Grammaticalization

1
Grammaticalization
Historical Linguistics
2
Definition
Grammaticalization is the process whereby lexical
items develop into grammatical items and items
that are already grammaticalized assume new
grammatical functions. Hopper and Traugott
1993
3
Language change is a topic that spreads itself
over a wide range of areas.
4
Language change is a topic that spread-s itself
over a wide range of area-s.
is copula
(1) to exist (2) stand / stay / lie (3)
that / it
a indef. article
one (numeral)
that relative pronoun
demonstrative
-s argeement
(1) pronouns (e.g. look-it) (2) auxiliary (e.g.
look-has)
5
Language change is a topic that spread-s itself
over a wide range of area-s.
itself reflexive pro
it self
over preposition
(1) relational nouns in front of
(2) body part term back gt in back of
stomach gt in head gt on
buttock gt under
-s plural marker
dem gt article gt plural marker
6
Therefore a good historical linguist must have a
solid background in all subfields of linguistics.
7
Therefore a good historical linguist must have a
solid background in all subfield-s of
linguistics.
therefore conjunct
there (DEM) fore (P)
must modal
mete to have the opportunity / to
be permitted
8
Indeed, most historical linguists began as
general linguists before they turned to the study
of language change.
9
Indeed, most historical linguist-s began as
general linguist-s before they turn-ed to the
study of language change.
indeed disc. marker
in (P) deed (N)
as conjunction
all so (DEM)
before conjunction
be by (P) fore for (P)
-ed past tense
V-do
the definite article
Þes (DEM)
10
Traditionally, historical linguistics was
primarily concerned with phonological and
morphological change.
11
Traditional-ly, historical linguistics was
primari-ly concern-ed with phonological and
morphological change.
-ly adverb
lic gt appearance / form / body
was auxiliary
copula
with preposition
against
and conjunction
with (P)
12
However, in recent years the focus has shifted
onto syntax and the development of grammar.
13
However, in recent year-s the focus has shift-ed
onto syntax and the development of grammar.
however conjunct
how ever
has auxiliary
to possess (V)
onto preposition
on to
14
Grammaticalization has become a central topic for
anybody who is interested in language change
because it challenges central assumptions of
linguistic theory.
15
Grammaticalization has become a central topic for
anybody who is interest-ed in language change
because it challenge-s central assumption-s of
linguistic theory.
anybody indefinite pro
any an ig / y (cf. might-y)
who relative pro
question word
because conjunction
by cause (PP)
it personal pro
that (DEM)
16
Nevertheless, given that grammaticalization
involves phonological and morphological change,
it also revived the interest in the study of
traditional topics in historical linguistics.
17
Nevertheless, given that grammaticalization
involve-s phonological and morphological change,
it also reviv-ed the interest in the study of
traditional topic-s in historical linguistics.
nevertheless discourse
never the less
given conditional
to give
that complementizer
DEM
18
The grammaticalization cline
All grammatical morphemes have developed out of
lexical morphemes, principally nouns and verbs
Bybee 2003
lexicon
grammar
19
The grammaticalization of DEM
Definite article the der/die/das
Third person pronouns he / it er / sie / es
20
The grammaticalization of DEM
Relative pronouns that der/die/das
Complementizers that dass
21
The grammaticalization of DEM
Sentence connectives/conjunctions thus /
therefore deshalb / dadurch
Directional preverbs hin-gehen her-kommen
22
The grammaticalization of DEM
Copulas NP, DEM NP gt NP be NP Der Mann, der
(ist) ein Polizist. gt Der Mann ist ein
Polizist.
23
Joint attention
24
Joint attention
25
Demonstratives

• Demonstratives are closely tied to the gestural
  communicative system.
• Demonstratives emerge very early in language
  acquisition.
• Demonstratives are universal.
• Demonstratives are generally so old that their
  roots cannot be traced back to other morphemes.

26
An alternative model of grammaticalization
Lexical expressions
Demonstratives
Grammatical markers
Grammatical markers
27
Auxiliaries
go motion verb gt gonna auxiliary will
V of intention gt will auxiliary have V
of possession gt have auxiliary
28
Bound morphemes
noun meaning with an x-appearance gt xly noun
meaning gt x-hood auxiliary do gt xed

29
Conjunctions
DEM hwile SUB (hwile time) gt while
conjunction by cause prepositionnoun gt
becauseconjunction given past participle of
give gt given conjunction
30
Prepositions
during verb in continuous form gt during
preposition in front of PP gt in front
of preposition a-gone PREFIX-verb gt ago
postposition be-foran gt before
preposition
31
Indefinite pronouns
some body NP gt somebody indefinite
pro one numeral gt one article/pronoun
32
Epistemic markers
(do you) you know question gt yknow I
think matrix clause gt (I) think guess
imperative matrix clause gt guess
33
Case study 1 gonna
(1) I am going to marry Bill. meaning I
am leaving in order to marry Bill
(2) a. I am sure you will like Bill. b. I am
sure you are going to like Bill.
(3) I am going to marry Bill.
gtgtgt I am going to marry Bill
34
Case study 2 lets
(1) a. Let yourself down on the rope. b. Let
Bill go. c. Let me see it.
(2) a. Lets go to the circus tonight. b. Lets
watch a movie.
(3) Lets give you a hand. ( Ill give you
a hand)
35
Case study 2 lets
(4) Lets you go first, then if we have any money
left Ill go.
(5) Lets you and I takeem on for a set.
(6) Lets ø wash your hand.
36
Summary

• The meaning has become more subjective.
• The final s has lost its status as a separate
  morpheme (word gt clitic gt affix gt speech sound).
• Phonological reduction (lEs sgo Let us go!)
• Range of syntactic contexts has been extended.

37
Phonetic reduction
going to gt gonna I will gt Ill I
am gt Im do not gt dont
38
Loss of inflectional properties
that /those gt that complementizer that gt the gi
ve gt given
39
Loss of constituent structure
want to gt wanna in front of__ gt in
front of __ some DET body N gt somebody PRO
40
Semantic bleaching
have (poss) gt have (aux) go (motion) gt gonna
(aux) stomach (concrete) gt in (relational) that
(pointing) gt the (definiteness)
41
Unidirectionality
Lexical expressions
Demonstratives
Grammatical markers
Grammatical markers
42
De-grammaticalization
English genitive construction (1) a. The
queens crown b. The Queen of Englands
crown (2) a. Peters car b. Peter and Marys
car
Grammaticalization cline word gt clitic gt
affix gt Ø
43
De-grammaticalization
Structural reanalysis in EME Peter(s) Peter
his
John Browne his meadow
Daniell Williams my heirs Ann Harris her lot
44
Metaphor
stomache gt in head gt in front of back gt in back
of buttock gt behind / under
45
Metaphor
(1) a. The priest stood before the
altar. b. St. Michaels day is before
Christmas. (2) a. Bill is in Leipzig. b. He
will come in the spring. (3) a. The balloon flew
over the hill. b. The game is over. (4) a. He
followed him. b. World War II was followed by
the Cold War. (5) a. Thats a pretty long
log. b. It has been a pretty long
day. (6) a. They were driving along the
river. b. He new it all along. (7) a. At the
end of the queue. b. At the end of the day.
46
Metaphor

is going to
Boroditsky 2000
47
Metaphor

is going to
komma att
Boroditsky 2000
Christmas is coming up soon.
48
Metaphor
(1) a. I have been waiting for you since the
train left this morning. b. Since I have a
final exam tomorrow, I wont be able to go out
tonight.
(2) a. Wenn wir angekommen sind, rufen wir dich
an. b. Wenn er dort angekommen ist, hätte er
angerufen.
(3) a. all die Weile gt weil b. in a
while gt while
49
Metaphor
gt space
object / body
gt cause / condition
gt time
50
Deictic projection
(1) Gimme that! (2) Peter missed the train.
Thats why we are late.
51
Frequency
Grammaticalization involves reductions of (1)
form and (2) meaning.
to from directional preposition to INF
marker going from motion verb to future tense
marker -ly from noun meaning body to ADV
marker
52
Frequency
1. Regularization of irregular verbs wept gt weepe
d keep gt kept
2. Suppletion go went be am are is
good better bad worse
53
Frequency
3. Case marking SUBJ OBJ SUBJ OBJ he
him car car she her tree tree
4. SUBJ-AUX inversion (1) What do you
think? (2) What can we do?
54
Frequency
55
Implications for linguistic theory

• Challenges the division between lexicon and
  grammar Grammar evolves from lexical
  expressions.
• Challenges the assumption that linguistic
  categories have rigid category boundaries Is
  in front of a PP or a preposition? Indirect
  support for a prototype approach to linguistic
  categorization.
• Challenges the static view of grammar Linguistic
  structures and linguistic categories appear to be
  fluid.