Explaining the irreversibility of grammaticalization

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 ex- planation of how the grammaticalization process is embedded in this theory. In this con- text, special attention will be paid to how the irreversibility of grammaticalization is de- rived 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 ex- planatory 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 gram- matical items becoming even more grammatical. In a diachronic view, grammaticalization is identified to progress gradually and the six parameters of grammaticalization as de- scribed by Lehmann (1995) can be used to align the items along the continuum (Cf. Haspelmath 1999: 1044f.).

1

Whereas grammaticalization is involved in numerous instances of language change, the opposite, i.e. degrammaticalization 1 , 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 gram- maticalization by all writers on the subject. Even linguists arguing against the unidirection- ality claim recognize the asymmetry between grammaticalization and degrammaticaliza- tion (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 condi- tions 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/con-

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 gram- maticalization, 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.

2

b. Basic discourse meanings: Certain meanings of linguistic units are universally much more basic to speaking

c. Frequency and routinization:

It is important to see that the “ecological conditions are highly general properties of lan- guage and cognition that are independently motivated” (Ibid: 1056). Condition a draws a parallel between the earlier mentioned continuum between lexicon and grammar and modes of mental processing. Condition b is supported by the facts that the grammatical categories of different languages tend to overlap extensively and that most of the meanings of grammatical items come from the same small set of semantic categories. The final con- dition connects the ease of mental processing to the frequency of basic discourse meanings (Cf. ibid.).

2.1.2 Maxims of action

The five following maxims of action guide the speakers in their linguistic behaviour, the hypermaxim being the basis for the other four maxims:

1. Hypermaxim: talk in such a way that you are socially successful, at the lowest pos- sible cost.

2. Clarity: talk in such a way that you are understood.

3. Economy: talk in such a way that you do not expend superfluous energy.

4. Conformity: talk like the others talk.

5. Extravagance: talk in such a way that you are noticed (Ibid.: 1055).

The speakers comply to these maxims during language performance in order to reach their goals. An important aspect is that these goals are not only of a communicative (i.e. being understood, talking economically), but also of a social nature. Without the hypermaxim driving speakers to social success, the maxim of extravagance, responsible for the use of innovative expressions, would not be justified. Since pragmatically salient innovations (e.g. metaphors) obscure the message and thus, make understanding more difficult, they would be eliminated by the clarity maxim. Additionally, the maxim of conformity would not allow other speakers to pick up new and rare expressions (Cf. ibid.: 1056). This, of course, implies that maxims 2-5 cannot all be followed simultaneously every time, but nei- ther do they need to be as speakers do not always follow the same goals (Cf. Keller 1994: 140ff.).

3