Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T23:06:22.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the grammaticalization of personal pronouns1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2011

BERND HEINE  and
KYUNG-AN SONG
BERND HEINE*
Affiliation:
Universität zu Köln
KYUNG-AN SONG*
Affiliation:
Chonnam National University
*
Authors' address: (Heine) Institut für Afrikanistik, Universität zu Köln, 50923 Köln, Germany Correspondence address: Bernd Heine, Nonnenwerthstr. 48, 50937, Koeln, Germanybernd.heine@uni-koeln.de
Authors' address: (Song) Department of German Language & Literature, Chonnam National University, 77 Yongbong-ro, Buk-gu, Gwangju 500-757, Koreakasong@chonnam.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unlike most other grammatical domains, that of personal pronouns is clearly under-researched in works on grammaticalization. One reason can be seen in the fact that personal pronouns differ in their diachronic behavior from most other grammatical categories to the extent that they present a challenge to grammaticalization theory. In the present paper it is argued that in order to account for this behavior, an extended understanding of grammaticalization is needed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 587 - 630
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

We wish to express our gratitude to a number of colleagues who have been of help in writing this paper, in particular to John Haiman, Christa König, Tania Kuteva, Heiko Narrog, Fritz Newmeyer, as well as two anonymous JL referees. We also wish to express our gratitude to the Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology for generously having sponsored the research leading to this paper within its World Class University Program.

The following abbreviations are used in the paper: 1, 2, 3=first, second, third person; abs=absolute pronoun; acc=accusative; cl=classifier; conn=connective; cop=copula; dat=dative; def=definite; du=dual; emph=emphasis; end=ending; ex=exclusive; f=feminine; fut=future; gns=grammaticalization in a narrow sense; gws=grammaticalization in a wide sense; h=honorific; hab=habitual; hum=human; in=inclusive; int=intensifier; intr=interrogative particle; m=masculine; n=neuter; neg=negation; nom=nominative; o=object; obj=object; past=past; pfv=perfective; pl=plural; pres=present; refl=reflexive; sg=singular; sub=subject; tam=tense-aspect-modality; tns=tense; top=topic; tr=trial.

References

REFERENCES

Albán, Maria del Rosário & Freitas, Judith. 1991. Nós ou gente? Estudos 11, 75–89.Google Scholar
Arends, Jacques. 1986. Genesis and development of the equative copula in Sranan. In Muysken, Pieter & Smith, Norval (eds.), Substrata versus universals in creole genesis (Creole Language Library 1), 103–127. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Philip. 1995. Some developmental inferences from the historical studies of pidgins and creoles. In Arends, Jacques (ed.), The early stages of creolization (Creole Language Library 13), 1–24. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2002. On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization? In Wischer, & Diewald, (eds.), 345–361.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Wiemer, Björn (eds.). 2004. What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 158). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Frank R. 1934. The origin of pronouns of the first and second persons. The American Journal of Philology 55, 244–248.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger & Gilman, Albert. 1968. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.), Readings in the sociology of language, 252–281. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Byrd, Steven Eric. 2006. Calunga, an Afro-Brazilian speech of the Triangulo Mineiro. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Services.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Janda, Richard. 2001. Introduction: Conceptions of grammaticalization and their problems. Language Sciences 23.2–3, 93–112.Google Scholar
Casad, Eugene 1984. Cora. In Langacker, Ronald W. (ed.), Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar, vol. 4: Southern Uto-Aztecan grammatical sketches (Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics 56, IV), 151–459. Arlington, TX: The Summer Institute of Linguistics & The University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Claudi, Ulrike 1985. Zur Entstehung von Genussystemen: Überlegungen zu einigen theoretischen Aspekten, verbunden mit einer Fallstudie des Zande. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1975. Polite plurals and predicate agreement. Language 51, 406–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, Joseph Robinson. 1968. Pronominal reference in Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese (University of California Publications in Linguistics 52). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Corne, Chris. 1971. Le patois créole français de la Guyane (St-Laurent-du-Maroni): esquisse de grammaire. Te Reo 14, 81–103.Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian. 1992. Linguistic etiquette in Japanese society. In Watts, Richard J., Ide, Sachiko & Ehlich, Konrad (eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 59), 299–323. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Coveney, Aidan. 2000. Vestiges of nous and the 1st person plural verb in informal spoken French. Language Sciences 22, 447–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The paradigmatic structure of person marking (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2005a. Inclusive/exclusive distinction in independent pronouns. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), 162–164.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2005b. Inclusive/exclusive distinction in verbal inflection. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), 164–169.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1997. The diachronic reanalysis of demonstratives in crosslinguistic perspective. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 33, 83–98.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999a. The morphosyntax of demonstratives in synchrony and diachrony. Linguistic Typology 3, 1–49.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999b. Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 42). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In Wischer, & Diewald, (eds.), 103–120.Google Scholar
Forchheimer, Paul. 1953. The category of person in language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedländer, Marianne. 1974. Lehrbuch des Susu. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Gardiner, A. 1957. Egyptian grammar: Being an introduction to the study of hieroglyphs, 3rd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional–typological introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottsched, Johann Christoph. [1762] 1970. Vollständigere und Neuerläuterte Deutsche Sprachkunst, reprint. Hildesheim & New York.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.). 1963a. Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963b. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, (ed.), 58–90.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne & Mutz, Katrin. 2004. Grammaticalization vs. pragmaticalization? The development of pragmatic markers in German and Italian. In Bisang, et al. (eds.), 77–107.Google Scholar
Haase, Martin. 1992. Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel im Baskenland: die Einflüsse des Gaskognischen und Französischen auf das Baskische. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Haase, Martin. 1994. Respekt: die Grammatikalisierung von Höflichkeit (Edition Linguistik 44). Munich & Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 1993. The language builder: An essay on the human signature in linguistic morphogenesis (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 94). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Josef. 1980. Amharische Grammatik (Äthiopische Forschungen 3). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David & Comrie, Bernard (eds.). 2005. The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Head, Brian. 1978. Respect degrees in pronominal reference. In H. Greenberg, Joseph, Ferguson, Charles A. & Moravcsik, Edith (eds.), Universals of human language, vol. 3: Word structure, 151–211. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 2004. Person. In Booij, Geert E., Lehmann, Christian, Mugdan, Joachim & Skopeteas, Stavros (eds.), Morphologie – Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 17.2), vol. 2, 998–1015. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1999. The ‖Ani: Grammatical notes and texts (Khoisan Forum 11). Cologne: Institut für Afrikanistik.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, & Diewald, (eds.), 83–101.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechthild. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Song, Kyung-An. 2010. On the genesis of personal pronouns: Some conceptual sources. Language and Cognition 2.1, 117–148.Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2004. Personal pronoun: Form, function and grammaticalization (Diversitas Linguarum, Universität Erfurt). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2005a. Typologie und Diffusion von Höflichkeitspronomina in Europa. Folia Linguistica 39.3–4, 417–452.Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2005b. Politeness distinctions in pronouns. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), 186–189.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. In press. The grammaticalization of tense and aspect. In Narrog, & Heine, (eds.).Google Scholar
Heusing, Gerald. 2004. Die südlichen Lwoo-Sprachen: Beschreibung, Vergleich und Rekonstruktion (Nilo-Saharan 19). Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Hinds, John. 1986. Japanese. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, & Heine, (eds.), 17–35.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2005. How accommodating of change is grammaticalization? The case of ‘lateral shifts’. Logos and Language 6.2, 1–8.Google Scholar
Keesing, Roger M. 1991. Substrates, calquing and grammaticalization in Melanesian Pidgin. In Traugott, & Heine, (eds.), 315–342.Google Scholar
Klausenburger, Jürgen. 2000. Grammaticalization: Studies in Latin and Romance morphosyntax (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 193). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2000. Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Curl, Traci S. (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions (Typological Studies in Language 40), 41–74. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, Tania. 2001. Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kutsch Lojenga, Constance. 1994. Ngiti: A Central-Sudanic language of Zaire (Nilo-Saharan 9). Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20 303–318.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D. 2010. The ass camouflage construction: Masks as parasitic heads. Language 86.2, 265–301.Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1985. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991. Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language 67.3, 475–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström Tiedemann, Therese. 2006. Grammaticalization – past and present. Logos and Language 6.2, 19–35.Google Scholar
Lockwood, W. B. 1968. Historical German syntax. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2005. Does a theory of language change need unidirectionality? Logos and Language 6.2, 9–17.Google Scholar
Margetts, Anna & Austin, Peter K.. 2007. Three-participant events in the languages of the world: Towards a crosslinguistic typology. Linguistics 45.3, 393–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martelotta, Mário Eduardo & Maura Cezario, Maria. In press. Grammaticalization in Brazilian Portuguese. In Narrog, & Heine, (eds.).Google Scholar
Merlan, Aurelia. 2006. Grammatikalisierungstendenzen im Portugiesischen und Rumänischen: von Nominalsyntagmen zu Pronomina. In Schmidt-Radefeldt, Jürgen (ed.), Portugiesisch kontrastiv gesehen und Anglizismen weltweit (Rostocker Romanistische Arbeiten 10), 221–240. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter & Harré, Rom. 1990. Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity (Language in Society 15). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter & Smith, Norval (eds.). 1986. Substrata versus universals in Creole genesis: Papers from the Amsterdam Creole Workshop, April 1985. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd (eds.). In press. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. In press. Degrammaticalization. In Narrog, & Heine, (eds.).Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1969. On so-called pronouns in English. In Reibel, David & Schane, Sanford (eds.), Modern studies in English, 187–224. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Praetorius, Franz. 1879. Die amharische Sprache. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.Google Scholar
Ramat, Anna Giacalone & Hopper, Paul J. (eds.). 1998. The limits of grammaticalization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Samarin, William J. 2002. Plurality and deference in urban Sango. In Carstens, Vicki & Parkinson, Frederick (eds.), Advances in African linguistics (Trends in African Linguistics 4), 299–311. Trenton, NJ & Asmara: Africa World Press.Google Scholar
Schwegler, Armin. 1993. Subject pronouns and person/number in Palenquero. In Byrne, Francis X. & Holm, John A. (eds.), Atlantic meets Pacific: A global view of pidginization and creolization (Creole Language Library 11), 145–161. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, Horst J. 1997. Die Diachronie der deutschen Anredepronomina aus Sicht der Universalienforschung. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 50, 267–281.Google Scholar
Simon, Horst J. 2003. Für eine Grammatische Kategorie ‘Respekt’ im Deutschen: Synchronie, Diachronie und Typologie der deutschen Anredepronomina. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Song, Kyung-An. 2002. Korean reflexives and grammaticalization: A speaker–hearer dynamic approach. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF, Berlin) 55.5, 340–353.Google Scholar
Song, Kyung-An. 2010. Pronominals, addressing forms, and grammaticalization: A speaker–hearer dynamic approach with reference to Korean. Ms., Chonnam National University, Gwangju.Google Scholar
Sugamoto, Nobuko. 1989. Pronominality: A noun–pronoun continuum. In Corrigan, Roberta, Eckman, Fred & Noonan, Michael (eds.), Linguistic categorization, 267–291. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syea, Anand. 1996. The development of a marker of definiteness in Mauritian Creole. In Baker, Philip & Syea, Anand (eds.), Changing meanings, changing functions: Papers relating to grammaticalization in contact languages (Westminster Creolistics 2), 171–186. London: University of Westminster Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Heine, Bernd (eds.). 1991a. Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Heine, Bernd (eds.). 1991b. Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 2. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Travis, Catherine E. & Silveira, Agripino S.. 2009. The role of frequency in first-person plural variation in Brazilian Portuguese: Nós vs. a gente. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 2.2, 347–376.Google Scholar
Tucker, Archibald N. 1940. The Eastern Sudanic languages, vol. 1. London, New York & Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wordick, F. J. F. 1982. The Yindjibarndi language (Pacific Linguistics C-71). Canberra: The Australian National University, Research School of Pacific Studies.Google Scholar