[Lingtyp] grammaticalized v grammaticized

MM Jocelyne Fernandez mmjocelynefern at gmail.com
Sun Jun 9 13:32:02 EDT 2019


Dear Paul,


In Frenchspeaking linguistic circles, a difference is generally made 
between "grammaticalisation" and "grammaticisation": the second one is  
reserved to those situations (rare in Europe but relatively frequent in 
the world) where a language communication system changes from purely 
oral to written style, typically after an orthography and the 
accompanying means for preserving and teaching the language have been 
adopted.

     I have found it adequate to analyse the effects of 
"grammaticisation" while following during 40 years the typological 
evolution of Northern Sami (a Northwestern Uralic language, nowadays 
culturally European) after a unified orthography was adopted (and 
effectively applied) in 1979, observing what André Martinet called 
"synchronic dynamics",  and I would rather distinguish it from 
"grammaticalisation"  based on older sources from a diachronical 
perspective.


Best regards from Paris


M.M.Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest



Le 09/06/2019 à 16:27, Paul Hopper a écrit :
>
> In the Preface to the first edition of our book Grammaticalization 
> (Cambridge UP 1993) we discussed our choice of the longer form as follows:
>
> "A word about the choice of the term “grammaticalization”. As we note 
> in more detail in Chapter 2, the word seems to have been first used by 
> Meillet (1912). In recent linguistics there is some variation between 
> this word and the newer form “grammaticization”. In adhering to the 
> older form of the word, we do not intend any theoretical point other 
> than to maintain a continuity of terminology. We believe that a 
> terminology can and should survive quite radical changes in the ways 
> the terms that comprise it are understood by successive generations of 
> scholars. Some linguists have told us that they avoid the longer term 
> because “grammaticalization” could be understood as “entering the 
> grammar of a language,” i.e., becoming “grammatical”. 
> “Grammaticization”, by contrast, suggests a process whereby a form may 
> become fixed and constrained without committing the linguist to a view 
> of “grammar” as a fixed, bounded entity. A similar point is sometimes 
> made in a different way: it is said that “grammaticalization” stresses 
> the historical perspective on grammatical forms, while 
> “grammaticization” focuses on the implications of continually changing 
> categories and meanings for a synchronic view of language, thus 
> placing the entire notion of synchrony into question. It is far from 
> obvious that any such distinctions in usage exist between the two 
> words, and our own choice does not reflect any particular theoretical 
> position. We note that the titles of several recent major works 
> contain the longer form “grammaticalization” (e.g., C. Lehmann 1985; 
> Heine and Reh 1984; Traugott and Heine 1991; Heine, Claudi and 
> Hünnemeyer 1991)."
>
>       I think by the time of the second edition (2003) we had 
> concluded that the debate was no longer current, the form with -al 
> having clearly prevailed. Surely we can agree that the two terms will 
> exist amicably side by side, according to preference and with no 
> valid claim of theoretical superiority on either side.
>
>
> - Paul
>
>
>
> __________
>
> Paul J. Hopper
>
> Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Humanities
>
> Department of English
>
> Carnegie Mellon University
>
> Pittsburgh PA 15213, USA
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf 
> of Nigel Vincent <nigel.vincent at manchester.ac.uk>
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 9, 2019 8:58:07 AM
> *To:* Bernhard Wälchli; John Du Bois; Bill Palmer
> *Cc:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] grammaticalized v grammaticized
> 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 <mailto:dubois at ucsb.edu>
>
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2019, 9:11 PM Bill Palmer <bill.palmer at newcastle.edu.au 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>>
>     Cc: Stephanie Evers <saevers at buffalo.edu
>     <mailto:saevers at buffalo.edu>>; lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <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 <mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu> * Web:
>     http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>     <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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
>     >
>     > Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834 Mobile Phone (Indonesia):
>     > +62-81281162816
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Lingtyp mailing list
>     > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu> * Web:
>     http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>     <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
>     <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>     http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>     _______________________________________________
>     Lingtyp mailing list
>     Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>     <mailto: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
-- 
M.M.Jocelyne FERNANDEZ-VEST
Professor Emerita
CNRS & Université Sorbonne Nouvelle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20190609/573b9305/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Lingtyp mailing list