A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 68

A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 53 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization. Kees Hengeveld. Research questions. Can Functional Discourse Grammar serve as a framework to predict, describe and explain processes of grammaticalization? What are the relevant processes of contentive change?

Download Presentation

A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization

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


A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization

A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization

Kees Hengeveld


Research questions

Research questions

  • Can Functional Discourse Grammar serve as a framework to predict, describe and explain processes of grammaticalization?

  • What are the relevant processes of contentive change?

  • What are the relevant processes of formal change?

  • How do these processes interact?


Contents

Contents

  • Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG)

  • Contentive change in FDG

  • Formal change in FDG

    4. Contentive change and formal change in FDG

    5. Conclusions


1 functional discourse grammar

1. Functional Discourse Grammar


A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization

Conceptual Component

C

on

t

e

x

t

u

a

l

C

o

m

p

o

n

e

n

t

Frames, Lexemes, Operators

Formulation

G

r

a

m

m

a

r

Pragmatics, Semantics

Templates, Grammatical elements

Encoding

Morphosyntax, Phonology

O

u

t

p

u

t

Prosodic Contours,

Sounds

Articulation

Expression Level


A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization

Conceptual Component

C

on

t

e

x

t

u

a

l

C

o

m

p

o

n

e

n

t

Frames, Lexemes, Operators

Formulation

G

r

a

m

m

a

r

Pragmatics, Semantics

Templates, Grammatical elements

Encoding

Morphosyntax, Phonology

O

u

t

p

u

t

Prosodic Contours,

Sounds

Articulation

Expression Level


A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization

Conceptual Component

C

on

t

e

x

t

u

a

l

C

o

m

p

o

n

e

n

t

Frames, Lexemes, Operators

Formulation

G

r

a

m

m

a

r

Pragmatics, Semantics

Templates, Grammatical elements

Encoding

Morphosyntax, Phonology

O

u

t

p

u

t

Prosodic Contours,

Sounds

Articulation

Expression Level


A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization

Frames,

Lexemes,

Primary

operators

Formulation

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Templates,

Auxiliaries, Secondary operators

Morphosyntactic Encoding

Morphosyntactic Level

Prosodic patterns,

Morphemes, Tertiary

operators

Phonological Encoding

Phonological Level


A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization

Frames,

Lexemes,

Primary

operators

Formulation

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Templates,

Auxiliaries, Secondary operators

Morphosyntactic Encoding

Morphosyntactic Level

Prosodic patterns,

Morphemes, Tertiary

operators

PhonologicalEncoding

Phonological Level


A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization

Frames,

Lexemes,

Primary

operators

Formulation

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Templates,

Auxiliaries, Secondary operators

Morphosyntactic Encoding

Morphosyntactic Level

Prosodic patterns,

Morphemes, Tertiary

operators

Phonological Encoding

Phonological Level


A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization

Frames,

Lexemes,

Primary

operators

Formulation

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Templates,

Auxiliaries, Secondary operators

Morphosyntactic Encoding

Morphosyntactic Level

Prosodic patterns,

Morphemes, Tertiary

operators

Phonological Encoding

Phonological Level


Interpersonal level

Interpersonal Level

(π M1:[Move

(π A1:[ Discourse Act

(π F1)Illocution

(π P1)SSpeaker

(π P2)AAddressee

(π C1:[Communicated Content

(π T1)ΦAscriptive Subact

(πR1)ΦReferential Subact

] (C1)ΦCommunicated Content

] (A1)ΦDiscourse Act

] (M1))Move 


Representational level

Representational Level

(π p1:Propositional Content

(π ep1:Episode

(π e1: State-of-Affairs

[(π f1:[Configurational Property

(π f1)Lexical Property

(π x1)ΦIndividual

] (f1))Configurational Property

(e1)Φ])State-of-Affairs

(ep1))Episode

(p1))Propositional Content


2 contentive change

2. Contentive change


Scope increase layers

Scope increase (layers)

Semantic units develop diachronically from lower to higher layers, and not the other way round (Hengeveld 1989)

Representational Level: p ← ep ← e ← f


Scope increase layers1

Scope increase (layers)

Spanish haber ‘have’ (Olbertz 1993)

1. resultative, now replaced by tener:

Tengoprepara-d-aunacenafenomenal.

have.PRS.1.SGprepare-ANT-F.SGINDEF.SG.Fmeal(F)terrific

‘I have a terrific meal ready (for you).’


Scope increase layers2

Scope increase (layers)

Spanish haber ‘have’

2. anterior

Había/he/habré preparado

have.PST.1.SG/ have.PRS.1.SG/have.FUT.1.SGprepare-ANT

una cena fenomenal.

INDEF.SG.Fmeal(F)terrific

‘I had/have/will have prepared a terrific meal.’


Scope increase layers3

Scope increase (layers)

Spanish haber ‘have’

3. (recent) past

Me he levanta-do a las siete.

1.SG.REFLAUX.PRS.1.SGget.up-ANTattheseven

‘I got up at seven o’clock.’


Scope increase layers4

Scope increase (layers)

Spanish haber ‘have’

4. mirative (Ecuadorian Highland Spanish, Olbertz 2009)

Mire, compró estos, los probé ... y ..

Lookbought.PF.3SGthesethem tried.PF.1SG and

¡han sido peras!

have.3PL been pears

‘Look, she bought these, I tasted them ... and ... they are pears!’


Scope increase layers5

Scope increase (layers)

Spanish haber ‘have’

p ← ep ← e ← f

p ← ep ← e ← f

p ← ep ← e ← f

p ← ep ← e ← f


Scope increase layers6

Scope increase (layers)

Pragmatic units develop diachronically from lower to higher layers, and not the other way round

Interpersonal Level:M ← A ← C ← R ← T  


Scope increase layers7

Scope increase (layers)

sort of (Hengeveld & Keizer 2009)

I keep sort of thinking about that and coming back to it. (Google)

I think I can more or less understand in general terms what happens up until sort of the impressionist time, maybe just post-impressionist. (BNC)

McCain backtracks on gay adoption, sort of. (Google)


Scope increase layers8

Scope increase (layers)

sort of

M ← A ← C ← R ← T

M ← A ← C ← R← T

M ← A ← C ← R ← T


Scope increase levels

Scope increase (levels)

Semantic units may develop diachronically into pragmatic units, and not the other way round (Hengeveld & Wanders 2007)

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level


Scope increase levels1

Scope increase (levels)

RL: Providing food assistance is not easy because the infrastructure is lacking.

IL: Watch out, because there is a bull in the field!

RL: Providing food assistance is not easy exactly because the infrastructure is lacking.

IL: *Watch out, exactly because there is a bull in the field!


Scope increase levels2

Scope increase (levels)

Semantic units may develop diachronically into pragmatic units, and not the other way round

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level


Scope increase levels3

Scope increase (levels)

Semantic units may develop diachronically into pragmatic units, and not the other way round

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level


From lexeme to operator

From lexeme to operator

Goossens (1985), Olbertz (1998), and Keizer (2007).

π ← Lexeme


From lexeme to operator1

From lexeme to operator

fail to (Mackenzie 2009)

π ← Lexeme

He failed to win the race.

The bomb failed to explode.

fail (fc)

(neg fc)


From lexeme to operator2

From lexeme to operator

decir (Olbertz 2005, 2007; Grández Ávila 2010)

π ← Lexeme

They say (dicen que) Juan is ill.

Juan apparently (dizque) is ill.

decir (C)

(Rep C)


Contentive change in fdg

Contentive change in FDG


Contentive change in fdg haber

Contentive change in FDG: haber


Contentive change in fdg haber1

Contentive change in FDG: haber


Contentive change in fdg haber2

Contentive change in FDG: haber


Contentive change in fdg haber3

Contentive change in FDG: haber


Contentive change in fdg haber4

Contentive change in FDG: haber


Contentive change in fdg haber5

Contentive change in FDG: haber


Contentive change in fdg haber6

Contentive change in FDG: haber


Contentive change in fdg haber7

Contentive change in FDG: haber


Contentive change in fdg haber8

Contentive change in FDG: haber


Contentive change in fdg sort of

Contentive change in FDG: sort of


Contentive change in fdg sort of1

Contentive change in FDG: sort of


Contentive change in fdg sort of2

Contentive change in FDG: sort of


Contentive change in fdg sort of3

Contentive change in FDG: sort of


Contentive change in fdg sort of4

Contentive change in FDG: sort of


Contentive change in fdg sort of5

Contentive change in FDG: sort of


Contentive change in fdg sort of6

Contentive change in FDG: sort of


Contentive change in fdg because

Contentive change in FDG: because


Contentive change in fdg because1

Contentive change in FDG: because


Contentive change in fdg because2

Contentive change in FDG: because


3 formal change in fdg

3. Formal change in FDG


Main issue

Main issue

There cannot be a one-to-one relation between formal changes and layers/levels, as lexical elements may enter the grammatical system at any layer/level


Grammaticalization scales

Grammaticalization scales

inflectional affix < clitic < grammatical word < content item

but: isolating vs. agglutinative vs. fusional languages


A scale of formal change in fdg

A scale of formal change in FDG

Keizer (2007)

lexemes(xi: – man – (xi): – old – (xi))

‘the/an old man’

lexical operators(that xi: – man – (xi))

‘that man’

operators(1 xi: – man – (xi))

‘a man’


Formal categories in fdg

Formal categories in FDG

Criteria:

lexemes:modification:

an extremely old man

lexical operators:focalization

(which man?) THAT man

operators:neither


A grammaticalization scale in fdg

A grammaticalization scale in FDG

operators < lexical operators < lexemes


4 contentive and formal change in fdg

4. Contentive and formal change in FDG


Linking the scales

Linking the scales

Each of the contentive parameters can be linked to the formal parameter to provide a more coherent view of the interplay between contentive and formal aspects of grammaticalization processes


Linking the scales1

Linking the scales

contentive scale:

p ← ep ← e ← f

formal scale:

operators < lexical operators < lexemes

As elements move up the contentive scale, they cannot move down the formal scale


Linking the scales2

Linking the scales

Allowed:

p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl

operators < lexical operators < lexemes


Linking the scales3

Linking the scales

Not allowed:

p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl

operators < lexical operators < lexemes


Linking the scales4

Linking the scales

contentive scale:

M ← A ← C ← R ← T

formal scale:

operators < lexical operators < lexemes

As elements move up the contentive scale, they cannot move down the formal scale


Linking the scales5

Linking the scales

Allowed:

M ← A ← C ← R ← T

operators < lexical operators < lexemes


Linking the scales6

Linking the scales

Not allowed:

M ← A ← C ← R ← T

operators < lexical operators < lexemes


5 conclusion

5. Conclusion


Conclusions 1

Conclusions 1

FDG offers a framework within which known processes of grammaticalization can be captured

Contentive changes are restricted in terms of the hierarchical relations between layers and levels

Formal changes can be captured in a crosslinguistically valid way by adopting Keizer’s grammaticalization scale rather than traditional ones


Conclusions 2

Conclusions 2

Contentive and formal scales can be linked by defining a relative rather than absolute relationship between them


A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization

this presentation downloadable from

home.hum.uva.nl/oz/hengeveldp


  • Login