Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 41:3 (2017) ► pp.577–614

A method for mitigating the problem of borrowing in syntactic reconstruction

 | CoEDL, Australian National University
Most scholars agree that grammatical borrowing is a serious obstacle to syntactic reconstruction, but to date there have been few proposed solutions to this methodological conundrum. In this paper I propose a method, couched in a constructional view of language, for mitigating the problem of borrowing in syntactic reconstruction. The method begins with the reconstruction of partially schematic constructions, whose phonological material can be tested for cognacy. Fully schematic reconstructions are then achieved via generalizations made over sets of reconstructed constructions. I exemplify the effectiveness of this method by applying it to two pieces of grammar from the Sogeram languages of Papua New Guinea: clause chain nominalization and the desiderative construction. The method allows the reconstruction of the former, but identifies the latter as a likely grammatical borrowing and therefore not reconstructable to Proto-Sogeram.
Keywords: comparative method, syntactic reconstruction, Papuan languages, Madang languages, Sogeram languages, subordination, grammatical borrowing, desiderative construction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The method
    • 2.1Theoretical preliminaries
    • 2.2How syntax can be reconstructed
  • 3.The first application: Clause chain nominalization
    • 3.1Proto-Sogeram demonstratives
    • 3.2Topic/object *-n
    • 3.3Locative *=ñ
    • 3.4Topic *ka
    • 3.5Making the generalization
  • 4.The second application: The desiderative construction
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Parallels with morphological reconstruction
    • 5.2The question of productivity
    • 5.3Limitations of the method
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.3.02dan
References (65)
References
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2013. Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 438–457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Tonya Kim Dewey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Chiara Fedriani & Thomas Smitherman. 2013. The story of “woe.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 41(3–4). 321–377.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2012a. “Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies”: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3). 363–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. Reconstructing syntax: Construction grammar and the comparative method. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, 257–308. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thomas Smitherman. 2013. The quest for cognates: A reconstruction of oblique subject constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change 3(1). 28–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thomas Smitherman, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Gard B. Jenset & Barbara McGillivray. 2012. Reconstructing constructional semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36(3). 511–547. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2013. Morphology in Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 255–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2008a. Syntactic change and syntactic borrowing in generative grammar. In Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach (eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 302), 187–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. The diachrony of complex predicates. Diachronica 25(2). 161–185. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2014. Complex predicates in Australian languages. In Harold Koch & Rachel Nordlinger (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Australia: A comprehensive guide, 263–294. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Alice C. Harris. 2002. Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing “Myths and the prehistory of grammars.” Journal of Linguistics 38(3). 599–618. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (5 July, 2013). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Don. 2010. A preliminary phonological history of the Sogeram languages of Papua New Guinea. Oceanic Linguistics 49(1). 163–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. A reconstruction of Proto-Sogeram: Phonology, lexicon, and morphosyntax. University of California, Santa Barbara Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2016. Magɨ: An undocumented language of Papua New Guinea. Oceanic Linguistics 55(1). 199–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 2005. Configurationality in the languages of New Guinea. Australian Journal of Linguistics 25(2). 181–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epps, Patience. 2007. Grammatical borrowing in Hup. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 38), 551–565. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2013. Inheritance, calquing, or independent innovation? Reconstructing morphological complexity in Amazonian numerals. Journal of Language Contact 6(2). 329–357. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Ferraresi, Gisella & Maria Goldbach (eds.). 2008. Principles of syntactic reconstruction (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 302). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–538. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2010. Clause linkage and nexus in Papuan languages. In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics, 27–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2013. Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. & Johan van der Auwera. 2012. This is to count as a construction. Folia Linguistica 46(1). 109–132. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2008. Reconstruction in syntax: Reconstruction of patterns. In Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach (eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 302), 73–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Kyle. n.d. Nend texts. Electronic files, Pioneer Bible Translators.
. 1990. Nend grammar essentials. In John R. Roberts (ed.), Two grammatical studies (Data Papers on Papua New Guinea Languages 37), 73–156. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2003. On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language 27(3). 529–572. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1). 1–33. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Kikusawa, Ritsuko. 2003. The development of some Indonesian pronominal systems. In Barry J. Blake, Kate Burridge & J. Taylor (eds.), Historical linguistics 2001: Selected papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, 13–17 August 2001 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 237), 237–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, Ruth. 2000. Lexical basis of grammatical borrowing: A Prince Edward Island French case study (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, Harold. 1996. Reconstruction in morphology. In Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change, 218–263. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 2002a. Myths and the prehistory of grammars. Journal of Linguistics 38(1). 113–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002b. More myths. Journal of Linguistics 38(3). 619–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mallory, James P. & Douglas Q. Adams. 2006. The Oxford introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild & Mathias Jenny. 2011. Who changes language? Bilingualism and structural change in Burma and the Reef Islands. Journal of Language Contact 4(2). 217–249. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew. 2005. The chequered career of the Trans New Guinea hypothesis: Recent research and its implications. In Andrew Pawley, Robert Attenborough, Jack Golson & Robin Hide (eds.), Papuan pasts: Cultural, linguistic and biological histories of Papuan-speaking peoples, 67–107. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2006. Madang languages. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol. 71: 429–432. 2nd ed. Boston: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. How reconstructible is Proto Trans New Guinea? Problems, progress, prospects. In Harald Hammarström & Wilco van den Heuvel (eds.), History, contact and classification of Papuan languages (Special issue of Language and Linguistics in Melanesia), 88–164.Google Scholar
Reesink, Ger. 1994. Domain-creating constructions in Papuan languages. In Ger Reesink (ed.), Topics in descriptive Papuan linguistics (Semaian 10), 98–121. Leiden: Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azië en Oceanië Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden.Google Scholar
. 2014. Topic management and clause combination in the Papuan language Usan. In Rik van Gijn, Jeremy Hammond, Dejan Matić, Saskia van Putten & Ana Vilacy Galucio (eds.), Information structure and reference tracking in complex sentences (Typological Studies in Language 105), 231–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, John R. 1997. Switch-reference in Papua New Guinea: A preliminary survey. In Andrew Pawley (ed.), Papers in Papuan linguistics No. 3 (Pacific Linguistics A 87), 101–241. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 1996. Contact-induced change and the comparative method: Cases from Papua New Guinea. In Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change, 180–217. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan languages. In Andrew Pawley, Robert Attenborough, Jack Golson & Robin Hide (eds.), Papuan pasts: Cultural, linguistic and biological histories of Papuan-speaking peoples, 15–65. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2007. Calquing and metatypy. Journal of Language Contact 1(1). 116–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. A history of metatypy in the Bel languages. Journal of Language Contact 2(1). 149–164. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2015. The argument indexing of Early Austronesian verbs: A reconstructional myth? In Dag T. T. Haug (ed.), Historical linguistics 2013: Selected papers from the 21st International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Oslo, 5–9 August 2013, 257–279. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. 2015. An approach to syntactic reconstruction. In Carlotta Viti (ed.), Perspectives on historical syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweeney, Mike. n.d. Mum texts. Electronic files, Pioneer Bible Translators.
. 1994. A description of the phonology of the Katiati (Mum) language. Unpublished ms, Pioneer Bible Translators.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 6). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wade, Martha. n.d. Apalɨ texts. Electronic files, Pioneer Bible Translators.
. 1989. A survey of the grammatical structures and semantic functions of the Apalɨ (Emerum) language. Ms, Pioneer Bible Translators.Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2013. The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction. Diachronica 30(1). 95–122. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2014. Syntactic reconstruction and Proto-Germanic (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 12). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willis, David. 2011. Reconstructing last week’s weather: Syntactic reconstruction and Brythonic free relatives. Journal of Linguistics 47(2). 407–446. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Z’graggen, John A. 1975a. The Madang-Adelbert Range subphylum. In Stephen A. Wurm (ed.), Papuan languages and the New Guinea linguistic scene (Pacific Linguistics C 38), 569–612. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
1975b. The languages of the Madang District, Papua New Guinea (Pacific Linguistics B 41). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
1980. A comparative word list of the Southern Adelbert Range languages, Madang Province, Papua New Guinea (Pacific Linguistics D 33). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Gildea, Spike & Jóhanna Barðdal
2023. From grammaticalization to Diachronic Construction Grammar. Studies in Language 47:4 ► pp. 743 ff. DOI logo
Barlow, Russell
2021. Review of Daniels (2020): Grammatical reconstruction: The Sogeram languages of New Guinea. Diachronica 38:4 ► pp. 628 ff. DOI logo
Daniels, Don
2019. Using phonotactics to reconstruct degrammaticalization. Diachronica 36:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Daniels, Don
2020. The history of tense and aspect in the Sogeram family. Journal of Historical Linguistics 10:2 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo
Daniels, Don
2021. The issue of arbitrariness in syntactic reconstruction. Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s2 ► pp. 393 ff. DOI logo
Daniels, Don
2022. The history of tense and aspect in the Sogeram family*. In Development of Tense and Aspect Systems [Benjamins Current Topics, 123], ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Daniels, Don
2024. Semi-embedded clauses in Aisi. Functions of Language 31:2 ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo
Daniels, Don, Danielle Barth & Wolfgang Barth
2019. Subgrouping the Sogeram languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics 9:1 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 december 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.