<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
The discussion has brought up several distinct meanings that can
be
associated with such terms as <i>grammat(ic(al))ization</i>.
Several
of the concepts involved are doubtless useful in linguistics and
would suit such a term. I would advise against providing different
terms for the concepts ‚synchronic grammaticalization‘ and
‚diachronic grammaticalization‘. I distinguish between the
formation of a concept and providing a term for it. There is
apparently no methodological principle that would allow or exclude
the formation of concepts of just anything. Certainly it may be
useful to distinguish between ‚grammaticalization viewed as
manifested in synchrony‘ and ‚grammaticalization viewed as
manifested in diachrony‘. However, one has to keep in mind that
synchrony and diachrony are not two different spheres of the
object
of linguistics, but two alternate perspectives on one object.
Thus,
there are no such things as ‚synchronic grammaticalization‘ as a
process distinct from ‚diachronic grammaticalization‘. The same
is true of countless other linguistic processes. Nobody has yet
proposed to distinguish between synchronic and diachronic
assimilation, synchronic and diachronic diphthongation, synchronic
and diachronic univerbation, synchronic and diachronic metaphora
and
so on ad nauseam. Descriptive and historical grammarians have
simply
assumed that there is, in each of these cases, only one such
process
which manifests itself in the perspective taken by them; and
rightly
so.</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
So again, one may, of course, view grammaticalization either in a
synchronic or in a diachronic perspective. It is, however,
methodologically dangerous to provide different terms for such
constructs, because a construct provided with a (handy) term has a
strong
tendency to be hypostatized to an entity existing independently of
our approach. Witness the countless definitions found in the
literature according to which grammaticalization is allegedly a
diachronic (or even worse, a historical) process. Sorry for
sounding
dogmatic about this; but our theory is going to make progress only
if
we get the methodology right.</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US"> Positive balance: Let’s reserve the
variants of <i>grammat(ic(al))ization</i> for some of the other
concepts brought up in the discussion.</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<p style="font-size:90%">Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Deutschland</span></p>
<table style="font-size:80%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Tel.:</td>
<td>+49/361/2113417</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>E-Post:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Web:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</body>
</html>