Grammaticalization of compounded verbs in Tariana: a comparison
Grammaticalization of compounded verbs in Tariana results in creation of new verbal enclitics of three groups: Aktionsart markers, switch-reference, and aspect. The three differ in their semantics and in phonological properties: Aktionsart clitics undergo suprasegmental reduction (they lose the primary stress) and little segmental reduction, while other enclitics undergo segmental reduction. The three groups of enclitics also differ with respect to their frequency, and the ways in which they undergo polygrammaticalization.
However hard it is to compare semantic changes from independent verb to enclitic, it seems intuitively clear that switch-reference and aspect enclitics undergo more change than Aktionsart enclitics. In fact, the meaning of some Aktionsart enclitics is sometimes almost exactly the same as that of the independent verb. This is never the case with the other groups.
Another point of contrast is frequency and general use of an enclitic and of a corresponding verb. With Aktionsart enclitics, the verb is less frequently used than the enclitic; some verbs are plainly rare. The switch-reference enclitic is used as frequently as the verb. Aspect enclitics differ in this respect: the enclitic-sita is as frequently used as a verb;-mayã and-yena are more often used as verbs than as enclitics. These properties are summarized in Table 4 below.
Table 4 shows that the grammaticalization of the three verbal categories followed rather different paths. It follows from the previous discussion and from the comparative data in Table 4 that the Parallel Reduction Hypothesis suggested in Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994:19–21) which predicts a simultaneous semantic and phonological reduction in grammaticalization does not always work.
The three types of enclitics also differ in terms of ‘sharing arguments’ with the main verb. The switch-reference enclitic whyume marks the same subject. Aspect enclitics also refer to the same subject as the verb. In contrast, Aktionsart enclitics describe the action of O or S.
Another unusual property of grammaticalized verb roots in Tariana is the way in which these roots are chosen. It is generally accepted that ‘the source concepts’ in grammaticalization are of frequent and general use, this being due to their being ‘fundamental’ elements. They can often be defined as belonging to the basic level of categorization, like verbs of physical state such as ‘sit’, ‘stand’ and ‘lie’ (Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer 1991:33). It is also accepted as a general rule that ‘categories of the subordinate level are unlikely to serve as source concepts’ (Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer 1991:33). Or, as Sweetser (1988:402) puts it: ‘The generalization seems to be that lexical items naming subordinate level categories are not the ones likely to be grammaticized; and a cursory examination of the semantically commonest auxiliary verbs (‘have’, ‘be’, ‘take’, ‘give’, ‘make’, ‘come’, ‘go’) certainly includes no subordinate-level items’.
The data from Tariana described above show that the grammaticalization of compounded verbs in most cases scarcely ever involved any basic-level or fundamental elements. The grammaticalization of Aktionsart enclitics involves such specific and quite ‘subordinate level’ concepts as ‘come unstuck, peel, be scratched’, ‘roll over’, ‘be shaken’, ‘cover’, ‘wake up’ and ‘be open’. The verbs which became grammaticalized as aspect markers (‘manage’, ‘cheat’, ‘pass’) and as a switch-reference enclitic (‘be last’) are also more semantically ‘specific’ than predicted by Sweetser. In contrast, ‘basic level’ verbs, such as ‘come’, ‘go’, ‘leave, go out’, ‘stand’, ‘sit’, ‘make, order’, become grammaticalized as auxiliary like markers in asymmetrical serial verb constructions (§2.2.2 (a)); verbs of motion became grammaticalized as postpositions (§2.2.2 (b)). This shows that there are different mechanisms of grammaticalization at work within this one language.
From this evidence it is important to point out that while some languages tend to grammaticalize basic lexical items, others grammaticalize more specific ones. These preferences may be accounted for by the organization of the lexicon in a given language: while some languages have numerous general lexical verbs, others tend to have more ‘specific’ ones (as pointed out by Bernd Heine, p.c.). This distinction between ‘general’ and ‘specific’ corresponds roughly to Dixon’s opposition between ‘nuclear’ and ‘non-nuclear’ verbs (Dixon 1982:73). Thus, for instance, English does have the nuclear or general verbs ‘break’ and ‘carry’. These verbs do not involve any particular specification of the manner in which the breaking or carrying is done (whether it is splitting, or smashing, or breaking in two; or whether the object is carried on one’s shoulder, or on one’s back, or in a basket, etc.). In contrast, Tariana has a dozen verbs which refer to breaking and a dozen more for carrying which specify the manner in which the action is performed. A sentence like ‘he broke a piece of wood’ or ‘she carried a basket ful of bananas’ must obligatorily specify the manner of breaking or of carrying. Thus, in a language like Tariana, the grammaticalization of semantically highly specified lexical verbs can be considered a logical consequence of the inherent semantic structure of the lexicon. Consequently, knowledge of the semantic organization of lexicon is crucial for a linguist’s ability to hypothesize which lexical items might be likely to take part in the creation of new grammatical morphemes.
A further observation is in order. Aktionsart enclitics and aspect enclitics which result from grammaticalization of compounded verbs are calques from Tucano. All the Aktionsart enclitics in Tariana which do have corresponding verbs also correspond to compounded verbs in Tucano, e.g. Tariana-kawhi ‘do early in the morning’, kawhi (SO verb) ‘be early in the morning, wake up’, Tucano wã’ka ‘do something early in the morning’ (Ramirez 1997:183). Consider the almost complete correspondence of Tucano toha ‘do already; have done already’, and Tariana-sita ‘anterior’ in the following example:
However, as we have seen in §3.3, in Tucano compounded verbs are an open class while in Tariana grammaticalized verb compounding is restricted.
Those enclitics which do not have a corresponding verb in modern Tariana are also exact translation equivalents of Tucano compounded verbs. For instance, the translation equivalent of Tariana-weni ‘crush by compressing’, with no verbal equivalent, is Tucano verb tı˜’a (Ramirez 1997:179).
It is possible that other aspect enclitics in Tariana for which there are no corresponding verbs in the modern language also go back to compounded verbs, and ultimately, to calqueing from Tucano; for instance, Tariana-daka ‘non completed, on-going action: yet, still’ corresponds to Tucano compounded verb dı˜’i (Ramirez 1997:97) ‘yet’, and-niki ‘completed’ corresponds to Tucano pe’o ‘do completely’.
An unusual property of Tariana is that different verbs are grammaticalized in serial verb constructions and in verb compounding structures. While grammaticalization within serial verb constructions follows familiar patterns, verb compounding structures in most cases involve grammaticalization of quite different verbs. In addition, when the same verbs undergo grammaticalization in serial verb constructions and in compounded structures, the results are quite different.
