Towards a Typology of Diachronic Sources of Adversative Markers

This paper is dedicated to the diachronic sources of adversative markers in the world’s languages. It presents a typological classification of meanings from which the linguistic units that have the meanings ‘but’, ‘however’, ‘nevertheless’ or ‘whereas’ (the meanings ‘но’, ‘однако’) have apparently developed. The classification includes the following sources, which are absent from the previous classifications that we have consulted (or need refinement): hesitant substitution (‘rather, more like’), focalization (‘exactly’), invariable outcome (‘be that as it may’), absence of a hindrance (‘without hindrance’), and also such discourse functions as repetition (‘again’), transition (‘anyway, now’) and continuity (‘next’). The distinction between four semantic types of adversative coordination (concessive, substitutive, oppositive and argumentative) that we make allows us to show the processes of grammaticalization in more detail. We sum up the apparent semantic shifts by putting them onto a semantic map. Our observations are based on the established examples of diachronic semantic shifts, etymological data, and instances of synchronic polysemy.

Keywords

coordination, adversative conjunction, concessivity, grammaticalization, diachronic typology, semantic change.

Received

28.03.2023

Publication date

28.03.2023

Number of characters

23557

Cite

GOST	Stepanyants M. Towards a Typology of Diachronic Sources of Adversative Markers // Izvestiia Rossiiskoi akademii nauk. Seriia literatury i iazyka – 2023. – V. 82. – Issue 1 C. 94-101 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://izv-oifn.ru/S160578800024639-8-1 (circulation date: 20.05.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S160578800024639-8
MLA	Stepanyants, Maxim G "Towards a Typology of Diachronic Sources of Adversative Markers." Izvestiia Rossiiskoi akademii nauk. Seriia literatury i iazyka 82.1 (2023):94-101. DOI: 10.31857/S160578800024639-8
APA	Stepanyants M. (2023). Towards a Typology of Diachronic Sources of Adversative Markers. Izvestiia Rossiiskoi akademii nauk. Seriia literatury i iazyka 82(1), pp.94-101 DOI: 10.31857/S160578800024639-8

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 250

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. König E. Concessive markers and concessive meanings: Taking stock of what we know and do not know. Zeaiter S., Franke P. (eds.) Pioniergeist, Ausdauer, Leidenschaft. Festschrift zu Ehren von Prof. Dr. Jürgen Handke. Philipps-Universität Marburg, 2020.

2. Zafiu R. L’évolution des connecteurs adversatifs du roumain en perspective romane. Iliescu M., Siller-Runggaldier H., Danler P. (eds.) Actes du XXVe CILPR Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2010. (In French)

3. Giacalone Ramat A., Mauri C. The grammaticalization of coordinating interclausal connectives. Heine B., Narrog H. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press, 2011.

4. Haspelmath M. Coordination. Shopen T. (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 2: Complex constructions. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

5. Payne J.R. Coordination. Shopen T. (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 2: Complex constructions. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

6. Kotcheva K. Adversativkonnektoren in den nordgermanischen Sprachen: Synchronie und Diachronie. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2014. (In German)

7. Lakoff R. If’s, and’s and but’s about conjunction. Fillmore C.J., Langėndoen D.T. (eds.) Studies in Linguistic Semantics. Irvington, 1971.

8. Malchukov A.L. Towards a Semantic Typology of Adversative and Contrast Marking. Journal of Semantics. 2004. № 21 (2). Pp. 177–198.

9. Anscombre J.-C., Ducrot O. Deux mais en français? Lingua. 1977. № 43 (1). Pp. 23–40. (In French)

10. König E. Concessive connectives and concessive sentences. Hawkins J. (ed.) Explaining Language Universals. Oxford, 1988.

11. Winterstein G. From exclusive to adversative meaning: A diachronic and cross-linguistic perspective. Workshop handout. Trondheim, 2016. URL: http://gregoire.winterstein.free.fr/docs/Pres/WintersteinG-AdversativeRestriction-HO.pdf

12. Merlan F.C. A grammar of Wardaman: a language of the Northern Territory of Australia. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 1994.

13. König E., Kortmann B. Absolute complementation in the lexical structure of English and German. Lörscher W., Schulze R. (eds.) Perspectives on language in performance: Studies in linguistics, literary criticism, and language teaching and learning: To honour Werner Hüllen on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Tübingen: Narr, 1987.

14. Nevalainen T. Modelling functional differentiation and function loss: the case of but. Thorne J.P., Adamson S. (eds.) Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Co, 1990.

15. Gómez de Silva G. Elsevier’s concise Spanish etymological dictionary. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1985.

16. Corominas J., Pascual J.A. Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispanico. Madrid: Gredos, 1983. (In Spanish)

17. Esperanza Torrego M. Coordination. Baldi P., Cuzzolin P. (eds.) New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2009.

18. Majtinskaya K.E. Vengerskij yazyk. Chast' 3: Sintaksis. M.: Izd-vo Akad. nauk SSSR, 1960. [Majtinskaya, K.E. Vengerskij jazyk. Chast’ 3: Sintaksis [The Hungarian Language. Part 3: Syntax]. Moscow, USSR Academy of Sciences Publ., 1960. (In Russ.)]

19. Galdi G. On so-called adversative nisi. Pallas. 2016. № 102. Pp. 181–190.

20. Brownie J., Brownie M. Mussau grammar essentials. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG Academic Publications, 2007.

21. Rey A. Dictionnaire historique de la langue française. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert, 2010. (In French)

22. Traugott E.C., König E. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. Traugott E.C., Heine B. (eds.) Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Co, 1991.

23. Collins English Dictionary. URL: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english

24. Bararanonline (Galstyan Armenian-Russian dictionary). URL: https://bararanonline.com/

25. Lingvo Live (The Latin-Russian Dictionary). URL: https://www.lingvolive.com/en-us/translate/

26. Van Valin R.D. The Russian particle-connective že: its use and origin. Russian Language Journal [Russkij yazyk]. 1977. Vol. 31, № 108. Pp. 61–67.

27. Collins Italian Dictionary. URL: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-italian

28. Giacalone Ramat A., Mauri C. Gradualness and pace in grammaticalization: The case of adversative connectives. Folia Linguistica. 2012. Vol. 46, № 2. Pp. 483–512.

29. Kuteva T., Heine B., Hong B., Long H., Narrog H., Rhee S. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

30. Lewis D.M. Grammaticalizing adverbs of English: the case of still. Núñez Pertejo, López-Couso M. J., Méndez-Naya B., Pérez-Guerra H. (eds.) Crossing linguistic boundaries: systemic, synchronic and diachronic variation in English. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019.

31. Rosén H. Coherence, sentence modification, and sentence-part modification – the contribution of particles. Baldi P., Cuzzolin P. (eds.) New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2009.

32. Allan R.J. Ancient Greek adversative particles in contrast. Denizot C., Spevak O. (eds.) Pragmatic approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Co, 2017.

33. Gak V.G., Ganshina K.A. Novyj frantsuzsko-russkij slovar'. M.: Russkij yazyk, 1993. [Gak, V.G., Ganshina, K.A. Novyj frantsuzsko-russij slovar [The New French-Russian Dictionary]. Moscow, Russkij jazyk Publ., 1993. (In Russ.)]

34. Frampton J.M. Maisin: A grammatical description of an Oceanic language in Papua New Guinea. SIL International, 2020.

35. Liljegren H. A grammar of Palula. Language Science Press, 2016.

36. Wilde C.P. A sketch of the phonology and grammar of Rajbanshi. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2008.

37. Næss Å., Hovdhaugen E. A grammar of Vaeakau-Taumako. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2011.

38. Kluge F. An etymological dictionary of the German language. London: George Bell & sons, 1891.

39. Haig G. Linguistic diffusion in present-day East Anatolia: From top to bottom // Aikhenvald A.Y., Dixon R.M.W. (eds.) Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: problems in comparative linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

40. Slovar' russkogo yazyka. [Slovar russkogo jazyka [The Russian Language Dictionary]. (In Russ.)]. URL: http://feb-web.ru/feb/mas/mas-abc/default.asp

41. Barlow R. A sketch grammar of Pondi. Acton: Australian National University Press, 2020.

42. Lidz L.A. A descriptive grammar of Yongning Na (Mosuo): PhD Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin, 2010.

43. Apresyan V.Yu. Ustupitel'nost': Mekhanizmy obrazovaniya i vzaimodejstviya slozhnykh znachenij v yazyke. M.: Yazyki slavyanskoj kul'tury, 2015. [Apresyan, V.Yu. Ustupitelnost: Mehanizmy obrazovanija i vzaimodejstvija slozhnyh znachenij v jazyke [Concessivity: The Mechanisms of Establishment and Interaction of Complex Meanings in Language]. Moscow, Jazyki slavjanskoj kultury Publ., 2015. (In Russ.)]

44. Oxford English Dictionary. URL: https://www.oed.com/