What makes Grammaticalization?

Bisang, Walter; Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.; Wiemer, Björn

doi:10.1515/9783110197440

Cited by 89 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The third position is to postulate two subtypes: grammaticalization I, movement towards the morpheme, and grammaticalization II, movement towards discourse (Wischer 2000). A fourth position, which may be considered a variant of the previous one, is to postulate the notion of pragmaticalization (Aijmer 1997, Erman and Kotsinas 1993, Günthner and Mutz 2004.…”

Section: Grammaticalization Pragmaticalization or Something Elsementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, they adopt an "extended view" of grammar in order to include discourse phenomena (Heine et al 1991;Traugott 2003 [1993];Himmelmann 2004). Similarly, the concept of grammaticalization is extended to comprise the linguistic development of expressions functioning at the discourse level.…”

Section: Dms Grammaticalize and Pragmaticalization Is A Superfluous mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Simplifying their arguments to some extent, one could say that since DMs are pragmatic in nature (just like other pragmatic expressions, such as modal particles, politeness expressions and meta-discursive markers), they result from a pragmaticalization process, whereas grammatical expressions (such as determiners, prepositions and auxiliaries) are the outcome of a grammaticalization process (but see Section 2.4). Similarly, Günthner and Mutz (2004) argue that the development of DMs does not fit into a narrow view of grammaticalization and that their main feature is the development of pragmatic functions -a process which they claim, is best referred to as pragmaticalization.…”

Section: Dms Pragmaticalize a Process Different From Grammaticalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Note that proponents of the first view might also mention core domains and peripheral domains of grammar (see Heine et al 1991;Traugott 2003 [1993]; Himmelmann 2004). The crucial difference is that these proponents do not label these domains as sub-types of grammaticalization.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Grammaticalization Pragmaticalization or Something Elsementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dms Grammaticalize and Pragmaticalization Is A Superfluous mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dms Pragmaticalize a Process Different From Grammaticalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers?

Degand

Evers-Vermeul

2015

JHP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it is impossible for a particular item, and most especially for a component of information structure, to be grammaticalized in isolation. As Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca (1994: 297) pointed out, "Everything that happens to the meaning of a gram happens because of the contexts in which it is used" (see also Diewald 2002, Heine 2002, Himmelmann 2004, so a more holistic approach is needed that takes the construction, in this case, the whole cleft, into consideration as the context.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The constructionalization of the Chinese cleft construction

Zhan

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the emergence and development of the Chinese cleft construction, with particular attention to the period from Early Archaic Chinese through Late Medieval Chinese. Prototype copulas are typically of the form [NP SHI NP], are predicational or specificational, and cue information focus. We trace the gradual development over time of copula clefts in addition to prototype copula constructions. A key factor in their development is the use in Medieval Chinese of nominalizations in post-copula position. Copula clefts typically have the form [NP SHI XP DE] and cue both specificational and contrastive meaning. The study is a contribution to the developing field of constructionalization by making more explicit the way in which individual constructional changes contribute sequentially to constructionalization. It also demonstrates one way in which a complex contrastive cleft construction may come into being.

show abstract

The Construction Morphology Analysis of Chinese Word Formation

Arcodia

Basciano

2018

The Construction of Words

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What makes Grammaticalization?

Cited by 89 publications

References 0 publications

Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers?

Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers?

The constructionalization of the Chinese cleft construction

The Construction Morphology Analysis of Chinese Word Formation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About