Cover not available
Part of
Exaptation and Language Change
Edited by Muriel Norde and Freek Van de Velde
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 336] 2016
► pp. 227–260

Allogenous exaptation

This paper studies exaptation from the perspective of language contact and structural borrowing. Drawing on data from different language-contactsettings, I show that exaptation differs from grammaticalization, secondary grammaticalization, and degrammaticalization. I argue that exaptation is, also from the perspective of language contact, a suitable descriptive term and provides useful insights into the investigation of diachronic change, as it shows the functions targeted and the structural properties of the linguistic elements selected for exaptation.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Allogenous exaptation
  • 3.Pathways of allogenous exaptation
    • 3.1The infinitive > loan verb marker/verbalizer pathway
    • 3.2The perfective > loan verb marker pathway
    • 3.3The imperative > loan verb marker pathway
    • 3.4The verbalizer > loan verb marker pathway
  • 4.Why exaptation is different
    • 4.1Exaptation versus grammaticalization
    • 4.2Exaptation versus secondary grammaticalization
    • 4.3Exaptation versus degrammaticalization
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Abbreviations
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 February 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.336.08gar
References (94)
Adamou, Evangelia
2012 “Verb Morphologies in Contact: Evidence from the Balkan area”. Morphologies in Contact ed. by Martine Vanhove, Thomas Stolz, Aina Urdze & Hitomi Otsuka, 143–162. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2014 “The Grammar of Knowledge: A cross-linguistic view of evidentials and the expression of information source”. The Grammar of Knowledge: A cross-­linguistic typology ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (= Explorations in Linguistic Typology, 7), 1–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning
2006 “Grammation, Regrammation, and Degrammation: Tense loss in Russian”. Diachronica 23:2.231–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change”. Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal papers ed. by Thórhallur Eythórsson (= Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 113), 11–44. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Philip
1997 “Directionality in Pidginization and Creolization. The Structure and Status of Pidgins and Creoles ed. by Arthur K. Spears & Donald Winford (= Creole Language Library, 19), 91–109. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barve, Aditya & Andreas Wagner
2013 “A Latent Capacity for Evolutionary Innovation through Exaptation in Metabolic Systems”. Nature 500:7461.203–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Maurice
1891 “On Adaptation of Suffixes in Congeneric Classes of Substantives”. The American Journal of Philology 12.1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert E.
1996 “Inherent versus Contextual Inflection and the Split Morphology Hypothesis”. Yearbook of Morphology 1995 ed. by Geert E. Booij & Jaap van Marle, 1–16. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine
2010 “Reconstructing Paths of Secondary Grammaticalisation of Same from Emphasising to Phoricity and Single-Referent-Marking Postdeterminer Uses”. Transactions of the Philological Society 108:1.68–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breu, Walter
1991a “Abweichungen vom phonetischen Prinzip bei der Integration von Lehnwörtern”. Slavistische Linguistik 1990: Referate des XVI. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeits­tref­fens Bochum/Löllinghausen 19.–21.9.1990 ed. by Klaus Hartenstein & Helmut Jachnow (= Slavistische Beiträge, 274), 36–69. München: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
1991b “System und Analogie bei der Integration von Lehnwörtern: Versuch einer Klassifikation”. Incontri Linguistici 14:1.13–28.Google Scholar
Cech, Petra & Mozes F. Heinschink
1999 Sepečides-Romani: Grammatik, Texte und Glossar eines türkischen Romani-Dialektes (= Balkanologische Veröffentlichungen, 34). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Clements, J. Clancy & Ana R. Luís
2015 “Contact Intensity and the Borrowing of Bound Morphology in Korlai Indo-Portuguese”. Borrowed Morphology ed. by Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev & Nino Amiridze (= Language Contact and Bilingualism, 8). Berlin, Boston & Munich: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Conseil d’État
1818 Exerzier – Reglement für die Eidgenössische Artillerie. Luzern: G. I. Thüring.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G.
2007 “Canonical Typology, Suppletion, and Possible Words”. Language 83:1.8–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ćorić, Božo
2016 “Serbian”. Word-formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe ed. by Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer, 3017–3037. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Dal Negro, Silvia
2013 “Il prestito verbale nel contatto italiano-tedesco”. Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese 7.192–200.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold
1884 Einleitung in das Sprachstudium. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Methodik der vergleichenden Sprachforschung, 2nd edn. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U.
1989 “Prototypical Differences between Inflection and Derivation”. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42:1.3–10.Google Scholar
2003 “Degrees of Grammatical Productivity in Inflectional Morphology. Italian Journal of Linguistics 15:1.31–62.Google Scholar
Efthymiou, Angeliki, Georgia Fragaki & Angelos Markos
2012 “Productivity of Verb-Forming Suffixes in Modern Greek: A corpus-based study”. Morphology 22:4.515–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elšík, Viktor
2007 “Grammatical Borrowing in Hungarian Rumungro”. Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective ed. by Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel, 261–282. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Eschenlohr, Stefanie
1999 Vom Nomen zum Verb: Konversion, Präfigierung und Rückbildung im Deutschen (= Germanistische Linguistik: Monographien, 3). Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Gardani, Francesco
2008 Borrowing of Inflectional Morphemes in Language Contact. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2012 “Plural across Inflection and Derivation, Fusion and Agglutination”. Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology ed. by Lars Johanson & Martine I. Robbeets, 71–97. Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Dynamics of Morphological Productivity: The evolution of noun classes from Latin to Italian (= Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory, 4). Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardani, Francesco, Peter Arkadiev & Nino Amiridze
2015 “Borrowed Mophology: An overview”. Borrowed Morphology ed. Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev & Nino Amiridze (= Language Contact and Bilingualism, 8), 1–23. Berlin, Boston & Munich: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna
1998 “Testing the Boundaries of Grammaticalization”. The Limits of Grammaticalization ed. by Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paul J. Hopper (= Typological Studies in Language, 37), 107–127. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1991 “The Evolution of Dependent Clause Morpho-Syntax in Biblical Hebrew”. Approaches to Grammaticalization: Volume II. Types of grammatical markers ed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (= Typological Studies in Language, 19.2), 257–310. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Celia Kerslake
2005 Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Görlach, Manfred
2001 A Dictionary of European Anglicisms: A usage dictionary of anglicisms in selected European languages. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grčević, Mario
2016 “Croatian”. Word-Formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe ed. by Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer, 2998–3016. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gül, Demet
2009 “Semantics of Turkish Evidential -(I)mIş ”. Essays on Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, August 6–8, 2008 ed. by Sıla Ay, Özgür Aydın, İclâl Ergenç, Seda Gökmen, Selçuk İşsever & Dilek Peçenek (= Turcologica, 79), 177–186. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Haebler, Claus
1965 Grammatik der albanischen Mundart von Salamis (= Albanische Forschungen, 3). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
2010 “The Creation of New Words”. Linguistics 48:3.547–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey
1984 “Language Contact and Language Change”. Annual Review of Anthropology 13.367–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1997 Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003 “On Degrammaticalization”. Historical Linguistics 2001 ed. by Barry J. Blake & Kate Burridge (= Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 237), 163–179. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer
1991 Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2005 Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
2003 Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Igla, Birgit
1996 Das Romani von Ajia Varvara: deskriptive und historisch-vergleichende Darstellung eines Zigeunerdialekts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D.
2004 “Rescuing Traditional (Historical) Linguistics from Grammaticalization Theory”. Up and down the Cline. The nature of grammaticalization ed. by Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (= Typological Studies in Language, 59), 45–71. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “How Accommodating of Change is Grammaticalization? The case of “lateral shifts””. Logos and Language. Journal of General Linguistics and Language Theory 6:2.1–7.Google Scholar
Kilani-Schoch, Marianne & Wolfgang U. Dressler
2005 Morphologie Naturelle et Flexion du Verbe Français. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Klein, Thomas
2007 “Zur Sprache der Wolfenbütteler und Zwettler Erec-Fragmente und zur Herkunft des zweiten Erec-Romans”. Edition und Sprachgeschichte: Baseler Fachtagung 2.–4. März 2005 ed. by Michael Stolz, Robert Schöller & Gabriel Viehhauser, 229–255. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kluge, Friedrich
2011 Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 25th edn. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koskensalo, Annikki
1999 “Die von deutschen Basiswörtern abgeleiteten Verben mit dem Suffix -ieren – eine verschwindende, weil schwach produktive Verbgruppe. Bemerkungen zur Karriere der deutschen -ieren-Verben im Wandel der Sprache und Zeit”. Sprachformen: Deutsch und Niederdeutsch in europäischen Bezügen; Festschrift für Dieter Stellmacher zum 60. Geburtstag ed. by Peter Wagener (= Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik / Beihefte, 105), 215–228. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Kriaras, Emmanouil
1969 Λεξικό της Μεσαιωνικής Ελληνικής Δημώδους Γραμματείας, 1100–1669 [Dictionary of the Medieval Greek Language (1100–1669)]. Thessaloniki: Greek Language Center.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1965 “The Evolution of Grammatical Categories”. Diogenes 51.55–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger
1990 “How to Do Things with Junk: Exaptation in language evolution”. Journal of Linguistics 26:1.79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, Gary
2014 “The Nature of Compounds: A psychocentric perspective”. Cognitive Neuropsychology 31:1–2.8–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “Word-Formation in Psycholinguistics and Neurocognitive Research”. Word-Formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe, vol. 1 ed. by Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer, 203–217. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ludwig, Alfred
1873 Agglutination oder Adaptation? Eine sprachwissenschaftliche Streitfrage: Mit Nachträgen zu des Verfaszers “Infinitiv im Veda”. Prag: Calve.Google Scholar
Luschützky, Hans Christian & Franz Rainer
2013 “Instrument and Place Nouns: A typological and diachronic perspective”. Linguistics 51:6.1301–1359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackridge, Peter
1985 The Modern Greek Language: A descriptive analysis of standard modern Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marold, Karl
ed.2004 Gottfried von Strassburg, Tristan: Bd. 1: Text, 4th edn. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron
2002 Romani: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa, Henry Davis & Hotze Rullmann
2008 “Evidentials as Epistemic Modals: Evidence from St’át’imcets”. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2007 ed. by Jeroen Van Craenenbroeck, 201–254. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine
1912 “L’Évolution des Formes Grammaticales”. Scientia 12.384–400.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko
2007 “Exaptation, Grammaticalization, and Reanalysis”. California Linguistic Notes 32:1.1–25.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel
2009 Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Öhmann, Emil
1931 “Der französische Einfluss auf die deutsche Sprache im Mittelalter”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 32.195–220.Google Scholar
1970 “Suffixstudien VI: Das deutsche Verbalsuffix -ieren ”. Neuphilologische Mitteillungen 71.337–357.Google Scholar
Rainer, Franz
2005 “Semantic Change in Word Formation”. Linguistics 43:2.415–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ralli, Angela
2005 Μορφολογία. Athens: Patakis.Google Scholar
2012 “Verbal Loanblends in Griko and Heptanesian: A case study of contact morphology”. L’Italia Dialettale 73.111–132.Google Scholar
2013 “Romance Verbal Loans in Modern Greek Dialects”. Online Proceedings of MGDLT5: 5th International Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory ed. by Mark Janse, Brian Joseph, Angela Ralli & Metin Bağrıaçık, 430–444. Patras.Google Scholar
Reden, Johann Wilhelm von
1805 Feldzuege der alliirten Armee in den Jahren 1757 bis 1762. Hamburg: Hoffmann.Google Scholar
Roloff, Gustav
ed.1895 Schulthess’ europäischer Geschichtskalender. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Rückert, Heinrich
ed. 1858 Lohengrin. Quedlinburg & Leipzig: Gottfried Basse.Google Scholar
Rudes, Blair A.
1980 “The Functional Development of the Verbal Suffix +esc+ in Romance”. Historical Morphology ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 327–348. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruttrich, Franz
1895 Organisation der bewaffneten Macht Oesterreich-Ungarns: Nebst einem Anhange enthaltend Bestimmungen des Train- und Verpflegswesens im Kriege, sowie des Wehrgesetzes vom Jahre 1889. In tabellarisch-graphischer Weise zusammengestellt, 2nd edn. Oedenburg.Google Scholar
Sakel, Jeanette
2007 “Types of Loan: Matter and pattern”. Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-­Linguistic Perspective ed. by Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel, 15–29. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Sandfeld, Kristian
1930 Linguistique Balkanique: Problèmes et résultats (= Collection Linguistique, 31). Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1992 “Language Decay and Contact-Induced Change: Similarities and differences”. Language Death ed. by Matthias Brenzinger, 59–80. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schiller, Karl C. & August Lübben
1875–1881 Mittelniederdeutsches Wörterbuch. Bremen: Kühtmann.Google Scholar
Schironi, Francesca
2010 “Technical Languages: Science and medicine”. A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language ed. by Egbert J. Bakker, 338–353. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seemüller, Joseph
(ed.) (1890) Ottokars Österreichische Reimchronik. Teil 1. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Siegel, Jeff
2008 The Emergence of Pidgin and Creole Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, John C.
2006 “How to Do Things Without Junk: The refunctionalization of a pronominal subsystem between Latin and Romance”. New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics, vol. II: Phonetics, phonology and dialectology ed. by Jean-Pierre Y. Montreuil (= Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 276), 183–205. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Change and Continuity in Form-Function Relationships”. The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages ed. by Martin Maiden, John C. Smith & Adam Ledgeway, 268–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Syea, Anand
2007 “The Development of the Noun Phrase in Mauritian Creole and the Mechanisms of Language Development”. The Making of Mauritian Creole: Analyses diachroniques à partir des textes anciens ed. by Philip Baker & Guillaume Fon Sing (= Westminster Creolistics Series, 9), 93–112. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Tadmor, Uri
2009 “Loanwords in the World’s Languages: Findings and results”. Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A comparative handbook ed. by Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor, 55–75. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2007 “Grammatical Borrowing in Indonesian”. Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective ed. by Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel, 301–328. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
TLFi. Trésor de la Langue Française Informatisé, Le
[URL].
Traugott, Elizabeth C.
2004 “Exaptation and Grammaticalization”. Linguistic Studies Based on Corpora ed. by, 133–156. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing.Google Scholar
Tropaiatēs, Alkēs K., Telēs Peklarēs & Philippos D. Kolovos
1976 Synchronismeno Orthographiko Lexiko tēs Neoellēnikēs (Dēmotikēs). Athens: Alkaios.Google Scholar
Tsitsipis, Lukas D.
1998 A Linguistic Anthropology of Praxis and Language Shift: Arvanítika (Albanian) and Greek in contact. Oxford & New York: Clarendon Press (Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
van der Sijs, Nicoline
2002 Chronologisch Woordenboek: De ouderdom en herkomst van onze woorden en betekenissen. Amsterdam & Antwerpen: Veen.Google Scholar
2005 Groot Leenwoordenboek. Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicografie.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel
1995 “Exaptation and Grammaticalization”. Historical Linguistics 1993: Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Los Angeles, 16–20 August 1993 ed. by Henning Andersen (= Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 124), 433–445. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wohlgemuth, Jan
2009 A Typology of Verbal Borrowings. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by 10 other publications

Benacchio, Rosanna
2023. I prestiti verbali nei dialetti sloveni del Friuli: tra integrazione aspettuale e biaspettualità. In L’aspettualità nel contatto linguistico: lingue slave e oltre [Biblioteca di Studi Slavistici, 53], ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Ralli, Angela
2020. Matter versus pattern borrowing in compounding: Evidence from the Asia Minor Greek dialectal variety. Morphology 30:4 ► pp. 423 ff. DOI logo
Rupp, Laura & David Britain
2019. Verbal –s. In Linguistic Perspectives on a Variable English Morpheme, ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Rupp, Laura & David Britain
2019. Past BE. In Linguistic Perspectives on a Variable English Morpheme, ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Gardani, Francesco
2018. On morphological borrowing. Language and Linguistics Compass 12:10 DOI logo
Gardani, Francesco
2020. Borrowing matter and pattern in morphology. An overview. Morphology 30:4 ► pp. 263 ff. DOI logo
Van de Velde, Freek
2018. Iterated Exaptation. In The Construction of Words [Studies in Morphology, 4], ► pp. 519 ff. DOI logo
Operstein, Natalie
2017. Chapter 5. Sociolinguistic factors in loanword prosody. In Language Contact and Change in Mesoamerica and Beyond [Studies in Language Companion Series, 185], ► pp. 105 ff. DOI logo
Operstein, Natalie
2018. Lingua Franca between pidginization and koineization. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 33:2 ► pp. 307 ff. DOI logo
Eliasson, Stig
2016. Review of Gardani, Arkadiev & Amiridze (2015 [2014]): Borrowed morphology. Studies in Language 40:3 ► pp. 722 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 july 2024. 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.