A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization Kees Hengeveld.

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 FDG 3.Formal change in FDG 4. Contentive change and formal change in FDG 5. Conclusions 3

1. Functional Discourse Grammar

Conceptual Component ContextualComponentContextualComponent Articulation Expression Level Prosodic Contours, Sounds Frames, Lexemes, Operators Templates, Grammatical elements Pragmatics, Semantics Formulation Encoding Morphosyntax, Phonology GrammarGrammar OutputOutput

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 M 1 :[Move (π A 1 :[ Discourse Act (π F 1 )Illocution (π P 1 ) S Speaker (π P 2 ) A Addressee (π C 1 :[Communicated Content (π T 1 ) Φ Ascriptive Subact (π R 1 ) Φ Referential Subact ] (C 1 ) Φ Communicated Content ] (A 1 ) Φ Discourse Act ] (M 1 ))Move

13 Representational Level (π p 1 :Propositional Content (π ep 1 :Episode (π e 1 : State-of-Affairs [(π f 1 :[Configurational Property (π f 1 )Lexical Property (π x 1 ) Φ Individual ] (f 1 ))Configurational Property (e 1 ) Φ ])State-of-Affairs (ep 1 ))Episode (p 1 ))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: Tengoprepara-d-aunacena fenomenal. have.PRS.1.SGprepare-ANT-F.SGINDEF.SG.Fmeal(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.Fmeal(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.REFLAUX.PRS.1.SGget.up-ANTattheseven ‘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.. Lookbought.PF.3SGthesethem 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 ← 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 ← 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 ← Lexeme He failed to win the race. The bomb failed to explode. fail (f c ) (neg f c ) 29

From lexeme to operator decir (Olbertz 2005, 2007; Grández Ávila 2010) π ← Lexeme They say (dicen que) Juan is ill. Juan apparently (dizque) is ill. decir (C) (Rep C) 30

Contentive change in FDG 31 LexiconLex ↓↓↓↓↓ Interpersonal LevelM←A←C←R←T ↑ Representational Levelp←ep←e←fcfc ←flfl ↑↑↑↑↑ LexiconLex

Contentive change in FDG: haber 32 LexiconLex ↓↓↓↓↓ Interpersonal LevelM←A←C←R←T ↑ Representational Levelp←ep←e←fcfc ←flfl ↑↑↑↑↑ LexiconLex

Contentive change in FDG: sort of 41 LexiconLex ↓↓↓↓↓ Interpersonal LevelM←A←C←R←T ↑ Representational Levelp←ep←e←fcfc ←flfl ↑↑↑↑↑ LexiconLex

Contentive change in FDG: because 48 LexiconLex ↓↓↓↓↓ Interpersonal LevelM←A←C←R←T ↑ Representational Levelp←ep←e←fcfc ←flfl ↑↑↑↑↑ LexiconLex

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(x i : – man – (x i ): – old – (x i )) ‘the/an old man’ lexical operators(that x i : – man – (x i )) ‘that man’ operators(1 x i : – man – (x i )) ‘a man’ 54

Formal categories in FDG Criteria: lexemes:modification: an extremely old man lexical operators:focalization (which man?) THAT man operators: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 ← f c ← f l operators < lexical operators < lexemes 60

Linking the scales Not allowed: p ← ep ← e ← f c ← f l 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 from home.hum.uva.nl/oz/hengeveldp

A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization Kees Hengeveld.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization Kees Hengeveld."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization Kees Hengeveld.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization Kees Hengeveld."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback