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. 501–518

Chapter 24
Towards diachronic word classes universals

In this paper we examine the correlation of variables that influence the process of grammaticalization or lexicalization of a word class. Word classes change when all members change in a coordinated way. From the study of 24 word classes originating from representative languages in the world, we derive three universal tendencies. The strongest of these tendencies correlates the word class size and the new acquired meanings: The greater the size of the target word class, the lower the number of new acquired meanings.
Keywords: reanalysis, historical linguistics, typology, universal tendency
Article outline
  • 1.Terminology and definition
  • 2.Corpus of word classes changes
    • 2.1Causative verbs (Tibeto-Burman)
    • 2.2Plural classifiers (Tai-Kadai)
    • 2.3English modal auxiliary verbs
    • 2.4Dual, trial, quadral pronouns in Sursurunga (Austronesian)
    • 2.5Honorific pronouns (Dravidian)
    • 2.6Tirana evidential verbs
    • 2.7Turkic auxiliary postverbs
    • 2.8Bantu object agreement markers
    • 2.9Jamul Tiipay possessive prefixes
    • 2.10Summary
  • 3.Correlations
    • 3.1Size and output
    • 3.2Size and age
    • 3.3Output and age
  • 4.Universal tendencies
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 10 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.348.24ger
References (38)
References
Aikhenvald Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics (2nd edition). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald Alexandra. 2003. Evidentiality in Tariana. In Alexandra Aikhenvald & Robert Dixon (eds.), Studies in Evidentiality, 131–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, Ronald E. 1982. Tamil. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word Formation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Sam A. Mchombo. 1987. Topic, Pronoun, and Agreement in Chichewa. Language 63. 741–782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Christopher. 1985. Statistics in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demir, Nurettin. 1992. Postverbien im Türkischen: unter besonderer Berücksichtigung eines südanatolischen Dorfsdialekts. (Turcologica 17.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2011. Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian Languages, 343–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 1993. The development of tense markers from demonstrative pronouns in Panare (Caribean). Studies in Language 17:1. 53–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerner, Matthias. 2006. Noun classifiers in Kam and Chinese Kam-Tai languages: Their morphosyntax, semantics and history. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 34:2. 237–305.Google Scholar
. 2007. The lexicalization of causative verbs in the Yi Group. Folia Linguistica Historica 28:1/2. 145–185.Google Scholar
. 2012. Historical Change of Word Classes. Diachronica 29:2. 162–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerner, Matthias & Walter Bisang. 2008. Inflectional Speaker-Role Classifiers in Weining Ahmao. Journal of Pragmatics 40:4 719–732. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Inflectional Classifiers in Weining Ahmao: Mirror of the History of a people. Folia Linguistica Historica 30:1/2. 1–36.Google Scholar
. 2010. Classifier declinations in an isolating language: On a rarity in Weining Ahmao. Language and Linguistics 11:3. 579–623.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. H. 1963. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, 73–113. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grundy, Peter. 2000. Doing Pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary. 1977. From auxiliary verb phrase to inflectional suffix. In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 525–537. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2015. On the grammaticalization of some determiners in Hoocąk and other Siouan languages. Presented at the Symposium Areal patterns of grammaticalization and cross-linguistic variation in grammaticalization scenarios, University of Mainz, 12–14 March, 2015.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Elisabeth Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd revised edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, Philip, Leonard Newmark & Peter Prifti. 1982. Standard Albanian: A reference grammar for students. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchisson, Don. 1986. Sursurunga pronouns and the special uses of quadral number. In Ursula Wiesemann (ed.), Pronominal Systems (Continuum 5), 217–255. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1980. Relative Time Reference in the Bamileke Tense System. Studies in African Linguistics 11:2. 227–237.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 1971. Aspekt im Türkischen. Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkeitürkischen Aspektsystems (Studia Turcica Upsaliensia 1). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Johansson, Lars. 2015. Areal patterns in the grammaticalization of Turkic postverbial constructions as markers of actionality and viewpoint aspect. Presented at the Symposium Areal patterns of grammaticalization and cross-linguistic variation in grammaticalization scenarios, University of Mainz, 12–14 March, 2015.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian & Richard Janda. 1988. The how and why of diachronic morphologization and demorphologization. In Michael Hammond & Michael Noonan (eds.), Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, 193–210. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kratochvíl, František. 2011. Discourse-structuring functions of Abui demonstratives. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian Languages, 757–788. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization, Proceedings from the International Symposium on Grammaticalization, 17–19 June 1999, Potsdam, Germany, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McCool, George. 1984. The Old French demonstrative system: A semantic analysis. Word 35:2. 205–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Amy. 2001. A grammar of Jamul Tiipay. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rankin, Robert L. 2004. The history and development of Siouan positionals with special attention to polygrammaticalization in Dhegiha. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung STUF 57. 202–227.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zigmond, Maurice L., Curtis G. Booth & Pamela Munro. 1990. Kawaiisu: A grammar and dictionary with texts. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar