Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

CLIPP Christiani Lehmanni inedita, publicanda, publicata titulus New reflection

CLIPP Christiani Lehmanni inedita, publicanda, publicata titulus New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization huius textus situs retis mundialis http://www.uni-erfurt.de/ sprachwissenschaft/personal/lehmann/CL_Publ/ New_reflections.pdf dies manuscripti postremum modificati 28.04.2005 occasio orationis habitae Symposium "New Reflections on Grammaticalization"; 17.- 20.6.1999, Potsdam volumen publicationem continens Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins (TSL, 49). annus publicationis 2002 paginae 1-18 1 This paper was first presented at the Philosophical Faculty of the University of Tübingen in December 1998. I thank the participants of that guest lecture and the audience of the Potsdam symposium, in particular Carmen Pensado and Martin Haspelmath, for helpful criticism and suggestions. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization Christian Lehmann Abstract The essential difference between grammar and lexicon is the following: The grammar is concerned with those signs which are formed regularly and which are handled analytically, while the lexicon is concerned with those signs which are formed irregularly and which are handled holistically. A sign is lexicalized if it is withdrawn from analytic access and inventorized. On the other hand, for a sign to be grammaticalized means for it to acquire functions in the analytic formation of more comprehensive signs. Both processes regularly, but not necessarily involve a reductive component. Consequently, grammaticalization is not the mirror image of lexicalization. The genesis of members of minor word classes, in particular adpositions and conjunctions, has often been treated as an instance of grammaticalization. However, minor word classes are not necessarily classes of grammatical formatives. In particular, there are more lexical and more grammatical adpositions. For instance, before auf Grund (von) ‘on the basis of’ can ever get grammaticalized to a grammatical preposition, it must first be lexicalized to the lexical preposition aufgrund (von). In this sense, grammaticalization presupposes lexicalization. Thus, lexicalization and grammaticalization are processes that have much in common and are, to a certain extent, parallel. The mirror image of grammaticalization is degrammaticalization, and the mirror image of lexicalization is folk etymology.1 2 Christian Lehmann 1. Theoretical bases The purpose of this contribution is to clarify the concepts of 'grammaticalization' and 'lexicalization' in their mutual relationship (cf. Moreno Cabrera 1998). Such an explication cannot possibly justify all previous uses of these concepts, in particular not all of those reported or endorsed in Lehmann 1989. Also, to the extent that it tries to be consistent, the explication necessarily leads to unwonted results. 1.1. Analytic and holistic approaches Given an object of cognition of some complexity, the human mind has two ways of accessing it. The analytic approach consists in considering each part of the object and the contribution that it makes to the assemblage by its nature and function, and thus to arrive at a mental representation of the whole by applying rules of composition to its parts. The holistic approach is to directly grasp the whole without consideration of the parts. This can be done if the object itself is already familiar or if, by its contours or its contextual setting and function, it bears an essential analogy to some familar object. The two approaches complement each other in various ways. 1. If confronted with a familiar object, we tend to take the holistic approach; if confronted with an unfamiliar object, we take the analytic approach. 2. For a given specific object, we can often switch between the two approaches by making a fresh analysis of what used to be familiar or by disregarding compositional parts in favour of the function of the whole. 3. A given complex object may only be analyzed in certain parts or aspects, while the internal structure of other parts remains out of consideration. To illustrate: E1. a. X chooses the correct approach to Y. b. X takes the correct approach to Y. In E1.a the combination of the relational noun approach with its prepositional dependent, and the combination of the transitive verb choose with its direct object, are interpreted by general rules of semanto-syntax. In E1.b the combination X [takes (Z) approach] to Y constitutes a proper part of the sentence. Its contour and function are analogous to the simpler construction X approaches Y (in a Z way). E1 thus illustrates the above generalizations: 3 New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization approach com- plexity level idiosyncratic regular holistic ø analytic higher lexicon phraseo logy syntax grammar ù morphemicon mor word for phology mation inflection lower S1. Lexicon and grammar 1. The relatively unfamiliar collocation choose .... approach is construed analytically, while the familiar collocation take ... approach is construed holistically. 2. The collocation choose ... approach could instead be accessed holistically, whereby the specific contribution of choose would essentially be foregone, and the whole would be largely synonymous with take ... approach; and again, the collocation take ... approach could instead be accessed analytically, whereby take would regain a more literal sense (contrasting, e.g., with abandon), and the resulting constructional meaning would be slightly different. 3. The holistic approach treats take ... approach as a proper part of the construction, which it is not in the analytic approach. However, this does not mean that the construction of E1.b is an unanalyzed whole, since we can still integrate the contributions of each of the elements in the slots X, Y and Z with the help of general compositional rules. 1.2. Lexicon and grammar The system of linguistic signs is subdivided into lexicon and grammar. The relationship between the two components and their organisation in terms of subcomponents is represented in S1. On the horizontal axis of S1, the lexicon differs from the grammar. The vertical axis is associated with the hierarchy of levels of grammatical structure. The latter is, of course, only partially represented in the lexicon. The most idiosyncratic part of the lexicon is the morphemicon, which contains all the lexical and grammatical morphemes of the language. Accessing a collocation XY holistically means treating it as an entry of the inventory, as a lexical item. If this mode of access to XY gets more prominent in language activity, it is the initial step of the lexicalization of this sequence. 4 Christian Lehmann 2 All the data and most of the analyses of this language are taken from Schulze-Berndt 2000. 3 CONT continuous, DU dual, PRS present, PST past, SG singular. Accessing a collocation XY analytically means treating it as a grammatical construction in which the structural properties of either X or Y or both matter and make a regular contribution to the pattern. If this mode of access gets more prominent in language activity, it is the initial step of the grammaticalization of XY. In the following two sections, we will see that lexicalization and grammaticalization apply alternatively to a construction, while they apply successively to an item. 2. Lexicalization and grammaticalization as alternatives 2.1. Verb and coverb in Jaminjung The initial step in the processes of grammaticalization and lexicalization does not yet involve any noticeable changes in the collocation. So far, those are but alternative modes of treating the collocation XY. However, they lay the ground for the further fate of XY. To see this, let us take an example from Jaminjung, a Non-Pama-Nyungan language of Northern Australia.2 The language has two word classes which are at stake here. One is the class of verbs which is closed and comprises about 30 members. Understandably, these verbs have a very general meaning, are highly polysemous and in this resemble the function verbs or even auxiliaries of more familiar languages. The other class is called coverbs. It is an open class which comprises such concepts as are covered by verbs and adverbs in more familiar languages. The coverbs have valence just like the verbs, but they do not take a subject and instead combine with a verb much like an adverb does. E2 is an example, combining the verb -angga with the coverb warlnginy. E2.jirramabuny-anggawarlnginy two 3.DU-GO.PRS on.foot3 ‘two are walking’ (Schultze-Berndt 2000, DB, D14105) Now the collocation of verb plus coverb can be accessed either analytically or holistically. In the former case the verb functions like a grammatical verb. E3 is an example. E3. jiwayurru buru-mayan ga-gba=biya bower.bird return-CONT 3.SG-BE.PST=NOW ‘the bower bird was going back and forth then’ (Schultze-Berndt 2000, 2-79) The meaning of the sentence is construed in a bottom-up fashion by the following compositional operations. First, the coverb is combined with its (nominal) dependents – none 5 New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization in E3. Then the verb is first combined with its nominal dependents – here, the subject – and next with the coverb phrase. If they have nominal dependents in common, these and their roles are unified. In this way, the meaning of the whole is a regular function of the meaning of the parts and their relations. In this approach, the collocation of verb and coverb works as a pattern, with two slots to be occupied by members of two clearly distinct categories, one of which – the verb – constitutes a structured paradigm. The two slots can be filled essentially in mutual uploads/Ingenierie_Lourd/ new-reflections-on-grammaticalization-and-lexicalization.pdf