Degrammaticalisation, the field of study which concerns itself with counterexamples to the hypothesis of unidirectionality, is a contested concept in grammaticalisation theory. This thesis examines...Show moreDegrammaticalisation, the field of study which concerns itself with counterexamples to the hypothesis of unidirectionality, is a contested concept in grammaticalisation theory. This thesis examines the definitional issues and points of contention in (de)grammaticalisation theory. The aim was to examine the tenability of degrammaticalisation as a separate process and the limits of its definition in light of the diachronic development of the English prenominal genitive. Corpus data were probed against definitions and requirements of degrammaticalisation posited in the literature. In addition, the impact of the various definitions of both grammaticalisation and degrammaticalisation on a degrammaticalisation analysis were examined.Show less
This thesis investigates whether the demise of the cardinal posture verbs (CPVs): sit, stand, and lie, in Modern English can be ascribed to the rise of the [be +V-ing] construction. Using the data...Show moreThis thesis investigates whether the demise of the cardinal posture verbs (CPVs): sit, stand, and lie, in Modern English can be ascribed to the rise of the [be +V-ing] construction. Using the data from the Penn Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English and the Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English, together comprising a period from 1500 to 1914, the frequency with which the CPVs occur have been found to nearly half in size whereas the frequency of the [be + V-ing] construction increases by more than a tenfold. There is a strong negative relationship between these constructions ( = -0.733) but not significant (p < 0.055). However, the combined coefficient of the three CPVs cumulated improves compared to the correlation coefficient of each of the CPVs individually (r = 0.13 for sit, r = -0.67 for stand, and r = -0.64 for lie). A definite semantic clash between the CPVs and the [be +V-ing] construction has been found unlikely. Instead, competition within the functional-semantic domain of ongoingness in Modern English potentially lead to a period of attraction between these two construction types and possibly more, e.g. be busy and keep V-ing. Moreover, the English language became unbounded due to a larger change in the English aspectual system (Los, 2012). The other Germanic languages are bounded languages which use the CPVs richly but have no progressive that is equivalent to the [be +V-ing] construction. The typological switch in English may have, therefore, influenced the halted grammaticalisation of the CPVs and the thriving grammaticalisation of the [be +V-ing] construction and alike constructions.Show less
The concatenation of fully lexical verbs within a predicate, or verb serialisation, is prevalent in all Alor-Pantar languages (Klamer 2014: 27-9). This study provides a comparative overview of this...Show moreThe concatenation of fully lexical verbs within a predicate, or verb serialisation, is prevalent in all Alor-Pantar languages (Klamer 2014: 27-9). This study provides a comparative overview of this serialisation in two parts: (i) it describes the functions that may be carried out by Alor-Pantar serial verbs and (ii) it investigates the function and grammaticalisation of participant-introducing verbs. The functions carried out by Alor-Pantar serial verbs were compared to Aikhenvald’s (2006) function hierarchy. It was found that Alor-Pantar serial verbs do not fit Aikhenvald’s hierarchy particularly well, as it shows numerous breaches. Furthermore, it was found that stages of grammaticalisation exclude verbs from being classified as serial verbs, which would otherwise fit the hierarchy well. It was also found that the hierarchy is non-exhaustive, as Alor-Pantar serial verbs show myriad other functions. Verbs that serve to introduce clausal participants, as noted by (Schapper 2014a: 15), are prone to grammaticalisation. The second part of this study provides an overview of these verbs, with a focus on their degree and direction of grammaticalisation as well as the kinds of clausal participants they may introduce. It was found that the degree of grammaticalisation varies greatly both within and across languages, and that grammaticalisation occurs in two directions, resulting in the formation of postpositions with a nominal complement and the formation of VP-incorporated postpositions and applicatives. It was also found that VP-internal postpositions have different functions from postpositions heading their own PP, and that these functions tend to become more idiosyncratic in time.Show less
