Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Historical Syntax
Edited by Carlotta Viti
[Studies in Language Companion Series 169] 2015
► pp. 117–154

An approach to syntactic reconstruction

ORCID logo | University of Konstanz
The paper is primarily devoted to a methodological discussion. There are two different types of inquiries into diachronic syntax and, more generally, grammar: stage reconstruction and etymological reconstruction. The aim of the first type is to reconstruct and compare diachronic stages within a particular functional domain, while the second type focuses on the etymology or the origin of a particular grammatical category. It is the second type of inquiry that is the topic of this paper. I argue for a methodology based on the Historical-Comparative Method that should ensure a higher degree of reconstructional probability and exclude factors other than inheritance that might also be potentially responsible for correlations across related languages. On this approach, the construction under investigation must be individualized against its respective typological background: creating lists of morphological, lexical (input), syntactic and semantic properties – a procedure that I refer to as profiling (notion borrowed from Cognitive Linguistics). The general principle here is that correlations of typologically quirky properties increase the degree of probability of any reconstruction. An obvious typological quirk is the morphological profile of a construction, since the phonetic realization of morphological markers and their combinations is purely accidental and is not subject to typological universals. The morphological inventory of the construction must be reconstructible in the proto-language on the basis of the Historical-Comparative Method. The ability to reconstruct the morphological inventory also excludes language contact as a potential source for correlations. Other typologically idiosyncratic properties – if reconstructible – may also increase the degree of reconstruction probability. To illustrate how this method may be applied, I focus on the development of the independent partitive genitive from Proto-Indo-European into Baltic and Russian and, finally, into North Russian dialects. On the basis of this method I show that this category is inherited from Proto-Indo-European. I examine the syntactic profiles of this category at different stages and account for changes.
Keywords: non-canonical agreement, partitive genitive, profiling, syntactic reconstruction
Published online: 29 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.169.05ser
References (80)
References
Aikhenvald Alexandra Y., Dixon, Robert M.W. & Onishi, Masayuki (eds). 2001. Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 1999. Oblique subjects in Old Scandinavian. NOWELE 37: 25–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Argument structure, syntactic structure and morphological case of the impersonal construction in the history of Scandinavian. Scripta Islandica 49: 21–33.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2003. The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics 39(3): 439–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies. In Reconstructing Grammatical Relations for Proto-Germanic . Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3): 363–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smitherman, Thomas, Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður, Danesi, Serena, Jenset, Gard B. & McGillivray, Barbara. 2012. Reconstructing constructional semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36(3): 511–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Smitherman, Thomas. 2013. The quest for cognates: A reconstruction of oblique subject constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change 3(1): 28–67.Google Scholar
Barchas-Lichtenstein, Jena. 2012. Garifuna quantification. In Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language, Edward L. Keenan & Paperno, Denis (eds), 165-226. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte. 2007. The definite article in Indo-European: Emergence of a new grammatical category? In Nominal Determination: Typology, Context, Constraints, and Historical Emergence [Studies in Language Companion Series 89], Elisabeth Stark, Elizabeth Leiss & Werner Abraham (eds), 103-139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Archaic Syntax in Indo-European. The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhaskararao, Peri & Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata. 2004. Non-nominative Subjects, 2 Vols. [Typological Studies in Language 60-61]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1925. Die Syntax des einfachen Satzes im Indogermanischen. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bossong Georg. 1998. Le marquage de l’experient dans les langues de l’Europe. Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, Jack Feuillet (ed.), 259–294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Burrow, Thomas 1965. The Sanskrit Language, 2nd edn. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bynon, Theadora. 2005. Evidential, raised possessor, and the historical source of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian. Transactions of the Philological Society 103(1): 1–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1990. Syntactic reconstruction and Finno-Ugric. In Historical Linguistics: Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 66], Henning Andersen & Konrad Koerner (eds), 51-94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Harris, Alice C. 2002. Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing ‘Myths and the Prehistory of Grammars’. Journal of Linguistics 38: 599-618 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conti, Luz. 2010. Synchronie und Diachronie des altgriechischen Genetivs als Semisubjekt. Historische Sprachforschung 121: 94-113.Google Scholar
Conti, Luz & Luraghi, Silvia. 2010. The Classical Greek partitive genitive in typological perspective. A paper presented at the international workshop “Partitives” organized by Silvia Luraghi and Tuomas Huumo, hosted at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the SLE in Vilnius, 4-5 September.
Corbett, Greville. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dahl, Eystein. 2010. Partitive subjects and objects in Indo-Iranian. Paper presented at the workshop on partitives, 43rd Annual Meeting of the SLE in Vilnius, 4-5 September.
Delbrück, Berthold. 1888. Altindische Syntax [Syntaktische Forschungen 5]. Halle: Waisenhaus. Reprint 2009: Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1893[1900]. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, Bände 3-5. Strassburg: Teubner.Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar & Gries, Stefan T. 2006. Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2: 23–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang. 1971. Über die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Syntax. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 85: 5-22.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2001. The notion of oblique subject and its status in the history of Icelandic. In Grammatical Relations in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 56], Jan Terje Faarlund (ed.), 99-135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change. Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Graßmann, Hermann. 1873. Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. Leipzig: Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. & Divjak, Dagmar S. 2009. Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach towards cognitive semantic analysis. In New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics [Human Cognitive Processing 24], Vyvyan Evans & Stephanie S. Pourcel (eds), 57–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gupta, Sagar Mal & Tuladhar, Jyoti. 1980. Dative subject constructions in Hindi, Nepali and Marathi and relational grammar. Contributions to Nepalese Studies VII(1-2): 119-153.Google Scholar
Hackstein, Olav. 2004. Zur Entwicklung alter Präsentien und Perfekta zu Konjunktiv- und Futurformen in einigen altindogermanischen Sprachen. In Die Indogermanistik und ihre Anrainer. Dritte Tagung der Vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaftler der Neuen Länder. Stattgehabt an der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität zu Greifswald in Pommern am 19. und 20. Mai 2000, Thorwald Poschenrieder (ed.), 81-113. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2008. Reconstruction in syntax: Reconstruction of patterns. In Principles of Syntactic Reconstruction [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 302], Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach (eds), 73-95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi (eds), 53-83.
de Hoop, Helen. 1997. A semantic reanalysis of the partitive constraint. Lingua 103(2-3): 151-174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Partitivity. In The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book, Lisa Cheng & Rint Sybesma (eds), 179-212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ionin, Tania, Matushansky, Ora & Ruys, Eddy G. 2006. Parts of speech: Towards a unified semantics for partitives. In Proceedings of NELS 36, Christopher Davis, Amy Rose Deal & Youri Zabbal (eds), 357–370. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Ivanov, Vjačeslav V. 1965. Obščeindoevropejskaja, praslavjanskaja i anatolijskaja jazykovye sistemy (sravnitel’no-tipologičeskie očerki). Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura & Eckhoff, Hanne M. 2013: Grammatical profiles and aspect in Old Church Slavonic. Transactions of the Philological Society, 112(2) 231-258. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura & Lyashevskaya, Olga. 2011. Aspectual pairs in the Russian National Corpus. Scando-Slavica 57(2): 201-215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeffers, Robert J. 1976. Syntactic change and syntactic reconstruction. In Current Progress in Historical Linguistics: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Historical Linguistics, William M. Christie Jr. (ed.), 1-15. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans & Vincent, Nigel. 1997. Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr Evgen'evič. 1992. Očerki po obščim i prikladnym voprosam jazykoznanija (Outlines on General and Applied Issues in Linguistics). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Krys’ko, Vadim B. 2004. Istoričeskij sintaksis russkogo jazyka. Ob”ekt i perexodnost’. Moskva: Indrik.Google Scholar
Kühner, Raphael & Gerth, Bernhard. 1955. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Satzlehre, Erster Teil, 4te Auflage. Hannover: Hahnsche BuchhandlungGoogle Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1964: The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
. 1971. Słowiański genetivus po negacij. In Sesja naukowa międzynarodowej komisji budowy gramatycznej języków słowiańskich: w Krakowie w dniach 3-5 grudnia 1969 r. [Prace Komisji Słowianoznawstwa 23], Tadeusz Stanisław Grabowski, Stanisław Urbańczyk, et al. (eds.), 11-14. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 2002. Myths and the prehistory of grammars. Journal of Linguistics 38(1): 113-136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LIV2 : Lexikon der Indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Unter Leitung von Helmut Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearb. von Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp & Brigitte Schirmer. Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage, bearb. von Martin Kümmel & Helmut Rix. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag. 2001.Google Scholar
Markova, Nina. 2008. Glagol’nye konstrukcii s roditel’nym padežom objekta i subjekta v onežskix govorax, Severno-Russkie govory 9: 146-155.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Malyševa, Anna. 2008. Tipy upotreblenija količestvennogo genetiva isčisljaemyx suščestvitel’nyx (na materiale sovremennyx arxangel’skix govorov i russkix letopisej). In Materialy i issledovanija po russkoj dialektologii III(IX), V. Grammatika, Kasatkin, Leonid L. (ed.), 232-247. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Nachmanson, Ernst. 1942. Partitives Subjekt im Griechischen. Göteborg: Elander.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan, Tsoulas, George & Warner, Anthony. 2000. Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
PDL: Gregory R. Crane (ed.), Perseus Digital Library. <[URL]>
Schwyzer, Eduard & Debrunner, Albert. 1950. Griechische Grammatik. Auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechische Grammatik, Zweiter Band: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. Vervollständigt und herausgegeben von A. Debrunner. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1977. Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In Formal Syntax: Papers from the MSSB-UC Irvine Conference on the Formal Syntax of Natural Language, Newport Beach, California, June 9-11, 1976, Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds), 285-316. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. 2005. Otnositel’naja xronologija osnovnyx fonetičeskix izmenenij v istorii verxnelatyšskogo dialekta (The relative chronology of the main phonetic changes in the history of High Latvian dialect). Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 53: 39-90.Google Scholar
. 2011. Die Entstehung der Kategorie Inagentiv im Tocharischen. In Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog. Akten der XIII. Fachtung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg, Thomas Krisch, Thoms Lindner, Michael Crombach & Stefan Niederreiter (eds), 527-537. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
. 2012a. Pragmatics and semantics of the bare partitive genitive in Ancient Greek. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung STUF 65(2): 113-136.Google Scholar
. 2012b. Morphosyntactic properties of the partitive genitive in Ancient Greek, Indogermanische Forschungen 117: 187-204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects. In The Diachrony of Non-canonical Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series 140], Ilja Seržant & Leonid Kulikov (eds), 313-360. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014a. Denotational properties of the independent partitive genitive in Lithuanian. In Grammatical Relations and their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 1], Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds), 257-299. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. Independent (bare) partitive genitive in North Russian. In Contemporary Approaches to Russian and Belarusian Dialectology [Slavica Bergensia 13], Ilja A. Seržant & Björn Wiemer (eds), 270-329. Bergen: John Grieg AS.Google Scholar
. 2015. Independent partitive genitive as an Eastern Circum-Baltic isogloss. Journal of Language Contact 8, 341-418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sreznevskij, I.I. 1893–1912. Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka po pis’mennym pamjatnikam. Izdanie Otdelenija russkogo jazyka I slovestnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk. St. Petersburg: Tipografija Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk. Three vols.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert L. 1979. On the origins of ergativity. In Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, Frans Plank (ed.), 385-404. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21: 385-396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2010. Agentivity and stativity in experiencer verbs: Implications for a typology of verb classes. Linguistic Typology 14: 213-251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Mengden, Ferdinand. 2008. Reconstructing complex structures. A typological perspective. In Principles of Syntactic Reconstruction [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 302], Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach (eds), 97-120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333-436.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn. 2011. The grammaticalization of passives. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 535-546. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Winter, Werner. 1984. Reconstructing comparative linguistics and the reconstruction of the syntax of undocumented stages in the development of language and language families. In Historical Syntax, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 613-626. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (19)

Cited by 19 other publications

Cennamo, Michela & Claudia Fabrizio
2022. Non-nominative arguments, active impersonals, and control in Latin. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 188 ff. DOI logo
Cotticelli, Paola & Eystein Dahl
2022. Split alignment, mixed alignment, and the spread of accusative morphosyntax in some archaic Indo-European languages. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo
Eystein Dahl
2022. Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, DOI logo
Dahl, Eystein
2022. Alignment in Proto-Indo-European. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo
Dahl, Eystein
2022. Alignment and alignment change in the Indo-European family and beyond. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Fabrizio, Claudia
2022. Infinitives and subjecthood between Latin and Old Italian. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Hock, Hans Henrich
2022. Passives and anticausatives in Vedic Sanskrit. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 166 ff. DOI logo
Luraghi, Silvia & Guglielmo Inglese
2022. The origin of ergative case markers. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Melis, Chantal
2022. Alignment changes with Spanish experiential verbs. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 246 ff. DOI logo
Meyer, Robin
2022. Armenian morphosyntactic alignment in diachrony. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo
Seržant, Ilja A., Björn Wiemer, Eleni Bužarovska, Martina Ivanová, Maxim Makartsev, Stefan Savić, Dmitri Sitchinava, Karolína Skwarska & Mladen Uhlik
2022. Areal and diachronic trends in argument flagging across Slavic. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 300 ff. DOI logo
Seržant, Ilja A.
2021. Typology of partitives. Linguistics 59:4 ► pp. 881 ff. DOI logo
Daniels, Don
2017. A method for mitigating the problem of borrowing in syntactic reconstruction. Studies in Language 41:3 ► pp. 577 ff. DOI logo
Daniels, Don
2021. The issue of arbitrariness in syntactic reconstruction. Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s2 ► pp. 393 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. List of tables. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. ix ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. List of figures. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. viii ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Copyright Page. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. iv ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. List of abbreviations. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. xi ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Series preface. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. vii ff. DOI logo

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