1 / 65

DEGRAMMATICALIZATION IN SCANDINAVIAN

DEGRAMMATICALIZATION IN SCANDINAVIAN. Muriel Norde University of Groningen Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, January 24 th, , 2007. Outline. Definitions and other theoretical preliminaries The status of degrammaticalization Case studies in degrammaticalization overview the s-genitive

galeno
Download Presentation

DEGRAMMATICALIZATION IN SCANDINAVIAN

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DEGRAMMATICALIZATION IN SCANDINAVIAN Muriel Norde University of Groningen Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, January 24th,, 2007

  2. Outline • Definitions and other theoretical preliminaries • The status of degrammaticalization • Case studies in degrammaticalization • overview • the s-genitive • inflections becoming derivational: -er and -on • Norwegian infinitival å • Theoretical discussion Freiburg 24-01-2007

  3. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES Freiburg 24-01-2007

  4. Definitions • grammaticalization • degrammaticalization • antigrammaticalization • lexicalization Freiburg 24-01-2007

  5. Grammaticalization • “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]) • “[…] an evolution whereby linguistic units lose in semantic complexity, pragmatic significance, syntactic freedom, and phonetic substance […]”(Heine & Reh 1984) • “A grammaticalization is a diachronic change by which the parts of a constructional schema come to have stronger internal dependencies” (Haspelmath 2004) Freiburg 24-01-2007

  6. Degrammaticalization • “ a: the undoing of a grammatical formative out of something other than a grammatical formative, or b: the making of a grammatical formative out of a grammatical formative with a weaker degree of grammatical function” (Van der Auwera 2002). • “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” (Haspelmath 2004). • “[…] a process in which a linguistic sign gains in autonomy, i.e. it becomes relatively free from constraints of the linguistic system” (Lehmann 2004). Freiburg 24-01-2007

  7. 3 types of degrammaticalization • Three types identified by Henning Andersen • Degrammation: a grammatical item becomes a lexical item through pragmatic inferencing e.g. Welsh eiddo: ‘his’ (PRO) > ‘property’(N) • Upgrading: decreased boundedness going hand in hand with sematic enrichment (s-genitive) • Emancipation: a bound morpheme becomes less bound, without any changes to its semantics (t.ex. Norwegianå: from cliticto free morpheme) Freiburg 24-01-2007

  8. Lexicalization • “recruitment of linguistic material to enrich the lexicon” (Hopper & Traugott 1993) • “today’s grammar may become tomorrow’s lexicon” (Ramat 1992) • Dependent on one’s definition of lexicon • Definition adopted here: Brinton & Traugott 2005 “[…] the view that the lexicon does not exist solely of a list of discrete and fully fixed items but represents a continuum from more to less fixed, from more to less fully conventionalized, and from more to less productive items. […] the continuum models of the lexical / grammatical split and of the lexicon fit better with the historical facts of change, which is often (though not always) gradual in the sense that change occurs by very small steps. • Contra GL conception of grammatical categories as discrete entities Freiburg 24-01-2007

  9. Subtypes of lexicalization • Function words • Pros en cons • [Shaved her legs and then] he was a she (L. Reed) • Suffixes • ologies (object of study, cf, sociology) • isms (ideology, cf. communism) • phrases • forget-me-not • has-been • no-show • acronyms • sms’es • nimby Freiburg 24-01-2007

  10. Lexicalization vs grammaticalization • Lehmann 2002: e.g. transition N > P is first and foremost a case of lexicalization with subsequent grammaticalization • Antilla 1989: grammaticalization involves lexicalization (e.g. by adding P’s to the lexicon) • Sum: lexicalization is concomitant with, but neither congruent with nor opposite to grammaticalization Freiburg 24-01-2007

  11. Lexicalization vs degrammaticalization • Ramat 1992: lexicalization = degrammaticalization • What is meant is: lexicalization of affixes (isms etc.) • However: this is just one type of lexicalization • Sum: lexicalization is concomitant, but not synonymous, with degrammaticalization Freiburg 24-01-2007

  12. Grammaticalization vs degrammaticalization: differences • Directionality: • Based on: the cline of grammaticality content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix • Frequency, or grammaticalization : degrammaticalization ratio • 100:1 (Haspelmath 1999:1046) • 10:1 (Newmeyer 1998:275f.; includes lexicalization) • “Homogeneity” (gz) vs. heterogeneity (degz) • Degree of acceptance in grammaticalization studies • Presence versus absence of a “domino effect” • Potential for new categories Freiburg 24-01-2007

  13. Grammaticalization vs degrammaticalization: similarities • Gradualness • Layering • Preservation of constructional identity • Pragmatic inferencing Freiburg 24-01-2007

  14. THE STATUS OF DEGRAMMATICALIZATION Freiburg 24-01-2007

  15. Positions contra • “[…] no cogent examples of degrammaticalization have been found. (Lehmann 1995 [1982]) • “Degrammatikalisierung gibt es in der Tat praktisch nicht” (Lehmann website 2005) • “statistically insignificant” (Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991) • “statistically insignificant” (Heine & Kuteva 2002) Freiburg 24-01-2007

  16. Contra continued • “[…] in some cases, the enthusiasm for challenging the unidirectionality hypothesis appears to have led to an interpretation of data that is certainly open to criticism” (Börjars 2003:133f.).” • “I argue that changes like [the most cited degrammaticalizations MN] are not degrammaticalizations,but ordinary analogical changes” (Kiparsky in prep.) Freiburg 24-01-2007

  17. Positions pro • “My sense is that such phenomena are rampant” (Newmeyer 1998:263) • “Some counter­examples do exist. Their existence, and their relative infrequency, in fact help define our notion of what prototypical grammaticalization is.” (Hopper & Traugott 1993:126; 2003:132) Freiburg 24-01-2007

  18. Pro continued • “I have argued that two decades of relatively intensive research on grammaticalization have shown that degrammaticalization exists […] and that it should be studied in its own right, and not as a quirky, accidental exception to grammaticalization. One of the tasks on the agenda is to compare the properties of grammaticalization and degrammaticalization. Another one is to classify all types of degrammaticalization […]” ( Van der Auwera 2002:25f.) Freiburg 24-01-2007

  19. CASE STUDIES: OVERVIEW Freiburg 24-01-2007

  20. Basis for analysis: Lehmann’s parameters Freiburg 24-01-2007

  21. Parameters of degrammaticalization • Integrity: resemanticization and phonetic “strengthening” • Paradigmaticity: deparadigmaticization, recategorialization • Paradigmatic variability: deobligatorification • Structural scope: scope expansion • Bondedness: decreased bondedness • Syntagmatic variability: increased syntactic freedom Freiburg 24-01-2007

  22. 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]) Freiburg 24-01-2007

  23. Examples of degrammaticalization 1 • Estonian *‑(ko)s > es (question particle) and *‑pa > ep (emphasis marker) • Irish 1st person plural subject suffix -muid > independent pronoun muid • Dutch / German / Frisian –tig / ‑zig / ‑tich ‘‑ty’ > indefinite numeral tig / zig / tich ‘umpteen’ Freiburg 24-01-2007

  24. Examples of degrammaticalization 2 • Japanese connectives (from enclitic particle to free morpheme) • Pennsylvania German modal auxiliary wotte ‘would’ > lexical verb wotte wish’ • English infinitival to • Bulgarian nešto ‘something’ > ‘thing’ Freiburg 24-01-2007

  25. Examples of degrammaticalization 3 • Welsh eiddo ‘his > property’ • Welsh P yn ol ‘after’ -> V nôl > ‘fetch’ • Saame taga: abessive suffix > (semi-enclitic) postposition Freiburg 24-01-2007

  26. Scandinavian examples • English and Mainland Scandinavian MASC/NEUT.SG.GEN -(e)s > enclitic s-genitive • Old Swedish MASK.SG.NOM –er > Modern Swedish nominalization suffix, e.g. en dummer ‘a stupid person’ • Old Swedish NEUT.PL.NOM/ACC –on > “berry-name suffix” as in hallon ‘raspberry) > count noun derivation suffix, e.g. päron ‘pear’ • Norwegian infinitival å (from proclitic to free complementizer Freiburg 24-01-2007

  27. Integrity • Resemanticization • Pennsylvania German wotte, modal ‘would’ -> full verb ‘to wish’ • Phonetic strengthening • Dutch tig ‘-ty’ (with schwa) -> indefinite numeral tig ‘umpteen’ (with full vowel) Freiburg 24-01-2007

  28. Paradigmaticity • No examples from Scandinavian (thus far) • Deparadigmaticization: shift from (relatively) closed category to more open category • Welsh eiddo, from pronoun ‘his’ to noun ‘property’ • Recategorialization: acquisition of grammatical properties such as inflection • Pennsylvania wotte ‘wish’ is inflected as a verb (e.g. past part. gewott) and may be governed by auxiliaries (ich muss wotte ‘I must wish’) Freiburg 24-01-2007

  29. Paradigmatic variability • Deobligatorification: becoming less obligatory in specific grammatical contexts • Old Swedish NOM.SG.MASC. –er, obligatory when nouns / adjectives refer to NOM.SG.MASC entities, not obligatory when used in Modern Swedish as nominalization suffix: • mykilhughæþærmaðþær‘proud man’ (Osw) • en dummer ‘a stupid person’ (MoSw) ~ en dum person, ett dumhuvud, en dummerjöns etc etc Freiburg 24-01-2007

  30. Structural scope • Scope in grammaticalization: reduction or expansion? • Scope in degrammaticalization: mostly expansion • Old Swedish GEN.SG.MASC -s only has N or A stem as its scope, Modern Swedish s-genitive full NP • ens salogs manz munne (OSw) ‘a blessed man’s mouth’ • [en salig man]s mun (MoSw) ‘[a blessed man]’s mouth’ • [en äldre man ja [sic] känner]s gamla hund ‘[an elderly man I know]’s old dog Freiburg 24-01-2007

  31. Bondedness • Shift from right to left on cline of grammaticality always involves decreased bondedness • Norwegian infinitive marker: from enclitic to free morpheme • Intje aa faa Qvile tyktes haam for leit ‘Not to get rest seemed him too hard’ (EMoNo) • Du skal lova å ikkje drikka (MoNo) ‘You shall promise to not drink’ • Du skal lova ikkje å drikka ‘You shall promise not to drink’ Freiburg 24-01-2007

  32. Syntagmatic variability • Decreased bondedness goes hand in hand with increased syntactic freedom (when a bound morpheme becomes a free morpheme) • Infinitive marker to in American English • It’s going to be hard to not take advice • It’s going to be hard not to take advice Freiburg 24-01-2007

  33. CASE STUDIES: THE S-GENITIVE Freiburg 24-01-2007

  34. The history of the Swedish s-genitive • Norde 2006: three stages • Stage 1: word-marking inflection • ens riks mans hws Bild 642 ‘a rich man’s house’ • Stage 2: phrase-marking inflection • mangen riddaris blod Did 10 ‘the blood of many a knight’ • Stage 3: clitic • personen du pratar meds mobil (@) ‘the person you’re talking to’s mobile phone’ Freiburg 24-01-2007

  35. The DP in Old Swedish (Delsing 1991) DP SPEC D’ D NP Poss N’ konungsensi ti hus Freiburg 24-01-2007

  36. The DP in Modern Swedish DP SPEC D’ D NP Poss N’ konungeni -sti hus Freiburg 24-01-2007

  37. Compare: DP in Dutch DP SPEC D’ D NP Poss N’ de koningi -z’nti huis Freiburg 24-01-2007

  38. The s-genitive and Lehmann’s parameters • Integrity • resemanticization:  • phonetic strengthening: () • Paradigmaticity • deparadigmaticization:  • recategorialization: - • Paradigmatic variability • deobligatorification:  Freiburg 24-01-2007

  39. S-genitive continued • Structural scope • scope expansion:  • Bondedness: • decreased bondedness:  • Syntagmatic variability • increased syntactic freedom:  Freiburg 24-01-2007

  40. CASE STUDIES: FROM INFLECTION TO DERIVATION Freiburg 24-01-2007

  41. Case study 2: from inflection to derivation • Old Swedish MASK.SG.NOM –er > Modern Swedish nominalization suffix, e.g. en dummer ‘a stupid person’ • Old Swedish NEUT.PL.NOM/ACC –on > “berry-name suffix” as in hallon ‘raspberry’) > count noun derivation suffix, e.g. päron ‘pear’ • Swedish NEUT.SG –t > adverbial –t : examples of derived adverbs without adjectival counterpart, e.g. enbart ‘only’ (*enbar) Freiburg 24-01-2007

  42. -ER • Stage 1: MASC.SG.NOM suffix (N / A) • mykilhughæþær maðþær oc girughær(Vidh 14) • en blinder • Stage 2: expansion to other genders and syntactic funtions • Judith var en riker änka • Hyrde sig en svarter rock (Bellman) • Stage 3: in adjectival noun constructions > derivational suffix: en dummer ’a stupid person’, slarvern ’the careless one’ Freiburg 24-01-2007

  43. -ON • Stage 1: PL.NOM/ACC of weak neuter nouns ending in –a: hiūpon (MoSw nypon) ‘rosehips’, smultron ‘wild strawberries’ • Stage 2: -on reinterpreted as ‘berry-suffix’, expanding to hallon (hallbär) ’raspberry / -ies’; hall`stony ground’, lingon (lingbär) ’lingonberry / -ies’< *lingwa (ljung) ’heather’ (mostly plural) • Stage 3: count nouns in the singular: päron ’pear’ Freiburg 24-01-2007

  44. Inflection vs derivation: clines • The cline of grammaticality content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix mot (N) > mot (P) ‘meeting’ > ‘against’ hin > in > -in DEMONSTRATIVE > CLITIC > DEFINITE SUFFIX • The cline of lexicality part of phrase > part of compound > derivational affix manz lik > man(z)lik > manlig ‘a man’s body’ > ‘man’s body’ > ‘masculine’ Freiburg 24-01-2007

  45. Life after derivation Derivational affixes • fossilize • PGmc –m to derive agent nouns from verbs: bloem ‘flower’, storm ‘storm’, helm‘helmet’ (cf. MoDu verbs bloeien ‘to bloom’, storen ‘to disturb’, helen ‘(older): ‘to cover’) • lexicalize • Fascism and other isms • Juices and ades (< Lemonade) • degrammaticalize • Du tig ‘umpteen’ (< -tig ‘ty’ as in twintig ’20’ etc.) • become inflectional Freiburg 24-01-2007

  46. Life after inflection Inflectional affixes: • become –ø • most nominal and verbal suffixes in English • fossilize (hardly) • Du schoen(< PL of schoe ‘shoe’) • degrammaticalize • Eng / ContScand enclitic s-genitive • do not lexicalize • become derivational Freiburg 24-01-2007

  47. (From derivation to inflection) • MORE COMMON: • Old Norse derivational –st > MoScand inflectional –s(t) • Evidence for derivational status, e.g. word-class changing st-verbs in ON, e.g. V fyrnast ‘age, become older’ < Adj forn ‘old’ • English adverbial –ly (productive and obligatory) Freiburg 24-01-2007

  48. The diachrony of derivation • Derivational affixes: grammaticalization or lexicalization (= creation of new lexemes)? • Pro-lexicalization: new items are added to the lexicon • but: derived item as a whole is added, not derivational suffix itself • Pro-grammaticalization: derivational afffixes have many characteristics of grammaticalized items • notable exception: they do not become part of a paradigm Freiburg 24-01-2007

  49. Derivational suffixes: grammaticalization? • Grammaticalization properties (Heine / Kuteva 2002) and Swedish –lig (e.g. ljuvlig ‘lovely) < lik ‘body’ • 1: Desemanticization or semantic bleaching  loss of (concrete) meaning:  • meaning ‘body’ is lost • 2: Extension or context generalization  use in new contexts:  • -lig can derive Adj from V: tro ‘believe’ > trolig ‘conceivable’ • 3: Decategorialization  loss of morphosyntactic properties (e.g. inflection):  • 4: Erosion or phonetic reduction  loss of phonetic substance:  Freiburg 24-01-2007

  50. Concluding remarks on derivation • Possible solution to reconcile opposite views: derivational affix is grammaticalized item which itself is involved in a lexicalization process • Himmelmann 2004: lexicalization is a process sui generis Freiburg 24-01-2007

More Related