Language Contact in Europe : the Periphrastic Perfect through History.

Off-campus access available to SOAS staff and students only, using SOAS ID and password.
Click here to view record
Full title: Language Contact in Europe : the Periphrastic Perfect through History.
Main author: Drinka, Bridget.
Format: eBook           
Online access: Click here to view record


Table of Contents:
  • Cover; Half-title; Series information; Title page; Copyright information; Table of contents; Series editor's foreword; Acknowledgments; Abbreviations, based on the leipzig glossing rules; 1 Language Contact in Europe: The Periphrastic Perfect through History; 1.1 Introduction; 1.1.1 Western Languages: have/be + ppp; 1.1.2 Eastern Languages: be + pap; 1.1.2.1 Retention of be; 1.1.2.2 Cliticization of be; 1.1.2.3 Loss of be; 1.1.3 Transition Zones: The Spread of have Constructions; 1.1.4 Preliminary Questions and Explanations: Power, Social Allegiance, and Religious Affiliation.
  • 1.2 The European Periphrastic Perfect as an Areal Phenomenon1.3 The Role of Contact in Grammatical Change; 1.3.1 The Role of Calquing (Polysemy Copying); 1.3.2 The Role of Metatypy; 1.3.3 The Role of Replication; 1.4 Theoretical Issues: Contact and the Nature of Linguistic Change; 1.4.1 Innovation and Diffusion; 1.4.2 Sociolinguistic Models: Contact at the Micro and Macro Level; 1.4.3 Chronological Layering; 1.4.4 Contact and Typological Trends; 2 Languages in Contact, Areal Linguistics, and the Perfect; 2.1 Languages in Contact: Foundations; 2.2 Areal Linguistics.
  • 2.2.1 New Empirical Approaches to Areal Linguistics2.3 Europe as a Linguistic Area: EUROTYP and Beyond; 2.3.1 Haspelmath: Features of SAE; 2.3.2 Kortmann: Core, Periphery, and the East/West Split; 2.3.3 Thieroff: The Stages of the Perfect> Preterite Shift; 2.3.4 Heine and Kuteva (2006): Synthesizing EUROTYP; 2.3.5 Mapping the Perfect in WALS; 2.4 Beyond EUROTYP: Redefining the Sprachbund; 2.5 Conclusions; 3 The Perfect as a Category; 3.1 Definitions and Types of Perfect; 3.2 Distribution of Perfects in the Languages of the World; 3.3 Arguments for the Universality of the Perfect.
  • 3.3.1 Evidence from Ancient Languages3.3.2 Evidence from Modern Languages: Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994); 3.3.3 Young and Old Anteriors in the Languages of the World; 3.3.3.1 Young Anteriors; 3.3.3.2 Old Anteriors; 3.3.3.3 Anterior to Perfective / Past; 3.3.4 Typological Considerations; 3.4 Questioning the Universality of the Perfect; 3.4.1 Mandarin le; 3.4.2 Further Evidence from Pragmatics: Perfects from Resultatives; 3.5 Conclusions; 4 Sources of the Perfect in Indo-European; 4.1 Indo-European Synthetic Perfects; 4.1.1 Vocalism of the Stem; 4.1.2 Personal Endings; 4.1.3 Reduplication.
  • 4.1.4 The Development of Middle Perfects4.1.5 Summary: IE Synthetic Perfects; 4.1.6 Survival of IE Synthetic Perfects into the Later Languages; 4.2 IE Participles and Verbal Adjectives; 4.2.1 *-to-/-no- in the IE Languages; 4.2.1.1 Greek; 4.2.1.2 Indo-Iranian; 4.2.1.3 Italic; 4.2.1.4 Germanic; 4.2.1.5 Slavic; 4.2.1.6 Baltic; 4.2.1.7 Celtic; 4.2.1.8 Summary: *-to-/-no- construction; 4.2.2 l-participle; 4.3 The Etymology of be and have in IE; 4.3.1 Be in Indo-European; 4.3.2 Have in Indo-European; 4.3.3 The Relationship of be and have; 4.4 The Role of Indo-European; 4.5 Conclusions.