The paper deals with the unidirectionality of grammaticalization, which is explained by Haspelmath within a usage-based theory of language change as proposed by Keller, who sees language change as an invisible-hand process. Haspelmath focuses on the maxim of extravagance as the main factor for irreversibility. The notion of extravagance was criticised by Geurts as being inappropriate and unnecessary for explaining the unidirectionality of grammaticalization. Haspelmath's explanation is extended by Huelva Unternbäumen, who derives the irreversibility of grammaticalization from three conditions that have to be fulfilled grammaticalization and degrammaticalization to take place.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 The irreversibility of grammaticalization
2.1 Grammaticalization as an invisible-hand process
2.1.1 Ecological conditions
2.1.2 Maxims of action
2.1.3 Invisible-hand process
2.2 Explaining irreversibility
2.2.1 Grammaticalization as an inflationary process
3 Criticism of Haspelmath’s theory
4 Extension of Haspelmath’s theory
5 Conclusion
6 References
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the unidirectionality of grammaticalization by analyzing Martin Haspelmath's usage-based model, which incorporates Rudi Keller’s "invisible-hand" theory of language change. The central research question explores how the irreversibility of grammaticalization can be explained through the interaction of speaker maxims of action and cognitive conditions.
- The role of the "maxim of extravagance" in driving linguistic innovation.
- Critical reception and debates regarding the applicability of invisible-hand explanations.
- The extension of explanatory models through necessary cognitive conditions: accessibility, substance, and manipulation.
- The inherent asymmetry between grammaticalization and degrammaticalization.
Excerpt from the Book
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 human 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.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter introduces the phenomenon of grammaticalization as a unidirectional process and outlines the theoretical framework used to explain its irreversibility.
2 The irreversibility of grammaticalization: This section details how Haspelmath applies Keller's invisible-hand theory, defining the ecological conditions and maxims of action that govern language change.
3 Criticism of Haspelmath’s theory: This chapter presents the critical reception by Geurts, who questions the necessity and appropriateness of the extravagance maxim in explaining language change.
4 Extension of Haspelmath’s theory: This chapter explores an extension of the model by Huelva Unternbäumen, focusing on three cognitive conditions required for (de)grammaticalization to occur.
5 Conclusion: The conclusion synthesizes the theoretical findings, affirming the validity of the combined models in explaining why grammaticalization is typically irreversible.
6 References: This section lists the academic sources utilized throughout the paper.
Keywords
Grammaticalization, Unidirectionality, Invisible-hand theory, Haspelmath, Maxim of extravagance, Degrammaticalization, Language change, Ecological conditions, Cognitive processing, Linguistic innovation, Social success, Routinization, Accessibility, Conceptual basis.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this publication?
The publication focuses on explaining the phenomenon of "irreversibility" in grammaticalization, specifically why linguistic shifts from lexical to functional categories are frequent while the reverse (degrammaticalization) is extremely rare.
What are the primary theoretical themes covered?
The work centers on the "invisible-hand" theory of language change, the interaction of speaker communicative and social maxims (such as extravagance and conformity), and the cognitive constraints on linguistic transformation.
What is the main research question or goal?
The primary goal is to evaluate whether the irreversibility of grammaticalization can be sufficiently explained by Haspelmath’s model of social/communicative maxims or if it requires the inclusion of additional cognitive conditions as proposed by Huelva Unternbäumen.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper utilizes a qualitative, theoretical analysis of existing linguistic literature, contrasting different models (Haspelmath vs. Geurts) and synthesizing them with cognitive linguistic theory.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body examines the mechanism of language change as an unintended byproduct of individual speaker actions, critiques specific maxims (e.g., extravagance), and establishes a complex of necessary cognitive conditions (accessibility, substance, and manipulation).
Which keywords characterize the work?
Central terms include grammaticalization, invisible-hand theory, maxim of extravagance, unidirectionality, and cognitive conditions.
How does the "maxim of extravagance" contribute to the process of grammaticalization?
The maxim of extravagance drives speakers to use innovative, vivid expressions to gain social success; if adopted by an influential group, this innovative usage can eventually trigger a grammaticalization process as the item becomes routinized.
Why does the author argue that degrammaticalization is essentially impossible?
Beyond the lack of a motivational "maxim," the author highlights that degrammaticalization fails to meet three necessary cognitive conditions: accessibility of the functional base, sufficient substance for transformation, and availability of cognitive mechanisms to reverse abstract-to-concrete shifts.
- Quote paper
- Eleni Stefanidou (Author), 2007, Explaining the irreversibility of grammaticalization, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/83227
