Options
7 Competing constructions and language contact : Slavic discourse-structuring elements on the basis of non-finite verba dicendi
Birzer, Sandra (2024): 7 Competing constructions and language contact : Slavic discourse-structuring elements on the basis of non-finite verba dicendi, in: Bamberg: Otto-Friedrich-Universität.
Faculty/Chair:
Author:
Publisher Information:
Year of publication:
2024
Pages:
Source/Other editions:
Pragmaticalization : Language Change between Text and Grammar / Elena Graf, Ulrich Schweier (Hg.). - Berlin/Boston : De Gruyter, 2024, S. 229–282. - ISBN: 9783110761139
Year of first publication:
2024
Language:
English
Licence:
Abstract:
Based on corpus data from Croatian, Czech, Polish and Russian, this paper explores the role of language contact in the historical development of “discourse structuring elements” (DSEs) based on non-finite verba dicendi such as Croatian iskreno.ADV govoreći.AP ‘frankly speaking’ or Czech upřímně.ADV řečeno.PTCP.SG.N ‘honestly speaking (lit. spoken)’ and assesses the development with regard to grammaticalization, lexicalization and pragmaticalization. All four languages feature two non-finite verb forms as formants. One of them is the adverbial participle, which functions as a formant in all four object languages and may thus be considered the originary Slavic construction. The second verbal formant, namely the past participle passive in Croatian and Czech (e.g. Croatian iskreno.ADV rečeno or Czech upřímně.ADV řečeno ‘frankly speaking) and the infinitive in Russian (e.g. tak skazat’ ‘so to say’) has arisen via pattern replication from the source languages German and French respectively. Polish, in contrast, features the perfective adverbial participle as a second formant, but in earlier stages used matter replication from Latin (e.g. generalnie.ADV vs. ogólnie.ADV mowiąc ‘generally speaking’) to fill the adverbial slot of the construction.
In all object languages, only one of the two verbal formants is part of a semi-productive construction. Which construction becomes semi-productive depends on language-internal factors.
On the synchronic level, the DSEs fulfill four domains of function:
a) pragmatic (e.g. Russian čestno govorja ‘frankly speaking’);
b) contextualization (e.g. Czech řečeno jazykem teologie ‘speaking (lit. said) in the language of theology’);
c) quotative indexing with the prototypical construction govoreći / rečeno + noun.ins+ noun.gen (e.g. Croatian govoreći rječnikom sv. Pavla ‘lit. speaking in the language of St. Paul’);
d) direct speech marking with the help of “plain” govoreći, which only occurs in Croatian.
The DSEs with contextualising or quotative functions predominantly show a behaviour that is indicative of a grammaticalization process, whereas the DSEs from the pragmatic domain display a behaviour typical of lexicalization with regard to integrity and paradigmatization. Their paradigmatic and syntagmatic variability and the leap-like increase of DSEs in the 18th and 19th centuries neatly fits in with co-optation, but rather not with grammaticalization (which Heine 2013 claims to necessarily follow co-optation). Since the development of the DSEs based on non-finite verba dicendi as an entire group cannot be encompassed by the analytical apparatus of grammaticalization, lexicalization and pragmaticalization research so far, we propose to apply Beijering’s (2012) model of composite change. This model allows to form four clusters of DSEs, whose features are characteristic for grammaticalization, lexicalization, pragmaticalization and co-optation respectively, with the latter forming the interface between the clusters.
In all object languages, only one of the two verbal formants is part of a semi-productive construction. Which construction becomes semi-productive depends on language-internal factors.
On the synchronic level, the DSEs fulfill four domains of function:
a) pragmatic (e.g. Russian čestno govorja ‘frankly speaking’);
b) contextualization (e.g. Czech řečeno jazykem teologie ‘speaking (lit. said) in the language of theology’);
c) quotative indexing with the prototypical construction govoreći / rečeno + noun.ins+ noun.gen (e.g. Croatian govoreći rječnikom sv. Pavla ‘lit. speaking in the language of St. Paul’);
d) direct speech marking with the help of “plain” govoreći, which only occurs in Croatian.
The DSEs with contextualising or quotative functions predominantly show a behaviour that is indicative of a grammaticalization process, whereas the DSEs from the pragmatic domain display a behaviour typical of lexicalization with regard to integrity and paradigmatization. Their paradigmatic and syntagmatic variability and the leap-like increase of DSEs in the 18th and 19th centuries neatly fits in with co-optation, but rather not with grammaticalization (which Heine 2013 claims to necessarily follow co-optation). Since the development of the DSEs based on non-finite verba dicendi as an entire group cannot be encompassed by the analytical apparatus of grammaticalization, lexicalization and pragmaticalization research so far, we propose to apply Beijering’s (2012) model of composite change. This model allows to form four clusters of DSEs, whose features are characteristic for grammaticalization, lexicalization, pragmaticalization and co-optation respectively, with the latter forming the interface between the clusters.
GND Keywords: ; ; ; ; ;
Kroatisch
Tschechisch
Polnisch
Russisch
Pragmatik
Korpus, Linguistik
Keywords: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
discourse-structuring elements
Croatian language
Czech language
Polish language
Russian language
grammaticalization
lexicalization
pragmaticalization
co-optation
corpus-based study
DDC Classification:
Peer Reviewed:
Yes:
International Distribution:
Yes:
Type:
Contribution to an Articlecollection
Activation date:
December 9, 2024
Permalink
https://fis.uni-bamberg.de/handle/uniba/105265