The semantics of the Vilamovicean verbal system (part 1: Empirical study)

Alexander Andrason


The present study – divided into two papers – provides an analysis of the semantics of the Vilamovicean verbal system within a cognitive and grammaticalization framework. On the one hand, the author offers a detailed description of the entire semantic potential of all the verbal constructions available in the language and, on the other, provides an explanation for the senses conveyed by each one of these forms – more specifically, it is demonstrated that the semantic sphere of every gram can be explained and, hence, unified by making use of typologically common evolutionary scenarios, viz. paths. Consequently, the author shows that the entire Vilamovicean verbal system can be modeled as a recursive process of grammaticalisation “waves” whereby older and newer forms evolve along a set of identical paths. This article constitutes the first part of the series. It includes a discussion of methodological issues and an empirical study in which the semantic potentials of all the Vilamovicean verbal grams are determined.

Słowa kluczowe: Vilamovicean language, Germanic linguistics, verbal system, semantics, cognitive linguistics

Andrason A. 2010a. Vilamovicean verbal system – Do the Preterite and the Perfect mean the same? – Linguistica Copernicana 3: 371–285.

Andrason A. 2010b. Expressions of futurity in the Vilamovicean language. – SPIL PLUS 40: 1–11.

Andrason A. 2011a. Vilamovicean passive. – Linguistica Copernicana 5: 221–242.

Andrason A. 2011b. The BH weqatal. A homogenous form with no haphazard functions. Part 1. – Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 37.2: 1–25.

Andrason A. 2012. Cognitive foundations of the Old Babylonian iparras. – Journal of Semitic Studies 57.1: 1–24.

Andrason A. 2013a. Future values of the qatal are “logical” – How to chain future senses of the qatal to the core of its semantic network? – Hebrew Studies 54: 261–292.

Andrason A. 2013b. Against floccinaucinihilipilification of the counterfactual sense of the BH suffix conjugation – or an explanation of why the “indicative” qatal expresses conditions, hypotheses and wishes. – Old Testament Essays 26.1: 20–56.

Andrason A. (forthcoming). A non-unidirectional movement in the verbal system? – International Journal of Basque Linguistics.

Bertinetto P. M., Lenci A. 2010. Iterativity vs. habituality (and gnomic imperfectivity). – Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica 9.1: 1–46.

Bittner M. 2008. Aspectual universals of temporal anaphora. – Rothstein S. (ed.). Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect. Amsterdam: 349–386.

Boneh N., Doron E. 2008. Habituality and the habitual aspect. – Rothstein S. (ed.). Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect. Amsterdam: 321–348.

Boneh N., Doron E. 2010. Modal and temporal aspects of habituality. – Rappaport-Hovav M.,

Doron E., Sichel I. (eds.). Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure. Oxford: 338–363.

Bybee J. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge.

Bybee J., Perkins R., Pagliuca W. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Chicago.

Carlson G. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. [Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts], Amherst.

Comrie B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge.

Comrie B. 1985. Tense. Cambridge.

Couper-Kuhlen E., Selting M. 2001. Introducing interactional linguistics. – Selting M.,

Couper-Kuhlen E. (eds.). Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: 1–22.

Croft W., Cruse A. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge.

Dahl Ö. 1975. On generics. – Keenan E. (ed.). Formal semantics of natural languages. Cambridge: 99–112.

Dahl Ö. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford.

Dahl Ö. 2000a. The tense and aspect systems of European languages in a typological perspective. – Dahl Ö. (ed.). Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin, New York: 3–25.

Dahl Ö. (ed.). 2000b. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin, New York.

Danaher D. 2001. Czech habitual verbs and conceptual distancing. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 9: 5–28.

Evans V., Green M. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh.

Fischer O. 2007. Morphosyntactic change. Oxford.

Fleischman S. 1995. Imperfective and irrealis. – Bybee J., Fleischman S. (eds.). Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: 519–551.

Harbert W. 2007. The Germanic languages. Cambridge.

Harris M. 1982. The ‘Past Simple’ and the ‘Resent Perfect’ in Romance. – Vincent N., Harris M. (eds.). Studies in the Romance verb. London: 42–70.

Haspelmath M. 1998. The semantic development of old presents: New futures and subjunctives without grammaticalization. Diachronica 15.1: 29–62.

Heine B., Claudi U., Hünnemeyer F. 1991. Grammaticalization. A conceptual framework. Chicago.

Heine B., Kuteva T. 2007. The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. Oxford.

Helasvuo M-L. 2009. Emergent grammar. – Brisard F., Östman J-O., Verschueren J. (eds.). Grammar, meaning and pragmatics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 66–73.

Hellenthal A-C. 2007. Modality properties of sentence type markers in Sheko. – Hendriks P., Rau F., Soucková K., van der Wal J. (eds.). Leiden Papers in Linguistics 4.2: 17–32.

Holm J. 1988. Pidgins and creoles. Theory and structure. Cambridge.

Hopper P., Traugott E. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge.

Howe S. 1996. The personal pronouns in the Germanic languages. Berlin.

Jónsson, J.G. 1992. The two perfects of Icelandic. Íslenskt mál 14: 129–145.

Kleczkowski A. 1920. Dialekt Wilamowic w zachodniej Galicji. Fonetyka i fleksja. Kraków.

Kleczkowski A. 1921. Dialekt Wilamowic w zachodniej Galicji. Składnia i szyk wyrazów. Poznań.

Langacker R. 1997. Generics and habitual. – Athanasiadou A., Dirven R. (eds.). On conditionals again. Amsterdam: 191–222.

Lasatowicz M. 1992. Die deutsche Mundart von Wilamowice zwischen 1920 und 1987. Opole.

Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk B. 2007. Polysemy, prototypes, and radical categories. – Geeraerts D., Cuyckens H. (eds.). Handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: 139–169.

Lewis P. (ed.). 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. [16th ed.]. Dallas.

Lindstedt J. 2000. The perfect – aspectual, temporal and evidential. – Dahl Ö. (ed.). Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin, New York: 365–388.

Marchese L. 1986. Tense/aspect and the development of auxiliaries in the Kru language family. Arlington.

McCawley J. 1971. Tense and time reference in English. – Fillmore Ch., Langendoen T. (eds.). Studies in linguistics and semantics. New York: 96–113.

Mitkovska L., Bužarovska E. 2008. On the use of the habere-perfect in journalistic and administrative style. – Topolińska Z., Bužarovska E. (eds.). Language typology and universals. Berlin: 128–138.

Młynek L. 1907. Narzecze wilamowickie. Tarnów.

Mojmir H. 1930–1936. Wörterbuch der deutschen Mundart von Wilamowice. Kraków.

Morciniec N. 1984. Die flämishce Ostkolonisation und der Dialekt von Wilamowice in Südpolen. Slavica Gandensia 11: 7–18.

Nedjalkov V. (ed.). 1988. Typology of resultative constructions. Amsterdam, Philadelphia.

Nikiforidou K. 2009. Constructional analysis. – Brisard F., Östman J-O., Verschueren J. (eds.). Grammar, meaning and pragmatics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 16–32.

Palmer F.R. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge.

Ritchie C. 2012. Some considerations on the origins of Wymysorys. [BA thesis, University of Sydney]. Sydney.

Ryckeboer H. 1984. Die “Flamen” von Wilamowice. Versuch zur Deutung einer Bäuerlichen Uberlieferung. – Slavica Gandensia 11: 19–34.

Squartini M., Bertinetto P. M. 2000. The simple and compound past in Romance languages. – Dahl Ö. (ed.). Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin, New York: 385–402.

Tyler A., Evans V. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge.

Van der Auwera J., Gast V. 2011. Categories and prototypes. – Song J.J. (ed.). The Oxford handbook of typology. Oxford: 166–189.

Wicherkiewicz T. 2003. The making of a language. Berlin, New York.