[Lingtyp] grammaticalized v grammaticized

paolo Ramat paolo.ramat at unipv.it
Sun Jun 9 12:35:42 EDT 2019


Dear Oesten,
there is no overlap with my posting !
In accordance with Lyons and Comrie you accept a strictly synchronic
viewpoint that starts from the extralinguistic existence of concepts: a
concept is grammaticalized / lexicalized if there is a grammatical category
/ lexical item that expresses it. Obviously, in such an approach no
question of change : the concept of 'hear' is *grammaticalized *inasmuch it
exists a verb meaning "to hear" and the concept of 'house' is
* lexicalized *inasmuch it exists a word meaning "house".
This is not the usual sense of 'grammatiCALization, though I can easily
accept what Lyons and Comrie say about the linguistic realization of
extralinguistic concepts.


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 17:40 Östen Dahl <oesten at ling.su.se> ha
scritto:

> Bill Palmer's proposed use of "grammaticized" in fact comes close to the
> way the term "grammatiCALized" is sometimes used in the literature. For
> instance, in Bernard Comrie's book "Aspect" from 1976, he speaks of the
> distinction between time and tense, saying: “there is the semantic concept
> of time reference (absolute or relative), which may be grammaticalized in a
> language, i.e. a language may have a grammatical category that expresses
> time reference, in which case we say that the language has tenses” (page
> 7). Thus, a concept is grammaticalized if there is a grammatical category
> that expresses it. In a corresponding way, a concept may be lexicalized,
> which means that there is a lexical item that expresses it. If the terms
> are used this way, one does not have to assume that there was ever a
> diachronic stage where the concept was not grammaticalized or lexicalized.
> Consider Comrie's formulation  “probably all languages can lexicalise time
> reference” (ibid.), by which he plausibly means "probably all languages
> have lexical means to express time reference". Grammaticalization and
> lexicalization are understood only metaphorically as processes, with
> languages as agents. Similarly, John Lyons says in "Semantics" (1977,
> I:234): “Different languages make a different selection, as it were, from
> the set of possible distinctions that could be made and *grammaticalize
> them (i.e. make them grammatically functional) in terms of such categories
> as tense, number, gender, case…” (The asterisk indicates that Lyons
> introduces a new term here.) - Briefly, Comrie's and Lyons' concept is in
> practice purely synchronic and does not presuppose actual change.
>
>
>
> But I am not sure if this is also what John DuBois means when he speaks of
> "functionally motivated patterns that arise in synchronic language use
> (discourse profiles), defining the environment to which grammars adapt via
> emergence". I find it a bit problematic that these patterns are synchronic
> but still "arise" when languages "adapt" - that would seem to suggest that
> they are the result of change? Or are these patterns rather the universal
> base for diachronic processes? But how are they then grammatical? And how
> does all this apply to Bill's example of 'hear' grammaticalizing as an
> evidential marker?
>
>
>
> - östen
>
>
>
> (some overlap with Paolo’s simultaneous posting maybe)
>
>
>
> *Från:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> *För *paolo
> Ramat
> *Skickat:* den 9 juni 2019 17:35
> *Till:* Joan Bybee <joan.bybee at gmail.com>
> *Kopia:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Ämne:* Re: [Lingtyp] grammaticalized v grammaticized
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190609/2b2ac7c2/attachment.html>


More information about the Lingtyp mailing list