DEGRAMMATICALIZATION IN SCANDINAVIAN Muriel Norde University of Groningen...

DEGRAMMATICALIZATIODEGRAMMATICALIZATION N

IN SCANDINAVIANIN SCANDINAVIAN

Muriel NordeMuriel Norde

University of GroningenUniversity of Groningen

Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, January 24January 24th,th,, 2007, 2007

Freiburg 24-01-2007Freiburg 24-01-2007 22

OutlineOutline

Definitions and other theoretical Definitions and other theoretical preliminariespreliminaries

The status of degrammaticalizationThe status of degrammaticalization Case studies in degrammaticalizationCase studies in degrammaticalization

– overviewoverview– the s-genitivethe s-genitive– inflections becoming derivational: -inflections becoming derivational: -erer and - and -

onon– Norwegian infinitival Norwegian infinitival åå

Theoretical discussionTheoretical discussion


THEORETICAL THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIESPRELIMINARIES


DefinitionsDefinitions

grammaticalizationgrammaticalization degrammaticalizationdegrammaticalization antigrammaticalizationantigrammaticalization lexicalizationlexicalization


GrammaticalizationGrammaticalization

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

““[…] an evolution whereby linguistic units lose in […] an evolution whereby linguistic units lose in semantic complexity, pragmatic significance, semantic complexity, pragmatic significance, syntactic freedom, and phonetic substance syntactic freedom, and phonetic substance […]”(Heine & Reh 1984)[…]”(Heine & Reh 1984)

““A grammaticalization is a diachronic change by A grammaticalization is a diachronic change by which the parts of a constructional schema come which the parts of a constructional schema come to have stronger internal dependencies” to have stronger internal dependencies” (Haspelmath 2004)(Haspelmath 2004)


DegrammaticalizationDegrammaticalization

“ “ a: the undoing of a grammatical formative a: the undoing of a grammatical formative out of something other than a grammatical out of something other than a grammatical formative, or b: the making of a grammatical formative, or b: the making of a grammatical formative out of a grammatical formative with formative out of a grammatical formative with a weaker degree of grammatical functiona weaker degree of grammatical function” ” (Van der Auwera 2002).(Van der Auwera 2002).

““By this I mean a change that leads from the By this I mean a change that leads from the endpoint to the starting point of a potential endpoint to the starting point of a potential grammaticalization and also shows the same grammaticalization and also shows the same intermediate stages”intermediate stages” (Haspelmath 2004). (Haspelmath 2004).

““[…] a process in which a linguistic sign gains […] a process in which a linguistic sign gains in autonomy, i.e. it becomes relatively free in autonomy, i.e. it becomes relatively free from constraints of the linguistic system” from constraints of the linguistic system” (Lehmann 2004).(Lehmann 2004).


3 types of 3 types of degrammaticalizationdegrammaticalization Three types identified by Henning Three types identified by Henning

AndersenAndersen1.1. DegrammationDegrammation: : a grammatical item becomes a a grammatical item becomes a

lexical item through pragmatic inferencing e.g.lexical item through pragmatic inferencing e.g. Welsh Welsh eiddoeiddo: ‘h: ‘hiis’ (PRO) > ‘s’ (PRO) > ‘propertyproperty’(N)’(N)

2.2. UpgradingUpgrading: : decreased boundedness going hand decreased boundedness going hand in hand with sematic enrichmentin hand with sematic enrichment (s-genitive) (s-genitive)

3.3. EmancipationEmancipation: : a bound morpheme becomes less a bound morpheme becomes less bound, without any changes to its semantics bound, without any changes to its semantics (t.ex. (t.ex. NorwegianNorwegian åå: fr: from cliticom clitic to free morphemeto free morpheme))


LexicalizationLexicalization

““recruitment of linguistic material to enrich the lexicon” recruitment of linguistic material to enrich the lexicon” (Hopper & Traugott 1993)(Hopper & Traugott 1993)

““today’s grammar may become tomorrow’s lexicon” today’s grammar may become tomorrow’s lexicon” (Ramat 1992)(Ramat 1992)

Dependent on one’s definition of lexiconDependent on one’s definition of lexicon Definition adopted here: Brinton & Traugott 2005Definition adopted here: Brinton & Traugott 2005““[…] the view that the lexicon does not exist solely of a list […] the view that the lexicon does not exist solely of a list

of discrete and fully fixed items but represents a of discrete and fully fixed items but represents a continuum from more to less fixed, from more to less fully continuum from more to less fixed, from more to less fully conventionalized, and from more to less productive items. conventionalized, and from more to less productive items. […] the continuum models of the lexical / grammatical […] the continuum models of the lexical / grammatical split and of the lexicon fit better with the historical facts split and of the lexicon fit better with the historical facts of change, which is often (though not always) gradual in of change, which is often (though not always) gradual in the sense that change occurs by very small steps.the sense that change occurs by very small steps.

ContraContra GL conception of grammatical categories as GL conception of grammatical categories as discrete entitiesdiscrete entities


Subtypes of Subtypes of lexicalizationlexicalization Function wordsFunction words

– Pros en consPros en cons– [Shaved her legs and then] he was a she[Shaved her legs and then] he was a she (L. Reed) (L. Reed)

SuffixesSuffixes– ologies ologies (object of study, cf, (object of study, cf, sociologysociology))– isms isms (ideology, cf. (ideology, cf. communismcommunism))

phrasesphrases– forget-me-notforget-me-not– has-beenhas-been– no-showno-show

acronymsacronyms– sms’essms’es– nimbynimby


Lexicalization vs Lexicalization vs grammaticalizationgrammaticalization Lehmann 2002: e.g. transition N > P is Lehmann 2002: e.g. transition N > P is

first and foremost a case of lexicalization first and foremost a case of lexicalization with subsequent grammaticalizationwith subsequent grammaticalization

Antilla 1989: grammaticalization involves Antilla 1989: grammaticalization involves lexicalization (e.g. by adding P’s to the lexicalization (e.g. by adding P’s to the lexicon)lexicon)

Sum: lexicalization is concomitant with, Sum: lexicalization is concomitant with, but but neitherneither congruent with congruent with nornor opposite opposite to grammaticalizationto grammaticalization


Lexicalization vs Lexicalization vs degrammaticalizationdegrammaticalization Ramat 1992: lexicalization = Ramat 1992: lexicalization =

degrammaticalizationdegrammaticalization What is meant is: lexicalization of What is meant is: lexicalization of

affixes (affixes (ismsisms etc.) etc.) However: this is just one type of However: this is just one type of

lexicalizationlexicalization Sum: lexicalization is concomitant, but Sum: lexicalization is concomitant, but

not synonymous, with not synonymous, with degrammaticalizationdegrammaticalization


GGrammaticalirammaticalizzationation vs vs dedeggrammaticalirammaticalizzationation: : differencesdifferences Directionality:Directionality: Based on: the cline of grammaticalityBased on: the cline of grammaticalitycontent item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix Frequency, or grammaticalization : Frequency, or grammaticalization :

degrammaticalization ratiodegrammaticalization ratio– 100:1100:1 (Haspelmath 1999:1046) (Haspelmath 1999:1046)– 10:1 10:1 (Newmeyer 1998:275f.; includes lexicalization)(Newmeyer 1998:275f.; includes lexicalization)

““Homogeneity” (gz) vs. heterogeneity (degz)Homogeneity” (gz) vs. heterogeneity (degz) Degree of acceptance in grammaticalization Degree of acceptance in grammaticalization

studiesstudies Presence versus absence of a “domino effect”Presence versus absence of a “domino effect” Potential for new categoriesPotential for new categories


Grammaticalization vs Grammaticalization vs degrammaticalization: degrammaticalization: ssimilaritiesimilarities GradualnessGradualness LayeringLayering Preservation of constructional Preservation of constructional

identityidentity Pragmatic inferencingPragmatic inferencing


THE STATUS OF THE STATUS OF DEGRAMMATICALIZATIODEGRAMMATICALIZATIO

NN


Positions Positions contracontra

““[…] no cogent examples of […] no cogent examples of degrammaticalization have been degrammaticalization have been found. (found. (LehLehmann 1995 [1982])mann 1995 [1982])

““Degrammatikalisierung gibt es in der Degrammatikalisierung gibt es in der Tat praktisch nicht” (Lehmann website Tat praktisch nicht” (Lehmann website 2005)2005)

““statistically insignificant” (statistically insignificant” (Heine, Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991)Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991)

““statistically insignificant” statistically insignificant” (Heine & (Heine & Kuteva 2002)Kuteva 2002)


ContraContra continued continued

““[…] in some cases, the enthusiasm for […] in some cases, the enthusiasm for challenging the unidirectionality challenging the unidirectionality hypothesis appears to have led to an hypothesis appears to have led to an interpretation of data that is certainly interpretation of data that is certainly open to criticism” (Börjars 2003:133f.).”open to criticism” (Börjars 2003:133f.).”

““I argue that changes like [the most I argue that changes like [the most cited degrammaticalizations MN] are cited degrammaticalizations MN] are not degrammaticalizations,but ordinary not degrammaticalizations,but ordinary analogical changes”analogical changes” (Kiparsky in prep.) (Kiparsky in prep.)


Positions Positions propro

““My sense is that such phenomena My sense is that such phenomena are rampant”are rampant” (Newmeyer 1998:263) (Newmeyer 1998:263)

““Some counter examples do exist. Some counter examples do exist. Their existence, and their relative Their existence, and their relative infrequency, in fact help define our infrequency, in fact help define our notion of what prototypical notion of what prototypical grammaticalization is.”grammaticalization is.” (Hopper & (Hopper & Traugott 1993:126; 2003:132)Traugott 1993:126; 2003:132)


Pro continuedPro continued

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


CASE STUDIES: CASE STUDIES: OVERVIEWOVERVIEW


Basis for analysis: Basis for analysis: Lehmann’s parametersLehmann’s parameters

paradigmaticparadigmatic syntagmaticsyntagmatic

weightweight integrityintegrity structural structural scopescope

cohesioncohesion paradigmaticitparadigmaticityy

bondednessbondedness

variabilityvariability paradigmatic paradigmatic variabilityvariability

syntagmatic syntagmatic variability variability


Parameters of Parameters of degrammaticalizationdegrammaticalization Integrity: Integrity: resemanticizationresemanticization and and phonetic phonetic

“strengthening”“strengthening” Paradigmaticity: Paradigmaticity: deparadigmaticization, deparadigmaticization,

recategorializationrecategorialization Paradigmatic variability: Paradigmatic variability:

deobligatorificationdeobligatorification Structural scope: Structural scope: scope expansionscope expansion Bondedness: Bondedness: decreased bondednessdecreased bondedness Syntagmatic variability: Syntagmatic variability: increased increased

syntactic freedomsyntactic freedom


Word of cautionWord of caution

Not all degrammaticalization parameters Not all degrammaticalization parameters apply to all types or examples of apply to all types or examples of degrammaticalization!degrammaticalization!

But then: neither do all grammaticalization But then: neither do all grammaticalization parameters apply to all parameters apply to all grammaticalizationsgrammaticalizations

Remember KuryRemember Kuryłłowicz’s definition:owicz’s definition:““Grammaticalization consists in the increase of the Grammaticalization consists in the increase of the

range of a morpheme advancing from a range of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to lexical to a grammatical a grammatical or or from a less grammatical to a from a less grammatical to a more grammatical statusmore grammatical status.” (.” (Kuryłowicz 1975 Kuryłowicz 1975 [1965][1965]))


Examples of Examples of degrammaticalizationdegrammaticalization 11 Estonian *‑(Estonian *‑(koko)s > )s > eses (question (question

particle) and *‑particle) and *‑papa > > epep (emphasis (emphasis marker)marker)

Irish 1st person plural subject Irish 1st person plural subject suffix -suffix -muidmuid > independent > independent pronoun pronoun muidmuid

Dutch / German / Frisian –Dutch / German / Frisian –tigtig / ‑ / ‑zigzig / / ‑‑tichtich ‘‑ty’ > indefinite numeral ‘‑ty’ > indefinite numeral tigtig / / zigzig / / tich tich ‘umpteen’‘umpteen’


Examples of Examples of degrammaticalizationdegrammaticalization 22 Japanese connectives (from Japanese connectives (from

enclitic particle to free enclitic particle to free morpheme)morpheme)

Pennsylvania German modal Pennsylvania German modal auxiliary auxiliary wottewotte ‘would’ > lexical ‘would’ > lexical verb verb wottewotte wish’ wish’

English infinitival English infinitival toto Bulgarian Bulgarian neštonešto ‘something’ > ‘something’ >

‘thing’‘thing’


Examples of Examples of degrammaticalization degrammaticalization 33 Welsh Welsh eiddoeiddo ‘his > property’ ‘his > property’ Welsh P Welsh P yn ol yn ol ‘after’‘after’ -> -> VV nôl nôl > >

‘fetch’‘fetch’ Saame Saame tagataga: abessive suffix > : abessive suffix >

(semi-enclitic) postposition(semi-enclitic) postposition


ScandinavianScandinavian examples examples

English and Mainland Scandinavian English and Mainland Scandinavian MASC/NEUT.SG.GEN -MASC/NEUT.SG.GEN -(e)s(e)s > enclitic s- > enclitic s-genitivegenitive

Old Swedish MASK.SG.NOM –Old Swedish MASK.SG.NOM –erer > Modern > Modern Swedish nominalization suffix, e.g. Swedish nominalization suffix, e.g. en en dummerdummer ‘a stupid person’ ‘a stupid person’

Old Swedish NEUT.PL.NOM/ACC –Old Swedish NEUT.PL.NOM/ACC –onon > “berry- > “berry-name suffix” as in name suffix” as in hallonhallon ‘raspberry) > count ‘raspberry) > count noun derivation suffix, e.g. noun derivation suffix, e.g. päronpäron ‘pear’ ‘pear’

Norwegian infinitival Norwegian infinitival åå (from proclitic to free (from proclitic to free complementizercomplementizer


IntegrityIntegrity

ResemanticizationResemanticization– Pennsylvania German Pennsylvania German wotte, wotte, modal modal

‘would’ -> full verb ‘to wish’‘would’ -> full verb ‘to wish’ Phonetic strengtheningPhonetic strengthening

– Dutch Dutch tigtig ‘-ty’ (with schwa) -> ‘-ty’ (with schwa) -> indefinite numeral indefinite numeral tigtig ‘umpteen’ ‘umpteen’ (with full vowel)(with full vowel)


ParadigmaticityParadigmaticity

No examples from Scandinavian (thus far)No examples from Scandinavian (thus far) Deparadigmaticization: shift from (relatively) Deparadigmaticization: shift from (relatively)

closed category to more open categoryclosed category to more open category– Welsh Welsh eiddoeiddo, from pronoun ‘his’ to noun ‘property’, from pronoun ‘his’ to noun ‘property’

Recategorialization: acquisition of Recategorialization: acquisition of grammatical properties such as inflectiongrammatical properties such as inflection– Pennsylvania Pennsylvania wottewotte ‘wish’ is inflected as a verb ‘wish’ is inflected as a verb

(e.g. past part. (e.g. past part. gewottgewott) and may be governed by ) and may be governed by auxiliaries (auxiliaries (ich muss wotteich muss wotte ‘I must wish’) ‘I must wish’)


Paradigmatic Paradigmatic variabilityvariability Deobligatorification: becoming less Deobligatorification: becoming less

obligatory in specific grammatical obligatory in specific grammatical contextscontexts– Old Swedish NOM.SG.MASC. –Old Swedish NOM.SG.MASC. –erer, ,

obligatory when nouns / adjectives obligatory when nouns / adjectives refer to NOM.SG.MASC entities, not refer to NOM.SG.MASC entities, not obligatory when used in Modern obligatory when used in Modern Swedish as nominalization suffix:Swedish as nominalization suffix:

mykilhughæþmykilhughæþærær maðþmaðþærær ‘proud man’ (Osw)‘proud man’ (Osw) en dummen dummerer ‘a stupid person’ (MoSw) ~ ‘a stupid person’ (MoSw) ~ en dum en dum

person, ett dumhuvud, en dummerjönsperson, ett dumhuvud, en dummerjöns etc etc etc etc


Structural scopeStructural scope

Scope in grammaticalization: reduction Scope in grammaticalization: reduction or expansion?or expansion?

Scope in degrammaticalization: mostly Scope in degrammaticalization: mostly expansionexpansion– Old Swedish GEN.SG.MASC -Old Swedish GEN.SG.MASC -ss only has N or only has N or

A stem as its scope, Modern Swedish s-A stem as its scope, Modern Swedish s-genitive full NPgenitive full NP

enenss salog salogss man manzz munne munne (OSw)(OSw)‘‘a blessed man’s mouth’a blessed man’s mouth’ [en salig man][en salig man]ss mun mun (MoSw)(MoSw)‘‘[a blessed man]’s mouth’[a blessed man]’s mouth’ [en äldre man ja [en äldre man ja [sic][sic] känner] känner]ss gamla hund gamla hund‘‘[an elderly man I know]’s old dog[an elderly man I know]’s old dog


BondednessBondedness

Shift from right to left on cline of Shift from right to left on cline of grammaticality always involves grammaticality always involves decreased bondednessdecreased bondedness– Norwegian infinitive marker: from Norwegian infinitive marker: from

enclitic to free morphemeenclitic to free morpheme Intje Intje aa aa faa Qvile tyktes haam for leitfaa Qvile tyktes haam for leit‘‘Not to get rest seemed him too hard’ (EMoNo)Not to get rest seemed him too hard’ (EMoNo) Du skal lova å ikkje drikkaDu skal lova å ikkje drikka (MoNo) (MoNo)‘‘You shall promise to not drink’You shall promise to not drink’ Du skal lova ikkje å drikkaDu skal lova ikkje å drikka‘‘You shall promise not to drink’You shall promise not to drink’


Syntagmatic variabilitySyntagmatic variability

Decreased bondedness goes hand Decreased bondedness goes hand in hand with increased syntactic in hand with increased syntactic freedom (when a bound morpheme freedom (when a bound morpheme becomes a free morpheme)becomes a free morpheme)– Infinitive marker Infinitive marker toto in American in American

EnglishEnglish It’s going to be hard to not take adviceIt’s going to be hard to not take advice It’s going to be hard not to take adviceIt’s going to be hard not to take advice


CASE STUDIES: THE S-CASE STUDIES: THE S-GENITIVEGENITIVE


The history of the The history of the Swedish s-genitiveSwedish s-genitive Norde 2006: three stagesNorde 2006: three stages Stage 1: word-marking inflectionStage 1: word-marking inflection

– ens riks mans hwsens riks mans hws Bild 642Bild 642

‘‘a rich man’s house’a rich man’s house’ Stage 2: phrase-marking inflectionStage 2: phrase-marking inflection

– mangen riddaris blod mangen riddaris blod Did 10Did 10

‘‘the blood of many a knight’the blood of many a knight’ Stage 3: cliticStage 3: clitic

– personen du pratar meds mobil (@)personen du pratar meds mobil (@)

‘‘the person you’re talking to’s mobile phone’the person you’re talking to’s mobile phone’


The DP in Old Swedish The DP in Old Swedish (Delsing 1991)(Delsing 1991)

DPDP

SPECSPEC D’D’

DD NPNP

PossPoss N’N’

konungsenskonungsensii ttii hus hus


The DP in Modern The DP in Modern SwedishSwedish

DPDP

SPECSPEC D’D’

DD NPNP

PossPoss N’N’

konungenkonungenii -s-s ttii hus hus


Compare: DP in DutchCompare: DP in Dutch

DPDP

SPECSPEC D’D’

DD NPNP

PossPoss N’N’

de koningde koningii -z’n-z’n ttii huis huis


The s-genitive and The s-genitive and Lehmann’s parametersLehmann’s parameters IntegrityIntegrity

– resemanticization: resemanticization: – phonetic strengthening: (phonetic strengthening: ())

ParadigmaticityParadigmaticity– deparadigmaticization: deparadigmaticization: – recategorialization: -recategorialization: -

Paradigmatic variabilityParadigmatic variability– deobligatorification: deobligatorification:


S-genitive continuedS-genitive continued

Structural scopeStructural scope– scope expansion: scope expansion:

Bondedness:Bondedness:– decreased bondedness: decreased bondedness:

Syntagmatic variabilitySyntagmatic variability– increased syntactic freedom: increased syntactic freedom:


CASE STUDIES: FROM CASE STUDIES: FROM INFLECTION TO INFLECTION TO

DERIVATIONDERIVATION


Case study 2: from Case study 2: from inflection to derivationinflection to derivation Old Swedish Old Swedish MASK.SG.NOMMASK.SG.NOM – –erer > Modern > Modern

Swedish nominalization suffix, e.g. Swedish nominalization suffix, e.g. en en dummerdummer ‘a stupid person’ ‘a stupid person’

Old Swedish Old Swedish NEUT.PL.NOM/ACCNEUT.PL.NOM/ACC – –onon > “berry- > “berry-name suffix” as in name suffix” as in hallonhallon ‘raspberry’) > ‘raspberry’) > count noun derivation suffix, e.g. count noun derivation suffix, e.g. päronpäron ‘pear’‘pear’

Swedish Swedish NEUT.SG NEUT.SG ––t > t > adverbial –adverbial –tt : : examples of derived adverbs without examples of derived adverbs without adjectival counterpart, e.g. adjectival counterpart, e.g. enbartenbart ‘only’ ‘only’ (*(*enbarenbar))


--ERER

Stage 1: MASC.SG.NOM suffix (N / A)Stage 1: MASC.SG.NOM suffix (N / A)– mykilhughæþmykilhughæþær ær maðþmaðþær ær oc girughoc girughærær ((Vidh 14Vidh 14))– en blinderen blinder

Stage 2: expansion to other genders and Stage 2: expansion to other genders and syntactic funtionssyntactic funtions– Judith var en rikJudith var en riker er änkaänka– Hyrde sig en svartHyrde sig en svarter er rockrock (Bellman) (Bellman)

Stage 3: in adjectival noun constructions > Stage 3: in adjectival noun constructions > derivational suffix: derivational suffix: en dummeren dummer ’a stupid ’a stupid person’, person’, slarvern slarvern ’the careless one’’the careless one’


--ONON

Stage 1: PL.NOM/ACC of weak neuter Stage 1: PL.NOM/ACC of weak neuter nouns ending in –nouns ending in –aa: : hihiūponūpon (MoSw (MoSw nyponnypon) ) ‘rosehips’, ‘rosehips’, smultronsmultron ‘wild strawberries’ ‘wild strawberries’

Stage 2: -Stage 2: -onon reinterpreted as ‘berry- reinterpreted as ‘berry-suffix’, expanding to suffix’, expanding to hallonhallon ( (hallbhallbärär) ) ’raspberry / -ies’; ’raspberry / -ies’; hallhall `s`stony ground’, tony ground’, lingon lingon ((linglingbbärär) ’lingonberry / -ies’< ) ’lingonberry / -ies’< **lingwa lingwa ((ljungljung) ’heather’ (mostly plural)) ’heather’ (mostly plural)

Stage 3: count nouns in the singular: Stage 3: count nouns in the singular: ppäronäron ’pear’ ’pear’


Inflection vs Inflection vs derivation: clinesderivation: clines The cline of grammaticalityThe cline of grammaticalitycontent item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional

affixaffix

motmot (N) (N) > mot > mot (P) (P)

‘‘meeting’ > ‘against’meeting’ > ‘against’

hin > in > -inhin > in > -in DEMONSTRATIVE > CLITIC > DEFINITE SUFFIXDEMONSTRATIVE > CLITIC > DEFINITE SUFFIX

The cline of lexicalityThe cline of lexicalitypart of phrase > part of compound > derivational affixpart of phrase > part of compound > derivational affix

manz lik > man(z)lik > manligmanz lik > man(z)lik > manlig

‘‘a man’s body’ > ‘man’s body’ > ‘masculine’a man’s body’ > ‘man’s body’ > ‘masculine’


Life after derivationLife after derivation

Derivational affixesDerivational affixes fossilizefossilize

– PGmc –PGmc –mm to derive agent nouns from verbs: to derive agent nouns from verbs: bloebloem m ‘flower’‘flower’, stor, storm m ‘storm’‘storm’, hel, helmm ‘helmet’ (cf. MoDu ‘helmet’ (cf. MoDu verbs verbs bloeienbloeien ‘to bloom’ ‘to bloom’, storen, storen ‘to disturb’ ‘to disturb’, helen, helen ‘(older): ‘to cover’)‘(older): ‘to cover’)

lexicalizelexicalize– Fascism and other Fascism and other ismsisms– Juices and Juices and adesades (< (< LemonadeLemonade))

degrammaticalizedegrammaticalize– Du Du tigtig ‘umpteen’ (< - ‘umpteen’ (< -tigtig ‘ty’ as in ‘ty’ as in twintigtwintig ’20’ etc.) ’20’ etc.)

become inflectionalbecome inflectional


Life after inflectionLife after inflection

Inflectional affixes:Inflectional affixes: become –become –øø

– most nominal and verbal suffixes in Englishmost nominal and verbal suffixes in English fossilize (hardly)fossilize (hardly)

– Du Du schoeschoenn (< (< PLPL of of schoeschoe ‘shoe’) ‘shoe’) degrammaticalizedegrammaticalize

– Eng / ContScand enclitic s-genitiveEng / ContScand enclitic s-genitive do do notnot lexicalize lexicalize become derivationalbecome derivational


(From derivation to (From derivation to inflection)inflection) MORE COMMON:MORE COMMON: Old Norse derivational –Old Norse derivational –stst > MoScand > MoScand

inflectional –inflectional –s(t) s(t) – Evidence for derivational status, e.g. word-Evidence for derivational status, e.g. word-

class changing class changing stst-verbs in ON, e.g. V -verbs in ON, e.g. V fyrnastfyrnast ‘age, become older’ < Adj ‘age, become older’ < Adj fornforn ‘old’‘old’

English adverbial –English adverbial –lyly (productive and (productive and obligatory)obligatory)


The diachrony of The diachrony of derivationderivation1.1. Derivational affixes: grammaticalization or Derivational affixes: grammaticalization or

lexicalization (= creation of new lexemes)?lexicalization (= creation of new lexemes)? Pro-lexicalization: new items are added to Pro-lexicalization: new items are added to

the lexiconthe lexicon– but:but: derived item as a whole is added, not derived item as a whole is added, not

derivational suffix itselfderivational suffix itself Pro-grammaticalization: derivational Pro-grammaticalization: derivational

afffixes have many characteristics of afffixes have many characteristics of grammaticalized itemsgrammaticalized items– notable exception: they do not become part of notable exception: they do not become part of

a paradigma paradigm


DerDeriivational suffixes: vational suffixes: grammaticalization?grammaticalization? Grammaticalization properties (Heine / Grammaticalization properties (Heine /

Kuteva 2002) and Swedish –Kuteva 2002) and Swedish –lig lig (e.g. (e.g. ljuvlig ljuvlig ‘lovely) <‘lovely) < lik lik ‘body’ ‘body’– 1: Desemanticization or semantic bleaching 1: Desemanticization or semantic bleaching loss loss

of (concrete) meaning: of (concrete) meaning: meaning ‘body’ is lostmeaning ‘body’ is lost

– 2: Extension or context generalization 2: Extension or context generalization use in new use in new contexts: contexts:

--liglig can derive Adj from V: can derive Adj from V: trotro ‘believe’ > ‘believe’ > troligtrolig ‘conceivable’‘conceivable’

– 3: Decategorialization 3: Decategorialization loss of morphosyntactic loss of morphosyntactic properties (e.g. inflection): properties (e.g. inflection):

– 4: Erosion or phonetic reduction 4: Erosion or phonetic reduction loss of phonetic loss of phonetic substance: substance:


Concluding remarks on Concluding remarks on derivationderivation Possible solution to reconcile Possible solution to reconcile

opposite views: derivational affix opposite views: derivational affix is grammaticalized item which is grammaticalized item which itself is involved in a lexicalization itself is involved in a lexicalization processprocess

Himmelmann 2004: lexicalization Himmelmann 2004: lexicalization is a process is a process sui generissui generis


From derivation to From derivation to inflection and vice inflection and vice versaversa2.2. If derivational affixes and If derivational affixes and

inflectional affixes develop along inflectional affixes develop along different clines, how can they different clines, how can they form a continuum?form a continuum?


ProposalProposal

Extended cline of lexicality:Extended cline of lexicality:

phrase > compound > derivation phrase > compound > derivation affix > inherent inflection affix > affix > inherent inflection affix > inflection affixinflection affix


--ERER and Lehmann’s and Lehmann’s parametersparameters IntegrityIntegrity

– resemanticization: resemanticization: – phonetic strengthening: phonetic strengthening: --




--ERER continued continued

Structural scopeStructural scope– scope expansion: scope expansion: --

Bondedness:Bondedness:– decreased bondedness: decreased bondedness: --

Syntagmatic variabilitySyntagmatic variability– increased syntactic freedom: increased syntactic freedom: --


--ON ON and Lehmann’s and Lehmann’s parametersparameters IntegrityIntegrity

– resemanticization: resemanticization: – phonetic strengthening: phonetic strengthening: --




--ONON continued continued

Structural scopeStructural scope– scope expansion: scope expansion: --

Bondedness:Bondedness:– decreased bondedness: decreased bondedness: --

Syntagmatic variabilitySyntagmatic variability– increased syntactic freedom: increased syntactic freedom: --


Case study 3: Norwegian Case study 3: Norwegian å å and Lehmann’s and Lehmann’s parametersparameters IntegrityIntegrity

– resemanticization: -resemanticization: -– phonetic strengthening: -phonetic strengthening: -

ParadigmaticityParadigmaticity– deparadigmaticization: -deparadigmaticization: -– recategorialization: -recategorialization: -

Paradigmatic variabilityParadigmatic variability– deobligatorification: -deobligatorification: -


Norwegian Norwegian åå continued continued

Structural scopeStructural scope– scope expansion: scope expansion:

Du skal lova å [ikkje drikka]Du skal lova å [ikkje drikka]

‘‘You shall promise to not drink’You shall promise to not drink’

Bondedness:Bondedness:– decreased bondedness: decreased bondedness:

Syntagmatic variabilitySyntagmatic variability– increased syntactic freedom: increased syntactic freedom:


THEORETICAL THEORETICAL DISCUSSIONDISCUSSION


EvaluationEvaluation

Syntagmatic parameters appear Syntagmatic parameters appear to be more relevant in to be more relevant in the the degrammaticalization degrammaticalization of bound of bound morphemes morphemes than paradigmatic than paradigmatic parametersparameters

A “process of A “process of degrammaticalization” cannot be degrammaticalization” cannot be identifiedidentified


Process problemProcess problem

Grammaticalization (Heine / Kuteva 2002):Grammaticalization (Heine / Kuteva 2002):– 1: Desemanticization or semantic bleaching 1: Desemanticization or semantic bleaching

loss of (concrete) meaningloss of (concrete) meaning– 2: Extension or context generalization 2: Extension or context generalization use in use in

new contextsnew contexts– 3: Decategorialization 3: Decategorialization loss of loss of

morphosyntactic properties (e.g. inflection)morphosyntactic properties (e.g. inflection)– 4: Erosion or phonetic reduction 4: Erosion or phonetic reduction loss of loss of

phonetic substancephonetic substance Degrammaticalization: ???Degrammaticalization: ???


Causes of dgzCauses of dgz

Loss of inflectional categoriesLoss of inflectional categories ““Paradigm pressure”Paradigm pressure” AnalogyAnalogy Boundary shift as result of Boundary shift as result of

phonological changesphonological changes Extralinguistic factorsExtralinguistic factors Syntactic homonymySyntactic homonymy


ConclusionsConclusions

Much of the terminological confusion is rooted in Much of the terminological confusion is rooted in the common (implicit) assumption that dgz is a the common (implicit) assumption that dgz is a process. It seems more appropriate however to process. It seems more appropriate however to view dgz as the view dgz as the resultresult of (a variety of) other of (a variety of) other processesprocesses

Degrammaticalizations appear less consistent Degrammaticalizations appear less consistent with respect to Lehmann’s parameters than with respect to Lehmann’s parameters than grammaticalizationsgrammaticalizations

The reason why it so rare is that the The reason why it so rare is that the circumstances under which a grammatical form circumstances under which a grammatical form can be interpreted as a less grammatical form can be interpreted as a less grammatical form rarely occur. Furthermore, in the case of affixal rarely occur. Furthermore, in the case of affixal degrammaticalization, a prerequisite appears to degrammaticalization, a prerequisite appears to be some kind of structural collapse (Plank’ (1995): be some kind of structural collapse (Plank’ (1995): SystemstörungSystemstörung))


ConclusionsConclusions

Degrammaticalization is not the mirror-image Degrammaticalization is not the mirror-image of grammaticalization, i.e. of grammaticalization, i.e. degrammaticalization changes do not reflect degrammaticalization changes do not reflect the reverse order of the opposites of the the reverse order of the opposites of the grammaticalization mechanisms. Therefore, grammaticalization mechanisms. Therefore, the only defining characteristic of the only defining characteristic of degrammaticalization is a shift to one degrammaticalization is a shift to one position further to the left on the cline of position further to the left on the cline of grammaticality.grammaticality.

The very existence of degrammaticalizations The very existence of degrammaticalizations implies that there are no “universals of implies that there are no “universals of grammatical change” and should caution us grammatical change” and should caution us against making uncritical reconstructionsagainst making uncritical reconstructions


THANK YOUTHANK YOU

This presentation will soon be This presentation will soon be downloadable from:downloadable from:

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~norde/http://odur.let.rug.nl/~norde/downloadables.htmdownloadables.htm

DEGRAMMATICALIZATION IN SCANDINAVIAN Muriel Norde University of Groningen...

Documents

Transcript of DEGRAMMATICALIZATION IN SCANDINAVIAN Muriel Norde University of Groningen...