Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Fachbereich A: Anglistik/Amerikanistik
Hauptseminar: Grammaticalization
SS 2007, 5. Semester

Explaining the irreversibility of grammaticalization

by

Eleni Stefanidou

Contents

1 Introduction... 1

2 The irreversibility of grammaticalization... 1

2.1 Grammaticalization as an invisible-hand process... 2

2.1.1 Ecological conditions... 2
2.1.2 Maxims of action... 3
2.1.3 Invisible-hand process... 4

2.2 Explaining irreversibility... 5

2.2.1 Grammaticalization as an inflationary process... 5

3 Criticism of Haspelmath’s theory... 6

4 Extension of Haspelmath’s theory... 8

5 Conclusion... 11

6 References... 12

1 Introduction

Grammaticalization, the process by which lexical categories turn in functional ones, has largely been recognized as being unidirectional (Cf. Haspelmath 1999: 1048). According to Haspelmath (1999), the irreversibility of grammaticalization can be explained within a usage-based theory of language change as proposed by Keller (1994), who sees language change as an invisible-hand process. This paper will give an account of Haspelmath’s explanation of how the grammaticalization process is embedded in this theory. In this context, special attention will be paid to how the irreversibility of grammaticalization is derived from one of the maxims of action that guide the speakers in their language use, namely the maxim of extravagance.
In order to make an evaluation of Haspelmath’s theory possible, two further views on it will be presented. The first is the critical reception by Geurts (2000a, 2000b), who objected to the notion of extravagance as being inappropriate and unnecessary for explaining the unidirectionality of grammaticalization. A closer look at his arguments will show whether this criticism is justified. Secondly, I will incorporate an extension of Haspelmath’s explanatory model as offered by Huelva Unternbäumen (2006). In this, the irreversibility of grammaticalization is not only derived from the maxim of extravagance, but also from three conditions that have to be fulfilled for grammaticalization and degrammaticalization to take place.

2 The irreversibility of grammaticalization

Supposing linguistic expressions were ordered along a continuum with lexical items at one end and functional ones at the other, grammaticalization refers to the process of language change that moves a linguistic item further towards the functional end of the continuum. This process comprises lexical categories turning into grammatical ones as well as grammatical items becoming even more grammatical. In a diachronic view, grammaticalization is identified to progress gradually and the six parameters of grammaticalization as described by Lehmann (1995) can be used to align the items along the continuum (Cf. Haspelmath 1999: 1044f.).
Whereas grammaticalization is involved in numerous instances of language change, the opposite, i.e. degrammaticalization¹, hardly seems to occur. Haspelmath estimates 99% of all shifts along the lexical/functional continuum to be grammaticalizations (Cf. ibid.: 1046). Since 1975, irreversibility has been acknowledged as an important feature of grammaticalization by all writers on the subject. Even linguists arguing against the unidirectionality claim recognize the asymmetry between grammaticalization and degrammaticalization (Cf. ibid.: 1047f.).

2.1 Grammaticalization as an invisible-hand process

As no satisfactory explanation for the irreversibility of grammaticalization has been given by earlier writers (Cf. ibid.: 1050ff.), Haspelmath employs Keller’s invisible-hand theory of language change (Keller 1994) to explicate how grammaticalization comes about and is influenced by performance factors, from which its irreversibility is then derived. Within this framework, language change is regarded as a unintended byproduct of the everyday language use of individual speakers. Rather than conceiving of language as an independent object it is traced back to individual linguistic acts (Cf. Haspelmath 1999: 1054). In this connection, language change is seen as an invisible-hand process, that is, a phenomenon that is the result of human actions, although it is not the goal of hu- man intentions. An invisible-hand phenomenon is explained if it can be shown to be the causal consequence of individual actions that realize similar intentions (Ibid.). In order to describe grammaticalization as an invisible-hand process, the ecological conditions and maxims of actions have to be explained first.

2.1.1 Ecological conditions

Haspelmath (Ibid.: 1054f.) identifies the three following ecological conditions within which the process of grammaticalization takes place:

a. Grammar as unconscious processing:
Linguistic units are ordered along a continuum from maximally free/conscious/ deliberate to maximally rule-bound/unconscious/automated. Items at the former pole are fully lexical elements, and items at the latter are fully functional (or grammatical) elements.

b. Basic discourse meanings:
Certain meanings of linguistic units are universally much more basic to speaking than others, i.e. they need to be conveyed much more frequently than others (e.g. ‘possession’, ‘instrument’ are more basic than ‘bicycle’ or ‘moon’ in this sense).

c. Frequency and routinization:
A general feature of cognitive processing in higher organisms is that frequent occurrence of a cognitive event leads to a greater ease of processing (routinization, automation), i.e. less attention is necessary to execute the same task.

[...]

1 Haspelmath (2004) as well as Huelva Unternbäumen (2006) distinguish between “degrammaticalization” and “antigrammaticalization”. While the former term stands for any kinds of (mostly abrupt) changes that involve a grammatical item losing its grammaticality, the latter is used for the reversal of a potential grammaticalization, showing the same intermediate stages as grammaticalization. Only antigrammaticalizations are exceptions to the unidirectionality claim. Since the main focus is on Haspelmath’s earlier works, I follow their use of “degrammaticalization” in the meaning of “antigrammaticalization” in this paper.