Universality of grammar and grammatical universals
(3)
von August
Dauses
Inhaltsverzeichnis:
Introduction
Chapter 1: Isolating versus inflecting and
agglutinating languages
Chapter 2: Grammatical morphemes as
relative indicators and concomitant phenomena
Chapter 3: Grammatical
marking, classification and word formation
Chapter 4: Grammar and linguistic
history
Chapter 5: Schematic,
pleonastic and secondary usage
Chapter 6: New categories -
new redundancies
Conclusion
5. Schematic, pleonastic and secondary usage
The
development of 'weak' grammatical morphemes which are used highly
schematically and therefore also pleonastically-redundantly, has also
always to be regarded against the background of the history of a
language and is therefore by no means universal. The higher the
number of such grammatical morphemes and markings, the more complex
the grammar in question becomes, and this complexity increases
considerably by the fact that these morphemes develop in turn a
number of uses and norms, and the more intricate the net of markings,
the more complex become the mutual delimitations and subnorms.
Such complex rules of usage
and mutual delimitations derive paradoxically from the fact that
grammatical marking is to a certain degree schematic, which can go as
far as obligatory use, and this schematic way of using them is at the
same time the expression of low regard for these weak morphemes which
are often lacking in information and which are therefore used
according to certain rules. We could actually expect that such
morphemes follow very simple rules so that their performance is in
direct proportion to complexity (low performance, simple rules). But
especially in our inflecting languages, such an economic behaviour
cannot be detected. We notice their high complexity at the latest
when we start learning another Indo-European language. Even after
years of intensive training, we don't manage to reach perfection.
The complexity of the
grammar of inflecting languages is then paradoxically linked to the
schematic use of grammatical morphemes, but, once more we cannot
establish a direct proportional link between schematic and idiomatic
use and therefore schematically used morphemes develop just as many
sub-uses as those which are less schematically used. In other words:
our grammars always remain highly complex and when, in some cases,
they seem to simplify, they develop new and complex rules of usage
elsewhere. We would like to illustrate this point briefly in the
following:
We mark (schematically) the
predicative verb with a personal ending or a subject pronoun (Latin
canto, English I sing), which leads to the fact that
such a marking is also used analogously in those cases in which the
verb does not even refer to a person nor to an object (Latin pluvit,
English it rains), so that it can't be an anaphoric usage
either. And the (cataphoric?) pronoun in English it seems that…,
it is good for you to… seems also to be totally without
function. Analogously to the marking of the subject as far as the
verb is concerned, the object pronoun became also more frequent, and,
in turn, a conjunction developed from its abstract anaphoric use (I
say that: he comes > I say that he comes), which might
have been encouraged by a free syntax (He comes. I say that. >
I say that: he comes).
Virtually a prime example
of highly schematic and, at the same time, highly idiomatic usage is
the (definite and indefinite) article: in the different Germanic and
Romance languages, it has developed a number of usages which cannot
be deduced anymore from the anaphoric function it used to have (cf.
French l'amour - English love; French aller à
l'école - English to go to church; French retourner
pour le déjeuner - English to go home for lunch;
French le lundi - English Monday; French le
parlement décide - English Parlament decides etc.).
The complexity of the usage of such a grammatical morpheme which
carries only little information cannot be explained positively from
its functions, but conversely, it has to be explained from the little
attention which the speaker devotes to these weak signs, and which he
therefore also uses analogously in cases where they don't convey any
further new information. From one analogy to another, new norms and
subnorms emerge, which, on the whole, leads to a complexity which a
native speaker is not even aware of. The speaker compensates for this
by memorising the collocations in question; and this exactly is the
reason why he would have huge problems if asked to explain this kind
of usage to another person. In this way, an increasingly schematic
usage makes analogous transition easier and encourages the
development of new idiomatic uses! An increasingly schematic usage
leads also to the speaker manoeuvreing himself into a dilemma (which,
however, is not experienced as a real problem): in the Romance
languages, the imperfect is fairly easily and schematically delimited
from the perfect by the fact that it expresses a state or an action
in progress at a certain point in time (in contrast to the starting
point of an action). This means, however, that there isn't any
neutral form anymore, there is no past tense anymore which marks
neither the starting point nor the state of an action. Nonetheless,
there are contexts and situations, which cannot easily be forced into
this basic pattern, so that the question arises which tense the
speaker is supposed to decide on. Modal auxiliaries ('want, should,
must') are such cases in which the distinction between the starting
point of an action and the state is difficult to make, so that, here
again, specific norms for the usage develop, though to a varying
degree, even within the Romance languages.
The characterisation of a
person doesn't fit very well either into the pattern: starting point
of an action vs. state at a certain point of time, and therefore, the
usage varies in this case in the Romance languages (cf. French N.
fut/était un génie - Spanish Fue/era hermosa).
Schematic usage on the one hand leads to idiomatic usage on the other
hand: there is no neutral form anymore, so that, inevitably, there
are also neutralising effects: both forms are, at least potentially,
equal in value.
In many languages, a
present perfect differs from a simple past tense roughly in that it
describes an event, which - at least from the point of view of the
speaker - is not followed by a further one, so that, in many cases,
it is only the result which is to the fore (Kolumbus hat Amerika
entdeckt; ich habe das Brot gekauft; er ist
weggegangen). But not in all cases, this distinction can be drawn
without problems, especially if a point of time in the past is
mentioned or implied, therefore we ask in English: When did you
buy the bread? whereas in Spanish we can also use the perfect
tense: Cuando has comprado el pan?, cf. English I bought
the bread in London (the place implies an indication of time) vs.
Spanish He comprado el pan en Londres. And between the more or
less fixed and obligatory usages of the perfect tense and the
preterite, there is also a number of fluctuating usages and varying
affinities in these two and other languages, which could also be
treated as a matter of stylistics.
In French, we could try to
distinguish a simple future and a periphrastic future (j'irai
- je vais aller) on the grounds of temporal distance (distant
future - near future), all the more considering that the periphrastic
future is derived from an action which has already begun (je
vais…). But such a pattern is soon to be dissolved again
because the criterion of proximity and distance can't be determined
objectively. What, for someone, lies within reach, might for others
lie in the far distance. Again, more complex subnorms and varying
affinities between certain situations and the usage of tense forms
develop, including also (modal) nuances.
In the English language,
the progressive form indicates schematically that an action is in
progress at a certain point in time, especially when used for actions
and events which can be interrupted (I saw him when he was going
home). So, it is by no means only used to mark the progress of an
action which otherwise wouldn't be discernible, but also in those
cases in which the context in itself would be sufficient to convey
the meaning (cf. other languages without any such marking!). This
pleonastic and redundant use (cf. chapter six for its development),
in turn, makes analogous extensions easier: pleonastics makes easier
further usages: I am speaking the truth! You are telling lies! The
child is constantly crying! or: The United States are saying
that… And if certain subnorms become increasingly frequent
we also talk about a linguistic development: in this sense, the
grammars of inflecting languages are constantly in the process of
progress or development; at least, many times more than the isolating
languages, in so far as one can speak of grammar at all in those
languages. The weak grammatical morphemes of our languages are often
used schematically, approximately and analogously and not only in
those cases when a certain indicator is indispensable in the context!
Schematic usages are per se
analogous usages and this is why the concept of analogy plays such an
important role in the inflecting languages. But also such grammatical
morphemes which are used less schematically, that is not according to
a more or less simple pattern, have analogous rules of usage
including numerous secondary usages and subnorms. First and foremost,
this is true for all categories which are still in the process of
development (cf. chapter six) and which, therefore, haven't found a
fixed place in the structure of the language, which are, so to speak,
not yet firmly established. So, in most cases, they cannot be used
schematically yet, according to a simple usage rule. This simple
usage rule (with all its exceptions) is only the result of a settling
process, of a gradual approximation of different uses, among which
the speakers find a common denominator. And, as we will see later,
this again has to do with the fact that new markings are not produced
in an act of creation to express a certain signification or a
distinction, but that, conversely, they are interpreted from the
context, so that, right from the beginning, they only express
pleonastically that which exists already as signification in the
context.
A new tense, a new marking
of aspect or an emerging article have by no means a fixed place in
the 'system' of grammar right from the beginning, so that we had
better speak of fragile norms and subnorms, and some markings also
remain permanently fragile in the sense that they don't develop any
fixed usage rules nor even obligatory usages. In contrast to the
progressive form in English, the analogous forms in Spanish and
Italian are still optional today (estoy cantando / sto
cantando - 'I am singing'), and in contrast to the so-called
partitive article in French (which has also taken over the function
of the plural), the partitive article in Italian is only an optional
variant. And just as, for all obligatory uses, one has to know
especially all the exceptions and special usages, in this case, one
has to know the norms and subnorms for all usages. This applies
likewise also to the segmentation in modern French (les fleurs,
c'est joli; moi, je travaille; je l'ai vu hier, ton
frère). Grammatical morphemes and constructions are used
approximately, schematically and analogously, and if they have once
become obligatory, this does only mean that analogous usages will
increase drastically so that it becomes more and more difficult to
distinguish subnorms in this intricate network of usages. That is why
the rule for the different uses becomes broader and more schematic,
and this exactly leads to the development of obligatory usage. The
actual question would now only be to know under which circumstances
such increases in frequency have occurred.
But not every obligatory
usage of a grammatical form can be understood as a mere balancing
between numerous sub-usages and subnorms which goes hand in hand with
an increase in frequency. Especially in the Indo-European languages,
there are also fragmented and, at the same time, obligatory usages
which contradict any idea of economic and simple language structures;
we especially think of the so-called governed forms, that is governed
cases, governed prepositions or the governed subjunctive in the
Romance languages (French je veux que tu viennes). Such
phenomena cannot easily be explained rationally either, because, in
many cases, they occur by means of irrational and sporadic analogies:
and these, in turn, are possible in those cases where the morpheme in
question loses its separate meaning or passes it on to the governed
sign. The governed morpheme becomes then the, so to speak,
allomorphic concomitant form of the governing morpheme with which it
is more or less exclusively memorised. A governed subjunctive is a
mode which is still kept in use although it doesn't provide any new
information in itself and has become redundant (Latin rogo te ut
venias), this is why it is more and more frequently memorised
with the governing sign, so that it can still be used even though the
original sense has been completely lost (timeo ne veniat >
non timeo ne veniat). And this is why, on the one hand,
analogies occur in the history of a language to some extent
schematically, if, for example, verbs with similar meaning (of
desire, of fear, of hope) behave in some similar way (that is they
also 'request' the subjunctive), on the other hand, however, they
occur also sporadically and in some rather bizarre way, if no longer
the signification, but the construction in itself becomes the trigger
of the mode: in Latin, there used to be a subjunctive of anteriority
which expressed the potentiality of the event in question (antequam
de re publica dicam - 'before I can talk about the state'), but
in the Romance languages, it was generalised as a concomitant form of
this anteriority (French avant qu'il soit venu), so that the
original condition (potentiality) was lost. The subjunctive became
therefore associated with anteriority or in even more general terms:
associated with temporal relations, so that it could later also be
used analogously to express posteriority (après qu'il soit
venu). While the fragmentation of uses still increases, the mode
in itself loses more and more of its original meaning and is only
memorised as a concomitant form of certain verbs and constructions.
And exactly because of this demotivation and semantic emptying, it is
very difficult to cut back its usage: the analogies are no longer
linked with meaning (in contrast to the usage of the subjunctive in
old English, for example, which was still more 'motivated'), they
don't adopt the original meaning of this mode anymore but they
develop sporadically and in a fragmented way, and if, in one place,
the subjunctive is replaced by the indicative, the indicative will be
superseded by the subjunctive in another place. For the speaker, both
forms have long since become equivalent, just as allomorphic forms.
Likewise, this is also true
for governed cases and governed prepositions (Latin in templo,
ex silva, ante portas; English to think of, to
worry about, to strive for, to aim at etc.). The
more 'empty' such morphemes become, the less we can still speak of
secondary usages. Consequently, the schematic usage of a morpheme
which carries meaning turns into a schematic memorising with certain
trigger signs; analogies are no longer 'systematic', but sporadic and
mutually independent.
Grammatical morphemes are
weak signs to the extent that they are used schematically,
approximately and analogously, and not only when they are absolutely
necessary. But to the extent that they are not only used where they
are absolutely indispensable, the listener gets used to them and
qualifies them in turn by devoting less attention to them. In many
cases, they are only dispensable concomitant signs and often, they
have to be interpreted anew with regard to the context (cf. e.g.:
Meine Eltern haben mir neue Möbel gekauft. Sie sind
sehr lieb.). In view of the constant usage of subject pronouns in
English or in German, for example, metaphoric usages also attract
less attention. If a nurse says to a patient: Wir gehen jetzt ins
Bett!, we instantly grasp the meaning of this imperative. In the
Japanese language, which only uses these pronouns when they are
absolutely necessary, a literal translation of this sentence would
lead to a grave misunderstanding! Conversely, redundant markings and
constructions can also generate secondary usages if they are used
without redundancies and have new meanings. A modal future (French il
sera dans le jardin) develops, for example, if there is no
explicit or implicit point in time in the future in the context which
the future form could anaphorically refer to. What remains is the
interpretation in the sense of a certain uncertainty or probability.
Similarly, this is also true for the use of the future to express an
imperative meaning in French (tu ne tuera pas! 'Thou shalt not
kill!'). Such secondary usages are possible only in those languages
which have a morphological and therefore pleonastic future tense,
which can also be used side-by-side with a more specific adverb of
future (tomorrow, I will go…), so that an 'elliptic'
construction can again be used for other significations. In a
language which only uses an adverb (e.g. 'later') instead of a future
(that is for example, an isolating language) this adverb will never
be used together with a further and more specific indicator of the
future (*später morgen, *später in drei Tagen),
so that in cannot be interpreted as anaphoric and neither as
redundant! Though we expect a more specific indication in languages
which have a morphological future, we don't expect the same in
isolating languages. And this again has to do with the history of the
inflecting languages, as we will see later on (chapter six): the
future was not created by an act of creation to express future events
and then used accordingly, but it developed from a construction,
which, in a future context, was interpreted as a concomitant form of
this indicator of future, so that the construction was pleonastic
right from the beginning!
A modal usage of the
conditional (ich würde sagen/ vorschlagen, wir bleiben
zu Hause) is possible again, because the protasis, which we would
expect, is missing (wenn es möglich wäre…). In
an isolating language which only knows one conjunction expressing
condition ('if'), this would not be possible at all (cf. in
imitation: wenn Geld haben, dir geben - 'if I had money I
would give it to you').
In languages with many
redundancies, 'elliptic' constructions can be used in turn for new
significations and stylistic effects. Thus, the lack of a copula is
characteristic of aphorisms (omnia praeclara rara) or
expresses astonishment (he tired - she tired), the
missing of an object pronoun can mark a polysemy (he drinks).
Even the usage of an
historical infinitive or an epic present tense instead of a past
tense is a stylistic means which is only possible because the marking
of the past would be pleonastic-redundant in the context. In
isolating languages without any past tense, this would not be
possible at all.
The French imperfect tense
indicates that an action was in process when a new action set in (il
sortait, quand je suis venu). But it can also be used literally
if the context doesn't permit this usage (il sortait à 9
heures). This use becomes possible because of a number of
'secondary usages' of this imperfect tense (French Le trois mars,
nous faisions une promenade. Nous sommes allés chez…),
which were established before.
The
grammars of our languages are full of examples of figurative or
metaphoric uses. It seems to us that they have, to a great extent, a
common root: pleonastic or redundant usages make it easy for
analogous secondary usages to develop or, conversely, they give new
meaning to 'elliptic' constructions.
All the factors which we
have mentioned act in combination to make our grammar so complex and
idiomatic and lead to numerous rules and exceptions which we don't
have to expect in isolating languages. The many usages and sub-usages
of grammatical morphemes in inflecting languages are
characteristically different in any single language, but, in the end,
they go back to the same elementary (grammatical) principle:
pleonastic and schematic usage produces necessarily subnorms and
sub-usages, and from such sub-usages new grammatical categories or
morphemes can derive, which we will see in the following chapter.
6. New categories - new redundancies
There are
languages which only have very few grammatical categories and
markings, that is especially isolating languages, which are also very
stable from a diachronic point of view, and other languages,
especially inflecting ones, which have many grammatical categories
and markings, which are also unstable from a diachronic point of
view, because they generate new categories while, at the same time,
losing others (e.g. cases or endings in general).
A lot of markings which are
already very old are in many ways redundant, we only have to think of
the cases or the prepositions, the number, the tenses and the
personal ending as far as the verb is concerned, and besides, the
Indo-European grammar has developed for thousands of years in so far
as it has all the necessary markings at its disposal, which shows us
also the comparison with other languages of the world which can do
with few markings. If, within the framework of Indo-European grammar
or grammars, we talk about development, this must not be understood
in the sense of optimization: a language which has all the necessary
at its disposal is already optimally equipped. Therefore, these
developments were either shifts (from the cases to the prepositions
or the syntax, from the personal ending to the pronouns), or
substitutions (e.g. a synthetic tense by an analytical one) or the
emergence of new categories and markings which had not been necessary
previously, so that such developments could also be regarded as a
kind of 'luxury' of our languages (new and additional tenses of the
past or the future, aspectual markings, articles etc.). But, of
course, 'luxury' does not mean that such categories could be
eliminated easily later again: when they get established, they
replace in turn other, older means and also develop more subtle new
significations. But this does not mean that they were necessary, and
therefore we cannot calculate whether they will develop and even less
when they will develop, and we cannot predict precisely either how
they will develop and thus get established in the language, apart
from general probabilities which we will deal with later.
Up to now, we have also
taken for granted that new grammatical morphemes and markings emerge
at all, and that is especially those which are used with a certain
regularity up to the so-called obligatory usage, and we have probably
been rather surprised that they turn up more or less within the
framework of that which already exists (new tenses, aspectual
markings, pronouns).
We have already described
the framework within which grammar moves universally in chapter 2: it
is above all a matter of classifications and relations (also of
temporal manner) which are conditions for the formation of a
comprehensible sentence or text, that is for the cohesion in the
sentence or in the text.
But we still have to
explain why new morphemes and markings are used pleonastically again
in a similar way, so that they, too, are not only used in those cases
when they are absolutely necessary or when they are supposed to
express emphasis, but again with differing regularity. This is the
reason why we talk about grammatical morphemes in contrast to
lexematic signs.
This new pleonastic usage
is by no means obvious, and if we explain the development of an old
tense by the fact that old auxiliary signs were simply necessary
when, for example, there were not enough adverbs of time yet (e.g.
gestern, morgen), and that these old auxiliary signs
were still used when they had become redundant (gestern ging
ich…), this explanation is no longer true for such tenses
which have developed much later when the adverbs of time had already
fully developed, and similarly, this is also true for markings of
aspect (e.g. the English progressive form). One could expect
especially of newly developing tenses that they are only used when
they are really necessary or useful.
But since this is not the
case and since the new tenses are used again schematically in a way
that corresponds to the use of the old tenses, there is only one
explanation: these new tenses are pleonastic right from the
beginning, i.e. they mirror the contexts in which the signs occurred
which were interpreted as a new tense. Thus, the new tense is not
created to express something, for example a result (resultative
perfect), but a sign which occurs in a context which describes the
result of an action is interpreted as a concomitant form of this
resultative action (*I have the bought book respectively I
have bought the book). This resultative sense can, of course,
also be expressed in a language with only one past tense, and that is
by means of the context and the structure of the text: if no point in
time is mentioned and no further action follows we can assume that
the statement is still valid or that the action has consequences for
the present (cf. Latin librum empsi, or Portuguese comprei
o livro).
Thus, the new (analytical)
perfect has not been created to distinguish actions which have
consequences for the present from such which have no relationship to
the present anymore. This was possible for a long time by means of
the context. Perhaps it rather occurred in those contexts which
already suggested the interpretation in the sense of a result, so
that it was understood as an expression and, at the same time, as a
concomitant form (!) of this signification. This development was
encouraged, of course, by the present tense form have which,
together with a past participle, refers to a past event.
The new tense is not used
to mark a difference which otherwise would not have been possible to
express, but it derives its meaning from the context in which it
occurs, and therefore it becomes a concomitant form of such contexts,
before, later on, it probably develops new usages (and 'emancipates
itself').
That is why the pleonastic
or redundant usage exists right from the beginning: the morpheme was
not placed in a context to give it a new signification but,
conversely, it was interpreted within the context. We will illustrate
this principle with the example of a new future.
A second consideration
follows: why do such new tenses not emerge in all languages in the
world, or rather what circumstances favour the Indo-European
languages? The answer is first and foremost of syntactic nature: the
analytical perfect requires the existence of a syntactic construction
consisting of a noun and an attributive past participle (*I have
the bought book). If this syntactic construction is preserved
while the contents change and become less prototypical (object +
action executed upon the object) (*I have something planned),
the attribute becomes the predicate as far as content is concerned
(planned) and the original predicative verb (have,
respectively I have) empties itself, but is preserved as part
of an orthodox formation of a sentence with a finite verb.
Thus, this complex
development also requires a complex construction which is preserved
although it has long lost its original right (as regards content).
The original predicative verb has only the (traditional) function to
mark tense (present) and person, and this is why it is interpreted as
mere concomitant form to the past participle of the verb (I have
planned something).
This development could also
be described as a process of semantic emptying, but it is no
coincidence that, when a new tense emerges, it is always only the
finite verb, that is the original predicative verb, which is emptied.
But it has nonetheless still a function, because it marks the person
and the tense and consequently, it preserves the tradition of
Indo-European sentence constructions. There will never be a
semantically empty lexeme! A very similar process is to be observed
as far as the development of a new and analytical future is concerned
(French. je vais chanter). The finite verb becomes the
concomitant morpheme of the verb in the infinitive (chanter).
Again, specific syntactic
conditions and developments are involved in this development. One
condition is the fact that a finite verb is followed by a further
verb in the infinitive. This cannot be taken for granted and it can
only be understood in analogy to constructions with modal verbs (ich
will/ soll/ muß gehen, or French je veux chanter >
je vais chanter). A construction formed by verb + nominal form
of a verb (ich gehe zum Singen/ Arbeiten/ Einkaufen), which we
find in German, for example, can never become a new future, simply
because the indication of the aim (… zum Einkaufen) makes
sure that the verb keeps its meaning 'movement directed towards an
aim'. Besides, otherwise the predicative verb would be missing. In
our languages, a finite verb cannot become the future of a noun.
But thus, we only need a
smaller 'mis-construction', that is once more a syntactic
development, to deprive the verb 'to go' of its meaning 'movement
directed towards a goal', to generate an 'empty' verb, cf.
fictitiously: French. je vais en ville faire quelque chose >
je vais faire quelque chose en ville. A little syntactic
rearrangement is sufficient to turn the indication of direction into
an indication of a place where something happens. The verb with the
meaning 'to go' will lose more and more of its concrete meaning in
such and analogous constructions, it will become the auxiliary
morpheme of a new construction consisting of an 'empty' finite verb +
verb in the infinitive. Consequently, complex syntactic conditions
and developments are necessary to generate a new future. A
development on a direct way, on the other hand, is difficult to
imagine: a verb with the meaning 'to go', which expresses a movement
directed towards an aim, cannot simply collocate nonsensically with
other verbs (like 'to laugh', 'to cough' etc.).
Now we can see at the same
time the reason why this new future also becomes a grammatical form,
in the sense that it is used pleonastically-redundantly (je vais
travailler demain): it was not created to mark the future tense
in contexts which otherwise would be interpreted as present tense. It
rather developed in contexts which already had a future meaning (je
vais faire cela demain, je vais travailler en ville demain),
so that the semantically emptied finite verb was more and more
interpreted as mere concomitant form of such future events. And
because this verb 'to go' originally indicated the beginning of an
action ('I go, I am on my way'), this new future is associated
especially with actions which will take place in the near future.
Thus, it is the future context which is responsible for the
interpretation of the morpheme as future, which therefore becomes a
concomitant form of such contexts, before, later on, it can even be
used without any other indicators of future (je vais le faire).
Thus, new grammatical
markings are 'weak' right from the beginning in the sense that they
adapt to the context, so that they become concomitant signs of this
context.
The preservation of a
construction in spite of the emptying of one of its elements is
responsible for the creation of an adverbial suffix (French
honnêtement). To the extent that, after the gradual
decline of the cases, the ablative (honesta mente) was no
longer understood as such, the adjective was interpreted as forming a
unity with the little specific noun. And since the old noun (in the
ablative case) had been pleonastic right from the beginning (laeta
mente 'in a cheerful mind': one can only be cheerful in one's
mind!), it could easily be used analogously (lentamente), whereby it
was weakened even more until it was only understood as (mostly
redundant) marking of the adverbial function. The decline of a
marking on the one hand (case) encouraged the emergence of a new
marking on the other hand.
Connected with the decline
of the cases is the fact that the Latin bibere de vino (French
boire du vin) was more and more interpreted as mere expression
of an indefinite quantity. The partitive construction with de
is interpreted as a variant of the accusative. The usage of this
'partitive article', however, is often already pleonastic-redundant
insofar as, in most cases, the situation clarifies already that
someone drinks only part of the wine which is available and not all
of it.
Thus, often one could also
say: N. trinkt Wein, and analogously this is also true for the
plural (N. ißt Brötchen, French N. mange des
petits-pains). Because of this weakness of the partitive article,
an analogous usage is hardly noticeable (N. a visité des
villes), even though, in such contexts, it is exactly not
intended that someone would like to refer to a certain number of
objects which actually exist (that is cities in this case). The
partitive article and the plural have now become approximately
equivalent, and, in French, this partitive article is later to
replace the (indefinite) plural (une ville - des villes).
A marking which had been slightly pleonastic right from the beginning
expands (des villes) and ends up carrying on the tradition of
the marking of the plural.
We have seen, so far, how
new markings emerge when constructions are preserved formally, but
have to be newly interpreted when one of the phenomena which are
involved is emptied semantically so that it is understood as part of
a signification, which, in turn, derives from the context in most
cases, so that the new marking becomes pleonastic-redundant, and
consequently, we speak of new grammatical categories!
But, the other way round,
it may also happen that a pleonastic element is removed from a
construction and newly interpreted. This requires, above all, a
syntax which is not entirely rigid. This is how a new conjunction daß
derived from an object pronoun: Du bist krank. Ich sehe das. >
Ich sehe das: du bist krank. > Ich sehe, daß du
krank bist. If the schematically used, anaphoric pronoun which
does no longer refer to a concrete object at all, is used analogously
also cataphorically, where it is even less useful, it can also be
understood as a connecting link between both sentences and therefore
as a conjunction, and eventually, it can be understood as the opening
signal of the object clause, especially if there are further elements
between verb and object pronoun (ich höre oft, daß er
anständig ist). The distance from the verb encourages the
sense of belonging to the following object clause.
In a similar way, the
stressed and free subject pronoun in French could have developed from
a usage of the dativus commodi, for instance: old French pense
moi > pense souvent moi > pense souvent, moi.
With increasing distance to the verb, the pronoun in the dative case,
which isn't a 'real' dative at all, so that the pronoun can only be
interpreted in connection with the verb (as 'intensification'), is
more and more understood as a free additional element, and this free
additional element is then felt as subject analogously to the
personal ending (stressed, additional subject pronoun). Thus, it
expresses, in a redundant way the function of the subject, which, in
turn, is already expressed by the personal ending, so that the
pronoun takes over an expressive and an emphasising function at the
same time.
A conjunction to,
which introduces the infinitive (he asked me to go), can be
explained in simplified terms by the fact that an indication of an
aim, which is originally linked to the verb, and even pleonastically
with such verbs which already imply an aim (to ask to), is
used more and more schematically (I want to go). Thus, they
are weakened even more and finally they are more and more felt to be
concomitant forms of certain verbs with a following infinitive. Their
information tends towards zero, they become redundant concomitant
forms. It is the free syntax which is finally responsible for the
fact that anacoluthic constructions are less noticeable, too, so that
the remaining constituents in the sentence are interpreted as a new
syntactic unity. This is also a way in which a new grammatical
category develops, cf. schematically: He was in the church,
singing and praying. > He was, singing and praying, in the
church > He was singing and praying and asking God…
The emphasis is only on the action itself, the place of the action
moves to the background. If such expressive constructions increase, a
progressive form develops, which emphasises the action and its
progress. The originally local verb (to be) becomes the copula
of the verb in the gerund form. Again, the new (aspectual) marking is
pleonastic right from the beginning, because it adapts to the context
(anacoluthic construction, concentration on the verbal action). It
can develop further from this basic pattern, so that also more
specific rules for its usage emerge, but it always keeps its
pleonastic-redundant character, because it is not only used to
distinguish the progress of an action from a sequence of actions
('distinctive' function!), but also in those cases in which the
context in itself is enough to avoid ambiguities. Thus, in many
cases, the progressive form is only a concomitant form of a verbal
action in progress. When a foreigner whose English is not very good
doesn't use it, he will still be understood in most cases. In
English, to do has become a similarly intensifying
periphrastic construction (he does go home). Syntactic
condition is again the construction consisting of a finite verb +
verb in the infinitive; if the causative (to do) is emptied,
the auxiliary verb will be considered as a concomitant morpheme of
the verb in the infinitive (he does go), so to speak as an
analytical marking of person and tense of this verb in the
infinitive. This little specific periphrastic construction became
later, with increasingly schematic usage, the periphrastic question
and the periphrastic negation (do you go? I do not go). But,
this last step of grammaticalization towards obligatory usage leads
also towards the complete devaluation of the form.
We hope we were able to
illustrate with the preceding examples how, especially in the
Indo-European languages, new grammatical categories and markings
develop again and again: A variety of forms is required (e.g.
participle or gerund, past participle, different stems for 'rectus'
and 'obliquus' as far as pronouns are concerned: ego - me),
with a number of usages and sub-usages (e.g. dativus commodi),
as well as the existence of constructions which also form a
morpho-syntactical unit (finite verb + infinitive; congruency of the
case in laeta mente), and in addition a flexible syntax. Thus
old constructions can be dissolved and new ones can develop, or
existing constructions can be re-interpreted as a new unit with a new
signification while keeping an element which has only a syntactic
justification (je vais aller, I do go home).
Languages with less
morphological markings and less complex and intertwined
constructions, especially isolating languages, have therefore little
which could be dissolved or newly interpreted, and languages with a
rigid syntax don't permit rearrangement and new classifications
either.
We can ask
ourselves now what these considerations have to do with our topic
('Universality of grammar, grammatical universals'). The
Indo-European forms and categories are not universal, of course. But
there are universal conditions on which new grammatical categories
and markings can develop, that is those which are used highly
schematically and pleonastically, just the same as one can state
universally which functions and relations can be expressed by
morphemes (cf. chapter two).
Two further questions
follow, which we will only treat briefly: a) how integrated and
obligatory can grammatical morphemes become, and b) can markings also
disappear again, are grammaticalizations reversible?
The first question is
already so complex that we can only mention briefly some aspects
here: the question of integration in the 'system' of grammar (in
structuralist terminology) seems to be especially dependent on one
circumstance: can we find a simple rule according to which the
grammatical morpheme in question can be used? This is not a problem
as far as abstract indications of function (nominative case and
accusative, genitive) and significations (conjunctions, relative
pronouns) are concerned, but this is not the case to the same extent
as far as morphemes are concerned which also convey additional
meanings (we only have to think of the usage of competing tense
forms, for example future tenses, or aspectual markings with their
nuances). More subtle differences and nuances don't permit any
schematic usage per se, because the speaker has to make additional
decisions. Now, we could argue that such more subtle differences will
disappear again when the usage becomes more and more schematic. The
additional decision of the speaker is then limited to a minimum of
considerations, as such a schematization of the usage can also be
observed everywhere in the field of grammar. But it also comes up
against limiting factors which are outside the morpheme in question,
which has to be delimited and established within the 'morpheme
field'. If the paradigmatic surroundings are already occupied,
because there are already other morphemes at our disposal for similar
purposes, it becomes more and more difficult to find a simple and
schematic usage rule for the new morpheme. A partitive article which
assumes the same function as the (indefinite) plural, will probably
also develop usage norms, but they will always remain fragile, unless
the older plural is replaced by this new form (as in French, in
contrast to Italian, for example). This is true in a similar way for
the future form in English and in French (e.g. futur proche
and futur simple), or the synonymous possibilities to ask a
question in French (Avez-vous…, est-ce que vous avez…,
vous avez?) and quite a few things more. A lot of sub-usages
and affinities (of tense to person, to adverbs of time etc.) develop
in turn from this problem of mutual delimitation, the fragility (also
diachronically) of which only proves once more that these 'stylistic'
differences are by no means necessary and, at the same time, that the
new grammatical morphemes and markings arise by no means from a need,
but that they are due to coincidences in the history of a language.
In this sense, the new categories and morphemes are also 'luxury
phenomena'!
The difference between
fully integrated and thus also obligatory markings and rather free or
stylistic ones can very well be observed if we compare the English
progressive form with its equivalents in Italian and in Spanish (I
am singing - sto cantando - estoy cantando). The
difference is surely founded on the conditions of these languages:
the English form does not meet with an already established form of
similar content and can expand without any obstacle. In the Romance
languages, however, there exists already an imperfect tense which
expresses the state or the progress of an action. It is therefore
extremely difficult for the aspectual form to get established; it
remains a stylistic variant of this imperfect (cantava/
cantaba - stava cantando/ estaba cantando) and
this is why it does not expand in the present tense either, where the
distinction between state/ progress vs. beginning doesn't play any
role. In English however, the analogy to the usages in the past tense
might have played a decisive role.
These brief indications may
be sufficient here, so that we can turn to the second question: can
grammatical markings also be cut back again or are they obligatory
and fixed in so far as they can only be replaced by other markings.
In other words: why can that which has once emerged not be replaced
again? What, in the end, is the reason for this typological
irreversibility, which shows that isolating languages will also
remain isolating in the future and that inflecting, that is highly
redundant languages will also remain pleonastic-redundant in the
future?
This question has only been
asked in passing so far, and this is why it was always taken for
granted that some markings are of a more fragile nature (e.g. the
marking of the adverb by -ly in English), and others are of a more
stable nature (marking of the person, and also the tense, as far as
the verb is concerned). We don't want to claim that we are able to
see all possibilities of the languages of the world or merely of the
Indo-European languages, but we would like to put forward a
hypothesis which is pragmatically founded. It goes as follows: only
that can be removed again which can be deduced from the context
without any marking, without there ever being any ambiguities and
misunderstandings. Thus, the marking of singular and plural is
irreversible, because in I see the house. the singular cannot
be taken for a plural and in I see the houses. the plural
cannot be taken for a singular, so that any 'wrong' usage leads
instantly to misunderstandings; in contrast to the Japanese language,
we can no longer interpret flexibly and neither does the context give
any explicit information as far as the number is concerned.
Neither can a tense of the
past be removed again: Der Kaffee war kalt. is simply
different from Der Kaffee ist kalt. We don't have any neutral
verb forms anymore as far as tense is concerned (for the predicative
verb), thus, the listener does no longer interpret with regard to the
context, but orientates himself by the grammatical morpheme.
Connected to this is the fact that a copula, too, at least in the
past tense, cannot be cut back. There is no marking of the past tense
other than the verb in the Indo-European languages.
The progressive form in
English, however, was by no means necessary and it also developed
only very late, but a potential reversal of the development including
a more general usage of the simple form would also lead to
misunderstandings.
Thus, the underlying
hypothesis goes as follows: redundancy before risk. The speaker
prefers to stick to a distinction before risking misunderstandings;
therefore, the distinction between a definite and an indefinite
article is hardly reversible even though it was hardly necessary at
the time of its genesis; this is also the case because we have given
up alternative possibilities of former times because of this
development (cf. Latin homo quidam 'a certain person, some -
not yet mentioned - person'!). Some usages of the article may
fluctuate, but the basic distinction between 'mentioned - not yet
mentioned' will be kept.
Thus, there is obviously no
direct proportion between redundancy and fragility or, in turn,
between information and stability: even few possible ambiguities are
enough to preserve the category in question and to avoid its removal.
Thus is also preserved the
marking of the person as far as the verb is concerned by means of an
ending or a subject pronoun, which has the function of word formation
as well as a grammatical function (marking of the subject). The
schematic marking is economic for the speaker in so far as he doesn't
have to decide constantly whether the marking is necessary in the
context. The economy consists paradoxically in a pleonastic, thus not
economic usage!
Thus, even such markings
are preserved which are amalgamated with the lexeme, so that a
reanalysis is no longer possible, cf. the adjective formation in
French honnêtement. The removal of the suffix leads to a
feminine form of the adjective, which would not be understood at all
anymore if there was a sentence with a masculine subject (***Son
père travaille honnête). This is the fundamental
difference to the adjective formation in English with the suffix -ly,
which uses adjective forms which are neutral as far as gender is
concerned. Only such markings and distinctions are thus reversible
which express purely pleonastically that which is already clear from
the context without them. Even if there is no resultative perfect one
can recognise the resultative character of a verbal action by the
fact that no point in time is mentioned and that there is neither a
succession of actions (I won the price). Such temporal
distinctions could then also be removed again, and this is also true
for further temporal distinctions, for instance between different
future forms, which are, above all, of a stylistic nature, so that no
ambiguities occur if one form replaces the other. Analogously, this
is similarly true for pleonastic conjunctions (und, daß).
Such purely pleonastic markings are by no means to be removed in any
case, but they can be preserved for a very long time, as is shown by
many languages. Therefore, the term economy only offers very few
explanations for the area of grammar (and also of pleonastics and
redundancy!).
Conclusion:
In this
piece of work, we have tried to explain in which functions and at
which positions in the sentence or in the text grammatical markings,
and also morphological markings can occur universally, and why,
almost inevitably, they become pleonastic-redundant. These are, above
all, functions in the sentence or in the complex sentence and (also
temporal) relations, which the speaker always has to know if he wants
to produce a meaningful sentence or text, so that the little
additional effort for the marking isn't too much trouble either. The
use of such markings, which are expression of a previous planning,
becomes a schematic habit, so that they are used almost
'automatically', without considering the question whether they are
absolutely necessary in the context or whether they are only
pleonastic-redundant.
The concept of grammar
which we have developed here, and which we put up for discussion, is
primarily based on observations which derive from the comparison of
isolating (and economic) with inflecting languages.
At the same time, it became
clear how extremely complex our Indo-European grammar is, and how it
is also connected to word formation. One further characteristic of
this grammar is the syntactic freedom which, on the one hand,
encourages the development of morphological markings right from the
beginning (in contrast to isolating languages with inflexible syntax)
and, on the other hand, also facilitates re-interpretations and
shifts in structure and thus the development of new grammatical
categories and markings, including the transfer of morphological
markings onto syntax (cf. the disappearance of the cases in English
or in the Romance languages).
Thus, this kind of grammar
also remains in motion from a diachronic point of view, and where, on
the one hand, markings disappear, on the other hand, new categories
and markings appear. For different reasons, the development towards
an economic and isolating language is excluded.
In the grammar of an
inflecting language, the term development must therefore not be
understood in terms of an optimization of the 'system'. Such
developments don't pursue an aim either, but they consist in the very
schematization of a usage (also to the detriment of another one, cf.
replacements), so that we can ask ourselves at the very most what has
caused this development.
Our concept of grammar sees
itself first and foremost as a functionalism which is historically
founded, but which does not look for a deeper meaning in all places,
but which emphasises the high relativity of functions and differences
especially in the grammar of our languages.
We hope to have given
stimuli for further discussion.
(Translated
by Ute Eckstein and Ulrike Schmidt).
Zurück zum 1. Teil
Zum Anfang
Zum Ede-Hauptverzeichnis
