Grammaticalization as optimization

Kiparsky, Paul

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582624.003.0002

Cited by 38 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Much of the modern debate on grammaticalization centres around two definitions (cf. Kiparsky 2012). The first of these sees grammaticalization as a process through which "the parts of a constructional schema come to have stronger internal dependencies" (Haspelmath 2004).…”

Section: Division Of Labour In the Constructiconmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This definition encompasses the set of changes in morphosyntactic form: Here, we observe a unidirectional process towards increasingly tightly bonded units that show loss of autonomy (Lehmann 2004). An example of this type of grammaticalization would be the following change: postposition > clitic or suffix (Kiparsky 2012). The second definition sees grammaticalization as an expansion of semantic-pragmatic, syntactic, and collocational range (Himmelmann 2004).…”

Section: Division Of Labour In the Constructiconmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second definition sees grammaticalization as an expansion of semantic-pragmatic, syntactic, and collocational range (Himmelmann 2004). An example of this type of change is when an epistemic modal acquires a deontic meaning (Kiparsky 2012).…”

Section: Division Of Labour In the Constructiconmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Integrating Cognitive Linguistics and language evolution research

Pleyer

Winters

2015

THS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper we argue that we can gain important insights on the evolution of language and cognition by integrating evolutionary linguistics and the framework of Cognitive Linguistics. In Cognitive Linguistics, language is seen as tightly integrated with cognition as a whole. Construction Grammar and usage-based approaches are closely related to the Cognitive-Linguistic paradigm. Construction Grammar proposes that knowledge of language can be defined as the knowledge of form-meaning pairings of different degrees of schematicity and complexity, whereas usage-based approaches stress that language acquisition and processing are based on instances of actual language usage. As we demonstrate in this paper, concepts from Cognitive Linguistics, Construction Grammar, and usage-based approaches can help in elucidating the cognitive and interactional factors involved in language evolution. The paper will focus on two main areas: In evolutionary linguistics, language is seen as a complex adaptive system whose structure emerges out of the interaction of three other complex adaptive systems at three different timescales: ontogeny, glossogeny, and phylogeny. Cognitive Linguistics can help in specifying common cognitive factors and processes that play a role on all three of these timescales. Secondly, a Cognitive-Linguistic and constructionist, usage-based perspective can shed light on the cognitive factors underlying the origin of the division of labour between contentful ("lexical") and procedural ("grammatical") constructions in language structure. In a Cognitive-Linguistic perspective, this development can be related to the trade-off between the cognitive factors of learnability and expressivity.

show abstract

Section: Division Of Labour In the Constructiconmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Division Of Labour In the Constructiconmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Integrating Cognitive Linguistics and language evolution research

Pleyer

Winters

2015

THS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…John his hat > John's hat; in this sense, phonological erosion would illustrate grammaticalization (although, according to Norde (2009: 160), this explanation would be impossible for the corresponding form of the Scandinavian languages). Alternatively, it has been suggested by Kiparsky (2012) that the sgenitive is neither an instance of grammaticalization nor of degrammaticalization, but rather of analogy. Kiparsky observes an interesting correlation on the one hand between the clitic use of the Saxon genitive in English and in Scandinavian and the loss of nominal inflection in these languages, and on the other hand between the retention of nominal morphology in German and in Icelandic and their still inflectional, not clitic, use of the Saxon genitive ("the group genitive occurs only in those languages which have lost their nominal inflection", 2012: 45).…”

Section: On Degrammaticalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

On degrammaticalization: Controversial points and possible explanations

Viti

2015

Folia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the problem of degrammaticalization, that is, the exceptions to the unidirectionality of grammaticalization. After analyzing the criteria that allow us to distinguish between various instances of counter-directional change, two principles underlying degrammaticalization are identified; one is related to the type of language and the other to the type of target structures in which degrammaticalization occurs. Firstly, the targets of degrammaticalization are usually closed-class parts of speech with an abstract semantic component. Secondly, the languages in which counter-directional grammatical changes occur turn out to be deprived of an elaborate fusional morphology. These findings may also have an impact on the theoretical conception of grammaticalization, some of whose definitional properties are discussed. The paper ends with a discussion of a more controversial point, namely, counter-directional changes by folk etymology rather than by etymology proper. Abstract: This paper discusses the problem of degrammaticalization, that is, the exceptions to the unidirectionality of grammaticalization. After analyzing the criteria that allow us to distinguish between various instances of counterdirectional change, two principles underlying degrammaticalization are identified; one is related to the type of language and the other to the type of target structures in which degrammaticalization occurs. Firstly, the targets of degrammaticalization are usually closed-class parts of speech with an abstract semantic component. Secondly, the languages in which counter-directional grammatical changes occur turn out to be deprived of an elaborate fusional morphology. These findings may also have an impact on the theoretical conception of grammaticalization, some of whose definitional properties are discussed. The paper ends with a discussion of a more controversial point, namely, counter-directional changes by folk etymology rather than by etymology proper.

show abstract

“…Increase of schematicity and productivity c. Analogy (a) is associated most of all with usage-based approaches (e.g., Bybee 2011;Torres Cacoullos and Walker 2011: 225), and it is one of the defining properties of both constructions (Goldberg 2006: 5) and constructional change (Hilpert 2013: 16), while its contribution to grammaticalization is not entirely uncontroversial (Hoffmann 2005; Hilpert 2013: 10; see also Mair 2004). (c) has played a role in some traditions of grammaticalization studies (in particular by Fischer 2000;, or Kiparsky 2012, and it is also the notion proposed by Hüning & Booij (2014) in their discussion of German stock-(Section 2.2). But in most studies based on Construction Grammar, (b) seems to be favored.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructional change vs. grammaticalization

Heine

Narrog

Long

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building on recent findings made in the framework of Construction Grammar, on the one hand, and within the framework on grammaticalization, on the other, the present paper is concerned with the development from lexical compounding to derivation. Compounding is presumably the most common source of derivational categories and this applies in particular to modifying (endocentric) compounds, which are the main subject of this paper. By looking at three cases of grammatical change in English, German, and the West African language Ewe it is argued that the two frameworks differ in their goals and in their approaches. Both frameworks search for regularities in grammatical change, but whereas Construction Grammar has a focus on constructional change, that is, change in the development of constructions, the central question asked by students of grammaticalization is how and why, e.g., lexical categories give rise to grammatical (or functional) categories.

show abstract

Grammaticalization as optimization

Cited by 38 publications

References 45 publications

Integrating Cognitive Linguistics and language evolution research

Integrating Cognitive Linguistics and language evolution research

On degrammaticalization: Controversial points and possible explanations

Constructional change vs. grammaticalization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About