What counts as (an instance of) grammaticalization

… makes grammaticalization? A look from its …, 2004

Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues, 2010

* I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments were of great help in revising the paper. † Thanks are due to the Belgian Science (Interuniversity Attraction Poles programme project GRAMIS P6/44) for partial funding work on this topic.

Folia Linguistica, 2000

A grammaticalization process, by which an item shifts from lexicon to grammar, is by definition a cline or a continuum. Consequently, items undergoing grammaticalization processes can occupy different positions on the cline between its two extremes. The main claim we want to argue for in this thematic issue is that the same idea of gradation can be extended to language typology, by showing that, within a language family, comparable grammaticalization phenomena can be at the outset or on-going in one language and have reached a stage further down the cline in another language, or even that grammaticalization phenomena present in one language may be absent in the other one. Thus, with respect to Romance, several authors, such as

2021

The notion of ‘grammaticalization’ — the embedding of once non-(or less) grammatical phenomena into the grammar of a language — has enjoyed broad acceptance over the past 30 or so years as a new paradigm for describing and accounting for linguistic change. Despite its appeal, my contention is that there are some issues with ‘grammaticalization’ as it is conventionally described and discussed in the literature. My goal here is to explore what some of those problems are and to focus on what grammaticalization has to offer as a methodology for studying language change. Drawing on case studies from the history of English and the history of Greek, I reach a characterization of how much of grammatical change can legitimately be called “grammaticalization” and how much is something else. In this way, I work to achieve a sense of what grammaticalization is and what it is not.

Studies in Language Companion Series, 2015

Diachronica, 2011

Language Sciences, 2000

The primary purpose of this paper is to introduce the papers in this issue of Language Science, dedicated to taking stock of both grammaticalization and so-called`g rammaticalization theory'' (i.e. claims about grammaticalization). This introduction sets the stage for the other papers by surveying the large range of de®nitions of grammaticalization in the literature and placing them in context. It also mentions the major questions addressed by each paper and relates these to the overall themes of the volume, namely clarifying what grammaticalization is (and isn't), highlighting what's good and (in particular) what's bad about grammaticalization theory, and, in the process, contributing to greater understanding of these phenomena. 7

The paper focuses on structural aspects of language change which have been ascribed to grammaticalization and have tacitly been presupposed by diverse accounts (i) of the motives of complex changes, (ii) of the role of language contact, and (iii) by attempts to create areal profiles of language types and zones of convergence. The article discusses some of the preconditions for a comprehensive and yet unified treatment of changes in which grammaticalization would not become an anything-goes-concept of grammatical change. Starting from a reconsideration of Lehmann’s parameters and their treatment in the literature, the paper first addresses problems connected to accounts based on prototypes (or checklists). Parameters belonging to the syntagmatic axis are analyzed in more detail. Even though parameters may be ranked within prototype-based approaches, such an approach is shown to be insufficient in articulating a coherent theory. An alternative might consist in the application of a superordinate principle based on relative discourse prominence (together with conventionalization). The advantages and drawbacks of both approaches are investigated, and it is argued that they should be employed as complementary parts of a coherent grammaticalization theory that is yet to be detailed.

Folia Linguistica, 2006

Folia Linguistica, 2014

The article addresses structural aspects of language change which have been ascribed to grammaticalization and have tacitly been presupposed by diverse accounts (i) of the motives of complex changes, (ii) of the role of language contact, and (iii) by attempts to create areal profiles of language types and zones of convergence. We discuss some of the preconditions for a comprehensive and yet unified treatment of changes in which grammaticalization would not become an anythinggoes concept of grammatical change. Starting from a reconsideration of Lehmann’s parameters and their treatment in the literature, we first address problems connected to accounts based on prototypes (or checklists). Parameters belonging to the syntagmatic axis are analyzed in more detail. Even though parameters may be ranked within prototype-based approaches, such an approach is shown to be insufficient in articulating a coherent theory. An alternative might consist in the application of a superordinate principle...