A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization
Download
1 / 68

A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 95 Views
  • Uploaded on

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?

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 ' A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization' - fergus


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

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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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)S Speaker

(π P2)A Addressee

(π C1: [ Communicated Content

(π T1)Φ Ascriptive Subact

(πR1)Φ Referential Subact

] (C1)Φ Communicated Content

] (A1)Φ Discourse 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)Φ Individual

] (f1)) Configurational Property

(e1)Φ]) State-of-Affairs

(ep1)) Episode

(p1)) Propositional Content



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:

Tengo prepara-d-a una cena fenomenal.

have.PRS.1.SG prepare-ANT-F.SG INDEF.SG.F meal(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.SG prepare-ANT

una cena fenomenal.

INDEF.SG.F meal(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.REFL AUX.PRS.1.SG get.up-ANT at the seven

‘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 ..

Look bought.PF.3SG these them 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)























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



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



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


this presentation downloadable from

home.hum.uva.nl/oz/hengeveldp


ad