Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2015: Selected papers from the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Naples, 27-31 July 2015
Edited by Michela Cennamo and Claudia Fabrizio
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 348] 2019
► pp. 319–342

Chapter 16
Perfecting the notion of Sprachbund

Perfects and resultatives in the “Stratified Convergence Zones” of Europe

In response to recent skepticism concerning the relevance of the concept of the Sprachbund, this paper argues that there is value in preserving the notion, but only with substantial updating. What is proposed here is a more dynamic, three-dimensional depiction of the linguistic area, as embodied in the concept of a “Stratified Convergence Zone.” In order to assess the usefulness of this redefined notion of the Sprachbund, the paper examines evidence from the periphrastic perfects and resultatives of three proposed Sprachbünde – the Balkan Sprachbund, the Charlemagne Sprachbund, and the Peipus-Bund of the Circum-Baltic area. In each case, the two-dimensional image of a Sprachbund only succeeds in presenting the end product of these complex changes, in synchronic fashion, without accounting for the sources of these similarities or their socio-historical contexts. It is argued that only a three-dimensional, chronologically-stratified model can adequately represent these developments.
Keywords: Sprachbund, perfect, resultative, Balkan, Charlemagne, Circum-Baltic, areal linguistics, contact
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Stratified Convergence Zone
  • 3.The Balkan Sprachbund
  • 4.The Charlemagne Sprachbund
    • 4.1Have perfects in Carolingian Latin
    • 4.2Deponents and be perfects in Carolingian Latin
  • 5.The Circum-Baltic Zone
    • 5.1Stage I
    • 5.2Stage II
      • 5.2.1Estonian
      • 5.2.2Latvian
      • 5.2.3N. Russian
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.348.16dri
References (47)
References
Bartoli, Matteo. 1925. Introduzione alla Neolinguistica (Princìpi – Scopi – Metodi). Geneva: Biblioteca dell’Archivum Romanicum II: 12.Google Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert, Werner Enninger, & Thomas Stolz (eds.). 1996. Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte, Sprachen und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2006. Areal linguistics: A closer scrutiny. In Yaron Matras, April McMahon & Nigel Vincent (eds.). 1–31.Google Scholar
Carolus-Barré, Louis. 1964. Les plus anciennes chartes en langue française. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Chirikba, Viacheslav. 2008. The problem of the Caucasian Sprachbund. In Peter Muysken (ed.). 25–93.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Greville Corbett (eds.) 1993. The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen (ed.). 2000. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.) 2001. The Circum-Baltic languages: Typology and contact. 2 vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Viveka Velupillai. 2013. The Perfect. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.) (Available online at [URL]).Google Scholar
Décsy, Gyula. 1973. Die linguistische Struktur Europas: Vergangenheit, Gegenwart, Zukunft. Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget. 2017. Language contact in Europe: The periphrastic perfect through history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL]) Google Scholar
Flobert, Pierre. 1975. Les verbes deponents latins des origins à Charlemagne. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Friedman, Victor. 1976. Dialectal synchrony and diachronic syntax: The Macedonian perfect. In Sanford B. Steever, Carol A. Walker & Salikoko S. Mufwene (eds.), Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax, April 22, 1976. 96-104. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
. 1994. Surprise! Surprise! Arumanian has had an Admirative! Indiana Slavic Studies 7. 79–89.Google Scholar
Graves, Nina. 2000. Macedonian – a language with three perfects? In Östen Dahl, (ed.), 479–94.Google Scholar
Hamp, Eric. 1989. Yugoslavia – A Crossroads of Sprachbünde. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 25. 44–47.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. How young is Standard Average European? Language Sciences 20. 271–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Worfgang Raible (eds), 1492–1510.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, & Worfgang Raible. 2001. Language typology and change. Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien. La typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques. Vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haarmann, Harald. 1976. Aspekte der Arealtypologie: Die Problematik der europäischen Sprachbünde. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 2001. Impersonals and passives in Baltic and Finnic. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.) Vol. 2. 363–389.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1931. Über die Phonologischen Sprachbünde. Travaux du Circle Linguistique de Prague. 4. 234–140. Reprinted 1971 in Roman Jakobson. Selected Writings. Vol. 1. The Hague: Mouton, 137–143.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2001. Is Balkan comparative syntax possible? In María Luisa Rivero & Angela Ralli (eds.) 17–43.Google Scholar
Koptevskaja-Tamm, Maria, & Bernhard Wälchi. 2001. The Circum-Baltic languages: An areal-typological approach. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptevskaja-Tamm (eds.). Vol. 2. 615–761.Google Scholar
Koschmieder, Erwin & Maximilian Braun (eds.). 1968. Slavistische Studien. München: Trofenik.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina & Ilona Tragel. 2010. The possessive perfect construction in Estonian. Folia Linguistica 44. 371–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mathiassen, Terje. 1985. A discussion of the notion ‘Sprachbund’ and its application in the case of the languages in the Eastern Baltic area (Slavic, Baltic, and West Finnish). International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 31–32 (1985). 273–281.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron, April McMahon & Nigel Vincent (eds.), 2006. Linguistic areas: Convergence in historical and typological perspective. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metslang, Helle. 2001. On the developments of the Estonian aspect: The verbal particle ära. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Vol 2. 443–479.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter (ed.) 2008. From linguistic areas to areal linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nau, Nicole. 1996. Ein Beitrag zur Arealtypologie der Ostseeanrainersprachen. In Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger & Thomas Stolz (eds.). Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte, Sprachen und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen. 51–67. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa & Angela Ralli (eds.) 2001. Comparative syntax of Balkan languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sandfeld, Kristian. 1930. Linguistique balkanique: Problèmes et résultats. Vol. 31. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 1991. Sprachbund im Baltikum?: Estnisch und Lettisch im Zentrum einer sprachlichen Konvergenzlandschaft. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
. 2006. All or nothing. In Yaron Matras, April McMahon & Nigel Vincent (eds.), 32–50.Google Scholar
Thielmann, P. 1885. Habere mit dem Part. Perf. Pass. Archiv für lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik 2. 372–423; 509–549.Google Scholar
Thieroff, Rolf. 2000. On the areal distribution of tense-aspect categories in Europe. In Östen Dahl (ed.), 264–305.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1976. Subject properties in the North Russian passive. In Charles Li & Sandra Thompson (eds.). Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. 547–570.Google Scholar
. 1993. Russian. In Bernard Comrie and Greville Corbett (eds.), 827–886.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. 1928. Proposition 16. Acts of the First International Congress of Linguists. 17–18.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan (ed.). 1998. Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, EUROTYP 20–3) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Conclusion. In Johan van der Auwera (ed.), 813–836.Google Scholar
Vasilev, Christo. 1968. Der romanische Perfekttyp im Slavischen. In Erwin Koschmieder & Maximilian Braun (eds.), 215–230.Google Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin L. 1956. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. J. B. Carroll (ed.). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wünsch, Thomas. 2008. Deutsche und Slawen im Mittelalter: Beziehungen zu Tschechen, Polen, Südslawen und Russen. Munich: R. Oldenbourg. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (16)

Cited by 16 other publications

Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Copyright Page. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. iv ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Summary and Conclusion. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 445 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Introduction. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Concepts, Contexts, Corpora. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Semi-formulaic Phrases. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 413 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Sigla. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. xiii ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Discourse Markers. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 323 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Formulaic Language. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 365 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. List of Abbreviations. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. xi ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. The Basics of Coptic Grammar. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Verb Phrases. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Dedication. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. v ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. The Grammar of the Corpus (Standard and Variation). In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Adverbial Phrases. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 295 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022.  Corpus of Texts. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 485 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.