Explaining language structure
On categorial misbehavior in Walman (Papua New Guinea)
Typically, certain grammatical features are associated with one particular lexical category rather than some other category. Nouns can be modified by numerals or adjectives, can take determiners like demonstratives or possessive attributes, can be inflected for number, case, etc. Verbs, by contrast, take markers of tense, aspect, modality and can be negated, etc. But cross-linguistic observations show that one and the same linguistic expression can also be associated with more than one grammatical category. For example, in many languages there are forms that serve the expression of verbal tense or aspect in some of their uses but behave like lexical verbs in other uses; adpositions may be homophonous with nouns, or relative clause markers with demonstratives, etc. In many of these cases, grammaticalization theory has been used to account for such situations.The present paper argues that this framework is also able to explain connections between linguistic structures that appear to be entirely unrelated to one another. Such a case of “categorial misbehavior” is reported from the Walman language of Papua New Guinea, where two ‘and’-conjunctions that have the function of conjoining noun phrases have the morphological structure of transitive verbs. Drawing on typological evidence from a number of genetically and areally unrelated languages, the paper proposes a reconstruction of the situation in Walman based on regularities of grammatical change. The main goal of the paper is to argue that grammaticalization theory can provide explanations that appear to be beyond the potential of other linguistic frameworks. Such explanations are external rather than internal, and they are restricted to the question of why languages are structured the way they are, that is, they concern neither the question of how people use their language nor what knowledge they have about their language.
References (35)
References
Boretzky, Norbert 1983. Kreolsprachen, Substrate und Sprachwandel. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brown, Lea & Dryer, Matthew S. 2008. The verbs for ‘and’ in Walman, a Torricelli language of Papua New Guinea. Language 84(3): 528-565. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, Joan L., Pagliuca, William & Perkins, Revere D. 1991. Back to the future. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, 2 [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17-58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. & Pagliuca, William 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Campbell, Lyle 1987. Syntactic change in Pipil. International Journal of American Linguistics 53(3): 253-80. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Corne, Chris 1977. Seychelles Creole Grammar: Elements for Indian Ocean Proto-Creole Reconstruction [Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 91]. Tübingen: Narr.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dryer, Matthew S. 2006a. Functionalism and the theory-metalanguage confusion. In Phonology, Morphology, and the Empirical Imperative: Papers in Honour of Bruce Derwing, Grace Wiebe, Gary Libben, Tom Priestly, Ron Smyth & Sam Wang (eds), 27-59. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Company.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dryer, Matthew S. 2006b. Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and basic linguistic theory. In Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds), 207-34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1993. A Grammar of Mupun [Sprache und Oralität in Afrika 14]. Berlin: Reimer.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hagman, Roy. S. 1977. Nama Hottentot Grammar [Indiana University Publications, Language Science Monographs 15]. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haspelmath, Martin 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6): 1043-68. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, Bernd & König, Christa 1996. The Ik Language: Grammatical Notes, Vocabulary, and Texts. Ms, Cologne.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania 2006. The Changing Languages of Europe. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania 2007. The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction [Studies in the Evolution of Language 9]. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko. 2009. Grammaticalization and linguistic analysis. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 401-423. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holm, John A. 1988. Pidgins and Creoles, Vol. I: Theory and Structure. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, 1 [Typological Studies in Language 19], Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Bernd Heine (eds), 17-35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
König, Christa. 2002. Kasus im Ik [Nilo-Saharan 17]. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krönlein, Johannes Georg. 1889. Wortschatz der Khoi-Khoin. Berlin: Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Muysken, Pieter & Veenstra, Tonjes. 1995. Serial verbs. In Pidgins and Creoles: An Introduction [Creole Language Library 15], Jacques Arends, Pieter Muysken & Norval Smith (eds), 289-301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Narrog, Heiko. 2009. Varieties of instrumental. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 593-601. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Narrog, Heiko & Ito, Shinya. 2007. Reconstructing semantic maps. The Comitative-Instrumental area. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60(4): 273-292.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Narrog, Heiko & van der Auwera, Johan. 2011. Grammaticalization and semantic maps. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 318-27. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Peyraube, Alain. 1996. Recent issues in Chinese historical syntax. In New Horizons in Chinese Linguistics [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36], James C.-T. Huang & Y.-H. Audrey Li (eds), 161-213. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stassen, Leon. 2000. AND-languages and WITH-languages. Typological Linguistics 4(1): 1-54. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stolz, Thomas. 1998. UND, MIT und/oder UND/MIT? Koordination, Instrumental und Komitativ – kymrisch, typologisch und universell. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 51(2): 107-130.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stolz, Thomas, Stroh, Cornelia & Urdze, Aina 2006. On Comitatives and Related Categories: A Typological Study with Special Focus on the Languages of Europe. [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 33]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tucker, Archibald N. 1994. A Grammar of Kenya Luo (Dholuo) [Nilo-Saharan, 8.1 & 8.2.], ed. by Chet A. Creider. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee
2019.
World Lexicon of Grammaticalization,
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 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.