Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization (review)

REVIEWS STUDIES IN SEMITIC GRAMMATICALIZATION. By Aaron D. Rubin. HSS 57. Pp. xvii + 177. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Cloth, $32.95. Grammars have long recognized and documented the types of processes and changes identified as grammaticalization, that is, the development of grammatical elements from less grammatical or non-grammatical ones (on definitions of grammaticalization, see L. Campbell and R. Janda, “Introduction : Conceptions of Grammaticalization and Their Problems.” Language Sciences 23 [2001]: 93–112). However, the last quarter century has witnessed the burgeoning of a grammaticalization “movement,” often referred to under the rubric grammaticalization theory. In this book, Rubin attempts to bridge the divide between the linguistic study of grammaticalization and the traditional comparative and historical study of the Semitic languages. Rubin writes for two distinct audiences with a separate goal for each: for the Semitist, Rubin hopes to shed new light on Semitic grammar by examining select “long-standing problems from a new perspective”— grammaticalization; for the linguist, Rubin intends to make available “an abundance of examples that may be worthy of their attention” (p. 1). A brief introduction to grammaticalization (chap. 1) is followed by an even briefer overview of the Semitic language family (chap. 2), the former intended primarily for the Semitist, the latter aimed at the linguist. Chapter 3 is perhaps the most useful in the book, providing a compendium of examples of grammaticalization from the geographic and temporal range of Semitic. It is a sort of “Semitic appendix” to Bernd Heine and Tania Kuteva’s World Lexicon of Grammaticalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), illustrating recognized paths of language development in Semitic and very infrequently adding to the list of grammaticalization processes (e.g., copula accusative development. He considers the origin of √yt to be uncertain, except that it does not represent preposition > Hebrew Studies 47 (2006) 434 Reviews accusative development, as has been proposed. Finally, chapter 6 is a survey of the development of present tense markers in Semitic. There Rubin concludes , unsurprisingly, that except for Yemini Arabic (and possibly SyroPalestinian and Egyptian Arabic), present tense markers developed from locative verb (e.g., ‘stand’, ‘sit’) or preposition constructions. The book ends with a page-and-a-half summary of the results of his studies in Semitic grammaticalization (chap. 7). Rubin’s book is a helpful if small corrective to the neglect of Semitic languages by linguists and specifically in grammaticalization studies. Rubin successfully shows that the neglect is disproportionate with the amount of interesting grammaticalization data in Semitic. It is therefore disappointing that Rubin presents us with only “studies in …” rather than a more comprehensive examination of grammaticalization in the Semitic languages (e.g., notably absent from Rubin’s catalogue in chapter 3 is the parade example of grammaticalization from Biblical Hebrew, l√mr infinitive > complementizer ; see C. L. Miller, The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis [HSM 55; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 2003], pp. 199–212). His excuse of too little “space and time” to treat the data more fully is hardly believable in a book of this length (p. 17). The lack of attention to the debated status of grammaticalization theory is also disappointing. Rubin rather blithely states that “linguists have a very good idea as to the types of changes that fall into this category” (p. 7). However, this is far from being the case: linguists are divided on how to define grammaticalization (Rubin implicitly recognizes the problem in that he is only able to provide a list of typical characteristics of grammaticalization in place of a formal and strict definition; see L. Campbell and R. Janda, “Introduction: Conceptions of Grammaticalization”), on the status of grammaticalization as a discrete field of linguistic research (see L. Campbell, “What’s Wrong with Grammaticalization?” Language Sciences 23 [2001]: 113–161), and on the relationship between grammaticalization and language change in general (B. D. Joseph, “Rescuing Traditional (Historical) Linguistics from Grammaticalization Theory,” in Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization, ed. O. Fischer, M. Norde, and H. Perridon [Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2004], pp. 45–71). In light of Rubin’s admission that he is generally not presenting new data in the book but examining them from the new viewpoint of...