On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization

Abstract

Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Fischer, O. (2008). On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization. Studies in Language, 32(2), 336-382. DOI: 10.1075/sl.32.2.04fis General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. The number of phenomena which are gathered together under the term 'grammaticalization' is quite large and in some ways quite diverse. For the different types of grammaticalization similar motivating factors have been suggested, similar principles, clines and hierarchies.Some of Lehmann's (1982Lehmann's ( [1995Lehmann's ( ], 1985 parameters, which have long been considered to characterize processes of grammaticalization, are now under attack from various quarters, and indeed the phenomenon of grammaticalization itself has been questioned as an independent mechanism in language change. This paper addresses a number of problems connected with the 'apparatus' used in grammaticalization and with the various types of grammaticalization currently distinguished. It will be argued that we get a better grip on what happens in processes of grammaticalization and lexicalization if the process is viewed in terms of an analogical, usage-based grammar, in which a distinction is made between processes taking place on a token-level and those taking place on a type-level. The model involves taking more notice of the form of linguistic signs and of the synchronic grammar system at each stage of the grammaticalization process.

The emergence of the grammatical paradigm of nominal determiners in French and in Romance: Comparative and diachronic perspectives

“…One of our assumptions here is that the NP structure played a crucial role in the evolution of nominal determination in Romance, and particularly so in French. Another important development in grammaticalization theory is the acknowledgement of the role of analogy in grammaticalization: whereas for Meillet, grammaticalization and analogy are two distinct mechanisms in language change, Fischer (2008) argues that analogy is not only one of the mechanisms at work in grammaticalization, but also its driving force.…”

“…Analogy acts both on the syntagmatic and on the paradigmatic axis (Anttila 2003, Fischer 2008: from a syntagmatic point of view, frequent patterns at token level tend to become routinized (Bybee 2003) and, hence, expand to an increasingly higher type level within the same structure; at the same time, in this pattern, frequent forms at token level tend to attract other forms with a similar function in their slot, which in turn may give rise to entirely new paradigms, or to new morphosyntactic categories.…”

Analogy, automation and diagrammatic causation

“…Though I know of no comprehensive treatments of the topic per se, various linguists (e.g., Bybee 2010, Fischer 2008, and LaPolla 2003 and semioticians (e.g., Peirce 1890-1892], Deely 2008, have already suggested, (some implicitly, others explicitly), that the processual element under consideration is threefold. The experimental process of analogy must be admitted as the catalyst for change within and between linguistic diagrams, but analogy alone cannot account for the complex reorganization of the overall system through time and space (diagrammatic causation), and neither analogy nor diagrammatization can account for the automation of relations within a diagrammatic system.…”

“…Recent attempts to subsume grammaticalization under the rubric of analogy, either predominantly (e.g., Campbell 2001, Fischer 2008 or entirely (e.g., Itkonen 2005), are enlightening in their own right; but the implications of such accounts should be carefully considered for at least two reasons: 1) the inadequacy of analogy to account for the gradual, habituative nature of grammaticalization, 2) the tendency of domain-general foci (in this case analogy proper) to obscure domainspecific features (in this case, aspects of linguistic grammaticalization). In answer to the first problem, analogy must be recognized as interdependent with, but not reducible to, automation -the two being mediated by diagrammatic causation.…”

Schijnbare syntactische feniksen

“…Die rol komt in recent onderzoek steeds meer centraal te staan (zie o.a. Fischer 2007Fischer , 2008Fischer , 2011De Smet 2009;Bybee 2010, met name ook voor de cognitieve principes achter het mechanisme van analogie in de taal), maar is ook vroeger al erkend in het werk van Paul (1898) en te onzent in het werk van Van Marle & Koefoed (1980), Van Bree (1996) en Hüning (1999: 24-33). …”