Transcript Semantic Change and Grammaticalization in FDG

A hierarchical approach to
grammaticalization
Kees Hengeveld
Research questions
• Can Functional Discourse Grammar serve as
a framework to predict, describe and
explain processes of grammaticalization?
• What are the relevant processes of
contentive change?
• What are the relevant processes of formal
change?
• How do these processes interact?
2
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG)
Contentive change in FDG
Formal change in FDG
Contentive change and formal change in
FDG
5. Conclusions
3
1. Functional Discourse Grammar
Conceptual Component
G
r
a
m
m
a
r
O
u
t
p
u
t
Frames,
Lexemes,
Operators
Templates,
Grammatical
elements
Prosodic
Contours,
Sounds
Formulation
Pragmatics, Semantics
Encoding
Morphosyntax, Phonology
Articulation
Expression Level
C
o
n
t
e
x
t
u
a
l
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Conceptual Component
G
r
a
m
m
a
r
O
u
t
p
u
t
Frames,
Lexemes,
Operators
Templates,
Grammatical
elements
Prosodic
Contours,
Sounds
Formulation
Pragmatics, Semantics
Encoding
Morphosyntax, Phonology
Articulation
Expression Level
C
o
n
t
e
x
t
u
a
l
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Conceptual Component
G
r
a
m
m
a
r
O
u
t
p
u
t
Frames,
Lexemes,
Operators
Templates,
Grammatical
elements
Prosodic
Contours,
Sounds
Formulation
Pragmatics, Semantics
Encoding
Morphosyntax, Phonology
Articulation
Expression Level
C
o
n
t
e
x
t
u
a
l
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Frames,
Lexemes,
Primary
operators
Formulation
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Templates,
Auxiliaries,
Secondary
operators
Prosodic patterns,
Morphemes,
Tertiary
operators
Morphosyntactic
Encoding
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological
Encoding
Phonological Level
Frames,
Lexemes,
Primary
operators
Formulation
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Templates,
Auxiliaries,
Secondary
operators
Prosodic patterns,
Morphemes,
Tertiary
operators
Morphosyntactic
Encoding
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological
Encoding
Phonological Level
Frames,
Lexemes,
Primary
operators
Formulation
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Templates,
Auxiliaries,
Secondary
operators
Prosodic patterns,
Morphemes,
Tertiary
operators
Morphosyntactic
Encoding
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological
Encoding
Phonological Level
Frames,
Lexemes,
Primary
operators
Formulation
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Templates,
Auxiliaries,
Secondary
operators
Prosodic patterns,
Morphemes,
Tertiary
operators
Morphosyntactic
Encoding
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological
Encoding
Phonological Level
Interpersonal Level
(π M1: [
(π A1: [
(π F1)
(π P1)S
(π P2)A
(π C1: [
(π T1)Φ
(π R1)Φ
] (C1)Φ
] (A1)Φ
] (M1))
Move
Discourse Act
Illocution
Speaker
Addressee
Communicated Content
Ascriptive Subact
Referential Subact
Communicated Content
Discourse Act
Move
12
Representational Level
(π p1:
(π ep1:
(π e1:
[(π f1: [
(π f1)
(π x1)Φ
] (f1))
(e1)Φ])
(ep1))
(p1))
Propositional Content
Episode
State-of-Affairs
Configurational Property
Lexical Property
Individual
Configurational Property
State-of-Affairs
Episode
Propositional Content
13
2. Contentive change
Scope increase (layers)
Semantic units develop diachronically from
lower to higher layers, and not the other
way round (Hengeveld 1989)
Representational Level: p ← ep ← e ← f
15
Scope increase (layers)
Spanish haber ‘have’ (Olbertz 1993)
1. resultative, now replaced by tener:
Tengo
prepara-d-a
una
cena fenomenal.
have.PRS.1.SG prepare-ANT-F.SG INDEF.SG.F meal(F) terrific
‘I have a terrific meal ready (for you).’
16
Scope increase (layers)
Spanish haber ‘have’
2. anterior
Había
/ he
/ habré
preparado
have.PST.1.SG / have.PRS.1.SG / have.FUT.1.SG prepare-ANT
una
cena
fenomenal.
INDEF.SG.F meal(F) terrific
‘I had/have/will have prepared a terrific meal.’
17
Scope increase (layers)
Spanish haber ‘have’
3. (recent) past
Me
he
levanta-do a las siete.
1.SG.REFL AUX.PRS.1.SG get.up-ANT at the seven
‘I got up at seven o’clock.’
18
Scope increase (layers)
Spanish haber ‘have’
4. mirative (Ecuadorian Highland Spanish, Olbertz 2009)
Mire, compró
estos, los
probé ...
y ..
Look bought.PF.3SGthese them tried.PF.1SG and
¡han
sido peras!
have.3PL been pears
‘Look, she bought these, I tasted them ... and ... they are pears!’
19
Scope increase (layers)
Spanish haber ‘have’
p
p
p
p
←
←
←
←
ep
ep
ep
ep
←
←
←
←
e
e
e
e
←
←
←
←
f
f
f
f
20
Scope increase (layers)
Pragmatic units develop diachronically from
lower to higher layers, and not the other
way round
Interpersonal Level: M ← A ← C ← R ← T
21
Scope increase (layers)
sort of (Hengeveld & Keizer 2009)
I keep sort of thinking about that and coming
back to it. (Google)
I think I can more or less understand in
general terms what happens up until sort of
the impressionist time, maybe just postimpressionist. (BNC)
McCain backtracks on gay adoption, sort of.
(Google)
22
Scope increase (layers)
sort of
M←A←C←R←T
M←A←C←R←T
M←A←C←R←T
23
Scope increase (levels)
Semantic units may develop diachronically
into pragmatic units, and not the other way
round (Hengeveld & Wanders 2007)
Interpersonal Level
↑
Representational Level
24
Scope increase (levels)
RL: Providing food assistance is not easy
because the infrastructure is lacking.
IL: Watch out, because there is a bull in the
field!
RL: Providing food assistance is not easy
exactly because the infrastructure is
lacking.
IL: *Watch out, exactly because there is a bull
in the field!
25
Scope increase (levels)
Semantic units may develop diachronically
into pragmatic units, and not the other way
round
Interpersonal Level
↑
Representational Level
26
Scope increase (levels)
Semantic units may develop diachronically
into pragmatic units, and not the other way
round
Interpersonal Level
↑
Representational Level
27
From lexeme to operator
Goossens (1985), Olbertz (1998), and Keizer
(2007).
π ← Lexeme
28
From lexeme to operator
fail to (Mackenzie 2009)
π ← Lexeme
He failed to win the race.
The bomb failed to explode.
fail (fc)
(neg fc)
29
From lexeme to operator
decir (Olbertz 2005, 2007; Grández Ávila
2010)
π ← Lexeme
They say (dicen que) Juan is ill.
Juan apparently (dizque) is ill.
decir (C)
(Rep C)
30
Contentive change in FDG
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
31
Contentive change in FDG:
haber
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
32
Contentive change in FDG:
haber
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
33
Contentive change in FDG:
haber
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
34
Contentive change in FDG:
haber
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
35
Contentive change in FDG:
haber
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
36
Contentive change in FDG:
haber
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
37
Contentive change in FDG:
haber
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
38
Contentive change in FDG:
haber
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
39
Contentive change in FDG:
haber
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
40
Contentive change in FDG:
sort of
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
41
Contentive change in FDG:
sort of
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
42
Contentive change in FDG:
sort of
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
43
Contentive change in FDG:
sort of
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
44
Contentive change in FDG:
sort of
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
45
Contentive change in FDG:
sort of
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
46
Contentive change in FDG:
sort of
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
47
Contentive change in FDG:
because
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
48
Contentive change in FDG:
because
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
49
Contentive change in FDG:
because
Lexicon
Interpersonal Level
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
←
fc
←
fl
↑
Representational Level
Lexicon
p
←
ep
←
e
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
Lex
50
3. Formal change in FDG
Main issue
There cannot be a one-to-one relation between
formal changes and layers/levels, as lexical
elements may enter the grammatical system
at any layer/level
52
Grammaticalization scales
inflectional affix < clitic < grammatical word
< content item
but: isolating vs. agglutinative vs. fusional
languages
53
A scale of formal change in
FDG
Keizer (2007)
lexemes
lexical operators
operators
(xi: – man – (xi): – old – (xi))
‘the/an old man’
(that xi: – man – (xi))
‘that man’
(1 xi: – man – (xi))
‘a man’
54
Formal categories in FDG
Criteria:
lexemes:
lexical operators:
operators:
modification:
an extremely old man
focalization
(which man?) THAT man
neither
55
A grammaticalization scale in
FDG
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
56
4. Contentive and formal
change in FDG
Linking the scales
Each of the contentive parameters can be
linked to the formal parameter to provide a
more coherent view of the interplay
between contentive and formal aspects of
grammaticalization processes
58
Linking the scales
contentive scale:
p ← ep ← e ← f
formal scale:
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
As elements move up the contentive scale,
they cannot move down the formal scale
59
Linking the scales
Allowed:
p
←
ep
←
e
←
fc
←
fl
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
60
Linking the scales
Not allowed:
p
←
ep
←
e
←
fc
←
fl
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
61
Linking the scales
contentive scale:
M←A←C←R←T
formal scale:
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
As elements move up the contentive scale,
they cannot move down the formal scale
62
Linking the scales
Allowed:
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
63
Linking the scales
Not allowed:
M
←
A
←
C
←
R
←
T
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
64
5. Conclusion
Conclusions 1
FDG offers a framework within which known
processes of grammaticalization can be
captured
Contentive changes are restricted in terms of
the hierarchical relations between layers
and levels
Formal changes can be captured in a
crosslinguistically valid way by adopting
Keizer’s grammaticalization scale rather
than traditional ones
66
Conclusions 2
Contentive and formal scales can be linked by
defining a relative rather than absolute
relationship between them
67
this presentation downloadable from
home.hum.uva.nl/oz/hengeveldp