Diachronic Typology and Linguistic Diversity

A brief overview of

diachronic typology

Eitan Grossman (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Academia Grammaticorum Salensis 24-30 July 2022

Some questions

•

Why are linguistic properties distributed the way they are across

languages in time and space (Greenberg 1978, Nichols 1992, Bickel

2007)?

•

Why are some linguistic properties common, and others rare

(Greenberg 1978, Harris 2008, Wohlgemuth & Cysouw 2009)?

•

It is probably easier to explain the universal absence or the universal

presence of a property, but such absolute universals are often rare, or

are trivial or even simply definitional criteria of language, and often

have more to do with communication than with linguistic structure.

T

h

e

p

a

s

t

t

e

n

s

e

i

n

a

s

a

m

p

l

e

o

f

t

h

e

w

o

r

l

d

’

s

l

a

n

g

u

a

g

e

s

(

D

a

h

l

&

V

e

l

u

p

i

l

l

a

i

2

0

1

3

)

S

o

u

r

c

e

s

o

f

c

r

o

s

s

l

i

n

g

u

i

s

t

i

c

f

r

e

q

u

e

n

c

y

a

s

y

m

m

e

t

r

i

e

s

?

•

C

o

n

s

t

r

a

i

n

t

s

o

n

p

r

o

c

e

s

s

i

n

g

?

•

C

o

n

s

t

r

a

i

n

t

s

o

n

m

e

m

o

r

y

?

•

C

o

n

s

t

r

a

i

n

t

s

o

n

l

e

a

r

n

a

b

i

l

i

t

y

?

•

C

o

n

s

t

r

a

i

n

t

s

o

n

a

r

t

i

c

u

l

a

t

i

o

n

?

•

C

o

n

s

t

r

a

i

n

t

s

o

n

p

e

r

c

e

p

t

i

o

n

?

•

G

e

n

e

t

i

c

a

l

l

y

-

d

e

t

e

r

m

i

n

e

d

U

n

i

v

e

r

s

a

l

G

r

a

m

m

a

r

?

•

W

h

a

t

a

b

o

u

t

c

o

n

s

t

r

a

i

n

t

s

o

n

s

o

c

i

a

l

i

n

t

e

r

a

c

t

i

o

n

?

But how do these constraints translate into

language structure?

I

s

t

h

e

r

e

a

d

i

r

e

c

t

m

a

p

p

i

n

g

b

e

t

w

e

e

n

c

o

g

n

i

t

i

o

n

o

r

p

h

y

s

i

o

l

o

g

y

a

n

d

l

a

n

g

u

a

g

e

s

t

r

u

c

t

u

r

e

s

,

o

r

i

s

t

h

i

s

c

o

n

n

e

c

t

i

o

n

m

e

d

i

a

t

e

d

s

o

m

e

h

o

w

,

a

n

d

i

f

s

o

,

b

y

w

h

a

t

?

An underappreciated aspect of Greenbergian

typology

W

h

a

t

m

e

d

i

a

t

e

s

b

e

t

w

e

e

n

c

o

g

n

i

t

i

o

n

/

p

h

y

s

i

o

l

o

g

y

a

n

d

l

a

n

g

u

a

g

e

s

t

r

u

c

t

u

r

e

s

i

s

l

a

n

g

u

a

g

e

c

h

a

n

g

e

.

Greenberg (1978)

“If a particular phenomenon can arise very frequently and is highly

stable once it occurs, it should be universal or near universal (…). If it

tends to come into existence often and in various ways, but its stability

is low, it should be found fairly often but distributed relatively evenly

among genetic linguistic stocks. […] If a particular property rarely arises

but is highly stable when it arises, it should be fairly frequent on a global

scale but be largely confined to a few genetic stocks. If it occurs only

rarely and is unstable when it occurs, it should be highly infrequent or

non-existent or sporadic in its genealogical and genetic distribution”

(Greenberg 1978: 76).

Diachronic typology

Diachronic typology is the typological study of processes of language

change and their causes.

Diachronic typology

Cross-linguistically recurrent categories are generally assumed to be the

result of cross-linguistically recurrent patterns of grammaticalization or

other general and regular processes of change.

Joan Bybee, William Pagliuca & Revere Perkins (1994), 

The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, aspect and

modality in the languages of the world

. Chicago.

Diachronic typology

Cross-linguistically recurrent sound patterns are generally assumed to

be the result of cross-linguistically recurrent patterns of sound change

and retention.

For example, nasal vowels are typically the result of VN sequences in

which the vowel is contextually nasalized, and the nasal consonant is

eventually lost. The nasality of the vowel can subsequently be lost

(Greenberg 1969).

Diachronic typology

More broadly, synchronic distributions are the result of biases in language change, which

are in turn rooted in a variety of factors, including usage biases.

•

Joseph Greenberg

•

Talmy Givón

•

Charles Ferguson

•

John Ohala

•

Joan Bybee

•

Juliette Blevins

•

Spike Gildea

•

Andrea Sansò

•

Sonia Cristofaro

Diachronic typology

Focusing the question

Why do some categories become conventionalized (grammaticalized or

phonemicized) in many – but not all – languages?

A possible answer

From the point of view of diachronic typology, cross-linguistically common

categories are common because they involve (Grossman 2016, Grossman et al

2018, Grossman & Polis 2018)):

1.

T

Y

P

E

:

t

h

e

t

y

p

e

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

i

s

c

o

m

m

o

n

(

v

s

.

r

a

r

e

t

y

p

e

s

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

)

2.

P

A

T

H

:

m

u

l

t

i

p

l

e

p

a

t

h

w

a

y

s

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

t

h

a

t

c

o

n

v

e

r

g

e

(

v

s

.

a

s

i

n

g

l

e

p

a

t

h

w

a

y

)

3.

S

T

A

G

E

:

o

n

e

-

s

t

e

p

o

r

s

i

m

p

l

e

p

a

t

h

w

a

y

s

o

f

d

e

v

e

l

o

p

m

e

n

t

(

v

s

.

m

a

n

y

-

s

t

e

p

o

r

c

o

m

p

l

e

x

p

a

t

h

w

a

y

s

)

4.

S

O

U

R

C

E

:

c

o

m

m

o

n

s

o

u

r

c

e

c

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

s

v

s

.

r

a

r

e

s

o

u

r

c

e

c

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

s

5.

S

T

A

B

I

L

I

T

Y

:

o

n

c

e

g

r

a

m

m

a

t

i

c

a

l

i

z

e

d

,

t

h

e

c

a

t

e

g

o

r

y

t

y

p

e

t

e

n

d

s

t

o

b

e

s

t

a

b

l

e

6.

D

I

F

F

U

S

A

B

I

L

I

T

Y

:

t

h

e

c

a

t

e

g

o

r

y

s

p

r

e

a

d

s

e

a

s

i

l

y

v

i

a

l

a

n

g

u

a

g

e

c

o

n

t

a

c

t

.

Mutatis mutandis

The more that these factors converge, the more common a particular

category will be, cross-linguistically.

And cross-linguistic rarities can be explained by the convergence of

these factors, but in reverse.

Some brief examples from phonology

Northwest Mekeo (Austronesian) lacks any coronal segments, the result of 3 distinct

processes of change, some of which are rare. However, the language is now

developing allophonic coronals, so the state of having no coronals seems to be

inherently unstable (Blevins 2009).

Aspirated fricatives are very rare (Jacques 2011). Interestingly, they can develop

along multiple pathways from common sources, but they seem to be perceptually

similar to other sounds, which leads them to quickly merge.

Similarly, Nikolaev & Grossman (2018) show that affricate-dense inventories develop

from common sources through common types of change, but they are unstable

unless supported by language contact, i.e., they are lost when isolated areally.

Some brief examples from phonology

On the other hand, Bybee & Easterday (2022) show that while ejectives can develop

from common source patterns in relatively simple processes (like the fusion of a

voiceless obstruent with a following glottal stop), there is little evidence for such

changes to be the source of most ejectives in the world’s languages.

Ejectives may simply be very old and very stable in the parts of the world where they

are documented.

Summary

In contrast to traditional (and some contemporary) views, the cross-

linguistic frequency or rarity of a category is not simple a reflection of

cognitive, physical, or social biases or constraints.

Rather, cross-linguistic frequency distributions are the result of different

factors, which may act independently and interact.

Summary

1.

T

Y

P

E

:

t

h

e

t

y

p

e

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

i

s

c

o

m

m

o

n

(

v

s

.

r

a

r

e

t

y

p

e

s

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

)

2.

P

A

T

H

:

m

u

l

t

i

p

l

e

p

a

t

h

w

a

y

s

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

t

h

a

t

c

o

n

v

e

r

g

e

(

v

s

.

a

s

i

n

g

l

e

p

a

t

h

w

a

y

)

3.

S

T

A

G

E

:

o

n

e

-

s

t

e

p

o

r

s

i

m

p

l

e

p

a

t

h

w

a

y

s

o

f

d

e

v

e

l

o

p

m

e

n

t

(

v

s

.

m

a

n

y

-

s

t

e

p

o

r

c

o

m

p

l

e

x

p

a

t

h

w

a

y

s

)

4.

S

O

U

R

C

E

:

c

o

m

m

o

n

s

o

u

r

c

e

c

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

s

v

s

.

r

a

r

e

s

o

u

r

c

e

c

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

s

5.

S

T

A

B

I

L

I

T

Y

:

o

n

c

e

g

r

a

m

m

a

t

i

c

a

l

i

z

e

d

,

t

h

e

c

a

t

e

g

o

r

y

t

y

p

e

t

e

n

d

s

t

o

b

e

s

t

a

b

l

e

6.

D

I

F

F

U

S

A

B

I

L

I

T

Y

:

t

h

e

c

a

t

e

g

o

r

y

s

p

r

e

a

d

s

e

a

s

i

l

y

v

i

a

l

a

n

g

u

a

g

e

c

o

n

t

a

c

t

.

Universally dispreferred

structures through change

The diachrony of affix ordering in Egyptian-Coptic

Eitan Grossman (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)  & Stéphane Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

Academia Grammaticorum Salensis 24-30 July 2022

Outline of the talk

•

I

n

t

r

o

d

u

c

t

i

o

n

O

b

s

e

r

v

a

t

i

o

n

.

A

w

o

r

l

d

w

i

d

e

p

r

e

f

e

r

e

n

c

e

f

o

r

s

u

f

f

i

x

e

s

a

s

o

p

p

o

s

e

d

t

o

a

f

f

i

x

e

s

A

r

g

u

m

e

n

t

.

R

a

r

e

o

r

u

n

i

v

e

r

s

a

l

l

y

d

i

s

p

r

e

f

e

r

r

e

d

s

t

r

u

c

t

u

r

e

s

c

a

n

a

n

d

d

o

a

r

i

s

e

a

s

t

h

e

r

e

s

u

l

t

o

f

r

e

g

u

l

a

r

l

a

n

g

u

a

g

e

c

h

a

n

g

e

,

g

i

v

e

n

t

h

e

r

i

g

h

t

b

a

c

k

g

r

o

u

n

d

s

t

r

u

c

t

u

r

e

s

a

s

t

h

e

p

a

r

t

i

c

u

l

a

r

‘

e

c

o

l

o

g

y

’

i

n

w

h

i

c

h

c

h

a

n

g

e

t

a

k

e

s

p

l

a

c

e

•

C

a

s

e

-

s

t

u

d

y

:

E

g

y

p

t

i

a

n

-

C

o

p

t

i

c

(

A

f

r

o

a

s

i

a

t

i

c

)

Long-term diachronic macro-change from mixed suffixing-prefixing to an 

overwhelming preference for

prefixing

•

C

o

n

c

l

u

s

i

o

n

s

•

Each of the micro-changes implicated in this macro-change are better understood in terms of changes at

the level of individual constructions, via grammaticalization, rather than in terms of a broad Sapirian

‘drift.’

•

These micro-changes take place at different times and have different rates

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

22

A worldwide preference for

suffixes as opposed to prefixes

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

23

Preference for suffixes

•

There is a worldwide preference for suffixes as opposed to prefixes in a proportion of about 3 to 1

in the languages of the world (Bybee et al. 1990, Cysouw 2009, Greenberg 1957, Hall 1998,

Hawkins & Cutler 1988, Himmelmann 2014, Sapir 1921, and more)

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

24

Preference for suffixes

•

There is a worldwide preference for suffixes as opposed to prefixes in a proportion of about 3 to 1

in the languages of the world (Bybee et al. 1990, Cysouw 2009, Greenberg 1957, Hall 1998,

Hawkins & Cutler 1988, Himmelmann 2014, Sapir 1921, and more)

•

Two distinct universal preferences

 (

Himmelmann 2014): grammatical morphemes have a significant

tendency

(a) to be postposed and

(b) to be bound, i.e., suffixes

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

25

Table 1. 

The suffixing preference in verbal grammatical elements from 71 languages

(Himmelmann 2014, from the database of Bybee et al. 1990: 5)

Preference for suffixes

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

26

Preference for suffixes

Explanations provided (so far)

•

‘it does not seem to be a fruitful approach to consider the suffixation preference as a monolithic

observation to be explained by one overarching theory of linguistic affixation’ (Cysouw 2003).

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

27

Preference for suffixes

•

Explanations provided (so far)

•

‘it does not seem to be a fruitful approach to consider the suffixation preference as a monolithic

observation to be explained by one overarching theory of linguistic affixation’ (Cysouw 2003).

•

Macro-characteristics of individual languages (e.g., Nichols 1986, Haspelmath et al. 2014) result

from generalizations made over individual constructions

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

28

Preference for suffixes

•

This is captured by Dryer’s (2013) method for comparing the degree to which languages are

characterized by a preference for prefixing, suffixing, or neither.

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

29

Table 2. 

Types of inflexional affixes (Dryer 2013)

Preference for suffixes

•

Following Dryer (2013), a language receives

•

a single point for prefixing or suffixing if it is 

predominantly

 prefixing or suffixing for a given parameter,

•

half a point for each if it has both prefixing and suffixing, with 

neither deemed dominant

•

no point when there is no affixing for a given parameter

•

The first three parameters (case affixes on nouns, subject and tense-aspect affixes in verbs) are

deemed especially important: their score is doubled

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

30

Preference for suffixes

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

31

Table 3. 

Suffixing vs Prefixing in Inflectional

Morphology (Dryer 2003)

Preference for suffixes

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

32

Table 3. 

Suffixing vs Prefixing in Inflectional

Morphology (Dryer 2003)

Interim summary

•

As far as inflectional morphemes are concerned, typology

corroborates a worldwide preference for postposed and suffixed

elements.

•

Languages that are predominantly prefixing are rare.

Ancient Egyptian-Coptic

Long-term changes towards a predominantly prefixing language

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

34

Ancient Egyptian-Coptic

•

Background information

•

An independent branch of the Afroasiatic phylum or ‘quasi-stock’

•

F

irst attested at the end of the fourth millenium BCE, and documented continually until sometime in the

13

th

 or 14

th

 century CE, when all of its speakers shifted to Arabic

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

35

Ancient Egyptian-Coptic

•

Background information

•

Standardly divided into five stages and and two macro-phases

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

36

Table 4. 

Stages of Egyptian-Coptic (as discussed here

)

Ancient Egyptian-Coptic

•

Background information

•

Standardly divided into five stages and and two macro-phases

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

37

Table 4. 

Stages of Egyptian-Coptic (as discussed here

)

Ancient Egyptian-Coptic

•

Background information

•

Coptic is a predominantly prefixing language

•

Earlier Egyptian is not:

•

Dominant VSO order of major constituents

•

A small number (1-3) of postposed or suffixed inflectional

morphemes on nouns and verbs

•

A diachronic trend from synthetic to analytic to agglutination and

polysynthesis (

anasynthesis

, Haspelmath 2011)

•

A diachronic trend towards prefixed grammatical elements

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

38

Ancient Egyptian-Coptic

39

Table 5. 

Calculation of the affixing index for Coptic

Ancient Egyptian-Coptic

40

Table 5. 

Calculation of the affixing index for Coptic

Ancient Egyptian-Coptic

41

Table 5. 

Calculation of the affixing index for Coptic

Ancient Egyptian-Coptic

•

Background information

•

Coptic is a predominantly prefixing language

•

With its extremely high prefixing preference (12/13), Coptic belongs to the

rare 6% or so of languages that are predominantly prefixing.

•

Moreover, it has a higher prefixing index than any other language in Dryer’s

969-language sample. (The closest competitor is Hunde [Bantu; Democratic

Republic of Congo; Kahombo 1992], with a prefixing index of 9.5/13.)

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

42

Ancient Egyptian-Coptic

•

Background information

•

Coptic is a predominantly prefixing language

•

With its extremely high prefixing preference (12/13), Coptic belongs to the rare

6% or so of languages that are predominantly prefixing.

•

Moreover, it has a higher prefixing index than any other language in Dryer’s

969-language sample. (The closest competitor is Hunde [Bantu; Democratic

Republic of Congo; Kahombo 1992], with a prefixing index of 9.5/13.)

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

43

•

Coptic is an areal outlier

–

While predominantly

prefixing languages are

relatively common in

Mesoamerica and in Africa,

within Africa it is only in

western and southern sub-

Saharan Africa that

predominant prefixing is

common

A

t

e

m

p

l

a

t

e

f

o

r

n

o

u

n

m

o

r

p

h

o

s

y

n

t

a

x

A

t

e

m

p

l

a

t

e

f

o

r

v

e

r

b

m

o

r

p

h

o

s

y

n

t

a

x

The diachrony of affix ordering

Methodology

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

46

For diachronic purposes, a modified form of Dryer’s typology is useful.

Rather than limiting the score to 0 for no affix, 1 for either suffixing or prefixing,

and 0.5 for both prefixing and affixing, we suggest using two scales, both of

which admit a more fine-grained analysis

The diachrony of affix ordering

Methodology

47

Table 6. 

A finer-grained index for affixing

Coptic

•

Prefixed case markers (on postverbal

noun phrases in S, A, or P role)

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

48

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 1 

–

 Case affixes on nouns

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Prefixed case markers (on postverbal

noun phrases in S, A, or P role)

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

49

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 1 

–

 Case affixes on nouns

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Prefixed case markers (on postverbal

noun phrases in S, A, or P role)

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

50

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 1 

–

 Case affixes on nouns

T

y

p

e

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

:

(

s

e

c

o

n

d

a

r

y

)

g

r

a

m

m

a

t

i

c

a

l

i

z

a

t

i

o

n

(

f

r

o

m

p

r

e

p

o

s

i

t

i

o

n

t

o

a

c

c

u

s

a

t

i

v

e

c

a

s

e

m

a

r

k

e

r

,

a

n

d

f

r

o

m

a

n

t

i

t

o

p

i

c

m

a

r

k

e

r

t

o

n

o

m

i

n

a

t

i

v

e

m

a

r

k

e

r

)

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Prefixed subject affixes on verbs

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

51

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 2 

–

 Subject affixes on verbs

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Prefixed subject affixes on verbs

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

52

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 2 

–

 Subject affixes on verbs

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Prefixed subject affixes on verbs

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

53

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 2 

–

 Subject affixes on verbs

T

y

p

e

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

:

d

e

v

e

l

o

p

m

e

n

t

o

f

a

n

e

w

p

r

o

n

o

u

n

p

a

r

a

d

i

g

m

(

w

h

i

c

h

g

r

a

d

u

a

l

l

y

b

e

c

o

m

e

s

a

s

u

b

j

e

c

t

p

r

e

f

i

x

)

a

n

d

t

h

e

s

h

i

f

t

o

f

a

m

i

n

o

r

u

s

a

g

e

p

a

t

t

e

r

n

(

a

p

e

r

i

p

h

r

a

s

t

i

c

c

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

i

n

v

o

l

v

i

n

g

a

n

a

u

x

i

l

i

a

r

y

)

t

o

a

m

a

j

o

r

p

a

t

t

e

r

n

Coptic

•

Prefixed tense-aspect affixes on verbs

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

54

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 3 

–

 Tense-aspect affixes on verbs

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Prefixed tense-aspect affixes on verbs

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

55

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 3 

–

 Tense-aspect affixes on verbs

Anasynthesis of the verb

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Prefixed tense-aspect affixes on verbs

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

57

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 3 

–

 Tense-aspect affixes on verbs

T

y

p

e

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

:

O

l

d

t

e

n

s

e

-

a

s

p

e

c

t

s

u

f

f

i

x

e

s

a

r

e

l

o

s

t

,

w

h

i

l

e

n

e

w

T

A

M

m

a

r

k

e

r

s

a

r

e

g

r

a

m

m

a

t

i

c

a

l

i

z

e

d

f

r

o

m

a

u

x

i

l

i

a

r

y

v

e

r

b

s

i

n

p

e

r

i

p

h

r

a

s

t

i

c

c

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

s

.

Since the linear order of these grammaticalizing constructions follows that of basic

verbal clauses, i.e., VSO/AuxSV, the result is tense-aspect prefixes.

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Productive: prefixed plural markers

•

Non-productive: 

plural-suffixing

construction (which often involves

stem-internal alternations)

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

58

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 4 

–

 Plural affixes on nouns

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Productive: prefixed plural markers

•

Non-productive: 

plural-suffixing

construction (which often involves

stem-internal alternations)

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

59

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 4 

–

 Plural affixes on nouns

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

Coptic

•

Productive: prefixed plural markers

•

Non-productive: 

plural-suffixing

construction (which often involves

stem-internal alternations)

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

60

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 4 

–

 Plural affixes on nouns

T

y

p

e

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

:

e

m

e

r

g

e

n

c

e

o

f

n

e

w

p

r

e

p

o

s

e

d

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

s

t

h

a

t

u

n

a

m

b

i

g

u

o

u

s

l

y

m

a

r

k

n

u

m

b

e

r

,

a

n

d

l

o

s

s

o

f

p

l

u

r

a

l

s

u

f

f

i

x

e

s

.

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Productive: prefixed possessives on

nouns

•

Non-productive: suffixed possessives 

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

61

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 5 

–

 Possessive affixes on nouns

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Productive: prefixed possessives on

nouns

•

Non-productive: suffixed possessives 

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

62

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 5 

–

 Possessive affixes on nouns

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

Coptic

•

Productive: prefixed possessives on

nouns

•

Non-productive: suffixed possessives 

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

63

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 5 

–

 Possessive affixes on nouns

T

y

p

e

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

:

e

m

e

r

g

e

n

c

e

o

f

n

e

w

p

r

e

p

o

s

e

d

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

s

t

h

a

t

u

n

a

m

b

i

g

u

o

u

s

l

y

m

a

r

k

n

u

m

b

e

r

,

a

n

d

l

o

s

s

o

f

p

l

u

r

a

l

s

u

f

f

i

x

e

s

.

Coptic

•

Definite and indefinite prefixes on

nouns

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

64

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 6 

–

 (In)definite affixes on nouns

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Definite and indefinite prefixes on

nouns

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

65

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 6 

–

 (In)definite affixes on nouns

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Definite and indefinite prefixes on

nouns

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

66

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 6 

–

 (In)definite affixes on nouns

T

y

p

e

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

:

G

r

a

m

m

a

t

i

c

a

l

i

z

a

t

i

o

n

(

d

e

m

o

n

s

t

r

a

t

i

v

e

>

d

e

f

i

n

i

t

e

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

>

d

e

f

i

n

i

t

e

a

f

f

i

x

;

‘

o

n

e

’

>

i

n

d

e

f

i

n

i

t

e

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

>

i

n

d

e

f

i

n

i

t

e

a

f

f

i

x

)

;

I

n

d

e

p

e

n

d

e

n

t

w

o

r

d

>

a

f

f

i

x

Coptic

•

Suffixed pronominal object on verbs

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

67

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 7 

–

 Pron. object affixes on verbs

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Suffixed pronominal object on verbs

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

68

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 7 

–

 Pron. object affixes on verbs

Table 7. Two series of bound person markers

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Suffixed pronominal object on verbs

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

69

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 7 

–

 Pron. object affixes on verbs

T

y

p

e

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

:

s

h

i

f

t

f

r

o

m

a

m

i

n

o

r

u

s

a

g

e

p

a

t

t

e

r

n

t

o

a

m

a

j

o

r

o

n

e

.

T

h

e

‘

s

u

f

f

i

x

t

a

k

e

o

v

e

r

’

i

s

t

h

e

r

e

s

u

l

t

o

f

g

r

a

m

m

a

t

i

c

a

l

i

z

a

t

i

o

n

o

f

v

e

r

b

f

o

r

m

s

w

i

t

h

s

u

f

f

i

x

e

d

P

m

a

r

k

e

r

s

,

a

n

d

t

h

e

l

o

s

s

o

f

v

e

r

b

f

o

r

m

s

w

i

t

h

c

l

i

t

i

c

P

m

a

r

k

e

r

s

,

t

h

e

r

e

i

s

n

o

‘

c

l

i

t

i

c

-

t

o

-

a

f

f

i

x

’

g

r

a

m

m

a

t

i

c

a

l

i

z

a

t

i

o

n

i

n

v

o

l

v

e

d

(

H

o

p

p

e

r

&

T

r

a

u

g

o

t

t

2

0

0

3

,

H

i

m

m

e

l

m

a

n

n

2

0

1

4

)

.

C

o

p

t

i

c

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

70

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 8 

–

 Negative affixes on verbs

•

Portmanteau prefixes that

code both TAM values and

polarity

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

71

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 8 

–

 Negative affixes on verbs

•

Portmanteau prefixes that

code both TAM values and

polarity

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

72

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 8 

–

 Negative affixes on verbs

•

Portmanteau prefixes

that code both TAM

values and polarity

T

y

p

e

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

:

f

r

o

m

L

a

t

e

E

g

y

p

t

i

a

n

o

n

w

a

r

d

s

,

n

e

g

a

t

i

o

n

s

i

n

m

a

i

n

v

e

r

b

a

l

c

l

a

u

s

e

s

b

e

g

a

n

t

o

b

e

u

n

i

v

e

r

b

a

t

e

d

w

i

t

h

T

A

M

a

u

x

i

l

i

a

r

i

e

s

(

u

n

i

v

e

r

b

a

t

i

o

n

,

g

r

a

m

m

a

t

i

c

a

l

i

z

a

t

i

o

n

o

f

p

o

r

t

m

a

n

t

e

a

u

T

A

M

/

P

o

l

a

r

i

t

y

p

r

e

f

i

x

e

s

)

The development of negative prefixes

The Egyptian-Coptic nondumitive (‘not yet’)

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Unmarked direct yes/no questions

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

74

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 9 

–

 Interrogative affixes on verbs

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Unmarked direct yes/no questions

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

75

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 9 

–

 Interrogative affixes on verbs

•

No prefixed or suffixed

interrogation markers

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 9 

–

 Interrogative affixes on verbs

From focus construction to interrogative marker

Stage 1: Wh-questions are typically constructed as cleft sentences

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 9 

–

 Interrogative affixes on verbs

From focus construction to interrogative marker

Stage 2: Same, but with periphrasis based on the verb 

iri

 ‘to do’

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 9 

–

 Interrogative affixes on verbs

From focus construction to interrogative marker

Stage 3: Earlier nominalization opaque, just a focus-marking prefix

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 9 

–

 Interrogative affixes on verbs

From focus construction to interrogative marker

Stage 4: Focus-marking prefix extended to yes-no questions

T

y

p

e

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

:

s

e

c

o

n

d

a

r

y

g

r

a

m

m

a

t

i

c

a

l

i

z

a

t

i

o

n

(

f

r

o

m

n

o

m

i

n

a

l

i

z

e

r

t

o

f

o

c

u

s

t

o

i

n

t

e

r

r

o

g

a

t

i

v

e

p

r

e

f

i

x

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Coptic has a set of verbal prefixes that

indicate subordinate-clause status

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

80

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 10 

–

 Adv. subordinator affixes on 

verbs

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Coptic has a set of verbal prefixes that

indicate subordinate-clause status

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

81

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 10 

–

 Adv. subordinator affixes on 

verbs

P

r

e

v

i

o

u

s

s

t

a

g

e

s

C

o

p

t

i

c

•

Coptic has a set of verbal prefixes that

indicate subordinate-clause status

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

82

The diachrony of affix ordering

Parameter 10 

–

 Adv. subordinator affixes on 

verbs

T

y

p

e

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

:

f

r

o

m

L

a

t

e

E

g

y

p

t

i

a

n

o

n

w

a

r

d

s

,

c

l

a

u

s

e

-

i

n

i

t

i

a

l

c

o

n

j

u

n

c

t

i

o

n

s

b

e

g

i

n

t

o

b

e

u

n

i

v

e

r

b

a

t

e

d

w

i

t

h

a

u

x

i

l

i

a

r

y

v

e

r

b

s

,

c

r

e

a

t

i

n

g

,

i

n

e

f

f

e

c

t

,

a

d

v

e

r

b

i

a

l

s

u

b

o

r

d

i

n

a

t

o

r

p

r

e

f

i

x

e

s

o

n

v

e

r

b

s

(

g

r

a

m

m

a

t

i

c

a

l

i

z

a

t

i

o

n

,

v

i

a

p

e

r

i

p

h

r

a

s

i

s

a

n

d

u

n

i

v

e

r

b

a

t

i

o

n

)

Universally disprefered structures

through change

Conclusions

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

83

Types of change and stages

84

Table 8. Summary of types of

changes, period of emergence

and of full grammaticalization

Types of change and stages

85

Table 8. Summary of types of changes, period of

emergence and of full grammaticalization

Grammaticalization

Types of change and stages

86

Table 8. Summary of types of changes, period of

emergence and of full grammaticalization

Grammaticalization

Minor to major patterns

Types of change and stages

87

Table 8. Summary of types of changes, period of

emergence and of full grammaticalization

Grammaticalization

Replacement

Minor to major patterns

Types of change and stages

88

Table 8. Summary of types of changes, period of

emergence and of full grammaticalization

Grammaticalization

Replacement

Minor to major patterns

Loss of suffixes

The diachrony of affixing preferences

89

The diachrony of affixing preferences

90

Contact?

91

G

r

o

s

s

m

a

n

(

2

0

1

8

)

Conclusions

•

Directly relevant for larger questions, such as the relationship between language universals and

language change (e.g., Good 2008): do synchronic structural universals constrain change, or do

diachronic universals, ultimately motivated by synchronic usage

factors, give rise to synchronic

universals?

•

Apparently ‘counter-directional’ changes are crucial here: why should language change lead to

universally dispreferred distributions of linguistic structures?

•

In brief, language change seems to be indifferent to typological distributions.

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

92

Conclusions

E. Grossman (HUJi) & St. Polis (F.R.S.-FNRS)

93

Once again

1.

T

Y

P

E

:

t

h

e

t

y

p

e

s

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

a

r

e

n

o

t

t

h

e

m

s

e

l

v

e

s

u

n

u

s

u

a

l

o

r

r

a

r

e

f

o

r

t

h

e

m

o

s

t

p

a

r

t

.

2.

P

A

T

H

:

m

u

l

t

i

p

l

e

p

a

t

h

w

a

y

s

o

f

c

h

a

n

g

e

t

h

a

t

c

o

n

v

e

r

g

e

(

v

s

.

a

s

i

n

g

l

e

p

a

t

h

w

a

y

)

3.

S

T

A

G

E

:

m

o

s

t

l

y

m

a

n

y

-

s

t

e

p

o

r

c

o

m

p

l

e

x

p

a

t

h

w

a

y

s

4.

S

O

U

R

C

E

:

m

o

s

t

o

f

t

h

e

s

o

u

r

c

e

c

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

s

a

r

e

n

o

t

r

a

r

e

t

h

e

m

s

e

l

v

e

s

,

b

u

t

V

S

O

o

r

d

e

r

,

w

h

i

c

h

p

r

o

b

a

b

l

y

p

l

a

y

e

d

a

l

a

r

g

e

r

o

l

e

,

i

s

r

e

l

a

t

i

v

e

l

y

r

a

r

e

.

5.

S

T

A

B

I

L

I

T

Y

:

i

n

f

l

e

c

t

i

o

n

a

l

p

r

e

f

i

x

e

s

i

n

E

g

y

p

t

i

a

n

-

C

o

p

t

i

c

,

o

n

c

e

g

r

a

m

m

a

t

i

c

a

l

i

z

e

d

,

a

r

e

s

t

a

b

l

e

.

6.

D

I

F

F

U

S

A

B

I

L

I

T

Y

:

n

o

t

d

u

e

t

o

c

o

n

t

a

c

t

,

p

r

o

b

a

b

l

y

n

o

t

v

e

r

y

d

i

f

f

u

s

a

b

l

e

a

n

y

w

a

y

.

B

u

t

i

s

t

h

a

t

a

l

l

?

Dryer’s typological studies relied on orthographic evidence for word

division, and hence the number and nature of affixes.

But how reliable is this?

From Arkadiev (2005, ms)

From Arkadiev (2005, ms)

Thank you!