Language evolution from a cognitive-grammar perspective
The rise of the Arabic clause
This paper considers language evolution from a cognitive-grammar (CG) perspective taking
Classical Arabic Case Marking (CACM) as a case in point and a departure point. It is argued that the accusative case is
diachronically the baseline case mark, designating the Objective Scene (OS) and demarcating an object of perception in the initial
stage of maximal subjectivity in which the ground (G) is totally implicit. Such maximum is then attenuated through a
process of objectification such that g entities are gradually put onstage to fulfill the functions of
identification and predication. The nominative case, then, figures to mark such emerging entities in their
baseline, immediate status. This conception of G with its functions is later extended to mark entities external to G, which gives
rise to the full, nominative-marked, baseline existential core (C∃) comprising the existential
predicate (P∃) and the existential subject (S∃). The truncation (T) of a verb’s
nominative case is argued to fulfill the semantic function of situating a process out of existential reality yielding the
existential predicate minus (P-∃), which represents a basic elaboration on baseline C∃. Processes
being extensions from perception, the accusative case attenuates to mark entities (D) that demarcate processes, implementing the
semantic function of processual modification. Finally, a genitive-marked entity (RP) is proposed to implement the
semantic function of referential modification, anchoring and referencing the conceptions of all those facets of
reality.
Article outline
-
1.Introduction
- 2.The existential core
- 3.The CA case system
- 4.Marking baseline C
- 5.The proto case mark
- 5.1Psychological perspective
- 5.2Linguistic perspective
- 6.Objectification and the rise of C
- 6.1Extension of the nominative
- 6.2The centrality of C∃
- 7.Irrealis
- 8.Demarcation
- 8.1Basic lexical categories
- 8.2D as a process
- 9.Referencing
- RP in prepositional phrases
- 10.Summary and conclusions
- 11.Limitations
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (48)
References
Bybee, J. L. (1988). The
diachronic dimension in explanation. In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining
language
universals (pp. 350–379). Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J. L. (2001). Phonology
and language use. New York: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The
evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the
world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chafe, W. (2005). The
relation of grammar to thought. In C. S. Butler, M. d. l. Á. Gómez-González & S. M. Doval-Suárez (Eds.), The
dynamics of language use: Functional and contrastive
perspectives (pp. 57–78). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chafe, W. (2008). Syntax
as a repository of historical relics. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions
and language
change (pp. 261–268). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chafe, W. (2013). Toward
a thought-based linguistics. In S. T. Bischoff & C. Jany (Eds.), Functional
approaches to
language (pp. 107–130). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic
structures. Berlin: Mouton. The Hague. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects
of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections
on language. New York: Pantheon.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N. (1995). The
minimalist program. Cambridge: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, A. (1997). Being
there: Putting brain, body, and world together
again. Cambridge: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clements, G. N. (1990). The
role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In J. Kingston & M. E. Beckman (Eds.), Papers
in laboratory phonology: Between the grammar and physics of
speech (pp. 283–333). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic
categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of
information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining
language change: An evolutionary
approach. London: Pearson Education.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W. (2007). The
origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience. Cognitive
Linguistics, 18(3), 339–382. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Crothers, J. (1978). Typology
and universals of vowel systems. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals
of human language, volume 2:
Phonology (pp. 93–152). Stanford: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Du Bois, J. W. (1985). Competing
motivations. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity
in
syntax (pp. 343–365). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Givón, T. (1979). On
understanding grammar. Orlando: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gussenhoven, C., & Jacobs, H. (2017). Understanding
phonology. London/New York: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors
we live by. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy
in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (1987a). Foundations
of cognitive grammar: Theoretical
prerequisites (Vol. 11). Stanford: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (1987b). Nouns
and
verbs. Language, 63(1), 53–94. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive
Linguistics, 1(1), 5–38. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point
constructions. Cognitive
Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (1995). Viewing
in cognition and grammar. In P. W. Davis (Ed.), Alternative
linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical
modes (pp. 153–212). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Losing
control: Grammaticization, subjectification, and
transparency. In A. Blank & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical
semantics and
cognition (pp. 147–175). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (2000). Grammar
and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive
grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (2015). How
to build an English clause. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied
Linguistics, 2(2), 1–45. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (2016). Baseline
and elaboration. Cognitive
Linguistics, 27(3), 405–439. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (2019). Levels
of
reality. Languages, 4(2). ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Liljencrants, J., & Lindblom, B. (1972). Numerical
simulation of vowel quality systems: The role of perceptual
contrast. Language, 48(4), 839–862. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining
phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In W. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech
production and speech
modelling (pp. 403–439). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lindblom, B., & Engstrand, O. (1989). In
what sense is speech quantal? Journal of
Phonetics, 17(1–2), 107–121. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mandler, J. M. (2004). The
foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ohala, J. J. (1992). Alternatives
to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential
constraints. In M. Ziolkowski, K. Deaton & M. Noske (Eds.), Papers
from the parasession on the syllable in phonetics and
phonology (pp. 319–338). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Piaget, J. (1995). Egocentric
thought and sociocentric thought. In L. Smith (Ed.), Sociological
studies (pp. 276–286). London & New York: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rochat, P. (2003). Five
levels of self-awareness as they unfold early in life. Consciousness and
Cognition, 12(4), 717–731. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rochat, P. (2010). Emerging
self-concept. In J. G. Bremner & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), The
Wiley-Blackwell handbook of infant
development (Vol. 11, pp. 320–344). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sandler, J., Person, E. S., & Fonagy, P. (Eds.). (2012). Freud’s
“on narcissism: An introduction”. London: Karnac Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stern, D. N. (1998). The
interpersonal world of the infant: A view from psychoanalysis and developmental
psychology. London: Karnac Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Suleiman, C. (2010). Contending
visions of Arabic linguistics and their historical roots. Middle East
Critique, 19(2), 115–134. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, E. C. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity
and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification,
intersubjectification and
grammaticalization (pp. 29–71). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity
in semantic change. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The
embodied mind: Cognitive science and human
experience. Cambridge: The MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Alduais, Ahmed, Ammar Al-Khawlani, Shrouq Almaghlouth & Hind Alfadda
2022.
Cognitive Linguistics: Analysis of Mapping Knowledge Domains.
Journal of Intelligence 10:4
► pp. 93 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.