Tense and Aspect in Periphrastic Pasts: Evidence from Iberian Romance Matthew Lam bert Juge B.A. (University of Virginia) 1992 M.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 1994 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor o f Philosophy in Linguistics in the GRADUATE DIVISION o f the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Andrew Garrett, Chair Professor Gary B. Holland, Professor Thomas F. Shannon Spring 2002 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tense and Aspect in Periphrastic Pasts: Evidence from Iberian Romance Copyright 2002 by Matthew Lambert Juge Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A bstract Tense and Aspect in Periphrastic Pasts: Evidence from Iberian Romance by Matthew Lambert Juge Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professor Andrew Garrett, Chair Cross-linguistic similarities can result from shared history, borrowing, or parallel development, in which case the similarities may be due to universal tendencies or coincidence. For example, many languages have auxiliary verbs meaning ‘be’, ‘have’, ‘come’, or ‘go’. In some cases, different languages’ auxiliaries are very similar; for example, many future markers mean ‘want’. Other cases are more complicated; for instance, some future auxiliaries mean ‘go’ , but some mean ‘come’. Furthermore, divergent developments of the same verb show that these paths are not predictable simply from basic meanings. This dissertation examines the development of past tense auxiliaries from ‘be’, ‘have’, and ‘go’ in the Iberian Romance languages (Catalan, Portuguese, and Spanish) with emphasis on both diachronic and synchronic patterns, specifically addressing universal versus language-specific factors and comparing developments in the Romance languages and other language families. I argue that the development of verbs with these meanings into auxiliaries is motivated by syntactic and lexical semantic characteristics of the verbs, the nature of constructions, pragmatics, and discourse patterns. I also discuss the role of valence, I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. metonymy, inference, reanalysis, and analogy. I integrate these considerations with current understanding of grammaticalization in particular and language change in general. My research suggests that the participation of a small set of basic meanings in a wide array of constructions results from the relatedness of many of these constructions and the general nature of the processes of grammaticalization. I challenge accepted views on metaphor, unidirectionality, and. grammaticalization as a problem-solving process. Because of the interaction of different grammatical components in grammaticalization, this study has implications for the nature of language change and of synchronic grammars. This is so because language change is ongoing and because the synchronic linguistic situation determines how a language will change. The study will also be useful to typologists and cognitive linguists. The dissertation will also be a source on the history of these phenomena in Iberian Romance. A detailed account of the diachronic and modem synchronic situation will interest various researchers, including those seeking parallels to developments in other language families and those investigating related phenomena in the Romance languages. 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. F o r Jam ie i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Acknowledgements I am not the first to observe that dissertation writing, a supposedly solitary process, in fact depends on the aid and support of many people. The people who made this piece of work possible fall into a number of groups. Let me first mention my fellow graduate students, in particular Andy Dolbey, David Peterson, and Bill Weigel, who provided me with numerous opportunities to try out ideas and who also gave me the chance to decompress by temporarily forgetting about linguistics altogether. My professors, of course, helped my direct my efforts so that I didn’t waste my time or theirs. Offering a different kind of support were my family, who helped to shape (starting decades ago) my intellectual curiosity that led me to linguistics and supported me every step along the way. Lastly, in a class all by herself, my wife Jamie Lawrence always knew what I needed and gave it so generously and lovingly that I could not possibly have done it without her. ii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C ontents Definitions and conventions .................................................................................. I I Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3 LI The aims of the ptesent work -------------------------------------------------------------4 1.2 The structure of the Romance subfamily of languages ____________________ 5 13 Previous grammaticaiization research .................................................................. 7 1.4 The Romance languages of the Iberian Peninsula ................................................7 13 The verbs BE, have , come , and GO...................................................................... 12 1.5.1 be and have ........................................................................................................... 13 1.5.2 come and GO .......................... 16 1.5.3 Summary............................................................................................................. 17 1.6 Theoretical issues ................................................................................................ 18 1.6.1 The Cooperative Principle.....................................................................................18 1.6.2 Linguistic constructions and Construction Grammar -------------------------------21 1.6.2.1 Introduction to Construction Grammar ................................................................2 1 1.6.2.2 Constructions and language change ..................................................................... 23 1.6.2.2.1 Constructionalization ............................................................................................24 1.6 3 .2 3 . Reconstructionalization ____________________________________________ 26 1.6.2.3 Motivation in grammatical constructions ..........................................................26 1.6.2.4 Compositionality in grammatical constructions ----------------------------------- 27 1.63 Semantic change ................................................................................................. 27 1.63.1 Lexical semantics ................................................................................................ 27 1.6 3 2 . Metonymy and metaphor --------------------------------------------------------------- 28 1.633 Semantic change in grammaticalization and elsewhere _________________ 29 1.6.4 Pragmatic factors ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 1 1.63 Phonological change and grammaticalization ............ 32 1.6.6 Morphological change ------------------------------------------------------------------- 34 1.6.6.1 The loss and creation of grammatical categories .............................................. 34 1.6.6.1.1 The creation of grammatical categories ............... 34 1.6.6.1.2 Shift of grammatical categories --------------------------------------------------------35 1.6.6.1.2.1 Shift into old grammatical categories ................................................................ 35 1.6.6.13.2 Shift into new grammatical categories ............................................................... 36 1.6.6.13 The loss of grammatical categories -------------------------------------------------- 36 1.6.63 Analogy, contamination, and other morphological effects -----------------------36 1.6.7 Syntactic change ________________________________________________ 37 1.6.8 The role of ‘problems’ and teleology in grammaticalization -------------------- 37 1.6.9 Mechanisms of change and implications for grammaticalization theory 39 1.6.9.1 Sources and pathways of development -----------------------------------------------40 1.6.9.1.1 Generality and lexical semantics ------------------------------------------------------ 40 1.6.9.13 Semantic prerequisites to grammaticalization _________________________ 41 1.6.9.1.3 Generalization ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41 1.6.9.1.4 Subjectification ----------------------------------------------------------------------------42 1.6.9.2 Morphosyntactic considerations in grammaticalization _________________ 44 iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1.6.9.2.1 ‘Gaps' in auxiliaries ______________________________________________ 44 1.6.9.2.2 The prevalence of present tense morphology in auxiliaries --------------------- 44 1.6.9.3 Degrees of grammaticalization _____________________________________ 45 1.6.10 Broader theoretical issues. -------------------------------------------------------------- 45 1.6.10.1 The relation between diachrony