Declension of the Latin present participle in connection with its syntactico-semantic use

This paper deals with the declension of the Latin present active participle (ppa), which shows several inconsistencies: the ablative singular for instance may end in -eor in -i(sapiente, sapienti) and the genitive plural may end in -umor -ium(sapientum, sapientium). Some grammarians, notably modern ones, assume that there are syntactico-semantic considerations or circumstances, leading to ablative -eending when verbal force is intended (such as in the ablative absolute) or substantival force, and to -iending when there is nominal, notably adjectival force. I have investigated whether ancient, medieval and modern grammarians treat such a phenomenon. In addition, I looked for inconsistencies in the grammarian’s own ppa declension from this syntactico-semantic point of view. It turns out that ancient and medieval grammarians do not formulate declension of the ppa according to its syntactico-semantic function, with the exception of the anonymous author of theArs Ambrosiana, nor do they decline their own ppa’s according to a conventional rule of this kind. This calls for other explanations regarding the declensional inconsistencies observed. Some of the ppa forms may reflect a temporary phenomenon which would have disappeared in due course through diachronic evolution and paradigm leveling. Some forms may have persisted because of their frequency and idiomatic force or because of the compelling analogy with other words and phrases. But these ppa declensional variations do not appear to conform to a syntactico-semantic rule.

Mechanisms of paradigm leveling and the role of universal preferences in morphophonological change

Historical linguists have long been divided in their views about the mechanisms behind paradigm leveling, with many invoking a special mechanism related to a universal preference for paradigm uniformity while others attribute leveling to the same mechanism responsible for other types of analogical change. I argue that although ‘proportional’ analogical innovation plays a major role in paradigm leveling, it cannot account for all cases, and that something akin to the ‘interference’ mechanisms commonly associated with contamination and folk etymology account well for the non-proportional instances. I further show that all of the mechanisms involved in paradigm leveling are also implicated in other types of analogical change, and I argue against the need to posit any universal bias against (stem) allomorphy.

A new role for an ancient variable in Appalachia: Paradigm leveling and standardization in West Virginia

In many rural English-speaking communities, linguistic processes such as paradigm leveling come into direct conflict with social processes of standardization. In the US region of Appalachia, an analysis of past be leveling illustrates the progression of the sociolinguistic clashes between these forces. A quantitative sociolinguistic examination of leveled was (e.g., We was there) for 67 native Appalachian speakers was conducted to assess the status of past be in light of economic and educational improvements over the 20th century. The results indicate that leveled was declined sharply, with the youngest speakers demonstrating more standardized patterns. Although the overall rate of was leveling declined across apparent time, the rate of was contraction (e.g., We's there last night) increased, offering native Appalachians a reduced variant to contest the social push toward a fully standardized system.

Strong-Verb Paradigm Leveling in Four Germanic Languages: A Category Frequency Approach

We investigated strong-verb paradigm leveling in German, Dutch, English, and Swedish, and found significant differences in ablaut leveling and class change towards the weak conjugation. Swedish favors ablaut patterns retaining a difference between the preterite and the past participle, while German, Dutch, and English favor a common vowel for both forms. In change from the strong to the weak conjugation in Swedish, the preterite is more resistant than the past participle, while in the other languages it is the reverse. We provide a unified explanation for these facts based on differences in category frequency due to the prominence or lack of an aspectual distinction between preterite and perfect.*