[Lingtyp] grammaticalized v grammaticized

paolo Ramat paolo.ramat at unipv.it
Sun Jun 9 11:34:38 EDT 2019


Somewhere I wrote (I don't remember where) that ALL terms ending by -
*ization* refer to a process (*democratization *is obviously different from
*democracy*). We can accept the difference between 'grammati(ci)zation' as
referring to synchrony and 'grammaticalization' as referring to diachrony
Though I agree with Nigel in using  just *grammaticalization*). Note
however that even  the grammaticized construct *"I heard [X happen]* (Du
Bois' example) entails the change of the verb 'hear' in an evidential
marker, i.e. it entails a process from "hear 1" to "hear 2". There is
always a 'prius' and a 'post' --even in a synchronic approach.

Best,
Paolo
...............................................

prof. dr. Paolo Ramat
 Università di Pavia (retired)
Istituto Universitario Studi Superiori (IUSS Pavia) (retired)
'Academia Europaea'
'Societas Linguistica Europaea', Honorary Member
piazzetta Arduino 11 - I 27100 Pavia
##39 0382 27027
347 044 98 44


Il giorno dom 9 giu 2019 alle ore 16:55 Joan Bybee <joan.bybee at gmail.com>
ha scritto:

> Taking the two terms to be synonymous, I preferred 'grammaticization' at
> first and thought others did, too. However, after many years of teaching
> courses on the subject, my non-native speaker students convinced me to
> switch to 'grammaticalization' (which had become more prevalent by then)
> because it is easier for them to pronounce! Purely practical, not
> theoretical.
>
> Joan
>
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 6:58 AM Nigel Vincent <
> nigel.vincent at manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> I think usage here is probably often based on individual choice. I have
>> always avoided the term 'grammaticization' and have preferred
>> 'grammaticalization' in the diachronic sense and I would avoid both in the
>> synchronic sense. By contrast, Joan Bybee  generally uses
>> 'grammaticization' in the diachronic sense (except in her chapter in The
>> Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization!), and even refers to it as the 'more
>> elegant' term in her book with Perkins and Pagliuca 'The Evolution of
>> Grammar' - see p.4, footnote 2, an aesthetic judgement with which I would
>> personally disagree!
>> And with apologies for self-promotion, I briefly discuss the interesting
>> and important issue that Bernhard raises about semantic change affecting
>> technical metalanguage in §6 of my article 'Conative' in 'Linguistic
>> Typology 17 (2013) 269-289.
>> Best
>> Nigel
>>
>>
>> Professor Nigel Vincent, FBA MAE
>> Professor Emeritus of General & Romance Linguistics
>> The University of Manchester
>>
>> Linguistics & English Language
>> School of Arts, Languages and Cultures
>> The University of Manchester
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/researchers/nigel-vincent(f973a991-8ece-453e-abc5-3ca198c869dc).html
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Lingtyp [lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org] on behalf of
>> Bernhard Wälchli [bernhard at ling.su.se]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 09, 2019 12:55 PM
>> *To:* John Du Bois; Bill Palmer
>> *Cc:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] grammaticalized v grammaticized
>>
>> As suggested by Dan, this discussion seems to be a very nice case of
>> Michel Bréal’s Loi de répartition (based on earlier work by Gilliéron):
>> synonyms do not last for a long time, either they acquire different
>> meanings or one of the terms disappears. Similar points have been made in
>> psycholinguistics and first language acquisition, among other things by Eve
>> Clark.
>>
>> Can we conclude from this that metalanguage for describing language
>> change is subject to language change in the very same way as everything
>> else in language?
>>
>> Bréal, Michel. 1897. Essai de sémantique. Science des significations.
>> Paris: Hachette.
>> Clark, Eve V. 1988. On the logic of contrast. Journal of Child Language
>> 15.317–335.
>> Gilliéron, Jules. 1880. Patois de la commune de Vionnaz (Bas-Valais).
>> Paris: F. Vieweg. (= Bibliothèque de l’école des hautes études. Sciences
>> philologique et historiques; Fasc. 40).
>>
>> Best,
>> Bernhard Wälchli
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
>> John Du Bois <dubois at ucsb.edu>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 9, 2019 1:15:37 PM
>> *To:* Bill Palmer
>> *Cc:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] grammaticalized v grammaticized
>>
>> This distinction accords well with how many people use the two terms, I
>> think.
>>
>> The study of grammaticization focuses on  functionally motivated patterns
>> that arise in synchronic language use (discourse profiles), defining the
>> environment to which grammars adapt via emergence.
>>
>> Grammaticalization focuses on the historical processes that create new
>> grammar, driven by the discourse profiles plus additional principles
>> intrinsic to cultural evolution and historical change.
>>
>> The two are closely intertwined, of course. A key task for functional
>> linguistics is to clarify how they interact to provide an explanation for
>> why grammars are as they are.
>>
>> Best,
>> John
>>
>> ==============================
>> John W. Du Bois
>> Professor of Linguistics
>> University of California, Santa Barbara
>> Santa Barbara, California 93106
>> USA
>> dubois at ucsb.edu
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2019, 9:11 PM Bill Palmer <bill.palmer at newcastle.edu.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Juergen's email prompts me to ask a question I'd be interested to get
>>> people's thoughts on.
>>>
>>> What is the relationship between the terms grammaticalized and
>>> grammaticized? I use them to refer to different things, but I don’t know to
>>> what extent my usage corresponds to others' understandings.
>>>
>>> I use grammaticized to refer to a synchronic situation, and
>>> grammaticalized to refer to a diachronic process. For example, I would say
>>> that the category of auditory evidentiality ("I heard [X happen]") is
>>> grammaticized in language X, meaning that the category is expressed in the
>>> language by a grammatical form; and I would say that the verb 'hear' has
>>> grammaticalized as an evidential marker in language X, meaning that a form
>>> with a lexical meaning has developed into a grammatical marker of some kind.
>>>
>>> Does this accord with anyone else's understanding of these terms?
>>> Apologies if there's some obvious literature on this I have missed.
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Bill Palmer
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> On Behalf Of
>>> Bohnemeyer, Juergen
>>> Sent: Saturday, 8 June 2019 12:26 AM
>>> To: David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de>
>>> Cc: Stephanie Evers <saevers at buffalo.edu>;
>>> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Glossed corpora of languages w/o grammaticalized
>>> definiteness marking
>>>
>>> Dear David — Good point! We use ‘definiteness’ to denote a variety of
>>> similar language-specific semantic categories that characterize the
>>> discourse status of a nominal in terms of its referent being discourse-old,
>>> previously mentioned (etc.), and/or otherwise uniquely identifiable to the
>>> interlocutors. Since unique identifiability may be conferred by the speech
>>> situation, we require that candidate devices not be restricted to exophoric
>>> (spatial) reference in their regular uses.
>>>
>>> What we mean by ‘grammaticalized’ is that the language has a particle,
>>> function word, or inflection that is routinely used by the speakers of the
>>> language to express the semantic category in question. For illustration, I
>>> would assume (perhaps wrongly so) that it is possible in any language to
>>> use demonstratives to indicate ‘definiteness’, including in Russian - but
>>> Russian speakers, so far as I know (and so far as Stephanie Evers, the
>>> student working on this project, was able to show in her Qualifying Paper),
>>> do not regularly use demonstratives for this purpose, at least not unless
>>> they wish to place contrastive narrow focus on the nominal in question.
>>>
>>> Why the restriction to particles, function words, and inflections? Well,
>>> it is hard for me to see how expressions that are for all intents and
>>> purposes regular content words could be used to indicate the ‘definiteness’
>>> of another expression. But, the ultimate goal of the project is to test
>>> hypotheses about the conditions under which dedicated definiteness marking
>>> emerges vs. does not emerge in a language (family) or area. So if such
>>> borderline cases exist, I suppose they would in fact be of great interest
>>> to the project, even if they do not meet the criteria laid out above.
>>>
>>> Best — Juergen
>>>
>>> > On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:32 AM, David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Dear Juergen,
>>> >
>>> > Ian Joo mentioned our Indonesian corpus; a better way of accessing a
>>> more complete version is described at
>>> https://linguistlist.org/issues/28/28-2007.html.
>>> >
>>> > However, I am puzzled by your criteria, specifically by the notion of
>>> "grammaticalized definiteness (marking)", and a bit surprised nobody so far
>>> in this thread has picked up on it.
>>> >
>>> > Both terms are problematic, as can be exemplified via Indonesian.
>>> "Definiteness": well, Indonesian has a couple of nominal markers, =nya and
>>> itu, that are sometimes described as marking definiteness, though I believe
>>> that they are more appropriately analyzed otherwise, namely as marking
>>> possession/association and deixis respectively.  So does Indonesian fail to
>>> meet criterion 1, or does it in fact offer a nice example of "alternative
>>> strategies" for marking definiteness?  Depends on your analysis.
>>> >
>>> > Then there's the notion of "grammaticalized":  what does it mean to
>>> say that  =nya and itu are grammaticalized?  The former marker, =nya,
>>> exhibits some properties that suggest that it might be a clitic, but
>>> otherwise, these markers would seem to exhibit grammatical behaviour
>>> similar to most other content words in the language.  So are they
>>> "grammaticalized"?  Well it depends on what you mean by "grammaticalized".
>>> >
>>> > I use Indonesian here merely as an illustration; similar issues arise
>>> in very many other languages.
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> >
>>> > David
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 06/06/2019 22:02, Bohnemeyer, Juergen wrote:
>>> >> Dear colleagues — An advisee of mine is looking for glossed texts to
>>> investigate the use of strategies alternative to grammaticalized
>>> definiteness marking. Basically, she’s trying to identify about half a
>>> dozen genealogically and areally unrelated languages each of which meets
>>> all of the following criteria:
>>> >>
>>> >> 1. The language lacks grammaticalized definiteness marking.
>>> >>
>>> >> 2. A text or corpus of texts is available for the language that has
>>> Leipzig-standard interlinear glosses and translations in English or Spanish.
>>> >>
>>> >> 3. The text (corpus) comprises at least about 1000 clauses, but
>>> ideally twice that or more.
>>> >>
>>> >> 4. The individual texts should be long-ish and their referring
>>> expressions shouldn’t be predominately proper names.
>>> >>
>>> >> If you’re aware of a language so resourced, please let me know!
>>> >>
>>> >> Many thanks! — Juergen
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Juergen Bohnemeyer, Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
>>> >> Department of Linguistics and Center for Cognitive Science University
>>> >> at Buffalo
>>> >>
>>> >> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus * Mailing address: 609 Baldy
>>> >> Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
>>> >> Phone: (716) 645 0127
>>> >> Fax: (716) 645 3825 * Email:
>>> >> jb77 at buffalo.edu * Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Office hours M 12:30 – 1:30pm / W 1:00 – 1:50 / F 12:30 – 1:50pm
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In (Leonard
>>> >> Cohen)
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> >>
>>> >> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> >> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > David Gil
>>> >
>>> > Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution Max Planck Institute
>>> > for the Science of Human History Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena,
>>> > Germany
>>> >
>>> > Email:
>>> > gil at shh.mpg.de
>>> >
>>> > Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834 Mobile Phone (Indonesia):
>>> > +62-81281162816
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Lingtyp mailing list
>>> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>
>>> Juergen Bohnemeyer, Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
>>> Department of Linguistics and Center for Cognitive Science University at
>>> Buffalo
>>>
>>> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus * Mailing address: 609 Baldy
>>> Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
>>> Phone: (716) 645 0127
>>> Fax: (716) 645 3825 * Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu * Web:
>>> http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>>>
>>> Office hours M 12:30 – 1:30pm / W 1:00 – 1:50 / F 12:30 – 1:50pm
>>>
>>>
>>> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In (Leonard
>>> Cohen)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20190609/06688c41/attachment.html>


More information about the Lingtyp mailing list