Introduction: conceptions of grammaticalization and their problems

Introduction: conceptions ofgrammaticalization and their problems

Lyle Campbella,*, Richard Jandab

aDepartment of Linguistics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New ZealandbDepartment of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Abstract

The primary purpose of this paper is to introduce the papers in this issue of Language

Science, dedicated to taking stock of both grammaticalization and so-called``grammaticalization theory'' (i.e. claims about grammaticalization). This introduction setsthe stage for the other papers by surveying the large range of de®nitions of

grammaticalization in the literature and placing them in context. It also mentions the majorquestions addressed by each paper and relates these to the overall themes of the volume,namely clarifying what grammaticalization is (and isn't), highlighting what's good and (inparticular) what's bad about grammaticalization theory, and, in the process, contributing to

greater understanding of these phenomena. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Grammaticalization; Language change; Typology; Grammaticalization theory

1. Background

Does the veritable ¯ood of recent scholarship on grammaticalization correspondmore closely to a ``Great Leap Forward'' or to ``The Emperor's New Clothes''?That is, does it constitute a momentous advance in linguistic understanding or reston an unfortunate misunderstanding?

While interest in grammaticalization phenomena has risen dramatically, overthe last ten years or so, claims about grammaticalization have also come underincreasing criticism from scholars (many of whom are cited in this volume). The

0388-0001/00/$ - see front matter 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S0388 -0001 (00)00018 -8

Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112

www.elsevier.com/locate/langsci

* Corresponding author.

papers in this issue of Language Sciences take stock of this situation by subjectinggrammaticalization to a critical evaluation. The goal of this collection is simplebut extremely important: to present in one place a number of papers whichcarefully assess fundamental aspects of both grammaticalization and so-called``grammaticalization theory'' (i.e. claims about grammaticalization). Becausedi�erent writers use the term ``grammaticalization'' in di�erent ways, withoutalways identifying clearly (or at all) what is thereby intended, it is helpful todistinguish between grammaticalization phenomena (changes which lead todecreased lexical and/or increased grammatical status of items) and``grammaticalization theory'' (the set of claims which have been made concerningsuch phenomena). It is hoped that these papers will serve to make linguists moreaware of shortcomings in grammaticalization theory, to set the record straightconcerning certain central claims, and to contribute to a fuller, more prudentunderstanding of the kinds of changes involved in grammaticalization and of theexplanations which lie behind them.

In short, these papers should clarify what grammaticalization is (and isn't),highlight what's good and (in particular) what's bad about grammaticalizationtheory, and, in the process, help foster a greater appreciation for empiricalapproaches to this general topic.

2. De®nitions

In what follows, we present a survey of de®nitions of grammaticalization,proceeding chronologically. While most writers use the term ``grammatical-ization'', some prefer ``grammaticization'', and Matiso� (1991) even advocates thevariant ``grammatization''. These terms are generally intended to refer to the samething, with no meaning di�erence. In this volume, the more widely used``grammaticalization'' is employed, for the most part Ð except that, when``grammaticization'' appears in citations, it is repeated here without furthercomment. The de®nitions listed here are not exhaustive, but they are amplyrepresentative. Some of the more commonly encountered of these are, to a certainextent, the points of departure for several of the papers in this volume. Groupingthe de®nitions together here in these introductory remarks provides both a senseof what is broadly common in thinking about grammaticalization and also a senseof the range and variation present in this domain. Thus, taken together, thesede®nitions provide a satisfactorily representative introduction to the topic.

While notions more or less consistent with grammaticalization have existed inlinguistics since ancient times, at least since the ancient Hindu grammarians (cf.Campbell, 1995a, pp. 1147±1150, 1154±1155; Harris and Campbell, 1995, pp. 15±25; Lehmann, 1982/1995, pp. 1±8, and Heine, in press)1, (Paul) Antoine Meillet

1 As Heine et al. (1991, p. 5) point out, ``the question as to the origin and development of grammati-

cal categories is almost as old as linguistics,'' but they go on to say that ``this fact should not stop us,

however, from viewing grammaticalization as a new paradigm.''

L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±11294

(1912/1926) is credited with introducing the term ``grammaticalization'' (in theoriginal French, grammaticalisation ). He characterized grammaticalization in thefollowing terms (here in our translation Ð LC & RJ):

[Besides analogy,] another process consists in the change of an autonomousword into the role of a grammatical element . . . . Th[is] . . .process . . . [, involving]the attribution of grammatical character to a formerly independent word . . . [, isone of] only [two] ways by means of which new grammatical constructs areformed (Meillet, 1921/1926, p. 131).

The `grammaticalization' of certain words creates new forms, introducescategories that did not use to receive linguistic expression, [and] transforms theoverall system (Meillet, 1912/1926/1926, p. 133).

The frequent portrayal of grammaticalization as involving a concurrent``weakening'' of both meaning and phonetic form, a characteristic which playssuch an important role in later discussions, also began with Meillet (1926[1912],pp. 132, 139). For Meillet, grammaticalization was essentially lexical >grammatical, with the grammatical side of this development itself containing aninternal sequence syntactic> morphological, so that the resulting overall cline waslexical > syntactic > morphological. This view remains a dominant one in thegrammaticalization literature.

Half a century later, Henry Hoenigswald (1963/1966, p. 44) described``grammaticalization'' much as Meillet had earlier done:

[A] typical notion . . . [is] `grammaticalization' Ð the emptying of lexicallymeaningful morphs (compound members, etc.) and their transformation into`function' elements . . . [Ðwhich,] at least in a minor way . . . [,] has served tobuild up forms that look like new in¯ections (e.g., the Romance adverbs in -mente, from [Latin] mente `with (such and such) a mind'; the Osco-Umbrianlocatives, with former enclitic adverbs intruding into the case system . . . [,] andso on) (Hoenigswald, 1963/1966, p. 44).

Jerzy Kuryl/owicz's (1965/1975, p. 52) de®nition is perhaps the one mostcommonly cited today (despite its arguably redundant and otherwise awkwardphrasing):

Grammaticalization consists in the increase of the range of a morphemeadvancing from a lexical to a grammatical or from a less grammatical to amore grammatical status, e.g. from a derivati[onal] . . .formant to an in¯ectionalone.

Thus, for Kuryl/owicz, grammaticalization is: lexical > grammatical andgrammatical > more grammatical Ð or, more generally: any morpheme (lexical orgrammatical ) > a more grammatical morpheme.

Many linguists attribute the modern reawakening of interest in

L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 95

grammaticalization to the reaction provoked by Talmy GivoÂ n's (1971, p. 394)slogan that ``today's morphology is yesterday's syntax'', which appeared in amuch-cited paper presented at an early meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society(CLS VII)2. His characterization of certain aspects of linguistic evolution is verysimilar to other scholars' later treatments of similar aspects of grammaticalization:

Linguistic evolution is cyclic, involving . . .development from free lexemes tobound a�xes, which undergo attrition and eventually fusion with the stem, theresult being the beginning of a new cycle (GivoÂ n, 1971, pp. 411±412).

M. L. Samuels (1972, p. 58), however, characterized grammaticalization in amanner reminiscent of Hoenigswald's de®nition: as ``consist[ing] of intake fromlexis'' and occurring when a word becomes ``su�ciently empty of lexical meaning''(also cited in Heine et al., 1991, p. 3).

Langacker (1977) also did not speak of grammaticalization per se, butnevertheless gave a characterization for the kinds of grammatical change whichincludes the processes that other linguists have called ``grammaticalization'':

It would not be entirely inappropriate to regard [each] language . . . in . . . [its]diachronic aspect as [a] gigantic expression-compacting machine . . .requir[ing] . . .as input a continuous ¯ow of creatively produced expressionsformed by lexical innovation, . . . lexically and grammatically regular periphrasis,and . . .the ®gurative use of lexical or periphrastic locutions. The machine doeswhatever it can to wear down the expressions fed into it. It fades metaphors bystandardizing them and using them over and over again . . . [,] attacksexpressions of all kinds by phonetic erosion . . . [,] bleaches lexical items of mostof their semantic content . . . [,] and forces them into service as grammaticalmarkers. It chips away at the boundaries between elements and crushes themtogether into smaller units. The machine has a voracious appetite (Langacker,1977, pp. 106±107).

Christian Lehmann provided a more explicit de®nition in a work that waswidely circulated in 1982, revised somewhat in 1985, but not published formallyuntil 1995:

2 It is possible, though not necessarily the case, that GivoÂ n's notion was inspired by Hodge's (1970,

p. 3) statement that `òne man's morphology was an earlier man's syntax'' (cited in Heine et al., 1991,

p. 263). It is also signi®cant that typologists like GivoÂ n ®rst took up grammaticalization mainly as an

aid to word-order reconstruction (assuming Ð unfortunately in error [cf., e.g., Steele, 1977] Ð that

later, more morphological a�x- and clitic-ordering always re¯ects earlier, more syntactic ordering of

free words), and this at a time when ``typological reconstruction'' aÁ la W. Lehmann (1974) was very

much in fashion (approximately up until the early 1980s, when responses such as Hawkins (1983), more

or less gave it the coup de graÃ ce). It is probably not an accident that a considerable number of scholars

now working within ``grammaticalization theory'' are typologists who have been grammatical(ization(a-

l))ized.


[D]iachronic[ally,] . . . [grammaticalization] is a process which turns lexemes into

grammatical formatives and renders grammatical formatives still more

grammatical (Lehmann, 1982/1995, p. v).

[G]rammaticalization . . . is a process which may not only change a lexical item

into a grammatical item . . .but . . .also shift an item `from a less grammatical to

a more grammatical status' . . . [,] in Kuryl/owicz's [(1965/1975, p. 52)] words . . . [;

g]rammaticalization is a process of gradual change . . .(Lehmann, 1982/1995, pp.

11±12).

Grammaticalization is a process leading from lexemes to grammatical

formatives. A number of semantic, syntactic and phonological processes

interact in the grammaticalization of morphemes and of whole constructions

(Lehmann, 1982/1995, p. x).

C. Lehmann's work has had a strong in¯uence on the ®eld, especially on other

scholars working in Germany, such Bernd Heine and his collaborators, and

Martin Haspelmath.

Heine and Reh (1984), for example, adopt the following de®nition:

With the term `grammaticalization' we refer essentially to an evolution whereby

linguistic units lose in semantic complexity, pragmatic signi®cance, syntactic

freedom, and phonetic substance, respectively. This is the case for instance

when a lexical item develops into a grammatical

marker . . . [G]rammaticalization . . .consist[s] . . .of a number of basic

processes . . . [but] is an evolutional continuum. An attempt at segmenting it into

discrete units must remain arbitrary to some extent (Heine and Reh, 1984, p.

15).

Much work in grammaticalization re¯ects their outlook, though Traugott (1988,

p. 406) thinks that it portrays grammaticalization as `à kind of impoverishment,

or de®cit'' Ð or, in a later characterization (Traugott, 1995, p. 3), as a ``story of

attrition and minimization''. She and others propose that pragmatic strengthening

and sometimes semantic gain can occur in grammaticalization (more on this

below). Much more commonly, however, it is the notions of semantic loss and

phonetic reduction that play an important role in di�erent views (see both

Campbell and Newmeyer, in this volume, for discussion).

A rather di�erent and more controversial, though quite in¯uential, outlook

came into the picture with Paul Hopper's (1987, p. 148) notion of `èmergent

grammar'': ``There is, in other words, no `grammar', but only `grammaticalization'

Ð movements towards structure.'' In Hopper's estimation, that is:

the Èmergence of Grammar' . . .attitude . . .has come to view grammar as the

name for a vaguely de®ned set of sedimented (i.e. grammaticized) `recurrent

partials' whose status is constantly being renegotiated in speech and which


cannot be distinguished in principle from strategies for building discourses(Hopper, 1988, p. 118).

(For discussion of this approach, see Campbell and Newmeyer, in this issue.)Elizabeth Closs Traugott's work on grammaticalization has also been extremely

in¯uential. Her 1988 de®nition is:

`Grammaticalization' . . .refers to the dynamic unidirectional historical processwhereby lexical items in the course of time acquire a new status asgrammatical, morphosyntactic forms (Traugott, 1988, p. 406; compare alsoTraugott and KoÈ nig, 1991, p. 189).

William Croft (1990) elaborates as follows on earlier discussions ofgrammaticalization, which he (along with several others) sees as a ``process'':

Grammaticalization is the process by which full lexical items becomegrammatical morphemes . . . [It] is unidirectional and cyclic . . . : grammaticalmorphemes originate from lexical items, disappear through loss, and reappearwhen new words become grammatical morphemes. Phonological,morphosyntactic, and functional (semantic/pragmatic) changes are correlated: ifa lexical item undergoes a certain kind of morphosyntactic change . . . [, this]implies corresponding functional and phonological changes. The pattern ofcorrelated phonological, grammatical, and functional changes allowsgrammaticalization to be de®ned in a way that covers the evolution of virtuallyevery type of grammatical morpheme, from tense in¯ection to case marker tocomplementizer (Croft, 1990, p. 230).

[G]rammaticalization . . . [is a] psychological process . . .that . . .speakers undergoduring the course of the history of the[ir] language (Croft, 1990, p. 257).

Similarly, for Colette Craig (1991, p. 455) ```grammaticalization' is theevolutionary process by which grammatical morphemes arise''.

In their in¯uential introduction to a jointly edited volume, Traugott and Heine(1991a, p. 2) advocate a broadened view of grammaticalization, referring to tworelated processes or kinds of grammaticalization: [1] changes of the lexical-item-to-grammatical-morpheme sort, which can involve phonological reduction and canexhibit change of status from independent word to clitic or a�x (lexical >grammatical ), and [2] changes of the discourse-structure-to-morphosyntactic-marking sort, which involve the fossilization of discourse strategies in syntacticand morphological structure ( pragmatic > grammatical ). They associate changesof both kinds with semantic bleaching and phonological reduction, furthersuggesting that the two types can be brought under a single rubric, as follows:lexical item used in discourse > [non-lexical item used in] morphosyntax (Traugottand Heine, 1991a, p. 5).

On the other hand, Heine et al. (1991) again rely on Kuryl/owicz's much earlierde®nition:


The by now classic de®nition of the term `grammaticalization' was provided by

Kuryl/owicz . . . [(1965/1975, p. 52)]: `Grammaticalization consists in the increase

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

a less grammatical to a more grammatical status, e.g. from a

derivati[onal] . . . formant to an in¯ectional one'. More or less the same

de®nition has been used by other scholars and will be adopted here (Heine et

al., 1991, p. 3).

Analogous to GivoÂ n's (1971) slogan that ``today's morphology is yesterday's

syntax,'' Heine et al. o�er their own slogan Ð one which brings pragmatics more

centrally into the grammaticalization picture: ``Today's syntax is yesterday's

pragmatic discourse.'' They state:

GivoÂ n argued that, in the process of grammaticalization, a more pragmatic

mode of communication gives way to a more syntactic one. According to this

perspective, loose, paratactic discourse structures develop into closed syntactic

structures. Since the latter in time erode via morphologization, lexicalization,

and phonological attrition, the result is a cyclic wave of the following kind

( . . . [cf.] GivoÂ n 1979, pp. 208±209): Discourse > syntax > morphology >

morphophonemics > zero . . .This line of research has opened a new window on

grammaticalization studies, one that encourages a view of grammaticalization

not simply as the `reanalysis of lexical as grammatical material' but also as the

reanalysis of discourse patterns as grammatical patterns and of discourse-level

functions as sentence-level, semantic functions (Heine et al., 1991, p. 13).

As those three authors emphasize, this approach ``views grammaticalization as

being located in discourse pragmatics . . .that is, as forming a concomitant feature,

or an outcome, or even an inherent constituent . . . [,] of discourse pragmatic

forces'' (Heine et al., 1991, p. 22).

From Paul Hopper (1991) comes the following characterization:

Certain types of lexical items are known typically to evolve into

grammaticalized clitics and a�xes . . .The occurrence of certain lexical items in

frequent collocations . . .may be prima facie evidence of incipient

grammaticization (Hopper, 1991, p. 20).

And, from Matiso� (1991), we have:

Grammatization is inherently a diachronic concept . . .refer[ring] to a historical

semantic process whereby a `root-morpheme' with a full lexical meaning

assumes a more abstract functorial or `grammatical' meaning. Such processes

may take centuries to complete . . . (Matiso�, 1991, p. 384).

In another in¯uential book-length study, Hopper and Traugott (1993) de®ne

grammaticalization as follows:


Grammaticalization . . . is the process whereby lexical items and constructionscome in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions, and, oncegrammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions . . .wherebythe properties that distinguish sentences from vocabulary come into beingdiachronically or are organized synchronically (Hopper and Traugott, 1993, p.xv).

These two authors call grammaticalization a ``subdiscipline'', and they amplifytheir de®nition to include also the notion of grammaticalization as a framework:

`Grammaticalization' as a term has two meanings. As a term referring to aframework within which to account for language phenomena, it refers to thatpart of the study of language which focuses on how grammatical forms andconstructions arise, how they are used, and how they shape the language . . .Ittherefore highlights the tension between relatively unconstrained lexicalstructure and more constrained syntactic, morphosyntactic, and morphologicalstructure . . .The term `grammaticalization' also refers to the actual phenomenaof language that the framework of grammaticalization seeks to address, mostespecially the processes whereby items become more grammatical through time(Hopper and Traugott, 1993, pp. 1±2).

Hopper and Traugott (1993) see one important aspect of grammaticalization asresiding in changes of the sort that can be characterized as follows: ``ùse of lexicalitem in discourse > grammatical item' . . . i.e., in terms of form in utterancecontext'' (Hopper and Traugott, 1993, p. 81). In a passage echoing Hopper's`èmergent grammar,'' they bring in a broader, more synchronic perspective ongrammaticalization:

Grammaticalization . . .studied from . . . [a historical] perspective . . . [involves] thesources of grammatical forms and the typical pathways of change that a�ectthem . . . [, being] that subset of linguistic changes through which a lexical itemin certain uses becomes a grammatical item, or . . .a grammatical item becomesmore grammatical. The other perspective is more synchronic, seeinggrammaticalization as primarily a syntactic, discourse pragmaticphenomenon . . .studied from the point of view of ¯uid patterns of language use(Hopper and Traugott, 1993, p. 2).

Bybee et al. (1994) escalate studies of grammaticalization even further, elevatingthem to the status of a theory:

Reduced to its essentials, grammaticalization theory begins with theobservation that grammatical morphemes develop gradually out of lexicalmorphemes or combinations of lexical morphemes with lexical or grammaticalmorphemes . . . [. W]e do not restrict our interest in grammaticalization to thetransition between lexical and grammatical status, but rather recognize thesame diachronic processes at work in a long chain of developments. Included


are changes in lexical morphemes by which some few of them become morefrequent and general in meaning, gradually shifting to grammatical status, anddeveloping further after grammatical status has been attained (Bybee et al.,1994, pp. 4±5.)

We do not take the structuralist position that each language represents a tidysystem in which units are de®ned by the oppositions they enter into and theobject of study is the internal system the units are supposed to create. Rather,we consider it more pro®table to view languages as composed of substance Ðboth semantic substance and phonetic substance . . . [Ðwhich] is potentiallyuniversal, but languages di�er as to how it is shaped because it is constantlyundergoing change as language is used (Bybee et al., 1994, p. 1).

For them, ``grammaticalization theory'' embodies eight hypotheses, which seemto function, not only as hypotheses, but also as diagnostic traits ofgrammaticalization (cf. Bybee et al, 1994, pp. 9±22):

1. Source determination. The actual meaning of a construction that enters intogrammaticalization uniquely determines the path which suchgrammaticalization follows, and consequently the resulting grammaticalmeanings.

2. Unidirectionality. The path taken by grammaticalization is always from lessgrammatical to more grammatical.

3. Universal paths. From [1] and [2] (or perhaps from [1] aloneÐ?!), it follows thatthere are universal paths of grammaticalization.

4. Retention of earlier meaning. Semantic nuances of a source construction can beretained long after grammaticalization has begun.

5. Consequences of semantic retention. From [3] and [4], it follows that attestedforms can be used (in order to attempt) to reconstruct earlier stages of alanguage.

6. Semantic reduction and phonological reduction. Semantic reduction is paralleledby phonetic reduction, this yielding a ``dynamic coevolution of meaning andform'' (p. 20).

7. Layering. The rise of new markers is not contingent on the loss or dysfunctionof its predecessors.

8. Relevance. The more semantically relevant a grammatical category is to a stem,the more likely it is that it will develop into an a�x.

Most of these hypotheses play a role in the claims about grammaticalizationwhich are evaluated in various papers in this volume.

Responding to this groundswell of interest in grammaticalization by discussingrelated phenomena at length in her introductory survey of language change, AprilMcMahon (1994, p. 69) reports that ``the process . . . [in question involves the]morphologization of syntactic elements''; she clari®es this statement as follows:

[W]ords from major lexical categories, such as nouns, verbs and adjectives,


become [members of] minor, grammatical categories such as prepositions,

adverbs and auxiliaries, which in turn may be[come] . . .a�xes. Full words, with

their own lexical content, thus become form words, which simply mark a

particular construction; . . . this categorial change tends to be accompanied by a

reduction in phonological form and a bleaching of meaning. Thus,

grammaticalization is not only a syntactic change, but a global change a�ecting

also the morphology, phonology and semantics (McMahon, 1994, p. 160).

William Pagliuca's (1994) version of a de®nition for our general topic is:

[G]rammaticalization . . .may be de®ned as the evolution of grammatical form

and meaning from lexical and phrasal antecedents and the continued formal

and semantic developments such material subsequently undergoes.

The . . . lexical sources of particular grammatical forms . . . [undergo] formal and

semantic changes which characterize their developmental histories . . . (Pagliuca,

1994, p. ix).

The cross-linguistic regularity of the descent of given grammatical meanings

from particular and speci®able precursors suggests that grammatical material is

the product of phenomena which are both universal and

unidirectional . . . [U]nderstanding . . . these . . .mech anisms of diachronic

change . . . [will] advance . . .diachronic theory and method in scope and

power . . . [as they] come to be routinely and pro®tably applied to the internal

and comparative reconstruction of grammatical meaning . . .Precisely how

grammatical material arises from the non-grammatical, and how it continues to

evolve semantically and formally, may be seen as the broad issues . . .(Pagliuca,

1994, pp. ix±x).

Elizabeth Closs Traugott's (1994) de®nition is the following:

Grammaticalization is the linguistic process whereby grammatical categories

such as case or tense/aspect are organized and coded. Typical examples involve

a lexical item, construction, or morpheme . . .that, when used in certain highly

speci®c frames, may come to code an abstract grammatical category . . .From

the diachronic perspective, grammaticalization is usually thought of as that

subset of linguistic changes whereby a lexical item used in speci®c discourse

contexts becomes a grammatical item, or whereby a grammatical item becomes

more grammatical . . . (Traugott, 1994, pp. 1481).

In Kai von Fintel's (1995) de®nition, the diachronic±semantic aspect is

particularly prominent:

Grammaticalization is the gradual historical development of function

morphemes from content morphemes. Among the most commonly identi®ed

characteristics of this process is what is often called `semantic bleaching': while


becoming more and more functional . . . [, a] morpheme loses most of itsmeaning. (von Fintel, 1995, p. 175).

Traugott's (1995, pp. 1±2) de®nition holds that ``grammaticalization is theprocess whereby lexical material in highly constrained pragmatic andmorphosyntactic contexts becomes grammatical'' (though `` . . . [o]thers have tendedto equate grammaticalization with increased morphosyntactic bonding'' [Traugott,1995/in press, p. 3]).

Joan Bybee (1996), on the other hand, o�ers this characterization:

The vast majority of a�xes in the languages of the world evolve fromindependent words by the gradual process of `grammaticization' or`grammaticalization' . . .In the progression from a lexical morpheme to agrammatical one, changes occur in the phonological shape of the morpheme, itsmeaning and its grammatical behavior . . .The process of grammaticization isnot discrete, but continuous . . . [;] in the form of semantic change and furtherphonological reduction and fusion . . . [, it] continues even after grammaticalstatus is achieved, and even after a�xation occurs (Bybee, 1996, pp. 253±255).

In the same year as Bybee's above-mentioned paper was published, extensivediscussions of grammaticalization began to appear more widely in introductorytexts on historical linguistics (expanding on the already-cited start made byMcMahon, 1994). Here, we extract a de®nition from such a work by R. L. Trask:

. . . [One] pathway of syntactic change . . . [is] grammaticalization . . . [:] lexicalitems can be reduced to bound morphemes, but they can also be reduced togrammatical items without entirely losing their status as words (Trask, 1996, p.143; original emphasis).

In a less introductory study focused more centrally on grammaticalizationphenomena, Bernd Heine (1997, p. 6) talks of ``the paradigm ofgrammaticalization theory'' (though his de®nition is more customary):

By grammaticalization we mean a process whereby a linguistic expression E, inaddition to its conventional meaning M1, receives a more abstract and moregrammatical meaning M2'').

Roger Lass' discussion of grammaticalization in his most recent book onhistorical linguistic concerns includes the following observations:

[G]rammaticalized'=`routinized, bleached, downgraded from lexical togrammatical status' (Lass, 1997, p. 256n.38).

Recent work on grammaticalization . . .suggests the existence of genuinedirectional pathways in morphosyntactic change, some even with goodselections of intermediate stages. A classic example of a directional morphocline


is the familiar sequence Noun > Preposition > Clitic > Case-ending . . .Thereare also other apparently (virtually) unidirectional pathways, e.g. Free Morph> Bound Morph, more generally Lexical Category > Grammatical Category,Less Grammatical Category > More Grammatical Category, etc. (Lass, 1997,pp. 267±268).

Each step along . . . [such a] pathway seems irreversible or nearly so; once anoun has become a postposition . . . [,] it can't become a noun again, [nor can] acase-marker . . .detach itself and become a postposition . . .Developments of thiskind can be construed as paths along a chreod [(```gutter' or . . .preset path'')]leading to a point-attractor; each stage gets ``closer'' to the sink, which is abound morph. And once this stage is reached, there is generally no way ofemerging from it (Lass, 1997, pp. 295±296).

At approximately the same time as Lass's book appeared, grammaticalizationenjoyed a bonanza in introductory textbooks, receiving prominent mention in ahistorical-linguistics text, an overview of typology, and a German-languageintroduction to grammaticalization entirely devoted to that subject. Thede®nitions here are from Terry Crowley, Lindsay Whaley, and Gabriele Diewald,respectively:

Words in languages can often change from being lexical words to . . . [being]grammatical words. This process is referred to as grammaticalization. . . . [T]henext step . . . [involves] the development of a bound form out of what wasoriginally a free form (Crowley, 1997, p. 145; original emphasis).

[Grammaticalization is a] . . .process of language change by which a free lexicalmorpheme becomes semantically generalized and phonologically reduced(Whaley, 1997, p. 285).

. . .Grammaticalization . . . [, t]he transition of a lexical, autonomous form to agrammatical, non-independent form . . . [,] does not happen suddenly andabruptly. It is a process which extends over very long spans of time andrepresents a ¯owing, evolutive change, so that it is not possible to specify oneparticular point of the [relevant] historical development as the time after which,e.g., . . . [a former main verb] would have to be characterized unambiguously asa temporal auxiliary. The change concerns both the content- and theexpression-side of signs, whereby it begins on the content-side and is at ®rst notformally visible (Diewald, 1997, p. 11; our translation Ð LC & RJ).

The de®nition in Aya Katz' (1998) grammaticalization-focused article isconsonant with most of those listed here so far, though she also brings iconicityinto the picture:

Grammaticalization is a process whereby independent linguistic units arerecruited into grammatical paradigms or into systems that form as a result of


this recruitment . . . [; s]uch . . .units may be lexemes, phrases, or even largerunits . . . (Katz, 1998, p. 93).

The process of grammaticalization is a constant force that drives languageonward, and it can account for all change that moves from iconicity toformalism (Katz, 1998, p. 95).

In other recent de®nitions, we can recognize further ampli®cations of thegeneral notions considered so far. Anna Giacalone Ramat (1998, p. 107) reportsthat `òver the last years . . . [,] the conviction has emerged that grammaticalizationis not a uniform process.'' Livio Gaeta (1998, p. 89) believes the basic de®nitionshould be modi®ed from Meillet's original characterization: ``grammaticalization,in its broader meaning, has to do with the whole range of phenomena that giverise to grammatical formatives, not merely with those originating from lexicalforms [original emphasis].'' For Juan Moreno Cabrera (1998, pp. 213, 214),``grammaticalization processes depart from the lexicon and proceed towards thesyntax . . . ''; hence they can be ``characterize[d] . . .as syntactotelic or syntax-creating processes'': i.e., grammaticalization ``feeds the syntax and bleeds thelexicon''.

Martin Haspelmath's (1998, p. 78) de®nition is recognizably reminiscent ofearlier views:

Grammaticalization . . . [is] the gradual unidirectional change that turns lexicalitems into grammatical items and loose structures into tight structures,subjecting frequent linguistic units to more and more grammatical restrictionsand reducing their autonomy.

However, his approach includes much more than the other de®nitions above;compare also his most recent (forthcoming) remarks on the subject in the secondcitation immediately below:

Grammaticalization is the gradual drift in all parts of the grammar towardstighter structures, towards less freedom in the use of linguistic expression at alllevels. Speci®cally, lexical items develop into grammatical items in particularconstructions, which often means that independent words turn into clitics anda�xes. In addition, constructions become subject to stronger constraints andcome to show greater cohesion. Grammaticalization is unidirectional in thatelements and structures always become more grammatical(ized), while thereverse (development of less grammatical from more grammatical structures orelements) is practically unattested. Grammaticalization comprises thedevelopment of simple sentences from complex sentences, the development offunction words from content words, [and] the development of a�xes fromfunction words . . . [. T]hese changes can be understood as resulting from thegradual loss of autonomy of linguistic signs (Haspelmath, 1998, p. 52).

The most general de®nition of grammaticalization would therefore not restrict


this notion to changes from a lexical category to a functional category butwould say that grammaticalization shifts a linguistic expression further towardthe functional pole of the lexical-functional continuum. (Haspelmath, 1999,p. 1045).

Rounding out the present panorama of de®nitions for grammaticalization arethe two in the following pair, one from Heine (in press) and one from Traugott(in press):

[G]rammaticalization . . . [includes but] is not con®ned to the evolution of lexicalitems . . . . [Following a suggestion by] Traugott . . . [, we can] de®negrammaticalization às the development of constructions (not bare lexical items,as has often been supposed in the past) via discourse practices into moregrammatical material' . . . . (Heine, in press, p. 4).

[T]he focus of most de®nitions of grammaticalization in the linguistic literaturehas been on lexemes . . .and, in later stages, [on] the grammaticalization ofalready grammatical items into more grammatical ones . . . . [But] increasingattention has recently been paid to the fact that . . . lexemes grammaticalize onlyin certain highly speci®able contexts, and under speci®able pragmaticconditions . . . [. T]he focus is on . . .the contexts in which . . . [lexemes] take ongrammatical functions . . . [, in t]he present paper . . . . (Traugott, in press, p. 1).

It is probably ®tting to conclude this survey of de®nitions forgrammaticalization with Paul Hopper's (1998, pp. 147±148) recent representationof the relevant phenomena as an allegory in which souls are saved:3

Grammaticalization can be thought of as a salvation narrative. It is the tragedyof lexical items young and pure in heart but carrying within them the fatal ¯awof original sin; their inexorable weakening as they encounter the corrupt worldof Discourse; their fall into the Slough of Grammar; and their eventualredemption in the cleansing waters of Pragmatics.

To summarize the various de®nitions surveyed above, we might conclude thatthere is a prototypical or core notion of how grammaticalization is understood (cf.Hopper, 1998, p. 148, on ``canonical grammaticalization''). But, as Lessau (1994,p. 416) points out, since the time of Meillet, there has been `à broadening of the

3 With its invocation of (unspeci®ed) original sin leading ®rst to grammatical(izing) decay and death

but then ultimately to redemption via pragmatic rebirth, Hopper's (1998) salvational allegory follows

what must be considered a ®rmly Christian, even Roman Catholic theology. In Joseph and Janda

(1988, p. 204), however, another religious allegory was earlier adopted which features what is essentially

a Buddhist perspective: `Ìt is not as if syntax ®rst decays into morphology, and morphology then

decays into nothing and thereby dies. Morphology is not a graveyard. Instead, it is more as if syntax

feeds morphology, while morphology itself undergoes (greater) lexicalization which, for speakers of the

world's languages, does not apparently resemble death so much as nirvana.''


scope of studies related to grammaticalization'', paralleled by ``the termexperienc[ing] a considerable extension into various directions'' Ð so that, `` . . . [a]sa consequence, it is not easy to ®nd a general de®nition, a common denominator,for the various contents and applications `grammaticalization' has today.'' (SeeGiacalone Ramat & Hopper, 1998, pp. 7±8, for discussion.) Nevertheless, we areleft with a notion of grammaticalization which minimally includes, at its core:some linguistic element> some more grammatical element.

3. Overview

The papers of this volume were written relatively independently of one anotherÐ each representing the views of its individual author Ð and are principallyunited only by the fact that each addresses, in relation to particular linguisticexamples, certain major limitations of grammaticalization theory4. Each of thesestudies can stand alone, and therefore, in some instances, two or more papersdiscuss the same or similar subjects, though always from each individual author'sdistinct perspective. Where more than one work addresses a particular theme, thisfact should serve to underscore how important the point at stake is. For example,several of the papers are, in one way or another, critical of the `ùnidirectionalityclaim'' (the suggestion Ð now verging on dogma Ð that, in grammaticalization,linguistic elements always become more grammatical, never less grammatical;recall hypothesis [2] above, from Bybee et al., 1994). Yet each of the presentstudies o�ers unique and valuable insights concerning this hypothesis.

Several of the papers utilize extensive quotations from the grammaticalizationliterature as an expository device for allowing other writers' voices to be heard intheir own words. Since much discussion deals directly with how speci®c terms arede®ned, this device is not only useful but also important for clarity's sake.

Also to be noted is the range of di�erent opinions to be found in the variouspapers. On the one hand, for example, Norde discusses ``degrammaticalization''from a vantage point slightly di�erent from that of the other authors. Janda, onthe other hand, is less peremptorily dismissive about a possible role for children'slanguage acquisition in grammatical change than many typologists would be (fora di�erent view, see Campbell, 1995b), though he much more strongly emphasizesthe importance of discontinuity across generations (both in youth and inadulthood) for any grammaticalization process analyzed as occurring overhundreds of years.

Additionally represented in these papers are new views concerning many aspectsof grammaticalization, of which we here mention just a small number ofexamples. Norde, for example, discusses how the notion (and phenomenon) of``de¯exion'' counters certain grammaticalization-related claims, and she also

4 Limitations of grammaticalization were not at all a central focus, as might have been expected, in

The Limits of Grammaticalization (Giacalone Ramat and Hopper, Eds., 1998).


emphasizes the socio-cultural context of overall grammar, arguing thatgrammaticalization changes must be understood in the context of a grammar'shistory as a whole. This perspective brings socio-cultural factors and the long-range diachrony of language systems into the picture (yet in a manner appreciablydi�erent from what is characteristic of most grammaticalization theorists), therebyraising important issues for any approach that intends to illuminate linguisticchange in general and grammaticalization changes in particular. Newmeyer, inturn, addresses the question of whether grammaticalization theory has anynegative implications for generative grammar, concluding that it does not, whileJoseph scrutinizes claims that grammaticalization is a ``process'' and testsdiachronic grammaticalization-based claims regarding the so-called Pro-Dropparameter.

Janda, on the other hand, emphasizes sociolinguistic factors Ð the externalcontexts of grammaticalization Ð which rarely play a role in the extensivegrammaticalization literature, even though, again, they appear to be crucial forunderstanding most linguistic change, including grammaticalization(s). He alsostresses most emphatically the crucial need to focus on the perspective ofindividual speakers, as well as addressing the issue of how extremely long-termtrends in grammars (and, through them, languages) can be replicated through theactions of mortal speakers.

On the whole, however, if there is a uni®ed ``punch-line'' to this group ofpapers Ð that is, if it were necessary to extract a single ``sound-bite'' inorder to represent them all collectively Ð it would have to run along theselines: ```Grammaticalization theory' is seriously ¯awed and misleading, as wellas, arguably, totally super¯uous, since existing mechanisms already su�ce toaccount for the phenomena at issue; what we need, instead, is a deepeningand broadening of knowledge, not the inappropriate and erroneous claimssurrounding this putatively new and qualitatively unique conceptualapparatus''.

Major issues raised (and, in some cases, answered) in these papers include thefollowing thirteen questions (among which question (10) is discussed at somelength):

1. What mechanisms underlie grammaticalization? What is the role of reanalysis,metaphor, and extension Ð i.e., analogy? (This is addressed by Campbell,Newmeyer, and Joseph, in this issue).

2. Is grammaticalization unidirectional? Does it even make sense to ask such aquestion (or to address answers to it)? (This question is addressed by all thepapers in this volume.) Is the direction of grammaticalization changesirreversible? Can it at least be countered (undone) in some way? (This lastquestion is a particular focus of Janda's paper in this volume.) If there is atypical directionality characteristic of (many) grammaticalization changes, whatexplains it? (See Campbell, Janda, and Norde, in this issue).

3. Does grammaticalization have explanatory value (which would give ittheoretical standing on its own), as several scholars have claimed, or is it


explained by already well-known principles of linguistic change, such as soundchange, lexical and semantic change, or reanalysis (as claimed by somequestioners of grammaticalization)? (See Campbell, 1998, pp. 241±242, as wellas Campbell, Janda, Joseph, and Newmeyer, in this issue).

4. Does grammaticalization have any independent status of its own, or is it totallyderivative? (See the Campbell, Janda, Joseph, and Newmeyer papers in thisissue).

5. Is grammaticalization necessary? If it has no theoretical status of its own, doesit at least have a heuristic role to play? (These issues are addressed in passingby most of the papers in this issue).

6. What is the proper role of ``semantic bleaching'' (loss) and ``phoneticreduction'' vis-aÁ -vis each other in grammaticalization phenomena, and how is it(are they) to be explained? (See Campbell, this issue).

7. What are ``degrammaticalization'' and ``lexicalization'', and how do they relateto the unidirectionality claim? What impact does the existence of ``lateralconversions'' and ``de¯exion'' have on grammaticalization claims? (SeeCampbell, Janda, Newmeyer, and Norde, in this issue, for discussion).

8. Is grammaticalization a process, and what does it mean to claim that it is? (SeeJanda, Joseph, and Newmeyer, in this issue).

9. Is grammaticalization continuous, and if so, what explains this? Is it gradual insome other sense? (This is a central focus of Janda's paper).

10. Are claims about grammaticalization viciously circular, and, if so, to whatextent? (See Campbell, Janda, and Newmeyer, in this issue). Does thissituation not obtain when, for example, ``reconstructions'' are at ®rstmotivated and justi®ed through the invocation of some presumed principlesuch as unidirectionality (but then, later, the reconstructed examples areargued to provide con®rmation of that principle itself)? Or, similarly, cancircularity not be detected when the assumption that certain lexical sourcesresult in particular grammatical outcomes Ð say, that `come' > FUTURE Ðleads researchers to assign the earlier meaning `come' to lexical forms whichthey see as being the source of a FUTURE morpheme? And is such beggingof the question not again present when analysts are tempted to assign themeaning `future' to any FUTURE-like morpheme which derives from a lexicalsource `come'? In reality, however, the semantics of some source lexemes andsome target grammatical morphemes may not actually correspond to theassumption which led to the glosses being assigned to them in the ®rst placeÐ thus seeming to add `èvidence'' for the relevant pathway only whengrammaticalizationalists engage in the making of such circular self-ful®llingprophecies.

11. How does external socio-cultural history a�ect grammaticalization? How doesthe sociolinguistic context in which a language is embedded a�ectgrammaticalization? (See Janda and Norde, in this issue).

12. Is grammaticalization best seen as lexical> grammatical and less grammatical> more grammatical (this being the case in so-called ``canonicalgrammaticalization''), or as constituting ``grammar'' in general (so as to bring


most or even all synchronic and diachronic aspects of language under theumbrella of pragmatic [discourse-]functions, as in `èmergent grammar'')?(These issues are addressed in passing by most of the papers in this issue).

13. What will the future of grammaticalization theory be? What should it be?

Discussion of all these and related issues awaits the reader in the pages thatfollow. So read on Ð recasting slightly Hopper's above-mentioned salvationallegory, we may ask whether there may not be linguistic souls to be saved.

References

Bybee, J.L., 1996. Productivity, regularity and fusion: how language use a�ects the lexicon. In: Singh,

Rajendra (Ed.), Trubetzkoy's Orphan: Proceedings of the . . .Roundtable ``Morphonology:

Contemporary Responses''. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 247±269 ((MontreÂ al, 30 September±2

October, 1994) [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 144] (plus general ``References'', pp. 335±358)).

Bybee, J.L., Perkins, R.D., Pagliuca, W., 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and

Modality in the Languages of the World. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Campbell, L., 1995a. History of the study of historical syntax. In: Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A.,

Sternefeld, W., Vennemann, T. (Eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary

Research, Vol. 2, ``Research into Syntactic Change, Part II: Approaches'' [HandbuÈ cher zur Sprach-

und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 9]. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 1136±1166.

Campbell, L., 1995b. Approaches to Reanalysis and Its Role in the Explanation of Syntactic Change.

Paper given at the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics; Manchester, UK; 13±18,

August, 1995.

Campbell, L., 1998. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (and

Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1999).

Craig, C., 1991. In: Traugott, H. (Ed.), Ways to go in Rama: a Case Study in Polygrammaticalization,

Vol. II. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 455±492.

Croft, W., 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Crowley, T., 1997. An Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

(``3rd'' [1actually 5th] ed.; ``1st'' [1actually 3rd] ed. published by University of Papua New Guinea

Press, Port Moresby, and by Institute of Paci®c Studies, University of the South Paci®c [Linguistics

Series, 1], Suva, Fiji, 1987; 1st ed. 1981).

Diewald, G., 1997. Grammatikalisierung: Eine EinfuÈ hrung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen

[Germanistische Arbeitshefte, 36]. Max Niemeyer Verlag, TuÈ bingen.

Gaeta, L., 1998. Some remarks on analogy, reanalysis, and grammaticalization. In: Giacalone Ramat,

A., Hopper, P.J. (Eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language, 37].

Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 89±105.

Giacalone Ramat, A., 1998. Testing the boundaries of grammaticalization. In: Giacalone Ramat, A.,

Hopper, P.J. (Eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language, 37].

Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 107±127.

Giacalone Ramat, A., Hopper, P., 1998. Introduction. In: Giacalone Ramat, A., Hopper, P.J. (Eds.),

The Limits of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language, 37]. Benjamins, Amsterdam,

pp. 1±11.

GivoÂ n, T., 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: an archaeologist's ®eld trip. Chicago

Linguistic Society 7, 394±415.

GivoÂ n, T., 1979. On Understanding Grammar. Academic Press, New York.

Harris, A.C., Campbell, L., 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Haspelmath, M., 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22, 49±85.

Haspelmath, M., 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37, 1043±1068.


Hawkins, J.A., 1983. Word Order Universals. Academic Press, New York.

Heine, B., 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK.

Heine, B., In press. Grammaticalization. To appear in: Joseph B.D., Janda R.D., (Eds.). Handbook of

Historical Linguistics. London, Blackwell.

Heine, B., Claudi, U., HuÈ nnemeyer, F., 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Heine, B., Reh, M., 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Buske, Hamburg.

Hodge, C.T., 1970. The linguistic cycle. The Language Sciences (Indiana University) 13, 1±7.

Hoenigswald, H., 1963/1966. Are there universals of linguistic change? In: Greenberg, J.H. (Ed.),

Universals of Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1963 (1st ed.) 23±41, 1966, 2nd ed. 30±52).

Hopper, P.J., 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, 139±157.

Hopper, P.J., 1988. Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar postulate. In: Tannen, D. (Ed.),

Linguistics in Context. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 117±134.

Hopper, P.J., 1991. Traugott, Heine, (Eds.). On Some Principles of Grammaticization, Vol. I, pp.

17±35.

Hopper, P.J., 1998. Giacalone Ramat, A., Hopper, P.J. (Eds.). The Paradigm at the End of the

Universe, pp. 147±158.

Hopper, P.J., Traugott, E.C., 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Joseph, B.D., Janda, R.D., 1988. The how and why of diachronic morphologization and

demorphologization. In: Hammond, M., Noonan, M. (Eds.), Theoretical Morphology: Approaches

in Modern Linguistics. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 193±210.

Katz, A., 1998. Recycled morphemes and grammaticalization: the hebrew copula and pronoun.

Southwest Journal of Linguistics 17 (1), 59±97.

Kuryl/owicz, J., 1965/1975. The Evolution of Grammatical Categories. Diogenes 51 (1965), 55±71.

Reprinted in his Esquisses Linguistiques, vol. II [International Library of General Linguistics, 37;

Eugenio Coseriu (Ed.)]. Fink, Munich, 1975, pp. 38±54.

Langacker, R.W., 1977. Syntactic Reanalysis. In: Li, C.N. (Ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change.

University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 59±139.

Lass, R., 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lehmann, C., 1982/1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization: A Programmatic Sketch, Volume 1.

Arbeiten des KoÈ lner Universalienprojekts 49 (1982) [Department of Linguistics, University of

Cologne, Cologne]. Revised as Thoughts on Grammaticalization [LINCOM Studies in Theoretical

Linguistics, 1]. LINCOM Europa, Munich, 1995.

Lehmann, W.P., 1974. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Lessau, D.A., 1994. A Dictionary of Grammaticalization. Brockmeyer, Bochum.

Matiso�, J., 1991. Traugott, Heine, (Ed.). Areal and Universal Dimensions of Grammaticalization in

Lahu, Vol. II. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 383±453.

McMahon, A.M., 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Meillet, A., 1912/1926. L'eÂ volution des formes grammaticales. Scientia (Rivista di Scienza) 12 [No.

26(6)] (1912), 384±400. Reprinted in his Linguistique historique et linguistique geÂ neÂ rale [Collection

linguistique publieÂ e par la SocieÂ teÂ de Linguistique de Paris, 8]. Champion, Paris, 1926 (2nd,

enlarged ed.; 1st ed. 1921; reprinted by Klincksieck, Paris, 1951), pp. 130±148.

Moreno Cabrera, J.C., 1998. Giacalone Ramat, A., Hopper, P.J. (Eds.). On the Relationship Between

Grammaticalization and Lexicalization, pp. 211±227.

Pagliuca, W., 1994. Introduction. In: Pagliuca, W. (Ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization.

Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. ix±xx.

Samuels, M.L., 1972. Linguistic Evolution: With Special Reference to English. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Steele, S.M., 1977. Clisis and diachrony. In: Li, C.N. (Ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change.

University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 539±579.

Trask, R.L., 1996. Historical Linguistics. Arnold, London.

Traugott, E.C., 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In: Axmaker, S., Jaisser, A.,


Singmaster, H. (Eds.), Berkeley Linguistics Society 14 (Parasession on Grammaticalization), pp.

406±416.

Traugott, E.C., 1994. Grammaticalization and lexicalization. In: Asher, R., Simpson, J. (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3. Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 1481±1486.

Traugott, E.C., 1995. The Role of the Development of Discourse Markers in a Theory of

Grammaticalization. Paper given at the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics;

Manchester; 13±18, August, 1995.

Traugott, E.C., In press. Constructions in Grammaticalization, Joseph, B.D., Janda, R.D. (Eds.).

Handbook of Historical Linguistics. London, Blackwell.

Traugott, E.C., Heine, B., 1991a. Introduction. In: Traugott, E.C., Heine, B. (Eds.), Approaches to

Grammaticalization, Vol. I . Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 1±14.

Traugott E.C., Heine B., 1991b. Approaches to Grammaticalization. Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Traugott, E.C., KoÈ nig E, 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In: Traugott,

E.C., Heine, B. (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 189±

218.

von Fintel, K., 1995. The formal semantics of grammaticalization. In: Beckman, J. (Ed.), Proceedings

of the North East Linguistic Society 25 (University of Pennsylvania), Vol. 2: Papers from the

Workshop on Language Acquisition and Language Change. Graduate Linguistic Student

Association, University of Massachusettsat Amherst, Amherst, pp. 175±189.

Whaley, L.J., 1997. Introduction to Typology: The Unity and Diversity of Language. Sage, Thousand

Oaks, CA.


Documents

Introduction: conceptions of grammaticalization and their problems