Post on 12-Mar-2022
Change from the periphery: atypical constellations of constructions in the grammaticalization of passives in German and English
Séminaire du centre de linguistique de corpus (CLC)09.04.2018
Elena Smirnova, Robert Mailhammer, Susanne Flach: “Change from the periphery: atypical constellations of constructions in the grammaticalization of passives in German and English”revised version subm. to Diachronica
Structure
• Introduction
• Copula constructions: Tense-Aspect characteristics and compositional semantics• Hypotheses:
Semantic conflicts as triggers of change• Corpus study:
German vs. English• Conclusions
Passive auxiliaries in Germanic LanguagesLanguage Auxiliaries
NORTH Danish (vœre ‘be’), blive ‘become’Faroese (vera ‘be’), verða ‘become’, blíva ‘become’Icelandic (vera ‘be’), verða ‘become’Norwegian (vœre ‘be’), bli ‘become’, få ‘get’** Swedish (vare ‘be‘), bli ‘become‘
WEST Dutch zijn ‘be’*, worden ‘become’, krijgen ‘get’**English be, getFrisian wêze ‘be‘*, wurde ‘become‘ German sein ‘be’*, werden ‘become’, bekommen/kriegen ‘get’**
Notes: ( ) = auxiliary is used, but rarely; * = auxiliary is used, but under certain constraints; ** = auxiliary is used in certain syntactic environments
Toyota (2009: 206)
Passive auxiliaries in Germanic LanguagesLanguage Auxiliaries
NORTH Danish (vœre ‘be’), blive ‘become’Faroese (vera ‘be’), verða ‘become’, blíva ‘become’Icelandic (vera ‘be’), verða ‘become’Norwegian (vœre ‘be’), bli ‘become’, få ‘get’**
Swedish (vare ‘be‘), bli ‘become‘WEST Dutch zijn ‘be’*, worden ‘become’, krijgen ‘get’**
English be, get
Frisian wêze ‘be‘*, wurde ‘become‘ German sein ‘be’*, werden ‘become’, bekommen/kriegen ‘get’**
Notes: ( ) = auxiliary is used, but rarely; * = auxiliary is used, but under certain constraints; ** = auxiliary is used in certain syntactic environments
Toyota (2009: 206)
Copula verbs as sources of passive auxiliaries
change-of-state‘become’
stative‘be’
The auxiliarization process was finished by the semantic tightening of the entire phrase and the loss of erstwhile restrictions to participles of telic verbs and similar aspectual restrictions.
(Wiemer 2011: 542)
[An] important development involves the extension of the range of verbs filling the participle slot in the construction to (atelic) activity verbs. This extension is probably the completion of a shift of the construction from expressing result(ative semantics) to expressing the event itself.
(Petré & Cuyckens 2009: 352)
The last step in the change of these verbs [lat. fieri & facere] into markers of passive voice is related to a change in the verbal classes occurring in the participial form, from telic verbs denoting change of state to non-inherently telic/atelic ones.
(Cennamo 2006: 331-332)
Traditional view
Step 0: stage before reanalysis[[copula] + [PPadj.telic]]VP : RESULTATIVE-STATIVE
Step 1: reanalysis[[copula] + [PPadj.telic]]VP : RESULTATIVE-STATIVE / DYNAMIC PASSIVE
→ [auxpass + PPtelic]V : DYNAMIC PASSIVE
Step 2: analogical extension [auxpass + PPtelic]V : DYNAMIC PASSIVE
→ [auxpass + PPatelic]V : DYNAMIC PASSIVE
Traditional view
copula + PPtelic
before reanalysis
RESULTATIVE-STATIVE
auxpass + PPteliccopula + PPtelic
before reanalysis reanalysis
RESULTATIVE-STATIVE RESULTATIVE-STATIVE => DYNAMIC PASSIVE
auxpass + PPtelic auxpass + PPtelic
auxpass + PPatelic
copula + PPtelic
before reanalysis reanalysis analogical extension
RESULTATIVE-STATIVE RESULTATIVE-STATIVE => DYNAMIC PASSIVE DYNAMIC-PASSIVE
1. Why reanalyze [copula] + [adj.pptelicV]?
2. What makes grammaticalization of ‘become’ as compared to ‘be’ more likely?
Problems
Unusual combinations are at the beginning, not at the end of change.
REANALYSIS
[[copula] + [adj.ppatelic]]VP → [AUXpass + pptelic]V
Our hypothesis
auxpass + PPatelic auxpass + PPatelic
auxpass + PPtelic
copula + PPatelic
before reanalysis reanalysis analogical extension
RESULTATIVE-STATIVE / DYNAMIC PASSIVE RESULTATIVE-STATIVE / DYNAMIC PASSIVE=> DYNAMIC PASSIVE
DYNAMIC-PASSIVE
Structure
• Introduction
• Copula constructions: Tense-Aspect characteristics and compositional semantics• Hypotheses:
Semantic conflicts as triggers of change• Corpus study:
German vs. English• Conclusions
aspectual characteristics of copula verbs‘be’ ‘become’
stative
• stative• non-terminative• atelic
state
inchoative
• dynamic• terminative• atelic
change of state
Source constructions
copula construction with BE
[becop PPadj] : ASCRIPTION OF A RESULT STATEDas Fenster ist geschlossen / sauber.
copula construction with BECOME
[becomecop PPadj] : ASCRIPTION OF A CHANGE TOWARDS A RESULT STATEDas Fenster wird geschlossen / sauber.
Source constructions
AKTIONSART PPVERB
stative verb è stative PP know known
wissen gewusst
amuse amusedvergnügen vergnügt
Croft (2012)
AKTIONSART PPVERB
achievement verb è resultative-stative PPfind foundfinden gefundenlose lostverlieren verloren
AKTIONSART PPVERB
accomplishment verb è resultative stative PPwith some sort of dynamicity
destroy destroyedzerstören zerstörtconsume consumedkonsumieren konsumiert
AKTIONSART PPVERB
activity verb è 1. resultative-stative PP (by implication) 2. dynamic PP
play played
spielen gespielt
cook cooked
kochen gekocht
AKTIONSART PPVERB
semelfactive verb è 1. PP not possible2. dynamic (iterated)
hit hitschlagen geschlagenknock ?knocked
klopfen geklopft
aspectual characteristics of copula verbs‘be’ ‘become’
stative
state
inchoative
change of state
Source constructions
ASCRIPTION OF A (FUTURE) RESULT STATE 1. ASCRIPTION OF A FUTURE RESULT STATE2. ONGOING CHANGE IN PROGRESS
PP OF DIFFERENT VERBS PP OF STATE/ ACH/ ACC PP OF SMF/ ACT/ ACC
Das Spiel WIRD gespielt. / The game BECOMES played.
COERCION REANALYSIS
stative dynamic (= ascription of future result) (= change of state in progress)
‘The game will be played’ ‘The game is being played’
COPULA-READING PASSIVE-READING
example: ‘become’ + PPact
Structure
• Introduction
• Copula constructions: Tense-Aspect characteristics and compositional semantics• Hypotheses:
Semantic conflicts as triggers of change• Corpus study:
German vs. English• Conclusions
Combinations of ‘become’ with PP of semelfactive and activity verbs are problematic, as they involve semantic conflict
è
Combinations of ‘become’ with PP of semelfactive and activity verbs are disfavoured/ avoided
Semantic conflicts
Combinations of ‘become’ with PP of semelfactive and activity verbs are problematic, as they involve semantic conflict
è change potential: atypical combinations may trigger change
The ‘non-copula’ dynamic (passive) reading gets strengthened and gives rise to a new construction
Semantic conflicts and change potential
Prototypicality: ‘become’ + pp as copula
‘become’ + PPachievement
‘become’ + PPaccomplishment
‘become’ + PPactivity
‘become’ + PPsemelfactive
(i) Speakers may tend to avoid problematic combinations and thus stick to the more schematic copula construction
(ii) Speakers may tend to use problematic combinations with non-copular meaning and thus promote the development and establishment of a new construction
Which way?
auxpass + PPatelic auxpass + PPatelic
auxpass + PPtelic
copula + PPatelic
before reanalysis reanalysis analogical extension
RESULTATIVE-STATIVE / DYNAMIC PASSIVE RESULTATIVE-STATIVE / DYNAMIC PASSIVE=> DYNAMIC PASSIVE
DYNAMIC-PASSIVE
SEMELFACTIVE > ACTIVITY > ACCOMPLISHMENT > ACHIEVEMENT > (STATE)
proposed directionality of change
‘become’ + PPachievement
‘become’ + PPaccomplishment
‘become’ + PPactivity
‘become’ + PPsemelfactive
Structure
• Introduction
• Copula constructions: Tense-Aspect characteristics and compositional semantics• Hypotheses:
Semantic conflicts as triggers of change• Corpus study:
German vs. English• Conclusions
Data
• German: Referenzkorpus Mittelhochdeutsch (REM) = 1050–1350è 7,682 observations
• English: LEON-alfa corpus = 1051–1350è 308 observations
Prototypicality: ‘become’ + pp as copula
‘become’ + PPachievement
‘become’ + PPaccomplishment
‘become’ + PPactivity
‘become’ + PPsemelfactive
Aktionsart of PP (raw tokens)
German TIME
1051–1150 1151–1250 1251–1350 TotalAKTIONSART semelfactive
activityaccomplishmentachievementTotal
English TIME
1051–1150 1151–1250 1251–1350 TotalAKTIONSART semelfactive
activityaccomplishmentachievementTotal
Aktionsart of PP (raw tokens)
German TIME
1051–1150 1151–1250 1251–1350 TotalAKTIONSART semelfactive 24 27 61 112
activity 74 608 626 1,308accomplishment 93 884 764 1,741achievement 166 1,901 2,454 4,521Total 357 3,420 3,905 7,682
English TIME
1051–1150 1151–1250 1251–1350 TotalAKTIONSART semelfactive 3 0 1 4
activity 11 10 3 24accomplishment 59 15 10 84achievement 61 36 18 115Total 134 61 32 227
!2 = 144.61, df = 6, p < .0001, Cramér’s V = .097
!2 = 10.64, df = 6, p = .10, Cramér’s V = .153
observed vs expected
German TIME
1051–1150 1151–1250 1251–1350 Total
AKTIONSART semelfactive 24 27 61 112
activity 74 608 626 1,308
accomplishment 93 884 764 1,741
achievement 166 1,901 2,454 4,521
Total 357 3,420 3,905 7,682
observed vs expected
German TIME
1051–1150 1151–1250 1251–1350 Total
AKTIONSART semelfactive 24 (5.2) 27 (49.9) 61 (56.9) 112
activity 74 (60.8) 608 (582.3) 626 (664.9) 1,308
accomplishment 93 (80.9) 884 (775.1) 764 (885.0) 1,741
achievement 166 (210.1) 1,901 (2,012.7) 2,454 (2,298.2) 4,521
Total 357 3,420 3,905 7,682
Pearson ResidualsGermanPearson Residuals
TIME
1051–1150 1151–1250 1251–1350AKTIONSART semelfactive 8.24 –3.24 0.54
activity 1.69 1.06 –1.51accomplishment 1.34 3.91 –4.07achievement –3.04 –2.49 3.25
EnglishPearson Residuals
TIME
1051–1150 1151–1250 1251–1350AKTIONSART semelfactive 0.42 –1.04 0.58
activity –0.84 1.40 –0.21accomplishment 1.34 –1.59 –0.54achievement –0.84 0.92 0.44
Association plot: German
−4.1
−2.0
−1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
8.2
Pearsonresiduals:
p−value =< 2.22e−16
German (Aktionsart by Time)TIME
AKTIO
NSAR
Tac
hieve
ment
acco
mplis
hmen
tac
tivity
seme
lfacti
ve
1051−1150 1151−1250 1251−1350
Association plot: English
−1.6
−1.0
0.0
1.0
1.4
Pearsonresiduals:
p−value =0.1001
EnglishTIME
AKTIO
NSAR
Tac
hieve
ment
acco
mplis
hmen
tac
tivity
seme
lfacti
ve
1051−1150 1151−1250 1251−1350
Association plot
−1.6
−1.0
0.0
1.0
1.4
Pearsonresiduals:
p−value =0.1001
EnglishTIME
AKTIO
NSAR
Tac
hieve
ment
acco
mplis
hmen
tac
tivity
seme
lfacti
ve
1051−1150 1151−1250 1251−1350
−4.1
−2.0
−1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
8.2
Pearsonresiduals:
p−value =< 2.22e−16
German (Aktionsart by Time)TIME
AKTIO
NSAR
Tac
hieve
ment
acco
mplis
hmen
tac
tivity
seme
lfacti
ve
1051−1150 1151−1250 1251−1350
Structure
• Introduction
• Copula constructions: Tense-Aspect characteristics and compositional semantics• Hypotheses:
Semantic conflicts as triggers of change• Corpus study:
German vs. English• Conclusions
General results
• grammaticalization can be due to inherent ambiguity of constructions• interpretational tensions are resolved in two different ways:
• coercion preserves the original meaning of the construction• compositional interpretation of the elements combined in the construction changes the
original meaning of the construction
• inherent ambiguity is a crucial predisposition for the initiation of grammaticalization processes
German vs English
• combinations of the copula verb BECOME and PP of semelfactive and activity verbs represent cases of semantic conflict and ambiguity• in German, these combinations become more salient prior to all other
combinations• in English, there is no such change• in English, the copula construction with BECOME was not involved in the
process of grammaticalization towards passive auxiliary. It “failed” to develop towards a passive auxiliary and was lost altogether.
Merci pour votre attention!