Читать книгу Multiple Preverbs in Ancient Indo-European Languages - Chiara Zanchi - Страница 21

While undergoing serious criticism, the grammaticalization theory has also extended its traditional scope of application in different directions. While in the 20^th century the grammaticalization theory was mostly confined to grammatical, semantic, and pragmatic analyses carried out by functionally-oriented scholars from Europe and North America, it is now employed as a theoretical framework in phonology, language acquisition, and sociolinguistics, as well as in studies performed by formal linguists in regions including East Asia and South America (Narrog & Heine 2011: 2–3). This diversity had the consequence of multiplying the number of approaches to and definitions of grammaticalization (cf. Traugott 2010). One possible way to sort out these variations is by clustering the approaches into two main groups based on the inclusiveness/exclusiveness of grammaticalization.

The older and more restrictive approach to grammaticalization puts strong emphasis on the parameter of obligatorification (cf. e.g. Lehmann 1995[1982]; Haspelmath 2004), which implies reduction in transparadigmatic variability, increased dependency, and tightening of boundaries. Haspelmath’s (2004: 26) definition is often cited to exemplify this approach: “A grammaticalization is a diachronic change by which the parts of a constructional schema come to have stronger internal dependencies” (Haspelmath 2004: 26). Lehmann (2004: 155) also describes grammaticalization as a reduction of autonomy: “Grammaticalization of a linguistic sign is a process in which it loses in autonomy by becoming more subject to constraints of the linguistic system” (Lehmann 2004: 155). In both descriptive and theoretical literature on grammaticalization, this term is commonly understood in the narrow sense to denote a loss: loss of meaning, loss of phonology, and loss of independence.

By contrast, more inclusive approaches regard grammaticalization as an expansion of grammar, and generally as an enrichment of languages (cf. e.g. von Fintel 1995; DeLancey 2001; Himmelmann 2004; Brinton & Traugott 2005; Croft 2006). Among others, an advocate of this view is DeLancey (2001): “The word grammaticalization […] implies a process of becoming ‘grammatical.’ The reference can be taken as being to lexical morphemes becoming grammatical ones, or, more broadly, to any linguistic construct (a morpheme, a syntactic construction, or a discourse pattern) becoming part of the grammatical system of a language.” Importantly, in DeLancey’s view, grammaticalization not only affects morphemes, but also linguistic units embedded within greater constructions or patterns; in addition, it not only causes the development of morphology, but also of all structures of languages. Brinton & Traugott (2005: 99) adopt a similarly broad definition: “Grammaticalization is the change whereby in certain linguistic contexts speakers use parts of a construction with a grammatical function. Over time the resulting grammatical item may become more grammatical by acquiring more grammatical functions and expanding its host-classes.” Thus, to the foundational element of expansion, Brinton & Traugott add that of context expansion, or paradigmaticization. Croft’s (2006: 366) definition is even wider: grammaticalization is “the process by which grammar is created.” As Fischer (2011b) notes, a number of linguists even employ “grammaticalization” as a synonym for “change”, though not every linguistic change, for example sound change, can qualify as a grammaticalization.

The analysis of the developments of Indo-European preverbs can take advantage both of the inclusive and of the exclusive approach to grammaticalization outlined so far. Specifically, on the one hand, the criterion of obligatoriness is crucial for understanding the developments of Vedic and Homeric Greek preverbs (cf. Chapters 4 and 5). We will see that the occurrence of a preverb gains increasing obligatoriness to express certain types of spatial and non-spatial meanings. On the other hand, the wider approach, by taking into consideration semantic bleaching and the concomitant context expansion undergone by grammatical items, is of particular importance for Chapters 6 and 7, in which Old Church Slavic and Old Irish preverbs are analyzed.