THREE%20COMMON%20MISUNDERSTANDINGS%20ABOUT%20DEGRAMMATICALIZATION

1

• THREE COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT
  DEGRAMMATICALIZATION
• Muriel Norde

2
Outline

• Aims
• Definitions and other theoretical preliminaries
• Misunderstandings
• Classification of degrammaticalization
• Case studies
• Conclusions

3
Aims
4
Three misunderstandings

1. Degrammaticalization is, or should be, the
   reverse of grammaticalization
2. Degrammaticalization, unlike grammaticalization,
   is a mere morphosyntactic change
3. Degrammaticalization, unlike grammaticalization,
   is exceptional and unclassifiable

5
Preliminary definition

• Based on the cline of grammaticality
• content item gt grammatical word gt clitic gt
  inflectional affix
• Degrammaticalization is a shift from right to
  left to an adjacent position
• As in grammaticalization, the constructional
  identity is preserved

6
Misunderstanding 1

• Degrammaticalization is, or should be, the
  reverse of grammaticalization

7
Representative quote

• 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. For instance, a change from
  a case suffix to a free postposition with the
  intermediate stage of a postpositional clitic
  would be an antigrammaticalization
• Haspelmath 2004

8
Kinds of reversal

• Mirror-image reversal
• Bybee, Perkins Pagliuca 1994
• Type reversal vs token reversal
• Haspelmath 2004
• Etymological category reversal vs
  Non-etymological category reversal
• Askedal 2007

9
Why there is no token reversal

• Grammaticalization ageing, erosion
• As we grow up, we become taller in old age, we
  may shrink a little. However, we would not expect
  a child to start becoming shorter and shorter and
  finally return to its mothers womb.
• Dahl LINGUIST 7.1170 (1996)
• Mountains are eroded and washed down to the sea
  mountain-creating mechanisms in no way involve
  sand grains flowing upstream followed by
  de-erosion
• Newmeyer 1998

10

• TYPE REVERSAL

11
Why there are no dgz clines

• Affixal degrammaticalization is rare for obvious
  reasons, and a prerequisite appears to be some
  kind of structural collapse (Plank (1995)
  Systemstörung)
• Norde 2002
• A shift from function word to content item is
  difficult because the latter (N, V) typically
  inflect
• Willis 2007, Fortson 2003

12
Summary

• Degrammaticalization always entails type
  reversals, not token reversals
• There are no degrammaticalization clines
• ? Misunderstanding 1 is based on bad (if any)
  definition of degrammaticalization
• ?Degrammaticalization must be defined as a single
  shift from right to left on the cline of
  grammaticality

13
Misunderstanding 2

• Degrammaticalization, unlike grammaticalization,
  is a mere morphosyntactic change

14
Representative quote

• it will be shown that cases of alleged
  antigrammaticalization Haspelmaths terms for
  degrammaticalization MN at best represent
  nothing more than an evolution from less to more
  morphological bonding. I will call such an
  evolution antimorphologization
• Idiatov, in press

15
Decreased bondedness

• Shift from right to left on cline of
  grammaticality always involves decreased
  bondedness
• content item gt grammatical word gt clitic gt
  inflectional affix
• In some cases of degrammaticalization, this is
  indeed all there is to it
• In most cases however, semantic change is
  observed as well

16
Lehmanns parameters
paradigmatic syntagmatic
weight integrity structural scope
cohesion paradigmaticity bondedness
variability paradigmatic variability syntagmatic variability
17
Lehmanns parameters in degrammaticalization

• Integrity resemanticization and phonetic
  strengthening
• Paradigmaticity deparadigmaticization,
  recategorialization
• Paradigmatic variability deobligatorification
• Structural scope scope expansion
• Bondedness decreased bondedness
• Syntagmatic variability increased syntactic
  freedom

18
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 Kurylowiczs 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. Kurylowicz 1975
  1965

19
Summary

• Although decreasing bondedness is a defining
  characteristic of degrammaticalization, it is, in
  most cases, by no means the only mechanism
  involved
• ?Misunderstanding 2 is based on a very limited
  number of degrammaticalizations, or an erroneous
  interpretation of them
• ?Degrammaticalizations need to be subdivided into
  different types (as do, for that matter,
  grammaticalizations)

20
Misunderstanding 3

• Degrammaticalization, unlike grammaticalization,
  is exceptional and unclassifiable

21
Representative quote

• The examples of degrammaticalization discussed in
  the preceding sections are representative of
  the quality of examples adduced in the
  literature. One cannot avoid the conclusion that
  those who wish to argue against unidirectionality
  of grammaticalization are amazingly sloppy in the
  selection and analysis of their examples. If one
  subtracts those alleged examples of
  degrammaticalization that for one reason or
  another miss the target, then very few actual
  cases of degrammaticalization remain. They are
  not myriad (Janda 2001299), but closer to a
  proportion of 1 99 with historical cases of
  grammaticalization.
• Lehmann 2004

22
The GZ-DGZ ratio

• Say in the course of your work you have found
  542 changes that confirm a direction, and none
  that dont. Question is, 542 out of what? Does a
  UD-believers inability to find the
  counterexamples, and/or the observed frequency of
  the confirming instances, reflect a real
  property of the domain or merely the accidental
  tendentiousness of a chosen database? Note that
  not finding things is an argumentum ex silentio,
  which is not at the top of anybodys hierarchy of
  epistemic goodness. Lass 2000
• Still, we can safely assume that
  degrammaticalization is (far) less frequent
  (which does not make it any less interesting)

23
Summary

• Misunderstanding 3 is understandable to some
  extent as degrammaticalization is indeed less
  frequent, and less cross-linguistically regular,
  than grammaticalization
• ? As a result, degrammaticalization is thought to
  be unclassifiable
• ? A framework for classifying degrammaticalization
  s needs to be developed

24
Classifying degrammaticalization

• Andersen 2006 four levels of observation
• 1 Content
• 2 Content syntax
• 3 Morphosyntax
• 4 Expression

25
Changes in content

• 1.1. Grammation a change by which an expression
  through Reanalysis is ascribed grammatical
  content (change from any other content to
  grammatical content).
• 1.2. Regrammation a change by which a
  grammatical expression through reanalysis is
  ascribed different grammatical content (change
  within and among grammatical paradigms).
• 1.3. Degrammation a change by which an
  expression through reanalysis loses grammatical
  content (change from grammatical content to other
  content).

26
Changes in content syntax

• 2.1. Upgrading a change from dependent to head
  or an enlargement of scope scope usually
  decreases
• 2.2. Downgrading a change from head to dependent
  or a scope diminution

27
Changes in morphosyntax

• 3.1. Bond weakening (emancipation) (affix ?
  clitic, clitic ? word, compound word ? phrase).
• 3.2. Bond strengthening (integration) (phrase ?
  word, word ? clitic, clitic ? affix).

28
Changes in expression

• 4.1. Reduction.
• 4.2. Elaboration.

29
Framework

• Classifying degrammaticalizations Andersens
  model and Lehmanns parameters combined

30
Changes in content

• Degrammation a change by which an expression
  through reanalysis loses grammatical content
  (change from grammatical content to other
  content).
• PARAMETERS
• resemanticization

31
Changes in content syntax

• Context reduction use in fewer contexts scope
  increases
• PARAMETERS
• deparadigmaticization
• deobligatorification
• scope expansion

32
Changes in morphosyntax

• Bond weakening (emancipation) (affix ? clitic,
  clitic ? word, function word ? lexical item)
• PARAMETERS
• decreased bondedness (affix gt clitic gt unbound
  function word)
• increased syntactic freedom (function word gt
  lexical item)
• recategorialization (function word gt lexical item)

33
Changes in expression

• Elaboration
• PARAMETERS
• phonetic strengthening

34
Proposal for classification 3 basic types

• Degrammaticalization is observed at the
• Content level shift from grammatical content to
  lexical content (resemanticization), which goes
  hand in hand with the acquisition of grammatical
  features such as inflection (recategorialization)
• Content-syntactic level shift from more
  grammatical to less grammatical, movement out
  of inflectional paradigms (deparadigmaticization
  and deobligatorification) which goes hand in hand
  with the expansion of syntactic scope
• Morphosyntactic level a shift from bound
  morpheme (affix, clitic) to free morpheme, or an
  increase in syntactic freedom, without any change
  in content

35
Implicational hierarchy

• A level 1 degrammaticalization also involves
  changes at levels 2 and 3
• A level 2 degrammaticalization also involves
  change at level 3 (i.e. decreased bondedness) but
  no change at level 1 (i.e. no acquisition of
  lexical content)
• A level 3 degrammaticalization involves no
  changes at the other levels
• Elaboration (phonetic strengthening) may or may
  not be involved in any of the three types

36
Selected case studies

1. The s-genitive (English and Continental
   Scandinavian) word-final affix gt phrase-final
   enclitic determiner
2. Swedish er from inflectional case suffix to
   derivational nominalization suffix
3. Irish muid from verb suffix to pronoun
4. Northern Saami haga from case suffix to
   postposition
5. Norwegian infinitival å from clitic to free
   morpheme
6. Pennsylvania German wotte from modal auxiliary
   to lexical verb
7. Dutch tig / German zig from numeral suffix to
   independent indefinite numeral to intensifying
   adverb

37
Classification of case studies

• Level 1 Pennsylvania German wotte first stage
  of Dutch tig / German zig
• Level 2 The s-genitive Swedish derivative er
• Level 3 Irish muid Northern Saami haga
  Norwegian infinitival å
• Degrammaticalization superordinate term

38
Acceptability

• Level 1 degrammaticalization most acceptable,
  since it itvolved changes on all levels (cf.
  misunderstanding 1)
• Level 2 degrammaticalization less acceptable,
  either because it does not result in lexical
  items (cf. misunderstanding 1) or is
  misinterpreted as mere decreased bondedness (cf.
  misunderstanding 2)
• Level 3 degrammaticalization least acceptable

39
Conclusions

• A cline-based definition of degrammaticalization
  is insufficient
• ? a more fine-grained framework is needed to
  describe and classify degrammaticalizations
• A better understanding of degrammaticalization
  and its subtypes will hopefully increase its
  acceptability as a distinct type of change,
  instead of being the leftover crap of
  grammaticalization studies

40

• THANK YOU