Academic journal article Journal of Slavic Linguistics

Auxiliary Clitics in Southwest Ukrainian: Questions of Chronology, Areal Distribution, and Grammaticalization

Academic journal article Journal of Slavic Linguistics

Auxiliary Clitics in Southwest Ukrainian: Questions of Chronology, Areal Distribution, and Grammaticalization

Article excerpt

Abstract: This paper addresses grammaticalization of the preterit and future auxiliary clitics derived from the verbs 'to be' and 'to take' in Southwest Ukrainian in comparison with North and Southeast Ukrainian, and the adjacent western and eastern Slavic dialects. It posits a parallel grammaticalization of such auxiliaries in the aspect of retrospection (preterit) and the aspect of prospection (future), although with different results in various Ukrainian dialects. Unlike the Polish auxiliaries that turned into person-number markers, the preterit auxiliary clitics are not fully degrammaticalized in Southwest Ukrainian and are altogether absent from North and Southeast Ukrainian. The auxiliary clitics used in the de-inceptive future derived from the periphrastic formation with the auxiliary 'to take' were undergoing grammaticalization along the clitic continuum postulated in the paper for the Ukrainian-speaking territories. The term 'synthetic future' in Modern Ukrainian for formations like cytatymu 'I will read' is misleading, since the grammaticalization of the auxiliary did not run to completion. This explains its loose integration with the infinitive and the de-inceptive interpretation of the synthetic future T will [begin] to read' as compared to the analytic future formation ja budu cytaty 'I will read' in all the major Ukrainian dialects.

1. Introduction

Clitics in East Slavic have largely remained beyond the scope of both synchronic and dia chronic research after Jakobson 1935 and Gunnarsson 1935 (Zaliznjak 2008: 3). One reason for this, according to Franks and King (2000: 187), is the absence in the East Slavic literary languages of the kinds of pronominal and auxiliary clitics found in other Slavic languages. In fact, "special" clitics (Zwicky and Pullum 1983: 510) were lost in East Slavic, with the exception of Southwest Ukrainian, which unlike North and Southeast Ukrainian preserved pronominal clitics and "enclitic forms of the auxiliary verb in the past tense" as in SWU spav=jem '[slept=.sub.PRET.AUX.1SG]' next to ja spav 'I slept' (Shevelov 1993: 996). (1)

Leaving aside both the frozen and inflected conditional auxiliary clitics like =[by.sub.COND.AUX] and =[bych.sub.COND.AUX.1SG] which warrant a separate study (Danylenko 2011a), I will concentrate instead on Ukrainian preterit and future auxiliary clitics of the type =[jem.sub.PRET.AUX.1SG] and =[mu.sub.FUT.AUX.1SG] as most representative in East Slavic. Both occur in the analytic tenses and demonstrate similarities in grammaticalization via complex interrelated changes in content as well as in syntax, including morphosyntactic and expression transformations (Andersen 2008: 15). Franks and King (2000: 197) argued that the preterit auxiliary seemed to behave much like the future auxiliary clitic in Southwest Ukrainian, a phenomenon that prompts me to treat the two types of auxiliary clitics in tandem. What is notable in this respect is the fact that the future clitics, used separately from the verb in Southwest Ukrainian, occur in North and Southeast (Modern) Ukrainian in the "inflected infinitives," labeled "synthetic future" (SF) in historical and descriptive grammars of Ukrainian (Bevzenko et al. 1978: 328; Vyxovanec' and Horodens'ka 2004:254).

The reconstructable and observed changes in such auxiliary clitics will be examined in terms of grammaticalization, which may lead from lexical to grammatical and from grammatical to more grammatical forms (Heine and Kuteva 2006: 232). Called "grammation" and "regrammation" by Andersen (2006: 38-39), these types of changes go hand in hand with another content change identified as "degrammation" by which an expression through reanalysis loses grammatical content (change from grammatical content to other, including zero, content) (ibid.). In North and Southeast Ukrainian the present perfect was "regrammatized," for instance, as the general preterit, a change followed by the loss of the auxiliary (see section 3. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.