Morphological status and (de)grammaticalisation: the Swedish possessive

Börjars, Kersti

doi:10.1017/s0332586503001069

Cited by 78 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The English genitive suffix -s originated as a suffix but now famously behaves more like a clitic, in that it is added to entire noun phrases (the man I met on the plane's story Whether or not -s is a full-fledged clitic in these languages (Börjars 2003, Delsing 1999, Norde 1997, 2001b, it is at any rate clear that it has changed from a tightly fused suffix to a more loosely attached element.…”

Section: The Group Genitivementioning

confidence: 99%

Grammaticalization as optimization

Kiparsky¹

2011

Grammatical ChangeOrigins, Nature, Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the neogrammarians and de Saussure, all linguistic change is either sound change, analogy, or borrowing.1 Meillet (1912) identified a class of changes that don't fit into any of these three categories. Like analogical changes, they are endogenous innovations directly affecting morphology and syntax, but unlike analogical changes, they are not based on any pre-existing patterns in the language. Meillet proposed that they represent a fourth type of change, which he called GRAMMATICALIZATION. Its essential property for him was that it gives rise to new grammatical categories -that is, to categories previously unexpressed in the language -and thereby transforms its overall system. ". . . Tandis que l'analogie peut renouveler le détail des formes, mais laisse le plus souvent intact le plan d'ensemble du système grammatical, la "grammaticalisation"de certains mots crée des formes neuves, introduit des categories qui n'avaient pas d'expression linguistique, transforme l'ensemble du système."The "newness" of a category can be either a matter of content, as when a language acquires a new tense category, or a matter of new form for old content, as when postpositions turn into case 1 endings, or word order replaces morphology as the mark of grammatical relations. Meillet's generalizations are empirical rather than definitional, so they demand an explanation.He suggested that grammaticalization is due to the loss and renewal of expressiveness of speech forms in the use of language, reasoning that, since this is a constant factor in in the ordinary use of language, the changes it triggers must have an intrinsic direction. As for phonological weakening, he saw it as a consequence of the fact that function words (mots accessoires) ordinarily do not carry focus. Therefore, when a lexical item becomes a function word, speakers can afford to give it a reduced articulation, which then can become established as its normal pronunciation:

show abstract

Section: The Group Genitivementioning

confidence: 99%

Grammaticalization as optimization

Kiparsky¹

2011

Grammatical ChangeOrigins, Nature, Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Delsing (1999) and Börjars (2003) The group genitive cannot be attributed to Norse inheritance, then. To summarize this section: There is evidence from genitive positioning against the view that the English s-genitive is an inheritance from Norse, and in the case of group genitives we are demonstrably dealing with parallel innovation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

English is (still) a West Germanic language

Bech¹,

Walkden²

2015

Nord J Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In their recent book,English: The Language of the Vikings, Joseph Embley Emonds and Jan Terje Faarlund attempt to make the case that from its Middle period onwards, English is a North Germanic language, descended from the Norse varieties spoken in Medieval England, rather than a West Germanic language, as traditionally assumed. In this review article we critique Emonds & Faarlund's proposal, focusing particularly on the syntactic evidence that forms the basis of their argumentation. A closer look at a number of constructions for which the authors suggest a Norse origin reveals that the situation is not as they present it: in many cases, the syntactic properties of Old and Middle English are not given careful enough consideration, and/or the chronology of the developments is not compatible with a Norse origin. Moreover, the authors do not engage with the large body of sound changes that constitute the strongest evidence for a West Germanic origin. We conclude that Emonds & Faarlund fail to make a convincing case either for a North Germanic origin or against a West Germanic origin.

show abstract

“…Wurzel 1984:205). I am aware that the status of the Swedish genitive -s is contested (see Bö rjars 2003, Norde 2006). determine whether they conform to these features or not.…”

Section: Wurzel's Parameters Of Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%