Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Book review

www.elsevier.com/locate/linguaLingua 152 (2014) 45--47

Grammatical Replication and Borrowability in Language Contact, Björn Wiemer, Bernhard Wälchli, BjörnHansen, De Gruyter Mouton (2012), xiv+670 pp., Price: 139.95s (hardcover), ISBN: 978-3-11-027197-3

This collection of papers is a significant publication in the field of grammaticalization and language contact recentlyhotly debated in scholarly literature. With its ‘genealogic focus’ on Slavic, the book under review is a treasure trove ofconcrete facts about Slavic and theoretical generalizations devoted to grammatical replication and borrowability asinspired by the ideas of Bernd Heine and Tania Kuteva and discussed at the 2005 meeting of the Societas LinguisticaeEuropae.

The volume’s main content is divided into seven parts, A through G, containing in total 15 papers, includingIntroduction; carefully edited, the indices are very helpful. Introduction looks into two key issues, which are the following:(1) how can grammatical replication be distinguished from contact-induced linguistic change? and (2) how can languagecontact account for areal biases in the borrowing of grammatical morphemes and constructions? (3--4). Having heraldedthe arrival of the areal revolution in typology (6), the editors discuss three different -- reconstruction, result, and process --perspectives in areal linguistics, while honing in on the concept of linguistic area (10--15). Critically assessing traditionalgrammaticalization theory, the editors address motivations and parameters of grammaticalization (extension,desemanticization, decategorizalization, and erosion) in conjunction with different theories of contact-inducedgrammaticalization, e.g., Bern Heine & Tania Kuteva, Volker Gast & Johan van der Auwera, and Yaron Matras &Jeanette Sakel (19--36). As a result, the editors manage to offer a fresh insight into the nature of grammatical borrowingand grammaticalization, arguing (and rightly so) that for all stages of contact-induced grammatical change, nonstandardvarieties should become a primary object of study (51).

Part B, entitled ‘‘Survey on grammaticalization and language contact in Slavic languages’’ (65--155), is one of the mostimportant in the entire book. Authored by Björn Wiemer and Björn Hansen, it covers all known cases of contact-inducedgrammaticalization in Slavic. To name several of them, one can mention modal constructions with dynamic, deonic, andepistemic meanings, influenced by German (73--79), the Czech absentive, also influenced by German, e.g., Czech bylastancovat? next to German warst du tanzen? ‘Have you been away to dance?’ (79--80), replacement of the infinitive in theBalkan Sprachbund languages (80--83), complex predicates with verbal nouns following a German model with themeaning of possibility and necessity, cf. Polish Mam referat do napisania next to German Ich habe ein Refreat zuschreiben ‘I have to write a presentation’ (83--85), ‘inchoative’ passives, also influenced by German (91--95), the recipientpassive (95--96) and modal passives (96--98), all influenced by German, and some other cases.

Aside from a queer impression of Slavic as shaped primarily byGerman, some of the afore-mentioned cases have longbeen offered alternative interpretation by some Slavic authors conspicuously absent in the references (Potebnja, 1958,1968; Popov, 1881; Krys’ko, 1997; Danylenko, 2003). Among the dubious cases, I would name incipient impersonal man-constructions, the future tense marking with the help of BUDU (German werden), the articles (113--121) demonstratingvarious levels of grammaticalization in some Ukrainian dialects, the accusative with infinitive construction (128--129)which arguably arose independently in different IE languages (Popov, 1881:271--272; Danylenko, 2003:261--262). Themajor problem with all the alleged cases of contact-induced grammaticalization in Slavic seems to lie in a lack of theirclassification in accordance with the typological profiling of different Slavic languages. For instance, while agreeing withthe analyticity in Bulgarian and Macedonian, Wiemer and Hansen identify, though en passant, Czech and Polish as ‘moreconservative’ and disregard the ‘typological portrait’ of East Slavic which is in fact even more ‘conservative’ (synthetic)than any other Slavic language system (Danylenko, 2013).

Part C, dealing with general issues, begins with an article by Bernd Heine and Tania Kuteva who present the so-called‘integrative model of grammaticalization’ (159--190). The latter is so designed as to explain how grammaticalization worksoverall, irrespective of whether it takes place in contact-related or non-contact-related situations. Contrary to thedeclaration of the editors, Heine and Kuteva, with rare exceptions, do not take into consideration non-standard varieties

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.09.0100024-3841/

Book review46

which tends to methodologically downgrade the validity of their argumentation. Discussing processes ofgrammaticalization and ‘borrowing the unborrowable’, Anthony P. Grant examines cases of transfer of fabric asopposed to transfer of pattern in a wide range of languages with different typological characteristics (191--232). BernhardWälchli elaborates on a particular type of areal patterns: areal (grammaticalization) clines as first offered byӦsten Dahl assynchronic evidence for diachronic areal diffusion processes (233--272).

Devoted to noun phrase phenomena, Part D contains two articles which both deal with the grammaticalization ofarticles in Slavic. Walter Breu examines an indefinite article in Slavic micro-languages (275--322), trying to prove thatlanguage contact is an indispensable prerequisite if Slavic languages, in particular Molise Slavic and Colloquial Sorbian,are to develop articles. Lenka Scholze analyze the definite article in colloquial Upper Sorbian (323--353) which usespragmatic definite article in opposition to the semantic definite zero-article due to its peculiar language contact withGerman. Interestingly enough, a similar distribution of definite articles is found in some southwestern Polissian (Ukrainian)dialects which have never known intensive contact with ‘article languages’ (Revzin, 1969).

There are four articles in Part E, entitled ‘‘Modality and evidentiality’’. Geneviève Escure discusses thegrammaticalization of evidential markers in Garifuna (a contact language now spoken in Belize and Honduras inCentral America) (357--380). Using data fromMayan andMixe-Zoquean languages for illustration, Volker Gast and Johanvan der Auwera aim at revising Heine and Kuteva’s model of contact-induced grammaticalization (381--426). Theyintroduce, instead, their own view according to which contact-induced grammaticalization is a consequence of theinterlingual identification of signs and categories while not itself being the object of transfer (383). Of interest in Part E isBjörn Hansen and Sandra Birzer’s study of the Yiddish modal system which shows, as the authors argue,morphosyntactic features typical of the German languages rather than of Slavic (527--464). Finally, Nicole Nauinvestigates the expression of modality in a Latgalian dialect of Latvian (465--508).

Part F looks into the categories of tense-aspect and voice. Bridget Drinka offers historical evidence from the BalkanSprachbund, focusing on the complex history of the periphrastic perfect in the area (511--558). The author’sunderstanding of language contact looks, however, somewhat overstretched, when stating that that be-perfects occurespecially in languages influenced by Greek orthodoxy, and have-/be-perfects appear predominantly in languagesunder the sway of RomanCatholicism (525). This type of observation is largely irrelevant for the discussion of language-internal forces operating in grammaticalization, either induced or not by contact. The ‘recipient passive’ inWest Slavic isanalyzed byMarkusGiger (559--588)who relates levels of its grammaticalizationwith the degree ofGerman influence onits neighboring languages. Remarkably, the model for this passive in Slovak seems to be rather Czech than German(578--579).

The last part of the volume focuses on close linking and predication. Salomé Gutiérrez Morales explores conditionaland reason clauses in Sierra Popoluca as influenced by Náhuatl and Spanish (591--609). In his article on verbserialization in northeast Europe, Daniel Weiss argues that Russian serial verb constructions originated from contactwith Finno-Ugric languages (611--646). The reviewer believes that there is no need to seek the impulse of the afore-mentioned phenomenon outside the Slavic medium. East Slavic, in particular its archaic Ukrainian dialects,demonstrates different types of serialization which, as attested in folklore and substandard varieties of the languagesystem, reflect the paratactic stage(s) of its morphosyntax (cf. Potebnja, 1958:185--207; Potebnja, 1968: especially433--451).

In conclusion, the volume reflects a very neat editorial preparation. There are only a few foibles like Belorussian (446)next to Belarusian (485), Ukrainianmusit’ buti instead ofmusyt’ buty (486), or the use of ideologically loaded and obsoleteterm ‘Jugozapadnaja Rus’’ posited as a part (! -- A.D.) of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (108). Such cavils aside, there is,however, a more serious shortcoming about the correlation of the title of the volume with its contents. As has beenmentioned, the book under review is a kind Slavic encyclopedia whose material has been presented through the lens ofgrammaticalization in connection with language contact. One is left therefore to wish (in vain) that the book’s title reflectedthe Slavic content that far exceeds the non-Slavic-oriented component of the volume. It would enhance the value of thevolume destined to become an obligatory reading for those who are interested in the processes of grammaticalization andlanguage contact in Slavic.

References

Danylenko, A.I., 2003. Predykaty, vidminky i diatezy v ukrajins’kij movi (Predicates, Cases, and Diatheses in the Ukrainian Language).Oko, Xarkiv.

Danylenko, A., 2013. Ukrainian in the language map of central Europe: questions of areal-typological profiling. J. Lang. Contact 6 (1), 134--159.Krys’ko, V.B., 1997. Istoričeskij sintaksis russkogo jazyka, Ob’jekt i perexodnost’ (The Historical Syntax of the Russian Language. Object and

Transitivity). Indrik, Moscow.Popov, A.V., 1881. Sintaksičeskija izsledovanija (Syntactic Studies). V. I. Isaev, Voronez.Potebnja, A.A., 1958. Iz zapisok po russkoj grammatike, (From the Notes on the Russian Grammar).vol. 1--2. Učpedgiz, Moscow.Potebnja, A.A., 1968. Iz zapisok po russkoj grammatike, (From the Notes on the Russian Grammar).vol. 3. Prosvesčenie, Moscow.

Book review 47

Revzin, I.I., 1969. Zajmennyk-artykl’ u hovirci sela Oltusa Brests’koji oblasti (A pronoun-article in the dialect of the village of Oltus, Brest region).In: Zylko, F.T. (Ed.), Ukrajins’ka dialektna morfolohija. (Ukrainian Dialectal Morphology).Naukova Dumka, Kyiv, pp. 62--71.

Andrii DanylenkoDepartment of Modern Languages and Cultures, Pace University, United States

16 September 2014