ic fdg 2012 giomi

Indo-European future tenses:

Grammaticalization and Multifunctionality

Riccardo Giomi

University of Lisbon

ILTEC

Instituto de Linguística Teórica

e Computacional –

Lisbon

• Main goal:

developing a comprehensive account of grammaticalization within the framework of FDG

PhD PROJECTGrammatical Expressions of Future Time

Reference in Indo-European Languages

2

a) explaining and representing grammatical change at the four Levels;

b) explaining and representing the interaction of grammatical, contextual and cognitive factors in which new functions of grammaticalizing elements originate and become conventionalized (see Traugott 1982, Traugott and König 1991, Heine 2002 a.o.).

• “panchronic perspective” (Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer (1991: 248–259): focus on

a) historical evolution of grammatical expressions;

b) their usage in single synchronic stages of the language.

3

PhD PROJECTGrammatical Expressions of Future Time

Reference in Indo-European Languages

• several different evolutionary patternsinvolving a wide range of representational and interpersonal categories (although some unified accounts have been proposed);

4

Why future markers?

• high multifunctionality:“[a] central issue in the controversy about the theoretical status of future grams concerns the distribution of labour between temporal, modal, and aspectual elements in their meanings and whether to subsume them under the traditional categories of tense, mood/modality or aspect.”

Dahl (1999: 313)

Section 1: Theoretical backgroundA “dual” approach, combining

FDG and Semantic Maps;

Today’s talk

5

Section 2: Diachronic evolution of future markers in Romance, Germanic, Slavic and Greek (focus on IL and RL only);

Section 3: Synchronic multifunctionality of the Romance inflectional future.

• Grammaticalization Theory

1. Unidirectionality

1. Theoretical background

6

Content change in F(D)G

“Diachronic developments in the field of operators tend to follow the

direction π1 > π2 > π3 > π4.” (Hengeveld 1989: 142)

For TMA categories, “there will be scope increase over time along the following scale:situational concept >

state-of-affairs > episode > > propositional content” (Hengeveld 2011: 583)


7

• F(D)G and grammaticalization (Hengeveld 1989, 2011, Olbertz 1993, Boland 2006, Souza 2009 a.o.)

+ layered structure, elaborated formalism

(ability to capture semantic and pragmatic oppositions in a structured way) > powerful tool for testing hypotheses about directionality (1);

2. Usage-based approach

“[...] grammaticalization (i) requires appropriate contexts to take place, (ii) subsequently leads to an increase in contexts where the grammaticalized item is used [...]. Key notions relating to this [context] model are context-induced reinterpretation, pragmatic inferencing, invited inference, conversational implicature, metonymy [...] (cf. Traugott and König 1991; see also Dahl 1985: 11).” (Heine 2002: 587)


8

9


+ layered structure, elaborated formalism (ability to capture semantic and pragmatic oppositions in a structured way) > powerful tool for testing hypotheses about directionality (1);

+ interaction of Grammatical, Contextual and Conceptual Components > explaining pragmatic inferencing / context-induced reinterpretation (2);


3. Synchronic multifunctionality

New meanings arise as inferences in specific contexts;


10

some inferences may become semanticized, i.e. be reinterpreted as (part of) the grammatical meaning of the marker (see Traugott & Dasher 2002 a.o.);

new grammatical meanings can give rise to further developments before older meanings have bleached out.

11


+ layered structure, elaborated formalism (ability to capture semantic and pragmatic oppositions in a structured way) > powerful tool for testing hypotheses about directionality (1);

+ interaction of Grammatical, Contextual and Conceptual Components > explaining pragmatic inferencing / context-induced reinterpretation (2);

– no explicit account of multifunctionality (3).



12

• Semantic Maps (Anderson 1982, 1986, Van der Auwera & Plungian 1998, Haspelmath 1997, 2003 a.o.)

• “Semantic maps are a way to visualize regular relationships between two or more meanings or grammatical functions of one and the same linguistic form.” (Narrog & Van der Auwera 2011: 320)

• Semantic maps crucially rely on cross-linguistic comparison [...].” (Haspelmath 2003: 213)


13

Figure 1: A semantic map of typical dative functions (Haspelmath 2003: 234)

predicative possessor

external possessor

direction recipient beneficiary judicantis

purpose experiencer

“Synchronic [claim]: Polysemous forms cover adjacent nodes (i.e. nodes linked by a line or arrow);

Diachronic [claim]: A linguistic form may extend its range of functions on the map in any direction, but not against the direction of an arrow.” (Haspelmath 2004: 24)


14

– lack integration within a “wider theory of verbal interaction” (H&M 2008: 1) > do not account for pragmatic inferencing / context-induced reinterpretation (2);

• Semantic Maps and grammaticalization

+ capture directionality (1), represented by arrows;

+ provide an explicit account of multifunctionality (3), represented by lines/arrows.

1. A “dual” approach

15

• Semantic maps can also be construed by integrating the patterns of development followed by individual grammatical markers (cf. Van der Auwera & Plungian 1998).

• Paths of development expressed in F(D)G terms are more informative than traditional ones, since they reflect general grammatical hierarchy (also observable synchronically).

‘want’ † future (π2)

Figure 2: Developmental path of will (Boland 2006: 162).

prediction/inference (π3)intention (π1)

2. Main lexical sources for Indo-European future tenses

16

• “have”: Romance, Slavic, Greek;

• “owe”: Germanic;

• “want”, “wish”: Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Greek;

• movement verbs (“go”, “come”): Romance, Germanic;

• “become”: Germanic, Slavic;

• “start, begin”: Slavic;

• “take, seize”: Slavic.

2. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses

17

“have”

obligation (π fc)

future (π ep)posteriority (π e)

LATIN: INFINITIVE + habere > PORT. cantarei, SP. cantaré, FR. chanterai, IT. canterò

18

“owe”

obligation (π fc)

future (π ep)(?) posteriority (π e)

DUTCH: sullen > zullen + INFOLD NORSE: skulu + INF > SWEDISH: ska/skulle + INF


19

“owe”

posteriority (π e)

ENGLISH: sculan + INF > shall/should V

intention (π fc)

obligation (π fc)

future (π ep)


obligation (π fc)

20

posteriority (π e)

ANCIENT GREEK: θέλω + να + SUBJ > θε να + SUBJ > GREEK: θα+ SUBJ

intention (π fc)

“want”

future (π ep)


obligation (π fc)

21


OLD ENGLISH: willan + INF > ENGLISH: will/would VOCS: xotetĭ + INF > xotetĭ (+ да) + SUBJ > BULGARIAN: šte + SUBJ

intention (π fc)

“want, wish”


22


ENGLISH: be going to VDUTCH: gaan + INF

obligation (π fc)

“go”

prospective aspect (π fc)

intention (π fc)


23

obligation (π fc)


ability (π fc)

“have”

ANCIENT > LATE MEDIEVAL GREEK: ἔχω / εἵχον + INF

intention (π fc)



root-possibility (π e)

24

future (π ep)(?) posteriority (π e)


ability (π fc)

GERMAN: werden + INF

inceptive aspect (π fc)

“turn” > “become”

intention (π fc)


obligation (π fc)


25



ability (π fc)

SWEDISH: kommer (att) + INF


“come”


intention (π fc)


obligation (π fc)

26



ability (π fc)inceptive

aspect (π fc)

intention (π fc)


obligation (π fc)

OCS: bǫdo + INF > EAST SLAVIC, WEST SLAVIC: budu + INF OCS: na-/po-/u-čno + INF > EAST SLAVIC DIALECTS: -čno + INFOLD RUSSIAN: INF + jimu > UKRANIAN: govoriti-mu (‘I will speak’)

“become”, “start, begin”, “take, seize”


2. From lexical meaning to Future


intention (π fc)



“come”, “become”, “start, begin”, “take”

“want, wish”, “intend to”, “go”

“owe”, “have”

obligation (π fc)


“have”

ability (π fc)

27

2. To Future and beyond


intention (π fc)



“come”, “become”, “start, begin”, “take”

“want, wish”, “intend to”, “go”

“owe”, “have”

obligation (π fc)


ability (π fc)

“have”

reportative evidentiality

(Π C)

concession (A)Φepist.modality/

inference (π p)

imperative(F: IMP (F))

28

mitigation(Π F)

2. Content change involving non-adjacent layers


intention (π fc)



obligation (π fc)


ability (π fc)

29

2. Content change without increase in scope

future (π ep)posteriority

(π e)

intention (π fc)



obligation (π fc)

ability (π fc)

30

“have”

ANCIENT > LATE MEDIEVAL GREEK: ἔχω / εἵχον + INF




intention (π fc)


prospective aspect (π fc)obligation (π fc)


ability (π fc)

31

ENGLISH: sculan + INF > shall/should V

“owe”



intention (π fc)


prospective aspect (π fc)obligation (π fc)


ability (π fc)

32

ENGLISH: be going to VDUTCH: gaan + INF

“go”


33

Conclusion 1 (or rather Hypothesis 1)The evolution of the future markers considered here generally confirms Hengeveld’s (1989, 2011) “scope increase” hypothesis, but also suggests that this might need be “relaxed” in that

a) scope widening does not always involve adjacent layers (cf. Boland 2006: 193);

b) when one single semantic change is considered,there need not be widening in scope.

3. Multifunctionality of the Romance synthetic future

34

posteriority (π e)

intention (π fc)



obligation (π fc)


ability (π fc)

Portuguese: reportative

evidentiality(Π C)

concession (A)Φ

imperative(F: IMP (F))

mitigation(Π F)

epistemic modality (π p)

future (π ep)

PORT. cantarei; SP. cantaré; FR. chanterai; IT. canterò.

3. Heine (2002): relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization

35(Heine 2002: 86)

Stage Context Resulting meaning

I Initial stage Unconstrained Source meaning

II Bridging context There is a specific context giving rise to an inference in favor of a new meaning

Target meaning foregrounded

III Switch context There is a new context which is incompatible with the source meaning

Source meaning backgrounded

IV Conventionalization The target meaning no longer needs to be supported by the context that gave rise to it; it may be used in new contexts

Target meaning only

3. Grammaticalization and grammaticality in FDG

36

• Question:

At which point of the grammaticalization process should a form/construction be represented as a grammatical marker in FDG?


37

a. “They trigger an inferential mechanism to the effect that, rather than the source meaning, there is another meaning, the target meaning, that offers a more plausible interpretation of the utterance concerned.

b. While the target meaning is the one most likely to be inferred, it is still cancellable (see Grice 1967), that is, an interpretation in terms of the source meaning cannot be ruled out. [...]

d. Bridging contexts may, but need not, give rise to conventional grammatical meanings.” (Heine 2002: 84-85)

II. Bridging contexts (new meaning foregrounded):

3. Bridging contextsThe target meaning is the most likely to be inferred, but it is still cancellable; source meaning always available.

(1) Future (π ep) > Intention

“Não escreverei o poema.” not write.FUT.1S the.M.S poem

“I will not write the poem.” (Cunha & Cintra 1984: 457)

38

(1b) Future (π ep) > Intention“Não escreverei o poema porque não consigo.” not write.FUT.1S the.M.S poem because not

manage.PRES.1S

“I will not write the poem because I can’t.”

3. Bridging contextsThe target meaning is the most likely to be inferred, but it is still cancellable; source meaning always available.

39

(2) Future (π ep) > Obligation“D’ora innanzi, i trasgressori pagheranno il

doppiofrom-now-on the.M.PL. offenders pay.FUT.3.PL the.M.S.

double della penale fissata in precedenza.”

of.the.F.S. fine fix.PTCP.F.S PREP precedence “From now on, the offenders will pay twice the previously

established fine.” (Renzi & Salvi 1991:115)

(2b) Future (π ep) > Obligation“I trasgressori pagheranno il doppio della

penale the.M.PL. offenders pay.FUT.3.PL the.M.S. double of.the.F.S.

fine (...) se vorranno fare una donazione.”

if want.FUT.3PL do a donation“The offenders will pay twice the previously established fine

if they want to make a donation.”


40

a. “They are incompatible, or in conflict, with some salient property of the source meaning.

b. Hence, an interpretation in terms of the source meaning is ruled out.

c. The target meaning now provides the only possible interpretation.

d. Unlike conventional meanings, meanings appearing in switch contexts have to be supported by a specific context (or cluster of contexts).” (Heine 2002: 85)

III. Switch contexts (older meaning backgrounded)

3. Switch contextsThe source meaning is ruled out;

the target meaning is the only reasonable interpretation, but still requires a highly specific context.

41

(3) Subjective epistemic modality (π p) > Reportative (π C)“Segundo fontes que lhe são próximas

according-to sources REL 3.DAT.S COP.PRES.3PL close.F.PL

Soares terá dito (...) que as críticas à liderança Soares AUX.FUT.3S say.PTCP that the.F.PL criticisms PREP leadership

de Guterres foram ‘pura loucura’.” of Guterres COP.PF.PAST.3.PL pure.F.S madness

“According to sources which are quite close to him Soares said that the criticism of Guterres’ leadership was pure nonsense.”

(Squartini 2001: 319)

“Soares will probably have said that the criticism of Guterres’ leadership was pure nonsense.”



42

(4) Subjective epistemic modality (π p) > Reportative (π C)“Ensino do Português estará ameaçado

teaching of-the.M.S Portuguese COP.3S.FUT threaten.PTCP no Canadá.”

in-the.M.S Canada

“Portuguese teaching allegedly endangered in Canada.” (Diário de Notícias 25/02/1999, cited in Squartini 2004)


43

“The target meaning no longer needs to be supported by the context that gave rise to it; it may be used in new contexts.”

(Heine 2002: 86)

IV. Conventional (= grammatical) meaning:


44

Grammatical meaning: subjective epistemic modality (π p)

“[...] future tense indicates that an event will take place in the future, whereas prediction [= subjective epistemic modality] indicates that a proposition will turn out to be true in the future, whereas the event itself can take place in the present or future, or even in the past [...].” (Boland 2006: 146)



45

(5) Future (π ep) > Subjective epistemic modality (π p)

“Ya tú comprenderás cómo nos reímos.”

already 2S.NOM understand.FUT.2S how REFL laugh.PF.PAST.1.PL“Now you probably understand how we laughed.”

(Bybee et al. 1994: 202)

(6) Future (π ep) > Subjective epistemic modality (π p)“On a sonné. Ce sera le facteur.”

IMPERS AUX.PRS.3S ring.PTCP DEM COP.FUT.3S the.M.S postman

“Someone has rung the bell. It will be the postman.” (Rocci 2000: 241)

3. Grammatical meaningConventionalized meanings may occur in new

contexts: they are contextually and syntagmatically unconstrained.

46

(7) Subjective epistemic modality (π p)“Il sera mort en pensant à sa

femme.” 3S.NOM.M COP.FUT.3S die.PTCP PREP think.GER PREP his.F.S wife

“He must have died thinking about his wife.”

(Saussure & Morency 2011: 59)


47

intention

inceptive aspect

prospective aspect

root-possibility

imperative mitigation(Π F)


obligation

--- = bridging context — = switch context – = grammatical meaning

ability

concession (A)Φ

epistemic modality

(π p)


evidentiality(Π C)

3. Multifunctionalityand grammaticalization

48

Conclusion 2• The apparent counterexamples to the scope increase

hypothesis – and to the adjacency requirement of Semantic Maps – are adequately explained by describing and categorizing the syntagmatic and situational contexts in which each meaning occurs.

• Whether a context-induced inference can or can not give rise to a new grammatical meaning is dictated by the general structure of IL and RL.

49

Conclusion 3 (or rather Hypothesis 2)

• Forms/constructions occurring in switch contexts cannot (yet) express the new meaning “by themselves”, BUT do no longer express the older meaning in any sense.

3. Grammaticalization and grammaticality in FDG

• Meanings appearing in switch contexts can be defined as “protogrammatical” and thus be represented inside the Grammatical Component of FDG.


50

intention

inceptive aspect

prospective aspect

root-possibility

imperative mitigation(Π F)


obligation

--- = bridging context — = switch context – = grammatical meaning

ability

concession (A)Φ

epistemic modality

(π p)


evidentiality(Π C)

to be continued...

References

Anderson, L. B. (1982), “The Perfect' as a universal and as a language-particular category.” In Paul J. Hopper (ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, 227-274. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Anderson, L. B. (1986), “Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries.” In Wallace Chafe and J. Nichols (eds.) 1986, 273-312.

Boland, A. (2006), Aspect, Tense and Modality: Theory, Typology, Acquisition. Utrecht: LOT. University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation.

Bybee, J., Perkins, R. and Pagliuca W. (1994), The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect and modality in the language of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cunha, C. and Cintra, L. (1984), Nova gramática do português contemporâneo, Lisbon: Sá da Costa.

Dahl, Ö. (1985), Tense and aspect systems, Nova Iorque, Basil Blackwell.

52

References

Dahl, Ö. (2000), ”The grammar of future time reference in European languages.” In Dahl, Ö. (ed.) Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, 309-328. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Grice, H. P. (1967), "Logic and Conversation"in Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (1975), Syntax and Semantics III. New York: Academic Press.

Haspemath, M. (1997), Indefinite pronouns. (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haspelmath, M. (2003), “The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison.” In M. Tomasello (ed.) The new psychology of language, vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Haspelmath, M. (2004), "On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization." In: Olga Fischer, M. Norde and H. Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 17-44.

53

References

Heine, B. (2002), “On the role of context in grammaticalization.” In I. Wischer and G. Diewald (eds.) New reflections on grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language, 49) Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hünnemeyer, F. (1991), Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hengeveld, K. (1989), “Layers and operators in Functional Grammar”. Journal of Linguistics 25.1, 127-157.

Hengeveld, K. (2011), “The grammaticalization of tense and aspect.” In H. Narrog & B. Heine (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, 580-594. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hengeveld, K. and Mackenzie, J. L. (2008), Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

54

References

Hopper, P. J. (1991), "On some principles of grammaticalization". In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1991. pp. 17–36.

Narrog, H. and Van der Auwera, J. (2011), “Grammaticalization and semantic maps”, In Heiko Narrog and B. Heine (eds.), Handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 318-327.

Olbertz, Hella (1993), “The grammaticalization of Spanish haber plus participle.” In Jaap van Marle (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1991: Papers from the 10th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 243-263.

Renzi, L. e Salvi, G. (1991), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Bologna: Il Mulino.

Rocci, A. (2000), “L’interprétation épistémique du futur en italien et en français: une analyse procédurale”, Cahiers de Linguistique française, 22: Geneva, pp. 241-274.

55

References

Saussure, L. de and Morency, P. (2011) “A cognitive-pragmatic view of the French epistemic future”, Journal of French language studies 2011 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Souza, E. R. F. (2009). Gramaticalização dos itens lingüísticos assim, já e aí no Português Brasileiro: um estudo sob a perspectiva da Gramática Discursivo-Funcional. PhD Dissertation, Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas.

Squartini, M. (2004), “La Relazione Semantica tra Futuro e Condizionale nelle Lingue Romanze”, Revue Romane 39, 68-96.

Traugott, E. C. (1982), "From propositional to textual and expressive meanings; Somesemantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization.“ In Winfred P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives on HistoricalLinguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 245-271.

Traugott, E. C. and Dasher, R. B. (2002), Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

56

References

Traugott, E. C. and König, E. (1991), "The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited.” In Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine, (eds.) , Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, Vol. I, 189-218.

Van der Auwera, J. and Plungian, V. (1998), “Modality’s semantic map”, Linguistic Typology 2: 79-124.

57

ic fdg 2012 giomi

Documents

grammaticalization hengeveld

theoretical background

interaction of grammatical

grammatical change

indoeuropean future

grammaticalization i

theoretical background2

romance inflectional