Nakree This page was last edited on 4 Decemberat An important and popular topic which is still debated is the question of unidirectionality. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. PJ Hopper Glossa 7 2, In historical linguistics and language changegrammaticalization also known trauggott grammatization or grammaticization is a process of language change by which grammaticalizaiton representing objects and actions i. Particular attention is paid to recent debates over directionality in change and the role of grammaticalization in creolization. Their combined citations are counted only for the first article.

Author:Yozshushura Shaktile
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):5 May 2013
PDF File Size:5.7 Mb
ePub File Size:12.54 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

The first issue to be dealt with in discussions of Grammaticalization is the problem of Polysemy: a. The reduction of going to to gonna does not happen in the context go to NP. Grammaticalization: focuses on how grammatical constructions arise how they shape the language i. We are concerned with the question of how discrete boundaries between grammatical categories are.

There is a tension between unconstrained lexical structure and constrained morphosyntax and morphological structure. We are interested in providing a conceptual structure for a principled account of the relative indeterminacy in language and the basic non-discreteness of grammatical categories. Grammaticalization is therefore 2 things: the actual phenomena that the theoretical framework of Grammaticalization seeks to address; and the processes involved in Grammaticalization.

Since Saussure, there has been a dichotomy between synchronic linguistics: fixed, static structure; language is stable, homogeneous diachronic linguistics: set of changes linking successive stages of language. Grammaticalization can be studied 2 ways: historical approach in terms of pragmatics, discourse, usage, fluidity. I would try to balance these more: for a diglossic language, you can see things both ways.

Change is possible because there is an inference of futurity with purposives: I am Xing to do Y means Y is in the future. Without overt directional phrase futurity takes over, and becomes salient.

Reanalysis: Shift from purposive to AUX immed. Aspect changes from progressive aspect to immediate future. Reanalysis is discoverable manifest only when VB following be gonna is incompatible with purposive meaning, e. I am going to like Bill I am going to go to London the contexts of "be going to" have been generalized or analogized to previously unavailable contexts.

These stages all coexist in modern English, even though the process began in Middle English. The original purposive meaning continues to constrain the use of AUX. The persistence of the older meaning gives a kind of overlap; they coexist, and the new one reinforces the older meaning. The Main verb go is rather general; it means any kind of motion away from the speaker, so such a verb can be recruited to to participate in this process.

What is a Grammaticalized form? Function words: prepositions, pronouns, quantifiers, demonstratives. At those pause points, we may discern certain features. If we see Grammaticalization as the end point, then its features are: Grammatical words with relative phonological and syntactic independence: e. Inflections: always dependent, bound, part of another word. Another way to see this is as a cline of grammaticalization: shift is not abrupt, but moves slowly, in stages.

These things change from locational spatial to temporal. There is disagreement as to where, how many points there are on the cline. Some Heine are concerned with how one thing seems to imply another; whether there are channels that are followed paths , or push-pull chains? Periphrastic constructions they say coalesce over time and become morphological.

Other examples: Definite articles becoming affixes in Scandinavian, in Istro-Romanian, e. Also passive as in Scandinavian. Use of aux. Maybe Tamil -aam modal is an example of this kind of development from aakum i. The peripheral. Each new form has some nuance of meaning diff. Cite Hodge for many examples of this; see D. Bhat on evolution of tense forms in S. Dravidian, which show incorporation of forms of iru as past tense markers, which then get reduced and require renewal.

More examples. This shows various stages: full verb let has altered its semantic range somehow. Permission or allowing has become extended in part of the paradigm to encouraging or suggesting s. Began in 16th century or earlier. First-person plural. This is fine as long as still used with plural subjects, but when used with singular. Final s of lets loses its status as separate morpheme. This form does not have the meaning Permit him to go In Tamil, of course, it also is phonologically reduced by loss of the initial vowel e.

Syntactically, as they illustrate on pg. In Tamil, it would be change from : [[avan naan vareen]-NNu sonnaan]. Agreement Markers. They give example from French where il which is the masc. AGR and is bound to the verb, not signaling gender: ma femme il est venu my wife AGR has come This example not very satisfying to me. How about the example of Tamil accusative marking becoming the marker of definite-ness? I wonder whether we focus too much in descriptions on standard languages and ignore the colloquial, where we find e.

Perhaps grammar is a way-station, constantly being reorganized, and Grammaticalization is a voyage that makes stops from time to time.


grammaticalization von hopper paul j traugott elizabeth closs








Related Articles