<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="elementToProof">
I have read this discussion with interest. I have found analyzing the lexical-grammatical distinction difficult; I made several attempts. I started from Talmy's observations about the semantic categories that recur in the inventories of grammatical elements
across languages. I should mention at the outset that the distinction Talmy was considering is grammaticaliz<b>able</b> (or "grammaticizable" -- Slobin 1997) concepts vs. other, "lexical-only" concepts. This is different from grammaticaliz<b>ed</b> vs. not
grammaticalized concepts. Grammaticalizable concepts may be expressed lexically, but may then undergo grammaticalization. Grammaticalized concepts are not only grammaticalizable but have undergone grammaticalization and hence have acquired additional properties
-- more on that below.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="elementToProof">
At any rate, I decided that the best way forward was to embed the issue in a broader theory of the verbalization of experience. I took Chafe's model of verbalization (Chafe 1977a,b are the primary original sources) and elaborated it in a 2007 paper (which cites
other work of Chafe's). In the conclusion I suggested some reasons why certain concepts are grammaticalizable, based on the model of verbalization.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="elementToProof">
This is a functional model, so it is similar in aim to Kasper and Peter's proposal. But that is about grammaticalizable concepts. To understand the nature of grammaticalized concepts, it is possible, even likely, that at least some of the structural considerations
that Christian proposes are relevant.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="elementToProof">
Interjections only partly fit in the verbalization model. But the verbalization model is just one part of a larger model of language and its role in communication, and the role of communication in joint action. I have largely followed Clark's version of the
larger model (Clark 1996; he calls verbalization 'formulation'); see Croft (2009). Interjections are varied and serve a different functions in the larger model.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="elementToProof">
Bill<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="elementToProof">
<p class="bibliography ContentPasted0 elementToProof" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-0.25in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times", "serif"">
Chafe, Wallace. 1977a. Creativity in verbalization and its implications for the nature of stored knowledge.
<i class="ContentPasted2">Discourse production and comprehension</i>, ed. Roy Freedle, 41-55. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.<o:p class="ContentPasted2"><br>
</o:p></p>
<p class="bibliography ContentPasted2 elementToProof" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.25in;text-indent:-0.25in;font-size:12pt">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Chafe, Wallace. 1977b. The recall and verbalization of past experience.
</span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><i class="ContentPasted2">Current issues in linguistic theory</i></span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">, ed. Peter Cole, 215-46. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.</span></p>
<p class="bibliography elementToProof" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.25in;text-indent:-0.25in;font-size:12pt">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Clark, Herbert H. 1996.
</span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><i class="ContentPasted1">Using language</i></span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</span></p>
<p class="bibliography elementToProof" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.25in;text-indent:-0.25in;font-size:12pt">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Croft, William. 2007. The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience.
</span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><i>Cognitive Linguistics</i></span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"> 18.339-82.</span><o:p><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">
</span><br>
</o:p></p>
<p class="bibliography elementToProof" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.25in;text-indent:-0.25in;font-size:12pt">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Croft, William. 2009. Toward a social cognitive linguistics.
</span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><i>New directions in cognitive linguistics</i></span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">, ed. Vyvyan Evans and Stéphanie Pourcel, 395-420. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.</span><o:p><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></o:p></p>
<div class="bibliography ContentPasted0 elementToProof" style="margin: 0px 0in 0.000133333px 0.25in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times", "serif";">
Slobin, Dan I. 1997. The origins of grammaticizable notions: beyond the individual mind.
<i class="ContentPasted0">The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 5</i>, ed. Dan I. Slobin, 265-323<i class="ContentPasted0">.</i> Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.<o:p class="ContentPasted0">
<br>
</o:p></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Kasper Boye <boye@hum.ku.dk><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 14, 2023 3:47 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Christian Lehmann <christian.lehmann@uni-erfurt.de>; lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Peter Harder <rgl226@hum.ku.dk><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Lingtyp] "grammatically encoded" - answer to Christian</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
p.x_MsoNormal, li.x_MsoNormal, div.x_MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}
a:link, span.x_MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.x_MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
p
{margin-right:0cm;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}
p.x_msonormal0, li.x_msonormal0, div.x_msonormal0
{margin-right:0cm;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}
span.x_EmailStyle19
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D}
.x_MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt}
div.x_WordSection1
{}
-->
</style>
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="line-height:12.0pt; background:#FF6666"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; color:white"> [EXTERNAL]</span></p>
</b>
<div>
<div class="x_WordSection1">
<p>Dear Christian,</p>
<p><b>Regarding focusability</b></p>
<p>The focusability criterion (like the other criteria) depends on language- and construction-specific means for focusing, and different means come with different limitations. Indeed, the criterion may in many cases be impossible to apply. Another criterion
(not mentioned in Boye & Harder (2012), but in later publications) is modifiability; again, we are not the first to suggest that modifiability can be used to distinguish lexical from grammatical elements, but the criterion can straightforwardly be derived
from the claim that grammatical elements are by convention discursively secondary.</p>
<p>As already mentioned, there are also limitations to stress as a means for investigating focusablity. For instance, stress is not always found exactly on the focused element. Your example with
<i>would</i> seems to belong to the group of exceptions that fall under <i>verum focus</i>. Therefore, your example does not show that
<i>would </i>can be focused, and hence it does not show that <i>would</i> is lexical. In principle, however, it is perfectly possible that some modal verbs, or variants thereof, are lexical. In Boye (2010), I argued that this is the case with some Danish modal
verbs. In Boye & Bastiaanse (2018) we showed that even a rather course-grained distinction between lexical and grammatical modal verb variants in Dutch is significant for the description of agrammatic speech: the proportion of modal verb items classified as
grammatical relative to items classified as lexical was significantly lower in agrammatic speech than in the speech of non-brain-damaged controls (see Boye et al. 2023 for an overview of similar studies, and a usage-based theory of agrammatism).
</p>
<p><b>Regarding your proposal for a definition of grammatical status</b></p>
<p>I would be very interested in seeing your detailed proposal, but my basic problem with your proposal is not that it looks circular, but that it looks entirely structural. I prefer a functional-cognitive, usage-based definition that entails a rationale for
the existence of grammar.</p>
<p><b>Regarding grammaticalization as a gradual phenomenon</b></p>
<p>I agree that grammaticalization is a gradual phenomenon, but not that this entails that grammatical status is a matter of degree. In the attached preprint (paper to appear in Transactions of the Philological Society), I argue that on a strict understanding,
grammaticalization is embedded in at least three continua (a conventionalization continuum, a splitting continuum and a discourse prominence continuum), but does not presuppose or show any evidence of lexical-grammatical cline.</p>
<p><b>References</b></p>
<p>Boye, K. 2010. ‘Raising verbs and auxiliaries in a functional theory of grammatical status’. K. Boye & E. Engberg-Pedersen (eds.).
<i>Language usage and language structure</i>. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 73-104.</p>
<p>Boye, K. To appear. ‘Grammaticalization as conventionalization of discursively secondary status: Deconstructing the lexical-grammatical continuum’.
<i>Transactions of the Philological Society</i>.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Boye, K., & R. Bastiaanse. 2018. ‘Grammatical versus lexical words in theory and aphasia: Integrating linguistics and neurolinguistics’.
<i>Glossa: a journal of general linguistics</i>, 3.1, 29. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.436 </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Boye, K., R. Bastiaanse, P. Harder & S. Martínez-Ferreiro. 2023. ‘Agrammatism in a usage-based theory of grammatical status: Impaired combinatorics, compensatory prioritization, or both?’
<i>Journal of Neurolinguistics</i> 65, 101108.</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Fra:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org>
<b>På vegne af </b>Christian Lehmann<br>
<b>Sendt:</b> 10. marts 2023 21:07<br>
<b>Til:</b> lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
<b>Emne:</b> Re: [Lingtyp] "grammatically encoded" - answer to Christian</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p>Dear Kasper,</p>
<p>the clearest cases of focusing are cleft-sentences. At the same time, it is clear that many sentence components are not amenable to clefting, and many of those that are not are nevertheless lexical rather than grammatical. Thus I suppose focusability will
not, for your purposes, be operationalized as amenability to clefting.</p>
<p>Thus you need to consider milder forms of focusing. If contrastive stress counts, then it remains true that many items that have otherwise been regarded as grammatical can bear contrastive stress. Think of exchanges such as this:</p>
<p>Will you do it? - I <b>would</b> do it if [so and so].</p>
<p>In my understanding, what is focused here is exactly the conditional modality, so what is stressed is its expression.</p>
<p>My attempt at a definition may seem circular until I spell out how constraints on the distribution of items and classes of items are formulated and quantified. (It has probably been done somewhere in the literature.) This is independent of a prior definition
of 'grammar'; it just refers to cooccurrence of items in constructions. When I have spelled out some cases, I may take the liberty of sending you the URL.</p>
<p>Allow me to repeat that if you take grammaticalization seriously as a gradual phenomenon, then grammatical status, too, is not a yes-or-no matter, but rather one of degree. Consequently, no single binary criterion like focusability will suffice for its operationalization.</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Christian</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- </p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Deutschland</span></span></p>
<table class="x_MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt">Tel.:</span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt">+49/361/2113417</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt">E-Post:</span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt"><a href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt">Web:</span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt"><a href="https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianlehmann.eu%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cboye%40hum.ku.dk%7C71d5959c3be54d5bf9de08db21a30763%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C638140756309373474%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xC8V2ZSCDyBQJl3kOjcCkkn%2BeDi5PkVAKcq8QNYfu4I%3D&reserved=0">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b><span lang="DA" style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Fra:</span></b><span lang="DA" style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org>
<b>På vegne af </b>Christian Lehmann<br>
<b>Sendt:</b> 10. marts 2023 21:07<br>
<b>Til:</b> lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
<b>Emne:</b> Re: [Lingtyp] "grammatically encoded" - answer to Christian</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p>Dear Kasper,</p>
<p>the clearest cases of focusing are cleft-sentences. At the same time, it is clear that many sentence components are not amenable to clefting, and many of those that are not are nevertheless lexical rather than grammatical. Thus I suppose focusability will
not, for your purposes, be operationalized as amenability to clefting.</p>
<p>Thus you need to consider milder forms of focusing. If contrastive stress counts, then it remains true that many items that have otherwise been regarded as grammatical can bear contrastive stress. Think of exchanges such as this:</p>
<p>Will you do it? - I <b>would</b> do it if [so and so].</p>
<p>In my understanding, what is focused here is exactly the conditional modality, so what is stressed is its expression.</p>
<p>My attempt at a definition may seem circular until I spell out how constraints on the distribution of items and classes of items are formulated and quantified. (It has probably been done somewhere in the literature.) This is independent of a prior definition
of 'grammar'; it just refers to cooccurrence of items in constructions. When I have spelled out some cases, I may take the liberty of sending you the URL.</p>
<p>Allow me to repeat that if you take grammaticalization seriously as a gradual phenomenon, then grammatical status, too, is not a yes-or-no matter, but rather one of degree. Consequently, no single binary criterion like focusability will suffice for its operationalization.</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Christian</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">-- </p>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Deutschland</span></span></p>
<table class="x_MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt">Tel.:</span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt">+49/361/2113417</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt">E-Post:</span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt"><a href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt">Web:</span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt"><a href="https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianlehmann.eu%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cboye%40hum.ku.dk%7C71d5959c3be54d5bf9de08db21a30763%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C638140756309373474%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xC8V2ZSCDyBQJl3kOjcCkkn%2BeDi5PkVAKcq8QNYfu4I%3D&reserved=0">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>