The interaction of Components in an FDG account of grammaticalization

8/11/2019 The interaction of Components in an FDG account of grammaticalization

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-interaction-of-components-in-an-fdg-account-of-grammaticalization 1/8

1

The interaction of Components in a Functional Discourse Grammar account ofgrammaticalization

Riccardo Giomi

University of Lisbon ILTEC (Instituto de LinguísticaTeórica e Computacional – Lisbon)

1. Introduction

It is nowadays quite generally accepted that the main force behind the diachronic process ofgrammaticalization should be seen in the conventionalization of an inference: constructionsacquire new meanings in specific contexts by way of an inference and gradually come to beused in more and more contexts as that former inference becomes conventionalized. Thispaper explores the idea that the usage-based nature of grammaticalization can be felicitouslyaccounted for within the framework of Functional Discourse Grammar (Hengeveld andMackenzie 2008), a typologically-based theory of language structure which conceives thegrammar as one component of a wider model of verbal communication, whereby theGrammatical Component is always triggered by a Conceptual Component and constantlyinteracts with a Contextual Component . Taken together with FDG’s explicit account of thegrammar-internal, structural aspects of the phenomenon, the proposed approach aims to offera comprehensive model of grammaticalization, allowing for a formal representation of the

whole grammaticalization process – from the synchronic, inferential mechanisms which triggerit up to the ultimate outcomes of the functional and formal evolution of the grammaticalizeditem.

2. Grammaticalization in FDG

FDG recognizes four separate but interrelated levels of grammatical analysis, dealing withpragmatics (Interpersonal Level), semantics (Representational Level), morphosyntax(Morphosyntactic Level) and phonology (Phonological Level). These are organized in a top-

down fashion in such a way that, in language production, each level governs all of thefollowing ones. The Grammatical Component as a whole is inserted into a wider model whichis designed in accordance with both psycholinguistic and empirical evidence. On the one hand,the grammar is triggered by a Conceptual Component which elaborates pre-linguisticcommunicative intentions to be translated into linguistic structures (see Levelt 1989); on theother, it is flanked by a Contextual Component which stores the extra-linguistic knowledgethat has relevance for the selection of appropriate grammatical items and structures, as wellas the linguistic information received from the Grammatical Component in the course of theexchange. The general outline of FDG is presented in Figure 1.



2

As to their internal organization, all levels share a layered structure whereby hierarchicallyhigher linguistic units consist of (a configuration of) units of a lower layer and can be combinedwith other units on the basis of the language-specific frames and templates available to theoperations of Formulation and Encoding. This multi-level, layered organization allows FDG to

draw strong predictions as regards both the functional and the formal evolution of linguisticexpressions. These predictions can be summarized as follows:

1. functionally, a grammaticalized item will typically (i) expand its scope from lower to higherlayers at the Representational or at the Interpersonal Level (Hengeveld 1989, 2011) and/or(ii) develop from a representational into an interpersonal marker (Hengeveld and Wanders2007, Souza 2009);

2. formally, grammaticalization follows the cline lexeme > lexical operator > operator (Keizer2007), which, especially in fusional and agglutinating languages, tends to be reflected as a

movement from larger to smaller units at the Morphosyntactic and Phonological Levels.



3

By capturing the unidirectionality of grammaticalization at both the functional and the formalside, FDG gains a decisive advantage over other functionally-oriented theories of languagechange: while these typically explain grammaticalization as directly rooted in the cognitiveendowment of human beings, FDG accounts show how grammaticalization patterns reflect thesame general linguistic structure as is observable synchronically across the languages of theworld, thus providing evidence for the existence of grammar-internal constraints on thepossible patterns. What has not yet been investigated in an FDG perspective are themechanisms which motivate individual steps in the meaning change of a construction,triggering the process of grammaticalization (in which, it is commonly assumed, contentchange precedes formal change).

As is maintained in the pragmatically-oriented literature on grammaticalization (seeHopper and Traugott 2003: 71-99 for an overview), these mechanisms ultimately consist insynchronic inferential processes which, as an effect of frequency, may become “firmlyassociated” with a construction (Bybee 2006: 725) and thus give rise to new grammatical

meanings. Drawing on these presuppositions, the paper suggests that the conventionalizationof formerly inferential meanings is adequately described in terms of the multi-componentarchitecture of FDG, provided that the interaction between the Grammatical, Conceptual andContextual Components is re-interpreted in a broader and more dynamic fashion than isassumed in the current model. This extended FDG model of grammaticalization rests on threebasic assumptions: (i) grammaticalization can be broken down into a sequence of stages,which differ from each other as to the role played by each component in the selection (andinterpretation) of the grammaticalizing construction; (ii) the Contextual Component can beunderstood as an “implicit common ground” which is shared and co-constructed by the speechparticipants as the exchange unfolds (Mackenzie 2012: 427); (iii) the whole multi-component

system postulated by FDG does not work in isolation, but necessarily cooperates with ageneral epistemological model of human inferencing, with information being sent back andforth between the linguistic and the non-linguistic modules whenever this is needed for theproduction and interpretation of utterances.

3. Grammar and context in an extended FDG model of grammaticalization

The approach proposed here is largely inspired by Heine’s (2002) context-pragmatic model ofgrammaticalization, which splits the process of functional change into four stages, each of

which is defined in terms of a different relation between the new (or “target”) meaning andthe type of context in which this meaning occurs:



4

In bridging contexts the construction still expresses its older (“source”) conventional

semantics, but a new meaning emerges by way of an inference suggested by particularlinguistic and/or situational factors. The new meaning can thus be conceived of as a function ofan underlying grammatical meaning plus certain specific features of the context in which theconstruction is employed (see Comrie 1985: 26): only an inference of this kind, which affectsthe meaning of one specific construction (and not that of the whole utterance), may trigger aprocess of grammaticalization. One of the examples proposed by Heine (2002: 90) concernsthe grammaticalization of Swahili taka (‘want’) + infinitive into a “ proximative aspect” 1 marker,which starts out in bridging contexts characterized by “ a situation where a human subjectreferent cannot really be assumed to ‘want’ what is described by the relevant predication.” Aliteral interpretation is possible but unlikely, and the proximative meaning is foregrounded byvirtue of its greater contextual relevance:

(1) A- na - taka ku- fahe- PRES- want INF- die(i) ‘he wants to die’,

(ii) ‘he is about to die’

In an extended model of FDG, such inferential meanings find their place in the ContextualComponent, representing the output of a context-induced reinterpretation process whichtakes place as the interpersonal and representational structures generated by the grammarare incorporated into the common ground. This new meaning corresponds to the actualcommunicative intention of the speaker – it is this meaning, and not the lexical one, that s/heaims to communicate – and thus should be modelled within the Conceptual Component aswell. Finally, the linguistic and/or contextual factors which make the target meaning morelikely than the source one must also be included in the Contextual Component, as it is the

1 In FDG, the proximative is analysed as a subtype of future tense rather than as an aspectual category.



5

presence of such elements in the shared common ground that licenses the reinterpretation ofthe construction. In the case at stake, the relevant piece of information is the generalassumption that human beings do not normally want to die, stemming from encyclopaedicknowledge, which is incorporated into the context and computed by the ConceptualComponent in elaborating a non-literal communicative strategy. The whole process isrepresented in Figure 3. 2

In the switch-context stage, the target meaning is no longer derived inferentially – it cannot becancelled – but still needs to be supported by precise contextual and/or co-textual conditions;these same conditions are incompatible with the older meaning, which obviously rules out anygrammatical analysis of the construction in terms of that meaning. This is thus the crucial stepin grammaticalization, whereby the former inference starts conventionalizing and theconstruction comes to function as a grammatical marker encoding a new semantic or

2 Where (e) stands for Event and (x) for any concrete entity or individual. The figure only includes thelinguistic units and processes which are relevant to the inference foregrounding the target meaning.



6

interpersonal category. For the Swahili proximative, this stage is represented by sentenceswith inanimate subject referents:

(3) M- ti u- na- taka ku- angukaC3- tree C3- PRES- PROX INF- fall‘the tree is about to fall’ (Heine 2002: 90)

Again, we have a long-term information (the inanimacy of the referent) which accesses theContextual Component, enabling the emergence of the proximative meaning. But now thisbackground information itself rules out the original volitional meaning of taka , so that the newmeaning provides the only possible interpretation, and as such must be represented inside theGrammatical Component. The construction now functions as a newly grammaticalizedrepresentational marker, which directly translates the communicative intention to describethe immediateness of the event, but can only be selected when the relevant contextual

condition is satisfied. It is thus the grammatical operation of Formulation, and not theConceptual Component, which computes the relevant information received from theContextual Component. Schematically,



7

Finally, in stage IV the target meaning becomes fully conventional, which results in “context

generalization” (see Heine and Kuteva 2002: 2), i.e. in the loosening and loss of the linguisticand contextual constraints present on that meaning in the previous stages. According to Heine,the Swahili proximative marker has not achieved this final stage of grammaticalization, butother African languages such as Tswana (Bantu) and Chamus (Nilotic) have done so: in theselanguages, a de-volitive proximative marker can occur in any kind of context, includingcontexts with human subjects which may or not be compatible with a lexical interpretation. Asto the FDG treatment of such highly grammaticalized markers, there is no need to invoke abroader conception of the interplay between components than is usual in the standard model,since Formulation no longer needs to consult any specific linguistic or contextual informationin order to select the operator. In other words, fully grammatical meaning is satisfactorilyaccounted for by the theoretical apparatus of standard FDG.

In conclusion, the main advantage of the proposed model is that it offers a unified account of

both the unidirectionality of functional and formal patterns of grammaticalization – enlightening their relation to general linguistic structure – and the pragmatic motivations ofgrammaticalization processes – thanks to the application of the multi-component approach tothe emergence and conventionalization of new meanings. In the final paper, I will furtherelaborate on the theoretical implications of this proposal and illustrate the workings of theextended FDG model with the analysis of a number of concrete cases of grammaticalization,with especial focus on TAM markers.

Abbreviations

C3 noun class 3INF infinitivePRES present tensePROX proximative

References

Bybee, Joan (2006), “From usage to grammar: the mind's response to repetition”, Language 82.4, 711-733.

Comrie, Bernard (1985), Tense . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Heine, Bernd (2002), “On the role of context in grammaticalization”, i n Ilse Wischer and Gabriele

Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization . (Typological Studies in Language, 49.)Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins, 83-101.

Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva (2002), World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Hengeveld, Kess (1989), “Layers and operators in Functional Grammar”, Journal of Linguistics 25.1, 127-

157.Hengeveld, Kees (2011), “The grammaticalization of Tense, Mood and Aspect”, in Bernd Heine and

Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 580-594.

Hengeveld, Kees and J. Lachlan Mackenzie (2008), Functional Discourse Grammar . Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.



8

Hengeveld, Kees and Gerry Wanders (2007), “Adverbial conjunctions in Functional Discourse Grammar”,

in Mike Hannay and Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Structural-functional studies in English grammar: In

honor of Lachlan Mackenzie . Amsterdam: Benjamins, 211-227.Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott (2003), Grammaticalization (2nd edition). Cambridge: CUP.Keizer, M. Evelien (2007), “The grammatical -lexical distinction in Functional Discourse Grammar”, Alfa -

Revista de Lingüística 51.2: 35-56.Levelt, Willem J. M. (1989), Speaking . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (2012), “Cognitive adequacy in a dialogic Functional Discourse Grammar”,

Language Sciences 34: 421-432.Souza, Edson R. F. (2009), Gramaticalização dos itens lingüísticos assim, já e aí no Português Brasileiro :

um estudo sob a perspectiva da Gramática Discursivo-Funcional . PhD Dissertation, UniversidadeEstadual de Campinas (Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem).

Documents

The interaction of Components in an FDG account of grammaticalization