PROSODIC CORRELATES OF THE GRAMMATICALIZATION SCALE: A CASE STUDY OF THE SERBIAN LEXICAL, MODAL, AND AUXILIARY USES OF HTETI (‘WANT’)

Bojana Jakovljević, Predrag Kovačević

DOI Number
https://doi.org/10.22190/TEME231003018J
First page
327
Last page
341

Abstract


In Serbian dialects that allow the variation between infinitival and so-called ‘da+present’ complements (DPC) (e.g. those of Vojvodina), the verb hteti (Eng. to want) allows for three different kinds of complements, corresponding to its three different uses. In its lexical use, it takes an NP complement; the volitional modal version combines with DPC; and the future auxiliary takes the infinitival complement. Assuming different syntactic structures for all three types of complements, we hypothesize that they exhibit different prosodic features. The hypothesis was tested experimentally by analysing the preboundary lengthening and the behaviour of F0 as signals of different prosodic constituency reflected in the Prosodic Hierarchy (PH). It was predicted that higher units of PH will show higher degree of preboundary lengthening, as well as that the presence of phrase accents and boundary tones will mark the right edge of PhPs and IPs respectively. We recorded 10 students at the University of Novi Sad as they pronounced 10 sentences per each of the three uses of this verb. The data partially confirms our hypothesis, as the modal verb hteti (Eng. to want) followed by DPC lengthens more than the auxiliary and lexical verb hteti (Eng. to want), which are followed by an infinitival and NP complement respectively. In contrast, the F0 contour remains unaffected by these differences, and phrase accents are not identified in any of the uses of the verb hteti (Eng. to want).


Keywords

grammaticalization, infinitive, da+present construction, Serbian, preboundary lengthening.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ajdžanović, J., & Dražić, J. (2016). Sintaksičo-semantička analiza konstrukcije za+infinitiv i njene pragmatičke implikacije [Syntactic-semantic analysis of structure za+infinitive and its pragmatic implications]. Godišnjak Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, 41(1), 21-31.

Aljović, N. (2005). On clitic climbing in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian. Forum Bosnae, 34, 58-84.

Beckman, M., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). Intonational Structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255-310.

Belić, B. (2005). The infinitive is difficult to lose: What governs variation of complements in unique control in Serbian. The Slavic and East European Language Resource Center, 6.

Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2021). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.2.03. Retrieved December 6, 2021, from http://www.praat.org/

Bybee, J. (2003). Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language II (pp. 145-167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Byrd, D., & Saltzman, E. (2003). The elastic phrase: Modeling the dynamics of boundary-adjacent lengthening. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 149-180. doi: 10.1016/S0095-4470(02)00085-2

Grković-Major, J. (2004). Razvoj hipotaktičkog da u starosrpskom jeziku [The development of hypotactic da in Old Serbian]. Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku, 47(1-2), 185-203.

Haspelmath, M. (1989). From purposive to infinitive - A universal path of grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica, 23, 287-310.

Haspelmath, M. (1998). Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language, 22, 315-351.

Hayes, B. (1989). The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Kiparsky, P., & G. Youmans (Eds.), Phonetics and Phonology 1: Rhythm and Meter (pp. 201-260). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Ivanović, S., Kovačević, P., & Milićević, N. (2023). Clitic climbing out of different types of da-complements in Serbian and the Status of Probabilistic Rules in Grammar. Annual Review of the Faculty of Philosophy. 48(3), 135-155

Jakovljević, B. (2021). Temporalne odlike graničnih segmenata prozodijskih jedinica u engleskom i srpskom jeziku: korpusno istraživanje [Temporal Properties of Boundary Segments of Prosodic Units in English and Serbian: Corpus-based Study] (PhD thesis). Retrieved from https://nardus.mpn.gov.rs/handle/123456789/18490?locale-attribute=sr_RS

Jakovljević, B., & Marković, M. (2020). Properties of I-boundary lengthening of vowels in English and Serbian. Annual Review of the Faculty of Philosophy, XLV-5, 95-111. doi: 10.19090/gff.2020.5.95-111

Kovačević, P., & Milićev, T. (2018). The nature(s) of syntactic variation: Evidence from the Serbian/Croatian dialect continuum. In Lenertová, D., Meyer, M., Šimík. R, & L. Szucsich (Eds.), Advances in formal Slavic linguistics 2016 (pp. 147–167). Berlin: Language Science Press.

Kovačević, P., Milićev, T., & Paunović, I. Đ. (2018). The Variation in Non-Finite Complements in Serbian: Empirical Evidence at an Intra-Speaker Level. Annual Review of the Faculty of Philosophy, 43(1), 487-451.

Lamiroy, B., & Drobnjaković, A. (2009). Auxiliaries and grammaticalization: A case study of Germanic and Slavonic languages. In Rossari, C., Ricci, C., & A. Spiridon (Eds.), Grammaticalization and pragmatics: Facts, approaches, theoretical Issues (pp. 19-34). Bingley: Emerald Group.

Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (2007). Prosodic Phonology (2nd ed.). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

Progovac, Lj. (1993). Locality and subjunctive-like complements in Serbo-Croatian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 1, 116-144.

Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Selkirk, E. (1986). On Derived Domains in Sentence Phonology. Phonology, 3, 371-405. doi: 10.1017/S0952675700000695

Selkirk, E. (1996). The prosodic Structure of Function Words. In Morgan, J. L., & K. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition (pp. 187-213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Selkirk, E. (2005). Comments on the Intonational Phrasing in English. In Frota, S., Vigário, M., & M. J. Freitas (Eds.), Prosodies (pp. 11-58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein, D., & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation (pp. 31-54). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Turk, A. E., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2007). Multiple targets of phrase-final lengthening in American English Words. Journal of Phonetics, 35, 445-472. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2006.12.001

Turk, A. E., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2015). Is there a general motor basis for final lengthening? Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2015) [online source]. Retrieved January 17, 2019, from https://researchr.org/publication/icphs-2015

Wightman, C. W, Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Ostendorf, M., & Price, P. J. (1992). Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 1707-1717.

Wurmbrand, S., Kovač, I., Lohninger, M., Pajančič, C., & Todorović, N. (2020). Finiteness in south Slavic complement clauses: Evidence for an implicational finiteness universal. Linguistica, 60(1), 119-137.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/TEME231003018J

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


© University of Niš, Serbia
Creative Commons licence CC BY-NC-ND
Print ISSN: 0353-7919
Online ISSN: 1820-7804