a hierarchical approach to grammaticalization
DESCRIPTION
A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization. Kees Hengeveld. Research questions. Can Functional Discourse Grammar serve as a framework to predict, describe and explain processes of grammaticalization? What are the relevant processes of contentive change? - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization
Kees Hengeveld
![Page 2: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Research questions
• Can Functional Discourse Grammar serve as a framework to predict, describe and explain processes of grammaticalization?
• What are the relevant processes of contentive change?
• What are the relevant processes of formal change?
• How do these processes interact?
2
![Page 3: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Contents
1. Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG)2. Contentive change in FDG3. Formal change in FDG4. Contentive change and formal change in
FDG5. Conclusions
3
![Page 4: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
1. Functional Discourse Grammar
![Page 5: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Conceptual Component
Contextual
Component
Articulation
Expression Level
Prosodic Contours,Sounds
Frames, Lexemes, Operators
Templates, Grammatical elements
Pragmatics, Semantics
Formulation
Encoding
Morphosyntax, Phonology
Grammar
Output
![Page 6: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Conceptual Component
Contextual
Component
Articulation
Expression Level
Prosodic Contours,Sounds
Frames, Lexemes, Operators
Templates, Grammatical elements
Pragmatics, Semantics
Formulation
Encoding
Morphosyntax, Phonology
Grammar
Output
![Page 7: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Conceptual Component
Contextual
Component
Articulation
Expression Level
Prosodic Contours,Sounds
Frames, Lexemes, Operators
Templates, Grammatical elements
Pragmatics, Semantics
Formulation
Encoding
Morphosyntax, Phonology
Grammar
Output
![Page 8: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Frames, Lexemes,Primary operators
Templates,Auxiliaries, Secondary operators
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Formulation
Morphosyntactic Encoding
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Encoding
Phonological Level
Prosodic patterns,Morphemes, Tertiary operators
![Page 9: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Frames, Lexemes, Primary operators
Templates,Auxiliaries, Secondary operators
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Formulation
Morphosyntactic Encoding
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Encoding
Phonological Level
Prosodic patterns,Morphemes, Tertiary operators
![Page 10: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Frames, Lexemes, Primary operators
Templates,Auxiliaries, Secondary operators
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Formulation
Morphosyntactic Encoding
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Encoding
Phonological Level
Prosodic patterns,Morphemes, Tertiary operators
![Page 11: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Frames, Lexemes, Primary operators
Templates,Auxiliaries, Secondary operators
Interpersonal Level
Representational Level
Formulation
Morphosyntactic Encoding
Morphosyntactic Level
Phonological Encoding
Phonological Level
Prosodic patterns,Morphemes, Tertiary operators
![Page 12: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Interpersonal Level
(π M1: [ Move
(π A1: [ Discourse Act
(π F1) Illocution
(π P1)S Speaker
(π P2)A Addressee
(π C1: [ Communicated Content
(π T1)Φ Ascriptive Subact
(π R1)Φ Referential Subact
] (C1)Φ Communicated Content
] (A1)Φ Discourse Act
] (M1)) Move
![Page 13: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Representational Level(π p1: Propositional Content
(π ep1: Episode
(π e1: State-of-Affairs
[(π f1: [ Configurational Property
(π f1) Lexical Property
(π x1)Φ Individual
] (f1)) Configurational Property
(e1)Φ]) State-of-Affairs
(ep1)) Episode
(p1)) Propositional Content
![Page 14: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
2. Contentive change
![Page 15: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Scope increase (layers)
Semantic units develop diachronically from lower to higher layers, and not the other way round (Hengeveld 1989)
Representational Level: p ← ep ← e ← f
15
![Page 16: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Scope increase (layers)
Spanish haber ‘have’ (Olbertz 1993)
1. resultative, now replaced by tener:
Tengo prepara-d-a unacena fenomenal.
have.PRS.1.SG prepare-ANT-F.SG INDEF.SG.F meal(F)terrific
‘I have a terrific meal ready (for you).’
16
![Page 17: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Scope increase (layers)
Spanish haber ‘have’
2. anterior
Había / he / habré preparado have.PST.1.SG/ have.PRS.1.SG / have.FUT.1.SGprepare-ANT
una cena fenomenal.INDEF.SG.F meal(F) terrific
‘I had/have/will have prepared a terrific meal.’
17
![Page 18: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Scope increase (layers)
Spanish haber ‘have’
3. (recent) past
Me he levanta-do a las siete. 1.SG.REFL AUX.PRS.1.SG get.up-ANT at the seven‘I got up at seven o’clock.’
18
![Page 19: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Scope increase (layers)
Spanish haber ‘have’
4. mirative (Ecuadorian Highland Spanish, Olbertz 2009)
Mire, compró estos, los probé ... y ..
Look bought.PF.3SG these them tried.PF.1SG and ¡han sido peras!have.3PL been pears
‘Look, she bought these, I tasted them ... and ... they are pears!’
19
![Page 20: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Scope increase (layers)
Spanish haber ‘have’
p ← ep ← e ← fp ← ep ← e ← fp ← ep ← e ← fp ← ep ← e ← f
20
![Page 21: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Scope increase (layers)
Pragmatic units develop diachronically from lower to higher layers, and not the other way round
Interpersonal Level: M ← A ← C ← R ← T
21
![Page 22: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Scope increase (layers)
sort of (Hengeveld & Keizer 2009)
I keep sort of thinking about that and coming back to it. (Google)
I think I can more or less understand in general terms what happens up until sort of the impressionist time, maybe just post-impressionist. (BNC)
McCain backtracks on gay adoption, sort of. (Google)
22
![Page 23: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Scope increase (layers)
sort of
M ← A ← C ← R ← TM ← A ← C ← R ← TM ← A ← C ← R ← T
23
![Page 24: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Scope increase (levels)
Semantic units may develop diachronically into pragmatic units, and not the other way round (Hengeveld & Wanders 2007)
Interpersonal Level↑
Representational Level
24
![Page 25: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Scope increase (levels)
RL: Providing food assistance is not easy because the infrastructure is lacking.
IL: Watch out, because there is a bull in the field!
RL: Providing food assistance is not easy exactly because the infrastructure is lacking.
IL: *Watch out, exactly because there is a bull in the field!
25
![Page 26: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Scope increase (levels)
Semantic units may develop diachronically into pragmatic units, and not the other way round
Interpersonal Level↑
Representational Level
26
![Page 27: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Scope increase (levels)
Semantic units may develop diachronically into pragmatic units, and not the other way round
Interpersonal Level↑
Representational Level
27
![Page 28: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
From lexeme to operator
Goossens (1985), Olbertz (1998), and Keizer (2007).
π ← Lexeme
28
![Page 29: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
From lexeme to operator
fail to (Mackenzie 2009)
π ← LexemeHe failed to win the race.The bomb failed to explode.
fail (fc)(neg fc)
29
![Page 30: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
From lexeme to operator
decir (Olbertz 2005, 2007; Grández Ávila 2010)
π ← LexemeThey say (dicen que) Juan is ill.Juan apparently (dizque) is ill.
decir (C) (Rep C)
30
![Page 31: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG
31
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 32: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: haber
32
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 33: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: haber
33
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 34: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: haber
34
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 35: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: haber
35
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 36: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: haber
36
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 37: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: haber
37
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 38: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: haber
38
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 39: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: haber
39
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 40: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: haber
40
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 41: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: sort of
41
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 42: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: sort of
42
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 43: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: sort of
43
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 44: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: sort of
44
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 45: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: sort of
45
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 46: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: sort of
46
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 47: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: sort of
47
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 48: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: because
48
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 49: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: because
49
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 50: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Contentive change in FDG: because
50
Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓Interpersonal Level M ← A ← C ← R ← T
↑Representational Level
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Lexicon Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex
![Page 51: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
3. Formal change in FDG
![Page 52: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Main issue
There cannot be a one-to-one relation between formal changes and layers/levels, as lexical elements may enter the grammatical system at any layer/level
52
![Page 53: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Grammaticalization scales
inflectional affix < clitic < grammatical word < content item
but: isolating vs. agglutinative vs. fusional languages
53
![Page 54: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
A scale of formal change in FDG
Keizer (2007)
lexemes (xi: – man – (xi): – old – (xi))
‘the/an old man’lexical operators (that xi: – man – (xi))
‘that man’operators (1 xi: – man – (xi))
‘a man’
54
![Page 55: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Formal categories in FDG
Criteria:
lexemes: modification:an extremely old man
lexical operators:focalization(which man?) THAT
manoperators: neither
55
![Page 56: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
A grammaticalization scale in FDG
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
56
![Page 57: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
4. Contentive and formal change in FDG
![Page 58: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Linking the scales
Each of the contentive parameters can be linked to the formal parameter to provide a more coherent view of the interplay between contentive and formal aspects of grammaticalization processes
58
![Page 59: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Linking the scales
contentive scale:p ← ep ← e ← f
formal scale:operators < lexical operators < lexemes
As elements move up the contentive scale, they cannot move down the formal scale
59
![Page 60: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Linking the scales
Allowed:
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
60
![Page 61: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Linking the scales
Not allowed:
p ← ep ← e ← fc ← fl
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
61
![Page 62: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Linking the scales
contentive scale:M ← A ← C ← R ← T
formal scale:operators < lexical operators < lexemes
As elements move up the contentive scale, they cannot move down the formal scale
62
![Page 63: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Linking the scales
Allowed:
M ← A ← C ← R ← T
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
63
![Page 64: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Linking the scales
Not allowed:
M ← A ← C ← R ← T
operators < lexical operators < lexemes
64
![Page 65: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
5. Conclusion
![Page 66: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Conclusions 1
FDG offers a framework within which known processes of grammaticalization can be captured
Contentive changes are restricted in terms of the hierarchical relations between layers and levels
Formal changes can be captured in a crosslinguistically valid way by adopting Keizer’s grammaticalization scale rather than traditional ones
66
![Page 67: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Conclusions 2
Contentive and formal scales can be linked by defining a relative rather than absolute relationship between them
67
![Page 68: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568142d8550346895daf3106/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
this presentation downloadable fromhome.hum.uva.nl/oz/hengeveldp