A method for mitigating the problem of borrowing in syntactic reconstruction

Abstract

Most scholars agree that grammatical borrowing is a serious obstacle to syntactic reconstruction, but to date there have been few proposed solutions to this methodological conundrum. In this paper I propose a method, couched in a constructional view of language, for mitigating the problem of borrowing in syntactic reconstruction. The method begins with the reconstruction of partially schematic constructions, whose phonological material can be tested for cognacy. Fully schematic reconstructions are then achieved via generalizations made over sets of reconstructed constructions. I exemplify the effectiveness of this method by applying it to two pieces of grammar from the Sogeram languages of Papua New Guinea: clause chain nominalization and the desiderative construction. The method allows the reconstruction of the former, but identifies the latter as a likely grammatical borrowing and therefore not reconstructable to Proto-Sogeram.

From grammaticalization to Diachronic Construction Grammar

“…A final benefit, which has not been discussed in detail but which provides a substantial additional bonus, is that a constructional perspective supports a more rigorous approach to the reconstruction of syntax, as argued in multiple studies by the current authors: Gildea and colleagues primarily for languages of the Americas (Gildea 1993a(Gildea , 1993b(Gildea , 1997(Gildea , 1998(Gildea , 2000(Gildea , 2018Gildea & Jansen 2018;Guillaume & Gildea 2018;Gildea & Castro Alves 2020) and Barðdal and colleagues primarily for Indo-European (Barðdal & Eythórsson 2012a, 2012bBarðdal 2013Barðdal , 2014Barðdal et al 2012;Barðdal & Smitherman 2013;Dunn et al 2017;Eythórsson & Barðdal 2016;Danesi et al 2017;Johnson et al 2019;Vázquez-González & Barðdal 2019;Frotscher et al 2022). Ongoing work by Daniels (2014Daniels ( , 2017Daniels ( , 2019Daniels ( , 2020 provides additional examples from Papuan languages. offer the most recent theoretical exposition of the argument that the analytical tools of Construction Grammar naturally facilitate identification of cognate constructions across related languages, after which consideration of the mechanisms of change makes it possible to deduce directionality of change such that the process of reconstructing syntax becomes a part of the Comparative Method.…”

The Curious Case of Reconstruction in Syntax

“…scholars who apply constructional analysis on historical data, that Construction Grammar is more easily extendible to syntactic reconstruction than other linguistic models, due to the basic status of form-meaning pairings in that framework (cf. Eythórsson & Barðdal 2011, 2016Barðdal & Eythórsson 2012a-b;Barðdal 2013Barðdal , 2014Barðdal & Gildea 2015;Daniels 2015Daniels , 2017Daniels , 2020.…”

Managing Data for Descriptive and Historical Research

“…In both cases, the goals of this research were primarily descriptive: We were documenting and describing a few essentially undescribed Papuan languages of the Rai Coast and Sogeram branches of the Madang branch of Trans New Guinea (Pawley & Hammarström 2018;Daniels 2015). But one of D. Daniels's primary research interests is historicalcomparative linguistics (e.g., Daniels 2014Daniels , 2017Daniels , 2019, and this interest informed the research agenda in important ways. Most notably, it meant that we conducted shorter stints of research in multiple communities, rather than a longer spell in one community.…”