0% found this document useful (0 votes)
329 views44 pages

Grammaticalization in Morphology: 1.1 Grammaticalization As A Phenomenon

This document discusses grammaticalization and degrammaticalization as linguistic phenomena. It provides examples of grammaticalization, such as motion verbs becoming future auxiliaries. It also discusses criticism of grammaticalization research and efforts to classify types of grammaticalization and degrammaticalization changes that can occur at the morphological level.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
329 views44 pages

Grammaticalization in Morphology: 1.1 Grammaticalization As A Phenomenon

This document discusses grammaticalization and degrammaticalization as linguistic phenomena. It provides examples of grammaticalization, such as motion verbs becoming future auxiliaries. It also discusses criticism of grammaticalization research and efforts to classify types of grammaticalization and degrammaticalization changes that can occur at the morphological level.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 44

This is a draft of a chapter/article that has been accepted for publication by Oxford University

Press in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Volume Morphology, edited by

Rochelle Lieber [2019].

Grammaticalization in morphology

Muriel Norde

1 Grammaticalization and grammaticalization research

1.1 Grammaticalization as a phenomenon

Grammaticalization is a type of change whereby lexical items (such as nouns or verbs)

gradually turn into grammatical items (such as auxiliaries or pronouns), after which they may

continue to evolve into yet more abstract function words or even inflectional affixes. It is a

reductive process, characterized by loss of semantic and phonological substance, as well as loss

of syntactic freedom. Grammaticalization is therefore a ‘composite’ type of change,

encompassing ‘micro-changes’ on the levels of phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and

/ or discourse, either simultaneously or in succession (Norde 2012, Norde & Beijering 2014;

see also Bisang 2017).

Well-known examples of grammaticalization include the change from motion verbs into

future auxiliaries (English to be going to, French aller, Dutch gaan), the development of an

indefinite article out of the numeral ‘one’ (English a(n), French un(e), Dutch een), or the shift

from demonstrative pronoun to complementizer (English that, French que (< Latin quod),

Dutch dat). Such changes are assumed to proceed along the so-called ‘cline of grammaticality’

(Hopper & Traugott 2003: 7), given in (1).

(1) content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix
It goes without saying that the transitions between the different points on the cline are very

diverse. This has led some authors (e.g. Detges & Waltereit 2002: 188) to restrict the term

‘grammaticalization’ to the shift from content item to grammatical word, whereas others (e.g.

Givón 1991: 305; Traugott 2002: 26-27) distinguish between ‘primary grammaticalization’ and

‘secondary grammaticalization’, although these terms have been defined in different ways (see

further 2.2).

One of the most interesting aspects of grammaticalization is its cross-linguistic

regularity – the examples just mentioned do not only occur in English, French and Dutch, but

in a range of other (typologically unrelated) languages as well. This regularity can be explained

as the result of cognitive processes that are not language-specific (Heine 1997). For instance, it

is commonly observed that spatial notions are conceptualized using the human body as a point

of reference, or that time is conceptualized in terms of space. These universal tendencies

account for shared etymological pathways, such as locative adpositions meaning ‘behind’

developing out of a noun meaning ‘back’ (e.g. Danish bag ‘behind’ < Old Danish baker ‘back’),

or temporal adpositions developing out of locative ones (e.g. English before, after, between).

1.2 Grammaticalization as a framework

Research into grammaticalization phenomena can be traced back to at least the eighteenth

century (e.g. Condillac 1749; for more references see Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991: 5ff.)

and the term ‘grammaticalization’ (grammaticalisation) was coined by Meillet in 1912 to refer

to “l’attribution du caractère grammaticale à un mot jadis autonome” [the attribution of a

grammatical character to an erstwhile autonomous word ].i The study of these phenomena was

in its heydays from the late 1980s until the late 2000s, which saw a steady flow of textbooks

(Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991; Lehmann 1995 [1982]; Hopper & Traugott 2003) and
collective volumes, both conference proceedings and journal special issues (Traugott & Heine

1991a,b; Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994; Giacalone Ramat & Hopper 1998; Fischer,

Rosenbach & Stein 2000; Bisang, Himmelmann & Wiemer 2004; Norde, Lenz & Beijering

2013; Von Mengden & Simon 2014; Breban & Kranich 2015). Other important reference works

are the OUP handbook (Narrog & Heine 2011), and a lexicon (Heine & Kuteva 2002). In

addition, grammaticalization has been the theme of a series of dedicated conferences, New

Reflections on Grammaticalization, which ran from 1999 to 2012, and lead to a further series

of collective volumes (Wischer & Diewald 2002; Fischer, Norde & Perridon 2004; López

Couso & Seoane 2008 / Seoane & López-Couso 2008; Davidse, Breban, Brems & Mortelmans

2012; and Smith, Trousdale & Waltereit 2015).

Although grammaticalization changes naturally did not vanish from the historical

linguistics agenda, the first decade of this century did witness a paradigm shift. Recent

approaches focus on constructions as the basic unit of analysis, following advances in

construction grammar (e.g. Goldberg 1995, 2006; Croft 2001), in particular diachronic

construction grammar (Noël 2007; Bergs & Diewald 2008; Barðdal, Smirnova, Sommerer &

Gildea 2015). Because constructions are defined as symbolic pairings of form and meaning, a

constructionist perspective lends itself well to the study of grammaticalization phenomena,

which involve changes in both form and meaning, but the objectives of these two approaches

do not completely overlap. Whereas both are concerned with the lexical origins of grammar

and grammatical change, grammaticalization research places strong focus on the cognitive

foundations of grammar (Heine 1997), which is in part reflected by cross-linguistic regularities

in grammaticalization changes (Heine, Narrog & Long 2016). Conversely, diachronic

construction grammar highlights aspects of change that had remained somewhat under-exposed

in grammaticalization research (see Cuyckens 2018 and Coussé, Andersson & Olofsson 2018

for convenient summaries). For example, construction grammar assumes constructions at


varying levels of complexity and schematicity (ranging from a specific word such as cat to a

fully schematic construction such as the ditransitive construction), which are organized in a

constructional network. It furthermore highlights the importance of frequency in change (Bybee

2007, 2010, 2013), which allows for quantitative methods, primarily corpus linguistics (Hilpert

2013, 2015). After pioneering work by Traugott (2007, 2008, 2014) and Trousdale (2008,

2012), the publication of two joint works (Traugott & Trousdale 2010, 2013) laid the

foundations for future research into grammaticalization as changes in constructions and

constructional networks.

1.3 Criticism

While grammaticalization research was a prominent and flourishing branch in historical

linguistics for about three decades, it was also the subject of much criticism, starting with

Newmeyer 1998 and, in particular, the papers in Campbell 2001. The criticism was primarily

aimed at two aspects, first, that grammaticalization is a separate process, and secondly, that

grammatical change is unidirectional. As to the former point, Joseph (2001) has argued that all

changes in grammaticalization (e.g., phonological reduction, semantic bleaching) are also

attested independently and can be accounted for in their own terms, so there is no need for a

new concept. Similarly, Newmeyer (1998: 235) asserts that grammaticalization is merely an

epiphenomenal result of changes on different levels (such as phonology and semantics), that

just happen to occur simultaneously or in short succession. This line of reasoning was however

rejected by grammaticalization researchers, e.g. Heine & Kuteva (2002: 2f.), who point out that

these changes do not simply happen to co-occur, but are interrelated. Much earlier, Bybee,

Perkins & Pagliuca (1994: 298), had convincingly argued that ‘The processes that lead to

grammaticalization occur in language use for their own sakes; it just happens that their

cumulative effect is the development of grammar’.


The second point of criticism is perhaps more fundamental, as it pertains not just to

grammaticalization, but to language change generally. In the early days of theorizing about

grammaticalization (e.g., Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991, Traugott & Heine 1991c, for

further discussion and references see Norde 2009: 48ff.), there was a firm belief that

grammaticalization was unidirectional, invariably proceeding ‘down the cline’ of

grammaticality, given in (1) above. This was not just a matter of definition, it was also held that

change in the opposite direction was simply precluded. As Lehmann (1995 [1982]: 19)

emphatically put it: “no cogent examples of degrammaticalization have been found”. The

interesting effect of this quote is that Lehmann had unintentionally created a Popperian black

swan and turned unidirectionality into a falsifiable hypothesis. As a result, others started to

search for, and found, these black swans, i.e. cases of degrammaticalization (e.g. Ramat 1992;

Norde 1997; Janda 2001; Van der Auwera 2002; Willis 2007; see Norde 2009 for a survey of

the earlier case studies). Although not all of these examples were eventually accepted as

genuine cases of degrammaticalization, and degrammaticalization remains a comparatively rare

phenomenon, the very existence of degrammaticalization implied that “a presumed absolute

universal had to be weakened to a statistical universal” (Haspelmath 2004: 23).

2 Classifying (de)grammaticalization

2.1 Introduction

Grammaticalization and degrammaticalization often lead to changes at the level of morphology,

but the effects depend on the kind of (de)grammaticalization involved. This section provides a

brief account of these different kinds of changes – specific examples are given in the next

chapter. Although grammaticalization and degrammaticalization are crucially different in a

number of respects, they also have a few properties in common, which delineate them from

other diachronic processes (Norde 2011: 476f.). First of all, both grammaticalization and
degrammaticalization are ‘composite changes’, i.e. the concurrence of ‘primitive’ changes on

different levels (semantics, morphology, syntax, and/or phonology), that can be described in

terms of Lehmann’s (1995[1982]) parameters (see Norde 2012). Secondly, both are gradual, in

the sense that it is not necessarily the case that all primitive changes occur simultaneously.

Rather, (de)grammaticalization comprises a succession of small changes. Thirdly, both result

in novel grams or structures. This restricts the number of potential degrammaticalization cases

– when a lexical item acquires a grammatical function and then loses it again, leaving only the

original lexical meaning, the change will not qualify as a case of degrammaticalization, but as

an instance of ‘retraction’ (see further Haspelmath 2004: 33ff.). Lastly, both are context-internal

changes, in the sense that “the identity of the construction and the element’s place within it are

always preserved” (Haspelmath 1999: 1064). Initial stages of grammaticalization typically lead

to what Heine (2002: 91ff) has termed ‘bridging contexts’, i.e. ambiguous contexts in which

the grammaticalizing element can be interpreted in two ways. For example, in the bridging

context the day following his intervention, following can be interpreted either as a gerund (‘the

day which followed his intervention’) or as a preposition (‘the day after his intervention’), its

more grammaticalized usage.

2.2 Primary and secondary grammaticalization

A distinction is traditionally made between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ grammaticalization,

referring to the early stages (from lexical item to grammatical item) and subsequent stages (from

grammatical item to another grammatical item, or from grammatical item to bound morpheme)

respectively. Basically, the terms refer to the two types of change identified in Kuryłowicz’s

(1975 [1965]: 52) often-cited definition: “Grammaticalization consists in the increase of the

range of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to a grammatical or from a grammatical to a

more grammatical status.”


There is no general agreement on the exact delineation between primary and secondary

grammaticalization and the relation between the two. The present paper follows the definitions

in Traugott 2002, where primary grammaticalization is defined as “the development in specific

morphosyntactic contexts of constructions and lexical categories into functional categories” (p.

27), whereas secondary grammaticalization refers to “the development of morphophonemic

‘texture’ associated with the categories in question” (ibid.). An example of primary

grammaticalization followed by secondary grammaticalization is English will – originally a

lexical verb with volitional meaning, it developed into a future auxiliary will (primary

grammaticalization), which at a later stage was reduced to enclitic ‘ll (secondary

grammaticalization).

(2) lexical verb > auxiliary > enclitic auxiliary > inflectional tense marker

└─────┬─────┘└───────────────┬───────────────┘

primary grammaticalization secondary grammaticalization

Like all terms ending in ization, secondary grammaticalization has been at the heart of

definitional debates (Norde & Beijering 2014). Von Mengden (2016: 134) even suggests that

the term ‘secondary grammaticalization’ is the accidental result of Kuryłowicz’s two-part

definition of grammaticalization, that is, the “product of the various turns and notional

interpretations in a metalinguistic discourse.” One notable point of criticism is raised by

Smirnova (2015), who argues that secondary grammaticalization is not always the continuation

of primary grammaticalization (as (2) might suggest). Not only did she find a great deal of

regularity across different secondary grammaticalization changes, these changes are not

necessarily steered by the semantics of the lexical element at the very beginning of the chain.

Breban (2015) furthermore argues that primitive changes accompanying secondary


grammaticalization are constrained by language type – in heavily inflected languages, loss of

morphological properties may be more prominent than in less inflected ones (including

English), where grammatical relations are often expressed by analytic means.

Smirnova’s and Breban’s objections are duly noted, but since this paper focuses

exclusively on morphological change in (de)grammaticalization, it will only feature examples

of secondary grammaticalization that involve changes on the level of (inflectional) morphology.

2.3 Primary and secondary degrammaticalization

Although the term ‘degrammaticalization’ might suggest that it is the mirror-image of

grammaticalization, or the reversal of a grammaticalization change, there are more differences

between the two than the direction of change. They also differ with respect to frequency and

cross-linguistic regularity: grammaticalization is a common phenomenon and similar changes

can be observed in a series of (often unrelated) languages. Degrammaticalization, on the other

hand, is far less commonly attested and changes are often restricted to a single language or a

group of closely related languages. Finally, degrammaticalization differs from

grammaticalization in that it does not form chains, that is, a degrammaticalization change (e.g.

from affix to clitic) is usually not followed by a subsequent degrammaticalization change (e.g.

from clitic to independent function word), although North Saami (-)naga ‘stained with; stain’,

discussed in 3.6, may be an exception .ii

A basic heuristic to identify a change that might be an example of degrammaticalization

is establishing the direction of the change on the cline of grammaticality in (1). If the change

comprises a change from right to left on this cline, and if it is furthermore a gradual, context-

internal change (see 2.1), it is likely a genuine example of degrammaticalization. As for

grammaticalization, it makes sense to distinguish between primary and secondary

degrammaticalization, whereby there are two types of secondary degrammaticalization.


Following the classification in Norde 2009, primary degrammaticalization is termed

‘degrammation’, which refers to “a composite change whereby a function word in a specific

linguistic context is reanalysed as a member of a major word class, acquiring the

morphosyntactic properties which are typical of that word class, and gaining in semantic

substance” (Norde 2009: 136).iii Secondary degrammaticalization is termed

‘deinflectionalization’ or ‘debonding’, depending on the input and output of the changes. Thus,

deinflectionalization “is a composite change whereby an inflectional affix in a specific

linguistic context gains a new function, while shifting to a less bound morpheme type” (Norde

2009: 152). The term debonding, finally, denotes “a composite change whereby a bound

morpheme in a specific linguistic context becomes a free morpheme” (Norde 2009: 186).

3 (De)grammaticalization and morphology

3.1 Note in advance

This chapter discusses a few illustrative examples of morphological changes in each of the five

types of (de)grammaticalization introduced in the preceding chapter. Given the pervasiveness

of grammaticalization in the world’s languages, a full survey is naturally out of the question

(many more examples are to be found in the reference works mentioned in 1.2). Furthermore,

for reasons of space, diachronic details need to be kept to a minimum. It should be stressed,

therefore, that what are called ‘changes’ in this paper are actually ‘diachronic correspondences’,

an important distinction introduced by Andersen (2001). Andersen correctly notes that language

historians often speak of changes when it would be more appropriate to speak of diachronic

correspondences, which are the results of change. A diachronic correspondence, then, is the

“relation between homologous elements (…) belonging to two chronologically separate

synchronic states in a linguistic tradition (…)”. (Andersen 2001: 28), whereas changes are “the

historical events in a linguistic tradition by which practices of speaking vary over time”.
Changes can be observed when they are in progress, even though they often go unnoticed by

members of a speech community. Since ‘change’ is such a well-established term, it is retained

here, but with the proviso that the discussion is largely restricted to input and output of change.

For fuller accounts the reader is referred to the studies quoted.

3.2 Primary grammaticalization: loss of morphological properties

Primary grammaticalization is typically associated with ‘decategorialization’, the shift from a

major category to a minor category (Hopper & Traugott 2003: 106ff.). From a functional

perspective, decategorialization refers to the loss of discourse autonomy (Hopper 1991: 30).

For instance, when nouns grammaticalize, they lose the ability to identify participants in

discourse – top in on top of the refrigerator does not necessarily refer to the upper part of the

refrigerator. The expression can also be used when the refrigerator is lying on its side and

something else is lying on top of it (DeLancey 1994: 4). In languages such as English, where

major categories are inflected and most minor categories (with the exception of pronouns) are

not, primary grammaticalization leads to the loss of morphosyntactic properties, such as

inflections and / or the ability to take articles and modifiers.iv For instance, in the relational

phrase on top of, the noun top cannot pluralize nor can it take an article. Similarly, when full

verbs grammaticalize into auxiliaries they may lose person endings (cf. English I want to, he

wants to vs I wanna, he wanna (*wannas); Krug 2000: 160) and become ungrammatical in

certain contexts (e.g. certain temporal clauses such as English *Let’s wait till she will join us

(Hopper & Traugott 2003:111).

The term ‘decategorialization’, while well-established, is not unproblematic. Thus

Ramat (2001: 398) argues that it may be taken to mean ‘loss of categorial status’, so instead he

proposes the term ‘transcategorization’. However, as Brinton and Traugott (2005: 25) point out,

this term includes ‘lateral shifts’ (see 4.4) between major categories of the type hand (N) > to
hand (V), and is hence broader in scope than decategorialization. Although this is essentially

correct, the term ‘decategorialization’ remains less than ideal, since loss of inflection is also

found in some shifts from one minor category to another, e.g. when subordinators develop from

pronouns (Cristofaro 1998: 82f.). Conversely, loss of inflections may occur when a minor

category is subject to semantic change, as in the case of the German modal auxiliary wollen

‘want; may’, that lacks a preterite form when the verb has epistemic meaning (Diewald 1997:

24ff.).

As an example of decategorialization in a shift from major to minor word class, consider

the development of the Old Swedish neuter noun mot ‘meeting’ (Norde 2012: 77ff.). As a noun,

mot can be modified by an adjective and it is inflected (3)). In Old Swedish texts from the same

period, mot is also found in phrasal adpositions meaning ‘against, towards’, preceded by i ‘in’

or ‘on’. Initially, mot is still inflected, as in (4), but in later texts, the inflection is lost (see (5)).

At the final stage, with the preceding preposition gone as well, mot functions as a preposition

on its own, as in (6).

(3) lysi fori fysta moti

make.known-3SG.SUBJ for first-DAT encounter-DAT

‘he shall make it known at the first encounter (i.e. to the first person he meets)’

(4) þa skal iamt arwþe a mote iamnu giua

then shall equal-ACC labour-ACC against equal-DAT give

‘then one shall pay off labour with equal labour’

(5) þa komo a mot þem þe fæm heþno kunuga.

then came towards them the five pagan kings

‘then the five pagan kings came to meet them’

(6) sua længe hauar iak standet ii striþ mot hanom.


so long have I stood in fight against him

‘I have been fighting against him for so long’

Other examples of primary grammaticalization resulting in invariable forms include the

development of quantifiers from nouns, such as English a lot of (Traugott 2008), Dutch massa’s

(from the plural of the noun massa ‘mass’; De Clerck & Colleman 2013), Italian un sacco di ‘a

bag of’ > ‘a lot of’ (Giacolone Ramat 2018), or the evolution of a 3SG indefinite pronoun from

a noun meaning ‘man’ (French on < Latin homo, German man < Mann).

3.3 Secondary grammaticalization: from free to bound morpheme

In secondary grammaticalization, the consequences for morphology are not the loss of

inflections, as in primary grammaticalization, but rather the rise of bound morphemes

themselves. Typical examples of secondary grammaticalization are cliticization of erstwhile

free grammatical morphemes, often followed by full affixation. This frequently gives rise to

new inflectional categories in the nominal or verbal domain, with fully-fledged inflectional

paradigms as a result.

One such cline is the development from free demonstrative to affixal determiner in the

Scandinavian languages (Larm 1933, 1936, Faarlund 2007b, Börjars & Harries 2008, Norde

2012: 78ff., Stroh-Wollin 2015). The change is illustrated here with examples from Swedish,

where the Proto-Norse demonstrative hinn, which was postpositive, became cliticized to the

noun and later became an affix. As the cline in (7) (adapted from Stroh-Wollin 2015: 13) shows,

bound (h)inn retained its inflections, with the result that definite noun forms were inflected

twice in Old Swedish (see Table 1). This double inflection is no longer found in Modern

Swedish dagens ‘the day’s’.


(7) dag-s hin-s > dag-s=(h)in-s > dag-s-in-s > dag-en=s v

day-GEN this-GEN day-GEN=DEM/DEF-GEN day-GEN-DEF-GEN day-DEF=SGEN

MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER

DEM DET DEM DET DEM DET

SG 1 hin -in hin -in hit -it

2 hins -ins hinnar -innar hins -ins

3 hinom -num hinne -inne hino -nu

4 hin -in hina -ina hit -in

PL 1 hinir -nir hinar -nar hin -in

2 hinna -nna hinna -nna hinna -nna

3 hinom -in hinom -in hinom -in

4 hina -na hinar -nar hin -in

Table 1: Demonstrative hin and bound -in in Old Swedish (standardized forms only; see further Noreen
1904: 391, 401, 408ff.)

Secondary grammaticalization in the verbal domain includes the emergence of the Germanic

‘weak’ preterite suffixes from Proto-Germanic auxiliary *dōn ‘to do’ (e.g. Sczcepaniak 2011:

112ff.), and of new inflectional futures, e.g. in the Slavic (e.g. Andersen 2006, 2008) and the

Romance languages (e.g. Lausberg 1972, Fleischman 1982, Pinkster 1987, Roberts & Roussou

2003: 48ff.), where the Latin auxiliary habere ‘to have’ gradually fused with the verbal stem,

as illustrated in Table 2 (note that the intermediary enclitic stage is reconstructed).

Classical Latin Vulgar Latin Italian French

Sg 1 cantare habeo *cantar’abeo+ canterò chanterai


2 cantare habes *cant’arabes canterai chanteras

3 cantare habet *cant’arabet canterà chantera

Sg 1 cantare habemus *cantara’bemus canteremo chanterons

2 cantare habetis *cantara’betis canterete chanterez

3 cantare habent *cant’arabunt canteranno chanteront

Table 2: The development of the Romance inflectional future (Lausberg 1972:229ff.)


+
: <’> indicates that the following syllable is stressed

However, secondary grammaticalization does not always lead to in new inflectional categories

– the result may also be a single suffix. For example, the !Xun diminutive marker –mà deriving

from a relational noun mà ‘(own) child’ lost both its lexical semantics and morphosyntactic

properties (Heine 2011: 702). Likewise, the Lezgian evidential suffix -lda grammaticalized

from a single verbal form, luhuda ‘one says’. The change is illustrated in (8), which also features

the lexical verb luhu from which the evidential marker derives (Haspelmath 1993: 148).vi

(8) Gzaf čir ̂xu-n, aq'ullu insan-r.i luhu-zwa-j-wal,

[much know ANTIC-MSD] smart person-PL(ERG) say-IMPF-PTP-MAN

zarar ja-lda.

harm COP-EVID

‘As smart people say, knowing too much is harmful.’

It also ought to be noted that suffixes do not always originate in clitics. An alternative source

are derivational affixes such as English adjectival –ly (ultimately from a Proto-Germanic noun

*lika- ‘body’), as in lovely, that developed further into an adverbial suffix, as in quickly (Brinton

& Traugott 2005: 132ff.). On derivational affixes see further 4.2.


Finally, although the emergence of bound morphemes often goes hand in hand with

reductive changes, reductive changes in secondary grammaticalization do not always result in

bound morphemes. A well-known example is the development of English gonna from the future

auxiliary (to be) going to (itself a case of primary grammaticalization from the motion verb to

go). This is an instance of reduction and fusion whereby morpheme boundaries are lost entirely,

even to the extent that gonna is becoming increasingly ‘emancipated’ from its source going to

(Lorenz 2013), yet gonna is still a free morpheme.

3.4 Degrammation: gain in morphological properties

Degrammation involves both semantic change (from grammatical content to lexical content)

and morphosyntactic change (from minor to major word-class, typically acquiring the inflection

of that particular word-class). In addition, for a change to qualify as degrammation, it has to be

construction-internal, in order to distinguish it from lexicalization (see 4.4). Degrammation is

only rarely attested – presumably because its target is a major word class, which typically

inflects. This implies that in order for a grammatical element to degrammaticalize into a major

lexical category, it has to have a morphophonological structure that can plausibly be reanalysed

as an inflected form (Willis 2007: 303). Evidently, this becomes decreasingly likely the more

inflections a language possesses.

Nevertheless, Norde (2009: 135ff.) lists a number of cases. These are: the preterite

subjunctive of modal welle ‘to want to’ > full verb wotte ‘to wish’, in a variety of Pennsylvania

German spoken in Waterloo County, Canada (Burridge 1998); the Chinese deontic modal dĕi

> lexical verb meaning ‘to need, require’ (Ziegeler 2004); Old Church Slavonic nĕčĭto

‘something’ > Bulgarian nešto ‘thing’ (Willis 2007: 278ff.), or Old Irish ní ‘something’ >

Modern Irish ní ‘thing’ (Willis 2016: 205); the Welsh 3SG possessive pronoun eiddo ‘his’ >
noun meaning ‘property’ (Willis 2007:283ff.); and the Middle Welsh preposition yn ôl ‘after’

> full verb nôl ‘to fetch (Willis 2007: 292ff., Trousdale & Norde 2013: 38f.).

The importance of preservation of the constructional context is illustrated by Welsh yn

ôl. In late Middle Welsh, yn ol is attested in constructions such as (9), where it is ambiguous

between ‘after’ and ‘fetch’. Subsequently a formal split occurs, with yn ol continuing as a

preposition while the verb is reduced to nol (Modern Welsh nôl). This split was facilitated by a

reanalysis from yn ôl as y nol, that is, a purposive marker y plus a verb. From the 17th century

onwards, examples featuring verbal inflections, such as (10), begin to appear (Willis 2007: 294,

297).

(9) Yna yd aeth y gweisson yn ol y varch a ’e arueu y Arthur

then PRT went the lads after his horse and his weapons for Arthur

‘Then the lads went after / went to fetch his horse and his weapons for Arthur’

(10) Nolwch y Brenin i ’w examnio

fetch-2PL.IMP the King to 3MASC.SG examine-INF

‘Fetch the king to be cross-examined’

As these examples show, the morphological consequence of degrammation is a gain in

inflections. Similar effects are seen in other cases of degrammation. Thus, the Pennsylvania

German lexical verb wotte ‘to wish’, deriving from an indeclinable modal form ‘would’,

features inflected forms such as imperative wott or the past participle gewott. As an example

from the nominal domain, the Bulgarian noun nešto ‘thing’ (from a pronoun meaning

‘something’) has regular neuter inflection (plural nešta, definite form neštoto, with enclitic

definite article).
3.5 Deinflectionalization: decreasing morphophonological integration

Like degrammation, deinflectionalization is extremely rare, and also somewhat controversial

because it involves a shift from an inflectional affix to another type of bound morpheme (e.g. a

derivational affix or a clitic). This naturally raises the question of why these shifts should be

considered degrammaticalization and not, for instance, lateral conversions on the level of bound

morphemes. A full discussion of this issue falls outside of the scope of this contribution (for

this, see Norde 2009: 152ff.), but some brief observations are in order here. First, what

distinguishes inflectional affixes from derivational ones is that the former are grammatically

obligatory, whereas the latter are not (Bybee 1985: 81ff.). For instance, case affixes are required

by a specific morpho-syntactic context, but derivational affixes add lexical content (sometimes

changing word class). Furthermore, the scope of inflectional affixes is usually restricted to a

single stem, whereas derivational affixes may take scope over an entire phrase (see Norde &

Van Goethem 2015 for examples from Dutch). On the basis of this, it could be argued that this

makes inflectional affixes more strongly integrated in the grammar of a language, and hence

‘more grammatical’. As far as the differences between inflectional affixes and clitics are

concerned (see e.g. Zwicky & Pullum 1983), it can be noted that inflectional affixes are often

restricted to a specific inflectional class, while clitics are far less selective with respect to the

host they attach to. Also, morphophonological idiosyncrasies are more commonly found in

inflection, for instance when the affix changes vowel quality or quantity of the root. The lesser

degree of phonological and morphological integration of clitics, then, can be taken as a

degrammaticalized status. This is also in line with the cline in (1), where inflectional affixes are

closer to the grammaticalized pole than are clitics, as well as with the fact that a change from

clitic to affix is usually considered grammaticalization.

Examples of deinflectionalization from inflection to derivation are: Old Swedish

MASC.SG.NOM –er > Modern Swedish derivational nominalization suffix –er (Norde &
Trousdale 2016: 181ff.); Old Swedish NEUT.PL.NOM/ACC –on > Modern Swedish derivational

‘berry-suffix’ –on (Norde 2009: 181f.); and Kwazavii inflectional exhortative marker –ni >

derivational causational marker -nĩ (Van der Voort 2002).

The latter case is illustrated in (11) and (12). The primary reasons for analysing the

suffix -nĩ as derivational are the following (Van der Voort 2002:312ff. and personal

communication): causational –nĩ does not belong to a paradigm and is optional, whereas

exhortative –ni forms part of a verbal mood paradigm and is grammatically obligatory.

Furthermore, –nĩ can receive primary stress, which in Kwaza is always realized on the final

syllable of the (derived) stem, before the inflectional affixes.

(11) ‘ja kui-Ø-‘ni-da-ki

already drink-3-EXH-1SG-DEC

‘I already said: “Let him drink”’

(12) ‘ja kui-‘nĩ-da-ki

already drink-CAUS-1SG-DEC

‘I already let (him) drink’

Examples of deinflectionalization from affix to clitic are Russian 2PL imperative suffix -t’e >

enclitic =t’e, with palatalization of the consonant before [t’] retained (suffixation would have

resulted in depalatalization), which later spread to 1PL as a hortative clitic (Andersen 2008: 28);

MASC/NEUT.SG.GEN –s > enclitic s-genitive in several Germanic languages – English (Jespersen

1894; Allen 2008), Danish (Herslund 2001; Perridon 2013), Norwegian (Johannessen 1989),

and Swedish (Norde, 1997, 2006a, 2013; Trousdale & Norde 2013: 40ff.; Norde & Trousdale

2016: 172 ff.; Piotrowska 2017). A recent example is discussed in Haig (2018) and concerns

the deinflectionalization of agreement markers in Central Kurdish past tense transitive verbs.
In this language, subject agreement markers are obligatory in the past tense, whether or not an

overt pronoun (e.g. eto in (13)) is present. Object agreement markers, on the other hand, are no

longer obligatory. They appear when there is no free pronoun present, as in (14), but are

excluded when there is a free pronoun, as in (15) (Haig 2018: 803). In other words, free

pronouns and bound object agreement markers have become alternating person indices.

(13) (eto) roišt-ī

2P:S leave.PST-2P:S /*-Ø

‘You left.’

(14) dena de=y=kušt-in

otherwise IPFV=3s:A=kill.PST-3PL:P

‘Otherwise he would kill them.’

(15) dena ewān=ī de-kušt/*-in

otherwise them:P=3s:A IPFV-kill.PST-3PL:P

‘Otherwise he would kill them.’

The bound markers furthermore show signs of decreasing phonological integration, e.g.

because they can be separated from their stem by an intervening subject-indexing clitic, as

shown in (16) (Haig 2018: 804).

(16) nārd=mān-in

send.PST=1PL.A-3PL.P

‘We sent them.’


Following Zwicky & Pullum’s (1983: 504) criteria to distinguish clitics from affixes, this means

these agreement markers cannot be affixes, since affixes do not normally attach to material

already containing clitics.

3.6 Debonding: from bound morpheme to free morpheme

Unlike the previous two types of degrammaticalization, debonding is relatively common, but it

is also less homogeneous. This is because its input can be inflectional affixes, derivational

affixes, clitics, or affixoids. In debonding, the major change is on the level of morphology – a

bound morpheme becomes free with only minimal changes to its semantics, or indeed none at

all. Examples of debonded inflectional affixes include Irish muid (1PL. verb suffix > personal

pronoun ‘we’; Doyle 2002: 68) and North Saami haga ‘without’ Ylikoski 2016), , exemplified

in (17). The North Saami postposition haga in (17a) derives from a Proto-Saami bound abessive

case form *-ptāke̮k or *-ptāke̮n, that is still found as an abessive suffix in other Saami languages,

cf. the Skolt Saami example in (17b) (Ylikoski 2016: 119-120).

(17) a. Mun manan gápmagiid haga. North Saami

1SG go.1SG shoe.PL.GENACC without

b. Mon mõõnam käʹmmitää. Skolt Saami

1SG go.1SG shoe.PL.ABE

‘I’ll go without shoes.’

Another interesting example from North Saami, likewise discussed by Ylikoski, concerns the

suffix –naga ‘stained with’ (possibly based on the essive case suffix –na, see Ylikoski 2016 for

details). This morpheme comes in several forms (Ylikoski 2016: 130, 141, 142): as a suffix in

(18a), as a postposition in (18b), and as a noun in a compound (18c). Example (18c) is of


particular interest here – because the naga compound occurs in subject position and is inflected

for plural it is clearly a noun, not a postposition. Since this is a gradual development, naga

would be the first known example of a degrammaticalization chain, where all other

degrammaticalization changes usually involve a single change (see 2.3).

(18) a. Albasa gorut lei varranaga North Saami

lynx.GENACC carcass be.PST.3SG blood.NAGA

‘The lynx carcass was stained with blood’

b. Man naga diet lei?

what.GENACC NAGA that be.PST.3SG

‘What was it stained with?

c. Varranagat oidnojit ja rumbbut nu duokkot dákko.

blood.NAGA.PL be.visible.3PL and carcass.PL so here.and.there

‘Blood stains and carcasses can be seen here and there’

Debonding of clitics is attested, for instance, in English (Fischer 2000; Fitzmaurice 2000) and

Norwegian (Faarlund 2007a) infinitive markers, which used to be proclitic. The change is

illustrated here for Norwegian:

(19) Traust och bescherming atforswara Early Modern Norwegian

trust and safety to.defend

‘to defend trust and safety’

(20) eg skal lova å ikkje seia noko Modern Norwegian

I shall promise to not say anything

‘I promise not to say anything’


What debonding of inflectional affixes and clitics have in common is that they retain the

grammatical function they had as bound morphemes. Derivational affixes, on the other hand,

do not have a grammatical function, so when these debond we see an increase in semantic

substance. For example, the Dutch numeral suffix –tig only has modifying semantics ‘multiply

by 10’, illustrated in (21). As a debonded quantifier, however ((22)), it has independent

semantics ‘dozens, umpteen’ (Norde 2006b, 2009: 213ff.).

(21) vijftig, zestig ‘fifty, sixty’

(22) tig redenen om chocolade te eten

umpteen reasons for chocolate to eat

‘umpteen reasons to eat chocolate’viii

Similar observations can be made for other debonding derivational affixes, such as English -ish

(Kuzmack 2007; Norde 2009: 223ff.; Traugott & Trousdale 2013: 233ff.; Bochnak & Csipak

2014; Pierce 2014, 2015), or Turaix –lá ‘(approx.) anywhere’ > separable derivational marker

with the additional function of focalizer (Idiatov 2008; Norde 2009: 225ff.).

The final morpheme type to be discussed in this section are affixoids, “which look like

parts of compounds, and do occur as lexemes, but have a specific and more restricted meaning

when used as part of a compound” (Booij 2009: 208; see also Booij 2017). Affixoids are found

in all Germanic languages (if only marginally in English), and can combine with both nouns

and adjectives / adverbs. Some examples of bound adjectival affixoid constructions, in which

the affixoid has intensifying function, are given in (23). Free affixoids are illustrated in (24)

and (25) (Norde & Van Goethem 2018: 489, 495).


(23) Dutch kei ‘boulder’: keileuk ‘very nice’, keimooi ‘very beautiful’

Swedish jätte ‘giant’: jättegullig ‘very cute’, jätteliten ‘very small’

German Hammer ‘hammer’: hammergeil ‘very cool’, hammerschnell ‘very fast’

Norwegian dritt: ‘shit’ drittmorsom ‘very funny’, drittbra ‘very good’

(24) Ben kei vatbaar voor dit soort klote dingen.

‘[I] am very prone to this kind of fucked up things.’

(25) Nächste Folge wird hammer spannend.

‘The next episode is going to be absolutely thrilling.’

Debonding of affixoids has been the topic of a large number of recent publications and

references therein, among them Norde & Van Goethem 2014, 2015, 2018; Van Goethem &

Hiligsmann 2014; Van Goethem & De Smet 2014; Van Goethem and Hüning 2015; and

Battefeld, Leuschner & Rawoens 2018. While some free affixoids are merely orthographic

variants of the bound form (Norde & Van Goethem 2014 makes this case for Swedish jätte),

many others can be considered different constructions, primarily in terms of productivity and

collocational properties. For example, Dutch kei (originally ‘boulder’) is primarily used in the

simile construction keihard ‘hard as a boulder, very hard’, whereas free kei primarily collocates

with adjectives where a simile interpretation is precluded, as in the examples in (23).

4 Morphological effects in other composite changes

4.1 Introduction

Grammaticalization and degrammaticalization are not the only types of composite change that

involve primitive changes at more than one level, including morphology. x The most obvious

candidate is lexicalization (Brinton & Traugott 2005), discussed in the next three sections of

this chapter. Other types of change include category change without (de)grammaticalization
and exaptation. The lines between the change types in this section and either grammaticalization

or degrammaticalization are not clear-cut, and therefore some authors have treated them as

(de)grammaticalization. A brief survey of these changes is therefore in order.

4.2 The development of derivational affixes

Derivational affixes are bound morphemes that can be traced back to various sources, primarily

phrases and compounds. An example of a derivational suffix emerging out of a phrase, is the

French adverbial suffix –ment, which ultimately derives from the ablative singular of the Latin

noun mens (GEN mentis) ‘mind’, e.g. Latin placida mente ‘with a quiet mind’ > French

placidement ‘quietly’.xi Suffixes deriving from compounds include English –hood (< Old

English had ‘rank, character, state’ (Brinton & Traugott 2005: 98), or German –schaft (e.g. in

Gastgeberschaft ‘hosting’) < Old High German scaf ‘creature, quality’ (Nübling et al. 2017:

98).

Whereas it is fairly uncontroversial that the development of inflectional affixes is a case

of grammaticalization, the question of whether derivational affixes, too, can be considered the

result of grammaticalization is less easy to answer. Although derivational suffixes show some

of the hallmarks of grammaticalization (semantic bleaching, phonological reduction, loss of

independent morpheme status), they do not have a grammatical function, but a lexical one: to

derive new lexemes. Some scholars have therefore suggested that the emergence of derivational

affixes may be a process sui generis (e.g. Himmelmann 2004), whereas others (e.g. Lightfoot

2005), point out that derivational affixes exhibit properties of both grammaticalization and

lexicalization (for more extensive discussion of these issues see Brinton & Traugott 2005, or

Norde 2009: 11ff.). Following these authors, derivational affixes were not discussed in the

section on secondary grammaticalization.


4.3 Lexicalization as increase in autonomy

‘Lexicalization as increase in autonomy’ is a term coined in Brinton & Traugott 2005 to

distinguish it from other types of lexicalization (for a recent survey see Hilpert 2019). This

change concerns bound morphemes that come to be employed as nouns or verbs, e.g. when ism

is used as a hypernym for ‘ideology’ that can be pluralized (English isms, Dutch ismen, Swedish

ismer, French ismes, etc.). The autonomous usage of bound morphemes is easily confused with

degrammaticalization (more specifically, debonding), and indeed some authors have interpreted

it as a synonym or subset of degrammaticalization (e.g. Anttila 1989:151; Ramat 1992, 2001;

Newmeyer 1998:269f.; Brinton & Traugott 2005:60; see Van der Auwera 2002 for discussion).

Hopper & Traugott (2003: 134), on the other hand, characterize cases such as isms as “the

recruitment of linguistic material to enrich the lexicon.” What crucially sets isms and similar

developments apart from debonding is that their ‘constructional identity’ (see 2.1) is not

preserved – there are no bridging contexts in which ism can be interpreted as either a suffix or

a noun. Furthermore, ism can be said to have ‘jumped the cline’ from affix to major category,

whereas debonding usually results in function words.

4.4 Category change

Although (de)grammaticalization often involves a shift from one category to the other, the

reverse is not necessarily true. Lexical items may change category without

(de)grammaticalizing, for instance in lateral shifts (Joseph 2005), or lexicalization of function

words and affixes (Norde 2009: 112ff.). Lateral shifts are conversions from one major category

to another, for instance by means of adding word-class changing derivational suffixes, e.g.

English beauty (N) > beautiful (ADJ), or swim (N) > swimmer (V). Other lateral shifts include

zero derivations, e.g. English text (N) > to text (V); reduplication, e.g. Bahasa Indonesia keras

‘loud’ > keras-keras ‘loudly’ (Sneddon 1996: 19); or templatic derivation, e.g. Arabic k-t-b ‘to
write’ > kaatib ‘writer’ (Benmamoun 2016: 65).xii Alternatively, a word may shift category

when it is inflected as a member of a different category, e.g. when a noun is ‘recruited’ as an

adjective by adding a comparative or superlative suffix, as in the Dutch example in (26) (Booij

& Audring 2018: 216) xiii and the Italian example in (27) (Grandi, Nissim & Tamburini 2011:

174) respectively.

(26) Grootouders wonen in woll-ere huizen

Grandparents live in wool-COMP houses

‘Grandparents live in softer houses’

(27) ho da darti una notizia bomb-issima sulla tua cantante preferitaaaaa

I have to give you news bomb-SUP about your singer favourite

‘I have breaking news about your favourite singer’.xiv

Lexicalization of function words is attested when minor categories (function words) can be

converted into major categories, as in English to off, to down (adverb > verb), or ifs and buts

(conjunction > Noun) (Brinton & Traugott 2005: 38). Similarly, several languages can verbalize

a 2SG pronoun by adding verbal suffixes, as in French tutoyer (< tu, toi), Swedish dua (< du),

or Dutch jijen en jouen (< jij, jou) ‘to use the informal pronoun of address’ (Norde 2009: 113).

4.5 Exaptation

Exaptation, originally a term in evolutionary biology, was introduced to linguistics by Lass,

(see 1990 and 1997: 316ff.), to refer to the refunctionalization of an (often bound) morpheme

(for a recent survey see Norde & Van de Velde 2016). This functional ‘leap’ distinguishes

exaptation from both grammaticalization (Narrog 2016) and degrammaticalization (Willis

2016). An example of exaptation is the rise of the plural marker –er in German, which derives
from a stem-forming suffix –ir that was originally restricted to a small set of 10 neuter nouns,

mostly denoting small livestock (e.g. lamm ‘lamb’ or huon ‘chicken’). It was already

desemanticized in Old High German, and with the stem-forming suffix disappearing from the

singular as a result of reductive phonological changes, -ir was reanalysed as a plural marker.

Once that had happened, -er spread to other declensions and is found in approximately 100

Modern German nouns (Szczepaniak 2011: 56ff.).

.
Early OHG Late OHG MoG
Singular Nominative lamb lamb Lamm
Genitive lemb-ir-es lamb-es Lamm-es
Dative lemb-ir-e lamb-e Lamm
Accusative lamb lamb Lamm
Plural Nominative lemb-ir lemb-ir Lämm-er
Genitive lemb-ir-o lemb-ir-o Lämm-er
Dative lemb-ir-um lemb-ir-um Lämm-er-n
Accusative lemb-ir lemb-ir Lämm-er
Table 3: Exaptation of Old High German –ir (Szczepaniak 2011: 57)xv

In the case of Old High German –ir, then, exaptation leads to a ‘reorganization’ of an existing

paradigm, rather than to a new one. This distinguishes exaptation from secondary

grammaticalization (e.g. the Romance inflectional future discussed in 3.3). Furthermore, there

is no change in morpheme status, so –ir does not qualify as a case of deinflectionalization

either.xvi

5 Grammaticalization and morphology: concluding remarks

(De)grammaticalization and morphology are linked to each other in myriad ways. Inflections

may be lost (in primary grammaticalization) or acquired (in degrammation). New inflections,

or indeed entire inflectional categories, may grow out of secondary grammaticalization. Bound

morphemes can be subjected to decreasing morphophonological integration (in

deinflectionalization) or even start a new life as free morphemes (debonding). Whatever the
type of (de)grammaticalization involved, these are all gradual changes that take place in specific

constructional contexts, and they are typically accompanied by changes on other levels

(phonology, semantics, pragmatics, and / or syntax). Naturally, this does not imply that the

combination of morphological change and other changes is restricted to (de)grammaticalization

– it is also found in lexicalization, different kinds of category shift and in exaptation.

Morphological change as part of composite changes is, in other words, a research topic of vast

proportions, and only a handful examples could be quoted in this contribution. In spite of the

vast literature on the topic, however, the interplay between morphology and other levels,

particularly in non-Indoeuropean languages, leave plenty of opportunities for future research.

References

Allen, Cynthia L. 2008. Genitives in Early English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Andersen, Henning. 2001. Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change. In Andersen,

Henning (Ed.) Actualization. Linguistic change in progress, 225-248. Amsterdam /

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Andersen, Henning. 2006. Grammation, regrammation and degrammation. Tense loss in

Russian. Diachronica 23:2, 231-258.

Andersen, Henning. 2008. Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change. In

Eythórsson, Thórhallur (Ed.) Grammatical change and linguistic theory. The Rosendal

papers, 11-44. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (Eds.). 2015. Diachronic

Construction Grammar. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.


Battefeld, Malte, Torsten Leuschner & Gurdrun Rawoens. 2018. Evaluative morphology in

German, Dutch and Swedish. Constructional networks and the loci of change. In Van

Goethem, Kristel, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (Eds.) Category

change from a constructional perspective, 229–262. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2016. Verbal and nominal plurals and the syntaxmorphology interface.

In Davis, Stuart & Usama Soltan (Eds.) Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXVII, 59-74.

Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bergs, Alexander, & Gabriele Diewald (Eds.). 2008. Constructions and Language Change.

Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.

Bisang, Walter. 2017. Grammaticalization. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of

Linguistics. Retrieved 17 Jun. 2019, from

https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-

9780199384655-e-103.

Bisang, Walter, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (Eds.). 2004. What Makes

Grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components. Berlin & New York:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Bochnak, M. Ryan & Eva Csipak. 2014. A new metalinguistic degree morpheme. In Todd

Snider, Sarah D’Antonio and Mia Weigand (Eds.) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic

Theory (SALT) 24, 432-452.

Booij, Geert. 2009. Compounding and Construction Morphology. In Lieber, Rochelle & Pavol

Štekauer (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, 201-216. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Booij, Geert. 2017. Construction Morphology. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of

Linguistics. Retrieved 18 Jun. 2019, from


https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-

9780199384655-e-254.

Booij, Geert & Jenny Audring. 2018. Category change in construction morphology. In Van

Goethem, Kristel, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (Eds.) Category

change from a constructional perspective, 209-228. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Börjars, Kersti & Pauline Harries. 2008. The clitic-affix distinction, historical change, and

Scandinavian bound definiteness marking. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 20:4, 289-350.

Breban, Tine. 2015. Refining secondary grammaticalization by looking at subprocesses of

change. Language Sciences 47:B, 161-171.

Breban, Tine & Svenja Kranich (Eds.). 2015. What happens after grammaticalization?

Secondary grammaticalization and other late stage processes. Language Sciences 47:B.

Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burridge, Kate. 1998. From modal auxiliary to lexical verb. The curious case of Pennsylvania

German wotte. In Hogg, Richard M. & Linda van Bergen (Eds.) Historical linguistics 1995.

Vol. 2: Germanic linguistics, 19-33 Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology. A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam

/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bybee, Joan. 2013. Usage-based theory and examplar representations of constructions. In

Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of construction

grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Tense,

aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago & London: The University of

Chicago Press.

Campbell, Lyle (Ed.). 2001. Grammaticalization. A critical assessment. Language Sciences

23: 2-3.Coussé, Evie, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson. 2018. Grammaticalization meets

Construction Grammar. Opportunities, Challenges and potential incompatibilities. In

Coussé, Evie, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (Eds.) Grammaticalization meets

Construction Grammar. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3-19.

Cristofaro, Sonia. 1998. Grammaticalization and clause linkage strategies. A typological

approach with particular reference to Ancient Greek. In Giacalone Ramat, Anna & Paul J.

Hopper (Eds.) The limits of grammaticalization, 59-88. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cuyckens, Hubert. 2018. Reconciling older and newer approaches to grammaticalization.

Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 6:1, 183–196.

Davidse, Kristin, Tine Breban, Lot Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (Eds.) 2012.

Grammaticalization and Language Change: New reflections. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:

John Benjamins.

Davis, Stuart & Natsuko Tsujimura. 2014. Non-Concatenative Derivation. Other Processes. In

Lieber, Rochelle & Pavol Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational

Morphology. Oxford University Press,. Retrieved 13 Feb. 2019, from

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641642.001.0001/oxfo

rdhb-9780199641642-e-012.

De Clerck, Bernard & Timothy Colleman. 2013. From noun to intensifier. Massa and massa’s

in Flemish varieties of Dutch. Language Sciences 36, 147-160.


De Condillac, Etienne Bonnot. 1746. Essai sur l’origine des connaissances humaines. Paris:

Les libraires associés.

De Lancey, Scott. 1994. Grammaticalization and linguistic theory. In Gomez de Garcia, Jule &

David S. Rood (Eds.) Proceedings of the 1993 Mid-America linguistics conference and

conference on Siouan/Caddoan languages, 1-22. Boulder: University of Colorado.

Detges, Ulrich. 1998. Echt die Wahrheit sagen. Überlegungen zur Grammatikalisierung von

Adverbmarkern. Philologie im Netz 4, 1-29. http://web.fu-berlin.de/phin/phin4/p4t1.htm

Detges, Ulrich & Richard Waltereit. 2002. Grammaticalization vs. Reanalysis. A semantic-

pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21,

151-195.

Diewald, Gabriele. 1997. Grammatikalisierung. Eine Einführung in Sein und Werden

grammatischer Formen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Doyle, Aidan. 2002. Yesterday’s affixes as today’s clitics. A case-study in

degrammaticalization. In Wischer, Ilse & Gabriela Diewald (Eds.) New reflections on

grammaticalization, 67-81. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2007a. Parameterization and change in non-finite complementation.

Diachronica 24:1, 57-80.

Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2007b. From clitic to affix. The Norwegian definite article. Working papers

in Scandinavian syntax 79: 21-46.

Fischer, Olga. 2000. Grammaticalisation: Unidirectional, non-reversable? The case of to before

the infinitive in English. In Fischer, Olga, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds) Pathways

of change. Grammaticalization in English, 149-169. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Fischer, Olga, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (Eds.). 2004. Up and down the cline. The nature

of grammaticalization, 17-44. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.


Fischer, Olga, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (Eds.) Pathways of change.

Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2000. Remarks on De-grammaticalization of infinitival to in present-day

American English. In Fischer, Olga, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds) Pathways of

change. Grammaticalization in English, 171-186. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Fleischman, Suzanne. 1982. The future in thought and language. Diachronic evidence from

Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Giacalone Ramat, Anna. 1998. Testing the boundaries of grammaticalization. In Giacalone

Ramat, Anna & Paul J. Hopper (Eds.) The limits of grammaticalization, 107-127.

Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Giacalone Ramat, Anna. 2018. Degrees of grammaticalization and measure constructions in

Italian. Revue Romane [issue not yet given] https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.16015.gia

Giacalone Ramat, Anna & Paul J. Hopper (Eds.). 1998. The limits of grammaticalization.

Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Givón, Talmy. 1991. The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. In

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Bernd Heine (Eds.) Approaches to grammaticalization vol. II,

257-310. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument

structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Grandi, Nicola, Malvina Nissim & Fabio Tamburini. 2011. Noun-clad adjectives. On the

adjectival status of non-head constituents of Italian attributive compounds. Lingue e

linguaggio X.1, 161–176.


Haig, Geoffrey. 2018. The grammaticalization of object pronouns. Why differential object

indexing is an attractor state. Linguistics 56(4),781-818.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. The diachronic externalization of inflection. Linguistics 31:2, 279-

309.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37:6, 1043-

1068.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to

grammaticalization. In Fischer, Olga, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds) Up and down

the cline. The nature of grammaticalization, 17-44. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, Ilse & Gabriela

Diewald (Eds.) New reflections on grammaticalization, 83-101. Amsterdam / Philadelphia:

John Benjamins.

Heine, Bernd. 2011. Grammaticalization in African languages. In Narrog, Heiko & Bernd

Heine (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 696-707. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization. A

Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago press.

Heine, Bernd, Heiko Narrog & Haiping Long. 2016. Constructional change vs.

grammaticalization. From compounding to derivation. Studies in Language 40:1, 137-175.

Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Herslund, Michael. 2001. The Danish s-genitive. From affix to clitic. Acta Linguistica

Hafniensia 33, 7-18.


Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English. Developments in allomorphy, word

Formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hilpert, Martin. 2015. From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding

and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 26:1, 113-147.

Hilpert, Martin. 2019 "Lexicalization in Morphology." Oxford Research Encyclopedia of

Linguistics. 18 Jun. 2019.

https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-

9780199384655-e-622.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: opposite or

orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds) What

makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and components, 21-42. Berlin / New

York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hoeningswald, Henry M. 1966. Are there universals of linguistic change? In Greenberg, Joseph

H. (Ed.) Universals of language. Second edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. &

Bernd Heine (Eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. I, 17-35. Amsterdam /

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hopper, Paul. J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Idiatov, Dmitry. 2008. Antigrammaticalization, antimorphologization and the case of Tura. In

Seoane, Elena, María José López-Couso, in collaboration with Teresa Fanego (Eds.)

Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, 151-169. Amsterdam /

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Inkelas, Sharon. 2014. Non-Concatenative Derivation: Reduplication. In Lieber, Rochelle &

Pavol Štekauer (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford


University Press,. Retrieved 13 Feb. 2019, from

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641642.001.0001/oxfo

rdhb-9780199641642-e-011.

Janda, Richard D. 2001. Beyond “pathways” and “unidirectionality”. On the discontinuity of

transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23:2-3, 265-

340.

Johannesen, Janne Bondi, 1989. Klitika — en avgrensning. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 1989:2,

117-147.

Joseph, Brian D. 2001. Is there such a thing as grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23:2-3,

163-186.

Joseph, Brian D. 2005. How accomodating of change is grammaticalization? The case of

“lateral shifts”. Logos and language 6:2, 1-7.

Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English modals. A corpus-based study of grammaticalization.

Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1975 [1965]. The evolution of grammatical categories. In Esquisses

linguistiques II, J. Kuryłowicz, 38-54. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.

Larm, Karl. 1933. Morfologiska faktorers inverkan på utbredningen av suffigerad artikel i

lagsvenskan. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 49. 374-385.

Larm, Karl. 1936. Den bestämda artikeln i äldre fornsvenska. En historisk-syntaktisk studie.

Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Boktryckeri.

Lausberg, Heinrich. 1972. Romanische Sprachwissenschaft III: Formenlehre. Berlin / New

York: Walter de Gruyter.

Lass, Roger 1990. How to do things with junk. Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of

Linguistics 26, 79-102.


Lass, Roger 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Lehmann, Christian. 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. München / Newcastle:

Lincom Europa.

Lieber, Rochelle. 2017. Derivational Morphology. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of

Linguistics. [[Ed. not yet on website]] Retrieved 13 Feb. 2019, from

http://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-

9780199384655-e-248.

Lightfoot, Douglas J. 2005. Can the lexicalization / grammaticalization distinction be

reconciled? Studies in language 29:3, 583-615.

López-Couso, María José & Elena Seoane (Eds.). 2008. Rethinking grammaticalization. New

perspectives. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Lorenz, David. 2013. From reduction to emancipation: Is gonna a word? In Hasselgård, Hilde,

Jarle Ebeling and Signe Oksefjell Ebeling (Eds.) Corpus Perspectives on Patterns of Lexis,

133-152. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Meillet, Antoine. 1926 [1912]. “L'évolution des formes grammaticales”. A. Meillet

Linguistique historique et linguistique générale I, 130-148. Paris: Edouard Champion.

Narrog, Heiko. 2016. Exaptation in Japanese and beyond. In Norde, Muriel & Freek Van de

Velde (Eds.) Exaptation and language change, 93-120. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambrige MA: MIT

Press.

Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions

of Language 14, 177–202.


Norde, Muriel. 1997. The history of the genitive in Swedish. A case study in

degrammaticalization. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.

Norde, Muriel. 2006a. Demarcating degrammaticalization. The Swedish s-genitive revisited.

Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29:2, 201-238.

Norde, Muriel. 2006b. Van suffix tot telwoord tot bijwoord: degrammaticalisering en

(re)grammaticalisering van tig. TABU 35:1/2, 33-60.

Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Norde, Muriel. 2011. Degrammaticalization. In Narrog, Heiko & Bernd Heine (Eds.) The

Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, 475-487. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Norde, Muriel. 2012. Lehmann’s Parameters Revisited. In Davidse, Kristin, Tine Breban, Lot

Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (Eds.) Grammaticalization and Language Change: New

reflections, 73-110. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Norde, Muriel. 2013. Tracing the Origins of the Swedish Group Genitive. In Carlier, Anne &

Jean-Christophe Verstraete (Eds.) The Genitive (= Case and Grammatical Relations across

Languages, 5), 299-332. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Norde, Muriel & Karin Beijering. 2014. Facing interfaces. A clustering approach to

grammaticalization and related changes. Folia Linguistica 48:2, 385-424.

Norde, Muriel, Karin Beijering & Alexandra Lenz (Eds.). 2013. Current trends in

grammaticalization research. Language Sciences 36.

Norde, Muriel & Graeme Trousdale. 2016. Exaptation from the perspective of construction

morphology. In Norde, Muriel & Freek Van de Velde (Eds.), Exaptation and language

change, 163–195. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Norde, Muriel & Kristel Van Goethem. 2014. Bleaching, productivity and debonding of

prefixoids: A corpus-based analysis of ‘giant’ in German and Swedish. Lingvisticae

Investigationes 37:2, 256-274.


Norde, Muriel & Kristel Van Goethem. 2015. Emancipatie van affixen en affixoïden.

Degrammaticalisatie of lexicalisatie? Nederlandse taalkunde 20:1, 109–148.

Norde, Muriel & Kristel Van Goethem. 2018. Debonding and clipping of prefixoids in

Germanic. Constructionalization or constructional change? In: Booij, Geert (Ed.) The

construction of words. Advances in Construction Morphology, 197-240. Dordrecht:

Springer.

Norde, Muriel & Freek Van de Velde (Eds.). 2016. Exaptation and language change.

Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Nübling, Damaris, Antje Dammel, Janet Duke & Renata Szczepaniak. 2017. Historische

Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen: Eine Einführung in die Prinzipien des Sprachwandels

(5th edition). Tübingen : Narr Francke Attempto.

Perridon, Harry. 2013. The emergence of the s-genitive in Danish. Language Sciences 36, 134-

146.

Pierce, Marc. 2014. The further degrammaticalization of ish. American speech 89:1, 115-118.

Pierce, Marc. 2015. More on ish. American speech 90:3, 394-398.

Pinkster, Harm. 1987. The strategy and chronology of the development of future and perfect

tense auxiliaries in Latin. In Harris, Martin & Paolo Ramat (eds) Historical development of

auxiliaries, 193-223. Berlin / New York / Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.

Piotrowska, Alicja. 2017. Mannen på gatans åsikt och personen bredvids förvåning – s-genitiv

som frasmarkör i modern svenska. Poznan: Wydział Neofilologii UAM w Poznaniu.

Ramat, Paolo. 1992. Thoughts on degrammaticalization. Linguistics 30, 549-560.

Ramat, Paolo. 2001. Degrammaticalization or transcategorization? In Schaner-Wolles, Chris,

John Rennison & Friedrich Neubarth (eds) Naturally! Linguistic studies in honour of

Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler, 393-401. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.


Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change. A minimalist approach to

grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seoane, Elena & María José López-Couso (Eds.). 2008. Theoretical and empirical issues in

grammaticalization. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Smirnova, Elena. 2015. When secondary grammaticalization starts. A look from the

constructional perspective. Language Sciences 47(B), 215-228.

Smith, Andrew D. M., Graeme Trousdale & Richard Waltereit (Eds.). 2015. New directions in

grammaticalization research. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Sneddon, James Neil. 1996. Indonesian. A comprehensive grammar. London / New York:

Routledge.

Stroh-Wollin, Ulla. 2015. Understanding the gradual development of definiteness marking: the

case of Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 95, 11–32.

Szczepaniak, Renata. 2011. Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen. Eine Einführung. Tübingen :

Narr Francke Attempto.

Torner, Sergi. 2005. Spanish adverbs in –mente. Probus 17:1, 115-144.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2002. From etymology to historical pragmatics. In Minkova, Donka

& Robert Stockwell (Eds.) Studies in the history of the English language, 19-49. Berlin /

New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007. The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting

from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive linguistics 18:4, 523-557.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental

development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English.

In Eckardt, Regine, Gerhard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (Eds.) Variation, Selection,

Development. Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change, 219-250. Berlin / New

York: Mouton de Gruyter.


Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2014. Toward a constructional framework for research on language

change. In Hancil, Sylvie & Ekkehard König (Eds.) Grammaticalization – Theory and Data,

87-105. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Bernd Heine. 1991a (Eds.). Approaches to Grammaticalization,

vol. I. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Bernd Heine. 1991b (Eds.). Approaches to Grammaticalization,

vol. II. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Bernd Heine. 1991c. Introduction. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. &

Bernd Heine (Eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. I, 1-14. Amsterdam /

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2010. Gradience, gradualness and

grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and

constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Trips, Carola. 2017 "Morphological Change." Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics.

18 Jun. 2019.

https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-

9780199384655-e-260.

Trousdale, Graeme. 2008. Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization. Evidence

from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In Trousdale, Graeme &

Nikolas Gisborne (Eds.) Constructional approaches to English grammar, 33-67. Berlin /

New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Trousdale, Graeme. 2012. Grammaticalization, constructions and the grammaticalization of

constructions. In Davidse, Kristin, Tine Breban, Lot Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (Eds.)
Grammaticalization and Language Change: New reflections, 167-198. Amsterdam &

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Trousdale Graeme, & Muriel Norde. 2013. Degrammaticalization and constructionalization.

Two case studies. Language Sciences 36, 32-46.

Van der Auwera, Johan. 2002. More Thoughts on Degrammaticalization. In Wischer, Ilse &

Gabriela Diewald (eds) New Reflections on Grammaticalization, 19-29. Amsterdam /

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Van der Voort, Hein. 2002. The quotative construction in Kwaza and its (de-

)grammaticalisation. In Crevels, Mily, Simon van de Kerke, Sérgio Meira & Hein van der

Voort (Eds.) Selected papers from the 50th international congress of Americanists in Warsaw

and the Spinoza workshop on Amerindian languages in Leiden, 307-328. Leiden: Research

School of Asian, African and Amerindian studies (CNWS)

Van der Voort, Hein. 2004. A grammar of Kwaza. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Van Goethem, Kristel & Hendrik De Smet. 2014. How nouns turn into adjectives. The

emergence of new adjectives in French, English and Dutch through debonding processes.

Languages in Contrast 14:2, 251-277.

Van Goethem, Kristel., & Hiligsmann, Philippe. 2014. When two paths converge. Debonding

and clipping of Dutch reuze ‘giant; great’. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26:1, 31-64.

Van Goethem, Kristel., & Hüning, Matthias. 2015. From noun to evaluative adjective:

Conversion or debonding? Dutch top and its equivalents in German. Journal of Germanic

Linguistics 27:4, 366–409.

Van Pareren, Remco. 2013. Body part terms as a semantic basis for grammaticalization: a

Mordvin case study into spatial reference and beyond. Language Sciences 36, 90-102.
Von Mengden, Ferdinand. 2016. Functional changes and (meta-)linguistic evolution. In Norde,

Muriel & Freek Van de Velde (Eds.) Exaptation and language change, 121-162. Amsterdam

/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Von Mengden, Ferdinand & Horst Simon. 2014. Refining grammaticalization. Folia

Linguistica 48:2.

Willis, David. 2007. Syntactic lexicalization as a new type of degrammaticalization. Linguistics

45:2, 271-310.

Willis, David. 2016. Exaptation and degrammaticalization within an acquisition-based model

of abductive reanalysis. In Norde, Muriel & Freek Van de Velde (eds) Exaptation and

language change, 197-225. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Wischer, Ilse & Gabriela Diewald (Eds.). 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization.

Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ylikoski, Jussi. 2016. Degrammaticalization in North Saami: Development of adpositions,

adverbs and a free lexical noun from inflectional and derivational suffixes. Finnisch-

Ugrische Mitteilungen 40, 113-173.

Ziegeler, Debra. 2004. Redefining unidirectionality. Is there life after modality? In Fischer,

Olga, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds) Up and down the cline  the nature of

grammaticalization, 115-135. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Zwicky, Arnold M. & G. K. Pullum. 1983. Cliticization vs inflection: English n’t. Language

59:3,502-51.

Notes

i
For a careful account of the development of the framework since Meillet’s publication see Von Mengden 2016.
ii
This is essentially an empirical observation, but chances that the same gram will go through a series of
degrammaticalization changes are extremely low for reasons that are not in the scope of the present paper (see
Norde 2009: 100ff. for extensive discussion ).
iii
Note that Norde’s definition of ‘degrammation’ is slightly different from Andersen’s (2006: 232), which refers
to the loss of grammatical content. This includes, e.g., the loss of grammatical content in univerbation, as in
English tomorrow.
iv
In languages where minor categories may be inflected as well, primary grammaticalization does not
necessarily lead to the loss of inflections (although there may be different inflections). One example are Mordvin
(inflected) adpositions that grammaticalized from body part nouns (Van Pareren 2013).
v
In its cliticized form, =(h)inn was often ambiguous between demonstrative and determiner uses, but this issue
cannot be discussed here. In the Modern Swedish example, the s-genitive is marked with a clitic symbol (=),
because it has degrammaticalized from affix to clitic (Norde 2006a, 2009: 160ff.).
vi
Haspelmath does not mention an intermediary clitic change, but it is unclear whether it was never there, or
whether no evidence of a clitic survives.
vii
Kwaza is an isolated language spoken in Rondônia, Brazil (Van der Voort 2004).
viii
Source: http://www.degoednieuwskrant.nl/index.php/nieuws/gezondheid/1913-tig-redenen-om-chocolade-te-
eten.
ix
Tura belongs to the Eastern Mande languages, a subbranch of Niger-Congo.
x
For morphological change and its causes in general see Trips 2017.
xi
The suffix has cognates in all Romance languages except Romanian, cf. Portuguese cruamente ‘cruelly’,
Spanish distintamente ‘distinctly’, Italian raramente ‘rarely’, Occitan and Catalan bellamen(t) ‘beautifully’, and
Sardinian finalmenti(s) ‘finally’ ((Hoenigswald 1966: 44; Hopper & Traugott 2003:141f.; Lehmann 1995:87,
Giacalone Ramat 1998: 120; Detges 1998, Torner 2005, Norde 2009: 41ff.).
xii
For additional examples and surveys of the literature see Davis & Tsujimura 2014, Inkelas 2014 or Lieber
2017.
xiii
The Dutch examples if from the poem ‘Grootouders’ by Judith Herzberg, in Soms vaak (2004).
xiv
Source: www.tvblog.it.
xv
The stem vowel change is due to i-mutation.
xvi
There are a few known examples where a suffix deinflectionalizes while also being exapted for a new
function, but this appears to be very rare (Norde & Trousdale 2016).

You might also like