Cover not available
Part of
Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change
Edited by Evie Coussé and Ferdinand von Mengden
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 69] 2014
► pp. 243–270

Filling empty distinctions of expression with content

Usage-motivated assignment of grammatical meaning

This article opens with a brief discussion of the fundamental issues of usage, structure, grammaticalization and reanalysis and then introduces the key concept of an empty distinction, which is defined as a conventionalized distinction of expression that has lost its former motivation (semantic or non-semantic, in particular phonological) as the result of a change. Three change scenarios involving a stage with an empty distinction are considered. The first case study is concerned with the reinterpretation of Old High German umlauted vs. non-umlauted vowel as a marker of number, thus exemplifying an empty distinction originating in a change of the sound system. The second case study considers the complicated development of the inflectional morphemes for the nominative plural of Polish masculine nouns, and it is shown that this change scenario involves a stage with an empty distinction originating in a degrammation. Finally, the third case study discusses the alternation between the accusative and the genitive in the A2 (argument 2) slot in the history of Russian and suggests an analysis involving an empty distinction resulting from domain narrowing of another distinction. In the conclusion the results of the analyses are interpreted in terms of a speakers’ strategy.
Published online: 10 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.69.09nor
References (45)
Sources:
Nasonov, A.N. (ed.) 1950. Novgorodskaja pervaja letopis‘ staršego i mladšego izvodov . Moscow 1950: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1995. Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt . Moscow: Škola “Jazyki russkoj kul’tury”.Google Scholar
References
Andersen, H. (1973). Abductive and deductive change. Language , 49:4, 765–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001). Markedness and the theory of linguistic change. In H. Andersen (Ed.), Actualization. Linguistic change in progress (pp. 21–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. (2006a). Grammation, regrammation and degrammation: Tense loss in Russian. Diachronica , 23, 231–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006b). Synchrony, diachrony, and evolution. In O. Nedergaard Thomsen (Ed.), Competing models of linguistic change. Evolution and beyond (pp. 59–90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change. In T. Eythórsson (Ed.), Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory. The Rosendal Papers (pp. 11–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bräuer, H. (1969). Slavische Sprachwissenschaft II. Formenlehre 1. Teil . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In B.D. Joseph & R.D. Janda (Eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (pp. 602-23). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (Ed.) (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language . Oxford: Oxford University Press DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Usage-based theory and grammaticalization. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 69–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins R. & Pagliuca W. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar . Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach . Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Fischer, O., Norde M. & Perridon H. (Eds.) (2004). Up and down the cline – the nature of grammaticalization . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1971). Historical syntax and synchronic morphology. Papers from the seventh regional meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society , 394–415.
Grzegorzykowa, R., Laskowski R. & Wróbel H. (Eds) (1984). Gramatyka wspólczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia . Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwa Naukowe.Google Scholar
Harder, P. (2010). Meaning in mind and society. A functional contribution to the social turn in linguistics . Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, A.C. & Campbell L. (1995). Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva T. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heltoft, L. (this volume). Constructional change, paradigmatic structure and the orientation of usage processes.
Hopper, P.J. & Traugott E.C. (1993). Grammaticalization . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, B.D. (2003). Morphologization from syntax. In B.D. Joseph & R.D. Janda (Eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (pp. 472–92). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, B.D. & Janda R.D. (1988). The how and why of diachronic morphologization and demorphologization. In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology: approaches in modern linguistics (pp. 193–210). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keller, R. (1994). On language change: the invisible hand in language . London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kemmer, S. & Barlow M. (2000). Introduction: a usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. vii-xxviii). Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Klemensiewicz, Z. (1961). Historia języka polskiego I . Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwa Naukowe.Google Scholar
. (1965). Historia języka polskiego II . Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwa Naukowe.Google Scholar
Kragh, K.J. & Schøsler L. (this volume). Reanalysis and gramma (ticaliza)tion of constructions: The case of the deictic relative construction with perception verbs in French.
Krys’ko, V.B. (1994). Razvitie kategorii oduševlennosti v istorii russkogo jazyka . Moscow: Lyceum.Google Scholar
. (1997). Istoričeskij sintaksis russkogo jazyka. Ob”jekt i perechodnost’ . Moscow: Indrik.Google Scholar
Kucała, M. (1978). Rodzaj gramatyczny w historii polszczyzny . Wrócław: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (1977). Syntactic reanalysis. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change (pp. 57–139). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (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: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1985). Grammaticalization: Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change. Lingua e Stile , 20, 303–18.Google Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, J. (2011a). Russian nominal semantics and morphology . Bloomington, Indiana: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
. (2011b). Patterns of connecting grammaticalisation in Russian: Syntax, animacy and aspect. In J. Nørgård-Sørensen, L. Heltoft & L. Schøsler (pp. 115–170).
Nørgård-Sørensen, J., Heltoft L. & Schøsler L. (2011). Connecting grammaticalization . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, R.A. (1993). Polish. In B. Comrie & G.G. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 686–758). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
De Smet, H. (2009). Analysing reanalysis. Lingua , 119, 1728–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (this volume). Does innovation need reanalysis?
Szober, S. (1963). Gramatyka języka polskiego . Wydanie szóste . Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwa Naukowe.Google Scholar
Timberlake, A. (1993). Russian. In B. Comrie & G.G. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 827–886). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W.U. (1980). Ways of morphologizing phonological rules. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical morphology (pp. 443–62). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

GÜZEL, Hasan
2023. DİL İLİŞKİLERİNDE KULLANIM TEMELLİ YAKLAŞIM. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi (HÜTAD) :38/Özel Sayı ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
Jeppesen Kragh, Kirsten & Lene Schøsler
2014. Reanalysis and gramma(ticaliza)tion of constructions. In Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 69], ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 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.