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)
References
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 ten 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.