The development of English each other: grammaticalization, lexicalization, or both?

Abstract

The historical development of the English reciprocal expression each other exemplifies different aspects of language change, both morphosyntactic and semantic. This paper examines the formation of the reciprocal marker from the perspective of grammaticalization theory, with a special focus on the relationship between grammaticalization and lexicalization. It will be argued that an adequate distinction between lexicalization and grammaticalization can only be achieved if we define the two concepts with reference not to an expression's grammatical status before and after the change, but rather to the diachronic processes involved, namely context expansion in the case of grammaticalization, and univerbation combined with fossilization in the case of lexicalization. The development of each other provides evidence for this view. It has its origin in syntactic structures of the type Each of the kings hates the others and has undergone univerbation and fossilization as well as context expansion. It will also be shown that definitions of lexicalization and grammaticalization that are too closely linked to the opposition between lexicon and grammar are problematic for an analysis of the changes undergone by the reciprocal marker. Furthermore, our analysis regards the development of each other as a case of simultaneous lexicalization and grammaticalization.

A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions

“…In this regard, the discussion here makes a further contribution to the debate on similarities and differences between grammaticalization and lexicalization articulated by, among others, Wischer (2000), Brinton (2002), Lehmann (2002), Himmelmann (2004), Brinton & Traugott (2005), Lightfoot (2005), Fischer (2007) and Haas (2007). Lightfoot (2005) and Haas (2007) both provide discussions of forms -German -heit and English each other, respectively -which they suggest undergo simultaneous lexicalization and grammaticalization. These cases are different from those affecting the English possessive (compound) constructions discussed here, but the issues they raise are clearly most relevant to the present discussion.…”

“…These cases are different from those affecting the English possessive (compound) constructions discussed here, but the issues they raise are clearly most relevant to the present discussion. Haas (2007) argues that one way of distinguishing grammaticalization from lexicalization is to focus on aspects of the processes which are proper only to one or the other. Following Himmelmann (2004), he suggests that syntactic, semantic and pragmatic context expansion is peculiar to grammaticalization, and univerbation combined with fossilisation is peculiar to lexicalization.…”

“…It is therefore questionable that each other has undergone lexicalization. Haas (2007), citing Himmelmann (2004), in discussing similarities and differences between lexicalization and grammaticalization, argues that the focus in distinguishing the two phenomena must be on the processes involved, and not on the characteristics of the input or output of such processes. In his thorough, detailed analysis of the development of reciprocal each other in English, he suggests that that string has undergone both grammaticalization (indicated by context expansion, such as its appearance as a prenominal possessor in the late sixteenth century, and as subject in subordinate and non-finite clauses in the twentieth century) and lexicalization (indicated by fossilization and univerbation, whereby the entire string comes to be governed by a preposition, and whereby each other can appear with a further quantifier each in the same clause) 11 .…”

“…It is clear that the processes of grammaticalization and lexicalization must be carefully examined and distinguished where appropriate, but it seems to me impossible to ignore the function of the output construction in the overall language system, and whether the process involves the bonding of two tokens in input. Particularly, the process of specialization (Hopper 1991), which Haas (2007) illustrates very convincingly, suggests that the development of each other is a case of grammaticalization alone.…”

Sociophonetic variation of like in British dialects: effects of function, context and predictability

“…In principle, of course, both grammaticalisation and lexicalisation can be involved in the development of quotatives, consecutively(Lehmann 2002) or even simultaneously (e.g. seeHaas 2007 on each other).…”