THREE COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT DEGRAMMATICALIZATION Muriel Norde

1. THREE COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT DEGRAMMATICALIZATION Muriel Norde

2. Outline • Aims • Definitions and other theoretical preliminaries • Misunderstandings • Classification of degrammaticalization • Case studies • Conclusions What's new in grammaticalization?

3. Aims What's new in grammaticalization?

4. Three misunderstandings • Degrammaticalization is, or should be, the “reverse of grammaticalization” • Degrammaticalization, unlike grammaticalization, is a mere morphosyntactic change • Degrammaticalization, unlike grammaticalization, is exceptional and unclassifiable What's new in grammaticalization?

5. Preliminary definition • Based on: the cline of grammaticality content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix • Degrammaticalization is: a shift from right to left to an adjacent position • As in grammaticalization, the “constructional identity” is preserved What's new in grammaticalization?

6. Misunderstanding 1 Degrammaticalization is, or should be, the “reverse of grammaticalization” What's new in grammaticalization?

7. Representative quote • By this I mean a change that leads from the endpoint to the starting point of a potential grammaticalization and also shows the same intermediate stages. For instance, a change from a case suffix to a free postposition with the intermediate stage of a postpositional clitic would be an antigrammaticalization [Haspelmath 2004] What's new in grammaticalization?

8. Kinds of reversal • “Mirror-image reversal” [Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994] • “Type reversal” vs “token reversal” [Haspelmath 2004] • “Etymological category reversal” vs “Non-etymological category reversal” [Askedal 2007] What's new in grammaticalization?

9. Why there is no token reversal • Grammaticalization ~ ageing, erosion • “As we grow up, we become taller; in old age, we may shrink a little. However, we would not expect a child to start becoming shorter and shorter and finally return to its mother’s womb.” [Dahl: LINGUIST 7.1170 (1996)] • Mountains are eroded and washed down to the sea; mountain-creating mechanisms in no way involve sand grains flowing upstream followed by ‘de-erosion’ [Newmeyer 1998] What's new in grammaticalization?

10. TYPE REVERSAL

11. Why there are no dgz clines • Affixal degrammaticalization is rare for obvious reasons, and a prerequisite appears to be some kind of structural collapse (Plank’ (1995): Systemstörung) [Norde 2002] • A shift from function word to content item is difficult because the latter (N, V) typically inflect [Willis 2007, Fortson 2003] What's new in grammaticalization?

12. Summary • Degrammaticalization always entails type reversals, not token reversals • There are no degrammaticalization clines •  Misunderstanding 1 is based on bad (if any) definition of degrammaticalization • Degrammaticalization must be defined as a single shift from right to left on the cline of grammaticality What's new in grammaticalization?

13. Misunderstanding 2 Degrammaticalization, unlike grammaticalization, is a mere morphosyntactic change What's new in grammaticalization?

14. Representative quote • it will be shown that cases of alleged antigrammaticalization [= Haspelmath’s terms for degrammaticalization; MN] at best represent nothing more than an evolution from less to more morphological bonding. I will call such an evolution antimorphologization [Idiatov, in press] What's new in grammaticalization?

15. Decreased bondedness • Shift from right to left on cline of grammaticality always involves decreased bondedness content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix • In some cases of degrammaticalization, this is indeed all there is to it • In most cases however, semantic change is observed as well What's new in grammaticalization?

16. Lehmann’s parameters What's new in grammaticalization?

17. Lehmann’s parameters in degrammaticalization • Integrity: resemanticization and phonetic “strengthening” • Paradigmaticity: deparadigmaticization, recategorialization • Paradigmatic variability: deobligatorification • Structural scope: scope expansion • Bondedness: decreased bondedness • Syntagmatic variability: increased syntactic freedom What's new in grammaticalization?

18. Word of caution • Not all degrammaticalization parameters apply to all types or examples of degrammaticalization! • But then: neither do all grammaticalization parameters apply to all grammaticalizations • Remember Kuryłowicz’s definition: “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.” [Kuryłowicz 1975 [1965]] What's new in grammaticalization?

19. Summary • Although decreasing bondedness is a defining characteristic of degrammaticalization, it is, in most cases, by no means the only mechanism involved • Misunderstanding 2 is based on a very limited number of degrammaticalizations, or an erroneous interpretation of them • Degrammaticalizations need to be subdivided into different types (as do, for that matter, grammaticalizations) What's new in grammaticalization?

20. Misunderstanding 3 Degrammaticalization, unlike grammaticalization, is exceptional and unclassifiable What's new in grammaticalization?

21. Representative quote • The examples of degrammaticalization discussed in the preceding sections […] are representative of the quality of examples adduced in the literature. One cannot avoid the conclusion that those who wish to argue against unidirectionality of grammaticalization are amazingly sloppy in the selection and analysis of their examples. If one subtracts those alleged examples of degrammaticalization that for one reason or another miss the target, then very few actual cases of degrammaticalization remain. They are not “myriad” (Janda 2001:299), but closer to a proportion of 1 : 99 with historical cases of grammaticalization. [Lehmann 2004] What's new in grammaticalization?

22. The GZ-DGZ ratio • “Say in the course of your work you have found 542 changes that confirm a direction, and none that don’t. Question is, 542 out of what? Does a UD-believer’s inability to find the counterexamples, and/or the observed frequency of the confirming instances, reflect a ‘real’ property of the domain or merely the accidental tendentiousness of a chosen database? Note that not finding things is an argumentum ex silentio, which is not at the top of anybody’s hierarchy of epistemic goodness.” [Lass 2000] • Still, we can safely assume that degrammaticalization is (far) less frequent (which does not make it any less interesting) What's new in grammaticalization?

23. Summary • Misunderstanding 3 is understandable to some extent as degrammaticalization is indeed less frequent, and less cross-linguistically regular, than grammaticalization •  As a result, degrammaticalization is thought to be unclassifiable •  A framework for classifying degrammaticalizations needs to be developed What's new in grammaticalization?

24. Classifying degrammaticalization • Andersen 2006: four levels of observation • 1: Content • 2: Content syntax • 3: Morphosyntax • 4: Expression What's new in grammaticalization?

25. Changes in content • 1.1. Grammation: a change by which an expression through Reanalysis is ascribed grammatical content (change from any other […] content to grammatical content). • 1.2. Regrammation: a change by which a grammatical expression through reanalysis is ascribed different grammatical content (change within and among grammatical paradigms). • 1.3. Degrammation: a change by which an expression through reanalysis loses grammatical content (change from grammatical content to other […] content). What's new in grammaticalization?

26. Changes in content syntax • 2.1. Upgrading: a change from dependent to head or an enlargement of scope scope usually decreases • 2.2. Downgrading: a change from head to dependent or a scope diminution What's new in grammaticalization?

27. Changes in morphosyntax • 3.1. Bond weakening (emancipation) (affix  clitic, clitic  word, compound word  phrase). • 3.2. Bond strengthening (integration) (phrase  word, word  clitic, clitic  affix). What's new in grammaticalization?

28. Changes in expression • 4.1. Reduction. • 4.2. Elaboration. What's new in grammaticalization?

29. Framework Classifying degrammaticalizations: Andersen’s model and Lehmann’s parameters combined What's new in grammaticalization?

30. Changes in content • Degrammation: a change by which an expression through reanalysis loses grammatical content (change from grammatical content to other […] content). • PARAMETERS: • resemanticization What's new in grammaticalization?

31. Changes in content syntax • Context reduction: use in fewer contexts; scope increases • PARAMETERS: • deparadigmaticization • deobligatorification • scope expansion What's new in grammaticalization?

32. Changes in morphosyntax • Bond weakening (emancipation) (affix  clitic, clitic  word, function word  lexical item) • PARAMETERS: • decreased bondedness (affix > clitic > unbound function word) • increased syntactic freedom (function word > lexical item) • recategorialization (function word > lexical item) What's new in grammaticalization?

33. Changes in expression • Elaboration • PARAMETERS: • phonetic strengthening What's new in grammaticalization?

34. Proposal for classification: 3 basic types Degrammaticalization is observed at the: • Content level: shift from grammatical content to lexical content (resemanticization), which goes hand in hand with the acquisition of grammatical features such as inflection (recategorialization) • Content-syntactic level: shift from “more grammatical” to “less grammatical”, movement out of inflectional paradigms (deparadigmaticization and deobligatorification) which goes hand in hand with the expansion of syntactic scope • Morphosyntactic level: a shift from bound morpheme (affix, clitic) to free morpheme, or an increase in syntactic freedom, without any change in content What's new in grammaticalization?

35. Implicational hierarchy • A level 1degrammaticalization also involves changes at levels 2 and 3 • Alevel 2 degrammaticalization also involves change at level 3 (i.e. decreased bondedness) but no change at level 1 (i.e. no acquisition of lexical content) • A level 3 degrammaticalization involves no changes at the other levels • Elaboration (phonetic strengthening) may or may not be involved in any of the three types What's new in grammaticalization?

36. Selected case studies • The s-genitive (English and Continental Scandinavian): word-final affix > phrase-final enclitic determiner • Swedish –er: from inflectional case suffix to derivational nominalization suffix • Irish muid: from verb suffix to pronoun • Northern Saami haga: from case suffix to postposition • Norwegian infinitival å: from clitic to free morpheme • Pennsylvania German wotte: from modal auxiliary to lexical verb • Dutch tig / German zig: from numeral suffix to independent indefinite numeral to intensifying adverb What's new in grammaticalization?

37. Classification of case studies • Level 1: Pennsylvania German wotte; first stage of Dutch tig / German zig • Level 2: The s-genitive; Swedish derivative er • Level 3: Irish muid; Northern Saami haga; Norwegian infinitival å • Degrammaticalization: superordinate term What's new in grammaticalization?

38. Acceptability • Level 1 degrammaticalization: most acceptable, since it itvolved changes on all levels (cf. misunderstanding 1) • Level 2 degrammaticalization: less acceptable, either because it does not result in lexical items (cf. misunderstanding 1) or is misinterpreted as mere decreased bondedness (cf. misunderstanding 2) • Level 3 degrammaticalization: least acceptable What's new in grammaticalization?

39. Conclusions • A cline-based definition of degrammaticalization is insufficient •  a more fine-grained framework is needed to describe and classify degrammaticalizations • A better understanding of degrammaticalization and its subtypes will hopefully increase its acceptability as a distinct type of change, instead of being the “leftover crap” of grammaticalization studies What's new in grammaticalization?

40. THANK YOU What's new in grammaticalization?