Pseudocoordination, Serial Verb Constructions and Multi-Verb Predicates: The relationship between form and structure

Ross, Daniel

doi:10.5281/zenodo.5546425

Cited by 5 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The distributional results compared below are based on a survey of motion SVCs in Lovestrand & Ross (2021) and motion morphology in Ross (2021aRoss ( , 2021b, from a 325language worldwide sample following the general methodology and sampling of the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS: Dryer & Haspelmath 2013). The sample aims to be a reasonable approximation of the geographic and genetic diversity of the languages of the world; for details, see Ross (2021b).…”

Section: Language Sample and Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the criteria used in this definition are not all uncontroversial, they generally follow traditional definitions in the literature on SVCs (for further discussion see Aikhenvald 2006Aikhenvald , 2018Lovestrand 2021a;Ross 2021b). On the issue of wordhood, we largely relied on the judgment of the author of the descriptive material available and chose to separate verb-verb compounds (sometimes referred to as one-word SVCs) as a distinct category from what we refer to as SVCs (see Section 5.4).…”

Section: • Shared Argumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…33 Tetelcingo Nahuatl, the only language in the sample with both prefixes and suffixes, is included here under prefixes because at least one is considered to have a verbal origin; it is unclear whether the suffixes do as well. 34 For additional background, especially regarding converbs in multiverb constructions, see Ross (2021b).…”

Section: Dependent Multiverb Constructions As a More Typical Sourcementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This paper explores the diachronic implications of Lovestrand & Ross (2021) on the distribution of associated motion serial verb constructions and Ross (2021aRoss ( , 2021b on the distribution of associated motion verbal morphology. Associated motion is a grammatical category which modifies a verbal predicate by adding a motion component to the meaning of the verb.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…'go' vs. 'come') • The typology of both morphosyntactic types is similar (Section 3) That the grammaticalization pathway from prior motion SVC to prior motion affix is attested will be illustrated with a transparent example from Akan in Section 2, but this appears to be an unusual case cross-linguistically. Section 3 introduces two quantitative typological studies, Lovestrand & Ross (2021) on motion SVCs and Ross (2021aRoss ( , 2021b on motion morphology, http://spilplus.journals.ac.za as evidence that the most direct path of grammaticalization from serial verb to affix is not the predominant source for prior motion morphology. Section 4 argues that prior motion SVCs tend not to morphologize but are diachronically stable to a significant degree.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Do prior motion serial verbs (go) morphologize? Insights into diachrony from typology

Ross¹,

Lovestrand²

2022

SPILPLUS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Associated motion is a grammatical category which modifies a verbal predicate by adding a motion component such as indicating that motion took place prior to the event predicated by the verb. Many languages express prior associated motion (‘go and V’) in the form of a serial verb construction, while in other languages the same meaning is expressed morphologically. This suggests a possible diachronic link between serial verbs and affixes, but a comparison of the synchronic distributions of prior associated motion in serial verb constructions and verbal morphology reveal that such a path of grammaticalization is remarkably rare. This can be at least partially explained by temporal iconicity and a cross-linguistic suffixing bias. We conclude that prior motion serial verb constructions are relatively stable diachronically. The source of prior motion morphology is more likely other multiverb constructions, especially those with non-finite verbs where an overt morpheme marking dependency is lost to allow for a more efficient expression of this grammatical category, ultimately leading to univerbation.

show abstract