Weaving together the diverse threads of category change

Diachronica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezra la Roi
Keyword(s):  
Language Change ◽  
Cognitive Domain ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Context Change

Abstract This paper investigates category changes among imperative particles in Ancient Greek. Using diachronic evidence from the category change of the imperative ἀμέλει (amélei ‘don’t worry’ > ‘of course’) and similar imperative particles, ἄγε (áge), ἴθι (íthi), φέρε (fére), εἰπέ μοι (eipé moi) and ἰδού (idoú), this paper investigates the diachronic interdependence of intersubjectification, grammaticalization and language change in general. It does this in four ways. First, I show that intersubjectification can take place without subjectification (pace Traugott 2003: 134). Second, I detail the intersubjectification of ἀμέλει with changes in the cognitive domain (no practical > no epistemic worries), the pragmatic domain (responsively resolving > independently assuming resolved worries) and contextual conditions (creating intersubjective alignment > assuming it). Third, I tease apart the various diachronic origins of changes which have affected ἀμέλει. Finally, using contrastive evidence from parallel category changes of Ancient Greek imperative particles, I argue that whereas the imperative particles can be variously affected by structural grammaticalization changes, they all display signs of context change (as shown by illocutionary extensions to occurrence with declarative and interrogative illocutions). Thus, the diverse threads of category change can be woven together by tracing the contexts of change as well as the diachronic processes shaping them.

Sources of auxiliation in the perfects of Europe

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 599-644 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Drinka
Keyword(s):  
Language Contact ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Language Change ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
12Th Century ◽  
History Of ◽  
Peripheral Areas ◽  
Explanatory Mechanism ◽  
Scribal Tradition

This paper explores the complex role of language contact in the development of be and have auxiliation in the periphrastic perfects of Europe. Beginning with the influence of Ancient Greek on Latin, it traces the spread of the category across western Europe and identifies the Carolingian scribal tradition as largely responsible for extending the use of the be perfect alongside the have perfect across Charlemagne’s realm. Outside that territory, by contrast, in “peripheral” areas like Iberia, Southern Italy, and England, have came to be used as the only perfect auxiliary. Within the innovating core area, a further innovation began in Paris in the 12th century and spread to contiguous areas in France, Southern Germany, and northern Italy: the semantic shift in the perfects from anterior to preterital meaning. What can be concluded from these three successive instances of diffusion in the history of the perfect is that contact should be regarded as one of the essential “multiple sources” of innovation, and as a fundamental explanatory mechanism for language change.

scholarly journals Analogy in Language and Linguistics

Linguistics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Fischer
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Water Waves ◽  
Language Change ◽  
Strict Sense ◽  
Sound Waves ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Bottom Part ◽  
Morphological Studies ◽  
Natural Connection ◽  
And Linguistics

Analogy (from Ancient Greek αναλογια, “reasoning from one point to another”) is a cognitive process involving comparison whereby the information concerning one element is linked to another element through observed similarities. Analogy is related to “iconicity” (both involve parallels of form/meaning): the strong drive language users have to describe their world through signs that have some natural connection with the object the sign refers to. Analogy is concerned with (1) similarities between observable properties (material or horizontal analogy) and (2) causal similarities, i.e., the relations between a material property and a function of that property (vertical analogy). It enables language learning, is involved in language change, and helps in seeking explanations in science (including linguistics) through the spotting of parallels, e.g., the discovery of sound waves on the basis of water waves. Analogy is omnipresent in language but its working through speakers in language use and language change can only be captured after the fact; there are no fixed “rules” to “predict” analogy. It plays an important role in streamlining (“oiling”) the “machinery” (i.e., the “rules” or “patterns”) of language: without analogy, languages may develop too many exceptions, caused by internal changes elsewhere in the system or external factors, such as contact. The cognitive ability people have to analogize is the concern of cognitive scientists. In linguistics proper, a distinction is often made between this ability and the mechanism of analogy, which is concerned with the effects it has on language output, with specific patterns and constraints. This more narrow approach bears most fruit on the morpho-phonological level, where formal similarities play an important role. As soon as higher lexical and grammatical levels are involved, similarities become looser, more associative, making it more difficult to constrain the workings of analogy. Some linguists make a distinction between proportional and non-proportional analogy: the former is seen as more systematic, more concerned with form, and the result of interference from a productive morphological system (as in analogical extension/leveling), while the latter concerns innovations in individual items and constructions, with meaning playing a large(r) role. In morphological studies, analogy is usually seen as strictly proportional, making use of the formula A : B :: C : D, with more sporadic forms of analogy excluded as being non-proportional. Linguists interested in analogy on higher levels (syntax, lexis, semantics), also consider analogy to be proportional but in a less strict sense; here too there is symmetry between the forms and functions of source and target. For example, in the metaphorical use of foot, when there is a symmetry in meaning between referent A (“bottom part of a human body”) and B (“bottom part of a mountain”), this may result in a new formal symmetry between the signs: thus C foot leads to the new use of foot in D (just like work: worked leads to help: helped (replacing earlier holp).

THE LIMITS OF GRAMMATICALIZATION. Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paul J. Hopper (Eds.). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1998. Pp. vi + 302. $79.00 cloth, $29.95 paper.

2001 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 438-438
Author(s):  
Cristina Schmitt
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Language Change ◽  
East Asian ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Closed Class ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
Asian Languages ◽  
Open Class

The papers in this book were presented at the Symposium on Grammaticalization held in Leiden 1995, with the exception of the paper by Tabor and Traugott. This collection of 11 papers deals with a variety of cases of language change that do not fit perfectly into the models of grammaticalization as a unidirectional process by which open-class elements are weakened and become part of the closed-class set. Briefly described case studies in a variety of languages—from Romance, Germanic, and South East Asian languages to Ancient Greek, Hittite, Basque, and others—allow the reader to peer through the overwhelming number of factors and interactions among factors involved in language change. At the same time, one can also examine the struggle to define and determine which facts do and do not belong to the realm of grammaticalization. To illustrate some of the issues addressed in this book, I will briefly describe some of the papers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document