Why Do Languages Lose Grammatical Categories?

Latin and Romance Evidence

Matthew L. Juge

Abstract: Although sound change may contribute to the loss of grammatical categories, such as the Latin future and passive, comparative data show that phonological change alone cannot account for these morphological changes. Syncretism can arise from sound change, but patterns of sound change within Romance falsify the homonymy avoidance argument. Furthermore, Italian and Occitan provide models for analogical solutions to syncretism. Patterns of loss of grammatical categories must be contextualized cross-linguistically without preconceptions about which categories may be lost. Close analysis of phonological and morphological factors will facilitate the establishment of a typology of category loss. Keywords: analogy, diachrony, grammar, morphology, phonology istorical accounts of the loss of inflectional categories typically address the aftermath of the loss without adequately treating the reasons for the loss. For instance, Robertson (17477) points out certain significant consequences of the loss of the particle wal in the history of the Mayan verb but does not address the reasons for the loss of wal. In this article, I explore the loss of grammatical categories via two case studies on the future and passive in Latin and Romance. Some analyses of the former focus on the later corresponding periphrases, rather than the synthetic forms themselves and the reason or reasons for their replacement. This is not, however, because of a lack of scholarship. Rather, some insightful work, such as that by Pulgram, has apparently been overlooked in subsequent research. As such, the attention paid to the loss of synthetic forms usually comes as a cursory suggestion of inevitable loss due to Copyright 2009 Heldref Publications
68

sound change and certain morphological factors. In this article, I examine and reject such claims, specifically Vincents argument that sound change and morphological inconsistency clinched the loss of the synthetic future. I argue that we have not yet determined why such grammatical categories are lost and that obtaining satisfactory answers depends on a more critical approach rooted in cross-linguistic comparison. 1 SOUND CHANGES DESTROY CASE, REDUCE GENDERS IN ROMANCE NOMINALS Regular sound change can, of course, affect the number of distinctions within a grammatical system, as shown, for example, by the loss of the case system in nouns and adjectives in most Romance languages. The expected outcomes of certain well-known sound changesprimarily vocalic mergers and consonant loss (table 1)show how syncretism arose in nouns, contributing to the loss of case and the neuter gender in most Romance languages (table 2). However, the Latin verb offered even more inflectional categories than the nominal system and has proven more resistantbut not immuneto loss of morphological categories. I now turn to some claims about such losses in the verb system, starting with the role of sound change. 2 THE LATIN FUTURE, SOUND CHANGE, AND HOMONYMY AVOIDANCE Among categories lost in the Romance languages, the future has probably gotten the most attention. The emphasis has typically fallen squarely on sound change.
TABLE 1. Selected Sound Changes Affecting the Latin Nominal System Key sound changes a* > a o* > o m > / __# u>o Additional sound changes i* > i w>b t* > t n* > *

TABLE 2. Latin-Spanish Correspondences in the Nominal System Category drop (of water, etc.) Latin Nominative singular Accusative singular Ablative singular Accusative plural gutta guttam gutta gutta s Spanish gota gota gota gotas Latin annus annum ann o ann os year Spanish aos ao ao aos wine Latin num v v num v n o v na Spanish bino bino bino bina

Note. Forms in shaded cells did not survive into modern Spanish in their expected forms.

WINTER 2009, VOL. 56, NO. 1

69

2.1 The Latin Future Threatened by Sound Changes and Morphological Factors The Latin synthetic future did not survive into modern Romance.1 Lathrop calls the Latin future a tense with unstable phonetic characteristics (63). Vincent cites sound change as one of two deciding factors in the loss of the future and inconsistency across verb classes as the other. Vincent argues that the inconsistent nature of the inflectional pattern across the conjugationsthat is, amb I will love versus dcam I will say contributed to the loss of the synthetic future (48). Such inconsistency, however, is tolerated elsewhere in Romance verbs, as in the imperfect indicative (table 3). In regular verbs, Iberian Romance has two types: root + theme vowel + ending, root + ending; Italian has oneroot + theme vowel + endingthat creates the appearance of three types; and French has root + ending for all verb classes. In citing his other factor, [h]omonymic clashes induced by sound changes amavi / amavit / amabit all become amavi (48), Vincent ignores half the paradigm and implies that homophony of this type is fatal. When such homophony does develop, it is often tolerated indefinitely. Syncretism is widespread not only in the Romance verb (e.g., 1SG and 3SG forms are identical in most Romance paradigms; cf. table 4) but also across the worlds languages (cf. Baerman, Brown, and Corbett). As such, syncretism induced by sound change cannot, on its own, be considered an adequate explanation for such paradigm loss. Nonetheless, some have treated such syncretism as a problem. In the Old Catalan preterit, for example, a small group of verbs had identical 1SG/3SG forms (e.g., dix said; cf. Portuguese disse in table 4) and first conjugation verbs had a present~preterit syncretism in the 1PL and 2PL of the indicative (e.g., cantam
TABLE 3. Conjugational Variation in the Romance Imperfect Indicative English love run sleep Spanish amaba corra dorma Portuguese amava corria dormia Catalan amava corria dormia Italian amava correva dormiva French aimait courait dormait

TABLE 4. 1SG/3SG Syncretism Found in Nonfuture TAMCATs Category Imperfect indicative Imperfect subjunctive Preterit (indicative) Language Catalan Catalan Portuguese Example amava ams disse Gloss I loved/(s)he loved I loved/(s)he loved I said/(s)he said

70

ROMANCE QUARTERLY

we sing~we sang; cf. Spanish cantamos). In traits like this, Prez Saldanya sees motivation for the development and spread of the so-called GO-periphrasis (vam cantar we sang; I have argued against this analysis elsewhere [see Morphological, Narrative]). However, the periphrastic preterit has not completely ousted the synthetic preterit. Corresponding forms in Occitan show not one but two patterns of analogical restructuring (table 5). Such processes need not be construed as teleological, though (cf. Juge, Metaphor). Four-part or proportional analogy can also reduce syncretism, as in the Italian imperfect indicative, where both the present and future indicative provide a basis for the form amavo I loved. Application of four-part analogy to the forms ama: amo::amava:X yields X = amavo (table 6). So it is reasonable to consider the possibility that the synthetic future could have survived into modern Romance with analogical changes (table 8). Similarly, Penny cites two syncretisms: future indicative~present subjunctive in the 1SG of the third and fourth conjugations (e.g., dcam I will say~I say [subj.])
TABLE 5. Leveling in the Preterit in Catalan and Occitan Catalan Old Modern Old Occitan Modern Standard 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL cant cantast cant cantam cantats cantaren cant cantares cant cantrem cantreu cantaren canti cantst cantt cantm canttz cantren cantri cantres cantt cantrem cantretz cantron ClermontFerrand cantte canttes cant canttem canttez cantton

Note. Bolded forms reflect substantial intraparadigmatic influence (= leveling). Italicized forms are the base forms for leveling (standard: cantren, Clermont-Ferrand: cantt).

TABLE 6. Analogical Reduction of Syncretism in the Italian Imperfect Indicative Italian amare to love Present Indicative 3SG ama 1SG amo Imperfect Indicative 3SG amava 1SG X

::

amavo

WINTER 2009, VOL. 56, NO. 1

71

and present~future in highly frequent third-person-singular forms of the third conjugation resulting from the merger of long and short /e/ and short /i/ in final syllables (dcet (s)he will say and dcit (s)he says > dice) (206). Analogical changes like those shown in table 7 would have eliminated such overlaps. Analogical extension of patterns in the first conjugation to the second, third, and fourth conjugations could have turned the Latin synthetic future into a viable TAMCAT (Tense-Aspect-Mood CATegory) in the Romance languages. Before addressing additional similar puzzles in the verb system, I turn to the nominal system for further comparison. 2.2 The Latin Genitive Shouldand DoesSurvive Aside from Romanian, the modern Romance languages have retained case only in pronouns, typically with reflexes of the Latin nominative, dative, and accusative. Attested sound changes, though, seem to favor the survival of the genitive as well (table 8). Apparently, however, only one genitive form remains
TABLE 7. Possible Spanish Reflexes of the Latin Future Active love Latin Spanish Expected With analogy
INF 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL

run Latin Spanish Expected With analogy currere curram curres curret curre mus curre tis current correr corra corres corre corremos corris corren correr correbo correbes correbe corrbemos correbeis correbon

ama re ama b o ama bis ama bit ama bimus ama bitis ama bunt

amar amabo amabes amabe ambemos amabes amabon

amar amabo amabes amabe ambemos amabeis amabon

Note. Bolded forms would have shown syncretism. Italicized forms show analogy.

TABLE 8. Expected Spanish Reflexes of Latin Genitive Nouns Category drop (of water, etc.) Latin Genitive singular Genitive plural Spanish Latin ann ann orum year Spanish ae aoro wine Latin Spanish

guttae gote gutta rum gotaro

v n bine v n orum binoro

Note. Shaded cells contain expected forms that did not survive into modern Spanish.

72

ROMANCE QUARTERLY

robust, the plural form of the demonstrative ille that (table 9, where bolded forms come from illrum). The Catalan reflex of illrum (no longer common in the spoken language), with singular llur and plural llurs, is more of a possessive adjective than a genitive pronoun. This is true in French as well, but the extension of leur to oblique functions indicates pronominal status. Romanian lor and Italian loro, meanwhile, are even more fully pronominal. Italian shows the most extension, since loro has also spread into the subject function. This pattern is typical of the retention of more distinctions in limited areas found in such instances as person/number marking in the English verb to be or case distinctions in continental Scandinavian personal pronouns vis--vis nouns. Such retention of isolated forms rather than an entire grammatical category is loosely reminiscent of other instances, such as the survival in Russian of the synthetic future only in the verb byt to be (bdu, bdesh, etc.unique among nonperfective verbs). The Russian case differs significantly, though, in two respects. First, the retained forms serve to mark the relevant feature in a periphrasis. Second, perfective verbs still mark the future synthetically. In contrast, the reflexes of illrum are essentially isolated elements. This result shows yet another possible outcome of morphological loss. 3 ADDITIONAL PUZZLING LOSSES IN THE VERB SYSTEM The history of the Romance verb includes other losses still lacking satisfactory explanations, including the imperfect and future subjunctive and, especially, the passive. 3.1 The Disappearance of the Latin Synthetic Passive The loss of the Latin synthetic passive deepens the puzzle, the reasons for its loss rarely if ever receiving attention. Arguments like those mentioned above cannot account for such a lossregular sound changes would have produced distinctive passive forms (table 10). One factor that may have contributed to this loss is the hybrid nature already found in Classical Latin, where the perfect TAMCATS were periphrastic (e.g., dictum est it has been said).
TABLE 9. Partial Survival of the Genitive Plural in Pronouns Third Person Masculine Pronoun Category Nominative singular Dative singular Accusative singular Nominative plural Dative plural Genitive plural Latin ille ill illum ill ill s ill orum French il lui le ils leur leur/leurs Romanian el lui el ei lor lor Italian lui gli lo loro loro loro Catalan ell li el/l/-lo/l ells li/els/-los/ls llur/llurs

WINTER 2009, VOL. 56, NO. 1

73

TABLE 10. Expected Spanish Reflexes of Latin Present Indicative Passive Latin first conjugation 1SG 2SG 3SG amor ama ris ama tur 1PL 2PL 3PL ama mur ama min amantur 1SG 2SG 3SG Spanish mor amares amdor 1PL 2PL 3PL ammor amambre amntor

3.2 The Latin Imperfect Subjunctive, Perfect Subjunctive, and Future Perfect Perhaps it is a truism of historical linguistics that a development in one language or dialect may not occur when the same circumstances appear to hold in other languages or dialects. The widespread but not universal loss of the Latin imperfect subjunctive, perfect subjunctive, and future perfect illustrates this quite well. The imperfect subjunctive was lost in most Romance languages, possibly due, in part, to its close resemblance to the future perfect (indicative) and the perfect subjunctive.2 Nonetheless, it survives in Portuguese and Sardinian, where it continues as the personal infinitive3 and the imperfect subjunctive, respectively (table 11). Not only were the forms of the imperfect subjunctive similar to those of the future perfect (indicative) and the perfect subjunctive (after the contraction found in perfect formse.g., 2s imperfect subjunctive amrs > amares you love and future perfect indicative/perfect subjunctive amveris > amares you [will] have loved), but these latter two were also very similar to each other. Yet, not only does the imperfect subjunctive survive into Portuguese as the personal infinitive, but also the merged TAMCATS of the perfect subjunctive and the future perfect indicative survive in Portuguese (and vestigially in Spanish) as well in the form of the future subjunctive (identical to the personal infinitive for many verbs, but not those with strong perfect stems; e.g., ser to be has 2s personal infinitive seres, clearly distinct from 2s future subjunctive fores). The loss of these TAMCATs cannot be regarded simplistically as inevitable. 4 A BROADER PERSPECTIVE My exploration of these cases is designed not only to raise certain issues in Romance but also to facilitate comparison with data in other families to seek general principles of morphological change or, more specifically, morphological loss. 4.1 What Is Category Loss? So far I have addressed grammatical category loss without specifying exactly what I mean by the term. The frame of reference, here, is the morphosyntactic systemthat is, the set of forms and patterns that encode certain meanings. That is, does the language marksynthetically or periphrasticallya given distinction?
74 ROMANCE QUARTERLY

WINTER 2009, VOL. 56, NO. 1

TABLE 11. Sardinian and Portuguese Reflexes of the Latin Imperfect Subjunctive Active Imperfect subjunctive Sardinian 1S 2S 3S timerpo tmeres tmeret 1P 2P 3P timermus timerdzis tmeren 1S 2S 3S Personal infinitive Portuguese temer temeres temer 1P 2P 3P temermos temerdes temerem

Latin second conjugation

1S 2S 3S

time rem time re s time ret

1P 2P 3P

time re mus time re tis time rent

75

For example, although an English speaker can specify whether she includes the addressee, English itself certainly does not have a grammatical category of inclusive/ exclusive first person marking, as do many languages of North America, such as Mohawk and Siuslaw (cf. Mithun 7071), where such information is obligatorily encoded. Thus, a language may lose its future verbs while of course continuing to offer ways of discussing the future (with temporal adverbs, for instance). 4.2 What Categories Can Be Lost? Almost Any of Them Two main types of evidence indicate the dispensability of inflectional categories. Strong evidence that a given category can be lost comes from languages lacking it. Languages with very little inflectional morphologysuch as Yoruba, Vietnamese, and Mandarin Chineseshow that many categories, including such seemingly basic ones as number and tense, are, in some sense, superfluous. However, this only shows that the category in question is not indispensible, not that it can be lost, as a given language may not have ever had that category. Stronger evidence, then, comes from cases in which we have attested loss of a category (or reliable evidence of loss based on comparative data). For example, in Norwegian, the older 2S/3S suffix -r has spread to the other persons in the present, eliminating person/number distinctions. In principle it might be worthwhile to subdivide such cases into those in which the category in question is not replaced by other grammaticalized means of expression and those in which it is. At this stage, though, it is not clear what insight such a typology would provide. In the case of the Latin future, both results occur. Most Romance varieties have newer future constructions that are or were periphrastic, whereas in some southern Italian dialects the future is normally expressed with present forms. 4.3 What Causes the Loss of Grammatical Categories? Sound change, then, may contribute to the loss of grammatical categories; but, contrary to what is sometimes claimed or implied, it is not always sufficient to cause such loss. Pulgram sums the issue up this way: What came firstthe phonological decay of endings or the extension of prepositional phrases and hardening of word-orderis a chicken-and-egg question. No doubt all these events worked together and reinforced one another over time (230). Similarly, morphological patterns may contribute to the loss of grammatical categories but appear to have relatively little true explanatory power. In the absence of satisfactory solutions, we must seek to establish how much insight previously identified factors provide and explore other possible factors. 4.3.1 TeleologyDo Out of Balance Morphological Systems Need to Be Fixed? No One approach to the loss of grammatical categories depends on the notion that they sometimes reach a level of imbalance that essentially forces the language to repair itself. For example, as I mentioned in section 2.1, Prez Saldanya argues that problems in the simple preterit in Catalan contributed to its loss in favor
76 ROMANCE QUARTERLY

of the periphrastic preterit (vam cantar we sang). I have rejected such arguments elsewhere (Morphological, Metaphor). 4.3.2 Sociogeographic Factors May Provide Some Clues Seemingly intractable cases often provoke attempts at explanation based on claims of substratum influence, about which Hock shows great skepticism: [M]any (perhaps most) of the common alleged prehistoric instances of substratal changes are quite dubious (485). 4.3.2.1 Extrinsic factors do not account for distinctive traits. Among the Romance languages, Spanish has received special attention. Lpez Garca, for instance, claims that Castilian grammar shows fourteen significant points of influence from Basque. Trask and Wright address those points and reject all of them. Wright argues separately that the data require no reference to outside factors: the early Medieval Romance variation itself was the result of natural intralinguistic processes [. . .] and hardly ever attributable to extrinsic causes even in minor details (293). In addressing such claims, Wright emphasizes the need to apply greater knowledge of the languages cited as putative sources of this type of influence rather than necessitating clarification by other scholars, such as poor Basque specialists who have more to do with their time than defend their subject from such ill-informed fantasies (280). More useful, in Wrights view, is what Trudgill calls interdialect, the speech that results when speakers of multiple dialects come together and produce a variety showing certain simplifications and preference for unmarked variants. Wright states that interdialect may well explain why Romance in general is simpler than Latin (Dialects 285). It seems, however, that in the case of the morphological issues under consideration here the timing of interactions among differing Latin and Romance speakers is quite likely too late to explain the losses. 4.3.2.2 Degree of contact and natural versus non-natural changes. Trudgill combines sociolinguistic and sociogeographic factors to explain morphological differences between Faroese and the continental Scandinavian languages, which are less conservative inflectionally (table 12). He divides changes into natural (liable to occur in all linguistic systems, at all times, without external stimulus, because of the inherent nature of linguistic systems themselves) and non-natural (mainly [. . .] the result of language contact [. . .] not due to the inherent nature of language systems, but to processes that take place in particular sociolinguistic
TABLE 12. Inflectional Conservatism in Faroese Versus Continental Scandinavian Cases Language Faroese Norwegian Nouns 3 Pronouns 3 2 Noun declensions per gender 3 1 Inflected verb forms 11 5

WINTER 2009, VOL. 56, NO. 1

77

situations, On Dialect 102). His proposal also fits with the tendency for rural varieties to be more conservative than urban ones. McMahon objects to Trudgills analysis, especially his terminology. She suggests, instead, internal versus external change since natural and non-natural are arguably just too close to natural and unnatural for comfort (267). Because this type of analysis is sociolinguistic in nature, it requires that we ask whether it fits the relevant sociolinguistic situation of the time and place. Because the synthetic future and passive both vanished from all Romance varieties, sociogeographic variation does not help to explain these developments. 4.3.3 Communicative Considerations Pulgram connects the replacement of synthetic by analytic forms, often issuing from a redundant construction to a desire to achieve certainty of communication through prolixity rather than brevity (202). Although this might initially seem like a teleological analysis, it need not be. Speakers may indeed desire to express themselves clearly without ever considering, even subconsciously, how their usage might contribute to eventual changes in the overall system. This proposal merits further exploration with detailed cross-linguistic analyses of language in context. CONCLUSIONS The loss of grammatical categories, as addressed here primarily with respect to the synthetic future and passive, reveals that some scholars emphasis on the role of sound change and consequent syncretism cannot fully explain such losses, even when supplemented by arguments based on morphological factors. Although sociolinguistic and sociogeographic models appear promising, these particular cases do not seem amenable to such approaches, partly because of chronological considerations. Communicative considerations, however, may indeed play a significant role in such changes. Unsurprisingly, answering how is easier than answering why. However, I argue that exploring, at least briefly, seemingly unanswerable questions provides a clearer perspective on what kinds of issues we can profitably address. In revisiting seemingly foregone conclusions about the development of well-known forms from Latin to Romance, we may choose to reevaluate the research questions we pose. We also sometimes find that more recent scholarship has missed previous work that addresses the issues that concern us. Surveys like that of Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca on grammaticalization patterns provide useful overviews. However, I suggest that case studies with narrower scope and more-detailed analysis complement cross-linguistic comparison, which in turn enriches the investigation of more local problems. In some cases like those explored here, certain difficulties arise from not extrapolating ideas and claims to their logical conclusions. Finally, I contend that identifying and rejecting not only incorrect answers but also non-answers helps us resolve linguistic puzzles. Texas State UniversitySan Marcos
78 ROMANCE QUARTERLY

NOTES I appreciate the invaluable input I received on this article from Joel Rini, who organized Rogerfest, the 2008 Kentucky Foreign Language Conference sessions in Roger Wrights honor. I also benefited from feedback from the other panelists as well as Alan King, Sharla Nichols, and William F. Weigel. Any errors are my responsibility. 1. The widespread notion that the Spanish second person singular present indicative of ser to be, eres, comes from the Latin future form eris presents a puzzle in both semantics and chronology. Rini surveys a range of proposals and offers a new explanation, arguing that the form is the result of back-formation from future subjunctive fueres. His analysis emphasizes the relationship between what in Latin were corresponding elements of the infectum and perfectum subsystems and the use of such forms in subordinate clauses. 2. The imperfect subjunctive paradigms in the modern languages come from Latin pluperfect forms. 3. There is some debate about the origins of the Portuguese personal infinitive. See Scida for additional information. WORKS CITED Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown, and Greville G. Corbett. The Syntax-Morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1994. Hock, Hans Heinrich. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Gruyter, 1991. Juge, Matthew L. Metaphor and Teleology Do Not Drive Grammaticalization. Historical Linguistics 2005. Ed. Joseph C. Salmons and Shannon Dubenion-Smith. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. 3348. . Morphological Factors in the Grammaticalization of the Catalan Go Past. Diachronica 23.2 (2006): 31339. . Narrative and the Catalan GO-Past. Folia Linguistica Historica. 29 (2008): forthcoming. Lathrop, T. A. Curso de gramtica histrica espaola. Trans. Juan Gutirrez Cuadrado and Ana Blas. Barcelona: Ariel, 1984. Lpez Garca, ngel. Algunas concordancias gramaticales entre el castellano y el euskera. Philologica hispaniensia in honorem M. Alvar. Vol. 2. Madrid: Gredos, 1985. 391405. McMahon, April M. S. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994. Mithun, Marianne. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. Penny, Ralph. A History of the Spanish Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. Prez Saldanya, Manuel. Gramaticalitzaci i reanlisi: el cas del perfet perifrstic en catal. Actes del des col.loqui internacional de llengua i literatura catalanes. Ed. A. Schnberger and Tilbert Ddac Stegmann. Vol. 3. Barcelona: Publicacions de lAbadia de Montserrat, 1996. 71107. Pulgram, Ernst. Practicing Linguist. Essays on Language and Languages 19501985. Vol. 2. Heidelberg: Winter, 1988. Rini, Joel. Exploring the Role of Morphology in the Evolution of Spanish. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1999. Robertson, John S. The History of Tense/Aspect/Mood/Voice in the Mayan Verbal Complex. Austin: U of Texas P, 1992.
WINTER 2009, VOL. 56, NO. 1 79

Scida, Emily. The Inflected Infinitive in the Romance Languages. New York: Routledge, 2004. Trask, R. L., and Roger Wright. El vascorromnico. Verba: Anuario galego de filoloxa 15 (1988): 36173. Trudgill, Peter. Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwells, 1986. . On Dialect. New York: New York UP, 1983. Vincent, Nigel. Latin. The Romance Languages. Ed. Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent. New York: Oxford UP, 1988. 2678. Wright, Roger. Latin in Spain: Early Ibero-Romance. The Origins and Development of Emigrant Languages. Ed. Hans F. Nielsen and Lene Schsler. Odense: U of Odense P, 1996. 27798.

80

ROMANCE QUARTERLY