The grammaticalization of manner expressions into complementizers:
Insights from Semitic languages
Rodrigo Hernáiz
53rd Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea 26th Aug 2020 Outline
• k-complementizers in Semitic languages
• Previous claims about their grammaticalization
• Data & evaluation (focus on Akkadian)
• Observations: ‘direct speech markers’ and nominal complementation
• Conclusions
2 k-complementizers in Semitic languages
Modern Hebrew ky; Tigrinya käm; Tigre kam; Geez† kama; Sabaic† k (dy); Biblical Hebrew† kī; Early Aramaic† k(y); Ugaritic† k(y); Akkadian† kīma;
(1) Ugaritic (Dietrich et al. 1995) 3200 ybp w ’id‘ k(y) ḥy al’iyn b‘l
and I.know COMP alive mighty Baal ‘And I know that mighty Baal is alive’.
(2) Tigre (Elias 2014) present time ḥətomʾāməraw la-mədarrəs kam ḥazzayom
they.M they.M.know DEF-teacher COMP he.want.them.M ‘They know that the teacher wants them’.
3 Previous hypotheses (I): causal marker k-
AKKADIAN: Deutscher (2000) (Givón (1991):The because-factive blend [Pre-Biblical Hebrew])
a. He said/spoke to the governor because (kīma) the barley was not collected
b. He said/spoke to the governor that (kīma) the barley was not collected.
MODERN HEBREW: Zuckermann’s (2006)
(3) Ha-neeshám zuka [ki hu khaf mi pésha] ‘The accused was acquitted [because he was innocent]’.
(4) Ha-neeshám taán [ki hu khaf mi pésha] ‘The accused claimed [that he was innocent]’. “[t]he rare complementizer ki ‘that’, which derives from the [Biblical] Hebrew complementizer kī ‘that’, from kī ‘because’”. Dixon et al. (2006): Complementation
A Cross-Linguistic Typology 4 Previous hypotheses (II): ‘comparative’ k-
AKKADIAN: Streck (2002)
“Vielmehr sprechen […] für eine Ableitung des Complementizer direkt aus komparativem kīma „wie””.
→ “In seiner wohl ursprünglichsten Verwendungsweise leitet kima Vergleichssätze ein”. (Hecker 1968)
TIGRINYA: Tewolde (2003) “The emergence and development of Tigrinya finite complements and complementizer, unlike those of Akkadian, rely only on the comparative meaning (not on the temporal or causal meanings) of käm.”
What can the oldest record of Semitic languages inform us about this grammaticalization process?
5 Akkadian kīma
1. Oldest Semitic record (1000+ years earlier than BH) 2. Only language allegedly documenting the emergence of complementation
No finite complementation: Emergence of finite kīma = causal complementation: kīma = causal conjunction & complementizer
(Deutscher 2000)
Fig. 1: Chronological stages of Akkadian
6 Old Akkadian period (based on data completeness*)
• Limited documentation.
• Evidence for complementation: Streck (2002) and Kraus (2018)
(5) Old Akkadian (Kraus 2018)
u anāku [kīma qībe-i ukall-u] ida
but I [COMP command-my he.hold.PRS-SUBJ] I.know.PRS ‘But I know that he holds my command’
• Causal kīma?
7 *record of translations published until 2018 Old Babylonian (based on data representativeness*)
1. Synchronic distribution of CTP “[o]ne may assume that the synchronic CTP distribution is still to some extent a reflection of the original bridging context ” (Schmidtke-Bode 2014)
Total instances of CTPs Cases of CTP with kīma-COMPL in ACCOB 40.00% 61 600
500 30.00% 400
300 20.00%
200 14 10.00% 7 100 3 4 4 0 0.00% SEE KNOW LEARN SPEAK/SAY HEAR PROVE SEE KNOW LEARN SPEAK/SAY HEAR PROVE Fig. 2 Fig. 3 % kima-COMPLEMENT
8 *Annotated Corpus of Correspondence in Old Babylonian (s. Hernáiz 2020) Old Babylonian (based on data representativeness)
2. Pragmatic settings: Negative ‘rhetorical’ questions (presupposed information)
(6) Old Babylonian (CUSAS 36,54) [kīma še’-am la išū] atta ula tidē
[COMP barley-ACC NEG he.have.PRS.SUBJ] you.M NEG you.know.PRS ‘Don’t you know that he has no barley?’
→ kī complements in Biblical Hebrew: Givón (1991), Cristofaro (1998)
Fig. 4 9 Old Babylonian (based on data representativeness)
3. Multifunctionality of kīma:
• infrequent with causal meaning
• the main complementizer
Fig. 4 10 Manner expression as source of complementizer
AKKADIAN INTERNAL FACTORS:
i) No evidence for CAUSAL predating COMPL in Old Akkadian
ii) Old Babylonian: improbable scenarios for ‘because-factive’ ambiguity
iii) Further remarks:
▪ Akkadian simulative clauses: kīma ša (REL) ‘as if’.
▪ The ‘as you know’ construction (Deutscher 2000): kīma tīd-û (2SG.know.PRS-SUBJ) ‘as you know, …’.
▪ Accord phrases and clauses.
▪ Functive: ša kīma ah-ia [REL kīma brother-my] ‘my brother’s representative’.
▪ Deutscher (2000): “The use of kīma with the proving verbs derives from its comparative or ‘equative’ role”. 11 Manner expression as source of complementizer
CROSS-SEMITIC:
[f]inite complements cannot be assumed to have existed in Proto-Semitic, [they] only developed in the historical period. The similarities between the Semitic languages therefore suggest that parallel developments of ki/kima as a complementizer took place in the different languages. (Deutscher 2000)
→ Shared retention?
→Parallel developments from causal manner > COMPL?
12 Manner expression as source of complementizer
CROSS-LINGUISTIC:
▪ Kuteva et al. (2019). World lexicon of grammaticalization
▪ Boye, K., & Kehayov, P. (2016). [a]lthough, […] complementizers are very often identical in form with adverbializers of purpose and reason, such adverbializers are missing from the list of their diachronic sources.
▪ Treis (2017): While formal overlaps between purpose and complement clauses are very common in Ethiopia and beyond, little overlap is observed between purpose and reason clauses.
→ SIMIL > COMPL Old multifunctionality similative-complement in the Ethiopian Language Area. (Treis 2017)
13 Manner expression as source of complementizer
a) k-complementizers and direct speech
b) Nominal complementation
14 k-complementizers and direct speech
Geez: „[a]m haufigsten dient kama ("dass") zur Einführung direkter Reden“ (Tropper 2002)
Biblical Hebrew: “kī may introduce direct speech”. (Zewi 1996)
Saxena (1995): thus: Direct Quote markers > complementizers
kī’am (ki + ’am): DEICTIC ‘thus’ → ‘Direct speech’ marker Old Babylonian: kīma (ki + ma): complementizer → Indirect speech marker
15 k-complementizers and direct speech
(7) Old Babylonian (Frankena 1966) kīam iqbi-am umma šu-ma [kaparru ša qāti-ni ana rēdî umtall-ū] kīam iqbi-am
thus he.say.PST-me QUOT he-P [shepherd.pl REL hand-our to soldier.PL hire.3PL-SUBJ] thus he.say.PST-me ‘Thus he told me: “shepherds in our service were hired as soldiers”. That’s what he told me.’
(8) Old Babylonian (Veenhof 2005) kīma bari-aku ul aqbi-kum
COMP starve.STAT-1SG NEG I.say.PST-him ‘Did I not tell you that I am starving?’
kīam and kīma share a core manner element in the reporting continuum
16 Nominal complementation
Old Assyrian:
Oldest large corpus with kīma-complementation (contra OB monogenesis)
“In OA, indirect speech is rare with speech verbs but common […] in complement clauses dependent on a noun” (Kouwenberg 2017) → tuppum ‘tablet (document)’, šēbum ‘witness’ …
(9) Old Assyrian (Kouwenberg 2017) awīlū anniūtum lu šēbū-ka [kīma kaspam ana ab-īa taddin-u]
man.PL DEM.PL PREC witness.PL-your [COMPL silver to father-my you.give.PST-SUBJ] ‘Let these men be your witnesses that you gave the silver to my father'
(10) Biblical Hebrew (Jos 22:34) ‘êḏ hū bênōṯê-nū [kî Yahweh hā-’ĕlōhîm]
witness he between-us [COMPL Yahweh ART-god.PL]
17 ‘a witness between us that the Lord is God.’ (King James’ transl.) Nominal complementation < manner expression
(11) Old Assyrian (TCL 14, 19: 15 and 20)
u têrtu-šu [kīma luqut-am ilqe-u] illik-am
and report.NOM-his [COMPL goods-ACC he.take.PST-SUBJ] he.come.PST-VENT ‘and his report [that/like/as he took the goods] came to me.’
“Certain nouns can be construed with a clause in the genitive case. Such a clause will also be called a complement clause. In our corpus they are found with nouns and noun phrases such as á-ág-gá ‘news’, dub ‘document’, inim ‘word’ , lú linim-ma ‘witness […]” (Jagersma 2010) (12) Sumerian (Isolate) (Jagersma 2010) [nusiki numakuš lú á tuku nu=na-gá~gá-a] DN=da PN=e inim-bé ka e-da-keše
[orphan widow man power have-NFIN NEG=3SG-place.PFV-NMLZ.GEN] DN=COM PN=ERG word=this.DIR mouth 3SG-with-bind
‘PN made an agreement with DN about that he would not surrender orphan or widow to the powerful.’ 18 Nominal complementation > Sentential compl.?
Not restricted to nouns as overt heads:
(13) Old Assyrian (CCT 2, 3:11-3) anniāt-em [kīma šabu-aku-ni] miššum it=tuppī-ka la talput-am
DEM.F.PL-OBL [COMPL pay.STAT-1SG-SUBJ] why in=tablet-your NEG you.touch.PST-VENT ‘Why have you not written this (lit. fem ‘these’), that I have been paid, to me in your tablet?’
? Headless version?
(14) Old Babylonian (Veenhof 2005) Ø [kīma bari-aku] ul aqbi-kum
[COMPL starve.STAT-1SG.SUBJ] NEG I.speak.PST-DAT.2M.SG ‘Did I not tell you that I am starving?’ 19 Nominal complementation > Sentential compl.?
• Comparable to the ‘noun channel’ (Heine and Kuteva 2007):
Generic NOUN (‘person’, ’thing’, ‘matter’) + REL > headless relative/complement clause.
(15) Old Babylonian (ARM 4, 28: 5-7) [kīma (..) ṣabam ana libbi-šu tu<š>erib-u] tašpur-am
[COMPL troops to heart-its you
You sent – (the message) – BE.LIKE/AS you brought in the troops
Predicate – (Object) – (Object/predicate) Complement
20 Conclusions
▪ Evidence for an earlier emergence of complementation in Semitic. ▪ Suggested shared retention for different Semitic languages, including those of the Ethiopian area.
▪ No evidence for causal adverbial clauses as source of complements. ▪ Suggested grammaticalization path from manner expressions to k-complementation.
Process? (Further research needed): ▪ Not clear evidence of a previous quotative stage in Old Babylonian; semantic and functional association between complementizers and ‘direct report markers’. ▪ Evidence for early nominal complementation in Semitic languages, resembling sentential complementation.
21 References ▪ Boye, K. and Kehayov, P. (Eds.) (2016): Complementizer semantics in European languages. De Gruyter Mouton. ▪ Cristofaro, S. (1998). Grammaticalization and clause linkage strategies: a typological approach with particular reference to Ancient Greek. In The limits of grammaticalization, 59-88. ▪ Deutscher, G. (2000). Syntactic change in Akkadian. The Evolution of Sentential Complementation. Oxford University Press. ▪ Dietrich, M., Loretz, O. and Sanmartín, J. (1995). The Cuneiform alphabetic texts: from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and other places (KTU). Ugarit-Verlag. ▪ Dixon, R. M. and Aikhenvald, A. Y. (Eds.) (2006) Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford University Press ▪ Elias, D. (2014). The Tigre Language of Gindaˁ, Eritrea: Short Grammar and Texts. Brill. ▪ Frankena, R. (1966). Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung (AbB). Briefe aus dem British Museum (Vol. 2). Brill. ▪ Giacalone Ramat, A., and Hopper, P. J. (Eds.). (1998). The limits of grammaticalization (Vol. 37). John Benjamins. ▪ Givón, T. (1991). The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. Approaches to grammaticalization, 2, 257-310. ▪ Hecker, K. (1968). Grammatik der Kultepe-Texte. Pontificio Istituto Biblico.. ▪ Heine, B., and Kuteva, T. (2007). The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. Oxford University Press. ▪ Hernáiz, R. (2020). Studies on linguistic and orthographic variation in Old Babylonian letters. Ugarit-Verlag. ▪ Jagersma, B. (2010). A descriptive grammar of Sumerian. Universiteit Leiden. ▪ Kouwenberg, N. J. C. (2017). A grammar of Old Assyrian. Brill. ▪ Kraus, N. (2018). The weapon of Blood: Politics and Intrigue at the Decline of Akkad. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archeologie 108(1), 1-9. ▪ Kuteva, T., Heine, B., Hong, B., Long, H., Narrog, H., and Rhee, S. (2019). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ▪ Saxena, A. (1995). Unidirectional grammaticalization: diachronic and cross-linguistic evidence. STUF-Language Typology and Universals, 48(4), 350-372. ▪ Schmidtke-Bode, K. (2014). Complement clauses and complementation systems: A cross-linguistic study of grammatical organization (Doctoral dissertation, Thüringer Universitäts-und Landesbibliothek Jena). ▪ Stola, R. (1972). Zur Subjunktion kīma im Altbabylonischen und Altassyrischen. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 63, 69-104. ▪ Streck, M. P. (2002). Review of Deutscher, G. 2000, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archeologie 92(1), 140-5. ▪ Tewolde, T. (2003). Some points of comparison between Akkadian kīma and Tigrinya käm. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Hamburg, 876-884. ▪ Traugott, E. C., & Heine, B. (Eds.). (1991). Approaches to Grammaticalization: Volume II. Types of grammatical markers (Vol. 19, No. 2). John Benjamins. ▪ Treis, Y., & Vanhove, M. (Eds.). (2017). Similative and equative constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective (Vol. 117). John Benjamins. ▪ Veenhof, K. R. (2005). Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung (AbB). Letters in the Louvre (Vol. 14). Brill. ▪ Zewi, T. (1996). Subordinate Nominal Sentences Involving Prolepsis in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Semitic Studies, 41(1), 1-20. 22 ▪ Zuckermann, G. A. (2006). ‘Complement clause types in Israeli’, in Dixon, R. M. and Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2006.) Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology, 72-92.