Is there such a thing as “grammaticalization?”

Joseph, Brian D.

doi:10.1016/s0388-0001(00)00020-6

Cited by 142 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In saying that analogy and grammaticalization are at bottom the same thing we are going beyond classifying them as reanalyses (Harris & Campbell 1995, Joseph 2001, Newmeyer 1998.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Grammaticalization as optimization

Kiparsky¹

2011

Grammatical ChangeOrigins, Nature, Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the neogrammarians and de Saussure, all linguistic change is either sound change, analogy, or borrowing.1 Meillet (1912) identified a class of changes that don't fit into any of these three categories. Like analogical changes, they are endogenous innovations directly affecting morphology and syntax, but unlike analogical changes, they are not based on any pre-existing patterns in the language. Meillet proposed that they represent a fourth type of change, which he called GRAMMATICALIZATION. Its essential property for him was that it gives rise to new grammatical categories -that is, to categories previously unexpressed in the language -and thereby transforms its overall system. ". . . Tandis que l'analogie peut renouveler le détail des formes, mais laisse le plus souvent intact le plan d'ensemble du système grammatical, la "grammaticalisation"de certains mots crée des formes neuves, introduit des categories qui n'avaient pas d'expression linguistique, transforme l'ensemble du système."The "newness" of a category can be either a matter of content, as when a language acquires a new tense category, or a matter of new form for old content, as when postpositions turn into case 1 endings, or word order replaces morphology as the mark of grammatical relations. Meillet's generalizations are empirical rather than definitional, so they demand an explanation.He suggested that grammaticalization is due to the loss and renewal of expressiveness of speech forms in the use of language, reasoning that, since this is a constant factor in in the ordinary use of language, the changes it triggers must have an intrinsic direction. As for phonological weakening, he saw it as a consequence of the fact that function words (mots accessoires) ordinarily do not carry focus. Therefore, when a lexical item becomes a function word, speakers can afford to give it a reduced articulation, which then can become established as its normal pronunciation:

show abstract

“…In saying that analogy and grammaticalization are at bottom the same thing we are going beyond classifying them as reanalyses (Harris & Campbell 1995, Joseph 2001, Newmeyer 1998.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Under (3), grammaticalization is unidirectional by definition, as Newmeyer 2001, Joseph 2001Joseph , 2004Joseph , 2006, and others have noted. To make the unidirectionality thesis into an empirical claim again, it can be restated in the obvious way ("there is no degrammaticalization", cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Grammaticalization as optimization

Kiparsky¹

2011

Grammatical ChangeOrigins, Nature, Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In terms of Traugott and Trousdale's diagnostics, grammatical constructionalization is associated with an expansion of productivity (expansion both of type frequency and token frequency) and an increase in schematicity (shift towards procedural function and changes in schemas), but a reduction in the transparency between the form and meaning mapping of a micro-construction (compositionality). Importantly, grammatical constructionalization is seen as an outcome of the changes described, and is not considered a process (see also Joseph 2001). As such, the two definitions of grammaticalization as either expansion or reduction are not necessarily orthogonal in Traugott and Trousdale's account: here, grammatical constructionalization involves an expansion in the construction types and their range of use and the chunking and fixing of forms within the linguistic system.…”

Section: Division Of Labour In the Constructiconmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Cognitive Linguistics and language evolution research

Pleyer

Winters

2015

THS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper we argue that we can gain important insights on the evolution of language and cognition by integrating evolutionary linguistics and the framework of Cognitive Linguistics. In Cognitive Linguistics, language is seen as tightly integrated with cognition as a whole. Construction Grammar and usage-based approaches are closely related to the Cognitive-Linguistic paradigm. Construction Grammar proposes that knowledge of language can be defined as the knowledge of form-meaning pairings of different degrees of schematicity and complexity, whereas usage-based approaches stress that language acquisition and processing are based on instances of actual language usage. As we demonstrate in this paper, concepts from Cognitive Linguistics, Construction Grammar, and usage-based approaches can help in elucidating the cognitive and interactional factors involved in language evolution. The paper will focus on two main areas: In evolutionary linguistics, language is seen as a complex adaptive system whose structure emerges out of the interaction of three other complex adaptive systems at three different timescales: ontogeny, glossogeny, and phylogeny. Cognitive Linguistics can help in specifying common cognitive factors and processes that play a role on all three of these timescales. Secondly, a Cognitive-Linguistic and constructionist, usage-based perspective can shed light on the cognitive factors underlying the origin of the division of labour between contentful ("lexical") and procedural ("grammatical") constructions in language structure. In a Cognitive-Linguistic perspective, this development can be related to the trade-off between the cognitive factors of learnability and expressivity.

show abstract

“…In the light of this constraint, possible counter-examples can be excluded because they do not adhere to the sequence entailed in grammaticalization" (see also Moreno Cabrera 1998: 224). As Joseph (2001) properly observes, such an approach is tautological and should be avoided.…”

Section: Exceptions To Unidirectionality 21 History Of Research On Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

On degrammaticalization: Controversial points and possible explanations

Viti

2015

Folia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the problem of degrammaticalization, that is, the exceptions to the unidirectionality of grammaticalization. After analyzing the criteria that allow us to distinguish between various instances of counter-directional change, two principles underlying degrammaticalization are identified; one is related to the type of language and the other to the type of target structures in which degrammaticalization occurs. Firstly, the targets of degrammaticalization are usually closed-class parts of speech with an abstract semantic component. Secondly, the languages in which counter-directional grammatical changes occur turn out to be deprived of an elaborate fusional morphology. These findings may also have an impact on the theoretical conception of grammaticalization, some of whose definitional properties are discussed. The paper ends with a discussion of a more controversial point, namely, counter-directional changes by folk etymology rather than by etymology proper. Abstract: This paper discusses the problem of degrammaticalization, that is, the exceptions to the unidirectionality of grammaticalization. After analyzing the criteria that allow us to distinguish between various instances of counterdirectional change, two principles underlying degrammaticalization are identified; one is related to the type of language and the other to the type of target structures in which degrammaticalization occurs. Firstly, the targets of degrammaticalization are usually closed-class parts of speech with an abstract semantic component. Secondly, the languages in which counter-directional grammatical changes occur turn out to be deprived of an elaborate fusional morphology. These findings may also have an impact on the theoretical conception of grammaticalization, some of whose definitional properties are discussed. The paper ends with a discussion of a more controversial point, namely, counter-directional changes by folk etymology rather than by etymology proper.

show abstract

Is there such a thing as “grammaticalization?”

Cited by 142 publications

References 16 publications

Grammaticalization as optimization

Grammaticalization as optimization

Integrating Cognitive Linguistics and language evolution research

On degrammaticalization: Controversial points and possible explanations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About