Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue
(2012) New Reflections on Grammaticalization 5 — Location: Edinburgh (16.July.2012)
Files
No attached file found for this publication.
Details
- Authors
- Abstract
- Whether the diachronic evolution of discourse markers (DMs) should be accounted for in terms of grammaticalization and/or pragmaticalization is a question that has given rise to a number of diverging views (see e.g. Ocampo 2006, Degand & Simon-Vandenbergen 2011). If we agree on the standard definition that grammaticalization is “the change whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions, and once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions” (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 18), we need to agree on what these grammatical functions are, and eventually on what constitutes grammar. Two extremes can be distinguished: the “narrow” view vs. the “broad” view of grammaticalization. According to the former (e.g. Waltereit 2006), DMs are not an instance of grammaticalization because they do not comply to Lehmann’s (1995) grammaticalization parameters. This presupposes that these grammaticalization parameters are criterial in defining what is grammatical. According to the “broad” view (e.g. Diewald 2006, 2011), pragmatic functions are genuinely grammatical functions which are indispensable for the organization of spoken dialogic discourse, so the emergence of DMs should be viewed in terms of grammaticalization proper. Hence, the broadness of the view of grammaticalization seems to depend on the broadness of the definition of grammar.Yet, the picture becomes blurred when we consider a number of in-between positions. Erman and Kotsinas (1993), for instance, argue that some DMs undergo grammaticalization, while others do not. They see two possible paths: (i) from lexical item to grammatical marker to DM where pragmaticalization presupposes grammaticalization; (ii) from lexical item directly into DM where pragmaticalization does not require an intermediate stage of grammaticalization. Thus, grammaticalization and pragmaticalization are two different processes, where pragmaticalization might in some cases take over from grammaticalization (see also Boye and Harder 2010). Other views seem to consider pragmaticalization as a subprocess of grammaticalization (Dostie 2004, Wischer 2000), or extend the notion of grammaticalization to include DMs as less prototypical cases (Traugott 1995), the main argument being that this would “release us from the necessity of making a binary decision” whether particular cases should be included in the category of grammaticalization and “ “allow us to focus on the similarities with prototypical grammaticalization rather than on the differences” (Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen 2002: 357). In our view, the above theoretical debate seems to depend on several factors that can be formulated in terms of the following research questions: (1) Where do we draw the line between grammar and pragmatics? (2) How crucial are the different criteria proposed in the literature for prototypical cases of grammaticalization? Can we dismiss certain criteria as non-critical? (3) Is it the case that some DMs are instances of grammaticalization while others are not? Do we need to distinguish between formal types? In this presentation, we investigate whether the different positions encountered in the literature can be brought back to diverging visions regarding the conceptualization of grammar, or whether other factors play a role. Per vision, we will try to distill the proponents’ view on grammar on the basis of the parameters, criteria or definitions given. This confrontation should help us answer the question whether grammaticalization and pragmaticalization are variants of a same process or different processes that are linguistically motivated.
- Affiliations
Citations
Degand, L., & Evers-Vermeul, J. (2012). Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. New Reflections on Grammaticalization 5, Edinburgh. https://hdl.handle.net/2078.5/241793