Janez Orešnik (University of Ljubljana), Andrej Snedec (University of Maribor), 
Karmen Teržan (University of Maribor), and Frančiška Trobevšek-Drobnak 
(University of Ljubljana) 
INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBSEQUENT THREE PAPERS 
IN THE PRESENT VOLUME 
The subsequent three papers in the present volume (viz. Snedec', Teržan's, and 
Trobevšek-Drobnak's) have arisen from the research in historical syritax conducted 
since 1986 by us in the Department for Germanic Languages and Literatures of the 
University of Ljubljana, Yugoslavia, under the advisorship of J. Orešnik. 
1. THE THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF OUR WORK 
We postulate the reality of such pairs of syntactic constructions in which one 
member is a STRENGTHENED construction, and the other member a NON-
STRENGTHENED construction. The two constructions of each such pair display 
the following traits: 
1.1. Formally (ie in structure and sound body), a strengthened construction is 
more elaborate than the corresponding non-strengthened construction. 
1.2. Semantically, a strengthened construction expresses a subset of the mean-
ings (including grammatical meanings) of the corresponding non-strengthened con-
struction. Sometimes (usually?) there is also a stylistic difference between the two 
(say in emphasis, emotional colouring, intensity, contrast). 
1.3. From the speaker's point ofview, a strengthened,construction is less econ-
omical to produce than the corresponding non-strengthened construction. 
1.4. From the hearer's point of view, a strengthened construction is easier to 
decode than the corresponding non-strengthened construction. 
We also postulate the reality of such pairs of syntactic constructions in which 
one member is a WEAKENED construction, and the other member a NON-
WEAKENED construction. The two constructions display the following traits: 
1.5. Formally, a weakened construction is less elaborate than the correspond-
ing non-weakened construction. 
1.6. Semantically, a weakened construction expresses more meanings (gram-
matical meanings included) than the corresponding non-weakened construction. 
Usually the meanings of the weakened construction are expressed more opaquely 
than the meanings.of the corresponding non-weakened construction. 
5 
1. 7. From the speaker's point of view, a weakened construction is more econ-
omical to produce than the corresponding non-weakened construction. 
1.8. From the hearer's point of view, a weakened construction is more diffi-
cult to decode than the corresponding non-weakened construction. 
Illustration. The often quoted instance of a syntactic syncretism, old men and 
women (Coseriu 1988: 227) is a weakened construction with respect to old men and 
o/d women, whenever the two constructions mean the same. In the (weakened) old 
men and women the decoding of the common meaning is likely to be more difficult 
than in the (non-weakened) old men and old women; the difficulty stems in part 
from the circumstance that the noun phrase old men and women also has a meaning 
associated with the structure in which old modifies men only. 
The point of view can be reversed, and then the noun phrase old men and old 
women can be interpreted as a strengthened variant of the non-strengthened o/d 
men and women. 
Which point of view is assumed in a given case, depends - in historical studies 
- on which construction is the older one, and - in descriptive studies - on which 
construction is felt as the normal one. 
· Our characterisation 1 of strengthened and weakened constructions should not 
be taken to imply, (a) that the traits enumerated there are the only relevant traits of 
those constructions, and (b) that strengthened constructions are always difficult for 
the speaker to use, and, conversely, that weakened constructions are invariably easy 
to use. That (b) does not hold can be seen from the circumstance that many peri-
phrastic (thus strengthened) constructions have more regular structure than their non-
strengthened counterparts, which circumstance makes those periphrastic construc-
tions relatively easy to use. Eg English did not go was more regular (contained, and 
stili contains, a more widely used - hence more natural - irregularity) than went 
not (at the tirne that the two were still syntactic variants of each other). 
It is our basic assumption that weakened construction assert themselves under 
relatively simple grammatical conditions to begin with (and may subsequently 
spread elsewhere); and that strengthened constructions assert themselves under rela-
tively complex grammatical conditions to begin with (and may subsequently spread 
elsewhere). 
'To begin with' of the preceding paragraph means: after the nascent state, and 
before the grammatiCalisation, of the construction in question. - For more com-
ment, cf 5.3-4 below. 
As to the source of our basic assumption, we can mention that we have been in-
fluenced (a) by those linguists who advocate the dichotomy of language changes into 
those serving economy and into those designed to serve the clarity of the message (cf 
Havers 1931: 171 on 'Bequemlichkeitstrieb' and on 'Deutlichkeitstrieb'; a conve-
nient summary of Havers and later work in Braun 1987: 94 ff), and (b) by the so-
called Natural Phonology and Natural Morphology. 
Natura} Morphology teaches, among other things, the so-called CONSTRUC-
TIONAL ICONISM: the more marked a form is, the more complex ('markful') is 
its encoding. (Cf Mayerthaler 1980: 23 ff and passim.) · 
6 
From these sources, and from our own study of the published descriptions of 
sundry syntactic developments, we reached the above formulation of our basic as-
sumption. 
To confirm or disconfirm this assumption, we ha ve investigated several syntac-
tic constructions. The investigations are reported in the three subsequent papers pub-
lished in the present volume. The present paper is an indispensible introduction to 
them, in the sense that everything that is common to the three investigations has 
been moved hither, to avoid unnecessary repetition. 
2. THE STRUCTURE OF THE ARGUMENTATION associated with our investi-
gations is as follows. 
2.1. A working hypothesis (see section 3 below) was formulated. 
2.2. A number of falsifiable predictions were stated on the basis of the working 
hypothesis. 
2.3. Those predictions wer tested. 
2.4. In so far as the predictions obtained, the working hypothesis was consider-
ed confirmed/verified by the 'facts'. 
3. THE WORKING HYl>OT,ESIS 
Our working hypothesis rests (a)' on the assumption that the constructions 
studied are strengthened constructions, (b) on the assumption about what is simple 
and what complex in language, (c) on the assumption about the grammatical con-
ditions under which strengthened constructions assert themselves during the 'early' 
stage of their development. 
The constructions that we have investigated are ali strengthened constructions. 
Under our basic assumption, they are used prevailingly under more complex gram-
matical conditions than the corresponding non-strengthened constructions. 
The question as to what is simple/complex in languages of the world has been 
studied especially by the Prague School (an early case study is Jakobson 1932). The 
Praguians operate with 'marked' and ~unmarked' values of phonological, gramma-
tical, and other parameters. This termillology wili also be employed in the present 
paper, where, in matters ofdetail, Natural Morphology has mostly been followed, 
more precisely Mayerthaler 1980; our markedness values are Mayerthaler's 'sem-
values', to a lesser extent his 'sym-values' (which, we believe, become also 'sem-
values' via the constructional iconism). Here follow some of the assumptions about 
markedness values, chosen for their relevance to the matter iri hand: 
3.1. An independent clause is 'less marked' than a dependent clause. 
3.2. The affirmative propositional modality is 'less marked' than the non-
affirmative propositional modalities. 
7 
3.3. The present tense is 'less marked' than the non-present tenses. 
3.4. The indicative mood fs 'less marked' than the non-indicative moods. 
3.5. The singular is 'less marked' than the non-singular. 
3.6. The active voice is 'less marked' than the non-active voices. 
3.7. Verb + direct objecf (in the accusative) is 'less marked' than verb + pre-
positional object or verb + object clause. · · 
Concerning the assumptions stated sub 3 .1-7, we estimate that consensus can be 
assumed of those linguists who have worked with the markedness theory. On the 
other hand, we did not follow Mayerthaler 1980 in the markedness values of the ver-
bal persons, but have kept to the older view (Watkins 1969: 49 with references tore-
levant argumentation), again assuming the concurring opinion of most linguists 
sympathetic to the markedness theory: 
3~8. The third person is 'less marked' than the non-third persons. 
4. THE GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS AND THE STATISTICAL WORK 
In each investigation, two samples have been formed, a basic sample and a con-
trol sample. The basic sample contains all clauses of the corpus containing the in-
stances of the investigated strengthened construction(s), whereas the control sample 
contains a representative number of clauses of the corpus containing either the cor-
responding non-strengthened construction(s) or all constructions except the investi-
gated strengthened constructions._ 
To confirm or disconfirm our predictions, certain grammatical parameters 
were chosen in each investigation for analysis. The choice of the grammatical para-
meters was suggested (a) by the properties of the basic sample and (b) by the state of 
the art of the markedness theory (not all possible grammatical parameters have been 
treated by the markedness theory, or consensus has so far not been reached about 
the allotment of mark~dness va!!l_es to certain grammatical parameters). 
After the grammatical analysis, the statistical work was performed. For statisti-
cal purposes, the content of the crucial statement, 'strengthened constructions assert 
themselves under relatively complex grammatical conditions'' was interpreted in the 
following way. Given (a) the probability rate of the 'more marked' value of a given 
grammatical parameter in a given strengthened constfuction, and given (b) the pro-
bability rate of the 'more marked' value of the same grammatical parameter in the 
corresponding non-sfrengthened coristruction - or generally outside the strengthened 
construction -, then (c) the former probability rate is higher than the latter prob-
ability rate, and (d) the difference between the two probability rates is statistically 
significant. 
The statistical procedure followed is described briefly in Trobevšek-Drobnak 
(in the present volume). 
8 
5. COMMENTARY 
Let us measure the success of the three investigations reported in the present vol-
ume in terms of confirmed and disconfirmed predictions. This can be done with the 
help of the statistical <lata adduced in the various tables of those papers. Arbitrarily, 
let us allot the value + 1 to any significant result that confirms one of the predic-
tions, the value 1 1 to any significant result that disconfirms one of the predictions, 
and the value + 1/2 to any non-significant result that confirms one of the predic-
tions, and the value -1/2 to any non-significant result that disconfirms one of the 
predictions; then the overall success of Snedec' nad Teržan's investigations is 
around 75 %, that of Trobevšek-Drobnak's somewhat less. . 
Unfortunately, ali too many real 'excuses' can be adduced for non-obtaining 
predictions. 1 list some of the 'excuses' here, in order to show their range and depth. 
5.1. Our predictions are valied first of ali for 'ideal' texts, where 'ideal' means: 
the quantity of instances in the text of any parameter value conforms with the as-
sumptions of the markedness theory about the relative frequency of the competing 
values of the same grammatical parameter, ie each 'less marked' parameter value 
occurs more frequently than each corresponding 'more marked' parameter value. 
By way of example, consider the grammatical parameter NUMBER; since its para-
meter value SINGULAR is 'less marked' than the opposed parameter value PLU-
RAL (according to the markedness theory), an 'ideal' text contains fewer instances 
of PLURAL than of SINGULAR. (How much fewer instances, is a further question, 
which we are not able to answer; we only stipulate that, in texts of suitable length, 
the difference in the frequency of the two parameter values is statistically significant.) 
Whether 'ideal' texts, in our sense of the term, do have reality, is an open em-
pirical question~ At any rate, we believe that unprepareq spoken texts of a conversa-
tional nature come nearest to the 'ideal'. 
5.2. Our statistics may not be fully reliable, for reasons having to do with the 
philological aspect of the texts investigated. It has been pointed out tirne and again 
in the linguistic and philological literature that the lack in written texts of overt mar-
kers of certain grammatical parameters (eg the lack of inform~tion on the sentence 
intonation), not to dwell on the lack of punctuation in old texts, may hamper the 
correct computation of statistical figures in written texts . . 
5.3. Our predictions are valid for the 'early' stage in the development ofa syn-
tactic construction, in which stage those constructions have already emerged from 
their nascent state. 
A syritactic construction may be weakened during its nascent state, and may ac-
quire the attributes of a strengthened construction only later on. 
By way of exemplification, consider the origin of the do-support in English 
(understood as in Quirk et al. 1985: 80). If the plausible view is cortect that the mo-
del for the do-support has been provided by the English causative construction using 
the causative verb do (Ellegard 1953), then the do-support was originally a weakened 
construction, and the causative construction with the causative do the corresponding 
9 
non-weakened construction. Eg he did build a church 'he built a church' was 
weakened with respect to he did build a church 'he had a church built': the causative 
construction contains two different subjects (nainely one of did and one of build), 
whereas the construction with do-support contains just one subject (namely of both 
did and build); the causative do has more lexical meaning than the (almost empty) 
do of the do-support. Accordingly, we assume in the spirit of our predictions that 
the hypothetical weakened construction asserted itself under simple grammatical 
conditions to begin with, eg in the third person singular present indicative (active) of 
the auxiliary verb do. Only the next stage in the hypothetical development (ie the 
next syntactic change) was that constructions such as he did build a church (do-sup-
port), having joined the paradigm of the tenses, became the syntactic variants of 
constructions containing simple verbs such as he built; from the standpoint of the 
simple tenses they then began to be felt as strengthened, and consequently began to 
favour complex grammatical conditions. 
The danger here is that a given construction may not have emerged from its 
nascent state at the tirne of the writing of the text investigated or of its manuscript(s). 
Whenever that is the case, those non-obtaining predictions applicable to the 'early' 
stage of the construction cannot be held against our working hypothesis. · · 
5.4. Our predictions are valid for the 'early' stage in the development of syn-
tactic constructions, in which stage those constructlons have not yet been grammati-
calised, ie are stili just syntactic variants of some other expressions. (We do not 
know in how far our predictions are also valid for partly grammaticalised construc-
tions.) 
5.5. A given text may not be suitable for statistical investigations, eg because it 
is extremely heterogeneous (so the statistical generalisations extracted from it are 
spurious), or because it is too short (and so the statistical significance of the results 
cannot be attained). 
5.6. A given prediction may not obtain because some change in another gram-
matical parameter (possibly in one not included in the investigation), say the change 
i'n a non-syntactic parameter, may have intervened and 'spoiled' the picture. A case 
in point is the 'early' development of English constructions displaying the do-support. 
For a tirne, the.consfructions containing the auxiliary do were just syntactic variants 
of the corresponding constructions without the auxiliary do (ie as long as the con-
structions containing do-support were not yet grammaticalised), eg as long as he did 
go was a syntactic variant of (more precisely, was a strengthened) he went; at that 
tirne, we predict, the use of the do-support was relatively more frequent in the plural 
than in the singular. Yet Stein 1985 has shown that the opposite in fact obtained, as 
far as the second person was concerned: the use of the type thou didst go (second 
person singular) war relatively more frequent than the use of the type you did go (se-
cond person plural). The reason for this situation was, according to Stein, that the 
second person singular person marker -si had caused such difficulties in the pronun-
ciation, in conjunction with the stem final consonant(s) (whenever the stem ended in 
a consonant (cluster)), that recourse had to be taken, by way of avoidance strategy, 
10 
to a relatively frequent use of the auxiliary do. This move on the one hand restricted 
the use of the person marker -st (first of all to the auxiliary (to its forms dost, didst), 
plus to a few other much-used verbs), and on the other hand spoiled ihe expected 
frequency of the plural. 
The situation in the first and third persons, where do-support ought to be rela-
tively more frequent in the plural than in the singular, according to our working hy-
pothesis~ cannot be verified with the aid of Stein's statistics; Stein adduces only the 
totals for all the persons lacking overt person markers together. 
5. 7. Although we ha ve limited the grammatical parameters investigated to 
some of those whose markedness values we assume to be uncontroversial (as men-
tioned above in section 3.2), there remains the possibility that some of the marked-
ness values operated with here are actually wrong, and our predictions consequently 
not fully confirmed for this reason. 
6. CONCLUDING REMARK 
It isto be pointed out that the existing theories of syntax do not predict the real-
ity of situations such as described in our basic assumption. If we are right, the ex-
isting theories of syntax are in need of revision. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Braun, Peter. Tendenzen in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Sprachvarietaten. 
Second edition. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 1987. 
Coseriu, Eugenio. Einfiihrung in die Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Tiibingen: 
Francke. 1988. · 
Ellegard, Alvar. The Auxiliary Do. The Establishment and Regulation of its Use 
in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 1953. 
Havers, Wilhelm. Handbuch der erklarenden Syntax. Ein Versuch zur Erforschung 
der Bedingungen und Triebkrafte in Syntax und Stilistik . Heidelberg: Winter. 
1931. 
Jakobson, Roman. "Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums." In: Charisteria G. 
Mathesio. Prague: Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 1932, 74-84. 
Mayerthaler, Willi. Morphologische Natiirlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion. 1980. 
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Startvik. A Com-
prehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: 
Longman. 1985. 
Stein, Dieter. Natiirlicher syntaktischer Sprachwandel. Miinchen: Tuduv. 1985. 
Watkins, Calvert. Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion ( = Indogerma-
nische Grammatik III: Formenlehre, 1). Heidelberg: Winter. 1969. 
11 
Povzetek 
UVOD K NASLEDNJIM TREM ČLANKOM V PRIČUJOČI ŠTEVILKI ČASOPISA 
V tem Uvodu so združene tiste misli naslednjih treh člankov (v pričujoči številki), ki so tem besedi-
lom skupne. Gre za teoretični okvir posameznih raziskav, za način utemljevanja, za delovno domnevo, 
za postopek pri slovnični analizi in statistični obdelavi ter za ()pazke o uspešnosti delovne domneve. 
Teoretični okvir. Postuliramo take pare skladenjskih zgradb, v katerih je ena zgradba OKREPLJE-
NA, druga NEOKREPLJENA. V primerjavi z neokrepljeno zgradbo je okrepljena oblikovno bolj izde-
lana, pomensko ožja, manj gospodarna, laže razberljiva. Dalje postuliramo take pare skladenjskih 
zgradb, v katerih je ena zgradba OŠIBLJENA, druga NEOŠIBLJENA. V pimerjavi z neošibljeno zgrad-
bo je ošibljena oblikovno manj izdelana, pomensko širša, bolj gospodarna, teže razberljiva. 
Osnovna domneva je, da se uveljavljajo ošibljene zgradbe najprej v sorazmerno preprostih slovnič­
nih razmerah, okrepljene zgradbe pa najprej v sorazmerno zapletenih slovničnih razmerah. "Najprej" 
pomeni: po stanju porajanja zgradbe in pred njeno gramatikalizacijo. 
Način utemeljevanja. 1. Izrečena je bila delovna domneva. 2. Na podlagi delovne domneve je bilo iz-
rečenih nekaj iskustveno preverljivih napovedi. 3. Te napovedi so bile preverjene. 4. Kolikor so bile na-
povedi uresničene, toliko je bila delovna domneva potrjena. 
Delovna domneva. Delovna domneva je sestavljena: L iz domneve, da so zgradbe, obravnavane v 
naslednjih treh člankih, okrepljene, 2. iz domneve o tem, kaj je v jeziku preprosto in kaj zapleteno, 3. iz 
domneve, da se okrepljene zgradbe najprej uveljavijo v sorazmerno zapletenih slovničnih razmerah. 
Glede tega, kaj je v jeziku preprosto in kaj zapleteno, se članki naslanjajo na dognanja praške šole in 
"naravnega oblikoslovja" o t.i. zaznamovanosti. V naslednjih parih je prvi člen manj zaznamovan kot 
drugi: glavni stavek - odvisnik, trdilni stavek - netrdilni stavek, sedanjik - nesedanjik, povedni na-
klon - ostali nakloni, ednina - neednina, tvorni način - ostali načini, glagol + predmet v tožilniku -
glagol + predložni ali stavčni predmet, tretja glagolska oseba - netretja oseba. 
Postopek pri slovnični analizi in statistični obdelavi. V vsaki raziskavi sta bila vzpostavljena osnovni 
in kontrolni vzorec gradiva. Osnovni vzorec vsebuje primerke okrepljene zgradbe, kontrolni pa primerke 
ustrezne neokrepljeile zgradbe ali primerke vseh ostalih zgradb. V statistične namene smo delovno dom-
nevo operacionalizirali takole: "Če je dana verjetnost bolj zaznamovane vrednosti nekega slovničm~ga 
parametra v okrepljeni zgradbi in če je dana -drjetnost bolj zaznamovane vrednosti istega slovničnega 
parametra v ustrezni neokrepljeni zgradbi (ali nasploh zunaj okrepljene zgradbe), potem mora biti prva 
verjetnost večja od druge in razlika med njima mora biti statistično signifikantna." 
Opazke o uspešnosti delovne domneve. Delovna domneva je v člankih A. Snedca in K. Teržan potr-
jena nekako 75-odstotno, v članku F. Trobevšek-Drobnak nekoliko niže. Doslej spoznani razlogi za del-
no nepotrjenost delovne domneve: 1. Delovna domneva velja za funkcijsko idealna besedila. 2. Raziska-
na besedila so starejša in nudijo zato filološke težave, zaradi katerih je statistična obdelava manj zaneslji-
va kot sicer. 3. Delovna domneva velja za zgodnje obdobje v razvoju obravnavanih okrepljenih zgradb, 
možno pa je, da v raziskave niso zajeta popolnoma prava obdobja. 4. Besedila so mogoče preveč hetero-
gena ali prekratka. 5. V nekaterih primerih so se vmešali neskladenjski parametri in "pokvarili" sliko. 6. 
Teorija o zaznamovanosti ni v vseh svojih delih enako zanesljiva. 
12