three common misunderstandings about degrammaticalization muriel norde
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
THREE COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT DEGRAMMATICALIZATION Muriel Norde

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 40

THREE COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT DEGRAMMATICALIZATION Muriel Norde - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 58 Views
  • Uploaded on

THREE COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT DEGRAMMATICALIZATION Muriel Norde. Outline. Aims Definitions and other theoretical preliminaries Misunderstandings Classification of degrammaticalization Case studies Conclusions. Aims. Three misunderstandings.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' THREE COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT DEGRAMMATICALIZATION Muriel Norde' - ezekiel-acevedo


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
outline
Outline
  • Aims
  • Definitions and other theoretical preliminaries
  • Misunderstandings
  • Classification of degrammaticalization
  • Case studies
  • Conclusions

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

slide3
Aims

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

three misunderstandings
Three misunderstandings
  • Degrammaticalization is, or should be, the “reverse of grammaticalization”
  • Degrammaticalization, unlike grammaticalization, is a mere morphosyntactic change
  • Degrammaticalization, unlike grammaticalization, is exceptional and unclassifiable

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

preliminary definition
Preliminary definition
  • Based on: the cline of grammaticality

content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix

  • Degrammaticalization is: a shift from right to left to an adjacent position
  • As in grammaticalization, the “constructional identity” is preserved

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

misunderstanding 1
Misunderstanding 1

Degrammaticalization is, or should be, the “reverse of grammaticalization”

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

representative quote
Representative quote
  • By this I mean a change that leads from the endpoint to the starting point of a potential grammaticalization and also shows the same intermediate stages. For instance, a change from a case suffix to a free postposition with the intermediate stage of a postpositional clitic would be an antigrammaticalization

[Haspelmath 2004]

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

kinds of reversal
Kinds of reversal
  • “Mirror-image reversal”

[Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994]

  • “Type reversal” vs “token reversal”

[Haspelmath 2004]

  • “Etymological category reversal” vs “Non-etymological category reversal”

[Askedal 2007]

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

why there is no token reversal
Why there is no token reversal
  • Grammaticalization ~ ageing, erosion
  • “As we grow up, we become taller; in old age, we may shrink a little. However, we would not expect a child to start becoming shorter and shorter and finally return to its mother’s womb.”

[Dahl: LINGUIST 7.1170 (1996)]

  • Mountains are eroded and washed down to the sea; mountain-creating mechanisms in no way involve sand grains flowing upstream followed by ‘de-erosion’

[Newmeyer 1998]

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

why there are no dgz clines
Why there are no dgz clines
  • Affixal degrammaticalization is rare for obvious reasons, and a prerequisite appears to be some kind of structural collapse (Plank’ (1995): Systemstörung)

[Norde 2002]

  • A shift from function word to content item is difficult because the latter (N, V) typically inflect

[Willis 2007, Fortson 2003]

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

summary
Summary
  • Degrammaticalization always entails type reversals, not token reversals
  • There are no degrammaticalization clines
  •  Misunderstanding 1 is based on bad (if any) definition of degrammaticalization
  • Degrammaticalization must be defined as a single shift from right to left on the cline of grammaticality

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

misunderstanding 2
Misunderstanding 2

Degrammaticalization, unlike grammaticalization, is a mere morphosyntactic change

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

representative quote1
Representative quote
  • it will be shown that cases of alleged antigrammaticalization [= Haspelmath’s terms for degrammaticalization; MN] at best represent nothing more than an evolution from less to more morphological bonding. I will call such an evolution antimorphologization

[Idiatov, in press]

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

decreased bondedness
Decreased bondedness
  • Shift from right to left on cline of grammaticality always involves decreased bondedness

content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix

  • In some cases of degrammaticalization, this is indeed all there is to it
  • In most cases however, semantic change is observed as well

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

lehmann s parameters
Lehmann’s parameters

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

lehmann s parameters in degrammaticalization
Lehmann’s parameters in degrammaticalization
  • Integrity: resemanticization and phonetic “strengthening”
  • Paradigmaticity: deparadigmaticization, recategorialization
  • Paradigmatic variability: deobligatorification
  • Structural scope: scope expansion
  • Bondedness: decreased bondedness
  • Syntagmatic variability: increased syntactic freedom

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

word of caution
Word of caution
  • Not all degrammaticalization parameters apply to all types or examples of degrammaticalization!
  • But then: neither do all grammaticalization parameters apply to all grammaticalizations
  • Remember Kuryłowicz’s definition:

“Grammaticalization consists in the increase of the range of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to a grammatical or from a less grammatical to a more grammatical status.” [Kuryłowicz 1975 [1965]]

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

summary1
Summary
  • Although decreasing bondedness is a defining characteristic of degrammaticalization, it is, in most cases, by no means the only mechanism involved
  • Misunderstanding 2 is based on a very limited number of degrammaticalizations, or an erroneous interpretation of them
  • Degrammaticalizations need to be subdivided into different types (as do, for that matter, grammaticalizations)

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

misunderstanding 3
Misunderstanding 3

Degrammaticalization, unlike grammaticalization, is exceptional and unclassifiable

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

representative quote2
Representative quote
  • The examples of degrammaticalization discussed in the preceding sections […] are representative of the quality of examples adduced in the literature. One cannot avoid the conclusion that those who wish to argue against unidirectionality of grammaticalization are amazingly sloppy in the selection and analysis of their examples. If one subtracts those alleged examples of degrammaticalization that for one reason or another miss the target, then very few actual cases of degrammaticalization remain. They are not “myriad” (Janda 2001:299), but closer to a proportion of 1 : 99 with historical cases of grammaticalization.

[Lehmann 2004]

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

the gz dgz ratio
The GZ-DGZ ratio
  • “Say in the course of your work you have found 542 changes that confirm a direction, and none that don’t. Question is, 542 out of what? Does a UD-believer’s inability to find the counterexamples, and/or the observed frequency of the confirming instances, reflect a ‘real’ property of the domain or merely the accidental tendentiousness of a chosen database? Note that not finding things is an argumentum ex silentio, which is not at the top of anybody’s hierarchy of epistemic goodness.” [Lass 2000]
  • Still, we can safely assume that degrammaticalization is (far) less frequent (which does not make it any less interesting)

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

summary2
Summary
  • Misunderstanding 3 is understandable to some extent as degrammaticalization is indeed less frequent, and less cross-linguistically regular, than grammaticalization
  •  As a result, degrammaticalization is thought to be unclassifiable
  •  A framework for classifying degrammaticalizations needs to be developed

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

classifying degrammaticalization
Classifying degrammaticalization
  • Andersen 2006: four levels of observation
  • 1: Content
  • 2: Content syntax
  • 3: Morphosyntax
  • 4: Expression

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

changes in content
Changes in content
  • 1.1. Grammation: a change by which an expression through Reanalysis is ascribed grammatical content (change from any other […] content to grammatical content).
  • 1.2. Regrammation: a change by which a grammatical expression through reanalysis is ascribed different grammatical content (change within and among grammatical paradigms).
  • 1.3. Degrammation: a change by which an expression through reanalysis loses grammatical content (change from grammatical content to other […] content).

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

changes in content syntax
Changes in content syntax
  • 2.1. Upgrading: a change from dependent to head or an enlargement of scope scope usually decreases
  • 2.2. Downgrading: a change from head to dependent or a scope diminution

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

changes in morphosyntax
Changes in morphosyntax
  • 3.1. Bond weakening (emancipation) (affix  clitic, clitic  word, compound word  phrase).
  • 3.2. Bond strengthening (integration) (phrase  word, word  clitic, clitic  affix).

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

changes in expression
Changes in expression
  • 4.1. Reduction.
  • 4.2. Elaboration.

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

framework
Framework

Classifying degrammaticalizations: Andersen’s model and Lehmann’s parameters combined

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

changes in content1
Changes in content
  • Degrammation: a change by which an expression through reanalysis loses grammatical content (change from grammatical content to other […] content).
  • PARAMETERS:
    • resemanticization

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

changes in content syntax1
Changes in content syntax
  • Context reduction: use in fewer contexts; scope increases
  • PARAMETERS:
    • deparadigmaticization
    • deobligatorification
    • scope expansion

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

changes in morphosyntax1
Changes in morphosyntax
  • Bond weakening (emancipation) (affix  clitic, clitic  word, function word  lexical item)
  • PARAMETERS:
    • decreased bondedness (affix > clitic > unbound function word)
    • increased syntactic freedom (function word > lexical item)
    • recategorialization (function word > lexical item)

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

changes in expression1
Changes in expression
  • Elaboration
  • PARAMETERS:
    • phonetic strengthening

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

proposal for classification 3 basic types
Proposal for classification: 3 basic types

Degrammaticalization is observed at the:

  • Content level: shift from grammatical content to lexical content (resemanticization), which goes hand in hand with the acquisition of grammatical features such as inflection (recategorialization)
  • Content-syntactic level: shift from “more grammatical” to “less grammatical”, movement out of inflectional paradigms (deparadigmaticization and deobligatorification) which goes hand in hand with the expansion of syntactic scope
  • Morphosyntactic level: a shift from bound morpheme (affix, clitic) to free morpheme, or an increase in syntactic freedom, without any change in content

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

implicational hierarchy
Implicational hierarchy
  • A level 1degrammaticalization also involves changes at levels 2 and 3
  • Alevel 2 degrammaticalization also involves change at level 3 (i.e. decreased bondedness) but no change at level 1 (i.e. no acquisition of lexical content)
  • A level 3 degrammaticalization involves no changes at the other levels
  • Elaboration (phonetic strengthening) may or may not be involved in any of the three types

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

selected case studies
Selected case studies
  • The s-genitive (English and Continental Scandinavian): word-final affix > phrase-final enclitic determiner
  • Swedish –er: from inflectional case suffix to derivational nominalization suffix
  • Irish muid: from verb suffix to pronoun
  • Northern Saami haga: from case suffix to postposition
  • Norwegian infinitival å: from clitic to free morpheme
  • Pennsylvania German wotte: from modal auxiliary to lexical verb
  • Dutch tig / German zig: from numeral suffix to independent indefinite numeral to intensifying adverb

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

classification of case studies
Classification of case studies
  • Level 1: Pennsylvania German wotte; first stage of Dutch tig / German zig
  • Level 2: The s-genitive; Swedish derivative er
  • Level 3: Irish muid; Northern Saami haga; Norwegian infinitival å
  • Degrammaticalization: superordinate term

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

acceptability
Acceptability
  • Level 1 degrammaticalization: most acceptable, since it itvolved changes on all levels (cf. misunderstanding 1)
  • Level 2 degrammaticalization: less acceptable, either because it does not result in lexical items (cf. misunderstanding 1) or is misinterpreted as mere decreased bondedness (cf. misunderstanding 2)
  • Level 3 degrammaticalization: least acceptable

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

conclusions
Conclusions
  • A cline-based definition of degrammaticalization is insufficient
  •  a more fine-grained framework is needed to describe and classify degrammaticalizations
  • A better understanding of degrammaticalization and its subtypes will hopefully increase its acceptability as a distinct type of change, instead of being the “leftover crap” of grammaticalization studies

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

slide40
THANK YOU

What\'s new in grammaticalization?

ad