Introduction

As set out in chapter 3, syntactic borrowing is one of the fundamental mechanisms in the approach to syntactic change developed in this book. In this chapter, we evaluate universals (and general claims) that have been proposed in the linguistic literature concerning borrowing, we illustrate various aspects of syntactic borrowing and other changes induced by language contact, and we show how these fit in to our approach in general.

Syntactic borrowing is perhaps the most neglected and abused area of syntactic change. Excesses in the past are well known and require little comment here; more disturbing is that such problems persist even to the present day. Current views range from the extremes on the one hand, that syntactic borrowing is either impossible or is very rare, to on the other hand fanciful explanations that all otherwise unexplained syntactic eccentricities in a language may be due to foreign influence. This notwithstanding, grammatical borrowing was generally regarded as respectable and important in the history of linguistics (see chapter 2). In this chapter it is our hope to put syntactic borrowing in balanced perspective and to determine the role it must be allotted in any theory of syntactic change. We approach this task in the following way.

Introduction

In the last two decades word order has perhaps received more attention than any other issue in diachronic syntax. Most of this work has looked at word order change from the point of view of word order universals, first discovered by Greenberg (1963) and further studied by many others since then. Diachronic studies inspired by Greenbergian universals have been widely criticized on grounds of methodology and are not widely accepted. We have tried to take a fresh approach to these issues. After a general introduction in the present section to the questions involved, we begin by examining the basis for the widespread assumption that the order of morphemes in a word and the order of words in a compound reflect, in some sense, the order of words in a clause (section 8.2). We show that while this is often true of bound morphemes, it is not always; in compounds there seems to be little basis at all for such an assumption. In section 8.3 we look at the types of word order change that result from reanalysis and show that through reanalysis it is possible for an order to be introduced that is disharmonic with the rest of the language. This offers a solution to the long-standing problem of how, if word order harmony is a preferred state, a language could begin to change from one harmony to another.

Introduction

Our goal in this chapter is the presentation of universal characterizations of some of the diachronic processes that turn biclausal constructions into monoclausal ones. We approach this goal first by describing one such process from the point of view of several languages, then generalizing about the form of this process. We then examine a different process, and make generalizations about its form. Finally we analyze a large category of processes and end the chapter with a statement of general principles governing all the changes examined within the chapter.

To this end, section 7.2 discusses processes that derive from cleft clauses containing pragmatic markers. In section 7.3 we describe the transition from quotation constructions to structures involving a quotative marker. A process that derives a variety of periphrastic expressions of verbal categories is discussed in section 7.4. All three processes considered here are types of reanalysis; in section 7.5 we state general principles governing changes of biclausal to monoclausal structures.

Highlighting constructions

We examine in this section cross-linguistic evidence concerning one origin of highlighting – the use of particles to mark focus or topic. This is not an exhaustive inventory of sources of such markers; instead we deal in some detail with a single common pathway of development, derivations found in a wide variety of unrelated languages.

Introduction

Extension is one of the three basic mechanisms of change in our approach. We defined extension in chapter 3 as change in the surface manifestation of a syntactic pattern that does not involve immediate or intrinsic modification of underlying structure. Many aspects of extension are discussed in chapter 4, especially in section 4.4. This chapter is devoted to a more detailed description and presentation of examples. The central purpose of the chapter is to state a constraint on extension.

It has often been said that diachronic change simplifies the grammar; yet it has often been pointed out that if that were always so, grammars would become noticeably simpler in the course of time. In the realm of syntax, it is clear that reanalysis often can introduce complexity to the grammar (though it can also result in simplification, as well), while extension can eliminate exceptions and irregularities by bringing the new analysis into line with the rest of the existing grammar. The constraint on extensions, formulated below as (39), makes concrete the observation that extension always plays this role.

Extension is a mechanism that operates to change the syntax of a language by generalizing a rule, and in section 5.2 we give two examples of this. The constraint which we discuss in greater detail in section 5.3 below states minimum observed limits on the application of extension in general. There are still stronger constraints, which seem to operate on individual aspects of grammar, and these are discussed in chapters 7–9.

This volume is intended primarily as a work for specialists and advanced graduate students. It is not an elementary textbook or introduction, and it does assume some knowledge of syntax, of historical linguistics, and of basic issues in diachronic syntax. Our main purpose in this work is to present a comprehensive and cohesive approach to diachronic syntax. It is a basic work in the sense that we view it as a standard reference or handbook. It is likewise basic in the sense that it reexamines fundamental issues and attempts to contribute to a resolution of them. We view it as foundational; while all academic work of course has predecessors, this approach is not built directly upon previous work.

For readers who do not have the background that we assume, it may be helpful to read (or reread) chapter 3 after chapters 4–6, inasmuch as chapter 3 is entirely theoretical and purposely avoids detailed discussion of examples. Many basic examples that contribute to making the theory more accessible are provided in chapters 4–6. Readers not familiar with discussions of word order during the last two decades may find it helpful to read chapter 8, or at least its Introduction, before chapter 6.

Introduction

In this chapter we treat changes in alignment and propose a universal which accounts for the strong limitations on possible alignment changes. In this work the term alignment is used to refer to the distribution of morphological markers or of syntactic or morphological characteristics; it is intended as a neutral way of referring to ergative, accusative, and other distributional patterns. The focus here is on the alignment of case marking. The alignment typology assumed is based on that established by Sapir (1917). This includes the three types ergative, active(-inactive), and (nominative-)accusative, though Sapir did not use these names for them. Following Sapir, these may be represented as in table 9.1. We have added a further type in the same format, but the focus in this chapter is on the first three. Table 9.1 represents the distributional definition of ergative alignment as a system having one marker, A (“absolutive case”), shared by the direct object and the subject of an intransitive, distinct from another marker, B (“ergative case”), used for the subject of a transitive. This may be illustrated from Andi, a language of the Daghestan (North East Caucasian) family, where the absolutive case has a zero marker.

This book is about historical syntax in general. Although syntactic change was an important part of the comparative linguistic tradition, and while the past fifteen years or so have seen a significant increase in attention to the topic, the study of diachronic syntax is still largely disorganized and unfocused and lacks the sort of consensus enjoyed, for example, by historical phonology. This book is aimed at remedying this situation in so far as this is possible at the present time. It is intended as a basic treatise on diachronic syntax. Some might claim that the present state of the field is too fragmented and overwrought with conflicting claims to offer much optimism for achieving our goal, which is to establish a general framework for syntactic change. This state of affairs, however, does not render the task impossible, just more important, exciting, and more urgent.

Goals of a theory of diachronic syntax

Recent work in diachronic syntax has been chiefly of three sorts: (1) studies of particular changes in individual languages; (2) research on specific kinds of change (e.g. word order change, grammaticalization); and (3) explorations of the diachronic implications of particular formal approaches to grammar, often given more to championing the particular theory of syntax than to actually accounting for linguistic changes (for details, see chapter 2).

Introduction

The long history of the study of syntactic change is characterized not by major breaks in tradition, but by a few persistent themes. Most recent claims are not new, but were anticipated in the past and are the continuation of lines of thought which have endured in the history of linguistics. This view of the history of diachronic syntax contrasts sharply with that held by some scholars today: for example, Lightfoot argues that little insightful work on syntactic change was achieved in the past (197a: 7–41; 1988a: 305–7). We disagree with his interpretation of linguistic history; as will be seen, it is not the case that “the nineteenth-century [and earlier] linguists … made no attempt to posit general principles of syntactic change,” nor that “certainly there was no tradition of work on syntactic change, and, despite isolated discussions, it was not until the 1970s that syntactic change became an area of communal work among linguists” (Lightfoot 1988a: 305). While Lightfoot has articulated this view clearly, numerous other contemporary practitioners of diachronic syntax imply in their work that they hold a similar view.

Introduction

Although comparative and internal reconstruction have a long and honorable history in linguistics, application of these techniques to syntax has frequently been criticized as unworkable and as fundamentally different from phonological and morphological reconstruction. For example, Jeffers (1976b: 5) contends that: “A straightforward transfer of the principles of the comparative method to the reconstruction of syntax seems totally inappropriate.” Similar opinions concerning the assumed non-feasibility of syntactic reconstruction abound. While no one would suggest that the techniques of comparative reconstruction can be applied in syntax exactly as in phonology, we argue here that it is nevertheless both possible and appropriate to use the methods of comparative and internal reconstruction to reconstruct syntax. Although there are clear limitations on the effectiveness of these techniques, they are applicable to a wide variety of problems in diachronic syntax. In section 12.2 we discuss how correspondences (or equations) can be established in syntax. Although most of the discussion in the literature has focused on reconstruction, the comparative method relies upon correspondences which establish that change has taken place. We show in section 12.3 how the established techniques of the comparative method can be applied to reconstruct syntax. Section 12.4 deals with obstacles – real and imagined – to the establishment of correspondences or to actual syntactic reconstruction.

Introduction

In this chapter we define reanalysis, provide a number of examples in order to convey some understanding of the variety in and limits on this mechanism, and show in detail how reanalysis works. We investigate its relation to grammaticalization and actualization, and we show how it fits in our overall view of grammar change. Reanalysis has been the most important concept for most attempts to explain syntactic change throughout the history of linguistics and especially in the last thirty years or so (see chapter 2). Langacker (1977a: 57) might well be speaking for the field in general when he says: “not all diachronic developments in the domain of syntax involve reanalysis … but this is clearly a major mechanism of syntactic evolution which we must understand in depth if we wish to understand how and why syntactic change occurs.” It is also of central importance in our approach, and we attempt here to define it rigorously and characterize it in detail.

Reanalysis, as defined in chapter 3, is a mechanism which changes the underlying structure of a syntactic pattern and which does not involve any immediate or intrinsic modification of its surface manifestation. This definition is intended to isolate one part of a process for further discussion; it is not intended as a claim that changes involving reanalysis cannot additionally involve some modification of surface manifestation (though such modifications necessarily involve mechanisms other than reanalysis).

The problem

In chapter 7 we discussed a number of processes by which clauses are fused, resulting in change from a more complex to a less complex structure. Given that languages do continue to have complex structures, change cannot be uniformly in the direction of simplification. We examine here the questions of how and why complex structures are renewed.

It is extremely common in natural languages for relative pronouns to be formally identical to or derived from Q-words in the same language. This raises a second question to be addressed in this chapter: what is the relationship between these two kinds of pronouns? While they may be somewhat less common, there are numerous other dependent clause types that bear a similarity to questions of one kind or another. This, in turn, raises the question of what relation dependent clauses (or certain types of dependent clauses) bear to questions.

In section 10.2 we outline the traditional view that hypotaxis develops out of parataxis and discuss several interpretations of it; in section 10.3 we develop a simple alternative hypothesis. Section 10.4 provides a treatment of the relationship of questions to subordinate clauses, and in section 10.5 we propose an analysis of the origins of complex constructions.

Introduction

In the preceding chapters we have laid out a framework for the study of diachronic syntax. We have examined the nature of syntactic change in detail from the point of view of specific mechanisms (chapters 4–6) and from the point of view of certain recurrent types (chapters 7–10). In this chapter we take up questions relating to syntactic change as a whole. Earlier in this book, in chapter 1, we only briefly introduced the topic of the explanation of change and associated notions of prediction and causation, touching upon them briefly in later chapters in connection with specific changes. We have not yet drawn these points together to provide a general statement on explanation, causation, and prediction. Moreover, two important aspects of the nature of syntactic change have thus far been left unexamined, namely regularity and directionality. Our goal in this chapter is to consider these matters that bear importantly on the overall nature of syntactic change. Throughout, our discussion is informed by the investigations of individual changes reported in earlier parts of this work, as well as by our separate and collaborative investigations into a diverse array of languages.