Universality and the evolution of aspectual adverbials Benjamin - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Universality and the evolution

• f aspectual adverbials

Benjamin Slade & Aniko Csirmaz

• Dept. of Linguistics

University of Utah

Formal Diachronic Semantics 4 The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA 16 November 2019

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 1 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Template

Aspectual adverbials including still, yet, already, anymore, as well as again, then (and perhaps other linguistic elements) form a network These adverbials are best described as deriving from a basic underlying templatic defjnition A templatic approach allows variation in linguistic realisations and accounts for patterns of polysemy, as well as being consistent with patterns of diachronic change Realisations can be derived from a variety of items historically and, crucially, the earlier forms lack any templatic component (“grammaticalisation”)

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 2 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Templatic meaning for aspectual adverbials.

There are a variety of items which are amenable to a templatic treatment, including aspectual adverbials Löbner 1989 and Krifka 2000 propose a system of aspectual adverbials that are related by inner and outer negation

• uter negation

already/schon/kvar ← → not yet/noch nicht/‘adayin lo ↑ ↖ ↗ ↑ inner negation duals ↓ ↙ ↘ ↓ not anymore/nicht mehr/kvar lo ← → still/noch/‘adayin

still(t, Φ) notyet(t, Φ) already(t, Φ): notanymore(t, Φ) assert: Φ(t) assert: ¬Φ(t) assert: Φ(t) assert: ¬Φ(t) prsp: ∃t′∝t[Φ(t′)] prsp: ∃t′∝t[¬Φ(t′)] prsp: ∃t′∝t[¬Φ(t′)] prsp: ∃t′∝t[Φ(t′)]

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 3 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Löbner/Krifka defjnition of already

Consider the Löbner/Krifka defjnition of already (1) a. Still((t, Φ): Assert: Φ(t); Presuppose: ∃t′ ∝ t[Φ(t′)] b. Already((t, Φ): Assert: Φ(t); Presuppose: ∃t′ ∝ t[¬Φ(t′)] Note that unlike not yet, already does not involve negation. In addition, the presupposition that P was false at a time immediately preceding the assertion time is problematic (Krifka 2001, Mittwoch 1993): (2) Kim is already a citizen because she was born here

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 4 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Still etc.

The proposal above addresses temporal interpretation (Fred is still / already sleeping) Several adverbials, most notably still and its equivalents have usages that go beyond temporal interpretation. German noch ‘still’ and its equivalents permit a variable range of other readings (Beck 2018 a.o.) (3) a. Cincinnati is still in Ohio (spatial) b. He felt sick, but he still decided to stay (concessive) c. This dress is still expensive (marginal) Some readings, including (3-a), merely involve a scale distinct from the temporal scale Others (e.g. (3-b), (3-c) involve a more signifjcant difgerence (see Beck 2018, a.o.). Thus still, noch can be said to involve polysemy. Extended uses of still, including the comparative below, are potentially problematic on the Krifka/Löbner approach

(This ball is big, that is bigger, and that one over there is still bigger / bigger yet)

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 5 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Already

Already also allows interpretations other than the temporal one. (4) a. Cincinnati is already in Ohio (spatial) b. This dress is already expensive (marginal)

• c. #He felt sick, but he already decided to stay (concessive)

some type of readings possible with still, e.g. comparative, concessive, are not found with already

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 6 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Polysemy

Polysemy is not restricted to still. The aspectual adverbials below include repetitives, ordering then (And then he left) and its inverse. A number of items that are distinct in English have identical realizations:

‘before

• rdering

temp. ‘(not) ‘(not) that’ ‘then’ ‘again’ ‘still’ ‘already’ yet’ anymore’ Hindi ab tak, X (X) X Nepali ahile samma Hindi phir, Nepali pheri X X Romanian mai X X X X Italian ancora X X X X Jamaican patois aredi X X Old English giet X X X Spanish ya X X Spanish todavia X X Hungarian még X X X Hungarian már X X German noch X X X

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 7 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Underlying defjnition

‘before

• rdering

temp. ‘(not) ‘(not) that’ ‘then’ ‘again’ ‘still’ ‘already’ yet’ anymore’ Hindi ab tak, X (X) X Nepali ahile samma Hindi phir, Nepali pheri X X Romanian mai X X X X Italian ancora X X X X Jamaican patois aredi X X Old English giet X X X Spanish ya X X Spanish todavia X X Hungarian még X X X Hungarian már X X German noch X X X

The polysemy of the various aspectual adverbs suggests a single underlying defjnition; the shared defjnition allows difgerent meanings to be realized by the same

• element. At the same time, there is no expectation that there is a common element

for all uses, as shown by the empty cells. Darker coloured cells indicate patterns which are unexpected on a Krifka/Löbner-style approach.

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 8 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inherent instability of aspectual adverbials

Even within English varieties, there is polysemy: (5) Jamaican Patwa aredi/already (=“yet”) a. You been eat lunch already? [1934 Amer. Speech 9 123/2] b. I want you to pass and see if it drop already. [M. Collins Walk in S. Brown & J. Wickham Oxf. Bk. Caribbean Short Stories (1999) 367]

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 9 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Template

We propose a general defjnition for aspectual adverbials The defjnition abstracts away from the specifjc scale and elements of the scale Ordering relations can also vary

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 10 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Template

In the template, x, x′ are scalar entities (times, degrees, etc) such that x′ stands in relation R to x on scale S P, Q are saturated predicates except for the arguments indicated FA is a set of focus alternatives to P(x, . . .) which difger in the elements under focus (times, degrees, or subconstituents)

(6) aspectual adverb =

λxSλeλP : ∃x′

S

∃e′ ∃Q   Q(e′, x′, . . .)& Q(e′, x′, . . .) ∈ FA(P(e, x, ...))& x′Rx   .P(e, x, . . .)

The aspectual adverbials can difger in the identity of the scale; the type of argument; whether P and Q are identical; the identity of the focused element (e.g. for repetitives (again) the time argument must be focused); and the relation (e.g. immediate precedence for still and already, simple precedence for again, ordering then and before that).

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 11 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Still as a manifestation of the template

(7) still =

λtTλeλP : ∃t′

T

∃e′ ∃Q   Q(e′, t′, . . .)& Q(e′, t′, . . .) ∈ FA(P(e, t, ...))& t′ ≺ t   .P(e, t, . . .)

The template ofgers a unique underlying defjnition Whenever a surface form has difgerent aspectual interpretations, that form is more general (the unmarked form), and other aspectual adverbs are more specifjc realizations of the template Various interpretations of still and its equivalents (e.g. marginal and concessive readings) also fjt the template, with the scale changed appropriately

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 12 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Implicature of still

Common implicature with still: there is some future time at which P will not be true (So examples like “John is still dead” are generally odd) Arises as Quantity implicature: speaker chose not to use always (e.g. “It will always be raining”, “John will always be dead”).

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 13 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New aspectual adverbial paradigm

α ¬ > α α > ¬ t′ ≺ t

still not anymore (=not still) not yet (=still not) assert: P is true at t assert: P is not true at t assert: P is not true at t presup: P is true at t’ presup: P is true at t’ presup: P is not true at t’ t ≺ t′ already not already already not assert: P is true at t assert: P is not true at t assert: P is not true at t presup: P is true at t’ presup: P is true at t’ presup: P is not true at t’

Table: New proposal for the relation between aspectual particles

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 14 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Already

We reanalyse already as being similar to still, but involving an inverted scale (so x′ follows rather than precedes x) the truth of P at a preceding time is presupposed for still, and the truth

• f P at a later time is presupposed for already

(8) already =

λtTλeλP : ∃t′

T

∃e′ ∃Q   Q(e′, t′, . . .)& Q(e′, t′, . . .) ∈ FA(P(e, t, ...))& t ≺ t′   .P(e, t, . . .)

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 15 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Implicature of already

Relevance-based Presupposes a later time t′ such that P(t′) is true. The combination of the assertion and presupposition gives rise to Relevance implicature that the later time is the expected time when P would be true. in order to accommodate the truth of both presupposition and assertion, must assume presupposition is evaluated in a difgerent w′

for telic predicates the presupposition won’t be satisfjed for w, and for atelic not necessarily satisfjed (and not necessarily relevantly satisfjed when satisfjed)

assuming P is true in w′, at t′(≻ t), but that P(t) is asserted, gives rise to relevance-based implicature that (in w) P occurs earlier than expected

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 16 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Concessive interpretations, additive particles

In Hindi (& Nepali), Hungarian, concessives involve an additive particle (bhī, pani, is, respectively) collocated with an aspectual adverbial

Hindi phir bhī, Nepali pheri pani “(lit.) then/again also”, Hungarian mégis “(lit.) still also”

Though in some languages (e.g. English) there is no overt separate morpheme, the appearance of such an element in unrelated, geographically distant languages is suggestive The additive seems to correlate with the additional “frame-setting” eventuality required in concessives

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 17 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Concessive “still” defjnition

Concessive

λSλwλeλP: ∃e′ ∃Q ∃e′ ∃R

∃Wcg⊆W

            R(e′,w,... ) & Q(e′,... )∈FA(P(e,... )) &

Σ({Λ(w′)|R(e′,w′)∧P(e,w′)∧w′∈Wcg}) < Σ({Λ(w′′)|R(e′,w′′)∧Q(e,w′′)∧w′′∈Wcg}) Σ({Λ(w′)|R(e′,w′)∧P(e,w′)∧w′∈Wcg}), Σ({Λ(w′′)|R(e′,w′′)∧Q(e,w′′)∧w′′∈Wcg})∈S

            .P(e,w,... ) Wcg is the set of worlds consistent with the common ground because verum is focussed, FA(P(e)) = {P(e), ¬ P(e)} Λ(w′) = likelihood of w′ Σ({Λ(w′)| . . . }) is the aggregate of the likelihood of every world in a particular set. Thus both the number of worlds in the set and the individual likelihood of each particular world afgects the result. S is an ordering of real numbers So here the overall likeliness of the worlds in which both the presupposed ‘frame-setting’ eventuality and the eventuality in question both occur is lower than the overall likeliness of the worlds in which the ‘frame-setting’ eventuality occurs but the eventuality in question does not FAs = {p,¬p}

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 18 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Focus sensitivity

The template appeals to focus alternatives to determine predicates in the presupposition Beck 2018 argues that still, noch are not focus-sensitive. Rather, they tend to occur in environments where focus is likely to occur independently Beck 2018 points out unlike nur/only and auch/also, noch/still does not appear to be able to associate with focus alternatives within syntactic islands We provide examples showing that this association is possible for examples where a scale is clearly available for ranking alternatives

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 19 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Focus sensitivity

Beck (2018) suggests (9-c) is evidence that noch actually requires an actual associate argument – which is predictably sensitive to syntactic islands – rather than deriving its ‘associate’ directly from focus alternatives.

(9) a.

Nur

• nly

ein a Auto, car [CP das that KARL KARL gekaufu bought hat has ], ist is ein a Kleinwagen. compact car

“There is no x̸=Karl such that a car that x bought is a compact.” b.

Ein a Auto, car [CP das that KARL KARL gekaufu bought hat has ], ist is auch also ein a Kleinwagen. compact car

“There is an x̸=Karl such that a car that x bought is a compact.” c. #Ein

a Auto, car [CP das that KARL KARL gekaufu bought hat has ], ist is noch still ein a Kleinwagen. compact car

“There is a car that Karl bought which is a compact.” targeted presupposition: A car that x′ bought is a compact (where x′ is lower on the relevant scale than Karl) targeted implicature: No care that a person higher on the relevant scale bought is a compact.

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 20 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Focus sensitivity (cont.)

Further, other examples can be constructed where still can associate with an element inside of an island:

(10) A certain private military company regularly tests their operatives since they

• ften need them to carry out very specifjc actions from fairly great distances.

This sharp-shooter test involves shooting at various animals from a distance of 500 metres. The creatures include foxes, rabbits, squirrels, mice, and ants. The boss says: “Any person that [CP hits a SQUIRREL ] is still a viable assassin.” a. Assertion: Any person who hits a squirrel is a viable assassin. b. Presupposition: Any person who hits an animal smaller than a squirrel is a viable assassin. c. Implicature: Any person who (only) hits animals larger than a squirrel is not a viable assassin. d. Available: a scale ranking animals by size: <ant,mouse,squirrel,rabbit,fox>

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 21 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Historical development

Crosslinguistically, aspectual adverbials often have similar etymologies. At the same time, the earlier usage lacks a templatic component, which is expected if the template is available only for functional or semi-functional elements. There are some recurrent patterns of sources (e.g. “again” from “back” (often itself extended from “hinder part”)) repetitives can involve polysemy with other aspectual adverbials still develops from again

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 22 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hungarian

még ‘still’ is etymologically connected to meg, which was used with a counter-directional sense in Old Hungarian (meg1 in Benkő 1970) The later meg form had a repetitive sense (Benkő 1970), also for the present-day repetitives megint, ismét and meg had a counter-directional sense: (11)

ne not mennének went.3PL meg meg Heródeshez, Herod-TO más difgerent úton road-ON fordulának turned.3PL meg meg ő they

• rszágukba

country.POS.3PL-TO

“They didn’t return to Herod, they returned on a difgerent road to their country.” (Müncheni kódex, 1466)

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 23 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Repetitives

“back” > “again” Kutchi Gujarati pacho “again (repet. & restit.) & back” (see Patel-Grosz & Beck 2014) < OIA. *paśca- “hinder part” [Turner 1966: #7990] English back itself. English again, this word originally meant “back, in the opposite direction” (=OE ongean): (12) “He sceaf þa mid ðam scylde, ðæt se sceaft tobærst, and þæt spere sprengde, þæt hit sprang ongean.” [“He shoved then with shield so the shaft burst — the spear broke and sprang back.”](Battle of Maldon 137) Hungarian meg “back” > megint, ismét “again” (Benkő 1970) Spanish tornar ‘turn over’ > tornar a ‘again’

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 24 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Repetitives (cont.)

Old English eft [Beck & Gergel 2015; Gergel & Beck 2015] (cognate with modern English after and aft) also exhibits polysemy analysable as underspecifjcation similar to that found in Hindi phir and Nepali pheri in their polysemous senses of “then (=after that)” and “again”: (13) Efterward me ssel þerne mete eft chyewe ase þe oxe þet... “Afterward one shall chew this food again like the ox that…[repetitive reading] (14) þone mon eft on Cent forbærnde. “That man was afterwards burned in Kent.” [AS Chron. 685 (Parker)]

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 25 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Repetitives

Hindi vāpas “back” on the other hand has not (yet) developed any repetitive senses, and represents a loan-word from Persian, with the pās part being cognate with Old Indo-Aryan *paśca- “hinder-part” [Platts 1884:1171] (and thus is cognate ultimately with Kutchi Gujarati pacho). Hindi phir “then, again”, Nepali pheri is related to Hindi phirnā “to turn”, which derives from a reconstructed Old Indo-Aryan *phirati “moves, wanders, turns”, cp. Prakrit phiraï “goes, returns” (Turner 1966: #9078). Sanskrit púnar very underspecifjed “back; again; further; (concessive) still”.

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 26 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Evolution of still

English still provides an instructive view into historical developments afgecting aspectual adverbials. Originally meaning “motionless” (still possible in Mod Eng), it has come in Modern English to have a great range of senses (cf. Ippolito 2007, Beck 2018). From original sense, it developed in the 14th century an additional possible meaning “always” (archaic by the 19th-c.), as in: (15) a. That sche schal duelle a maiden stille. [J. Gower Confessio Amantis I. 337 (1390AD)] b. Fame..hath..tonges..that speken stylle without ceasse. [W. Caxton tr. Eneydos xv. 58 (1490AD)] c. Thus haue I prov’d Tobacco good or ill; Good, if rare taken; Bad, if taken still. [1617 R. Brathwait Smoaking Age] Only from the 16th-century do we fjnd the modern day temporal still sense, e.g.: (16) For as you were when fjrst your eye I eyde, Such seemes your beautie

• still. [1609 Shakespeare Sonnets civ. sig. G2v]

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 27 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Evolution of still cont.

While the comparative sense appears consistently only from the 18th-c.: (17) The Woodmongers Abuse..of a former Charter leaves still less Reason to fear they shou’d succeed. Concessive still likewise only appears from the 18th-century: (18) a. While they pant after Shade and Covert, they still afgect to appear in the most glittering Scenes of Life. [R. Steele Spectator No. 27. ⁋1 (1711AD)] b. ‘Tis true, St. Giles’s buried two and thirty, but still as there was but one of the Plague, People began to be easy. [D. Defoe Jrnl. Plague Year 7 (1722AD)]

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 28 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Evolution of still cont.

The reanalysis from “motionless” to “always” results in a temporally-associated adverb, whose denotation we can roughly formalise as: (19) λP∀ relevant times t′.P(t′) Unlike the aspectual adverbials this does not involve a presuppositional

• component. Thus the later 17th-c. re-analysis as a temporal aspectual

adverbial still involves a signifjcant change in semantic value.

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 29 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Evolution of still overview

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 “motionless” X X X X X X X X X X temporal X X X X X X “always” temporal X X X X X “now as before” comparative X X X concessive X X X

Table: Senses of still over time

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 30 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Still in other languages

Hungarian még is derived from meg (counterdirectional) (Benkő 1970) Spanish todavía “still” < “always” (=“siempre”) from Latin tota via “all the ways” French encore from in hanc horam “until this hour”

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 31 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Evolution of yet overview

Historically, yet is cognate with Gothic ju “already; now” and German jetzt “now”, and had (and marginally maintains) many of the functions

• f still, with the earliest meanings of Proto-Germanic *iu-ta being

“already; at this moment” (cf. Liberman 2008)

pre-OE OE 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 “already” X “again” X X X X X X temporal X X X X X X X X (X) “now as before” temporal X X X X X X X X X “at some time in the future” concessive ? X X X X X X X X X “in spite of that”

Table: Senses of yet over time

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 32 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Evolution of yet

(20) earlier with the sense “again” a. Þa gyt se eadega wer ymb wucan þriddan wilde culufran ane sende. “Then again the blessed man about a week later send out alone a third wild dove.” [Genesis A l.1476 (before 1000AD)] b. Gif he nulle, nim tweien of þine freond and ga ȝet bi-sec hine. “If he will not, take two of your friends and go beseech him again.” [MS Lamb. in R. Morris Old Eng. Homilies (1868) 1st Ser. 17 (MED), ca. 1225AD] c. I am a Queene..: Tis treason if thou touch me yit. “I am a queen: it is treason if you touch me again.” [R. Armin Ital. Taylor v. sig. D2v (1609AD)]

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 33 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Yet - concessive

bears a concessive sense from Old English to present-day (21) a. Hit þa eft gelamp æfter fæce þurh gymelyste þæt se ylca tun forbarn & seo cyrice; & gyt se leg þære stuðe gehrinan ne mihte. “It again happened after a time through carelessness that the same town and church burned down & yet the fmame could not touch the buttress.” [tr. Bede Eccl.

• Hist. (Corpus Oxf.) iii. xiv. 204 (<1000AD)]

b. I haw done, aȝen thi wille, Synnes diuers,..And ȝut art thu redi..To graunt me ay forȝefnesse. [Lay Folks Mass Bk. (Newnh.) (ca. 1450AD)] c. As he would speake, but that he lackt a tong Yeat did by signes his glad afgection show. [E. Spenser Prothalamion vii.

• sig. B (1596AD)]

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 34 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reanalysis into aspectual adverbials

In all of these examined cases of the development of lexical items into aspectual adverbials, a major semantic shift is involved. None of these involve a sort of gradual semantic change, but rather ‘catastrophic’ reanalyses, whose frequent and crosslinguistic occurrence strongly points to the templatic aspectual adverbial being a universally-accessible semantic chunk.

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 35 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aspect

There are aspectual restrictions on eventuality descriptions modifjed by still, already (non-concessive) still requires stative predicates (states / progressives / habitual) Already requires telic or stative predicates (22) a. Kim was still reading / sick b. Kim still read poemshab / #read a poem / #pulled a/the wagon/ #read / #arrived c. Kim was already reading / sick d. Kim already read poemshab / read a poem / #pulled a/the wagon / #read / arrived

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 36 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aspect: still & again

Again presupposes an eventuality that precedes the asserted eventutality No gaps are necessary betweeen the two eventualities: (23) Kim knocked. And then she knocked again immediately after Still may require a supereventuality which contains the asserted and presupposed events as parts (cf. ‘always’ for ‘still’) Telic events will be unacceptable, while atelic events will be acceptable with still (activities should be acceptable, contrary to fact) If superevents are required, then perhaps still does not require abutment, just precedence; there will be no gaps If again does not permit the existence of a supereventuality, then it follows that telic events are acceptable with again and that for atelic eventualities, a ‘maximal event’ interpretation is required (Stechow 1996)

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 37 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aspect: already

Already permits stative and telic predicates The acceptability of telic predicates resembles the original meaning of ‘fully prepared’ / ‘ready’ for already (1200-1550)

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 38 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Extensions

Another possible use of templates: personal and demonstrative pronouns

Patel-Grosz and Grosz 2017 treat pronouns as involving underspecifjcation, where demonstratives have more structure than personal pronouns

Templates give rise to a type of underspecifjcation where individual lexical items can:

(a) encode particular choices for parts of the defjnition such as the identity of the scale involved, or (b) have a more general defjnition, which permits a unique lexical entry with a variety of lexical meanings

Examination of historical change suggests the universal availability of templatic pieces

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 39 / 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References

Beck, S. 2018. Readings of scalar particles noch/still. Ms., Universität Tübingen; Beck, S. & Gergel, R. 2015. The diachronic semantics of English again. Nat Lang Sem 23:157–203; Benkő, L. (ed.). 1970. A magyar nyelv törtnéti-etimológiai szótára [A historical-etymological dictionary of Hungarian], vol 2. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó; Gergel, R. & Beck, S. 2015. Early Modern English again: a corpus study & semantic analysis. English Language and Linguistics 19:27–47; Ippolito, M.

• 2007. On the meaning of some focus-sensitive particles. NLS 15.1:1–34; Krifka, M.
• 2000. Alternatives for aspectual particles: Semantics of still and already. BLS

26.1:401–412; Liberman, A. 2008. An analytic dictionary of English etymology, Uni.

• f Minnesota Press; Löbner, S. 1989. German schon - erst - noch: An integrated
• analysis. L&P 12: 167–212; Patel-Grosz, P. & Beck, S. 2014. Revisiting again:

The view from Kutchi Gujarati. Sinn & Bedeutung 18; Patel-Grosz, P. & Grosz, P.G. 2017. Revisiting pronominal typology. LI 48(2): 259–297; von Stechow,

• Arnim. 1996. The difgerent readings of wieder “again”: A structural account.

Journal of Semantics 13:87–138; Turner, R.L. 1962–1966. A comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages. OUP.

Slade & Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Universality & Evolution of Asp. Adverbials FoDS-04 40 / 40