Toward a non-teleological account of demonstrative reinforcement


It has long been debated whether morphosyntactic change is teleological. Jespersen (1917:4), for instance, maintained that emphatic negative constructions are created in response to the weakening of older negative adverbs. Others have argued that such therapeutic models of change are flawed, since novel grammatical forms do not owe their existence to a deficit (e.g., Haspelmath 2018:112). This paper takes up the question of teleological change by examining the definiteness cycle of van Gelderen (2011:197–244). According to the definiteness cycle, the development of a definite article from a demonstrative (e.g., Latin illu ‘that’ > Old French li ‘the’) entails feature loss, which is repaired through reinforcement of the demonstrative (e.g., Latin ecce illu ‘that’ > Old French cel ‘that’). It is shown that the definiteness cycle is beset by too many problems to be an adequate model of demonstrative reinforcement. Decoupling demonstrative reinforcement from the grammaticalization of definite articles offers two key advantages. First, it accounts for the fact that demonstrative reinforcement occurs before and after definite articles emerge. Second, it allows reinforced demonstratives to exhibit meanings that go beyond spatial deixis.