Grammaticalization and Infinitival Complements in Dutch

meaning. As Lehmann (1995[1982]:129) puts it, “[g]rammaticalization rips off the lexical features until only the grammatical features are left”. The original meaning of a grammaticalizing item plays an important role in its further development (Hopper & Traugott 1993:3). That is, the etymology of a grammaticalizing item constrains its subsequent grammatical functions. This property is called persistence. Since grammaticalization leads to the emergence of an item with a grammatical meaning, a grammaticalized item can be integrated into a morphological paradigm. That is, it may convey the same kind of grammatical information (e.g. future tense) as a morphological paradigm in another grammatical system. For example, the future auxiliary will in English originates as a lexical verb meaning ‘desire’. It now expresses the same grammatical information as the future morphemes -ai, as etcetera in French. Lehmann (1995[1982]:135) refers to this property as paradigmatization. The definition of grammaticalization given by Kurylowicz (1965:69) (“[g]rammaticalisation consists in the increase of the range of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to a grammatical and from a less grammatical to a more grammatical status”) expresses that grammaticalization is a gradual process. For example, verbal tenses may originate as main verbs. This development can lead straight from main verb to tense marker, or, alternatively, it may go through an intermediate stage where the grammaticalizing verb serves as an aspect marker before becoming an tense marker (Heine & Reh 1984:129; Lehmann 1995[1982]:33, 37). Thus, items become more grammatical through time. As a result, both diachronically and synchronically intermediate stages of grammaticalization may be recognized. For example, the verb go in present-day English can both be used as a main verb, as in (1a), and as an auxiliary verb expressing future, as in (1b) (Hopper & Traugott 1993:1-3): (1) a. I am going to London b. I am going to marry Bill A further example, given by Hopper & Traugott (1993:108), is English have which is a full verb in (2a), a quasi-auxiliary in (2b), and a full auxiliary in (2c): (2) a. I have a book b. I have a book to read/I have to read a book 2 As will be discussed in more detail in chapter 2, section 2.4, some verbs cannot be easily classified as either auxiliaries or as main verbs. Defining the notion auxiliary is a problem to begin with. Heine (1993:2224) lists no less than twenty-two properties that are often attributed to auxiliary verbs and that separate auxiliary verbs from lexical verbs. On the basis of these properties, the English modal verbs can, may, must, and will are usually classified as auxiliary verbs instead of lexical verbs. Apart from these modal verbs, there are verbs such as be able to, be going to, and have to. These verbs exhibit some auxiliary-like properties and share these with their “fully modal” counterparts, but in other respects, they behave more as lexical verbs. In the literature, different terms circulate to refer to these verbs: “semi-modals”, “quasi-auxiliaries”, “half-way verbs” (Heine 1993:15, and references cited there). GRAMMATICALIZATION IN THE GENERATIVE FRAMEWORK 5 c. I have read a book Yet another example illustrating the gradualness of grammaticalization are Dutch particle verbs. An example of such as a verb is the infinitive opbellen ‘call up’. The particle is originally a preposition. According to Booij (1997), Dutch particle verbs represent constructions which are subject to grammaticalization. Modern Dutch particles can be separable from the verb or unseparable. Opbellen ‘call up’ is a separable particle verb, since the particle op is stranded if the verb undergoes Verb Second (3a). Furthermore, if the particle verb is separable, the morpheme gethat marks the participle is present in the perfect tense and it is placed between the particle and the verb (3b). Unseparable particles, for example over ‘over’ in (4) and om ‘around’ in (5), are taken along under Verb Second ((4a) and (5a)) and the participial morpheme geis not present, as (4b) and (5b) illustrate: (3) a. Jan *belt mij Jan up-calls me up ‘John calls me’ b. Jan heeft mij OP*(ge)beld John has me up-called ‘John has called me’ (4) a. Jan DENKT zijn zonden * John over-thinks his sins over ‘John reflects on his sins’ b. Jan heeft zijn zonden over(*ge)DACHT John has his sins over-thought ‘John has reflected on his sins’ (5) a. bossen RINGen het dorp <*om> woods around-circle the village around ‘the village is surrounded by woods’ b. het dorp is om(*ge)RINGD door bossen the village is around-circled by woods ‘the village is surrounded by woods’ Booij (1997) argues that particle verbs present clear examples of the gradual process of grammaticalization. A subset of the separable particles have further grammaticalized into bound morphemes. Originally, many unseparable particles were separable. This is shown by the following examples from Middle Dutch (±1160 1500), in which the particle and the verb can be separated: 3 Unseparable particles in Dutch are unstressed, whereas separable particles are stressed. I indicate stressed syllables with capitals.