Affiliation:
1. General and Comparative Linguistics, University of Regensburg , Regensburg , Germany
2. Dipartimento di Scienze Umane e dell’Innovazione per il Territorio, University of Insubria , Como , Italy
Abstract
Abstract
In this introduction we propose an agenda for working towards a diachronic typology of individual person markers. Rather than tracking the development of entire paradigms, our goal is to arrive at a better understanding of the diachronic pathways of those source constructions that end up as a conventionalized means of marking a particular person or person scenario, i.e. the specific (di)transitive person configuration. We discuss how this diachronic typology will need to consider certain types, or characteristics, of person markers, such as free vs. bound forms; SAP vs. 3rd person forms; or the status of person scenario markers. With respect to the source constructions and pathways, it is useful to distinguish between category-internal (e.g., person shift) and category-external (e.g., impersonal constructions) sources that give rise to person forms. We further offer a brief summary of the types of motivations that have been argued to lie behind the observed changes. Other issues of interest involve the stability vs. susceptibility for change as well as the optionality and synchronic variation of person forms, which may precede diachronic change.
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference54 articles.
1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2018. Disentangling a versatile prefix: The nature and development of a polysemous marker in Arawak languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 84(1). 1–49.
2. Benedict, Paul. 1995. PTB/PST pronominal *-i suffix. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 18(1). 111–115.
3. Bickel, Balthasar, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Taras Zakharko & Giorgio Iemmolo. 2015. Exploring diachronic universals of agreement: Alignment patterns and zero marking across person categories. In Jürg Fleischer, Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds.), Agreement from a diachronic perspective, 29–52. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
4. Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2005. Inclusive–exclusive as person vs. number categories worldwide. In Elena Filimonova (ed.), Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive-exclusive distinction, 49–72. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
5. Bickel, Balthasar & Martin Gaenszle. 2015. First person objects, antipassives, and the political history of the Southern Kirant. Journal of East Asian Languages and Linguistics 2(1). 63–86.