Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 36:1 (2019) ► pp.1–36

Using phonotactics to reconstruct degrammaticalization

The origin of the Sirva pronoun be

| University of Oregon
The principle of directionality is an important part of the comparative method: in order to arrive at a reconstruction, historical linguists need a robust theory that informs them in what direction linguistic change is likely to proceed. But any such theory will have exceptions. How are these to be spotted? I examine one case in which a counter-directional change, degrammaticalization, can be reconstructed by invoking the phonotactics of the proto-language. The degrammaticalized form is the Sirva 3sg pronoun be, and the proto-language is Proto-Sogeram. After making this reconstruction, I also demonstrate that it can be used to enhance our understanding of degrammaticalization. Be spawned a small family of related forms, which shows us that degrammaticalized forms can become polygrammaticalized in the same way as other grammatical morphemes.
Keywords: comparative reconstruction, directionality, degrammaticalization, polygrammaticalization, focus, pronouns, Trans New Guinea languages, Sogeram languages, Sirva
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Reconstruction and directionality
    • 1.2Sirva and the Sogeram languages
  • 2.The Sirva pronoun be ‘3sg’
  • 3.Comparative Sogeram data
    • 3.1Nominative markers in Nend and Manat
    • 3.2Emphatic pronouns
  • 4.Reconstruction
    • 4.1Proto-Sogeram phonology and phonotactics
    • 4.2The reconstructed scenario
  • 5.A family of related forms
    • 5.1 Bira ‘3pl’
    • 5.2The emphatic forms bibi and =vibi
    • 5.3 Beau ‘def.acc’
    • 5.4Summary
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Less common abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 5 April 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18015.dan
References (73)
References
Ahern, Christopher & Robin Clark. 2017. Conflict, cheap talk, and Jespersen’s cycle. Semantics and Pragmatics 101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der. 2002. More thoughts on degrammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 19–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balles, Irene. 2008. Principles of syntactic reconstruction and “morphology as paleosyntax”: The case of some Indo-European secondary verbal formations. In Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach (eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 302), 161–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2013. Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 438–457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. III1: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 169–240. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti & Nigel Vincent. 2011. Grammaticalization and directionality. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 163–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Alice C. Harris. 2002. Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing “Myths and the prehistory of grammars.” Journal of Linguistics 38(3). 599–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Matthew. 2016. The Ngkolmpu language, with special reference to distributed exponence. Canberra: Australian National University Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette. 1991. Ways to go in Rama: A case study in polygrammaticalization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization II. (Typological Studies in Language 19), vol. II1: Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers, 455–492. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2001. Inflationary effects in language and elsewhere. In Joan Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. (Typological Studies in Language 45), 471–480. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Don. 2015. A reconstruction of Proto-Sogeram: Phonology, lexicon, and morphosyntax. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Santa Barbara Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2016. Magɨ: An undocumented language of Papua New Guinea. Oceanic Linguistics 55(1). 199–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017a. Gants is a Sogeram language. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 351. 82–93.Google Scholar
. 2017b. A method for mitigating the problem of borrowing in syntactic reconstruction. Studies in Language 41(3). 577–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Papuan Languages Collection. Archival collection, 960 items. Pacific and Regional Archive for Digital Sources in Endangered Cultures (PARADISEC). [URL]
Daniels, Don, Danielle Barth & Wolfgang Barth. Forthcoming. Subgrouping the Sogeram languages: A critical appraisal of historical glottometry. Journal of Historical Linguistics.
Daniels, Don & Joseph D. Brooks. Forthcoming. The history of *=a: Contact and reconstruction in northeast New Guinea. Journal of Language Contact.
Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5). 429–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2008. Reconstruction in syntax: Reconstruction of patterns. In Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach (eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 302), 73–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Kyle. n.d. Nend texts. Electronic files, Pioneer Bible Translators.
. 1990. Nend grammar essentials. In John R. Roberts (ed.), Two grammatical studies (Data Papers on Papua New Guinea Languages 37), 73–156. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 371. 1043–1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization, 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2003a. On degrammaticalization. In Barry J. Blake & Kate Burridge (eds.), Historical linguistics 2001: Selected papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, 13–17 August 2001, 163–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003b. Grammaticalization. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 575–601. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Frederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kyung-An Song. 2011. On the grammaticalization of personal pronouns. Journal of Linguistics 47(3). 587–630. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hetzron, Robert. 1976. Two principles of genetic reconstruction. Lingua 38(2). 89–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 21–42. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Construction Grammar: Introduction. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 1–12. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language 19), 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2014. What counts as (an instance of) grammaticalization? Folia Linguistica 48(2). 361–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, Harold. 1996. Reconstruction in morphology. In Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change, 218–263. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kulick, Don. 1992. Language shift and cultural reproduction: Socialization, self, and syncretism in a Papua New Guinean village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2002. Thoughts on grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 2002. Myths and the prehistory of grammars. Journal of Linguistics 38(1). 113–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko, Bernard Comrie & Peter Sells (eds.). 2017. Noun-modifying clause constructions in languages of Eurasia: Rethinking theoretical and geographical boundaries. (Typological Studies in Language 116.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mengden, Ferdinand von. 2008. Reconstructing complex structures: A typological perspective. In Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach (eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 302), 97–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Bernd Heine (eds.). 2011. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nevis, Joel A. 1986. Decliticization and deaffixation in Saame: Abessive taga . In Brian D. Joseph (ed.), Studies on language change. (The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 34), 1–9.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Degrammaticalization: Three common controversies. In Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, 123–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Degrammaticalization. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 475–487. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew. 1995. C. L. Voorhoeve and the Trans New Guinea Phylum hypothesis. In Connie Baak, Mary Bakker & Dick van der Meij (eds.), Tales from a concave world: Liber amicorum Bert Voorhoeve, 83–123. Leiden: Leiden University.Google Scholar
. 1998. The Trans New Guinea Phylum hypothesis: A reassessment. In Jelle Miedema, Cecilia Odé & Rien A. C. Dam (eds.), Perspectives on the Bird’s Head of Irian Jaya, Indonesia: Proceedings of the conference, Leiden, 13–17 October 1997, 655–690. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2005. The chequered career of the Trans New Guinea hypothesis: Recent research and its implications. In Andrew Pawley, Robert Attenborough, Jack Golson & Robin Hide (eds.), Papuan pasts: Cultural, linguistic and biological histories of Papuan-speaking peoples, 67–107. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2012. How reconstructible is Proto Trans New Guinea? Problems, progress, prospects. In Harald Hammarström & Wilco van den Heuvel (eds.), History, contact and classification of Papuan languages. (Special issue of Language and Linguistics in Melanesia), 88–164.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew & Harald Hammarström. 2017. The Trans New Guinea family. In Bill Palmer (ed.), The languages and linguistics of the New Guinea area: A comprehensive guide, 21–195. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pelkey, Jamin. 2011. A Phula comparative lexicon: Phola, Phuza, Muji, Phowa, Azha. SIL International.Google Scholar
Reinöhl, Uta & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. 2017. Renewal: A figure of speech or a process sui generis? Language 93(2). 381–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2000. A preliminary subgrouping of the Madang languages based on pronouns. Unpublished ms, Australian National University.Google Scholar
. 2005. Pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan languages. In Andrew Pawley, Robert Attenborough, Jack Golson & Robin Hide (eds.), Papuan pasts: Cultural, linguistic and biological histories of Papuan-speaking peoples, 15–65. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2015. The argument indexing of Early Austronesian verbs: A reconstructional myth? In Dag T. T. Haug (ed.), Historical linguistics 2013: Selected papers from the 21st International Conference on Historical Linguistics , Oslo, 5–9 August 2013, 257–279. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sweeney, Mike. n.d. Mum texts. Electronic files, Pioneer Bible Translators.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 6.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viti, Carlotta. 2015. On degrammaticalization: Controversial points and possible explanations. Folia Linguistica 49(2). 381–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wade, Martha. 1989. A survey of the grammatical structures and semantic functions of the Apalɨ (Emerum) language. Ms, Pioneer Bible Translators.Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2013. The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction. Diachronica 30(1). 95–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, David P. 1996. Natural tendencies of semantic change and the search for cognates. In Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change, 264–304. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willis, David. 2010. Degrammaticalization and obsolescent morphology: Evidence from Slavonic. In Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, 151–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ylikoski, Jussi. 2016. Degrammaticalization in North Saami: Development of adpositions, adverbs and a free lexical noun from inflectional and derivational suffixes. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 401. 113–173.Google Scholar
Z’graggen, John A. 1971. Classificatory and typological studies in languages of the Madang District (Pacific Linguistics C 19). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
1975a. The Madang-Adelbert Range subphylum. In Stephen A. Wurm (ed.), Papuan languages and the New Guinea linguistic scene. (Pacific Linguistics C 38), 569–612. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
1975b. The languages of the Madang District, Papua New Guinea. (Pacific Linguistics B 41.) Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
1980. A comparative word list of the Southern Adelbert Range languages, Madang Province, Papua New Guinea. (Pacific Linguistics D 33.) Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Gildea, Spike & Jóhanna Barðdal
2023. From grammaticalization to Diachronic Construction Grammar. Studies in Language 47:4 ► pp. 743 ff. DOI logo
Daniels, Don
2020. The history of tense and aspect in the Sogeram family. Journal of Historical Linguistics 10:2 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo
Daniels, Don
2021. The issue of arbitrariness in syntactic reconstruction. Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s2 ► pp. 393 ff. DOI logo
Daniels, Don
2022. The history of tense and aspect in the Sogeram family. In Development of Tense and Aspect Systems [Benjamins Current Topics, 123], ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.