faculty of arts university of groningen three common misunderstandings about degrammaticalization...

Faculty of Arts University of Groningen

THREE COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS

ABOUT DEGRAMMATICALIZATION

Muriel Norde

What's new in grammaticalization? 2

Outline

Aims Definitions and other theoretical

preliminaries Misunderstandings Classification of degrammaticalization Case studies Conclusions


Aims


Three misunderstandings

1. Degrammaticalization is, or should be, the “reverse of grammaticalization”

2. Degrammaticalization, unlike grammaticalization, is a mere morphosyntactic change

3. Degrammaticalization, unlike grammaticalization, is exceptional and unclassifiable


Preliminary definition

Based on: the cline of grammaticalitycontent item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix

Degrammaticalization is: a shift from right to left to an adjacent position

As in grammaticalization, the “constructional identity” is preserved


Misunderstanding 1

Degrammaticalization is, or should be, the “reverse of grammaticalization”


Representative quote

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. For instance, a change from a case suffix to a free postposition with the intermediate stage of a postpositional clitic would be an antigrammaticalization

[Haspelmath 2004]


Kinds of reversal

“Mirror-image reversal”[Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994]

“Type reversal” vs “token reversal”[Haspelmath 2004]

“Etymological category reversal” vs “Non-etymological category reversal”[Askedal 2007]


Why there is no token reversal Grammaticalization ~ ageing, erosion “As we grow up, we become taller; in old age, we

may shrink a little. However, we would not expect a child to start becoming shorter and shorter and finally return to its mother’s womb.”

[Dahl: LINGUIST 7.1170 (1996)] Mountains are eroded and washed down to the sea;

mountain-creating mechanisms in no way involve sand grains flowing upstream followed by ‘de-erosion’

[Newmeyer 1998]

TYPE REVERSAL


Why there are no dgz clines

Affixal degrammaticalization is rare for obvious reasons, and a prerequisite appears to be some kind of structural collapse (Plank’ (1995): Systemstörung)

[Norde 2002] A shift from function word to content item is

difficult because the latter (N, V) typically inflect

[Willis 2007, Fortson 2003]


Summary

Degrammaticalization always entails type reversals, not token reversals

There are no degrammaticalization clines Misunderstanding 1 is based on bad (if

any) definition of degrammaticalization Degrammaticalization must be defined as a

single shift from right to left on the cline of grammaticality


Misunderstanding 2

Degrammaticalization, unlike grammaticalization, is a mere

morphosyntactic change


Representative quote

it will be shown that cases of alleged antigrammaticalization [= Haspelmath’s terms for degrammaticalization; MN] at best represent nothing more than an evolution from less to more morphological bonding. I will call such an evolution antimorphologization

[Idiatov, in press]


Decreased bondedness

Shift from right to left on cline of grammaticality always involves decreased bondedness

content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix

In some cases of degrammaticalization, this is indeed all there is to it

In most cases however, semantic change is observed as well


Lehmann’s parameters

paradigmatic syntagmatic

weight integrity structural scope

cohesion paradigmaticity bondedness

variability paradigmatic variability

syntagmatic variability


Lehmann’s parameters in degrammaticalization

Integrity: resemanticization and phonetic “strengthening”

Paradigmaticity: deparadigmaticization, recategorialization

Paradigmatic variability: deobligatorification Structural scope: scope expansion Bondedness: decreased bondedness Syntagmatic variability: increased syntactic

freedom


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]]


Summary

Although decreasing bondedness is a defining characteristic of degrammaticalization, it is, in most cases, by no means the only mechanism involved

Misunderstanding 2 is based on a very limited number of degrammaticalizations, or an erroneous interpretation of them

Degrammaticalizations need to be subdivided into different types (as do, for that matter, grammaticalizations)


Misunderstanding 3

Degrammaticalization, unlike grammaticalization, is exceptional

and unclassifiable


Representative quote The examples of degrammaticalization discussed in the

preceding sections […] are representative of the quality of examples adduced in the literature. One cannot avoid the conclusion that those who wish to argue against unidirectionality of grammaticalization are amazingly sloppy in the selection and analysis of their examples. If one subtracts those alleged examples of degrammaticalization that for one reason or another miss the target, then very few actual cases of degrammaticalization remain. They are not “myriad” (Janda 2001:299), but closer to a proportion of 1 : 99 with historical cases of grammaticalization.

[Lehmann 2004]


The GZ-DGZ ratio “Say in the course of your work you have found 542

changes that confirm a direction, and none that don’t. Question is, 542 out of what? Does a UD-believer’s inability to find the counterexamples, and/or the observed frequency of the confirming instances, reflect a ‘real’ property of the domain or merely the accidental tendentiousness of a chosen database? Note that not finding things is an argumentum ex silentio, which is not at the top of anybody’s hierarchy of epistemic goodness.” [Lass 2000]

Still, we can safely assume that degrammaticalization is (far) less frequent (which does not make it any less interesting)


Summary

Misunderstanding 3 is understandable to some extent as degrammaticalization is indeed less frequent, and less cross-linguistically regular, than grammaticalization

As a result, degrammaticalization is thought to be unclassifiable

A framework for classifying degrammaticalizations needs to be developed


Classifying degrammaticalization Andersen 2006: four levels of observation 1: Content 2: Content syntax 3: Morphosyntax 4: Expression


Changes in content 1.1. Grammation: a change by which an expression

through Reanalysis is ascribed grammatical content (change from any other […] content to grammatical content).

1.2. Regrammation: a change by which a grammatical expression through reanalysis is ascribed different grammatical content (change within and among grammatical paradigms).

1.3. Degrammation: a change by which an expression through reanalysis loses grammatical content (change from grammatical content to other […] content).


Changes in content syntax

2.1. Upgrading: a change from dependent to head or an enlargement of scope scope usually decreases

2.2. Downgrading: a change from head to dependent or a scope diminution


Changes in morphosyntax

3.1. Bond weakening (emancipation) (affix clitic, clitic word, compound word phrase).

3.2. Bond strengthening (integration) (phrase word, word clitic, clitic affix).


Changes in expression

4.1. Reduction. 4.2. Elaboration.


Framework

Classifying degrammaticalizations: Andersen’s model and Lehmann’s

parameters combined


Changes in content

Degrammation: a change by which an expression through reanalysis loses grammatical content (change from grammatical content to other […] content).

PARAMETERS:• resemanticization


Changes in content syntax

Context reduction: use in fewer contexts; scope increases

PARAMETERS:• deparadigmaticization

• deobligatorification

• scope expansion


Changes in morphosyntax

Bond weakening (emancipation) (affix clitic, clitic word, function word lexical item)

PARAMETERS:• decreased bondedness (affix > clitic > unbound

function word)

• increased syntactic freedom (function word > lexical item)

• recategorialization (function word > lexical item)


Changes in expression

Elaboration PARAMETERS:

• phonetic strengthening


Proposal for classification: 3 basic types

Degrammaticalization is observed at the:

1. Content level: shift from grammatical content to lexical content (resemanticization), which goes hand in hand with the acquisition of grammatical features such as inflection (recategorialization)

2. Content-syntactic level: shift from “more grammatical” to “less grammatical”, movement out of inflectional paradigms (deparadigmaticization and deobligatorification) which goes hand in hand with the expansion of syntactic scope

3. Morphosyntactic level: a shift from bound morpheme (affix, clitic) to free morpheme, or an increase in syntactic freedom, without any change in content


Implicational hierarchy A level 1 degrammaticalization also involves

changes at levels 2 and 3 A level 2 degrammaticalization also involves

change at level 3 (i.e. decreased bondedness) but no change at level 1 (i.e. no acquisition of lexical content)

A level 3 degrammaticalization involves no changes at the other levels

Elaboration (phonetic strengthening) may or may not be involved in any of the three types


Selected case studies

1. The s-genitive (English and Continental Scandinavian): word-final affix > phrase-final enclitic determiner

2. Swedish –er: from inflectional case suffix to derivational nominalization suffix

3. Irish muid: from verb suffix to pronoun4. Northern Saami haga: from case suffix to postposition 5. Norwegian infinitival å: from clitic to free morpheme 6. Pennsylvania German wotte: from modal auxiliary to

lexical verb7. Dutch tig / German zig: from numeral suffix to

independent indefinite numeral to intensifying adverb


Classification of case studies

Level 1: Pennsylvania German wotte; first stage of Dutch tig / German zig

Level 2: The s-genitive; Swedish derivative er

Level 3: Irish muid; Northern Saami haga; Norwegian infinitival å

Degrammaticalization: superordinate term


Acceptability

Level 1 degrammaticalization: most acceptable, since it itvolved changes on all levels (cf. misunderstanding 1)

Level 2 degrammaticalization: less acceptable, either because it does not result in lexical items (cf. misunderstanding 1) or is misinterpreted as mere decreased bondedness (cf. misunderstanding 2)

Level 3 degrammaticalization: least acceptable


Conclusions

A cline-based definition of degrammaticalization is insufficient

a more fine-grained framework is needed to describe and classify degrammaticalizations

A better understanding of degrammaticalization and its subtypes will hopefully increase its acceptability as a distinct type of change, instead of being the “leftover crap” of grammaticalization studies


THANK YOU

faculty of arts university of groningen three common misunderstandings about degrammaticalization...

Documents

whats new

potential grammaticalization

type reversal slide

preserved slide

unclassifiable slide

degrammaticalization

summary degrammaticalization

cline of grammaticality