• Keine Ergebnisse gefunden

Progressive-Imperfective Morphology (Not Only) in the Germanic Languages

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Aktie "Progressive-Imperfective Morphology (Not Only) in the Germanic Languages"

Copied!
2
0
0

Wird geladen.... (Jetzt Volltext ansehen)

Volltext

(1)

Progressive-Imperfective Morphology (Not Only) in the Germanic Languages

Dankmar Enke, Institute of German Philology, Ludwig-Maximilian-University Munich Roland Mühlenbernd, Department of Linguistics, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen

It is a well-known typological observation that languages without a distinct progressive (PROG) mor- phology realize the communicative function of the PROG through the imperfective (IMP) aspect (if morphologically instantiated). This primarily motivates to treat the PROG as a subdomain of the IMP (cf. Comrie, 1976; Bybee et al., 1994, Figure 1, left). In Russian, the imperfective form licenses a PROG interpretation, while the same form refers to a habitual/generic (HAB/GEN) situation.

Figure 1: Left: Classification of the imperfective aspect (motified from Comrie, 1976 and Bybee, 1994).

Right: The PROG-to-IMP historical cycle with representative languages (cf. Deo, 2015).

The Germanic progressives correspond to typologically frequent patterns; locative expressions and pos- tural verbs are among the most frequent sources for progressive markers (Bybee & Dahl, 1989; Bybee et al., 1994; Ebert 1996, 2000). In languages which have both aspects, the IMP often does not license a PROG reading, such as in English. For Middle English, Visser (1970) observes that before the emer- gence of the be+V-ing construction as a grammaticalized progressive, the English Simple Present ex- hibited event-in-progress and stative readings as well as habitual, generic readings. The use of the Sim- ple Present in alternation with the Progressive continues in the Early Modern English of Shakespeare (1). In Modern English, the event-in-progress reading is typically unavailable for the Simple Present.

(1) What do you read, my lord? (Hamlet II.2.191)

Furthermore, there is a crosslinguistically robust generalization in the diachrony of such markers: func- tional elements restricted to PROG reading semantically generalize to license IMP readings such as the HAB/GEN or the stative. This generalization has been attested according to data from, e.g., Turkish (Göksel & Kerslake 2005): the PROG is expanding to semantically overlap with the domain of the IMP Aorist morphology, thus instantiating the PROG-to-IMP shift (cf. Bybee et al. 1994):

(2) a. saat ikide çaliş-iyor-du-m

At two o’clock work-PROG-PST.COP-1SG

‘At two o’clock I was working.’

b. genekkikle iki saat çaliş-ir-di-m

Usually for two hours work-IMPF-PST.COP-1SG ‘I would usually work for two hours.’

The verb form with -(I)yor in (2a) refers to an ongoing eventuality, while the inflected verb with -ir in (2b) refers to a HAB reading. Recently, the PROG -(I)yor has begun to license a wider range of readings, notably in everyday language. (3a) shows that -(I)yor occurs with a stative verb ’know’ and is also inter- changeably used with the Aorist form (IMP aspect) with a HAB/generic reading (3b) (Göksel &

Kerslake 2005: 331).

(2)

(3) a. sen Ömer’i benden daha iyi tan-iyor-du-n

you Omer me better than know-PROG-PST.COP-2SG

‘You knew (were knowing) Ömer better than me.’

b. O zamanlarda mehmet çok sigara iç-iyor-du

At the time Mehmet.NOM lot cigarette smoke-IMPF-PST.COP-3SG ‘At that time, Mehmet used to smoke (was smoking) a lot.’

These data indicate that the Turkish progressive is expanding to semantically overlap with the domain of the IMP Aorist morphology, thus instantiating the PROG-to-IMP shift.

All these typological data motivate a cyclic diachronic process (Figure 1, right): this cycle starts with the language having only one broad IMP form covering all imperfective meanings, (a). Then an option- al PROG form is innovated, (b); it becomes obligatory for PROG meanings, (c); and at the last stage, (d), it generalizes and takes the semantic place of the old broad-IMP form. Note that (a) and (d) are identical except for their formal exponents.

The four states (a-d) can be intuitively regarded as distinct strategies for communicating phenome- nal and structural sub-meanings (Goldsmith & Woisetschlaeger 1982) within the IMP domain. In sys- tems with two forms, namely emergent-PROG and categorical-PROG, the choice of form helps the hearer to correctly identify the speakers intended sub-meaning. The zero-PROG and generalized- PROG strategies use a single form while relying on the hearers understanding of contextual cues for successful communication. Importantly, PROG induces a cycle through (a-d), but HAB, though also being more specific than the broad IMP, does not eventually generalize to IMP (Deo 2015). In other words, there is no (d)-type stage for HAB, and therefore no HAB-to-IMP cycle (Figure 2, left).

Figure 2: Left: The expected diachronic development includes next to the cycling PROG-to-IMP its alter- native deadlock HAB-to-IMP path. Right: The results of our synthetic approach reveals: with particular implemented assumptions like childhood asymmetry we were able to reproduce the expected paths.

Our talk concerns the following research question: which assumptions conduce to the PROG-to-IMP cycle, and at the same time rule out theoretically possible other paths – such as the HAB-to-IMP cycle – that are not empirically observed in human languages? To address this issue we use a synthetic ap- proach: we apply a game-theoretic model that bases on speaker-hearer interaction: the signaling game (Lewis 1969). We embedded this model in a computational framework to simulate the phenomenon in question. With this approach we tested possible hypotheses that suggest assumptions that might sup- port or mitigate the emergence of this cycle. In particular, we show that Deo (2015) was correct in con- jecturing that being more exposed to PROG-type meanings in childhood induces the PROG-to-IMP, and rules out the HAB-to-IMP, development (Figure 2, right). We thus effectively provide microfoundations for Deo’s macro model of the PROG-to-IMP cycle.

References. Bybee, J. & Ö. Dahl (1989). The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13(1), 51-103. ⋆ Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ⋆ Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ⋆ Deo, A. (2015). The semantic and pragmatic underpinnings of grammaticalization paths: The progres- sive to imperfective shift. Semantics and Pragmatics 8, Article 14. Ebert, K. (1996). Progressive aspect in German and Dutch. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 11, 41-62. ⋆ Ebert, K. (2000). Progressive markers in the Germanic languages. In Ö. Dahl (ed.). Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 605-653.

⋆ Goldsmith, J. & E. Woisetschlaeger (1982). The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry 13(1), 79-89. ⋆ Göksel, A. & C. Kerslake (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. ⋆ Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ⋆ Visser, F.T. (1970). An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: Brill Archive.

Referenzen

ÄHNLICHE DOKUMENTE

Eine einwöchige Wanderung vom ehemaligen KZ Sachsenhausen zur Gedenkstätte für die Opfer der Todesmärsche im Belower Wald. Belower Wald, eine der unbekannteren Gedenkstätten –

Kontemplation ist gegenwärtig ein viel beschworener Begriff, der für viele Menschen geradezu ein Heilsversprechen enthält. Wie aber lässt sich der Begriff der contemplatio

Whereas the 1 st past shares all structural features with present and future tense - it uses the same verbal endings in both future/present and 1 st past, the negation is based on

We used experiments with reinforcement learning agents playing the Basic Im- perfective Game of Deo (2015) with the full strategy space to investigate whether the empirically

Hence, we have 11 basic colour terms in English: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, pink, brown, grey, black and

● in active systems, the S in intransitive clauses is marked with ergative or accusative, depending on its semantic role. ● Manipuri (Tibeto-Burman, Northern India) əy-nə

Two important internet resources about the languages of the world are the „World Atlas of Language Structure“ (http://wals.info/) and

morphological features are only relevant to the dependent construction and not to the heada. Data from