[PDF] 68 Periphrasis - Zenodo

PDF document for free

1. PDF document for free

13439_1Haspelmath2000.pdf

654IX.Flexion

5.References

COBUILD(1987)!CollinsCOBUILDEnglish

LanguageDictionary,Editorin ChiefJohnSinclair ,

ManagingEditorPatrickHanks. London,Glas-

gow:Collins

Ingo,Rune (1978),Suomenkielenpluratiivit eli

monikkosanat.A ˚ bo(Turku): A ˚ boAkademi (Med- delandenfra˚nStiftelsensför A ˚ boAkademi For- skningsinstitut34)

Karlsson,Fred(1985),"Paradigms andWord

Forms".In:Laskowski,Roman (ed.),Studia

gramatyczne,V ol.VII.Wroclaw etc.:Ossolineum (PraceInstytutuJe ˛zykaPolskiego 61),135"154

Karlsson,Fred(1986), "FrequencyConsiderations

inMorphology". ZeitschriftfürPhonetik, Sprach- wissenschaftund Kommunikationsforschung39, 19"28

Karlsson,Göran(1957),Suomenkielenn ukuksissa

jahereillä-tyyppiset paikallissija-adverbit.Helsinki:

SuomalaisenKirjallisuuden Seura(Suomalaisen

KirjallisuudenSeuranT oimituksia250)

Kiparsky,Paul(1974),"R emarksonA nalogical

Change".In:A nderson,J[ohn]M. &Jones,

C[harles](eds.),HistoricalLinguistics,V ol.II:T he- oryandDescription inPhonology. Proceedingsof theFirst InternationalConferenceonHistoricalLin- guistics,Edinburgh 2nd"7thSeptember1973 .Am- sterdam,Oxford:N orth-Holland;New York:

AmericanElsevier(NorthHolland Linguistic

Series12b),257 "275

LDEL(1984)!LongmanDictionaryof theEnglish

Language.Harlow/Essex:Longman

Maslov,Ju[rij]S.(1964),"Zametkiovidovoj defek-

tivnosti(preimusˇcˇestvennovrusskom ibolgar- skomjazykach)".In: Larin,B[oris] A.&Safronov ,

G[erman]I. (eds.),Slavjanskajafilologija.Le-

ningrad:Izd.Leningradskogo universiteta,82"94

Matthews,P[eter]H.(1972),InflectionalM orphol-

ogy:AT heoreticalStudy BasedonAspectsofLatin

VerbConjugation.Cambridgeetc.: Cambridge

Univ.Press(CambridgeStudiesin Linguistics6)

68.Periphrasis

1.Definingperiphrasis

2.Suppletiveperiphrasis I:paradigmsymmetry

3.Suppletiveperiphrasis II:inflectional

generality

4.Categorialperiphrasis

5.Periphrasisin inflection,derivation,and

syntax

6.Periphrasisforms

7.Conclusion

8.References

Meder,Gregor&Mugdan,Joachim(1990), "Alle

redenvonHäufigkeit ...:A nmerkungenzum

Thema'Frequenz'in derMorphologie".In:Bas-

sarak,A[rmin]& Bittner,D[agmar] &Bittner, A[n- dreas]&T hiele,P[etra] (eds.),Wurzel(n)der

Natürlichkeit:StudienzurMorphologie undPhono-

logie,Vol. IV.Berlin:Zentralinst. fürSprachwis- senschaft(Linguistische StudienA208), 87"108

Mugdan,Joachim(1983),"Grammatikim Wörter-

buch:Flexion". In:Wiegand,HerbertErnst(ed.),

Studienzurneuhochdeutschen Lexikographie,Vol.

III.Hildesheim etc.:Olms(Germanistische Lin-

guistik1"4/82),179"237

Plank,Frans (1981),Morphologische(Ir-)regulari-

täten:Aspekte derWortstrukturtheorie.Tübingen:

Narr(StudienzurDeutschen Grammatik13)

Quirk,Randolph &Greenbaum,Sidney&Leech,

Geoffrey&Svartvik,Jan (1985),AComprehensive

Grammarofthe EnglishLanguage .London,N ew

York:Longman

Soboleva,P[olina]A. (1979),"Defektnost'para-

digmyisemantic ˇeskoetozˇdestvoslova". Voprosy jazykoznanija1979.5,37"47

Spencer,Andrew(1991), MorphologicalTheory.

Oxford,Cambridge/MA:Blackwell

S ˇ tejnfel'dt,E ˙ viA.(1963), C ˇ astotnyjslovar' sovre- mennogorusskogoliteraturnogo jazyka.Tallinn:

Naucˇno-issledovatel'skijinstitutpedagogikiE

˙ ston- skojSSR

Vincent,Nigel(1987), "TheInteractionofPeriph-

rasisandInflection: SomeRomance Examples".

In:Harris,M artin&R amat,Paolo(eds.),Histori-

calDevelopmentof Auxiliaries.Berlinetc.: Mouton deGruyter(T rendsinLinguistics: Studiesand

Monographs35),237"256

Wurzel,WolfgangUllrich (1988),"Derivation,Fle-

xionundBlockierung". ZeitschriftfürPhonetik,

Sprachwissenschaftund Kommunikationsforschung

41,179"198

FredKarlsson,Helsinki(Finland)

1.Definingperiphrasis

Thetermperiphrasis(fromGreekperı´phrasis

'paraphrase,circumlocution'), initsmost generalsense,refers tothe useoflonger , multi-wordexpressions inplaceof single words,or"circumlocution" (thisLatin term issimplya loantranslation oftheGreek term).Ina narrowerphilologicalcontext, pe-

65568.Periphrasis

riphrasisisone ofthecanonical literaryrhe- toricalfigures(cf. Lausberg 2

1963:69),e. g.

Englishtobe hitwithCupid' sarrow 'tofall in

love',orGerman Elbflorenz'Florenceonthe

Elbe[Dresden]'.F orthepurposes ofthis

handbook,astill narrower,grammatical senseofthe termisrelevant. Periphrasisre- ferstoa situationinwhich amulti-wordex- pressionisused inplaceof asingleword in aninflectionalparadigm: "When aformin a paradigmconsistsof twoormore wordsitis periphrastic"(Matthews 1981:55),e.g.more beautifulinsteadof* beautifuller(cf.(b)be- low).Butunlike conceptssuchas 'mor- pheme'or'auxiliary', theconceptof 'periph- rasis'hasnever beenanimportant issuein linguistics,andit hasnotbeen usedasa cru- cialingredientin anyformalgrammatical framework.Ingeneral, thetermis usedinde- scriptiveandtypological workinan intuitive sense,andattempts atclarifyingthe concep- tualcontentof thetermhave remainedthe exception(cf.Zawadowski 1959;Thümmel

1966:157!164;Rose ´n1992).Historically ,

theabstract nounperiphrasisinitsgrammati- calsenseis aback-formationfrom theadjec- tiveperiphrastic.Intraditional Latingram- mar,thetermconjugatioperiphrasticawas usedtorefer toinfrequentcombinations of participialformswith thecopula,e. g.fac- turussit 'isgoing todo[subjunctive]' (cf.

Kühner&Stegmann

2

1914:180).T hisusage

seemstohave beenthestarting pointof the contemporaryuseof thetermperiphrastic.

Moreover,incurrentusagethetermperi-

phrasticisalmost alwaysappliedto verbal constructionsalthough thereisnothing inits definitionthat wouldrequiresuch arestric- tion.(Thus, itwouldbeperfectlycoherent butdistinctlyunusual tosaythat German hasaperiphrastic instrumentalcase,using theprepositionmit.)This restrictionseemsto beahistorical accident,reflecting theorigin oftheterm intheLatin conjugatioperiphra- stica.It issharedby therelatedterm auxil- iary(whichalwaysrefers toverbs,although "auxiliarynouns"or "auxiliaryadverbs"cer- tainlyexist;cf. Art.78), butnotby thequasi- synonymanalytic.This lattertermhasitsori- gininmorphological typology(cf.A rt.115) andiscontrasted withsynthetic.Itappears thatanalyticismore commoninEurope and particularlyinR ussianlinguistics, whereas periphrasticismorecommon inEnglish.

Therearethreetypesof casesinwhich

periphrasticformsmay beincludedin inflec- tionalparadigms: (a)Latinverbs areinflectedfor different tensesandmoods, butnotall combinations areexpressedby single-wordforms.T hus, thereisno formwiththe features'future'and 'subjunctive'.The futureparticiplein-urus withthecopula inthe presentsubjunctive (e.g.facturussit lit.'he begoingto do')fills thisgap,as illustratedbythe arrayof3rd personsingularforms offacere'do'in(1); the periphrasticformis giveninsquare brackets. (1)indicativesubjunctive presentfacitfaciat imperfectfaciebatfaceret perfectfecitfecerit futurefaciet[facturussit]

Thefuturesubjunctiveisrequired incertain

subordinateclauses thataresubject toase- quence-of-tenserule,so thatthereis areal needtofill thegapin theparadigm. (b)InEnglish, manyadjectiveshave anin- flectedcomparativeformed byaddingthe suffix-ertothebase form(e.g. warm! warm-er),butother adjectiveslacksuch a form,andcomparison isconveyedby a multi-word(orphrasal) expressioncontain- ingthe adverbmore(e.g.beautiful!more beautiful).Insome intuitivesense, the phrasalexpressionserves thesamefunction astheinflected formwithother adjectives, andlinguistshave oftenfeltthe needtoas- similatesuch"periphrastic expressions"to thesingle-word forms,sothat itbecomes possibletosay thatmorebeautifulisthe "comparativeform"of beautiful,justas warmeristhecomparative formofwarm(cf.

Matthews1981:54f.).

(c)The Frenchconstructionwiththe auxil- iaryaller'go'as injevaisle faire'I'mgoing todoit' iscommonlyreferred toasfuturpe´- riphrastique.Apparently ,thereasonforin- cludingitin theinflectional paradigmofthe

Frenchverbisthatit expressesagrammatical

meaning(cf.A rt.27).T hissenseofperiphras- ticisreflected,for instance,inthe definition: "periphrastic:denotinga construction,especially oneinvolvinga verb,inwhich oneormore auxil- iarywordsare usedtoexpress grammaticaldistinc- tions,asopposed tothedirect inflectionofthe lexi- caliteminvolved" (Trask1993 s.v.)

However,itisnotself-evident whatshould

countasan inflectionalmeaning,and the practiceofgrammarians israrelyrigorous andconsistent.F orinstance,few wouldde- scribetheF renchconstructionjeveuxle faire 'Iwantto doit'as ade´side´ratifpe´riphras- tique,althoughit isquitesimilar tothe "peri- phrasticfuture"jevaisle faire.The reason forrestrictingperiphrastictotheconstruction expressingfuturetime referencemaybe

656IX.Flexion

mainlytheexpectation thatthefuture "shouldbe"an inflectionalcategory, whereas nosuchexpectationexistsforthedesiderative.

Inmanycasessuchexpectationsareobviously

influencedbythemodelofLatingrammar,for instanceifEnglish issaidto havea"future tense"(cf.Huddleston 1995)orGerman a "vocativecase"(cf. HäckiBuhofer1987 on oldergrammars;see alsoCh.II).

Types(a)and(b)can beregardedas pe-

riphrasisinthe narrowersense,which "can berecognizedonly wherethereis acleargap intheinflectional patterns,whichthe phrases servetofill" (Hockett1958:212; cf.Smir- nickij1956;M el'cˇuk1993:355). In(a),the gapis filledinorder tocreateparadigmsym- metryinthe formsofa lexeme(cf.2); in(b), itachievesinflectionalgeneralityacrossdif- ferentsubclassesof lexemes(cf.3). Type(c), whereamulti-word combinationexpresses someadditionalsemantic distinction,isless directlyrelevantto morphology,but itmust betakeninto considerationherebecause nei- thertheboundaries betweenthedif ferent kindsofperiphrasis northatbetween periph- rasisandinflection areverysharp (cf.4).F or similarreasons,the notionof periphrasis neednotbe confinedto inflection(cf.5).

Therearenoestablished termsforthe

threesubtypesof periphrasis.Inthis article, suppletiveperiphrasiswillbeused fortypes (a)and(b), andcategorialperiphrasisfortype (c);(cf.A erts1967:3; Rose´n1992:18 f.for somewhatsimilarterminological proposals).

Suppletiveperiphrasisshares withtruesup-

pletion(cf.A rt.52)the functionofsupplying formsforthe inflectionalparadigmsthat are notformedin theregularway (cf.Vincent

1987:242;Börjars etal.1997), butitis of

courseavery different mechanism.For want ofabetter alternative,therather old-fash- ionedtermmonolecticformwillbeused as theoppositeof periphrasticform(cf.Aerts

1967:3;R ose´n1992:1 1);anequivalent dis-

tinctionapplicable togrammaticalmeanings isthatbetween boundexpressionandperi- phrasticexpr ession(cf.Bybee& Dahl1989:

51).The termperiphrasisformwillbeem-

ployedforinflectional formswhichappear onlyinperiphrastic constructions(cf.6).

2.Suppletiveperiphrasis I:

paradigmsymmetry

Gapswhichare filledbyperiphrastic forms

forthepurpose ofparadigmsymmetry can onlyarisein inflectionalsystemsin which morethanone morphologicalcategoryis combined,e.g. tenseandmoodinLatin(1).

Thus,alanguageinwhich verbsinflectonly

fortenseor nounsonlyfor numbercouldnot havethiskind ofperiphrasis.A notherexam- plefromLatin involvestheinteraction of voiceandaspect. Latinhasmonolectic forms forthepassive voiceonlyin theinfectumas- pect(e.g. inthepresentandimperfect "tenses"),but notinthe perfectumaspect (e.g.intheperfect andpluperfect).In thelat- tercase,a periphrasisinvolvingthe perfect passiveparticipleand thecopulais used,as the3rdperson singularformsof capere'take' in(2)show . (2)activepassive presentcapitcapitur imperfectcapiebatcapiebatur perfectcepit[captumest] pluperfectceperat[captumerat]

ThesituationinRussian isquitesimilar .The

3rdpersonsingular formsof (s)delat''do'in

(3)showthat onlytheimperfective aspecthas boundexpressionin thepassive,while the perfectivepassiveis periphrastic: (3)activepassive imperf.pastdelaldelalo-s' presentdelaetdelaet-sja perf.pasts-delal[bylos-delano ] perf.future s-delaet[budets-delano]

Anotherexample,againfrom Russian,in-

volvesthe interactionoftense andaspect.

Onlyperfectiveverbs havemonolecticforms

inthefuture, whiletheimperfective futureis periphrastic: (4)perfectiveimperfective present!delaet pasts-delaldelal futures-delaet[budetdelat']

ThisRussianparadigmis perhapsnotagood

exampleofa gapinterms ofparadigmsym- metry,becauseitisnot verysymmetricalto beginwith.A nalternativeanalysis wouldre- gardtheperfective futureformsdelaetaspre- sent,thusrestoring theformal symmetry.T he futuremeaningcould beattributedto thein- teractionbetweenthe aspectualandthe tem- poralinterpretation(a perfectivesituationis noteasilyconstrued assimultaneouswith the momentofspeech). Onthisanalysis, there wouldbeno gapinthe paradigm.Butit is morelikelythat althoughthisalternative analysisisdiachronically accurate,synchron- ically(4)is arealisticdescription ofRussian grammar.Thediachronicscenario fortherise

65768.Periphrasis

oftheasymmetry thushelpsto explainthe needfora periphrasticgapfiller .

Sofarall exampleshavebeen fromverbal

inflection,butit iseasyto imagineasimilar situationinnominal inflection:A language mighthavea monolecticform oftheinstru- mentalcase inthesingular ,butnot inthe plural,sothat aperiphrasisinvolving anin- strumentaladpositionmust beused.N oex- ampleofthis kindhascome tomyattention, butthismay bepurelyaccidental.

Inthesecases ofgapsfilled bysuppletive

periphrasistorestore paradigmsymmetry, it isclearthat agoodcase canbemade thatthe periphrasticforms belongtothe inflectional paradigm.However ,thisdoesnotnecessarily meanthatthey areconsideredas morpholog- icalentities.A classicalstructuralisttextbook statesthisexplicitly indiscussingLatin peri- phrasticpassives(cf. 2): "Thesephrasesarenot partofthe inflectionalmor- phologyofthe Latinverb,because thestructureof phrasesissyntax, notmorphology".(Hockett

1958:212)

Similarly,astandardintroductionto mor-

phologycomesto theconclusionthat seman- (5)subject/object1st singular2ndsingular 3rdsingular

1stsingular!ke´r-lekke´r-em

2ndsingular[ engemke´r-sz]!ke´r-ed

3rdsingular[ engemke´r-ø][te´gedke´r-ø]ke´r-i

1stplural ![te´gedke´r-ünk]ke´r-jük

2ndplural[ engemke´r-tek]!ke´r-itek

3rdplural[ engemke´r-nek][te´gedke´r-nek]ke´r-ik

Onlyke´r-lek'ask-1.sg.subj&2.sg.obj(Iask

you)'isa monolecticform,all othercombi- nationsinvolvinga 1stor2nd personobject are"periphrastic"(though thistermis never usedinHungarian linguisticsforthese cases), usingtheaccusative formsofthe personal pronouns.Itis debatablewhether theexis- tenceofa singlemonolecticform issufficient tosetup amorphologicalparadigm thatcon- sistslargely ofgapsfilledbyperiphrasis.Per- hapsmorenaturally ,onemight conversely regard(5)as asyntactic paradigmwitha sin- glegap,which isfilledby the"anti-periphras- tic","compacted"form ke´rlek(cf.3for fur- therinstancesof thisproblem).

3.Suppletiveperiphrasis II:

inflectionalgenerality

Almostbydefinition,inflectionalforms are

highlygeneral,i. e.theyapply toalloralmost allmembersof aword class(cf.Bybee tically,periphrasticformsshould beanalyzed likemonolectic forms,whereasformally they shouldbe regardedassyntactic phrases (Matthews1974:171).Periphrasis canthus beusedas anar gumentfor"separationist" approachestomorphology (cf.Aronof f1994;

Beard1995),which stressthemutual inde-

pendenceofthe formalexpressionof amor- phologicalelementand thesemanticcontri- butionitmakes (cf.Börjarset al.1997).

Anempiricalproblemwiththe gap-filling

viewofperiphrasis isthatit maynotalways beclearwhether thereareenough monolectic formstoconstitute aparadigmthat canbe saidtohave gaps.In(1) !(4),the gapsarea distinctminorityof theparadigmcells, but whatifthere aremoregaps thanfilledcells?

Anexampleofthiscomes fromHungarian,

whichhasa monolecticformexpressing '1st personsingularsubject !2ndpersonobject', butnoothers thatexpressboth subjectand non-3rdpersonobject. Theparadigm thus looksasin (5),whereonly singularobject formsaregiven forthesake ofsimplicity (ke´r-'ask';engem'me',te´ged'you'):

1985:5).If acertaininflectional patternis

notapplicable tosomemembersoftheword class,aperiphrasis mayfillthis gap.An ex- ampleofthis typeis theEnglishperiphrastic comparative(cf.1), whichallowsadjectives thatlackthe boundcomparative(* beauti- fuller)tohave acomparative form(more beautiful).

3.1.Examples

Afurtherexample comesfromR omanian,

wheremostnouns haveabound obliquecase form,butmasculine propernounslack it.

Theauxiliarywordlui(originally'his,to

him')isused toallowthese propernamesto occurinthe obliquecaseform: (6)baseform obliquecase masc.commonprieten-ulprieten-ul-ui 'thefriend' fem.properAnaAnei 'Anna' masc.properPetre[luiPetre ] 'Peter'

658IX.Flexion

Aperiphrasticgap-filler mayachieveboth

paradigmsymmetryand lexicalgenerality simultaneously.InClassicalGreek,the 3rd personpluralform ofthemiddle perfectofa verblikegra´pho'write'doesnot havea boundexpressionand canonlybe expressed periphrastically,usingthemiddleperfect par- ticipleandthe copula: (7)singularplural

1stge´gram-maigegra´m-metha

2ndge´grap-saige´graph-the

3rdge´grap-tai[gegram-me´noieisı´]

Takeninisolation,the paradigmin(7) seems

toinvolveperiphrasis forparadigmsymme- try(cf.2). Butinthis case,theform inques- tionis notlackingin allGreekverbs. Many verbswhosestem endsina voweldohave a monolecticformfor thisparadigm cell,sothe periphrasisherealso servestoensure inflec- tionalgenerality: (8)3rdsingular 3rdplural pepaı´deu-taipepaı´deu-ntai'educate' tetı´me¯-taitetı´me¯-ntai'honor' ge´grap-tai[gegram-me´noieisı´]'write'

In(6)!(8),thelexemes thatlacka particu-

larmonolecticform aretheclear minority, andtheremay beveryspecific reasonswhy theseformsare impossible(thus,in Classical

Greektheregular form*ge´graph-ntaiissim-

plyphonotacticallyill-formed). Butinthe caseofthe Englishcomparative,matters are morecomplicated.F ormslike* negativer 'morenegative'or *beautifullerseemtobe phonologicallywell-formed,and theperi- phrasticcomparativesare actuallythemajor- ity(atleast intermsof lexicaltypes).M ore- over,theperiphrasticformsare notrestricted tothoselexemes thatlacka monolecticform:

Inmanycases, bothformsmay beusedside

byside,e. g.likelierormorelikely.Thus, fill- ingagap incertainlexemes isprobably not theonlymotivation fortheexistence of theseforms.

Gap-fillingas themotivationfor periphra-

sisbecomeseven moredif ficulttomaintain whenonlya smallminorityof lexemesinthe wordclassallow themonolecticform. Forin- stance,inLezgian onlyeighteenverbs allow negationbymeans ofaprefix innon-finite forms(e.g. theverbal-nounform).Allother verbsrequirea periphrasticformusing the auxiliaryt-awun'neg-doing',and allverbs buttwooptionally allowthisperiphrastic form(cf.Haspelmath 1993:133).Some ex- amplesaregiven in(9). (9)affirmative negative awunt-awun'do' xˆunta-xˆun'become' gunta-gun'give' cˇüxün[cˇüxünt-awun ]'wash'

Similarly,inMalteseonly asmallclass of

(mostlyinalienable) nounsallowtheuseof possessiveperson-number suffixes,e. g.dar 'house',id'hand',butthe largemajority of nounsrequire aperiphrasticconstruction withta'/tiegØ'of'(thishasbeencalled "ana- lyticgenitive";cf. Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1996): (10)baseform possessiveform1st singular dardar-i 'house' idid-i'hand' ktieb[ktiebtiegØ-i]'book'

Theexistenceofaparadigm whosegaps

arefilledbecomes evenmorequestiona ble whenthemonolectic formsarenot onlyvery few,butalsoquiteirregular .Thus, inAfri- kaansonlya handfulof verbshavea bound pasttense,and allofthese areirregular(cf.

Donaldson1993:222):

(11)presentpast iswas'be' weetwis'know' ankon'can' werk[hetgewerk]'work' begin[hetbegin]'begin'

Similarly,intheRomance languagesonly

fouradjectiveshave boundcomparative forms,andthese areallsuppletive. Allregu- larformsare periphrastic,e.g. inSpanish: (12)positivecomparative buenomejor'good' pequen˜omenor'little' oscuro[ma´soscuro ]'dark' caliente[ma´scaliente]'warm'

Intheextreme case,onlya singlelexeme

hasamonolectic formofa certaincategory.

Anexamplecomesagainfrom Hungarian,

whereonlythe verblenni'be'hasa bound expressionforfuture tense,whereasall other verbsonlyhave aperiphrasticfuture (fog 'take'plusinfinitive; theformsgiven are3rd personsingular): (13)infinitivefuture lennilesz'be'

ı´rni[fogı´rni]'write'

felelni[fogfelelni]'answer'

Asin(5),onehas toaskwhether sofewnon-

periphrasticforms justifycallingall theother forms(suppletively)periphrastic. Onemight

65968.Periphrasis

justaswell callthesefew monolecticforms "anti-periphrastic"or"compacted".

Anotherdoubtfulcaseis thatofthe Ger-

manhypotheticalmood. Theoretically, every

Germanverbhas amonolectichypothetical-

moodform,but intheregular (weak)verbs, thisformis homonymouswiththe pasttense. (14)infinitivepast hypothetical kommenkamkäme 'come' seinwar wäre 'be' lobenlobte[würdeloben]( ? lobte) 'praise' schwimmenschwamm[würdeschwimmen]( ? schwämme) 'swim'

Thus,insomesensethe Germanwürde-pe-

riphrasisis tiedtogap-filling contexts,but thislinkas fairlyweak!theformsin paren- thesesin(14) arenotoutright impossible, theyarejust awkward.Conversely ,the würde-periphrasisis notimpossiblewith strongverbslike kommen,though itoften soundsverycolloquial.

3.2.Grammaticalization

Sincespeakersare generallyguidedby a

maximofeconomy ,thereis acertainten- dencythatfavors complementarydistribu- tion:When amonolecticformexists,thiswill tendtoblock theperiphrasticform, and whenaperiphrastic formbecomesthe usual one,themonolectic formwilltend todisap- pear.Butthisprincipleis onlyatendency ,be- causethereare deviationsin bothdirections.

Moreover,inthelongrunperiphrasticcon-

structionstendto replacemonolecticforms quiteindependentlyof whetherthelatter haveadefective distributionornot. TheA fri- kaansexample(1 1),for instance,showsthe resultof achangethat hasbeengoing onina similarformin varietiesofGerman formany centuries.StandardGerman stillhasbound pasttenseforms foreveryverb, butinthe colloquiallanguage(and particularlyin manysouthern dialects)onlythe haben-past isusedwith mostverbs.T hisreplacement hadnothingto dowithany kindofdif ficulty informingthe boundpasttense form.Itre- sultedfromthe continuedgrammaticaliza- tionofthe haben/sein"participleconstruc- tion,whichoriginally hadaspecial perfect meaning,butgenerally cametobe basically equivalenttothe simplepasttense (cf.Bybee etal.1994: 51!105).The functionalequiva-

Asaresult,thesemantically equivalent

würde-periphrasisis muchmorecommon withtheseverbs incontemporaryGerman, andinpractice theoldhypothetical mood (the"pastsubjunctive") survivesonlyin strongverbs(and evensomeof thesesound awkwardinthis form): lenceofthe newperiphrastic pastandthe old pasttensethen leadstothe lossofthe old pasttense,except inthe caseofvery common verbs,wherehigh frequencyhelpsto preserve theoldforms.

Suchaprocess ofgradualgrammaticaliza-

tionisultimately responsibleformost ofthe patternsexaminedin 3.1.Grammaticaliza- tionisa continuous,unindirectional,cyclic changethatturns periphrasticexpressions (i.e.categorialperipherasis;cf. 4)intosyn- theticforms,which arefurtherreduced until theyareagain replacedbynew roundabout expressions(cf.A rt.145).Such grammaticali- zationprocessesmay atsomepoint resultin akindof complementarydistributionwhich createstheimpression thattheperiphrastic expressionsexistin ordertofill agap,but thatisby nomeansnecessary .For instance, colloquialFrench hasgonethroughaprocess ofextension ofthe'have'-perfect totheper- fectivepastfunction (similartothe casesof

AfrikaansandcolloquialGerman),and the

oldperfectivepast form(thepasse´simple) hasbeen lostfromthis registerofF rench.

Butunlikethe casesofA frikaansandGer-

man,thepasse´simpledoesnoteven survive inafew isolatedcases,and therewasappar- entlyneveranything resemblingacomple- mentarydistributionover differentverb types.

Evenifthere isaclear phonologicalreason

forthenonexistence ofcertaininflected forms,theperiphrasis neednotowe itsexis- tencetoits gap-fillingfunction.F orinstance,

Latincomparativesare formedbya suffix

-ior,whichcannot, however,be attachedto vowel-finalstemsfor phonologicalreasons.

660IX.Flexion

Forthesestems,aperiphrasis withmagisis

used: (15)positivecomparative longuslongior'long' felixfelicior'happy' arduus[magisar duus]'steep' idoneus[magisidoneus ]'suitable'

Coulditbe thattheperiphrastic compara-

tive,whichbecame prevalentinthe Romance languages(cf.(12)), beganitsexistence asa fillerofphonologically conditionedgaps?

Perhaps,butanother scenarioisat leastas

likely:At thetimeofClassicalLatin,from whichthedata in(15)are taken,themagis- periphrasiswas alreadywidelyused inthe colloquiallanguage. Thewritten normstill requiredthecomparative in-iorformostad- jectives,butwhere thiswasdif ficulttoform, thecolloquialperiphrasis wasadmittedinto thewrittenlanguage. Ifso,suppletive periph- rasisisnot asdifferent fromcategorialpe- riphrasisasit mighthaveseemed. Froma strictlystructuraland descriptivepointof view,itmightbedesira bletorestrict thein- cursionofphrasal formsinto thedomainof inflectionas tightlyaspossible, butthis hardlydoesjustice tothereality oflanguages andtheirspeakers.

4.Categorialperiphrasis

Examplesofcategorial periphrasisarethe

Englishhave-perfect(explicitly excludedfrom

theinflectionalparadigm bysome authors, e.g.Wallis 6

1765:xxv!xxvii,102!111;Hock-

ett1958:212;cf. Art.62), theFrench aller- future(jevaischanter 'Iamgoing tosing'), andtheSpanish estar-progressive( estoycan- tando'Iamsinging'). Thereexist nomono- lecticformsof anyofthese categoriesinthe languagesinwhich theyoccur, sotheseperi- phrasticformsdo notfilla gapdefinedby a systemofmonolectic forms,i. e."real"inflec- tionalforms.Hence, theseconstructionscan- notbeproperly saidtobe "circumlocutions" foranything,i. e.ifthey areperiphrases,this canbeunderstood onlyinan extendedsense ofthe term,e.g. relativetothe monolectic formsofanother language.However, theuse oftheterm periphrasisforsuchconstructions iswidespreadin theliterature.Statements suchasthe followingaretypical: "['Go']oc- cursinperiphrastic futuresinEnglish and variousRomancelangua ges"(Lehmann1995:

29);"New periphrasesdeveloptoexpress

meaningsthatare morespecificthan the meaningsalreadyexpressed grammaticallyin thelanguage atthetime" (Bybeeetal. 1994:

133).These authorsdonotlinktheuse of

periphrasisinanyway toinflectionalpara- digms.Aperiphrastic expressionissimply onewhichexpresses agrammaticalmeaning inamulti-word construction.Aperiphrasis canbeidentified ifthereis aconventional constructionina languagewhichexpresses a grammaticalmeaning,and wherethereis a particularlexicalitem (anauxiliaryword) thatregularlycombines withallmembers of awordclass toexpressthis meaning.

Thequestion,ofcourse,is: Whatis a

grammaticalmeaning(cf. Art.27)? Inthe worstcase,all andonlythe meaningsthatare clearlygrammaticalizedin alanguagethat linguistshappento knowwell(e. g.Latinor

English)arecounted asgrammatical.Gram-

mariansrarelyjustify theirdescriptivedeci- sionsexplicitly. Forinstance,inonedescrip- tionofW elsh,twomethods forformingverbs arepresented,the "inflected"method(by addingendingsto averbstem) andthe"peri- phrastic"method(by usinganauxiliary verb incombinationwith theverbalnoun toform acompoundtense), withoutanydiscussion (cf.King1993). Similarly,in agrammarof

Lezgian,thechapter onverbalinflection in-

cludesasection on"periphrastictense-aspect categories"(Haspelmath1993: 146!148),in whichthePeriphrastic Habitual,the Peri- phrasticFuture, andtheHearsayEvidential aredescribed.However ,nojustification is givenforthis particularchoiceof categories.

Thisdoesnotnecessarilymean thatsuchjus-

tificationisnot possible,butgrammatical de- scriptionsusuallyassume thattheirchoice of periphrasticconstructionsis unproblematic.

Threespecificcriteriaand onemoregeneral

criterionforrecognizing categorialperiphra- sesare worthconsidering(cf. Bertinetto1990 foralonger listofpossible criteria).

Thefirstspecificcriterionasks whetherthe

kindofmeaning expressedbythe periphrasis isexpressedby monolecticformselsewhere in thelanguage.T hus,ifa languagehasbound tenseforms,then acomplexconstruction ex- pressingtense(e. g.theEnglish will-future) willcountas aperiphrastic form(cf.Smir- nickij1956;M el'cˇuk1993:355 on"analytic forms").The problemhereisthatassigning specificgrammatical meaningstobroader grammaticalcategories isoftennot atall straightforward.F orinstance,istheSpanish estar-progressiveanaspectual categoryon a

66168.Periphrasis

parwiththe imperfective/perfectivepastdis- tinction?Isthe Englishhave-perfectatense?

Thesecondspecificcriterionis semantic

non-compositionality(cf.also Art.82). Ordi- naryphrasesmust beinterpretable composi- tionally,butperiphrasticconstructionsare oftennon-compositional.F orinstance,while themeaningof Iwantto breakit canbe de- rivedfromthe componentpartswantandto break,themeaning ofIhavebr okenitcannot bederivedfrom thecomponentshaveand broken.N on-compositionalityisalwayspre- sentwhen themainverb isina periphrasis form(cf.6). Thiscriterion isperhapseasier toapplythan thefirst,but itisonly asuffi- cient,not anecessarycondition forperi- phrasticstatus.

Thethirdspecificcriterionconcerns the

rangeofforms oftheauxiliary elementthat occurinthe periphrasis.Inan ordinarycom- binationofa finiteanda non-finiteverb, thereareno restrictionsonthe formsofthe finiteverb,but inaperiphrasis sometimes onlyasubset oftheforms areallowed.F or instance,inthe Germanwerden-futureonly presentindicative (andperhapssubjunctive) formsofwerdenareallowed, butnotpast tenseforms(e. g.wirdkommen[lit.becomes come]'willcome', butnot* wurdekommen [lit.becamecome]; cf.Vincent 1987fordis- cussionofa similarconstrainton theItalian venire-passive).

Moregenerally,weneed acomprehensive

theoryofgrammaticalization inorderto understandperiphrasis.Grammaticalization isavery complex,multi-faceted phenome- non,andthere areindefinitely manypossible degreesofgrammaticalization (cf.Lehmann

1995fora systematictreatmentof thevari-

ousparametersof grammaticalization).Once wehavesuch atheory, thedefinitionof peri- phrasticconstructioniseasy:T hemoregram- maticalizeda constructionis,the moreitcan claimtohaveperiphrasticstatus(unlessgram- maticalizationhasproceeded farenoughto turnitinto amonolecticform, ofcourse).If werecognizethis, itdoesnot necessarilybe- comeeasierin practicetoidentify aperi- phrasticconstruction,but wehavereduced thisproblemto another,independent prob- lemforwhich solutionshaveto beproposed (cf.Bertinetto1990 forasimilar conclusion).

Thegrammaticalizationperspectivealso

helpsusto solvetheproblem ofdelimiting periphrasticformsagainst monolecticforms.

Insomecases, thisisnot aneasytask, be-

causetheboundaries betweenfreewords and affixesarenotalwaysclear -cut.For instance, thePolishpast tenseczyta!em'Iread'looks likeanordinary monolecticformczyta-!-em 'read-past-1.sg',butoccasionally the1st per- sonsingularmarker -(e)mmayoccurelse- whereinthe clause,e.g. co-mczyta- !?'what-

1.sgread-past(whatdidI read?)'.This shows

thatatleast inthesecases theformis not completelyboundyet, althoughgrammati- calizationisadvancing andthesesplit forms arebecomingrarer inthemodern language.

Itisimpossible todrawclear linesbetween

thevariousstages ofgrammaticalizationpro- cesses;thereare oftencasesthat areindeter- minatenotjust forlinguists,but alsoforthe speakers.

Finally,grammaticalizationhelpsusto

understandwhycertain grammaticalcate- goriesarevery oftenexpressedperiphrasti- callyinthe world'slanguages, whileothers stronglytendto beexpressedas monolectic forms.For instance,"perfectandprogressive usuallyhaveperiphrastic expression,while past,andperfective andimperfectiveusually haveboundexpression" (Bybee&Dahl

1989:56;cf. alsoDahl1985; Bybeeetal.

1994:104!124).Inthe nominaldomain,it

hasbeen notedfortemporal markersthatan- terior-durative('until')andposterior-dura- tive('since')markers tendtobe bound, whereasanterior('before') andposterior('af- ter')arealmostalwaysperiphrastic, i.e.ex- pressedadpositionally, intheworld'slan- guages(cf.Haspelmath 1997:145).T heex- planationforthese form-meaningcorre- lationsisthat themeaningsof thebound categoriesariseonly afteralonger processof grammaticalization,soby thistimethe ele- mentshavealso undergonea significant amountofformal reductionandagglutina- tion.The periphrasticcategoriesusuallyex- pressyounger, lessgrammaticalizedmean- ings.

5.Periphrasis ininflection,derivation,

andsyntax

Inflectionis theprototypicaldomain forsup-

pletiveperiphrasis(as itisfor suppletion),be- causeonlyinflection isorganized intight, symmetricalparadigmsin whichgapscan be- comesalient.But insofarasderivation may alsoberegular ,periphrasiswithin derivation iscertainlynot unimaginable,even thoughit isnotnormally calledperiphrasis(cf. also

Art.52onsuppletionin derivation).The

662IX.Flexion

Englishderivationalsuf fix-ology,forexam-

ple,productivelyforms nounsdenotinga sci- encefromnouns denotingapossible subject matterfora science,e.g. climate!climatol- ogy,Egypt!Egyptology,volcano!volcanol- ogy.However, theLatinatesuffix-ologydoes notcombinefelicitously withnouns likecom- puter,sofor thescienceof computersthe "periphrastic"termcomputersciencemustbe used.Another possibleexamplearemultipli- cativenumeralsin English,e.g. on-ce,twi-ce, thri-ce.For highernumbers,"periphrastic" numeralsarerequired (fourtimes,fivetimes, etc.). (16)decl., affirm.interrogative negative

Youareher eAreyouher e?Youarenot here

Yousawher[Didyousee her?][Youdidnotseeher ]

(*Sawyouher? )(*Yousawnother)

Clearly,"periphrasticdo"isperiphrastic in

muchthesame wayasthe casesofmorpho- logicalperiphrasis,but thefilledgaps in(16) arenotmorphological monolecticforms.Did yousee isasyntactic phrasewhichreplaces theimpossible syntacticphrase* sawyou.

Whatthiscaseshareswith thecases ofmor-

phologicalsuppletiveperiphrasis isthere- strictionofthe non-periphrasticformsto cer- tainhigh-frequencyverbs. InFrench, too,in- vertedinterrogativeclauses (e.g.viens-tu? 'areyoucoming?') tendto besupersededby circumlocutionswith est-ceque(lit.'isit that',e.g. est-cequetu viens?),andthese are oftencalled"periphrastic questions"(cf.

Behnstedt1973).T hus,thegeneral principles

ofperiphrasisremain thesamein syntax,in- flectionandderivation (whichisin accor- dancewiththe notionofa syntax-inflection- derivationcontinuum;cf. Bybee1985:81 ! 110).

Finally,lexicalsubstitution,i.e.theuse of

adifferent lexeme,maymakeupformissing inflectionalforms.F orinstance,English modalauxiliarieslike mustandcanlacknon- finiteforms, andwhenthese arerequiredby thesyntacticenvironment, theyareusually replacedbythe quasi-synonymshavetoand beableto .This hasbeendescribedasperiph- rasis(cf. Westney1995), butinotherrespects itismore likesuppletion.Unlike standard suppletion,however, the"periphrasticmod- als"havetoandbeableto arenotold rem- nantforms,but theyhavefull paradigmsand canoccuralso infiniteforms (e.g.shecan" sheisable to;cf.also Vincent1987: 242;

Börjarsetal. 1997:168).

Somewhatmoreinteresting arecases of

periphrasisinsyntax: At firstitmight seem thatthisis anincoherentnotion, because thereareno "syntacticparadigms".How- ever,itisnotdif ficulttofind syntacticphe- nomenathatprovide astriking analogofin- flectionalparadigms,gaps, andperiphrasisin morphology.Again,agood examplecomes fromEnglish,where onlyasmall subclassof verbscanoccur withoutcomplicationsin in- terrogativeandnegative clauses.In(16), this well-knownpatternis representedinsuch a waythatthe similaritieswithmorphological suppletiveperiphrasisbecome apparent.

6.Periphrasisforms

Thetermperiphrasisformisintroducedhere

forinflectionalforms oflexemeswhich com- binewithauxiliary elementstoform periph- rasesandwhich havenoother functioninthe language.An exampleofaperiphrasisform istheM odernGreekform in-i(derivedfrom theaoriststem) thatcombineswith theauxil- iarye´xo('have')toform aperfectperiphrasis (e.g.dhe´no'Itie',periphrasis formdhe´-s-i, periphrasticperfecte´xodhe´si'Ihavetied').

InSwedish,the perfectperiphrasisconsists of

ha('have')plusa periphrasisform(called "supine"inScandinavian linguists)in-t/-tt/ -it(e.g.skriva'write',periphrasisform skrivit,periphrastic perfectjagharskrivit 'I havewritten').

Theconceptofperiphrasisform isnotyet

generallyrecognizedin theoreticallinguistics, butitis necessaryfora completetheoryof grammar.Itappearsthatin themajorityof periphrases,theform ofthelexeme isiden- ticaltosome inflectionalformthat occursin- dependentlyinthe language,e.g. aninfinitive oraparticiple (cf.(1)!(4),(7)!(8),(13)! (14)).This reflectsthediachronicoriginof periphrasesin ordinarycombinationsof a mainverb plusasubordinate verb.Butas the periphrasisisgrammaticalized, theconnec- tionbetweenthe non-finiteformin thepe- riphrasisandin otherpartsof thegrammar maybesevered. Thisseparate development mayconcernonly thesemantics(as inEng- lishabroken heartvs.Ihavebr oken),orit mayconcernthe morphologicalformas well (asinSwedish skrivit,contrastingwith the

66368.Periphrasis

pastparticipleskrivet;originallythe two formswereidentical), orthenon-periphrastic useofthe non-finiteformmay disappearen- tirelyfromthe language(asin ModernGreek dhe´si,goingback tothe oldinfinitive,which hasfallen intodisuseelsewhere). Inthelatter twocases,the resultisa specialperiphrasis form.And eventhefirstcase(Englishbroken) couldbedescribed asaperiphrasis form, which(fordiachronic reasons)happensto be homonymouswiththe adjectivalpastpartici- ple.

Likethenon-finite verbformsfrom which

theydevelop, periphrasisformsmay bevari- able.Forinstance,the Lezgiannegativepe- riphrasisillustratedin (9)consistsof anega- tiveauxiliaryplus aprecedingperiphrasis formwhoseshape dependsonthe aspectual stemofthe auxiliary,e. g.rax-untawuna'not havingtalked',but rax-antijiz'nottotalk' (Haspelmath1993:134). Synchronicallythis lookslikean unusualkindof agreement,and nothingisknown aboutthe diachronicorigin oftheconstruction.

Ananalogoftheseverbal periphrasis

formscanbe foundinthe nominaldomain:

Russianhasanominalcase formthatoccurs

onlyincombination withcertainprepositions (sometimescalled"prepositive case",some- timescalled"locative", reflectingitsorigin), e.g.vRim-e'inRome' (*Rim-ealonedoes notoccur).One couldsayfor thesakeof consistencythatvRimeistheperiphrastic in- essivecaseof Rim'Rome',andthatRimeis itsperiphrasis form.

7.Conclusion

Periphrasis(inthe narrowersenseof supple-

tiveperiphrasis)presents animportantchal- lengetotheories ofinflectionin thatitshows thatthereare potentiallytwodistinct notions ofaninflectional paradigm(cf.A rt.62) whichneednot coincide:The paradigmmay beconstrued (a)asthe setofall word-formsbelongingto alexeme,or (b)asthe setofall elementsfillingthe cells definedbythe inflectionalcategories that canbeexpressed forthe lexeme.

Onthesecond interpretation,periphrastic

formsareadmitted asmembersof thepara- digm,butat thepricethat theparadigmis nolongera purelymorphologicalnotion. But argumentswereprovidedinthis articlefor theviewthat itisnot possibletoseparate morphologyandsyntax neatlyanyway:T he twoarelinked inextricablythrough thecon- tinuousandubiquitous processofgrammati- calization.Infact, mostinflectionalforma- tivesarisethrough grammaticalizationinthe firstplace,so periphrasisisin asensethe ba- sisofinflection. Inthisperspective, itappears legitimatetoextend thenotionof periphrasis evenfurtherto semanticcategorieswhich are neverexpressedby monolecticforms,but whichshowa sufficientlyhigh degreeof grammaticalizationtobe describedaspart of theverbalparadigm ratherthanonly inthe syntax(i.e., tocategorialperiphrasis).

8.References

Aerts,WillemJohan(1967), Periphrastica:A nIn-

vestigationintothe Useofeı ˜naiande ´kheinas Auxil- iariesandPseudo-A uxiliariesinGr eekfromHomer uptothe PresentDay .Chicago:A rgonaut [orig.

1965:Proefschrift,Universiteit vanAmsterdam]

Aronoff,Mark(1994),MorphologybyItself:Stems

andInflectionalClasses .Cambridge/MA,London:

MITPress(Linguistic InquiryMonographs 22)

Beard,Robert (1995),Lexeme-MorphemeBase

Morphology:AGeneralT heoryofInflection and

WordFormation.Albany: StateUniversityofNew

YorkPress

Behnstedt,Peter(1973), Viens-tu?Est-cequetu

viens?Tu viens?Formenund Strukturendes direkten FragesatzesimFranzösischen.Tübingen: Narr(Tü- bingerBeiträgezur Linguistik41)

Bertinetto,Pier Marco(1990), "Perifrasiverbali

italiane:criteri diidentificazionee gerarchiadipe- rifrasticita`".In:Bernini, Giuliano& GiacaloneRa- mat,A nna(eds.),Latemporalita`nell'acquisizione dilingueseconde .Milano: Angeli,331!350

Börjars,Kersti &Vincent,Nigel& Chapman,

Carol(1997),"Paradigms, PeriphrasesandPro-

nominalInflection:A Feature-basedA ccount".

YearbookofMorphology1996,155!180

Bybee,JoanL. (1985),Morphology:AStudyofthe

Relationbetween Meaningand Form.Amsterdam,

Philadelphia:Benjamins (TypologicalStudies in

Language9)

Bybee,JoanL. &Dahl,Östen (1989),"The Cre-

ationofT enseandA spectSystemsintheLan- guagesofthe World".StudiesinLanguage 13,

51!103

Bybee,Joan& Perkins,Revere &Pagliuca,W il-

liam(1994),TheEvolutionofGrammar:T ense,As- pectandM odalityinthe LanguagesoftheWorld.

Chicago,London:Chicago Univ.Press

Dahl,Östen(1985), TenseandAspectSystems .Ox-

ford,New York:Blackwell

664IX.Flexion

Donaldson,Bruce(1993), AGrammarof Afri-

kaans.Berlin:M outondeGruyter (MoutonGram- marLibrary8)

HäckiBuhofer, Annelies(1987),"DieKasus des

Deutschen!wissenschaftsgeschichtlicheund me-

thodologischeÜberlegungen".DeutscheSprache

1987,137!150

Haspelmath,M artin(1993),AGrammarof Lez-

gian.Berlin:M outondeGruyter (MoutonGram- marLibrary9)

Haspelmath,Martin (1997),FromSpacetoTime:

TemporalAdverbialsinthe World'sLanguages.

München:LincomEuropa (LincomStudiesin

TheoreticalLinguistics3)

Hockett,CharlesF .(1958),ACoursein Modern

Linguistics.New York:Macmillan

Huddleston,R odney(1995),"TheCaseA gainsta

FutureTenseinEnglish". StudiesinLanguage 19,

399!446

King,Gareth(1993), ModernWelsh:ACompr ehen-

siveGrammar.London:R outledge

Koptjevskaja-Tamm,Maria(1996),"Possessive

NounPhrasesinMaltese: Alienability ,Iconicity

andGrammaticalization".RivistadiLinguistica 8,

245!274

Kühner,Raphael&Stegmann,Carl(

2

1914),Aus-

führlicheGrammatik derlateinischenSprache, 2.

Teil,Vol.II .Hannover:Hahn [reprint1992]

Lausberg,Heinrich(

2

1963),Elementeder literari-

schenRhetorik.München:Hueber

Lehmann,Christian(1995), ThoughtsonGrammat-

icalization.München:Lincom Europa(Lincom

StudiesinT heoreticalLinguistics 1)

Matthews,P[eter]H.(1974),Morphology.Cam-

bridgeetc.: CambridgeUniv. Press

Matthews,P[eter]H.(1981),Syntax.Cambridge

etc.:CambridgeUniv .Press Mel'cˇuk,Igor(1993), Coursde morphologiege´ne´- rale(The ´oriqueetdescriptive), Vol.I: Introduction etPremie `repartie:Lemot.Montre ´al:Pressesde l'Universite´deMontre ´al;[Paris]:CNRS

Rose´n,HaiimB. (1992),DiePeriphrase:W esenund

Entstehung.Innsbruck: Univ.Innsbruck (Innsbruk-

kerBeiträgezur Sprachwissenschaft,V orträgeund

KleinereSchriften 57)

Smirnickij,Aleksandr I.(1956),"Analiticˇeskie

formy".Voprosyjazykoznanija1956.2,41!52

Thümmel,Wolf(1966), DasProblem derperiphra-

stischenKonstruktionen .München:F ink(Forum

Slavicum5)

Trask,R[obert]L.(1993), ADictionaryof Gram-

maticalTerms inLinguistics.London,N ewYork:

Routledge

Vincent,Nigel(1987), "TheInteractionofPeriph-

rasisandInflection: SomeRomance Examples".

In:Harris,M artin&R amat,Paolo(eds.),Histori-

calDevelopmentof Auxiliaries.Berlinetc.: Mouton deGruyter(T rendsinLinguistics: Studiesand

Monographs35),237!256

Wallis,John"Iohannes(

6

1765),Grammaticaling-

vaeanglicanae .Londinum:Bowyer [ 1

1653Oxford:

Lichfield;reprintedin: Wallis,John (1972),Gram-

marofthe EnglishLanguage,withtranslation and commentarybyJ. A.Kemp. London:Longman]

Westney,Paul(1995),ModalsandPeriphrasticsin

English:An InvestigationintotheSemanticCorre-

spondencebetweenCertain EnglishModal Verbsand theirPeriphrasticEquivalents .Tübingen: Niemeyer (LinguistischeArbeiten 339)

Zawadowski,Leon(1959), Constructionsgramma-

ticalesetformes pe´riphrastiques.Krako ´w:Ossoli- neum(Praceje ˛zykoznawcze18)

MartinHaspelmath,Leipzig(Germany)

Nouns Documents PDF, PPT , Doc

[PDF] 1.1b nouns around the classroom

1. Arts Humanities

2. Writing

3. Nouns

[PDF] 10.1 nouns answers

[PDF] abstract noun except

[PDF] against nouns

[PDF] among nouns

[PDF] anthimeria nouns

[PDF] antibiotic nouns

[PDF] antibody nouns

[PDF] anticipate nouns

[PDF] antidote nouns

12345 Next 200000 acticles