[Lingtyp] grammaticalized v grammaticized
MM Jocelyne Fernandez
mmjocelynefern at gmail.com
Sun Jun 9 17:32:02 UTC 2019
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> on behalf
> of Nigel Vincent <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> on behalf
> of John Du Bois <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 <mailto:dubois at ucsb.edu>
>
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2019, 9:11 PM Bill Palmer <bill.palmer at newcastle.edu.au
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>>
> Cc: Stephanie Evers <saevers at buffalo.edu
> <mailto:saevers at buffalo.edu>>; lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <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 <mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu> * Web:
> http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
> <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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
> >
> > Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834 Mobile Phone (Indonesia):
> > +62-81281162816
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu> * Web:
> http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
> <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
> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto: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
--
M.M.Jocelyne FERNANDEZ-VEST
Professor Emerita
CNRS & Université Sorbonne Nouvelle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20190609/573b9305/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list