Universality of grammar and grammatical universals
(2)
von August
Dauses
Inhaltsverzeichnis:
Introduction
Chapter 1: Isolating versus inflecting and
agglutinating languages
Chapter 2: Grammatical morphemes as
relative indicators and concomitant phenomena
Chapter 3: Grammatical
marking, classification and word formation
Chapter 4: Grammar and linguistic
history
Chapter 5: Schematic,
pleonastic and secondary usage
Chapter 6: New categories -
new redundancies
Conclusion
3.
Grammatical marking, classification and word formation
As we have
seen, it is neither always so easy to understand highly schematic
markings following the rules by using the concept of 'grammar', nor
to even specify this concept of grammar. Indications of relations and
indications of function inside the sentence and inside the text
cannot simply be equated with the basic distinctions between
different meanings as they are for example represented by the
sentence modes. It is therefore absolutely legitimate to speak of a
certain plurality as far as the determination of grammar is concerned
just as it is legitimate to speak of a flexible and gradual
determination of the degree of grammaticality. However, it is
especially a gradual determination that makes the philologist
determine which kind of criteria he wants to use. If this is not case
or only on the basis of an intuitive foreknowledge, the points of
view concerning the form and the content are easily mixed up so that
it becomes soon impossible to delimit definitely 'real' grammar from
vocabulary any longer.
In a
theory concerning the Romance languages about the so-called
pre-determination of grammatical morphemes in modern French,
analogously to the Latin comparative (fortior) and to the
elative (fortissimus), also augmentative and diminutive
suffixes have been considered to be part of grammar, in addition to
that analogously adjectives referring to size (for example French
petit and grand). This very soon leads to a kind of
chaos, because it is obvious that the distinction between grammar and
vocabulary disappears immediately, if we try to reach an analogous
treatment according to onomasiological points of view (cf. chapter 1
and 2). This does not only apply to the comparison of two language
levels (Latin-French), but also to the comparison of different
languages among themselves. Analogously to the Indo-European grammar
we treat too easily in non-Indo-European languages as grammar that
which is used neither schematically nor redundantly nor in an
obligatory way, but that which is used as freely as the forms
considered as lexemes (for example nominal concepts of case or
prepositions with a meaning of place).
Consequently, an inadequate
definition easily leads to an incoherent theory and to an incoherent
treatment of the phenomena so that classifications of a concept may
be counted as grammar for analogous reasons. Adjectives expressing
the idea of something ‘big’ or ‘small’ (in the
literal or figurative sense) are, however, such classifications that
orientate themselves directly by the external world and by its
assessment so that they cannot simply be counted as grammar, just as
little as further adjectives or, more generally speaking, attributes.
In order
to distinguish classification and thereby also word formation on the
one hand from grammar on the other hand, our criterion of pleonastics
- redundancy is well suited and at the same time it is in accord with
the conceptions of grammar as an obligatory marking: a classification
orientating itself by the external world cannot become redundant or
obligatory because
-
it is up to the speaker
himself whether and to which degree he wants to specify something
(for example according to size, weight, colour, quality, etc.) and
because
-
such a classification also
demands specific knowledge (as far as size, weight, colour and
quality are concerned).
This
specific knowledge is however by no means always available so that an
obligatory indication with reference to certain characteristics or
attributes necessarily leads to a kind of misleading information
because in this case the speaker indicates something he does not know
in reality!
Every
reader can find this out by using the collocates 'big' or 'small' for
every noun in every sentence. Let us only take a sentence like Das
Wetter in Spanien begünstigt die Landwirtschaft with three
nouns, which will lead him to desperation or to a completely
arbitrary usage of these adjectives, which would immediately be
deprived of any meaning. They soon would become the emptied prefixes
of the nouns.
Real classifications do not
go together with real redundancy, otherwise they are no
classifications any longer, but empty 'appendices'!
In
connection with the delimitation of grammar from word formation it
means the following: classifications that become obligatory turn into
emptied appendices of the words in question or let us put it
differently: classifications that are to become grammatical,
re-disappear in the 'black hole' of word formation!
In fact, such phenomena
exist in the natural languages: in Suaheli, nouns and similarly also
connected adjectives referring to living things are connected with a
prefix m-, which is said to have had the meaning of something
'big', whereas things connected with a prefix ki-, are said to
have had the meaning of something 'small'. These are completely
emptied prefixes that are learnt together with the words of a class.
Further noun prefixes in Suaheli are to be assessed in a similar way.
We can
find something similar in the Indo-European languages: the gender
used to indicate the sex, but even if it is about living things the
speaker cannot always know which sex it is about so that this gender
was always used schematically before it was more and more 'emptied'.
As a consequence, it was gradually used in a fragmented way from one
analogous usage to another (also as far as plants and objects were
concerned), and was finally memorised one by one. Consequently, a
classification turned into an emptied suffix and finally into a
morpho-syntactical behaviour (congruencies of gender) that is to be
learnt together with the single noun, because the morphological form
does not permit an unambiguous piece of information about the gender
(cf. already classical Latin or even modern French: la maison, la
main, le pain).
In the
Indo-European language gender is basically grammar that disappears in
the 'black hole' of word formation, before even this word formation
became not recognisable any longer so that just a morpho-syntactic
behaviour was preserved. As far as this gender is concerned, it is
not about a redundant marking any longer, already because of the fact
that the grammatical gender does not have a content any more. It
would at best be possible to speak of redundancy as far as the sex is
concerned and this because
-
it is marked regularly and
because
-
it is often used
additionally to lexematic information (cf. pater - mater; vir -
femina; bos - vacca).
We could
therefore, referring to gender, also speak of allomorphic forms or
even better of an allomorphic behaviour.
By doing
this, we have already reached an area that is typical of the
Indo-European languages and that lies between grammar and word
formation: the allomorphic forms are the different realisations of a
grammatical morpheme and they develop among others from the crossing
of two morphemes that used to have different functions (Latin curro
– cucurri; dico – dixi, the perfect and the 'aorist'
coincided as far as their functions were concerned) or from the
emptying of a word formation morpheme being preserved as part of a
grammatical ending. So different word classes are generated as it is
the case with the nouns that differ according to the gender or as it
is the case with the verbs, Latin cantare, monere, whose stem
vowels go back to an old case form respectively to a causative.
Naturally,
we have extremely simplified the highly complex connections between
word formation, stem formation and the formation of allomorphic forms
in the Indo-European language. However, this allows us just to
illustrate that word formation and grammar in the Indo-European
languages are closely linked with each other and that we can also
count the different formal realisations of grammatical morphemes,
that is the allomorphic forms, as grammar and that we thereby also
consider the allomorphic forms and allomorphic distributions to be
part of this grammar. Such an understanding of grammar has however
nothing to do any longer with the fact that the usage of a morpheme
is highly schematic and redundant, but only with the different
realisations of these morphemes, consequently with the arbitrariness
of the 'signifiers' when compared among themselves.
And this
arbitrariness is therefore not universal either in the sense that it
is necessarily part of the nature of grammar, but it is a part of a
single language and a product of linguistic history. We simply learn
this allomorphic form together with the lexemes (for example verbs)
and certain grammatical functions (cf. tense, infinitive, etc.). In
any case the allomorphic form does neither refer to contents nor to
the structure of the sentence or the text, but it is an arbitrary
distribution of forms, whose memorisation suggests a regularity as
far as the lexemes are concerned (Latin cantare, habere, dormire;
murus, casa, templum). This regularity however only consists in
the memorised arbitrariness and the high frequency of these
allomorphic forms that can simply be combined with many lexemes.
Allomorphic
forms develop themselves among other things by the fact that original
elements of the word formation are not understood any longer so that
they are understood and memorised as a unity together with the
ending.
There are also further
connections between grammar, word formation and vocabulary, which in
turn are characteristic of our Indo-European languages and which are
connected with their history. The Indo-European has a category of its
own of prepositions that represent neither nominal concepts nor
verbal concepts and that represent so to speak the second generation
of the cases referring to a place. At first, they can be used as free
additives to these cases so that they can also become
pleonastic-redundant (Latin *in, templo stat; ex, templo venit).
In classical Latin we find as a relic the 'tmesis' (obstat, but
ob mihi stat!). Being free additives they are also
syntactically free and can therefore stand next to the verb and form
a unity with it (ex, it > exit; in, it> init, etc.),
also in the nominal area (introitus, abitus, exitus). They
then form a new concept together with the lexeme, that is they
specify the lexeme in question.
Now this can have as a
consequence that we have to do with a very redundant marking of the
indication of place or origin, if word formation and 'real'
preposition are involved at the same time: de nave desilire, ex
urbe ire, de provincia exire. Case, preposition and word
formation prefix work together in order to mark the origin. This
would not be possible in a different language, in which nominal
concepts correspond to these deictic prepositions (for example
'inside, front, back').
Such
nominal concepts are not free syntactically and would be understood
as a subject or as an object of the verb in the 'wrong' place (cf. in
imitation: Latin ineunt vs. *interiora eunt; interiora
would then be the subject referring to eunt). The
flexibility of our Indo-European prepositions has therefore also a
syntactic background: they used to be freely movable additives with a
deictic character and in fact no nominal concepts so that they could
also be connected with the different word classes. And since these
prepositions that are free and dispensable additives which, in a
pleonastic way, make for example the indication of direction clear
(desilire de, profisci ad, inire in), are also used a bit
schematically, it is by far easier to use them analogously once
again, cf. to look at, German schauen auf, to strive at,
German streben nach; to hope for, German hoffen auf,
etc. They can now be regarded as redundant indicators of the object
(grammar) or even as integral parts of the corresponding verbs which
are followed by an object.
This
hybrid character also becomes distinct if such pleonastic additives
assume for their part a grammatical or partial function once again.
The development of a prepositional or ‘personal’ accusative
in some Romance languages has to be imagined in a similar way
(Spanish Maria ve a Juan 'John sees Mary', with the object at
the first place in the sentence). An originally certainly pleonastic
preposition used together with verbs indicating a direction (cf.
English to look at) can be used to distinguish the object as
aim from the subject, and since this is in general relevant only to
persons but not to a person and an inanimate object (cf. A Maria
ve Juan vs. El muro ve Juan: the wall cannot see), it was
only the so-called 'personal accusative' that came to exist. Since
this accusative however fulfils only in few cases an important
function, it was not really taken into consideration any more and was
used more and more schematically so that it became a pleonastic
companion of the accusative referred to persons, therefore as far as
orthodox syntax is concerned, too (Juan ve a Maria).
Grammar and word formation
on the one hand and word formation and the formation of allomorphic
forms on the other hand are therefore closely linked with each other
in the Indo-European languages: the more pleonastic a grammatical
marking, which is used for example together with a verb, becomes, the
more often analogous treatments can occur.
To the
extent, however, to which such prepositions are not used
systematically – in order to mark the accusative, even if
pleonastically, they are not memorised with this same function
either, but as an integral part of the verbs. This is why they become
'governed' particles (compare consequently to see + O, but
to look at, to strive for, etc.)
Perhaps it is possible to
reduce these considerations to a simple formula: numerous allomorphic
occurrences are often an indicator of highly pleonastic grammars,
because it is only that which fulfils a very little function which
can also be extended analogously or crossed within themselves and
such crossings again lead to arbitrary allomorphic forms (= total
synonymy as far as complementary distribution is concerned).
Consequently, word formation and grammar are closely linked with each
other in our Indo-European languages, even though we could but
outline this connection only as an example. In another context we
have already indicated this in chapter 1, in fact with reference to
the marking of the person as far as the predicative verb is concerned
(Latin canto, cantas, cantat, English I sing, you sing, he
sings). This marking is part of the word formation because it is
possible to deduce a verb from a noun (with a different meaning) out
of the same root, and at the same time it is part of grammar, because
the subject to which the predicative verb is referred is
(pleonastically or also redundantly) indicated by it.
In this case grammatical
redundancy is the consequence of word formation as shown by languages
that are poor in redundancy. Such languages do not know such products
of word formation and create periphrastic constructions (for example
*Fisch fangen for fischen) or use completely different
words, which has a far more rare marking of the person as a
consequence.
Furthermore,
such languages use the object pronouns in a more economical way so
that further usages of personal pronouns (for example as relative
pronouns) and sub-usages (for example as dativus commodi, etc.)
become far less probable there. Thus, word formation indirectly has
still further consequences for the grammar of a language and its
development.
But even
in our languages where we do not deduce verbs from nouns with the
same root (for example German Bein, Nase, Stuhl) and even in
such languages that generally do not know such kind of word formation
(Japanese), the distinction between noun and verb seems to be a
fundamental, perhaps even necessary distinction, which we therefore
consider to be universal. This has probably in principle to do with
the fact that in the Indo-European languages we create predicates
that are no identity predicates (Vater ist Lehrer; das ist ein
Stein) almost always with verbs so that we equate the function in
the sentence (predicate) with the word class (verb). Strictly
speaking, the function in the sentence is to be separated from the
word class and we can obtain this for example by using analogously to
the isolating languages words capable of forming a predicate
(consequently especially verbs to our understanding) without a
difference in a nominal or predicative function (consequently
fictitious *people go; I like go; go is good for health; *I love
you; we speak about love; love is good). We just must not commit
the mistake of transposing this 'verb' according to the syntactic
tradition of the English language into a 'real' verb and noun again!
Consequently, we have to
start from the assumption that as far as both usages are concerned
(the nominal one or the verbal predicative one) exactly the same
concept is expressed. In this sense we have to do with polymorphous
forms in the Indo-European; the same concept can occur as a noun as
well as a verb and this verb can have predicative and nominal
(non-predicative) forms (I go – to go/ going respectively
Latin eo-ire).
This
joining-up of certain forms and word classes with the function in the
sentence is, however, not universal yet. It is only the function in
the sentence that is universal and certainly also the circumstance
that this function is recognisable in the sentence. This is possible
by using own forms and markings or by using syntax and meaning.
Isolating languages (for example Chinese) prefer the latter method,
that is they use certain words ('verbs' to our understanding) in the
same form in a nominal as well as in a predicative way. If these –
always unchanged – words are to be considered 'verbs' remains an
open question.
On the
other hand, there are certainly in all languages such words that
transmit a concept only neutrally, consequently that only 'name' it
(compare the nominal function!) and which, as nominal concepts, can
therefore only have the function of a subject or object. If they are
used predicatively, the consequence is a confrontation of two nominal
concepts that in general is interpreted as an identity predicate (N
ist Bäcker; das (ist) ein Haus).
Such
nominal concepts are necessary to name concrete objects for example.
The determination of a predicative usage with a specific meaning
(which does not only indicate the existence of exactly this object),
for example a fictitious *to tree = 'to cut a tree') would
have as a consequence that we could not call the object in question
isolated any longer.
Such
nominal concepts are, however, also useful respectively economical if
they name concrete objects and illustrate complex facts and
situations, which in turn are to be found in most different contexts.
They then are specified by a word creating a predicate ('verb'),
compare for example 'art, war, education, science': something can be
real art, but it is also possible to study arts; you can
be at war or wage war; and there is also a war
industry; it is possible to provide education or to
spread education; it is possible to promote science
and there is a scientific theory and a criticism of
science.
We cannot
go into detail here, but we consider it to be universal for reasons
of economy (!) that there are also mere nominal concepts that can
only be used as a subject or as an object in a sentence, or only in
nominal predicates (identity predicates) (N ist Bäcker, das
ist Kunst). If these are to be called nouns, may remain an open
question (in Indo-European not all nominal forms are nouns, let us
only think of the nominal forms of the verb!).
As a consequence, word
classes in the sense of our Indo-European grammar are not necessary
or universal, but the functions in the sentence are universal and it
is also universal that in all languages of the world there will be
words that are only used in a nominal function. This has in the first
place economical reasons, but it can also be justified analogously
(modern Chinese has a compound ('love-sympathy') for the concept of
'love' that is not used in a predicative way any longer).
This
digression about the word classes (word categories) shows on the one
hand that in the Indo-European languages word formation and grammar
are closely linked with each other; at the same time it qualifies all
considerations on the 'nature' of these word categories (consequently
also potential ontological ideas). On the other hand, this digression
refers to the essential role of linguistic history for the formation
and the further development of our Indo-European grammars, which
means that it refers to the following chapter.
4. Grammar and linguistic history
So far, we
have shown that there are languages with only very few grammatical
morphemes and markings, and others which have a lot of grammatical
categories and markings. In addition, we have tried to find out which
functions and relative indicators can be called grammtical at all,
and how grammar is different from vocabulary. This enables us to
describe theoretically and universally any possible kind of
morphological marking in any given language without claiming that
these markings actually exist.
The differences between the
actually existing languages of the world (some of which have a lot of
grammatical categories and others only very few) must therefore also
be accounted for on a historical basis. Yet, in the following, we do
not intend to give an outline of Indo-European grammar, but rather do
we intend to bring out the general principles which were responsible
for the genesis of complex or also complicated grammars, taking the
Indo-European languages as an example.
In the Indo-European
languages, the splitting of the root of a word into noun and verb
(with different meanings), and thus word formation, is responsible
for the fact that the verb in question is always used with a personal
marking (Latin canto, cantas…, English I sing,
you sing…). As a consequence, free morphemes (that is the
personal pronouns) were to emerge, in addition to the personal
endings which were used highly schematically. Later on, these new
free morphemes were to replace in turn partly the old personal
endings. It is an open question whether the first development, the
splitting into 'weak', that is schematically used morphemes (endings)
and 'strong', that is free pronouns which were only used when
required, was absolutely necessary. But this development became
possible and it was also encouraged. And it is no coincidence that
those languages which do not know this kind of word formation
(Japanese, isolating languages) do not distinguish personal endings
from personal pronouns either, but that they only use pronouns, that
is free signs. And such languages do not distinguish either between
clitic and non-clitic pronouns, that is between those pronouns which
are used highly schematically so that they are considered as integral
part of the verb and others which appear in isolation or in a
stressed position. This splitting into strong and weak signs,
however, which our example of word formation (the derivation of a
verb from a noun) has illustrated, is a generally valid principle
which enables us to distinguish grammatical morphemes from lexemes or
more grammatical elements from less grammatical elements! We come
back to this point in chapter five. Grammatical morphemes are weak
signs to the extent that they are used more or less schematically and
not only in those cases in which they are absolutely necessary in the
context in question in order to convey a certain piece of
information. Therefore, they also appear often in those cases in
which they don't provide any new information nor any relevant new
information; and this is exactly what we mean when we talk about
rules or the obligatory use of grammatical morphemes.
Personal endings and (more
or less) obligatory personal pronouns (subject pronouns or object
pronouns) are therefore weak and grammatical morphemes, but those
free pronouns the use of which the speaker decides upon himself can
not be defined in the same way. Consequently, we could ask ourselves
by what right we count these free pronouns among grammar and to what
extent we let ourselves be guided by semantic similarity
(onomasiological point of view).
In any case, this splitting
into strong vs. weak (grammatical, more grammatical) signs is
symptomatic especially for the Indo-European languages with all their
redundancies, which we would like to illustrate briefly:
A past tense is a weak,
unspecific, grammatical morpheme which is used highly schematically
and which is not only used when it is necessary, so that it may even
seem redundant next to a strong sign with more specific content
(Yesterday I went to town). In Chinese, there is a particle
which indicates the accomplishment of an action (le), which,
in fact, is never used if there is a more specific adverb which
indicates the past in the same syntactic construction; comparatively
no-one would say in German: *Gestern damals ging ich in die Stadt!
Two signs of roughly the same value may even result in a disturbing
redundancy.
In isolating languages,
however, particles which indicate accomplishment are obviously felt
to be equal to other adverbs of time, there is no relation between
strong and weak signs nor between lexeme and grammatical morpheme, or
this relationship is far less distinct.
Therefore, it seems
reasonable to put forward the hypothesis that, in isolating
languages, more specific adverbs and less specific particles (for
instance those indicating accomplishment) have always been equal in
value, so that it never crossed one's mind to use them together in
one syntactic construction, and therefore the concept of 'tenses' in
our sense doesn't exist in these languages. Conversely, for languages
which have a past tense, this hypothesis means that less specific
markings were used with a certain regularity at the beginning, even
before the more specific adverbs and also the lexemes emerged. The
synchronic juxtaposition (Yesterday I went to town) would then
be the result of a diachronic sequence: unspecific older markings are
preserved when the more specific markings emerge and their use
increases. Again, there would be a splitting into strong and weak
signs which we have also postulated for the relationship between
personal ending and personal pronoun. The weak sign is at the same
time the older one, which is used more and more schematically and can
also combine with a word class (verb); the stronger sign, however, is
the younger one, which the speaker only uses when he wants to use it.
This hypothesis seems
plausible to us especially as far as a past tense is concerned, and
it is no coincidence either that almost all languages have such a
tense with the exception of the isolating languages: lexematic words
like yesterday, last year (literally-etymologically:
'the other day' respectively 'tired, late') haven't had this temporal
meaning right from the beginning or were ambiguous as far as past
tense or future meaning is concerned ('the other day' = 'yesterday'
or 'tomorrow'?), so that they still needed an explicit reference to
the time level. It became redundant only later when the words or
collocations in question were used exclusively in one sense (for
instance the past tense). If the vocabulary of a language is less
developed it needs auxiliary signs which clarify the temporal
relations so that we would have to ask ourselves once again why this
was not the case in the development of the isolating languages: have
they started anew on a more highly developed level?
Irrespective of these
hypothetical reflections on the subject of the isolating languages,
our hypothesis concerning the inflecting languages is as follows:
weak temporal auxiliary signs emerged very early, even before the
vocabulary was much developed, and their use remained a regular habit
even later when more specific indicators of time had developed. This
was all the more easily possible as even some of the more specific
indicators used to be ambiguous as far as temporality is concerned
('the other day'), so that they were accompanied by auxiliary signs
right from the beginning. And when, later-on, redundancies developed,
the marking by means of a temporal sign had already become a regular
habit which was not noticed anymore and which would not be revised
(by force).
Therefore, such temporal
markings for past tense are to be expected in most languages and they
are more relevant than any markings for the future: firstly, there
will always be more to report about things past than about an
insecure future which, most of the time, only consists of few plans
and secondly, the future meaning can be deduced from the non-marked
form, supposing that the past tense is already marked. In most cases,
he distinction between future and present tense does not pose a
problem because of the context and the situation, as is illustrated
by many languages which use the present tense also to express the
future.
When, now and in the
following, we talk about grammatical morphemes as 'weak' signs this
is done first and foremost from a synchronic and functional point of
view: we talk about morphemes which are used highly schematically and
not only when required so that there will also be redundancies.
Regarded on its own, a particle (e.g. a deictic expression) which is
used to express past tense is not weaker than an adverb which gives a
reference to the past. It is only weaker and less noticed in so far
as the unspecific sign appears more and more frequently side-by-side
with a more specific one in the same syntactic construction or that
it appears totally schematically, always linked to the verb, even in
those cases when the context is explicit as far as the time level is
concerned (cf. a continuous narrative in the past tense: yesterday
I went … I bought … I returned). The 'weakness' is only
a result of redundant usage!
Therefore, flexives are not
already per se weak grammatical signs, there is only a high
probability that such very old markings, which are also little
specific, will appear later with more specific signs side-by-side in
one syntactic construction, so that then, they will be less noticed,
considered as concomitant signs of these more specific signs and
therefore become redundant.
This is especially the case
as far as the so-called government is concerned, a special feature of
the Indo-European languages. The old cases for place, for example,
were restrained by more specific prepositions (initially free
adverbs) so that they became schematically used concomitant forms
(governed cases) (Latin in templo, ex horto). Had both
categories emerged at the same time, the speakers would have decided
between the alternatives (in the same way as the speakers of
isolating languages decide between the alternatives of an adverb or a
particle of the past); it would not have happened that the more
specific sign is first used optionally side-by-side with the more
unspecific one (fictitious: *ex, eo, templo),
and that then it becomes more and more frequent until it finally
degrades the older sign (case) to a mere concomitant form. The
pattern is the same in this case as in the relationship between tense
and adverb of time.
But there is also one
significant difference between government and redundancy (yesterday
I went…): government always also means a semantic weakening
of the governed phenomenon which gives up more and more of its own
meaning. In the Latin in templo, ex silva, de muro,
sub muro, cum copiis, we can hardly explain today which
is the meaning of the ablative case, so much has it become a mere
(empty) concomitant form of the preposition. A redundant tense of the
past, however, always retains its 'past' meaning and therefore
remains semantically stable.
Government is therefore a
special case of redundancy and by no means universal: it is based on
the fact that a more specific sign can occur side-by-side with a less
specific one in the same syntactic construction instead of replacing
it. In the case of the Indo-European prepositions, this is only
possible because, being adverbs, they were syntactically mobile and
did not constitute an integral part of the sentence construction. In
those languages which use noun forms instead of prepositions the
nominal form cannot be used as a free component, cf. for example: *Er
befindet sich an der Vorderseite des Hauses (= 'in front of the
house'), but certainly never: ***Er befindet sich an der
Vorderseite des Hauses im Hause! In this case, redundancy could
only be produced by force. Word classes or rather the fact of not
belonging to a word class, and syntax play a distinctive role in the
emergence of such governments.
But the syntactic mobility
also plays a distinctive role in another case of government, if we
think of the governed use of the subjunctive mode in Latin and the
Romance languages. At first, the phrase rogo te ut venias! is
just as redundant as the phrase *ich bitte dich, du sollst kommen!
The subjunctive is not as specific as a lexematic sign, but this does
not make it per se a weak 'morpheme' which would have to become
redundant for this reason. It only becomes a 'weak' morpheme when,
after a rearrangement of the sentence structure, it is regarded as
part of a construction and becomes dependent on a more specific
lexeme (verb): ut venias! rogo te. => rogo te, ut
venias! So, the syntactic mobility of the final clause led to a
juxtaposition of a more specific and a less specific sign within a
complex sentence, so that the attention of the speaker/the listener
was always directed towards the more specific sign and the mode was
interpreted as concomitant form to the more specific sign (cf. also
governed cases and prepositions). This development was by no means
inevitable as is shown by most other Indo-European languages. In
Latin and the Romance languages, it was only very pronounced because
there were also further 'illogical' analogies (cf. Ne veniat!
timeo 'He'd better not come! But I still fear it' => timeo
ne veniat!), so that the mode itself was less and less noticed
and only memorised schematically together with certain lexemes. And
with every further analogous use this mode was further weakened.
The (governed) subjunctive,
however, is not in the centre of our reflections, we are more
concerned with the question whether grammatical morphemes or what we
consider to be such, are weak signs per se. They are considered to be
such only to the extent that further circumstances were added which
then have led to a more and more schematic use of these little
specific and old morphemes. There are only general probabilities,
which have to do with the genesis of the languages (cf. tenses) or
are based on further characteristics of these languages (syntactic
liberties, cf. the emergence of governed cases, of a governed mode).
There is one further
phenomenon which seems to be typical for Indo-European languages and
which is, at first sight, similar to the types of government. It is
the congruencies we think of, which are for example responsible for
the fact that, in Latin, the number is always marked as far as nouns
are concerned even in those cases when there is a more specific
indicator of quantity in the same syntactic construction (tres
homines) and also for the fact that attributive adjectives, too,
always occur with a (congruent) marking of number (tres homines
boni). Number, of course, is also a simple and very little
specific morpheme, but this does, by no means, justify these high
redundancies. Unlike it is the case with the past tense, they can
hardly be explained by the fact that this morpheme used to have an
especially relevant function, so that the marking was preserved even
though this function lost more and more of its relevance. In this
case, it is primarily the fusion of case and number which is
responsible for the redundancies.
Such a
morphological fusion can for instance be made by a phonetic fusion
between the marking of number and case, if both markings occur
regularly juxtaposed in a periphrastic construction (for example case
–a + singular e > e; case a + plural u
> o). It can however also be only a product of an
interpretation. This is the case if we have to do with a
'non-symmetrical' marking, where one time only the case, another time
only the number is marked so that in any case the number respectively
the case is to be 'completed'. Consequently, if an -s only
marks the nominative, but an -i the plural, and if this –i
can only be the (unmarked) nominative, then the singular with
reference to the plural does not behave as a neutral form with
reference to an additional kind of marking: by using the form of the
nominative, the speaker at the same time makes a decision for the
singular, and if he uses the plural form he makes at the same time a
decision for the plural (and would in this case perhaps use *-ei
for the dative, -bhos for the dative in the plural. Even if
this *-bhos (Latin turribus) consisted of two parts (of
the dative and the plural), it would - in comparison with all the
other plural markings - only be memorised as a unity of the dative
and the plural!). By contrast, in Turkish, there is an additional
form (-ler) for the plural, which can therefore also be
omitted, if the context is already explicit enough as far as the
number is concerned (in imitation: *three house/ three new house).
Congruencies and the ensuing redundancies are by no means universal,
but different in any single language and dependent on specific
factors. Neither is the number, or rather the plural, per se a weak
grammatical morpheme; it only becomes one under certain
circumstances.
High redundancy and
grammaticality are not merely founded on the 'weak' character of old
morphemes or inflections, but they only become 'weak' morphemes in
many languages because of further developments.
Even a weak conjunction
with the meaning 'and' (formerly 'there, then') is not per se weak
and could also be used much more economically (cf. the Chinese
language!). But it is weakened to the extent that more specific words
are used side-by-side with it in the same syntactic construction
('and then', 'and thereupon', 'and three hours later'). The original
'then, thereupon' (= and!) is restrained and degraded to a mere
concomitant form. One can only ask oneself why this does not happen
in all languages and, as it were, inevitably and therefore constitute
a universal phenomenon (so that one has to assume a similar
development sooner or later also for the Chinese language). One
reason for this could be the fact that our inflecting languages have
used right from the beginning many deictic signs and auxiliary signs
(cf. the cases); thus, the increase in frequency could be explained
by analogy. In addition, there might also possibly be a syntactic
factor. Syntactic factors play an essential role in the development
of the Indo-European languages, which we have already seen when
talking about the development of the prepositions (from originally
free adverbs). The conjunction 'und' can occur with more specific
adverbs and adverbial phrases, and, in principle, such adverbs are
syntactically free. At the beginning, they possibly didn't even occur
right next to the conjunction 'and', but in some distance so that the
redundancy was also far less obvious (…and he talked with her
on politics, an hour later…). Such an 'improvement in
retrospect' at any place in the sentence is only possible, of course,
if the syntax has no strict rules, which smoothes the way for a later
juxtaposition (…and an hour later he talked…),
which, otherwise, would be felt to be a disturbing redundancy. This
would be a hypothesis for an indirect way of developing redundancies.
Morphemes which we consider
grammatical or to which we ascribe a high degree of grammaticality,
have not been weak signs right from the beginning, but have become
such only in the course of the history of a language. But there is a
high probability that languages which use many unspecific signs or
auxiliary signs right from the beginning restrain those signs later
by using more specific signs, so that the older signs become
concomitant signs or weak and schematically used auxiliary signs. For
the isolating languages, this raises the question why they didn't
need any such auxiliary signs which would have developed into
redundant markings later on. However, it is not our task here to
answer this question.
The 'weak' grammatical
morphemes have not always been used highly schematically and
redundantly, and this is certainly also true for the purely relative
cases (nominative - accusative - genitive), which don't have any
meaning of place (any more). Their increase up to obligatory use is
connected with the fact that the syntactic rules of inflecting
languages are not as strict as those of isolating languages and that
the final position of the verb (pater videt/patrem videt)
makes it more difficult to distinguish between subject and object.
In chapter six, we will
treat the question why even newly developed grammatical morphemes and
markings can become just as schematic and pleonastic-redundant as the
old ones.
 Zum 3. Teil
 Zum Anfang
 Zum Ede-Hauptverzeichnis
|
