Search Results

This introductory chapter defines periphrasis and briefly discusses previous studies of the phenomenon (types of periphrasis and defining criteria previously suggested). It outlines the typological diversity of periphrasis in terms of the word classes involved and the grammatical features realized by it, both typical and exotic. Then the discussion turns to the most common functions of periphrasis, such as making the inflectional paradigm of a language complete, and to the interaction of periphrasis with other morphological and syntactic phenomena of the given language. Since several chapters in the volume employ a set of criteria for periphrasis worked out within the Canonical Typology approach, these are listed in the introduction. The criteria prove valuable for the analysis of less familiar instances of periphrasis, such as nominal case in Nenets, the large periphrastic paradigms of Archi verb, and embedded periphrasis in Bulgarian. Finally, there is an outline of the chapters which make up the volume.

The Nakh-Daghestanian language Archi has several types of verbal constructions: periphrases, complex predicates, and phenomena very similar to serial verb constructions. This chapter investigates these constructions, using the approach of canonical typology; this allows different constructions to be ranked in terms of their proximity to the canonical centre. The analysis suggested is relevant for the general typology of multiword constructions, since it identifies tests for distinguishing them: for complex predicates the test will be their syntactic behaviour, for constructions close to serialization it is the fact that they are only available for a subset of verbs, while periphrasis is exhaustive. The chapter also has a descriptive purpose: published research on Archi does not describe all the available meanings for the periphrastic constructions nor their syntactic behaviour, and so an attempt is made to fill these gaps.

Periphrasis has a striking role in the Australian (non-Pama-Nyungan) language Dalabon, where it helps to maintain the paradigm structure, and at the same time reshapes the paradigm by adding new categories. The key area concerns divalent prefixal marking in verbs, which has been used as evidence in establishing genetic relatedness of non-Pama-Nyungan languages. In Dalabon, there is a set of prefixes to mark subject-object relations for singular objects. The non-singular objects, however, are coded by preverbal pronouns and this chapter demonstrates the true periphrastic nature of this construction. Dalabon is also viewed in the context of other languages of the family, and this allows us to establish the systemic functions of periphrasis, that of ensuring stability of divalent marking in the paradigm, and that of enlarging the paradigm. More generally, then, the Dalabon data provide new evidence of how morphological paradigms behave in the context of change and renewal.

Bulgarian has several relevant verbal constructions, and this chapter concentrates on those where one instance of periphrasis is embedded within another. For example, the (periphrastic) future perfect has a periphrastic form of the verb ‘be’ as one component, giving a construction with embedded periphrasis. The formal account proposed for these nested constructions combines a realizational approach to morphology with a lexical non-transformational framework for syntax. While periphrasis constitutes part of the morphological paradigm, and the relatedness of different periphrastic constructions can be understood in terms of the cross-categorization of features, the syntactic structure of these constructions does not mirror the same nesting. To solve this mismatch, and to capture the nesting effect, a set of rules for Bulgarian periphrastic forms is proposed, involving realization rules which are a composition of two separate rules. The complexity of nested periphrases receives a formal account, shedding light on the syntax-morphology interface more generally.

The investigation of the future‐referring constructions follows the functional–typological framework of grammaticalization. This first chapter discusses some basic principles of the framework, and highlights the reasons why it is chosen over the generative grammar paradigm. It also introduces the notion of Auxiliary Verb Construction (AVC), which will be employed in the analysis of the future‐referring constructions (FCs), instead of the misty notion of “periphrasis”. Finally, it illustrates the reason why such a study was clearly missing from the literature on the history of the Greek language.

Inflection is the expression of morphosyntactic properties on words. Examples are case and number marking on nouns, and number and person marking on verbs. These properties play a role in computing the correct form of word in a sentence. Unlike derivation, inflectional processes do not create new words but forms of a word. There are different theoretical models for inflection: Word-and-Paradigm, Item-and-Arrangement, and Item-and-Process models.

Periphrastic tense forms are a recognized feature of the Greek verbal system from the language of Homer through to the Modern period. Yet their analysis involves both major theoretical difficulties and an inescapable element of subjectivity. The Pentateuchal periphrases are of special interest for their relationship to the underlying Hebrew. This chapter treats the theoretical debate, in particular the contribution of Porter, and establishes the definition of periphrasis which guides the present analysis, before moving to detailed discussion of actual examples. Verbal periphrasis is defined here as the combination of auxiliary verb plus participle or infinitive as near equivalent to or replacement for a synthetic tense form. According to this definition, there are total of sixty-eight examples in the entire Greek Pentateuch. This small quantity displays both independent Greek usage and Hebrew interference. Over 57% of examples closely imitate similar Hebrew expressions.

An analysis of the morphology and syntax of the Old Latin Gospels, and the extent to which they represent patterns characteristic of later and sub‐literary Latinm, and of the Romance languages. Particular consideration is given to the reorganization of the classical case‐ and gender‐systems, to the phenomena of defective and suppletive forms, and to the replacement of synthetic by periphrastic forms.

This chapter argues that periphrastic constructions can express features which are not part of the content of their elements. This favours an analysis which integrates them in the morphological paradigm. On the other hand, agreement data suggest that a treatment along these lines is not unproblematic. The chapter proposes an account within Paradigm Function Morphology.

Grammatical periphrasis is distinguished from lexical periphrasis. A verbal periphrasis, the most commonly studied, contains an operative (functional) verb that fills a gap in a finite verb paradigm by requiring as a complement a non‐finite form that expresses the missing part of the paradigm. Paradigmatic properties of grammatical periphrases, such as suppletion, are illustrated from various languages. The Latin perfect passive is discussed as a prototype. Progressives, perfects, and passives in English differ from this prototype, but the difference is attributed to the impoverished finite morphology of English. In a coda it is suggested that features such as ‘progressive’ are cover symbols for configurations that are in accordance with the localist hypothesis discussed in Volume I of the trilogy.

Periphrasis is typically considered the domain of either syntax or morphology. I find it is syntactic structure realizing morphological features. Periphrasis should therefore be performed by the morphological component. I establish that French and Catalan past perfectives and the French present perfect are periphrastic. The abstracted paradigm model maps the lexeme and syntactic feature set to be realized to the individual forms comprising the realization of that set for that lexeme. The morphology creates those forms as normal. In Catalan, the past perfective has both synthetic and periphrastic forms, therefore a purely functional account of inferential – realizational morphology is insufficient.

This chapter raises the question of non‐verbal periphrasis. A distinction is drawn between secondary features that are elective (say, progressive) and inherent (say, gender). The features of verbs that figure in periphrases are elective. Number and case are arguably elective, and they do figure in function word + lexical noun sequences. Unfortunately for the investigation of them as involved in nominal periphrases, they are basically not features of the noun, but of the determiner/pronoun, as far as number is concerned, and of what is called here the functor, realized as an adposition or morphological case. These features are only secondarily associated with nouns. Number is associated with reference, nouns with denotation. And case involves an independent relational category; prototypical nouns are non‐relational.

There are lexical mechanisms that compensate for the unidirectionality of the exponence relation, as illustrated by the reorganization of morphologically expressed features for optimal formulation of the exponence relations they enter into, and by the deployment of functional elements that enhance the paradigms of finite verbs, creating grammatical periphrases. Some secondary features are expressed only syntactically by means of ecphrasis. It is hypothesized that there are no non‐verbal grammatical periphrases. Nouns are characterized by participation in gender agreement, with classifiers serving as one host type. These are all different manifestations of the role of morphology in mediating between the very different substances grammaticalized by syntax and phonology. And throughout the volume the importance of the extralinguistic basis of linguistic categories is repeatedly confirmed.

In Malayalam, verb morphology is characterized by morphological restrictions on concatenation that give rise to a mismatch between purely morphological features on the one hand, and syntactic and semantic features on the other. In addition, a single verb form in a clause is typically comprised of multiple tense markings, and “periphrastic paradigms” result in what seem to be morphological idioms. This chapter explores the morphology and multiple tenses of Malayalam verbs. It describes the rudiments of a grammar that can sufficiently account for verb forms such as “run – in the process of – should have been” and discusses “morphological periphrasis” as opposed to “syntactic periphrasis.” The chapter also shows how tense, modals, and negation in Malayalam exhibit mismatch and looks at some relevant aspects of the auxiliary system, including multiple tense marking.

In the final chapter, the main findings of the book are summarized. From a synchronic point of view, it is stressed that ‘verbal periphrasis’ is best considered a prototypically organized notion, and that a binary opposition with ‘adjectival periphrasis’ cannot be upheld. Diachronically, attention is drawn to the value of cross-linguistically attested ‘grammaticalization paths’ for the analysis of major periphrastic constructions such as εἰμί‎ with the perfect or the present participle. It is stressed that the notion of ‘transitivity’ provides additional insight in the diachronic development of these constructions. The book is concluded by a number of observations that can be of interest from a more general, linguistic point of view, such as (a) proposed adaptations concerning the above-mentioned grammaticalization paths, (b) the importance of a ‘socio-historical’ perspective, and (c) the need of studying periphrastic constructions in their language-internal and language-external context.

This chapter discusses the notions of ‘verbal periphrasis’ and ‘adjectival periphrasis’ from a theoretical point of view. At present, there is no consensus as to which constructions can be classified as ‘periphrastic’. After a critical discussion of some recent proposals, a new approach is suggested, based on the view that categories are ‘prototypically’ organized. It is argued that the criteria adopted to identify prototypical periphrastic constructions can be derived from Grammaticalization Theory, which, while being a theory of language change, also has its synchronic relevance. In the second part of the chapter, the notion of ‘adjectival periphrasis’ is treated. This notion is used by some scholars to distinguish constructions of the type πρέπον ἐστί‎ ‘it is fitting’ or ἀνεῳγμένον ἐστί‎ ‘it is open(ed)’ from ‘truly’ periphrastic constructions. It is argued that such a binary distinction cannot be maintained: adjectival periphrasis too is a prototypically organized notion, some participles being more ‘adjectival’ than others.

Following a set of characters who travel through the Urania while conspicuously withholding the names of their love objects, chapter six argues that periphrasis, that figure of speech which names an object by talking around that object, models a peculiar form of possession: Periphrasis is the figure that permits characters to maintain their grasp on precisely that which they do not have. While Wroth’s readers have tended to read her romance as a roman à clef, this chapter suggests that the Urania’s orientation towards history does not take the form of a topical allegory but a circumlocution. Periphrasis becomes the instrument by which Wroth’s fictional world brings about precisely that which history denied.