Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 43:4 (2019) ► pp.850–895

The grammar of ‘non-realization’

| Heinrich-Heine-Universität Dusseldorf
| University College London
| Goldsmiths, University of London
| Simon Fraser University
On the basis of cross-linguistic data from both genetically and geographically related and unrelated languages, in this article we argue that the linguistic phenomena usually referred to as the avertive, the frustrative and the apprehensional belong not to three but to five – semantically related, and yet distinct grammatical categories, all of which involve different degrees of non-realization of the verb situation in the area of Tense-Aspect-Mood: apprehensional, avertive, frustrated initiation, frustrated completion, inconsequential. Our major goal here is to account for these grammatical categories in terms of an adequate model of linguistic categorization. For this purpose, we apply the notion of Intersective Gradience (introduced for the first time in the morphosyntactic domain in Aarts (2004, 2007) to the morphosemantic domain. Thus the present approach reconciles two major approaches to linguistic categorization: (i) the classical, Aristotelian approach and (ii) a more recent, gradience/fuzziness approach.
Keywords: apprehensional, avertive, frustrated initiation, frustrated completion, inconsequential, linguistic categorization, semantically elaborate grammatical categories
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Semantically elaborate grammatical categories
  • 3.Tense-Aspect-Mood semantically elaborate categories in the “grammar of non-realization”
    • 3.1Apprehensional
    • 3.2Avertive
    • 3.3Frustrated initiation
    • 3.4Frustrated completion
    • 3.5Inconsequential
  • 4.Linguistic categorization
    • 4.1Grammatical polysemies and abstract semantic prototypes/semantic “cores”
    • 4.2The present approach: Intersective Gradience and semantically elaborate categories
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 23 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18044.kut
References (90)
References
Aarts, Bas. 2004. Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language 28(1). 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Abbi, Anvita. 1975. Reduplication in Hindi: A generative semantic study. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
. 1977. Reduplicated adverbs in Hindi. Indian Linguistics 38(3). 125–135.Google Scholar
. 1980. Semantic grammar of Hindi: A study of reduplication. New Delhi: Bahri Publications Private Ltd.Google Scholar
. 1992. Reduplication in South Asian languages: An areal, typological and historical study. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. A grammar of Tariana, from Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexandrova, Anna. 2016. “Narrowly averted and partially completed events in the languages of Europe and beyond.” Talk presented at the 49th Annual Conference of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE) conference in Naples, Italy, 2016.
Angelo, Denise & Eva Schultze-Berndt. 2016. Beware bambai – lest it be apprehensive. In Felicity Meakins & Carmel O’Shannessy (eds.), Loss and renewal: Australian languages since contact, 255–296. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, Peter. 1981. A grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1961. Generality, gradience and the all-or-none. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bond, Oliver. 2011. Negation in clause linkages. Language Documentation and Description 91. 77–120.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Östen Dahl. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13–1. 51–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chumakina, Marina. 2013. Periphrasis in Archi. In Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms (Proceedings of the British Academy 180), 27–52. Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology: syntax and morphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coupe, Alexander. 2007. A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2007. Beyond Aristotle and gradience: A reply to Aarts. Studies in Language 311. 409–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2015. Tense, aspect, mood and evidentiality. In James D. Wright (ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. 210–213. Amsterdam: Elsevier [URL] (accessed 14th October 2017). DOI logo
Denison, David. 2006. Category change and gradience in the determiner system. In Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 279–304. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Category change in English with and without structural change. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalisation, 105–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dench, Alan. 1988. Complex sentences in Martuthunira. In Peter Austin (ed.), Complex sentence constructions in Australian languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1980. The languages of Australia. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2002. Australian languages. Their nature and development (Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht, London: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2006. Descriptive theories, explanatory theories and basic linguistic theory. In Felix Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, 207–34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Epps, Patience. 2008. A Grammar of Hup (MGL 43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 1995. A grammar of Kayardild: With Historical-comparative Notes on Tangkic. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicolas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nicolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: theoretical and empirical foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 1986. Pirahã. In D. C. Derbyshire & G. K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 11, 200–325. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Helder P. 2015. The expression of counterfactuality in Yanomama. Paper presented at the Workshop on Counterfactuality, Radboud University, Nijmegen, July 2015.
Fleck, David. 2003. A grammar of Matsés. Houston: Rice University dissertation.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of modality. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. Hua. A Papuan language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. Studies in Language Companion Series 5. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Inconsequential clauses in Hua and the typology of clauses. In John Haiman & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 49–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 111. 119–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010a. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 861. 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. Framework-free grammatical theory. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammatical analysis, 341–365. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1992. Grammaticalization chains. Studies in Language 16(2). 335–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994a. On the genesis of aspect in African languages, the proximative. Paper presented at the annual meeting of BLS, Berkeley. DOI logo
. 1994b. Grammaticalization as an explanatory parameter. In William Pagliuca (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 109), 255–287. Amsterdam: 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. 1995. “The Proximative”. Paper presented at the Fourth ICLA conference in Albuquerque, USA, July 1995.
. 2002. On the evolution of grammatical forms. In Alison Wray (ed.), The transition to language, 376–398. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. The changing languages of Europe. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2). 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jendraschek, Gerd 2014. Future tense, prospective aspect, and irrealis mood as part of the situation perspective: Insights from Basque, Turkish and Papuan. In Philippe de Brabanter, Mikhail Kissine & Saghie Sharifzadeh (eds.), Future times, future tenses, 138–64. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Jensen, Cheryl. 1998. Comparative Tupí-Guaraní morphosyntax. In Desmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 41, 489–618. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ježek, Elisabetta & Paolo Ramat. 2009. On parts-of-speech transcategorization. Folia Linguistica 431. 391–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Jong, Jan Willem. 1977. The Tun-huang manuscripts of the Tibetan Rāmāyaṇa story. Indo-Iranian Journal 191. 37–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kimball, Geoffrey D. with the assistance of Bel Abbey, Nora Abbey, Martha John, Ed John & Ruth Poncho. 1991. Koasati grammar. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
König, Christa. 1993. Aspekt im Maa (AMO, Afrikanische Monographien 3). Cologne: University of Cologne Press.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania. 1998. On identifying an evasive gram: Action narrowly averted. Studies in Language 22(1). 113–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. TAM-auxiliation and the avertive category in Northeast Europe. In Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest (ed.), Areal grammaticalization. Louvain-Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2001. Areal grammaticalization: The case of the Bantu-Nilotic borderland. Folia Linguistica XXXIV 3–41. 267–283.Google Scholar
. 2009. Grammatical categories and linguistic theory: Elaborateness in grammar. In Peter K. Austin, Oliver Bond, Monik Charette, David Nathan & Peter Sells (eds.), Proceedings of conference on language documentation and linguistic theory 21. London: SOAS.Google Scholar
. 2010. Grammaticalization and the evolution of grammar: On one particular kind of grammatical categories. In Young-Se Kang, Jong-Yuri Yoon, Jongseon Hong, Jiun-Shiung Wu, Seongha Rhee, Kyoung-Ae Kim, Dong-Ho Choi, Kee-Ho Kim & Hye-Kyung Kang (eds.), Lectures on universal grammar and individual languages (SICOL-2010), 144–156. Hankookmunhwasa: Seoul.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee. 2019. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Second extensively revised and updated edition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Nouns and verbs. Language 63(1). 53–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lapolla, Randy. 2016. On categorization: Stick to the facts of the languages. Linguistic Typology 20(2). 365–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1995. Apprehensional epistemics. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischmann (eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse (Typological Studies in Language 32), 293–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2004. Towards a semantic typology of adversative and contrast marking. Semantics 21(2). 177–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mcgregor, William. 1990. A functional grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Marion. 1999. Desano grammar: Studies in the languages of Colombia 6. Arlington: SIL/ University of Texas.Google Scholar
Mueller, Neele. 2013. Tense, aspect, modality and evidentiality marking in South American indigenous languages. Utrecht: University of Utrecht dissertation.Google Scholar
Overall, Simon. 2017. A typology of frustrative marking in Amazonian languages. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert W. Dixon (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 477–512. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 2007. Mood and modality. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir. 2001. Antirezultativ: do I posle rezultata. In Vladimir Plungian (ed.), Glagol’nye kategorii, 50–88. Moscow: Russkie slovari.Google Scholar
Poulos, G. 1990. A linguistic study of Venda. Pretoria: via Afrika, Maskew.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo. 1999. Linguistic categories and linguists’ categorizations. Linguistics 37(1). 157–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Degrammaticalization or transcategorization? In Chris Schaner-Wolles, John Rennison & Friedrich Neubarth (eds.), Naturally! Linguistic studies in honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler presented on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 393–401. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2009. On the (un)suitability of semantic categories. Linguistic Typology 131 (2009), 95–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Susan. 1999. The grammaticalization of the proximative in Tok Pisin. Language 75(2). 322–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Sluijs, Robbert. 2015. Counterfactuality in Virgin Islands Dutch Creole (Negerhollands). Paper presented at the Workshop on Counterfactuality, Radboud University, Nijmegen, July 2015.
Smith, Ellen L. 2015. A grammar of Papapana, with an investigation into language contact and endangerment. Callaghan, AUS: University of Newcastle dissertation. [URL]
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale (eds.). 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalisation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2005. The semantics and pragmatics of composite mood marking: The non-Pama-Nyungan languages of northern Australia. Linguistic Typology 91. 223–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinogradov, V. V. 1972. Russkij Jazyk: Grammatičeskoe učenie o slove, 2nd edn. Moscow.Google Scholar
Vuillermet, Marine. 2012. A Grammar of Ese’eja, a Takanan language of the Bolivian Amazon. Lyon: University of Lyon dissertation.Google Scholar
. forthcoming. The apprehensional domain: a typology of grammatical(ized) ‘fear’-morphemes.
Zester, Laura. 2010. The semantics of avoidance and its morphosyntactic expression: Australian languages vs. English. Dusseldorf: University of Dusseldorf thesis.Google Scholar
. forthcoming. Towards a grammar of counterfactuality and its implications for emotive functions: The Avertive, Frustrative and Apprehensional category.
Ziegeler, Debra. 2000. What almost can reveal about counterfactual inferences. Journal of Pragmatics 32(12). 1743–1776. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Klyagina, Evgenia
2024. Discontinuous past interpretation in Abaza. Studies in Language DOI logo
la Roi, Ezra
2024. Polarity reversal constructions and counterfactuals in Ancient Greek. Journal of Historical Linguistics 14:2 ► pp. 335 ff. DOI logo
Olguín Martínez, Jesús
2023. Temporal adverbial clauses: A cross-linguistic perspective. Lingua Posnaniensis 65:2 ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Yae, Sunhee, Tania Kuteva & Seongha Rhee
2023. From fear to grammar: The case of avoidives. Lingua 288 ► pp. 103526 ff. DOI logo
Caudal, Patrick & Robert Mailhammer
2022. Linear Lengthening in Iwaidja: An Event-Quantifying Intonation at the Phonology to Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Languages 7:3 ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 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.