[Lingtyp] grammaticalized v grammaticized

John Du Bois dubois at ucsb.edu
Wed Jun 12 14:39:02 EDT 2019


Hi all,
I too was at the original meeting, where we voted at the end whether to use
grammaticization or grammaticalization for the volume title. Hands went up,
with a narrow majority preferring the longer form. But I couldn't help
noticing that the majority of native speakers of English (especially Am.
Eng.) preferred the shorter form, while non-native speakers (mostly of
[continental] European languages) preferred the longer.
Jack

==============================
John W. Du Bois
Professor of Linguistics
University of California, Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, California 93106
USA
dubois at ucsb.edu

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 6:00 AM Dan I. SLOBIN <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.
>
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 10:32 AM MM Jocelyne Fernandez <
> mmjocelynefern at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>> <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Nigel Vincent
>> <nigel.vincent at manchester.ac.uk> <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>
>> <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of John Du Bois
>> <dubois at ucsb.edu> <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 listLingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.orghttp://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>> --
>> M.M.Jocelyne FERNANDEZ-VEST
>> Professor Emerita
>> CNRS & Université Sorbonne Nouvelle
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> *
>
> *Dan I. Slobin *
>
> *Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics*
>
> *University of California, Berkeley*
>
> *email: slobin at berkeley.edu <slobin at berkeley.edu>*
>
> *address: 2323 Rose St., Berkeley, CA 94708*
>
> *http://ihd.berkeley.edu/members.htm#slobin
> <http://ihd.berkeley.edu/members.htm#slobin>*
>
> *<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> *
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190612/bda2ce22/attachment.html>


More information about the Lingtyp mailing list