In Sections 3 and 4 examples were presented of topological paradigms and a simple example was given of a complex paradigm uniting a topological and a morphologi-cal distinction. In this paragraph, such integrative paradigms (hyperparadigms) will be further discussed and exemplified through a discussion of cases where clitics and topology interact with each other – and with constructional hierarchies.
Below we consider a scale of levels of cliticisation – not a continuum, since all steps will be well-defined – and some of these levels will be interesting as instances of connecting grammaticalisation.
To achieve this, we will define clisis as any process that reduces the independence of one constituent in order to signal its grammatical function. The expression side of such a paradigm is some kind of prosodically reduced element; the content is an instruction about how to identify the clitic as part of a larger content syntactic unit.
6.1 Complex constituent formation
The breadth of the definition formulated above will allow us to include, for instance, examples of stress reduction as a signal to indicate unity in discontinuous constitu-ents, a phenomenon very common in Danish. In this language, large sets of complex constituents are formed by way of stress reduction on the first of two constituents as a signal that this constituent is the first of two (or more) that together form one com-plex and possibly discontinuous constituent. Both comcom-plex noun phrases and comcom-plex predicates are formed this way; we restrict ourselves to instances of predicate comple-ments. In (40) the adverbial predicate complement is preceded by two verbs with stress reduction:
(40) Hun oer okommet for sent ˈhjem she is come too late home ‘She has come home too late’
(41) Hun oer ˈkommet she is come ‘She has come’
64 Connecting Grammaticalisation
As seen by comparing (40) and (41), the reduction of stress on the finite verb points to the main verb kommet; the full stress on this verb in (41) identifies this form as the predicate nucleus. In (40) the reduction on kommet points to the adverbial complement hjem as the nucleus. The result is a complex expression structure of a likewise complex content syntactic structure: [oer [okommet ˈhjem]], the present perfect corresponding to the simple present:
(42) Hun okomm-er for sent ˈhjem she come-prs too late home ‘She will be home too late’
In many cases this pattern distinguishes predicative constructions from argument loca-tive constructions, or from constructions with a prepositional indirect object. (43a) and (44a) are instances of complex predicate formation and (43b) and (44b) of three-place argument constructions.
(43) a. Hun ostillede vasen til ˈside
she put the vase to one side
A1 [ ostillede (V) til ˈside (Adv) ] A2
P P
b. Hun ˈstillede vasen i ˈvinduet
she put the vase in the window
A1 [ ˈstillede (V) ] A2 A3
P P
(44) a. De osendte pakken til ˈLondon
they sent the parcel to London
A1 [ osendte (V) til ˈLondon (Adv) ] A2
P P
b. De ˈsendte pakken til ˈElisabeth
they sent the parcel to Elisabeth
A1 [ ˈsendte (V) ] A2 A3
This type of cliticisation straddles parts of discontinuous constituents, at the same time respecting the topological structure of the sentence. At this level, cliticisation takes place without reduction or even alteration of the topologically borne functions of the sentence. Verbs with stress reduction can nevertheless function as verbs second, a precondition for the clause to be marked as a declarative structure, thus making the paradigmatic choice between Realis and Conditioned Realis possible. In the case of unitary stress reduction, the function of stress reduction is solely to interact with the semantactic (content syntactic) hierarchies of the clause.
The analysis of unstressed pronouns in Danish in the present section is a parallel to this point. In neither case does stress reduction rob the pronoun of its topological
Chapter 2. Topology (word order) 65
functions, and in this sense we need to include also this type of dependency among the possible defining criteria for clitics. Stress reduction on a syntactic item can sig-nal that this item is part of a complex constituent, typically at the level of semantic syntax, so that the hearer needs to identify its second part, one that carries full stress.
In such a case, cliticisation is bound up with semantic syntax, and only secondarily with topology.
6.2 Wackernagel’s law in Latin
Wackernagel’s law illustrates the opposite point about cliticisation. Cliticisation can be bound up with topology alone, establishing a complex opposition between unmarked positions for full constituents and the Wackernagel position for clitics. Notice that the clitics of e.g. Latin are not marked morphologically, contrary to the clitics in later Romance. Some adverbs etc. are born clitics, but there is no opposition between clitic and non-clitic forms of the Latin pronouns, for instance. In Wackernagel’s wording, it is the position that is connected with reduction of tonicity: ‘die Latinisten 〈lehren schon lange〉 dass zumal in klassischer Prosa die Stelle unmittelbar hinter dem ersten Wort des Satzes mit Tonschwäche verbunden sei, und die dorthin gestellten Wörter entweder von Haus aus enklitisch seien oder es durch eben diese Stellung werden’
(Wackernagel 1892, quoted from Strunk 1973: 388). We stipulate that the prosodic system was a pitch system, cf. W.P. Lehmann (1993: 60).
The following group, partly from Wackernagel’s own material (W), are good examples from Latin of Wackernagel’s law.
(45) Utinam me divi adaxint ad suspendium wish me the gods may drive to hanging,
potius quidem quam hoc pacto apud te serviam rather instead than on these conditions with you serve-sbjv.1sg ‘ Wish the gods may drive me to hang myself, rather than I should serve
with you instead’ Plautus Aulularia 50
According to Wackernagel’s law, any preceding constituent or element can function as the host of a clitic, and the clitic can consist of material from various types of constitu-ents. The clitical host utinam is an illocutionary particle, potius a comparative adverb, the clitics being a personal pronoun (me) and an adverb (quidem). Similarly:
(46) Av-is me fer-ae consimil-em faciam, bird-gen i.acc wild-gen similar-acc make-fut.1sg ut praedicas.
as say-prs.ind.2sg Plautus Captivi 120
‘I shall make myself into a copy of a wild bird, as you are saying’
66 Connecting Grammaticalisation
According to Wackernagel, the rule is also well-represented in classical Latin, for instance in Cicero:
(47) ita mihi de-os vel-im propiti-os.
thus i.dat gods-acc want-prs.sbjv.1sg gracious-acc ‘In this way I would like the gods to be gracious to me’
W 392–93 (Cicero divinatio in Caec.) (48) sic te diva potens Cypri (..) regat.
Thus you-acc goddess mighty Cyprus-gen rule-prs.sbjv.3sg ‘Thus shall the mighty goddess from Cyprus rule over you’
W 393 (Horace Od. 1,3,1) (49) populus se Romanus erex-it.
people refl.acc roman stand up.prf-ind.3sg
‘The Roman people stood up’ W 390 (Cicero Brutus) Since the ancient Indo-European languages do not have contiguous groups, (Meillet 1964[1937]:360), the basis can consist of just one single pitch carrying word, for instance: the head of a noun phrase (46, 49), an adverb (47, 48), a preposition, part of a compound or a derived word (in so-called tmesis) (50) and (51).
(50) ob vos sacro prefix you.2pl beseech ‘I beseech you’
(51) per mihi gratum est prefix i.dat welcome is’
This is most welcome to me’
The clitics and the bases in the examples mentioned:
host clitic
utinam me divi adaxint ad suspendium potius quidem quam hoc pacto apud te serviam avis me ferae consimilem faciam ita mihi deos velim propitios sic te diva potens Cypri (..) regat populus se Romanus erexit
ob vos sacro
per mihi gratum est
Wackernagel’s law does not apply to any specific morphological classes or types of constituent. All types of material that can lose their pitch – or are born clitics – may enter this position.
Chapter 2. Topology (word order) 67
Abstract though it may seem, this topological phenomenon will also count as a result of connecting grammaticalisation, the parameters being position and ± pitch.
There is no loss of independence in relation to other syntactic categories. The content of such cliticisation is indexical, that is, a redundancy relation between position and pitch. It is probable that the Wackernagel position also points indexically also to the initial position as a focus position, but we need not pursue this point.
6.3 Old French topology and the tonic – atonic pronominal system – an example of connecting grammaticalisation
The examples considered in 6.1–6.2 were all instances of cliticisation ‘without mor-phology’, in the sense that the elements involved had no specific expression except for reduced pitch, or reduced stress.
Languages with a specific morphology for clitics are of course well-known, Italian and French being obvious examples. Less well-known is the fact that some languages have complex sets of rules for such morphological clitics in interaction with a topo-logical system. Old French is such a language.
The general character of Old French as a verb second language seems beyond doubt, as documented in prose texts, and V2 topology forms a textual paradigmatic contrast with ‘V1′- examples, see ChapterVI for references. We shall pursue the analysis of Old French by showing how verb second interacts with the Old French pronominal system, as a primary and canonic example of what we call connecting grammaticalisation, in this case a morphological paradigm and a word-order borne distinction of mood. A source of reference is Povl Skårup (1975), a major contributor to Danish topological tradition, who consistently applied the theory and method of Diderichsen to the Old French material.
Old French is a pure verb second language, in contrast to Modern French, which is an SVO language of a particular type. The pronominal systems of the two stages of French differ with respect to morphology, topology and syntax. For Old French, the central issue where topology is concerned is the distinction in the accu-sative and the dative between atonic and tonic forms of the personal pronouns, especially the 3rd person forms. We list a paradigm, which can be extrapolated from Skårup (1975) and from any good introduction, such as the Old French man-ual by Thomasset and Ueltschi (1993). As seen from a topological stance, the func-tion of the atonic forms, as described by Skårup, is to act as morphological signals for the topological structure of the clause. These pronouns have been reinterpreted in Modern French as a set of clitic pronouns – or bound pronouns – cliticising in the strict way of never allowing other material to squeeze in between themselves and their verbal head.
68 Connecting Grammaticalisation
The following is a template for Old French word order:
(52) Conj F V2 3rd V Postfield
F is the fundamental field, the position named ‘3rd’ is the position normally held by a subject that is not already in F. The atonic pronouns may precede the finite verb, and in this case they show their next to proclitic status by not taking up a position in the topological frame but leaning on the verb instead.
In the following examples the sequences underscored are joint fillers of the V2 position only.
(53) Et il respont que ce ne feroit il pas and he answer-prs.3sg that this not do-cond.3sg he not
‘And he answers that this he would not do’ (Vance 141) (54) Et de ces trois choses vos dir-é je bien la
and from these three things you say.fut-1sg I well the senefiance
significance
‘And of these three things I may very well tell you the significance’
(Vance 164) As they are not clitics, subject pronouns do not glue to the position of the V, but take up their own position, see (55).
(55) quant nos donr-ons abondance d’argumens en when we give.fut-1pl plenty of arguments in chascun des eissamples
each of the examples
‘When we come to giving plenty of arguments for every single case’
La Rectorique de Marc Tulles Cyceron, 016-1
(56) car je sai bien que l’aventure acheveroiz vos legierement ‘for I know well that the result you will easily achieve’
a. et se vos ne le faites.
and if you not it do-prs.2pl b. tu an perdr-as la teste
thou from that lose.fut-2sg the head
‘And if you do not do so, thou willst lose thy head in return’ (Buridant 422) This also applies to subject pronouns following the verb.
(57) volz tu un men cunseil celer Will you.sg a piece of advice of mine hide
‘Wouldst thou conceal a piece of advice of mine?’ (Buridant 422)
Chapter 2. Topology (word order) 69
(58) Sire, bien soi-ez vos venu-z!
‘Sire, well be.prs.sbjv-2pl you.pl come.prf ptcp-pl
‘Sire, you are very welcome’ (Vance 144)
(59) Et li rois dis-t que si feroi-t and the king say-pst that thus do.cond-3s il volontiers
pron.3sg with pleasure
‘And the king said he would do so with pleasure’ (Vance 160) Compare also the occurrences of vos in (54) (atonic; the initial position is already filled in) and (56a) (tonic; no other initial constituent).
Thus, the atonic forms do not run counter to the verb second rules of Old French. The tonic subject pronouns cannot intervene between atonic pronouns and their finite verbs, and they must follow the finite verb if position 1 is already filled by some other constituent. In contrast to (54) and (59), we do not find cases like (60)–(62):
(60) Et il respont que ce a. *ne il feroit pas /
b. *il ne feroit pas
(61) Et li rois dist que si *il feroit volontiers (62) Et de ces trois choses a. *vos je diré bien /
b. *je vos diré
As indicated above, the subject pronoun is always a full tonic pronoun, whatever its position in relation to the finite verb. There is, then, a striking asymmetry between the morphology of the oblique case forms – distinguishing tonic and atonic forms systematically – and the subject or nominative form of the pronoun, existing only in a tonic form. The anaphoric contexts occupied by atonic oblique forms, attached to their verbal positions, correspond to zero subject pronoun contexts. Consequently, we include the subject in the pronominal paradigm for tonic and atonic pronouns, by counting zero subject pronouns as the morphosyntactic parallel of the atonic pronominal forms.
This analysis of zero subject pronouns follows from the central role we attribute to paradigmatic organisation. ‘Subjecthood’ is expressed through ‘zero’ in its paradig-matic opposition to oblique atonic forms. In no way would we be allowed to count the person-number inflexion of the finite verb as part of the pronominal paradigm; these inflexional paradigms belong to a different sign system with the similar function of instructing the addressee how to identify the subject referent.
70 Connecting Grammaticalisation
The Old French oblique pronominal system, then, forms a complex hyperpara-digm with the system for subject referent identification (63):
(63) tonic atonic
1./2.p 3.p m/f 1.2.p 3.p m/f nom.sg je/tu il/ele -zero- -zero-acc.sg
moi/toi lui/li me/te le/la
dat.sg li
nom.pl nos/
vos
il/eles
nos/vos
-zero-acc.pl eus/eles les
dat.pl eus/elles leur
This hyperparadigm, again, has a third dimension not shown in (63), namely that of connecting to the topological system as a precondition for the word order paradigms to be interpreted in actual text. Morphology and topology must be described as an interac-tive system, and the content descriptions of the tonic and atonic varieties must include their instructive potential with respect to the application of the topological system.
Italian provides an illuminative contrast. In this language, the position of atonic pronouns are indices of the morphological difference between finite and non-finite verbs: lo vedo ‘I see him’ vs. vederlo ‘to see him’, ce la faccio ‘I make it’ vs. farcela ‘to make it’. But Italian has no fixed topology for the pronominal system to point to. The Old French system, however, has the additional function of being an indexical cosys-tem of the verb second syscosys-tem. Notice that the functions of this pronominal syscosys-tem are not identical to the function of the modern French distinction between unbound and bound pronouns. But any analysis of the change from Old French must include the change of semantic interface between pronouns and word order.
chapter 3
Constructions
1. Introduction
According to the concept of grammar proposed here, grammatical structures cannot be described without reference to the paradigmatic organisation that lies behind the syntagmatic realisations. In the section on morphology, we discussed the traditional description of a morphological paradigm as the full set of inflectional forms of a given lexeme, including the likewise traditional extension to periphrastic forms. We empha-sised our view that the expression structure is linked to a semantic structure, i.e. a structure of content elements. It follows that the content and the function of a linguis-tic unit depend on its systemic relations to other linguislinguis-tic units.
In the section on topology, we put forward arguments for considering not only morphology but also word order to be organised in terms of paradigms defined as sign oppositions within one or more semantic domains, such that we find minimal differences of expression (word order distinctions) attached to oppositions of content.
In the following we will extend the notion of a paradigm still further to comprise con-structions. A more general discussion of sets of options constituting a paradigm is pre-sented by Heltoft (1996), Harder (1996: 207–208, 251–252) and by Andersen (2008), who uses the term paradigm “not in the narrow sense of ‘inflectional paradigm’, but in the general sense of ‘selectional set’, a usage that has been traditional since Saussure”.
In the case of grammatical content, such a selectional set is a closed set of obligatory categories, a grammatical paradigm.
We motivate and illustrate our definition of constructions in Section 2. We intend to clarify the relation between the different levels implied here, i.e. the level of the lexicon including valency as opposed to that of constructions (Section 2.1).
According to our definition, we should expect constructions to be language specific signs and not language specific expressions of universal cognitive content, as shown in Section 2.2.
A major point is that we always find paradigmatic oppositions between construc-tions, an issue to be developed further and summarised in Section 2.4. The languages referred to are mainly Danish, English and French. These are all morphologically relatively poor languages as far as their nominal morphology is concerned, but have
72 Connecting Grammaticalisation
evolved from richer inflexional stages. We show in Section 2.5 how constructional dis-tinctions in these languages can be expressed differently in inflexional languages such as Finnish, Russian, and Latin.
Given that constructions are part of grammar, we must expect them to participate in grammatical changes. This is investigated in Section 3.