Читать книгу Multiple Preverbs in Ancient Indo-European Languages - Chiara Zanchi - Страница 24

The concept of grammaticalization is grounded on the dichotomy of “lexical” vs. “grammatical” forms. However, grammaticalization studies contributed to blurring this clear-cut distinction (e.g. Lehmann 1985, 1995[1982]; Hopper & Traugott 1993; DeLancey 2001). In assuming a continuum between lexicon and grammar, most versions of grammaticalization theory go hand in hand with functionalist and usage-based models of language, including Cognitive Grammar (Narrog & Heine 2011: 9; Section 2.1).

As with the term gradualness, the term gradience – here regarded as a synchronic phenomenon relating to the continuum of categoriality and grammaticalness (Traugott & Trusdale 2010: 22) – allows for a two-fold interpretation. To begin with, the members of a certain category do not fit equally into that category; rather, there can be better or worse representatives of the said category. This interpretation of gradience involves only a single category. In contrast, the second interpretation involves at least two categories, which are not understood as discrete and separated by clear-cut boundaries, but instead as constituting a continuum. Going back to the traditional dichotomy between lexicon and grammar, as certain as it is that there do exist linguistic elements that are either clearly grammatical (e.g. case inflections) or clearly lexical (e.g. nouns and verbs), it can be difficult to draw a sharp line dividing the categories of grammatical and lexical forms. Rather, linguistic forms are likely to be placed on a continuum of grammaticality and, accordingly, to be given a degree of grammaticality (cf. further the discussion on prototypical categories and prototypes at Section 2.3.1). Thus, one and the same linguistic element can be polysemous, in that it simultaneously expresses different lexical meanings, and also serves grammatical functions. In such cases, a number of scholars speak of “polygrammaticalization” (e.g. Craig 1991), whereby a single lexical item gives rise to multiple distinct paths of development.

It is important to note that lexical morphemes develop into grammatical morphemes, but also that specific grammatical morphemes tend to emerge regularly from specific lexical sources cross-linguistically. Thus, grammaticalization is based on non-random linguistic sources (e.g. Traugott 1988; Givón 1979; Bybee 1988; Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994; Heine et. al. 1991; various papers in Traugott & Heine 1991a, 1991b). For example, future tense constructions frequently develop from verbs that originally mean ‘want’, ‘go’, or ‘have’. One such case is found in the Romance languages, in which the emergence of synthetic future conjugations results from the univerbation of the auxiliary habere ‘have’ with an infinitive (e.g. It. canterò ‘I will sing’ < Vulg.Lat. cantare:INF habeo:PRS.1SG, which originally means ‘to sing’ + ‘I have’; cf. Benveniste 1968; Hopper & Traugott 1993). Causative morphemes regularly develop from serialized or complement-taking verbs with meanings like ‘make’, ‘give’ or ‘send’ (DeLancey 2001). Such systematic developments also suggest that grammatical functions must include a portion of semantic content, rather than being purely structural, which is one of the main claims of Cognitive Grammar (cf. Section 2.1).1

In addition, as all these developments are gradual (cf. Section 2.2.3.1), there must be a diachronic stage in which a given form shows multiple functions, and thus displays an intermediate and uncertain categorial status (cf. the discussions on Vedic and Homeric Greek preverbs in Chapters 4 and 5). However, the categorial status of such items is uncertain or ambiguous only from the linguists’ standpoint, not from that of speakers, who naturally employ a certain form or a certain construction with its different meanings and functions. Therefore, not only can categories be said to be non-discrete, but they are also not even a priori given to linguists; rather, linguistic categories emerge from speakers’ language use and can be abstracted by the linguists through data observation (cf. Haspelmath 2007b).