Why is grammaticalization irreversible? : Linguistics Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: van der Auwera, Johan


IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 0.763
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.872
Rank 78 out of 179 in category Linguistics in the 2015 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Social Sciences Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.496
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 1.099
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.689

99,00 € / $149.00 / £75.00*

Online
ISSN
1613-396X
See all formats and pricing
Select Volume and Issue
Loading journal volume and issue information...

30,00 € / $42.00 / £23.00

Get Access to Full Text

Why is grammaticalization irreversible?

*Correspondence address: Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre Anthropologie, Inselstr. 22, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany.

Citation Information: Linguistics. Volume 37, Issue 6, Pages 1043–1068, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: 10.1515/ling.37.6.1043, February 2008

Publication History

Received:
1998-06-30
Revised:
1999-05-31
Published Online:
2008-02-20

Abstract

Grammaticalization, the change by which lexical categories become functional categories, is overwhelmingly irreversible. Prototypical functional categories never become prototypical lexical categories, and less radical changes against the general directionality of grammaticalization are extremely rare. Although the pervasiveness of grammaticalization has long been known, the question of why this change is irreversible has not been asked until fairly recently. However, no satisfactory explanation has been proposed so far. Irreversibility cannot be attributed to the lack of predictability, to the interplay of the motivating factors of economy and clarity, or to a preference for simple structures in language acquisition.

I propose an explanation that follows the general structure of Keller's (1994) invisible-hand theory: language change is shown to result from the cumulation of countless individual actions of speakers, which are not intended to change language, but whose side effect is change in a particular direction. Grammaticalization is a side effect of the maxim of extravagance, that is, speakers' use of unusually explicit formulations in order to attract attention. As these are adopted more widely in the speech community, they become more frequent and are reduced phonologically. I propose that degrammaticalization is by and large impossible because there is no counteracting maxim of “anti-extravagance,” and because speakers have no conscious access to grammaticalized expressions and thus cannot use them in place of less grammaticalized ones. This is thus a usage-based explanation, in which the notion of imperfect language acquisition as the locus of change plays no role.

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Marlou van Rijn
Transactions of the Philological Society, 2016, Page n/a
[2]
[3]
Muriel Norde and Kristel Van Goethem
Lingvisticae Investigationes, 2014, Volume 37, Number 2, Page 256
[4]
Tania Kuteva and Bernd Heine
WORD, 2004, Volume 55, Number 1, Page 37
[7]
Ashwini Deo
Annual Review of Linguistics, 2015, Volume 1, Number 1, Page 179
[9]
Ricardo Maldonado and Rocío Guzmán
Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2014, Volume 12, Number 2, Page 443
[10]
Kristel Van Goethem and Hendrik De Smet
Languages in Contrast, 2014, Volume 14, Number 2, Page 251
[11]
Levina Nyameye Abunya and Nana Aba Appiah Amfo
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 2013, Volume 45, Number 1, Page 126
[12]
Alison Sealey and Bob Carter
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 2014, Volume 44, Number 3, Page 268
[13]
Jenny Cheshire
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2013, Volume 17, Number 5, Page 608
[14]
Jenny Cheshire, David Adger, and Sue Fox
Lingua, 2013, Volume 126, Page 51
[15]
Bernard De Clerck and Timothy Colleman
Language Sciences, 2013, Volume 36, Page 147
[16]
Graeme Trousdale and Muriel Norde
Language Sciences, 2013, Volume 36, Page 32
[18]
Lyle Campbell
Language Sciences, 2000, Volume 23, Number 2-3, Page 113
[19]
Mahamane L. Abdoulaye
Journal of Pragmatics, 2007, Volume 39, Number 2, Page 232
[20]
Debra Ziegeler
Journal of Pragmatics, 2007, Volume 39, Number 5, Page 990
[21]
Julian Rentzsch
Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 2011, Volume 64, Number 4, Page 453
[22]
Mary T. Copple
Language Variation and Change, 2011, Volume 23, Number 02, Page 163
[23]
Lieselotte Brems and Kristin Davidse
English Studies, 2010, Volume 91, Number 2, Page 180
[24]
Anna Siewierska and Maria Papastathi
Linguistics, 2011, Volume 49, Number 3
[25]
FRED WEERMAN
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2011, Volume 14, Number 02, Page 149
[26]
[28]
Gerhard Jäger and Anette Rosenbach
Theoretical Linguistics, 2008, Volume 34, Number 2
[29]
Paolo Ramat
Linguistics, 2007, Volume 45, Number 2
[30]
DEBRA ZIEGELER
Folia Linguistica Historica, 2003, Volume 37, Number Historica vol. 24,1-2
[31]
Mira Načeva-Marvanová
Linguistica Pragensia, 2010, Volume 20, Number 1
[32]
VIRGINIE CONTI and MARIE-JOSÉ BÉGUELIN
Journal of French Language Studies, 2010, Volume 20, Number 03, Page 271
[34]
LIESELOTTE BREMS
English Language and Linguistics, 2010, Volume 14, Number 01, Page 83
[35]
MARTIN HASPELMATH
Linguistics, 2000, Volume 38, Number 4
[36]
ELAINE J. FRANCIS and ETSUYO YUASA
Journal of Linguistics, 2008, Volume 44, Number 01
[37]
Kate Beeching
Language Variation and Change, 2005, Volume 17, Number 02

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.