Levinson (2009) on linguistic analysis the periphrastic ... · PDF filethe periphrastic past in Romance Chad Howe ... (17/61) of all continuative forms were PP: ... explanatory insight

Part I: Variation in semantic changePart II: Divergence in Semantic Change

Final Remarks

Variation and divergence in the development ofthe periphrastic past in Romance

Chad Howe

Department of Romance LanguagesUniversity of Georgia

Universidad de Salamanca18 September, 2013

Chad Howe Variation and divergence


Final Remarks

Levinson (2009) on linguistic analysis

“. . . without linguistic diversity it will be impossible for us toperform the function of the linguistic sciences . . . ”“. . . no individual [speaker] grasps the design of the[language] system . . . ”Language variation should be central in linguistic theory.We should pay more attention to the work of philologists.



Final Remarks

Laca (2010) on analytical diversity

“An enhanced awareness of the extent of cross-linguisticvariation and of the diachronic processes involved in thisvariation could undoubtedly help formal linguists determinethe point at which it is advisable to give up the search forcross-linguistically uniform meanings.”“Conversely, the standards of explicitness associated withformal linguistics could certainly contribute to a refinementof the generalizations proposed by grammaticalizationtheory.” (2010:1)cf. Roberts & Roussou (2003), Kiparsky (2005), Eckardt(2006), Condoravdi & Deo (2008)



Final Remarks

Guiding Questions for this talk

1 Can we use different analytical tools to elucidate patternsof language change, especially as they relate to variationand divergence?

2 How does a more detailed understanding of dialectalvariation in pathways of grammaticalization inform ourunderstanding of semantic change?

3 Can we create synergy between our synchronic anddiachronic observations to yield a more thoroughunderstanding of the phenomena under study?



Final Remarks

Two perspectives on perfects in Romance

1 Variation: Use of the periphrastic past (PP) acrossmultiple contexts of variation

Howe and Rodríguez Louro (2013), “ Peripheral envelopes:Spanish Perfects in the Variable Context”Howe (2013, In Progress), the “Continuativity Hypothesis”

2 Divergence: Emergence of the periphrastic past inPortuguese as a marker of event plurality

Amaral & Howe (2010), “Detours along the perfect path”Amaral & Howe (2012), “Nominal and verbal plurality in thediachrony of the Portuguese Present Perfect”



Final Remarks

Outline

1 Part I: Variation in semantic change

2 Part II: Divergence in Semantic Change

3 Final Remarks



Final Remarks

Data

1 SpanishInterviews conducted in Madrid, Valencia (2005), andAlcalá de Henares, Spain (2009)Corpus de referencia del español actual (CREA)Corpus del Español (CdE, Davies 2002)

2 PortugueseCorpus do Português (CdP, Davies & Ferreira 2006)Tycho Brahe Parsed Corpus of Historical Portuguese (TB)



Final Remarks

Continuative/Durative ContextsMethods and ResultsSummary and Conclusions



3 Final Remarks



Final Remarks


Part I: Questions and Proposals

Questions1 What constitutes a “well-behaved perfect”?2 What role do ‘peripheral’ contexts of variation play in the

development of the PP?3 What does corpus data tell us about this variation?

Initial Proposals1 The PP in Spanish must be viewed both with respect to the

simple past (PRET) and the Simple Present Tense (PT).2 The perfect/anterior > perfective pathway is characterized

not only by temporal neutralization with the PRET but alsoby aspectual differentiation with the PT.



Final Remarks


Laca on “well-behaved” perfects

“Well-behaved” Present Perfects are “characterized by the factthat they only occur felicitously in certain characteristiccontexts, giving rise to the prototypical array of readingsexemplified by the Standard European Spanish examplesbelow” (2010:2)

(1) Ha ido dos veces a Buenos Aires (en su vida/ esteaño). (Existential/Experiential)

(2) Ha vivido solo desde la muerte de su padre.(Universal/Continuative)

(3) No puede correr porque se ha roto una pierna.(Resultative)

(4) Se ha escapado el perro! (‘Hot news’)



Final Remarks


Badly behaved perfects

(5) FrenchJean est arrivé hier.‘Jean arrived yesterday.’

(6) ItalianLino è arrivato ieri.‘Lino arrived yesterday.’

(7) GermanHans hat gestern den Brief geschrieben.‘Hans wrote (has written) the letter yesterday.’

(8) PortugueseO João tem chegado *ontem/cedo ultimamente.‘João has been arriving *yesterday/late recently.’



Final Remarks


and Spanish...

(9) Me he levantado a las . . . a las nueve de la mañana.He desayunado en casa. Me (he) hecho la comida.He ido a la casa de mis padres a . . . para hacer unasburocracias, y luego ya he venido a la universidad. . . (Madrid, Howe 2013)



Final Remarks


Two types of semantic overlap

1 The PP vs. the Pret(erit)

(10) Manuel ha leído el libro.

(11) Manuel leyó el libro.

2 The PP vs. the Simple Present Tense

(12) He vivido allí . . . toda la vida. (Madrid, Howe 2013)

(13) Vivo desde hace cuarenta años en el mismoedificio (CdE, 20th, written)



Final Remarks


Features of overlap

1 The PP vs. the Pret(erit)Compatibility with (definite) past adverbialsUse in sequenced narratives

2 The PP vs. the Simple Present TenseOverlap in continuative/durative contextsCompatibility with ‘right boundary’ modification (i.e.adverbials that include the moment of utterance)



Final Remarks


Proposals

By observing the PP/PT opposition in Spanish, we propose that

1 a given linguistic element may be associated with multiple,non-overlapping envelopes of variation and that thesevariable contexts play independent roles in the distributionand evolution of the form

2 and that current variationist approaches to the study ofvariation in the domain of tense/aspect have yet to addressthese types of Peripheral Domains of functional opposition(cf. Tagliamonte 2011).

Note: Continuative/Durative terminology



Final Remarks


Perfect Types

1 Perfect of Result2 Experiential/Existential Perfect3 Continuative/Universal Perfect4 Perfect of Recent Past/‘Hot News’



Final Remarks


Perfect Types

1 Perfect of Result2 Experiential/Existential Perfect3 Continuative/Universal Perfect4 Perfect of Recent Past/‘Hot News’



Final Remarks


Continuative/Universal Perfect

Comrie refers to this as the , the “Perfect of persistentsituation” (1976: 60).It is characterized by an eventuality that initiates in the pastand continues up to–and perhaps includes–the moment ofspeech.Bertinetto (1994, ‘Perfecto inclusivo’) and Havu (1997,‘Perfecto persistente’)



Final Remarks


Some examples of continuative uses with the PP

(14) El fuego ha estado activodesde hace cuando menos una semana. (CdE, 20th,written)

(15) Desde hace diez años he trabajado y, inicialmente,realmente no había nada. (CdE, 20th, oral)



Final Remarks


Some examples of continuative uses with the PT

(16) También está cerrada, desde hace nueve años. (CdE,20th, oral)

(17) Sin embargo, la BBC de Londres, con la que yo trabajodesde hace años, hace sus propias grabaciones. (CdE,20th, oral)

Compare with ha estado and he trabajado.



Final Remarks


Frequencies of the PP with durative meaning

For Rodríguez Louro, 28% (17/61) of all continuative formswere PP:

(18) En los últimos 6 meses no me he dado piquitos connadie. (Rodríguez Louro 2009: 119, ex. 51)

Hernández found that the durative uses make up 32%(266/838) of all PP cases:

(19) porque eso a mí me ha fascinado, pues, todo el tiempoy me sigue fascinando. (Hernández 2004: 30, ex. 1)



Final Remarks


Continuative/Durative meaning with the PRET (1)

Schwenter and Torres Cacoullos note that the PRET “may alsoappear in continuative contexts such as that seen in [theexample below] with an overt indication that a past situationcontinues to obtain in the present” (2008: 6, emphasis added).

(20) Pero ya vi que . . . que fui más o menos agarrándole afondo, y le seguí hasta la fecha. (MexPop, 230; citedfrom Schwenter & Torres Cacoullos 2008:6)

(21) Desde la Guerra no tuvieron una oportunidad comoésta. (Rodríguez Louro 2009: 143, ex. 104)



Final Remarks


Continuative/Durative meaning with the PRET (2)

We include only the PP and the PT in the current analysis forthe following reasons:

these two forms display what Katz (2003:208) refers to asa “present orientation” (in contrast to the past orientation oftelic constructions) andthey do not typically play a role in the sequencing of pastevents in narrative discourse.



Final Remarks


Distinguishing the PP/PT in continuative contexts

García Fernández observes that“[e]l presente es una forma verbal que aspectualmenteexpresa [aspecto imperfectivo], es decir eventos que estánteniendo lugar y cuyo final no se predica” (2000: 345)and that “no es cierto sin más que las formas compuestasadquieran a veces el valor del [imperfectivo]; sólo lo hacencuando el [imperfectivo] tiene especificado elinicio del evento” (2000: 350, emphasis mine).



Final Remarks


Peripheries in the variable context

Variation of the PP has largely (and almost exclusively)been gauged in relation to the PRET.However, the PP varies in meaningful ways with verb formsother than the PRET, which motivates a look beyondPP/PRET variation.Consistent with what Aaron calls “Synchronized Change”;that is, recognizing that “frequently occurring contexts thatfall outside the envelope of variation may provide valuableexplanatory insight regarding diachronic shifts in patternswithin the variable context” (2010: 4, emphasis in original)



Final Remarks


Schematizing overlap

viví (PRET) —————–[LB+++++RB]—–ST>

he vivido (PP) —————–[LB+++++++++++ST]>

viví (PT) —————–[LB++++++++ST+++}>

LB = Left Boundary; RB = Right Boundary; ST = SpeechTime; “+” = eventuality holds



Final Remarks


The ‘Continuativity’ Hypothesis

In those varieties undergoing the shift of Perfect/Anterior toPerfective the relevant vector of change is temporal, withincreasing use of the PP as a form of default pastreference (see Schwenter & Torres Cacoullos 2008)As a periphrastic past continues to evolve into a perfective,I argue that imperfective meanings (e.g., the continuativeusage) will be relegated to marginal (peripheral) contexts.



Final Remarks


Restricted durativity in French

(22) *Cela fait cinq ans que Marie a habité seule.‘*’It is five years that Marie has lived/lived alone.’

(23) Marie a habité seule de 1990 jusqu’à l’année dernière.‘Marie lived alone from 1990 to last year.’

(24) Je ne l’ai pas vu depuis un an.‘I haven’t seen him for a year.’



Final Remarks


Claims

The Perfect/Anterior > Perfective pathway involves two distinctand overlapping developments:

1 Temporal neutralization between the PP and the PRET2 Aspectual differentiation between the PP and the PT

(‘Peripheral’ Context)

Elucidate the behavior of grammaticalizing forms in thosecontexts that become marginal as meaning change resultsin layering of older uses



Final Remarks


Hypotheses

1 By analysing PP/PT distribution in contexts that areprimarily continuative (i.e., collocation with desde hace),we expect to observe that the operant factors pertaining tothe PP/PRET opposition (e.g., temporal reference) are notthe same as those that characterize the PP/PT distribution.

2 Moreover, through a comparison of these formscross-dialectally, we expect to find some preliminaryevidence that the PP is indeed preferred or dispreferreddepending on the type of boundary modificationobserved–e.g., left (with desde hace).



Final Remarks


Methods: Defining a continuative context

Attributing a specific function (e.g., continuative) to the thePT or PP may be theoretically biased and unreliable(Schwenter & Torres Cacoullos 2008: 11)I focus on PT and PP tokens co-occurring with theadverbial phrase desde hace which has been shown in thesemantics literature to favor PP morphology (Pancheva &von Stechow 2004: 13) and is found in Spanish with the PTFuture analyses will include other contexts–e.g., Yo hacemucho tiempo que no la he olido (CdE, 20th, oral)



Final Remarks


Methods: Data

Using the Corpus del Español, we extracted 1430 tokensof the PP and PT with desde hace from the 19th and 20thcenturies.Of these, 1052 were used in the quantitative analysis; theremaining tokens were excluded for various reasons–e.g.,false starts, ambigouous cases, or modified a verb formother than the PP or PT, as in the following:

(25) Es algo que ya se sabía desde hace treinta años.(CdE, 20th, oral)



Final Remarks


Methods: Data Coding

Language internal factors1 Polarity (i.e. presence of negation)2 Progressivity (yes/no)3 Verb type (stative, activity, accomplishment, achievement)4 Grammatical Person (1st, 2nd, etc.)5 Interval Duration

Language external factors1 Century (19th vs. 20th)2 Register (written vs. oral)



Final Remarks


Interval Duration (1)

For the PP/PRET alternation, Schwenter & TorresCacoullos (2008) apply the criterion of temporal referenceas a measure of the degree to which the PP prefers that aneventuality be situated at a point close or somehowconnected to the moment of speech.Similarly, the PT prefers eventualities that are either closeto the moment of speech or possibly not deictically boundwhereas the PP allows the relevant internal of evaluation,the left boundary of which is established by the temporalcomplement of desde hace, to extend further into the past.Each token was coded for the temporal constitution of theinterval, using the distinction between indefinite anddefinite temporal phrases as a proxy for the understoodduration of the eventuality.



Final Remarks


Interval Duration (2)

Indefinite

(26) Y benemérito expresidente X.X., por quien he tenido(PP) especial predilección desde hace muchos años.(CdE, 20th, oral)

(27) Me ama (PT) desde hace mucho tiempo. (CdE, 19th,written)

Definite

(28) Aunque no ha cantado en Madriddesde hace casi veinte años, el nombre de Mirella Frenies familiar (CdE, 20th, oral)

(29) Sí. Trabajo también en Madriddesde hace cuatro años. (CdE, 20th, oral)



Final Remarks


Predictions

PPs will be favored in1 Negative polarity2 Progressive form3 Telic predicates (accomplishments and achievements)4 1st person (subjectivity)5 Indefinite interval duration

PPs will be disfavored in1 Written registers



Final Remarks


Overview of Results

Logistic regression was applied using Goldvarb X (Sankoff,Tagliamonte & Smith 2005).Total N = 1052, p = 0.021, Corrected mean: .191 (19%PP); Log Likelihood: -468.770Of the 7 factors tested, only 2 were significant: Verb Typeand Interval Duration



Final Remarks


Results for Verb Type

FACTOR GROUP WEIGHT NUMBER %PP TOTAL N

Verb TypeAchievement .86 40 56.3 71Accomplishment .69 46 32.2 143Activity .50 50 17.1 292Stative .39 65 11.9 549

Range 47



Final Remarks


Results for Verb Type


Verb TypeAchievement .86 40 56.3 71Accomplishment .69 46 32.2 143Activity .50 50 17.1 292Stative .39 65 11.9 549

Range 47



Final Remarks


Results for Interval Duration


Interval DurationIndefinite .54 129 21.5 452Definite .45 72 15.9 600

Range 6



Final Remarks


Results for Interval Duration


Interval DurationIndefinite .54 129 21.5 452Definite .45 72 15.9 600

Range 6



Final Remarks


Initial Comments

1 Our overall hypothesis regarding the difference inconditioning factors between the PP/PT and the PP/PRETis (for the most part) supported.

2 The PP/PT clearly does not display the same type ofopposition as the PP/PRET (as described, e.g., bySchwenter & Torres Cacoullos). We see that the functionalopposition between the PP and the PT is characterized thefavoring effect of telic predicates on the PP.

3 The factors relevant to the PP/PT distinction are aspectualand constitute, we propose, a peripheral context ofvariation for the PP.



Final Remarks


PT/PP by dialect (1)

Argentina Mexico Spain

PT 96% (N=69) 58% (N=39) 81% (N=147)

PP 4% (N=3) 42% (N=28) 19% (N=181)

Tokens extracted from the Corpus de referencia delespañol actualFisher’s p-value = 1.378e-07



Final Remarks


PT/PP by Dialect

PT/PP6th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics

Tucson, AZ April 13, 2012

7

Argentina Mexico Spain PT 96%

(N=69) 58%

(N=39) 81%

(N=147) PP 4%

(N=3) 42%

(N=28) 19%

(N=34) Total 100%

(N=72) 100%

(N=67) 100%

(N=181) Table 2 Overall usage frequencies for the PT and PP plus desde hace in the Argentina, Mexico and Spain oral CREA database (Fisher's p-value = 1.378e-07) Argentina The Argentina corpus displays the lowest overall usage frequency for the PP in continuative contexts. This is consistent with previous claims regarding the low PP usage in these settings (see Rodríguez Louro 2009). Additionally, a comparison of PP overall frequencies for Argentina and Mexico reveals that these two dialects behave differently (cf. Laca 2010). Mexico Mexico displays the highest overall frequency of PP usage in the CREA oral corpora. This is consistent with previous suggestions that the Mexican PP is favored in continuative/durative settings (see Lope Blanch 1972: 138; Moreno de Alba 1978: 57). Spain The Spanish usage is roughly the same as the overall frequency distributions noted in our sample from the Corpus del Español.

81%

58%

96%

19%

42%

4%

0102030405060708090100


PresentPP

Figure 2 Overall usage frequencies for the PT and PP plus desde hace in the Argentina, Mexico, and Spain oral CREA database • Interestingly, the distribution (in terms of simple overall frequencies)

of the PP vis-à-vis the PT across these three varieties of Spanish is not in all cases parallel to that of the PP/Preterit attested in the literature.

Argentinaa Mexicob Spainc Preterit 94%

(N=783) 85%

(N=1903) 54%

(N=956) PP 6%

(N=47) 15%

(N=331) 46%

(N=827) Total 100%

(N=830) 100%

(N=2234) 100%

(N=1783) Table 3 Overall usage frequencies for the Preterit and the PP in three dialect samples. (a = Rodríguez Louro (2009), b = Lope Blanch (1971; 1976), as compiled by Schwenter & Torres Cacoullos 2008, c = Marcos Marín (1992) as compiled by Schwenter and Torres Cacoullos 2008).



Final Remarks


PT/PP by Dialect

PT/PP PP/PRET6th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics

Tucson, AZ April 13, 2012

7

Argentina Mexico Spain PT 96%

(N=69) 58%

(N=39) 81%

(N=147) PP 4%

(N=3) 42%

(N=28) 19%

(N=34) Total 100%

(N=72) 100%

(N=67) 100%

(N=181) Table 2 Overall usage frequencies for the PT and PP plus desde hace in the Argentina, Mexico and Spain oral CREA database (Fisher's p-value = 1.378e-07) Argentina The Argentina corpus displays the lowest overall usage frequency for the PP in continuative contexts. This is consistent with previous claims regarding the low PP usage in these settings (see Rodríguez Louro 2009). Additionally, a comparison of PP overall frequencies for Argentina and Mexico reveals that these two dialects behave differently (cf. Laca 2010). Mexico Mexico displays the highest overall frequency of PP usage in the CREA oral corpora. This is consistent with previous suggestions that the Mexican PP is favored in continuative/durative settings (see Lope Blanch 1972: 138; Moreno de Alba 1978: 57). Spain The Spanish usage is roughly the same as the overall frequency distributions noted in our sample from the Corpus del Español.

81%

58%

96%

19%

42%

4%

0102030405060708090100


PresentPP

Figure 2 Overall usage frequencies for the PT and PP plus desde hace in the Argentina, Mexico, and Spain oral CREA database • Interestingly, the distribution (in terms of simple overall frequencies)

of the PP vis-à-vis the PT across these three varieties of Spanish is not in all cases parallel to that of the PP/Preterit attested in the literature.

Argentinaa Mexicob Spainc Preterit 94%

(N=783) 85%

(N=1903) 54%

(N=956) PP 6%

(N=47) 15%

(N=331) 46%

(N=827) Total 100%

(N=830) 100%

(N=2234) 100%

(N=1783) Table 3 Overall usage frequencies for the Preterit and the PP in three dialect samples. (a = Rodríguez Louro (2009), b = Lope Blanch (1971; 1976), as compiled by Schwenter & Torres Cacoullos 2008, c = Marcos Marín (1992) as compiled by Schwenter and Torres Cacoullos 2008).

6th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics Tucson, AZ

April 13, 2012

8

94%85%

54%

6%15%

46%

0102030405060708090100


PreteritPP

Figure 3 Overall usage frequencies for the Preterit and the PP in three dialect samples 5.3 Discussion • By comparing the data from Table 2 (Figure 2) and Table 3 (Figure 3),

we can make the following observations:

1. The PP/PT and PP/Preterit distributions are parallel in the two data sets from Argentinian Spanish. The low usage frequency of the Argentinian PP in continuative contexts is consistent with the ‘past-referring’ value of this form and its frequent use in experiential and indefinite past contexts (cf. Rodríguez Louro 2009; Rodríguez Louro & Jara Yupanqui 2011; Rodríguez Louro & Howe 2010).

2. By contrast, with the Mexican samples, Tables 2 and 3 suggest that while the functional overlap with the Preterit is minimal (see also Schwenter & Torres Cacoullos 2008) the PP has quite a different distribution with respect to the PT. In fact, it would seem that the continuative discussed here represents a type of neutralizing context in these data (similar to the affect attributed to indefinite past reference in the Peninsular data noted by S&TC 2008).

3. Finally, the effect observed with the two corpora of Peninsular Spanish suggest the inverse trend from that shown in the Mexican sample. In other words, while past reference seems to be a neutralizing context for the PP, continuative uses are not. This is consistent with the observation that as a periphrastic past evolves into a perfective (as has been claimed for the PP in Peninsular Spanish), imperfective meanings (e.g., the continuative usage) will be relegated to marginal contexts. (Cf. layering as discussed by, e.g., Hopper & Traugott 2003: 124).

• This proposal allows us to model the development of periphrastic pasts

in Romance more generally by observing parallel trends of expansion of past reference and the concomitant erosion of the present meaning, which, in the case of the perfective periphrastic past in French for example, is available only under specific structural and semantic conditions, such as negation (see examples 10 and 11 above).

• Question: Why are ‘layered’ meanings often retrieved under the influence of negation?

Poplack (2008) describes a similar situation in which the

simple future form in Canadian French (i.e. the futur simple as in je vendrai ‘I will come’), which has suffered retraction vis-à-vis the periphrastic go-future (i.e. the futur proche as in je vais vendre ‘I am going to come’), is strongly retained in contexts of negation.

For the passé composé in French, negation mitigates the effects of perfective aspect that produce a bounded situation. Note also examples (6) and (7) from Argentinian Spanish.

6. Conclusion

• Our results suggest that the PP/PT opposition is distinct from the one represented by PP/Preterit (see S&TC 2008, among others). We maintain that the opposition of the PP with the PT is a Peripheral



Final Remarks


Summary

The PP/PT and PP/Preterit distributions are parallel in thetwo data sets from Argentinian Spanish–i.e. low usagefrequency of the Argentinian PP in continuative contexts(cf. Rodríguez Louro 2009).By contrast, the Mexican samples seem to suggest thatwhile the functional overlap with the Preterit is minimal(see also S&TC 2008) the PP has quite a differentdistribution with respect to the PT.The Peninsular data are consistent with the observationthat as a periphrastic past evolves into a perfective (as hasbeen claimed for the PP in Peninsular Spanish),imperfective meanings (e.g., the continuative usage) will berelegated to marginal contexts.



Final Remarks


Conclusions

Our results suggest that the PP/PT opposition is distinctfrom the one represented by PP/Preterit (see S&TC 2008,among others). We maintain that the opposition of the PPwith the PT is a Peripheral Context, one that, in theprocess of change from perfect > perfective, is subject toconsiderable recession.



Final Remarks


Conclusions

Re broader implications, this analysis revisit the role ofmultiple contexts of variation in the development ofmorphosyntactic variables, distinguishing this situationfrom those in which multiple forms are involved in the sameenvelope of variation (see, e.g., Orozco 2005).



Final Remarks


Conclusions

Ths proposal provides a novel approach to explainingsemantic change across parallel components of meaning,contrasting with more recent claims that the developmentof periphrastic past forms in Romance is motivatedexclusively by its opposition with the simple perfective past(Schaden 2009, 2012).



Final Remarks

The not-so-PerfectMethods and ResultsSummary and Conclusions



3 Final Remarks



Final Remarks


Part II: Questions and Proposals

Questions1 How can we determine the “onset contexts” of semantic

change? (see Eckardt 2006)2 Is the development of the Periphrastic Past in Portuguese

distinct from what has been described as the typicalpathway in Romance?

Proposals1 There is an ambiguity between a resultative reading and a

multiple event reading with the Portuguese periphrasticpast that gives rise to the interpretation of multiple events(Amaral & Howe 2010, 2012).

2 The development of the PPC in Portuguese is qualitativelydistinct from other periphrastic past forms in Romance.



Final Remarks


The Aoristic Drift: A review

1 Stage 1: Present stages resulting from past eventsSicilian

2 Stage 2: Past situations still ongoing at the presentMexican Spanish, Portuguese

3 Stage 3: Past situations with current relevanceCatalan, Peninsular Spanish(?)

4 Stage 4: All past eventualitiesFrench, (Northern) Italian



Final Remarks









Final Remarks


O Pretérito Perfeito Composto (PPC)

(30) A Ana tem chegado atrasada muito ultimamente /*uma vez / *ontem .

use of auxiliary ter (< Latin TENERE)incompatible with past time adverbials (e.g., ontem)incompatible with cardinal modifiers (e.g., uma vez)requires event plurality (i.e. pluractional, Cabredo Hofherret al. 2012)



Final Remarks


Restricted readings

(31) Onde está a Ana?

(32) a. Está aqui. Acaba de chegar.b. Está aqui. Chegou agora.c. ??Está aqui. Tem chegado.



Final Remarks


Induced Plurality

(33) *O animal tem morrido.

(34) Os animais têm morrido nesta rua.

Plural subject licences the interpretation of multiple events.



Final Remarks


Resultative vs. PPC

(35) Tenhohave.1SG

athe.FEM.SG

portadoor.FEM.SG

fechada.closed.FEM.SG

‘I have the door closed.’

(36) Tenhohave.1SG

fechadoclose.PTCP

athe.FEM.SG

porta.door.FEM.SG

‘I have been closing the door.’



Final Remarks


Schema of event plurality

UT

RB LB τ(e)

UT

RB LB τ(e)

(10′) Multiple Event/Pluractional Reading:

(13′) Durative Reading:

The schema in (10′) shows the aspectual requirement that iterated even-tualities be distributed as regular and discrete repetitions throughout the interval of evaluation (noted by Cabredo-Hofherr et al. 2007 as the re-quirement for discontinuity and regularity). Our diachronic analysis will illustrate that this aspectual property is predictable from the proposed vec-tor of semantic change: the requirement on temporal distribution observed in synchrony arises in diachrony in the interaction between the interpreta-tion of the verbal predicate and nominal quantification in its complements. 2.2. Temporal properties

Two main properties characterize the temporal semantics of the PP in Por-tuguese. First, the interval of evaluation for the PP must include utterance time as its right boundary (Campos 1986, Cabredo-Hofherr et al. 2007). This feature is typical among perfects cross-linguistically and accounts for

IEval

e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7

IEval

e1



Final Remarks


Unambiguous resultatives in diachrony

(37) Eu ey por bem que Nicolaao Jusarte, fidalgo de minhacasa, a que tenho ffeito merce da capitania de um dosnavios que vão pera a India nesta armada d’outubro,vaa no navio do Porto (TB, 16th Century)‘I order that Nicolau Jusarte, nobleman of my house,whom I have awarded the honor of being the captain ofone of the ships that will go to India in the October fleet,shall go on the ship from Oporto’

Requires a single event interpretation (i.e. one event ofawarding)



Final Remarks


Auxiliary choice: ter vs. haver

For most periphrastic pasts in Romance (e.g., Spanish),some reflex of Latin HABERE ‘to have/hold’ is used as anauxiliary (cf. cases of BE auxiliaries).Reflexes of Latin TENERE, however, are frequently used insmall clause constructions in Romance (includingPortuguese, see Posner 1996).

(38) Spanish, tenerTengo las cartas escritas.



Final Remarks


ter vs. haver (Wigger 2004)

170

herauslösen und gesondert betrachten, da sie es ja sind, die dem heutigen PPC zu Grunde liegen.

präsentisches haver vs. ter + PP (Abb. 7)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

proz

entu

ales

Vor

kom

men

haver + PP 50 94,7 76,2 58,8 6,5

ter + PP 50 5,3 23,8 41,2 93,5

12./13. Jh. 14. Jh. 14./15. Jh. 16. Jh. 16./17. Jh

Der Vergleich der Abbildungen 6 und 7 zeigt, dass der Entwicklungsprozess, während dessen die mit haver gebildeten Formen bei gleichzeitiger Zunahme der mit ter gebildeten Formen zurückgehen, nicht in Bezug auf den Zeitpunkt, an dem ter erstmals frequenter als haver erscheint, variiert, wenn nur die präsentischen Vorkommen der beiden Verben gezählt werden. Das bedeutet, dass in dem untersuchten Material die zeit-liche Situierung des Punkts, an dem sich die jeweiligen Frequenz-Kurven kreuzen, unab-hängig vom Tempus oder Modus der beiden Verben ist. Ebenfalls wirkt die weitere Entwicklung vom Kreuzungspunkt an in beiden Fällen recht gleichförmig, d. h. auch hier scheint der Entwicklungsprozess in vergleichbarer Weise fortgeführt zu werden.

Im Gegensatz zu den vergleichbaren Entwicklungstendenzen ab dem 16. Jahr-hundert finden sich allerdings kleinere Schwankungen beim Vergleich des Entwicklungs-verlaufs vor dem Zeitpunkt, an dem ter in der Frequenz gleichauf mit haver steht. Hierbei ist zunächst das Zahlenverhältnis zu Beginn des Untersuchungszeitraums zu nennen, das zwischen den beiden Auszählungen deutlich variiert. Des Weiteren unterscheiden sich die die Zahlenverhältnisse der zweiten und dritten Auszählungsstufe hinsichtlich der Frequenz der beiden Verben und schließlich unterscheidet sich die vierte Auszählungs-stufe von den vorangegangenen dahingehend, dass hier eine Verschiebung der Zahlen-verhältnisse zu beobachten ist. Im Einzelnen bedeutet dies:

• Bei der Auszählung von präsentischem haver und ter mit Partizip Perfekt in der ersten Zeitstufe des Untersuchungszeitraums stehen sich die beiden Verben mit einem jeweils fünfzigprozentigen Anteil am Gesamtvorkommen gegenüber, während es bei beim Gesamtvorkommen aller Tempora der zusammengesetzten Form ein Verhältnis von 70:30 ist. Tatsächlich muss bei der Beurteilung dieser Zahlen-verhältnisse sehr vorsichtig vorgegangen werden, da für den betreffenden Zeitraum die absolute Zahl an zusammengesetzten Formen insgesamt sehr gering ist. Im Fall von präsentischem haver und ter ist sie so gering, dass die Relation der beiden Verben zueinander in dieser Form nicht als repräsentativ gewertet werden kann. Im Hinblick auf die in Abb. 1 und Abb. 6 widergespiegelten Proportionen muss davon ausgegangen werden, dass zu diesen Zeitpunkt haver in den Funktionsbereichen,

Distribution of ter + Participle is the mirror image of haver +Participle, with ter eventually winning out



Final Remarks


Determining onset contexts

The transition between stages of a particular change hasbeen argued to occur as a result of inference on the part ofthe speaker who seeks to enhance the expressive contentof an item beyond its conventional meaning–i.e. through aprocess of pragmatic enrichment (Traugott and Dasher2001, Heine 2002, Diewald 2002).According to Eckardt (2006:53), inferential (i.e. pragmatic)tendencies alone do not explain how and when an item willcome to take on a new meaning (or meanings) in a givencontext; there must also be accompanying structural andsemantic ambiguities that both allow and constrain theprocesses of inference.



Final Remarks


Methods

Using the Tycho Brahe Parsed Corpus of HistoricalPortuguese, we extracted all tokens of ter + PastParticiple.Tokens were categorized into three groups (explainedbelow) based only on morphosyntactic properties.Distribution of PPC cases with respect to lexical aspectand complement type were explored.



Final Remarks


Collocational tendencies of ter + PastPart

1 Structurally resultative: Overt agreement betweencomplement NP and past participle (adjective)’

e.g., tenho a porta fechada2 Structurally PPC: Overt non-agreement between

complement NP and past participlee.g., tenho fechado a porta

3 Structurally ambiguous: Both the complement NP andthe part participle are [MASC.SG]

e.g., tenho o escritório fechado



Final Remarks


Types 1 & 2: Resultatives and PPCs

(39) Vejo . . . que temos a carta cerrada, selada e comsobre escrito (TB, 16th Century)‘I see that we have the letter closed, sealed and insidean envelope’

(40) e pela muita amizade que tenho amostrado a el Reyde França (TB, 16th Century)‘and for all the friendship that I have repeatedlydemonstrated to the King of France’



Final Remarks


Type 3: Structurally ambiguous

(41) tenho provido cada hospital de seu físico, que são osabades, retores, vigários e curas (TB, 16th Century)‘I have granted each hospital with a physician, who arethe abbots, rectors, vicars, and priests’

Resultative: a doctor is assigned to each hospital with oneassigning eventPluractional: requires that multiple events ofhospital/doctor assignments have occurred



Final Remarks


Structural Ambiguity Schema

universal quantifier (cada ‘each’) that distributes a group of physicians over a group of hospitals (where the terms “hospital” and “physician” should not be taken literally, since the text builds on the metaphor of “spiri-tual health”):

(29) tenho provido cada hospital de seu físico, que são os abades,

retores, vigários e curas (TBCHP, 16th Century) ‘I have granted each hospital with a physician, who are the abbots, rectors, vicars, and priests’

The schema in (29′) depicts the ambiguity between the two interpreta-

tions of (29). Here, hn is a hospital belonging to a group of hospitals, dn is a doctor, and en is the event of assigning a doctor to a hospital. The square brackets indicate the interval and scope of evaluation for both of the in-tended interpretations. Under the resultative reading, it must be the case that each hospital have a doctor assigned to it where the group of hospitals is exhausted. From this stative interpretation, one may infer a mapping between each hospital-doctor pair and an assignment (sub)event, yielding a set of assignments of the same type. The change in the scope of the square brackets is meant to capture the semantic change. For the resultative inter-pretation, the relevant ingredients are the resultant hospital-doctor assign-ments, whereas the pluractional use requires that multiple events of hospi-tal-doctor assignments have occurred.

(29′) Resultative Pluractional { h1 h2 h3 h4 h5 } { h1 h2 h3 h4 h5 } | | | | | e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 | | | | | { d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 } { d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 }

The hospital-doctor assignments could have been achieved either through a single event (e.g. through an event of signing a letter) or through multiple temporally-sequenced events, each pertaining to a different hospi-tal-doctor pair. Whereas in this case both explanations seem equally plausi-ble, in other examples the plural event interpretation seems more appropri-ate on pragmatic grounds (if, for instance, the same subject could not have performed multiple actions of the same type simultaneously). We believe



Final Remarks


Predictions

1 As the iterative meaning of the PPC becomes moregeneral, atelic predicates will represent a significantindicator for expansion of the PPC tokens.

2 The iterative (pluractional) interpretation was induced incontexts in which the resultative construction had acquiredan eventive entailment and this entailment was compatiblewith both a single and a multiple event interpretation.Plurality arises via co-occurence with plural complements.



Final Remarks


Structure Type by Century

Construction Type 16th Century 18th Century

PPC24.1% (N=68) 78.4% (N=410)

Ambiguous 61.7% (N=174) 19.9% (N=104)Resultative 16.3% (N=46) 1.7% (N=9)Total 288 523

The results shown here suggest considerable expansion ofthe PPC tokens between the 16th and the 18th centuries.



Final Remarks


Lexical Aspect by Century (w/ PPC)

Lexical Aspect 16th Century 18th Century

Stative0% (N=0)

24.6% (N=101)

Activity27.9% (N=19)

32.4% (N=133)

Accomplishment 23.5% (N=16)9.8% (N=40)

Achievement 48.6% (N=33)33.2% (N=136)

Total 68 410

Change in atelics (statives/activities): + 30%Change in telics (accomplishments/achievements): - 30%



Final Remarks


Complement type by Century (w/ PPC)

Complement type 16th Century 18th Century

Singular 13.2% (N=9) 10.8% (N=44)Plural 45.6% (N=31) 21.2% (N=86)Quantifier 20.6% (N=14) 13.8% (N=56)Mass 10.3% (N=7) 4.9% (N=20)Abstract 4.4% (N=3) 5.4% (N=22)Intransitive 5.9% (N=4) 43.8% (N=178)Total 68 406



Final Remarks


Complement type of Century

Over 75% (N=52) of the PPC tokens in the 16th centuryoccurred with either plural complements, quantifiers, ormass nouns, all of which, play a role in the transfer ofplurality from the nominal domain to the verbal one.There is a marked change in the percentage ofintransitives: 5.9% to 43.8%. This was expected given thatthe resultative structure was not compatible withintransitive predicates.These results suggest that by the 18th century the iterativemeaning of the PPC had generalized and consequently nolonger necessitated an overtly plural complement.



Final Remarks









Final Remarks


Revisiting perfect pathways

For Harris (1982) and others, Portuguese and somevarieties of American Spanish (e.g., Mexican) have StageII Perfects.

(42) Sí; he ido dos ocasiones [a su tierra]. (from LopeBlanch 1976)‘Yes. I have gone on two occasions [to his hometown].’

(43) Eu tenho ido *duas vezes [à terra dele].‘I have been going *twice [to his hometown].’

Not all ‘drifts’ flow in the same direction.



Final Remarks


Conclusions

1 Using corpus evidence, we show that the emergence ofthe iterative meaning of the Portuguese PPC was favoredby ambiguous contexts in which the semantic properties ofthe nominal arguments of the verb license theinterpretation of event iteration.

2 The subsequent semanticization of the multiple eventinterpretation in these cases has given rise to theaspectual properties of the PPC observed in synchrony.

3 Again, the pathway metaphor (or at least Stage metaphoras argued by Harris and others) makes the falseassumption that we can group these constructionscross-linguistically by relying on a limited set of features,namely reading types.



Final Remarks

Returning to variation and divergence

A more precise understanding of language variation, writlarge, offers a significant contribution to the development ofour models of language meaning and language change.Dealing with issues of context-related language changeinvolves looking at language in context.The respective rigors of both semantic and (variationist)analytical practices cand and should inform each other.



Final Remarks

On the relationship between diachrony and synchrony

Trousdale observes that “a constructional approach tolanguage enables us to (re)consider some aspects ofsynchronic variaiton (particularly, synchronic gradience) withina framework that prioritises micro-steps at different levels ofform-meaning parings” (2013:40)

The simple and periphrastic past forms in Romancerepresent ideal test cases for the type ofsynchronically-informed analysis of diachronic changesupported by Trousdale.



Final Remarks

Gracias!

Special thanks to:The Office of the Vice Present for Research at UGA (Grant#FG-022-777)Ana Mará Cestero Mancera, Francisco Moreno Fernández,José Portolés, and Salvador Pons Bordería for facilitatingdata gathering.Laura Wise and Lamar Graham for their help in organizingand transcribing different parts of these dataY unas gracias especiales para Susana Azpiazu por suamable invitación y ayuda durante todo este proceso.Slides are available athttp://faculty.franklin.uga.edu/chowe/.



Final Remarks

HAVE Perfects in Indo-European

Developed from a “[p]redicative possession expressed by atransitive verb with the prototypical meaning ‘hold in one’shand, possess”’ (Giacalone Ramat 2008:133)Typical of Standard Average European (cf. Dahl 1990:7)

(44) We were not allowed to speak to Omar Khadr, butDennis Edney, one of his lawyers, has visited him inGuantanamo several times. (COCA, 2007, oral)

(45) Creo que René Juárez ha hecho una muy buenacampaña, ha visitado todos los municipios (CdE, oral)



Final Remarks

Perfects/Anteriors and Perfectives

An ‘anterior’, as defined by Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca,“signals that the situation occurs prior to the reference timeand is relevant to the situation at reference time” (1994:54).Likewise, the Present Perfect in Spanish is said to contrastwith the pretérito in that the former encodes a notion ofpresent relevance (see, e.g., Alonso and Henríquez Ureña1941[1965]).Perfectives, on the other hand, are typically preferred overperfects for reference to discrete past events (i.e. withoutany relevance effects) and the sequencing of events in anarrative.


http://faculty.franklin.uga.edu/chowe/

Documents

Levinson (2009) on linguistic analysis the periphrastic ... · PDF filethe periphrastic past in Romance Chad Howe ... (17/61) of all continuative forms were PP: ... explanatory insight