Impact on the Word Order Change and the Syntactic Positions of Adjuncts by the Evolution of the English Grammatical Categories: An Exploration of the Link of Pragmatic Motivated-Semantic Bleaching-Grammaticalization-Word Order Change

Abstract

Abstract: This article, within the framework of the chain of pragmatic motivated-semantic bleaching-grammaticalization-word order change, traces the process of auxilirization of modals, DO and HAVE, and points out their impact on the shaping of English SVO word order. The three grammatical categories, motivated by the pragmatic forces to express subjectivity, high animation and event control, come to have their semantics bleached, and step on the path of grammaticalization. They have fixed the positions of the subjects and make the SVO word order more canonical. Three syntactic zones take shape during the diachronic change: clausal-initial zone, AuxRange zone and event-internal zone, and each has their impacts on the syntactic position of adjuncts.

CLC Number:

H043

LIU Xiaolin. Impact on the Word Order Change and the Syntactic Positions of Adjuncts by the Evolution of the English Grammatical Categories: An Exploration of the Link of Pragmatic Motivated-Semantic Bleaching-Grammaticalization-Word Order Change[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2013, 13(05): 19-24.

References

Bybee, J. et al. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Denison, D. 1993. English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions [M]. London: Longman.
Ersnt, T. 2002. Syntax of Adjuncts [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heine, B. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heine, B. 1997. Possession-Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heine, B. & T. Kutea. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hundt, M. 1996. The passival and the progressive passive: A case study of laying in the English aspect and voice systems [A]. In H. Lindquist & C. Mair (eds.). Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 45-67.
Isaenko, A. 1974. On HAVE and BE languages: Typological sketch [A]. In Flier (ed.). Slavic Forum [C]. The Hagon: Mouton. 43-77.
Jackendoff, R. S. 1983. Semantics and Cognition [M]. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. S. 1990. Semantic Structures [M]. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press.
Langacker, R. 1998. Conceptualization, symbolization, and grammar[A]. In M. Tomasello (ed.). The New Psychology of Language [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 78-80.
Lightfoot, D. W. 1979/2010. Principles of Diachronic Syntax [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press/Beijing World Publishing.
Locker, E. 1954. Etre et avoir. leur expressions dans les langues [J]. Anthropos (49): 481-510.
Los, B. 2005. The Rise of to-Infinitive [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Quirk, R. & C. L. Wrenn. 1958. An Old English Grammar [M]. London: Methuen.
Seiler, H. 1977. On the semanto-syntactic configuration ‘Possessor of an Act’[A]. In: Seiler 1977a: 169-86.
Toyota, J. 2008. Diachronic Change in the English Passive [M]. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Traugott, E.C. & R. B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity of Semantic Change [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Valin & LaPolla.1997/2002. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press./Beijing: Beijing University Press.
石毓智.2001.汉语语法化的历程——形态句法发展的动因和机制[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
徐默凡.2005.汉语中从句位置的配置要求及其作用[J].中国人民大学报刊复印资料语言文字学(12):56-62.

[1]	ZHANG Zhiyi, NI Chuanbin. The Semantic-syntactic Study and Classification of English and Chinese Middles [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(10): 5-10.
[2]	YANG Yongzhong. A Parametric Approach to the Typology of Serial Verb Constructions [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(10): 17-24.