Baltic languages in the European context: Theoretical, comparative and typological perspectives Workshop at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (http://www.sle2012.eu), Stockholm, 29 August–1 September 2012

Björn Wiemer (JGU Mainz) [email protected]

(Intensive) language contact without grammaticalization  a Baltic (and Slavic) anomaly? Table 1:

Phenomena not to be counted as grammaticalization

phenomenon

phonological assimilation rules in consonant groups morphological reanalysis of stem—suffix sequence modal (in particular epistemic) particles reportive lexical unit esą resultative participles, active voice „evidential perfect“ non-agreeing inferential (with ta/ma-participles) nominatival object

remarks on type of change

affected Baltic varieties

Lithuanian (standard and dialects)

lexicalization

Lithuanian dialects in contact with Slavic all

lexicalization (vs. Latv. -ot) transparent structure (compositional w.r.t. parts)

Lithuanian

functional expansion of paradigm (perfect > evidential) functional expansion of (partial) paradigm, realignment reanalysis (with possible expansion to other grammatical forms and lexical groups)

virtually all

all

Lithuanian (standard and SE dialects) all

occurs in neighboring (or overlapping) Slavic varieties ? yes

occurs in neighboring Finnic varieties ?

(no) yes no yes (but influence Baltic→Slavic) no

no yes

(no) probably yes yes (Estonian, Livonian) no yes

1

Table 2:

Phenomena that can be counted as cases of grammaticalization

phenomenon

caveats and other remarks

pronominal adjective inflection locative (directional) cases verb particles

independent developments since proto stages

logophoric constructions with RM (< REFL) reportive verbal suffix -ot debitive (DAT + (būt +) jā3.PRS.IND) acquisitive modals (Lith. gauti ‘to getʼ, tekti ‘to come into one’s shareʼ) (resultative construction with HABĒRE-verb and active participle)

in Baltic and Slavic inherited from common source vs. Lith. esą

possessive perfect

affected Baltic varieties

all Lithuanian (dialects) virtually all (at different degrees)

in Slavic with COME (Russ. prixodit’sja etc.)

virtually all Latvian Latvian

Lithuanian (standard)

practically with transparent structure (compositional w.r.t. Lithuanian parts) different paths for Lithuanian, Latvian; Lithuanian (dialectal and rare) on the one hand, and Russian, Latvian and Finnic, on the other

occurs in neighboring (or overlapping) Slavic varieties ? yes

occurs in neighboring Finnic varieties ? no

no yes yes, but to a much Estonian, Livonian lesser extent (and other) yes†, but not anymore no no no (not with identical etymon) yes (but influence Baltic→Slavic) yes, NW-Russian dialects

yes

2

(synthetic) continuative and (analytic) avertive synthetic iterative past (-dav-) analytic iterative past (Lith. liuob etc. + infinitive)

non-agreeing converbs

(agreeing converbs)

etymology of be- unknown; continuative > avertive probably -d- + {av} > {dav}

blocking of coreference (Baltic) vs. requirement of coreference (Slavic), caused by independent source constructions probably only morphological reanalysis and lexical expansion

Lithuanian

no

Lithuanian

no

Samogitian dialects of Lithuanian, Latvian

no

virtually all

yes

virtually all

no

no

3

Table 3:

Synopsis of contact-induced grammaticalization in Slavonic (including arguable cases) (cf. Wiemer/Hansen 2012: 133)

Grammatical domains

Constructions

Verbal complex

absentive construction modal infinitival constructions (evidential infinitival construction) *future constructions complex predicates with verbal nouns / complex predicates consisting of two finite verbs (with a former complementizer) (evidential extension of perfect) *definite articles *indefinite articles ‘man’ - constructions predicative possession possessive resultative *object doubling construction passive constructions modal passive construction AcI construction prepositional infinitive construction

Noun phrase Pronominal elements Clause level relations

Complex clause level

* subject to (partial) morphologization (in at least one Slavonic variety)

4

Table 4: phenomenon pronominal adjective inflection logophoric construction with RM (< REFL) resultative with HABĒRE and active participle „possessive“ perfect non-agreeing converbs

Coincidences of grammaticalized innovations in Baltic and Slavic domain inflectional morphology (NPinternal) clause combining

clause combining morphology, predication clause combining

based on shared inherited properties? yes, but independent development more likely

yes (closest parallels in Albanian and Iranian)

yes, but not any more existent in Slavic

probably yes

yes w.r.t. participles; no w.r.t. HABĒRE-verb and overall construction yes w.r.t. participles; no w.r.t. oblique Actor yes, but based on different juncture types (adjectival vs. complementive)

areally exclusive?

yes (closest parallels in Kashubian and ancient Greek) no, also in Finnic (and elsewhere in Europe) no, also in Finnic

Attempts at an explanation 1. 2.

3.

4.

The biggest share seems to be in derivational morphology and the principles of morphonological alternations. High degree of shared structure in these domains does not enhance, but rather hamper grammaticalization (in the sense of Chr. Lehmann). Both North(East) Slavic and Baltic do „not like“ clitics. Clitics would be a convenient road toward the rise of bound morphemes (= coalescence). Cf. the rise of pronominal adjective declension, which is the probably only clear example of coalescence parallel for Slavic and Baltic, and of logophoric constructions on the basis of the RM (which has been lost in Slavic). Both language groups do not show any remarkable tendency toward coalescence, except in composition. Furthermore, both language groups favour stem derivation, also with verbs. (This tendency has retreated though in Latvian.) Stem derivation as such does not favour grammaticalization („morphologization“), but it can undergo (and has undergone) various processes of functional re-distribution („repartition“); cf. the rise of the pf.—ipf. opposition in Slavic. Both language groups do not favour very much auxiliaries, which would be good candidates for the rise of paradigms of complex predicates and TMA markers. Instead, they seem to „like“ modal particles; their development, though, cannot count as grammaticalization proper (along the parameters set by Chr. Lehmann). 5

References

Ambrazas, V. (1990): Sravnitel’nyj sintaksis pričastij baltijskix jazykov. Vilnius: Mokslas.  (2001): On the development of the nominative object in East Baltic. In: Dahl, Ö., Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (eds.): The Circum-Baltic Languages. Typology and Contact, vol. 2: Grammar and Typology. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins, 391-412.  (2006): Lietuvių kalbos istorinė sintaksė. Vilnius: LKI. Arkadiev, P. (2010): Notes on Avertive and Continuative in Lithuanian. Submitted to Cahiers Chronos.  (forthcoming): O tipologičeskom svoeobrazii litovskoj glagol’noj sistemy. Boye, K., Harder, P. (2012): A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88-1, 1-44. Endzelīns, J. (1905/06): Latyšskie predlogi. In: Endzelīns, J. (21971): Darbu izlase I. Rīga: Zinātne, 307-655. Erker, A. (forthcoming): Sposoby vyraženija prošedšego vremeni v belorusskom smešannom govore na balto-slavjanskom pogranič’e. To appear in: Seržant, I., Wiemer, B. (eds.): Sovremennye metody v dialektologii. Areal severnyx, severo-zapadnyx russkix i belorusskix govorov. Bergen. (= Slavica Bergensia 13.) Grek-Pabisowa, I., Maryniakowa, I. (1999): Współczesne gwary polskie na dawnych Kresach północno-wschodnich. Warszawa: SOW. Hansen, B., de Haan, F. (eds.) (2009): Modals in the Languages of Europe. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Heine, B., Kuteva, T. (2002): World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge U.P. ,  (2003): On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language 27-3, 529-572. ,  (2005): Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P. Holvoet, A. (2001): Studies in the Latvian verb. Kraków: Wyd-wo UJ.  (2007): Mood and modality in Baltic. Kraków: Wyd-wo UJ. Kazlauskas, J. (2000): Rinktiniai raštai I: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Kuteva, T., Heine, B. (2012): An integrative model of grammaticalization. In: Wiemer, B., Wälchli, B., Hansen, B. (eds.): Grammatical replication and borrowability in language contact. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 159-190. Lehmann, Chr. (1995): Thoughts on grammaticalization. München, Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Mikulskas, R. (2003): Postverbų pateikimo problema Lietuvių kalbos žodyne. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XLVIII, 71-96. Nau, N. (1998): Latvian. München: Lincom Europa.  (2012): Modality in an areal context: the case of a Latgalian dialect. In: Wiemer, B. et al. (eds.): Grammatical replication and borrowability in language Contact, 465-508. Seržant, I.A. (2004): K voprosu ob obrazovanii adessiva. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LI, 49-57.  (2012): The so-called possessive perfect in North Russian and the Circum-Baltic area. A diachronic and areal approach. Lingua 122, 356-385. Stang. Chr. S. (1966): Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Oslo, Bergen, Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget. Toporov, V.N. (1961): K voprosu ob ėvoljucii slavjanskogo i baltijskogo glagola. In: Toporov, V.N. (ed.): Voprosy slavjanskogo jazykoznanija, vyp. 5: Moskva: Izd-vо АN SSSR, 35-70. 6

Usonienė, Au., Jasionytė, E. (2010): Towards grammaticalization: Lithuanian acquisitive verbs gauti (‘getʼ) and tekti (‘be gottenʼ). Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42-2, 199-220. Wälchli, B. (2000): Infinite predication as a marker of evidentiality and modality in the languages of the Baltic region. STUF 53-2, 186-210.  (2001a): A typology of displacement (with special reference to Latvian). STUF 54-3, 298-323.  (2001b): Lexical evidence for the parallel development of the Latvian and Livonian verb particles. In: Dahl, Ö., Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (eds.): Circum Baltic Languages, vol. 2: Grammar and Typology. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins, 413-441. Wiemer, B. (1998): Pragmatical inferences at the threshold to grammaticalization − The case of Lithuanian predicative participles and their functions. Linguistica Baltica 7, 229-243.  (2009): Zu entlehnten Präfixen und anderen morphosyntaktischen Slavismen in litauischen Insel- und Grenzmundarten. In: Scholze, L., Wiemer, B. (eds.): Von Zuständen, Dynamik und Veränderung bei Pygmäen und Giganten (Festschrift für Walter Breu zu seinem 60. Geburtstag). Bochum: Brockmeyer, 347-390.  (2010a): Lithuanian esą − a heterosemic reportive marker in its contemporary stage. Baltic Linguistics 1, 245-308.  (2010b): On the lexicographic treatment of Lith. esą (on the background of other particles in Lithuanian and elsewhere). In: Nau, N., Ostrowski, N. (eds.): Studies on particles and connectives in Baltic. Vilnius: Vilniaus Universitetas & Academia Salensis (= Acta Salensia II), 171-212.  (2011): Grammaticalization in Slavic languages. In: Heine, B., Narrog, H. (eds.): Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford etc.: Oxford U.P., 740-753.  (forthcoming1): Značimost’ sposobov modifikacii glagol’nyx osnov dlja ocenki areal’noj differenciacii baltijskix jazykov (po sravneniju s rjadom slavjanskix mikrojazykov). In: Vjač. Vs. Ivanov, P.М. Аrkad‘ev (еds.): Tipologija slavjanskix, baltijskix i balkanskix jazykov (v svete jazykovyx kontaktov). Moskva: Institut slavjanovedenija RAN.  (forthcoming2): On the rise, establishment and continued development of subject impersonals in Polish, East Slavic and Baltic. In: Kittilä, S., Kulikov, L. (eds.): Diachronic typology of voice and valency-changing categories. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.  (forthcoming 3): Sprachwandeltypen im litauisch-slavischen Kontakt: ein Überblick. To appear in: A. Judžentis et al. (eds.): Baltai ir slavai: dvasinių kultūrų sankirtos. Vilnius.  & Hansen, B. (2012): Assessing the range of contact-induced grammaticalization in Slavonic. In: Wiemer, B., Wälchli, B., Hansen, B. (eds.): Grammatical replication and borrowability in language contact. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 67-155. Zinkevičius, Z. (1966): Lietuvių dialektologija (Lyginamoji tarmių fonetika ir morfologija). Vilnius: Mintis.

7