Zgryźliwość kojarzy mi się z radością, która źle skończyła.
16. Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Syntactic Change : The Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online
12/11/2007 03:39 PM
16. Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Syntactic Change
ALICE C. HARRIS
Subject
Linguistics
»
Historical Linguistics
Key-Topics
syntax
DOI:
10.1111/b.9781405127479.2004.00018.x
In this chapter I seek to characterize briefly an approach to universals of diachronic syntax that depends
crucially upon a rich cross-linguistic corpus.
1
I do this by stating some of the aims of the study (section 1),
briefly describing differences between the approach taken here and others (section 2), and describing the
method followed (section 3). Section 4 sets out an example from Georgian, which helps with the
characterization of reanalysis and actualization (section 5). Section 6 is devoted to an extended example,
which illustrates the application of this method in one area of syntax, the change from biclausal to
monoclausal structure.
1 Goals of the Study of Syntactic Change
Different approaches to language can be distinguished in part in terms of their goals. Among my goals in
studying syntactic change are the following:
i to characterize syntactic change accurately;
ii to identify and characterize universals of syntactic change;
iii to explain syntactic change;
iv to build a theory of change.
Characterizing syntactic change includes a consideration of general questions, such as: Is syntactic change
regular? Is it directional? It includes a description of the mechanisms of syntactic change. In addition, a
complete characterization comprises a description of the changes that actually occur in natural languages.
HC applies inductive methods in searching for universals of change, seeking the general rule on the basis of
specific cases. Examining instances of the “same” change in diverse languages, we can focus on elements of
that change that are the same or similar and eliminate from consideration elements that vary from one
language to another. This method is described in greater detail in section 3.
There are many kinds of explanation, and among the most effective is demonstration of a relationship
between the familiar and that which is (or was) unfamiliar. It may be that the better way to view goal (iii) is
that we seek simply to understand all aspects of syntactic change, and we include here attention to the
causes of change.
2
It may be too early to state a general theory of change, but it is at least possible in our current state of
understanding to distinguish language-particular from universal aspects of syntactic change, to state
generalizations about classes of change, and to identify the kinds of syntactic change that are possible in
natural language and, at least by implication, the kinds that are not.
http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g978140512747918
Page 1 of 19
16. Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Syntactic Change : The Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online
12/11/2007 03:39 PM
natural language and, at least by implication, the kinds that are not.
2 Approaches to the Characterization and Explanation of Syntactic Change
Logically there are two basic ways to approach the study of change. One approach begins with a theory and
examines what that theory tells us about what we should expect to find in language change. The best-
known theory-driven approach of this sort is found in Lightfoot (1979, 1991). What have we learned from
these studies? The centerpiece of Lightfoot (1979) was the Transparency Principle, “a rather imprecise,
intuitive idea about limits on a child's ability to abduce complex grammars” (Lightfoot 1981: 358), which was
proposed to characterize the point at which change takes place. In Lightfoot (1991) we find the notion of
“degree-Ø learnability,” likewise a hypothesis about the way a child learns language. But the hypothesis of
imperfect learning cannot account for all syntactic change, since many diverse languages retain the source
construction beside the reanalyzed structure (see Harris and Campbell 1996). And if we are looking for a set
of general principles that limit syntactic change or statements of universals of syntactic change, we come
away from Lightfoot (1979, 1991) empty-handed. Lightfoot adroitly avoids commiting to anything of
substance by arguing that there are no constraints on change other than the theory of Universal Grammar.
Naturally, Universal Grammar sets upper limits on change, but the doctrine that it adequately characterizes
syntactic change would imply, for example, that it is possible for any sanctioned construction to become any
other, without limit. Even if there were no limits on syntactic change other than those imposed by Universal
Grammar, one could still state valid generalizations. Yet we come away from these studies with no
universals, with no constraints, with no hypotheses that can be tested. It is my position that the
theory
of
Universal Grammar is as yet incompletely stated, and that studies of universal properties of syntactic change
will contribute significantly to developing it further.
3
A second approach is data-driven and seeks to develop generalizations based on the corpus of actual
changes. Many studies of the diachronic syntax of individual languages or individual families, including my
own studies (e.g., 1985, 1991, 1994, 1995), are intended in this spirit as contributions to the general
corpus. There is a wealth of data available on attested changes (i.e., changes during the historical period) in
some languages of the Indo-European, Semitic, Uralic, Kartvelian, Dravidian, and Sino-Tibetan families,
among others. Even some languages outside these families are attested for a long enough period that
syntactic change can be carefully tracked; for example, a comparison of Classical Nahuatl with those of the
modern Nahuatl dialects known to be its descendants provides attestation of change. Among the problems
for the would-be constructor of theories is that it requires knowledge of the language to analyze the texts,
to read much of the secondary literature, and to avoid the pitfalls of incomplete understanding of the
synchronic systems.
Among data-driven approaches, some limit themselves to particular aspects of change. For example, while
we have learned a great deal from recent work in grammaticalization, that approach is primarily centered on
features of words and morphemes and on the transition from the former to the latter. For example, in a
grammaticalization approach to the case study in section 4 below, emphasis would be on the transition from
verb to auxiliary; in contrast, it is my aim to treat the structural change involved, as well as the verb-to-aux
transition. Similarly, recent functionalist studies contribute to our understanding of certain types of change,
but they provide no general characteristics of change. Finally, several important recent papers have provided
valuable studies of the gradual implementation of particular changes in syntax (e.g., Kroch 1989a; Fischer
and van der Leek 1987; Naro 1981; Naro and Lemle 1976). What these studies do not identify clearly is the
mechanism that gets these processes started and constraints on that mechanism.
4
In our work, we seek to
provide an overall framework in which contributions to various individual aspects of syntactic change can be
correlated with others to make sense of diachronic syntax.
3 Cross-Linguistic Perspective
The method of cross-linguistic comparison developed in HC is part of an overall framework for the
description and explanation of data from a wide variety of languages, and on this basis we develop a theory
of morphosyntactic change. The method begins by comparing the “same” changes in very different
languages. Characteristics that are found in language after language are candidates for universals, and from
them we develop hypotheses which can then be tested against additional data. We reason that
characteristics that do not occur in all instances must be language-specific. This method begins by
comparing changes that are as closely matched as possible for input structure, output structure, and
http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g978140512747918
Page 2 of 19
16. Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Syntactic Change : The Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online
12/11/2007 03:39 PM
comparing changes that are as closely matched as possible for input structure, output structure, and
meaning-function. Generalizations are made at this level, and the comparison proceeds to a higher level,
where the previous set of changes are compared with other sets which have already been compared
internally. Again generalizations are drawn, and, if appropriate, the comparison continues, throwing an ever-
wider net.
An example which is elaborated below in section 6 is the simplification of biclausal structures into
monoclausal ones. The changes from independent modal verbs to modal auxiliaries in different languages
are compared, and conclusions are drawn. At a second level, these results are compared with conclusions
based on comparisons of similar changes involving other independent verbs, such as ‘have, hold, keep’ used
in perfects, and ‘be’ in progressives. At a third level, other transitions from biclausal to monoclausal
structure (i.e., not involving creation of auxiliaries) are compared with the results previously obtained.
A second example, not included below, involves the operation of word order change. We found typological
approaches limiting, and we look instead at the changes that actually occur. At a first level we compare
verbs and auxiliaries that are not adjacent in the input to the change and are adjacent after the change. At a
second level we compare with these results other changes from discontinuous to continuous constituency. A
further level adds comparison of changes of the relative positions of head and dependent (HC, 195–238).
5
Cross-linguistic comparison is set within a theory that recognizes only three mechanisms of syntactic
change: reanalysis, extension, and borrowing. Other phenomena that might be described by others as
mechanisms of change are, in our view, usually a specific instance or type of one of these.
Reanalysis
is a
mechanism which changes the underlying structure of a syntactic pattern and which does not involve any
modification of its surface manifestation.
6
We understand
underlying structure
in this sense to include at
least (i) constituency, (ii) hierarchical structure, (iii) category labels, and (iv) grammatical relations.
Surface
manifestation
includes morphological marking, such as morphological case, agreement, and gender-class.
Extension
is a mechanism which results in changes in the surface manifestation of a pattern and which does
not involve immediate or intrinsic modification of underlying structure.
Borrowing
is a mechanism of change
in which a replication of the syntactic pattern is incorporated into the borrowing language through the
influence of a host pattern found in a contact language.
Other aspects of this theory that are essential for a complete understanding of cross-linguistic comparison
are (i) that syntactic change is regular, in the sense that it is rule-governed and not random (HC, 325–30),
(ii) that research to date has not shown any kind of syntactic change to be absolutely unidirectional, though
many changes are known to proceed usually in one direction (HC, 330–43), and (iii) that reanalysis depends
upon the possibility of multiple analysis
7
(HC, 81–9).
4 An Example: Georgian
unda
This example from Georgian will be used in sections 5 and 7 to make several points. As will be immediately
clear, the change is very similar to one in English.
In the historical period the Georgian modal ‘want’ has become an auxiliary, expressing a range of
modalities, including necessity, intention, and obligation.
8
Old Georgian
hnebavs
‘wants’ was an independent verb that could have a nominal object or a sentential
object expressed in the subjunctive, in the aorist, or in any of several non-finite forms. Examples with the
subjunctive are given in (1) and (2):
(1)
http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g978140512747918
Page 3 of 19
16. Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Syntactic Change : The Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online
12/11/2007 03:39 PM
(2)
The present tense forms of this verb in Old Georgian included
m-nebavs
‘I want it,’
g-nebavs
‘you want it,’
h-nebavs
‘s/he wants it,’ and the imperfect (past)
mi-nda
‘I wanted it,’
gi-nda
‘you wanted it,’
u-nda
‘s/he
wanted it.’ The imperfect forms came to be used for the present tense by the eleventh or twelfth century,
and a new imperfect was created:
mi-ndoda, gi-ndoda, u-ndoda
(Sar
ǰ
vela[]e 1984: 412–13). Thus, the forms
used today for the present tense of ‘want’ are so-called past-presents. The verb ‘want’ was and is one of a
number of verbs, traditionally called
inversion verbs
, which govern a syntactic pattern in which the
experiencer (here, the one who wants) is in the dative and conditions indirect object agreement, and the
stimulus (here, that which is wanted) is in the so-called nominative case and conditions subject agreement.
Thus, the
m-, g-, h
- and the
mi-, gi-, u
- prefixes isolated in the forms above in general mark indirect
object agreement, in this instance agreement with the experiencer.
(1) and (2) illustrate the pattern in (3), which occurred in both Old and Middle Georgian (from the twelfth
century):
(3)
The form
unda
cited in (3) was imperfect tense in Old Georgian, but later present. (1) and (2) show that in
Old Georgian the initial subject of
unda
(the experiencer,
mas
in (3)) did not have to be coindexed
(coreferential) with an argument of the verb of the subordinate clause; when the initial subject of the matrix
was coindexed with an argument in the subordinate clause, the latter was generally omitted.
The biclausal structure represented in (3) was reanalyzed as the monoclausal pattern in (4):
(4)
At the same time, the meaning of
unda
changed from ‘want’ to a range of modalities including epistemic
necessity and deontic obligation. In this innovative usage it ceased to be conjugated, but exists in this single
form (derived from and identical to the third person experiencer, third person singular stimulus form). The
original biclausal construction continues to exist side by side with the new, maintaining its original meaning,
its original structure (with an optional complementizer and with the option of a non-coreferential subject in
the complement clause), and its original complete paradigmatic variation (with the tense adjustment from
imperfect to present described above), as illustrated in part in (5a), (6a), and (7a) below. Thus in the modern
language there is an invariant auxiliary
unda
‘should, ought, must’ beside a third person lexical verb form
unda
‘s/he wants it,’ which still alternates paradigmatically with
minda
‘I want it,’
ginda
‘you want it,’ and
the plural forms.
11
The independent verb ‘want’ is illustrated below in (5a), (6a), and (7a), and the derived
auxiliary in (5b), (6b), and (7b):
http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g978140512747918
Page 4 of 19
16. Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Syntactic Change : The Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online
12/11/2007 03:39 PM
(5)
(6)
(7)
Table 16.1Two case patterns in the subjunctive
Morphological class Subject case Direct object case
1
Narrative
Nominative
2
Nominative
Following reanalysis as a monoclausal structure, other changes in the clausal syntax were also made. In (4),
after reanalysis, the initial subject is still expressed in the dative, the case required by the syntax of the old
verb ‘want’ as an inversion verb; later the pattern required by the (main) verb was extended to this
construction. In Georgian, case marking of subjects varies according to the morphological category of the
(main) verb. The patterns in
table 16.1
illustrate those found in (5b), (6b), and (7b).
12
Class 1 generally
contains transitive verbs, and class 2 a subset of intransitives.
These patterns are required in simple sentences, as illustrated in (8):
(8)
http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g978140512747918
Page 5 of 19
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl hannaeva.xlx.pl
12/11/2007 03:39 PM
16. Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Syntactic Change
ALICE C. HARRIS
Subject
Linguistics
»
Historical Linguistics
Key-Topics
syntax
DOI:
10.1111/b.9781405127479.2004.00018.x
In this chapter I seek to characterize briefly an approach to universals of diachronic syntax that depends
crucially upon a rich cross-linguistic corpus.
1
I do this by stating some of the aims of the study (section 1),
briefly describing differences between the approach taken here and others (section 2), and describing the
method followed (section 3). Section 4 sets out an example from Georgian, which helps with the
characterization of reanalysis and actualization (section 5). Section 6 is devoted to an extended example,
which illustrates the application of this method in one area of syntax, the change from biclausal to
monoclausal structure.
1 Goals of the Study of Syntactic Change
Different approaches to language can be distinguished in part in terms of their goals. Among my goals in
studying syntactic change are the following:
i to characterize syntactic change accurately;
ii to identify and characterize universals of syntactic change;
iii to explain syntactic change;
iv to build a theory of change.
Characterizing syntactic change includes a consideration of general questions, such as: Is syntactic change
regular? Is it directional? It includes a description of the mechanisms of syntactic change. In addition, a
complete characterization comprises a description of the changes that actually occur in natural languages.
HC applies inductive methods in searching for universals of change, seeking the general rule on the basis of
specific cases. Examining instances of the “same” change in diverse languages, we can focus on elements of
that change that are the same or similar and eliminate from consideration elements that vary from one
language to another. This method is described in greater detail in section 3.
There are many kinds of explanation, and among the most effective is demonstration of a relationship
between the familiar and that which is (or was) unfamiliar. It may be that the better way to view goal (iii) is
that we seek simply to understand all aspects of syntactic change, and we include here attention to the
causes of change.
2
It may be too early to state a general theory of change, but it is at least possible in our current state of
understanding to distinguish language-particular from universal aspects of syntactic change, to state
generalizations about classes of change, and to identify the kinds of syntactic change that are possible in
natural language and, at least by implication, the kinds that are not.
http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g978140512747918
Page 1 of 19
16. Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Syntactic Change : The Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online
12/11/2007 03:39 PM
natural language and, at least by implication, the kinds that are not.
2 Approaches to the Characterization and Explanation of Syntactic Change
Logically there are two basic ways to approach the study of change. One approach begins with a theory and
examines what that theory tells us about what we should expect to find in language change. The best-
known theory-driven approach of this sort is found in Lightfoot (1979, 1991). What have we learned from
these studies? The centerpiece of Lightfoot (1979) was the Transparency Principle, “a rather imprecise,
intuitive idea about limits on a child's ability to abduce complex grammars” (Lightfoot 1981: 358), which was
proposed to characterize the point at which change takes place. In Lightfoot (1991) we find the notion of
“degree-Ø learnability,” likewise a hypothesis about the way a child learns language. But the hypothesis of
imperfect learning cannot account for all syntactic change, since many diverse languages retain the source
construction beside the reanalyzed structure (see Harris and Campbell 1996). And if we are looking for a set
of general principles that limit syntactic change or statements of universals of syntactic change, we come
away from Lightfoot (1979, 1991) empty-handed. Lightfoot adroitly avoids commiting to anything of
substance by arguing that there are no constraints on change other than the theory of Universal Grammar.
Naturally, Universal Grammar sets upper limits on change, but the doctrine that it adequately characterizes
syntactic change would imply, for example, that it is possible for any sanctioned construction to become any
other, without limit. Even if there were no limits on syntactic change other than those imposed by Universal
Grammar, one could still state valid generalizations. Yet we come away from these studies with no
universals, with no constraints, with no hypotheses that can be tested. It is my position that the
theory
of
Universal Grammar is as yet incompletely stated, and that studies of universal properties of syntactic change
will contribute significantly to developing it further.
3
A second approach is data-driven and seeks to develop generalizations based on the corpus of actual
changes. Many studies of the diachronic syntax of individual languages or individual families, including my
own studies (e.g., 1985, 1991, 1994, 1995), are intended in this spirit as contributions to the general
corpus. There is a wealth of data available on attested changes (i.e., changes during the historical period) in
some languages of the Indo-European, Semitic, Uralic, Kartvelian, Dravidian, and Sino-Tibetan families,
among others. Even some languages outside these families are attested for a long enough period that
syntactic change can be carefully tracked; for example, a comparison of Classical Nahuatl with those of the
modern Nahuatl dialects known to be its descendants provides attestation of change. Among the problems
for the would-be constructor of theories is that it requires knowledge of the language to analyze the texts,
to read much of the secondary literature, and to avoid the pitfalls of incomplete understanding of the
synchronic systems.
Among data-driven approaches, some limit themselves to particular aspects of change. For example, while
we have learned a great deal from recent work in grammaticalization, that approach is primarily centered on
features of words and morphemes and on the transition from the former to the latter. For example, in a
grammaticalization approach to the case study in section 4 below, emphasis would be on the transition from
verb to auxiliary; in contrast, it is my aim to treat the structural change involved, as well as the verb-to-aux
transition. Similarly, recent functionalist studies contribute to our understanding of certain types of change,
but they provide no general characteristics of change. Finally, several important recent papers have provided
valuable studies of the gradual implementation of particular changes in syntax (e.g., Kroch 1989a; Fischer
and van der Leek 1987; Naro 1981; Naro and Lemle 1976). What these studies do not identify clearly is the
mechanism that gets these processes started and constraints on that mechanism.
4
In our work, we seek to
provide an overall framework in which contributions to various individual aspects of syntactic change can be
correlated with others to make sense of diachronic syntax.
3 Cross-Linguistic Perspective
The method of cross-linguistic comparison developed in HC is part of an overall framework for the
description and explanation of data from a wide variety of languages, and on this basis we develop a theory
of morphosyntactic change. The method begins by comparing the “same” changes in very different
languages. Characteristics that are found in language after language are candidates for universals, and from
them we develop hypotheses which can then be tested against additional data. We reason that
characteristics that do not occur in all instances must be language-specific. This method begins by
comparing changes that are as closely matched as possible for input structure, output structure, and
http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g978140512747918
Page 2 of 19
16. Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Syntactic Change : The Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online
12/11/2007 03:39 PM
comparing changes that are as closely matched as possible for input structure, output structure, and
meaning-function. Generalizations are made at this level, and the comparison proceeds to a higher level,
where the previous set of changes are compared with other sets which have already been compared
internally. Again generalizations are drawn, and, if appropriate, the comparison continues, throwing an ever-
wider net.
An example which is elaborated below in section 6 is the simplification of biclausal structures into
monoclausal ones. The changes from independent modal verbs to modal auxiliaries in different languages
are compared, and conclusions are drawn. At a second level, these results are compared with conclusions
based on comparisons of similar changes involving other independent verbs, such as ‘have, hold, keep’ used
in perfects, and ‘be’ in progressives. At a third level, other transitions from biclausal to monoclausal
structure (i.e., not involving creation of auxiliaries) are compared with the results previously obtained.
A second example, not included below, involves the operation of word order change. We found typological
approaches limiting, and we look instead at the changes that actually occur. At a first level we compare
verbs and auxiliaries that are not adjacent in the input to the change and are adjacent after the change. At a
second level we compare with these results other changes from discontinuous to continuous constituency. A
further level adds comparison of changes of the relative positions of head and dependent (HC, 195–238).
5
Cross-linguistic comparison is set within a theory that recognizes only three mechanisms of syntactic
change: reanalysis, extension, and borrowing. Other phenomena that might be described by others as
mechanisms of change are, in our view, usually a specific instance or type of one of these.
Reanalysis
is a
mechanism which changes the underlying structure of a syntactic pattern and which does not involve any
modification of its surface manifestation.
6
We understand
underlying structure
in this sense to include at
least (i) constituency, (ii) hierarchical structure, (iii) category labels, and (iv) grammatical relations.
Surface
manifestation
includes morphological marking, such as morphological case, agreement, and gender-class.
Extension
is a mechanism which results in changes in the surface manifestation of a pattern and which does
not involve immediate or intrinsic modification of underlying structure.
Borrowing
is a mechanism of change
in which a replication of the syntactic pattern is incorporated into the borrowing language through the
influence of a host pattern found in a contact language.
Other aspects of this theory that are essential for a complete understanding of cross-linguistic comparison
are (i) that syntactic change is regular, in the sense that it is rule-governed and not random (HC, 325–30),
(ii) that research to date has not shown any kind of syntactic change to be absolutely unidirectional, though
many changes are known to proceed usually in one direction (HC, 330–43), and (iii) that reanalysis depends
upon the possibility of multiple analysis
7
(HC, 81–9).
4 An Example: Georgian
unda
This example from Georgian will be used in sections 5 and 7 to make several points. As will be immediately
clear, the change is very similar to one in English.
In the historical period the Georgian modal ‘want’ has become an auxiliary, expressing a range of
modalities, including necessity, intention, and obligation.
8
Old Georgian
hnebavs
‘wants’ was an independent verb that could have a nominal object or a sentential
object expressed in the subjunctive, in the aorist, or in any of several non-finite forms. Examples with the
subjunctive are given in (1) and (2):
(1)
http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g978140512747918
Page 3 of 19
16. Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Syntactic Change : The Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online
12/11/2007 03:39 PM
(2)
The present tense forms of this verb in Old Georgian included
m-nebavs
‘I want it,’
g-nebavs
‘you want it,’
h-nebavs
‘s/he wants it,’ and the imperfect (past)
mi-nda
‘I wanted it,’
gi-nda
‘you wanted it,’
u-nda
‘s/he
wanted it.’ The imperfect forms came to be used for the present tense by the eleventh or twelfth century,
and a new imperfect was created:
mi-ndoda, gi-ndoda, u-ndoda
(Sar
ǰ
vela[]e 1984: 412–13). Thus, the forms
used today for the present tense of ‘want’ are so-called past-presents. The verb ‘want’ was and is one of a
number of verbs, traditionally called
inversion verbs
, which govern a syntactic pattern in which the
experiencer (here, the one who wants) is in the dative and conditions indirect object agreement, and the
stimulus (here, that which is wanted) is in the so-called nominative case and conditions subject agreement.
Thus, the
m-, g-, h
- and the
mi-, gi-, u
- prefixes isolated in the forms above in general mark indirect
object agreement, in this instance agreement with the experiencer.
(1) and (2) illustrate the pattern in (3), which occurred in both Old and Middle Georgian (from the twelfth
century):
(3)
The form
unda
cited in (3) was imperfect tense in Old Georgian, but later present. (1) and (2) show that in
Old Georgian the initial subject of
unda
(the experiencer,
mas
in (3)) did not have to be coindexed
(coreferential) with an argument of the verb of the subordinate clause; when the initial subject of the matrix
was coindexed with an argument in the subordinate clause, the latter was generally omitted.
The biclausal structure represented in (3) was reanalyzed as the monoclausal pattern in (4):
(4)
At the same time, the meaning of
unda
changed from ‘want’ to a range of modalities including epistemic
necessity and deontic obligation. In this innovative usage it ceased to be conjugated, but exists in this single
form (derived from and identical to the third person experiencer, third person singular stimulus form). The
original biclausal construction continues to exist side by side with the new, maintaining its original meaning,
its original structure (with an optional complementizer and with the option of a non-coreferential subject in
the complement clause), and its original complete paradigmatic variation (with the tense adjustment from
imperfect to present described above), as illustrated in part in (5a), (6a), and (7a) below. Thus in the modern
language there is an invariant auxiliary
unda
‘should, ought, must’ beside a third person lexical verb form
unda
‘s/he wants it,’ which still alternates paradigmatically with
minda
‘I want it,’
ginda
‘you want it,’ and
the plural forms.
11
The independent verb ‘want’ is illustrated below in (5a), (6a), and (7a), and the derived
auxiliary in (5b), (6b), and (7b):
http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g978140512747918
Page 4 of 19
16. Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Syntactic Change : The Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online
12/11/2007 03:39 PM
(5)
(6)
(7)
Table 16.1Two case patterns in the subjunctive
Morphological class Subject case Direct object case
1
Narrative
Nominative
2
Nominative
Following reanalysis as a monoclausal structure, other changes in the clausal syntax were also made. In (4),
after reanalysis, the initial subject is still expressed in the dative, the case required by the syntax of the old
verb ‘want’ as an inversion verb; later the pattern required by the (main) verb was extended to this
construction. In Georgian, case marking of subjects varies according to the morphological category of the
(main) verb. The patterns in
table 16.1
illustrate those found in (5b), (6b), and (7b).
12
Class 1 generally
contains transitive verbs, and class 2 a subset of intransitives.
These patterns are required in simple sentences, as illustrated in (8):
(8)
http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g978140512747918
Page 5 of 19