Predictable grammatical constructions: Diachronic evidence from Greek

Lucas, Sandra

doi:10.1075/cf.7.1.03luc

Article published In: Constructions and Frames
Vol. 7:1 (2015) ► pp.79–102

Get fulltext from our e-platform

Download PDF

Predictable grammatical constructions

Diachronic evidence from Greek

Sandra Lucas | University of Copenhagen

Published online: 28 January 2016

https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.1.03luc

My aim in this paper is to provide evidence from diachronic linguistics for the view that some predictable units are entrenched in grammar and consequently in human cognition in a way that makes them functionally and structurally equal to nonpredictable grammatical units, suggesting that these predictable units should be considered grammatical constructions on a par with the nonpredictable constructions. Frequency has usually been seen as the only possible argument speaking in favor of viewing some formally and semantically fully predictable units as grammatical constructions. However this paper presents evidence from historical linguistics, and more specifically diachronic arguments of a syntactic nature, to support the argument of frequency. I demonstrate that contrary to other Medieval Greek future periphrases, the Early Medieval Greek form [méllo (‘I am about to’) INFINITIVE (INF)] was both semantically and formally predictable. Despite this difference, [méllo INF], like the other future periphrases, seems to be highly entrenched in the cognition (and grammar) of Early Medieval Greek language users, and consequently a grammatical construction. The syntactic evidence speaking in favor of [méllo INF] as a grammatical construction consists in the following features: 1) [méllo INF] is more resistant to restructuring than many other verbal periphrases with an INF; and 2) in LBG [méllo INF] seems to have grammaticalized — as one of its uses — a specialized function embedded in subjunctives, in which méllo was semantically empty. Both these developments indicate that despite being both formally and semantically predictable, [méllo INF] was highly entrenched in EBG grammar.

Keywords: (non)predictability, historical linguistics, diachrony, Greek, entrenchment, semantic composition, papyri, infinitive, future, Berkeley Construction Grammar.

References (52)

Beck, H.-G. (1971). Geschichte der Byzantinischen Volkslitteratur. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Beck, J.E. (2011). Two changes in greek infinitival syntax. Paper given at the LSA Annual Meeting , January 7, 2011.

Bergs, A., & Diewald, G. (Eds.). (2008). Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Boas, H.C. (2013). Cognitive construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 233–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Butt, M., & Ramchand, G. (2005). Complex aspectual structure in Hindi/Urdu. In N. Erteschik-Shir & N. Rapoport (Eds.), The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation (pp. 117–153). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733.

. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (Eds.). (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

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.

Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

Croft, W., & Cruse, A.D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dahl, Ö. (1985). Tense and aspect systems. Oxford/New York: Basil Blackwell Publishing.

Dickey, E. (2009). The Greek and Latin languages in the papyri. In R.S. Bagnall (Ed.), The oxford handbook of papyrology (pp. 149–169). New York: Oxford University Press.

Fillmore, C.J., Kay, P., & O'Connor, M.C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64(3), 501–538.

Fillmore, C.J. (2013). Berkeley construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 111–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fried, M. (2007). Constructing grammatical meaning: Isomorphism and polysemy in Czech reflexivization. Studies in Language, 31(4), 721–764.

. (2009). Construction grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames, 2(1), 262–291.

. (2013). Principles of constructional change. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 419–436). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

. (2005). Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In J -O.Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 17–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haspelmath, M. (2004). On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In O. Fischer, M. Norde, & H. Perridon (Eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization (pp. 17–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Heine, B. (1993). Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press.

. (2003). Grammaticalization. In B.D. Joseph & R. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 575–601). Oxford: Blackwell.

Hesseling, D.C. (1892). Essai historique sur l’infinitif Grec. Chartres: Durand.

Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Hopper, P.J., & Traugott, E.C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Horrocks, G. (2010/1997). Greek: A history of the language and its speakers. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Joseph, B.D. (1983). The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

. (2014). New perspectives on Balkan developments with the infinitive. Paper given at the 19th Balkan And South Slavic Language and Literature Conference , University of Chicago, April 26, 2014.

Joseph, B.D., & Pappas, P. (2001). The development of the Greek future system: Setting the record Straight. In Greek Linguistics '99. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Greek Linguistics , Nicosia, September 1999. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.

. (2002). On some recent views concerning the development of the Greek future System. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 261, 247–273.

Kay, P. (2013). The limits of (construction) grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 32–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kuteva, T. (2004). Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things – What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 11. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

. (2005). Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In M.S. Peña Cervel & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics : Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 101–159). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Liddell, H.G., & Scott, R. (1996/1843). Greek-English Lexicon, with a revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Lucas, S. (2012). Polarizing the future: The development of an aspectual opposition in the Greek future tense. PhD thesis. Copenhagen: Faculty of Humanities, University of Copenhagen.

. (2014). Aspect in Greek future forms. Journal of Greek Lingistics, 14(2), 163–189.

Makkai, A. (1972). Idiom structure in English. The Hague: Mouton and Co.

Markopoulos, T. (2009). The future in Greek: From ancient to medieval. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meillet, A. (1948/1912). L’évolution des formes grammaticales. In A. Meillet (Ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale (pp. 130–148). Paris: Champion.

Nunberg, G., Sag, I.A., & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 70(3), 491–538.

Pinker, S. (1996/1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Ramat, P. (1987). Introductory paper. In P. Ramat & M. Harris (Eds.), Historical development of auxiliaries [Trends in Linguistics] (pp. 3–20). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Schmitt, J. (1967 (1904)). The chronicle of morea. Groningen: Verlag Bouma’s Boekhuis N. V.

Traugott, E.C., & Heine, B. (1991). Introduction. In E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Verhoogt, A. (2010). Papyri. In E.J. Bakker (Ed.), A companion to the ancient Greek language (pp. 62–68). Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Wakker, G.C. (2006). Future auxiliaries or not? In E. Crespo, J. de la Villa, & A.R. Revuelta (Eds.), Word classes and related topics in ancient Greek: Proceedings of the Conference on Greek Syntax and Word Classes (pp. 237–255). Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.