atypical constellations of constructions in the

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


RESULTATIVE-STATIVE / DYNAMIC PASSIVE RESULTATIVE-STATIVE / DYNAMIC PASSIVE=> DYNAMIC PASSIVE

DYNAMIC-PASSIVE

Structure

• Introduction




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.


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


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




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


RESULTATIVE-STATIVE / DYNAMIC PASSIVE RESULTATIVE-STATIVE / DYNAMIC PASSIVE=> DYNAMIC PASSIVE

DYNAMIC-PASSIVE

SEMELFACTIVE > ACTIVITY > ACCOMPLISHMENT > ACHIEVEMENT > (STATE)

proposed directionality of change





Structure

• Introduction




Data

• German: Referenzkorpus Mittelhochdeutsch (REM) = 1050–1350è 7,682 observations

• English: LEON-alfa corpus = 1051–1350è 308 observations

Prototypicality: ‘become’ + pp as copula





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




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!

Documents

atypical constellations of constructions in the