Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T17:43:53.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Renewal: A Figure of Speech Ora Process Sui Generis?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Uta Reinöhl and
Nikolaus P. Himmelmann
Uta Reinöhl*
Affiliation:
Universität zu Köln
Nikolaus P. Himmelmann*
Affiliation:
Universität zu Köln
*
Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Institut für Linguistik, Universität zu Köln, 50923 Köln, Germany, [uta.reinoehl@uni-koeln.de] (Reinöhl), [sprachwissenschaft@uni-koeln.de] (Himmelmann)
Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Institut für Linguistik, Universität zu Köln, 50923 Köln, Germany, [uta.reinoehl@uni-koeln.de] (Reinöhl), [sprachwissenschaft@uni-koeln.de] (Himmelmann)
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concept of ‘renewal’ is widely used in the literature on morphosyntactic change, but hardly ever theorized. Here we scrutinize the viability of this concept theoretically as well as empirically, revisiting in detail the most frequently cited case of renewal, namely the resemblance between the Latin and French synthetic futures. Phenomena accounted for in terms of renewal can also be accounted for in terms of grammaticalization theory. We argue that there is no need and no empirical support for renewal as its own type of change alongside grammaticalization. However, grammaticalization theory so far has neglected to properly account for influences of the existing system on ongoing grammaticalization processes. As an initial approximation of this vast field of study, we propose several domains where we believe that system influences on grammaticalization are operative. On the one hand, this involves making more precise the source determination hypothesis as developed in work by Joan Bybee and colleagues. On the other, it comprises interactions between constructions in paradigm formation.

Keywords

renewalgrammaticalizationmorphosyntactic changeItalic languagesfuturesource determinationparadigm formation

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 93 , Issue 2 , June 2017, pp. 381 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barceló, Gérard Joan. 2007. Le (s) futur (s) dans les langues romanes: Evolution linéaire oucyclique? Cahiers Chronos 16. 47–62.Google Scholar
Batchelor, Ronald E., and Chebli-Saadi, Malliga. 2011. A reference grammar of French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1968. Mutations of linguistic categories. Directions for historical linguistics, ed. by Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov, 83–94. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bichakjian, Bernard H. 1990. Language change: Cyclical or linear? The case of the Romance future. Historical linguistics 1987: Papers from the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Andersen, Henning and Koerner, E. F. K., 37–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.66.04bicCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2008. Grammaticalization and the areal factor: The perspective of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives, ed. by López-Couso, María José and Seoane, Elena, 15–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.76.04bisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2011. Grammaticalization and linguistic typology. Handbook of grammaticalization, ed. by Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd, 105–17. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bozzone, Chiara. 2012. The PIE subjunctive: Function and development. The Indo-European verb, ed. by Melchert, H. Craig, 7–18. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1995. Functional renewal. Historical linguistics 1993: Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Andersen, Henning, 33–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.124.04briCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1988. Semantic substance vs. contrast in the development of grammatical meaning. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 247–64. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1785.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1994. The grammaticization of zero: Asymmetries in tense and aspect systems. Perspectives on grammaticalization, ed. by Pagliuca, William, 235–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1997. Semantic aspects of morphological typology. Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón, ed. by Bybee, Joan L., Haiman, John, and Thompson, Sandra A., 25–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Dahl, Östen. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13 (1). 51–103. DOI: 10.1075/sl.13.1.03byb.10.1075/sl.13.1.03bybCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Pagliuca, William. 1987. The evolution of future meaning. Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Carruba, Onofrio, and Bernini, Giuliano, 109–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Pagliuca, William; and Perkins, Revere. 1991. Back to the future. Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 2: Types of grammatical markers, ed. by Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd, 17–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere; and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, Robert. 1971. The origin and development of Latin habeo + infinitive. The Classical Quarterly 21 (1). 215–32. DOI: 10.1017/S0009838800028974.10.1017/S0009838800028974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, Robert. 1976. Further observations on habeo + infinitive as an exponent of futurity. The Classical Quarterly 26 (1). 151–59. DOI: 10.1017/S0009838800033930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Eystein. 2013. The Indo-European subjunctive and its origin as a present. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 41 (3/4). 392–430.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Bertold. 1871. Der Gebrauch des Conjunctivs und Optativs im Sanskrit und Griechischen. Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Bertold. 1897. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, vol. 3. Trübner: Trübner.10.1515/9783111626796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele, and Smirnova, Elena. 2012. ‘Paradigmatic integration’: The fourth stage in an expanded grammaticalization scenario. Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections, ed. by Davidse, Kristin, Cornillie, Bert, Cuyckens, Hubert, and Leuschner, Torsten, 111–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dreer, Igor. 2013. The use of the future and conditional in high medieval literature. Research on Old French: The state of the art, ed. by Arteaga, Deborah L., 221–42. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization: An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1982. The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fløgstad, Guro Nore. 2016. Preterit expansion and perfect demise in Porteño Spanish and beyond: A critical perspective on cognitive grammaticalization theory. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, James J. (ed.) 1988. To speak in pairs: Essays on the ritual languages of eastern Indonesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511551369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, Gerd. 1997. Historische Semantik der Modalverben. Problemskizze—Exemplarische Analysen—Forschungsüberblick. 4: Einzelprobleme und exemplarische Analysen. Untersuchungen zur semantischen Entwicklungsgeschichte der Modalverben im Deutschen, ed. by Fritz, Gerd, 85–112. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI: 10.1515/9783110940848.85.10.1515/9783110940848.85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fruyt, Michèle. 2011. Grammaticalization in Latin. New perspectives on historical Latin syntax, vol. 4: Complex sentences, grammaticalization, typology, ed. by Baldi, Philip and Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, 661–864. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110253412.661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonda, Jan. 1956. The character of the Indo-European moods. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Gratwick, Adrian S. 1972. Habeo and aveo: The Romance future. The Classical Quarterly 22 (2). 388–98. DOI: 10.1017/S0009838800042166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 2010. Competing motivations. The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, ed. by Song, Jae Jung, 148–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C., and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. The semantic development of old presents: New futures and subjunctives without grammaticalization. Diachronica 15 (1). 29–62. DOI: 10.1075/dia.15.1.03has.10.1075/dia.15.1.03hasCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haverling, Gerd V. M. 2010. Actionality, tense, and viewpoint. New perspectives on historical Latin syntax, vol. 2: Constituent syntax: adverbial phrases, adverbs, mood, tense, ed. by Baldi, Philip and Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, 277–523. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1998. Hermit crabs: Formal renewal of morphology by phonologically mediated affix substitution. Language 74 (4). 728–59. DOI: 10.2307/417001.10.2307/417001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike; and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hewson, John, and Bubenik, Vit. 2006. From case to adposition: The development of configurational syntax in Indo-European languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Eugen. 2009. Zur Rekonstruktion des urindogermanischen Konjunktivs zu athema- tischen Verbalstämmen. Internal reconstruction and Indo-European: Methods, results, and problems, ed. by Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård and Olander, Thomas, 93–110. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. Gram, construction, class formation. Wortarten und Grammatikalisierung: Perspektiven in System und Erwerb, ed. by Knobloch, Clemens and Schaeder, Burkhard, 79–93. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110202090.79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, J. B. 1965. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. Revised by Szantyr, Anton. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1, ed. by Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hopCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imbs, Paul. 1960. L'emploi des temps verbaux en français moderne. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2002. Structural factors in Turkic language contacts. Surrey: Curzon.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964. Inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1980. On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laurendeau, Paul. 2000. L'alternance futur simple/futur périphrastique: Une hypothèse modale. Verbum 22 (3). 277–92.10.3406/verbu.2000.1654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584376.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2002 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. 2nd. revised edn. (Arbeitspapiere Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft 9.) Erfurt: Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt.Google Scholar
Lerch, Eugen. 1925. Historische französische Syntax. Leipzig: O. R. Reisland.Google Scholar
Leumann, Manu. 1963 [1926-1928]. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Lorenz, Sabine. 1988. Die Konkurrenz zwischen dem futur simple und dem futur périphrastique im geschriebenen Französisch der Gegenwart. Münster: Kleinheinrich.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1975 [1912]. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, ed. by Meillet, Antoine, 130–48. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1975 [1915/1916]. Le renouvellement des conjonctions. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, ed. by Meillet, Antoine, 159–74. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Meiser, Gerhard. 1998. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Müller, Bodo. 1964. Das lateinische Futurum und die romanischen Ausdrucksweisen für das futurische Geschehen. Romanische Forschungen 76 (1/2). 44–97. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27937071.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1985. The development of future tense auxiliaries in Latin. Glotta 63 (3/4). 186–208. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266718.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, and Dion, Nathalie. 2009. Prescription vs. praxis: The evolution of future temporal reference in French. Language 85 (3). 557–87. DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0149.10.1353/lan.0.0149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, Rebecca. 1997. Linguistic change in French. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ramat, Anna Giacalone. 2005. Persistence and renewal in the relative pronoun paradigm: The case of Italian. Folia Linguistica Historica 26 (1/2). 115–38. DOI: 10.1515/flin.26.1-2.115.Google Scholar
Reinöhl, Uta. 2009. Zum Begriff der Renovation im Rahmen der Grammatikalisierungstheorie. Münster: Universität Münster master's thesis.Google Scholar
Reinöhl, Uta. 2016. Grammaticalization and the rise of configurationality in Indo-Aryan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renou, Louis. 1932. Apropos du subjonctif védique. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 33 (1). 5–30.Google Scholar
Riegel, Martin, Pellat, Jean-Christophe; and Rioul, René. 2014. Grammaire méthodique du français. 5th edn. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Samuelsson, Johan. 1905-1906. Futurum historicum im Latein. Eranos 6. 29–44.Google Scholar
Schiering, René. 2010. Reconsidering erosion in grammaticalization. Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, ed. by Stathi, Katerina, Gehweiler, Elke, and König, Ekkehard, 73–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.119.06schCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjögren, Hakan. 1906. Zum Gebrauch des Futurums im Altlateinischen. Uppsala: Akademiska Bokhandeln.Google Scholar
Smith, Aaron. 2006. The universal tendency for renewal among grammatical expressions for anterior and related aspect. Journal of Universal Language 7. 139–60. DOI: 10.22425/jul.2006.7.1.139.10.22425/jul.2006.7.1.139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonderegger, Stefan. 1979. Grundzüge deutscher Sprachgeschichte. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sten, Holger. 1964. Les temps du verbe fini (indicatif) en français moderne. 2nd edn. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Svorou, Soteria. 1988. The experiential basis of the grammar of space: Evidence from the languages of the world. Buffalo: State University of New York dissertation.Google Scholar
Thielmann, Philipp. 1885. Habere mit dem Infinitiv und die Entstehung des romanischen Futurums. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik, vol. 2, 48-89, 157202.Google Scholar
Tichy, Eva. 2004. Indogermanistisches Grundwissen. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Tichy, Eva. 2006. Der Konjunktiv und seine Nachbarkategorien: Studien zum indogermanischen Verbum, ausgehend von der älteren vedischen Prosa. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. 2010. The emergence of the determiner in the Dutch NP. Linguistics 48 (2). 263–99. DOI: 10.1515/ling.2010.009.10.1515/ling.2010.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly (ed.) 2009. Cyclical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly (ed.) 2016. Cyclical change continued. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 1999. The evolution of c-structure: Prepositions and PPs from Indo- European to Romance. Linguistics 37 (6). 1111–53. DOI: 10.1515/ling.37.6.1111.10.1515/ling.37.6.1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von der Gabelentz, Georg. 1901 [1891]. Die Sprachwissenschaft, ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. 2nd edn. Leipzig: Tauchnitz.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 2009 [1920, 1924]. Lectures on syntax. Introduced and trans. by Langslow, D. R.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wales, Mavis L. 1983. The semantic distribution of aller + infinitive and the future tense in spoken French. General Linguistics 23 (1). 19–28.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1969. Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Wolff, Gerhart. 2009. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. 6th edn. Tübingen: A. Francke.Google Scholar