[Lingtyp] grammaticalized v grammaticized

Daniel Ross djross3 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 12 14:43:37 EDT 2019


As a native speaker of American English, I strongly prefer the longer form
for aesthetic reasons (see my previous email, although I did not clarify my
background). I wonder if that puts me in the minority, or if we need a
larger sample size.
Daniel

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:39 AM John Du Bois <dubois at ucsb.edu> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b70168d4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Lingtyp mailing list