Transcript Dia 1

DEGRAMMATICALIZATION
IN SCANDINAVIAN
Muriel Norde
University of Groningen
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, January 24th,,
2007
Outline



Definitions and other theoretical
preliminaries
The status of degrammaticalization
Case studies in degrammaticalization
–
–
–
–

overview
the s-genitive
inflections becoming derivational: -er and -on
Norwegian infinitival å
Theoretical discussion
Freiburg 24-01-2007
2
THEORETICAL
PRELIMINARIES
Freiburg 24-01-2007
3
Definitions




grammaticalization
degrammaticalization
antigrammaticalization
lexicalization
Freiburg 24-01-2007
4
Grammaticalization



“Grammaticalization consists in the increase of the
range of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to a
grammatical or from a less grammatical to a more
grammatical status.” (Kuryłowicz 1975 [1965])
“[…] an evolution whereby linguistic units lose in
semantic complexity, pragmatic significance,
syntactic freedom, and phonetic substance
[…]”(Heine & Reh 1984)
“A grammaticalization is a diachronic change by
which the parts of a constructional schema come to
have stronger internal dependencies” (Haspelmath
2004)
Freiburg 24-01-2007
5
Degrammaticalization



“ a: the undoing of a grammatical formative out of
something other than a grammatical formative, or b:
the making of a grammatical formative out of a
grammatical formative with a weaker degree of
grammatical function” (Van der Auwera 2002).
“By this I mean a change that leads from the
endpoint to the starting point of a potential
grammaticalization and also shows the same
intermediate stages” (Haspelmath 2004).
“[…] a process in which a linguistic sign gains in
autonomy, i.e. it becomes relatively free from
constraints of the linguistic system” (Lehmann
2004).
Freiburg 24-01-2007
6
3 types of
degrammaticalization

1.
2.
3.
Three types identified by Henning
Andersen
Degrammation: a grammatical item becomes a
lexical item through pragmatic inferencing e.g.
Welsh eiddo: ‘his’ (PRO) > ‘property’(N)
Upgrading: decreased boundedness going hand in
hand with sematic enrichment (s-genitive)
Emancipation: a bound morpheme becomes less
bound, without any changes to its semantics
(t.ex. Norwegian å: from clitic to free morpheme)
Freiburg 24-01-2007
7
Lexicalization
“recruitment of linguistic material to enrich the lexicon”
(Hopper & Traugott 1993)
 “today’s grammar may become tomorrow’s lexicon” (Ramat
1992)
 Dependent on one’s definition of lexicon
 Definition adopted here: Brinton & Traugott 2005
“[…] the view that the lexicon does not exist solely of a list of
discrete and fully fixed items but represents a continuum from
more to less fixed, from more to less fully conventionalized,
and from more to less productive items. […] the continuum
models of the lexical / grammatical split and of the lexicon fit
better with the historical facts of change, which is often
(though not always) gradual in the sense that change occurs
by very small steps.
 Contra GL conception of grammatical categories as discrete
entities

Freiburg 24-01-2007
8
Subtypes of lexicalization




Function words
– Pros en cons
– [Shaved her legs and then] he was a she (L. Reed)
Suffixes
– ologies (object of study, cf, sociology)
– isms (ideology, cf. communism)
phrases
– forget-me-not
– has-been
– no-show
acronyms
– sms’es
– nimby
Freiburg 24-01-2007
9
Lexicalization vs
grammaticalization



Lehmann 2002: e.g. transition N > P is first
and foremost a case of lexicalization with
subsequent grammaticalization
Antilla 1989: grammaticalization involves
lexicalization (e.g. by adding P’s to the
lexicon)
Sum: lexicalization is concomitant with, but
neither congruent with nor opposite to
grammaticalization
Freiburg 24-01-2007
10
Lexicalization vs
degrammaticalization




Ramat 1992: lexicalization =
degrammaticalization
What is meant is: lexicalization of affixes
(isms etc.)
However: this is just one type of
lexicalization
Sum: lexicalization is concomitant, but not
synonymous, with degrammaticalization
Freiburg 24-01-2007
11
Grammaticalization vs
degrammaticalization:
differences


Directionality:
Based on: the cline of grammaticality
content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix

Frequency, or grammaticalization :
degrammaticalization ratio
– 100:1 (Haspelmath 1999:1046)
– 10:1 (Newmeyer 1998:275f.; includes lexicalization)




“Homogeneity” (gz) vs. heterogeneity (degz)
Degree of acceptance in grammaticalization studies
Presence versus absence of a “domino effect”
Potential for new categories
Freiburg 24-01-2007
12
Grammaticalization vs
degrammaticalization:
similarities




Gradualness
Layering
Preservation of constructional identity
Pragmatic inferencing
Freiburg 24-01-2007
13
THE STATUS OF
DEGRAMMATICALIZATION
Freiburg 24-01-2007
14
Positions contra




“[…] no cogent examples of
degrammaticalization have been found.
(Lehmann 1995 [1982])
“Degrammatikalisierung gibt es in der Tat
praktisch nicht” (Lehmann website 2005)
“statistically insignificant” (Heine, Claudi &
Hünnemeyer 1991)
“statistically insignificant” (Heine & Kuteva
2002)
Freiburg 24-01-2007
15
Contra continued


“[…] in some cases, the enthusiasm for
challenging the unidirectionality hypothesis
appears to have led to an interpretation of
data that is certainly open to criticism”
(Börjars 2003:133f.).”
“I argue that changes like [the most cited
degrammaticalizations MN] are not
degrammaticalizations,but ordinary
analogical changes” (Kiparsky in prep.)
Freiburg 24-01-2007
16
Positions pro


“My sense is that such phenomena are
rampant” (Newmeyer 1998:263)
“Some counterexamples do exist.
Their existence, and their relative
infrequency, in fact help define our
notion of what prototypical
grammaticalization is.” (Hopper &
Traugott 1993:126; 2003:132)
Freiburg 24-01-2007
17
Pro continued

“I have argued that two decades of
relatively intensive research on
grammaticalization have shown that
degrammaticalization exists […] and that it
should be studied in its own right, and not
as a quirky, accidental exception to
grammaticalization. One of the tasks on the
agenda is to compare the properties of
grammaticalization and
degrammaticalization. Another one is to
classify all types of degrammaticalization
[…]” ( Van der Auwera 2002:25f.)
Freiburg 24-01-2007
18
CASE STUDIES:
OVERVIEW
Freiburg 24-01-2007
19
Basis for analysis:
Lehmann’s parameters
paradigmatic
syntagmatic
weight
integrity
structural scope
cohesion
paradigmaticity
bondedness
variability
paradigmatic
variability
syntagmatic
variability
Freiburg 24-01-2007
20
Parameters of
degrammaticalization

Integrity: resemanticization and phonetic

Paradigmaticity: deparadigmaticization,




“strengthening”
recategorialization
Paradigmatic variability: deobligatorification
Structural scope: scope expansion
Bondedness: decreased bondedness
Syntagmatic variability: increased syntactic
freedom
Freiburg 24-01-2007
21
Word of caution



Not all degrammaticalization parameters
apply to all types or examples of
degrammaticalization!
But then: neither do all grammaticalization
parameters apply to all grammaticalizations
Remember Kuryłowicz’s definition:
“Grammaticalization consists in the increase of the
range of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to a
grammatical or from a less grammatical to a more
grammatical status.” (Kuryłowicz 1975 [1965])
Freiburg 24-01-2007
22
Examples of
degrammaticalization 1



Estonian *-(ko)s > es (question
particle) and *-pa > ep (emphasis
marker)
Irish 1st person plural subject suffix muid > independent pronoun muid
Dutch / German / Frisian –tig / -zig
/ -tich ‘-ty’ > indefinite numeral tig /
zig / tich ‘umpteen’
Freiburg 24-01-2007
23
Examples of
degrammaticalization 2




Japanese connectives (from enclitic
particle to free morpheme)
Pennsylvania German modal auxiliary
wotte ‘would’ > lexical verb wotte
wish’
English infinitival to
Bulgarian nešto ‘something’ > ‘thing’
Freiburg 24-01-2007
24
Examples of
degrammaticalization 3



Welsh eiddo ‘his > property’
Welsh P yn ol ‘after’ -> V nôl > ‘fetch’
Saame taga: abessive suffix > (semienclitic) postposition
Freiburg 24-01-2007
25
Scandinavian examples




English and Mainland Scandinavian
MASC/NEUT.SG.GEN -(e)s > enclitic s-genitive
Old Swedish MASK.SG.NOM –er > Modern Swedish
nominalization suffix, e.g. en dummer ‘a stupid
person’
Old Swedish NEUT.PL.NOM/ACC –on > “berry-name
suffix” as in hallon ‘raspberry) > count noun
derivation suffix, e.g. päron ‘pear’
Norwegian infinitival å (from proclitic to free
complementizer
Freiburg 24-01-2007
26
Integrity

Resemanticization
– Pennsylvania German wotte, modal
‘would’ -> full verb ‘to wish’

Phonetic strengthening
– Dutch tig ‘-ty’ (with schwa) -> indefinite
numeral tig ‘umpteen’ (with full vowel)
Freiburg 24-01-2007
27
Paradigmaticity


No examples from Scandinavian (thus far)
Deparadigmaticization: shift from (relatively)
closed category to more open category
– Welsh eiddo, from pronoun ‘his’ to noun
‘property’

Recategorialization: acquisition of
grammatical properties such as inflection
– Pennsylvania wotte ‘wish’ is inflected as a verb
(e.g. past part. gewott) and may be governed by
auxiliaries (ich muss wotte ‘I must wish’)
Freiburg 24-01-2007
28
Paradigmatic variability

Deobligatorification: becoming less
obligatory in specific grammatical
contexts
– Old Swedish NOM.SG.MASC. –er,
obligatory when nouns / adjectives refer
to NOM.SG.MASC entities, not obligatory
when used in Modern Swedish as
nominalization suffix:


mykilhughæþær maðþær ‘proud man’ (Osw)
en dummer ‘a stupid person’ (MoSw) ~ en dum
person, ett dumhuvud, en dummerjöns etc etc
Freiburg 24-01-2007
29
Structural scope


Scope in grammaticalization: reduction or
expansion?
Scope in degrammaticalization: mostly
expansion
– Old Swedish GEN.SG.MASC -s only has N or A
stem as its scope, Modern Swedish s-genitive full
NP

ens salogs manz munne (OSw)
‘a blessed man’s mouth’
 [en salig man]s mun (MoSw)
‘[a blessed man]’s mouth’

[en äldre man ja [sic] känner]s gamla hund
‘[an elderly man I know]’s old dog
Freiburg 24-01-2007
30
Bondedness

Shift from right to left on cline of
grammaticality always involves
decreased bondedness
– Norwegian infinitive marker: from enclitic
to free morpheme

Intje aa faa Qvile tyktes haam for leit
‘Not to get rest seemed him too hard’ (EMoNo)
 Du skal lova å ikkje drikka (MoNo)
‘You shall promise to not drink’

Du skal lova ikkje å drikka
‘You shall promise not to drink’
Freiburg 24-01-2007
31
Syntagmatic variability

Decreased bondedness goes hand in
hand with increased syntactic freedom
(when a bound morpheme becomes a
free morpheme)
– Infinitive marker to in American English
It’s going to be hard to not take advice
 It’s going to be hard not to take advice

Freiburg 24-01-2007
32
CASE STUDIES: THE SGENITIVE
Freiburg 24-01-2007
33
The history of the
Swedish s-genitive


Norde 2006: three stages
Stage 1: word-marking inflection
– ens riks mans hws
‘a rich man’s house’

Bild 642
Stage 2: phrase-marking inflection
– mangen riddaris blod
Did 10
‘the blood of many a knight’

Stage 3: clitic
– personen du pratar meds mobil (@)
‘the person you’re talking to’s mobile phone’
Freiburg 24-01-2007
34
The DP in Old Swedish
(Delsing 1991)
DP
SPEC
D’
D
NP
Poss
konungsensi
ti
N’
hus
Freiburg 24-01-2007
35
The DP in Modern
Swedish
DP
SPEC
D’
D
konungeni
-s
NP
Poss
N’
ti
hus
Freiburg 24-01-2007
36
Compare: DP in Dutch
DP
SPEC
D’
D
de koningi
-z’n
NP
Poss
N’
ti
huis
Freiburg 24-01-2007
37
The s-genitive and
Lehmann’s parameters

Integrity
– resemanticization: 
– phonetic strengthening: ()

Paradigmaticity
– deparadigmaticization: 
– recategorialization: -

Paradigmatic variability
– deobligatorification: 
Freiburg 24-01-2007
38
S-genitive continued

Structural scope
– scope expansion: 

Bondedness:
– decreased bondedness: 

Syntagmatic variability
– increased syntactic freedom: 
Freiburg 24-01-2007
39
CASE STUDIES: FROM
INFLECTION TO
DERIVATION
Freiburg 24-01-2007
40
Case study 2: from
inflection to derivation



Old Swedish MASK.SG.NOM –er > Modern
Swedish nominalization suffix, e.g. en
dummer ‘a stupid person’
Old Swedish NEUT.PL.NOM/ACC –on > “berryname suffix” as in hallon ‘raspberry’) >
count noun derivation suffix, e.g. päron
‘pear’
Swedish NEUT.SG –t > adverbial –t : examples
of derived adverbs without adjectival
counterpart, e.g. enbart ‘only’ (*enbar)
Freiburg 24-01-2007
41
-ER

Stage 1: MASC.SG.NOM suffix (N / A)
– mykilhughæþær maðþær oc girughær (Vidh 14)
– en blinder

Stage 2: expansion to other genders and syntactic
funtions
– Judith var en riker änka
– Hyrde sig en svarter rock (Bellman)

Stage 3: in adjectival noun constructions >
derivational suffix: en dummer ’a stupid person’,
slarvern ’the careless one’
Freiburg 24-01-2007
42
-ON



Stage 1: PL.NOM/ACC of weak neuter nouns
ending in –a: hiūpon (MoSw nypon)
‘rosehips’, smultron ‘wild strawberries’
Stage 2: -on reinterpreted as ‘berry-suffix’,
expanding to hallon (hallbär) ’raspberry / ies’; hall `stony ground’, lingon (lingbär)
’lingonberry / -ies’< *lingwa (ljung)
’heather’ (mostly plural)
Stage 3: count nouns in the singular: päron
’pear’
Freiburg 24-01-2007
43
Inflection vs derivation:
clines

The cline of grammaticality
content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix
mot (N)
> mot (P)
‘meeting’
> ‘against’
hin
> in
DEMONSTRATIVE

> -in
> CLITIC > DEFINITE SUFFIX
The cline of lexicality
part of phrase > part of compound > derivational affix
manz lik
> man(z)lik
> manlig
‘a man’s body’ > ‘man’s body’
> ‘masculine’
Freiburg 24-01-2007
44
Life after derivation
Derivational affixes
 fossilize
– PGmc –m to derive agent nouns from verbs: bloem
‘flower’, storm ‘storm’, helm ‘helmet’ (cf. MoDu verbs
bloeien ‘to bloom’, storen ‘to disturb’, helen ‘(older): ‘to
cover’)

lexicalize
– Fascism and other isms
– Juices and ades (< Lemonade)

degrammaticalize
– Du tig ‘umpteen’ (< -tig ‘ty’ as in twintig ’20’ etc.)

become inflectional
Freiburg 24-01-2007
45
Life after inflection
Inflectional affixes:
 become –ø
– most nominal and verbal suffixes in English

fossilize (hardly)
– Du schoen (<

PL
of schoe ‘shoe’)
degrammaticalize
– Eng / ContScand enclitic s-genitive


do not lexicalize
become derivational
Freiburg 24-01-2007
46
(From derivation to
inflection)


MORE COMMON:
Old Norse derivational –st > MoScand
inflectional –s(t)
– Evidence for derivational status, e.g. word-class
changing st-verbs in ON, e.g. V fyrnast ‘age,
become older’ < Adj forn ‘old’

English adverbial –ly (productive and
obligatory)
Freiburg 24-01-2007
47
The diachrony of
derivation
1.

Derivational affixes: grammaticalization or
lexicalization (= creation of new lexemes)?
Pro-lexicalization: new items are added to
the lexicon
– but: derived item as a whole is added, not
derivational suffix itself

Pro-grammaticalization: derivational
afffixes have many characteristics of
grammaticalized items
– notable exception: they do not become part of
a paradigm
Freiburg 24-01-2007
48
Derivational suffixes:
grammaticalization?

Grammaticalization properties (Heine / Kuteva
2002) and Swedish –lig (e.g. ljuvlig ‘lovely) < lik
‘body’
– 1: Desemanticization or semantic bleaching  loss of
(concrete) meaning: 

meaning ‘body’ is lost
– 2: Extension or context generalization  use in new
contexts: 

-lig can derive Adj from V: tro ‘believe’ > trolig ‘conceivable’
– 3: Decategorialization  loss of morphosyntactic
properties (e.g. inflection): 
– 4: Erosion or phonetic reduction  loss of phonetic
substance: 
Freiburg 24-01-2007
49
Concluding remarks on
derivation


Possible solution to reconcile opposite
views: derivational affix is
grammaticalized item which itself is
involved in a lexicalization process
Himmelmann 2004: lexicalization is a
process sui generis
Freiburg 24-01-2007
50
From derivation to
inflection and vice versa
2.
If derivational affixes and inflectional
affixes develop along different clines,
how can they form a continuum?
Freiburg 24-01-2007
51
Proposal

Extended cline of lexicality:
phrase > compound > derivation affix >
inherent inflection affix > inflection
affix
Freiburg 24-01-2007
52
-ER and Lehmann’s
parameters

Integrity
– resemanticization: 
– phonetic strengthening: -

Paradigmaticity
– deparadigmaticization: 
– recategorialization: -

Paradigmatic variability
– deobligatorification: 
Freiburg 24-01-2007
53
-ER continued

Structural scope
– scope expansion: -

Bondedness:
– decreased bondedness: -

Syntagmatic variability
– increased syntactic freedom: -
Freiburg 24-01-2007
54
-ON and Lehmann’s
parameters

Integrity
– resemanticization: 
– phonetic strengthening: -

Paradigmaticity
– deparadigmaticization: 
– recategorialization: -

Paradigmatic variability
– deobligatorification: 
Freiburg 24-01-2007
55
-ON continued

Structural scope
– scope expansion: -

Bondedness:
– decreased bondedness: -

Syntagmatic variability
– increased syntactic freedom: -
Freiburg 24-01-2007
56
Case study 3: Norwegian å
and Lehmann’s parameters

Integrity
– resemanticization: – phonetic strengthening: -

Paradigmaticity
– deparadigmaticization: – recategorialization: -

Paradigmatic variability
– deobligatorification: Freiburg 24-01-2007
57
Norwegian å continued

Structural scope
– scope expansion: 

Du skal lova å [ikkje drikka]
‘You shall promise to not drink’

Bondedness:
– decreased bondedness: 

Syntagmatic variability
– increased syntactic freedom: 
Freiburg 24-01-2007
58
THEORETICAL
DISCUSSION
Freiburg 24-01-2007
59
Evaluation


Syntagmatic parameters appear to be
more relevant in the
degrammaticalization of bound
morphemes than paradigmatic
parameters
A “process of degrammaticalization”
cannot be identified
Freiburg 24-01-2007
60
Process problem

Grammaticalization (Heine / Kuteva 2002):
– 1: Desemanticization or semantic bleaching 
loss of (concrete) meaning
– 2: Extension or context generalization  use in
new contexts
– 3: Decategorialization  loss of
morphosyntactic properties (e.g. inflection)
– 4: Erosion or phonetic reduction  loss of
phonetic substance

Degrammaticalization: ???
Freiburg 24-01-2007
61
Causes of dgz






Loss of inflectional categories
“Paradigm pressure”
Analogy
Boundary shift as result of
phonological changes
Extralinguistic factors
Syntactic homonymy
Freiburg 24-01-2007
62
Conclusions



Much of the terminological confusion is rooted in
the common (implicit) assumption that dgz is a
process. It seems more appropriate however to
view dgz as the result of (a variety of) other
processes
Degrammaticalizations appear less consistent with
respect to Lehmann’s parameters than
grammaticalizations
The reason why it so rare is that the circumstances
under which a grammatical form can be interpreted
as a less grammatical form rarely occur.
Furthermore, in the case of affixal
degrammaticalization, a prerequisite appears to be
some kind of structural collapse (Plank’ (1995):
Freiburg 24-01-2007
63
Systemstörung)
Conclusions


Degrammaticalization is not the mirror-image of
grammaticalization, i.e. degrammaticalization
changes do not reflect the reverse order of the
opposites of the grammaticalization mechanisms.
Therefore, the only defining characteristic of
degrammaticalization is a shift to one position
further to the left on the cline of grammaticality.
The very existence of degrammaticalizations implies
that there are no “universals of grammatical
change” and should caution us against making
uncritical reconstructions
Freiburg 24-01-2007
64
THANK YOU

This presentation will soon be
downloadable from:
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~norde/downloadables.htm
Freiburg 24-01-2007
65