[Lingtyp] grammaticalized v grammaticized

Östen Dahl oesten at ling.su.se
Mon Jun 10 12:11:51 EDT 2019


Dan Slobin said: “Like Joan Bybee, I opted for grammaticization for its economy and elegance”. The only thing I have against grammaticization is that in spite of its elegance, it can be a tongue twister for a non-native speaker like me, with three different fricatives and two different diphthongs in a row at the end.
Btw, I remember that Microsoft Word used to tell you: “Avoid jargon words such as grammaticalization”.

  *   östen


From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> On Behalf Of MM Jocelyne Fernandez
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2019 16:50
To: Aimée Lahaussois <aimee.lahaussois at cnrs.fr>; Dan I. SLOBIN <slobin at berkeley.edu>
Cc: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] grammaticalized v grammaticized


This "equipping" was also actually implied in my use of the term "grammaticisation"– and I did collaborate with Auroux while being both members of the CNRS National Commission 30 years ago, although he may have preferred a still shorter form of the word!

Any way, not a mere whim of field linguists, the difference between "grammati(ci)sation" and "grammaticalisation" remains an essential one:  the creation of grammar tools is only one of the explaining factors for the typological evolution of a language, since it is not automatically validated by language users.

M.M.Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest
Le 10/06/2019 à 08:42, Aimée Lahaussois a écrit :
And for yet another usage of ‘grammatisation’: historians of linguistics use the term for the process of ‘equipping’ languages with tools such as grammars or dictionaries.  Sylvain Auroux was a big promoter of the concept.

https://www.persee.fr/doc/hel_0247-8897_1995_num_11_1_3396


Best regards,
Aimée



On Jun 10, 2019, at 5:00 AM, Dan I. SLOBIN <slobin at berkeley.edu<mailto:slobin at berkeley.edu>> wrote:

Just to muddy the waters a bit further, in the two volumes emerging from the 1988 Oregon conference (Traugott & Heine, 1991),
Jim Matisoff went even further in his paper, "Areal and Universal Dimensions of Grammatization in Lahu (Matissof, 1991: 381):
"The term grammaticalization, despite its heptasyllabic cacophony (the more concise grammaticization, or even grammatization
would be preferable) represents one of the most important phenomena in diachronic linguistics.  Grammat(ic[al])ization is
inherently a diachronic concept."

Like Joan Bybee, I opted for grammaticization for its economy and elegance, as I saw it; I continue to use that form, avoiding
the nuances that have emerged since between the erstwhile synonyms.

I appreciate Bernhard's placing of the emerging distinction between grammaticalization and grammaticization in the context of
a general psycholinguistic process, citing Bréal and Eve Clark who elaborated the point I made in an earlier posting.

The editors of the Oregon conference volume accepted all three variants as titles of individual papers.

Dan

Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (Eds.) (1991). Approaches to grammaticalization.  Vol. 1: Focus on theoretical and
methodological issues. Vol. 2: Focus on types of grammatical markers.  Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

James A. Matisoff (1991). Areal and universal dimensions of grammatization in Lahu.  Ibid., 383-454.


Aimée Lahaussois
Histoire des théories linguistiques
CNRS & Université Paris Diderot
01 57 27 57 78

http://htl.linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr/laboratoire/membres/lahaussois-en
--
Prof. Marie-Madeleine Jocelyne FERNANDEZ-VEST
CNRS & Université Sorbonne Nouvelle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20190610/2ec0a496/attachment.html>


More information about the Lingtyp mailing list