Laurel Brinton
University of British Columbia
"Towards an integrated model of lexicalization and grammaticalization"
Abstract:
There is a great deal of variation about what is meant by LEXICALIZATION . While it is often equated with routine processes of word formation such as compounding, derivation, and conversion, it has also been associated with two directly opposing tendencies, namely those leading to increased fusion (such as syntagm > lexeme or complex > simple lexeme) and those leading to increased autonomy (such as bound form > independent word). Some scholars concerned with GRAMMATICALIZATION (e.g., Ramat 1992, 2001; van der Auwera 2002) have seen certain types of lexicalization as representing a ‘reversal’ of grammaticalization because they involve the shift from more to less grammatical or from more to less bound. Such lexicalizations include conversions from more major to more minor word class (e.g., up [Adv] > up [V], if [Conj] > if [N]), clippings of bound affixes (e.g., lemonade > ade), incorporation of original morphological material into the root, what has been termed “phonogenesis” (e.g., beside + s [genitive] > besides, handgeweorc ‘hand + prefix + work’ > handiwork), loss of grammatical function (e.g., shorn [past participle of shear] > shorn ‘deprived’ [adjective], cf. sheared), certain types of univerbations (e.g., between, perhaps, y’know, gonna), conversions of inflectional endings to derivational endings (e.g., fascinating [present participle > adjective]), and delocutive word formation (e.g., God be with you > goodbye). In this view, lexicalization represents a counterexample to the tenet of unidirectionality in grammaticalization and constitutes DEGRAMMATICALIZATION . Increasingly, however, scholars are arguing that degrammaticalization must be distinguished from lexicalization. For example, Lehmann (2002) argues that the reversal of lexicalization (for him, a process that creates monomorphemic forms) is folk etymology, not degrammaticalization. For Haspelmath (2004), most instances of lexicalization are not counterexamples to grammaticalization because they are not gradual, nor do they occur in the same construction; the only true reversals of grammaticalization are instances of “decliticization”. Norde (2002) likewise sees lexicalization as abrupt and degrammaticalization as gradual. These practitioners do not regard grammaticalization and lexicalization as ‘mirror image’ processes, but rather as complementary processes correlating in a number of ways.In this paper, I report on work that I have undertaken with Elizabeth Closs Traugott, in which we attempt to reconcile these different views on lexicalization and on its relation to grammaticalization and to provide a coherent model of these two processes.
References:
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde, and Harry Perridon, eds. Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization, 17-44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lehmann, Christian. 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 1-18.
Norde, Muriel. 2002. The final stages of grammaticalization: affixhood and beyond. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 45-65.
Ramat, Paolo. 1992. Thoughts on degrammaticalization. Linguistics 30:549-560.
Ramat, Paolo. 2001. Degrammaticalization or transcategorization? In Chris Schaner-Wolles, John Rennison, and Friedrich Neubarth, eds. Naturally! Linguistic Studies in Honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler Presented on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, 393-401. Torino: Rosenbach and Sellier.
van der Auwera, Johan. 2002. More thoughts on degrammaticalization. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 19-29.
Wischer, Ilse and Gabriele Diewald, eds. 2002. New Reflections on Grammaticalization - Proceedings from the International Symposium on Grammaticalization, 17-19 June 1999, Potsdam, Germany. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Carol Pfaff
John F. Kennedy Institut
Freie Universitaet Berlin
“The creation of mixed codes in an urban migrant community: psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, and political issues in the speech of Turkish/German bilinguals in Berlin”
Abstract:
This talk exemplifies and discusses forms of mixed codes of Turkish and German as they emerge in the linguistic practices of first and second generation children and adolescents of migrants from Turkey in Berlin and suggests how the political and social setting in Berlin may contribute to the formation of these codes. Further, I explore how the observed practices correspond to stereotypic perceptions and metalinguistic statements of in-group members and members of other groups, including youth with non-Turkish background and adults.
Lesley Milroy
University of Michigan
“Off the shelf or under the counter? On the social dynamics of sound changes”
Abstract:
Since the classic paper of Weinreich, Labov and Herzog (1968) sociolinguists have contributed to disussions of linguistic change, particularly sound change. Amongst other things, they have considered what an accountable and comprehensive theory of change might look like, how changes might be diffused, and the complexity of their embedding in very specific social and ideological matrices.Sociolinguists share with historical linguists the assumption that transmission of linguistic influence requires regular face to face contact, and that change is blocked by physical or social boundaries. I present evidence here that changes generally thought to be socially motivated are of quite different kinds, with quite different underlying sociologies: some require intensive face to face interation with relevant groups of speakers, while others appear to be accessible without such interaction. I present examples of both kinds of change, drawn both from my own work in the UK and the US and that of others. Finally, I attempt to characterize the structural and sociolinguistic properties of changes which do not require intensive face to face interaction for their transmission, but rather can be taken “off the shelf”.