<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Dear Jürgen,<br>
<br>
I find it difficult to assist you in your search for more than one
reason:<br>
<ul>
<li>You assume a division of grammaticalization into two kinds
but do not make explicit the criteria which produce such a
division. Consequently, you also recognize cases like the
grammaticalization of third person pronouns which do not neatly
fit into either of your categories. This could be avoided only
if there was a binary criterion, with two logically
contradictory values, producing the division. E.g.:
'grammaticalization of a lexical relator vs grammaticalization
of anything that is not a lexical relator'; or alternatively
'grammaticalization of a syntagma consisting of a pragmatic cue
and its host vs. grammaticalization of anything else'.</li>
<li>Also, the grammaticalization of lexical relators specifically
concerns the initial phase of an ideally complete
grammaticalization process, while pragmatic cue support may
concern any of its phases or possibly not be related to
grammaticalization at all; which also renders this pair an
impure contrast.<br>
</li>
<li>You do not define pragmatics (just as almost nobody defines
it). In my understanding, pragmatics contrasts with system
linguistics, the former dealing with discourse, the latter with
the language system, i.e. exclusively with aspects of language
which are coded by language signs. Presupposing this, it does
not seem that all of your examples of pragmatic cue support are
actually related to pragmatics. This concerns, in particular,
the grammaticalization of a noun into a noun class or gender
formative. The semantic side of such a process can be described
by semantic changes that abide within the language system. The
same goes for optional grammatical markers: If they are present,
they add their bit to the (system) meaning of the construction;
and otherwise, the meaning of the construction is construed
without this bit, which may or may not lead to the same
(message) sense as the combination with the formative in
question.<br>
</li>
</ul>
If I am right with the above, then maybe your topical area is not a
subdivision of processes of grammaticalization, but instead the
theoretical foundation of the notion of pragmatic cue support and
its empirical outfit.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Christian<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>