Docstoc

Lehmann parameters

Document Sample
Lehmann parameters Powered By Docstoc
					DEGRAMMATICALIZATION
   IN SCANDINAVIAN
            Muriel Norde
       University of Groningen

Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, January 24th,,
                     2007
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            2
THEORETICAL
PRELIMINARIES


    Freiburg 24-01-2007   3
Definitions

   grammaticalization
   degrammaticalization
   antigrammaticalization
   lexicalization




                   Freiburg 24-01-2007   4
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           5
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          6
3 types of
degrammaticalization
    Three types identified by Henning
     Andersen
1.   Degrammation: a grammatical item becomes a
     lexical item through pragmatic inferencing e.g.
     Welsh eiddo: ‘his’ (PRO) > ‘property’(N)
2.   Upgrading: decreased boundedness going hand in
     hand with sematic enrichment (s-genitive)
3.   Emancipation: a bound morpheme becomes less
     bound, without any changes to its semantics
     (t.ex. Norwegian å: from clitic to free morpheme)
                       Freiburg 24-01-2007               7
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                   8
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             9
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          10
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         11
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              12
Grammaticalization vs
degrammaticalization:
similarities
   Gradualness
   Layering
   Preservation of constructional identity
   Pragmatic inferencing




                    Freiburg 24-01-2007       13
   THE STATUS OF
DEGRAMMATICALIZATION



       Freiburg 24-01-2007   14
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           15
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          16
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   17
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          18
CASE STUDIES:
  OVERVIEW

    Freiburg 24-01-2007   19
Basis for analysis:
Lehmann’s parameters
              paradigmatic               syntagmatic


weight        integrity                  structural scope


cohesion      paradigmaticity            bondedness


variability   paradigmatic               syntagmatic
              variability                variability
                   Freiburg 24-01-2007                      20
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            21
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         22
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        23
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      24
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        25
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         26
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           27
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           28
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:
          mykilhughæþær maðþær ‘proud man’ (Osw)
          en dummer ‘a stupid person’ (MoSw) ~ en dum
           person, ett dumhuvud, en dummerjöns etc etc
                           Freiburg 24-01-2007           29
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         30
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       31
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         32
CASE STUDIES: THE S-
      GENITIVE

        Freiburg 24-01-2007   33
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     34
The DP in Old Swedish
(Delsing 1991)
        DP


SPEC              D’

              D                     NP

                  Poss                            N’

konungsensi            ti                         hus

                            Freiburg 24-01-2007         35
The DP in Modern
Swedish
       DP


SPEC             D’

            D                      NP

                 Poss                            N’

konungeni   -s        ti                         hus

                           Freiburg 24-01-2007         36
Compare: DP in Dutch
             DP


SPEC                D’

             D                        NP

                    Poss                            N’

de koningi   -z’n        ti                         huis

                              Freiburg 24-01-2007          37
The s-genitive and
Lehmann’s parameters
   Integrity
    – resemanticization: 
    – phonetic strengthening: ()
   Paradigmaticity
    – deparadigmaticization: 
    – recategorialization: -
   Paradigmatic variability
    – deobligatorification: 
                      Freiburg 24-01-2007   38
S-genitive continued

   Structural scope
    – scope expansion: 
   Bondedness:
    – decreased bondedness: 
   Syntagmatic variability
    – increased syntactic freedom: 


                    Freiburg 24-01-2007   39
CASE STUDIES: FROM
   INFLECTION TO
    DERIVATION


       Freiburg 24-01-2007   40
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       41
-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          42
-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       43
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                       44
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                     45
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       46
(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               47
The diachrony of
derivation
1.   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           48
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                           49
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       50
From derivation to
inflection and vice versa
2.   If derivational affixes and inflectional
     affixes develop along different clines,
     how can they form a continuum?




                    Freiburg 24-01-2007         51
Proposal

   Extended cline of lexicality:

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



                    Freiburg 24-01-2007   52
-ER and Lehmann’s
parameters
   Integrity
    – resemanticization: 
    – phonetic strengthening: -
   Paradigmaticity
    – deparadigmaticization: 
    – recategorialization: -
   Paradigmatic variability
    – deobligatorification: 
                      Freiburg 24-01-2007   53
-ER continued

   Structural scope
    – scope expansion: -
   Bondedness:
    – decreased bondedness: -
   Syntagmatic variability
    – increased syntactic freedom: -


                     Freiburg 24-01-2007   54
-ON and Lehmann’s
parameters
   Integrity
    – resemanticization: 
    – phonetic strengthening: -
   Paradigmaticity
    – deparadigmaticization: 
    – recategorialization: -
   Paradigmatic variability
    – deobligatorification: 
                      Freiburg 24-01-2007   55
-ON continued

   Structural scope
    – scope expansion: -
   Bondedness:
    – decreased bondedness: -
   Syntagmatic variability
    – increased syntactic freedom: -


                     Freiburg 24-01-2007   56
Case study 3: Norwegian å
and Lehmann’s parameters
   Integrity
    – resemanticization: -
    – phonetic strengthening: -
   Paradigmaticity
    – deparadigmaticization: -
    – recategorialization: -
   Paradigmatic variability
    – deobligatorification: -
                      Freiburg 24-01-2007   57
Norwegian å continued

   Structural scope
    – scope expansion: 
          Du skal lova å [ikkje drikka]
       ‘You shall promise to not drink’
   Bondedness:
    – decreased bondedness: 
   Syntagmatic variability
    – increased syntactic freedom: 
                          Freiburg 24-01-2007   58
THEORETICAL
 DISCUSSION

    Freiburg 24-01-2007   59
Evaluation
   Syntagmatic parameters appear to be
    more relevant in the
    degrammaticalization of bound
    morphemes than paradigmatic
    parameters
   A “process of degrammaticalization”
    cannot be identified



                  Freiburg 24-01-2007     60
Process problem

   Grammaticalization (Heine / Kuteva 2002):
    – 1: Desemanticization or semantic bleaching 
      loss of (concrete) meaning
    – 2: Extension or context generalization  use in
      new contexts
    – 3: Decategorialization  loss of
      morphosyntactic properties (e.g. inflection)
    – 4: Erosion or phonetic reduction  loss of
      phonetic substance
   Degrammaticalization: ???
                       Freiburg 24-01-2007          61
Causes of dgz

   Loss of inflectional categories
   “Paradigm pressure”
   Analogy
   Boundary shift as result of
    phonological changes
   Extralinguistic factors
   Syntactic homonymy
                    Freiburg 24-01-2007   62
Conclusions
   Much of the terminological confusion is rooted in
    the common (implicit) assumption that dgz is a
    process. It seems more appropriate however to
    view dgz as the result of (a variety of) other
    processes
   Degrammaticalizations appear less consistent with
    respect to Lehmann’s parameters than
    grammaticalizations
   The reason why it so rare is that the circumstances
    under which a grammatical form can be interpreted
    as a less grammatical form rarely occur.
    Furthermore, in the case of affixal
    degrammaticalization, a prerequisite appears to be
    some kind of structural collapse (Plank’ (1995):
    Systemstörung)       Freiburg 24-01-2007           63
Conclusions
   Degrammaticalization is not the mirror-image of
    grammaticalization, i.e. degrammaticalization
    changes do not reflect the reverse order of the
    opposites of the grammaticalization mechanisms.
    Therefore, the only defining characteristic of
    degrammaticalization is a shift to one position
    further to the left on the cline of grammaticality.
   The very existence of degrammaticalizations implies
    that there are no “universals of grammatical
    change” and should caution us against making
    uncritical reconstructions


                        Freiburg 24-01-2007           64
THANK YOU

   This presentation will soon be
    downloadable from:

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



                      Freiburg 24-01-2007         65

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:9/29/2012
language:Unknown
pages:65