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. 261–285

How functionless is junk, and how useful is exaptation?

Probing the - i/esc - morpheme

We address the issue of the notion of linguistic functionality in relation to exaptation. Our case is the evolution of the -i/esc- morpheme from Latin to Romance. The exaptive nature of the - i/esc - morpheme used to be considered the historical linguists’ chestnut: from Latin inchoative marker, the - i/esc - morpheme was said to have evolved into a stress-aligning device. The validity of this proposal is questioned in the light of Lass’s definitions of exaptation (Lass 1990 and 1997). Drawing on the historical evolution of the - i/esc - morpheme, we identify several issues with the core concepts of exaptation: (i) junk, (ii) innovation and (iii) functionality. We then argue that exaptation, in its strictest definition (Lass 1990), cannot be said to apply to - i/esc-.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and outline
  • 2.The -i/esc- morpheme as a prototypical case of exaptation?
    • 2.1The historical data
    • 2.2A case for exaptation?
  • 3.Problems with an account in terms of exaptation
    • 3.1The notion of ‘junk’
    • 3.2‘Conceptual novelty’ (Lass 1990: 80)
    • 3.3What function does the - i/esc - morpheme have?
  • 4.If not exaptation, what else?
  • 5. Back to exaptation and the - i/esc - morpheme: A dead end?
  • 6.Discussion: (re)|(de)|fining exaptation
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 February 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.336.09ver
References (80)
References
Allen, Andrew S. 1980. The Development of the Inchoative Suffix in Latin and Romance. PhD Dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
1995. “Regrammaticalization and degrammaticalization of the inchoative suffix”. Historical Linguistics 1993: Selected Papers from the 11th ICHL, Los Angeles, 16–20 August 1993 ed. by Henning Andersen (= Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 124), 1–8. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2008. “Phonologically conditioned allomorphy in the morphology of Surmiran (Rumantsch)”. Word Structure 1.109–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. “Stress-conditioned allomorphy in Surmiran (Rumantsch)”. Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology ed. by Martin Maiden, Maria Goldbach & John Charles Smith, 13–35. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes (= Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 22). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Kirsten Fudemann. 2011 (2nd edition). What Is Morphology? Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Aski, Janice M. 1995. “Verbal suppletion: an analysis of Italian, French and Spanish to go ”. Linguistics 33.403–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2004. Morphological Productivity (= Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berrettoni, Pierangiolo. 1971. “Considerazioni sui verbi latini in -scō ”. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 11.89–169.Google Scholar
Blaylock, Curtis. 1975. “The Romance development of the Latin verbal augment -sk- ”. Romance Philology 28.434–444.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2014. “What is secondary grammaticalization? Trying to see the wood for the trees in a confusion of interpretations”. Folia Linguistica 48:2.469–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Dieter Stein. 1995. “Functional Renewal”. 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), 33–47. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camilli, Amerindo. 1929. “Il dialetto di Servigliano”. Archivium Romanicum 13.220–271.Google Scholar
Capozzoli, Raffaele. 1889. Grammatica del Dialetto napoletano. Napoli: Luigi Chiurazzi.Google Scholar
Cernecca, Domenico. 1986. Dizionario del Dialetto di Valle d’Istria. Trieste: Edizioni LINT.Google Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2005. “Exploring exaptation in language change”. Folia Linguistica Historica 26.13–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Fabio, Elvira G. 1990. The Morphology of the Verbal Infix /-isk-/ in Italian and in Romance. PhD Dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2003. “Degrees of grammatical productivity in inflectional morphology”. Rivista di Linguistica 15:1.31–62.Google Scholar
Duhoux, Yves. 2000. Le verbe grec ancien: éléments de morphologie et de syntaxe historiques. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred. 1954. Aspects du vocabulaire latin. Paris: Klincksieck.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
Giammarco, Ernesto. 1979. Abruzzo. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen J. & Elisabeth S. Vrba. 1982. “Exaptation: A missing term in the science of form”. Paleobiology 8: 1.4–15.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1991. “The last stages of grammatical elements: contractive and expansive desemanticization”. Approaches to Grammaticalization ed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (= Typological Studies in Language, 19), 301–314. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective (= Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haverling, Gerd. 2000. On sco-Verbs, Prefixes and Semantic Functions. A Study in the Development of Prefixes and Unprefixed Verbs from Early to Late Latin. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgiensis.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: a Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hofmann, Johann Baptist & Anton Szantyr. 1997 [reprint of 19722] [19651]. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik (= Lateinische Grammatik. Zweiter Band, by Leumann, Hofmann & Szantyr). München: Beck.Google Scholar
Iannace, Gaetano A. 1983. Interferenza Linguistica ai Confini fra Stato e Regno. Il dialetto di San Leucio del Sannio. Ravenna: Longo.Google Scholar
Iliescu, Maria. 1972. Le frioulan à partir des dialectes parlés en Roumanie. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa. 2002. “Grammaticalization as an analogue of hypothetico-deductive thinking”. New Reflections on Grammaticalization ed. by Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (= Typological Studies in Language, 43), 413–422. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Job, Léon. 1893. Le présent et ses dérivés dans la conjugaison latine d’après les données de la grammaire comparée des langues indo-européennes. Paris: Bouillon.Google Scholar
Keller, Madeleine. 1992. Les verbes latins à infectum en -sc-. Étude morphologique à partir des formations attestées dès l’époque préclassique. Bruxelles: Latomus.Google Scholar
Kilani-Schoch, Marianne & Wolfgang U. Dressler. 2005. Morphologie naturelle et flexion du verbe français. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Koch, Harold. 1996. “Reconstruction in morphology”. The Comparative Method Reviewed: regularity and irregularity in language change ed. by Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross, 218–263. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lanly, André. 1977. Morphologie historique des verbes français. Paris: Bordas.Google Scholar
Lass, Robert. 1990. “How to do things with junk: exaptation in language evolution”. Journal of Linguistics 26.79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lausberg, Heinrich. 1956–1962. Romanische Sprachwissenschaft (3 vol.). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2009. Grammatica Diacronica del napoletano. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anton. 1907. “Il vernacolo di Subiaco”. Studî Romanzi 5.237–300.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Paul M. 1987. From Latin to Spanish. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Löfstedt, Einar. 1933. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 1992. “Irregularity as a determinant of morphological change”. Journal of Linguistics 28.285–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “A strange affinity: perfecto y tiempos afines”. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 58.441–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Verb augments and meaninglessness in Early Romance morphology”. Studi di Grammatica Italiana 22.1–61.Google Scholar
. 2004. “When lexemes become allomorphs. On the genesis of suppletion”. Folia Linguistica 38:3–4. 227–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005a. “La ridistribuzione paradigmatica degli “aumenti” verbali nelle lingue romanze”. Latin et langues romanes. Études de linguistique offertes à József Herman à l’occasion de son 80ème anniversaire ed. by Sandor Kiss, Luca Mondin & Giampaolo Salvi, 431–440. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
. 2005b. “Morphological autonomy and diachrony”. Yearbook of Morphology 2004 ed. by Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle, 137–175. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Morphophonological innovation”. The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, vol. 1 ed. by Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway, 216–267. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marchetti, Pascal. 2001. L’usu córsu. Ajaccio: Alain Piazzola.Google Scholar
Masotti, Adelmo. 1999. Grammatica romagnola. Ravenna: Edizioni del Girasole.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1967 [reprint of 19378] [19031]. Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. & Joseph Vendryes. 1924. Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Meul, Claire. 2013. The Romance Reflexes of the Latin Infixes -i/esc- and -idi̯-: Restructuring and Remodeling Processes. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1974. Grammaire des langues romanes [reprint of the French translation (1890–1906) of the original German version of (1890–1902)] (4 vol.). Genève: Slatkine Reprints / Marseille: Laffitte.Google Scholar
Mignot, Xavier. 1969. Les verbes dénominatifs latins. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Mistral, Frédéric. 1878–1887. Lou Tresor dóu felibrige ou dictionnaire provençal-français. Aix-en-­Provence: Veuve Remondet-Aubin.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2007. “Exaptation, grammaticalization, and reanalysis”. California Linguistic Notes 32:1.1–25.Google Scholar
Nicoli, Franco. 1983. Grammatica milanese. Busto Arsizio: Bramante.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pirrelli, Vito. 2000. Paradigmi in Morfologia. Un approccio interdisciplinare alla flessione verbale dell’italiano. Pisa-Roma: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo. 1992. “Thoughts on degrammaticalization”. Linguistics 30.549–560. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1966–1969. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti (3 vol.). (Italian translation of the original German version of 1949–1954, Bern: Francke). Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
. 1970. Le gascon: études de philologie pyrénéenne (= Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 85). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Miret, Fernando. 2006. “Productivity of the weak verbs in Romanian”. Folia Linguistica 40:1–2.29–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarze, Christoph. 2009. “On the development of Latin -sk- to French and Italian”. Italian Journal of Linguistics 21:2.343–382.Google Scholar
Shannon, Claude E. 1948. “A mathematical theory of communication”. Bell System Technology Journal 27.379–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, John Charles. 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 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: Volume 1, Structures ed. by Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway, 268–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tekavčić, Pavao. 1972. Grammatica storica dell’italiano (3 vol.). Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2004. “Exaptation and grammaticalization”. Linguistic studies based on corpora ed. by Minoj Akimoto, 133–156. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Vermandere, Dieter & Claire Meul. 2014. “La variazione morfologica nei dialetti dell’Italia settentrionale: una causalità multifattoriale”. L’Italia Dialettale LXXV.273–297.Google Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba N. 2007. Suppletion in Verb Paradigms. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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), 433–448. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Max Leopold. 1952. Historische Wortbildungslehre des Sardischen [Romanica Helvetica 39]. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Zamboni, Alberto. 1982–1983. “La morfologia verbale latina in +sc+ e la sua evoluzione romanza: appunti per una nuova via esplicativa”. Quaderni patavini di Linguistica 3.87–138.Google Scholar
Zerdin, Jason. 2002. “The iterative-intensives in -σκον ”. Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics 7.103–130.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Rupp, Laura & David Britain
2019. Introduction. In Linguistic Perspectives on a Variable English Morpheme, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Rupp, Laura & David Britain
2019. Past BE. In Linguistic Perspectives on a Variable English Morpheme, ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Rupp, Laura & David Britain
2019. Verbal –s. In Linguistic Perspectives on a Variable English Morpheme, ► pp. 25 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.