Quo vadis grammaticalization theory? Why complex language change is like words

Abstract

The article addresses structural aspects of language change which have been ascribed to grammaticalization and have tacitly been presupposed by diverse accounts (i) of the motives of complex changes, (ii) of the role of language contact, and (iii) by attempts to create areal profiles of language types and zones of convergence. We discuss some of the preconditions for a comprehensive and yet unified treatment of changes in which grammaticalization would not become an anythinggoes concept of grammatical change. Starting from a reconsideration of Lehmann’s parameters and their treatment in the literature, we first address problems connected to accounts based on prototypes (or checklists). Parameters belonging to the syntagmatic axis are analyzed in more detail. Even though parameters may be ranked within prototype-based approaches, such an approach is shown to be insufficient in articulating a coherent theory. An alternative might consist in the application of a superordinate principle based on relative discourse prominence (together with conventionalization). The advantages and drawbacks of both approaches are investigated, and it is argued that they should be employed as complementary parts of a coherent grammaticalization theory that is yet to be detailed.

Thoughts on grammaticalization

“…The concept must therefore be a prototypical one (cf. Wiemer 2014). Examples of the prototype are provided by the 'going-to' future in English and other languages or by the development of a dative construction out of a benefactive construction, e.g.…”

Gramaticalización Compartida O Heredada vs. Inducida Por El Contacto: Cambio Lingüístico en Lenguas Yuto-Aztecas Del Noroeste De México

“…La gramaticalización ha sido definida como el proceso mediante el cual, un elemento léxico o gramatical desarrolla o adquiere un nuevo estatus gramatical. La noción de gramaticalización se ha utilizado desde los inicios del siglo XX 2 , aunque a partir de Heine, Claudi y Hünnemeyer (1991), Lehmann (2002), Heine y Kuteva (2007), otros autores prefieren hablar de gramaticalización como un concepto útil para explicar el cambio o evolución de las lenguas (Wiemer 2014), y otros distinguen entre gramaticalización primaria y secundaria (Givón 1991, Bisang 2015.…”

Constructions, grammatical status and morphologization

“…Phonological reduction, however, happens gradually, so if we accept an abrupt transition from a biclausal to monoclausal (grammatical) construction, we need to accept constructions which are grammatical but not morphologized. There may also a typological dimension to this, in the sense that morphologization may bear a different relationship to grammatical status in languages with different typology, see remarks and references in Wiemer (2014). The discussion in Section 3 aims to show that constructions with an equivalent status in the grammar have morphologized to a different degree.…”