Grammaticalization

Grammaticalization is the process of language change, in which a linguistic unit gradually loses its lexical meaning and is increasingly used as morphosyntactic markers. A typical example is the transition from verbs to auxiliary verbs, such as the engl. Verb to go when it is used to express a short upcoming event: We are going to leave. vs.. We are going to London.

• 3.1 Syntaktisierung
• 3.2 morphologization
• 3.3 Demorphemisierung
• 3.4 loss

• 5.1 Example of a grammaticalization
• 5.2 = Starting point: be Desemantisierte auxiliary verbs and have 5.2.1 Phase 1: Klitisierung
• 5.2.2 Phase 2: Development of the suffix
• 5.2.3 Phase 3: Extension

Grammaticalization as linguistic universals

The grammaticalization of motion verbs to express the future is found in many languages ​​of the world, without necessarily being related to each other or have ever been in contact with each other. Therefore, it is probably a universal phenomenon that may be related to the nature of human cognition. The investigation of universal trends in the grammaticalization and detection of typical so-called Grammatikalisierungspfaden ( ie, for example Bewegungsverb → Futurum ) that could be linguistic universals, has led to attempts to postulate general theories of grammaticalization. The grammaticalization - that is, the systematic study of the Universaliencharakter of grammaticalization - is an important area of linguistic typology.

Mechanisms of grammaticalization

On the way to grammaticalization act on a linguistic unit different mechanisms whose consequences can not be reversed again. It is said that grammaticalization is unidirectional. These four mechanisms are also referred to as the " four main phases of grammaticalization " ( Heine / Kuteva 2002, p 2).

Desemantisierung

Grammaticalization begins with the loss of lexical content of grammatikalisierten unit ( Desemantisierung ): the English auxiliary verb to go in the going - to-future has the meaning ' go ' is stored. This is explained by the concept that are composed meanings of various Semen (meaning shares). Does the verb "to go" in the meaning " go " a Sem for (further) movement and Sem for the reference to the spatial (among others), so the latter is unnecessary or even disruptive for the expression of grammatical category of tense and is abandoned for the future tense meaning. The Sem for (further) movement allowed in case of failure of the spaciousness of Shem use as a building block of the future tense formation.

Extension

Due to the loss of a lexical own importance also covers restrictions on use of grammatikalisierten unit away so that they can be used in wider contexts (extension), often together with the opposite of the original meaning.

Dekategorialisierung

In her new role, the grammatikalisierenden units no longer need some original features and degrade them.

• The units lose their ability to flexion, the derivation, or modifiers to eat.
• Its status as a free form and syntactic freedom of movement may be lost. The unit is increasingly dependent on other forms, a development for clitic or affix is possible.
• It can not be taken more anaphoric reference to the unit and
• The unit loses former members in their " origin paradigm " or changes from an open class ( nouns ) to a closed ( grammatical function words).

Do not ever lose all these features, sometimes it makes sense to get them. A newly set up English or German auxiliary can be flexed about as before. Or the process of Dekategorialisierung is ongoing and some properties are still preserved.

Erosion

The loss of lexical content and the frequent use often lead to a loss of phonetic mass. This loss is referred to as erosion. It can even lead to the complete disappearance of the unit.

The Grammatikalisierungsskala

A unit that is grammaticalized, making their way through various stages in the grammar of a language. The farther the unit is advanced on the scale, the more it is grammaticalized.

Syntaktisierung

At the beginning of a commonly occurring syntactic construction is reinterpreted ( reanalysis ). The Desemantisierung sets in and by the extension itself changes the way the conversion rate and / or the supplement.

Extension: He's going to come

Morphologization

The morphologization can be split into two sub-processes: the Klitisierung and fusion. During the Klitisierung the phonetically reduced unit for clitic due to the frequency increase. Initially, there is no difference in meaning between the klitisierten and the separate form.

With time, however, can develop different meanings.

Through the process of fusion, separation of grammatikalisierten unit ( the Klitikons ) is impossible, at the end it is an affix. For example, it is believed that the suffix- te is formed in relation to a verb do to express the past in German with the auxiliary ( anoint -tat -tat ointment, salb - te). The suffix- te can not be removed.

Demorphemisierung

Units that have reached the status of an affix, phonetic assimilations can for example cause such as umlaut. The information of the unit is in this case grammatikalisierten integrated into the root of another unit. Now fades the suffix by erosion, the information is no longer expressed by a single morpheme, it has a Demorphemisierung taken place (eg mother - mothers).

Shrinkage

Where the erosion so far that the grammatikalisierte unit is no longer available, one speaks of the loss. In this case, the probability is high that a new unit is herbeigrammatikalisiert to express the information, and the grammaticalization starts anew.

Limiting cases

Since language is constantly in flux and grammaticalization takes place step by step, there are many cases where it can be difficult in which to decide whether an element already now " grammatical " or even " lexical " is because the reanalysis is in full swing. This is the case with the so-called recipient passive in German.

That such " in limbo " located cases are not formally decidable, the correctness of the theoretical assumptions of the concept of grammaticalization question. Lexical = productive open - and closed - grammatically = conventionalized are polar opposites. With them alone you can only detect previously completed language change.

Decidable, the above case only by recourse to the metalinguistic awareness of the speakers of a language that can estimate it, whether such a construction as yet metaphorically - alive or already " felt " as a formally - solidifies is.

Development Example: The German Perfect Tomorrow

Show By extrapolating current linguistic developments, the typical stages of grammaticalization, you can predict future morphological forms. The future may bring forth these forms or not, because unexpected developments can take place; Forecasts are always uncertain here.

Example of grammaticalization

One example is a - as I said only possible - further development of the present-day German perfect tense indicates which hosts the typical Grammatikalisierungschritte:

= Starting point: be Desemantisierte auxiliary verbs and have

The Perfect of the German language is formed with the desemantisierten - so in their lexical meaning restricted as auxiliary verbs - grammatical forma gates and must have

The German Perfect has many functions and so also occurs on frequent, even in subordinate clauses:

Phase 1: Klitisierung

Because of the ever-used compound lexeme Formator in such order of Formator auxiliary verb is (we assume here have ) weakened phonologically from said economic reasons and klitisiert, while the ending- en participle is repaid ( "swallowed" ):

Phase 2: Development of the suffix

The compound lexeme enclitic is getting stronger, the initial volume of the auxiliary verb h is redeemed ( " Entaspiratisierung " ) and the Formator loses its status as a free lexeme:

A suffix, a flexive for the grammatical morpheme first person singular indicative Perfect is thus activated from a enclitic. This means there is a resynthesis.

We put forward as can be seen here and below that the 1st and 3rd person plural, the use in today's Germans the same Hilfsverbform ( " we ", " they " ) but a different Formator develop ( " amen ", " -by ").

Phase 3: Extension

Now, a semantic extension takes place (or analogy ). Verbs that were used to form the perfect tense only be developed also accept the ending:

The resulting forms in inverted subordinate clause are also catching in the main clause. Suppose further that paradigmatic balancing interspersed (in this case by reducing the ablaut and regularization). Because the new endings differently depending on the person and thus the forms are distinguishable, the personal pronouns are unnecessary as markers of person and number, it was developing from said economic reasons, a pro -drop language. This gives the following paradigm:

Other development by way of example

The example given is one of many possibilities of development. It can be obtained about the ablaut. Or stay out of the auxiliary verb have as from the auxiliary verb have received, they grow apart to allomorphs, etc.

Further development of the example

An analytical form displaces the older ones, it uses a loss. About them nothing can be said, because - if at all - will only become clear once the Grammmatikalisierungsverlauf described is completed, and only then falling into disuse.