LINGUIST List 22.3003 Mon Jul 25 2011 Review: Historical Linguistics: Van Linden et al. (2010) Editor for this issue: Joseph Salmons <jsalmonslinguistlist.org> New! Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:             http://multitree.linguistlist.org/ This LINGUIST List issue is a review of a book published by one of our supporting publishers, commissioned by our book review editorial staff. We welcome discussion of this book review on the list, and particularly invite the author(s) or editor(s) of this book to join in. If you are interested in reviewing a book for LINGUIST, look for the most recent posting with the subject "Reviews: AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW", and follow the instructions at the top of the message. You can also contact the book review staff directly. Directory         1.     Susan Cheng , Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research Message 1: Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research Date: 25-Jul-2011 From: Susan Cheng <susan.lixia.chenggooglemail.com> Subject: Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research E-mail this message to a friend Discuss this message Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/21/21-5046.html EDITORS: An Van linden, Jean-Christophe Verstraete, Kristin Davidse, TITLE: Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research SERIES TITLE: Typological Studies in Language (TSL) 94 PUBLISHER: John Benjamins Publishing Company YEAR: 2010 Susan Lixia Cheng, School of Foreign Studies, Dalian University of Technology SUMMARY This volume originated in connection with the conference 'From ideational to interpersonal: Perspectives from grammaticalization' (FITIGRA) held at the University of Leuven, February 10-12, 2005. As grammaticalization has become an increasingly popular approach in linguistics, scholars have included more and more instances of change in the category of grammaticalization. Does grammaticalization really risk being used to refer to any type of language change involving some aspect of grammar, as warned in the contributions in Campbell (2001)? Meanwhile, what potential danger is there if the emphasis on semantic pathways and pragmatic factors is growing while less and less attention is drawn to formal evidence for the changes? These questions are the main concern of the present volume, which, in order to create balance, attempts to show the crucial role of formal evidence in the grammaticalization research. In addition to a survey of grammaticalization studies worldwide over the last two decades, the editors' ''Introduction'' offers a brief summary to the individual contributions. They also divide the ten papers into two parts. The first groups together four case studies investigating the important role of grammatical systems in the grammaticalization process and exploring paths of change and grammatical factors determining the start and end of a path. The second contains six articles, all strongly usage-based, dealing with various formal recognition criteria of grammaticalization with rich corpus evidence. Olga Fischer's ''On problem areas in grammaticalization: Lehmann's parameters and the issue of scope'', focuses on the change of scope in the development of English epistemic modal constructions such as 'he must be home by now' (her example) and suggests that scope increase from VP to the whole proposition, as argued in Tabor & Traugott (1998) and Roberts & Roussou (2003), can be seen as a case of scope stability if other constructions involving modals are taken into account. For example, the epistemic constructions arose as a result of various related grammatical changes in Middle English, such as the rise of structural subjects. Therefore, she argues that there is no need to give up Lehmann's parameter of scope reduction that is interwoven with his other parameters in the development of English epistemic modals. Fischer also suggests that the role of language users and the overall synchronic grammatical system have to be taken into consideration in the study of grammaticalization. The emergence of many grammatical categories cannot be explained in terms of the semantic properties of the source and the target or in terms of other cognitively-based processes or language use such as metaphor, metonymy, usage and frequency of use, as pointed out in Zygmunt Frajzyngier's ''Grammaticalization within and outside of a domain'', where the term 'grammaticalization' is used in a broader sense to refer to the emergence of coding means of grammatical categories within functional domains. Taking the grammaticalization of tone in several Chadic languages as an example of grammatical markers developing from non-lexical sources, Frajzyngier argues that human ability to analyze language, though most often unconsciously, is a primary factor motivating grammaticalization within the functional domain involving modification of existing coding means such as tone. And grammaticalization within the domain can also explain the emergence of binary distinctions in language structures. ''Delexicalizing 'di': How a Chinese noun has evolved into an attitudinal nominalizer'' by Foong-ha Yap, Pik-ling Choi & Kam-siu Cheung focuses on the development of the Chinese locative/spatial noun 'di' into a nominalizer then into a relativizer and genitive marker and also into an adverbial subordinator and an attitudinal marker. The analogical influence of other nominalizers such as 'suo', 'xu' and 'zhe' plays an important role in the semantic expansion of 'di'. Yap et al. also find similar developments involving the reanalysis of head-final nominalizers as sentence-final mood particles in other Chinese dialects and many other East Asian and Tibeto- Burman languages. They argue that prenominal modifying expressions emerge by extension from nominalization constructions and the head-final nominalizers in Chinese such as 'zhe' and 'di' in sentence-final position become natural carriers of sentence-final prosody and thus are likely to be reanalyzed as sentence-final particles. The conjunctionless conditionals, according to Jespersen's Model (1940), arose from a paratactic discourse sequence with a polar interrogative, while Harris & Campbell (1995) claimed that this model lacks theoretical and empirical foundation. Daan Van den Nest in '''Should conditionals be emergent ...': Asyndetic subordination in German and English as a challenge to grammaticalization research'' revisits the asyndetic conditionals to demonstrate how these conditionals may emerge from discourse and a grammaticalization process has actually taken place. In German, Van den Nest finds a spectrum of formal variation ranging from dyadic sequences to asyndetic conditionals, which suggests that speech-situation evocation is relevant to the formation of interrogative-based conditionals. Whereas in English the asyndetic conditional is non-emergent in relation to interrogatives, which, Van den Nest argues, may be the result of the low ratio of asyndetic to syndetic conditionals throughout the history of English. In ''From manner expression to attitudinal discourse marker: The case of Dutch 'anders''', Hans Smessaert and William Van Belle offer a model to identify the three major subtypes of the Dutch adverb 'anders' in terms of comparison and phoricity. Type I (+comparative/+phoric) functions as a manner adjunct or valency term, or as part of a participant NP or complex predicate. Type II (-comparative/+phoric) functions as a conjunctive adverbial, connecting either a negative protasis to its apodosis or expressing exceptive relations. Type III (-comparative/-phoric) functions as an attitudinal discourse marker, expressing stances of doubt or dissatisfaction about the proposition in its scope. And word-order differences further underpin the proposed tripartition. Smessaert and Van Belle finally relate the synchronic analysis of 'anders' to grammaticalization theory and its underlying formal criteria to the parameters and principles of grammaticalization proposed by Lehmann (1985) and Hopper (1991). For example, the transition from proportionality for Type I via accommodation for Type II to total absence with Type III can be related to Lehmann's obligatorification and Hopper's specialization. Mirjam Fried's ''Grammaticalization and lexicalization effects in participial morphology: A Construction Grammar approach to language change'' explores a mixed-category participial form in Slavic. Attached to a verbal participial stem, the form shifted over time from having more verbal to having more adjectival characteristics. By a close examination of the criteria that have been proposed as common manifestations of grammaticalization, in contrast to lexicalization, Fried concludes that the observed categorical changes bear the features of the former. The partial transitions involved in the shift are shown to depend on an intricate interaction between the morphosemantic structure of the participial form and certain recurring syntagmatic contexts. This she interprets as a case of constructionalization (Traugott 2008). She also argues for Construction Grammar as a theoretically coherent basis for plausible generalizations about complex diachronic shifts. ''Frequency as a cause of semantic change: With focus on the second person form 'omae' in Japanese'' by Reijirou Shibasaki takes a frequency-based approach to reveal the distributional patterns of the second person form 'omae' at several historical stages and its development from a noun meaning 'front' into a third person and then into a second person pronoun. Shibasaki relates the semantic and referential shifts involved in the process to the changing distribution of nominal and pronominal uses and also relates the different uses to a distributional analysis of their grammatical roles. The development of 'omae', he argues, was subject to semantic depreciation from being restricted to superiors to among equals then to being restricted to subordinates, and frequency functioned as a cause of this semantic change. Sung-Ock Sohn, in ''The role of frequency and prosody in the grammaticalization of Korean '-canh-''', offers empirical evidence of the role of frequency and boundary tones in the emergence of '-canh-', a new interactive marker from the committal suffix 'ci-' plus negation verb 'anh-' (viz. '-ci anh-') in Korean. Spoken corpus data, drawn from natural discourse, show that '-ci anh-' is used in declaratives, imperatives and propositives like English 'you know' to express the speaker's assumption that the interlocutor will agree with the message conveyed. Sohn finds that the source form is marked with a high boundary tone while the emergent form is marked with a low boundary tone. And both the source and the target forms exhibit a distinct pattern of collocation frequency. This study suggests that the prosodic features and frequency may interact in the process of grammaticalization. ''Emergence of the indefinite article: Discourse evidence for the grammaticalization of 'yige' in spoken Mandarin'' by Meichun Liu explores the grammaticalization of 'yige' from a numeral classifier into an indefinite article in spoken Taiwan Mandarin. The spoken data show that 'yige' is used with high frequency to introduce a new referent into the discourse and its distinction goes beyond the typical boundary of a numeral classifier. It may occur with NPs that do not require number or class marking, such as proper names, abstract, non-referring and even plural nouns. And it may also occur in affirmative, non-interrogative and independent or main clauses. Liu argues that 'yige' is functionally overgeneralized and realigned with a new grammatical status in marking indefinite referentiality. Julia Schluter, in '''To dare to or not to': Is auxiliarization reversible?'', revisits the alleged unidirectionality of grammaticalization and auxiliarization, by focusing on the marginal modal 'dare', which has since Early Modern English times developed certain full verb characteristics that would assign it a place near the lexical end of the grammaticalization scale. Here auxiliary, full verb and ambiguous forms are distinguished by the formal features such as inflectional endings, do-support and the use of bare vs. to-infinitives. Schluter argues that 'dare' can be seen as a case of de-auxiliarization and de-grammaticalization, and the decrease in frequency of the auxiliary forms is a reflex of de-grammaticalization. But she also cautions that 'dare' is neither a typical example of auxiliarization nor of de-auxiliarization but rather partakes of both processes. The results furthermore point to cross-cutting influences on the marking of dependent infinitives. EVALUATION This is the ninety-fourth volume in John Benjamins' Typological Studies in Language Series and, as the title suggests, its major contribution is to highlight the steering role of formal evidence from the grammatical system (i.e. from linguistic structures) in the process of grammaticalization, with three main issues under discussion: (1) system-internal factors determining the path of grammaticalization; (2) recognition criteria for grammaticalization; (3) frequency as a formal factor in grammaticalization. Functional theories view grammatical elements as form-function correlations and approach grammar from the perspective of usage and discourse. Admittedly, semantic relations between the source and target categories and its cognitive and cultural motivations are integral part of grammaticalization, but why do lexical items take a specific path towards a grammatical function and why do they end up in a specific place in the grammatical system? In answering these questions, the present volume, with extensive data and convincing argumentation, shows that the architecture of a particular language system and the internal structure in the system can lead the grammaticalizing items towards specific endpoints. The dialectic of grammatical systems and grammaticalizing items touches the definition and delineation of grammaticalization. The second issue about recognition criteria of grammaticalization is related to the reconnection of the traditional recognition criteria of grammatical relations with the defining criteria of changes leading to the formation of grammatical syntagms and paradigms. Interestingly, some foundational analytical constructs such as the inseparable pair between syntagm and paradigm, system and markedness, are to some extent revindicated in the studies of formal evidence in grammaticalization. Increased frequency is argued to be a formal factor in grammaticalization. The articles by Shibasaki, Sohn and Liu rely heavily on Bybee's work on frequency. The shift from lexical to grammatical function, Bybee (2003) argued, can be expected to be accompanied by a noticeable increase in frequency as lexical items are much less frequent than grammatical elements, and the changed distribution of the grammaticalizing item also causes its increase in frequency. Without doubt, frequency increase not only results from grammaticalization but also contributes to it, for example, by promoting phonological, morphosyntactic or semantic changes. Indeed, my major reservation about this volume is the status of frequency as a ''formal factor'' (cf. p. 7) in grammaticalization. Boyland (1996) points out that grammaticalization is the process of automatization of frequently-occurring sequences of linguistic elements. And repetition of grammaticalizing constructions leads to habituation. These processes resemble the changes that occur as non-linguistic skills are practiced and become automatized and generalized. Repetition, as Bybee (2003) argued, has certain effects on neuromotor and cognitive representations. In that sense frequency falls more easily into the system-external pragmatic/cognitive category instead of the system-internal one. From the above it should be clear that this volume contains both extensive examination of data and insightful interpretation of grammaticalization. All ten contributions are also clearly organized and rigorously edited. It is a valuable contribution to the empirical study of grammaticalization and a must-read for anyone interested in language change and historical linguistics. REFERENCES Boyland, Joyce T. 1996. Morphosyntactic change in progress: A psycholinguistic approach. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation. Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In Joseph, Brian D. & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 602-623. Oxford: Blackwell. Campbell, Lyle (ed.). 2001. Grammaticalization: A critical assessment. Special issue of Language Sciences 23. Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 1, 17-35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jespersen, Otto. 1940. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, 4 vols. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20. 303-318. Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tabor, Whitney & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone & Paul J. Hopper (eds), The limits of grammaticalization, 229-272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2008. ''All that he endeavoured to prove was ...'': On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogic contexts. In Cooper, Robin & Ruth Kempson (eds.), Language in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution, 143-177. London: Kings College Publications. ABOUT THE REVIEWER Susan Lixia Cheng holds a PhD in Linguistics and is associate professor at Dalian University of Technology, China. Her research interests include grammaticalization, historical linguistics and linguistic typology. Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue Page Updated: 25-Jul-2011       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.