a hierarchical approach to grammaticalization
DESCRIPTION
A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization. Kees Hengeveld. Research questions. Can Functional Discourse Grammar serve as a framework to predict, describe and explain processes of grammaticalization? What are the relevant processes of contentive change? - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization
Kees Hengeveld
Research questions
• Can Functional Discourse Grammar serve as a framework to predict, describe and explain processes of grammaticalization?
• What are the relevant processes of contentive change?
• What are the relevant processes of formal change?
• How do these processes interact?
2
Contents
1. Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG)2. Contentive change in FDG3. Formal change in FDG4. Contentive change and formal change in
FDG5. Conclusions
3
1. Functional Discourse Grammar
Conceptual Component
Contextual
Component
Articulation
Expression Level
Prosodic Contours,Sounds
Frames, Lexemes, Operators
Templates, Grammatical elements
Pragmatics, Semantics
Formulation
Encoding
Morphosyntax, Phonology
Grammar
Output
Conceptual Component
Contextual
Component
Articulation
Expression Level
Prosodic Contours,Sounds
Frames, Lexemes, Operators
Templates, Grammatical elements
Pragmatics, Semantics
Formulation
Encoding
Morphosyntax, Phonology
Grammar
Output
Conceptual Component
Contextual
Component
Articulation
Expression Level
Prosodic Contours,Sounds
Frames, Lexemes, Operators
Templates, Grammatical elements
Pragmatics, Semantics
Formulation
Encoding
Morphosyntax, Phonology
Grammar
Output
Frames, Lexemes,Primary operators
Templates,Auxiliaries, Secondary operators
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Formulation
Morphosyntactic Encoding
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Encoding
Phonological Level
Prosodic patterns,Morphemes, Tertiary operators
Frames, Lexemes, Primary operators
Templates,Auxiliaries, Secondary operators
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Formulation
Morphosyntactic Encoding
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Encoding
Phonological Level
Prosodic patterns,Morphemes, Tertiary operators
Frames, Lexemes, Primary operators
Templates,Auxiliaries, Secondary operators
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Formulation
Morphosyntactic Encoding
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Encoding
Phonological Level
Prosodic patterns,Morphemes, Tertiary operators
Frames, Lexemes, Primary operators
Templates,Auxiliaries, Secondary operators
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Formulation
Morphosyntactic Encoding
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Encoding
Phonological Level
Prosodic patterns,Morphemes, Tertiary operators
12
Interpersonal Level
(π M1: [ Move
(π A1: [ Discourse Act
(π F1) Illocution
(π P1)S Speaker
(π P2)A Addressee
(π C1: [ Communicated Content
(π T1)Φ Ascriptive Subact
(π R1)Φ Referential Subact
] (C1)Φ Communicated Content
] (A1)Φ Discourse Act
] (M1)) Move
13
Representational Level(π p1: Propositional Content
(π ep1: Episode
(π e1: State-of-Affairs
[(π f1: [ Configurational Property
(π f1) Lexical Property
(π x1)Φ Individual
] (f1)) Configurational Property
(e1)Φ]) State-of-Affairs
(ep1)) Episode
(p1)) Propositional Content
2. Contentive change
Scope increase (layers)
Semantic units develop diachronically from lower to higher layers, and not the other way round (Hengeveld 1989)
Representational Level: p ← ep ← e ← f
15
Scope increase (layers)
Spanish haber ‘have’ (Olbertz 1993)
1. resultative, now replaced by tener:
Tengo prepara-d-a unacena fenomenal.
have.PRS.1.SG prepare-ANT-F.SG INDEF.SG.F meal(F)terrific
‘I have a terrific meal ready (for you).’
16
Scope increase (layers)
Spanish haber ‘have’
2. anterior
Había / he / habré preparado have.PST.1.SG/ have.PRS.1.SG / have.FUT.1.SGprepare-ANT
una cena fenomenal.INDEF.SG.F meal(F) terrific
‘I had/have/will have prepared a terrific meal.’
17
Scope increase (layers)
Spanish haber ‘have’
3. (recent) past
Me he levanta-do a las siete. 1.SG.REFL AUX.PRS.1.SG get.up-ANT at the seven‘I got up at seven o’clock.’
18
Scope increase (layers)
Spanish haber ‘have’
4. mirative (Ecuadorian Highland Spanish, Olbertz 2009)
Mire, compró estos, los probé ... y ..
Look bought.PF.3SG these them tried.PF.1SG and ¡han sido peras!have.3PL been pears
‘Look, she bought these, I tasted them ... and ... they are pears!’
19
Scope increase (layers)
Spanish haber ‘have’
p ← ep ← e ← fp ← ep ← e ← fp ← ep ← e ← fp ← ep ← e ← f
20
Scope increase (layers)
Pragmatic units develop diachronically from lower to higher layers, and not the other way round
Interpersonal Level: M ← A ← C ← R ← T
21
Scope increase (layers)
sort of (Hengeveld & Keizer 2009)
I keep sort of thinking about that and coming back to it. (Google)
I think I can more or less understand in general terms what happens up until sort of the impressionist time, maybe just post-impressionist. (BNC)
McCain backtracks on gay adoption, sort of. (Google)
22
Scope increase (layers)
sort of
M ← A ← C ← R ← TM ← A ← C ← R ← TM ← A ← C ← R ← T
23
Scope increase (levels)
Semantic units may develop diachronically into pragmatic units, and not the other way round (Hengeveld & Wanders 2007)
Interpersonal Level↑
Representational Level
24
Scope increase (levels)
RL: Providing food assistance is not easy because the infrastructure is lacking.
IL: Watch out, because there is a bull in the field!
RL: Providing food assistance is not easy exactly because the infrastructure is lacking.
IL: *Watch out, exactly because there is a bull in the field!
25
Scope increase (levels)
Semantic units may develop diachronically into pragmatic units, and not the other way round
Interpersonal Level↑
Representational Level
26
Scope increase (levels)
Semantic units may develop diachronically into pragmatic units, and not the other way round
Interpersonal Level↑
Representational Level
27
From lexeme to operator
Goossens (1985), Olbertz (1998), and Keizer (2007).
π ← Lexeme
28
From lexeme to operator
fail to (Mackenzie 2009)
π ← LexemeHe failed to win the race.The bomb failed to explode.
fail (fc)(neg fc)
29
From lexeme to operator
decir (Olbertz 2005, 2007; Grández Ávila 2010)
π ← LexemeThey say (dicen que) Juan is ill.Juan apparently (dizque) is ill.
decir (C) (Rep C)
30
Contentive change in FDG
31
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: haber
32
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: haber
33
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: haber
34
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: haber
35
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: haber
36
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: haber
37
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: haber
38
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: haber
39
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: haber
40
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: sort of
41
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: sort of
42
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: sort of
43
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: sort of
44
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: sort of
45
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: sort of
46
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: sort of
47
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: because
48
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: because
49
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
Contentive change in FDG: because
50
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
3. Formal change in FDG
Main issue
There cannot be a one-to-one relation between formal changes and layers/levels, as lexical elements may enter the grammatical system at any layer/level
52
Grammaticalization scales
inflectional affix < clitic < grammatical word < content item
but: isolating vs. agglutinative vs. fusional languages
53
A scale of formal change in FDG
Keizer (2007)
lexemes (xi: – man – (xi): – old – (xi))
‘the/an old man’lexical operators (that xi: – man – (xi))
‘that man’operators (1 xi: – man – (xi))
‘a man’
54
Formal categories in FDG
Criteria:
lexemes: modification:an extremely old man
lexical operators:focalization(which man?) THAT
manoperators: neither
55
A grammaticalization scale in FDG
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
56
4. Contentive and formal change in FDG
Linking the scales
Each of the contentive parameters can be linked to the formal parameter to provide a more coherent view of the interplay between contentive and formal aspects of grammaticalization processes
58
Linking the scales
contentive scale:p ← ep ← e ← f
formal scale:operators < lexical operators < lexemes
As elements move up the contentive scale, they cannot move down the formal scale
59
Linking the scales
Allowed:
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
60
Linking the scales
Not allowed:
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
61
Linking the scales
contentive scale:M ← A ← C ← R ← T
formal scale:operators < lexical operators < lexemes
As elements move up the contentive scale, they cannot move down the formal scale
62
Linking the scales
Allowed:
M ← A ← C ← R ← T
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
63
Linking the scales
Not allowed:
M ← A ← C ← R ← T
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
64
5. Conclusion
Conclusions 1
FDG offers a framework within which known processes of grammaticalization can be captured
Contentive changes are restricted in terms of the hierarchical relations between layers and levels
Formal changes can be captured in a crosslinguistically valid way by adopting Keizer’s grammaticalization scale rather than traditional ones
66
Conclusions 2
Contentive and formal scales can be linked by defining a relative rather than absolute relationship between them
67
this presentation downloadable fromhome.hum.uva.nl/oz/hengeveldp