Grammaticalization, subjectification and objectification

Kranich, Svenja

doi:10.1075/slcs.119.07kra

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this way, the sense of will has changed from volition of the subject to an epistemic sense (cf. Kranich (2010)). Epistemic modality is concerned with the speaker's attitude to the truth-value or factual status of the proposition (see Lyons (1977Lyons ( , 1995, Palmer (1987Palmer ( , 1990Palmer ( , 2001Palmer ( , 2003).…”

Section: Subjectificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ‘Future Use’ of the Present Progressive in English: Subjectification of the Progressive and an Analysis in Terms of Cognitive Grammar

Mori

2016

IJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study deals with the present progressive with future time reference. The aim of this paper is to show that the 'future use' of the present progressive is, diachronically, subjectified. After identifying the concept of subjectification defined by Traugott (1989Traugott ( , 1995Traugott ( , 2003Traugott ( , 2010 and Traugott & Dasher (2002), I show that the 'future use' is more subjective than the use of present ongoing activities, and argue that the 'future use' has been modeled in terms of subjectification. Moreover, this paper argues that, although the 'future use' does not refer to physically ongoing events, in the 'future use' the situation can be viewed as 'in progress' cognitively, and proposes a new account of the 'future use' based on the framework of Cognitive Grammar, as laid out by Langacker (2008). Thereby, it is shown that the use of present ongoing activities and the 'future use' are both based on the same cognitive foundation, and the difference lies in which portion is profiled.

show abstract

Section: Subjectificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ‘Future Use’ of the Present Progressive in English: Subjectification of the Progressive and an Analysis in Terms of Cognitive Grammar

Mori

2016

IJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This independence is confirmed in the current paper. With respect to primary and secondary grammaticalisation, the data examined in this paper modify Kranich's (2010) claim that secondary grammaticalisation tends to lead to objectification, as both (inter)subjectification and objectification have been shown to occur in the development of markers of information structure. The development towards a marker of information structure, as well as its further development from such a marker to other functions tend to start from a grammatical rather than lexical source (Lehmann 2008); therefore, both of these developments fall under secondary grammaticalisation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Information structure, (inter)subjectivity and objectification

Wal

2014

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0022226714000541How to cite this article: Jenneke van der Wal Information structure, (inter)subjectivity and objectication.This paper discusses how information structure can be seen as a subjective and intersubjective concept in Verhagen's (2005) and Breban's (2010) definitions, though less so in Traugott's (2010) use of the terms. More difficult is the question of whether MARKERS of information structure can be characterised as (inter)subjective; this is more easily determined for morphological markers than for prosody or word order. For unambiguous markers of information structure, I suggest that their emergence (e.g. copula > focus marker) is typically accompanied by (inter)subjectification, whereas their further development (e.g. topic marker > subject marker) displays objectification. The paper not only shows that grammatical items can undergo an increase as well as a decrease in (inter)subjectivitythus denying strict unidirectionality -but also confirms that these processes are independent of grammaticalisation.

show abstract

“…We have seen a focus marker and a passive marker developing out of an intermediate resultative stage and a future marker that became a necessive one. As indicated by Kranich (2010) these meaning changes have received much less attention in the grammaticalization literature than those pertaining to the early stages of grammaticalization. Kranich (2010), mainly based on the further grammaticalization of perfects, futures and progressives in well-documented languages, proposes that secondary grammaticalization typically involves "objectification" or a loss of subjective meaning.…”

Section: Meaning Changementioning

confidence: 96%