Rethinking Grammaticalization: New perspectives (Typological Studies in Language)

Rethinking Grammaticalization

Typological Studies in Language (TSL) A companion series to the journal Studies in Language. Volumes in this series are functionally and typologically oriented, covering specific topics in language by collecting together data from a wide variety of languages and language typologies.

General Editor Michael Noonan

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Assistant Editors Spike Gildea

University of Oregon

Suzanne Kemmer Rice University

Editorial Board Wallace Chafe

Matthew S. Dryer

Paul J. Hopper

Ronald W. Langacker

Doris L. Payne

Sandra A. Thompson

Bernard Comrie

John Haiman

Andrej A. Kibrik

Charles N. Li

Frans Plank

Dan I. Slobin

R.M.W. Dixon

Jerrold M. Sadock

Edith Moravcsik

Andrew Pawley

Bernd Heine

Santa Barbara San Diego

Leipzig / Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Melbourne Canberra

Buffalo

Oregon St Paul

Konstanz Chicago Köln

Volume 76 Rethinking Grammaticalization. New perspectives Edited by María José López-Couso and Elena Seoane

Pittsburgh

Santa Barbara Moscow

Berkeley

Milwaukee

Rethinking Grammaticalization New perspectives

Edited by

María José López-Couso Elena Seoane University of Santiago de Compostela

In collaboration with

Teresa Fanego

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rethinking grammaticalization : new perspectives / edited by María José López-Couso and Elena Seoane.        p. cm. (Typological Studies in Language, issn 0167-7373 ; v. 76) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1.  Grammar, Comparative and general--Grammaticalization.  I. López-Couso, María José. II. Seoane, Elena. P299.G73R48    2008 415--dc22 2008009379 isbn 978 90 272 2988 5 (Hb; alk. paper) – isbn 978 90 272 2991 5 (set : alk. paper)

© 2008 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

 

Table of contents Address list Preface Introduction: New perspectives on grammaticalization María José López-Couso and Elena Seoane

vii ix 1

Grammaticalization and the areal factor: The perspective of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages Walter Bisang

15

On the grammaticalization of ‘come’ and ‘go’ into markers of textual connectivity Philippe Bourdin

37

Grammaticalization, typology and semantics: Expanding the agenda Zygmunt Frajzyngier

61

Mismatch: Grammar distortion and grammaticalization Livio Gaeta

103

Areal convergence in grammaticalization ­processes Anna Giacalone Ramat

129

The grammaticalization of nominalizers in Japanese and Korean: A contrastive study Kaoru Horie

169

On the frills of grammaticalization Tania Kuteva

189

Nominalizations in Bodic languages Michael Noonan

219

On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers Seongha Rhee

239

The grammaticalization of clausal ­nominalizers in Burmese Andrew Simpson

265

vi

Rethinking Grammaticalization: New Perspectives

The grammaticalization cline of cardinal ­numerals and numeral systems Ferdinand von Mengden

289

The development of nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages Foong Ha Yap and Stephen Matthews

309

Index of names index of languages Index of subjects

343 348 350

Address list Walter Bisang Department of English and Linguistics Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz Jakob-Welder-Weg 18 D-55099 Mainz, Germany e-mail: [email protected] Philippe Bourdin Glendon College York University York Hall 264 2275 Bayview Avenue Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M6, Canada e-mail: [email protected] Zygmunt Frajzyngier Department of Linguistics Box 295 University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA e-mail: [email protected] Livio Gaeta Dipartimento di Filologia Moderna Salvatore Battaglia Università di Napoli Federico II Via Porta di Massa 1 I-80133 Napoli, Italy e-mail: [email protected] Anna Giacalone Ramat Dipartimento di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata

Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia Università di Pavia Corso Strada Nuova, 65 I-27100 Pavia, Italy e-mail: [email protected] Kaoru Horie Center for the Advancement of Higher Education Division of Liberal Education Programs Tohoku University Kawauchi 41, Aoba-ku, Sendai-shi 980-8576, Japan e-mail: [email protected] Tania Kuteva Anglistik III - Department of English Language and Linguistics Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf Universitätsstrasse 1 D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany e-mail: [email protected] María José López-Couso Department of English University of Santiago de Compostela Avda. de Castelao s/n E-15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain e-mail: [email protected]

viii Rethinking Grammaticalization: New Perspectives

Stephen Matthews Department of Linguistics MB124, Main Building The University of Hong Kong Pokfulam, Hong Kong e-mail: [email protected] Michael Noonan Department of English University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, WI  53217 USA e-mail: [email protected] Seongha Rhee English Linguistics Department Hankuk University of Foreign Studies 270 Imun-dong, Dongdaemun-gu Seoul 130-791, Republic of Korea e-mail: [email protected] Elena Seoane Department of English University of Santiago de Compostela Avda. de Castelao s/n E-15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain e-mail: [email protected] Andrew Simpson Department of Linguistics 3601 Watt Way Grace Ford Salvatori Hall 301 University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA90089-1693 USA e-mail: [email protected] Ferdinand von Mengden Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik Universität Hamburg Von-Melle-Park 6

D-20146 Hamburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] Foong Ha Yap 303A Fung King Hey Building, Main Campus Department of Linguistics and Modern Languages The Chinese University of Hong Kong Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong e-mail: [email protected]

Preface This book and its companion volume (Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, TSL 77) offer a representative sample of the contributions presented at the Third International Conference New Reflections on Grammaticalization (NRG3), held at the University of Santiago de Compostela, 17–20 July 2005. This was the third in a series of conferences which began in 1999 with the symposium organized by Ilse Wischer at the University of Potsdam, followed by a second conference organized by Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde and Harry Perridon at the University of Amsterdam in 2002. The great success of these meetings and the growing interest in grammaticalization phenomena over the past two decades prompted us to invite our colleagues in the field to follow the Pilgrims’ Way to Santiago de Compostela in 2005 to share some further reflections on grammaticalization. Attendance at the conference was close to 200, and the papers delivered (after a rigorous selection procedure by the NRG3 scientific committee) came to 120, proving that interest in grammaticalization remains unabated. The distinguished panel of plenary speakers featured William Croft (then of the University of Manchester, now at the University of New Mexico), Zygmunt Frajzyngier (University of Colorado), Anna Giacalone Ramat (University of Pavia), Paul Kiparsky (Stanford University) and Tania Kuteva (University of Dusseldorf). Out of the events organized to run concurrently with the main programme, special mention should be made of the five very productive conference workshops, whose titles are strongly suggestive of the wide range of interesting topics covered there: Reconstructing grammaticalization and the definition of grammar, Grammaticalization and language contact, English intensifiers and grammaticalization, Prototypes and grammaticalization: Grammaticalization as prototype? and The grammaticalization of nominalizers: East Asian perspectives. A great many people have assisted us in organizing the conference and editing this book and its companion. First and foremost, though, we owe a special debt of gratitude to the leader of our research group, Variation, Linguistic Change and Grammaticalization, Professor Teresa Fanego, whose invaluable guidance and support was unfailing throughout the whole process. Special thanks are also due to the two other core members of the group, Belén Méndez-Naya and Paloma Núñez-Pertejo; without their hard work, neither the conference nor these volumes would have been possible. To all three of you, our most heartfelt thanks. We would like to express our gratitude to all the participants for helping to make the conference such a success and to all the authors for their cooperation

x

Rethinking Grammaticalization: New Perspectives

in the edition of the two volumes. We are also greatly indebted to the following ­colleagues who acted as anonymous external reviewers, for their insightful suggestions for improvements: Anders Ahlqvist, Minoji Akimoto, Henning Andersen, Umberto Ansaldo, John Ole Askedal, Joan Beal, Balthasar Bickel, Walter Bisang, David Bradley, Laurel J. Brinton, Concepción Company Company, Bert Cornillie, Sonia Cristofaro, William Croft, Hubert Cuyckens, Östen Dahl, Nicole Delbecque, Hans den Besten, Holger Diessel, Gabriele Diewald, Nina R. Dobrushina, Teresa Fanego, Gisella Ferraresi, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Victor A. Friedman, Anna Giacalone Ramat, Tom Güldemann, Florian Haas, Jan Heegard, Paulette M. Hopple, Daniel Jacob, Brian D. Joseph, Johannes Kabatek, Torodd Kinn, ­Maria ­Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Bernd Kortmann, Tania Kuteva, Ursula Lenker, Torsten ­Leuschner, ­Diana M. Lewis, Belén Méndez-Naya, Marianne Mithun, Michael ­Noonan, ­Muriel Norde, Hella Olbertz, Harry Perridon, Paolo Ramat, Matti ­Rissanen, ­Anette Rosenbach, Roula Svorou, Johan van der Auwera, Victoria Vázquez-Rozas and Thora Vinther. Special thanks are due to all the student helpers (over twenty of them!) who took care of every little detail before and during the conference. The help of our highly efficient editorial assistants, Pilar Castillo, Lidia Gómez and Iria Fernández, and that of several becarios de colaboración have been crucial in regard to various aspects of the edition of the volumes. Thanks are also due to the editorial staff of John Benjamins, in particular Kees Vaes, and the general editor of the TSL series, Michael Noonan, for their cooperation. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Autonomous Government of Galicia (grants nos. PGIDIT05PXIC20401PN and 2006/XA-133) and the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science and the European Regional Development Fund (grants nos. HUM2004-00940 and HUM2007-60706). Santiago de Compostela, September 2007 María José López-Couso Elena Seoane

chapter 0

Introduction New perspectives on grammaticalization María José López-­Couso and Elena Seoane University of Santiago de Compostela

Almost one hundred years after the publication of Meillet’s ground-­breaking article “L’évolution des formes grammaticales” (1912), grammaticalization has become the object of considerable renewed interest, both in terms of its relevance to general linguistic theory and in its application to particular case studies in various languages and language families. The many publications on the topic which have appeared over the past few years testify to this revived interest, among them the collections of papers in Traugott and Heine (1991), Giacalone Ramat and Hopper (1998), Fischer, Rosenbach and Stein (2000), Bisang, Himmelmann and Wiemer (2004), as well as the seminal works of Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994), Lehmann (1995) and Hopper and Traugott (2003). That grammaticalization is still a  hot issue today, after the turn of the century, is also confirmed by the wide­ranging, stimulating and inspiring discussion at recent international ­conferences on the topic: the three meetings of the series New Reflections on Grammaticalization (Potsdam 1999, Amsterdam 2002 and Santiago de Compostela 2005) and FITIGRA — From Ideational to Interpersonal: Perspectives from Grammaticalization (Leuven 2005).1 One reason for the attention that grammaticalization has received recently is that some of the basic tenets of grammaticalization theory, such as the principle of unidirectionality and its status as a  distinct grammatical phenomenon, have been seriously called into question (cf. Newmeyer’s (1998) deconstruction of grammaticalization or the critical contributions in the special issue of Language Sciences (2001) edited by Lyle Campbell). Moreover, it has increasingly been acknowledged that the traditional characterizations of grammaticalization have a limited range of applicability and a need has been felt for a more comprehensive definition of the term. Several of the contributions in this volume and its 1.  A selection of the papers presented at the NRG1 and NRG2 conferences has been edited by Wischer and Diewald (2002) and Fischer, Norde and Perridon (2004) respectively. The publications derived from the FITIGRA conference will appear in the John Benjamins series Typological Studies in Language (Cuyckens, Davidse and Verstraete, forthcoming) as well as in Topics in English Linguistics by Mouton de Gruyter (Cuyckens, Davidse and Vandelanotte, forthcoming).

2

María José López-­Couso and Elena Seoane

companion (Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, also edited by Seoane and López-­Couso, TSL 77) share these and other related concerns. From the rich programme of the NRG3 conference, the twelve contributions included in this volume were carefully selected to reflect the state of current research in grammaticalization and suggest possible directions for future investigations in the field. Combining theoretical discussions with the analysis of individual test cases, the selected papers focus on such central issues as the need for a broader notion of grammaticalization (Frajzyngier, Bisang), the areal perspective in grammaticalization (Bisang, Giacalone Ramat and the five papers devoted to nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-­Burman languages), the relevance of contact-­induced change to grammaticalization (Gaeta, Giacalone Ramat, Kuteva) and the distorting effects of grammaticalization on grammar (Gaeta, Kuteva). Other appealing topics discussed in the book include the development of markers of textual connectivity from a crosslinguistic perspective (Bourdin) and the emergence of cardinal numerals and numeral systems (von Mengden). In his paper “Grammaticalization, typology and semantics: Expanding the agenda,” Zygmunt Frajzyngier makes a strong case for broadening the scope of the term grammaticalization. In the wider scenario proposed by the author, grammaticalization subsumes the traditional definition of the term as the development of grammatical morphemes from lexical items (and from already grammatical to more grammatical forms) as one of the means of building grammatical systems, but also extends to cover the emergence of other devices used to code various formal, semantic or pragmatic functional domains. The expanded agenda of grammaticalization advocated by Frajzyngier includes, among others, the following coding means: phonological devices (e.g. tone, pauses or vowel reduction and retention), linear order, the repetition of lexical items or phrases and the grammaticalization of lexical categories and subcategories (e.g. locative predicators). Examples taken from the grammars of some Semitic, Chadic and Omotic languages illustrate the functions, mechanisms and motivations of the grammaticalization of these devices, which have largely been neglected in the relevant literature so far. Within this expanded model of grammaticalization, the paper also raises a number of interesting theoretical questions. Which are the conditions governing the choice of coding means in grammaticalization? Which are the consequences of grammaticalization for grammatical systems and for language change? What are the motivations for grammaticalization? In his answer to the last of these questions, Frajzyngier discusses three basic principles driving grammaticalization: (i) the principle of indirect means, whereby indirect rather than direct means of expression are used in functional domains involving interpersonal relations, (ii) the initial state of the language regarding the coding of some functional domains and the availability of coding means and, especially, (iii) the principle of function-



Introduction

al transparency, according to which the role of every form in the utterance must be transparent to the hearer, which is extensively tested on the coding of various grammatical relations in four Chadic languages (Wandala, Hona, Hdi and Mutsuvan). All in all, the broadening of the scope of grammaticalization proposed by Frajzyngier in this paper no doubt opens up new research challenges for grammaticalization studies in the twenty-­first century. One particularly promising domain for future studies is areal grammaticalization, which is addressed by several of the essays in this volume in various ways and to varying degrees. Walter Bisang’s contribution (“Grammaticalization and the areal factor: The perspective of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages”), for example, stresses the need to integrate the areal perspective in grammaticalization and to develop models of grammaticalization which allow for the type of phenomena characteristic of the languages of East and mainland Southeast Asia. The paper discusses a  number of properties of grammaticalization which seem to be specific from that area: the lack of obligatory categories, the pervasiveness of pragmatics in grammaticalization processes, the lack of morphologically integrated paradigms, the existence of rigid word-­order patterns and the reduced coevolution of form and meaning. Three case studies are used to illustrate these properties: (i) the grammaticalization of the multifunctional Khmer verb ba:n ‘come to have,’ which shows how a wide range of inferences can be triggered by one and the same marker, (ii) Thai classifiers, another instance of multiple inference depending on the constructional context, and (iii) the rigid word-­order patterns involving tense-­aspect-­modality markers, coverbs and directional verbs in Thai and Khmer. The author then proceeds to examine the aforementioned properties and their structural consequences from the perspective of the standard approaches to grammaticalization as found in Heine et al. (1991), Bybee et al. (1994), Lehmann (1995) and Hopper and Traugott (2003). His conclusion is that none of these models is fully adequate to account for the grammaticalization processes which take place in East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. Thus, for example, Lehmann’s (1995) framework takes the coevolution of form and meaning for granted and most of his criteria for measuring the autonomy of a linguistic sign do not apply to the grammaticalized items in the languages of this area. Similarly, the leading role of pragmatics and the distinctive relevance of constructions in the processes of grammaticalization discussed by Bisang do not easily fit into Heine et al.’s (1991) approach. Bybee et al. (1994) do indeed acknowledge the relevance of inference and integrate constructions in their model; however, their approach cannot deal with the relative unimportance of phonetic reduction and the limited coevolution of form and meaning found in East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. Hopper and Traugott’s (2003) model, on the other hand, accounts for grammaticalization in the languages at issue more satisfyingly, but only in connec-

3

4

María José López-­Couso and Elena Seoane

tion with the early stages of the process, so that their approach is not completely satisfactory either. The examples discussed by Bisang in this article therefore prove that the languages of East and mainland Southeast Asia show a specific areal type of grammaticalization which has so far gone unnoticed by the leading theory­building researchers in the field. In view of this, the author draws our attention to the potential existence of similar neglected areal grammaticalization types in other language areas which are still to be discovered. Areality in East Asian languages is also the concern of five other articles in the volume, which all focus on nominalization phenomena, a topic which has attracted growing interest in recent years. These five contributions (by Kaoru Horie, Michael Noonan, Seongha Rhee, Andrew Simpson, and Foong Ha Yap and Stephen Matthews) constitute a  selection of the papers presented at one of the very successful workshops organized during the conference, entitled The grammaticalization of nominalizers: East Asian perspectives.2 The workshop, convened by Foong Ha Yap, represented a  concerted attempt to trace the development of nominalizers from multiple angles, including diachronic, synchronic and crosslinguistic approaches. Through detailed analyses of East Asian and Tibeto-­Burman languages, the workshop presented areal evidence of recurring pathways and language-­specific variations in the development of nominalizers across different language families and tried to clarify the close links between different types of nominalization constructions. Some of the major themes discussed in the different sessions included the question of how and from which sources nominalizers emerge, the relationship between adnominals/nominalizers and the tense-­aspect­and-­modality systems, and the rise and fall of old and new nominalizers manifested in languages like Chinese, Japanese and Korean. The contribution by Foong Ha Yap and Stephen Matthews (“The development of nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-­Burman languages”) derives from the overview paper of the workshop and serves as a lead into the four other articles included in the volume. The first part of the paper reviews earlier research on the development of nominalizers in various East Asian and Tibeto-­Burman languages, including Classical and Lhasa Tibetan, Chantyal, Gurung, Lahu, Japanese, Okinawan, Korean and a number of Chinese dialects (Chaozhou, Cantonese and Mandarin). The authors draw out similarities and differences between grammaticalization pathways of nominalizer morphemes, clarify the close links between different types of nominalization phenomena and summarize areas of current thinking and future research. The emphasis is on the etymological sources of nominalizers in the selected languages and on crosslinguistically robust grammat2.  Four other fruitful workshops were organized at NRG3. For the topics discussed, cf. the preface to this volume.



Introduction

icalization trajectories (e.g. from lexical source to pronominal to nominalizer or from nominalizer to other functions, such as relativizer, complementizer or stance marker). Yap and Matthews then explore in greater detail several issues observed in the first section of data which seem to require further investigation, such as the frequent interaction of nominalization with tense/aspect and with stance functions, the close link between nominalization and copula usage (for example, in adnominal constructions or in cleft structures) and the analysis of forgotten or residual nominalizers which we may be able to identify by reading backward from areal historical patterns. Kaoru Horie’s article, “The grammaticalization of nominalizers in Japanese and Korean: A contrastive study,” draws our attention to the complex nominalization system of Japanese and the way it compares with that of Korean, a language exhibiting remarkable structural similarities to Japanese. The paper describes how, in view of their functional extension and semantic generalization, Japanese overt sentential nominalizers (e.g. no, mono, koto, tokoro, among others) show differential degrees of grammaticalization and how, either independently or in combination with other forms such as case particles or copulas, they display a wide variety of grammatical uses: complementizer, cleft-­construction marker, marker of internally-­headed relative clauses, conjunction, marker of modal and aspectual constructions and sentence-­final particle. Some of these grammaticalization pathways are also attested in other languages of East Asia, which points to the areal nature of versatile nominalization (cf. Noonan 1997). Interestingly, however, the grammaticalization of nominalizers in Japanese appears to exhibit a  greater type variation and token instantiation than those found in other closely related languages. Thus, Horie’s detailed contrastive analysis of the grammaticalization patterns of overt sentential nominalizers in Japanese and Korean reveals that Japanese no and tokoro, for instance, show a higher degree of multifunctionality and attest a  more advanced stage of grammaticalization than their Korean counterparts kes and tey. The paper further suggests that the contrast between Japanese and Korean nominalizers is not an isolated phenomenon, but is also observable in other grammatical domains. An example of this parallel is seen in the development of periphrastic aspectual constructions, whose grammaticalization is shown by Horie to have proceeded further in Japanese than in Korean. Nominalization in Korean is also the topic addressed in Seongha Rhee’s paper “On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers,” though from a  different perspective. The article provides a succinct summary of the changes which have affected the complex system of Korean nominalizers from Old Korean times to the present day. In this diachronic survey, the author explores interrelated issues in the historical development of a variety of nominalizers (e.g. -m, -ki, -ti and its variant -ci or -kes), among them the following: their emergence from various sources (mostly

5

6

María José López-­Couso and Elena Seoane

nouns denoting ‘thing’ or ‘place’), the semantic changes they have gone through in their development from their known sources or the range of uses they display at the different stages in the history of Korean. Of particular interest is the detailed discussion of the competition between several nominalizing morphemes for the same functional space and the subsequent specialization which some of these forms have undergone over time or, otherwise, their acquisition of new functions in related domains. Rhee shows how in Modern Korean -kes stands out as the most common and also the most versatile and most abstract nominalizer, while other nominalizing morphemes have specialized for specific functions. Examples of specialization are found in -ki and -ci, both deriving from the same lexical source, which are now constrained to occur in affirmative and negative constructions respectively; specialization is also attested, for instance, in the different levels of illocutionary force shown by -m, -ki, -ci and -kes when used as sentential end-markers. In other cases, the functional overlap in the nominalization domain is avoided by the disappearance of the original nominalizing function on the part of some of the competing forms and the development of new uses. This is precisely the path followed by the former nominalizers -n and -l, which developed into adnominalizers from Middle Korean onwards. The paper by Michael Noonan, “Nominalizations in Bodic languages,” offers a useful survey of grammaticalization patterns among nominalizers in the Bodic group of Sino-­Tibetan languages. As amply documented in Noonan (1997), nominalization phenomena are also pervasive in the languages of this region, where constructions headed by nominalizations are used far beyond the range of their core functions. A clear example of these extended uses of nominalizations is found in Chantyal, a Tamangic language spoken in Nepal, where nominalizations can serve up to ten different functions. As the author shows, the functional extension of nominalizations seen in Bodic languages is also attested in a number of neighbouring language families in the Indo-­Altaic speech area, which suggests that the phenomenon reflects areal, rather than genetic, tendencies. Special attention is paid in the paper to a prominent feature of the grammar of many Bodic languages, namely the nominalization-­relativization syncretism, i.e. the formal identity between the morphological marker signalling nominalizations and that marking relative clauses. The paper also addresses other issues related to the history of nominalizations in these languages, such as various additional uses of nominalizations (e.g. agent and patient nominals and the use of nominalized clauses as main clauses), the potential sources of nominalizing suffixes (typically generic nouns), the addition of the genitive to nominalizers when used adnominally in many languages of the Tamangic group or the innovations in nominalizations. Concerning the construction with the genitive, Noonan suggests that it may have been acquired through areal diffusion from the Tibetan Complex, rather than being



Introduction

reconstructed to the common ancestor of the Tibetan Complex and Tamangic, as maintained in Noonan (1997) and DeLancey (2005). As to the innovations in the system of nominalizations, the author discusses three different types of changes: (i) the elaboration of the categories coded by nominalizers, by means of the addition of specialized nominalizing suffixes or of the introduction of tense-­aspect and person-­number distinctions between nominalizers; (ii) the extension of the nominalization-­relativization syncretism into novel functions, such as the generalization of the Chantyal nominalizer -wa as a general marker of attribution; and (iii) the loss of the nominalization-­relativization syncretism, attested in Western Himalayish languages. The last contribution which furthers the study of nominalization phenomena in Asian languages is Andrew Simpson’s analysis of the grammaticalization of nominalizers in Burmese, a language with a particularly rich system of nominalizing elements. The paper opens with an overview of the morphosyntactic properties of nominalizers, their varied sources and the array of tests which can be used for the identification of nominalized constructions, including both lexical projection tests and traditional distributional tests (e.g. the ability to occur in subject position or to be coordinated with other nominals). The author then moves on to examine nominalization in two complementary varieties of Burmese, Colloquial and Literary Burmese, and apply the test criteria for nominalization to the data, focussing on the grammaticalization of sentential nominalizers. After a detailed analysis of the common and divergent morphosyntactic features of the Literary Burmese forms thii and mii and their Colloquial Burmese equivalents te and me, Simpson concludes that grammaticalization has progressed a significant stage further in the colloquial language than in its literary counterpart. He argues that te and me, once part of the nominalizer paradigm of Colloquial Burmese, no longer create nominal categories and are not to be considered nominalizers synchronically. Once their nominal specifications are lost, these former nominalizers are reanalysed as grammatical elements of a rather different type, instantiating verb­related categories, such as the representation of realis/irrealis distinctions. Simpson’s comparison of the synchronic patterning observed in Colloquial and Literary Burmese is not only interesting in itself, but also provides deeper insight into the reanalysis of already grammaticalized morphemes and into a general theory of the grammaticalization of nominalization strategies. The relevance of language contact for grammaticalization studies has recently attracted considerable attention among linguists and has been recognized as being more important than previously thought. Canonical grammaticalization processes have commonly been attributed to universal tendencies and internally motivated changes (cf. Hopper and Traugott 2003, among many others); a number of papers in this volume try to demonstrate how the universal properties of gram-

7

8

María José López-­Couso and Elena Seoane

maticalization can be legitimately reconciled with the necessary specificity of historical contact. One of these is Anna Giacalone Ramat’s “Areal convergence in grammaticalization processes.” In particular, her article offers a  detailed discussion of four well-­known developments within the European linguistic area, or Standard Average European (Haspelmath 2001), a  well-­established concept but one which is still in need of deeper insights into the mechanisms responsible for the areal distribution of its features and the role of contact. The author convincingly argues that language contact was involved in the genesis of four linguistic changes, as follows. The first is the development of periphrastic ‘have’-perfects in Romance, Germanic and other European languages, which she describes as the result of a process of areal diffusion which took place in two stages: firstly, Late Latin acts as the centre of innovation and the vehicle for the spread of ‘have’-perfects in Western Europe; secondly, periphrastic perfects are used as past tenses in some languages such as French, (Northern) Italian and German, a process that is well attested crosslinguistically but for which, in Giacalone Ramat’s view, an areal diffusion hypothesis should not be discarded, since the area where it occurs is limited and made up of contiguous sub-­areas of intense and long-­standing cross­cultural contacts. The second development studied by the author is the extension of the definite article area in Europe, where some Slavic languages (especially spoken Czech, Sorbian and Slovenian) depart from the traditional Slavic pattern and are undergoing changes in their demonstrative systems leading to the emergence of definite articles, probably under the influence of German. The third change concerns the renewal of the relative pronoun paradigm in European languages, where the spread of inflecting relative pronouns in Romance and Germanic languages, the author argues, is the result of contact-­induced grammaticalization and not a direct development from Latin. Finally, the fourth change analysed by Giacalone Ramat is the development of reflexive markers towards passive and impersonal constructions, for which three grammaticalization areas can be recognized; firstly, the area of core Standard Average European languages (Romance languages and German) with predominantly one clitic form for the reflexive and related functions; secondly, the Baltic Sea area, in which postfixes have emerged as the result of contact-­induced change; and, thirdly, languages outside the Standard Average European core area (Hungarian, Turkish, Albanian, Greek, Celtic languages and Maltese), which exhibit distinct forms for the reflexive pronouns and middle/passive markers. In the cases examined in this paper contact therefore reveals itself as a factor which triggers and accelerates grammaticalization (cf. Bisang et al. 2004) and which does not contravene widely accepted grammaticalization principles like unidirectionality. Contact-­induced change in grammaticalization is also the central topic of Tania Kuteva’s paper, “On the frills of grammaticalization.” Contrary to the trad-



Introduction

itional assumption that language contact brings about simplification, Kuteva shows how situations of intense language contact can be responsible for elaborateness or redundancy of marking (“frills”). The paper thus adds a significant new perspective to existing work on linguistic accretion, such as the residual quirks theory, according to which accretion results from the overlap of historical residues and newly emerged marking; the hermit crab theory, which concerns the coexistence of an old form, subject to heavy phonological attrition, and a phonologically longer, novel form; or Haiman’s (forthcoming) decorative imagery theory, whereby linguistic bulking may happen for purely aesthetic reasons. Illustrative examples from a wide range of languages and from different grammatical domains (e.g. relative clauses, comparison of inequality or definiteness marking, among others) provide Kuteva with the material to demonstrate how in situations of language contact a  replica language may show linguistic bulking for an existing grammatical category through the influence of the model language. Thus, in answering the question why linguistic material sometimes accumulates, the author integrates cognitive processes of grammaticalization with contact-­induced change. As in some of her earlier work (e.g. Heine and Kuteva 2005), Kuteva maintains that language­internal change and contact-­induced change are not mutually exclusive. She contends that contact-­induced grammaticalization always involves language-­internal grammaticalization and that the factors at work in the latter can also be seen operating in the former. As a matter of fact, the two explanations offered by Kuteva to account for the phenomenon of accretion in contact-­induced grammaticalization make use of the notion of overlap recognized in language-­internal grammaticalization processes. On the one hand, overlap is manifested as a diachronic stage of the grammaticalization development. In other words, the accretion which results from contact-­induced grammaticalization is characteristic of a transitional period showing coexistence of marking from both the model and the replica language; in this sense, linguistic accretion in contact-­induced grammaticalization could be seen simply as a  sub-­type of the notion of residual quirks mentioned above. On the other hand, overlap also manifests itself in contact-­induced grammaticalization as a synchronic buffer zone in the geographical distribution of competing grammaticalization patterns. In those areas where contact is most intense and two grammaticalizing processes meet, the areal overlap may lead to a merger of the two patterns, that is, to chunking of linguistic material. The potentially distorting effects of grammaticalization on grammar are also discussed in Livio Gaeta’s contribution. His paper (“Mismatch: Grammar distortion and grammaticalization”) shows that grammaticalization can provide fruitful insights regarding both the way in which language mismatches are produced and constrained and the theoretical mechanisms which can best capture these constraints. The concept of mismatch, mostly used by geneticists along with the

9

10

María José López-­Couso and Elena Seoane

related concept of repair, has been used to explain synchronic form-­meaning discrepancies in language by Francis and Michaelis (2003). In his paper, Gaeta applies it diachronically and investigates its distorting impact on grammar by focussing on synchronic mismatches between form and content which result from the expansion of processes of grammaticalization. Gaeta recognizes two main types of mismatch, namely content mismatches and complexity mismatches, and, drawing on a wealth of examples from various languages, he concentrates on the different ways in which grammaticalization may lead to them. On the one hand, a given grammaticalization process and its generalization may result in the emergence of new non-­canonical constructions which are incompatible with the general pattern of a language; this is the case, for example, of the progressive periphrasis in Basque. On the other hand, mismatches may be due to an unchanged residue of grammaticalization, so that the process does not affect all the items that should, in principle, be susceptible to its workings, what Gaeta calls inertial resistance; this he exemplifies by means of a “classical example of lexical inertia,” namely the strong/ weak verb inflection in Germanic languages. Grammaticalization processes may also leave an unchanged residue because there may be a constraint in the grammar of the language which prevents the process from affecting certain items; the example here is the Infinitivus Pro Participio (IPP)-effect in German and Dutch, i.e. cases in which an infinitive appears in constructions where one would have expected a past participle (cf. Gaeta 2005; Schmid 2005). Finally, mismatches can also result from language contact, either by hindering the potential grammaticalization of endogenous constructions due to ready-­made borrowed structures, as in Khmer, where a productive and functional morphological system does not develop because of contact with Thai and Vietnamese, or by exploiting new grammatical options of a foreign origin, as in Vietnamese, which uses morphological right-­heading due to contact with Chinese (cf. Bisang 2001). The two remaining articles in the volume, those by Bourdin and von Mengden, offer crosslinguistic evidence for two interesting grammaticalization clines. Philippe Bourdin’s contribution (“On the grammaticalization of ‘come’ and ‘go’ into markers of textual connectivity”) gives an overview of crosslinguistically attested cases of the grammaticalization of motion verbs meaning ‘come’ and ‘go’ into markers of textual coherence and clause linkage. This, he argues, is another instance of the metaphorical mapping of space in time, which also underlies the grammaticalization of these verbs into future markers and markers of progressive aspect (cf. Bourdin 2000, 2004). His data illustrate the very well-­known fact that grammaticalization is not a unitary concept but is characterized by a cluster of formal and semantic properties, and, consequently, linguistic phenomena are not amenable to fast and hard criteria but need to be analysed in terms of a grammaticalization cline (cf. Fischer et al. 2004). In the semantic dimension of the



Introduction

grammaticalization cline he presents, from directional deictics to markers of textual connectivity, the relevant markers have sometimes retained varying shades of their original semantics (as the ‘go’-derived sequential je in Izi), while in other languages they have evolved further into exponents of past tense (as is the case with the past tense auxiliary in Old Catalan, derived from lexical anar ‘go’). The range of morphosyntactic mutations involved is just as wide: some markers continue to behave like full-­fledged verbs (e.g. in Neo-­Aramaic), while others have turned into affixes (as in Supyire); some have become auxiliaries or have travelled the serialization route (as in Mari) and yet others have fossilized (as in Bagiro). Besides deicticity, Bourdin discusses two further factors which may have played a role in triggering the grammaticalization process at issue. Firstly, the iteration scenario, which involves fairly substantial crosslinguistic evidence that genetically and geographical unrelated languages make iterated use of their markers of directional deixis to indicate textual cohesion. Secondly, the futurity scenario, which involves the disputed link between grammaticalization as a future marker and grammaticalization as a sequential. From the level of textual connectivity, we shift to a fairly neglected area in linguistic research with Ferdinand von Mengden’s paper, namely the grammaticalization of cardinal numerals and numeral systems. After a detailed definition of these two concepts, von Mengden goes on to explain the emergence of numeracy in languages, taking into account that, phylogenetically, the first instance of numeracy is not a  spoken number but gestures, which often involve body part counting and expressions. Later, these body part lexical items tend to become used as numerically specific quantifiers, in a  process which qualifies as grammaticalization. This is the initial step in the grammaticalization cline postulated by von Mengden in his paper, namely cardinal numerals are likely to develop out of body part nouns, the potential target being any non-­complex numeral (e.g. the development of a word for ‘hand’ to the numeral ‘5’; cf. Heine and Kuteva 2002: 166). The second step in the cline involves the formation of numeral systems. The author provides evidence showing that, once linguistic number expressions have become autonomous, they are organized into combinations based on arithmetical operations, which form complex number expressions serialized and integrated into numeral systems. From this he generalizes the second step in this cline: within numeral systems, cardinal numerals may develop into affixes which can be interpreted as grammatical markers inasmuch as they signal the relations among the constituents of complex numerals. During this development, the relevant expression may lose syntactic autonomy and become an extensionally modifying constituent of a noun phrase. For example, English -teen in fourteen and -ty in fourty are bound morphemes which are syntactically less autonomous than ten, the simple numeral from which they derive. Von Mengden connects these two developments

11

12

María José López-­Couso and Elena Seoane

with grammaticalization as is generally understood among linguists: they represent a crosslinguistic pathway from a body part noun (a referential expression) to a numeral and further to a functional affix encoding internal arithmetic relations within complex numerals. We hope that the articles in this volume will open new directions for future research in the field of grammaticalization and related phenomena, and will encourage readers to continue the dialogue started by Meillet nearly a century ago.

References Bisang, Walter. 2001. Areality, grammaticalization and language typology. On the explanatory power of functional criteria and the status of Universal Grammar. In Walter Bisang (ed.), Language typology and universals, 175–223. Berlin: Akademie-­Verlag. Bisang, Walter, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.). 2004. What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bourdin, Philippe. 2000. À propos des futurs ventifs et itifs: Remarques sur un paradoxe. Verbum 22(3): 293–311. Bourdin, Philippe. 2004. Espace, temporalité, personne: Parcours en linguistique anglaise, française et générale. Thèse de Doctorat d’État, Université Paris XIII. Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Campbell, Lyle (ed.). 2001. Grammaticalization. A critical assessment. (Special issue of Language Sciences 23(2–3)). Cuyckens, Hubert, Kristin Davidse & Lieven Vandelanotte (eds.). Forthcoming. Subjectification, intersubjectification, and grammaticalization [Topics in English Linguistics]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cuyckens, Hubert, Kristin Davidse & Jean-­Christophe Verstraete (eds.). Forthcoming. Grammaticalization and grammar [Typological Studies in Language]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DeLancey, Scott. 2005. Relativization and nominalization in Bodic. In Tibeto-­Burman linguistics: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 5–72. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Fischer, Olga, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.). 2004. Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 59]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fischer, Olga, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds.). 2000. Pathways of change. Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Francis, Elaine J. & Laura A. Michaelis. 2003. Mismatch: A crucible for linguistic theory. In Elaine J. Francis & Laura A. Michaelis (eds.), Mismatch: Form-­function incongruity and the architecture of grammar, 1–27. Stanford CA: CSLI. Gaeta, Livio. 2005. Ersatzinfinitiv im Deutschen: Diachrone Überlegungen zu einem synchronen Rätsel. In Claudio Di Meola, Antonie Hornung & Lorenza Rega (eds.), Perspektiven Eins. Akten der ersten Tagung deutscher Sprachwissenschaft in Italien, 149–165. Roma: Istituto Italiano di Studi Germanici.



Introduction

Giacalone Ramat, Anna & Paul J. Hopper (eds.). 1998. The limits of grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haiman, John. Forthcoming. The esthetic impulse of grammar. Oxford: OUP. Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, Vol. II, 1492–1510. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: CUP. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch. 2nd edn. München: Lincom. Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia (Rivista di Scienze) 12/26 (6): 384–400. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type. In honor of T. Givón, 373–394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schmid, Tanja. 2005. Infinitival syntax: Infinitivus pro participio as a repair strategy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Seoane, Elena & Maria José López-Couso (eds.). 2008. Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 77]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Bernd Heine (eds.). 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization. 2 vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wischer, Ilse & Gabriele Diewald (eds.). 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

13

chapter 1

Grammaticalization and the areal factor The perspective of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages Walter Bisang University of Mainz Grammaticalization in East and mainland Southeast Asian languages is characterized by a set of properties which seem to be typical of that area. The aim of this paper is to present these properties and to examine them from the perspective of several prominent approaches to grammaticalization: Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer (1991), Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994), Lehmann (1995) and Hopper and Traugott (2003). The specific properties of grammaticalization under discussion will be the lack of obligatory categories, hence the high relevance of pragmatics, the existence of rigid syntactic patterns, and the limited coevolution of form and meaning. The data on East and mainland Southeast Asia show that it seems not only necessary to assume areally relevant patterns of grammaticalization, but also to develop models which allow for more structural variation as far as processes of grammaticalization are concerned.

1. Introduction: Properties of grammaticalization in East and mainland Southeast Asia In a large number of languages from East and mainland Southeast Asia, grammaticalization is characterized by the following three features: a. Lack of obligatory categories and predominance of pragmatic inference even in the case of highly abstract grammatical concepts such as tense or definiteness. b. Existence of rigid syntactic patterns (word-order patterns). c. No or limited coevolution of form and meaning. The definition of obligatoriness adopted in this paper is that of Lehmann (1995): a category is obligatory if the speaker is forced to specify that category by selecting a marker which belongs to it. In Lehmann’s (1995: 139) own words: By this [i.e. transparadigmatic variability] we mean the freedom of the language user with regard to the paradigm as a whole. The paradigm represents a certain category, and its members, the subcategories (or values) of that category. There may then be a certain freedom in either specifying the category by using one of its subcategories, or

16

Walter Bisang

leaving the whole category unspecified. To the extent that the latter option becomes constrained and finally impossible, the category becomes obligatory. We shall therefore use the term ‘obligatoriness’ [. . .].

The lack of obligatoriness is particularly remarkable in cases where the concept inferred is an abstract grammatical one expressed by obligatory categories in IndoEuropean languages. While these functions are conventionalized in Indo-European, they are the product of pragmatic inference in many markers of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. This is corroborated by the fact that, in a number of cases, one and the same marker may express different grammatical concepts in different situations or in different constructions (cf. the functions of Khmer ba:n ‘come to have’ in Section 2.1 below or the functions of classifiers in Thai discussed in Section 2.2). As a consequence, the synchronic representation of the relation between the different functions of a grammatical marker is not that of a cline or path of grammaticalization with one function being cognitively related to its succeeding function (e.g. “object > space > time > quality” in Heine et al. 1991: 65), but rather that of an initial source concept which simultaneously radiates into different directions (cf. Section 2.1).1 Even if one looks at the diachronic development of these markers, it does not seem to follow a neat cline or pathway.2 Part of this diachronic picture may be due not only to pragmatics, but also to the highly complex contact situation in East and mainland Southeast Asia (cf. Enfield 2003 on ‘come to have;’ cf. also Section 4.1 below). In spite of their lack of obligatoriness, grammatical markers follow very rigid word-order patterns in East and mainland Southeast Asian languages and they belong to relatively closed classes which must take certain positions within constructions. Rigid word order and closed-class membership clearly indicate a high degree of grammaticalization (cf. Lehmann 1995 on paradigmaticity and syntactic variability; cf. also Section 3.1). Thus, there is a class of markers with an undoubtedly high degree of grammaticalization. These markers clearly express grammatical functions, though they are not obligatory, and the grammatical concepts which they express are the result of inference (cf. the examples in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 below). As pointed out by Ansaldo and Lim (2004) for Sinitic languages, grammaticalization in East and mainland Southeast Asian languages is not primarily expressed at the level of morphological reduction, but rather by phonetic erosion, in terms of 1.  Other authors arguing against the existence of a  cline in grammaticalization in East and mainland Southeast Asian languages are Ansaldo (1999) on ‘surpass’ comparatives and Enfield (2003) on ‘come to have’ verbs. 2.  Even if the clines discussed by authors like Bybee et al. (1994) are claimed to reflect diachronic stages of development, one should keep in mind that they are primarily derived from typological data based on synchronic material.



Grammaticalization and the areal factor

duration and vowel quality. These authors argue very plausibly that this is due to the discreteness of syllable boundaries and to phonotactic restraints. In my view, these phonological properties together with the broad functional spectrum of one and the same marker and the lack of obligatoriness prevent the development of morphologically integrated paradigms as we know them from Indo-European languages (cf. Section 4.2). The consequence of these properties is that the degree of erosion attested in East and mainland Southeast Asia is not strong enough in most cases for a parallel development of meaning and form. This can be seen synchronically by looking at the data and, as a consequence, must also be true for the diachronic ­development of these markers. In this paper I would like to show that the three above-mentioned properties of grammaticalization cannot be fully accounted for by any of the standard approaches to grammaticalization described in Section 3. If this is true, and if these properties are areal (cf. Bisang 1996), that is, if they are widely attested in several language families spoken in East and mainland Southeast Asia, we may ask the more general question of whether the existing approaches to grammaticalization are somehow areally biased. Could it be that certain properties have never been analysed or have never found their way into typologically-oriented questionnaires because they do not exist in familiar Indo-European languages? From such a perspective, we might assume that there exist different types of grammaticalization in which different strategies are of different importance. As will be shown in Section 4.2, the languages to be discussed in this paper are characterized by the predominance of inference. The current paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents three case studies of grammaticalization which show the high importance of inference in East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. Section 3 assesses the extent to which Heine et al. (1991), Bybee et al. (1994), Lehmann (1995) and Hopper and Traugott (2003) succeed in accounting for the processes of grammaticalization attested in these languages, and in fact proposes that none of these approaches works fully. Section 4 then briefly addresses the issue of areality and the question of why the emergence of morphological paradigms is unlikely in East and mainland Southeast Asia. Finally, Section 5 provides a brief account of how and why grammaticalization remains interesting in the aftermath of Newmeyer’s (1998) deconstruction, through the integration of an areal perspective.

2.  Examples This section illustrates the properties of grammaticalization in East and mainland Southeast Asia. The wide range of inferences which can be triggered by a single

17

18

Walter Bisang

marker is discussed in Section 2.1 on the verb ‘come to have.’ Section 2.2 deals with Thai classifiers, which represent another instance of multiple inference. In this case, however, the different functions are associated with different constructions, which shows the relevance of constructions for grammaticalization. Finally, Section 2.3 very briefly illustrates the rigid word-order patterns which determine the preverbal and postverbal positions of three different types of grammatical markers.

2.1 Inference of several different grammatical functions: The case of Khmer baːn ‘come to have’ The lack of obligatory categories and the wide range of inferences associated with highly grammaticalized items is illustrated in this section by the verb baːn ‘come to have’ in Khmer. As shown by Enfield (2003; cf. also Bisang 1992, 1996), verbs with this meaning are extremely widespread across the languages of East and mainland Southeast Asia. Since the data on ‘come to have’ verbs are extensively discussed by Enfield (2003), and since I have examined the data on Khmer more extensively elsewhere (Bisang 2004: 118–121), in what follows only a summary of the most relevant information will be given. Like most ‘come to have’ verbs in mainland Southeast Asia, Khmer baːn occurs preverbally as well as postverbally or clause-finally. Since looking at the preverbal position is sufficient to illustrate the multifunctionality of baːn, I will not discuss here the postverbal or clause-final position. The basic meaning of ‘come to have’ verbs is described by Enfield (2003: 38–39) as follows: The predication made by the expression ‘come to have’ involves two important components, namely an event of something coming into one’s sphere of possession, and a subsequent and consequent state of possessing that thing. [...] ‘Come to have’ treats the recipient (x) as the ‘primary figure’ in the event (i.e. it is encoded as grammatical subject), and there is no necessary reference to the source of transfer, nor is it specified whether the thing moves to the recipient or the recipient moves to the thing.



In example (1), Khmer bːn ‘come to have’ is used as a full verb. (1) Khmer Chnm nìh y`ːŋ bːn sroːv crən ns. year this we come.to.have rice a.lot very ‘This year we came to have a lot of rice.’

If a ‘come to have’ verb occurs as a grammaticalized item in the preverbal position, its interpretation depends on a number of presuppositions. Thus, when the event denoted by the main verb is supposed to be desired, the ‘come to have’ verb expresses ability or permission. With other presuppositions, ‘come to have’ triggers



Grammaticalization and the areal factor

the inference of obligation, past and truth or factuality. The possible inferences of ‘come to have’ in East and mainland Southeast Asian languages are summarized as follows (revised version of Bisang 2004: 119): a. The event E is [+desired]: +> modal interpretation: ‘can’ (potential meaning: abilitative or permissive). b. The event E is [–desired]: +> modal interpretation: ‘must, have to’ (obligation). c. In order for X to come to have E, E must have taken place: +> past (E) (particularly if E is negated). d. In order for X to come to have E, E must be true: +> truth, factuality. In Khmer, the verb bːn can trigger the interpretations of ability and permission (a), of past tense (c) and of truth or factuality (d), while inferences in terms of obligation (b) are marginal. Thus, a constructed example like (2) can be interpreted as follows:

(2) Khmer khɲom bːn t`ːu phsː(r). I come.to.have go market a. Ability or permission: ‘I was able to go to the market.’/‘I was allowed to go to the market.’ b. Past: ‘I went to the market.’ d. Truth or factuality: ‘I do go/I really go to the market.’

The different interpretations of ‘come to have’ listed above can even be combined to a certain extent. Thus, example (2) can also be translated as ‘He did go to the market,’ thus combining interpretations (c) past and (d) truth or factuality. The next example, also discussed in Bisang (2004: 120), is from a novel, and it contains two instances of bːn. In its first occurrence (bːn1), past tense interpret` ŋ. ation is excluded because bːn1 is immediately preceded by the future marker nɯ Since it is known from the context that the event marked by bːn1 is desired, the abilitative reading is the most likely interpretation. This also applies to the second occurrence of the ‘come to have’ verb (bːn2), although here a past interpretation or a factual reading cannot be excluded.

(3) Khmer cùːən-kːl nìːəy kɔː nɯ ` k-sɔŋkhɯ ` m thː bːn1 cùːəp borɔs sometimes she then think-hope quot come.to.have meet man cùəːp dòːc bɔmnɔːŋ. nùh tìət, te-kɔː pụ̀ m bːn2 that again but neg come.to.have meet as wish ‘Sometimes she hoped to be able to meet that man again, but she was not able to/did not meet him as she wished.’

19

20

Walter Bisang

To conclude this section, I would like to point out some basic properties of grammaticalization which can be illustrated by Khmer bːn. Firstly, as in other languages of East and mainland Southeast Asia, there is no obligatory tense-­aspectmodality marking in Khmer. Thus, an example such as (3) is also grammatical (but pragmatically less adequate) if the categories marked by bːn are omitted. Secondly, the interpretation of bːn depends on context. In principle, bːn can ­express all the functions listed above in (a) to (d), with function (b) being rare. Given their inferential character, the different interpretations of bːn should not be treated in terms of polysemy or semantic change.3 In addition, the various functions of bːn are not necessarily related to each other by a cline or a pathway. Rather they seem to be inferred from the same source concept of ‘come to have’ in different contexts with different presuppositions. Although more research is certainly needed here, the diachronic development of bːn does not seem to follow a strict cline either. Finally, bːn basically keeps its phonetic substance even though it expresses grammatical functions and occurs in a  position for markers expressing grammatical categories.

2.2 Inference of different grammatical functions depending on the constructional context: The case of classifiers in Thai The languages of East and mainland Southeast Asia are characterized by their transnumerality, that is, their lack of obligatory number marking. Thus, a word like Thai còtmˇj only refers to the concept of ‘letter’ as such without any reference to number. According to Greenberg (1974), there is a typological correlation between transnumerality and the existence of classifiers: “[n]umeral classifier languages generally do not have compulsory expression of nominal plurality, but at most facultative expression” (Greenberg 1974: 25). This correlation applies to Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Hmong and a large number of other languages of East and mainland Southeast Asia. Thus, Thai còtmˇj ‘letter’ needs to co-occur with a classifier in the context of counting, as shown in (4).

(4) Thai a. còtmˇj sˇm chb`b letter three clf ‘three letters’ b.   *còtmˇj sˇm letter three

3.  One anonymous referee suggested treating the different functions of baːn in terms of polysemy. However, what is being dealt with here is pragmatic inference, rather than semantics.



Grammaticalization and the areal factor

Crosslinguistically, classifiers minimally occur with numerals. In a number of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages, they have additional functions which are all based on the function of classification, i.e. a  cognitive activity whereby items of the world and their lexical representations are assigned to certain classes on the basis of certain properties or criteria. The most relevant criteria of classification are the following: material (human, animate, inanimate, abstract), social status, physical properties (shape, consistency, size), functionality (man-made) and location (buildings, places, etc.) (cf. also Denny 1976; Allan 1977; Aikhenvald 2000; Grinevald 2000). The process of classification can be used to profile conceptual boundaries of concepts. Due to this function, classification is the basis of the two main roles involved with numeral classifiers, namely identification and individuation. On the one hand, classification helps in identifying a certain sensory perception by using its conceptual boundaries to highlight that perception against other sensory perceptions. On the other hand, it can establish a sensory perception as an individual item by actualizing those salient inherent properties which constitute it as a conceptual unit. Apart from their function of individuation in the context of counting, Thai classifiers can assume other functions related to the identificational role of classifiers. In such cases, the classifier is always optional, while it is compulsory in combination with numerals. As opposed to the various functions of Khmer b:n ‘come to have,’ those of Thai classifiers depend on the context in which they are used. Table 1 indicates the basic cognitive functions of the classifier, its concrete grammatical functions and the constructions with which they are associated. The individuating function of the classifier is illustrated by example (4a) above, [N NUM CLF]. The singulative interpretation of the classifier is limited to the demonstrative construction. If there is no classifier, as in the case of [N DEM], the noun can be either singular or plural, that is, it remains transnumeral (5a). If the

Table 1.  Functions of the Thai classifier in different constructions Basic function

Grammatical function

Construction

Individuation

Countability

Numerative construction: [N NUM CLF]

Identification

Singulative

Demonstrative construction: [N DEM] vs. [N CLF DEM]

Reference

Adjective construction: [N ADJ] vs. [N CLF ADJ] (definiteness/specificity: the object is accessible to the hearer)

Contrastive focus

Adjective and demonstrative constructions (presupposed items are in contrast)

21

22

Walter Bisang

classifier is present, by contrast, the construction has the structure [N CLF DEM] and a singular interpretation can be inferred (5b).

(5) Thai a. rót níi car this ‘this car’/‘these cars’ b. rót khn níi car clf this ‘this car’

In combination with stative verbs, which will be called adjectives here,4 the presence of the classifier triggers referential interpretation in terms of definiteness or specificity. In the adjective construction with no classifier [N ADJ], the noun is referentially neutral, i.e. it can be definite, specific, indefinite and so on depending on the context (6a). If the classifier is present, on the other hand, the construction has the structure [N CLF ADJ] and the noun is interpreted as definite or specific (6b). In an example like (7), with the superlative, the classifier is obligatory because this construction presupposes a specific noun in the subject position.

(6) Thai a. rót sɪˇi dɛɛŋ car red ‘a red car’/‘the red car’/‘red cars’/‘the red cars’ b. rót khn sɪˇi dɛɛŋ car clf red ‘the red car’/‘the red cars’



(7) Thai rót khn sɪˇi dɛɛŋ phɛɛŋ thîi sùt. car clf red expensive most ‘The red car is the most expensive.’

Finally, the classifier can be used to express contrastive focus both in the demonstrative construction and in the adjective construction. This is the case if the items to be discussed are presupposed, that is, they have already been introduced and the classifier has already been used. The general rule in Thai (and in other main4.  Like many other East and Southeast Asian languages, Thai makes no distinction between ­adjectives and verbs, that is, both categories share the same syntactic properties. It is thus an “adjectival-verb” language in terms of Schachter (1985).



Grammaticalization and the areal factor

land Southeast Asian languages; cf. Bisang 1993 on Hmong) is that once a noun has been marked as definite or specific, it will remain unmarked as long as it is used in the same discourse paragraph. If this rule is broken, i.e. if a noun which has already been introduced as definite or specific is marked by the classifier again, the hearer can infer that the adjective (8) or the demonstrative (9) must be understood contrastively.5 Thus, the following example can be used in a context in which a small car and a big car are presupposed. Speaker A says that B likes the big car. B can now correct this wrong presupposition by uttering either (8a) or (8b).

(8) Thai a. Mˆj chˆj, chɔˆɔp rót khn lék mˆk kw`. neg true like car clf small more ‘This is not true, I prefer the small car.’ b. chɔˆɔp rót khn lék, mˆj chɔˆɔp rót khn j`j. like car clf small neg like car clf big ‘I like the small car, I do not like the big car.’

The same can be shown for demonstratives. If there are two cars, of which one is closer to the speech-act participants than the other, a speaker can react as follows to the wrong presupposition concerning the deictic position of the car s/he prefers:

(9) Thai a. Mˆj chˆj, chɔˆɔp rót khn níi mˆk kw`. neg true like car clf this more ‘This is not true, I prefer this car [not that one].’ b. chɔˆɔp rót khn níi, mˆj chɔˆɔp rót khn nán. like car clf this neg like car clf that ‘I like this car, I do not like that car.’

Finally, I would like to call attention to two fundamental properties of grammaticalization which Thai classifiers share with the tense-aspect-modality marker derived from ‘come to have’ verbs (cf. Section 2.1). Firstly, there is no gradual development from one function to the other. Depending on the syntactic context, classifiers can express various functions which are all related to classification and its two main roles. Secondly, in spite of their grammatical function and their occurrence in a particular syntactic position, classifiers show, maximally, a small loss of phonetic substance related to tonality. However, there exists also a difference between ‘come to have’ verbs and Thai classifiers: while the various interpretations

5.  For a consistent account of the use of classifiers in on-going text, see Becker (2005).

23

24

Walter Bisang

of ‘come to have’ verbs are not associated with different constructions, the different readings of Thai classifiers are clearly related to different constructions.

2.3  The existence of rigid syntactic patterns The existence of rigid word-order patterns will be illustrated by a brief look at the positions of tense-aspect-modality markers, coverbs and directional verbs relative to the main verb in the clause in East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. Each of these markers are products of grammaticalization; thus, tense-aspect-­modality markers are verbs like Khmer b:n ‘come to have’ (cf. Section 2.1 above), verbs which can be used for expressing functions of tense, aspect and/or modality. In turn, coverbs are verbs which can take the function of adpositions, while directional verbs indicate the direction of the event denoted by the main verb. Each of these markers only occurs in specific positions; in the case of Thai and Khmer, the positions for these markers are distributed as follows:6 tense-aspect-modality + main verb + directional verb + coverb + tense-aspect-modality. This word-order pattern is illustrated in (10) and (11) below, where the grammaticalized items are printed in bold. As can be seen, there is a preverbal tense-aspect-modality marker in Khmer and a postverbal tense-aspect-modality marker in Thai. The position for directional verbs can maximally take two verbs in Thai and three verbs in Khmer, and the position for coverbs always follows the position for directional verbs in both languages. (10) Khmer Kɔ`ət bːn yɔ`ːk ʔ yvn coh cëɲ mɔ`ːk he tam take luggage move.down-Vd move.out-Vd come-Vd ʔoy khɲom. give-cov I ‘He took the luggage down and out for me.’ (11) Thai Kháw ʔw krpˇw loŋ m hˆy phǒm lɛ´ɛw. he take luggage move.down-Vd come-Vd give-cov I tam ‘He took the luggage down for me.’ The order of the grammaticalized items relative to each other in (10) and (11) is absolutely rigid, and even the order of the individual directional verbs cannot be changed. The only exception is Khmer b:n, which can also occur in the clausefinal tense-aspect-modality position, in accordance with the word-order pattern given above. 6.  For a much more detailed account of the distributional properties of these markers in Chinese, Hmong, Vietnamese, Thai and Khmer, see Bisang (1992, 1996).



Grammaticalization and the areal factor

3. Approaches to grammaticalization in the light of data from East and mainland Southeast Asia 3.1  Lehmann (1995) Lehmann (1995) defines grammaticalization in terms of the autonomy of the linguistic sign, whereby the reduction of autonomy raises the degree of grammaticalization. Autonomy is determined by the three parameters of weight, cohesion and variability, each of which must be analysed from the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic perspectives. This yields the six well-known criteria for measuring grammaticalization, as illustrated in Table 2. By looking at the languages of East and mainland Southeast Asia from the perspective of these criteria, the paradoxical observation can be made that their grammatical markers can express the semantics of categories which are situated at the end of grammatical clines (e.g. tense or reference; cf. Sections 2.1 and 2.2, respectively), although their autonomy is still high in terms of the majority of the criteria discussed by Lehmann (1995). In the case of integrity (i.e. paradigmatic weight), the grammaticalization of a linguistic sign does not run fully parallel to the reduction of phonetic integrity, that is, there is no necessary coevolution of form and meaning. Similarly, the other two paradigmatic criteria do not produce significant effects. Thus, paradigmaticity (i.e. paradigmatic cohesion) only applies to the emergence of closed-class categories, and does not lead to the emergence of paradigms. Paradigmatic variability, in turn, is not developed very far either, since none of the categories expressed by grammaticalized items is obligatory (with the exception of a few well-defined instances, such as the obligatory use of the classifier with numerals, as in (4), and with the superlative in Thai, as in (7)). On the syntagmatic side, structural scope as suggested by Lehmann (1995) is a problematic criterion, because even a highly grammaticalized item can have wide scope if this is compatible with its semantics. Bondedness (i.e. syntagmatic cohesion) does occur with some markers (e.g. the well-known verbal markers -le and -zhe in Modern Standard Chinese), but it is certainly not a general property of grammaticalized items in the languages of East and mainland Southeast Asia. The only parameter which fully applies to these languages is syntagmatic variability. ­Grammaticalized items Table 2.  Lehmann’s (1995: 123) criteria for measuring the autonomy of a linguistic sign Weight Cohesion Variability

Paradigmatic

Syntagmatic

Integrity Paradigmaticity Paradigmatic variability

Structural scope Bondedness Syntagmatic variability

25

26

Walter Bisang

Table 3.  Lehmann’s (1995) criteria for measuring autonomy and their relevance for East and mainland Southeast Asian languages Paradigmatic

Syntagmatic

Weight

Integrity (−): No necessary coevolution of form and meaning

Structural scope (?): Grammaticalized items rarely have scope over one single word

Cohesion

Paradigmaticity (−/+): No emergence of paradigms but at least closed-class categories

Bondedness (−): Coalescence is not prominent

Variability

Paradigmatic variability (−): No obligatory categories

Syntagmatic variability (+): Rigid word-order patterns

have to follow strict word-order rules; thus, ‘come to have’ verbs (cf. Section 2.1) must occur in front of the main verb (or in postverbal, sentence-final position). As illustrated with Thai (cf. Section 2.2), classifiers must take specific positions in the numeral construction, the demonstrative construction and the adjective construction. Finally, tense-aspect-modality markers, coverbs and directional verbs are assigned to specific positions relative to each other within the serial unit (cf. Section 2.3). Table 3 summarizes to what extent Lehmann’s (1995) criteria for measuring the autonomy of a linguistic sign, and thus its degree of grammaticalization, apply to East and mainland Southeast Asian languages.

3.2  Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer (1991) Grammaticalization in terms of Heine et al. (1991) is a creative act of problem solving by which old resources are used for the expression of new functions. Its properties are motivated by cognition as a language-external factor. The development of new functions for existing resources takes place on two levels, namely macrostructure and microstructure. Macrostructure is characterized by metaphoric processes, that is, changes of meaning from one semantic domain to another through perceptible functional or relational similarities (cf. analogy). The mapping of linguistic items from one domain of conceptualization onto another is the central strategy of grammaticalization. It takes place along universal scales or chains like the following: person > object > activity > space > time > quality. Microstructure, by contrast, is characterized by metonymic processes, that is, pragmatic inferences from context. Metonymic processes trigger context-induced reinterpretations, “whereby conversational implicatures are conventionalized to new focal senses” (Heine et al. 1991: 103). Since metaphor determines the changes from one domain to the next, and since metonymy operates more locally as a bridge between indi-



Grammaticalization and the areal factor

vidual domains, the strategy of metaphor is more basic than that of metonymy. As Heine et al. (1991: 73–74) note, It would seem that metaphor and metonymy form different components of one and the same process leading from concrete to more abstract grammatical concepts. On the one hand, this process is made up of a scale of contiguous entities that stand in a metonymic relation to one another. On the other hand, it contains a smaller number of salient and discontinuous categories such as space, time or quality. The relation between these categories [...] is metaphorical but can also be described as being the result of a number of metonymic extensions. Conceivably, metonymy is the more basic component of this process in that metaphor is grounded in metonymy [...].

If this approach is applied to the languages of East and mainland Southeast Asia, it yields at least two problems. Firstly, metaphor is not the main strategy of grammati­calization in these languages, pragmatic inference being more important and not necessarily leading to scales or chains. Even if individual lexical items can express a number of cognitive domains from this scale, they are in no hierarchical order, that is, all of them can be inferred equally, depending on context and on the constructions to which they belong. Secondly, Heine et al.’s (1991) model is primarily concerned with cognition and semantics. It does not integrate the correlation between grammatical functions and their morphosyntactic expression in constructions. In order to be able to explain how certain lexical elements become productive markers of a grammatical function, we need a structural framework which allows the necessary implicatures leading to the reanalysis of a given utterance. The framework which makes this type of implicatures possible is the construction itself.

3.3  Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994) The criticisms concerning Heine et al.’s (1991) approach do not apply to Bybee et al. (1994). The latter authors attach more importance to inference than to metaphor and they do integrate constructions into their model. As they point out (Bybee et al. 1994: 25), metaphor only comes into operation at the beginning of grammaticalization: While it is true that when one compares source concepts to related grammatical concepts one can construct a metaphorical relation between the two in many cases, our evidence suggests that the actual formation of metaphors is not the major mechanism for semantic change in grammaticization. Rather we see metaphor operating only on the more lexical end of grammaticization paths rather than propelling grams into the more and more abstract domains of grammatical meaning.

By contrast, inference operates pervasively through all stages of grammaticalization, from beginning to end. It is based on Grice’s (1975) maxim of quantity,

27

28

Walter Bisang

which states that the speaker does not say more than s/he must and that the hearer infers as much as s/he can. In Bybee et al.’s (1994: 286) words, One of the results of this delicate balance is that the hearer is obliged to extract all the meaning possible from the message, which includes all the implications that are not controversial. A semantic change can take place when a certain implication commonly arises with a certain linguistic form. That implication can be taken as part of the inherent meaning of the form, and can even go so far as to replace the original meaning of the form.

In Bybee et al.’s (1994) model, constructions are taken to be relevant for understanding processes of grammaticalization. It is often the meaning of a construction or of the elements within it that determines the result of grammaticalization. What Heine et al. (1991) explain in terms of metaphor often turns out to be the result of inferences based on the meaning of a construction. The following quotation shows how this works for be going to in English: While it is certainly the case [...] that the same schema structure for spatial ‘be going to’ is preserved in temporal ‘be going to’, it does not follow that metaphorical extension is the operative mechanism of change. Once again, the temporal meaning was present in the construction from the beginning. We’re going to Windsor to meet the King emphasizes the spatial but certainly makes a temporal statement as well. Again, the construction can spread gradually from cases where the spatial is important to cases where both temporal and spatial are important and finally to cases where only the temporal is relevant. (Bybee et al. 1994: 292)

The fact that Bybee et al.’s model takes inference to be more important than metaphor and that it integrates constructions does not mean that this model is not unproblematic from the perspective of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. Two drawbacks will be briefly mentioned in what follows. Firstly, Bybee (1985) and Bybee et al. (1994) take the coevolution of form and meaning for granted. As a consequence, their model cannot deal with linguistic signs which can trigger highly grammatical concepts without an equal amount of phonetic reduction. The languages of East and mainland Southeast Asia show that the claim of a “causal link between semantic and phonetic reduction” in the quotation below is not universal: It therefore seems natural to look for a direct, and even causal, link between semantic and phonetic reduction in the evolution of grammatical material, beginning with the earliest stages of development from lexical sources and continuing throughout the subsequent developments grams undergo. Our hypothesis is that the development of grammatical material is characterized by the dynamic coevolution of meaning and form. (Bybee et al. 1994: 20)

Secondly, Bybee et al. (1994) understand grammaticalization as a gradual process in terms of grammaticalization clines in which a marker develops through differ-



Grammaticalization and the areal factor

ent functional stages (e.g. iterative > continuative > progressive > imperfective > intransitive). As Bybee et al. (1994: 289) put it, What makes inference interesting as a mechanism of change is the fact that inference allows the incorporation of new meaning into a gram. [...] Yet the orderlinesss of semantic change in grammaticization and the universality of paths of change demonstrate that the process of infusion of new meaning into a gram is quite constrained. The constrained set of inferential changes that can be discovered in grammaticization are interesting in their own right, as they will reveal us the nature of the commonly made inferences that guide speakers and hearers in conversation.

As shown by the case of ‘come to have’ verbs in Khmer discussed in Section 2.1 above, a grammatical cline is not a necessary prerequisite to account for the grammatical functions which such verbs can express.

3.4  Hopper and Traugott (2003) Hopper and Traugott’s (2003) model is based on both metaphor and metonymy, which are seen as pragmatic processes. In their view, metonymic processes are based on conversational implicatures and are more important and prior to metaphoric processes, which are based on conventional implicatures through analogy between semantic domains. Moreover, metaphor is concerned with analogy on the paradigmatic level and operates through conceptual domains, while metonymy belongs to reanalysis or abduction at the syntagmatic level and operates through interdependent syntactic constituents (cf. Bisang 2004: 115). ­Table 4 provides a summary of metonymy and metaphor as defined by Hopper and Traugott (2003). According to Hopper and Traugott (2003: 81), other approaches to grammaticalization, such as Heine et al.’s (1991), overestimate the relevance of metaphor due to a tendency to conceive grammaticalization in terms of the change from lexical item to grammatical item, rather than in terms of “use of lexical item in discourse > grammatical item” (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 81). With its clear discourse basis, Hopper and Traugott’s (2003) model has a  number of advantages Table 4.  Mechanisms of language change: Metonymy and metaphor in terms of Hopper and Traugott (2003) Metonymy

Metaphor

–  Syntagmatic level –  Reanalysis (abduction) –  Conversational implicature – Operates through interdependent syntactic constituents

–  Paradigmatic level –  Analogy –  Conventional implicature –  Operates through conceptual domains

29

30

Walter Bisang

for the understanding of grammaticalization as it is found in East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. Firstly, it gives priority to metonymy, and thus to inference, at least at the beginning of grammaticalization processes when lexical items are enriched through conversational implicatures which later become part of the conventionalized meaning of these items. Secondly, it does not depend on the coevolution of form and meaning. Finally, it does not assume that grammaticalization is necessarily gradual in terms of a continuous semantic bleaching, at least at the beginning of the process. In Hopper and Traugott’s words, “[t]here is no doubt that over time, meanings tend to become weakened during the process of grammaticalization. Nevertheless, all the evidence for early stages is that initially there is a redistribution or shift, not a loss, of meaning” (2003: 88). The disadvantage with Hopper and Traugott’s (2003) approach is that the above-mentioned positive aspects of the model are supposed to operate only at the beginning of the process of grammaticalization. Thus, pragmatics in the sense of conversational implicatures will be replaced later by metaphoric processes and by processes of conventionalization which lead to more gradual processes and seem to fall more or less in line with assumptions concerning the coevolution of form and meaning. However, pragmatic inferences also operate at the level of highly grammatical concepts and, as we have seen, different inferences with the same lexical item do not follow a hierarchy and are not necessarily subject to the coevolution of form and meaning (cf. the case of ‘come to have’ verbs in Section 2.1 above). Therefore, the model of Hopper and Traugott (2003) is not fully adequate for East and mainland Southeast Asian languages either.

3.5  Summary The foregoing outline of the most prominent models of grammaticalization shows that none of them can fully account for grammaticalization in East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. Lehmann’s (1995) concept of autonomy only seems to work in the case of syntagmatic variability (rigid word-order patterns). Heine et al. (1991) overemphasize the importance of metaphor and neglect the relevance of constructions, whereas Bybee et al. (1994) take for granted the coevolution of form and meaning and the graduality of grammaticalization processes. Finally, Hopper and Traugott (2003) provide all the necessary ingredients to account for grammaticalization in East and mainland Southeast Asian languages, but they do not allow them to operate at later stages of grammaticalization.



Grammaticalization and the areal factor

4. Areality and why grammaticalization is special in East and mainland Southeast Asia 4.1  An areal type of grammaticalization Grammaticalization is usually defined in two stages: (i) from a  lexical item to a  grammaticalized item; and (ii) from a  grammaticalized item to a  more grammaticalized item. This definition goes back to Kuryłowicz (1964) and has recently been taken up again by Detges and Waltereit (2002: 188): “[g]rammaticalization is a process whereby a lexical item assumes a grammatical function or whereby an already grammatical item takes on a more grammatical function.” In contrast, many instances of grammaticalization in East and mainland Southeast Asian languages seem to follow a one-stage model. One can see the step from lexical item to grammaticalized item, but it is often hard to distinguish clearly between more and less grammaticalized items. This situation is the result of the pervasiveness of pragmatics in the grammaticalization processes which take place in these languages. The possibility of several pragmatic inferences with one and the same linguistic item is fairly common, and there is no need for these inferences to follow a certain hierarchy (even though this is not excluded). As a consequence, there are instances such as ‘come to have’ verbs which can be interpreted equally in terms of ability, permission, obligation, past and emphasis of truth or factuality (cf. Section 2.1 above). In my view, the strong discourse-basis of some processes of grammaticalization represents an areal type of grammaticalization which encompasses the following language families situated in East and mainland Southeast Asia: a. Mon-Khmer (branch of Austroasiatic). b. Tai (branch of Tai-Kadai). c. Sinitic (branch of Sino-Tibetan). d. Hmong-Mien. If there is a considerable number of languages in which grammaticalization also operates at levels usually associated with higher degrees of grammaticalization, and if these languages form a geographical cluster in East and mainland Southeast Asia, we may wonder to what extent current approaches to grammaticalization depend on the languages and language groups on which they are based. Since the languages discussed in this paper only play a marginal role in the approaches discussed in Section 3, none of their proponents came across pragmatics-based processes of grammaticalization as we find them in East and mainland Southeast Asia; even typological questionnaires seem to be biased by this lack of input. Why else

31

32

Walter Bisang

would it be possible that verbs with the meaning ‘come to have’ are hardly discussed as source concepts in generalizations concerning the development of tenseaspect-modality systems? From a more general perspective, we may thus wonder how many other source concepts and types of grammaticalization there are to be discovered if other linguistic areas are analysed in more detail. To give just an illustrative example, the lack of form–meaning coevolution is also attested in Slavonic languages, another language family which is understudied as far as grammaticalization is concerned (cf. Bisang et al. 2004).

4.2 How to account for the situation in East and mainland Southeast Asia: On the lack of paradigms This section briefly outlines why grammatical markers of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages are not organized in morphological paradigms like those familiar to us from languages like Latin (cf. amo, amas, amat, etc. ‘I love,’ ‘you love,’ ‘she/he/it loves’). As I argued in the introduction, this is due to two complementary types of factors, namely phonological properties (Ansaldo and Lim 2004) and the broad functional spectrum of grammatical markers combined with their lack of obligatoriness. Both of these factors will briefly be explained in what follows. Ansaldo and Lim (2004) point out that the relative phonetic stability of grammaticalized items in East and mainland Southeast Asian languages is due to the discreteness of syllable boundaries and phonotactic restraints. They show for Cantonese and Hokkien that grammaticalization manifests itself in the form of reduced syllable duration and vowel quality. These two effects have to do with the fact that grammaticalized items occur adjacent to metrically stressed syllables and thus tend to lose their own stress in such an environment. Interestingly enough, there is no significant reduction in pitch with grammaticalized items. This is explained by Ansaldo and Lim by the fact that tonal contrast must be maintained in order to keep up contrast, particularly in Sinitic languages like Cantonese and Hokkien, which distinguish three tonal registers. In Sinitic languages with only one tonal register, like Modern Standard Chinese (Putonghua), reduction of pitch would not produce the same strong effect of blurring distinctive features of the language. This seems to be the reason why some morphemes in Modern Standard Chinese, such as verb-final -le (derived from liaˇo ‘finish’) or verb-final -zhe (derived from zháo ‘touch, contact’), did not only lose vowel quality but also reduced their diphthongs and triphthongs to the reduced toneless vowel [ə]. The correlation between the existence of a neutral tone as we find it in -le and -zhe and the presence of a single register is also pointed out by Ansaldo and Lim (2004). Facts like these clearly show that there are phonological properties preventing the full coevolution of form and meaning which can lead to the emergence of morpho-



Grammaticalization and the areal factor

logical paradigms. Processes which develop morphology are simply not prominent enough in most East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. The second factor which obstructs the emergence of morphological paradigms is based on frequency and on the existence of markers belonging to clearly determined semantic domains. The central role of frequency for the development of paradigms has to be seen in the light of generality as defined by Bybee (1985) and obligatoriness (cf. the quotation from Lehmann 1995 in Section 1 above). Thus, morphological paradigms develop from categories which are frequently used. Frequency, in turn, is enhanced by semantic generality, which grants its compatibility with a wide range of lexical items. If a marker is semantically general enough to be coextensive with a basic grammatical entity like noun or verb, its occurrence may become obligatory with that entity. As a consequence, it becomes even more ­frequent. As we can see from Lehmann (1995: 139; cf. Section 1), paradigms refer to certain clearly defined grammatical categories, such as tense or aspect, with their values (e.g. present, past and future in the case of tense) or sub-categories (e.g. perfective and imperfective in the case of aspect). The preconditions for categories to be integrated into paradigms are a certain degree of homogeneity on the level of the category as a whole and semantically clear-cut definitions of its subcategories. In East and mainland Southeast Asian languages, the emergence of a situation in which grammatical markers are frequent and homogeneous enough to become part of a coherent paradigm is systematically undermined by the high degree of indeterminateness (lack of obligatory categories) and the broad functional spectrum of markers. Thus, on the one hand, despite their highly generalized meanings, grammatical markers are not so frequent as, for example, tense markers in English or German, because they are optional. On the other hand, the meaning of grammatical markers depends on pragmatics on all levels of grammaticalization, and therefore their functional range is not homogeneous, not limited to a single clearly determined semantic domain. Thus, the emergence of a paradigm is rather unlikely for both reasons, low frequency and low degree of semantic h ­ omogeneity.

5.  Outlook: Why is research on grammaticalization interesting? Newmeyer (1998) deconstructs grammaticalization by showing that none of its three components, namely downgrading analysis, semantic change and phonetic reduction, is exclusively related to processes of grammaticalization. Grammaticalization is thus nothing but an epiphenomenon of these independent processes of diachronic change. As Newmeyer (1998: 295) himself puts it,

33

34

Walter Bisang

We have examined the associated set of diachronic changes that fall under the rubric of ‘grammaticalization’ and have found that no new theoretical mechanisms, nor mechanisms unique to grammaticalization itself are needed to explain them. Far from calling for a ‘new theoretical paradigm,’ grammaticalization appears to be no more than a cover term for a conjunction of familiar developments from different spheres of language, none of which require or entail any of the others.

In East and mainland Southeast Asian languages, reanalysis (the occurrence in a particular position within a syntactic pattern) and semantic change (defined in terms of pragmatic inference) always co-occur, while phonetic reduction operates only to a certain degree and does not necessarily correlate with change of meaning. This pattern of interaction between the three processes of diachronic change seems to be a specific property of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. In other languages, and in other areas, there may be other patterns. If it turns out that there are such patterns of grammaticalization and that the same languages also deviate in interesting ways from standard theoretical assumptions (cf. the discussion of subject/object asymmetry in East and mainland Southeast Asia), questions concerning the basis of grammatical properties are far from trivial.

Abbreviations clf cov fut neg quot tam Vd

classifier coverb future negation quotation particle tense-aspect-modality directional verbs

References Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: OUP. Allan, Keith. 1977. Classifiers. Language 53: 285–311. Ansaldo, Umberto. 1999. Comparative constructions in Sinitic: Areal typology and patterns of grammaticalization. PhD dissertation, Stockholm University. Ansaldo, Umberto & Lisa Lim. 2004. Phonetic absence as syntactic prominence. Grammaticalization in isolating tonal languages. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 59], 345–362. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Becker, Neele. 2005. Numeralklassifikatoren im Thai. PhD dissertation, University of Mainz.



Grammaticalization and the areal factor

Bisang, Walter. 1992. Das Verb im Chinesischen, Hmong, Vietnamesischen, Thai und Khmer (Vergleichende Grammatik im Rahmen der Verbserialisierung, der Grammatikalisierung und der Attraktorpositionen) [Language Universals Series 7]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Bisang, Walter. 1993. Classifiers, quantifiers and class nouns in Hmong. Studies in Language 17: 1–51. Bisang, Walter. 1996. Areal typology and grammaticalization: Processes of grammaticalization based on nouns and verbs in East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. Studies in Language 20: 519–597. Bisang, Walter. 2004. Grammaticalization without coevolution of form and meaning: The case of tense-aspect-modality in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 109–138. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bisang, Walter, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.). 2004. What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, ­aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Denny, Peter J. 1976. What are noun classifiers good for? Papers from the 12th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS): 122–132. Detges, Ulrich & Richard Waltereit. 2002. Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: A semantic­pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21: 151–195. Enfield, Nicholas James. 2003. Linguistic epidemiology: Semantics and grammar of language contact in mainland Southeast Asia. London: RoutledgeCurzon. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1974. Numeral classifiers and substantival number: Problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. In Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Linguistics, Bologna - Florence, Aug.-Sept. 1972, 17–37. Cambridge: CUP. Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. III: Speech acts, 41–58. New York NY: Academic Press. Grinevald, Colette. 2000. A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers. In Gunter Senft (ed.), Systems of nominal classification, 50–92. Cambridge: CUP. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter. Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch. 2nd edn. Munich: Lincom. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Schachter, Paul. 1985. Parts-of-speech systems. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 1: Clause structure, 3–61. Cambridge: CUP.

35

chapter 2

On the grammaticalization of ‘come’ and ‘go’ into markers of textual connectivity* Philippe Bourdin University of Paris X and York University (Toronto) There is crosslinguistic evidence that verbs of ‘coming’ and ‘going’ are prone to grammaticalize into sequential markers and, more generally, into textual connectives. This paper shows how, in the grammaticalization cline from directional deictics to sequentials, some of these markers have preserved their original semantics to varying degrees, while others have developed further into markers of past tense. The grammaticalization of ‘come’ and ‘go’ into markers of textual connectivity also exhibits a wide range of morphosyntactic variation: while in some languages they have retained all their formal verbal characteristics, in others they have become affixes, have followed the auxiliation or the serialization routes, or have fossilized. Three potential triggers for grammaticalization are discussed in the paper: the role of deicticity, the iteration hypothesis and the futurity scenario.

1.  From motion in space to textual connectivity The phenomenon addressed in this paper is illustrated in (1) and (2) below.

(1) Toussian (Niger-Congo, Gur; Burkina Faso) mɛ nyar nyõ te pi yugu sõaʔ. 1sg tô ate and sequential[3sg.m ‘He went to sow it.’/‘Then he sowed it.’ (Correll 1978: 81)

More subtle and diffuse is the kind of semantic retention exemplified in (6) for Izi. Longacre (1990) observes that je is mostly used as a sequential when the previous verb refers to motion in space. This suggests that, while it has faded somewhat, its original meaning as a verb of motion has not disappeared completely.

(6) Izi (Niger-Congo, Benue-Congo; Nigeria) bahu l’oma ulo je walk.in.pst inside house sequential[=go].pst awatakwa akuku. begin.sequential beat.the.drum ‘He walked into the house and began to drum.’ (Longacre 1990: 149)

At the opposite end of the cline stands the semantic trajectory followed by the Catalan verb anar, ‘go,’ as reconstructed by Detges (2004). In Old Catalan, anar developed into a narrative connective emphasizing the unforeseen nature of the event. Subsequently, it lost this narrative function to become a full-fledged past tense auxiliary. This particular route happens to be paralleled by the semantic evolution of ‘go’ and ‘come’ in spoken Arabic, a fact which an inter-dialectal comparison will bear out. Examples (7a–b) and (8) illustrate the verb ‘go’ in spoken Egyptian Arabic and spoken Lebanese Arabic respectively.

(7) Spoken Egyptian Arabic (Afro-Asiatic, Semitic) a. rα(α)ḥ Dαrαb-ni. counterconsecutive[=go].prf.3sg.m strike.prf.3sg.m-obj.1sg ‘He suddenly struck me.’ (Mitchell and al-Hassan 1994: 77) b. ʔāl waʔʔaf il-filūka say.prf.3sg.m stop.imp.2sg.m def-boat ruḥ-na muwaʔʔaf-īn. sequential[=go].prf-1pl stop.active.ptcp-pl ‘He said: “Stop the boat!” So we stopped.’ (Brustad 2000: 199)



(8) Spoken Lebanese Arabic (Afro-Asiatic, Semitic) ʕād reḥ-na šef-nɛ̄-h mbɛ̄reḥ. again pst[=go].prf-1pl see.prf-1pl-obj.3sg.m yesterday ‘We saw him again yesterday.’ (Feghali 1928: 8)

41

42

Philippe Bourdin

While in (7a) ‘go’ combines with a verb in the perfect and highlights the unforeseen nature of the event, in (7b) it combines with a verb in the participle and specifies the event as a consequence of the event described by the previous sentence. In turn, ‘go’ in example (8) no longer encodes sequentiality, but signals merely that the event is situated in the past. Much the same contrast obtains between the use of ‘come’ as a sequential in varieties such as Bedouin Arabic (cf. Rosenhouse 1984: 122) and its use as an index of past time in spoken Lebanese Arabic (cf. Feghali 1928: 8).

3.2  Morphosyntactic aspects The grammaticalization of ‘come’ and ‘go’ into sequentials exhibits a wide range of morphosyntactic variation across languages. At one extreme stand languages like Neo-Aramaic, exemplified in (5) above, in which ‘go’ has retained all of its formal attributes as a  verb. Zulu is especially interesting in this regard because ‘come’ has followed two distinct grammaticalization pathways, both illustrated in example (9).

(9) Zulu (Niger-Congo, Bantu (S40); South Africa) si-zo-libala si-ze si-bone 1pl-fut[ zAm > Am > -m] (Kang 1993: 49, 65).2 However, recruiting a verb for the development of a nominalizer seems unusual due to its lack of nominal characteristics.3

3.2 Uses of nominalizers The nominalizers -l and -n, though thought to have been actively used in Old Korean (Lee 1974; Hong 1983a), occur very infrequently in Middle Korean literature and completely disappear in Modern Korean. Examples (1a–b) illustrate the use of -l and -n in their nominalizing function as attested in Middle Korean.4

(1) Middle Korean a. olh-i taA-l ep-kenAl this.year-nom exhaust-nmlz not.exist-as ‘as this year doesn’t (seem to) end’ (1577, Palsimswuhayngcang 36)

2.  As Marilyn Plumlee points out (personal communication), the change from /s/ to /z/ would imply a fortification rather than a reduction and, therefore, the reductive process should be considered as having involved some fluctuation. Likewise, the deletion of /z/ without intermediate stages may seem unnatural. The Old and Middle Korean phoneme /z/, which disappeared completely in Modern Korean, in fact survives either as /s/ or /w/ in Present-day Korean. 3.  Verbs, however, seem to serve indirectly as a source of nominalizers. One of the reviewers points out that verbs have been noted as sources of deictics, which, in turn, become sources of nominalizers. 4.  The Extended Yale Romanization (Rhee 1996) was used for transliteration of the Korean data.

On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers 243



b. alph-Ay hehA-sya-n tai hA-syosye. front-at allow-hon-nmlz according.to do-hon.opt.end ‘Please do (it) according to the previous permission.’ (1463, Pephwakyeng Enhay 2: 138) In (1a), the nominalized clausal subject taAl ‘exhausting, reaching the end’ of an embedded causative sentence occurs without a nominative case marker, an omission which is common in Korean. Since the main verb in this clause is unambiguously ep- ‘not exist,’ the nominal status of taAl is unequivocal and so is the nominalizer status of -l. Likewise, in (1b) the necessity of a nominal host for the prolative case marker tai ‘according to’ leads to the interpretation of hehAsyan as a nominal and, consequently, to the interpretation of -n as a nominalizer.5 The use of -i for nominalizing verbs, adjectives, nouns and even onomatopoeic words was among the most productive derivational processes in Middle Korean (cf. Section 4.1 below). Its application was extensive, used for varied functions. One of these was to designate individuated entities, such as the nomenclature of animals and persons named after the use of their typical sounds or their characteristic shapes, as shown in (2), where the onomatopoeic word is combined with a nominalizer. Other functions of nominalizer -i were to derive eventive nominals, as shown in (3a), or propositional nominals, as in (3b) below.

(2) a. b. c.

Middle Korean kulyek-i ‘wild goose’ (lit. ‘one that makes the sound of ‘kulyek’’) Middle Korean pwuheng-i ‘owl’ (lit. ‘one that makes the sound of ‘pwuheng’’) Modern Korean ttwungttwung-i ‘a fat person’ (lit. ‘one that looks ‘ttwungttwung’’)



(3) Middle Korean a. seng ssa-ø sal-i-lAl sicakhA-nila. castle build-nfin live-nmlz-acc begin-end ‘He built the castle and began a life (there).’ (1458, Welinsekpo 1: 44) b. wuli pap mek-i mAch-atun we meal eat-nmlz finish-if ‘when we finish eating’ (1517, Penyek Nokeltay 1: 55)

5.  The prolative marker -tai also originated from tA ‘place’ and, therefore, the nominalizer -n could have been (re)analysed as an adnominalizer. The categorical fluctuation between these two grammatical functions may have been affected by context-induced reinterpretation in such situations (Heine et al. 1991).

244 Seongha Rhee

The nominalizer -m, in turn, was widely used in Old Korean (Hong 1983a), and was in fact the most common nominalizer in this period as attested in Hyangka poetry; cf. example (4) below.

(4) Old Korean ka-n pom kuli-m-ay pass-adnz spring miss-nmlz-at ‘because of missing the past spring’/‘because things miss the spring that went by’ (692–702 A D, Mocwukcilangka)

In Modern Korean -m is still productively used. There has been much research concerning the meanings of the nominals derived from this process, especially in contrast with its competitor -ki. The results, however, are contradictory (cf., among others, Choe 1961; Jang 1966; Im 1974; Chae 1979; Shim 1980; Kwon 1981; Hong 1983b; Song 1992; K. Kim 1996). Hong’s (1983b) generalization, for example, is that the -m-derived nominals tend to highlight the temporary and concrete nature of an event; cf. the examples in (5) below.

(5) Modern Korean a. ka- ‘go’ > kam ‘going’ b. po- ‘see’ > pom ‘seeing’ c. aphu- ‘be painful’ > aphum ‘pain’ d. palk- ‘be bright’ > palkum ‘brightness’

As for the development of the -ti class of nominalizers (i.e. -ti, -ki and -ci), there are contradictory claims as to the order of emergence between -ti and -ki (cf. Lee 1991 vs. Hong 1983a). Scholars generally agree, however, that -ci is definitely a later development. The difficulty in establishing the order is attributable to the fact that both -ti and -ki are attested in Old Korean, albeit infrequently. By Middle Korean they become more widely used and there are many instances in parallel texts which indicate that they are interchangeable in this period (Shim 1990). However, the use of -ki became increasingly frequent from Middle Korean, driving out its rival -ti and even infringing on the domains occupied by its older and more widelyused competitor -m. With -ki gaining power, -ti gradually changed to -ci through a then widespread phonological change of palatalization, which eventually resulted in the total disappearance of -ti by Early Modern Korean times. An interesting aspect of this change is that, with the disappearance of -ti, -ki came into competition with -ci, which was relegated to a peripheral role, that of nominalization in negative sentences (cf. Section 4.3 below). In Modern Korean -ki is still a very productive nominalizer. Illustrative examples of the nominalizers -ki, -ti and -ci as used in early texts are given in (6a–c).





On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers 245

(6) a. Middle Korean cyemun nah-ay kulsu-ki-wa kal psu-ki-wa pAyho-ni young age-at write-nmlz-and sword use-nmlz-and learn-as ‘as I learned writing and fencing at a young age’ (1481, Twusienhay I.7: 15) b. Middle Korean pephuy-lo kyecip sam-ti hA-si-nila. religious.joy-with wife regard-nmlz do-hon-end ‘He regarded his religious joy as his wife [i.e. thus kept celibacy].’ (1575, Wenkakkyeng 3: 77) c. Early Modern Korean tut-ci kAcang saylop-tota. hear-nmlz very be.new-exclam ‘It is truly a new thing to hear.’/‘To hear it is very refreshing.’ (1632, Twusienhay II.17: 16)

Finally, the grammaticalization of kes has received much attention (cf. notably Yoon 1995; E. Kim 1996; Sohn 1997; Park 1999). Despite its obvious lexical status as a noun, it lacked syntactic autonomy (Wang 1988) and semantic specificity as far back as the earliest extant data, a fact suggesting that it had considerably lost its syntagmatic variability (Lehmann 1995) and that its meaning had been generalized as a result. In fact, Middle Korean kes is generally classified as a member of a class of defective nouns, which includes a large number of substantives which could not appear by themselves and had to occur obligatorily with a modifier. These defective nouns had bleached meanings, such as ‘time,’ ‘place,’ ‘person,’ ‘thing,’ ‘cause,’ and so on, but kes gradually expanded its context of use and replaced other defective nouns (Wang 1988; Jung 1991; E. Kim 1996). Among the earliest examples of kes are those given under (7a) and (7b) below.

(7) Middle Korean a. mul-ey-s kes-i-mye mwuth-uy-s kes-i-mye water-at-gen thing-cop-and land-at-gen thing-cop-and ‘whether it be a thing in the water or a thing on the land [i.e. fish or animal]’ (1459, Welinsekpo 1: 11) b. thayca-s-pep-un kecusmal-Al ani hA-si-non kes-i-ni prince-gen-rule-top lie-acc not do-hon-adnz thing-cop-as ‘since the prince’s rule states that princes should not tell a lie’ (1447, Sekposangcel 6: 25)

246 Seongha Rhee

3.3 Semantic change Given that grammaticalization is a process whereby the grammaticality of a linguistic form increases and that grammaticality involves both meaning and function, semantic change constitutes an important concomitant of grammaticalization and, thus, it is sometimes even equated with grammaticalization. However, as Traugott (personal communication) points out, despite strong correlation, equating semantic change with grammaticalization is erroneous, since there are numerous instances of semantic change which do not involve grammaticalization. In addition, distinguishing between lexical semantic change and grammatical semantic change is useful, the latter being more regular than the former (cf. Lessau 1994: 756). Since it is hypothesized that grammaticalization is actuated by semantic changes (cf. Traugott and Dasher 2002: 283; see also Fleischman 1982; Bybee et al. 1994; Hopper and Traugott 2003), a discussion of the semantic changes occurring in the course of the development of the Korean nominalizers from their known sources is called for. The first semantic and functional change to be considered is that associated with the development of the nominalizer -i, whose emergence, as mentioned in Section 3.1, involved a demonstrative which was also the source of the demonstrative and personal pronoun i, the nominative case marker -i and the copula i-. Let us examine the relatedness of these forms in their semantic and functional aspects from a crosslinguistic viewpoint. The relation between demonstrative and pronoun seems to have a strong conceptual motivation. In its most primitive form, probably accompanied by a gestural sign, a demonstrative functions as a device to index an entity in the real world. A pronoun, in turn, is a more grammaticalized use of the demonstrative to index an entity according to the paradigmatic organization of means of reference. This is an instance of semantico-pragmatic change of a linguistic form from the de re domain to the de dicto domain. As a matter of fact, it is common for a proximal demonstrative ‘this’ and a proximal pronoun signifying ‘this person, this thing’ to share a source, as evidenced by the demonstrative-pronoun relations in English this, French il from the demonstrative ille in Latin, Pharaonic Egyptian pw (Gardiner 1957), Lezgian a/am (Haspelmath 1993), Turkish o (Lewis 1985) and Early Eastern Australian Pidgin English dat (Baker 1995), as discussed in Traugott (1980), Casad (1984), Givón (1984), Heine and Reh (1984), Diessel (1999), Heine and Kuteva (2002) and numerous others. The relation between nominalizer and pronoun is also conceptually motivated in that both are devices which enable speakers to refer to an entity. Horie (1998) and Yap et al. (2004), focussing on the fact that Japanese -no as a sentential nominalizer involves events or propositions, suggest that the pronoun involves



On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers 247

reference to first-order entities (i.e. things), whereas the sentential nominalizer involves reference to second-order and third-order entities (i.e. events and propositions, respectively). This relation is also evident in Korean. Thus, for instance, ku kes (literally ‘that thing’), involving the nominalizer kes, is the source of the nonhuman third person pronoun kukes. The change is so minimal, and apparent only in the orthographic representation where deletion of the intervening space between the two morphemes occurs, that some Koreans still write it as two separate words, obviously due to the formal transparency of its phrasal origin in the source construction. The evolution of the nominative marker -i from the demonstrative is also very interesting. In Hyangka, an Old Korean literary genre written with Chinese characters, the selection of the Chinese characters for content items was based on their meaning, whereas for functional items, such as case particles and endings, it was based on either their sound or their meaning. In this genre, the nominative marker was often indicated by a Chinese character si, meaning ‘this,’ or by i, which has the phonetic value [i]. Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize that a reanalysis of the type illustrated in the change from (8a) to (8b) below was involved in the genesis of the nominative marker, which is immediately reminiscent of the development of the subject from the topic (cf. Li and Thompson 1976).

(8) Middle Korean a. seycon i sangtwusan-ay ka-si-a […] Buddha this Mt. Sangdu-to go-hon-and ‘Buddha, this went to Mt. Sangdu and […]’ b. seycon-i sangtwusan-ay ka-si-a […] Buddha-nom Mt. Sangdu-to go-hon-and ‘Buddha went to Mt. Sangdu and […]’ (1447, Sekposangcel 6: 1)

From the viewpoint of reanalysis, through which semantic and functional change comes about, a similar account can explain the development of the copula i-, the only difference being that the former pronoun and demonstrative follows the complement, preceding the sentential end-marker, thus lending itself to a reanalysis as the marker of a predicate. The development of a copula from a demonstrative following a topic is also attested in ancient Egyptian (cf. Gardiner 1957 and Koelle 1968, as discussed in Lehmann 1995). From a semantic point of view, it was indicated in Section 3.1 that most nominalizers developed from nouns denoting ‘thing’ or ‘place,’ which suggests that, despite their significant level of abstraction in current use, their relation to the grammatical function is intuitively transparent. This direct relationship between the source semantics and the resultant grammatical function lends support to the source determination hypothesis, which states that the actual meaning of the

248 Seongha Rhee

grammaticalizing construction uniquely determines the grammaticalization path and the resulting grammatical meaning (cf. Bybee et al. 1994: 9). The nominalizers -ti, -ki, -ci and kes illustrate this, the first three sharing a common source ti ‘thing,’ further traceable to tA ‘place’ (Hong 1983a). As for the source of kes, Hong (1983a) suggests that it developed from kes/kas/ kach, which formerly meant ‘thing, skin, surface.’ In this regard, the form encoding the concept of ‘skin, surface’ of a thing extended its use to refer to the thing itself, a case of synecdoche. Incidentally, Modern Korean has a form keth meaning ‘skin, fur, surface, appearance,’ whose pronunciation is identical with that of kes in many phonological environments. The semantic change from ‘thing’ to the hardto-define grammatical meaning of nominalizer did not occur in one fell swoop, but involved many intermediate changes (cf. Park 1999). What we witness first is the change from ‘thing’ primarily referring to entities which are tangible, highly individuated and often generic, as in (9a) and (9b), to any conceptual entities which are intangible and abstract, as in (9c), where kes shows phonological reduction into ke.

(9) Modern Korean a. mul-ey-s kes water-at-gen thing ‘thing(s) in the water/fish’ b. mek-ul kes eat-prosp.adnz thing ‘thing(s) to eat/food’ c. insayng-i-la-nun ke-y cham teseps-ta. life-be-comp-adnz thing-nom truly be.ephemeral-decl ‘The thing which is called “life” is truly ephemeral.’/ ‘Life is truly ephemeral.’

Further semantic generalization occurs in order to include events, states or activities. It is at this stage that kes can be used to nominalize propositional content by virtue of its ability to refer to conceptually complex entities, thus acquiring the status of a full-fledged nominalizer, as illustrated in the following contemporary example: (10) Modern Korean ku-ka ecey cwuk-ess-ta-nun kes-i-pnita. he-nom yesterday die-pst-comp-adnz thing-cop-end ‘The thing is that he died yesterday.’/‘He died yesterday.’ The semantic changes associated with kes, however, do not stop here. It further loses whatever little semantic content it still retains, to refer to not only almost any-



On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers 249

thing, be it an entity, event or proposition, but also something which cannot be conceptually identified. In other words, the semantic content of kes is completely lost, as is shown in the examples under (11) below, where even native speakers cannot identify the referent of kes and are unable to distinguish the propositional meaning of (11a) and (11b) from that of their counterparts without nominalization, (11a’) and (11b’), except that the former sound more formal and carry a sense of assertiveness on the part of the speaker. (11) Modern Korean a. palo kuttay cenhwa-ka o–n kes-i-ta. right then phone-nom come-ant.adnz thing-cop-decl ‘Right then the phone rang.’ b. loma-nun kulehkey myelmangha-n kes-i-ta. Rome-top so perish-ant.adnz thing-cop-decl ‘Rome fell like that.’ a′. palo kuttay cenhwa-ka o-ass-ta. right then phone-nom come-pst-decl ‘Right then the phone rang.’ b′. loma-nun kulehkey myelmangha-ess-ta. Rome-top so perish-pst-decl ‘Rome fell like that.’ The series of semantic changes of kes can be characterized as semantic generalization through metaphor, since its referential domain was expanded from a concrete to an abstract domain. However, as we have seen in the last stage of semantic generalization, the semantic content of kes is completely lost and only its function survives. It may be for this reason that the nominalizer kes has been subject to massive phonological reduction, often resulting in [k]. In other words, kes seems to be unable to resist reductive changes due to the loss of its semantic content.6 On the other hand, the concomitant phonological reduction renders its lexical source opaque and promotes the development of other epistemic functions, marking the speaker’s attitudes toward the proposition. We shall return to this issue in Section 4.4 below. The semantic change undergone by the nominalizer -m, whose alleged origin is the verb sAm- ‘regard, consider’ (cf. Kang 1993; also Section 3.1 above), shows an interesting aspect of human conceptualization. The nominalizer -m can func6.  There are grammatical markers which once involved kes in their source constructions, from which kes disappeared due to extensive reduction. For instance, the topic marker -lan developed from -lako hanun kesun, which literally means ‘as for the thing that people call x.’ See Rhee (2004b) for a discussion of extensive paradigmatic change in grammar due to this type of extreme formal reduction.

250 Seongha Rhee

tion with a wide variety of syntactically complex forms, but when it is used with a simple verb, the derived nominals often refer to concrete entities, as shown in the examples listed in (12). (12) Modern Korean a. cwi- ‘grasp’ > cwum ‘fist’ b. ssawu- ‘struggle’ > ssawum ‘fight’ c. el- ‘freeze’ > elum ‘ice’ d. kuli- ‘draw’ > kulim ‘picture’ These examples show that the verb–noun relationship mediated by the nominalizer -m is construed as one where the effected entity (the noun) is regarded as integral to its effecting event (the verb). Thus, for example, in (12a) above, the noun ‘fist’ is an effected entity of the action of ‘grasping.’

4. Specialization of nominalizers in Modern Korean We have seen in the preceding sections that several nominalizers have existed in the history of the Korean language, each experiencing its own rise and fall. Most of them have survived up to Modern Korean, at least in form, therefore constituting an extreme form of layering (Hopper 1991; Hopper and Traugott 2003); in other words, the old forms and the new forms exist side by side carrying the same or similar functions. Multiple forms coexist and compete for primacy of use in the function concerned, leading to a situation where a small number of forms are predominantly used, whereas all others are relegated to secondary options, usually chosen for genre or register-specific sub-functions. This is exactly the state of affairs in Korean nominalization. As mentioned in Section 2 above, the nominalizer kes is most frequently used in Modern Korean. All other forms are less common and less productive than kes, and each of them has its own specialization, resulting in meaning differences or different levels of illocutionary force when used as sentential ending functions. We now turn to a discussion of differences among the nominalizers available in the language in Present-day Korean.

4.1 Differential levels of abstraction The nominalizer -i has the sole function of naming entities derived from onomatopoeic words (see Section 3.2 above). A large lexical set of names of fish, insects and birds has been formed through this process. Moreover, in child language many land-animals and inanimate entities have such names. Some examples of this phenomenon in child language are given in (13).

On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers 251



(13) Modern Korean ttallang-i  ‘rattle’ (lit. ‘one that makes the sound “ttallang”’) kkwulkkwul-i  ‘pig’ (lit. ‘one that makes the sound “kkwulkkwul”’) ppangppang-i  ‘car’ (lit. ‘one that makes the sound “ppangppang”’) For verbs and adjectives, the nominalizers show distinct patterns of nominalization in order to derive names of concrete or abstract entities. Their division of labour in Modern Korean is such that, of the three competing nominalizers, -i, -m and -ki, only one is allowed for each word in the process of deriving a fully-fledged noun, whereas either one or both of the other two are allowed for gerundivalnominalization. This is illustrated in Table 1, which shows that -i is the least productive and is never utilized to derive a gerund. Table 1 further shows that -m and -ki are both very productive in deriving fully-fledged nouns and gerunds. Considering how productive -i is reported to have been in lexicalization until Middle Korean, when it was applicable to verbs, adjectives, nouns, onomatopoeia, personal names, etc. (cf. Song 1992; Section 3.2 above), we conclude that its function has considerably weakened over time. Table 1.  Entity-name derivation by nominalizers in Modern Korean STEM ket- ‘walk’ mwut- ‘ask’ wus- ‘laugh’ mek- ‘eat’ pel- ‘earn’ phwul- ‘solve’ talli- ‘run’ tenci- ‘throw’ teha- ‘add’ twulyep- ‘be afraid’ kippu- ‘be glad’ sulphu- ‘be sad’ kwut- ‘be hard’ kwulk- ‘be thick’ sey- ‘be strong’ noph- ‘be high’ kil- ‘be long’ kiph- ‘be deep’

-i

meki ‘food’ peli ‘income’ phwuli ‘solution’

nophi ‘height’ kili ‘length’ kiphi ‘depth’

-m

-ki

kelum ‘pace’ mwulum ‘question’ wusum ‘laughter’ Gerund Gerund Gerund Gerund Gerund Gerund twulyewum ‘fear’ kippum ‘joy’ sulphum ‘sorrow’ Gerund Gerund Gerund Gerund Gerund Gerund

Gerund Gerund Gerund Gerund Gerund Gerund talliki ‘running’ tenciki ‘throwing’ tehaki ‘addition’ Gerund Gerund Gerund kwutki ‘hardness’ kwulkki ‘thickness’ seyki ‘strength’ Gerund Gerund Gerund

On the other hand, the nominalizer kes exhibits an interesting pattern of behaviour. In terms of its categorical status, kes is still a noun and is syntactically treated as such. Therefore, it requires an adnominal form preceding it, examples of which are -l for prospective, -nun for simultaneous or -n for anterior with respect

252 Seongha Rhee

to reference time,7 as shown in (14), where kes shows ambiguity between a nounreading and a nominalizer-reading. (14) Modern Korean a. ku-ka mek-ul kes he-nom eat-prosp.adnz thing/nmlz ‘thing that he will eat’/‘that he will eat’ b. ku-ka mek-nun kes he-nom eat-sim.adnz thing/nmlz ‘thing that he eats’/‘that he eats’ c. ku-ka mek-un kes he-nom eat-ant.adnz thing/nmlz ‘thing that he ate’/‘that he ate’ In view of the fact that -i, though unproductive, largely participates in lexicalization, and that kes shows the highest level of productivity, even turning a propositional sentence into a nominal, the level of conceptual abstraction is lowest with the -i-nominalization and highest with the kes-nominalization. As for the relative degrees of abstraction with -m and -ki, there seems to be some variation. However, the examples in (15) below suggest that the -m-nominalization has a relatively lower degree of abstraction than the -ki-nominalization, in the sense that the meaning of the latter tends to be more procedural than that of the former.8 (15) Modern Korean sal- ‘live’ salm ‘life’ salki ‘living’ sanun kes ‘to live’

cwuk- ‘die’ cwukum ‘death’ cwukki ‘dying’ cwuknun kes ‘to die’

wus- ‘laugh’ wusum ‘laughter’ wuski ‘laughing’ wusnun kes ‘to laugh’

4.2 Differential levels of morphosyntactic bondedness Differing specialization among the nominalizers entails differences in syntagma. The three nominalizers at issue have considerable freedom in selecting syntactic constituents as objects for nominalizing processes. For instance, -ki and -m can 7.  Note, however, that these adnominal markers may accompany an epenthetic vowel /u/. 8.  The notion of the relative degree of abstraction is a tricky issue, and the situation here may be more relevant to quantification, as pointed out by Yap (personal communication). The two nominalizers indeed show different behaviour as to quantification; for example, the quantifier is more compatible with -m-nominalization than with -ki-nominalization. This difference itself seems to be due to different levels of abstraction of reified events and of perception of ‘nouniness’ of the resultant nominals.



On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers 253

take finite clauses marked with the past tense for nominalization, which, in the case of kes, is done by selecting an anterior adnominalizer, as shown in (16). (16) Modern Korean ku-ka hakkyo-ey {ka-ss-{ki, m}, ka-n-kes} he-nom school-to {go-pst-{nmlz} go-ant.adnz-nmlz} ‘that he went to school’ However, despite their apparent freedom, there are differences between them regarding morphosyntactic bondedness. For example, the three competing nominalizers show different levels of acceptability depending on the morphosyntactic complexity of the nominalized constituents. The examples in (17) below show that -ki is the least compatible and kes is the most compatible with clausal nominalization, with -m occupying a middle level of compatibility. (17) Modern Korean a. ku-ka phathi-ey ka-{*ki, ?m, √nun kes}-ul al-a? he-nom party-to go-{nmlz}-acc know-q.end ‘Do you know about his going to the party?’ b. ku-ka keki-ey ka-{*ki, ?m, √nun kes}-un isangha-ta. he-nom there-at go-{nomz}-top be.strange-decl ‘His going there is strange.’

4.3 Affirmative vs. negative specialization One of the interesting phenomena in the division of labour among nominalizers is that -ki and -ci, both originating from the same lexical source (cf. Lee 1991; Kang 1993; also Section 3.1), exhibit specialization in terms of the affirmative vs. negative distinction of the proposition being nominalized. In their historical forms -ki and -ti, these two formatives were interchangeable as nominalizer/complementizer until Middle Korean (cf. Song 1973, 1977), when the specialization gradually took place, with -ti increasingly occurring with syntactic negation constructions, as in (18b), or lexical negation constructions, as in (18c).9 (18) Modern Korean a. na-nun hakkyo-ey ka-ki caymiiss-ta. I-top school-to go-nmlz be.interesting-decl ‘I like going to school.’/‘For me it is fun to go to school.’ b. ku-nun hakkyo-ey ka-ci anh-ass-ta. he-top school-to go-nmlz be.not-pst-decl ‘He didn’t go to school.’ 9.  In both (18b) and (18c) -ci is the palatalized modern counterpart of -ti.

254 Seongha Rhee

c. ku-ka hakkyo-ey ka-l-ci molu-n-ta. he-nom school-to go-prosp-nmlz not.know-pres-decl ‘I don’t know if he will go to school.’ Rhee (2004a) suggests that -ci began as a simple nominalizer and then extended its function to a complementizer in Modern Korean. The implication of this extension is that the nominalizer -ki, which was formerly unable to take future-marked finite clauses for nominalization, can now take any type of finite clause as complement with the aid of the anterior adnominalizer -n, the simultaneous adnominalizer -nun and the prospective adnominalizer -l.

4.4 Adnominalizer vs. nominalizer specialization In an exploration of the paths of development of nominalizers in the history of Korean, the most intriguing phenomenon is the one displayed by the former nominalizers -l and -n. Despite their use in the nominalizer function in Middle Korean, they are used exclusively as adnominalizers in Modern Korean, -l being a prospective adnominalizer and -n functioning as an anterior adnominalizer. This functional change from nominalizer to adnominalizer is interesting in that the two functions, though obviously related,10 belong to two distinct grammatical categories, one an adjective (i.e. modifier), the other a noun (i.e. modified). Some of the early examples of -l and -n nominalization are given in (19a–b). (19) a. Middle Korean nolay-lAl nooy-ya sulphu-l–s eps-i song-acc repeat-and be.sad-nmlz-gen not.exist-advr pulu-nAni […] sing-and ‘repeat the song and sing it without being sad [sadness] and […]’ (1481, Twusienhay I.25: 53) b. Early Modern Korean tek-i-ye pok-i-la ho-n-Al naA-la virtue-cop-and happiness-cop-comp do-nmlz-acc advance-purp o-soita. come-hon.hort ‘Please come to offer the gifts named ‘Virtue’ and ‘Happiness’.’ (1610, Tongtong; Akhakkweypem II 5: 8) 10.  Cf. Nishi (2005) and Yap and Matthews (this volume) for Japanese -no; Shin (2005) for Mandarin de; Noonan (1997, this volume) for Bodic languages; DeLancey (1986), Noonan (1997) and references therein for Tibeto-Burman.



On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers 255

In the above examples, -l and -n are unequivocally nominalizers by virtue of their hosting a case marker (genitive and accusative, respectively). What is interesting is that in Middle Korean there were numerous adnominalizers which depended on such modal notions as indicative, subjunctive and purposive as well as tense–­ aspect distinctions (cf. Lee 1992: 276–282). These adnominalizers invariably contain -n for past or anterior and -l for future, prospective or undetermined tense. This implies that the Modern Korean adnominalizers date back to Middle Korean, and that Middle Korean adnominalizers had nominalizer functions (Lee 1967; Kim 1975). An examination of the attestations of Middle and Early Modern Korean data where -l and -n carry the nominalizer function, as (19a–b) above, reveals that they indeed carry the semantic properties with respect to these tense–aspect distinctions.11 In view of the fact that -l and -n were among the oldest nominalizers in Korean, as in other typologically related languages, it can reasonably be hypothesized that they were nominalizers with tense–aspect distinctions from the beginning, which, with the other competing nominalizers emerging as a new layer in the nominalizer domain, diverted their paths onto the adnominalizers. The ultimate specialization of these former nominalizers was, therefore, semantically motivated under the pressure of their emerging competitors which had freedom with respect to tense–aspect distinctions. There has been some controversy as to the developmental direction between adnominalizers in relative clauses and nominalizers (cf. DeLancey 1989; Genetti 1992, 1994; Noonan 1997; Hennesy and Givón 2002, among others). The direction of the development between these two functions in -l and -n in Korean is by no means conclusive because of the lack of extensive data showing their original functions prior to Middle Korean. For the same reason, neither can we determine whether the development is related to the availability of appositive interpretation of relative clauses, as suggested by DeLancey (1986).12 11.  Traugott (personal communication) points out that nominalizers are not often tense-aspect markers. However, some recent work on Guarani and aboriginal languages suggests that nominals can also be marked for tense or aspect. Modern Korean nominalizers allow co-occurrence of tense-aspect markers, though they do not mark tense and aspect by themselves, in clear contrast with the Old and Middle Korean nominalizers -l and -n. As suggested by Traugott, this issue merits further research. 12.  Yap (personal communication) points out that the adnominalization function typically involves embedding, which is a more conservative context (Bybee et al. 1994), and may be exposed to a lesser degree of reductive processes of grammaticalization. It is thus possible to hypothesize that there has been no directional change and that the adnominalizer function had been the original function of -l and -n which persisted over a long time. What we know from the limited data available is that both -l and -n were formerly fully-fledged nominalizers and are now exclusively adnominalizers.

256 Seongha Rhee

4.5 Sentential end-marking functions It is common for linguistic forms to acquire new functions in related domains in the course of grammaticalization. In the grammaticalization of Korean nominalizers, there arose other diverse functions which are intricately interrelated, those of complementizer, adverbializer, clausal connector and sentential end-marker, whose boundaries are often not discrete (cf. Rhee 2004a). In the process of the emergence of these functions, different semantic, syntactic and pragmatic mechanisms operate, largely triggered by the functional and conceptual similarities among them. Of special importance here is their sentential end-marking function with special illocutionary and modal forces. The nominalizer -m can be used to mark the end of a sentence, a function almost restricted to posted prohibitive orders, either by explicitly expressing prohibition, as in (20a), by far the most common structure, or by presenting a factual statement which induces prohibitive interpretation, as in (20b). (20) Modern Korean a. cinipha-ci mos ha-m. enter-comp neg do-end ‘Do not enter.’/‘No entering.’ b. ilpangthonghayng-i–m. one.way.thoroughfare-cop-end ‘This road is one-way.’ On the other hand, -ki rarely functions as a sentential end-marker, its use being restricted to those oral contexts where the suggestions are not assertive but only suggestive. This is often used by children in casual play situations, as shown in (21). (21) nolli-ki eps-ki ridicule-nmlz not.exist-end ‘Don’t ridicule me!’/‘No ridiculing.’ The lack of assertive force of -ki-ending sentences contrasts starkly with its derived form -ci in its sentential ending function. While -ci in its nominalizer/complementizer function is restricted to negative contexts in embedded clauses (cf. Section 4.3 above), in its sentential end-marking function it has no restriction as to negative vs. positive distinctions, as shown in the following examples. (22) Modern Korean a. nay mal an tut-ko mos payki-ci. my word neg listen-and neg bear-end ‘You cannot endure without following my instruction.’/‘You cannot help obeying me.’

On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers 257



b. c.

ku salam cham coh-un salam-i-ci the person very good-adnz person-cop-end ‘He is a nice person indeed!’ ese cip-ey ka-ci quick house-to go-end ‘Why don’t you go home right away!’

The sentential end-marker -ci in the above examples encodes the speaker’s emotion, belief or determinative attitude to the proposition (cf. Rhee 2004a).13 This semantic characteristic seems to have been inherited from its complementizer function. However, there has been a long drawn-out controversy as to the semantic features of -ci, often leading to contradictory characterizations of the marker. For example, Martin (1992: 453) labels the sentence end-marker -ci as suspective, thus claiming absence of assertive force by virtue of its being low on the scale of epistemic certainty. By contrast, Jang (1973), Ko (1976), Suh (1984) and many others, while agreeing that it encodes supposition, maintain that its meaning relates to promises, agreement-seeking, proposal and so on, all involving a certain degree of speaker’s conviction. The apparent lack of confidence in sentences marked with -ci seems to be attributable to the use of the suppositive morpheme -keyss which often co-occurs with it. Of particular importance to the development of the sentential end-marking function among the nominalizers is that of kes, which, as seen in Section 2 above, is one of the most versatile morphemes in Modern Korean, forming diverse grammatical markers, with varying degrees of morphosyntactic transparency. Since it is still a noun in terms of grammatical categorization (cf. Sections 3.2 and 4.1), it requires all the morphosyntactic trappings needed by regular nouns in order to function properly. Thus, when it develops into a sentential end-marker, it recruits a copula and a sentence-type indicator. Since the construction in which kes participates needs the sentence-final morphemes, the construction is, strictly speaking, a constellation of penultimate sentence-final morphemes rather than the sentence end-marker per se. One of the most commonly used grammatical markers involving the nominalizer kes is -lkesi-, whose function is to serve as the marker of the future tense. In turn, the sentential end-markers -lkei-, -nkei- and -nunkei-, in which kes occurs in the eroded form ke, express the speaker’s attitude and conviction about the proposition (cf. Yap et al. 2005 for Chinese; Yap and Matthews, this volume). This development seems to be attributable to the calquing of the English construction ‘the thing is that . . .’ (Choi 1994) through extensive language 13.  The determinative force associated with the ending -ci is prominent in the construction x-­ci y-­ka anita ‘it is x, not y.’

258 Seongha Rhee

c­ ontact.14 In addition to the most conservative form -lkesi-, there exist diverse variant forms, such as -lkei, -kke, -kel, -key, -lkeya, -lkkeya, -lkkel and -lkkey, among others (and -nkyo, -kki, -kkelo, etc. in dialectal varieties; Kim 1990). The use of kesforms in sentential ending is illustrated in the following examples. (23) Modern Korean a. nayil-un pi-ka o-lkesi-ta. tomorrow-top rain-nom come-fut-decl ‘It will rain tomorrow.’ b. ta cwuki-epeli-lkei-a. all kill-pfv-end-end ‘I will kill you all!’ c. kuttay ku-ka o-nkei-a. then he-nom come-end-end ‘Right then he came.’ Another set of endings developed from kes is that comprising -nkel, -nunkel and -lkel, which often mark the speaker’s subjective feeling of helplessness about a past event, a current state of affairs or a future event, respectively. When a sentence with one of these endings is uttered with a slight rising intonation, it carries a protest overtone to the addressee. A closely related development is that of the sentence ending with a prospective adnominalizer. For instance, one of the functions of -lkel is to mark the speaker’s regret about a past event. The final element in these endings, -l, is an accusative marker which indicates that the sentence is an elliptical structure, and the entire construction is, in fact, an accusative-marked nominalized clause. Development of sentential endings from ellipsis is a common phenomenon in Korean (cf. Rhee 2002), and the meanings associated with the elided elements come to be associated with the meanings of the non-elided element through pragmatic inference. Therefore, the meanings of the original nonelided counterparts of the examples in (24) below are something akin to ‘What should I do with the fact that I ate all the food?’ or ‘I did not study then despite the fact that I should have studied harder.’ (24) Modern Korean a. pap-ul ta meku-nkel. food-acc all eat-end ‘I ate it all! [What can I do since there is nothing left?]’ 14.  Marilyn Plumlee (personal communication) raises a question as to this calquing effect, primarily because the construction ‘the thing is that …’ in English belongs to a formal register, and thus shows low frequency of use. This issue certainly deserves further investigation.

On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers 259



b. kuttay kongpwu-lul yelsimhi ha-lkel. then study-acc diligently do-end ‘Oh, I should have studied harder then.’ Another sentential ending which developed from kes is -lkey, which carries a promissive function, thus being restricted to first person subject, declarative sentences, as in (25a–b). (25) Modern Korean a. nay-ka sathang sa-cwu-lkey. I-nom candy buy-give-end ‘I will get you some candies.’ b. nay-ka kkok o-lkey. I-nom exactly come-end ‘I promise I will come.’ As was the case with other nominalizers (see above), kes also has a sentential ending function in the form -lkes, as illustrated in the following examples, which are commonly found in posted signs of prohibition or instructions. (26) Modern Korean a. tuleo-ci ma-lkes. enter-comp stop-end ‘Don’t enter!’ b. oynccok-ulo tol-lkes. left-to turn-end ‘Turn left.’

5. Conclusion This paper has aimed to show the different kinds of nominalizers which have been used in Korean throughout history, their origins and the way in which they coped with the cramped situation in the functional domain of nominalization. We have seen that, over the period of approximately 1,500 years for which attestations exist, there have been numerous nominalizers in use in Korean. Their origins can be traced to lexemes with such meanings as ‘place,’ ‘thing,’ ‘this’ or ‘regard.’ In the course of time, under pressure from other competitors, some nominalizers reverted to specialization in a function which had previously been only partially associated with them, as shown by the fact that the -n and -l nominalizers developed into adnominalizers. On the other hand, the nominalizer -i, succumbing to paradigmatic pressure, lost productivity and survives only in some fossilized forms.

260 Seongha Rhee

While most nominalizers still available in Modern Korean have a wide variety of uses with relative syntagmatic freedom, the nominalizers involving kes surpass all others, ranging from a nominalizing use to a sentential ending function with diverse subjectified meanings encoding the speaker’s stance. The development of kes into other grammatical domains seems to be triggered by its formal opacity due to reductive phonological changes.

Abbreviations acc adnz advr ant comp cop decl end exclam fut gen hon hort

accusative adnominalizer adverbializer anterior complementizer copula declarative sentential ending exclamative future genitive honorific hortative

neg nfin nmlz nom opt pfv prosp prs pst purp q sim top

negation non-finite nominalizer nominative optative perfective prospective present past purposive question marker simultaneous topic

References Baker, Philip. 1995. Some developmental inferences from the historical studies of pidgins and creoles. In Jacques Arends (ed.), The early stages of creolization, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L., William Pagliuca & Revere Perkins. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Casad, Eugene. 1984. Cora. In Ronald W. Langacker (ed.), Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar. Vol. IV: Southern Uto-Aztecan grammatical sketches, 151–459. Arlington TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas. Chae, Wan. 1979. Myengsahwaso -ki-ey Tayhaye (On nominalizer -ki). Kwukehak (Korean Studies) 8: 95–107. Choe, Hyon-Bae. 1961. Wulimalpon (Korean Grammar). Seoul: Jungeumsa. Choi, Kyu-Il. 1994. Hankwuke Kes-uy Sayongkwa Uymi Kinung (3) (Uses and semantic functions of kes in Korean (3)). Cheju University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 38: 17–58. DeLancey, Scott. 1986. Relativization as nominalization in Tibetan and Newari. Paper presented at the 19th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics. Ohio State University, Columbus, September, 1986. DeLancey, Scott. 1989. Relativization and nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. Ms. University of Oregon.



On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers 261

Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fleischman, Suzanne. 1982. The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 36]. Cambridge: CUP. Gardiner, Alan. 1957. Egyptian grammar: Being an introduction to the study of hieroglyphs. 3rd edn. Oxford: OUP. Genetti, Carol. 1992. Semantic and grammatical categories of relative clause morphology in the languages of Nepal. Studies in Language 16(2): 405–427. Genetti, Carol. 1994. A descriptive and historical account of the Dolakha Newari dialect. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: OUP. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Heine, Bernd & Mechthild Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Buske. Hennesy, Pelin & Talmy Givón. 2002. Note on the grammar of Turkish nominalizations. In Joan L. Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 125–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hong, Jongseon. 1983a. Myengsahwa Emiuy Pyenchen (Historical change of nominalizing particles). Kwukekwukmwunhak (Korean Language and Literature) 89: 31–89. Hong, Jongseon. 1983b. Myengsahwa Emi -um-kwa -ki (The nominalizing particles –um and –ki). Language 8(2): 241–272. Hong, Ki-Moon. 1957. Cosenelyeksamwunpep (Historical linguistics of Korean). Pyongyang: Kwahakwen Publishing. Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. I, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. Horie, Kaoru. 1998. On the polyfunctionality of the Japanese particle no: From the perspectives of ontology and grammaticalization. In Toshio Ohori (ed.), Studies in Japanese grammaticalization: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 169–192. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Im, Hong-Pin. 1974. Myengsahwauy Uymithuksengey Tayhaye (On semantic characteristics of nominalization). Kwukehak (Korean Studies) 2: 83–104. Jang, Seok-Jin. 1966. Some remarks on Korean nominalization. Language Research 2(1): 18–31. Jang, Seok-Jin. 1973. A generative study of discourse in Korean: On connecting sentences. Language Research 9(2): 1–145. Jung, Howan. 1991. Mayinilumssi sA-uy Hyengthayloncek Kwuseng (Morphological construction of dependent noun sA). Hankul (Korean) 211: 45–78. Kang, Eun-Kook. 1993. Cosene Cepmisauy Thongsicek Yenkwu (A diachronic study of Korean suffixes). Seoul: Sekwanghakswulcalyo Publishing.

262 Seongha Rhee

Kang, Kil-Won. 1976. Hankwukewa Thoikieuy Myengsahyengsengcepsoksauy Pikyo (A comparison of nominalizing connectives in Korean and Turkish). Chungnam National University Journal of Liberal Arts 3(2): 5–26. Kim, Eon-Ju. 1996. Kes-uy Pwunphowa Kinung (Distribution and function of kes). Wulimal Yenkwu (Korean Studies) 6: 179–216. Kim, Heung-Soo. 1975. Cwungseykwukeuy Myengsahwa Yenkwu (A study of nominalization in Middle Korean). MA thesis, Seoul National University. Kim, Ki-Bok. 1996. Myengsahwa Pomwunso -um-kwa -ki-uy Yenkwu (A study of the nominalizing complementizers -um and -ki). Emwunyenkwu (Studies in Language and Literature) 28: 19–34. Kim, Seung-Gon. 1978. Hankwuke Cosauy Thongsicek Yenkwu (A historical study of Korean particles). Seoul: Tayceykak Publishing. Kim, Tae-Yeop. 1990. Uyconmyengsa kes-uy mwunpephwawa mwunpep pyenhwa (Grammaticalization of the defective noun kes and grammatical change). Daegu Emwun Nonchong (Daegu Liberal Arts Papers) 8: 177–198. Ko, Yong-Kun. 1976. Hyentaykwukeuy Mwuncheypepey Tayhan Yenkwu (A study on the stylistics in Modern Korean). Language Research 12(2): 16–53. Koelle, Sigismund Wilhelm. 1968. Outlines of grammar of the Vei language: Together with a VeiEnglish vocabulary and an account of the discovery of the Vei mode of syllabic writing. Farnborou: Gregg International Publishers. Kwon, Jae-Il. 1981. Hyentaykwukeuy ki-myengsahwa Nayphomwun Yenkwu (A study of kinominalized subordinate sentences in Modern Korean). Hankul (Korean) 167: 73–94. Kwon, Jae-Il. 1995. 20seyki Choki Kwukeuy Myengsahwa Kwumwun Yenkwu (A study of nominalization in early 20th century Korean). Hankul (Korean) 229: 203–232. Lee, Deuk-Choon. 1991. Yeksacek Ihwahyensanguloseuy (ti>ki (t>k)) Pyenhwa (Change of (ti>ki (t>k)) as a historical dissimilation). Enemwunhak Hakswulnonmwuncip (Journal of Language and Literature), 1–25. Yenben: Yenben People’s Publishing Company. Lee, Ki-Moon. 1967. Hankwuke Hyengsengsa (A history of the development of Korean). Seoul: Korea University. Lee, Ki-Moon. 1974. Kwukesa Kaysel (An introduction to the history of Korean). Seoul: Minjungsegwan. Lee, Soong-Nyung. 1992. Cwungseykwuke Mwunpep: 15seykilul Cwulo Haye (Middle Korean grammar: With special reference to the 15th century). 2nd edn, revised. Seoul: Ulyou Munhwasa. Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch. 2nd edn. Munich: Lincom. Lessau, Donald A. 1994. A dictionary of grammaticalization. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1985. Turkish grammar. Oxford: OUP. Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 457–490. New York NY: Academic Press. Martin, Samuel E. 1992. A reference grammar of Korean. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company. Möllendorff, Paul Georg von. 1892. Manchu grammar with analysed texts. Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press. Nishi, Yumiko. 2005. The decline of adnominals and the rise of a post-predicate pronoun and a complementizer: The case of Classical Japanese no. Ms. Cornell University.



On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers 263

Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type. In honor of T. Givón, 373–394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Park, Joo Young. 1999. A study of grammaticalization of kut. MA thesis, Sang Myung University, Seoul. Poppe, Nicholas. 1954. Grammar of written Mongolian. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Poppe, Nicholas. 1955. Introduction to Mongolian comparative studies. Helsinki: Suoma laisugrilainen Seura. Rhee, Seongha. 1996. Semantics of verbs and grammaticalization: The development in Korean from a cross-linguistic perspective. Seoul: Hankuk Publisher. Rhee, Seongha. 2002. From silence to grammar: Grammaticalization of ellipsis in Korean. Paper presented at New Reflections on Grammaticalization 2, University of Amsterdam, April 2002. Rhee, Seongha. 2004a. When stop goes further: From malta ‘stop’ to auxiliary verbs in Korean. Korean Language Research 13: 309–339. Rhee, Seongha. 2004b. On grammatical forms in the intermediate stage in grammaticalization. Paper presented at 2004 Summer Conference of Linguistic Science Society. Catholic University of Daegu, August 2004. Ryu, Ryul. 1990. Cosenmallyeksa (1) (A history of Korean (I)). Pyongyang: Sahoykwahak Publishing. Shim, Jae-Kee. 1980. Myengsahwauy Uymikinung (Semantic functions of nominalization). Language 5: 79–102. Shim, Jae-Kee. 1990. Kwuke Ehwilon (Korean lexicology). 4th edn. Seoul: Jipmoondang. Shin, Mikyong. 2005. Bridging the worlds of adnominal and pronominal: The case of Korean -n geot. Paper presented at New Reflections on Grammaticalization 3, Santiago de Compostela, July 2005. Sohn, Choon-Sup. 1997. Uyconmyengsa kes-ey Tayhan Kochal (Thought on the dependent noun kes). Hankwukenemwunhak (Korean Language and Literature) 38: 47–62. Song, Cheol-Eui. 1992. Kwukeuy Phasaynge Hyengseng Yenkwu (A study of derivation in Korean). Seoul: Thayhaksa Publishing. Song, Seok-Choong. 1973. Some negative remarks on negation in Korean. Language Research 9(2): 252–263. Song, Seok-Choong. 1977. Pwucenguy Yangsanguy Pwucencek Yangsang (A negative aspect of the negative aspect). Kwukehak (Korean Studies) 5: 45–100. Suh, Jung-Soo. 1984. Contaypep Yenkwu (A study on honorification). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1980. Meaning-change in the development of grammatical markers. Language Science 2: 44–61. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: CUP. Wang, Moon-Yong. 1988. Kuntay Kwukeuy Uyconmyengsa Yenkwu (A study of dependent nouns in Early Modern Korean). Seoul: Hansaym Publishing. Yap, Foong Ha, Yang Gu & Hongyong Liu. 2005. From nominalizer to stance marker: A syntactic account of grammaticalization and pragmaticization phenomena. Paper presented at From Ideational to Interpersonal: Perspectives from Grammaticalization (FITIGRA) Conference, Leuven, February 2005.

264 Seongha Rhee

Yap, Foong Ha, Stephen Matthews & Kaoru Horie. 2004. From pronominalizer to pragmatic marker: Implications for unidirectionality from a crosslinguistic perspective. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 59), 137–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Yoon, Kyung-Mi. 1995. Kes-uy Hyengthayloncek Thukseng Yenkwu (A study on the morphological characteristics of ‑kes). Dong-A University Kwukekwukmwunhak Nonmwuncip 14: 219–234.

chapter 10

The grammaticalization of clausal ­nominalizers in Burmese Andrew Simpson University of Southern California This paper is concerned with the grammaticalization of clausal nominalizers in two different but closely-related forms of Burmese, Colloquial Burmese and Literary Burmese. A contrastive overview of the morphosyntactic properties of the nominalizers thii and mii of Literary Burmese and their Colloquial Burmese counterparts te and me, together with the application of a number of tests for the identification of nominalized constructions, reveal that grammaticalization is more advanced in the colloquial language than in the literary variety: te and me have lost their nominal specifications and been reanalysed as grammatical elements of a different categorial type, instantiating verb-related mood and realis–irrealis distinctions. The comparison of the system of nominalization in the two complementary varieties of Burmese allows for insights into the evolution, spread and reinterpretation of nominalization structures within a language.

1. Introduction The crosslinguistic phenomenon of nominalization is an area of morphosyntax which has attracted growing interest in both formal and functional linguistics in recent years, as data from an increasing number of languages become available and add important insights into the grammaticalization paths and syntactic structure underlying the emergence of nominalizing elements. The present paper sets out to probe this area of morphosyntactic development further with a study focussed on Burmese, a language which is particularly rich in nominalization structures and where a  highly informative picture of the results of the grammaticalization of clausal and sentential nominalizers can be found through a comparison of two different though closely-related forms of the language: Colloquial Burmese and Literary Burmese. A careful examination of synchronic patterns in Colloquial and Literary Burmese provides evidence of the source and complex structure of clausal nominalizers in the language. It also indicates that, in certain cases, earlier nominalizers have undergone regrammaticalization as functional morphemes of a different formal type, no longer instantiating nominal categories, but being reanalysed as modal and complementizer-type elements. Quite generally, the patterning found in Burmese nominalization raises questions about the assumed syn-

266 Andrew Simpson

chronic status of nominalizers in other languages, and about how the occurrence of cross-categorial reanalysis of (already) grammaticalized morphemes can effectively be detected. The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 first considers how nominalizers may be identified in a language and what morphosyntactic properties and sources nominalizers seem to exhibit in general. Section 3 then turns to Burmese and attempts to establish how the current, productive clausal nominalizers in Literary Burmese have undergone grammaticalization producing complex, fused forms which occur in a range of syntactic environments. This leads on to a comparison with similar patterns in Colloquial Burmese, where the conclusion is reached that nominalization in the colloquial language has progressed a significant stage further and has resulted in the reanalysis of erstwhile nominalizers as grammatical elements of a rather different clausal type. Section 4 then closes the paper with a brief summary of its findings and questions which are raised by the patterning observed.

2. Nominalizers and their common and divergent properties: A brief overview 2.1 What are nominalizers and what sources do they develop from? In the broad, developing literature concerned with nominalization, it is not uncommon to find the term nominalizer being made use of rather loosely to refer to elements whose status as nominalizers has not been particularly clearly established. As we begin this investigation it is therefore useful to attempt to clarify what kinds of morphemes should be genuinely labelled as nominalizers and how one might attempt to identify a particular grammatical element as a nominalizer rather than as some other kind of syntactic category. The term nominalizer is a purely functional label which is appropriately used to refer to all those morphemes or words which have the specific function of creating a  nominal morphosyntactic form as the result of their combination with other kinds of non-nominal input. Nominal categories, and hence the presence of functional elements which may be nominalizers, can, in turn, be identified in two basic ways: (i) through the occurrence of noun-like or nominal morphological patterns and/or (ii) via syntactic privileges otherwise commonly associated with nouns and their syntactic projections. Concerning the morphological evidence for the presence of a nominal (rather than a verbal, adjectival or other) category, the potential occurrence of a range of common nominal attachments or inflections on a syntactic phrase or a combination of certain other syntactic categories with the phrase can be taken as indica-

The grammaticalization of clausal ­nominalizers in Burmese 267



tion that a phrase is nominal, patterning in a morphological and combinatorial way like other simple nouns and their expansions into noun-rooted phrases. The following are typical morphosyntactic indications that a syntactic constituent is nominal: a. Occurrence of case inflections on a constituent. b. Possible pluralization of the constituent. c. Possible enumeration of the constituent (i.e. combination of the constituent with numerals). d. Potential occurrence of demonstratives and adjectives with the constituent, rather than complementizers and adverbs. e. Use of case-marking strategies associated specifically with nouns in the marking of arguments of the head of the constituent (e.g. use of possessive or genitive case to mark the heads’s arguments rather than nominative or accusative case). Syntactically, a complex constituent may be identified as a nominal phrase if it shows the distribution of other simplex phrases which are clearly nominal, for example, the ability to occur in subject position or the ability to be coordinated with other clearly nominal categories. Non-nominal categories, such as verbal or adjectival phrases, are regularly excluded from such positions. However, if a verbal or adjectival phrase in combination with some additional morpheme is found to allow for occurrence in subject position or in coordination with other noun phrases, this may be taken as reasonable evidence for the nominalized status of the complex constituent and for the nominalizing function of the morpheme combined with the verb or adjective and their dependents. Because it is the outward morphosyntactic behaviour of a  constituent that identifies it as nominal, and because there are various ways in which nominal morphosyntax can be exhibited (case marking, pluralization, combination with adjectives, etc.), nominalizers may in fact originate from a range of different lexical sources. Consider a formal syntactic representation of the internal structure of a referential nominal phrase, a DP, in a head-initial language with classifiers, as given in (1).

D = Determiner or Demonstrative Num = Numeral position Cl = Classifier position N = Noun

DP

(1) D

NumP Num

ClP

Cl

NP N

...

268 Andrew Simpson

If it is assumed that the occurrence of any lower syntactic head position, such as Noun, Classifier or Numeral, will necessarily result in the projection of other, higher portions of the structure in (1), and that different parts of the structure in (1) may identify a constituent as ‘nominal’ in different ways (the occurrence of numerals in Num or demonstratives in D), it is possible to see that the use of any of the head constituents (D, Num, Cl or N) in (1) might in principle be used to build up a  phrase with certain overt nominal properties when combined with a  nonnominal complement, thus nominalizing the latter. For example, were an element of syntactic or lexical category Noun to be combined with a verbal constituent (if complex, then a verb phrase), the result would be a structure such as (2) below. In (2), a full array of nominal properties might be expected to characterize the new nominalization, given the presence of the full set of syntactic heads and projections above the Noun position. In the representation in (2), NMLZ is intended to indicate a morpheme which has the function of a nominalizer and the original syntactic category of a noun (i.e. a nominalizer derived from a noun, perhaps via bleaching of the lexical content of the noun):

(2)

DP D

NumP Num

ClP

Cl

NP N

VP

NMLZ Alternatively, however, a verbal (or other non-nominal) constituent might allow for conversion into a category with certain nominal properties if combined with a nominalizer sourced from one of the higher head categories in (1), such as an element of type D (Determiner or Demonstrative). Such a constituent would be expected to allow for the syntactic distribution of other nominal expressions (e.g. unrestricted occurrence in subject position). However, it might not allow for the full array of properties commonly associated with noun phrases and their expansions into DPs due to the lack of lower portions of the nominal structure in (1), notably the Numeral, Classifier and Noun heads and their projections. Such a possibility is schematized in (3), where the nominalized constituent is indicated

The grammaticalization of clausal ­nominalizers in Burmese 269



as being possibly a verb phrase (VP), a tense phrase (TP) or a fully-clausal complementizer phrase (CP):

DP

(3) D

VP/TP/CP

NMLZ Two other intermediate possibilities are also anticipated to be available and exist, namely (i) the use of a classifier as a nominalizing element combining with a non-nominal complement, as in (4); and (ii) the use of a numeral as a nominalizer, as in (5). In both instances, the structures produced are expected to have some, but not necessarily all, typical properties of nominal projections. For example, if adjectival modification is assumed to occur via the adjunction of an adjectival phrase to a noun phrase, the absence of a noun phrase in structures (4) and (5) may be expected to correspond to a lack of adjectival modification with such nominalizations.

(4)

DP D

NumP Num

ClP

Cl VP/XP NMLZ

(5)

DP D

NumP Num VP/XP

NMLZ Interestingly, all the possible ways in which a nominalizer might theoretically be instantiated, as outlined above, do indeed seem to occur in different languages, and nominalizers grammaticalize from a  variety of sources. Nominalizers ultimately derived from nouns appear to be very common in occurrence (e.g. Korean

270 Andrew Simpson

kes, as discussed in Simpson and Wu 2001), but it is also possible to identify classifier, numeral and demonstrative or determiner sources of other nominalizers too. Burmese, for example, makes use of the numeral ‘one’ (ta-) in a range of nominalizations. Thai and Bengali, in turn, show evidence of classifier use in a nominalizing function with certain clausal constituents, whereas Chinese, Japanese and Lakota can be argued to have derived nominalizers from earlier elements of type D (cf. Simpson 2001, 2003a, 2003b; Simpson and Wu 2001 for extensive discussion).

2.2 Is nominalization a lexical or a syntactic process? In addition to variation in the source category of nominalizing elements, a second important parameter of variation in the (synchronic) realization of nominalizers is whether the attachment of such elements occurs as a lexical process or is effected as part of a syntactic derivation. Certain nominalizers seem to be very clearly phrasal attachments, combined with a constituent which is a full syntactic phrase. This is the case of the sentential and clausal nominalizers found in a significant number of languages, where a full clause is converted into a nominal argument of some other predicate by the use of an appropriate nominalizer (e.g. Japanese no, Korean kes; cf. Simpson and Wu 2001; see also the papers by Horie, Rhee, and Yap and Matthews in this volume). If sentential and other phrasal nominalizers convert a  full syntactic constituent into a nominal output, such nominalizers need to be considered syntactically independent words, which combine with a  complement during the syntactic derivation of a sentence. In this respect, they would be similar to determiners, complementizers and other functional elements which are understood to be discrete grammatical words rather than parts of other words (i.e. bound morphemes). Other nominalizers, however, may appear to be affixes attached to word-level elements such as verbs, adjectives, and so on, rather than to verb phrases, adjective phrases, etc. Such nominalizations may have many more of the unpredictable properties of lexical processes (perhaps being restricted and unproductive and giving rise to allomorphic variation), and so be assumed to be purely morphological attachments, which combine with non-nominal roots or bases during the pre-syntactic creation of words.1 An example of such morphological attachment would be nominalizations produced with English -ant, as in servant or defendant. 1.  It is also possible that certain nominalizers attached to word-level elements might be syntactic attachments, combining with a word-level constituent within a syntactic structure, perhaps via cliticization or some form of (syntactic) head-movement. Various approaches to English nominalizing -ing assume such an analysis. Lotha (Tibeto-Burman) a-­would be another candidate for a similar treatment (cf. Herring 1991).



The grammaticalization of clausal ­nominalizers in Burmese 271

2.3 Nominalizers and verbalizers Given the very widespread nature of nominalizers in the world’s languages, even being present in languages not considered to have morphological attachments, such as Vietnamese, it is natural to wonder whether there might be equivalents to nominalizers functioning in the verbal domain, what could be called verbalizers, and, if such elements exist, what they might in turn indicate about the nature of nominalizers. In other words, if nominalizers combine with non-nominal input to create words and constituents which can be utilized as noun (phrase)-like arguments, are there also functional elements which combine with non-verbal input to create constituents which can then be embedded as verbal units? And if not, why do such elements not exist? Although there has been little discussion of such potential counterparts to nominalizers in the literature, certain reflection suggests that there are indeed verbal elements which correspond to nominalizers in their function of converting non-verbal input into a syntactically utilizable verbal form. Furthermore, it seems that such verbalizers occur both as syntactically independent words and as purely morphological attachments, in a  way very similar to the occurrence of nominalizers. An example of lexical or morphological verbalization would be the application of affixes such as English -ize to adjectival input to form new verbs, e.g. grammatical — grammaticalize. Examples of syntactic verbalizers can be given in two quite common types. A first, crosslinguistically well attested type is the class of light verbs, such as (prototypically) make or do, which are used to combine with nominal input to produce verbal forms, such as Hindi kaam karna ‘work do’ = ‘to work’ or Japanese benkyoo suru ‘studying do’ = ‘to study.’ A second potential candidate for consideration as a syntactic verbalizer would be the simple occurrence of copulas, used to embed non-verbal input and create a verbal structure which allows the application of tense and aspect; e.g. John was a great help = John helped a lot. Supposing, therefore, that there are indeed functional elements in the verbal domain equivalent to nominalizers, the study of light verbs and copulas (as well as morphological verbalizers) may be used in a comparative way to further open up and inform our understanding of the patterning and morphosyntax of nominalization. A comparison of nominalizers and verbalizers also has the potential to lead to interesting typological questions and to the issue of whether there really is the full cross-categorial equivalence which one might pre-theoretically expect in such a domain, and if not, why full equivalence does not exist.2 2.  For example, while it may seem that nominalizers grammaticalize from a range of functional elements commonly associated with nouns, such as demonstratives, classifiers and numerals, it is not obvious that verbalizers are derived from higher functional elements associated with

272 Andrew Simpson

2.4 Nominalization and compounding In connection with the source of the grammaticalization of nominalizers, in certain cases (at least) it may be interesting to consider the possible connection of nominalization with compounding in a language. It is quite plausible that, in various instances, nominalizers grammaticalize from nouns which are frequently used to create nominal compounds forming a  connected class of items, e.g. -man in doorman, chairman or tax man. With the occurrence of bleaching of the meaning of such nouns and a concomitant extension of the way in which they can be used to combine with other words in compounding, a simple process of nominalization may well evolve. In this regard, it is intriguing to find a correspondence between the direction of headedness in compounds in certain languages and the linear position of nominalizers relative to nominalized material. For example, languages such as English, Japanese and Burmese, which have right-headed compounds, also have nominalizers occurring to the right of the constituent or word nominalized. By contrast, languages which have left-headed compounds, such as Thai and Vietnamese, have nominalizers which occur to the left of the constituent or word nominalized. If such a patterning is non-coincidental and can be found to occur consistently in a wider sampling of languages, it may establish an interesting diachronic link resulting from processes of grammaticalization between two types of morphological operation regularly treated as being unrelated.

3. Nominalization in Burmese Having considered some of the general issues involved in the study of nominalization and the grammaticalization of nominalizers in a language, we now turn to an investigation of nominalization phenomena in Burmese. The discussion will focus in particular on the sentential and clausal nominalizers present in the language, as these can be shown to reveal much about the way in which reanalysis applies to create complex new grammaticalized morphemes and words, and give rise to shifts between categorial types.3 As briefly mentioned in Section 1 above, verbs, such as tense, aspect and mood morphemes; on the contrary, the main source of verbalizers would seem to be verbs. Why this asymmetry between the source of nominalizers and that of verbalizers exists is not immediately clear. 3.  In addition to the clausal and sentential nominalizers discussed in this work, Burmese also exhibits a wide range of other nominalizers, many of which combine with sub-clausal constituents. For simple reasons of space and focus, no attempt to describe these will be made here. The reader is referred to Okell (1969), Okell and Allott (2001) and Hopple (2003) for useful information and a comprehensive listing of all putative nominalizers in Burmese.



The grammaticalization of clausal ­nominalizers in Burmese 273

Burmese is commonly described as having two complementary forms: Colloquial Burmese and Literary Burmese. The latter is used orally in formal announcements, news broadcasting and is the most common written form of Burmese, whereas the former occurs in most spoken communication and is also sometimes found in more informal writing. The primary and most obvious difference between the two varieties of Burmese concerns the instantiation of their functional-grammatical morphemes, including the elements employed as nominalizers, and it is here that a comparison of patterns in Colloquial and Literary Burmese is often interesting.4 The present examination of nominalization in Burmese will begin with patterns in Literary Burmese in Section 3.1 and then move on to Colloquial Burmese in Section 3.2.

3.1 Sentential nominalizers in Literary Burmese: The elements thii and mii In Literary Burmese, the morpheme thii occurs in clause-final position, both in main clauses (as a  sentence-final morpheme), as in example (6) below, and in clauses which are embedded as arguments of other predicates.

(6) Literary Burmese U-Win-Win manee-ga yauq-laa thii. U-Win-Win yesterday-pst arrive-come nmlz ‘U Win Win arrived yesterday.’

When thii is used to embed clauses as the arguments of a predicate, it is naturally accompanied by a case marker.5 Examples (7) and (8) show this with the embedding of clauses as the object of a verb, while (9) and (10) illustrate the embedding of a clause in subject position. It should also be noted that the use of thii in examples (6) to (10) is obligatory and clauses may not occur as the arguments of verbs without this morpheme.

(7) Literary Burmese canaw [U-Win-Win manee-ga yauq-laa thii]-kou caa ya thii. I [U-Win-Win yesterday-pst arrive-come nmlz-acc hear get nmlz ‘I heard that U Win Win arrived yesterday.’

4.  A highly significant proportion of non-grammatical vocabulary is shared by Colloquial and Literary Burmese, though the latter also has available certain variant forms (frequently multisyllabic) which are often made use of in writing (cf. Okell 1969; Saw Tun 2005). 5.  The case marking of nominal arguments is generally optional in Burmese, though heavily preferred in certain instances, both as parsing aids and sometimes also to signal contrastive emphasis, as in Korean (Schütze 2001). Informants indicate that the use of case particles with thii­embedded clauses is much preferred. For further discussion of factors triggering the use of casemarking particles in Burmese, cf. Kassevitch (2005).

274 Andrew Simpson



(8) Literary Burmese hsain-shin-hmaa [hkalee-twee hseileiq hkou thii]-kou myin-ya thii. shopkeeper-nom [child-pl cigarette steal nmlz-acc see-get nmlz ‘The shopkeeper saw the children stealing the cigarettes.’



(9) Literary Burmese [thuu bamaa-sagaa pyaw nee thii]-hmaa theiq kaun hla thii. [he Burma-language speak asp nmlz-nom very good intens nmlz ‘He speaks Burmese very well.’ (lit. ‘His speaking Burmese is very good.’)

(10) Literary Burmese [leezeiq-twin daq-poun yaiq thii]-hmaa tayaa-m-win pa. [airport-within photograph take nmlz-nom not-be-legal pol ‘It is illegal to take photographs inside the airport.’ (lit. ‘Taking photographs in the airport is illegal.’) Thii-suffixed clauses consequently have both the syntactic distribution (occurring in subject and object position) and marking (nominative and accusative case) of nominal phrases. The element thii therefore exhibits key aspects of the patterning of typical clausal nominalizers. Thii is also found to occur in relative-clause structures, such as the one in (11).6 (11) Literary Burmese canaw we thii saouq I buy nmlz book ‘the/a book I bought’ In such an environment thii does not maintain its mid-level tone, but occurs instead in high creaky tone, one of the four tones which regularly occur on Burmese words. As a suprasegmental morpheme, such high creaky tone frequently signals genitive case, which is otherwise realized as a discrete morpheme ye, pronounced with high creaky tone. (12) Literary Burmese canaw ye ein I gen house ‘my house’

6.  In addition to thii, Literary Burmese also makes use of a morpheme thaw as an alternative linking element in relative clauses. This element is particularly frequent with intransitive predicates and adjectives (cf. Okell 1969 and Hopple 2003 for further discussion of thaw).



The grammaticalization of clausal ­nominalizers in Burmese 275

Sequences such as that in (12) may in fact have two pronunciations. If the possessor (here canaw) normally occurs with a mid-level tone, it can maintain this tone as a  genitive-marked possessor. However, it is also possible for (12) to be pronounced with high creaky tone on both ye and the possessor canaw, the tone associated with genitive case spreading leftwards from ye to the nominal element which it marks to its left. A third pattern commonly found is for a (normally) mid-level tone possessor to occur pronounced with high creaky tone even in the full absence of genitive ye (canawcreaked ein ‘my house’). The high creaky tone of genitive ye can, therefore, become disassociated from its regular host and simply occur marking an appropriate nominal element. In relative clauses such as that in (11) above, clause-final creaky tone thii is consequently most naturally analysed as the combination of a clausal nominalizer (mid-level tone) thii and genitive case, so that relative clauses in Burmese are instances of the modification of a noun by a nominalized clause, linked via genitive case.7 If we now consider what the source of the nominalizer thii might be, it can be observed that mid-level tone thii occurs elsewhere in Literary Burmese, regularly functioning as a pre-nominal demonstrative, as in (13). (13) Literary Burmese thii saaouq this book ‘this book’ Assuming this demonstrative element to be the most likely source of the nominalizer thii then suggests that clausal nominalizations in Literary Burmese have an internal structure such as that in (3) (parameterized in a head-final way), representing the combination of a D(eterminer)-type element with a clause to produce a DP nominal projection.8 Interestingly, mid-level thii also occurs in a third, rather different function in Literary Burmese, namely as a common instantiation of nominative case marking a  subject. Example (14), thus, shows four different uses of thii: as a  demonstrative, nominative case, linking a relative clause to a following nominal (with creaky tone) and in simple (non-relativized) clause-final position.9 7.  Such an analysis is well-supported by the occurrence of genitive case with putative nominalizations in many instances of relative-clause marking and linking in Tibeto-Burman languages (cf., for example, Noonan 1997; Thurgood and LaPolla 2003). 8.  Cf. also Herring (1991) for evidence from other languages that clausal nominalizers may be sourced from demonstratives in Tibeto-Burman languages. 9.  A teasing question is how the nominative case marker thii might be linked to and possibly derived from the demonstrative element thii. One possibility may be to consider that subject noun phrases are more frequently definite and anaphoric in reference than objects are, and so might

276 Andrew Simpson

(14) Literary Burmese thii pyiqsii-myaa-thii Daw-Hla-Mee htaa hke thii-myaa hpiq pa thii. this thing-pl-nom Daw-Hla-Mee put asp nmlz-pl be pol nmlz ‘These are the things that Daw Hla Mee left behind.’ Assuming a demonstrative source of nominalizer thii to be plausible and likely, the grammaticalization of thii in its nominalizer function brings with it a further question relating to word order. As demonstrative thii occurs preceding the nominal complement with which it combines, why might it be positioned following a clausal complement when nominalizing the latter? Although no definitive answer can be provided in the absence of data on the early development of nominalizing thii, two speculations can be offered here. First, as Burmese is a head-final language, and thii as a demonstrative is likely to be positioned in a phrase-initial specifier position (SpecDP), it can be hypothesized that, when such an element grammaticalized as a nominalizer, it came to occupy the head-position of its (DP) phrase in an occurrence of the Spec-head reduction process frequently argued to characterize instances of phrasal grammaticalization (cf. Simpson and Wu 2002a and van Gelderen 2004). Given the linear organization of (elements in) specifier and phrasal head positions in a head-final, specifier-initial language such as Burmese, Spechead reduction and grammaticalization would be expected to relocate a demonstrative from a  phrase-initial specifier position to a  phrase-final head-­position, and so result in nominalizer thii coming to follow its clausal complement. (15)

DP Spec

D′ XPcomplement Dhead

A second possibility might be to hypothesize that thii came to be used as a demonstrative in a resumptive position following a clausal subject, as occurs in certain Indic languages. This is schematized in (16). (16) [John likes Mary]i, thisi is true. ‘It is true that John likes Mary.’/‘That John likes Mary is true.’ Such a linear sequence might then lead to grammaticalization of the demonstrative as a nominalizer following the clause it introduces: (17) [[John likes Mary]-this] is true. attract marking with a demonstrative, encoding a familiar, [+definite] referential value.



The grammaticalization of clausal ­nominalizers in Burmese 277

In addition to the question of the linear order of thii relative to its complement clause, an interesting complication for the analysis of thii and of both its synchronic status and its grammaticalization comes from the fact that thii is actually not just a simplex nominalizer derived from a demonstrative, but also encodes realis mood, being used to combine with clauses which represent past or present actions, states and habits. Where future actions and hypothetical situations are referred to, a fully parallel set of nominalized constructions are built with the nominalizer mii, which differs from thii only in encoding irrealis mood (i.e. non-realized actions or states).10 This is illustrated in (18) and (19) with clauses in subject position and nominative case, and in (20) with an accusative-marked clause in object position. (18) Literary Burmese [than shi mii]-hmaa-le ahman hpyiq ii. [lice be nmlzIRR-nom-too true be nmlz ‘That there will be lice too is true.’ (Okell and Allott 2001: 158) (19) Literary Burmese [thati pyu ya mii]-hmaa htaransitsataa-amyouasaa-pin hpyiq be [attention do must nmlzIRR-nom transistor-type-emph thii. nmlzRLS ‘What we will have to pay attention to is the transistor type.’ (Okell and Allott 2001: 158) (20) Literary Burmese [naneq ngaa naayii khan shi mii]-kou aloulou-hman-mi [morning five o’clock about be nmlzIRR-acc estimate thii. nmlzRLS ‘He estimated that it must be about five o’clock.’ (Adapted from Okell and Allott 2001: 158) Example (21) shows the occurrence of irrealis mii in sentence-final position, paralleling thii in example (6), while (22) shows its occurrence embedding a  relative clause. As with thii when it links a relative clause to a noun, mii carries high creaked tone in (22) corresponding to genitive case, and is elsewhere pronounced with a mid-level tone. 10.  Besides thii and mii, Literary Burmese has an element ii (pronounced with a high creaky tone) which occurs as a stylistic variant of thii and mii in sentence-final position or embedded quotations with no specification for (ir)realis (cf. Okell and Allott 2001: 271–272, and footnote 15 below). An example of the sentence-final use of ii occurs in (18).

278 Andrew Simpson

(21) Literary Burmese maneqhpan pyan laa mii. tomorrow return come nmlzIRR ‘He will come back tomorrow.’ (22) Literary Burmese [thuu yuu laa mii] pyiqsii-myaa [he take come nlmzIRR.GEN thing-pl ‘the things he will bring’ A further interesting parallel in morphosyntactic patterning between thii and mii is that the latter also occurs in a pre-nominal interrogative specifier function, which corresponds closely to the demonstrative function of thii. However, whereas demonstrative thii is realis in picking out a referent with definite reference, interrogative mii is used for hypothetical reference in questioning the reference of a noun. (23) Literary Burmese mii-thuu which-person/one ‘who’ The clausal nominalizers thii and mii in Literary Burmese are, therefore, complex elements incorporating two parts and functions: (i) an (ir)realis component: m-/ th- and (ii) a nominalizer component, the common or shared vowel coda: -ii. Of further potential relevance here is the observation that, in addition to prenominal demonstrative and interrogative thii and mii, Literary Burmese also contains a simplex demonstrative element unspecified for (ir)realis distinctions whose form corresponds exactly to the nominalizing component -ii in thii and mii. (24) Literary Burmese ii saaouq this book ‘this book’ Quite possibly, then, the complex demonstrative-nominalizers thii and mii are grammaticalizations of the combination of (ir)realis together with this simplex demonstrative ii.11 The creaky tone nominalizers occurring in relative clauses will, in turn, consist of three distinct components: (ir)realis + demonstrative-nominalizer + genitive case, and th-/m- + ii + creaky tone. 11.  The simplex demonstrative ii is furthermore found in early Burmese inscriptions before thii and mii are attested, supporting the feeding relation hypothesized here with thii and mii being formed from ii together with an encoding of (ir)realis meaning. Thanks are due to a reviewer of the chapter for drawing attention to the early occurrence of ii in Burmese inscriptions.



The grammaticalization of clausal ­nominalizers in Burmese 279

3.2 Sentential nominalizers in Colloquial Burmese Turning now to patterns in Colloquial Burmese, one finds that there are elements which occur in the same clause or sentence-final and relative-clause positions as the nominalizers thii and mii in Literary Burmese. Similar to Literary Burmese, the linking elements in relative-clause structures carry a creaky tone. Also parallel to the situation in Literary Burmese, there are two sets of elements which occur in these positions, one set encoding realis mood, the other encoding irrealis mood: a. Realis clause: te realis relative clause linker: te+creak. b. Irrealis clause: me irrealis relative clause linker: me+creak. Examples (25) to (29) below illustrate the use of these morphemes in clause-final, sentence-final and relative clause environments. (25) Colloquial Burmese thuu maneqphan laa me htin te. he tomorrow come nmlz think nmlz ‘I think he will come tomorrow.’ (26) Colloquial Burmese thuu manee-ka saaouq we te. he yesterday book buy nmlz ‘He bought a book yesterday.’ (27) Colloquial Burmese thuu manee-ka we te+creak saaouq he yesterday buy nmlz book ‘the book he bought yesterday’ (28) Colloquial Burmese thuu maneqphan thamain-saaouq we me. he tomorrow history-book buy nmlz ‘He will buy a history book tomorrow.’ (29) Colloquial Burmese thuu maneqphan we me+creak thamain-saaouq he tomorrow buy nmlz history-book ‘the history book he will buy tomorrow’ Such neat parallels between Literary and Colloquial Burmese diverge, however, in instances where clauses occur as the clearly nominalized arguments of verbs of perception and cognition in subject and object position. In such environments, where the overt occurrence of case markers confirms the nominalized status of the embedded clauses, the elements which embed clauses in Colloquial Burmese

280 Andrew Simpson

are not, in fact, homophonous with the clause or sentence-final and relative clause morphemes te and me, but instead have the forms taa for realis clauses and hmaa for irrealis clauses. Examples (30) to (34) show the occurrence of these elements in a range of subject, object and object of postposition and (ir)realis combinations. (30) Colloquial Burmese [thuu thoun-nayii-hmaa hote-ka htweq]-taa-kou myin-ya te. [he three.o’clock-at hotel-from exit-nmlz-acc see-get nmlz ‘I saw him leaving the hotel at three o’clock.’ (31) Colloquial Burmese [thin ne]-taa-ga hkeq-th-la? [learn asp-nmlz-nom difficult-q ‘And how about learning it, is it difficult?’ (32) Colloquial Burmese [thuu baa-hma m pyaw]-taa-ne apyin htweq thwaa te. [he whatever not say-nmlz-with outside exit go nmlz ‘I left as/when he did not say anything.’ (33) Colloquial Burmese [ale pyan]-hmaa-kou pyaw th-laa? [visit return-nmlz-acc say q ‘Did he say he was going to come for a visit?’ (34) Colloquial Burmese [thuu dii-lou louq]-hmaa-ga theiq m kaun pu, htin te. [he this.way do-nmlz-nom very not good not think nmlz ‘I think it is not good at all that he is going to do that.’ The most plausible analysis of the elements taa and hmaa is that they result from the collapse of te and me together with the light noun haa, meaning ‘one, thing’ (similar to English this one, that one, the blue one): te + haa > taa; me + haa > hmaa. Elsewhere in Burmese, the element haa occurs with this meaning ‘one, thing’ and can also optionally fuse with the demonstrative dii resulting in the form daa: dii haa ‘this one, this thing’ > daa ‘this, that.’ The clause-final elements taa and hmaa are also found to occur in headless relative clauses, as in (35) to (37). (35) Colloquial Burmese [canaw hmaa]-taa-ga asein-caw pa. [I order-nmlz-nom vegetable-fried pol ‘What I ordered was fried vegetables.’ (lit. ‘the one/thing I ordered’)



The grammaticalization of clausal ­nominalizers in Burmese 281

(36) Colloquial Burmese [thuu Yangoun-hmaa we]-hmaa-ga seqbein pa. [he Yangoun-in buy-nmlz-nom bicycle pol ‘What/the thing he is going to buy in Rangoon is a bicycle.’ (37) Colloquial Burmese [canaw yee-htaa]-taa-kou thuu theiq m caiq pu. [I write-asp-nmlz-acc he very not like not ‘What I wrote he really does not like.’ In such environments taa and hmaa again arguably result from the collapse of te and me and the dummy or light noun haa, resulting in a complex fused morpheme with the meaning ‘the one, the thing that …’ Finally, taa and hmaa are additionally found in alternation with te and me in sentence-final position, as in examples (38) and (39). In such instances, the use of taa and hmaa, rather than te and me, results in a clear difference in meaning and a cleft-like interpretation with focus on one part of the sentence as new information which is set off against a presupposed background (similar to the Chinese shi-de construction and Japanese no-desu forms; cf. Simpson and Wu 2002b; Simpson 2003a). (38) Colloquial Burmese canaw zee-hmaa we taa. I market-in buy nmlz ‘I bought it in the market.’/‘It is in the market that I bought it.’ (39) Colloquial Burmese thuu maneqphan yauq hmaa. he tomorrow arrive nmlz ‘He will arrive tomorrow.’/‘It is tomorrow that he will arrive.’ From such a distribution and patterning, one can hypothesize a likely threestep route of grammaticalization and development of taa and hmaa from te and me: (i) from an earlier stage in which te and me occurred in all clause-final (including relative clause-final) positions, similar to the distribution of Literary Burmese thii and mii, it can be supposed that the combination of te and me with haa ‘one’ in headless relative clauses resulted in two collapsed or fused relative clause nominalizers taa and hmaa; (ii) where such taa- and hmaa-final relative clauses might have occurred as the natural object of a copula in a main clause (e.g. This is the one/thing I bought yesterday), significantly this would then have resulted in taa and hmaa occurring in sentence-final position, as copulas are regularly null in Colloquial Burmese; (iii) finally, from such occurrence as (relative) clausal nominalizers in sentence-final position, it can be hypothesized that taa and hmaa may

282 Andrew Simpson

have allowed for an expansion of use as clause-final nominalizers in clauses which were not only sentence-final, but alternatively embedded as the clausal arguments of verbs of perception and cognition (and also as subjects of one-place predicates such as ‘(to be) easy/difficult/interesting,’ etc.). If the above can be assumed to be a reasonable path of development for taa and hmaa as general clausal nominalizers not just restricted to relative clauses, an important question now arises about the synchronic status of te and me. If te and me are the original clause-final morphemes in Colloquial Burmese (and partial inputs to the later creation of taa and hmaa) and correspond to Literary Burmese thii and mii, as seems most likely, and if the elements thii and mii in Literary Burmese can be shown to be nominalizers, a fairly natural conclusion is that te and me may have shared this function as nominalizers too, at least in their earlier stages of development. Such an assumption is supported by the observation that a genitive case creaky tone is present with te and me in their occurrence as clause-final elements in relative clauses. If (genitive) case is naturally taken to be marked only on nominal constituents, then te- and me-final relative clauses must be assumed to have been nominal(ized) clauses at least when the genitive creak was first added to te and me. Consequently, like Literary Burmese thii and mii, te and me can be concluded to have had a nominalizing function when added to clauses, in addition to expressing (ir)realis mood, at least at some point in their development. The question to be considered now is whether synchronically these elements are (still) nominalizers in the way that their frequent Literary Burmese equivalents thii and mii can be shown to be. The answer to this question would seem to be, clearly and interestingly, ‘no.’ When simple tests for the nominal status of te- and me-marked clauses are employed, te and me do not in fact show signs of nominalizing the clauses with which they are combined. First of all, case markers cannot occur on clauses ending in te or me, unlike clauses ending in the clear nominalizers taa and hmaa. Compare (40) and (41) below with earlier (30), (31), (33) and (34). (40) Colloquial Burmese [U-Win-Win manee-ga yauq te](*-kou) pyaw te. [U-Win-Win yesterday arrive nmlz-acc say nmlz ‘He said that U Win Win arrived yesterday.’ (41) Colloquial Burmese [canaw maneqhpan thwaa me](*-kou) htin te. [I tomorrow go nmlz-acc think nmlz ‘I think I will go tomorrow.’ 12 12.  Matisoff (1972) offers an example of the attachment of accusative case -kou to a  clause



The grammaticalization of clausal ­nominalizers in Burmese 283

Secondly, postpositions such as ne ‘with’ can only occur with clearly nominalized clauses ending in either taa or hmaa and not te and me: (42) Colloquial Burmese sagaa sa pyaw laa taa/*te ne ta-pain-neq […] word begin say come nmlz/nmlz with at-the-same-time ‘at the same time that he began speaking’ Thirdly, other category-sensitive patterns involving elements introducing rationale clauses similarly indicate that, while taa and hmaa do create nominal categories, te and me do not. Specifically, the Burmese words mouq and caun (meaning ‘because’) are elements which only allow for combination with nominal phrases and are found to naturally occur with taa- and hmaa-final (nominalized) clauses. However, they may not occur with te- or me-final clauses, indicating clearly that the latter elements (synchronically) do not nominalize the clauses with which they combine.13 (43) Colloquial Burmese ngwee lou taa/*te caun money need nmlz/nmlz because ‘because he needed money’ (44) Colloquial Burmese maneqhpan ethe-twee laa hmaa/*me mouq tomorrow guest-pl come nmlz/nmlz because ‘because there are guests coming tomorrow’

­ending in te, namely (i) below. However, this sentence is actually not well formed and is rejected by native speakers of Burmese. First of all, the occurrence of negation should automatically displace the occurrence of te as in all other negative sentences. Secondly, -kou cannot co-occur with te in other, non-negative environments. Hence, even if the negation is removed, the sentence remains ungrammatical with -kou. (i) *[[hkinpya shi te m-shi te]-kou be-hne thi m-le? *[[you be nmlz not-be nmlz-acc how know q ‘How will I know whether you are there or not?’ 13.  This restriction of mouq and caun on the categorial status of their complements permitting only nouns or noun phrases would not seem to be reducible to the meaning of mouq and caun as ‘because (of).’ Other lexical items in Burmese with a similar meaning, such as lou ‘because,’ impose fully opposite selectional restrictions, combining only with verbal or clausal categories and not allowing noun or nominal complements. It is significant to note that lou does allow for combination with a clause ending in te or me, thus supporting the assumption shortly to be put forward here that such clauses are not nominalizations.

284 Andrew Simpson

The conclusion to draw from the above is that the elements te and me in Modern Burmese do not create nominal categories and, therefore, synchronically are not nominalizers. However, the available evidence and the patterns surveyed from elsewhere in the language and connected with te and me clearly suggest that te and me were, at one time, part of a nominalizer paradigm similar to Literary Burmese thii and mii. Therefore, it would seem that Colloquial Burmese te and me can be seen as cases of nominalizers which have undergone a  further development in their path of grammaticalization, significantly losing any nominal-related categorial specification which would support case marking and other properties of nominal(ized) constituents, and undergoing reanalysis as grammatical markers more strictly associated with verbal syntax and the representation of (ir)realis mood. If we assume that nominal syntactic patterns (such as case marking) result from the presence of a DP (cf. Section 2.1), the loss of such patterns can be interpreted as indicating that an element which previously caused a DP to be projected has undergone reanalysis over time. Where an erstwhile nominalizer thus loses its ability to project a DP, it can be suggested that it has undergone a shift in categorial identity and is no longer one of the syntactic types which normally cause a DP to be projected, that is, Determiner or Demonstrative, Numeral, Classifier or Noun (cf. Section 2.1). In such instances, it may be concluded that the nominalizer has become reanalysed as an instance of a syntactic category which is associated with verbs rather than with nouns, for example, as an occurrence of T(ense), Asp(ect), Mood, or C(omplementizer), and that this shift in identity to a non-nominal category causes the loss of nominal morphosyntax. In the case of main clause te and me, it is reasonable to assume that their categorial identity is now strictly (ir)realis Mood. Hence, their hypothesized reanalysis would be from an occurrence and function as a D-type nominalizer to a plain Mood marker combined with verbs, that is, an instance of cross-categorial regrammaticalization from one major functional domain to another (lateral regrammaticalization; Simpson 2003a).14 A further conclusion following from the above is that, if te and me are no longer nominalizers in Burmese, then the occurrences of te and me with a creaky tone in relative clauses can no longer be synchronically the combination of a nominalizer with genitive case.15 Here again it would seem that categorial reanalysis must 14.  Such a  putative reanalysis might seem to represent a  simplification and reduction of the featural specification of te and me: from being [+ nominal, + mood], by hypothesis, te and me become simply [+ mood]. 15.  Indeed, creaked te and me do not allow for separation of the genitive case from te and me via the use of independent genitive case marker (creaked) ye: *[… te/me ye]. This suggests that creaked te and me are fully fused, new forms and are not decomposable into nominalizer and genitive case sub-parts. Also note that, if te and me do not induce nominal syntactic constituents (i.e. nominalize other phrases), then the creaky tone suprasegmental which is elsewhere an in-



The grammaticalization of clausal ­nominalizers in Burmese 285

have applied converting a nominalizing morpheme plus genitive case into a new, composite form which is (i) non-nominal/not a category which projects a nominal constituent, and (ii) specified for occurrence with verbs and their projections in the environment of relative clauses. If the occurrence of a creaky tone on te and me in relative clauses suggests that te and me in such clauses are not identical to te and me elsewhere in clause-final position (hypothesized to be instantiations of just Mood), then the dedicated embedding function of creaked te and me in relative clauses can be suggested to represent a reanalysis of te and me as new (relative clause) Complementizer elements. Such elements would be formally of type C(omplementizer), and, therefore, distinct from pure Mood te and me, though carrying a specification for (ir)realis mood in a way which recalls the complex occurrence of subject agreement on Complementizers in languages such as Flemish and Bavarian German (Fuss 2005).16 The syntactic patterning observed with Colloquial Burmese te and me and the way in which this is distinguished from the nominalizer forms thii and mii in Literary Burmese therefore leads to the hypothesis that a  pair of erstwhile nominalizers have undergone a further, important reanalysis as elements lacking nominal specifications, and have come to instantiate new verb-related categories. Generally, then, it can be argued that the grammaticalization of elements as nominalizers does not necessarily represent a  final stage of functional development and that nominalizers may, in fact, develop further into verb-related grammatical categories with formally different syntactic properties. To the extent that the distinction between clause-final te and me and relative-clause embedding creaked te and me seems to require the assumption of a categorial identity for the latter which is formally different from the former, the paradigms examined here also provide support for the existence of a  special C(omplementizer) category. Such a category has often been assumed for elements such as English that, taken to be reanalysed as a  C(omplementizer) from an earlier source as a  D(emonstrative), dication of genitive case can no longer be genitive case when present with te and me (in relative clauses), as case marking only marks nominal constituents. Finally, the conclusion that genitive case in relative clauses has been reanalysed as part of a different type of morpheme is supported by other instances in Burmese where genitive case marking seems to have clearly undergone reanalysis. In both Colloquial and Literary Burmese there are sentence-final morphemes which have developed from genitive case markers (creaked ye in Colloquial Burmese and creaked ii in Literary Burmese) and which now function as markers of (i) surprise in Colloquial Burmese and (ii) the end of the sentence in an (ir)realis neutral way in Literary Burmese. Given the complementary distribution which these elements have with other markers of the category of Mood, it is most natural to see them as reanalysed into this category and no longer performing any (genitive) case function. 16.  For a view on how a single morpheme might relate to two syntactic featural specifications, such as Complementizer and Mood or Tense and Mood, cf. Simpson (2003a).

286 Andrew Simpson

but clear ­evidence for such a categorial switch or reanalysis in English is not easy to identify. The Burmese patterns under study helpfully seem to suggest that the occurrence of D(emonstrative)-to-C(omplementizer) regrammaticalization and the occurrence of a formally distinct category Complementizer are indeed quite plausible.

4. Summary of conclusions and consequences for further work This study of Burmese has attempted to explore and highlight a number of properties of nominalization and its grammaticalization which can now be summarized in brief. In Section 2.1 issues concerning the sources of nominalizers were discussed and it was suggested that nominalizers may in fact arise from a  variety of sources, including elements of types D, Cl, Num and N. In the course of the investigation of Literary Burmese in Section 3, evidence was presented indicating that clausal and sentential nominalizers in Burmese may be sourced from demonstratives of category D which have also grammaticalized a modal feature encoding (ir)realis distinctions. Section 2 also emphasized the need for specific morphosyntactic evidence when attempting to classify elements as nominalizers and noted that the term nominalizer may sometimes be used without clear confirmation of the nominalizer status of an element. In Section 3 it was then argued that, while certain morphemes in Burmese can be concluded to be nominalizers, other elements with a superficially similar distribution have in fact undergone reanalysis as elements of a different categorial type and no longer function as nominalizers in the language. Considering the syntactic realization of relative clauses in Burmese, it was shown that at least two functional morphemes are (historically) involved in the linking of a relative clause to a noun (phrase): (i) a nominalizer and (ii) genitive case. This raises an important question about the identity of linking morphemes in other similar languages (such as, for example, Chinese) where just a  single element links a  relative clause to a  head-noun; are such elements nominalizers or occurrences of genitive case, or possibly even a grammaticalized composite of both? Finally, the examination of Burmese also showed how nominalization structures are potentially unstable and may arguably undergo reanalysis as purely verb-related forms, with nominalizers being absorbed into the functional system projected in a clause. Considerably rich in the information provided by its two systems of functional elements in the colloquial and literary forms of the language, Burmese consequently offers an interesting perspective on variation in processes of grammaticalization and on the reanalysis of grammaticalized morphemes in new directions.



The grammaticalization of clausal ­nominalizers in Burmese 287

Abbreviations acc accusative asp aspect emph emphatic gen genitive intens intensifier irr irrealis nmlz nominalizer

nom pl pol pst q rls

nominative plural politeness marker/particle past question marker realis

References Fuss, Eric. 2005. The rise of agreement: A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal agreement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Herring, Susan C. 1991. Nominalization, relativization, and attribution in Lotha, Angami and Burmese. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14: 55–72. Hopple, Paulette M. 2003. The structure of nominalization in Burmese. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Arlington. Kassevitch, Vadim. 2005. Syntactic and morphological markers in Burmese: Are they really optional? In Justin Watkins (ed.), Studies in Burmese linguistics, 87–96. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Matisoff, James A. 1972. Lahu nominalization, relativization, and genitivization. In John Kimball (ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. I. New York: Seminar Press: 237–257. Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type. In honor of T. Givón, 373–394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Okell, John. 1969. A reference grammar of Colloquial Burmese. London: OUP. Okell, John & Anna Allott. 2001. Burmese/Myanmar dictionary of grammatical forms. London: RoutledgeCurzon. Saw Tun. 2005. Modern Burmese writing: An examination of the status of Colloquial Burmese. In Justin Watkins (ed.), Studies in Burmese linguistics, 201–220. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Schütze, Carson. 2001. On Korean ‘case stacking:’ The varied functions of the particles ka and lul. The Linguistic Review 18(3): 193–232. Simpson, Andrew. 2001. Definiteness agreement and the Chinese DP. Language and Linguistics 2(1): 125–156. Simpson, Andrew. 2003a. Empty determiners and nominalization in Chinese, Korean and Japanese. In Audrey Li & Andrew Simpson (eds.), Functional structure(s), form and interpretation: Perspectives from Asian languages, 131–161. London: RoutledgeCurzon. Simpson, Andrew. 2003b. On the status of ‘modifying’ DE and the structure of the Chinese DP. In Sze-Wing Tang & Luther Liu Chen-Sheng (eds.), On the formal way to Chinese language, 74–101. Stanford CA: CSLI. Simpson, Andrew & Zoe Wu. 2001. The grammaticalization of formal nouns and nominalizers in Chinese, Japanese and Korean. In Thomas E. McAuley (ed.), Language change in East Asia, 250–283. London: RoutledgeCurzon.

288 Andrew Simpson

Simpson, Andrew & Zoe Wu. 2002a. Agreement, shells and focus. Language 78(2): 287–313. Simpson, Andrew & Zoe Wu. 2002b. From D-to-T: Determiner incorporation and the creation of tense. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11(2): 169–209. Thurgood, Graham & Randy LaPolla (eds.). 2003. The Sino-Tibetan languages. London: Rout­ ledge­Curzon. Van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

chapter 11

The grammaticalization cline of cardinal ­numerals and numeral systems* Ferdinand von Mengden University of Hamburg This paper investigates the grammaticalization of cardinal numerals and numeral systems from a crosslinguistic perspective. The grammaticalization cline postulated here starts with a referential expression denoting a body part to a cardinal numeral and leads on to a functional affix which occurs in numeral systems and marks arithmetical operations in complex numeral expressions (e.g. English -teen in fifteen or -ty in fifty). The paper also shows that the numerals of the lowest cardinalities may follow a path different from that of the other simple numerals: they may evolve from pronominal elements, such as demonstratives and determiners, which often derive themselves from the cardinal numeral ‘1.’ The fact that low numerals and pronominal elements can be both each other’s sources and each other’s targets seems to challenge the unidirectionality of grammaticalization.

1. Introduction Cardinal numerals have received only marginal attention in the study of individual word classes, whether focussing on their morphology or on their syntax. This neglect applies particularly to studies on grammaticalization. In their World lexicon of grammaticalization (2002), Heine and Kuteva mention a couple of processes for which expressions for particular numerical values are claimed to be either typical sources or typical targets of the change. However, they do not include the crosslinguistically observable pathway of (cardinal) numerals as a  source/target category. Two of the processes described in the World lexicon will be relevant for the present study: (i) the development from a word for ‘hand’ to the numeral ‘5’ (Heine and Kuteva 2002: 166) and (ii) a list of nine developments in which the numeral ‘1’ evolves into elements expressing concepts which can roughly be subsumed either as ‘indefiniteness’ or ‘singulativity, unity’ (Heine and Kuteva 2002: 219–226). In what follows, I will argue that these processes are only two aspects of a broader crosslinguistically observable developmental path in the context of *­   My thanks to Katerina Stathi, Florian Haas, Thomas Hanke and an anonymous reviewer for their critical comments on an earlier version of this paper.

290 Ferdinand von Mengden

­cardinal numerals. In particular, I will postulate a cline comprising the following two major steps: a. Cardinal numerals are more likely to develop out of body part nouns. The potential target is any non-complex numeral (not only or necessarily ‘5’) out of a  range of source expressions denoting body parts (not only or necessarily ‘hand’). b. Within numeral systems, cardinal numerals may develop into affixes which can be interpreted as grammatical markers inasmuch as they mark the relations among the constituents of complex numerals. These two claims can both be connected with an idea of grammaticalization which is generally accepted among linguists: the developments described in the following pages represent a crosslinguistic pathway from a body part noun to a numeral and further to a functional affix encoding internal arithmetic relations within complex numerals.1 Both the semantic and the formal aspects of this development are consistent with what is commonly understood as grammaticalization: a development running from a referential expression (body part noun) to an extensional modifier (a quantifier; cf. Section 2) and further to a syntactically bound relational marker. This process will be discussed in more detail in Section 4. First, however, I propose to delimit the category cardinal numeral (Section 2) and thus define the class of lexemes which constitutes the target of an early stage of this process and which will eventually also become the source category for the emergence of functional affixes within numeral systems. Inseparable from any definition of the cardinal numeral, and of especial significance in the later stages of the proposed development, is the question of how to define a numeral system (cf. Section 3).

2. Quantification 2.1 Numerically specific vs. numerically unspecific Cardinal numerals can be categorized as a  subclass of quantifiers. Quantifiers can be numerically specific or numerically unspecific. As Figure 1 below shows, numerically unspecific quantifiers comprise expressions such as all, many, few 1.  Hanke (2005: 111) describes numeralization and grammaticalization as two similar but distinct processes. Although Hanke’s remarks on numeralization seem to refer generally to the same panchronic phenomena which I am describing here, I would argue that the key difference from other grammaticalization processes is merely the target/source category cardinal ­numeral. A scenario similar to the one proposed here has been suggested by Wiese (2003: particularly 144–145), though not in the context of grammaticalization.

The grammaticalization cline of cardinal ­numerals 291



Quantification Numerically unspecific

Numerically specific (assignment of cardinalities to sets)

Universal

Other

Existential

Systemic (Cardinal numerals)

Non-systemic

all every both ...

few several many most ...

some a(n)

one two three fourteen twenty-three one hundred and seventy-six ...

dozen score three twenties twice a hundred

Figure 1.  Types of quantifiers

or some. Numerically specific quantifiers, on the other hand, specify how many members of the respective class there are. They assign cardinalities to sets by indicating the exact number of elements in a  class irrespective of the extensional meaning of the quantified noun.2

2.2 Systemic vs. non-systemic Cardinal numerals form an important set of numerically specific quantifiers. However, languages may contain additional expressions which have the same semantic function as cardinal numerals (numerically specific quantification) and very similar, if not identical, morphosyntactic properties. Such are, for instance, simple expressions like dozen ‘12’ or score ‘20,’ but also complex expressions (which may have cardinal numerals as their constituents) like three tens, twice a hundred and also, I would argue, expressions of the type fourteen hundred. In spite of the obvious similarities between these quantifiers and cardinal numerals, I would recommend excluding the former from the category ‘cardinal numeral.’ In order to justify this delimitation, we need to define the difference be2.  A detailed discussion of the range of quantifier types cannot be provided here. See, for instance, the discussions in Langacker (1991: 81–89) or Gil (2001). As my focus is on cardinal numerals, the distinction between numerically specific and numerically unspecific plays a more central role here than it does in the two descriptions just mentioned.

292 Ferdinand von Mengden

tween cardinal numerals and other expressions of cardinality. In what way is, say, dozen different from twelve in English? The crucial difference between twelve and dozen is that the former is part of the conventionalized counting sequence, while the latter is not. It may seem odd at a first glance to assume that the defining feature of a word class is its membership of a conventionalized sequence of expressions. However, the conventionalized counting sequence plays a crucial role in the approach to ‘number’ of two rather unrelated scientific fields. In logic, one of few ways to define ‘number’ is based on the idea of an ordered progression of welldistinguished elements (cf. Benacerraf 1965), which is exactly what the counting sequence represents. Likewise, studies in cognitive sciences, for instance in developmental psychology and first language acquisition, show that the evolution of a counting sequence is a necessary prerequisite for the acquisition of numeracy during infancy: a child first needs to memorize the conventionalized counting sequence, at least up to a certain point, in order to be able to grasp the notion of ‘number’ (cf. Wiese 2003: particularly 151–188). As we will see in Section 3.1 (cf. footnote 5), there are also language-internal criteria which distinguish systemic from non-systemic expressions of cardinality, such as their role in a recursive principle in word formation processes involving complex numerals. Such non-systemic expressions may therefore assign cardinalities to sets, but they are not part of the numeral system. The grammaticalization path described here applies only to cardinal numerals as the numerically specific quantifiers which constitute the numeral system of a  language. Before describing the cline proposed above in more detail, some further explanatory remarks on the properties of numeral systems of natural languages are necessary. The next section looks only at those aspects of numeral systems which are relevant in the context of the grammaticalization process and should not be taken as comprehensive.

3. Numeral systems 3.1 Simple and complex numerals A numeral system contains a set of mono-morphemic, arbitrarily shaped numeral forms (simple numerals). It also comprises a set of morphosyntactic rules which combine these simple numerals by means of underlying arithmetical operations to form more complex numerals. There is thus a distinction between simple and complex cardinal numerals. Simple numerals, in turn, can be subdivided into atoms and bases. In English, for example, the atoms are the expressions one, two, three, etc., up to nine, whereas the bases are the expressions ten, hundred, thousand, etc. These examples should make the concept of atom and base intuitively



The grammaticalization cline of cardinal ­numerals 293

quite clear and this, in turn, may help us now to discuss briefly an unambiguous and crosslinguistically valid definition of atoms and bases. One of the main properties of atoms and bases is their mutual interaction in the numeral system. They play complementary roles in the formation of complex numeral expressions and in the arrangement (ordering) of the elements in the counting sequence. In the overall system, atoms constitute a sequence of continuously recurring elements within the counting sequence or, as Seiler (1990: 190, with my own addition in square brackets) puts it, atoms are “that particular set of numerals that has the highest potential of being recursively used in cycles or with [multiples of] bases.”3 In any combination of atoms and bases, atoms are the variables and bases are the constants. Defining bases in this way, the definition of base is still dependent on that of atom. Greenberg (1978: 269–270) simply describes bases as “serialised multiplicands,” that is, as factors in multiplications which are applied to a whole series (sequence) of multipliers.4 For example, the atoms of the English numeral system are the expressions one, two, three, etc., up to nine, because the same elements recur in the same order at any higher point of the counting sequence. They occur, for example, as addends in thir-teen ‘3 + 10,’ four-teen ‘4 + 10,’ fif-teen ‘5 + 10’ or in twenty-one ‘20 + 1,’ twenty-two ‘20 + 2,’ twenty-three ‘20 + 3’ (eleven and twelve are exceptions which I shall pass over for now). They can also occur as an ordered sequence of multipliers to a base, as in twen-ty ‘2 × 10,’ thir-ty ‘3 × 10,’ for-ty ‘4 × 10’ or as in one hundred, two hundred, three hundred; and they may be added to such combinations again as an ordered sequence of addends, as in two hundred and one, two hundred and two, etc. These examples demonstrate that the numeral system employs a  recursive principle by which a base is combined either with an ordered sequence of atoms or with a complex numeral, which itself is a combination of a base and an ordered sequence of atoms. Every member of the class of cardinal numerals is therefore necessarily a component part of a more complex expression, which is itself a member of this class.5 3.  For a valuable summary of the properties of atoms and bases, see Seiler (1990: 190–196). Note that I follow Seiler’s terminology in this respect. Greenberg (1978), by contrast, uses atom for what I refer to as simple numeral, that is, as a cover term comprising both bases and our atoms. 4.  It must be noted that, while the order of the arguments in addition and in multiplication is irrelevant for the result of both types of arithmetical operation, in linguistic numeral systems their order has morphosyntactic significance. I follow Greenberg’s (1978) terminology in referring to the constants of addition and multiplication as augend and multiplicand and to the variables of each operation as addend and multiplier, respectively. For the terms serialised augend and serialised multiplicand, cf. Greenberg (1978: 266 and 269, respectively) and Section 3.2 below. 5.  This recursive principle is also a crucial criterion for excluding non-systemic numerals from the class of cardinal numerals as proposed in Section 2.2 above. Although we may say two dozen,

294 Ferdinand von Mengden

3.2 Variant forms So far I have described a prototypical numeral system. However, hardly any numeral system is devoid of idiosyncrasies. In English, for instance, the expressions eleven ‘11’ and twelve ‘12’ deviate from the other elements of that subsection of the counting sequence in that they are not formed as additions to the base ‘10.’ Thus, while eleven and twelve are mono-morphemic and arbitrary in their shape (at least synchronically), the subsequent numbers are expressed as thir-teen ‘3 + 10,’ fourteen ‘4 + 10,’ fif-teen ‘5 + 10’ and so forth, and, therefore, have a  non-arbitrary shape formed according to the recursive principle of the numeral system. Such idiosyncrasies do not defy the regularity of the overall system. In fact, idio­syncrasies are integrated into the general pattern and take part in the recursive formation of more complex numerals. An expression requiring the numerical value ‘12’ as addend, for instance, never employs the (regular) constituent *two-teen, but it is only the idiosyncratic twelve that occurs in more complex combinations (e.g. one hundred and twelve, twelve thousand eight hundred and so on). Crosslinguistically, there are clearly identifiable types of idiosyncrasies in numeral systems, though I cannot provide a detailed typology of such irregularities here. One type of irregularity, however, is important in our context and will, in fact, play a central role in the grammaticalization process of cardinal numerals: if a given element is a constituent of a more complex numeral, it can vary in form with respect to the corresponding simple expression. Often, these variants are mere allomorphs, as are the following examples from the numeral system of English:

(1) a. /twen-/ for /tuː/ in twen-ty b. /θɜr-/ for /θriː/ in thir-teen, thir-ty c. /fɪf-/ for /faɪv/ in fif-teen, fif-ty

In (1a), the atomic numeral two /tuː/ ‘2’ occurs in its variant form twen- /twen-/ if used as a multiplier of the base ‘10,’ i.e. in twenty ‘2 × 10.’ The atomic numeral three /θrɪː/ ‘3’ occurs as /θɜr-/ in any combination with ‘10,’ whether as an addend or as a multiplier; cf. (1b). In the same way, the atom five /faɪv/ ‘5’ becomes /fɪf-/ (cf. (1c)) in any combination with an immediate augend or multiplicand ‘10.’ More significant in our context are the variants shown in (2).

(2) a. /-tiːn/ for /ten/ in thir-teen, four-teen, etc. b. /-tɪ/ for /ten/ in twen-ty, thir-ty, etc.

three dozen, etc., the recursive properties of non-systemic expressions is extremely limited; cf. ?fourteen dozen, *a hundred and a dozen, *a dozen hundred.



The grammaticalization cline of cardinal ­numerals 295

I propose that these elements, -teen and -ty, are functional suffixes and that they are therefore more grammatical in the sense that they are the product of an advanced step in a grammaticalization process. In the numeral system of English, -ty and -teen do not only occur in complementary distribution with the corresponding default form ten, but both have also independent functions within the system. Thus, -teen stands for ‘10’ if, and only if, ‘10’ is a constituent of a complex form in which this numerical value is a serialized augend, i.e. where it is the augend to the ordered sequence of atoms, as in thir-teen ‘3 + 10,’ four-teen ‘4 + 10,’ fif-teen ‘5 + 10’ and so on. Similarly, -ty stands for ‘10’ if, and only if, ‘10’ is a constituent of a complex form in which it is used as serialized multiplicand, i.e. where it is the multiplicand to the ordered sequence of atoms, as in twen-ty ‘2 × 10,’ thir-ty ‘3 × 10,’ for-ty ‘4 × 10,’ etc. If we assume that -teen and -ty are diachronically derived from a form representing ‘10’ we can say that -teen and -ty are functional variants of the more lexical simple numeral ten.6 Given, furthermore, that -teen and -ty are bound forms, we can argue that they are functional morphemes and, consequently, the way in which they emerge can be taken as a development comparable to that of a grammaticalization process.7 So far our discussion has been based exclusively on examples from English. Although other numeral systems have their own particularities, the general recursive principle of numeral systems is universally the same. This principle, which requires that combinations of atoms and bases are built on arithmetical operations, is crucial for the emergence of a numeral system and, hence, for the development from a fully referential noun to a cardinal numeral as a particular type of quantifier, and later on to a functional element within numeral systems. In the next section I will propose the individual steps of this development. Although this paper is not based on a sufficiently comprehensive and representative sample of crosslin6.  For -ty, see, for example, the very detailed study by Szemerényi (1960: 115–140). 7.  It may be argued that, in formations like fif-teen, thir-ty, etc., atom and base together form a new lexeme so that we are dealing with a compound-like formation rather than with a type of affixation. While superficially both interpretations seem possible, there is still one difference between the two view-points which I consider crucial in our context. If, say, fif-teen were a concatenation of two roots rather than that of an affix to a root, there would be no way to explain how the type of arithmetic operation is encoded in these expressions. Only if we ascribe the respective functions ‘+ 10’ to -teen and ‘× 10’ to -ty can we account for the exact nature of the relation between the two constituents. In addition to the numerical meaning ’10,’ the suffixes -teen and -ty encode the arithmetical operations ‘+’ and ‘×’ respectively, and thus have a functional character. It may now be objected that this functional character could also be maintained for atomic variants, i.e. for those variants listed in (1) above. In English at least, this is impossible, because thir- and fif- occur in both the additions thir-teen/fif-teen and in the multiplications thirty/fif-ty. Therefore, the type of relation between the two elements — whether addition or multiplication — must be encoded in the variants of the base (2) and not in those of the atom (1).

296 Ferdinand von Mengden

guistic data, I believe that the remarkable uniformity of the overall principles of numeral systems in natural languages allows for conclusions of a pathway of cardinal numerals which are valid crosslinguistically.

4. The emergence of numeral systems 4.1 Methodology To examine grammaticalization processes in the context of numerals it is essential that we trace back the lexical sources of cardinal numerals and identify evidence of a crosslinguistically predominant pathway leading to the emergence of cardinal numerals. Unfortunately, the comparative method is only of limited use in this respect. Often, numeral systems are already established and have considerable scope as early as the stage of a reconstructed proto-language. In the earliest traceable period of Proto-Indo-European, for instance, the reconstructed proto-forms are already genuine cardinal numerals and, as such, elements of a system comprising at least two decimal bases, namely ‘10’ and ‘100,’ and whose scope therefore extends at least as far as ‘999.’ In such cases, we have scant evidence for the source expressions of the respective numerals and so are forced to employ alternative methods if we want to find out more about the pre-numeral (or pre-systemic) stage of a lexeme. The comparative uniformity of cardinal numerals, from a crosslinguistic perspective, proves a  great advantage for our present purpose, and so too the fact that natural languages have numeral systems of varying complexity and scope. These two factors make it possible to resort to implicational universals on cardinal numerals and numeral systems from which inferences can be drawn regarding their (pre-)history. We can assume, for example, that if the existence of feature b in a language requires synchronically the existence of feature a in the same language, and if the reverse is not true, diachronically the emergence of feature a must necessarily precede that of feature b. This method may not be generally applicable in reconstructing linguistic forms. Its logical feasibility in the context of numerals is due to two inherent and necessary properties of numeral systems. One is the fact that numbers (and hence numerals) are an ordered progression of well-distinguished elements (cf. Section 2.2 above). Their arrangement as an ordered progression creates a  particular kind of hierarchy among systemic number expressions which is not found in other parts of speech. Secondly, universally numeral systems do not have gaps (Greenberg 1978: 254–255).8 The lack of gaps in the counting sequence makes the 8.  Where there seem to be gaps in our data, these are usually gaps in the documentation of



The grammaticalization cline of cardinal ­numerals 297

following inferences possible: (i) if a is a necessary condition for b, a must necessarily be situated at a lower valued place in the counting sequence than b; (ii) because a lower valued numeral necessarily precedes a higher valued one diachronically (otherwise there would be gaps), the emergence of a  necessarily precedes that of b diachronically. At least in the context of cardinal numerals we can therefore read an implicational universal b ⇒ a (‘b, only if a’) as a diachronic statement of the form ‘a precedes b.’

4.2 Step 1: Subitizing The simplest conceivable set of cardinal numerals in a  language would be one that consists only of arbitrary and mono-morphemic lexical elements. Once such a counting sequence reaches a certain size, it would be difficult to memorize the correspondence between an expression and the respective numerical value because of the arbitrariness of the correspondence. In fact, there are few examples of languages with numeral systems with simple expressions only. Crosslinguistically, there seems to be a  gap between languages with simple number expressions reaching only ‘2’ or ‘3,’ and exceptionally ‘4,’ and numeral systems with a considerably larger scope. This gap may be explained by the fact that humans distinguish very small cardinalities in a  different way from higher cardinalities. While we need to count items in order to determine the size of a set of four or more members, cardinalities up to ‘3’ or ‘4’ are perceived instantaneously. This cognitive process is called subitizing. Wiese (2003: 95) describes this ability as follows:9 numeral systems, not in the systems themselves (cf. Greenberg 1978: 254–255; Hurford 1987: 86–88; Hanke 2005: 24). Hurford, however, seems to consider the possibility of numeral systems with gaps. In my view, this is impossible, because the cognitive capacity to assign cardinalities above ‘4’ to sets is dependent on the existence of a continuous sequence. The cases where the last elements before a base are formed as subtractions from that base (i.e. a counting sequence expressed as {[…], ‘5,’ ‘6,’ ‘7,’ ‘10–12,’ ‘10–11,’ ‘10’}), which Hurford (1987: 88–90) takes as “evidence for the existence of a discontinuity in numeral expressions at a historically previous stage in the language,” may just as well be taken as evidence for the impossibility of gaps: whenever a  base emerges, the resulting gap needs to be filled immediately, even though simple expressions have so far not been introduced for the intermediate numerical values. Comrie (1997: 44–46) also makes a case for the possibility of gaps in numeral systems. The general problem with Comrie’s claim is that he implicitly takes any cardinality expression as being an element of the numeral system and, accordingly, offers non-systemic expressions as evidence. However, if a distinction is not drawn between systemic and non-systemic cardinality expressions, it would ultimately be redundant to speak of numeral systems at all. 9.  For a more detailed description of subitizing, cf., for example, Hurford (1987: 93–94) and Wiese (2003:Chapter 4, particularly 95–98).

298 Ferdinand von Mengden

‘Subitising’ […] refers to a nearly instantaneous process that allows us to discriminate small sets of different sizes. Subitising occurs automatically, accurately, and without conscious attention; it enables us to recognise the cardinality of sets with up to three or four elements, for instance, it enables us to tell two stars from three stars, without invoking numerical strategies like counting.

Where a language has number expressions only up to ‘3’ or ‘4,’ these expressions are not actually cardinal numerals in the sense in which we have defined them in Section 2.2 above. They constitute neither an ordered progression nor a recursive system. There is no distinction at this stage between systemic and nonsystemic expressions of cardinality. However, diachronically, the development of expressions for subitizable cardinalities is at least a first step towards the development of a numeral system. We will return to this group of expressions for subitizable cardinalities in Section 5, after the remaining stages of the grammaticalization cline have been described.

4.3 Step 2: Beyond subitizing: The emergence of numeracy in language 4.3.1  Step 2a: Additional lexemes Phylogenetically, the first instance of numeracy, that is, the capability to distinguish cardinalities of sets, is not a spoken number expression but a gestural one. As already mentioned, numeracy is based on the availability of an ordered progression of well-distinguished elements. Such instances of numbers do not need to be linguistic and the most obvious device for humans to conventionalize such a  progression is the human body, where salient points are in ordered location with respect to each other. Referring indexically to these ordered body parts may have the function of assigning cardinalities. In other words, body parts can be used for counting just as, for instance, finger counting is common in most societies of the world. Not only is body-part counting a frequently observed non-linguistic (or prelinguistic) method of counting, it is also the method of counting which gradually develops into a linguistic counting system. There is sufficient evidence — provided in studies in various disciplines such as linguistics, cultural history, ethnology or anthropology — to demonstrate that the use of fingers or the subsequent pointing at a conventionalized series of body parts goes parallel with the expression of the word for the respective body part (cf., for example, Menninger 1957: 43–49; Greenberg 1978: 257; Ifrah 1981: 24–29; Majewicz 1981; Heine 1997: 19–21). We can assume, therefore, that once a particular progression of salient body parts has been conventionalized for counting, the expressions for the respective body parts become a counting sequence. Once this linguistic sequence of expressions is established, the accompanying gestures are no longer needed and the expressions

The grammaticalization cline of cardinal ­numerals 299



themselves become the main instances of numbers in a language community. We can safely assume that body-part expressions are the main sources for cardinal numerals. In fact, what we have described is a  shift from a  fully referential noun (‘body part’) to a  more grammatical expression (quantifier). Whether a quantifier counts as a grammatical expression in the same sense as, for instance, an inflectional affix may of course be disputed. In any case, a quantifier is a nonreferential expression. As an extensional modifier of a referential expression (of the head noun), it prototypically serves, semantically and syntactically, as a functor of an argument. In this respect, a quantifier is at any rate more functional than a referential noun and it is in this sense that the developmental step which we have described here may be taken as a step on a particular cline of grammaticalization. Furthermore, we have seen that the lexical body-part meaning of the expression may still be in use, even after a more functional usage of the expression — its use as a numerically specific quantifier — has emerged. We have therefore a clear case of layering, a phenomenon typical of grammaticalization processes: the contemporary use of both the original body-part expression and the (more grammatical) numeral. In many cases the original (lexical) meaning of the expression is eventually rendered opaque.

4.3.2  Step 2b: Sporadic complex forms Once linguistic number expressions have become autonomous and distinct from their lexical sources, a new problem arises. While the order of a sequence of salient body parts was a  visible and culturally logical sequence of points of reference, the order of number expressions is now arbitrary and, therefore, needs to be memorized. The larger the sequence, the more difficult it will be to memorize all arbitrary forms. To extend the scope of the counting sequence, complex number expressions are formed (cf. Greenberg 1978: 256), either overtly or implicitly, by combining a pre-existing number word with another morpheme. The morpheme attached may or may not be another numeral, but the formation of the new expression is in any case motivated by an underlying arithmetical operation. Consider the examples in (3).

(3) a. b.

Arrarnta (Australian) tara-ma-nyinta 1-and-2 ‘3’ (Stampe 1976: 604) Welsh (Celtic, Indo-European) deu-naw 2 [×] 9 ‘18’ (King 1993: 113–114)

300 Ferdinand von Mengden

c. d.

Lithuanian (Baltic, Indo-European) dvý-lika 2-remaining [beyond ten] ‘12’ (Comrie 1992: 763, Section 16.1.11.1) Proto-Indo European *oḱtō(w) 4.dual ‘8’ (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995:I, 747, Section 10.3.5)

Independently of how explicitly the operator is expressed, each of the complex forms in (3) is based on underlying arithmetical operations. In some cases the arithmetical operations are expressed by combining pre-existing number forms with each other — with the arithmetical operator expressed overtly (3a) or not (3b). In other cases, the relation is expressed by combining a numeral with a non-numeral morpheme — whether lexical, as in (3c), or grammatical, as in (3d). At this point of development, combinations of this type are employed sporadically, i.e. in a non-systematic way, but the arithmetical principle underlying these formations is already potentially recursive. These sporadic complex formations are likely to become opaque. Neither English twelve — which goes back to what is etymologically the same formation as the Lithuanian numeral in (3c) — nor eight — derived from the Proto-Indo-European root in (3d) — nowadays show signs that they were once complex expressions. Synchronically, they are mono-morphemic and arbitrarily shaped forms. From the point of view of the system, they are indistinguishable from the type of simple expressions which originate from bodypart terms. For this reason, a more efficient method to expand the set of number expressions is necessary, one that follows a recursive principle and renders the formation of high valued numerals transparent, so that a small inventory of simple expressions suffices for the formation of numerals, even if they specify high cardinalities. This method is the serialization of arithmetical operations.

4.4 Step 3: Serialization At this stage complex forms are no longer formed sporadically, but a  whole sequence of (simple and arbitrary) numerals can now be combined with a  single (simple and arbitrary) numeral. The result may be, for instance, a sequence like that in (4a) where the sequence of numerals from ‘1’ to ‘9’ is added to the base numeral decem ‘10,’ resulting in the sequence in (4b).





The grammaticalization cline of cardinal ­numerals 301

(4) Medieval Latin (Italic, Indo-European) a. unus ‘1’ duo ‘2’ tres ‘3’ quattuor ‘4’ quinque ‘5’ sex ‘6’ septem ‘7’ octo ‘8’ nouem ‘9’ decem ‘10’ b. un-decim ‘1 + 10’ → ‘11’ duo-decim ‘2 + 10’ → ‘12’ tre-decim ‘3 + 10’ → ‘13’ quattuor-decim ‘4 + 10’ → ‘14’ quinque-decim ‘5 + 10’ → ‘15’ se-decim ‘6 + 10’ → ‘16’ decem et septem ‘10 + 7’ → ‘17’ decem et octo ‘10 + 8’ → ‘18’ decem et nouem ‘10 + 9’ → ‘19’

For most languages, it is difficult to reconstruct how such serializations emerge. Again, we can employ crosslinguistic evidence to conjecture as to the historical background of this process. Greenberg (2000: 773b) remarks that, crosslinguistically, “by far the most common [numeral system] is the decimal [system].” This observation is immediately followed by the most plausible explanation for the predominance of decimal numeral systems in the world’s languages: “Its origin from finger counting is intuitively obvious, and in a  fair number of instances etymologically clear.” 10 Once more, this shows that linguistic counting originates phylogenetically in body-part counting. Greenberg’s statement also strongly suggests that an expression for a salient point of the human body is a likely lexical source for the emergence of a base numeral as well. Once the conventionalized sequence of body parts is used up, a  more prominent point in the sequence, an obvious turning point or a more general notion — like ‘hand(s)’ when all the fingers are 10.  Greenberg (2000: 773b) states that, apart from the decimal system, we can find quinary, duodecimal, vigesimal and sexagesimal systems. Of these, quinary and vigesimal systems, next to the vast majority of decimal systems in natural languages, suggest digital/body-part counting as the universally predominant, if not exclusive, type of counting system.

302 Ferdinand von Mengden

used up — can be employed as a base for a serialized arithmetical operation. Typical sources for bases are therefore expressions for ‘hand’ or even more generic expressions like ‘body’ or ‘man’ (cf. Edelman 1999: 229–231 for examples). What is crucial at this point is that the resulting combinations maintain their arithmetical transparency through serialization. A whole sequence of atomic expressions is (morphologically or syntactically) attached to a base expression, and at the same time forms an (arithmetic) function of this constant element. While these combinations are originally mere juxtapositions, we can see a couple of slight formal modifications in the atomic expressions in our example (4b).11 These variants can be interpreted as phonologically restricted allomorphs of the genuine atoms in (4a). Distinctions may also occur in the serialized augend (cf. Section 3.2 above, examples (1) and (2), respectively). In example (4b), this is only partly the case, namely in the expressions from ‘11’ to ‘16,’ where decem becomes decim. This slight variation does not yet play a role in the overall system, but represents the starting point of a phonological change (usually attrition) which accompanies the development from a base as a simple element, as in (4a), to a compound element (4b) and to a subsequent functional element in particular arithmetical operations (cf. Section 4.5 below). With the introduction of serialization into the formation of new numeral expressions, the distinction between atoms and bases emerges. It should be noted that, according to the definition provided in Section 3.1, only a serialized multiplicand, but not necessarily a serialized augend, can be a true base of a numeral system. Whereas it is usually the case that a serialized multiplicand is also used as a serialized augend, the reverse is not necessarily true. Although the introduction of multiplication is a necessary step in the extension of numeral systems, it generally presupposes the introduction of addition (cf. Greenberg 1978: 258). Once serialization is introduced into the numeral system, both originally ­mono-morphemic expressions (Sections 4.2 and 4.3.1) and what were formerly sporadic complex expressions (Section 4.3.2) become part of a cyclically recurring sequence of atomic elements in continuous combination with bases. Originally complex forms which are used within the atomic sequences have a tendency to become etymologically opaque (Section 4.3.2). In contrast, the complex expressions employed as constants in these serialized operations have a tendency to remain transparent, because in principle the complex structure needs to be analysable. 11.  Theoretically, an overt expression of the type of the arithmetical operation ‘+’ would be possible, and it is in fact encoded in many languages, for instance by ‘and,’ ‘with’ or similar connectives (in our example (4b), only part of the sequence contains the element et ‘and’ → ‘+’). For the present purpose it is not relevant whether the arithmetical operator is overtly expressed and, if it is expressed, by means of which lexeme. For a typology of the relevant strategies to express arithmetical operators, cf. Greenberg (1978: 263–272) and Hanke (2005: 95–110), among others.



The grammaticalization cline of cardinal ­numerals 303

4.5 Step 4: Functional elements within numeral systems In the preceding section we mentioned that, once serializations have become conventionalized, changes in the shape of a serialized augend or multiplicand may be accompanied by the paradigmatic isolation of the augend/multiplicand from the default lexeme.12 The augend/multiplicand expression, therefore, represents not only the respective cardinality, such as ‘10,’ but also the function ‘+’ or ‘×.’ This means that both the modification of the phonological shape and the paradigmatic isolation or loss of syntactic autonomy can be seen as a consequence of the acquisition of a functional meaning. Such a process results in forms like English /-'tiːn/ ‘+ 10’ and /'-tɪ/ ‘× 10.’ As to -teen, the process of its paradigmatic isolation can be observed within the literary history of English. In Old English, the suffix for the teens, -tyne /-tiːnə/, is still analysable as the simple element tyn /tiːn/ ‘10’ plus a fossilized inflectional ending -e. Regular sound changes caused a further isolation of the two items: the simple numeral was subject to shortening of monosyllables in Early Middle English, and the suffix, in turn, lost its final syllable. Hence the present-day distinction /ten/ vs. /-'tiːn/. However, the processes suggested here are often too old for any evidence of the development to survive. Accordingly, the corresponding process of English -ty is even more difficult to trace back. In any case, a clear distinction between the two forms, ‘10’ and ‘×  10,’ must have existed in a  common Indo-European numeral system, since the respective items can be reconstructed as related but distinct elements in the earliest stages of Proto-Indo-European (cf. Szemerényi 1960: 115–140; 1990: 238–239, Section  VIII.5.3; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995:I, 744–746, Section 10.3.4). The resulting element, such as English /'-tɪ/, still represents the numerical value ’10,’ but it does so only in a limited way, that is, in its use as a multiplicand. The newly emerged morpheme is a functional morpheme which has grown out of a simple numeral ‘10.’ Elements like /-'tiːn/ and /'-tɪ/ in English and corresponding forms in other languages therefore resemble grammatical morphemes in many respects, although the paradigmatic system to which they belong is, of course, quite different from, for example, that of inflectional endings. The grammar where they received a function which distinguishes them from less functional elements is the recursive numeral system with its underlying arithmetical operations on the basis of which complex numerals are generated. Crosslinguistically, there are vari12.  I presume that this is more likely to happen if the two elements, addend/multiplier and augend/multiplicand, are juxtaposed without overt expression of the operators ‘+’ or ‘×.’ In (4b) above, we can see that, where the operator ‘+’ is overtly expressed by et, the augend decem ‘10’ remains unaltered. By contrast, where the operation is expressed only by a juxtaposition of the two summands, a change of shape occurs. This is, however, a tendency rather than a rule.

304 Ferdinand von Mengden

ous strategies for such combinations, not all of them suggesting the same kind of grammaticalization process in the same way. Nonetheless, the fact that these combinations are universally based on arithmetical operations and on serializations is a potential trigger for the paradigmatic isolation of individual constituents of complex expressions once the syntagmatic (arithmetical) relationship among the constituents needs to be encoded. Consequently, there is a tendency towards the grammaticalization of serialized augends and serialized multiplicands if they are component parts of complex numerals.

4.6 Step 5: Higher bases Once cardinalities above ‘99’ need to be expressed, it becomes necessary to introduce a second base, and much later on a third and a fourth base. This final step renders a numeral system potentially infinite. The introduction of ‘100’ as the second base of a system allows for an extremely far-reaching extension of the system. In our context it may be of interest to note that these higher bases also have their typical source expressions. Quite often they are intensifications of lower bases, as in Proto-Indo-European *kṃtóm ‘100,’ which has developed from *(d)ḱṃtóm, a derivative of ‘10’ (cf. Szemerényi 1990: 239–240; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995:I, 744–746). Similarly, Proto-Germanic *þus-hund ‘1000,’ an expression which, in contrast to ‘100,’ is not shared by most of the Indo-European daughter languages, is analysed as ‘strong hundred’ (cf. Szemerényi 1990: 240–241). Another analogy to this formation type would be the expression for the fourth base in many languages, which ultimately goes back to Old Italian milli-one, ‘great thousand.’ 13

5. Conclusion and outlook Several of the developmental steps described here form together a  cline which leads from a  noun to a  cardinal numeral, and from there to a  functional affix which occurs in numeral systems and marks arithmetical operations in complex numeral expressions. The cline contains all the features which are broadly agreed to be part of a grammaticalization process (see Figure 2). During this development, the relevant expression loses syntactic autonomy in the sense that it derives from a fully referential expression and becomes an exten13.  The fact that million is — via French and later also via English — borrowed into a  large number of languages in all parts of the world shows that any introduction of a higher base — in fact any extension of a numeral system — may just as well be due to language contact. Interesting though the mechanisms of contact-induced changes in numeral systems may be, this paper must confine itself to language internal changes during the development of numeral systems.

The grammaticalization cline of cardinal ­numerals 305



?

Indefinite pronouns

Body-part nouns

Lowest-valued cardinalities (‘1’–’3’)

Simple numerals

Figure 2.  The grammaticalization cline of cardinal numerals

{Atoms Bases   Arithmetical markers

sionally modifying constituent of a noun phrase. English -teen and -ty and corresponding affixes in other languages are clearly bound morphemes which are syntactically less autonomous than simple numerals. The resulting expressions may undergo phonological changes. This applies both to numerals derived from body-part expressions (as the etymological relation between the numeral and the source noun is, in many cases, no longer analysable) and to affixes derived from simple numerals. I hesitate to use the term phonological attrition in this context, although most cases certainly show a reduced phonological shape. It may be an exceptional case, but the suffix -teen in English is phonetically expanded rather than reduced in comparison with the source expression ten (cf. the phonological development sketched in Section 4.5 above). As a final point it should be noted that the numerals for the lowest cardinalities, described above in Section 4.2, may follow a path different from that of the other simple numerals, which, as mentioned, tend to develop out of body-part nouns. It has been suggested for Proto-Indo-European that the respective lowest numerals are derived from pronominal elements, either demonstratives or determiners (cf. Luján-Martínez 1999: 206–207 and the literature cited there). However, the reverse development has frequently been observed, from the cardinal numeral ‘1’ to an indefinite marker or pronoun (Heine and Kuteva 2002: 220–221). To suggest that lower numerals are derived from pronominal elements would, if true, seriously challenge the idea of an underlying crosslinguistically directional development path from numeral to pronoun. If this evolution from pronominal element to cardinal numeral involved Indo-European alone, we could explain the problem away by saying that the reconstructed etymologies of these Proto-Indo-European numerals should be reconsidered. Similarly, we could refer to more reluctant Indo-Europeanists who do not mention pronominal or indefinite sources for the lowest numerals (cf., for example, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995:I, 744–745, Section 10.3.4). However, there is evidence of other numeral systems in which the expressions ‘1’ and ‘2’ are unambiguously synchronically identical with indefinite determiners. Hale (1975: 296–297) describes a pairing system in Warlpiri (South-West-Pama-­Nyunga, Australian) which is based entirely on the only two

306 Ferdinand von Mengden

existing simple expressions of cardinality, tjinta ‘1’ and tjirama ‘2.’ The numeral system is in principle binary, in that any higher cardinality is expressed as an addition of the elements ‘1’ and ‘2.’ 14 At the same time, the two expressions are part of a paradigm of four indefinite determiners, which correspond to the four grammatical number categories of Warlpiri: tjinta ‘one’/[singular], tjirama ‘two’/ [dual], wirkaḍu, maṇkurpa ‘several’/[paucal] and panu ‘many’/[plural]. While this situation is typical of Australian languages (Stampe 1976: 604; Dixon 2002: 67), the same family would also appear to contain more advanced numeral systems, like that of Gunwinggu, in which expressions for ‘hand/5,’ ‘hand + hand/10,’ ‘hand + hand + foot/15,’ etc. have created quinary serializations (Hale 1975: 296). This shows that former indefinites can become integrated into a larger, more complex numeral system. If it is true that indefinite pronouns and cardinal numerals for ‘1,’ ‘2,’ and perhaps for ‘3,’ can be each other’s sources as well as targets, then we are dealing with a section of the numeral system in which the directionality of the process is undetermined, which complicates the definition of grammaticalization as a  unidirectional development. The behaviour of these expressions challenges the idea of grammaticalization as a clinal process, not just from a lexical to a grammatical expression but also from a grammatical to a more grammatical one, since there may also be shifts from one to another grammatical category of roughly the same level of grammaticalness. It would deem it reasonable, therefore, to say that a process from an indefinite pronoun to a low valued cardinal numeral as well as the inverse process are cases of exaptation rather than of grammaticalization.15 However, this interpretation should not be understood to mean that the remaining parts of the cline may not be described as involving grammaticalization. While the grammaticalization path proposed here seems to be evident in general, problems like the source categories for the lowest valued elements show that more research needs to be done in this field. The task will require several linguistic sub-disciplines. In a  case like this, comparative historical linguistics will be as crucial as the methods and results from linguistic typology. The development sketched here goes to show how the reconstruction of the linguistic pre-histo14.  I do not agree with Hale’s interpretation that such a method does not represent a “linguistic convention which is employed in situations in which the activity of counting […] is a practical necessity” (1975: 295) and that in Warlpiri there is a “lack of conventionalised numerals” (1975: 296). Pairing systems like the one described by Hale for Warlpiri are found in languages in different parts of the world (cf. Schmidt 1926: 358; Heine 1997: 19; Hanke 2005: 83–85). 15.  For the notion of exaptation, cf. Lass (1990). More generally, I  would not be surprised if other processes which allegedly go from less to more grammatical are in fact cases of exaptation rather than grammaticalization and, similarly, that processes allegedly going in the other direction are also cases of exaptation rather than some process opposite to grammaticalization.



The grammaticalization cline of cardinal ­numerals 307

ry and the identification of crosslinguistic patterns of language change (such as grammaticalization) are mutually interrelated goals in linguistic research.

References Benacerraf, Paul. 1965. What numbers could not be. The Philosophical Review 74(1): 47–73. Comrie, Bernard. 1992. Balto-Slavonic. In Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Indo-European Numerals [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 57], 717–833. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Comrie, Bernard. 1997. Some problems in the theory and typology of numeral systems. In Bohumil Palek (ed.), Proceedings of the conference Item Order in Natural Languages, Prague, ­August 16–18, 1994 [Acta Universitatis Carolinae – Philologica 3–4], 41–56. Prague: Charles University Press. Dixon, Robert M. W. 2002. Australian languages: Their nature and development. [Cambridge Language Surveys]. Cambridge: CUP. Edelman, Džoj I. 1999. On the history of non-decimal systems and their elements in numerals of (Indo-)Aryan languages. In Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Numeral types and changes worlwide [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 118], 221–241. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gamkrelidze, Thomas Valerianovic & Vjaceslav Vsevo'lodovic Ivanov. 1995. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture. 2 vols. [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 80]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gil, David. 2001. Quantifiers. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationsforschung 20(2)], 1275–1294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. Generalizations about numeral systems. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language. Vol. III: Word structure, 249–295. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Greenberg, Joseph H. 2000. Numeral. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan in collaboration with Wolfgang Kesselheim & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation [Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Sciences 17(1)], 770–783. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hale, Kenneth. 1975. Gaps in grammar and culture. In M. Dale Kinkade, Kenneth L. Hale & Oswald Werner (eds.), Linguistics and anthropology. In honor of C. F. Voegelin, 295–315. Lisse: de Ridder. Hanke, Thomas. 2005. Bildungsweisen von Numeralia: Eine typologische Untersuchung [Berliner Beiträge zur Linguistik 3]. Berlin: Weißensee. Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: OUP. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Hurford, James R. 1987. Language and number: The emergence of a  cognitive system. Oxford: Blackwell. Ifrah, Georges. 1981. Histoire universelle des chiffres. Paris: Seghers.

308 Ferdinand von Mengden

King, Gareth. 1993. Modern Welsh: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Lass, Roger. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26: 79–102. Luján Martínez, Eugenio Ramón. 1999. The Indo-European system of numerals from ‘1’ to ‘10’. In Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Numeral types and changes worldwide [Trends in Linguistics 118], 199–219. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Majewicz, Alfred Franciszek. 1981. Le rôle du doigt et de la main et leurs désignations en certaines langues dans la formation des systèmes particuliers de numération et des noms de nombre. In Fanny de Sivers (ed.), Le main et les doigts dans l'expression linguistique II: Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale du CNRS, Sèvres (France) 9–12 septembre 1980 [LACITOdocuments: Eurasie 6], 193–212. Paris: SELAF. Menninger, Karl. 1957. Zahlwort und Ziffer: Eine Kulturgeschichte der Zahl. Band I: Zählreihe und Zahlsprache. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Schmidt, P. Wilhelm 1926. Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Erde. [Kulturgeschichtliche Bibliothek. 1. Reihe: Ethnologische Bibliothek 5]. Heidelberg: Winter. Seiler, Hansjakob. 1990. A dimensional view on numeral systems. In William Croft, Keith Denning & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Studies in typology and diachrony: Papers presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th birthday [Typological Studies in Language 20], 187–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Stampe, David. 1976. Cardinal number systems. In Salikoko S. Mufwene, Carol A. Walker & Sanford B. Steever (eds.), Papers from the Twelfth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, April 23–25, 1976, 594–609. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Szemerényi, Oswald. 1960. Studies in the Indo-European system of numerals [Indogermanische Bibliothek. Dritte Reihe: Untersuchungen]. Heidelberg: Winter. Szemerényi, Oswald. 1990. Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft [Die Sprachwissenschaft: Einführungen]. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Wiese, Heike. 2003. Numbers, language and the human mind. Cambridge: CUP.

Nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages

chapter 12

The development of nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages* Foong Ha Yap and Stephen Matthews Chinese University of Hong Kong and University of Hong Kong This paper presents evidence of recurring patterns as well as of language-specific variations in the development of nominalizers across several East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages. Special attention is pato the different grammaticalization pathways of nominalizer morphemes and to the links between different types of nominalization phenomena occurring in the languages of this area. The article also offers an in-depth discussion of a number of controversial issues in the domain of nominalization, among others the following: the interaction of nominalization, tense–aspect and evidentiality–mood interpretation, the relationship between nominalization and copula usage, and the analysis of so-called forgotten or residual nominalizers.

1. Introduction Nominalization is a  highly pervasive phenomenon. This comes as no surprise, ­given that speakers need to refer not only to concrete and tangible entities, such as themselves and their fellow humans, as well as objects they encounter as part of their human experience, but also to more abstract entities, such as events and propositions. Frequently, reference to these more abstract entities invokes a process of nominalization. Consider the examples from English in (1) below. In (1a), the noun phrase the sea is expressed as a patient or theme in object position. There is little question that the sea is fully referential; morphosyntactically, the presence of the determiner the clinches its identity as a nominal. Constructions such as his

*  We gratefully acknowledge research funding from the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Direct Grant #4450128). We also thank the editors of this volume, two anonymous reviewers and fellow participants from the workshop on The Grammaticalization of Nominalizers: East Asian Perspectives for valuable feedback: Yang Gu, Kaoru Horie, Yumiko Nishi, Michael Noonan, Seongha Rhee, Mikyong Shin, Andrew Simpson and Janick Wrona. We are further indebted to Rumiko Shinzato and Bjarke Frellesvig for extensive feedback on Okinawan and Old Japanese respectively. The usual disclaimer applies.

310 Foong Ha Yap and Stephen Matthews

love for the sea in (1b) and his loving the sea in (1c) are semantically more abstract and syntactically more complex; nonetheless, each is clearly also a nominal construction. Among the morphosyntactic cues for nominal interpretation are the possessive determiner his, the preposition for and the gerundive -ing. While gerundive constructions such as the one in (1c) clearly constitute cases of complementation or clausal nominalization, nominals such as his love for the sea in (1b) are more naturally construed as extended noun phrases.

(1) a. He loves [the sea]. b. [His love for the sea] began early in childhood. c. [His loving the sea] is clearly responsible for his decision to become an oceanographer.

Crosslinguistically, establishing whether or not a  particular construction constitutes a case of nominalization is not always without controversy. In some cases, overt morphosyntactic cues of nominalization are not available, giving rise to terms such as zero nominalization (cf. Horie 1993). In other cases, determining whether a morpheme is a nominalizer is open to debate and, in the absence of a proper diachronic perspective, some old (perhaps residual) nominalizers may sometimes go unnoticed. In this paper, we examine the development of nominalizers in some Asian languages, with an emphasis on crosslinguistic (as well as cross-dialectal) comparisons which will enable us to identify more clearly the range of pathways available for the grammaticalization of nominalizer morphemes. This article, which began as an overview paper for the New Reflections on Grammaticalization 3 workshop on The Grammaticalization of Nominalizers: East Asian Perspectives (Santiago de Compostela, 2005), is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews literature on the grammaticalization of nominalizers in Tibeto-Burman and East Asian languages, emphasizing in particular some highly robust developmental patterns in these languages. Section 3 goes on to identify unresolved and intriguing issues requiring further investigation. Frequent references are made to papers presented at the workshop (some of which appear in this volume); each contribution represents an attempt to help clarify the intimate links between different types of nominalization constructions.

2. Nominalization in Asian languages The aim of this section is to review some major works which address nominalization phenomena in Tibeto-Burman and East Asian languages such as Chantyal, Tibetan, Japanese, Korean and Chinese dialects, including Chaozhou and Cantonese. Where possible, emphasis is given to a diachronic account, with the objective



Nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages

of contributing to our understanding of the etymological sources and grammaticalization trajectories of Asian nominalizers. Crosslinguistic parallels will also be examined for clues to the essential nature of nominalization, both as a cognitive process and as a linguistic construct.

2.1 Tibeto-Burman perspectives In his analysis of the highly polysemous Lahu morpheme ve, Matisoff (1972) identified a close functional and structural relationship between genitive, relative clause and nominalization constructions. Evidence of this relationship is clearly attested in Classical Tibetan and Contemporary Lhasa Tibetan, as reported in DeLancey (1986, 1999) and illustrated in (2) and (3) below. According to DeLancey, relative clauses are special cases of nominalization, in which a nominalized complement clause stands in apposition to, and modifies, a head noun. Crucially, in Tibetan, the overt presence of both nominalizer -pa and genitive ‘i (derived from kyi) provides strong evidence that a nominalized clause is being linked to its head noun.

(2) Classical Tibetan shing gcod-pa-‘i mi wood cut-nmlz-gen man ‘the man who cuts the tree’ (DeLancey 1986: 1)



(3) Lhasa Tibetan mo-s bzos-pa-‘i mog=mog she-erg cook-pst.nmlz-gen momo ‘the momos which she made’ (DeLancey 2003b: 276)

Noonan (1997) also argued for an appositive origin for relative clauses such as (4) in Chantyal, along similar lines to those of Matisoff (1972) for Lahu and DeLancey (1986, 1999) for Tibetan. Noonan further observed that agent/patient nominals such as the one in (5) are likewise appositive in nature, with the nominalized clause essentially standing in attributive relation to a zero anaphora (hence their frequent characterization in the literature as headless or pronominal constructions). As observed in Noonan (1997), it is worth noting that, although attributive constructions in Chantyal do not make use of a nominalizer-plus-genitive combination, Gurung, another Tamangic language, does show evidence of a nominalizer accompanied by a genitive linker, as illustrated in (6).

(4) Chantyal [gay-ye sya ca-wa] [menchi] [cow-gen meat eat-nmlz [person ‘the person who is eating beef ’ (Noonan 1997: 376)

311

312 Foong Ha Yap and Stephen Matthews



(5) Chantyal na-se [capa ca-wa] [zero anaphora]-ra kwi pin-ji. I-erg [meal eat-nmlz [zero anaphora]-dat water give-pfv ‘I gave water to the one who was eating.’ (Noonan 1997: 379)



(6) Gurung cá [pxra-bá-e] mxi jaga those [walk-nmlz-gen person pl ‘those walking people’ [=sentries] (lit. ‘those people who are walking’) (Glover 1974: 97, cited in Noonan 1997: 383)

In his analysis of Chantyal, Noonan (1997) identified an extensive network of constructions which are clearly linked to a process of nominalization. Among these are noun complements and purposive constructions, such as those illustrated in (7) and (8) respectively (from Noonan 1997: 376). Less well known but highly interesting are numerous complex predicates of the type in (9), which Noonan refers to as periphrastic verb complexes. Literal translations of these [verb (+aspect) + nominalizer + ‘be’] constructions suggest a  cleft-like (or focus) origin, even though the focus reading, at least in contemporary Chantyal, often appears to be rather subdued. We will return to a discussion of these periphrastic constructions in Sections 2.2.2 and 3.2 below.

(7) Chantyal na-ra [reysi thu-wa] men kha-i. I-dat [raksi drink-nlmz desire come-pfv ‘I want to drink raksi.’ (lit. ‘A desire to drink raksi came to me.’)



(8) Chantyal khi [ca-wa-ri] kha-i. he [eat-nmlz-loc come-pfv ‘He came to eat.’



(9) Chantyal [kadmandu-ri hya-si-wa] hin. [Kathmandu-loc go-ant-nmlz be-npst ‘I’ve gone to Kathmandu.’ (lit. ‘(It) is that I’ve gone to Kathmandu.’) (Noonan 1997: 370)

Noonan further identified what appear to be marked main verb constructions, some of which convey a  sense of counter-expectation, or even exasperation, as illustrated in (10) below. Clearly, speaker subjectivity forms an important part in the interpretation of these nominalized main verb constructions. It is worth noting that Noonan compares this type of stance-ful constructions (i.e. sentences



Nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages 313

which signal speaker perspective or attitude) to Lahu sentence-final ve constructions, such as the one in (11), which are known to convey a strong assertive, matter-of-fact interpretation. (10) Chantyal bennu-ye nal tato ta-si-wa. gun-gen barrel hot become-ant-nmlz ‘The barrel of the gun had become hot!’ (Noonan 1997: 381) (11) Lahu yo la tu ve. he come fut nmlz ‘He will come.’/‘It is the case that he will come.’/‘It is a he-will-come case.’ (Matisoff 1972: 246–247) In fact, Matisoff identifies Lahu sentence-final ve constructions, such as (11) above, with focus readings which are comparable to English cleft constructions. There is thus some intimation here of a robust nominalizer > cleft > stance development among the Tibeto-Burman languages. As already hinted in Noonan (1997) and as we will further elaborate in Section 3.2, the link between the periphrastic verb and off-norm1 main verb constructions is an intimate one, involving issues of focus and speaker orientation and stance. Figure 1 captures some of the grammaticalization pathways undergone by the Chantyal nominalizer -wa, particularly those involving event and proposition perspectivization via focus as well as stance constructions. Similar developments can also be observed in other Tibeto-Burman languages to varying degrees. Figure 2 (where TAM stands for tense-aspect-modality mark-

Relativizer -wa + N Lexical source unknown

Nominalizer -wa

Cleft-like -wa + ‘be’ (in periphrastic verb construction) Stance -wa (in main verb construction)

Figure 1.  Grammaticalization pathways of the Chantyal nominalizer -wa (based on Noonan 1997) 1.  The vivid term off-norm main verb predicates comes from Shinzato (2005). Watters (forthcoming) refers to these constructions as stand alone or free-standing nominalized clauses.

314 Foong Ha Yap and Stephen Matthews

Ergative case kyis/gyis/gis/-s Lexical source unknown

Genitive ‘i (< kyi/gyi/gi)

Lexical source unknown

Nominalizer -pa

Relativizer -pa + N Complementizer -pa Cleft-like -pa + TAM complex Stance -pa + TAM complex

Figure 2.  Grammaticalization pathways of the Classical and Lhasa Tibetan nominalizer -pa (based on DeLancey 1986, 1999; Agha 1993)

er) captures parallel developments in Classical and Lhasa Tibetan. Note that Lhasa Tibetan (DeLancey 1986, 1999; Agha 1993) has also developed additional, more specific nominalizers, such as mkhan, sa and yag, whose grammaticalization pathways await further investigation.2 Examples of complementizer, cleft and stance constructions in Tibetan are shown in (12) to (15). In (12), the nominalizer suffix -pa marks a  complement clause that precedes a  verb of perception (‘know’). In (13), we see structurally a  cleft-like construction; however, in Contemporary Tibetan, such constructions typically do not yield a  strong focus interpretation. In (14) and (15), we see the nominalizer -pa in a mirative expression conveying surprise or counter­expectation. (12) Lhasa Tibetan nga bod-la phyin-pa kho-s shes=kyi. I Tibet-loc go-pst.nmlz he-erg know-ipfv/disjunct ‘He knows (that) I went to Tibet.’ (DeLancey 2003b:284) (13) Lhasa Tibetan kho-s las=ka ma-byed-pa red. he-erg work neg-do-nmlz pfv/disjunct ‘He did not do the work.’ (lit. ‘It is that he did not do the work.’)3

2.  In relative clauses, Lhasa Tibetan also uses the nominalizers mkhan (for actor head nouns), sa (for locative/dative head nouns) and yag (for patient/instrument head nouns in non-perfective contexts). The nominalizer -pa is used for non-actor head nouns in perfective contexts. 3.  We thank Zuzana Vokurkova for helpful discussions pertaining to the non-focus readings of these cleft-like constructions. Whether focus readings were available at an earlier period is unknown and deserves further investigation.



Nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages

(14) Classical Tibetan de-s rtsig-pa zhig gi steng nas mchongs pa. that-erg wall a gen upper.surface abl leapt nmlz (=stance) ‘He jumped off a wall.’ (DeLancey 2003a:264) (15) Lhasa Tibetan kho-s kha=lags zas-byas phyin-pa red. he-erg meal ate-nfin go-pst pfv.disjunct4 ‘He ate and left.’ (DeLancey 2003b: 283) As shown in (13) and (15) above, the nominalizer -pa in cleft (or focus) constructions often appears with the particle red, which marks complex tense/aspect/evidentiality (or mood) information. It is worth noting that this intimate association between nominalizer, tense/aspect marker and speaker stance (or mood) particle is a frequently recurring phenomenon in Tibeto-Burman as well as in a number of other Asian languages (e.g. Korean). We will return to this topic in Sections 2.2.2 and 3.1 below.

2.2 East Asian perspectives 2.2.1  Japanese nominalizers The Japanese nominalizer no has long received extensive discussion in the literature. From a  diachronic perspective, no was attested as a  genitive and possessive pronominal as early as the eighth century in Kojiki, an anthology of old tales written during the Nara period. By contrast, uses of no as a nominalizer did not emerge until the sixteenth century, when complementizer, (pseudo-)cleft and headless relative clause constructions appeared around the same time (cf. Horie 1998a). Examples of these constructions in Modern Japanese are given in (16) to (20) respectively.5 (16) Modern Japanese Hanako no kimono Hanako gen kimono ‘Hanako’s kimono’

4.  Delancey (2003b) treats -pa red as a TAM complex, without glossing -pa as a nominalizer (see also Agha 1993). The link between nominalizer and TAM marking has frequently been observed in the literature, though in-depth discussions are still lacking. 5.  We thank Yumi Inoue for the Modern Japanese examples used in this section, unless otherwise specified.

315

316 Foong Ha Yap and Stephen Matthews

(17) Modern Japanese Hanako no Hanako gen ‘Hanako’s (one)’ (18) Modern Japanese Watashi wa Hanako ga heya ni hairu no o mita. I top Hanako nom room loc enter nmlz acc see.pst ‘I saw Hanako enter(ing) the room.’ (19) Modern Japanese Eziputo de mita no wa piramiddo desu. Egypt loc see.pst nmlz top pyramid cop.npst ‘What I saw in Egypt was the pyramids.’/‘It was pyramids that I saw in Egypt.’ (20) Modern Japanese Eziputo de katta no wa hontooni kirei desu. Egypt loc buy.pst nmlz top really pretty cop.npst ‘What/The thing I bought in Egypt is really pretty.’ While there is debate in the field over whether the complementizer, cleft and relative clause constructions are genitive in origin (cf. Horie 1998a; Nishi 2004), most accounts recognize a pivotal role for pronominal uses of no in the development of nominalizer/complementizer no. Another major function of no which has received extensive discussion is its use in sentence-final no desu constructions, typically to convey speaker assertion (Aoki 1986; Cook 1990), as illustrated in (21) below. In the absence of copula desu (or contracted da), a wider range of speaker moods is possible, with speaker prosody triggering the intended interpretation, which could include nuances of doubt or incredulity (cf. Yap et al. 2004). Generally speaking, researchers within the discourse (and conversation) analysis tradition have identified the usage of no in sentence-final position as an interactional (i.e. pragmatic) particle, deeply involved with speaker (inter-)subjectivity functions (Cook 1990; Iwasaki 1993; see also Shinzato 2005). (21) Modern Japanese Sonna fukanoo na koto iwanai no! such impossible assoc thing say.neg sfprt ‘Don’t say such an impossible thing!’ (Cook 1990: 422; gloss added) Recent studies have highlighted a  diachronic (in addition to semantic-pragmatic) link between focus no constructions and sentence-final no constructions,



Lexical source unknown

Nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages 317

Nominative no (available in some dialects Topic marker VP no dewa

Genitive no Pronominal no

Concessive subordinator no ni Nominalizer -no

Cause/reason subordinator no de Complementizer no Cleft no desu Stance no (desu)

Figure 3.  Grammaticalization pathways of the Japanese nominalizer no (based on Horie 1998a; Yap et al. 2004)

both types sharing an orientation toward speaker stance (cf. Yap et al. 2004; Shinzato 2005). We thus have before us a  highly polysemous morpheme which has extended from referential to nominalizer to evidential/perspectival functions, as shown in Figure 3. In Modern Japanese, nominalizer no also combines with other functional particles, such as de and ni, to form cause/reason and concessive subordinators, as seen in (22) and (23) respectively, and with dewa to form a topic marker, as seen in (24) (cf. Section 2.2.2 for crosslinguistic comparison with Korean; see also Horie, this volume). Worth noting is that the emergence of no as a nominalizer coincided with the demise of an older nominalization system which relied on rentaikei (adnominal) forms, both in Old Japanese and Middle Japanese (for detailed discussions, see Onoe 1982; Yanagida 1985; Nishi 2004; Shinzato 2005; Wrona 2005). (22) Modern Japanese undo shita no de taiju ga herakatta. exercise do.pst nmlz.prt(> conn) weight nom reduce.npst ‘Because I exercised, I lost weight.’ (23) Modern Japanese undo shita no ni taiju ga heranakatta. exercise do.pst nmlz.prt(> conn) weight nom reduce.neg.npst ‘Although I exercised, I did not lose weight.’ (24) Modern Japanese kare iku no dewa, arimasen. he go.npst nmlz.prt (> top) exist.neg.npst ‘As for his going (there), he did not do it.’ (lit. ‘As for his going (there), it did not happen.’)

318 Foong Ha Yap and Stephen Matthews

Lexical source unknown

Genitive nu Pronominal nu

Nominative case nu

Lexical source unknown

Nominalizer si

Complementizer si

Old rentaikei focus system New rentaikei focus system (kakari musubi constructions)

Cleft and stance constructions

Figure 4.  Grammaticalization pathways of Okinawan genitive nu, nominalizer si and the new rentaikei system (based on Shinzato 2005)

On this point, evidence from Okinawan, a sister language of Japanese, is highly instructive. Shinzato (2005) shows that, in Okinawan, genitive nu has evolved nominative case marking functions. However, pronominal nu has not extended into nominalizer contexts to yield relativizer, complementizer nor cleft functions, arguably because Okinawan opted for a  renewal of its old rentaikei system. An important point also noted in Shinzato (2005) is that the cleft-like kakari musubi constructions regularly encode speaker stance as well (see also Shinzato 1998; Serafim and Shinzato 2005). This is consistent with the robust cleft > stance development which we observe crosslinguistically. Figure 4 summarizes the grammaticalization pathways for Okinawan nu, si and the rentaikei system.6

2.2.2  Korean nominalizers Like Japanese, Korean also exhibits a pronominal > nominalizer > stance development, involving a complex -n kes pronominal construction (for a similar view, see, for example, Park 1999; Shin 2005; Rhee 2007). The etymology of kes is generally traced to a bound (or formal) noun meaning ‘thing.’ Its lexical sense still appears in a  few fossilized forms such as ku-kes (‘that thing’) and na-uy kes (‘my thing, mine’), but otherwise kes is no longer used as a lexical morpheme. It is worth further noting that na-uy kes is often contracted to nay kes or nay kke, while most other possessive forms are used without genitive -uy and often appear in phonologically changed forms, such as John kke ‘John’s thing,’ ku salam kke ‘his (thing)’ and ku salamtul kke (‘theirs’).7 6.  Shinzato (2005) notes that nominalizer si constructions replaced the older rentaikei system within the relative clause and complementizer domains, while a new rentaikei system was recruited for the cleft and stance constructions.   7.  We thank Seongha Rhee for these examples of native speaker’s contracted forms, which highlight the pronominal extension of Korean kes.



Nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages 319

It is generally agreed that the path from possessive pronominal to nominalizer is not attested in (Modern) Korean. This is true in the sense that we do not find evidence of genitive uy evolving pronominal and nominalizer functions. Instead, we see the language employing two separate adnominal or linking morphemes, namely -uy and -n, to distinguish between possessive modification and attributive modification, as shown in (25a–b) below.8 The latter type (involving -n/-nun/-ul adnominal linkage) is essentially an ordinary-type (or standard) headed relative clause construction. (25) Korean a. na-uy kes I-gen thing ‘my thing’/‘mine’ b. heyemchi-koiss-nun oli swim-prog-prs.adn duck ‘(the) duck which is swimming’ (Shin 2005: 25) While the genitive -uy has not extended much beyond the sense of ‘marker of agentive possessor’ in contexts like English John’s graduation, the attributive linker -n has evolved numerous nominalizer functions via semantic extension of pronominal kes (< ‘thing’), as illustrated in (26a–c) below (examples from Shin 2005: 25; romanization and glosses revised). (26) Korean a. heyemchi-nun oli swim-prs.adn duck ‘(the) swimming duck’ b. heyemchi-nun kes swim-prs.adn thing ‘(the) swimming thing’ (lit. ‘(the) thing that swims’) / ‘swimming’ c. heyemchi-nun kes-un caymiiss-ta. swim-prs.adn nmlz-top be.fun-decl ‘Swimming is fun.’ Example (26b) in particular emphasizes the very close relationship between relativization and nominalization in Korean. This phenomenon is, in fact, very 8.  Kes is often bound not only with the attributive adnominal linker -n, but also with its allomorph -nun, the distinction being conditioned by tense-aspect-mood considerations. It is not clear to us whether the adnominal linker -l is in fact an allomorphic variant, since Old Korean also had an erstwhile nominalizer -l whose linkage to nominalizer -n is unknown. Whitman (1997) identifies -n as an anterior adnominal, -nun as a non-past adnominal and -(u)l as a posterior adnominal (cf. also Lee 1993; Rhee 2005).

320 Foong Ha Yap and Stephen Matthews

similar to that noted earlier in Tibeto-Burman languages (cf. Matisoff 1972; DeLancey 1986, 1999; Noonan 1997). Arguably, pronominal kes (also referred to as formal noun or defective noun kes) yields a  headless relative clause construction which paves the way for the emergence of nominalizer -n kes.9 Constructions such as (26b) are thus bridge constructions, whose indeterminate readings between agent/patient nominal (e.g. ‘the swimming thing’) and gerundive-type noun complement (e.g. ‘swimming’ as an activity noun) are dependent on context for appropriate semantic-pragmatic interpretation. Rhee (personal communication) notes that the nominalizer -n kes became increasingly productive from Middle Korean onwards (fifteenth century) and, from the earliest available written records, was not restricted only to attributive or relative clause constructions (be these headed, headless or internally headed forms).10 As illustrated in examples (27), (28) and (29) from Modern Korean, -n kes appears in complementizer, focus (or cleft-like) and stance constructions as well (examples from Shin 2005: 71, 77, 80 respectively; romanization and glosses revised). (27) Korean Kunye-nun [wuli-ka cip kwuha-n kes]-ul a(l)-n-ta. she-top [we-nom house get-adn.pst nmlz]-acc know-prs-decl ‘She knows that we have rented a house.’ (28) Korean Ku-nun ecey [o-n kes]-i-a. he-top yesterday [come-adn.pst nmlz]-cop-decl ‘It was yesterday that he came.’ (29) Korean Nay-ka [mikwuk-ey ka-yaha-n-ta-nun kes]-i-a. I-nom [America-dir go-must-prs-decl-prs.adn nmlz]-cop-decl ‘(The fact is) I need to go to America.’ The emergence of -ul kes-ul as a  concessive subordinator is noted in Horie (1998b:155), while recent developments of -n kes-i-ni and -n kes-i-nikka as cause/ reason subordinators are noted in Rhee (2002). In this regard, it is worth recalling that Japanese has also developed the cause/reason subordinators no ni and no de as well as the topic marker no dewa (cf. Figure 3 above). A common characteristic of these subordinators and topic markers, as noted earlier for Japanese (cf. Section 2.2.1), is the recruitment of a nominalizer in combination with additional, more specific functional particles. 9.  On kes as a formal or defective noun, see e.g. Simpson and Wu (2001) and Shin (2005). 10.  Nominalizer -n kes constructions began replacing the older -(u)m nominalizer constructions in earnest towards the end of the nineteenth century (Modern Korean).



Nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages 321

Lexical source unknown

Adnominal -uy (possessive, i.e. genitive) Possessive pronominal -uy kes

Lexical source unknown

Adnominal -n (non-possessive, headed relative clause) Cause/reason subordinator -n kes-i-ni, -n kes-i-nikka, etc. Complementizer -n kes

Lexical noun kes ‘thing’

Nominalizer -n kes

Cleft -n ke(s) ia Stance -n ke(s) ia

Figure 5.  Grammaticalization pathways of the Korean nominalizer -n kes (based on Park 1999; Shin 2005)

Figure 5 summarizes the relevant grammaticalization pathways for Korean -n kes. Note in particular the dissociation between the possessive adnominal (-uy) and the attributive adnominal (-n) discussed earlier. This dissociation allows us to clearly see the pivotal role of pronominal -n kes in the emergence of nominalizer -n kes, and ultimately in the development of cleft and focus -n ke(s) ia as well. Note also that ia is derived from a fusion of the copula i‑ and the sentence-final particle a. In this respect, the stance marker -n ke(s) ia shares a strong resemblance to the stance marker no desu constructions in Modern Japanese: in both languages we see evidence of a nominalizer-plus-copula complex. Recall that Chantyal also makes frequent use of cleft constructions, in which clauses nominalized by -wa are immediately accompanied by the copula hin ‘be’ (cf. example (9) in Section 2.1). This phenomenon may be a common characteristic of verb-final languages. Close examination of other verb-final languages will therefore be useful. At least two other Korean nominalizers, namely -(u)m and -ci, have also evolved stance marking functions (Park 1999; Rhee 2007). These nominalizers are also found in complementizer and focus constructions, but have not extended to headed relative clause contexts.11 Among the focus constructions are the sentence-final -m (ia) and -ci (*ia) constructions, an equative variant of the Korean -n ke(s) ia and Japanese no (desu) cleft/stance constructions in terms of pragmatic effect.12 Figure 6 highlights the polysemy networks of the nominalizers -(u)m 11.  The Korean nominalizers -(u)m and -ci resemble Classical Chinese zhe in that they prefer headless clause environments. 12.  It is worth pointing out here that cleft and stance constructions are not easily distinguishable in verb-final languages, such as Japanese and Korean.

322 Foong Ha Yap and Stephen Matthews

Lexical source unknown

Nominalizers -(u)m/-ci

Cause/reason subordinator (u)m-ulo-se Focus constructions …-m, …-m/…-ci, …-ci (both restricted usage in Modern Korean) Cleft -m ia/-ci (*ia) (restricted usage in Modern Korean) Stance -m (ia)/-ci (*ia) (restricted usage in Modern Korean)

Figure 6.  Grammaticalization pathways of the Korean nominalizers -m and -ci (based on Rhee 2007)

and -ci.13 Note the parallels with -n kes as well as with nominalizers in other languages which have also evolved stance functions. It should further be noted that diachronic accounts of the development of these two older nominalizers are still sketchy and await further investigation. Rhee (this volume, citing Kim 1978; Ryu 1990; Kang 1993) suggests the possibility of a  similar grammaticalization pathway for an even older nominalizer from Old Korean, namely -i. This nominalizer is arguably derived from a  proximal demonstrative and is closely linked to the pronoun i, as well as to nominative -i and copula i‑ (cf. also Frellesvig 2001:n 31, citing Martin 1997). According to Rhee, the relationship between nominative and copula usage is one of parallelism, with nominative -i marking a nominal argument and copula i‑ marking a predicate argument (i.e. a nominalized clause).

2.2.3  Chinese nominalizers There is also some evidence from Chinese of a similar nominalizer > stance development. Here we focus on the development of nominalizer kai within the Chaozhou dialect (Southern Min) based on examples from Matthews and Xu (2002). The morpheme kai is highly versatile; it is used in classifier, possessive pronominal, cleft and sentence-final stance functions, as well as topic-marker and non-verbal copula. As seen in (30), classifier kai can assume a bound pronominal function, in this case tsi kai ‘this (one).’ 14 In the examples which follow, kai is used as a genitive (31), a possessive pronominal (32), a relative clause marker (33) and a nominalizer 13.  The nominalizer -m is used in a wide range of contexts (including prohibitive ones); the nominalizer -ci is used in negative, retrospective and strong assertive contexts. 14.  This is reminiscent of the Korean bound noun/pronominal kes discussed earlier in Section 2.2.2.



Nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages 323

in a headless relative clause (34) (arguably the relative clause marker of (33) reinterpreted as the nominalizer of (34)). Note that this constitutes a classifier > genitive and pronominal > relative clause and nominalizer development. This pathway is common to other Chinese dialects such as Cantonese, where the classifier go3 grammaticalized into the genitive and the possessive pronominal ge3 (note the phonological reduction), and then further into the nominalizer and relative clause marker ge3 as well. (See Figures 7 and 8 for a summary of the grammaticalization of Chaozhou kai and of Cantonese ge3 respectively). It is worth noting that this classifier > genitive and pronominal > relative clause and nominalizer pathway closely parallels the general noun (e.g. person, place, thing) > nominalizer > relative clause marker development in Tibeto-Burman languages (e.g. LaPolla 2003). (30) Chaozhou ̃lɯ tã i ai tsi kai me? 2sg say 3sg like this clf q ‘Do you think she will like this (one)?’ (31) Chaozhou i kai haʔseng 3sg poss student ‘his/her student’ (32) Chaozhou tsia kai si ua kai this clf cop 1sg clf ‘this (one) is mine’ (33) Chaozhou lai tsio p’aʔkang kai naŋ loŋ si ɡuaseñ-kiã. come here work rel people all cop outside.province-suf ‘Those people who came here to work are all from other provinces.’ (34) Chaozhou lai tsio p’aʔkang kai loŋ si ɡuaseñ-kiã. come here work rel all cop outside.province-suf ‘Those who came here to work are all from other provinces.’ In (35), we see kai used in a subordinate clause construction.15 In such structures, kai combines with ue (‘word, speech’) to form a conditional subordinator 15.  I owe this example to Huiling Xu (personal communication). See also Jiang (2004) for a discussion of a similar phenomenon involving the Mandarin Chinese conditional subordinator de hua.

324 Foong Ha Yap and Stephen Matthews

(‘if, supposing that, say that’). Notice the structural similarity between subordinate clause [VP kai ue] and relative clause [VP kai N]. Note in particular that the two constructions involve nominalizer kai and that both of them serve specificational or modificational functions, the relative clause construction being used for nominal modification and the subordinate clause construction for clausal modification (cf. also Xu and Matthews, forthcoming). This suggests a close relationship between nominalization, relativization and subordination. (35) Chaozhou (na si) lok hou kai ue tsu mai k’ɯ. (cond fall rain cond ( nominalizer > stance development appears to be very robust among the Chinese dialects; indeed, this phenomenon may even be pan-Chinese. Evidence from Classical and Contemporary Chinese (Lu 1943; Wang 1980; Li and Thompson 1981; Jiang 1999; Shi and Li 2002; Yap et al. 2008) suggests a very similar grammaticalization trajectory for the nominalizer di/de in Mandarin Chinese (cf. Figure 9). A language-specific difference worth noting is the relatively late emergence of Mandarin genitive di/de. Diachronically, we see that both Archaic and Middle Chinese for a long time relied on genitive zhi,20 and it was not until the South20.  The earliest known Chinese dynasty was the Xia dynasty (twenty-first to sixteenth centuries BC), though the earliest available written records came from bone oracles from the Shang period (sixteenth to eleventh centuries bc). Old Chinese, based on extant inscriptions and writings, covers at least the Shang dynasty and continued into the Western Han period (206 BC to 24 AD). Middle Chinese emerged during the Easatern Han period (25 AD to 220 ad) and contin-

Nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages 327

Lexical source unknown

Topic marker [gong2dou3 NP] ge3waa2 Conditional subordinator ­ge3waa2

Classifier go3

Genitive ge3 Pronominal ge3

Nominalizer ge3

Relativizer ge3 + N (headed) Cleft hai6 … ge3 Stance -ge3 (+SFP)

Figure 8.  Grammaticalization pathways of the Cantonese nominalizer ge3 (based on Yap 2007)

Influence of zhi and zhe

Lexical noun di (‘foundation, base, bottom’)

Genitive di/de Pronominal di

Conditional subordinator (­ruguo) … de hua Relativizer di/de + N (headed)

Nominalizer di/de

Cleft shi … de Stance de (+SFP)

Figure 9.  Grammaticalization pathways of the Mandarin nominalizer de (based on Jiang 1999; Shi and Li 2002; Yap et al. 2008)

ern Song period (eleventh to twelfth centuries AD) that genitive di/de gradually came to increasingly compete with genitive zhi (Jiang 1999; Shi and Li 2002). A point worth highlighting here is that the pronominal function (independently of the genitive one) can give rise to the development of nominalizers which further grammaticalize into stance markers.

2.2.4  Summary We have seen that a number of nominalizers in East Asian languages have developed stance functions, which indicates that the path from referential to evidential/mood marking is a fairly robust development crosslinguistically. Also evident ued through the golden age of the Tang dynasty (618 to 907 AD), then giving way to Early Modern Chinese during the Song period (960 to 1279 AD). See Norman (1988:xi), among others, for chronological details.

328 Foong Ha Yap and Stephen Matthews

is that this grammaticalization process is recursive, in the sense of being cyclical, with new morphemes often recruited to assist, and often eventually replace, old nominalizers. A pivotal intermediate step appears to be the availability of pronominal usage for each potential nominalizer candidate. Once a nominalizer, if productive, the morpheme can generate clausal constructions which contribute to referent-identification (e.g. agent/patient nominals, gerundive or infinitival type noun complements, relative clause constructions) and event/proposition perspectivization (e.g. focus, cleft or stance constructions, subordinate clause constructions). Several related yet independent pathways were also identified. One pathway gave rise to topic markers and case markers closely affiliated with referent (including semantic role) identification. The other pathway gave rise to nominalizers, and with them often the wide range of nominalized constructions discussed in this paper. Another frequent bifurcation was found within the nominalizer pathway itself. One involved the evidentiality/modality functions (focus, cleft and stance marking), while the other involved subordinators and topic markers performing focalizing or mental space building functions (cf. Fauconnier 1985). The former set of nominalized constructions is often further realized as sentence-final particles. The latter set is also frequently clause-final, but appears at the end of dependent and non-terminative clauses, frequently functioning as situational specifiers for upcoming events in the matrix clause. Figure 10 summarizes these grammaticalization pathways which are frequently observed among nominalizers in East Asian languages.

Nominative case marker Topic marker Non-verbal copula verb Lexical source (often unknown)

Genitive Pronominal

Concessive subordinator Conditional subordinator Cause/reason subordinator Relative clause (headed)

Nominalizer

Complementizer Cleft construction Stance construction

Figure 10.  Some frequent grammaticalization pathways of nominalizers in East Asian languages



Nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages 329

3. Issues related to the grammaticalization of East Asian and Tibeto-Burman nominalizers We have thus far seen clear evidence of a robust nominalizer-to-stance development among East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages. A number of other frequently recurring issues deserve further consideration, among them the following: (i) the interaction between nominalization, tense/aspect and evidentiality/mood interpretation (cf. Section 3.1); (ii) the relationship between nominalization and copula usage (cf. Section 3.2); and (iii) the investigation of forgotten nominalizers (cf. Section 3.3).

3.1 The relationship between nominalization, tense/aspect and evidentiality/ mood An important recurring theme related to nominalization phenomena in a number of East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages is the frequent interaction between nominalization, tense/aspect and evidentiality/mood interpretation. Recall Noonan’s (1997) identification of nominalization constructions involving periphrastic verbs in Chantyal, where we find many -wa nominalized clauses accompanied by the copula verb hin (‘be’) to form cleft-like focus constructions (cf. Section 2.1 above). Similarly, Japanese and Korean also use nominalizer-plus-copula verb constructions to form focus and stance constructions, i.e. via n(o) desu and -n ke(s) ia constructions respectively (cf. Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2). Chinese dialects frequently use discontinuous-type ‘copula … nominalizer’ constructions to form cleft-like focus constructions. Examples include Mandarin shi … de, Cantonese hai2 ... ge3 and Chaozhou si … kai and kai … kai constructions (cf. Section 2.2.3). Thus far, the link between nominalization and focus/stance has been clearly established in this paper and elsewhere (e.g. Yap et al. 2004; Shinzato 2005; see also the papers in Yap and Wrona, forthcoming). Much less well understood, however, is the link between nominalization and tense/aspect. Scholars working on Classical and Lhasa Tibetan have examined to some extent the intimate interaction between nominalizers and complex perfective/imperfective suffixal elements which give rise to conjunctive/disjunctive perspectives closely intertwined with the illocutionary intent of speech act participants (e.g. Agha 1993; DeLancey 2003a, 2003b). This line of research offers a fresh perspective on how researchers working on other East Asian languages might proceed with their investigation of the intimate link between nominalization and tense/aspect marking. Potentially relevant for closer scrutiny is the relationship between anterior adnominal -n and nominalizer kes in Korean. Also worth further investigation is the question of whether adnominal -n may be linked to the Old ­Korean

330 Foong Ha Yap and Stephen Matthews

nominalizer -n often discussed in the literature (cf. Rhee, this volume). If such a link could be established, it would be possible to strongly posit that a realis interpretation frequently associated with nominalization may have given rise to anterior/past readings for adnominal -n. Once a  tense/aspect reading becomes associated with -n, other aspectual associations could also emerge in the language, among them the non-past reading with -(nu)n and the prospective reading with -(u)l. If this account holds for Korean, it would be worth further investigating the relationship between erstwhile nominalizers and tense/aspect functions in other neighbouring languages as well, in particular Manchu and Mongolian, both of which are known to use -n as a  nominalizer. It is also noteworthy that Korean scholars have also identified -l as a nominalizer in Old Korean (as well as in Mongolian, among other languages). That -(u)l also participates in the tense-aspect system in adnominal constructions (which, as we have seen, are strongly linked to nominalization) clearly prompts some serious investigation. Understanding the relationship between tense/aspect and nominalization is clearly important because even slight variations in their interactions often yield meaningful subtle differences in evidential/mood interpretation. Little is currently known about the link between nominalization and the use of adnominals as tense/ aspect markers in Japanese or about the implications of their relationship for evidentiality/mood interpretation.21 Even less is known of this type of relationship from extant literature on Chinese nominalization. Any small step in understanding how subtle variations in mood may have emerged from interactions between tense/aspect and nominalization in languages such as Tibetan, Korean, Manchu and Mongolian, among others, is bound to contribute to a better understanding of possibly covert interactions between tense/aspect and nominalization in tenseless languages such as Chinese.

3.2 The relationship between nominalization and copula usage Another frequently recurring issue across the languages which we have examined in Section 2 above is the relationship between nominalization and copula usage. There appear to be at least three functional domains in which copulas and nominalizers are intimately linked together. As noted earlier in the case of Chaozhou, demonstrative pronominals can be used as topic markers, which, in turn, can give rise to pronominal (or non-verbal) copulas. In such cases, nominalizers may share a  common source morpheme with the copula, though there is no direct, patri­filial relationship between them.22 21.  But see Frellesvig (2001) for a recent discussion. 22.  In Old Chinese, shi was used as a demonstrative (Li and Thompson 1977: 424–425). Since



Nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages 331

Another functional domain in which copula usage may sometimes be linked to nominalization is that of adnominal constructions. As discussed in Frellesvig (2001), in Old Japanese, no was used as the adnominal form of the copula, conveying the sense ‘which is.’23 Frellesvig posits that copula no gave rise to genitive no, through the use of [NP1 no NP2] constructions, initially with the meaning ‘NP2 which is NP1’ and then later with the meaning ‘NP2 of NP1’ and ‘NP1’s NP2.’24 In time, genitive no further developed a  highly productive nominalizing function (as discussed earlier in Section 2.2.1). Recall that this new nominalizer no further combined with a new copula form desu to create new focus and stance constructions (i.e. the contemporary no desu type). We see therefore a pattern emerging where adnominal copulas, genitives, nominalizers and other grammatical categories can intimately be linked to each other. Frellesvig (2001) also posits a close connection between the copula and the adnominal system in Korean. Following Martin (1997), he suggests that the Modern Korean copula i‑ could have developed from the Old Korean demonstrative -i (2001:n 31).25 Like Lehmann (1995: 26–27), Frellesvig (2001: 21–23) claims that adnominal copulas often emerge when anaphoric demonstratives are recruited to reinforce already existing copula verbs. As Rhee notes in this volume, ­Korean scholars (cf. Kim 1978; Ryu 1990; Kang 1993) have also claimed a proximal demonstrative origin for nominalizer -i. Taken together, these two views suggest a possible link between copula i‑ and nominalizer -i, possibly along the lines of the development demonstrative pronoun > copula adnominal > nominalizer, in tandem with that of demonstrative pronoun > nominative noted earlier in Section 2.2.2. Much more transparent is the relationship between nominalizer and copula in the formation of cleft constructions in contemporary languages. In Chantyal, for example, we see evidence of nominalizer -wa + hin (‘be’) verb constructions, which Noonan (1997) refers to as periphrastic verb constructions (cf. SecMiddle Chinese, shi has functioned as a  copula. Hashimoto (1969: 88) identified a  fascinating illogical copula construction, which we here suggest is a topic marking construction. Note that a topic marker > copula verb development has been observed for Chaozhou kai (cf. Section 2.2.3), and crosslinguistic evidence (Heine and Kuteva 2002: 95–96) shows that a copula > focus development is quite common in the languages of the world. In the case of shi, there may have been a topic > copula > focus development. A focus interpretation could also naturally arise from contrastive topics. 23.  Interestingly, this adnominal usage leaves the possibility of a pronominal origin open. 24.  Note that this analysis becomes more transparent if we bear in mind that Japanese is SOV and head-final, unlike English, which is SVO and head-initial. 25.  See Pustet (2003: 54–61) for crosslinguistic evidence of the origin of copulas, including pronoun > pronominal copula > verbal copula > copular affix.

332 Foong Ha Yap and Stephen Matthews

tion 2.1 above). We have suggested that structures of this kind are a type of focus construction, albeit one which has come to saturate the language such that it does not always yield strong affective readings and other more salient focus constructions may sometimes be needed to achieve marked affect. Such saturation is not uncommon; in fact, besides Tibeto-Burman languages, such as Chantyal, other languages, such as Korean (with its near-ubiquitous sentence-final -n ke(s) ia constructions), Japanese (with its own near-ubiquitous sentence-final no desu structures) and Mandarin (also with its own near-ubiquitous sentence-final de constructions) likewise show saturation of stance structures which could be traced to cleft-constructions. These, as we have discussed earlier in this paper, are manifestations of nominalization constructions. While all cleft structures are focus constructions by definition, not all stance structures retain strong focus effects.26 Of particular relevance for our current discussion is that many of the focus/ stance constructions we describe here are nominalizer-plus-copula verb combinations. This is the case with Korean -n ke(s) ia constructions (< nominalizer -n ke(s) + copula i‑ + sentence-final particle -a) and with Japanese no desu constructions (< nominalizer no + copula desu). This is also true with the discontinuous Mandarin shi … de focus structures (where shi is the copula), though not with the sentence-final stance de constructions, which appear without the copula. Elision of the copula (shi) may have paved the way for sentence-final de constructions to be in a position to either express speaker perspective emphatically (often with the aid of other more specific sentence-final particles, in addition to marked prosody in spoken discourse) or to express speaker perspective more subtly, i.e. without overt indication (as specified by the addition of sentence-final particles) but simply by intimation. Crucially, what we often see is a strong presence of ­nominalizer-plus-copula verb pattern among focus constructions in these East Asian ­languages. Also worth noting is the transition from the rentaikei nominalization system in Old Japanese into the new periphrastic no (desu) nominalization system in Modern Japanese. While it has often been noted that the latter clearly involves use of the copula (desu), recent attention is now also being drawn to a possible relationship between the rentaikei nominalization system and copula forms (cf. Frellesvig 2001; Wrona 2005). A similar situation appears to hold also with Okinawan. Recall that the old rentaikei system in Old Okinawan (a sister language of Old Japan26.  Horie (personal communication), expanding on Iwasaki (2000: 243), further emphasizes that conflation of the adnominal (rentaikei) and conclusive (shushikei) verb forms also gave rise to a strong tendency in Modern Japanese to use nominalized constructions in order to convey indirectness and non-assertion, which Horie argues reflects a cultural tendency among the Japanese to favour conflict avoidance.



Nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages 333

ese which is believed to have branched off from Proto-Japanese around the sixth century)27 also gave way to a newer rentaikei system which was periphrastically reinforced by the use of copula verb yoru, as seen in (41) below, which shows both the old and the new rentaikei forms (furu and furi-yoru). Little has been said about the possibility of a copula link with the nominalization system in Old Okinawan. However, given that the nominalization system in Old Okinawan parallels that of Old Japanese, the same possibility emerges for a strong link between adnominal copula and nominalizer in Old Okinawan as well. (41) Old Okinawan Shiyori furu ame ya sudemidu do furi-yoru. Shuri fall rain top purified.water kprt fall ‘Speaking of the rain falling in Shuri, it is purified water that falls.’ (OS 370; Shinzato 2005: 4–5) Korean scholars have also long recognized that the older nominalizers -um and -ci are being overtaken by the more contemporary -n ke(s) ia constructions in focus/stance contexts (see Rhee 2007 for a summary). Little is currently known about whether copula usage is linked with the -um and -ci nominalizer constructions; future research will need to investigate this issue. A concurrent possible agenda is to examine the extent to which other neighbouring languages exhibit similar affinities between nominalization and copula usage.

3.3 Forgotten or residual nominalizers The preceding discussions bring us naturally to another significant topic in this paper, namely the issue of forgotten nominalizers. In looking at a wide array of nominalizers across East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages, diachronically, crosslinguistically and even cross-dialectally, we see recurring intimations of morphemes which might in fact be nominalizers. For both Old Korean and Old Japanese, forgotten nominalizers are likely to lurk among the adnominal constructions. Potential candidates include -ki and possibly -shi in Old Japanese. Consider (42) and (43) below. In (42), note that -ki is identified as an adjectival adnominal and occupies a syntactic position within a headed relative clause very much like the adnominal morphemes -n and -l discussed earlier with respect to Korean, and also quite similar to nominalizers in relative constructions in Tibeto-Burman and Chinese discussed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2.3 respectively. In (43), in turn, we see both -ki and -shi occurring in structures very similar to the cleft focus constructions in other languages, many of which clearly implicate a pivotal role for nomin27.  Here, Shinzato (2005) cites Hattori (1976) and Hokama (1977).

334 Foong Ha Yap and Stephen Matthews

alizers. The likelihood that -ki and -shi could have been nominalizers in Old Japanese is quite high. What is also interesting to investigate is the possibility that these potential forgotten nominalizers may have traversed a similar grammaticalization trajectory as the nominalizers already identified in this paper. (42) Old Japanese yononaka-pa munasi-ki mono to aramu. this.world-top empty-adj.adn thing cop exist.conjc ‘This world is empty.’ (MYS 3.442; Frellesvig 2001: 4) (43) Old Japanese minato no ashi no uraha wo tare ka tawori-shi (ki) estuary gen rush gen tip acc who kprt cut-pst […] ware zo tawori-shi (ki).   I kprt cut-pst ‘Who is it that cut the tip of the rushes at the estuary? […] It is I who cut them.’ (MYS 7.1288; Shinzato 2005: 5) It is also worth noting that -ki and -shi in Old Japanese, as seen in (43) above, were associated with tense/aspect marking, more specifically, with perfect(ive)/ past readings (i.e. essentially involved as markers of anteriority). We have already briefly discussed the frequent and intimate link between nominalization and tense/aspect marking (cf. Section 3.1), but the issue is worth revisiting here, since such interactions may serve as probes in the search for forgotten nominalizers. In this regard, it is interesting to contemplate the possibility that tense/aspect markers are sometimes relic nominalizers, such that reinforcement from and suffixation by newer nominalizers gives rise to tense-plus-nominalizer complexes. Noonan’s observation (this volume; Section 4) of sequential converbal suffix *si in Bodic languages combining with nominalizer *pa readily comes to mind. In Chantyal, this phenomenon takes the form of -si-wa constructions, while in Korean comparable structures would be the -n kes constructions. In Old Japanese, Wrona (2005) has suggested that some answers lie in the adnominal (rentaikei) constructions. Potential forgotten nominalizers in Classical Chinese include the ubiquitous morpheme ye. As noted in Yue (1998), ye often appears in clause/sentence-final position as a stance particle and is also often used postnominally as a topic marker. As seen in (44) below, when it appears in a non-terminative clause, i.e. shi ke ren ye ‘if that can be tolerated,’ ye contributes to an implicit conditional subordinator reading, much as the nominalizers zhi and zhe sometimes did in pre-Qin Chinese (cf. He 1988; Huang and Yap 2006; Yap et al. 2008). While the precise type of



Nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages 335

subordination (causal, conditional, concessive, etc.) is not inherently encoded in the meaning of ye (nor in that of zhi and zhe), a dependency relation to the subsequent clause readily emerges. Worth noting is that such a dependency is often linked to notions of non-finiteness in tensed languages (cf. Haspelmath 1995). That ye contributes to the formation of dependent (possibly non-finite) clauses suggests that it may be intimately tied to nominalization. Future diachronic work could investigate the extent to which a nominalizer > stance development holds for this highly ubiquitous and versatile morpheme ye.28 (44) Classical Chinese Kongzi wei Ji shi ba yi wu yu ting Confucius said Ji person eight team dance in court.garden shi ke ren ye shu bu ke ren ye. pron can tolerate prt (