3.7.1 Background
Heine and Kuteva (2005: 1) argue that 'the transfer of grammatical meanings and structures across languages [grammatical replication, calquing] is regular, and that it is shaped by universal processes of grammatical change' (emphasis added). That is, they argue that
grammatical replication can in general be understood as a regular instance of
grammaticalization, despite being contact-induced. As such, they claim that the following linguistic constraints exist on this type of contact-induced change, which are the same parameters observed in language-internal grammaticalization:
Parameters of grammaticalization (quoted from Heine and Kuteva 2005: 15)
a. extension, i.e. the rise of novel grammatical meanings when linguistic expressions are extended to new contexts (context-induced reinterpretation)
b. desemanticization (or “semantic bleaching”), i.e. loss (or generalization) in meaning content
c. decategorialization, i.e. loss in morphosyntactic properties characteristic of lexical or other less grammaticalized forms, and
d. erosion (or “phonetic reduction”), i.e. loss in phonetic substance
These processes are argued by Heine and Kuteva (2005) to operate in contact-induced grammaticalization exactly as in endogeneous grammaticalization, namely in a way that adheres to the principle of uni-directionality. That is, the 'processes underlying the parameters proposed in (62) as well as the overall direction which this cluster of processes follows, lexical-to-grammatical-to-even more grammatical, are unlikely to be reversed' (Heine and Kuteva 2005: 17, emphasis in original).
With regard to the mechanisms of contact-induced grammaticalization, the most common type is said to be 'replica grammaticalization' (Heine and Kuteva 2005: 92). In replica
grammaticalization, a grammaticalization process that occurred in one language is replicated in another, with a corresponding source item being recruited and the same pathway of change followed as in the model language:
Replica grammaticalization (Heine and Kuteva 2005: 92)
a. Speakers notice that in language M [the model language] there is a grammatical category Mx.
b. They create an equivalent category Rx in language R [the replica language], using material available in R.
c. To this end, they replicate a grammaticalization process they assume to have taken place in language M, using an analogical formula [i.e. the same grammaticalization pathway] of the kind [My > Mx]: [Ry > Rx].
d. They grammaticalize Ry to Rx.
To illustrate, a case of replica grammaticalization cited by Heine and Kuteva (2005: 93, after Ho & Platt 1993: 18) is the extension of English possessive got to an existential marker in colloquial Singaporean English, on the model of speakers' L1 Chinese.
In China where got people go to English school? [Colloquial Singapore English] (Ho & Platt 1993: 18)
Heine and Kuteva (2005: 93) assume that a development from a lexical verb indicating possession to an existential marker occurred first in Chinese, and that this process was replicated in speakers' English. The possessive and existential function of you in the modern language are shown below respectively.
Zhangsan you yi ben shu [Standard Mandarin] NAME has one CL book
'Zhangsan has a book.' (Elicited)
you liang-men ke wo xiang xuan [Standard Mandarin] have two-CL course I want take
‘There are two courses I want to take.’ (Bao 2005: 255)
The other (less common) kind of contact-induced grammaticalization is ‘ordinary contact- induced grammaticalization’, for which the model is as follows:
Ordinary contact-induced grammaticalization (H & K 2005: 82)
a. Speakers notice that in language M [model language] there is a grammatical category Mx.
b. They create an equivalent category Rx in language R [replica language] on the basis of the use patterns available in R.
c. To this end, they draw on universal strategies of grammaticalization, using construction Ry in order to develop Rx.
d. They grammaticalize Ry to Rx.
Heine and Kuteva (2005: 82) illustrate ordinary contact-induced grammaticalization with data on an English-lexifier pidgin, Bislama, spoken in northern and central Vanuatu. Bislama has grammaticalized its verb stap 'stay, be present, exist' to a durative aspect marker on the model of the durative aspect category in Vanuatu (Eastern Oceanic), thus following a cross-
linguistically common pathway of grammaticalization to develop an equivalent to the model language category. The outcome of this process is shown in (68), and the model is in (69):
em i stap pik- im yam. [Bislama (English-based pidgin)] he he- DUR dig- TRS yam
‘He’s in the process of digging yams.’ (Heine and Kuteva 2005: 82, after Keesing 1991: 328)
naji ng- u- xoel dram. [Vetmbao (Malekula, Oceanic)] he he- DUR- dig yam
‘He’s in the process of digging yams.’ (Heine and Kuteva 2005: 82, after Keesing 1991: 328) The difference between replica and ordinary contact-induced grammaticalization is that replica grammaticalization replicates the grammaticalization pathway found in the model language by using the same source item, whereas ordinary grammaticalization uses a different source item (chosen according to 'universal strategies of grammaticalization').
As seen from the preceding sections, in Xining Mandarin several cases of grammatical replication exist, but the question remains of how they emerged. In the remainder of this section it is argued that contact-induced grammaticalization is not applicable to the object marker and future marker, but with regard to the non-lexical uses of SAY grammaticalization has more plausibility. First I will briefly consider the changes under discussion with regard to the extent to which grammaticalization has been involved, and then present an account of their emergence in view of findings from the study of creole formation.
3.7.2 SAY complementizer and SAY evidential
The emergence of the SAY complementizer fozho would be a potential case of replica contact-induced grammaticalization in Heine and Kuteva's (2005) framework.
Grammaticalization processes are evident in that reanalysis as a complementizer has been accompanied by the loss of speech verb semantics and the loss of the morphosyntactic properties of a lexical speech verb. Meanwhile, with regard to phonetic reduction, the SAY complementizer/evidential marker fozho contains more phonetic material than the SAY verb fo (i.e. phonetic reduction did not occur), contrary to the norm in grammaticalization. This grammaticalization from speech verb to complementizer also reflects the same
grammaticalization pathway from speech verb to complementizer in the model languages. As shown above, we know from The Secret History (a 13th century Mongolian text), that the SAY complementizer already existed in Mongolian before Xining Mandarin began to take shape as a regional variety (cf. (357)),21 and so SAY had grammaticalized into a
complementizer in the model language before it did in Xining Mandarin. This means that replication of a grammaticalization process has a priori plausibility within Heine and Kuteva’s (2005) framework.
Likewise, the SAY evidential is also a well-attested grammaticalization pathway. The use of SAY as a hearsay evidential marker is also found in The Secret History, and so was existent in Mongolian at the time when the contact situation with the Chinese settlers was taking shape (cf. Chapter 6; Street 2013: 59). Thus in principle ‘replica contact-induced grammaticalization’ could account for this change, too. In Chapter 2 it was argued that substrate interference in Xining Mandarin on the whole arose gradually (i.e. rather than abruptly, as in prototypically ‘abrupt’ one generation creolization), passing through a process of stabilization and expansion as a pidgin over several generations, and so below I will suggest that there is a place for grammaticalization in the account of the emergence of the non-lexical uses of SAY in the Xining dialect.
3.7.3 Object marker ha
The emergence of object marker ha (Section 3.4.3) did not involve the core processes which grammaticalization theory associates with developments from lexical items to grammatical markers or from less grammatical to more grammatical markers. Desemanticization is not evident (the intonation unit marker already lacked semantic content), there was not a loss of morphosyntactic properties (i/ia was already a sentence-final particle), and no phonetic reduction is evident. Therefore, not being grammaticalization in this sense, object marker ha is not a case of 'ordinary contact-induced grammaticalization' or ‘replica contact-induced grammaticalization’.
In not involving the core grammaticalization processes, object marker ha is comparable to the grammatical replication of a pronominal politeness distinction which has occurred in the majority of European languages (Heine and Kuteva 2008). Heine and Kuteva (2008) note that the contact-induced extension of second person plural and third person pronouns to second person singular pronouns used as a polite/honourific form of address has also not involved loss of meaning or of morphosyntactic properties, or an extension from concrete to abstract meaning. Rather, it only involves a functional extension on the part of these pronouns. Heine and Kuteva (2005, 2008) present such cases as exceptional instances in that they do not involve these grammaticalization processes, but in Xining Mandarin quite a few such cases exist (e.g. future lia, object marker ha, aspect marker ZHE;cf. Chapter 4). However, changes like the emergence of object marker ha and politeness pronouns are still instances of (contact- induced) grammaticalization in the sense that they involve the creation of new grammatical markers for categories replicated from a model language.
3.7.4 Future lia
Like object marker ha, the emergence of future/modal lia from Chinese sentence-final particle li does not fit easily into the ‘contact-induced grammaticalization’ framework, as it does not show the properties of grammaticalization as traditionally defined (cf. the parameters of grammaticalization in (62)). Desemanticization ('loss (or generalization) in meaning content') has not occurred: future/modal lia is in no clear sense more generalized or semantically bleached than modal li. Nor is decategorialization evident ('loss in morphosyntactic properties characteristic of lexical or other less grammaticalized forms'), as morphosyntactically both sentence-final li (the source item) and future/modal lia are sentence-final particles.
Meanwhile, phonetic reduction is also not evident; lia simply acquired an additional function, future marking.
3.7.5 Interim summary
Two out of five of the above cases of grammatical replication discussed above were seen to be contrary to the claim that grammatical replication operates ‘in accordance with the
principles of grammaticalization’ (Heine and Kuteva 2005: 1), because these principles were seen not to have actually operated. Meanwhile, the non-lexical uses of SAYshow properties of grammaticalization. Table 3-1 summarizes, where grammaticalization processes refer to the parameters in (62) above.
Device Emerged through grammaticalization
processes occurred?
SAY complementizer Partly; see below
SAY evidential Partly; see below
Future lia No
Object marker ha No
Comitative/instrumental postposition Indeterminate
Table 3-1 Grammatical replication in the Xining dialect