Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization theory

Joseph, Brian D.

doi:10.1075/tsl.59.04jos

Cited by 153 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, as Janda (2001) and Joseph (2001Joseph ( , 2004 have emphasized, in these diachronic studies the speaker has receded into the background. Such a view can be observed, for instance, in the typological approach to grammaticalization as seen in the work of Haspelmath (1989Haspelmath ( , 2004, Bybee et al, (1994), Heine and Kuteva (2002), and others.…”

Section: Form and Function Of The Linguistic Signmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization

Fischer

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Form and Function Of The Linguistic Signmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Joseph 2004), and over time it has come to include more and more phenomena under its wings (cf. Campbell and Janda 2001 for a convenient overview).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization

Fischer

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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: 99%

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

“…Does this approach leave us with grammaticalization as an "empty cover term" (see the objections raised by Joseph 2001Joseph , 2004Norde and Beijering 2012), where just any kind of variation or meaning change should be considered to be an instance of grammaticalization? -A kind of synonym for "language change"?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers?

Degand

Evers-Vermeul

2015

JHP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discourse markers are a crucial component of natural language, which is why a description and account of their diachronic evolution must be part of our linguistic models. However, researchers have different views on whether this evolution should be accounted for in terms of grammaticalization and/or pragmaticalization. In this paper, we provide a structured overview of the accounts given for the diachronic evolution of DMs. It is shown that the different positions encountered in the literature can be brought back to diverging views on the conceptualization of grammar, the categorization of discourse markers, and the weight that is put on specific processes involved in the diachronic change. We provide case studies for each of the positions that we present and discuss.

show abstract

Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization theory

Cited by 153 publications

References 31 publications

On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization

On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization

Grammaticalization as optimization

Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About