Grammaticalization is a well-attested process of language change and presents a complex sub-field of linguistics. Although grammaticalization is believed to be a rather young area of linguistics, its history is as old as the history of linguistics (cf. Narrog & Heine 2011: 1). The term ‘grammaticalization’ itself was apparently first coined by the French linguist Meillet, a pioneer in the field of grammaticalization. In his work L’évolution des formes grammaticales (1912), Meillet describes the process of grammaticalization as “Le passage d’un mot autonome au rôle d’élément grammatical” (1912: 131 cited in Ferraresi 2014: 1) indicating a change of an erstwhile autonomous sign into a grammatical element. A more recent definition of grammaticalization is given by Hopper and Traugott who define it as “the process whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions, and, once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions” (2008: xv).
Although the field of grammaticalization is already widely explored, its studies remain interesting since several of them have been the subject of critical discussions. One of the most interesting and challenging hypotheses in grammaticalization studies is presented by the unidirectionality hypothesis: “the claim that changes that fall into the category of grammaticalization always move into the direction – from more to less lexical or from less grammatical to more grammatical” (Börjars & Vincent 2011: 163).
However, is it not possible for a grammatical item to become less grammatical or even lexical? On the basis of Norde’s recent study on degrammaticalization (2009; 2012), the paper will take a closer look whether the unidirectionality hypothesis is entirely true or not.
The following paper is structured as follows: section two provides a brief overview of central concepts and definitions involved in grammaticalization and finally it presents Lehmann’s parameters of grammaticalization (1995). In section three, the paper features a central approach on how the unidirectionality hypothesis can be explained. Section four presents two valid counterexamples of the unidirectionality hypothesis with respect to Lehmann’s parameters (1995). To conclude, the paper summarizes the main results.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Basic concepts and definitions in grammaticalization studies
2.1 Basic definitions and conceptual mechanisms
2.2 Lehmann’s parameters of grammaticalization
2.3 Defining degrammaticalization
3. Explaining the hypothesis of unidirectionality
4. Case studies
4.1 Pennsylvania German wotte: from modal auxiliary to lexical verb
4.2 The English s-genitive: from inflectional genitive suffix to a clitic
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper explores the unidirectionality hypothesis in linguistics, which suggests that grammaticalization processes are irreversible. It evaluates whether grammatical items can transition back to lexical status by analyzing specific case studies and applying theoretical parameters to determine if the unidirectionality hypothesis holds as an absolute rule or merely as a statistical tendency.
- Theoretical foundations of grammaticalization and Lehmann’s parameters
- Mechanisms and definitions of degrammaticalization
- Haspelmath’s application of the invisible-hand theory to language change
- Analysis of the Pennsylvania German wotte as a counterexample
- Examination of the English s-genitive as a case of deinflectionalization
Excerpt from the Book
4.1 Pennsylvania German wotte: from modal auxiliary to lexical verb
Pennsylvania German is “a result of a blend of many different dialects which came into Pennsylvania during the very first wave of immigration in the 17th century from the German Palatinate and surrounding areas” (Burridge 1998: 19). The case of Pennsylvania German wotte, which developed from a modal auxiliary ‘would’ to an autonomous verb ‘to wish’, underwent a typical change falling into the category of degrammation. Consequently, it gained numerous morphosyntactic properties it did not possess as an auxiliary (cf. Norde 2012: 87). The following examples are taken from Norde (2012: 87) and will prove this circumstance:
(2) * Ich wott kumme. ‘I want to come.’
(3) Er ist juscht am wotte, er keent noch eens vun die Ebbel hawwe. ‘He is just wishing he could have one more of the apples.’
(4) Wott net fer sell. ‘Don’t wish for that.‘
(5) Er hat gewott er kennt noch eens vun die Ebbel hawwe. ‘He wished he could have again one more of the appples.’
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the historical context of grammaticalization, introduces the unidirectionality hypothesis, and defines the scope of the paper regarding degrammaticalization.
2. Basic concepts and definitions in grammaticalization studies: Provides an overview of lexical and functional items, explains Lehmann's criteria for grammaticalization, and introduces the concept of degrammaticalization.
3. Explaining the hypothesis of unidirectionality: Discusses the theoretical framework of the invisible-hand theory and how it supports the unidirectionality of language change.
4. Case studies: Investigates two specific linguistic examples, the Pennsylvania German wotte and the English s-genitive, to challenge the notion of absolute irreversibility.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes findings and argues that while degrammaticalization exists, it remains a rare exception, confirming unidirectionality as a statistical rather than absolute universal.
Keywords
Grammaticalization, Degrammaticalization, Unidirectionality, Lehmann's parameters, Language change, Pennsylvania German, s-genitive, Reanalysis, Decategorialization, Historical linguistics, Morphosyntax, Invisible-hand theory, Semantic bleaching.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines whether the process of grammaticalization is truly irreversible, a claim known as the unidirectionality hypothesis, by investigating potential counterexamples.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Key themes include the diachronic evolution of language, the transition between lexical and functional word classes, and the theoretical criteria proposed by Christian Lehmann to measure these changes.
What is the central research question?
The study asks whether it is possible for a grammatical item to become less grammatical or return to a lexical state, thereby violating the unidirectionality hypothesis.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author uses a qualitative, theory-driven approach, applying Lehmann’s parameters of grammaticalization to analyze and re-evaluate two specific case studies identified by earlier researchers.
What content is covered in the main section?
The main section provides definitions of key linguistic terms, an analysis of the invisible-hand theory, and detailed case studies on Pennsylvania German and the English s-genitive.
Which terms best characterize this work?
The work is characterized by terms such as degrammaticalization, functional vs. lexical items, reanalysis, and language change patterns.
How does the Pennsylvania German 'wotte' serve as a counterexample?
It demonstrates a transition from a modal auxiliary back to a lexical verb, gaining semantic substance and morphosyntactic properties typical of full verbs.
What is the significance of the English s-genitive in this study?
It illustrates a process of deinflectionalization where an inflectional affix transitions into a clitic, representing an 'upgrade' towards the lexical sphere.
What is the ultimate conclusion regarding unidirectionality?
The author concludes that while counterexamples exist, they are rare, shifting the status of unidirectionality from an absolute rule to a statistical universal in language change.
- Quote paper
- Kim Frintrop (Author), 2014, Is Grammaticalization Unidirectional?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/281042
