Chapter published in:
Category Change from a Constructional Perspective
Edited by Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé and Gudrun Vanderbauwhede
[Constructional Approaches to Language 20] 2018
► pp. 15–46

Category genesis in Chitimacha

A constructional approach

| University of California, Santa Barbara
The genesis of new lexical categories poses a challenge to theories of diachronic change: If there are no pre-existing words in the class to analogize to, how does the category arise? This paper shows that a constructional approach to category change successfully accounts for the genesis of a diverse class of preverbs in Chitimacha, an isolate of the U.S. Southeast linguistic area. It is shown that what enabled the creation of the preverb category was schematization across a variety of forms with similar properties, namely, a preverbal syntactic position and a directional semantics. Category genesis can therefore be viewed as simply a special case of constructionalization wherein schematization plays a crucial role.
Keywords: Chitimacha, category genesis, schematicity, schematization, constructionalization, preverbs
Published online: 22 March 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20.02hie
References

References

Baldi, P.
(1979) Typology and the Indo-European prepositions. Indogermanische Forschungen [Indo-European Researches], 84, 49–61.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Bjarnadóttir, V., Danesi, S., Dewey, T. K., Eythórsson, T., Fedriani, C., & Smitherman, T.
(2013) The story of “woe.” Journal of Indo-European Studies, 41(3–4), 321–377.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., & Eythórsson, T.
(2012a) Reconstructing syntax: Construction grammar and the comparative method. In H. C. Boas, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp. 257–308). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2012b) Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society, 110(3), 363–393. Crossref.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S.
(Eds.) (2015) Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., & Smitherman, T.
(2013) The quest for cognates: A reconstruction of oblique subject constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics & Change, 3(1), 28–67. Crossref.Google Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G.
(2008) Introduction: Constructions and language change. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp. 1–22). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G., & van Kemenade, A.
(2003) Preverbs: An introduction. In G. Booij, & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2003 (pp. 1–120). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borgman, D.
(1991) Sanuma. In D. C. Derbyshire, & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages (Vol. 2, pp. 15–258). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C.
(2005) Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Camargo, E.
(2007) Reciprocal, response-reciprocal and distributive constructions in Cashinahua. In V. P. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions (pp. 1865–1914). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref.Google Scholar
De Smet, H.
(2009) Analysing reanalysis. Lingua, 119(11), 1728–1755. Crossref.Google Scholar
Detges, U.
(2004) How cognitive is grammaticalization? The history of the Catalan perfect perifràstic. In O. Fischer, M. Norde, & H. Perridon (Eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization (pp. 211–228). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref.Google Scholar
Diessel, H.
(1999) Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref.Google Scholar
Fischer, O.
(2007) Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forgács, T.
(2004) Grammaticalisation and preverbs. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 51(1–2), 45–84. Crossref.Google Scholar
Gildea, S.
(1992) Comparative Cariban morphosyntax: On the genesis of ergativity in independent clauses (Doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2000) Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
(2000) Internal reconstruction. In S. Gildea (Ed.), Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization (pp. 107–159). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C.
(2003) Preverbs and their origins in Georgian and Udi. In G. Booij, & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2003 (pp. 61–78). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C., & Campbell, L.
(1995) Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B.
(1993) Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T.
(2002) World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hieber, D. W.
(2014, May). Degrees and dimensions of grammaticalization in Chitimacha preverbs. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Workshop on American Indigenous Languages (WAIL), Santa Barbara.
(2016) Semantic alignment in Chitimacha. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A.
(1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. Crossref.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C.
(2003) Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, E.
(2005) Analogy as structure and process: Approaches in linguistics, cognitive psychology and philosophy of science. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref.Google Scholar
König, E., & Gast, V.
(2008) Reciprocity and reflexivity – description, typology, and theory. In E. König, & V. Gast (Eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and typological explorations (pp. 1–32). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kuryɬowicz, J.
(1964) The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C.
(2015) Thoughts on grammaticalization (3rd ed.). Berlin: Language Science Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Los, B., Blom, C., Booij, G., Elenbaas, M., & van Kemenade, A.
(2012) Morphosyntactic change: A comparative study of particles and prefixes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. B.
(2000) Creek voice: Beyond valency. In R. M. W. Dixon, & A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity (pp. 375–403). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H.
(2014) The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
(1984) The evolution of noun incorporation. Language, 60(4), 847–894. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I., & Roussou, A.
(2003) Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schladt, M.
(2012) The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives. In Z. Frajzyngier, & T. S. Curl (Eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions (Vol. 1, pp. 103–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref.Google Scholar
Swadesh, M.
(1939a) Chitimacha grammar, texts and vocabulary. American Council of Learned Societies Committee on Native American Languages (Ms. 497.3 B63c G6.5). Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society Library.Google Scholar
(1939b) Chitimacha texts. In M. Swadesh, Chitimacha grammar, texts and vocabulary. American Council of Learned Societies Committee on Native American Languages (Ms. 497.3.B63c G6.5). Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society Library.Google Scholar
(1939c) Chitimacha-English dictionary (copy 1). In M. Swadesh, Chitimacha grammar, texts and vocabulary. American Council of Learned Societies Committee on Native American Languages (Ms. 497.3.B63c G6.5). Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society Library.Google Scholar
(1939d) Chitimacha grammar (copy 1). In M. Swadesh, Chitimacha grammar, texts and vocabulary. American Council of Learned Societies Committee on Native American Languages (Ms. 497.3.B63c G6.5). Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society Library.Google Scholar
(1946) Chitimacha. In H. Hoijer (Ed.), Linguistic structures of Native America (pp. 312–336). New York: Viking Fund.Google Scholar
Swanton, J. R.
(1920) A sketch of the Chitimacha language [Unpublished grammar sketch]. National Anthropological Archives (Ms. 4122). Suitland: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2010) Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In E. C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization (pp. 19–44). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref.Google Scholar
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, D.
(2007) Schematicity. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 82–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, C.
(1964) Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure. In H. G. Lunt (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Linguists (pp. 1035–1044). The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Smirnova, Elena & Lotte Sommerer
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 june 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.