Baltic languages in the European context:Theoretical, comparative and typological perspectives

Workshop at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica EuropaeaStockholm, 29 August–1 September 2012

Björn Wiemer (JGU Mainz)wiemerb@uni-mainz.de

(Intensive) language contact without grammaticalization a Baltic (and Slavic) anomaly?

Structure of the talkI. Grammaticalization and contact-induced grammaticalization (CIG)II. Language change in Baltic: a survey of relevant phenomena

(a) Phenomena not to be counted as grammaticalization(b) Phenomena to be counted as grammaticalization

--> shared with (or even triggered / sustained by) Slavic?III. Global conclusionsIV. Attempts at an explanation

2

3

I. Grammaticalization andcontact-induced grammaticalization (CIG)

Grammaticalization has to be understood as a specific type of structural change, bywhich the autonomy of the linguistic sign is reduced. In order to classify cases oflanguage change as instances of grammaticalization, it is necessary to inquire into theinvolved (chains of) processes (not only the results).

1.1. Lehmann (1995)

4

1.2. Heine/Kuteva (2002: 2):„(…) grammaticalization involves four main interrelated mechanisms.

(i) desemanticization (or „semantic bleaching“) – loss in meaning content,(ii) extension (or context generalization) – use in new contexts,(iii) decategorialization – loss in morphosyntactic properties characteristic of lexical

or other less grammaticalized forms, and(iv) erosion (or „phonetic reduction“) – loss in phonetic substance.“

1.3. Boye/Harder (2012, in particular p. 6)Grammaticalization (and grammatical expressions) „cannot be defined in term sofspecific phonological, morphosyntactic, or semantic features, alone or in combination“. Instead, it is to be conceived of as the kind of change that gives rise to„expressions that by linguistic convention are ancillary and as such discursivelysecondary in relation to other linguistic expressions“.

⇒ Some of the cases excluded below from grammaticalization may be considered assuch (in B&H‘s sense). But despite such debatable cases, some other mainobservations and tenets to be arrived at below remain valid (at least hopefully so… ).

5

Contact-induced grammaticalization

Kuteva & Heine (2012: 161)„language-internal and contact-induced grammaticalization can be analysed in terms ofthe same set of parameters“ cf. also Heine & Kuteva (2005) etc.

The original distinction between ‘ordinary’ and ‘replica’ CIG (Heine/Kuteva 2003; 2005) has become of secondary (if any) importance; cp. Heine/Kuteva (2005: 234):

(a) Mx = (Ry >) Rx Ordinary contact-induced grammaticalization(structural equivalence in the output Mx ≅ Rx ,but no equivalence in the process from source)

(b) My > Mx >> Ry > Rx Replica contact-induced grammaticalization(implies evolutionary equivalence)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------M, R model, replica languagex, y use patterns or grammatical categories= ‘serves identical or similar purpose as’> ‘develops into’>> ‘is replicated as’

6

II. Language change in Baltic: a survey of relevant phenomena

„Prolegomena”:1. Changes in standard varieties should be distinguished from changes in dialects;

the latter may be partially unknown!2. It may prove useful to separate propelling (initiating) from accelerating forces

(on this distinction cf. Kuteva/Heine 2012), or simply between initiation andpropagation of an innovation (and its possible subsequent entrenchment; cf. Wiemer/Hansen 2012: 139f.).

3. Baltic and Slavic share a great deal of morphosyntactic structure inherited fromsome IE. predecessors. Thus, it may occur particularly difficult to distinguishcontact-induced development from parallel (but independent) developmentbased on the shared „heritage“.

7

1. Phenomena not to be counted as grammaticalization(selection of three cases)

1.1. morphological reanalysis of stem—suffix sequence (cf. Wiemer 2009: 359f.)Lithuanian (Zietela)(5a) naravyti ‘to want to please, fit s.o.’ (< BRus. *naravic')(5b) narav-y-ti > nar-avy-ti(5c) grįž-avy-tis (cp. standard Lith. grįž-ti) ‘to returnʼ

Compare also(28) rod-avy-ti-s ‘to rejoice’ < BRus. rad-ava-c-cа ‘ditto’ (Zietela)(29) ston-avy-ti-s ‘1. to stand up; 2. to stop; 3. to become’

< BRus. stanav-і-c-cа ‘to stop’

{avo} < Slav. {ova} (e.g. Russ. rad-ova-t‘sja) with inherited stems:(32) vasar-avo-ti ‘to spend the summer (somewhere)’ (vasar-a ‘summer’)

žiem-avo-ti ‘to spend the summer (somewhere)’ (žiem-a ‘winter’)(33) ar-dy-ti ‘to destroy‘ → ard-y-ti // ard-avo-ti

8

1.2. Modal particles (Nau 2012)

derivedfrom

Lithuanian polszczyznakresowa

Bela-rusian

Ukrainian Russian meaningrange

‘can (be)’ gal,galbūt

może moža, mo,moža być

možet,možet byt’

‘maybe’, modal particle

‘must(be)’

(musėntetc., only dialectal)

musi, musić musi być

musi, music’ musi byc’

musyt’ buty

(dolžno byt’, weakly lexicalized)

‘certainly’, ‘probably’ ‘maybe’

‘has to be’

turbūt mabyc’ mabut’

Table 2: Lexicalizations of ‘can be’ and ‘must be’ as epistemic particles (Nau 2012: 488)

9

Nau (2012: 483): ‘system-defining principles‘„a set of general principles that can be derived from the characteristic features of the means of expression and their relative importance for the system”:A Use lexical means to express modality. B Use verbs to express internal and external modality.C Use particles to express epistemic modality.D Use a dative construction for internal and external necessity.E Express internal and external modality with one polyfunctional means.F Express possibility and necessity distinctly.G Express possibility and necessity in a parallel way.H Express non-epistemic and epistemic modality distinctly.

--> system-defining principles involve properties related to:a) semantic rangeb) syntactic status (behavior)c) construction type.

And the relevant expressions derive from cognates or functionally comparable etymological sources.

10

1.3. „evidential perfect“perfect (‘current relevanceʼ) > hearsay ∨ inference

11

2. Phenomena that can be counted as cases of grammaticalization

2.1. pronominal adjective inflectionLithuanian(14) nauj-as + j-is / nauj-a + j-i

new.NOM.SG.M 3SG.NOM.M new.NOM.SG.F 3SG.NOM.F> nauj-as-is / nauj-o-ji

‘the new one (M / F)’ (marked)

Russian(15) *nov-us + j-is > nov-ъ + jь > nov-yj

new.NOM.M.SG 3SG.NOM.M new.NOM.SG.M‘newʼ (unmarked)

Old Lithuanian (cf. Stang 1966: 270, 274)(16) pa-io-prasta ‘the simple’ (neuter)(17) danguję-jis ‘in heaven he (is)’

12

2.2. locative (directional) cases (cf. Kazlauskas 2000: 150-165; Seržant 2004)Lithuanian, e.g. adlative(18) namop < namopi < namo + pi(e)

at home house.GEN at(19) miškan < *miškan + nā (vs. mišk-ą < mišk-an)

‘into the forestʼforest.ACC in(to) forest.ACC

2.3. verb particlesLithuanian northern dialects (cited after Mikulskas 2003: 82-87)(20) Mun ir akys pabalo jau, nu pradėjo muni karti žemėn, i gan (Lc) (≅ pakarti).

lit. ‘Even our eyes already went white, well and they began hanging me to the earth, that’s it.ʼ

i.e. ‘… they hang me with the face downward.ʼ

(21) Džiūvo eglės laukan, išraudonavo (Šts) (≅ visai, iki galo išdžiūti).lit. ‘The spruces got dry to the field (outside), they went red.ʼi.e. ‘The spruces became totally dry.ʼ

13

Latvian (standard) (Wälchli 2001a: 310f.; 2001b: 415; Holvoet 2001: 133-146; Endzelīns (1971 [1905/06])(22a) laukā (< lauks ‘field’), ārā (< āra ‘air’), nоst, projām ‘away, off’;(22b) ciet(i) (< ciets ‘hard’) ‘closed’, vaļā (< vaļa ‘freedom’) ‘open’;(22c) apkārt ‘around’;(22d) iekšā (< iekšas ‘inner side’) ‘inside, into’, priekšā (< priekša ‘front side’) ‘ahead’,

augšā, augšup (< augša ‘upper side’), virsū (< virsus ‘surface’) ‘on top (of)’, aizmugurē (< aizmugure ‘back side’) ‘circumwenting, from back side’;

(22e) zemē (< zeme ‘earth’), lejā (< leja ‘valley’) ‘downwards’;(22f) pāri ‘through’;(22g) garām ‘by (the side)’;(22h) atpakaļ, pakaļ (< pakaļa ‘arse’) ‘back’;(22i) pušu (< puse ‘half, side’) ‘into pieces’;(22j) klāt ‘near(by)’;(22k) kājā (< kāja ‘leg’) ‘on(to) the leg’, rokā (< roka ‘hand’) ‘on(to) the hand(s)’;(22l) kopā (< kopa ‘group’), līdzi ‘together, with’.

14

Wälchli (2001b: 419)“The main difference between the four languages [Estonian, Livonian, Latvian, Lithuanian; BW] is the frequency load of the two means of expression. In Estonian there are no preverbs [= prefixes; BW]. In Livonian verb particles are still dominant, the use of preverbsdiffers from speaker to speaker and does not contribute very much to the semantic content of the sentence. In Latvian preverbs are more dominant than verb particles and they are more important means of expression of telicity. In Lithuanian verb particles are almost lacking, except the NW-dialects.”

15

2.4. Logophoric construction with RMLithuanian(23a) Vaikas sakė-si nor-įs valgyti.

child.NOM.SG.M say.3.PST-RM want:PTCP.NOM.SG.M eat.INF

‘The child said that it wanted to eat.ʼ (lit. ‘...said wanting to eat ʼ) <(23b) Vaikas sakė save nor-int-į valgyti.

child.NOM.SG.M say.3.PST REFL.ACC want:PTCP.ACC.SG.M eat.INF‘dittoʼ

--> involved processes (Wiemer 1998 with further references)(a) agglutination of clitic pronoun(b) loss of case characteristics of pronoun (probably before (a))(c) syntactic reanalysis +(d) analogy (object --> subject relation with propositional complement)

16

2.5. Latvian reportive verbal suffix -otLatvian (quoted from Holvoet 2007: 83)(24) Matīsiņš es-ot pamodies

PN:NOM be:PCTP_INDECL wake_up:PTCP:NOM.SG.Mun kliedz-ot pēc viņa.and cry:PTCP_INDECL for him‘(She says) little Matthew has woken up and is crying for him.ʼ (R. Blaumanis)

(25) Viņš es-ot slinks.he.NOM COP: PTCP_INDECL lazy.NOM.SG.M‘He is said to be lazy.ʼ

In contrast to Lith. esą (Wiemer 2010 a,b), Latv. es-ot has remained transparent. It iscompositional (root+suffix) and but a particular case of a productive morphologicaldevice: {ot} is a separate morpheme fully integrated into the verbal paradigm (cf. Holvoet 2007: 83-89; Nau 1998: 29, 35f., 45)

17

2.6. Latvian debitive (cf. Wälchli 2000; Holvoet 2001; 2007: 173ff.)(26) DAT + (būt +) jā-3.PRS.IND

(27a) Jānis strādā.PN:NOM work.3.PRS.IND‘Janis works / is working.’

(27b) Jānim (ir) jā-strādā.PN:NOM COP.3.PRS DEB:work.3.PRS.IND‘Janis has to / must work.’

Development: (cf. Holvoet 2007: 186-191)• relative purpose clause > debitive (= deontic NEC)

(i) free relative purpose clause (with infinitive):*Man nav jā ēst.

1SG.DAT NEG_COP:3.PRS REL.GEN.M eat.INF‘I do not have (anything) to eat.‘

(ii) addition of object + loss of negative copula:*Man jā ēst maizi.

1SG.DAT REL.GEN.M eat.INF bread.ACC

(iii) replacement of infinitive by 3.PRS.IND-form (see above):Man jā-ēd maizi.1SG.DAT DEB:eat.3.PRS.IND bread.ACC‘I don‘t have to eat bread.‘

18

2.7. Lithuanian acquisitive modals (cf. Usonienė/Jasionytė 2010)(26) Neilgai gavome gyventi savo namuose

NEG.long_time get.PST.1PL live.INF POSS_REFL home.LOC‘We could live in our home only for a short period.’

(27) Man teko ilgai laukti1sg.DAT be_gotten.3.PST long_time wait.INF‘I had to wait for a long time.’

• cp. criteria on auxiliarization (for modals) in Hansen/de Haan (eds., 2009)• cp. with COME-auxiliaries (e.g., Russ. prixodit'sja ‘have toʼ)

19

2.8. „Possessive“ resultative with active participlesLithuanian(28) Kišen-ėje jis tur-i butel-į pasislėp-ęs.

pocket.LOC he.NOM have.3.PRS bottle.ACC hide:PTCP.NOM.SG.M‘He has a bottle hidden (for himself) in his pocket.ʼ

Belarusian dial. (cited after Erker, forthcoming)(29) lašádačku m’éli kupíušy my z ej

small_horse.ACC have.PL.PST buy.PTCP_INDECL we.NOM with she.INSlit. ‘We (two with her) had a horse bought.’

• transparent syntactic structure; still compositional (juxtaposition of finite predicate and active anteriority participle)

--> low degree (if any) of grammaticalization• typologically highly marked (rare)

20

2.9. „Possessive“ perfect (cf. Seržant 2012)Russian dial. (Pskov—Novgorod)(30) U cvetov zаsохnutо.

at flower.GEN.PL dry_out:PTCP_INDECL‘The flowers are dried out.ʼ

Lithuanian(31) Senų miškai mylėta. (rare and only by analogical expansion!)

old.GEN.PL forest.NOM.PL.M love.PTCP_INDECL‘The old are said to have loved the forests. ʼ

Latvian(32) Viņam viss jau bija izteik-t-s.

him.DAT all.NOM already be.3.PST say:PTCP.NOM.SG.M‘He had already said everything (he had to say)’.

Estonian(33) Tal oli ko ik juba öel-tud.

he.ADESS.SG be.3SG.PST all already say:PTCP‘He had already said everything (he had to say)’.

BUT: with different hotbeds, namely(i) NW-Russian dialects (Pskov—Novgorod)(ii) Polish (see next slide)

Lithuanian is somehow situated „in-between“.

21

!! Different development into subject impersonal in (standard) Polish!(Wiemer, forthcoming 2)

Polish (standard)(34) Tańczono bez przerwy (*przez gości).

dance:IPFV.PTCP_INDECL without break.GEN THROUGH GUEST.ACC.PLlit. ‘(It) was danced without a break (*by the guests).’

= ‘People/they danced without any break.’(35) Całe wakacje (*przez nas) spędzono nad morzem.

whole.ACC holidays.ACC THROUGH 1PL.ACC spend:PFV.PTCP_INDECL over sea.INS‘One (≈ we) spent all holidays at the sea-side.’

22

2.10. Lithuanian continuative --> avertive (cf. Arkadiev 2010; forthcoming)continuative(36) ... miestel-yje te-be-gyven-o daug našli-ų.

small_town-LOC.SG POS-CNT-live-PST many widdow-GEN.PL‘... in the small town quite a lot of widdows where still living.’ [LKT]

avertive(37) Aš buv-au be-dirb-ąs,

1SG.NOM be.1SG.PST CNT-work:PTCP.NOM.SG.M‘I was preparing for work,

kai netikėtai atvažiav-o draug-as.when all of a sudden a friend arrived.’

23

2.11. Synthetic iterative past(38) Kasdien atei-dav-o po vien-ą vaik-ą.

every_day come.IT_PST.3 per one.ACC.M child.ACC.SG.M‘Every day per one child came.ʼ

(39) probably -d- + {av} > {dav} (cf. Toporov 1961: 55)

24

2.12. analytic iterative pastLithuanian dial. (Samogitian)Four variants (following Zinkevičius 1966: 357f.)

--> always past reference!

(40) Liuobu rašyti.like.1SG.PRS write.INF‘I used to write.ʼ

(41) aš liuob / tu liuob... rašyti1SG.NOM like(TRUNC) 2SG.NOM like(TRUNC) write.INF‘I / you... used to write.ʼ

(42) mes kad liuobam dumsiamos1PL.NOM COMP(?)like.1PL.PRS shake.1PL.PRS‘We used to shake to and fro. ʼ

(43) par veselę liuob duos šnapsėsthrough wedding_feast.ACC like(TRUNC) give.3.FUT aqua_fortis.GEN‘During the wedding feast they used to give (you) vodka.ʼ

25

2.13. Non-agreeing converbsLithuanian (dialeсtal, 19th c.; cit. from Ambrazas 1990: 142)(44a) sakė tave arti nemokantį AcP >

say.PST.3 2SG.ACC plough.INF NEG.be_able:PTCP.ACC.SG.M(44b) sakė tave arti nemokant padalyvis

say.PST.3 2SG.ACC plough.INF NEG.be_able:PTCP_INDECL‘He said you cannot plough.ʼ

--> sentential complementation

East Slavic / Russian(45a) Oleg nesja zlatо, priidе k Kievu >

Oleg.NOM carry:PTCP.NOM.SG.M gold.ACC come.AOR.3.SG to Kiev.DATlit. ‘Oleg carrying gold came to Kiev.’

(45b) Nesja zоlоtо, Оleg prišel v Kiev.carry:PTCP_INDECL gold.ACC Oleg.NOM come.PST.3.SG.M in Kiev.ACC

lit. ‘Carrying gold, Oleg came to Kiev.’

--> adjunctival juncture

26

2.14. Agreeing converbs (Lith. ‘pusdalyviaiʼ)(46) ROOT+da+*mo+INFL > ROOT+dam+INFL (cf. Ambrazas 2006: 361-363)

Lithuanian(47) Ei-dam-i namo, moksleivi-ai nusipirko ledų.

go:PTCP_PUSD:PL.M home pupil.NOM.PL.M buy.3.PST ice_cream.GEN.PL‘Going home the pupils bought themselves ice-cream.ʼ

• *mo is etymologically identical to suffix of m-participles, used for the passive andimpersonals!

• {dam}-participles (i) occur only in the nominative, (ii) require coreference with (iii) nominatival subject of superordinate finite verb

--> no grammaticalization, but clarification of voice orientation + analogy + syntactic differentiation

27

Global (interim) conclusions

1. Despite long-lasting intensive contacts and despite tight genealogical links in prehistory, Slavic and Baltic share but a few (possible) cases of grammaticalization that can be considered as induced by contact with each other (in times posterior to assumed common proto-stages).

2. Among these few candidates some are, again, debatable, because− it is arguable whether they can be classified as cases of grammaticalization.− independent parallel development after proto-stages seems more plausible.− varieties from the Finnic family have been involved, too.

3. Slavic has innovated (and grammaticalized) predominantly among verbal categories(aspect, future, mood distinctions and their functional expansion); see Table 3. Varieties of Baltic have done so, too (e.g., subjunctive, progressive, past iterative). However, these changes do not overlap; relevant changes in Baltic have occurredpredominantly in varieties far from contact with Slavic.

28

Grammatical domains ConstructionsVerbal complex absentive construction

modal infinitival constructions(evidential infinitival construction)*future constructionscomplex predicates with verbal nouns /complex predicates consisting of two finite verbs(with a former complementizer)(evidential extension of perfect)

Noun phrase *definite articles*indefinite articles

Pronominal elements ‘man’ - constructionsClause level relations predicative possession

possessive resultative*object doubling constructionpassive constructionsmodal passive construction

Complex clause level AcI constructionprepositional infinitive construction

Table 3: Synopsis of contact-induced grammaticalization in Slavonic(including arguable cases) (cf. Wiemer/Hansen 2012: 133)

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

29

Table 4: Coincidences of grammaticalized innovations in Baltic and Slavic

phenomenon domainbased on shared

inheritedproperties?

areally exclusive?

pronominal adjectiveinflection

inflectional morphology (NP-internal)

yes, but independent development more likely

yes (closest parallels in Albanian and Iranian)

logophoricconstruction withRM (< REFL)

clause combiningyes, but not any more existent in Slavic

probably yes

resultative withHABĒRE and activeparticiple

clause combiningyes w.r.t. participles; no w.r.t. HABĒRE-verb and overall construction

yes (closest parallels in Kashubian and ancient Greek)

„possessive“ perfect morphology, predication

yes w.r.t. participles; no w.r.t. oblique Actor

no, also in Finnic(and elsewhere in Europe)

non-agreeingconverbs

clause combining yes, but based on different juncturetypes (adjectival vs. complementive)

no, also in Finnic

30

Attempts at an explanation

1. The biggest share seems to be in derivational morphology and the principles ofmorphonological alternations. High degree of shared structure in these domains doesnot enhance, but rather hamper grammaticalization (in the sense of Chr. Lehmann).

2. Both North(East) Slavic and Baltic do „not like“ clitics. Clitics would be a convenientroad 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 hasbeen lost in Slavic).

3. 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 hasundergone) various processes of functional re-distribution („repartition“); cf. the rise ofthe pf.—ipf. opposition in Slavic.

4. Both language groups do not favour very much auxiliaries, which would be goodcandidates for the rise of paradigms of complex predicates and TMA markers. Instead, they seem to „like“ modal particles; their development, though, cannot count asgrammaticalization proper (along Lehmann‘s parameters).

31

Thank you for your attention !!