adjective. The newer layer of perfects, which is also attested in Homeric texts, is the resultative perfects, that is, those which denote a state that implies a previously occurred event (Nedjalkov and Jaxontov 1988: 6). Accordingly, not all verbs may form resultatives. Only if the lexical meaning of the verb entails some inherent endpoint—that is, if the verb is telic (i.e. Vendlerian classes of ACHIEVEMENTS and ACCOMPLISHMENTS)—it may form a resultative. In the resultatives, stativity is not an inherent but a derived property requiring a dynamic predicate which is stativized in the form of ensuing result. The resultative perfects share a strong affinity with participial forms (sometimes participles are the only perfect forms attested in the texts). The periphrastic use of these participles must have been in use throughout the early phase of Greek, constituting an instance of the complex resultative form strategy (i.e. auxiliary plus past participle) according to the classification of Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1988: 19). These constructions are the typical instances of periphrasis found in the Homeric texts and amount to about 60 cases. Formally, the participial form is found in medio-passive, whereas semantically is restricted to telic verbs: See (15). (15) a.

ekseréō, tó ken tetelesménon êen be.PST.3SG which PRT accomplish. ask.PRS. PRF.PTCP. IND. PASS.N.SG ACT.1SG, ‘I am asking what is this which was/has been done’ (Homer, Θ 454)a ((15) b. pseúdos ouk eréei; mála gár pepnyménos estí be.3SG. lie not tell.FUT. very PRT inspire.PRF. PRS IND.3SG PTCP.PASS. NOM.M.SG hôde this

gár PRT

‘He will not lie; he is a very inspired man’(Homer γ 20) Translation of passages was done with the consult of Loeb Classical Library editions of Classical Greek

a

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

139

The appearance of participles among the first instances of ArGk resultative perfect is reminiscent of Haspelmath’s (1994: 157) observation, who argues that participles with resultative meaning are the most common typologically, since they are semantically much more adjective-like than the other participial categories. Thus, it is not striking that these participles were the most suitable to combine with the copular verb in a predicative construction. Instances, as those in example (15), are the most often-occurring expressions of periphrasis in Homer. The full compliance of the participial forms with the requirement of telicity is explained, of course, by the typical resultativity that characterizes both the participle and the overall construction (e.g. the verb teléō in (15a) meaning ‘accomplish’ and being, thus, prototypically telic by itself ).14 Hence, I conclude that the ArGk construction belongs to the non-­ verbal predication sentential type. The originally stative and then resultative semantics of the perfect were fully compatible with the prototypically non-verbal character of the predicative position. Further, the periphrases are exclusively intransitive, being, thus, in consonance with the adjectival status of the predicative complement. As a result, in the early period of Greek, the ‘eimí + participle’ periphrasis was a proper non-verbal predication, syntactically converging only with the class of adjectives.

Classical Greek: The Rise of Constructional Gradience Classical Greek (5th–4th c. BC) is the first period in which the full range of the periphrases is copiously attested.15 All the three groups indicated in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 are documented in the textual sources. However, their manifestation is not balanced. Figure 5.4 shows the frequency of periphrasis use in the texts of the Classical era. The perfect periphrasis amounts to 1929 (62%) occurrences; the present periphrasis concerns around 1117 (36%) cases, while the aorist constructions total only to 41 (1%) instances of use. These numbers suggest that the perfect group obviously had the most widespread attestation that  Interestingly, the verb teléō is found in twenty-four of the total amount of cases in the Homeric texts (Giannaris 2011a: 123). 15   Quantitative data presented here are drawn on the studies of Giannaris (2011a) and Bentein (2016). 14

140 

T. Giannaris

Classical Greek

1%

Perfect periphrasis

36%

Present periphrasis Aorist periphrasis

63%

Fig. 5.4  Distribution of the eimí-periphrases in Classical Greek

apparently reflects a common use of this construction in the Classical language; the other two exhibit more restricted expansion. Especially the aorist periphrasis seems to represent a remarkably ‘marginal’ option. This situation is not unexpected, given that the perfect periphrases were present in the previous period. The spread of use of the perfect periphrasis probably relates to the overall change that affected the inherited PIE perfect of ArGk and led to the perfect proper category of ClGk.16 Resultativity persisted as the predominant function of the ClGk perfect. Participles were proper members of the synthetic perfect paradigm and by virtue of this property, they regularly underwent the semantic shift (resultative to anterior) which shaped the new perfect of ClGk. This change also affected the development of the periphrastic schema. It is not striking that resultative meaning is a property of the 1062 out of the total of 1929 examples, whereas the anterior concerns 867 (cf. Bentein 2016: 133) (Fig. 5.5). Typical examples of the latter function are those in (16), where the appearance of genuinely passive and active participles respectively made possible the non-stative and non-resultative use of the corresponding periphrasis:  The semantic transformation (from resultative to anterior) that affected the synthetic perfect paradigm is described in detail by Haug (2008), Moser (2009) and Crellin (2020). 16

141

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

1200

1062

1000

867

800 600 400 200 0

Perfect periphrasis Resultative

Anterior

Fig. 5.5  Distribution of meanings of the perfect periphrasis in Classical Greek

(16) a. kaì and

hoi the

phrouroì guards

Athinaíōn diephtharménoi Athenians. killed.PRF.PASS. GEN.M.PL PTCP be.PRS.3PL

ēsìn be.PRS.3PL

hypò Megaréōn by Megarians. GEN.M.PL

‘and the Athenian guards were killed by the Megarians’(Thucydides 1.114.1—5th c. BC) (16) b. hoi the

de PRT

Aitōloì Aetolians

beboēthēkótes help.PRF.PTCP. ACT. NOM.M.SG

gár ḗdē êsan epì tò PRT already be.PST.3PL to the

Aigítion Aigition

‘but the Aetolians by this time had come to the rescue of Aigition’ (Thucydides 3.97.3—5th c. BC)

However, the great majority of the classical data still favored a resultative interpretation, as in cases like the example (17): (17) a.

Árioi Arioi

de PRT

tóksoisi […] bows.DAT.M.PL

eskeuasménoi equipped.PRF.PTCP.PASS.NOM.M.PL

êsan be.PST.3PL

‘The Arians were equipped with bows’ (Herodotus 7.66.1)

(17) b.

kaì and

mékhri toûde éti until this still

anōikisménoi stay.PRF.PTCP.PASS. NOM.M.PL

eisín be.PRS. IND.3PL

‘and up until then they were still staying inland (Thucydides 1.8.1.1—5th c. BC)

Interestingly, morphologically active participles frequently derive from unaccussative verbs and more explicitly allow for a resultative reading as in (18).

142 

T. Giannaris

Table 5.5 Suppletion in Classical Greek perfect paradigm (consonant-stem verbs—mediopassive) Perfect (medio-passive) Indicative Singular

gégrammai gégrapsai gégraptai gegrámmetha gégraphthai gegramménoi eisín

Plural

Subjunctive

Optative

gegramménos,-i,-on ô: êis êi gegramménoi,-ai,-a ômen ête ôsin

eíēn eíēs eíē eíēmen eíēte eíēsan

Table 5.6 Suppletion in Classical Greek perfect paradigm (consonant-stem verbs—active) Perfect (active)

Indicative

Subjunctive

Optative

Singular

gégrapha gégraphes gégraphe gegráphamen gegráphate gegráphasi

gegraphòs,-yı̑a,-ós ô êis êi gegraphótes,-yı̑ai,-óta ômen ête ôsin

eíēn eíēs eíē eíēmen eíēte eíēsan

Plural

(18)

kh’ and

hoûtos he

tethnēkṑs die.PRF.PTCP.ACT.NOM.M.SG

ên be.PST.3SG

‘and he was dead’ (Sophocles, Philoctetes 435—5th c. BC)

Another novel and much discussed (e.g. van Emde Boas et al. 2019: 198) property of the perfect periphrasis in ClGr is its use as filler for the morphological gaps in the inflection of the monolectic perfect (third plural indicative mediopassive of the consonant-stem verbs and all the persons of subjunctive, optative and imperative in active and medio-passive—see Tables 5.5 and 5.6). The importance of the suppletive use is more clearly seen in fifth-century Greek. The data from this period reveal that of the commonest of all perfect periphrases are those that have no monolectic counterpart. The suppletive function of the perfect periphrases must have played a critical role in the gradual development of a more explicit connection between them and the verbal system, since it brought the

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

143

periphrases into alignment to the monolectic verbs; thence the expansion of periphrastic use of the participle to other sub-­classes (not only resultative ones) was more easy to be activated. The use of non-resultative perfect participles in the periphrasis chronologically coincides with the expansion of the present participle into the same constructional environment. As in the first instances of the perfect periphrases, the vast majority of occurrences include cases of strongly stative, intransitive verbs, which are used in a very idiosyncratic way. Bentein (2016: 213) labels this group of constructions ‘stative’ and finds that they amount to 1065 out of 1117 of the total number of instances of present periphrases. The cases, which were usually grouped under this category, were those that in the past had been considered as examples of strong participial adjectivization (19). In these cases, participles commonly appear in the third singular form and the whole construction constitutes an impersonal expression. (19) a.

déon estìn mḗd’ hóti tò ōphélimon mḗd’ hóti tò necessary. be. neither that the useful neither that the PRS.PTCP. PRS.3SG ACT. NOM.N.SG ‘what is useful and good is not always necessary’ (Plato, Respublica 336d, 1—4th c. BC)

(19) b.

ésti be.PRS.3SG

d’ PRT

anaŋkaíon, necessary,

ô oh

ándres men

athinaíoi, Athenian

kaì and

lysiteloûn good. PRS. PTCP.ACT. NOM.N.SG

prosêkon appropriate.PRS. PTCP.ACT. NOM.N.SG

‘Athenian men, it is necessary and perhaps appropriate’ (Demosthenes, De Corone 17, 7—4th c. BC)

A rather distinct line seems to separate this type of data from the core verbal system; their properties and distribution show that the participle fully corresponds to an adjective and the whole construction is not an appropriate candidate for replacing the verbal forms (in example (19b) the participle conjoins to a full-fledged adjective). Apart from this body of data, a significantly smaller sub-group of present periphrases is also found in ClGr. It includes cases where the periphrasis seems to be mostly a variant of the monolectic imperfective forms (presents and imperfects). The restriction of having a clearly stative participle in the predicate position does not apply in this case:

144 

T. Giannaris

(20) a.

deinôs very

athymô fear.PRS.IND.1SG

mḕ not

blépōn see.PRS.PTCP.ACT. NOM.M.SG

ho the

mántēs the seer

êi be.PRS.SUBJ.3SG

‘Dread misgivings have I that the seer can see’ (Sophocles, Oedipus Rex 747—5th c. BC) (20) b.

taûta these

de PRT

ên were.3PL.PST

ginómena happening.PRS.ACT.PTCP

en in

Milḗtō Milete.DAT.SG

‘and these things took place in Milete’ (Herodotus 1.146.3—5th c. BC)

However, even in these cases, transitive participles do not occur in the periphrasis. For some researchers this should be considered an indirect indication that a non-verbal reading (i.e. adjectival) of the participle is not always excluded, especially when the predicate can receive a stative interpretation (e.g. Rijksbaron 2006: 127). In (20a) for example, it might be argued that blépōn ‘seeing’ is not an adjective-like participle but a full-­ fledged adjective, replacing the non-existing ‘normal’ adjective that would be the opposite of a word such as typhlós (‘blind’). In (20b) ambivalence is more remote, with the verbal reading being promoted by the non-­stative meaning of the participle. More deviant from the adjectival status are cases as those in (21). (21) hōs […] aphodeúōn ên, as defecate. be.PST. IPFV.PTCP. SG ACT.NOM. M.SG

hypḗlthen flow.PST. PFV.IND. 3SG

haímatos pléon ḕ khoeùs prosphátō blood more than choeus recent

‘as he was defecating, there came forth more than a choeus (three quarts) of fresh blood’ (Hippocrates, De morbis popularibus 7,1, 10, 4—4th c. BC)

In this example, stativity is overridden by the dynamicity of the verb’s lexical meaning (ACTIVITY). However, the dominance of the stative version of the construction is massive, as the numbers of Fig. 5.6 demonstrate. The last cases can be compared—at least in terms of their functional and syntactic ‘oddity’ as predicative structures- to the third group of periphrases, namely the aorist periphrases. Their marginal attestation points to their consideration as representing the last step in the expansion of the construction pattern eimí + participle in ClGr. This evolution is marked by the take-over of the aorist participle: see (22).

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases…  1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

145

1065

77 Present periphrasis Stative

Progressive

Fig. 5.6  Frequency of the ’stative’ and ‘progressive’ present periphrasis in Classical Greek (22)a.

(22)b.

eimì poiēsas be.PRS.IND.1SG do.PST.PTCP.ACT. NOM.M.SG ‘this (thing) I am doing’ (Herodotus 4.127.1—5th c. BC) out’ oûn prodeísas eimí tôi […] nor PRT fear.PST.PTCP. be.PRS.IND.1SG the ACT.NOM.M.SG oudé ti nor anything

neṓteron newer

nŷn now

lógō word.DAT.M.SG

‘nor I am thrown into fear beforehand by what you just said’ (Sophocles, Oedipus Rex 90—5th c. BC)

This type of periphrasis is rare in ClGr. Rijksbaron (2006: 34) highlights the problematic nature of this kind of data, which, according to his view, stand to very different position from the other two groups (perfect and present) of eimí-periphrases. In the aorist periphrases, the participle has a very clear perfective aspectual meaning and thus it cannot be interpreted in terms of an adjectival, namely semantically stative, function as in the majority of the examples belonging to the other two categories. In (22a, b), the meaning of the periphrasis seems to be approaching that of a simple present, a property that indicates that they were fully compositional (the temporal value of the construction does not differ from that expressed by the tense of the copula, whereas the aspectual meaning is inferred by the participial stem alone). The fact that the aorist stem and the adjectival reading are mutually exclusive explains why this participle is the last one to be used periphrastically. However, the gradual incursion of the pattern ‘copula + participle’ in various, less adjectival members of the participial paradigm, made possible a ‘weakening’ of the categorization of the whole construction as non-verbal at the end of the period.

146 

T. Giannaris

The above developments show that the ‘copula + participle’ construction in ClGk has acquired a typical, subjectively gradient nature resulting from its expansion to all types of participles. This process is dependent on the intra-categorial gradience of the participle (encompassing more and less prototypical adjectival) and was strengthened by gaps in the synthetic perfect that necessitated the use of the construction in cases where previously it was semantically or syntactically blocked. The most verbal uses of the construction indicate that it had started becoming an intersectively gradient pattern in the sense that it minimally allowed for the uses that syntactically converged with the verbal (rather than the adjectival) pole, as in the cases of some active perfect, progressive present and aorist periphrases.

 ost-Classical Greek: From Constructional Gradience P to Grammaticalization If one looks at the data of the Post-Classical times, the upsurge in the eimíperiphrases use is obvious.17 The perfect periphrasis is still frequently documented, but now the other two constructions are equally well represented in the texts. The general picture is given in Fig. 5.7. The perfect periphrasis is found 2044 (53%) times. The present constructions amount to 1377 (36%) and the aorist has increased to 401 (10%) occurrences. The substantial increase in attestation of the present and aorist formations is seen in Fig. 5.8. Interestingly, the perfect periphrasis still remains the most widely attested in terms of absolute count. Its actual occurrence, however, appears to decrease in rate if compared to ClGk. In the early texts of the period (3rd c.–1st c. BC) for example, Bentein (2016: 158) finds that in historiography the frequency (normed rate of occurrence) declines from 5.5 in ClGk to 1.8  in Early PClGk instances (per 10,000 words). This trend continues to the later centuries of the period and speeds up in the last  In the literature, this increase has been often discussed in connection with the general tendency of the language to adopt a more analytic (than synthetic) means for the codification of grammatical meanings which was caused (or reinforced) by the koineization process (see Moser 2009: 204–205). The possible interconnectedness between periphrasis and the sociolinguistics of the particular period is not discussed here. 17

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

147

Post-Classical Greek 11% Perfect periphrasis

36%

Present periphrasis

53%

Aorist periphrasis

Fig. 5.7  Frequency of use of the eimí-periphrases in Post-classical Greek

2500 2000 1500

2044

1929

1377 1064

1000 401

500

41

0 Classical Greek Perfect periphrasis

Post-Classical Greek Present periphrasis

Aorist periphrasis

Fig. 5.8  Distribution of the eimí-periphrases in Classical and Post-­Classical Greek

centuries, a tendency that can be attributed to two factors. First, the complete de-systematization of the optative and the gradual demise of the monolectic subjunctive (eventually also lost) contributed to the loss of an important functional domain for which the perfect periphrasis offered the sole means of formal expression, as seen above. Second, the decrease in rate probably correlated to the rise in use of the aorist construction which, as it will be seen, during the same time met with a significant functional transformation. The function of perfect periphrasis has not changed considerably from the ClGk situation and still exhibits a strong affinity to resultativity, as evidenced again by fact that the medio-­passive forms, which generally favor resultative interpretation, greatly outnumber the active ones (cf. Bentein 2016: 160, 173).

148 

T. Giannaris

A basic difference between the two periods is that periphrasis has become more ‘independent’ in the sense that its use does not ‘compete’ so evidently with the monolectic perfect; the latter started losing its robustness as a distinct inflectional paradigm in PClGr (see Moser 1988: 229). Thus, in many cases, the periphrasis offered the sole way of expressing resultative meaning: see (23).18 (23) kaì and

taûta these

ên be.PST.3SG

egkekrymména hide.PRF.PTCP.PASS.N.SG

eis in

tḕn the

skēnḕn tent

‘and these (things) were/have been hidden inside the tent’ (Septuaginta, Josue 7.22.3—3rd BC/ 3rd AD)

The persistence in resultativity semantics implies that, as observed for ClGk above, perfect periphrasis remained overall much closer to the non-­ verbal predication syntactic pole, rather than to an analytic, anteriority-­ valued verb form. The most remarkable development of the period surely is the noticeable rise of the aorist periphrastic form. More crucially, the constructions of this type show a clear distancing from any functional equivalence to a monolectic perfective form and they typically function as a pluperfect (i.e. anteriority in the past). This property emerged in the cases where the periphrasis is headed by the copula in the past tense: see (24). (24)a. apêlthon come.PST. PFV.3PL

de eis tò ksenodokheíon hópou ên katalýsas PRT to the hotel where be.PST.3SG sleep.PFV.PTCP.ACT. NOM.M.SG

‘they came to the hotel where he had stayed for the night’ (Acts of Thomas 16, 12—3rd c. AD) (24) b.

ho the

Andréas ouk epégnō [...] Andrew not recogni­ zed

auton⋅

ên [...]

ho

Iēsoûs

krýpsas

him;

be. PST. 3SG PRT

the

Jesus

hidden. the PFV. PTCP. ACT. NOM. M.SG

tḕn

heautoû theótēta his

divinity

Andrew didn’t recognize him; Jesus had hidden his divinity’ (Acts of Andrew and Matthew 114, 5—1/2nd c. AD)

 Other perfect meanings (anteriority, current relevancy) were taken up by the monolectic aorist (see Moser 1988, 2009: 212–215). Nevertheless, it must be noted that the monolectic active perfect met with an ‘unexpected’ strengthening of its use in some literary texts of the Hellenistic-­ Roman times, see Crellin (2016, 2020). 18

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

149

Examples of periphrasis use in (24) undoubtedly refer to an event that happened prior to the event denoted by the monolectic verb. The implication is that a substantial degree of non-compositionality has emerged; the meaning of the overall construction does not derive just by simply adding together the meanings of the two constituting elements (eimí verb in the imperfect plus the predicative complement in aorist form), but is semantic property attributed holistically at the constructional level. These pluperfect periphrases became frequent in the first centuries of the medieval period and remained the most common means for expressing this particular category until the end of the early medieval times (10th c.) (Giannaris 2011b). Further, as Bentein (2016: 182–186) rightly points out, aorist periphrases of the late antique Greek found themselves in a functional opposition with the perfect construction: the latter was reserved mainly for the resultative function, while the former took over the expression of anteriority and specifically anteriority in the past. It is interesting that, while the participial form had retained its nominal morphological agreement properties intact, and in this respect is fully compliant with the predicational status of the original construction,19 the syntactic status of the periphrasis still corresponded to that of a synthetic verbal. Moreover, the pluperfect semantic value is conveyed by the construction at this stage is a non-compositional property of it and indicates a high degree of grammaticalization. These three properties seem to contradict each other: non-verbal predication syntactic pattern normally excludes the auxiliary use of eimí, while the grammatical meaning of pluperfect presupposes the auxiliation process. Finally, the present periphrasis in PClGk is characterized by a generalization of its use with all type of predicates (stative and dynamic). In turn, this change led to great increase in the attestation of the ‘progressive’ periphrases which is documented in great numbers especially in texts of the Early Christian literature (LXX and New Testament). As seen in Fig.  5.9, the two sub-categories (stative vs. progressive) have reached a more balanced distribution during this period. This rapid increase of  It is worth noting here that the only case of morphological degradation of the participial form is attested in the case of the aorist periphrasis with pluperfect meaning in Medieval Greek. The loss of the nominal agreement features instantiates the advanced stage of grammaticalization that this construction has reached at least since the early medieval times (see Giannaris 2011b). 19

150 

T. Giannaris

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

1065 889 656

77 Classical Greek

Post-Classical Greek

Stative periphrasis

Progressive periphrasis

Fig. 5.9  Distribution of the ‘stative and ‘progressive’ periphrasis in Classical and Post-Classical Greek

occurrence of the progressive counterpart in the specific texts had long ago impressed philologists. Ergo, the idea of interpreting the particular periphrasis as a characteristic case of a plausible ‘Semitism’ (i.e. influence from Hebrew or Aramaic documented in Biblical texts) spread and became commonplace in the relevant literature. This issue will be briefly picked up in 4.2 below. In addition to that, compatibility with all Vendlerian classes can be clearly observed, as in passages (25–27). ACTIVITY (25) ên de didáskōn en miâi tôn sunagōgôn was.3SG.PRS PRT teaching.PRS.PTCP.ACT.M.SG in one.DAT.F the synagogues.GEN.F ‘he was teaching/taught in one of the synagogues’ (New Testament, Luke 13.10.1—1st/2nd c. AD)

ACHIEVEMENTS (26) autoì epìstantai óti egô ḕmēn phylakízōn kaì dérōn katà tàs synagōgàs they know that I be.PST. imprison. and eat.IPFV. in the synagogues 1SG IPFV. PCTP. PTCP. ACT. NOM. NOM. M.SG M.SG ‘and they know well that I used to throw into prison and beat (people) in the synagogues’ (Acts 22, 19, 2—1/2nd c. AD)

ACCOMPLISHMENTS (27) kaì ên oikodomôn and be. build.IPFV. PST.3SG PTCP.ACT. NOM.M.SG

pólin kaì epōnómasen tḕn city and name.PST.IND.3SG the

pólin […] Enōkh city Enoch

‘and he was building/he built a city and named the city Enoch’ (Genesis 4, 17, 2—3rd BC)

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

151

These are also cases where the transitive use of the participle becomes acceptable (e.g. in 27), although sometimes a tendency towards intransitive use is seen even with verbs of high transitivity (like the two verbs in 26). In these cases, the participle cannot be syntactically equated to an adjective; rather, it seems to have acquired the role a verbal constituent that, along with the eimí form, creates a verbal complex which, as it has been compellingly suggested in the literature, semantically promotes the durative/progressive connotations of the imperfective stem.20 The high frequency of the progressive use marks a very clear deviation from the classical usage, which was clearly closer to the adjectival/non-verbal interpretation of the participle. Likewise, the durative/progressive connotations indicate a clearer mark of the semantic non-compositionality which again testifies the acquisition of the status of a full verbal predication. In the case of the aorist periphrasis, the pattern has proceeded towards developing a very high degree of intersective constructional gradience and completely converging with the verbal characteristics. As noted in Sect. 2.2, practically this characterization means that a string of words can exhibit the properties of two constructions. In the aorist periphrasis, the double properties are matched by the semantic perfectiveness and the transitivity of the participle (verbal pole) on the one hand, and the nominal morphology (nominal/adjectival pole) requirements on the other. The emergence of the pluperfect function indicates that the aorist periphrasis has become grammaticalized before having first undergone a radical structural rearrangement similar to that dictated by a reanalysis-induced auxiliation. To summarize the evolution in all periods examined, the ‘eimí-­ periphrases’ emerged through following a stepwise process that began with the perfect members of the participial paradigm, proceeded to take on the present participles and ended up with the aorist participle. The process of gradual expansions is in full compliance with a strongly directional movement from less to more verbal features. The driving force behind this expansion is the successive obtainment of verbal features, mainly actional  For details, see Giannaris (2011a: 174–182) and Bentein (2016: 254–262). It must be noted, however, that the imperfective stem, never lost the capability to denote durativity or progressivity without the any other grammatical aid (cf. Moser 2009: 206). 20

152 

T. Giannaris

Table 5.7  The diachronic evolution of ‘eimí + participle’ in Greek (until 8th c. AD) 1st stage 2nd stage

3rd stage

Archaic Greek Classical Greek 1st sub-stage 2nd sub-stage

Perfect periphrasis (resultative) a. Perfect periphrasis (resultative – anterior) b. 1. Present periphrasis (stative) 2. Present periphrasis (progressive) c. Aorist periphrasis Post-Classical Greek a. Perfect periphrasis (resultative) b. Present periphrasis (stative – progressive) c. Aorist periphrasis (pluperfect)

dynamics and transitivity. These are mapped onto the three different aspectual forms of the participle (perfect, present, aorist) with direction from complete absence to full possession of these features. Further, this sequencing of appearance coincides with a general increase in the number of occurrences and a closer interaction of the constructions with the verbal system and the codification of specific grammatical meanings (Table 5.7).

4 Verbalizing the Greek Periphrases: The Mechanism of Change and Its Implications 4.1 Analogy and Constructional Schemas The presentation of the data revealed that the creation of the ‘eimí + participle’ periphrases in Greek resulted from a gradual verbalization process of a previously predicational syntactic relation. This process was hidden behind the superficial structural similarities among the three participial periphrases. The key difference from older approaches, which unraveled the change, was the longitudinal perspective adopted. This brought to light the crucially different way that the three periphrases were patterned diachronically.21 During this process, no pragmatic inferencing or semantic bleaching of the elements involved played a role in the motivation of syntactic change. Also, no radical restructuring which modified the  See also Giannaris (2011a). Bentein (2016), followed by Sturm (2019), also accept the analogy based model, although they are not directly concerned with its theoretical implications. 21

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

153

underlying representation of a copular construction to an auxiliary construction seems equally to have been at play. As it was shown, the whole process depended on analogies to a model synchronically available in the linguistic system. The way Greek participial periphrases evolved diachronically is highly similar to what De Smet (2009) has termed gradual category-internal change; that is, a construction—the copular predication in the examined case—undergoes minor shifts, which manifest themselves in new instances, but not necessarily in a new category. Existing categorial boundaries are extended, resulting in new uses that did not occur in the earlier stage of the language (i.e. ArGk). Interestingly, albeit intra-categorial, this type of change may lead to the introduction of a new category— as clearly seen in the case of pluperfect function of the aorist periphrasis—and, thus, being a genuinely innovative mechanism of change (cf. De Smet 2013). The accretion of more verbal features is the result of analogical steps within the same underlying structure. Differently put, the gradual appearance of the various periphrases is not arbitrary but goes hand-in-hand with a concomitant loosening of the restrictions that were originally imposed by the non-verbal predication syntactic schema. In that sense, the diachrony of the ‘eimí + participle’ in Greek is a step-by-step process of verbalization (Fig. 5.10). At the primary stage that coincided chronologically with ArGk, only the most adjective-like participles occurred in the predicative construction (resultative and medio-passive perfect). ‘Periphrasis’ essentially was predicative syntactic pattern, having the properties of a normal non-­verbal predication. However, this evolution opened the way for other, less and less prototypical adjectival participles to be hosted at the construction (active perfect, present, and aorist) which gradually created slightly differing sub-patterns. Finally, through successive analogically driven steps the predication schema was expanded to the whole participial paradigm (in ClGk), giving hence the opportunity for novel interpretations of the upto-then copular clause-type pattern (e.g. pluperfect periphrasis in the case of aorist participle construction found in PClGk). The occurrence of the final stage can be described as a grammaticalization change, since the construction took over the expression of a distinct grammatical category, that is, the pluperfect. However, even in the last stage, that is the introduction

154 

T. Giannaris

Non-verbal predication

Verbal predication

General pattern

Sub-patterns Medio-passive perfect Present / Active perfect

Aorist

Fig. 5.10  The verbalization of the ‘copula  +  participle’ construction in Greek (adapted from De Smet 2009)

of a novel means for the expression of grammatical category, the syntactic identity of change does not non-trivially differ from being another step on the general analogical process which leads from a non-verbal predication to a verbal periphrasis. The development of Greek participial periphrases towards verbality is also reminiscent of the concept of ‘host-class expansion’ within the framework of grammaticalization, proposed by Himmelmann (2004). In this view, grammaticalization is essentially a process of context extension at various levels. Host-class expansion is the type of expansion at the construction-­internal level and takes place when there is the grammaticalizing item can be construction with more elements. In Greek participial periphrases cases, the rise of compatibility between the copula and the various participles is an example of constructional expansion which, driven by analogy leads to cumulative effects at the level of new category insertion. Thus, the whole evolution is indicative of the innovative role of analogy as a mechanism of syntactic change and its principal role in creating new categories out of existing ones. This assumption significantly extends the role of analogy by ascribing to it a more innovative potential for the grammatical inventory of a language than usually assumed in the literature (cf. Lehmann 2004: 7–8 who contrasts pure to analogically based

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

155

grammaticalization on the basis of their capability of introducing new or already existing categories respectively). Furthermore, the diachronic scenario, which excludes reanalysis from the proposed explanation, is theoretically supported by a series of arguments against the putative explanatory value of the notion of structural ambiguity (see Detges and Waltereit 2002; Lehmann 2004; De Smet 2009; Garrett 2011; Whitman 2012). According to this critique, double structuring is caused by change and in this sense can only be the outcome and not the trigger of any change. Such an understanding of diachronic change is evidently based on the assumption that all three participial periphrases of Greek, despite their differences, they shared basic syntactic and functional properties and, at some level of analysis, they are unified to create a general pattern or a construction type. The unification of the periphrases at a more abstract level of analysis provides arguments in favor of the basic assumption advocated by Construction Grammar, that is, that constructions are form-meaning pairings and assumed to be the essential units of linguistic analysis (e.g. Goldberg 1995, 2006). These form and meaning pairings may vary and be atomic or complex, schematic (i.e. abstract) or substantive (cf. Croft 2001). Thus, at the abstract level, Greek participial periphrases can be easily grouped together into a schematic copular construction with original structure [NP Subj IntrVCop XP SubjComp]. Occurrence of resultative participles in the construction is the first instance of a change which at a later stage infiltrated the whole construction type and finally led to the modification of the original schema which then acquired greater semantic range and productivity, as the occurrence of perfective / aorist participles readily manifest.

4.2 The Question of Semitic Interference As hinted at in 3.4 above, the significant increase in attestation of the progressive present periphrasis in Post-Classical Greek has been interpreted as a case of Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) interference. Although commonly found in the Greek translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew (the so-called Septuagint) (Dietrich 1973; Hauspie 2011; Bentein 2016: 238),

156 

T. Giannaris

the case for a foreign language external influence on Greek was originally made for the New Testament Greek (e.g. Blass and Debrunner 1961). In fact, it was considered as a characteristic case of the Aramaic linguistic background of the authors of the Gospels. Details of the actual process of interference from Hebrew have been extensively discussed in the literature and will be of no concern here (see Evans 2001: 230–248; Giannaris 2009; Bubenik 2010; Bentein 2013b, 2016: 247–249). What must be stressed, however, is that, subsequently, the translation of the Biblical texts, and the New Testament in particular, from Greek into several other European languages had commonly been considered as having had a general impact on the history of the progressive present periphrasis in Latin, Gothic, Old Church Slavonic, and Old English (Nickel 1966; Kotin 2000; Drinka 2011). Apparently, the hypothesis made in this chapter about the outset of the change, which led to the emergence and subsequent development of the whole range of the copular participial periphrases in Greek is, of necessity, incompatible with the assumption that Semitic interference was a prime factor for the adequate explanation of the progressive present periphrasis, as it routinely maintained in the literature. At the same time, the internally motivated change analyzed above can in principle accommodate a complementary role of a contact parameter.22 In fact, such as a combination is supported by Bentein (2016: 249), who argues compellingly that Hebrew influence transformed a ‘minor use pattern’ of Classical Greek into a ‘major use pattern’ in Post-Classical, adopting, thus, a moderate and persuasive compromise between the internal and external ­causation, at least as far as the overwhelming increase of usage in the early Christian literature is concerned. However, it must be mentioned that this ‘major pattern’ did not have a long life after Hellenistic-Roman Greek. In the subsequent period of Medieval Greek, the progressive present periphrasis followed a path of  In a recent account, Sitaridou (2022) contends interestingly that basically for a language contact change to set off it is necessary that the recipient language must already have, even marginally, a structurally equivalent pattern to that which is copied by the source language. In this sense, contact theory becomes explanatorily somewhat redundant. 22

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

157

decreasing popularity (Giannaris 2011a: 202–206). Such a decline is not so much expected by a ‘major pattern’. On the contrary, the internally driven remodeling of the present participle on the basis of its adverbial use and its final transformation into a gerund (see Manolessou 2005) or converb form (cf. Moser 2006) demonstrates fairly clearly that the corresponding periphrasis never developed a high degree of non-­compositio nality, namely, formal and functional unity, and autonomy in the language system so as to follow an independent path of development. The progress of this periphrasis was probably doomed from the outset, because it never attained a distinctive verbal status. Such an interpretation implies that we must be more cautious about the actual impact of the Hebrew interference on Greek in the long run. Conversely, the internal dynamics in the evolution of the participial system appear as having again more things to say about the way the periphrases were evolved in Medieval Greek.

4.3 Periphrasis and Participle in PIE: Evidence for Reconstruction The proposed analysis, based on analogy that works through the more abstract constructional level, can have repercussions on the reconstruction of particular functional domains and syntactic features of PIE. The most significant is that verbal periphrasis, in the sense of an auxiliary verb construction, cannot be plausibly reconstructed for PIE. Even though comparative study is needed, Greek evidence stands against previous accounts (e.g. Meiser 2004; Drinka 2009) which generally assume that a copular periphrasis with a more or less verbal status was already a feature of PIE, usually projecting the evidence attested in the individual languages back to their reconstructed common past. Synchronic stage reconstruction and etymological reconstruction are two different types of inquiry in diachronic syntax and must be kept methodologically apart (cf. Seržant 2015) and this is apparently true for the type of phenomenon examined here. Periphrasis, in the sense of a constructionally gradient syntactic pattern that obtained simultaneously properties of verbal and non-verbal predication, emerged later in the IE languages, brought about by a series

158 

T. Giannaris

of analogical steps. This process enabled more members of the participial paradigm to be compatible with the copular construction schema than originally were allowed to. In addition, the change was restricted by the way each language structured its system of participles (symmetrical – nonsymmetrical) as well as the overall evolution of the aspect and tense system. Additionally, the assumptions made here are in line with recent theoretical proposals about how syntactic reconstruction can be a more feasible venture (Barðdal 2015; Gildea et al. 2020). According to this views, working with the notion of construction as the basic building block of language can offer solutions to the two basic problems of syntactic reconstruction, that is, the absence cognates and the lack of directionality on syntactic change. In this spirit, the participial periphrases can be diachronically traced back to the emergence of the copular verb and the respective constructional schema. This process must be attributed to syntactic properties already present in the Proto-language. Furthermore, the decisive precondition for building a verbal periphrasis out of a copular construction was certainly the diachronic versatility of participial forms as it can be seen in the reconstruction problems presented by the IE participles briefly discussed in 2.1. Participial morphological exponents tend to ‘recycle’ historically with regard to their functional properties (cf. Grestenberger 2020). This means that a given participial form can ‘flip’ from subject-oriented syntax to passive or stativeresultative syntax, or vice versa. During this fluctuation process, several constructional patterns may arise, the use and paradigmatic incorporation of which can be strengthened or weakened by other structural factors (e.g. inflectional ‘gaps’, changes in the verbal system).

5 Conclusion The major point made in this study is that, even in cases that look like typical examples of “classical” grammaticalization, paradigmatic factors based on cross-constructional analogy can be ultimately more important than causes pertaining to syntagmatically working semantic inferencing,

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

159

which traditionally was seen as the prime cause for categorial reanalysis. Looking at data from the diachrony of Greek, it was argued that ‘copula + participle’ periphrasis began its life as a non-verbal predication and then, it underwent a gradual process of verbalization. The first step was taken by the insertion in the pattern of the perfect participle in the early periods of Greek (Homeric and Classical), which, due to its inherent resultativity, was easy to be hosted in a syntactic slot meant for adjectives. Subsequently, present and aorist participles began sneaking in the pattern, mainly in Post-Classical Greek. This process was incited by the gradient nature of the participle and was responsible for the synchronic ambiguities observed in the interpretation of the various instances of the construction (constructional gradience). The verbalization process led to the syntactic transformation of the construction and into the development of a full-fledged verbal periphrasis, structurally distinct from the original syntactic schema. The change was motivated cumulatively by the general cognitive process of analogy that triggered a gradual process of verbal properties accretion. Eventually, the categorial change enabled an increasing multiplicity at the functional level, especially in the case of the periphrasis with the aorist participle which moved towards taking up the expression of pluperfect in late Post-Classic Greek. The perfect and the present periphrasis persisted more in behaving syntactically according the original category of nonverbal predication. Ultimately, I discussed the implications that the proposed change scenario can have for, first, the much debated interplay between internal and external factors, as far as the periphrastic construction with the present participle is concerned, arguing that the fact that this periphrasis did not catch on in Medieval Greek is more compatible with the internal cause of change which was opted for here than language contact. Secondly, it was supported that the diachronic evidence from Greek suggests that verbal periphrasis was a feature probably either completely absent or with a very limited presence in PIE. In consequence, the study about the origin, or even the reconstruction, of the traditionally called periphrasis should be recast in the direction of the emergence of the copula, appealing to constructional schemas and their evolution as well as to the restructurings observed in the participial paradigms of the individual IE languages.

160 

T. Giannaris

References Aarts, Baas. 2004. Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language 28: 1–28. ———. 2007. Syntactic gradience. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aerts, Willem-Johan. 1965. Periphrastica. An investigation in the use of einai and ekhein as auxiliaries or pseudo-auxiliaries in Greek from Homer up to the present day. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Alexander, William-John. 1883. Participial periphrases in Attic prose. American Journal of Philology 6: 291–308. Amenta, Louisa. 2003. Perifrasi aspettuali in Greco e in Latino. Milano: Franco Angeli. Aranovich, Paúl, ed. 2007. Split auxiliary systems. A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Arkadiev, Peter, and Björn Wiemer. 2020. Perfects in Baltic and Slavic. In Perfect in Indo-European languages, ed. Robert Crellin and Thomas Jügel, 123–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barðdal, Johanna. 2015. Syntax and syntactic syntactic reconstruction. In The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, ed. Claire Bowern and Bethwyn Evans, 343–373. London: Routledge. Bentein, Klaas. 2012. The periphrastic perfect in Ancient Greek. A diachronic mental space analysis. Transactions of the Philological Society 110: 171–211. Bentein, Klass. 2013a. Prog imperfective drift in Ancient Greek? Reconsidering eimi ‘be’ with present participle. Transactions of the Philological Society 111: 67–107. ———. 2013b. The syntax of the progressive periphrasis in the Septuagint and the New Testament. Novum Testamentum 55: 168–192. ———. 2016. Verbal periphrases in Ancient Greek. Have and be constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Björck, Gudmund. 1940. En didaskon: Die periphrastischen Konstruktionen im Griechischen. Uppsala/Leipzig: Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri A.-B./ O. Harrasowitz. Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. 1961. A grammar of the New Testament and the other early Christian literature. Translated and revised by Robert Funk. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Bubenik, Vit. 2010. Hellenistic Koine in contact with Latin and Semitic languages during the Roman period. Studies in Greek Linguistics 30: 32–54. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of World. Chicago: The Chicago University Press.

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

161

Chantraine, Pierre. 1926. Histoire du Parfait Grec. Paris: H. Champion. Comrie, Bernard. 2020. Introduction. In Robert Crellin & Thomas Jügel (eds.), Perfect in Indo-European Languages, 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crellin, Robert. 2016. The syntax and semantics of the perfect active in literary Koine Greek. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. ———. 2020. The perfect system in Ancient Greek. In Perfect in Indo-European languages, ed. Robert Crellin and Thomas Jügel, 345–382. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Smet, Hendrik. 2009. Analyzing reanalysis. Lingua 119: 1728–1755. ———. 2013. Does innovation need reanalysis? In Usage-based approaches to language change, ed. Evie Coussé and Ferdinand von Megden, 23–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Detges, Ulrich, and Richard Waltereit. 2002. Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21: 151–195. Devitt, Daniel. 1994. Copulas in cross-linguistic perspective: Grammaticalization, synchronic variation and diachronic change. PhD diss., SUNY. Dietrich, Wolf. 1973. Die periphrastische Verbalaspekt im Griechisch und Lateinisch. Glotta 51: 188–228. Drinka, Bridget. 2003. The formation of periphrastic perfects and passives in Europe: An areal approach. In Historical linguistics 2001, ed. Βarry J. Blake and Kate Burridge, 105–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. ———. 2009. The *-to-/-no- construction of Indo-European: Verbal adjective or past Passive participle? In Grammatical change in Indo-European languages, ed. Vit Bubenik, John Hewson, and Sarah Rose, 144–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ———. 2011. The sacral stamp of Greek: Periphrastic constructions in New Testament translation of Latin, Gothic and Old Church Slavonic. In ­Indo-­European syntax and pragmatics: Contrastive approaches, ed. Eirik Welo, Oslo Studies in Language 3 (3): 41–73. van Emde Boas, Evert, Albert Rijksbaron, Luuk Huitink, and Mathieu de Bakker. 2019. The Cambridge grammar of classical Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Evans, V. Trevor. 2001. Verbal syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural usage and Hebrew interference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

162 

T. Giannaris

Fellner, Hannes A., and Laura Grestenberger. 2018. Die Reflexe der *-nt- und *-mh1no-Partizipien im Hethitischen und Tocharischen. In 100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen—Morphosyntaktische Kategorien in Sprachgeschichte und Forschung, ed. Elizabeth Rieken. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 23. September 2015  in Marburg, 63–82. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Garrett, Andrew. 2011. The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality. In Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes, ed. Dianne Jonas, John Whitman, and Andrew Garrett, 52–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giannaris, Thanasis. 2009. Περιφράσεις και γλωσσικές επαφές στην Ελληνιστική Κοινή [Periphrastic constructions and language contact in Hellenistic Greek]. Studies in Greek Linguistics 29: 269–280. ——— 2011a. Οι περιφράσεις ‘είμί/είμαι + μετοχή’ στην Ελληνική: Διαχρονική προσέγγιση [The periphrastic construction ‘BE + participle’ in Greek: A diachronic perspective]. PhD diss., National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. ———. 2011b. Pluperfect periphrases in Medieval Greek: A perspective for the collaboration between linguistics and philology. Transactions of the Philological Society 109 (3): 232–245. Gildea, Spike, Eugenio R. Lugián, and Jóhanna Barðdal. 2020. The curious case of reconstruction in syntax. In Reconstructing syntax, ed. Jóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea, and Eugenio R. Lugián, 1–44. Leiden: Brill. Givón, Talmy. 2001 [1984]. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gorton, Luke. 2013. Evidence for adverbial origins of final -ς on the medieval and modern Greek—οντας Participle. Journal of Greek Linguistics 13: 143–148. Grestenberger, Laura. 2020. The diachrony of participles in (pre)history of Greek and Hittite: Loosing and gaining of functional structure. Diachronica 37: 215–263. Haspelmath, Martin. 1994. Passive participles across languages. In Voice. Form and function, ed. Barbara A. Fox and Paul J. Hopper, 151–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

163

———. 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22: 315–351. ———. 2000. Periphrasis. In Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word formation, ed. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 654–664. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ———. 2001. Word classes/parts of speech. In International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences, ed. Paul B.  Baltes and Neil J.  Smelser, 16538–16545. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Haug, Dag. 2008. From resultative to anterior: On the role of paradigmaticity in semantic change. In Grammatical change and linguistic theory. The Rosendal papers, ed. Thórhallur Eythórsson, 285–305. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hauspie, Katrin. 2011. The periphrastic tense forms with εἰμί and γίγνομαι in the Septuagint of Ezekiel. In Et sapienter et eloquenter: Studies on rhetorical and stylistic features of the Septuagint, ed. Eberhard Bons and Thomas J. Kraus, 127–152. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Heine, Bernard, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal predication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Himmelmann, Nicolay. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, ed. Walter Bisang, Nikolaus Himmelmann, and Björn Wiemer, 19–40. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Hoffmann, Roland. 1997. Lateinische Verbalperiphrasen vom Typs ‘amans sum’und ‘amatus fui’: Valenz und Grammatikalisierung (Primäres Textkorpus: Ovid). Frankfurtam Main: Peter Lang. Hopper, Paul, and C. Elisabeth Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horrocks, Geoffrey. 2010. Greek: A history of the language and its speakers. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. ———. 2020. The perfect in Medieval and Modern Greek. In Robert Crellin & Thomas Jügel (eds.). Perfect in Indo-European Languages, 483–504. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hristov, Bozhil. 2020. Grammaticalising the perfect and explanations of language change. Have- and be perfects in the history of English and Bulgarian. Leiden: Brill.

164 

T. Giannaris

Inglese, Guglielmo, and Sylvia Luraghi. 2020. The Hittite periphrastic perfect. In Perfect in Indo-European languages, ed. Robert Crellin and Thomas Jügel, 377–410. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Killie, Kristin. 2014. The development of the English BE + V-ende/V-ing periphrasis: From emphatic to progressive marker? English Language and Linguistics 18: 361–386. Kotin, Michail. 2000. Das Partizip II im hochdeutschen periphrastische Verbalfügungen im 9.–15. Jh. Zur Ausbildung des analytischen Sprachbaus. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 28: 319–345. ———. 2020. The Gothic perfective constructions in contrast to West Germanic. In Perfect in Indo-European languages, ed. Robert Crellin and Thomas Jügel, 351–376. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kümmel, Martin. 2017. Partizipien und Verbaladjective als Prädikate im Indoiranischen. In Le Feuvre, Claire, Daniel Petit & Georges-Jean, Pinault. 2017. (eds.), Verbal Adjectives and Participles in Indo-European Languages. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies (Indogermanische Gesellschaft), Paris 24th to 26th September 2014, 141–158. Bremen: Hempen Verlag. Kümmel, Martin. 2020. In Robert Crellin & Thomas Jügel (eds.), Perfect in Indo-European Languages. 15–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kuteva, Tania. 2001. Auxiliation: A study into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Le Feuvre, Claire, Daniel Petit, and Georges-Jean Pinault, eds. 2017. Verbal adjectives and participles in Indo-European languages. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies (Indogermanische Gesellschaft), Paris 24th to 26th September 2014. Bremen: Hempen Verlag. Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20: 303–318. ———. 2004. Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 32: 1–18. Manolessou, Ioanna. 2005. From participles to gerunds. In Advances in Greek generative syntax: In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou, ed. Melita Stavrou and Archonto Terzi, 241–283. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McFadden, Thomas, and Artemis Alexiadou. 2010. Perfects, resultatives and auxiliaries in earlier English. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 389–426. Meillet, Antoine. 1929. Les adjectives grecs en –tos. Donum Natalicium Schrijnen: Versameling van Opstellen, 635–639. Nijmegen/Utrecht: N.V. Dekker & van de Vegt.

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

165

Meiser, Gerhard. 2004. Die Periphrase im Urindogermanischen. In Per Aspera ad Asteriscos. Studia Indogermanica in honorem E.J.  Rasmussen, ed. Adam Hyllested, Ander Rihardt Jørgensen, Jenny Helena Larsson, and Thomas Olander, 343–353. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. Melchert, H.  Craig. 2017. The source(s) of Indo-European participles in *-e/ ont-. In Verbal adjectives and participles in Indo-European languages. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies (Indogermanische Gesellschaft), Paris 24th to 26th September 2014, ed. Claire Le Feuvre, Daniel Petit, and Georges-Jean Pinault, 217–220. Bremen: Hempen Verlag. Miller, D.  Gary. 2019. The Oxford Gothic grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moser, Amalia. 1988. The history of perfect periphrases in Greek. PhD diss., University of Cambridge. ———. 2006. The Greek forms in –ontas: A study in ‘converbiality’, temporality, aspectuality and finiteness. Glossologia 17: 43–67. ———. 2009. Άποψη και χρόνος στην ιστορία της Ελληνικής [Aspect and tense in the history of Greek]. Athens: Parousia supplements 77. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P., and Sergei Jaxontov. 1988. The typology of resultative constructions. In Typology of resultative constructions, ed. Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, 3–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nickel, Gerhard. 1966. Die Expand Form im Altenglischen: Vorkommen, Funktion und Herkunft der Umschreibung “Beon/Wesan + Partizip Präsens”. Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz Verlag. Nicolay, Natalie. 2007. Aktionsarten im Deutschen: Prozessualität und Stasivität. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas. Universals in the categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rafiyenko, Dariya, and Ilja Seržant. 2020. Post-classical Greek. An overview. In Post-classical Greek. Contemporary approaches to philology and linguistics, ed. Dariya Rafiyenko and Ilja Seržant, 1–15. De Gruyter. Rijksbaron, Albert. 2006. The syntax and the semantics of the verb in classical Greek. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, ed. Timothy E. Moore, 111–144. New York: Academic Press.

166 

T. Giannaris

Ross, John. 1972. The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort. In Papers from the eighth regional meeting of Chicago linguistics society, ed. Paul M. Peranteau and Judith N. Levi, 316–328. Chicago, IL: CLS. Schwyzer, Eduard. 1950. Griechische Grammatik. Vol. 1. München: Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Seržant, Ilja. 2015. An approach to syntactic reconstruction. In Perspectives on historical syntax, ed. Carlota Vitti, 117–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sitaridou, Ioanna. 2022. On the redundancy of a theory of language contact: Cue-based reconstruction in a socio-linguistically informed manner. In Studying language change in the 21st century, ed. Nikolaos Lavidas and Kiki Nikiforidou, 15–52. Leiden: Brill. Sturm, Laura. 2019. Die Verbal Periphrase im Altgriechisch. Synchronie und Diachronie. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač. Thierhoff, Rolf. 2007. Sein. Kopula, Passiv-und / oder Tempus-Auxiliar? In Kopulverben und Kopulasatze: Intersprachliche und Intrasprachliche Aspekte, ed. Ludmilla Geist and Björn Rothstein, 165–181. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Traugott, C. Elizabeth, and Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Traugott, C. Elizabeth, and Ekkehard König. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Approaches to grammaticalization, ed. Elizabeth C.  Traugott and Bernard Heine, vol. 1, 189–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Traugott, C.  Elizabeth, and Graeme Trousdale. 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. How do they intersect? In Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, ed. Elizabeth C.  Traugott and Graeme Trousdale, 19–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. New York: Cornell University Press. Vincent, Nigel. 1982. The development of the auxiliaries HABERE and ESSE in romance. In Studies in the romance verb, ed. Nigel Vincent and Martin Harris, 71–96. London: Croom Helm. Wetzer, Harrie. 1996. The typology of adjectival predication. Berlin: Mouton de Guyter. Whitman, John. 2012. Misparsing and syntactic reanalysis. In Historical linguistics 2009: Selected papers from the 19th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Nijmegen, 10–14 August 2009, ed. Ans M.C. van Kemenade and Nynke de Haas, 69–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

5  The Development of the Copular Participial Periphrases… 

167

Wiemer, Björn. 2004. The evolution of possessives as grammatical constructions in Northern Slavic and Baltic languages. In What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, ed. Walter Bisang, Nikolaus Himmelmann, and Björn Wiemer, 271–332. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Willi, Andreas. 2018. Origins of the Greek verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6 Verb-Adjective Combinations in Late Modern English: Syntactic Reanalysis and Analogical Generalisation Ljubica Leone

1 Introduction Verb-adjective combinations are verbs composed of a base verb (e.g. to get, to cut) and an adjective (e.g. clear, short) which exhibit internal cohesion and behave as single lexemes (Quirk et al. 1985; Biber et al. 1999, 2021). They are characterised by limited syntactic flexibility and by semantic compositionality (Fraser 1974; Quirk et al. 1985), which grant them the status of members of the English multi-word verb (MWV) system. English MWVs include many types of verbs that have a phraseological constituency and are composed of more than one word showing a unitary linguistic status: phrasal verbs (e.g. take on), prepositional verbs (e.g. deal with), phrasal-prepositional verbs (e.g. get out of), verb-verb combinations (e.g. make do), verb-prepositional phrase combinations (e.g. bear in mind), verb-noun phrase combinations (e.g. take care of),

L. Leone (*) University of Verona, Verona, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Lavidas et al. (eds.), Internal and External Causes of Language Change, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30976-2_6

169

170 

L. Leone

and, as already mentioned, verb-adjective combinations (Quirk et  al. 1985; Biber et al. 1999, 2021; Huddleston and Pullum 2002). Verb-adjective combinations share many features with other MWVs, which concern the multi-word make-up and syntactic restrictions but also the semantic complex characterisation. These verbs portray a meaning that is often “idiomatic rather than derivable from the individual elements” (Fraser 1974: 37) and behave as single lexemes. At the same time, they are characterised by syntactic constraints deriving from the placement of the direct object of transitive forms, and the limited variability of the sentence where the verb-adjective combination occurs. Similar to adverbial particles included in phrasal verbs, indeed, transitive verb-adjective combinations allow two different patterns: (1) direct objects (DOs) may be placed between the base verb and the adjective, for example, to make something clear, and (2) DOs may be placed after the verb-adjective combination, for example, to turn short something. The pronominal object always needs to occur in mid-position, that is, between the base verb and the adjective, for example, to break it open. Moreover, adjectives included in verb-adjective combinations do not allow topicalisation and “cannot be preposed along with the direct object when the latter is questioned”, for example, “*Hungry his wife he kept” (Fraser 1974: 36). The behaviour of verb-adjective combinations renders members of this verb group very close to other MWVs, especially phrasal verbs. Nonetheless, they preserve some peculiar features concerning the status of their constituents. Indeed, the base verb works as “a functional element rather than a lexical item in its own right” (Claridge 2000: 119), and the adjective operates as if it was a particle that shows linguistic constraints (Fraser 1974) while working as an adjective, which contributes to the semantics of the whole combination (Claridge 2000). The complex linguistic status of the verb-adjective combinations and the features of their constituents are the result of interacting factors that over time worked as catalysts of change. Both internal and external factors promoted the establishment of verb-adjective combinations, which may be considered as the outcome of the tendency towards analyticity that has affected the English verb system since Old English (OE) and, in a more limited way, continued to the more recent Early Modern English (EModE) period (Brinton 1988, 1996; Brinton and Akimoto 1999; Claridge 2000). The description of the history of verb-adjective

6  Verb-Adjective Combinations in Late Modern English… 

171

combinations in more modern times, however, remains unexplored, as there are no works with a focus on the Late Modern English (LModE) period. The LModE time has often been disregarded from analysis due to its proximity with Present-Day English (PDE), but it warrants examination as the recent past helps understand the effects that processes of change in early periods have on the language used in modern times (Pérez-Guerra et al. 2007; Hundt 2014). This study is a corpus-based investigation that aims to fill this gap. The analysis has been undertaken on the Late Modern English-Old Bailey Corpus (LModE-OBC), which includes texts covering the years 1750-1850 that were selected from the Proceedings of the Old Bailey, London’s Central Criminal Court. The research adopts a functional approach to the study of verb-adjective combinations that will be referred to as “verbs” or “combinations” throughout the chapter, avoiding the use of the term “constructions”, which could be better contextualised in studies set within the Construction Grammar framework (CG). This chapter is organised as follows: Sect. 2 includes the theoretical background, whereas Sect. 3 introduces the research aims. Section 4 is devoted to the methodology and presents details on the corpus used in the research and data retrieval. Section 5 describes the results, while Sect. 6 includes the conclusions and suggests further paths of research.

2 Theoretical Background Following the traditional approach to phraseology, which emphasises the cohesion among the constituents as a defining criterion for phraseological status (Cowie 1998), verb-adjective combinations have been described as members of English phraseology (Bolinger 1971; Fraser 1974; Quirk et al. 1985). From a lexicological angle, verb-adjective combinations are often treated as an “entry” in the dictionary as they form single lexemes (Cowie and Mackin 1975). In this respect, a challenging aspect is that verb-­ adjective combinations are rather variable in their internal constituency. As Bolinger (1971: 72–74) notes, there are three groups within the verbadjective combinations: (i) verbs that include well-defined base verbs, for example, make and keep, which may be followed by many diverse

172 

L. Leone

adjectives; (ii) verbs that are “closed” on the adjective side, for example, verbs complemented by open and loose and their near-synonyms free and clear; and (iii) verbs that are “lexically open but semantically closed” whose components are extremely varied. The examination of the syntactic behaviour of verb-adjective combinations in PDE has been described by Mindt (2011: 77), who tackles the question of “which verbs occur together with specific adjectives, which in turn are followed by a that-clause”. Specifically, she highlights that be and make are the most frequent verbs that are used in combination with an adjective, and that make especially selects the three adjectives certain, clear, and sure, forming verb-adjective combinations (Mindt 2011). Studies with a diachronic orientation that examine verb-adjective combinations are very limited: except for the early studies undertaken by Jespersen (1961), or more recently by Claridge (2000) and Leone (2022), verb-adjective combinations have been set apart from the examination. Jespersen (1961: 369) provides a comprehensive account of verb-­ adjective combinations and treats them as adjective predicatives whose “usage goes back to an old reflexive” that was omitted over time. A more detailed examination of diachronic aspects of verb-adjective combinations is provided by Claridge (2000), who investigates members of this verb group during the EModE period by querying the Lampeter corpus, which is a multi-genre corpus covering the years 1640-1740 (Siemund and Claridge 1997). She observes that the reason behind the limited interest in verb-adjective combinations attested within the scientific community may lie in the fact that they “are not very numerous” if compared with primary adverbs or prepositions (Claridge 2000: 66). The analysis of data included in the Lampeter corpus reveals that these combinations “seem to be very much a development of the early modern era” and they are especially attested from the sixteenth century onwards (Claridge 2000: 100). Since then, verb-adjective combinations started to show the features that they have in present times and to occur with two different patterns, that is, as verbs followed by an adjective (e.g. get clear) or as verbs followed by an adjective and a preposition (e.g. get clear of), which sometimes conform with other simplex verbs (Claridge 2000: 131). The EModE time is, in this respect, very important to the understanding of current uses since verb-adjective combinations became more stable within

6  Verb-Adjective Combinations in Late Modern English… 

173

the linguistic system during this period while preserving signs of ongoing innovation. Signs of ongoing innovation and stable features also characterise modern times as noted by Leone (2022) examining the transformation of make+adjective combinations during the years 1850-1999. Specifically, she undertakes a corpus-based investigation by querying the multi-genre ARCHER corpus and highlights that make+adjective combinations show phraseological variability which intertwines with stable features that, as expected, are especially attested in the 1900s and 1950s. It is possible to hypothesise that, similar to the EModE period and modern times, stability and change also coexisted during the LModE time and that the history of verb-adjective combinations was linked to that of the other members of MWVs of the time. This entails that, diachronically, verb-adjective combinations may have been involved in processes of grammaticalisation favouring the decategorialisation of instances (Brinton and Traugott 2005) and lexicalisation intended as the process that leads to the univerbation of adjacent items and their reanalysis as a single lexeme (Brinton and Traugott 2005). Other mechanisms that operated on the MWV system and that are expected to affect verb-­ adjective combinations are syntactic reanalysis, which prompts syntactic restructuring (Anttila 1989; Harris and Campbell 1995; Brinton and Traugott 2005), and analogy intended as “rule generalisation” within the system (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 63).

3 Aims This study aims to describe the development of verb-adjective combinations during the LModE period (1750-1850). Specifically, it will address the following research questions: (i) To what extent did verb-adjective combinations vary their frequency of use and linguistic behavior during the years 1750-1850? (ii) In what way and to what extent did syntactic reanalysis and analogy operate on the linguistic renewal of verb-adjective combinations during the years 1750-1850?

174 

L. Leone

4 Methodology 4.1 The Corpus The corpus used in the present research is the Late Modern English-Old Bailey Corpus (LModE-OBC), which is a self-compiled corpus that includes texts selected from the Proceedings of the Old Bailey, London’s Central Criminal Court. The compilation of the LModE-OBC was undertaken by adopting a stratified sampling frame, which allows the random selection of texts for each of the years from 1750 to 1850. The data has been assembled into decades and the decades were grouped to form five subcorpora of 200,000 words each. The LModE-OBC overall includes 1 million tokens. Table 6.1 represents the corpus architecture and size. The texts included in the LModE-OBC are recordings of trials and witness depositions released at the Old Bailey that have been proved to be reliable accounts of the language spoken in the court and invaluable source data for corpus analysis (Huber 2007).

4.2 Data Retrieval and Analysis The identification of the unit of analysis started from considerations of the lexical diversity characterising verb-adjective combinations as they include various base verbs and each may be followed by diverse adjectives. Given that this study aims to contribute to the description of verb-­ adjective combinations already examined by Claridge (2000), who focuses on EModE, I decided to adopt a top-down approach and select Table 6.1  The LModE-OBC corpus architecture and size Subcorpus

Years

No. of tokens

Total no. of tokens

1750s 1770s 1790s 1810s 1830s

1750–1769 1770–1789 1790–1809 1810–1829 1830–1849

200,000 tokens per subcorpus

1,008,234 tokens

6  Verb-Adjective Combinations in Late Modern English… 

175

the same base forms she identified as a point of departure: break, come, cut, fall, force, get, grow, hold, judge, keep, lay, let, make, rip, see, slit, stand, take, think, throw, turn. While this approach is useful to compare the use of verb-adjective combinations of the LModE time with that of the EModE time, it can also be limiting as it could exclude some combinations formed with other bases. The LModE-OBC corpus was queried with the concordancer WordSmithTools 6.0, and I specifically searched the concordances within the span of 0:4, which permits the examination of the diverse linguistic realisations of each instance. The results were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively, considering the normalised frequency of instances (Nf ), percentages, and type/token ratio (TTR), on the one hand, and paying attention to syntactic features and their transformation, on the other hand. Percentages and differences in percentages have been calculated with the software Log-likelihood Calculator and Effect Size developed at Lancaster University (Rayson and Garside 2000).

5 Results and Discussion 5.1 Verb-Adjective Combinations during the Years 1750-1850 The analysis reveals that verb-adjective combinations occur 603 times in the LModE-OBC corpus, which is 5.98 Nf per 10 K. This count is informative as it depicts members of this class as a group of verbs that are relatively popular during the LModE time if compared with the rate attested in the years 1640-1740, as examined by Claridge (2000): they move from an Nf of 2.0 (per 10 K) during the EModE time (Claridge 2000: 171) to an Nf of 5.98 (per 10 K) during the years 1750-1850. This implies more generally the existence of ongoing processes of innovation affecting these verbs during the years 1750-1850. To describe ongoing processes of renewal involving these verbs during the LModE period and to identify possible factors working as catalysts for change, there is the need to examine the distribution of verb-adjective

176 

L. Leone

combinations within the various subcorpora. Figure 6.1 shows the token frequency of verb-adjective combinations per decade expressed using the Nf (per 10 K). Observation of Fig.  6.1 reveals that verb-adjective combinations exhibit variation in their frequency within the decades, with the lowest frequency attested in the 1790s and the peak observed in the 1770s. The comparative analysis between the subcorpora suggests that there are some divergences in terms of frequency: verb-adjective combinations are underused in the 1750s (−22.42%) and 1790s (−30.88%) if compared with the frequency displayed in the 1770s; the1810s and 1830s are more stable as the frequency in the 1830s is only −12.89% when compared with that shown in the 1810s. This suggests that there were ongoing processes of renewal during the years 1750-1850 that intertwine with stability, which are the two components that also characterised verb-adjective combinations of the EModE time (Claridge 2000). To calculate the degree of lexical variability of verb-adjective combinations and exclude the influence of high frequencies exhibited by single instances on the results, I identified the number of types and calculated the TTR per decade, as reported in Table 6.2. The TTR is, indeed, a useful measure of the lexical variability of texts and compares the number of 8 7 6 Nf

5 4 3

Token frequency

2 1 0

1750s

1770s

1790s Time

1810s

1830s

Fig. 6.1  Verb-adjective combinations (Nf per 10 K)

6  Verb-Adjective Combinations in Late Modern English…  Table 6.2  Type frequency of verb-­ adjective combinations and TTR

1750s 1770s 1790s 1810s 1830s

177

Type frequency

TTR

42 40 26 37 35

0.37 0.27 0.26 0.27 0.30

types with that of tokens, giving insights into the degree of variability a text/subcorpus exhibits (Brezina 2018). Examination of Table 6.2 reveals that, except for the 1750s, the TTR is rather stable, which means that there is a limited divergence between the decades when examining lexical variability. The immediate implication is that the rates reported in Fig.  6.1, which are rather variable, should be influenced by the occurrence of one or more verbs that are characterised by a high number of hits, rendering the representation of verb-­adjective combinations rather biased. An in-depth observation of the rates exhibited by each type within the LModE-OBC corpus, in this respect, reveals that there is a verb, that is, break open, which functions as the prototype of verb-adjective combinations of the years 1750-1850 and is characterised by many matches in each subcorpus. This verb shows a variable use over time, which partly invalidates the trend represented in Fig. 6.1: it occurs 38 hits in the 1750s, which is a rate that goes up to 81 occurrences in the 1770s and again goes down to 58 matches in the 1790s. At the same time, it occurs 47 hits in the 1810s and 43 matches in the 1830s. It is necessary, at this stage, to reformulate the frequencies reported in Fig. 6.1 by excluding the verb break open, which contributes to a biased representation of the tendency characterising verb-adjective combinations during the years 1750-1850. Figure 6.2 shows the token frequency of verb-adjective combinations obtained by excluding break open. Considering the rates shown in Fig. 6.2, it is possible to note that the divergences between the decades are more marked than those observed in Fig. 6.1. This is the case of the subcorpus 1790s, which shows a rate of −32.24% if compared with that of the 1770s, and the subcorpus 1810s, which is characterised by an increase of +104.80% in the use of verb-­ adjective combinations when compared with the 1790s.

Nf

178 

L. Leone

4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Token frequency

1750s

1770s

1790s

1810s

1830s

Time

Fig. 6.2  Token frequency of verb-adjective combinations without break open (Nf per 10 K)

A further aspect worthy of note is that the exclusion of break open from the overall count has significantly affected one single subcorpus, that is, the 1770s, which moves from 7.09 Nf (per 10 K) to 3.07 Nf (per 10 K), meaning that verb-adjective combinations in the 1770s became less frequently used than those attested in the 1750s. As for the subcorpora 1810s and 1830s, however, the exclusion of break open from the analysis does not seem to affect the rates significantly, which gives further evidence of the stability of its use, as already observed in Fig. 6.1.

5.2 Verb-Adjective Combinations between Syntactic Reanalysis and Analogy Verbs occurring in almost all the subcorpora include cut open, fall asleep, let alone, stand close, whereas break open, force open, see open, see safe, stand open, or think proper are used in all the decades. Some examples are reported in (1)-(3). 1 . I went again to the cellar, when the things were all cut open…. (1750s) 2. I thought proper to return… (1770s)

6  Verb-Adjective Combinations in Late Modern English… 

179

3. …and, as soon as I saw them safe, I came up again to the place where we parted… (1790s) The existence of combinations that are consistently used in the years 1750-1850 gives further support to the stability these verbs exhibit during the LModE time, as already observed in Sect. 5.1. In this regard, it is possible to hypothesise that there are stereotyped instances including adjectives that have been co-selected by the bases: this demonstrates that there are “lexico-syntactic interdependencies” (Francis 1993:144) between the base verb and the following adjective. Stable features coexist with ongoing innovation during the years 1750-1850: while a few verb-adjective combinations were first established, others gradually disappeared via analogical processes. As for the first aspect, verbs such as throw open, think possible, and think sufficient emerged as new members of the verb-adjective combinations in consequence of processes of direct formation driven by analogy. Similar paths were followed by these verbs, which, nonetheless, took diverse verb-adjective combinations as the model to follow. The semantic closeness between the base verbs and/or the adjectives and the linguistic model are conditio sine qua non before analogical processes. As for throw open, it is attested from 1810 onwards and only occurs once. The limited number of occurrences corroborates the hypothesis whereby this verb emerges as a new member of the verb-adjective combinations: hapax legomena, “while of course not conclusive evidence of a new formation in individual cases, can point towards the degree of productivity present in a type of feature” (Claridge 2000: 179). The fact that the base throw is never used in combination with the adjective open before 1810 excludes the operativeness of the syntactic reanalysis that generally occurs when adjacent items are reinterpreted as members of another linguistic category (Harris and Campbell 1995; Brinton and Traugott 2005). There is thus the need to consider other mechanisms that worked as catalysts beyond the establishment of the combination throw open. A possible solution could derive from observation of other verb-adjective combinations, especially those occurring with the adjective open. There are, for example, the combinations get open and keep open that are well-­ established in the data, along with stand open, which may be the verb that

180 

L. Leone

stimulated analogy and that throw took as the model to follow. The similarity between stand open, as in (4), and throw open, as in (5)-(6), solves any doubts. The combination stand open is semantically very close to throw open and much closer than such combinations as keep open and get open, as in (7)-(8). 4 . … and we were all below, and the door stood open. (1790s) 5. The men threw the gates open and seized me. (1810s) 6. The kitchen window was also thrown open. (1830s) 7. I do sometimes keep my door open to see if they go out again. (1770s) 8. …the door was fast; the watchmen got it open some time after. (1750s) Examination of the examples (4)-(8) suggests that the base stand behaves like a verb signalling an atelic action, as throw does. However, get and keep imply an ingressive connotation; that is, they refer to the changing status of the entities, which are represented by the DOs my door in (7) and it in (8). This means that stand open may have favoured the direct formation of a new verb-adjective combination, that is, throw open: the base throw started to occur with the adjective open as the effect of analogy by taking the well-established combination stand open as the model to follow. The popularity of the adjective open over the years 1750-1850 and its ability to combine with diverse bases to form verb-adjective combinations are the factors that promoted analogical processes often ending up in the establishment of new combinations. The frequency of verb-­ adjective combinations formed with open per decade is shown in Table 6.3. Analogical processes also affected other verbs that were not formed with the adjective open. This is, for example, the case of think possible and think sufficient, which were established by taking think necessary and think proper as their models. Indeed, no other well-established verbs occur with the adjectives possible and sufficient, which excludes phenomena of analogy between verbs followed by identical adjectives. In this case, it is possible to hypothesise that analogy did not work among verbs with an identical adjective; rather, it operated between all combinations of the base verb think. This verb was followed by adjectives such as necessary or proper, as in

6  Verb-Adjective Combinations in Late Modern English… 

181

Table 6.3  Frequency of all verb-adjective combinations formed with open (Nf per 10 K)

Break open Come open Cut open Force open Get open Hold open Keep open Lay open Rip open See open Stand open Throw open

1750s Nf

1770s Nf

1790s Nf

1810s Nf

1830s Nf

1.88 – 0.04 0.09 0.14 – 0.04 – – 0.09 0.04 –

1.61 – 0.04 0.04 0.04 – – 0.04 – 0.34 0.09 –

2.87 – 0.24 0.19 – – – 0.04 – 0.09 0.14 –

2.33 0.09 0.09 0.59 – 0.04 – – – 0.44 0.14 0.04

2.13 – – 0.29 0.04 – 0.04 – 0.04 0.29 0.14 0.04

(9)-(10), which may have favoured the creation of other combinations with the adjectives possible, as in (11), or sufficient, as in (12): 9. The jury do not think it necessary to go into any other evidence. (1810s) 10. I did not think that proper, because the porter was a stranger to me. (1750s) 11. I do not think it possible. (1810s) 12. … and I think it sufficient in point of law. (1790s) Comparative analysis between the examples (9)-(12) suggests that think tends to occur with adjectives that mark evaluative processes like proper and necessary, which may have stimulated the selection of other adjectives performing the same evaluative function, such as sufficient (from the 1770s) and possible (from the 1790s). Analogy favoured mechanisms of direct formation, leading to the establishment of the verb-­ adjective combinations think possible and think sufficient, which took the whole range of combinations of the base think as models to follow. When intended as an extension, analogy may favour processes of rule generalisation (McMahon 1994; Hopper and Traugott 2003) allowing the interaction of items within the whole linguistic system, as is the case here.

182 

L. Leone

Specifically, the new verbs arose from “a proportion” of the kind A:B=C:X (McMahon 1994: 72), with X being the form that was established via analogy: think: think necessary= think: think + evaluative adjective ↓ think: think necessary= think: think sufficient/possible

Moving on to the second point mentioned above, some instances became obsolete during the LModE period and disappeared. This is the case of judge proper and judge necessary, as in (13)-(14), which were set in competition with think proper and think necessary, as in (15)-(16), giving rise to layering, which is the phenomenon characterised by the coexistence of new and old forms that ends up with the selection of one of them (Hopper 1991). 1 3. He came, and we judged it proper to send for the prosecutor. (1750s) 14. Judging it necessary, I made a longitudinal incision, to come at the state of … (1770s) 15. … and he had a right to leave her if he thought proper… (1830s) 16. I thought it necessary to lay bait to find out the person that took the money… (1750s) Competition among similar forms and analogical processes seems to favour the disappearance of the verbs formed with the base judge in consequence of the low frequency and the limited number of adjectives this base verb can attract when compared with the verb think. The fact that judge proper and judge necessary followed an identical path before disappearing evokes the existence of a linguistic cycle that occurs when “a regular pattern of language, a round of linguistic changes” operates “in a systematic manner and direction” (van Gelderen 2013: 233). It would be interesting, at this stage, to evaluate whether there are other verbs following this cycle in more recent times, including the years from 1850 up to PDE. This may open further paths of research that cannot be investigated in this study, which has been undertaken on a corpus covering the years 1750-1850.

6  Verb-Adjective Combinations in Late Modern English… 

183

Similar to the combinations judge proper and judge necessary, the verb-­ adjective combinations come open, cut open, and hold open, as in (17)(19), were affected by obsolescence during the years 1750-1850. These verbs gradually disappeared, perhaps due to competition with the verbs get open and keep open, as in (20)-(21). 1 7. … and she did not know how it came open. (1810s) 18. Did you not see then that his head was cut open? (1790s) 19. … and asked me to put them into the bag for him, while he held it open… (1810s) 20. She would not confess how she got the drawer open, but said she found the buroe open. (1750s) 21. My outer street door is kept open all day. (1830s) Examples (17)-(21) suggest that come open, cut open, and hold open are semantically very close to get open and keep open, which were used up to the 1830s. It is possible to suppose that the use of come open, cut open, and hold open was driven by paradigmatic relations entrenched within the whole linguistic verb system, meaning that analogy operated without stimulating a proportion based on a model but as rule generalisation. In this case, it prompted the disappearance of some verbs which were substituted by others working as layers that exhibited similar meanings. The disappearance of a set of verbs that include the adjective open suggests that, in this case, analogy favoured the actualisation of a linguistic cycle, which is characterised by processes of replacement (van Gelderen 2009). There is no information on the steps these verbs followed, and thus it is only possible to hypothesise that syntactic reanalysis turned the affected string into a free combination, which explains the use of the adjective open as an alternative to the participial form opened observed in other verbs like see open and get open. Specifically, see open and get open are verbs exhibiting signs of instability and occurring as both free and bounded combinations: see open and get open are set in paradigmatic competition with see opened and get opened. This means that they were still consolidating their status as verb-­ adjective combinations during the years 1750-1850.

184 

L. Leone

Comparison between see opened and see open, as in (22)-(23), confirms that they are paradigmatically linked to each other and that the substitution of one with the other form displays limited effects in syntactic and semantic terms. Similar considerations apply to get opened and get open, as in (24)-(25). 22. I have seen the hydes doubled up, but have not seen them opened. (1810s) 23. It was paper doubled up, I did not see it open. (1750s) 24. She acknowledged that she took it to the house of Lilly, got it opened there... (1810s) 25. Then he said he’d shew us, if we would go into the shop, how he got the till open… (1750s) The link between see open and see opened and the similarity between get open and get opened suggest that these combinations gave rise to layering and that one of the alternative forms disappeared. A possible motivation beyond the use of see open and get open more frequently than the other two alternatives could lie in the fact that there were other verb-adjective combinations such as break open, stand open, and force open that operated as models to follow and that gave rise to analogical processes. It is possible to suppose that analogy prompted the transformation of the past-­ participle opened into a proper adjective open, and that the adjective open underwent decategorialisation, turning it into an adjective exhibiting a bounded status. The base verb and the new adjective open underwent syntactic reanalysis and lexicalised as a verb-adjective combination. There are 7 occurrences of see opened and 1 hit of get opened, and 37 hits of see open and 5 hits of get open, which enhances the hypothesis that the tendency of the time was towards the establishment of verb-adjective combinations rather than the contrary. It is even possible to suppose that there was a leading instances from a free to a bounded status during the years 1750-1850. If proved, this could even give empirical support to the idea that languages may tend to endorse specific paths of change and follow recurrent developmental paths (Lass 1997). Since early periods, external causes of change including language contact and borrowings stimulated the establishment of multi-word verbs like verb-adjective

6  Verb-Adjective Combinations in Late Modern English… 

185

combinations, which over time started to interact with other components within the linguistic system and favour internal processes of change resulting in new combinations.

6 Conclusion The data reveal that there is relative stability in the frequency of use and productivity of verb-adjective combinations across the decades. Syntactic reanalysis was not prominent during the years 1750-1850, but analogical processes favoured the establishment of new combinations via direct formation or, conversely, the disappearance of others. During the LModE time, there were phenomena of layering that ended up in the selection of one of the alternatives, which affected the pairs get open/opened and see open/opened. Language-internal causes of change worked on the whole verb system favouring processes of interferences via analogy and layering. Future work will include the identification of processes of change and stable features of other multi-word verbs like composite predicates occurring in the form verb+noun, for example, give consent, make choice, take care. Comparing the historical development of verb-adjective combinations and other multi-word verbs in Late Modern English could add further information on stability (and change) on this period and elucidate the role of analogy and syntactic reanalysis in the configuration of the syntactic pattern as a whole. Acknowledgments  I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers and to the editors for their advice and suggestions for improvements.

References Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

186 

L. Leone

———. 2021. Grammar of spoken and written English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bolinger, Dwight. 1971. The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brezina, Vaclav. 2018. Statistics in corpus linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of English aspectual system. Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1996. Attitudes toward increasing segmentalization. Complex and phrasal verbs in English. Journal of English Linguistics 24 (3): 186–205. Brinton, Laurel J., and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brinton, Laurel J., and Minoji Akimoto. 1999. Introduction. In Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English, ed. Laurel J.  Brinton and Minoji Akimoto, 1–20. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Claridge, Claudia. 2000. Multi-word verbs in early modern English. A corpus-­ based study. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. Cowie, Anthony Paul. 1998. Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cowie, Anthony Paul, and Ronald Mackin. 1975. Oxford Dictionary of current idiomatic English. Volume 1: Verbs with prepositions & particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Francis, Gill. 1993. A corpus-driven approach to grammar. Principles, methods and examples. In Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair, ed. Mona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 137–156. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fraser, Bruce. 1974. The verb-particle combination in English. Tokyo: Taishukan. Harris, Alice C., and Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to grammaticalization. Volume I.  Focus on theoretical and methodological issues, ed. Elizabeth C.  Traugott and Bernd Heine, 17–35. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hopper, Paul J., & Elizabeth C.  Traugott. 2003 [1993]. Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huber, Magnus. 2007. The Old Bailey Proceedings, 1674-1834: Evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English. In Annotating variation and change (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 1),

6  Verb-Adjective Combinations in Late Modern English… 

187

ed. Anneli Meurman-Solin and Arja Nurmi. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/ journal/volumes/01/huber/. Accessed July 25, 2019. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hundt, Marianne. 2014. Introduction: Late modern English syntax in its linguistic and socio-historical context. In Late modern English syntax, ed. Marianne Hund, 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jespersen, Otto. 1961. A modern English grammar. On historical principles. Part III. Syntax. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leone, Ljubica. 2022. Make+adjective combinations during the years 1850-1999: A corpus-based investigation. In Computational and corpus-based phraseology. 4th International Conference, Europhras 2022, Malaga, Spain, 28-30 September, 2022, Proceedings, ed. Gloria Corpas Pastor and Ruslan Mitkov, 133–145. Cham: Springer. McMahon, April M.S. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mindt, Ilka. 2011. Adjective complementation: An empirical analysis of adjectives followed by that-clauses. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pérez-Guerra, Javier, Jorge Bueno Alonso, and Dolores González-Álvarez, eds. 2007. ‘Of varying language and opposing creed’: New insights into late modern English. Bern: Peter Lang. Quirk, Randolph, Sydney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman. Rayson, Paul, and Roger Garside. 2000. Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. In Proceedings on the workshop on comparing corpora, ed. Adam Kilgarriff and Tony Berber Sardinha, 1–6. Hong Kong, China: Association for Computational Linguistics. Siemund, Rainer, and Claudia Claridge. 1997. The Lampeter corpus of early modern English tracts. ICAME Journal 21: 61–70. The Proceedings of the Old Bailey. n.d.. https://www.oldbaileyonline.org. Accessed January 14, 2021. van Gelderen, Elly. 2009. Cyclical change. An introduction. In Cyclical change, ed. Elly van Gelderen, 1–12. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ———. 2013. The linguistic cycle and the language faculty. Language and Linguistics Compass 7 (4): 233–250.

7 The Evolution of Temporal Adverbs into Discourse Markers: Grammaticalization or Pragmaticalization? The Case of Romanian atunci “then” and apoi “afterwards” Gina Scarpete Walters

1 Introduction Over the past few decades, discourse markers (henceforth, DMs) started to be explored extensively in the written and spoken registers of various languages (Zafiu 2008 & 2009; Hancock 2014; Stover 2016; Borreguero I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to Professor Elly van Gelderen (Arizona State University), who supplied very useful comments on earlier versions of this text. I am equally grateful to the wonderful audience that attended and/or presented at the 3rd Workshop Language Change in Indo-European, organized during the 6th Naxos Summer School (July 2021), and the Workshop Pragmatic Variation across Time and Space, organized during the 21st International Conference of the Department of Linguistics (University of Bucharest, November 2021). I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their excellent comments. I am indebted to Professor Nikolaos Lavidas (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) for his support and encouragement. I would also like to thank Alexandru Vlad for valuable comments on the translations from Old Romanian into English.

G. S. Walters (*) Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Lavidas et al. (eds.), Internal and External Causes of Language Change, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30976-2_7

189

190 

G. S. Walters

Zuloaga 2018; Heine et al. 2021a; inter alia). Such studies, in the fields of (historical) pragmatics and discourse analysis and language acquisition and language pedagogy, attempted to explain the development of DMs, which is generally understood to be a consequence of various processes of language change, such as lexicalization (Wischer 2000; Fischer 2007a & 2007b; Lehmann 2015; Haspelmath 2011; etc.), grammaticalization (Traugott 1995; Brinton 2002; Brinton and Traugott 2005; Brinton 2017; etc.), pragmaticalization (Erman and Kotsidas 1993; Aijmer 1997; Dostie 2004; Claridge and Arnovick 2010; etc.), but also “discoursivization” (Ocampo 2006, 317). Most recently, DMs were described as grammaticalized (paren)theticals, as a result of a process called cooptation (Heine et al. 2021a). This chapter will provide a theoretical overview of the processes of grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, and interpretations of DMs in literature. It will emphasize what I consider to be the two main disputes that have arisen within the study of DMs: first, whether DMs are a result of grammaticalization or pragmaticalization; then, the various names DMs have received in literature. The development of DMs cannot be restricted to grammaticalization (the transformation of lexical items into functional categories). Instead, I argue that DMs are especially a result of pragmaticalization (the development of pragmatic markers). The aim of this chapter is, however, to outline the evolution of two adverbs (Ro. atunci and apoi) that have undergone a quasi-similar process of pragmaticalization, with similar functional developments (adverbial-temporal function > pragmatic-discursive function), but with a different result in present-day spoken Romanian. The evolution of temporal adverbs into discourse markers has been studied in other languages as well. For example, Borreguero Zuloaga’s (2018: 233) diachronic analysis of It. allora and Sp. entonces identifies three trajectories in this process, which according to Hopper and Traugott (2003) could be considered a type of cline (apud Borreguero Zuloaga 2018: 233): (i) temporal adverbs > continuative connectives; (ii) continuative connectives > consecutive connectives at the intrasentential level; (iii) sentential > textual consecutive connectives (Idem). These changes will be investigated in some older Romanian texts from the sixteenth

7  The Evolution of Temporal Adverbs into Discourse Markers… 

191

century until the nineteenth century along with the Corpus of Spoken Romanian (IVLR).1 Finally, I attempt to answer the following questions: (a) to what point in the evolution of these adverbs can we speak of grammaticalization and when does the process of pragmaticalization take over, or could we speak of pragmaticalized lexical units without grammaticalization having occurred previously? (b) What are the pragmatic functions of the markers atunci and apoi and the meanings underlying these functions in contemporary spoken Romanian?

2 Discourse Markers, Grammaticalization, and Pragmaticalization In this section, discourse marker, grammaticalization, and pragmaticalization will be defined relying on previous research that has been widely acknowledged (Traugott 1995; Brinton 2002; Claridge and Arnovick 2010; Brinton 2010; Brinton 2017; Heine et al. 2021a; inter alia). Over the past decades, discourse markers came to play a significant part in the analysis of discourse. A rising interest in the interpretation of utterances from a pragmatic perspective has led to the exploration of DMs in various languages, where both the spoken and the written registers were extensively studied. DMs have been the subject of many studies in different fields of research, from pragmatic and discourse analytic research and studies of language acquisition and language pedagogy to research on sociolinguistic topics like code-switching and language variation (Stover 2016: 2). The increased interest in the study of DMs from various perspectives has inevitably led to the rise of controversy and disputes with regard to classification and function. These disputes have grown to be “more prominent in recent years as DMs have come to be seen not only as an underexplored aspect of language behavior but as a testing ground for ideas and hypotheses concerning the boundary between pragmatics and semantics and for the many theories of discourse  For this study, not all texts of Old Romanian are under investigation. For a comprehensive description and quantitative analysis of all the occurrences of Ro. atunci and apoi, see Zafiu 2009. 1

192 

G. S. Walters

structure and utterance interpretation” (Schourup 1999: 228, apud Stover 2016: 2–3). The interest in the study of DMs arose when scholars started to pay closer attention at the spoken language, specifically the meaning and the role of expressions that until then used to be ignored. Examples such as well, like in English, păi, gen in Romanian, or pues in Spanish (to name just a few) were considered meaningless, with no real purpose in the domain of a sentence (the so-called fillers). At the level of discourse (within utterances), however, these DMs seem to play a significant role, having pragmatic (and semantic) value, as we will see later in the analysis sections. The controversy around these expressions made them acquire different classifications and definitions. DMs are known by various terms such as “discourse particles,” “pragmatic markers,” “discourse connectives,” “adverbials,” “connecting adverbials,” “discourse operators,” “discourse particles,” “discourse signals,” “utterance modifiers,” “speech act adverbials,” “style disjuncts or conjuncts,” and “formulaic theticals.” The most comprehensive characterizations are provided by Brinton 2017 (2–9), Heine et  al. 2021a (25), Schourup 1999, and King 2011 (see Stover 2016: 6–7). In an earlier study from 1996, Brinton identifies more than 20 official terms for DMs, whereas “Dér (2010: 5-10) identifies forty-­two different terms in English, but suggests that four have been most common: discourse marker/particle and pragmatic marker/particle” (Brinton 2017: 3). Although the term discourse marker seems to encapsulate better the function of these expressions at the level of utterance, the large variety of names confirms the serious controversy around this term and the numerous theories and approaches scholars have proposed. Brinton (2017: 8-9, Table 1.1) makes a distinction between DMs or “pragmatic markers” and pragmatic parentheticals, providing for the former a set of characteristics from various perspectives. Therefore, at the phonological and lexical level, DMs are usually one-word items but they may also be phrasal, sometimes phonologically reduced, which may constitute “a prosodic unit with preceding or following material” (p. 9). Also, DMs “do not constitute a traditional word class, but are most closely aligned to adverbs, conjunctions, or interjections” (Idem). At a syntactic level, DMs are grammatically optional but pragmatically non-optional and may arise “preferentially at clause boundaries (initial/final), generally

7  The Evolution of Temporal Adverbs into Discourse Markers… 

193

movable and may occur in sentence-medial position as well” (Idem). At a semantic level, DMs “have little or no propositional/conceptual meanings, but are procedural and non-compositional” (Idem). At the level of functionality, DMs are considered to be multifunctional, “having a range of pragmatic functions” (Idem). Finally, at the sociolinguistic and stylistic level, DMs are “predominantly a feature of oral rather than written discourse,” whereas spoken and written DMs “may differ in form and function” (Idem). Moreover, DMs are “stylistically stigmatized and negatively evaluated, especially in written or formal discourse” (Idem). Although various definitions have been proposed for the DMs (see, e.g., Schiffrin 1987; Fraser 1999; Traugott 2018), the most recent definition was proposed by Heine et al. 2021a (25–26) and Heine et al. 2021b (6). Thus, DMs are described as follows: (a) invariable expression which are (b) syntactically independent from their environment, (c) typically set off prosodically from the rest of the utterance, and (d) their function is metatextual, relating a text to the situation of discourse, that is, to the organization of texts, the attitudes of the speaker, and/or speaker-hearer interaction.

Discourse markers or pragmatic markers, as we have seen, have been highly debated in terms of classification and definition. Another dispute concerns the rise and development of discourse markers, which may be a result of grammaticalization or pragmaticalization. Regardless of how we choose to classify DMs, as pragmatic markers (Fraser 2009), parentheticals (Fischer 2007), or theticals (Heine et al. 2021a), the features usually associated with them place DMs in the field of pragmatics, most of them having been developed as a result of pragmaticalization, a process which may follow grammaticalization. Although there are many features that both grammaticalization and pragmaticalization share (e.g., semantic bleaching or desemanticization), the developments of DMs, which go beyond the domain of sentence, entering the domain of utterance, are out of the scope of grammaticalization theory. Desemanticization may be associated with both the process of grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. However, grammaticalization is a phenomenon manifested in the language system (linguistic code), which

194 

G. S. Walters

consists of the transformation of lexical elements (content words) into functional categories (function words)—linguistic mechanism with grammatical function: for example, verbal operators, grammatical connectors, and modifiers. On the other hand, pragmaticalization refers to development of pragmatic markers—linguistic mechanism with pragmatic function. Pragmaticalization either follows grammaticalization and the pragmaticalized expressions may coexist with the grammaticalized ones (i) or content words may pragmaticalize without having previously grammaticalized (ii). (i) For the first situation, I propose the Spanish pues as an example. First, pues has grammaticalized from temporal adverb meaning “after” to causal conjunction (1–2). Then, it has pragmaticalized to a discourse marker—less frequently as a consecutive connector. However, its function as a comment marker is favored (3). According to Stover (2016: 19, apud Travis 2005), “the temporal use has been completely lost in contemporary Spanish, and the causal conjunction form of pues exists in certain registers like written languages but is rare in conversation.” (1) Es el mismo hombre, pues tiene la misma cara. “It is the same man because it has the same face.” (2) Cómpralo, pues lo necesitas. “Buy it since you need it.” (3) ¿Vas a viajar de nuevo? Pues no sé que decirte. Quizá. “Will you travel again? Well, I don’t know what to tell you. Perhaps.”

(ii) For the second situation, let us consider parenthetical expressions like I think, you know, which we can argue that they are a result of pragmaticalization in the transition from epistemic verbs to parenthetical expressions. When these lexical verbs are utilized as parentheticals they operate as discourse markers. Some scholars argue that syntactically they act as “modal adverbs” (Aijmer 1997). In literature, they can also be found as “modal tags,” “epistemic parentheticals” (see Thompson and Mulac 1991), “comment clause” (Quirk et al. 1985; Brinton 2008), “parenthetical verbs” (Schneider 2007), or “theticals” (Kaltenböck et al. 2011;

7  The Evolution of Temporal Adverbs into Discourse Markers… 

195

Heine 2013).2 Syntactically, this type of expressions do not take complements, and prosodically, they are signaled by punctuation marks (usually, commas). (4) Θυμάσαι, νομίζω, την μεγάλη μου “μανία” για τα βιβλία για τον Β` Παγκόσμιο Πόλεμο. [θymasai, nomizo, tin megali mou mania gia ta vivlia gia ton B Pagkosmio Polemo.] “You remember, I think, my huge obsession with books about World War II.” (5) Άμα είσαι μόνος σου δεν έχεις και τη διάθεση πιστεύω. [Ama eisai monos sou dhen exeis kai ti diaθesi pistevo.] “If you are alone, you are not in the mood I think.” (6) Κάποια τρένα θα φεύγανε, νομίζω. [Κapoia trena θa fevghane, nomizo.] “I think some trains would leave.” (7) A venit ieri, cred. “He came yesterday, I think.”3

Given that DMs have been most controversial with respect to grammaticalization, we need to draw a line between grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. Although many DMs indicate changes that are representative of grammaticalization such as “decategorialization (loss of morphological and syntactic characteristics of their sources), fixing and routinization, polyfunctionality, and (inter)subjectification” (Brinton 1996 & 2008, apud Traugott 2010: 109), Erman and Kotsidas (1993) and Aijmer (1997) argue that the change involved is in fact a result of pragmaticalization. In support of this position, the following are considered: DMs show lack of syntactic fixedness thus lack of grammatical function; prosodically they tend to function as disjuncts or parentheticals being grammatically optional but pragmatically mandatory; and finally, they “tend to be derived from a more disparate set of sources than most grammatical items” (Traugott 2010: 110).  See Heine et al. (2021a: 30–34) for a discussion and characterization of I admit.  The examples above from Modern Greek and Romanian indicate the evolution from epistemic verbs to comment clauses or parenthetical expressions as a result of pragmaticalization, which is signaled by the absence of complementizers (Ngr. óti and Ro. că) and by a flexible word order. 2 3

196 

G. S. Walters

During the shift from content lexical items to function units, both grammaticalization and pragmaticalization play a significant role. However, the former leads to “the creation of grammatical markers, functioning mainly sentence internally,” whereas the latter leads to “discourse markers mainly serving as text structuring devices at different levels of discourse” (Erman and Kotsidas 1993: 79, apud Claridge and Arnovick 2010: 165).

3 The Romanian Marker Atunci “Then” Several studies have shown that temporal adverbs usually evolve toward connectives with consecutive and/or conclusive value.4 In some languages, the process of pragmaticalization is incomplete, in its early stages. From the perspective of the grammaticalization theory, Traugott 1997 considers that temporal adverbs follow a similar grammaticalization chain, that is “adverbial modifier > sentence modifier >discourse marker” (apud Borreguero Zuloaga 2018: 233). In Romanian, the adverb atunci (Lat. *ad-tuncce, DELR), previously analyzed by Zafiu (2009), is generally temporal in a narrative text, but has conclusive value in an argumentative text. Etymologically, atunci has temporal, anaphoric value, marking narrative continuity. According to Zafiu (2009: 6), “The transition from the anaphoric value (with linguistic reference to past or future) toward the value of temporal connector is a straightforward process but only between clauses with linguistic reference to past (…).”5 Furthermore, in older texts of Romanian, Zafiu (2009: 6) noticed that atunci also appears as correlative of conditional markers (dacă … atunci “if … then”), this value having derived from the temporal one.  For comprehensive descriptions of temporal adverbs and their different values, cf. Borreguero Zuloaga 2018 (It. allora and Sp. entonces), Bazzanella et al. 2008 (It. allora), Degand and Fagard 2011 (Fr. alors), Fuentes-Rodríguez et al. 2016 (Sp. pues), Hansen 1995 (Fr. puis), Aihmer 2019 (En. then and Swedish då), and so on. 5  My translation from Romanian. Original text: “De la valoarea anaforică (cu referinţa în trecut sau în viitor) se trece uşor la cea de conector temporal, dar numai între propoziţii cu referent trecut; de fapt, e vorba de un anaforic cu funcţie de conector, cele două valori neputând fi disociate. Atunci apare din cele mai vechi texte şi în ipostaza de corelativ al mărcilor condiţionale (să/dacă..., atunci), cu o valoare dezvoltată din cea temporală” (p. 6). 4

7  The Evolution of Temporal Adverbs into Discourse Markers… 

197

Some adverbs can develop pragmatic, discursive values, marking different argumentative roles. The pragmaticalization of temporal adverbs led to the emergence of different pragmatic functions and values. Adverbs can appear in different positions in discourse, the diverse word order being a criterion that underlies the process of pragmaticalization, in general. Being included in the category of sentential and intrasentential connectors, their main role is to articulate the grammatical (syntactic-semantic) and/or pragmatic relations between the components of discourse. If at the sentential level, the relations indicated by the connectors between the components of the sentence are, firstly, syntactic and semantic and, secondly, pragmatic, at the intrasentential level, the links between the utterances are, especially, of pragmatic nature, the syntactic criteria for organizing the spoken text not being as rigorous as those involved in structuring the sentence or phrase. (GALR 2008, II: 768-776)6

The structures in which atunci has temporal and conditional value led to the emergence of consecutive or conclusive value (consecutive/conclusive connector, marked in French by “donc”). As I have already mentioned, this adverb has been pragmaticalized in other languages as well (En. then, Sp. entonces, Ngr. tóte, It. allora, Fr. alors, etc.), although the process of pragmaticalization—indicated by the loss of temporal value— can be more advanced in some languages compared to others. Historically, Romanian atunci registered several phonetic variations: atunce, atuncea, atunci. Today, the form officially accepted is atunci, whereas atuncea is used only colloquially and/or regionally. In the analyzed corpus, we could observe that the adverb is used temporarily, exclusively, until the nineteenth century. Starting with the twentieth century, it began to be used in two different contexts: in some, its temporal value would be lost; in others, its temporal value would be preserved. The adverb is well represented in Old Romanian texts (e.g., Coresi and Ivireanul), and it appears in different positions in the sentence with temporal value. Between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, atunci, used temporally, may be found along with prepositions (de, pe, pre) (11–12) or in correlative pairs used  The Grammar of Romanian, II: 768–776 (my translation from Romanian).

6

198 

G. S. Walters

next to each other, such as atunci când “then when,” thus marking more strongly the temporality (8–10). (8) “Turnul Săverinul iaste în Țara Munteniască, unde au fost și pod de piatră peste Dunăre, de Traian împăratul făcut, atunce când au descălecat aceste doaă țări cu Râmlenii.” (Costin, Letopisețul, 5) [“then when”] (9) “O asemenea noțiune ar fi fost la locul ei numai doară atunci, când filologia propriu-zisă se mărginea în analiza linguistică a clasicității.” (Hasdeu, Cuvente den bătrâni, 47) [“then, when”] (10) “… dar punctul de plecare era just și fecund, mai ales atunci când aproape nimeni în lumea cea cultă nu înțelegea încă importanța literaturei poporane în genere, căci pedantismul și bontonismul, fiecare în felul său, batjocoreau deopotrivă tot ce ieșea din popor și tot ce plăcea poporului.” (Hasdeu, Cuvente den bătrâni, 48) [“then when”] (11) “De-atunci, slavă Domnului, ne curge bine laptele-n păsat!…” (Alecsandri, Iorgu) [“from those time”] (12) “În vremea mea, dragă cucoană Gahiţă, bătrânii aveau voie să grăiască ce le plăcea, pentru că pe-atunci tot omul cu părul alb era cinstit… şi cred că străinii nu ne-au stricat încă toate obiceiurile cele bune.” (Alecsandri, Iorgu) [“on that time”] Atunci, preceded by preposition, is also used temporally, with the following glosses assigned to those structures: de atunci / pe atunci, meaning pe vremea aceea “on that time,” de pe vremea aceea “from that time,” din acele timpuri “from those times.”

Its temporal value is also illustrated in some other contexts where it is used in opposition to the adverb acum “now.” (13) “Atunci eram un nebun, ş-acum mă căiesc… ai înţeles?…” (Alecsandri, Iorgu) “Then I was a crazy (man), and now I am repenting … did you understand?”

The transition of atunci toward the class of discourse markers begins to become visible from the twentieth century. In the examples collected from Maiorescu, atunci appears as a pragmatic connector with conclusive value. The comma, which separates the connector from the rest of the statement, marking a break at prosodic level, reinforces this function. The

7  The Evolution of Temporal Adverbs into Discourse Markers… 

199

adverb appears to have conclusive value. In the example under (15), atunci is preceded by the connector apoi “after,” with the role of linking the current statement to the previous statement and of emphasizing the conclusive value of the connector atunci. (14) “Atunci, d-lor, pentru ce mai puneți în Constituția acestei ginte latine din Orient o excludere religioasă?” (Maiorescu, DP, II, 170) “Then, gentlemen, why do you still include a religious exclusion (…)” (15) “Apoi atunci ce însemnează moțiunea aceasta?” (Maiorescu, DP, II, 121)7 “Well (lit. ‘afterwards’) then, what does this decision mean?”

In the examples collected from IVLR, the Corpus of Spoken Romanian, the contexts in which atunci is used as discourse marker are numerous, but there are also many examples in which the adverb retains its temporal value. In the example below (16) we observe the co-occurrence of the two usages, temporal adverb and pragmatic connector, within the same context. In (17–18), atunci, as a closing device, introduces a response to someone else’s turn. It can be preceded by păi (pragmatic marker; Sp. “pues”). (16) “A: DEci # cam# # vreun miliard şi: ceva # deci e pînă într-un miliard şi jumătate↓ # da’ două miliarde şi (…) B: îhî # /okei/ # atunci2 haideţi c-o să mai discutăm atunci1. nu e chiar foarte strictă condiţia asta↓” (IVLR, Phone conversation about buying a tape recorder) “then let’s discuss then. this condition is not very rigid.” (17) Deci# ă: din nici un punct de vedere↑ ă: este foarte forţat cuvîntu’ sindicat. AR: ochei. atunci (IVLR, 157) “okay then” (18) mda↓ păi atunci ramîne să facem noi comanda înainte↓ pentru microfon↓ nu:? (IVLRA, 186) “yeah well then (Sp. ‘pues entonces’) […]”

 The examples from Maiorescu and Eminescu’s texts, in this chapter, are based on Zafiu’s (2009) analysis. 7

200 

G. S. Walters

In (16), atunci1, although used temporally, appears not to refer to the past but rather to the future. This is similar to the English “then” that, according to the Cambridge Dictionary (online), “can be used to mean ‘at that time’, referring either to the past or the future.” In either case, it usually appears at the end of the clause. atunci2 has the role of closing a conversation sequence. This procedural meaning can also be noticed in the example below (19), where atunci is preceded by the discourse marker păi, which derives from the temporal adverb apoi meaning “after.” Furthermore, păi introduces new information as a reaction to information previously provided. When collocated with atunci, its function could be phatic, reinforcing the conclusive value of this structure: (19) “A: mda↓ păi atunci ramîne să facem noi comanda înainte↓ pentru microfon↓ nu:?” “well then what is left is for us to place the order first for the microphone, right?”

Given the above contexts, we may conclude that the pragmaticalization of atunci has not been completed. In the nineteenth century, we find it primarily with temporal-anaphoric values. Instead, in some samples of orality (e.g., in Titu Maiorescu’s political speeches), atunci registers the function of a conclusive connective (see (14)–(15) above). In present-day Romanian, atunci, with pragmatic value, is more frequent. Despite all this, the pragmaticalization of atunci is still in its early stages given that its pragmatic and temporal functions are concurrent.

4 The Romanian Marker Apoi “Afterwards” The adverb apoi (> Lat. ad post, DELR8; adverb, după aceea, En. afterwards, Fr. puis, Sp. después > pues) indicates temporal succession of events. Zafiu (2009: 7) has noticed that in the corpus of Old Romanian, its occurrences are not as numerous as those of adverbs like acum (“now”) or  Dicționar etimologic al limbii române (Etymological dictionary of Romanian), Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 2012. 8

7  The Evolution of Temporal Adverbs into Discourse Markers… 

201

atunci (“then”). Zafiu (2009: 7) has also identified 61 occurrences in Coresi, 61 in Varlaam, and 63 in Antim Ivireanul. In a sentence-initial position, apoi will evolve from temporal connector toward metadiscourse connector. This function usually ties a certain event to another described previously. As a discourse marker, apoi expresses mostly progression, which gives it a continuative value. In present-day Romanian, apoi is not utilized as a discourse marker anymore, this role being fulfilled by its pragmaticalized variant păi, which is described in dictionaries and grammars of Romanian as a late variant derived from apoi. According to Zafiu (2009: 7), “the colloquial marker păi retains from the original meaning of the adverb the obligation to connect to the previous element, with a response signal function.” In Coresi and Varlaam, apoi does not appear in sentence-initial position and it is utilized as an anaphoric adverb, referring back to a preceding word or words and having its meaning dependent on discourse context: (20) Iară după o vreme, în multe chipuri apoi sfătuiia-se să fugă dela Siriiani. (Coresi, CÎ, 155) “And after a while, he was then advised in various ways to run away from the Syrians.” (21) Acmu cu multă nevoință, și apoi să semănăm cu usârdie, ca după aceasta răpausu și veselie să secerămu. (Coresi, CÎ, 255). “With great toil now, and with great zeal later/then, so that afterwards we may reap rest and joy.” (22) Că aceasta tocmală are păcatul: diîntăiu îndulceaşte, iară apoi amăreaşte (Varlaam, C., 32) “For it is this thing/deal that has its sin: first it sweetens, and afterwards it saddens.”

In Antim Ivireanul, there are ten occurrences of apoi in sentence-initial position, functioning as a temporal connector9: (23) Apoi, pe urmă, după ce au ascuns soarele toate razele lui și s-au stins de tot lumina zilei (…) (Antim, O., LV).  For a comprehensive description of all the occurrences, see Zafiu 2009.

9

202 

G. S. Walters

“And then (afterwards), after the sun had hidden its rays and the day light went out (…)” (24) Apoi, slujind Iacov și alți 7 ani, au luat și pre Rahil și prin pistritura toiagelor (…) (Antim, O., 260) “Then (after that), having Jacob served for 7 years, he took Rahil even through the ornament of the rods (…)”

There are many contexts in which apoi is preceded by copulative or adversative connectors (şi apoi “lit. and afterwards,” iar apoi, dar apoi “lit. but afterwards”). In these examples, it appears to mark a conclusion: (25) Iar apoi, cunoscîndu-mi datoria ce am și temîndu-mă ca să nu caz în osînda slugii (…) (Antim Ivireanul, O. 29) “But then, knowing the debt I have and fearing not to receive the slave’s punishment (…)” (26) Dară apoi cum şi pentru ce să fie întocma cu apostolii? (Antim Ivireanul, O., 88). “But then, how and why should he be similar to the apostles?” (27) Dară apoi pentru ce, la înviiarea lui Lazăr, atîta bucurie, atîta cinste, atîta mărire și la acei doi morți numai o mulțemită proastă cătră Dumnezeu și nu mai mult? (Antim, O., 142) “But then, why so much joy, and worship and glory for Lazarus’ resurrection, while for the other two deads” [resurrection] a feeble thank to God and nothing more? (28) Şi apoi n-am fost numai eu episcop și mitropolit strein în Țara Românească, ci au fost și alții (…) (Antim Ivireanul, O., 231) “And then, I wasn’t the only foreigner [to become] bishop and metropolitan in Wallachia, but there were many others too.”

In the texts of the seventeenth century, the occurrences of apoi with temporal value registers a smaller frequency. In Eminescu’s texts, as noticed by Zafiu (2009: 8), the use of apoi with metadiscursive value (a “continuative” apoi) is frequent (29). Apoi starts transitioning from a text-deictic element (textual deixis) to a pragmatic connector, introducing another argument (30), which is often formulated as a separate statement (31). As a discourse marker, apoi does not necessarily appear in a sentence-initial position (32).

7  The Evolution of Temporal Adverbs into Discourse Markers… 

203

(29) În acest răspuns se spune: că ministeriul unguresc e pe deplin înţeles cu politica ministrului comun de esterne; apoi că toate puterile garante lucrează în comună înţelegere (Eminescu, O. IX, 214) “In this response it is said: that the Hungarian Ministry is in full agreement with the policy of the common Ministry of Foreign Affairs; then that all the Garant Powers work in common agreement.” (30) Vedem că, deşi condiţia a fost admisă de către d. Stremeyer, totuşi astăzi se întâmplă contrariul. Ştim apoi că însuşi limba şi literatura română se vor propune în limba germană (Eminescu, O. IX, 216); “We see that, although the condition was admitted by Mr. Stremeyer, the opposite is true today. We then know that the Romanian language and literature itself will be proposed in German.” (31) Apoi mai observ încă un lucru, fără a voi să dizbat asupra lui (Eminescu, O. IX, 377); “Then I notice one more thing, without wanting to insist on it.” [apart from that; in addition to that] (32) Trebuia apoi să mai ştie că, lovind cu măciuca în demnitatea unui om, înseamnă a uita că măciuca are două capete (Eminescu, O. IX, 83).10 “Then he had to know that (lit.) hitting with a bat a man’s dignity means forgetting that the bat has two ends.”

Apoi also appears as a pragmatic connective, with a response signal function (33–35). It may also introduce an interrogative clause (36): (33) T. Boldur-Lăţescu: Toţi sunt. T. Maiorescu: Apoi da, toţi sunt (Maiorescu, DP, II, 133) “Then yes, there are all of them.” (34) Întîia: Mai ştii păcatu? De câtva timp urlă câinii toată noaptea-n sat. Suzana: Apoi, de când poruncile aieste nouă care curg pe nică, pe ceas, nu mai are cap omu să-şi mai vadă bordeiul. Când îi la subprefecătură, când la căşărie… (Alecsandri, Rusaliile) “The first: Who knows? It is some time now since the dogs howl all night long in the village. Suzana: Well, since with these new laws that flow every minute, every hour, one cannot see anymore (…)”  The examples from Maiorescu and Eminescu’s texts, in this paper, are based on Zafiu’s (2009) analysis. 10

204 

G. S. Walters

(35) Suzana: Da ce mai este? Toader: Apoi, ce să fie, dragă nevastă? “Suzana: What else now? Toader: Well, what else should it be, dear wife?” (36) Apoi, d-lor, care este chemarea comisiei? (Maiorescu, DP, II, 93). “Then, gentlemen, what is the committee’s decision?”

The examples (33–35) are similar to the contemporary use of the pragmatic marker păi. The emergence of păi (37–41) as a pragmaticalized shorter variant derived from apoi has led to a distinction between the two: apoi preserved its primary adverbial value being used as a temporal adverb, whereas păi functions exclusively as a pragmatic marker. (37) [păi la ţară doctorii┴ nu ă la ţară ţăranii nu să duceau la doctor (…) (IVLRA, 33) “well in the country doctors uh no in the country people did not go to the doctor (…)” (38) ă:# păi dacă pă primu e cu /edvărtaizing/↓ p-al doilea e cu metode. (IVLRA, 37) “well if the first is with /advertising/ the second is with methods” (39) păi io mîine eu mă duc în bucureşti↓ să mă-nscriu. (IVLRA, 37) “well I go tomorrow to Bucharest to register” (40) păi d-asta. pe timp de noapte găsisem un accelerat cu mers de rapid da’: (IVLRA, 39) “well that’s why. late at night I had found (…)” (41) : păi da↓ şi zic↓ de dimineaţă:↓ las şi eu casa curată↑ şterg prafu↑ n-are rost să mă mai duc la servici↓ fac puţină mîncărică pentru doru↓ el rămînea acasă↑ şi: am făcut piaţa pentru la ţară↑ că ştiam că:↑ (IVLRA, 44) “well yes and I tell myself this morning (…)”

Based on the existing data, we may conclude that the pragmaticalization of apoi occurred late, in the twentieth century, and it seems to have reached an endstage, leading to the emergence of the most important pragmatic marker of contemporary Romanian. Zafiu (2009: 9) notices that the Spanish pues has undergone a similar development (i.e., temporal adverb > causal connector > consecutive connector > discourse marker).

7  The Evolution of Temporal Adverbs into Discourse Markers… 

205

Romanian apoi/păi have evolved from a temporal adverb to a connective with conclusive value to a discourse marker. Some Romanian linguists argue that apoi and păi might have coexisted for a long time, the former deriving from Lat. ad-post and the latter from Lat. post. Păi is typical of spoken language, which means that it was only later attested in written Romanian (from Vulgar Latin *pos, from Classical Latin post < English post-, French puis, Portuguese pois, Italian poi). Other dictionaries provide the same etymology for both apoi and păi ( consecutive-conclusive connector at the intersentential level), without having reached an endstage, apoi has instead pragmaticalized completely. For one, it has led to the emergence of the most important Romanian discourse marker (păi). For another, it has generated a

206 

G. S. Walters

semantic specialization at the time of păi’s occurrence: apoi returned to its primary temporal value, whereas păi acquired the pragmatic values typical of a discourse marker, functioning as a reinforcer, a marker of response, or a marker of hesitation. The development of discourse markers from temporal adverbs, as it has been often argued in literature, may be a result of language-internal reconstruction or a result of language contact. However, there is no compelling evidence in the Romanian data that could indicate whether the registered changes appeared all at once or one after another, as a result of internal or external factors of language change. In terms of language contact, Latin, as well as translations from other languages, may have influenced the semantic development of temporal adverbs in the modern languages via “contact-induced replication (loan translation)” (Claridge 2013 apud Heine et al. 2021a). Discussing the evolution of these two adverbs through the lens of pragmaticalization was not meant as a surprise for scholars in the field of discourse markers. It was instead intended to reinforce the distinction between two phenomena—grammaticalization and pragmaticalization—that have produced an ample body of research and often led to controversial conclusions.

References Aihmer, Karin. 2019. Challenges in the contrastive study of discourse markers. The case of then. In Empirical studies of the construction of discourse, ed. Óscar Loureda, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura Nadal, and Adriana Cruz, 17–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think–an English modal particle. In Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives, ed. Toril Swan and Olaf Jansen Westvik, 1–47. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bazzanella, Carla, Cristina Bosco, Tini Brunozzi, Gili Fivela Barbara Federica, and Johanna Miecznikowski. 2008. Polifunzionalità dei segnali discorsivi, sviluppo conversazionale e ruolo dei tratti fonetici e fonologici. In La comunicazione parlata. Atti del congresso internazionale. Napoli 23–25 febbraio 2006, ed. M.  Pettorino, A.  Giannini, M.  Vallone, and R.  Savy, 934–963. Napoli: Liguori.

7  The Evolution of Temporal Adverbs into Discourse Markers… 

207

Borreguero Zuloaga, Margarita. 2018. The evolution of temporal adverbs into consecutive connectives and the role of discourse traditions: The case of it. Allora and Sp. entonces. In Beyond grammaticalization and discourse marker. New issues in the study of language change, ed. Salvador Pons Bordería and Óscar Loureda Lamas, 231–270. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Brinton, Laurel J. 2017. The evolution of pragmatic markers in English: Pathways of change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2010. Discourse markers. In Historical pragmatics, ed. Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen, 285–314. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ———. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2002. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization reconsidered: On the late use of temporal adverbs. In English historical syntax and morphology, ed. Teresa Fanego, María José López-Couso, and Javier Pérez- Guerra, 67–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ———. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Brinton, Laurel J., and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Claridge, Claudia, and Leslie Arnovick. 2010. Pragmaticalisation and discursisation. In Historical pragmatics, ed. Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen, 165–192. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Degand, Liesbeth, and Benjamin Fagard. 2011. Alors between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language 18 (1): 29–56. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18.1.02deg. DELR. [Etymological Dictionary of Romanian]. 2012. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Dér, Csilla. 2010. On the status of discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57 (1): 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.57.2010.1.1. Dostie, Gaetane. 2004. Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs: Analyse sémantique et traitement lexicographique. Brussels: De Boeck & Larcier. Fischer, Olga. 2007a. Morphosyntactic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2007b. The development of English parentheticals: A case of grammaticalization? In Tracing English through time: Explorations in language variation: A festschrift for Herbert Schendl on the occasion of his 65th birthday, ed. Ute Smit et al., 103–118. Vienna: Braumüller. Fraser, Bruce. 2009. Topic orientation markers. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 892–898.

208 

G. S. Walters

———. 1999. What are discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931–952. Fuentes-Rodríguez, Catalina, María Elena Placencia, and María Palma-Fahey. 2016. Regional pragmatic variation in the use of the discourse marker pues in informal talk among university students in Quito (Ecuador), Santiago (Chile) and Seville (Spain). Journal of Pragmatics 97: 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pragma.2016.03.006. Erman, Britt, and Ulla-Britt Kotsidas. 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of Ba` and you know. Studier i Modern Språkvetenskap. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, New Series 10: 76–93. GALR.  Academia Română, Institutul de Lingvistică „Iorgu Iordan  – Al. Rosetti”, Valeria Guţu-Romalo (coord.), 2008, Gramatica limbii române. 2 Volumes. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române. Hancock, Victorine. 2014. Pragmatic use of temporal adverbs in L1 and L2 French. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 3 (1): 29–51. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1995. Puis in spoken French: From time adjunct to additive conjunct? Journal of French Language Studies 5 (01): 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269500002490. Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The gradual coalescence into “words” in grammaticalization. In The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, ed. Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine, 342–355. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva, and Haiping Long. 2021a. On the rise of discourse markers. In Studies at the grammar-discourse Interface: Discourse markers and discourse-related grammatical phenomena, ed. Alexander Haselow and Sylvie Hancil, 24–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ———. 2021b. The rise of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd. 2013. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51 (6): 1205–1247. Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine, and Tania Kuteva. 2011. On Thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35 (4): 848–893. King, Jeremy. 2011. Structuring conversation. Discourse markers in Cervantes’s Entremeses. Hispania 94 (4): 648–662. Lehmann, Christian. [1982] 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Third edition. Berlin: Language Science Press. Ocampo, Francisco. 2006. Movement towards discourse is not grammaticalization: The development of claro from adjective to discourse particle in spoken

7  The Evolution of Temporal Adverbs into Discourse Markers… 

209

Spanish. In Selected proceedings of the 9th Hispanic linguistics symposium, ed. Nura Sagarra and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio, 308–319. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London, New York: Longman. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Studies in interactional sociolinguistics 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schneider, Stefan. 2007. Reduced parenthetical clauses as mitigators: A corpus study of spoken French, Italian and Spanish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schourup, Lawrence. 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107: 227–265. Stover, LeeAnn Michelle. 2016. Consecutive connectors: A Study on Discourse Markers in Honduran Speech. Master’s Thesis, Louisiana State University. Thompson, Sandra A., and Anthony Mulac. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Approaches to grammaticalization, ed. Elizabeth C.  Traugott and Bernd Heine, vol. 1, 313–329. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2018. Modeling language change with constructional networks. In Beyond grammaticalization and discourse markers: New issues in the study of language change. Studies in pragmatics 18, ed. Salvador Pons Bordería and Óscar Loureda Lamas, 17–50. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Traugott, Elisabeth C. 2010. Grammaticalization. In Historical pragmatics, ed. Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen, 97–126. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Traugott, Elisabeth C. 1997. The Role of the Development of Discourse Markers in a Theory of Grammaticalization. XII International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester 1995. http://www.stanford.edu/~traugott/papers/discourse.pdf. ———. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Accessed March/November 2021. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/228691469_The_role_of_discourse_markers_ in_a_theory_of_grammaticalization Travis, Catherine E. 2005. Discourse markers in Colombian Spanish. A study in polysemy. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Wischer, Ilse. 2000. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization: 'Methinks' there is some confusion. In Pathways of change. Grammaticalization in English, ed. Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach, and Dieter Stein, 355–370. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

210 

G. S. Walters

Zafiu, Rodica. 2008. Gramaticalizare și pragmaticalizare. In Limba română. Dinamica limbii, Dinamica interpretării. Actele celui de al 7-lea Colocviu al Catedrei de Limba Română 2007, Section Masă rotundă: Gramaticalizare, ed. Gabriela Pană Dindelegan. Bucharest: University of Bucharest Press. ———. 2009. Evoluţia adverbelor de timp atunci, acum, apoi către statutul de mărci discursive. In Limba română. Teme actuale. Actele celui de-al 8-lea Colocviu al Catedrei de limba română, ed. Rodica Zafiu, Gabriela Stoica, and Mihaela N. Constantinescu, 779–793. Bucharest: University of Bucharest Press.

Corpora Antim Ivireanul, O. = Antim Ivireanul, Opere, ediţie critică şi studiu introductiv de Gabriel Ştrempel. Bucharest: Minerva, 1972.  Coresi, Ev. = Diaconul Coresi, Carte cu învăţătură (1581), ed. Sextil Puşcariu, Alexie Procopovici. Bucureşti: Socec & Co., 1914. Varlaam, C. = Varlaam, Carte românească de învăţătură (1643), în Opere. Chişinău: Editura Hyperion, 1991. Eminescu, O. IX = M. Eminescu, Opere, IX, Publicistică (1870–1877), ed. iniţiată de Perpessicius, coord. P. Creţia. Bucharest: Editura Academiei R.S.R., 1980. Maiorescu, DP, II = Titu Maiorescu, Discursuri parlamentare, II (1876–1881), ed. C. Schifirneţ–Bucharest: Albatros, 2003. IVLRA [Corpus of Spoken Romanian] = Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu (coord.), Interacţiunea verbală în limba română actuală. Corpus selectiv şi tipologie – Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 2002.

Part II Linguistic Diachronies and the Role of Language Contact

8 Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property Theory Analysis of Diachronic Change Eirini Apostolopoulou

1 Introduction Metathesis is an umbrella term that includes various phenomena whereby the linear order of a sound string gets disrupted (Grammont 1905; Webb 1974; Ultan 1978; Blevins and Garret 1998, 2004; Hume 1997, 2001, 2004; Buckley 2011), for example, Old English frosk > Late West Saxon froks ‘frog’ (Campbell 1959); Marathi kamhkh > khamhk ‘armpit’ (Ultan 1978). Among segments, liquids, and especially rhotics (henceforth R), show the greatest propensity to displacement (Ultan 1978; Russell-Webb 2002; Blevins & Garrett 2004; Russell-Webb and Bradley

This chapter presents early results of research work I carried out for my doctoral dissertation (Apostolopoulou 2022b). I thank the editors of the present volume, an anonymous reviewer for their constructive remarks, and Birgit Alber, Martin Krämer, and Alan Prince for valuable feedback on preliminary stages of the analysis. All errors and misconceptions are my own.

E. Apostolopoulou (*) Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Lavidas et al. (eds.), Internal and External Causes of Language Change, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30976-2_8

213

214 

E. Apostolopoulou

2009). A rather exotic case of metathesis is the inter-syllabic displacement of post-­consonantal R, which thrives in languages of the Romance family, including Occitan, Ibero-Romance, and Italo-Romance varieties, for example, Latin capistrum > Gascon crabeste / Judeo-Spanish cabresto / Calabrian crapestu ‘halter’ (Rohlfs 1966; Lipski 1990; Coffman 2013a, b; a.o.), as well as non-Romance dialects in long-term contact with Romance, for example, Medieval Greek pikro > Italo-Greek priko ‘bitter’ (Rohlfs 1950). This study aims at offering new insight into the different manifestations of long-distance metathesis of post-consonantal R (henceforth LDM) across Romance languages and the diachronic changes that shaped the typological picture. The chapter is structured as follows: in Sect. 2 I present diachronic data that illustrate the attested LDM patterns, I classify the languages at hand into typological categories, and I briefly discuss biases underlying the processes at hand. Then, I propose a phonological analysis within the framework of Optimality Theory (OT, Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004). In Sect. 3, I delineate the phonological computation of the forms under investigation. In Sect. 4, along the lines of Property Theory (PT, Alber and Prince 2015, in prep.), I identify the ranking conditions that define the typology, namely, the properties of the typological system, and I formalize language change as minimal shifts of property values. Section 5 summarizes the conclusions.

2 Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance 2.1 Metathesis Patterns in LDM Languages Long-distance metathesis (LDM) of liquids primarily refers to the movement of a liquid (R) from and to the phonological context C_V (‘C’ denotes a consonant; ‘V’ denotes a vowel) and is widely attested in the diachrony of several Romance languages, which will be henceforth referred to as LDM languages. LDM decomposes a complex onset CR and forms the same configuration in a different syllable of the word. Two versions of LDM are distinguished. The first possibility is that R moves all the way to the first syllable of the word (henceforth σ1). LDM of this

8  Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property… 

215

type targets R in Sardinian varieties (1) (Wagner 1941; Geisler 1994; Bolognesi 1998; Molinu 1999), Campanian dialects, such as Neapolitan (2) (Abete 2015),1 Calabrian (3) (Rohlfs 1966), Gascon (4) (Grammont 1905; Duménil 1987; Blevins and Garret 1998), and the two Italo-Greek dialects, that is, Salentinian Greek and Calabrian Greek (5) (Rohlfs 1930, 1950; Karanastassis 1984–1992; Karanastasis 1997; Coffman 2013a, b; Canfield 2015).2 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Tertenia Sardinian (Lai 2013, 2015) a. kranista < canistru b. krannuɣa < conuc(u)la Neapolitan (Abete 2015) a. scrapestato < scapestrato b. Crapa < capra Calabrian (Rohlfs 1966) a. crapesto < capistru b. frinesta < fenestra Gascon (Duménil 1987) a. hloronc < furunc(u)lum b. crabeste < capistru Calabrian Greek (Rohlfs 1950) a. krapisti < kapistri b. priko < pikro

‘wicker basket’ ‘distaff’ ‘loose-living’ ‘goat’ ‘halter’ ‘window’ ‘abscess’ ‘halter’ ‘halter’ ‘bitter’

The other option for a liquid undergoing LDM is to dock on the onset of the adjacent syllable to the left. This pattern is documented in Alguerese Catalan (6) (Cabrera-Callís et al. 2010; Torres-Tamarit et al. 2012) and Judeo-Spanish (7) (Lipski 1990; Bradley 2006, 2007). Scattered instances  Evidence from Neapolitan is scarce and, according to an anonymous reviewer, could be considered inconclusive as to whether the particular language should fall under this type of LDM. For instance, LDM to non-initial syllables (see Sect. 2.1) is also attested in one example, catreta < Lat. CĂTHEDRA ‘chair’ (Abete 2015: 254, fn.23, where the non-metathetic form catetra is also reported based on D’Ascoli 1993). These particular instantiations contain the sequence /tr/, which is shown to display idiosyncratic behavior in other LDM languages (e.g. Lai 2015; Apostolopoulou 2022b); however, lack of evidence prohibits us to draw safe conclusions about the reasons that could have prevented *crateta from being formed. Further research should shed more light on this matter. 2  The orthographic conventions of some of the languages at hand, for example, Neapolitan and Italo-Greek, dictate that stress is marked, for example, pikró (5b), cravaccà (9a); cf. absence of stress symbols in Alguerese, Sardinian. Due to the irrelevance of the position of stress in the phenomena investigated here (see Sect. 2.2.1), the stress symbol is omitted in all examples for the sake of uniformity. 1

216 

E. Apostolopoulou

of metathesis to the adjacent syllable are reported for a few Northern Italo-Romance dialects, for example, Lombardia cadrega / Veneto cadrea < vulg. Latin catecra ‘chair’ (Rohlfs 1966; Kilpatrick 2010). (6)

(7)

Alguerese Catalan (Torres-Tamarit et al. 2012) a. catradal < catedral b. cogrombe < cogombre Judeo-Spanish (Lipski 1990) a. cabresto < cabestro

‘cathedral’ ‘cucumber’ ‘halter’

In a subset of these languages, LDM coexisted with metathesis of R from a pre-consonantal position (RC), that is, a (non-final) coda. The movement resulted in a complex onset CR in either the same (8)3 or the initial (9)4 syllable: (8)

(9)

Intra-syllabic metathesis of codas (Torres-Tamarit et al. 2012) a. Alguerese Catalan frument < forment ‘wheat’ b. Judeo-Spanish taβrena < taβerna ‘tavern’ Metathesis of codas to the initial syllable (Abete 2015; Frigeni 2009) a. Neapolitan cravacca < cavalcare ‘to ride’ b. Campidanian Sardinian kroβetura < coopertura ‘roof’

2.2 Further Remarks on LDM 2.2.1 The Motivation of LDM Regardless of the position a migrating R originates in and the distance it travels, all LDM phenomena share two common properties. First, metathesizing Rs always land between a consonant and a vowel, that is, C_V, even if they were originally found in a different configuration, for example, V_C (cf. extremely few exceptions, e.g. cobertor > corbetor ‘bedspread’, Lipski 1990). According to previous work (Steriade 2001a, b;  Due to the scarcity of positive evidence, I follow Cabrera-Callís et  al. (2010) in classifying Alguerese among the languages displaying intra-syllabic metathesis of coda R. 4  It should be pointed out that this refers to the initial syllable of the morphological domain within which metathesis operates. For instance, in Neapolitan, in the prefixed word cunfromme ‘compliant’ (cf. Italian conforme) (Abete 2015: 253), the rhotic does not cross the root boundaries (i.e. *crunfomme). 3

8  Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property… 

217

Fleischhacker 2005; Zuraw 2007), this environment augments the perceptibility of R. Second, an overwhelming preference for leftward movements is observed (cf. sporadic exceptions reported in Lipski 1990; Rohlfs 1950, 1966). Once again, the leftward directionality is associated with the enhancement of saliency and the ensuing increase of perceptibility. Initial positions are associated with special prominence (Beckman 1998; Zoll 1996, 1998) which may be further boosted by the accrual of segmental material (Alber 2001 and references therein; Coffman 2013a, b; see also Bradley 2006, 2007; Torres-Tamarit et al. 2012). Among segments, R constitutes the most suitable candidate to metathesize thanks to its acoustic profile. R displays long-domain anticipatory resonances (Russell-Webb 2002; Blevins and Garret 2004; Russell-Webb and Bradley 2009) that are experimentally found to span even five syllables away (Heid and Hawkins 2000; see Coffman 2013a, b and references therein). According to non-teleological approaches (Blevins and Garret 2004; Czaplicki 2009), the spreading of acoustic cues may lead to misperception of the linear origin of R, which in turn triggers perceptual metathesis, i.e. reinterpretation of R in a non-etymological position within the elongated span. In such a model, reanalysis in more prominent positions is considered an emergent property rather than a trigger of sound change aiming at optimizing syllable structure, on the grounds that a sound is more easily misperceived as originating in a salient position. However, Coffman (Coffman 2013a, b, see also Hume 2004) convincingly argues that, although phonetic and perceptual factors may motivate LDM, thus leading to non-etymological variants, the grammar has the ultimate say in the selection among the available options. In this contribution, I side with this grammar-based viewpoint and I suggest that the phonetic and perceptual biases underlying metathesis of R play a pivotal role in shaping—and, in the case of language change, re-shaping—the grammar, which then selects the optimal variant among candidates containing R in more or less salient positions  (see also Apostolopoulou 2022a, b). It should be underscored that LDM is not driven by a general avoidance of CR, as, for example, instances in the diachrony of Armenian, e.g. *drakju > *trasu- > artasu- ‘tear’ (Blevins and Garret 2004; Zukoff 2012). In the Romance LDM languages, R already occurring in σ1 stays put, for

218 

E. Apostolopoulou

example, Calabrian vrazzu ‘arm’ (Rohlfs 1966), Italo-Greek vradi ‘evening’ (Karanastassis 1984–1992). Moreover, LDM is independent from the position of stress (cf. Blevins and Garret 1998; Kilpatrick 2010). For instance, in cápra > crápa (2b), R moves from an unstressed syllable to the stressed one, while in catedrál > catradál (6a) the reverse takes place, and in conúcla > krannúɣa (1b) neither the syllable R leaves nor the one it lands in bear stress.

2.2.2 The Attested LDM Typology It has already been mentioned that LDM targets non-initial complex onsets CR and may be accompanied by metathesis of pre-consonantal R. Specifically, in Gascon and Italo-Greek, only CR has been affected, while in Neapolitan, Alguerese, and Judeo-Spanish, both post- and pre-­ consonantal Rs are subject to metathesis. The same holds for most of contemporary Sardinian dialects, which will be henceforth labeled as Sardinian-B, in order to be distinguished by earlier stages/varieties where coda R remains intact, henceforth referred to as Sardinian-A. All patterns are identified in comparison to previous, non-metathetic stages of the languages at hand, which allowed both non-initial CR and RC. Table 8.1 summarizes the classification (for concrete data and references, see Sect. 2.1). Another criterion pertains to the distance the migrating R may travel. Whereas in Sardinian A–B, Neapolitan, Gascon, and Italo-Greek LDM is distal, that is, R can skip an unbounded number of syllables in order to land in the σ1, and no intermediate position is good enough as a landing site, the grammars of Alguerese and Judeo-Spanish impose locality restrictions. Close examination of the data reveals that R is allowed to skip Table 8.1  Classification of the LDM languages based on the source environment LDM languages Sardinian-A, Gascon, Italo-Greek Sardinian-B, Neapolitan, Alguerese, Judeo-Spanish

Metathesis from CR

Metathesis from RC

✓ ✓

✓

8  Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property… 

219

maximally one vowel. Ιf it originally occupies a coda position, then it moves to the onset of the same syllable; if it is already in a complex onset CR, then it creates a new CR in the adjacent syllable (Table 8.2). Based on these two criteria, the languages at hand are classified into four typological categories, dubbed L.1, L.2, L.3, and L.4. The first type, L.1, couches languages in which no metathesis processes are triggered. Languages falling into L.2 manifest distal LDM from CR to the initial syllable (σ1), but metathesis of codas is banned. L.3 includes languages displaying distal metathesis from both CR and RC to σ1. Finally, L.4 accommodates languages which also exhibit both LDM and metathesis of codas; however, all movements take place within a local domain (i.e. up to one vowel away) (Table 8.3). A caveat is in order here. In all LDM languages we may encounter non-initial CR as well as, in case, RC due to metathesis blocking related to phonotactics. Throughout the chapter, I abstract away from language-specific idiosyncrasies and I take metathesis to eliminate marked structures (non-initial CR, RC) in a given language type. Previous analyses of LDM adopt a language-specific perspective, or, to put it more accurately, take into consideration only languages that are Table 8.2  Classification of the LDM languages based on locality restrictions Distal movement

LDM languages

Local movement

✓

Sardinian A–B, Gascon, Italo-Greek, Neapolitan Alguerese Catalan, Judeo-Spanish

✓

Table 8.3  The attested LDM typology

L.1 Latin, Medieval Greek L.2 Sardinian-A, Gascon, Italo-Greek L.3 Sardinian-B, Neapolitan L.4 Alguerese Catalan, Judeo-Spanish

From CR

From RC

to σ1

to σ1

to adjacent syllable

to same syllable

✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓

220 

E. Apostolopoulou

typologically similar. For example, Coffman (2013a, b) analyzes LDM exclusively from and to C_V configurations in Gascon, Sardinian, and Italo-Greek using an OT model along the lines of Steriade (2001a, b) and Zuraw (2007) which, however, is less successful in accommodating metathesis from codas (L.3, L.4). Approaches of Sardinian (L.2, L.3) within the framework of Government Phonology (e.g. Strict CV, Lai 2013, 2015; GP.02, Tifrit 2020) do not capture local metathesis (L.4). Moreover, Torres-Tamarit et al.’s (2012) Harmonic Serialism account of Alguerese Catalan, that is, local metathesis (L.4), is incapable of explaining the L.2 pattern, that is, LDM languages permitting RC (for a critical review of the existing analyses see Apostolopoulou 2022a, b). Consequently, despite offering important insight in aspects of LDM within particular languages, these accounts do not suffice to capture the entire LDM landscape. With a view to tackling these shortcomings, I put forward a typologically oriented account of the LDM patterns. The analysis is couched within O(ptimality) T(heory) (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004) and exploits the tools of P(roperty) T(heory) (Alber and Prince 2015, in prep.). In the next section, I offer a detailed phonological analysis of the language types that correspond to the distinct attested patterns identified above. Then, in Sect. 4 I present the typological analysis of LDM.

3 Phonological Analysis of Attested Grammars 3.1 OT in a Nutshell A central hypothesis of OT (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004) is that the surface realization of underlying representations is determined by a universal set of violable constraints (Con). The interaction among these constraints and, in particular, the various ways in which each language chooses to integrate them into its grammatical system yields the typological variation we encounter across languages. There are two main types of constraints that comprise this universal set. Faithfulness constraints are

8  Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property… 

221

responsible for the faithful realization of an underlying form. Markedness constraints aim at making the phonological output as unmarked as possible. Evidently, two or more constraints may be at odds with each other; as a result, each language resolves this conflict by setting a specific hierarchical ranking among them, determining which constraints are more crucial and thus should not be violated. Apart from Con, OT posits two mechanisms that are triggered during phonological computation. Gen takes each phonological input and generates an infinite number of possible corresponding outputs. Eval evaluates the well-formedness of each candidate, that is, input-output pair, on the basis of Con. The optimal candidate, that is, the one that fares best with respect to the pertinent constraint ranking in each case, gets to be selected by the grammar. To exemplify, let’s assume that the phonological grammar has to process the input /kar/. The faithful realization [kar] of this underlying form could be considered marked, given that it contains a closed syllable. Consequently, the faithful output [kar] violates the markedness constraint *Coda. To overcome this problem, the phonological grammar has several options: it could  choose a candidate  involving the deletion of the coda segment (10a), one that changes the syllabic structure by inserting a second vowel (10b), or one where the order among the segments has been rearranged, so that [r] is no longer in coda position (10c). (10)

a. b. c.

/kar/ /kar/ /k1a2r3/

→ → →

[ka] [kara] [k1r3a2]

However, each of these options creates an asymmetry in the correspondence relation between input and output. These asymmetries are formalized as violations of specific faithfulness constraints. In particular, (10a) violates the constraint Max, which, in short, prohibits deletion. (10b) violates the constraint Dep, which militates against the insertion of an element that is not present in the input. Finally, (10c) entails the violation of Linearity, which prevents changes in the precedence relations of the input in the output.

222 

E. Apostolopoulou

Violation Tableau 8.1 /kar/

*Coda

a.

[kar]

b.

[ka]

c.

[kara]

d.

[kra]

Max

Dep

Linearity

* * * *

There is not an a priori optimal output. Each language views a constraint violation as more or less significant. Returning to our hypothetical example, one language may prioritize faithfulness over markedness and thus “tolerate” marked structures such as [kar]. Other languages, though, avoid closed syllables by allowing the violation of one of the faithfulness constraints Max, Dep, or Linearity. The evaluation process is elucidated by means of a Violation Tableau. The leftmost column contains the input and the possible outputs generated by Gen (only the most relevant ones are included here), and the remaining columns report on the constraint violations each output entails, marked with an asterisk (*). The higher a constraint is ranked, the more decisive its violations are in order for the relevant output to be ruled out. The possibilities that result from Violation Tableau 8.1 are demonstrated below (‘>>’ denotes ‘ranked higher than’; commas indicate the irrelevance of ranking among constraints). (11)

a.

Max, Dep, Linearity >> *Coda

b. c. d.

Dep, Linearity, *Coda >> Max Linearity, *Coda, Max >> Dep *Coda, Max, Dep >> Linearity

faithful realization deletion epenthesis metathesis

/kar/ → [kar] /kar/ → [ka] /kar/ → [kara] /kar/ → [kra]

3.2  Con and Gen of the LDM Typology As noted in Sect. 2.2.1, LDM is taken to be motivated by a requirement to enhance word-initial prominence, hence the leftward directionality. Following this line of thought, I assume that CR complex onsets preferably exist as close to the left edge of the word as possible. This preference is formalized by means of a positional markedness constraint Align(CR,

8  Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property… 

223

Left Edge) (see Zoll 1998), which penalizes non-initial CR (CR2,3) by counting the syllables between each illicit CR and the left edge. Moreover, *RC (Torres-Tamarit et al. 2012) prevents R from being syllabified in a pre-consonantal coda. The definition of these two constraints is given below: (12) Markedness constraints a. Align(CR, Left Edge) (henceforth Align) CR must be at the left edge of the word—Assign a violation for each syllable that separates a CR from the left edge b. *R-Coda (henceforth *RC) Assign a violation for every R that is syllabified in a pre-consonantal coda

Regarding faithfulness, I employ two constraints that penalize the disruption of the linear order of the input segments in the output. First, drawing on McCarthy and Prince (1995), I use Linearity, which is violated once by candidates in which the precedence relations in the input have not been preserved in the output. (13) Linearity (henceforth Linear) Assign a violation if the precedence relations in the input have not been preserved in the output

Additionally, I use Locality (Local; Apostolopoulou 2022a, b), which controls the distance R may travel. Specifically, a local movement involves R skipping maximally one vowel/nucleus and does not incur a violation of Local. In other words, the two vowels by which R is flanked in the input demarcate a local domain within which some freedom to move is granted. Farther movement, though, is disallowed. Essentially, Local is a linearity constraint less stringent (Prince 1997, 1999; de Lacy 2002) than Linear. Simply put, Linear penalizes all movements, while Local penalizes some movements. Thus, violating Local necessarily entails an asterisk on Linear, but not vice versa. (14) Locality (henceforth Local) Assign a violation if a segment in the output is relocated outside its local domain in the input

224 

E. Apostolopoulou

To summarize, the set of constraints that I employ for the analysis of the LDM patterns is the following: (15) Con Align *RC Linear Local

One violation per syllable that intervenes between a CR and the left edge (CR2 incurs one violation; CR3 incurs two violations) One violation per R.C One violation if metathesis takes place One violation if non-local (distal) metathesis takes place

Τhe  employed set of candidates consists of  input and output forms containing either pre- or post-consonantal R. According to OT, the set of possible input forms can be expanded ad infinitum, for example, /CRV/, /CVR/, /CVCRV/, /CVCVR/, /CVCVCRV/. From an empirical point of view, at least to my knowledge, metathesis phenomena occur within a domain of maximally three syllables. For reasons of simplicity, and given that theoretical adequacy is not compromised, the set of inputs used here is limited to five trisyllabic strings: (16)

Set of inputs a. b. c. d. e.

/CVCVCRV/ /CVCVRCV/ /CVCRVCV/ /CVRCVCV/ /CRVCVCV/

CR3 RC2 CR2 RC1 CR1

Each input is associated with a set of outputs containing R in all positions available, given the assumption that, in theory, any position could serve as a potential landing site. Post-consonantal R is treated as part of a complex onset and pre-consonantal R as coda, based on well-established sonority-related criteria (e.g. see Zec 2007  for an overview and references). (17)

Set of possible outputs a. b. c. d. e.

[CV.CV.CRV] [CV.CVR.CV] [CV.CRV.CV] [CVR.CV.CV] [CRV.CV.CV]

CR3 RC2 CR2 RC1 CR1

8  Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property… 

225

Gen takes each input (x) and maps it onto each possible output (y), thus generating the input-output pairs (x, y) that comprise the candidate set: (18)

Gen(x)

{(x, CV.CV.CRV), (x, CV.CVR.CV), (x, CV.CRV.CV), (x, CVR.CV.CV), (x, CRV.CV.CV)}

3.3 The Phonological Computation 3.3.1 The Factorial Typology The evaluation of Gen by Con yields the factorial typology presented in Table  8.4 with the help of schematic candidates.5 The typology is composed of eight languages dubbed A–H, given in the leftmost column. The inputs taken into consideration are displayed in the first row. The non-­ external columns include the winning output(s) that map onto the input given in the first row. The shaded cells contain unfaithful outputs (i.e. involving a metathetic process). The four types identified in Table 8.2, that is, the three attested LDM patterns as well as the non-metathetic language type, constitute a fraction of this factorial typology and are indicated in the rightmost column. A detailed description of the remaining types falls beyond the scope of this work (see Apostolopoulou 2022b). Table 8.4  Factorial typology

/pRakata/

/paRkata/

/pakRata/

/pakaRta/

/pakatRa/

A

pRakata

pRakata

pRakata

pRakata

pRakata

= L.3

B

pRakata

pRakata

pRakata

pakRata

pakRata

= L.4

C

pRakata

pRakata

pRakata

pakaRta

pakaRta ~ paRkata

D

pRakata

pRakata

pakRata

pRakata

pakatRa

E

pRakata

pRakata

pakRata

pakRata

pakatRa

F

pRakata

paRkata

pRakata

pakaRta

pRakata

G

pRakata

paRkata

pRakata

pakaRta

pakaRta ~ paRkata

H

pRakata

paRkata

pakRata

pakaRta

pakatRa

= L.2 = L.1

 The factorial typology as well as the property analysis in Sect. 4 were calculated with the aid of OTWorkplace (Prince et al. 2017). 5

226 

E. Apostolopoulou

Violation Tableau 8.2 /pRakata/

LINEAR

LOCAL

*RC

ALIGN

a. pRakata b. paRkata

*

c. pakRata

*

d. pakaRta

*

*

e. pakatRa

*

*

Languages A‒H

* *

/pRakata/ → [pRakata]

* **

Concerning the attested L.1–L.4, a smaller set of candidates can determine all the possible distinctions between the languages of this part of the typology (see Merchant and Prince 2017/2021). First of all, one notices that /pRakata/, the input containing CR1, surfaces faithfully in all the languages of the factorial typology. As demonstrated in the Violation Tableau 8.2, candidate (a) satisfies all the constraints of Con. Any other competitor violates Linear and, additionally, incurs at least one violation of another constraint. It follows that candidates (b–f, shaded cells) lose under any ranking, that is, they are harmonically bounded (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004; Samek-Lodovici and Prince 1999). For the sake of brevity, the candidates associated with this input will be omitted in the analysis to follow. R may either head all the way to σ1 or take a shorter ride to the onset of the adjacent syllable. This distinction is blurred in a subset of candidates. For example, the input /pakRata/ (CR2) is mapped onto the output [pRakata] in all three LDM language types at hand (see Table 8.3). Notice that the first and the adjacent syllable coincide, thus /pakRata/ → [pRakata] is opaque regarding whether a don’t-go-too-far rule is in effect. In order for the impact of locality restrictions to become visible, the CR configuration must be in the third syllable (CR3). In this way, a clear distinction can be achieved between distal metathesis, that is, /pakatRa/ → [pRakata], and local metathesis, that is, /pakatRa/ → [pakRata].6 The difference is illustrated in Table 8.5.  This explains why trisyllabic inputs are sufficient to instantiate the LDM languages at hand. A bisyllabic input /pakRa/ would yield the same opaque result as /pakRata/. Moreover, CR4, for example, /pakatafRa/, would behave in the exact same way as /pakatRa/. 6

227

8  Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property…  Table 8.5  /pakRata/ vs. /pakatRa/

/pakRata/

/pakatRa/

A

pRakata

pRakata

 L.3

B

pRakata

pakRata

 L.4

F

pRakata

pRakata

 L.2

 conflation (L.3 = L.4 = L.2)

 distinction (L.4 vs. L.3, L.2)

Table 8.6  /paRkata/ vs. /pakaRta/

A B

/paRkata/

/pakaRta/

pRakata

pRakata

 L.3

pRakata

pakRata

 L.4

 conflation (L.3 = L.4)

 distinction (L.4 vs. L.3)

In the same vein, one can ignore inputs with RC1, that is, /paRkata/, and consider only inputs with RC2, that is, /pakaRta/ (Table 8.6). This drastic reduction leaves us with two inputs, one containing CR3 and one containing RC2, that suffice to fully describe the three attested LDM languages as well as the non-metathetic type that, historically, constituted the ancestor language. Therefore, the analysis of the hierarchies that generate each of the four languages L.1–L.4 will be based on these two inputs, repeated in (19) for convenience. (19)

a. b.

/kapatRa/ /kapaRta/

CR3 RC2

3.3.2 The Constraint Hierarchies This section provides a detailed account of the rankings that generate the four attested grammars. Let’s first examine L.1, in which CR2,3 as well as RC configurations are allowed, where the source languages, for example, Latin and Medieval Greek, belong. The crucial prerequisite in this grammar is that faithfulness outranks all markedness constraints —this translates into Linear dominating both Align and *RC. Hence, R stays put independently of the position it has in the syllable or of the number of syllables separating it from σ1, since any other option is eliminated early

228 

E. Apostolopoulou

on by the highly ranked Linear. Notably, given that the role of Local is to set limits on how far a segment can move, this constraint is inert in languages where metathesis is blocked altogether. Consider the tableaux of optima below (an exclamation mark is placed after a fatal violation that immediately renders the relevant output ungrammatical; the index points at the winning candidate; solid lines separate constraints strictly ranked with respect to each other; dotted lines denote the irrelevance of ranking between constraints) (Tableaux 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3). Let’s now shift our focus to LDM languages. The common property these languages share should certainly be that the faithfulness constraint that blocks metathesis is dominated by at least one markedness constraint. Tableau 8.1 CR3 in L.1 /pakatRa/  a. pakatRa

Linear

Align

*RC

**

b. pakaRta

*!

c. pakRata

*!

d. paRkata

*!

e. pRakata

*!

* * *

Tableau 8.2  RC in L.1 /pakaRta/ a. pakatRa 

Linear

Align

*!

**

b. pakaRta

*RC *

c. pakRata

*!

d. paRkata

*!

e. pRakata

*!

* *

Tableau 8.3 CR3 in L.2 /pakatRa/ a. pakatRa

Align

b. pakaRta c. pakRata 

Linear

*RC

*

*!

Local

*!* *!

*

d. paRkata

*

e. pRakata

*

*! *

229

8  Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property… 

The first case under investigation concerns L.2 (e.g. Sardinian-A, Gascon, Italo-GreekItalo-Greek), in which R in CR2,3 heads to σ1, but codas still make it past the clutches of markedness. In L.2, Align overthrows faithfulness, thus triggering movement from CR2,3 toward the left edge. Crucially, Local is ranked lower down in the hierarchy, thus metathesis is distal. In fact, R is forced to move to σ1, given that *RC >> Local renders an intermediate coda position an improper landing site. R already occurring in coda position cannot move, since in this case *RC is subordinate to Linear, therefore  the violation of *RC is not fatal (Tableau 8.4). The next LDM group, L.3 (Sardinian-B, Neapolitan) consists of those languages that accrue Rs from both CR2,3 and RC closer to the left periphery of the word. L.3 transfers all Rs to σ1, independently of their position in the syllable. In order for this pervasive metathesis pattern to be possible, both markedness constraints must dominate faithfulness. As a result, Rs originating in complex onsets behave similarly to L.2, and, in addition, Rs in coda position climb up to the onset of σ1. In essence, marked structures (non-initial CR, RC) are eliminated (Tableaux 8.5 and 8.6). Tableau 8.4  RC in L.2 /pakaRta/ a. pakatRa 

Align

Linear

*!*

*

b. pakaRta c. pakRata

*RC

Local

* *!

*

d. paRkata

*!

e. pRakata

*!

* *

Tableau 8.5 CR3 in L.3 pakatRa

*RC

a. pakatRa b. pakaRta d. paRkata e. pRakata

Local

Linear

*!* *!

c. pakRata 

Align

* *!

*

*!

* *

*

230 

E. Apostolopoulou

So far, LDM has been unrestricted with respect to the distance a migrating segment is allowed to travel, by virtue of Align >> Local. The reverse ranking gives rise to languages displaying LDM to the adjacent syllable combined with local metathesis from RC to the onset of the same syllable (L.4, e.g. Alguerese Catalan, Judeo-Spanish). In these languages, although R is still expected to move toward the left edge, the ranking Local >> Align sets boundaries within which it may move. As illustrated in Tableaux 8.7 and 8.8, R in a disfavored position, specifically CR3 and RC, respectively, metathesizes locally by skipping one vowel to the left, thus landing in a pre-consonantal position that is comparatively closer to but not necessarily coincide with the left edge (cf. the winning candidates in Tableaux 8.5 and 8.6). Tableau 8.6  RC in L.3 pakaRta

*RC

a. pakatRa b. pakaRta d. paRkata

Local

Linear

*!*

*

*!

*

*!

c. pakRata 

Align

*!

*

e. pRakata

*

*

Align **!

Linear

*

*

Tableau 8.7 CR3 in L.4 pakatRa a. pakatRa b. pakaRta 

*RC

Local

*!

*

c. pakRata d. paRkata

*!

e. pRakata

* *!

*

Tableau 8.8  RC in L.4 pakaRta a. pakatRa b. pakaRta 

*RC

Local

e. pRakata

Linear *

*

*

*!

c. pakRata d. paRkata

Align **!

*!

* *!

*

231

8  Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property… 

The proposed analysis neatly accounts for the counterfeeding opacity in L.4.7 Although etymological CR2 cannot surface as such and is “repaired” via LDM, nevertheless, the same structure can be the result of metathesis from either CR3 or RC2. The key lies in the ranking *RC, Local >> Align. By virtue of Local >> Align, R originating in CR3 cannot move far enough to reach σ1. At the same time, *RC >> Align disqualifies the coda as an available landing site, yet it makes room for innovative CR2,3. Therefore, the greatest leap the R in question can make in order to improve its position without incurring a fatal violation of faithfulness can only bring it to CR2. However, when R is underlyingly in CR2, it may move to either CR1 or CR3 without violating Local. As shown in Tableau 8.9, the grammar opts for CR1, as CR3 returns an even greater violation of Align than the faithful candidate does. Remarkably, an innovative CR can be formed only if it is closer to the left edge in comparison with the original form. Rightward movement creates more marked structures in terms of alignment (Violation Tableau 8.3), thus the candidates that exhibit rightward metathesis (a–b) are harmonically bounded (shaded cells), that is, they always lose against both the faithful candidate (c: fewer violations of Align, no violation of Linear) and the candidate displaying leftward metathesis (d: no violation of Align, equal violations of Linear). Note also that, in this system, codas never move to a pre-consonantal position, independently of the directionality (see also the factorial typology in Table  8.4). Given that there is no difference in the degree of markedness among instantiations of RC based on the proximity to the Tableau 8.9 CR2 in L.4 pakRata

*RC

a. pakatRa b. pakaRta



Align

Linear

*!*

*

*!

c. pakRata d. paRkata

Local

* *!

*!

e. pRakata

 For alternative analyses of opacity effects, see McCarthy (2003), Lubowicz (2003).

7

* *

232 

E. Apostolopoulou

left edge, any RC in the word is equally marked as the original RC. Therefore, innovative RC structures are always worse than faithful RC, as they incur a violation of Linear in addition to the violation of *RC (Violation Tableau 8.4). To summarize, the constraint hierarchies that generate each attested language type are presented in (20) as Hasse diagrams. (20)

L.2 (metathesis from CR to σ1)

L.1 (no metathesis) LINEAR

ALIGN

ALIGN

LOCAL

*RC

LINEAR

*RC

LOCAL

L.3 (metathesis from CR and RC to σ1) ALIGN

*RC

LINEAR

LOCAL

L.4 (local metathesis from CR and RC) *RC

LOCAL

ALIGN

LINEAR

Violation Tableau 8.3  No rightward metathesis pakRatafa

ALIGN

LINEAR

a. pakatafRa

***

*

b. pakatRafa

**

*

c. pakRatafa

*

d. pRakatafa

*

As already touched upon, certain rankings in these hierarchies are responsible for the emergence of specific processes in a language. In particular, languages in which Linear is ranked below a markedness constraint exhibit metathesis targeting the structure prohibited by this markedness constraint; reversely, if a markedness constraint is dominated

8  Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property… 

233

Violation Tableau 8.4  No metathesis of pre-consonantal R into pre-consonantal positions pakaRtafa

*RC

LINEAR

a. pakaRtafa

*

b. paRkatafa

*

*

c. pakataRfa

*

*

by Linear, then the marked structure to which this constraint refers is not avoided via metathesis. Likewise, if Local outranks a markedness constraint, then locality restrictions come into play, while the opposite ranking allows for long-distance movement in order for the marked structure to be avoided. In the following section, these crucial ranking conditions are formalized as properties of the typological system.

4 Property Analysis 4.1 The Properties That Define the LDM Typology In this section, I identify the key conditions that determine the typological differences and I model the diachronic evolution and the cross-­ linguistic variation within P(roperty) T(heory) (Alber and Prince 2015, in prep.; see also Alber 2015; Alber et al. 2016; Alber and Meneguzzo 2016; Merchant and Krämer 2018; DelBusso 2018; Kokkelmans 2021; Apostolopoulou 2022a, b; Alber and Apostolopoulou 2023). According to PT, a typological system is defined by its properties, i.e. the ranking conditions which suffice to generate exactly those languages that belong to the typology. Each property consists of a pair of values (a and b), one being the logical opposite of the other, and is represented as X < > Y, where X and Y stand for individual constraints. Which value the property takes depends on which side is dominant. Value a corresponds to the ranking X >> Y and value b, being the logical opposite, to Y >> X. With respect to the typological system examined here, five such building blocks are identified (Table  8.7) (for a different analysis see Apostolopoulou 2022a, b).

234 

E. Apostolopoulou

Table 8.7 Properties

Properties of the LDM typology METCR2,3

METRC

LANDCR2

LANDRC

MARK

ALIGN < > LINEAR

Value a

Value b

ALIGN >> LINEAR LINEAR >> ALIGN

Metathesis from CR2,3?

‘yes’

‘no’

*RC < > LINEAR

*RC >> LINEAR

LINEAR >> *RC

Metathesis from RC?

‘yes’

‘no’

LOCAL < > ALIGN

LOCAL >> ALIGN

ALIGN >> LOCAL

Metathesis to CR2?

‘yes’

‘no’

LOCAL < > *RC

LOCAL >> *RC

*RC >> LOCAL

Metathesis to RC?

‘yes’

‘no’

ALIGN < > *RC

ALIGN >> *RC

*RC >> ALIGN

Which structure is worse, CR2,3 or RC?

‘no CR2,3’

‘no RC’

MetCR2,3 (Align < > Linear) and MetRC (*RC < > Linear) act as triggers/blockers of metathesis: they decide whether CR2,3 or RC, respectively, is realized faithfully or if metathesis can be allowed in order to “repair” the relevant marked structure. The locality effects are captured by LandCR2 (Local < > Align) and LandRC (Local < > *RC). LandCR2 determines whether or not R may land in a non-initial onset, forming a novel CR2, so that the boundaries of the R’s local domain be respected. Similarly, LandRC decides whether metathesis may create novel RC in order for R to avoid crossing the borders of its local domain. Finally, property Mark (Align < > *RC) determines which of the two marked structures, that is, CR2,3 or RC, is entirely banished. The property analysis is illustrated in Table 8.8. MetCR2,3 and MetRC are relevant to all four attested language types; in other words, the rankings involved are crucial for the selection of the optima. LandCR2, LandRC, and Mark, though, are moot with respect to certain property values. MetCR2,3 is set to value b ‘no’ in L.1, where LDM is not triggered, and to value a ‘yes’ in the languages L.2–L.4, which repair CR2,3 via LDM. L.1 takes the value b ‘no’ also for MetRC, which determines the presence of metathesis of coda R. This value holds also for L.2, which only displays metathesis from CR2,3. In L.3 and L.4, on the other hand, metathesis targets RC in addition to CR2,3, hence the value MetRC–a ‘yes’.

8  Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property… 

235

Table 8.8  Property analysis

METCR2,3

METRC

LANDCR2

LANDRC

MARK

ALIGN

*RC

LOCAL

LOCAL

ALIGN







LINEAR

LINEAR

ALIGN

*RC

*RC

A

a ‘yes’

a ‘yes’

b ‘no’

b ‘no’

moot

= L.3

B

a ‘yes’

a ‘yes’

a ‘yes’

moot

b ‘no RC’

= L.4

C

a ‘yes’

a ‘yes’

moot

a ‘yes’

a ‘no CR2,3’

D

b ‘no’

a ‘yes’

b ‘no’

b ‘no’

b ‘no RC’

E

b ‘no’

a ‘yes’

a ‘yes’

moot

b ‘no RC’

F

a ‘yes’

b ‘no’

b ‘no’

b ‘no’

a ‘no CR2,3’

G

a ‘yes’

b ‘no’

moot

a ‘yes’

a ‘no CR2,3’

H

b ‘no’

b ‘no’

moot

moot

moot

= L.2 = L.1

LandCR2 and LandRC bear on locality restrictions that are active in a subset of the above languages. Specifically, given that in L.1 metathesis is banned altogether, any ranking condition that involves Local is irrelevant. Among the LDM languages, Local is dominated by both markedness constraints in L.2 and L.3, hence value b ‘no’ for both LandCR2 and LandRC. In L.4, though, Local outranks Align, which is reflected in LandCR2–a ‘yes’. The ranking between *RC and Local is not crucial in L.4 (recall the Hasse diagram in 20), therefore LandRC is moot. The final property, Mark, determines which structure between CR2,3 and RC, is considered intolerable and needs to be amended (even if the resolution strategy results in the other marked structure). The particular ranking is again relevant to a subset of the LMD languages: L.2 opts for the resolution of non-initial CRs, while L.4 prohibits codas entirely. Again, mootness is observed: L.1 does not resort to metathesis to avoid either structure, by virtue of MetCR2,3–b ‘no’ and MetRC–b ‘no’. Furthermore, L.3 moves R to σ1 regardless of its original position, thus the distinction between non-initial complex onsets and codas as far as markedness is concerned is in practice neutralized.

236 

E. Apostolopoulou

4.2 Language Change in PT I consider language change from non-metathetic to metathetic languages to be the outcome of the acquisition of new rankings (internal change), which result from switches in the typological property values. Crucially, given the gradual nature of language change and the bias requiring minimal grammatical difference between stages (see Kiparsky 2014), historically or geographically adjacent grammars are taken to vary minimally, that is, each new stage should be the outcome of just one switch (Alber 2015; Alber and Meneguzzo 2016; Alber and Apostolopoulou 2023). Crucially, pace Alber (2015), I do not consider the passage from mootness to some value and vice versa as a real switch. Instead, I propose that it ensues from switches in the values of other properties (see also Apostolopoulou 2022a, b). Let’s first examine the change from L.1 to L.2, which corresponds, for example, to the evolution of Medieval Greek to Italo-Greek or of Latin to Sardinian-A.  Both historical stages permit RC, therefore the respective language types remained identical regarding the second property, MetRC.  The crucial switch regards the first property, MetCR2,3. L.1 admits CR2,3, therefore MetCR2,3 is set to value b ‘no’. Once this property switched to value a  ‘yes’, a new historical stage dawned where CR2,3 were no longer tolerated and LDM stepped in to fix the problem. In turn, the remaining three properties, with respect to which L.1 was moot, were activated in L.2. Mark was set to value a, as CR2,3 is the structure that was primarily banned. Additionally, LandCR2 and LandRC both obtained value b, thus preventing R from landing in CR2,3 and in RC, respectively, at the expense of the locality restrictions. Consequently, R from CR2,3 is free to cross the borders of its local domain and create an unmarked CR perfectly aligned with the left edge of the word. A direct change from L.1 to L.3 cannot be achieved via a minimal switch in the typological property values: both MetCR2,3 and MetRC must be reset from value b ‘no’ to value a ‘yes’. However, the minimality is retained if we put forth that L.3 was a more recent evolution of L.2. Indeed, L.2 and L.3 share the values of all properties (LandCR2–b,

8  Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property… 

237

Table 8.9  Minimal change in the languages with unrestricted LDM: L.1 > L.2 > L.3

L.1

L.2

L.3

No met.

Distal met. from CR2,3

Distal met. from CR2,3 and RC

METCR2,3

b ‘no’

a ‘yes’

a ‘yes’

METRC

b ‘no’

b ‘no’

a ‘yes’

LandRC–b) except for MetRC, the resetting of which leads to stepwise language change, as illustrated in Table 8.9. Note that Mark is moot in L.3 (cf. L.2, Mark–a). This assumption finds convincing empirical support in the diachrony of Sardinian. Presumably, certain varieties preserved codas while others took a further step and moved them to σ1. Indeed, the latter metathesis type is arguably the most recent to have targeted Sardinian (see Lai 2013 for discussion; see also Alber 2001; Lai 2015 on synchronic metathesis in Campidanian Sardinian). In a similar fashion, an intermediate stage between L.1 and L.4, for example, Latin and Alguerese Catalan/Judeo-Spanish, is required so that minimal change is guaranteed. This liaison could be a language which moves R exclusively from a coda to the onset of the same syllable; in other words, a language with MetCR2,3–b ‘no’ and MetRC–a ‘yes’ (so that it varies minimally with L.1) as well as LandCR2–a ‘yes’ (so that it shares the same locality restrictions as L.4). Such transposition of Rs targeting (pre-consonantal) codas is indeed reported for dialectal varieties of Spanish that do not display LDM (Lipski 1990; Russell-Webb and Bradley 2009): (21)

Local metathesis from RC in dialectal Spanish (Russell-Webb and Bradley 2009) a. abracar < abarcar ‘to cover, take on’ b. pedrenal < pedernal ‘flint’

This pattern is indeed included in the factorial typology as language E, henceforth L.5, which shares with L.4 the values of all properties but one: L.5 is set to MetCR2,3–b ‘no’, whereas L.4 is set to MetCR2,3–a ‘yes’. L.5 may therefore serve as a liaison between L.1 and L.4. First, MetRC–a

238 

E. Apostolopoulou

Table 8.10  Minimal change in the languages with local LDM: L.1 > L.5 > L.4

L.1

L.5

L.4

No met.

Local met. from RC

Local met. from RC and CR2,3

METCR2,3

b ‘no’

b ‘no’

a ‘yes’

METRC

b ‘no’

a ‘yes’

a ‘yes’

Table 8.11  Minimal change L.1 > L.5 > L.4 > L.3

L.1

L.5

L.4

L.3

No met.

Local met.

Local met.

Distal met.

from RC

from RC and CR2,3

from RC and CR2,3

METCR2,3

b ‘no’

b ‘no’

a ‘yes’

a ‘yes’

METRC

b ‘no’

a ‘yes’

a ‘yes’

a ‘yes’

LANDCR2

moot

a ‘yes’

a ‘yes’

b ‘no’

shifted to MetRC–b, thus allowing R to move in order for the marked structure RC to be avoided. Later, MetCR2,3 also was reset from value b ‘no’ to value a ‘yes’, as demonstrated in Table 8.10: Hypothetically, L.5 and L.4 could also constitute intermediate stages between L.1 and L.3 (Table  8.11). In this scenario, codas would first move locally to an onset (L.1 > L.5), later onsets would follow (L.5 > L.4), and, in the last step, the locality restrictions would be lifted (L.4 > L.3). It should be highlighted here that the change from mootness to value with respect to LandCR2 in L.1 > L.5 does not count as an additional switch (cf. Alber 2015). The need for speakers of L.5 to acquire LandCR2–a ‘yes’ arose as a ‘side-effect’ of the resetting of MetRC, which begged the question whether metathesizing codas may or may not anchor in non-initial syllables.8 Despite the absence of corroborating evidence that L.1 > L.5 > L.4 > L.3 was the actual path change followed, this nevertheless constitutes a possible evolutionary chain advancing by minimal switches. By contrast,  Similarly, the acquisition of values with respect to LandCR2, LandRC, and Mark in L.1 > L.2, as well as the loss of the value of Mark in L.2 > L.3 (see Table 8.8), do not compromise minimality.

8

8  Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property… 

239

as mentioned above, certain change paths are impassable, at least under the hypothesis  that changes requiring non-minimal switches translate into non-adjacent grammars. Another factor that may render a change highly improbable or, in the very least, invisible, is the forward directionality. In all of the above cases, languages became progressively less and less faithful. In theory, the order could be reversed, as properties are free to shift to the opposite value. However, the chain L.3 > L.4 > L.5 > L.1, or the reversed version of the chains in Tables 8.9 and 8.10, are unlikely, because of a fairly straightforward reason:  if each stage builds on the inputs of the previous stage and  eventually replaces them with inputs based on the innovative outputs, then synchronic forms are opaque with respect to their predecessors. This means that previous forms are no longer recoverable, unless morphophonological alternations preserve the visibility of the metathetic processes. For example, once the transition from L.2 to L.3 was complete, inputs with CR2,3 and with RC ceased to be available. Nevertheless, the dawn of a new metathetic era is not impossible, as new material can be provided by loanwords containing structures that could constitute new targets of metathesis.

5 Conclusions In this chapter I investigated the diachronic LDM patterns in languages of the Romance family from a typological perspective. Language change from non-LDM to LDM languages was associated with internal motivations. I concurred with a substantial amount of previous work that attributes metathesis to a conspiracy against CR realized in non-initial positions, but, crucially, argues that, despite the phonetic and perceptual biases that motivate displacements of R, the emergence of a particular pattern in a systematic fashion boils down to grammar. The analysis builds on the cross-linguistic observation that Rs originating in a disfavored position respond to the call for initial prominence in different ways. Three patterns were distinguished: (a) metathesis to σ1 that targets only R in non-initial complex onsets; (b) metathesis to σ1 that targets R in both non-initial complex onsets and codas; and (c) metathesis that

240 

E. Apostolopoulou

targets R in both non-initial complex onsets and codas that is subject to limitations with respect to distance. The proposed analysis, framed in PT, not only successfully captured the attested patterns, but also explained the absence of the unattested ones, for example, rightward metathesis to complex onsets, metathesis of codas to a pre-consonantal position. The rankings that are crucial to the factorial typology—in terms of PT, the properties of the typological system-were extracted. The gradual change that led to diachronic variation was formalized as switches in the typological property values. In particular, hypotheses regarding the reconstruction of possible and impossible change paths were put forth on the basis of the assumption that language change is minimal, that is, it advances by resetting one property value at a time. Abbreviations . syllable boundary σ1 first syllable C consonant CR complex onset consisting of a C and a R CR1 CR in the first syllable CR2 CR in the second syllable CR3 CR in the third syllable LDM long-distance metathesis PT Property Theory R liquid consonant RC heterosyllabic sequence of a R and a C RC1 RC in the first syllable RC2 RC in the second syllable V vowel

References Abete, Giovanni. 2015. The role of the syllable in the metathesis of /r/ in Neapolitan. In The notion of syllable across history, theories and analysis, ed. Domenico Russo, 241–263. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

8  Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property… 

241

Alber, Birgit. 2001. Maximizing first positions. In Proceedings of HILP5, ed. Caroline Féry, Antony Dubach Green, and Ruben van de Vijver, 1–19. Potsdam: University of Potsdam. ———. 2015. Microvariation and typological properties. Paper presented at the Workshop on the Formal Structure of OT Typologies, Rutgers University. Alber, Birgit, and Eirini Apostolopoulou. 2023. Language change as minimal change of property values. Paper presented at the 20th Old World Conference on Phonology 2023 (OCP20), Université de Tours, the Laboratoire Ligérien de Linguistique (UMR 7270 CNRS) and Structures Formelles du Langage (UMR 7023), Tours. Alber, Birgit, and Marta Meneguzzo. 2016. Germanic and Romance onset clusters: How to account for microvariation. In Theoretical approaches to linguistic variation, ed. Ermenegildo Bidese, Federica Cognola, and Manuela Caterina Moroni, 25–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alber, Birgit, and Alan Prince. 2015. Outline of property theory. University of Verona / Rutgers University. ———. in prep. The structure of OT typologies. ROA-1381. Alber, Birgit, Natalie DelBusso, and Alan Prince. 2016. From intensional properties to universal support. Language 92: 88–116. Apostolopoulou, Eirini. 2022a. Where r you going? A typology of long-distance metathesis of liquids. In Ora Matushansky, Laurent Roussarie, Michela Russo, Elena Soare, and Sophie Wauquier (Eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 17. Isogloss Open Journal of Romance Linguistics 8 (2): 1–20. ———. 2022b. Typological variation in language contact: A phonological analysis of Italiot Greek. PhD dissertation, University of Verona / UiT—The Arctic University of Norway. Beckman, Jill. 1998. Positional faithfulness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Blevins, Juliette, and Andrew Garret. 1998. The origins of consonant-vowel metathesis. Language 74: 508–556. ———. 2004. The evolution of metathesis. In Phonetically Based Phonology, ed. Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade, 117–156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bolognesi, Roberto. 1998. The phonology of Campidanian Sardinian. PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Bradley, Travis G. 2006. Contrast and markedness in complex onset phonotactics. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 25: 29–58.

242 

E. Apostolopoulou

———. 2007. Constraints on the metathesis of sonorant consonants in Judeo-­ Spanish. Probus 19: 171–207. Buckley, Eugene. 2011. Metathesis. In The Blackwell companion to phonology, ed. Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice, vol. 3, 1380–1407. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Cabrera-Callís, Maria, Clàudia Pons-Moll, and Francesc-Josep Torres-Tamarit. 2010. Left is more: Rhotic metathesis in Algherese Catalan. Paper presented at the 20th Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Canfield, Tracy. 2015. Metathesis is real, and it is a regular relation. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University. Coffman, Ian. 2013a. Diachronic evidence for the synchronic grammar: The case of long-distance liquid metathesis. ROA-1192. ———. 2013b. Explaining long-distance liquid metathesis: Misperception vs. optimization. In Proceedings of NELS 41, ed. Yelena Fainleib, Nicholas LaCara, and Yangsook Park, 113–126. GLSA: Amherst. Czaplicki, Bartłomiej. 2009. Non-teleological approaches to metathesis: Evidence from dialects of Polish. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 45 (3): 353–367. D’Ascoli, Francesco. 1993. Nuovo vocabolario dialettale napoletano. Napoli: Gallina. De Lacy, Paul. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst. DelBusso, Natalie. 2018. Typological structure and properties of property theory. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. Duménil, Annie. 1987. A rule account of metathesis in Gascon. Linvisticoe Investigationes XI: 81–113. Fleischhacker, Heidi. 2005. Similarity in phonology: Evidence from reduplication and loan adaptation. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Frigeni, Chiara. 2009. Sonorant relationships in two varieties of Sardinian. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto. Geisler, Hans. 1994. Metathese im Sardischen. Vox Romanica 53: 106–137. Grammont, Maurice. 1905. La métathèse dans le parler de Bagnères-de-Luchon. Mémoires de la Societé de Linguistique de Paris XIII: 73–90. Heid, Sebastian, and Sarah Hawkins. 2000. An acoustical study of long domain /r/ and /l/ coarticulation. In Proceedings of the 5th seminar on speech production: Models and data, and CREST Workshop on models of speech production:

8  Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property… 

243

Motor planning and articulatory modeling, 77–80. Munich: Institut für Phonetik und Sprachliche Kommunikation, Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversität. Hume, Elizabeth. 1997. Metathesis in phonological theory: The case of Leti. Lingua 104: 147–186. ———. 2001. Metathesis: Formal and functional considerations. Surface syllable structure and segment sequencing. In HIL occasional papers, ed. Elizabeth Hume, Norval Smith, and Jeroen van de Weijer, 1–25. Leiden: University of Leiden. ———. 2004. The indeterminacy/attestation model of metathesis. Language 80: 203–237. Karanastasis, Anastassios. 1997. A grammar of the Greek varieties of Southern Italy. Athens: Academy of Athens. Karanastassis, Anastassios. 1984–1992. Historical dictionary of the dialects of Southern Italy. Athens: Academy of Athens. Kilpatrick, Jeff. 2010. The development of Latin Post-Tonic /Cr/ Clusters in select Northern Italian dialects. PhD dissertation, University of Georgia. Kiparsky, Paul. 2014. New perspectives in historical linguistics. In The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, ed. Claire Bowern and Bethwyn Evans, 64–102. New York: Routledge (Taylor and Francis). Kokkelmans, Joachim. 2021. The phonetics and phonology of sibilants. PhD dissertation, University of Verona. Lai, Rosangela. 2013. Positional effects in Sardinian Muta cum liquida. Lenition, metathesis, and liquid deletion. PhD dissertation, University of Florence. ———. 2015. Lateral relations in Sardinian metathesis: A unified account. In The notion of syllable across history, theories and analysis, ed. Domenico Russo, 264–293. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Lipski, John. 1990. Metathesis as template matching: A case study from Spanish. Folia Linguistica Historica 11: 89–104. Lubowicz, Anna. 2003. Local conjunction and comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29: 101–112. McCarthy, John. 2003. Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29: 1–51. McCarthy, John, and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Occasional papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, ed. Jill Beckman, Suzanne Urbanczyk, and Laura Walsh Dickey, 249–384. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Merchant, Nazarré, and Martin Krämer. 2018. The holographic principle: Typological analysis using lower dimensions. In Proceedings of the 2017

244 

E. Apostolopoulou

annual meeting on phonology, ed. Gillian Galagher, Maria Gouskova, and Sora Yin. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America. Merchant, Nazarré, and Alan Prince. 2017/2021. The mother of all tableaux. ROA-1382. Molinu, Lucia. 1999. Métathèse et variation en sarde. Cahiers de Grammaire 24: 153–181. Prince, Alan. 1997. Stringency and anti-Paninian hierarchies. Paper presented at LSA Linguistic Institute. ———. 1999. Paninian relations. Handout from talk at the University of Marburg. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993/2004. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell. Prince, Alan, Bruce Tesar, and Nazarré Merchant. 2017. OTWorkplace. https:// sites.google.com/site/otworkplace/home. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1930. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der unteritalienischen Gräzität. Halle, Saale: Niemeyer. ———. 1950. Historisches Grammatik der Unteritalienischen Gräzität. München: H. Beck. ———. 1966. Grammatica Storica della Lingua Italiana e dei suoi Dialetti. Torino: Einaudi. Russell-Webb, Eric. 2002. The relational /R/: Three case studies of rhotic integrity and variation. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Russell-Webb, Eric, and Travis G. Bradley. 2009. Rhotic metathesis asymmetries in Romance: Formalizing the effects of articulation and perception on sound change. In Romance Linguistics 2007: Selected papers from the 37th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), ed. Pascual J.  Masullo, Erin O’Rourke, and Chia-Hui Huang, 321–337. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Samek-Lodovici, Vieri, and Alan Prince. 1999. Optima. ROA-363. Steriade, Donca. 2001a. Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: A perceptual account. In The role of speech perception in phonology, ed. Elizabeth Hume and Keith Johnson, 219–250. San Diego: Academic Press. ———. 2001b. The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its implications for constraint organization. UCLA. Tifrit, Ali. 2020. Obstruent liquid clusters: Locality, projections and percolation. In Morpheme-internal recursion in phonology, studies in generative grammar, ed. Kuniya Nasukawa, 317–368. Boston & Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Torres-Tamarit, Francesc-Josep, Clàudia Pons-Moll, and Maria Cabrera-Callís. 2012. Rhotic metathesis in Algherese Catalan: A Harmonic Serialism

8  Long-Distance Metathesis of Liquids in Romance: A Property… 

245

account. In Selected Proceedings of the 14th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, ed. Kimberly Geeslin and Manuel Díaz-Campos, 354–364. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Ultan, Russell. 1978. A typological view of metathesis. In Universals of human language, Phonology, ed. Joseph H.  Greenberg, Charles A.  Ferguson, and Edith A. Moravcsik, vol. 2, 367–402. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Wagner, Max Leopold. 1941. Historische Lautlehre des Sardischen. Halle, Saale: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Webb, Charlotte. 1974. Metathesis. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Zec, Draga. 2007. The syllable. In The Cambridge handbook of phonology, ed. Paul de Lacy, 161–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zoll, Cheryl. 1996. Parsing below the segment in a constraint-based framework. PhD dissertation, University of California. ———. 1998. Positional asymmetries and licensing. MIT. Zukoff, Sam. 2012. Metathesis with /r/ in classical Armenian: An optimality theory approach. In UGA working papers in Linguistics 1, ed. Marcus Berger. Athens, GA: The Linguistics Society at UGA. Zuraw, Kie. 2007. The role of phonetic knowledge in phonological patterning: Corpus and survey evidence from Tagalog. Language 83: 277–316.

9 Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced Grammaticalization in the Romance Variety of the Jewish Community of Corfu Georgios Vardakis

1 Introduction 1.1 Classification, Vitality, and Present Data of Corfioto ‘Corfiot Italian’ (Mücke 2019), ‘Italian Corfioto’ /italián korfióto/ or ‘Corfioto’ /korfióto/ (autoglossonym) is a Romance variety, traditionally spoken by the Corfiot Jews in Corfu and still spoken today by them and their descendants living in Greece and in diaspora, mainly in Israel. Genetically, Corfioto is an Italo-Romance variety, many characteristic features of which emerged from the contact of different Italo-Romance varieties, including Venetian and Southern Italian dialects, with Hebrew and Greek, which were  spoken by different groups of the Jewish

G. Vardakis (*) University of Padua, Padua, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Lavidas et al. (eds.), Internal and External Causes of Language Change, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30976-2_9

247

248 

G. Vardakis

community in their places of origin and Corfu, starting from the late fourteenth century. While we know of multilingual religious and liturgic texts written in Hebrew script, which philological research ascribes to the Corfiot Jews (see Sermoneta 1990a, 1990b; Lelli 2013), the linguistic features of such sources differ from those of Corfioto as it is spoken today. Only if it is considered a modern stage in the evolution of the ‘Judeo-­ Italian’ language(s) that some of the Corfiot Jews had spoken in Italy before their settling in Corfu, should Corfioto, as it is spoken today, be affiliated to the Corfiot ‘Judeo-Italian’ variety present in various philological and linguistic sources with glossonyms such as ‘Judeo-Corfioto’ (Massariello-Merzagora 1977), ‘pugghisu’ (Lelli 2006, 2013, 2015; Ryzhik 2018), ‘Italkian’ (Salminen 2007), ‘Corfiot(e) Italkian’ (Moseley 2010), or simply ‘Judeo-Italian’ (Salminen 2007; Moseley 2010; Eberhard et al. 2022).

1.1.1. Language Classification Based primarily on written sources of religious character and scarce linguistic descriptions representing some of its oral features (Rubin 2017; Ryzhik 2018), previous classifications of the variety of the Corfiot Jews identify it with the local ‘Judeo-Italian’ variety of Corfu.1 Hence, within the typology of Jewish languages, the Jews of Corfu are presented as speakers of a Judeo-Romance variety, which like the rest of the Judeo-­ Italian varieties spoken alongside their Italo-Romance counterparts in the Italian Peninsula, is characterized by linguistic elements common to all of them (Sermoneta and Aslanov 2007: 546; Ryzhik 2018: 94–98). Spoken Judeo-Italian appears in current classifications of the Indo-European family with different glossonyms, such as ‘Italkian’, under Gallo-Italian (Hammarström et  al. 2022, for subclassification see  Massariello-­ Merzagora 1977) or Italo-Dalmatian (Eberhard et  al. 2022). Indeed, among other Judeo-Italian varieties, which are considered to have emerged from the contact of Hebrew with local Italo-Romance varieties  The term Judeo-Italian describes the Italian group of Jewish languages (see among others Galli De’Paratesi 1992; Mayer-Modena 2003; Sermoneta and Aslanov 2007; Aprile 2012; Rubin 2017; Ryzhik 2018). 1

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

249

(see Mayer-Modena 2003; Rubin 2017; Ryzhik 2018), the language of the Corfiot Jews has been referred to as a ‘Judeo-Venetian’ variety (Massariello-Merzagora 1977: 40; Aprile 2012: 15), and has been identified with ‘pugghisu’ (‘Apulian’), namely the language of the Apulian Jews  who flew to Corfu (Sermoneta 1990a; Lelli 2013, 2015). Thus, within the Judeo-Italian panorama, it is considered a rare case of a Judeo-­ Italian variety spoken in a heteroglossic (Greek) environment (Ryzhik 2018: 97). Although the lexicon of Corfioto is mainly of Venetian origin, I argue that morphological elements and syntactic patterns of Corfioto diverge significantly from those characterizing the diachrony of Venetian (see  Ferguson 2007) and indicate the emergence of hybrid forms and structures originating in different sources, namely, different languages, in which similar patterns can be identified transparently (Bakker 2020). The analysis of data presented here indicates that the morphosyntactic features of Corfioto may not fit in standard classifications of the Romània (Bossong 2016), such as the North and South divide, particularly with respect to the verbal and the clausal domain (see  Ledgeway 2020). Synchronically, Corfioto displays features typically found in the dialects of northern Italy, for example, subject clitic forms (see  Benincà et  al. 2016; Poletto and Tortora 2016) as well as others that typically characterize the dialects of southern Italy, for example, replacement of infinitive complementation by finite clausal complementation (see Ledgeway 2013, 2016a: 269; 2016b: 1023–1027).

1.1.2. Language Vitality Assessment Corfioto, identified with ‘Corfiote Italkian’ and classified as an ‘Italkian’ (or ‘Judeo-Italian’) variety spoken in Corfu, is assessed as critically endangered, spoken by less than 50 people, according to the UNESCO Language Vitality and Endangerment Framework (UNESCO 2003, based on Salminen 2007: 250). According to Ethnologue’s Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (Eberhard et  al. 2022), Corfioto is considered endangered, while its population of speakers is estimated as small (fewer than 10,000). While a new assessment of the language vitality is urgent, it is likely that native speakers today, including

250 

G. Vardakis

heritage language speakers, are less than a hundred. Sociolinguistic data in our disposal indicate that Corfioto is not acquired as a first language (L1) anymore.

1.1.3. Documentation and Present Data The findings presented here are based on oral data collected in linguistic fieldwork that I conducted in 2019, in Corfu, Greece, and in Israel. The examples supporting my analysis come from original oral data of a total of seven informants. The data were collected via narration in Corfioto or were elicited via translation of phrases from Modern Greek or English to Corfioto. One of the informants is a female speaker who was born and raised in Corfu and acquired both Corfioto and Modern Greek as L1. The rest of the informants, among whom three are women, are heritage language speakers (see Polinsky 2018; Polinsky and Scontras 2019) raised in Israel, where the dominant language is Modern Hebrew. All of them have acquired Corfioto in the family context, while they continue to use it rarely to communicate with other speakers of Corfiot origin in Greece and Israel. Some of them also speak Modern Greek as a second heritage language.

1.2 A Historical and Sociolinguistic Overview of the Jewish Community of Corfu 1.2.1. Contact Between Greek and Italo-Romance in Corfu The Ionian Islands mark the area par excellence within the limits of modern Greece’s territory where the wide and century-long language contact between Romance and Greek has had the most important and long-­ lasting impact on the evolution of local varieties, leading to various contact-­induced phenomena, depending on the length of contact, the socio-political situation of each region, and the degree of bilingualism of different speech communities (Ralli 2019).

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

251

From the Middle Ages until the late 1950s, Italo-Romance was widely spoken in the town of Corfu, the historical, administrative, and cultural capital of the Ionian Islands. The medieval and early modern history of the island of Corfu is divided into successive short and long periods of foreign rule, starting with the century-long Venetian domination of the island (1386–1797), followed by the first French domination (1797–1799), the period of the Septinsular Republic, established under Russian and Ottoman sovereignty (1800–1807), the second period of French domination (1807–1809), and a final period during which the Ionian Islands formed an autonomous state under British protection (1815–1864). From the Venetian dominion until the union of the United States of the Ionian Islands with the Greek state (1864), Corfu seems to have formed an area of high sociolinguistic interest, considering its multilingual population and the role of diastratic variation in the use of Italian and Greek within the Corfiot society. Language contact led to the emergence of linguistic features which distinguish the Corfiot varieties within Heptanesian, namely, the group of Greek dialects spoken in the Ionian Islands (Ralli 2012: 115–116). A particular sort of diglossia and bilingualism (in the sense of Fishman 1967) would describe quite accurately the linguistic status of Corfu from the beginning of the Venetian domination (1387) until the late nineteenth century. The period of the domination of La Serenissima marked the beginning of the significant impact that the Italian and the Venetian language has had on the Heptanesian variety of Corfu, as well as on Modern Greek via subsequent diffusion of literary production of authors and intellectuals coming from the Ionian Islands (Ralli 2016). Both Italian, the fundamental official language of the Republic of Venice (Mackridge 2014: 69) and of subsequent rules of Corfu in the nineteenth century, and the so-called Venetian de là da mar (Baglioni 2016: 140) maintained a robust and widespread use among privileged social classes, namely, the nobility and the upper middle class “who wanted to distinguish themselves from the common folk, since they spoke Italian and could (but also wanted to) speak Venetian” (Banfi 2014: 316). Meanwhile, Greek continued to be spoken by the local population, particularly by peasants and members of the lower social classes, among whom a small number had some command of Venetian (Salvanos 1918: 5), and it

252 

G. Vardakis

managed to resist the pressure of Italian, since it retained its traditional prestige and the support it received from the Orthodox church (Fanciullo 2008). Thus, the sociolinguistic landscape of the Ionian Islands quite resembles that of diglossia common to all territories of La Serenissima, where Italian was recognized as the only official language, while different Italo-Romance varieties were present in the common repertoire of the local communities (Baglioni 2016: 140). At the time of the arrival of the Napoleonic army to the Ionian Islands, unlike the populations living in rural areas, the use of Italian had already been established in the family and social relations of the aristocrats. According to Soldatos (1967), the phenomenon of diglossia that prevailed in towns could not but have an essential linguistic impact on the oral language of the middle and working class. Such an influence was particularly evident in the case of Corfu, “where the foreign rule lasted more than 600 years and where the facilitated contact with Italy, the constant establishment of immigrants coming from various Italian cities, the important Jewish community speaking a corrupted version of Italian, as well as the presence of a big garrison of mercenaries of Venetian origin, led into the formation of a particular dialect (Dialetto corcirese), with numerous words of the old Venetian dialect, yet with Greek syntax” (Soldatos 1967: 86–87). The progressively extensive use of a mixed Romance variety among the members of the upper Corfiot class is also reflected in other language attitudes of the period, highlighting an ever-­ growing use of Venetian over Greek, the later considered the only language spoken by the Corfiots living in the countryside. Theotokis describes the members of the upper social stratum of the Corfiot society as speaking “a fishermen’s jargon deriving from the Venetian patois” since the Corfiots “are convinced that many terms and images in the local Greek language may reflect the customs of the common folk, and not at all the manners and the character of the upper class” (Theotokis 1826: 77). Italian’s official status was extended beyond the period of the Venetian rule. Hence, all successive rulers continued to use Italian in official acts until 1852, when Greek obtained the status of the official language of the Ionian State, 35 years after the Constitution of 1817 of the United States of the Ionian Islands had recognized Greek as the only language of public

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

253

administration and instruction (Mackridge 2014: 86–87). Contact between Greek and Italo-Romance in the Ionian Islands was further facilitated during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In fact, a great number of Greek students who had moved to Italy to study at renowned Italian universities, mainly to Padua, continued to use it even after their return to their homeland (Cortelazzo and Paccagnella 1992: 242). Meanwhile, Italian prevailed in the public sphere of Corfu, thanks to its prestige as the language of law, medicine, international trade, ‘polite society’ (Mackridge 2014: 69), and its stable use by the upper classes. Cortelazzo mentions that “the majority of the urban population in the eighteenth century was bilingual: although they kept Greek as a mother tongue, a Greek much influenced by countless borrowings, they acknowledged, at the same time, its absolute incapacity to express their thoughts beyond the family context, and easily adopted Italian as well as the dialect of Veneto in the same conditions and in the same way, in which the two languages co-existed in Venice” (Cortelazzo 1947: 46). The figures reported by Soldatos (1967: 100) shed light on the sociolinguistic landscape of the Ionian Islands in 1849, when among the 200,000 residents of the Ionian Islands,  6000 are presented to have poor knowledge of Greek and Italian, 1000 to have good knowledge of Italian and poor knowledge of Greek, and 100 to speak exclusively Italian. Sociolinguistic data together with pejorative language attitudes, such as that of Theotokis (see above, Theotokis 1826: 77), show that the so-called Venetian/Italian variety spoken in the Ionian islands bore characteristics that distinguished it from Italian or Italo-Romance varieties spoken in the Italian peninsula. The presence of distinct linguistic features in Italian spoken by Italians living in Corfu is further confirmed by Niccolò Tommaseo, who refers to the “intrusion” of Greek and Illyrian forms in local Italian (Tommaseo 1862: 169 in Soldatos 1967: 101). Tommaseo mentions that Italian was the language of the middle class of Corfu (Tommaseo 1860: 161–168), while dedicating a lemma on the dialetto corcirese (‘Corfiot dialect’) in his Dizionario estetico (1852: 117–122) and later in his Dizionario d’estetica (1860: 161–168), listing, respectively, 153 and 190 lexemes, considered

254 

G. Vardakis

typical of the variety of Corfu.2 Cortelazzo gives a clear idea of the strong presence of Italian among different groups of the Corfiot society during the Italian occupation, stating that in 1941, it was mainly the “previous generation of the nobility and the wealthy upper class as well as few commoners, who despite their age, could still remember Italian—although in an imperfect way—since their youth” (Cortelazzo 1948: 29).

1.2.2. The Jewish Presence in Corfu The Jewish presence in Corfu dates traditionally to Antiquity (Adler 1902: 10; Preschel 1984). Recent findings signify successive waves of Jews coming from Spain, Portugal, Apulia, and Sicily to Corfu starting from the late fourteenth century.3 The scrutiny of rabbinic and non-­ Jewish manuscripts indicates the presence of Sephardi and Portuguese Jews in Corfu in the years following their expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula, according to the Alhambra Decree ordered in 1492 by King Ferdinand the Catholic (Zeldes 2012: 178). While the two most significant waves of exiled Jewish populations originating from Apulia and Calabria and other provinces of the southern Kingdom of Naples, were that of 1510, the so-called Gerush Puglia (‘the Apulian Expulsion’) and that of 1541, Corfu served both as a destination and as a port of transit to the Ottoman territories for Sephardic and Portuguese Jews in the early sixteenth century. There is evidence for the settlement of new waves of Portuguese Jews in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, while written sources mention the presence of Ashkenazi Jews in the early seventeenth century (Zeldes 2012: 182). The refusal of the local Romaniote (Greek) Jews4 to accept Portuguese Jews together with the Venetian authorities’ subsequent rejection of the request of Spanish, Portuguese, and Sicilian Jews to found their own congregations in the late sixteenth century led to the gradual integration of the latter to the  However, Cortelazzo (2000: 323) and Eufe (2006: 83) argue that only a small number of them was of Venetian origin. I thank Johannes Mücke for bringing this point to my attention. 3  For an overview of the settlement of Jews from Spain and Southern Italy in Corfu see Zeldes (2012). 4  Romaniote Jews (‘Greki’) are the Jews that had arrived to Corfu through the Greek mainland much earlier in history. 2

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

255

already existent Italian congregation. However, the merge of the Sicilian and Apulian congregations into the ‘Italian’ one, which probably was already in progress in the fifteenth century, does not necessarily imply the concomitant convergence of their languages of origin, since the different Jewish groups are considered to have used their own traditions, rites, and dialects even after (Zeldes 2012: 181). Indeed, the community of Italian, Sicilian, Spanish, and Portuguese Jews is considered to have remained separate from that of the Romaniote Jews up to the early twentieth century, as attested by Adler: Even at the present day the Jews of Corfu are divided as to Minhag (religious rite) and even as to language into Greeks and Pugliesi, as the Italian community is called. The latter is now the more important of the two communities, and its members, as indeed many other Corfiots, speak a bastard Italian called Pugliese, representing the Apulian dialect of the fugitives from Italy. (Adler 1902: 114–115)

From their first settlement in the Old Fortress of Corfu until the period of the Venetian rule, the Corfiot Jews were restricted to stay, live, and work in specific areas in the town of Corfu, before moving to the Jewish quarter, typically known as ‘Evraiki’ or ‘Ovriaki’. The culminating point in their isolation from the rest of the Corfiots was that of their restriction to one residential area and the creation of a Jewish ghetto in the seventeenth century (Gekas 2004: 174). Nonetheless, except for the period of the British protectorate, historical research agrees on the presence of free exchanges between Jews and Christians, on the privileges enjoyed by Corfiot Jews, compared to the rest of the Jewish communities of La Serenissima (Baroutsos 2010), as well as on the significant social and economic status of several Corfiot Jews (see Gekas 2004; Pagratis 2012).

1.2.3. Written Language Sources of the Corfiot Jews Historical data regarding the settlement of successive waves of Jews from Spain and southern Italy on Corfu indicate that the appearance of a Romance variety within the Jewish community should ideally be dated to

256 

G. Vardakis

the first half of the fourteenth century (1510–1549), when the island of Corfu was a dominion of La Serenissima (1386–1797). Research in ‘Judeo-Italian’ languages (see Rubin 2017; Ryzhik 2018) together with previous editions and analyses of written sources associated with the Corfiot Jews (Sermoneta 1990a, 1990b; Lelli 2013) have shed light on several sociolinguistic aspects of the Jewish community and its components, supporting the idea of intense language contact among its members. In addition, philological research has revealed the existence of a significant number of texts in Hebrew script, the content of which has been associated with the language of the Apulian Jews (Lelli 2013; see Ryzhik 2013 for the analysis of some features), as well as that of official correspondence in Tuscan-Italian, including formal petitions of the Community to the Doge of Venice dating back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Steiner 1947). Lelli’s (2013: 30–35) analysis of written sources of the Corfiot Jews sheds light on the sociolinguistic aspects of the Jewish community and places language contact in the center of its history: a koiné of the Jews of Corfu referred to as ‘pugghisu’ is considered to have emerged to serve as an element of cultural mediation between the Balkan Jewry and that of southern Italy already since the late Medieval times (see also Sermoneta 1990a; Ryzhik 2018: 97–99). Essential for the analysis of religious texts (rites, hymns, prays, elegies, and midrashim) as well as for the advancing of hypotheses on the written linguistic sources of the Jewish community is the work of Sermoneta (1990a, 1990b). In his edition and translation of a series of multilingual manuscripts dating back to the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, Sermoneta highlights the problem of identifying a single dialect used at least in some of the codes of the Jewish community of Corfu. According to Sermoneta, the form of Apulian used by the translators of the originals was that spoken by the Jewish refugees to Corfu at the time of the drafting of the codes, a dialect, which apart from the “particular connotations” resembling those of some Apulian dialect, was considered to have remained unchanged since the period of the expulsion of Jews from southern Italy in the fifteenth century under the pressure and the influence of Venetian, spoken by the well-off and educated stratum of the Jewish community of Corfu (Sermoneta 1990a: 144). Crucially, Sermoneta mentions the clear presence of Ladino (Judeo-Spanish) in

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

257

bilingual poems and romanzas used by the Spanish Jews who had settled in the island. His transcription of a trilingual hymn composed by members of the Jewish community of Corfu in the early seventeenth century featuring Hebrew, Greek, and ‘Apulian’ elements is indicative of the degree of language contact between the indigenous Greek, the Apulian, and the Spanish immigrant Jews in Corfu and the Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Empire (Sermoneta 1990a: 150).

1.2.4. Previous Documentation of Oral Data It is only in the twentieth century that a description of some linguistic features of the oral language of the Corfiot Jews is made available by Belleli (1905) and Gottheil and Belleli (1901–1906) in the entries Corfu (2002–2021 [1901–1906: 269–273]) and Judeo-Greek and Judeo-Italian (2001–2022 [1901–1906: 310–313]) of the Encyclopedia Judaica. Further linguistic descriptions are offered later by Cortelazzo (1946, 1947, 1948) and Levi (1961). In his article  on Italian spoken in Corfu, Cortelazzo (1948: 29–30) mentions  three speech communities speaking Italian in Corfu: “i) the Jews, [who spoke] an Italian dialect, in its substance Venetian, though with strange colorations and archaic crystallizations, which was their mother tongue; ii) many educated people who had learned it directly in Italy, where they had finished their higher studies, and spoke Italian correctly; iii) the past generation of the nobility and of the wealthy middle-­ class population who were not very numerous and who, because of their age, still remember it, albeit imperfectly, from their youth”. Cortelazzo emphasizes the distinction between the Italian variety spoken by the Jews, namely, the ‘dialetto corfioto’ and the one spoken by the upper class of the Corfiot society, the ‘dialetto corcirese’ underlining that “the discourse of a Corfiot Jew” could not give “an exact idea of the dialetto corcirese” (Cortelazzo 1948: 33). On the contrary, he mentions that, since the latter dialect was not commonly spoken anymore, only Jews were able to offer “an approximative documentation of its living and current structure” (Cortelazzo 1948: 33). Levi compares the diastratic distinction between a low and a high variety in the Jewish community, namely, a Judeo-Apulian variety,

258 

G. Vardakis

particularly influenced by Greek and spoken by the ‘lowest classes’ of the Corfiot Jews and a ‘Venetian-like’ dialect, spoken by the most educated and wealthy members of the community. He contrasts it to the distinction between Greek and Venetian used by the peasants and the wealthy and educated non-Jewish population of Corfu, respectively (Levi 1961: 29–30), stating nonetheless that the four languages, namely, “Veneto, Apulian, Greek and Hebrew were strictly and oddly intertwined” in the oral language of the Corfiot Jews. Nachtmann (2002) analyses oral data collected in Corfu and considers the Corfiot dialect an Italian minority language (‘Minderheitssprache’). Her analysis of some sociolinguistic aspects of the Italian spoken by the informants of the Jewish community stresses the ‘linguistic adaptation’ of the Apulian Jews to the Venetian ruler (Nachtmann 2002: 14) and compares Cortelazzo’s ‘Veneto- or Venetian-based’ character of the variety (1947: 46; 1948: 29) to Sermoneta’s (1990a, 1990b) version of Corfioto as an Apulian variety: [...] there is a mixing of the tradition of translating and of Judeo-Apulian which acts like a basis, along with the influence of the Veneto dialect and of Italian used by the Jews of Corfu [...] (Sermoneta 1990b: 426); […] the final disappearance of the Jews of Corfu who spoke Apulian occurred on the day, on which they were deported and killed at the extermination camps together with the Jews belonging to the Spanish community. (Sermoneta 1990a: 141)

On the contrary, Cortelazzo observes various influences on the Venetian or Venetan basis of the variety: The Jews, who have always been a powerful and homogeneous colony of merchants, protected by all political rulers, spoke constantly a special dialect of their own, whose Venetan origins gathered infinite Italian, Maltese, Apulian, Spanish or other words, imported via immigration and movement of people, which occurred incessantly within the flourishing community. (Cortelazzo 1947: 46)

Although their contribution to understanding the social dynamics of the linguistic practices of the Corfiot Jews is valuable for a relative

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

259

classification of the dialect with respect to other geographically or historically affiliated varieties spoken by the members of the Jewish community and the Corfiot society, the use of the terms ‘venezianeggiante’ (Venetianlike) or ‘giudeo-pugliese’ (Judeo-Apulian) found in the aforementioned sources remains controversial. While the studies of Cortelazzo (1946, 1947, 1948) and Levi (1961) are based on remarks and descriptions of original oral data collected in Corfu and in Israel, supporting the affinities of the language of the Jews with the varieties spoken in Veneto and Apulia, the insufficient quantity of their data underlines the need for a finer analysis of oral data registered in the twentieth century (see Levi and Leydi 1956–1969). As it has been highlighted, the historical research supports that the composition of the ‘Italian’ or ‘Apulian’ Jewish community of Corfu cannot imply the use of a single original language spoken by its entirety. But even if the language of the Apulian Jews has supposedly prevailed over the rest of the Romance languages spoken by the non-Greek Jews, the term ‘Judeo-Apulian’ remains unclear.5 Since the geographical area of Apulia is traditionally divided into two dialectal sub-groups: (a) the varieties belonging to ‘Pugliese’, an Italo-Romance dialectal group of the upper Italian South and (b) the southern group of the area of Apulia, called ‘Salentino’, which along with  the dialects of central-southern Calabria and Sicily, belong to the extreme Southern Italian dialects (see Aprile et al. 2002: 679; Ledgeway 2016a: 246), naming the language of the Corfiot Jews ‘Apulian’ is rather inadequate. In fact, the abundant written production of the Apulian Jews of Corfu dating to a period between the late sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century (Sermoneta 1990a), presents a language which displays features of Salentino and not of the upper Southern Italian varieties (see Aprile et al. 2002: 710–711). Such a conclusion is further supported by oral data presented by Levi (1961: 30–31), who distinguishes between a ‘less contaminated and more ancient Judeo-Apulian’, used by some Corfiot Jews as a medium of translation of paraliturgic texts, and a ‘JudeoCorfiot Veneto-Apulian koiné of the ghetto’. In fact, the data presented by Levi display morphological features typical of Venetian such as  I thank an anonymous reviewer for stressing this point to me.

5

260 

G. Vardakis

subject clitics, for example, el and ti or the indirect object clitic ghe in the examples he cites, for example, el zérka ke ghe párlo antichitó he wants me to talk to him in the old language, ti vol ke te béva ‘na kúpa de aqua? ‘do you want to drink a cup of water?’. I leave the analysis of these data for the future.

2 Two Contact-Induced Phenomena in Corfioto All previous linguistic descriptions of oral data of the Corfiot Jews point to the impact of contact between different languages in their repertoire (Gottheil and Belleli 1901–1906; Cortelazzo 1946, 1947, 1948; Nachtmann 2002; Mücke 2019; Vardakis 2019, 2021). They stress the divergence between its lexical elements, which show clear affinities to Venetian/Italian and Hebrew, and several syntactic patterns, mainly in the domain of clausal complementation, which seem to replicate those found in southern Italy and Greece (Vardakis 2021). I hereby propose a contact-based analysis of two linguistic phenomena of the language, namely, (a) the morphological distinction between a perfective auxiliary and a lexical/modal auxiliary verb paradigm originating in the same Latin etymon of the verb ‘have’ and (b) the ‘have’ future periphrasis. Similar to the co-presence of a morphophonologically specialized auxiliary paradigm of the verb ‘have’ along with a lexical one denoting ‘possession’ in various Romance languages such as Romanian, Gascon, Sardinian, Catalan, Neapolitan, and Corsican (Ledgeway 2011: 423; 2012: 128; 2017: 849), it is argued that two morphophonological verb paradigms of the verb ‘have’ pointing to the same Latin etymon habere co-exist in Corfioto: (a) an auxiliary morphological paradigm used to form the analytic ‘compound’ past perfective tense, for example, ano torná ‘(they) returned’ and (b) a lexical one, which has preserved the lexical meaning of ‘have’ expressing possession, for example, la mía mujér ɣená fin a ógi líbro ‘my wife still today has (a) book’. Moreover, the latter shares a grammatical meaning in the analytic future form (hereinafter ‘future periphrasis’) also denoting deontic modality or necessity, for example, ɣenó ke ɣe párlo a kuélo lá ‘I will(/have to) talk to this one’.

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

261

The analysis of the emergence of both features follows a short description of tense and mood in Corfioto. I first argue that the emergence of a dual verb paradigm (auxiliary vs lexical) of the verb ‘have’, commonly described as a typical language-internal process across the Romance languages (Ledgeway 2012: 127–140), is an outcome of a dual path of grammaticalization in Corfioto. The ‘have’ future periphrasis formed according to the pattern ɣenó ‘have’ + ke + finite verb form, which is present in several Balkan languages (Friedman 2017) and Southern Italian varieties is analyzed next.

2.1 Tense and Mood in Corfioto Tense and mood in Corfioto are partially encoded in verb morphology. Corfioto distinguishes between actions pertaining to the present, for example, vád-o (go-1sg) ‘I go/I am going’ and the past, further distinguishing between a past imperfective, for example, andá-v-o ‘go-ipfv-1sg’ and a  perfective aspect, for example, o ndá (1sg.aux.1sg go.ptcp) ‘I went’. With respect to mood, Corfioto distinguishes between an indicative, for example, ɣen-á (have-sg) ‘he/she/it has’ and a second non-indicative or grosso modo irrealis mood, which is phonologically marked in the 1sg, 2sg, 3sg, and 3sg of some verb inflectional classes, hereinafter referred to as ‘subjunctive’. The indicative/subjunctive opposition is partially marked on some forms of certain inflectional classes via inflection, for example, ti kréd-e (2scl believe-sg) ‘you believe’ vs ti no ɣen-á ke te lo kréd-a (2scl neg have-sg prt 2cl-sg.subj) ‘you will not believe it’; ti bév-e (2scl drink-sg) ‘you drink’ vs ti vol ke t’bév-a? (2scl want prt 2scl drink-sg) ‘do you want to drink?’ or root alternation of the lexical verb form, for example, va vía (go.sg away) ‘he/she/it leaves’ vs ɣen-á ke vád-a vía (have-­ sg prt go.subj-sg away) ‘he/she/it will (has to) leave’. Either morphologically marked or not, the inflected subjunctive verb form is obligatorily introduced by the particle ke. In Corfioto, future is expressed either by use of present forms pertaining to future events, for example, va vía (leave.3sg away) ‘he leaves (will leave)’ or through a future periphrasis of deontic value, formed by a finite form of the future auxiliary ɣenó ‘have’ followed by the particle ke and an

262 

G. Vardakis

embedded finite verb form which agrees with the verb of the matrix for person and number either via verb inflection, for example, ɣen-á ke vád-a vía (have-3sg prt go.subj-sg away) ‘(he/she/it) will (has to) leave’, or via the presence of a subject clitic for the 2sg ti ɣen-á ke ti krómp-a la káza (2scl have-sg prt 2scl buy-subj.sg def.sg.f home-sg.f ) ‘you will (have to) buy the house’. Root alternation is clearly shown in the future periphrasis of ‘have’, for example, ɣen-á ke ɣábi-a ‘(he/she/it) will have’, where the two roots ɣen- and ɣáb- of the verb ‘have’ co-occur, the second one originating in the Venetian verb form gábi-a (have.subj-2/3sg) (Ferguson 2007: 157). Our data indicate the loss of infinitive complementation in Corfioto and its replacement by morphologically finite verb complements regardless of the lexical semantics of the matrix predicate. Hence, Corfioto seems to follow the typical verb complementation pattern of the Balkan languages (see Sandfeld 1930; Joseph 1983), while violating the so-called obviation effect (Ledgeway 2016b: 1014, 1023), a central morphosyntactic feature of Standard Romance.6

2.2 Morphophonological Specialization in the Paradigm of the Verb ‘Have’ Corfioto distinguishes between two morphological paradigms of the verb ‘have’ both originating in the Latin verb habere ‘have’: 1. a phonologically reduced auxiliary form ó (aux.1sg) (hereinafter referred to as ‘perfective auxiliary’), which precedes the participle form of the lexical verb as in (1), and which is used to form the perfective analytic compound past, alternating in limited cases with verb forms of the paradigm of the auxiliary ɣo ‘aux.1sg’ as in (2); (1)

ti a scl.2sg=aux.sg

kapí-o? understand-ptcp

‘Did you understand?’  The phenomenon of obviation refers to the mandatory disjoint reference between the subject of a subjunctive complement and the attitude-holder subject of the matrix, for example, Fr. *Je veux que je parte. ‘I want for me to leave’. 6

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced…  (2)

ɣo

aux.1sg

263

fáto el fradél do.ptcp def.sg.m brother.sg.m

‘I made the brother (I gave birth to the brother).’

2. and a verb form ɣen-ó with a lexical meaning ‘possess’ as in (3), for example, as well as an auxiliary function, forming the future periphrasis of deontic value indicating ‘necessity’ (or ‘obligation’) (Fleischman 1982: 66; Adams 1991) or ‘predestination’ (Benveniste 1968: 90), as in (4); Despite relative variation, the two verb paradigms show the following distinct forms (Table 9.1). (3)

mi   ɣen-ó    le 1sg   have-1sg def.pl.f ‘I have the keys.’

(4)

se conj

cáv-e. key

npós-o, ɣen-ó ke te lo díɣ-ο. can-1sg have.prs-1sg prt ocl.2sg ocl.3sg.m say-1sg

‘If I can, I will it say it to you.’

On the one hand, perfective verb forms in Corfioto, for example, a mpará (aux.sg learn-ptcp) follow the typical Romance pattern of desemanticization, decategorialization, and grammaticalization, of the Latin auxiliary habere ‘have’, deriving from a lexical predicate indicating possession, for example, Vnz. el ga invenciá tánto (3scl  aux.sg age-ptcp much) (Ledgeway 2012: 130), which leads to semantic integration and grammatical dependence between the auxiliary form and the verb

Table 9.1  Morphophonological specialization in the paradigm of the verb ‘have’ in Corfioto Perfective auxiliary

Lexical and future auxiliary ‘have’

ɣ(o) ɣ(a) ɣ(a) ɣ(amo) avo ano

ɣen-ó ɣen-á ɣen-á ɣav-émo ɣav-é ɣen-áno

264 

G. Vardakis

complement form according to the path [verb] + [verb] > [aux] + [verb] (Ledgeway 2011: 423). It seems that the perfective auxiliary ‘have’ paradigm in Corfioto originates in the Early Venetian finite forms of aver ‘have’, for example, ho (1sg) ‘I have’, ha (2/3sg) ‘you have’, since the univerbation of the clitic ghe to the verb paradigm of aver of Modern Venetian is still optional in Middle Venetian (Ferguson 2007: 149). However, the inflectional morphology of the paradigm of Corfioto and Venetian show significant differences.7 The emergence of the paradigm of the verb ɣen-ó is particularly difficult to date. Nonetheless, evidence coming from the diachronic analysis of the verb form go ‘have’ in numerous varieties of the Veneto dialectal group (Penello 2004) seem to support the idea of the progressive fusion of the locative proclitic ghe and the partitive ne to a verb form ó (have.1sg). Based on the presence of a locative/partitive proclitic nexus in various Veneto varieties and the distribution of the locative particle ghe with respect to the gradual language change and synchronic microvariation in the northern dialects of Italy (Paoli 2020), I argue that the verb form ɣen-ó is the outcome of a univerbation process (Lehmann 2015, 2020) of the proclitic ɣe and the partitive clitics n(e) to a verb form ó ‘have’. In this case, the emergence of the form ɣen-ó does not differ significantly from the lexicalization process of the Veneto form gavér, created from the fusion of the particle ɣe with the reflex of the Latin habere > avér (see Rohlfs 1968: 274; 1969: 253–254; Marcato and Ursini 1998: 325; Benincà 2007: 28; Ferguson 2007: 149; Paoli 2020) or the optional procliticization of the equivalent forms ce and ne to the forms of ‘have’ in colloquial Italian, for example, hai sigarette?, c’hai sigarette?, ce n’hai (di) sigarette? ‘do you have cigarettes?’, ne ho cinque, ce n’ho cinque ‘I have five’.8 The verb paradigm of the lexical/future auxiliary ‘have’ retains the forms ɣavémo and ɣavé of Venetian in the 1pl and 2pl, respectively (Ferguson 2007: 149), leading to a conflation of two verb roots into a single, suppletive paradigm where their distribution alternates between the 1sg, 2sg, 3sg, 3pl, and the 2pl and 3pl according to the Romance  Middle Venetian presents forms of the auxiliary aver where ghe is optionally elided, for example, 1SG gh’ho/ho, 2SG gh’a/ha (Ferguson 2007: 149). 8  I thank an anonymous reviewer for mentioning these cases. 7

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

265

N-pattern of verb root alternation (Maiden 2011: 219; 2016: 712). Although the two allomorphs ɣen- and ɣav- share a same etymon habere, the N-distribution of the alternants seems to replicate the stress differentiation pattern found elsewhere in Romance (‘rhizotony’ vs ‘arrhizotony’), operating in this case through the reanalysis of the Venetian root ɣav- and the novel root ɣen-, which conflate suppletively into a single paradigm in Corfioto and reflect a morphological innovation common across Romance (Maiden 2016).9 Considering that the most important condition for the process of fusion to take place is the frequency of juxtaposition of two linguistic elements (Traugott and Heine 1991: 9), once desemanticisation, decategorialisation, and erosion (morphophonological weakening) of ɣe and ne are completed, the two forms are successively agglutinated as a unique prefixal nexus to the inflectional morphology of the finite verb form ó ‘have’. According to Paoli (2020: 11), the primary function of the locative morpheme g in Veneto dialects was to distinguish between a lexical and an auxiliary form avér. This divergence in the formation of two paradigms of ‘have’ in the varieties of Veneto can be used as an argument in favor of the emergence of the form ɣenó as a pure language-internal process of the Venetian component of Corfioto at a point following that of intense contact between different Italo-Romance varieties. Such a development does not contradict the fact that various Romance varieties have developed morphophonological specialization of an auxiliary paradigm via internal change, namely, a phonologically reduced clitic paradigm acquiring more grammatical properties along a lexical one (Ledgeway 2012: 128), for example, Nap. auxiliary a(i)mmo/a(i)te versus lexical avimmo/avite ‘we/you have’ (Ledgeway 2009: 382–386). The scenario of maintaining the distinction between two morphological paradigms of the verb ‘have’, a lexical/future auxiliary ɣen-ó and the perfective auxiliary ó as a result of grammatical replication, is tenable, considering the presence of the same dual paradigm in the northern and southern dialects of Italy. The prefixation of a locative to the lexical verb  The N-pattern is a distributional morphomic template of root allomorphy in the inflectional morphology of Romance verbs, created as a result of high degree of morphologization of a stress alternation pattern between the root-stressed 1.SG.PRS 2SG.PRS. 3SG.PRS cells and the non-­ root-­stressed 1.PL and 2.PL cells of the verb paradigm (Maiden 2016: 712). 9

266 

G. Vardakis

‘have’ meaning ‘possession’ is a widespread phenomenon in Veneto, for example, gavémo (have-1PL), as well as in the dialects of southern Italy, for instance, southern Calabrian, where the locative ndi (< inde) is prefixed only to the lexical but not to the auxiliary forms of ‘have’ aj-u ‘aux. have-1sg’, for example, ndaj-u la frévi ‘I have fever’, ndai fame ‘you are hungry’ (Rohlfs 1968: 541). I claim that the analytic perfective past form ó + past participle, for example, o maniá ‘I ate’ in Corfioto instantiates a case of pattern morphological borrowing (Matras 2015: 107; see Gardani 2020) of the aoristic aspect of the synthetic (simple) past verb forms in the Italian dialects of the extreme South (see Bertinetto and Squartini 2016: 948), for example, Cz. trová-v-i (find-pst.prf-1sg ‘I found’ (Ledgeway 2016a: 260) replicated in the typical analytic past perfective form go ‘have’ + past participle of the Veneto varieties, for example, (g)o magná ‘I have eaten’. Hence, the analytic past form in Corfioto encodes the aoristic aspect of the synthetic past tense forms vitti and vidisti, present in the variety considered to be spoken by the ‘Apulian’ Jews (Gottheil and Belleli  2002–2021 [1901–1906]) by means of typical morphological elements of Venetian. Further evidence in favor of borrowing of the past aoristic aspect comes from the mandatory auxiliary selection of the verb ó ‘have’ for all lexical verbs, regardless of their semantic class, for example, ano nda (aux.3pl go-ptcp) ‘they went’ or reflexive verbs, for example, s’ano spozá ‘they got married’ in Corfioto as spoken today. It is suggested that although the distribution of the clitic auxiliary ‘have’ shows adjacency with the past participle form and speakers describe perfective forms as a single ‘word’, for example, o-maniá ‘1sg.pst-eat’, data show possible insertion of an adverb of manner between the auxiliary and the participle form, for example, o ben maniá e m’o stumbosá ‘I ate well and I am full’, indicating that this is an analytic verb form typically found in Romance. To sum up, it is possible that the initial distinction between the two paradigms, the perfective auxiliary and the lexical/future auxiliary verb, may have been triggered as a language-internal grammaticalization effect, following a pattern common to the Northern as well as the southern Italian dialects. However, the retention of the two paradigms in Corfioto seems to reflect a deeper and intense ‘aoristic drift’ of the ‘perfective past’ of Venetian due to contact with the typical synthetic ‘aoristic past’ of the

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

267

southern varieties of Italy originally spoken by some Corfiot Jews. It is argued that the retention of such a binary system may replicate the morphological and semantic distinction between a lexical/auxiliary verb and a perfective auxiliary verb ‘have’, present in some of the varieties which were spoken by previous generations of modern bilingual speakers. In other words, it is argued that the emergence of such a binary system may copy a double system of the phonetically reduced auxiliary ‘weak’ verb paradigm of the verb ‘have’ and replicate the morphological and semantic distinction between the lexical/auxiliary verb ɣenó and the perfective auxiliary ó of the two paradigms, present in one of the Romance varieties spoken by the speakers before their settlement in Corfu. This explanation is a first attempt to explain the emergence of the dual verb paradigm of ‘have’ in Corfioto originating in the same etymon habere, supported by evidence in language-internal grammaticalization processes in Venetian and parallel morphological patterns in a southern Italian dialect.

2.3 Future Periphrasis The indicative present form of the verb in Corfioto (6) expresses events pertaining to future, sharing the same widespread temporal flexibility of the present tense conveying future reference with Standard Italian (5) (Berretta 1993), various dialects of Italy (Cordin 1997: 87), and in general, Romance, without significant areal restrictions (Bertinetto and Squartini 2016: 940) as in (6); (5) guárd-a,  il    tren-o párt-e!            (Italian) look-imp.2sg  def.sg.m train-m leave-prs.3sg ‘Look, the train is leaving!’ (6) lu va vía. 3sg.m go.prs.sg away ‘He leaves’ (‘He will leave’).

The future periphrasis in Corfioto (7) consists of a finite form of the verb ɣen-ó ‘have’ followed by an embedded finite verb form of the lexical verb, marked for subject agreement with the auxiliary. The embedded

268 

G. Vardakis

finite form is introduced by the particle ke, while the finite form of the lexical verb form is inflected for subjunctive and shows morphological agreement in person and number with the future auxiliary ‘have’ (7) except for the 2sg, where agreement is operated via the presence of the clitic subject ti/te preceding the future auxiliary form (8). (7) lu    ɣen-á      ke   vád-a      via. 3sg.m have-2/3sg  prt go.subj-2/3sg  away ‘He will (has to) leave.’ (8) ti    ɣen-á         ke   te     vád-a           via. scl.2sg have-prs.sg  prt  scl.2sg   subj-2/3sg   away ‘Do you want to leave?’

Unlike its diachronic presence in Venetian, as well as in most Romance languages, where future forms are synthetic, arising from the typical grammaticalization pattern of gradual agglutination to the infinitive of the lexical verb habere as an inflection morpheme cantare habet > Fr. chantera, It. canterà, Sp. cantará, Vnz. cantar-á (see Fleischman 1982; Adams 1991; Hopper and Traugott 1993: 42–44), which I consider the main lexifier (replica) language in Corfioto, the absence of synthetic future forms seems to point to the replication of a corresponding analytic structure, according to a generalized finite complementation path found in the southern dialects of Italy and the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund. The formation of the analytic future periphrasis seems to follow a grammaticalization path inherited by the Latin habeo ad/de cantar periphrasis in conjunction with a transitive infinitive found also in Latin, for example, nihil habe-o ad te scriber ‘I don’t have anything to write’, moving semantically from unrealized actions toward a deontic modality, obligation, or necessity meaning, for example, quid habui facere? ‘what was I supposed to do?’. The future periphrasis in Corfioto therefore instantiates a case of a future construction where tense interacts with modality. The pattern is common to several Romance languages, including Old Tuscan, southern dialects of Italy, Ibero-Romance and Balkan Romance (Loporcaro 1997: 345; Ledgeway 2012: 124; 2016a: 256; Bertinetto and Squartini 2016: 951), where infinitival (9) and (10) or subjunctival future periphrases (11) have arisen by adjoining a subordinative form of the

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

269

lexical verb to a functional word originating in volitional, motion, and deontic modal verbs (Bertinetto and Squartini 2016: 951), for example: (9)

aju     a   turn-ari     subbitu.           have.1sg  prep return-inf  at.once ‘I’ll come back at once.’ (Ledgeway 2012: 124)

(10) ap’       a   cantare.               have.prs.1sg.  prep   sing-inf ‘I will sing.’ (Mensching and Remberger 2016: 270) (11) am     să   plătesc.                 have.1sg  prt  pay.1sg ‘I will pay.’ (Maiden 2016: 110)

Besides Romance, where habeo is the major source from which new synthetic futures have been formed, the same grammaticalization path for the expression of future is also attested in the history of the Greek verb ého ‘have’ in the ého + infinitive and the na + finite verb form periphrases, for example, éhomen pros Sotírichon elthín ‘we have to (will go) to Sotirichos’, ého na dulépso apópse ‘I have to do work tonight’ (Markopoulos 2009: 64–65). The semantic correlation between the future and the deontic modality or necessity reading in Corfioto is much more evident in utterances where the latter is stronger, for example, áma ɣavémo ke manjémo karkóza ‘but we have to eat something’ or lu ɣená ke aspéta ‘he has/needs to wait’. The analytic future in Corfioto displays replacement of the infinitive form of the lexical verb in the replica language by an embedded finite complementation phrase, in accordance with general loss of infinitive complementation and its extended replacement by morphologically finite verb forms in Balkan-type complementation (Sandfeld 1930; Joseph 1983; Asenova 2002). However, the presence of infinitive forms in the future analytic form ‘have’ + a (< ad) + infinitive in Salentino and Pugliese, and the synthetic inflectional morphology of the type cantare habet in Venetian, on the other hand, suggests that the emergence of the future periphrasis in Corfioto is a result of the extension of a replication process in which the typical Romance grammaticalization pathway of auxiliation (Heine 1993: 45–48) in the future periphrasis habeo ad/de

270 

G. Vardakis

cantar has been replicated but an equivalent ‘have’ analytic structure, already present in the repertoire of some of the Corfiot Jews most likely speaking a southern dialect of Italy, such as Salentino or Calabrian, or Greek. Interestingly, some evidence for the absence of a synthetic future and the presence of a single future analytic form in Corfioto dates back to the early twentieth century. Comparing the language of the Jewish community of Corfu to the ‘language of Apulia’, namely, the language of the Apulian (Italian) Corfiot Jews spoken in the Italian peninsula, Gottheil and Belleli notice that the future tense in Apulia and in Corfu is formed by use of the auxiliary ‘have’, unlike ‘Apulian’, where the auxiliary is followed either by an infinitive complement or a co-referential embedded verb complement introduced by mu or mi (Gottheil and Belleli 1901–1906: 312). On the contrary, the authors state that Apulian Jews of Corfu use only the future form anzu cu dicu ‘I will say’, while infinitive forms are retained in their language only as morphological residues, as is the case of nominalized infinitives preceded by a definite article, for example, lu manzar ‘the food’, lu mbiviri ‘the drink’.10 However, Gottheil and Belleli’s description of the analytic future in Corfioto in comparison with that of ‘Apulian’ is considered rather inexact, since the particles mu, mi, and cu have been identified as morphosyntactic features of distinct extreme Southern Italian varieties  (Ledgeway 2006). Hence, although the particles cu and mu/mi cited by the authors head irrealis (subjunctive) complement clauses in the dialects of southern Italy typically displaying a dual complementizer system (Ledgeway 2013, 2016a: 269; 2016b: 1018; 2020), the ‘have’ + a + infinitive future periphrasis is present in the Pugliese and Salentino dialects of Apulia, for example, àggiu (a) ddire / àggiu (a) ddiri ‘I will (have to) say’, while only the dialects of southern Calabria make use of the particles mu/mi, for example, vogghiu mu (mi) mangia ‘I want to eat’, vuogghiu mu lu vigghiu ‘I want to see him’.11  Morphological residues of infinitival forms are present in the speakers’ repertoire, adapted though to the noun morphology of Venetian, for example, el manjár ‘the food’. 11  There is extended literature on the dual complementizer system in southern dialects of Italy (see among others Rohlfs 1969: 190; Calabrese 1993; Manzini and Savoia 2005 I: 455–501, 650–76; Bertocci and Damonte 2007; Damonte 2011; Ledgeway 2006). 10

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

271

Assuming that the construction anzu ku diku in data presented by Gottheil and Belleli (1901–1906) represents a form similar to the future periphrasis in Corfioto in the beginning of the twentieth century, it can be argued that the future periphrasis in Corfioto, for example, ɣenó ke díko  (have-1sg prt say-1sg) ‘I will say’ has emerged as a grammatical replication phenomenon (Heine and Kuteva 2005: 92), namely, as an effect of contact-induced grammaticalization between Italo-Romance and Greek, a process that corresponds to some extent to the concepts of mutual isomorphism (Matras 1998) and metatypy (Ross 2007: 124). Considering the systematically attested reduction of infinitive forms in Corfioto and the strong presence of infinitive verb forms in the future periphrasis in Salentino and Pugliese probably interfering with Venetian and Modern Greek, together with the extended and intense bilingualism of the Corfiot Jews, I claim that the future periphrasis in Corfioto is an effect of replica grammaticalization (Heine and Kuteva 2005: 92) of the deontic future category of southern Italian dialects, most probably Salentino or Pugliese, copied on the Modern Greek analytic form ého + na + finite verb expressing future and deontic modality, for example, ého na fáo ‘I have to eat’ by use of morphological elements of Venetian. Moreover, this hypothesis may provide a contact-induced analysis of the formation of the dual paradigm of the verb ‘have’ in Corfioto, meaning that the formation of ɣen-ó is distinct from that of the perfective auxiliary ó, having attained a further stage of grammaticalization in Corfioto as an internal diachronic development in Venetian. I consider the future periphrasis of Corfioto the result of a replication process on the model of the grammaticalization path of the Greek verb ého ‘have’, which in Modern Greek shares both a grammatical, for example, ého fái ‘I have eaten’, and a lexical meaning, for example, ého ta práɣmata ‘I have the things’. Like in other cases of grammatical replication, what is copied in the replica language, here Corfioto, is not the grammatical category of deontic necessity in toto, but the grammaticalization process in the model language (Heine and Kuteva 2005: 94), via which a language-specific use pattern of the lexical ‘have’ in Corfioto attains the same degree of grammaticalization of the corresponding deontic modality and future category most probably in Salentino, by means of the ého + na construction of Greek, through the lexicon and morphology of Venetian.

272 

G. Vardakis

In other words, the hypothesis advanced is that the future periphrasis avere + a + infinitive, namely, the deontic analytic future form present in a Southern Italian (‘Apulian’) variety of some Corfiot Jews, has been replicated in Corfioto through a similar morphosyntactic pattern in Greek by use of elements of the replica language, namely, Venetian. The replication of the process includes replacement of the finite or infinitival form of the lexical verb of the source language by an embedded finite verb form, in accordance with general loss of infinitival complementation and expansion of its replacement by finite complementation in the syntax of Corfioto.

2.4 An Areal Linguistics Explanation to Contact-­Induced Grammaticalization: Evidence from the Balkan Sprachbund While the so-called de-volitive future is one of the uncontroversial features that have been adduced to define the Balkan Sprachbund (Schaller 1975), in alignment with the cross-linguistically widespread grammaticalization of the volitional verb ‘want’ to a future tense auxiliary (Bybee et al. 1994), the ‘want’ future construction, attested in the Middle Ages for Greek, Romance, and Slavic, competes in the Balkan languages with an analytic future periphrasis of necessitative origin, which arouse from the grammaticalization of the verb ‘have’ followed by an analytic subjunctive or infinitive form (Friedman 2017). Assuming that the necessitative value of the verb ɣenó ‘have’ in the future periphrasis ɣenó ke of Corfioto points to the grammaticalization path of the Latin infinitival periphrasis habeo ad/de cantar, widely attested in the central and southern Italian varieties (13), infinitival reduction and its replacement by embedded finite complementation phrases in Corfioto can be seen as a process parallel to that of the Romanian analytic future avea ‘have’ + să + finite verb, for example, o să plouă ‘it will rain’ (Bertinetto and Squartini 2016: 951) or to that of Griko (12), an Italo-Greek variety, where the invariable form ènna of future deontic or simple deontic modality has been analyzed as a possible remnant of the Greek periphrasis ého na ‘I have to’ (Baldissera 2013: 116). In an areal perspective of contact in the Balkans, the ‘have’ future periphrasis is considered a secondary Balkan

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

273

future, attested already in Early Medieval Greek (Markopoulos 2009), in some Modern Greek dialects (Blanken 1951), as well as in previous stages of the Balkan languages (Altimari 2005). (12) àvvri     ènna      pulizzèss-ome in     akklisìa.    (Griko) tomorrow have.aux clean-1pl     def.sg.f   church ‘Tomorrow we will clean the church’. (Baldissera 2013: 32) (13) àiu    mu vài-u mu vìj-u  duv’   ài-u   mu vài-u òja. (Sant’Andrea, Cz.) have-1sg prt go-1sg prt see-1sg  where  go-1sg  prt go-1sg today ‘I have to go and see where I have to go today’. (Ledgeway 2013: 188)

Infinitival retreat and its replacement by finite verb complement is highlighted as the most remarkable morphosyntactic feature of the language of Corfiot Jews in all previous studies (Belleli 1905; Gottheil and Belleli 1901–1906; Cortelazzo 1948; Levi 1961; Nachtmann  2002; Mücke 2019; Vardakis 2019, 2021). Although marginal, the presence of the complementizer ku of Salentino (see Ledgeway 2003, 2013 among others) is confirmed in oral data registered in the twentieth century, where the language of the Corfiot Jews of ‘Apulian’ origin is reproduced (14) as well as in recent oral data (15). (14) vóɟɟ-u    ku    vá-u   ku  mándʒ-u. want-1sg   prt   go-1sg   prt   eat-1sg ‘I want to go to eat’ (Levi and Leydi 1961: AELM 24) (15) voj-o   ku  vád-o   ke   tróv-o un   korfjót-o. want   prt   go-1sg PRT     find   indf    Corfioto ‘I want to go to find a Corfiot’ (Mücke 2019: 228)

Unlike Southern Italian dialects, such as Salentino (16) and Balkan languages, such as Modern Greek (17), where the realis/irrealis distinction is typically marked via a dual complementizer system, for example, Sal. ka vs ku and MGr. oti vs na and not via morphological alternation (but see Bertocci and Damonte 2007; Damonte 2011; Ledgeway and Lombardi 2014; Colasanti 2018), all types of finite complementation clauses in Corfioto are introduced via a single particle ke, while the indicative/subjunctive opposition is encoded morphologically in verb inflection only for certain inflectional classes, as in (18) and (19).

274 

G. Vardakis

(16) lu       Cárlu ol-e     cu  bben-e    crai. def.sg.m  Carlu  want-3sg  prt   come-3sg tomorrow. ‘Carlu wants to come tomorrow.’ (17) o        Giorg-os      thél-i  na   fá-i. def.sg.m   Giorgos-nom.sg   want-3sg prt eat.pnp-3sg ‘Giorgos wants to eat.’ (18) el     Márko vol     ke  máni-a. def.sg.m   Marko want-2/3sg prt  eat-2/3sg ‘Marco wants to eat.’ (19) la    Sándra vol      ke véd-a      la    káz-a. def.sg.f  Sandra want-2/3sg prt see.- subj.2/3sg def.sg.f house-sg.f ‘Sandra wants to see the house.’

The  replacement of the infinitive by analytic verb forms in Balkan Romance has been documented early and is considered a primary Balkanism, namely, a major common feature of the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund (see Sandfeld 1930; Joseph 1983; Asenova 2002; Friedman 2017; Krapova and Joseph 2018, among others). Original oral data support the idea of regular and consistent loss of infinitival forms in verb complementation and their extended replacement by  embedded finite verb forms, which are introduced by the complementizer/particle ke [ke]/[ce], and may show agreement in person and in number with the verb of the matrix, as in (20) and (21).12 (20) vád-o    ke  lo    dík-o. go.prs.1sg prt 3ocl.sg.m   say.prs-1s ‘I am going to say it (I will say it).' (Cortelazzo 1948: 32) (21) vój-o     ke   vád-o  a   káz-a. want-prs.1sg prt   go-1sg prep   home-fem.sg ‘I want to go home’

Arguments in favor of the reduction of infinitival complementation in Italo-Greek and Romance varieties (see Ledgeway 2013) under the century-­long use of Greek in southern Italy (Falcone 1973: 12–38; Horrocks 1997: 304–306; Manolessou 2005: 112, 121; Ralli 2006: 133), as well as in the evolution of verb complementation in Balkan Romance,  For an analysis of oral data presented in Cortelazzo (1948) and Levi (1961) in comparison to some recent oral data, see Mücke (2019). 12

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

275

for instance, in Romanian, or in Balkan Judezmo (Friedman and Joseph 2014), can facilitate, accelerate, and found a highly plausible explanation of the analytic periphrasis of Corfioto as an effect of contact-induced grammaticalization. It is within the bipartite distinction between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ Balkanisms (Schaller 1975) that Baldissera (2013) advances her hypothesis of a ‘periphery’ of the Balkan Sprachbund, applied to languages that share some part of the properties of the Balkan languages and were partially involved in the historical phenomena leading to the creation of the Balkan Sprachbund. The concept of a ‘periphery’ of the Balkan Sprachbund allows to integrate languages, some features of which indicate strong divergence from linear internal diachronic evolution and point to an explanation of these features as effects of language contact-­ induced grammaticalization already proven in languages belonging to the same or to the wider geographical area of South-Eastern Europe. Such a hypothesis could support an explanation of infinitival reduction and loss and its replacement by finite complementation in Corfioto as an areal contact-induced phenomenon attested in languages that may not present all the core linguistic features of the Balkan Sprachbund (see Friedman and Joseph 2017), suggesting further investigation of the impact of contact as well as possibility of identifying Balkanisms in other grammatical domains of Corfioto.

3 Conclusions In this chapter I have presented historical, sociolinguistic, and purely linguistic evidence to analyze (a) the emergence and retention of a dual verb paradigm of the verb ‘have’ and (b) the future periphrasis in Corfioto, as outcomes of contact-induced change in Corfioto, the endangered Romance variety of the Jewish community of Corfu. I argued here that the morphophonological distinction between a perfective auxiliary and a lexical/future auxiliary verb paradigm of the verb ‘have’ in Corfioto, etymologically related to the Latin verb habere, as well as the future periphrasis ɣenó ke + finite verb diverge from similar morphosyntactic structures in the diachronic evolution of Venetian, from which Corfioto has

276 

G. Vardakis

borrowed lexical and morphological elements, while they seem to replicate similar morphosyntactic structures of Southern Italian dialects and Greek. In accordance with previous written and recent oral data where infinitive complementation is replaced by finite verb complementation in Corfioto, it is argued that the retention of morphophonological specialization of the perfective auxiliary ‘have’ in Corfioto has replicated the morphological and semantic distinction between a lexical/auxiliary verb and a perfective auxiliary verb ‘have’, present before in some of the varieties spoken by the Corfiot Jews in their places of origin, and widely attested in Romance. On the other hand, while the ɣenó + ke + finite verb future periphrasis in Corfioto seems to originate in the typical grammaticalization path of the Latin habere ad/de cantare periphrasis, it is suggested that its emergence is parallel to that of the future have + particle periphrasis attested in Greek following the reduction and loss of finite complementation and its generalized replacement by finite complementation clauses in the Balkan Sprachbund. Moreover, I have proposed that the latter development can be interpreted in Corfioto as a contact-induced grammaticalization effect, giving rise to areal grammatical features found in the ‘periphery’ of the Balkan Sprachbund. Further analysis of data could offer insight into the loss of the Romance synthetic future form of Venetian and Italian in favor of the ‘have’ future periphrasis and contribute to conceptualizing the mechanisms of the emergence of the dual series of morphophonological paradigms of the verb ‘have’ in various Romance languages. Acknowledgments  I am grateful to Cecilia Poletto, Jacopo Garzonio, Nicola D’Antuono, Caterina Tasinato, to an anonymous reviewer as well as to the editors of this volume for all their fruitful and extremely helpful comments, suggestions, and remarks. Any error is exclusively mine.

Abbreviations 1 = 1st Person 2 = 2nd Person 3 = 3rd Person 2scl = 2nd subject clitic

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

277

= auxiliary = conjunction Cz = Catanzaro def = definite article f = feminine Fr. = French indf = indefinite article inf = infinitive ipfv = Imperfective ipfv = imperfective It. = Italian m = masculine MGr. = Modern Greek Nap. = Neapolitan nom = nominative ocl = object clitic pfv = perfective pl = plural pnp = perfective non-past prep = preposition prf = perfective prs = present prt = particle pst = past ptcp = participle scl = subject clitic sg = singular Sp. = Spanish subj = subjunctive Vnz. = Venetian aux

conj

References Adams, James. 1991. Some Neglected Evidence for Latin HABEO with Infinitive: The Order of the Constituents. TPS 89: 131–196. Adler, Herbert. 1902. The Jews in Southern Italy. The Jewish Quarterly Review. Jewish Quarterly Review 14: 111–115. Altimari, Francesco. 2005. Un Balcanismo Fuori Dai Balcani: Il Futuro Neccesitativo Nel Dialetti Albanesi e Greci Dell’Italia Meridionale. In Acta Studia Albanica II, 17–32. Tirana: Akademia e Shkencave e Shqipërisë.

278 

G. Vardakis

Aprile, Marco. 2012. Grammatica Storica Delle Parlate Giudeo-Italiane. Galatina: Congedo Editore. Aprile, Marcello, Rosario Coluccia, Franco Fanciullo, and Riccardo Gualdo. 2002. “La Puglia.” In I Dialetti Italiani. Storia, Struttura, Uso, ed. Manlio Cortelazzo, Gianna Marcato, and Nicola De Blasi, 679–792. UTET. Asenova, Petya. 2002. Balkansko Ezikoznanie. Veliko Tărnovo: Faber. Baglioni, Daniele. 2016. L’italiano Fuori d’Italia: Dal Medioevo All’Unità. In Manual of Italian Linguistics, ed. Sergio Lubello. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Bakker, Peter. 2020. Contact and Mixed Languages. In The Handbook of Language Contact, ed. Raymond Hickey, 201–220. John Wiley and Sons. Baldissera, Valeria. 2013. Dialetto Grico Del Salento Elementi Balcanici e Contatto Linguistico. PhD dissertation, Università Ca’ Foscari. Banfi, Emanuele. 2014. Lingue d’Italia Fuori Dall’Italia. Europa, Mediterraneo e Levante Dal Medioevo All’età Moderna. Bologna: Il Mulino. Baroutsos, Photis. 2010. Privileges, Legality and Prejudice: The Jews of Corfu on the Way to Isolation. In Interstizi: Culture Ebraico-Cristiane a Venezia e Nei Suoi Domini Dal Medioevo All’eta` Moderna, ed. Uwe Israel, Robert Jütte, and Mueller Reinhold, 295–330. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e letteratura. Belleli, Lazarus. 1905. Greek and Italian Dialects as Spoken by the Jews in Some Places of the Balkan Peninsula. London. Benincà, Paola. 2007. Clitici e Ausiliari: Gh ò, z é. Edited by Delia Bentley and Adam Ledgeway. The Italianist 27 (Special Suppl I): 27–47. Benincà, Paola, Mair Parry, and Diego Pescarini. 2016. The Dialects of Northern Italy. In The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, ed. Adam Ledgeway, 185–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Benveniste, Emile. 1968. Mutations of Linguistic Categories. In Directions for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium, ed. W. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel, 83–94. Austin: University of Texas. Berretta, Monica. 1993. Morfologia. In Introduzione All’Italiano Contemporaneo, ed. Alberto Antonio Sobrero, vol. 1, 193–245. Roma/Bari: Laterza. Bertinetto, Pier Marco, and Mario Squartini. 2016. Tense and Aspect. In The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, ed. Martin Maiden and Adam Ledgeway. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bertocci, Davide, and Federico Damonte. 2007. Studi Sui Dialetti Della Puglia. In Distribuzione e Morfologia Dei Congiuntivi in Alcune Varietà Salentine, ed. Federico Damonte and Jacopo Garzonio, 3–28. Padova: Unipress. Blanken, Gérard. 1951. Les Grecs de Cargèse (Corse). Recherches Sur Leur Langue et Sur Leur Histoire, I Partie Linguistique. Leiden: Sijthoff’s Uitgeversmaatschappij.

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

279

Bossong, Georg. 2016. Classifications. In The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the Word. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Calabrese, Andrea. 1993. Sentential Complementation in a Language without Infinitival Clauses: The Case of Salentino. In Syntactic Theory and the Dialects of Italy, 28–98. Torino: Rosenberg & Selliers. Colasanti, Valentina. 2018. La Doppia Serie Di Complementatori Nei Dialetti Del Lazio Meridionale: Un Approccio Microparametrico. Revue de Linguistique Romane 82: 65–91. Cordin, Patrizia. 1997. Tense, Mood and Aspect in the Verb. In The Dialects of Italy, ed. Martin Maiden and Mair Parry, 87–98. London/New York: Routledge. Cortelazzo, Manlio. 1946. L’italiano a Corfù. Di Alcuni Recenti Scambi Linguistici Italo-Corfioti. Lingua Nostra 7: 66–69. ———. 1947. Vicende Storiche Della Lingua Italiana. Lingua Nostra 8: 44–50. ———. 1948. Caratteristiche Dell’italiano Parlato a Corfù. Lingua Nostra 9: 29–34. ———. 2000. Il veneziano coloniale: documentazione e interpretazione. In Processi di convergenza e differenziazione nelle lingue dell’Europa medievale e moderna, ed. Fabiana Fusco, 317–326. Udine: Forum. Cortelazzo, Manlio, and Ivano Paccagnella. 1992. Il Veneto. In L’italiano Nelle Regioni. Lingua Nazionale e Identità Regionali, ed. Francesco Bruni, 220–281. Torino: UTET. Damonte, Federico. 2011. Matching Moods: Mood Concord between CP and IP in Salentino and Southern Calabrian Subjunctive Complements. In Mapping the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 5, ed. Paola Benincà and Nicola Munaro. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eberhard, David M., Gary F.  Simons, and Charles D.  Fennig, eds. 2022. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 23rd ed. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. https://www.ethnologue.com/language/itk. Eufe, Rembert. 2006. Sta lengua ha un privilegio tanto grando: Status und Gebrauch des Venezianischen in der Republik Venedig. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Falcone, Giuseppe. 1973. Il Dialetto Romaico Della Bovesia. Milano: Memorie dell’Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere. Fanciullo, Franco. 2008. Gli Italianismi Nel Neogreco. L’Italia Dialettale 69: 1–41. Ferguson, Ronnie. 2007. A Linguistic History of Venice. Florence: Leo S. Olshki.

280 

G. Vardakis

Fishman, Joshua. 1967. Bilingualism with and without Diglossia; Diglossia with and without Bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23 (2): 29–38. Fleischman, Suzanne. 1982. The Future in Thought and Language: Diachronic Evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Friedman, Victor A. 2017. Languages of the Balkans. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/ acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-348. Friedman, Victor A., and Brian Joseph. 2014. Lessons from Judezmo about the Balkan Sprachbund and Contact Linguistics. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 226: 3–23. Friedman, Victor A., and Brian D.  Joseph. 2017. The Balkan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galli De’ Paratesi, Nora. 1992. “Il Giudeo-Italiano e Il Problema Della Sua Definizione: Un Capitolo Di Storia Della Linguistica.” Linguistica 32 (2): 107–132. Gardani, Francesco. 2020. Borrowing Matter and Pattern. An Overview. Morphology. (30) 4: 263–282. Gekas, Sakis. 2004. The Port Jews of Corfu and the ‘Blood Libel’ of 1891. A Tale of Many Centuries and of One Event. Jewish Culture and History 7 (1–2): 171–196. Gottheil, Richard, and Lazarus Belleli. 2002–2021 [1901–1906]. Judaeo-Greek and Judeao-Italian. In Jewish Encyclopedia [The Jewish Encyclopedia], ed. Cyrus Adler, Isidore Singer, 310–313. The Kopelman Foundation. Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath, and Sebastian Bank, eds. 2022. Glottolog 4.6. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. http://glottolog.org. Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hopper, Paul, and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horrocks, Geoffrey. 1997. Greek. A History of the Language and Its Speakers. London: Longman. Joseph, Brian D. 1983. The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Inifinitive: A Study in Areal, General, and Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krapova, Iliyana, and Brian Joseph. 2018. Balkan Syntax and (Universal) Principles of Grammar. Berlin & Boston: Mouton & De Gruyter.

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

281

Ledgeway, Adam. 2003. Il Doppio Sistema Completivo Dei Dialetti Meridionali: La Doppia Serie Di Complementatori. Rivista Italiana Di Dialettologia 59: 1–59. ———. 2006. The Dual Complementiser System in Southern Italy: Spirito Greco, Materia Romanza? In Rethinking Languages in Contact: The Case of Italian, 112–126. Oxford: Legenda. ———. 2009. Gramatica Diacronica Del Napoletano. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. ———. 2011. Syntactic and Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. In The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, vol. 1, 382–471. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2012. From Latin to Romance. Morphological Typology & Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2013. Greek Disguised as Romance? The Case of Southern Italy. In MGDLT 5: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory. Online Proceedings of MGDLT5, ed. Mark Janse, Brian D.  Joseph, Angela Ralli, and Metin Bagriacik, 184–227. Greece: Patras. ———. 2016a. Clausal Complementation. In The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, ed. Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden. 1013–1028. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2016b. The Dialects of Southern Italy. In The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, ed. Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden, 246–269. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2017. Syntheticity and Analycity. In Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntac, 839–886. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter. ———. 2020. The North-South Divide. L’Italia Dialettale 3, 81 (17): 29–49. Ledgeway, Adam, and Alessandra Lombardi. 2014. The Development of the Southern Subjunctive: Morphological Loss and Syntactic Gain. In Diachrony and Dialects: Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy, 25–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Second, Revised edition. Classics in Linguistics 1. Berlin: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. ———. 2020. Univerbation. Folia Linguistica Historica 41: 205–252. Lelli, Fabrizio. 2006. L’influenza Dell’ebraismo Italiano Meridionale Sul Culto e Sulle Tradizioni Linguistico-Letterarie Delle Comunità Greche. Materia Giudaica 11 (1–2): 201–216. ———. 2013. Liturgia, Lingue e Manifestazioni Letterarie e Artistiche Degli Ebrei Di Corfù. In Evraikì. Una Diaspora Mediterranea Da Corfù a Trieste, ed.

282 

G. Vardakis

Fabrizio Lelli, Mauro Tabor, Tullia Catalan, and Annalisa Di Fant. Trieste: La Mongolfiera Libri. ———. 2015. Le Lingue Della Minoranza Ebraica in Salento. L’Idomeneo 19: 139–145. Levi, Leo. 1961. Tradizioni Liturgiche, Musicali e Dialettali a Corfù. La Rassegna Mensile Di Israel 27 (1): 20–31. Levi, Leo, Roberto Leydi, and Discoteca di Stato. 1956–1969. AELM 24  M Musica Tradizionale Liturgica (Riti Ebraici). Istituto Centrale per i Beni Sonori ed Audiovisivi. Loporcaro, Michele. 1997. Puglia and Salento. In The Dialects of Italy, ed. Martin Maiden and Mair Parry, 338–348. London/New York: Routledge. Mackridge, Peter. 2014. Venise Après Venise: Official Languages in the Ionian Islands 1797–1864. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 38 (1): 68–90. Maiden, Martin. 2011. Morphophonological Innovation. In The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, 215–267. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2016. Morphomes. In The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, ed. Adama Ledgeway, Martin Maiden, 708–721. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Manolessou, Ioanna. 2005. The Greek Dialects of Southern Italy: An Overview. ΚΑΜΠΟΣ 13: 103–125. Manzini, M.R., and L.M. Savoia. 2005. I Dialetti Italiani e Romanci. Morfosintassi Generativa. Vol. 1. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Marcato, Gianna, and Flavia Ursini. 1998. Dialetti Veneti: Grammatica e Storia. Padua: Unipress. Markopoulos, T. 2009. The Future in Greek: From Ancient to Medieval. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Massariello-Merzagora, Giovanna. 1977. Giudeo-Italiano: Dialetti Parlati Degli Ebrei d’Italia. Profilo Dei Dialetti Italiani 23. Pisa: Pacini. Matras, Yaron. 1998. Convergent Development, Grammaticalization, and the Problem, of ‘Mutual Isomorphism.’ In Sprache Im Raum Und Zeit: In Memoriam Johannes Bechert, ed. Boeder, Christoph Schroeder, Karl Heinz Wagner, and Wolfgang Wildgen, II: 89–103. Beiträge Zur Empirischen Sprachwissenchaft. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. ———. 2015. Why Is the Borrowing of Inflectional Morphology Dispreferred? In Borrowed Morphology, ed. Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev, and Nino Amiridze, vol. 8. Berlin/Boston/Munich: De Gruyter Mouton. Mayer-Modena, Maria-Luisa. 2003. Le Judéo-Italien: Un Nouveau Panorama. In Linguistique Des Langues Juives et Linguistique Générale, ed. Franck Alvarez-­ Péreyre and Jean Baumgarten, 87–112. Paris: CNRS Editions.

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

283

Mensching, Guido, and Eva-Maria Remberger. 2016. Sardinian. In The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, 270–291. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moseley, Christopher, ed. 2010. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. 3rd ed. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlas. Mücke, Johannes. 2019. Infinitive Reduction in Corfiot Italian: A Case of Areal Convergence? In Proceedings of the 5th Patras International Conference of Graduate Students in Linguistics (PICGL5), ed. Andreea-Mandalina Balas, Sophia Giannopoulou, and Angeliki Zagoura, 214–238. Patras: University of Patras. Nachtmann, Jenny. 2002. Italienisch Als Minderheitensprache: Fallbeispiel Korfu. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Freiburg: University of Freiburg. Pagratis, Gerassimos. 2012. Jews in Corfu’s Economy (from the Late Fifteenth to Mid-Sixteenth Century). Mediterranean Historical Review 27 (2): 189–198. Paoli, Sandra. 2020. Avér o Gavér?: Questo è Il Dilemma! Microvariazione Negli Esiti Del Latino Habere Nel Nord d’ Italia. Revue Romane 55 (2): 283–310. Penello, Nicoletta. 2004. I Clitici Locativo e Partitivo Nelle Varietà Italiane Settentrionali. Edited by Patruno Barbara and Chiara Polo. Quaderni Di Lavoro ASIS/ASIt 4. Poletto, Cecilia, and Christina Tortora. 2016. Subject Clitics: Syntax. In The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, ed. Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden, 772–785. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Polinsky, Maria. 2018. Heritage Languages and Their Speakers. Cambridge University Press. Polinsky, Maria, and Gregory Scontras. 2019. Understanding Heritage Languages. Language and Cognition 23 (1): 4–20. Preschel, Pearl Liba. 1984. The Jews of Corfu. New York: New York University. Ralli, Angela. 2006. Syntactic and Morphosyntactic Phenomena in Modern Greek Dialects. The State of the Art. Journal of Greek Linguistics 7: 121–159. ———. 2012. Verbal Loanblends in Griko and Heptanesian: A Case Study of Contact Morphology. L’Italia Dialettale: Rivista Di Dialettologia Italiana 73: 111–132. ———. 2016. Strategies and Patterns of Loan Verb Integration in Modern Greek Varieties. In Contact Morphology in Modern Greek Dialects 2016, ed. Angela Ralli. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ———. 2019. Greek in Contact with Romance. In Oxford Encyclopedia of Romance Languages. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ acrefore/9780199384655.013.422.

284 

G. Vardakis

Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1968. Grammatica Storica Della Lingua Italiana e Di Suoi Dialetti. Morfologia. Vol. 2. Torino: Giulio Einaudi. ———. 1969. Grammatica Storica Della Lingua Italiana e Dei Suoi Dialetto. Sintassi e Formazione Delle Parole. Vol. 3. Torino: Giulio Einaudi. Ross, Malcolm. 2007. Calquing and Metatypy. Journal of Language Contact 1: 116–143. Rubin, Aaron D. 2017. Judeo-Italian. In Handbook of Jewish Languages, 297–364. Leiden: Brill. Ryzhik, Michael. 2013. Le Didascalie per La Cena Pasquale Nella Tradizione Degli Ebrei Nell’Italia Meridionale. In Gli Ebrei Nel Salento: Secoli IX–XVI, ed. Fabrizio Lelli, 379–406. Galatina: Congedo Editore. ———. 2018. Judeo-Italian in Italy. In Languages in Jewish Communities, Past and Present, ed. Benjamin Hary and Sarah Bunin Bunin, 94–129. Boston/ Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Salminen, Tapani. 2007. Europe and North Asia. In Encyclopedia of the World’s Endangered Languages, ed. Christopher Moseley. Routledge Handbooks Online. Salvanos, Georgios. 1918. Meleti Peri Tou Glossikou Idiomatos Ton En Kerkyra Argyradon [Study of the Argyrades Dialect in Corfu]. Athens. Sandfeld, Kristian. 1930. Linguistique Balkanique: Problèmes et Résultats. Paris: Klincksieck. Schaller, Helmut W. 1975. Die Balkansprachen. Eine Einfuhrung in Die Balkanphilologie. Heidelberg: Winter. Sermoneta, Giuseppe. 1990a. Testimonianze Letterarie Degli Ebrei Pugliesi a Corfù. Medioevo Romanzo 15 (1): 139–168. ———. 1990b. Testimonianze Letterarie Degli Ebrei Pugliesi a Corfù. Medioevo Romanzo 15 (1): 407–437. Sermoneta, Joseph Baruch, and Cyril Aslanov. 2007. Judeo-Italian. In Encyclopedia Judaica, ed. Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum, 2nd ed., 11: 546. Thomson Gale. Soldatos, Konstantinos. 1967. Η Εθνική Γλώσσα Εις Την Επτάνησον [The Greek Language in the Heptanesian Islands]. Kerkyraika Chronika 13–14: 84–104. Steiner, Yermyiahu. 1947. A Petition by the Jews of Corfu to the Doge of Venice in 1611. Zion 12: 82–87. Theotokis, Emanuil. 1826. Détails Sur Corfou. Corfu. Tommaseo, Niccolò. 1852. Dizionario Estetico. Milano: per Giuseppe Reina. ———. 1860. Dizionario d’estetica. Volume I. Parte Antica. 3rd ed. Vol. I. Presso Fortunato Perelli.

9  Documenting Corfioto: Evidence for Contact-Induced… 

285

———. 1862. Il secondo Esilio Vol. II. Milano. Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Bernd Heine. 1991. Introduction. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, ed. Elizabeth C.  Traugott and Bernd Heine, 2: 1–14. Typological Studies in Language 19. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. UNESCO Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages. 2003. Language Vitality and Endangerment. Paris: UNESCO. Vardakis, Georgios. 2019. Linguistic Variation in Jewish-Romance and Greek Dialects: A Structural Analysis of the Judeo-Italian Dialect of Corfu. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Paris: Sorbonne Université. ———. 2021. A Formal Analysis of Complementation in Corfioto. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Padua: Università degli Studi di Padova. Zeldes, Nadia. 2012. Jewish Settlement in Corfu in the Aftermath of the Expulsions from Spain and Southern Italy, 1492–1541. Mediterranean Historical Review 27 (2): 175–188.

10 Gender Hypercharacterization in Modern Judeo-Spanish Adjectives Branka Arrivé

1 Introduction During the second half of the nineteenth century, the population of the Ottoman Empire was exposed to Western influence leading to the modernization and secularization of their society. These political and cultural changes had a profound effect on the dynamics of Judeo-Spanish, a community language spoken by Sephardic Jews,1 spoken in the extra-Iberian diaspora for almost four centuries with virtually no contact with Spain. However, contacts with speakers of Castilian, Portuguese, or other Iberian varieties (Aragonese, Leonese, Catalan) never ceased completely (Quintana 1999: 595). The settlement of Sephardic Jews in the Ottoman Empire was not a single event that occurred after the expulsion from  The term Sephardic refers to Jews whose ancestors came from Spain.

1

B. Arrivé (*) INALCO, Middle East and Mediterranean Research Centre (CERMOM), Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Lavidas et al. (eds.), Internal and External Causes of Language Change, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30976-2_10

287

288 

B. Arrivé

Spain in 1492 but a series of individual and group migrations that involved other European countries, such as Italy and Holland, from which Italian- or Portuguese-speaking Jews sometimes settled in the Sephardic communities in the East (Ray 2013: 70). The newcomers to the Eastern Sephardic communities also included conversos, Jews who had converted to Christianity in order to stay in the Iberian Peninsula but were not recognized as “real” Christians and were forced to emigrate. Most of them were settled in Portugal, which was more tolerant toward the “New Christians” than Spain, and they continued “to live as ‘cultural commuters’ between Christianity and Judaism, as they moved between Portugal and the various lands where Judaism could be practiced openly” (Ray 2013: 75). The leveling of the linguistic varieties spoken by the Sephardic Jews in the Ottoman Empire and the creation of a koine begins with the third generation of immigrants, by the end of the sixteenth century (Quintana 2017). Bearing in mind the virtual absence of normative pressure, the language of Judeo-Spanish texts appears markedly uniform. The Hebrew script in which it is mainly written until the 1930s does not distinguish between [e] and [i] and [o] and [u] and thus does not reflect the dialectal differences. The education in the Sephardic communities was in Hebrew and reserved for boys, but the publications in Judeo-­ Spanish were often read out by men in families and their content was thus available to women as well. In the wake of the profound crisis of the Ottoman Empire in the late nineteenth century, Ottoman Jews seized the opportunities provided by West European organizations to achieve social advancement and emancipation. The Alliance Israelite Universelle (AIU), founded in Paris in 1860 in order to safeguard the human rights of Jews around the world and emancipate them through education, set up a system of schools for Jewish children in North Africa and the Ottoman Empire. The first AIU school in the Ottoman Empire was founded in Volos (Greece) in 1865, and by the turn of the century large cities such as Istanbul, Smyrna, Salonica, Adrianople, and Sofia all had AIU schools for boys as well as for girls. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Jewish students attending AIU schools outnumbered those attending traditional religious schools. Throughout its network AIU implemented the same linguistic and cultural policy as was customary in France: it promoted French and

10  Gender Hypercharacterization in Modern Judeo-Spanish… 

289

occasionally the local national language, to the detriment of minority varieties (Molho 2008). The gradual emancipation of the Sephardic communities in the nineteenth century brought along increased contact not only with the surrounding communities but also with Western Europe. While the early phase of Judeo-Spanish (fifteenth to eighteenth century) contains relatively few borrowings from the languages spoken in different parts of the Ottoman Empire, the language of the Sephardic Jews having attended AIU schools became strongly influenced by French in the second part of the nineteenth century. The change was so radical that it marks a turning point in the history of the language. The resulting variety, spoken and written starting from the last decades of the nineteenth century, is generally referred to as new or modern Judeo-Spanish or even “judéo-fragnol” (Sephiha 1986: 106). The language underwent changes at all the levels of the system, particularly the lexicon and the syntax. At the level of morphology, one of the most prominent novelties is the appearance of marked feminine adjectives ending in -a in the place of formerly unmarked epicene adjectives deriving from the Latin 3rd declension (e.g., liberala instead of liberal). This study aims to trace the evolution of these forms in the available corpora and explain their origin and retention in the current language use. Following a diachronic overview of epicene adjectives stemming from the 3rd declension in Latin that adopted marked feminine forms in varieties of Romance, we will present a description of our corpus data and finally propose explanations as to what motivated the morphological change in question. Hypercharacterization of denominal adjectives in -al/-ar in Judeo-Spanish is studied in the context of a complex interaction of factors: internal change, language contact and language planning.

2 Diachronic Overview Epicene adjectives in Romance languages generally derive from the Latin 3rd declension. In Latin, these adjectives can have three (acer, acris, acre), two (dulcis, dulce) or one form (felix) in the nominative singular,

290 

B. Arrivé

representing the masculine, feminine and neuter genders or, where there are two forms, reserving one for the masculine and feminine gender and the other for the neuter. In the accusative case that served as a base for Romance epicene adjectives, there were already only two forms (acrem/acre, dulcem/dulce, felicem/felix). However, after the loss of the neuter gender in Vulgar Latin there remained only one form in early Romance, both for the masculine and the feminine gender (cf. present-­ day Spanish acre, dulce, feliz). With the binarization of grammatical gender in late Latin, the phonetic shape of words becomes more closely identified with a specific gender (Lloyd 1987: 156), which was already the case in the first and second declension but to a much lower degree in the third and fourth. As the endings -o and -a are gradually associated with the masculine and feminine gender, respectively, the epicene nouns and adjectives become unstable and sometimes adopt the first and second declension endings (sg. -o/-a, pl. -os/-as). This evolution is attested in the Appendix Probi (“Probus’ Appendix”), an anonymous palimpsest appended to the Instituta Artium, a work written in the third or fourth century AD by Marcus Valerius Probus. It lists common mistakes in the written Latin of the time, indicating the tendencies in the grammar, spelling, and pronunciation of the contemporary vernacular. The examples here demonstrate the tendency of third and fourth declension nouns and third declension adjectives to shift toward the first and second declension, with phonological gender marking (Table 10.1). Table 10.1  Appendix Probi acre non acrum pauper mulier non paupera muli[er] tristis non tristus clamis non clamus nurus non nura socrus non socraa According to a reproduction based on Baehrens, W.  A., 1922, Sprachlicher Kommentar zur vulgärlateinischen Appendix Probi. https://web.archive.org/ web/20130429171733/http://ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/germanic/appendix_ probi.html

a

10  Gender Hypercharacterization in Modern Judeo-Spanish… 

291

Romance languages today preserve a non-gender marked category of nouns and adjectives deriving from the Latin third declension, but it has been progressively eroded in favor of gender marked categories, based on the Latin first declension in -a and second declension in -o. This phenomenon can especially be observed in non-standard varieties of Spanish and Italian, as well as in standard French, starting from the fourteenth century.2 The dialect of Lucca, for example, has il pescio, il maialo and la pucia where standard Italian has il pesce, il maiale, la pulce (Giannini 1994: 209–237) and there is a similar phenomenon in Sammarinese (Michelotti 2008: 283). Non-standard and dialectal Spanish uses gender distinct cua lo/cuala/cualos/cualas for standard Spanish cual/cuales. In the former case, the form cual is thus no longer perceived as both masculine and feminine and receives gender markings to distinguish between the two. There are various terms in the linguistic literature used for this diachronic development. Francesco Gardani uses the term “affix pleonasm” (Gardani 2015) and Stefania Giannini identifies it as “gender polarization” (Giannini 1994). The term we have adopted here is hypercharacterization, used by Yakov Malkiel in his 1957 article “Diachronic hypercharacterization in Romance” and defined as follows: If a given linguistic formation develops in such a way as to allow, at a certain point, one of its distinctive features to stand out more sharply than at the immediately preceding stage, one may speak of hypercharacterization (or hyperdetermination) of that feature, in the diachronic perspective. (Malkiel 1957: 79–113)

Christian Lehmann (2005: 1–29) warns that the terms used are not all strictly co-extensive: “the concepts against which it [i.e., hypercharacterization] must be delimited include pleonasm, tautology, redundancy, reinforcement, and hypercorrection”. Hypercharacterization is defined as “structural pleonasm”, that is, at the level of grammar. For example, the Latin comparative senior (elder), which is both masculine and feminine,  Epicene adjectives undergo a paradigm shift and join the majority pattern with feminines in -e in Middle French (Ducos and Soutet 2012: 80). 2

292 

B. Arrivé

becomes señor in Spanish and adds a feminine form señora because the new honorific forms required gender marking—it appeared counter-­ iconic to use señor for a woman. Not all the hypercharacterized forms became established in all the Romance languages. Spanish retains the epicene forms of present participles (buscante, causante) and third declension adjectives: triste, dulce, grande, verde, pobre, acre, although agro from *acrum is attested in Old Spanish (formerly acer/acris/acre). In Judeo-Spanish these adjectives do not develop a feminine form in -a and have the same forms as in Castilian: triste, dulse, grande, vedre, prove (with its typical metathesis of [r] followed by stops in most Judeo-Spanish dialects). The present participles equally remain epicene (bushkante, kavzante). The forms kualo/kuala/kualos/kualas3 for the interrogative/relative pronoun cuál/cuáles, cual/cuales also occur in Judeo-Spanish but not on a consistent basis. Kuala and tala (for kual/tal) are the first attested hypercharacterized forms in Judeo-Spanish traditional literature, occurring in Me’am Lo’ez, a commentary on the Bible from 1730 and probably the best known publication in Judeo-Spanish. They are retained today by the Autoridad Nasionala del Ladino (ANL) and its periodical Aki Yerushalayim, first published in Israel in 1979. ANL does not apply the above trend to all the gender unmarked adjectives: all the adjectives ending in vowels remain epicene (grande, triste) as well as those ending in -or, deriving from Latin comparatives (mijor, anterior, eksterior). However, denominal adjectives ending in -al/-ar are not gender-­ invariant and have a feminine form in -ala/-ara, which can also be seen in the subheading of Aki Yerushalayim: “Revista kulturala  Judeo-Spanish was mainly written in the Hebrew script in the Ottoman Empire and Greece, as well as later in Turkey until 1928, when the Turkish government imposed the mandatory Latin alphabet for Turkish. The first Judeo-Spanish publications in the Latin alphabet date from the 1880s in Romania, where the Latin alphabet was already in use for Romanian starting from the 1860s. Judeo-Spanish orthography has never been standardized. The transcriptions used in this study follow the orthography of Aki Yerushalayim. The examples from H. Bejarano’s text, written in the Latin alphabet and using the Spanish orthography, have not been modified. The examples from CORHIJE, transcribed from Hebrew, have been reproduced as they appear in the corpus but without the diacritics. 3

10  Gender Hypercharacterization in Modern Judeo-Spanish… 

293

djudeo-espanyola”, where standard Spanish would have “revista cultural”. These adjectives derive from Latin denominal adjectives in -alis (masculine and feminine)/-ale (neuter) and their dissimilated form -aris/-are (e.g., generalis, particularis). These tendencies have not been consistent since their appearance in Judeo-Spanish as the language has never been standardized and has very low normative pressure. The gender marked adjectives in -ala/-ara first appear in what is generally referred to as “adopted Judeo-Spanish literature”: new genres that appear in the Ottoman Empire with the gradual emancipation of its Jewish communities. They include the press, political pamphlets and adventure and romance novels. Pre-nineteenth-century Judeo-Spanish literature is classified into patrimonial (of Jewish origin, including compendia of rabbinical legislation, guides to ethical behavior or chronicles) and traditional (Hispanic literature transmitted through oral tradition, such as proverbs and medieval poetry known as romances and coplas) (Romero 2008: 155–192). Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century feminine adjectives in -al/-ar and -ala/-ara coexist, very often on the same page of a publication, but the forms in -ala/-ara are predominant in the press. These feminine forms cannot be found in texts earlier than the nineteenth century, the beginning of neo- or modern Judeo-Spanish. Another hypercharacterized category in the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century press, although to a lower extent, are the adjectives stemming from Latin comparatives in -(i)or: for example, superiora, inferiora. A search for adjectives in -al/-ar and -or in pre-nineteenth-century Judeo-Spanish texts was expected to yield epicene forms, like in Castilian. However, our corpus data show that this was not exactly the case.

3 Data There is no comprehensive corpus of Judeo-Spanish yet. This study relies on data from several available sources:

294 

B. Arrivé

1. The collection of Judeo-Spanish press available at the National Library of Israel over the timespan of 76 years (https://web.nli.org.il/sites/ jpress/hebrew/Pages/default.aspx). It includes eight publications:4 El Tiempo (Istanbul) 1871–1931, La Epoca (Salonica) 1875–1911, La Esperanza (Smyrna) 1874–1901, El Progresso (that later changed its name into La Boz del Pueblo and then into La Epoca de Nu York, New York) 1915–1920, La America (New York) 1910–1925, La Vara (New York) 1922–1948, La Luz (New York) 1921–1922 and La Alborada (Sarajevo, 1892–1901). 2. CORHIJE (Corpus histórico judeoespañol, http://esefardic.es/ corhije) containing 55 Judeo-Spanish texts (251,029 words5) written between the sixteenth and the twentieth centuries, of different provenance and genres, transcribed from vocalized and unvocalized Hebrew sources as well as from Cyrillic. 3. Hebrew Books (hebrewbooks.org) containing a selection of books in Hebrew and Jewish languages written in the Hebrew script (Yiddish and Judeo-Spanish patrimonial literature). The works consulted are M.  Almosnino’s Regimento de la vida (1564), Me’am Lo’ez Bereshit (1730), Me’am Lo’ez Devarim (1773) and the Judeo-Spanish translation of S. ben Verga’s Shevet Yehuda by M. D. Alkalai (Belgrade, 1859). 4. Hayim Moshe Bejarano’s Colección de refranes, máximas, expresiones, conservadas por la tradición oral y recogidos de labios de ancianos Sefardíes (unpublished manuscript, completed in Edirne/Adrianople in 1913 but mainly composed in Bucharest, 1200 MS pages, 129,169 words). 5. Late twentieth/twenty-first-century audio, video and written documents: spoken Judeo-Spanish recorded by Marie-Christine Bornes-­ Varol in Istanbul in 1990, interview with Moshe Shaul (vice president of Autoridad Nasionala del Ladino, https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=z0KsDnONhSU, 2012) and “La ortografia de Aki Yerushalayim: Un pinukolo en la estoria de la romanizasión del djudezmo (djudeo-espanyol)” by David M.  Bunis6 http://www.akiyerushalayim.com/ay/101/101_03_ortografia.htm  As of September 16, 2022.  As of July 9, 2022. 6  We retain the choice of corpora selected in the first version of this paper (2020). The spoken language analysis does therefore not contain some of the very valuable recent sources such as Enkontros 4 5

10  Gender Hypercharacterization in Modern Judeo-Spanish… 

295

6. CORDE (Corpus Diacrónico del Español) used as a reference corpus. http://corpus.rae.es/cordenet.html Our corpus search focused on the interrogative/relative pronoun kual in its gender marked forms (kualo/kuala/kualos/kualas) and three types of adjectives: the demonstrative adjective tal (in its forms tala/talos/talas), denominal adjectives in -al/-ar and former Latin comparatives in -(i)or (in some searches also in their epicene form).

3.1  Kual and tal The first hypercharacterized forms in Judeo-Spanish are kualo/kuala/kual os/kualas and tala/talos/talas, all found in early eighteenth-century literature (Table 10.2). They are absent from our oldest source (Regimiento de la vida, 1564), although the scarcity of literary production between mid-sixteenth century and 1729 makes it difficult to trace their first appearance. The earliest occurrence found in CORDE is cualos in 1501 (Table 10.3). The hypercharacterized forms continue to be used in both written and spoken Judeo-Spanish today (Table  10.4), at first alternating with the epicene forms kual(es) and tal(es) and then virtually regularly in current productions. Table 10.2  Hypercharacterized forms in traditional/patrimonial literature Me’am Lo’ez Bereshit

Me’am Lo’ez Devarim

Shevet Yehuda (S. ben Verga, tr. M.D. Alkalai, Belgrade, 1859)

kualo (13) kuala (19) kualos (5) kualas (8) tala (5) talos (3) talas (1)

kualo (6) kuala (3) kualos (18)

kualo (4) kuala (3) kualos (3) tala (5) talas (1)

de alhad, a weekly program in Judeo-Spanish started on August 9, 2020. https://esefarad.com/tag/ enkontros-de-alhad/.

296 

B. Arrivé

Table 10.3  cualo/cuala/cualos/cualas in CORDE cualo (2) cuala (3) cualos (1) 1501, Tristán de Leonís cualas (1) cuálo (4) cuála (10) cuálos (2) cuálas (3) Table 10.4  Late twentieth/twenty-first century documents

1. Spoken Judeo-Spanish recorded by Marie-­ Christine Bornes-Varol in Istanbul in 1990a

2. Interview with Moshe Shaul (vice president of Autoridad Nasionala del Ladino), 2012b

camareta kuala izyeron kuála mujer kere? kuála mujer ? kuálas kere? aviya komida speciala

una mension especiala una koza espektakular sosiedad komersiala una relasion muy kordiala saví kualo era una famiya sefaradi de akeya epoka me eksplikaron kualo es el sionismo kualo es el sionismo egzaktamente aktividades kulturales no tengo una edukasion muzikala Autoridad nasionala del ladino la Turkia era neutral barakas orijinalas nuestra kultura partikulara tal manera tales aktividades una regla universala

3. “La ortografia de Aki Yerushalayim: Un pinukolo en la estoria de la romanizasión del djudezmo (djudeo-­ espanyol)” by David M. Bunis 2019 la kapitala austriaka lingua komunala por i konsonantala de la kuala/en la kuala (3) eskolas lokalas la mayor parte la Espanya medievala dos gerras mondialas (2) enstruksion ofisiala linguas prinsipalas de talas linguas orientasion mas tradisionala ortografia tradisionala Aliansa Israelita Universala

Personal communication Available on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0KsDnONhSU

a

b

10  Gender Hypercharacterization in Modern Judeo-Spanish… 

297

3.2 Denominals in -al/-ar Derivation in -al/-ar is very rare in Judeo-Spanish traditional literature (Table 10.5) but is very common in Spanish of the same period (Table 10.6). CORHIJE contains caronal (in the collocation amigo caronal, “a very close friend”), oficial three times as a noun and nine occurrences of partikular in Me’am Lo’ez Shemot I of 1733. There are also 62 occurrences of mayoral(es) in the pre-1850 sources, mainly in Sipur Malkhei Otmanlim, a 1767 chronicle of the first Ottoman sultans between 1310 and 1520, where it is an army ranks reference. The feminines in -ala(s)/-ara(s) first appear in adopted literature (the press, pamphlets and, less commonly, novels based mainly on French originals) (Table 10.7). Table 10.5  Adjectives in -al in patrimonial literature caronal (2), caronales (1) (Me’am Lo’ez Shemot) mayoral (35), mayorales (40) (Sipur Malkhei Otmanlim + other sources in CORHIJE) partikular (9) (Me’am Lo’ez Shemot) partikular (1), liberal (1) tres artes liberales (1) (Almosnino, Regimiento de la vida, 1564) Table 10.6  Adjectives in -al/-ar in CORDE between 1400 and 1800 actual (1233) general (32268) mortal (8699) nacional (209) particular (15189) profesional (1) imperial (1735) intelectual (340) moral (2406) liberal (2216) tradicional (270) regular (2076) universal (5158) oficial (1793) popular (1654) oriental (1501) criminal (1016) penal (67) total (175)

298 

B. Arrivé

Table 10.7  Denominal adjectives in -al/-ar in the Judeo-Spanish press (1872–1948) Masculine or epicene singular

Feminine singular in -a

Masculine or epicene plural

Feminine plural in -as

aktual (1179) amikal (26) final djeneral (4229) egual (668) imperial (2001) intelektual (235) internasional (491) kapital (2766) kriminal (302) kultural (97) liberal (795) militar (1204) mortal (139) nasional (1325) normal (211) ofisial (650) oriental (877) partikular (1091) Penal popular (281)

aktuala (652) amikala (17) finala (78) djenerala (290) eguala (51) imperiala (136) intelektuala (24) internasionala (151) kapitala (1703) kriminala (67) kulturala (41) liberala (ֵַ61) militara (365) mortala (13) nasionala (447) normala (51) ofisiala (145) orientala (550) partikulara (115) penala (26) populara (44)/ popularia (16) profesionala (15) regulara (43) totala (205) tradisionala (14) universala (86)

aktuales (77) amikales (2) finales (3) djenerales (157) eguales (67) imperiales (22) intelektuales (21) internasionales (38) kapitales (166) kriminales (78) kulturales (5) liberales (141) militares (186) mortales (36) nasionales (50) normales (2) ofisiales (120) orientales (295) partikulares (81) penales (3) populares (66)

aktualas (31) amikalas (11) – djeneralas (22) egualas (3) imperialas (8) intelektualas (6) internasionalas (20) kapitalas (22) kriminalas (67) kulturalas (7) liberalas (19) militaras (83) – nasionalas (31) normalas (2) ofisialas (14) orientalas (151) partikularas (54) – popularas (16)

profesionales (12) regulares (33) totales (4) – universales (1)

– regularas (19) totalas (4) – universalas (2)

profesional 20) regular (350) total (1644) tradisional (40) universal (309)

Due to the high number of occurrences in the press (e.g., 1305 for imperial) the gender of each epicene adjective was not verified, but numerous examples of epicenes agreeing with feminine nouns occur, for example, la situasion aktual (“the current situation”), la vida intelektual (“the intellectual life”), prosedura penal (“penal procedure”), especially in the predicative position, rare for this type of adjectives (la gerra sera universal, “the war will be universal”). The data found in CORHIJE (Table 10.8) also show both epicene and gender marked feminines in the singular, but in the plural, there are only two occurrences of feminine epicenes forms.

10  Gender Hypercharacterization in Modern Judeo-Spanish… 

299

Table 10.8 Denominal adjectives in -al/-ar in CORHIJE (sixteenth–twentieth century)a Epicene singular

Feminine singular in -a

– capital (2; 1 n.m., 1 n.f.) comunal, (1, m.) – – –

– capitala (5; 4 n., 1. adj.) comunala (2) – – –

–

excepcionala (1)

general (15; 7 m., 8 adv. en general) ideal (3, 1 m., 2 n.m.) igual (6; 4 m., 1 f.,1 adv.) imortal (1, f.) imperial (1, f.) intelectual (2, 1 m., 1 f.) local (2, n.m.) moral (8; 4 m., 2 f., 1 n.m., 1 n.f.) mortal (1, n.m.) nacional (9, m.) – – oficial (3, n.m.) particular (13; 2 m., 2f., 9 m.n.) personal (2, n.m.) profesional (1, m.) profesionel (1, n.m.) social (1, m.) total (1, m.) tradicional (2, m.) trimestrial (1, m.)

– tradicionela (1) –

a

Epicene plural

Feminine plural in -as

– capitales (1, n.m.)

amicalas (1) – comunalas (16) confidencialas (1) criminelas (1) –

generala (2)

– – criminales (1, f.) educacionales (1, m.) exepcionales (3, m.) generales (1, m.)

–

ideales (2, m.)

–

iguales (1, f.)

–

– – intelectuala (2)

– – intelectuales (1, n.m.) locales (1, m.) –

– – intelectualas (1)

– nacionalas (4) – – oficialas (1)

particulara (1)

mortales (2, m.) nacionales (1, m.) naturales (1, f.) – oficiales (2; 1 m., 1 n.m.) particulares (5, m.)

– –

– –

personalas (2) –

sociala (1)

sociales (1, m.) temporales (1, f.) – – trimestriales (3, m.)

socialas (1) – – – –

morala (2) – nacionala (4) – normala (2) –

– generalas (1)

localas (1) –

–

Tables 10.8 and 10.10 are based on CORHIJE (Corpus histórico judeoespañol, http://esefardic.es/corhije) in their transcribed form

300 

B. Arrivé

3.3 Adjectives in -(i)or In the Judeo-Spanish press, the frequency of hypercharacterization of these forms is in inverse proportion to their general frequency (Table 10.9). Mijor and mayor are typically epicene only. Almost all the occurrences of eksterior come from a column entitled “Novedades del eksterior” (“foreign news”) from El Tiempo. CORHIJE contains an even lower number of hypercharacterized adjectives in -(i)or (Table 10.10). They also appear in Bejarano’s collection of proverbs (Table 10.11) but are absent in contemporary Judeo-Spanish (Table 10.4). Two of the sources listed above (the Jewish press and Hebrew Books) are printed in the Hebrew script, originally used for Judeo-Spanish until the first quarter of the twentieth century. The figures contain a margin of Table 10.9  Adjectives in -(i) or in the Judeo-Spanish press (1871–1931)a Masculine or epicene singular

Feminine singular in -a

Masculine or epicene Feminine plural plural in -as

anteryor (2) eksterior (168), eksteryor (83)* inferior (25), inferyor (11) interior (785), interyor (524)* major (269) mayor (1244) menor (381) mijor (5380) peor (420) superior (128 superyor (151)

– eksteryora (35)

– exteryoras (3)

inferyora (25)

anteryores (7) eksteriores (2), eksteryores (11)* inferyores (5)

interyora (57)

interyores (23)

interyoras (12)

majora (2) mayora (2) menora (5) – – superyora (51)

majores (2) mayores (11) menores (14) mijores (850) peores (15) superiores (32) superyores (21)

– – menoras (3) – – superioras (5) superyoras (7)

inferyoras (1)

Tables 10.7 and 10.9 are based on the corpus of Historical Jewish Press, The National Library of Israel, transcribed according to the Aki Yerushalayim orthographic system. https://www.nli.org.il/en/discover/newspapers/jpress

a

10  Gender Hypercharacterization in Modern Judeo-Spanish… 

301

Table 10.10  Adjectives in -(i) or in CORHIJE Masculine or epicene singular

Feminine singular in -a

exterior (1)

– –

interior (3) enterior (1) – mayor (6) mejor (55), mijor (19) menor (7) peor (2) superior (1)

Masculine or epicene plural exteriores (1), esteriores (2) –

– – – – – – superiora (5)

inferiores (2) mayores (1) mejores (3) mijores (5) menores (1) – superiores (3)

Feminine plural in -as – exterioras (1) enterioras (1) – – – – – –

Table 10.11  Hypercharacterized nouns, relative pronouns and adjectives in Hayim Moshe Bejarano’s Colección de refranes Nouns

Relative cual

egoisto (2) cuala (4) morala (3) cualos (1) Talmudisto (1) tala (6)

Adjectives in -al/-ar

Adjectives in -(i) Adjectives or in -e

familiara (5) immorala (1) naturala (1) orientala (8) particulara (1) personala (1) personalas (1) principala (1) triviala (1) universala (1) vulgara (6)

enteriora (1) mayora (1) posteriora (1) superioras (1)

conforma (1) trista (1)

error due to the differences between the Rashi Hebrew script,7 which most of the books and newspapers were printed in, and the square script, the default Hebrew script used for printing the Bible or generally in Israel today. The searched forms are thus not always recognized. The number of  Semi-cursive Hebrew script, also known as Sephardic script, customarily used for printing Rashi’s commentaries on the Hebrew Bible. It was traditionally used for printing books in Judeo-Spanish and the newspapers studied in the corpus (apart from those issued in the United States). 7

302 

B. Arrivé

words in these two collections is not available8 and the data given are only indicative. The CORHIJE tables reproduce the transcription used in the corpus but without the diacritics. The gender of epicene forms is included in the brackets. Hayim Bejarano’s proverb collection (Table 10.11) is written in a language heavily influenced by contemporary Castilian. The table only shows the hypercharacterized forms, including masculine nouns in -isto (-ista in standard Spanish) and two adjectives ending in a vowel (that normally remain epicene in Judeo-Spanish). Hypercharacterized forms are relatively rare in the informal spoken language. Marie-Christine Bornes-Varol’s oral corpus recorded on over 1000 pages only contains spesiala and kuala/kualas (Table 10.4).

4 Analysis The evolution of epicene adjectives in Judeo-Spanish is a result of complex influences which will be studied from three angles: internal change, language contact and language policy.

4.1 Internal Change The corpus findings confirm that the only gender hypercharacterized forms in pre-nineteenth-century Judeo-Spanish sources are kualo/kuala/ kualos/kualas (“which”) and tala/talos/talas (“such”) (the form *talo is not attested). The forms kualo/kuala/kualos/kualas are based on the analogy of the masculine -o and feminine -a nouns and adjectives. As seen above, similar developments exist in other Romance languages.

 The total number of pages in the Judeo-Spanish press collection is 48,444 (El Tiempo 20,159, La Vara 10,089, La Epoca 8029, La Esperanza 5493, La America 3403, El Progreso 918, La Luz 209, La Alborada 144). 8

10  Gender Hypercharacterization in Modern Judeo-Spanish… 

303

Our earliest source, Moses Almosnino’s Regimiento de la vida from 1564, contains no examples of hypercharacterized cual. It first appears in Me’am Lo’ez Bereshit written in 1730. The gender marked forms of epicene adjectives ending in -al/-ar and -(i)or first appear in the press. However, they do not follow the same pattern as kualo(s)/kuala(s): we do not encounter any examples of masculine forms adding -o to the suffix -al/-ar and the masculine plurals end in -es and not in -os. A typical paradigm is, for example, ­kultural/kulturala/kulturales/kulturalas. Feminine gender marking does not involve a complete paradigmatic shift: masculine adjectives do not conform to the -o declension but keep their original singular and plural forms. The masculine adjectives ending in a consonant were thus not perceived as needing “fixing”, but in the case of feminines the perception that they should end in -a prevailed. Their smooth adoption could have been facilitated by the existence of a similar pattern already present in pre-expulsion Spanish. Having only the feminine forms hypercharacterized, the adjectives in -al/-ar behave according to the familiar paradigm of a group of Spanish gentilics, for example, alemán/-a/-es/-as (“German”) or español/-a/-es/-as (“Spanish”). The masculine/feminine -o/-a dichotomy in modern Judeo-Spanish is sharper than in Castilian. Feminine nouns of Greek and Latin origin ending in -is, such as crisis, dosis or clase in Spanish are kriza, doza and klasa in Judeo-Spanish (Nehama & Cantera 2003). These nouns follow the pattern of Hispanicized French. The same holds good for first declension Greek nouns ending in -e in Spanish: catástrofe is katastrofa in Judeo-­ Spanish, adapted from French catastrophe. However, the perception that not only feminine nouns should end in -a but also that all nouns ending in -a should be feminine explains forms in Aki Yerushalayim such as la sistema,9 neuter in Greek and masculine in French, and la hoca alternates with el hoca (“the hodja”) in spoken Judeo-Spanish of Istanbul (Bornes-­ Varol 2008: 226), despite a high rate of bilingualism in both Turkish10 9

 El Tiempo of April 8, 1873, has “el sistemo”.  Nouns do not have a gender in Turkish, but hodja is an exclusively male profession.

10

304 

B. Arrivé

and Greek in the two largest Sephardic communities in Europe (Istanbul and Salonica). Unlike the pronoun kualo/kuala, these nouns and most of the denominal adjectives in -al/-ar appearing in the corpus cannot be found in JudeoSpanish sources before the nineteenth century even in their basic (masculine singular, unmarked) form. The pattern of denominal adjectives ending in -al/-ar is thus extremely rare before the appearance of modern JudeoSpanish. Not only is derivation in -al/-ar rare in Judeo-­Spanish but a lot of the adjectives listed in the corpus are semantically incongruent in the context of traditional or patrimonial Sephardic literature. A search in CORDE, however, attests a frequent presence of the featured adjectives between 1400 and 1800, which points to a lexical disparity between Spanish and Judeo-Spanish of the same periods. The data are somewhat different when it comes to the adjectives in -(i) or (comparatives or former Latin comparatives). Hypercharacterization is rare and only occurs in five out of nine adjectives in the press corpus (eksteriora “external”, inferiora “lower”, interiora “internal”, menora “smaller, younger”, superiora “upper”), and CORHIJE shows similar results (the only gender marked forms are superiora, enterioras and exterioras). Mejor “better”, peor “worse”, prior “prior” and mayor “bigger, older” do not show hypercharacterization in any of the sources. Parallel developments in Romanian and French point to analogy and system pressure as internal factors of hypercharacterization.

4.2 External Influence Judeo-Spanish is a result of “pervasive contact among Ibero-Romance languages” (Quintana 2014: 3). The mid-sixteenth-century koineization was based on several varieties of Iberian languages that left their impact not only on the lexicon (Álvarez López 2013) but also on the phonology, morphology and syntax of Judeo-Spanish. Regarding the development of kualo/kuala, a possible Aragonese influence is not to be completely ruled

10  Gender Hypercharacterization in Modern Judeo-Spanish… 

305

out, especially if we take into account that in both Judeo-Spanish and Aragonese many originally invariable adjectives developed forms with the marked gender, although gendered cual exists in other Spanish dialects as well (Quintana 2001: 177). After the expulsion from Spain in 1492 Judeo-Spanish was cut off from its source and from the enrichments (particularly the Latin-based neologisms) that constantly nourished Castilian. The virtual absence of contact with Spain for almost 400 years resulted in lexical divergence through extensive borrowing from Hebrew, Turkish and other languages of contact. While Turkish remains an important source of everyday loanwords such as food, drink, tools and professions, starting from the late nineteenth century the main source of neologisms becomes French. The Judeo-Spanish adopted literature mainly draws its inspiration from the French cultural domain (Romero 1992), as French was spoken by most educated speakers of Judeo-Spanish in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The new genres’ secular content distinguishes them intrinsically from the literature of the preceding centuries and requires a whole new lexicon that is not taken over from Spanish, a largely unknown language in the Ottoman Empire. Apart from French, Italian is another important source of loanwords, as a result of commercial ties with Livorno and the Dante Alighieri Society schools (Minervini 2006). The degree of French influence is proportional to the presence of Alliance Israélite Universelle schools and the particular literary models that the writing is based on. It is thus typically very high in Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania, particularly in large cities with a high percentage of Jewish population such as Istanbul, Salonica or Smyrna but considerably lower in Bosnia, where Ottoman influence competes with the newly established Austrian rule,11 or in the Sephardic community of Vienna. Among the Judeo-Spanish newspapers used in this study the only one without hypercharacterized feminine adjectives in -ala/-ara is La Alborada from Sarajevo. 11

 Occupied in 1878, annexed in 1908.

306 

B. Arrivé

Another factor is the source language in case of translations/adaptations. For example, the novel El rabi i el ministro by Shem-Tov Shemo, a Judeo-Spanish adaptation of Ludwig Philippson’s novel Der Rabbi und der Minister in German, does not contain any examples of adjectives in -ala/-ara. The sudden rush of new vocabulary was adopted in a Hispanicized but not standard Castilian form (Harris 1994). New words were not only used for new concepts but replaced existing words: remersiar often replaces agradeser, “to thank”, and malorozo is in competition with desdichado or desmazalado, “unlucky”. The denominal adjectives in -al/-ar found in the adopted literature are also a Hispanicized version of their French model and along with it they distinguish between a masculine and a feminine form. Like in Spanish, they end in -al/-ar rather than -el/ier, but CORHIJE also contains forms in semi-Hispanicized French (criminelas, profesionel, tradicionela) from a 1928 pamphlet printed in Bulgaria entitled La hazinura relidjioza di la mansevez djudia, “The Jewish youth’s religious disease”. Contact with Spanish was finally re-established in late nineteenth century. Its influence can first be noticed in the first Judeo-Spanish publication in the Latin alphabet, the bi-monthly publication Luzero de la Pasensia issued in Turnu-Severin (Romania) between 1885 and 1889. The editor Eliyahu Crispin maintained close relations with Spanish newspapers such as El Mundo and la Revista de Geografía Comercial and published readers’ letters in Spanish (Díaz-Mas 2013). After two years the newspaper was renamed Lucero de la Paciencia and its language became very close to contemporary Castilian, like that of Hayim Bejarano’s proverb collection. Despite his firm adherence to a Castilianized form of Judeo-Spanish, Bejarano’s text contains hypercharacterized adjectives in -al/-ar and -(i) or. In both respects, his language resembles that of Luzero de la Pasensia, whose readers’ column is entitled “Conrespondensias partikolaras de moestros Onorados Amigos” [“Our honorable friends’ private correspondence”] (García Moreno 2013). The text likewise contains instances of the suffix -ista denoting professions or adherents of ideologies (e.g., artista, sionista), which can be masculine or feminine in Spanish. In Bejarano’s text they are all masculine,

10  Gender Hypercharacterization in Modern Judeo-Spanish… 

307

but there are also -o marked forms Talmudisto and egoisto(s) (three occurrences). Other contact factors in the formation of feminines in -a in Crispin’s and Bejarano’s writings are, however, not to be excluded, such as a possible influence of Romanian, which has a feminine form in -ă in a similar paradigm (e.g., naţional/națională). The Hispanicized variety of Judeo-Spanish was never spoken. It is rather a result of efforts of a small number of writers to bring the language closer to Castilian than of spontaneous borrowing due to direct contact or education, as in the case of French.

4.3 Language Policy While the Ottoman Empire authorities had no language requirements from their subjects, the newly created nation states identified with their national languages and relegated the “stateless” languages to a second order. Contact with “real” Spanish and a commonly accepted ideology of the time that mixed languages are “degenerate12” provoked linguistic insecurity among Judeo-Spanish speakers. This raised the “language question” among Sephardic Jews, some of whom advocated the abandonment of Judeo-Spanish in favor of French or the national language of their homeland. The situation materialized into gradual language attrition in the twentieth century. Modern Judeo-Spanish reflects a particularly unstable phase of the language during which, nevertheless, journalism and literary production thrived, with growing language contact and polymorphism. Contacts with Western academics and with the Haskalah movement of Central European Jews made Sephardic intellectuals more conscious of the character of their language, which turned from a means of communication within the Sephardic community into an object of study and  For example, “Esta degeneración en el idioma y aquella mezcla en la raza contribuyen a dificultar más todavía una tarea de suyo muy difícil, por la extraordinaria dispersion del pueblo israelita.” [“This degeneration in the language and that mixture in the race contribute to make a very difficult task even more difficult, because of the extraordinary dispersion of the Israelite people”] (Pulido 1905: 20). Cf. also (Nordau 1898) and (Pulido and Nordau 1923). 12

308 

B. Arrivé

controversy. Literary production in the new genres was also seen by some as an opportunity for “verbal hygiene” meant to “improve” or “clean up” the language (cf. Cameron 1995: 18). The co-occurrence of the new words with a new written genre calls for some degree of standardization but in the early Judeo-Spanish press the adopted norms are still far from coherent. Modern Judeo-Spanish texts occasionally contain glosses with Hebrew or Turkish equivalents of Romance words. Readers are thus encouraged to start using Spanish or other Romance words rather than Hebrew or Turkish (Schmid 2010). For example, the word ponte13 (“bridge”) is followed by its Turkish translation kupri (Habib 1931: 4) and El Tiempo of November 30, 1877, has la mas fasil (kolay) koza (“the easiest [Tr. ‘easy’] thing”). The morphology shows frequent hypercorrection (pueder and poder [“be able to”], quierer and querer [“want”] often co-occur) and noun/adjective agreement is inconsistent. The above data point out to a link between word frequency and language change as well as considerations on standardization. While mejor (“better”), peor (“worse”) and mayor (“bigger”) have a high frequency in all the sources, prior is very rare in Judeo-Spanish (only two occurrences in the press corpus, none in CORHIJE). The adjectives prone to hypercharacterization featured in the corpus have a very low representation before mid-nineteenth century. The gender distinction in French (meilleur/meilleure etc.) did not affect the Judeo-Spanish forms in very frequent words. As we have noted above, none of the former Latin comparative forms are gender marked in present-day Judeo-Spanish. Although hypercharacterized forms of these adjectives exist in the press between 1871 and 1948, they were not adopted by the publishing policy of Aki Yerushalayim, presumably because a consistent gender marking rule would also require the feminine forms mejora and mayora, which are not attested14 and are not considered well-formed in Judeo-Spanish. Could gender marking of the former epicene adjectives also be seen as hypercorrection? According to Christian Lehmann, hypercorrection has  Rather than Sp. puente, diphthongization is irregular in Judeo-Spanish.  Except in the nominalized form la mayora, “the major’s wife”, found in the press.

13 14

10  Gender Hypercharacterization in Modern Judeo-Spanish… 

309

nothing to do with pleonasm and hypercharacterization because it is an attempt to speak according to an existing norm applied to a wrong context; it does not occur in “unconstrained colloquial speech” (Lehmann 2005, 123). However, the specificities of minority varieties in contexts of very low normative pressure require a reexamination of the relationship between the two concepts. According to Malkiel, “hypercharacterization activated in the presence of crumbling or toppled norms easily assumes the function of hypercorrection” (Malkiel 1957: 21). In the context of linguistic insecurity due to an extraordinary influx of new words in Judeo-Spanish in the nineteenth century, mainly via French and to a lesser extent Italian but not Spanish, speakers tend to classify the new adjectives according to a perceived norm that “feminines end in -a”. This attempt can be analyzed as a strategy to reinforce the dwindling grammatical agreement in Judeo-Spanish, which can then be identified as hypercorrection. On the other hand, adding the suffix -a to adjectival forms no longer perceived as feminine is in the domain of hypercharacterization.

5 Conclusion Gender hypercharacterization is a trend that has occurred in different Romance languages throughout their history. The examples taken from different languages demonstrate that: a process which started long before the closing years of Antiquity and conceivably attained its greatest momentum a few centuries later, even at this late hour is far from having completely exhausted itself. (Malkiel 1957: 16)

What makes the case of (formerly) epicene adjectives in Judeo-Spanish notable is the late appearance of their morphological change, when there were no parallel phenomena in other Romance languages, and the sudden character of change, reflecting the radical social and linguistic overhauls affecting the Ottoman Empire in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

310 

B. Arrivé

Hypercharacterization of epicene adjectives in -al/-ar and -or is a result of the convergence of three main factors in the evolution of Judeo-­ Spanish, operating simultaneously or at different moments of its history: internal change, language contact and linguistic policy. Virtually absent from Judeo-Spanish literature until mid-nineteenth century, those adjectives arrive in a great wave of borrowing from French and are not morphologically identified with their Spanish counterparts. Instead, they join the dominant pattern with feminines in -a, reinforced by their binary forms in French. Although Judeo-Spanish was never standardized and there is not even a consensus on its orthography, it continues to be written and spoken, despite the declining number of its speakers, drawing upon all its discourse traditions, including the once thriving press with over 300 publications. What has changed compared to the period of pre-WWII modern Judeo-Spanish is that the models it now seeks to follow are no longer based on other languages, formerly seen as more prestigious. As long as there is production in the language it involves a certain set of standards or policies, whether individual or group, official or tacit. In the linguistic policy of Akademia nasionala del ladino, the retention of gender marking in a group of formerly epicene adjectives follows in the tradition of the journalistic style of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and can be regarded as a means of asserting Judeo-Spanish identity as distinct from all the languages that have left their mark on its vocabulary and structure. Present-day speakers influenced by the written language have generally adopted the hypercharacterized forms.

References Álvarez López, Cristóbal José. 2013. La influencia del contínuum romance en la formación léxica del judeoespañol. In Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, 15–20 juillet 2013). Section 11: Linguistique de contact. Nancy: ATILF/SLR. Bejarano, Hayim Moshe. 1913. Colección de refranes, máximas, expresiones, conservadas por la tradición oral y recogidos de labios de ancianos Sefardíes (unpublished manuscript). Edirne/Adrianople

10  Gender Hypercharacterization in Modern Judeo-Spanish… 

311

Bornes-Varol, Marie-Christine. 1990. Corpus oral du judéo-espagnol d’Istanbul (unpublished transcript). Paris. (Author’s collection). ———. 2008. Le judéo-espagnol vernaculaire d’Istanbul. Berne: Peter Lang. Bunis, David. 2019. Ortografia de Aki Yerushalayim: un pinakolo en la estoria de la romanizasión del djudezmo (djudeo–espanyol). Aki Yerushalayim 101: 8–24. Cameron, Deborah. 1995. Verbal hygiene. London & New York: Routledge. CORDE (Corpus Diacrónico del Español). http://corpus.rae.es/cordenet.html. Consulted on July 5, 2022. Díaz-Mas, Paloma. 2013. Periódicos que se informan a través de periódicos: las fuentes de información de El Luzero de la Pasensia. In La presse judéo-­espagnole, support et vecteur de la modernité, ed. Rosa Sánchez and Marie-Christine Bornes-Varol, 53–70. Istanbul: Libra Kitap. Ducos, Joëlle, and Olivier Soutet. 2012. Les grandes évolutions morphosyntaxiques. In L’ancien et le moyen français: «Que sais-je?» n°3935. Paris: Que sais-je. García Moreno, Aitor. 2013. Les gloses comme sources pour l’étude du lexique judéo-espagnol: l’example de Luzero de la Pasensia (Roumanie). In Recensement, analyse et traitement numérique des sources écrites pour les études séfarades, dirs. Ana Stulic-Etchevers & Soufiane Rouissi, 249–271. Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires. García Moreno, Aitor, and Javier Pueyo Mena. 2013–2022. Corpus Histórico Judeoespañol—CORHIJE. http://esefardic.es/corhije Gardani, Francesco. 2015. Affix Pleonasm. In Word-formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe, ed. Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer, vol. 1, 537–550. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Giannini, Stefania. 1994. Gender grammatical polarization in late Latin and some Italian dialectal areas. A cognitive view. Rivista di linguistica 6 (2). Habib, Moiz. 1931. Sinko matados por una mujer: romanso muy trajiko i de amor. Istanbul: Rekabet Matbaasi. Harris, Tracy K. 1994. Death of a language: The history of Judeo-Spanish. Newark; London: University of Delaware Press. Hebrew Books. 2019. The society for preservation of Hebrew Books. https:// hebrewbooks.org/. Consulted on July 5, 2022. Historical Jewish Press, The National Library of Israel. https://www.nli.org.il/ en/discover/newspapers/jpress. Consulted on July 5, 2022.

312 

B. Arrivé

Lehmann, Christian. 2005. Pleonasm and hypercharacterisation. In Yearbook of Morphology 2005, ed. Geert Booij and Jaap Van Marle, 119–154. Dordrecht: Springer. Lloyd, Paul M. 1987. From Latin to Spanish: Historical phonology and morphology of the Spanish language. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Malkiel, Yakov. 1957. Diachronic hypercharacterization in Romance. Archivum Linguisticum 9: 79–173. Michelotti, Alexander. 2008. The position of the Sammarinese dialects in the Romagnol linguistic group. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag. Minervini, Laura. 2006. El desarrollo histórico del judeoespañol. Revista internacional de lingüística iberoamericana 4 (2): 13–34. Molho, Rena. 2008. The moral values of the Alliance Israélite Universelle and their impact on the Jewish school world of Salonika and Morocco. El Prezente 2: 127–138. Nehama, Joseph, and Jesús Cantera. 2003. Dictionnaire du judéo-espagnol. Paris: Langues et mondes—l’Asiathèque. Nordau, Max Simon. 1898. Degeneration. London: Heinemann. Pulido, Angel. 1905. Españoles sin patria y la raza sefardí. Madrid: E. Teodoro. Pulido, Angel, and Max Simon Nordau. 1923. Le peuple judéo-espagnol: première base mondiale de l’Espagne. Paris: La Revue Mondiale. Quintana, Aldina. 1999. Proceso de recastellanización del Judesmo. In Jewish studies at the turn of the twentieth century. Proceedings of the 6th EAJS Congress, Toledo, July 1998, ed. Judit Targarona and Ángel Sáenz-Badillos, vol. II, 593–602. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill. ———. 2001. Concomitancias lingüísticas entre el aragonés y el ladino (judeoespañol). Archivo de filología aragonesa 57: 163–192. ———. 2014. Judeo-Spanish in contact with Portuguese: A historical overview. In Portuguese-Spanish interfaces. Diachrony, synchrony, and contact, ed. Patrícia Amaral and Ana Maria Carvalho, 65–94. John Benjamins. ———. 2017. La pre-koiné judeoespañola durante las dos primeras generaciones de los expulsados (emigrantes). In Actas del XVIII Congreso de Estudios Sefardíes, Madrid, 30 de junio–3 de julio 2014, ed. Elena Romero, Shmuel Refael, and Hilary Pomeroy, 223–244. Madrid: CSIC. Ray, Jonathan S. 2013. After expulsion: 1492 and the making of Sephardic Jewry. New York: NYU Press. Romero, Elena. 1992. Creacion literaria en lengua sefardi, la. 1st ed. Madrid: MAPFRE.

10  Gender Hypercharacterization in Modern Judeo-Spanish… 

313

———. 2008. Historia y literatura. In Sefardíes: Literatura y lengua de una nación dispersa, ed. Iacob M. Hassán, Ricardo Izquierdo Benito, and Elena Romero, 155–192. Madrid: Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. Schmid, Beatrice. 2010. ‘Por el adelantamiento de la nación’. Las ideas lingüísticas de Abraham A. Cappon. In Los sefardíes ante los retos del mundo contemporáneo: identidad y mentalidades, ed. Paloma Díaz-Mas and María Sánchez Pérez. Madrid: CSIC. Sephiha, Haïm Vidal. 1986. Judéo-espagnol. Paris: Entente. Shaul, Moshe. 2012. Interview with Zelda Ovadia. Autoridad Nasionala del Ladino. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0KsDnONhSU. Consulted on July 5, 2022.

11 The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts with Uralic Sampsa Holopainen

1 Introduction The RUKI rule (the retraction of the PIE alveolar sibilant *s to postalveolar *š, as well as its and its voiced allophone *z to *ž after r, u, k and i) occurs in at least Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, possibly in the other satem languages too (see Olsen 2017: 441 and Martirosyan 2010: 709–710; 2013: 89 as well as Kim 2018: 256, footnote 23 for the RUKI-­ like developments in Armenian). This can point to a shared, early innovation, possibly going back to dialectal Proto-Indo-European (Beekes 1988: 80; 1997: 25).1 I am grateful to Chams Bernard, Santeri Junttila, Petri Kallio, Martin Kümmel, Niklas Metsäranta, Michaël Peyrot and Alexander Savelyev for useful discussions about various details presented here. I am responsible of all the remaining errors.  See Lubotsky 1999; Meier-Brügger 2010: 233–234; Kümmel 2007: 352; Bičovský 2008: 23–26; Lipp 2009: I: 32–38, II: 473, 478–479; Beguš 2012 for general discussions of the RUKI. 1

S. Holopainen (*) University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Lavidas et al. (eds.), Internal and External Causes of Language Change, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30976-2_11

315

316 

S. Holopainen

Despite the seemingly early age of RUKI, there are various reasons pointing to the conclusion that RUKI could be a relatively late areal innovation rather than a true isogloss; RUKI could have happened relatively late in the dialects of Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic. Such issues are the possible absence of RUKI in certain environments in the Nuristani branch of Indo-Iranian (see Hegedűs 2012 for a recent overview of the Nuristani data), as well as the well-known exceptions to the rule in Balto-­Slavic, especially in Lithuanian (Stang 1966: 94–99; Andersen 1968: 182–190; 1970; 2003: 58–59). It has also been argued that the RUKI in Balto-Slavic is later than satemization (Matasović 2005: 2–3). The early Indo-Iranian and other Indo-European loanwords in the Uralic languages can shed evidence for this problem. In this chapter I do not claim that the contacts with Uralic would have in any way contributed to the emergence of RUKI in Indo-Iranian or other Indo-European languages. However, the early loanwords can give important insights into the phonological reconstruction of Proto-Indo-Iranian, including the RUKIchanges. As the RUKI rule is a change that concerns different branches of Indo-European, notably Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, it is particularly interesting to use loanword evidence to investigate the emergence and spread of this change: the possible areal spread of RUKI between IndoIranian and Balto-Slavic is an issue that fits well with the topic of this volume, and loanwords can bring additional evidence to this problem. Although the Proto-Uralic phonological system (see below) is so different from Proto-Indo-Iranian that the loanwords provide only limited evidence of Indo-Iranian phonological developments, the sibilants that can be reconstructed in Proto-Uralic (palatal *ś, postalveoral *š and alveolar *s) fit well with the system of Proto-Indo-Iranian, and from the point of view of RUKI, the loanwords into the Uralic languages can give rather precise evidence of the occurrence of this change. Moreover, as the early loanwords in the Uralic languages clearly reflect different layers, some even going back to dialectal Indo-European or possibly to Proto-Indo-­European (Koivulehto 2016: 277–294), it should be possible to observe the development of Indo-Iranian RUKI in them.

11  The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts… 

317

The early Indo-Iranian loanwords in the Uralic languages seem to fit the reconstruction of the RUKI rule to Proto-Indo-Iranian. Most of the earliest loanwords show Uralic postalveolar *š in loanwords where we expect ProtoIndo-Iranian to have *š. However, there are some exceptions, and in some loanwords we find Uralic *s or *ś in cases where we would expect *š. The main aim of this chapter is to investigate the emergence of the RUKI rule on the basis of the Uralic loanword evidence. In the following sections, the Indo-Iranian loanwords that are supposedly borrowed from forms that show RUKI are critically analysed whether the loanword evidence support the early occurrence of the change, and how reliable the loanword evidence is. The evidence of Indo-Iranian loanwords will also be compared with that of the other ‘RUKI languages’ that have provided loanwords into the Uralic languages, namely, Balto-Slavic, as well as with the substitutions of sibilants in the alleged Proto-Indo-European or the so-called North-West Indo-European loans in the Uralic languages. In Sect. 2, first a general picture of Indo-Iranian Uralic contacts and RUKI rule in Indo-Iranian are presented and then the suggested Indo-­ Iranian loan etymologies in the Uralic languages are critically analysed; also possible counter-examples are discussed. In Sects. 3 and 4 the evidence is compared with the Balto-Slavic and the possible Proto-Indo-­ European loanwords in Uralic. In Sect. 5 the conclusions are presented.

2 RUKI Rule and the Loanwords in Uralic 2.1 Indo-Iranian Loans into Uralic There are roughly 100 early loans from Indo-Iranian to the Uralic languages (Holopainen 2019: 336–342). The loanwords were acquired in several layers, with the earliest loans probably acquired into Proto-Uralic or Proto-Finno-Ugric2 from Proto-Indo-Iranian or possibly even from an  Salminen (2002) provides a comprehensive discussion of the taxonomy of the Uralic family, noting that many of the nodes assumed in the earlier research, such as Finno-Ugric, Finno-Permic and FinnoVolgaic, are obsolete as the phonological reconstruction of these stages is practically identical, and the innovations that distinguish these stages from each other are very few and almost solely lexical. 2

318 

S. Holopainen

Table 11.1  Consonant system of Proto-Uralic p

t

m

s δ n r l

w

š

ś δ’ ń

k

č

ć

γ ŋ

j

Table 11.2  Consonant system of Proto-Indo-Iranian p t ć č

b d ʒ́ ǯ

k

g

bh dh ǯh

w r ʒ́h y

m ns š

g

h

H

earlier stage that has been called ‘Pre-Indo-Iranian’; this means an archaic stage of Indo-Iranian which still retained PIE vocalism (Koivulehto 2016: 289–294). General presentations about the loanwords include Joki (1973: 247–350); Rédei (1986); Koivulehto (2016: 257–276, 289–299); Parpola (2015: 59–68); Holopainen (2019). The consonant system of Proto-Uralic/Finno-Ugric is generally accepted to be the one illustrated in Table 11.1 (Sammallahti 1988: 482, 491). The Proto-Indo-Iranian consonant system was probably the one illustrated in Table 11.2 (Mayrhofer 1989: 6–7; Beekes 1997: 7). The Proto-Iranian system of consonants was most probably quite similar to the Proto-Indo-Iranian system described in Table 11.2. The major differences were the loss of aspiration of stops (*bh > *b etc.), as well as the development of *ć and *ʒ́, *ʒ́h developing into *ts (*c) and *dz (*ʒ) (Klingenschmitt 1975, footnote 151; Mayhofer 1989: 6–8; pace Beekes 1997: 25–26, Cheung 2007).

11  The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts… 

319

2.2 The RUKI Rule The RUKI rule, the retraction of *s to *š (or *s,3 see Beekes 1997: 25) after r, u, i and k, affected Proto-Indo-Iranian and also Proto-Balto-­Slavic.4 The RUKI rule was still a productive rule in Sanskrit, and the fact that in Avestan (but not in Sanskrit) s became š also after labials (Hale 2004: 750) and also before resonants (Burrow 1955: 81) points clearly to the fact that it continued to operate differently in Iranian and Indo-Aryan after the split-up of the Proto-Indo-Iranian language. The irregularities of RUKI rule in Lithuanian have led some researchers to assume that it operated only incompletely in Balto-Slavic (see, e.g., Stang 1966: 16, 94–99; Fortson 2010: 364, 380; Hock 2016: 11; Young 2017: 497–498; Petit 2018: 1649). Another possibility is that the RUKI rule was complete in both Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, and that the Lithuanian irregularities can be explained as secondary (see Andersen 2003: 58–59), especially as the early Baltic loans into the Finnic branch of Uralic show RUKI reflexes sometimes when the attested Lithuanian forms lack the sibilant š (Kallio 2008: 267). Also, the number of shared innovations of Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic is generally quite small. This could point to the conclusion that RUKI is not a shared innovation of Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic as such, but this change has later spread from Indo-­Iranian to the neighbouring Balto-Slavic branch (or vice versa). In Baltic, the outcome of RUKI is clearly visible only in Lithuanian, which shows š that merges with š from PIE *ḱ. In Latvian and Old Prussian, the situation is less clear. In both languages, reflexes of Proto-­ Balto-­Slavic *š and *ś as well as *ž and *ź merge (as s and z, respectively). This means that the results of the RUKI rule (Balto-Slavic *š, *ž) and the  It is not quite clear whether the Proto-Indo-Iranian sibilant was postalveolar *š, as is assumed by Lubotsky (2018), or retroflex *s, as is assumed by Beekes (1997). Proto-Uralic *š is usually reconstructed as a postalveolar sibilant (see Aikio 2022: 5), and based on the loanword evidence we can assume that the phonetic realisation of Indo-Iranian *š was quite similar. 4  Petit (2018: 1649) reconstructs the Proto-Baltic reflex of the RUKI sibilant *š as palatal *ś. In the light of loanword evidence, such reconstruction is very unlikely, as the Proto-Baltic loanwords in Finnic demonstrate an Early Proto-Finnic *š; had the Baltic phoneme been palatal *ś, Early Proto-­ Finnic *ś (> Late Proto-Finnic *s > Finnish s) would have been the expected substitution, but no loanwords with such examples can be found. Note that in early loanwords *ś was the substitution of Proto-Balto-Slavic *ś from PIE *ḱ; for example, Fi suka < Early PFi *śuka ← Proto-Balto-Slavic *śukā- (Kallio 2009: 32–33). 3

320 

S. Holopainen

reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European palatal stops (Balto-Slavic *ś < *ḱ; Balto-Slavic *ź < *ǵ, *ǵh) are identical. Because of this, it has also been assumed that RUKI did not affect the predecessors of Latvian and Old Prussian (Fortson 2010: 380). However, due to the early occurrence of RUKI in Baltic, Slavic as well as in Indo-Iranian, it is usually assumed that RUKI took place in Proto-Baltic, and the situation in Latvian and Old Prussian is due to later levelling (Kümmel 2007: 406; Young 2017: 498; Petit 2018: 1649). In Iranian and Indo-Aryan, the rule operates regularly, and it must have occurred in Proto-Indo-Iranian already. Beekes (1988: 80–81) notes that since the conditioning sounds r, u, k and i ‘are totally different sounds’, that is, they have nothing in common regarding the place and mode of articulation, it is unlikely that the RUKI rule could have taken place independently in different branches of Indo-European. However, Hegedűs (2012: 146, 162–164) argues that in the Nuristani branch of Indo-Iranian the RUKI operated only in some of the environments traditionally assumed, with the absence of RUKI after the original PIE *ḱ and *kw and in post-vocalic position (after *i and *u).5 This could point to early divergence of Nuristani and later occurrence of the RUKI rule in Indo-Iranian after the Nuristani branch had split off. Nevertheless, Hegedűs herself admits that some details in the history of the RUKI rule in Nuristani remain uncertain for the time being. It should also be noted that it is dubious to assume that a separate reflex of PIE *kw would have been retained until Proto-Nuristani, as the labiovelars clearly merged with plain velars in Proto-Indo-Iranian already. It is usually assumed that in the Iranian branch the RUKI rule operated without exceptions, as in the Old Iranian languages Avestan and Old Persian we find consistently the reflexes of *š, *ž. Apparent exceptions in later languages such as Wakhi probably reflect later development from Proto-Iranian *š to s (Kümmel 2007: 203). Recently Adams (2017: 457)  Although it is not possible to discuss the Nuristani evidence here in more detail, it can be remarked that according to Hegedűs, RUKI did not affect the Proto-Nuristani sequences of *iHs and *uHs, with the laryngeal blocking the development—but this does not have to mean that the rule was originally different in Nuristani compared to the rest of Indo-Iranian. We could probably assume that since RUKI was synchronically productive in Old Iranian and Old Indo-Aryan, the instances where RUKI affects Avestan and Vedic is, us from original *iHs and *uHs are due to later analogy that operated after the laryngeals had already become lost. 5

11  The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts… 

321

has noted that Tocharian B wästariye ‘pertaining to a camel (?)’ could be borrowed from Iranian *(H)ustra- ‘camel’ (corresponding to the main-­ stream Proto-Iranian reconstruction *(H)uštra-), an early form which did not show RUKI yet. However, Chen (2019: 230–231) explains the plain s of the Tocharian word through analogy, and, thus, this etymology does not have much value in determining the age of the RUKI. Also, the meaning of wästariye is uncertain according to Peyrot (personal communication), which casts doubt on the Iranian origin of the Tocharian word. There is, thus, no convincing evidence that would point to the conclusion that RUKI would not have taken place before the Proto-Iranian stage.

2.3 Earlier Views on RUKI and the Loanwords into Uralic No special attention is paid to the results of the RUKI rule in early presentations of Uralic-Indo-Iranian contacts, such as in Joki (1973) or Rédei (1986). Very few is said about the RUKI rule in these works; in general, the loanwords are stratified based on their distribution in these works rather than on their phonological characteristics. Rédei discusses the RUKI rule in the context of few individual etymologies, but he does not use it as an important criterion for dating the borrowings. The problem of the RUKI rule and the Indo-Iranian loanwords is discussed in a couple of publications of Jorma Koivulehto. Koivulehto (1999: 227 = 2016: 229) notes that Western Uralic/Finno-Volgaic *warsa ‘foal’ (see below) is borrowed from an early form of Alanian because of its rs that is found in the modern Ossetic forms wyrs, urs (instead of *rš that would be expected if the word was from Proto-Indo-Iranian or from ProtoIranian). Rédei (1986), on the other hand, had assumed that *warsa is borrowed from a very early form of Indo-Iranian, before the RUKI took place. Parpola (2005: 42–47) suggests some etymologies that do not show RUKI, assuming that clusters such as *rš were probably against Uralic phonotactics. On the other hand, Koivulehto (2016: 260, footnote 3) and Parpola (1999: 201; 2005: 44, footnote 283) note that Uralic *rs was rare and probably was acquired via loans—this makes the idea that *rš would

322 

S. Holopainen

have been substituted by *rs untenable, as both were lacking in ProtoUralic/Pre-Finnic. Koivulehto also notes that, in general, *š was rare in old vocabulary; see now Aikio (2015: 44). Kallio (2006: 11) mentions the RUKI rule as one of the key characteristics that distinguish the Indo-Iranian loanwords from earlier, Proto-­ Indo-­European loans.

2.4 Indo-Iranian Loanwords in Uralic Showing RUKI The etymologies discussed here consist of generally accepted etymologies published elsewhere, but they are critically evaluated here and alternative explanations are presented for some of them. In this section, I discuss only those Indo-Iranian etymologies that have been considered as convincing by Holopainen (2019: 54–322). The only exception is the etymology of Uralic *tošti- ‘to dare’, which was not discussed in that work.

 ords Showing the Effects of the RUKI Rule (Uralic *š ← W Indo-Iranian *š) (i) Mordvin ažija, ažja ‘carriage pole’; Udmurt vajiǯ ‘ carriage pole, drawbar’, Komi vož ‘carriage pole’ < PU6 ? *ajša ← PI(I) *Hay(H)ša- > Av aēša- ‘plough?’, PIE *h2/3oy(H)s-o-, cf. OI ī́sa- ‘shaft’ < *h2/3i(H)s-éh2- (EWAia 2001 I: 208; Peters 1980: 95; Höfler 2017) (Joki 1973: 253–254) Although the Indo-Iranian origin of the above Uralic words is quite transparent, the Uralic cognates are irregular. This could point to parallel borrowings from Indo-Iranian. The Mordvin words can regularly reflect earlier *ajša, if a metathesis of jš is assumed. The irregular relationship of the vocalism of Komi and Udmurt forms makes it difficult to reconstruct a common proto-form for even the Proto-Permic stage that precedes these languages. Probably the Mordvin and Permic words are separate  See abbreviations at the end of the chapter.

6

11  The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts… 

323

borrowings from Iranian. In any case both show reflexes of earlier *š (in the Permic languages, *š develops regularly to *ž in intervocalic position; Sammallahti 1988: 532). Finnic aisa ‘wagon shaft’ (> Finnish aisa and cognates in most Finnic languages) is a parallel loan from Baltic or Balto-Slavic. Previously it was often assumed that the word was borrowed from an unattested Baltic cognate (*ajsa) of the Indo-Iranian word, with apparent absence of the RUKI rule (Peters 1980: 95; Joki 1973; Junttila 2012: 280). A new explanation has been offered by Junttila (2016: 218–219) who suggests a borrowing from an unattested Balto-Slavic noun that is derived from the collective *ajesā or from the collective-plural itself. (ii) Fi mehiläinen ‘bee’ (derivative; cognates in all Finnic languages); Md E mekš, mäkš, M meš id.; Mari mükš; Komi moš, Udmurt muš; Hu méh, méj (dial.) ‘bee’ < PU *mekši ‘bee’ (Sammallahti 1988: 545) ← Pre-II *mekš- > PII *makš- > OI (Vedic) maks- ‘bee, fly’, (der.) maksikā, also (Vedic) maksā-; PII *makšī- > YAv maxšī- ‘fly’ (EWAia II: 287 s.v. máksā f.) (Munkácsi 1901: 458; Schindler 1972: 36; Joki 1973: 281; Parpola 1999: 199–201; Katz 2003: 225–226; Koivulehto 2016: 218) The above borrowing has to be very early, belonging to the layer of earliest Indo-Iranian loans that still retained PIE vocalism; this makes it a crucial piece of evidence for early RUKI after *k. The direction of borrowing can hardly be from Uralic to Indo-Iranian contrary to some earlier ideas; Schindler (1972: 36) and Moór (1958) assumed that the Uralic word is derived from alleged PU/PFU *mäkV or *mekV ‘honey’, and this would make it more plausible to assume that the Indo-Iranian word is borrowed from Uralic. However, the word *mäkV ‘honey’ cannot be reconstructed into Proto-Uralic, as this form is based only on Khanty *mǟγ and Mansi *mǟγ, which are not regular cognates with each other, and on Mari mü which is probably a loanword from Udmurt, see Aikio (2014: 134, footnote 2). Parpola (1999: 199–201) has further argued for this direction of borrowing, suggesting an Indo-European etymology for PII *makš- as a compound *médhu- + kw(e)i- ‘honey-gatherer’. In Parpola’s reconstruction, the Indo-Iranian cluster *kš would have developed from the *dh-k cluster, and

324 

S. Holopainen

if this hypothesis is correct, this loanword would lose its value as evidence for RUKI. Parpola’s etymology is semantically convincing, but phonologically it is unlikely because of the irregular syncope of *-u-. Parpola assumed that *dh-k- developed into *kš (following the traditional view on the development of ‘thorns’), but according to Lipp (2009: II: 5–515) the reconstruction *kš is improbable, and an affricate *džh would be the most likely Indo-Iranian outcome of a PIE cluster of voiced d(h) and kw-. The Uralic cluster *kš could hardly be explained from *džh (in this case one would rather expect Uralic affricate *č), meaning that the Uralic word cannot go back to an Indo-Iranian form with a ‘thorn-cluster’, and Parpola’s etymology is probably incorrect. Uralic *š here is best explained as a substitution of the Indo-Iranian *š in the RUKI environment, as has been traditionally thought. (iii) Fi ihana ‘wonderful; (dial.) healthy, blooming’, dial. and Karelian ihala ‘dear’, ihastua ‘to fall in love; (dial.) to bloom, to be refreshed’ < Proto-Finnic *iha ‘life force, joy’ < ? Pre-Finnic7 *iša ←PI *(H)iš- > Av īš- ‘force’, OI is- ‘drunk; refreshment; life force’ < PIE root *h2eys- ‘to put in motion’ (EWAia I: 198 s.v. ís-, 271–272 s.v. ES2) (Koivulehto 2001: 367–368, 2016: 265–266; Rintala 2003: 306–308; Katz 2003: 139, 147–148) The group of various iha words in Finnic form a bunch of complicated etymologies because of polysemy, but the substitution *š ← *š is uncontroversial. Koivulehto (2001, and following him, Rintala 2003) assumed that there are two homonymous iha stems in the Finnic branch of Uralic, both reflecting pre-Finnic *iša. One of these would be borrowed from PII or PI *(H)iš- ‘force’, while the other would be from PI *itstsa- (Koivulehto argues that PI *tsts, that develops from PII *sć according to Lubotsky 2001, would have resulted in *š in the Uralic side). However, semantically there is no reason to assume two different sources for the Finnic word, but

 The term Pre-Finnic is used here to refer to a reconstruction stage that precedes Proto-Finnic. Phonologically this is identical to Proto-West-Uralic or Proto-Uralic, but it would be misleading to use these terms when refering to a word that is found only in the Finnic branch. 7

11  The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts… 

325

they can all be derived from one source, and PII or PI *(H)iš- ‘force’ is the most suitable here, with the *š substituting the RUKI *š. (iv) Fi ihta (dial., obsolete) ‘lust, eagerness; (archaic, in early written Finnish) chance, possibility, liberty; eagerness, will, hurry’ < Pre-Fi *išta ← PII/PI *(H)išta-. cf. OI ista- ‘wished, desired; wish, desire’, (Old) Avestan išta- ‘Gewünchstes’ , PIE root PIE *h2eys- (~ *Hays-) (EWAia I: 270–271 s.v. ES1; Werba 1997: 162 No. 12 s.v. is-; Cheung 2007: 158; LIV: 260) (Koivulehto 2001: 366–367, 2016: 264–265; Rintala 2003: 304) Koivulehto (2001) assumes that ihta is borrowed from the verbal adjective *Hišta-, pertaining to the same Indo-Iranian root as the possible donor form of iha (see above). This is a convincing etymology both phonetically and semantically, although in this case too, the limited distribution to the Finnic branch only raises some questions. This etymology is thus a good example of a loanword that shows Indo-Iranian *š borrowed as Uralic *š. (v) Fi karhi ‘harrow made of logs by breaking off branches’ < Pre-­ Finnic *karši ← PII/PI *kr̥ší- (> OI kr̥sí-) f. ‘ploughing, field’ (Parpola 2005: 42–45) Possible cognates for karhi have been suggested in Mordvin M kartša ‘stick, dry twig ’, ? E kurtšt, kartšt ‘twigs’ and Hill Mari karša ’rotten twigs in the water’ (SSA I s.v. karhi). These words are not regular cognates even with each other (the Mordvin a ~ u vocalism is totally irregular, and the stem-vowel -a of the Moksha word is not regular from an Uralic -i-stem). Also, semantically these words are rather far from the Finnic word. The Indo-Iranian origin of Finnic karhi remains a possibility. Erzya Mordvin kurtšt would be a phonologically regular cognate of the Finnic word,8 but the relationship with the assumed Moksha cognate and Hill Mari karša remains uncertain and would require more research. If the Indo-Iranian etymology of the Finnic and perhaps the Erzya word is correct, it supports the established sound substitution *š ← *š. 8

 I am grateful to the anonymous referee for useful comments regarding the Mordvin words.

326 

S. Holopainen

(vi) Md E kšta, šta, M šta ‘beeswax’ (< Proto-Mordvin *šǝ̥šta; Keresztes 1986: 162); Ma šište, šə̂šte (< Proto-Mari ); Ko śis, Ud śus id. (< Proto-Permic *śiś) < PU *śišta ‘beeswax’9 ← PIA/PII *ćišta-, > OI madhu-śista- ‘beeswax’; śista- ‘what is left ot; the rest’, verbal adjective from the root śes- ‘to leave (over)’ < ? PII *ćayš- (EWAia II, s.v. śes) (Katz 2003: 224; Carpelan & Parpola 2001: 122–126) This is a convincing Indo-Iranian loan etymology, and the Uralic reconstruction based on the Mordvin and Mari forms shows Indo-Iranian *š reflected as Uralic *š. Carpelan & Parpola (2001) assume that the loan is from Indo-Aryan, but it could be from Proto-Indo-Iranian already (the word-initial *ś in Uralic is typical of Proto-Indo-Iranian loans). The formation *ćišta- is not reflected in Iranian, but as the root *ćays- has a possible Indo-European origin (Parpola 2017: 261, footnote 9; Werba 1997: No. 195), it is well possible that the word was borrowed from Proto-­Indo-­ Iranian already. It should be noted that the Proto-Permic word does not regularly reflect Uralic *śišta and it is probably a parallel loanword. The *ś instead of *š is either secondary in Permic (due to an assimilation caused by word-initial *ś) or it shows a different substitution (Pre-Permic *ś ← Indo-Iranian *š). The Permic vocalism is also irregular. Interestingly, *ś is found in some other loans in Permic too; see Komi Komi burśi̮ , buri̮ ś ‘mane’ for an early loan that might show a similar substitution. (vii) Ud oš ‘ox, bull’, Ko e̥š, e̥ška id. < Pre-P *uška ← PII *ukšan- or PI *uxšan- > OI uksan, nom.sg uksā́, OΑv uxšan-, nom.sg. uxš-ā ‘Stier’ (Joki 1973: 334; Rédei 1986: 61; Koivulehto 1991: 35; Katz 2003: 196–197)  Note that the reconstruction *śiśta in the UEW is incorrect, as the sibilant *š in the Mordvin and Mari forms cannot be derived from this. The Uralic reconstruction *śišta is expected based on the Indo-Iranian donor, and this is used by Katz and Carpelan & Parpola. Notably, already Keresztes (1986: 162) reconstructed the cluster *št to the Uralic word, long before the loan etymology was suggested. The sibilant *ś in Komi and Udmurt is irregular, but we will have to assume that it is due to assimilation caused by the word-initial *ś, as suggested by Katz (2003: 224, footnote 224). Alternatively, the Permic word could be considered a parallel loan, with *ś ← *š, but this is more unlikely. 9

11  The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts… 

327

The Permic word shows metathesis *šk > *kš. The word has to be an early loan in spite of the limited distribution in Permic only, as the vocalism of Udmurt and Komi is similar to inherited Uralic *u–a stems. In earlier research (Joki 1973: 334; Koivulehto 1991: 35), Mari üsküž ‘bull’ was considered as a cognate of the Permic word, but according to Metsäranta (2012: 38–39) it is more probably borrowed from Pre-­ Permic *uška. (viii) Fi tohtia, tohti- (cognates in all Finnic languages except Karelian and Livonian); North Saami duosta-; Mari tošta- ‘to dare, to get’ < PU *tošti- (UEW: 799; SSA s.v. tohtia; Bereczki 2013: 281; Aikio 2013: 11) ← PII *dharš- > OI dhaṛs-, dhṛsnóti ‘to attack, to be daring, coragious‘, dhṛsti- ‘boldness‘, < PIE *dhers- (EWAIa I s.v. DHAṚS) (Koivulehto 1991: 78, footnote 43) Koivulehto presents the above etymology in his work that mainly deals with possible Proto-Indo-European loans in Uralic, arguing correctly that š in early loans is usually a sign of Indo-Iranian. Nevertheless, Koivulehto mentions, interestingly, that *š could have been a substitute of PIE *rs. The etymology is mentioned as a possibility by the SSA but it is not commented by other later etymological dictionaries, such as Bereczki’s (2013) etymological dictionary of Mari. Semantically Koivulehto’s etymology is convincing, but because of the complicated sound substitution, it remains uncertain. The etymology remains dubious because of the uncertain development of the consonant cluster *ršt. As this kind of sequence was not allowed in Proto-Uralic, it is plausible that it would have produced *št in the Uralic side, but it is very difficult to prove it, as there is nothing on the Uralic side that would force us to assume that. However, if the etymology is correct, Uralic *š from Indo-Iranian *š fits well with the other evidence in favour of the RUKI rule of the loanwords. (ix) Fi viha ‘hate; venom’, vihreä ‘green’ (derivative); Md E ožo ‘green’; Ma (der.) užar ‘green’; Ko vež ‘envy’, Ud vož ‘hate, anger; green’ < PU *wiša ‘venom’ (Sammallahti 1988: 554) ← PII/PI *wiš- > OI (Vedic) visá- ‘venom’ (later thematicization), YAv vīša-, viš- id. < PIE *wis-o- (EWAIa s.v. visá

328 

S. Holopainen

(Munkácsi 1901: 6; Parpola 1999: 201–202; Katz 2003: 89–90, 150; Koivulehto 2016: 267) The above loanword is based on a well-established and convincing etymology, and the Uralic word is clearly borrowed from a form that went through RUKI.  Formally, the donor form can be either Proto-Indo-­ Iranian or Proto-Iranian (due to the relatively limited distribution of the word in Uralic, it is possible that the borrowing is not very old, although the distribution of loanwords tells often little of their actual age). Both Parpola (1999: 201–202) and Katz (2003: 89–90, 150) have argued that possibly two separate loans that got mixed in Uralic: *wiša ‘venom (> green)’ is borrowed from the Indo-Iranian *wiša-, whereas homonymous *wiša ‘hate’ would reflect PII *dwiš- ‘to hate’. It is very difficult to prove that this is correct, based on Uralic arguments alone, although one can note that semantic parallels to ‘venom’ > ‘hate’ can be found and it is not absolutely necessary to assume two separate loans. From the point of view of the RUKI rule this has not much value, as Uralic *š is clearly a reflex of a RUKI language in this case.

Possible Counter-Examples Uralic *s Instead of *š (i) Fi aisa ‘shaft’ < Proto-Finnic *aisa (cognates in all Finnic languages except for Livonian) This is certainly not an Indo-Iranian loan, see Junttila’s (2016: 218–219) explanation above. (Note that Fi ojas ‘shaft’, sometimes also considered as an Iranian loan from the same word, is probably borrowed from Slavic [Vilkuna (1968); Holopainen (2019: 159)].) (ii) Fi kärsä ‘pig’s snout’ (cognates in all Finnic languages) < ? Pre-Finnic *kärsä or *kärśä ← PII/PI *karsū́-, OI karsū́- ‘furrow, cut, ditch’, Einschnitt, Graben‘, root karš- > OI kars- ‘to draw, drag, plough’, YAv karš-; < PIE *kwel-­s- (EWAia I: 319–320, 397 s.v. kars-, karsū́-; Werba 171, No. 31 s.v. kr̥s; Cheung 2007 s.v. *karš/xrah) (Parpola 2005: 42–45)

11  The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts… 

329

The Sanskrit noun karsū́- ‘furrow, cut, ditch’ is not semantically very close to the Finnic word. It is mainly the verbal root kars- ‘to draw, drag, plough’ that could be the source of kärsä, with the idea that the primary meaning of the Finnic word would have denoted the use of snout to root around in the ground. In addition to the absence of RUKI rule, also the Finnic ä–ä stem raises questions: the Uralic/Pre-Finnic *ä–ä stems regularly became a–e stems in Proto-Finnic (Aikio 2015: 39–48), which means that we should expect *karsi (oblique stem *karse-), rather than kärsä, in Finnish. All the IndoIranian loanwords found in the Finnic branch have been acquired before the Proto-Finnic sound changes took place, which makes this etymology rather dubious. (iii) Fi niska ‘neck’ < PFi *niska < ? Pre-Finnic *niska or *niśka ← PIA (?) *niška- > OI niská- ‘a golden ornament for the neck’ (EWAia II: 48, s.v. niská-) (Blažek 1990: 41; Parpola 2005: 47) This is one of the few possible examples of Uralic (in this case, only Finnic) s corresponding to Indo-Iranian *š, but semantically this is not a very compelling etymology. Indic niska- is also not very widely attested and its etymology is uncertain (EWAia II: 48, s.v. niská-), which makes the idea that the Finnic word is borrowed from it further uncertain. As the word is attested only in Finnic, where Uralic *ś and *s merged, theoretically a pre-form *niśka would also be possible. (iv) Fi varsa, Mordvin vašo ‘foal’ < Proto-Uralic or Proto-West-Uralic *warsa or *wi̥rsa ̥ Iranian (Alanic?), cf. Ossetic wyrs, urs < PII *wr̥šan-, cf. OI vṛsan(Joki 1973: 377; Rédei 1986: 62; Koivulehto 2016: 219) Uralic s has also been explained by sound substitution in rs clusters (Rédei 1986: 62), but Koivulehto (2016: 219) argues in favour of ‘pre-­ Ossetic’/Alanian origin; in Ossetic, Iranian *š in general merged with *s (see Cheung 2002: 23, 245; Testen 1997: 715). This would fit well with the other Alanian-type loanwords in western Uralic languages, but this is the only example of Alanian-type development of the *rš cluster. However, it is quite doubtful that the change *š > *s in Alanic would be so early as Koivulehto assumes.

330 

S. Holopainen

Martin Kümmel (personal communication) points to me that the Ossetic change of *š > *s has to be relatively late due to evidence from Caucasian loanwords, which means it cannot have happened in a stage of Alanic or Scythian that could have provided the loanword to Finnic and Mordvin. If this is indeed the case, the dating of this Iranian borrowing becomes more problematic. Bielmeier (1989: 242) also considers the sound-change late (‘…sehr jung und innerossetisch’). Moreover, some late loanwords from Ossetic (or Alanic) to various neighbouring languages in the Caucasus show reflexes of Alanic *š: for example, Abkhaz a-waraš ‘beer’ from a predecessor of Digor Ossetic wæras shows *š corresponding to Ossetic s (see Šagirov 1989: 163). This means that Uralic *rs is likely just a substitution of *rš, as no cluster *rš can be reconstructed into ProtoUralic or Proto-West-Uralic. The Uralic word cannot be reconstructed as *rś because of the Mordvin word, as the palatal character of *ś would have been retained here (Keresztes 1987: 79). As PU *ś and *ć merged in Finnic, on the basis of that branch only one cannot tell the difference. (v) Mansi North ēsǝrma, East ēsǝrmǝ, South īserǝm, West ēsärǝm ‘shame’ (< Proto-Mansi *ǟsVrmV ‘shame’) ← Alanic *æfsærm, > Oss æfsærm, æfsarm, cf. YAv fšarəma‘Scham(gefühl)’ < PI *fšarma- (Cheung 2002: 157) (Munkácsi 1901: 567–568; Korenchy 1972: 55; Katz 2003: 303–304) In this case *s instead of *š is due to a late borrowing. In Mansi, Uralic *š became t (through an intermediary phase of a spirant *θ, shared by Hungarian, Khanty and Samoyed; Sammallahti 1988: 485, 501, 511), which shows that the borrowing cannot be an early one. Another sign of a late loan is the wordinitial vowel: the Mansi word clearly points to a donor form akin to the Ossetic form with prothetic æ- which is a late development, missing from the mediaeval Alanic glosses of Tzetzes (Bielmeier 1989: 242). Uralic *ś or *ć There are a few clear counter-examples, where the Uralic languages show *ś or *ć as the substitution of the RUKI sibilant *š. It is reasonable to treat these cases together, as the *ś and *ć of the traditional reconstruction might originally represent only one single phoneme (see Zhivlov 2014: 114, footnote 3). The cases that show *ś or *ć are confined to individual branches of Uralic, but the loanwords cannot be very late, as phonological features show they have to be acquired pretty early.

11  The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts… 

331

(vi) Komi burśi̮ , buri̮ ś ‘horse’s neck, mane’ < Pre-Permic *barśa~ *barća ← PI *barša- (> Avestan barəša- ‘mane’) or Alanian *barc- (cf. Oss barc, barcæ) < *br̥štiIt is not at all certain that the Permic word reflects a form akin to Avestan barəša- as has been assumed in earlier research (KESK: 42; Rédei 1986: 66; Csúcs 2005: 323), as one would expect Permic š rather than ś from Iranian *š. ś can be due to analogy from the etymologically unrelated śi ‘hair’ (Rédei 1986). However, an alternative solution could be that it reflects the substitution of Alanian/Ossetic c (which occurred in the Ossetic reflex of the form *baršti-, see Cheung 2002: 55, 173). The word is in any case borrowed from Iranian and not from some earlier stage due to its limited distribution. Also, Permic b- probably points to a later origin, as this does not generally appear in Pre-Permic vocabulary even though *b is sporadically found as a reflex of *p in inherited Uralic vocabulary (Csúcs 2005: 154–58; Metsäranta 2020). However, the word has to be borrowed before the Proto-Permic vowel-changes, as Uralic or PrePermic *a–a stems regularly yielded initial-syllable u in the Permic languages Udmurt and Komi (Sammallahti 1988: 530). Some other loans in Permic also show *ś; see Proto-Permic *śuś ‘beeswax’ above. Perhaps Proto-Permic *pi̮ź(n) (> Komi pi̮ź, Udmurt pi̮ź ‘flour’, verb Komi pi̮źnal-, Udmurt pi̮źnal- ‘to sprinkle with flour’) can be added here; Koivulehto (1991: 89) has assumed that this is a loan from ProtoIndo-European or ‘Pre-Balto-Slavic’ *pis-eno-, from the root *peys- ‘to crush’, but it can be assumed that this is rather a later Indo-Iranian loan from some reflex of *pišant- (> Young Avestan pišant- ‘to grind, crush’; a meaning ‘flour’ is not attested for this formation, but compare related Iranian forms derived from the same root, like Middle Persian pist ‘flour’, see EWAia II: 169). This word is borrowed also into Mansi as North Mansi pasǝn ‘flour’; Mansi s can also point to earlier *ś. It is somewhat problematic that this word shows *ś, but more research is needed. (vii) Hungarian magyar (compound *magy-ar) ‘Hungarian’; Mansi (Northern dialects) mańśi, (South) mäńćī, (East) möäńś, West mānś ‘Mansi; child that has not been baptised’; Khanty (Northern dialects) māś, (East) mańt’ ‘name of a Khanty phratry’< ? Proto-Ugric *manći

332 

S. Holopainen

or *mänći ̥ PII or PI *manu-š ‘man’, > OI mánu- ‘man, mankind’ (EWAia II, s.v. mánu-) (Munkácsi 1901: 454–456; Korenchy 1972: 60) It is an old idea that the ethnonym of the two Ugric peoples and a phratry name in Khanty is an Indo-Iranian loanword, borrowed from *manu-š ‘man’, and it has been assumed that this word was borrowed into ProtoUgric, the common proto-language of Hungarian, Khanty and Mansi. This etymology is filled with problems: first of all, the words in the three Ugric languages cannot reflect a unitary proto-form, as some languages point to *a, some to *ä. This strongly points to the conclusion that the word has been borrowed into the preforms of these languages after the split of Proto-Ugric. Another problem is the substitution of *š, which is our main concern here. As has been noted also by Kümmel (2017), it is dubious to assume that *š was substituted by *ć in this word. Korenchy (1972: 60) argues that, due to the lack of an *nš cluster, *nć would have been the closest phonetic equivalent: according to Korenchy, the second syllable was syncopated after borrowing, which produced this cluster. Because so many uncertainties are involved, the above etymology remains highly dubious, and it cannot be used as a proof for non-­ occurrence of RUKI. Had the Ugric words been borrowed from a very early form without RUKI, it would have rather produced *mansV or *manVs. (viii) Mari (Eastern dialects) parč́a, (Western dialects) pärcä < Proto-Mari *pärća ‘ear of corn’ ← PII or PI *paršá-, YAv parša- ‘ear of corn’, OI parsá- ‘sheaf, bundle’ (EWAia II, s.v. parsá) (Aikio 2014: 141) The Mari word is one of the few possible examples of this substitution. Semantically the etymology is quite convincing, and it fits well with other words related to agriculture that have been borrowed from Indo-Iranian to Uralic (such as Mordvin juv ‘awn’, Udmurt ju ‘grain’, from Indo-­Iranian *yawa- ‘grain’; Joki 1973; Holopainen 2019: 103–105).

11  The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts… 

333

However, the *ć ← *š substitution raises serious doubts regarding the above etymology, as no other such cases are known from Mari. Alexander Savelyev (p.c.) points out that the Mari word could well be borrowed from Tatar bärčä ‘ear of corn’; according to Savelyev, the wide attestation of the Tatar word in dialects, which would be atypical for Mari loanwords into Tatar (some kind of etymological connection between the Mari and Tatar words has also been noted by Akhmetyanov 2015, s.v. БӘРЧӘ, but as far as I know, a loan from Tatar to Mari had not been previously suggested). The above observation would solve the problem of the palatal affricate in the Mari word, as it could be more easily explained as derived from the Tatar affricate *č than from Indo-Iranian *š. There are much more Tatar loans in Mari compared to Iranian loanwords, so a Tatar origin is more probable, and the Mari word can be left out of discussion regarding the RUKI rule.

Ambiguous Cases: Uralic Forms Point to Either *s or *š (i) Nganasan bada’áma, Enetd barábo, Tundra Nenets βāδā, Selkup ke̥ti̥qo, Kamass budəl’ȧm, Mator бадьямъ < Proto-Samoyed *wåtå- (transitive) to grow, breed’, *wåtǝ̂- (intransitive) ‘to grow’ < Pre-Samoyed *waksa- ~ *wakša- ← PII *Hwakš-a-, root *Hwag-, > OI vaks- ‘to grow, become big’, perf. vaváksa, caus. vaksay ‘to let grow big’; OAv vaxš-, uxšiieitī ‘grows (ints.)’, vaxšt ‘grows (trans.)’ (EWAia II: 485–487, s.v. VAKS; Werba 1997: 452–453; Cheung 2007 s.v. ṷaxš) (Aikio 2002: 52; Häkkinen 2009: 25) Due to the merger of the PU sibilants *s and *š in the Samoyed branch (both became Proto-Samoyed *t), it is impossible to determine more precisely which sibilant the pre-Samoyed form had, and, this word cannot be used as evidence for RUKI.

334 

S. Holopainen

3 Comparison with the Baltic and Balto-­Slavic Loanwords in Finnic and Other Western Uralic Languages In Finnic and Saami, the westernmost branches of the Uralic family, there are many early loanwords from Proto-Baltic and probably already from Proto-Balto-Slavic (see Kallio 2008, Junttila 2012). Despite the western distribution of these words within Uralic, they have clearly been acquired in a phonological stage that was still practically identical to Proto-Uralic and that gives us an interesting way to compare the loanword evidence for RUKI within Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian loanwords. Kallio (2008: 267) and Junttila (2016: 223) have noted that the Baltic loanwords in Finnic generally display *š from Baltic *š (< RUKI; similar substitution appears also with Baltic *š that reflects PIE *ḱ, showing that these two sounds had merged in Proto-Baltic). This also appears in cases where Lithuanian shows *s: Lith liesas < Proto-Baltic *leišas → Pre-Finnic laiša > Fi laiha ‘thin’; Lith tū́kstantis ‘thousand’ < Proto-Baltic *tūkštantor *tūsamt- ~ *tūšamt- → Pre-Finnic *tušanti > Fi tuhat; as the same Baltic word has been borrowed also into Mordvin as t’oža, t’ožäń and into Mari as tüžem, tǝžem ‘thousand’. These words meaning ‘thousand’ are clearly parallel borrowings from Baltic (no proto-form for the words in these three languages can be reconstructed; see SSA s.v. tuhat and Grünthal 2012: 336).10 Nevertheless, they likewise point to the occurrence of RUKI in the donor language (for the reconstruction of the Baltic word and the absence of RUKI in Lithuanian in this word, see Derksen 2009 s.v. tūkštantis). This points to early regularity in Baltic that was later levelled out. However, the evidence is based on very few etymologies. More evidence is offered by the loans which show RUKI reflexes in Baltic and also the expected *š in Finnic and other Uralic languages, even though one has  Even though Grünthal mentions the probability that the Mordvin word is a separate loan, he also assumes that the words can be reconstructed to Proto-Finno-Ugric *tušamti. However, this is unlikely in the light of the different Auslaut of these words (Mordvin -a, -ań, Mari -m vs. Fi -t: -nte-): it is more likely that these differences reflect borrowings from different varieties of the Baltic word. 10

11  The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts… 

335

to state that a complete overview of all relevant Baltic etymologies remains a desideratum. Generally accepted Baltic loans that show (RUKI) *š and are very early include the following etymologies. (i) Fi hihna ‘strap’, Md kšna ‘strap’, Mari šüštö ‘strap’ < PWU ? *šišna ← Baltic *ši(k)snā > Lithuanian šikšnà ‘strap’ This is another good example of a RUKI reflex in a Baltic loan, even though the etymology of the Baltic word is somewhat uncertain. Mari šüštö ‘strap’ cannot be regularly derived from a form with *i (*i yields Mari *ǔ in Uralic *i–a stems, Aikio 2014: 156), meaning that it is uncertain whether it belongs here at all. Due to the uncertain etymology of the Baltic word (it is not listed among the inherited Indo-European words by Derksen 2015, and no cognates are known in other branches), it cannot be ruled out that the Finnic, Mordvin, Mari and Baltic words are parallel borrowings from some unknown source. It is, however, more probable that the Finnic and Mordvin words are borrowed from Baltic, as both branches of Uralic include large numbers of Baltic loanwords (Junttila 2015; Grünthal 2012). (ii) Fi lehti < ? PU *lešti ‘leaf ’ ← cf. OCS listъ < PSl *listъ < PBSl *laid-sk-to- or *leid-sk-to- < ? PIE *leid-sk-to- (Derksen 2008 s.v. listъ) (Hyllested 2014: 13, 16; Junttila 2016: 224–225; Blažek 2018: 7; 2019: 216) The above Balto-Slavic etymology is a more convincing alternative to the earlier Indo-European (Pre-Germanic) etymology that was suggested by Koivulehto (2016: 283–284). Koivulehto derived the Uralic word from *bhleh1to- ‘leaf ’, which would be the Proto-Indo-European or ‘Pre-­ Germanic’ predecessor of Proto-Germanic *blāđa- ‘leaf ’, but this etymology is problematic because it assumes an *š ← *H substitution, which is both phonetically unlikely and occurs in only very few loanwords.11 The newer Balto-Slavic etymology has been suggested independently by several researchers (Hyllested 2014; Junttila 2016; Blažek 2018, 2019).  See Hyllested 2014 for more detailed criticism of this etymology and other cases that allegedly manifest this substitution 11

336 

S. Holopainen

Their explanations are slightly different: Hyllested mentions that the Uralic word is a loan from a form akin to Lithuanian lãkštas ‘sheet’ and OCS listъ ‘leaf ’ even though these two forms cannot be derived regularly from the same Balto-Slavic source. Junttila, on the other hand, reconstruct Baltic *leištas on the basis of the Slavic word and assumes that this is the donor form of the Uralic word. Blažek likewise bases his reconstruction on Slavic, arguing for a borrowing from a hypothetical Baltic form *lišta(s). Note that none of the assumed donor forms explain the Uralic *e-vocalism properly; Blažek argues that there are parallels to Baltic *i being substituted by Uralic *e, but the example he mentions as a parallel (Fi ehkä < Pre-Finnic *eškä ← Baltic *iž(gi), cf. Lith iž- ‘from’ + enclitic particle gi) has not been widely accepted (Nikkilä 2001: 397; Junttila 2015: 110). The donor form reconstructed by Junttila is perhaps the most suitable, as one could assume a simplification of *ej before the cluster *št. No examples of *Vjšt are found in the Uralic vocabulary (no such cases are listed by UEW or Sammallahti 1988). Despite the problems with the vocalism, the above etymology can be considered convincing. Our main interest here is that the word shows RUKI, which is interesting as the Slavic reflex demonstrates simple *s. Here it has to be kept in mind that it is not certain which form exactly was the donor of the Uralic word, and the consonant cluster *dsk that would have been impossible for Uralic phonotactics could have influenced the sound substitution. (iii) Fi tyhjä ‘empty’ < Pre-Finnic *tüšjä ‘empty’ ← Baltic *tùstja- (> Lith tùščias id.) < PIE *tus-sk-ti-o- (Derksen 2015 s.v. tuščias) This is a well-established and convincing etymology (see SSA 2000 s.v. tyhjä; Junttila 2015: 90). The substitution of Baltic *u by Finnic *ü is found in a number of loans. Note that Lubotsky’s (2001: 16) proposal that the Baltic word is borrowed from Slavic *tъštь is unlikely in the view of the early Baltic loan into Finnic (see also the arguments presented by Derksen 2015 s.v. tuščias).

11  The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts… 

337

4 The Substitution of Sibilants in Alleged Proto-Indo-European or North-West Indo-European Loans It has been suggested by Jorma Koivulehto (1991, 1999, 2016: 281–289) that there are several Proto-Indo-European or North-West Indo-European loanwords in Uralic.12 In principle, it should be possible to distinguish between the plain *s in these early loans from the reflexes of *š in Indo-­ Iranian and Balto-Slavic loanwords. In the possible loans from PIE to PU/ Pre-Finnic, the sibilant *s is indeed reflected by *s in the environments that later gave RUKI in Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Balto-­Slavic. There are some ambiguous cases (e.g., *š and *s merged in Saami, meaning that the difference cannot be seen from the Saami forms), but nothing that would clearly contradict this rule. However, the evidence from early PIE loans is controversial at best (the existence of the Indo-­European loanword layer in Uralic is questioned by Simon 2020, on good arguments), as there are so few possible loanwords and their donor forms are often obscure. Interestingly, it has been suggested that PIE *s was possibly a ‘prepalatal hushed sibilant’ (Vijūnas 2010; Byrd 2017: 2063). The alleged PIE loans in Uralic do not point to this articulation, as PU *s is the substitution instead of PU *š. (i) North Saami guovssu ‘dawn’ < Pre-Sa ? *kawsaj ← PIE *h2awso-s ‘dawn’ > Greek ἔως (Proto-Greek *awhos), OI usás- (< *h2usós-) etc. (NIL 2008: 357–367) (Koivulehto 2016: 287) The Indo-European loan etymology for the Saami word is quite problematic. As has been noted by Holopainen, Junttila & Kuokkala (2017: 112), the cluster ws in the Saami word could reflect a number of Pre-­ Saami/Proto-Uralic consonant clusters (see Sammallahti 1998: 200–201), which makes the etymology uncertain. Also, the fact that the word is

 Koivulehto’s North-West Indo-European layer consists of loanwords whose source points to an archaic Indo-European donor. The loanwords reflect words that could formally be Proto-Indo-­ European but have a more limited distribution in the languages of Northern Europe, especially in Balto-Slavic and Germanic. 12

338 

S. Holopainen

found only in Saami and no related languages makes it uncertain that the word could be a very early Indo-European loan. (ii) Fi kyrsä, Md kše, kši < PWU *kürsä ‘bread’ (UEW: 679) ← PIE/ Pre-BSl (?) *kruso-, > PBSl *krusa- > Russian krohá ‘crumb of bread’ (Derksen 2008: 253) (Koivulehto 1999: 212 = 2016: 214) Koivulehto suggests that the borrowing is ‘Pre-Slavic’ (borrowed before the RUKI took place). If this explanation is correct, it has to be either earlier than RUKI or reflect the *rs ← *rš sound substitution. No convincing competing etymology for the Finno-Mordvin word exists. The Slavic word has no exact formal parallels in other Indo-European languages, but as it has an Indo-European etymology, it could be a very early formation. Since the words in Finnic and Mordvin are regular cognates (the first-syllable vowel in Mordvin has been regularly syncopated, see UEW: 679), the borrowing has to be very early, and it cannot be from Proto-Slavic but rather from Proto-Balto-Slavic. However, semantically the etymology is not that obvious, as the main meaning in both Finnic and Mordvin is clearly ‘bread’, not ‘crumb’.13 This casts some doubt on the etymology, and its evidence as a counter-­example to the RUKI rule in early loanwords cannot be given too much value. (iii) Fi tahdas (: tahtaan) < *taštas ‘dough’ ← ? PIE *tah2i-s-to- > PBSl *taysto- or *teysto > OCS tĕsto ‘dough’ (Koivulehto 2016: 215–216) Koivulehto’s Indo-European etymology (Uralic *š ← PIE *h2) has been criticised by Hyllested (2014: 16–17), who assumes that the word is indeed from PIE but shows Uralic *š from PIE *s. This is one possibility, but it is also possible that we are dealing with a RUKI reflex here. Junttila (2016: 223) considers the loan as Baltic or Proto-Balto-Slavic or Pre-­Slavic loan, from BSl *taisto-. The form with the suffix -to- is attested only in Slavic and in Proto-Celtic *taysto- (Derksen 2008 s.v. tĕsto), which would give additional support for the idea that the Finnic is indeed a Balto-Slavic loanword.

 I am grateful to Petri Kallio for pointing out the problems with the semantics to me.

13

11  The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts… 

339

5 Conclusions The clear majority of the convincing Indo-Iranian etymologies clearly show that the RUKI development had taken place by the time the earliest contacts with the Uralic languages started. Even the earliest loanwords (with retained *e vocalism) show effects of the RUKI. Also all of the loanwords that can be securely considered as Proto-Indo-Iranian (or Proto-­ Iranian) loanwords (Fi iha ‘*life force’< *iša, Fi ihta ‘lust, eagerness’ < *išta, Fi mehi-läinen < *mekši ‘bee’, Mordvin kšta, šta < *śišta ‘beeswax’, Ud, Ko uš < *ukšan ‘ox’, Ng bada’áma < *wakša- ‘to grow’, Fi viha < *wiša ‘venom’) show reflexes that point to RUKI, with the exception of Fi varsa ‘foal’ < *warsa that is also probably an early loanword. Also the uncertain etymology of Fi tohtia < *tošti- fits here if the loan explanation is correct. Most of the counter-examples can be explained either as wrong or dubious etymologies (Fi aisa ‘shaft’, kärsä ‘pig’s snout’, niska ‘neck’, the ethnonym *manći, Mari *pärća ‘ear of corn’) from either phonological, semantic or distributional point of view (Komi buri̮ś ‘mane’ is a special case, as *ś is more probably due to a borrowing from a ‘pre-Ossetic’ form with an affricate *c). Thus, the loanword evidence supports the view that the RUKI rule occurred early in Indo-Iranian (or dialectal Indo-European). Also, the loanwords from Balto-Slavic and Baltic into the Uralic languages seem to support this. Even though the material of Indo-Iranian, Baltic and Balto-­ Slavic loanword layers is scarce when studied alone, taken together they strongly point to the conclusion that the retraction of *s in the RUKI environment was early. The evidence of possible Proto-Indo-European (or North-West Indo-­ European) loanwords is too uncertain and scarce to offer any solid evidence, but no Uralic *š is found in this tentative loanword layer, which further reinforces the idea that in Indo-Iranian loanwords Uralic *š corresponds to Indo-Iranian *š.

340 

S. Holopainen

Abbreviations Fi Finnish OAv Old Avestan OCS Old Church Slavonic OI Old Indo-Aryan/Sanskrit PBSl Proto-Balto-Slavic PI Proto-Iranian PII Proto-Indo-Iranian Pre-BSl Pre-Balto-Slavic PSl Proto-Slavic PU Proto-Uralic PWU Proto-West-Uralic YAv Young Avestan

References Adams, Douglas Q. 2017. Tocharian. In The Indo-European languages, ed. Mate Kapović, 452–478. London and New York: Routledge. Aikio, Ante. 2002. New and old Samoyed etymologies. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 57: 9–57. ———. 2013. Uralilaisen kantakielen vokaalistosta [About the vocalism of Proto-Uralic]. Handout of a presentation held at the seminar Etymologia ja kielihistoria: Erkki Itkosen ja Aulis J.  Joen 100-vuotisjuhlaseminaari 19.4.2013. Helsinki. ———. 2014. On the reconstruction of Proto-Mari vocalism. Journal of language relationship 11: 125–157. ———. 2015. The Finnic ‘secondary e-stems’ and Proto-Uralic vocalism. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 95: 26–66. ———. 2022. Proto-Uralic. In The Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages, ed. Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso, and Elena Skribnik. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Akhmetyanov = Әхмәтьянов, Р. Г. 2015. Татар Теленең Атар Теленең Этимологик Сүзлеге. I. А–Л. [Etymological dictionary of the Tatar language. I. А–Л]. Казан: «Мәгариф – Вакыт» Нәшрияты. Andersen, Henning. 1968. IE *s after i, u, r, k in Baltic and Slavic. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia XI (2): 171–190.

11  The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts… 

341

———. 1970. On some old Balto-Slavic isoglosses. In Donum Balticum, ed. Velta Ruķe-Draviņa, 14–21. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. ———. 2003. Slavic and the Indo-European migrations. In Language Contacts in Prehistory. Studies in Stratigraphy, ed. Henning Andersen, 45–76. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Beekes, Robert Stephen Paul. 1988. A grammar of Gatha-Avestan. Leiden  – New York – København – Köln: Brill. ———. 1997. Historical phonology of Iranian. Journal of Indo-European Studies 25: 1–26. Beguš, Gašper. 2012. The RUKI-rule in the Rigveda. Diploma thesis. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana. Bereczki, Gábor. 2013. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Tscheremissischen (Mari). Der einheimische Wortschatz. Nach dem Tode des Verfassers herausgegeben von Klára Agyagási und Eberhart Winkler. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Bičovský, Jan. 2008. Initial *x- in Slavic revisited. Chatreššar 2008: 23–46. Bielmeier, Roland. 1989. Sarmatisch, Alanisch, Jassisch und Altossetisch. In Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, ed. Rüdiger Schmitt, 456–480. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Blažek, Váčlav. 1990. New Fenno-Ugric-Indo-Iranian lexical parallels. In Uralica-Indogermanica II, ed. Vs Ivanov Vyach, T.M.  Sudnik, and E.A.  Khelimskiy, 40–45. Institut slavyanovedeniya I balkanistiki AN SSSR: Moskva. ———. 2018. Tocharsko-slovanské lexikální paralely  – nová srovnání [Tocharian-Slavic lexical parallels – new comparisons]. Linguistica Brunensia 2018: 5–13. https://doi.org/10.5817/LB2018-­2-­1. ———. 2019. Tocharian B lasto in Balto-Slavic perspective. Journal of Indo-­ European studies 47: 213–222. Burrow, Thomas. 1955. The Sanskrit language. Delhi: Faber and Faber. Byrd, Andrew. 2017. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European. In Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics: an international handbook, ed. Jared Klein, Brian D.  Joseph, and Matthias Fritz, 2056–2079. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Carpelan, Christian, and Asko Parpola. 2001. Emergence, contacts and dispersal of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan in archaeological perspective. In Early contacts between Uralic and Indo-European, ed. Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola, and Petteri Koskikallio, 55–150. Helsinki: Finno-­ Ugrian Society. Chen, Ruixuan. 2019. Vignettes of Buddhism ascetism: jottings on six fragments of Tocharian B. Central Asiatic Journal 61: 217–256.

342 

S. Holopainen

Cheung, Johnny. 2002. Studies in the historical development of the Ossetic vocalism. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. ———. 2007. Etymological dictionary of the Iranian verb. Leiden – Boston: Brill. Csúcs, Sándor. 2005. Die Rekonstruktion der permischen Grundsprache. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Derksen, Rick. 2008. Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon. Leiden – Boston: Brill. ———. 2015. Etymological dictionary of the Baltic inherited lexicon. Leiden – Boston: Brill. EWAia = Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986–2001. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen I–III. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter. Fortson, Benjamin W. 2010. Indo-European language and culture: an introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell publishing. Grünthal, Riho. 2012. Baltic loanwords in Mordvin. In A Linguistic map of Prehistoric Northern Europe, ed. Riho Grünthal and Petri Kallio, 297–343. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne. Häkkinen, Jaakko. 2009. Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut puntarissa [The timing and location of Proto-Uralic: sifting the evidence]. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 92: 9–56. Hale, Mark. 2004. Avestan. In The Cambridge Ecnyclopaedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, ed. Roger Woodard, 742–763. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hegedűs, Irén. 2012. The RUKI rule in Nuristani. In The Sound of Indo-­ European. Phonetics, phonemics, and morphophonemics, ed. Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead, Thomas Olander, Birgit Anette Olsen, and Jens Elmegård Rasmussen, 145–168. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculaneum Press. Hock, Hans Henrich. 2016. The languages, their histories and genetic classification. In Languages and linguistics of South Asia, ed. Hans Henrich Hock and Elina Bashir, 9–240. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Höfler, Stefan, 2017. Hittite ḫišša- c. thill, shaft (of a cart)’and the feminine gender in Proto-Indo-European. Conference Handout: The Split  – Reconstructing Early Indo-European Language and Culture. University of Copenhagen, September 13–15, 2017. https://www.academia. edu/34569864/Hittite_h̥išša-_c._thill_shaft_of_a_cart_and_the_feminine_ gender_in_Proto-­Indo-­European. Accessed May 2019. Holopainen, Sampsa. 2019. Indo-Iranian borrowings in t Uralic languages: Critical overview of sound-substitutions and distribution criterion. PhD dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/307582

11  The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts… 

343

Holopainen, Sampsa, Santeri Junttila, and Juha Kuokkala. 2017. Indoeurópai jövevényszavak és a második szótagi labiális magánhangzók fejlődése az uráli nyelvekben [Indo-European loanwords and the development of non-initial syllable vocalism in the Uralic languages]. In Nyelvtudományi kutatások ujabb eredményei, ed. Tamás Forgács, Miklos Németh, and Balázs Sinkovics, 109–136. Szeged: SzTE. Hyllested, Adam, 2014. Language contacts at the gates of Europe. PhD dissertation. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. Joki, Aulis J. 1973. Uralier und Indogermaner. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Junttila, Santeri. 2012. The prehistoric context of the oldest contacts between Baltic and Finnic languages. In A linguistic map of prehistoric Northern Europe, ed. Riho Grunthal and Petri Kallio, 261–296. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. ———. 2015. Tiedon kumuloituminen ja trendit lainasanatutkimuksessa. Kantasuomen balttilaislainojen tutkimushistoria [The Cumulation of knowledge in loanword research. Research history of the Baltic loanwords in Proto-­ Finnic]. PhD dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. ———. 2016. Die baltisch-slawische Frage im Lichte der alten Baltischen Lehnwörter des ostseefinnischen. Baltistica 2: 217–238. Kallio, Petri. 2006. Suomen kantakielten absoluuttista kronologiaa [Absolute chronology of the proto-languages of Finnish]. Virittäjä 110: 2–25. ———. 2008. On the ″Early Baltic″ Loanwords in Common Finnic. In Evidence and counter-evidence: Essays in honour of Frederik Kortlandt 1, ed. Alexander Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken, and Jeroen Wiedenhof, 265–277. Amsterdam – New York: Brill. ———. 2009. Stratigraphy of Indo-European loanwords in Saami. In Mattut – maddagat: The Roots of Saami Ethnicities, Societies and Spaces / Places, ed. Tiina Äikäs, 30–45. Oulu: Giellagas Institute at the University of Oulu. Katz, Hartmut. 2003: Studien zu den älteren indoiranischen Lehnwörtern in den uralischen Sprachen. Aus dem Nachlass herausgegeben von Paul Widmer, Anna Widmer und Gerson Klumpp. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Keresztes, László. 1986. Geschichte des mordwinischen Konsonantismus II. Etymologisches Belegmaterial. Szeged: JATe. ———. 1987. Geschichte des mordwinischen Konsonantismus I. Szeged: JATe. Kim, Ronald. 2018. Greco-Armenian: persistence of a myth. Indogermanische Forschungen 123: 247–272. Klingenschmitt, Gert. 1975. Altindisch śaśvat-. Münchener Studien zur. Sprachwissenschaft 33: 67–78. Koivulehto, Jorma. 1991. Uralische Evidenz für die Laryngaltheorie. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

344 

S. Holopainen

———. 1999. Varhaiset indoeurooppalaiskontaktit: aika ja paikka lainasanojen valossa [Early Indo-European contacts: time and place on the basis of loanwords]. In Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan, ed. Paul Fogelberg, 207–236. Helsinki: Suomen Tiedeseura. Koivulehto, Jorma. 2001. Zum frühen iranischen und indoiranischen lexikalischen Einfluss auf das Finnisch-Ugrische. In Vidyārnavavandanam: essays in honour of Asko Parpola, ed. Klaus Karttunen and Petteri Koskikallio, 359–378. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society. Koivulehto, Jorma. 2016. Verba vagantur. Jorma Koivulehto in memoriam. Red. Sampsa Holopainen, Petri Kallio & Janne Saarikivi. Helsinki: Finno-­ Ugrian Society. Korenchy, Éva. 1972. Iranische Lehnwörter in den obugrischen Sprachen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Kümmel, Martin. 2007. Konsonantenwandel. Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen fur die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert. ———. 2017. Etymological problems between Indo-Iranian and Uralic. Presentation delivered at the conference Contextualizing historical lexicology, May 15–17, 2017, University of Helsinki. Lipp, Reiner. 2009. Die indogermanischen und einzelsprachlichen palatale im Indoiranischen. Band I & II. Heidelberg: Winter. Lubotsky, Alexander. 2001. Reflexes of Proto-Indo-European *sk in Indo-­ Iranian. Incontri linguistici 24: 25–57. Martirosyan, Hrach. 2010. Etymological dictionary of the Armenian inherited lexicon. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2013. The place of Armenian in the Indo-European language family: the relationship with Greek and Indo-Iranian. Journal of Language Relationship 10: 85–137. Matasović, Ranko. 2005. Towards a relative chronology of the earliest Baltic and Slavic sound changes. Baltistica XL.x–xx. Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1989. Vorgeschichte des iranischen Sprachen; Uriranisch. In Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, 4–24, ed. Rüdiger Schmitt. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2010. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 9., durchgesehene und ergänzte Auflage. Unter Mitarbeit von Matthias Fritz und Manfred Mayrhofer. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Metsäranta, Niklas. 2012. Permiläisten kielten sanastosuhteista [About the vocabulary relations of the Permic languages]. MA thesis. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/42571

11  The RUKI Rule in Indo-Iranian and the Early Contacts… 

345

———. 2020. Periytyminen ja lainautuminen. Marin ja permiläisten kielten sanastontutkimusta [Inheritance and borrowing – lexicological study on Mari and the Permic languages]. PhD dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/321695 Moór, Elemer. 1958. Die Ausbildung des ungarischen Volkes im Lichte der Laut- und Wortgeschichte. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae No. 7. 3/4.341–377. Munkácsi, Bernát. 1901. Árja és kaukázusi elemek a finn-magyar nyelvekben [Aryan and Caucasian Elements in the Finno-Hungarian languages]. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. Nikkilä, Osmo. 2001. Fragwürdige Lehnwortforschung. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 56: 394–403. NIL = Dagmar S. Wodtko, Britta Irslinger & Carolin Schneider. 2008. Nomina im indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter. Olsen, Birgit Anette. 2017. Armenian. In The Indo-European languages, ed. Mate Kapović, 421–451. London and New York: Routledge. Parpola, Asko. 1999. Varhaisten indoeurooppalaiskontaktien ajoitus ja paikannus kielellisen ja arkeologisen aineiston perusteella [Locating and dating the early Indo-European contacts based on linguistic and archaeological material]. In Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan, ed. InPaul Fogelberg, 179–206. Helsinki: Suomen Tiedeseura. ———. 2005. The Nāsatyas, the Chariot and Proto-Aryan Religion. Journal of Indological Studies 16 & 17: 1–63. ———. 2017. Finnish vatsa ~ Sanskrit vatsá and the formation of Indo-Iranian and Uralic languages. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 96: 245–286. Peters, Martin. 1980. Untersuchungen zur Vertetung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Petit, Daniel. 2018. The phonology of Baltic. In Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics: an international handbook, ed. Jared Klein, Brian D.  Joseph, and Matthias Fritz, 1640–1651. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Rédei, Károly. 1986. Zu den indogermanisch-uralischen Sprachkontakten. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Rintala, Päivi. 2003. Iha köyhän laihakin. Tutkimus itämerensuomen iha-­ kantaisista sanoista [Study of the word derived from the stem iha- in the Finnic languages]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Šagirov, A.K. 1989. Zaimstvovannaja leksika abchazo-adygskich jazykov. Moskva: Nauka.

346 

S. Holopainen

Salminen, Tapani. 2002. Problems in the taxonomy of the Uralic languages in the light of modern comparative studies. In A.E.  Kibrik, T.B.  Agranat & O.A.  Kazakevich (eds), Лингвистический беспредел: сборник статей к 70-летию А. И. Кузнецовой, 44–55. Москва: Издательство Московского университета. Sammallahti, Pekka. 1988. Historical phonology of the Uralic languages with special reference to Samoyed, Ugric and Permic. In The Uralic languages: description, history and foreign influences, 478–554, ed. Denis Sinor. E. J. Brill: Leiden. ———. 1998. The Saami languages. An introduction. Kárásjohka: Davvi Girji. Schindler, Jochem. 1972. Das Wurzelnomen in Arischen und Griechischen. PhD thesis. Würzburg: Julius-Maximilians-Universität zu Würzburg. Simon, Zsolt. 2020. Urindogermanische Lehnwörter in den uralischen und finno-ugrischen Grundsprachen. Eine Fata Morgana? Indogermanische Forschungen 125: 239–266. SSA = Erkki Itkonen & Ulla-Maija Kulonen. (editors in chief ) 1992–2000Suomen sanojen alkuperä. Etymologinen sanakirja [The origin of Finnish word. An etymological dictionary]. I–III. Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus & Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Stang, Christian S. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Oslo – Beren – Tromö: Universitetsforlaget. Testen, David. 1997. Ossetic phonology. In Phonologies of Asia and Africa, ed. Alan S.  Kaye and Peter T.  Daniels, 707–732. Pennsylvania State University Press. Werba, Chlodwig. 1997. Verba Indoarica. Die primären und sekundären Wurzeln der Sanskrit-Sprache. Pars I: Radices Primariae. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vijūnas, Aurelijus. 2010. The Proto-Indo-European sibilant */s/. Historische Sprachforschung 123: 40–55. Vilkuna, Kustaa. 1968. Aura, vannas ja ojas [Aura ’plough’, vannas ’plougshare’ and ojas ’shaft’]. Kalevalaseuran vuosikirja 48: 125–135. Young, Steven. 2017. Baltic. In The Indo-European languages, ed. Mate Kapović and Mate Kapović, 486–518. London and New York: Routledge.

Index1

A

B

Absolute accusative, 55, 57, 75n14 genitive, 9, 49–51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 73–75, 77, 79, 80 nominative, 55–57, 75, 77, 79, 80 Adjectival article, 9, 20–26, 20n1, 22n6, 34–36, 38, 40, 42, 43 Adverb, temporal, 11, 189–210 Agreement, 10, 63, 64, 77, 79, 80, 126, 129, 149, 149n19, 203, 308, 309 Alguerese Catalan, 215, 220, 230, 237 Analogy, 3, 99, 120, 152–155, 157–159, 173, 178–185, 302, 304, 320n5, 321, 331 Apulian, 249, 254–259, 266, 270, 273

Balkan, 256, 257, 261, 262, 273, 275 Balkan Romance, 268, 274 Balkan Sprachbund, 3, 12, 268, 272–276 Balkanism, 274, 275 Balkan-type complementation, 269 Baltic, 122, 319, 319n4, 320, 323, 334–336, 338, 339 Balto-Slavic, 13, 52, 315–317, 319, 320, 323, 334–339, 337n12 Bilingualism, 2, 3, 6, 8, 251, 271, 303 C

Calabrian, 214, 215, 218, 270 Complementation, 249, 260, 262, 268, 269, 272–276

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Lavidas et al. (eds.), Internal and External Causes of Language Change, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30976-2

347

348 Index

Contact-induced grammaticalization, 247–276 Converb, 52, 76, 77, 80, 157 D

Denominal adjectives, 289, 292, 293, 295, 299, 304, 306 Desemanticization, 193 Direct formation, 11, 179–181, 185 Discourse marker (DM), 189–210 Dynamicity, 129, 144 E

Epicene adjectives, 289, 290, 291n2, 298, 302, 303, 308–310 F

Finite, 249, 261, 262, 264, 265, 267–269, 271–276 Finnic languages, 323, 327, 328 French, 197, 205, 288, 289, 291, 297, 303–310 Future periphrasis, 12, 260–263, 267–272, 275, 276

Grammaticalization, 10–12, 23, 36, 120, 121, 130–132, 130n6, 131n8, 134, 136, 146–155, 158, 173, 189–206, 247–277 Greek, 247, 249–254, 257, 258, 269–272, 274, 276 Ancient (AG), 9, 10, 49–58, 58n8, 61, 66, 68–73, 75, 75n14, 80, 80n16, 119–159 Hellenistic & Roman, 120n2, 135n11, 156 Medieval, 120n2, 149n19, 156, 157, 159, 214, 227, 236 Modern (MG), 20n1, 50, 51, 57, 76, 77, 80, 90n3, 93, 93n10, 94, 109, 111, 113–115, 128, 135n11, 195n3, 250, 251, 271, 273 New Testament Koine, 77 Post-Classical (PClGk), 120, 120n2, 135, 136, 146–153, 155, 159 H

Hebrew, 20n1, 150, 155–157, 258, 288, 292n3, 294, 300, 301, 301n7, 305, 308 Hypercorrection, 291, 308, 309

G

Gender hypercharacterization, 13, 287–310 Germanic (Proto-) Gothic, 27 North Germanic, 33 Gerund, 52, 76, 77, 80, 128, 157 Gradience, 120, 126–130, 127n5, 130n6, 132, 134, 139–146, 159

I

Indo-European North-West Indo-European, 317, 337–339 Proto-Indo-European (PIE), 9, 21, 22, 26–35, 40, 41, 121, 122, 138, 140, 157–159,

 Index 

315–320, 319n4, 322–324, 327, 334, 335, 337–339 Indo-Iranian Proto-Indo-Iranian (PII), 316–321, 319n3, 323–326, 328, 337, 339 Proto-Iranian (PI), 318, 321, 324, 325, 328, 339 Infinitive, 249, 262, 268–272, 274, 276 Infinitival, 268, 272–275 Instrument, 10, 88n1, 95–99, 101, 105, 109, 115 Italian, 12, 114, 133, 205, 216n4, 251–255, 257–260, 264, 266, 270, 276, 288, 291, 305, 309 Italo-Greek, 214, 215, 215n2, 218, 220, 236 Italo-Romance, 214, 247, 248, 250–254, 259, 265, 271 J

Judeo-Italian, 248, 248n1, 249, 256 Judeo-Spanish, 12, 13, 214, 215, 218, 230, 237, 287–310 L

Language attrition, 307 Latin, 27, 52, 58n8, 67n12, 94n11, 114, 114n25, 131, 156, 206, 214, 216, 227, 236, 237, 289–293, 292n3, 295, 303, 304, 306, 308 Layering, 182, 184, 185 Lexicalization, 73, 173, 190, 264

349

M

Metathesis, 12, 213–220, 216n3, 216n4, 224, 226, 228–235, 237, 239, 240, 327 long-distance metathesis (LDM), 12, 213–240 N

Neologisms, 305 N-stems, 20, 29–32, 40, 41 O

Optimality Theory (OT), 12, 214, 220–222, 224 P

Parentheticals, 192–195, 195n3 Participial construction absolute, 9, 49–80 adjunct, 49 adverbial, 73 complement, 59, 75, 80 mixed projection, 50 small clause, 50 Participle circumstantial, 54, 66 dominant, 67 form(ation), 61, 61n9, 122, 262, 266 Part-whole chain, 89 Patient, 101–103, 105 Perfect, 61, 120, 122, 124, 133–143, 140n16, 145–149, 148n18, 151–153, 159

350 Index

Perfective auxiliary, 12, 260, 262, 264, 265, 271, 275, 276 Periphrasis, 119, 120, 121n3, 123, 124, 129, 134, 136–151, 146n17, 149n19, 153–159, 268, 276 Polymorphism, 307 Pragmaticalization, 11, 189–210 Predication, 123, 124, 127, 129, 134, 139, 148, 149, 151, 153, 154, 157, 159 Preposition covert, 68, 73 functional layer, 9, 72, 73, 75n14, 80 Property Theory (PT), 213–240

Semantic reanalysis, 130 Slavic, 122, 272, 320, 328, 336, 338 Proto-Slavic (PSI), 338 Sound substitution, 325, 327, 329, 336, 338 Southern Italian dialects, 247, 259, 261, 266, 267, 270, 272, 273, 276 Spanish (Sp), 90n3, 91–94, 93n9, 93n10, 109, 111, 190, 192, 194, 196n4, 197, 199, 200, 204, 237, 254, 255, 257, 258, 268, 290–293, 292n3, 297, 302–310 Stative, 122, 127, 129, 137, 139, 143–145, 149, 150 Synecdoche, 89, 112, 114, 114n25 Syntactic reanalysis, 169–185

R

Reanalysis, 9, 12, 21, 26, 36–40, 43, 130, 133, 155, 159, 173, 217, 265 Renewal, 173, 175, 176 Resultative, 128, 138–141, 140n16, 143, 147–149, 153, 155 Romance, 247, 250, 252, 255, 259, 260, 263–268, 272, 274–276 Romanian, 11, 189–210, 260, 272, 275, 292n3, 304, 307 RUKI, 13, 316, 317, 319–339

T

Turkish, 292n3, 303, 304n10, 305, 308 U

Unmarked, 7, 13, 221, 236, 289, 292, 304 V

S

Salentino, 259, 269–271, 273 Saliency, 109, 217 Sardinian, 260

Venetian (Vnz.), 247, 249, 251–260, 254n2, 262, 264–269, 270n10, 271, 272, 275, 276 Verb-adjective combinations, 11, 169–185