Proquest Dissertations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy sutxnitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter ^ce, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. Bell & Howell Information and Leaming 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 ____ ® UMI THE EVOLUTION OF THE SLAVIC ‘BE(COME)’- TYPE COMPOUND FUTURE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Marika Lynn Whaley, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2000 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Dr. Daniel E. Collins, Adviser Dr. Charles E. Cribble Adviser Dr. Brian D. Joseph Department of Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures UMI Number 9983007 Copyright 2000 by Whaley, Marika Lynn All rights reserved. UMI UMI Microform9983007 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Leaming Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Bell & Howell Information and Leaming Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. 80x1346 Ann Artx)r, Ml 48106-1346 Copyright by Marika Lynn Whaley 2000 ABSTRACT Among the Slavic languages, the standard languages of Russian, Ukrainian. Belarusan, Polish, Kashubian, Sorbian, Czech, Slovak, and Slovene, as well as some Serbo-Croatian dialects, can all express futurity with a construction comprised of an auxiliary derived from the nonpast of *byti ‘be(come)’ in combination with either the infinitive or the /-participle. In addition, the standard language and many dialects of Serbo-Croatian use this type of construction to express future-perfect meaning—a usage also known from Old Church Slavonic and Rus'ian. Despite the wide distribution of this type of construction in Slavic, a 'be(come)-type future cannot be reconstructed for the proto-language Common Slavic. The question of how a 'be(come)-type future developed in Slavic is difficult to answer with certainty. Previous scholarship has sought the source of this future in either non-Slavic material or as a development internal to Slavic. Problems with previous theories are encountered with synchronic issues concerning the morphosyntactic constraints on be-future constructions and the semantics of tense and aspect, as well as diachronic issues concerning textual evidence and plausible paths of grammaticalization. Thus the subject, though much studied, is still unresolved. This study draws on recent general-linguistic work on the development of u grammatical categories to provide a fresh perspective on this problem. It reevaluates the commonly known hypotheses on the development of the Slavic be-fiiture and presents a new, comprehensive analysis of the evolution of the construction. Its approach is based on the idea that semantics and semantic change motivate syntactic change. By systematically analyzing the semantics of the change-of-state verb *byti using reductive paraphrases, this study shows that the verb most likely grammaticalized into a future auxiliary autochthonously. Moreover, a comparison of the reductive paraphrases of change-of-state and inceptive verbs shows that the coUigability constraints on many "be(come)'-type futures can be explained by positing that the change-of-state verb underwent a semantic shift into an inceptive. This new perspective provides a more satisfactory synchronic and diachronic description of this type of future than has been presented previously. m To Steve, ljubimyj IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would Like to acknowledge my husband Steve Fridella, my sine qua non. I also express my sincerest thanks to my adviser Daniel Collins for all the time, energy, and ink he has devoted to my endeavor. He has always challenged me to become a better scholar and I have benefited greatly from his guidance. All uses of intercalated “however” in this work, however, are entirely my responsibility. 1 am also grateful to those who found the time to discuss and evaluate my work: Way les Browne. Joan Bybee, Bernard Comrie, and the other members of my committee, Charles Cribble and Brian Joseph. Finally, 1 wish to thank the many people who lent their support and encouragement to me whUe I was in the process of writing this dissertation: my family, my peers in the Slavic Department graduate program, and all my friends who knew better than to ask me for a detailed explanation of my subject matter. VITA March 11. 1973 ..................................Bom - Stow, Ohio, USA 1991...................................................B.A. History, College of William and Mary 199 4...................................................M.A. Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures, The Ohio State University 1993-2000.........................................Graduate Teaching and Research Associate, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS 1. Marika Whaley. 1999. Tracing the origins of the Slavic imperfective be-future. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 52, 159—71. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures VI TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ....................................................................................................................................ü Dedication...............................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................v V ita ......................................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables........................................................................................................................... x List of Figures........................................................................................................................ xi Chapters: 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. I 1.1 Overview of the problem .......................................................................................... I 1.2 The be-future in S la v ic ............................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Future-tense marking in Slavic ................................................................ 4 1.2.2 The status of the imperfective future tense ............................................. 6 1.3 Outline of the study .................................................................................................. 11 1.3.1 Analysis of the data .................................................................................. 11 1.3.2 Evaluation of previous scholarship.......................................................... 14 1.3.3 Theoretical framework ............................................................................. 15 1.3.4 A new theory of the Slavic be-future ...................................................... 18 2. The Slavic Data ........................................................................................................... 20 2.0 The Proto-Indo-European future ............................................................................. 20 2.1 The etymology and meaning of*bqd~ ..................................................................... 21 Vll 2.2 The origins of the Slavic be-future........................................................................ 23 2.2.1 Old Church Slavonic ............................................................................... 23 2.2.2 Placing the be-future within the context of chronology......................... 25 2.3 Slovene ....................................................................................................................... 26 2.3.1 Usage ......................................................................................................... 26 2.3.2 Chronology................................................................................................ 27 2.4 Serbo-Croatian......................................................................................................... 28 2.4.1 Usage ......................................................................................................... 28 2.4.2 Chronology...............................................................................................