Cover not available
Part of
Category Change from a Constructional Perspective
Edited by Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé and Gudrun Vanderbauwhede
[Constructional Approaches to Language 20] 2018
► pp. 263–287

Chapter 10
Constructional change on the contentful-procedural gradient

The case of the -idz(o) construction in Griko

This chapter focuses on a rather neglected type of morphological change, that is, the change from derivation to inflection. Contrary to the assumption that derivational patterns usually do not develop any further, this analysis proposes that some derivational constructions may change by acquiring a more functional status, which is characteristic of inflectional categories. Based on the distinction between contentful and procedural constructions, as proposed by Traugott & Trousdale (2013), the emergence of the new constructions can be conceived of as a gradual shift on the contentful-procedural gradient. The argumentation is based on examination of the ‑idz(o) constructions in Griko, a Greek-based dialect spoken in South Italy.
Keywords: inflection, derivation, hybrid constructions, morphological change, constructional change
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The suffix ‑idz(o): Synchronic variation and diachronic change
    • 2.1Verbalisers in Standard Modern Greek and Griko
    • 2.2The ‑idz(o) verbs
    • 2.3Criteria for grammaticality of ‑idz(o)
    • 2.4Paradigmatic interference and ‑idz(o)
  • 3.Grammaticalisation within morphology: From derivation to inflection
    • 3.1Defining grammaticalisation
    • 3.2From derivational morphemes to inflectional class markers
  • 4.A “hybrid construction” between derivation and inflection
    • 4.1Grammaticalisation as constructionalisation
    • 4.2[X-idz(o)] as a hybrid construction
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Primary sources
Published online: 22 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20.10kou
References (70)
References
Aarts, B. (2007). Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Amiot, D. (2005). Between compounding and derivation. In W. U. Dressler, D. Kastovsky, O. Pfeiffer, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Morphology and its demarcations (pp. 183–196). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anastasiadi-Symeonidi, A. (2004). Κλίση και παραγωγή: μύθος και αλήθεια [Inflection and derivation: Myth and truth]. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 24, 43–54.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 22). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G. (2008). Introduction: Constructions and language change. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp. 1–22). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. (2006). Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics, 42, 531–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P., & Blevins, J. (2009). Introduction: Analogy in grammar. In J. P. Blevins, & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition (pp. 1–12). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (1994). Against split morphology. In G. Booij, & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1993 (pp. 27–49). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
(1996). Inherent vs contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In G. Booij, & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1995 (pp. 1–16). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
(2007). The grammar of words (2nd ed.). NY: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Constructional idioms as products of linguistic change: The aan het + infinitive construction in Dutch. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp. 81–106). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Breban, T. (2014). What is secondary grammaticalization? Trying to see the wood for the trees in a confusion of interpretations. Folia Linguistica, 48(2), 469–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology. A study of the relation between meaning and form (Typological studies in language). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cockburn, O. (2012). Los verbos latinos en ‑izare (-issare, ‑idiare) [The Latin verbs in -izare (-issare, ‑idiare) ] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (2010). Category change in English with and without structural change. In E. C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 90) (pp. 105–128). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimela, E. (2010). Η προθηματοποίηση στις νεοελληνικές διαλέκτους: συγχρονική και διαχρονική προσέγγιση [Prefixation in Modern Greek dialects: Synchronic and diachronic approach] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Patras: University of Patras.Google Scholar
Fried, M. (2013). Principles of constructional change. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 419–437). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giegerich, H. J. (2012). The morphology of ‑ly and the categorial status of “adverbs” in English. English Language and Linguistics, 16, 341–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, N., & Patten, A. (2011). Construction grammar and grammaticalization. In H. Narrog, & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 92–104). US: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1971). Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. In Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 16–18, 1971 (pp. 394–415). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M., & Müller-Bardey, T. (2004). Valency change. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann, & J. Mugdan (Eds. in collaboration with W. Kesselheim & S. Skopeteas), Morphologie/Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/An international handbook on inflection and word formation (2. Halbband/Vol. 2, pp. 1130–1145). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hatzidakis, G. (1892). Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik [Introduction to Modern Greek Grammar]. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Heine, B. (2003). Grammaticalization. In B. D. Joseph, & R. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 575–601). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2011). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its components and its fringes (pp. 21–42). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2005). Gram, construction, and class formation. In C. Knobloch, & B. Schaeder (Eds.), Wortarten und Grammatikalisierung: Perspektiven in System und Erwerb [Word classes and grammaticalization: Perspectives into the system and acquisiton] (pp. 79–93). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Construction Grammar: Introduction. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 1–12). New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. (1991). On some principles of grammaticization. In E. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Volume I: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 17–35). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horrocks, G. (2010). Greek: A history of the language and its speakers (2nd ed.). Chichester/Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hüning, M. (2012). Historical morphology and Construction Grammar. Paper presented at the Symposium Morphology, Constructions, and the Lexicon (Leiden, September 7, 2012).
Hüning, M., & Booij, G. (2014). From compounding to derivation: The emergence of derivational affixes through “constructionalisation”. Folia Linguistica, 48(2), 579–604. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iacobini, C. (1999). Distinguishing derivational prefixes from initial combining forms. In G. Booij, A. Ralli, & S. Scalise (Eds.), Proceedings of the first Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (pp. 132–140). Patras: University of Patras.Google Scholar
Karanastasis, A. (1997). Γραμματική των ελληνικών ιδιωμάτων της Κάτω Ιταλίας [A grammar of the dialects of Southern Italy]. Αthens: Αcademy of Athens.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (2005). Conversion and/or zero: Word-formation theory, historical linguistics, and typology. In L. Bauer, & S. Valera (Eds.), Approaches to conversion/zero derivation (pp. 31–50). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Killie, K. (2015). Secondary grammaticalization and the English adverbial-ly suffix. Language Sciences, 47, 199–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koutsoukos, N. (2013). A constructionist view of complex interactions between inflection and derivation: The case of SMG and Griko (Doctoral dissertation). Patras: University of Patras.Google Scholar
(2016). Internally- and externally-motivated inter-paradigm levelling in Griko verbal system. In A. Ralli (Ed.), Contact morphology in Modern Greek dialects (pp. 49–71). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Koutsoukos, N., & Ralli, A. (2013). Elements with ambiguous derivational status: The marker ‑idz(o) in Griko. Quaderns de Filologia, 18, 13–23.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, J. (1975). The evolution of grammatical categories. In Esquisses Linguistiques II (pp. 38–54). Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1985). Grammaticalisation: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile, 20, 303–318.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maiden, M. (2003). Verb augments and meaninglessness in early Romance morphology. Studi di Grammatica Italiana, 22, 1–61.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. (1948). L’évolution des formes grammaticales (The evolution of the grammatical forms). In Linguistique historique et linguistique générale (pp. 130–148) (originally published in Scientia XII, no. XXVI, 6.). Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Noël, D. (2007). Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14(2), 177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M. (2002). The final stages of grammaticalization: Affixhood and beyond. In I. Wischer, & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 45–66). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M., & Trousdale, G. (2016). Exaptation from the perspective of constructional morphology. In M. Norde, & F. Van de Velde (Eds.), Exaptation and language change (pp. 163–195). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ralli, Α. (1988). Eléments de la morphologie du grec moderne: la structure du verbe [Elements of the Greek morphology: The structure of the verb] (Doctoral dissertation). Montréal: Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
(2005). Μορφολογία [Morphology]. Athens: Patakis.Google Scholar
Ralli, A. (2010). Compounding versus Derivation. In S. Scalise, & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross Disciplinary Issues in Compounding (pp. 57–76). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Verbal loanblends in Griko and Heptanesian: A case study of contact morphology. L’Italia Dialettale: rivista di dialettologia italiana, 73, 111–132.Google Scholar
Scalise, S., & Guevara, E. (2005). The lexicalist approach to word formation and the notion of the lexicon. In P. Štekauer, & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 147–188). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevens, C. (2005). Revisiting the affixoid debate: On the grammaticalization of the word. In T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, & S. De Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen (Linguistik-Impulse & Tendenzen 9) (pp. 71–84.). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. (2005). Delineating the boundary between inflection-class marking and derivational marking. The case of the Sanskrit ‑aya . In W. U. Dressler, D. Kastovsky, O. Pfeiffer, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Morphology and its demarcations (pp. 293–309). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ten Hacken, P. (2014). Delineating Derivation and Inflection. In R. Lieber, & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology (pp. 10–25). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tommasi, S. (1996). Katalisti o kosmo. Calimera: Ghetonia.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. (2003). Constructions in grammaticalization. In B. D. Joseph, & R. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 624–647). UK: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Exaptation and grammaticalization. In M. Akimoto (Ed.), Linguistic studies based on corpora (pp. 133–156). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing Co.Google Scholar
(2005). Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In A. Cruse, F. Hundsnurscher, M. Job, & P. R. Lutzeier (Eds.), Lexikologie/Lexicology. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Handbooks of linguistics and communication Science (HSK) 21 (pp. 1702–1712). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008). The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp. 23–46). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), The extending scope of construction grammar (pp. 141–179). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Von Mengden, F. (2016). Functional changes and (meta-)linguistic evolution. In M. Norde, & F. Van de Velde (Eds.), Exaptation and language change (pp. 121–162). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wischer, I. (2011). Grammaticalization and word formation. In H. Narrog, & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 356–364). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Primary sources
ΛΙΚΙ/DGDSI=Ιστορικόν Λεξικόν των ελληνικών ιδιωμάτων της Κάτω Ιταλίας [Historical Dictionary of the Greek dialects of South Italy]. Athens: Academy of Athens. Vol. I, Athens, 1984. Vol. II, Athens, 1986. Vol. III, Athens, 1988. Vol. IV, Athens, 1991. Vol. V, Athens, 1992.Google Scholar
Grammatica del dialetto Greco di Sternatia (2002). Gemma I. Gemma and Georgia Lambroyorgu. Congedo.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.