Transcript Bibliographical References (2)

Université de Grenoble-Alpes
Jeudi 14 avril 2016
On Grammatical Change in Chinese:
processes of analogy, reanalysis,
external borrowing
*
Alain Peyraube
CNRS et EHESS, Paris, France
1
Mechanisms of Grammatical
Change
Meillet (1912)
- Analogie
- Grammaticalisation « Attribution du
caractère grammatical à un mot jadis
autonome » Item lexical > mot grammatical
元朝的周伯琦：今之虚字皆古之实字 (现在
的虚字都是以前的实字)

2
Hottest topics in grammatical
change
Grammaticalization: Newmeyer (1998):
there is no such thing as grammaticalization
 Unidirectionality
 Degrammaticalization (Norde 2002, Heine
2003, Ramat 2001)
 Exaptation (Lass 1990)
 Pragmatic inferencing (Traugott & Dasher
2002)

3
Other notions
Reanalysis (Campbell 2001)
 Analogy
 Functional renewal
 Re-functionalization (Giacalone-Ramat
1998)
 Hypo-analysis or under-analysis (Croft
2000)

4
Analogy (or Extension)
Hopper and Traugott (1993: 21):
New paradigms (which) come into being
through formal resemblance to already
established paradigms
 McMahon (1994: 71), Peyraube (1999a):
Generalization of a morpheme or relation
which already exists in the language into
new situations or forms

5
Analogy (2)

Another definition which parallels the one
given for Reanalysis (see below): Analogy
only modifies the surface structure and does
not modify the underlying structure

Almost all the changes have an analogical
ingredient (Anttila 1977, Lightfoot 1981)
6
Kiparsky’s rethinking of Analogy

Analogical change is grammar optimization,
the elimination of unmotivated grammatical
complexity or idiosyncrasy (Kiparsky 2005,
2012)

Various types of analogy are allowed:
proportional, non-proportional, and even nonexamplar based
7
Kiparsky’s Analogy (2)
Distinction between two types of analogy:
 Examplar-based analogy:
- Proportional analogical change
- Non-proportional analogical change
 Non-examplar-based analogy
(grammaticalization) - No need for a model. NEB
analogy projects UG constraints that are not
positively instantiated in the language
8
Kiparsky’s Analogy (3)
Typical examples of non-examplar-based
analogical changes are fusions of two words to
form one, occuring spontaneously without any
particular model
 Opposed to this, fission of one word into two
words is always examplar-based

9
Chinese examples of fusion and
fission
Fusion:
之+ 于> 诸
不+ 之> 弗
毋+ 之> 勿
于+之 > 焉
in Late Archaic
Chinese (5th-2nd c.
BCE)

Fission:
诸>之+ 于
弗>不+ 之
勿>毋+ 之
焉>于+ 之
Starting in the Han
period, ca. 1st c. BCE

10
Reanalysis


Langacker (1977):
Change in the structure of an expression or class
of expressions that does not involve any
immediate or intrinsic modification of its surface
manifestation
Harris and Campbell (1995: 61):
A mechanism which changes the underlying
structure of a syntactic pattern and which does not
involve any immediate or intrinsic modification of
its surface manifestation
11
Reanalysis (2)

Hagège (1993: 62):
An operation by which language builders cease to
analyze a given structure as they did previously,
and introduce a new distribution of, and new
relations between, the syntactic units that
constitute this structure

Only Hagège’s definition allows us to consider
major typological shifts such as word order
change (OV > VO) as cases of reanalysis
12
Grammaticalization


Kuryłowicz (1975):
(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
Hopper and Traugott (1993: xv):
The process whereby lexical items and
constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to
serve grammatical functions, and, once
grammaticalized, continue to develop new
grammatical meanings
13
Grammaticalization (2)


Traugott (2001):
Grammaticalization is the change whereby lexical
items and constructions come in certain linguistic
contexts to serve grammatical functions or
grammatical items develop new grammatical
functions
Traugott and Hopper (2003: 231)
Gram. is a robust tendency for lexical items and
constructions …
14
Grammaticalization (3)

Greenberg (1991: 303):
Gram. is not only a shift from lexical to
grammatical. It is a « development of grammatical
elements from all sources »

Grammaticalization is NOT grammatical change
NOR the development of grammatical elements
from all sources
15
Grammaticalization (4)


Hopper and Traugott (1993) not very clear on this
point:
it is best to regard gram. as a subset of changes
involved in reanalysis rather than to identify the
two (p. 50)
mechanisms by which gram. takes place:
reanalysis primarily, and analogy secondarily (p.
32)
16
Hopper’s heuristic principles
Four ‘heuristic’ principles of Hopper
(1991): Layering, Divergence,
Specialization, Persistence
 Applied to Chinese syntactic change by
Peyraube (1986, 1988, 1989) and Sun
(1996: 165 sq.) for the history of de 得, ba
把 and of the dative constructions. See also
Jiang Lansheng (1988, 2002)

17
Hyperonyms subject to
grammaticalization


Lexical meanings subject to gram. are usually quite
general. Verbs which grammaticalize tend to be
superordinate terms (‘hyperonyms’) in lexical
fields, for example say, move, go
Tendency also observed in Chinese gram. for the
hyperonymic verbs yu 与 ‘to give’, ba 把 ‘to take’,
zai 在 ‘to be at’, liao 了 ‘finish’ into the
prepositions yu 与 ‘to’, ba 把 ‘pre-verbal object
marker’, zai 在 ‘at’, le了‘aspectual marker’
18
Clines of grammaticality



Basic to work on grammaticalization is the concept of the
cline. Forms do not shift abruptly from one category to
another, but go through a series of gradual transitions,
transitions which tend to be similar in type across
languages
V liao 了 ‘finish’ > Phase complement > Aspectual suffix
(see Mei 1994)
Evolution of gong 共 from a lexical verb ‘to share with’ to
an adverb ‘together’, and to a preposition ‘with’, and to a
conjunction ‘and’ (see Liu and Peyraube 1994)
19
Cyclical Change


An insight developed by von der Gabelentz (1891:
251) is that syntactic change is not a linear
process, but rather a cyclical one, or more exactly
one that involves a movement in a spiral
The reason for the cyclical nature of change is to
be found in the dialectical relationship between
opposite needs of communication: ease of
production and perception on the one hand, search
of expressiveness on the other hand
20
Cyclical Change (2)
The idea of cyclic changes has been
interestingly incorporated by various attempts
in this domain by Cai (1986), Cao (1987a,
1987b), Mei (1984, 1987), Désirat and
Peyraube (1992). They noticed that some
lexical items or grammatical phenomena,
attested at a certain time, disappear during one
or several centuries, before reappearing later
21
Cyclical Change (3)
For instance, the adverbs jiu 就 ‘then’ and
kuai 快 ‘rapidly’ were used during the
Southern Song (12th and 13th centuries), to be
later replaced by bian 便 and ji 即 under the
Yuan (14th c.), and used again at the
beginning of the Ming (15th c.)
22
Cyclical Change (4)


The demonstratives zhe 这 ‘this’ and na 那 ‘that’ could be
used alone as subjects under the Southern Song and again
under the Ming, but this was not the case during the Tang
(7th-10th c.) and the Yuan, where they had to be followed
either by the classifier ge 个, or by the determinative
particle de 的
The structure V + le + O + le (where the first le 了 is an
aspectual marker and the second one a final particle) is
attested under the Southern Song, but disappeared during
the Yuan, and reappeared under the Ming
23
Exaptation

Gould and Vrba (1982, 1983):
We wish to restrict the term adaptation only to those structures
that evolved for their current utility; those useful structures
that arose for other reasons, or for no conventional reasons at
all, and were fortuitously available for other changes, we call
exaptations

Lass (1990: 80):
(It) is the opportunistic co-optation of a feature whose origin is
unrelated or only marginally related to its later use … in other
words (loosely) a conceptual novelty or invention
24
Exaptation (2)
When a form loses its function, or has become
completely marginal within the system, it:
 can be lost
 can be kept as marginal debris
 can be reused for something else (=
exaptation)
25
Exaptation (3)





Giacalone-Ramat (1998): refunctionalization
Greenberg (1991): regrammaticalization
Norde (2002), Heine (2003):
degrammaticalization
Croft (2000): hypoanalysis, underanalysis
Marginal morpheme with old function > more
central morpheme with new function (Traugott
2004 formulation)
26
Exaptation (4)

Exaptation, as a conceptual invention, is a case of
reanalysis. It has nothing to do with extension or
analogy

Giacalone-Ramat (1998) argues that gram. and
exaptation are conflicting types of changes

Norde (2002), Traugott (2004) view them as
essentially similar, but with different outcomes
27
Exaptation (5)
Examples (Lass 2000, Brinton & Stein 1995,
Giacalone-Ramat 1998):
- Dutch adjective morphology > marking on
morphologically complex attributive adjectives in
Afrikaans
- Indo-European aspectual system > Germanic tense
system (debatable example)
- Old English present participle –ende > Modern
English progressive form with –ing (deb. ex.)
- Latin suffix –ille > Romance definite article and
clitic (e.g. French le)

28
Exaptation (6)
Examples (cont.)
- Re-emergence, with new functions, of the Old
English conclusive perfect (I have a letter written)
in the 17th century, to coexist with the perfect (I
have written a letter)
- Indo-European sk (originally a prefix for forming
present tense) re-used twice: (i) as an inchoative in
Latin (pallesco ‘grow pale’); (ii) as an affix in
French (je finis / nous finissons)

29
Exaptation (7)

-
Examples (cont.)
Ancient Chinese modal particle ye 也 >
Medieval Chinese Adverb ye 也 ‘also’
- na 那 in Han and Six Dynasties (2nd-6th c. AD)
Buddist texts with the meaning of the preposition
yu 于 ‘at, to’ disappears at the end of the Six
Dynasties period and was reused as a
demonstrative pronoun ‘that’ under the Tang (7th10th c.)
30
Exaptation (8)

Exaptation is neither grammaticalization
nor degrammaticalization

It is a reuse of an old form A for something
else completey new (B), with no direct or
indirect connection between A and B
31
Unidirectionality



-
-
Said to be the main characterization (or even a
« principle ») of grammaticalization
Haspelmath (1999): « Grammaticalization is
irreversible »
The only direction is:
Discourse > Syntax > Morphology >
Morphophonemics > Zero (Givon 1979)
Lexical item > Grammatical element (实词> 虚词)
Less grammatical > More grammatical
32
Unidirectionality (2)
If grammaticalization is unidirectional, why
haven’t all languages converged by now?
 Because grammaticalization is not
equivalent to grammatical change
 What accounts for the exceptions to
unidirectionality? Cases of
degrammaticalization

33
Degrammaticalization



Counterexamples to unidirectionality:
Morphology > Syntax > Discourse
Grammatical element > Lexical item
More grammatical > Less grammatical
They are sporadic and do not damage the
unidirectionality hypothesis (Haspelmath 2002,
Hopper and Traugott 2003, Wu Fuxiang 2003, 2005)
They are not so marginal  no special type of change
such as gram. even exists
34
Degrammaticalization (2)
English examples :
up [+ Preposition] > up [+ Verb]
-ism [+ Suffix] > ism [+ Noun]
dare [+ Auxiliary verb] > dare to [+ Verb]
calendar [+ Noun] > to calendar [+ Verb]

- French examples:
trop [+ Adverb] > trop [+ Adjective]
pour [+ Preposition] > pour [+ Noun]
contre [+ Preposition] > contre [+ Noun]

35
Degrammaticalization (3)
Uralic and Indo-European languages
- Seto/Võru (South Estonian) –ldaq [Suffix] > -ldaq
[Clitic] “without”, change triggered by analogy
with the comitative clitic gaq (‘with’)]
- Modern Greek ksana- [Prefix] > ksana [Clitic]
‘again’
- Estonian –p [Prefix] > ep [Adverb]
- Spanish –mos [Suffix] > nos [1st Pl. pronoun]
- Irish –muid [Prefix] > muid [1st Pl. pronoun]

36
Degrammaticalization (4)
Chinese:
- Adverb tong 同 ‘together’ > Noun 同 (三同)
- Suffix hua 化 ‘ization’ > Noun 化 (四化)
- Demonstrative pronoun shi 是 ‘this’ > Copula, Verb 是 ‘to
be’
- Demonstrative pronoun zhi 之 ‘this’ > Verb 之 ‘to go’
- Preposition 把 > Verb 把 for sentences like 我把你这个糊
涂虫 ! (see Jiang Lansheng & Yang Yonglong 2006 on
sentence ellipsis 句式省缩)
 The cases of fission above could also be considered as
cases of degrammaticalization: 诸 > 之 + 于; 弗 > 不 + 之;
焉 > 于 + 之, 勿 > 毋 + 之

37
Lexicalization
Actually, there is no need to talk of
‘degrammaticalization’ which violates the
defining characteristic of unidirectionality for
the grammaticalization process. All the cases
of ‘degrammaticalization’ are de facto cases
of lexicalization, which is another important
process of language change
38
Lexicalization (2)
Van der Auwera (2002: 20), Ramat (1992,
2001) do not make any strict difference
between ‘degrammaticalization’ and
lexicalization
Like grammaticalization, lexicalization,
though far less systematically studied than
grammaticalization, has been conceptualized
in different ways
39
Lexicalization (3)
Should not be defined as an ‘adoption of
words into the lexicon’, as did Dong X.
(2012), i.e. a process of word-formation,
including, for Chinese, the main operations
of compounding, derivation, reduplication
 Not being restricted either, to ‘a process in
which something becomes lexical’
(Lehmann (2002: 14)

40
Lexicalization (4)

Lexicalization should be simply viewed as a
historical process, as a reverse process of
grammaticalization, as a development of
concrete meanings from grammatical
meanings, of full words (lexical items) from
empty words (grammatical elements), a
lexical item being a type of formal unit
which belongs to the lexicon …
41
Lexicalization (5)
… sometimes called a lexeme, when typically
contrasted with a grammatical morpheme or
‘gram’ (Brinton and Traugott 2005: 9-10).
42
External Borrowing

Borrowing, contrary to analogy, but like
reanalysis, can introduce an entirely new
structure into a language, and in this sense
can produce a radical change. It is an
‘attempted reproduction in one language of
patterns previously found in another’
(Haugen quoted in McMahon, 1994: 200)
43
External Borrowing (2)

A. Borrowing moves from the more to the less
prestigious language. This condition is not
absolute. Mei (1988) has convincingly showed
that the opposition between zamen 咱们 ‘we,
inclusive’ vs women 我们 ‘we, exclusive’, which
appeared in Chinese under the Jin (12thc.), has
been borrowed from Altaic languages, either
Khitan or more probably Jurchen. Were these Altaic
languages at that time more prestigious than Chinese?
Probably not
44
External Borrowing (3)

B. Basic vocabulary is only unfrequently
affected. We nonetheless know that English
borrowed a good deal of basic vocabulary:
sky, skin, and even the pronouns they, them,
their from Norse
45
External Borrowing (4)

C. Structural compatibility is supposed to be required.
Weinreich (1953: 25), after Jakobson, has stressed that ‘a
language “accepts foreign elements only when they
correspond to its tendencies of development”.’ However,
any insistence that grammatical borrowing happens only in
situations of shared structural similarities is simply wrong.
Many examples involve grammatical borrowing from
typologically divergent languages. See Li (1983, 1994),
Mei (1988) for Chinese and Altaic languages
46
External Borrowing (5)

D. Some categories (lexical elements) are
said to rank highest in terms of
borrowability, others lowest, if borrowable
at all (grammatical forms). This claim is
also debatable. An absolute ranking like that
provides little real satisfaction
47
External Borrowing (6)

E. Basic patterns are hardly borrowable. But
a rather large number of cases have been
reported in which basic word order patterns
have been borrowed. Faarlund (1990: 84)
even claims that ‘all known instances of a
change from VO to OV are due to contact
with OV languages’
48
External Borrowing (7)

To sum up, if borrowing must indeed be accorded
a more significant position among the three
mechanisms of syntactic change, it is safer to
consider all the proposed universals and principles
of borrowing as general tendencies, instead of as
absolute constraints. And it could be the case that
language contact and the outcome of borrowing
could have, at best, a trigger effect, releasing or
accelerating grammatical phenomena which grow
independently
49
Contact-induced grammatical
change
Model presented in Heine and Kuteva
(2003, 2005) has begun to be applied in
Sinitic and other East Asian and Southeast
Asian languages
 The term ‘borrowing’ has been replaced by
the term ‘transfer’

50
Contact-induced transfer
A contact-induced transfer is defined as
follows: ‘If there is a linguistic property X
shared by two languages M (Model language)
and R (Replica language), and these
languages are immediate neighbors and/or are
known to have been in contact with each other
for an extended period of time, …
51
Contact-induced transfer (2)
and X is also found in languages genetically
related to M but not in languages genetically
related to R, then we hypothesize that there is
an instance of contact-induced transfer, more
specifically that X has been transferred from
M to R.’ (Heine aud Kuteva 2005: 33)
52
Chinese and Altaic
Over the past five years, a good amount of
research on contact-induced grammatical
change has been undertaken concerning
Chinese and Altaic languages (Khitan,
Jurchen, Mongolian and Mandchu) that have
been particularly important during the Liao
(907-1125), Jin (1115-1234), Yuan (12061368), and Qing dynasties (1644-1911)
53
Language contact and Typology
A comparative analysis has also been made,
on the largest attainable scale, of the
grammatical transfers identified in historical
documents with those observable today in
several Sinitic languages and Altaic languages
(Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic) in
Northwestern China
54
Language contact and Typology (2)

This research has thus also contributed to a
better understanding of the typological
characteristics that distinguish different
Sinitic languages, and of the issues involved
in linguistic areas, reinforcing the links that
exist between historical linguistics (and
especially grammatical change) and
typological linguistics
55
Mechanisms
of morpho-syntactic change

•
•
•

There are two – and only two – powerful internal
mechanisms of morpho-syntactic change:
Analogy, comprising:
Degrammaticalization (most of the time
Lexicalization)
Reanalysis, comprising:
Grammaticalization
Exaptation
One external mechanism : external borrowing
through language contact
56
The motivations of
morpho-syntactic change
Analogical change has multiple motivating
factors:
-A > B motivated by the anormality or
complexity of A, or by the generality or
simplicity of B (pull/push model).
-Semantic-pragmatic change, especially
metaphorical extension (Peyraube & Li Ming
2008, 2012).
57
The motivations of
morpho-syntactic change (2)

•
•
•

Motivations for Reanalysis:
Semantic-pragmatic change
Metaphorical extension (more related to analogy)
Pragmatic inferencing (metonymisation, more related
to reanalysis)
subjectification
Others, such as phonological change
The main motivation for external borrowing is
language contact
58
Conclusion




Degrammaticalization and exaptation have to be
distinguished
Cases of degrammaticalization (counterexamples to
gram. unidirectionality) can be subsumed under the
mechanism of analogy (examplar-based analogical
changes in Kiparsky’s formulation)
Cases of exaptation (most of them also being
counterex. to undirectionality) belong to the
mechanisms of reanalysis
Pragmatic inferencing (metonymization) is the main
motivating factor of semantic change
59
Conclusion (2)

Finally, we should also be aware of the
mechanism of external borrowing and not
only of the internal mechanisms. ‘Most of
the analyses have been conducted largely in
the context of putative homogeneous
developments. When we look at contact
situations, complications arise’ (Traugott
2001)
60
Bibliographical References




ANTTILA Raimo (1977). Analogy. The Hague: Mouton
BRINTON Laurel & Dieter STEIN (1995). Functional
renewal. Henning Andersen ed. Historical Linguistics
1993: Selected Papers from the 11th ICHL, Los Angeles
16-20 August 1993. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
CAI Jinggao (1986). Shi 'bei', Zhongguo yuwen 4. 314-5.
CAMPBELL Lyle (2001). What’s wrong with
grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23-2/3. 113-161.
Bibliographical References (2)





CAO Guangshun (1987a). Shi shuo 'jiu' he 'kuai' zai Song
dai de shiyong ji youguan de duandai wenti. Zhongguo
yuwen 4. 288-94.
CAO Guangshun (1987b). Yuqici 'le' yuanliu qianshuo.
Yuwen yanjiu 2. 10-5.
CAO Guangshun 曹广顺（1995). 近代汉语助词. 语文出
版社.
CAO Guangshun 曹广顺 (2001). 汉语语法史研究中的历
史视角. Ms.
CROFT William (2000). Explaining language change: an
evolutionary approach. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
62
Bibliographical References (3)




DESIRAT Michel and Alain PEYRAUBE (1992). Some
remarks on the demonstratives in the Fuzhou dialect with
reference to their historical evolution in Medieval and Modern
Chinese. Chinese languages and linguistics 1. 493-522.
DJAMOURI Redouane & Waltraud PAUL (1997). Les
syntagmes prépositionnels en yu et zai en chinois archaïque.
Cah. de ling. Asie Orientale 26-2. 221-248.
FAARLUND Jan. T. (1990). Syntactic change: toward a theory
of historical syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
GABELENTZ G. von der (1891). Die Sprachwissenschaft: ihre
Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig:
Weigel.
Bibliographical References (4)



GIACALONE-RAMAT Anna (1998). Testing the
boundaries of grammaticalization. Giacalone-Ramat &
Hopper eds. The limits of grammaticalization. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins. 197-227.
GIVON Talmy (1979). On Understanding Grammar. New
York: Academic Press.
GIVON Talmy (1991). The evolution of dependent clause
morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. Elizabeth C. Traugott
and Bern Heine eds. Approaches to Grammaticalization.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vol. 2, 257-310.
64
Bibliographical References (5)



GOULD Stephen J. & Elizabeth S. Vbra (1982).
Exaptation – a missing term in the science of form.
Paleobiology 8. 4-15.
GOULD Stephen J. (1983). Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toe.
Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: Norton.
GREENBERG Joseph H. (1991). The last stages of
grammatical elements: contractive and expansive
desemanticization. Traugott & Heine eds. Approaches to
grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 301-314
Bibliographical References (6)




HAGEGE Claude (1993). The language builder.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins
HARRIS Alice C. & Lyle CAMPBELL (1995). Historical
syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
HASPELMATH Martin (1998). Does grammaticalization
need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22. 315-351.
HASPELMATH Martin (1999). Why is
grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37. 1043-1068
Bibliographical References (7)



HEINE Bernd (2003). (De)grammaticalization. Kate
Burridge & Barry Blake eds. Historical linguistics 2001;
Papers from ICHL 15, Melbourne, Australia
HOPPER Paul J. (1991). On some principles of
grammaticization. Traugott and Heine eds. Approaches to
Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. 17-36.
HOPPER Paul J. & Elizabeth C. TRAUGOTT (1993).
Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 2nd edition: 2003.
Bibliographical References (8)



JANDA Richard (2001). Beyond Pathways and
Unidirectionality: on the discontinuity of language
transmission and the counterability grammaticalization.
Language sciences 22. 265-340.
JIANG Lansheng 江蓝生 (1988) .魏晋南北朝小说词语汇
释. 语文出版社。
JIANG Lansheng江蓝生 (2002). 时间词“时”和“後”
的语法化. 中国语文 4. 291-301.
68
Bibliographical References (9)



JIANG Lansheng & YANG Yonglong 江蓝生，杨永龙
(2006). 句式省缩与相关的逆语法化倾向. Ho Dah-an, S.
Cheung, W. Pan and F. Wu eds. Linguistic Studies in
Chinese and Neighboring Languages: Festschrift in Honor
of Professor Pang-Hsin Ting on His 70th Birthday.
Taiwan: Academia Sinica. 439-466.
JIANG Shaoyu 蒋绍愚 (2004). 汉语语法演变若干问题
的思考. 第五届国际古汉语语法研讨会论文.
KIPARSKY Paul (2005). Grammaticalization as
Optimization. Paper delivered at Santigao de Compostela.
July 17.
Bibliographical References (10)




KIPARSKY Paul (2012). Grammaticalization as
Optimization. D. Jonas, J. Whitman & A. Garrett eds.
Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.15-51.
KURYLOWICZ Jerzy (1975). The evolution of
grammatical categories. Esquisses linguistiques 2.38-54
LANGACKER Ronald W. (1977). Syntactic Renalysis.
Charles N. Li ed. Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin:
University of Texas Press. 57-139.
LASS Roger (1990). How to do things with junk:
exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26.
79-102
Bibliographical References (11)



LASS Roger (2000). Remarks on (uni)directionality.
Fischer, Rosenbach & Stein eds. Pathways of change –
grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. 207-227
Li C. N. (1983). Languages in contact in Western China.
Papers in East Asian Languages 1. 31-51.
Li C. N. (1994). Language contact in China: Is Mandarin
Chinese derived from a pidgin? Fisiak ed. Linguistic
Change Under Contact Conditions. Amsterdam: J.
Benjamins. 131-48.
Bibliographical References (12)




LIGHTFOOT David (1981). Explaining syntactic change.
Hornstein & Lightfoot eds. Explanations in Linguistics,
The logical problem of language. London: Longman. 209240.
LIU Jian, CAO Guangshun & WU Fuxiang 刘坚，曹广
顺，吴福祥 (1995). 论诱发汉语词汇语法化的若干因素.
中国语文3. 161-169.
LIU Jian & Alain PEYRAUBE (1994). History of some
coordinative constructions in Chinese. Journal of Chinese
Linguistics 22.2: 179-201.
MCMAHON April M.S. (1994). Understanding Language
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
72
Bibliographical References (13)




Mei Tsu-lin (1984). Cong yuyan shi kan ji ben Yuan zaju
binbai de xiezuo shiqi", Yuyanxue luncong 13. 111-153.
Mei Tsu-lin (1987). Tang, Wu dai 'zhe' 'na' bu dan yong
zuo zhuyu. Zhongguo yuwen 3. 205-7.
Mei Tsu-lin (1988). Beifang fangyan zhong diyi rencheng
daici fushu baokuoshi he paichushi duili de laiyuan.
Yuyanxue lunji 15. 141-5.
MEI Tsu-lin 梅祖麟 (1994). 唐代宋代共同语的语法和现
代方言语法。 中国境内语言及语言学 2. 61-97
Bibliographical References (14)



MEI Tsu-lin 梅祖麟 (1996). 汉语语法史中几个反复出
现的演变方式. Paper presented at the 2nd International
Conference on Ancient Chinese Grammar. Beijing
University.
MEILLET Antoine (1912). L’évolution des formes
grammaticales. Linguistique historique et linguistique
générale. Paris : Champion.
NEWMEYER Fritz (1998). Language form and function.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bibliographical References (15)




NORDE Muriel (2002). The final stages of grammaticalization:
affixhood and beyond. Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald eds.
New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. 45-65.
PEYRAUBE Alain (1986). Shuang binyu jiegou - cong Han dai
zhi Tang dai de lishi fazhan. Zhongguo yuwen 3. 204-216.
PEYRAUBE Alain (1988). Syntactic change in Chinese: on
grammaticalization. The Bulletin of the Institute of History and
Philology 59. 617-52.
PEYRAUBE Alain (1988). Syntaxe diachrnonique du chinois.
Evolution des constructions datives du 14e siecle avant J.C. au
18e siecle. Paris : College de France.
Bibliographical References (16)




PEYRAUBE Alain (1989). Zaoqi ba ziju de jige wenti.
Yuwen yanjiu 1. 1-9.
PEYRAUBE Alain (1991). Syntactic change in Chinese: on
grammaticalization. Bulletin of the Institute of History and
Philology of the Academia Sinica. 59-3. 617-652
PEYRAUBE Alain (1999a) Historical Change in Chinese
Grammar. Cahiers de Linguistique - Asie Orientale 28-2.
177-226
PEYRAUBE Alain (1999b). On the modal auxiliairies of
possibility in Classical Chinese. H. S. Wang, F.-f. Tsao, C.-f.
Lien eds, Selected Papers from the Fifth International
Conference on Chinese Linguistics. Taipei: The Crane
Publishing Co, 1999, pp. 27-52
76
Bibliographical References (17)



PEYRAUBE Alain (2001). On the Modal Auxiliaries of
Volition in Classical Chinese. H. Chappell ed., Sinitic
Grammar: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 172-188.
PEYRAUBE Alain 贝罗贝 (2005). 类推，语法化, 去语
法化与功能更新. 第三届汉语语法化研讨会. 洛阳
10.27-28.
PEYRAUBE Alain贝罗贝 & LI Ming李明(2008). 语义演
变理论与语义演变和句法演变. Shen Yang 沈阳 & Feng
Shengli 冯胜利 ed. 当代语言学理论和汉语研究. Beijing:
Shangwu yinshuguan 2008. 1-25.
Bibliographical References (18)


PEYRAUBE Alain & LI Ming (2012). The semantic
historical development of modal verbs of volition in
Chinese. Janet Z. Xing ed. Newest trends in the study of
grammaticalization and lexicalization in Chinese. Berlin:
Walter de Geruyter. 149-168.
RAMAT Paolo (2001). Degrammaticalization or
transcategorization ? Chris Schaner-Wolles, John
Rennison & Friedrich Neubarth eds. Naturally! Linguistic
Studies in Honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler Presented
on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Torino: Rosenbach
and Sellier. 393-401.
78
Bibliographical References (19)




SUN Chaofen (1996). Word Order Change and
Grammaticalization in the History of Chinese. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
TRAUGOTT Elizabeth C. (2001). Legitimate
counterexamples to unidirectionality. Paper presented at
Freiburg University. Octobre 17.
TRAUGOTT Elizabeth C. (2004). Exaptation and
grammaticalization. Minoji Akimoto ed. Linguistic studies
based on corpora. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publisihing Co.
133-156.
TRAUGOTT Elizabeth C. & Richard DASHER (2002).
Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bibliographical References (20)




Weinreich U. (1953). Languages in contact: findings and
problems. The Hague: Mouton.
Yue-Hashimoto A. (1993). The Lexicon in Syntactic
Change: Lexical Diffusion in Chinese Syntax. Journal of
Chinese Linguistics 21-2. 213-254.
WU Fuxiang 吴福祥 (2003). 关于语法化的单向性问题.
当代语言学 4.
WU Fuxiang 吴福祥 (2005). 汉语语法化演变的几个类
型学特征. 中国语文 6. 483-494.
80
THANK YOU
MERCI
謝謝!
81