Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T02:00:15.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconstructing last week's weather: Syntactic reconstruction and Brythonic free relatives1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2010

DAVID WILLIS
DAVID WILLIS*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Cambridge
*
Author's address: Department of Linguistics, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA, UKdwew2@cam.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lightfoot (2002) argues that syntactic reconstruction is rendered impossible by the lack of any analogue in syntax to the traditional notion of the phonological ‘correspondence set’ of the Comparative Method and by the radical discontinuity caused by reanalysis between successive grammars. Alice Harris and Lyle Campbell, in various works, have defended the notion of ‘syntactic pattern’ as the analogue of the correspondence set, arguing that patterns can be compared across languages, with innovations being stripped away to reveal aspects of the protolanguage. In this article, I argue that syntactic reconstruction can be carried out while maintaining and indeed utilizing core notions in generative approaches to syntactic change such as the central role of reanalysis and child language acquisition and the distinction between the abstract grammatical system and the surface output of that system. Reanalysis itself is constrained by the fact that both pre- and post-reanalysis grammars must be acquirable on the basis of the same primary linguistic data. This imposes limits on the possible hypotheses that can be entertained (‘local directionality’) even in the absence of any crosslinguistic generalizations about patterns of change (‘universal directionality’). This approach is then applied to aspects of the syntax of free relative clauses and negation in the early Brythonic Celtic languages (Welsh, Breton and Cornish), showing that non-trivial reconstructions can be achieved even where the daughter languages manifest significant differences.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , July 2011 , pp. 407 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

The research presented here developed as part of the research project ‘The development of negation in the languages of Europe’, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Earlier versions were presented to audiences at the British Academy Research Project ‘The development of the Welsh language’, the Seventeenth Welsh Syntax Seminar and the Linguistics Association of Great Britain Meeting 2010. I am grateful to those audiences and to three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees for their perceptive comments. I am also grateful to various other people for comments and discussion on the research presented here: Gareth Bevan, Bob Borsley, Torsten Meissner, Ian Roberts, Peter Schrijver and George Walkden. All remaining errors or omissions are my own.

References

TEXTS CONSULTED

Middle Breton

Ernault, Émile (ed.). 1887. La vie de sainte Catherine. Revue Celtique 8, 76–95.Google Scholar
Ernault, Émile (ed.). 1888. Le mystère de sainte Barbe. Paris: Libraire du Collège de France.Google Scholar
Ernault, Émile (ed.). 1914. Mirouer de la mort. Paris: H. Champion.Google Scholar
Ernault, Émile (ed.). 1928–30. Le breton de Gilles de Keranpuil. Revue Celtique 45, 202–271; 47, 72–159.Google Scholar
Hemon, Roparz (ed.). 1977. Doctrin an christenien. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Largillière, René (ed.). 1929. Le dialogue entre Arthur et Guinclaff. Annales de Bretagne 38, 627–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Whitley (ed.). 1876. Middle-Breton hours. Calcutta: [n.p.].Google Scholar
Norris, Edwin (ed.). 1859. The ancient Cornish drama. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Contains Origo mundi, Passio Christi and Resurrexio domini nostri Jhesu Christi.]Google Scholar
Stokes, Whitley (ed.). 1860–1. Pascon agan Arluth. Appendix to the Transactions of the Philological Society 1860–1.Google Scholar
Stokes, Whitley (ed.). 1864. Gwreans an bys. The creation of the world, A Cornish mystery. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
Stokes, Whitley (ed.). 1872. The life of Saint Meriasek, bishop and confessor. London: Trübner and Co.Google Scholar
Thomas, Graham C. G. & Williams, Nicholas (eds.). 2007. Bewnans Ke: The life of St Kea. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.Google Scholar
Bromwich, Rachel & Evans, D. Simon (eds.). 1992. Culhwch ac Olwen. An edition and study of the oldest Arthurian tale. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Goetinck, Glenys W. (ed.). 1976. Historia Peredur vab Efrawc. Cardiff: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru.Google Scholar
Jones, Thomas (ed.). 1992. Ystoryaeu Seint Greal. Cardiff: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru.Google Scholar
Lewis, Henry (ed.). 1942. Brut Dingestow. Llandysul: J. D. Lewis a'i Feibion.Google Scholar
Parry, John Jay (ed.). 1937. Brut y brenhinedd: Cotton Cleopatra version. Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America.Google Scholar
Williams, Ifor (ed.). 1930. Pedeir keinc y Mabinogi. Cardiff: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru.Google Scholar

REFERENCES

Andersen, Henning. 1973. Abductive and deductive change. Language 49, 765–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2001a. Introduction. In Andersen, (ed.), 1–20.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2001b. Markedness and the theory of linguistic change. In Andersen, (ed.), 21–57.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning (ed.). 2001c. Actualization: Linguistic change in progress. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2006. Synchrony, diachrony and evolution. In Thomsen, Ole Nedergaard (ed.), Competing models of linguistic change, 59–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. In press. Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction. In Trousdale, Graeme & Hoffmann, Thomas (eds.), Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2010. Reconstructing syntax: Construction Grammar and the Comparative Method. In Boas, Hans C. & Sag, Ivan A. (eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar, 161–216. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. & Kathol, Andreas. 2000. Breton as a V2 language. Linguistics 38, 665–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. & Roberts, Ian. 1996a. Introduction. In Borsley, & Roberts, (eds.), 1–51.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. & Roberts, Ian (eds.). 1996b. The syntax of the Celtic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Pagliuca, William. 1987. The evolution of future meaning. 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 109–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Pagliuca, William & Perkins, Revere D.. 1991. Back to the future. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. II, 17–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1990. Syntactic reconstruction and Finno-Ugric. In Andersen, Henning & Koerner, E. F. Konrad (eds.), Historical linguistics 1987: Papers from the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Lille, August 30–September 4, 1987), 51–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1998. Historical linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2001. What's wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23, 113–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2003. Beyond the Comparative Method? In Blake, Barry & Burridge, Kate (eds.), Historical linguistics 2001: Selected papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, 13–17 August 2001, 33–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Harris, Alice C.. 2002. Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing ‘Myths and the prehistory of grammars’. Journal of Linguistics 38, 599–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1980. Morphology and word order reconstruction: Problems and prospects. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical morphology (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 17), 83–96. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Evans, D. Simon. 1964. Grammar of Middle Welsh. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Falileyev, Alexander. 2000. Etymological glossary of Old Welsh. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraresi, Gisella & Goldbach, Maria (eds.). 2008. Principles of syntactic reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleuriot, Léon. 1964. Le vieux breton: Éléments d'une grammaire (Collection Linguistique Publiée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris 63). Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Foulet, Lucien. 1919. Études de syntaxe française: I Quelque. Romania 45, 220–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrich, Paul. 1975. Proto-Indo-European syntax (Journal of Indo-European Studies, Monograph 1). Butte, MT: Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1999. Internal reconstruction: As method, as theory. In Glidea, Spike (ed.), Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization, 107–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Guardiano, Cristina & Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2005. Parametric comparison and language taxonomy. In Batllori, Montse, Hernanz, Maria-Lluïsa, Picallo, Carme & Roca, Francesc (eds.), Grammaticalization and parametric variation, 149–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 1985. Diachronic syntax: The Kartvelian case. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2008. Reconstruction in syntax: Reconstruction of patterns. In Ferraresi, & Goldbach, (eds.), 73–95.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Shelly. 2003. On the limits of the Comparative Method. In Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D. (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics, 213–243. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hemon, Roparz. 1975. A historical morphology and syntax of Breton. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Hemon, Roparz. 1976–present. Geriadur istorel ar brezhoneg. Quimper: Preder.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1981. Resolving the Neogrammarian controversy. Language 57, 267–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In Li, (ed.), 57–139.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European syntax. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, Henry. 1946. Llawlyfr Cernyweg Canol. Cardiff: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru.Google Scholar
Lewis, Henry & Pedersen, Holger. 1937. A concise comparative Celtic grammar. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. (ed.). 1977. Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 2002. Myths and the prehistory of grammars. Journal of Linguistics 38, 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe & Guardiano, Cristina. 2009. Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness. Lingua 119, 1679–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1931. Caractère secondaire du type thématique indo-européen. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 32, 194–203.Google Scholar
Miller, D. Gary. 1975. Indo-European: VSO, SOV, SVO, or all three? Lingua 37, 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris-Jones, John. 1913. A Welsh grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2001. Deconstructing grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23, 187–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osthoff, Hermann & Brugmann, Karl. 1878. Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen, vol. I. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.Google Scholar
Phillips, Vincent Howell. 1955. Astudiaeth o Gymraeg llafar Dyffryn Elái a'r cyffiniau [A study of the spoken Welsh of the Ely Valley and surrounding areas]. MA dissertation, University of Wales Cardiff.Google Scholar
Pires, Acrisio & Thomason, Sarah G.. 2008. How much syntactic reconstruction is possible? In Ferraresi, & Goldbach, (eds.), 27–72.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowlett, Paul. 1998. Sentential negation in French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stathi, Katerina, Gehweiler, Elke & König, Ekkehard (eds.). 2010. Grammaticalization: Current views and issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tallerman, Maggie. 1996. Fronting constructions in Welsh. In Borsley, & Roberts, (eds.), 97–124.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. J. (ed.). 1950–2002. Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru: A dictionary of the Welsh language. Cardiff: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1977. Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Li, (ed.), 141–177.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. O. 1987. Was ancient British Celtic ever a written language? Two texts from Roman Bath. Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 34, 18–25.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2008. A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions. Word Structure 1, 156–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2010. Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization in English. In Stathi, et al. (eds.), 51–71.Google Scholar
Van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkden, George. 2010. Against inertia. Ms., University of Cambridge. http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/227574 (retrieved 30 November 2010).Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1976. Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax: Problems and pseudo-problems. In Steever, Sanford B., Walker, Carol A. & Mufwene, Salikoko S. (eds.), Chicago Linguistics Society: Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, 305–326. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Willis, David. 1998. Syntactic change in Welsh: A study of the loss of verb-second. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, David. 2007. Specifier-to-head reanalyses in the complementizer domain: Evidence from Welsh. Transactions of the Philological Society 105, 432–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, David. 2010. Degrammaticalization and obsolescent morphology: Evidence from Slavonic. In Stathi, et al. (eds.), 151–177.Google Scholar