Cover not available
Part of
Finiteness and Nominalization
Edited by Claudine Chamoreau and Zarina Estrada-Fernández
[Typological Studies in Language 113] 2016
► pp. 345–370

On finitization

| Dynamique Du Langage (CNRS | Université Lyon2)
Most diachronic studies dealing with finiteness are centered on the functional shift between main and dependent clause status. In contrast, this paper focuses on the acquisition of morphosyntactic finiteness features by a non-finite dependent construction that remains dependent, namely “finitization.” Givón (2011) suggests a theoretical distinction between “gradual” and “instantaneous” finitization, depending on whether the intermediate stage of the evolution involves mixed finite/non-finite morphosyntax or a variation between finite and non-finite clauses. The main findings of this paper are that, first, diachronic data from various languages attest to both these theoretical models, and second, that this distinction does not reside in the diachronic mechanisms at play (reanalysis or extension), but rather in the functional motivation for the change.
Keywords: clause expansion, diachrony, finitization, renewal of subordinate clauses, subordinate clauses, typology
Published online: 23 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.113.14ros
References (31)
References
Bisang, Walter. 2001. Finite vs. non finite languages. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1400-1413. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cohen, David. 1984. La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal en sémitique: Études de syntaxe historique. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette. 1991. Ways to go in Rama: A case study in polygrammaticalization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elisabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 455-491. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2007. Deconstructing categories: Finiteness in a functional-typological perspective. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 91-114. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Deutscher, Guy. 2009. Nominalization and the origin of subordination. In Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution [Typological Studies in Language 85], T. Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds), 199-214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nick. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 366-432. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1991. From postposition to subordinator in Newari. In Approaches to Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elisabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 227-255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 1998. On Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Cariban Morphosyntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2012. Linguistic studies in the Cariban family. In Handbook of South American Languages, Lyle Campbell & Verónica Grondona (eds), 441-94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1994. Nominalized clauses in Ute: The diachronic seesaw of finite structure. In Segundo Encuentro de Lingüística en el Noroeste, Memorias, Vol. 1, 269-310. Hermosillo: Universisad de SonoraGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2009. From nominal to clausal morphosyntax: Complexity via expansion. In Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution [Typological Studies in Language 85], T. Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds), 23-51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Cheryl. 1998. Comparative Tupí-Guaraní Morpho-syntax. In Handbook of Amazonian languages, Vol. IV, Desmond Derbyshire & Geoffrey Pullum (eds), 490-603. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1999. Tupí-Guaraní. In The Amazonian Languages, Robert M.W. Dixon & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds), 125-163. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Kalinina, Elena. 2002. The problem of morphological description of verbal forms ambivalent between finite and non-finite uses. In Morphology 2000: Selected Papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 24-28 February 2000 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 218], Sabrina Bendjaballah (ed.), 185-198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1999. Finiteness. In Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories, Keith Brown & Jim Miller (eds), 146-149. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 2001. Adverbial conjunctions. In Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook., Vol. 1, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 842-854. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2007. Diachrony and finiteness: Subordination in the dialects of southern Italy. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 335-365. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lemaréchal, Alain. 1994. Désignation et dénomination: Superparties du discours et parties du discours. In Les classes de mots. Traditions et perspectives, Louis Basset & Marcel Pérennec (eds), 146-168. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar
Meira, Sérgio. 2003. A marcação de pessoa nos verbos em Bakairi (Karíb). In Ergatividade na Amazônia II, Francesc Queixalós (ed.), 155-163. Paris: CNRS-CELIA.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 83: 69-119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2007. Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Praça, Walkíria Neiva. 2007. Morfossintaxe da língua Tapirapé. PhD dissertation, Universidade de Brasília.
Rose, Françoise. 2006. Le syncrétisme adpositions/subordonnants. Proposition de typologie syntaxique. Faits de Langues 28: 205-216.Google Scholar
. 2009. The origins of serialization. The case of Emerillon. Studies in Language 33(3): 644-684. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011a. Competition between finite and non-finite nominalizations in Mojeño Trinitario. Séminaire du PICS Complexité syntaxique et diversité typologique, 12-14. Paris, October.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Grammaire de l’émérillon teko, une langue tupi-guarani de Guyane française [Langues et Sociétés d’Amérique Traditionnelle 10]. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2011c. Who is the third person? Fluid transitivity in Mojeño Trinitario. International Journal of American Linguistics 77(4): 469-494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watters, David E. 2002. A Grammar of Kham [Cambridge Grammatical Descriptions]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Baranger, Estefanía
2023. Expresión de predicados secundarios. LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas 23 ► pp. e023005 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Wei-Wei & Mathias Jenny
2022. Syntactic change in Palaungic. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 45:1 ► pp. 22 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.