FORMULARIO DE EVALUACIÓN PARA HISTOPATOLOGIA PARA LEPRA Instructivo para el llenado

Much work from the Wrst decade of the twenty-Wrst century has emphasized the importance of context in grammaticalization (e.g. Heine 2002; Diewald 2002, 2006; Bybee 2003; Traugott 2003; Haspelmath 2004; Himmelmann 2004; Lehmann 2004; Brinton and Traugott 2005: 24V.; for a slightly earlier account see Hopper 1998). Himmelmann (2004: 31), for instance, observes that ‘major diagnostics’ for grammaticalization (bleaching, morphologization, phono- logical reduction) focus on the grammaticalizing element. But according to him (ibid.) ‘the unit to which grammaticization properly applies are construc- tions, not isolated lexical items’ (emphasis original). The context that needs to be considered ranges from the NP level (e.g. in the case of the grammaticaliza- tion of articles) to the clause level (e.g. in the case of the grammaticalization of adpositions) to the discourse level (in the case of the grammaticalization of clause linkers). Croft (2000: 162) explains the neglect of context in the early days of grammaticalization studies as follows: ‘Of course, it is precisely the speciWc, especially invariant, morphemes associated with the construction that are interpreted by the interlocutors as encoding the meaning character- istically associated with the construction as a whole . . . It is this fact that gives the impression that grammaticalization is a process aVecting individual morphemes (and the lexemes they are derived from).’ For example, in the case of English be going to, it is going to that is reduced (to gonna), because it is

(i) Ik heb dat steeds gezegd dat ik dat nog doen moet

I have that always said that I that still do must

‘I have always said that I still have to do that’

26 _{The shift from demonstrative to complementizer is problematic for the notorious parameter of} scope, but that is another matter (see section 3.5.2).

the most characteristic (and invariant) element of this construction, but it is only reduced in this context, not in others.

The role of context has been formalized in papers by Heine (2002) and Diewald (2002, 2006). In the following I will brieXy discuss Heine’s model, which distinguishes four stages in a grammaticalization process.27In Heine’s model, the meaning of a construction changes in three subsequent steps. Point of departure is the initial stage, at which there was only the original meaning. At the second stage, the ‘bridging context’, a new meaning (the ‘target meaning’) has arisen as a result of pragmatic inferencing. At the third stage, the ‘switch context’, the original meaning of the construction (the ‘source meaning’) has disappeared. At the fourth and Wnal stage, the target meaning becomes conventionalized and is no longer restricted to the context in which it initially appeared. One of Heine’s own examples will be used to illustrate these stages. This example concerns the German temporal adverb dabei (Heine 2002: 91V.), which developed the additional function of con- cessive marker. The four relevant stages are illustrated in (28).

(28) I. Karl geht schlafen; dabei tra¨gt er einen Schlafanzug. Karl goes sleep thereby wears he a pyjama ‘Karl is going to bed; (at that occasion) he is wearing pyjamas.’ II. Karl geht schlafen; dabei ist er gar nicht mu¨de

Karl goes sleep thereby he is at.all not tired ‘Karl is going to bed; still, he is not tired at all’ [target meaning] ‘Karl is going to bed; at that time he is not tired at all’

[source meaning] III. Karl geht schlafen; dabei geht er um diese Zeit

Karl goes sleep; thereby goes he at this time nie schlafen

never sleep

‘Karl is going to bed; although he never goes to bed at this time’ IV. Karl geht schlafen; dabei war er eben noch

Karl goes sleep; thereby was he just still u¨berhaupt nicht mu¨de

at.all not tired

‘Karl is going to bed; although a moment ago he was not tired at all’

27 _{Heine’s stages are primarily semantically based, while Diewald also takes morphosyntactic} properties of the contexts into account. Therefore, the stages Diewald distinguishes cannot be mapped onto Heine’s stages in a 1:1 fashion (Diewald 2002: 117), but that discussion falls outside the scope of this work.

At Stage I in (28) above, dabei is most likely to receive a temporal interpret- ation (of simultaneity), and it can occur both clause-initially and after the Wnite verb (er tra¨gt dabei einen Schlafanzug). At Stage II, the dabei-clause denotes a contrast, contradicting common experience (one does not nor- mally go to bed when one is not tired yet), and could be paraphrased by a concessive clause such as obwohl er gar nicht mu¨de ist ‘although he is not tired at all’. Stage II is a bridging context in that the temporal meaning (the source meaning) is still possible, if less plausible than the concessive meaning (the target meaning). At Stage III however, the temporal interpretation is ruled out, and the construction has ‘switched’ to the concessive meaning. At both Stage II and Stage III, dabei has become Wxed in clause-initial position. At Stage IV, Wnally, the concessive sense is no longer context-dependent (as it was at the preceding two stages): it can now be used in clauses in which simultaneity is explicitly ruled out by the adverbial eben noch ‘a moment ago’. A more recent approach to the role of context in grammaticalization is the integration of grammaticalization studies and construction grammar (see Traugott 2007, 2008; Trousdale 2008a; Trousdale, in prep., and references there). Below are two deWnitions of ‘construction’ in two of the main textbooks on construction grammar – a fairly narrow one (Goldberg 1995:4) in (29), and a more recent one by the same author (Goldberg 2006:5) in (30). The latter is obviously less restrictive in that it includes fully compositional patterns, as long as they are suYciently frequent.28 (29) C is a construction iVdefC is a form-meaning pair<Fi, Si> such that

some aspect of Fior some aspect of Siis not strictly predictable from C’s

component parts or from other previously established constructions. (30) Any linguistic pattern is recognized as a construction as long as some

aspect of its form or function is not strictly predictable from its component parts or from other constructions recognized to exist. In addition, patterns are stored as constructions even if they are fully predictable as long as they occur with suYcient frequency.

The main questions are, at present, ‘whether a construction is simply the context for grammaticalization, or whether constructions themselves may be subject to grammaticalization’ (Trousdale, in prep.). Constructions, by the way, can be ‘of any size from morpheme to complex sentence’ (Traugott 2007: 525).

28 _{Trousdale (in prep.) makes the interesting observation that Goldberg’s 1995 deWnition is more} typical of lexicalized constructions, whereas her 2006 deWnition is more typical of grammaticalized constructions.

A construction grammar approach to grammaticalization emphasizes that grammaticalization is a change in form as much as it is a change in meaning.29 This, of course, is not a revolutionary view, but construction grammar oVers a means of formalizing grammaticalization changes that is potentially more adequate than generative grammar, because the latter cannot really cope with directional tendencies or layering (see section 2.7.3), whereas these can easily be accounted for in construction grammar terms (Trousdale, in prep.). Publications on this line of research started to appear only shortly before this monograph was Wnished, but to me it seems a most promising new direction for grammaticalization studies. In section 5.3.4, I will provide an example of how a construction-based approach and a morpheme-based approach can oVer diVerent perspectives on one and the same change.